Jump to content

looks like the US grunts are losing it.


texascity

Recommended Posts

more reports of executions .. covered up executions.

 

http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=824382006

 

could it be the lowered criteria for acceptance for men to carry automatic weapons.

 

the 'average grunt' has always been the inducties with the lowest scores ..

clerk, medic, mechanic, driver, et al .. then grunt ..

 

todays average grunt is probably a double digit IQ drop out that couldn't find Asia on a map 2 years ago.

 

getting shot at in the desert is the best job today's average grunt can get.

Cannot even work at McDonalds.

 

Could Bush manage a McDonalds?

 

edit:

interesting Zogby poll:

An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and more than one in four say the troops should leave immediately, a new Le Moyne College/Zogby International survey shows.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075

 

link provided by:

http://www.buzzflash.com/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 125
  • Created
  • Last Reply

These reports confirm what many people have thought for a long time now,namely Irak is a free fire zone where civilians can be killed with no questions asked and have no rights,which should not really be a surprise as this was always a war to punish the Arabs - payback time for 911...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I was driving around anywhere with a target on my forehead whilst armed with Machine guns I would shoot everyone I met on sight (animal, mineral or vegetable)......... just in case (whether it be downtown Baghdad or Basingstoke, and somehow I doubt I am the only person with this attitude.

 

War is not a Game of Cricket (or Baseball) where each side sends out it's best team and the winner is settled between these two teams. War IS between two WHOLE tribes and includes everyone. Men, women and children included. This is why war is a terrible thing and should be avoided. Sanitising war in the short term actually prolongs the suffering and encorages others. If the Yanks had crucified an Iraqi every 10 metres along the road from Baghdad to Basra they would probably have a lot less problems now (and have killed less people) than they have to date (and have yet to do).

 

War is NOT won by any one side deciding it has "won". A war stops when one side completely gives up. or are all dead. This is why the "will to win" is so important a factor for a tribe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

coss said:

What has this got to do with Thailand?

 

Cheers

 

Coss

Nothing........which is why the gentleman will shortly receive a polite PM stateing your thread has been moved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>If the Yanks had crucified an Iraqi every 10 metres along the >road from Baghdad to Basra they would probably have a lot less >problems now (and have killed less people) than they have to >date (and have yet to do).

 

IMO, Saddam would kill off 50,000 of the Iraqi people to keep them under control.

 

From the time I spent in that part of the world over the past 10+ years, that area will always be unstable. The culture of the people is that of tribes and they do not have a clue about democracy nor do are they interested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Texas city

 

I was an Army Recruiter for 3 years and can attest that applicants with the lowest scores DO NOT qualify for the Infantry. the lowest scoring applicants normally are "guided" to jobs such as: cook, petroleum specialist (gas pumper), supply and field artillery.

I am not sure about now, with the war dragging-on, but when I was a recruiter we had no problem getting applicants to go into the Infantry, Airborne and Ranger's. There are a certain amount of guys looking for adventure and a challenge. Again, this may have changed with the current status of the war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>this was always a war to punish the Arabs - payback time for 911...

 

that's incorrect. it was never a war to "punish the arabs for 911," no more than it was ever a war to "destroy weapons of mass destruction"...

 

no Iraqis were involved in 911. that would be bush's buddies, the saudis...and of course we know now that he helped many saudis--including members of bin laden's family--to quietly flee the US following 911 before they could be arrested.

 

it's a war for oil, always was, a war to avoid fat contracts to people like cheney's buddies at haliburton. people like that are cleaning up on this war, and that was always the intention.

 

preahko

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't exactly remember the source of this but found it interesting reading.

 

*** It's not about oil or Iraq. It's about the US and Europe going

head-to-head on world economic dominance. ***

 

Summary: Why is George Bush so hell bent on war with Iraq? Why does his

administration reject every positive Iraqi move? It all makes sense when

you consider the economic implications for the USA of not going to war

with Iraq. The war in Iraq is actually the US and Europe going head to

head on economic leadership of the world.

 

America's Bush administration has been caught in outright lies, gross

exaggerations and incredible inaccuracies as it trotted out its litany

of paper thin excuses for making war on Iraq. Along with its two

supporters, Britain and Australia, it has shifted its ground and

reversed its position with a barefaced contempt for its audience. It has

manipulated information, deceived by commission and omission and

frantically "bought" UN votes with billion dollar bribes.

 

Faced with the failure of gaining UN Security Council support for

invading Iraq, the USA has threatened to invade without authorisation.

It would act in breach of the UN's very constitution to allegedly

enforced UN resolutions.

 

It is plain bizarre. Where does this desperation for war come from?

 

There are many things driving President Bush and his administration to

invade Iraq, unseat Saddam Hussein and take over the country. But the

biggest one is hidden and very, very simple. It is about the currency

used to trade oil and consequently, who will dominate the world

economically, in the foreseeable future -- the USA or the European

Union.

 

Iraq is a European Union beachhead in that confrontation. America had a

monopoly on the oil trade, with the US dollar being the fiat currency,

but Iraq broke ranks in 1999, started to trade oil in the EU's euros,

and profited. If America invades Iraq and takes over, it will hurl the

EU and its euro back into the sea and make America's position as the

dominant economic power in the world all but impregnable.

 

It is the biggest grab for world power in modern times.

 

America's allies in the invasion, Britain and Australia, are betting

America will win and that they will get some trickle-down benefits for

jumping on to the US bandwagon.

 

France and Germany are the spearhead of the European force -- Russia

would like to go European but possibly can still be bought off.

 

Presumably, China would like to see the Europeans build a share of

international trade currency ownership at this point while it continues

to grow its international trading presence to the point where it, too,

can share the leadership rewards.

 

DEBATE BUILDING ON THE INTERNET

 

Oddly, little or nothing is appearing in the general media about this

issue, although key people are becoming aware of it -- note the recent

slide in the value of the US dollar. Are traders afraid of war? They are

more likely to be afraid there will not be war.

 

But despite the silence in the general media, a major world discussion

is developing around this issue, particularly on the internet. Among the

many articles: Henry Liu, in the 'Asia Times' last June, it has been a

hot topic on the Feasta forum, an Irish-based group exploring

sustainable economics, and W. Clark's "The Real Reasons for the Upcoming

War with Iraq: A Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken

Truth" has been published by the 'Sierra Times', 'Indymedia.org', and

'ratical.org'.

 

This debate is not about whether America would suffer from losing the US

dollar monopoly on oil trading -- that is a given -- rather it is about

exactly how hard the USA would be hit. The smart money seems to be

saying the impact would be in the range from severe to catastrophic. The

USA could collapse economically.

 

OIL DOLLARS

 

The key to it all is the fiat currency for trading oil.

 

Under an OPEC agreement, all oil has been traded in US dollars since

1971 (after the dropping of the gold standard) which makes the US dollar

the de facto major international trading currency. If other nations have

to hoard dollars to buy oil, then they want to use that hoard for other

trading too. This fact gives America a huge trading advantage and helps

make it the dominant economy in the world.

 

As an economic bloc, the European Union is the only challenger to the

USA's economic position, and it created the euro to challenge the dollar

in international markets. However, the EU is not yet united behind the

euro -- there is a lot of jingoistic national politics involved, not

least in Britain -- and in any case, so long as nations throughout the

world must hoard dollars to buy oil, the euro can make only very limited

inroads into the dollar's dominance.

 

In 1999, Iraq, with the world's second largest oil reserves, switched to

trading its oil in euros. American analysts fell about laughing; Iraq

had just made a mistake that was going to beggar the nation. But two

years on, alarm bells were sounding; the euro was rising against the

dollar, Iraq had given itself a huge economic free kick by switching.

 

Iran started thinking about switching too; Venezuela, the 4th largest

oil producer, began looking at it and has been cutting out the dollar by

bartering oil with several nations including America's bete noir, Cuba.

Russia is seeking to ramp up oil production with Europe (trading in

euros) an obvious market.

 

The greenback's grip on oil trading and consequently on world trade in

general, was under serious threat. If America did not stamp on this

immediately, this economic brushfire could rapidly be fanned into a

wildfire capable of consuming the US's economy and its dominance of

world trade.

 

HOW DOES THE US GET ITS DOLLAR ADVANTAGE?

 

Imagine this: you are deep in debt but every day you write cheques for

millions of dollars you don't have -- another luxury car, a holiday home

at the beach, the world trip of a lifetime.

 

Your cheques should be worthless but they keep buying stuff because

those cheques you write never reach the bank! You have an agreement with

the owners of one thing everyone wants, call it petrol/gas, that they

will accept only your cheques as payment. This means everyone must hoard

your cheques so they can buy petrol/gas. Since they have to keep a stock

of your cheques, they use them to buy other stuff too. You write a

cheque to buy a TV, the TV shop owner swaps your cheque for petrol/gas,

that seller buys some vegetables at the fruit shop, the fruiterer passes

it on to buy bread, the baker buys some flour with it, and on it goes,

round and round -- but never back to the bank.

 

You have a debt on your books, but so long as your cheque never reaches

the bank, you don't have to pay. In effect, you have received your TV

free.

 

This is the position the USA has enjoyed for 30 years -- it has been

getting a free world trade ride for all that time. It has been receiving

a huge subsidy from everyone else in the world. As it debt has been

growing, it has printed more money (written more cheques) to keep

trading. No wonder it is an economic powerhouse!

 

Then one day, one petrol seller says he is going to accept another

person's cheques, a couple of others think that might be a good idea. If

this spreads, people are going to stop hoarding your cheques and they

will come flying home to the bank. Since you don't have enough in the

bank to cover all the cheques, very nasty stuff is going to hit the fan!

 

But you are big, tough and very aggressive. You don't scare the other

guy who can write cheques, he's pretty big too, but given a 'legitimate'

excuse, you can beat the tripes out of the lone gas seller and scare him

and his mates into submission.

 

And that, in a nutshell, is what the USA is doing right now with Iraq.

 

AMERICA'S PRECARIOUS ECONOMIC POSITION

 

America is so eager to attack Iraq now because of the speed with which

the euro fire could spread. If Iran, Venezuela and Russia join Iraq and

sell large quantities of oil for euros, the euro would have the leverage

it needs to become a powerful force in general international trade.

Other nations would have to start swapping some of their dollars for

euros.

 

The dollars the USA has printed, the 'cheques' it has written, would

start to fly home, stripping away the illusion of value behind them. The

USA's real economic condition is about as bad as it could be; it is the

most debt-ridden nation on earth, owing about US$12,000 for every single

one of it's 280 million men, women and children. It is worse than the

position of Indonesia when it imploded economically a few years ago, or

more recently, that of Argentina.

 

Even if OPEC did not switch to euros wholesale (and that would make a

very nice non-oil profit for the OPEC countries, including minimising

the various contrived debts America has forced on some of them), the

US's difficulties would build. Even if only a small part of the oil

trade went euro, that would do two things immediately:

 

* Increase the attractiveness to EU members of joining the 'eurozone',

which in turn would make the euro stronger and make it more attractive

to oil nations as a trading currency and to other nations as a general

trading currency.

 

* Start the US dollars flying home demanding value when there isn't

enough in the bank to cover them.

 

* The markets would over-react as usual and in no time, the US dollar's

value would be spiralling down.

 

THE US SOLUTION

 

America's response to the euro threat was predictable. It has come out

fighting.

 

It aims to achieve four primary things by going to war with Iraq:

 

* Safeguard the American economy by returning Iraq to trading oil in US

dollars, so the greenback is once again the exclusive oil currency.

 

* Send a very clear message to any other oil producers just what will

happen to them if they do not stay in the dollar circle. Iran has

already received one message -- remember how puzzled you were that in

the midst of moderation and secularization, Iran was named as a member

of the axis of evil?

 

* Place the second largest reserves of oil in the world under direct

American control.

 

* Provide a secular, subject state where the US can maintain a huge

force (perhaps with nominal elements from allies such as Britain and

Australia) to dominate the Middle East and its vital oil. This would

enable the US to avoid using what it sees as the unreliable Turkey, the

politically impossible Israel and surely the next state in its sights,

Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of al Qaeda and a hotbed of anti-American

sentiment.

 

* Severe setback the European Union and its euro, the only trading bloc

and currency strong enough to attack the USA's dominance of world trade

through the dollar.

 

* Provide cover for the US to run a covert operation to overturn the

democratically elected government of Venezuela and replace it with an

America-friendly military supported junta -- and put Venezuala's oil

into American hands.

 

Locking the world back into dollar oil trading would consolidate

America's current position and make it all but impregnable as the

dominant world power -- economically and militarily. A splintered Europe

(the US is working hard to split Europe; Britain was easy, but other

Europeans have offered support in terms of UN votes) and its euro would

suffer a serious setback and might take decades to recover.

 

It is the boldest grab for absolute power the world has seen in modern

times. America is hardly likely to allow the possible slaughter of a few

hundred thousand Iraqis stand between it and world domination.

 

President Bush did promise to protect the American way of life. This is

what he meant.

 

JUSTIFYING WAR

 

Obviously, the US could not simply invade Iraq, so it began casting

around for a 'legitimate' reason to attack. That search has been one of

increasing desperation as each rationalization has crumbled. First Iraq

was a threat because of alleged links to al Qaeda; then it was proposed

Iraq might supply al Qaeda with weapons; then Iraq's military threat to

its neighbours was raised; then the need to deliver Iraqis from Saddam

Hussein's horrendously inhumane rule; finally there is the question of

compliance with UN weapons inspection.

 

The USA's justifications for invading Iraq are looking less impressive

by the day. The US's statements that it would invade Iraq unilaterally

without UN support and in defiance of the UN make a total nonsense of

any American claim that it is concerned about the world body's strength

and standing.

 

The UN weapons inspectors have come up with minimal infringements of the

UN weapons limitations -- the final one being low tech rockets which

exceed the range allowed by about 20 percent. But there is no sign of

the so-called weapons of mass destruction (WMD) the US has so

confidently asserted are to be found. Colin Powell named a certain north

Iraqi village as a threat. It was not. He later admitted it was the

wrong village.

 

'Newsweek' (24/2) has reported that while Bush officials have been

trumpeting the fact that key Iraqi defector, Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamel,

told the US in 1995 that Iraq had manufactured tonnes of nerve gas and

anthrax (Colin Powell's 5 February presentation to the UN was just one

example) they neglected to mention that Kamel had also told the US that

these weapons had been destroyed.

 

Parts of the US and particularly the British secret 'evidence' have been

shown to come from a student's masters thesis.

 

America's expressed concern about the Iraqi people's human rights and

the country's lack of democracy are simply not supported by the USA's

history of intervention in other states nor by its current actions.

Think Guatemala, the Congo, Chile and Nicaragua as examples of a much

larger pool of US actions to tear down legitimate, democratically

elected governments and replace them with war, disruption, starvation,

poverty, corruption, dictatorships, torture, rape and murder for its own

economic ends. The most recent, Afghanistan, is not looking good; in

fact that reinstalled a murderous group of warlords which America had

earlier installed, then deposed, in favour of the now hated Taliban.

 

Saddam Hussein was just as repressive, corrupt and murderous 15 years

ago when he used chemical weapons, supplied by the US, against the

Kurds. The current US Secretary for Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, so

vehement against Iraq now, was on hand personally to turn aside

condemnation of Iraq and blame Iran. At that time, of course, the US

thought Saddam Hussein was their man -- they were using him against the

perceived threat of Iran's Islamic fundamentalism.

 

Right now, as 'The Independent' writer, Robert Fisk, has noted, the US's

efforts to buy Algeria's UN vote includes promises of re-arming the

military which has a decade long history of repression, torture, rape

and murder Saddam Hussein himself would envy. It is estimated 200,000

people have died, and countless others been left maimed by the

activities of these monsters. What price the US's humanitarian concerns

for Iraqis? (Of course, the French are also wooing Algeria, their former

north African territory, for all they are worth, but at least they are

not pretending to be driven by humanitarian concerns.)

 

Indonesia is another nation with a vote and influence as the largest

Muslim nation in the world. Its repressive, murderous military is

regaining strength on the back of the US's so-called anti-terror

campaign and is receiving promises of open and covert support --

including intelligence sharing.

 

AND VENEZUELA

 

While the world's attention is focused on Iraq, America is both openly

and covertly supporting the "coup of the rich" in Venezuela, which

grabbed power briefly in April last year before being intimidated by

massive public displays of support by the poor for

democratically-elected President Chavez Frias. The coup leaders continue

to use their control of the private media, much of industry and the ear

of the American Government and its oily intimates to cause disruption

and disturbance.

 

Venezuela's state-owned oil resources would make rich pickings for

American oil companies and provide the US with an important oil source

in its own backyard.

 

Many writers have noted the contradiction between America's alleged

desire to establish democracy in Iraq while at the same time, actively

undermining the democratically-elected government in Venezuela. Above

the line, America rushed to recognise the coup last April; more

recently, President Bush has called for "early elections", ignoring the

fact that President Chavez Frias has won three elections and two

referendums and, in any case, early elections would be unconstitutional.

 

One element of the USA's covert action against Venezuela is the

behaviour of American transnational businesses, which have locked out

employees in support of "national strike" action. Imagine them doing

that in the USA! There is no question that a covert operation is in

process to overturn the legitimate Venezuelan government. Uruguayan

congressman, Jose Nayardi, made it public when he revealed that the Bush

administration had asked for Uruguay's support for Venezuelan white

collar executives and trade union activists "to break down levels of

intransigence within the Chavez Frias administration". The process, he

noted, was a shocking reminder of the CIA's 1973 intervention in Chile

which saw General Pinochet lead his military coup to take over President

Allende's democratically elected government in a bloodbath.

 

President Chavez Frias is desperately clinging to government, but with

the might of the USA aligned with his opponents, how long can he last?

 

THE COST OF WAR

 

Some have claimed that an American invasion of Iraq would cost so many

billions of dollars that oil returns would never justify such an action.

 

But when the invasion is placed in the context of the protection of the

entire US economy for now and into the future, the balance of the

argument changes.

 

Further, there are three other vital factors:

 

First, America will be asking others to help pay for the war because it

is protecting their interests. Japan and Saudi Arabia made serious

contributions to the cost of the 1991 Gulf war.

 

Second -- in reality, war will cost the USA very little -- or at least,

very little over and above normal expenditure. This war is already paid

for! All the munitions and equipment have been bought and paid for. The

USA would have to spend hardly a cent on new hardware to prosecute this

war -- the expenditure will come later when munitions and equipment have

to be replaced after the war. But amunitions, hardware and so on are

being replaced all the time -- contracts are out. Some contracts will

simply be brought forward and some others will be ramped up a bit, but

spread over a few years, the cost will not be great. And what is the

real extra cost of an army at war compared with maintaining the standing

army around the world, running exercises and so on? It is there, but it

is a relatively small sum.

 

Third -- lots of the extra costs involved in the war are dollars spent

outside America, not least in the purchase of fuel. Guess how America

will pay for these? By printing dollars it is going to war to protect.

The same happens when production begins to replace hardware components,

minerals, etc. are bought in with dollars that go overseas and exploit

America's trading advantage.

 

The cost of war is not nearly as big as it is made out to be. The cost

of not going to war would be horrendous for the USA -- unless there were

another way of protecting the greenback's world trade dominance.

 

AMERICA'S TWO ACTIVE ALLIES

 

Why are Australia and Britain supporting America in its transparent

Iraqi war ploy?

 

Australia, of course, has significant US dollar reserves and trades

widely in dollars and extensively with America. A fall in the US dollar

would reduce Australia's debt, perhaps, but would do nothing for the

Australian dollar's value against other currencies. John Howard, the

Prime Minister, has long cherished the dream of a free trade agreement

with the USA in the hope that Australia can jump on the back of the free

ride America gets in trade through the dollar's position as the major

trading medium. That would look much less attractive if the euro took

over a significant part of the oil trade.

 

Britain has yet to adopt the euro. If the US takes over Iraq and blocks

the euro's incursion into oil trading, Tony Blair will have given his

French and German counterparts a bloody nose, and gained more room to

manouevre on the issue -- perhaps years more room.

 

Britain would be in a position to demand a better deal from its EU

partners for entering the "eurozone" if the new currency could not make

the huge value gains guaranteed by a significant role in world oil

trading. It might even be in a position to withdraw from Europe and link

with America against continental Europe.

 

On the other hand, if the US cannot maintain the oil trade dollar

monopoly, the euro will rapidly go from strength to strength, and

Britain could be left begging to be allowed into the club.

 

THE OPPOSITION

 

Some of the reasons for opposition to the American plan are obvious --

America is already the strongest nation on earth and dominates world

trade through its dollar. If it had control of the Iraqi oil and a base

for its forces in the Middle East, it would not add to, but would

multiply its power.

 

The oil-producing nations, particularly the Arab ones, can see the

writing on the wall and are quaking in their boots.

 

France and Germany are the EU leaders with the vision of a resurgent,

united Europe taking its rightful place in the world and using its euro

currency as a world trading reserve currency and thus gaining some of

the free ride the United States enjoys now. They are the ones who

initiated the euro oil trade with Iraq.

 

Russia is in deep economic trouble and knows it will get worse the day

America starts exploiting its take-over of Afghanistan by running a

pipeline southwards via Afghanistan from the giant southern Caspian oil

fields. Currently, that oil is piped northwards -- where Russia has

control.

 

Russia is in the process of ramping up oil production with the

possibility of trading some of it for euros and selling some to the US

itself. Russia already has enough problems with the fact that oil is

traded in US dollars; if the US has control of Iraqi oil, it could

distort the market to Russia's enormous disadvantage. In addition,

Russia has interests in Iraqi oil; an American take over could see them

lost. Already on its knees, Russia could be beggared before a mile of

the Afghanistan pipeline is laid.

 

ANOTHER SOLUTION?

 

The scenario clarifies the seriousness of America's position and

explains its frantic drive for war. It also suggests that solutions

other than war are possible.

 

Could America agree to share the trading goodies by allowing Europe to

have a negotiated part of it? Not very likely, but it is just possible

Europe can stare down the USA and force such an outcome. Time will tell.

What about Europe taking the statesmanlike, humanitarian and long view,

and withdrawing, leaving the oil to the US, with appropriate safeguards

for ordinary Iraqis and democracy in Venezuela?

 

Europe might then be forced to adopt a smarter approach -- perhaps

accelerating the development of alternative energy technologies which

would reduce the EU's reliance on oil for energy and produce goods it

could trade for euros -- shifting the world trade balance.

 

Now that would be a very positive outcome for everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...