It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iraq and the Destruction of America

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 09:30 PM
link   
The Iraq war is not about terrorists, Saddam Hussein, or even oil. It is about destroying America's military, and training a foreign, mercenary army. Thousands are being recruited into these private armies, supposedly to help in Iraq.

Meanwhile, terrorists are trained to attack US troops. Extended deployments and a lack of divisions is eroding the US army. These mercenaries will not go away when the Iraq war ends. Where will they next be used? Will the be launch a coup in the United States, or be deployed against political dissenters? Will the US military even be able to fight them?




posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 09:54 PM
link   
No foreign military can bring about a coup in the U.S., only ATS members can.



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 11:09 PM
link   
Interesting point, I also wonder what the government will do with all the mercenary for hire been trained in Iraq under the US tax payer.

They definitely will have to go somewhere, perhaps still under US pay roll and in our own soil.

Interesting that you bring this issue on a thread on its own, many has made the same comments about this mercenaries and security forces in Iraq and their future in the US society on other threads.



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by crontab
The Iraq war is not about terrorists, Saddam Hussein, or even oil. It is about destroying America's military, and training a foreign, mercenary army. Thousands are being recruited into these private armies, supposedly to help in Iraq.


Interesting points but to dismiss the economic incentives of a war is foolish (IMO) Besides, the US army, being the strongest army in the world, has acted as a wonderful weapon against political revolution and dissent around the world. Why do "they" need a mercinary army on standby, when the US army is already at the beck and call of Multinational Corporate Finanance and Capital?



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 08:25 AM
link   
Well what if we said the US was planning to take over the rest of the world by force?

It has the largest army as you say

Its training a mercenary army in the Middle east, as you say.

And it is selling weapons and missile defence shields to other countries, while still keeping their access codes.



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Octavius Maximus
Well what if we said the US was planning to take over the rest of the world by force?

It has the largest army as you say

Its training a mercenary army in the Middle east, as you say.

And it is selling weapons and missile defence shields to other countries, while still keeping their access codes.



You need to read a bit of imperial and colonial history in this regard. The US was a late comer in the colonial game, but it was the first imperial power to recognize that Economic rule had far better rewards than direct Colonial rule through military presence. On top of that, you take a bit of the thunder out of revolutionary causes when you give them the political democracy they demand.* It makes no sense for the US to rule the world with military presence, both in the military sense, and the economic sense. It would take a substancial ammount of resources and troops to suppress the people of the world, especially when they people of different countries Unite and open up more than one front of attack.

That is why throughout US history, US leaders have been in a bid for World economic monopoly. Seeing as China is climbing up the ladder currently, I forsee Capital finance jumping ship and using China in the same fashion that they used the US.

*I'd like to note at this junction that because an imperialist power hands of the rule of the country to the people, does not mean they actually grant the people the power to change the way to countries weath and property is organized. Generally what happens is the Imperial power give over something known as proceedural democracy (IE the process of voting (proceedural democracy has limited substance in the way of influencing policy)) while maintaining a strangle hold on the policy making bodies of the country. The imperial power makes sure its interests are protected at all times, regardless of what is being voted on. In this fashion, what they have done is given a country a showcase democracy, where little if any actual democratic changes occur. Meanwhile, the direct economic benefits of that showcase country, go right into the coffers of the imperialist government.



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 10:20 AM
link   
Bleh, im an ancient historian and the realms of economic conquest hold no interest to me.

Anyway, the Richest of the Ancient Empires did so through conflict more than the economic gain. Sort of want>take>have.

The Persian Empire. Richest of the Rich. All the gold of the Aztecs, incans and mayans couldnt compare to the pure majesty of wealth the Persian Empire possessed.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join