US goes to war for......CHINA!!!

reply to post by Jakes51

Yes The military has sacrificed in blood for corporate interests abroad. the official story, regarding, US/NATO involvement in the country of Afghanistan is to root out terrorist elements, first and foremost?

Now, that last sentence is ended with a question mark because the conflict in Afghan is a murky one, like its brother Iraq. It is naive to think that the official statement is the "Modus Operandi," for the West being in central Asia. Of course, there are spoils to be had, and I am in agreement with you on that.

Yes. Natural gas is found there and is largely unexplored so that the actual quantity is only estimated. One large pipeline is going to cross Afghan taking natural gas from Turkmenistan (I think) to China. It follows as we have witnessed the Ukraine raising havoc with the Russian natural gas being trans-shipped to Europe, so also we could “delay” the crossing of the gas to China in an “national emergency.” So Afghan has potential strategic value to us.

It took me a long time to get my “head around it” and I still don’t like it. For example, the United Fruit Company - say Chiqita banana - wastes 1000s of acres of land it bought cheap in the 1930s for growing bananas. In 1952, when Guatemala’s elected government decided to CONFISCATE the unused land, Pres. Eisenhower sent in the CIA and removed the government at the request of United Fruit. Subsequently, more than 200,000 Guatemalans of Mayan descent were murdered by the thugs the new government employed to QUASH the discontent. Every time I eat a CHEAP banana I say “sorry about that” to the dead guys.

In 1973, when President Salvador Allende of Chile wanted to take over the copper mines, Anaconda contacted the US Government under Nixon and we sent in a “management team” for the CIA which arranged for the removal and then the murder of Allende. Many years later, our hand picked man, Gen. Pinochet, after having 1000s of Chileans murdered and tortured, was convicted of War Crimes in The Hague. Nixon should have been in the dock with him!

We tried to put down a rebellion in the Philippines in the early 1900s until we lost about 3000 KIA in the process and we pulled up stakes. That campaign was responsible for the US Army shifting away from it .38 S&W hand gun to the Colt 1911 .45 cal. semi-auto. The .38 round did not have much (or any?) Knock down power and in close jungle fighting you often got only ONE shot before the guerilla fighter - we call'em terrorists today - would slash you with his machete.

We invaded Haiti more times than any other country! In 1918 we came and stayed until 1933, yet Haiti remains the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. So why are we there so often? Who is benefitting from this unseemly affection we hold for Haiti?

The list goes on. Google can take you to the Army and Marine Corps list of campaigns. It is very long. And starts with the 1803 Barbary Coast Wars. Oh, we are still in the Philippines in 2009 fighting the grand-sons and great-grandsons of those early 1900s rebels. The more things change the more things stay the same?