THE REAL REASON FOR THE IRAQ WAR
It is commonly believed that the U. S. has 140,000 soldiers in Iraq because of the war there. It would be more accurate to say that the war was contrived in order to give us an excuse to send the troops.
Those who really manage the U. S. government are determined that our country must be the dominant power in the Middle East. Therefore, when Iran threw out its corrupt Shah, our C.I.A. took over its government and restored the Shah to power, besides incidentally securing the profits American oil companies were making from Iran's oil.
The greatest fear of the U. S. ruling clique is that the Saudi regime might be overthrown and a popular government installed that would nationalize their oil. If that should happen, the American forces, conveniently ready next door in Iraq, can quickly move in and take over the country, as we tell the world we are protecting our faithful Saudi allies from their insurgents.
And the American oil companies will continue to receive their large share of Saudi oil profits. To achieve all this, the U. S. rulers feel that 4,000 dead young Americans is not too high a price.
--- Andrew Linn
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
Wasteful Military Expenditures
The lead editorial in the New York Times for April, 2008 explains how Congress approves spending vast sums to buy weapon systems from military contractors; the final bill is usually far higher than was agreed on, and quite often the weapons don't work as promised. But the contractors to not hesitate to pocket their enormous profits and pay generous "campaign contributions" to the obliging congressmen who put over the deal. Everybody has reason to be pleased except the U. S. taxpayers who provided the hundreds of billion dollars.
Finally, the principal argument to justify all this is "Do you know how many jobs would be lost if this contract is cancelled?" And if a member of Congress should object the response is "Do you know how many jobs would be lost in your district? We will tell all those voters that you voted to put them out of a job." Therefore, the appropriations are almost never denied.
Andrew Linn
The lead editorial in the New York Times for April, 2008 explains how Congress approves spending vast sums to buy weapon systems from military contractors; the final bill is usually far higher than was agreed on, and quite often the weapons don't work as promised. But the contractors to not hesitate to pocket their enormous profits and pay generous "campaign contributions" to the obliging congressmen who put over the deal. Everybody has reason to be pleased except the U. S. taxpayers who provided the hundreds of billion dollars.
Finally, the principal argument to justify all this is "Do you know how many jobs would be lost if this contract is cancelled?" And if a member of Congress should object the response is "Do you know how many jobs would be lost in your district? We will tell all those voters that you voted to put them out of a job." Therefore, the appropriations are almost never denied.
Andrew Linn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)