Serving US soldier calls for end to to occupation

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-09-20 02:40pm

We are facing death in Iraq for no reason

A serving US soldier calls for the end of an occupation based on lies

Tim Predmore
Friday September 19, 2003
The Guardian

For the past six months, I have been participating in what I believe to be the great modern lie: Operation Iraqi Freedom.
After the horrific events of September 11 2001, and throughout the battle in Afghanistan, the groundwork was being laid for the invasion of Iraq. "Shock and awe" were the words used to describe the display of power that the world was going to view upon the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom. It was to be an up-close, dramatic display of military strength and advanced technology from within the arsenals of the American and British military.

But as a soldier preparing to take part in the invasion of Iraq, the words "shock and awe" rang deep within my psyche. Even as we prepared to depart, it seemed that these two great superpowers were about to break the very rules that they demanded others obey. Without the consent of the United Nations, and ignoring the pleas of their own citizens, the US and Britain invaded Iraq. "Shock and awe"? Yes, the words correctly described the emotional impact I felt as we embarked on an act not of justice, but of hypocrisy.

From the moment the first shot was fired in this so-called war of liberation and freedom, hypocrisy reigned. After the broadcasting of recorded images of captured and dead US soldiers on Arab television, American and British leaders vowed revenge while verbally assaulting the networks for displaying such vivid images. Yet within hours of the deaths of Saddam Hussein's sons, the US government released horrific photographs of the two dead brothers for the entire world to view. Again, a "do as we say and not as we do" scenario.

As soldiers serving in Iraq, we have been told that our purpose is to help the people of Iraq by providing them with the necessary assistance militarily, as well as in humanitarian efforts. Then tell me where the humanity is in the recent account in Stars and Stripes (the newspaper of the US military) of two young children brought to a US military camp by their mother in search of medical care.

The two children had, unknowingly, been playing with explosive ordnance they had found, and as a result they were severely burned. The account tells how, after an hour-long wait, they - two children - were denied care by two US military doctors. A soldier described the incident as one of many "atrocities" on the part of the US military he had witnessed.

Thankfully, I have not personally been a witness to atrocities - unless, of course, you consider, as I do, that this war in Iraq is the ultimate atrocity.

So what is our purpose here? Was this invasion because of weapons of mass destruction, as we have so often heard? If so, where are they? Did we invade to dispose of a leader and his regime because they were closely associated with Osama bin Laden? If so, where is the proof?

Or is it that our incursion is about our own economic advantage? Iraq's oil can be refined at the lowest cost of any in the world. This looks like a modern-day crusade not to free an oppressed people or to rid the world of a demonic dictator relentless in his pursuit of conquest and domination, but a crusade to control another nation's natural resource. Oil - at least to me - seems to be the reason for our presence.

There is only one truth, and it is that Americans are dying. There are an estimated 10 to 14 attacks every day on our servicemen and women in Iraq. As the body count continues to grow, it would appear that there is no immediate end in sight.

I once believed that I was serving for a cause - "to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States". Now I no longer believe that; I have lost my conviction, as well as my determination. I can no longer justify my service on the basis of what I believe to be half-truths and bold lies.

With age comes wisdom, and at 36 years old I am no longer so blindly led as to believe without question. From my arrival last November at Fort Campbell, in Kentucky, talk of deployment was heard, and as that talk turned to actual preparation, my heart sank and my doubts grew. My doubts have never faded; instead, it has been my resolve and my commitment that have.

My time here is almost done, as well as that of many others with whom I have served. We have all faced death in Iraq without reason and without justification. How many more must die? How many more tears must be shed before Americans awake and demand the return of the men and women whose job it is to protect them, rather than their leader's interest?

· Tim Predmore is a US soldier on active duty with the 101st Airborne Division, based near Mosul in northern Iraq. A version of this article appeared in the Peoria Journal Star, Illinois

© LATWP News Service

The link

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-09-20 02:49pm

Tim Predmore is a US soldier on active duty with the 101st Airborne Division, based near Mosul in northern Iraq. A version of this article appeared in the Peoria Journal Star, Illinois

What a shitty mess

If this is real, Tim Predmore has a lot of courage to speak out like this. I wish him and everyone else, including the Iraqis, all the best.

War. Will we ever grow up?

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-09-20 02:57pm

BoredShirtless wrote:
Tim Predmore is a US soldier on active duty with the 101st Airborne Division, based near Mosul in northern Iraq. A version of this article appeared in the Peoria Journal Star, Illinois
What a shitty mess If this is real, Tim Predmore has a lot of courage to speak out like this. I wish him and everyone else, including the Iraqis, all the best.

War. Will we ever grow up?

I expect a reponse telling this man to know his place, and as a soldier he has no right to speak out. Whatever.

It's a bit refreshing after the "liberation" masturbation.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-09-20 02:59pm

Hamel wrote: I expect a reponse telling this man to know his place, and as a soldier he has no right to speak out. Whatever.

Definetly.

It's a bit refreshing after the "liberation" masturbation.

It sure is.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-09-20 03:04pm

I smell BS for some reason...

Even if this is true, what exactly makes you think that the comments of a single soldier reflect those of the rest of the Army?

Apparently, this one soldier doesn't know his economics very well. You see, it would be much more economically sound to NOT invade Iraq for the oil. Iraqi oil was flowing at barely a trickle because of UN embargoes, therefore making a bigger demand for oil from other countries. If the oil in Iraq starts flowing at a higher rate, then the supply will increase. As supply increases, demand falls. As demand falls, profits fall. Any student of a basic college (or high school for that matter) economics course would realize this. It would be much more economically sound to keep Iraqi oil in the ground, like it was.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-09-20 03:09pm

From the moment the first shot was fired in this so-called war of liberation and freedom, hypocrisy reigned. After the broadcasting of recorded images of captured and dead US soldiers on Arab television, American and British leaders vowed revenge while verbally assaulting the networks for displaying such vivid images. Yet within hours of the deaths of Saddam Hussein's sons, the US government released horrific photographs of the two dead brothers for the entire world to view. Again, a "do as we say and not as we do" scenario.

False analogy, for one, dead U.S. soldiers were not mass murderers and mass rapists as the poor departed brothers were. Also, release of the photos was required as proof of death for the public.

Or is it that our incursion is about our own economic advantage? Iraq's oil can be refined at the lowest cost of any in the world. This looks like a modern-day crusade not to free an oppressed people or to rid the world of a demonic dictator relentless in his pursuit of conquest and domination, but a crusade to control another nation's natural resource. Oil - at least to me - seems to be the reason for our presence.

Not this again. The only reason that we didn't buy Iraqi oil prior to the war was because we banned ourselves from doing so. If that's what we were after we could have petitioned to have the sanctions lifted, and Saddam would have been more than happy to sell us oil (more palaces and golden toilets, you know).

If this guy weren't a soldier there would probably be ten fiskings of this article currently available throughout the blogosphere.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-09-20 03:37pm

Nathan F wrote:I smell BS for some reason...

Even if this is true, what exactly makes you think that the comments of a single soldier reflect those of the rest of the Army?

I never said his comments did. Where did you get that from?

Apparently, this one soldier doesn't know his economics very well. You see, it would be much more economically sound to NOT invade Iraq for the oil. Iraqi oil was flowing at barely a trickle because of UN embargoes, therefore making a bigger demand for oil from other countries. If the oil in Iraq starts flowing at a higher rate, then the supply will increase. As supply increases, demand falls. As demand falls, profits fall. Any student of a basic college (or high school for that matter) economics course would realize this. It would be much more economically sound to keep Iraqi oil in the ground, like it was.

If big oil decides to control the supply, all the "you don't know economics" bullshit is moot.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-09-20 03:41pm

False analogy, for one, dead U.S. soldiers were not mass murderers and mass rapists as the poor departed brothers were. Also, release of the photos was required as proof of death for the public.

Merely making excuses for barbarians. When did the public demand photos of the dead be paraded on air?

Not this again. The only reason that we didn't buy Iraqi oil prior to the war was because we banned ourselves from doing so. If that's what we were after we could have petitioned to have the sanctions lifted, and Saddam would have been more than happy to sell us oil (more palaces and golden toilets, you know).

If this guy weren't a soldier there would probably be ten fiskings of this article currently available throughout the blogosphere.

Control the supply, and all perfect-world economic arguments are destroyed.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2003-09-20 03:54pm

Nathan F wrote:I smell BS for some reason...

Even if this is true, what exactly makes you think that the comments of a single soldier reflect those of the rest of the Army?

Apparently, this one soldier doesn't know his economics very well. You see, it would be much more economically sound to NOT invade Iraq for the oil. Iraqi oil was flowing at barely a trickle because of UN embargoes, therefore making a bigger demand for oil from other countries. If the oil in Iraq starts flowing at a higher rate, then the supply will increase. As supply increases, demand falls. As demand falls, profits fall. Any student of a basic college (or high school for that matter) economics course would realize this. It would be much more economically sound to keep Iraqi oil in the ground, like it was.

Er, welcome to the idea...we dont want expensive oil we want cheap oil...there's more than one way to make a profit in economics....by manipulating the exact same "high school" level model you're talking about....control the supply control the prices....by having control of the iraqi oil fields its possible to in part dictate prices to the other major middle east providers by simply threatening to undercut them.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-09-20 03:54pm

If this is real, we can expect to hear this guy being booted out of active duty any time now.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-09-20 04:22pm

This soldier is deluding himself if he thinks ending the occupation is a viable or morally correct option.

Merely making excuses for barbarians.

So if showing the world proof that two criminals are dead (criminals who, incidentally, have committed atrocities far worse than anything this soldier can possibly imagine) qualifies as 'barbaric', than what do their actions qualify as?

PzGren · Post by **PzGren** » 2003-09-20 05:56pm

Why had the pictures to be shown on CNN? Is this the station most watched in Iraq? I didn't think so.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-09-20 06:57pm

Why had the pictures to be shown on CNN? Is this the station most watched in Iraq? I didn't think so.

Did the Administration strong-arm CNN into showing the pictures, or did the network execs do it of their own free will?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-09-20 07:46pm

Merely making excuses for barbarians. When did the public demand photos of the dead be paraded on air?

Iraqis wanted proof that they were dead.

Control the supply, and all perfect-world economic arguments are destroyed.

Then you have to explain Colin Powell's high profile public promise to transfer the oil to the new Iraqi government once it is established. Also, if this is your argument I'm inclined to ask why we didn't seize the Kuwaiti oil reserves ten years ago, when oil supply stability was one of the publically stated goals of the first Gulf War.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-09-20 07:59pm

Hamel wrote:
Nathan F wrote:I smell BS for some reason...

Even if this is true, what exactly makes you think that the comments of a single soldier reflect those of the rest of the Army?
I never said his comments did. Where did you get that from?

Eh, I worded that badly. Read it as 'Even if this is true, it doesn't necessarily reflect the opinions of the rest of the military.' My bad.

Apparently, this one soldier doesn't know his economics very well. You see, it would be much more economically sound to NOT invade Iraq for the oil. Iraqi oil was flowing at barely a trickle because of UN embargoes, therefore making a bigger demand for oil from other countries. If the oil in Iraq starts flowing at a higher rate, then the supply will increase. As supply increases, demand falls. As demand falls, profits fall. Any student of a basic college (or high school for that matter) economics course would realize this. It would be much more economically sound to keep Iraqi oil in the ground, like it was.
If big oil decides to control the supply, all the "you don't know economics" bullshit is moot.

No, it is still quite valid. Even the biggest oil companies still must abide by the laws of supply and demand. You apparently have never cracked an econ textbook, othewise you would know this. Anyways, why not just take over Venezuela? Alot closer to the US than Iraq is, which means it is cheaper to transport the oil.

As I said, the war for oil arguments don't pan out.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-09-20 08:06pm

If big oil decides to control the supply, all the "you don't know economics" bullshit is moot.

Then, again, you have to prove the argument that Iraqi oil supplies are in fact going to be transferred to American corporations rather than accepting it as an apriori truth.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-09-20 08:09pm

Keevan_Colton wrote:
Nathan F wrote:I smell BS for some reason...

Even if this is true, what exactly makes you think that the comments of a single soldier reflect those of the rest of the Army?

Apparently, this one soldier doesn't know his economics very well. You see, it would be much more economically sound to NOT invade Iraq for the oil. Iraqi oil was flowing at barely a trickle because of UN embargoes, therefore making a bigger demand for oil from other countries. If the oil in Iraq starts flowing at a higher rate, then the supply will increase. As supply increases, demand falls. As demand falls, profits fall. Any student of a basic college (or high school for that matter) economics course would realize this. It would be much more economically sound to keep Iraqi oil in the ground, like it was.
Er, welcome to the idea...we dont want expensive oil we want cheap oil...there's more than one way to make a profit in economics....by manipulating the exact same "high school" level model you're talking about....control the supply control the prices....by having control of the iraqi oil fields its possible to in part dictate prices to the other major middle east providers by simply threatening to undercut them.

Again, you can maniuplate prices all you want, but once the supplies go up, then the prices go down. This makes the oil companies LOOSE THE MONEY. If the war for oil was to pan out, and if Bush is such a big corporate whore as many would have to believe, why not just cut the oil supplies and sell more Texas oil and line the pockets of the big Texas oil companies? You could undercut the other oil producing companies all you wanted, but you could only undercut so far before you started to loose money and hurt your own profits. It would end up evening out at prices lower than they are today, which would mean less profits for the oil producers. We could take over Saudi Arabia, heck, we have plenty of reasons to, and we could have much more oil there than in Iraq, and with it, control most of the Arabian peninsula.

Then you have the previously stated public promise to turn over all oil profits to the Iraqi gov't.

Newtonian Fury · Post by **Newtonian Fury** » 2003-09-20 09:56pm

I first saw this on another board I frequent. The general feeling there was for this guy to shut up until his contract ends. Does he even have the right to criticize someone 30+ levels above him?

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-09-20 10:32pm

whatever the qualifications of his points - and this board will argue that till doomsday - I dont think he should be stating his opinions to the press.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-09-20 10:36pm

No, he shouldn't. He deserves whatever punishment he gets.

CelesKnight · Post by **CelesKnight** » 2003-09-20 11:08pm

Hamel wrote:
We are facing death in Iraq for no reason

Let me start off by stating that I have nothing but respect for those who serve our country, I'm always interested in seeing first hand reports from Iraq, of both good and bad events. However, this one is worthless. With the sole exception of the sad news of the two children, there are no facts here that the soldier didn't get from CNN. And he's not any more qualified to analyze those events than a Kansas truck driver. As such, if he violated any rules, I hope they smack him down.

Invader ZIm · Post by **Invader ZIm** » 2003-09-21 12:08am

Ahh the old "Blood for Oil" conspiracy theory. Also known in the Engineering and Petrochemical circles as “Bullshit”.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-09-21 12:24am

Nathan F wrote:I smell BS for some reason...

Even if this is true, what exactly makes you think that the comments of a single soldier reflect those of the rest of the Army?

I don't know if it reflects the rest of the Army, but a Marine friend of mine has expressed
similar opinions.

Apparently, this one soldier doesn't know his economics very well. You see, it would be much more economically sound to NOT invade Iraq for the oil. Iraqi oil was flowing at barely a trickle because of UN embargoes, therefore making a bigger demand for oil from other countries. If the oil in Iraq starts flowing at a higher rate, then the supply will increase. As supply increases, demand falls. As demand falls, profits fall. Any student of a basic college (or high school for that matter) economics course would realize this. It would be much more economically sound to keep Iraqi oil in the ground, like it was.

Not necessarily. As the contracts currently stand, the owner of the pumping rights to Iraqi oil fields is Halliburton, an American company. Sometime soon new bids will be tendered for American companies to have pumping rights to the oil fields of northern and southern Iraq (the nation will be split in half for contract purposes). Given that the government is paying the contractor's expenses in setting up shop, the invasion has the potential to be very profitable for oil companies. The only way I'll be convinced this was had at least a modicum of altruism involved is if the transition to an Iraqi government and release of control of the oil occurs very rapidly, without delays from the administration.

Again, you can maniuplate prices all you want, but once the supplies go up, then the prices go down. This makes the oil companies LOOSE THE MONEY. If the war for oil was to pan out, and if Bush is such a big corporate whore as many would have to believe, why not just cut the oil supplies and sell more Texas oil and line the pockets of the big Texas oil companies?

Loss of profit only occurs if the quantity supplied increases, not if the supply curve itself shifts. The big Texas oil companies that are allied with Bush politically are the ones with Iraqi contracts. They now have a cheaper supply of oil, allowing them to decrease prices without cutting profits. This does allow them the potential to undercut OPEC prices to some extent.

You could undercut the other oil producing companies all you wanted, but you could only undercut so far before you started to loose money and hurt your own profits. It would end up evening out at prices lower than they are today, which would mean less profits for the oil producers.

In the short run, the price of oil is heavily inelastic, with a coefficient of 0.22. Assuming a price war of six months or less, the amount of oil purchased doesn't change much based on price; this allows a constant expectation of purchases for a particular price. In the long run, however, it's closer to 0.75, meaning that long-term price changes do alter purchase schemes. What does this mean? Changes in upward price do not change the purchase of gasoline; it is a necessary good in today's mechanized world. Downward we can't predict so well, since gas prices so rarely drop. However, common sense and experiential evidence can provide a small idea.
If the difference is a single nickel per gallon, what will happen? Will people prefer gas stations at $1.51 per gallon (price I saw tonight), or $1.46 per gallon? However, will the difference be enough to compensate for the lower revenue per purchase, since total revenue equals cost times sales?Predicting future profits based on attempts to undercut another company, particularly in a market not fully competitive, is not a simple thing to do, particularly since economics is a very young science with no current universally applicable theories (the classicists, Keynesians, neo-classicists, monetarists, and post-Keynesians all have their troubles).

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-09-21 12:30am

Durran Korr wrote:
Then you have to explain Colin Powell's high profile public promise to transfer the oil to the new Iraqi government once it is established. Also, if this is your argument I'm inclined to ask why we didn't seize the Kuwaiti oil reserves ten years ago, when oil supply stability was one of the publically stated goals of the first Gulf War.

Ever heard of a puppet government?

Remember that once apon a time befor Saddam and even Hitler, Iraq was a Independent nation but it was not Iraqi's that ran the show.
It could be said that the Iraq invasion was everthing to do with contol of oil supplys and giving American companies with government links a payback for getting Bush the Lesser his job.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-09-21 12:50am

Not necessarily. As the contracts currently stand, the owner of the pumping rights to Iraqi oil fields is Halliburton, an American company.

No. Halliburton has been hired by the Army COE to extinguish oil fires and repair the oil field infrastructure. It has no drilling rights.

The only way I'll be convinced this was had at least a modicum of altruism involved is if the transition to an Iraqi government and release of control of the oil occurs very rapidly, without delays from the administration.

Very well, then. I see no reason to not take the well-articulated position of the State Department at face value.

The big Texas oil companies that are allied with Bush politically are the ones with Iraqi contracts. They now have a cheaper supply of oil, allowing them to decrease prices without cutting profits.

Stop right there. Bush's closest political friends are not "big oil." They're smaller oil companies in Texas and the southwest who stand to get precisely nothing from the Iraq war.

This does allow them the potential to undercut OPEC prices to some extent.

Odd that they would want to do so, given that the United States has never really had much of a problem with OPEC. Both want stable oil prices; the U.S. to prevent the oil industry from going belly up, OPEC to keep their profits up.

It could be said that the Iraq invasion was everthing to do with contol of oil supplys and giving American companies with government links a payback for getting Bush the Lesser his job.

Of course that could be said. It could also be said that France is a country secretly controlled by Muslim extremists working to thwart the efforts of the United States to stomp out Islamofascism. But I'd have to actually back up that claim to make it true, which I can't.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Serving US soldier calls for end to to occupation

Serving US soldier calls for end to to occupation

Re: Serving US soldier calls for end to to occupation