US, ITS ARMY & SOLDIERS: a response

US, IT'S ARMY & SOLDIERS: a response

[Full title--US, IT'S ARMY AND IT'S SOLDIERS: A POLITE LETTER AND A MILD ANSWER]



I have a book ABOUT USA, "WAR POETRY--award winner" , which contains many poems relating to the so called US war against terrorism. This book occasioned a serious and polite public review from a mother whose son is serving in Iraq. I am reproducing it, minus the name, along with my response, for benefit of general readership of this site.


************


THE REVIEW RECEIVED BY ME (without any editing on my part)--

Mr Khalish:

I read the entire contents of this folder, as well as some of your other writings. I debated with myself whether or not I should voice my opinion, for surely it is a biased one. However, I felt the need to speak my mind, openly and honestly. I hope you find respect in that.

I am saddened by the realization that there are certain topics upon which we will never truly see eye to eye. I do not object to your right to voice them. I am however, compelled to voice my own opinions on the matter.

Your verses are well-written, and I can readily believe they come from the heart. However, I, with a Mother's Heart, the mother of an American Soldier serving in Iraq; am saddened by some of your views.

I also speak with the heart of a 20 year Veteran of the U.S. Army. I speak to this folder in general, but especially to your poem "US SOUL", "U. S. SOUL" .

Just as it is true that not all Muslims are terrorists; it also holds true that not all American Soldiers are like those Marines in Abu Ghraib.

The majority of American soldiers, are men and women of honor. Their average age is 19 years old. They are barely past childhood. They know nothing of politics. They are more in tune with the politics of Sponge-Bob Squarepants, than the politics of this nation. The majority of them would not even be able to give you the correct names of their Congressman or Senator.

Just as Muslims love their Motherland, so do Americans. It is this love for country that drives the American soldier, not politics, and certainly not greed for oil.

The average american soldier is a recent High School Graduate, never having attended college. They know love of God, love of country, love of family and friends. They know honor, respect and duty.

They drive a 10 year old beat-up car, and are blue-collar workers. The American Fighting Man/Woman tends to think more about the boyfriend or girlfriend they left behind, than the reason "why" they are there. To them, the answer is simple and unvaried. "I LOVE MY COUNTRY" They speak not of George Bush, or politics, nor do they speak of want for oil.

I, myself, joined the military because I had nowhere to go after high school. I was raised in childrens homes and foster homes. The military gave me a home and provided me with a skill. I turned it into a 20 year career. Politics played no role, nor did greed. I was fortunate, I was never called to War. I served stateside through Operations Desert Shield, and Desert Storm.

My son joined the military because as a single parent, I did not have the resources to send him to college. The military frankly doesn't pay much.

The military did however teach my son a trade as well. He however, was not as fortunate as I was.

In return for that skill, when his country called, he was duty-bound to answer. He honored that duty. He doesn't care about the politics of it all, nor is he out to gain oil. He's just a young man doing what his country has asked him to do. I am proud of him, and the man he has become.

He has not yet been forced to fire his weapon at another human being. I thank God for that grace, and pray that it will hold true for the entirety of his tour. I know that having to perform such an act would scar his soul forever. If my prayers go unanswered, and he is forced to fire, it will not be due to politics or oil. It will be to defend his life, and/or the life of his fellow soldiers.

You feel that what those Marines in Abu Ghraibdid did was a disgrace. I feel that the Twin Towers was a disgrace. I feel that beheading a non-combatant on the internet is a disgrace.

I would like to point out that every race, every religion, every culture, has its zealots, it's good people and bad people. War brings out the worst in the worst of us, and hopefully the best in the best of us.

War is nothing to be relished, hatred is nothing to be spread. Unfortunately, politics and religion have a strange way of doing both.

You have voiced your opinion, and I have now voiced mine; perhaps not as poetically or eloquently, but it has been voiced, none the less.

There is little we can do about the Wars of this world, or our differences of opinion on such matters. We could engage in debates, and I am certain both of us would have valid points to make. However, you are not likely to change my mind, nor I yours.

Therefore, It is my hope that we could somehow find a way to put aside our differences of opinion on these matters, having both aired them openly and honestly; and perhaps focus on our similarities.

Our love for our children, our family, our friends. Our mutual love for writing, and poetry, and the WDC Community. I am sure if we try we will find we have still more in common.

Our country may be at war, but here at the WDC, there is Peace. I would like to be a supporter of that peace. I hope that you can find it within your heart as well. Though I do not agree with the message of your poem; I must admit that you are an excellent word-smith. Your poetry is well-crafted, your have good timing, and your emotions shine through unmistakably. All earmarks of a talented writer. Write On!

Sincerely,


******************************


MY RESPONSE--

Dear ABC,

Thanks. I am grateful for your detailed response.

I just want to state that I have no bias against the average American. The role of the average American comes only to the extent that it is the single vote of each and every average American that goes into the making of the Prez and the govt., which, in fact, is responsible for the atrocities and illegalities, the most glaring of the latter being the fact that US had no business meddling with Iraq, least bombing it, when, FIRSTLY, Iraq had done nothing against US [Iraq had nothing to do with Twin towers], and, SECONDLY, even if it had done, the remedy lies at the level of the UN and the security council, not the battlefield.

You are probably unaware that as per independent Western/US analysts [a link and reprint is given below], US attacked Iraq on the manufactured lies of WMD when Iraq refused to sell its oil in exchange for US dollars, insisting, on the other hand, that payment be made in Euros. US, and all economists in the rest of the world, know that US dollar is tottering and US economy is on the verge of collapse, and that collapse would have been precipitated the moment US had to pay for oil in Euros. [US is silent about gross human and women's rights violations in Saudi Arabia, from where 14 of the 19 twin tower highjackers came, because US has a pact with Saudi Arabia kings that SA would continue to sell oil for US dollars, in exchange for US propping up the sheikhdom there, looking the other way while SA continues with its gross human and women's rights violations. Kindly remember that within hours of the twin tower tragedy, the US prez gave special permission to many rich and royal SA personalities to leave USA without the elaborate checks to which everybody else was subjected. That special permission was not for nothing].

[Added on 14 November 2008: It is stated above-- US economy is on the verge of collapse. Now that verge has been reached. The collapse of US economy has engulfed the whole world. There is worldwide economic recession. Please see —"AMERICAN FINANCIAL CRISIS:14 questions " ].

The reason for the current US threats to invade Iran is the same-- Iran wants payment in Euros, which is a much stronger currency than the US dollar.

Sorry to bring out the above facts to your knowledge. But, they are not my research findings. All this is known to serious scholars of economics and international relations. It is natural that US, or any other country, would hide adverse facts from the citizens and feed them only false propaganda like WMD, along with the emotional appeal to patriotism.

Madam, believe me that what I wrote above is just plain fact, which any honest US scholar would gladly confirm to you. The internet is fully available to anybody. If you wish, I can send necessary links.

Thanks again and best wishes, for you and your son. I may add that I myself have served in the army, and I did so out of patriotism, even putting off my professional career for a few years. I do not doubt for a moment that the US soldiers join US army out of a sense of duty.



* Written initially as entry no. 408425 in "WAR POETRY--award winner" . Posted as an independent item on 17 December 2007].


M C Gupta,
20 February 2006


*********************************************************************************

A SERIOUS ARTICLE REPRODUCED--

The document referred above is given below. The link mentioned therein seems not to be easily accessible at present. Hope I am not committing any copyright violations in breach of this site's policies. The intention is merely to share knowledge.

********************

Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse
by Krassimir Petrov, Ph.D.
Austrian Macro Economist/Investment Strategist
Commissioned by: J. Douglas Bowey and Associates

January 20, 2006

Reprinted with permission. Originally published on www.lemetropolecafe.com

Abstract
The American Empire depends on the U.S. dollar. The proposed Iranian Oil Bourse
will accelerate the fall of the U.S. dollar and hence the fall of the
American Empire.

***


I. Economics of Empires


A nation-state taxes its own citizens, while an empire taxes other
nation-states. The history of empires, from Greek and Roman, to
Ottoman and British, teaches that the economic foundation of every
single empire is the taxation of other nations or of their subjects.
The imperial ability to tax has always rested on a better and stronger
economy, and as a consequence, a better and stronger military that
peacefully or militarily enforced the tax. One part of those taxes
went to improve the living standards of the empire and the other part
went to reinforce the military dominance necessary to enforce those
taxes.

Historically, taxing the subject state has been in various forms,
usually gold and silver, where those were considered money, but also
slaves, soldiers, crops, cattle, or other agricultural and natural
resources, whatever economic goods the empire demanded and the
subject-state could deliver. Historically, the taxation has always
been direct: the subject state handed over the money (gold/silver) or
the economic goods directly to the empire.

For the first time in history, in the twentieth century, America was
able to tax the world indirectly--not by enforcing the direct payment
of taxes like all of its predecessor empires did, but by distributing
its own currency, the U.S. Dollar, to other nations in exchange for
goods with the intended consequence of devaluing over time those
dollars and paying back later each dollar with less economic goods.
The difference between the value of the dollar during the initial
purchase and the devalued dollar during the repayment was the U.S.
imperial tax. Here is how this happened.

Early in the 20th century, the U.S. economy began to dominate the
world economy. At the time the U.S. dollar was tied to gold, so that
the dollar neither increased, nor decreased its value, but was always
convertible into the same amount of gold. The Great Depression with
its the preceding inflation from 1921 to 1929 substantially increased
the amount of paper money in circulation without the correspondent
increase in gold. This rendered the effective backing of the U.S.
dollar by gold impossible. As a consequence, President Franklin Delano
Roosevelt decoupled the dollar from gold in 1932. Up to this point,
the U.S. may have well dominated the world economy, but from an
economic point of view, it was not technically an empire. The fixed
value of the dollar for gold did not allow the Americans to extract
economic benefits from other countries by supplying them with
gold-backed dollars.

Economically, the American Empire was born with the establishment of
the Bretton Woods system in 1945. The dollar was made only partially
convertible to gold--convertibility to gold was available to foreign
governments only, but not to private institutions. At this time the US
dollar was established as the international reserve currency. This was
possible, because during WWII, the United States had supplied its
allies with food and military provisions, accepting gold as payment,
thus accumulating significant portion of the world's gold.

An economic Empire would not have been possible if the dollar remained
fully backed by gold, i.e., if the dollar supply was kept limited and
within the availability of gold, so as to exchange back dollars for
gold at the pre-agreed exchange ratio. However, the dollar supply was
actually increased far beyond its gold backing and handed over to
foreigners in exchange for economic goods. There was no prospect of
buying back those dollars at the same value--the amount of gold was not
sufficient to redeem those dollars, while the quantity of dollars
continually increased, so that those dollars constantly depreciated.
The constant depreciation of the increasing dollar holdings of
foreigners via persistent U.S. trade deficits was tantamount to a
tax--an inflation tax.

When in 1971 foreigners demanded payment for their dollars in gold,
The U.S. Government defaulted on its payments on August 15. The
popular spin of this default was that "the link between the dollar and
gold was severed". The proper interpretation is that the U.S.
Government went bankrupt, just like any commercial bank is declared
bankrupt.

However, by doing so, the U.S. declared itself an Empire. It had
extracted an enormous amount of economic goods from the rest of the
world, with no intention or ability to return those goods. The world
was effectively taxed and it could not do anything about it: it could
not force the U.S. in bankruptcy proceedings and take possession of
its gold and other assets for payment, nor could it take forcefully
what it was owed by declaring war and winning it. Essentially, the
U.S. imposed on the world an inflation tax and collected an imperial
seigniorage!

>From that point on, to sustain the American Empire and to continue to
tax the rest of the world via inflation, the United States had to
force the world to continue to accept ever depreciating dollars in
exchange for economic goods and to have the world hold more and more
of those dollars, while those dollars depreciated. It had to give the
world an economic reason to hold dollars, and that reason was oil.

In 1971, as it became clear that the U.S. Government would not be able
to buy back its dollars for gold, it prepared an alternative
arrangement to hold the world hostage to its fiat dollar: during
1972-1973 it struck an iron-clad arrangement with Saudi Arabia--to
support the rule of the House of Saud in exchange for accepting only
dollars as a payment for Saudi oil. By imposing the dollar on the
OPEC's leader, the dollar was effectively imposed on all OPEC members.
Because the world had to buy oil from the Arab oil countries, it had
the reason to hold dollars as payment for oil. Because the world
needed ever increasing quantities of oil at an ever increasing oil
prices, the world's demand for dollars could only increase. Even
though dollars were no longer exchangeable for gold, they were now
exchangeable for oil.

The economic essence of this arrangement was that the dollar was now
backed by oil. As long as that was the case, the world had to
accumulate increasing amounts of dollars, because those dollars were
needed to buy oil. As long as the dollar was the only payment for oil,
its dominance in the world was assured, and the American Empire could
continue to tax the rest of the world. If, for any reason, the dollar
lost its oil backing, the American Empire would cease to exist,
because it would no longer be able to tax the world by making them
accumulate ever more dollars. Thus, Imperial survival dictated that
oil be sold only for dollars. It also implied that oil reserves were
spread around various sovereign states that none was strong enough,
economically or militarily, to demand payment for oil in something
other than dollars. If someone demanded a different payment, he had to
be convinced, either by political or by military means, to change his
mind.

The man that actually did demand Euro for his oil was Saddam Hussein
in late 2000. At first, his demand was met with ridicule, later with
neglect, but as it became clearer that he meant his demand and even
converted his $10 billion reserve fund at the U.N. into Euro,
political pressure was exerted to change his mind. Other countries,
like Iran, also wanted payment in other currencies, most notably Euro
and Yen. The danger to the dollar was clear and present, so a punitive
action was in order. Bush's war in Iraq was not about existing weapons
of mass destruction, about defending human rights, about spreading
democracy, or even about seizing oil fields. It was about defending
the dollar, ergo the American Empire; it was about setting an example
that anyone who demanded payment in currencies other than U.S. Dollars
would be likewise punished.

Many have criticized Bush for staging the war in Iraq in order to
seize Iraqi oil fields. However, those critics can't explain why Bush
would need to seize those fields--he could simply print dollars for
nothing and use them to get all the oil in the world that he needs. He
must have had some other reason to invade Iraq.

History teaches that an empire goes to war for one of two reasons: (1)
to defend itself or (2) benefit from war. Economically speaking, in
order for an empire to initiate and conduct a war, its benefits must
outweigh its military and social costs. Benefits from Iraqi oil fields
are hardly worth the long-term, multi-year military cost. Bush went
into Iraq to defend the American Empire. Indeed, this is the case: two
months after the United States invaded Iraq, the Oil for Food Program
was ended, the country's accounts were switched back to dollars, and
oil began to be sold once again only for U.S. dollars. No longer could
the world buy oil from Iraq with Euro. Global dollar supremacy was
once again restored. Bush descended from a fighter jet and declared
himself the victor: the mission was indeed accomplished--Bush
successfully defended the U.S. dollar, and thus the American Empire.

**

II. Iranian Oil Bourse


The Iranian government has recently proposed to open in March 2006 an
Iranian Oil Bourse that will be based on an euro-based oil-trading
mechanism that naturally implies payment for oil in Euro. In economic
terms, this represents a much greater threat to the hegemony of the
dollar than Saddam's, because it will allow anyone willing either to
buy or to sell oil for Euro to transact on the exchange, thus
circumventing the U.S. dollar altogether. If so, then it is likely
that much of the world will eagerly adopt this euro-denominated oil
system:

The Europeans will not have to buy and hold dollars in order to secure
their payment for oil, but would instead use with their own currency.
The Chinese and the Japanese will be especially eager to adopt the new
exchange. It will allow them to drastically lower their enormous
dollar reserves and diversify them with Euros. One portion of their
dollars they will still want to hold onto; another portion of their
dollar holdings they may decide to dump outright; a third portion of
their hoards they will decide to use up for future payments without
replenishing their dollar holdings, but building up instead their euro
reserves.
The Russians have economic interest in adopting the Euro - the bulk of
their trade is with European countries, with oil-exporting countries,
with China, and with Japan. Adoption of the Euro will immediately take
care of the first two blocs, and will over time facilitate trade with
China and Japan. Also, Russians seemingly detest holding depreciating
dollars, for they have recently found a new religion with gold: their
central bank is diversifying out of dollars and accumulating gold.
Russians have also revived their nationalism; if embracing the Euro
will stab the Americans, they will gladly do it and smugly watch the
Americans bleed.
The Arab oil-exporting countries will eagerly adopt the Euro as a
means of diversification against rising mountains of depreciating
dollars. Just like the Russians, their trade is mostly with European
countries, and therefore will prefer the European currency both for
its stability and for avoiding currency risk.
Only the British will find themselves between a rock and a hard place.
They have had a strategic partnership with the U.S. forever, but have
also had their natural pull from Europe. So far, they have had many
reasons to stick with the winner. However, when they see their
century-old partner falling, will they firmly stand behind him or will
they deliver the coup de grace? Still, we should not forget that
currently the two leading oil exchanges are the New York's NYMEX and
the London's International Petroleum Exchange (IPE), even though both
of them are effectively owned by Americans. It seems more likely that
the British will have to go down with the sinking ship, for otherwise
they will be shooting themselves in the foot by hurting their own
London IPE interests. It is here noteworthy that for all the rhetoric
about the reasons for the surviving British Pound, the British most
likely did not adopt the Euro namely because the Americans must have
pressured them not to: otherwise the London IPE would have had to
switch to Euros, thus mortally wounding the dollar and their strategic
partner.

At any rate, no matter what the British decide, should the Iranian Oil
Bourse gain momentum and accelerate, the interests that matter--those
of Europeans, Chinese, Japanese, Russians, and Arabs--will eagerly
adopt the Euro, thus sealing the fate of the dollar. Americans cannot
allow this to happen, and if necessary, will use a vast array of
strategies to halt or hobble the exchange's operations:

Sabotaging the Exchange--this could be a computer virus, network,
communications, or server attack, various server security breaches, or
a 9-11-type attack on main and backup facilities.
Coup d'état--this is by far the best long-term strategy available to
the Americans.
Negotiating Acceptable Terms & Limitations--this is another excellent
solution to the Americans. Of course, a government coup is clearly the
preferred strategy, for it will ensure that the exchange does not
operate at all and does not threaten American interests. However, if
an attempted sabotage or coup d'etat fail, then negotiation is clearly
the second-best available option.
Joint U.N. War Resolution--this will be, no doubt, hard to secure given
the interests of all other members of the Security Council. Recent
rhetoric about Iranians developing nuclear weapons undoubtedly serves
to prepare this course of action.
Unilateral Nuclear Strike--this is a terrible strategic choice for all
the reasons associated with the next strategy, the Unilateral Total
War. The American will likely use Israel to do their dirty nuclear
job.
Unilateral Total War--this is obviously the worst strategic choice.
First, the U.S. military resources have been already depleted with two
wars. Secondly, the Americans will alienate other powerful nations.
Third, major reserve countries may decide to quietly retaliate by
dumping their own mountains of dollars, thus preventing the U.S. from
further financing its militant ambitions. Finally, Iran has strategic
alliances with other powerful nations that may trigger their
involvement in war; Iran reputedly has such alliance with China,
India, and Russia, known as the Shanghai Cooperative Group, a.k.a.
Shanghai Coop.
Whatever the strategic choice, from a purely economic point of view,
should the Iranian Oil Bourse gain momentum, it will be eagerly
embraced by major economic powers and will precipitate the demise of
the dollar.

**

III. The Demise of the Dollar


The collapsing dollar will dramatically accelerate U.S. inflation and
will pressure short-term and long-term interest rates much higher. At
this point, the Fed will find itself between two equally disastrous
options--deflation or hyperinflation. The first option, deflation,
known in the international finance literature as the "classical
medicine", requires stopping the monetary expansion and raising
interest rates, thus inducing a major economic depression, a collapse
in real estate prices, and an implosion in bond, stock, and derivative
markets, most likely precipitating a total financial collapse. The
alternative option is to take the easy way out by inflating, whereby
the Fed pegs the long-bond yield, raises the Helicopters and drowns
the financial system in liquidity, bailing out numerous LTCMs and
hyperinflating the economy.

The Austrian theory of money, credit, and the business cycle teaches
us that ultimately there is no in-between the mythological Scylla and
Charybdis scenario--between deflation and hyperinflation. Sooner or
later, as pressure on the dollar rises and inflation rears its ugly
head, the monetary system must swing one way or the other, forcing the
Fed to make its choice. There is no doubt that the newly-appointed
Commander-in-Chief of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, an renowned
scholar of the Great Depression and an adept helicopter pilot, will
choose the latter course of action--hyperinflation. Bernanke has learnt
well the lessons of the Great Depression and the destructiveness of
deflations. He has also learnt well from the Maestro the panacea of
every financial problem--to inflate his way out, come hell or high
water. He has even devised ingenious unconventional ways around the
deflationary liquidity trap and teaches the Japanese how to apply
them. To avoid deflation, he has publicly stated that he will
accelerate the printing presses and "drop money from helicopters". If
necessary, he will monetize everything in sight. He will ultimately
destroy the American currency in Hyperinflation.

Hyperinflations, however, do not happen in an instant. It usually
takes years before the final collapse. The Weimar hyperinflation began
around 1920 and ended in 1923 with the total destruction of the
currency. Similar was the fate of some post-communist countries: it
took Russia and Bulgaria 7-8 years to hyperinflate their currencies
before they ultimately destroyed them.

However, because the dollar is the reserve currency of the world,
hyperinflating the dollar will be fundamentally different in two ways
from all hyperinflations in history. On the one hand, there are tens
of trillions of dollar-denominated debt and hundreds of trillions of
dollar-denominated derivatives. Given that the ratio of currency to
debts and derivatives is tiny, the coming hyperinflation must be
necessarily of epic proportions. On the other hand, central banks
around the world will fight tooth and nail to support the dollar, so
that world financial system does not collapse and that their reserves
do not evaporate into the nothingness. Many central banks will choose
willy-nilly to support the dollar by inflating their own currencies.
Thus, these two powerful forces will drive the dollar in opposite
directions. Its inevitable demise may be swift and sudden, or it may
be protracted and painful.

Whatever the speed of hyperinflation, ordinary Americans will have few
available options to protect themselves--during crises, peoples' first
instinct is to resort to more "stable" fiat currencies of neighboring
countries, like the Canadian Dollar and the Mexican Peso, but their
availability will prove limited and complicated as people will most
likely have to cope with governmentally-imposed capital controls.
Next, people instinctively convert hyperinflating currencies to hard
assets like land and real estate, but sellers refuse to accept the
hyperinflating currency and quickly disappear from the market. Having
run out of meaningful options to protect themselves, ordinary people
will have little choice, but to convert their dollars to hard
currencies like gold and silver, thus driving their prices much
higher. On the other hand, central banks have no other options but
gold. First, in times of crises, central banks fear the risk inherent
in all fiat currencies. Moreover, not even the largest fiat currencies
will accommodate their need to convert their reserves. Also, it is not
practical for central banks to hold real estate and land. Thus,
central banks will have no alternative, but to scramble to convert
their reserves to the only hard currency known to man--gold.
Historically, in times of crises, gold has always been the ultimate
safe haven. When people and central banks flee en masse to gold, its
value has always skyrocketed. This time, it will be no different.


*************************************************************************

A reader sent me a mail in reference to the present item. He requested me to answer a series of questions. His mail (without editing) and my answers are given below:

THE MAIL

I am sorry the military interfered with your career. Can you say it has helped those who have come home missing limbs or those who came home in body bags. If the American dollar is that weak why do people still sneak across the border to earn it and send it back to their homelands? When was the last time people paid to have themselves smuggled into Europe only to wind up dead in the trailer of an 18 wheeler? How big is a W.M.D.? What are the formulas for any of them? How are they dispersed? What is the difference between a lie and military misinformation? If The U.N. Security council is the main power why did Saddam defy it? What nation seems to be turned to as world police?What nation do terrorists fight for? what uniform do they wear?If the Euro is that powerful why are we still being targeted by extremists?
Sorry but I would like some of the above answered. but not by an economist.

MY RESPONSE

OK. Here are the answers (not by an economist):


Q-- I am sorry the military interfered with your career. Can you say it has helped those who have come home missing limbs or those who came home in body bags?

A—Military did not interfere with my career. It was a conscious choice and I gained a lot from it. The question is not clear. All I can say is that there would have been no missing limbs or body bags if soldiers were not sent to suffer that fate in the first place.

Q-- If the American dollar is that weak why do people still sneak across the border to earn it and send it back to their homelands?
A—Because it is stronger than the currencies of their homelands.

**

Q-- When was the last time people paid to have themselves smuggled into Europe only to wind up dead in the trailer of an 18 wheeler?
A—I don’t know and don’t care to know because it is irrelevant to a discussion about the USA.

**
Q-- How big is a W.M.D.?
A—As big as the fat man and the little boy. Details may be found at—"I HAVE BECOME THE DEATH NOW:award winner" .

**

Q-- What are the formulas for any of them?

A—You don’t want economics. Are you sure you want atomic physics?

**

Q-- How are they dispersed?
A—Usually by military fighter planes.

**
Q-- What is the difference between a lie and military misinformation?
A—Nil.

***
Q-- If The U.N. Security council is the main power why did Saddam defy it?

A— The Security Council is no longer very powerful or meaningful. It was constituted 6-7 decades ago. It is not representative of the world today. Nothing or nobody that is not democratically representative of the whole can have influence over the whole. I don’t know how or when Saddam defied the Security Council. If he did, it was his sweet choice, just as the USA and so many other countries have applied Veto and defied the will of the UN many times.

**
Q-- What nation seems to be turned to as world police?
A— USA.

**
Q-- What nation do terrorists fight for?
A—Whichever nation funds them. Currently the biggest terrorists are Muslims. Their biggest fund giver is Saudi Arabia. The biggest friend of Saudi Arabia in the West is the USA.

**
Q-- What uniform do they wear?
A—The terrorists wear the uniform their fund givers want them to wear. The Taliban were earlier funded by the CIA and wore the uniform that the CIA / USA wanted them to wear.

**

Q-- If the Euro is that powerful why are we still being targeted by extremists?
A—Because the extremists perceive the USA as opposed to their interests.


M C Gupta
14 January 2011