# Humanities & Anthropology > History & Civilisations >  Hunter-gatherers more violent than farmers

## Maciamo

Jean-Jacques Rousseau inculcated us with the idea that our prehistoric ancestors, before the rise of civilisations, cities and states, were more peaceful than us. His image of the noble savage was probably more based on some unusually friendly and welcoming Polynesian tribes than on the average human being. 

In an excellent article, The Economist summarises new researches, according to which hunter-gatherers were much more violent than anything we have known in our written history. They lived in a state of constant warfare, and 25-30&#37; of men died of homicide. It is estimated that if 20th century wars had the same death rate as prehistoric warfare, 2 billion people would have died. Women, for their part, were almost bound to be abducted as a sexual prize at least once in their lifetime.

More here :
The Economist : Hunter-gatherers - Noble or savage?

----------


## Reinaert

I don't believe this. 
Hunter/gatherers had a lot of space. 
They walked about and followed the game.
There are tribes that live on the food that women can find. Meat is a luxury. Men go out to hunt.. As an extra.

The moment when people started as farmers, that had as an immediate consequence they had to protect their crops by defending the area.
So agriculture made a military presence necessary.

Agriculture also made it necessary to build stocks in well defended areas, that became cities.

So, the cities, and agriculture, together with the military organization meant much more wars, than the hunter/gatherers must have known.

Although an attack on a small group of people must have been more devastating for human DNA distribution. Some DNA groups might be wiped out in a short time.

We call that genocide nowadays.

----------


## elghund

The article said there was no division of labor between males and females amongst the homo erectus. How can a guess like that be supported?

----------


## LeBrok

> I don't believe this. 
> Hunter/gatherers had a lot of space. 
> They walked about and followed the game.
> There are tribes that live on the food that women can find. Meat is a luxury. Men go out to hunt.. As an extra.
> 
> The moment when people started as farmers, that had as an immediate consequence they had to protect their crops by defending the area.
> So agriculture made a military presence necessary.
> 
> Agriculture also made it necessary to build stocks in well defended areas, that became cities.
> ...


So what hunter-gatherers did or do when other tribe comes to hunt in their area, and as you said meat is scarce and I say very important. Do they share?
Do you know history of prairie Indians in America (before white man put them in reserves, of course)? These are the pure hunters-gatherers. This is answer how peaceful the tribal life was.

The only difference is that hunters-gatherers had small wars, and agriculturalists had big ones. All relative to the population size.

If meat was just luxurious and not vital, you would see some groups of hunter-gatherers evolving into vegetarianism. As far as I know there are none. That's how important meat was and is in their diet.

----------


## LeBrok

> The article said there was no division of labor between males and females amongst the homo erectus. How can a guess like that be supported?


I didn't read this article, but if you summarised it correctly, it doesn't make sense what they wrote. 
Did they check the anatomy of Homo Erectus? Do males and females look exactly the same? 
If male is bigger and more muscular it will mean that the male is doing more physical work, like hunting and fighting.
Females, without contraceptives unlike today, are almost always pregnant therefore can't go with man hunting, or fighting. And someone need to stay, feed and tend to kids in the camp almost all the time. It's a perfect job for a man, I guess. :) a little sarcasm.

I don't think that Homo Erectus was so much different than Homo Sapience. They were our closest cousins, after all.

----------


## Reinaert

> So what hunter-gatherers did or do when other tribe comes to hunt in their area, and as you said meat is scarce and I say very important. Do they share?
> Do you know history of prairie Indians in America (before white man put them in reserves, of course)? These are the pure hunters-gatherers. This is answer how peaceful the tribal life was.
> 
> The only difference is that hunters-gatherers had small wars, and agriculturalists had big ones. All relative to the population size.
> 
> If meat was just luxurious and not vital, you would see some groups of hunter-gatherers evolving into vegetarianism. As far as I know there are none. That's how important meat was and is in their diet.


As far as I know North American natives didn't know that many wars amongst each other like the natives of South America did.
The Maya and Aztecs knew agriculture, and used bloody methods like human sacrifices to keep the power.

Natives in North America knew outcasts though, just like other people.
The viking raids in Europe were mainly done by bands of outcasts.

My point is that the higher the grade of organization, the easier it is to wage war. A perfect example is the Roman Empire. They made robbing and stealing into a professional enterprise. And we call that civilization?  :Innocent:

----------


## LeBrok

Keep in mind that inside Roman Empire (once the empire had a good hold on provinces) there was rather peaceful coexistence between peoples, open borders, trade, and in many provinces a bigger prosperity than before. So the empire, and many of them in past, had both sides.
One mistake you're making is that you think there have to be a higher force, like government or a king to send the men to war. Look around you, what the young men and boys, love to do. These days they spend countless hours in front of a screen playing war games, and before electronics, boys were outside running, fighting, playing war games. They also love playing group sports, and these are not too far away from wars. Two teams going against each other with a common goal of conquering the other side. 
This shows how much we are pre-wired for a war, or hunting. Boys are born ready to fight. The only explanation, for something being so hard wired to the brain, is a million or two years of evolution. Last two, or even more, million years our ancestors spent as hunter-gatherers, we know that for sure. The conclusion is that being a warrior was a primary need for them. We are as eager to fight now, as were our ancestors thousands years ago.
At the end it doesn't matter why young guys are so eager to go to the war. In any case they fulfill their instinct or let's say a calling. Throw them to Afghanistan, Darfur, Balkans, any conflict recent or past, and they will fight. Reason, religion, or just an order makes only the killing easier. The rest is just a warrior calling, hunter nature, an instinct, and yes we are born with brains and physic for it.

I can agree that some hunter-gatherers didn’t see much fighting, like Amazon Indians, or (guessing) Australian Aborigines, or Oceania tribes. Scarcity of population and distances making wars rarity. The thing that I don't agree is to think that we are more vicious or more war hungry in agricultural or today's industrial societies. We are capable to do the same bestialities, crimes or genocides as our ancestors were thousands of year ago, or even million. The only difference is the scale of the wars.

----------


## Reinaert

Sorry, but I don't agree with you.

Sports and hunting can be seen as a preparation for war, but it seems to be a cultural problem in some countries that people have no problem with going to war.
Most of the time it is because of unemployment, lack of chances to study.
Also propaganda and lack of knowing what is happening somewhere else in the world is also a reason.

For me it is a great mystery why Australians and Canadians went to go fighting for the British in World War 1. 
Fighting nowadays seems only to be normal in the Anglo-American hemisphere.

Dutch soldiers also fought in Afghanistan, but they were sent there by the Dutch government while most of the Dutch people were against it.
In The Netherlands military personnel has a low status. 
They are regarded as mercenaries, because that is what they are.

Another point is, war is more anonymous nowadays. A pilot in a bomber plane doesn't hear the screaming of his victims, doesn't smell the dieing people. 
Only soldiers on the ground get PTSS of what they experience.

BTW I was in the Navy as a conscript, so I know what I am talking about. ;)

----------


## Regulus

I had intended to do a little research on what some other writers came up with on estimated casualties of hunter-gatherer societies before posting on this thread.

Reinaerts last post, however, drew my ire.
One reason that we use such a forum is for people to discuss ideas. LeBrok brought some good points. What little boy doesn’t pick up a stick and essentially practice what he may have to do sometime in life? Not to say that I would word a post of mine in exactly the same way, but that is our purpose, to exchange ideas, facts, and thoughts. Reinaert then decided to add something that is so without merit or any shred of credibility that I frankly have little idea of where to start. 
I would have to say that your condition is a symptom of the illness that afflicts the West today. In a world of Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs, too many in the West will not rest content with being sheep but seem to want others to be sheep also. There is no one who likes being able to leave my keys in my car at night or know that my kids grow up in a safe town more than I do. I also would do anything possible to avoid sending people away to fight. But a critical part of what Western culture IS, is the fact that the citizen will stand up at a moments notice, bare his teeth when the wolf arrives, and fight the wolf if necessary. This applies to the nation in general and not just your own family. This is what makes us so much more independent than people from other parts of the world that are more likely to submit easily to foreign rule. 

If you can’t see what motivated the Aussies, New Zealanders, Canadians, etc. to fight in the wars when the parent country needed them, then I have to say that your mind is simply in a sad and wrong place. Those people grew up in prosperous, orderly, and safe society (yes, I know – not perfect). Is anyone going to suggest that they would have had these benefits if not for the culture and protective military power of Britain? Clearly, when London called for help, a properly brought up individual would answer the call.

Unfortunately, I do believe Reinaert when he mentions what those in the Netherlands say about people in uniform, even those of their own country. It is a pathetic illustration of how Western culture has declined in a nation that has a *glorious* history of standing up for liberty. Western Europe may have to fight for its very existence in forty years. He and those like him deride Dutch troops trying to stave off that threat. Western Europe is going to have to resurrect its martial spirit if it is planning to exist at all in the future. 

It is, I guess, natural for the sheep not to like the sheepdog. The sheepdog looks like the wolf, has teeth like the wolf, and has the capacity for violence. When the wolf arrives, the sheep run away, and the sheepdog puts himself between them and the wolf. When the wolf is gone, the sheep go back to disliking the sheepdog.

Essay on Sheep, Sheepdogs, and wolves can be found at below address: http://www.gleamingedge.com/mirrors/...sheepdogs.html


PS, I know what I am talking about- I was a United States Marine (Not conscripted) for four years, NJ National Guard (again a volunteer) for twelve years, and have been a local law enforcement officer for over twenty years. I love Liberty, freedom, and I am happy with my station in life. I would never bother anyone that did not hurt others or violate civil law. Even those that I have arrested were treated with respect by my me and those who worked under my supervision.

----------


## Reinaert

Haha. This forum is European. Europeans have had enough of wars.
If you put down Europeans on a European forum, you aren't going to get any credibility.
To be honest, American policy in the last 50 years is really insane!

And there is a nice movie about the behavior of the American National Guard. 
I like the movie "Southern Comfort" ;)

----------


## LeBrok

lol, Reinaert, you're are just sweet. From your cosy, nice, and warm place that didn't see war for last 60 years, mostly thanks to US and Britain winning the wars and planting democracy again in Germany and Italy. Yes, you can enjoy your peaceful Holland thanks to many soldiers that died in the past. You can thank your existence to many of your ancestors being the better warriors than others, winning wars over their enemies, so their gens could live in you.......but not all of the genes obviously, because the one that makes a man the warrior mutated away from you. That's the reason you don't understand us, other guy, that played wars as kids, threw stones and spears with pleasure.
Another thing, if not US mighty presence in Europe after WW2, you and your country would be rotting for many years in fascist Germany, or communist Soviet regime, like I did in Poland. You were sheltered by military of other country, so you can live peacefully and post whatever you want.
And that is probably nothing much to be thankful for. ;)
BTW I was never in the army, but I can fight and die for my freedoms and my family.

You're right that unemployment can induce men to the war, and in few ways I must say. But if you think of hunter-gatherers, what type of job did they have? By our standards they were always unemployed. Unless you consider the hunter and warrior the occupation of theirs. Right, they were the warriors and the hunters, by occupation, by birth, by culture, by DNA. Now you have your answer how peaceful they were.

----------


## Regulus

I will be brief:

For the record, I never put down Europeans. I sadly remarked on the all-too-common decline of a major factor of what made Western culture what it is and consequently made the West so free. I see no cause to claim that I have no credibility. On the contrary, I hold that everything that we are here comes from Western Culture, which comes from Europe. Why do you think that I joined a Europe forum, to put down the cradle of my ancestors and their culture? I submit that I could perform a better defense of Western Culture than many.

For any that did not see it - "Southern Comfort" is a 1970's MOVIE (not real) that portrays a poorly-trained and led unit on training maneuvers in the Louisiana Swamps. They fire machine gun blanks at Cajun people, who answer back with a real shotgun or rifle blast, killing one of the unit. The rest of the movie is mostly about the Cajuns hunting the guardsmen down one by one. It is entertaining enough, but it is still a movie. If Reinaert had half of the spirit of those Cajuns (descendants of French colonists), I would respect him.

Those that defended the water-logged cities and towns of the Netherlands from the Spanish armies must be rolling over in their graves. I’m a Catholic for crying out loud, but I have more respect and admiration for the best of his country than Reinaert does. Also, those like Piet Hein and Jan Coen were brave and capable men. 

By the way, thanks for the much-needed support that we got from your country when we were fighting for our independence.

----------


## Reinaert

We are discussing the behaviour of hunter/gatherers here.
Of course he Netherlands have an army, navy and airforce, but they should stick where they are for. Defence of the homeland.
Not assisting British and American troops and companies that loot countries like Afghanistan of Iraq.

Because that was the point I made, when a "civilization" gets on a higher level of controlling the masses, they also are able to build a large fighting force, and in no time that large force is used to loot other countries for gold, silver, oil and whatever is necessary to finance a large military infrastructure.

Julius Caesar invaded Gaul, because of the gold the Celts had.
His "Bello Gallico" was nothing more than propaganda to hide his real agenda.

The British looted in India, South Africa and the rest of their empire.
In 1914 the British were considered thughs by the Dutch people because of the "Boer War" in South Africa.
So, in short, the British should have stayed out of continental Europe in 1914.
Than the war would have been over in 14 days. 
That was also the German plan. Germany had a conflict with Serbia end their Allie Russia. The Germans thought they could pull the same trick against France as in 1870. 
The way Britain and France got a loud mouth again in 1918, after a very hesitating American army fought the last battle, took care the Germans became angry. A seize fire was changed into a defeat.
Stupid! It induced the Second World war.

So, why should I as a Dutchman be grateful for wars brought to us by the British in the first place?
It was all in the interest of their empire, and after that the interest of the American Republic.
American companies made millions of dollars during world war 2, and came out rich. 

Exactly as I told you complex civilizations like war to dictate their politics on other peoples.
That has nothing to do with the courage or will to fight of the soldiers.
With propaganda and a militaristic education you can make every kid fight like a tiger.
Look at the Hitler Jugend and the SS.
A few years of lies was enough the get them all gung ho.

BTW Piet Hein was nothing more than a pirate.

----------


## Regulus

Ok, I am fed up with your assertions. I know who Piet Hein is, but I used it to 
illustrate a point about the fighting spirit of those people. Attacking Spanish silver fleets may not be nice, but it is very gutsy, as is being willing to fight a war with a powerful nation such as Spain.

I will not entertain any more of your claims as doing so would lend a false picture of your credibility. In most places you would be ignored like the mad man with the handwritten sign. Neither LeBrok nor I made any crude or mean accusations to start this. Like I first wrote, I wanted to do some research so I could make a post that was relevant to this thread. (Without pointing fingers at anyone in the process – I like discussion. That is why I am here)

One last fact that should make you feel better- the US is not looting- we're losing money like crazy over there. Oh yes, we are also still conducting operations in a place which formerly was a safe haven for terrorists.

----------


## Reinaert

> Ok, I am fed up with your assertions. I know who Piet Hein is, but I used it to 
> illustrate a point about the fighting spirit of those people. Attacking Spanish silver fleets may not be nice, but it is very gutsy, as is being willing to fight a war with a powerful nation such as Spain.
> 
> I will not entertain any more of your claims as doing so would lend a false picture of your credibility. In most places you would be ignored like the mad man with the handwritten sign. Neither LeBrok nor I made any crude or mean accusations to start this. Like I first wrote, I wanted to do some research so I could make a post that was relevant to this thread. (Without pointing fingers at anyone in the process – I like discussion. That is why I am here)
> 
> One last fact that should make you feel better- the US is not looting- we're losing money like crazy over there. Oh yes, we are also still conducting operations in a place which formerly was a safe haven for terrorists.


The US are looting.
And stop your propaganda.
This is a European site, and we don't buy lies anymore.
Fighting spirit is bullshit, it comes out of a bottle of rum, or amphetamine (German) or coke.
Opium is necessary for the production of morphine for a fighting force to shut up wounded soldiers. Bad for moral. Afghanistan is a paradise for American companies.

So get off your high horse, and shut up.

----------


## Regulus

I said that I will longer entertain your false claims.
Stop being crude, and stop making false accusations.
This is ridiculous.

----------


## LeBrok

Lol, the accusation of propaganda mainly come from people spreading one. They ignore facts and logical thinking. They are not open for new ideas nor discussing subject in civilized manner. We have always few around and Reinaert turned to be one of them. Sorry to hear your impertinence, crude manners, and abusive tone. 
If you feel like discussing something on forum, pick the point, like proving how US loots Iraq. Put forward your logic and information, possibly with links to material you base your understanding on. Let's put a dollar value on looting and don't forget research how much US spent rebuilding. Show us the dollar value of your claim. Do you have one, or you just read this somewhere, and believed it? Let us check it out, who knows, maybe you can change our minds with right material?

----------


## Yorkie

> The US are looting.
> And stop your propaganda.
> This is a European site, and we don't buy lies anymore.
> Fighting spirit is bullshit, it comes out of a bottle of rum, or amphetamine (German) or coke.
> Opium is necessary for the production of morphine for a fighting force to shut up wounded soldiers. Bad for moral. Afghanistan is a paradise for American companies.
> 
> So get off your high horse, and shut up.


Ironically, the British have a phrase for alchohol-induced bravado. It is called 'Dutch courage'.  :Wary: 

Reinart seems to have little respect for British and American people. The British caused WW2?! Nothing to do with Hitler then? Where was he? Water-painting? Were it not for the British and Americans the Dutch would be speaking German now. Britain didn't come out of WW2 'rich' as Reinart says the Americans did. On the contrary, Britain only recently pad off its financial war debts. Blood debts are not so easy to pay off.

Easy to insult Britain from behind a computer screen. I bet that you would not dare to say such things in my country. Even our dear, little old ladies would eat you for breakfast, 'Reinart'....

----------


## Regulus

I stole some time to look at a book by John Keegan. "A History of Warfare". He comes to a number of conclusions, some of which I would not hold to, but that is why we consult more than one source when we try to learn.

I think that the general idea of this thread is pretty valid. I had not given it much thought before this. It is believed that societies based on hunting/gathering do not have as many offspring as sedentary communities. This may be from a variety of factors. The land can, of course, support the h/g lifestyle, but it cannot support large populations. It is likely that competition for food sources resulted in warfare on a small scale. I cannot imagine one hungry group approaching another who has access to, say, a productive trout stream and just being willing to pass by unless the second group looks prepared and able to stand their ground. Any conflicts must have been bloody but I would think that the percentage of those killed was fairly low. The instinct for the group to survive must have compelled a weaker group to be willing to pack up and leave before too many of the hunters/defenders were killed or incapacitated or too many of the young women were seized. 

I would hold that, when a more sedentary community is threatened, it may be more likely that they would risk an all-out fight because they have more to lose since they have built up an infrastructure, etc.

An H/G group has few articles to weigh it down. It can move quickly by design as it needs to follow food sources anyway. 

I do, in general, agree that H/G societies may very well have been very violent. As mentioned earlier, most H/G societies that were still in existence in the 19th and 20th centuries were not only fairly violent but tended to be extraordinarily and shockingly cruel to their captives, both male and female, colonists and fellow natives. The only point that I would question would be the percentages of casualties given. This is a good thread.

----------


## Reinaert

Well.. Can you agree with me that people from Islands like Great Britain and America can afford to have loud mouths?

Europeans on the continent have had to seek some diplomatic arrangement for hundreds of years. 

It's not about how vigilant or brave a people is, but how intelligent the leaders are.

Europe wants a great economy. Friendly relations with Russia at least.
We can have a Eurasian economy getting stronger and stronger, but Britain and America are on the war path to disturb that European target.
It's that simple.

----------


## Reinaert

> Lol, the accusation of propaganda mainly come from people spreading one. They ignore facts and logical thinking. They are not open for new ideas nor discussing subject in civilized manner. We have always few around and Reinaert turned to be one of them. Sorry to hear your impertinence, crude manners, and abusive tone. 
> If you feel like discussing something on forum, pick the point, like proving how US loots Iraq. Put forward your logic and information, possibly with links to material you base your understanding on. Let's put a dollar value on looting and don't forget research how much US spent rebuilding. Show us the dollar value of your claim. Do you have one, or you just read this somewhere, and believed it? Let us check it out, who knows, maybe you can change our minds with right material?


You are working for the CIA?
LIES!

----------


## Regulus

For crying out loud, man! I am here to share ideas and learn.

No one defends the US (Of course not perfect, nor is any other country) more vociferously than I do, but I am not here for this.

I thought that we were done with this. That is why I posted my revelant thoughts about Hunter/gatherers. 

If I wanted to join a forum where my purpose would be to debate the attributes of my country, I am sure that I would not have a hard time locating one.

Are you OK, man?

----------


## Yorkie

> Well.. Can you agree with me that people from Islands like Great Britain and America can afford to have loud mouths?
> 
> Europeans on the continent have had to seek some diplomatic arrangement for hundreds of years. 
> 
> It's not about how vigilant or brave a people is, but how intelligent the leaders are.
> 
> Europe wants a great economy. Friendly relations with Russia at least.
> We can have a Eurasian economy getting stronger and stronger, but Britain and America are on the war path to disturb that European target.
> It's that simple.


No, Reinart, it is not 'that simple'. It is you who are the simplistic, reductionist thinker here, offering laughably unitary explanations for complex politico-social phenomena. You engage in the crudest reification here. Countries are not actors in the sense of individual human beings possessing the means to formulate and act upon decisions. There is no entity called 'Britain' with a 'loud mouth' any more than there is an entity called 'the Netherlands' with a tendency towards capitulation, hippy idealism and Advocaat-guzzling. Countries are not stereotypes and they are all made up of different kinds of personalities.

By the way, there is no such thing as inherited ethnic/national guilt either so stop bleating like a sheep about the naughty things Britain did in the past. All European countries, if one delves back into history, have at some time been involved in unfortunate bloodshedding.

Don't make me laugh about mainland Europeans 'having to seek some diplomatic arrangement for hundreds of years'. For the best part of this time, mainland European nations have incessantly warred with each other.

----------


## Reinaert

> No, Reinart, it is not 'that simple'. It is you who are the simplistic, reductionist thinker here, offering laughably unitary explanations for complex politico-social phenomena. You engage in the crudest reification here. Countries are not actors in the sense of individual human beings possessing the means to formulate and act upon decisions. There is no entity called 'Britain' with a 'loud mouth' any more than there is an entity called 'the Netherlands' with a tendency towards capitulation, hippy idealism and Advocaat-guzzling. Countries are not stereotypes and they are all made up of different kinds of personalities.
> 
> By the way, there is no such thing as inherited ethnic/national guilt either so stop bleating like a sheep about the naughty things Britain did in the past. All European countries, if one delves back into history, have at some time been involved in unfortunate bloodshedding.


Bla bla.. We were all sinners but the British were the worst of all...
Agree?


100 year war against France. Reason.. Looting.

----------


## Regulus

In the immortal words of Jimmy Stewart's character in "It's a wonderful Life", George Bailey says "Oh why don't you go annoy somebody else?"

----------


## LeBrok

> You are working for the CIA?
> LIES!


Sorry, but this is not much of an argument I can respond to. Do you have extra information in this regard? Post some valid information, dude!

----------


## LeBrok

> In the immortal words of Jimmy Stewart's character in "It's a wonderful Life", George Bailey says "Oh why don't you go annoy somebody else?"


I wouldn't have said this better. Bravo!

----------


## Reinaert

And that from an annoying American on a European forum.  :Good Job: 

I guess people from the CIA are busy to influence European media.
So, it's only natural to expect a proper response on American bullshit propaganda.

----------


## Mzungu mchagga

This post ist the best of all:




> Well.. Can you agree with me that *people from Islands like* Great Britain and *America* can afford to have loud mouths?
> 
> Europeans on the continent have had to seek some diplomatic arrangement for hundreds of years. 
> 
> It's not about how vigilant or brave a people is, but how intelligent the leaders are.
> 
> Europe wants a great economy. Friendly relations with Russia at least.
> We can have a Eurasian economy getting stronger and stronger, but Britain and America are on the war path to disturb that European target.
> It's that simple.


Sorry for dropping by, I'm a Continental European and I want state clearly that I'm taking strong distance of your thoughts and most other Continental Europeans would probably do, too. 
Of course war is dirty! It always is! But do you seriously think that Europe and Russia want to build up an utopian Empire of Love and Peace while the US and the UK are seeking for a war within that place so to have the chance to loot afterwards. Who told you that? Where have you read about it? 
You are not less fanatic than a Nazi or a Muslim terrorist: Well chosen words to describe how we are the angels and there are the devils! Pure black and white thoughts! The same accusation you gave to your "enemies".

The sad truth is, Europe is not that wealthy because the people here have been so peace loving the last decades, but because of it's wealth there has been no need for military intervention and hatred for it's neighbours. _(BTW very strange view that Great Britain hasn't experienced any wars the last centuries while Continental Europe has, and has been working on peace for hundreds of years -through wars!)_ But let things change, let the economy go further down (much further) and blame the neighbours for that misery. I am sure people will get a different opinion of their European neighbours!
Here in Germany many people like to blame the government for it's warfare in Afghanistan, for it's security cams on the streets and over all "Big Brother" and dictatorship mentality. I have to take the subway in Berlin within heavily crowded stations at least twice a day; the numbers of armoured police men have risen the last years, on electronic boards you can read the sentences "please be aware of lone bags and luggage". But just let a bomb blow up -and I'm very sure it will sooner or later- people will blame the gov for haven't acted earlier and seak for revenge. Withdraw all troops from Afghanistan, and watch Al Quaida take over Pakistan, a nation with nuclear weapons, too! Do you seriously think you will still sit there happily and satisfied?
It is not about living in permanent fear for the rest of your life, but it is about staying level-headed!

----------


## Yorkie

> Bla bla.. We were all sinners but the British were the worst of all...
> Agree?
> 
> 
> 100 year war against France. Reason.. Looting.


 No. You invented Advocaat. That in itself is a crime against humanity.

----------


## Reinaert

Haha.. Your comment on my posting about warmongers like Great Britain and the USA only prove I am right. Of course the warmongers influence European governments. Wikileaks shows that very clear!!

But members from our goverments are not speaking like the majority of the people. They are bought. There are a lot of relations known between European politicians and American companies.

As I said before, governments use taxpayers money to finance companies.
These companies accumulate enormous profits. These profits are used to influence international trade. Look at the price of gold for instance.

It's pure capitalism to stock lots of it somewhere.. Buy buy buy so the price goes up. And than it's even more profitable to wage a war in Afghanistan to plunder their gold.

On the other hand, so called terrorist threat is used to get more control over the people. The European states change into police states more and more.

BTW Pakistan got nuclear weapons with the support of the USA!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Qadeer_Khan

The funny part is, the Dutch knew what he was doing, and wanted to arrest him.
But there was an American request to Prime Minister Ruud Lubbers that mister Khan should be able to leave The Netherlands.

----------


## barbarian

> ......
> 
> One last fact that should make you feel better- the US is not looting- we're losing money like crazy over there. Oh yes, we are also still conducting operations in a place which formerly was a safe haven for terrorists.


US is a capitalist machine and never makes anything free. However, it is very normal and all the superpowers made the same all through the history since they must feed their unemployed people.

can you give the details of money you spend for this "operation".

----------


## Reinaert

Haha The real terrorists in this world live in the USA.

----------


## Regulus

> US is a capitalist machine and never makes anything free. However, it is very normal and all the superpowers made the same all through the history since they must feed their unemployed people.
> 
> can you give the details of money you spend for this "operation".


 

I bowed out of this discussion a while back. The details which you desire are not that hard to find. Good day to you.

----------


## barbarian

> I bowed out of this discussion a while back. The details which you desire are not that hard to find. Good day to you.


 it is not hard to find anything that we discuss, but it is important that you see the result when you search. 

anyway, nice day to you.

----------


## Reinaert

Well Barberian.. This site shows the US debt.

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Problem is, it doesn't show how many US companies get as a profit.

Taxpayers money is robbed, and the rich get richer.

I feel sorry for the John Doe's in America that don't have a proper medical care, no job, no house, all because some rich families wanted to get even richer.

There's no American Dream, it's an American Nightmare.

----------


## Reinaert

> No. You invented Advocaat. That in itself is a crime against humanity.


Well, the Brits seemed to have missed some cooking lessons in their past.  :Grin: 
If you mix the yoke of an egg with vinegar, you get mayonnaise.
You can the same stuff with alcohol, and then you get the Dutch Advocaat.
Nothing wrong with it.. Both vinegar and alcohol kill bacteria.

But, to come back to the subject...

Hunter/Gatherers.. Peaceful.. Only incidental clashes.
Farmers.. More complex Sometimes wars with bands of hunter/gatherers. More violence.
Traders/industrialists Very complex society. War is standard to get the materials necessary for waging war. Propaganda is used to oppress the truth. People are fed with lies every day.

Capitalism ultimately needs fascism to persevere.
And that is what we as the people of our planet Earth now experience.

Governements are getting more and more out of democratic control.

Look at the todays Dutch government, in fact a minority government.
The right wing assholes are counting on the support of a bunch of ultra right idiots with a racist background. Geert Wilders is a lunatic, supported by ultra conservative American funds. 

That shows what I am very angry about.

----------


## Mzungu mchagga

> Well, the Brits seemed to have missed some cooking lessons in their past. 
> If you mix the yoke of an egg with vinegar, you get mayonnaise.
> You can the same stuff with alcohol, and then you get the Dutch Advocaat.
> Nothing wrong with it.. Both vinegar and alcohol kill bacteria.
> 
> But, to come back to the subject...
> 
> Hunter/Gatherers.. Peaceful.. Only incidental clashes.
> Farmers.. More complex Sometimes wars with bands of hunter/gatherers. More violence.
> ...


So, what is your solution? Shall we go back to hunting and gathering now? As trading, industries and also farming will ultimatley lead to war, capitalism and this furthermore to fascism. We have no other choice!

----------


## LeBrok

Great summation of Reinaert logic (or whatever he uses to write his posts), thanks Mzungu.
Time to move to the cave Reinaert.  :Laughing:  Your only salvation! Don't wait for the world, be a Gandhi, do what you believe in.

----------


## Reinaert

> Great summation of Reinaert logic (or whatever he uses to write his posts), thanks Mzungu.
> Time to move to the cave Reinaert.  Your only salvation! Don't wait for the world, be a Gandhi, do what you believe in.


You only ridiculize yourself with this post.

Just wanted to get back to the subject.

You fail to have good arguments against what I wrote, that's why you start behaving like a kid.

----------


## Reinaert

> So, what is your solution? Shall we go back to hunting and gathering now? As trading, industries and also farming will ultimatley lead to war, capitalism and this furthermore to fascism. We have no other choice!


Well, I guess you already know the answer.

Hunter/Gatherers versus Farmers.
Communism versus Capitalism.
Greed versus Altruism.

It would be a good idea to begin with fair trade.
That was the basic idea of the EU anyway.
Fair trade makes a war ridiculous.

But where are we now in 2010?
The same products are sold in the EU for very different prices.
How strange!?

So I come to the conclusion we have to deal with monopolism and capitalism.
As in the old days, some assholes are stocking up stuff to speculate with it.

The reason for wars in the end.

A really free economy would kill capitalism anyway.

I guess Buddha was right, greed causes all pain in this world.

I was called a Gandhi, and I take that very positive.
Thank you.  :Good Job:

----------


## LeBrok

You don't grasp even basic ideas how things work. I wouldn't even know where to start explaining things to you. Your strong avoidance to discuss pints that we raised here doesn’t help that either. You're lacking basic, and I repeat BASIC understanding of economy or human nature. On other hand you have unbelievable ability of taking anything and twisting it to fit your hypothesis to your liking. 
You even twist my words too, or was it an example how illogical your understanding is? I never said you're a Gandhi. I said "be a Gandhi", and that meant that you are a hypocrite right now. To explain it better lets put it this way. We know you hate corporations/businesses, therefore to be like Gandhi you need to free yourself from their “evil” influence. Remove from your life everything that is made by companies. Don't use cloths, furniture, cars, buses, houses/buildings, electricity, gas, petrol, phones, computers and other electronics, etc. Don't use Internet, as it was started by US government and expended by corporations making hardware and software for it. At the end you wouldn’t be able to buy even a metal axe, because mining ore and forging iron is done by companies too. All left for you, in order to become Gandhi, is to go and live like a hunter-gatherer in the cave. Maybe you could start a little cultivation with a wooden hoe curved with help of flint stone. Well, you can always join some hunter’s tribes, there are still some left on this planet.
I hope it explains what you have to do to be a Gandhi and live the way you preach here. Also it should give you a start in understanding how much you have to thank the corporations/businesses for. I’m sure they are not twisting your arms and torturing you, and forcing you to use their products, do they?

----------


## Bogdan

The US is indeed a military dictatorship they have been since the 1950s. You need to differentiate between wars you have wars for profit and wars for other. For example WWII was not profitable for Britain as Britain was getting razed to the ground. WWII was profitale for amerika because amerika was never bombed and the war was not fought on american soil. The Americans benefitted from it. Same thing with iraq, afghanistan etc... the military makes huge money you need companies who build the missles, airplanes etc... that costs a shit load of money and produces a bunch of money in turn for the huge corporations who build this stuff. The profitable or perfect war is "never" ending or very drawn out, it has acceptable casualities and it is also fought away from home and victory or lose does not matter. 

The War on Terrorism is indeed never ending as you will always have terrorists bush said this himself. Welcome to 1984 basically 

As for prior to the 50's amerika wasnt bad at all they where isolationists and never bothered others or europeans britain on the other hand has been sticking its nose where it shouldnt for centuries. just after the 50's amerika sadly inherited that role

----------


## LeBrok

Bogdan, show us the money, show us the numbers proving that US benefited from Iraq, Afghanistan and even in WW2 financially. Without the numbers how do you know that US benefits or benefited in above stated situations?

----------


## barbarian

mr. lebrok,

i also have a question for you.

here is the list of money US spent for military expenditure since 2000

2000 ---288.8 billon
2005---420.7
2006---441.6
2009---663.255
(300 bln for iraq and afghanistan is not included)

663 bln dollar is very close to the total expenditure of the rest of the world. and 6 times more than china which is second in total expenditure. 

this money is %4.3 of their income (china %2, GB %2.5, russia 3.5)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...56eb9d6d90.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_expenditures

do you really think this much effort is just for global peace and democracy? especially if there is already 1.5 mln homeless in US.

----------


## barbarian

this is the main drug route (reminds me R1 route)

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_1K736oupbC...s400/hbsfj.bmp

south iraq plays an important role on this route. and the main income of PKK (kurdish gerillas) is narcotic straffic.

*%80 of global annual drug production is in afghanistan.*

*edit: afghanistan is responsible for 90% of the global heroin output*
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...t=va&aid=19715
some will say. us is there to stop this activity. but:
*".....opium production in the country has grown more than 40 times over since 2001."*
*narchotic industry is about 1.5 trillion dollar a year (2005) and the third biggest industry after oil and weapon.*

----------


## LeBrok

Thanks for the numbers barbarian, now we can calculate something. Couldn't find anything on net quickly, like value of each industry, I'll come back at you later when time allows. Off top of my head I would say that the construction, food industry, the banking and global finance, even automobile industry should easily beat your drugs and weapons numbers.
Later, ....sorry don't have much time now.

Can you tell us how US government controls and benefits from heroin production in Afghanistan. How it could be organized to hidden it from journalists and population in general on big scale? How much could the heroin be worth for US acting as a middle man?

----------


## barbarian

> Thanks for the numbers barbarian, now we can calculate something. Couldn't find anything on net quickly, like value of each industry, I'll come back at you later when time allows. Off top of my head I would say that the construction, food industry, the banking and global finance, even automobile industry should easily beat your drugs and weapons numbers.
> Later, ....sorry don't have much time now.
> 
> Can you tell us how US government controls and benefits from heroin production in Afghanistan. How it could be organized to hidden it from journalists and population in general on big scale? How much could the heroin be worth for US acting as a middle man?


you must also evaluate that it is just an agriculture. it is a black market without tax. you dont need to put big moneys in it. all you need is some unstable areas on your route (see; afghanistan, iran (kurdish parts), turkey (kurdish part), ex-USSR's, *somali*. you can increase your profit by selling some weapons, and stealing their oil also. 

it is all for democracy. :)

----------


## LeBrok

Do you have at least a shred of information that Iraqui's oil is getting stolen, or is it just only your suspicion because it fits your hypothesis?

----------


## barbarian

There are different ways of stealing. Here are small informations about middle east:

Total military expenditure of saudi arabia, kuwait and UAE is %28 of total annual global expenditure. And % 67 of this Money goes to US. 

Approximately, 1-1,5 trillion of total petrodollars of middle east are in US. 

During İran-Iraq war US supported Iraq because of Irans well-known ideological dreams. However, a kind of wikileaks showed that (in 1986) US was selling weapons to Iran also (see iran-gate, in Reagan era).

Any country who doesnt want to be US’s mistress clearly needs democracy lessons from america, e.g. Iran, Syria, Iraq.

----------


## LeBrok

So the UAE is selling oil for weapons, in Canada we sell wood and wheat for weapons to USA. In both ways they are normal trading transactions in which both parties benefit. What else UAE can sell to by arms? What else do they produce, sand? They sell oil to by everything, therefore this is not coincidence that they sell oil to by weapons, right?
Now we still far away from your picture of US stealing Iraq's oil. This is a very serious accusation dude, I hope you have something to show for it.

----------


## barbarian

> So the UAE is selling oil for weapons, in Canada we sell wood and wheat for weapons to USA. In both ways they are normal trading transactions in which both parties benefit. What else UAE can sell to by arms? What else do they produce, sand? They sell oil to by everything, therefore this is not coincidence that they sell oil to by weapons, right?
> Now we still far away from your picture of US stealing Iraq's oil. This is a very serious accusation dude, I hope you have something to show for it.


i already try to show too much about what is happening lebrok. i wait something from you other than "hmm"

----------


## barbarian

> 663 bln dollar is very close to the total expenditure of the rest of the world. and 6 times more than china which is second in total expenditure.
> 
> *afghanistan is responsible for 90% of the global heroin output*
> 
> *opium production in the country has grown more than 40 times over since 2001*
> 
> During İran-Iraq war US supported Iraq because of Irans well-known ideological dreams. However, a kind of wikileaks showed that (in 1986) US was selling weapons to Iran also (see iran-gate, in Reagan era


i already try to show too much about what is going on lebrok. i wait something from you other than "hmm"

----------


## Mzungu mchagga

Lebrok's question was how you can show that the US benefits from the war in, for example, Afghanistan. Your answer is that Afghanistan sells 90% of the global heroin output and it's production is growing ever since. What kind of answer is that? 

So the US gets cheaper heroin now which it can sell to it's people? Is it unfairly refined in the US then? Do they sell it with usury to local dealers or does the government hand it out to the addicts directly? Do they pay money for it or do they trade weapons for heroin? Is the US trying to maintain a war through local tribesmen in Afghanistan so that the heroin trade keeps flourishing on US streets? I don't get it!

----------


## LeBrok

Sorry Barbarian, I'm just running a bit short of free time these days. I'll come back at you later in few days when I done my research.

I was responding to you regarding more information. Things that you say are new to me, we don't know them from mass-media or even from talking to friends. Therefore as Mzungu pointed out you have to argument your hypothesis a bit better. We need logical continuity of your proof. Like A comes from B, B from C etc, something like this. Or B is cost of war, C is the revenue from war, C > B = D profit. Then I'll believe you.
Also if heroin from Afghanistan is US revenue of war, then you really have to prove that it exist. Hundred billion dollar of heroin shipment requires huge manpower to move it around the world. Don't you think we wouldn't know that by now? Too many people involved, plus journalists would be all over the hottest story of the century. Right? But somehow only people in Turkey know that, hmmm.

----------


## barbarian

> Sorry Barbarian, I'm just running a bit short of free time these days. I'll come back at you later in few days when I done my research.
> 
> I was responding to you regarding more information. Things that you say are new to me, we don't know them from mass-media or even from talking to friends. Therefore as Mzungu pointed out you have to argument your hypothesis a bit better. We need logical continuity of your proof. Like A comes from B, B from C etc, something like this. Or B is cost of war, C is the revenue from war, C > B = D profit. Then I'll believe you.
> Also if heroin from Afghanistan is US revenue of war, then you really have to prove that it exist. Hundred billion dollar of heroin shipment requires huge manpower to move it around the world. Don't you think we wouldn't know that by now? Too many people involved, plus journalists would be all over the hottest story of the century. Right? But somehow *only people in Turkey* know that, hmmm.


this is an illegal job, you cannot see your A,B C here. *i wrote what i see. i dont represent my country.* *please dont involve my nationality*. it is something personal.

Mzungu mchagga what do you understand from this sentence:
"*opium production in Afghanistan has grown more than 40 times over since 2001"*
i understand that either US, the superpower, cannot control this area or some people had some free space to produce their products in there.

----------


## Mzungu mchagga

@barbarian & LeBrok

No, barbarian is right about his facts, I don't want to deny them. There have been quite a lot discussions on European media about the massive opium production in Afghanistan. The problem about this issue here is that barbarian is drawing wrong conclusions. Yes, the US and it's allies are not able to control the vast mountain ranges with the hostile tribes in Afghanistan, so opium farmers and traders have a good advantage there.
The basic question was, is the opium trade intended by the US and if yes in how far does it benefit from it? That is what barbarian wants to imply.

----------


## LeBrok

Same here. I don't deny opium production in Afghanistan, or big military industry in US having lobbies and effecting politicians on many levels. I just want better argumentation from Barbarian to prove his points about US benefiting financially in Iraq and Afghanistan.

@ Barbarina, sorry I had an impression that your opinion is common in Turkey.

----------


## barbarian

> Same here. I don't deny opium production in Afghanistan, or big military industry in US having lobbies and effecting politicians on many levels. I just want better argumentation from Barbarian to prove his points about US benefiting financially in Iraq and Afghanistan.
> 
> @ Barbarina, sorry I had an impression that your opinion is common in Turkey.


i wonder what would you think if, for example, %90 of the global heroin production would be in the territory which is under the control of turkey.

it is a mass production and comes from fields, it is very easy to catch it. i can even see my car parking in front of house from google earth. and US cannot find and destroy these fields(?).

http://blog.thegooddrugsguide.com/wp...fghanistan.jpg

ok at least read these, you can find a lot more article like these in the net.

http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2008...ghanistan.html

http://lukery.blogspot.com/2009/08/u...-carrying.html

----------


## LeBrok

Well if US and Nato was in control of Afghanistan there wouldn't be much fighting and dieing, right? And Taliban would be conquered and history.
The truth is that Taliban have greater support among the population than Western Countries, especially among peasants. Taliban became a power and ruler of Afghanistan, because of their agricultural "reform". Taliban took land from landlords and divided it between all villagers. The rest was done by terror and executions. 
Now we have poor peasants growing poppy and benefiting directly. Life is good for villagers. Now Nato comes chases away Taliban and starts destroying the poppy fields.....WOW, if there was any support for West among villagers, then it was fast gone. That was the reason Taliban is back and have friends among peasants. It is hard to defeat enemy like this without the support of locals. 
I'm sure that's the reason that Nato stopped destroying the poppy fields to rebuilt local support. Besides they are too busy looking for Taliban and road side bombs these days. On top of it you have corrupted Afghan government that most likely is in control of opium trade. West have to tiptoe around Karzai, as he is the leader of newly build and fragile "friend" in this region.

Now, are there some coffins coming with opium in them from Afghanistan? Probably yes. We know there were some coffins coming to US with narcotics during Vietnam War. But these were small enterprises run be some soldiers and officers illegally. There was never US government and CIA operation on industrial scale to benefit financially from drugs. And there is none now in Afghanistan. If there was CIA smuggling narcotics in past it was for tactical and not financial gains. Possibly to help Taliban to defeat Soviets couple of decades ago.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production_in_Afghanistan

According to experts that wrote wiki page about Afghanistan opium trade, most of it goes through Iran, Turkey and Russia, the historic and traditional routs.
There is no agreement how much Afghan opium is worth. Some experts put it at 64 billion, some at 15 or even 3 billion. Mind that Afghan GDP is 12 billion dollars. I think 64 billion then is quite a stretch, but even at 3 or 15 billion it is quite precious for farmers, landlords and Afghan politicians. But still peanuts for US to bother with.
With steep competition from Iran, Turkey and Russia, US would probably only grab 5 billion of the market. Again it doesn’t make much of financial sense to spend 100 billion a year in Afghanistan war to “steal” their opium, even if it was 50 billion worth of it.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf

Here is an article to show you what goes with Iraq’s oil and who gets it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/12/world/middleeast/12iraq.html
Looks like government of Iraq controls and sells it and whole world gets it. Seams far away from the notion that US have the exclusive rights even to buy it, not mentioning the stealing.

----------


## barbarian

> Well if US and Nato was in control of Afghanistan there wouldn't be much fighting and dieing, right? And Taliban would be conquered and history.
> The truth is that Taliban have greater support among the population than Western Countries, especially among peasants. Taliban became a power and ruler of Afghanistan, because of their agricultural "reform". Taliban took land from landlords and divided it between all villagers. The rest was done by terror and executions. 
> Now we have poor peasants growing poppy and benefiting directly. Life is good for villagers. Now Nato comes chases away Taliban and starts destroying the poppy fields.....WOW, if there was any support for West among villagers, then it was fast gone. That was the reason Taliban is back and have friends among peasants. It is hard to defeat enemy like this without the support of locals. 
> I'm sure that's the reason that Nato stopped destroying the poppy fields to rebuilt local support. Besides they are too busy looking for Taliban and road side bombs these days. On top of it you have corrupted Afghan government that most likely is in control of opium trade. West have to tiptoe around Karzai, as he is the leader of newly build and fragile "friend" in this region.
> 
> Now, are there some coffins coming with opium in them from Afghanistan? Probably yes. We know there were some coffins coming to US with narcotics during Vietnam War. But these were small enterprises run be some soldiers and officers illegally. There was never US government and CIA operation on industrial scale to benefit financially from drugs. And there is none now in Afghanistan. If there was CIA smuggling narcotics in past it was for tactical and not financial gains. Possibly to help Taliban to defeat Soviets couple of decades ago.
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production_in_Afghanistan
> ...


i gave you lots of info and question about *what i thought*, and what i have from you, in my opinion, is not enough. i feel like this topic also strating to look like a boxing match of the two blind men. let us leave these infos to newcomers, they may judge or add some more.

thanks.

----------


## Mzungu mchagga

Here is what I personally think about it, without direct proof now [so I am willing to change my view]:

1. The US supports Afghan drug farmers. But not for financial reason, but to keep them on their side and prevent them from changing to the Taliban side. As already stated by LeBrok, the US is also too busy fighting than it could invest it's time in destroying poppy fields.

2. The US came to Afghanistan for economic reasons mainly. The war against terrorism was more of an excuse with 9/11 as a lucky incident for the US [and NO, 9/11 was NOT created by the CIA but a REAL terrorist attack!] 

3. Initiator was the oil lobby, by which Bush and Cheney acted as a part of it, not as politicians in the interest of the US. If they had expected before that Iraq and Afghanistan war will be a loss for the US-economy, what I think it really is, and in how far they personally benefited from it, only speculation and not known.

4. If the wars have made the world a safer place now? In reference to the war in Iraq definately not! With the war in Afghanistan, probably a little, as it has prevented a spread of similiar Islamic regimes to it's neighbouring countries.

----------


## LeBrok

What are you talking about Barbarian? I gave you numbers to work with on Afghan drugs. Now you can calculate yourself if US benefits financially, or if it is worth dicking around for US at all. This makes sense. How else you can understand. I can prove my point on paper with numbers. What bigger proof can you get, without physically being in Afghanistan and seeing how money change hands?
If you want to convince me, work with numbers.

----------


## barbarian

> What are you talking about Barbarian? I gave you numbers to work with on Afghan drugs. Now you can calculate yourself if US benefits financially, or if it is worth dicking around for US at all. This makes sense. How else you can understand. I can prove my point on paper with numbers. What bigger proof can you get, without physically being in Afghanistan and seeing how money change hands?
> If you want to convince me, work with numbers.


 
Lebrok,

I meant that i ask you some questions like:
US’s 2009 military expenditure was about 650 billion which is almost equal to the total expenditure of the rest of the world (Afghanistan and Iraq not included). So, it is minimum 1 trillion dollars. I asked you “why does US spend this much Money? For global peace and democracy?”. i give you some numbers now. In these two countries there are app. 15 million manpower. If you give 500 $ salary each of them i am sure nobody will fight for taliban anymore. And it will cost about 90 billion a year, which is 10 times less than US's budget each year for peace and democracy. But, it is impossible and meaningless, because in this case, money will go from US to these countries not to global warlords, narcotic traffickers, banks.

*You gave a link summarizing the money spent by US for global defence saying:*

*“US global defence budget for 2011 (?) is 1,121 $*
*……*
_Of this $1.121 trillion total, CRS estimates that Iraq will receive about $751 billion (67%), OEF (Afghanistan) $336 billion (30%) and enhanced base security about $29 billion (3%), with about $5 billion that CRS cannot allocate (1/2%). About 94% of the funds are for DOD, 5% for foreign aid programs and embassy operations, and 1% for medical care for veterans.”_

But if you read further you will see where the money goes to:
“
-military personnel funds to provide special pay for deployed personnel such as
hostile fire or separation pay and to cover the additional cost of activating
reservists, as well pay for expanding the Army and Marine Corps to reduce stress
on troops;
-Operation and Maintenance (O&M) funds to transport troops and their equipment
to Iraq and Afghanistan, conduct military operations, provide in-country support
at bases, and repairing war-worn equipment;
-Procurement funding to cover buying new weapons systems to replace war
losses, and upgrade equipment, pay modernization costs associated with
expanding and changing the structure of the size of the Army and Marine Corps,
- Research, Development, Test & Evaluation costs to develop more effective ways
to combat war threats such as roadside bombs;
-Working Capital Funds to cover expanding the size of inventories of spare parts
and fuel to provide wartime support; and
-Military construction primarily to construct”

*Money is going to arms brokers.* Or in other words, money goes from one pocket to another. It is very normal, US have a capitalist system, and in capitalist system companies rules the country. It is a kind of side effect.

About narcotics route and production you wrote:
_“According to experts that wrote wiki page about Afghanistan opium trade, most of it goes through Iran, Turkey and Russia, the historic and traditional routes.”_

_If you mean that these are the traditional narcotics route. You are wrong 30 years ago people were unaware of drugs in_ _Afghanistan__. The production was almost zero. It is a capitalist systems innovation_. And with the collapse of USSR, the new emerging markets like Romania, Bulgaria, Georgia, Ukraine, in addition to “surprising” rise of Somalia and Kurdistan made it very easy to transport the exported articles J.

Your another question is:
*“Can you tell us how US government controls and benefits from heroin production in Afghanistan. How it could be organized to hidden it from journalists and population in general on big scale? How much could the heroin be worth for US acting as a middle man?”* 

i dont say US goverment or CIA do it by themselves. i say some “barons” do it and US goverment dont see them, destroy/eliminate their enemies or competitors etc. Because US know that this money will go to their banks, and these people are under US control. US want the power like all superpowers in the history. And power means money and control here.

You say:
_“There is no agreement how much Afghan opium is worth. Some experts put it at 64 billion, some at 15 or even 3 billion. Mind that Afghan GDP is 12 billion dollars. I think 64 billion then is quite a stretch, but even at 3 or 15 billion it is quite precious for farmers, landlords and Afghan politicians. But still peanuts for US to bother with.”_

_it is only about opiums cost lebrok. The Afgan market is minimum 1 trillion/year in final market (and narcotics is the third biggest market in the world after oil and weapon) after refined. can you imagine if all this money would go to taliban?afghanistan would be full of_ skyscrapers, but i see most of the skyscrapers are in US J (some other countries businesmen” especially ,if they are on the trade routes, also benefits from this trade of course). 

Again, you ask:
*“Do you have at least a shred of information that Iraqui's oil is getting stolen, or is it just only your suspicion because it fits your hypothesis?”* 

dont think that i say they put the oil on the ships and bring them to US. It would look funny. 
May be these hot news will explain what I am trying to say.
“Shell was one of the biggest players in iraq from the 1920s right up until *nationalisation of the oil industry by Saddam Hussein* in 1972. 

The US administration has been running the country's oil industry since the invasion in 2003 but the iraq government is poised to pass new legislation designed to encourage international oil and gas companies to resume exploration and production in the country


*Kurdistan* remains one of the least-explored regions in the oilrich Middle East. Analysts estimate it has anything from 12bn to 45bn barrels of oil and up to 100 trillion cubic feet of gas. 

The region is seen by most Western companies as one of the safest parts of iraq and probably the best way back into the *war-torn country*. 

*BG, BP, Exxon, Chevron and Total are said to be interested in taking stakes in the Iraqi industry*.”

So, Arabians must share their profits with global companies, they must buy arms from big producers, they must invest their money in US. Otherwise, you will need democracy.

This is the funniest part you claim:

*“I'm sure that's the reason that Nato stopped destroying the poppy fields to rebuilt local support. Besides they are too busy looking for Taliban and road side bombs these days. On top of it you have corrupted Afghan government that most likely is in control of opium trade. West have to tiptoe around Karzai, as he is the leader of newly build and fragile "friend" in this region.”*

and mzungu says:
*"If the wars have made the world a safer place now? ... With the war in Afghanistan, probably a little, as it has prevented a spread of similiar Islamic regimes to it's neighbouring countries."* 



So do you mean US allow %93 of the global heron production to take the local farmers support. Which one is more dangerous for your heaven: taliban, or heroin. how many young people is dying each year because of drug?

You must understand that the main financial sources of taliban are those opiums. if you want to stop taliban, then you must destroy those fields. but, who wants to destroy them.

----------


## Mzungu mchagga

> So do you mean US allow %93 of the global heron production to take the local farmers support. Which one is more dangerous for your heaven: taliban, or heroin. how many young people is dying each year because of drug?
> 
> You must understand that the main financial sources of taliban are those opiums. if you want to stop taliban, then you must destroy those fields. but, who wants to destroy them.


Wew, that is a good question! What is worse, heroin or Taliban?  :Laughing: 
Seriously, I don't think the US has any efficient concept on that. In a short sited manner they try to fight Taliban in first place, taking the risk of collateral damage of drug addicts, and taking the risk, too, of supporting Taliban, because of a lack of other alternatives. Besides fighting.

----------


## Mzungu mchagga

Oh, and another thing. How should they destroy those poppy fields? With an army of armed star-sprankled banner harvester-treshers? With clouds of poison herbicides? Or with bombs? I don't think the US will get more support of the farmers and the rest of the world with this tactic!

----------


## barbarian

> Oh, and another thing. How should they destroy those poppy fields? With an army of armed star-sprankled banner harvester-treshers? With clouds of poison herbicides? Or with bombs? I don't think the US will get more support of the farmers and the rest of the world with this tactic!


come on Mzungu,
US claim to catch bin ladin, thousands of taliban terrorists and iraquis nuclear weapons, they catch saddam in very short period of time in village clothes. they made iraq a war field. thousands are dead and homeless. no country could say anything. do you think US care about what other countries believe? do you think they can catch the terrorist but cannot find the fields? US army spends billions of dollars for equipments. they can even produce star-sprankled banner harvester-treshers.

----------


## Mzungu mchagga

Of course they will find the fields and could destroy them if they wanted to. As I already said, the US doesn't regard it as that important, is busy with other issues, plus takes it as a collateral damage.
Otherwise it could declare war on Colombia and Morocco, too, and destroy their cocaine and cannabis fields. But is it of importance for the US?

----------


## barbarian

> Of course they will find the fields and could destroy them if they wanted to. As I already said, the US doesn't regard it as that important, is busy with other issues, plus takes it as a collateral damage.
> Otherwise it could declare war on Colombia and Morocco, too, and destroy their cocaine and cannabis fields. But is it of importance for the US?


US do not care about the source of %93 of the global heroin market (but care about democracy only(!)) and you still support them and believe they work for global peace and democracy?

come on mzungu, these narcos are sold at the corner of your streets. and kills your people. 1 millon people is dying each year because of drugs. and this market finances any kind of illegal formation including what US supposed to fight against.

here is the percentage of global narcotic taken up by the police of the countries
1)Iran - %23 (this devil- i hate iran also- caught %23 of the total catch by themselves)
2)Turkey %16
*3) US %9* (come on superpower you are sitting on the source)
4)China %8

Europe (total) %10

source: (UNODC)

----------


## Regulus

Barbarian, if I understand your point correctly, you would say that the opium trade has terrible results for countries in which most of it is distributed. In that case, I would agree with you strongly. 
I don’t think that the developed world is ready to admit that strong measures will need to be taken with production, distribution, and use.

----------


## Mzungu mchagga

> US do not care about the source of %93 of the global heroin market (but care about democracy only(!)) and you still support them and believe they work for global peace and democracy?
> 
> come on mzungu, these narcos are sold at the corner of your streets. and kills your people. 1 millon people is dying each year because of drugs. and this market finances any kind of illegal formation including what US supposed to fight against.
> 
> here is the percentage of global narcotic taken up by the police of the countries
> 1)Iran - %23 (this devil- i hate iran also- caught %23 of the total catch by themselves)
> 2)Turkey %16
> *3) US %9* (come on superpower you are sitting on the source)
> 4)China %8
> ...


I guess now we come to the point to debate about what moral aspects a superpower is in duty of. This is something which differs widely from culture to culture and produces a lot of misunderstandings and resentiments among the people in the world. For instance, if China was the absolute ruler of the world, it would rule it differently than Russia would, or the US, or even the EU [because you've mentioned the last one so often].
To some degree US politics and economy, despite of high immigration from catholic and non-western countries, are still based on old protestant doctrines, in which the freedom of a subject has to be guaranteed, but the range of what the individual does with this freedom, good or bad and perhaps even to it's own disadvantage, is left to it's own responsibility.
Many other cultures in this world, and especially non-western countries, would regard this kind of ruler as a sadist/cruel or cowardly ruler! And would prefer a benevolent, philanthropist but strict and mercyless autocrat instead, like it is often practiced in their own countries. This specially gives the feeling that someone loves and cares for you, even if it's combined with some law and order mentality.
Of course both ways of ruling are ideals which are hard to be reached in practice. But the aims are sometimes obvious and can be felt. This cultural misunderstanding is also the reason why I don't give much hope on success of the US in the Middle East, _and btw, I never said that I supported US actions there!_  :Wink: 

Just to explain you why the US and it's allies try put the defence of democracy above the fight against drugs!

----------


## Reinaert

> Here is what I personally think about it, without direct proof now [so I am willing to change my view]:
> 
> 1. The US supports Afghan drug farmers. But not for financial reason, but to keep them on their side and prevent them from changing to the Taliban side. As already stated by LeBrok, the US is also too busy fighting than it could invest it's time in destroying poppy fields.
> 
> 2. The US came to Afghanistan for economic reasons mainly. The war against terrorism was more of an excuse with 9/11 as a lucky incident for the US [and NO, 9/11 was NOT created by the CIA but a REAL terrorist attack!] 
> 
> 3. Initiator was the oil lobby, by which Bush and Cheney acted as a part of it, not as politicians in the interest of the US. If they had expected before that Iraq and Afghanistan war will be a loss for the US-economy, what I think it really is, and in how far they personally benefited from it, only speculation and not known.
> 
> 4. If the wars have made the world a safer place now? In reference to the war in Iraq definately not! With the war in Afghanistan, probably a little, as it has prevented a spread of similiar Islamic regimes to it's neighbouring countries.


Addition to Point 1..

Drugs are a nice way to get money. 
Don't forget that opium is needed for a modern army to produce morphine.

Drugs are necessary to keep up the soldiers moral.
You don't want all the wounded soldiers scream and feed fear to the rest of the platoon, do you?


Addition to point 2..

Nothing is investigated properly in the 911 attack.
Don't jump to conclusions.
It may have been an inside job.
We simply don't know.
Terrorist attack is very questionable!!!

Addition to point 4.

Yes.. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan even had a huge offspring of violence. Bush created the terrorists, by simply stating they were there.
Lots of young poor Muslims took the bait.

Afghanistan was a peaceful nation in the 1970's, where Islam officials had little influence.
The country had a friendly relation with the USSR.
Study was free, human rights were guaranteed.

Then came the American idea to support some fundamentalist groups to oppose the pro Russian government.. And after a while all hell broke loose.

Soviet army rushed in to help the Afghanistan government, but was opposed by a fundamentalist opposition, supported by the USA.

Don't tell me, who are the real devils of this era!! I already know!

----------


## Bogdan

> Bogdan, show us the money, show us the numbers proving that US benefited from Iraq, Afghanistan and even in WW2 financially. Without the numbers how do you know that US benefits or benefited in above stated situations?


hmm well now thats not so easy.. youd have to look at all the corporations that manufacture weapons and look at their profits... but im not sure whether they even reveal these to the public...

As for WWII well in 1939 you had various trade agreements and pacts being signed... then look before WWII the US was ina terrible depression after WWII the US had the best economics of this century.... i wonder what caused this drastic change in jsut 5 years hmmm.... maybe the world war

----------


## LeBrok

Hi Bogdan, actually military production and government military spending is not a secret. Well, at least in all democratic countries.

Here is the USA military spending link. It’s not difficult to find official US government documents online. You just need to look for them.

http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2008/fy2008_summary_tables_whole.pdf

Also it’s not a secret who produces weapons. Here are the links.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_Eagle

Here is the Annual report from Boeing. I’m sure you can find what weapons they produce and how much Boeing is making.

http://www.envisionreports.com/ba/2010/27525ja10e/index.html

You can also find people, and their pictures, who run Boeing, how much they make and how many shares they own. It’s all in the open, and financials of public companies are audited by independent accounting firms and government.

The raise of US after the war was more a matter of half developed world and Japane being devastated and lost a lot of GDP. US GDP grew during the war but mostly by military products. In 1944 and 1945 US spent 5 trillion dollars each year, in today’s money, only for war efforts. This most of it was destroyed during fighting or rusted equipment in fields after the war.

Ok, have to run now, New Year partyyyyyyyyy!!!!
Later

----------


## LeBrok

> Any country who doesnt want to be US’s mistress clearly needs democracy lessons from america, e.g. Iran, Syria, Iraq.


Well add Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan, Yemen to the list. People are so fed up with regimes that they are demanding democracy by themselves, not waiting for US to bring it there.

I've heard last week on a radio program that Iran is investing in and pumping Iraqi's oil.
A huge surprise even for me!!! I googled it and it seams to be a true story, on top of it there are other oil related investments of Iran in Iraq.
http://www.iraq-businessnews.com/2010/10/29/iranian-company-to-build-oil-refinery-in-babil/

How is this possible, Barbarian, if US is controlling Iraq and it's oil, it allows an arch enemy Iran to "steal" it too???!!!
Can you explain it in context of US/CIA controlling the world, especially the Iraqis oil. The war was about oil right?
The only logical explanation is that US and Iran rule the world together. hmmm Imagine that.

----------


## Reinaert

Haha.. Propaganda tricks.
Don't believe everything you read on the internet.

----------

