China’s Oil Futures Contract Is Beginning to Show Its Teeth

7 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Side note for lurkers...

"PIIGS is an acronym for five of the most economically weak eurozone nations during the European debt crisis that started in 2008-2009: Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain. At the time, the acronym's five countries drew attention due to their weakened economic output and financial instability, which heightened doubts about the nations' abilities to pay back bondholders and spurred fears that the nations would default on their debts."

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

"PIIGS is an acronym for five of the most economically weak eurozone nations during the European debt crisis that started in 2008-2009: Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain.

I dropped Ireland they are out of the woods they took the medicine and are now looking a lot healthier I am even getting enquires for my services over there at reasonably good rates. They have more of an anglo saxon mentality and will take the difficult choices.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

7 hours ago, John Foote said:

I don't care, the culture war stuff is silly ignorance.

I have no bias radical right wing is the same only they give the money to their buddies in companies via dodgy contracts or by invading countries so their mates can rebuild it and get a piece of that country’s oil industry. Left wing spend it on stupid projects and social care systems that are beyond belief, in Greece a hairdresser could retire at 50 with a large government backed pension as they were deemed to have worked in a hazardous industry. Both are the same in the end as you point out but what is your solution? The mere fact politicians need to get elected means they will need to offer somebody something to get their backing/vote which leads to bid inflation as they try and offer unrealistic benefits to get the backing/votes which they pay for from your taxes. Democracy is not a perfect form of governance but if people vote for jam today they should take the consequences not complain its wasn’t their fault.

 

7 hours ago, John Foote said:

Fortunately China's money supply is unique, Europe, you've touched on. Folks with assets struggle with places to put money. Hence asset inflation. And silly stock values for the earnings.

Not sure what your point is there. Anywhere there is low interest rates everyone struggles with where to put money not just Europe. I am using stocks and bonds personally I have friends using property not sure what your solution to low interest rates is though,  higher interest rates? I lived in a high interest rate environment in the 90s in the UK I will take low interest rates every day, debt may not pile up but with high interest rates you cannot pay off debt as the interest bill is too high. Trying to balance it in the middle is not easy. With low interest rates intelligent people pay down debt finding politicians that are actually wanting to do that and improve your country's finances instead of borrowing cheap money to buy your vote is tricky and involves voters actually thinking about tomorrow. You get what you vote for I am afraid.

Edited by jaycee
used less harsh language

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, jaycee said:

I dropped Ireland they are out of the woods they took the medicine and are now looking a lot healthier I am even getting enquires for my services over there at reasonably good rates. They have more of an anglo saxon mentality and will take the difficult choices.

That's good news about Ireland.

(I have German and Irish ancestry.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, jaycee said:

Democracy is not a perfect form of governance but if people vote for jam today they should take the consequences not complain its wasn’t their fault.

What's the Churchill line, "Democracy is the worst form of government there is, only there is none better."

We are getting what we vote for, sort of, at least the 45-50% of the folks who bother to. If there is an answer, I would say it's education and teaching people to be evidenced based. As long as folks are willing to vote for folks clearly lying to them, we get what we got, and too often the ballot choices are a Hobson's Choice. That, and we need to reform the money trail. Money, and the current law of the land that corporations can pretty much donate unlimited dollars, has to be undone. If we want a representative government. And I do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 8/7/2018 at 3:00 AM, Qanoil said:

Qanoil, I appreciate this link, but I was wondering if you could maybe walk me through a bit of it.  It contains a lot of data, and it makes me feel lost.  For instance, what does this mean (I honestly don't even know how to read it😞

[SPY OP]

[WH [Hussein][VJ][DM][JB][RE][[[JK]]][SP][KM]]←—-→[HRC/DNC]

...

And why am I following the pen?

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

I am completely exhausted attempting to wade through this thread.

One thematic element is the contention that the USA never got into a "fight" (in the military sense) without having something to personally gain, in some monetary sense, out of it.  That is simply not true.  I would point to the US Marines landing in Lebanon in an effort to calm the fighting between various factions who were hard at work blowing up the entire city of  Beirut.  For their efforts, some suicide bomber drove a truck into the underground garage of the barracks, blew himself up, and killed 212 Marines.  The USA got nothing for their efforts, and never sought any.

The USA was also brought into the warlord wars of Somalia by the impassioned pleas of expatriate Somalis living in the USA.  The Army went in, and took losses  (remember "Black Hawk Down"?).  There is zero in Somalia that benefits anybody, and it is ludicrous to suggest that the Army went into Somalia for parochial purposes. 

I could go into a much longer post on Korea, but that gets muddied with Communism and other ideas, so I will stick with Somalia and Lebanon as good examples of US altruism.  Let's not paint the American Army with black paint, that is not fair. 

Edited by Jan van Eck
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 8/8/2018 at 1:13 PM, jaycee said:

Democracy is not a perfect form of governance but if people vote for jam today they should take the consequences not complain its wasn’t their fault.

You are mistaking democracy with republic. Democracy is where people take decisions on every major issues, not some elected person. It is impossible to elect one person who is right in all issues and there are hundreds if not thousands of issues in day to day life that matters.

On 8/8/2018 at 11:47 PM, John Foote said:

What's the Churchill line, "Democracy is the worst form of government there is, only there is none better."

If you are mistaking republic with democracy, do understand that you are seriously mistaken. There is a better form of true democracy - Weekly congregation system. This is something that mosque, church etc used and manage to hold together their empire for thousands of years. I am not saying that some book must be the guiding force but the system of gathering every week and discussing issues, laws etc are actually a much better way of governance.

There will be essentially 2 divisions in power:

Short term quick decision making EXECUTIVES to take decision of day to day activities, warfare etc

Long term decision makers CLERGY to take care of legislature, judiciary and education system along with take suggestions from people at ground level. 

 

The system of weekly congregation works much much better (without holy books) in managing society, ensuring direct accountability and managing anger and suspicion. There can be no better system for governance at all.

5 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

I am completely exhausted attempting to wade through this thread.

One thematic element is the contention that the USA never got into a "fight" (in the military sense) without having something to personally gain, in some monetary sense, out of it.  That is simply not true.  I would point to the US Marines landing in Lebanon in an effort to calm the fighting between various factions who were hard at work blowing up the entire city of  Beirut.  For their efforts, some suicide bomber drove a truck into the underground garage of the barracks, blew himself up, and killed 212 Marines.  The USA got nothing for their efforts, and never sought any.

The USA was also brought into the warlord wars of Somalia by the impassioned pleas of expatriate Somalis living in the USA.  The Army went in, and took losses  (remember "Black Hawk Down"?).  There is zero in Somalia that benefits anybody, and it is ludicrous to suggest that the Army went into Somalia for parochial purposes. 

I could go into a much longer post on Korea, but that gets muddied with Communism and other ideas, so I will stick with Somalia and Lebanon as good examples of US altruism.  Let's not paint the American Army with black paint, that is not fair. 

USA is running on petrodollars. If USA wants its petrodollar system to work, it has to ensure that all countries are using dollars. This in turn requires that any problems in the middle east or anywhere else which can result in wars and potentially disrupt oil trade must be tackled with. It also requires that USA does not allow any other country to get big and strong militarily.

All of USA's works have been along these lines only:

Lebanon threatened stability of middle east and Israel which if blown out, can result in disruption of oil trade and worse - clash of civilisation. USA relies on Muslims to get petrodollars but is not really friendly towards them. It is an opportunistic alliance and nothing more. So, if Middle east asks USA to supply big arms in return for oil to wipe out Christians and jews of lebanon and Israel, then USA will be in a serious dilemma. So, USA enters the field on its own like a good Samaritan.

Somalia was in a serious crisis causing extreme pirate menace as well as had a potential of a major catastrophe like mass death by riots and starvation which in turn can destabilise nearby regions and again disrupt the fragile situation

Korea war was also a war by USA to ensure its military dominance is unchallenged and to ensure that no rival is able to get strong militarily.

 

The only situation where US has helped anyone without returns is Israel in 1967/1973. There is no other example that can be given to show USA altruism.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bhimsen Pachawry said:

 

Lebanon threatened stability of middle east and Israel which if blown out, can result in disruption of oil trade and worse - clash of civilisation. USA relies on Muslims to get petrodollars but is not really friendly towards them. It is an opportunistic alliance and nothing more. So, if Middle east asks USA to supply big arms in return for oil to wipe out Christians and jews of lebanon and Israel, then USA will be in a serious dilemma. So, USA enters the field on its own like a good Samaritan.

Somalia was in a serious crisis causing extreme pirate menace as well as had a potential of a major catastrophe like mass death by riots and starvation which in turn can destabilise nearby regions and again disrupt the fragile situation

Korea war was also a war by USA to ensure its military dominance is unchallenged and to ensure that no rival is able to get strong militarily.

 

The only situation where US has helped anyone without returns is Israel in 1967/1973. There is no other example that can be given to show USA altruism.

This is the most astonishing thing I have read in my entire life.  

I am stunned that anyone would take US missions in such a dark thought.   SImply amazing.

This demonstrates to me that there is a gigantic chasm of understanding, as to who Americans are, and America's sense of altruism.  My friend, you have a very long way to go in developing an understanding of Americans.  You see evil and self-aggrandizement in every corner.  Americans are not like that.  I have lived amongst Americans for several decades and I think I can say that I understand Americans well.  They are not the people you describe.  Americans are some of the finest, most generous people you could ever possibly hope to meet. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

7 hours ago, Epic said:

Qanoil, I appreciate this link, but I was wondering if you could maybe walk me through a bit of it.  It contains a lot of data, and it makes me feel lost.  For instance, what does this mean (I honestly don't even know how to read it😞

[SPY OP]

[WH [Hussein][VJ][DM][JB][RE][[[JK]]][SP][KM]]←—-→[HRC/DNC]

...

And why am I following the pen?

Thanks

Neon Revolt does a pretty good job decoding.  Here's an infographic

FlowchartQ.png

And more details on the specifics are here.

firefox_2018-08-09_22-46-27.png.8a9a1b430c620ddc002a6f634da90eaa.png

YASSSSSS!!! I got so excited when I saw this.

So excited, in fact, that I made an infographic decoding it all.

But before I show you – just let me explain my logic.

Q was basically creating a flowchart here, showing the origins of the Russian Collusion story, and tracking them all throughout the deep state. He even used arrows to show the flow of information and causation. And he did it in reverse order.

With that in mind, I basically filled in all the initials and abbreviations, flipped it from top to bottom, and created an “expanded” flowchart, readable in plain text.

(Now, one note: I did miss one PS (who may be Peter Strzok – but the initials being listed under the DOJ threw me. We all know that Strzok is FBI. So I’m thinking PS is someone else, but I couldn’t find anyone. Still, one out of all these ain’t bad. And I left it as PS in the decode. If I find the right name at a later date, I’ll fill it in).

Edited by Qanoil
Formatting, added quote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

54 minutes ago, Bhimsen Pachawry said:

You are mistaking democracy with republic. Democracy is where people take decisions on every major issues, not some elected person. It is impossible to elect one person who is right in all issues and there are hundreds if not thousands of issues in day to day life that matters.

No you don't know the definition of democracy I am afraid. 

http://www.yourdictionary.com/democracy 'The definition of a democracy is a form of government in which the people rule, either directly or through elected representatives.'

Edited by jaycee
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

This is the most astonishing thing I have read in my entire life.  

I am stunned that anyone would take US missions in such a dark thought.   SImply amazing.

This demonstrates to me that there is a gigantic chasm of understanding, as to who Americans are, and America's sense of altruism.  My friend, you have a very long way to go in developing an understanding of Americans.  You see evil and self-aggrandizement in every corner.  Americans are not like that.  I have lived amongst Americans for several decades and I think I can say that I understand Americans well.  They are not the people you describe.  Americans are some of the finest, most generous people you could ever possibly hope to meet. 

What did you expect, after reading this:

There is a better form of true democracy - Weekly congregation system. This is something that mosque, church etc used and manage to hold together their empire for thousands of years. I am not saying that some book must be the guiding force but the system of gathering every week and discussing issues, laws etc are actually a much better way of governance.

There will be essentially 2 divisions in power:

Short term quick decision making EXECUTIVES to take decision of day to day activities, warfare etc

Long term decision makers CLERGY to take care of legislature, judiciary and education system along with take suggestions from people at ground level. 

The system of weekly congregation works much much better (without holy books) in managing society, ensuring direct accountability and managing anger and suspicion. There can be no better system for governance at all.

😲

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

46 minutes ago, jaycee said:

No you don't know the definition of democracy I am afraid. 

http://www.yourdictionary.com/democracy 'The definition of a democracy is a form of government in which the people rule, either directly or through elected representatives.'

The point here is that the elected ones must be representatives who actually represent the will of the people. That means every major decision they take must be in line with will of the people. Getting elected once and then doing whatever they want for 4 years is not called representing. Representation must be continual process, not once in 4 years and only on select issues while letting all other issues go down the drain

8 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

What did you expect, after reading this:

There is a better form of true democracy - Weekly congregation system. This is something that mosque, church etc used and manage to hold together their empire for thousands of years. I am not saying that some book must be the guiding force but the system of gathering every week and discussing issues, laws etc are actually a much better way of governance.

There will be essentially 2 divisions in power:

Short term quick decision making EXECUTIVES to take decision of day to day activities, warfare etc

Long term decision makers CLERGY to take care of legislature, judiciary and education system along with take suggestions from people at ground level. 

The system of weekly congregation works much much better (without holy books) in managing society, ensuring direct accountability and managing anger and suspicion. There can be no better system for governance at all.

😲

What exactly is the problem in what I wrote? Can you point out any problem?

Edited by Bhimsen Pachawry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Bhimsen Pachawry said:

The point here is that the elected ones must be representatives who actually represent the will of the people. That means every major decision they take must be in line with will of the people. Getting elected once and then doing whatever they want for 4 years is not called representing. Representation must be continual process, not once in 4 years and only on select issues while letting all other issues go down the drain

What exactly is the problem in what I wrote? Can you point out any problem?

Do you have an understanding of how the U.S. government works down to the community level?  I ask because it would seem that you think we only have a President, Congressmen/women (made up of the Senate and the House of Representatives), Governors and Mayors.  Based on what makes it into the normal media feed that is in the news, nationally and internationally, one could be forgiven for not realizing there is so much more to our form(s) of government.  Forgive me if this assumption is wrong, I don't know you and I don't know what living experience you have in and of the U.S.  For a better understanding of how our government works, right down to the neighborhood level, there are tons of sites on the internet you can search and find.

Here is but one of many.  There is a lot to that website, but it is worth going through all of it to see to what level American citizen participation is not only available, but encouraged.  We don't get a lot of things right and there is a lot of disparity, but for the most part the citizenry (that chooses to participate) are happy enough with it and trying to improve it continuously.

My point is that we do have very active community and individual participation far, far beyond what is seen on TV or typical scanning of the internet.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Bhimsen Pachawry said:

The point here is that the elected ones must be representatives who actually represent the will of the people. That means every major decision they take must be in line with will of the people. Getting elected once and then doing whatever they want for 4 years is not called representing. Representation must be continual process, not once in 4 years and only on select issues while letting all other issues go down the drain

I will stick to the internationally recognized version of the definition democracy you stick to yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't believe I'm linking to a WaPo article, but this is back in 2015, when WaPo was still relatively sane:

Is the United States of America a republic or a democracy?

I often hear people argue that the United States is a republic, not a democracy. But that’s a false dichotomy. A common definition of “republic” is, to quote the American Heritage Dictionary, “A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them” — we are that. A common definition of “democracy” is, “Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives” — we are that, too.

The United States is not a direct democracy, in the sense of a country in which laws (and other government decisions) are made predominantly by majority vote. Some lawmaking is done this way, on the state and local levels, but it’s only a tiny fraction of all lawmaking. But we are a representative democracy, which is a form of democracy. ...

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found a pretty good article that describes one such experience with local participation in local government in the U.S.:

Attending a city council meeting?

It hits on many of the questions one might have about citizen participation, including but not limited to the goal of transparency, the laws that ensure a citizen can/must be heard, how that one meeting might lead one to other meetings going on in your community right down to departmental levels, and so much more.  It's a good enough read for this discussion, I think.  If anyone wants to go into this subject in greater detail, I suggest you start another thread or ask @Tom Kirkman or @CMOP for assistance.  I'm sure they would be happy to provide guidance, being the civic minded citizens that they are.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

What did you expect, after reading this:

There is a better form of true democracy - Weekly congregation system. This is something that mosque, church etc used and manage to hold together their empire for thousands of years. I am not saying that some book must be the guiding force but the system of gathering every week and discussing issues, laws etc are actually a much better way of governance.

There will be essentially 2 divisions in power:

Short term quick decision making EXECUTIVES to take decision of day to day activities, warfare etc

Long term decision makers CLERGY to take care of legislature, judiciary and education system along with take suggestions from people at ground level. 

The system of weekly congregation works much much better (without holy books) in managing society, ensuring direct accountability and managing anger and suspicion. There can be no better system for governance at all.

😲

Dan is right.  OP described Iran.   An international bastion of freedom, restraint and inclusion of that which is different, right?  No thanks, that is not a better way.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

There is small problem because USA is no longer a classic  democracy nowadays. Its now oligarchy model de facto effectively ruled by  small and rich part of  population that represents a huge % of total population wealth. Look for example on GINI index or something similar.

Its becoming in last 30 years more similar system to russian authoritarism that most US citizens would like to admit. Big difference are very strong ownership rights and working institutions like judiciary but both countries are members of oligarchy model not classic democracy. The difference is who is main force in country- in USA big companies and military industry with a help from jewish minority in Russia secret services and oligarchy and also military complex.

The difference between Russia and Ukraine is Ukraine is ruled by oligarchs in Russia oligarchs are balanced under control of strong goverment.

 

I would also like to point out world in last 30 years would be better place to live if USA would not be so agressive in foreign policy and defending its hegemony. Because US foreign policy is very agressive and just in Iraq after 2003 died more than 1.500.000 people and about 500.000 because of sanctions on Iraq afer first Gulf War. Dont forget also about Yugoslavia Libya Kosovo Iraq Syria Afghanistan and NATo expanding to the east. It high time for  multipolar world and I bet on it. 

Edited by Tomasz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tomasz said:

There is small problem because USA is no longer a  democracy nowadays. Its now oligarchy model ruled by very small part of population that represents a huge amount of total population wealth. Look for example on GINI index.

Its more similar system to russian authoritarism that most US citizens would like to admit. Big difference are very strong ownership rights and working institutions but both countries are members of oligarchy model not classic democracy.

Except that we are a Representative Republic, not a democracy.  Our founders did not trust democracy, which they considered rule by the mob.  We elect a new president every 4 years, 8 if somebody is able to double down in the Oval Office.   Forgot about our electoral college and how that plays into things?  Don’t, just ask Hillary.  

It’s simpler than that in Russia though, now isn’t it.  Simpler in a might makes right kinda way.

Now there is an argument to be made for your hypothesis in terms of what it takes to get elected here.  That is, where the real money and influence are and how that plays into your ability to become a candidate.  Even so, Trump spent way less than Hillary.

Also, don’t forget, we have 3 separate but equal branches of Goverment here, unlike Russia.  Were it not so there is no telling how much more of his agenda President Trump could have accomplished by now without Congress and the Courts blocking him at every turn.  Not the case in Russia, nobody stopping Mr. Putin from doing what he wants.

Ura Komrade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 8/6/2018 at 8:56 PM, jaycee said:

We send our troops to make the enemy die.  True enough, our reasons have not always been altruistic.  But I'm damn glad we sent them to Europe when we did, late or not, aren't you?  Otherwise there would be a whole lot more German being spoken, maybe even here in the U.S.  Hopefully, we will stand firm and we wont all be forced to speak Farsi.

Do  you know statistics of  Second  World War? Look at them and you will find out that more than  80 % of german soldiers and they allies died on Eastern Front. Im sorry but Soviet Union not Western Allies won this war with Third Reich in Europe from military point of view. 

Edited by Tomasz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Tomasz said:

Do  you know statistics of  Second  World War? Look at them and you will find out that more than  80 % of german soldiers and they allies died on Eastern Front. Im sorry but Soviet Union not Western Allies won this war wit Third Reich in Europe from military point of view. 

Yes that non-aggression pact Russia had with Germany didnt mean much in the end did it.   I won’t argue that Russia didn’t beat the Germans on the Eastern front.  Everybody should defend their own yard though, shouldn’t they.

But now, we’re facing the prospect of Russia’s neighbors  forcibly all having to speak Russian, aren’t we?  Interesting turn of events.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

I found a pretty good article that describes one such experience with local participation in local government in the U.S.:

Attending a city council meeting?

It hits on many of the questions one might have about citizen participation, including but not limited to the goal of transparency, the laws that ensure a citizen can/must be heard, how that one meeting might lead one to other meetings going on in your community right down to departmental levels, and so much more.  It's a good enough read for this discussion, I think.  If anyone wants to go into this subject in greater detail, I suggest you start another thread or ask @Tom Kirkman or @CMOP for assistance.  I'm sure they would be happy to provide guidance, being the civic minded citizens that they are.  :)

This thread is branching out in all sorts of different directions, and I have no issue with that.

Anyone can feel free to start a Civics thread in the General Discussion or Geopolitics subforums.  About U.S. or Russia or Iran or wherever.  Personally, I find the anti-Russia threads amusing.

 

np7ql5.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 8/6/2018 at 11:49 AM, TXPower said:

 

We send our troops to make the enemy die.  True enough, our reasons have not always been altruistic.  But I'm damn glad we sent them to Europe when we did, late or not, aren't you?  Otherwise there would be a whole lot more German being spoken, maybe even here in the U.S.  Hopefully, we will stand firm and we wont all be forced to speak Farsi.

TXPower

 

Actually, that is not true.  Historically, the US Army has been perfectly happy to accept a peaceful surrender.  The "enemy die" idea was Russian;  their motto was, "Kill the German."  When the Red Army finally burst into Berlin, the soldiers proceeded to rape and kill the civilians trapped in the city.  The average German woman, pretty much any age, suffered 35 rapes, typically over three days.  Some were then killed off by the last group of raping soldiers.  Now, not to put too fine a a point on it, but let's remember that those Red Army soldiers had not washed in over a month, so they were not exactly bathed in the sexual organs area when the raping got started.  Altogether, a most unpleasant experience for the German civilian women.  

I specifically point out that American troops did not do that. Civilians were not touched.

Large contingents of German Wehrmacht troops arranged surrenders to the American Army, including the entire occupation army in Holland.  That went without firing a shot.  The Americans (and Canadians) were not in Europe to "kill the German." 

The tradition of accepting surrenders continues.  The American Marine commanders accepted over 65,000 peaceful surrenders of Saddam's troops in the opening day of the Kuwait Ouster war.   The US Marines rolled up to the front lines, the Iraqis came out of the trenches waving white scarves as flags of surrender, and they were quietly taken prisoner without firing a shot.  There were these tank fights with the Republican Guards,  who got hammered by the Americans, but those guys refused to surrender.  The regular army gave up in droves. 

The Americans do not go anywhere with the specific intent to kill the locals.  The Americans are not the Huns sweeping in off the Steppes. The Americans are perfectly happy to take your surrender. 

Edited by Jan van Eck
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

Actually, that is not true.  Historically, the US Army has been perfectly happy to accept a peaceful surrender.  The "enemy die" idea was Russian;  their motto was, "Kill the German."  When the Red Army finally burst into Berlin, the soldiers proceeded to rape and kill the civilians trapped in the city.  The average German woman, pretty much any age, suffered 35 rapes, typically over three days.  Some were then killed off by the last group of raping soldiers.  Now, not to put too fine a a point on it, but let's remember that those Red Army soldiers had not washed in over a month, so they were not exactly bathed in the sexual organs area when the raping got started.  Altogether, a most unpleasant experience for the German civilian women.  

I specifically point out that American troops did not do that. Civilians were not touched.

Large contingents of German Wehrmacht troops arranged surrenders to the American Army, including the entire occupation army in Holland.  That went without firing a shot.  The Americans (and Canadians) were not in Europe to "kill the German." 

The tradition of accepting surrenders continues.  The American Marine commanders accepted over 65,000 peaceful surrenders of Saddam's troops in the opening day of the Kuwait Ouster war.   The US Marines rolled up to the front lines, the Iraqis came out of the trenches waving white scarves as flags of surrender, and they were quietly taken prisoner without firing a shot.  There were these tank fights with the Republican Guards,  who got hammered by the Americans, but those guys refused to surrender.  The regular army gave up in droves. 

The Americans do not go anywhere with the specific intent to kill the locals.  The Americans are not the Huns sweeping in off the Steppes. The Americans are perfectly happy to take your surrender. 

Jan, everything you wrote is true.  I would add though, for those that wouldn’t surrender, our military sentiment for them, “No dumb bastard ever won a war by going out and dying for his country. He won it by making some other dumb bastard die for his country.” General Patton 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites