POLL: The repercussions of a US attack on Iraq
- Thread starter candletrader
- Start date
Quote from max401
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from wild:
do American travelers need an entry visa for France ... or don´t they ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pay attention; asked and answered.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
alright ... next question:
is war a racket?
regards
wild
if asked i would support this "anti-American" view ... fulheartedly:
WAR IS A RACKET
Smedley Darlington Butler
Major General - United States Marine Corps [Retired]
...
WAR is a racket. It always has been.
It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.
A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.
In the World War a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.
How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?
Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few â the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.
And what is this bill?
This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations.
For a great many years, as a soldier, I had a suspicion that war was a racket; not until I retired to civil life did I fully realize it. Now that I see the international war clouds gathering, as they are today, I must face it and speak out.
Again they are choosing sides. France and Russia met and agreed to stand side by side. Italy and Austria hurried to make a similar agreement. Poland and Germany cast sheep's eyes at each other, forgetting for the nonce [one unique occasion], their dispute over the Polish Corridor.
The assassination of King Alexander of Jugoslavia [Yugoslavia] complicated matters. Jugoslavia and Hungary, long bitter enemies, were almost at each other's throats. Italy was ready to jump in. But France was waiting. So was Czechoslovakia. All of them are looking ahead to war. Not the people â not those who fight and pay and die â only those who foment wars and remain safely at home to profit.
There are 40,000,000 men under arms in the world today, and our statesmen and diplomats have the temerity to say that war is not in the making.
Hell's bells! Are these 40,000,000 men being trained to be dancers?
Not in Italy, to be sure. Premier Mussolini knows what they are being trained for. He, at least, is frank enough to speak out. Only the other day, Il Duce in "International Conciliation," the publication of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said:
"And above all, Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace... War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the people who have the courage to meet it."
Undoubtedly Mussolini means exactly what he says. His well-trained army, his great fleet of planes, and even his navy are ready for war â anxious for it, apparently. His recent stand at the side of Hungary in the latter's dispute with Jugoslavia showed that. And the hurried mobilization of his troops on the Austrian border after the assassination of Dollfuss showed it too. There are others in Europe too whose sabre rattling presages war, sooner or later.
Herr Hitler, with his rearming Germany and his constant demands for more and more arms, is an equal if not greater menace to peace. France only recently increased the term of military service for its youth from a year to eighteen months.
Yes, all over, nations are camping in their arms. The mad dogs of Europe are on the loose. In the Orient the maneuvering is more adroit. Back in 1904, when Russia and Japan fought, we kicked out our old friends the Russians and backed Japan. Then our very generous international bankers were financing Japan. Now the trend is to poison us against the Japanese. What does the "open door" policy to China mean to us? Our trade with China is about $90,000,000 a year. Or the Philippine Islands? We have spent about $600,000,000 in the Philippines in thirty-five years and we (our bankers and industrialists and speculators) have private investments there of less than $200,000,000.
Then, to save that China trade of about $90,000,000, or to protect these private investments of less than $200,000,000 in the Philippines, we would be all stirred up to hate Japan and go to war â a war that might well cost us tens of billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of lives of Americans, and many more hundreds of thousands of physically maimed and mentally unbalanced men.
Of course, for this loss, there would be a compensating profit â fortunes would be made. Millions and billions of dollars would be piled up. By a few. Munitions makers. Bankers. Ship builders. Manufacturers. Meat packers. Speculators. They would fare well.
Yes, they are getting ready for another war. Why shouldn't they? It pays high dividends.
But what does it profit the men who are killed? What does it profit their mothers and sisters, their wives and their sweethearts? What does it profit their children?
What does it profit anyone except the very few to whom war means huge profits?
Yes, and what does it profit the nation?
Take our own case. Until 1898 we didn't own a bit of territory outside the mainland of North America. At that time our national debt was a little more than $1,000,000,000. Then we became "internationally minded." We forgot, or shunted aside, the advice of the Father of our country. We forgot George Washington's warning about "entangling alliances." We went to war. We acquired outside territory. At the end of the World War period, as a direct result of our fiddling in international affairs, our national debt had jumped to over $25,000,000,000. Our total favorable trade balance during the twenty-five-year period was about $24,000,000,000. Therefore, on a purely bookkeeping basis, we ran a little behind year for year, and that foreign trade might well have been ours without the wars.
It would have been far cheaper (not to say safer) for the average American who pays the bills to stay out of foreign entanglements. For a very few this racket, like bootlegging and other underworld rackets, brings fancy profits, but the cost of operations is always transferred to the people â who do not profit.
...
CHAPTER TWO
WHO MAKES THE PROFITS?
CHAPTER THREE
WHO PAYS THE BILLS?
CHAPTER FOUR
HOW TO SMASH THIS RACKET!
CHAPTER FIVE
TO HELL WITH WAR!
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from wild:
do American travelers need an entry visa for France ... or don´t they ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pay attention; asked and answered.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
alright ... next question:
is war a racket?
regards
wild
if asked i would support this "anti-American" view ... fulheartedly:
WAR IS A RACKET
Smedley Darlington Butler
Major General - United States Marine Corps [Retired]
...
WAR is a racket. It always has been.
It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.
A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.
In the World War a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.
How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?
Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few â the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.
And what is this bill?
This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations.
For a great many years, as a soldier, I had a suspicion that war was a racket; not until I retired to civil life did I fully realize it. Now that I see the international war clouds gathering, as they are today, I must face it and speak out.
Again they are choosing sides. France and Russia met and agreed to stand side by side. Italy and Austria hurried to make a similar agreement. Poland and Germany cast sheep's eyes at each other, forgetting for the nonce [one unique occasion], their dispute over the Polish Corridor.
The assassination of King Alexander of Jugoslavia [Yugoslavia] complicated matters. Jugoslavia and Hungary, long bitter enemies, were almost at each other's throats. Italy was ready to jump in. But France was waiting. So was Czechoslovakia. All of them are looking ahead to war. Not the people â not those who fight and pay and die â only those who foment wars and remain safely at home to profit.
There are 40,000,000 men under arms in the world today, and our statesmen and diplomats have the temerity to say that war is not in the making.
Hell's bells! Are these 40,000,000 men being trained to be dancers?
Not in Italy, to be sure. Premier Mussolini knows what they are being trained for. He, at least, is frank enough to speak out. Only the other day, Il Duce in "International Conciliation," the publication of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said:
"And above all, Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace... War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the people who have the courage to meet it."
Undoubtedly Mussolini means exactly what he says. His well-trained army, his great fleet of planes, and even his navy are ready for war â anxious for it, apparently. His recent stand at the side of Hungary in the latter's dispute with Jugoslavia showed that. And the hurried mobilization of his troops on the Austrian border after the assassination of Dollfuss showed it too. There are others in Europe too whose sabre rattling presages war, sooner or later.
Herr Hitler, with his rearming Germany and his constant demands for more and more arms, is an equal if not greater menace to peace. France only recently increased the term of military service for its youth from a year to eighteen months.
Yes, all over, nations are camping in their arms. The mad dogs of Europe are on the loose. In the Orient the maneuvering is more adroit. Back in 1904, when Russia and Japan fought, we kicked out our old friends the Russians and backed Japan. Then our very generous international bankers were financing Japan. Now the trend is to poison us against the Japanese. What does the "open door" policy to China mean to us? Our trade with China is about $90,000,000 a year. Or the Philippine Islands? We have spent about $600,000,000 in the Philippines in thirty-five years and we (our bankers and industrialists and speculators) have private investments there of less than $200,000,000.
Then, to save that China trade of about $90,000,000, or to protect these private investments of less than $200,000,000 in the Philippines, we would be all stirred up to hate Japan and go to war â a war that might well cost us tens of billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of lives of Americans, and many more hundreds of thousands of physically maimed and mentally unbalanced men.
Of course, for this loss, there would be a compensating profit â fortunes would be made. Millions and billions of dollars would be piled up. By a few. Munitions makers. Bankers. Ship builders. Manufacturers. Meat packers. Speculators. They would fare well.
Yes, they are getting ready for another war. Why shouldn't they? It pays high dividends.
But what does it profit the men who are killed? What does it profit their mothers and sisters, their wives and their sweethearts? What does it profit their children?
What does it profit anyone except the very few to whom war means huge profits?
Yes, and what does it profit the nation?
Take our own case. Until 1898 we didn't own a bit of territory outside the mainland of North America. At that time our national debt was a little more than $1,000,000,000. Then we became "internationally minded." We forgot, or shunted aside, the advice of the Father of our country. We forgot George Washington's warning about "entangling alliances." We went to war. We acquired outside territory. At the end of the World War period, as a direct result of our fiddling in international affairs, our national debt had jumped to over $25,000,000,000. Our total favorable trade balance during the twenty-five-year period was about $24,000,000,000. Therefore, on a purely bookkeeping basis, we ran a little behind year for year, and that foreign trade might well have been ours without the wars.
It would have been far cheaper (not to say safer) for the average American who pays the bills to stay out of foreign entanglements. For a very few this racket, like bootlegging and other underworld rackets, brings fancy profits, but the cost of operations is always transferred to the people â who do not profit.
...
CHAPTER TWO
WHO MAKES THE PROFITS?
CHAPTER THREE
WHO PAYS THE BILLS?
CHAPTER FOUR
HOW TO SMASH THIS RACKET!
CHAPTER FIVE
TO HELL WITH WAR!
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm
Max, you're right - the US has FORGOTTEN to grab the oil in so many instances. Funny how we note that, yet Wild, Candle and Co. don't seem to recall it at all. Could it be we're not after the oil after all? That in fact our interest, besides safeguarding ourselves from oblivion, lies in making sure the flow of oil is perpetuated - FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE WORLD'S ECONOMY AND STABILITY?
Well, see... now he's switched to "War is a racket" theme. (It must have been Boeing that crashed those planes; four extra sales for the year.) And even though they reap the yearly benefits of supplying the largest defense budget in the world, which equals the next 15 countries combined, I guess the US defense contractors don't want to take any chances.Quote from hapaboy:
Max, you're right - the US has FORGOTTEN to grab the oil in so many instances. Funny how we note that, yet Wild, Candle and Co. don't seem to recall it at all. Could it be we're not after the oil after all? That in fact our interest, besides safeguarding ourselves from oblivion, lies in making sure the flow of oil is perpetuated - FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE WORLD'S ECONOMY AND STABILITY?
Gen. Butler won two Medals of Honor, but I imagine that the horrors of the action he witnessed destroyed his rational thought process. BTW, he was born in 1881, so his views are a little dated. His theory seems to be that defense contractors create war with the help of their governments, a ridiculous premise.
First, did the native Americans in this country pay a profit to their arms suppliers when they warred on each other? The bow maker would have more furs than the other tribe members? Of course not, it was a totally commune based society that only acquired what they could actually consume. Point: War is an inherent an inescapable quality of man. Here are some stupid ones; Catholic/Protestant conflict in Northern Ireland, India/Pakistan.
Second, in a capitalistic economy a profit is required to sustain production. On a competitive bid/contract basis of procurement, the incentive is to do it cheaply as possible and still produce a high quality product. I suppose if the defense contractors of his era produced on a non-profit basis, the General would be attacking the property owners who charged the rent or sold the land to build the plants.
wild's got this idea that wars are only started by leaders...
and i assume for personal gain.
in wild's world, it is completely inconceivable that an elected official may be doing the job because he actually, really wants to make a positive contribution to the society he lives in....
it's inconceivable that a war effort might enjoy overwhelming popular support (the third reich comes to mind, as an example among many)...
so when you're viewing the world through such distorting lenses, of course it's easy to say that ALL wars, bar none, are to be avoided at all costs, that the sole purpose of all of them is some big racket...
it's a sad day when a man stops questioning the paradigms that govern his world views... it's even sadder when he never even began....
and i assume for personal gain.
in wild's world, it is completely inconceivable that an elected official may be doing the job because he actually, really wants to make a positive contribution to the society he lives in....
it's inconceivable that a war effort might enjoy overwhelming popular support (the third reich comes to mind, as an example among many)...
so when you're viewing the world through such distorting lenses, of course it's easy to say that ALL wars, bar none, are to be avoided at all costs, that the sole purpose of all of them is some big racket...
it's a sad day when a man stops questioning the paradigms that govern his world views... it's even sadder when he never even began....
I try not to read Wild's posts as he's on my Ignore list, but since Max quoted him I was able to see the rubbish he's copying and pasting now. At least there was more than just a link; he must be getting nervous with the talk of possibly editing wanton link pasting.
Yes Wild, war is hell. We all know it. And since war is fought with weapons that are built by companies that make money from the government buying their weapons, that company and its owners/shareholders are going to make money. So are the associated industries that profit from the military. This is nothing new, by the way. Quite a few Germans made their fortunes riding Hitler's back.
So, my poor delusional kamerad, until you find a non-profit weapons manufacturer, this will always be the case.
So let me guess, since war is hell and people are making money when wars are fought, the answer is simply not to go to war, correct? How profound and ORIGINAL of you Wild! You are truly a deep-thinker, a Renaissance man if there ever was one. Please give Bin Laden, Saddam, and the rest of the psychos out there your sage advice. I'm sure they will weep with shame once the purity of your words enlightens their souls, and they will immediately renounce violence forever.
At any moment I expect an emotional post from Fairplay, who will be crying in exultation at yet another wonderful gemstone of brilliance you have bestowed on him.
Yes Wild, war is hell. We all know it. And since war is fought with weapons that are built by companies that make money from the government buying their weapons, that company and its owners/shareholders are going to make money. So are the associated industries that profit from the military. This is nothing new, by the way. Quite a few Germans made their fortunes riding Hitler's back.
So, my poor delusional kamerad, until you find a non-profit weapons manufacturer, this will always be the case.
So let me guess, since war is hell and people are making money when wars are fought, the answer is simply not to go to war, correct? How profound and ORIGINAL of you Wild! You are truly a deep-thinker, a Renaissance man if there ever was one. Please give Bin Laden, Saddam, and the rest of the psychos out there your sage advice. I'm sure they will weep with shame once the purity of your words enlightens their souls, and they will immediately renounce violence forever.
At any moment I expect an emotional post from Fairplay, who will be crying in exultation at yet another wonderful gemstone of brilliance you have bestowed on him.
Smedley Butler on Interventionism
There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.
...
I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
...
I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
...
During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.
regards
wild
There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.
...
I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
...
I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
...
During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.
regards
wild
As Wild and Companyâs opinions are evidently unknown or inexpressible to themselves, the constant cut & paste has simply turned into a propaganda tool for ill thought out emotional knee-jerk reaction.
Presumably the simple intention to swamp the place with text doesn't address any concern (if indeed there is any) of Wild's to be accurate. His incorrect assertions on the antecedence of the English Language are presumably born from a brisk c&p, the contents of which apparently he gives only a cursory view.
Relying on the essays of others to make your point for you, especially on such important matters as War, has the same downfall as expressing your own point of view - that is - it may be opposed.
However, the advantage of expressing your own point of view is that at least you have the dignity to be master of your own thoughts and can avoid acting upon emotion entirely.
Was that something which Germany once suffered greatly for not insisting upon?
Presumably the simple intention to swamp the place with text doesn't address any concern (if indeed there is any) of Wild's to be accurate. His incorrect assertions on the antecedence of the English Language are presumably born from a brisk c&p, the contents of which apparently he gives only a cursory view.
Relying on the essays of others to make your point for you, especially on such important matters as War, has the same downfall as expressing your own point of view - that is - it may be opposed.
However, the advantage of expressing your own point of view is that at least you have the dignity to be master of your own thoughts and can avoid acting upon emotion entirely.
Was that something which Germany once suffered greatly for not insisting upon?
