As the Iraq and Afghanistan occupations continue one wonders how we ended up in this predicament : having to support two nations of barbaric murderers and pretend to set up a democracy based on freedom and equality in a land and amongst peoples that have a hatred yet for us in their hearts.
We can look back to the words of Sir Francis Bacon, who, over 350 years ago wrote these words, “As for the wars which were anciently made, on the behalf of a kind of party, or tacit conformity of estate, I do not see how they may be well justified: as when the Romans made a war, for the liberty of Grecia; or when the Lacedaemonians and Athenians, made wars to set up or pull down democracies and oligarchies; or when wars were made by foreigners, under the pretence of justice or protection, to deliver the subjects of others, from tyranny and oppression; and the like.”
I do not see why once the threats represented by the Taliban and the make-believe threat of Hussein that this nation must persist in supporting the army, air force, navy, marines and some elements of the Coast Guard in occupations that yield nothing for the general good of America and even less for the occupied countries.
How long must we support this continued adventure? How long must we bear the brunt of the foolishness and lies of foreign nations? What has happened to the American business ethic? Where lies the profit?

I do not see why once the threats represented by the Taliban and the make-believe threat of Hussein that this nation must persist in supporting the army, air force, navy, marines and some elements of the Coast Guard in occupations that yield nothing for the general good of America and even less for the occupied countries.

Don't you know?

Keeping the country in these "wars" is how the wealth of the People is tranfered into the hands of the military/Industrial complex.

Follow the MONEY.

War, as Smedley Butler so compellingly pointed out, is about nothing except making the various "Defense" companies --who supply all manner of war goods-- fabulously wealthy.




WHO MAKES THE WAR PROFITS? -------General Smedley Butler


The normal profits of a business concern in the United States are six, eight, ten, and sometimes twelve percent. But war-time profits – ah! that is another matter – twenty, sixty, one hundred, three hundred, and even eighteen hundred per cent – the sky is the limit. All that traffic will bear. Uncle Sam has the money. Let's get it.

Of course, it isn't put that crudely in war time. It is dressed into speeches about patriotism, love of country, and "we must all put our shoulders to the wheel," but the profits jump and leap and skyrocket – and are safely pocketed. Let's just take a few examples:

Take our friends the du Ponts, the powder people – didn't one of them testify before a Senate committee recently that their powder won the war? Or saved the world for democracy? Or something? How did they do in the war? They were a patriotic corporation. Well, the average earnings of the du Ponts for the period 1910 to 1914 were $6,000,000 a year. It wasn't much, but the du Ponts managed to get along on it. Now let's look at their average yearly profit during the war years, 1914 to 1918. Fifty-eight million dollars a year profit we find! Nearly ten times that of normal times, and the profits of normal times were pretty good. An increase in profits of more than 950 per cent.

Take one of our little steel companies that patriotically shunted aside the making of rails and girders and bridges to manufacture war materials. Well, their 1910-1914 yearly earnings averaged $6,000,000. Then came the war. And, like loyal citizens, Bethlehem Steel promptly turned to munitions making. Did their profits jump – or did they let Uncle Sam in for a bargain? Well, their 1914-1918 average was $49,000,000 a year!

Or, let's take United States Steel. The normal earnings during the five-year period prior to the war were $105,000,000 a year. Not bad. Then along came the war and up went the profits. The average yearly profit for the period 1914-1918 was $240,000,000. Not bad.

There you have some of the steel and powder earnings. Let's look at something else. A little copper, perhaps. That always does well in war times.

Anaconda, for instance. Average yearly earnings during the pre-war years 1910-1914 of $10,000,000. During the war years 1914-1918 profits leaped to $34,000,000 per year.

Or Utah Copper. Average of $5,000,000 per year during the 1910-1914 period. Jumped to an average of $21,000,000 yearly profits for the war period.

Let's group these five, with three smaller companies. The total yearly average profits of the pre-war period 1910-1914 were $137,480,000. Then along came the war. The average yearly profits for this group skyrocketed to $408,300,000.

A little increase in profits of approximately 200 per cent.

Does war pay? It paid them. But they aren't the only ones. There are still others. Let's take leather.

For the three-year period before the war the total profits of Central Leather Company were $3,500,000. That was approximately $1,167,000 a year. Well, in 1916 Central Leather returned a profit of $15,000,000, a small increase of 1,100 per cent. That's all. The General Chemical Company averaged a profit for the three years before the war of a little over $800,000 a year. Came the war, and the profits jumped to $12,000,000. a leap of 1,400 per cent.

International Nickel Company – and you can't have a war without nickel – showed an increase in profits from a mere average of $4,000,000 a year to $73,000,000 yearly. Not bad? An increase of more than 1,700 per cent.

American Sugar Refining Company averaged $2,000,000 a year for the three years before the war. In 1916 a profit of $6,000,000 was recorded.

Listen to Senate Document No. 259. The Sixty-Fifth Congress, reporting on corporate earnings and government revenues. Considering the profits of 122 meat packers, 153 cotton manufacturers, 299 garment makers, 49 steel plants, and 340 coal producers during the war. Profits under 25 per cent were exceptional. For instance the coal companies made between 100 per cent and 7,856 per cent on their capital stock during the war. The Chicago packers doubled and tripled their earnings.

And let us not forget the bankers who financed the great war. If anyone had the cream of the profits it was the bankers. Being partnerships rather than incorporated organizations, they do not have to report to stockholders. And their profits were as secret as they were immense. How the bankers made their millions and their billions I do not know, because those little secrets never become public – even before a Senate investigatory body.

It has been estimated by statisticians and economists and researchers that the war cost your Uncle Sam $52,000,000,000. Of this sum, $39,000,000,000 was expended in the actual war itself. This expenditure yielded $16,000,000,000 in profits. That is how the 21,000 billionaires and millionaires got that way. This $16,000,000,000 profits is not to be sneezed at. It is quite a tidy sum. And it went to a very few.

Don't you know?
Keeping the country in these "wars" is how the wealth of the People is transfered into the hands of the military/Industrial complex.
Follow the MONEY.
War, as Smedley Butler so compellingly pointed out, is about nothing except making the various "Defense" companies --who supply all manner of war goods-- fabulously wealthy.
I've been telling this to lots of people at work, and to the family of my wife, but they keep on thinking that there is a noble cause in these "wars of liberation"..., I keep telling them that the oil from Iraq is part of the gain, but the main target is the "Department of Treasury of The United States of America".

Now you can tell them what Bacon said.

Lots of people do not realize that spreading democracy is not like spreading jam.

eisenhower , i believe, warned america of the military industrial complex long ago.

rich man's war.

don't use WW2 as an example. if the japanese citizen and german citizen hadn't fallen for the war mind of their leaders of the time, there would have been no war. all war's are rich man's wars.

like freethinker said, follow the money.

Cromagnon, you spelled Gandhi wrong.

Lots of people do not realize that spreading democracy is not like spreading jam.So we should just give up then? Or perhaps you're of the opinion that people in that part of the world are barbarians who don't "deserve" democracy.

I've been telling this to lots of people at work, and to the family of my wife, but they keep on thinking that there is a noble cause in these "wars of liberation".....

That is because they --like all good little drones are supposed to do-- have swallowed the bullshit propaganda of the Corporate State.

The notion that the United States' overarching interest, in all these foreign misadventures and multi-billion dollar clusterfucks, is to "spread democracy" is as hilarious as it is insupportable.

The Conserva-Fascists care little to nothing about the continued existence of a democratic system in THIS country...........much LESS other countries.

The myriad foreign interventions this country has gotten involved in have a common thread; generating wealth for and protecting the PROFITS of U.S. Corporations who will expoloit the situations in those countries.

Cromagnon, you spelled Gandhi wrong.

No big deal. It is a very often misspelled word with the guilty including the media and heads of states. The word carries an automatic forgiveness clause.

Cromagnon, you spelled Gandhi wrong.

I've gott these two sppelings for the same name:

http://www.mkgandhi.org/

&

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/mahatma_ghandi.htm


Mahatma Ghandi

Though there is another web page that states the "h" comes after the "d", and not after the "G" as I spelled, anyway, I'll use both to please everybody.

Spelling it "Ghandi" gives you an incorrect pronunciation. In Indian languages, an "h" after a consonant is actually pronounced and is not silent (you can hear this when someone with an Indian accent says the word "ghost"). Thus, "Gandhi" and "Ghandi" would give you two different pronunciations, "Gandhi" giving you the correct one.

If Francis Bacon said the Romans fought a war to liberate Grecia or as it was more properly known, Magna Grecia, he was wrong. The Romans defeated the Greeks, beginning in Sicily, not to free anyone but to establish their hegemony over the area and the people.

As for our continued presence in Afghanistan and Iraq. Cranston incorrectly indicates that the Taliban threat is ended. It is not ended and the combined coalition/Afghan forces fight the Talilban on an almost daily basis.

While we probably should not have invaded Iraq we did and now that we are there we have a moral obligation to remain until the country has a stable government and is no longer in danger of civil war.

I've found this interesting article which goes hand in hand with FT first answer to this thread:

Looting By Any Other Name

The Profit-Driven War

By BRIAN J. FOLEY

[Text of speech given at the conference, "The Failure of Global Empire and Birth of Global Community," San Francisco, CA, 3 August 2005]

More than two years later, many people still ask, "Why did the US invade Iraq?" Some people answer, "For oil." Others say, "To remove a dangerous dictator," or, "To liberate Iraqis," or, "To spread democracy." There are other possible answers as well: To project American power in the strategic and volatile Middle East. To spread democracy. To help Israel. The question lingers because the initial reasons that our government gave, that Iraq had WMD and planned to use them against the US, or that Iraq was allied with Al Qaeda, have been disproved.

Here's another answer to the question: We invaded Iraq to invade Iraq.

That's right, it's a circular answer. It might not be the only answer, it might not be provable, but let's consider it: We invaded Iraq to have a war. We had a war because there are powerful interests in our country that are geared toward making money from war. How? Let us count the ways. There are companies that help break things, by making the tools for violence and destruction, such as Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. There are companies that fix what gets broken, such as Bechtel and Halliburton. There are companies that protect people as they break things and as they fix what's broken, such as Blackwater and Vinnell Corp. There are companies that want our government to smash across borders so they may bring new products and infrastructure, companies that we will see set up shop in that country. There are companies that want our government to smash across other countries' borders so they may suck the resources out from underneath the people there, such as the big oil companies. There are companies that like the US to attack other countries so they may have something entertaining to tell their audiences in the time between commercials: ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, CNN.

This is war profiteering, but with a twist. Historically, war profiteering amounted to this: when there was a war, people tried to profit from it. A company making clothes might also start making uniforms and sell them to the army ­and make them as cheaply as possible and sell for the highest price possible. Now, though, companies are making war for profit. Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Vinnell and Blackwater, such companies would not exist as we know them without war.

This is not a conspiracy theory. This is basic corporate law. Corporations are set up to limit their owners' risk of liability while the owners maximize profits. The directors and managers who run the company for the owners have a legal duty to maximize profits. The owners (shareholders) can sue the directors and managers if these employees don't maximize profits in any given situation. These companies are not breaking the law by serving the US military and government. Indeed, they believe they are helping it. Look at their websites. They flaunt the companies' connections to the US government. Old Glory and aggressive-looking eagles abound!

Forget "social responsibility," the idea that says a corporate manager may decide not to maximize profits if doing so would harm other "stakeholders" of the corporation, that is, individuals other than the company's owners. Although many people can see how building weapons is detrimental to other stakeholders (read: everyone on our planet), what manager of a weapons company would ever decide to stop selling these products?

So, the weapons companies have a legal duty to make as many weapons as possible and as cheaply as possibly and sell as many of them as possible at the highest possible price. The only limitation is the market. And these companies will do whatever they can to capture the market and expand their markets (just as if they were making and selling diapers or cars). So they aim to sell as many as they can to the US government. And to foreign governments as well. If the rules prohibit US companies from selling weapons to foreign governments, or to particular foreign governments, these companies will try to have those rules rewritten.

How do companies get the government to buy their weapons? Marketing, for one. Good old fashioned campaign donations and lobbying, for another. And newfangled influence, such as getting their people onto the Defense Policy Board, a group of 30 people who advise the Pentagon. A 2003 study showed that 9 of the 30 members on the Defense Policy Board were connected to weapons companies. Then there is the "revolving door," where the companies hire people from the government, and people from the companies go work for the government. People like dealing with people they know.

Weapons companies also exert influence via "briefings," "position papers" and op eds from "policy centers" and "foundations" that include people connected to these companies (and other companies with an interest in making war for profit). Some of these think tanks are funded in part by weapons companies or other companies that profit from war. Some of these companies even get a tax break for such "charitable contributions." (For more on this phenomenon, I recommend William D. Hartung's book, How Much Are You Making on the War, Daddy? (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1560255617/counterpunchmaga) (2003) and Jeffrey St. Clair's forthcoming Grand Theft Pentagon (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1567513360/counterpunchmaga)).

But it's not just the government that these companies seek to influence. They will try to influence the media and the general public, through think tanks and ad campaigns. They know that if there's a climate of fear, then the public will be assuaged by the government's buying more weapons. Various officials will work to prove they're "tough on defense." Officials who are "weak on defense" will not stay in office long.

The companies also hire lobbying firms. These firms make money from war, too. In fact, the US government has hired PR firms to help the government "sell" its wars, such as the 1991 Gulf War and the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

The problem has become worse since the 1990s, when many military duties were "outsourced" from the government to private companies. Private companies help build bases, deliver mail, and cook meals. Private contractors even interrogate prisoners captured on the battlefield. If there are no troops, no bases, and no prisoners, such companies can't make money.

Again, this is not a conspiracy theory. It is institutions and people acting in their interests. We all act in our own interests, one way or another. To think that these institutions and people would not use all of the means ­ none of what I have described, by the way, is necessarily against the law ­ available to them to pursue their interests would be naïve. So, this is a serious problem, because it is so embedded in our economic and political system, our way of life. It's also a problem that flies under the radar screen of most of the public and even most activists.

What to do?

- "Return" the war-making powers to Congress. This will help curb these corporations' influence on the government. This is not a perfect solution, of course, but Congress is the branch of government that is supposed to debate the issue of going to war, and Congress is more transparent than the Executive Branch. Right now the power is concentrated in the Executive, and the decision to go to war has been streamlined. Corporate interests can quietly focus their energy there.

- Check out the War Resisters League, the world's oldest secular antiwar group. The WRL is waging a "Stop the Merchants of Death" campaign that is teaching people about this corporate connection, about "making war for profit." We must expose what is going on and educate the public about it how our system is geared toward making war in order to make profit. For example, the WRL recommends that we join antiwar groups; campaign against our local "merchant of death"; expose the profiteering on the Defense Policy Board; demand that our government officials be free of conflicts of interest; become activist shareholders in weapons companies; take available legal action against companies that break the law as they profit from war. The WRL has a speakers' bureau that can provide someone to address your local school, church, book group, talk group or the like. You can contact WRL at www.warresisters.org (http://www.warresisters.org)

- Organize politically to increase and improve social welfare programs. Many people don't speak out because they're afraid of losing their jobs, which, in our country, is a sort of death: no more job means no more money, no more health care, no more pension plan. What Lockheed employee, for example, wants to go to war protest when his boss might end up seeing her marching and chanting "No Blood for Oil" on TV? Who will email information about an upcoming antiwar protest, or forward an incisive article about why the US should not invade, say, Iran or Syria, when their employer can read the email? If peoples' basic needs are provided for regardless of their employer, they will become braver citizens.

This concern is especially acute for young people, who have historically been a font of political activism. Many fear they'll never be able to pay off their school loans. Why join antiwar groups or go to protests when potential employers might find out? If young people know they are headed off to the corporate world, they might decide to make the transition easier by adopting the attitudes and values of the companies they plan to serve.

We can also get through to young people by working to reveal that it is not a great thing to work for weapons companies. Activists made working for Big Tobacco look unpalatable. We can do the same thing vis a vis "defense" companies. We can help provide information about alternative careers that would let people work for social justice, and where people can speak freely. Let's let young people know they are being duped by these companies about war ­ about bravery, glory, fear, the need for war, and the like.

None of us wants to be duped. But we have been duped. Many Americans believe that violence is a simple and quick solution to diplomatic and social problems. You don't have to learn Arabic to bomb Iraq, for example. But we've seen that bombing doesn't solve much of anything. We must educate people about the success of diplomacy, peace work, exchanges, nonviolent movements. Our country's faith in weapons and war is based on our culture's faith in violence. Our fellow citizens must be encouraged to drop this faith, to become freethinkers, heretics. And to declare a war on their own terror, to rigorously question those who warn that our nation is in enormous danger from various enemies.

We must point out how we're being sold this philosophy of fear.

Brian J. Foley is a professor at Florida Coastal School of Law and State Chancellor for Florida for the International Association of Educators for World Peace. He can be reached at brian_j_foley@yahoo.com (brian_j_foley@yahoo.com)

Further information from the San Francisco conference can be found at http://www.worldcitizens.org/conferencesummary.html (http://www.worldcitizens.org/conferencesummary.html)

Cranston,

You are wrong on a couple of points, dead wrong.

First off, the Aghanis LIKE us. They're biggest fear is that we're going to leave. We didn't come to Afghanistan to take that country. We're there to oust the Taliban and give the Afghanis, who don't like the Taliban, a chance at a better life and those guys know. The British tried to take Afghanistan and failed, the Soviet Union tried and they failed as well. I heard somewhere that the U.S. is the only country to win a war in Afghanistan. Have you ever wondered why?

If you're wondering why we're in Iraq and how come there is so much trouble there it's because the Islamists know damn good and well that having a peacefull prosperous country in the heart of the Middle East is going to spell bad news for Jihad. An alternative to the kind of Government that is hostile to the kind of Islam the likes of Ahmandinejad and Bin Laden preaches is something that they can't afford to have in Iraq. That is why Iraq is so viciously fought over by the Islamists.

It's something we here in the States can't afford to lose in Iraq. Not after promising to support the tens of thousands of Iraqis who voted several times under the threat of death. To those Iraqis trying to form a new government, to the Iraqis who ARE in government, in the police in the new national army. The U.S. can't afford to abondon them. The U.S. can't afford to be weak. The Jihadists have managed to disrupt India, they managed to get Spain out of Iraq, they're trying to pull off another 9/11 type attack in Britain. Cut and run from Iraq will only embolden these guys and it's something we can't afford to let happen, dammit.


That and the fact that the world is so divided on this war in Iraq. The Islamists should've been more worried about the U.S. taking Afghanistan, THAT nation was firmly in the grasp of the Radical Islmamists. The Bin Laden types are aware that they can play world opinion and the anti-war sentiments here in the States. The Jihadists are desperately trying to oust the U.S. from Iraq and score a propaganda win.

Great post Darth.

First off, the Aghanis LIKE us. They're biggest fear is that we're going to leave. We didn't come to Afghanistan to take that country. We're there to oust the Taliban and give the Afghanis, who don't like the Taliban, a chance at a better life and those guys know. The British tried to take Afghanistan and failed, the Soviet Union tried and they failed as well. I heard somewhere that the U.S. is the only country to win a war in Afghanistan. Have you ever wondered why?

There is only one thing that I **wonder why**.

I wonder why you --or any of the other tens of millions of clueless cheerleaders for the Corporate State-- are too goddamned brain dead to understand Cromagnon's post that CLEARLY illustrates that the primary motivation of this country waging "war" is for the massive profits to U.S. Corporations that it generates.

Their biggest fear is that we're going to leave. We didn't come to Afghanistan to take that country. We're there to oust the Taliban and give it to the Afghanis
Problem is, which Afghanis will be receiving the country (empowered and backed by the US), another Marcos (Philippines), another Somosa (Nicaragua), some Afghani who would benefit the Jackals and Hyenas (Corporations) that are there ready to continue eating up the natural resources of that country?

.................................. ?..................................

Spelling it "Ghandi" gives you an incorrect pronunciation. In Indian languages, an "h" after a consonant is actually pronounced and is not silent (you can hear this when someone with an Indian accent says the word "ghost"). Thus, "Gandhi" and "Ghandi" would give you two different pronunciations, "Gandhi" giving you the correct one.
You're Indian, aren't you? I've been trying to figure it out for a while, so let's have it...

There is only one thing that I **wonder why**.

I wonder why you --or any of the other tens of millions of clueless cheerleaders for the Corporate State-- are too goddamned brain dead to understand Cromagnon's post that CLEARLY illustrates that the primary motivation of this country waging "war" is for the massive profits to U.S. Corporations that it generates.
That doesn't mean that Darth didn't have a decent or valid point.

In all honesty, it makes me wonder why you --or any of the other tens of millions of clueless Michael Moore types-- are too goddamned brain dead to understand what our position there means to the people involved. Having said that, Cromagnon's intellect is rivaled only by his lawn mower. I know it's asking a lot for you to ignore his fucking nonsense, but for the love of god............it's Cromagnon.

Having said that, Cromagnon's intellect is rivaled only by his lawn mower. I know it's asking a lot for you to ignore his fucking nonsense,

But his post is what I was talking about the Rightwing cheerleaders here being unable to grasp.

And the post in question was a reprinted article written by Brian J. Foley, a professor at a law school.

And NO, neither you nor Darth have refuted or can refute the points Professor Foley made.

To wit;

"We invaded Iraq to have a war. We had a war because there are powerful interests in our country that are geared toward making money from war. How? Let us count the ways. There are companies that help break things, by making the tools for violence and destruction, such as Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. There are companies that fix what gets broken, such as Bechtel and Halliburton. There are companies that protect people as they break things and as they fix what's broken, such as Blackwater and Vinnell Corp. There are companies that want our government to smash across borders so they may bring new products and infrastructure, companies that we will see set up shop in that country. There are companies that want our government to smash across other countries' borders so they may suck the resources out from underneath the people there, such as the big oil companies. There are companies that like the US to attack other countries so they may have something entertaining to tell their audiences in the time between commercials: ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, CNN.

None of us wants to be duped. But we have been duped. Many Americans believe that violence is a simple and quick solution to diplomatic and social problems. You don't have to learn Arabic to bomb Iraq, for example. But we've seen that bombing doesn't solve much of anything. We must educate people about the success of diplomacy, peace work, exchanges, nonviolent movements. Our country's faith in weapons and war is based on our culture's faith in violence. Our fellow citizens must be encouraged to drop this faith, to become freethinkers, heretics. And to declare a war on their own terror, to rigorously question those who warn that our nation is in enormous danger from various enemies.

We must point out how we're being sold this philosophy of fear.
"

If you're wondering why we're in Iraq and how come there is so much trouble there it's because the Islamists know damn good and well that having a peacefull prosperous country in the heart of the Middle East is going to spell bad news for Jihad.Last month alone 6000 Iraqis were killed by other Iraqis. Peace and prosperity must be just around the corner.An alternative to the kind of Government that is hostile to the kind of Islam the likes of Ahmandinejad and Bin Laden preaches is something that they can't afford to have in Iraq.I'm guessing you mean the opposite of what you wrote here. You may not have noticed, Darth, but unless the US maintains a pro-western puppet government the Iraqis will vote themselves an Islamic theocracy.That is why Iraq is so viciously fought over by the Islamists.Nonsense. The insurgents are fighting a foreign invader and the rest are fighting each other for oil and power.The Jihadists have managed to disrupt India, they managed to get Spain out of Iraq, they're trying to pull off another 9/11 type attack in Britain. Cut and run from Iraq will only embolden these guys and it's something we can't afford to let happen, dammit.Your examples show they are plenty emboldened already. Our continued presence in Iraq will only spawn more terrorists, not defeat them. This plays right into Osama bin Laden's hands. Nice going, Bush.

Refuting "Professor" Foley's points.......

Though it'll be hard because his theory ranks right up there with Colonel Corso's claim that high tech fabrics and computer technology were reversed engineered from the Roswell crash of a UFO.


"We invaded Iraq to have a war.

WE invaded Iraq because Saddam spent a decade and a half playing games with weapons inspectors and Bush got tired of it, dammit.

We had a war because there are powerful interests in our country that are geared toward making money from war. How? Let us count the ways. There are companies that help break things, by making the tools for violence and destruction, such as Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. There are companies that fix what gets broken, such as Bechtel and Halliburton. There are companies that protect people as they break things and as they fix what's broken, such as Blackwater and Vinnell Corp.

This logic runs right up there with the idea that the sun rises because the rooster crows. There are companies that build weapon systems for the U.S. but to say that these companies start wars to build weapons is ass backwards and runs contrary to some 60 years of U.S. policy. The U.S. does and has gotten into wars, but with the exception of Vietnam, which was concocted on rather flaky excuses, U.S. policy is to RESPOND to an attack by a foreign power. The U.S. went to Korea after the North Koreans and commie backers invaded South Korea. Grenada was "invaded" after Cubans went into that country first. Libya was bombed AFTER it was discovered that the terrorists who hijacked that cruise ship were trained in Libya. Iraq was hit in '91 AFTER Saddam invaded Kuwait. Afghanistan was invaded in '03 AFTER the Taliban refused to hand over Bin Laden. Iraq got invaded after Saddam refused for the umpteenth time to allow weapons inspectors free and easy access to whatever those inspectors needed to examine.

Mr Foley is pissing into the wind if he thinks I'm going to buy the idea that U.S. corporations are fomenting wars to manufacture weapons.


There are companies that want our government to smash across borders so they may bring new products and infrastructure, companies that we will see set up shop in that country. There are companies that want our government to smash across other countries' borders so they may suck the resources out from underneath the people there, such as the big oil companies

Okay, freethinker, the U.S. is "smashing" across borders to seize resources in other countries. Kuwait got completely overtaken by the U.S. I WANT you to name me what oil fields were seized by U.S. troops and are now the property of the U.S. I want you to name me the oil fields in Iraq that have been seized by the U.S. army and are now the property of the U.S. I want the names of the oil fields in Mexico and in Venezuela that have been seized by the U.S. and are now U.S. government property.

I want the names of these U.S. colonies where our corporations are raping the resources of other (former) nations. I want to know exactly WHAT is being taken and which corporation is taking it.

I swear to God, freethinker, I'm ask you that each and every single time you post ANYTHING. Hell, on your deathbed, freethinker, I WILL be there to ask you what oil fields were seized in in Kuwait and in Iraq. You WILL take that claim back, dammit.

We must educate people about the success of diplomacy, peace work, exchanges, nonviolent movements.

Outside of Vietnam, which wasn't so much as a "peace" movement but pressure brought onto the U.S. government to go and feed South Vietnam to the Commies, when has a "peace" movement EVER worked? Did it work in Rwanda? Did it work in Iraq? Is it working in North Korea? Cuba? How about Iran? Are the hippies changing Ahmandinejad's mind? HMMMMMMMMMM?


I think I just answered your questions quite well freethinker, dammit.

There is only one thing that I **wonder why**.

I wonder why you --or any of the other tens of millions of clueless cheerleaders for the Corporate State-- are too goddamned brain dead to understand Cromagnon's post that CLEARLY illustrates that the primary motivation of this country waging "war" is for the massive profits to U.S. Corporations that it generates.

Freethinker, has it ever crossed your mind that we understand exactly what Cranston was saying in his post and simply disagree with it. Rather than being brain dead as you so cutely put it, we happen to not swallow what we consider hogwash and you consider fine wine.

WE invaded Iraq because Saddam spent a decade and a half playing games with weapons inspectors and Bush got tired of it, dammit.
Naive, awfully naive, you certainly don't buy real, intelligent, reasonable, very well research conclusions of what the Government and the Corporations are really doing in Iraq, but blindly follow like sheep whatever comes out of Bush's ass. Amazing, I wonder if those who believe his lies are as guilty as those perpetrating the atrocities in other lands for plain and simple money gain, some Christian morals they have, don't they?

These THREADS are just getting bored with two irreconcilable sides, wonder if it is just a waste of time, but wait ... maybe not, because it is just that 23% of the population in this country who would go over the cliff with its God (Bush), no matter that the truth is in front of them, talking about blind fundamentalism.

There are companies that build weapon systems for the U.S. but to say that these companies start wars to build weapons is ass backwards and runs contrary to some 60 years of U.S. policy.

I cannot believe you are so naive as to believe that all the various multi-billion dollar Defense Corporations who spend tens of millions each year bribing politicians are simply there to "fufill a need" are are not themselves part and parcel of the relentless aggression and imperialistic designs of the US Corporate State........as implimented by the Corporation's hired stooges --the warmongering politicians-- in Washington.

The U.S. does and has gotten into wars, but with the exception of Vietnam, which was concocted on rather flaky excuses, U.S. policy is to RESPOND to an attack by a foreign power.

False.

The US has consistently sent its military around the world, NOT in "response " to an attack by a foreign power, but as the invading army sent in to open up the country and make it accessible to predation by U.S. Corporations.

Sadly, you are so utterly CLUELESS as to the machinations of the far-Right leadership in this country that you are actually able to regurgitate --with a straight face-- this bilge about --"Aw, the U.s. doesn't start military conflicts, they just go in "response" to attacks from foreign nations"

You DESPERATELY need to be educated as to what --in regards to foreign military misadventures-- the leadership of this country is perpetrating ,and HAVE BEEN perpetrating for over 50 years.

Keep in mind, the things you are about to read about are not opinions.

They are not theories.

They are not speculations.

They are historical FACT.

Here are just a FEW of the actions Washington has been engaged in from the end of World War II to the present:

> Attempting to overthrow more than 40 foreign governments.

> Unprovoked military invasion of some 20 sovereign nations.

> Working to crush more than 30 populist movements which were fighting against dictatorial regimes.

> Providing indispensable support to a small army of brutal dictatorships: Mobutu of Zaire, Pinochet of Chile, Duvalier of Haiti, Somoza of Nicaragua, the Greek junta, Marcos of the Philippines, Rhee of Korea, the Shah of Iran, 40 years of military dictators in Guatemala, Suharto of Indonesia, Hussein of Iraq, the Brazilian junta, Trujillo of the Dominican Republic, the Taliban of Afghanistan, and others.

> Dropping powerful bombs on the people of about 25 countries, including 40 consecutive days and nights in Iraq, 78 days and nights in Yugoslavia, and several months in Afghanistan, all three of these countries having met the first requirement as an American bombing target -- being completely defenseless. And not once ever has the United States come even close to repairing the great damage caused by its bombings. Afghanistan and Iraq are the latest examples.

> Increasing use of depleted uranium, one of the most despicable weapons ever designed by mankind, which produces grossly deformed babies amongst the populace it is used against

> Repeated use of cluster bombs, which have robbed numerous young people of one or more limbs, and many of their eyesight

> Assassination attempts on the lives of some 40 foreign political leaders.

> Crude interference in dozens of foreign democratic elections.

> Gross manipulation of labor movements.

> Manufacture of "news", the disinformation effect of which is multiplied when CIA assets in other countries pick up the same stories.

> Providing handbooks, materials and encouragement for the practice of torture.

> Chemical or biological warfare or the testing of such weapons, and the use of powerful herbicides, all causing terrible effects to the people and environments of China, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Panama, Cuba, Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia and elsewhere.

> Encouragement of drug trafficking in various parts of the world when it served the CIA's purposes.

> Supporting death squads, particularly in Latin America.

>> Causing grievous harm to the health and well-being of the world's masses thru the agency of the IMF, World Bank, WTO, and other international financial institutions, as well as by imposing unmerciful sanctions and embargoes.

> Left millions of refugees wandering homeless over the earth.


Okay, freethinker, the U.S. is "smashing" across borders to seize resources in other countries.

Yes, it is. Careful Darth....you are getting dangerously close to the truth with that statement (even though I realize it was stated sarcastically, and that in reality you are completely ignorant that it IS true) and we know how deathly allergic you are to the TRUTH.


Kuwait got completely overtaken by the U.S.

AFTER the U.S. told Saddam it had no problem with him attacking Kuwait. They suckered him.

I WANT you to name me what oil fields were seized by U.S. troops and are now the property of the U.S. I want you to name me the oil fields in Iraq that have been seized by the U.S. army and are now the property of the U.S. I want the names of the oil fields in Mexico and in Venezuela that have been seized by the U.S. and are now U.S. government property.

I want YOU to tell me who mde ANY claim that the US had "seized" the oil fields in foreign nations.

The claim --which is accurate-- was that there are U.S. companies that want our Government to smash across other countries' borders so that the Big Oil Corporations in the U.S. can suck the resources out from underneath the people there...... IOW, so that huge Corporations can operate freely in --for instance-- Iraq, and make tens of billions.

Read the facts below;

Embedding U.S. Corporations in the Iraq Economy

After George W. Bush became president, those who had planned and advocated an attack on Iraq to remove Saddam took power. Dick Cheney held meetings under his "Energy Task Force" with corporations including Halliburton, Bechtel and Chevron. A draft of the Task Force's recommendations came out to the media in April 2001. The first recommendation under Strengthening Global Alliances included a graph of Iraq oil output to the United States in 2000 and said a goal was to "make energy security a priority of our trade and foreign policy." The second goal was for the U.S. to "support initiatives by [Mid East] suppliers to open up areas of their energy sectors to foreign investment." In 1998 Chevron's CEO said: "Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas - reserves I'd love Chevron to have access to." His dream was about to be realized.

The well-known drum beat for war with Iraq began and after the success of the invasion the economic takeover began. The initial U.S. czar of Iraq, Jay Garner headed the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance. He advocated for putting Iraqis in charge as soon as possible, with elections held quickly. Garner was fired by Rumsfeld on the night he arrived in Iraq - fired, he believes because of these views. He was replaced by neo-con Paul Bremer and the Coalition Provisional Authority.

Bremer was in charge from May 6, 2003 to June 28, 2004. He had complete legislative, executive and judicial authority over Iraq. Bremer had four decades of corporate and government experience, working with Kissinger as managing director of Kissinger and Associates, as well as working in government with George Shultz and Donald Rumsfeld.

Prior to the invasion, Bearing Point received a $250 million contract from US AID to develop a blueprint for the remaking of Iraq's economy into a 'free-market' economy friendly to U.S. corporate interests. Bremer's job was to implement the Bearing Point plan. Juhasz points out that while there may have been an inadequate military plan, there was in fact a plan for the takeover and remaking of the economy of Iraq.

Bremer had the power to create laws by issuing "binding instructions or directives." Bremer issued 100 Orders, Juhasz in 2005 interview describes some of the key orders:

"Order No. 39 allows for: (1) privatization of Iraq's 200 state-owned enterprises; (2) 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses; (3) "national treatment" -- which means no preferences for local over foreign businesses; (4) unrestricted, tax-free remittance of all profits and other funds; and (5) 40-year ownership licenses.

"Thus, it forbids Iraqis from receiving preference in the reconstruction while allowing foreign corporations --Halliburton and Bechtel, for example -- to buy up Iraqi businesses, do all of the work and send all of their money home. They cannot be required to hire Iraqis or to reinvest their money in the Iraqi economy. They can take out their investments at any time and in any amount.

"Orders No. 57 and No. 77 ensure the implementation of the orders by placing U.S.-appointed auditors and inspector generals in every government ministry, with five-year terms and with sweeping authority over contracts, programs, employees and regulations.

"Order No. 17 grants foreign contractors, including private security firms, full immunity from Iraq's laws. Even if they, say, kill someone or cause an environmental disaster, the injured party cannot turn to the Iraqi legal system. Rather, the charges must be brought to U.S. courts.

"Order No. 40 allows foreign banks to purchase up to 50% of Iraqi banks.

"Order No. 49 drops the tax rate on corporations from a high of 40% to a flat 15%. The income tax rate is also capped at 15%.

"Order No. 12 (renewed on Feb. 24) suspends "all tariffs, customs duties, import taxes, licensing fees and similar surcharges for goods entering or leaving Iraq." This led to an immediate and dramatic inflow of cheap foreign consumer products -- devastating local producers and sellers who were thoroughly unprepared to meet the challenge of their mammoth global competitors."

(Full interview at: http://democracyrising.us/content/view/180/164/.)

The result of these orders was to create an economic environment more favorable to U.S. corporations than laws in the United States. As a result Iraq corporations, and Iraqi workers have been excluded from the rebuilding of Iraq. And, the Iraq reconstruction has failed to provide adequate electricity, food, sewage treatment and even gasoline - but U.S. corporations have profited handsomely from this failed reconstruction.

Juhasz describes the impact of U.S. policies on the Iraqi economy:

"The new economic laws have fundamentally transformed Iraq's economy, applying some of the most radical, sought-after corporate globalization policies in the world and overturning existing laws on trade, public services, banking, taxes, agriculture, investment, foreign ownership, media, and oil, among others. The new laws lock in sweeping advantages to U.S. corporations including greater U.S. access to, and corporate control of, Iraq's oil. And the benefits have already begun to flow. Between 2003 and 2004 alone, the value of U.S. imports of Iraqi oil increased by 86 percent and then increased again in the first three quarters of 2005."


I want the names of these U.S. colonies where our corporations are raping the resources of other (former) nations.

Ok. You want it,....you've GOT it.

A list of the countries would include;

Guatemala,

Indonesia,

Iraq,

Dominican Republic,

Nicaragua,

Honduras,

the Philippines,

Zaire,

Chile,

Haiti,

and Afghanistan.

I want to know exactly WHAT is being taken and which corporation is taking it.

Ok.

The things that are being taken are whatever valuable resources each of those countries possesses that some U.S. Corporate interest desires.

In Guatemala, United Fruit wanted Arbenz out.

Out he went.

In Chile, Allende offended the copper interests.

Allende -- dead.

In Iran, Mossadegh offended major oil interests.

Mossadegh out.

In Nicaragua, Jose Santos Zelaya was bothering American lumber and mining companies.

Zelaya -- out.

In Honduras, an American banana magnate organized the coup of the Honduran government.

And on and on, right down the list.

In every country, some U.S. business' interests were being threatened, or else some huge Corporation wanted the country opened up for exploitation.

On your deathbed, Darth Be'lal, I WILL still be trying to beat it into your thick and willfully blind skull just how the US does things, and how the game is run.

You WILL have the information hammered into your head, dammit.

____________________________________________

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.
________Gen Smedley Butler, USMC

The purpose of the U.S. military is not to protect the United States, nor to help foster "democracy" throughout the world. The U.S. military has become a very powerful repressive tool with which to protect the right of U.S. Corporations to exploit resources and labor throughout the world. The US military is simply the police force of the Corporatists, policing the planet for the benefit of the world's one remaining superpower. Fascism --or Corporatism if you prefer-- is the name of this game; it is the use of governmental power to protect and further the goals of capitalism without concern for the social welfare of anyone else. George W. Bush is probably the most successful fascist in history, and the US has now cemented its place as the most powerful fascist nation in the history of the world.

You're Indian, aren't you?It wasn't my choice; I was born that way.

As for the topic of this thread, the original reasons for going to war have little bearing on what our goals should be now. Debating the merits or morality of invading Iraq might make for an interesting discussion, but does little to provide a solution for the current situation.

What's an Aghani?

A typo. They're quite common. People who refer to them in a childish way are less common.

Less common?
You haven't made a single point yet against wasting money backing the Saudi Arabian government.

In fact, most of what you have written seems to call for continued American dollars, labor and lives to be wasted on the Saudi king. It's taken a while but your politics have finally become all too clear.

They must be crystal clear since you think you know exactly how I think and why.

Am I in favor of our supporting the Saudi government? Yes, as long as it is in America's interest. The moment it stops being in our interest I am against it.

My politics are fairly simple. I believe in doing what is best for my country. Sometimes you have to be pragmatic and do things you might not do in an ideal world. Saudi Arabia has much of the world's oil and the United States runs on oil. I would prefer that it wasn't so but it is a simple fact of life.

The present Saudi government, while not ideal, at least keeps the country from becoming anti-American. While I would prefer a democratic government in Saudi Arabia to all other forms I prefer a pro-American monarchy to an anti-American theocracy.

Freethinker has claimed that the U.S. goes to war just so that markets can be opened to predation by U.S. corporations. While I don't agree with all the wars the United States has been involve in, Gulf Wars I and II as well as Bosnia being among them I do not agree with Freethinker's accusation. Was opening up markets the purpose of our entry into World Wars I and II? How about the Korean Police Action? Did we send troops to Haiti to open up markets to predatory U.S. corporations? Until recently most U.S. wars involved the defeat of political philosophies diametrically oppossed to ours. More recently they have been ostensably to stop genocide in the case of Bosnia, an invasion of a sovreign country, Gulf War I, and to topple a dictator, Gulf War II. So far as I can see U.S. corporations have reaped few if any benefits from these wars.

They must be crystal clear since you think you know exactly how I think and why. Am I in favor of our supporting the Saudi government? Yes, as long as it is in America's interest. The moment it stops being in our interest I am against it.
My politics are fairly simple. I believe in doing what is best for my country.
You and everyone else should always do the best for their countries, but always within the borders of each country, once you go beyond them, then a mutual respect should exist. A mutual respect for all the people in other countries, not just for some dictator.

Well if you are in favor of supporting the Saudi government then we have nothing to discuss.

Do you believe that your propaganda will actually help them in the end? I hope the Saudi Princes end up living next door to you when they get run out of their own country.

So do I. Since they are all multi-milliionaires at the least it would mean I was living in a very upscale neighborhood.

I hope the Saudi Princes end up living next door to you when they get run out of their own country.
That'll happen...:rolleyes:

Cromagnon - you are aware that during the Second World War that India had a strong facist movement intent on cleansing their own race and uniting with the Nazis, don't you?

Monsieur Ghandi's movement gained much by their racist and murderous rampages. In the end India has become a smaller version of the British Empire that ruled because there are tens if not hundreds of smaller countries smothered under their banner.

Cromagnon - you are aware that during the Second World War India had a strong facist movement intent on cleansing their own race and uniting with the Nazis, aren't you?
No, I am not, but thanks for the info. I will check on it.... seems interesting.

But his post is what I was talking about the Rightwing cheerleaders here being unable to grasp.

And the post in question was a reprinted article written by Brian J. Foley, a professor at a law school.

And NO, neither you nor Darth have refuted or can refute the points Professor Foley made.

To wit;

"We invaded Iraq to have a war. We had a war because there are powerful interests in our country that are geared toward making money from war. How? Let us count the ways. There are companies that help break things, by making the tools for violence and destruction, such as Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. There are companies that fix what gets broken, such as Bechtel and Halliburton. There are companies that protect people as they break things and as they fix what's broken, such as Blackwater and Vinnell Corp. There are companies that want our government to smash across borders so they may bring new products and infrastructure, companies that we will see set up shop in that country. There are companies that want our government to smash across other countries' borders so they may suck the resources out from underneath the people there, such as the big oil companies. There are companies that like the US to attack other countries so they may have something entertaining to tell their audiences in the time between commercials: ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, CNN.

None of us wants to be duped. But we have been duped. Many Americans believe that violence is a simple and quick solution to diplomatic and social problems. You don't have to learn Arabic to bomb Iraq, for example. But we've seen that bombing doesn't solve much of anything. We must educate people about the success of diplomacy, peace work, exchanges, nonviolent movements. Our country's faith in weapons and war is based on our culture's faith in violence. Our fellow citizens must be encouraged to drop this faith, to become freethinkers, heretics. And to declare a war on their own terror, to rigorously question those who warn that our nation is in enormous danger from various enemies.

We must point out how we're being sold this philosophy of fear.
"

We're all quite aware of all the myriad problems you see in the US. Your disdain for America is endless. I'm curious to know if having said all that what it is about the US that you admire. Clearly the positives must outweigh the negatives otherwise it would be hypocritical of you to continue to live in the US when you beleive there are better alternatives.
You are indeed very good at cutting and pasting articles full of invective. I wonder whether you are at all capable of cutting and pasting some articles on all the positive aspects you find about the US. Is there anything (and what is it) that you find worthy in America.

Are you a hypocrite?