War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as
something that is not what it seems to the majority of 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 masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a
nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with
America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it
gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag
follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy
investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight
for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of
Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

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.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison.
Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months
in active military service as a member of this country's most agile
military force, the Marine Corps. 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 suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of
it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a
thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained
in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is
typical with everyone in the military service.

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. 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.

These are the words of Smedley Darlington Butler (July 30, 1881 – June
21, 1940), who was a Major General in the U.S. Marine Corps, an
outspoken critic of U.S. military adventurism, and at the time of his
death the most decorated Marine in U.S. history.

Harry doesn't know....

On 10/25/11 11:12 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 08:04:54 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:



I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a
nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight.
Based on your definition, the US would have never had a war.
Are you really saying we should not have even been in WWI& WWII?



It's not *my* definition. The post contained the thoughts of a highly
decorated U.S. Marine officer, and the important part was how and why he
thought soldiers were being used to further the gains of the wealthy.

Just the other day, a Bush admin official finally admitted we went to
Iraq because of the oil.

On 10/25/2011 11:18 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/25/11 11:12 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 08:04:54 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:



I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a
nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight.
Based on your definition, the US would have never had a war.
Are you really saying we should not have even been in WWI& WWII?



It's not *my* definition. The post contained the thoughts of a highly
decorated U.S. Marine officer, and the important part was how and why he
thought soldiers were being used to further the gains of the wealthy.

Just the other day, a Bush admin official finally admitted we went to
Iraq because of the oil.


Well, we went into Libya for oil too, the only difference is the oil in
Libya won't come here, it's for France and Germany. Still the asshole
won't let us drill here....

On 10/25/11 11:20 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 10/25/2011 11:18 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/25/11 11:12 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 08:04:54 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:



I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a
nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight.
Based on your definition, the US would have never had a war.
Are you really saying we should not have even been in WWI& WWII?



It's not *my* definition. The post contained the thoughts of a highly
decorated U.S. Marine officer, and the important part was how and why he
thought soldiers were being used to further the gains of the wealthy.

Just the other day, a Bush admin official finally admitted we went to
Iraq because of the oil.


Well, we went into Libya for oil too, the only difference is the oil in
Libya won't come here, it's for France and Germany. Still the asshole
won't let us drill here....


A. We didn't go "into" Libya with any sort of military or occupying force.

B. There's no indication we went into Libya for the primary purpose of
getting its oil.

C. The Bush Admin told one lie after another to justify its invasion of
Iraq.

D. Oil companies can drill here with the proper safeguards.

"X ` Man" wrote in message
m...


B. There's no indication we went into Libya for the primary purpose of
getting its oil.


You might want to read up on recent media reports.

Eisboch

On 10/26/11 7:14 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"X ` Man" wrote in message
m...


B. There's no indication we went into Libya for the primary purpose of
getting its oil.


You might want to read up on recent media reports.

Eisboch

I doubt Libyans will want to give up their socialism to become client
states of the west. In Libya, aside from the usual dictatorial graft,
the revenues from oil went to improve the lives of the people, not to
fill the corporate coffers. We'll continue to buy Libyan oil, but on
Libya's terms.

"X ` Man" wrote in message
m...

On 10/26/11 7:14 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"X ` Man" wrote in message
m...


B. There's no indication we went into Libya for the primary purpose of
getting its oil.


You might want to read up on recent media reports.

Eisboch

I doubt Libyans will want to give up their socialism to become client
states of the west. In Libya, aside from the usual dictatorial graft,
the revenues from oil went to improve the lives of the people, not to
fill the corporate coffers. We'll continue to buy Libyan oil, but on
Libya's terms.

-------------------------------------------

I can't cite because I can't remember where I read or heard it, but a recent
non-partisan report suggests that part of our
interest in Libya is it's abundance of light, sweet crude .... easily and
cheaply converted to fuel ... and the type of crude
that our refineries love to get. In the article, Libya was referred to as
the next "Saudi -Arabia" type source.

I am afraid that President Obama is as much under the influence of big
business as any other major politician of the last
30 years or so. There's no "change". He talks the talk but doesn't walk
the walk.

On 10/26/2011 7:14 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"X ` Man" wrote in message
m...


B. There's no indication we went into Libya for the primary purpose of
getting its oil.


You might want to read up on recent media reports.

Eisboch


Gee, you mean I was right again? Yup, seems to happen a lot as I
actually listen to what's going on out there, both sides... Sometimes
when you add one and one, it comes out to two... Simple..