PrisonPlanet Forum
May 18, 2013, 11:12:39 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: What was/is the point of the Iraq War? War is a Racket!  (Read 4344 times)
DAVIDENGLAND
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 713


WWW
« on: March 01, 2009, 07:14:19 AM »

I still haven't worked this out. Can anybody help me?
Logged

The question isn't whether we are right or wrong, the question is, are we even in the conversation??
Chigs
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 781



« Reply #1 on: March 01, 2009, 07:15:21 AM »

Oil ....
Logged

"On every street there's a nobody who dreams of being somebody.
He's a lonely forgotten man desperate to prove that he's alive."
changedname
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,373



« Reply #2 on: March 01, 2009, 07:25:51 AM »

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Logged
vcif
Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 399


« Reply #3 on: March 01, 2009, 07:28:12 AM »

because they hate our freedom, dummies**


**This answer is purposefully nonreponsive and idiotic for satirical reasons.
Logged
Godfather77
Guest
« Reply #4 on: March 01, 2009, 07:41:34 AM »

The war was used as a pretext to syphon off vast amount of taxpayers money into the hands of big business and private interests.  A lot of the money spent on the 'War on Terror' still remains unaccounted for in real terms and its' no coincidence that we are now in a global recession which is being exploited to try and bring about a new financial order across the world. 

The creation of a permenant footholds in Iraq which will be there long after the Allied forces declare "mission accomplished" and the long-term plan to erode civil liberties in the West by using fear of terrorism as a tool were also part of the plan.
Logged
Letsbereal
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 26,870


Know Thyself


« Reply #5 on: March 01, 2009, 07:58:12 AM »

Let's have us a professional answer from the honest U.S. General Wesley Clark (Ret.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXS3vW47mOE
Logged

->>>|:-) THE CITY INDIANS (-:|<<<-
David Rothscum
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,683


« Reply #6 on: March 01, 2009, 08:43:21 AM »

Oil ....
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
That's about it.  Plus genocide and a permanent military presence of course.
Logged
donnay
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14,172


Live Free Or Die Trying!


« Reply #7 on: March 01, 2009, 08:45:14 AM »

Mainly control of cheap oil and help Israel gain dominance in the region.
Logged

"Logic is an enemy and truth is a menace." ~ Rod Serling
"Cops today are nothing but an armed tax collector" ~ Frank Serpico
"To be normal, to drink Coca-Cola and eat Kentucky Fried Chicken is to be in a conspiracy against yourself."
"People that don't want to make waves sit in stagnant waters."
Calvin
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 42


« Reply #8 on: March 01, 2009, 08:56:00 AM »

Its an encirclement tactic, first Afghanistan then Iraq who's in the MIDDLE ?! Just gotta tighten the rope now.
Logged
well armed
Guest
« Reply #9 on: March 01, 2009, 09:06:25 AM »

The Petro $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Logged
Dig
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 63,103



WWW
« Reply #10 on: March 01, 2009, 09:23:54 AM »

The only purpose of any war is control over sovereign nations (and their citizens) through the creation of debt.

The international banking cartel provokes the war from all angles and then finances the unnecessary buildups.

This has been the purpose of war for over 200 years and it has gone exactly according to plan.

There are nebulous wars that fit into this scenario (Cold War, Global War on Terror), more defined wars (WWI, WWII), and wars intended to never end (Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq).

The purpose is always the same, that is why no expenditure is ever questioned...even airlifing $12 Billion Tons of cash into the center of a warzone without any oversight.  They just print the money and try to find any way to spend it as quickly as possible.  We won the Iraq war in 2 weeks, for the past 7 years we have just been engaging in debt creation to yield more control to the international banking elite (via our soldiers' lives and over 1 million innocent iraqi lives).
Logged

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
Geolibertarian
Global Moderator
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,849


9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.ae911truth.org


« Reply #11 on: March 01, 2009, 09:32:53 AM »

Mainly control of cheap oil and help Israel gain dominance in the region.

Control of oil, yes; control of "cheap" oil, no.

To understand why, see:

       http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5088683890635214113
Logged

"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://webofdebt.com
http://schalkenbach.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0
Chigs
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 781



« Reply #12 on: March 01, 2009, 09:39:05 AM »

I'm thinking of a documentary with an interview with an economic hitman in it, can't think which one it is just now off the top of my head .....

But in it he said that with Iraq we witnessed the three stages of regiem change, economic hit men, assasination and then full blown military intervention .... and it was because Saddam would no longer play ball and do as the Americans commanded!
Logged

"On every street there's a nobody who dreams of being somebody.
He's a lonely forgotten man desperate to prove that he's alive."
Dig
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 63,103



WWW
« Reply #13 on: March 01, 2009, 09:55:13 AM »

From the movie "The International"

Two Interpol Agents (Clive Owen and a woman) confront an arms dealer concerning why a bank would spend so much resources and risk so many murder investigations to broker an arms sale. Here is the dialog from this part of the movie:

Woman Agent:
"But why is the bank committing so much of its capital and resources to the sale of these missles?"

Arms Dealer: "It's a test. Small arms are the only weapons used in 99% of the world's conflicts. And no one has the capacity to manufacture them faster and cheaper than China. What Carson is attempting to do is to make the IBBC the exclusive broker of Chinese small arms to the third world."

Man Agent: "But they have billions of dollars invested simply to be a broker. There can't be that much profit in them."

Arms Dealer: "No, this is not about simply making profit from weapon sales. It's about control."

Woman Agent: "Control the flow of weapons? Control the conflict?"

Arms Dealer: "No, no, no, the IBBC is a bank. Their objective isn't to control the conflict; it's to control the debt that the conflict produces. You see the real value of a conflict, the true value, is in the debt that it creates. You control the debt, you control everything.

Man Agent: [looks solemn]

Arms Dealer: "You find this upsetting, yes? But this is the very essence of the banking industry.  To make us all, whether we be nations or individuals, slaves to debt."
Logged

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
Dig
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 63,103



WWW
« Reply #14 on: March 01, 2009, 10:00:40 AM »

^ And that is why the Neocons may have assisted in logistics and the cover up of 9/11, but the ones who had the most to gain was the Federal Reserve and its European Banking Associates.  Namely Rockefeller/Rothschild.  Yeah the Neocons helped get us into illegal wars and sustain them, but they are not the main architects of 9/11.  That was done by the owners of the Federal Reserve, nothing else has made them more powerful.  Why do you think so many post 9/11 projects deal with the surveillance, control, seizure of money?  It is always about the money.
Logged

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
Dig
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 63,103



WWW
« Reply #15 on: March 01, 2009, 10:05:00 AM »

War Is A Racket

by Major General Smedley Butler 1935


Contents:
Chapter 1: War Is A Racket
Chapter 2: Who Makes The Profits?
Chapter 3: Who Pays The Bills?
Chapter 4: How To Smash This Racket!
Chapter 5: To Hell With War!

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

War Is A Racket

CHAPTER ONE:

WAR IS A RACKET.


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 [ I] 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 – 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 – not those who fight and pay and die – 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 – 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 – 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 – 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 – who do not profit.

 

CHAPTER TWO

WHO MAKES THE PROFITS?


The World War, rather our brief participation in it, has cost the United States some $52,000,000,000. Figure it out. That means $400 to every American man, woman, and child. And we haven't paid the debt yet. We are paying it, our children will pay it, and our children's children probably still will be paying the cost of that war.

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.

But here's how some of the other patriotic industrialists and speculators chiseled their way into war profits.

Take the shoe people. They like war. It brings business with abnormal profits. They made huge profits on sales abroad to our allies. Perhaps, like the munitions manufacturers and armament makers, they also sold to the enemy. For a dollar is a dollar whether it comes from Germany or from France. But they did well by Uncle Sam too. For instance, they sold Uncle Sam 35,000,000 pairs of hobnailed service shoes. There were 4,000,000 soldiers. Eight pairs, and more, to a soldier. My regiment during the war had only one pair to a soldier. Some of these shoes probably are still in existence. They were good shoes. But when the war was over Uncle Sam has a matter of 25,000,000 pairs left over. Bought – and paid for. Profits recorded and pocketed.

There was still lots of leather left. So the leather people sold your Uncle Sam hundreds of thousands of McClellan saddles for the cavalry. But there wasn't any American cavalry overseas! Somebody had to get rid of this leather, however. Somebody had to make a profit in it – so we had a lot of McClellan saddles. And we probably have those yet.

Also somebody had a lot of mosquito netting. They sold your Uncle Sam 20,000,000 mosquito nets for the use of the soldiers overseas. I suppose the boys were expected to put it over them as they tried to sleep in muddy trenches – one hand scratching cooties on their backs and the other making passes at scurrying rats. Well, not one of these mosquito nets ever got to France!

Anyhow, these thoughtful manufacturers wanted to make sure that no soldier would be without his mosquito net, so 40,000,000 additional yards of mosquito netting were sold to Uncle Sam.

There were pretty good profits in mosquito netting in those days, even if there were no mosquitoes in France. I suppose, if the war had lasted just a little longer, the enterprising mosquito netting manufacturers would have sold your Uncle Sam a couple of consignments of mosquitoes to plant in France so that more mosquito netting would be in order.

Airplane and engine manufacturers felt they, too, should get their just profits out of this war. Why not? Everybody else was getting theirs. So $1,000,000,000 – count them if you live long enough – was spent by Uncle Sam in building airplane engines that never left the ground! Not one plane, or motor, out of the billion dollars worth ordered, ever got into a battle in France. Just the same the manufacturers made their little profit of 30, 100, or perhaps 300 per cent.

Undershirts for soldiers cost 14¢ [cents] to make and uncle Sam paid 30¢ to 40¢ each for them – a nice little profit for the undershirt manufacturer. And the stocking manufacturer and the uniform manufacturers and the cap manufacturers and the steel helmet manufacturers – all got theirs.

Why, when the war was over some 4,000,000 sets of equipment – knapsacks and the things that go to fill them – crammed warehouses on this side. Now they are being scrapped because the regulations have changed the contents. But the manufacturers collected their wartime profits on them – and they will do it all over again the next time.

There were lots of brilliant ideas for profit making during the war.

One very versatile patriot sold Uncle Sam twelve dozen 48-inch wrenches. Oh, they were very nice wrenches. The only trouble was that there was only one nut ever made that was large enough for these wrenches. That is the one that holds the turbines at Niagara Falls. Well, after Uncle Sam had bought them and the manufacturer had pocketed the profit, the wrenches were put on freight cars and shunted all around the United States in an effort to find a use for them. When the Armistice was signed it was indeed a sad blow to the wrench manufacturer. He was just about to make some nuts to fit the wrenches. Then he planned to sell these, too, to your Uncle Sam.

Still another had the brilliant idea that colonels shouldn't ride in automobiles, nor should they even ride on horseback. One has probably seen a picture of Andy Jackson riding in a buckboard. Well, some 6,000 buckboards were sold to Uncle Sam for the use of colonels! Not one of them was used. But the buckboard manufacturer got his war profit.

The shipbuilders felt they should come in on some of it, too. They built a lot of ships that made a lot of profit. More than $3,000,000,000 worth. Some of the ships were all right. But $635,000,000 worth of them were made of wood and wouldn't float! The seams opened up – and they sank. We paid for them, though. And somebody pocketed the profits.

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.

The Senate (Nye) committee probe of the munitions industry and its wartime profits, despite its sensational disclosures, hardly has scratched the surface.

Even so, it has had some effect. The State Department has been studying "for some time" methods of keeping out of war. The War Department suddenly decides it has a wonderful plan to spring. The Administration names a committee – with the War and Navy Departments ably represented under the chairmanship of a Wall Street speculator – to limit profits in war time. To what extent isn't suggested. Hmmm. Possibly the profits of 300 and 600 and 1,600 per cent of those who turned blood into gold in the World War would be limited to some smaller figure.

Apparently, however, the plan does not call for any limitation of losses – that is, the losses of those who fight the war. As far as I have been able to ascertain there is nothing in the scheme to limit a soldier to the loss of but one eye, or one arm, or to limit his wounds to one or two or three. Or to limit the loss of life.

There is nothing in this scheme, apparently, that says not more than 12 per cent of a regiment shall be wounded in battle, or that not more than 7 per cent in a division shall be killed.

Of course, the committee cannot be bothered with such trifling matters.



CHAPTER THREE

WHO PAYS THE BILLS?


Who provides the profits – these nice little profits of 20, 100, 300, 1,500 and 1,800 per cent? We all pay them – in taxation. We paid the bankers their profits when we bought Liberty Bonds at $100.00 and sold them back at $84 or $86 to the bankers. These bankers collected $100 plus. It was a simple manipulation. The bankers control the security marts. It was easy for them to depress the price of these bonds. Then all of us – the people – got frightened and sold the bonds at $84 or $86. The bankers bought them. Then these same bankers stimulated a boom and government bonds went to par – and above. Then the bankers collected their profits.

But the soldier pays the biggest part of the bill.

If you don't believe this, visit the American cemeteries on the battlefields abroad. Or visit any of the veteran's hospitals in the United States. On a tour of the country, in the midst of which I am at the time of this writing, I have visited eighteen government hospitals for veterans. In them are a total of about 50,000 destroyed men – men who were the pick of the nation eighteen years ago. The very able chief surgeon at the government hospital; at Milwaukee, where there are 3,800 of the living dead, told me that mortality among veterans is three times as great as among those who stayed at home.

Boys with a normal viewpoint were taken out of the fields and offices and factories and classrooms and put into the ranks. There they were remolded; they were made over; they were made to "about face"; to regard murder as the order of the day. They were put shoulder to shoulder and, through mass psychology, they were entirely changed. We used them for a couple of years and trained them to think nothing at all of killing or of being killed.

Then, suddenly, we discharged them and told them to make another "about face" ! This time they had to do their own readjustment, sans [without] mass psychology, sans officers' aid and advice and sans nation-wide propaganda. We didn't need them any more. So we scattered them about without any "three-minute" or "Liberty Loan" speeches or parades. Many, too many, of these fine young boys are eventually destroyed, mentally, because they could not make that final "about face" alone.

In the government hospital in Marion, Indiana, 1,800 of these boys are in pens! Five hundred of them in a barracks with steel bars and wires all around outside the buildings and on the porches. These already have been mentally destroyed. These boys don't even look like human beings. Oh, the looks on their faces! Physically, they are in good shape; mentally, they are gone.

There are thousands and thousands of these cases, and more and more are coming in all the time. The tremendous excitement of the war, the sudden cutting off of that excitement – the young boys couldn't stand it.

That's a part of the bill. So much for the dead – they have paid their part of the war profits. So much for the mentally and physically wounded – they are paying now their share of the war profits. But the others paid, too – they paid with heartbreaks when they tore themselves away from their firesides and their families to don the uniform of Uncle Sam – on which a profit had been made. They paid another part in the training camps where they were regimented and drilled while others took their jobs and their places in the lives of their communities. The paid for it in the trenches where they shot and were shot; where they were hungry for days at a time; where they slept in the mud and the cold and in the rain – with the moans and shrieks of the dying for a horrible lullaby.

But don't forget – the soldier paid part of the dollars and cents bill too.

Up to and including the Spanish-American War, we had a prize system, and soldiers and sailors fought for money. During the Civil War they were paid bonuses, in many instances, before they went into service. The government, or states, paid as high as $1,200 for an enlistment. In the Spanish-American War they gave prize money. When we captured any vessels, the soldiers all got their share – at least, they were supposed to. Then it was found that we could reduce the cost of wars by taking all the prize money and keeping it, but conscripting [drafting] the soldier anyway. Then soldiers couldn't bargain for their labor, Everyone else could bargain, but the soldier couldn't.

Napoleon once said,

"All men are enamored of decorations...they positively hunger for them."

So by developing the Napoleonic system – the medal business – the government learned it could get soldiers for less money, because the boys liked to be decorated. Until the Civil War there were no medals. Then the Congressional Medal of Honor was handed out. It made enlistments easier. After the Civil War no new medals were issued until the Spanish-American War.

In the World War, we used propaganda to make the boys accept conscription. They were made to feel ashamed if they didn't join the army.

So vicious was this war propaganda that even God was brought into it. With few exceptions our clergymen joined in the clamor to kill, kill, kill. To kill the Germans. God is on our side...it is His will that the Germans be killed.

And in Germany, the good pastors called upon the Germans to kill the allies...to please the same God. That was a part of the general propaganda, built up to make people war conscious and murder conscious.

Beautiful ideals were painted for our boys who were sent out to die. This was the "war to end all wars." This was the "war to make the world safe for democracy." No one mentioned to them, as they marched away, that their going and their dying would mean huge war profits. No one told these American soldiers that they might be shot down by bullets made by their own brothers here. No one told them that the ships on which they were going to cross might be torpedoed by submarines built with United States patents. They were just told it was to be a "glorious adventure."

Thus, having stuffed patriotism down their throats, it was decided to make them help pay for the war, too. So, we gave them the large salary of $30 a month.

All they had to do for this munificent sum was to leave their dear ones behind, give up their jobs, lie in swampy trenches, eat canned willy (when they could get it) and kill and kill and kill...and be killed.

But wait!

Half of that wage (just a little more than a riveter in a shipyard or a laborer in a munitions factory safe at home made in a day) was promptly taken from him to support his dependents, so that they would not become a charge upon his community. Then we made him pay what amounted to accident insurance – something the employer pays for in an enlightened state – and that cost him $6 a month. He had less than $9 a month left.

Then, the most crowning insolence of all – he was virtually blackjacked into paying for his own ammunition, clothing, and food by being made to buy Liberty Bonds. Most soldiers got no money at all on pay days.

We made them buy Liberty Bonds at $100 and then we bought them back – when they came back from the war and couldn't find work – at $84 and $86. And the soldiers bought about $2,000,000,000 worth of these bonds!

Yes, the soldier pays the greater part of the bill. His family pays too. They pay it in the same heart-break that he does. As he suffers, they suffer. At nights, as he lay in the trenches and watched shrapnel burst about him, they lay home in their beds and tossed sleeplessly – his father, his mother, his wife, his sisters, his brothers, his sons, and his daughters.

When he returned home minus an eye, or minus a leg or with his mind broken, they suffered too – as much as and even sometimes more than he. Yes, and they, too, contributed their dollars to the profits of the munitions makers and bankers and shipbuilders and the manufacturers and the speculators made. They, too, bought Liberty Bonds and contributed to the profit of the bankers after the Armistice in the hocus-pocus of manipulated Liberty Bond prices.

And even now the families of the wounded men and of the mentally broken and those who never were able to readjust themselves are still suffering and still paying.

 

CHAPTER FOUR

HOW TO SMASH THIS RACKET!


WELL, it's a racket, all right.

A few profit – and the many pay. But there is a way to stop it. You can't end it by disarmament conferences. You can't eliminate it by peace parleys at Geneva. Well-meaning but impractical groups can't wipe it out by resolutions. It can be smashed effectively only by taking the profit out of war.

The only way to smash this racket is to conscript capital and industry and labor before the nations manhood can be conscripted. One month before the Government can conscript the young men of the nation – it must conscript capital and industry and labor. Let the officers and the directors and the high-powered executives of our armament factories and our munitions makers and our shipbuilders and our airplane builders and the manufacturers of all the other things that provide profit in war time as well as the bankers and the speculators, be conscripted – to get $30 a month, the same wage as the lads in the trenches get.

Let the workers in these plants get the same wages – all the workers, all presidents, all executives, all directors, all managers, all bankers –

yes, and all generals and all admirals and all officers and all politicians and all government office holders – everyone in the nation be restricted to a total monthly income not to exceed that paid to the soldier in the trenches!

Let all these kings and tycoons and masters of business and all those workers in industry and all our senators and governors and majors pay half of their monthly $30 wage to their families and pay war risk insurance and buy Liberty Bonds.

Why shouldn't they?

They aren't running any risk of being killed or of having their bodies mangled or their minds shattered. They aren't sleeping in muddy trenches. They aren't hungry. The soldiers are!

Give capital and industry and labor thirty days to think it over and you will find, by that time, there will be no war. That will smash the war racket – that and nothing else.

Maybe I am a little too optimistic. Capital still has some say. So capital won't permit the taking of the profit out of war until the people – those who do the suffering and still pay the price – make up their minds that those they elect to office shall do their bidding, and not that of the profiteers.

Another step necessary in this fight to smash the war racket is the limited plebiscite to determine whether a war should be declared. A plebiscite not of all the voters but merely of those who would be called upon to do the fighting and dying. There wouldn't be very much sense in having a 76-year-old president of a munitions factory or the flat-footed head of an international banking firm or the cross-eyed manager of a uniform manufacturing plant – all of whom see visions of tremendous profits in the event of war – voting on whether the nation should go to war or not. They never would be called upon to shoulder arms – to sleep in a trench and to be shot. Only those who would be called upon to risk their lives for their country should have the privilege of voting to determine whether the nation should go to war.

There is ample precedent for restricting the voting to those affected. Many of our states have restrictions on those permitted to vote. In most, it is necessary to be able to read and write before you may vote. In some, you must own property. It would be a simple matter each year for the men coming of military age to register in their communities as they did in the draft during the World War and be examined physically. Those who could pass and who would therefore be called upon to bear arms in the event of war would be eligible to vote in a limited plebiscite. They should be the ones to have the power to decide – and not a Congress few of whose members are within the age limit and fewer still of whom are in physical condition to bear arms. Only those who must suffer should have the right to vote.

A third step in this business of smashing the war racket is to make certain that our military forces are truly forces for defense only.

At each session of Congress the question of further naval appropriations comes up. The swivel-chair admirals of Washington (and there are always a lot of them) are very adroit lobbyists. And they are smart. They don't shout that "We need a lot of battleships to war on this nation or that nation." Oh no. First of all, they let it be known that America is menaced by a great naval power. Almost any day, these admirals will tell you, the great fleet of this supposed enemy will strike suddenly and annihilate 125,000,000 people. Just like that. Then they begin to cry for a larger navy. For what? To fight the enemy? Oh my, no. Oh, no. For defense purposes only.

Then, incidentally, they announce maneuvers in the Pacific. For defense. Uh, huh.

The Pacific is a great big ocean. We have a tremendous coastline on the Pacific. Will the maneuvers be off the coast, two or three hundred miles? Oh, no. The maneuvers will be two thousand, yes, perhaps even thirty-five hundred miles, off the coast.

The Japanese, a proud people, of course will be pleased beyond expression to see the united States fleet so close to Nippon's shores. Even as pleased as would be the residents of California were they to dimly discern through the morning mist, the Japanese fleet playing at war games off Los Angeles.

The ships of our navy, it can be seen, should be specifically limited, by law, to within 200 miles of our coastline. Had that been the law in 1898 the Maine would never have gone to Havana Harbor. She never would have been blown up. There would have been no war with Spain with its attendant loss of life. Two hundred miles is ample, in the opinion of experts, for defense purposes. Our nation cannot start an offensive war if its ships can't go further than 200 miles from the coastline. Planes might be permitted to go as far as 500 miles from the coast for purposes of reconnaissance. And the army should never leave the territorial limits of our nation.

To summarize: Three steps must be taken to smash the war racket.

We must take the profit out of war.

We must permit the youth of the land who would bear arms to decide whether or not there should be war.

We must limit our military forces to home defense purposes.

 

CHAPTER FIVE

TO HELL WITH WAR!


I am not a fool as to believe that war is a thing of the past. I know the people do not want war, but there is no use in saying we cannot be pushed into another war.

Looking back, Woodrow Wilson was re-elected president in 1916 on a platform that he had "kept us out of war" and on the implied promise that he would "keep us out of war." Yet, five months later he asked Congress to declare war on Germany.

In that five-month interval the people had not been asked whether they had changed their minds. The 4,000,000 young men who put on uniforms and marched or sailed away were not asked whether they wanted to go forth to suffer and die.

Then what caused our government to change its mind so suddenly?

Money.

An allied commission, it may be recalled, came over shortly before the war declaration and called on the President. The President summoned a group of advisers. The head of the commission spoke. Stripped of its diplomatic language, this is what he told the President and his group:

 

"There is no use kidding ourselves any longer. The cause of the allies is lost. We now owe you (American bankers, American munitions makers, American manufacturers, American speculators, American exporters) five or six billion dollars.

If we lose (and without the help of the United States we must lose) we, England, France and Italy, cannot pay back this money...and Germany won't.

So..."

Had secrecy been outlawed as far as war negotiations were concerned, and had the press been invited to be present at that conference, or had radio been available to broadcast the proceedings, America never would have entered the World War. But this conference, like all war discussions, was shrouded in utmost secrecy. When our boys were sent off to war they were told it was a "war to make the world safe for democracy" and a "war to end all wars."

Well, eighteen years after, the world has less of democracy than it had then. Besides, what business is it of ours whether Russia or Germany or England or France or Italy or Austria live under democracies or monarchies? Whether they are Fascists or Communists? Our problem is to preserve our own democracy.

And very little, if anything, has been accomplished to assure us that the World War was really the war to end all wars.

Yes, we have had disarmament conferences and limitations of arms conferences. They don't mean a thing. One has just failed; the results of another have been nullified. We send our professional soldiers and our sailors and our politicians and our diplomats to these conferences. And what happens?

The professional soldiers and sailors don't want to disarm. No admiral wants to be without a ship. No general wants to be without a command. Both mean men without jobs. They are not for disarmament. They cannot be for limitations of arms. And at all these conferences, lurking in the background but all-powerful, just the same, are the sinister agents of those who profit by war. They see to it that these conferences do not disarm or seriously limit armaments.

The chief aim of any power at any of these conferences has not been to achieve disarmament to prevent war but rather to get more armament for itself and less for any potential foe.

There is only one way to disarm with any semblance of practicability. That is for all nations to get together and scrap every ship, every gun, every rifle, every tank, every war plane. Even this, if it were possible, would not be enough.

The next war, according to experts, will be fought not with battleships, not by artillery, not with rifles and not with machine guns. It will be fought with deadly chemicals and gases.

Secretly each nation is studying and perfecting newer and ghastlier means of annihilating its foes wholesale. Yes, ships will continue to be built, for the shipbuilders must make their profits. And guns still will be manufactured and powder and rifles will be made, for the munitions makers must make their huge profits. And the soldiers, of course, must wear uniforms, for the manufacturer must make their war profits too.

But victory or defeat will be determined by the skill and ingenuity of our scientists.

If we put them to work making poison gas and more and more fiendish mechanical and explosive instruments of destruction, they will have no time for the constructive job of building greater prosperity for all peoples. By putting them to this useful job, we can all make more money out of peace than we can out of war – even the munitions makers.

So...I say,

TO HELL WITH WAR!
Logged

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
TheHouseMan
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,842


« Reply #16 on: March 01, 2009, 10:23:56 AM »

This question should be in the present tense. The war is not yet over.

And the answer is: controlling natural resources, stabilising Iraq

Both of these are so Iraq can be a powerless, unrebelling region under the New World Order.
Logged
Dig
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 63,103



WWW
« Reply #17 on: March 01, 2009, 10:25:34 AM »

This question should be in the present tense. The war is not yet over.

Changed to include both tenses (as there was a point to initially starting it and continuing to sustain it). I think my responses have addressed both tenses.
Logged

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
Unintelligable Name
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,651


« Reply #18 on: March 01, 2009, 11:16:26 AM »

Money, sacrifice, death, money, money, power, money, influence, death, rituals and magic.
Logged
Dig
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 63,103



WWW
« Reply #19 on: March 01, 2009, 11:48:17 AM »

Money, sacrifice, death, money, money, power, money, influence, death, rituals and magic.

you forgot money
Logged

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
Anti_Illuminati
Guest
« Reply #20 on: March 01, 2009, 12:07:31 PM »

Paraphrasing:

"You see; there never really was a real war, it was to practice taking over the United States."

"We are 'the Prize'."

-Alex Jones
Logged
chris jones
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14,383


« Reply #21 on: March 01, 2009, 02:11:45 PM »

The war was used as a pretext to syphon off vast amount of taxpayers money into the hands of big business and private interests.  A lot of the money spent on the 'War on Terror' still remains unaccounted for in real terms and its' no coincidence that we are now in a global recession which is being exploited to try and bring about a new financial order across the world. 

The creation of a permenant footholds in Iraq which will be there long after the Allied forces declare "mission accomplished" and the long-term plan to erode civil liberties in the West by using fear of terrorism as a tool were also part of the plan.

Good write, BUMP!!!!!!!!!!!! Guess what no WMD's, no factories  producing chemical weaponry, No yellow cake, no Taliban support. Innocent of all charges and its been 8 years now. POWER,PROFIT,FEAR,CONTROLL.
Logged
Revolt426
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,190



« Reply #22 on: March 01, 2009, 02:13:50 PM »

uhm the purpose for the Iraq War can be summed up in one word.

GEOPOLITICS
Logged

"Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate … It will purge the rottenness out of the system..." - Andrew Mellon, Secretary of Treasury, 1929.
David Rothscum
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,683


« Reply #23 on: March 01, 2009, 02:20:48 PM »

uhm the purpose for the Iraq War can be summed up in one word.

GEOPOLITICS
That's probably the best way to describe it.
Logged
hellcatjr
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 945



« Reply #24 on: March 01, 2009, 02:22:28 PM »

Read

War is Racket
To Hell With War

and the rest of those lovely books wrote by a REAL marine, not these fvcking grunts running around killing innocent kids and woman.
Logged

'A Man can only become great, when he understands his place in time' - JPM Jr.
Aerioch
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,332



« Reply #25 on: March 01, 2009, 02:23:10 PM »

uhm the purpose for the Iraq War can be summed up in one word.

GEOPOLITICS

I agree but with one slight adjustment...

uhm the purpose for the Iraq War can be summed up in one word.

GEOPOLITICS used to bring about the 2,000 year old Zionist Goal of rebuilding their "god given nation and temple of worship."
Logged

Dr. Strangelove: Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
Dig
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 63,103



WWW
« Reply #26 on: March 01, 2009, 02:30:53 PM »

2,000 year old Zionist Goal of rebuilding their "god given nation and temple of worship."


Zionists have been around less than 300 years.  Do you mean Knights Templar goal?  Or are you referring to pagans? Egyptians? Persians? Romans? Maybe Mongolians?

As far as the last 50 year zionist goal, that definitely assisted greatly in the war justification and propoganda.  But in the end, War is a Racket to create debt no matter how it is provoked.
Logged

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
Aerioch
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,332



« Reply #27 on: March 01, 2009, 02:36:15 PM »

Zionists have been around less than 300 years.  Do you mean Knights Templar goal?  Or are you referring to pagans? Egyptians? Persians? Romans? Maybe Mongolians?

Yeah WTH was I thinking? The Zionist goal is such a new thing...really.

Quote
Zionism, the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel, advocated, from its inception, tangible as well as spiritual aims. Jews of all persuasions, left and right, religious and secular, joined to form the Zionist movement and worked together toward these goals. Disagreements led to rifts, but ultimately, the common goal of a Jewish state in its ancient homeland was attained. The term “Zionism” was coined in 1890 by Nathan Birnbaum.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Zionism/zionism.html

The idea of returning to Israel never existed even after they rebuilt the Temple of Solomon the 1st time.

What year did the Jews who returned to a war-torn Israel to rebuild? Second Temple period or something right?

HISTORY: Second Temple Period - Return to Zion
   
Following a decree by the Persian King Cyrus (538 BCE), 50,000 Jews set out on the first return to the Land of Israel.



http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Facts+About+Israel/History/HISTORY-+The+Second+Temple.htm
Logged

Dr. Strangelove: Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
Revolt426
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,190



« Reply #28 on: March 01, 2009, 02:37:25 PM »

Are you aware of who created Zionism?.
Logged

"Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate … It will purge the rottenness out of the system..." - Andrew Mellon, Secretary of Treasury, 1929.
David Rothscum
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,683


« Reply #29 on: March 01, 2009, 02:39:34 PM »

I agree but with one slight adjustment...

If you ask me, Israel merely serves as a vassal state of the Anglo-American empire. It's about power more than anything.
Logged
Dig
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 63,103



WWW
« Reply #30 on: March 01, 2009, 02:39:55 PM »

The term “Zionism” was coined in 1890 by Nathan Birnbaum.


My bad, guess it is less than 150 years old, sorry. 
Logged

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
Aerioch
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,332



« Reply #31 on: March 01, 2009, 02:48:32 PM »

My bad, guess it is less than 150 years old, sorry. 

Yeah Zionism before the "rebranding of 1890 was known as ..The repatriation of the Jews under Ezra's inspired leadership

Quote
The repatriation of the Jews under Ezra's inspired leadership, construction of the Second Temple on the site of the First Temple, refortification of the walls of Jerusalem, and establishment of the Knesset Hagedolah (Great Assembly)

Following a decree by the Persian King Cyrus (538 BCE), 50,000 Jews set out on the first return to the Land of Israel

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Facts+About+Israel/History/HISTORY-+The+Second+Temple.htm

Same shit .. under a different name! Sort of like Templars vs. Freemasons.  They just remarketed the brand when they ruined the name.
Logged

Dr. Strangelove: Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
Dig
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 63,103



WWW
« Reply #32 on: March 01, 2009, 02:54:37 PM »

Yeah Zionism before the "rebranding of 1890 was known as ..The repatriation of the Jews under Ezra's inspired leadership

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Facts+About+Israel/History/HISTORY-+The+Second+Temple.htm

Same shit .. under a different name! Sort of like Templars vs. Freemasons.  They just remarketed the brand when they ruined the name.

So it is probably a combination of elites (like decendents of Anglo Royalty, Knights Templar, Hiram's Key, Solomon, Freemasons, Zionists, Muslim Brotherhood, Skull and Bones, Thule Society, etc)?

Why not just expose the banks that caused the war (and extended it) to create more slavery through debt? Nothing creates more debt than war.  Nothing creates more slavery than debt.
Logged

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
Aerioch
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,332



« Reply #33 on: March 01, 2009, 02:59:03 PM »

Actually before we move on... I want you to admit that the goal of both Zionist, and The Second Temple repatriation of the Jews are identical.
Logged

Dr. Strangelove: Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
Dig
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 63,103



WWW
« Reply #34 on: March 01, 2009, 03:11:39 PM »

Actually before we move on... I want you to admit that the goal of both Zionist, and The Second Temple repatriation of the Jews are identical.

The Second repatriation of the Jews? Because many zionists are not jews I doubt they are the same.  I do know that the goal of zionism is to destroy the jewish religion and to herd all jews to that area of the middle east.  And the ultimate goal (only known to very high levels) is to destroy israel so that there will be a second coming of Jesus (Hagee and Romney have talked about this and Coulter expressed it as perfecting the jews).  From the obscurity of this history (repatriation which is frowned upon by many) it seems similar to the muslim caliphate nonsense, just something to create animosity and give a fake identity to naive sheep. The ultimate goal of using this "cult" is the same as the others (freemasons, skull and bones, thule, muslim brotherhood, bohemian, etc): to destroy all borders and all western religions such that a secular New World Order messiah can rule the planet.
Logged

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
LoreOnTerror
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 584


« Reply #35 on: March 01, 2009, 03:14:19 PM »

To rebuild Sumer/Babylon/Mesopotamia. What really pissed the Elite off was Saddam was rebuilding it himself but he was putting his picture in place of the kings/gods of that time. He believed he was King Nimrod reincarnated. And of course there's always the money/power aspect.
Logged

“If the people were to ever find out what we have done, we would be chased down the streets and lynched.” - George H.W. Bush

"There is a tragic flaw in our precious Constitution, and I don’t know what can be done to fix it. This is it: Only nut cases want to be president." - Kurt Vonnegut
Revolt426
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,190



« Reply #36 on: March 01, 2009, 03:26:13 PM »

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2009/3603brit-imps_created_jabotinsky.html

1. Modern Zionism and the British Empire

Palestine had been a necessary imperial target of acquisition for consolidation of the Empire for more than half a century before the Sykes-Picot agreements, dating back to the 1830s and the efforts of Lord Shaftsbury, a leading Tory politician, and Lord Palmerston, his stepfather-in-law. Palmerston served as Foreign Minister from 1830-51 and was destined to become prime minister and master of cultural and political warfare.

Shaftsbury was a Christian Zionist and British Israelite, who believed that the Jews must return to Zion before there could be a second coming of Christ. Although he opposed Jewish civil emancipation in England, and was indeed anti-Semitic, he believed it was Britain's destiny to establish Zion. Shaftesbury wrote: "though admittedly a stiff-necked, dark-hearted people, and sunk in moral degradation, obduracy, and ignorance of the Gospel, [the Jews] were not only worth of salvation but also vital to Christianity's hope of salvation." Shaftesbury's writings appeared in the The History of London Society for the Propagation of Christianity among the Jews. Shaftesbury was a member of the society and, in 1848, served as its president.

In 1838, an Arab revolt took place in Greater Syria, run by Muhammad Ali, the Ottoman viceroy of Egypt. British Foreign Secretary Palmerston offered the Sultan of Turkey British help in putting down the revolt, and in return, Britain was given the right to establish a vice-consulate in Jerusalem. Once this beachhead for the Empire was secured, the British decided to use a fledgling Zionist movement as their proxy, to increase their presence in the Holy Land.

In 1840, Palmerston sent a letter to the British ambassador in Constantinople, instructing him to contact the Sultan: "There exists at the present time among the Jews dispersed over Europe, a strong notion that the time is approaching when their nation is to return to Palestine.... It would be of manifest importance to the Sultan to encourage the Jews to return and settle in Palestine because the wealth which they would bring with them would increase the resources of the Sultan's dominions; and the Jewish people, if returning under the sanction and protection and at the invitation of the Sultan, would be a check upon any future evil designs of Muhammad Ali or his successor. I have to instruct Your Excellency strongly to recommend the Turkish government to hold out every just encouragement to the Jews of Europe to return to Palestine."

In 1845, Edward Ledwich Mitford, one of Palmerston's collaborators in the Foreign Service and a political supporter, published "An appeal in Behalf of the Israel Nation in Connection with the British Policy in the Levant." The piece called for the "final establishment of the Jewish nation in Palestine as a protected state under the guardianship of Great Britain." Mitford reasoned that such a state would "place the management of our steam communication entirely in our hands and would place us in a commanding position in the Levant from whence to check the process of encroachment, to overawe open enemies and, if necessary, to repel their advance."

With the introduction of the steamship in the 1840s, the most efficient route to India and other parts of Asia was through what the British call the Near East. Britain's dominant shipping route now went from London, through the Mediterranean to Alexandria and Cairo by steamship, overland to Suez, and then continued by steamship to points east. Britain was no longer dependent upon the Atlantic currents and the whims of nature to circumnavigate Africa to reach India.

The opening of the Suez Canal in 1869 massively increased the efficiency and shortened the time of travel, putting an even higher premium on Britain's securing a base of operations in Palestine, as a northern defense of the canal. One of Britain's motives in starting World War I was to finally secure Palestine, and they did that with Sykes-Picot and the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. No longer would the British have to entreat the Turks to accept the Jewish immigrants, which in British eyes were only surrogates for their empire.

Jabotinsky's Imperial Roots
Every Likud prime minister in Israel has been an avowed promoter of the policies of Vladimir Ze'ev Jabotinsky. Some were personal protégés, others extremist leaders within his movement. The father of current Likud leader and candidate for prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, was Jabotinsky's personal secretary.

The Likud prime ministers are considered an elite grouping. They are often referred to as Jabotinsky's Princes, and to this day, Jabotinsky is omnipresent within the Jewish right wing. His picture adorns the Likud website, and U.S. Anti-Defamation League director Abe Foxman has had a framed photo of him on his desk.

Jabotinsky was a wholly owned and created asset of the British Empire. He was controlled by a political network led by Leo Stennet Amery, who became Britain's most prominent Imperial spokesman and political organizer. Amery's circle included the greatest names of British imperialism: Cecil John Rhodes, the self-avowed enemy of the American republic; the Coefficients group; and Alfred Milner, Rhodes' mentor, who ran Rhodes' secret society.

Jabotinsky and the creation of a Jewish Legion became Amery's number one project, as the British moved to take over Palestine at the close of World War I.

Amery's vision was that of Rhodes, who, in 1877, wrote his first Last Will and Testament. Only a bit more than a decade had passed since the British plan to dismember the United States in a Civil War had failed, bitterly. Rhodes, a rabid British race imperialist, had amassed his fortune through the exploration and mining of gold in Africa. Rhodes wrote that the purpose of his Will was: "To and for the establishment, promotion and development of a Secret Society, the true aim and object whereof shall be for the extension of British rule throughout the world, the perfecting of a system of emigration from the United Kingdom, and of colonisation by British subjects of all lands ... and especially the ... entire continent of Africa, the Holy Land, the Valley of the Euphrates, ... the whole of South America, the Islands of the Pacific not heretofore possessed by Great Britain, ... the seaboard of China and Japan, the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire..." (emphasis added).

Rhodes' secret society, and the intricacies of how it operated, are detailed in Carroll Quigley's The Anglo-American Establishment. Quigley describes the British power elite and their purpose at the turn of the century. They combined important press outlets, created political institutions, and used financial power to affect their policy. This elite group consisted of the Venetian Cecil family; the political and financial trustees of Rhodes' Trust, in which Alfred Milner was key; various banking institutions, including Lazard Frères; and the British royal family. Quigley describes a small inner core of collaborators, with two concentric circles of semi-witting and non-witting conspirators from Britain's aristocracy and financial elite.

By and large, they shared the aims of Rhodes' Will. They had one major enemy, the American System of Political Economy. It threatened the existence of the British Empire, which depended upon a mercantilist system of securing cheap raw materials from colonized, backward parts of the world, and shipping them back to England for industrial production and military use.

At the turn of the century, there were two powers in the world that represented the American system: the United States of America, and Germany, which had built its economy on the model of America's great economist Henry C. Carey. Following the stipulations of Rhodes' Will, his collaborators sparked World War I to dismantle a hated and threatening Germany, and to carve up Europe. They sought to secure and expand their colonial holdings by acquiring much of the Ottoman Empire, which would give them its oil holdings, as well as secure Palestine as a military buffer to the Suez Canal. In order to accomplish these goals, they also worked non-stop to trap the United States into collaborating with their warring schemes, and sought to diminish America's industrial economy from within.

Lord Alfred Milner, who ran Rhodes' Trust, was central to the secret cabal. He had been British High Commissioner for Africa, had won the Boer War, and had united South Africa as one political entity under British rule. That act gave Britain looting rights for the most important raw materials on the continent, and he derived much power from these accomplishments.

At the close of the Boer War, Milner recruited a group of the best and the brightest from Oxford University to assist him in establishing British rule in Africa. He recruited them to his philosophy and became each and every one's mentor. Known as Milner's Kindergarten or The Kindergarten, these individuals returned to London and would play a major role in both World War I and World War II.

As World War I approached, Rhodes' secret society, under the direction of Milner and various other collaborators, went to work. Both Liberal and Conservative, they held in common a rabid racial imperialism. Their own writings detail their thoughts and aims. For propaganda purposes, they created the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA), but they also purchased the Times of London and ran other crucial press organs to rally the public behind their aims.

Milner's personal protégé was Leo Stennet Amery. Quigley describes their relationship: "Amery can be regarded as Milner's political heir. From the beginning of his own political career in 1906 to the death of Milner in 1925, he was more closely associated with Milner's active political life than any other person ... his associations with Milner became steadily more intimate. In his last years of public office, Milner was generally assisted by Amery (1917-1921), and when he died it was Amery who arranged the public memorial service and controlled the distribution of tickets."

To understand today's Likud and the rest of the right wing in Israel, one must understand Amery and Milner and their role in shaping the British Empire. They used Zionism to secure the oilfields of the Middle East and defense of the Suez Canal. They stated this openly, as did their Christian Zionist supporters. This was geopolitics in the mode of Sykes-Picot.

2. Amery: The Empire Is 'The Kingdom of Heaven'
Leo Amery's son, Julian, aptly described his father in the 1988 introduction to The Empire at Bay, Notes from the Leo Amery Diaries. British Imperialism, he wrote, "was a civilizing mission to which the British peoples could dedicate themselves: one from which they would derive a sense of purpose and a source of pride.

This concept of Empire was much more than a political programme. It was an ideology that constituted a coherent system of thought to which every issue, political, economic, social, cultural, and even moral could be related. More than that, it was a faith. This faith would sustain [Leo Amery] throughout his entire life.

In Leo Amery's own words, this faith and concept of Empire, with its responsibility for "civilizing other cultures," was mandated by God. Amery is famously quoted as saying: "The Empire is not external to any of the British nation. It is something like the Kingdom of Heaven within ourselves."

Amery entered Oxford College at Balliol in 1892. Aside from languages, his study concentrated on political economy. He became a Fellow at All Souls College and left in 1898, taking a post writing for the Times. He was recruited by Milner in South Africa while reporting on the Boer War, and was known as Milner's mouthpiece.

Amery had a long dinner meeting with Cecil Rhodes in Africa, a few years before the latter's death in 1902. Rhodes discussed with him the Rhodes Trust, and the establishment of a scholarship fund that would recruit talented young men to attend a special program at Oxford. The scholarships would be awarded to select students from the British Dominions, Germany, and the United States, with the proportion heavily weighted to U.S. recipients. The overt purpose was to recruit American support for the British Empire.

Amery ran Rhodes' Trust from 1933 until his death in 1955. He joined the board as a director in 1919, and for the next 36 years, he missed only one meeting.

While at Oxford, Amery founded a branch of the Fabian Society, and established a close relationship with the Fabians Sidney and Beatrice Webb. He also came under the hegemony of Joseph Chamberlain, to become the leading spokesman for a tariff policy to secure advancement of the Empire.

In 1902, he and the Webbs founded the Coefficients, a secret dining club of Liberal and Conservative imperialists. The group of a dozen persons was chosen for their expertise. They included Bertrand Russell for science; Halford Mackinder for geopolitics; Sir Clinton Dawkins, a partner of Morgan Guaranty Bank, London, for finance; Prof. W.A.S. Hewins, principal of the London School of Economics, for economics; and Leo Maxse, a close collaborator of Amery's and editor of the National Review, for journalism. H.G. Wells was chosen for his general knowledge. Of Wells, Amery wrote in his autobiography: "Our minds certainly worked very much alike in many ways and for some years we saw a good deal of each other."

The format of the club required each specialist to make a presentation over dinner. Discussion ensued. Their intent was to create a Brains Trust that would make government policy.

Amery's area of expertise was the military. Having covered the Boer War for the Times, he had become ensconced with a grouping of leading military personalities, and, representing the Milner Group, Amery was in the process of anonymously writing a 12-part series on the Army that would appear in the Times. The articles detailed how inadequate were the training and staffing of the army. He argued for a complete overhaul, so that well-trained troops could be efficiently deployed to the European continent and Dominions, in the event of a new war. In other words, Amery presented the reorganization plans for the Army that would allow the British to fight World War I.

Amery was already passionately imbued with Rhodes' and Milner's view of the British Empire in world affairs, and Bertrand Russell later described Amery's presentation to the Coefficients: "... in 1902, I became a member of a small dining club called the Coefficients, got up by Sidney Webb for the purpose of considering political questions from a more or less Imperialist point of view. It was in this club that I first became acquainted with H.G. Wells, of whom I had never heard until then. His point of view was more sympathetic to me than that of any member. Most of the members, in fact, shocked me profoundly. I remember Amery's eyes gleaming with blood-lust at the thought of a war with America, in which as he said with exultation, we should have to arm the whole adult male population..." (emphasis added).[1]

The original Coefficient group lost many of its members, but Amery and the Webbs remained, as did Wells for a while, with Amery being the only original member left when the group disbanded in 1909. Russell dropped out early, but Milner and Sir Henry Birchenough, the chairman of the British South Africa Company, along with John H. Smith, chairman of Hambro's bank, soon joined, as did others from Milner's circle.

In 1910, Amery married Florence Greenwood. Her father, Hamar Greenwood, had emigrated from Wales to Canada, where he married into a family of American colonists who had sided with the British during the American Revolution. Her family was fiercely loyal to the United Empire Loyalist tradition, which combined a deep suspicion of everything American with an almost fanatical reverence for the British Crown and everything British.

On June 11, 1916, less than a month after the secret Sykes-Picot treaty had been signed, Milner was given a full page in the New York Times to make his case that America should partner with the British Empire. The article was entitled "Lord Milner Wants Anglo-American Union: British Statesman, Who Was Among First Mentioned as Kitchener's Probable Successor, Believes It Will Bring World Peace." The significance of the timing of this article cannot be overstated. Milner knew of the secret agreements with the French to move the war to Palestine and the East, and for the carving up the Ottoman Empire between the two. His article was placed to gather America's support for that outcome.

A New York Times reporter had interviewed Milner in London. America had already entered the war on the side of the British, and as the United States would provide the margin of victory, it would have a major say in the settlement of the peace. Milner, the man in pursuit of carrying out Cecil Rhodes' Last Will and Testament, was about to join a War Cabinet with Prime Minister David Lloyd George. The secret agreement to move the war to the eastern front would give Britain control over Palestine, providing a military buffer to the Suez Canal. Palestine would also provide a deep-water port (Haifa) on the Mediterranean for the export of oil. Milner needed the Americans on his side for the plan to succeed.

The New York Times gave Milner a glowing introduction. Looking towards the end of the war, Milner sought two essential agreements. The first, that the United States and Great Britain would have a cooperative purpose in handling the peace; and the second, that there would be agreements signed to establish a unified military to ensure the peace—and, of course, the British Empire. Those exact same demands were echoed less than a quarter of a century later, during World War II, by American Clarence Streit, who authored Union Now with Britain.

Milner's words speak for themselves:

...What I especially stand for is the closest possible union between the various States under the British Crown. Always I have aimed as well as I have been able, at the accomplishment of this. This might seem to strike away from closer relationship between Great Britain and the United States. I do not think it need do that.

I believe philandering between nations to be foolish, but there must never be another serious quarrel between the States and England. I believe the greatest disaster in human history was the split which separated the American colonies from the home country... [emphasis added].

The word 'empire' and the word 'imperial,' imperfectly convey the thought, and perhaps, have been unfortunately chosen. They suggest domination, ascendancy, the rule of a superior over inferior or vassal States. But British 'imperialists' of the modern school (of which I am one and ever shall be one), when speaking of the British Empire think, not of an empire in the old acceptation of the term, but of a group of States, independent one of the other in local affairs, although bound together in the defence of their common interests and the development of a common civilization.

Lord Milner then went on to speak of England's work in governing backward peoples. He declared that she was doing America's work as well as her own. Someone, said Milner, must bear "the white man's burden," and Germany had a bad record in this respect:

I do not believe America would care to see the British dependencies in Africa ruled in the spirit which has been shown by Germany in such few enterprises of the sort as she has undertaken. And I am sure that those in the United States who are familiar with the facts of British Government in India, would never wish to see that Government replaced by a Government of Junkers.

Milner ended:

... I was ultra-British—an out and out British Imperialist.

That is what I am and always shall be. I have given you my reasons for it, my reasons too, for thinking that British Imperialism, as I conceive it, should find favour and sympathy in your country, on which, next to my own, I base my hopes for the future freedom and progress and peace of the world.

Milner was a lying scoundrel. His purpose and belief were quite to the contrary. A March 18, 1917 entry in Beatrice Webb's diary describes Milner's more private thoughts. Webb's entry is made at the conclusion of a briefing she was given by Tom Jones, then acting secretary to the Cabinet Committee on Territorial Terms of Peace, and a close friend. Milner was the chairman of this committee. "There is a vivid movement, guided by Milner and served by Amery, to prepare for another war, to complete the ruin of Germany and the domination of the British Empire. This gang of Power worshippers are running down the Russian revolution and minimising the entry of the U.S.A as one of the belligerents. They are bent on maintaining a ruling caste of a ruling race: they fear and despise democracy. Any aspirations towards self-government among British subjects, who do not already possess it, is sedition to be put down by machine guns and plentiful hangings."

Milner's private papers give credence to this report. After colonizing Southern Africa, he wrote: "I believe in a lot of virtual-self-government in the new Colonies, without letting the supreme control out of Imperial hands."

Amery's view was similar:

South Africa must develop as a white man's country under the guidance of white men, and not as a bastard country like most of South America.... In five hundred years' time I expect the South African white man will contain a strong dark blend, and the end of all things may be a brown South African race.... That doesn't matter, what does matter is that there should not be too quick a mixture now or for the next few centuries.

Amery was a eugenicist, as well, referring to the African population as "niggers."

Logged

"Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate … It will purge the rottenness out of the system..." - Andrew Mellon, Secretary of Treasury, 1929.
Revolt426
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,190



« Reply #37 on: March 01, 2009, 03:27:36 PM »

Zionism /=/ Judaism
Logged

"Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate … It will purge the rottenness out of the system..." - Andrew Mellon, Secretary of Treasury, 1929.
blackturtle.us
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 734



WWW
« Reply #38 on: March 01, 2009, 03:28:32 PM »

It was impossible to justify and totally and completely pointless!!! Millions of morons elected an idiot in 2000 to be our president and we've been paying for that incredibly obvious and stupid mistake ever since!!! Gore may not have been the greatest politician to ever run for public office, but any half-wit should have known that he would have kept this country out of all the trouble that has come about as a result of Georgie being elected as president. The most amazing thing of all is that Bush was re-elected 2004. Apparently when the Who sang "We won't get fooled again!" all the half-wits who voted for Bush weren't paying attention!
Logged

Geolibertarian
Global Moderator
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,849


9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.ae911truth.org


« Reply #39 on: March 01, 2009, 03:38:53 PM »

Zionism /=/ Judaism

Correct:

       http://www.jewsnotzionists.org
       http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com
       http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9I2RkZdE20
Logged

"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://webofdebt.com
http://schalkenbach.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.17 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!