General Wesley Clark
- Thread starter kambo
- Start date
Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:
M
mattiasNYC
Guest
The scary part is that from time to time you find people in positions of tremendous power essentially confirming assertions that paint them in a very poor light, and yet a lot of people ignore it. What Clark said there essentially echoed what many of the neocons had themselves publicly advocated. Yet people were surprised.... even in the media....
tchgtr
Well-known member
“I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and 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 benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might 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.”
― Smedley D. Butler, War is a Racket: The Antiwar Classic by America's Most Decorated Soldier
― Smedley D. Butler, War is a Racket: The Antiwar Classic by America's Most Decorated Soldier
tchgtr
Well-known member
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century
For a minute there I was impressed that you had such a long military service record then you (it) said it was over a century ago.tchgtr said:
There is a button you can press to embed quotes (sixth button from the right above)
When I cut and paste content I usually try to attribute it within the HTML code
Code:
like [quote="smedly sez" ]when appropriate I provide the link that I took the cut and paste from...smedly sez said:
Of course I want free beer too.... so keep doing whatever you want.
JR
tchgtr
Well-known member
JohnRoberts said:
If you are ever in Los Angeles with some free time, I'd gladly buy you a beer or two John. ;D
T
tands
Guest
" 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. "
https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html
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. "
https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html
T
tands
Guest
" 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."
https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html
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."
https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html
Thanks for the offer, but I haven't been drinking in LA since NAMM moved back to Anaheim, and even stopped going to NAMM shows entirely (I don't miss the trade shows but miss seeing my industry friends).tchgtr said:
JR
@tands... re: "war is a racket". While there have always been people and businesses that "profit" from war (assuming they are on the surviving side). It is not fair (IMO) to characterize all war as a purely self interested profit pursuit. There are economic interests involved like productive access to middle eastern oil so larger (free) world interests are involved.
We are seeing the negative consequences of withdrawing military force from Iraq before the fledgling government was stable and secure, allowing Mosul to fall into ISIS hands. The press hardly notices or mentions that we now have thousands of US soldiers in Iraq again.
I am pleasantly surprised that President Obama slowed down his similar planned complete withdrawal from Afghanistan, while the current situation there is far from stable. For the record I questioned the "surge lite" approach for Afghanistan as too little and wrong strategy (different ground situation than Iraq). The initial denial of shelter to al queda after 9/11 was surgical and effective. Trying to pacify the Taliban and replace a region governed by strong war lords with democracy seems overly optimistic. They are just waiting for us to grow weary of the losses and withdraw, like everybody else before us but there does see to be some reordering of alliances as we withdraw influence from the region.
I do not want to re-litigate the last couple decades in the middle east, but reject the notion that left alone the world will magically become a peaceful and orderly group hug. I have glossed over or completely ignored multiple important events/regions (life is short).
Force is the only thing respected in the world and right now it is a 3-way (who has the biggest johnson) contest between the US, Russia, and China. The US's unilateral pull back has only energized and empowered Russia and China to become more adventurous. China has placed guided missiles on man-made islands in the Pacific (now that's influence), and Russia is now the dominant force in Syria (after we drew a red line there and then didn't follow up with action when we were ignored), and is expanding its influence in/over former satellites.
The new President elect promises to be less engaged internationally than the current POTUS, but we need to see how that plan survives engagement with reality (I am not smart enough to predict that future but I don't see Trump turning the other cheek). I don't think North Korea's bellicose behavior is related to some profit pursuit from waging war, but a more basic hunger for power (with a dose of crazy thrown in).
If war is actually some kind of mutual business pursuit, perhaps the "negotiator in chief" can make the best deal for us all. The problem with too simple answers for complex problems is that they are rarely correct.
JR
PS: For those who don't know who Wesley Clark is, he campaigned to be the presidential candidate for the democrat party in 2004, and momentarily considered running in 2008 before pivoting to support Hillary.
We are seeing the negative consequences of withdrawing military force from Iraq before the fledgling government was stable and secure, allowing Mosul to fall into ISIS hands. The press hardly notices or mentions that we now have thousands of US soldiers in Iraq again.
I am pleasantly surprised that President Obama slowed down his similar planned complete withdrawal from Afghanistan, while the current situation there is far from stable. For the record I questioned the "surge lite" approach for Afghanistan as too little and wrong strategy (different ground situation than Iraq). The initial denial of shelter to al queda after 9/11 was surgical and effective. Trying to pacify the Taliban and replace a region governed by strong war lords with democracy seems overly optimistic. They are just waiting for us to grow weary of the losses and withdraw, like everybody else before us but there does see to be some reordering of alliances as we withdraw influence from the region.
I do not want to re-litigate the last couple decades in the middle east, but reject the notion that left alone the world will magically become a peaceful and orderly group hug. I have glossed over or completely ignored multiple important events/regions (life is short).
Force is the only thing respected in the world and right now it is a 3-way (who has the biggest johnson) contest between the US, Russia, and China. The US's unilateral pull back has only energized and empowered Russia and China to become more adventurous. China has placed guided missiles on man-made islands in the Pacific (now that's influence), and Russia is now the dominant force in Syria (after we drew a red line there and then didn't follow up with action when we were ignored), and is expanding its influence in/over former satellites.
The new President elect promises to be less engaged internationally than the current POTUS, but we need to see how that plan survives engagement with reality (I am not smart enough to predict that future but I don't see Trump turning the other cheek). I don't think North Korea's bellicose behavior is related to some profit pursuit from waging war, but a more basic hunger for power (with a dose of crazy thrown in).
If war is actually some kind of mutual business pursuit, perhaps the "negotiator in chief" can make the best deal for us all. The problem with too simple answers for complex problems is that they are rarely correct.
JR
PS: For those who don't know who Wesley Clark is, he campaigned to be the presidential candidate for the democrat party in 2004, and momentarily considered running in 2008 before pivoting to support Hillary.
dmp
Well-known member
I think I've posted this before, but GWB had 6 yrs to accomplish his mission in Iraq and failed. Many people saw what a mess it was to launch the invasion in the first place (you break it, you own it). Is it really a surprise that Obama wouldn't follow in the failed, poorly thought out footsteps of his predecessor?
No, not when there is such radical wealth inequality and so much of the world lives in extreme poverty. Increasing opportunity is the best hope for future peace. Fighting more wars, killing more people, only perpetuates it.
The fault for this lies with the Republican controlled Congress, who showed no support when Obama went to them. One of many examples where Republican's chose a path that was not best for the country or the world, but would let them point the finger at Obama later and say "you failed".
tchgtr
Well-known member
dmp said:
Not to mention Bremer's exclusion of anybody having anything to do with the previous regime, (that we supported happily in the '80s including their use of WMD against Iran), which is really the cause of our troubles now. Obama did exactly what he said he would do during his campaign. He followed the timeline supplied by the Bush administration to get us out of a war that never should have been fought in the first place. Excluding the Sunnis assured violence.
What is the logic of making a country that is 80% Shia a democracy (despite Bush's pledge during debates in the 2000 election that he wasn't going to "nation-build"), and controlled by a Sunni strong man (again, who we helped keep in power during the Reagan years). This was almost assuredly going to mean we pushed the country to become a satellite of Iran.
All we need do is look at the surplus left at the end of the Clinton administration, and the economic wreck left 8 years later, after complete Republican dominance of Congress, the Executive, and arguably the Judicial branches. It went into the pockets of oil and defense industries. halliburton even moved the operation to the Middle east avoiding paying taxes in the US. We are headed there again, after 8 long years rebuilding, with very little help from the Republican Congress, which vowed to make Obama one-term president, and failed even at that, despite all the obstructionism. To quote our pres-elect...sad.
M
mattiasNYC
Guest
I think the notion that some people feel we'd reach utopia if only the US stopped intervening abroad is an obvious strawman. People aren't proposing wine and roses if the US withdraws from abroad.
However, there is something slightly bizarre about the view held here (US) on international politics. There's this very strong US-centric worldview. Now, if one couples that with 'Force is the only thing they understand or respect', which I feel is what is implied, then it gets sort of dangerous because we end up in perpetual war and perpetual international conflict.
Now, I'm all for avoiding discussing history (no I'm not), but if we are going to talk about that region we simply can't ignore what was there before. While ISIS is a huge issue, mainly to people in the region, Iran is painted as the other evil incarnated, and has been ever since the Iranian revolution. But if we then are going to talk about whether or not we'd be holding hands and hugging if the US could only not intervene, well then Iran does present a great example: It was democratic, it was secular, and it wasn't a hellhole. Then the CIA got rid of that and as a response Iran chose the strongest men they could find, because presumably they valued self-determination above whatever the US wanted to impose. So, the example is clear; in some cases we most certainly can argue that things would have been far better without intervention.
There's even a case to be made for having 'allowed' Hussein to remain in limited leadership unless the Iraqis themselves deposed him. Iraq was pretty clearly a hellhole under Saddam's rule, but it was a secular hellhole and it's far worse now. So again; intervention that made things worse. Going back to before the invasion of 2003, Iran suffered during the Iran-Iraq war: Again due to intervention by the US benefiting Iraq.
We could of course start talking about central and south America as well, to make matters worse. At least it's "our" hemisphere though...
However, there is something slightly bizarre about the view held here (US) on international politics. There's this very strong US-centric worldview. Now, if one couples that with 'Force is the only thing they understand or respect', which I feel is what is implied, then it gets sort of dangerous because we end up in perpetual war and perpetual international conflict.
Now, I'm all for avoiding discussing history (no I'm not), but if we are going to talk about that region we simply can't ignore what was there before. While ISIS is a huge issue, mainly to people in the region, Iran is painted as the other evil incarnated, and has been ever since the Iranian revolution. But if we then are going to talk about whether or not we'd be holding hands and hugging if the US could only not intervene, well then Iran does present a great example: It was democratic, it was secular, and it wasn't a hellhole. Then the CIA got rid of that and as a response Iran chose the strongest men they could find, because presumably they valued self-determination above whatever the US wanted to impose. So, the example is clear; in some cases we most certainly can argue that things would have been far better without intervention.
There's even a case to be made for having 'allowed' Hussein to remain in limited leadership unless the Iraqis themselves deposed him. Iraq was pretty clearly a hellhole under Saddam's rule, but it was a secular hellhole and it's far worse now. So again; intervention that made things worse. Going back to before the invasion of 2003, Iran suffered during the Iran-Iraq war: Again due to intervention by the US benefiting Iraq.
We could of course start talking about central and south America as well, to make matters worse. At least it's "our" hemisphere though...
