The Thing We Don't Talk About

[WilliamPitt]

With the revelation of the secret Downing Street Minutes, which exposed the fact that George Bush and Tony Blair had decided to invade Iraq in April of 2002, a heated debate has blown through media, congressional and activist circles. The decision to go to war in Iraq was made before any public debate was initiated, before the United Nations was brought into the conversation, confirming that Bush’s blather about wanting peace and leaving war as the last resort was just that: blather.

So why did we go?

It had been suspected, and has now been confirmed by the Minutes, that Bush took us to war on false pretenses and by way of a whole constellation of lies and exaggerations. First it was the weapons of mass destruction which were not there. Then it was connections between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda which did not exist. Finally, it became about bringing freedom and democracy to the region, which has emphatically not happened.

Threaded through the discussion was the belief that Bush and his petroleum-company allies lusted after Iraq's oil. There was also the idea that Bush wanted Saddam's head because of the 'unfinished business' left by his father in 1991. Some whispered that Iraq had intended to change the monetary basis of its petroleum dealings from the dollar to the Euro, an action that would have spelled financial disaster for the boys in Houston. Finally, many believed Bush ramped up a war push in order to give Republicans a flag-waving platform to run on in the 2002 midterms.

All of these were on the table as reasons for an invasion, though most of them were not included in public debate. Yet the real reasons behind this war, the real reasons for many of our military actions over the years, were never discussed. As with almost everything we deal with today in the foreign policy realm, the real reasons we invaded Iraq harken back to World War II and the Cold War.

When the United States jumped into World War II, President Roosevelt ordered the American economy be put on a wartime footing. This was a sound decision; the country had to speed its industrial capabilities up to a sprint in order to manufacture a huge fighting army out of whole cloth. The action was successful beyond measure. The economy was invigorated, the war was won, and in the process the military/industrial complex, so named by President Eisenhower, was established as a power player in the American economy.

In 1947, President Harry Truman put forth the Truman Doctrine, a broad policy of foreign intervention to combat the feared spread of Communism around the world. The Doctrine was essentially created by a small band of men like Paul Nitze, who were the precursors of what we now call neo-conservatives. Nitze, it should be noted, was the mentor of Paul Wolfowitz, who went on to be the mentor of Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney.

The establishment of the Truman Doctrine, the establishment of the 'permanent crisis' that was the Cold War, required the American economy remain on a wartime footing. There it has remained to this day, despite the fall of the Soviet Union and the collapse of the threat of a global communist takeover. Ten thousand books have been written on this subject, on the impact of our wartime economic footing upon domestic policy, the environment, global affairs and politics. In the end, however, the fact that our economy is set on a wartime footing means one simple thing.

We need wars.

Without wars, the economy flakes and falls apart. Without wars, the trillions of dollars spent on weapons systems, military preparedness and a planetary army would dry up, dealing a death blow to the economy as currently constituted. Without wars or the threat of wars, the populace is not so easily controlled and manipulated.

The economic need for war creates the required excuses for war. The 'permanent crisis' of the Cold War motivated the United States to support the Shah in Iran, a decision that led to the Islamic Revolution and the establishment of Iran as a permanent enemy. The Cold War motivated us to support Saddam Hussein financially and militarily as a bulwark against Iran. The Cold War motivated us to establish the House of Saud in Saudi Arabia to ensure a steady supply of oil. The Cold War motivated us to support Osama bin Laden and the so-called 'Jihadists' in Afghanistan in their fight against the Soviet invaders.

Now, we prepare to invade Iran. We have invaded Iraq for the second time in 15 years. We will never invade Saudi Arabia, despite the fact that this nation's vast wealth and Wahabbist extremists make it the birthing bed of international terrorism. We lost two towers in New York City at the hands of a group that we created in the 1980s to fight the Soviets. Put plainly, the 'permanent crisis' of the Cold War created a cycle of military self-justification. We build enemies with arms and money, and then we destroy them with arms and money, thus keeping our wartime economy afloat.

The Cold War ended more than ten years ago, but we still need war, and we need that 'permanent crisis' to continue the cycle of military self-justification. If a legitimate war is not available, we will create one because we have to. We have our new 'permanent crisis,' which we call the War on Terror, another turn of the cycle created by an attack that our foreign policy and war-justifications of the last 50 years made almost inevitable.

We need wars. That’s why we are in Iraq. This invasion and occupation of that nation has given our economy the war it needs, and has also created the justification for future wars by creating legions of enemies in the Mideast and around the world. Our wartime economy will tolerate no less.

Talking about Bush’s lies regarding weapons of mass destruction, or about bringing democracy to the region, or about the dollar-to-Euro transfer, or about the midterm elections, is window-dressing. We invaded Iraq because we had to. This is the elephant in the room, the foreign policy reality nobody talks about.

If you want peace, work to change the underpinnings of our economy. Until that change is made, there will always be wars, invasions, and lies to brings such things about. It is what it is.

[getmeouttahere]

1. One BIG problem with this....

although I agree that BushCo and its predecessors want perpetual war, in the past that so-called "wartime footing" improved the economy. And Americans were asked to make sacrifices during WWII, not the least of which was RAISING taxes to pay for the war.

It is what it is, but not quite like it was. If, as many suggest, our economy is consumer-driven, it seems to me that creating more consumers is the way to improve it. FDR did that with the WPA, among other things. I believe that is the kind of program we will need if/when we escape the clutches of BushCo's return to the Gilded Age.

[bribri16]

22. I remind us" "War is a racket" n/t

[question everything]

44. You can't expect them to think things through, do you

The war mentality goes back 65 years, while the consumer driven economy - 20, 25 years.

Plus, this is why the hawks, not economists, are the ones influencing him and are close to him.

[geniph]

53. Henry Ford was right...

it's no use building Fords if no one can afford to BUY them. That was why he, early on, paid his assembly workers more than the prevailing wage of the day. He had his battles with labor later, but that basic idea is sound.

[SteppingRazor]

2. And, let's not forget...

That even as the Cold War was winding down in the 1980s, with the Soviet Union lagging far behind in the arms race, we had already anticipated the need for a series of smaller "hot wars" to justify military spending until the next big thing came along -- thus Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador, Granada, Panama, the first Gulf War, and on and on.

Great article, Pitt. Love your stuff.

[flamin lib]

5. The Pentagon wants little "pot boiler" conflicts to "blood" its

commanders.

[flamin lib]

3. Eisenhower warned us about the Military Industrial Complex

all those years ago. Sadly we haven't paid attention.

[undergroundpanther]

4. YES

There is no peace when there are have nothings,have some and have it alls and everybody competing for a taste of peace and security a respite from the pain of survival,while those at the top live in obscene wealth are insulated from survival and making all the rules in ways totally disconnected from the struggles off life"down below"
Leaders are sociopaths because they can afford to be,because we let them sit on a throne we give to them because of our own self destructive beliefs about INEQUALITY.

[getmeouttahere]

17. Love it, undergroundpanther!

I'm surprised there aren't MORE suicide bombers...if you have nothing, and no prospects, you have nothing to lose!

[Donailin]

80. "Freedom

is just another word for nothing left to lose"

[suziedemocrat]

6. War is an easy way to pump up the economy - but it's not the only way.

Look how great the economy was under Clinton. Innovation is a more difficult, but I think more effective way to energize the economy.

[WilliamPitt]

8. During the Clinton administration

we had wars in Haiti, Kosovo, Somalia and Iraq. Yes, Iraq. On a daily basis.

It is what it is. Perhaps it was slightly less so under Clinton, but it was still there.

[suziedemocrat]

14. Much less so under Clinton. Our leaders need to change their thinking.

I even saw on CNBC that war is a good remedy to avoid a housing bubble. But, I think war is the lazy man's remedy.

I went on a cruise in 1998. We stopped in Sri Lanka, which was having a civil war. We also stopped in Thailand, Malaysia, and Singapore. As the countries grew more peaceful with more stable governments, the standard of living for the people was clearly higher. I flew back home thinking "peace = prosperity."

Of course the US is careful not to fight wars on our own soil, but I really think this (war is necessary for the economy) is flawed thinking. I think it IS the way many of our leaders think, but it shows their laziness - IMO. It DOES preserve the status quo, which is clearly in the interest of our current leaders. They sure don't want a bunch of young nerds taking over the country's wealth. When you rely on innovation to energize the economy, the people with the best new ideas make money, and they may cause changes so large that the current rich lose their income source. Innovation also can sometimes empower the people, which the current administration would hate. This administration clearly likes the idea of constant war, but it's just one more thing I hate about this administration.


edit typo.

[earth mom]

21. Excellent Post!

Exactly-War keeps the filthy rich and the filthy rich corporate hos happy and that's what's most important right? :sarcasm:

Also wanted to add that how many people aka kids would sign up for the military if they were told it was to keep the economy going? Very few no doubt. It's much easier to convince-or is it fool-them that they are fighting for "freedom".

[Karenina]

38. Or OIL?

[shifting_sands]

65. change leaders

Our leaders don't need to change their thinking, we need to change our leaders.

[bvar22]

28. Lets not forget the hideously expensive "WAR on Some Drugs"...

The Private "Prison for Profit" Industry BOOMED under Clinton. Over 1 MILLION (Democratic voters ?) NEW non-violent prisoners were added to the roles in the 90's.

[patricia92243]

7. I must be missing something. Our economy is crap. n/t

[LiberalEconomist]

10. Yes indeed

our macro-economy is crap. However, our plutocracy is swiming in the ooze of $$$$$'s.

[patricia92243]

26. But the post is about how war makes our economy better. May be true in the

past but not this time.

[suziedemocrat]

27. War can make SOME people very rich, it doesn't always help the economy. nt

[lostnfound]

40. Your definition of 'better' is not their definition.

More, concentrated in the hands of the few, is their definition.

Perhaps the 'tide that lifts all boats' is yours?

[checks-n-balances]

45. Our "economy" is worse today partly because wealth is concentrated

into fewer & fewer hands, shrinking the middle class and expandingthe numbers of people in poverty.

Also, the military is now more privatized than ever before. Whatever money was being made before, will be less as time goes on because the wealth is going into PRIVATE hands.

Great point you've made, Will.

Sometimes I wonder how quickly W and his band of thieves would have wanted war if they didn't stand to gain from it financially.

[endarkenment]

76. I think will is not quite saying that.

instead he is saying that without the endless torrent of tax dollars pouring into the war machine our economy would sink: it would get far worse.

However, we can pour the bucks in without actually knocking over petty dictators and wrecking whole nations and killing 100,000 and creating a planetary gulag with an unknown number of detainees. So while Will is correct his explanation is not complete.

But we don't have to look very far to find the rest of the story. The PNAC docs spell it out in black and white. Why Iraq? Iraq is our new improved forward base in the middle of the planet's best cheap oil fields. It is our permanent presence in the ME, our base of operations as we enter the Oil Wars. It is not about short term plundering of the Iraqi oil, it is about controlling the entire mesopotamian and persian oil field regions of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran. And it is about keeping our sick economy on full bloat.

[question everything]

48. Depends for whom

It is great for the big fat donors of Bush and company. Also, being in a war mentality distracts from individual concerns. After all, if you complain about your inability to pay for health care during a time of war, instead of supporting our troops, you clearly are not a patriot and hence do not deserve any sympathy. And why do I find myself using a non speak style of 1984?

[King Coal]

9. It may be what it is, but it is not that.

You argument is too weak to prove your presumptuous assumption.

[WilliamPitt]

15. Well, disprove it

with something besides presumptuous one-liners.

[King Coal]

57. The burden of proof lies with you.

Mr. Pitt,
The burden of proof lies with you. Why do I have to prove that that Paul Nitze didn't believe that war was intended to line his own pockets? Why do I have to prove that he wasn't heavily invested in war-profiteering? Where is your reference to his "walk in the woods" with Yuli Kvitsinsky where Reagan's plan to eliminate intermediate missiles was formed, or the fact that he negotiated SALT I and the Anti-Ballistic-Missile Treaty for Nixon?

You may wish your theory was true. It sounds nice. But, you are trying to fix the facts to support it. Presumptuous Assumption City Bingo!:eyes:

[WilliamPitt]

58. A few straw men there

I never stated that Nitze meant to line his pockets. But he was one of the principle architects of the 'permanent crisis' mentality that established the military/industrial state after WWII.

[King Coal]

59. Strawmen are different from the tin-man.

Well, Will, it's true, you didn't state that Nitze meant to line his pockets, but you didn't make that distinction, either. The problem with your unsupported theory is that you're making excuses for war criminals. How do plans for eliminating missiles fit a "permanent crisis" mentality? It seems to fit just the opposite to me.

[WilliamPitt]

60. Eliminating missiles is not eliminating the permanent crisis

In fact, eliminating missiles prolongs the crisis by making war just slightly less possible. This is the difference between the illusion of peace and the reality of peace. Nitze was adding to the window-dressing, showing the appearance of progress instead of actually making progress.

It's all a shell game. A few missiles here and there does not peace make.

[King Coal]

64. The essence of peace.

The essence of peace comes with the reality of peace. If missiles rot in the silos until they are dismantled, that reality of peace arrives with the appearance of such.

You said, "The Doctrine was essentially created by a small band of men like Paul Nitze, who were the precursors of what we now call neo-conservatives."

Horseshit City Bingo! The precursors of the neocons are the not the Truman Doctrine people. Those guys wanted to rebuild countries such as Greece and Turkey that were devastated by the Nazis (who have been known to do a little precursoring of their own).

I am amazed that you are willing to make that conjecture.

[WilliamPitt]

66. You should look a little more deeply

into the so-called Wise Men. Read Isaacson's book.

Clearly, the circumstances in 1947 were different than they are now. The rebuilding process, the Marshall Plan and the Truman Doctrine certainly did very good things for war-ravaged nations. These also set the stage for the long standoff of the Cold War and the permanent crisis which endures to this day despite wildly different circumstances. In other words, actions meant to do short-term good have had long-term consequences.

Nitze and the boys had many balls in the air, but the essence of their ideas are the ones used today: Bringing democracy by hook or by crook. Nitze did train Wolfowitz, who trained Rumsfeld and Cheney. It is a straight line association.

[King Coal]

75. That is such a load of crap.

Nitze made his money investing in Aspen read estate. Cheney wrote the book on war mongering and didn't need any mentoring from Wolfowitz via a "staight line association" handed down from Nitze. Cheney is not in the business of bringing democracy by hook or by crook. Cheney is lining his pockets, and for you to make excuses for that is nothing less than obscene. It seems that when you are hard up for a topic your brain takes off on a tangent train and dies like a dog in the rain.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. The "Masters of War" who hide their predation by calling it defense.

They give us an enemy to fear, then wave the flag, and tell us me must "Support Our Troops, the ones they send to kill in our name. They weep over their graves and build monuments to glorify the military and prepare us for the next war they hatch.

As Smedley Butler said, "War is a racket."

[cthrumatrix]

12. so w/o a MEDIA who is going to "make DSM an Issue"...?

[LiberalEconomist]

13. Mr. Pitt, sir

please allow me to commend you on a fine piece of work. What you have written here is spot on. There may be something else at play as well: we, the American people, are a bellicose people. Sure, there is a significant subset of the population that is against all hostilities. However, if it is not our sons and daughters in harms way, then "we" are more than happy to compensate for own insecurities by blowing the brains out of a 3-year old boy or disemboweling a pregnant woman. We are a sick people.

[getmeouttahere]

19. So true, liberaleconomist....

I wonder if that is the conclusion that we should come to after watching "Bowling for Columbine"

[PATRICK]

34. Forget the big picture for a minute

as we collectively thrash the American people and a vague complex in land where the people are demonstrably not represented, not in possession of a healthy democracy or information access.

Why did the Democratic party want this war? Because it had those esteemed self righteous goals that ignored the risks of compromising with the loons and rapists ready to scatter the bodies of innocent Iraqis and American soldiers to the four winds.

Got to get rid of Saddam who alone(?) has massive oil revenues to build WMD's. Got to solve the Middle East 'problem". Got to stabilize the region. Do you want this Bush screams? Yeah! Are you going to protect Saddam and be branded as treacherous cowards. NO! Are you going to give me the power to go to war. Er, yes but.... Just sign it! OK!

Too many of the war voters betray lack of compassion, intelligence and skill in dealing with their responsibilities. Politics was a big factor to game cleverly but it did not protect any of the widows orphans and unlucky torn apart Iraqi citizens.

Our party was suckered by wanting wiser, better application of force? All you smell when they get "shocked" by the natural consequences of an illegal war is their personal fear, deer in the headlights, apologetic, cautious, parsing criticism a mile behind the obvious reality where Biden holds sway with that painful self satisfaction of absurd bloody-handed sagacity. Our great leaders! Our own Samson blinded eyes as we are chained to the millworks. Our tendency to get the blame shifted onto us for letting our leaders get away with outright murder. Our getting mad at having to share responsibility for lies we still as a people are simply not allowed to understand.

But it is so easy to agree on the fact that we have to do something "over there" and keep doing it for reasons that change with the new bloody season and the squirming of the obese propaganda machine. Hard to make up reasons when they were all discredited in Vietnam, but anything will do when pissing down, trickling down on the masses.

Our leaders do it ALL badly, insultingly inept. A new war in Iran is not even on their learning curve yet, much less a dawning challenge to their personal human conscience, much less an issue needing desperately to be dealt with. The villains are incredibly oobtuse and inept, so the gentlemanly naive opposition that is bound inexplicably by a stolen rule book many people are coming to despise.

Other countries, notably Britain where the people plainly did not want the war- and were allowed to be seen not wanting the war- were bullied by the smug Blair majority. Your fault for voting for us. The price of prosperity is allowing evil pretentious games dooming the human race? Or rather the short term bottom line of proud idiots? These people claim to know better and then can't even put their shoes on the right feet. Reality was supposed to bow and accomodate delusion. The money and blood pouring is the old human story all right, but plainly these midgets of the ongoing(but not forever)human fiasco, can't see the writing on the wall, hear the screams of people who should be living in peace, can't smell the stench of corruption rising like a wall in all the civil governments of mankind, can't touch one single individual person among the people whose hearts and minds they have betrayed and intend to corrupt to avoid the consequences of being outdated "tough" guys in the "real" world.

[housewolf]

16. "War is a Force that gives Us Meaning" - if you haven't read

Chris Hedges book yet, do yourself a favor and read it. Chris Hedges was a New York Times war-journalist who covered the wars in Central America, the Mid-East, Sudan, Yemen, Algeria, the Punjab, Romania, the Gulf War I, the Durdish rebellion, Bosnia and Kosova over a twenty year period. He has come to see war for what it is and realized its addictive qualities. He writes about human-kind's love/hate relationship with war, the myth of war, and studied how war destroys culture.

It's a small book; less than 200 pages, filled with thought-provoking insights and introspection. I strongly recommend it to all DU'ers.

[getmeouttahere]

24. Thanks, housewolf, will check it out!

[Beetwasher]

18. We Need War For Psychological/Emotional Reasons

War is a group psychosis and deeply rooted in group dyanmics/psychology. It's emotional and almost always waged on emotion rather than reason. We have a deep seeded emotional need to have enemies in which we pour all of our emotional/psychological poisons and then destroy them.

Whenever they are truly scrutinized, the "rational" reasons for any war almost always and inevitably crumble and all we are left w/ is the emotional need for "sacrifice".

[suziedemocrat]

25. Exactly - nothing unites people more than a common enemy! n/t

[marions ghost]

30. yes -- "war is a group psychosis"...

in addition to the economic benefits to certain groups and the justification for a huge military, wars serve to create enemies for the purpose of group solidarity and catharsis. Subdue them, annihilate them, "nuke em"--and use them as a receptacle for all pain and conflicted emotions. Since a lot of people live their lives this way, it's not surprising that wars sell so well. But have you ever noticed, that when we try to annihilate something, how often that strategy fails? It's a loser. Wars are a losing strategy for the most part, and this one is a prime example.

[Jara sang]

20. We created a Frankenstein to combat a global menace.

And we then become the global menace. It is exactly what Paulo Freire describes in 'Pedagogy of the Oppressed'. The oppressed becomes the oppressor.

[Oversea Visitor]

23. It short

The Arms Corporations Interest is put ahead of all others.
The citizen interest in secondary.
Gee there is alot of countries that is not dependent on arm industry.
This is catering to the selfish interest of a few individual.
No wonder they become so powerful.
Guess the republican party has been assimilated by them.
I think maybe there should be thoughts of this on the Democrats party too
Now I see the US goverment is in the process of being assimilated.
Good Luck US and the world.

[JRob]

29. In the early 1970's (when I was in high school) obcessing...

along with most of my classmates as to how we would deal with our eventual draft notice, we knew this to be true...

Somehow the agenda of the MIC and other Corporates have been forgotten by a huge portion of my generation and the population in general in pursuit of the "American Dream". The word "complacent" comes to mind as well and I fear that it will take radical wide spread diminishment of our quality of life in this country (which is happening) to snap the majority of Americans out of their cozy delusion. Hopefully it will not be too late.

In terms of the actions taken (or not taken) by the Bush Administration leading up to the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, "some say" that 9/11 was part and parcel to the need of the MIC and the the threat was either knowingly ignore (allowed to happen) or even aided or planned accordingly.

I personally do not choose to support or deny the possibility that these scenarios are viable, but what's scary is that I would not be surprised...

Great post Will. Thanks, as always for your insight.

[Bluerthanblue]

31. Two great quotes for you, Mr. Pitt....

...
" It is easier to lead men to combat, stirring up their passion, than to restrain them and direct them toward the patient labors of peace."

Andre Gide

"Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men, for the nastiest of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all."

John Maynard Keynes

both, quite depressingly true in my experience, as is your perspective on the direction this nation has chosen.

[understandinglife]

32. Both simpler and obvious: Greed and domination - flavor, "American"

Perpetual war is merely one mechanism used by a control system adapted to the pursuit of those arm-in-arm goals -- greed and domination.

All the fancy talk of PNAC; all the horrific actions of Bush and his fellow neoconsters are but another instance, in the brief history of humanity, of the ability of the few to motivate the many into servicing their lust for unrestrained consumption of resources and unrestricted domination and disregard for any one whom gets in the way.

The Bush plutocracy is but another boring instance of folk being fooled, once again, into being the fuel and infrastructure of another evil empire.

That is what no one wants to admit. It's just not what any one wants to discuss while driving the SUV to Wal-Mart.

Our choice is clear. Do we enforce the law - that human instrument created in the recognition that everything is finite and every action should be accounted. Or, not.

We don't need to impeach Bush, Cheney and all the other criminals. We just need to file charges against them and prosecute them.

A small number of folk, gathered in Philadelphia, made a few essential decisions in 1775 and stuck with them.

It's 2005. How many of us are committed to applying the law. Do we have what it takes to file charges in every conceivable national and international court? Do we have what it takes to halt consumption of those goods and services upon which the Bush plutocracy thrives? Do we have what it takes to convince other governments to sanction the Bush plutocracy?


Peace.

WE THE PEOPLE .... MUST FILE CHARGES, INDICT AND PROSECUTE BUSH AND ALL THE OTHER NEOCONSTER WAR CRIMINALS. IT'S THE LAW, STUPID

[evolvenow]

77. Exactly. Join Doug Wallace vs B*sh Criminals lawsuit, support his efforts

DOUG WALLACE  FOUNDERS FREEDOM DEFENSE FUND

http://www.dougwallace.com/

Law suit against the current American administration alleging that the government has exceeded its constitutional authority by implementing a scheme for global dominance called "Project for the New American Century."



     This page will soon become  www.wallacevbushlawsuit.com                            



A lawsuit was filed on January 14, 2005, in the U.S. District Court in Reno, Nevada against President Bush and Vice President Cheney. The lawsuit alleges that both defendants have acted outside the scope of their job description in waging a war against Iraq. The complaint alleges that both defendants and others working within the White House and Defense Department have covertly implemented a white paper called “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” as presented by the Project for the New American Century or PNAC in September, 2000 two months before the murky elections of that year. Among the persons signing the paper were Richard Cheney and Jeb Bush. While the paper was published on the internet, implementation of it by the White House has been in secret.   Comments and further detail, see Founders Freedom blog.



As  we begin 2005, the most prominent and urgent need is to disassemble the fascist government that has taken over the United States in the past four years. To that end I have filed a lawsuit in Reno Nevada on January 14, 2005 against George W. Bush and Dick Cheney in order to let Americans have a chance of assisting a court ordered dismantling of the PNAC which has been adopted by the White House.



“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." Theodore Roosevelt, 1912

Don't know what PNAC is? Most Americans don't!  It is the agenda being followed by the Bush Administration since 9/11 under cover of the War on Terrorism. You can check it out on the internet by typing PNAC in your browser. Or look up Project for the New American Century. You'll be disgusted
(snip)


Try this link to connect to a primer on PNAC http://www.crisispapers.org/Editorials/PNAC-Primer.htm (may need to copy and paste in your browser)



You can read a press release on this lawsuit if you go to:



http://foundersfreedomdefensefund.blogspot.com/   (may need to copy and paste in your browser)



After the fiasco of November 2nd, we have discovered that we cannot rely on politicians or even politically controlled offices of Secretaries of States who control voting. If we are going to have an America of "We the People", we are going to have to take back the  Government from the politicians and place them under our control.



As an outgrowth of this lawsuit, ( and I admit we are plowing new ground) we need to use every  legal strategy available to obtain control of our government which  we the people are supposed to own.  A definition of a fascist regime is one in which control has been obtained by extreme right-wing elements. And that is where we are  today. We need to end that with an:



AMERICAN REVOLUTION 'O5



I will make suggestions for that in the near future. What we need to do now is  not allow Bush and Cheney the "mantle"  of office for the new term. That "mantle" of  appearing bigger and more powerful than life itself will not descend upon them if we stand together in this struggle.



And you know what? WE HAVE THE POWER TO DO IT!

http://www.dougwallace.com/

[yodermon]

33. Please do not forget the psychological reasons for war.

As well as the neuological. Your post is still quite valid, but when looking at the root causes of war, we must go back to early childhood traumas, not just the economic house of cards we have built upon the military-industrial complex.

http://www.geocities.com/kidhistory/childhod/chch6dm.htm

War as Righteous Rape and Purification

"War! It meant a purification, a liberation
...and an extraordinary sense of hope"
-Thomas Mann

Happy people don't start wars. They don't need "purifying" or "liberation," and their everyday lives are already full of hope and meaning, so they don't need a war to save them from anything.

What sort of strange emotional disorder is it that war cleanses, liberates and saves people from? And how can killing, raping and torturing people be acts that purify and restore hope in life? Obviously war is a serious psychopathological condition, a recurring human behavior pattern whose motives and causes have yet to be examined on any but the most superficial levels of analysis.

STANDARD THEORIES OF CAUSATION OF WAR
All standard theories of war deny that it is an emotional disorder at all.1 War, unlike individual violence, is usually seen solely as a response to events outside the individual. Nations that start wars are not considered emotionally disturbed--they are either considered as rational or they are "evil," a religious category. Although homicide and suicide are now studied as clinical disorders,2 war, unfortunately, is not.

Most historians of war have given up in advance any attempt to understand its causes, claiming "it is simply not the historian's business to give explanations."3 Genocide, in particular, appears outside the universe of research into motivations, since if one tries to understand Holocaust perpetrators, one is said to "give up one's right to blame them." At best, historians avoid the psychodynamics of the perpetrators of wars entirely, saying, "Leave motivation to the psychologists."4

The standard explanations given for war by political scientists and anthropologists equally avoid clinical understanding. Instead, they break down war causes into three general categories:

1.Instincts and Other Tautologies...
2. Greed as a Motive for War...
3. Stress Theories of War...

By examining only the sociogenic and not the psychogenic sources of war, major theorists to date have been disappointed by the total lack of results of their research. David Singer concludes that the study of war has failed to "achieve any significant theoretical breakthrough" and is saddened by the fact that no one has found any "compelling explanation" for war.29 Bruce Bueno de Mesquita admits that "we know little more about the general sources of international conflict today than was known to Thucydides... scientific explanations of such conflicts are not possible."30 Such extreme pessimism is understandable. Clausewitz's dicta that war is an extension of political policy has been fully discredited, and all the usual reasons for wars --for territory, for revenge, to obtain sacrificial prisoners, to obtain coups, as God's will, to stop dominoes from falling--turn out to be only rationalizations.31 But the failure to find valid motives for wars only applies to sociogenic theories, ones that carefully avoid the psychological model of human violence that has proved so fruitful in the study of the causes of homicide and suicide. We will first turn to the results of the recent clinical studies of individual violence before we propose our psychogenic theory of war.
...

more at http://www.geocities.com/kidhistory/childhod/chch6dm.htm

[Cleita]

35. Having lived through those times, I was very aware of the

wartime economy. A question I asked a teacher many years ago and that I still ask is why didn't we transfer this war time economy to a space age economy. All the military readiness and factories churning out hardware and creating jobs would still be in place with space exploration and scientific discoveries as the ultimate goals. I thought that with the man on the moon walk, we would rocket forward to "2001, A Space Odyssey". So did Clarke, incidentally. But it seems our space program is in its death throes from lack of interest by everyone.

This is why I think the Bush neo-cons are deliberately trying to collapse our economy, so that they can cancel those huge debts by making the dollar worthless, and then they intend to start a military government, with factories churning out WMD's. Our children will be shoved into the military because they won't have any choice for survival. Also, the collapse of the dollar will make social programs like Social Security and Medicare jokes.

We still could maintain this economy going out into space but the damp minds that are in power now have no imagination to pull this off and will go back to the Middle Ages instead to implement something that they understand, war, war and more war, as long as they profit from it and their kids don't get sent into the trenches.

[bpilgrim]

36. that is why the right to declare & fund war is with the congress

and not in the hands of 1 person or small group of folks.

we MUST educate folks on WHY that constitutional law must NEVER be abrogated, as it was with Iraq in the wake of 911.

it has been a long standing custom of kings and dictators to keep their people impoverished and without hope to wage wars in order to 'protect' them.

how can we right the wrongs our congress folk made by throwing their constitutional swords into the sand and walking off the field :shrug:

peace

[Cleita]

39. At least back in those days, warriors were needed to

protect the farmlands and the peasants who worked on them from invaders, as well as the women and children, so a warrior king was needed. Also, those kings went into battle with their troops, unlike certain chimperors we know.

[bpilgrim]

43. "a warrior king was needed" - not according to western law

that was THE source of most corruption and precisely why we crafted our constitution the way we did & the Brits took control of the purse, away from the king.

this long fought and hard won right must never be surrendered or we will get EXACTLY what we have been.

peace

[Cleita]

47. Sorry, you are thinking more into modern times than me.

I should have been more specific. I was thinking the Iliad and the old days of warlord kings in the Mediterranean. I think it also applies to various barbarian tribes before they were "civilized" by the Romans. Also, the Samurai in Japan rose for the same reasons.

[bpilgrim]

67. actually i am thinking from ancient times till about the time of the 1215

having control of the purse removed from the KINGS is probably the most important right of representation EVER secured by weTHEpeople.

that is the point i am trying to make, no matter the time or culture.

"Probably the most radical departure in Magna Carta was this idea - revolutionary for medieval Europe - that the King needed to get permission from another body in order to levy taxes and spend state money."

source...
http://www.factbites.com/topics/Magna-Carta

:hi:

peace

[redqueen]

37. ... which is why we need more leaders like Kucinich...

more who will speak out about this horrible, terrible truth... who will endure the shit slung at them until enough Americans know the truth. Until enough of us ACCEPT this reality and stop sticking our heads in the sands and pretending it's not true.

Butler tried to warn us. Eisenhower tried to warn us. Many others have as well, but it seems far too many are still too willing to live in denial.

Thanks for writing this, Will. God bless ya.

Anyone out there who believes that it's not true... read this, then come back and summarize your reasons for disagreeing with Gen. Butler.

[question everything]

41. And, the obvious contrast with the Clinton years

which was the first after the collapse of the Soviet bloc and showed that peace time economy can flourish. It did so even before the high-tech 'bubble."

I had an email from someone who was present at a meeting in October 2000 - before anyone could even imagine 9/11 - where Wolfowitz was the speaker. And he said that if Bush would win the presidency, that he would go after Saddam.

[leveymg]

42. This econ. analysis is missing the element of the cyclical

nature of the economy. Look back over the last 100 years of expansions and contractions, and you'll see that major wars have generally come at a time when the economy needed stimulation following a collapsed expansion.

In any prolonged recession, money tends to safe harbour in land, bonds, and utilities. Wars shift investment away from stagnant "old economy" sectors and into newer, higher-risk growth sectors (technology, aerospace, synthetic materials, precision engineering, biomedicine) that would otherwise be undercapitalized. The huge public war debts also stimulate the financial sector, and generally interest rates are allowed to rise at the end of the war.

The pattern of the 20th century was that the end of both world wars saw a short recession -- high interest rates and unemployment --followed by a decade-long expansion as new technologies and processes were shifted from military to civilian applications. That also happened after the end of the Cold War. In all cases, however, once that technology-driven expansion runs out of steam, the American economy has plunged into Depression or a serious stagflating recession, which is what has again started to occur.

The problem with the cyclical process today is that interest rates have been artificially suppressed, capital is still locked in "safe harbour" which has resulted in a major real estate bubble, public debt is at an historic post-war high, but there is no real new technological innovation that might stimulate industrial expansion and job creation. Outsourcing has also cut into disposable consumer income which is increasingly dependent on rising personal debt load.

This is a macroeconomic disaster which is being barely averted by huge government spending on the military and "homeland security". The growth in public spending -- $240 billion on Iraq operations alone --is simply unsustainable. There are no good alternatives available. An expanded war in the Middle East or Asia, or another major terrorist event, would have a catastrophic impact on consumer and market confidence. In order to finance and manage a real jump in military spending, the US would have to re-regulate the entire economy. Taxes and saving would have to jump dramatically. Public confidence in national leaders is at an historical low.

Under these circumstances, we are not about to be lock-stepped into invading Iran. Syria doesn't really have anything of value to the U.S. For those looking to loot, they would have to look elsewhere. Is Saudi Arabia the prize? But, our leaders have to ask themselves: do not the Saudis, or their proxies, really have nuclear weapons at their disposal and a "doomsday plan" to use them?

For the first time in a century, war is not a viable economic option for the United States. As America reaches its imperial tipping point, we simply have more to lose than to gain from the outbreak of wider hostilities. We are out on cracking limb with nothing to grab onto but thin air and each other . . .

This regime is about to change.:bounce:

[proud patriot]

46. You are correct most don't want to talk about this

It is our very lifestyle , the way the system has been set up .

I remembering commuting in Bay Area Traffic everyday , 20 miles
taking me 1 hour each way everyday pondering why I was sitting
there . Many things crossed my mind but ultimately the way the
system was set up made sustaining life a backseat priority .
I wasn't fishing to eat . I was watching other people's
children while they went to the city to move paper to pay me
so I could buy food to eat .

[madeline_con]

49. Also...

having Iraq in our pocket, and Iran, eventually it looks like is a buffder zone and opens that Asian corridor to the Caspian that has had the neocons' mouths watering for decades.

Control of the petroleum supply is control of the world. It's all Pinky and the brain.

Now, as usual, I have a question. Would we be better of if the U.S. didn't control the world economy? Who'd do a better job? I'll stand by for the flames.

[whosinpower]

50. It's all true, Will

What you state - it is all true.

That is why the biggest enemy to the US isn't Osama Bin Laden and his Al Quaida martyr brigades of suicide bombers - nor is is communism with all its regressive trappings. It isn't North Korea for all its saber rattling. The single biggest threat to the US - is peace. Now isn't that a sad state of affairs.

And yet it is a trap. We all know this. BILLIONS of dollars spent on killing machines that could of been spent on medicare, education, social infrastructure. Other nations have achieved such great things without neverending conflict and war. Other nations have achieved a high standard of living for its citizens without war. Other nations can do it - and so too can the US.

Unless you are suggesting that the only reason these other nations benefit is because of the US warmongering. That other nations feed off the back of US innovation - and that war is needed to fuel US innovation......is that it?

[Randers]

72. WHAT HAPPENED TO $1 TRILLION?

Military waste under fire
$1 trillion missing -- Bush plan targets Pentagon accounting

Tom Abate, Chronicle Staff Writer
Sunday, May 18, 2003

The Department of Defense, already infamous for spending $640 for a toilet seat, once again finds itself under intense scrutiny, only this time because it couldn't account for more than a trillion dollars in financial transactions, not to mention dozens of tanks, missiles and planes.

The Pentagon's unenviable reputation for waste will top the congressional agenda this week, when the House and Senate are expected to begin floor debate on a Bush administration proposal to make sweeping changes in how the Pentagon spends money, manages contracts and treats civilian employees.

The Bush proposal, called the Defense Transformation for the 21st Century Act, arrives at a time when the nonpartisan General Accounting Office has raised the volume of its perennial complaints about the financial woes at Defense, which recently failed its seventh audit in as many years.

"Overhauling DOD's financial management operations represent a challenge that goes far beyond financial accounting to the very fiber of (its) . . . business operations and culture," GAO chief David Walker told lawmakers in March.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/05/18/MN251738.DTL

---------


US accounted for half of 1 trillion dollars military spending in 2004: Report:-
Stockholm | June 08, 2005 6:24:59 PM IST

Carrying on with its "war on terror", particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US accounted for nearly half of more than one lakh crore US dollars spent worldwide on military in 2004, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) has revealed in a detailed report.

According to the Institute's annual report, the total military spending across the world in 2004 reached 1.035 trillion (or 1,03,500 crore) dollars in 2004 up from 956 billion dollars during the previous year.

It added that Washington alone outspent the entire developing world in military goods, accounting for 47 per cent of the worldwide figure.

The report said that averaging around 162 dollars for every inhabitant on the Earth, the total military spending last year was just marginally below what it was at the height of the Cold War in the late 1980s.

American military spending rose rapidly between 2002 and 2004 as a result of massive budgetary allocations to fight "the global war against terror". "The main explanation for the current level of, and trend in, world military spending is the spending on military operations abroad by the US, and to a lesser extent, by its coalition partners," the report said.

http://news.webindia123.com/news/showdetails.asp?id=86798&cat=World

[VelmaD]

51. I don't know what to say...

thank you for talking about that elephant. I hope it moves the pile.

[geniph]

52. It was Eisenhower who first spoke about the danger

of the rampant military-industrial complex driving our economic and foreign policy - and who would know the dangers better than he?

The military-industrial complex is alive and well, and still all our foreign policy is geared to its needs. It's even more dangerous to us now, though, as the robber barons at the top levels of the hierarchy no longer have any true ties to the U.S. - their corporations are multinational, their labor forces third-world, their profits offshored. What is best for the robber barons is NOT in the United States' best interests, and has not been for some time. They are the first to wrap themselves in the flag and beat the war drums, but do not be fooled; most of them could care less what happens to the U.S. so long as their profits are safe in the Cayman Islands or Switzerland and their factories in Bangladesh are unmolested.

[spindoctor]

55. Great minds, geniph

...great minds ;)

[bpilgrim]

68. actually it is a story as old as time, addressed for the FIRST TIME in the

Magna Carta and carefully delt with in our constitution with the sep of powers and control of the purse being put with congress to deal with the military complex as well as giving only that body or the peoples Representatives the right to declare war.

that FACT & HISTORY needs to be hammered home.

peace

[spindoctor]

54. This is what Eisenhower tried to warn us about in his farewell speech

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm

I'm sure you're all familiar with this passage

<SNIP>
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."
</SNIP>

[Goldmund]

56. Here's my problem with this...

First, I agree with your main argument. Military spending is by definition siphoning the tax payers' money into the military-industrial complex. Without outrageous military spending, the military-industrial complex weakens -- and (as you say) given its crucial place in the house of cards we call the economy, the stability of our entire economy depends on it. Wars are the only reliable way to inflate military spending. So therefore, without wars, the economy cannot remain stable -- not economy in "how well off is the common man" sense, but economy as an organism, independent from the degree of cross-class wealth distribution.

That much I agree with.

But this is a very general argument. It is a contemporary incarnation of the argument that there is no such thing as a benign superpower, or a self-sufficient empire: by their very nature, superpowers and empires are agressive, expansionist and no amount of resources satiates them. It's a historically natural process, and applicable to any era; just as sure as the trees will go green in the spring, empires will devour their surroundings, and since they function in finite worlds, eventually, themselves. Empires are intrinsically war-mongers.

But you still haven't answered the question: why IRAQ? Simply because it was more or less time for a war, and Iraq seemed the easiest? The only time you address this specific question is when you say "...and has also created the justification for future wars by creating legions of enemies in the Mideast and around the world". Yes, "War on Terror" is a "permanent crisis", and Iraq is not only a child of that crisis, but also a "we mean business with this War on Terror" statement.

But does that really sufficiently explain it? Could not the economy as a whole have continued to function as it did, with ocassional small-scale police actions and increased spending (9/11 would have provided enough cover for that) to feed the MI complex? Was the MI complex in such an urgent crisis to have been in need such drastic measures?

I think that you err in saying that the war in Iraq was in service of the agenda of our economy. I think it's a specific subset of our economy that is trying to devour and enslave the rest of it -- for the lack of a better term, let's call it the MI complex. After all, even a casual look at Bush's economic policies (crazy tax cuts, corporate deregulation, corporate handouts) will tell you that Bush is not simply trying to sustain the US economy; he is working for a specific sector of it, and transforming it so that the MI complex is the alpha and omega of the US economy. He is transforming it from a superpower economy of the Truman Doctrine into an imperial economy.

And the conquest of the Middle East is on the Empire's agenda. Not only as a war because "we need wars", but because it's the Middle East and has specific geostrategic and economic reasons for its significance in the Empire's world order. Iraq specifically has major significance, not only because of its oil and the relative weakness of its army; its geostrategic significance is underscored by the fact that if you draw a line from Tel Aviv to Khabul, there is a perfect alternation of countries from which the US can launch ground attacks and those it may wish to attack. Syria is sandwiched between Israel and Iraq, and Iran is sandwiched between Iraq and Afghanistan.

In addition to that, in light of the fact that Peak Oil is approaching and India and China are having an oil-demand boom, you surely cannot expect the world's major powers to sit idly in the scramble for oil that is ensuing. Major powers never sit idly when there are critical resources to be gained, or at least, not lost.

[paula777]

71. You are one smart dude .....

Excellent points!

[Inland]

74. Agreed, and in fact we already HAD a war and a country to rebuild

in Afghanistan. If it were war for the sake of war, and spending for the sake of spending, we would have put real troops on the ground there and put real money into rebuilding.

For that matter, if it were war for the sake of creating a stable, prosperous democracy in the muslim middle east, we could have turned Afghanistan into a garden.

And lastly, if it was merely to build up military contractors, Star Wars, the Mars Mission, redevelopment of the entire nuke arsenal could have done it.

But they really, really wanted Iraq. That's what put us in even more of a mess than a randomly chosen place to send troops and money.

[IrateCitizen]

61. We're all beneficiaries of a society paid for in blood.

Want to know, in a nutshell, why we went to war? Because we represent only 4% of the world's population, yet consume over 25% of its resources. That, my friends, is the "American way of life". In order to maintain that asymmetric distribution, you must not only fight wars, but also maintain a global military presence capable of putting down foreign populaces and governments who don't readily accept this "arrangement".

Of course, the preferred method is to use multilateral economic institutions (IMF, World Bank, WTO, etc.) to maintain a stranglehold on their economies through the accumulation of debt and uneven trade relations. The book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man only serves to verify what has been repeatedly shown by the "anti-globalization" movement for some time now. This was the method most commonly used during the Clinton years, which led to the illusion of it being a time of relative peace and prosperity.

But, should those methods fail (or if the world is in need of an "example"), then military means will work just fine. This has been the method most preferred by the Bush administration, with the only misconception being that their ultimate end is some sort of departure from past policy.

Peak Oil is coming at us, whether we like it or not. And as much as many of us express our liberal tendencies, the fact of the matter is that we live extravagant lifestyles compared to the vast majority of the world, and the price of those lifestyles is paid not only in ecological destruction -- but also in the blood of men, women and children. For those of us who are unwilling to look in the mirror and DRASTICALLY alter our daily lives, we are simply hypocrites. We are saying we have a desire for "peace" but are completely unwilling to take the most basic steps, to make the necessary changes in our OWN lives, to even make it a remote possibility.

I fully include myself in this category of hypocrites. That's why I don't often post here in GDF anymore -- I figure, what's the point? We can all rage indignant about the current state of affairs, all the while enjoying our remodeled homes, mass-produced food, television, cheap motoring, and so on. Well, my friends, it is not a nice thing to consider, but each and every one of us is part of this problem. Until we acknowledge THAT little fact that nobody wants to talk about, then the current state of affairs will only continue as the norm until we exhaust the capacity for cheap fossil fuels, or fuck up our ecosystems beyond repair -- each case precipitating a massive die-off of the human race in order to bring population back down to a level more commensurate with the TRUE carrying capacity of the planet, as opposed to the illusory temporary state provided by industrial civilization.

Cheers.

[wrate]

62. Talk about the Evil Empire. I wonder if a thousand years from now the U.S.

will be talked about as the perfect example of everything that was wrong whith Capitalism (greed) when taken to its ultimate level. That is, if there's anyone left in this planet to review the mistakes.

[mzmolly]

63. I don't agree that we need wars for economic prosperity personally.

The current deficit and state of the economy speak to that fact as far as I'm concerned.

The first point has been readily accessible to anti-war activists: money spent on war is not available for AIDS research, or public housing, or schools. The American Society of Civil Engineers, for example, estimates that 13,800 highway fatalities result annually from under-funded and poorly maintained roadways.

For Melman, the second point—the long-term trend of government support for military industry—poses a greater problem. Contrary to the myth of World War II revitalization, military industry is not nearly as economically advantageous as civil industry for the simple reason that military industry produces no services or goods of long term economic utility. The civil sector creates machine-tools that can replicate themselves for many years while even the most advanced laser-guided bomb ultimately does nothing but blow up.

In the 1970s, Melman noticed that the boom in military and space technology was not matched by a similar growth in civilian technology. This continues today as the U.S. leads the world in spy-plane development, but lags far behind Europe and Japan in high-speed railroads. The failure of the U.S. automotive, railroad, and steel industries to compete with foreign companies is not just a matter of compromised pride (although it would be a mistake to consider the U.S. a leader in industry). The number of jobs created by military projects does not nearly compensate for the number of employees regularly laid-off by civil industry plants.

Oil companies aside, major U.S. manufacturers like Lockheed Martin have a vested interest in preserving the constant stream of cash from the Pentagon to their coffers. War, in other words, has become profitable. As long as the military continues to vastly overspend on its contracts, a process Melman terms "cost-maximization," American companies like General Electric, Ford, or Boeing will have little incentive to refocus research and development on civil technologies.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cpu/cpr/issues/2/2/costs_war.html

The possibility of war in Iraq is already taking an economic toll -- driving up energy prices, hammering the dollar and undermining business and consumer confidence. Experts warn that the Bush administration's push to oust Saddam Hussein has the potential to deal the economy a punishing blow, especially if the conflict gets out of hand.

"In the worst case, it plunges us into a global recession," said former Federal Reserve Gov. Laurence Meyer, now a visiting scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

War could do damage in a variety of ways, economists say.

Soaring petroleum prices could suck away money that households might spend on other goods and services. Fearful investors could push down stock and bond prices, while businesses might cut back spending projects. And tens of billions of dollars spent directly on war and post-conflict occupation of Iraq could divert money from more productive uses.

http://www.lysistrataproject.org/costofwar.htm#EconomicHarmFearedinLongWar

[Randers]

73. I agree - it's not necessary

anymore than rape and murder are necessary.

The war economy money can be spent on other things - smarter, greener technology for instance.

Europe has been doing that. Other developed countries don't spend like we spend.

I think it's just a fantasy and a power trip.

[KittyWampus]

69. Eisenhower Originally Wanted To Call It The "Military/CONGRESSIONAL

Industrial Complex in his speech but changed it.

[BamaBecky]

70. We need war like we need another hole in our head, the real

reason for this war was the 9 Trillion dollar oil and gas reserves located in the Caspian Basin. The neocons coveted the pipeline that Bridas from Argentina had the contract for. We {the US} just went in there and took it away from the Bridas Corporation. Bridas sued and WON. The whole story is here www.karlschwarz.com.

The economy does just fine with out a war. The reason our economy is in jeopardy today is the due to many factors such as manufacturing jobs going over seas due to NAFTA {draining the US of it's manufacturing tax base} and free trade agreements; Corporate crimes and failures dumping pension funds on the US Government, trade deficit that are way out of balance, Our insatiable appetite for oil, Bush spending money like there is no tomorrow, and foreigners owning our massive debt.

I'm not buying the idea that we need a war to support the economy. I have heard it before, and frankly the idea supports the military industrial complex. Wars make the military industrial complex RICH, and they kill off the young.
Bama

[WilliamPitt]

78. Link to original, with changes

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/062305X.shtml

[NashVegas]

79. Nice Piece, Will

Word.