• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Major General Smedley Butler

A

Anonymous

Guest
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html


"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 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."
 

Steve

Well-known member
It would have been far cheaper (not to say safer) for the average American


While it would have saved the french from a few surrenders...
American NON-intervention would have made US German.

I think a four year period of US isolation right now would show not only the world,.. but US, the foly of isolation policy.

it's always cheaper to do nothing,... investment takes capital. sacrifice and courage....
 

Tex

Well-known member
Steve said:
It would have been far cheaper (not to say safer) for the average American


While it would have saved the french from a few surrenders...
American NON-intervention would have made US German.

I think a four year period of US isolation right now would show not only the world,.. but US, the foly of isolation policy.

it's always cheaper to do nothing,... investment takes capital. sacrifice and courage....


".....and tax cuts."
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve said:
It would have been far cheaper (not to say safer) for the average American


While it would have saved the french from a few surrenders...
American NON-intervention would have made US German.

I think a four year period of US isolation right now would show not only the world,.. but US, the foly of isolation policy.

it's always cheaper to do nothing,... investment takes capital. sacrifice and courage....


Are you saying the Republican/conservative platform policy going back 100 years of noninvolvement in foreign affairs-no nation building- non expansionist- should now be thrown out in favor of the globalist corporate traders profiteering... :???:
 

Steve

Well-known member
Old Timer
Are you saying the Republican/conservative platform policy going back 100 years of noninvolvement in foreign affairs-no nation building- non expansionist- should now be thrown out in favor of the globalist corporate traders profiteering..

No I didn't say that or anything that could even be construed as what you inferred,...I said: I think a four year period of US isolation right now would show not only the world,.. but US, the folly of isolation policy.

it's always cheaper to do nothing,... investment takes capital. sacrifice and courage....


It would take me more then four years to explain and convince most Americans that I am right, .. something Ron Paul could do in his first six months. ..

I could just change my investment strategy,. as would the greedy "globalist corporate traders",

Nation building with US interests has worked in the past,.. Japan, Germany, and South Korea are all successful implementation of policy after WWII.. Iraq and Afghanistan are only in the infancy of the first stages of "Nation building" and every liberal wants to throw in the towel and write them off... to fully attempt to build an investment you must be willing to over-come set-backs, and build on them...

But given the defeatist attitude of many liberals. If I looked at "Nation Building" as an investment and Democrats as partners in this investment that their representatives in congress voted for, I would sell my stock, pull out my assets and change my investment strategy.
thus allowing them to have their way,.. and just sit back as they learned how their defeatist attitude bankrupted themselves.

But because it is not "just an investment", and is Our Country,.. Ron Paul would be the next best choice... and this country needs to see what a folly isolationist policy is.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve said:
It would have been far cheaper (not to say safer) for the average American


While it would have saved the french from a few surrenders...
American NON-intervention would have made US German.

I think a four year period of US isolation right now would show not only the world,.. but US, the foly of isolation policy.

it's always cheaper to do nothing,... investment takes capital. sacrifice and courage....

Won't fly, Steve. Germany declared war on the United States. Our military should be used to defend ourselves.

Are you suggesting that this Marine Corps. Major General, winner of two Congressional Medals of Honor, and the Distinguished Service Medal lacks courage?
 

Tex

Well-known member
Steve said:
Tex
".....and tax cuts."

While off topic again,..

Maybe you could show in a seperate thread how tax increases have helped improve the economy... or encouraged investment?

Tax cuts with budget deficits is just a spoiled brat living off of his daddy's (or in this case, our children's) credit card to keep up the standard of living.

I am all for tax cuts, steve, I just want government to shrink its spending to get them, not put it on the nation's credit card.

...and no, I don't think the military industrial complex should have the right to use the nations credit card every time they have a whim.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Steve said:
Old Timer
Are you saying the Republican/conservative platform policy going back 100 years of noninvolvement in foreign affairs-no nation building- non expansionist- should now be thrown out in favor of the globalist corporate traders profiteering..

No I didn't say that or anything that could even be construed as what you inferred,...I said: I think a four year period of US isolation right now would show not only the world,.. but US, the folly of isolation policy.

it's always cheaper to do nothing,... investment takes capital. sacrifice and courage....


It would take me more then four years to explain and convince most Americans that I am right, .. something Ron Paul could do in his first six months. ..

I could just change my investment strategy,. as would the greedy "globalist corporate traders",

Nation building with US interests has worked in the past,.. Japan, Germany, and South Korea are all successful implementation of policy after WWII.. Iraq and Afghanistan are only in the infancy of the first stages of "Nation building" and every liberal wants to throw in the towel and write them off... to fully attempt to build an investment you must be willing to over-come set-backs, and build on them...

But given the defeatist attitude of many liberals. If I looked at "Nation Building" as an investment and Democrats as partners in this investment that their representatives in congress voted for, I would sell my stock, pull out my assets and change my investment strategy.
thus allowing them to have their way,.. and just sit back as they learned how their defeatist attitude bankrupted themselves.

But because it is not "just an investment", and is Our Country,.. Ron Paul would be the next best choice... and this country needs to see what a folly isolationist policy is.


Steve:
No I didn't say that or anything that could even be construed as what you inferred,...I said: I think a four year period of US isolation right now would show not only the world,.. but US, the folly of isolation policy.

it's always cheaper to do nothing,... investment takes capital. sacrifice and courage....

Isolationism? How about a slowdown in crony capitalist imperialism?

We are "investing", steve, if you want to call it that. The question is, who will get the benefits of that investment?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
As Lou Dobbs explains GW's globalist imperialism policy it is called nationalism when doing the investing (taxpayers picking up all the costs)
But
It is called privatism when reaping the benefits (Globalist Corporates doing all the profiteering)... :( :( :mad:
 

Steve

Well-known member
ff
Won't fly, Steve. Germany declared war on the United States. Our military should be used to defend ourselves.

Are you suggesting that this Marine Corps. Major General, winner of two Congressional Medals of Honor, and the Distinguished Service Medal lacks courage?

I wouldn't expect you to understand a complex issue, let alone understand that not every policy of issue is the same...

And Iraq attacked Kuwait... it doesn't change the outcome.. we are heavily "invested" in Iraq... given the current defeatist attitude of the liberals, democrats,..maybe it is time to give them what they want... a policy of failure

as for the second part of the comment...what does the Marine Corps. Major General, winner of two Congressional Medals of Honor, and the Distinguished Service Medal have to do with my investment strategy?

as I said, but you mind was to closed to read... it is not about an investment strategy, it is about our country...and your flawed policy.

There are different meanings between the words.. policy,..investment,..strategy,.. I used them all correctly,.. and not one of them indicated disrespect towards the American military.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Tex
I am all for tax cuts, steve, I just want government to shrink its spending to get them,

I am not for all the "spending" either.. Maybe you could show one post where I came out in support of congressional spending.

Given the first year of democratic control of both houses warping up, can you show in one instance where they reduced spending?

Ironically the president can't spend on dime... Congress can and does... did you get what *liberals all voted for... reduced spending?


*liberal wasn't meant to be derogatory, it was just used to lump together a bunch of misguided individuals who voted against Bush in senate and congressional races expecting the democrats to actually do what they promised. :? :roll:
BTW Bush wasn't running for office when he was defeated in the 06 elections... :?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve said:
ff
Won't fly, Steve. Germany declared war on the United States. Our military should be used to defend ourselves.

Are you suggesting that this Marine Corps. Major General, winner of two Congressional Medals of Honor, and the Distinguished Service Medal lacks courage?

I wouldn't expect you to understand a complex issue, let alone understand that not every policy of issue is the same...

Yeah. :lol: It seems to get "complex" when you can't defend it.

Iraq attacked Kuwait... it doesn't change the outcome.. we are heavily "invested" in Iraq... given the current defeatist attitude of the liberals, democrats,..maybe it is time to give them what they want... a policy of failure

When Saddam invaded Kuwait, George HW Bush gathered the world and drove him out. He's a Republican, BTW. And as soon as they were out of Kuwait, he brought our troops home.

as for the second part of the comment...what does the Marine Corps. Major General, winner of two Congressional Medals of Honor, and the Distinguished Service Medal have to do with my investment strategy?

It has to do with your questioning the "courage" of someone who disagrees with you.

as I said, but you mind was to closed to read... it is not about an investment strategy, it is about our country...and your flawed policy.

:roll: This "thread" is about selling out our military to benefit corporations. I don't believe Bush has the right to "invest" the lives of young Americans to benefit the giant corporations of the world. And that's what's happening now in Iraq. Soldiers sign up to defend their country, not corrupt puppet governments established by a corporate lapdog in the Oval Office. Apparently this Marine general agreed even back then.

There are different meanings between the words.. policy,..investment,..strategy,.. I used them all correctly,.. and not one of them indicated disrespect towards the American military.

:roll:
 

jodywy

Well-known member
The Revolutionary War was over money. Most the signers of the Declaration of Independence owed money to companies back in England. Washington was bankrolled by English Companies. Much of income was not there to pay, BUT a war and break away from those contracts Plus the Crown needed its investments back, thus heavy taxes.
 

Steve

Well-known member
ff
It has to do with your questioning the "courage" of someone who disagrees with you.

I guess I have to spell it our for you...

I disagree with the Major General Butler... given his service and experience It is hard to argue, but you also have to take the time period in to context... America has gone through isolationist periods.. followed by war

I was even totally against war when we were not attacked...
Having served in the first Gulf war,... I and many others felt it was wrong, but we served... then much later Sept 11 happened and I changed my views..

Major General Butler wrote his book in 1935,... I am sure had the Major General Butler waited until WW2 to wright his book he would have written a different book... had he stood looking at a concentration camp, he would have felt that some wars are different...and I am sure the book would have not even been written,... but he did not, because by then he had already passed away.

does that mean I disrespect him,.. no I just disagree with his paper. Maybe at that time I would have agreed, but not now.

Isolationist policy does not work. and If you are really for it and feel it is the answer, Ron Paul is the only candidate that agrees with you.
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst121806.htm


I like Ron Paul and agree with him on many issues,.. seldom to the extreme he wants to take,
 

Tex

Well-known member
Steve said:
ff
It has to do with your questioning the "courage" of someone who disagrees with you.

I guess I have to spell it our for you...

I disagree with the Major General Butler... given his service and experience It is hard to argue, but you also have to take the time period in to context... America has gone through isolationist periods.. followed by war

I was even totally against war when we were not attacked...
Having served in the first Gulf war,... I and many others felt it was wrong, but we served... then much later Sept 11 happened and I changed my views..

Major General Butler wrote his book in 1935,... I am sure had the Major General Butler waited until WW2 to wright his book he would have written a different book... had he stood looking at a concentration camp, he would have felt that some wars are different...and I am sure the book would have not even been written,... but he did not, because by then he had already passed away.

does that mean I disrespect him,.. no I just disagree with his paper. Maybe at that time I would have agreed, but not now.

Isolationist policy does not work. and If you are really for it and feel it is the answer, Ron Paul is the only candidate that agrees with you.
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst121806.htm


I like Ron Paul and agree with him on many issues,.. seldom to the extreme he wants to take,

Roosevelt's strategy of keeping us out of the war until the attrition of it degraded most other countries gave us the dominant position we have today. Now we fritter that position callously.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Tex
Roosevelt's strategy of keeping us out of the war until the attrition of it degraded most other countries gave us the dominant position we have today.

The fact that WW II wasn't fought on our soil gave US an even better after war position.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Tex said:
Steve said:
It would have been far cheaper (not to say safer) for the average American


While it would have saved the french from a few surrenders...
American NON-intervention would have made US German.

I think a four year period of US isolation right now would show not only the world,.. but US, the foly of isolation policy.

it's always cheaper to do nothing,... investment takes capital. sacrifice and courage....


".....and tax cuts."

Yep, as long as it increases Tax revenue. Bush did not cut taxes he cut the tax rate. Which resulted in a Tax revenue increase. There is a big difference in cutting taxes and cutting the tax rate. Come on you are an Econ major surely you know that?

Do we need to give you some Econ101 lessons to understand it?

If Bush cut taxes as you say then the Government would have experienced a decrease from incoming tax revenue! But this did not happen, the Government actually saw an increase in Tax Revenue do to stimulation of the economy!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
If Bush cut taxes as you say then the Government would have experienced a decrease from incoming tax revenue! But this did not happen, the Government actually saw an increase in Tax Revenue do to stimulation of the economy!

Strange.
The President’s own Council of Economic Advisors concluded in its Economic Report of the President, 2003, that, “although the economy grows in response to tax reductions (because of the higher consumption in the short run and improved incentives in the long run) it is unlikely to grow so much that lost revenue is completely recovered by the higher level of economic activity.”[15] The CEA chair at the time was conservative economist Glenn Hubbard.

A recent CBO study of the economic effects of tax cuts found that how tax cuts are financed significantly impacts how they affect the economy. In the short run, deficit-financed tax cuts may help stimulate an economy in recession and thus temporarily improve growth (although the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were poorly structured as stimulus). But in the long run, the deficits that result from unpaid-for tax cuts constitute a drag on the economy because they lower national savings.[16]

Even taking into account the stronger revenue growth now projected for fiscal year 2006, real per-capita revenues have simply returned to the level they reached more than five years ago, when the current business cycle began in March 2001. (March 2001 was the peak and thus the end of the previous business cycle, and hence also the start of the current business cycle.) In contrast, in previous post-World War II business cycles, real per-capita revenues have grown an average of about 10 percent over the five and a half years following the previous business-cycle peak.[5] By this stage in the 1990s business cycle, real per-capita revenues had increased by 11 percent.

In 1981, Congress approved very large supply-side tax cuts, dramatically lowering marginal income-tax rates. In 1990 and 1993, by contrast, Congress raised marginal income-tax rates on the well off. Despite the very different tax policies followed during these two decades, there was virtually no difference in real per-person economic growth in the 1980s and 1990s. Real per-person revenues, however, grew about twice as quickly in the 1990s, when taxes were increased, as in the 1980s, when taxes were cut.

After adjusting for inflation and population growth, this year and last year’s strong growth in revenues have barely made up for the deep revenue losses in 2001, 2002, and 2003. Measured since the current business cycle began in March 2001, total per-capita revenue growth, adjusted for inflation, has been near zero. Based on OMB’s latest revenue estimates, real per-capita revenues in 2006 will be only 0.2 percent above the level they attained more than five years ago at the start of the business cycle. In other words, the current revenue “surge” is merely restoring revenues to where they were half a decade ago.

In case you want to read the whole thing:

http://www.cbpp.org/3-8-06tax.htm
 
Top