War:You Kill & Die, I'll Make $$$

Good article below asking the most important question when American's are sent to war; what have the politicians, arms manufacturers, bankers, construction companies and Generals risked in this supposed "war on terrorism" ? Absolutely nothing, but they are either lining their pockets and/or wallowing in the thrill of more power that wars always bring them and that their meglomania desperately craves.<P>

After the article is part of a speech made by a truly great American hero, Smedley Darlington Butler (1881-1940)
a two time medal of honor winner. He was a General who fought alongside his men, he saw them blown to pieces and led from the front, running the same risks, not like the General's of today who are little more than politicians dressed in military attire. As he states, "war is a racket"<P>

Have you ever seen Schwarzkopf or Powell make a stand for the tens of thousands of seriously ill Gulf War Veterans suffering with Gulf War Illness?(GWI). I have never heard of them doing so, and I have asked Gulf Veterans about it. It greatly tarnishes their supposed victory in the Gulf that they endlessly wax repetitive about on TV. You'll never hear them utter a word about GWI though. Neither of them are good enough to stand in Butler's shadow, let alone lead men in war.<P>
Please visit my nonprofit website exposing the cancer indu$try<br>
Please Click Here<br>
Thank you. Gavin. <P>




Make A List<br>
Prominent Enlistments in the War Against Terror<br>
and the Evil Axis<br>
by Bowen Smith<br>
February 9, 2002<p>





Beginning on Monday, December 8th, 1941, just hours after the Japanese
attack on Pearl Harbor that brought the US into the Second World War, military
recruiting offices were inundated by long lines of American men eager to take up
arms against the Japs. These regular GI Joes were augmented by the enlistment
of prominent actors, musicians and the sons of many of the elite families of the
American political and business establishments. Clark Gable, Jimmy Stewart,
Ronald Reagan, Glenn Miller, Teddy Roosevelt Jr. and a very young George
Herbert Walker Bush come to mind. (With the exception of Reagan, all saw actual
combat or served in theaters where their lives were at risk.) <P>

But since the 9/11 attacks that killed approximately 3,000 Americans within our
own borders, we have witnessed not a single high-profile enlistment from the
ranks of our political, industrial, media, or entertainment elites. Not one. <P>

Why this dramatic absence of personal investment in the "War Against Terrorism"
that has now been dramatically expanded by the President to include the "Evil
Axis" of North Korea, Iraq and Iran? Shouldn't the self-described "conservatives"
(neo-conservatives, actually) screaming the loudest for an invasion of the world be
volunteering themselves and their Ivy League sons and daughters for this
dramatically open-ended crusade? <P>

Although America's elite began disengaging itself from the old republican concept
of military service beginning with the $300 draft exemptions during the War
Between the States, it wasn't until Vietnam that their absence from their own wars
became scandalously obvious. While a number of "conservative" hawks did indeed
serve in 'Nam or sent their sons, National Guard assignments or university
deferments were more the rule for those families doing most of the ruling in
Washington or Wall Street. <P>

Where are the young Bushes and Clintons and Gephardts and Lotts when their
fathers call us to war? Where are the scions of the Dupont and Rockefeller and
Ford empires when we are asked to strike back against so many distant enemies?
How many degrees of separation do you suppose exist between a Rumsfeld, a
Wolfowitz, a Perle, or a Krauthammer and service in combat? <P>

The purpose of these questions is not to raise a debate over whether the justified
response to the 9/11 attacks has been high-jacked and expanded by a host of
nefarious interests, both foreign and domestic. Neither are these questions meant
to disparage those average Americans who have joined up in good faith. Rather,
they are simply presented to stir the citizens of this republic to critically examine
the conduct of the elites who make the decisions to take others lives... and to spend
them. What are their families wagering in this Great Crusade... besides their
portfolios?<P>






How to Smash This Racket!<br>
Smedley Darlington Butler<br>
WELL, it's a racket, all right. <p>

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. <p>

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. <p>

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! <p>

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. <p>

Why shouldn't they? <p>

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! <p>

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. <p>

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. <p>

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. <p>

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.