WAR IS A RACKET by Major General Smedley D. Butler, USMC (Retired) --MUST READ!!!--

[cool user name]

WAR IS A RACKET

by Two-Time Congressional Medal of Honor Recipient:


Major General Smedley D. Butler, USMC (Retired)
About the Author


Chapter One

WAR IS A RACKET

WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

In the World War (I) a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.

How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?

Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few – the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.

And what is this bill?

This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations.

For a great many years, as a soldier, I had a suspicion that war was a racket; not until I retired to civil life did I fully realize it. Now that I see the international war clouds gathering, as they are today, I must face it and speak out.

Again they are choosing sides. France and Russia met and agreed to stand side by side. Italy and Austria hurried to make a similar agreement. Poland and Germany cast sheep's eyes at each other, forgetting for the nonce (one unique occasion), their dispute over the Polish Corridor.

The assassination of King Alexander of Jugoslavia (Yugoslavia) complicated matters. Jugoslavia and Hungary, long bitter enemies, were almost at each other's throats. Italy was ready to jump in. But France was waiting. So was Czechoslovakia. All of them are looking ahead to war. Not the people – not those who fight and pay and die – only those who foment wars and remain safely at home to profit.

There are 40,000,000 men under arms in the world today, and our statesmen and diplomats have the temerity to say that war is not in the making.

Hell's bells! Are these 40,000,000 men being trained to be dancers?

Not in Italy, to be sure. Premier Mussolini knows what they are being trained for. He, at least, is frank enough to speak out. Only the other day, Il Duce in "International Conciliation," the publication of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said:

"And above all, Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace... War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the people who have the courage to meet it."

Undoubtedly Mussolini means exactly what he says. His well-trained army, his great fleet of planes, and even his navy are ready for war – anxious for it, apparently. His recent stand at the side of Hungary in the latter's dispute with Jugoslavia showed that. And the hurried mobilization of his troops on the Austrian border after the assassination of Dollfuss showed it too. There are others in Europe too whose sabre rattling presages war, sooner or later.

Herr Hitler, with his rearming Germany and his constant demands for more and more arms, is an equal if not greater menace to peace. France only recently increased the term of military service for its youth from a year to eighteen months.

Yes, all over, nations are camping in their arms. The mad dogs of Europe are on the loose. In the Orient the maneuvering is more adroit. Back in 1904, when Russia and Japan fought, we kicked out our old friends the Russians and backed Japan. Then our very generous international bankers were financing Japan. Now the trend is to poison us against the Japanese. What does the "open door" policy to China mean to us? Our trade with China is about $90,000,000 a year. Or the Philippine Islands? We have spent about $600,000,000 in the Philippines in thirty-five years and we (our bankers and industrialists and speculators) have private investments there of less than $200,000,000.

Then, to save that China trade of about $90,000,000, or to protect these private investments of less than $200,000,000 in the Philippines, we would be all stirred up to hate Japan and go to war – a war that might well cost us tens of billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of lives of Americans, and many more hundreds of thousands of physically maimed and mentally unbalanced men.

Of course, for this loss, there would be a compensating profit – fortunes would be made. Millions and billions of dollars would be piled up. By a few. Munitions makers. Bankers. Ship builders. Manufacturers. Meat packers. Speculators. They would fare well.

<snipped>

Click link for more ===>

[Cooley Hurd]

1. K&R - it took the corpocracy nearly 70 years, but they've succeeded...

...in their coup.
General Butler was right. Ike was right...

[cool user name]

2. Thanks ... please keep this kicked and recommended.

:hi:

[Jackpine Radical]

3. Good idea to remind people of this every now & then.

I presume you know about Smedley's role in aborting a planned corporate coup against FDR?

[cool user name]

5. I seem to remember reading something about that ...

... though I can't be sure. If you have any information, I'd be glad to delve into it further. Thanks.

[Jackpine Radical]

10. THE BUSINESS PLOT TO OVERTHROW ROOSEVELT

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Coup.htm

In the summer of 1933, shortly after Roosevelt's "First 100 Days," America's richest businessmen were in a panic. It was clear that Roosevelt intended to conduct a massive redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor. Roosevelt had to be stopped at all costs.

The answer was a military coup. It was to be secretly financed and organized by leading officers of the Morgan and Du Pont empires. This included some of America's richest and most famous names of the time:

* Irenee Du Pont - Right-wing chemical industrialist and founder of the American Liberty League, the organization assigned to execute the plot.
* Grayson Murphy - Director of Goodyear, Bethlehem Steel and a group of J.P. Morgan banks.
* William Doyle - Former state commander of the American Legion and a central plotter of the coup.
* John Davis - Former Democratic presidential candidate and a senior attorney for J.P. Morgan.
* Al Smith - Roosevelt's bitter political foe from New York. Smith was a former governor of New York and a codirector of the American Liberty League.
* John J. Raskob - A high-ranking Du Pont officer and a former chairman of the Democratic Party. In later decades, Raskob would become a "Knight of Malta," a Roman Catholic Religious Order with a high percentage of CIA spies, including CIA Directors William Casey, William Colby and John McCone.
* Robert Clark - One of Wall Street's richest bankers and stockbrokers.
* Gerald MacGuire - Bond salesman for Clark, and a former commander of the Connecticut American Legion. MacGuire was the key recruiter to General Butler.

The plotters attempted to recruit General Smedley Butler to lead the coup. They selected him because he was a war hero who was popular with the troops. The plotters felt his good reputation was important to make the troops feel confident that they were doing the right thing by overthrowing a democratically elected president. However, this was a mistake: Butler was popular with the troops because he identified with them. That is, he was a man of the people, not the elite. When the plotters approached General Butler with their proposal to lead the coup, he pretended to go along with the plan at first, secretly deciding to betray it to Congress at the right moment.

What the businessmen proposed was dramatic: they wanted General Butler to deliver an ultimatum to Roosevelt. Roosevelt would pretend to become sick and incapacitated from his polio, and allow a newly created cabinet officer, a "Secretary of General Affairs," to run things in his stead. The secretary, of course, would be carrying out the orders of Wall Street. If Roosevelt refused, then General Butler would force him out with an army of 500,000 war veterans from the American Legion. But MacGuire assured Butler the cover story would work:

[cool user name]

12. Thanks for the information.

:hi:

[EVDebs]

31. Fascism today is via corporatocracy (Little Brother) privatization and outsourcing

The excellent movie The Corporation should be required viewing by DUers; it also mentions Gen Butler and the Business Plot to overthrow FDR btw.

[cool user name]

45. Yes, that's on my intended viewing list.

By the way, dig your name.

So sad that Debs, an advocate for a just and fair society was jailed by a president so revered in American History - Woodrow Wilson.

I wrote a brief essay about the failure of socialism in the United States, and I do believe the railroading of E.V. Debs is a prime example of that.

:hi:

[EVDebs]

62. Far from a failure, Deb's platforms were adopted by Rs and Ds

with the 8 Hr workday, child labor laws, food/drug laws etc. becoming the law of the land. Didn't win but the party's ideas/ideals prevailed anyway. The US is a pragmatic country !

[cool user name]

65. Clarification:

Those ideals were adopted, in my view, in attempt to "throw a dog a bone" as it were. Regarding the achievment of a classless, non-hierarchical society, well, I think it's quite evident that that has not succeeded, as of yet.

[3waygeek]

58. I've read

that Prescott Bush (Dumbya's grandpappy) was thought to have been involved in this plot.

[ftr23532]

61. Here's a Dave Emory show on that Coup attempt

It's interesting stuff: http://www.spitfirelist.com/f448.html">FTR#448—The Coup Attempt of 1934 http://wfmu.org/listen.ram?show=10938">Audio here. It's interesting stuff!

[ftr23532]

64. and since GM execs we're involved in the coup planning, we should link to...

...this fun, recent http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3113547&mesg_id=3113547">post

[rainy]

4. Reading this along with reading "Confessions of an Economic Hit-man" makes

it all come together. This piece keeps getting posted through the years I've been coming to this site. War is a racket and we are all pawns in the game of corruption and disgusting murderous insanity. I have to keep asking myself: WHAT THE HELL'S WRONG WITH PEOPLE?

[IndyOp]

6. On to the Greatest! This is a Marine I can R-e-s-p-e-c-t... (n/t)

[cool user name]

7. Thanks!

:hi:

[Tom Joad]

8. From Fredrick Douglass. This war and its "puny opposition".

Frederick Douglass, former slave, extraordinary speaker and writer, wrote in his Rochester newspaper the North Star, January 21, 1848, of "the present disgraceful, cruel, and iniquitous war with our sister republic. Mexico seems a doomed victim to Anglo Saxon cupidity and love of dominion." Douglass was scornful of the unwillingness of opponents of the war to take real action (even the abolitionists kept paying their taxes):

The determination of our slaveholding President to prosecute the war, and the probability of his success in wringing from the people men and money to carry it on, is made evident, rather than doubtful, by the puny opposition arrayed against him. No politician of any considerable distinction or eminence seems willing to hazard his popularity with his party ... by an open and unqualified disapprobation of the war. None seem willing to take their stand for peace at all risks; and all seem willing that the war should be carried on, in some form or other.

Let's hope that congress will see clearly that this present war MUST NOT continue in any form. If it does see the light, it will be due to people on the street putting the pressure on. Don't Let Up!

[Boojatta]

9. Some Questions

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.

If Mussolini meant exactly what he said, then why would the author have us believe that ideology played no role in Mussolini's actions and that Mussolini was simply engaged in a racket, with profits reckoned in dollars?

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.

Maybe, from the point of view of the author, the only significant effect of Japanese attacks on China and the Philippines would have been monetary, but is the reader obligated to have such a materialistic mindset?

[cool user name]

11. I'm not sure about your second question but ...

to answer your first, the ideology is fascism, which is the merger of state and capital. So it stands to reason that the racket (or profit to be had) is off the state engaging in war.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

13. Exactly...ideology is not necessarily driven by altruism. Nicely stated.

:hi: MKJ

[cool user name]

15. Thanks!

:hi:

[Boojatta]

16. Do you agree or disagree with this:

"Mussolini was trying to accumulate a certain amount of money. Had he succeeded, he would have probably quit politics. Before he had accumulated that much money, things started to go downhill. He failed to recognize not only the risk of losing the money he had accumulated, but also the risk of losing his life. He held on too long, hoping for his fortunes to change, and lost his life."

[cool user name]

18. I do agree with that in part.

I don't agree with the part of him quitting politics but I do agree with the rest of the statement.

So?

[Boojatta]

22. Can you estimate the amount of money that he was trying to

accumulate and say something about what he planned to do with it?

If Mussolini actually believed he was simply doing good work and getting rewarded for it, then I could see money as a scorecard for him. There would be no limit to how much money he would want to accumulate. The more the merrier, especially if he planned to eventually contribute it all to charity. Maybe he planned to use some of the money to help orphans created by his policy of war? No, that would seem to contradict the assumption that he accumulated the money by simply doing good work.

On the other hand, you agreed that there was a certain amount that he wanted to accumulate. How did Mussolini choose that number? What was the money to be used for?

[cool user name]

23. How are your questions relevant?

[Boojatta]

24. What premises for demonstating relevance are generally accepted

as not being controversial?

Now, getting away from that meta-discussion and back to the discussion, I do recognize that plunder has historically been an important part of war. One question is: was Mussolini mainly motivated by the desire for plunder? Assuming that the answer is "yes", I don't see how one can conclude that war itself is a racket.

The author wrote:

It (i.e. war) is the only one (i.e. the only racket) in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

Don't mobsters run some rackets that are not warfare and that produce profits reckoned in dollars and losses reckoned in lives? If so, then war is not the only such racket. More importantly, the conflict between mobsters and law enforcement is not itself a racket.

(Edited to replace square brackets in the quote with round ones so that they would be visible)

[cool user name]

26. I just fail to see how your question is in conflict with what he stated, ie. "War is a Racket"

Mussolini was in it for wealth and power. He used the state and its symbiotic relationship with capital to attain more wealth and power. He engaged in war using the state/capital apparatus in a mutually beneficial relationship with industrialists to provide them wealth and him power.

So again, I'm really not sure what you are getting at.

:shrug:

[Boojatta]

32. Did the author use the words "and power"?

The author explained what a racket is, suggested that Mussolini's decision to go to war was part of a racket, and also claimed that war itself is a racket.

Also, if I may repeat myself: the conflict between mobsters and law enforcement is not itself a racket. Think about it.

[cool user name]

38. I am thinking about it and I still can't understand why you are agressively harping on this.

To each his/her own, I suppose.

:shrug:

[Boojatta]

41. You don't understand the point of a discussion that you've been having

with me? Well, I'm not in a position to tell you why you chose to have this discussion with me, nor can I tell you why you seem to want to break it off now. However, you're free to either continue it or discontinue it. As you said, to each his/her own.

[cool user name]

46. I really don't know what point you are trying to get at ...

... except splitting hairs.

Maybe, I'm just stupid and can't discern the point you are trying to make. I tried to engage you but, like I said, I'm not real sure what your point of contention is.

:shrug:

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

28. So your hypothetical is Mussolini wanted to help orphans? Just want to be clear. n/t

MKJ

[Boojatta]

33. See for yourself:

If Mussolini actually believed he was simply doing good work and getting rewarded for it, then I could see money as a scorecard for him. There would be no limit to how much money he would want to accumulate. The more the merrier, especially if he planned to eventually contribute it all to charity. Maybe he planned to use some of the money to help orphans created by his policy of war? No, that would seem to contradict the assumption that he accumulated the money by simply doing good work.

The part about planning to help orphans is a hypothetical within a hypothetical and it is dismissed on the grounds that it would contradict an assumption made.

[rman]

56. Mussolini did not make the most profit, but the corporations did

- the owners, the investors, the bankers.

War is not a racket of Heads of State, Heads of State are a tool for those who's racket war is - be it knowingly and willingly (up to a point at least) or otherwise.

[mzmolly]

14. "The Fighting Quaker"

I've never met a Quaker I didn't like.

[Jcrowley]

17. Always relevant

Go here:

http://coat.ncf.ca/

http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/53/dupont.html

[pnorman]

19. I (unwisely) loands this book out,

and it's now absolutely unavailable. But here it is on the web!!: http://www.chris-floyd.com/plot/The_Plot_to_Sieze_the_White_House_by_Jules_Archer/

I'd advise anyone interested here to do what I've already done --- download each chapter into my HD. No telling when it'll drop down the Memory hole. There's also a History Channel DVD available on this same topic, and based largely on that book. I have it, and it's very well worth viewing. A video of the same, and of adequate quality, is also on the web. I'll have to search my HD for that, and see if the link still works.

pnorman
On edit: I gave the wrong URL.The above one is a page by page scan --- a true labor of love, but difficult to work with. Try this one instead: http://www.clubhousewreckards.com/plot/plottoseizethewhitehouse.htm

[cool user name]

20. Thanks, pnorman!

:hi:

[pnorman]

21. You're quite welcome. Don't forget to check the edited posting.

There's a better link to that book in it. I'll search out that URL to that movie a little later

pnorman

[pnorman]

29. Can't find that video link yet, but here's one link I found in my files:

http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/53/butler03-by_schmidt.html

pnoeman

[pnorman]

30. Google found that video for me!

and it was via a DU discussion!! Here it is: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13844.htm There's also a link there to purchase it at Amazon.com ($25.00)

pnorman

[vireo]

37. Try your public library

I was able to borrow it without any delay from an area library, so there still are copies out there.

[B Calm]

25. Telling like it is!

[porkrind]

27. K&R. Should be mandatory history education for all Americans.

Also, check out Howard Zinn's "A Peoples History of the United States" for similar info.

[cool user name]

50. Porkrind, you may also want to see this:

Howard Zinn on The Uses of History and the War on Terrorism (DemocracyNow!)

Enjoy! :hi:

[Greyhound]

34. So happy you've found it, keep spreading this around.

Our appalling ignorance of our own history always amazes and shames me. Why is this not a standard lesson in every American History class in the country?
:kick: & R

[cool user name]

40. That would conflict with the interests of government/business interests.

Sad to say.

[Bigmack]

35. Don't leave out Marine Gen. Shoup....

Medal of Honor winner and Commandant during the first part of my time in the Corps. Zinni has a few good quotes, too.

`I believe that if we had and would keep our dirty, bloody, dollar soaked fingers out of the business of these (Third World) nations so full of depressed, exploited people, they will arrive at a solution of their own. And if unfortunately their revolution must be of the violent type because the `haves' refuse to share with the `have-nots' by any peaceful method, at least what they get will be their own, and not the American style, which they don’t want and above all don’t want crammed down their throats by Americans.' –
Gen. David Shoup, United States Marine Commandant Medal of Honor recipient.

[cool user name]

44. Hey Bigmack, thanks for that quote ...

Looks like people of all stripes understand the basic foundation that this government is laid on - that being the unfettered pursuit of profit for the certain few, and should war be a tool to increase the profit margin, so be it.

Fascism disguised as democracy, but hey, as long as we have McDonalds and Wal-Marts to keep us placated, right?

[Joanne98]

36. Thank you General Butler!

[sammythecat]

39. I'd like to get my hands on the book.

The links you posted are very, very, interesting.

Not that I'm the most aware individual, but I am surprised that I've never heard of this man or this book. He certainly has the credentials for credibility, and his words are so damning and yet they are just common sense. It all adds up.

The sad thing is that nothing at all has changed. Names have changed but the story remains the same. This book could have been written last month.

Thanks for posting this.

[cool user name]

48. Hello Sammythecat ... welcome to DU.

:hi:

Yes, that's why I posted this; precisely because it could have been written last month. Throughout American history, noble and decent Americans have been excised from history. I wonder if their advocacy against the powers that be has anything to do with them "never existing."

You may be interested in this:

Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States
First published January 2001

When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country's founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.

Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end.

The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these:

* Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.

* Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.

* Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.

* Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.

* Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.

* Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight controlled the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.

States also limited corporate charters to a set number of years. Unless a legislature renewed an expiring charter, the corporation was dissolved and its assets were divided among shareholders. Citizen authority clauses limited capitalization, debts, land holdings, and sometimes, even profits. They required a company's accounting books to be turned over to a legislature upon request. The power of large shareholders was limited by scaled voting, so that large and small investors had equal voting rights. Interlocking directorates were outlawed. Shareholders had the right to remove directors at will.

In Europe, charters protected directors and stockholders from liability for debts and harms caused by their corporations. American legislators explicitly rejected this corporate shield. The penalty for abuse or misuse of the charter was not a plea bargain and a fine, but dissolution of the corporation.

In 1819 the U.S. Supreme Court tried to strip states of this sovereign right by overruling a lower court's decision that allowed New Hampshire to revoke a charter granted to Dartmouth College by King George III. The Court claimed that since the charter contained no revocation clause, it could not be withdrawn. The Supreme Court's attack on state sovereignty outraged citizens. Laws were written or re-written and new state constitutional amendments passedto circumvent the Dartmouth ruling. Over several decades starting in 1844, nineteen states amended their constitutions to make corporate charters subject to alteration or revocation by their legislatures. As late as 1855 it seemed that the Supreme Court had gotten the people's message when in Dodge v. Woolsey it reaffirmed state's powers over "artificial bodies."

But the men running corporations pressed on. Contests over charter were battles to control labor, resources, community rights, and political sovereignty. More and more frequently, corporations were abusing their charters to become conglomerates and trusts. They converted the nation's resources and treasures into private fortunes, creating factory systems and company towns. Political power began flowing to absentee owners, rather than community-rooted enterprises.

The industrial age forced a nation of farmers to become wage earners, and they became fearful of unemployment--a new fear that corporations quickly learned to exploit. Company towns arose. and blacklists of labor organizers and workers who spoke up for their rights became common. When workers began to organize, industrialists and bankers hired private armies to keep them in line. They bought newspapers to paint businessmen as heroes and shape public opinion. Corporations bought state legislators, then announced legislators were corrupt and said that they used too much of the public's resources to scrutinize every charter application and corporate operation.

<snip>

More at link ===>

[sammythecat]

53. I've always thought that Pride was the root

of all evil. I still do.

Greed is directly descended from Pride. Indeed, Greed is probably Pride's first born, and money seems to be at the bottom of every political conflict. I think every political debate, every war, if you go backward, step by step, you'll find someone or something that stands to either gain money or lose money. Simplistic as it may sound, it really does seem like it's all about money. Money buys power, and power makes money. Greed is an addiction and addictions are never satisfied. Nothing much more complicated than that.

Thanks again for the additional links. They are bookmarked and as soon as tonight I am going start educating myself on the facts about corporations and corporate power. I've long suspected they are the ones really running things in this country and, in fact, the world. It's time I confirm my suspicions with facts.

Speaking for myself, this is the most intriguing, and potentially most enlightening and important, post I've come across in a long while.

[cascadiance]

42. We need Wesley Clarke to quote from Mr. Butler!

Take of the kid gloves Wes! You could follow in Mr. Butler's footsteps where he wasn't allowed to follow then, despite saving this country from the coup at the time!

[Swamp Rat]

43. k&r

[bobbolink]

47. The perfect companion to this... "The Plot To Overthrow FDR"--video

Have you watched it?

Of course, it features Gen Butler, to whom we owe much!

Thanks for bringing this up again--I hope you will do so periodically!

[cool user name]

49. I will do so bobbolink!

Thanks for the video link.

:hi:

[bobbolink]

68. I see you received other mentions of this. Glad to know so many are familiar with it!

This is one important piece to share with those who aren't so aware.

It really serves to make them THINK.

[cool user name]

69. Think. It's patriotic.

:patriot:

[bobbolink]

70. I try to. Sometimes the ole' brain just won't cooperate.

:hi:

[Uncle Joe]

51. Semper Fi, General Butler

:patriot:

Thanks for the post, cool user name

Kicked and recommended

[cool user name]

52. Thank you, Uncle Joe!

:patriot:

[deutsey]

54. Butler also exposed a corporatist plot to overthrow FDR in the '30s n/t

[rman]

55. and then watch "The Plot To Overthrow FDR"

The coup attempt that Smedley Butler blew the whistle on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot


The Plot to Overthrow FDR (History Channel)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=628728631767818729
A documentary on the business plot of 1932, in which a group of private financiers sought to depose FDR and impose a fascist government in the United States.

[John Gauger]

57. One of my all time favorites.

Wonderful book. It lays it all out. Very educational.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

59. K&R! so how much did Halliburton make last year?...

Without furnishing basic services usually provided by ANY construction
company, acting as an in-country defense contractor, does anyone know what
Halliburton makes?

besides obscene profits???

[Blue_Tires]

60. ttt n/t

[mdmc]

63. kick

:)

[sammythecat]

66. Kick, because more need to check this out.

[NotGivingUp]

67. we must get to a point where everyone refuses to fight or support war