Hello, I'm the drummer and American Conflict, and I wanted to sare a little bit of info with you. I noticed a while ago that many poloticians use recession as an underlying reason to start or join a war. Take WW2, we were in a deep depression and the excuse then would be to boost the economy from the demands war, as always. And then in the 80's with the recession initially caused by the rising oil prices in the late 70's, causing the sales of cars to go down. Well the sale of cars is one of the staple industries driving the economy, so it drove the economy down. Bush Sr. knew that this war in Iraq would improve the economy. He didn't state it, but he knew oil prices would go down, and the economy would improve. The shitty part is that soldiers got Gulf War Syndrom from exposure to chemical and biological chemicals. The problem with that is that the U.S. Government did not acknowledge the existence of this syndrom and did nothing about it. Countless soldiers came home sick, and didn't recieve compensation. Then they spread it to their kids, and so on and so on. Now Bush Jr. wants to live up to his daddy's expectations to get Saddam. Too bad he hasn't shown us any proof that Saddam is a real, direct threat to us. But Bush also sees we're in a recession, and although he hasn't mentioned that to be a cause for war, it is quite obvious to see that from past wars, he would want to use a war to help the economy. The reason poloticians don't want to state recession as one of their primary resons for going to war is because the public would riot over the deaths of enemy soldiers for money. Republicans want money, and they would do anything for it, even kill. Oh yeah, you guys are a fucking awsome band, and wwe would like to play with you sometime.