Since our stated reasons for going to war were all of those you mentioned, why would you want to "rule them out?" Your assertion that "(w)ar is a racket, it always has been" is no more true than if you meant to say that we didn't go to war against al Qaeda, or that there weren't WMDs in Iraq, or that our aim wasn't to free an oppressed people.
You may have some evidence other than your opinion that recent wars have been fomented for the benefit of the arms industry, but I'm pretty sure the Russians and British didn't see it that way in WWII. Going further back, the Civil War wasn't fought to benefit the armaments industries - I'm pretty sure the Confederacy would have agreed with me here. And going further back, wars were generally fought for territory, treasure, or societal expansion - NOT to benefit the arms merchants of the day. Frankly, though, I think you've succumbed to a convenient fiction fomented by anti-capitalists with a specific axe to grind.
I don't have the link on the tip of my tongue, but it was reported by ABC News (the bastion of right-wing extremism that ABC News is) that yellowcake uranium was captured in Iraq and quietly sold to a Canadian nuclear power provider.
In spite of this, Joe Wilson's allegations, based primarily on barroom gossip, that never did Saddam acquire or attempt to acquire yellowcake were presented as gospel.
Exactly. If words don't mean anything then they must mean whatever those in power want them to mean--and only at that moment. "big brother" in "1984" comes to mind: "war is peace"; "slavery is freedom".Isn't the official response priceless? A gag order followed by the claim that they do not require turning a blind eye, yet trash the promising military careers of two excellent men for NOT turning a blind eye? Get real.
While we are at it, the subversives responsible for this travesty should be forcibly sodomized with a steel T post, spade end first.