Iraq war \US campaign for oil\

An American human rights activist has accused the US government of seeking to ensure the interests of its oil companies by waging war in Iraq.

Emily Spence, a Massachusetts-based author active in human rights, environmental, and social services efforts, believes that, in line with popular belief, Washington was after the Iraqi oil when it invaded the country in 2003.

"The US military... [has] approximately 1,000 bases worldwide... which are generally tied to oil company interests," Spence writes in a recent article published on the Information Clearing House website.

Spence accuses George W. Bush and Tony Blair of knowing that "UN inspectors would not find Iraqi weapons of mass destruction", but launching the military campaign anyway based on a long-envisioned plan of invading Iraq.

"The problem was finding the grounds, legal or not, to obtain the support of the public for such an outrageous act of violence, which to date has led to the displacement of millions of Iraqis and the slaughter of more than one million individuals, including over 4,300 US troops," she says.

Spence elaborates that Americans must realize that US armed invasions and covert operations "have little to do with protection of Americans from global terrorists."

"[They have] more to do with the obtainment of fossil fuels on behalf of the Pentagon and favored companies, whose heads contribute to government officials\' campaign funds and offer other perks like high paying jobs upon the completion of terms in office," she writes.

"As such, it would be more accurate were the directors of the Department of Defense to change its name to the Department of Assault," she says, adding that "doing so would, certainly, better reflect the United States history".

She then goes on to elaborate on the role the US has played around the world during the past years, by citing passages from Bill Blum.

"From 1945 to the end of the century, the United States attempted to overthrow more than 40 foreign governments, and to crush more than 30 populist-nationalist movements struggling against intolerable regimes.

"In the process, the US caused the end of life for several million people, and condemned many millions more to a life of agony and despair," she quotes him as saying.

Spencer points out that US taxpayers are watching 73% of every tax dollar going to military expenditures (54%) and interest payments (19+%)? (With only 27% left for other things).

"It forces one to wonder from where funds are going to derive for universal public health care, future Social Security payments, Medicare, Medicaid, public education and assorted other programs, such as sustainable benign energy provision," she adds.

Spencer also launches an attack on the US government\'s bailout plans, which have been directed at big corporations and not "families living in their cars and under tarps in tent cities".

She then suggested "providing employment and income through a widespread Works Progress Administration (WPA) and extended Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) programs as occurred during the Great Depression."

Spencer writes that the US government had dedicated $8.5 trillion to bailout funds (equivalent to 60% of the GDP) as of December 2008, and allocated $1,449 billion (equivalent to 54% of the federal budget) to military expenditures in 2009.

This is while, according to the activist, educational spending in 2008 received a mere 4.4% of the budget.

Spencer warns that as 60,000 Americans are losing their jobs each month at the rate of approximately one every thirty seconds, and as more homes fall into foreclosures, the country "has nowhere else to go except to sink down into increased hardship, as well as some degree of destitution".