Guest 24.02.03 / 01:10

You ask, "Teribus, how stupid do you think we are?"

You are a "we"??? As I haven't the faintest notion who "you" are I haven't got a clue how stupid you are - enlighten me.

"Do you actually expect someone to believe this claim that money, greed, and power have nothing to do with war in general, and this war in particular?"

The first part of that sentence I would tend to agree with, although I believe that it would be more accurate say that in general wars are about control of resources, protection of resources and trade - in other words "looking after the nations interests" - all of which draw in the factors you mention and are applicable to all combatants - not just the "evil capitalists" in the West.

As to this one (i.e. war) in particular? - Well lets take a look at that in relation to money, greed and power.

MONEY: USA & UK

Should they achieve what you see as their desired goal - a war with Iraq - what do they stand to gain by it?

Oh! yes, the oil fields of Iraq, which only accounted for one-seventeenth of the world market before 1991 and it's lack of production since then has gone largely unnoticed. Now if this was part of some "cunning plan" and this great plum was going to fall into the hands of the "evil American oil barons" - can you explain why they are investing so heavily in four of the largest pipeline contracts in the history of the oil industry to get oil and gas from Russia and Azerbiajan?? - Russia by the way is the largest producer of oil in the world and also has the greatest known reserves.

Also, if oil was the driver - why didn't America seize the Southern Iraqi oil-fields in 1991? Why didn't the Americans rob Kuwait of it's oil at that same time?

Doesn't seem to hold water to me, and it most certainly is not the way the oil industry works.

Now what is the flip side for these two countries:

At present, bringing the UN to its senses and keeping up the pressure on Saddam it is costing these particular parties a fortune.

Should Saddam continue to play the game he has played so well for 12 years and a war is fought - The USA will win it, of that I have no doubt - but what will they have won exactly? The cost of rebuilding an entire country - sure they could use Iraq's oil revenues to do that, and would that be a bad thing? Saddam would have spent it on other things. Price of oil once the war starts will drop and drop even further once the war is over - that is what happened the last time.

Now in relation to the money side of things if the US and UK get "their" war would there be any benefit to the people of Iraq - There would the victorious allies have to rebuild the country after having rid it of Saddam's dictatorship and reign of terror. Introduce a democratic process that has been sadly lacking in Iraq since its inception and guanteeing that people could get on with their lives in peace and prosperity - that is roughly what happened the last time the US did this sort of thing in Germany and Japan - It is in its infancy in Afghanistan at the moment but both the US and the EU are in there for the long haul.


MONEY: France; Russia; China

Now they don't want a war - and that apparently makes them "good guys" to many who post in this forum. Apart from going home at night cossetted by a warm rosy glow, what, from a money point of view, do they get out of it?

Their current stand is barely costing them the price of a state banquet. France long ago learned that talk was exceptionally cheap.

Oh! yes, the Iraqi oil fields - two of the above have massive interests in the Iraqi oil fields and are already owed millions by the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein.

Iraq at present operates under the onerous burden of UN sanctions, which all three of the above have completely ignored. Saddam's 500-odd agencies and companies dotted round the world pay $10 on the $1 to buy in proscribed goods - All three of the above make good profit that way - that is why you will never hear them talking about removing UN sanctions.

They have always been Saddam's biggest supplier of armaments so they are traditionally protecting their trade.

Now in relation to the money side of things, if France, Russia and China get what they want would there be any benefit to the people of Iraq? -

Well Saddam would remain in power of course, he has to so that that particular trio get paid what he owes them, UN sanctions would remain in place, because that is in their interests too. So the Iraqi people would gain nothing bar continued murder, repression and terror for decades to come. Or more correctly, until such time as Saddam does have nuclear weapons, supplied by the trio above, and he takes another crack at Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Israel. That's when the Iraqi people will get their war and that war will be a damn sight bloodier than anything that could happen in the next few weeks - they will lose that war too, but there might well be not too much left to re-build at the end of it.

Don't know about you, but, I know which one I'd go for if I was Joe Bloggs in down-town Baghdad.

GREED: USA & UK
You have plenty but you want even more - that the sort of thing?
Can't see what either would gain by trying to swallow Iraq - apart from severe indigestion. Most aspects relating to greed are covered by money and the same would apply to the other three (France; Russia; China).

POWER: USA & UK
The USA is currently the most powerful nation on earth so I can only see that they would gain a stronger influence in the region - how would that influence be used? Would they then go on to conquer the other states of the region - No don't think so. Would they use the fact that the new boys on the block in Baghdad would not support Palestinian Terrorist organisations to assist in bringing some form of dialogue back to the middle-east peace process - that is a more likely possibility. As far as the UK goes on this one - we've been there, done that, picked up the T-shirt and have a fund of ripping yarns from days of Empire - so I think we can pass on the Power aspects of the situation.

POWER: France; Russia;China
Both France and Russia too have had their time in the spotlight, both want to get back into it like you would not believe. Both are prepared to sacrifice the credibility of the UN to achieve it. France is prepared to destroy NATO for it, and Russia is only too willing to assist in that end.

That leaves China? - while the USA IS, de facto, the most powerful nation on earth at present, China has, and always has had, the POTENTIAL to be the the most powerful nation on earth and is the last bastion of communism. In all of this China has taken a bit of a back seat, I don't think China is about to mount its bid for world supremacy just yet so I don't think they are driven by prospects of enhanced power.   


"Are you suggesting that armaments dealers like Alliant, Lockheed, et al aren't going to be engaging in some routine war profiteering?"

Note that you do not mention any of the arms suppliers from the other other - I suppose you incled them in your "et al". Your contention is not shared by business analysts

"That the oil companies who made a killing in profits during the Gulf War I, aren't going to--no, make that aren't already making a killing with Gulf War II?"

The killing is always made in the lead up to hostilities that is what happened last time. When the war started oil prices fell and then slumped completely in the aftermath - So TALK of war is good for the oil companies - both American and Russian.

Gimmee a break. YES PLEASE DO!!!!