Ukraine Shoots Down F-16 With Patriot, A... Sat Aug 31, 2024 11:53 | Anti-Empire
Surprise Offensive Puts 300 km² of Russ... Fri Aug 09, 2024 08:44 | Marko Marjanović
The Wholesome Photo of the Month Thu May 09, 2024 11:01 | Anti-Empire
In 3 War Years Russia Will Have Spent $3... Thu May 09, 2024 02:17 | Anti-Empire
UK Sending Missiles to Be Fired Into Rus... Tue May 07, 2024 14:17 | Marko Marjanović Anti-Empire >>
A bird's eye view of the vineyard
Alternative Copy of thesaker.is site is available Thu May 25, 2023 14:38 | Ice-Saker-V6bKu3nz Alternative site: https://thesaker.si/saker-a... Site was created using the downloads provided Regards Herb
The Saker blog is now frozen Tue Feb 28, 2023 23:55 | The Saker Dear friends As I have previously announced, we are now “freezing” the blog. We are also making archives of the blog available for free download in various formats (see below).
What do you make of the Russia and China Partnership? Tue Feb 28, 2023 16:26 | The Saker by Mr. Allen for the Saker blog Over the last few years, we hear leaders from both Russia and China pronouncing that they have formed a relationship where there are
Moveable Feast Cafe 2023/02/27 ? Open Thread Mon Feb 27, 2023 19:00 | cafe-uploader 2023/02/27 19:00:02Welcome to the ‘Moveable Feast Cafe’. The ‘Moveable Feast’ is an open thread where readers can post wide ranging observations, articles, rants, off topic and have animate discussions of
The stage is set for Hybrid World War III Mon Feb 27, 2023 15:50 | The Saker Pepe Escobar for the Saker blog A powerful feeling rhythms your skin and drums up your soul as you?re immersed in a long walk under persistent snow flurries, pinpointed by The Saker >>
Interested in maladministration. Estd. 2005
RTEs Sarah McInerney ? Fianna Fail supporter? Anthony
Joe Duffy is dishonest and untrustworthy Anthony
Robert Watt complaint: Time for decision by SIPO Anthony
RTE in breach of its own editorial principles Anthony
Waiting for SIPO Anthony Public Inquiry >>
Voltaire, international edition
Voltaire, International Newsletter N°97 Fri Aug 30, 2024 12:14 | en
The New Iranian Foreign Policy Fri Aug 30, 2024 12:12 | en
Press lies about the Venezuelan presidential election, by Thierry Meyssan Tue Aug 27, 2024 06:59 | en
Voltaire, International Newsletter N°96 Fri Aug 23, 2024 15:28 | en
China chooses international law, distances itself from Israel and reunifies the ... Fri Aug 23, 2024 15:18 | en Voltaire Network >>
|
pro-war
international |
anti-war / imperialism |
opinion/analysis
Friday December 10, 2004 11:43 by Simon Willace
![Report this post to the editors Report this post to the editors](../graphics/report.gif)
According to my paper war is very popular and recieves alot of support
This war is about oil and where would we be without it, the Arabs would go back to herding goats but what would we do? Exec sum.
Concerns
Why war
War history
Why we should support it
I’ve become rather concerned at the level of ignorance shared by the general public over great many current issues. It has come to a point that in polite conversation the discussions are stalled while I have to educate the point of view.
People commonly confuse about the Iraq war, it’s often confused with Afghanistan, Muslims with Taliban, and insurgents with international Terrorism and we always forget that Iraq has never attacked or threatened the west, but the west has invaded and occupied Arab lands in an unprovoked attack.
Through pointing these out simple facts, I become on the side of the enemy so my position becomes a little confused leftwing instead of right wing so I’ll make it plain from the start…. I'm Pro War.
I really feel that the war is necessary if first world nations are to secure lifestyles afforded by consumerism. War is never simple, but the reasons are, we and our trading partners need thick black Middle Eastern oil otherwise the base raw material that we rely so heavily upon will be sold to China.
There, isn’t that the greatest threat? we will be holding out our hands, not to America but to China and their Communist partners, isn’t that worth a war?
so why do we hear all this bullshit about Democracy and Christian Values, Iraq doesn’t even have a tax department so its hardly going to have a representational government, Is it?
I really think the whole worlds confused, however this should not be the case, if such information was clearly pointed out in the press I would not feel the need to correct the mistakes made, and would be saved considerable personal time and expense by not having to set the record straight.
War has become the only economically viable option if we are to survive in a highly competitive global market reliant upon a depleting resource.
There are no current alternative fuels that can provide the enormous demand that oil maintains. So we must go to war for it, but we do not need the smoke screen of democracy to achieve it, because its just another crusade after all.
Therefore I have devised a relatively easy tutorial to dismiss such grave failings in public knowledge concerning just one issue, the Iraq war.
The Iraq war has been going on for 14 years, it started in 1990 as a regional conflict, short lived while Iraq invaded Kuwait and did so with prior US knowledge, with intentions being known in Washington weeks in advance Iraq's plans were acknowledged so the invasion in 1990 was unopposed.
The Gulf war commenced in 1991 once America convinced the world that Iraq’s intention was to move through the Middle East in a plan to take over the world. Remember the Hitler analogy?
Nevertheless the Gulf war stalled shortly after it began, while the combined forces of western and Arabic nations joined forces representing populations of over one billion to thwart a small country with less than 19 million souls who had no intention of threatening world peace at all.
Kuwait was invade because the Kuwaitis were stealing Iraq’s oil by sneaking the directional drills under the border beneath the soil. The dispute was 10 years old by this time and was being mediated by American agencies but the two concerned parties had failed to negotiate a settlement so Saddam closed Kuwait down. As you would a neighbor who had rigged your electricity meter.
Hearing the news of the impending arrival of US forces Osama Bin Laden offered to take care of Saddam,( an American installed dictator, no friend in fact the opposite) Osama offered to push Saddam’s forces out of Kuwait, and he would have too, but
The offer was refused which made Ussama (correct spelling) really angry, have you noticed? And its not just because we always misspell his name and he’s even got royal blood. He is mad because we supported him in his fight against Russia, all that’s changed is the nationality of his enemy.
Osama had just chased away one group of foreign invaders and now another bunch of hypocrites were poised to invade forcing there way into a local problem that really did not concern anyone but Arabs.
Within the 1991 a cease-fire was declared after Saddam’s forces suffered decimation while in retreat. Once more war continued briefly in 1992, but the UN prevented America’s intention of invasion and occupation, so the Blockade years and sanctions began.
Once more the war was allowed to stall in a cease fire until resuming again for another battle in 2003 when war changed into a civil resistance which now is the state of play, between largely Iraqi civilians and western occupational forces.
The civilian deaths of non- combatants amounted to millions over this time frame in addition to the Lancet report (identifying 100 000 minimum deaths but only of deaths since 2003).
The UN estimated 2.2 million innocent civilians had lost their lives by the year 2000.
So today deaths through direct western intervention can be conservatively estimated at 2.8 million.
Iraq was a moderate secular society under Saddam Hussein, having all the ethnic and religious groups one would expect to find in a Middle Eastern region. Christian fellowship and forms of Islamic followings were practiced freely and without interference, like here, if we acknowledge that Muslims are prevented from early morning Calls to prayer in Ireland, and are prevented by law from marrying more than one wife.
Therefore both societies are secular to a degree.
President Hussein was a Sunni Muslim but within his government he included even Christian ministers and his Government featured more female representatives than our own during 1991.
In Iraqi society women were educated and employed without restrictions although it must be said in Mosques, segregation was in forced, but during the normal day women wore only a head-scarf to show traditional and cultural respect to religious instruction, like some of us wear the cross here.
President Hussein was first assisted to power by US support and later developed economic assistance through nurturing Russian contacts pitting the two great nations against one another while securing the best prices and services for his greatest asset, Oil.
Saddam was a game player who also concentrated his efforts in homeland security, giving favors for favors and punishing dissent. He ruled like any other leader within his region but was more successful than most.
He enabled his country to advance and assume 20th century development while building roads and developing electricity and water supplies to world class standards throughout Iraq in both cities and the rural sector, and like Russia and America he also drained wetlands for no good reasons.
His schools are still in use, where his free supplies of textbooks and equipment are still used in lessons. While it should be added that UNNESCO awarded him an education prize during the late 80’s and the BBC world service awarded him an honor recognizing the achievements of his rule.
Oh and he did kill 300 000 people during his rule but by western standards, I think we can all say BIG DEAL!
He took twenty years; we can do that much in side three.
All the originally installed community infra structure created under the Saddam years is now destroyed awaiting repair.
In the face of a weight of evidence it can no longer be said or be maintained that Iraq and the world is better off without Saddam Hussein. Our responsibility for millions of deaths already proven while not in dispute is admitted murder. Sanctioned by our press, it is a reckless action, against Geneva Convention, so it is something of a war crime in itself.
This has swamped the counter allegations that Hussein was responsible for the deaths of civilians while we absolve all responsibility in killing far more to get to him. I am in no doubt that he was a dictator but no excuse can absolve the greater evil of coalition action even if the intentions are thought to be mistaken today.
partners in this coalition still support the murderous regimes of Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, Kuwait still use the torture chambers that Saddam once held for a few months and we continue in a fight that lost its cause a long time ago.
The west are just reinventing reason while we are no longer even fooling ourselves as the death toll rises, soon all except our politicians and media tycoons will support the war while the population either switches sides or compromises beliefs for comfort, in either case Ussama Bin Laden has been vindicated.
So far ‘KFC’ and ‘Toys R US’ are amongst the only groups who have received compensation since the start of this war, corporations and governments have received billions without being the victims while the Iraqi people have received billions in only bomb tonnage, dropped indiscriminately upon or around them.
They still suffer the humiliation of forced searches or custodial sentences of no fixed term.
With the WMD scare no longer of use as an excuse we have shifted beliefs in belated intentions of establishing a quasi-Democracy while intentionally and knowingly installing the very same team who supplied us with all the evidence of weapons of mass destruction. So it’s got to be said, this was a set up from the start.
A Christian inspired reform of political beliefs in a Muslim land was never going to work, where feudalism was always the tradition. Where no one has ever voted before and no one is expected to pay any income tax at all.
In our nation we get little in the way of representation or choice in the polls but in a nation where a taxation office does not even exist… why should there be any representation at all?
An opposition party would be useful to provide choice, but there isn’t one.
How are the bastereds going to be kept honest after winning power by telling lies? We have similarities here but why should anyone else want a system that offers less?
Especially as America intends to administer funds while it makes Iraq pay war reparations with its own oil and innocent lives.
I’m sorry if this upsets some of you but its better to be led by an informed point of view rather than having been led by the point of a gun.
The west needs the Oil its as plain as day, but our populations require justifiable cause, we had that for Vietnam, Korea and the 2nd world war, but then if you think about it that was over oil as well, Russian North African and won with American Texas Tea.
This war is about oil and where would we be without it, the Arabs would go back to herding goats but what would we do?
|
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (14 of 14)
Jump To Comment: 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1Nicely put.
Thanks for you re reply.
What can be done now is honest debate, where the benefit of the world is considered and mankind takes second place.
Think about this seriously.
‘When nature is understood both science and religion will become redundant’
i will explain the concept.
nervertheless
By Then it will be just us and our actions, no god to clean up our mess, no salvation, just us and nature, as it has always been.
However by then it will be too late unless enough populations have made some changes to normal human behaviour.
Currently Science is being used as a tool to defeat nature not to understand it. Science is used to break nature down into saleable objects for short term profits as centralised power maintains control.
nature only has value when a price tag is scanned.
God is used for all kinds of excuses, god was never intended for such a task.
So should we rise up and attack consumerism? Clearly the greatest enemy… but where exactly would you begin? It’s at home and it’s spreading through globalized efforts throughout the developing world.
Developing and ever expanding, demanding more and more. while oil and other fossil fuels the furnace of industry, expanding and growing every year in what must become self defeating.
To change direction so fundamentally you must have a plan to offer the masses, there are 7 billion of us to consider. The new system to replace the one people are used to must be really radical, brilliant yet simple and easy to instigate, therefore we must chew over all requirements, plan in collectives organise in councils and then act once we have the plan.
This will take a while.
This would be a new approach, revolutionary in itself.
historically mankind has only ever acted in desperation as a last resort completely without thought or a post action plan.
That is why we are talking now ; this is why humans have always failed as a species, victims of bad planing or of no plan at all.
There are many things to consider, not only do we have to devise a system that will attract support which would generate self sustaining action but the said action must encourage the developing world to follow.
Tall order
We must generate the same marketing appeal as consumerism.
If ya can’t beat em
Forget demonstrating to governments as well you know, they are well under the control of corporate shared interest.
just count the times they assure you of the consumer confidence,and display the mums and dads share index, its a dead give away, saving the planet is not in their budgetary concern.
The greatest amount of money ever spent on one project of environmental protection was 8 million dollars, that’s one incompitant corporate salary.
There are solutions but the problems are so many and varied, maybe all that can be done is that one person should save themselves.
You could just drop out of society, and live well. This would encourage others to follow suit, building a society that treads lightly upon the world and each other while requiring less from a depleted world.
Once established in generations this asset would set the example, while consumerism dies of natural causes.
Exhausted.
I made a start.
Over-simplification is surely not good, but it is hardly less preferable than the unncessary obfuscation of your opening gambit, Simon.
Global consumption of oil is estimated to be 78 million barrels of oil per day. This is projected to increase to 128 million by 2015, as 'developing countries' industrialise. The invasion of Iraq has so far led to a drop in oil production of 20% from that country, according to a UNDP et.al. report on Nov 23rd, 2004. With the worsening security situation, things are not likely to get much better.
On the other hand, a few people are doing very well out of the high oil prices, and have never had it so good.
The number of sustainable energy sources is limited, primarily by our imagination. As in the case of the light-bulbs designed with a limited life-span, the vested interests of the few, no matter how complex you try to make it, currently over-ride the quality of life of most: buying into consumerism, most people are oblivious to this.
The same vested interests are at the root of global inequality which has half the world’s population on less than $2 per day, and 800 million starving, but buying into consumerism, most of us are unaware of this. In this way we are all, to differing degrees, culpable, but if you minimise the difference that small projects can make, you place the lion’s share of the responsibility with the self appointed decision-making few.
Bad cess to consumerism and its corporate sponsors.
However, there are a few more points worth mentioning. I think you underestimate the extent to which the state controls farming in the ‘developed’ world, to a greater extent than large farmers use the state (both ripping off the public). While the MDCs agreed to reduce export subsidies in Geneva, (August 2004), The most efficient subsidies of all have come in the recent EU trends towards Direct Aid (farmer’s dole). Phytosanitation directives too in food processing, and Kyoto Protocol in industry generally, place Third World at a disadvantage, since their governments cannot afford the necessary grant-aid to help their industries meet new Western standards: but more importantly for present purposes, the EU REPS scheme means that EU policy decides what is grown, and even, that nothing should be grown at all (in the case of set-aside).
MDCs could switch production to rape-seed for example, but this would mean less meat production/consumption, and this might make governments even more unpopular (the J-curve of unsatisfied expectations often leads to revolution). On the other hand, the cheaper transport costs of local energy sources rather than farming them out to LDCs, will be an incentive, and the J-curve will be worse if lack of investment in whatever energy alternatives, continues.
Governments’ lack of planning capability should be obvious by now, on a national scale, let alone on a global one. The coming water crisis caused in part by oil consumption, will make the lack of oil pale into insignificance. Mass-migration and unsustainable demographies may ensue.
Interesting times await, but it’s not too late to act now, in whatever way you think fit. People will disagree on strategies of public debate, as well as possible solutions; but the more immediate the perceived threat, the more readily people will be to unite in the common cause. That may be too late.
What can be done now?
Too right he should have been less ambiguous. God knows indymedia is an irony-free zone
of making us think would be to say what you really wanted to say at the start.
You say you are pro War but want to save the earth. It's a bit ambiguous.
Your last paragraph run straight to the heart of the Matter, it’s all a misrepresentation.
. My article was not designed for any side to agree with, no right wing Supporter will say the war is about oil, and no left wing debate will accept that their first world status is dependant upon oil, and no one will accept that going to war for oil is a morally acceptable reason for the current action.
nevertheless here we are.
Somewhere in between the extremes lies the answer, but not the direction you have outlined.
Your answer to all the worlds’ problems is rape seed and Bio diesel.
( although I believe it is just one alternative in a mixed bag of other simplistic solutions)
There is no doubt this alternative fuel works, in fact the Diesel engine was designed before petroleum was widely available, it was designed to run in vegetable oil although it can also function quite efficiently on Animal fat, nut oil or whale oil, but lets not go there.
During the Dark ages wars fought over Olive Oil were frequent; America declared war against Australia over Whale oil in 1870 although before the dead line of that ultimatum expired Australia obeyed demands.
Then the 1st and second world wars took their cue, see the role of oil in both wars and japans invasion of Manchuria.
Essentially mankind has been fighting over oil for a while.
But you want to know what’s wrong with Rape seed oil,
Well here’s the thing.
Currently the western world is in full production of food while using petroleum in a mechanized farming system that requires only 1% of a nation’s population to manage and provide labor, in both arable and livestock .
The rest of the population lives in the luxury provided by consumerism which is supplied by the other products of oil.
We are dependant upon more things than a car, Fossil fuels created the 1st world.
For a new demand to enter the Market in fuel alternatives some farmers will go into rape seed production to exploit the new cash crop created, while other farmers will enjoy the higher prices that traditional crops will demand due to the immediate absence of current players.
This will cause greater deforestation and world food shortages, as farmers develop more intensive farming methods to exploit more land, demanding more water and causing greater soil loss.
food production will slip from surplus to insufficient, while third world countries will switch to oil seed production instead of food.
So you see RJS, simple answers are not the best. The demand for fuel oil for transport and heating is immense, you can develop you own system but it would be a complete disaster if the whole world tried it there are 7 billion of us.
However this is where we come in, you me and anyone else who gives a fig for the future.
Before the planet dies mankind has to stop burning and clearing land, we do not have a choice, burning oil of any kind will cause smoke, wood burning causes smoke and the manufacture of any wind turbines etc will cause pollution. Hydro Electric dams cause environmental devastation, draining wetlands and drowning forests.
Its all a bit negative, but by eliminating every thing that will not work will uncover the few that are left.
Geo sequestering?
No, this is another misrepresentation to protect current energy monopolies, stupid idea but its better than Bio diesel because no ones will actually bury carbon dioxide under the ground, The porous nature of the earths crust will not allow it.
Gep Thermal power generation.
This uses the earths Magma to turn water into steam, providing cheap and non polluting electrical generation for the cost of the hardware and a couple of holes.
Currently operational in Iceland.
From the electricity you can make Hydrogen, and run your cars trucks on that.
Most plastics can be made from the unfossilized materials that can be grown, and lots of things we can just do without.
We can also use windmills, bio diesel and solar panels, but we cannot depend upon these things, the Magma layer will always provide
However for this to work
Consumerism’s got to go, its only been around for 50 years so we can manage with out. Mc Donald’s will probably have to go but in the main westerners will still be able to live in luxury.
However it’s all pie in the sky, centralized power, chemical and Energy concerns will maintain that the endless supply of energy from beneath our feet cannot be accessed. It’s too far down.
However this is just not the case, geothermal rock can be found anywhere where there is natural hot springs, the Romans mapped these out for us centuries ago.
So although you wisely point out my article was misleading, JBYM my intention was to make you think.
'There are no current alternative fuels that can provide the enormous demand that oil maintains'.
This is untrue. Diesel engines can run cheaper, more efficiently and at less environmental cost, than on fossil fuel (petroleum oil).
RTE featured the Barron Family on News at One in November 2003. They are from near Adamstown, Co. Wexford, and run diesel engines on rape-seed oil. After a conversion fee of €500, they charge 69c per litre of fuel. Six acres will run a car for a year. This is just one of many such co-operatives throughout the country, waiting for Brian Cowan to drop the excise duties on their product.
One man i know from Co. Westmeath, runs his home heating from used chip-oil from the local chipper, and is building a house of straw bricks for better insulation.
University of Limerick have a bio-fuel programme which is quite advanced, and will undertake research for any company to show them how best they can shift dependence completely away from petroleum.
My neighbour is an engineer with Dublin Corpo, and in 1995, modified a 2.6 liter engine so that it could run on vegetable oil, diesel, or bio-gas (in case of slurry pits on farms etc), and says thta this engine would supply the energy needs of two houses.
If these 'ordinary' people can produce such easy and brilliant results withoug funding, imagine what the might of the corporate world could do, or governments, if long-term common interest could over-ride the short-term craving for profits at the people's expense, and corporate welfare paid by taxes.
Currently, 93% of Ireland's energy needs are supplied by petroleum, but this is not because there is no alternative. Windfarms are planned to supply 13% of electricity needs by 2010, and if more money was spent on gyroscopics and solar energy in the US, than on prosecuting illegal and immoral wars, the world would be cleaner and safer.
The disproportionate influence of the oil industry on US politics, especially on the leadership of the Republican Party, is the cause of massive distortions. Billionaires from other industries don't have the same influence, despite their undoubted wealth.
Oil is running out. After Iraq has been exploited by these idiots, where next? Sooner or later, they will have to face the inevitable drying up of wells, and the sooner this happens, the better for us all.
Oil costs are factored into production, processing and transport, and theefore, inflation due to spiralling demand and diminishing sources will have catastrophic effects on everyday lives so long as this ignorant blind dependence, this unnecessary illusion continues.
If biofuels replace fossil fuels, there can be less control over the global energy supply, and less profits for the few powerful polluters.
There is no such thing as a good oil industry. The alternatives are here, but this nasty oligopoly exerts far too much influence for governments to change tack, until it may be too late. Why should people be blown up to serve the interests of these moguls in the mean-time?
The jaded, heartless myth propogated by Simon has long outlived its sell-by date, and less hasten its departure.
What I'm saying is. You are supporting the war, its not an invitation its an observation.
Get it?
You want first world...so this is the cost...either believe the spew in propaganda, freedom democracy etc...or own up face facts we need the oil so someone must die. 2.8 million in Iraq since the war began in 1991, that’s the one that’s on now.
Russia tried to get a pipe line through Afghanistan, America is building one now.
America helped Saddam against Iran, they are still targeting Iran, that’s the third war planned
Talking numbers
the 2nd world war was about oil...Hitler tried for Russia's, raided North Africa and lost because he could not secure a supply While England was supplied American oil And America became rich and powerful.
But with its own resources depleting fast and the world market being run through OPEC it needs to claw back power.
So quit complaining we are white we are first world, or change the way we live because we cannot have our cake and eat it without someone getting hurt.
Simon, I can't see how all you have said leads you to the conviction that war should be supported.
Look at the pics posted by "No comment". THAT is war - whoever wages it.
In my opinion war should never be supported.
The hard thing to accept is that we are benefiting from this war, it’s a fight to control oil the life blood of economies, black thick environmentally unfriendly toxic sludge which drives the latest 4x4 with 20% extra power because there was one last mountain range that has not been lain to waste.
Look around the room, where you are and ask yourself what has not been created by, oil, what exists in your room that does not thank oil for its creation?
Do you want the answer?
Its free, it will not bight ya its…
You, that’s right, just you…without clothes, a naked you…Therefore I think we all have a lot to be thankful for. Don’t you?
Support the war.
http://dahrjamailiraq.com/gallery/view_album.php?set_albumName=album28&page=1
I’m going to believe that you are being sincere, but GWB as a diplomat doesn’t quite fit with what we know of him, he’s a boots and all kind of guy, black and white, all or nothing,for or against. no brain, dead simple, honest home town primitive fundamentalist Christian.
Could this man be honest?, I mean so breathtakingly stupid that he actually believes he is doing the right thing
Yes I think so
The oil is required by the west, so that secured his support from the neocons and yes there were other ways to gain control of the oil. But have you watched the growth of China India and the rest of Asia?
Maybe there was no time, Saddam in 1990 with the largest reserves of oil?, he had clout in a buyers market maybe even the edge by gaining Chinese and Russian support, both superpowers of their day. After all he was never threatening any free nation, Kuwait only has 200 000 nationals, its a dictatorship, what freedom s were protected in the Gulf war?
Today, Brent gives us fuel but Middle Eastern oil provides chem., meds, fertilizer’s, plastics and fuels in heating automotive and lubrication, so you see we consumers need a cheap and abundant supply.
Someone else’s blood for all our oil needs please and lots of it.
What do we risk?
We lied but two nations reelected the liars.
The Iraqi government made up the WMD lie, while in the employ of America, and they will very likely be the next recognized government of Iraq...three cheers for democracy while our press ignores the civil war and the one against the occupation.
To bad its all going on miles away we are safe.
So far retaliation has cost us 4000 lives against 3 million civilians OS including Afghanistan Iraq and South Seas conflict in Indonesia and the Philippines.
We can take those loses, I don’t hear the security industry complaining!
Bring it on!!
But the oil will still flow.
You cannot make money without production and the money spent on war will guarantee production.
This is the war we are winning; does America look as if it’s at war? When did Bush ever attend a funeral for one, just one of the fallen soldiers?
Does Britain look as if its at war? The economy is booming, the workforce is not away at war the borders are not threatened…there is no war, it’s a myth. Look at Australia they sent their best wishes; sure it’s a world effort.
But the oil still flows, we are winning!!!
does our imported consumer culture of greed and excess give us the right to value life in terms of capital per head of population
unsustainable capitalism
divided by time =
mmmmmmmmm?
CAPITALISM KILLS LOVE
Although i am miles from sharing your viewpoint as i see consumerism (the ends of your means) as an abomination ican understand what you are saying however if it is a matter of who the oil was being sold to tell me why a diplomat of GWBs stature could not have brought onside the barbarous regime of saddam like he did those of Putin,Musharraf,Sharon and others would have been much more economically favorable to the west which is now experiencing a massive ,massive rise in oil prices even in the darkest days of international sanctions were we getting Iraqs oil so would it not have been much more easily secureable by giving Iraq a respite and some aid dependent on democratic reform measures