SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : DON'T START THE WAR -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: SBHX who wrote (23024)3/19/2003 2:09:15 PM
From: opalapril  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 25898
 
IT'S JUST BUSINESS

Do you have faith in the Bush Administration being motivated at heart by truly humanitarian concerns? Or could there be another, less selfless explanation for its eagerness to wage war?

No one who knows United States history should be surprised to learn that business interests are a major driving force of our nation's international relations and diplomacy. Even today, business interests will be a cause -- maybe even the cause -- for shedding the blood of American servicemen and servicewomen.

It needs to be remembered that since the mid 1990s there has been a fierce competition among a dozen or so nations over "executory contracts" with Iraq --i.e., contracts to do business with Iraq after the U.N. sanctions are lifted. It is not a pretty tale. I see no 'good guys' in it, especially when I think about my relatives who are at this moment on the front lines of the Kuwait-Iraq border because of it.

Throughout the latter half of the 1990's a great many nations favored lifting the U.N. sanctions supposedly to ease the terrible toll they were taking on the Iraqi people. The U.S. either stopped all such efforts cold in the U.N. or grudgingly agreed to minor adjustments in the permitted trade, always arguing that Iraq had not yet proved its compliance with the U.N. disarmament resolutions and that in any event Saddam was misusing the income for his own grandiose palaces and to re-build his army.

However, quite a few individual nations -- China, France, Russia, Germany among them -- managed an end-run of sorts around the sanctions by negotiating "executory" trade contracts with Iraq. These did not involve any immediate payments, and they were to become effective only after the U.N. lifted sanctions in their entirety. Among these executory contracts were the huge Russian oil pipeline contract and the French ElfFina drilling contract, both of which were widely publicized three and two years ago, although they were expressly contingent on eventual lifting of the sanctions. Hundreds of other such contracts were reported to the U.N., catalogued in Iraqi government files, and even posted on a web site maintained by the Iraqi foreign trade department.

It is no surprise that since 1991, U.S. law had not permitted United States companies to enter into existing contracts with Iraq except in strict accord with the U.N. sanctions. In addition, our domestic trade laws prohibited such "executory contracts." When American companies realized that their competitors were getting an edge by negotiating future contracts, they complained bitterly to Washington. Congress repealed the anti-executory contract trade and commerce regulations in 1998.

Trouble was, after that Saddam either still refused to deal with (most) U.S. companies or the U.S. companies found themselves still losing out to foreign competitors. Either way, domestic commercial businesses felt they had been frozen out of the robust and growing Iraqi executory contract market. (The two infamous Halliburton subsidiary contracts, which were concluded under Mr. Dick Cheney's executive tenure, were existing contracts approved by the U.N. under the sanctions.)

Bottom line: Well before the French openly opposed the U.S. effort to get U.N. approval for a new war against Iraq, it had become clear that when, and not if, sanctions were finally lifted all that Iraqi wealth which Mr. Bush says belongs to the Iraqi people was going to be committed to trading with almost everyone except U.S. companies. The Bush team was keenly aware of this as they came into office in January 2001. In public statements, congressional testimony, and elsewhere administration trade spokesmen, when asked if they were at all concerned about the well publicized executory contracts being signed with other nations' state-owned or private corporations, said no, they weren't; then they often darkly hinted that after all such executory, or future, contracts were only as good as the staying power of the regime that made them.

Consistent with this frequent theme, "regime change" was the first articulated 'reason' for the war threats against Iraq which the Bush administration offered -- well before 9-11. It is the one Messrs. Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, and Cheney have consistently returned to, even as they displayed, or feigned, momentary interest in other rationales such as 'bringing democracy to the Iraqi people' or 'remaking the Middle East' or 'protecting Israel' or '9-11' or the supposed 'al Quaeda connection.' It also helps to explain why Bush's press spokesman said this week that U.S. troops intended to occupy Iraq whether or not Saddam left the country.

It's just business, folks. Not weapons of mass destruction, or exporting the blessings of democracy, or foiling Ossama bin Ladin. At bottom, the New Iraq War is all about American companies making money for themselves and their investors.

The surest prediction about the inevitable war is this: Once we "are" the government of Iraq, we will cancel all prior executory contracts entered into by the Hussein regime and call for a new feast. Everything will be up for grabs on a smorgasbord of our own design, under our own house rules.

And, by the way -- no French or Russian dressing will be served.



To: SBHX who wrote (23024)3/20/2003 4:20:58 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER  Respond to of 25898
 
You'll stick to your WWII/Vichy analogy, eh? You'd better dig up the Algerian War and ask yourself how the whole Mediterranean would look like today if General De Gaulle had yielded to the pied-noir lobby and kept Algeria under French control....

Anyway, even your "French theory" about the wrecking of the UN is not relevant... Indeed, the grand purpose of the League of Nations and the ideal of perpetual peace were nipped in the bud by the American isolationists --not by the French. Again, the correct historical precedent is WWI, not WWII:

Woodrow Wilson vs The Senate

"The Only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"

Edmund Burke


They say time is a great teacher. How true. History has taught us that peace must be kept at all costs. At the end of World War 1, the common goal between the victorious nations throughout the world was to declare peace. The leading statesmen of these triumphant nations met in Paris to draw up the Treaty of Versailles, which would decide the fate of the central powers. Woodrow Wilson, the American President, created fourteen points as the basis for peace negotiations.

Among these fourteen points was the most controversial and yet the most important to President Wilson, the League of Nations. President Wilson developed its charter and soon died from exhaustion after his own country, the United States, refused to ratify it in the senate. American policy had temporarily shifted from isolationism to internationalism because of the war, however the United States senate was not ready for the responsibilities of a world peacekeeper. Due to a republican majority, senators Henry Cabot Lodge, Alfred Beveridge, and other isolationist senators helped to sway the rest of congress to deny the ratification of the Treaty of Versailles. These senators believed that by entangling themselves in an international organization they would create new alliances, which would commit them to go to war. Also, Lodge felt that the League of Nations would be able to control the United States military by limiting the number of armaments that a nation could have.

Due to Article 10 and the limitations on armaments, which the senators objected, and the inability to compromise on the deadlock between the President's beliefs and the Senators, led to the failure to ratify the Treaty of Versailles. These factors lead the senate to their decision, which left the world vulnerable for another war and the eventual demise of the League of Nations. The Fourteen Points were one of Wilson's major accomplishments while he held office. Wilson introduced this theory on what he believed were successful measures in not only preventing Germany from beginning a war again, but to prevent all wars. After all World War One was the war to end all wars. These Fourteen Points included proposals such as freedom of the seas, general disarmament, the removal of international trade barriers, impartial settlement of colonial claims, the restoration of Belgium, the evacuation of Russian territory, and the League of Nations.

Wilson made many mistakes that the senate would use against him. When Wilson left for Europe on board the "George Washington" , he brought with him a peace commission. This peace commission consisted of Colonel House, Robert Lansing, General Tasker H. Bliss, and only one Republican, Henry D. White. The Republicans resented Wilson for only bringing one member of their party to represent them. However, Wilson had a "distrust of coalitions in politics." The Republicans also felt that White "was not the representative which the Republican Party would themselves had chosen." Wilson felt that by limiting his opposition in Europe he would have a better chance of attaining peace. However, this choice was the beginning of the opposition Wilson faced from his own country during the peace talks. Wilson believed he had the support of his own people when he left for Europe.

Ironically, Wilson also believed that, "The men, whom we are about to deal with, do not represent their own people." Yet, it was Lloyd George, the Prime Minister of England, who had just finished an election that would send him to Paris with a very popular mandate. Georges Clemenceau, the leader of France, had also just finished an election in which he won a vote of confidence four to one. However, in November, in the midterm elections, it was shown to the world that America did not support their leader. The election in 1918 resulted in a clear Republican majority for the Senate and the House. This led President Wilson to "issue a public appeal for the election of a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress in order that he might be wholly unhampered in the approaching negotiations." This was unsuccessful and showed to spectators that there was a difference of opinion between these two parties. The President felt even more opposition from his country when former President Theodore Roosevelt spoke openly of his lack of support when he stated, "our allies and our enemies, and Mr. Wilson himself, should all understand that Mr. Wilson has no authority whatever to speak for the American people at this time." With the events that took place, Wilson faced a very painful question on his passage back to the United States. Without a Democratic senate would the Treaty of Versailles be ratified? President Wilson brought the Treaty of Versailles back to the Senate on July 10, 1920, but he found opposition from the Senate.

The Senators that opposed the treaty were Henry Cabot Lodge, Alfred Beveridge, and other isolationists. It was these Senators that helped to sway the rest of the congress to deny the ratification of the Treaty of Versailles.
[...]

essays.cc