Did you ever think that maybe the war isn't about oil, but weapons?

[Melodybe]

Sure oil has it's place in the rational for this war, but the more sinister piece of this puzzle could be weapons manufacuters. Carlyle group deals in weapons, too, and pharmacuticals (which people being hurt in war also need), but lets focus on the weapons.

The Masters of War are making a pretty penny off of this quagmire, heck I wouldn't doubt it if they are making money selling to both sides like they did with Iraq and Iran in the 70's and 80's.

Oil is bad enough, but we need oil to survive, so if that is the ulitmate justification, it is out of need and possibly more forgiveable. But weapons? We shouldn't need weapons, not like the ones they make anyway, it is the most despicable reason one could imagine. Weapons manufacturers are posting record profits too.

Just a thought.

Also a reminder that GE, owner of NBC and MSNBC, is making a hundred times the profit on their weapons contracts than they do on their networks.

[punpirate]

1. I think it can be more broadly seen as...

... the war being about money, in general. There will be tremendous profits for industry (as there always are in war), but, right from the start, the rules were set up to the advantage of US businesses of all stripes.

[Auntie Bush]

17. especially if they donated to bush*!

[evlbstrd]

2. It's all of a piece.

Without oil, we can't make the weapons. Without weapons, we can't steal the oil.

[Melodybe]

3. Don't forget the meds, without the war lots less need them

be it b/c someone has lost a leg, or is taking prozac to forget the things they had to do.

But money, that is the root of their evil.

Sicking, completely sickening.

Burn in hell you greedy, murdering, disgusting wastes of oxygen.

[evlbstrd]

5. War isn't the only reason for the meds.

These bastards want to test our kids and get them prescribed.
Sure, there are people who need help. But, my kids have been through the school/psychicriatic mill. My 19 year old daughter is finally coming through it. My 15 year old son is in full rebellion mode, and there are school officials who can't wait to drug him.

[Stirk]

4. Sure- there's alot of war profiteering going on. But at the same time,

the military industrial complex doesn't need a war to make a killing (pardon the expression). They make just as much money- if not more- building weapons that are never used; weapons that may not even function. This bogus "war on terror" may provide the government with an easy excuse for expanding their corporate welfare systems, but they'd do it with or without a war.

[evlbstrd]

6. I was listening to Majority Report on AAR tonight.

http://laweekly.blogs.com/joshuah_bearman/2004/09/physics_of_foll.html

The militarization of space, whether it works or not.

[Stirk]

8. Yep- there you go.

It's not the weapons they care about- it's the weapons budget.

[evlbstrd]

10. Eisenhower, perhaps the last honest Republican, said this:

As he honorably left office,

"Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we – you and I, and our government – must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without asking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow."

[oblivious]

9. I have no doubt one reason was to showcase US weaponry.

It was supposed to be something like the Gulf War... a glorious display of how the shock and awe of American technology could overcome an enemy in 10 days.

As punpirate says above, it's all about money generally, isn't it. Selling weapons, controlling oil, safeguarding the dollar as the world currency, and so forth.

[camby]

7. I'm beginning to think it ain't about money at all, but power

What better way for the neo-con Bush thugs to retain power than with a war? What better excuse to squash freedom and dissent on the home front than to have a war going on? Problem is, this war is bigger than planned. I think they stepped in doo doo.

[Poiuyt]

21. Bingo!

Bush saw how his father had tremendous approval ratings during the first Gulf War but then lost it all when the war ended. Jr. knew that being a "war president" would be essential to his political power because he didn't have anything else to offer.

[SammyWinstonJack]

22. It's about many things

But "spreading Democracy" isn't among them. Not real Democracy that is.

[B Calm]

11. It all centers around the damn oil!

[izzie]

12. Well if we show the weapons off well every one buys.

Worked for father but things look bad now unless you are selling small arms. The US loves selling weapons. GD needs big items to make money

[mbdtsmo]

13. more forgiveable ?

----
Oil is bad enough, but we need oil to survive, so if that is the ulitmate justification, it is out of need and possibly more forgiveable.
----

So you are saying if the US is short of any resource, it's ok to get it by whatever means ? That's exactly the sort of attitude most of the world hates about the US government.

It's by no means WHAT-SO-EVER more forgiveable to invade a country for oil, as it is for fuelling arms-sales, or any other reason.

(Hey, what an angry "maiden-posting" ;))

-m

[leftofthedial]

14. it's the whole schmear

oil, weapons, pharmo, (corrupt) finance, drugs

[kiki]

15. No shit.

The arms company vermin must have been splitting their sides laughing during all that silly debate about WMDs and regime change. For them, there's ALWAYS a good reason for war. Peace is bad for business.

I think there should be a law stating that world leaders are not allowed to stand within one mile of anyone from an arms company. Currently, the people who decide whether or not to go to war stand to make a profit from the sale of arms - paid for with tax money, of course - to their own country. If that's not a conflict of interests, I'd really, really like to know what is.

[oblivious]

16. Yes. Good. How about another law.

Any leader and legislator who votes for war must lead the troops off to glory. And their children must join the military.

Isn't that what warriors of old did?

[Auntie Bush]

18. The other major conflict of interest is the Corporate owned media.

[radwriter0555]

19. Many corporate factions benefit from whoring around with the bush regime..

didn't you see Moore's movie? The contractors gloating on tape about the riches to be made? Building, telecom, health care, food service contractors making BILLIONS of YOUR tax dollars.

Let me put it this way, when bush first bombed bagdhad all I saw was a US taxpayer funded demolitions exercize razing the city so bush's pals could go in a rebuild.

I saw no enemies, no one fighting back. I saw a US taxpayer funded demolition team. That was IT.

[TreasonousBastard]

20. It's a little bit of everything...

our entry into WWI was largely pushed by industrialists and weapons manufacturers who saw a killing to be made. The Spanish-American and Mexican wars were also largely pushed by corporate interests, and our constant forays into Central America were in the interests of making the world safe for United Fruit.

So, war is good business for some, but there is also ideology to consider. There are those in power who genuinely believe that the world would be a better place if we controlled the Middle East. Iraq is oil, Iraq is profit, and Iraq is the place where we can put major bases.

And, iraq is another place, like Panama, where we thought we had a sleazy dictator in our pocket but he turned out to be not as reliable as we hoped.

[Jawja]

23. Oh, absolutely,

the "war business" is a huge part of PNAC. The Bush Family has a history of war profiteering. It's a racket. GE and the like make a fortune on providing the weapons to blow up the Middle East and then Haliburton and Bechtel, et. al., make a fortune on rebuilding. All with our money.

[iconoclastic cat]

24. The Repubs really are like Mr. Burns:

"Schindler and I are like peas in a pod: we're both factory owners, we both made shells for the Nazis, but mine worked, dammit!"

[Toots]

25. I think a lot is also the Republicans romanticism about war.

They have this John wayne image of what it is like to be a war hero. Most have never served in the military or if they did they were in non combat roles. The only thing they know about war is from watching John Wayne "kick some butt" They want sooo badly to be thought of as heroes but they have never and will never do anything heroic. By pretending they are fighting the "Big War" to save all mankind they feel better about themselves. Democrats on the other hand have fought in most of our wars and have a first hand knowledge of what war truly is like. Because of this Democrats don't want war to ever happen. Republicans just can't stand tthat idea so they try and destroy the Democrats. It is all about the Republicans acting like children and playing Army. Only thing is real people are dying and they don't care a bit with their "culture of life".

[Just Me]

26. As always, it's about power and profits by corporacrats.

*sigh*

[leesa]

27. Both...selling arms has been the BushCo business for over a hundred years

But we need oil to make the war machine go.

[K-W]

28. There are many purposes served by imperial conquest.

Not one or the other.

This war is about oil, bases, terrorism(but not in a good way), social darwinism, protecting capitalism, and propaganda just to name a few.

In the end this war is about protecting various social relationships that give some people and groups power over others both domestically and abroad. But thats what pretty much everything is at least partially about.