On Sun, May 25, 2003 at 07:39:07PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > Notice that the US governement never said that was their aim, they said > Iraq was dangerous because they have mass destruction weapons and > support terrorism, which has turned out to be blatant lie. The french > governement opposed this, because they felt that the UNO investigators > were enough to prove that Iraq had (or had not) mass destruction > weapons.
(Sigh, hopelessly off-topic.)
My theory:
Britain and the U.S. wanted to invade Iraq so that oil contracts
more favorable to large petroleum companies that strongly
influence their governments could be written.
France and Russia wanted to preserve the status quo because
large petroleum companies that strongly influence their
governments already *had* very favorable oil contracts.
Yes, It Really Was All About Oil. All this talk of principle,
self-determination, brutal dicators, and inspections was window-dressing
and a distraction from the real issues. The only people who felt deeply
about it were the people who had no real power over the situation, like
protestors in the streets.
It was also a case of "Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss."
Iraq was largely run by oil companies and will continue to be for the
forseeable future. All that have or will change are the logos on the
employees' uniforms.
The Americans and the French aren't so different. Just ask the Vietnamese.
--
G. Branden Robinson | You can have my PGP passphrase when
Debian GNU/Linux | you pry it from my cold, dead
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | brain.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Adam Thornton
pgp8x5JugW9VL.pgp
Description: PGP signature
