> The real problem is with America's internal economy. I suppose it's
a
> legacy of setting up a free market in the midst of a civil war, but
> unless there's a war every year or two, large sections of their
> industrial base stagnate. A war frees up billions of dollars of
> treasury reserve that would otherwise accrue baseline-plus-1-percent
> to no effect. You can actually plot it back - Kosovo (1997), Zaire
> (1996), Croatia (1995)... spotting a pattern here?
>
> America has an artificially propped-up defence budget of somewhere
> along the lines of US$350bn. If they spent that year-on-year then
> America would have so much military hardware that it would attract
too
> much attention from the rest of the world. By using a certain
amount
> of it, preferably on weak targets that offer no resistance, America
> can justify to itself the massive expenditure.
>
> Strategically, Iraq's useful to America. In conquering Iraq, the US
> effectively gets 11% of the world's oil supply for free. I've read
the
> argument that the value of the oil doesn't justify the cost of the
war
> - that forgets a prime rule of economics: this war spends *last*
> year's budget and the cost has already been written off. The Iraqi
> assets are all profit. It also gives them a nice staging post in
the
> Middle East should they wish to bomb Libya or Palestine again. The
> risk of terrorism in Iraq means nothing to the US - they can secure
> military targets, but the people are just "collateral".
>
> Politically, the spin doctors have worked their magic on the
American
> people. I've just left a rather bloody flame war on another BBS
with a
> number of Americans, who, in the face of all evidence, will not
> believe that this is not a humanitarian war, and that Iraq did not
> organise the attacks on the World Trade Center. While a fair
> percentage of the people will not accept the war is just unless a
> cache of chemical weapons are found, most of them are caught in a
> duality of opinion; if there are weapons, the world is safer, if
there
> are none, at least the people are "liberated".
>
> Finally what the Bush administration has done is quite clever. If
bin
> Laden figures out the service he's done America, he'll cry. Bush
has
> been able to start a "rolling war" - it never starts, never
finishes,
> moves from place to place fuelled only by paranoia and supposition,
> and drives the American military economy forward. America will grow
> rich, acquire lands and power under the banner of "liberation", and
> seize control of the world economy.
>
> There's no morally justifiable reason for this war because there's
no
> morality involved. It's economics: the executive arm of hard
> capitalism. Nothing more.

* It's interesting that you mention the Saudi Arabian bin Laden, who
was allegedly on dialysis while the 9/11 attacks took place.
Apparently (according to Michael Moore), the bin Laden and the Bush
families have known each other for 20 years. My bet is that Osama is
in the underground shelter in Crawford Texas. Can I have my reward
money in small notes please?

Also, the concept of a rolling war is not a new one. Step forward
George Orwell. Sometimes Ingsoc fired missiles at their own to keep
a level of fear. Can anyone say "friendly fire"?

I too am concerned about expansionism under the guise of a "war on
terror". The question is, what can we do about it?

Finally, why would a secular leader like Saddam Hussein have anything
to do with a fundamentalist like OBL? The fundies hate us
secularists worldwide.

Martin