War for commodities

[CameoJoe]

HiYa,

I think war is always fought for items we ferer to as commodities. In rare occasions war is fought for freedom that produces commodity.
When people argue about war in the middle east as only an avenue to get war then I can honestly say "so what" it's the same as most wars.
In history wars have been fought for salt,wood,gold,silver,food items and so forth. War in the middle east is acceptable to historical lessons and I have no problem with it. If the United States was fighting for oil that would be okay to me and the French,Russians,etc... because they think the end result of this war should establish the investments they have with Iraq in regards to war..lol
In essnce the French and Russians wanna get paid after the war in oil and that means the war is and will be fought for oil to a large degree.
History shows us many times over that freedom is worth fighting for and lives are worth saving in terrible regimes if there is a payoff to finace the whole thing. This may be the main reason the United Nations will not subscribe to a war in Africa because there is no payoff at the end of war. The United Nations wants peace with a payoff but not peace where it cannot fund itself..lol I suppose it's better for the UN to fight verbal wars in hopes to aquire payoffs and strategical strength through intimidation such as in tyhe "Zimland"
What it all boils down to is if the real military forces of the world wish to take a commodity after a war then the last straw of the economically strong countries with weak militaries cannot gain from this and this is a real fear for them. If the United States and Britain take Iraq without the EU or the UN then of course both of these weak military entities will not be able yo enjoy the spoils of war or the finance that it brings.

CameoJoe

[forest]

Hello C.j. So what you are saying is, U.S.A. wants Iraqi oil ?
So why don,t Dubya just come out and say so ?and cut all the crap with the arms inspectors ,every one knows he has the weapons the U.S.A. sold them to him .

[Batukhan]

Originally posted by forest
Hello C.j. So what you are saying is, U.S.A. wants Iraqi oil ?
So why don,t Dubya just come out and say so ?and cut all the crap with the arms inspectors ,every one knows he has the weapons the U.S.A. sold them to him .

This is not mine ,but kind of on the subject.
Batu

Saddam seems to parallel Hitler in WW2. Previously, the Western global oil elites supported Saddam because he protected their oil interests in Iraq.
Before WW2, big global business financed Hitler as protection vs. Communism. In WW2, Hitler tried to seize Iraqi oil by supporting Rashid Ali's Iraqi nationalist regime (the predecessor of Sadaam's Ba'ath Party) which kicked out the British. However, British SAS commandos eliminated pro-Nazi elements in Iraq. Later Hitler promised Al Husseni, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, that after he seized the Caucasus, he would invade Palestine and kill the Jews. Actually Hitler planned to use Palestine as a stepping stone to seize Mideast oil. Big global oil interests, betrayed by Hitler, withdrew their support and as a result, he lost the war.
Today, Saddam wants to dominate Mideast oil, and will use a global terrorist network with 4th generation warfare to try to achieve his goals. He has no weapons of mass destruction, but is still dangerous. The global oil elites, betrayed by Saddam, want to take him out.
Carl

[CameoJoe]

HiYa,

I suppose Forest got the true historical point as well as myself. I appreciate the well written and easy to understand approach.
I'm wondering to what depths war conceives itself as being humanitarian at all costs? Do countries ever go to war to just save the people from evil rulers alone or is it mostly to protect both the people and the commodities? Maybe this is why nobody and I mean nobody will fight in Africa because the strategic interests are not worth enough in the means of oil,gold,etc... The only attempts at war in modern times in Africa are concerned only with South Africa(gold,diamonds) and Zimland..No war but agricultural prospects and minerals. The UN let 500,000 Africans die a short time ago because they felt fighting to save lives was not an agenda. Did they have a point? They did apologize later for doing nothing but at the same time how would they reap financial benefits for saving lives from countries who have no way of paying to saty alive. The UN always proves itself for what it is and it does not actually represent anyone except those that pay the highest ransom to establish a paer-writing service in the name of the project they wish to be worked on.

CameoJoe

[forest]

Batu. C.J. Interesting post Batu, things there that I never knew . C.j. likewise you make a good point about Africa .But correct me if I am wrong [And I am sure you will] lol. But Nato bombed Kosovo as a humanitarian act to save Muslims from the serbs . But you are right it does seem that countries only go to war for some strategic goal . all the best.

[CameoJoe]

Hi,

Yes the UN did bomb Kosovo but then again it was the United States who bombed Kosovo because the UN does not have an Air Force..lol Clinton painted the planes with UN logo's on them for that special occasion.
2000 Serbian civilians died in that encounter by the UN if they indeed want to take credit. They in fact paid for military needs to the countries who bombed Serbia. Makes ya wonder by what method Africa will ever be involved if ever?
Forest I'm not here to rip your theories apart but rather learn something about recent history and the trend it has taken down a political/war posture.
Zimland and the Ivory Coast are interesting subjects along these lines because they contradict on one hand and on other the other show keen consistency. England who has interests in Zimland has taken the political approach to the problem due to the government of that country ripping it and the people to shreds. Still England or rather the UK will not send troops to the area because if they win the land in that place it will not be able to make a profit to pay for the war.
France on the other hand is ready to fight for commodities and has some 2500 troops in place now. This means France will fight for the live wire economy in Ivory because it suits the interests of the bankers in France. On the other hand they do not wish to deal with Iraq because the massive economic effect of Irag is too large for them to sustain if you will. The Nuclear reactor they helped Iraq build illegally after 1981 will possibly blow up the Frogs face if US troops capture it and find the evidence needed to prove Iraq and France did a dirty deed behind closed doors against UN standards.
If this scenario comes true and France is found to be in breach of international standards it would mean drastic measures would be taken against France and it's economy in future by means of UN sanctions...etc..
If you look very close at the French you will see they protect most things with rhetoric and rhetoric alone. When push comes to shove the French lay down and retreat as quickly as they attack so we will surely see that method employed shortly.
I suppose the wars that are fought just to do good for the people and the people alone are seldom fought. It seems to be a combination of freedom and commodities we see being fought for with the occasional strategic interests involved with the clawing hand of the UN always waiting for a pay day.

CameoJoe

[zhuk]

It is foolish to think so about french.
Do not forget that french has invaded the east in 1089 and succeeded to stay there for a hundred and 95 years, fighting firerce attacks of the muslims.
Then in 1918-1921 they fought in the Middle east ant staied in Syria and Antakhya region up to 1938.
I do not want to argue on the topic, but you should not abuse any other nations.
I do not support USA decisions on Iraq, because, the USA themselves will became an international law violencer.
They brake up the international law and the Chartre of the U.N., while starting a war without tacking into consideration the opinion of the council of the U.N.
This will lead not to democracy between nation, buton the contrary, to the dicatorship and dominance of the USA over the rest whole world.