Gains of War?
©Prax Maskaren de Sangolda. 31st March 2003.
A PowerPoint 2000 presentation, 'Gains of War.pps' of war was forwarded me on about 18th March 2003. Besides downloading it and storing it on my computer in order to deal with it at a latter and more convenient time, I did nothing more with it. However, since it is now being forwarded once again, I am forced to make time to tackle this 'message.'
The presentation bears the legend, on slide 1, "Part of the material for the course "Models and Natural Resources Management 1," Milan Technical University." It is also entitled in Italian, Perch� si fa una guerra?
I reproduce this presentation here:
What makes a war happen?
Backstage of the American attack against Iraq in 1991
Part of the material for the course "Models and Natural Resources Management 1," Milan Technical University.
The expenses for the Gulf war
40 billion US dollars or 42 billion euros
But who paid for this?
Instinctively we say that the $ 40 billion, was paid by the USA
This is partially true: indeed...
of 40$ BILLION : 25% of the expenses was paid by the USA (10$ billion)
& 75% of the expenses was paid by the Arab countries, specifically by Kuwait and Saudi Arabia (30$ billion)
Where did they find this money?
The oil price before the war was approx. 15$ per barrel...
...but with the Gulf war, it rose to 42 $ per barrel, generating an EXTRA profit of about 60$ billion
Who did this profit go to?
In the Arab countries the "fifty � fifty" law is valid: 50% to the state and 50% to the multinational that controls the oil deposit. This gives us...
Where did they find this money?
Net profit from the increase in the price of oil: 60$ billion
30$ billion to the oil companies
30$ billion to the governments of the Arab states (Kuwait + Saudi Arabia)
Who owns the oil companies?
In the Middle East, the extraction and trading of oil is in the hands of the 7 Sisters (Shell, Tamoil, Esso...), all of which are American, and (of which) 5 are state owned.
30$ billion: Approx. 21$ billion to the American State; Approx. 9$ billion to the American private sector
Let�s make some calculations...
In Billion $ War Expenses Profit from the increase in Oil prices Profit or Loss Arab States 30 30 0 US Government 10 21 11 US Private Sector 0 9 9
Now all is clear... USA have made a profit of 20$ billion from the war! It had nothing to do with "Free Kuwait"... they were only after the "cheese"!
But this is not over yet...
Finally, who paid the �91 war against Iraq?
Those who use the oil...
...which means us!!!
But this is not over yet...
1. So, the USA, have made a total profit of...
$ 11 billion from the oil
$ 49 billion from the weapons!!!
But this is not over yet...
2. Where did the $ 40 billion spent for the war go?
To the war industry, all of which just happens to be almost exclusively...
AMERICAN!!!
Last thoughts
Now it is easy to assume that the Gulf war in 1991, happened for financial reasons only, and not for some "humanitarian reason" or for the "right to freedom."
But now it is easy to understand two other events: the reason behind the war in Afghanistan and the new war against Iraq
Last thoughts
The war in Afghanistan had as a main target the installation of a pawn government that would agree with the construction of a pipe line (American owned), of 2.500 km length that would run across its territory.
This strategically important pipe line, has as unique alternative, the construction of another one, of 5.500 km lenght, much more costly to construct and maintain, due to the taxes that would be imposed to the USA by the countries through which it would run.
It is much easier to reduce to dust a country already tormented by 30 years of war and turn it into your annex, with the possibility of constructing and managing the shortest pipe line without any trouble at all.
Last thoughts
To understand why Bush jr. wants to attack Iraq again, we must know that the main supplier of oil in the Middle East is Saudi Arabia.
The rupture of their relationship cannot be mended, because Saudi Arabia is one of the countries involved in the Bin Laden, terrorist movement and because the International Public Opinion is against this country due to their lack of respect of the Human rights.
So, the Bush administration has a goal: to find an alternative oil supplier except for Saudi Arabia in the Middle East.
Last thoughts
The easiest way, of course, is a war in Iraq and the installation of a pawn government under USA guidance. The answer that spontaneously comes to mind is "Why Iraq?"
For 3 simple reasons:
Last thoughts
On top of this, in the last 3 years, a social revolution has taken place in Venezuela, due to the terrible living conditions.
Venezuela is the greatest oil supplier for the USA.
The Bush administration had to find an alternative to Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.
What can we do?
Inform as many people as you can about the true reasons behind this war. An ignorant person is easy to control. A person thinking logically can resist!
Visit the site of Emergency: www.emergency.it
Comments
A whole lot of tendentious, Italian Communist bullshit based upon nothing more than the old lying and trickery of Suppressio facti, suggestio falsi — Suppress the facts, suggest the false!
This presentation is so incredibly so stupid that I wonder how serious thinking men and women can have any time for it and to forward it, instead of straight-off deleting it to the garbage can where it belongs!
The basic premise of this presentation is that the Americans went in to liberate Kuwait, not because they objected to Kuwait being encroached and enslaved, but because it was an opportunity for them to profit from.
But it is precisely that this premise rests not on any actual proof but upon its mere assertion.
And it is as obvious as daylight that the mere assertion is based upon nothing more than pure malice.
The authors of this garbage wish to pretend that, except for those actions which they support, such as the invasions and subjugations by the Soviets, Fidelite communists, Viet Cong, etc., any and every action to liberate a people from aggression arises out of ulterior motives.
Further, they pretend that when a nation or group of nation go in to liberate a people, they must foot the bill of costs for this entirely themselves.
Does America or any other nation have a money tree that provides it with free money? Must not every action be paid for, its costs calculated and provided for?
There are some interesting ideas that the presentation maliciously ignores:
1. How did Kuwait benefit from the price rise, as alleged, during the time when it was occupied and its assets robbed?
2. Was the price rise manufactured by the Allies, including Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, or was it the reaction to the criminal aggression and invasion of Kuwait by Saddam?
3. How do we factor in the costs of damages, reparations, etc., besides the costs of forcing the Iraqis to evacuate Kuwait?
How do we factor in the costs of repairing Kuwaiti assets sabotaged by the retreating Iraqis?
Kuwait funded the War of Liberation from its huge cash reserves built up in its times of prosperity, and ended up with little left in the kitty. Who recompensated Kuwait for these costs?
America billed some of its expenses to Kuwait and to Saudi Arabia; Japan also gave some financial assistance. But it is also true that America itself has footed some of the costs.
4. We know how America and the UK went through the Reagan-Thatcher phase, which even Blair and Clinton have not reversed: Privatisation of state-owned industries. In the light of that fact, I do not know how to take the claim that 5 of the named American oil companies are 'state-owned.' I seriously doubt that claim.
Again, I do not believe that it is in any way true that Gulf oil extracting and trading companies are all American owned. I know that some are British and some Dutch. There will probably be some French, German, Italian and Japanese representations.
Moreover, following the Oil Crises of the last fifty years and the assertion of Arab nationalisms, state control over these oil companies by the producing countries have been strenghtened, and their foreign ownership has been diluted greatly, so that it cannot be honestly said that the extracting, refining, trading companies, etc., are any more American-owned than that they are English, French, German, etc.
But, it is precisely that the ownership of oil extraction and trading companies and of oil well fire extinguishing companies is, in itself, irrelevant, except to the dishonest who wish to distort facts.
5. Nothing is more demonstrative and evidentiary of the shamelessness and utter malice of the producers of this garbage presentation than the innuendo that the USA waged a war against the Taliban and its allies, the al Qaida, purely in order to install a 'puppet' government in Afghanistan which would permit the construction of an oil pipeline from Central Asia (Turkistan or Turan) to the Arabian Sea coast of Pakistan.
It is a plain and incontrovertible fact that the Taliban was a terrorist organisation and a threat to world peace; that its ally and guest, al Qaida, is responsible the monstrous attacks of 9/11.
In the light of those facts, the USA was supremely within its rights in taking the actions it did against the Axis of Evil, beginning with Afghanistan and the ruling Taliban and al Qaida.
Moreover, as the principal liberator, America bears the burden of subsidising Afghanistan. Additionally, Afghanistan benefits from American intervention in two ways it would not have benefitted otherwise: America pays it for a pipeline which would have bypassed it otherwise; and far more importantly, Afghanistan incurrs the even more greater, and I would say immeasurable benefit of being socially liberated from Islamic obscurantism and misanthropy!
6. I think that it is a public fact that America does not depend on Saudi, Kuwaiti or Iraqi oil. It has Venezuela and its own oilfields. And it also has the largely untouched Alaskan reserves - oilfields that lie below American National Parks and Biospheric Reserves.
But the greatest potential oil supplier of the future is Russia - from its practically untouched Siberian oilfields. America, therefore, does not need to assure itself of Gulf oil supplies.
But there is more. The countries that DO depend critically upon Gulf oil supplies are Italy, Germany, France, etc. And if, due to a short supply of oil, their economies suffer or collapse, it will affect the world economy and also America's. Thus in a way, America is being directly unselfish, if it is going to war for Iraqi oil, but also indirectly selfish by protecting itself by protecting its friends. Ironically, its friends are supremely ungrateful!
7. Flying in the face of common and public knowledge, the presentation claims that Weapons of Mass Destruction cannot be created except with High Technology. It is a fact that high technology is not at all required, that Iraq does have the capability to produce such weapons, admits to having produced them, but unconvincingly claims that they have been destroyed at a time when it acted as if it was past its troubles and could act defiantly towards the world community due to support of European renegade states like Italy, France, Germany, etc.
8. The claim that America thinks that it can attack Iraq because the "International community knows nothing about oil deposits" is the most absurd and stupid claim that can be made. It is evidence that the authors of this presentation are so overcome by their hysteria and their own propaganda that they have begun to think illogically!
9. Social Revolution in Venezuela? What has happened in Venezuela is that a Communist lunatic, Ugo Chavez, who had once attempted to seize power by force, is now, having become the elected president, attempting to recreate the disaster of Cuban communism there. And is facing fierce and strong resistance from citizens who have been striking to get rid of him for months on end.
I wish that George Bush stops acting like a chump, but that he hurries up and does an Allende on this budding monster before he can become too powerful to tackle.
No one wants another Fidel Crasto! One is too much!
In summing up, we know who trades on lies and ignorance to push forward their propaganda of lies and of malice. In today's Asian Age, Ram Jethmalani, the famous Indian solicitor, in showing that the Allied action against Saddam Hussain is within and justified by International and UN Law and is thus legal, remarks tellingly that, "We need not be worried about or influenced by an ungrateful Europe for which a quarter of a million Americans died in the IInd World War to rescue it from the scourge called Hitler and reconstruct it with billions of dollars."(Article, US Action Is Not Illegal, pg. 12.)
Ironically, today in Europe, it is not the ever-ungrateful hijras (eunuchs) like Haji Chiracullah or Mulla Schroeder, but the East Europeans newly freed from Soviet tyranny, who support the Allies, not because they have been bribed or bought, but because, as they themselves point out, they have had a direct experience of living under regimes such as that of Saddam Hussain's.
The UN and the Iraq War
It is argued that the invasion of Iraq ought to be authorized by the UN in order for it to be legitimate, failing which it is illegitimate.
Such an argument rests upon nothing more than the most colossal ignorance of history, laws and of precedents, and also of ethics and logic.
The UN is a recent contrivation, while mankind has been on earth for thousands of years. The UN is not 'God', it is not either omniscient or omnipotent. It is not a body of equals, for the 'Great Powers' who have given themselves the Power of the Veto while building the UN, are more equal than ordinary members.
The UN has signally failed to establish a universal regime of justice and equity, and that should not be surprising, given that no body can achieve such an Utopian concept.
The UN has signally failed to prevent the partition of Serbia to create the artificial state of Bosnia. It has signally failed to step in and protect the Irish from the Anglo-Scottish colonists, the Kurds from the Iranians, Arabs and Turks, the Hutus from the Tutsis, etc. It has not only failed to stop Laurent Kabila from seizing Zaire, it has actually connived in his invasion and usurpation of the government, and is responsible for the subsequent events including the War being waged there by the various foreign armies propping up one or the other faction.
Moreover, the UN is not a State or a Federation of States, but merely a Parliament or Consultative Assembly of the states of the world.
And there is no need whatsoever for any state to compulsorily seek admission, or for a non-member state to abide with its rules and regulations.
Moreover, the requirements of protecting and establishing world peace cannot be exclusively ceded to the UN and the tender mercies of the Veto Powers. The Cold War has demonstrated that beyond any doubt.
I can go on and on, but no amount of proof and logic is going to make those who are of an evil and illogical mind swerve from their path of wrong. But it is still possible for these loose-talkers to show their sincerity. Let them put their purses where their mouths are and shell out to compensate Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the USA, etc., for the costs they incurred in defeating Saddam Hussain and liberating Kuwait. I am certain that these countries would be more than glad to be recompensated for their losses.
Do you have the courage?
Prax Maskaren, Bombay, India.
See also, my next page, Too Little, Too Late!