Wobbles

Would the external catalyst be anger?

I can’t recall a single country that went to war on the basis of anger alone. It’s usually done for economic or resource reasons.

Governments go to war, people don’t.

The usual method is for a Government to use whatever propaganda methods it can to demonise the enemy and get the general population on-side well in advance. Usually this requires some false-flag operations as per the Lusitania, Pearl Harbour, Tonkin incident, Reichstag fire and so on.

Civil wars (and riots) however, are typically fought along domestic lines and internal hatreds may come into play in such cases. In these cases the general population doesn’t go to war but the war comes to them.

Even so-called racial conflicts like the Kosovo conflict have another agendas behind them – such an oil and gas pipeline from Armenia direct to China, bypassing the “usual route”. (A stray NATO missile fired into the Chinese Embassy at Belgrade just as the war was ending seemed to resolve this matter as I recall.)

It’s hate that makes it possible for a normally peaceful person to burn innocent women and children without compunction during wartime. This valuable government asset needs to be taught, cultivated and maintained so it can be called on when required but is not a reason to go to war of itself.

Also, carp have been in our waterways for many years and although presenting some local problems were never considered a national crisis.

I'm afraid your analogy sounds a little like the Nazis describing the Jews as swarming vermin.

In any case, no “carp-related” riots occurred during Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke or Keating’s watch so what has changed? (Hint : it's not just the carp)

Chris has put up a pretty good summation of things so far - but clearly there are those that find that the biblical Paul was wrong - money is not the root of all evil - the root of all evil is found in Islam (BD I mean you - and a few others)

It is not as simple as that -
and I still wait for an answer - if Islam is hell bent on overwhelming us - burying us in burqas etc - what solution do we propose to this end of civilisation as we kow it scenario?

- wining the fictitious war on terror will only sort out the nutters - we then need to deal with the rest of the muslim world who will by fair means or foul - so I am told endlessly in these pages - take over us all - "they' cant be reasoned with I am told "they" are hard wired for world domination - so, again I ask what is the plan?

I dont expect I will get one

hi chris, congratulations on your article, very good. I have been lazy but still plan on submitting something of a similar nature to OLO.

Its amazing how even the most simple geopolitical/economic analysis of the so called war on terror fails to fill our newspapers or television screens.

Powerful men will plot and conspire to maintain their positions of power, and for them, almost any ends justifies the means. However if you talk to people about this, they may ridicule you as a conspiracy theorist. "so your saying a bunch of men, sat in a little room and made all this stuff happen, yeah right"

well I assume they sit in rooms.

It is extremly illogical, because noone actually wants war, but many people seem to jump at the opportunity, the side show of ethnicity and nationalsim playing a vital role of course.

Anyway good on you Chris, I hope theres more to come.

Chris,

I found your article interesting but full of assertions that weren't backed up by evidence. This is true of a lot of theories based around the idea that Iraq was only a War for Oil, purely to make a profit.

Where does such a profit come from? Not from selling the oil, since the cost of the war and reconstruction costs far outweighs any additional profit margin on the oil... and the buyers are paying the normal market price. Not from increased US expenditures, since they have to be paid for in taxes anyway, either now or later. Not from lucrative contracts in Iraq - though there was some corruption involved, the amounts were not large relative to the cost of the war and in any case were paid by the US tax payer.

So unless you can put up some approximate figures, who makes the profit and who pays for it, I'd have to regard this as fiction.

From the Fortune 500 website:

"The FORTUNE 500: A banner year
Despite a world of trouble, the 500 -- led by banking, oil, drugs, and insurance -- roared ahead.

NEW YORK (FORTUNE) - War, high fuel prices, monetary uncertainty, a percolating deficit, a new Fed chairman, and, of course, a hurricane that broke a critical levee -- and America's heart. In financial terms, this year had all the ingredients for a sputtering economy at best, a significant downturn at worst.

In spite of the portents of doom, however, America's largest corporations sailed through in extraordinary style, setting records for both revenues and profits."

http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/31/news/companies/intro_f500_fortune/index.htm

And near the bottom:

"However bountiful for business, 2005 was a terrible year for many people. That did not go unnoticed by companies in the FORTUNE 500, many of which seemed eager to display their good citizenship."
then
"When the earth rumbled in Pakistan, Boeing (Research) (No. 26) wrote a check for $2 million."

While US$2 million at first seems maybe quite generous, in relation to their profits of US$2.56 billion, it's the equivalent of a person who earns US$50,000 giving a tiny $39..