A few thousand can become tens of thousands and then number 1million.
The point at which democracy fails is the point at which two tribes go head to head over control of a country.
At school we are taught that democracy will ensure peace. Maybe John Howard should include the point at which democracy fails in his new curriculum about the true facts of history.

"War is a Racket" was written 73 years ago by US marine major general Smedley Butler.
After retiring from the marines his brain started to work.
He discovered that he had spent most of life killing a lot of people and making a few people very rich.
It is only a small book and well worth the read.

Parallel, go back and read it again.

The financiers get the profit (free lunch) while our grandchildren get to pay the bill. This is done by "externalising" the costs. All successful corporations externalise their costs. That is the ONLY way to take a profit. There is no such thing as profit in the physical (natural) economy.

You are right to question the entropy of the Iraq invasion. The Coalition have been burning good whiskey, but so far we have only extracted a dribble of beer. One of the architects of this collossal idiocy was Paul Wolfowitz, who famously predicted that the war would pay for itself. For his genius, he was promoted to head of the World Bank. Yet another example of the gulf that exists between economic dogma and physical reality.

*

Who makes a profit from war or reconstruction?

War is the main way that new markets are opened up or resources are secured.

Lets say America earmarks $1 billion for reconstruction. Where does this money go? To Iraq building companies, factories, hospitals, schools?

No, it goes directly to private US corporations like Bechtel and Haliburton. They take their cut and sub-contract onto smaller companies and so on down the line. By the time the leftovers actually get to Iraq, lots of people have made a profit on the original payment.

In return, some of that profit may even find its way back to the government as political donations.

This is one of the blatant corruption factors that GWB has just been punished for at the polls.

So who makes a profit from armies, even when there is no war? The arms dealers who sell to both sides and other companies such as Lockheed who provide the hardware and massive support infrastructure.
Would you buy shares in an army or shares in a company that supplies an army?

Something else that seems to produce a nett economic loss is a public Hospital.

So who makes a profit from Hospitals? The drug companies for one, who strangely make more from treating sickness than curing it. Once again, the Hospital system produces economic benefits in society indirectly, yet seems to run at a loss.

If there is no nett financial gain from war, who picks up the tab?

The taxpayer – as always.

It's not only oil, it's water. Maybe I'm becoming paranoid, but take a look at this:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/11/03/1162340050938.html

- and this:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/business/cocacola-buys-palm-springs-water/2006/07/30/1154198011051.html

- and this:

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2005/s1463816.htm

Google "coca cola + water" and limit the search to Australia. There are plenty of links.

* * *

I was wondering when things would come to a head over the use of our springwater. This morning, The Age published an article:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/abbotts-crushing-verdict/2006/11/13/1163266481629.html

Is this just a coincidence?

But wait, there's more. Many of the alternate "diet" beverages contain a controversial sweetener called Aspartame, whose acceptance was rammed past the health authorities by mover-and-shaker Donald Rumsfeld:

http://www.newswithviews.com/NWVexclusive/exclusive15.htm

If Tony Abbott has taken on the Giant, he is in for a rough ride. Maybe just this once I'll bury the political hatchet and give him the support he is going to need.

Try Googling "cia + coca cola" to get some idea of the problem (CIA = Culinary Institute of America).

Maybe I am just overloaded from reading about so many spooky corporate conspiracies lately, but maybe this is one we should all keep a close eye on. Happy sleuthing possums.

Absolutely. All wars are caused by corporations and globalisation. That is why there were no wars before the advent of corporations and globalisation er..maybe the 'logic' collapses on that point.

Well...the fact that corporations make a profit from and during war proves they encourage and cause war? But by the same logic, the fact that corporations make a profit from and during times of peace, 'proves' they encourage and cause peace.

The US fights in the ME to secure the resources it and its armed forces need? But a mere 10% of US oil supplies comes from the ME and most of that from Saudi Arabia which, depending on the conspiracy du jour, is owned by or owns the US imperialists. So according to this 'analysis' the US is fighting a war to secure resources they neither have nor need. And looking at total energy means that the ME is even less important to the US economy. If the ME stopped supplying the US tomorrow, while there'd be a blip, it would get through just fine.

The causes and reasons for war are many and varied. It is simplicity of the worst kind to decide that all wars can be characterised by one cause. Sure there are wars where the main or only reason was getting a neighbour's resources eg Hitler's attack on the USSR. But on the other hand, there are wars where resources play no part in the decision. Why did Britain and France go to war over Poland in 39? What was at stake other than self-preservation?

In the end there are as many causes for war as there are wars. Each has its own set of causes. And in most cases it comes down to distrust and resultant mistakes. To talk about the Iraq wars without mentioning Kuwait or 9/11 just misses or trivialises the point.

But if you seek a 'solution' to war (and I don't think there is one) then it is democracy. No two democracies have ever fought a war against each other.