Monday, December 18, 2006

The Robbers are leaving the Bank

Imagine you are in power in at a big and heavily militarized country and want to transfer truckloads of money from the state to companies producing military goods and supplying military services. I mean more money that you already transfer. Much more. Imagine you have no scruple what soever. What would you do?

Well, I guess you would start a war, attack a country. But you would have to choose this "target" country well. You don't want to have to battle an army of 1 Million Chinese. No, that would be stupid. And after all, the rumours say that they *actually* have nukes. But you would not want to attack a country that is a flyweight. As tempting as it would be to raid Monaco or Liechtenstein, the war wouldn't last too long and it would be over you said the sentence "Our troops need more time to find the weapons of mass destruction". Which brings me to the third point. You need a state you can paint plausibly as an evil state.

I asked myself why the war against Iraq happened, why the US wanted to remove Saddam so badly (no pun intended), why they lied about the WMDs and the Al Q connection. I guess it was the least risk to attack Iraq, while it was still plausible to pull it of in a way that seemed "just" and in accordance to international law.

It was just bad luck for Saddam and the Iraqi people. (Don't get me wrong, I would have liked to have Saddam removed from power sooner than later, but what happened in Iraq was so wrong on so many levels. And after all it was the west who helped Saddam come to and stay in power, same as the west is to be blamed that Iran is no longer a democracy - but I this is not the point of this blog post) I guess the other candidates just seemed more risky or less "targetable". Add a little grudge by the Bushes against Saddam, and voila, you end up with a war against Iraq. Or maybe someone at the pentagon just flipped a coin and decided between Lybia and Iraq.

And the "nice" thing in that scenario is, that it doesn't matter if the US wins the war. Actually, no, the longer and exhausting the war, the better. If the US Army screams for better equipment, no "responsible" American could deny their demands. After all, everybody is a patriot in the US and no one wants to be called a traitor. So it doesn't matter what the heck is going on in Iraq, if there are Shiites, Sunnites and Kurds in Iraq. There could be yellow-eyed Aliens or armies of ants. It wouldn't make a difference. The money is safe home it the pockets of the few behind the Cheney-Rumsfeld neo-profiteurs.

And what about the "War for Oil" motive? A good smoke screen is one that is believable. I guess oil played a role in decision process leading to the Iraq war, but not a major one. Or maybe...

This war is been fought for one main reason: To transfer money to corporations in the military sector. It is that simple. Everything else just blends nicely into the picture, if you don't ask too detailed questions and "just believe". Democracy for the Middle East. Shuuure. Secure the oil demand of the US. Shuuure. Increase security for the US, Israel and Europe. Shuuure. Well, I guess those in power tried to do something in these directions, but having the money already transfered, they didn't try too hard. Add some "reasons" to have devoted followers for your cause and voila, everybody gets what they want. Well, everybody who pulls into the right direction. Well mostly everyone of those.

In the end, it is just a simple case of war profiteering.

As I have been watching The Corporation I have heard for the first time something about the Business Plot and I remembered about a guy claiming that 9/11 was actually a coup d’├ętat by parts of the government against Bush (Sorry, can't find the link). Well, the more I think of it, the more I think that 9/11 wasn't a coup, it was a robbery. And the money is already out of the bank and the robbers are leaving the bank, one by one.

Fuck, it seems so crystal clear to me, I feel like I am starting to believe in some crazy cooked up conspircay theories.

No comments: