Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaminyu
With stability, the occupation forces would have to leave, and the war profiteers would lose. With instability, they have an excuse to stay, wasting more money on it and create more problems, in which case the war profiteers win. So, given that, how exactly would stability be more conducive to their interests? Remember, the main issue isn't oil output, investments, or privitization, it's about certain people making money off of perpetual war and chaos.
|
According to your article the reason that "Beamer" created the problems in Iraq (its a stretch to blame it all on Beamer or even on Bremer) is because the "MIC" would make alot of money from privatization, reconstruction contracts, oil, and the expenses of the US military adventure itself. Well, the first three things on that list generate alot more money than the fourth and they cant be done in a chaotic failed state. Notice how reconstruction contracts are no longer being renewed, no companies (MIC or otherwise) are interested in investing in southern or central Iraq or buying government assets there, and so on. While in the North, the Kurds are enjoying peace, stability, and all the foreign investment into the oil and services sectors that they want (by evil MIC corporations). Stability allows people to do business, anarchy prevents it
it could be that you disagree with the author and his conspiracy theories regarding Beamer and the MIC. It would seem so by your comment. In which case, you and I are on the same page about this
ws