US soldiers throw puppy off a cliff

[M-PG71C]

The invasion had no economic benefit for Britain, so that does not explain British foreign policy decisions. It has more to do with Blair's convictions. Of course, he was touting Saddam Hussein as the biggest threat to world security while Bush was still considering a presidential run.

 

http://isq.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/42/2/123

 

I would argue otherwise, BP and Shell are British oil companies are they not? They are in the same contract as Exxon and Chevron in the U.S., in that they can benefit from the oil extracted from Iraq for thirty years. Assuming that that specfic deal is still the case considering political battlegrounds today. Nonetheless, all four companies are still there today.

 

That is a pretty hefty ecnomic benefit for two major British corporations to have a large share of the oil fields, there is no denying that.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/blood-and-oil-how-the-west-will-profit-from-iraqs-most-precious-commodity-431119.html

 

Now to be fair, I don't know the intentions of Blair and I won't act as an expert on it because I frankly don't know. But he alone does not dictate the policies though, that much I am willing to wager.

 

To further prove my point, there are over 61 British companies in Iraq making money today from war contracts and other dealings.

 

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/apr2006/prof-a01.shtml

[Jamba]

Shell is Exxon as far as I know.

[M-PG71C]

Shell is Exxon as far as I know.

 

They are seperate. You have Royal Dutch Shell, which would be Shell, and their closest competiton would be ExxonMobil.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Dutch_Shell

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil

 

That is as far as I am concerned though, the oil corporations are one helluva a mess to be honest as far as keeping track.

[Guest Jordan]

Oil companies are assholes.

I should know, i deal with them on a daily basis.

 

They're assholes.

[Haver]

No, economists and political scientists have concluded that there was no economic incentive for British involvement in the war, due to costs outweighing benefits, or at least the absence of substantial benefit. The United States is a different kettle, but they are not making any money at least as of now.

 

PS: The reference is in that article, but it won't let me in. Strange, because I've been in before.

[M-PG71C]

No, economists and political scientists have concluded that there was no economic incentive for British involvement in the war, due to costs outweighing benefits, or at least the absence of substantial benefit. The United States is a different kettle, but they are not making any money at least as of now.

 

PS: The reference is in that article, but it won't let me in. Strange, because I've been in before.

 

Which article? Because the first one details more on the oil trade between Britian/U.S. with Iraq than anything else and does not mention what you detail. The second article contradicts what you stated above:

 

Corporate Watch believes that the real figure could be as much as five times higher, as many companies have undisclosed business dealings in Iraq and the value of several large contracts is unknown. The investigation was further muddied by the UK government’s refusal to release the names of companies it has directly helped to win contracts in Iraq.

 

The biggest British outfit, Aegis—run by Tim Spicer, the former British army lieutenant colonel who founded the PMC Sandline—has a workforce the size of a military division and may rank as the largest corporate military group ever assembled, according to the report. It has made more than £246 million from a three-year contract with the US Pentagon to coordinate military and security companies across Iraq.

 

Other private security/military companies have sprung up almost overnight to protect British and American interests. Among the highest grossing UK corporations Iraq is the construction firm Amec, which has made an estimated £500 million from a series of contracts restoring electrical systems and maintaining power generation facilities since 2004. Another PMC, Erinys, has amassed more than £86 million, a substantial portion from the protection of oilfields.

 

Britain is also playing a critical role in advising on the creation of state institutions and the “business of government.†PA Consulting, which has also received a contract for advising on the UK government’s identity cards scheme, worth around £19 million, is now a key adviser in Iraq.

 

Of course, the original argument is, as quoted by you, "The invasion had no economic benefit for Britain, so that does not explain British foreign policy decisions". The invasion DID have an economic benefit, as illustrated above and before this post. Both countries anticipated making money off of it.

 

In a techincal sense, they may just get away with it as well. At least Britain anyway, I don't know their tax system though. Americans...not so much. Bush didn't tax in the past several years, if anything, he lowered taxes during war and hence the debt we have now. But I digress.

 

Now, I will give you credit that it doesn't now due to stupid government spending, overcosts and shadow money, and under anticipation of how much the wars would actually spend at the end of the day. That much you are correct. But this realization hasn't been addressed untill this year, not almost half a decade ago. Here's the source to illustrate that:

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article3419840.ece

[Haver]

I mean the journal article I linked, composed by professional academics. You have to be signed into a library with the subscription for that particular article.

 

Our subscription ran out on Feb 28th so I can't show you the reference. Nonetheless, the article clearly states that there was no, or at least not sufficient, economic incentive for Britain to join the coalition. These are calculations by independent, professional academics.

 

British companies will be involved in the reconstruction of course. As are French and German companies, whose governments opposed the invasion. The biggest beneficiary from the war is a multi-company coalition which is heavily French.

 

This does not explain foreign policy decisions, at least in the British (and French and German) cases.

 

Hopefully the university will renew the subscription so I can show you the reference. There are far more rational, convincing reasons to be angry about the war in Iraq (the manipulation of MI6 intelligence for one), but your case is the least convincing.

[M-PG71C]

I mean the journal article I linked, composed by professional academics. You have to be signed into a library with the subscription for that particular article.

 

Our subscription ran out on Feb 28th so I can't show you the reference. Nonetheless, the article clearly states that there was no, or at least not sufficient, economic incentive for Britain to join the coalition. These are calculations by independent, professional academics.

 

British companies will be involved in the reconstruction of course. As are French and German companies, whose governments opposed the invasion. The biggest beneficiary from the war is a multi-company coalition which is heavily French.

 

This does not explain foreign policy decisions, at least in the British (and French and German) cases.

 

Hopefully the university will renew the subscription so I can show you the reference. There are far more rational, convincing reasons to be angry about the war in Iraq (the manipulation of MI6 intelligence for one), but your case is the least convincing.

 

I only work with the sources and knowledge I have on hand, give me a damn break now.

 

When I see it, I'll take a good look at it and get back to you. I honestly look forward to it because I am a political science major. Anything I can read into to further my knowledge on any subject is worthwhile.

 

As for this war, I'm not pissed about it. I'll argue about it, forever for that matter as well. I am well aware of the mainipulation of intelligence (I should be anyway, the military is infamous for this. Contractors are worse). But as for the war itself, it is a product of what the few want, not what the majority want. I am not in a position of power so therefore the only thing I can do is bitch (which I do plenty of) and withdraw.

 

I have to admit, it feels good to talk to someone that knows what they are talking about. Most Americans, at least to whom I've talked to, are convinced that we went into Iraq because of 9/11 because, and I quote, "The Iraqi government and al-Quaeda co-op'd aganist us Americans and attacked us".