Sarah wrote: >>But on the question of who the oil belongs to: Saddam Hussein nationalized it, by which I understand it's supposed to belong to the Iraqi people, but they have never seen the benefit of it, although Saddam and his family have, even with the sanctions. A democratic Iraqi government might de-nationalize it, and then the profits might benefit the Iraqi people. Whether they denationalise it or not, the Iraqi people have a right to some benefit -- they're living in what could be a wealthy country, yet there's a huge amount of poverty, and always has been under Saddam, which is absurd.<<
So the oil either belongs to the Iraqi people or to Saddam and his family, right? Whichever way you look at it, it doesn't belong to anyone outside that territory, and certainly not to the US/West. That's what I mean(t). There are huge amounts of poverty in practically all countries, the UK, Spain, the USA, Argentina to name only a few western examples, leaving aside African and Asian countries. All these countries have huge material wealth, in terms of food and natural resources, but in no case is there a dictator in charge of these countries. Poverty is not always the result of dictatorships. I don't dispute that Saddam is a dictator and corrupt and a tyrant, but the west's looking with eager eyes at dividing up the spoils of war, especially the 3 oil companies mentioned earlier, does not suggest to me that the Iraqi people will benefit from the oil after the war ends. mike
