>My son just read in the newspaper that Iraq on the one hand and France, Russia and China on the other hand signed a contract some years ago that their oilcompanies will be given all rights to exploit the Iraqi oilfields after the UN-restrictions have finished. Does this shed an interesting light on the standpoint of Chirac? Yes!
>
Peter,

I don't think you are suggesting it, but could that mean that you've just described another reason why it was so important for the U.S. to get in there quickly and establish "ownership"?

The U.S. is decidedly not a supporter of "nationalization", so who do you think will "own" the oil after the war?

The "need" for this war was directly stated in a letter to President Clinton in 1998 and with the election of President Bush the authors of that letter were put into the positions of power that could materialize the war. They had a minor roadblock on their way to it when President Bush agreed to go through the U.N., so they destroyed that too to get their objective.

We all can only hope now that this war is brief and that killing and maiming is minimized. Then we can all "follow the money".
We can be confident that the Iraqi PEOPLE (banked "oil for food" money and new revenues from OIL) will pay for their own reconstruction and some reparations. We can be confident that the majority of those $$$ will be paid to allied corporations - "the spoils of war".

With the letter-writer cabal in power we can expect the next target to make itself clear sooner rather than later, and if I was a middle-east country leader I would now be very very worried.