Iraq Krieg (English)

[Hunble]

Yes, I have answered all of your questions, to the best of my ability.

By the way, I do enjoy debating with you. If you ask an honest question, then I will do my absolute best to answer it.

Still curious as to why you asked for the specific words of my oath when I joined the Army.

 

[streicher]

One of the subjects I study is international relations. Some of the keywords we deal with are democracy, trade, institutions, organizations (enhanced) security, human rights. In respect of geography we also talk about 'global players' which can be companies and others. International relations are full of contradictions. :->

I did a little research in the matter of armament of Iraq and the companies that supplied Iraq with technology and armament. In my opinion it diversifies the question of guilt and knowlegde. The question of armament is very much a result of trading interests. These traders - or somekind 'global players' could well be suppliers of contrahents or antagonists on the global chessboard (this word is actually a good and precise description). On manager-magazin.de the foreign companies were listed (maybe still are). The report shows
- 2 companies are from Sweden
- 3 from Spain
- 7 from Belgium
- 3 from The Netherlands
- 5 from Japan
- 6 from Russia/former Sovjetunion
- 17 (!) from Great Britain
- 7 from France
- 3 from China
- 24 (!) from the US
- the number of German companies vary between 80 and 98 (!!)

Some of the companies placed in a country are daughters by companies in other countries which seems especially to be the case for some German companies which are more or less conducted by companies in the US.

So the problem we have to face is that the fact of weaponry is a complex one. In my opinion to make this a territorial conflict would ignore the fact of weapon trade: these players would just go on with their trade. I count altogether 157 or 175 companies. In Germany we know about armament scandals (technology to India -> nuclear armament) and the involvement of politicians who will not name the people which know 'something' about, number accounts and so on... One question is therefor: who knew what? Who decided to trade with a state or companies of that very state which is not a democracy but a dictatorship and why? Is morality being put down in trade matters?

So one question for the future which we should ask in matters of war and peace: why should a conflict be territorial and armed (endangers the lifes of civilians and soldiers, etc.) whereas one of the main reasons of the conflict of interest is trade, in this case trade of arms?

(This is a proposal to think about in future in international relations or 'enhanced international relations'.)