Wars are nearly always for economic reasons and have always provided opportunities before, during and after conflict for commerce, the most recent war in Iraq being no exception.
Not only is it widely recognised that the case for military action against Iraq was based on a pack of lies but also that British and American companies supplied Saddam Hussein arms and gas in the first place.
The 1990 - 2003 financial and trade embargo applied against Iraq by the U.
N.
had huge humanitarian impacts on the country.
What may come as a surprise to some people is that the biggest sanctions busters were in fact American companies allegedly with the full knowledge of their government.
During the actual war itself, billions of dollars of Iraq's wealth went missing.
Oil was shipped out of the country and sold.
Federal contracts to supply the military were huge, the biggest $39.
5bn being awarded to Halliburton, which was formerly run by Dick Cheney, vice-president to George W.
Bush.
In fact, the US hired more private companies in Iraq than in any previous war, and at times there were more contractors than military personnel on the ground.
The following quote from a former US Marine general shows that in the modern era it has always been so: "I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914.
I helped make Cuba and Haiti a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in.
I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American Republics for the benefits of Wall Street.
The record of racketeering is long.
I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912.
I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916.
In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket.
" (General Smedley Butler, from a speech in 1933.
) Mrs Walker wants to go to Venice this half-term, she says she wants to visit the islands.
She needs someone to read her guide book from cover to cover to and seeing all of you are looking at your shoes and making yourselves purposely busy, it looks like it's down to me again.
I don't read much at all but Mrs Walker does voraciously and I sleep with her.
As a consequence of our planned sojourn, she is currently reading about the history of Venice during the Crusades.
Venice has always depended entirely on trade for its survival for obvious reasons.
It enjoys a prime strategic position and has had a reputation for being 'one-eyed' in its dealing with the empires throughout history.
One particular period that illustrates this well is at the end of the 1100s when it was being badly hurt by the embargo brought by the papal ban on trading with the Islamic world after the capture of Jerusalem in the 12th century by Saladin.
The merchants of Pisa and Genoa had continued to trade so Venice pleaded to Rome for the ban to be lifted to which Pope Innocent gave carefully worded concessions which excluded transaction in any war materials.
'[We] prohibit you, under strict threat of anathema, to supply the Saracens by selling, giving or bartering, iron, hemp, sharp implements, inflammable materials, arms, galleys, sailing ships, or timbers' So with trade continuing with the 'enemy', Venice also won the tender to supply the Christian military, being the ideal staging port for the 4th Crusade.
They built horse transports to carry 4 500 horses and 9 000 squires.
4 500 knights and 20 000 foot soldiers were embarked on the port's ships.
The thoroughness of the Venetian workmen also provided provisions for this navy, both men and horses for nine months.
The bill for this was 94 000 marks and they threw in 50 armed galleys, free of charge, as long as this alliance lasted,with the condition that the Venetians receive half of all conquests that the force make by way of territory or money, land or sea.
This committed the Venetians to the largest contract in medieval history.
Now, you tell me what has changed in the last 1 000 years!
Not only is it widely recognised that the case for military action against Iraq was based on a pack of lies but also that British and American companies supplied Saddam Hussein arms and gas in the first place.
The 1990 - 2003 financial and trade embargo applied against Iraq by the U.
N.
had huge humanitarian impacts on the country.
What may come as a surprise to some people is that the biggest sanctions busters were in fact American companies allegedly with the full knowledge of their government.
During the actual war itself, billions of dollars of Iraq's wealth went missing.
Oil was shipped out of the country and sold.
Federal contracts to supply the military were huge, the biggest $39.
5bn being awarded to Halliburton, which was formerly run by Dick Cheney, vice-president to George W.
Bush.
In fact, the US hired more private companies in Iraq than in any previous war, and at times there were more contractors than military personnel on the ground.
The following quote from a former US Marine general shows that in the modern era it has always been so: "I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914.
I helped make Cuba and Haiti a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in.
I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American Republics for the benefits of Wall Street.
The record of racketeering is long.
I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912.
I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916.
In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket.
" (General Smedley Butler, from a speech in 1933.
) Mrs Walker wants to go to Venice this half-term, she says she wants to visit the islands.
She needs someone to read her guide book from cover to cover to and seeing all of you are looking at your shoes and making yourselves purposely busy, it looks like it's down to me again.
I don't read much at all but Mrs Walker does voraciously and I sleep with her.
As a consequence of our planned sojourn, she is currently reading about the history of Venice during the Crusades.
Venice has always depended entirely on trade for its survival for obvious reasons.
It enjoys a prime strategic position and has had a reputation for being 'one-eyed' in its dealing with the empires throughout history.
One particular period that illustrates this well is at the end of the 1100s when it was being badly hurt by the embargo brought by the papal ban on trading with the Islamic world after the capture of Jerusalem in the 12th century by Saladin.
The merchants of Pisa and Genoa had continued to trade so Venice pleaded to Rome for the ban to be lifted to which Pope Innocent gave carefully worded concessions which excluded transaction in any war materials.
'[We] prohibit you, under strict threat of anathema, to supply the Saracens by selling, giving or bartering, iron, hemp, sharp implements, inflammable materials, arms, galleys, sailing ships, or timbers' So with trade continuing with the 'enemy', Venice also won the tender to supply the Christian military, being the ideal staging port for the 4th Crusade.
They built horse transports to carry 4 500 horses and 9 000 squires.
4 500 knights and 20 000 foot soldiers were embarked on the port's ships.
The thoroughness of the Venetian workmen also provided provisions for this navy, both men and horses for nine months.
The bill for this was 94 000 marks and they threw in 50 armed galleys, free of charge, as long as this alliance lasted,with the condition that the Venetians receive half of all conquests that the force make by way of territory or money, land or sea.
This committed the Venetians to the largest contract in medieval history.
Now, you tell me what has changed in the last 1 000 years!