So, for example, when Ed Harriman writes (in "Where has all the money gone"):
"Both Saddam and the US profited handsomely during his reign. He controlled Iraq’s wealth while most of Iraq’s oil went to Californian refineries to provide cheap petrol for American voters. US corporations, like those who enjoyed Saddam’s favour, grew rich. Today the system is much the same: the oil goes to California, and the new Iraqi government spends the country’s money with impunity".
He may have a point.
And when Isabel Hilton points to the links between
"In the last five years the
She too may have a point.
Indeed, in both cases, there's a good case - absent convincing evidence to the contrary - that we are looking at two massive rackets.
This is not to endorse - for example - the views of some anti-capitalism campaigners and anarchists who see everything in a frame of imperialist exploitation. The world is far too big, messy and contentious for that.