Letters

May 19, 2003
Your Editorial (OGJ, May 5, 2003, p. 21), issue is right on mark, up to a point. In my opinion, the war in Iraq was not over oil, it was over the lucrative contracts to be had in developing the oil fields (see Issam al-Chalabi's article, (OGJ, Mar. 24, 2003, p. 42), long neglected, as well as the reconstruction contracts.

It is not over oil

Your Editorial (OGJ, May 5, 2003, p. 21), issue is right on mark, up to a point. In my opinion, the war in Iraq was not over oil, it was over the lucrative contracts to be had in developing the oil fields (see Issam al-Chalabi's article, (OGJ, Mar. 24, 2003, p. 42), long neglected, as well as the reconstruction contracts. Please note Halliburton's and Bechtel's involvement, among others, and President Bush's determination that only US companies will get the primary contracts, which has ruffled the feathers of Tony Blair. The Poles, who strongly supported our Iraq adventure, will also be allowed a piece of the pie in gratitude. The cost to the tax payers will be tremendous, but profits will also be gigantic.

Before we add 9/11 to the equation, we must remember the following: The 9/11 terrorists were mostly Saudis with two Palestinians and one Egyptian, if memory serves me right. No Iraqis. They were following orders from Osama bin Laden, who claimed responsibility, stating that 9/11 was in reprisal for US troops being on sacred Saudi soil. Osama bin Laden is a Saudi royal and has received large sums of money from the Saudi royal family. The Saudi press vilifies the US. The Saudi regime is an oppressive one, less Westernized than the Iraqi one. Having said all that, I am glad Saddam is gone.

Luis R. Celerier
Longview, Tex.