NO WAR FOR OIL: More like anti-war, for oil. This article in the New York Times points out, Hussein is favoring non-American companies from countries that are currently opposing war. So they’re against war because it might interfere with their cozy contracts with a murderous dictator. Nice to see them taking a strong moral position.

A stronger moral case exists — as Steven Den Beste has pointed out — in favor of repudiating these contracts, and Iraq’s existing debts, where countries like France, Russia and Germany are concerned. There should be consequences for supporting murderous dictators, and new countries, freed of dictators, should start out free of ruinous debts, too.

And, as Bush said in a different but related context, there have to be consequences. Crossing the United States should be expensive.

UPDATE: Reader Brian O’Connor writes:

This raises an interesting point about our friends & allies, the

French and Russians …

France and Russia indeed do have heavy financial interests in

Iraq. But I doubt that this alone accounts for the strength

of their opposition to our UN resolution. After all, we could

simply guarantee that their investments and deals with Saddam

would be honored by whatever government succeeds his. Or

we ourselves could cover Iraq’s outstanding debts in exchange

for French and Russian votes in the UN.

No … it’s not just about money. And it certainly isn’t principle.

There is almost desperation in their opposition, and I’m betting

that they are scared to death that if we enter Baghdad, we’ll find

records detailing exactly what those two countries (and others

as well) have been up to with Iraq over the past 10 years.

I’m betting that there are some documents there that would prove

to be immensely embarrassing to Paris and Moscow (and perhaps

others as well), and that Saddam is simply reminding them of that

fact in exchange for their support in the UN. I think it’s a case of

international blackmail.

Interesting.