...the Natwest/Enron Three, who got no protection at all from Nutter Blair's government?

Look, I know the answer is obvious, because career politicians combined with the military-industrial complex are a very dangerous combination, but ...

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article2752053.ece

Yeah, but what did Eisenhower know about the military, or of a society directed wholly towards a military goal?

I certainly hope your comment was supposed to be sarcastic, as Eisenhower was a former US general, who just happened to have played a major part in defeating a "society directed wholly towards a military goal". Shame that the US almost became one itself in trying to defeat the subsequent red menace ...

I very much doubt that there has ever been a government contract placed in Africa or the Middle East without substantial kickbacks - either in brown paper envelopes or disguised as 'consultancy' or 'introducer fee' - to government players. So, if you want to conduct international business you have two choices:

(a) bite the bullet and pay up with a smile; or

(b) operate only in those areas of the world where such payments are unnecessary (if not, perhaps, unknown) - i.e. UK, Germany, parts of Scandinavia, North America and Australasia.

Because Enron wasn't a separate country with large stocks of oil *and* large stocks of modern weaponry (most of which the US and UK have sold them). In other words, economic and military reasons for not doing it. Ethical reasons don't figure anywhere in dealings with the Middle East, given that there isn't any government out there which doesn't sanction discrimination, imprisonment without trial and torture.

The USA has a long relationship with Saudi which can be described as "delicate". Many strange things have happened, most notable perhaps being that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 when all internal air flights were stopped, several planes were scouring the continent with passenger lists composed mainly of arabic names and removing those individuals from the country. Topically, the problem is to keep the Saudi oil running, and the dollar as its essential currency of exchange. If either of these falters, the shit will hit the fan at a rate of knots.

The USA therefore wants to have a secure hand navigating the tricky shoals. The last thing it needs is the ship's cat's paw on the tiller. It has now noticed the cat, and is wondering just how long it has been there. It suspects that decades of its selling military hardware to the Saudis has created a momentum in the ruling Saudi circles that is not necessarily vectored the right way. In the immortal words of Jack Nicholson, it has the worm up its ass.

What you will see is not necessarily what you will get - Blissett's Iron Law of IT. I expect BAE Systems to fall to the Carlyle Group. I therefore make BAE stock a recommended BUY.

Yeah, and then they stop shipping us oil and nothing works.

Bottom line is that things like this get hushed-up because too many people in power make too much money and stay in power to rock the boat.

The only people who want to rock the boat are those in the water but those actually in the boat have oars and will do anything to stay in the boat.

Sadly this takes place at all levels of society. Think about your own work place, how many incompetent managers do you have to report to because they have influence at a higher level.

Mostly we get angry because these guys are better at corrupt politics then we are. We kick a ball with our friends in the park, they are playing in the Champions League. Of course we'er mad.

Jack