Straydog wrote:
> > ... to victory in the Gulf war that Arabs were made to pay,
>
> Kuwait was happy to pay the US to do the dirty work of kicking
> Saddam-- doing even more dirty work-- out of Kuwait.
Remember that Saddam basically got the US's permission to invade
Kuwait, which would allow the US to "rescue" them (as long as they
paid for it). It got the US a foothold in Kuwait (some military
bases) and it started the first phase of controlling Iraq's oil (some
say it should have been the only phase, but Bush 1 didn't go all the
way). By allowing Saddam to invade Kuwait (by giving him the wrong
signal that they wouldn't interfere) the US also established a
military presence in Saudi Arabia - by convincing SA that Saddam was
massing tanks on their border (the US showed SA fake satellite
photos). The 20k troops continuously stationed in SA eventually
became an im****tant psycological driver for the 9/11 attacks (infidels
in the land of Meca).
Iraq invaded Kuwait because Kuwait was threatening to have all of
Iraq's foreign assets frozen because Kuwait wanted Iraq to pay back
all the money lent during the Iran-Iraq war. During that war, Iraq's
oil infrastructure collapsed and Iraq handed it's OPEC oil quotas to
Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and in exchange was lent the money that
resulted from that extra oil production. Note that under current US
puppet control that Iraq is not a member of OPEC, and the US will use
this position strategically against SA and the OPEC group once Iraq is
in a position to pump it's massive oil reserves.
What ultimately led to the 2003 US invasion of Iraq was (1) Russia had
just a week or two previously signed a $40b agreement to get Iraq's
oil infrastructure up and running, and (2) the UN sanctions against
Iraq were set to soon be lifted and (3) it was the plan all along to
control Iraq's oil. Oil is the one commodity that the US will not
tolerate being in control of others, a doctrine established by the
"dovish" Jimmy Carter (see "Carter Doctrine").
|
