Sum Guy wrote:
> 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).
While the official story about Iraq started with the (now widely
discredited) reason that there were WMD in Iraq and there was some
implied connection with terrorists. However, I also know that books
have been written about what else was going on, what other historical
details (valid or not, speculative or not, rumored, conspiracies,
etc.) but it is one area that I do not follow in much detail.
It got the US a foothold in Kuwait (some military
> bases)
I have no idea why this is im****tant since much bigger bases are now
in many areas of Iraq.
> 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).
According to a source I can cite, there is a secret treaty between the
US and SA that says what the US will pay for SA oil, and I'm sure
there are other factors involved, too.
> 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
The US had a military presence in SA way before the Kuwait war.
- by convincing SA that Saddam was
> massing tanks on their border (the US showed SA fake satellite
> photos).
The US CIA and NSA are involved in some of the most outrageous fake
stories that are as good or better than any other country's fake data,
stories, and espionage.
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
How were they going to freeze Iraq's foreign assets?
> because Kuwait wanted Iraq to pay back
> all the money lent during the Iran-Iraq war.
I don't know anything about that.
> 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.
Well, quite a bit of the world's oil production is NOT under OPEC
control. So, I'm not sure where you are going with this.
> 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,
But Bush was making war noises for a long time (much more than 1-2
weeks) before the invasion was actually announced.
and (2) the UN sanctions against
> Iraq were set to soon be lifted
I also did not follow any of this, either.
and (3) it was the plan all along to
> control Iraq's oil.
If you want to say anything, then it should be that every big power in
the world wants two things: i) more power, and ii) control more of
everything, everyone else, in the world.
> 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").
Like I said above, everyone (EVERYone) in the world would love to,
themselves, want more control of oil and DENY control to anyone else.
In otherwords, the whole world is a bunch of rats fighting with each
other over dimini****ng resources. The bigger the rat, the better the
chance to dominate. The smaller the rat, the more they get kicked
around by the big rats.
There is an analogous phenomenon relating to the "rich get richer, the
poor get poorer" observation.
|
