The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
What's Really Behind the Bombing of Iraq? In the 1980's, colossal oil fields were discovered in Iraq that had the possibility of dwarfing the combined known reserves in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Alaska. If developed to its full potential, this huge Iraqi oil find could have permanently brought down the cost of refined petroleum, all over the world. This greatly threatened the industrial and banking interests that depend on an artificially inflated price for crude oil. As an OPEC member, Iraq had been committed to maintaining quotas in oil production, in order to preclude a sudden, massive drop in price, and it had expected its OPEC partners to follow suit, including Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, who had both agreed to abide by those same quotas. Instead, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait flooded the market with oil in 1988, violating their own promises and making it impossible for Iraq to obtain its own fair share of the depressed world market. Saddam Hussein put both Saudi Arabia and Kuwait on notice, during a 1989 meeting of OPEC members, that they would either honor their agreements voluntarily or would be forced to do so by Iraq. What the Iraqi leader did not realize was that he was being cleverly drawn into a trap that was calculated to destroy, not only the Iraqi oil industry but the nation of Iraq as well. For it seems that the huge international banks, headquartered in New York and London, who highly prize the mega-wealth-producing states of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait among their most important clients, became very worried over the potential competition of the suddenly oil-glutted Iraq. But, what was most dreaded by the banks was the fact that the upstart Iraq, with its newly found super-wealth, would be positioned to become a world banking power. Islamic law does not allow the practice of usury, the system of legalized theft, by which the entire western world has become enslaved to the private banks. If the maverick Saddam had also begun to directly challenge the worldwide banking cartel, with loans available to governments at one or two percent interest, a monumental overthrow of the entrenched powers behind the scenes could have occurred. U.S. Secretary of State, James Baker had once, even admitted that the 1991 Gulf War was really about (American) "jobs." Iraq, as a low-to-no interest banker to governments would have undermined the very continued existence of the international banking monopoly that was established over two hundred years ago, and has secretly run the U.S. Government, at least since 1913 (having financed both sides of WWI, WWII and the "Cold War"). When Saddam massed his troops on Kuwait's doorstep in 1990, he was assured by the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, that the Bush administration had no problem with Arab countries settling their own differences in their own way. Saddam took the bait and witlessly marched into Kuwait. Suddenly U.S. forces were dispatched to Saudi Arabia, ostensibly, for the defense of that nation only. But once positioned in the Persian Gulf at full strength, U.S. policy instantly shifted, as President Bush announced we would "no longer tolerate naked aggression" (the same aggression we had encouraged!). On two occasions a rumor was floated by the media that President Bush, when CIA director, had a 10 year affair with a female employee of the CIA. Air strikes thus commenced on 17 January 1991. U.S. and British air forces pounded military sites in the middle of population centers, with the result that, according to the Caldean Catholic prelate, Archbishop Raphaël Bidawid of Baghdad, 100,000 innocent civilians lay dead after the first four days of bombing. The "bogey man," Saddam Hussein, was conveniently left in place, to the bewilderment of the U.S. military, so that perpetual, crippling sanctions and the future resumption of bombing raids on the demonized Iraq could be justified. Since then, one million Iraqi citizens, mostly children and people in hospitals, have perished for lack of basic necessities, from baby formula to blood. Now, that blighted nation, unable to rid itself of the oligarchy that was for years kept in power by the American government, is bracing for yet another bloody assault on its defenseless population, by the U.S.A. By any standard of morality, such a renewal of hostilities could not possibly satisfy the criteria for a "just war." Now, throughout the world, a building momentum of voices is crying out: "Do not bomb Iraq!" But will Washington and London listen? -Gary Giuffre In the 1980's, colossal oil fields were discovered in Iraq that had the possiblity of dwarfing the combined known reserves in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Alaska. If developed to its full potential, this huge Iraqi oil find could have permanently brought down the cost of refined petroleum, all over the world. This greatly threatened the industrial and banking interests that depend on an artificially inflated price for crude oil. As an OPEC member, Iraq had been committed to maintaining quotas in oil production, in order to preclude a sudden, massive drop in price, and it had expected its OPEC partners to follow suit, including Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, who had both agreed to abide by those same quotas. Instead, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait flooded the market with oil in 1988, violating their own promises and making it impossible for Iraq to obtain its own fair share of the depressed world market. Saddam Hussein put both Saudi Arabia and Kuwait on notice, during a 1989 meeting of OPEC members, that they would either honor their agreements voluntarily or would be forced to do so by Iraq. What the Iraqi leader did not realize was that he was being cleverly drawn into a trap that was calculated to destroy, not only the Iraqi oil industry but the nation of Iraq as well. For it seems that the huge international banks, headquartered in New York and London, who highly prize the mega-wealth-producing states of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait among their most important clients, became very worried over the potential competition of the suddenly oil-glutted Iraq. But, what was most dreaded by the banks was the fact that the upstart Iraq, with its newly found super-wealth, would be positioned to become a world banking power. Islamic law does not allow the practice of usury, the system of legalized theft, by which the entire western world has become enslaved to the private banks. If the maverick Saddam had also begun to directly challenge the worldwide banking cartel, with loans available to governments at one or two percent interest, a monumental overthrow of the entrenched powers behind the scenes could have occurred. U.S. Secretary of State, James Baker had once, even admitted that the 1991 Gulf War was really about (American) "jobs." Iraq, as a low-to-no interest banker to governments would have undermined the very continued existence of the international banking monopoly that was established over two hundred years ago, and has secretly run the U.S. Government, at least since 1913 (having financed both sides of WWI, WWII and the "Cold War"). When Saddam massed his troops on Kuwait's doorstep in 1990, he was assured by the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, that the Bush administration had no problem with Arab countries settling their own differences in their own way. Saddam took the bait and witlessly marched into Kuwait. Suddenly U.S. forces were dispatched to Saudi Arabia, ostensibly, for the defense of that nation only. But once positioned in the Persian Gulf at full strength, U.S. policy instantly shifted, as President Bush announced we would "no longer tolerate naked aggression" (the same aggression we had encouraged!). On two occasions a rumor was floated by the media that President Bush, when CIA director, had a 10 year affair with a female employee of the CIA. Air strikes thus commenced on 17 January 1991. U.S. and British air forces pounded military sites in the middle of population centers, with the result that, according to the Caldean Catholic prelate, Archbishop Raphaël Bidawid of Baghdad, 100,000 innocent civilians lay dead after the first four days of bombing. The "bogey man," Saddam Hussein, was conveniently left in place, to the bewilderment of the U.S. military, so that perpetual, crippling sanctions and the future resumption of bombing raids on the demonized Iraq could be justified. Since then, one million Iraqi citizens, mostly children and people in hospitals, have perished for lack of basic necessities, from baby formula to blood. Now, that blighted nation, unable to rid itself of the oligarchy that was for years kept in power by the American government, is bracing for yet another bloody assault on its defenseless population, by the U.S.A. By any standard of morality, such a renewal of hostilities could not possibly satisfy the criteria for a "just war." Now, throughout the world, a building momentum of voices is crying out: "Do not bomb Iraq!" But will Washington and London listen? -Gary Giuffre -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is a discussion list run by Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To be removed/added, email soc-casi-discuss-request@lists.cam.ac.uk, NOT the whole list. Archived at http://linux.clare.cam.ac.uk/~saw27/casi/discuss.html