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]


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

2nd attempt to revise message



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 RaphaŽl
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 RaphaŽl
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


[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]