A Theory Behind The Iraq Invasion

[BratsBoy]

http://www.canadiancontent.net/commtr/article_724.html

Several reasons have been bandied around for the Iraq invasion, from the Bush administration's string of discredited excuses - Iraq has weapons of mass destruction (oops), Iraq has links to al-Qaeda (oops again - someone tell Cheney), we need to liberate the Iraqi people (didn't actually happen) - to the common charge among antiwar activists that America wants Iraq's oil.

None of these are correct, although exclusive access to Iraq's oil is certainly rich gravy for the United States and Britain. Saddam had signed memoranda of agreement with France, Germany, and Russia exclusively to start selling oil once the sanctions were lifted. (The war voided the agreements, which helps to explain why those countries opposed it.)

World oil production is expected to peak within the decade (see Oil Peak Production: A Local Perspective, and America already imports 65 percent of the oil it consumes. Americans make up 5 percent of the world's people, but consume 25 percent of the world's oil, so there was certainly benefit to gaining control over the world's second largest oil reserve.

However, the major reason for the invasion is that America needed to invade Iraq to stop its own economy from collapsing. Controlling Iraq lets the US ensure that Iraq continues to sell its oil for US dollars, not Euros.

In the 1970s, the United States cut a deal with OPEC whereby countries had to buy oil for US dollars. As a result, other countries need to maintain large reserves of US dollars, which absorbs the massive annual outflow of dollars and props up the value of the dollar against other currencies. In fact, when the price of oil goes up, more US dollars are absorbed, which keeps the currency afloat.

Since America has gotten out of the manufacturing business, the only thing it still exports are little green pieces of paper, Until now, other countries have had no choice but to buy those pieces of paper. The US dollar has been slowly but steadily depreciating against other currencies through the sheer size of the current accounts deficit, but there have not been any shocks - yet.

Flash back to 2000. Iraq leader Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer trade oil for US dollars. Instead, he sold oil for Euros. As a result, he benefited from the 17 percent gain the Euro made against the dollar over the next two years.

If Saddam had been left in place, the sanctions against Iraq had been lifted, and Iraq started trading large volumes of oil for Euros, it would tip the balance for other oil producing countries, which would look enviously at Iraq's large gains against their steadily depreciating dollars.

Theres more of the article at the site.

Its an interesting take on what was behind the invasion.

[Feenix566]

....an interesting take, but a little far-fetched i think. Honestly, even though I like Bush, I don't think he understands the nouances of economics well enough to go to war for that reason.

[KanuckiStang]

The PNAC script to oust Hussein pre-dates any concerns about a tanking US dollar and doesn't, as far as I recall, mention anything about preserving the US economy by forcing continued oil-trade in USD.

It is an interesting theory nonetheless.

[86Dude]

Originally Posted by BratsBoy

http://www.canadiancontent.net/commtr/article_724.html



Theres more of the article at the site.

Its an interesting take on what was behind the invasion.

Old conspiracy theory, although technically accurate at many levels. Still just a theory.

[Corporate Avenger]

Originally Posted by 86Dude

Old conspiracy theory, although technically accurate at many levels. Still just a theory.

Yet, everything given the "conspiracy theory" label has yet to be disproved, while every reason given for the war has been..


I'd say it's a mix of everything, from oil to Israel, to the dollar to the location.

[CYLLON]

Originally Posted by Corporate Avenger

Yet, everything given the "conspiracy theory" label has yet to be disproved, while every reason given for the war has been..


I'd say it's a mix of everything, from oil to Israel, to the dollar to the location.

easily disproved by the very documents themselves that really state the reasons.

Let's look at the nature of this war. In the first place, it is a war whose aims and purposes make it very hard to understand how anybody who believes in human rights, who

believes in women's rights, who believes in equality and freedom, could be against it. In four years, George Bush has liberated nearly 50 million people in two Islamic

countries. He has stopped the filling of mass graves and closed down the torture chambers. He has encouraged the Iraqis and the people of Afghanistan to begin a political

process that will give all of them, and particularly women, rights they have not enjoyed in 5,000 years. How can you not support this war?

In the second place, the rationale for this war was not about stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction - a fact that half the nation under the impact of Democratic

misleadership seems to have missed. This misunderstanding about the rationale for the war was the product of calculated political intended to unseat a president, but with

grave fallout for the credibility and security of the nation itself. This distortion is the basis for most of the attacks on the war in Iraq.

Before addressing this issue, it is important to remember that the Democrats who are now in full-throated opposition to this war and to the President leading it actually

supported the war and authorized it in the first place. The "Authorization for the Use of Force in Iraq" was a resolution passed by both the House and the Senate, with

Democratic as well as Republican majorities.

A congressional resolution to authorize the use of force was something that Bill Clinton never even sought when he went to war in Kosovo. This was a constitutional oversight

that didn't bother Democrats at the time or since, which shows how partisan and indefensible is this aspect of their critique of the war in Iraq. The Authorization for the Use of

Force in Iraq that President Bush did seek and obtain in October 2002 has a total of 23 clauses. These 23 clauses spell out the rationale for the war. I invite you to go on the

web and read the clauses. Out of all 23 clauses, I found only two that even mention stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. What the clauses do stress - twelve of them,

by my count - are U.N. resolutions that Saddam ignored or defied.

These resolutions were passed by the majority of the nations who comprise the United Nations Security Council because Saddam Hussein invaded two countries - Iran and

then Kuwait, and used chemical weapons on his own people. In passing, let me note that America's participation in the Iran/Iraq war has also been tremendously distorted by

the political left in its effort to undermine American security and cause us to lose the war on terror. So let it be said that yes, we provided intelligence and some weapons to

Iraq (most of their weapons came from the Soviet Union). That was to prevent Iran from winning the war, not because we were friends of Saddam Hussein or approved what he

was doing, as leftists like Michael Moore and Norman Mailer and others have insinuated.
http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Art...e.asp?ID=16103

Yep. Everyone is in on the conspiracey.

[KanuckiStang]

Originally Posted by CYLLON

Let's look at the nature of this war. In the first place, it is a war whose aims and purposes make it very hard to understand how anybody who believes in human rights, who believes in women's rights, who believes in equality and freedom, could be against it. In four years, George Bush has liberated nearly 50 million people in two Islamic countries. He has stopped the filling of mass graves and closed down the torture chambers. He has encouraged the Iraqis and the people of Afghanistan to begin a political process that will give all of them, and particularly women, rights they have not enjoyed in 5,000 years. How can you not support this war?

When Bush unilaterally commits hundreds of billions of dollars of US taxpayer money and "liberates" the kabillion other souls on the planet suffering unbearable conditions and oppressive, cruel governments in areas not dripping with oil and/or not strategically placed to get at oil or gas, I might give more credence to this tripe nonsense.

[CYLLON]

Originally Posted by KanuckiStang

When Bush unilaterally commits hundreds of billions of dollars of US taxpayer money and "liberates" the kabillion other souls on the planet suffering unbearable conditions and oppressive, cruel governments in areas not dripping with oil and/or not strategically placed to get at oil or gas, I might give more credence to this tripe nonsense.

unilaterl? Lie. there is a coalition.
Must attack the world or not at all . Incrimentalism is suddenly illagitameate to those that promote it so much elswhere.

p.s. bosnia and cosovo had no oil ....remember??

[KanuckiStang]

Originally Posted by CYLLON

unilaterl? Lie. there is a coalition.

Of the coerced and bribed. A "coalition" that's crumbling and that was largely symbolic in nature anyway.

Tell me: do you honestly, truly believe that even without the Coalition of the Bribed, Coerced and Threatened that Bush wouldn't have gone in alone?

Must attack the world or not at all .

Two million people have died in the Congo since 1998 in a brutal civil war there. Darfur Sudan is, as Powell stated, experiencing genocide.

You tell me why Iraq got all the attention and these places got - and continue to get - none?

I certainly applaud the US verbal condemnation of the UN for sitting on its ass in regards to Sudan but cannot help think that if that tripe you posted above was in actual fact true, the US wouldn't wait, again, and would charge in with all its military might and stop the killing. Yet it does not.

p.s. bosnia and cosovo had no oil ....remember??

Indeed, and I don't feel nearly the same about that still-illegal action as I do about Iraq. What else have you got?

[Corporate Avenger]

Originally Posted by CYLLON

easily disproved by the very documents themselves that really state the reasons.

Let's look at the nature of this war. In the first place, it is a war whose aims and purposes make it very hard to understand how anybody who believes in human rights, who

believes in women's rights, who believes in equality and freedom, could be against it. In four years, George Bush has liberated nearly 50 million people in two Islamic

countries.

I think they'd differ with you, and that was not the reason for war, the reason was to protect America from Saddams DubyaMD's and to avenge 9-11 which Saddam supposedly had a part in. Anybody with the slightest shred of knowledge about this nations use of force in the last 50 years knows the rulers of this country haven't given a damned about the suffering of people living under tyranny. And knowing about the vile thugs that make up the Bush administration who despise their own people, we know these people could care LESS about some "dirty Muslims" on the other side of the world.

And like Kanuckistang already pointed out, your theory holds no weight when you look at all the brutal regimes around the globe that get zero attention from the Bush administration who also happen to NOT sit on a fortune of high grade crude. One only needs to peek at Iraq's southern neighbor to see the ultimate hypocrisy, the women there don't exactly have any rights, in fact, they have LESS than Iraqi women had under Saddam, YET, not a PEEP from the Bush administration about this human rights situtation in Saudi Arabia.

So again, the pro-war crowd hasn't a leg to stand on..

He has stopped the filling of mass graves and closed down the torture chambers.

And opened up new ones.. How sweet..

Funny too that the mass graves in Iraq are partly the responsibility of the United States, nobody wants to bring up that uncomfortable fact..

He has encouraged the Iraqis and the people of Afghanistan to begin a political

process that will give all of them, and particularly women, rights they have not enjoyed in 5,000 years.

LOL, you believe this???

How can you not support this war?

How can anybody support a disastrous pre-emptive illegal war for greed and power for a handful of elites unless they are one of these elites?

In the second place, the rationale for this war was not about stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction

Sorry mr. revisionist, but it was, how short is your memory or are you trying to intentionally mislead people?

- a fact that half the nation under the impact of Democratic

misleadership seems to have missed. This misunderstanding about the rationale for the war was the product of calculated political intended to unseat a president, but with

grave fallout for the credibility and security of the nation itself.

http://www.alternet.org/story/15069

The only misunderstanding going on here is in the minds of delusional neo-conservatives who still believe in such crazy things like Saddam had ties to Al-Qaeda and 9-11, had stockpiles of DubyaMD's which are now in Syria

This distortion is the basis for most of the attacks on the war in Iraq.

It is you who is trying to spin and distort the reasons for this war, and in the end, it doesn't matter anyway how much you anybody else spins it, because you have nothing to support this unjust action, nothing..

Before addressing this issue, it is important to remember that the Democrats who are now in full-throated opposition to this war and to the President leading it actually

supported the war and authorized it in the first place. The "Authorization for the Use of Force in Iraq" was a resolution passed by both the House and the Senate, with

Democratic as well as Republican majorities.

Your point? I don't care if mother Theresa was for this war.. It's still wrong.

A congressional resolution to authorize the use of force was something that Bill Clinton never even sought when he went to war in Kosovo. This was a constitutional oversight

that didn't bother Democrats at the time or since, which shows how partisan and indefensible is this aspect of their critique of the war in Iraq. The Authorization for the Use of

Force in Iraq that President Bush did seek and obtain in October 2002 has a total of 23 clauses. These 23 clauses spell out the rationale for the war. I invite you to go on the

web and read the clauses. Out of all 23 clauses, I found only two that even mention stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. What the clauses do stress - twelve of them,

by my count - are U.N. resolutions that Saddam ignored or defied.

These resolutions were passed by the majority of the nations who comprise the United Nations Security Council because Saddam Hussein invaded two countries - Iran and

then Kuwait, and used chemical weapons on his own people. In passing, let me note that America's participation in the Iran/Iraq war has also been tremendously distorted by

the political left in its effort to undermine American security and cause us to lose the war on terror. So let it be said that yes, we provided intelligence and some weapons to

Iraq (most of their weapons came from the Soviet Union). That was to prevent Iran from winning the war, not because we were friends of Saddam Hussein or approved what he

was doing, as leftists like Michael Moore and Norman Mailer and others have insinuated.
http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Art...e.asp?ID=16103

Yep. Everyone is in on the conspiracey.

I should have known, tabloid filth from Frontpagemag, you couldn't have discredited yourself more.

In light of all the facts, those that still cling to these beliefs and support the bloodbath in Iraq sure do have some moral issues to work on, it makes me sick.

[CYLLON]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...E31501,00.html

Not just me sir.
For those seriously interested in the question I recommend a seriously interesting new book, America's Secret War by George Friedman. Friedman is founder of Stratfor, a private, subscription-financed global intelligence service, which I find consistently well-informed. Friedman writes of the struggle in Iraq in relentlessly Realpolitik terms.

The Americans had established and then strengthened a military presence in countries surrounding Saudi Arabia - Yemen, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait. Invasion of Iraq would complete the encirclement.

"From a purely military view," Friedman adds, "Iraq is the most strategic single country in the Middle East, [bordering] six other countries: Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Turkey and Iran."

So the US struck, with consequences unfolding nightly on our TV screens. Friedman believes the US-jihadist war hangs in the balance. However, the measured actions of the US during the past three years, including its strong military presence in the Middle East, have caused significant moderation of the position on global jihad of Saudi Arabia and other Muslim regimes.

The strategy of the jihadists has stalled: "Not a single regime has fallen to

al-Qa'ida ... There is no rising in the Islamic street. [There has been] complete failure of al-Qa'ida to generate the political response they were seeking ... At this point the US is winning ... The war goes on."

[Cd.]

Originally Posted by BratsBoy

http://www.canadiancontent.net/commtr/article_724.html



Theres more of the article at the site.

Its an interesting take on what was behind the invasion.

Its extremely insightful. I would say that this could be a valid theory. It makes so much sense I have to believe it. I am sure this war in Iraq would not have happened unless someone would have benefitted from it economically.

[Islandtime]

I am really getting tired of Americans saying that the stated reasons for invadeing Iraq was not the threat the WMD's presented.

Powells statement to the UN


[quote]"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction and make more," Mr. Powell said. "Given Saddam Hussein's history of aggression, given what we know of his grandiose plans, given what we know of his terrorist associations, and given his determination to exact revenge on those who have opposed him, should we take the risk that he will not someday use these weapons at a time and a place and in a manner of his choosing - at a time when the world is in a much weaker position to respond?"

Mr. Powell said the United States "will not - we cannot - run that risk to the American people. Leaving Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass destruction for a few more months or years is not an option. Not in a post-September 11th world."

http://www.un.org/apps/news/storyAr....aq&Cr1=inspect

[Bo]

http://www.nationallampoon.com/nl/05_av/bush_generator/

[CYLLON]

[quote=Islandtime]I am really getting tired of Americans saying that the stated reasons for invadeing Iraq was not the threat the WMD's presented.

Powells statement to the UN

"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction and make more," Mr. Powell said. "Given Saddam Hussein's history of aggression, given what we know of his grandiose plans, given what we know of his terrorist associations, and given his determination to exact revenge on those who have opposed him, should we take the risk that he will not someday use these weapons at a time and a place and in a manner of his choosing - at a time when the world is in a much weaker position to respond?"

Mr. Powell said the United States "will not - we cannot - run that risk to the American people. Leaving Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass destruction for a few more months or years is not an option. Not in a post-September 11th world."

http://www.un.org/apps/news/storyAr....aq&Cr1=inspect

I dont recall anyone saying the WMD were not a reason.

We have been over why the WMD were pushed so hard at the u.n. They were the ONLY thing any resolutions were on and the only thing there was a chance of getting the u.n. off its BUTT to do anything about.

You always try to use the strongest item against the oposition that you think the jury beleives. They all beleived he had them,they gave the estimates and thats why in a nut shelll the wmd were pushed so hard. TOO hard IMHO. What Americans deny is that the WMD were the only reason or the reason.