Iraq, 9/11 and the Petro dollar
To continue following the
increasingly bloody footsteps of the US imposed Petro dollar…
It was shortly after Iraq’s invasion
of Kuwait that UN sanctions were first imposed on Iraq (1990). There is a story line, developed from
Wikileaks releases, that the US tacitly gave US approval to Saddam Hussein to
invade Kuwait, or at least didn’t object to it.
Whatever, the invasion commenced.
It proved to be an incredibly stupid mistake for Iraq. Iraq lost. The
war itself led to crippling sanctions, public malnutrition leading to many
deaths of Iraqi children and the dismantling of the prior most progressive
state in the Middle East.
Iraq? Progressive?
That poor country that was being guided at the time by a depraved
monster of evil, Saddam Hussein, who deliberately killed his own people and
held weapons of mass destruction that directly threatened the American state? That’s what we were told. But it is known, albeit little reported, that
prior to the invasion of Kuwait and the resulting sanctions, Iraq was truly a
model of progression. Iraq offered its
citizens free education up to and including university, universal health care,
support for soldier’s families, subsidies for farmers, encouragement for women
to run for public office and generous maternity leave for working women,
etc. Iraq, in fact, was a modern,
secular state. Until their invasion of
Kuwait. The issuing sanctions pushed
Saddam to ditch the US dollar in favor of using Euros for oil trade so he would
not have to buy US bonds in return that his country couldn’t afford. Which sealed his fate. 9/11 was the excuse the US needed to destroy
this direct challenge to the Petro dollar that could bankrupt the US economy.
Iraq had to be destroyed first.
Only a fear of their own US economic
harm could have justified the US invasion (in their minds) of a small country
on the other side of the world that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 and
had no weapons of mass destruction. What other Iraqi crime could have been
committed that had to be paid for by the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children? What could have been worth the sinking of US
governance to the depths of utter depravity in order to offer up the
collective, degrading, and most disgusting of lies told to the American body
politic for the absolute need for the Iraqi invasion? The US government knew
Iraq held no weapons of mass destruction and had nothing to do with 9/11. But what Iraq had done to strike fear in the
collective hearts of the US elite was to announce they were ditching the Petro
dollar in favor of the Euro. The Iraqis insisted they could not afford to have
their oil money eaten up by having to buy US bonds for the privilege of
trading. They understood that when any country buys US bonds they are actually
buying a piece of a massive US debt. This debt will eat up any marginal interest
US bonds might eventually accrue (inflation) so why would anybody buy US bonds
if they weren’t forced to? Like Iraq,
Libya tried to resist this US Petro dollar choke hold with equally devastating
results. Next time.
I’m no expert but I found myself nodding in agreement for most of this article. However, the phrases “model of progression” and “modern, secular state” seem wrong somehow. Better than most neighboring countries? I don’t think there’s any need to paint a pretty picture to oppose an illegal war. My inner editor is calling for my marking pen.
ReplyDelete