|
A MATTER OF FACT!
NO 3
[2003]
ROGUE
[POLITICAL-CORPORATE-MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX IN ]
AMERICA
www.vernoncoleman.com
[A HISTORY OF THE OIL
INDUSTRY IN IRAQ / IRAN AND ITS BRUTAL CONSEQUENCES FOR ITS
PEOPLES.]
America only entered World
War I (on the side of Britain and France) after both its new
allies and new enemies were pretty much exhausted by the
fighting. Once it agreed to join in the war America
imposed conditions which included the demand that America's
economic and political objectives be taken into account when
the war was over. One of the objectives was access to
new sources of raw material, particularly oil.
In February 1919, Sir Arthur Hirtzel, a leading British
official warned:
'It should be
borne in mind that the Standard Oil Company is very anxious
to take over IRAQ.'
America demanded that
it's oil companies be allowed to negotiate freely with the
new puppet monarchy of King Faisal (the monarch whom the
British had put on the throne in IRAQ). And so
Iraq's oil was divided up between the allies. Five per
cent of the oil went to an oil magnet called Gulbebenkian (
later known as Mr Five Per Cent' who had helped negotiate
the agreement). The other 95per cent was split four
ways between
BRITAIN, FRANCE, HOLLAND
and the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Companies now known as
British Petroleum, SHELL, MOBIL and EXXON pretty much had a
MONOPOLY of the oil available. (Iraqi oil was split
this way until 1958 when there was a REVOLUTION in IRAQ)
American influence in the
region was sealed when the al-Saud family and the United
Stats of America created Saudi Arabia in the 1930's pretty
much as an American colony. It was no coincidence that the
American Embassy in Riyadh, the capital city, was situated
in the local oil company building.
The Americans were not ,
however, satisfied with their share of Middle East oil.
The wanted
CONTROL.
They had to get rid of the British. And their chance came
with the Second World War.
The Americans unceasingly
portray themselves as Britain's saviour. This is a wicked
misrepresentation. As it had been in the great War.
America was ruthlessly opportunistic.
Britain was greatly
weakened by the Second World War but America grew
tremendously in power as a result of what happened in the
early 1940's. The Roosevelt and Truman administrations
(which were dominated by the banking and oil interests [As
is the situation in
JUNE 2010] decided to
restructure the world to ensure that the USA would be
on top.
THEY WANTED
CONTROL OF THE WORLD'S OIL.
They wanted USA
dominated
GLOBALISATION
( to which end they created
the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank in 1944)
They wanted the dollar to
be the ONLY significant world currency. And they
wanted the USA to have military superiority in all types of
weapons.
Winston Churchill was so
worried by what he could see happening that on March 4th
1944 (three months before D DAY
invasion of Normandy) he sought
assurance from the USA that she would not take over
BRITISH OIL
INTERESTS.
He wrote to the USA President Roosevelt
saying:
' Thank you very much
for your assurances about no sheep's eyes on our oilfields
in Iran and Iraq. Let me reciprocate by giving you the
fullest assurance that we have no thought of trying to horn
in upon your interests or property in Saudi Arabia. My
position in this, as in all matters, is that Great Britain
seeks no advantage, territorial or otherwise, as a result of
this war. On the other hand, she will not be deprived of
anything which rightly belongs to her after having given
her best services to the good cause, at least not so long as
your humble servant is entrusted with the conduct of
affairs.'
Sadly, there was nothing
that even Churchill could do to save Britain from its new
'enemy'. In 1953, a CIA coup which put the Shah in
power gave Iran to the United States of America. ( The
Americans also helped the Shah form his much hated secret
police.)
And within a couple of
years after that Iraq was jointly controlled by America and
Britain.
In 1955 America set up the
Baghdad Pact, which was designed, at least in part, to
oppose the rise of Arab liberation movements in the Middle
East. Britain and Iraq were signatories, although Iraq
was independent only in name. The British still
had military airfields in Iraq which was ruled by a corrupt
monarchy. The people of Iraq, despite having a huge
quantity of the world's oil under their feet, were staving
and living in abject poverty.
Things changed in Iraq
in 1958, A military rebellion launched a REVOLUTION
which was to have dramatic
consequences on the world. The day after the
revolution started the Americans put 20,000 marines into
Lebanon and over 6000 paratroopers dropped into Jordan.
Under Eisenhower's leadership the USA and the UK had made it
clear that they would go to war to protect their interests
in Lebanon and Jordan.
The British, rather
naively, thought that they were simply protecting their
interests outside Iraq. the Americans had bigger
thoughts. they wanted to go into Iraq, overturn the
revolution and put a new puppet government (friendly to the
USA, of course) in charge in Baghdad.
BUT THE AMERICANS WERE
STOPPED.
The Iraq revolution was
too big. And it had much support from other Arab countries,
from the people's republic of China and from the USSR. the
Americans glumly gave up their imperialist plans.
But they didn't give up
completely.
The thwarted Americans
added Iraq to their growing list of terrorist nations and
gave great support to right wing Kurdish elements who were
fighting the Iraq government. then, in the late 1970's
the Americans suported the government of Saddam Hussein in
its fight against communism. In the 1980's the
Americans supported (with money and arms) Saddam Hussein's
Iraq in its eight years war with Iran , a country over which
America had lost control during Iran's islamic Revolution of
1970. The Americans openly admitted that they were
intervening in order to safeguard their access to the
region's oil and they slightly less openly hoped that Iraq
and Iran would weaken each other and enable the USA to take
over.
'I hope they kill
each other,'
former secretary of state
Henry Kissinger
[ a Bilderberger and a member of the
ruling elite of the USA the Council on Foreign Relations who
decide the Foreign Policy of the country]
is said to have
remarked.
The Americans provided Iraq's air force with
satellite photographs of Iranian targets and sent
anti-aircraft missiles to Iran so that the Iranians could
shoot down the aircraft which the Iraqis sent over.
America fought on both sides of the war and was well aware
that Saddam Hussein was using chemical weapons.
Over a million people died and both countries
were left weaker. ( Bizarrely, and hypocritically, in 2003
George W Bush was claiming that Saddam Hussein's use of
chemical weapons in this war was one of the main reasons for
attacking Iraq.) The money America made from selling
missiles to Iran was used to finance the CONTRAS who were
fighting the Socialist government in Nicaragua.
Reagan, USA President at the time, disapproved of socialist
regimes and wanted to get rid of this one in particular. (It
is perhaps unfair to ascribe such depth of feeling to Reagan
himself, rather than to his advisors.)
The war between Iraq and Iran didn't finish
until 1988, by which time Iraq had become friendly with the
USSR.
But then the USSR was taken over by
Gorbachev, who wanted to end the COLD WAR and a permanent
detente with America. Gorbachev withdrew Soviet support from
Iraq (as he had withdrawn it from countries in eastern
Europe) and the world suddenly changed yet again.
After the war with Iran Saddam Hussein had
accumulated massive debts.
The low price of oil meant that his income didn't match his
national outgoings. the Iraqi president accused Kuwait
of drilling for oil in Iraqi territory and then announced
that Kuwait wasn't a separate nation at all but a province
of Iraq. Iraqi troops invaded Kuwait in 1990.
America (with an INTERNATIONAL FORCE) attacked, the
resultant war was over in weeks and in 1991 the Americans
got back into Iraq. In the decade that followed they
have used sanctions, bombings and blockades to weaken the
Iraqi people and destroy their spirit. American
sanctions against Iraq do not target Saddam Hussein,
THEY TARGET THE IRAQI
PEOPLE.
Now the Americans, led by
oil man George W Bush are going back to Iraq [2003].
Americans do not give a fig for HUMAN RIGHTS and they know
that Saddam Hussein is NO THREAT TO AMERICA.
They know well that he has NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.
(And even if he did have them the Americans have the
military capability to DESTROY IRAQ IN SECONDS) They
surely also know that Saddam Hussein has NOTHING in COMMON
with OSAMA bin LADEN.
AMERICA IS GOING BACK INTO
IRAQ FOR THE SAME ,GOOD OLD REASON
OIL!
[This article was written in 2003 by
Vernon Coleman]
www.vernoncoleman.com
*
www.JEWSNOTZIONISTS.ORG
*
www.prisonplanet.com/kucinichwe-may-be-funding-our-own-killers-in-afghanistan-JUNE-2010
*
http://www.prisonplanet.com/camp-fema-exclusively-online-for-prison-planet-tv-members.html
MORE FROM VERNON COLEMAN
NO 371
Find a war and you'll find
that both sides are fighting with weapons supplied (at a
price to anyone) by the Americans and British arms
industries . When Americans or British troops are
killed they are usually killed with British or American
bullets fired from British and American guns.
Is more violence really the
only answer? Where will all the violence end? What
does state approved revenge become state sponsored
terrorism? Is America justified in killing innocent
people.
Instead of seeking revenge
America should lead by example. Instead of retaliating in
hatred they should ask for peace. Why does that thought seem
so naive?
NO 373
American activities in Iraq
and elsewhere have reinforced the conflict between Europe
and the Muslim world and have helped establish strong
fundamentalist Islamic politicians in power.
The American activities in
the Middle East are invariably self-serving: the aim is to
satisfy the arms industry, the oil industry and Zionists.
the cost is stability and peace. Americans don't worry
about the cost of war because war is usually profitable for
the massive arms industry,
NO 322
In 2003 the Americans
claimed that by opposing their enthusiasm for dropping bombs
on Iraq the French and Germans were endangering NATO.
Once again the Americans
needed to study their history books (though preferably not
ones written or published in America). NATO was created to
deal with the alleged threat posed by the Soviet Union (a
threat which existed largely in the minds of the Americans.
By 2003 there was clearly no
longer a threat from the Soviet Union and so there was no
need for NATO to continue to exist.
The truth is that NATO only
existed in 2003 because the well-paid officials who worked
for it were determined to keep it alive.
[A REMINDER TO DAVID CAMERON
in 2011]
Bush and Blair claim that
replacing Saddam Hussein is a moral act-designed solely to
help the people of Iraq. (Although curiously, Tony Blair,
who likes to describe himself as a religious man, and who is
allegedly planning to become a Catholic, publicly ignored
the Pope's plea for mo war against Iraq.)
If these two are now
concerned with replacing 'undemocratic' leaders when will
wars ever end?
And why aren't the USA and
the UK declaring war on themselves? both have leaders who
represent minorities.
Blair repeatedly ignored the
large majority of the British electorate who were opposed to
the war against Iraq.
Can a leader who takes no
notice of the people be described as democratic?
MARCH-2011
www.vernoncoleman.com
|