posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 12:10 AM
It's nice to point out that the invasion is better off for the Iraqi people due to the sanctions. However we along with Britain created the
Now lest you forget the past the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88 greatly damaged Iraq and reduced it from prosperity to economic difficulty. The United
States and the UK (as well as France and the Soviet Union) supported Iraq in that conflict, the longest conventional war of the twentieth century. The
support included weapons sales, military advisors and intelligence sharing. The United States provided, economic assistance, political support, arms,
satellite intelligence and the assistance of a US naval battle group.
Wow isn't that interesting how Americans just don't seem to know about that. After Saddam decided to annex Kuwait of course we could not have Saddam
controlling more oil so we attacked. President George Bush Sr. claimed publicly that we do not seek the destruction of Iraq, nor do we seek to punish
the Iraqi people for the decisions and policies of their leaders.
Well isn't that interesting as much of the damage to Iraq was due to one of history’s heaviest aerial bombardments, a 43-day long campaign.
The worst civilian suffering, senior officers say, has resulted not from bombs that went astray but from precision-guided weapons that hit exactly
where they were aimed – at electrical plants, oil refineries and transportation networks... ‘What we were doing with the attacks on infrastructure was
to accelerate the effect of the sanctions’… If there are political objectives that the U.N. coalition has, it can say, 'Saddam, when you agree to do
these things, we will allow people to come in and fix your electricity.' It gives us long-term leverage’… Said another Air Force planner: ‘We're not
going to tolerate Saddam Hussein or his regime. Fix that, and we'll fix your electricity.”
But sanctions cannot legally, under the UN Charter or under any standard of international law, serve as punishment for past acts, heinous as they are.
Nor, of course, should the punishment fall on the people of Iraq and not the responsible leaders themselves.
As the international community grew increasingly aware of the human costs of the sanctions, the US and UK worked tirelessly to shift responsibility
away from themselves and onto Saddam Hussein.
Now lets talk about facts on Iraq itself. Iraq possesses the world’s second largest proven oil reserves, currently estimated at 112.5 billion barrels,
about 11% of the world total and its gas fields are immense as well. Many experts believe that Iraq has additional undiscovered oil reserves, which
might double the total when serious prospecting resumes, putting Iraq nearly on a par with Saudi Arabia. Iraq’s oil is of high quality and it is very
inexpensive to produce, making it one of the world’s most profitable oil sources.
There is not an oil company in the world that doesn’t have its eye on Iraq.
Now lets ask ourselves who has the largest oil companies in the world? Five companies dominate the world oil industry, two U.S.-based, two primarily
UK-based, and one primarily based in France. The United States ranks first in the corporate oil sector, with the UK second and France trailing as a
distant third. U.S. Exxon Mobile is the largest.
US and UK companies long held a three-quarter share in Iraq’s oil production, but they lost their position with the 1972 nationalization of the Iraq
Petroleum Company which of course caused major commodity swings giving OPEC bragging rights and power throughout the years.
In testimony to Congress in 1999, General Anthony C. Zinni, commander in chief of the US Central Command, testified that the Gulf Region, with its
huge oil reserves, is a “vital interest” of “long standing” for the United States and that the US “must have free access to the region’s
So really the statement that Iraq'i's are better off by the U.S. invading is not really true.
Iraqi's would have been better off had they just handed over all their oil from the beginning.