There has been much speculation as to the real reasons why the USA attacked and invaded Iraq. Every thinking person knows that the pretext of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) was a complete fabrication concocted to give the Americans an excuse in the eyes of the world to make war on Iraq, but many people are still labouring under the delusion that the Americans committed this war crime simply to gain control of Iraq's oil. Nothing could be further from the truth. Control and acquisition of Iraq's oil was a major factor in the highly illegal war and occupation, but the Americans had another motive.
Former Bush Administration Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill confirmed that military action against Iraq was on the agenda virtually from day one of the Bush presidency, with it being on the agenda of the very first meeting of the National Security Council, complete with a map of post-invasion Iraq and details of its oil fields could be carved up between US corporations. O'Neill was pushed out of his job in December 2002 after his outspoken criticisms of the Bush rush to war in Iraq.
In the British Guardian newspaper on 06 September 2003 called "This War On Terrorism Is Bogus", British Member of Parliament Michael Meacher exposed the American plot to take military control of the Persian Gulf, well before the 9/11 atrocity. Meacher wrote:
However, to get an idea of how the Americans operate is the completely different way the USA dealt with Iraq and North Korea. In June 2003, three months after the USA attacked and invaded Iraq, US Deputy Secretary of Defence, Paul Wolfowitz, was asked by reporters in Singapore why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where no WMD had been found. Wolfowitz said: "Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil".
You really have to read that again to let it sink in:
So it was not about WMD, Saddam Hussein, human rights, al-Qaeda or anything else, just about an American attempt to annex Iraq's oil by fabricating false pretexts to use to illegally attack and invade that nation. This was a blatant war crime of the highest degree, committed by a nation that struts around on the world stage claiming to be the bastion of democracy and law and order. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Wolfowitz even confessed to the conspiracy by the US administration to fabricate the pretext for that illegal war. "The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the US government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason," Wolfowitz was quoted as saying in a Pentagon transcript of an interview with Vanity Fair.
So the Americans knew that there were no WMD in Iraq, but for the purposes of getting everybody to agree on a pretext, the US administration settled on WMD and then proceeded to accuse Iraq of possessing them, even though there was not a shred of evidence to support that accusation. This was the ultimate deployment of the technique of Nazi Propaganda Minister Josef Goebbels.
And the Americans kept pounding out their monstrous lies every day until they decided that the time was right, then they attacked and invaded Iraq. Of course the Americans only did that because they KNEW that Iraq had no WMD. President Bush knew that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. Dick Cheney knew that his story of Iraqi agents meeting with Bin Laden's agents in Prague was false. The Americans knew that the story of Iraq buying yellowcake in Niger was false. The Americans also knew that the story of Iraq having a mobile bioweapons laboratory on a truck was false.
If Iraq had any semblance of weapons that could cause the instant deaths of tens of thousands of American troops, the USA would never have dared attack. That was clearly shown by the admission of US Vice President Richard Cheney.
The Americans knew well in advance of their attack that Iraq was essentially defenceless, whereas North Korea was armed with nuclear weapons that could vaporise the entire US Seventh Fleet in the blink of an eye. Vice-president Dick Cheney, the architect of the Iraq war, was asked if he would support the use of military action to disarm North Korea. His answer was simply a startling "No". Cheney was then asked why then he supported the use of military action against Iraq. Cheney replied: "because Iraq was do-able".
These statements made publicly on TV by the very highest echelon of the American administration show the true thinking of the Americans in global matters. US Deputy Secretary of Defence Paul Wolfowitz confessed that Iraq "swims in a sea of oil" and an attack and invasion by the USA was "do-able", but according to Cheney, North Korea, with no oil and armed with nuclear weapons was not "do-able" and could not be attacked without a massive loss of American lives. And that is the way the USA operates, proven by the public statements of its highest politicians.
Admissions like these only show the abject cowardice of the USA and the fact that the Americans will only make war on nations that they consider cannot defend themselves adequately. This is the golden rule of US military strategy. Except for World War Two, the USA has never fought a war with powerful states. US aggression against Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Haiti, Somalia, Serbia, Afghanistan and Iraq, to name but a few, are just examples of this disgraceful and cowardly American policy to only attack nations far weaker than the USA.
Here is the real story, revealing the truth about the way the Americans have been manipulating the world for so long to their advantage, which also exposes the reasons why the USA is fomenting aggression against other nations at this time. To understand this, people need to know the history and the background of the American financial system and the massive scam they have perpetrated on the rest of the world and want to keep doing so by force if necessary.
Back in 1971, the USA came up with a plan to rip off the rest of the world and create an empire. When France demanded gold bullion in exchange for the mountain of US dollars that it was holding, the USA discovered that because of its huge spending and borrowing, it did not have enough gold reserves to redeem all those dollars that it had spent overseas. Because the USA could not pay France's debt, the USA had committed the act of bankruptcy.
Of course without some sort of tangible backing, such as gold, the US dollar was just a piece of worthless paper. So to somehow give the dollar some value, now that there was not enough gold to cover US debt, the Americans cut a deal with OPEC, especially Saudi Arabia. The USA would ensure that the House of Saud remained in power, provided that the Saudis only sold their oil in US dollars. This is why the USA still has a huge military base in Dhahran.
This meant that every nation that needed to buy oil had to hold reserves of US dollars and they got those reserves by selling goods and services to the USA. But whenever the Americans needed to make foreign purchases, they merely printed more dollars (more debt), so essentially those commodities were being acquired for free. The USA also could buy oil for those same dollars because the USA just printed as much paper money and treasury bonds as it needed. The two oil exchanges, New York Mineral Exchange (NYMEX) and International Petroleum Exchange (IPE), are both owned by Americans and only trade oil in US dollars, so as long as this situation remains, the USA will be allowed to tax the rest of the planet and get a free ride.
An integral part of this scam is the effect of inflation and the inherent threat of dollar devaluation. The USA has counted on inflation to reduce the value of the dollar over time, so creditor nations continue to hold dollars of ever-diminishing value while the Americans just keep printing more paper money and force the oil-buying nations to acquire them. The Americans do not care how many dollars they print, because they know that whatever value they have will be reduced over time, thus making creditor nations the real losers.
The other part of the scam is the inherent threat of dollar collapse. If a creditor nation tries to dump its dollar holdings (US debt), the value of the dollar would fall on international exchanges and the creditor country would lose even more than the erosion of the value of the dollar by inflation. For instance, China holds $1.4 trillion in US debt, however if China decided to sell off even a quarter of its dollar holdings, this currency would go into freefall and literally become worthless. So creditor nations such as China and Japan will only sell off their US dollars slowly enough to stop the currency from collapsing, however this means that the value of dollars that creditor nations retain are being eroded by inflation.
The US dollar, being the world's reserve currency because it is the predominant currency used to buy oil, will remain valuable - UNLESS somebody such as a large oil producer starts trading oil in another currency, such as the Euro. This would mean that nations who, up till now, were forced to hold huge reserves of US dollars, prop up the entire US economy and thus finance all the USA's military adventures around the world, could divest themselves of their US dollar holdings by dumping them on the world currency market or sell them back to the USA.
And how would the USA redeem its paper money? It would actually have to deliver something, like gold or goods and services. The problem is that in 2008, the USA borrowed a whopping $665 billion dollars from the rest of the world and has standing foreign debts of over $5 trillion and rising rapidly because of the cost of various wars and profligate spending, The head of the US Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, was even stupid enough to boast that if the USA needed more money, the treasury could just print as much as it wanted and literally drop it onto Americans from helicopters. This is why this man has acquired the ignominious nickname of "Helicopter Ben".
So it would be an unmitigated disaster for the USA if any oil-producing nation suddenly started trading its oil for another currency, such as the Euro and showed the other oil producers and oil buyers that US dollars were no longer needed. There would be no reason for other nations to keep acquiring US dollars and debt. What would the Americans do to stop their economy going into meltdown, along with the funding for their worldwide military machine literally vanishing? They would have to put a stop to any oil producer selling oil for any currency other than the US dollar. But how can the Americans stop oil-producing nations doing this, as it is perfectly legitimate for anybody to sell their oil for whatever currency they desire to demand for it?
There are a few methods that the Americans have used and continue to employ in such cases, virtually all illegal under the UN Charter and international law - regime change, clandestine assassination of the leaders of those nations, funding insurgents to overthrow the legitimately elected governments and install puppets in their place, or just good old-fashioned outright war. The trouble with declaring war these days is that there really has to be what is perceived to be a legitimate threat against the nation that is doing the attacking. Although Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was perceived by the world as a despotic tyrant whose removal would be a blessing, this in itself was not a valid excuse for the USA to launch a war against Iraq, a nation on the other side of the planet and incapable of attacking the USA. So the Americans just fabricated a reason.
Being the biggest economic superpower and manipulating the banking and finance system of the world for decades, the Americans use unilateral sanctions to damage any nation that they perceive to be against American interests. The worst part is that they do not seem to care how many innocent people die as a result of such sanctions, which in many cases breach international laws and treaties indiscriminately.
The Americans have a talent for inventing cute euphemisms to make their actions acceptable to the gullible American public. The term "Extraordinary Rendition" sounds innocent enough, until one realises that this means the Americans kidnapping people, forcibly transporting them to nations that allow these people to be tortured and then throwing them into the Nazi-style concentration camp at Guantanamo in Cuba. The same goes for "Collateral Damage", which is the sanitised way the Americans describe the deaths of countless innocent people.
For instance, in regard to US sanctions on Iraq and the human consequences of their application, former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was questioned on this topic and her response graphically showed how callous and uncaring the American policy is.
So Madeleine Albright considered that the death of half a million children was worth it, merely to put pressure on Saddam Hussein. Of course these sanctions caused Saddam Hussein to try and raise money for his nation, so he devised the Oil for Euro scheme, which was the main reason that the USA illegally attacked and occupied Iraq, apart from the obvious purpose of stealing Iraq's oil.
Most people think that the Iraq War was about US control of oil. This was a factor, but it certainly was not the only reason that the USA launched its illegal war on Iraq. Here is what happened.
In 2001, Saddam Hussein broke the cosy US-OPEC dollar scam and decided to stop accepting US dollars for Iraq's oil and started selling it for Euro. The US dollar immediately plummeted over 10% on global markets literally overnight, raising US interest rates and making foreign goods more expensive. The USA's response was predictable. All of a sudden, after 10 years of complete indifference by the USA to any military threat that Iraq posed, according to US President George W Bush, Iraq had to be dealt with because it allegedly possessed weapons of mass destruction.
Prior to the Iraq invasion, weapons inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) had scoured Iraq from end to end for five years and found no trace of weapons of mass destruction. UNSCOM head Hans Blix stated repeatedly that Iraq had no WMD and posed no danger to any other nation, as it was literally disarmed. However, despite all these reports, President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and their gang of neocons desperately had to concoct a pretext to invade Iraq, get rid of Saddam Hussein and not only grab control of Iraq's oil, but to immediately deal with the Oil for Euro problem that was devastating the US dollar. So the neocons came up with a strategy that was completely ridiculous from a logical perspective, but one that would try to fool the world.
In September 2010, newly declassified documents showed that US President George W Bush's advisers focused on toppling Saddam Hussein's regime as soon as he took office and discussed how to justify a war in Iraq soon after invading Afghanistan in 2001.
A few hours after the attacks on 11 September 2001, the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld spoke of attacking Iraq and Osama bin Laden, according to notes of a meeting that day. Rumsfeld told a Pentagon lawyer to go to his deputy to get :support" showing a supposed link between the Iraqi regime and al-Qaeda's founder, according to the papers posted by the National Security Archive, an independent research institute in Washington. The US government has since acknowledged that Saddam Hussein's regime had no role in the attacks on New York and Washington.
Confronting Iraq was the focus of a memo in July 2001 to the national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, with Rumsfeld urging a high-level meeting on policy about Baghdad. Forecasting a positive outcome, Rumsfeld said that Washington's image in the world would benefit from toppling Saddam. ''If Saddam's regime were ousted, we would have a much-improved position in the region and elsewhere,'' he wrote.
Another document shows Rumsfeld discussing war plans for Iraq only two months after the US invasion of Afghanistan. In a meeting with the then head of US Central Command, General Tommy Franks, Rumsfeld told him to prepare forces for the ''decapitation'' of the Iraqi regime.
In talking points dated 27 November 2001, Rumsfeld listed possible triggers that the Bush administration could use to start a war, including Iraqi military action against the US-protected enclave in northern Iraq, discovery of ties between Saddam Hussein and the 11 September attacks, or recent anthrax attacks and disputes with United Nations weapons inspections.
In a memo in December 2001, the State Department warned that France and Germany would probably oppose an invasion of Iraq without proof that Baghdad was behind the 11 September attacks. The same memo warned that British support for a US war would come at a political cost for the prime minister Tony Blair and could trigger a backlash from the country's Muslim population.
In an enquiry conducted in January 2011, it emerged that Tony Blair played the anti-French card by falsely blaming then-president Jacques Chirac for the collapse of talks at the United Nations on the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Stephen Wall, Blair's former EU adviser, said that the ex-prime minister ordered his media chief Alastair Campbell to tell journalists that Chirac had threatened to veto any Security Council resolution - even though they knew Chirac had not.
"The prime minister was giving Alastair his marching orders to play the anti-French card," Wall told the Iraq war inquiry in London. I do recall getting a call from Joyce Quin, a former Europe minister, who said to me 'Do the prime minister and Alastair know that what they're claiming Chirac said isn't what he actually said?' and I said 'Joyce, I believe they do know'."
In fact, in 2015, a secret memo that was leaked from the White House showed that Blair had conspired with Bush for Britain to join a future war with Iraq a good year before it happened, which obviously spurred Bush into using the false pretext of weapons of mass destruction to demonise Iraq, when he knew that Britain would join the USA in the forthcoming war and thus make the USA appear as if it were part of a legitimate multinational force, rather than what it really was, an illegal attack and invasion of Iraq.
It just proves that Blair falsely demonised the French in his efforts to get Britain to participate in the USA's illegal war against Iraq and thus was a principal party in a heinous war crime. This hard evidence just shows that with the complicity of Britain's government, the US administration deliberately launched a war on Iraq with absolutely no justification and thus committed a litany of war crimes that killed well over 100,000 innocent people.
However, the USA, which has insisted that leaders of other nations be prosecuted for war crimes has never allowed any of its leaders, such as Bush and Rumsfeld, to be tried for war crimes that were responsible for the deaths of millions of innocent people. The same goes for Tony Blair, who has so far also evaded being prosecuted for his war crimes.
In February 2011, the defector who convinced the White House that Iraq had a secret biological weapons program, admitted for the first time that he lied about his story, then watched in shock as how the Americans used it to justify the illegal attack and invasion of Iraq.
Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, codenamed Curveball by German and US intelligence officials who dealt with him, has said that he fabricated tales of mobile bioweapons trucks and clandestine factories in an attempt to bring down the Saddam Hussein regime, from which he had fled in 1995.
''Maybe I was right, maybe I was not right,'' he said. ''They gave me this chance. I had the chance to fabricate something to topple the regime. I and my sons are proud of that and we are proud that we were the reason to give Iraq the margin of democracy.''
The admission comes just after the eighth anniversary of Colin Powell's speech to the United Nations, in which the then US Secretary of State relied heavily on lies that Janabi had told the German secret service, the BND. It also follows the release of the memoirs of former Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, in which he admitted Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction program.
Janabi said he had told a German official, whom he named as Dr Paul, about mobile bioweapons trucks throughout 2000. He said the BND had identified him as a Baghdad-trained chemical engineer and had approached him soon after 13 March of that year, looking for inside information about Saddam's Iraq. ''I had a problem with the Saddam regime,'' he said. ''I wanted to get rid of him and now I had this chance.''
Janabi portrayed the BND as gullible and so eager to tease details from him that they gave him a Perry's Chemical Engineering Handbook to help communicate. ''Any engineer who studied in this field can explain or answer any question they asked.'' Janabi said he was comfortable with what he did, despite the chaos of the past eight years and the massive civilian death toll in Iraq.
The fact that the Americans jumped at the story of this liar showed that they were willing to use any opportunity to justify their illegal war on Iraq. Despite all the evidence from years of UNSCOM inspections, the USA chose deliberately to make war and thus commit a litany of war crimes on the basis of a fanciful story from a liar. This was apart from the fact that US President GW Bush and .British Prime Minister Tony Blair had already decided back in 2000 to wage war on Iraq, but needed a few useable pretexts.
There is one very simple test that proves that the USA committed a war crime by attacking and invading Iraq. Article 2 of the UN Charter prohibits both the threat and the use of force except in cases of legitimate self-defence. The USA has never been threatened or attacked by Iraq and there was never even any threat of attack.
Therefore, the USA cannot even use the pretext or justification of preventative warfare, simply because there was nothing to prevent and in any case, this defence was comprehensively rejected at the Nuremberg Trials after World War Two, when lawyers for Nazi defendants tried to make this case. So in attacking and invading Iraq, the USA engaged in ongoing international criminal activity for planning, preparation, solicitation and conspiracy to commit Nuremberg crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide.
US Secretary of State Colin Powell blurted out the mechanism of the American tactics in provoking war with Iraq. The Bush administration demanded that Iraq "prove a negative", the absence of weapons, precisely because it was inherently impossible. Every attempt by the Iraqi regime to comply with demands from the USA and the US-controlled and highly manipulated United Nations became the starting point for more and more demands that literally could not be met, with further efforts to declare Saddam Hussein in violation of yet another UN resolution.
It was amazing that none of the Democratic presidential candidates would speak the simple truth - that the Bush administration engaged in deliberate, wilful falsification in order to frighten the American people with the spectre of a non-existent Iraqi threat and thus justify an unprovoked, unilateral military attack. None cited the innumerable false statements of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell and others about the existence of weapons of mass destruction, such as Rumsfeld's declaration on the eve of the war that the US government had irrefutable proof of Iraq's secret weapons stockpiles because "we know where they are." That was just a complete and outright lie.
Former US General Wesley Clark, perhaps inadvertently, touched on the devastating political implications of the exposure of Bush's lies. During a debate, he returned to the issue of the war in a roundabout way, citing his discussions with top military officials shortly after the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks.
Clark stated, "I heard from the Pentagon two weeks after 9/11 that the administration was determined to go into Iraq, whether or not there was any connection with 9/11; that they were going to use it as a pretext for invading Iraq." So there was a person right in the centre of the information loop confessing that the USA was going to make war on Iraq, no matter what. Of course George W Bush and his gang of neocons knew that this was a completely illegal act under international law, but as usual, the USA operates as a law unto itself, in other words, a rogue terrorist state.
Of course the truth has also been revealed about the complicity of British Prime Minister Tony Blair in this fabrication. Prior to the whole WMD pretext, Bush and Blair had already cut a deal to invade Iraq, regardless of any other considerations.
The rest is history. The USA illegally attacked and invaded Iraq on the basis of a pack of monstrous lies and the first thing that the Americans did was to stop all oil sales for Euro and revert such transactions to the US dollar. The US economy was saved for the moment and the USA could continue to rape the rest of the planet by forcing all other nations to keep buying otherwise worthless US dollars so that they could purchase oil with them. This is the real reason why the USA invaded Iraq, merely to revert Iraq's oil sales back to the US dollar and to show other oil-producing nations that if they tried to do the same, they risked war with the USA.
Unfortunately for the USA, the world has woken up to this huge scam and many oil-producing nations are no longer being intimidated by threats of conflict with the USA. They are now demanding currency other than US dollars for their oil and natural gas. This, along with some disastrous American fiscal mismanagement, such as the sub-prime lending crisis and the bouts of "Quantitative Easing", another sanitised phrase for printing worthless Monopoly money, has sent the US dollar into decline, where it has lost much value against the Euro and other currencies.
The USA obviously is not going to attack any European country or Japan, however certain other nations make feasible targets. The USA has got Iran in their gunsights, simply because Iran has followed Saddam Hussein's strategy and is selling oil for Euro and Yen and has literally divested itself of every US dollar. Other OPEC nations such as Venezuela are doing the same, so this could eventually mean the end of the free lunch and even possibly the end of the American Empire.
Susan Lindauer was a US Senate and House aide and a reporter for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. In the 1990s, a CIA agent, the ex-chief of station in Syria, told her that, contrary to what the US government was insisting, Libya had nothing to do with the PanAm 103-Lockerbie bombing.
It had been done by Syrians acting on behalf of some US intelligence agents, who had been caught in criminal actions by an oversight team and sought to kill that team as they were flying back to Washington to report. She communicated that information to various members of the US intelligence community and wrote some of it in a deposition for the trial of the Libyans who were being framed by the US.
Lindauer tried to save Iraqi and American lives by acting as a diplomatic back-channel between the Iraqi government and the US government in the person of her cousin, White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card. Among other things, she conveyed the message in March 2001 that the Iraqi government was very eager to have weapons inspectors come back to their country in order to prove that they had no weapons of mass destruction.
That letter, along with Susan Lindauer's testimony, proves that Iraq had no WMD in March 2001, otherwise they would not have requested inspectors and that the US government knew it.
But the Neocons wanted to attack Iraq anyhow, to make huge profits for the weapons manufacturers, to seize the oil resources, to get more military bases in the area and to fulfil the wishes of their very close allies, the Israelis, who had been publicly urging an attack on Iraq.
So, even though it knew Iraq had no WMD, the US government used WMD as a pretext for attacking and invading Iraq, murdering as many as 500,000 innocent people and spreading depleted uranium dust all over the country, which will poison and kill millions more people in the future.
This is why the government is keeping Susan Lindauer in prison and is now seeking to forcibly drug her into an incoherent and helpless state using psychiatric medications, despite the fact that her court-appointed psychiatrist found that she was completely sane and competent.
If she is permitted to tell her story, the world will know for certain that the US government murdered half a million people for no other reasons than greed and power.
On 11 September 2008, the eighth anniversary of the Islamic attack on the World Trade Centre in New York City, US Congressman Dennis Kucinich made the following speech that exposed what everybody knew - that the US war on Iraq was not only completely unjustified, but was a monstrous international crime.
We suffer in our remembrance of 9/11, because of the terrible loss of innocent lives on that grim day. We also suffer because 9/11 was seized as an opportunity to run a political agenda, which has set America on a course of the destruction of another nation and the destruction of our own Constitution. And we have become less secure as a result of the warped practice of pursing peace through the exercise of pre-emptive military strength.
It is not simply 9/11 that needs to be remembered. We also need to remember the politicisation of 9/11 and the polarising narrative which followed, locking us into endless conflict, a war on terror which has wrought further terror worldwide and which has severely damaged our standing worldwide as an honourable, compassionate nation. As we were all victims of 9/11, so we have become victims of the interpretation of 9/11.
Our government's external response to 9/11 was to attack a nation which did not attack us. Indeed on the first anniversary of 9/11, the Bush administration issued a well-publicised stern warning to Iraq, which was part of a campaign to induce people to believe Iraq had something to do with 9/11.
The deliberate, systematic connection of Iraq with 9/11 has led America into a philosophical and moral cul-de-sac, as over one million Iraqis and over 4155 US soldiers have died in a war which will cost over $3 trillion. Additionally, soldiers from 23 other countries have died in the Iraq war.
Everyday reminders of fear of 9/11 become banal. Yet we no longer hear the airport announcements nor see the orange coloured warnings, because they have commonplace standards in our new national security state, as is the Patriot Act, wiretapping and a host of invasions of privacy and diminution of civil liberties. The Constitution has been roundly attacked by the very people who took an oath to defend it.
There is a powerful desire across America for change, not necessarily from control by one political party to another, but a change from living with lies to living with truth.