Subject WHY U.S. WANTED WAR Written 901 pm Feb 20, 1991 by pegguardian in cdpmideast.gulf

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

Subject: WHY U.S. WANTED WAR ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Written 9:01 pm Feb 20, 1991 by peg:guardian in cdp:mideast.gulf [Sydney] Guardian 9.30 20/2/91 Why US wanted war by Anna Pha Article published in Sydney, Australia newspaper "The Guardian" "The possibility that we might get into a shooting war in Saudi Arabia or the Middle East is a real one. Our forces are there because we've got major interests in the world and especially in that part of the world", said US Defence Secretary Dick Cheney shortly after Iraq's occupation of Kuwait. It was in pursuit of these "major interests" that the US chose war, that the US did not give sanctions time to work or negotiations a chance. The US has not suddenly become a champion of national sovereignty or of the oppressed and exploited. Neither has the US become a country to uphold international law or the decisions of the United Nations. The US refused any serious negotiations in the lead up to the Gulf War. It shot down every diplomatic effort to find a political solution. It was the US that refused to accept a withdrawal of Iraqi troops from Kuwait along with a withdrawal of Israel from the occupied territories in line with previous UN resolutions. It was the US that refused over many years and still refuses an international conference on Middle East problems under the auspices of the UN. And now the US has turned down without a moment's consideration the Iraqi offer to comply with the UN resolution to withdraw from Kuwait describing it as a "cruel hoax". Why does the US prefer war? The aims of the US in the region are control of oil reserves, the destruction of the economic, political and military power of Iraq, to strengthen Israel relative to all other Arab states, to establish a permanent presence for US forces in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other states and, as an added "bonus", the battle testing of its latest high-tech weapons and military strategies. Global ambitions The Middle East and world policy of the US has deep roots. The US emerged from World War II as the most economically powerful state controlling about 50 per cent of the world's wealth. Germany and Japan were devastated and posed little threat to the might of the US at that time. The US set about extending its control and domination around the world. A world-wide network of military bases was established together with political alliances to facilitate control. Third world countries which achieved some measure of political independence through the national liberation struggles were, none-the-less, to be kept economically dependent and a source of raw materials for the industrialised countries. The socialist states, which grew in number following World War II, were surrounded by military bases and besieged by economic boycott, political ostracism, discrimination, destabilisation and subversion. All this became known as the "Cold War". Aggression where "necessary" Where necessary, the US did not hesitate to embark on military aggression. In the early 1950s the war on the Korean peninsular was fought. In the late 1950s they master-minded the attempted 1956 counter-revolution in Hungary. In the 1960s came the war against Vietnam, the attempted invasion of Cuba, assistance to the fascist coup in Chile, and in the 1980s came the interventions in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Grenada, Panama and Angola. Wherever, progressive governments came to power, the US agencies were on hand to destabilise and overthrow them. Australia was no exception. We should not forget the role of the US in the coup against the Whitlam Government. However, the world did not stand still and in time the economic position of the US declined relative to the world as a whole and, in particular, when measured against the re-emergence of Japan, Germany, Europe and the socialist countries, which also forged ahead in the post-war period. It was in response to this situation that early last year the White House presented Congress with its annual National Security Strategy Report which claimed that the US needed to build up a powerful high-tech military because of third world powers intent on pursuing their own course. Middle East ambitions The report went on to suggest that the US should have the means "to project power into areas where we have no permanent presence", particularly in the Middle East. The "Star Wars" umbrella is to be a part of this high-tech world-wide control system. Presidents come and Presidents go but the underlying objectives of US leaders have not changed. Domination of the Middle East is vital to these aims because of its vast energy reserves, its strategic position and its Moslem population. As far back as 1948 George Kennan (Head of the US State Department Policy Planning Staff at the time) observed that US control over oil would help to provide economic and military "veto power" over Japan. It was a dispute over oil that triggered Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. The Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) decided quotas for oil production and set a reasonable price, but the US wanted to undermine OPEC and bring oil prices down. It used Kuwait for that purpose. Kuwait disregarded its set quota, flooded the market and began to thieve Iraqi oil by syphoning off oil from the Rumaila field, 80 per cent of which lies in Iraqi territory. Blood for oil If the US succeeds in smashing Iraq and replacing the present regime with its own puppets, retains control over Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other pro-US sheikdoms in the region, it will control over 50 per cent of the world's oil reserves. This would considerably strengthen the hand of the US in its competition with Japan and Europe, both major importers of oil. When the US talks about "stability" and "security" in the region and about limiting arms sales in future, it is really talking about establishing a regime which will assist the US, together with Israel, impose its diktat over all the Arab countries. The Israel link Israel plays a vital role in the US strategy. That is why the US refuses to accept any solution to the war which makes "linkages" with the Palestinian issue or other Middle East questions. The US will not accept the emergence of any powerful Moslem country in the region. It has worked extremely hard to keep the Arab world divided and has gone to great lengths to buy and blackmail support for the present war. Deals have been done involving billions of dollars and promises of new territorial boundaries. The price offered to Israel to delay any retaliation is also considerable. There is a strong racist and religious element in the stand taken by the West which reaches back into history. The present conflict, which in the eyes of many takes on the character of a struggle between Christians and Moslems, can have devastating consequences for the future peace of the world. Generations of hatred may well be in the making, a cause for future revenge and many new conflicts. The anti-Arab component There is a long history to the attempts of Britain and the US to keep the Arabs down. Soon after the World War II, an Iranian uprising brought a progressive government to power. The machinations of the British and Americans brought down the government and established the rule of the Shah. The Shah's Iran was built up as a powerful military state and as a firm ally of the US. It was blown to pieces by the Iranian revolution of the 1970s. Since then, Iran has been regarded as an enemy. A defeat for Iraq will mark the commencement of new efforts to turn the clock back again in Iran. Recently US Foreign Minister, James Baker, accused King Hussein of Jordan of "changing sides" and threatened to reconsider US aid to Jordan. The lesson is clear. "Do as we say, or else..." Threat to Soviet Union The US has yet another strategic objective. It is to position large and heavily armed US military, naval and air forces in close proximity to the southern borders of the Soviet Union. Despite the praises showered on Mikhail Gorbachev, the Western powers are not certain of the outcome of the struggle going on in that country. They support those forces which are attempting to overthrow socialism and restore capitalism. This has been the major objective of the US and other Western powers for the last 70 years. They are putting themselves in a better position to put pressure on the Soviet Union and to intervene militarily if the opportunity arises. The noose around the Soviet Union is being tightened. For all these reasons the US prefers war rather than a ceasefire and a negotiated peace. Their aim is the unconditional surrender of Iraq or its destruction. A ceasefire and negotiated peace represents a defeat for the main aims of the US. However, there is a big gap between the aims of the US and the possibility of their achievement. War creates new problems How long can the US keep Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Morocco on side in their betrayal of Arab interests? The ferocious bombing, the killing of thousands of Iraqi civilians and the destruction of the economy of Iraq is steadily increasing the rage of the Arab and other people. Many countries want peace and a negotiated settlement. The influential peace movement cannot be ignored. Many more problems are being created than will be solved by this war. Even if the US wins the fighting war, its plans for the Middle East and for world domination are not assured. End of text from cdp:mideast.gulf Source: Peacenet Via New York Transfer News 718-448-2358, 718-448-2683 --- [ This file has travelled through the Socialism OnLine! BBS at +1-719-392-7781, 24 hours, 300-9600 bps HST/MNP/V42bis, on its way to you, the reader of this file. Please share any information you have about "big brother." Venceremos! ]

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank