• AmoxtliOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Saddam’s Iraq was the enemy of Israel. There is too much emphasis on the Israel lobby in this video. This makes sense Steve and John focused on the Israel lobby, but the US has more lobbyist than just Israel.

    Consider, the Saudis allowed the US military to stage the invasion from within their own borders. Being power hungry, therefore money hungry, Saddam invaded Kuwait under the pretext of territorial claims. He incurred a lot of debt and his military needed to be funded after the failure in the Iran-Iraq War. Saddam staged an assassination plot against Bush Sr. It is reasonable to think that the Saudis had in interest in removing a hostile neighbor, not just Israel. Certainly, Kuwait was onboard.

    Then you must consider that the Persian Gulf and Arabia are strategic oil reserves for the world with a high concentration of oil and natural gas output. A possible belligerent running amok in the region was something that would not be tolerated.

    When you consider how much of the elites from various countries wanted Saddam removed, it was a calculated move by George W. Bush Junior to permanently remove Saddam and the Ba’ath Party from Iraq. It was a combination of inputs from various world actors, not just one. George W. Bush had a nation-building ideology on top of it to remake the world in America’s image. In his view, it was a reasonable and noble idea, even if the public did not support it.

    • cfgaussian@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      There is too much emphasis on the Israel lobby in this video.

      It certainly wasn’t the sole or even the main factor, but the Zionist lobby definitely wanted the invasion and pushed for it hard. Iraq was a big obstacle to Zionist expansion plans in the region, just like Syria is today.

      Saddam invaded Kuwait under the pretext of territorial claims.

      The territorial claims are not a pretext, Kuwait was a province of Iraq that was split off by the British who made it their colonial bridgehead in the Gulf in order to better control the region and gain access to its resources. However that wasn’t the main reason why Saddam invaded Kuwait.

      The reason was primarily economical and had to do with Kuwait slant drilling into Iraqi oil fields effectively stealing their oil. Kuwait, having essentially been transfered from being a British protectorate to a US one, did this with US encouragement and support, implicit promises to protect them in case of conflict.

      Meanwhile however the US was also telling Iraq through back channels that they would not intervene in case of a conflict with Kuwait, emboldening them to invade so the US could have a pretext to bomb and sanction them.

      Saddam staged an assassination plot against Bush Sr.

      This was never proven. In fact it is more likely that the whole thing was staged by elements in the US deep state (CIA) to push the US government over the edge in their decision to take out Saddam.

      A possible belligerent running amok in the region was something that would not be tolerated.

      So the US became the belligerent running amok instead? You are implying that the imperialists were interested in preserving the stability of the region but that is actually the exact opposite of what they have always wanted. They benefit from conflict and instability in key geographical locations like the Middle East. They purposely created the conditions for the rise of ISIS, covertly armed and funded them, and then launched the dirty war on Syria.

      Keeping the region in chaos halts Eurasian economic integration and regional economic development (for example: multiple pipeline projects that were similarly threatening to US geopolitical interests as Nordstream was were put on ice or permanently canceled as a result of these wars), leaving not just the region itself but the entire continent more vulnerable to neo-colonial exploitation.