"Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the Capitalist System was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens....Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose." ~ John Maynard Keynes
Why the U.S. Attacked Iraq
There have been many 'official' justifications for why the US attacked Iraq . Some of these include: Saddam had WMDs and was a direct threat to the US and the world, Saddam was involved with 9/11 and needed to be brought to justice, Saddam supported and funded worldwide terrorism in the form of Al-Qaeda and OBL, and Saddam was a brutal dictator whose regime condoned torture and rape. While all these have been shown to be false justifications, in one way or another, the latest US government ploy is to claim that Iraqis were killed and their property destroyed to bring them democracy and freedom, and that this somehow justifies a brutal war of aggression. My personal feeling is, if given a choice between brutal dictatorship and keeping life and property, or having democracy and freedom, but losing life and property, most people would choose the brutal dictatorship.
All the official justifications have been shown to be false. Here is a brief recap of the lies and deceptions. Saddam had WMDs ' had is the operative word. Before the invasion, Saddam had dismantled all WMDs that the US and others had given him. Saddam was telling the truth about WMDs, the US lied about WMDs. Saddam was involved with 9/11 - while Saddam thought 9/11 was justified and a result of US foreign policy, there is no evidence linking Saddam to 9/11, as admitted by the Bush administration itself. Saddam supported terrorism ' Saddam and OBL were ideological enemies, and there is no evidence that they ever formed any type of alliance. Saddam was a brutal dictator ' yes he was, just like all the other brutal dictators the US has and continues to support when they fully support US goals. Saddam's worst atrocities came when he was considered a valuable US asset, and done with the full knowledge and support of the US government. Also, with the US government and military involvement with rape and torture, the only change seems to be who is doing the brutality, not the elimination of brutality. The Bush administration's latest justification for their outright lying and deception is that everyone in the Bush administration, and everyone in the multibillion dollar security agencies, was completely fooled by a known crazy drunk and pathological liar code named Curveball, who wasn't even in Iraq at the time. So the current wisdom seems to be that, even though the Bush administration and its lackeys were completely incompetent, and couldn't distinguish between a real threat and an imaginary, non-existent threat, it is still a magnanimous act of compassion that the US attacked Iraq, killing and maiming at least hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, destroying billions of dollars of personal property, and torturing and raping thousand of Iraqis, because the US brought democracy and freedom. Instead of being an endorsement for democracy and freedom, as Fox News and the other bobble heads of the media proclaim, it appears to be a scathing indictment of the incompetence of the state.
So if one looks beyond the official lies and deceptions, what were the real reasons for invading Iraq ? There are many reasons that have been given that seem very plausible. Most of them have to do with US hegemony, with the US trying to assert control and dominion as the lone superpower. If given as a multiple choice question, the possible answers would resemble: a) US dollar hegemony, b) US oil hegemony, c) US military hegemony, d) US client state Israel hegemony, e) all of the above, f) none of the above. Let's look at each possible answer a little more closely.
US dollar hegemony is a nice choice. There are scholars who believe that is the prime reason the US attacked Iraq . Before the invasion, during the time of the crippling US-approved UN sanctions against Iraq that led to million of deaths of Iraqis, at least half of them children, Saddam had switched from pricing oil from dollars to euros. As the article The War To Save The U.S. Dollar explains: 'The Americans could live with Saddam until he started selling oil for euros instead of U.S. dollars. Then the Europeans could live with him.' As the article The Iranian Threat: The Bomb or the Euro? points out, this is the real reason the US is upset with Iran . The author, Dr. Elias Akleh, states 'Iran does not pose a threat to the United State because of its nuclear projects, its WMD, or its support to 'terrorists organizations' as the American administration is claiming, but in its attempt to re-shape the global economical system by converting it from a petrodollar to a petroeuro system. Such conversion is looked upon as a flagrant declaration of economical war against the US that would flatten the revenues of the American corporations and eventually might cause an economic collapse.' Like any government program, this one is having the exact opposite effect. Because of the war in Iraq , the national debt has spiraled more out of control, causing the Fed to print more money, making each dollar worth less, causing more countries to seek alternatives to the once mighty US dollar.
The second choice of US oil hegemony is also a good one. This article Why Bush Jr. Wants War on Iraq - A Crisis Really About Saudi Arabia, and many others like it, make the case that it is all about oil. And oil is vitally important to the US and all modern industrial civilization. It is much more than just about gas and fuel for vehicles. Oil is critical for lubricating machinery, modern synthetic materials, agriculture, pesticides, and fertilizers. Without oil, and oil-based products, modern industrial civilization cannot exist. So instead of encouraging development of alternatives to oil, which it seems we will have to do at some point, or paying free market prices to gain access to the oil legally, the criminals in DC came up with the idea of stealing the second largest known oil reserves in the world. They even howled how the theft of Iraqi oil would pay for the war and be a great benefit to US corporations and the average American. Like all their other madcap assertions, this one has backfired too. It seems the Iraqis would rather blow up their oil pipelines than just let the US steal their oil, and that has caused Iraq oil to disappear on the world market.
Option three is US military hegemony. Again we find this is a very credible product of US policy. With reports of building 14 enduring bases in Iraq, it only confirms that this is true. It seems the Saudis were anxious to get rid of us, where we were unwelcome guests, so the brains of the neo-CONs decided to invade Iraq , where we would be hated occupiers. Unlike how the neo-crazies said the US troops would be greeted with flowers and candy and welcomed as liberators, US troops have been greeted with RPGs and IEDs and treated as hated enemies. Instead of projecting US military strength, the Iraq quagmire has exposed the US military's weakness, where a ragtag band of freedom fighters equipped with low tech weapons have effectively stalemated the high tech, multibillion dollar US military. Add in the effect of war crimes committed by the US military, with the slaughter, torture, and rape of innocent civilians, allowing for the increased recruitment in terrorists and hatred of America , and one sees that this is just another massive government boondoggle of disastrous proportions.
The fourth option is US client state Israel hegemony. Probably the only point of contention with this choice is whether Zionist Israel is the client state of the US or the US is the client state of Zionist Israel. It is probably one of the worst kept secrets that the Iraq war was fought to protect Israel's interests. And what are the benefits to Americans? This article entitled This War Is Being Fought For Israel! makes this interesting observation: 'Further aid [to Israel] will only lead to yet even more taxation of the American people, and an attack on Iraq will incite intense hatred throughout the Middle East against Americans and U.S. interests, and likely to an even more massive retaliation than September 11th. With friends like this, who needs enemies?' The problem with Zionist Israel is their inhumane, racist treatment of the Palestinians, which is exacerbated by the illegal US funding and backing of the Zionists' cruel treatment of the Palestinians. Until the Zionists find an equitable settlement to this self-inflicted problem, they are always going to be abhorrent and scorned by the majority of humanity, not just by Arabs. The result of the Iraq war for Israel 's interests seems to be another massive blunder by the Zionists and their neo-CON buddies, as Iran seems to have been strengthened by the war, while Israel and the US were both weakened.
So this brings us to the all the above option. While it is a good one, and it is true that all the preceding were reasons for the US invasion of Iraq , I'm going to skip it, and choose the last option, none of the above. So what was the real reason the US attacked Iraq ? The real reason the US invaded Iraq was because the US leaders knew they could get away with it. They knew they could lie and deceive, and have their lies regurgitated by compliant media whores, and that most Americans would unquestioningly believe them. They knew that Americans would rather have their sons and daughters die, than to see their patriotism questioned. The leaders knew that even if their lies and deceptions were exposed, most Americans would still believe the lies and deceptions, and look to them to lead them. They knew they would never be held accountable by citizens who lacked the willpower to think for themselves and take individual responsibility for their lives. Just as the 'good Germans' blindly followed the Nazis to their own destruction, so today the 'good Americans' are racing along the highway to Hell, led by their leaders they so mechanically respond to and adore.
Just as America 's leaders claimed they believed the drunken, crazy ranting of a pathological liar, so too Americans claim they believe the fanatical ravings of the congenital liars of the state. Americans need to wake up, realize that the state is just the biggest criminal Ponzi scheme in history, and that you cannot continue to live a lie indefinitely. For most Americans, this day appears to be fast approaching.
The real lesson of why the US attacked Iraq is massive government incompetence and criminal malfeasance allowed by a people who were totally gullible and ignorant to stop it. Americans should realize that the US government is their own worst enemy, and their political leaders are incompetent at best and wholly criminal at worst. It is not just a case of Republicans versus Democrats, liberals versus conservatives, as all have contributed to the downfall of America . There is no simple solution of just getting the right people elected, as the whole system is rotten at its core. The only way to avoid the catastrophe of war is if each person accepts that no person, or group of persons, even if they call themselves politicians and leaders, may use their freedom to violate the freedom of another person. People must accept that it is wrong to kill innocent foreigners, to destroy their property, and that killing and stealing for the state is just as wrong as an individual killing and stealing. It is not patriotic to follow the criminal dictates of parasitic leaders who use blind obedience to violate the rights of others. The only hope for America is that her people will lose their collectivist herd mentality inculcated by the state and its indoctrination centers, reject the state and its minions as the slavers of humanity they are, and accept individualism and the responsibility to direct their own life in voluntary cooperation, association, and trade.