Brief History - Illegal Iraq War 2003

ILLEGAL IRAQ WAR 2003 Jean B Lynch Book:  "France in Focus:  Immigration Policies, Foreign Policy & US Relations" Summary [all info contained is from above book online preview] Jean B Lynch Book:  France in Focus:  Immigration Policies, Foreign Policy & US Relations Info is from above source, but some of my own words in here (rather than direct extracts).   Lynch informs us that in the 1990s French govt began distancing from US policy in Iraq, when US & British capitalist serving governments began using military force on Iraq state (Saddam Hussein govt) to force compliance with 1991 Gulf War settlement. France and other governments sought to lift international sanctions on Iraq, due to the 'deterioration of living conditions' imposed on the Iraqi inhabitants.   Comment:  judging from the above interview of Madeleine Albright in 60 Minutes (an insert / not from book), the US-led economic sanctions were more than a 'deterioration' in conditions:  the sanctions were lethal. Jean B Lynch reports that the Clinton administration and the Bush administration were strongly opposed to lifting of international sanctions. 2002 France eventual backed US goal to reinstate UN weapons inspections and UN Resolution 1441 mandated Iraqi compliance with weapons inspections. By early 2003, the Bush administration was making allegations of Iraq concealing weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in 'material breach' of UN Resolution 1441, Lynch reports, giving the US (and their British capitalist allies) the 'justification' to use military force. Meanwhile, the French government and the Germans argued that Iraq was not in 'material breach' of UN Resolution 1441. French preferred an inspections regime, which they saw as sufficient to 'constrain' the Saddam Hussein government.  But, privately, some French officials were backing the US-Anglo capitalist pretext that Iraq was concealing WMD, Lynch indicates (minus the bit about US-Anglo capitalists). US-French discord re Iraq early 2003.  US admin called for regime change in Iraq, going beyond the UN Resolution 1441. Judging by the Lynch reference to democracy etc:  the US administration used the 'spreading democracy' pretext, which the Americans used in a series of hostile attacks on Middle Eastern states. France and other governments, Lynch indicates, objected to these added regime change objectives, on the basis that 'sustainable reforms' could not be imposed by the west on Iraq and in other states. US admin then had NATO provide Turkey with what it referred to as 'defensive systems' (but, I'm guessing these are really offensive equipment of war) and pulled US Balkan forces, replacing them with NATO member forces, freeing the US forces for conflict with Iraq. The following objected in NAC (North Atlantic Council), which is described by Lynch as NATO's supreme political body: France Germany Belgium on the basis that granting the request (to militarise Turkey?) would: de facto acknowledge Iraq had impeded UN weapons inspections (which was not proven) AND THAT IT WOULD BE PRETEXT FOR WAR according to Lynch. Outcome:  German and Belgian governments relent; France defers the aid to Turkey decision to another NATO body in which France is not a member, which results (late Feb 2003) in a decision to provide 'defensive assistance' (comment:  ie military capabilities) to Turkey, according to Lynch. The consequence was US criticism of France (and several other allies), who deemed (comment:  what is ostensibly) the anti-war France and Germany as the 'old Europe' and the pro-war Europe as 'new' Europe (Sec. of Defence Donald Rumsfeld), according to Lynch. Germany & France refuse to back US admin draft UN resolution authorising military force against Iraq.  France and Russia each hold a veto and threaten to use same if draft resolution submitted, Lynch reports. March 2003, Bush admin (comment:  backed by its British capitalist illegal Iraq war co-conspirators, under Labour PM Tony Blair), decide to go to war in Iraq without passing of the proposed UN resolution.  Opposed to this were:  France, Germany, Turkey (indirectly). The war hawks were:  Britain, Italy, Poland, Spain. April 2003 Iraq was [comment:  illegally] invaded by US and British forces. US, who illegally invaded and pillaged Iraq, sought almost complete forgiveness of Iraq foreign debt.  Two principal governments to whom Iraq was indebted to were:  France and Germany. Germany wrote off 80% of Iraq foreign debt, in excess of the 50% write-off that France had backed, due to Iraq's enormous potential for wealth from petroleum resources (and that other, poorer, nations would have benefited more from debt reduction), Lynch reports. As at the publication of the John B. Lynch book, the following was owed to capitalist Western states by Iraq: - USA, $2 billion - Germany, $2.4 billion - France, $3 billion French refused to take part in the US-led multinational occupation forces in Iraq as France did not approve of the basis on which the US launched war on Iraq from and did not wish to be associated with the occupation of Iraq; however, it France offered to train Iraqi police in France, according to Jean B. Lynch. http://www.abebooks.fr/France-Focus-Immigration-Policies-Foreign-Policy/1345667841/bd COMMENT Anyone who believes that the capitalists of (occupied) Germany and of France were seriously opposed to illegal invasion and war on Iraq is a moron. The bet is that this was just for show, so as not to alienate their large Muslim populations and their various Arab trading partners and weapons customers or their strong unions and leftist 'peacenik' voters (but the Gulf Arab Wahhabi pals would have been good for an Iraqi invasion, so it certainly wouldn't have upset them). French, German and US capitalists were owed billions by Iraq (in that order).  So French and German capitalists would have more interest in Iraq and more reason to want control of Iraq, or at the very least, interests in common with the US. Turkey would have also been protesting for show. Turkey is going fundamentalist/Wahhabi and it would have been opposed to the secular socialist Iraq government, is my guess. Plus, it's in the Gulf Oil Wahhabi camp that wants to bring down Syria and would be therefore opposed to Iran (and associated), so an attack on Iraq would have probably been fine with Turkey (must do some more reading ... I'm really slack). " ... Iraq was a resource grab targeting Iraq’s oil, as well as a money making exercise for mercenary companies, arms manufacturers, mega-corporations like Halliburton and its subsidiaries, and the banking cartels, Syria is different. Syria produces oil, yes, but nowhere near the scale that Iraq does. Syria’s closeness with Iran and Lebanon’s Hezbollah will obviously stand out as a reason why the US, Israel, the EU, and the GCC want Assad’s government gone. But factoring in the Ba’ath Party’s three objectives of secularism, socialism, and pan-Arab unification, we see more ideological reasons, as well as the motivation for the militias operating under the Al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood umbrellas." Jason Langley The forgiveness of national debt is something I don't fully understand, but I expect it is for an interest in the resources in the country, which they will exploit in future. Why were the Italy, Spain and Poland capitalist representing governments so keen on an Iraq invasion?  The Italian and Spanish capitalist are imperialists from way back, but how does cucked Poland fit into this, I wonder?  Poland's been a poodle from way back in history, so maybe it's just more of the same poodling for capitalism? Why are the Belgians backing the US?  Whatever happened to 'neutral' little Belgium?   Belgium needs some street rioting ... LOL "Belgian Congo is often cited as one of the most brutal and exploitative colonial regimes in modern history" (Study.com).  Belgum maintained x3 colonies:  Belgian Congo (DR Congo), Ruanda-Urundi & some portion of China.  Of the Belgian empire, about 98% was just one colony:  the Congo.  Considered as personal property of King Leopold II.  Belgian colonisation supported by Western countries as Belgium was seen as a 'useful buffer' between colonial powers in Africa [wikipedia].  Congo yielded:  ivory, rubber.  Belgium appears to have had extensive attempts to colonise (or uninitiated plans to colonise) various locations across Africa, South America, Central America, Caribbbean, North America, Asia, Oceania and even in Europe. All this colonialism and capitalism primarily benefits the capitalist elites, while the European masses get ripped off ... and flooded with invaders from capitalist colonial outposts.  Not much of a deal for the European working class.