the United States of America attacked Iraq not only for its oil, but also to control the flow of the valuable commodityaccording to the Malaysian National News Agency. The article goes on to say that Dyer
said the US wanted to extend its control over the world and controlling oil flow from Iraq would help achieve this aim as most of the oil produced by Iraq was not used in the US, but exported to the east, especially to China.In my view, it's not all about China. That's only half the story, if that. If the American warmongers want to prevent the oil from flowing east, what direction do they want it going? And where do they want it to end up?
"This we see as a very invisible way of making sure China can be kept in check. By 2040, the US knows China would be equal not only in economic terms but also military might. What a better way to keep the lid on China than controlling its oil," he said.
Follow the oil, friends.
"Going to war with Iraq was just a distraction from the actual intention, that is to control the entire supply of oil in the Persian Gulf," Dyer said at a session entitled "The Ultimate War Crime & How to Distract the Media".I can't argue with any of this.
"You don't need to invade a country to get oil from them. They are in the business of selling it. [...] The main aim is to get to the heart of the Persian Gulf and control the flow of oil," he added.
I also tend to see Dick Cheney as a guy who has played too much RISK. He sees a weak opponent with a handful of cards and he thinks: "Hey if I could just knock that guy out and cash in his cards I would have enough armies to take over the world!"
But this isn't a board game, and he didn't knock the other guy out. So the plan to take over the world is suffering a delay. On the other hand, Cheney's still making millions of dollars a year off the war -- an income stream that would dry up if the war ended. So he probably doesn't mind too much.
Why isn't this a crime? Why aren't they all in prison?
"The reason given for the attack or invasion is of course nonsense. It was a manufactured reasoning. As a journalist, I have friends in the American and British intelligence who can vouch for this," Dyer revealed.I can go along with Dyer and his intelligence friends on this one.
The real reason for the invasion, he claimed was a "greater power game" to impose American superiority over the world.Well, I might disagree with Dyer about China being the "real target". But he could be right. He often is. Think of a country with more than billion people, just starting to make cars...
"The real target was actually China which is expected to become a major economic player by 2040. The US wants to continue their control...they don't like to be number two or three, they don't like other positions except being number one."
He said the task of criminalising war and making it illegal was done 52 years ago with the establishment of the United Nations.The story of how the USA bullied and swindled the UN Security Council to get the resolution that they say allowed them to invade Iraq is not well known in the USA. But it is fairly common knowledge in Europe, and I can't imagine that Dyer wouldn't be aware of it.
"But now the UN has been sidelined. They do not pay heed to the UN...they can go to war but when others do that, then it's a crime and is illegal."
And guess what, USA? It's still a crime. It's still illegal. And the rest of the world has not forgotten.