Joseph A. Fry notes in Dixie Looks Abroad: The South and U.S. Foreign Relations, 1789-1973 that the US annexed Texas from Mexico to make it a slave state and put a stop to “British abolitionist designs” (56). As US officials today continue to insist about their crimes, they then maintained that the crime in question, slavery, was actually for the benefit of the victims, the slaves, not the people making millions of dollars off the crimes, which included torture (57).
However, the ultimate reason for annexing Texas was to “obtain domination of the world’s production of raw cotton.” (56)
Q: Why strive to dominate the production of cotton, at that time the most important world commodity? (Today it is oil.)
A: To place all other nations at America’s feet.
US president Tyler:
“The monopoly of the cotton plant was the great and important concern. That monopoly, now secured, places all other nations at our feet.” (Sikes and Keener, The Growth of the Nation, p. 239)
Q: How does gaining a monopoly on production of the world’s most important commodity place other nations at one’s feet?
A: By manipulating production/distribution of the commodity, the controller can inflict harm on others.
President Tyler continued:
“An embargo [on cotton] of a single year would produce in Europe a greater amount of suffering than a fifty years’ war.” (Fry, 56)
So, resource control (also known as ‘sanctions’) is a massive, massive weapon of war – a WMD of apocalyptic proportion.
Q: Why has the US been a close ally of Saudi Arabia since Saudi oil was discovered around the 1930s? (Doesn’t Saudi Arabia embody everything US officials say they hate?)
A: Same reasons the US wanted to annex Texas – to control production of the now most important global commodity, oil, and continue to bring other nations to US feet by manipulating production/distribution of the commodity or threatening to do so.
US state department, 1945: Saudi Arabia’s oil is “a stupendous source of strategic power … one of the greatest material prizes in world history” and a tool for “unilateral world domination.” The British empire has said the same. Eisenhower did, too.
So have Bush people, so have Obama people. While the general public has no idea their “leaders” spend large portions of their lives poring over where natural resources are located and how to gain control over them, the real challenge would be to find someone high in the corporate/government industry who is not involved in this.
This is why US controllers have made Saudi Arabia their close ally since the ‘30s (when the Jim Crow US was using men with guns to prevent interracial marriage, until 1965): to get their hands on the Saudi oil weapon and use it to enforce their will, as they used the Texan cotton weapon to help prevent the British from making Texas a free state.
The US did not need Saudi Arabian oil for itself – North America was actually the world’s major oil producer for decades around that time. USG people wanted control over Saudi Oil for the reasons they stated: to gain “stupendous” power and bring “all other nations” to their knees. (Yes, much like the ambitions of Sauron.)
Saudi Arabia is still that same US ally/client. In 2013, Obama sent the Saudi dictators the biggest shipment of lethal weapons the US has ever sent anyone, ever – over 60 billion dollars worth, including internationally banned cluster bombs – to help keep the dictatorship in power as it persecutes gays, journalists, women. (Not to say the US hasn’t done/isn’t doing these things.)
Here’s a list of some of the times US ally Saudi Arabia has made use of its “stupendous source of strategic power” by manipulating oil production as a weapon.
Robert Barsocchini focuses on global force dynamics and writes professionally for the film industry. He is a regular contributor to Washington’s Blog, and is published in Counter Currents, Global Research, State of Globe, Blacklisted News, LewRockwell.com, DanSanchez.me, Information Clearing House, Press TV, and other outlets. Also see: Hillary Clinton’s Record of Support for War and other Depravities. Follow Robert and UK-based colleague, Dean Robinson, on Twitter.