On Thu, 20 Mar 2003 04:36 pm, kirk wrote: > My gut feel is in the US it will hit the fan this summer. Saddam probably > will be a quick victory but I think a backlash will come some months later. > > Hope I am wrong.
this came accross my desk from another list... quoted lock stock and barrel of oil... first time I have read something that vaguely ties together... Not saying it is right, because all conspiracy theories look right from a certain angle... but hopefully it will raise more questions than it answers... or do ean that the other way around... > IT'S NOT ABOUT OIL OR IRAQ. > IT'S ABOUT THE US AND EUROPE > GOING HEAD-TO-HEAD ON WORLD ECONOMIC DOMINANCE. > By Geoffrey Heard > Melbourne, Australia > > Summary: Why is George Bush so hell bent on war with Iraq? Why does > his administration reject every positive Iraqi move? It all makes > sense when you consider the economic implications for the USA of not > going to war with Iraq. The war in Iraq is actually the US and Europe > going head to head on economic leadership of the world. > > America's Bush administration has been caught in outright lies, gross > exaggerations and incredible inaccuracies as it trotted out its > litany of paper thin excuses for making war on Iraq. Along with its > two supporters, Britain and Australia, it has shifted its ground and > reversed its position with a barefaced contempt for its audience. It > has manipulated information, deceived by commission and omission and > frantically "bought" UN votes with billion dollar bribes. > > Faced with the failure of gaining UN Security Council support for > invading Iraq, the USA has threatened to invade without > authorisation. It would act in breach of the UN's very constitution > to allegedly enforced UN resolutions. > > It is plain bizarre. Where does this desperation for war come from? > > There are many things driving President Bush and his administration > to invade Iraq, unseat Saddam Hussein and take over the country. But > the biggest one is hidden and very, very simple. It is about the > currency used to trade oil and consequently, who will dominate the > world economically, in the foreseeable future -- the USA or the > European Union. > > Iraq is a European Union beachhead in that confrontation. America had > a monopoly on the oil trade, with the US dollar being the fiat > currency, but Iraq broke ranks in 1999, started to trade oil in the > EU's euros, and profited. If America invades Iraq and takes over, it > will hurl the EU and its euro back into the sea and make America's > position as the dominant economic power in the world all but > impregnable. > > It is the biggest grab for world power in modern times. > > America's allies in the invasion, Britain and Australia, are betting > America will win and that they will get some trickle-down benefits > for jumping on to the US bandwagon. > > France and Germany are the spearhead of the European force -- Russia > would like to go European but possibly can still be bought off. > > Presumably, China would like to see the Europeans build a share of > international trade currency ownership at this point while it > continues to grow its international trading presence to the point > where it, too, can share the leadership rewards. > > DEBATE BUILDING ON THE INTERNET > > Oddly, little or nothing is appearing in the general media about this > issue, although key people are becoming aware of it -- note the > recent slide in the value of the US dollar. Are traders afraid of > war? They are more likely to be afraid there will not be war. > > But despite the silence in the general media, a major world > discussion is developing around this issue, particularly on the > internet. Among the many articles: Henry Liu, in the 'Asia Times' > last June, it has been a hot topic on the Feasta forum, an > Irish-based group exploring sustainable economics, and W. Clark's > "The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War with Iraq: A Macroeconomic and > Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth" has been published by > the 'Sierra Times', 'Indymedia.org', and 'ratical.org'. > > This debate is not about whether America would suffer from losing the > US dollar monopoly on oil trading -- that is a given -- rather it is > about exactly how hard the USA would be hit. The smart money seems to > be saying the impact would be in the range from severe to > catastrophic. The USA could collapse economically. > > OIL DOLLARS > > The key to it all is the fiat currency for trading oil. > > Under an OPEC agreement, all oil has been traded in US dollars since > 1971 (after the dropping of the gold standard) which makes the US > dollar the de facto major international trading currency. If other > nations have to hoard dollars to buy oil, then they want to use that > hoard for other trading too. This fact gives America a huge trading > advantage and helps make it the dominant economy in the world. > > As an economic bloc, the European Union is the only challenger to the > USA's economic position, and it created the euro to challenge the > dollar in international markets. However, the EU is not yet united > behind the euro -- there is a lot of jingoistic national politics > involved, not least in Britain -- and in any case, so long as nations > throughout the world must hoard dollars to buy oil, the euro can make > only very limited inroads into the dollar's dominance. > > In 1999, Iraq, with the world's second largest oil reserves, switched > to trading its oil in euros. American analysts fell about laughing; > Iraq had just made a mistake that was going to beggar the nation. But > two years on, alarm bells were sounding; the euro was rising against > the dollar, Iraq had given itself a huge economic free kick by > switching. > > Iran started thinking about switching too; Venezuela, the 4th largest > oil producer, began looking at it and has been cutting out the dollar > by bartering oil with several nations including America's bete noir, > Cuba. Russia is seeking to ramp up oil production with Europe > (trading in euros) an obvious market. > > The greenback's grip on oil trading and consequently on world trade > in general, was under serious threat. If America did not stamp on > this immediately, this economic brushfire could rapidly be fanned > into a wildfire capable of consuming the US's economy and its > dominance of world trade. > > HOW DOES THE US GET ITS DOLLAR ADVANTAGE? > > Imagine this: you are deep in debt but every day you write cheques > for millions of dollars you don't have -- another luxury car, a > holiday home at the beach, the world trip of a lifetime. > > Your cheques should be worthless but they keep buying stuff because > those cheques you write never reach the bank! You have an agreement > with the owners of one thing everyone wants, call it petrol/gas, that > they will accept only your cheques as payment. This means everyone > must hoard your cheques so they can buy petrol/gas. Since they have > to keep a stock of your cheques, they use them to buy other stuff > too. You write a cheque to buy a TV, the TV shop owner swaps your > cheque for petrol/gas, that seller buys some vegetables at the fruit > shop, the fruiterer passes it on to buy bread, the baker buys some > flour with it, and on it goes, round and round -- but never back to > the bank. > > You have a debt on your books, but so long as your cheque never > reaches the bank, you don't have to pay. In effect, you have received > your TV free. > > This is the position the USA has enjoyed for 30 years -- it has been > getting a free world trade ride for all that time. It has been > receiving a huge subsidy from everyone else in the world. As it debt > has been growing, it has printed more money (written more cheques) to > keep trading. No wonder it is an economic powerhouse! > > Then one day, one petrol seller says he is going to accept another > person's cheques, a couple of others think that might be a good idea. > If this spreads, people are going to stop hoarding your cheques and > they will come flying home to the bank. Since you don't have enough > in the bank to cover all the cheques, very nasty stuff is going to > hit the fan! > > But you are big, tough and very aggressive. You don't scare the other > guy who can write cheques, he's pretty big too, but given a > 'legitimate' excuse, you can beat the tripes out of the lone gas > seller and scare him and his mates into submission. > > And that, in a nutshell, is what the USA is doing right now with Iraq. > > AMERICA'S PRECARIOUS ECONOMIC POSITION > > America is so eager to attack Iraq now because of the speed with > which the euro fire could spread. If Iran, Venezuela and Russia join > Iraq and sell large quantities of oil for euros, the euro would have > the leverage it needs to become a powerful force in general > international trade. Other nations would have to start swapping some > of their dollars for euros. > > The dollars the USA has printed, the 'cheques' it has written, would > start to fly home, stripping away the illusion of value behind them. > The USA's real economic condition is about as bad as it could be; it > is the most debt-ridden nation on earth, owing about US$12,000 for > every single one of it's 280 million men, women and children. It is > worse than the position of Indonesia when it imploded economically a > few years ago, or more recently, that of Argentina. > > Even if OPEC did not switch to euros wholesale (and that would make a > very nice non-oil profit for the OPEC countries, including minimising > the various contrived debts America has forced on some of them), the > US's difficulties would build. Even if only a small part of the oil > trade went euro, that would do two things immediately: > > * Increase the attractiveness to EU members of joining the > 'eurozone', which in turn would make the euro stronger and make it > more attractive to oil nations as a trading currency and to other > nations as a general trading currency. > > * Start the US dollars flying home demanding value when there isn't > enough in the bank to cover them. > > * The markets would over-react as usual and in no time, the US > dollar's value would be spiralling down. > > THE US SOLUTION > > America's response to the euro threat was predictable. It has come > out fighting. > > It aims to achieve four primary things by going to war with Iraq: > > * Safeguard the American economy by returning Iraq to trading oil in > US dollars, so the greenback is once again the exclusive oil currency. > > * Send a very clear message to any other oil producers just what > will happen to them if they do not stay in the dollar circle. Iran > has already received one message -- remember how puzzled you were > that in the midst of moderation and secularization, Iran was named as > a member of the axis of evil? > > * Place the second largest reserves of oil in the world under direct > American control. > > * Provide a secular, subject state where the US can maintain a huge > force (perhaps with nominal elements from allies such as Britain and > Australia) to dominate the Middle East and its vital oil. This would > enable the US to avoid using what it sees as the unreliable Turkey, > the politically impossible Israel and surely the next state in its > sights, Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of al Qaeda and a hotbed of > anti-American sentiment. > > * Severe setback the European Union and its euro, the only trading > bloc and currency strong enough to attack the USA's dominance of > world trade through the dollar. > > * Provide cover for the US to run a covert operation to overturn the > democratically elected government of Venezuela and replace it with an > America-friendly military supported junta -- and put Venezuala's oil > into American hands. > > Locking the world back into dollar oil trading would consolidate > America's current position and make it all but impregnable as the > dominant world power -- economically and militarily. A splintered > Europe (the US is working hard to split Europe; Britain was easy, but > other Europeans have offered support in terms of UN votes) and its > euro would suffer a serious setback and might take decades to recover. > > It is the boldest grab for absolute power the world has seen in > modern times. America is hardly likely to allow the possible > slaughter of a few hundred thousand Iraqis stand between it and world > domination. > > President Bush did promise to protect the American way of life. This > is what he meant. > > JUSTIFYING WAR > > Obviously, the US could not simply invade Iraq, so it began casting > around for a 'legitimate' reason to attack. That search has been one > of increasing desperation as each rationalization has crumbled. First > Iraq was a threat because of alleged links to al Qaeda; then it was > proposed Iraq might supply al Qaeda with weapons; then Iraq's > military threat to its neighbours was raised; then the need to > deliver Iraqis from Saddam Hussein's horrendously inhumane rule; > finally there is the question of compliance with UN weapons > inspection. > > The USA's justifications for invading Iraq are looking less > impressive by the day. The US's statements that it would invade Iraq > unilaterally without UN support and in defiance of the UN make a > total nonsense of any American claim that it is concerned about the > world body's strength and standing. > > The UN weapons inspectors have come up with minimal infringements of > the UN weapons limitations -- the final one being low tech rockets > which exceed the range allowed by about 20 percent. But there is no > sign of the so-called weapons of mass destruction (WMD) the US has so > confidently asserted are to be found. Colin Powell named a certain > north Iraqi village as a threat. It was not. He later admitted it was > the wrong village. > > 'Newsweek' (24/2) has reported that while Bush officials have been > trumpeting the fact that key Iraqi defector, Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamel, > told the US in 1995 that Iraq had manufactured tonnes of nerve gas > and anthrax (Colin Powell's 5 February presentation to the UN was > just one example) they neglected to mention that Kamel had also told > the US that these weapons had been destroyed. > > Parts of the US and particularly the British secret 'evidence' have > been shown to come from a student's masters thesis. > > America's expressed concern about the Iraqi people's human rights and > the country's lack of democracy are simply not supported by the USA's > history of intervention in other states nor by its current actions. > Think Guatemala, the Congo, Chile and Nicaragua as examples of a much > larger pool of US actions to tear down legitimate, democratically > elected governments and replace them with war, disruption, > starvation, poverty, corruption, dictatorships, torture, rape and > murder for its own economic ends. The most recent, Afghanistan, is > not looking good; in fact that reinstalled a murderous group of > warlords which America had earlier installed, then deposed, in favour > of the now hated Taliban. > > Saddam Hussein was just as repressive, corrupt and murderous 15 years > ago when he used chemical weapons, supplied by the US, against the > Kurds. The current US Secretary for Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, so > vehement against Iraq now, was on hand personally to turn aside > condemnation of Iraq and blame Iran. At that time, of course, the US > thought Saddam Hussein was their man -- they were using him against > the perceived threat of Iran's Islamic fundamentalism. > > Right now, as 'The Independent' writer, Robert Fisk, has noted, the > US's efforts to buy Algeria's UN vote includes promises of re-arming > the military which has a decade long history of repression, torture, > rape and murder Saddam Hussein himself would envy. It is estimated > 200,000 people have died, and countless others been left maimed by > the activities of these monsters. What price the US's humanitarian > concerns for Iraqis? (Of course, the French are also wooing Algeria, > their former north African territory, for all they are worth, but at > least they are not pretending to be driven by humanitarian concerns.) > > Indonesia is another nation with a vote and influence as the largest > Muslim nation in the world. Its repressive, murderous military is > regaining strength on the back of the US's so-called anti-terror > campaign and is receiving promises of open and covert support -- > including intelligence sharing. > > AND VENEZUELA > > While the world's attention is focused on Iraq, America is both > openly and covertly supporting the "coup of the rich" in Venezuela, > which grabbed power briefly in April last year before being > intimidated by massive public displays of support by the poor for > democratically-elected President Chavez Frias. The coup leaders > continue to use their control of the private media, much of industry > and the ear of the American Government and its oily intimates to > cause disruption and disturbance. > > Venezuela's state-owned oil resources would make rich pickings for > American oil companies and provide the US with an important oil > source in its own backyard. > > Many writers have noted the contradiction between America's alleged > desire to establish democracy in Iraq while at the same time, > actively undermining the democratically-elected government in > Venezuela. Above the line, America rushed to recognise the coup last > April; more recently, President Bush has called for "early > elections", ignoring the fact that President Chavez Frias has won > three elections and two referendums and, in any case, early elections > would be unconstitutional. > > One element of the USA's covert action against Venezuela is the > behaviour of American transnational businesses, which have locked out > employees in support of "national strike" action. Imagine them doing > that in the USA! There is no question that a covert operation is in > process to overturn the legitimate Venezuelan government. Uruguayan > congressman, Jose Nayardi, made it public when he revealed that the > Bush administration had asked for Uruguay's support for Venezuelan > white collar executives and trade union activists "to break down > levels of intransigence within the Chavez Frias administration". The > process, he noted, was a shocking reminder of the CIA's 1973 > intervention in Chile which saw General Pinochet lead his military > coup to take over President Allende's democratically elected > government in a bloodbath. > > President Chavez Frias is desperately clinging to government, but > with the might of the USA aligned with his opponents, how long can he > last? > > THE COST OF WAR > > Some have claimed that an American invasion of Iraq would cost so > many billions of dollars that oil returns would never justify such an > action. > > But when the invasion is placed in the context of the protection of > the entire US economy for now and into the future, the balance of the > argument changes. > > Further, there are three other vital factors: > > First, America will be asking others to help pay for the war because > it is protecting their interests. Japan and Saudi Arabia made serious > contributions to the cost of the 1991 Gulf war. > > Second -- in reality, war will cost the USA very little -- or at > least, very little over and above normal expenditure. This war is > already paid for! All the munitions and equipment have been bought > and paid for. The USA would have to spend hardly a cent on new > hardware to prosecute this war -- the expenditure will come later > when munitions and equipment have to be replaced after the war. But > munitions, hardware and so on are being replaced all the time -- > contracts are out. Some contracts will simply be brought forward and > some others will be ramped up a bit, but spread over a few years, the > cost will not be great. And what is the real extra cost of an army at > war compared with maintaining the standing army around the world, > running exercises and so on? It is there, but it is a relatively > small sum. > > Third -- lots of the extra costs involved in the war are dollars > spent outside America, not least in the purchase of fuel. Guess how > America will pay for these? By printing dollars it is going to war to > protect. The same happens when production begins to replace hardware. > components, minerals, etc. are bought in with dollars that go > overseas and exploit America's trading advantage. > > The cost of war is not nearly as big as it is made out to be. The > cost of not going to war would be horrendous for the USA -- unless > there were another way of protecting the greenback's world trade > dominance. > > AMERICA'S TWO ACTIVE ALLIES > > Why are Australia and Britain supporting America in its transparent > Iraqi war ploy? > > Australia, of course, has significant US dollar reserves and trades > widely in dollars and extensively with America. A fall in the US > dollar would reduce Australia's debt, perhaps, but would do nothing > for the Australian dollar's value against other currencies. John > Howard, the Prime Minister, has long cherished the dream of a free > trade agreement with the USA in the hope that Australia can jump on > the back of the free ride America gets in trade through the dollar's > position as the major trading medium. That would look much less > attractive if the euro took over a significant part of the oil trade. > > Britain has yet to adopt the euro. If the US takes over Iraq and > blocks the euro's incursion into oil trading, Tony Blair will have > given his French and German counterparts a bloody nose, and gained > more room to manouevre on the issue -- perhaps years more room. > Britain would be in a position to demand a better deal from its EU > partners for entering the "eurozone" if the new currency could not > make the huge value gains guaranteed by a significant role in world > oil trading. It might even be in a position to withdraw from Europe > and link with America against continental Europe. > > On the other hand, if the US cannot maintain the oil trade dollar > monopoly, the euro will rapidly go from strength to strength, and > Britain could be left begging to be allowed into the club. > > THE OPPOSITION > > Some of the reasons for opposition to the American plan are obvious > -- America is already the strongest nation on earth and dominates > world trade through its dollar. If it had control of the Iraqi oil > and a base for its forces in the Middle East, it would not add to, > but would multiply its power. > > The oil-producing nations, particularly the Arab ones, can see the > writing on the wall and are quaking in their boots. > > France and Germany are the EU leaders with the vision of a resurgent, > united Europe taking its rightful place in the world and using its > euro currency as a world trading reserve currency and thus gaining > some of the free ride the United States enjoys now. They are the ones > who initiated the euro oil trade with Iraq. > > Russia is in deep economic trouble and knows it will get worse the > day America starts exploiting its take-over of Afghanistan by running > a pipeline southwards via Afghanistan from the giant southern Caspian > oil fields. Currently, that oil is piped northwards -- where Russia > has control. > > Russia is in the process of ramping up oil production with the > possibility of trading some of it for euros and selling some to the > US itself. Russia already has enough problems with the fact that oil > is traded in US dollars; if the US has control of Iraqi oil, it could > distort the market to Russia's enormous disadvantage. In addition, > Russia has interests in Iraqi oil; an American take over could see > them lost. Already on its knees, Russia could be beggared before a > mile of the Afghanistan pipeline is laid. > > ANOTHER SOLUTION? > > The scenario clarifies the seriousness of America's position and > explains its frantic drive for war. It also suggests that solutions > other than war are possible. > > Could America agree to share the trading goodies by allowing Europe > to have a negotiated part of it? Not very likely, but it is just > possible Europe can stare down the USA and force such an outcome. > Time will tell. What about Europe taking the statesmanlike, > humanitarian and long view, and withdrawing, leaving the oil to the > US, with appropriate safeguards for ordinary Iraqis and democracy in > Venezuela? > > Europe might then be forced to adopt a smarter approach -- perhaps > accelerating the development of alternative energy technologies which > would reduce the EU's reliance on oil for energy and produce goods it > could trade for euros -- shifting the world trade balance. > > Now that would be a very positive outcome for everyone. > > . . . . > > Geoffrey Heard is a Melbourne, Australia, writer on the environment, > sustainability and human rights. > . . . . > > Geoffrey Heard C 2003. Anyone is free to circulate this document > provided it is complete and in its current form with attribution and > no payment is asked. It is prohibited to reproduce this document or > any part of it for commercial gain without the prior permission of > the author. For such permission, contact the author at > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > SOME REFERENCES AND FURTHER INFORMATION: > > http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html > 'The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War With Iraq: A Macroeconomic and > Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth' by W. Clark, January > 2003 (revised 20 February), Independent Media Center, > www.indymedia.org > > http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=28334 > This war is about more than oil. OIL DOLLARS!!!! DOLLARS, THE EURO > AND WAR IN IRAQ. > This story is based on material posted by Richard Douthwaite on the > FEASTA list in Ireland. > > http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2002/12/1550023_comment.php#1551138 > USA intelligence agencies revealed in plot to oust Venezuela's > President > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp- > dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentI > d=A41444-2003Jan11¬Found=true > Washington Post > Split Screen In Strike-Torn Venezuela > By Mark Weisbrot Sunday, January 12, 2003; Page B04 > > http://www.atimes.com/global-econ/DD11Dj01.html > Asia Times online: Global Economy > US dollar hegemony has got to go > By Henry C K Liu > > http://www.feasta.org/energy.htm > > http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/EnemyWithin.html > The Observer > The Enemy Within > by Gore Vidal London, Sunday 27 October 2002 -- Dr Paul van den Bergen Centre for Advanced Internet Architectures caia.swin.edu.au [EMAIL PROTECTED] IM:bulwynkl2002 It's a book. Non-volatile storage media. Everyone should have one. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Your own Online Store Selling our Overstock. http://us.click.yahoo.com/rZll0B/4ftFAA/46VHAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/