 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||
 |
||
 |
Political News--April & May of 06 |
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Its industrial base is so
uncompetitive that it consistently imports more than it exports; its current-account
deficit, the gap between all its current foreign earnings and foreign spending,
is now a stunning 5 per cent of GDP, continuing a trend that has
lasted for more than 25 years and which is the cause of all that foreign
debt. As a national community, it has virtually ceased to save so that government
and individuals alike live on credit. To finance the current-account
deficit, a reflection of the lack of saving, the relies on foreigners supplying
it with the foreign currency it can't earn itself. . . . "But if foreigners got windy
about the prospects for share and property prices and stopped buying, or began
to withdraw some of the trillions they have invested in the fallen nearly 10 per cent
against the euro over the last six weeks, but that could just be the beginning.
Economists at the Federal Reserve have estimated that the dollar
needs to fall by 30 per cent to bring the flow of imports and exports into
balance, but in today's markets such a fall doesn't happen gradually. It happens
precipitately. "If active opposition of key
members of the Security Council like be sure there will be a stampede
of foreigners trying to sell. Shares on Wall Street that Bush is so anxious
to prop up are still massively overvalued. Against this background,
there could be a devastating sell-off, with all the depressing knock-on consequences
for American consumer confidence and business investment. "What the markets were signaling
last week was that this is sufficiently within the bounds of possibility
that it was worth taking precautionary action, hence the selling. If the war was
over in a few weeks, the risks would be containable, and there will be some shares
well worth buying at today's prices. But if the war was prolonged or the
subsequent peace unstable, then the pressure on the dollar and Wall Street
could become very severe indeed, reinforcing the depressive influences on
an economy where the underlying imbalances are so extraordinary. "The what it likes as it likes,
a policy that is now showing its limits. Bush needs badly to change course, which Tony
Blair should be urging on him. The UN process needs to be respected and
reinforced, not least to reassure the markets, and better systems of economic
governance need to be put in place. The military capacity may allow
unilateralism; its soft economic underbelly, we are discovering, does not." [46]
These articles indicate that
many central banks are reducing their reliance on dollars, and quite possibly sending a
message about their opposition to the Mr. Hutton is correct; our
current economic structure simply cannot afford a significant divesture of foreign investments,
nor can the indebted sectors absorb such disruptions.
Although these currency movements are typically described as purely economically
derived decisions, it would be naïve to suggest that geopolitics and global tensions
have not played a role in the broad movement away from the dollar. The world has
no interest in challenging the levels, we have become quite
vulnerable from an economic perspective. . Hence, it is inadvisable for President
Bush to pursue an aggressive, unilateral application of military force without broad
U.N./international support. European Commentary on the
Essay: `The Real Reasons for the
Upcoming War With To finish, in January 2003,
Mr. Coílín Nunan reviewed a draft of my essay on an Internet forum. He subsequently
published an exceptional summary on an Irish website (www.feasta.org). Hopefully
our efforts will facilitate public awareness, and stimulate a more honest debate on the
"Oil, Currency, and the War
on "One of the stated economic
objectives, and perhaps the primary objective, when setting up the euro
was to turn it into a reserve currency to challenge the dollar so that "This however would be a
disaster for the part of their annual subsidy
of effectively free goods and services, but countries switching to euro
reserves from dollar reserves would bring down the value of the as increasing numbers of
those holding dollars began to spend them, the would have to start paying
its debts by supplying in goods and services to foreign countries, thus reducing
American living standards. As countries and businesses converted their
dollar assets into euro assets, the stock market bubbles would,
without doubt, burst. The Federal Reserve would no longer be able to print
more money to reflate the bubble, as it is currently openly considering doing,
because, without lots of eager foreigners prepared to mop them up, a serious
inflation would result which, in turn, would make foreigners even more reluctant
to hold the crisis. "There is though one major
obstacle to this happening: oil. Oil is not just by far the most important commodity
traded internationally, it is the lifeblood of all modern industrialised economies.
If you don't have oil, you have to buy it. And if you want to buy oil on
the international markets, you usually have to have dollars. Until recently all
OPEC countries agreed to sell their oil for dollars only. So long as this remained
the case, the euro was unlikely to become the major reserve currency: there is
not a lot of point in stockpiling euros if every time you need to buy oil you have
to change them into dollars. This arrangement also meant that the you could only buy oil if
you had dollars, and only one country had the right to print dollars -- the "If on the other hand OPEC
were to decide to accept euros only for its oil (assuming for a moment it
were allowed to make this decision), then American economic dominance would
be over. Not only would dollars anymore, but East would think it wise
to convert a large portion of its dollar assets to euro assets ( dollar investments). The
importer would have, to run
a trade surplus to acquire euros. The conversion from trade deficit to trade
surplus would have to be achieved at a time when its property and stock market
prices were collapsing and its domestic supplies of oil and gas were contracting.
It would be a very painful conversion. "The purely economic arguments
for OPEC converting to the euro, at least for a while, seem very strong.
The Euro-zone does not run a huge trade deficit nor is it heavily indebted to
the rest of the world like the the Euro-zone are also significantly
higher. The Euro-zone has a larger share of world trade than the nearly everything you can
buy for dollars you can also buy for euros -- apart, of course, from oil . . . "All of this is bad news
for the currency might not be right
either. Which perhaps helps explain why the increasingly turning to its
second major tool for dominating world affairs: military force." [47] Saving the American Experiment
(March 10, 2003) Considering the core economic
challenges that our nation faces, and the deplorable oil currency war that I fear
we are about to witness in global monetary system be
reformed without delay. This would include the dollar and euro designated as equal
international reserve currencies, and placed within an exchange band along with a dual-OPEC
oil transaction currency standard. Additionally, the G7 nations should also explore
a third reserve currency option regarding a yen/yuan bloc for oil/energy, and project a
global military force, but they could improve the quality of our lives and that of our children
by reducing animosity towards the government to pursue more
fiscally responsible polices. Given that 95% of the world's
transportation system is dependent on depleting hydrocarbons, the urgency
in which we must pursue new and alternative methods of energy production cannot
be overstated. Indeed, it is plausible that if the effectively advocates energy
reform regarding our own consumption levels, we as a nation could simultaneously
pursue the crucial patriotic goal of enhancing the security of our nation by becoming one
of the world's leaders in developing and implementing alternative energy sources.
This is the missed opportunity that real have provided in the aftermath
of 9/11. We could have received an inspiring call to duty, challenging our nation to
"go to the moon" by the end of this decade regarding energy policy, but instead the message
was: "Unite. Go shopping, and don't be afraid to fly." Failing to rally the citizenry
for truly patriotic purposes to strengthen our nation was perhaps one of the greatest
missed opportunities since the end of the Cold War. We need a real National Energy
Policy instead of an "endless war on terrorism." Today's "blowback" is partly due
to our ongoing support of corrupt regimes/dictatorships. [48]
Creating a more equitable global monetary system while maintaining a strong transatlantic
relationship with security interest of the
U.S. Hopefully monetary and energy reform could mitigate future armed or economic warfare
over oil, thus ultimately fostering a more stable, safer, and prosperous 21st century.
Tragically, President Bush's
administration does not appear willing to initiate the arduous structural changes
that our economy must undertake if we are to adapt and accommodate the euro as the
second World reserve currency. Furthermore, this administration has not communicated
to the People the urgent need for energy reform. Instead, they intend to enforce
global dollar monopoly for oil transactions via the application of superior an effort to illustrate that
such a military-centric geostrategy for Empire has produced international isolation of
the firmly believe our nation
will be better prepared to meet this decade's challenges if the citizenry is cognizant of
why the worldview is coalescing against the nation is attempting by force
to secure and install a permanent allow the militant imperialism
of this administration to bring down the American Experiment. "Of all the enemies to public
liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and
develops the germ of every other . . . No nation could preserve its freedom
in the midst of continual warfare." -- James Madison *************************
References: Addendum Section
44. Associated Press, "US
Dollar on Shaky Ground," 45. McCarthy, Grainne "Dollar's
Decline Starting To Accelerate, Rattling Nerves," Dow Jones Newswire, 46. Hutton, Will, "Why Bush
is sunk without 47. Nunan, Coílín, "Oil,
Currency, and the War on 48. Johnson, Chalmers, Blowback;
The Cost and Consequences of American Empire, Owl Books (2003) Post-War Commentary ( "Hussein has not developed
any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is
unable to project conventional power against his neighbors." --Colin Powell on "Our conservative estimate
is that and 500 tons of chemical
weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets. Even
the low end of 100 tons of agent would enable Saddam Hussein to cause mass
casualties across more than 100 square miles of territory, an area
nearly five times the size of --Colin Powell at the UN
on "Simply stated, there is
no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction," --Dick Cheney on "Intelligence leaves no doubt
that weapons." --George W. Bush on "We are asked to accept Saddam
decided to destroy those weapons. I say that such a claim is palpably
absurd." --Tony Blair on "Why of course the people
don't want war. . . . That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of
the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the
people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, a parliament
or a communist dictatorship . . . the people can always be brought to the
bidding of the leaders. . . . All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked,
and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country
to greater danger. --Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshal
and Luftwaffe chief at From the Hermann Goering remain effective.
It is deplorable that even in the can always be "brought to
the bidding of the leaders." It is New Years Day, almost nine months since the invasion
of they were misled about this
war. Many books will be written about how these events unfolded, so I will only
briefly summarize my general observations in a few opening paragraphs, and then return
to the basic underlying Geostrategic and macroeconomic reasons for the ideologues and an Iraqi exile
provided most of the fraudulent "intelligence data" that was publicized by the Executive
Branch. This disinformation was apparent before the war, but now it is simply
irrefutable. A brief synopsis of events follows. Apparently in 2001-2002 the
DIA and CIA were not giving Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld intelligence information
that would justify a was well known to our intelligence
agencies that as 1998 it was understood
that Saddam had no ties to Al Qaeda. [49] To date, no professionals in the CIA,
DIA, MI5 or MI6 have provided reliable evidence linking Saddam Hussein to bin Laden,
Al Qaeda or to the September 11th attacks. [50] Undeterred, Donald Rumsfeld
set up his own secretive and rather autonomous unnamed intelligence unit referred
to simply as the "cell." This small group later merged into his other small "intelligence
unit" called the Office of Special Plans (OSP). The purpose of these "intelligence
units" was to bypass the CIA and DIA, and to provide "faith-based intelligence"
to Vice President Cheney and President Bush. The OSP's sole purpose was to promote the
the "cabal". [51] The following
is a slightly modified chart from the February 2004 edition of Mother Jones.
[52] It is now obvious the main
rationales for the unprecedented government
conspiracy perpetrated by a small number of radical neoconservatives in the OSP,
plus Iraqi exiles in the INC. In essence, the justification for invading of designed to create the requisite
societal fear for an invasion. I suspect the OSP "cabal" will go down in history as
the `Office of Special Propaganda.' It is disconcerting that 19 men were able to instill
massive levels of irrational fear into the citizenry by creating visions of "mushroom clouds"
and "1000 metric tons" of Anthrax. Of course our elitist, corporate-controlled
media dutifully repeated all this propaganda verbatim. Indeed, the 2002-2003
propaganda campaign by the OSP and the Bush administration was designed
to portray an "imminent threat" to regardless of the facts.
According to former intelligence professionals, members of the OSP are dangerous ideologues.
The following is a review of the findings regarding the search for WMD, as of October
2003: [53] Claims about Iraqi WMD vs.
Actual Facts Precursor Chemicals: 3,307
tons Found: None Tabun, nerve agent Found:
None Mustard agent Found: None
Sarin, nerve agent Found:
None VX nerve agent, 1.6 tons
Found: None Anthrax spores raw material:
25,550 liters Found: None Botulinnum toxin Found: One
vial of Sarin B, 10 years old, in an Iraqi scientist's
domestic refrigerator Alfotoxins Found: None Ricin Found: None Mobile bio-weapons laboratories:
possibly 18 Found: Two suspected mobile labs found to be harmless,
possibly purchased from the
hydrogen balloon labs for
artillery aiming purposes
Bombs, rockets, and shells
for poison, gas: up to 30,000 shells
Found: None L-29 unmanned aerial vehicles
for delivering biological and chemical weapons
Found: None Nuclear weapons material Found: None (corroded parts from a single 12-year old
centrifuge buried under a
rose bush in the back yard of
a former Iraqi scientist) Al Hussein surface-to-surface
missile with 410 mile/650 kilometer range,
up to 20 Found: None With their mission accomplished,
Donald Rumsfeld disbanded the OSP in September 2003. Despite the so-called
Congressional investigation into "intelligence failures" regarding and related activities. It
is highly doubtful Congress will expose the truth in the near future, as it would make
Richard Nixon's "dirty tricks" and the Watergate scandal simply pale in comparison. Indeed,
if Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, or George Washington were alive today, they would
probably demand these nineteen men be immediately charged with high crimes
and treason. As I noted a year ago, it
would seem more likely that Al Qaeda will search within the former states of the administration froze funding
for the Russian non-proliferation WMD destruction program, but now have unfrozen
funding. [49] According to retired 27-year
veteran of the CIA, Ray McGovern, there is an "incredible amount of unease and disarray"
between the neoconservatives and professionals. [54] Aside
from the apparently politically motivated
"outing" of Valerie Plume, a covert CIA agent whose expertise was in the field
of reducing the proliferation of the WMD. Such irresponsible behavior, possibly emanating
from the Executive branch of our government, needlessly jeopardizes the national
security of the Regarding the post-war situation
in deteriorating situation.
Despite the ongoing resistance in the form of guerilla warfare and almost daily deaths of Geostrategic goals. On Council Resolution 1483,
proposing to drop all sanctions against U.S./U.K. to completely control
UN resolution was passed
on resolutions from 1990, the
sanctions could not to be lifted until the U.N. certifies being free of WMD. Interestingly,
the Bush administration blocked Dr. Blix and all of the U.N. inspectors from
returning to the UN sanctions lifted regardless
of Neoconservative Geostrategy
is based upon the idea of a therefore it could not be
tolerated for any nations, be it control over 40 billion barrels
of Iraqi oil, or for that oil be sold in the euro currency. (This assumes would have gained legal exploration
access to 35% of had Dr. Blix and the U.N.
inspectors been allowed to complete their `pre-war' inspection process for an estimated
6 more months in 2003, they could have ultimately determined In that scenario, the lease
contracts and oil exploration rights that the Russians, French and Chinese held regarding
lifting the UN sanctions
would have allowed foreign investment to begin rebuilding and exporting Iraqi's vast reserves,
while simultaneously impeding the ability of major US/UK oil companies to gain
access to Iraqi oil given Saddam's dislike of the US/UK post-1991 foreign policies
towards Returning to the core macroeconomic
reasons for the under the UN's `oil for food'
program, the U.N. provided oversight of which in 2000 became denominated
in euros, and then deposited into a French bank. The passage of UN resolution
1483 effectively ended French involvement with Iraqi oil via the UN `oil for food'
program. Incidentally, the various contracts that Saddam Hussein signed during the
1990's regarding oil exploration leases with and industrialized nations, and
with the imminent global Peak Oil phenomenon, the government is using the military
to insure of the always end with military
overextension and subsequent economic decline. On the autumn of 2000 that addressed
some of the issues regarding Iraqi oil exports in the euro. Apparently until the
U.N. sanctions were lifted; control in the "oil for food"
program. However, UN Resolution 1483 passed on May 22, 2003 establishing a joint
US/UK administered "Iraqi Assistance Fund" which provided the mechanism to quietly
and legally reconvert Iraqi's oil exports back to the dollar. To reiterate, the following
excerpts from this forthright msnbc.com article is the only mainstream war and the underlying petrodollar
versus petroeuro issues. It was entitled "In Round 2, It's the Dollar versus the
Euro" (implying the A new world is being created.
Ironically, the most troublesome clash of civilizations in it may not
be the one the academics expected: not Islamic fundamentalists vs. the West
in the first instance, but the To oversimplify, but only
slightly, it's the dollar vs. the euro. . . . The Europeans and the
United Nations want the inspections regime to resume because as long as
it is in place, the U.N. "oil-for-food" program remains in effect. Not only
does deposits and its companies
have been involved in the oil sales-the entire EU does as well, if for no other
reason than many of the recent sales were counted not in dollars but
in euros. The United Nations benefits because it has collected more than a billion
dollars in fees for administering the program. As long as the 1990 sanctions
remain in effect, world market. At least, to
this point, tankers won't load it without U.N. permission, because they
can't get insurance for doing so. Sometime in the next few
weeks, push will come to shove. There are storage tanks full of Iraqi crude
waiting in Turkish ports. For now, Rumsfeld and Powell are playing "bad cop, bad
cop." "This isn't on the president's radar screen right now," an aide told me. "Powell
is totally on board, though. He is as angry at the French as anyone else, maybe
more. There may come a time when the smart thing to do is turn the whole
time." Meanwhile, if the
rest of the world tries to block any and all it's possible that American
companies will find a way to become the customer of first and last resort.
And we'll pay in dollars.
[55] Although the author addressed
this subject somewhat obliquely, his final sentence is quite candid. Indeed, my
original hypothesis from December 2002 was reinforced in a Financial Times article dated
the international markets
were once again denominated in U.S. dollars, not euros. Not surprisingly, this detail
was never mentioned in our imperialist, corporate-controlled US media, but confirmation of
this fact provides insight into one of the crucial -- yet overlooked -- rationales
for the "The tender, for which bids
are due by June 10, switches the transaction back to dollars -- the international
currency of oil sales -- despite the greenback's recent fall in value. Saddam
Hussein in 2000 insisted euros, a political move,
but one that improved the rise in the value of
the euro against the dollar." [56] Additionally, one notable
post-war realization is the dollar's new role in 2003 it was reported that
US dollars are being flown into civil servants $20 per week
as a "temporary" measure. [57] Ironically, some Iraqis were returning to a newly appreciating
Iraq Dinar or supposedly dead "Saddam Dinar" -- instead of U.S. dollars.
[58] Given the lack of WMD in
11th attacks, and the lack
of any proof that Saddam had worked with the Al Qaeda terrorist organization, the
Bush administration is trying to switch the rational of the war to "spreading democracy."
Again, the facts on the ground do not support this assertion. In June 2003 Paul
Bremer unilaterally canceled the request from the Iraqis to hold local elections. [59]
Not surprisingly, this administration has also discussed disbanding the Coalition
Provisional Authority (CPA). In the harsh reality of oil and geostrategy, the US probably
does not want a real democracy in Iraq for the same reasons that the CIA and
British overthrew Iran's fledgling democracy in 1953. In order to understand why the U.S.
does not promote democracies in the oil producing states of the Persian Gulf, I recommend
that others read All the Shah's Men by Stephen Kinzer. [60] There are lessons
to learn from what happened in Iran fifty years ago. At the time, Prime Minister
Mohammed Mossadegh, a nationalist and anti-communist, and requested that the British
allow He felt British resisted, and Mossadegh
made a decision that was beneficial to British. After the British
refused to share with Dr. Mossadegh made the unfortunate
mistake of nationalizing time the Anglo-Iranian oil
company (later to become BP) was reaping 88% of the profits from the profits after he nationalized
freezing was illegal. This was a dubious
claim over his case in front of the
United Nations and won. Undeterred, Winston Churchill asked President Truman to help
overthrow Mossadegh, but Truman declined. However, in 1953 incoming
President Eisenhower did agree to the coup, and the CIA successfully overthrew Prime
Minister Mossadegh in August 1953. The US/UK then installed Mohammed Shah,
who later became despised as a US-puppet, and whose brutal SAVAK secret police
force ultimately radicalized Iranian society. This "blowback" resulted in the
Iranian Revolution of 1979. It is interesting to note that current Islamic mullahs in
Iran do not speak with reverence about Dr. Mossadegh (who was a secular leader), but
apparently the Iranian people fondly remember his secular government. Below is an excerpt
from All the Shah's Men. "Why did you Americans do
that terrible thing?" a relative of Mossadegh demands of Kinzer. "We always
loved country, the perfect country,
the country that helped us while other countries were exploiting us. But after
that moment, no one in United States again. I can
tell you for sure that if you had not done that thing, you would never have had
that problem of hostages being taken in your embassy in it?" [60] As evidenced by Stephen Kinzer's
interviews with various Iranians, it is clear the Iranian people were quite pro-US
before we intervened and overthrew their democracy. Regrettably, many Iranians
have not forgiven us for what we did to them 50 years ago. Ironically, democracy. Perhaps if our
government leaves peaceful resolution to the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Iranian people might eventually revise their Constitution.
Reforming their government to reflect a more democratic and secular nation is plausible
given the large and youthful Iranian population who embraces a more open society. In the
meantime, we should attempt to build confidence by providing diplomatic engagement,
and assistance as needed, such as offering humanitarian aid in the aftermath
of the earthquake that struck Undoubtedly, President Bush's
declaration that US-Iran relationship, and
thus has allowed the E.U. to establish enhanced trade relationships with would be completely unilateral,
and even the against the Saddam's capture, making
the "installment" of democracy even more unrealistic. I suspect a real democracy
in effort to keep the critical
oil profits within the country, thereby greatly facilitating the rapid rebuilding of Iraq
society (infrastructure, healthcare, education, etc.) Obviously re-nationalizing
Iraq's oil industry is not something the Bush administration and its major campaign contributors
are interested in pursuing. The Iraq war was over power, and UN Resolution
1483 insured U.S./U.K. control over Iraq's oil revenue, contrary to reports that
the Iraqi people wanted the United Nations to retain control of Iraqi's oil resources. Despite
its faults, the UN simply has more credibility in the eyes of the world community than
Paul Bremer, and that includes the Iraqi citizenry as well. On the contrary, the Bush administration's
major paymasters -- the military-oil-industrial conglomerates -- expect and
are receiving hundreds of billions of our tax dollars. (ie. nobid contracts for Halliburton
and Bechtel corporations, etc). However, there are also macroeconomic
reasons why I doubt we will see democratic rule in Iraq -- the petrodollar
versus petroeuro oil currency issue. As of December 30, 2003 the euro was worth 25%
more than the dollar ( 1.25 to $1.00). Given the EU's upcoming enlargement plans
for 2004, and the fact that following this enlargement 60% of OPEC oil will be imported
by the EU, from a purely economic perspective it makes sense for dollars. Of course the emergence
of a `petroeuro' is one of the crucial reasons why we overthrew Saddam in the first
place. Therein lies the paradox for the United States -- In a true democracy the leader
of Iraq would be expected to do what is in the best interest for the majority of Iraqi citizens,
regardless of whether they are Shi'ite, Sunni or Kurdish. At this time it would be logical
to re-nationalize Iraq's oil industry (which the Bush administration privatized
after the invasion -- but only for the "major" US and UK oil companies). Further, it would be economically
advantageous to denominate oil sales in the currency that would provide Iraq with
the most purchasing power and trade potential in which to rebuild the country -- which
given current valuations now and into the foreseeable future implies the euro. Self-determination
and democratic rule does not always fit U.S. "hegemonic interests." Much
of the current "anti-Americanism" in the Middle East is based on the hypocrisy of
our foreign policies -- we say we stand for democracy, yet we have a long history of propping
up "stable" but brutal and oppressive regimes. Examples include Iran 1953-1979, Iraq
1963-1990, Saudi Arabia 1944-present, and our overtly biased policies regarding
the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Below are excerpts from an
article on www.prudent bear.com. While this author acknowledges the issues regarding
reporting the truth is "freedom
of screech" (in reduced to "political hate
speech.") At present, we notice that
many US citizens are exercising their "freedom of screech" to politicize the
fact that the current President miss-stated the case for immediate war with "doing what was right" for
America's interests, even though the Administration could be faulted for the
"way it was done". I, for one, would not want to bring back an Arab oil embargo
and long lines at the gas pump. [62] The idea that re-denominating
oil exports in a different currency is the same as an "Arab oil embargo" is an interesting
display of flawed logic, especially from a website that promotes increased market
transparency, fiscal discipline, and is rightfully pre-occupied with the Fed's expansion
of the US money supply. Despite these flaws, the author acknowledge the key issue:
. . . the one factor underpinning
American prosperity is keeping the dollar the World Reserve Currency. This
can only be done if the oil producing states keep oil priced in dollars,
and all their currency reserves in dollar assets. If anything put the final nail
in Saddam Hussein's coffin, it was his move to start selling oil for Euros. The US is the sole super
power and we control and dictate to the Middle East oil producers. "straight line" the Governments have secrets.
If politicians always told the truth, there wouldn't be any secrets. So, if governments
are to keep secrets, how can you fault a politician for not telling
the whole truth? We would assert that the President failed to present the real
case for Iraq, which is: 1) prosperity for America based on controlling World Reserve Currency, and
2) peace and stability, which the guaranteed access to oil brings to the
world. [62] I find his statement about
the "need" for government secrets to be rather tautological, circular in logic, and certainly
not in the spirit of what the Founding Fathers stated was imperative to a functioning
democracy -- an informed citizenry. I would suggest to the author and other like-minded
individuals that our nation (including the President) owes the truth to the families
of our soldiers who have been killed or wounded, and to those who continue to fight and
die in lower tolerance threshold
for hypocrisy when it comes to life and death. In any event, the author is quite correct
that much of our prosperity has been created by artificial geopolitical arrangements,
some of which are slowly coming unglued. During the Cold War and into
the present day, the oppressive regimes in the
US dictates." We seem unable
to learn from history. Indeed, the 2003 third US-sponsored `regime
change' in must not be naïve in believing
that the Bush administration has any intent of establishing democratic rule in wishful thinking that somehow
the "installing" democracy. We
are an Empire trying to reaffirm our position as the world's only Superpower, thus altruism
is not our goal. Our goal in pliant/puppet-regime. The
facts on the ground in The transaction currency from
euros back to dollars, just as I predicted they would a year ago . . . The neoconservatives canceled
geopolitical alliances) Paul Bremer unilateral blocked
municipal elections that were to held in June 2003 (He basically implied
that the `outcome' of elections would not be preferable to the The neoconservatives threatened
the fact that Al Qaeda is
an organization financed by Saudi Arabians who promote intolerant Whabbism.
The neoconservatives have
alienated most of the world due to their unilaterism and overtly vindictive actions
regarding December 2003 Paul Wolfowitz
released a document barring non-coalition nations such in Iraqi reconstruction projects)
Simply put, we cannot win
this war from a strategic point, and we desperately need the U.N to involve itself in
they believed their mission
was to "disarm are now the targets of nationalists
Iraqis. However, because the current administration went to war without approval
of the U.N. Security Council, the US has placed the UN in the position that active
support of the United States and U.K. in Iraq would in effect legitimize the U.S. invasion.
If truth be told, numerous international lawyers have opined the US/UK led invasion
meets the definition of a "war of aggression," implying the war violated the United
Nations Charter, and was illegal. [64] Hence, the UN is now in a
very uncomfortable position. Irrefutably, unless the current US administration agrees
to relinquish some of its power in Iraq, thereby allowing the UN and world community to
participate in the rebuilding of Iraq, along with a coordinated withdrawal of
most US soldiers in exchange for international troops wearing the distinct light-blue UN
helmets, we should expect nothing but a very ugly, protracted and costly guerilla war with
Iraqi nationalists. Time is not on our side, the longer we are seen as unilateral occupiers
who have come to radicalized Iraqi society
will become. Likewise, we should also learn from our own history in Iran that despotic
US puppets often get overthrown in due time. As for the ongoing guerilla/resistance
war in Iraq, this should have been expected given Iraq's nationalistic inclinations/history.
Although most of the Iraqis are glad Saddam is gone, they will not tolerate
an extended presence of American troops in U.N. and some sort of legitimate
Iraqi governing body control these troops. The lack of UN involvement negates the
legitimacy required for the current US military presence in Iraq. US unilaterism has
produced not only a quagmire for our soldiers, but a magnet for young Islamic' jihadis.'
[65] Regarding the US military,
it was reported in the Stars and Stripes that 49% of the participants in the survey
were not going to re-enlist. [66] Morale is very low, and those whom I have spoken to no
longer believed "in their mission." Aside from the budget deficits and war related
expenses that are pushing our nation further into debt, it is becoming increasingly obvious
that we need a bigger military to fulfill the stated objectives of the neoconservative
dream of "Global Empire." After nine months in Iraq, it is clear that by the spring
of 2004 the US military will run out of fresh reserves. Other than a few nations, most
of the world community is not going to send troops into Iraq because they do not want
the neoconservatives to pursue their global Geostrategy, and it appears the UN does not want
to legitimize the concept of "preventative war" either. According to various reports,
our regular army and reserves appear very unhappy about these extended deployments
-- as it is often financially painful, sometimes destroys families, and it is difficult
to fight a war to disarm exist. [67] Obviously the
current administration would prefer to avoid any discussion of the draft until after the
2004 Elections. Nonetheless, unless in early 2004 other nations suddenly begin sending thousands
of troops into necessary -- even under a
Democratic President in 2005. Obviously the draft will be highly controversial. Indeed,
in order to successfully enact the draft; a new and ominous existential threat would
have to emerge. Given that the neoconservative conspiracy behind |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
For those who remain skeptical
that a draft is being considered, the Selective Service website provides information
suggesting the President has requested that activation of draft be available within
75 days of Congressional authorization. A careful reading suggests the Selective Service suddenly
request $29 million in order to bring the apparatus up to 90% operational
capability? [68] Undoubtedly, the requirements
for Global Empire and five more wars will require many more soldiers. The neoconservatives
have a plan for global domination, but their execution has been poor and
incredibly arrogant. It is interesting to note that in September 2003 the Directorate
for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict at the Pentagon showed the controversial
movie from the 1960s The Battle for invitation at the Pentagon
stated the following: "How to win a battle against
terrorism and lose the war of ideas. Children shoot soldiers at point-blank
range. Women plant bombs in cafes. Soon the entire Arab population builds
to a mad fervor. Sound familiar? The French have a plan. It succeeds
tactically, but fails strategically. To understand why, come to a rare showing of
this film." [69] Based on a story from the
Common Dreams website, the idea came from a civilian-led group with "responsibility
for thinking aggressively and creatively" on issues of guerrilla war. The Pentagon employee
stated, "Showing the film offers historical insight into the conduct of French operations
in discussion of the challenges
faced by the French." It should also be noted that former U.S. National Security Adviser
Zbigniew Brzezinski also recommended this same movie the following month after
the Pentagon screening. In an October 2003 speech Brzezinski stated: "If you want to understand
what's happening right now in Another issue addressed in
my original essay was the possibility of a petroeuro for oil exports.
A June 2003 article in the Hindu Business Line confirmed my earlier prediction regarding
Mohammed Jaffar Mojarrad,
Vice-Governor of the Iranian Central Bank stated for this article that of 2003. Although Iranian
oil is still priced in dollars, the payment for its oils exports to the EU is now denominated
in euros. " denominated in euros. largest oil exporter among
the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). About 30 per cent
of the markets. The other two large
consumers of Iranian Oil are Even in the case of Indian
only a small quantum of the oil imports come through the ACU mechanism.
But, he added, the switch
to the euro, which as done during the last few months had helped the country
to negate the effects of a depreciating dollar and falling international
oil prices. He said that if the country had continued its receipts in US dollars, it
would have meant large losses, which would have translated into domestic
inflation. This was because large volumes of its imports are also sourced
from avert that situation and
had consequently adopted the euro-denominated payments to ensure that the
losses were minimised. The country had also resorted to managing its
reserves to minimise the effects of the depreciating dollar, he added. [71] Given the continuing devaluation
of the dollar, pressure will build within OPEC to switch to the euro. The central
impediment to such a switch is that all three internationally traded crude
oil pricing "markers" are currently denominated in dollars (West rapid decline of oil output
from the emerge later this decade,
perhaps denominated in euros. It is also possible that during 2004-2005 OPEC could decide
to denominate oil in a "basket of currencies," which would include the euro. OPEC
contemplated this idea in the early 1970s after the dollar devalued following
the collapse of the Bretton Woods Agreement. [72] Certainly one of the most
interesting and troubling pieces of news regarding the dollar/euro issues and the
potential political fallout from the unauthorized relates to Schroeder, Russian President
Vladimir Putin mentioned that Russian oil sales could be re-denominated in euros.
"We do not rule out that
it is possible. That would be interesting for our European partners," Putin
said at a joint news conference with German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder
in the Urals town of two leaders conducted two-day
talks. "But this does not depend
solely on us. We do not want to hurt prices on the market," he said. A move by euros, could provoke a chain
reaction among other oil producers currently mulling a switch and would
further boost the euro's gradually growing share of global currency reserves.
That would be a huge boon
to the euro zone economy and potentially catastrophic for the huge expenses on wars, military
build-ups, and consumer spending, as well as cut taxes and run up huge
trade deficits. Almost two-thirds of the
world's currency reserves are kept in dollars, since oil importers pay in dollars
and oil exporters keep their reserves in the currency they are paid in. This effectively
provides the loan, as these dollars can
be invested back into the zero currency risk. If a Russian move to the
euro were to prompt other oil producers to do the same, it could be a "catastrophe"
for the are already a number of countries
within OPEC that would prefer to trade in euros." [73] Continuing in this same Moscow
Times article, two other pieces of vital information were revealed. If geopolitical and macroeconomic
shifts. Although I doubt switch, we shall see . .
. "And after the war in traditional ally come down firmly on one side,
Ibrahim said. "There is a revision going on of its strategic relationship with
the [French-made] Airbuses,"
he said. "The Saudi Crown Prince [Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz Al-Saud]'s visit
to is talking about closer cooperation
with LUKoil and other Russian companies." Furthermore, this article
candidly reinforced my original thesis that the creation of a "petroeuro" was indeed one
of the core reasons for the 2003 US/UK invasion of Under Saddam Hussein, Iraqi
oil was traded in euros. "This was another reason [why the dimension to this. Slowly
more power and muscle is moving from the United States to the EU, and that's
mainly because of what happened in said. Putin had previously brought
up the proposal to switch to euros as prime minister in October 1999,
at a meeting of EU leaders in attempt to forge a new bloc
to counterbalance the proposal alongside calling
for closer cooperation between including on security issues.
Since then, however, considerably -- and it is
unclear whether Putin would risk damaging that relationship by going ahead
with the euro move, analysts said. . . . Yevgeny Gavrilenkov,
chief economist at Troika Dialog and an earlier architect of the Putin government's
first economic plan, said debate is growing on a move to the euro as
really possible," he said.
"Why not? More than half of . . . LUKoil vice president
Leonid Fedun said Thursday that he saw no problem in the euro switch and that
payments for such transactions would be minimal, at just 0.08 percent. The proposition that will be met with "great opposition"
from the Nevertheless, according to
the above excerpts, from a purely monetary and trade perspective a Russian switch
to the euro appears logical. Obviously the would prefer advisable for the oil and the issues regarding
Iraqi debts. Also, a Russian oil executive
suggested that oil from the Urals region in become an `alternative crude
oil marker' with respect to internationally traded oil contracts. This may be unlikely
given that 1987, but such an event could
provide a new euro-based oil pricing mechanism. Regardless, by the end of
this decade I suspect the euro, thus facilitating
the Brent crude marker being re-denominating in the euro. There appears to be fall-out
from the control. In April 2003 Bloomberg
News reported that producer with a Muslim majority
was evaluating a "petroeuro." " considering dropping the
U.S. dollar for the euro in its oil and gas trades. Other Asian countries may
not be far behind any move in the dollar. The reasons for
this are economic and political, and they could trigger a realignment that
undermines time." [74] Additionally, some articles
have suggested that other countries such as soon be dropping the dollar
in favor of the euro. These countries perceive that switching to the euro will eventually
diminish our ability to pursue an agenda of global militant Imperialism. In fact, it
appears that a disconcerting "anti-dollar" movement could be spreading. Indeed, in 2003
a Wall Street Journal reporter witnessed an unusual anti-war protest in "Newspaper columnists and
anti-war activists in countries stretching from street protest witnessed
by a Wall Street Journal reporter this week: "Euro yes! Dollar no!" [75] The Bush administration probably
believes the occupation of large and permanent from even considering switching
the denomination of their oil sales from dollars to euros. However, using the
military to enforce dollar hegemony for oil transactions strikes me as a rather unwieldy
and inappropriate Geostrategy. Regrettably, President Bush and his neo-conservative
advisors appear to have chosen to apply a military option to a kindly upon their actions.
Paradoxically, for a variety
of economic and political reasons, it appears that a growing number of oil producers in
the transition their oil pricing
from dollars to euros, or perhaps denominate oil in a "basket of currencies." Disturbingly,
we may be witnessing the emergence of a European- Russian-OPEC alliance in
an effort to counter American militant imperialism. Although you will not hear it spoken
publicly, the broad international movement away from the dollar may be an effort to
facilitate "regime change" here in the dollar's steep devaluation
in 2004 parallels 2003, every American will suffer for the misguided policies of our
government. We need to quickly change course. Despite the current stock
market "rally", there is much to be concerned about regarding the long-term structural
imbalances of our economy, and the Bush administration's flawed tax, economic and
most principally their overtly Imperialist foreign polices could place the dollar's status
as the World Reserve currency and/or oil transaction currency role in jeopardy, or at the
very least significantly diminished over the next few years. In the event that such a hypothesis
materializes, the restructuring in some manner
to account for the reduction of either of these two pivotal advantages. This will be
an exceedingly painful process if it occurs in a disorderly manner, perhaps reminiscent
of the 1930's Great Depression. Certainly a multilateral treaty recognizing these
issues would be preferable before the onset of serious economic dislocations -- or warfare.
Only time will tell what
will happen in the aftermath of the Iraq war and U.S. occupation, but I am confident
my research will contribute to the historical record and help others understand some
of the important but unspoken reasons for why we conquered Iraq. Regrettably,
until the U.S. agrees to a more balanced Global Monetary system, and embarks on a
viable National Energy Strategy, our nation will continue to pursue hypocritical foreign
policies incompatible with the principles established by the founding fathers regarding
democracy, liberty and freedom. Conclusion In conclusion, the after global Peak Oil, and
2) to have a large military presence to "dissuade" other oilproducers from moving towards the euro
as an oil transaction currency. These are the two crucial elements for
maintaining Reconverting further momentum towards
a petroeuro is a critical component of current US Geostrategy. While deceiving
the American people into war, this administration sent a message to other OPEC-producers
-- "You are either with us or against us." However, in the end I predict
the rules of economics and the laws of physics will prevail over the dreams of Global
Empire. It will be increasingly "sensible" for OPEC to redenominate oil sales in euros once the
EU expands in 2004. [76] Additionally, Peak Oil will usher in an era in which
demand for oil will forever outstrip supply. The neoconservatives understand
what this means -- the end of US Hyper power, and thus the end of their dreams of
a US Global Empire. The true test of US leadership and the citizenry will be acknowledging
that our nation will soon endure some economic hardship. Everyone on earth
will be impacted by Peak Oil, and given that reality -- multilaterialism rather than
unilateralism is the only way to create a peaceful outcome. First, the industrialized
economies need to develop new energy policies and technologies, but here in
the rate and structural debt
problems. In fact, out entire "suburban" infrastructure was designed for the utilization
of automobiles and we do not have enough mass transit in place when Peak Oil arrives.
We have a lot of work to do, not enough time, and too much debt, which further
reduces our options. Secondly, our currency is challenged for the first time since WWII
with an alternative -- the euro. So, we have been reduced
to using military force to maintain our hegemonic status, but under the neoconservatives
we are doing it in such an overt, arrogant way that the world community is objecting. Disparaging
the United Nations while unsuccessfully bribing our allies to support the
Iraq war is a radical departure from decades of US diplomatic policy. Furthermore, the
world community is probably more aware of the implications of the Project for a New American
Century than the US citizens are, and the world does not appear ready to accept the
US as a militant, unilateral hyper-power. Neoconservatives fail to understand that the
industrialized world can and will topple us from our hegemonic status if they
perceive us to be a greater threat to world stability than the economic disruptions that
would occur from the displacement of the dollar standard. Let us hope the world will not
allow a disorderly dollar decline or "panic." The dollar is our Achilles
Heel, and it will also be our undoing if we do not change course and compromise with
the European Union, otherwise we will probably have military conscription, political
repression and tyranny at home, and the American Experiment as we have known
it for the past 227 years will end. This need not be the case. What we as citizens
must realize is that overt pursuit of Empire abroad will ultimately result in tyranny
at home. We have already begun this process with the incessant fear mongering,
deception and intolerant portrayal of events surrounding the dangerously eviscerated (possible
elimination of Posse Comitatus, along with various hidden provisions within
Patriot Acts I & II, Office of Homeland Security, and various Executive Orders). The only way out of this
dilemma is international cooperation, real leadership, global monetary reform and sacrifices
by the US citizenry regarding energy consumption. U.S. Politicians are not interested
in being truthful with the People, as both parties are more or less in the pockets of
the military-energy conglomerates. Real Campaign Finance Reform may be the only way
in which the US can enact the sufficient energy reforms that will be required with
the onset of Peak Oil. 1. In order to save the American
Experiment the neoconservative goal of US "Global Domination" must be quickly
discarded by a new administration. The concept of the U.S. violating international
law with unilateral "preventative wars" will simply not be tolerated by most industrialized
nations. Hopefully one of the first official acts of the 44th President will be to
officially disavow the "Bush Doctrine" of preventive warfare. Such a gesture would allow
the world community to breath a collective sign of relief, and extend to the new administration
much needed political capital. Multilateral cooperation will be needed
for the following issues/reforms. 2. We must restore some semblance
of fiscal responsibility in this country if we want to save the dollar. The the end of 2003, and estimates
of current military expenditures are approximately $1 billion per week. Unlike
the 1991 Gulf War, US taxpayers (and their children and grandchildren) will pay for
the 2003 worthiness of a currency
is based upon the ability of the government to collect tax revenue from its citizens.
Perhaps the devaluation of the dollar during 2002-2003 reflects the world community's
lack of faith in this administration's tax policies. Passing large tax cuts in
2003 while in the midst of a war in Iraq is the ultimate act of fiscal irresponsibility.
The American people appear ignorant of the historical correlation between wars and taxes. Do
we honestly believe we can afford massive tax cuts along with massive increases
in military and domestic spending? Not even a French socialist would dare to do
what we have done. I suspect 2003 was the first time in modern history that a nation
decreased taxes while in the midst of a major war. We need to dispel with this
ideological and quasi-mystical belief about tax cuts: "Nothing is more important in the face
of a war than cutting taxes." -- Tom Delay (R-TX) The IMF and the finance ministers
of the world community must think we have lost our collective minds. I do not
envy the fiscal mess the next US President will inherit. The next President will have
the unenviable task of attempting to balance the current budget deficit, which will
require increasing taxes, perhaps to their pre-2001 levels. Some semblance of fiscal
sanity will be required to support the dollar. While such a tax policy will be wildly
unpopular, we need to face reality, throughout history and into the present day -- wars are
very expensive. We have not yet paid for or the devaluation of our currency.
Although our `war taxes' will probably be avoided until after the 2004 Elections,
this is only a temporary respite. Without a UN mandate for starting the Iraq war, it
is inevitable the US citizens will pay heavily for the Iraq war. 3. The Federal Reserve may
soon be prompted to raise interest rates in an effort to stem the weakening dollar, but
we are in a perilous situation. US corporations and consumers have acquired so
much debt that a rate hike might starve-off domestic economic growth. A rate increase
may cause a lot of pain for average Americans, but we have lived in the fantasy
of huge tax cuts, low-interest rates, huge budget deficits and a huge trade account
deficit for much too long. Militant Empires have never been cheap. The wildcard seems
to be the dollar, which is being rapidly debased. Exactly how much pain will occur
when and if the Federal Reserve increases the lending rates above 1.0% is unknown. In
a best-case scenario, the Fed would spread this pain over several years, but dollar
devaluation will probably occur precipitously. 4. Propose to the UN to form
an International Consortium of energy scientists & researchers from all over
the globe to develop alternative fuels for transportation. Could be a combo of biomass,
fuel cells, renewables, etc. The energy consumer, must show
leadership in developing and promoting alternatives. Along with rejecting the
Bush Doctrine, this will do much to repair our international image. Imagine the Manhattan
Project but on an international scale, hopefully a $50+ billion yearly international
effort beginning in 2005. Redirecting funds and brainpower from our military R&D
is warranted. We don't have much time, as some have suggested we may have arrived
at a plateau in global oil production . . . 5. The U.N. should form an
International Group of scientists and engineers to study energy depletion stemming
from global Peak Oil. Considerable financial resources totaling tens of billions
should provide to this Group by the International community. The UN should also devise
some type of methodology regarding the distribution of hydrocarbons. This will be
an equally contentious and difficult reform to achieve, but the only alternative is either
oil warfare in the Persian Gulf, or economic warfare in the international foreign exchange
markets. Both of these adverse outcomes can be avoided if the international
community can agree to some sort of complex energy formula that reflects economic
output and population growth statistics. The UN should attempt to
establish guidelines, along with an enforcement mechanism based on energy price. The
bottom line is the US needs to use less energy, and we need to immediately begin
improving our infrastructure before the full effects of Peak Oil make our energy reforms
excessively painful and expensive. Given that we consume 25% of the world
hydrocarbons, we have both the most to gain and most to lose if energy reforms are
not implemented during this decade. Mother Nature and Peak Oil will not wait for
the scientists or the politicians to act . . . 6. Global monetary reform:
A painful but absolutely necessary reform to "rebalance" the global economy. The for global growth, nor can
the Federal Reserve continue to "re-inflate" the bubbles into perpetuity. Economists such
as Stephen Roach (Morgan Stanley) and Richard Duncan (author of The Dollar
Crisis [77]) have suggested the excessive growth of global credit in conjunction
with the structural problems of the US dollar may create a deflationary contraction
of the global economy. In other words, a deflationary depression could occur with
a significant devaluation/ panic on the dollar, and the downturn will be very long
lasting unless the global aggregate demand increases. The G8 nations should begin the
process of global monetary reform. However, I remain skeptical these reforms will
take place until a truly significant crisis unfolds Regardless, the global economy
will be more balanced and better off with three engines of global growth:
the US, the EU and Asia. First reform should be the euro as the 2nd International Reserve
currency, at parity with the dollar, thereby allowing a dual-OPEC oil transaction
currency standard. This should join the US with the EU as two equal "co-hegemons."
At some point a third world
reserve currency will make sense for the Asian bloc, perhaps a Yuan/Yen currency
around 2010 that allows oil with their own reserve
currency. These reforms are obviously very controversial proposals, but again, I fear
that failure to compromise on these monetary issues will ultimately result in a dangerous
and unstable multi-polar world engaged in global oil and/or economic warfare.
It is preferable to begin negotiations that compromise on these monetary/energy issues
via multilateral accords before things get desperate in the post-Peak Oil environment.
Under the above scenarios
regarding monetary reform, we may have to reduce our overblown military expenditures
by a considerable amount, perhaps 50% ("only" $200 billion per year), and spend
our tax revenues on reducing our debts and improving our energy infrastructure for
a less energy intensive existence. That transition will undoubtedly be difficult
for those who drive large SUVs, but our choices are increasingly limited. The
past few generations including the Baby Boomers, Generation X or Generation Y, all grew-up
with the US as a Superpower. To even imagine a different scenario -- where
the US shares power with the EU as an equal (and ultimately with China) creates cognitive
dissonance. However the "Greatest Generation," to which my grandparents belong, grew-up
when America was not a superpower, and they endured hardships that strengthened
their characters. We too must adapt to new realities. My principal concern at is
time? Has our nation become too militarized and too fearful of shadowy enemies supposedly
lurking inside every airplane or foreign nation? (Similar to the German population
of the 1930s) Will we be able to willingly overcome our irrational fear, and peacefully
make some painful but necessary adjustments to our economy and society? As Mr.
Brzezinski noted, it is troubling the rather "paranoiac" view of
the world. [78] We must throw off such fears and be realistic, it is we who have changed,
not the world. Indeed, no industrialized or developing nation wants the education system, and of
course they need us as consumers. However, what the world community
realizes is the `war on terrorism' is a cynically strategy used by the Bush
administration to reaffirm the US status as the global hegemonic Empire. This is
a dangerous policy. Our problems with Al Qaeda are based on a few radical zealots
who distort religion to justify their crimes. While terrorist tactics are utterly cruel and never
justifiable, there are often causes for their anger, usually political grievances. Bin
Laden does not "hate our freedoms" -- according to his own words he hates our foreign
policies. He is a violent "anti-imperialist militant Islamist." Bin Laden is a product of
Whabbism, but his views grotesquely distort Islam. This intolerant version of Islam
is practiced only in Saudi Arabia and by Saudi-financed madrassas in Pakistan. Saudi
Arabia needs to undertake immense internal political and social reform, and perhaps
resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could facilitate reform. In truth, apprehending Al
Qaeda members and reducing terrorism will require massive international cooperation
via joint intelligence/police operations involving the INTERPOL (International Police)
operation would produce the least amount of "blowback" in a worldwide
anti-terrorism campaign. [79] According to senior FBI agents, as of late 2002 there
were only about 200 hard-core Al Qaeda members still at large. [80] In comparison,
Al Capone's infamous Chicago mafia had about two to three times as many members as
Al Qaeda. However, the FBI did not bomb Sicily during our `war against organized crime.'
We cannot stop Al Qaeda by bombing or via "regime change." The situation in
post-Saddam Iraq is a prime example of this dangerously flawed ideology, as we have
created terrorists where they did not previously exist. We must acknowledge that
terrorism has and will exist as long as man walks the earth, so we must live in dignity,
not in fear. Reducing ignorance and oppression that breeds fear and hatred will reduce
future recruits for terrorist groups. We must frame international terrorism as
acts of crimes against humanity, committed by a small number of criminals. We need to
adjust our perception accordingly, and work diligently together within the international
framework. Moreover, we must also face
the facts regarding one of the prime causes of anti- Americanism in the Middle
East. If the Isreali-Palestinain conflict is resolved peacefully via a two-state solution,
the humiliation in the general Arab population will eventually subside, allowing much needed
political reform. Both the Israelis and the Palestinians are entitled to live in peace,
security, and prosperity. Although some will argue differently, objective observers
realize that a peaceful resolution to the Isreali-Palestinan issue is one of the most
critical components to winning the campaign against terrorism. I pray the next I believe the real struggle
in the our values as majestically
articulated in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights, we would
have the world's respect, not the world's fear and loathing. Overcoming the current "anti-Americanism"
requires a balanced foreign policy regarding supporting repressive regimes.
The key is a policy of sustained energy reform -- which would then allow more enlightened
foreign policies -- just as the founding fathers envisioned. Our struggle?
Can we return to our republican origins and restrain ourselves from seeking Empire? Can
we rejoin the community of industrialized nations -- as an equal to the EU? The ultimate
test for the American Experiment? Can we once again begin living within our means
-- from both fiscal and energy perspectives? If we can do that, our problems with today's
"anti-Americanism" and tomorrow's terrorist will quickly subside. Quite frankly, in order to
save the American Experiment and stop our slide towards an isolated and authoritarian
state, we must elect an enlightened administration in 2004. It would appear that four difficult
challenges await the next 1) negotiating global monetary
reform, 2) broadly re-organizing developing a National Energy
Strategy, and 4) attempting to repair our damaged foreign relationships with the UN,
EU, President will have to undertake
these challenges from a weakened position both economically and diplomatically.
I do not envy the arduous journey that awaits the 44th President of the Dear readers, it is not hyperbole
to suggest the destiny of the well be determined by the
2004 Elections. We are at an epochal moment in history. The reality is the beginning
of the 21st century will either be a disastrous time period of oil related military and economic
warfare, or a noble effort at international cooperation via global energy and monetary
reform. The choice is ours: Will we desperately fight for Empire under the guise of
the "war on terror" -- or will we heed the wisdom of founding fathers by "resisting the
temptation" of Empire -- and compromise for Peace? The path we choose in November 2004
will determine not only our future, but also the future of millions of people around
the world. *************************************
"America will never be destroyed
from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because
we destroyed ourselves." "I am a firm believer in
the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national
crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts." -Abraham Lincoln I have sworn upon the altar
of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny imposed upon the
mind of man." -- Thomas Jefferson # # # References (post-war commentary)
49. Dreyfuss, Robert and
Vest, Jason, "The Lie Factory," Mother Jones, February 2004 50. Sengupta, Kim, "Intelligence
agencies doubt al-Qa'ida links," UK Independent, 51. Hersh, Seymour, "Selective
Intelligence: Donald Rumsfeld Has His Own Special Sources. Are They Reliable?,"
The New Yorker, 52. "The Lie Factory," ibid.
53. Hiro, Dilip, Secrets
and Lies, Nation Books (2003) 54. "Interview: 27-Year CIA
Veteran," by Will Pitt, www.truthout.org, 55. "In Round 2, it's the
dollar vs. euro," Newsweek, 56. Hoyos, Carol & Morrison,
Kevin, " Times, 57. "US to pay its Iraqi
workers in dollars," Times Online [ 58. Anderson William L.,
"Dollar or Dinar?", mises.org, 59. Booth, William Booth
& Chandrasekaran, Rajiv, "Occupation Forces Halt Elections Throughout 60. Stephen, Kinzer, All
the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Terror, John Wiley &
Sons (2003) 61. Enforcing American Hegemony
- A Timeline, Josh Buermann 62. Benson, Richard, "Oil,
the Dollar, and US Prosperity," www.prudentbear.com, August 11, 2003 63. Vance, Laurence, "Eight
Facts about 64. Links to Opinions on
Legality of War Against Iraq, robincmiller.com 65. O'Loughlin, Ed, "It's
guerilla war, new commander admits," The Herald, 66. Goldenberg, Suzanne " 17, 2003 67. Pleming, Sue " 68. Selective Service System,
Annual Performance Plan, April 2003, www.sss.gov; See Also: "Oiling up the draft
machine?," 69. Kaufman, Michael, "What
Does the Pentagon see in `Battle of Algiers'?," CommonDreams.org, 70. Speech by Zbigniew Brzezinski
at New American Strategies for Security and Peace, 71. Shivkumar, C., " Line, 72. Spiro, David, ibid. 73. Belton, Catherine, Putin:
"Why Not Price Oil in Euros?" The 2003 (original article, expanded
article) 74. Pesek Jr., William, " 17, 2003 75. Geewax, Marilyn, "Muslims
eye euro as new oil currency," The Sydney Morning Herald, 76. "European Central Bank
believes pricing oil in euros is sensible," Times/Alexander Gas &
Oil News, 77. Sons (2003) 78. Zbigniew Brzezinski Speech,
ibid. 79. "Interpol's involvement
in the fight against international terrorism," www.interpol.int 80. Kelley, Jack, "Al-Qaeda
fragmented, smaller, but still deadly," # # # Michel Chossudovsky's book:
War and Globalization, the Truth behind Sept 11 addressed the global tensions
regarding US/EU strategic currency issues. The below excerpts are found on Dr.
Chossudovsky's website, and in the Fall 2003 (Issue #5) magazine, Global Outlook.
The Anglo-American Military
Axis By Michel Chossudovsky . . . Euro versus Dollar: Rivalry
Between . . . The [euro encroaches]
upon the hegemony of the US dollar. . . . Wall Street is clashing with competing Franco-German
financial interests. The war in not only to control over
[oil] reserves[, but also] the control over [currency,] money creation and credit. . .
. The European common currency
system has a direct bearing on strategic and political divisions. London's decision
not to adopt the common currency is consistent with the integration of British financial
and banking interests with those of Wall Street, not to mention the Anglo-American alliance
in the oil industry (BP, Exxon-Mobil, Texaco Chevron, Shell) and weapons production (by the
"Big Five" US weapons producers plus British Aerospace Systems). This shaky relationship
between the British pound and the US dollar is an integral part of the Anglo-American
military axis. What is at stake is the rivalry
between two competing global currencies: the euro and the US dollar, with Britain's pound
being torn between the European and the US-dominated currency systems. In other words,
two rival financial and monetary systems are competing worldwide for the control over money
creation and credit. The geopolitical and strategic implications are far-reaching because that
are also marked by splits on the Western defense industry and the oil business. In both largely controlled by the
private banking sector. The European Central Bank based in handful of private European
banks including conglomerates. The . . . Federal Reserve
Board is formally under State supervision -- marked by a close relationship to the US Treasury.
Distinct from the European Central Bank, the 12 Federal Reserve banks (of which the
Federal Reserve Bank of New York is the most important) are controlled by their shareholders,
which are private banking institutions. In other words, "the Fed" as it is known in the
US, which is responsible for monetary policy and hence money creation for the nation,
is actually controlled by private interests on Wall Street. Currency Systems and `Economic
Conquest' . . . Ultimately, control
over national currency systems is the basis upon which countries are colonized. While the US dollar
prevails throughout the Western Hemisphere, the euro and the US dollar are clashing in
the former Soviet Union, the Balkans, Central Asia, sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East.
In the Balkans and the Baltic
States, central banks largely operate as colonial style `currency boards' invariably using
the euro as a proxy currency. What thus means is: German and European financial interests
are in control of money creation and credit. That is, the pegging of the national currency
to the euro -- rather than the US dollar -- means that both the currency and the monetary
system will be in the hands of German-EU banking interests. More generally, the euro
dominates in States and the Balkans, whereas
the US dollar tends to prevail in the dollar tends (with the exception
of the The `Dollarization' of national
currencies is an integral part of The latter consists in first
destabilizing and then replacing national currencies with the American greenback over an
area extending from the border. The underlying objective
is to extend the dominion of the Federal Reserve System -- namely, Wall Street -- over
a vast territory. What we are dealing with
is an `imperial' scramble for control over national . . . economies and currency systems, they
seem to have also agreed on "sharing the spoils" -- ie. Establishing their respective
"spheres of influence." Reminiscent of the policies of `partition' in the late 19th Century, the
Germany has gained control
over national currencies in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo where the euro is King. The US
has established a permanent military presence in the region (i.e. the Bondsteel military base in
Kosovo). # # # Additional Recommended l Brethour, Patrick, "OPEC
mulls move to euro for pricing crude oil," The Globe And Mail, l Ahmed, Nafeez M., "Behind
the War on Terror: Western Secret Strategy and the Struggle for l "Behind the l Cooper, Peter J, "Forget
about the price of oil, what about the euro?," AME info.com l "ECB blasts Bush economy,"
Eupolitix.com, l Engdahl, F. William, "A
New American Century? wars," Current Concerns,
No 4, June 2003 l Hentoff, Nat, The War on
the Bill of Rights and the Gathering Resistance," Seven Stories Press, 2003 l Isbell, Paul, "The Shifting
Geopolitics of the Euro," Elcano Royal Institute, September 23, 2002 l Islam, Faisal, "When will
we buy oil in euros? When it comes to the global oil trade, the dollar reigns supreme.
But it has a challenger, writes Faisal Islam,' The Observer, February 23, 2003 l Makhijani, Arjun, "Saddam's
Last Laugh: The Dollar Could be Headed for Hard Times if OPEC Switches to the Euro,"
TomPaine.com, l Pincus, Walter, "CIA Finds
No Evidence Hussein Sought to Arm Terrorists," l Sommers, Jeffrey, "Dollar
Crisis and American Empire," Znet.com, l Notes on Project Censored:
For the past several years, journalism students and faculty at the and published an annual book
on stories that never "made the news." This past year 150 faculty and students
reviewed a total of 900 stories for the 2003 publication. My essay, `Real Reasons for
the Upcoming Iraq War' was ultimately awarded by Project Censor as one of the most
important but "censored" news stories of 2003. Below are links to their website. (A
synopsis of my research is provided in story #19 in their publication, Censored 2004.)
I would like to thank Dr.
Peter Phillips for his ongoing efforts at Project Censored. None of the authors published
in `Censored 2004' receive any financial compensation (only infamy), but if you
would like a glimpse as to how our 6 profoundly censor our news,
I recommend this book: Phillips, Peter, Censored
2004: The Top-Twenty Five Censored Stories Seven Stories Press, 2003 Over the past few years I
have often been amazed by the degree to which the American public remains willingly
uninformed, and despite my skepticism, I sometimes wonder about the validity of this
statement. "The CIA owns everyone of
any significance in the major media." --former CIA Director William
Colby Copyright © 2003-2004 William
Clark Reprinted for Fair Use Only.
back to CAH | ratville times
| rat haus | Index | Search | tree back to CAH | ratville times
| rat haus | Index | Search | tree ( PDF | gzip'd PostScript
| ASCII text formats ) Revisited - The Real Reasons
for the Upcoming War With A Macroeconomic and Geostrategic
Analysis of the Unspoken Truth by William Clark wrc92@aol.com Original Essay January 2003
-Revised March 2003 -Post-war Commentary January
2004 "To the living we owe respect,
but to the dead we own only the truth." -Voltaire Contents l Note to readers l Summary l Revisited--The Real Reasons
for the Upcoming War With A Macroeconomic and Geostrategic
Analysis of the Unspoken Truth m Synopsis m Background on Hydrocarbons
and US Geostrategy m References l Addendum: Notable International
Monetary Movements m European Commentary on
the Essay: `The Real Reasons for the
Upcoming War With m Saving the American Experiment
( m References l Post-War Commentary ( m Conclusion m References l Additional Recommended
Note to readers:
|
|||