real reason behind all: peace camp vs war camp

[christian]

Of course, this war is about currency and oil. This should explain the reasons behind US "pro-democracy" (which US never give a damn on Panama/ Venuzeula) vs Europe strong "pacificist"(which no european give a damn on african war).

Yes. It is nothing to do with evil Saddam, since 90% in the ME region is a evil dictatorship as well as "ethnic cleansing". (say turkey)

Yes. It is not about acessing oil, but it is manipulation on input and output of oil.

Yes. It is nothing to do with WMD. If it does. How can you explain N. korean situation at this moment?

Euro out peforms dollar. UK pounds and US dollar lose its significance, due to opec countries, developed world, south east asian economy switch their asset into Euro. Moreover, the massive corporates debts accelerate this process.
In order to control the significance of pound and dollar, US-UK must have strategic hold on the iraqi.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html

Moreover, immediately following Congress's vote on the Iraq Resolution, we suddenly became aware of North Korea's nuclear program violations. Kim Jong Il is processing uranium in order to produce nuclear weapons this year. President Bush has not provided a rationale answer as to why Saddam's seemingly dormant WMD program possesses a more imminent threat that North Korea's active program. Strangely, Donald Rumsfeld suggested that if Saddam were `exiled' we could avoid an Iraq war. Confused yet? Well, I'm going to give their game away -- the core driver for toppling Saddam is actually the euro currency, the .

Although completely suppressed in the U.S. media, the answer to the Iraq enigma is simple yet shocking. The upcoming war in Iraq war is mostly about how the ruling class at Langley and the Bush oligarchy view hydrocarbons at the geo-strategic level, and the overarching macroeconomic threats to the U.S. dollar from the euro. The Real Reason for this upcoming war is this administration's goal of preventing further OPEC momentum towards the euro as an oil transaction currency standard. However, in order to pre-empt OPEC, they need to gain geo-strategic control of Iraq along with its 2nd largest proven oil reserves.

This lengthy essay will discuss the macroeconomics of the `petro-dollar' and the unpublicized but real threat to U.S. economic hegemony from the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency. The following is how an astute and anonymous former-government employee/macroeconomist alluded to the unspoken truth about this upcoming war with Iraq:

"The Federal Reserve's greatest nightmare is that OPEC will switch its international transactions from a dollar standard to a euro standard. Iraq actually made this switch in Nov. 2000 (when the euro was worth around 82 cents), and has actually made off like a bandit considering the dollar's steady depreciation against the euro. (Note: the dollar declined 17% against the euro in 2002.)

"The real reason the Bush administration wants a puppet government in Iraq -- or more importantly, the reason why the corporate-military-industrial network conglomerate wants a puppet government in Iraq -- is so that it will revert back to a dollar standard and stay that way." (While also hoping to veto any wider OPEC momentum towards the euro, especially from Iran -- the 2nd largest OPEC producer who is actively discussing a switch to euros for its oil exports)."

Furthermore, despite Saudi Arabia being our `client state,' the Saudi regime appears increasingly weak/threatened from massive civil unrest. Some analysts believe a `Saudi Revolution' might be plausible in the aftermath of an unpopular U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq (ie. Iran circa 1979) [1]. Undoubtedly, the Bush administration is acutely aware of these risks. Hence, the neo-conservative framework entails a large and permanent military presence in the Persian Gulf region in a post-Saddam era, just in case we need to surround and control Saudi's Ghawar oil fields in the event of a coup by an anti-western group. But first back to Iraq.

"Saddam sealed his fate when he decided to switch to the euro in late 2000 (and later converted his $10 billion reserve fund at the U.N. to euros) -- at that point, another manufactured Gulf War become inevitable under Bush II. Only the most extreme circumstances could possibly stop that now and I strongly doubt anything can -- short of Saddam getting replaced with a pliant regime.

[christian]

["Big Picture Perspective: Everything else aside from the reserve currency and the Saudi/Iran oil issues (i.e. domestic political issues and international criticism) is peripheral and of marginal consequence to this administration. Further, the dollar-euro threat is powerful enough that they will rather risk much of the economic backlash in the short-term to stave off the long-term dollar crash of an OPEC transaction standard change from dollars to euros. All of this fits into the broader Great Game that encompasses Russia, India, China."

This information about Iraq's oil currency is being censored by the U.S. media and the Bush administration as the truth could potentially curtail both investor and consumer confidence, reduce consumer borrowing/spending, create political pressure to form a new energy policy that slowly weans us off Middle-Eastern oil, and of course stop our march towards a war with Iraq. This quasi `state secret' can be found on a Radio Free Europe article discussing Saddam's switch for his oil sales from dollars to the euros effective November 6, 2000:

"Baghdad's switch from the dollar to the euro for oil trading is intended to rebuke Washington's hard-line on sanctions and encourage Europeans to challenge it. But the political message will cost Iraq millions in lost revenue. RFE/RL correspondent Charles Recknagel looks at what Baghdad will gain and lose, and the impact of the decision to go with the European currency." [2]

At the time of the switch many analysts were surprised that Saddam was willing to give up millions in oil revenue for what appeared to be a political statement. However, contrary to one of the main points of this November 2000 article, the steady depreciation of the dollar versus the euro since late 2001 means that Iraq has profited handsomely from the switch in their reserve and transaction currencies. Surprisingly, the (UK) Observer recently illustrated this fact:

"A bizarre political statement by Saddam Hussein has earned Iraq a windfall of hundreds of millions of euros. In October 2000 Iraq insisted upon dumping the US Dollar -- `the currency of the enemy' -- for the more multilateral euro. [3]

Although Saddam's oil currency switch is astoundingly censored by the U.S. mass media, the Observer article illustrates the euro has gained roughly 25% against the dollar since late 2001, which also applies to the $10 billion in Iraq's U.N. `oil for food' reserve fund that was previously held in dollars has also gained that same percent value since the switch. What would happen if OPEC made a sudden (collective) switch to euros, as opposed to a gradual transition?

"Otherwise, the effect of an OPEC switch to the euro would be that oil-consuming nations would have to flush dollars out of their (central bank) reserve funds and replace these with euros. The dollar would crash anywhere from 20-40% in value and the consequences would be those one could expect from any currency collapse and massive inflation (think Argentina currency crisis, for example). You'd have foreign funds stream out of the U.S. stock markets and dollar denominated assets, there'd surely be a run on the banks much like the 1930s, the current account deficit would become unserviceable, the budget deficit would go into default, and so on. Your basic 3rd world economic crisis scenario.

"The United States economy is intimately tied to the dollar's role as reserve currency. This doesn't mean that the U.S. couldn't function otherwise, but that the transition would have to be gradual to avoid such dislocations (and the ultimate result of this would probably be the U.S. and the E.U. switching roles in the global economy)."

Although the above scenario is unlikely, and most assuredly undesirable, under certain economic conditions it is plausible. In fact, one of the conditions that could create such an environment is a near unilateral U.S. led war in the Middle East. For example, a large spike in oil prices could create huge problems for the imperiled Japanese banking system, the world's largest holder of U.S. dollar reserves. Many economists deem that the G-8 industrialized nations should meet and reform the global monetary system. Unfortunately the current Bush administration has chosen a military option instead of a multilateral conference on monetary reform.

In the aftermath of toppling Saddam it is clear the U.S. will keep a large and permanent military force in the Persian Gulf. Indeed, there is no `exit strategy' in Iraq, as the military will be needed to protect the newly installed regime, and to send a message to other OPEC producers that they might receive `regime change' if they convert their oil exports to the euro currency.

An interesting yet again underreported story from this summer related to another OPEC `Axis of Evil' country, Iran, who is vacillating on the euro issue.

"Iran's proposal to receive payments for crude oil sales to Europe in euros instead of U.S. dollars is based primarily on economics, Iranian and industry sources said.

"But politics are still likely to be a factor in any decision, they said, as Iran uses the opportunity to hit back at the U.S. government, which recently labeled it part of an `axis of evil.`

"The proposal, which is now being reviewed by the Central Bank of Iran, is likely to be approved if presented to the country's parliament, a parliamentary representative said.

"`There is a very good chance MPs will agree to this idea . . . now that the euro is stronger, it is more logical,' the parliamentary representative said." [4]

Moreover, and perhaps most telling, during 2002 the majority of reserve funds in Iran's central bank have been shifted to euros. It appears imminent that Iran intends to switch to euros for their oil currency.

"More than half of the country's assets in the Forex Reserve Fund have been converted to euro, a member of the Parliament Development Commission, Mohammad Abasspour announced. He noted that higher parity rate of euro against the US dollar will give the Asian countries, particularly oil exporters, a chance to usher in a new chapter in ties with European Union's member countries.

"He said that the United States dominates other countries through its currency, noting that given the superiority of the dollar against other hard currencies, the US monopolizes global trade. The lawmaker expressed hope that the competition between euro and dollar would eliminate the monopoly in global trade." [5]

After toppling Saddam, this administration may decide that Iran's disloyalty to the dollar qualifies them as the next target in the `war on terror.' Iran's interest in switching to the euro as their currency for oil exports is well documented. Perhaps this MSNBC article alludes to the objectives of neo-conservatives.

"While still wrangling over how to overthrow Iraq's Saddam Hussein, the Bush administration is already looking for other targets. President Bush has called for the ouster of Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat. Now some in the administration -- and allies at D.C. think tanks -- are eyeing Iran and even Saudi Arabia. As one senior British official put it: `Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran.'" [6]

Aside from these political risks regarding Saudi Arabia and Iran, another risk factor is actually Japan. Perhaps the biggest gamble in a protracted Iraq war may be Japan's weak economy. [7] If the war creates prolonged oil high prices ($45 per barrel over several months), or a short but massive oil price spike ($80 to $100 per barrel), some analysts believe Japan's fragile economy would collapse. Japan is quite hypersensitive to oil prices, and if its banks default, the collapse of the second largest economy would set in motion a sequence of events that would prove devastating to the U.S. economy. Indeed, Japan's fall in an Iraq war could create the economic dislocations that begin in the Pacific Rim but quickly spread to Europe and Russia. The Russian government lacks the controls to thwart a disorderly run on the dollar, and such an event could ultimately force an OPEC switch to euros.

Additionally, other risks might arise if the Iraq war goes poorly or becomes prolonged. It is possible that civil unrest may unfold in Kuwait or other OPEC members including Venezuela, as the latter may switch to euros just as Saddam did in November 2000. This would foster the very situation this administration is trying to prevent: another OPEC member switching to euros as their oil transaction currency.

Incidentally, the final `Axis of Evil' country, North Korea, recently decided to officially drop the dollar and begin using euros for trade, effective Dec. 7, 2002. [8] Unlike the OPEC-producers, North Korea's switch will have negligible economic impact, but it illustrates the geopolitical fallout of Bush's harsh rhetoric. Much more troubling are North Korea's recent actions following the oil embargo of their country. They are in dire need of oil and food; and in an act of desperation they have re-activated their pre-1994 nuclear program. Processing uranium appears to be taking place at a rapid pace, and it appears their strategy is to prompt negotiations with the U.S. regarding food and oil. The CIA estimates that North Korea could produce 4-6 nuclear weapons by the second half of 2003. Ironically, this crisis over North Korea's nuclear program further confirms the fraudulent premise for which this war with Saddam was entirely contrived.

Unfortunately, neo-conservatives such as George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Pearle fail to grasp that Newton's Law applies equally to both physics and the geo-political sphere as well: "For every action there is an equal but opposite reaction."

[christian]

During the 1990s the world viewed the U.S. as a rather self-absorbed but essentially benevolent superpower. Military actions in Iraq (1990-91 & 1998), Serbia and Kosovo (1999) were undertaken with both U.N. and NATO cooperation and thus afforded international legitimacy. President Clinton also worked to reduce tensions in Northern Ireland and attempted to negotiate a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

However, in both the pre and post 9/11 intervals, the `America first' policies of the Bush administration, with its unwillingness to honor International Treaties, along with their aggressive militarisation of foreign policy, has significantly damaged our reputation abroad. Following 9/11, it appears that President Bush's `warmongering rhetoric' has created global tensions -- as we are now viewed as a belligerent superpower willing to apply unilateral military force without U.N. approval.

Lamentably, the tremendous amount of international sympathy that we witnessed in the immediate aftermath of the September 11th tragedy has been replaced with fear and anger at our government. This administration's bellicosity has changed the worldview, and `anti-Americanism' is proliferating even among our closest allies. [9]

Even more alarming, and completely unreported in the U.S media, are some monetary shifts in the reserve funds of foreign governments away from the dollar with movements towards the euro. [10] It appears that the world community may lack faith in the Bush administration's economic policies, and along with OPEC, seems poised to respond with economic retribution if the U.S. government is regarded as an uncontrollable and dangerous superpower. The plausibility of abandoning the dollar standard for the euro is growing. An interesting U.K. article by Hazel Henderson outlines the dynamics and the potential outcomes:

The most likely end to US hegemony may come about through a combination of high oil prices (brought about by US foreign policies toward the Middle East) and deeper devaluation of the US dollar (expected by many economists). Some elements of this scenario:

US global over-reach in the `war on terrorism' already leading to deficits as far as the eye can see -- combined with historically-high US trade deficits -- lead to a further run on the dollar. This and the stock market doldrums make the US less attractive to the world's capital.

[christian]

More developing countries follow the lead of Venezuela and China in diversifying their currency reserves away from dollars and balanced with euros. Such a shift in dollar-euro holdings in Latin America and Asia could keep the dollar and euro close to parity.


OPEC could act on some of its internal discussions and decide (after concerted buying of euros in the open market) to announce at a future meeting in Vienna that OPEC's oil will be re-denominated in euros, or even a new oil-backed currency of their own. A US attack on Iraq sends oil to 40 (euros) per barrel.


The Bush Administration's efforts to control the domestic political agenda backfires. Damage over the intelligence failures prior to 9/11 and warnings of imminent new terrorist attacks precipitate a further stock market slide.


All efforts by Democrats and the 57% of the US public to shift energy policy toward renewables, efficiency, standards, higher gas taxes, etc. are blocked by the Bush Administration and its fossil fuel industry supporters. Thus, the USA remains vulnerable to energy supply and price shocks.


The EU recognizes its own economic and political power as the euro rises further and becomes the world's other reserve currency. The G-8 pegs the euro and dollar into a trading band -- removing these two powerful currencies from speculators trading screens (a "win-win" for everyone!). Tony Blair persuades Brits of this larger reason for the UK to join the euro.


Developing countries lacking dollars or "hard" currencies follow Venezuela's lead and begin bartering their undervalued commodities directly with each other in computerized swaps and counter trade deals. President Chavez has inked 13 such country barter deals on its oil, e.g., with Cuba in exchange for Cuban health paramedics who are setting up clinics in rural Venezuelan villages.
The result of this scenario? The USA could no longer run its huge current account trade deficits or continue to wage open-ended global war on terrorism or evil. The USA ceases pursuing unilateralist policies. A new US administration begins to return to its multilateralist tradition, ceases its obstruction and rejoins the UN and pursues more realistic international cooperation. [11]

As for the events currently taking place in Venezuela, items #2 and #7 on the above list may allude to why the Bush administration quickly endorsed the failed military-led coup of Hugo Chavez in April 2002. Although the coup collapsed after 2 days, various reports suggest the CIA and a rather embarrassed Bush administration approved and may have been actively involved with the civilian/military coup plotters.

"George W. Bush's administration was the failed coup's primary loser, underscoring its bankrupt hemispheric policy. Now it is slowly filtering out that in recent months White House officials met with key coup figures, including Carmona. Although the administration insists that it explicitly objected to any extra-constitutional action to remove Chavez, comments by senior U.S. officials did little to convey this. . . .

"The CIA's role in a 1971 Chilean strike could have served as the working model for generating economic and social instability in order to topple Chavez. In the truckers' strike of that year, the agency secretly orchestrated and financed the artificial prolongation of a contrived work stoppage in order to economically asphyxiate the leftist Salvador Allende government.

"This scenario would have had CIA operatives acting in liaison with the Venezuelan military, as well as with opposition business and labor leaders, to convert a relatively minor afternoon-long work stoppage by senior management into a nearly successful coup de grâce." [12]

Interestingly, according to an article by Michael Ruppert, Venezuelan's ambassador Francisco Mieres-Lopez apparently floated the idea of switching to the euro as their oil currency standard approximately one year before the failed coup attempt. Furthermore, there is evidence that the CIA is still active in its attempts to overthrow the democratically elected Chavez administration. In fact, this past December a Uruguayan government official exposed the ongoing covert CIA operations in Venezuela:

"Uruguayan EP-FA congressman Jose Nayardi says he has information that far-reaching plan have been put into place by the CIA and other North American intelligence agencies to overthrow Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez Frias within the next 72 hours. . . .

Nayardi says he has received copies of top-secret communications between the Bush administration in Washington and the government of Uruguay requesting the latter's cooperation to support white collar executives and trade union activists to `break down levels of intransigence within the Chavez Frias administration.'" [13]

[christian]

"Having said that, it is worthwhile to note that in the long run the euro is not at such a disadvantage versus the dollar when one compares the relative sizes of the economies involved, especially given the EU enlargement plans. Moreover, the Euro-zone has a bigger share of global trade than the US and while the US has a huge current account deficit, the euro area has a more, or balanced, external accounts position. One of the more compelling arguments for keeping oil pricing and payments in dollars has been that the US remains a large importer of oil, despite being a substantial crude producer itself. However, looking at the statistics of crude oil exports, one notes that the Euro-zone is an even larger importer of oil and petroleum products than the US. . . .

". . . From the EU's point of view, it is clear that Europe would prefer to see payments for oil shift from the dollar to the euro, which effectively removed the currency risk. It would also increase demand for the euro and thus help raise its value. Moreover, since oil is such an important commodity in global trade, in term of value, if pricing were to shift to the euro, it could provide a boost to the global acceptability of the single currency. There is also very strong trade links between OPEC Member Countries (MCs) and the Euro-zone, with more than 45 percent of total merchandise imports of OPEC MCs coming from the countries of the Euro-zone, while OPEC MCs are main suppliers of oil and crude oil products to Europe. . . .

"Of major importance to the ultimate success of the euro, in terms of the oil pricing, will be if Europe's two major oil producers -- the United Kingdom and Norway join the single currency. Naturally, the future integration of these two countries into the Euro-zone and Europe will be important considering they are the region's two major oil producers in the North Sea, which is home to the international crude oil benchmark, Brent. This might create a momentum to shift the oil pricing system to euros. . . .

"In the short-term, OPEC MCs, with possibly a few exceptions, are expected to continue to accept payment in dollars. Nevertheless, I believe that OPEC will not discount entirely the possibility of adopting euro pricing and payments in the future. The Organization, like many other financial houses at present, is also assessing how the euro will settle into its life as a new currency. The critical question for market players is the overall value and stability of the euro, and whether other countries within the Union will adopt the single currency.

". . . Should the euro challenge the dollar in strength, which essentially could include it in the denomination of the oil bill, it could be that a system may emerge which benefits more countries in the long-term. Perhaps with increased European integration and a strong European economy, this may become a reality. Time may be on your side. I wish the euro every success." [15]

Based on this important speech, momentum for OPEC to consider switching to the euro will grow once the E.U. expands in May 2004 to 450 million people with the inclusion of 10 additional member states. The aggregate GDP will increase from $7 trillion to $9.6 trillion. This enlarged European Union (EU) will be an oil consuming purchasing population 33% larger than the U.S., and over half of OPEC crude oil will be sold to the EU as of mid-2004. This does not include other potential E.U./euro entrants such as the U.K., Norway, Denmark and Sweden. It should be noted that since late 2002, the euro has been trading at parity or above the dollar, and analysts predict the dollar will continue its downward trending in 2003 relative to the euro.

It appears the final two pivotal items that would create the OPEC transition to euros will be based on (1) if and when Norway's Brent crude is re-dominated in euros and (2) when the U.K. adopts the euro. Regarding the later, Tony Blair is lobbying heavily for the U.K. to adopt the euro, and their adoption would seem imminent within this decade. If and when the U.K. adopts the euro currency I suspect a concerted effort will be quickly mounted to establish the euro as an international reserve currency. Again, I offer the following information from my astute acquaintance who analyzes these monetary matters very carefully:

"The pivotal vote will probably be Sweden, where approval this next autumn of adopting the euro also would give momentum to the Danish government's strong desire to follow suit. Polls in Denmark now indicate that the euro would pass with a comfortable margin and Norwegian polls show a growing majority in favor of EU membership. Indeed, with Norway having already integrated most EU economic directives through the EEA partnership and with their strongly appreciated currency, their accession to the euro would not only be effortless, but of great economic benefit.

"As go the Swedes, so probably will go the Danes & Norwegians. It's the British who are the real obstacle to building momentum for the euro as international transaction & reserve currency. So long as the United Kingdom remains apart from the euro, reducing exchange rate costs between the euro and the British pound remains their obvious priority. British adoption (a near-given in the long run) would mount significant pressure toward repegging the Brent crude benchmark -- which is traded on the International Petroleum Exchange in London -- and the Norwegians would certainly have no objection whatsoever that I can think of, whether or not they join the European Union.

"Finally, the maneuvers toward reducing the global dominance of the dollar are already well underway and have only reason to accelerate so far as I can see. An OPEC pricing shift would seem rather unlikely prior 2004 -- barring political motivations (ie. from anxious OPEC members) or a disorderly collapse of the dollar (ie. Japanese bank collapse due to high oil prices following a prolonged Iraq conflict) but appears quite viable to take place before the end of the decade."

In other words, around 2005/2006, from a purely economic and monetary perspective, it will become logical for several OPEC producers to transition to the euro for oil pricing. Of course that will devalue the dollar, and hurt the US economy unless it begins making structural and monetary changes right away -- or use its massive military power to force events upon OPEC . . .

Facing these potentialities, I hypothesize that President Bush intends to topple Saddam in 2003 in a pre-emptive attempt to initiate massive Iraqi oil production in far excess of OPEC quotas, to reduce global oil prices, and thereby dismantle OPEC's price controls. The end-goal of the neo-conservatives is incredibly bold yet simple in purpose, to use the `war on terror' as the premise to finally dissolve OPEC's decision-making process, thus ultimately preventing the cartel's inevitable switch to pricing oil in euros.

How would the Bush administration break-up the OPEC cartel's price controls in a post-Saddam Iraq? First, the newly installed regime (apparently a U.S. General) will convert Iraq back to the dollar standard. Next, with the U.S. military protecting the oil fields, the new ruling junta will undertake the necessary steps to rapidly increase production of Iraq oil -- well beyond OPEC's 2 million barrel per day quota.

Dr. Nayyer Ali offers a succinct analysis of how Iraq's underutilized oil reserves will not be a `profit-maker' for the U.S. government, but it will serve as the crucial economic instrument to leverage and dissolve OPEC's price controls, thus fulfilling the long sought-after goal of the neo-conservatives to disband OPEC:

". . . Despite this vast pool of oil, Iraq has never produced at a level proportionate to the reserve base. Since the Gulf War, Iraq¹s production has been limited by sanctions and allowed sales under the oil for food program (by which Iraq has sold 60 billion dollars worth of oil over the last 5 years) and what else can be smuggled out. This amounts to less than 1 billion barrels per year. If Iraq were reintegrated into the world economy, it could allow massive investment in its oil sector and boost output to 2.5 billion barrels per year, or about 7 million barrels a day.

"Total world oil production is about 75 million barrels, and OPEC combined produces about 25 million barrels.

"What would be the consequences of this? There are two obvious things.

[Mediocrates]

I promise to read this but I have to interject that anything from indymedia is very suspect. Why just yesterday I was googling around and I saw the string "Jewish Designs". The first entry was on Stormfront, the neonazi website, and the next one was on indymedia.


BTW please note that the Euro is roughly where it was supposed to be when it was created. It's only a recent event that the Euro is running in relation to the dollar where its inventors intended. Up till now the Euro has been ~20% deflated. The other thing to keep in mind is this theory works BOTH ways. Since dollar weighting of oil affects Europe about 30% harder than in the US, the EU has a very strong and self serving motive to not allow the price of oil to spike - even for a short time, whatever the cost. In Europe oil is the mainstay of social welfare funding. In France for example gasoline taxes are the basis for their safety net. This is what drives the price of gasoline to 3 or 4 times what it is in the US. It is simply, in macro terms, somewhat less price inelastic compared to the US.

The other good reason for Iraq to Euro weight their oil is that Iraq owes billions of Euros to European countries. It is more cost efficient to sell their oil to Europe using that currency instead of taking a 30% beating to pay back their own debts. This way their current balances and reserves show a higher return to Europe and cost less for the Iraqis to pay down.

[christian]

Originally posted by Mediocrates

BTW please note that the Euro is roughly where it was supposed to be when it was created. It's only a recent event that the Euro is running in relation to the dollar where its inventors intended. Up till now the Euro has been ~20% deflated. The other thing to keep in mind is this theory works BOTH ways. Since dollar weighting of oil affects Europe about 30% harder than in the US, the EU has a very strong and self serving motive to not allow the price of oil to spike - even for a short time, whatever the cost. In Europe oil is the mainstay of social welfare funding. In France for example gasoline taxes are the basis for their safety net. This is what drives the price of gasoline to 3 or 4 times what it is in the US. It is simply, in macro terms, somewhat less price inelastic compared to the US.

The other good reason for Iraq to Euro weight their oil is that Iraq owes billions of Euros to European countries. It is more cost efficient to sell their oil to Europe using that currency instead of taking a 30% beating to pay back their own debts. This way their current balances and reserves show a higher return to Europe and cost less for the Iraqis to pay down.

Your view on euro is outdated.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2683197.stm
http://www.atimes.com/global-econ/DD11Dj01.html
http://www.opec.org/NewsInfo/Speeches/sp2002/spAraqueSpainApr14.htm

[Mediocrates]

You're not reading what I actually write, so don't come back and criticise it. Thanks.

[christian]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
You're not reading what I actually write, so don't come back and criticise it. Thanks.

The Euro is inflated, not deflated. The stability in Europe causes massive investment from Opec countries. In Britain, Arabs money is flow inside britain.

Two decades ago, before the creation of Euro, the investment flow into dollar. Moreover, foreign support $ helps to reduce massive military expense. Deficit can be ignored.

[Alfred]

Christian.


To make it very easy.

The reason we are invading Iraq is that we know that:

1) he is developing WMD.
2) he will use those WMD against allies in the region (which we do have economic interests with)
3) or, he will threaten to use them and cause constant strain and oil fluctuations.
4) he will give these weapons to terrorists

The reason we will help with a Revolution in Iran is that:

1) Iran has been our enemy since 1979
2) Iran has killed almost as many Americans as Sept 11.
3) Iran is developing WMD
4) Iran will give these weapons to terrorists

The reason we will bomb Libya's weapons factories are:

1) Libya is an enemy of the US
2) Libya is developing WMD
3) Libya will give these weapons to terrorists

The reason we are NOT bombing Pakistan:

1) They have told us where their WMD are and we are watching
2) They are helping us
3) If there is an Islamic revolution in Pakistan then we will invade and destroy their WMD....along with India most likely.

The reason we are NOT bombing North Korea (today):

1) We are preoccupied with Iraq and after 8 years of Bill Clinton, we no longer have the military capability to fight two wars at the same time.
2) North Korea is a big talker but has not invaded South Korea since the war.
3) North Korea probably has several nukes and we care about our 37,000 troops and 100,000 civilians in South Korea.
4) North Korea is too close to Seoul.

If North Korea starts building nukes we will:

1) Blockade the peninsula....we will sink their subs and check out every ship that departs their waters (their subs will take plutonium and off load them to pirate ships near Singapore).
2) Encourage Japan to rearm with nukes
3) Encourage South Korea to arm with nukes
4) Perhaps encourage Taiwan to go nuke
5) China will then step in and smack North Korea...which they are not doing today..as they enjoy watching us squirm.

But there is a strong possibility of war with North Korea, as they are nuts, have always been nuts, and may always be nuts. We will lose 37,000 men but North Korea will cease to exist.

You see. The Arabs are not soldiers but assassians; and can be easily defeated. The Koreans are tough soldiers....which is why we have to be more careful with them.

But, I am sure your articles will claim that we want to invade North Korea for their rice production capabilities....

I hope this helps.

All that other stuff you are reading is silly....at least as a reason for America invading Iraq.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by christian
The Euro is inflated, not deflated.


Depends on who you ask- the orginal benchmark range for the Euro was US$1.19 - 1.23. Day one it started to fall until it bottomed out for a time @ US$0.89. Since the middle of 2000 it has crept up slowly until it is near that original benchmark range., But in the intervening time their collective economies have gone bad so Euro valuations are starting to look inflationary.

[christian]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Depends on who you ask- the orginal benchmark range for the Euro was US$1.19 - 1.23. Day one it started to fall until it bottomed out for a time @ US$0.89. Since the middle of 2000 it has crept up slowly until it is near that original benchmark range., But in the intervening time their collective economies have gone bad so Euro valuations are starting to look inflationary.

That means currency is gaining strength. It is a cycle process of peak and bottom. In the long term, it will threaten US hegomony.

US hegomony is builded upon US dollar, great strategic position, nato and controls the influx of oil in the market. Any chanlleges to the foundation of hegomony will greatly reduce the strength.

Opec, latin america, and Asian are diversify their money reserve into euro. No longer, any country will rely "only" on US dollar to preserve their investment. So, Federal Reserve can't print a massive amount of money.

Remember US is the only country, who can print massive amount of money. There are no country can apply this kind of method.

[Mediocrates]

Notes on the ‘Macro Analysis by W. Clark

First off we don’t know who W. Clark is, that would be nice to know. The next point is that this purported macro analysis is very light on economics and very heavy on politics. In fact most of the sources are political and not economic. But let’s delve in to some of the salient points.

My references are by approximate printed page number.

Page 4 – “The Euro has gained roughly 25% against the dollar” – this is the original benchmark value it’s supposed to be pegged.

Page 4 – “Otherwise the effect of an OPEC switch to the Euro would be oil consuming nations wouldhave to flush dollars out of their central bank” – this is unsupported and ignores the transition costs to changing the underlying currency of one’s own central bank – it also ignores the costs of foregoing all dollar debt which would ostensibly have to paid up.

Page 5 – “He said that the United States dominates other countries through its currency” – this is unsupported.

Page 6 – “The US monopolizes global trade. The lawmaker expressed hope that competition between the dollar and the euro would eliminate the monopoly in global trade” - this is political rhetoric and not economics.

Page 6 – “Japan is quite hypersensitive to oil prices and if its banks default the collapse of the second largest economy would trigger…” – but this is a good reason for us NOT to be doing what your main thesis asserts. Japan is the largest US debt holder, why would we try to crush both of our economies?

Page 6 – “It is possible that civil unrest may unfold in Kuwait…” this is unsupported.

Page 6 – “North Korea recently decided to officially drop the dollar” – who cares? They have no economy at all.

Page 8 – points 2, 3 and 6 are suppositions – really just a priori guesses.

Page 8 – “The result of this scenario? The USA could no longer run its huge current account accounts trade deficits of continue to wage open ended global war..” – This I’m afraid is nonsense. Why wouldn’t we simply go to war if backed into a corner.

Page 9 - 3 indented paragraphs – the author has gone deep into the weeds and lost track of the article about economics. It touches on dark CIA conspiracies with practically everyone in Venezuela to topple their own country.

Page 10 – “Commodities are being traded among these countries in exchange for Venezuela’s oil thereby reducing reliance on fiat dollars” – which ignores the reality of debt financing, leverage or banking in effecting these transactions. Those transactions flow through dollar accounts.

Page 10 – 1st full paragraph. I have no idea what the author means when he says “$6.3 trillion dollar deficit (60% of GDP). The key factor is current budget deficits not total debt. Debt rolls over and multiplies. Budget deficits are inflationary – those are different things.

Page 10 – “The reality is that the strength of the US dollar since 1945 rests on its being the international reserve currency” – NO the strength of the dollar rests on the GNP of the US and our ability to offer and pay Treasury debt. Total wealth of the oil producers is less than 600 billion dollars or 6% of the GNP of the USA.

Page 10 – “Despite vast imbalances and structural problems” – not supported and not explained.

Page 11 – 1st full paragraph – see above comment the same thing applies. What the author ignores is that commodity economies account for a TINY piece of the total pie. On a daily basis about 100 Trillion dollars flows through electronic systems. Compared to this, the oil money is a drop in the ocean.

Page 11 – “When oil is denominated in dollars through US state action and the dollar is a fiat currency the US essentially owns the world’s oil for free” – this is economic nonsense. The only place it is true is in the petrocratic economies themselves where everything is nationalized. In the US the accounts are rolled over instantly and leveraged.

Page 12 - “In 2004 this will result in an aggregate GDP of $9.6 trillion” (the EU) – this is one target but it ignores the EU’s own debt regulations as well as the inflationary problems they have all over the EU today. For example – for all it’s purported strength the Euro based economies are flat this year and places like Germany have over 10% unemployment. If the Euro gets any stronger they will have a Depression. Moreover EU regs threaten to break up the EU itself as more and more countries can’t afford the debt ceiling limits.

Page 13 – 1st two full paragraphs – what this means actually is that oil costs for the EU are about 30% than for the US – not the other way around.

Page 14 – All three indented paragraphs. A kind of Nordic Domino theory. All completely unsupported.

Page 14 – 15 - “In a preemptive attempt to initiate massive Iraq oil production in far excess of OPEC quotas to reduce oil prices and thereby dismantle OPEC price controls” – first off OPEC has no price controls over the short run, they always cheat themselves and anyone can look up the history of that if they want. The average OPEC quota decree lasts a few weeks. Secondly point is it to reduce the price of oil below the cost of production, today about US$20/bbl . This also ignores the 20-40 billion dollars it will take to restart the Iraqi oil industry (a perhaps 10 years as well).

Page 15 – Indented paragraphs – see above, same comment. There is zero economic sense in depressing oil below the cost of producing it.

Page 15 – “But it could be an OPEC breaker” – why is this a bad thing?

Page 16 – “One of the dirty secrets of todays’ international order is that the rest of the world could topple the United States from it’s hegemonic status whenever they so choose with a concerted abandonment of the dollar standard.” – NO the global economy is financial not commodity based. Debt runs the world not oil or other commodities.

Synopsis Pages 17 – 21 – This is a political plan not a macro strategy. Heavy on rhetoric on page 19 but no details are provided.

Page 27 – The author assumes wrongly there are no economic counter measures to such a proposed revolt against the entire US economy. And it puzzles me how attempting to destroy the world;s biggest economy is an economic good.

[Mediocrates]

http://www.fpri.org/enotes/20030224.americawar.garfinkle.newantiwarmovement.h tml

The Spirit of the New Antiwar Movement
by Adam Garfinkle

February 24, 2003

Adam Garfinkle, a frequent contributor in this space, is editor of The National Interest. He is a former Senior Fellow of the Foreign Policy Research Institute, where he wrote, among other things, the critically acclaimed book Telltale Hearts: The Origins and Impact of the Vietnam Antiwar Movement (Macmillan/St. Martin's Press, 1995).

A great deal of antiwar activism has erupted lately, characterized most typically by street demonstrations in Western Europe and the United States. In response to this activism, a good deal of print and radio commentary has already entered the public realm, some in support of these marches and rallies and some critical of them. This discussion, let’s call it, now joins the larger political gambit of the Iraq issue and may have autonomous political effects— say in harming Tony Blair, helping French Gaullists, or in influencing early maneuvering for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination.

The antiwar discussion might be thought to constitute a sort of meta-discussion of Iraq since it supposedly subsumes all the arguments, pro and con, about a prospective war. Mostly, however, it constitutes a sub-species of political sociology only glancingly related to the actual strategic and political issues being debated over the Iraq question. I will spell out what I mean by this below, but first some distinctions.



Distinctions
Above all, antiwar street activism needs to be distinguished from antiwar sentiment, or from what I call ambiguwar sentiment. By ambiguwar sentiment I refer to those with ambiguous feelings about a prospective war, people who would support war with little hesitation if they were confident that plans for a post-Ba’athi Iraq and other important matters had been well thought through and sensibly decided— but who, lacking that confidence, find themselves unable to make a reasoned judgment. Those with ambiguwar sentiments, however, do not spend time making placards, joining street demonstrations, and shouting slogans so ridiculous that they would embarrass a sentient 9-year old.

Antiwar and ambiguwar sentiment is widespread in the United States and abroad, and not all the reasons for it are easily dismissed. Unless one’s day job concerns Middle East studies, international politics and foreign policy, history and strategy, or some aspects of the these disciplines, it is hard to see clearly what is really at stake in the Iraq problem, or what remedies for it may or may not be at hand. (And even then, some very experienced and respectable voices in the United States, whose day jobs do encompass the aforementioned specialties, also oppose war — at least within the next few months.) It is unreasonable to expect a typical, otherwise intelligent and morally balanced person to have followed modern Iraqi history, to know about diplomatic tactics, to understand the nature of weapons of mass destruction production processes and the ways of modern warfare. And Iraq is one of those “close” cases where, absent such esoteric knowledge, the natural tendency of mass, materialist democracies to lean toward passivity, procrastination and variants of wishful thinking will take pride of place. This was true when de Tocqueville first drew attention to it, and it remains true today— particularly so when the leaders of a democratic country do a poor job of explaining the problem to the people.

Besides, all else equal, there is nothing wrong with disliking, fearing, and wishing to avoid war. You don't have to be a professional historian to know that war invariably trips off unintended consequences, harms innocents, and inclines to escape all attempts at fine control. And you don't have to be a military expert to know that even a relatively weak enemy can find ways to retaliate if he is shrewd and determined enough. The President is well aware of all this, which is why he says that he would prefer to solve the problem short of war. The nub of the matter, however, is that all else is never equal. Sometimes war is a prudent lesser evil, and this too the President understands. The real question, then, is would a war now (and its planned aftermath) fall into the category of a lesser evil, or not? As I have already said, it’s a“close” thing, about which it is prudent to speak humbly.

The vast majority of people out in the street protesting, however, do not see the Iraq question as a“near” thing, and they are not humble. They are stridently certain not only that going to war is unwise, but that it is also morally wrong and even criminal. They have not done the careful analytical thinking that has led people like Brent Scowcroft, Morton Halperin and Gary Hart to disagree with the present policy— people who clearly cannot be accused of rank ignorance about the issues or of a lack of patriotism and courage. They have rather chosen categorical and judgmental moralist language peppered with apocalyptic accusations and apocryphal predictions.

To understand these typical characteristics of the messages being emitted from street demonstrations, again certain distinctions must be made. For present purposes, two are critical.

First, distinguish between organizers and followers. In all recent major demonstrations, the organizing elements, both in the United States and in Europe, have been of the radical leftist. They are made up of unreconstructed Stalinists and Trotskyites with sprinklings of radical pacifists. They have added to their ranks issue-specific radicals of environmental, anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic, feminist and anti-globalization persuasions. These organizers usually reach out to less radical groups, hoping that they will swallow their distaste for the organizers’ views in order to show solidarity (and give financial support) for the specific cause. (Such joiners used to be called, in Lenin’s phrase,“useful idiots.”) The association of less radical groups dilutes the radical image of the activity, leading many unsuspecting others to join the march.

Second, distinguish between what goes on in the United States and what goes on in Europe. The motives of American marchers run the gamut. Some are knee-jerk adversary culture types who oppose all U.S. foreign policies on principle. It is not necessary for them to know much (or anything) about the issue at hand; if the government (defined as inherently racist or militarist or capitalist or whatever) is for it, they’re against it.

Others are trying to recapture what they mistakenly think of as their heroic youth during the Vietnam War era (no, they didn’t help shorten the war; to the contrary). Some are younger self-propelled rebels who can’t stand it that they were too young (or not born) to be heroes in the Sixties.

Still others just hate George Bush and Republicans, and some are Arabs or Muslims convinced that U.S. policies in the Middle East are imperialist and that they are its blameless victims. Some are anti-capitalist, anti-economic growth radical environmentalists who believe that the American materialist lifestyle has created a fossil fuel addiction that has led to horrible foreign policy consequences. Some are principled pacifists whose sentiments are based in explicit religious conviction. And, as always, some show up because, while they are clueless about what is being protested, they know where to look for free sex, drugs and loud if not very good rock and roll.

In Europe, all of these sentiments and motives are also found, along with two others. The first is a visceral and often irrational anti-Americanism that is growing in rough proportion to the increasing gap between U.S. power and that of the European Union countries. The second is a desire to expunge though street catharsis a deep sense of guilt over a European colonial past now held responsible for the terrible problems of the Middle East and other“third world” areas. These two sentiments vary from country to country. In France, for example, there is a paucity of guilt, but a superabundance of anti-Americanism; in Britain it tends to be the other way ’round.

[Mediocrates]

Pretexts and Causes
In short, while a prospective war in Iraq is the pretext for the demonstrations we have lately seen, it is rarely the cause. The causes lie at various social-psychological strata, the deepest and most important of which is the same today as it was during the era of Vietnam War-era protests.[1] It’s about religion.

Many antiwar activists seem to need the belief in the equivalent of a moral apocalypse for reasons of personal commitment; the more portentous and dramatic the stake, the more praiseworthy one's dedication becomes and the more unequivocal one’s commitment must be. Simple Manichean metaphors offering the clarity of moral certainty feed an internal escalation of commitment where uncertainties and ambiguities are assuaged by increased psychological investment. Many members of adversary culture groups — and those who choose to associate with them in heady times-are impelled to express moral sentiments together with others through politics. This amounts to a form of secular worship. Social bonds reinforce personal faith and commitment, and commitment in turn forges social bonds with new strength. This is a powerful magnet, as are other forms of communal worship.

This backdrop to antiwar activism helps explain why so many activists and marchers are oblivious to rational argument. It is not only that so many are ignorant of the subject, it is rather that knowledge is subordinated to feelings. When people have a strong need to believe something, mere facts are powerless to stop them. And since everyone except perhaps the dullest of dullards needs something beyond the self in which to believe, for those who do not discover it in traditional sources of spiritual wisdom, for all practical purposes anti-establishment activism itself becomes their religion.



A New Secular Religion?
The text of the last two paragraphs you just read is a nearly word-for-word quotation from a book I started drafting a decade ago. It was about the Vietnam War-era protests, but it applies no less to the protest marches of recent days.[2] There has never been a human culture that did not have a religion, by which I mean a set of ideas to organize our questions and thoughts about existential matters to which empirical answers elude us — questions about consciousness, mortality, creation and moral logic. In societies like many in western Europe that have become overwhelmingly secular in character, there is a conceit that “secular” means, in effect, “no religion need apply.” We have been conditioned to think of secular and religious as opposites, when the term “secular” merely means a set of views in contradistinction to the explicitly religious views of traditional deistic belief systems. A society’s being “secular” does not obviate the social impulse toward or need for religion; that impulse merely migrates to other places, the most popular one of the twentieth century having been politics — which, as Digby Baltzell used to say, citing the secular religions of fascism and communism, hasn't done much good for either politics or religion.

Particularly in post-Christian Europe in the Internet Age, the infusion of religious energies into politics — even, in some cases, the subsumption of political energies by an unrecognized and still unnamed“secular” religion-goes hand in hand with the building of a new polity: a federated European Union. The popular, folk religion of that new political civilization was manifest on the streets of major European cities this month, complete with elements of spectacle and ritual common to all religions. The protestors were, in essence, praying for peace in the idiom of the new faith, which is normatively multiculturalist, anti-nationalist, anti-globalizationist, anti-Zionist and sometimes anti-Semitic, and, above all, anti-American. Almost entirely unattached to traditional faith, moreover, it is an amalgam of emotion and new superstition with eerie overtones. As G.K. Chesterton said, “When a man stops believing in God, he doesn’t believe in nothing; he'll believe in anything.”

West European political elites are not most of them religious men. If they oppose war, it is mainly for reasons akin to those of General Scowcroft. But they must take care not to attack the new priesthood and their minions, and they are sometimes tempted to use or ally with them. It is an old and still dangerous game. It is interesting to observe. It has, however, precious little to do with Iraq.

Notes

[1] Obviously, there are differences as well. The Vietnam era protests only got going after there was already a war; in this case, there is no war to protest, only an idea about one. And in those days in the United States there was a military draft; today no one except the terminally stupid thinks the government will resort to a draft to fight a war in Iraq (or anywhere else).

[2] Telltale Hearts: The Origins and Impact of the Vietnam Antiwar Movement (Macmillan/St. Martin’s Press, 1995), pp. 126-7.

[danholo]

The Euro's doing OK! I just arrived in the States and a stronger € means more $!

[minusthejihad]

Welcome back, Danholo. Staying in NY?

[danholo]

Long Island to be more precise.

[christian]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Notes on the ‘Macro Analysis by W. Clark

First off we don’t know who W. Clark is, that would be nice to know. The next point is that this purported macro analysis is very light on economics and very heavy on politics. In fact most of the sources are political and not economic. But let’s delve in to some of the salient points.

My references are by approximate printed page number.



Yes. I am sure we should all listen to mediocrates. He can critize bbc, london observer, guardian, etc. You can even discredit msnbc, economist, jeursalem report.. I agree. All those reference is trash. BBC is a trash. Guardian is a trash. Observer is a trash.
Jeurasalem Report is a trash.

References:

London, Heidi Kingstone, "Middle East: Trouble in the House of Saud," The Jerusalem Report (January 13, 2003)
http://www.jrep.com/Mideast/Article-0.html


Recknagel, Charles, "Iraq: Baghdad Moves to Euro," Radio Free Europe (November 1, 2000)
http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2000/11/01112000160846.asp


Islam, Faisal, "Iraq nets handsome profit by dumping dollar for euro," The Observer (February 16, 2003)
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4606565,00.html


"Economics Drive Iran Euro Oil Plan, Politics Also Key," IranExpert (August 23, 2002)
http://www.iranexpert.com/2002/economicsdriveiraneurooil23august.htm


"Forex Fund Shifting to Euro," Iran Financial News, (August 25, 2002)
http://www.payvand.com/news/02/aug/1080.html


Gutman, Roy & Barry, John, "Beyond Baghdad: Expanding Target List: Washington looks at overhauling the Islamic and Arab world," Newsweek (August 11, 2002)
http://www.unansweredquestions.net/timeline/2002/newsweek081102.html


Costello, Tom, "Japan's Economy at Risk of Collapse," MSNBC News (December 11, 2002)
http://www.msnbc.com/news/845708.asp


Gluck, Caroline, "North Korea embraces the euro," BBC News (December 1, 2002)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2531833.stm


"What the World Thinks in 2002 -- How Global Publics View: Their Lives, Their Countries, The World, America," The Pew Research Center For The People & The Press (December 4, 2002)
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=165


"Euro continues to extend its global influence" (January 7, 2002)
http://www.europartnership.com/news/02jan07.htm
10a. Garnaut, John, "US Dollar Losing Its Position As Asia's Reserve Currency," rense.com (July 17, 2002)
http://www.rense.com/general27/rec.htm
10b. Palmer, Randall, "Canada sells gold, keeps shift into euro reserves," Reuters / Forbes (January 6, 2003)
http://www.forbes.com/newswire/2003/01/06/rtr838251.html


Henderson, Hazel, "Beyond Bush's Unilateralism: Another Bi-Polar World or A New Era of Win-Win?" InterPress Service (June 2002)
http://www.hazelhenderson.com/Bush's%20unilateralism.htm


Birms, Larry & Volberding, Alex, "U.S. is the Primary Loser in Failed Venezuelan Coup," Newsday (April 21, 2002)
http://www.coha.org/COHA%20_in%20_the_news/Articles%202002/newsday_04_21_02_us__venezuela.htm


"USA intelligence agencies revealed in plot to oust Venezuela's President," (Dec 12, 2002)
http://www.vheadline.com/0212/14248.asp (link now dead) -- see http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/linkscopy/USintelVen.html


Liu, Henry C K, "US dollar hegemony has got to go," Asia Times (April 11, 2002)
http://www.atimes.com/global-econ/DD11Dj01.html


"The Choice of Currency for the Denomination of the Oil Bill," Speech given by Javad Yarjani, Head of OPEC's Petroleum Market Analysis Dept, on The International Role of the Euro (Invited by the Spanish Minister of Economic Affairs during Spain's Presidency of the EU) (April 14, 2002, Oviedo, Spain)
http://www.opec.org/NewsInfo/Speeches/sp2002/spAraqueSpainApr14.htm


Nayyer, Dr. Ali, "Iraq and Oil," PakistanLink (December 13, 2002)
http://www.pakistanlink.com/nayyer/12132002.html


Pfeiffer, Dale Allen, "Much Ado about Nothing -- Whither the Caspian Riches? Over the Last 24 Months Hoped For Caspian Oil Bonanza Has Vanished With Each New Well Drilled -- Global Implications Are Frightening," From The Wilderness (December 5, 2002)
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/120502_caspian.html


Ruppert, Michael, "The Unseen Conflict -- War Plans, Backroom Deals, Leverage and Strategy -- Securing What's Left of the Planet's Oil Is and Has Always Been the Bottom Line," From The Wilderness (October 18, 2002)
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/101802_the_unseen.html


Jean Charles-Briscard & Guillaume Dasquie, The Forbidden Truth: U.S.-Taliban Secret Oil Diplomacy, Saudi Arabia and the Failed Search for bin Laden, Nation Books, 2002.
Interview: Donahue With Jean-Charles Brisard: http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/08.16B.donahue.brisard.htm
Paris Reporters Say Bush Threatened War Last Summer: http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0201/ridgeway.php
Reviews of the book: http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/911mar2002.html#0327a


Ruppert, Michael, FTW Interview: "Colin Campbell on Oil -- Perhaps the World's Foremost Expert on Oil and the Oil Business Confirms the Ever More Apparent Reality of the Post-9-11 World," From The Wilderness (October 23, 2002)
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/102302_campbell.html


Golf, Stan, "The Infinite War and its Roots," From The Wilderness (August 27, 2002)
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/082702_infinite_war.html


Vidal, Gore, Dreaming War: Blood for Oil & the Cheney-Bush Junta, Nation Books, 2002. His essay, "The Enemy Within" was first printed in the UK Observer (Oct 27, 2002)
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/EnemyWithin.html


Ahmed, Nafeez, The War on Freedom: How and Why America was Attacked, September 11, 2001, Tree of Life Publications, 2002.
Complete 400-page PDF copy of book: http://globalfreepress.com/books/warfre-book.pdf
www.thewaronfreedom.com
Yahoo! Groups: WarOnFreedom: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarOnFreedom/
Book Review by Wanda Ballantine: http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/WoFreview.html

Hutton, Will, "Why Bush is sunk without Europe - Even while George Bush growls out his bellicose message, his country has never been in such an enfeebled state," The Observer, (January 26, 2003)
http://www.observer.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4591686,00.html


Nunan, Coílín, "Oil, Currency, and the War on Iraq," (January 2003)
http://www.feasta.org/documents/papers/oil1.htm
http://www.feasta.org/documents/papers/oil1.pdf

[elke]

Wesley Clark is the former supreme commander of NATO. At least, that's how he is billed by... MSNBC, I think, who retains him as a military expert.

I am unaware of any credentials he may have in economics, which is what this argument is about.

[Mediocrates]

I seriously doubt the author of that paper is Wesley Clark. If it is the Democratic Party should be running for the door ASAP.

Chiristian I don't obejctively care what you believe or not. But the simple case is that that 'macro analysis' is very heavy with politics and very light on actual econometric analysis. Just because there are cites doesn't mean they are good cites.

Consider this, the PLA (Army of the PRC) has a public position that the "Asian Flu" of the mid 1990's was purposeful economic warfare waged against the Asian states personally by George Soros. But they offere precious little evidence, hard econometric analysis that this is the case.

Similarly I gave you my opposite analysis. Do with it whatever you wish. It's still not 'about the oil' or about oil valuations. Moreover you ignore or discount the fact that a strong Euro has helped create 11.3% unemployment rate in Germany. How much stronger do you want it? Countries will always move to keep unemployment low before they jigger current account balances. Right now the Euro is at a 4 year high against the dollar. I predict that by the end of the year they will be back at parity and your basic argument falls apart.

[christian]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
I seriously doubt the author of that paper is Wesley Clark. If it is the Democratic Party should be running for the door ASAP.

Chiristian I don't obejctively care what you believe or not. But the simple case is that that 'macro analysis' is very heavy with politics and very light on actual econometric analysis. Just because there are cites doesn't mean they are good cites.

Consider this, the PLA (Army of the PRC) has a public position that the "Asian Flu" of the mid 1990's was purposeful economic warfare waged against the Asian states personally by George Soros. But they offere precious little evidence, hard econometric analysis that this is the case.

Similarly I gave you my opposite analysis. Do with it whatever you wish. It's still not 'about the oil' or about oil valuations. Moreover you ignore or discount the fact that a strong Euro has helped create 11.3% unemployment rate in Germany. How much stronger do you want it? Countries will always move to keep unemployment low before they jigger current account balances. Right now the Euro is at a 4 year high against the dollar. I predict that by the end of the year they will be back at parity and your basic argument falls apart.

It is not about the life cycle (up and down) of Euro. It is about controlling input and output of oil, thus euro will lost its strength in the near future. This is the point of the article.

Opec is one of the richest money reserves in the world. If Opec countries switch their reserve to Euro, it will greatly impact the "printing their way of recession" method in the US. Which is the only country in the world can prints the currency without lost of the currency value, because many countries currency reserve is based upon US dollar. For example, a trillion afghan dollar is like a toilet paper, because the currency hasn't no real value.

Iraq is just the begining of the oil currency war. Iran will be the next target in three years, if the iraq war is successful. It sends the message to the Eurasia. Any involvement between europe and asia must be channel through US.

Obviously, Russian refuse any negotiation, eventhough US secretly cut a deal backdoor. A low oil price will choke russian economy. Furthermore, a US strategic based in Iraq will indirectly control the Russian economy live and death. Obviously, European refuse any negotiation, because high oil price will further prolong the economic growth in europe. Thus, Euro futures are in the hands of US.

About your comment on economics is political, my reply is everybody does. Who doesn't? Name one political leader in the world who didn't say more jobs, more money, and more health care,etc. Isn't how US defeat Soviet?

[Mediocrates]

Actually the Russians sit on the worlds largest supply of natural gas - it may be in their long term interests to break up OPEC and shift world markets towards gas instead of oil. The problem for them is they need billions to develop and pipe it.

[christian]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Actually the Russians sit on the worlds largest supply of natural gas - it may be in their long term interests to break up OPEC and shift world markets towards gas instead of oil. The problem for them is they need billions to develop and pipe it.

May be. However, the russian economy is a oil- gas based economy. Any manipulation of massive output (proposed by Cheney-Rumsfled) would be a disaster for russian economy.
Moreover, manipulation of output would hurt the seed of development in Russia.

[HaSakin]

Originally posted by christian
Of course, this war is about currency and oil. This should explain the reasons behind US "pro-democracy" (which US never give a damn on Panama/ Venuzeula) vs Europe strong "pacificist"(which no european give a damn on african war).

Yes. It is nothing to do with evil Saddam, since 90% in the ME region is a evil dictatorship as well as "ethnic cleansing". (say turkey)

Yes. It is not about acessing oil, but it is manipulation on input and output of oil.

Yes. It is nothing to do with WMD. If it does. How can you explain N. korean situation at this moment?

Euro out peforms dollar. UK pounds and US dollar lose its significance, due to opec countries, developed world, south east asian economy switch their asset into Euro. Moreover, the massive corporates debts accelerate this process.
In order to control the significance of pound and dollar, US-UK must have strategic hold on the iraqi.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html

Moreover, immediately following Congress's vote on the Iraq Resolution, we suddenly became aware of North Korea's nuclear program violations. Kim Jong Il is processing uranium in order to produce nuclear weapons this year. President Bush has not provided a rationale answer as to why Saddam's seemingly dormant WMD program possesses a more imminent threat that North Korea's active program. Strangely, Donald Rumsfeld suggested that if Saddam were `exiled' we could avoid an Iraq war. Confused yet? Well, I'm going to give their game away -- the core driver for toppling Saddam is actually the euro currency, the .

Although completely suppressed in the U.S. media, the answer to the Iraq enigma is simple yet shocking. The upcoming war in Iraq war is mostly about how the ruling class at Langley and the Bush oligarchy view hydrocarbons at the geo-strategic level, and the overarching macroeconomic threats to the U.S. dollar from the euro. The Real Reason for this upcoming war is this administration's goal of preventing further OPEC momentum towards the euro as an oil transaction currency standard. However, in order to pre-empt OPEC, they need to gain geo-strategic control of Iraq along with its 2nd largest proven oil reserves.

This lengthy essay will discuss the macroeconomics of the `petro-dollar' and the unpublicized but real threat to U.S. economic hegemony from the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency. The following is how an astute and anonymous former-government employee/macroeconomist alluded to the unspoken truth about this upcoming war with Iraq:

"The Federal Reserve's greatest nightmare is that OPEC will switch its international transactions from a dollar standard to a euro standard. Iraq actually made this switch in Nov. 2000 (when the euro was worth around 82 cents), and has actually made off like a bandit considering the dollar's steady depreciation against the euro. (Note: the dollar declined 17% against the euro in 2002.)

"The real reason the Bush administration wants a puppet government in Iraq -- or more importantly, the reason why the corporate-military-industrial network conglomerate wants a puppet government in Iraq -- is so that it will revert back to a dollar standard and stay that way." (While also hoping to veto any wider OPEC momentum towards the euro, especially from Iran -- the 2nd largest OPEC producer who is actively discussing a switch to euros for its oil exports)."

Furthermore, despite Saudi Arabia being our `client state,' the Saudi regime appears increasingly weak/threatened from massive civil unrest. Some analysts believe a `Saudi Revolution' might be plausible in the aftermath of an unpopular U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq (ie. Iran circa 1979) [1]. Undoubtedly, the Bush administration is acutely aware of these risks. Hence, the neo-conservative framework entails a large and permanent military presence in the Persian Gulf region in a post-Saddam era, just in case we need to surround and control Saudi's Ghawar oil fields in the event of a coup by an anti-western group. But first back to Iraq.

"Saddam sealed his fate when he decided to switch to the euro in late 2000 (and later converted his $10 billion reserve fund at the U.N. to euros) -- at that point, another manufactured Gulf War become inevitable under Bush II. Only the most extreme circumstances could possibly stop that now and I strongly doubt anything can -- short of Saddam getting replaced with a pliant regime.

Shalom:

Does anyone want to bet that one of Saddam Hussein's future moves will be to DECLARE ELECTIONS UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE UNITED NATIONS.

This will postpone the armed attack against him by several long months.

[Mediocrates]

http://www.spiked-online.com/articles/00000006DCBB.htm

It's not about the oil.

<snip>
But it doesn't necessarily follow that, as anti-war elements claim, America is launching a war 'to get this oil prize'. Since when did Saddam's regime, or anybody else's for that matter, pose an obstacle to American control of oil supplies in the Middle East? Indeed, one of the benefits of Saddam for America during the years he was courted and supported by the White House was that he brought a repressive stability to an area of economic interest for the USA, as well as acting as a bulwark against Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East.
....
According to some economic commentators, launching a war for oil in Iraq makes no sense - or cents, to be more precise. In Newsweek, Michael Hirsh writes: '[T]he expense of a US war and occupation will far outweigh any benefit from Iraq's 2.5 million barrels of oil a day. Even a two-term Bush presidency would be long over before Iraq's broken economy realised its full capacity of six million barrels or more' (3).
....
Consider how the oil theory was attached to the Afghan War. Many anti-war protesters argued that the 'war on terror' launched in Afghanistan in October 2001 was really about installing a friendly regime that would guarantee American control of oil reserves from the Caspian Sea. The 'war for oil' idea became the alternative to accepting the 'war on terror' at face value - so rather than challenging the war as it existed or as it was justified by Bush and Blair, anti-war activists and commentators took a stand against the war as they imagined it to be.


In reality, far from having an ulterior economic motive in Afghanistan, it was the incoherence of the West's Afghan war aims that created the space for speculative conspiracy theories about what they were up to. And the more confusing the war became, with ever-changing aims and botched operations, the more the anti-war movement was tempted to wheel out the oil argument, in an attempt to render the war understandable. This may have provided comfort for protesters - turning a confusing war into a simple issue of oil-greedy imperialists v innocent Afghans - but it did little to further our understanding of the 'war on terror'.


The anti-war movement's embrace of the 'war for oil' theory during the 1990s was consolidated by the emergence of 'anti-capitalist' groups, and the amalgamation of the two movements. Today's 'anti-capitalist' campaigns thrive on conspiracy theories about the links between evil corporations and evil governments. For all their direct action, they describe a world in the grip of all-powerful corporate forces, where armies, political institutions and oil companies are one and the same thing - which presents the rest of us as powerless players who couldn't possibly do very much to challenge the faceless powers-that-be. For these 'anti-capitalists', claims of 'war for oil' are natural territory.