BS: Why Bush is in Iraq/the real reason

Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush is in Iraq/the real reason
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 07:51 PM

I believe that the real reason Bush is in Iraq,
is that the Washington Hawks, (wolfowitz, cheney, rumsfeld et al)
want to establish a US friendly state, and a democracy as an example for the rest of the middle east. The secondary reasons would be the convergence of rogue states, wmds, and terrorists willing to use them
ie. the danger to the US. & the west, followed by the fact that it still is a strategic part of the world and the world is dependent on oil - too risky to leave a nutcase in power. liberating the iraqi People is probably third on the list. Yet I still support the action,
the question is at what cost (which is key- because if there are huge civilian casualties - then it will be more difficult for the US)

this is a big gamble for the Bush administration, as the world had to be sold, on the reasons to go in, and the risk was a split with Europe and Russia (which after sept 11- actually moved closer to an alliance with the west- as they had similar interests in going after Islamic terrorist etc.)
Besides alienating Europe and much of the world, it certainly inflamed much of the Islamic world. (although many of the Arab govts, quietly back the US.) - a further reason would be to take away the
backing and payments Hussein made to Palestinian groups like Hamas etc.

It remains to be seen what happens afterwards in Iraq, certainly if the people come to see the US as liberators, and the awful truth of the Husseins regime come out it might take the wind out of the sails of many in the mideast-
on the other if their news coverage is mainly from al jazeera
then they might not know. (today aljazeera showed a burnt out US tank
but neglected to show the iraqi minister denying the uS is anywhere near baghdad while statues of saddam tumble all around)

Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush is in Iraq/the real reason
From: Troll
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 03:06 AM

If France and Germany and Russia were all so worried about their oil investments in Iraq, they could simply have gone along and been part of the Coalition, thereby protecting their contracts.
The truth is that they mis-judged George Bush. They thought that he would cave when faced with that final veto.
France, in particular wants desparately to be considered a major player. The UNSC veto is all it has to affect world politics. Chirac goofed.
Germany didn't have much choice. Schroeder made his campaign pitch based on an anti-war platform and he's in enough trouble at home as it is with even his home district voting his party out in the last elections. He chose to run with France so he could be on the "winning" side vis 'a vis the UN. Sorry Gerhardt.
Russia. Hmmmmm. Putin needs influence in the Middle East but he also needs the money Saddam Hussein owes Russia. Eight or nine billion, I believe. I'd guess that he figured he had a better chance of getting it if Saddam Hussein was still in power.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush is in Iraq/the real reason
From: DougR
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 01:06 AM

TIA: okie dokie. You asked why I thought we are in Iraq, I'll tell you.

1. Saddam is a threat to world peace.

2. Saddam is a threat because he has weapons of mass destruction, was continuing to develop them, and under the right circumstances would not hesitate to use them.

3. The Iraqi people have been oppressed for decades and it is about time somebody gave them a break.

4. Saddam is a recognized threat to the middle-east, and when the issue in Iraq is settled, a negotiated peace between Israel and Palestine may be possible.

5. Saddam would (no doubt in my mind at least) supply wmds to any terrorist group that had any chance at all of attacking the U. S. or our allies.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush is in Iraq/the real reason
From: toadfrog
Date: 06 Apr 03 - 11:58 PM

Well, Troll, I never thought I would agree with you about anything, but I agree about that one. Yes. I think the Dollar is overvalued. There are disadvantages in having an overvalued currency. It makes it harder to sell products to other people. It leads to being a debtor nation. I do not know what it means to say that a nation is "bankrupt." Bankruptcy is a court procedure, which follows when a person is insolvent i.e. unable to pay its debts. Since the U.S. has never defaulted on its debts, I very much doubt it is insolvent. Brazil, Russia and others have recently defaulted; yet they are somehow still around. The dollar is overvalued, because it is an international currency. People want to hold dollars even if they have no intention of buying from the United States. This makes it harder for the United States to export merchandise. Lots of U.S. businesses would be pleased if the Dollar fell.

If any country "suffers" from an undervalued currency, I would like to know what country that is. When I was in Germany in the 1960's, the Mark was undervalued by about 50%, and the Social Democrats wanted to revalue it. Bankers were against the idea. A devalued currency makes it harder to buy, but easier to sell. Most governments are more interested in selling. Having the Dollar used to measure the price of oil does not give it any "control" over the oil, let alone a "monopoly." The people who control oil are the people who own it.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush is in Iraq/the real reason
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Apr 03 - 12:43 PM

Okay, so give over all the oil contracts to the European Union then. You've got nothing to lose, right?

The untold story is that the US dollar is worth far less than its officially pegged value worldwide, because the USA is bankrupt. It's the World's biggest debtor nation. Shhhhh! Mustn't let it get out!

Those dollars aren't worth the paper they're printed on, but by golly those high tech weapons are good at killing people, aren't they? And that's worth something...to America. That's where the World's wealth has gone...into killing machines. And killing machines can only be used for one purpose...no two...

a) killing
b) terrorizing people into submission

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush is in Iraq/the real reason
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Apr 03 - 05:54 AM

Oil is a commodity - it's price is set by the simple factors of supply and demand.

Nationally, where is the greatest demand?

What currency is used does not matter one jot.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush is in Iraq/the real reason
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Apr 03 - 08:00 PM

Correct, Frank. Nonsense is a frequent symptom or byproduct of denial...

Now, I have a new and I think very cogent reason why Bush is in Iraq...

It's simple. He was looking for inspiration, got lost, and was too proud to ask for directions! Before he knew it, there he was in Iraq. Apparently before this war only 13% of all American citizens were able to find Iraq on a World map (if the names were not written on the countries). It is entirely possible that Bush was among this 13%...

Of course, he's not literally in Iraq, but you know what I mean.

This is most unfortunate. More attention to geography in American high schools, and we could have been spared this entire mess! It's really quite sad...

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush is in Iraq/the real reason
From: Frankham
Date: 05 Apr 03 - 12:26 PM

Toadfrog, I now know what you meant by "vulgar Marxist". It's an unfortunate term.

You say,

"If someone were concerned about whether oil was denominated in Dollars or Euros, we would have heard about it."

This is not necesarilly true. It's not part of the propaganda package being put out by the White House now.

You say:
" Having it denominated in Dollars has advantages for the United States if the Dollar declines, because it means imports are cheaper."

This begs the question of who controls the imports. Suppose the EU can sell the US oil at a cheaper rate, this still means that the rates are controlled by other countries rather than the States.
And it doesn't mean that the Euro backed oil wouldn't weaken the value of the dollar. It would.

You say,

" Up to recently, the Dollar has not declined."

Not sure this is true. . There are two kinds of exchange rates. A banker's rate and another kind. Even at that, the dollar can decline.



You ask:

" If you can think of a single reason why the oil companies should care whether the price is set using Dollars or Euros, please explain why they should care. "

The main reason that the oil companies in the US would care is that their control of the companies would not be as strong with Euro-backed oil. This would affect the means of production of this oil, the distribution and the management of oil companies. Up to now, the US has been the beneficiary of much of the oil of the world. With Euro-backed oil, this would change drastically. Prices could escalate making the trading value of the dollar weaker. Other countries would have more control over the flow of oil.

If for example, Saudi Arabia decided to go with the Euro, the American dollar would surely be devalued. The Saudis would be far less interested in US business. The weakening dollar's purchasing power would be affected in every buying area. Whoever controls the national currency controls the oil companies. This seems obvious to me.

Obviously,currency is not internationally equally valued. Some countries suffer inordinately from undervalued currency. If the dollar were devalued to the level of the ruble, do you honestly think that Americans would enjoy the luxury of the amount of oil they consume today? The SUV would be a rusty relic.

I think Heard has a point. To dimiss it as nonsense is nonsense.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush is in Iraq/the real reason
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Apr 03 - 11:36 AM

Well, France, Germany and Russia all stand to lose big in the area of oil contracts if the Americans and UK take over Iraq. In fact, almost everyone except the USA and UK (and Israel) stand to lose big in that respect. That explains partly why there has been such great international opposition to this war. The other reason is that it's blatant, illegal aggression, of course....but most countries will support that sort of thing when their own interests are involved.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush is in Iraq/the real reason
From: Troll
Date: 05 Apr 03 - 02:01 AM

Actually, ttr, the Army set up a big refugee camp in Kuwait, but so far have not had many takers. And the US did buy oil under the Oil-for-Food program but I don't know how much. Any trade that Iraq has had over the last 12 years, other than he Oil-for-Food program, has been illicit because of the UN sanctions so I doubt that legitimate world trade has been disrupted much at all.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush is in Iraq/the real reason
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 04 Apr 03 - 09:48 PM

Whoever controls Iraq, controls the Iraqi oil.

What are the Iraqi oil companies doing now? How much foriegn trade is the US disrupting? I would asume that since the US had little buisness with Iraq, we don't have a clear notion of what is happening to whom, costing what...

My heart goes out to all the refugees...
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush is in Iraq/the real reason
From: toadfrog
Date: 04 Apr 03 - 07:46 PM

Frank, I was not saying the invasion was in any sense good. If you think that, you didn't read my messages. I was saying Heard's reasoning does not make any sense. I define a "vulgar Marxist" as someone who has to think of an economic theory to explain anything, and does not much care whether the theory makes any sense.

Heard's explanation of the war is, and I quote, "it is about the
currency used to trade oil and consequently, who will dominate the world economically, in the foreseeable future -- the USA or the European Union." So for Heard, it's all about whether the price of oil is set in terms of Dollars or Euros. He is saying that because the price of oil is pegged in Dollars, America has a "monopoly" of oil, and that Bush wants to attack Iraq because Hussein decided to set the price of Iraqi oil in Euros. And that is the most utter and complete nonsense.

I respectfully submit that whatever the explanation behind Bush's policy is, the "currency used to trade oil" is not it. If someone were concerned about whether oil was denominated in Dollars or Euros, we would have heard about it. Having it denominated in Dollars has advantages for the United States if the Dollar declines, because it means imports are cheaper. But if the Dollar declines enough, the oil producing nations are going to change to Euros, or something else. Up to recently, the Dollar has not declined. If you can think of a single reason why the oil companies should care whether the price is set using Dollars or Euros, please explain why they should care. I cannot think of a single reason. I submit they could equally well price it in Swiss Francs. That would not give Switzerland any kind of "monopoly."

And I agree that if the United States interferes in Venezuela, it is wrong. I haven't heard from any reliable source that this is actually happening, but then, I do miss stuff. But if it is doing so, we do not need Heard's explanation. Venezuela is an important country. It is run by Chavez, who is hostile to the United States. It is close to the U.S. So if the U.S. intrigues against Chavez, that is bad, but we don't need Heard to explain the intrigue (if any).

Do you see my point.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush is in Iraq/the real reason
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Apr 03 - 07:33 PM

The really fascinating thing about the Chavez situation is this: his opposition is from the wealthier classes, the media owners, the business people...and his support is from...the poor! Amazing, isn't it? Who ever heard of a revolution launched by the very people who are benefiting most from society??? (the well-to-do)

This alone should make it plainly evident that this is a made-in-America attempt to bring down a Latin American government. The only other really notable leaders I can recall in Latin America (since Zapata and Benito Juarez) who have institued policies that were more popular with the poor than with the wealthy were: Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, Fidel Castro in Cuba, and Salvador Allende in Chile. The USA used paramilitary means to attack all 3 of them, and only Castro's government survived those attempts...so far.

Chavez is now on the hit list...and he has oil. Lots of it. So watch Venezuela. Chavez either knuckles under to the big boys (the multinationals) or they find a way to checkmate him and bring his government down.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush is in Iraq/the real reason
From: Barry Finn
Date: 04 Apr 03 - 07:27 PM

Damn it looks worst, it looks like he'll pull it off. His threat to exclude all countries out side of the 'willing' has caused a shutter & it seems as if they'll start fighting for the crumbs rather than showing some backbone. Pulling the UN back in is quite the move knowing that he's cut them down at the knees & "You'd better help pay for this or I'll see that the UN is a dream of the past. No backbone there either, they know they've been best & it'll make it easier for the world to swallow . And why not give NATO a crumb or 2. All these crumbs won't amount to a hill of beans & the EU will be in the toilet. Even Russia France is backing up a bit, how easy all these nations will sell humanity for 30 pieces of silver. By the time this is over every government in the world will be in Bushes pocket, won't matter if he gets defeated at the next poll, this time around he can just declear himself emporer & the world will just bow their heads & we'll be wishing we were Iraqis. Now need for freedom or rights, enough of that has already been eaten away, so as for the loss of more the way's has already been paved.

Question? Does any one else feel/think that this direction might have at least a 2% chance of happening or am I just picturing the worst case scenerio. Just a thought, if this is just a worst case scenerio
it's pretty scary that things could get that far. I'm hoping for better for all of us but I don't really see any blue skies on the horizon. Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush is in Iraq/the real reason
From: Frankham
Date: 04 Apr 03 - 06:34 PM

Vietnam probably doesn't have much in the way of resources although Brown and Root made their appearance. It was a different war, however, because it was predicated on the illusory domino theory.
It was never an idea to capture oil or business in Vietnam. LBJ felt he had to continue the senseless war to promote his power as a world leader. This is similar to Bush's approach but the difference is that there is the issue of oil. Religious convictions have played a part in wartime philosophy. Niebuhr rationale applies here. But remember ostensibly there wasn't a pre-emptive strike there. If it was behind the scenes, it wasn't as blatant as what Bush has done.
It seems to be that no one wants to accept Bush's affiliations with oil companies and his inheritance from his father in the oil business from Odessa Texas. What is clear is that there is an attempt at hegemony and power grabs here.

Vulgar-Marxist isn't enough of an argument to discredit Heard. This is an opinion and not a fact. It actually is attempt to paint Heard as a Marxist which is a dirty word today so the argument becomes ad hominem.

Do you really believe that Bush is conducting his war because he professes belief in Jesus? I think that this deception is geared toward a blatant manipulation of the so-called religious right. This involves a enemy posing image of the Muslim community and plays on the prejudice of the fundamentalists. It's a good propaganda technique.

So why are we at war? It leaves America's business interests at stake. It certainly isn't about instituting democracy as conditions in Afghanistan show us. Bush will probably abandon Iraq once it is reduced to rubble. So much for Christian charity.

As to the Chavez election, it doesn't matter who likes it or not because he was democratically elected and it is being undermined by the so-called champions of democracy.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush is in Iraq/the real reason
From: toadfrog
Date: 03 Apr 03 - 11:52 PM

Nothing important ever happens for just one reason. It is impossible to prove arguments like Mr. Heard's are wrong. But although the U.S. does compete with Europe economically, I find it incredible that people are worried about something like the Euro eclipsing the Dollar as a trading currency or measure of value. Strong Dollars have their problems, like they tend to create an unfavorable balance of trade.

I had not heard about active intervention by the U.S. in Venezuela. It would be interesting to have some concrete facts, but I assume Heard has something to back all that up. But reprehensible as such meddling is; it does not prove anything in particular. The U.S. has perfectly good reasons to dislike the Chavez government, and a Republican government is particularly likely to dislike it. Basically Heard's theory is just too vulgar-Marxist, like the guys I knew back in the 1960's who were always trying to figure out what resources in Vietnam the Capitalists were conspiring to control. So far as I know, it hasn't got that much in the way of resources.

Don, I think you are right in saying that apoctalyptic religion gives Bush much of his crazy edge. But I also think there are other reasons, like (1) a politician's desire to appeal to the jingo vote and stay in power, especially when the policies he supports would otherwise be unpopular; (2) the economic intrests of narrow but influential groups; which together produce; (3) the tendency of nations to expand when they have the power to do it. "Power tends to corrupt..."

Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush is in Iraq/the real reason
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Apr 03 - 11:08 PM

Little Hawk, that sounds all too reasonable.

Also, Metchosin and Jack the Sailor, thanks for the links. Those are ones I hadn't encountered yet, but they corroborate a lot of stuff I have found.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush is in Iraq/the real reason
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Apr 03 - 09:57 PM

Well, there's one thing for certain. The last person on the planet to know why the US has invaded Iraq is George W. Bush. He is clueless and it is apparent in the many speaches he has made. The man is clueless!

This is way over Dubya's head!

Says alot about what the US got in the theft of the 200 elections...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush is in Iraq/the real reason
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Apr 03 - 08:46 PM

Don, I think it's a combination of factors...not just one interpretation for the whole shebang. I think there are powerful financial and business factors behind it, all right, as was set out in the original post of this thread. There are strategic military considerations too. I think the fundamentalist Christian thing is also part of it. Those three things can work together. Bush may indeed believe the fundamentalist stuff. If so, then he plays perfectly into the hands of his corporate backers, some of whom are almost certainly far more pragmatic than he is. How about that for a possibility?

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush is in Iraq/the real reason
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Apr 03 - 06:20 PM

Sorry here are the links

Bush and God

Bush prayer

Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush is in Iraq/the real reason
From: Metchosin
Date: 03 Apr 03 - 06:19 PM

I found this article a few months back when I was trying to understand what had happened within the Republican Party since Eisenhower's dire warning back in the fifties.

The Men Who Stole the Show

Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush is in Iraq/the real reason
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Apr 03 - 06:16 PM

Franham, I've said why and I've said what the holes are.

Stewart's Link is part of the reason.
Here is another part.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush is in Iraq/the real reason
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Apr 03 - 06:07 PM

There are lots of people out there who call themselves Christians--and quite probably think of themselves as Christians--who certainly don't meet my idea of what constitutes a Christian. And you're quite probably right, Frank. It's probably more a matter of political manipulation than it is of actual belief.

But I'm not sure what scares me more: religious fanaticism or unbridled greed.

I heard in the news a week or so ago that Halliburton already has a 900 billion dollar contract to rebuild Iraq when the war is over (when did they open it for bids?). And I notice in the news today that Bush is saying he doesn't want the UN participating in the "democratization" and rebuilding. I guess he's got that reserved for his cronies.

It just occurred to me! No wonder the Muslims don't like us!! All that pork!!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush is in Iraq/the real reason
From: Frankham
Date: 03 Apr 03 - 05:43 PM

Well the article is supposed to be full of holes and nonsense but nobody has said why.

The Saudis are spending American bucks but if the buck goes south and the Euro comes in do you think they will stay with American currency? They'll trade whatever they can however. Maybe the buck will stick and maybe it won't. That remains to be seen but there is good reason to suspect that there are forces in the Administration that view this as a problem.

I read the Cato article and it's about the fear that rogue nations will develop scud missles with nuclear warheads and that's the reason Bush Administration attacked Iraq. This doesn't make sense to me. Military hardware is not enough of an issue because surely the Administration is smart enough to realize that if it attacks another country, nuclear arms will proliferate.
It's happening now.

Saving money on not developing a missile defense shield is a red herring too. They will develop it if they can because defense contracts will be offered in perpetuity.

Bush's religious piety may have some bearing on defending his position but Halliburton is waiting in the wings and the Bush Administration is not going to allow contracts to be handed out to European competitors. If you believe they will, I'd like to sell you a bridge.

Don, I think that the preoccupation with the Book of Revelations on the part of the Bush Admin. is true to a point. They are not looking for the "last times" however. They are looking to turn a profit and feed on the prejudices of the fundamentalists. Reagan was very pragmatic in dealing with those folks. He alienated many once in office. He however did see the value of arms sales to Iraq. This is probably where they got their biological weaponry.

It's a definite political move to bring the fundamentalists on board. How much real conviction is really in back of this is questionable however. Do you really think Bush is planning for the "final days"? Is he going to bring about the prophecy in the Book of Revelations? I don't think so.

In the meantime, Chavez is being replaced in Venezuela by an American backed junta and Algeria is being courted by Bush bucks in the UN. Afghanistan has been turned over to thugs, warlords who have no interest in democracy.

It's so interesting, though, how these erst-while Christians can turn their backs on the Sermon on the Mount.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush is in Iraq/the real reason
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Apr 03 - 03:42 PM

Don, good job. It's almost not possible for people who have not been exposed to that kind of thinking or have not studied it to accept the believers' very real belief that it's all working out the way it's supposed to. From that stance it seems easy to do what your gut (as G. Bush says) tells you to and let the chips fall as they may.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush is in Iraq/the real reason
From: Stewart
Date: 03 Apr 03 - 03:27 PM

Here's a link to Tuesday's NPR Fresh Air interview with Joseph Cirincione. Seems to me like a clear and concise explanation of how we got into this mess. CLICK HERE

S. in Seattle

Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush is in Iraq/the real reason
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Apr 03 - 02:52 PM

Do I believe this? I don't know. But it sure explains a lot that is otherwise very puzzling.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush is in Iraq/the real reason
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Apr 03 - 02:46 PM

Wolfgang, most Europeans—and, for that matter, many Americans—don't fully grasp the intense fervor of American Fundamentalist Christians, especially the "Born Again" Christians. One of the centers of their theology (if it can really be called that) is their fixation on the Book of Revelation and selected passages dealing with "the Second Coming of Christ." They have built a whole mythology around this. It's called "Millennialism" or "Dominionism."

Their belief is that the world is nearing "The End Time." This is signaled by "wars and rumors of wars" coupled with what they consider to be corruption within the Church (except, of course, for their own), general moral decay, and a number of other signs and omens derived from their particular interpretation of The Book of Revelation. The Second Coming of Christ is a longed-for event, because according to the Millennialists, Christ will establish the Reign of God on Earth. This reign will exist for a thousand years (i.e. The Millenium). What happens at the end of the thousand years, they don't say, because apparently "a thousand years" equates with some biblical concept of eternity.

But according to the mythology, before this can happen, the State of Israel must be establish. Other nations, the myth says, will challenge the State of Israel and try to destroy it. The Anti-Christ is involved in this, and this is what precipitates the ultimate battle between Good and Evil, the "Battle of Armageddon". Christ (no longer the gentle, peace-loving teacher, but descending from Heaven in a chariot and carrying a flaming sword) defeats the Anti-Christ and the forces of Evil. With this defeat, Islam is destroyed and the Jews are given another opportunity to accept Christ as their Savior. Those who do not will go to Hell. Christ "separates the sheep from the goats," the sinners are punished, and the faithful are rewarded—not in heaven, but right here on earth. And the Kingdom of God is established.

It didn't make the news much, but Ronald Reagan is said to have been a staunch believer in this line of thought, and believed that the Battle of Armageddon would be between the United States and Russia—hence his "evil empire" speech and his eagerness for military build-up and confrontation. The current situation, centered in the Middle East, and with Israel as a major bone of contention, fits the Millennialist mythology much better than Russia did.

The point is this:— Millennialists are generally eager to see the Battle of Armageddon begin, because, they believe, the sooner the Battle starts, the sooner Christ will return. Osama bin Laden, or more recently, Saddam Hussein, are easy for them to cast in the role of the Anti-Christ. And it also goes a long way to explaining the unquestioning support of Israel and why a blind eye is turned to the atrocities they commit against the Palestinians.

George W. Bush and several others in powerful positions in the Bush Administration proudly proclaim themselves to be Born Again Christians. Think about it!

If anyone thinks I have overstated the beliefs of these folks, go to google's "Advanced Search" and put in combinations of words like Armageddon, End Time, Millennium, Book of Revelation, Second Coming, Born Again, Anti-Christ, AND George W. Bush and see what you come up with. Also, several books, including one by Bob Woodward, one of the investigative reporters on the Watergate break-in, have been written this subject.

Helluva way to outline a foreign policy!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush is in Iraq/the real reason
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Apr 03 - 02:12 PM

Shhhhhh!!!! Now you've done it.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush is in Iraq/the real reason
From: Troll
Date: 03 Apr 03 - 11:32 AM

LH. Maybe YOUR G-d...
Cthulu is not so kindly.

troll ***BWAHAHAHAHAHA****

Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush is in Iraq/the real reason
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Apr 03 - 09:54 AM

troll - Awright! We agree on something. :-) Now you gotta listen to "MacArthur Park" over and over again until you grasp the deeper meaning of it...

But this thing about "God's War" being more moral than fighting for money or territory... Well, no, because God is presumed to love all people. A kindly parent does not encourage the slaughter of siblings by their fellow siblings.

But you'd never know that to hear religious zealots talking, would you?

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush is in Iraq/the real reason
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Apr 03 - 07:41 AM

Glad you said that JtS, the article supplied by Frankham's initial post is so full of holes it just does not hold water.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush is in Iraq/the real reason
From: Troll
Date: 03 Apr 03 - 05:57 AM

Don, you may be right. Wars have been fought for worse reasons. At least war in G-ds name to achieve peace isn't quite as grubby as war for territory or money. G-ds War has a certain moral tone don't you think?

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush is in Iraq/the real reason
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Apr 03 - 04:48 AM

That so called economic analysis is hogwash. The Saudis don't mind buying there Sony's with Yen or their Mercedes with Euros, I'm sure that's what they do. Any country with a positive balance of trade with the US, which is most countries, doesn't need to "hoard" dollars. They need to spend them. The dollar has gone down because of the uncertainty over the war. And because high oil prices and uncertainty have a large negative effect on the US economy.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush is in Iraq/the real reason
From: Wolfgang
Date: 03 Apr 03 - 04:06 AM

I can see why you start thinking along these lines, Don. Many of us see a near complete lack of convincing, or at least consistent, reasons given for this war. Therefore, many try to fill this void with theories. However, I am not convinced by the ideas of the links. My main reason is:

In many wars in history, the political leaders have in their public speeches invoked God (or whoever else). More often than not God has been on all sides, according to their perceptions or convictions. I've learned to mistrust the religious motive as prominent as it may have been in the speeches. Most times, it was propaganda which they may even have believed themselves, but their actual daily deeds were not much influenced by religion.

I can't offer a better explanation but I don't believe in religion to be more than a peripheral factor.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush is in Iraq/the real reason
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Apr 03 - 03:50 PM

American foreign policy seems insane. It is rife with contradictions and hypocrisy. But—is there actually a logic to it?

For example, why the double standard when it comes to human rights? We condemn Saddam Hussein's atrocities. But we turn a blind eye to the long history of oppression perpetrated by the Israeli regime against the Palestinians. And for this hypocrisy we pay the price of being hated by most of the population of the Middle East and, mainly by our own actions (not because we're "rich"), we have spawned a generation of terrorists determined to make us suffer for it. Other that stupidity and hypocrisy, could there be a reason for this? And why deal with Iraq now, when we know for a fact (not just unsupported Presidential assertions) that North Korea does have weapons of mass destruction? Could it be that this is a necessary step in order to reach a goal long desired by a particular segment of the American population? We know that George W. Bush is a member of this group because he has proudly proclaimed himself to be.

I keep banging into a possible motive for Bush's actions that scares the hell out of me.

For your consideration, I submit THIS. And THIS. And these are only two of the many web sites and articles I have found that deal with this question.

Don Firth

P. S. Of course some of our conservative snipers will try to dismiss this because of the source of the second article, but impugning the source doesn't alter the truth of what the article says. I have learned that, in the main, it's a little difficult for some of our conservative snipers to quarrel with me when I use the Administration's own words as evidence for what I say. The snipers can hardly say that I'm trying to distort the Administration's viewpoint. Hey! They said it, not me!

Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush is in Iraq/the real reason
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Apr 03 - 11:55 AM

DougR said "A bit much to ask that they will do it {i.e. think about what's being said} though."

That's just an unhelpful dig my friend. People are thinking about it, but coming to different conclusions. I think this thread is tremendously civil, with many thoughtful comments from people with differing views.

I'd welcome yours.

TIA

Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush is in Iraq/the real reason
From: Troll
Date: 02 Apr 03 - 11:48 AM

MY G-D! Little Hawk and I seem to agree on something.
Quick!
One of us has contaminated the other. But which one?

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush is in Iraq/the real reason
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Apr 03 - 11:32 AM

Yeah, that's the essential problem. Merchants owe allegiance to no country...and to no community. It is essentially merchants who are (behind the scenes) running the political systems, and that is why contemporary politics make no sense, from a human or a moral point of view.

I'm in favour of small-scale, local capitalism. Always have been. It's huge, multi-national companies and money-brokers I am opposed to. They care not whose lives they devastate, and they are loyal to no nation or moral credo.

I do believe that the US government is controlled by such people, not for the benefit of Americans, but for the benefit of the controllers. We do not get to vote for them, just for the figureheads they put on the ballot. Sometimes those figureheads are part of the "in-group" (the controllers), and sometimes they're not. In the end, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference to national policy, which is driven by the dollar.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush is in Iraq/the real reason
From: Troll
Date: 02 Apr 03 - 02:17 AM

Thankee, Doug.
LH, you are confusing companies based in America with American companies. There are companies like the one run by my friend, Doran. You've probably heard of it: Sabine. They make tuners, the first feedback eliminator, pedals, and, lately, a really good wireless mike. The plant is local and provides around 100 jobs. Doran is part of the community and gives back to it. It's called "enlightened self-interest" and he practices it.It's an American Company.
The companies based in America have no loyalty but to the bottom line. The Corporate offices may be here, but the plants are in Indonesia and Thailand and if a cheaper place suggests itself, they'll pull up stakes and go there.
This will continue to happen until laws are passed that make it unprofitable. As Thomas Jefferson said, merchants owe alliegence to no country.
R.R., I disagree, but it's differences of opinion that makes horse races. The sad fact is that the UNwould not do anything but dither; witness Rwanda, Bosnia, and Kosovo. The sanctions were devised by men who naively assumed that Saddam actually cared about his people. The US must bear the blame for the sanctions lasting as long as they did. It was criminally shortsighted but that's the nature of the politician I fear; once you've committed, go with it al the way.
As an interesting sidelight, there have been some 28 international (more than one country involved) armed conflicts since the founding of the UN. In only three of those was the approval of the UNSC sought. Those three were Korea, Gulf War I, and Afghanistan. In all three cases, it was the US who asked for and got UNSC approval.

troll

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush is in Iraq/the real reason
From: Rustic Rebel
Date: 02 Apr 03 - 01:54 AM

Troll I think they were just biding their time. Had to make Saddam the more evil, and in the mean time kill off and weaken a million or so with sanctions. Then go on in without UN authorization anyway and finish what was started years ago. Or maybe not! All I do know is the UN couldn't have been the ones to stop them, because they obviously don't give a rats ass about what the UN has to say or we wouldn't be there now.
Rustic

Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush is in Iraq/the real reason
From: DougR
Date: 02 Apr 03 - 01:47 AM

And by the way, Joe offer, did I misunderstand the "cut and paste" rules on the "Cat" or something?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush is in Iraq/the real reason
From: DougR
Date: 02 Apr 03 - 01:00 AM

troll: You are tenacious, and I admire that. It's tempting to say to these naysayers, "okay, you're righ," but it's good that someone one like you has the stamina to stay in there and say, "Whoa, think about what you are saying and what you are thinking!" A bit much to ask that they will do it though.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush is in Iraq/the real reason
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Apr 03 - 12:55 AM

You're right, troll, that if the economic collapse suggested in that article occurs, it will be a disaster for ordinary Americans, and that is most unfortunate. I would prefer greatly if it were not so. However, I am not sure what anyone can do about it at this point. A country that exports most of its consumer product industry to the Orient, and basically deprives its own working class of their traditional job base and replaces it with high tech war industries and fast food outlets is on the fast track to nowhere.

That's a generalization, but I think you probably know what I mean. Much the same thing has happened in Canada in the last 30 or 40 years. It's not good.

I think Western Europe has the best chance of assuming top spot in the next few decades, providing they unite effectively (with or without the UK). Germany and Japan proved after WWII that the way to become successful economically is to concentrate on peacetime production, and not waste your resources constantly building and maintaining a huge war machine. The USA has not learned that lesson, but is doing the opposite, and spending 50% of the whole World's annual spending on weapons. That's the approach that destroyed the Russian economy between 1945 and 1989, and it is destroying the American economy as well.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush is in Iraq/the real reason
From: Metchosin
Date: 02 Apr 03 - 12:24 AM

There has been a lot of pressure on Canada in the last couple of years convert to American currency, it explains a lot of stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush is in Iraq/the real reason
From: Metchosin
Date: 02 Apr 03 - 12:19 AM

Thanks Frankham, a valuable perspective.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush is in Iraq/the real reason
From: Troll
Date: 02 Apr 03 - 12:18 AM

If it ain't us, it'll be Europe. Or Russia>(nah!) or China.
Personally, I'd rather it was us. Chauvinistic of me I know, but, oh well.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush is in Iraq/the real reason
From: toadfrog
Date: 02 Apr 03 - 12:18 AM

Sorry, I should have said I thought those criticisms were better than Heard's, not "Hamilton's." I wasn't intending to be personal.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush is in Iraq/the real reason
From: toadfrog
Date: 02 Apr 03 - 12:06 AM

It would seem better to provide hyperlinks to articles, rather than pasting them in like that. I think Joe Offer recently commented on that.

The article isn't completely wrong, but it misses a lot. It isn't just economics or oil. It is a whole vision of world empire and world domination. Don Firth very helpfully gave a link to PROJECT FOR A NEW AMERICAN CENTURY, where you can hear the authors of the policy describe it for themselves. In case you think "American business" is behind the imperial drive, here is a link to BUSINESS WEEK,, which is not one bit pleased with the idea. Most American businesses, like most Americans, have a lot more to lose than they could possibly gain. My bet would be that only the Banks, who want to "open capital markets," and a part of the oil industry are behind it. Businesses have been remarkabley silent on the whole matter.

Not even all conservatives are behind the idea. One of the best criticisms of our Iraq policy I have found (and a lot better than Hamiltion's) is published by the CATO INSTITUTE, not a hotbed of liberalism. Finally, I think this article in the ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION is more informative than the above article.

You can bet Europe won't be pleased with the outcome. Nor will China. Nor Russia. Nor (Lord help us) the Moslems. But it ain't just oil. These guys want to run the world. And we are going to be paying for it. Including those who are in business.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush is in Iraq/the real reason
From: Troll
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 11:58 PM

Why does everyone keep ignoring the fact that the UNSC resolutuin that sent us into Kuwait after it was invadedDID NOT include anything about overthrowing Saddam? If we had gone on to Baghdad we would have been acting outside the mandate. So that was not a failure on the part of Bush 41 but of the UNSC for not authorizing the action.
Thomas, if you think that peaceful diplomacy would work with Saddam, how many decades should it go on before it finally becomes a reality? How many more of his own people are you willing to see killed by Saddams thugs before you realize that you cannot negotiate with a man like that?
As far as the article goes, if it is true, how do all of you feel about the US economy going down the tubes? Do you even vaguely realize what that would mean to the average citizen? Do you know what it would do to the rest of the worlds economies?
Do you hate George Bush so much that you would sacrifice everything we have to see him fail?
Because thats kinda what I get out of this article; if the war effort fails, our economy is kaput.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush is in Iraq/the real reason
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 11:34 PM

So according to Jim Dixon's post, the war in Iraq is Freudian -- the old bull/young bull stuff! This rationale makes just as much sense as any of the others I've seen.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush is in Iraq/the real reason
From: Barry Finn
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 11:28 PM

Thanks for the post Frankham. Not saying I'm biting on this one yet but it would sure tie up a lot of loose ends, more like a gift wrapped. Happy birthday Frank you're supposed to be on the receiving end of things, you'r a good man. This would explain why the Arab world is getting left out or staying out in the cold, though it seems as of late they're doing a turn around. If this becomes a 3 ring circus it may be years be before the dust settles, after the bloodbath. There will be no winners if this mess is headed in that direction. Barry, whousedtobepathologicallyaffirmative

Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush is in Iraq/the real reason
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 06:40 PM

I'm not particularly well informed, but from some of my Venezuelan friends I get the impression that Chavez is neither as well-liked or as honest as the article seemed to indicate.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush is in Iraq/the real reason
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 06:39 PM

A big assumption here is that GWB's reasons are rational.

I prefer the interpretation by Doug Wead, who wrote "All the Presidents' Children" and who used to work for GWB back when his father was president. (I saw him on CSPAN "Book TV" last weekend.)

He says GWB is simply trying to finish his father's unfinished business.

The two biggest failures of Bush Senior's administration was that he failed to keep his "no new taxes" promise and that he failed to get rid of Saddam.

Therefore, under Bush Junior's administration we get tax cuts (for the rich, mainly) "whether we want them or not" and we have a war for the explicit purpose of getting rid of Saddam. It doesn't matter what the other results will be.

In short, Bush Junior wants to make his daddy proud of him.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush is in Iraq/the real reason
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 06:25 PM

Simple reason. The renewal contract for the replacemnt of the munitions used in the war will amount to several billion dollars.
The cash payback to those politicians and generals involved in awarding the contracts will amount to hundreds of millions of dollars.
There are no corrupt politicians in th USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush is in Iraq/the real reason
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 06:13 PM

I said a few days ago that the US dollar is falling in value, and it's quite noticeable (here in Canada). I said, maybe you should consider investing in Euros. I believe the article posted is very much on the mark. The USA is a society that is already bankrupt, but that nasty fact is being desperately concealed, by any means possible, and that is why the USA has been going to war in various places, and is trying to destroy the Chavez government in Venezuela.

It's painfully obvious, but it is not something you will hear discussed on the mostly controlled and orchestrated media of the USA itself. Be glad we have the Internet, which cannot yet be censored or controlled by a handful of rich men with their bosses and errand boys in Washington.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush is in Iraq/the real reason
From: Frankham
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 05:19 PM

I agree with Gerald Faulhaber. There are not too many people who know or care about who dominates the oil market. If people knew, maybe something could be done about lives spent on a meaningless cause in Iraq. The exchange rate is still favorable to the dollar. Maybe it will be for some time. British, Australian, some Baltic and Spanish leaders seem to think so. If Gerald is waiting for a coherent explanation as to why we are in this mess, good luck. But it seems that economics plays an important role. He offers no credible rebuttal to the argument presented.

"nobody cares about how oil trade is denominated, not in a world of complete and efficient FX (foreign exchange) markets", he says. Tell that to France and Germany. Why do you think that France will trade with Iraq? And not for American bucks either. No, the silliness is assuming that the bill of goods that the Bush Administration is trying to sell us is believable. Remember the Bush's did business in Odessa Texas and there's a lot of oil down there. One could refer to this Administration as oleaginous in more ways than one.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush is in Iraq/the real reason
From: Walking Eagle
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 04:32 PM

Makes sense to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush is in Iraq/the real reason
From: Ebbie
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 04:26 PM

Here is what one person thinks about it:

---- Forwarded Message
From: "Faulhaber, Gerald"
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 08:20:16 -0500
To: Dave Farber
Subject: RE: Alternative View Of Why Iraq, Why Now?

"This is absolutely bizarre. The US vs. EU? The US is clearly the stronger economy and will be so for the foreseeable future. The EU is an important and significant market, but this idea of a "battle" is pretty ridiculous.

The US "had a monopoly on oil trade"? What is he talking about? It appears he means that oil trade is denominated in dollars, not euros or yen, and he seems to think this is important. It's not; nobody cares about how oil trade is denominated, not in a world of complete and efficient FX (foreign exchange) markets.

There's no doubt this is a very weird war, in which we (US citizens) are still waiting for a coherent explanation of what's going on from our government. I suppose this kind of total nonsense is what rushes in to fill the information gap the Bushies have left us with."

Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush is in Iraq/the real reason
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 04:10 PM

Thanks for the comprehensive 'big picture', Frankham!

It's 'clear as a bell' all of a sudden...

I guess that the Americans who are so 'gut level' into this war are tapping into their intuitional survival skills...

The humor here is that the peaceful diplomacy would have worked, and the respect earned might have maintained the economic status quo... ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush is in Iraq/the real reason
From: Alba
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 02:32 PM

I read this document about two weeks ago and it got me thinking too. It is most definetly a interesting opinion on the why's and wherefors of this mess. Thanks for posting it Frankham.

Subject: BS: Why Bush is in Iraq/the real reason
From: Frankham
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 02:21 PM

Hi,this is the most informative article I have read on the subject.

Frank Hamilton


Economic Perspective On The War

*** It's Not About Oil Or Iraq. It's About The US And Europe Going
Head-To-Head On World Economic Dominance. ***
By Geoffrey Heard, Australia

Summary: Why is George Bush so hell bent on war with Iraq? Why does his administration reject every positive Iraqi move? It all makes sense when you consider the economic implications for the USA of not going to war with Iraq. The war in Iraq is actually the US and Europe going head to head on economic leadership of the world.
America's Bush administration has been caught in outright lies, gross exaggerations and incredible inaccuracies as it trotted out its litany of paper thin excuses for making war on Iraq. Along with its two supporters, Britain and Australia, it has shifted its ground and reversed its position with a barefaced contempt for its audience. It has manipulated information, deceived by commission and omission and frantically "bought" UN votes with billion dollar bribes.
Faced with the failure of gaining UN Security Council support for invading Iraq, the USA has threatened to invade without authorisation. It would act in breach of the UN's very constitution to allegedly enforced UN resolutions.
It is plain bizarre. Where does this desperation for war come from?
There are many things driving President Bush and his administration to invade Iraq, unseat Saddam Hussein and take over the country. But the biggest one is hidden and very, very simple. It is about the currency used to trade oil and consequently, who will dominate the world economically, in the foreseeable future -- the USA or the European Union.
Iraq is a European Union beachhead in that confrontation. America had a monopoly on the oil trade, with the US dollar being the fiat currency, but Iraq broke ranks in 1999, started to trade oil in the EU's euros, and profited. If America invades Iraq and takes over, it will hurl the EU and its euro back into the sea and make America's position as the dominant economic power in the world all but impregnable.
It is the biggest grab for world power in modern times.
America's allies in the invasion, Britain and Australia, are betting America will win and that they will get some trickle-down benefits for jumping on to the US bandwagon.
France and Germany are the spearhead of the European force -- Russia would like to go European but possibly can still be bought off.
Presumably, China would like to see the Europeans build a share of international trade currency ownership at this point while it continues to grow its international trading presence to the point where it, too, can share the leadership rewards.

******************

DEBATE BUILDING ON THE INTERNET
Oddly, little or nothing is appearing in the general media about this issue, although key people are becoming aware of it -- note the recent slide in the value of the US dollar. Are traders afraid of war? They are more likely to be afraid there will not be war.
But despite the silence in the general media, a major world discussion is developing around this issue, particularly on the internet. Among the many articles: Henry Liu, in the 'Asia Times' last June, it has been a hot topic on the Feasta forum, an Irish-based group exploring sustainable economics, and W. Clark's "The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War with Iraq: A Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth" has been published by the 'Sierra Times', 'Indymedia.org', and 'ratical.org'.
This debate is not about whether America would suffer from losing the US dollar monopoly on oil trading -- that is a given -- rather it is about exactly how hard the USA would be hit. The smart money seems to be saying the impact would be in the range from severe to catastrophic. The USA could collapse economically.

******************

OIL DOLLARS
The key to it all is the fiat currency for trading oil.
Under an OPEC agreement, all oil has been traded in US dollars since 1971 (after the dropping of the gold standard) which makes the US dollar the de facto major international trading currency. If other nations have to hoard dollars to buy oil, then they want to use that hoard for other trading too. This fact gives America a huge trading advantage and helps make it the dominant economy in the world.
As an economic bloc, the European Union is the only challenger to the USA's economic position, and it created the euro to challenge the dollar in international markets. However, the EU is not yet united behind the euro -- there is a lot of jingoistic national politics involved, not least in Britain -- and in any case, so long as nations throughout the world must hoard dollars to buy oil, the euro can make only very limited inroads into the dollar's dominance.
In 1999, Iraq, with the world's second largest oil reserves, switched to trading its oil in euros. American analysts fell about laughing; Iraq had just made a mistake that was going to beggar the nation. But two years on, alarm bells were sounding; the euro was rising against the dollar, Iraq had given itself a huge economic free kick by switching.
Iran started thinking about switching too; Venezuela, the 4th largest oil producer, began looking at it and has been cutting out the dollar by bartering oil with several nations including America's bete noir, Cuba. Russia is seeking to ramp up oil production with Europe (trading in euros) an obvious market.
The greenback's grip on oil trading and consequently on world trade in general, was under serious threat. If America did not stamp on this immediately, this economic brushfire could rapidly be fanned into a wildfire capable of consuming the US's economy and its dominance of world trade.

******************

HOW DOES THE US GET ITS DOLLAR ADVANTAGE?
Imagine this: you are deep in debt but every day you write cheques for millions of dollars you don't have -- another luxury car, a holiday home at the beach, the world trip of a lifetime.
Your cheques should be worthless but they keep buying stuff because those cheques you write never reach the bank! You have an agreement with the owners of one thing everyone wants, call it petrol/gas, that they will accept only your cheques as payment. This means everyone must hoard your cheques so they can buy petrol/gas. Since they have to keep a stock of your cheques, they use them to buy other stuff too. You write a cheque to buy a TV, the TV shop owner swaps your cheque for petrol/gas, that seller buys some vegetables at the fruit shop, the fruiterer passes it on to buy bread, the baker buys some flour with it, and on it goes, round and round -- but never back to the bank.
You have a debt on your books, but so long as your cheque never reaches the bank, you don't have to pay. In effect, you have received your TV free.
This is the position the USA has enjoyed for 30 years -- it has been getting a free world trade ride for all that time. It has been receiving a huge subsidy from everyone else in the world. As it debt has been growing, it has printed more money (written more cheques) to keep trading. No wonder it is an economic powerhouse!
Then one day, one petrol seller says he is going to accept another person's cheques, a couple of others think that might be a good idea. If this spreads, people are going to stop hoarding your cheques and they will come flying home to the bank. Since you don't have enough in the bank to cover all the cheques, very nasty stuff is going to hit the fan!
But you are big, tough and very aggressive. You don't scare the other guy who can write cheques, he's pretty big too, but given a 'legitimate' excuse, you can beat the tripes out of the lone gas seller and scare him and his mates into submission.
And that, in a nutshell, is what the USA is doing right now with Iraq.

******************

AMERICA'S PRECARIOUS ECONOMIC POSITION
America is so eager to attack Iraq now because of the speed with which the euro fire could spread. If Iran, Venezuela and Russia join Iraq and sell large quantities of oil for euros, the euro would have the leverage it needs to become a powerful force in general international trade. Other nations would have to start swapping some of their dollars for euros.
The dollars the USA has printed, the 'cheques' it has written, would start to fly home, stripping away the illusion of value behind them. The USA's real economic condition is about as bad as it could be; it is the most debt-ridden nation on earth, owing about US$12,000 for every single one of it's 280 million men, women and children. It is worse than the position of Indonesia when it imploded economically a few years ago, or more recently, that of Argentina.
Even if OPEC did not switch to euros wholesale (and that would make a very nice non-oil profit for the OPEC countries, including minimising the various contrived debts America has forced on some of them), the US's difficulties would build. Even if only a small part of the oil trade went euro, that would do two things immediately:
* Increase the attractiveness to EU members of joining the 'eurozone', which in turn would make the euro stronger and make it more attractive to oil nations as a trading currency and to other nations as a general trading currency.
* Start the US dollars flying home demanding value when there isn't enough in the bank to cover them.
* The markets would over-react as usual and in no time, the US dollar's value would be spiralling down.

******************

THE US SOLUTION
America's response to the euro threat was predictable. It has come out fighting.
It aims to achieve four primary things by going to war with Iraq:
* Safeguard the American economy by returning Iraq to trading oil in US dollars, so the greenback is once again the exclusive oil currency.
* Send a very clear message to any other oil producers just what will happen to them if they do not stay in the dollar circle. Iran has already received one message -- remember how puzzled you were that in the midst of moderation and secularization, Iran was named as a member of the axis of evil?
* Place the second largest reserves of oil in the world under direct American control.
* Provide a secular, subject state where the US can maintain a huge force (perhaps with nominal elements from allies such as Britain and Australia) to dominate the Middle East and its vital oil. This would enable the US to avoid using what it sees as the unreliable Turkey, the politically impossible Israel and surely the next state in its sights, Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of al Qaeda and a hotbed of anti-American sentiment.
* Severe setback the European Union and its euro, the only trading bloc and currency strong enough to attack the USA's dominance of world trade through the dollar.
* Provide cover for the US to run a covert operation to overturn the democratically elected government of Venezuela and replace it with an America-friendly military supported junta -- and put Venezuala's oil into American hands.
Locking the world back into dollar oil trading would consolidate America's current position and make it all but impregnable as the dominant world power -- economically and militarily. A splintered Europe (the US is working hard to split Europe; Britain was easy, but other Europeans have offered support in terms of UN votes) and its euro would suffer a serious setback and might take decades to recover.
It is the boldest grab for absolute power the world has seen in modern times. America is hardly likely to allow the possible slaughter of a few hundred thousand Iraqis stand between it and world domination.
President Bush did promise to protect the American way of life. This is what he meant.

******************

JUSTIFYING WAR
Obviously, the US could not simply invade Iraq, so it began casting around for a 'legitimate' reason to attack. That search has been one of increasing desperation as each rationalization has crumbled. First Iraq was a threat because of alleged links to al Qaeda; then it was proposed Iraq might supply al Qaeda with weapons; then Iraq's military threat to its neighbours was raised; then the need to deliver Iraqis from Saddam Hussein's horrendously inhumane rule; finally there is the question of compliance with UN weapons inspection.
The USA's justifications for invading Iraq are looking less impressive by the day. The US's statements that it would invade Iraq unilaterally without UN support and in defiance of the UN make a total nonsense of any American claim that it is concerned about the world body's strength and standing.
The UN weapons inspectors have come up with minimal infringements of the UN weapons limitations -- the final one being low tech rockets which exceed the range allowed by about 20 percent. But there is no sign of the so-called weapons of mass destruction (WMD) the US has so confidently asserted are to be found. Colin Powell named a certain north Iraqi village as a threat. It was not. He later admitted it was the wrong village.
'Newsweek' (24/2) has reported that while Bush officials have been trumpeting the fact that key Iraqi defector, Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamel, told the US in 1995 that Iraq had manufactured tonnes of nerve gas and anthrax (Colin Powell's 5 February presentation to the UN was just one example) they neglected to mention that Kamel had also told the US that these weapons had been destroyed.
Parts of the US and particularly the British secret 'evidence' have been shown to come from a student's masters thesis.
America's expressed concern about the Iraqi people's human rights and the country's lack of democracy are simply not supported by the USA's history of intervention in other states nor by its current actions. Think Guatemala, the Congo, Chile and Nicaragua as examples of a much larger pool of US actions to tear down legitimate, democratically elected governments and replace them with war, disruption, starvation, poverty, corruption, dictatorships, torture, rape and murder for its own economic ends. The most recent, Afghanistan, is not looking good; in fact that reinstalled a murderous group of warlords which America had earlier installed, then deposed, in favour of the now hated Taliban.
Saddam Hussein was just as repressive, corrupt and murderous 15 years ago when he used chemical weapons, supplied by the US, against the Kurds. The current US Secretary for Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, so vehement against Iraq now, was on hand personally to turn aside condemnation of Iraq and blame Iran. At that time, of course, the US thought Saddam Hussein was their man -- they were using him against the perceived threat of Iran's Islamic fundamentalism.
Right now, as 'The Independent' writer, Robert Fisk, has noted, the US's efforts to buy Algeria's UN vote includes promises of re-arming the military which has a decade long history of repression, torture, rape and murder Saddam Hussein himself would envy. It is estimated 200,000 people have died, and countless others been left maimed by the activities of these monsters. What price the US's humanitarian concerns for Iraqis? (Of course, the French are also wooing Algeria, their former north African territory, for all they are worth, but at least they are not pretending to be driven by humanitarian concerns.)
Indonesia is another nation with a vote and influence as the largest Muslim nation in the world. Its repressive, murderous military is regaining strength on the back of the US's so-called anti-terror campaign and is receiving promises of open and covert support -- including intelligence sharing.

******************

AND VENEZUELA
While the world's attention is focused on Iraq, America is both openly and covertly supporting the "coup of the rich" in Venezuela, which grabbed power briefly in April last year before being intimidated by massive public displays of support by the poor for democratically-elected President Chavez Frias. The coup leaders continue to use their control of the private media, much of industry and the ear of the American Government and its oily intimates to cause disruption and disturbance.
Venezuela's state-owned oil resources would make rich pickings for American oil companies and provide the US with an important oil source in its own backyard.
Many writers have noted the contradiction between America's alleged desire to establish democracy in Iraq while at the same time, actively undermining the democratically-elected government in Venezuela. Above the line, America rushed to recognise the coup last April; more recently, President Bush has called for "early elections", ignoring the fact that President Chavez Frias has won three elections and two referendums and, in any case, early elections would be unconstitutional.
One element of the USA's covert action against Venezuela is the behaviour of American transnational businesses, which have locked out employees in support of "national strike" action. Imagine them doing that in the USA! There is no question that a covert operation is in process to overturn the legitimate Venezuelan government. Uruguayan congressman, Jose Nayardi, made it public when he revealed that the Bush administration had asked for Uruguay's support for Venezuelan white collar executives and trade union activists "to break down levels of intransigence within the Chavez Frias administration". The process, he noted, was a shocking reminder of the CIA's 1973 intervention in Chile which saw General Pinochet lead his military coup to take over President Allende's democratically elected government in a bloodbath.
President Chavez Frias is desperately clinging to government, but with the might of the USA aligned with his opponents, how long can he last?

******************

THE COST OF WAR
Some have claimed that an American invasion of Iraq would cost so many billions of dollars that oil returns would never justify such an action.
But when the invasion is placed in the context of the protection of the entire US economy for now and into the future, the balance of the argument changes.
Further, there are three other vital factors:
First, America will be asking others to help pay for the war because it is protecting their interests. Japan and Saudi Arabia made serious contributions to the cost of the 1991 Gulf war.
Second -- in reality, war will cost the USA very little -- or at least, very little over and above normal expenditure. This war is already paid for! All the munitions and equipment have been bought and paid for. The USA would have to spend hardly a cent on new hardware to prosecute this war -- the expenditure will come later when munitions and equipment have to be replaced after the war. But amunitions, hardware and so on are being replaced all the time -- contracts are out. Some contracts will simply be brought forward and some others will be ramped up a bit, but spread over a few years, the cost will not be great. And what is the real extra cost of an army at war compared with maintaining the standing army around the world, running exercises and so on? It is there, but it is a relatively small sum.
Third -- lots of the extra costs involved in the war are dollars spent outside America, not least in the purchase of fuel. Guess how America will pay for these? By printing dollars it is going to war to protect. The same happens when production begins to replace hardware components, minerals, etc. are bought in with dollars that go overseas and exploit America's trading advantage.
The cost of war is not nearly as big as it is made out to be. The cost of not going to war would be horrendous for the USA -- unless there were another way of protecting the greenback's world trade dominance.

******************

AMERICA'S TWO ACTIVE ALLIES
Why are Australia and Britain supporting America in its transparent Iraqi war ploy?
Australia, of course, has significant US dollar reserves and trades widely in dollars and extensively with America. A fall in the US dollar would reduce Australia's debt, perhaps, but would do nothing for the Australian dollar's value against other currencies. John Howard, the Prime Minister, has long cherished the dream of a free trade agreement with the USA in the hope that Australia can jump on the back of the free ride America gets in trade through the dollar's position as the major trading medium. That would look much less attractive if the euro took over a significant part of the oil trade.
Britain has yet to adopt the euro. If the US takes over Iraq and blocks the euro's incursion into oil trading, Tony Blair will have given his French and German counterparts a bloody nose, and gained more room to manouevre on the issue -- perhaps years more room.
Britain would be in a position to demand a better deal from its EU partners for entering the "eurozone" if the new currency could not make the huge value gains guaranteed by a significant role in world oil trading. It might even be in a position to withdraw from Europe and link with America against continental Europe.
On the other hand, if the US cannot maintain the oil trade dollar monopoly, the euro will rapidly go from strength to strength, and Britain could be left begging to be allowed into the club.

******************

THE OPPOSITION
Some of the reasons for opposition to the American plan are obvious -- America is already the strongest nation on earth and dominates world trade through its dollar. If it had control of the Iraqi oil and a base for its forces in the Middle East, it would not add to, but would multiply its power.
The oil-producing nations, particularly the Arab ones, can see the writing on the wall and are quaking in their boots.
France and Germany are the EU leaders with the vision of a resurgent, united Europe taking its rightful place in the world and using its euro currency as a world trading reserve currency and thus gaining some of the free ride the United States enjoys now. They are the ones who initiated the euro oil trade with Iraq.
Russia is in deep economic trouble and knows it will get worse the day America starts exploiting its take-over of Afghanistan by running a pipeline southwards via Afghanistan from the giant southern Caspian oil fields. Currently, that oil is piped northwards -- where Russia has control.
Russia is in the process of ramping up oil production with the possibility of trading some of it for euros and selling some to the US itself. Russia already has enough problems with the fact that oil is traded in US dollars; if the US has control of Iraqi oil, it could distort the market to Russia's enormous disadvantage. In addition, Russia has interests in Iraqi oil; an American take over could see them lost. Already on its knees, Russia could be beggared before a mile of the Afghanistan pipeline is laid.

******************

ANOTHER SOLUTION?
The scenario clarifies the seriousness of America's position and explains its frantic drive for war. It also suggests that solutions other than war are possible.
Could America agree to share the trading goodies by allowing Europe to have a negotiated part of it? Not very likely, but it is just possible Europe can stare down the USA and force such an outcome. Time will tell. What about Europe taking the statesmanlike, humanitarian and long view, and withdrawing, leaving the oil to the US, with appropriate safeguards for ordinary Iraqis and democracy in Venezuela?
Europe might then be forced to adopt a smarter approach -- perhaps accelerating the development of alternative energy technologies which would reduce the EU's reliance on oil for energy and produce goods it could trade for euros -- shifting the world trade balance.
Now that would be a very positive outcome for everyone.


******* ENDS *******

Geoffrey Heard is a Melbourne, Australia, writer on the environment, sustainability and human rights.
© Geoffrey Heard, 2003.
Anyone is free to circulate this document provided it is complete and in its current form with attribution and no payment is asked. It is prohibited to reproduce this document or any part of it for commercial gain without the prior permission of the author. For such permission, contact the author at: [e-mail].



Copyright (C) Scoop Media





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.465 / Virus Database: 263 - Release Date: 3/25/03