'Septic' Professionals are predictable,It's the Amateurs who are dangerous. Aye JR 
Share This Page:
Not quite a war for oil
-
harry hackedoff
- Member
- Posts: 14415
- Joined: Tue 19 Feb, 2002 12:00 am
-
harry hackedoff
- Member
- Posts: 14415
- Joined: Tue 19 Feb, 2002 12:00 am
Back to the real world, Jesse says this isn`t a war for oil. I have given my opinion.
In the words of our, er sorry, your illustrious leader, the cult, there is a third way.
Frank Walsh of WA RMA sent me this,
Defending the Dollar
Writing in the Sunday Times on March 30, Judge Richard Goldstone stated that there were only two lawful ways in which the U.S. could use military force against Iraq. One was if the UN Security Council sanctioned it; the other was in the case of "dire self-defence". The U.S. war against Iraq is in dire defence of dollar imperialism against the threat of the euro.
Put another way, the war is about world economic dominance. That, according to Australian analyst Geoffrey Heard, is the reason for the Bush Administration's determination to oust Saddam Hussein's regime, because his policy of selling oil in euros is threatening U.S. global hegemony.
The origin of Establishment America's problem with Iraq goes back to 1999 when Iraq broke ranks among the oil producers and began to trade its oil in euros instead of U.S. dollars. As Heard notes, under an Opec agreement all oil has been traded in greenbacks since 1971. America's monopoly of the oil business has premised the U.S. dollar's supremacy among world currencies. Initially the U.S. scoffed at Iraq's move to the euro but by 2001 disdain had turned to alarm. Iran indicated an interest in changing to euros while Russia has been seeking to increase its oil production aimed at European sales - in euros, of course. Venezuela, the world's fourth largest producer, has been cutting out the dollar in its dealings and bartering with various countries, including Cuba.
The net result of these developments meant that the dollar's stranglehold on oil was slipping and with it America's dominance of world trade. With Iraq having the world's second largest oil reserves, the American Establishment, which is sodden in oil investments, simply had to act against Saddam - even if it meant going to war. The alternative was the meltdown of the U.S. economy.
America was in serious trouble long before the Al-Qaeda attacks of September 11, 2001. Its real threat came not from the Middle East so much as from the EU with its new currency, the euro. Commanding 40% of world trade, the EU poses a major challenge to continued U.S. dominance. If only a few Opec members switched to euros, argues Heard, that would hurt the U.S. in two critical ways: it would result in a stronger euro and an increase in the "eurozone" and it would trigger dollar dumping and depress the greenback's value.
With the dollar facing bleak times, the only thing left for the Bush administration as the proxy of Establishment America (Al Gore would have had to have done the same) was to come out fighting. In one respect, Bush has been very frank about the purpose of this war. He has said it is to protect the American way of life. Indeed. And that means ensuring the reign of dollar imperialism.
The war against Iraq is, therefore, a war both to defend and to assert dollar dominance. Heard sees four objectives for the U.S. in this war:
return Iraq's oil reserves to the dollar circle;
send a clear message to other oil producers as to what will happen to them if they try to leave the dollar zone; deal a setback to the EU and its euro; use the war as a cover to get Venezuela's oil back into the dollar circle by means of covert CIA action.
The cost of the war is not measured in terms of the images shown on our television screens. In fact, in Uncle Sam's view the cost of going to war is negligible compared to the cost of not going to war. The possible loss of U.S. power and the end of dollar imperialism, as far as Washington is concerned, far exceeds all other considerations.
The final aspects of Heard's analysis provide insight as to the positions of Australia and the UK. Having significant U.S. dollar reserves and strong trade links with the U.S., it is in Australia's interests to support the U.S. and to see to it that the ascendancy of the euro is checked. Britain, which has yet to adopt the euro as its currency, stands to gain time and room to manoeuvre by siding with the U.S. A U.S. victory would also, in effect, give the EU principals, France and Germany, bloody noses and place the UK in a position either to demand a better deal from the EU for adopting the euro or to distance itself from Europe and to align with America. A weakened and divided EU is a U.S. policy strategy.
Whose side should South Africa be on? It's really a case of Hobson's choice. When the U.S. economy went concave in 1929, the whole world was sucked in to its depression. Only the mad mullahs would want a repetition of that. Which is why the anti-U.S. rhetoric of the ANC government, compounded by Nelson Mandela's virulent anti-Bush remarks, is shortsighted. It would have been far better to have adopted a neutral stance, particularly since an election is due in a year's time. In 1999 the ANC's election expenses enjoyed considerable American and Middle Eastern funding. Given the physical and political costs of the war, the chances of a repeat of such funding in 2004 must range from uncertain to unlikely. Nonetheless, the aftershocks of the war on Iraq may cost the ANC dearly.
Sounds reasonable
In the words of our, er sorry, your illustrious leader, the cult, there is a third way.
Frank Walsh of WA RMA sent me this,
Defending the Dollar
Writing in the Sunday Times on March 30, Judge Richard Goldstone stated that there were only two lawful ways in which the U.S. could use military force against Iraq. One was if the UN Security Council sanctioned it; the other was in the case of "dire self-defence". The U.S. war against Iraq is in dire defence of dollar imperialism against the threat of the euro.
Put another way, the war is about world economic dominance. That, according to Australian analyst Geoffrey Heard, is the reason for the Bush Administration's determination to oust Saddam Hussein's regime, because his policy of selling oil in euros is threatening U.S. global hegemony.
The origin of Establishment America's problem with Iraq goes back to 1999 when Iraq broke ranks among the oil producers and began to trade its oil in euros instead of U.S. dollars. As Heard notes, under an Opec agreement all oil has been traded in greenbacks since 1971. America's monopoly of the oil business has premised the U.S. dollar's supremacy among world currencies. Initially the U.S. scoffed at Iraq's move to the euro but by 2001 disdain had turned to alarm. Iran indicated an interest in changing to euros while Russia has been seeking to increase its oil production aimed at European sales - in euros, of course. Venezuela, the world's fourth largest producer, has been cutting out the dollar in its dealings and bartering with various countries, including Cuba.
The net result of these developments meant that the dollar's stranglehold on oil was slipping and with it America's dominance of world trade. With Iraq having the world's second largest oil reserves, the American Establishment, which is sodden in oil investments, simply had to act against Saddam - even if it meant going to war. The alternative was the meltdown of the U.S. economy.
America was in serious trouble long before the Al-Qaeda attacks of September 11, 2001. Its real threat came not from the Middle East so much as from the EU with its new currency, the euro. Commanding 40% of world trade, the EU poses a major challenge to continued U.S. dominance. If only a few Opec members switched to euros, argues Heard, that would hurt the U.S. in two critical ways: it would result in a stronger euro and an increase in the "eurozone" and it would trigger dollar dumping and depress the greenback's value.
With the dollar facing bleak times, the only thing left for the Bush administration as the proxy of Establishment America (Al Gore would have had to have done the same) was to come out fighting. In one respect, Bush has been very frank about the purpose of this war. He has said it is to protect the American way of life. Indeed. And that means ensuring the reign of dollar imperialism.
The war against Iraq is, therefore, a war both to defend and to assert dollar dominance. Heard sees four objectives for the U.S. in this war:
return Iraq's oil reserves to the dollar circle;
send a clear message to other oil producers as to what will happen to them if they try to leave the dollar zone; deal a setback to the EU and its euro; use the war as a cover to get Venezuela's oil back into the dollar circle by means of covert CIA action.
The cost of the war is not measured in terms of the images shown on our television screens. In fact, in Uncle Sam's view the cost of going to war is negligible compared to the cost of not going to war. The possible loss of U.S. power and the end of dollar imperialism, as far as Washington is concerned, far exceeds all other considerations.
The final aspects of Heard's analysis provide insight as to the positions of Australia and the UK. Having significant U.S. dollar reserves and strong trade links with the U.S., it is in Australia's interests to support the U.S. and to see to it that the ascendancy of the euro is checked. Britain, which has yet to adopt the euro as its currency, stands to gain time and room to manoeuvre by siding with the U.S. A U.S. victory would also, in effect, give the EU principals, France and Germany, bloody noses and place the UK in a position either to demand a better deal from the EU for adopting the euro or to distance itself from Europe and to align with America. A weakened and divided EU is a U.S. policy strategy.
Whose side should South Africa be on? It's really a case of Hobson's choice. When the U.S. economy went concave in 1929, the whole world was sucked in to its depression. Only the mad mullahs would want a repetition of that. Which is why the anti-U.S. rhetoric of the ANC government, compounded by Nelson Mandela's virulent anti-Bush remarks, is shortsighted. It would have been far better to have adopted a neutral stance, particularly since an election is due in a year's time. In 1999 the ANC's election expenses enjoyed considerable American and Middle Eastern funding. Given the physical and political costs of the war, the chances of a repeat of such funding in 2004 must range from uncertain to unlikely. Nonetheless, the aftershocks of the war on Iraq may cost the ANC dearly.
Sounds reasonable
[url=http://www.militaryforums.co.uk/forums/groupcp.php?g=397][img]http://www.militaryforums.co.uk/forums/images/usergroups/listener.gif[/img][/url]
-
Rotary Booty
- Member
- Posts: 1772
- Joined: Sun 06 Jan, 2002 12:00 am
- Location: Pudsey, Leeds, West Yorkshire
If they are stupid enough to further antagonise the Mullahs then the Govt installed by the coalition stand no chance of getting the country restored to some degree of normality.
You should talk to somebody who gives a f**k.
[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v77/Robiz/movie_star_wars_yoda.gif[/img]
El Presidente
[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v77/Robiz/movie_star_wars_yoda.gif[/img]
El Presidente
Hello Harry, (and your like-minded comrades)
I have been reading some of your informative discussions in the various sections of this Forum. You have raised interesting issues about the moral justifiction of this controversial war.
I would like to say, Harry, I agree with your views. Initially I was against this war for the same reasons you mentioned earlier. Anyway, once the war got underway, I kept thinking about those soldiers away from home, stuck in a hostile, foreign land, risking their lives for someone else's freedom. Here, I was sitting comfortably at home with my family. In addition, the anti/pro war protests, the constant live TV coverage of the bombing, the civilian casulaties, the friendly fire incidences, troops KIA, POWs, and the endless TV/radio debates about the morals of this war troubled me.
Nevertheless, the only positive aspect I could see was the elimination of an evil regime and freedom for the oppressed Iraqi nation. Now, they have some bridge-building to do among themselves by reconciling their ethnic, religious, and tribal differences. This can also be said for some countries in the Middle East and the Muslim world.
The British Armed Forces (also the Australian and Canadians in their respective fields) have demonstrated their unique, calm professionalism for which they are well known for. Most of all, they showed their compassion and respect towards the Iraqi people. The British certainly know how to win the hearts and minds (otherwise I wouldn't be writing all this !).
Unfortunately, the USA's duplicitous, intimidating and bizarre behaviour in the international arena has not convinced me of its sincerity towards the Middle East and the World in general. Perhaps, the British could give the Americans a few lessons in the art of diplomacy and warfare.
I would like to say, many people like myself were born and raised in the west, and have adapted well in many aspects of western culture. However, since 9/11, the USA (certain political groups and the media) have put us (moderates) in the same category as these pseudo-Islamic extremists because of our ethnicity and religion. Also, on the one hand, we are accused of being too 'antagonistic towards the west' and on the other for being 'disciples of the west'. We are then stuck in this predicament of torn loyalties. We are trying to find a sense of balance to this dilemma and its not easy for us either.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is, that many of us are thankful to ALL the Allied Forces for their effort and those who sacrificed their lives, did so with courage and honour.
The future of the Middle East (and the World in general) remains uncertain for now. I am trying to believe something good will come out of this tragedy.
You all are worldy-wise and learned individuals and seem to understand the World in a realistic manner than the rest of us (the public), the politicians and the media. This is (positively) surprising as I initially expected a hawkish attitude from the military in general.
I apologise for my foolish ramblings, but this is the way I am feeling right now. I can't help it being a girl !
P.S
The humour was enlightening and I laughed alot in between the sad times ! (sorry for the wrong spelling and grammar)
Marina
I have been reading some of your informative discussions in the various sections of this Forum. You have raised interesting issues about the moral justifiction of this controversial war.
I would like to say, Harry, I agree with your views. Initially I was against this war for the same reasons you mentioned earlier. Anyway, once the war got underway, I kept thinking about those soldiers away from home, stuck in a hostile, foreign land, risking their lives for someone else's freedom. Here, I was sitting comfortably at home with my family. In addition, the anti/pro war protests, the constant live TV coverage of the bombing, the civilian casulaties, the friendly fire incidences, troops KIA, POWs, and the endless TV/radio debates about the morals of this war troubled me.
Nevertheless, the only positive aspect I could see was the elimination of an evil regime and freedom for the oppressed Iraqi nation. Now, they have some bridge-building to do among themselves by reconciling their ethnic, religious, and tribal differences. This can also be said for some countries in the Middle East and the Muslim world.
The British Armed Forces (also the Australian and Canadians in their respective fields) have demonstrated their unique, calm professionalism for which they are well known for. Most of all, they showed their compassion and respect towards the Iraqi people. The British certainly know how to win the hearts and minds (otherwise I wouldn't be writing all this !).
Unfortunately, the USA's duplicitous, intimidating and bizarre behaviour in the international arena has not convinced me of its sincerity towards the Middle East and the World in general. Perhaps, the British could give the Americans a few lessons in the art of diplomacy and warfare.
I would like to say, many people like myself were born and raised in the west, and have adapted well in many aspects of western culture. However, since 9/11, the USA (certain political groups and the media) have put us (moderates) in the same category as these pseudo-Islamic extremists because of our ethnicity and religion. Also, on the one hand, we are accused of being too 'antagonistic towards the west' and on the other for being 'disciples of the west'. We are then stuck in this predicament of torn loyalties. We are trying to find a sense of balance to this dilemma and its not easy for us either.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is, that many of us are thankful to ALL the Allied Forces for their effort and those who sacrificed their lives, did so with courage and honour.
The future of the Middle East (and the World in general) remains uncertain for now. I am trying to believe something good will come out of this tragedy.
You all are worldy-wise and learned individuals and seem to understand the World in a realistic manner than the rest of us (the public), the politicians and the media. This is (positively) surprising as I initially expected a hawkish attitude from the military in general.
I apologise for my foolish ramblings, but this is the way I am feeling right now. I can't help it being a girl !
P.S
The humour was enlightening and I laughed alot in between the sad times ! (sorry for the wrong spelling and grammar)
Marina
-
Andy O'Pray
- Member
- Posts: 3189
- Joined: Thu 06 Dec, 2001 12:00 am
- Location: www
Hi Marina, I can sympathise with your predicament, especially if you are surrounded by ignorance and a lack of knowledge. Most of us old codgers on this site, may seem to be a bit crazy, but we have been around the world a few times and learned a lot about the various cultures with whom we lived. This is not a knowledge possessed by the general public.
Having spent several years in the Middle East, I am watching the present situation in Iraq, I am also watching the mistakes being made by the Americans. It is a great pity that they did not learn more about the culture before they moved in.
Aye - Andy.
Having spent several years in the Middle East, I am watching the present situation in Iraq, I am also watching the mistakes being made by the Americans. It is a great pity that they did not learn more about the culture before they moved in.
Aye - Andy.
Marina, as you are no doubt aware, that is exactly where we find ourselves. Fiercely loyal to what we still think of as 'Our lads', in a very possessive sense, and yet many of us, without political affiliations, are dismissively disloyal to this country's Government. We are especially distrusting of Bush and his cohorts.We are then stuck in this predicament of torn loyalties.
if you want to see the other side of the coin, have a look around www.leatherneck.com ; the attitudes of those supporting their troops is the same as that written here, but the harshness and intolerance towards Iraqi nationals and doubters of all races is undeniably extreme. It is not the place to raise one's head above the parapet and criticise, I do occasionally, it's not always shot off, but beware brickbats.
You will no doubt have read our ramblings on integrated society and asylum seekers etc. It's very difficult to walk the tightrope of political correctness and what 'we' conceive as right; tolerance towards and with others who have grown up as part of our culture, and yet intolerance to those we consider outsiders and a drain on the limited resources of a small but relatively wealthy country.
The members of these forums have, in general, experienced more hardship and pain, than many others within the UK. We tell it as we see it, and suffer the consequences. We do not suffer fools gladly, they usually get asked to Bog Off
. Keep up the interesting dialogue, it's great to have a slightly different viewpoint being expressed.You should talk to somebody who gives a f**k.
[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v77/Robiz/movie_star_wars_yoda.gif[/img]
El Presidente
[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v77/Robiz/movie_star_wars_yoda.gif[/img]
El Presidente
-
harry hackedoff
- Member
- Posts: 14415
- Joined: Tue 19 Feb, 2002 12:00 am
Marina, I have nothing to add to the comments of the previous speakers, except to tell you not to apologise for being “only a girl”, we could do with a few more on board.
I know you have followed our discussions, from your previous posts. Please, visit us more often, we are quite tame really
Aye, Harry
I know you have followed our discussions, from your previous posts. Please, visit us more often, we are quite tame really
Aye, Harry
[url=http://www.militaryforums.co.uk/forums/groupcp.php?g=397][img]http://www.militaryforums.co.uk/forums/images/usergroups/listener.gif[/img][/url]
I'd second (third, fourth) that Harry, El Prez, Andy.
Marina, I'd hate to think that anyone thought that they had to have some sort of credentials (unit served in, gongs awarded, rank achieved, enemy killed) to give their view. Fair do's I questioned USARMY's credentials once but only because of the stance he was taking, the screen name that he awarded himself and his general attitude.
You've given this a lot of sincere thought and that will always be respected here - maybe not on the other side of the pond. For the record and for what its worth I couldn't agree more with what you've said
Anyway, getting back to the topic, I think the stance of the US regime is getting closer and closer to Mussolini's take on fascism - the merger of a militarist state with corporate power. I don't think the septics have given any thought to the fact that the Iraqi people may not want a secular democracy (fronted by their man Chalabi) and they don't seem too bothered that much of the nations cultural heritage has gone up in smoke. Here's an interesting snippet of info:
Dick Cheney has been suprisingly quiet during the 'liberation' and perhaps he's quiet now because he is celebrating. The Pentagon has granted a $7bn contract to clean up Iraq's oil industry to a company called Kellog, Brown & Root. Coincidentally perhaps this is a subsidiary of Halliburton - Dick Cheney's old firm - then again perhaps not. Cheney's income tax declaration stated that he earned $162,392 from Halliburton in "deferred compensation" last year. That's what I'd call it if I was chucking out a backhander.
Worth thinking about as we settle down to watch more maimed kids and misery and suffering on the box.
Marina, I'd hate to think that anyone thought that they had to have some sort of credentials (unit served in, gongs awarded, rank achieved, enemy killed) to give their view. Fair do's I questioned USARMY's credentials once but only because of the stance he was taking, the screen name that he awarded himself and his general attitude.
You've given this a lot of sincere thought and that will always be respected here - maybe not on the other side of the pond. For the record and for what its worth I couldn't agree more with what you've said
Anyway, getting back to the topic, I think the stance of the US regime is getting closer and closer to Mussolini's take on fascism - the merger of a militarist state with corporate power. I don't think the septics have given any thought to the fact that the Iraqi people may not want a secular democracy (fronted by their man Chalabi) and they don't seem too bothered that much of the nations cultural heritage has gone up in smoke. Here's an interesting snippet of info:
Dick Cheney has been suprisingly quiet during the 'liberation' and perhaps he's quiet now because he is celebrating. The Pentagon has granted a $7bn contract to clean up Iraq's oil industry to a company called Kellog, Brown & Root. Coincidentally perhaps this is a subsidiary of Halliburton - Dick Cheney's old firm - then again perhaps not. Cheney's income tax declaration stated that he earned $162,392 from Halliburton in "deferred compensation" last year. That's what I'd call it if I was chucking out a backhander.
Worth thinking about as we settle down to watch more maimed kids and misery and suffering on the box.
Andy, El Prez, Harry
I tried to stay away from this Forum for a while because I was becoming to addicted to it (also, my Mum and my friends were becoming suspicious of why I was not getting out much). However, you all seem to have this powerful, mysterious, beguiling aura and I couldn't bear it any longer, so I had to come back for some more........................ questions to ask you !
I tried to stay away from this Forum for a while because I was becoming to addicted to it (also, my Mum and my friends were becoming suspicious of why I was not getting out much). However, you all seem to have this powerful, mysterious, beguiling aura and I couldn't bear it any longer, so I had to come back for some more........................ questions to ask you !
Hi Sully,
I think this place is bad for my health, (I tend to get a bit carried way sometimes !). I haven't started my medication yet.
I think I need a recuperative holiday.
Now that the war is over, I'm quite keen to see the Hanging Gardens of Babylon and other ancient ruins amongst the depleted uranium. Then travel up to Karbala and Najaf for a bit of spiritual guidance. Those ayatollahs are quite meek and friendly really !!
P.S
Back to the topic, I always thought Cheney was dodgy !
I think this place is bad for my health, (I tend to get a bit carried way sometimes !). I haven't started my medication yet.
I think I need a recuperative holiday.
Now that the war is over, I'm quite keen to see the Hanging Gardens of Babylon and other ancient ruins amongst the depleted uranium. Then travel up to Karbala and Najaf for a bit of spiritual guidance. Those ayatollahs are quite meek and friendly really !!
P.S
Back to the topic, I always thought Cheney was dodgy !
Last edited by Marina on Thu 24 Apr, 2003 5:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.
