So, we aren't allowed to have opinions on things we have no influence on?
War on Iraq legit?
Something interesting I found...
>IT'S NOT ABOUT OIL OR IRAQ.
> IT'S ABOUT THE US AND EUROPE
> GOING HEAD-TO-HEAD ON WORLD ECONOMIC DOMINANCE.
> By Geoffrey Heard
> Melbourne, Australia
>
> Summary: Why is George Bush so hell bent on war with Iraq? Why does
> his administration reject every positive Iraqi move? It all makes
> sense when you consider the economic implications for the USA of not
> going to war with Iraq. The war in Iraq is actually the US and Europe
> going head to head on economic leadership of the world.
>
> America's Bush administration has been caught in outright lies, gross
> exaggerations and incredible inaccuracies as it trotted out its
> litany of paper thin excuses for making war on Iraq. Along with its
> two supporters, Britain and Australia, it has shifted its ground and
> reversed its position with a barefaced contempt for its audience. It
> has manipulated information, deceived by commission and omission and
> frantically "bought" UN votes with billion dollar bribes.
>
> Faced with the failure of gaining UN Security Council support for
> invading Iraq, the USA has threatened to invade without
> authorisation. It would act in breach of the UN's very constitution
> to allegedly enforced UN resolutions.
>
> It is plain bizarre. Where does this desperation for war come from?
>
> There are many things driving President Bush and his administration
> to invade Iraq, unseat Saddam Hussein and take over the country. But
> the biggest one is hidden and very, very simple. It is about the
> currency used to trade oil and consequently, who will dominate the
> world economically, in the foreseeable future -- the USA or the
> European Union.
>
> Iraq is a European Union beachhead in that confrontation. America had
> a monopoly on the oil trade, with the US dollar being the fiat
> currency, but Iraq broke ranks in 1999, started to trade oil in the
> EU's euros, and profited. If America invades Iraq and takes over, it
> will hurl the EU and its euro back into the sea and make America's
> position as the dominant economic power in the world all but
> impregnable.
>
> It is the biggest grab for world power in modern times.
>
> America's allies in the invasion, Britain and Australia, are betting
> America will win and that they will get some trickle-down benefits
> for jumping on to the US bandwagon.
>
> France and Germany are the spearhead of the European force -- Russia
> would like to go European but possibly can still be bought off.
>
> Presumably, China would like to see the Europeans build a share of
> international trade currency ownership at this point while it
> continues to grow its international trading presence to the point
> where it, too, can share the leadership rewards.
>
> DEBATE BUILDING ON THE INTERNET
>
> Oddly, little or nothing is appearing in the general media about this
> issue, although key people are becoming aware of it -- note the
> recent slide in the value of the US dollar. Are traders afraid of
> war? They are more likely to be afraid there will not be war.
>
> But despite the silence in the general media, a major world
> discussion is developing around this issue, particularly on the
> internet. Among the many articles: Henry Liu, in the 'Asia Times'
> last June, it has been a hot topic on the Feasta forum, an
> Irish-based group exploring sustainable economics, and W. Clark's
> "The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War with Iraq: A Macroeconomic and
> Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth" has been published by
> the 'Sierra Times', 'Indymedia.org', and 'ratical.org'.
>
> This debate is not about whether America would suffer from losing the
> US dollar monopoly on oil trading -- that is a given -- rather it is
> about exactly how hard the USA would be hit. The smart money seems to
> be saying the impact would be in the range from severe to
> catastrophic. The USA could collapse economically.
>
> OIL DOLLARS
>
> The key to it all is the fiat currency for trading oil.
>
> Under an OPEC agreement, all oil has been traded in US dollars since
> 1971 (after the dropping of the gold standard) which makes the US
> dollar the de facto major international trading currency. If other
> nations have to hoard dollars to buy oil, then they want to use that
> hoard for other trading too. This fact gives America a huge trading
> advantage and helps make it the dominant economy in the world.
>
> As an economic bloc, the European Union is the only challenger to the
> USA's economic position, and it created the euro to challenge the
> dollar in international markets. However, the EU is not yet united
> behind the euro -- there is a lot of jingoistic national politics
> involved, not least in Britain -- and in any case, so long as nations
> throughout the world must hoard dollars to buy oil, the euro can make
> only very limited inroads into the dollar's dominance.
>
> In 1999, Iraq, with the world's second largest oil reserves, switched
> to trading its oil in euros. American analysts fell about laughing;
> Iraq had just made a mistake that was going to beggar the nation. But
> two years on, alarm bells were sounding; the euro was rising against
> the dollar, Iraq had given itself a huge economic free kick by
> switching.
>
> Iran started thinking about switching too; Venezuela, the 4th largest
> oil producer, began looking at it and has been cutting out the dollar
> by bartering oil with several nations including America's bete noir,
> Cuba. Russia is seeking to ramp up oil production with Europe
> (trading in euros) an obvious market.
>
> The greenback's grip on oil trading and consequently on world trade
> in general, was under serious threat. If America did not stamp on
> this immediately, this economic brushfire could rapidly be fanned
> into a wildfire capable of consuming the US's economy and its
> dominance of world trade.
>
> HOW DOES THE US GET ITS DOLLAR ADVANTAGE?
>
> Imagine this: you are deep in debt but every day you write cheques
> for millions of dollars you don't have -- another luxury car, a
> holiday home at the beach, the world trip of a lifetime.
>
> Your cheques should be worthless but they keep buying stuff because
> those cheques you write never reach the bank! You have an agreement
> with the owners of one thing everyone wants, call it petrol/gas, that
> they will accept only your cheques as payment. This means everyone
> must hoard your cheques so they can buy petrol/gas. Since they have
> to keep a stock of your cheques, they use them to buy other stuff
> too. You write a cheque to buy a TV, the TV shop owner swaps your
> cheque for petrol/gas, that seller buys some vegetables at the fruit
> shop, the fruiterer passes it on to buy bread, the baker buys some
> flour with it, and on it goes, round and round -- but never back to
> the bank.
>
> You have a debt on your books, but so long as your cheque never
> reaches the bank, you don't have to pay. In effect, you have received
> your TV free.
>
> This is the position the USA has enjoyed for 30 years -- it has been
> getting a free world trade ride for all that time. It has been
> receiving a huge subsidy from everyone else in the world. As it debt
> has been growing, it has printed more money (written more cheques) to
> keep trading. No wonder it is an economic powerhouse!
>
> Then one day, one petrol seller says he is going to accept another
> person's cheques, a couple of others think that might be a good idea.
> If this spreads, people are going to stop hoarding your cheques and
> they will come flying home to the bank. Since you don't have enough
> in the bank to cover all the cheques, very nasty stuff is going to
> hit the fan!
>
> But you are big, tough and very aggressive. You don't scare the other
> guy who can write cheques, he's pretty big too, but given a
> 'legitimate' excuse, you can beat the tripes out of the lone gas
> seller and scare him and his mates into submission.
>
> And that, in a nutshell, is what the USA is doing right now with Iraq.
>
> AMERICA'S PRECARIOUS ECONOMIC POSITION
>
> America is so eager to attack Iraq now because of the speed with
> which the euro fire could spread. If Iran, Venezuela and Russia join
> Iraq and sell large quantities of oil for euros, the euro would have
> the leverage it needs to become a powerful force in general
> international trade. Other nations would have to start swapping some
> of their dollars for euros.
>
> The dollars the USA has printed, the 'cheques' it has written, would
> start to fly home, stripping away the illusion of value behind them.
> The USA's real economic condition is about as bad as it could be; it
> is the most debt-ridden nation on earth, owing about US$12,000 for
> every single one of it's 280 million men, women and children. It is
> worse than the position of Indonesia when it imploded economically a
> few years ago, or more recently, that of Argentina.
>
> Even if OPEC did not switch to euros wholesale (and that would make a
> very nice non-oil profit for the OPEC countries, including minimising
> the various contrived debts America has forced on some of them), the
> US's difficulties would build. Even if only a small part of the oil
> trade went euro, that would do two things immediately:
>
> * Increase the attractiveness to EU members of joining the
> 'eurozone', which in turn would make the euro stronger and make it
> more attractive to oil nations as a trading currency and to other
> nations as a general trading currency.
>
> * Start the US dollars flying home demanding value when there isn't
> enough in the bank to cover them.
>
> * The markets would over-react as usual and in no time, the US
> dollar's value would be spiralling down.
>
> THE US SOLUTION
>
> America's response to the euro threat was predictable. It has come
> out fighting.
>
> It aims to achieve four primary things by going to war with Iraq:
>
> * Safeguard the American economy by returning Iraq to trading oil in
> US dollars, so the greenback is once again the exclusive oil currency.
>
> * Send a very clear message to any other oil producers just what
> will happen to them if they do not stay in the dollar circle. Iran
> has already received one message -- remember how puzzled you were
> that in the midst of moderation and secularization, Iran was named as
> a member of the axis of evil?
>
> * Place the second largest reserves of oil in the world under direct
> American control.
>
> * Provide a secular, subject state where the US can maintain a huge
> force (perhaps with nominal elements from allies such as Britain and
> Australia) to dominate the Middle East and its vital oil. This would
> enable the US to avoid using what it sees as the unreliable Turkey,
> the politically impossible Israel and surely the next state in its
> sights, Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of al Qaeda and a hotbed of
> anti-American sentiment.
>
> * Severe setback the European Union and its euro, the only trading
> bloc and currency strong enough to attack the USA's dominance of
> world trade through the dollar.
>
> * Provide cover for the US to run a covert operation to overturn the
> democratically elected government of Venezuela and replace it with an
> America-friendly military supported junta -- and put Venezuala's oil
> into American hands.
>
> Locking the world back into dollar oil trading would consolidate
> America's current position and make it all but impregnable as the
> dominant world power -- economically and militarily. A splintered
> Europe (the US is working hard to split Europe; Britain was easy, but
> other Europeans have offered support in terms of UN votes) and its
> euro would suffer a serious setback and might take decades to recover.
>
> It is the boldest grab for absolute power the world has seen in
> modern times. America is hardly likely to allow the possible
> slaughter of a few hundred thousand Iraqis stand between it and world
> domination.
>
> President Bush did promise to protect the American way of life. This
> is what he meant.
>
> JUSTIFYING WAR
>
> Obviously, the US could not simply invade Iraq, so it began casting
> around for a 'legitimate' reason to attack. That search has been one
> of increasing desperation as each rationalization has crumbled. First
> Iraq was a threat because of alleged links to al Qaeda; then it was
> proposed Iraq might supply al Qaeda with weapons; then Iraq's
> military threat to its neighbours was raised; then the need to
> deliver Iraqis from Saddam Hussein's horrendously inhumane rule;
> finally there is the question of compliance with UN weapons
> inspection.
>
> The USA's justifications for invading Iraq are looking less
> impressive by the day. The US's statements that it would invade Iraq
> unilaterally without UN support and in defiance of the UN make a
> total nonsense of any American claim that it is concerned about the
> world body's strength and standing.
>
> The UN weapons inspectors have come up with minimal infringements of
> the UN weapons limitations -- the final one being low tech rockets
> which exceed the range allowed by about 20 percent. But there is no
> sign of the so-called weapons of mass destruction (WMD) the US has so
> confidently asserted are to be found. Colin Powell named a certain
> north Iraqi village as a threat. It was not. He later admitted it was
> the wrong village.
>
> 'Newsweek' (24/2) has reported that while Bush officials have been
> trumpeting the fact that key Iraqi defector, Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamel,
> told the US in 1995 that Iraq had manufactured tonnes of nerve gas
> and anthrax (Colin Powell's 5 February presentation to the UN was
> just one example) they neglected to mention that Kamel had also told
> the US that these weapons had been destroyed.
>
> Parts of the US and particularly the British secret 'evidence' have
> been shown to come from a student's masters thesis.
>
> America's expressed concern about the Iraqi people's human rights and
> the country's lack of democracy are simply not supported by the USA's
> history of intervention in other states nor by its current actions.
> Think Guatemala, the Congo, Chile and Nicaragua as examples of a much
> larger pool of US actions to tear down legitimate, democratically
> elected governments and replace them with war, disruption,
> starvation, poverty, corruption, dictatorships, torture, rape and
> murder for its own economic ends. The most recent, Afghanistan, is
> not looking good; in fact that reinstalled a murderous group of
> warlords which America had earlier installed, then deposed, in favour
> of the now hated Taliban.
>
> Saddam Hussein was just as repressive, corrupt and murderous 15 years
> ago when he used chemical weapons, supplied by the US, against the
> Kurds. The current US Secretary for Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, so
> vehement against Iraq now, was on hand personally to turn aside
> condemnation of Iraq and blame Iran. At that time, of course, the US
> thought Saddam Hussein was their man -- they were using him against
> the perceived threat of Iran's Islamic fundamentalism.
>
> Right now, as 'The Independent' writer, Robert Fisk, has noted, the
> US's efforts to buy Algeria's UN vote includes promises of re-arming
> the military which has a decade long history of repression, torture,
> rape and murder Saddam Hussein himself would envy. It is estimated
> 200,000 people have died, and countless others been left maimed by
> the activities of these monsters. What price the US's humanitarian
> concerns for Iraqis? (Of course, the French are also wooing Algeria,
> their former north African territory, for all they are worth, but at
> least they are not pretending to be driven by humanitarian concerns.)
>
> Indonesia is another nation with a vote and influence as the largest
> Muslim nation in the world. Its repressive, murderous military is
> regaining strength on the back of the US's so-called anti-terror
> campaign and is receiving promises of open and covert support --
> including intelligence sharing.
>
> AND VENEZUELA
>
> While the world's attention is focused on Iraq, America is both
> openly and covertly supporting the "coup of the rich" in Venezuela,
> which grabbed power briefly in April last year before being
> intimidated by massive public displays of support by the poor for
> democratically-elected President Chavez Frias. The coup leaders
> continue to use their control of the private media, much of industry
> and the ear of the American Government and its oily intimates to
> cause disruption and disturbance.
>
> Venezuela's state-owned oil resources would make rich pickings for
> American oil companies and provide the US with an important oil
> source in its own backyard.
>
> Many writers have noted the contradiction between America's alleged
> desire to establish democracy in Iraq while at the same time,
> actively undermining the democratically-elected government in
> Venezuela. Above the line, America rushed to recognise the coup last
> April; more recently, President Bush has called for "early
> elections", ignoring the fact that President Chavez Frias has won
> three elections and two referendums and, in any case, early elections
> would be unconstitutional.
>
> One element of the USA's covert action against Venezuela is the
> behaviour of American transnational businesses, which have locked out
> employees in support of "national strike" action. Imagine them doing
> that in the USA! There is no question that a covert operation is in
> process to overturn the legitimate Venezuelan government. Uruguayan
> congressman, Jose Nayardi, made it public when he revealed that the
> Bush administration had asked for Uruguay's support for Venezuelan
> white collar executives and trade union activists "to break down
> levels of intransigence within the Chavez Frias administration". The
> process, he noted, was a shocking reminder of the CIA's 1973
> intervention in Chile which saw General Pinochet lead his military
> coup to take over President Allende's democratically elected
> government in a bloodbath.
>
> President Chavez Frias is desperately clinging to government, but
> with the might of the USA aligned with his opponents, how long can he
> last?
>
> THE COST OF WAR
>
> Some have claimed that an American invasion of Iraq would cost so
> many billions of dollars that oil returns would never justify such an
> action.
>
> But when the invasion is placed in the context of the protection of
> the entire US economy for now and into the future, the balance of the
> argument changes.
>
> Further, there are three other vital factors:
>
> First, America will be asking others to help pay for the war because
> it is protecting their interests. Japan and Saudi Arabia made serious
> contributions to the cost of the 1991 Gulf war.
>
> Second -- in reality, war will cost the USA very little -- or at
> least, very little over and above normal expenditure. This war is
> already paid for! All the munitions and equipment have been bought
> and paid for. The USA would have to spend hardly a cent on new
> hardware to prosecute this war -- the expenditure will come later
> when munitions and equipment have to be replaced after the war. But
> munitions, hardware and so on are being replaced all the time --
> contracts are out. Some contracts will simply be brought forward and
> some others will be ramped up a bit, but spread over a few years, the
> cost will not be great. And what is the real extra cost of an army at
> war compared with maintaining the standing army around the world,
> running exercises and so on? It is there, but it is a relatively
> small sum.
>
> Third -- lots of the extra costs involved in the war are dollars
> spent outside America, not least in the purchase of fuel. Guess how
> America will pay for these? By printing dollars it is going to war to
> protect. The same happens when production begins to replace hardware.
> components, minerals, etc. are bought in with dollars that go
> overseas and exploit America's trading advantage.
>
> The cost of war is not nearly as big as it is made out to be. The
> cost of not going to war would be horrendous for the USA -- unless
> there were another way of protecting the greenback's world trade
> dominance.
>
> AMERICA'S TWO ACTIVE ALLIES
>
> Why are Australia and Britain supporting America in its transparent
> Iraqi war ploy?
>
> Australia, of course, has significant US dollar reserves and trades
> widely in dollars and extensively with America. A fall in the US
> dollar would reduce Australia's debt, perhaps, but would do nothing
> for the Australian dollar's value against other currencies. John
> Howard, the Prime Minister, has long cherished the dream of a free
> trade agreement with the USA in the hope that Australia can jump on
> the back of the free ride America gets in trade through the dollar's
> position as the major trading medium. That would look much less
> attractive if the euro took over a significant part of the oil trade.
>
> Britain has yet to adopt the euro. If the US takes over Iraq and
> blocks the euro's incursion into oil trading, Tony Blair will have
> given his French and German counterparts a bloody nose, and gained
> more room to manouevre on the issue -- perhaps years more room.
> Britain would be in a position to demand a better deal from its EU
> partners for entering the "eurozone" if the new currency could not
> make the huge value gains guaranteed by a significant role in world
> oil trading. It might even be in a position to withdraw from Europe
> and link with America against continental Europe.
>
> On the other hand, if the US cannot maintain the oil trade dollar
> monopoly, the euro will rapidly go from strength to strength, and
> Britain could be left begging to be allowed into the club.
>
> THE OPPOSITION
>
> Some of the reasons for opposition to the American plan are obvious
> -- America is already the strongest nation on earth and dominates
> world trade through its dollar. If it had control of the Iraqi oil
> and a base for its forces in the Middle East, it would not add to,
> but would multiply its power.
>
> The oil-producing nations, particularly the Arab ones, can see the
> writing on the wall and are quaking in their boots.
>
> France and Germany are the EU leaders with the vision of a resurgent,
> united Europe taking its rightful place in the world and using its
> euro currency as a world trading reserve currency and thus gaining
> some of the free ride the United States enjoys now. They are the ones
> who initiated the euro oil trade with Iraq.
>
> Russia is in deep economic trouble and knows it will get worse the
> day America starts exploiting its take-over of Afghanistan by running
> a pipeline southwards via Afghanistan from the giant southern Caspian
> oil fields. Currently, that oil is piped northwards -- where Russia
> has control.
>
> Russia is in the process of ramping up oil production with the
> possibility of trading some of it for euros and selling some to the
> US itself. Russia already has enough problems with the fact that oil
> is traded in US dollars; if the US has control of Iraqi oil, it could
> distort the market to Russia's enormous disadvantage. In addition,
> Russia has interests in Iraqi oil; an American take over could see
> them lost. Already on its knees, Russia could be beggared before a
> mile of the Afghanistan pipeline is laid.
>
> ANOTHER SOLUTION?
>
> The scenario clarifies the seriousness of America's position and
> explains its frantic drive for war. It also suggests that solutions
> other than war are possible.
>
> Could America agree to share the trading goodies by allowing Europe
> to have a negotiated part of it? Not very likely, but it is just
> possible Europe can stare down the USA and force such an outcome.
> Time will tell. What about Europe taking the statesmanlike,
> humanitarian and long view, and withdrawing, leaving the oil to the
> US, with appropriate safeguards for ordinary Iraqis and democracy in
> Venezuela?
>
> Europe might then be forced to adopt a smarter approach -- perhaps
> accelerating the development of alternative energy technologies which
> would reduce the EU's reliance on oil for energy and produce goods it
> could trade for euros -- shifting the world trade balance.
>
> Now that would be a very positive outcome for everyone.
>
> . . . .
>
> Geoffrey Heard is a Melbourne, Australia, writer on the environment,
> sustainability and human rights.
> . . . .
>
> Geoffrey Heard C 2003. Anyone is free to circulate this document
> provided it is complete and in its current form with attribution and
> no payment is asked. It is prohibited to reproduce this document or
> any part of it for commercial gain without the prior permission of
> the author. For such permission, contact the author at
>
> SOME REFERENCES AND FURTHER INFORMATION:
>
> http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html
> 'The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War With Iraq: A Macroeconomic and
> Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth' by W. Clark, January
> 2003 (revised 20 February), Independent Media Center,
> www.indymedia.org
>
> http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=28334
> This war is about more than oil. OIL DOLLARS!!!! DOLLARS, THE EURO
> AND WAR IN IRAQ.
> This story is based on material posted by Richard Douthwaite on the
> FEASTA list in Ireland.
>
> http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2002/12/15500...ent.php#1551138
> USA intelligence agencies revealed in plot to oust Venezuela's
> President
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-
> dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentI
> d=A41444-2003Jan11¬Found=true
> Washington Post
> Split Screen In Strike-Torn Venezuela
> By Mark Weisbrot Sunday, January 12, 2003; Page B04
>
> http://www.atimes.com/global-econ/DD11Dj01.html
> Asia Times online: Global Economy
> US dollar hegemony has got to go
> By Henry C K Liu
>
> http://www.feasta.org/energy.htm
>
> http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/EnemyWithin.html
> The Observer
> The Enemy Within
> by Gore Vidal London, Sunday 27 October 2002
No-one is forcing you to read my post, Yucky1. Personally, I found that very interesting and thought some others would like to read it, too.
By the way, I would perhaps post this there, too, if I hadn't been IP-banned randomly from there (surprise, surprise). For some reason the ban effects the whole network so I can't access the OTF from the school of library either and after Zyste tried to unban me unsuccessfully a few times I decided to let the matter rest. It's not a big enough loss for me to start looking for a yet unbanned public proxy to be able to post in that spam-pit.
Fuck no. I grieve for the loss of both sides though. War is always a tragic thing, though sometimes necessary, but IMO I don't think they (the US) had a justified enough reason and I feel they somewhat rushed in.
It's all about politics and what they lead you to believe. I believe there's an ulterior motive to this, and some elements of the primary motive hasn't been revealed.
Godspeed all of you, and when I say the US i really mean G.W.B. and not Americans.