Log in

View Full Version : It's not about oil, it's dollars!



Robot Rebellion
7th April 2003, 04:23
"The Federal Reserve's greatest nightmare is that OPEC will switch its international transactions from a dollar standard to a euro standard. Iraq actually made this switch in Nov. 2000 (when the euro was worth around 82 cents), and has actually made off like a bandit considering the dollar's steady depreciation against the euro. (Note: the dollar declined 17% against the euro in 2002.)

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

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

To get more, go to > http://pages.zdnet.com/sartre65/view/id20.html

Basically, this article talks about how the dollar is being propped up by being legal tender to purchase oil. Very interesting to say the least... The recent demise of the dollar has correlated sharply with a number of oil nations dumping the dollar. This boils down to control of Iraq, which means Iraq will have return to selling its oil in dollars, as opposed to Euros, which translates into a huge wealth flow to America.

Even better detail on this subject at the site: http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html Where the current scnerio is: "World trade is now a game in which the US produces dollars and the rest of the world produces things that dollars can buy." ...to which TPTB are anxious to keep as such.

Most curious is how Afghanistan fits into all this....
Background Information on Hydrocarbons

To understand hydrocarbons and how we got to this desperate place in Iraq, I have listed four articles in the Reference Section from Michael Ruppert's controversial website: From the Wilderness. Although some of Ruppert's articles are overwrought from time to time, their research detailing the issues of hydrocarbons, and the interplay between energy and Bush's perpetual `war on terror' is quite informative. The following will briefly discuss geostrategic issues regarding Iraq's oil reserves.

Other than the core driver of the dollar versus euro currency threat, the other issue related to the upcoming war with Iraq appears related to some disappointing geological findings regarding the Caspian Sea region. Since the mid-late 1990s the Caspian Sea region of Central Asia was thought to hold approximately 200 billion barrels of untapped oil (the later would be comparable to Saudi Arabia's reserve base)." [20] Based on an early feasibility study by Enron, the easiest and cheapest way to bring this oil to market would be a pipeline from Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan to the Pakistan border at Malta. In 1998 then CEO of Halliburton, Dick Cheney, expressed much interest in building that pipeline.

In fact, these oil reserves were a central component of Cheney's energy plan released in May 2001. According to his report, the U.S. will import 90% of its oil by 2020. Thus tapping into the reserves in the Caspian Sea region was viewed as a strategic goal that would help meet our growing energy demand and also reduce our dependence on oil from the Middle East." [21]

According to the French book, The Forbidden Truth, [22] the Bush administration ignored the U.N. sanctions that had been imposed upon the Taliban and entered into negotiations with the supposedly `rogue regime' from February 2, 2001 to August 6, 2001. According to this book, the Taliban were apparently not very cooperative based on the statements of Pakistan's former ambassador, Mr. Naik. He reports that the U.S. threatened a `military option' in the summer of 2001 if the Taliban did not acquiesce to our demands. Fortuitous for the Bush administration and Cheney's energy plan, Bin Laden delivered to us 9/11. The pre-positioned U.S. military, along with the CIA providing cash to the Northern Alliance leaders, led the invasion of Afghanistan and the Taliban were routed. The pro-western Karzai government was ushered in. The pipeline project was now back on track in early 2002, well, sort of . . .

After three exploratory wells were built and analyzed, it was reported that the Caspian region holds only approximately 10 to 20 billion barrels of oil (although it does have a lot of natural gas)." [20] The oil is also of poor quality, with high sulfur content. Subsequently, several major companies have now dropped their plans for the pipeline citing the massive project was no longer profitable. Unfortunately, this recent realization about the Caspian Sea region has serious implications for the U.S., India, China, Asia and Europe, as the amount of available hydrocarbons for industrialized and developing nations has been decreased downward by 20%. (Global estimates reduced from 1.2 trillion to approximately 1 trillion) [20,23]. The Bush administration quickly turned its attention to a known quantity, Iraq, with its proven reserves totaling 11% of the world's proven oil reserves (112 billion barrels). However, no geological surveys have been conducted in Iraq since the 1970s. Russian, French, and U.S. oil companies are eager to lease Iraq's unexplored fields, which may contain up to 200 billion barrels. [24] Our greatest nemesis, Bin Laden, was quickly replaced with our new public enemy #1, Saddam Hussein.

For those who would like to review the impact of depleting hydrocarbon reserves from the geo-political perspective, and the potential ramifications to how these developments may erode our civil liberties and democratic processes, retired U.S. Special Forces officer Stan Goff offers a sobering analysis in his essay: `The Infinite War and Its Roots'. [25] Likewise, for those who wish to review some of the unspeakable evidence surrounding the September 11th tragedy, the controversial essay `The Enemy Within' by the Gore Vidal offers a thorough introduction. Although this essay was published in Italy and The [UK] Observer, you will not find it printed in the U.S. media. Vidal's latest book, Dreaming War features this as the opening essay. [26] Finally, The War on Freedom: How and Why America was Attacked, September 11, 2001 by British political scientist Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed presents fundamentally disconcerting questions about the 9/11 tragedy and is highly illuminating. [27]

Boris Moskovitz
7th April 2003, 04:26
Dude, oil is a factor about why Bush wants Iraq, but yes, the true reason, well, the main reason is the economic rivalry between the US and the recent Franco-German relationship. Oil is still a factor, mate! ^^

Robot Rebellion
7th April 2003, 04:55
Quote: from Boris Moskovitz on 10:26 am on April 7, 2003
Dude, oil is a factor about why Bush wants Iraq, but yes, the true reason, well, the main reason is the economic rivalry between the US and the recent Franco-German relationship. Oil is still a factor, mate! ^^Well, yeah.

I've heard that Bush is going to use oil from Iraq to help pay for the cost of war, to where the US will be occupying Iraqi oil fields, but I'm not sure too much can come of this... Iraqi oil is state run, where no doubt, it would be privatized, where the American government receives the proceeds to pay for the war/rebuilding (and then some!) and American oil companies get to control Iraq... I think all that is possible, but the whole issue of how the dollar is propped up by oil, is IMO, the flagship reason the US wants to establish a presence in Iraq (it also serves as a warning shot across OPEC’s bow not to switch to EURO’s as well, to which they’ve been talking about doing.) There is also the theory that the US will break OPEC’s back, by ramping up Iraqi production like 7-fold, to which will flood the world with cheap oil (this excuse a Bush economic crony alluded to when accused that the war would have detrimental economic impact.

Unfortunately as we run out oil, we are going to see nasty wars over who gets the last drops of economically feasible oil. I've seen estimates where we could run out as soon as 20 years. The PNAC documents prove that Bush and his cronies already know this.

Larissa
7th April 2003, 05:25
Welcome to the Forum, Robot Rebelion.

Let me post some comments from a couple of colleagues...

> >A prolonged war in Iraq will only cost more lives. It will not change the outcome, which will be an American
_military_ victory, though not a moral one, despite the media campaign to portray war as an act of kindness.

> How long would you have preached this line to the Vietnamese? The outcome is not given in advance. And even an apparent victory may turn out to be a pyrrhic one, winning the battles but losing the war...

> Choppa

Hugh,

I ought to know better than to quote scripture to a preacher, but if common sense won't persuade you, perhaps Marx will. The United States dropped more
bombs on Vietnam than were dropped in all of World War II, killing 2 million Vietnamese. Given the limits of U.S. firepower and technology in the 1960s and 1970s, the Vietnamese did stand a fighting chance, and they took it, and they stuck to it. What determined the outcome of that war was the superior will and determination of the Vietnamese people and, confronted with that will and determination, opposition to the war in the United States. Vietnam was nonetheless devastated by American bombs and chemical weapons. Today, poor nations don't stand any chance of prevailing in military battle against the might of the U.S. military machine, which is founded on the laws of science and technology, not on notions of valor and justice. Defending yourself with broken twigs against steel rods is courageous but unwise.

Poor nations can and will win moral and political battles, but not military ones against the U.S. hegemon. For a Marxian Marxist, you're displaying surprising signs of voluntarist idealism. Perhaps you're not a dialectical materialist after all. You're right to recall Mao's Great Leap Forward: the voluntarist idea that 600,000 backyard furnaces, built and operated by optimists, would produce industrial-grade steel kept peasants away from their fields and cost 20 million lives. Marx himself wrote (in 1856): "Steam, electricity, and the spinning machine have been revolutionaries much more dangerous than even the citizens Barbès, Raspail and Blanqui." And, in the second edition of Capital (1873): "For Hegel, the process of thinking, which he even transforms into an independent subject, under the name of 'the idea', is the creator of the real world, and the real world is only the external appearance of the idea. With me the reverse is true: the ideal is nothing but the material world reflected in the mind of man, and translated into forms of thought." I would urge you to reread the chapter on Idealism and Materialism in the German Ideology. To paraphrase Marx only slightly, the Iraqis are fighting "not as they may appear in their own or other people's imagination, but as they really are; i.e. as they operate, produce materially, and hence as they work under definite material limits, presuppositions and conditions independent of their will." Those conditions
independent of their will are B-52 Bombers, B-2 Stealth Bombers, A-10 Thunderbolts, F-18 Hornets, aircraft carriers, Tomahawk missiles, Stand Alone Attack Missiles, the Mother of All Bombs: in short, the mightiest
arsenal in human history. The Americans, with a little help from their British friends, have already killed more than 1000 Iraqi civilians and untold numbers of soldiers. Not only are they willing to kill more: they have the technological means to do so. As Charles Krauthammer of Fox News put it on the first night of Shock and Awe: it is a "campaign of immaculate destruction." The struggle for self-determination, economic progress, and justice for all Iraqis will have to be political, not military.

Paul


I can only add that my strongest wish is to get North Korea involved and nuke the US.

All this massacre is about the post war business, we are all aware of that now.

:-( Lara, sad about the war.

ChiTown Lady
7th April 2003, 09:55
It's all always about the almghty buck - no matter what. The sooner we are in realizing that the better off we will be in countering it - if possible.