[R-G] euro vs dollar as reason for war in iraq.....

[Christian Gundermann]

interesting argument.....

On Friday, Feb 7, 2003, at 06:03 US/Pacific, paul illich wrote:

> http://www.indymedia.org/print.php3?article_id=231238
>
>
> THE REAL REASONS FOR THE UPCOMING WAR IN IRAQ:
>
> A Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth
>
>
>
> "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never  
> was and never will be ...
> The People cannot be safe without information. When the press is free,  
> and every man is
> able to read, all is safe."
>
> Those words by Thomas Jefferson embody the unfortunate state of  
> affairs that have beset
> our nation. As our government prepares to go to war with Iraq, our  
> country seems unable
> to answer even the most basic questions about this war. First, why is  
> there virtually no
> international support to topple Saddam? If Iraqâ?™s WMD program truly  
> possessed the
> threat level that President Bush has repeatedly purported, why is  
> there no international
> coalition to militarily disarm Saddam? Secondly, despite over 300  
> unfettered U.N inspections
> to date, there has been no evidence reported of a reconstituted Iraqi  
> WMD program. Third,
> and despite Bushâ?™s rhetoric, the CIA has not found any links between  
> Saddam Hussein
> and Al Qaeda. To the contrary, some analysts believe it is far more  
> likely Al Qaeda might
> acquire an unsecured former Soviet Union Weapon(s) of Mass  
> Destruction, or potentially
> from sympathizers within a destabilized Pakistan.
>
> Moreover, immediately following Congressâ?™s vote on the Iraq  
> Resolution, we suddenly
> became aware of North Koreaâ?™s nuclear program violations. Kim Jong  
> Il is processing
> uranium in order to produce nuclear weapons this year. President Bush  
> has not provided
> a rationale answer as to why Saddamâ?™s seemingly dormant WMD program  
> possesses
> a more imminent threat that North Koreaâ?™s active program? Strangely,  
> Donald Rumsfeld
> suggested that if Saddam were �exiled� we could avoid an Iraq war?  
> Confused yet?
> Well, Iâ?™m going to give their game away - the core driver for  
> toppling Saddam is actually
> the euro currency, the €.
>
> Although completely suppressed in the U.S. media, the answer to the  
> Iraq enigma is simple
> yet shocking. The upcoming war in Iraq war is mostly about how the  
> ruling class at Langley
> and the Bush oligarchy view hydrocarbons at the geo-strategic level,  
> and the overarching
> macroeconomic threats to the U.S. dollar from the euro. The Real  
> Reason for this upcoming
> war is this administrationâ?™s goal of preventing further OPEC  
> momentum towards the
> euro as an oil transaction currency standard. However, in order to  
> pre-empt OPEC, they need
> to gain geo-strategic control of Iraq along with its 2nd largest  
> proven oil reserves.
>
> This lengthy essay will discuss the macroeconomics of the  
> �petro-dollar� and the
> unpublicized but real threat to U.S. economic hegemony from the euro  
> as an alternative oil
> transaction currency. The following is how an astute and anonymous  
> friend alluded to the
> unspoken truth about this upcoming war with Iraq...
>
> â?œThe 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 80 cents), and has actually  
> made off like a
> bandit considering the dollar's steady depreciation against the  
> euro.� (Note: the dollar
> declined 15% against the euro in 2002.)
>
> â?œThe 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 â?" the 2nd largest OPEC producer who is actively discussing  
> a switch to euros
> for its oil exports).
>
> Furthermore, despite Saudi Arabia being our â?˜client state,â?™ the  
> Saudi regime
> appears increasingly weak/ threatened from massive civil unrest. Some  
> analysts believe a
> �Saudi Revolution� might be plausible in the aftermath of an  
> unpopular U.S. invasion
> of Iraq (ie. Iran circa 1979) (1). Undoubtedly, the Bush  
> administration is acutely aware of these
> risks. Hence, the neo conservative framework entails a large and  
> permanent military presence
> in the Persian Gulf region in a post Saddam era, just in case we need  
> to surround and grab
> Saudi's oil fields in the event of a coup by an anti-western group.  
> But first back to Iraq.
>
> "Saddam sealed his fate when he decided to switch to the euro in late  
> 2000 (and later converted
> his $10 billion reserve fund at the U.N. to euros) - at that point,  
> another manufactured Gulf
> War become inevitable under Bush II. Only the most extreme  
> circumstances could possibly
> stop that now and I strongly doubt anything can - short of Saddam  
> getting replaced with
> a pliant regime."
>
> Big Picture Perspective: Everything else aside from the reserve  
> currency and the Saudi/Iran
> oil issues (i.e. domestic political issues and international  
> criticism) is peripheral and of
> marginal consequence to this administration. Further, the dollar-euro  
> threat is powerful
> enough that they'll rather risk much of the economic backlash in the  
> short-term to stave off
> the long-term dollar crash of an OPEC transaction standard change from  
> dollars to euros.
> All of this fits into the broader Great Game that encompasses Russia,  
> India, China."
>
> This information about Iraqâ?™s oil currency is censored by the U.S.  
> media as well as the
> Bush administration & Federal Reserve as the truth could potentially  
> curtail both investor
> and consumer confidence, reduce consumer borrowing/ spending, create  
> political pressure
> to form a new energy policy that slowly weans us off middle-eastern  
> oil, and of course stop
> our march towards war in Iraq. This quasi �state secret� can be  
> found on a Radio Free
> Europe article discussing Saddamâ?™s switch for his oil sales from  
> dollars to the euros on
> Nov. 6, 2000 (2).
>
> <<beginning of exert>>>
> â?œBaghdadâ?™s switch from the dollar to the euro for oil trading is  
> intended to rebuke
> Washingtonâ?™s hard-line on sanctions and encourage Europeans to  
> challenge it. But the
> political message will cost Iraq millions in lost revenue. RFE/RL  
> correspondent Charles
> Recknagel looks at what Baghdad will gain and lose, and the impact of  
> the decision to go
> with the European currency.�
> <<<end of exert>>>
>
> At the time of the switch many analysts were surprised that Saddam was  
> willing to give up
> millions in oil revenue for what appeared to be a political statement.  
> However, contrary to
> one of the main points of this November 2000 article, the steady  
> depreciation of the dollar
> versus the euro since late 2001 means that Iraq has profited  
> handsomely from the switch in
> their reserve and transaction currencies. The euro has gained roughly  
> 17% against the
> dollar in that time, which also applies to the $10 billion in Iraqâ?™s  
> U.N. â?œoil for
> food� reserve fund that was previously held in dollars has also  
> gained that same percent
> value since the switch. What would happen if OPEC made a sudden switch  
> to euros, as
> opposed to a gradual transition?
>
> â?œOtherwise, the effect of an OPEC switch to the euro would be that  
> oil-consuming nations
> would have to flush dollars out of their (central bank) reserve funds  
> and replace these with
> euros. The dollar would crash anywhere from 20-40% in value and the  
> consequences would
> be those one could expect from any currency collapse and massive  
> inflation (think Argentina
> currency crisis, for example). You'd have foreign funds stream out of  
> the U.S. stock markets
> and dollar denominated assets, there'd surely be a run on the banks  
> much like the 1930s, the
> current account deficit would become unserviceable, the budget deficit  
> would go into default,
> and so on. Your basic 3rd world economic crisis scenario.
>
> The United States economy is intimately tied to the dollar's role as  
> reserve currency. This
> doesn't mean that the U.S. couldn't function otherwise, but that the  
> transition would have to
> be gradual to avoid such dislocations (and the ultimate result of this  
> would probably be the
> U.S. and the E.U. switching roles in the global economy)."
>
> In the aftermath of toppling Saddam it is clear the U.S. will keep a  
> large and permanent military
> force in the Persian Gulf. Indeed, there is no �exit strategy� in  
> Iraq, as the military will
> be needed to protect the newly installed Iraqi regime, and perhaps  
> send a message to other
> OPEC producers that they might receive �regime change� if they too  
> move to euros for
> their oil exportsâ?¦.
>
> Another underreported story from this summer regarding the other OPEC  
> â?˜Axis of Evilâ?™
> country and their interest in the selling oil in euros, Iran. (3)
>
> <<<beginning of exert>>>
> â?œIran's proposal to receive payments for crude oil sales to Europe  
> in euros instead of U.S.
> dollars is based primarily on economics, Iranian and industry sources  
> said. But politics are still
> likely to be a factor in any decision, they said, as Iran uses the  
> opportunity to hit back at the
> U.S. government, which recently labeled it part of an "axis of evil."
>
> The proposal, which is now being reviewed by the Central Bank of Iran,  
> is likely to be approved
> if presented to the country's parliament, a parliamentary  
> representative said."There is a very
> good chance MPs will agree to this idea ...now that the euro is  
> stronger, it is more logical,"
> the parliamentary representative said.�
> <<<end of exert>>>
>
> More over, and perhaps most telling, during 2002 the majority of  
> reserve funds in Iranâ?™s
> central bank have been shifted to euros. It appears imminent that Iran  
> intends to switch to euros
> for their oil currency (4)
>
> <<<beginning of exert>>>
> â?œMore than half of the countryâ?™s assets in the Forex Reserve Fund  
> have been converted
> to euro, a member of the Parliament Development Commission, Mohammad  
> Abasspour
> announced. He noted that higher parity rate of euro against the US  
> dollar will give the Asian
> countries, particularly oil exporters, a chance to usher in a new  
> chapter in ties with European
> Unionâ?™s member countries.
>
> He said that the United States dominates other countries through its  
> currency, noting that given
> the superiority of the dollar against other hard currencies, the US  
> monopolizes global trade. The
> lawmaker expressed hope that the competition between euro and dollar  
> would eliminate the
> monopoly in global trade.�
> <<<end of exert>>>
>
> Indeed, after toppling Saddam, this administration may decide that  
> Iran is the next target in
> the �war on terror.� Iran�s interest in switching to the euro as  
> their standard
> transaction currency for oil exports is well documented. Perhaps this  
> recent MSNBC article
> illustrates the objectives of the neo conservatives (5).
>
> <<<beginnig of exert>>>>
> â?œWhile still wrangling over how to overthrow Iraqâ?™s Saddam  
> Hussein, the Bush
> administration is already looking for other targets. President Bush  
> has called for the ouster
> of Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat. Now some in the  
> administrationâ?"and allies at D.C.
> think tanksâ?"are eyeing Iran and even Saudi Arabia. As one senior  
> British official put it:
> �Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran.�
> <<<end of exert>>>
>
> Aside from these political risks regarding Saudi Arabia and Iran,  
> another risk factor is
> actually Japan. Perhaps the biggest gamble in a protracted Iraq war  
> may be Japanâ?™s
> weak economy (6). If the war creates prolonged oil high prices ($45  
> per barrel over several
> months), or a short but massive oil price spike ($80 to $100 per  
> barrel), some analysts
> believe Japanâ?™s fragile economy would collapse. Japan is quite  
> hypersensitive to
> oil prices, and if its banks default, the collapse of the second  
> largest economy would set
> in motion a sequence of events that would prove devastating to the  
> U.S. economy. Indeed,
> Japanâ?™s fall in an Iraq war could create the economic dislocations  
> that begin in the
> Pacific Rim but quickly spread to Europe and Russia. The Russian  
> government lacks the
> controls to thwart a disorderly run on the dollar, and such an event  
> could ultimately force
> and OPEC switch to euros.
>
> Additionally, other risks might arise if the Iraq war goes poorly or  
> becomes prolonged, as
> it is possible that civil unrest may unfold in Kuwait or other OPEC  
> members including
> Venezuela, as the latter may switch to euros just as Saddam did in  
> November 2000. Thereby
> fostering the very situation this administration is trying to prevent,  
> another OPEC member
> switching to euros as their oil transaction currency.
>
> Incidentally, the final �Axis of Evil� country, North Korea,  
> recently decided to officially
> drop the dollar and begin using euros for trade, effective Dec. 7,  
> 2002 (7). Unlike the OPEC-
> producers, their switch will have negligible economic impact, but it  
> illustrates the geopolitical
> fallout of the President Bushâ?™s harsh rhetoric. Much more troubling  
> is North Koreaâ?™s
> recent action following the oil embargo of their country. They are in  
> dire need of oil and food;
> and in an act of desperation they have re-activated their pre-1994  
> nuclear program. Processing
> uranium appears to be taking place at a rapid pace, and it appears  
> their strategy is to prompt
> negotiations with the U.S. regarding food and oil. The CIA estimates  
> that North Korea could
> produce 4-6 nuclear weapons by the second half of 2003. Ironically,  
> this crisis over North
> Koreaâ?™s nuclear program further confirms the fraudulent premise for  
> which this war with
> Saddam was entirely contrived.
>
> Unfortunately, neo conservatives such as George Bush, Dick Cheney,  
> Donald Rumsfeld,
> Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Pearle fail to grasp that Newtonâ?™s Law  
> applies equally to
> both physics and the geo-political sphere as well:
>
> �For every action there is an equal but opposite reaction.�
>
> During the 1990s the world viewed the U.S. as a rather self-absorbed  
> but essentially
> benevolent superpower. Military actions in Iraq (90-91â?™ & 98â?™),  
> Serbia and Kosovo
> (99â?™) were undertaken with both U.N. and NATO cooperation and thus  
> afforded
> international legitimacy. President Clinton also worked to reduce  
> tensions in Northern
> Ireland and attempted to negotiate a resolution to the  
> Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
>
> However, in both the pre and post 9/11 intervals, the â?œAmerica  
> first� policies of
> the Bush administration, with its unwillingness to honor International  
> Treaties, along
> with their aggressive militarisation of foreign policy, has  
> significantly damaged our reputation
> abroad. Following 9/11, it appears that President Bushâ?™s  
> �warmongering rhetoric�
> has created global tensions â?" as we are now viewed as a belligerent  
> superpower willing
> to apply unilateral military force without U.N. approval.Lamentably,  
> the tremendous amount
> of international sympathy that we witnessed in the immediate aftermath  
> of the September
> 11th tragedy has been replaced with fear and anger at our government.  
> This administration's
> bellicosity has changed the worldview, and �anti-Americanism� is  
> proliferating even
> among our closest allies (8).
>
> Even more alarming, and completely unreported in the U.S media, are  
> some monetary shifts
> in the reserve funds of foreign governments away from the dollar with  
> movements towards
> the euro (China, Venezuela, some OPEC producers and last week Russia  
> flushed some of their
> dollars for euros) (9). It appears that the world community may lack  
> faith in the Bush
> administrationâ?™s economic policies, and along with OPEC, seems  
> poised to respond with
> economic retribution if the U.S. government is regarded as an  
> uncontrollable and dangerous
> superpower. The plausibility of abandoning the dollar standard for the  
> euro is growing. An
> interesting U.K. article outlines the dynamics and the potential  
> outcomes
>
> (â?˜Beyond Bushâ?™s Unilateralism: Another Bi-Polar World or A New Era  
> of Win-Win?â?™)
> (10)
>
> <<beginning of long exert>>>
> â?œThe most likely end to US hegemony may come about through a  
> combination of high
> oil prices (brought about by US foreign policies toward the Middle  
> East) and deeper devaluation
> of the US dollar (expected by many economists). Some elements of this  
> scenario:
>
> 1) US global over-reach in the �war on terrorism� already leading  
> to deficits as far as
> the eye can see -- combined with historically-high US trade deficits  
> â?" lead to a further run
> on the dollar. This and the stock market doldrums make the US less  
> attractive to the world's
> capital.
>
> 2) More developing countries follow the lead of Venezuela and China in  
> diversifying their
> currency reserves away from dollars and balanced with euros. Such a  
> shift in dollar-euro
> holdings in Latin America and Asia could keep the dollar and euro  
> close to parity.
>
> 3) OPEC could act on some of its internal discussions and decide  
> (after concerted buying
> of euros in the open market) to announce at a future meeting in Vienna  
> that OPEC's oil will
> be re-denominated in euros, or even a new oil-backed currency of their  
> own. A US attack
> on Iraq sends oil to €40 per barrel.
>
> 4) The Bush Administrationâ?™s efforts to control the domestic  
> political agenda backfires.
> Damage over the intelligence failures prior to 9/11 and warnings of  
> imminent new terrorist
> attacks precipitate a further stock market slide.
>
> 5) All efforts by Democrats and the 57% of the US public to shift  
> energy policy toward
> renewables, efficiency, standards, higher gas taxes, etc. are blocked  
> by the Bush Administration
> and its fossil fuel industry supporters. Thus, the USA remains  
> vulnerable to energy supply
> and price shocks.
>
> 6) The EU recognizes its own economic and political power as the euro  
> rises further and
> becomes the world's other reserve currency. The G-8 pegs the euro and  
> dollar into a trading
> band -- removing these two powerful currencies from speculators  
> trading screens (a "win-win"
> for everyone!). Tony Blair persuades Brits of this larger reason for  
> the UK to join the euro.
>
> 7) Developing countries lacking dollars or "hard" currencies follow  
> Venezuela's lead and
> begin bartering their undervalued commodities directly with each other  
> in computerized swaps
> and counter trade deals. President Chavez has inked 13 such country  
> barter deals on its oil,
> e.g., with Cuba in exchange for Cuban health paramedics who are  
> setting up clinics in rural
> Venezuelan villages.
>
> "The result of this scenario? The USA could no longer run its huge  
> current account trade
> deficits or continue to wage open-ended global war on terrorism or  
> evil. The USA ceases
> pursuing unilateralist policies. A new US administration begins to  
> return to its multilateralist
> tradition, ceases its obstruction and rejoins the UN and pursues more  
> realistic international
> cooperation."
> <<End of exert>>>
>
> As for the events currently taking place in Venezuela, items #2 and #7  
> on the above list may
> allude to why the Bush administration quickly endorsed the failed  
> military-led coup of Hugo
> Chavez in April 2002. Although the coup collapsed after 2 days,  
> various reports suggest the
> CIA and a rather embarrassed Bush administration approved and may have  
> been actively
> involved with the civilian/military coup plotters. (11)
>
> <<beginning of exert>>>
> â?œGeorge W. Bush's administration was the failed coup's primary  
> loser, underscoring its
> bankrupt hemispheric policy. Now it is slowly filtering out that in  
> recent months White
> House officials met with key coup figures, including Carmona. Although  
> the administration
> insists that it explicitly objected to any extra-constitutional action  
> to remove Chavez,
> comments by senior U.S. officials did little to convey this.�
>
> â?œThe CIA's role in a 1971 Chilean strike could have served as the  
> working model
> for generating economic and social instability in order to topple  
> Chavez. In the truckers'
> strike of that year, the agency secretly orchestrated and financed the  
> artificial prolongation
> of a contrived work stoppage in order to economically asphyxiate the  
> leftist Salvador
> Allende government.�
>
> �This scenario would have had CIA operatives acting in liaison with  
> the Venezuelan
> military, as well as with opposition business and labor leaders, to  
> convert a relatively minor
> afternoon-long work stoppage by senior management into a nearly  
> successful coup de
> gráce.�
> <<<end of exert>>>
>
> Interestingly, according to an article by Michael Ruppert,  
> Venezuelanâ?™s ambassador
> Francisco Mieres-Lopez apparently floated the idea of switching to the  
> euro as their oil
> currency standard approximately one year before the failed coup  
> attempt... Furthermore,
> there is evidence that the CIA is still active in its attempts to  
> overthrow the democratically
> elected Chavez administration. In fact, this past December a Uruguayan  
> government official
> recently exposed the ongoing covert CIA operations in Venezuela (12):
>
> <<beginning>>>
> â?œUruguayan EP-FA congressman Jose Bayardi says he has information  
> that far-reaching
> plan have been put into place by the CIA and other North American  
> intelligence agencies to
> overthrow Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez Frias�
>
> â?œBayardi says he has received copies of top-secret communications  
> between the Bush
> administration in Washington and the government of Uruguay requesting  
> the latterâ?™s
> cooperation to support white collar executives and trade union  
> activists to â?œbreak down
> levels of intransigence within the Chavez Frias administration�
> <<<end>>>
>
> Venezuela is the fourth largest producer of oil, and the corporate  
> elites whose political power
> runs unfettered in the Bush/Cheney oligarchy appear interested in  
> privatizing Venezuelaâ?™s
> oil industry. Furthermore, the establishment might be concerned that  
> Chavezâ?™s â?œbarter
> deals� with 12 Latin American countries and Cuba are effectively  
> cutting the U.S. dollar out
> of the vital oil transaction currency cycle. Commodities are being  
> traded among these countries
> in exchange for Venezuelaâ?™s oil, thereby reducing reliance on fiat  
> dollars. If these unique
> oil transactions proliferate, they could create more devaluation  
> pressure on the dollar.
> Continuing attempts by the CIA to remove Hugo Chavez appear likely.
>
> The U.S. economy has acquired several problems, including as our  
> record-high trade account
> deficit (almost 5% of GDP), $6.3 trillion dollar deficit (55% of GDP),  
> and the recent return to
> annual budget deficits in the hundreds of billions. These are factors  
> that would devalue the
> currency of any nation under the �old rules.� Why is the dollar  
> still strong despite
> these structural flaws? Well, the elites understand that the strength  
> of the dollar does not
> merely rest on our economic output per se. The dollar posses two  
> unique advantages relative
> to all other hard currencies.
>
> The reality is that the strength of the dollar since 1945 rests on  
> being the international reserve
> currency and thus fiat currency for global oil transactions (ie.  
> �petro-dollar�). The U.S.
> prints hundreds of billions of these fiat petro-dollars, which are  
> then used by nation states to
> purchase oil/energy from OPEC producers (except Iraq, to some degree  
> Venezuela, and perhaps
> Iran in the near future). These petro-dollars are then re-cycled from  
> OPEC back into the U.S.
> via Treasury Bills or other dollar-denominated assets such as U.S.  
> stocks, real estate, etc.
>
> The �old rules� for valuation of our currency and economic power  
> were based on
> our flexible market, free flow of trade goods, high per worker  
> productivity, manufacturing
> output/trade surpluses, government oversight of accounting  
> methodologies (ie. SEC),
> developed infrastructure, education system, and of course total cash  
> flow and profitability.
> While many of these factors remain present, over the last two decades  
> we have diluted some
> of these �safe harbor� fundamentals. Despite imbalances and some  
> structural problems
> that are escalating within the U.S. economy, the dollar as the fiat  
> oil currency created â?œnew
> rules�. The following exerts from an Asia Times article discusses  
> the virtues of our fiat oil
> currency and dollar hegemony (or vices from the perspective of  
> developing nations, whose
> debt is denominated in dollars). (13)
>
> <<<beginning>>>
> "Ever since 1971, when US president Richard Nixon took the dollar off  
> the gold standard
> (at $35 per ounce) that had been agreed to at the Bretton Woods  
> Conference at the end of
> World War II, the dollar has been a global monetary instrument that  
> the United States, and
> only the United States, can produce by fiat. The dollar, now a fiat  
> currency, is at a 16-year
> trade-weighted high despite record US current-account deficits and the  
> status of the US as
> the leading debtor nation. The US national debt as of April 4 was  
> $6.021 trillion against a
> gross domestic product (GDP) of $9 trillion."
>
> "World trade is now a game in which the US produces dollars and the  
> rest of the world
> produces things that dollars can buy. The worldâ?™s interlinked  
> economies no longer
> trade to capture a comparative advantage; they compete in exports to  
> capture needed dollars
> to service dollar-denominated foreign debts and to accumulate dollar  
> reserves to sustain the
> exchange value of their domestic currencies.To prevent speculative and  
> manipulative attacks
> on their currencies, the world's central banks must acquire and hold  
> dollar reserves in
> corresponding amounts to their currencies in circulation. The higher  
> the market pressure to
> devalue a particular currency, the more dollar reserves its central  
> bank must hold. This creates
> a built-in support for a strong dollar that in turn forces the world's  
> central banks to acquire and
> hold more dollar reserves, making it stronger.
>
> This phenomenon is known as dollar hegemony, which is created by the  
> geopolitically
> constructed peculiarity that critical commodities, most notably oil,  
> are denominated in
> dollars. Everyone accepts dollars because dollars can buy oil. The  
> recycling of petro-dollars
> is the price the US has extracted from oil-producing countries for US  
> tolerance of the oil-
> exporting cartel since 1973."
>
> "By definition, dollar reserves must be invested in US assets,  
> creating a capital-accounts
> surplus for the US economy. Even after a year of sharp correction, US  
> stock valuation is
> still at a 25-year high and trading at a 56 percent premium compared  
> with emerging markets."
> "The US capital-account surplus in turn finances the US trade deficit.  
> Moreover, any asset,
> regardless of location, that is denominated in dollars is a US asset  
> in essence. When oil is
> denominated in dollars through US state action and the dollar is a  
> fiat currency, the US
> essentially owns the world's oil for free. And the more the US prints  
> greenbacks, the higher
> the price of US assets will rise. Thus a strong-dollar policy gives  
> the US a double win."
> <<end>>>
>
> This unique geo-political agreement with Saudi Arabia has worked to  
> our favor for the past
> 30 years, as this arrangement has raised the entire asset value of all  
> dollar denominated assets/
> properties, and allowed the Federal Reserve to create a truly massive  
> debt and credit
> expansion (or â?˜credit bubbleâ?™ in the view of some economists).  
> These current
> structural imbalances in the U.S. economy are sustainable as long as:
>
> 1)Nations continue to demand and purchase oil for their  
> energy/survival needs
>
> 2)The fiat reserve currency for global oil transactions remain the  
> U.S. dollar (and dollar only)
>
> These underlying factors, along with the �safe harbor� reputation  
> of U.S. investments
> afforded by the dollarâ?™s reserve currency status propelled the U.S.  
> to economic and
> military hegemony in the post-World War II period. However, the  
> introduction of the euro
> is a significant new factor, and appears to be the primary threat to  
> U.S. economic hegemony.
>
> More over, in December 2002 ten additional countries were approved for  
> full membership
> into the E.U. In 2004 this will result in an aggregate GDP of $9.6  
> trillion and 450 million
> people, directly competing with the U.S. economy ($10.5 trillion GDP,  
> 280 million people).
>
> Especially interesting is a speech given by Mr Javad Yarjani, the Head  
> of OPECâ?™s
> Petroleum Market Analysis Department, in a visit to Spain (April  
> 2002). He speech dealt
> entirely on the subject of OPEC oil transaction currency standard with  
> respect to both the
> dollar and the euro. The following exerts from this OPEC executive  
> provide insights into
> the conditions that would create momentum for an OPEC currency switch  
> to the euro. Indeed,
> his candid analysis warrants careful consideration given that two of  
> the requisite variables he
> outlines for the switch have taken place since this speech in early  
> 2002. These vital stories
> are discussed in the European media, but have been censored by our own  
> mass media (14)
>
> <<Beginning of exerts from OPEC's speech>>>
> â?œThe question that comes to mind is whether the euro will establish  
> itself in world
> financial markets, thus challenging the supremacy of the US dollar,  
> and consequently
> trigger a change in the dollarâ?™s dominance in oil markets. As we all  
> know, the mighty
> dollar has reigned supreme since 1945, and in the last few years has  
> even gained more ground
> with the economic dominance of the United States, a situation that may  
> not change in the
> near future. By the late 90s, more than four-fifths of all foreign  
> exchange transactions, and
> half of all world exports, were denominated in dollars. In addition,  
> the US currency accounts
> for about two thirds of all official exchange reserves. The worldâ?™s  
> dependency on US
> dollars to pay for trade has seen countries bound to dollar reserves,  
> which are disproportionably
> higher than Americaâ?™s share in global output. The share of the  
> dollar in the denomination
> of world trade is also much higher than the share of the US in world  
> trade.
>
> Having said that, it is worthwhile to note that in the long run the  
> euro is not at such a
> disadvantage versus the dollar when one compares the relative sizes of  
> the economies
> involved, especially given the EU enlargement plans. Moreover, the  
> Euro-zone has a bigger
> share of global trade than the US and while the US has a huge current  
> account deficit, the
> euro area has a more, or balanced, external accounts position. One of  
> the more compelling
> arguments for keeping oil pricing and payments in dollars has been  
> that the US remains a large
> importer of oil, despite being a substantial crude producer itself.  
> However, looking at the
> statistics of crude oil exports, one notes that the Euro-zone is an  
> even larger importer of oil
> and petroleum products than the US.�
>
> â?œFrom the EUâ?™s point of view, it is clear that Europe would prefer  
> to see payments for
> oil shift from the dollar to the euro, which effectively removed the  
> currency risk. It would also
> increase demand for the euro and thus help raise its value. Moreover,  
> since oil is such an
> important commodity in global trade, in term of value, if pricing were  
> to shift to the euro, it
> could provide a boost to the global acceptability of the single  
> currency. There is also very
> strong trade links between OPEC Member Countries (MCs) and the  
> Euro-zone, with more than
> 45 percent of total merchandise imports of OPEC MCs coming from the  
> countries of the
> Euro-zone, while OPEC MCs are main suppliers of oil and crude oil  
> products to Europe.�
>
> â?œOf major importance to the ultimate success of the euro, in terms  
> of the oil pricing, will
> be if Europe's two major oil producers â?" the United Kingdom and  
> Norway join the single
> currency. Naturally, the future integration of these two countries  
> into the Euro-zone and
> Europe will be important considering they are the regionâ?™s two major  
> oil producers in the
> North Sea, which is home to the international crude oil benchmark,  
> Brent. This might create
> a momentum to shift the oil pricing system to euros.�
>
> â?œIn the short-term, OPEC MCs, with possibly a few exceptions, are  
> expected to continue
> to accept payment in dollars. Nevertheless, I believe that OPEC will  
> not discount entirely the
> possibility of adopting euro pricing and payments in the future. The  
> Organization, like many
> other financial houses at present, is also assessing how the euro will  
> settle into its life as a
> new currency. The critical question for market players is the overall  
> value and stability of the
> euro, and whether other countries within the Union will adopt the  
> single currency.�
>
> Should the euro challenge the dollar in strength, which essentially  
> could include it in the
> denomination of the oil bill, it could be that a system may emerge  
> which benefits more
> countries in the long-term. Perhaps with increased European  
> integration and a strong
> European economy, this may become a reality. Time may be on your side.  
> I wish the euro
> every success.�
> <<<end of speech>>>
>
> Based on this important speech, momentum for OPEC to consider  
> switching to the euro will
> grow once the E.U. expands in May 2004 to 450 million people with the  
> inclusion of 10
> additional member states. The aggregate GDP will increase from $7  
> trillion to $9.6 trillion.
> This enlarged E.U. will be an oil consuming purchasing population 33%  
> larger than the U.S.,
> and over half of OPEC crude oil will be sold to the EU as of mid-2004.  
> This does not include
> other potential entrants such as the U.K., Norway, Denmark and Sweden.  
> I should note that
> since this speech the euro has been trading at parity or above the  
> dollar since late 2002, and a
> nalysts predict the dollar will continue its downward trending in 2003  
> relative to the euro.
>
> Further, if or when the U.K. adopts the euro currency, that  
> development could provide
> critical motivation for OPEC to the make the transition to euros. It  
> appears the final two
> pivotal items that would create the OPEC transition to euros will be  
> based on if and
> when Norwayâ?™s Brent crude is re-dominated in euros, and when the  
> U.K. adopts
> the euro. Regarding the later, Tony Blair is lobbying heavily for the  
> U.K. to adopt the
> euro, and their adoption would seem imminent within this decade.  
> Again, I offer the
> following information from my astute acquaintance who analyzes these  
> matters very
> carefully regarding the euro:
>
> â?œThe pivotal vote will probably be Sweden, where approval this next  
> autumn of
> adopting the euro also would give momentum to the Danish government's  
> strong desire
> to follow suit. Polls in Denmark now indicate that the euro would pass  
> with a comfortable
> margin and Norwegian polls show a growing majority in favor of EU  
> membership. Indeed,
> with Norway having already integrated most EU economic directives  
> through the EEA
> partnership and with their strongly appreciated currency, their  
> accession to the euro
> would not only be effortless, but of great economic benefit.
>
> As go the Swedes, so probably will go the Danes & Norwegians. It's the  
> British who are
> the real obstacle to building momentum for the euro as international  
> transaction & reserve
> currency. So long as the United Kingdom remains apart from the euro,  
> reducing exchange
> rate costs between the euro and the British pound remains their  
> obvious priority. British
> adoption (a near-given in the long run) would mount significant  
> pressure toward repegging
> the Brent crude benchmark - which is traded on the International  
> Petroleum Exchange in
> London - and the Norwegians would certainly have no objection  
> whatsoever that I can
> think of, whether or not they join the European Union.�
>
> Finally, the maneuvers toward reducing the global dominance of the  
> dollar are already
> well underway and have only reason to accelerate so far as I can see.  
> An OPEC pricing
> shift would seem rather unlikely prior 2004 - barring political  
> motivations (ie. Motivations
> of OPEC members) or a disorderly collapse of the dollar (ie. prolonged  
> high oil prices due
> to Iraq war causes Japanese bank collapse)- but appears quite viable  
> to take place before the
> end of the decade.�
>
> In otherwords, around 2005, from an economic and monetary  
> perspectivem, it will be logical
> for OPEC to switch to the euro for oil pricing. Of course that will  
> devalue the dollar, and hurt
> the US economy unless it begins making some structual changes - or use  
> its massive military
> power to force events upon the OPEC states...
>
> Facing these potentialities, I hypothesize that President Bush intends  
> to topple Saddam in 2003
> in a pre-emptive attempt to initiate massive Iraqi oil production in  
> far excess of OPEC quotas,
> to reduce global oil prices, and thereby dismantle OPECâ?™s price  
> controls. The end-goal of the
> neo-conservatives is incredibly bold yet simple in purpose, to use the  
> �war on terror� as
> the premise to finally dissolve OPECâ?™s decision-making process, thus  
> ultimately preventing
> the cartelâ?™s inevitable switch to pricing oil in euros.
>
> How would the Bush administration break-up the OPEC cartelâ?™s price  
> controls in a post
> -Saddam Iraq? First, the newly installed regime (apparently a U.S.  
> General for the first several
> months) will convert Iraq back to the dollar standard. Next, with the  
> U.S. military protecting the
> oil fields, the Bush junta will undertake the necessary steps to  
> rapidly increase production of Iraq
> oil, quintupling Iraqâ?™s current output â?" and well beyond OPECâ?™s  
> 2 million barrel per
> day quota.
>
> Dr. Nayyer Ali offers a succinct analysis of how Iraqâ?™s  
> underutilized oil reserves will not
> be a �profit-maker� for the U.S. government, but it will serve as  
> the crucial economic
> instrument used by the Bush junta to leverage and hopefully dissolve  
> OPECâ?™s price controls,
> thus causing the neo conservativeâ?™s long sought goal of collapsing  
> the OPEC cartel (15):
>
> <<<beginning go exrts>>>
> â?œDespite this vast pool of oil, Iraq has never produced at a level  
> proportionate to the reserve
> base. Since the Gulf War, Iraq¹s production has been limited by  
> sanctions and allowed sales
> under the oil for food program (by which Iraq has sold 60 billion  
> dollars worth of oil over the
> last 5 years) and what else can be smuggled out. This amounts to less  
> than 1 billion barrels per
> year. If Iraq were reintegrated into the world economy, it could allow  
> massive investment in its
> oil sector and boost output to 2.5 billion barrels per year, or about  
> 7 million barrels a day.
>
> Total world oil production is about 75 million barrels, and OPEC  
> combined produces about 25
> million barrels.
>
> What would be the consequences of this? There are two obvious things.
>
> First would be the collapse of OPEC, whose strategy of limiting  
> production to maximize price
> will have finally reached its limit. An Iraq that can produce that  
> much oil will want to do so,
> and will not allow OPEC to limit it to 2 million barrels per day. If  
> Iraq busts its quota, then
> who in OPEC will give up 5 million barrels of production? No one could  
> afford to, and OPEC
> would die. This would lead to the second major consequence, which is a  
> collapse in the price
> of oil to the 10-dollar range per barrel. The world currently uses 25  
> billion barrels per year, so
> a 15-dollar drop will save oil-consuming nations 375 billion dollars  
> in crude oil costs every
> year.�
>
> â?œThe Iraq war is not a moneymaker. But it could be an OPEC breaker.  
> That however is a
> long-term outcome that will require Iraq to be successfully  
> reconstituted into a functioning
> state in which massive oil sector investment can take place.�
> <<<end of exerts>>>
>
> The American people are largely oblivious to the economic risks  
> regarding President Bushâ?™s
> upcoming war. Not only is Japanâ?™s economy at grave risk from a spike  
> in oil prices, but
> additional risks relate to Iran and Venezuela as well, either of whom  
> could move to the euros,
> thus providing further momentum for OPEC to act on their â?œinternal  
> discussions� and
> switch to the euro as the fiat currency for oil. The Bush  
> administration believes that by toppling
> Saddam they will remove the juggernaut, thus allowing the US to  
> control Iraqiâ?™s huge oil
> reserves, and finally break-up and dissolve the 10 remaining countries  
> in OPEC.
>
> This last issue is undoubtedly a significant gamble even in the  
> best-case scenario of a quick and
> relatively painless war that topples Saddam and leaves Iraqâ?™s oil  
> fields intact. Undoubtedly,
> the OPEC cartel could feel threatened by the Bush juntaâ?™s stated  
> goal of breaking-up
> OPECâ?™s price controls ($22-$28 per barrel). Perhaps the Bush  
> administrationâ?™s ambitious
> goal of flooding the oil market with Iraqi crude may work, but I have  
> doubts. Will OPEC simply
> tolerate quota-busting Iraqi oil production, thus delivering to them a  
> lesson in self-inflicted
> hare-kari (suicide)?
>
> Contrarily, OPEC could meet in Vienna and in an act of  
> self-preservation re-denominate the oil
> currency to the euro. Such a decision by would mark the end of U.S.  
> dollar hegemony, and thus
> the end of our precarious economic superpower status. Again, I offer  
> the astute analysis of my
> expert friend regarding the colossal gamble this administration is  
> about to undertake:
>
> â?œOne of the dirty little secrets of today's international order is  
> that the rest of the globe could
> topple the United States from its hegemonic status whenever they so  
> choose with a concerted
> abandonment of the dollar standard. This is America's preeminent,  
> inescapable Achilles Heel
> for now and the foreseeable future.
>
> That such a course hasn't been pursued to date bears more relation to  
> the fact that other
> Westernized, highly developed nations haven't any interest to undergo  
> the great disruptions
> which would follow - but it could assuredly take place in the event  
> that the consensus view
> coalesces of the United States as any sort of 'rogue' nation. In other  
> words, if the dangers of
> American global hegemony are ever perceived as a greater liability  
> than the dangers of toppling
> the international order (or, alternately, if an 'every man for  
> himself' crisis as discussed above
> spirals out of control and forces their hand). The Bush administration  
> and the neo conservative
> movement has set out on a multiple-front course to ensure that this  
> cannot take place, in brief
> by a graduated assertion of military hegemony atop the existent  
> economic hegemony.
>
> The paradox I've illustrated with this one narrow scenario is that the  
> quixotic course itself may
> very well bring about the feared outcome that it means to preempt. We  
> shall see!�
>
> Under this administration we have returned to massive deficit  
> spending, and the lack of strong
> SEC enforcement has further eroded investor confidence. Regrettably,  
> the flawed economic and
> tax policies and of the Bush administration may be exacerbating the  
> weakness of the dollar, if
> not outright accelerating some countries to diversify their central  
> bank reserve funds with euros
> as an alternative to the dollar. From a foreign policy perspective,  
> the terminations of numerous
> international treaties and disdain for international cooperation via  
> the UN and NATO have
> angered even our closest allies.
>
> Lastly, and despite President Bushâ?™s attempt to use the threat of  
> applying military force to
> OPEC producers who may wish to switch to the euro for their oil  
> payments, it appears their
> belligerent neo conservative policies may paradoxically bring about  
> the dire outcome they
> hope to prevent â?" an OPEC currency switch to euros.
>
> The American people are not aware of such information due to the U.S.  
> mass media, which
> has been reduced to a handful of consumption/entertainment and  
> profit-oriented conglomerates
> that filter the flow of information in the U.S. Indeed, the Internet  
> provides the only source of
> unfiltered �real news.�
>
> Synopsis:
> It would appear that any attempt by OPEC member states in the Middle  
> East or Latin America
> to transition to the euro as their oil transaction currency standard  
> shall be met with either overt
> U.S. military actions or covert U.S. intelligence agency  
> interventions. Under the guise of the
> perpetual �war on terror� the Bush administration is manipulating  
> the American people
> about the unspoken but very real macroeconomic reasons for this  
> upcoming war with Iraq.
> This war in Iraq will have nothing to with any threat from Saddamâ?™s  
> old WMD program.
> This war will be over the global currency of oil.
>
> Sadly, the U.S. has become largely ignorant and complacent. Too many  
> of us are willing to be
> ruled by fear and lies, rather than by persuasion and truth. Will we  
> allow our government to
> initiate the dangerous �pre-emptive doctrine� by waging an  
> unpopular war in Iraq, while
> we refuse to acknowledge that Saddam does not pose an imminent threat  
> to the United States?
> We seem unable to address the structural weakness of our economy due  
> to massive debt
> manipulation, unaffordable 2001 tax cuts, massive current account  
> deficits, trade deficits,
> corporate accounting abuses, unsustainable credit expansion, near zero  
> personal savings, record
> personal indebtedness, and our dependence and over consumption of  
> cheap Middle Eastern oil.
> How much longer can we reliably import our oil from middle eastern  
> states that dislike or
> despise us because of our biased foreign policy towards Israel?
>
> Lastly, we must bear in mind Jeffersonâ?™s insistence that a free  
> press is our best, and perhaps
> only mechanism to protect democracy, and part of todayâ?™s dilemma  
> lies within the U.S.
> media conglomerates that have failed to inform the People.
>
> Regardless of whatever Dr. Blix finds or doesn't find in Iraq  
> regarding WMD, it appears that
> President Bush is determined to pursue his �pre-emptive�  
> imperialist war to secure a
> large portion of the earthâ?™s remaining hydrocarbons, and then use  
> Iraqâ?™s underutilized
> oil to destroy the OPEC cartel. Will this gamble work? Undeniably our  
> nation may suffer not
> only from economic retribution, but also from increased Al-Qaeda  
> sponsored terrorism as well.
> Will we stand idle and watch CNN, as our government becomes an  
> international pariah by
> discarding International Law as it wages a unilateral war in Iraq?
>
> Is it morally defensible to deploy our brave but naïve young soldiers  
> around the globe to
> enforce U.S. dollar hegemony for global oil transactions - via the  
> barrel of their guns? Will we
> allow imperialist conquest in the Middle East to feed our excessive  
> energy consumption, while
> ignoring the duplicitous overthrowing of a democratically elected  
> government in Latin America?
> Shall we accept the grave price of an unjust war over the currency of  
> oil? We must not stand silent
> and watch our country become a â?˜rogueâ?™ superpower, relying on  
> brute force, thereby forcing
> the industrialized nations or OPEC to abandon the dollar standard -  
> thus with the mere stroke of a
> pen - slay the U.S. Empire?
>
> Informed citizens believe this administration is pushing us towards  
> that dire outcome. Remaining
> silent is not only misguided, but false patriotism.
>
> This need not be our fate. When will we demand that our government  
> begin the long and difficult
> journey towards energy conservation, the development of renewable  
> energy sources, and sustained
> balanced budgets to allow real deficit reduction? When will we repeal  
> of the unaffordable 2001
> tax cuts to create a balanced budget, enforce corporate accounting  
> laws, and substantially reinvest
> in our manufacturing and export sectors to move our economy from a  
> trade account deficit position
> back into a trade account surplus position? Undoubtedly, we must make  
> these and many more
> painful structural changes to our economy if we are to restore our  
> �safe harbor� investment
> status.
>
> Ultimately we will have to make sacrifices by reducing our excessive  
> energy consumption that
> we have become accustomed to as a society. It is imperative that our  
> government also begins
> economic and monetary reforms immediately. We must adopt our economy  
> to accommodate
> the inevitable competition to the dollar from the euro as an  
> alternative international reserve
> currency and oil transaction currency. The Bush administrationâ?™s  
> seemingly entrenched
> political ideology appears quite incompatible with these necessary  
> economic reforms. Ultimately
> We the People must demand a new and more responsible administration.  
> We need leaders who
> are willing to return balanced, conservative fiscal policies, and to  
> our traditions of engaging in
> multilateral foreign policies while seeking broad international  
> cooperation.
>
> It has been said that all wars are fought over resources or  
> ideology/religion. It appears that
> this administration may soon add �currency wars� as a third  
> paradigm. I fear that the
> world community will not tolerate a U.S. Empire that uses its military  
> power to conquer
> sovereign nations who decide to sell their oil products in euros  
> instead of dollars. Likewise,
> if President Bush pursues an essentially unilateral war against Iraq,  
> I suspect the historians
> will not be kind to his administration. Their agenda is clear to the  
> world community, but
> when will U.S. patriots become cognizant of their modus operandi?
>
> "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will  
> eventually come to believe it.�
>
> â?œThe lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can  
> shield the people from
> the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It  
> thus becomes vitally
> important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent,  
> for the truth is the mortal
> enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest  
> enemy of the State.�
> - Joseph Goebbels, German Minister of Propaganda, 1933-1945
> <<END OF ESSAY>>>
>
> 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 Ruppertâ?™s  
> controversial website: â?˜From
> the Wilderness.â?™ Although some of Ruppertâ?™s articles are  
> overwrought from time to
> time, their research detailing the issues of hydrocarbons, and the  
> interplay between energy
> and the Bush junta�s perpetual �war on terror� is quite  
> informative. 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 the Caspian Sea region. Since the  
> mid-late 1990s the Caspian
> Sea region of Central Asia was thought to hold approx. 200 billion  
> barrels of untapped oil
> (the later would be comparable to Saudi Arabiaâ?™s reserve base)(16).  
> 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 Vice  
> President Cheneyâ?™s energy
> plan released in May 2001. According to his report, the U.S. will  
> import 90% of its oil by 2020,
> and 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 (17). According to the French book, The Forbidden Truth  
> (18), the Bush
> administration ignored the U.N. sanctions that had been imposed upon  
> the Taliban and
> entered into negotiations with the supposedly â?˜rogue regimeâ?™ from  
> February 2, 2001
> to August 6, 2001. According to this book, the Taliban were apparently  
> not very cooperative
> based on the statements of Pakistanâ?™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  
> Cheneyâ?™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 ofâ?¦
>
> 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)
> (16). 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 approx. 1 trillion)  
> (18, 19). The Bush administration
> quickly turned its attention to a known quantity, Iraq, with it proven  
> reserves totaling 11% of
> the worldâ?™s oil reserves. Our greatest nemesis, Bin Laden, was  
> quickly replaced with our new
> public enemy #1, Saddam Husseinâ?¦
>
> For those who would like to review the impact of depleting hydrocarbon  
> reserves from the
> geo-political perspective, and the potential ramifications to how this  
> may ultimately create an
> erosion of our civil liberties and democratic processes, retired U.S.  
> Special Forces officer Stan
> Goff offers a sobering analysis in his essay: â?˜The Infinite War and  
> Its Rootsâ?™ (20).
> Likewise, for those who wish to review the unspeakable evidence  
> surrounding the September
> 11th tragedy, the controversial essay �The Enemy Within� by the  
> famous American
> writer Gore Vidal offers a thorough introduction. Although published  
> in Italy and a major UK
> newspaper, The Observer, you will not read Gore Vidalâ?™s  
> controversial essay in the U.S.
> media. Note: Gore Vidalâ?™s latest book, â?˜Dreaming Warâ?™ features  
> this as the opening
> essay (21). Finally, �The War on Freedom� by British political  
> scientist Nafeez Ahmed
> asks disconcerting questions about the 9/11 tragedy (22).
>
> References:
>
> (1)London, Heidi Kingstone, â?˜Middle East: Trouble in the House of  
> Saudâ?™
> (January 13, 2003) http://www.jrep.com/Mideast/Article-0.html
>
> (2)Recknagel, Charles, 'Iraq: Baghdad Moves to Euro' (November 1,  
> 2000) http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2000/11/01112000160846.asp
>
> (3)Gutman, Roy & Barry, John, Beyond Baghdad: Expanding Target List:  
> Washington looks at
> overhauling the Islamic and Arab world (August 11, 2002)  
> http://www.unansweredquestions.net/timeline/2002/newsweek081102.html
>
> (4)'Economics Drive Iran Euro Oil Plan, Politics Also Key' (August  
> 2002)  
> http://www.iranexpert.com/2002/economicsdriveiraneurooil23august.htm
>
> (5)â?˜Forex Fund Shifting to Euro,â?™ Iran Financial News, (August 25,  
> 2002) http://www.payvand.com/news/02/aug/1080.html
>
> (6)Costello, Tom, â?˜Japanâ?™s Economy at Risk of Collapseâ?™  
> (December 11, 2002) http://www.msnbc.com/news/845708.asp?0cl=cR
>
> (7) Gluck, Caroline, â?˜North Korea embraces the euroâ?™ (December 1,  
> 2002) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2531833.stm
>
> (8) â?˜What the World Thinks in 2002 : How Global Publics View: Their  
> Lives, Their Countries,
> The World, Americaâ?™ (2002)  
> http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=165
>
> (9) â?˜Euro continues to extend its global influenceâ?™ (January 7,  
> 2002) http://www.europartnership.com/news/02jan07.htm
>
> (10) Henderson, Hazel, â?˜Beyond Bushâ?™s Unilateralism: Another  
> Bi-Polar World or A New
> Era of Win-Win?â?™ (June 2002)  
> http://www.hazelhenderson.com/Bush's%20unilateralism.htm
>
> (11) Birms, Larry & Volberding, Alex, â?˜U.S. is the Primary Loser in  
> Failed Venezuelan
> Coup,â?™ Newsday (April 21, 2002)  
> http://www.coha.org/COHA%20_in%20_the_news/Articles%202002/ 
> newsday_04_21_02_us__venezuela.htm
>
> (12) â?˜USA intelligence agencies revealed in plot to oust Venezuela's  
> President,â?™ (Dec 12, 2002) http://www.vheadline.com/0212/14248.asp  
> (link now dead)
>
> (13) Liu, Henry C K, 'US Dollar hegemony has got to go,â?™ (Asia  
> Times, April 11, 2002) http://www.atimes.com/global-econ/DD11Dj01.html
>
> (14) â?˜The Choice of Currency for the Denomination of the Oil  
> Bill,â?™ Speech given by
> Javad Yarjani, Head of OPECâ?™s Marketing Analysis Department (April,  
> 2002)  
> http://www.opec.org/NewsInfo/Speeches/sp2002/spAraqueSpainApr14.htm
>
> (15) Dr. Ali, Nayyer, â?˜Iraq and Oil,â?™ (December 13, 2002)  
> http://www.pakistanlink.com/nayyer/12132002.html
>
> (16) Pfeiffer, Dale, â?˜Much Ado about Nothing -- Whither the Caspian  
> Riches? â?˜ (December 5, 2002)  
> http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/120502_caspian.html
>
> (17) Ruppert, Michael, â?™The Unseen Conflict,â?™ (October 18,  
> 2002)http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/101802_the_unseen.html
>
> (18) Jean Charles-Briscard & Guillaume Dasquie, â?˜The Forbidden  
> Truth: U.S.-Taliban Secret
> Oil Diplomacy, Saudi Arabia and the Failed Search for bin Ladenâ?™,  
> Nation Books, 2002.
>
> (19) Ruppert, Michael, â?˜Colin Campbell on Oil.â?™(October 23,  
> 2002)http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/102302_campbell.html
>
> (20) Golf, Stan, â?˜The Infinite War and its Roots,â?™  
> http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/082702_infinite_war.html
>
> (21) Vidal, Gore, â?˜Dreaming War: Blood for Oil & the Cheney-Bush  
> Junta,â?™ Nation Books,
> 2002. His essay, â?˜The Enemy Withinâ?™ was first printed in the  
> UKâ?™s Observer (Oct 27, 2002)  
> http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/EnemyWithin.html
>
> (22) Ahmed, Nafeez, â?˜The War on Freedom: How and Why America was  
> Attacked,
> September 11, 2001â?™, Tree of Life Publications, 2002.
>
> Any comments now that you know the truth?
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Worried what your kids see online? Protect them better with MSN 8  
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/parental&pgmarket=en- 
> gb&XAPID=186&DI=1059
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rad-Green mailing list
> Rad-Green at lists.econ.utah.edu
> To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green
>
*******************************************************
Christian Gundermann
Assistant Professor of Spanish
Romance Languages
1233 University of Oregon
Eugene, OR 97403-1233
office phone: 541-346-4049
cgunderm at darkwing.uoregon.edu