Turkish Leader Wants All to Cut Weapons
Turkish Leader Wants All to Cut Weapons
Fri Jan 24, 6:45 PM ET
By SCHEHEREZADE FARAMARZI, Associated Press Writer
ISTANBUL, Turkey - Turkey's top politician said Friday that all countries including the United States — not just Iraq — should eliminate weapons of mass destruction.
Recep Tayyip Erdogan also said his country would not decide whether to support U.S. military action until the U.N. Security Council weighs in. Turkey was a key U.S. ally in the 1991 Gulf War and was expected to play a similarly important role in any new war against Saddam Hussein.
The new NATO military commander, U.S. Marine Corps Gen. James Jones, met with Turkey's top general Friday to discuss Turkish cooperation, which would be essential in opening a northern front from which U.S. forces could invade Iraq. NATO has promised military support to member-nation Turkey if it is attacked by Iraq.
Erdogan spoke in Davos, Switzerland, amid a rift between the United States and Europe over Iraq. In Istanbul, the visiting German foreign minister, whose country has been one of the most outspoken opponents of military action, said the trans-Atlantic allies should "cool down" the sharpening debate.
Turkey is under heavy U.S. pressure to allow use of its bases to attack Iraq, but public opposition to war is strong in the country.
Erdogan, who heads the ruling party and is considered the behind-the-scenes leader of the government, said eliminating nuclear, biological and chemical weapons in Iraq was a worthy goal.
"But let's not kid ourselves," he told reporters through a translator at the World Economic Forum. "No one is interested in eliminating their own weapons of mass destruction. They're interested in strengthening their own weapons of mass destruction."
Asked if he was accusing the United States of hypocrisy, Erdogan said: "I meant all the countries in the world. The United States is also included."
However, Murat Mercan, deputy chairman of Erdogan's party, denied later that Erdogan was specifically accusing the United States of hypocrisy. He said Erdogan told him he was talking about all countries, and did not single out the United States.
He also said that Erdogan meant to say countries are not interested in reducing their expenditures on weapons of mass destruction.
Erdogan spoke at the panel in Turkish, and his remarks were simultaneously translated into English.
Erdogan also said his government would wait for a U.N. decision before deciding whether to support military action. "The decision which is important for us is the decision of the U.N. Security Council," said Erdogan, who is expected to become prime minister after he runs in parliamentary by-elections in March.
Turkey has long said it would prefer to have U.N. approval for any attack on Iraq, but its top ally, the United States, wants it to allow tens of thousands of American troops to use its bases to open a northern front against Iraq. Washington said it does not need U.N. approval to launch a war.
Turkey has been reluctant to give permission and has reportedly asked Washington to scale down its planned deployment.
Erdogan noted the "major price" Turkey paid after the 1991 Gulf War — a flood of Kurdish refugees, lost lives and economic disruption. "We do not want to pay the same prices one more time," he said.
British military chief Adm. Sir Michael Boyce visited Turkey's Incirlik air base — the hub of British and U.S. warplanes enforcing the northern no-fly zone over Iraq. Incirlik is expected to be a key attack base if the United States strikes Iraq again.
Hoping to avert a war, Turkey hosted a gathering this week of foreign minister from Iraq's neighbors and Egypt, who on Thursday urged Saddam to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors.
Many observers expect Turkey will eventually bow to U.S. pressure and allow use of the bases. But the government is eager to show the Turkish public it has made an effort to prevent conflict.
Turkish Foreign Minister Yasar Yakis said Friday that allowing U.S. troops to use Turkish soil to launch an attack on Iraq puts military pressure on Saddam to comply with U.N. inspectors.
"The more there is military pressure on Iraq, the more it is likely to reach a peaceful solution," Yakis said.
marcremi
Unregistered User
(1/25/03 6:42 am)
Turkey Knows Better
Turkey knows that the greatest threat to its independance would come from an unchecked Iraq. All Saddam has ever craved is power, Irags own people and neighbours would testify to this if they were allowed to. His speeches are childish/retarded and his days are definately numbered few.
comm exterminator
Unregistered User
(1/25/03 6:44 am)
Turkey: Shut up and open wide
It's not enough that we have pumped billions into this backward degenerate country, they dare even think of not allowing Americans in to finish the Persian Gulf War?
I say: Shut up, Turks, and open wide because we are coming.
riograndedan
Unregistered User
(1/25/03 6:45 am)
The Coalition coalesces
Full Backing
Australia: Backing U.S., will offer troops.
Britain: Will also offer military, fully behind U.S.
Bulgaria: Ready to offer troops.
Canada: Will offer military assistance, 100 per cent support.
Greece: Offers any help possible, hosts large U.S. military base. Wants to review security for 2004 Olympics in Athens.
India: Will allow U.S. forces to use its facilities to launch strikes, plus logistical help.
New Zealand: Support tied to Aussies.
Norway: To commit troops and military aid.
Philippines: May allow coalition to use airports and seaports.
Spain: Has offered its air bases for any retaliatory strikes;
Algeria: Supportive, will offer intelligence.
Armenia: Condemned U.S.attacks.
Austria: Its constitution bans sending troops, but will allow airspace to be used.
Azerbaijan: Offers intelligence assistance.
Bahrain: Supportive.
Bangladesh: One of the most populous Muslim states, has pledged support.
Belgium: Says it's not at war, wants balanced U.S. response.
Brunei: Sent condolences to U.S.
Croatia: Support fighting terrorism, but worries about being isolated.
Denmark: Condolences offered and will help investigation.
Ethiopia: Condemned attack on U.S.
Finland: Helping with surveillance.
France: Has reservations, wants "appropriate" attack.
Germany: No troops but use of airspace and bases supported.
Hungary: Expressed "full solidarity" with U.S.
Israel: Backs U.S., but balks at American request to meet Palestinian leaders. Fears if U.S. attacks Iraq, Saddam Hussein will target Israel.
Italy: Foreign minister supportive will allow use of air space and bases
Japan: Will help in any way, but constitution prevents military action.
Jordan: Supportive, police will help investigation, but its Muslim leaders opposed.
Kazakhstan: Supportive, but fears war could destabilize Muslim region.
Kuwait: Liberated in the Gulf War, backs U.S.
Kyrgyzstan: Worried about a massive refugee exodus.
Lebanon: Condemned U.S. attacks but warned against aggressive response.
Malaysia: Has tightened security and aided Pentagon with intelligence, but warns violent response could increase terrorism.
Morocco: Supportive, will offer intelligence.
Mozambique: Condemned attack on U.S., but demands "balanced" American response.
Oman: Supportive.
Pakistan: Fully supportive, will allow military base and use of airspace, has closed border to Afghanistan. But trying to ward off a U.S. attack by seeking terrorist Osama bin Laden's arrest.
Russia: Backs strikes on Afghanistan but no troops, says U.S. military can take care of itself.
Saudi Arabia: Bin Laden's former home, could be U.S.'s best source of intelligence. Will assist investigation and use of Bases.
Tajikistan: May offer airspace and military bases to U.S.-led force, will consult with Russia.
Tunisia: Supportive.
suitesnboots
Unregistered User
(1/25/03 6:49 am)
Turkey are amongst the good guys
Turkey may be an Islamic country, but its politics are democratic with an educated population in the whole.
They have a fundementalist element, but so does GB.
If Turkey wants to continue along the path of being a productive progressive country then it should be encouraged.
The alternative is to drive Turkey into the arms of the fundermentalists, which is bad for everybody.
dobermanmacleod
Unregistered User
(1/25/03 6:51 am)
Consequences are a lethal pandemic
The CIA says it is over 75% likely that Saddam, about to be toppled, will authorize chemical and biological attacks on the US homeland. When we invade Iraq to depose Saddam, we lose the deterrent card.
The most powerful weapon that Saddam could use is easy to smuggle through security, easy to deliver because it is highly contagious, it is lethal, and there is general agreement that Saddam possesses this weapon. Furthermore, it is very likely that Saddam has obtained a "hotter" strain, which is more contagious and lethal than common smallpox. Finally, it is possible that Saddam has used recombinate DNA technology to create superpox from a formula published last year, which is vaccine resistent.
To understand how a strategic biological attack would affect the US, look up Dark Winter on the web. To illustrate: the CDC now says that a mosquito infected with the West Nile virus lays infected eggs, so the mosquitos are born infected. Furthermore, the virus has appeared in Mother's milk and our blood supply. Essencially, the West Nile virus has saturated our environment. A strategic biological attack would be an uncontrollable catastrophy. Internation trade would be disrupted, our economy would be ruined, and we would be quarantined inside our houses.
We will cause what we are invading to prevent. It is incredibly reckless to invade a country with an advanced biological weapons program. I know.
marcremi
Unregistered User
(1/25/03 6:53 am)
They say its oil but...
The root cause for all these troubles is not oil, its religion. Be it Islam, Christianity or whatever, religion as a construct (warped by mans thirst for power) only serves to remind people of their differences. Have we even matured since the Dark Ages?
bvaljalo
Unregistered User
(1/25/03 6:55 am)
Re: Turkey: Shut up and open wide
"pumped billions" you say?
Considering that the US Dollar is the fiat currency of the world markets, it ain't all that difficult for us to 'pump billions' into whereever we damn well please, at NO COST to anybody but the people of that country. Print it up, here ya go! No sweat. What, do you actually think those are our precious 'tax dollars'? SHAAAH!
Big f'ing deal. They don't have to help us if they don't want to. Get a clue.
bvaljalo
Unregistered User
(1/25/03 7:07 am)
The Real Reasons for Iraq War
Well, here's the real deal, and I have spent A LOT of time researching this...and it will take some time to read this post. But the founding fathers warned that our most important duty is to be an informed citizen.
THE REAL REASON FOR THE UPCOMING WAR WITH IRAQ...
(Hint: It has nothing to do with any threat from Iraq’s old WMD program, a little bit to do with the mid-term elections, but it is mostly about how the ruling class at Langley and neo conservative Bush junta view hydrocarbons at the macroeconomic and geo-strategic level.)
Short Answer about Iraq = Controlling OPEC, geo-strategic control of the 2nd largest hydrocarbon reserves in the world, and the unspoken but growing threat to the US dollar.
Long Answer about Iraq = The macroeconomics of the U.S. Dollar vs. the Euro as the fiat oil transaction standard, and the Real Reason for a War with Iraq:
“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 80 cents), and has actually made off like a bandit considering the dollar's steady depreciation against the euro.”
“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 for the switch from Iran - which is actively discussing a switch to euros as its oil transaction currency standard). Lastly, while Saudi Arabia is currently our ‘client state,’ the regime appears increasingly weak/threatened from mass unrest. A “Wahhabi Revolution” seems plausible (ie. Iran 1979).
Middle East: Trouble in the House of Saud’ (January 2003)
This administration is acutely aware of these risks. 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 grab Saudi's oil fields in the event of a coup by an anti-western group. Additionally, the drastic militarization of U.S. foreign policy may be related to the recent and disappointing realization about the oil reserves in Caspian Sea region, 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."
The following info about Iraq’s oil currency is censored in the U.S. media - as the truth would most likely curtail consumer confidence, reduce borrowing/spending, create immense political pressure on the Bush administration to form a new energy policy that slowly weans us off middle-eastern oil, and of course stop our march towards war with Saddam. This Radio Free Europe article confirms Iraq switch for his oil sales from dollars to the euros on Nov. 6, 2000.
“Keep in mind that - contrary to one of the main points in this November 2000 article - the steady depreciation of the dollar versus the euro since Sept 2001 means that Iraq has profited handsomely from the switch in their reserve & transaction currencies. The euro has gained roughly 15% against the dollar in that time, which also applies to the $10 billion in Iraq’s U.N. “oil for food” reserve fund that was previously held in dollars have gained that same percent value since the switch.”
“Otherwise, the effect of an OPEC switch to the euro would be that oil-consuming nations would have to flush dollars out of their 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)."
The following two recent articles discuss Iran’s
vacillating position about switching to the euro as their standard currency for oil exports, and this may help explain Bush’s sudden urgency to topple Saddam. In the aftermath of toppling Saddam it is clear the U.S. will keep a large and permanent U.S. military force in the Persian Gulf. Indeed, there is no “exit strategy” in a post-Saddam Iraq, as a permanent U.S. military force will be needed to "maintain order" (ie. to protect the newly installed puppet regime), and to send a message to the other OPEC producers that they might receive “regime change” if they move to euros…
'Economics Drive Iran Euro Oil Plan, Politics Also Key' (August 2002)
Paradoxically, if the war creates a prolonged oil price increase ($45 per barrel over a few months), or a short but massive oil price spike ($80 to $100 per barrel), some analysts believe Japan’s fragile economy would collapse. Japan is hypersensitive to oil prices, and if its bonds default it could set in motion a series of events that would prove devastating to the U.S. economy. Japan’s fall could create the rapid dislocations that force an OPEC switch to euros.
‘Japan’s Economy at Risk of Collapse’ (December 11, 2002)
Additionally, other risks arise if the Iraq war goes poorly or becomes prolonged, as it is quite possible that Iran or other OPEC members such as Venezuela may switch to euros if they perceive this war as an attempt to break-up the OPEC cartel. Indeed, the Iraq war could foster the very situation Bush is trying to prevent, an OPEC currency switch to the euros.
Incidentally, the final “Axis of Evil” country, North Korea, has also decided to officially drop the dollar and begin using euros for trade, effective Dec. 2002. Unlike the OPEC-producers, North Korea’s switch will have negligible economic impact, b
------
Much more troubling is North Korea’s recent actions following the oil/fuel embargo of their country. They are in dire need of oil, 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.N./U.S. regarding food and oil (ie. 1994 crisis). The CIA estimates that North Korea could now produce 4-6 nuclear weapons by the second half of 2003.
The Bush administration is currently refusing to negotiate over this crisis, claiming that further “isolation” will halt North Korea’s nuclear program. Many governments believe this is the wrong tactic, including the South Koreans who are upset at Bush’s failure to utilize diplomatic channels to defuse this situation.
Indeed, this conflict over North Korea’s nuclear program provides further evidence of the fraudulent premise for which this upcoming war with Iraq was based. Where are Iraq’s supposed WMD?
Unfortunately, George Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and the rest of the neo conservatives fail to grasp that Newton’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 (90-91’ & 98’), Serbia and Kosovo (99’) were undertaken with U.N./NATO cooperation and thus afforded international legitimacy. President Clinton also worked to reduce tensions in Northern Ireland and attempted in his last term to negotiate a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
However, in both the pre and post 9/11 intervals, the “America first” policies of the current Bush administration along with their aggressive militarisation of foreign policy, especially their agenda for controlling the middle east, have changed the worldview of the U.S.’s status from a basically benevolent superpower unwilling to engage in imperialist conquests to that of a belligerent and aggressive superpower who is more than eager to use the US military to do whatever it deems as good for "Amerika" and to hell with the rest of the wordl.
Although this disconcerting news if filtered by the US media, it appears the world community is increasingly poised to respond with crippling economic retribution if the U.S. government is viewed as an aggressive and dangerous superpower. The plausibility of abandoning the dollar standard for the euro is growing. This U.K-based article outlines this dynamic as well as the potential outcomes.
‘BEYOND BUSH’S UNILATERALISM: Another Bi-Polar World or A New Era of Win-Win?’
“The 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 – 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 Administration’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.“
As for the current events taking place in Venezuela, items #2 and #7 on the above list may elude to why the Bush administration quickly endorsed the military-led coup of Hugo Chavez in April 2002. Although the coup collapsed only 2 days later, with President Chavez being restored to power, there are numerous reports that the CIA and a rather embarrassed Bush administration approved and may have been actively involved in failed attempt to replace Chavez with a civilian/military junta.
Interestingly, one year before the failed coup, Venezuelan’s ambassador Francisco Mieres-Lopez apparently floated the idea in March 2001 of switching to the euro as their oil currency standard...
Furthermore, there is mounting evidence that the CIA is still active in its attempts to overthrow the democratically elected Chavez administration. The information recently exposed by a Uruguayan government official is yet another report suggesting the ongoing covert CIA operations in Venezuela:
------
USA intelligence agencies revealed in plot to oust Venezuela's President’ (Dec 2002)
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 Venezuela’s oil industry. Furthermore, the establishment is concerned that Chavez’s “barter 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 Venezuela’s oil, thereby reducing reliance on fiat dollars.
If these unique oil transactions proliferate, they will create more devaluation pressure on the dollar. Continuing attempts to remove Hugo Chavez appear likely.
Why is the dollar still strong? Well, the elites understand that the strength of the dollar does not rest on our economic output per se, as our record-high trade account deficit (almost 5% of GDP) and $6.3 trillion dollar deficit (55% of GDP) are factors that would devalue the currency of any nation under the “old rules.” Since the end of World War II the U.S. has enjoyed a unique advantage…
The truth is that the strength of the dollar rests on being the international reserve currency and thus fiat currency for global oil transactions (ie. “petro-dollar”). The U.S. prints fiat reserve dollars, hundreds of billions of these petro-dollars are used by all nation states to purchase oil/energy from OPEC producers (except Iraq and Venezuela, and perhaps Iran in the near future).
These billions of petro-dollars are consumed by oil-consuming nations, and 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, well established and transparent accounting methodologies, government oversight (ie. SEC), total cash flow, profitability, superior infrastructure and educational system, etc.
While many of these factors remain present, over the last two decades we have diluted and distorted some of the “safe harbor” fundamentals. Despite the numerous technical weaknesses in the U.S. economy from a trade account deficit perspective, and related issues of debt, the dollar as the fiat oil currency has remained strong and stable, creating “new rules”. The following article discusses the virtues of our fiat oil currency (or vices from the perspective of developing nations, whose debt is denominated in dollars).
---
'US Dollar hegemony has got to go" (Asia Times, June 2002)
"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 world'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."
This unique geo-political agreement with Saudi Arabia dating from 1971 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 a massive debt and credit expansion. This is 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 two underlying factors 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.
---
Regrettably, the belligerent actions of the Bush administration appear to be accelerating some countries to switch to the euro as an alternative to the dollar. Indeed, a real shift towards the euro occurred this year. In December 2002 ten additional countries were approved for full membership into the E.U. In 2004 this will result in a GDP of $9.6 trillion and 450 million people, directly competing with the U.S. economy.
Thus, the question remains, will events in Iraq, Iran, or Venezuela provide the impetus for OPEC act on their “internal discussions” and switch to the euro as the new fiat currency for oil? Alternatively, will Japan’s fragile economy implode from a spike in oil prices during the Iraq war, thereby setting in motion a macroeconomic environment that results in a forced switch to the euro as nations such as Russia drop the dollar, while others divest their U.S. assets to shore up their domestic currencies?
Lastly, what if the OPEC cartel feels threatened by the Bush junta’s goal of saturating the oil market with Iraqi oil and thereby break–up the decision making process of OPEC? This event could also trigger a decision by OPEC to switch to the euros, thus creating the dreaded domino effect described in the opening paragraphs, and the date of such a decision would mark the end of U.S. dollar hegemony, and thus the end of our precarious economic superpower status.
How would the Bush administration break the OPEC cartel in a post Saddam Iraq? First, the puppet regime will convert Iraq back to the dollar standard. Then they hope to quickly increase the production of Iraq oil, quadrupling or quintupling Iraq’s oil output to drive down prices to approximately $10 per barrel of oil. Ultimately this would result in the dissolution of the OPEC cartel. Dr. Nayyer Ali offers a succinct analysis of the neocon plans to dissolve OPEC’s price control
‘Iraq and Oil ‘ (December 2002)
“Despite 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 (per day), 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.
"The benefit to the American economy will be 75 billion dollars, which is not huge, but is certainly significant. Lower global oil prices will lead to faster growth in most developed and developing nations, which will benefit American exporters selling to these economies.”
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 is the only unfiltered “real news” for those who wish to seek it - and can face the cognitive dissonance of the unfortunate truth. For those who want to review the unspeakable evidence surrounding the September 11th tragedy, this essay by the famous American writer Gore Vidal offers an introduction. It was published in an Italian and major UK newspaper, The Observer, but you will never read his controversial essay in a U.S. newspaper.
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.
The war has nothing to with any threat from Saddam’s old WMD program. It is far more likely Al Qaeda might acquire a former Soviet Union weapon through the Russian Mafia or Chechen sympathizers…
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. We seem unable to address the weakness of our economy due to massive debt manipulation, unsustainable credit expansion, unaffordable 2001 tax cuts, current trade account deficit, near zero personal savings, record personal indebtedness, and our utter dependence on cheap oil. As Reality Bytes eloquently stated in an essay on this issue:
“One 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 neocon 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!”
Despite the Bush junta’s attempts via the threat of applying military force to OPEC producers to thwart a currency switch, it appears their tactics may paradoxically bring about the dire outcome. Will we allow our government to begin the dangerous “pre-emptive doctrine” by starting a war with Saddam, while we refuse to acknowledge that Iraq does not pose an imminent threat to the U.S.?
Regardless of whatever Dr. Blix finds or doesn't find in Iraq regarding WMD, the Bush junta will soon start their “pre-emptive” imperialist war, killing Iraqis and possibly the Saudis in order to control between 11% and perhaps 36% of the earth’s remaining hydrocarbons. Will we accept this grave price as a nation? We have created unsustainable levels of debt, while we drive the biggest SUVs on the planet along with their addiction to $1.50 per gallon of gas. How much longer can we import this oil from nations that despise us because of our biased foreign policy towards Israel?
Will we stand idle and watch our government disregard International Law by waging war in Iraq and other middle eastern countries while also overthrowing democratically elected governments in Latin America? Shall we accept this imperialist conquest to feed our excessive energy consumption and enforce U.S. dollar hegemony for global oil transactions via the barrel of a gun? Will we stand in silence and watch our country become a ‘rogue’ 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?
This need not be. When will we demand that our government begin the long journey towards energy conservation, the development of renewable energy sources, sustained balanced budgets to allow real deficit reduction, a reining in of the credit bubble, the creation and enforcement of real acconting methodologies, and substantial reinvestment in U.S. manufacturing/export sectors to reduce our trade account deficit? This transtion will re-establish the US as the "safe harbor" nation of investments, and curtailing our oil consumption will reduce hypocritical foreign policies that are driving the "anti-Americanism" around the globe.
It has been said that all wars are fought over resources or ideology/religion. It appears that we may soon add “currency wars” as a third paradigm. I suspect the history books will not be kind to the Bush administration and its cabal of warmongers. 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."
“The 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
The modus operandi of a real patriot:
"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."
-Thomas Jefferson
Background information on hydrocarbons and how we got to this desperate place...
The following four articles on the ‘From the Wilderness’ website detail the issues of hydrocarbons, and the interplay between energy and the Bush junta’s perpetual “war on terror.” Other than the core euro currency issue, the other issue related to the upcoming war with Iraq relates to 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. 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 when Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton he expressed interest in building that pipeline on more than one occasion…
In fact, these reserves were a central component of Vice President Cheney’s May 2001 energy plan.
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 a U.S. strategic goal that would help meet our growing energy demand, and also reduce our dependence on oil from the Middle East. According to the French book, The Forbidden Truth, the Bush administration ignored the sanctions the U.N. had imposed upon the Taliban and entered into negotiations with the supposedly ‘rogue regime’ from February 2, 2001 to August 6, 2001. According to the book, the Taliban were apparently not very cooperative based on the statements of Pakistan’s former ambassador, Mr. Naik. There are reports that the U.S. threatened a “military option” in the summer of 2001 if the Taliban did not acquiesce to our demands. Fortuanately for the Bush administration Bin Laden delivered to us 9/11, and the Taliban were soon replaced with the pro-western Karzai government. The pipeline project was back on track in early 2002, sort of...
-----
After three exploratory wells were built and analyzed, it was discovered that the Caspian region holds only approximately 9-13 billion barrels of oil (although it does have a lot of natural gas). The oil is also of poor quality, with high sulfur content. Subsequently, several major companies have dropped their plans for the pipeline citing that the project is no longer profitable.
Unfortunately, this recent realization about the Caspian Sea region has dire implications for the U.S., India, China and Europe, as the amount of available hydrocarbons for these competing countries has been decreased downward by 20% from prior estimates (1 trillion barrels remaining on the planet, down from 1.2 trillion).
Interestingly, the Bush administration quickly turned all of its attention to a known quantity, Iraq, with it proven reserves totaling 11% of the world’s remaining hydrocarbons. Our greatest nemesis, Bin Laden, was quickly replaced with our new public enemy #1 - Saddam Hussein.
Much Ado about Nothing -- Whither the Caspian Riches? - Over the Last 24 Months Hoped For Caspian Oil Bonanza Has Vanished With Each New Well Drilled
THE UNSEEN CONFLICT - War Plans, Backroom Deals, Leverage and Strategy -- Securing What's Left of the Planet's Oil Is and Has Always Been the Bottom Line
The following article by retired U.S. Special Forces officer Stan Goff describes the potential outcomes of the depleting hydrocarbon reserves at the geo-strategic level. He also provides a succinct backdrop to the political ramifications of the perpetual ‘war on terror.’
zerosumtheorist
Unregistered User
(1/25/03 7:09 am)
World Peace
It is a wonderful thing to be able to march for one's personal morality. I rather think of it as a touch romantic. However, what every "green" thinker and every "peacenik" forgets is that there is a large difference between personal morality and governmental morality. The reason is that the huge majority of governments in the world are not democratic, republic or concerned with the difference between right and wrong.
The majority of the governments in the world are despotic, totalitarianistic, fascist, communist dictatorships and/or authoritarian. What we do know is that over the last three hundred years, there has not been a war between one democracy and another. What we also know is that authoritarian or communist nations are responsible for over 170,000,000 million deaths (not counting war deaths) of civilians within the last 100 years. Communism accounting for over 100 million deaths of individuals like you or me. Now, that being the case, do you feel that it is a better 'horror' to propogate by inaction the governments that lead to 170,000,000 deaths or, do you feel that America and others like her, may actually have proven, historically even, that thru action, we may create a safer and better world for all to live in????
Forget about oil, forget about who has what nuclear weapons... How do you propose waging peace when there are authoriatian type governments (fascist, dictators, totalitarianism, and communists) that murder innocent civilians by the millions if given the chance? If you truly want world peace, you will work hard, harder than ever before to bring democracy to those nations that have never had it. Read your history, I am right. Your concept of peace is good, but, don't become disallusional and believe that peace happens because you say it is bad to bomb murderers.
Through inaction and wrongful beliefs, an uneducated 'peacenik' contributes to the awful deaths, tortures, and hatred in the world. Through careless thinking, disregard for what history teaches us, and a fanciful idea that "everyone wants peace", certain 'revolutionaries' are just as responsible for genocide as the actual people that pull the trigger. Because of their actions, Peaceniks of the Vietnam era for example, should bear some responsiblity for the 2,000,000 deaths of the Pol Pot Regime in Cambodia.
The American military is an awsome reminder that this "Peaceful world" is not here yet. But, if given the chance, America, as powerful as she is, actually stands at a crossroads to begin propogating that actual "World peace" that everyone dreams about. Work hard to bring democracy to the world's people. If you believe in world peace, you will.
Everyone should read up on Rudolph Rummel, gain yourself an education. See the forest through the trees.
marrob37us
Unregistered User
(1/25/03 7:11 am)
THIS WHOLE THING STINKS BECAUSE BUSH..
COULDN'T KEEP HIS FAT FVCKING MOUTH SHUT!!! GOING AROUND SAYING, "IF YOU'RE NOT WITH US, YOU'RE AGAINST SU". WHO THE FVCK IS "US"??? BECAUSE FROM WHERE I SIT, THE ONLY US SEEMS TO BE THE USA AND THE BRITS. ONCE AGAIN THIS FVCKING IDIOT BUSH AS FOULED UP. HURRY 2004 AND GET THIS NUMBSKULL OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE.
wepollock
Unregistered User
(1/25/03 7:13 am)
Turkey and a Pan-Islamic Union
The Turkish PM has his roots in Saudi Arabia. The goal may be a Pan-Islamic Union. I provide text and a map on that subject;
Re: Turkey and a Pan-Islamic Union
A Pan-Islamic Union? You have to be kidding!
The Arabs couldn't organize a birthday party together.
burcin
Unregistered User
(1/25/03 7:18 am)
UNITE FOR PEACE
YOU PEOPLE ARE MAKING BIG MISTAKE... YOU ALL TALK ABOUT RELIGION... WHAT YOU ARE DUNG IS WRONG... BE INTELLECTUAL... I AM TURK AM AGAINST RELIGIOUS TERROR GROUPS... SO DO NOT DO IT....
US HAS NUCLEAR WEAPONS
US HAS CHEMICAL WEAPONS
US USE MASS DESTRUCTION WEAPONS
US DOES NOT FOLLOW UN REGULATION
US IS DANGEROUS TO WORLD PEACE...
YOU PEOPLE SADDAM IS DANGEROUS BUT OPEN YOUR EYES BECAUSE BUSH IS MORE DANGEROUS...
AMERICANS ARE THE ALLIE OF TURKEY BUT THEY MUST BE INTELLECTUAL...
WE WILL NOT EXCEPT US SOLDIERS COMING TO OUR LAND...
WELL DONE GERMANY WELL DONE FRANCE RUSSIA WELL DONE TURKEY FIGHT FOR PEACE
dad38320
Unregistered User
(1/25/03 7:21 am)
Who is greatest threat to world peace?
Look at this Time magazine Europe poll and you will see that Europe picked the USA as the most dangerous threat to world peace. The other two choices were Iran and Iraq.
Here's the link!
The Biggest Threat To Peace
Which country really poses the greatest danger to world peace in 2003? TIME asks for readers' views
Who really poses the greatest danger to world peace? Iraq and North Korea are certainly high on President Bush's list though Iraq is still working hard to deny him a reason to attack. A 12,000-page report on its nuclear, chemical and biological programs has been given to the United Nations but Bush and his dependable friend Tony Blair say they have "solid evidence" that Saddam is lying and have called for weapons inspection teams to step up their work.
Meanwhile, as the fuel rods go in and UN inspectors go away, the specter of a nuclear-armed North Korea is keeping the reclusive regime on everybody's radar. Washington and Pyongyang are talking tough but is the biggest danger to peace closer to home? European antagonism towards Bush's robust stance is now being mirrored in the U.S., with even those he might normally consider his allies now urging caution.
So TIME asks you: which country poses the greatest danger to world peace in 2003?
THE SHAPE OF THE NEW MIDDLE-EAST
This is the shape of the new Middle-East that thoses loosers are trying to avoid:
The victorious US armey free Iraq and divided to a Kurdish state in the north under strong US control of the oil-fields, a Shi'a state in the south, A Sunni central state around the city of Baghdad where the US may opt keeping crazy Saddam or one of his crazy sons as desspot. And of course the latter state will have no resources and will lurk in poverty and backwaedness where people will hear every day about how crazy Saddam was victorious by manging to stay in power.
Obviously the sanctions will continue to be imposed and US airplanes will continue to target practice on that state every day.
Consequently Syria will be the only standing regime with some resources to support terrorism and the KIM JONG IL type leader of that country will continue to support the Hezbollah terrorists and this will bring the wrath of the US and Israel on him the US will attack and occupy north eastern Syria where all the oil resources are, and will anex it to the Kurdish state in northren Iraq, Israel will expand to the south-western part of Syria and will take damascus after a massive exodus of population takes place.
The Alawiis of the Syrian regime will run to their costal and mountain strong-holds and will form an independent Alawii state with the help of Israel, obviously after they change some of their leadership. the Sunnis of Syria will be enclosed in the inner cities of Homs Hama and Aleppo, and will form their own state that will be in a perpetual warfare with the neibourghing Alawii state.
Lebanon will be diveded between a Christian prowestern state that will control most of the territories after the massive exodus of Hezbollah and other Shi'a when Iseal occupy the south of that country.
Turkey will intially be given promises that the Kurds will not form a state within Turkey. But eventually the US will tolerate the break up of Turkey after the US achives the final victory over Iran
nitrospecial
Unregistered User
(1/25/03 7:28 am)
Intimidation
Its clear these countries are intimidated by the Arab world. Germany for one said it would never agree to the use of force against Iraq.
Even if Saddam sold VX nerve gas to a terrorist network. Good God Schreoder whats the matter with you. The snivelling French were always a bunch of pantiwaists.
crouchingbutterfly
Unregistered User
(1/25/03 7:31 am)
Reduce Dependence on Foreign Oil
I saw a reality show last night. They filtered used cooking oil to power a diesel engine. Amazing.
We can live without petroleum from the Middle East.
lawrence
Unregistered User
(1/25/03 7:33 am)
TO YOU LIBERAL WIMPS!
We should kill all people in every country (including the U.S.) who don0t support BUSH!!! George W. Bush is the best leader in history. Saddam attacked us on 9/11 and if France and Germany and Canada don't support us, we'll bomb the hell out of these bastards to. Bush will be obeyed both here at home and abroad.
GaryBHaley
Unregistered User
(1/25/03 7:36 am)
Torture in Iraq?
Can YOU live with the torture in Iraq?
Many people think we should just turn a blind eye towards Iraq, and let SoDamn Insane have his way with his people. Makes me wonder if these people know anything about the forms of torture used in Iraq.
That's right, SoDamn Insane uses torture to keep people afraid of him. This is not war propaganda, this is fact. It is well documented by the Iraqi regime AND by people who have made it out of Iraq alive.
The nitric acid room was one of the worst, in which acid drips from random valves above your head. You must risk looking up to avoid the drips but can't help stepping in the pooling acid on the floor. You dance around in there until you die while people watch the acid eat your flesh away.
The worst though, is when you're being beaten for saying the wrong thing about your government and they go get your kids or grandkids to force you to watch and listen to them gouge their little eyes out.
Think about that for a minute. Try to imagine the squishing sound eyeballs would make as they are gouged from their sockets, that is, if you could hear it over the hysterical screams of your loved ones.
Should we let this continue? How can we?
See? There's SO much more to it than a few comfortable people not wanting to be inconvenienced by some silly war.
Gary
Ref:
Watch the History Channel for more details on Iraqi torture devices and procedures. It's horrifying enough to silence even the weakest and/or strongest pacifists.
robf139
Unregistered User
(1/25/03 7:38 am)
its about oil but you should know.....
that it also is about more than oil.
let me explain. when you drove to work today, your car used oil. when you went to the grocery, you bought products that were shipped by vehicles that use oil, and somewhere in the making of the product, oil was used.
your house is probably heated by gas, which comes from muslim countries, and your electricity was probably made w/ oil.
Basically our economy would shut down if we did not have oil. Especially oil from the Middle East. Now, Saddam has LOTS of oil. Saddam also does not like the rest of the world too much and will not sell it. But he does like terrorists, and he aspires to attack Israel, Kuwait, and Saudi.
And he has the capability to basically cause an economic collapse in the US.
and remember, thats only about oil.
think about that next time you whine about "Bush not
worrying about jobs here". he is.
and there would be very few Americans working, if not for Middle Eastern oil.
Turkey: Shut up and open wide
Email This To a Friend
Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies 
Click to stop receiving email notification of replies