The Real Reason for War (Angry)

[Captain Gadget]

To Flt Lt PPRuNe and any other interested parties,

I think BlueWolf's post (The Real Reason for War? - now relegated to page 2) is of great merit, and I would like to be able to post a reply (well, more of an invitation to continued debate, actually, and to bring the thread back to the top where it belongs). However, I note that the thread is already closed (with only one reply?).

In whose interest, dammit?


Gadget

[kbf1]

It seems that the initial post was copied into a thread in Jet Blast by F40. Danny then removed it from that thread because he considered the points that the "email" raised had already been hashed out elsewhere.

That doesn't explain why the thread was closed though, and having read the email contained in "Reasons.." it is worthy of some debate.

Tigs2 has already complained about Flt Lt PPRuNe editing out an inocuous comment in the Al Jazeera thread. I had a feeling that things were going to head this way when Flt Lt PPRuNe first emerged. If you want to start moderating out comments for no other reason than you don't like them, you are going to find people leave in droves, and Mil A/C is hardly alive and kicking these days compared to what it was 2 years ago.

[Smoketoomuch]

The moderating on this site does seem to have adopted a decidedly political bias recently. Started with Danny banning criticism of Israeli policies and has got ever less tolerant since.
Certainly not the place for free flow of ideas it once was.

[Banana99]

I think it's rather sad and insecure to ban views that are contrary to your own. Says something about the conviction of one's own views too I would suggest.

[Captain Gadget]

kbf1

Thanks for the info. As you said, however, it doesn't excuse the thread closure - well, not in my book, anyway.

One could be forgiven for thinking that Big Brother (Orwell, not Davina McCall) is getting to work here.

I don't think that - not quite, not yet.

But, like others no doubt, I am well on the case.

As you well know, I have been somewhat sceptical about this war. Not for its legitimacy, not for its moral stance, but for a reason that gave me the willies, but that I couldn't quite put my finger on (although Dubya finishing what his Daddy started has always been up there in my nightmares). BlueWolf's link may well have put my finger on it. I'm not expert enough to be sure, but I am most definitely expert enough to demand further debate. This seems - at least at this point - to have been deliberately stifled.

The thing that worries me is (and this will probably get the thread pulled - so print it now if you think it matters - I have)

Either:

1) Tony B has been duped into blindly following a US agenda, or...

(possibly even more disturbing)

2) He knows exactly what is going down and is going along with it anyway in his own interests.

This would give me the willies even more.


Gadget

[Jackonicko]

As a point of information, I think that Danny didn't close the thread in question. I challenged him about it, because I'd written a response which was remarkably pro-Bush (for me) and that response was deleted by whoever locked the thread. Danny said that he knew nothing about it.

There could not be a more pro-Palestinian Pruner than I am, as Danny will confirm, I'm sure. I'm not the mouthpiece and apologist he accuses me of, but I do believe that Israel must cede land for peace, and strongly support the pre-67 borders as being a good starting point. But Danny owns and runs this thread, providing a useful forum for us to discuss virtually all subjects under the sun. Virtually. Any exclusions are his business. Danny has served in the IDF, and is a moderately Zionist Jew, and as such has strong feelings on the issue. To his great credit, he does not attempt to ram those feelings down our throats - except when provoked, and has decided that the subject is best avoided altogether. Where the Israel/Palestine issue is directly relevant, I think we should be allowed to mention that fact, but in Danny's defence, the detailed arguments about the issue have been endlessly and comprehensively aired here, and even I think that Danny's feelings and desire to avoid further acrimonious debate should be respected.

Otherwise, I do agree that this forum is becoming a little over-moderated, which I think could be very dangerous for the forum's long term health.

[Tigs2]

Captain Gadget

I too considered the material submitted by BlueWolf was excellent in that it could have provoked some really interesting debate. I wish I had cut and paste it now. I was goint to submit a question pretty much like yours, about the whereabouts of said thread, however I thought it was futile, as nothing would come of it. That says it all really..

Kbf1, Bannana99, Smoketoomuch - I am glad its not just me that feels that the over-moderation on the site of issues that do not affect OPSEC is having a really detrimental effect.

[ORAC]

Captain Gadget,

You'll find all the various threads started on subjects concerning the where's and why's of the Iraqi war are rolled into one thread in JetBlast, currently "The new 'Iraq' thread (merged)". That's a management decision by Danny and the moderattors who don't want to have to deal with multiple threads dealing with the same subject. I've had a couple of my own rolled into it.

Concerning the article written by BlueWolf, if you read the thread on JetBlast you'll find it discussed, including a link I provided to a web site where the article is discussed and the argument generally dismissed as not economically sound (Metafilter).

The link seems to die very now and then, but if you do a google search on "So far as the article making a huge deal about Saddam moving to Euros" you'll find it in the google cache.

If you wish to add to the subject in JetBlast, I'm sure no one will object.

[Banana99]

Why not just start a (temporary) forum called "Iraq War". I'd suggest that one thread to discuss

i) friendly fire incidents
ii) aims of the war
iii) war updates
iv) POW status and treatment
v) media reporting
vi) 3rd-party threats
vii) duplicious reasons for having chemical-protection suits

etc. etc.

....is a bit much. No wonder it's hard to follow that bloody thread!

[Captain Gadget]

ORAC

Thanks for the tip.

I followed your link in order to find the debunking of the theory on economic grounds (and, believe me, I am no economist). It looked a bit busy, but I did find this:

First would be that historically US Dollar purchasing power is less volatile than many currencies in the world. Remember, we cannot just look at relative exchange rates of currencies, but what they can purchase. So if you are afraid of your own currency devaluing from a purchasing power standpoint, you will want to hold US Dollars.

But isn't the point of the article that the US Dollar might no longer be so 'unvolatile', if it were no longer the currency of choice for the exchange of staple commodities (of which oil is undoubtedly one)?

Sounds a bit like 'The dollar will be OK because the dollar has always been OK.'

Or am I just being naive?


Gadget

[solotk]

Or we could always start a .....

Why we're all doomed thread?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html

Rumsfeld warns Syria

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld issued a warning to Syria Friday, saying that coalition officials had information indicating that shipments of military equipment, including night vision goggles, were being moved into Iraq from Syria.

"These deliveries pose a direct threat to the lives of coalition forces. We consider such trafficking as hostile acts and will hold the Syrian government accountable for such shipments," Rumsfeld said at a Pentagon briefing. As the NRA say "Guns don't kill people......."

Further reading
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr2...200204011.html
http://216.26.163.62/2002/ss_syria_05_01.html
http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer...story25936.asp
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr2...2_t0401sd.html
http://www.culberson.house.gov/rumsfeldiraq.htm

Tony Blair, what the flippin bloody flip have you got us into? Roadmap for peace? I think he sold you the title deed to the Golden Gate bridge as well........

There is another agenda running here, as evidenced by Richard(Did he resign or didn't he) Perle's continued involvement. Even Ari Fleischer seems to be getting tired of pushing fog with a sharp stick

[ORAC]

I really don't want to go over it again here, but there were three main points that struck me in the discussion.

Firstly was that the amounts discussed in the article, e.g. $10 billion a year, were miniscule compared to the amount in circulation. Even the USA national budget is $2.2 trillion a year. Secondly, that one shock, such as oil, would have minimal effect, it would need repeated shocks in many areas. Thirdly, that all the countries concerned have all their funds hedged years ahead to reduce risk and provide stability. Not only haven't the financial markets reflected the case made in the article, but hedging renders the whole thing pointless as the those who'd win or lose would be the financial institutions and speculators who took the business - not the OPEC nations or the USA.

I'll leave it there on this thread. You can see above why it will get rolled into the one in JetBlast. You might mean to keep it focussed, but within 10 posts it's been hijacked. See you in the thread on JetBlast, because I think this will be there shortly.

[Ali Barber]

Agree with solotk. A big uh oh when Rumsfeld made his comment about Syria. Also noticed Rumsfeld in questions today about the plan being bogged down saying that it was Gen Tommy Franks plan. I thought Rumsfeld was the one who insisted on the smaller numbers of troops and a rolling start. Standard politician's response to distance himself if things go wrong, but stay close enough to still claim credit?

[Captain Gadget]

Oh, really...

ORAC

Admittedly this is going a bit off-topic, but as we are all getting older, and our own country's government (along with others) has signally failed to cope simultaneously with an ageing population and long-term declining stock markets, we should all be aware that we are in an unprecedented pensions funding crisis. We are all likely to suffer, just so as to prove that the politicians ain't as clever as they think they are. Where is this 'hedging' and general waving of wands, then?

Of course, you are right. The brunt will be borne by private institutions.

Like Equitable Life, perhaps? Or Railtrack?

And Mr Bush, who is subject to rather worse economic pressures than ourselves right now, has just had half of his huge tax-cutting programme rejected by Congress, at the same time as he is asking for massively increased war funding...and at a time when everybody else is raising taxes (remember the extra 1% on your NI from next week, and the effective abolition of the upper earnings limit).

Just ask Mr 'Prudence' Brown at No 11, who (significantly) has just allocated walloping extra funding to the war effort...

...which will be paid for by?



Gadget

[ORAC]

Yeah, but a tax cut that, even when chopped by 50% by the Senate, is going to cost $350 billion puts the amounts in the article in context.

As to our own population, the government's solution is immigration to maintain the required ratio. You're looking at around 5 million immigrants between now and 2025, around 200,000 a year.

[Captain Gadget]

Ahem

ORAC

So the government's redoubtable efforts to get Sangatte closed will no doubt go down in history as a shot in the foot, then.

Vive le Chunnel. Qui a besoin d'un 'igh-speed chemin de fer, hein?

Shutting up now as discussion getting increasingly irrelevant to topic.





Gadget

[kbf1]

At the risk of splitting the way the discussion on the thread is going and commenting on the original point, I made a number of comments on the "Who is Flt Lt PPRuNe" thread that it I thought it was a bad idea having 3 people use 1 moderator ID because we never know who has done what, and whether the personality defending any action is the person who took it. I also had another issue with the perception of this forum being further RAF dominated, but that is a minor issue compared to the moderation policy as such. I hate to say I told you so but......

Many of us "brown jobs" use another site dedicated to army issues, and a lot of previous PPRuNers from the army community went there en masse. PPRuNe is getting some heavy criticism for over-handed moderation and personal attacks on people who disagree with some of the lines being taken in this forum. My fear is that if things continue that this forum will die through lack of participation from the army community.

Again, I appeal to lessen the mderation grip, and do something about the culture on this forum. It would be a pity if it all died off now when the importance of discussion and discourse and the reconcilliation of differing viewpoints is vital if we are to make sense of what is happening in the world around us.

[BlueWolf]

Just a couple of wee points of clarification; I didn't write the article in question, and nor did the friend who sent it to me, so I can't claim credit for its excellent construction and content.

I wasn't aware that the thread had been closed. Precisely why it has been is a little puzzling.

Anyway, just for fun, here it is again, links and all. I presume they're still working.

Cheers

BlueWolf

The Real Reason for War?
What follows is an email from a friend. It's a very long read, but well worthwhile.

I knew there had to be more to it than oil by itself, feigned humanitarianism, and a load of bull about imaginary WMD and non-exisent Iraq/al-Qaeda links.

Don't get me wrong, I haven't changed my mind about Saddam being a genocidal psycopathic fascist thug who needs got rid of, and I will never stop being behind our boys and girls all the way, but for anyone who's still wondering about the real reason behind this war, read on.

If nothing else this reason at least makes sense - by that I mean the actions are understandable - and it goes some way towards explaining the attitudes of Germany and France, vis a vis the position of the Euro.

Regards
BW


Hi everyone,

Read this. Its good. Whether its plausible, I'm not qualified to judge. Anyway, it gells with me.

If it is true, then it really does explain the Bush administration's behaviour, especially given their personalities and vested interests. This is a much more plausible explanation than any Al Qaida risk, or sudden moral concern for the people of Iraq. It also explains why the US is not applying the same "rules" to North Korea, and why the US included Iran in the Axis of Evil, despite them helping so much with intelligence during the Afghan war.


The summary below is at: http://www.evworld.com/databases/pr...cfm?storyid=490

The full essay is at http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html.


The Euro Effect: The Real Reason for the War in Iraq
By W. Clark

"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 Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (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 Bush'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 Congress's vote on the Iraq Resolution, we suddenly became aware of North Korea'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 Saddam's seemingly dormant WMD program possesses a more imminent threat that North Korea's active program. Strangely, Donald Rumsfeld suggested that if Saddam were 'exiled' we could avoid an Iraq war.

Confused yet? Well, I'm going to give their game away -- the core driver for toppling Saddam is actually the euro currency.

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 administration'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:

"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. (Note: the dollar declined 17% against the euro in 2002.)

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

Furthermore, despite Saudi Arabia being our 'client state,' 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 will 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 Iraq's oil currency is censored by the U.S. media and the Bush administration 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 Saddam's switch for his oil sales from dollars to the euros on Nov. 6, 2000:

"Baghdad's switch from the dollar to the euro for oil trading is intended to rebuke Washington'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." [2]

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 Iraq's U.N. 'oil 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?

"Otherwise, 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 convert their oil exports to the euro.

Another underreported story from this summer related to another OPEC 'Axis of Evil' country, Iran, who is vacillating on the euro issue.

"Iran'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." [3]

Moreover, and perhaps most telling, during 2002 the majority of reserve funds in Iran's central bank have been shifted to euros. It appears imminent that Iran intends to switch to euros for their oil currency.

"More than half of the country'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 Union'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." [4]

After toppling Saddam, this administration may decide that Iran's disloyalty to the dollar qualifies them as the next target in the 'war on terror.' Iran's interest in switching to the euro as their currency for oil exports is well documented. Perhaps this MSNBC article alludes to the objectives of neo-conservatives.

"While still wrangling over how to overthrow Iraq'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 administration -- and allies at D.C. think tanks -- 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.'" [5]

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 Japan'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 Japan'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, Japan'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 an OPEC switch to euros.

Additionally, other risks might arise if the Iraq war goes poorly or becomes prolonged. 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. This would foster 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, North Korea's switch will have negligible economic impact, but it illustrates the geopolitical fallout of Bush's harsh rhetoric.

Much more troubling are North Korea's recent actions 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 Korea'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 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 (1990-91 and 1998), Serbia and Kosovo (1999) 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 aresolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

However, in both the pre and post 9/11 intervals, the 'America 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 Bush's 'warmongering rhetoric' has created global tensions -- 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. [9]

It appears that the world community may lack faith in the Bush administration'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 by Hazel Henderson outlines the dynamics and the potential outcomes:

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 [euro dollar symbol] 40 (euros) 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. [10]

Continued Next Week -- The Failed Coup in Venezeula

[West Coast]

Is this the same W Clark that is mulling over a run for president on the Democratic ticket?

I have had my share of warning shots across the bow for remarks here and elsewhere on PPRUNE. I acknowledge those have kept me from degrading my arguement from an intellectual pursuit to a slugging match. As long as your arguement is coherant, devoid of personel references and isn't inflamatory you will be fine. If your desire is not along those lines, feel free to move on.

[Captain Gadget]

Thanks

BlueWolf

Thanks for re-posting. We can now perhaps have a proper debate? Until this thread gets closed, anyway...

Gadget

Now sitting back and waiting for the sparks to fly...