The Iraq Thread

[Col. Kurtz 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Frizbee @ Mar. 18 2003,12:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the Coallition forces can simply pound any and all Iraqi resistance into dust with their precision guided munitions.<span id='postcolor'>

Presicion Munitions aren't always that precise. And lets look at another thing. While the average Iraqi conscript will probably throw down his arms at the first chance, the Iraqi Army isn't entirely made up of conscripts. Think of the Rebublican Guard. Those guys have something to lose if Husseins regime goes down. Alot of them have probably done things in their time that would be quite illegal. The theres the Arab Volunteers who have cometo fight in Iraq. I would say that even if every single conscript surrendered, there would still be thousands of soldiers fighting against the coalition forces. And what happens when it all goes street fighting? Having big flashy M1A2 Abrams isn't as useful in street fighting when the enemy has anti-tank weapons. It could get very messy. And if there are civilians still in the cities (highly likely) it makes it harder to call in airstrikes because in this day of powerful media, its harder to hide huge amounts of civilian casaulties.

Theres my rant for the moment. I am a bit sick (physically) so my opinion may be delusional, so if its wrong, blame it on my sickness!

[Longinius 1]

"Saddam used chemical and biological weapons on the Kurdish people. He attacked Kuwait in an unprovoked assault. And he's attacked Iran in the past."

He used those weapons with the blessing of the US government. Furthermore, the attack on Kuwait wasnt unprovoked from an Iraqi standpoint. It was a dispute over land, oil and economy. Which is valid reasons aparantly since the US among others have gone to war for less.

I wont bother with responding to the rest of the post, since it has all ready been done.

[killagee 0]

Someone sent me an article I would like to share with everybody, but it was in email body and I cant find it posted on the net. It's quite long, but I think it is vital it is included in this forum. Am I allowed to paste the article to this thread?

[sn1per 0]

ESPN, hockey

See 'game notes', it's not unusual to mix sports and politics. The same happened 1936 in Berlin.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (sn1per @ Mar. 18 2003,10:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">See 'game notes', it's not unusual to mix sports and politics. The same happened 1936 in Berlin.<span id='postcolor'>

You compare the spectacle of Hitler's Nazi toting Olympics to a TV montor in a lounge?

Amazing!

[sn1per 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 18 2003,12:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (sn1per @ Mar. 18 2003,10:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">See 'game notes', it's not unusual to mix sports and politics. The same happened 1936 in Berlin.<span id='postcolor'>

You compare the spectacle of Hitler's Nazi toting Olympics to a TV montor in a lounge?

Amazing! <span id='postcolor'>

Arena + loud speakers + image

Oh well, some of us just can't find any justification to this oncoming war. With the reasons for starting it, USA could bomb and invade most of the third world countries. Only problem being that that would not provide cheap fuel to feed the thirsty SUV's.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (sn1per @ Mar. 18 2003,11:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 18 2003,12:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (sn1per @ Mar. 18 2003,10:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">See 'game notes', it's not unusual to mix sports and politics. The same happened 1936 in Berlin.<span id='postcolor'>

You compare the spectacle of Hitler's Nazi toting Olympics to a TV montor in a lounge?

Amazing! <span id='postcolor'>

Arena + loud speakers + image<span id='postcolor'>

My mistake. I didn't know that Continental Airlines Arena is the stadium's name.

Still a very far-fetched comparison to the nationilst paegentry that permeated the entire Berlin spectacle.

I'm sure the Oktoberfests in the 30's had plenty of Nazi themery.

So now you'll compare any bar anywhere in the world that has a TV tuned into a political speech to the dangers of the Nazi's influence in drinking events.

There's no end to such absurd analogies.

[Bernadotte 0]

Setting aside the rights and wrongs of this conflict for a moment, why not engage in a bit of stategy speculation.  

Following the initial air barrage, how is the US most likely to undertake the actual invasion?  ...Rush to Baghdad and spread out from there, hoping for a quick surrender?  ...Sweep around to protect the oil fields leaving Baghdad to the end?

Here's a map showing oilfields:

[sn1per 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 18 2003,12:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

My mistake. I didn't know that Continental Airlines Arena is the stadium's name.

Still a very far-fetched comparison to the nationilst paegentry that permeated the entire Berlin spectacle.

I'm sure the Oktoberfests in the 30's had plenty of Nazi themery.

So now you'll compare any bar anywhere in the world that has a TV tuned into a political speech to the dangers of the Nazi's influence in drinking events.

There's no end to such absurd analogies.<span id='postcolor'>

Didn't notice the crowd shouting U-S-A, U-S-A?

Ok, maybe I should have used the [do they realize: war = bad][/do they realize: war = bad]-tags.

How come you're so pro-war Avon? Somehow i'd think that you want peace even more than us 'old europeans', having more than enough misery and death in the form of suicide bombings.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (sn1per @ Mar. 18 2003,11:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Didn't notice the crowd shouting U-S-A, U-S-A?<span id='postcolor'>

Gasp! 5 minutes of patriotism. How disgusting!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How come you're so pro-war Avon?<span id='postcolor'>

Who said I like war? Speaking of which, I'm not enthusiastic about this upcoming one and I would say that even if I was not Jewish and living in Iceland - no - Hawaii.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Somehow i'd think that you want peace even more than us 'old europeans', having more than enough misery and death in the form of suicide bombings.<span id='postcolor'>

Personally, I don't think the war in Iraq will have much direct effect in Israel. The upcoming days will tell of course but I'm much less concerned than back in 1991.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

I guess things look a little different when youre in missile range of Iraq (a country whos love of Israel is not legendary)

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

"but I'm much less concerned than back in 1991."

Oh, good

[Guest]

What is the situation in Britain now? As I understand it the parliament will vote on British participation today. Is there any chance of it being turned down or is the Tory supprort for Tony enough?

As I understand Blair is in a bit of a tight spot right now with two cabinet members resigning.

[CosmicCastaway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 18 2003,11:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What is the situation in Britain now? As I understand it the parliament will vote on British participation today. Is there any chance of it being turned down or is the Tory supprort for Tony enough?

As I understand Blair is in a bit of a tight spot right now with two cabinet members resigning.<span id='postcolor'>

Seems like it's only one resignation now, Claire Short has decided to stay...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2859189.stm

Here are some figures:

165 Labour MPs must rebel before Mr Blair has to rely on Tory votes

245 Labour MPs must rebel for Mr Blair to lose a vote on Iraq, even with Tory support

Realistically I can't see either of those happening and as the general populace won't get a say in the proceedings, you can probably expect to see troops with UK flags on their arms wandering around Iraq sometime soon.

Ho hum...

[killagee 0]

OK then. Since no one has told me not to, I will post the article in its entirity here.

IT'S NOT ABOUT OIL OR IRAQ. IT'S ABOUT THE US AND EUROPE GOING HEAD-TO-HEAD

ON WORLD ECONOMIC DOMINANCE.

By Geoffrey Heard

Melbourne, Australia

Summary: Why is George Bush so hell bent on war with Iraq? Why does his

administration reject every positive Iraqi move? It all makes sense when you

consider the economic implications for the USA of not going to war with

Iraq. The war in Iraq is actually the US and Europe going head to head on

economic leadership of the world.

America's Bush administration has been caught in outright lies, gross

exaggerations and incredible inaccuracies as it trotted out its litany of

paper thin excuses for making war on Iraq. Along with its two supporters,

Britain and Australia, it has shifted its ground and reversed its position

with a barefaced contempt for its audience. It has manipulated information,

deceived by commission and omission and frantically "bought" UN votes with

billion dollar bribes.

Faced with the failure of gaining UN Security Council support for invading

Iraq, the USA has threatened to invade without authorisation. It would act

in breach of the UN's very constitution to allegedly enforced UN

resolutions.

It is plain bizarre. Where does this desperation for war come from?

There are many things driving President Bush and his administration to

invade Iraq, unseat Saddam Hussein and take over the country. But the

biggest one is hidden and very, very simple. It is about the currency used

to trade oil and consequently, who will dominate the world economically, in

the foreseeable future-the USA or the European Union.

Iraq is a European Union beachhead in that confrontation. America had a

monopoly on the oil trade, with the US dollar being the fiat currency, but

Iraq broke ranks in 1999, started to trade oil in the EU's euros, and

profited. If America invades Iraq and takes over, it will hurl the EU and

its euro back into the sea and make America's position as the dominant

economic power in the world all but impregnable.

It is the biggest grab for world power in modern times.

America's allies in the invasion, Britain and Australia, are betting America

will win and that they will get some trickle-down benefits for jumping on to

the US bandwagon.

France and Germany are the spearhead of the European force-Russia would like

to go European but possibly can still be bought off.

Presumably, China would like to see the Europeans build a share of

international trade currency ownership at this point while it continues to

grow its international trading presence to the point where it, too, can

share the leadership rewards.

DEBATE BUILDING ON THE INTERNET

Oddly, little or nothing is appearing in the general media about this issue,

although key people are becoming aware of it-note the recent slide in the

value of the US dollar. Are traders afraid of war? They are more likely to

be afraid there will not be war.

But despite the silence in the general media, a major world discussion is

developing around this issue, particularly on the internet. Among the many

articles: Henry Liu, in the 'Asia Times' last June, it has been a hot topic

on the Feasta forum, an Irish-based group exploring sustainable economics,

and W. Clark's "The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War with Iraq: A

Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth" has been

published by the 'Sierra Times', 'Indymedia.org', and 'ratical.org'.

This debate is not about whether America would suffer from losing the US

dollar monopoly on oil trading-that is a given-rather it is about exactly

how hard the USA would be hit. The smart money seems to be saying the impact

would be in the range from severe to catastrophic. The USA could collapse

economically.

OIL DOLLARS

The key to it all is the fiat currency for trading oil.

Under an OPEC agreement, all oil has been traded in US dollars since 1971

(after the dropping of the gold standard) which makes the US dollar the de

facto major international trading currency. If other nations have to hoard

dollars to buy oil, then they want to use that hoard for other trading too.

This fact gives America a huge trading advantage and helps make it the

dominant economy in the world.

As an economic bloc, the European Union is the only challenger to the USA's

economic position, and it created the euro to challenge the dollar in

international markets. However, the EU is not yet united behind the

euro-there is a lot of jingoistic national politics involved, not least in

Britain-and in any case, so long as nations throughout the world must hoard

dollars to buy oil, the euro can make only very limited inroads into the

dollar's dominance.

In 1999, Iraq, with the world's second largest oil reserves, switched to

trading its oil in euros. American analysts fell about laughing; Iraq had

just made a mistake that was going to beggar the nation. But two years on,

alarm bells were sounding; the euro was rising against the dollar, Iraq had

given itself a huge economic free kick by switching.

Iran started thinking about switching too; Venezuela, the 4th largest oil

producer, began looking at it and has been cutting out the dollar by

bartering oil with several nations including America's bete noir, Cuba.

Russia is seeking to ramp up oil production with Europe (trading in euros)

an obvious market.

The greenback's grip on oil trading and consequently on world trade in

general, was under serious threat. If America did not stamp on this

immediately, this economic brushfire could rapidly be fanned into a wildfire

capable of consuming the US's economy and its dominance of world trade.

HOW DOES THE US GET ITS DOLLAR ADVANTAGE?

Imagine this: you are deep in debt but every day you write cheques for

millions of dollars you don't have-another luxury car, a holiday home at the

beach, the world trip of a lifetime.

Your cheques should be worthless but they keep buying stuff because those

cheques you write never reach the bank! You have an agreement with the

owners of one thing everyone wants, call it petrol/gas, that they will

accept only your cheques as payment. This means everyone must hoard your

cheques so they can buy petrol/gas. Since they have to keep a stock of your

cheques, they use them to buy other stuff too. You write a cheque to buy a

TV, the TV shop owner swaps your cheque for petrol/gas, that seller buys

some vegetables at the fruit shop, the fruiterer passes it on to buy bread,

the baker buys some flour with it, and on it goes, round and round-but never

back to the bank.

You have a debt on your books, but so long as your cheque never reaches the

bank, you don't have to pay. In effect, you have received your TV free.

This is the position the USA has enjoyed for 30 years-it has been getting a

free world trade ride for all that time. It has been receiving a huge

subsidy from everyone else in the world. As it debt has been growing, it has

printed more money (written more cheques) to keep trading. No wonder it is

an economic powerhouse!

Then one day, one petrol seller says he is going to accept another person's

cheques, a couple of others think that might be a good idea. If this

spreads, people are going to stop hoarding your cheques and they will come

flying home to the bank. Since you don't have enough in the bank to cover

all the cheques, very nasty stuff is going to hit the fan!

But you are big, tough and very aggressive. You don't scare the other guy

who can write cheques, he's pretty big too, but given a 'legitimate' excuse,

you can beat the tripes out of the lone gas seller and scare him and his

mates into submission.

And that, in a nutshell, is what the USA is doing right now with Iraq.

AMERICA'S PRECARIOUS ECONOMIC POSITION

America is so eager to attack Iraq now because of the speed with which the

euro fire could spread. If Iran, Venezuela and Russia join Iraq and sell

large quantities of oil for euros, the euro would have the leverage it needs

to become a powerful force in general international trade. Other nations

would have to start swapping some of their dollars for euros.

The dollars the USA has printed, the 'cheques' it has written, would start

to fly home, stripping away the illusion of value behind them. The USA's

real economic condition is about as bad as it could be; it is the most

debt-ridden nation on earth, owing about US$12,000 for every single one of

it's 280 million men, women and children. It is

worse than the position of Indonesia when it imploded economically a few

years ago, or more recently, that of Argentina.

Even if OPEC did not switch to euros wholesale (and that would make a very

nice non-oil profit for the OPEC countries, including minimizing the various

contrived debts America has forced on some of them), the US's difficulties

would build. Even if only a small part of the oil trade went euro, that

would do two things immediately:

* Increase the attractiveness to EU members of joining the 'eurozone', which

in turn would make the euro stronger and make it more attractive to oil

nations as a trading currency and to other nations as a general trading

currency.

* Start the US dollars flying home demanding value when there isn't enough

in the bank to cover them.

* The markets would over-react as usual and in no time, the US dollar's

value would be spiralling down.

THE US SOLUTION

America's response to the euro threat was predictable. It has come out

fighting.

It aims to achieve four primary things by going to war with Iraq:

* Safeguard the American economy by returning Iraq to trading oil in US doll

ars, so the greenback is once again the exclusive oil currency.

* Send a very clear message to any other oil producers just what will happen

to them if they do not stay in the dollar circle. Iran has already received

one message-remember how puzzled you were that in the midst of moderation

and secularization, Iran was named as a member of the axis of evil?

* Place the second largest reserves of oil in the world under direct

American control.

* Provide a secular, subject state where the US can maintain a huge force

(perhaps with nominal elements from allies such as Britain and Australia) to

dominate the Middle East and its vital oil. This would enable the US to

avoid using what it sees as the unreliable Turkey, the politically

impossible Israel and surely the next state in its sights, Saudi Arabia, the

birthplace of al Qaeda and a hotbed of anti-American sentiment.

* Severe setback the European Union and its euro, the only trading bloc and

currency strong enough to attack the USA's dominance of world trade through

the dollar.

* Provide cover for the US to run a covert operation to overturn the

democratically elected government of Venezuela and replace it with

anAmerica-friendly military supported junta-and put Venezuala's oil into

American hands.

Locking the world back into dollar oil trading would consolidate America's

current position and make it all but impregnable as the dominant world

power-economically and militarily. A splintered Europe (the US is working

hard to split Europe; Britain was easy, but other Europeans have offered

support in terms of UN votes) and its euro would suffer a serious setback

and might take decades to recover.

It is the boldest grab for absolute power the world has seen in modern

times. America is hardly likely to allow the possible slaughter of a few

hundred thousand Iraqis stand between it and world domination.

President Bush did promise to protect the American way of life. This is what

he meant.

JUSTIFYING WAR

Obviously, the US could not simply invade Iraq, so it began casting around

for a 'legitimate' reason to attack. That search has been one of increasing

desperation as each rationalization has crumbled. First Iraq was a threat

because of alleged links to al Qaeda; then it was proposed Iraq might supply

al Qaeda with weapons; then Iraq's military threat to its neighbours was

raised; then the need to deliver Iraqis from Saddam Hussein's horrendously

inhumane rule; finally there is the question of compliance with UN weapons

inspection.

The USA's justifications for invading Iraq are looking less impressive by

the day. The US's statements that it would invade Iraq unilaterally without

UN support and in defiance of the UN make a total nonsense of any American

claim that it is concerned about the world body's strength and standing.

The UN weapons inspectors have come up with minimal infringements of the UN

weapons limitations-the final one being low tech rockets which exceed the

range allowed by about 20 percent. But there is no sign of the so-called

weapons of mass destruction (WMD) the US has so confidently asserted are to

be found. Colin Powell named a certain north Iraqi village as a threat. It

was not. He later admitted it was the wrong village.

'Newsweek' (24/2) has reported that while Bush officials have been

trumpeting the fact that key Iraqi defector, Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamel, told

the US in 1995 that Iraq had manufactured tonnes of nerve gas and anthrax

(Colin Powell's 5 February presentation to the UN was just one example) they

neglected to mention that Kamel had also told the US that these weapons had

been destroyed.

Parts of the US and particularly the British secret 'evidence' have been

shown to come from a student's masters thesis.

America's expressed concern about the Iraqi people's human rights and the

country's lack of democracy are simply not supported by the USA's history of

intervention in other states nor by its current actions. Think Guatemala,

the Congo, Chile and Nicaragua as examples of a much larger pool of US

actions to tear down legitimate, democratically elected governments and

replace them with war, disruption, starvation, poverty, corruption,

dictatorships, torture, rape and murder for its own economic ends. The most

recent, Afghanistan, is not looking good; in fact that reinstalled a

murderous group of warlords which America had earlier installed, then

deposed, in favour of the now hated Taliban.

Saddam Hussein was just as repressive, corrupt and murderous 15 years ago

when he used chemical weapons, supplied by the US, against the Kurds. The

current US Secretary for Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, so vehement against Iraq

now, was on hand personally to turn aside condemnation of Iraq and blame

Iran. At that time, of course, the US thought Saddam Hussein was their

man-they were using him against the perceived threat of Iran's Islamic

fundamentalism.

Right now, as 'The Independent' writer, Robert Fisk, has noted, the US's

efforts to buy Algeria's UN vote includes promises of re-arming the military

which has a decade long history of repression, torture, rape and murder

Saddam Hussein himself would envy. It is estimated 200,000 people have died,

and countless others been left maimed by the activities of these monsters.

What price the US's humanitarian concerns for Iraqis? (Of course, the French

are also wooing Algeria, their former north African territory, for all they

are worth, but at least they are not pretending to be driven by humanitarian

concerns.)

Indonesia is another nation with a vote and influence as the largest Muslim

nation in the world. Its repressive, murderous military is regaining

strength on the back of the US's so-called anti-terror campaign and is

receiving promises of open and covert support -- including intelligence

sharing.

AND VENEZUELA

While the world's attention is focused on Iraq, America is both openly and

covertly supporting the "coup of the rich" in Venezuela, which grabbed power

briefly in April last year before being intimidated by massive public

displays of support by the poor for democratically-elected President Chavez

Frias. The coup leaders continue to use their control of the private media,

much of industry and the ear of the American Government and its oily

intimates to cause disruption and disturbance.

Venezuela's state-owned oil resources would make rich pickings for American

oil companies and provide the US with an important oil source in its own

backyard.

Many writers have noted the contradiction between America's alleged desire

to establish democracy in Iraq while at the same time, actively undermining

the democratically-elected government in Venezuela. Above the line, America

rushed to recognise the coup last April; more recently, President Bush has

called for "early elections", ignoring the fact that President Chavez Frias

has won three elections and two referendums and, in any case, early

elections would be unconstitutional.

One element of the USA's covert action against Venezuela is the behaviour of

American transnational businesses, which have locked out employees in

support of "national strike" action. Imagine them doing that in the USA!

There is no question that a covert operation is in process to overturn the

legitimate Venezuelan government. Uruguayan congressman, Jose Nayardi, made

it public when he revealed that the Bush administration had asked for

Uruguay's support for Venezuelan white collar executives and trade union

activists "to break down levels of intransigence within the Chavez Frias

administration". The process, he noted, was a shocking reminder of the CIA's

1973 intervention in Chile which saw General Pinochet lead his military coup

to take over President Allende's democratically elected government in a

bloodbath.

President Chavez Frias is desperately clinging to government, but with the

might of the USA aligned with his opponents, how long can he last?

THE COST OF WAR

Some have claimed that an American invasion of Iraq would cost so many

billions of dollars that oil returns would never justify such an action.

But when the invasion is placed in the context of the protection of the

entire US economy for now and into the future, the balance of the argument

changes.

Further, there are three other vital factors:

First, America will be asking others to help pay for the war because it is

protecting their interests. Japan and Saudi Arabia made serious

contributions to the cost of the 1991 Gulf war.

Second-in reality, war will cost the USA very little-or at least, very

little over and above normal expenditure. This war is already paid for! All

the munitions and equipment have been bought and paid for. The USA would

have to spend hardly a cent on new hardware to prosecute this war-the

expenditure will come later when munitions and equipment have to be replaced

after the war. But munitions, hardware and so on are being replaced all the

time -- contracts are out. Some contracts will simply be brought forward and

some others will be ramped up a bit, but spread over a few years, the cost

will not be great. And what is the real extra cost of an army at war

compared with maintaining the standing army around the world, running

exercises and so on? It is there, but it is a relatively small sum.

Third-lots of the extra costs involved in the war are dollars spent outside

America, not least in the purchase of fuel. Guess how America will pay for

these? By printing dollars it is going to war to protect. The same happens

when production begins to replace hardware, components, minerals, etc. are

bought in with dollars that go overseas and exploit America's trading

advantage.

The cost of war is not nearly as big as it is made out to be. The cost of

not going to war would be horrendous for the USA-unless there were another

way of protecting the greenback's world trade dominance.

AMERICA'S TWO ACTIVE ALLIES

Why are Australia and Britain supporting America in its transparent Iraqi

war ploy?

Australia, of course, has significant US dollar reserves and trades widely

in dollars and extensively with America. A fall in the US dollar would

reduce Australia's debt, perhaps, but would do nothing for the Australian

dollar's value against other currencies. John Howard, the Prime Minister,

has long cherished the dream of a free trade agreement with the USA in the

hope that Australia can jump on the back of the free ride America gets in

trade through the dollar's position as the major trading medium. That would

look much less attractive if the euro took over a significant part of the

oil trade.

Britain has yet to adopt the euro. If the US takes over Iraq and blocks the

euro's incursion into oil trading, Tony Blair will have given his French and

German counterparts a bloody nose, and gained more room to manouevre on the

issue-perhaps years more room.

Britain would be in a position to demand a better deal from its EU partners

for entering the "eurozone" if the new currency could not make the huge

value gains guaranteed by a significant role in world oil trading. It might

even be in a position to withdraw from Europe and link with America against

continental Europe.

On the other hand, if the US cannot maintain the oil trade dollar monopoly,

the euro will rapidly go from strength to strength, and Britain could be

left begging to be allowed into the club.

THE OPPOSITION

Some of the reasons for opposition to the American plan are obvious-America

is already the strongest nation on earth and dominates world trade through

its dollar. If it had control of the Iraqi oil and a base for its forces in

the Middle East, it would not add to, but would multiply its power.

The oil-producing nations, particularly the Arab ones, can see the writing

on the wall and are quaking in their boots.

France and Germany are the EU leaders with the vision of a resurgent, united

Europe taking its rightful place in the world and using its euro currency as

a world trading reserve currency and thus gaining some of the free ride the

United States enjoys now. They are the ones who initiated the euro oil trade

with Iraq.

Russia is in deep economic trouble and knows it will get worse the day

America starts exploiting its take-over of Afghanistan by running a pipeline

southwards via Afghanistan from the giant southern Caspian oil fields.

Currently, that oil is piped northwards-where Russia has control.

Russia is in the process of ramping up oil production with the possibility

of trading some of it for euros and selling some to the US itself. Russia

already has enough problems with the fact that oil is traded in US dollars;

if the US has control of Iraqi oil, it could distort the market to Russia's

enormous disadvantage. In addition, Russia has interests in Iraqi oil; an

American take over could see them lost. Already on its knees, Russia could

be beggared before a mile of the Afghanistan pipeline is laid.

ANOTHER SOLUTION?

The scenario clarifies the seriousness of America's position and explains

its frantic drive for war. It also suggests that solutions other than war

are possible.

Could America agree to share the trading goodies by allowing Europe to have

a negotiated part of it? Not very likely, but it is just possible Europe can

stare down the USA and force such an outcome. Time will tell. What about

Europe taking the statesmanlike, humanitarian and long view, and

withdrawing, leaving the oil to the US, with appropriate safeguards for

ordinary Iraqis and democracy in Venezuela?

Europe might then be forced to adopt a smarter approach-perhaps accelerating

the development of alternative energy technologies which would reduce the EU

's reliance on oil for energy and produce goods it could trade for

euros-shifting the world trade balance.

Now that would be a very positive outcome for everyone.

. . . .

[Guest]

Very interesting article. I didn't know that Iraq had switched to trading oil in Euros. That explains quite a lot.

[Major Fubar 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (killagee @ Mar. 18 2003,11:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">OK then. Since no one has told me not to, I will post the article in its entirity here.<span id='postcolor'>

Damn you, now I've worn out my mouse scroll button!  

Kidding...good article.

[CosmicCastaway 0]

Indeed, interesting stuff.

[Longinius 1]

Nah, that is just coincidence. This is about freeing the people of Iraq! Stop bashing the US, we only want to help!!

Just thought I'd beat the patriots to it.

[theavonlady 2]

The oil/dollar/euro theory is plastered all over the WEB.

[Balschoiw 0]

News:

A senior American general in Washington recently remarked that the war in Iraq would include "a lot of surprises" by American forces. Meanwhile, Saddam Hussein and his sons were given until 8 PM, March 19th (4 AM, March 20th, Iraq time) to leave Iraq, or US troops will enter Iraqi and remove Saddam and his government. Iraq commanders were warned not to destroy Iraqi infrastructure or use chemical weapons. Those who did would be punished. The Iraqi people were promised freedom and prompt humanitarian aid. Most nations continued to support keeping Saddam in power and going along with the arms inspection program that has been in place since 1991.

In Kuwait, American troops continued to move out of camps and get their vehicles and equipment ready for movement north, into Iraq.

While many American commanders believe Saddam won't try and use chemical weapons until coalition troops reach Baghdad, troops have been ordered to enter Iraq wearing their chemical protective gear.

United States and Britain special operations forces have begun to conduct long-range reconnaissance missions from their bases along the 180 kilometer border between Iraq and Jordan. Israeli forces are also said to be involved. At least 5,000 US troops are already in Jordan, according to an official source in Amman and there are educated guesses that the true figure was closer to 7,000. Among them are about 100 British SAS operators. Jordan’s Foreign Minister conceded that the number of foreign troops may have risen to 2,000 or 3,000.

While the rumors of US special operations forces in Jordan have been around since the summer of 2002, the presence of Israelis is a new and interesting twist. The Sayeret Matkal (Israel’s commando force) are also allegedly executing covert reconnaissance operations inside the Western Iraqi desert, looking for Saddam's Scuds.

Meanwhile, Jordan urged neighboring Arab states to overcome their political differences and establish a joint rapid deployment force (consisting mainly of special forces) in the Gulf, as part of a collective security step to reduce the number of foreign forces in the region. While the chance of his idea being accepted is pretty slim, Crown Prince Faisal outlined how collective security would entail establishing a coalition command center that shares critical intelligence, along with conventional air, land and sea forces able to deploy to predetermined staging areas. The Gulf Cooperation Council (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates) already has a 5,000-strong "Peninsula Shield" joint force, with plans to expand it to 22,000. - Adam Geibel

Sayeret MATKAL Training Photo Gallery online:

http://www.isayeret.com/units/land/intel/767/gallery2.htm

One major target for coalition commandos will be Iraqi dams. The commandos will be there to make sure Saddam's henchmen do not destroy the dams. While it would seem foolish for Saddam to destroy dams, and kill thousands of Iraqis downstream, he knows he could do it and get away with blame it on American bombers. After all, many in the Moslem world still believe that the September 11, 2001 attacks were all an Israeli plot, and a Frenchman wrote a book claiming that the attacks were staged by the CIA, and this became a best seller in France. The most important dams, from a military point of view, are two north of Baghdad. If these are blown, large parts of the city would be flooded, along with vast amounts of farmland around the city. In the south, there are several dams, some built recently to drain swamps hiding anti-Saddam guerillas, that could be opened or destroyed to turn much of the terrain south of Basra back into swamp. And there is a huge dam up north by Mosul. Since the U.S. is no longer planning to advance from the north, blowing this dam would be done just to stick it the Kurds. This dam holds back over nine billion gallons of water, and releasing all this would drown a lot of people downstream.

The participation of Israeli troops could fall back on Israel itself. They were warned multiple times to keep their heads out of the military actions against Iraq. If Israel should be attacked by NR missiles it´s their own fault now. They participate in an preemtive attack war not covered by UN. This makes them aggressors and aggressors have to be aware that they will be attacked as a reaction to their own behaviour. Even on their own soil. Not so smart.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Mar. 18 2003,14:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The participation of Israeli troops could fall back on Israel itself. They were warned multiple times to keep their heads out of the military actions against Iraq. If Israel should be attacked by NR missiles it´s their own fault now. They participate in an preemtive attack war not covered by UN. This makes them aggressors and aggressors have to be aware that they will be attacked as a reaction to their own behaviour. Even on their own soil. Not so smart.<span id='postcolor'>

LOL! How stupid. Now we can't attempt to save our own skins because the UN didn't say so.

[theavonlady 2]

It might be less than 48 hours.

[theavonlady 2]

This might be an interesting site to watch over the next few days/weeks/months/years/decades...........

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">LOL! How stupid. Now we can't attempt to save our own skins because the UN didn't say so. <span id='postcolor'>

Why stupid ? Are you attacking Iraq or is Iraq attacking Israel ?

You only need to save the skins of israels forces in Iraq who are attacking. Makes a big difference in my opinion.