Paul Smith,
Noel Gibson uses deductive logic to convince you that the reason that N.Korea is different from Iraq is oil sales. The same deductive logic could be used to make a case that the difference between the two is Israel’s interest in destroying it’s enemies.
The fact is that countries don’t have to hold dollars or euros to purchase oil in either currency. Both currencies are highly liquid and trillions are exchanged daily by traders and speculators. Central reserve banks and investors choose currencies to denominate their holdings in based on interest rates and the rates of inflation. This whole oil in dollars meme is nothing but hype.

RE: #86306 by atheo on 7/12 at 11:23 am
(203 comments total)

@ Howard Kindel,

***Actually, the switch in the fiat currency from the USD (United States Dollar) to the Euro could precipitate a collapse of the entire US financial system. Iran, Iraq, and Venezuela have proposed doing this and that is why we have attacked (or sabre rattled threats to attack) them. As many of us have known all along it’s not about WMD or spreading demoocracy; it’s about oil, money, and control. The info below might shed some light.***

From an article by Noel Gibeson:
“WHY IRAN IS NEXT”

What is a fiat currency? A fiat currency in the case of the USD is a currency that is NOT based on gold, silver, or anything else of tangible value; but rather it is “a promise to pay.” Essentially, it is an IOU ("I owe you") note that is based on the good faith and credit of the issuer that it will be redeemed at the face value of the note, a USD in this case. This is its weakness for holders of the note, but its strength for the issuer of the currency, in this case the U.S. government who simply continues to print as much money as it wants to in hopes that it will never have to redeem these dollars at their face value all at one time. It is much like an international Ponzi scheme. In reality, it is play money or monopoly money.
(11 Jan 2007)

So when Iraq President Saddam Hussein said in 2000 that Iraq would begin selling Iraqi oil using the euro instead of the USD he instantly became a marked man. Why; because it is vital to the solvency of U.S. fiat currency that there are many foreign holders of the USD in order to keep it afloat; to keep it solvent. This is particularly important in the oil markets where trade must be conducted using the USD that the United States set as the standard long ago for oil purchases. This was done on purpose (Krassimir Petrov, “The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse,” Energy Bulletin, January 26, 2006).

Iran’s plan to compete with dollar-dominated and American-owned New York’s NYMEX and London’s IPE, met with frosty reception from the beginning and things never got better. Because of the United States’ high debt levels and stated neo-conservative quest for world domination, the euro inroads to establish a foothold in the dollar-dominated world oil market and posed a direct threat both to the U.S. dollar and to the U.S. economy (William Clark, “The Real Reasons Why Iran is the next Target,” Energy Bulletin, October 26, 2004).

For contrast, North Korea has an even more developed nuclear weapons program and is guilty of proliferating missile technology to Pakistan, Indian and Iran, yet the U.S. does not seem interested in invading them, at least so far. What is the difference? North is not an oil producer, whereas, Iran not only is a major oil producer but intends to setup a non-dollar denominated oil bourse as well. That is why Iran is the next U.S. target.

Sometimes incompetence produces situations so screwed up that great risks can only be avoided by other, hopefully lesser risks. This is the situation in the Middle East today. Turkish troops are claimed to be massing on Iraq’s northern border. Their intention may only be to make a temporary incursion into Kurdistan or to try to take over its oil fields.  And as fuzzy talk of US “withdrawal” increases, the risk of an Israeli preemptive strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities increases.  In 1981 Israel made a preemptive attack on Iraq’s nuclear facilities. Why wouldn’t Israel do this again, while our troops are there at “surge” strength and we are in a presidential election cycle, given the heavy influence of the Israel lobby on US politicians?

The Iraqi national Council of Representatives will probably never pass an oil law. All proposals acceptable to oil companies give too much money and control to them and not enough to Iraq. They must be given somewhat better contracts than “production sharing agreements” (PSA’s).  And while Kurds hold that the oil under their area is “their” oil, Sunnis demand that all Iraqi national oil be shared. These are irreconcilable contradictions. And there is no security for Iraq’s oil infrastructure that will bring in oil company investment, unless US troops would be guarding it.

Here is where a risky strategy might yet avoid greater risks of general Middle East war involving the US defending Israel after a preemptive strike by it and/or a Turkish invasion of Kurdistan.  A somewhat down-sized U.S. force could be redeployed out of Iraq’s crossfire cities, into underpopulated areas guarding oil infrastructure west of Iraq’s border with Iran. Yes, it looks exactly like an imperial oil grab. But this would remove our forces as irritants to Iraqis in cities. It might restrain Turkey and Iran. It would make Al Qaeda come to us rather than our being sitting ducks.  The oil companies basically want control of supply. So carrots and sticks must be used by our government to get them to invest in Iraqi infrastructure and buy its oil. They can store it! Once our troops are redeploued, if the Kurds get our protection from Turkey and better than PSA revenues, but are told that “their” oil infrastructure only gets developed, if they share it with the Iraqi nation, they might accept the deal.  Once money and jobs flow to many actual Iraqis, there’s a possibility that a more peaceful loose federation might emerge. A United States request for U.N. surveillance of the Iran - Iraq -Turkish border could help prevent conflict there. 

While redeploying, our troops could escort willing Iraqis to resettle in partition areas and employ them building new homes and public infrastructure.

Two countdown clocks to wider war, Israel and Turkey, neither of which we can stop, are ticking.  Better pressure our Congress, presidential candidates and Bush to redeploy now.

@ Howard Kindel,

you state:

“I read somewhere just recently (I have to do some searching to re-locate the article; I don’t think it was in a blog but rather in a mainstream publication)that, just by virtue of the dollar being the currency for oil transactions, US oil companies are able to, in effect, receive something analagous to a broker’s fee from every single oil transaction anywhere in the world.  If accurate, this definitely makes a change from the dollar to the euro a big no-no”

You seem to put too much store in this meme which you can’t even make sense of. In fact, as the dollar is debased by war borrowing it is inflated and becomes worth less. Thus, payment for oil priced in dollars is worth less (not good if your business is selling oil).

Serious analists don’t seem too focussed on oil being sold in euros:

Greenback humbled by concerns over US economy
By Michael Mackenzie

With the Federal Reserve maintaining a steady overnight interest rate and many other central banks continuing to raise rates, the US currency has become less attractive to international investors…

The catalyst for this latest dollar weakness is concern that the US consumer, for years the mainstay of the economy, could be flagging. Such worries followed evidence that the US housing market still does not appear to be finding a bottom along with news that retailers are suffering.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/9d692cde-2fdb-11dc-a68f-000077 9fd2ac.html

Public opinion is shifting away from optimism about the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Many experts and observers are also losing faith in these actions and the leadership in Washington, DC.

Whether this will result in actual changes in military operations is another story.

Yet, there seem to be similarities between the turning point in opinion on the invasion and occupation of Iraq and when this shift occurred during the Vietnam War.

Food for thought in the article:

“Americans felt turning points on Vietnam, Iraq wars in ‘70, ‘07”

American Chronicle
July 11, 2007

http://americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp? articleID=31984

I haven’t seen any petroleum industry exhortations of this nature. If they exist, I challenge the Israel lobby deniers to post them here.

========

New envoy to U.K.: Jews must do more to put Iran on the agenda

The Israeli ambassador-elect to Britain, Ron Prosor, said Tuesday that the Jews around the world and the global community should do more to focus attention on Iran and its nuclear aspirations.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/8
80388.html

=======

Lieberman: US will back Israeli strike on Iran

http://www.israeltoday.co.il/def...d=178& nid=13407

=======

‘Time running out for Iran strike’

Yaakov Katz, THE JERUSALEM POST

Brig.-Gen. Yossi Kuperwasser, former head of Military Intelligence’s Research Division, told The Jerusalem Post on Monday that time to launch an effective military strike against Iran’s nuclear installations was running out.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Sat...ticle% 2FPrinter

Khaaan,

Iraq was under sanctions in 2000. How could they possibly flood the global oil markets? For starters they would need alot of cooperation in developing the extraction infrastructure. Furthermore, it would have been far easier for the US to unilaterally increase the sanctions and embargo Iraqi exports altogether than to invade and occupy Iraq.

Comment#86047 by Howard Kindel on 7/11 at 3:27 pm

Thanks Howard, for the comment response, on the Euro connection. You explained it better than I could.

And yes, it has always pointed far more to oil than to Israel, but of course we have to remember that Israel isn’t too far away from the scene of the crime, and does indeed stand to gain from this as well. LOTS. Like the oil and the water that didn’t come with the original parcel back in 1948.

#86127 by Khaaaannnn!!!! on 7/11 at 8:01 pm

• I am amazed that NONE of you understand the true reason for invading Iraq.
***********
Actually, Khaann, I pretty much get this. (And, it’s an excellent post by the way).
I can pretty much follow your logic and reasoning. And, I’ve read similar theories. They seem as sound as anything.

Still, it can’t “hurt” that all of the people involved NOW, have been in it a very long time, like decades. All of the Bush-Saud partnership, and all that it has spawned. So, I think it’s fair to say that this Cabal of neocons, has had the worldwide administration of oil at it’s heart all along, even before Saddam proved to be such a thorn in their sides.

Still, I do believe that it was Saddam’s threats to flood the market, that would have really sent them into full-blown action mode. And, I don’t know how true it is, but I also read that Saddam was planning to flood the market with the oil valued at the EURO, rather than the USD, and that most certainly would have brought everything crashing right down. (not that it isn’t still, but it hasn’t become noticeable to everyone yet.)

Meantime, they’ve also made several billion in the effort. (bringing in the war-for-profit part) so they’ve managed to satisfy the original goal that you’ve brought to our attention, and made a whole bunch of money at the same time.

And, the bodies pile up.

Howard Kindel,

Please elaborate on “big oil’s concern about the dollar. What exactly would be the threat to a multinational corporation in being paid in euros rather than dollars and how does that supposed threat translate to big oil imposing a war agenda?

You seem to attach a lot of significance to a proposed law that has zero chance of passage or actual realisation. The whole proposal seems to be an empty propaganda exercise to allay U.S. public opposition to the ongoing occupation. It may interest you to learn whose oil firms are actually gaining in Iraq:

Pipeline to carry Iraqi crude to Iran

By Mohamed Hameed

Azzaman, May 26, 2007

Iraq has accepted an Iranian offer to build a pipeline connecting its terminals and refineries to the prolific Iraqi oil fields in Basra.

Assem Jihad, Oil Ministry’s Information Officer said, the agreement was reached during a meeting between Oil Minister Hussain Shahristani and the Iranian ambassador in Baghdad.

Initially, the pipeline will carry 200,000 barrels of Iraqi crude to Iran.

The countries will soon form a joint committee on how to implement the project, Jihad said.

However, Jihad declined comment on financing and duration of execution.

But said Shahristani has invited Iranian firms to invest in Iraq and present their offers to build new refineries in the country.

The government has said it would extend Iranian firms preferential treatment because many of them are still operating in southern Iraq despite the flight of other foreign companies.

James Petras:

In contrast to the successful vast propaganda, congressional and media campaigns, organized and funded by the pro-Israel lobbies for the war policies, there is no public record of the big oil companies supporting the Iraq war, the Israeli invasion of Lebanon or the military threats of preemptive attacks on Iran. Interviews with investment bankers, oil company executives and a thorough review of the major Petroleum Institute publications over the past seven years provide conclusive evidence that ‘Big Oil’ was deeply interested in negotiating oil agreements with Saddam Hussein and the Iranian Islamic government. ‘Big Oil’ perceives US Middle East wars as a threat to their long-standing profitable relations with all the conservative Arab oil states in the Gulf. Despite the strategic position in the US economy and their great wealth ‘Big Oil’ was totally incapable of countering their political power and organized influence of the pro-Israel lobby. In fact Big Oil was totally marginalized by the White House National Security Advisor for the Middle East, Elliot Abrams, a fanatical Zionist and militarist.

Despite the massive and sustained pro-war activity of the leading Zionist organizations inside and outside of the government and despite the absence of any overt or covert pro-war campaign by ‘Big Oil’, the leaders of the US peace movement have refused to attack the pro-Israel war lobby and continue to mouth unfounded clichés about the role of ‘Big Oil’ in the Middle East conflicts.

The apparently ‘radical’ slogans against the oil industry by some leading intellectual critics of the war has served as a ‘cover’ to avoid the much more challenging task of taking on the powerful, Zionist lobby. There are several reasons for the failure of the leaders of the peace movement to confront the militant Zionist lobby. One is fear of the powerful propaganda and smear campaign which the pro-Israel lobby is expert at mounting, with its aggressive accusations of ‘anti-Semitism’ and its capacity to blacklist critics, leading to job loss, career destruction, public abuse and death threats.

The second reason that peace leaders fail to criticize the leading pro-war lobby is because of the influence of pro-Israel ‘progressives’ in the movement. These progressives condition their support of ‘peace in Iraq’ only if the movement does not criticize the pro-war Israel lobby in and outside the US government, the role of Israel as a belligerent partner to the US in Lebanon, Palestine and Kurdish Northern Iraq. A movement claiming to be in favor of peace, which refuses to attack the main proponents of war, is pursuing irrelevance: it deflects attention from the pro-Israel high officials in the government and the lobbyists in Congress who back the war and set the White House’s Middle East agenda. By focusing attention exclusively on President Bush, the peace leaders failed to confront the majority pro-Israel Democratic congress people who fund Bush’s war, back his escalation of troops and give unconditional support to Israel’s military option for Iran.

The collapse of the US peace movement, the lack of credibility of most of its leaders and the demoralization of many activists can be traced to strategic political failures: the unwillingness to identify and confront the real pro-war movements and the inability to create a political alternative to the bellicose Democratic Party. The political failure of the leaders of the peace movement is all the more dramatic in the face of the large majority of passive Americans who oppose the war, most of whom did not display their flags this Fourth of July and are not led in tow by either the pro-Israel lobby or their intellectual apologists within progressive circles…

article:

http://www.iraq-war.ru/article/134478

Our media, Congress and presidential candidates talk endlessly about surge versus withdrawal in Iraq. Left completely unattended is the question of what Israel may do! Recent reports from the Middle East leave me deeply concerned that a much wider war than Iraq will break out there. It may be reported as aggression by Syria and/or Iran, and that may, indeed, occur. But a major stimulus may be an Israeli preemptive strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. I believe actual, substantial withdrawal (rather than redeployment to the oil infrastructure area on the Iran - Iraq border) would raise the probability of Israel making such an attack while we are still in Iraq. In 1981 Israel made a preemptive attack on Iraq’s nuclear facilities. This did not deter Iraq from further nuclear development. It did help provoke nuclear proliferation to Pakistan and then Iran and Libya. Nor does forced democracy for Middle East countries work to get “our way.” Because many Lebanese and Palestinians think the US is unfairly supporting Israeli oppression, democracy there has elected Hezbollah and Hamas.

Shouldn’t we be pressing the mainstream media, prominent people and noncandidate elected officials to demand Bush and all presidential candidates tell us exactly what they would and would not be willing to do to defend Israel from retaliation, if it were to make a preemptive attack on Iran?? Don’t we, the American people, have a right to know during an election season, exactly what we are getting ourselves into?

This is idiotic.

To what end my ass!

How about destruction of the economy. How about destruction of freedom. How about distruction of the Constitution. How about massive enrichment of the military-industrial complex. How about strengthening the power of the haves over the have-nots. How about squashing all hope for voters. How about establishing a 21st-century dictatorship/monarchy.

If these explanations are too extreme or horrendous to fathom then please keep deluding yourself looking for a more palatable answer to your imbecilic question. You have 18 months left to chase your tail.

The Bush administration promoted the misguided and destructive war in Iraq by targeting five core concerns that often govern our lives--concerns about vulnerability, injustice, distrust, superiority, and helplessness. Looking ahead, the continued occupation of Iraq--or an attack on Iran--will likely be sold to us in much the same way. I examine these warmongering appeals--and how to counter them--in an online video entitled “Resisting the Drums of War” available for viewing HERE.

Eric Swan,

You have it exactly right. It’s documented in the “clean break” document, which was prepared by the ziocons in 98’ as a strategy for Israeli hegemony in the Middle East.

You know, Gene.  When you open your article with a false premise, it’s hard for me to continue reading.  Repukelican’s NEVER come to their senses.  They have no moral or ethical grounding, they just read poll results.

As for Iraq, it seems fair to me that Exxon/Mobil/Shell, for whom the war in Iraq primarily benefits, should be taken into receivership, involuntarily liquidated and the assets given to Iraq to rebuild the country.

Allow me these observations:

Bush will not allow us to leave Iraq.

IF he does withdraw some troops, it is fairly obvious he will just hire more mercenaries. Most likely foreign nationals. We even outsource our wars....

The dems are in as deep as Bush. They were to afraid to stand up to Bush’s Reichstag. They jumped in the boat with him. They are complicit in regards to war powers to Bush and the death of the Constitution.

The only sector of the Federal government that may actually make some difference in the Iraq debate may very well be the soldiers who have fought there themselves.

If only the American population as a whole would wake up huh? Wonder what it will take? How much of a mess does this nation need to become to bring about positive changes?

B

http://b-political.blogspot.com/

The troops desperately need support and time away from the front line to remain effective.  If nothing else will work, it is time for Congress to immediately and aggressively reinstitute the draft with high priority given to the children of war supporters, particularly high ranking and publicly visible supporters like public officials.  No emphasis should be avoided for women, particularly daughters of high ranking officials.  If nowhere else, they are needed at the front caring for the wounded.  It is time to allow war promoters to demonstrate their support in a personal way by sending their children to the front line.  Since they do not do so voluntarily, it is time for Congress to enact laws to assure war supporters do their fair share of bearing the burden of the position they are so willing to impose onto others.  At minimum, it should be legislated as the choice necessary for staying the course.

If “Clueless” ever gets remade, this time around it can be about the “Presidency” of George W. Bush…

Why is the US bent on staying in Iraq? Let the expert answer the question:

By Stephen C. Pelletiere
New York Times

Friday 31 January 2003

...as the Central Intelligence Agency’s senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf…
We are constantly reminded that Iraq has perhaps the world’s largest reserves of oil. But in a regional and perhaps even geopolitical sense, it may be more important that Iraq has the most extensive river system in the Middle East...that [could] bring the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates south to the parched Gulf states and, by extension, ISRAEL… With Iraq in American hands, of course, all that could change.

Thus America could alter the destiny of the Middle East in a way that probably could not be challenged for decades—not solely by controlling Iraq’s oil, but by controlling its water…

full article:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/..._02/ 020303C.htm

I agree with this article, other than the part about Democrats waking up and representing the American public. Our troops are still there, and there is funding for this war with no time table set in stone. We have gained nothing. And until we elect someone who has the balls to withdrawal our troops immediately, we will be in the same boat. Kucinich, Gravel, Paul, those are our options. Yet the mainstream media wants to focus on those who do not take a clear stance on withdrawal, such as Obama, Clinton, Guliani. Wonder why? Get involved. Find out the answers. Its up to us.

brandon
http://www.actforyourself.org

Did I miss the article about Cindy Sheehan challenging Nancy Pelosi on Truthdigg? Go to antiwar.com and read Justin Raimondo’s article on this event.

RE: #85827 by cyrena on 7/10 at 11:27 pm
(303 comments total)

Thanks, cyrena, and I saw that one, too. Although the article didn’t mention the numbers, in other articles I’ve seen that foreign based oil companies (the biggies) will get 75-80% of the profits from the Iraq oil for as much as 30 years with the US proposed hydrocarbon law. Then they (Iraqis) have to split the remainder among three entities Shia, Sunni, & Kurd. Is it any wonder they hate us?

They want us out, yet one of the ‘benchmarks’ this administration insists on is passage of the oil law. When someone holds a gun to your head and demands you sign isn’t that called extortion? If the Iraqis don’t sign, and this administration has its way, our troops are ‘stuck’ in Iraq.

Does this make this administration liable to charges of unlawful detention, or is it involuntary servitude?

Whoa....Good comments to this. All true. I just came across an excellent piece that tells us something we only very rarely get to hear, and that’s the opinions of the remaining CIVILIANS in....Iraq!!

Not too many journalists (outside of the ones that we’ve been fortunate enough to gain access to on this site)have done any talking at all, to THEM, about all of this stuff. (which is typical of this operation to begin with. The population of that country was never consulted about anything)

Anyway, here’s the link. It’s very good. Worth the read.

Iraqi’s Oil Should Stay in Public Hands
By David Bacon
t r u t h o u t | Guest Contributor
Tuesday 10 July 2007
Interview with Faleh Abood Umara, general secretary of the Iraqi Federation of Oil Unions, and Hashmeya Muhsin Hussein, president of the Electrical Workers Union of Iraq.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/071007C.shtml

Good post Alan Wheeler.

As usual ‘DuhBya’ is a bit confused about word definitions, but what can we expect from a child of the nuclear age who never learned how to pronounce the word ‘nucmear’?

Sorry, Georgie boy, but resolute is not the same thing as hard-headed, stubborn, or pig-headed. “Resolute” is reserved for noble causes, NOT ignoble ones like a pre-emptive invasions that are a sinful trading of blood for oil. You epitomize the classic definition of insanity with your ‘surge’ tactic, and ‘stay the course’ mantra. Why don’t you just take your sorry butt back to Texas and repent?

Why are we “staying the course”?  Good heavens, there’s still money to be made: oil contract$ to be $igned and ba$e$ to be built and private contractor$ to be appea$ed and rewarded. This has been the goal from the beginning. And while we were distracted by the criminal death and destruction, our Constitution has been weakened and our governmental programs eviserated, our governmental agencies filled with our own home-grown terrorists (religious fundamentalists), and our Supreme Court reduced to a political committee.
Divide and conquer and get the fools to pay for it! And maybe even bankrupt the entire enterprise. Drown the government in a bathtub filled with the blood of American soldiers.
Quite an accomplishment for an arrogant frat boy.