The Mad Bull’s Blog, Version 3

6 Responses to “It Aint About the Oil!”

1. Dr. D. // Mar 30, 2003 at 5:20 pm

   I don’t usually read or listen to Boyne myself (too pompous a character for my liking) but I have to agree that the article is good, giving credit where it is due. All I will ask, is that at the end of all this (which may not be as soon as was thought previously) if there are no WMD found, what will the real explanation be then????Boyne is right, they are big, they are bad, they’ve got the money and intend to keep it that way….whatever it takes. Oh to have POWER!Sad state of World affairs we are living in!

2. ms lauren // Mar 30, 2003 at 11:38 pm

   egads, i hate warring, even if it is done under good circumstances. i figure that if the US finds a few illegal weapons in iraq, this will all be justified. but they had better do it soon before we alienate our traditional allies and endanger ourselves by doing so.

   by the way, i’ve moved. check out my new site!

3. Desiree // Mar 31, 2003 at 2:46 pm

   ‘If they find weapons of mass destruction’… but you know, some of us are getting to distrust them enough that even if they ‘find’ them we may think they actually planted them there themselves. Credibility of the US is on the decline.

4. Melina Champine // Apr 6, 2003 at 4:27 am

   Who’d have thought I’d have to come to Jamaica to find out what the real story is? I always longed to visit your country to escape my cares and QUIT thinking. Now I’m grateful to find the answer to a question that’s been haunting me!

   The *people* in the USA and the soldiers who have gone to Iraq are concerned about the Iraqi people and want them free of Saddam Hussein for REAL. However, none of us understood why Bush rushed us into this war while we protested against it.

   Thank you for your link. It makes sense of the indigestible events we have been trying to understand from the limited perspective within our borders.

5. Cosmo Pessoa // Apr 14, 2003 at 11:15 am

   Look at this guys!!

   Subject: Fw: DOLLAR STRIKES AT EURO

   following may shed some light….
   All is well

   This article by Geoffrey Heard of Melbourne

   http://www.GuluFuture.com/news/eurozone_war030323.htm
   AILING DOLLAR STRIKES AT EURO IN IRAQ WAR
   23rd March, 2003 17:00 GMT

   An Economic Perspective On The War

   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, 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
   minimising 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 dollars, 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 an
   America-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
   amunitions, 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.

   Geoffrey Heard is a Melbourne, Australia, writer on the environment,
   sustainability and human rights.

   Copyright Geoffrey Heard, 2003.
   Anyone is free to circulate this document provided it is complete and in its current
   form with attribution and no payment is asked. It is prohibited to reproduce
   this document or any part of it for commercial gain without the prior
   permission of the author. For such permission, contact the author at:
   gheard@surf.net.au.

   © 2003 GuluFuture.com All Rights Reserved

   ________________________________________

6. cosmo // Apr 14, 2003 at 11:47 am

   Subject: BBC NEWS UK Politics Cook’s resignation speech
   >
   >
   > I think this speech says add to the mix
   >
   > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2859431.stm
   >