Nothing But Politics

[Amaunet]

stack, The United States is running scared. We can be crushed economically in a second. This whole entire thing is about the euro and oil currency. The average American thinks only that terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, etc. are the cause of the recent mess in the Middle East.

When you read the following it is important to note that Russia has vast amounts of oil reserves. What would happen if Russia adopted the euro? Even without Russia Opec has the ability to send us into a depression. This is long, but enlightening. If Europeans stay united and focused they can stop this nuclear madness. Am

http://216.239.33.104/search?q=cache:tipDHrIbhesC:www.ladybugflights.com/pdf/finance.pdf+Unites+stat....


Can the United States continue to be an Economic Su perpowerIf not, what happens to me?This months Beatrice evaluates a recently distributed article brought to my attention by a reader with a request that I proffer my opinion. So here you go... To view the complete article in original form go to the URL: http://chapelhill.indymedia.org/news/2003/01/2177.phpArticle highlights A short time back Beatrice discussed the choice-consequence scenarios derived from the cold war period: win-win, win-lose, lose-win, and lose-lose.1 The article, "The Real Reason for the Upcoming Iraq War", offers a look at the complexity of the interaction of nations from a 10,000 foot perspective and then offers possible scenarios based on those choice-consequence scenarios. At this time there is one economic superpower (the U.S.) and one emerging economic superpower (the European Union). Each has its own strengths and weaknesses. For example the U.S. is also a military superpower. While the EU dollar has reached parity with the U.S. dollar and at present exceeds it in purchasing power. The article takes the position that a win-win, the best choice, is possible only if both the European Union and the United States emerge as economic superpowers. The premise of the article is that the Bush administration is planning to take actions that will result in the U.S. using its military superpower status to maintain its position as the dominate economic superpower, a win-lose consequence. In the near term the U.S. may use its military superpower status to accomplish this goal. However, this choice will likely result in the U.S. becoming further isolated from the rest of the world and loosing its role as economic world leader. Having established a military stronghold in Afghanistan, conquering Iraq will leave Iran surrounded by U.S. military forces and make it an easy target to pressure
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 2
within. Further destabilization of the area is possible if Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat can be deposed as recommended by Bush. Sadi Arabia is also at risk in this situation. This could cause oil prices to spike which, in turn, would cause Japan's economy to collapse forcing the majority of the world to turn away from the U.S. dollar and begin using the euro. There could be a world-wide switch to euro dollars to break the lock the US has on global trade. There is already pressure to switch to the euro as it makes the relations between the EU, OPEC, and Asia much easier. Beatrice's opinion Beatrice believes that the factual portion of this article is vital information for every citizen. While the article presents some conjecture as facts there are enough verifiable facts to support the premise of the article, that the Bush administration is embarked on a highly risky, potentially disastrous path that could plunge the world into an economic catastrophe. At the very least the proposed actions could reduce the U.S. to nothing more than a military superpower in a world where power itself has increasingly shifted to economics, both as a means of exerting world dominance and as the future of waging war. We know how well that strategy worked out for the Soviet Union - Military power without or in place of economic strength leads to collapse. Although the article details the dynamics of the situation with the intent of informing, it does not suggest a clear strategy to achieve a win-win consequence. A win-win consequence is achievable if the U.S. implements major changes both socially and in business. Some such changes would be the to move to a hydrogen based economy, provide quality health care across the social spectrum, and embrace business practices used successfully throughout the world. This approach is long term and would result in the U.S. raising the standard of living bar and continuing to be a leading innovator in the world. Our principle export could truly be the benefits of democracy as it has been in past centuries. We, the citizens of this nation, can implement this consequence. We have unlimited information and access to our Government representatives. Use the internet! email, email, email, every damn one of them and send a message that this insanity is unacceptable. The Bush administration can only continue down this path as long as it is supported by congress. As the article quoted from Thomas Jefferson, "The People cannot be safe without information. When the press is free, and every man is able to read, all is safe." There are many more informed concerned citizens than the polls would lead us to believe. If you are concerned and believe the world may have a point of view we should consider then you are in the majority. And no, you are not being disloyal to our country if you advocate a WIN-WIN objective. The economic situation in the U.S. is precarious. Inflation, yes inflation, is beginning to show its ugly head. We have growing unemployment and there is little that the Fed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 3
moves away from the U.S. dollar or collapses, causing further devaluation of the dollar, you and I will be revisiting the depression era with a vengeance. Nations that have established empires have all collapsed. So far the U.S. has avoided this problem by not using military power to take over land that is not ours. This could change with the war in the middle-east and the establishment of a long-term military government. A brief summary of the article To view the complete article in original form go to the URl: http://chapelhill.indymedia.org/news/2003/01/2177.php Premise as conjectured by the author: The upcoming war in Iraq is actually an "OIL CURRENCY war" with OPEC with the objective of pre-empting OPEC to gain geo-strategic control of Iraq along with its 2nd largest proven oil reserves. This will be accomplished by the U.S. establishing a permanent military presence in the gulf to be ready to grab any oil fields that may go over to an anti-western group Facts * Our country seems unable to answer even the most basic questions about this proposed war * Immediately following Congress's vote on the Iraq Resolution, we suddenly became aware of North Korea's nuclear program violations. * Iraq actually made a switch to euro dollars in Nov. 2000 (the U.S. dollar has declined vs. the euro since then) * Iraq converted its $10 billion "oil for food" reserve fund at the U.N. to euros * This information about Iraq's oil currency is *censored* by the U.S. media (Donald Rumsfeld suggested that if Saddam were "exiled" we could avoid an Iraq war) * Iran, another 'Axis of Evil' country is considering switching to euro dollars the US monopolizes global trade * Bush administration has recommended the overthrow of Yasir Arafat All axis of evil countries have or are moving toward using the euro and Bush wants to stop them * OPEC can topple the U.S. at any time by switching en mass to the euro. * A spike in oil prices can cause an economic melt down of the U.S. economy with Japan as the weak link Conjecture, presented as facts in the original article:* Iraq's switch to the euro was in response to the sanctions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 4
* There is there virtually no international support to topple Saddam * There is there no international coalition to militarily disarm Saddam * The CIA has not found any links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda * President Bush has not provided a rationale answer as to why Saddam's seemingly dormant WMD program possesses a more imminent threat that North Korea's active program? * A middle-east war would cause a collapse of the U.S. currency and force the world to turn to the euro for stability Unanswered Questions * Why does the Bush administration act as if Iraq's dormant weapons development program poses more of a threat than Korea's active program? * Why does the administration make choices with apparent disregard to consequences? War Goals * To stop any further movement by OPEC to switch to the euro and to get Iraq to switch back to the U.S.dollar * To use a remodeled Iraq to destroy OPEC control * Put the military power on top of the economic power * Comment from Beatrice."The stated goals from the Bush administration have changed from: disarm Iraq to remove Saddam to remove the regime, to get the Bask out of power"Terms * petro-dollar: international reserve currency and thus fiat currency for * global oil transactions and is latter converted into U.S. treasury bonds economic hegemony: a built-in support for a strong dollar that in turn forces the world's central banks to acquire and hold more dollar reserves, making it stronger. * oil transaction currency - euro dollar * neo conservative (Bush administration) Happy trails, B. S.1. Discussed in detail in the book Prisoners Dilemma
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 5
Copyright2003 LadybugFlights


The neoconservative theory that currently governs official thinking in Washington identifies Europe as the principal future rival and potential challenger of the United States. And now it looks like Russia along with former Soviet republics might join Europe in the formation of a common market.



Putin to promote common economic space with European Union, former Soviet republics

TIM VICKERY, Associated Press Writer Sunday, May 4, 2003


(05-04) 14:37 PDT KIEV, Ukraine (AP) --

Russian President Vladimir Putin said Sunday he will promote the formation of a common market spanning the European Union and former Soviet republics at summit later this month.

"Along with harmonizing our legislation with Europe's, we intend to work with our colleagues toward creating a common economic space together with Greater Europe," Putin said in televised comments at the end of a five-day visit to Ukraine's Crimean resort of Yalta

Putin met with Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma and said the two agreed to press ahead with a plan announced by Kuchma to form a common market linking Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus by September.

He said "a significant portion" of the May 31 Russia-EU summit in St. Petersburg will be devoted to the idea of a common market with Europe. Leaders of the Commonwealth of Independent States -- a loose alliance of former Soviet republics headed by Ukraine's President Leonid Kuchma -- are invited to join the summit, Putin said.

Putin has been seeking closer economic and political integration with Europe, and sided with France and Germany in opposing the US-led war in Iraq. The proposal for a common market is ambitious because neither Russia nor Ukraine is a member of the World Trade Organization and Russia is the only CIS member to have received market economy status from the EU.

Putin said Russia and Ukraine will work together on efforts to join the WTO.

Last year, Putin proposed visa-free travel between Russia and the European Union, a goal EU officials said would likely take years to accomplish.

Putin also stressed the need to deepen military cooperation with Ukraine to create jobs and develop technology, saying the two most populous former Soviet republics are mutually dependent.

"The defense of our countries are connected so closely that they just cannot develop without one another," the ITAR-Tass news agency quoted Putin as saying.

Earlier, Putin reassured Kuchma of the Kremlin's commitment to continue joint production of the An-70 military transport plane. Speculation had swirled that Moscow would pull out of the deal due to costs and technical shortcomings.

http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=984486

http://www.investorshub.com/boards/replies.asp?msg=983058


HOW TO STOP U.S. EMPIRE.

The bottom dollar
There is only one way to check American power and that is to support the euro

George Monbiot
Tuesday April 22, 2003
The Guardian

The problem with American power is not that it's American. Most states with the resources and opportunities the US possesses would have done far worse. The problem is that one nation, effectively unchecked by any other, can, if it chooses, now determine how the rest of the world will live. Eventually, unless we stop it, it will use this power. So far, it has merely tested its new muscles. The presidential elections next year might prevent an immediate entanglement with another nation, but there is little doubt about the scope of the US government's ambitions. Already, it has begun to execute a slow but comprehensive coup against the international order, destroying or undermining the institutions that might have sought to restrain it. On these pages two weeks ago, James Woolsey, an influential hawk and formerly the director of the CIA, argued for a war lasting for decades "to extend democracy" to the entire Arab and Muslim world.

Men who think like him - and there are plenty in Washington - are not monsters. They are simply responding to the opportunities that power presents, just as British politicians once responded to the vulnerability of non-European states and the weakness of their colonial competitors. America's threat to the peace and stability of the rest of the world is likely to persist, whether George Bush wins the next election or not. The critical question is how we stop it.

Military means, of course, are useless. An economic boycott, of the kind suggested by many of the opponents of the war with Iraq, can never be more than symbolic: US trade has penetrated the economies of almost all other nations to such an extent that to boycott its goods and services would be to boycott our own. Until recently, as Bush's government sought international approval for its illegal war, there appeared to be some opportunities for restraint by diplomatic means. But now it has discovered that the United Nations is unnecessary: most of its electors will approve its acts of aggression with or without a prior diplomatic mandate. Only one means of containing the US remains. It is deadly and, if correctly deployed, insuperable. It rests within the hands of the people of the United Kingdom.

Were it not for a monumental economic distortion, the US economy would, by now, have all but collapsed. It is not quite a West African basket case, but the size of the deficits and debts incurred by its profligacy would, by any conventional measure, suggest that it was in serious trouble. It survives only because conventional measures do not apply: the rest of the world has granted it an unnatural lease of life.

Almost 70% of the world's currency reserves - the money that nations use to finance international trade and protect themselves against financial speculators- takes the form of US dollars. The dollar is used for this purpose because it is relatively stable, it is produced by a nation with a major share of world trade, and certain commodities, in particular oil, are denominated in it, which means that dollars are required to buy them.

The US does very well from this arrangement. In order to earn dollars, other nations must provide goods and services to the US. When commodities are valued in dollars, the US needs do no more than print pieces of green paper to obtain them: it acquires them, in effect, for free. Once earned, other nations' dollar reserves must be invested back into the American economy. This inflow of money helps the US to finance its massive deficit.

The only serious threat to the dollar's international dominance at the moment is the euro. Next year, when the European Union acquires 10 new members, its gross domestic product will be roughly the same as that of the US, and its population 60% bigger. If the euro is adopted by all the members of the union, which suffers from none of the major underlying crises afflicting the US economy, it will begin to look like a more stable and more attractive investment than the dollar. Only one further development would then be required to unseat the dollar as the pre-eminent global currency: nations would need to start trading oil in euros.

Until last week, this was already beginning to happen. In November 2000, Saddam Hussein insisted that Iraq's oil be bought in euros. When the value of the euro rose, the country's revenues increased accordingly. As the analyst William Clark has suggested, the economic threat this represented might have been one of the reasons why the US government was so anxious to evict Saddam. But it may be unable to resist the greater danger.

Last year, Javad Yarjani, a senior official at Opec, the oil producers' cartel, put forward several compelling reasons why his members might one day start selling their produce in euros. Europe is the Middle East's biggest trading partner; it imports more oil and petrol products than the US; it has a bigger share of global trade; and its external accounts are better balanced. One key tipping point, he suggested, could be the adoption of the euro by Europe's two principal oil producers: Norway and the United Kingdom, whose Brent crude is one of the "markers" for international oil prices. "This might," Yarjani said, "create a momentum to shift the oil pricing system to euros."

If this happens, oil importing nations will no longer need dollar reserves to buy oil. The demand for the dollar will fall, and its value is likely to decline. As the dollar slips, central banks will start to move their reserves into safer currencies such as the euro and possibly the yen and the yuan, precipitating further slippage. The US economy, followed rapidly

The global justice movement, of which I consider myself a member, has, by and large, opposed accession to the euro, arguing that it accelerates the concentration of economic and political power, reduces people's ability to influence monetary policy and threatens employment in the poorest nations and regions. Much of the movement will have drawn comfort from the new opinion polls suggesting that almost 70% of British voters now oppose the single currency, and from the hints dropped by the Treasury last week that British accession may be delayed until 2010.

But it seems to me that the costs of integration are merely a new representation of the paradox of sovereignty. Small states or unaffiliated tribes have, throughout history, found that the only way to prevent themselves from being overrun by foreign powers was to surrender their autonomy and unite to fight their common enemy. To defend our sovereignty - and that of the rest of the world - from the US, we must yield some of our sovereignty to Europe.

That we have a moral duty to contest the developing power of the US is surely evident. That we can contest it by no other means is equally obvious. Those of us who are concerned about American power must abandon our opposition to the euro.