The real motive for the war in Iraq.Iran is next

[feelfree222]

We all know Bush have lied about WMD in Iraq.But no one seem interested to investigate the real motive about the Iraq war and the coming war with Iran.

Excerpts
January 4, 2006 – On November 10th 2005, the Muckraker Report published an article that described one of the unspoken reasons why the United States had to invade Iraq; to liberate the U.S. dollar in Iraq so that Iraqi oil could once again be purchased with the petrodollar. See The liberation of the U.S. Dollar in Iraq
www.teamliberty.net/id199.html



In November 2000, Iraq stopped accepting U.S. dollars for its oil. Counted as a purely political move, Saddam Hussein switched the currency required to purchase Iraqi oil to the euro. Selling oil through the U.N. Oil for Food Program, Iraq converted all of its U.S. dollars in its U.N. account to the euro. Shortly thereafter, Iraq converted $10 billion in its U.N. reserve fund to the euro. By the end of 2000, Iraq had abandoned the U.S. dollar completely.



Two months after the United States invaded Iraq, the Oil for Food Program was ended, the country’s accounts were switched back to dollars, and oil began to be sold once again for U.S. dollars. No longer could the world buy oil from Iraq with the euro. Global U.S. dollar supremacy was restored. It is interesting to note that the latest recession which the United States endured began and ended within the same time frame as that during which Iraq was trading oil for euros. Whether this is a coincidence or related, the American people may never know.



In March 2006, Iran will take Iraq’s switch to the petroeuro to new heights by launching a third oil exchange. The Iranians have developed a petroeuro system for oil trade which, when enacted, will once again threaten U.S. dollar supremacy far greater than Iraq’s euro conversion. Called the Iran Oil Bourse, an exchange that only accepts the euro for oil sales would mean that the entire world could begin purchasing oil from any oil-producing nation with euros instead of dollars. The Iranian plan isn’t limited to purchasing one oil-producing country’s oil with euros. Its plan will create a global alternative to the U.S. dollar. Come March 2006, the Iran Oil Bourse will further the momentum of OPEC to create an alternate currency for oil purchases worldwide. China, Russia, and the European Union are evaluating the Iranian plan to exchange oil for euros and giving the plan serious consideration.

Read more
The approaching war with Iran: Part I
www.teamliberty.net/id209.html

The approaching war with Iran: Part II
www.teamliberty.net/id215.html

[Jason]

feelfree222 said:

We all know Bush have lied about WMD in Iraq.

No he didn't.
To say he lied accuses him of saying statements that he knew were not true. Where is the evidence that President Bush knew these statements to be false?
It is perhaps telling that members of congress on the other side of the spectrum, such as John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and even Ted Kennedy also all beleived that Iraq had WMDs. Bill Clinton bombed Iraq only a few years before 9/11 for the express purpose of destroying WMD sites there.
The fact that other members of the US government (and the British government, and the UN, and just about every other government out there, including members of Saddam's own military and government) seem to have been mistaken about Iraq's WMD capabilities is an indication to me that President Bush was no more aware of the facts than any of the rest of them, and therefore was not lying.

[scooter]

The article is well over a year old and talks of March 2006 as being trhe point where we need to invade...didn't happen. Also mentioned a Iraq pull down in preparation for the Iran action, definitely not happening.
...sorry, but it's just speculation and unfounded guessing...

[feelfree222]

jason said:

feelfree222 said:

We all know Bush have lied about WMD in Iraq.

No he didn't.
To say he lied accuses him of saying statements that he knew were not true. Where is the evidence that President Bush knew these statements to be false?
It is perhaps telling that members of congress on the other side of the spectrum, such as John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and even Ted Kennedy also all beleived that Iraq had WMDs. Bill Clinton bombed Iraq only a few years before 9/11 for the express purpose of destroying WMD sites there.
The fact that other members of the US government (and the British government, and the UN, and just about every other government out there, including members of Saddam's own military and government) seem to have been mistaken about Iraq's WMD capabilities is an indication to me that President Bush was no more aware of the facts than any of the rest of them, and therefore was not lying.

This may help you
www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html

Note Original Essay January 2003
-Revised March 2003

"First, why is there a lack of a broad international coalition for toppling Saddam? If Iraq's old weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program truly possessed the threat level that President Bush has repeatedly purported, why are our historic allies not joining a coalition to militarily disarm Saddam? Secondly, despite over 400 unfettered U.N inspections, there has been no evidence reported that Iraq has reconstituted its WMD program. Indeed, the Bush administration's claims about Iraq's WMD capability appear demonstrably false. [1] [2] Third, and despite President Bush's repeated claims, the CIA has not found any links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. To the contrary, some intelligence analysts believe it is more likely Al Qaeda might acquire an unsecured former Soviet Union Weapon(s) of Mass Destruction, or potentially from sympathizers within a destabilized Pakistan.

Moreover, immediately following Congress's vote on the Iraq Resolution, we suddenly became informed of North Korea's nuclear program violations. Kim Jong Il is processing uranium in order to produce nuclear weapons this year. (It should be noted that just after coming into office President Bush was informed in January 2001of North Korea's suspected nuclear program). Despite the obvious contradictions, 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 nuclear weapons program. Millions of people in the U.S. and around the world are asking the simple question: "Why attack Iraq now?" Well, behind all the propaganda is a simple truth -- one of the core drivers for toppling Saddam is actually the euro currency, the -- .

Although apparently suppressed in the U.S. media, one of the answers to the Iraq enigma is simple yet shocking. The upcoming war in Iraq war is mostly about how the CIA, the Federal Reserve and the Bush/Cheney administration view hydrocarbons at the geo-strategic level, and the unspoken but overarching macroeconomic threats to the U.S. dollar from the euro. The Real Reasons for this upcoming war is this administration's goal of preventing further OPEC momentum towards the euro as an oil transaction currency standard, and to secure control of Iraq's oil before the onset of Peak Oil (predicted to occur around 2010). However, in order to pre-empt OPEC, they need to gain geo-strategic control of Iraq along with its 2nd largest proven oil reserves. This essay will discuss the macroeconomics of the `petrodollar' and the unpublicized but real threat to U.S. economic hegemony from the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency. The following is how an individual very well versed in the nuances of macroeconomics alluded to the unspoken truth about this war with Iraq:

[feelfree222]

scooter said:

The article is well over a year old and talks of March 2006 as being trhe point where we need to invade...didn't happen. Also mentioned a Iraq pull down in preparation for the Iran action, definitely not happening.
...sorry, but it's just speculation and unfounded guessing...

The only reason the USA have not started the war yet is because Iran have not finalised his project
to switch to the petroeuro by launching a third oil exchange as planified In March 2006.
That will be interesting to watch what will happend if they do it .

A little story about the dangers that The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse represent to the US Empire economy by the serious
Energy Bulletin.
www.energybulletin.net/12125.html

[Jason]

feelfree222 said:

"First, why is there a lack of a broad international coalition for toppling Saddam? If Iraq's old weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program truly possessed the threat level that President Bush has repeatedly purported, why are our historic allies not joining a coalition to militarily disarm Saddam?

Because our "allies" did not feel as threatened by Islamic terrorism. The world understood at the time that the U.S. is the primary target of the hatred of the Middle East.

Secondly, despite over 400 unfettered U.N inspections, there has been no evidence reported that Iraq has reconstituted its WMD program. Indeed, the Bush administration's claims about Iraq's WMD capability appear demonstrably false.

Except that they weren't claims of only the Bush administration and they weren't demonstratably false before the war. After the war we could go in and look for ourselves without the interference of the Iraqi government and discover that Saddam didn't have as much as everyone thought he did.

[1] [2] Third, and despite President Bush's repeated claims, the CIA has not found any links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.

The Bush administration did not claim any operational link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. They never claimed that Iraq had any foreknowledge or provided any support of the 9/11 attacks. But Iraq was definitiely supporting terrorism - Saddam Hussein had promised to pay $20,000 to the families of suicide bombers who attacked Israel and was harboring several known terrorists. Al Qaeda is not the end-all be-all of Islamic terrorism.

To the contrary, some intelligence analysts believe it is more likely Al Qaeda might acquire an unsecured former Soviet Union Weapon(s) of Mass Destruction, or potentially from sympathizers within a destabilized Pakistan.

Certainly that is more probable today, now that Iraq is no longer a possible source.
However, the war in Iraq has also served as a magnet to draw the efforts of Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. As long as the Iraqi conflict is ongoing it's a good bet that a sizable portion of terrorist resources will be going to fighting that war, and not towards further attacks against the U.S. and Europe or attempting to secure WMDs. The fact that there have been no strikes in the U.S. since 9/11 is in part due to our increased security efforts and in part due to our drawing the focus of the terrorists to Iraq.

Moreover, immediately following Congress's vote on the Iraq Resolution, we suddenly became informed of North Korea's nuclear program violations.

Which of course raises the question of why the Clinton administration was so accomodating to the North Koreans, and why that administration did not inform the public of the danger.

Despite the obvious contradictions, 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 nuclear weapons program.

I would think that is fairly obvious. North Korea did not have any ties with terrorist groups willing to strike in nations outside of the Korean penninsula. And when President Bush was informed of the program it may have already produced weapons. A nation with nuclear weapons capability has to be treated differently than one without - which is why Iran wants them so much today.

Millions of people in the U.S. and around the world are asking the simple question: "Why attack Iraq now?" Well, behind all the propaganda is a simple truth -- one of the core drivers for toppling Saddam is actually the euro currency, the -- .

PHHHHHHa ha ha!
The reason for attacking Iraq at that time was 9/11. America became aware at that point that allowing regimes that support terrorism to continue to provide safe havens for them was allowing terrorists to prepare attacks against us with impunity. Iraq became the second target (Afghanistan was the first) because it was already the policy of the U.S. government to work for regime change in Iraq - the previous administration had simply been very lax in working towards this goal - a goal that became much more urgent when we realized how badly terrorist action can hurt us. With the public demanding action President Bush could finally gain the support needed to carry out stated U.S. policy towards Iraq - policy that did not originate with him - and he did so with the full support of Congress.

[PhantomWolf]

If you want to know the real reason that France, Germany, Russia and China wouldn't support any invasion of Iraq, have a look at the real money trail. Who was providing support to Saddam in weapons and oil technology, who was running the Iraqi oil industry pre-2001 and who had the big oil contracts with Saddam on condition that they removed the UN sactions.

[Jason]

phantomwolf said:

If you want to know the real reason that France, Germany, Russia and China wouldn't support any invasion of Iraq, have a look at the real money trail. Who was providing support to Saddam in weapons and oil technology, who was running the Iraqi oil industry pre-2001 and who had the big oil contracts with Saddam on condition that they removed the UN sactions.

That too. No real fear of Islamic terrorists (from the Middle East, anyway) striking their own nations and profit to be made in the current arrangement. Why would they let little things like violations of UN measures, the original Gulf War cease fire treaty, and human rights violations convince them to end a profitable relationship with Saddam?

[gillianren]

feelfree222 said:

The only reason the USA have not started the war yet is because Iran have not finalised his project
to switch to the petroeuro by launching a third oil exchange as planified In March 2006.

That doesn't make any sense. Wouldn't you want to prevent such a thing from happening, if it's why you're going to war in the first place?

[feelfree222]

gillianren said:

feelfree222 said:

The only reason the USA have not started the war yet is because Iran have not finalised his project
to switch to the petroeuro by launching a third oil exchange as planified In March 2006.

That doesn't make any sense. Wouldn't you want to prevent such a thing from happening, if it's why you're going to war in the first place?

Do you think that the possibilty that USA use mini strategic nukes against Iran can be a dissuasive factor?

First read that very serious analysis.After we can discuss.
www.energybulletin.net/2913.html

[feelfree222]

phantomwolf said:

If you want to know the real reason that France, Germany, Russia and China wouldn't support any invasion of Iraq, have a look at the real money trail. Who was providing support to Saddam in weapons and oil technology, who was running the Iraqi oil industry pre-2001 and who had the big oil contracts with Saddam on condition that they removed the UN sactions.

Canada have not participated too and dont have any ties with Iraq economically .

[feelfree222]

jason said:

feelfree222 said:

Millions of people in the U.S. and around the world are asking the simple question: "Why attack Iraq now?" Well, behind all the propaganda is a simple truth -- one of the core drivers for toppling Saddam is actually the euro currency, the -- .

PHHHHHHa ha ha!
The reason for attacking Iraq at that time was 9/11. America became aware at that point that allowing regimes that support terrorism to continue to provide safe havens for them was allowing terrorists to prepare attacks against us with impunity.

That is the reason your Government have given.
But they find no WMD Ooops!


I see that you have not comment the crux of the subject

-In November 2000, Iraq stopped accepting U.S. dollars for its oil. Counted as a purely political move, Saddam Hussein switched the currency required to purchase Iraqi oil to the euro. Selling oil through the U.N. Oil for Food Program, Iraq converted all of its U.S. dollars in its U.N. account to the euro. Shortly thereafter, Iraq converted $10 billion in its U.N. reserve fund to the euro. By the end of 2000, Iraq had abandoned the U.S. dollar completely.



Two months after the United States invaded Iraq, the Oil for Food Program was ended, the country’s accounts were switched back to dollars, and oil began to be sold once again for U.S. dollars. No longer could the world buy oil from Iraq with the euro. Global U.S. dollar supremacy was restored. It is interesting to note that the latest recession which the United States endured began and ended within the same time frame as that during which Iraq was trading oil for euros.

One of the core reasons for the war in Iraq is this administration's goal of preventing further Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) momentum towards the euro as an oil transaction currency standard.

However, in order to pre-empt OPEC, they need to gain geo-strategic control of Iraq along with its 2nd largest proven oil reserves. The second coalescing factor that is driving the Iraq war is the quiet acknowledgement by respected oil geologists and possibly this administration is the impending phenomenon known as Global "Peak Oil." This is projected to occur around 2010, with Iraq and Saudi Arabia being the final two nations to reach peak oil production. The issue of Peak Oil has been added to the scope of this essay, along with the macroeconomics of `petrodollar recycling' and the unpublicized but genuine challenge to U.S. dollar hegemony from the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency.
www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html

[PhantomWolf]

Canada have not participated too and dont have any ties with Iraq economically .

Canada wasn't outspokenly against it in the UN and in the UN Security Council. France, Russia and China are all permanent members of the UN Security Council and were all breaching the UN Trade sanctions on Iraq by trading in weapons, oil technology and servicing the Iraqi military, all while working to get the sanctions removed so they could exploit what main Iraqi's considered illegal oil contracts they held with Saddam.

Also if they stopped accepting US dollars in 2000, why wait till 2003 to invade? And I hardly think that the Iraq trading it's minimal amount of oil in euros would serious effect the US economy. The US doesn't get a commission every time someone uses their money, it actually costs them money to have it circulating outside the the US because they have to continue to print more to replace it.

However, in order to pre-empt OPEC, they need to gain geo-strategic control of Iraq along with its 2nd largest proven oil reserves.

You realise that the US get's most of it's oil from Canada, and that the Canadian Oil sands hold more oil that Saudi Arabian?

The second coalescing factor that is driving the Iraq war is the quiet acknowledgement by respected oil geologists and possibly this administration is the impending phenomenon known as Global "Peak Oil."

Hate to tell you, but I work in the Industry and Peak Oil is a scare tactic by handwaving terror mongers. The company I work for has known current "non-exotic" reserves for the next 35 years and has a lot of "exotic" reserves being developed as well, and we aren't the biggest out there either, one of them, but other companies have a greater reserve. Yes, easy to get oil will run out eventually, but there are still new reserves being located, and numerous wells out there that are yet to be tapped beacuse they just haven't been commercially viable while oil was $30 a barrel.

[Jason]

feelfree222 said:

I see that you have not comment the crux of the subject

Yes I did - I busted a gut laughing about such a ridiculous claim.

[feelfree222]

phantomwolf said:

Also if they stopped accepting US dollars in 2000, why wait till 2003 to invade?

Bush was trying to get other countries involved to share the cost of the war that explain why he waited till 2003.