It's Not About Oil Or Iraq.
Quote> 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 ton of nerve gas and
> anthrax (Colin Powell's 5 February presentation to the UN wasjust 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?
Bookmarks