January 4, 2007
Allow me to begin this article by sharing a profound truth
which you will hopefully begin to realize yourself, (if you
haven't already done so), by the time that you have finished
reading this commentary. Things are never what they seem;
especially when it comes to the machinations of the American
Government. Some of the things that I have discovered while
conducting research for this article, have left me awed and
dismayed. They have also left me feeling a bit angry; angry
at a manipulative government which has insulted both my and
your intelligence, by feeding us lies, because it obviously
feels that we are not worthy of the truth. It has not done
this one time, but many times, for many years. It is a
chronic condition.
As I pen these lines, it was only five days ago that former
Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, met his death in a hastily
arranged execution, by hanging, for horrible crimes against
his own people. While we could delve into the moral issues
related to this historic event, i.e., the morality of capital
punishment, and the questionable decisions which resulted in
his unexpected, sudden demise, that is not the main focus of
this article; thus, I will forego discussing it for now. At
the current time, the sovereign nation of Iraq finds itself
embroiled in a violent, extremely bloody, brutal conflict,
which many people, myself included, believe has deteriorated
into a full-scale civil war between the Shi'ite and Sunni
Muslims of that nation. This development is a tragic result
of the unfounded, illegal, poorly-conceived invasion and
war, planned and executed by President George W. Bush, and
his American co-conspirators.
For more than three years now, similar to other researchers
and writers, I have been offering my personal views on our
Christian mailing list, as well as in my articles, regarding
why the decision was made to attack and invade Iraq. Some of
my views can be found in my four-part series "The Capture Of
Saddam Hussein And The New Babylon". Some of you are already
familiar with some, most or perhaps all of the theories that
have been put forth by myself, and others. For those of you
who aren't familiar with them, allow me to list some of the
more popular positions which have been discussed to varying
degrees:
1. George W. Bush wanted to remove Saddam Hussein's capacity
to further produce WMD, (Weapons of Mass Destruction), and
to destroy those which the Bush Administration alleged were
already in existence; thus, in Bush's words, preventing a
"nuclear mushroom" from ever occurring over America.
2. George W. Bush believed that Saddam Hussein had ties to,
and may have been secretly working with al-Qaeda terrorists;
thus, attacking Iraq was an extension of the so-called "war
against terrorism", which had begun in Afghanistan.
3. George W. Bush wanted to secure control of the Iraqi oil
fields which are vital to the American economy, and America's
supremacy as a superpower in the world.
4. George W. Bush wanted to avenge the threat that Saddam
Hussein had made against his father, George H. W. Bush, and
to finish the job that his father had begun during the Gulf
War of the early 1990's.
5. George W. Bush wanted to contain Saddam Hussein, as had
been done during the Gulf War, and prevent him from upsetting
the status quo which has existed in the Middle East.
6. George W. Bush wanted to establish an American military
presence in Iraq for a variety of reasons which would all be
advantageous to the United States; such as:
a. to exert pressure on Iran and keep it under control.
b. to exert more pressure on Russia and China.
c. to establish another listening post close to Russia.
d. to protect oil interests in the Gulf Cooperation Council
nations-states-sheikdoms.
e. to better protect Israel.
7. George W. Bush wanted to free the Iraqis from Saddam
Hussein's cruel grip, and to establish an Arab democracy
the Middle East, which would serve as an example to other
Arab nations, and hopefully, bring about positive social
changes in those nations as well.
With the exception of the WMD argument, which has now been
proven to be false in many people's minds, I think that most
of the aforementioned theories have merit to some degree or
another; but I don't think it would be wise to try to assign
a specific value to each of the arguments. As one wise man
once said, "A man convinced against his will, is of the same
opinion still". Perhaps what we need to ask ourselves, is if
these are truly all of the possible reasons why George Bush
and his staff made the decision to invade and attack Iraq. As
a result of our own preconceived ideas, is it possible that
we might be overlooking something? Speaking for myself, I can
now say, to my own dismay, that I did in fact miss something.
The reason why I overlooked it, is because I was not aware of
certain facts, which have now been brought to my attention.
Having said that, allow me to share with you exactly how I
arrived at this new understanding regarding the war in Iraq,
the Iranian threat, and related issues. I believe that you
will find it rather interesting.
For quite some time now, many months in fact, I've been busy,
quietly working on a much-expanded, updated version of my old
article "Nature Of The Alien". It is far from finished, but I
can tell you that it is turning into a very informative and
in-depth series, which you'll find to be a major improvement
over the original version written about ten years ago. One of
the topics which I discuss in the new and improved "Nature Of
The Alien" series, is the coming "New World Order", (or "One
World Government", if you prefer), and the possible events
which may spawn and herald its arrival. To many of you, this
topic is nothing new; and it is something which I amply talk
about in a number of my other articles.
One idea which I, and many other writers have considered, is
that the coming "New World Order" may be precipitated by an
international crisis. One kind of crisis which has a lot of
potential for creating the necessary conditions to usher in
a New World Order, is a worldwide financial meltdown. It is
a well-known fact, at least with those who study such topics,
that a number of national and international financial crashes
have been barely averted over the years, as a result of the
implementation of certain stop-gap measures. While some of
you may not be aware of it, the financial state of the world
today is like a house built upon stilts. One of these days,
a great flood is going to arrive, which that house simply
will not be able to withstand, no matter how many stilts, or
stop-gap measures, are used to try to prop it up.
Part of the problem, is that currently, and for a long time
now, the full weight of the international financial system
has been standing upon one stilt; and that stilt is already
weakening, and is in danger of collapsing, as many financial
experts already know. I am referring to the American dollar.
For over three decades now, as a result of crafty financial
manipulation by the U.S. Government, the countries of the
world have been pressured into purchasing their much-needed
oil reserves in U.S. dollars. This, of course, is extremely
advantageous to America, as it props up, or inflates, the
value of the American dollar, even though, in reality, the
dollar is just about worthless now as a currency.
As I have explained before, the American dollar is what is
referred to as "fiat money". It has no real value other than
the faith that people place in it, and in the word of their
government; because there aren't any actual silver or gold
reserves to back it up. It is only worth something because
the U.S. Government has declared it, or decreed it, (a fiat),
legal tender. Unlike decades ago, you cannot go down to your
local bank and demand a pile of gold for your stack of money.
They'll look at you oddly; believe me.
This development came about as a result of conditions which
existed following the 1930 Great Depression. With so much
money in circulation, the U.S. Government couldn't possibly
back it all with actual gold reserves; it was non-existent.
So, in 1932, U.S. President Roosevelt took the dollar off of
the gold standard, at least as far as the national economy
was concerned. However, the governments of foreign countries
could still have their dollars converted back into gold by
the US Government, if they so demanded it. This arrangement
was a result of the Bretton Woods Agreements, which were
agreed upon and signed by forty-four Allied nations at the
United Nations Monetary And Financial Conference, which was
held at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire in 1944. Known as the
Bretton Woods System, it helped to establish the dollar as
the currency reserve of the world, and gave it tremendous
purchasing power. What also occurred at that time, was the
creation of the World Bank, and the International Monetary
Fund, which just so happen to be U.S. controlled.
However, in less than thirty years, the American economy had
reached a critical stage, as the American Government was no
longer able to convert U.S. dollars back into actual gold
for the foreign nations that demanded it. In other words, it
defaulted on its payments, and was essentially bankrupt. As
a result, the Bretton Woods System collapsed. Maybe the US
economy itself would have collapsed as well, except for one
thing. In 1972-1973, during the Nixon Administration, the
U.S. Government took a decisive step which would ensure that
the U.S. dollar would remain the world's currency reserve;
even though foreign nations realized that they were being
forced to accept bogus "fiat money". Exactly what was that
step? America made an economically-shrewd deal with Saudi
Arabia, whereby Saudi Arabia would only accept American
dollars for its oil. In exchange, the U.S. Government would
support the al-Saud dynasty, which it has been doing ever
since.
As a side note, for those of you who may not be students of
history, it may interest you to know that Saudi Arabia hasn't
always been called Saudi Arabia. For literally thousands of
years, the peninsula was simply known as Arabia. It was only
in recent times, (1932), when the al-Saud family came into
power there, by joining the regions of Najd and Hejaz, that
it acquired the name of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. But the
point is, it has been this mutual deal between the United
States of America and the al-Saud family, which has directly
resulted in the U.S.A. maintaining its financial dominance
in the world, has kept wasteful America supplied with most
of the oil products that she requires, and has also kept the
al-Saud family in power for so many decades, in spite of its
corruption. In fact, it is because of the corruption within
the Royal Family, that Osama bin Laden gained a following.
There is a lot more to this intriguing story, such as the
ties which are said to exist between the oil-oriented Bush
family, the al-Saud clan, and the bin Laden construction
empire; but I'll leave it up to you to do some research of
your own. You may be rather surprised by some of the things
that you discover. You may even form some theories of your
own concerning why, after more than five years, the Bush
administration has still been unable to find or capture its
number one enemy, Osama bin Laden. Do they really want to?
Are you starting to get the full picture? Is it possible
that this US-Saudi deal, forged back in the early 70's, is
the primary reason why the United States of America has
never really pursued the Saudis since the tragic events of
September 11, 2001, even though fifteen of the nineteen
alleged hijackers were in possession of Saudi passports?
This burning question remains to be answered. Exactly who
was sending a message to who? It may not be what we think.
Perhaps the answer to these questions can be found by asking
another related question. For example, if the Americans went
after the Saudis, and the Saudis withdrew their support for
the American dollar, who would be the real losers, and who
would suffer the most if the world lost faith in the dollar
and no longer supported it? At any rate, once Saudi Arabia
accepted the American deal, other OPEC nations began to do
the same, thus strengthening the American dollar even more.
With each passing year, the world's need for oil has only
grown greater. At the same time, the price of oil has also
continued to increase to record levels. What is the result
of this? The need for more oil equates to the need to keep
more American dollars in reserve, in order to purchase it.
So it is all about supply and demand. Because there is such a
great demand for American dollars, because everyone must buy
their oil in dollars, the value of the dollar is artificially
inflated and sustained. Even though the U.S.A. is essentially
bankrupt, and also the greatest debtor nation on the face of
the Earth, the financial game continues, because everyone is
forced to buy their oil with dollars. But what if that were
to suddenly change, and the U.S. dollar lost its purchasing
power? That is precisely what has begun to happen. Although
it had a shaky start, the Euro has been gradually gaining
in power and financial strength; and it now offers a viable
alternative to the U.S. dollar; and you can bet that this
development has officials in the USA worried. What is also
worrisome to American financiers, is that some OPEC nations
have begun to accept Euros for oil purchases.
As you may already know, several years ago, al-Qaeda, and
its Arab/Muslim supporters adopted the strategy to destroy
the United States by bringing about its financial collapse.
Blowing up people and buildings is not going to make this
happen, no matter how valuable they may be. Such terrorist
activities, regardless of who is really behind them, will
cause hiccups in the financial system, and they may reduce
national morale, (or do the exact opposite), but bombing
buildings will not result in the collapse of the American
financial empire. However, if these Muslim/Arab conspirators
can reduce the worldwide need, as well as the demand, for US
dollars, with time, that most certainly could have a drastic
effect on the American economy.
To this end, in 2005, Iran began an initiative which, if
successful, would ultimately convert the global economy from
its current dollar base, to a Euro base. Referred to as the
IOB, or Iranian Oil Bourse, it's essentially an oil exchange,
or oil stock market, which will be based upon the Euro, and
not on the American dollar. The proposed location for this
exchange is the island of Kish, located in the Persian Gulf.
The Iranian Oil Bourse had been projected to open sometime
in 2006, but certain bureaucratic issues within the Iranian
Government have caused it to be delayed. However, these
delays don't mean that it isn't going to happen. In fact, a
news article posted on the Bloomberg website in December of
2006 makes it very plain that Iran has full intentions of
going ahead with the bourse, and plans to cut the American
dollar out of the picture. That article states in part:
----- Begin Quotes -----
"Iran, the world's fourth-largest oil exporter, plans to
reduce its use of the U.S. dollar in world trade and
increase use of the euro, two Tehran-based newspapers
reported."
"The Tehran Times said today Iran has started substituting
euros for dollars in oil sales, citing an unidentified
person at the Oil Ministry. Iran Daily reported Iran wants
to cut its dollar-based transactions to a minimum, citing
Minister of Economy Davoud Danesh-Ja'fari."
". . . The dollar touched a 20-month low against the euro
this week, and central banks in the Middle East including
the United Arab Emirates have plans to convert some of their
dollar reserves into euros."
"Exporting nations 'are only holding so many dollars because
of all the trade in the currency, but if the trend begins to
move out of it, then it's going to be a positive for the
euro and add to the negative sentiment on the dollar,' said
David Mann, a foreign-exchange strategist at Standard
Chartered Bank Plc in Hong Kong."
"Iran has repeatedly said it would limit dollar-based
transactions following the U.S. decision in September to
block one of Iran's biggest state-owned lenders from doing
business with the U.S."
----- End Quotes -----
Please notice, that as of last month, (December, 2006), the
U.S. dollar had already reached a twenty-month low against
the Euro. What is going to happen once the Iranian Oil Bourse
is moving at full speed ahead, and more countries begin to
exchange their dollars for Euros, in order to purchase their
oil from OPEC nations who join the Iranian Oil Bourse?
My friends, if Iran succeeds at this, and other oil-producing
Arab/Muslim nations follow suit, and the Euro becomes the new
currency reserve of the world, because oil-consuming nations
will be forced to purchase their oil reserves in Euros, this
development is going to be considerably more explosive, and
much more damaging in a political and economic sense, to the
United States of America, than the airliners that flew into
the World Trade Center over five years ago. Please understand
that I'm by no means attempting to belittle the tragic events
that befell America that day in September; I am simply trying
to help you to understand that the success of the Iranian Oil
Bourse could have profound effects on the life of every single
American citizen, and could even be the catalyst that reduces
the United States of America to a minor power in the world.
It probably won't happen overnight, but it could happen. Once
a financial slide begins to occur, it is difficult to stop.
It is just like a row of dominoes, with each country that
rejects the U.S. dollar, being represented by one of those
dominoes.
I don't think I need to go into detail regarding what would
happen within the United States itself if the dollar were to
suddenly lose its purchasing power. I'm sure you can imagine
how such a development would affect the American financial
system, how it would affect the job market, or how it would
affect the average American's ability to place food on their
table, pay their rent and utilities, or take care of other
financial responsibilities. Law and order could quickly be
replaced by chaos and anarchy. Remember the L.A. riots? Many
Americans are used to a life of ease and comfort; at least
when compared to the rest of the people in the world. Even
some of America's poor people are considered middle class in
some other countries. But the point is, when Americans lose
their comfort items, they have a propensity for becoming
rather irritable; and sometimes irrational and violent. Of
course, if this were to happen, it would give the American
Government justification to declare martial law and call out
the troops. I'll leave the rest to your imagination.
But this is not all. If a Euro-based economy were to evolve
from the Iranian initiative, resulting in the collapse of
the American Empire, what would it mean for the rest of the
world, particularly Europe? To me, the answer seems obvious.
The European Union might indeed become a SuperState, and the
next world superpower, as a result of the impetus it would
receive from the sudden strengthening of the Euro. In short,
it would become the new master of the house, with Arab help.
For a number of years now, certain Bible scholars have been
promoting the belief that the European SuperState will be the
"womb" from which the Endtime Beast and Ten Horns will arise,
as prophesied in the Bible. While I personally do not fully
embrace this view, at least not yet, the arrival of such a
SuperState would certainly give their view more credibility.
As you may already know, particularly if you've participated
on our Christian mailing list in recent years, for some time
now, I've been pointing out the friction that exists between
the United States and the European Union. Contrary to what
some people may think, the situation is not exactly cordial
and rosy. America and Europe have had a considerable number
of spats in recent years. Some of these disagreements have
been financially oriented. These are the most dangerous kind,
since wars are quite often started over trade disagreements.
Other Euro-American disputes have been a result of the pushy,
belligerent, adamant attitude which has been adopted by the
Bush Administration. A case in point is the Kyoto Protocol.
It is common knowledge that the failure of this initiative
to fully materialize in a timely manner, was in large part a
result of the fact that the U.S. Congress has never ratified
it. Ironically, the United States happens to be the largest
polluter in the entire world, as well as the most wasteful
nation.
But returning to our central issue, as I was conducting some
online research for the "Nature Of The Alien" series, I came
across a very enlightening article that provided a new piece
of the puzzle for me. In fact, it also helped me to connect
together certain events which we have all witnessed over the
past six years. Authored by one Professor Krassimir Petrov
in January 2006, the article is called "The Proposed Iranian
Oil Bourse". According to online sources, Professor Petrov is
an Austrian-born Macro Economist/Investment Strategist. He
received his Ph. D. in Economics from Ohio State University
in the U.S.A., and now resides in Bulgaria, where he teaches
Macroeconomics, International Finance, and Econometrics at
the American University.
Before I share with you the piece of information which helped
me to better understand what is happening in the Middle East,
and why it is happening, allow me to backtrack just a bit and
impart some other information, which is directly related to
our discussion; and which in fact will help to confirm what I
am about to tell you. As my regular readers know, for quite
a few months now, even before it became such a large issue
with so many writers, I have been telling my small audience
that the U.S.A. was laying plans, in a psychological sense,
as well as in a military sense, for a potential war against
Iran. I have stated a number of times before that a country
cannot legitimately go to war, until it has psychologically
prepared its citizens for that war, and won their support.
The minute that Bush began demonizing Iran in his State Of
the Union Address in January of 2002, with his talk of the
so-called "Axis of Evil", comprised, according to Bush, of
Iraq, Iran and North Korea, I began to suspect where he was
headed. You didn't have to be a rocket scientist to see the
proverbial writing on the wall. Month after month, as Bush
and his war gang continued to psychologically manipulate the
American public, and began to employ their ever-so-faithful
wild card, (the WMD issue), I became even more convinced of
what Bush was up to.
In fact, as some of you may recall, I sat here dismayed, and
couldn't believe that Bush had the audacity to play the very
same card again, in order to pull the wool over the eyes of
the American people once more. But, it really shouldn't come
as a surprise to any of us. As I explain in my "Capture Of
Saddam Hussein" series, that tactic certainly worked in the
case of the war in Iraq. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell and
company repeatedly hit the American citizenry so hard with
their fear and paranoia tactics, (such as with the infamous
"mushroom cloud" over America speech), that eventually, a
substantial portion of American citizens were seeing things
Bush's way, and lent their support for his illegal war in
Iraq. With Powell as a spokesman, the Bush Administration
tried to sell the same WMD ticket to the United Nations, but
they saw through the smoke, and were very reluctant to hop
onto the "Let's-Get-Saddam-Hussein" bandwagon.
Sadly, as history will record, in the end, the United Nations
proved what a powerless, gutless, ineffective body it really
is, and turned a blind eye, as the bully U.S.A., along with
ever-so-faithful Great Britain, led by Tony Blair, magically
created their "coalition of the willing", and then attacked
Iraq. As I told our readers in April of 2003, even though the
United States was unable to muster up enough support in the
U.N. to get the required nine Security Council votes that was
needed in order to get the second resolution on Iraq passed,
and even though U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan begged the
U.S. to give the U.N. inspectors more time, they still chose
to attack Iraq, based upon mere speculations, and unproven
allegations.
For its part, the United Nations went through the motions of
pretending to have done all that it could to stop the United
States from attacking Iraq, and then it stood helplessly by,
wringing its hands, as the invasion and war began. The U.S.
knew that the second resolution was doomed; and that is why
in a March 4, 2003 CNN news report, Ari Fleischer, who was
at that time the White House's Press Secretary, shared the
following comments, in which he let it be known, that the
U.N. resolution was now a moot point, and that the U.S.A.
was going to do what it wanted to do, regardless of what
anyone else thought about it:
----- Begin Quote -----
"The president has said he believes that a vote is
desirable. It is not mandatory . . . The president has made
clear the outcome, whether the United Nations votes or does
not vote, [is] that we will disarm Saddam Hussein with a
coalition of the willing."
----- End Quote -----
So to reiterate my point, the truth of the matter is that the
United States knew beforehand that it hadn't garnered enough
support to secure the vote. Russia's Foreign Minister, Igor
Ivanov, had already informed the mass media that Moscow would
oppose the new resolution, and that it would use its veto
power as a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, if
it became necessary. In the aforementioned CNN news article,
Ivanov states:
----- Begin Quote -----
"Russia has this right, and if the situation so demands,
Russia will of course use its right of veto -- as an extreme
measure -- to avoid the worst development of the situation,"
----- End Quote -----
So as you can see, in reality, the Bush Administration has no
respect whatsoever for the opinion of the United Nations. It
has displayed this same arrogant attitude many times; while
at the same time, it ceaselessly promotes the importance of
respecting the rule of law. However, when those laws are in
conflict with what the United States wants to do, it chooses
to ignore them, proving that it hypocritically lives by a
double standard.
The rest, as they say, is history; a very tragic history, as
we continue to witness the ugly events transpiring in Iraq
to this very day. Well, we know how a lot of Americans must
feel now, over three years later, with over three thousand
American soldiers dead, and no certain victory in sight in
Iraq. They let their voices be heard in the recent November
2006 elections; not that it will have much bearing on what
George W. Bush will do during his final two years in office.
Rather than disengage from Iraq, as so many Americans have
desired, it appears that Mr. Bush has stomped on their vote,
worked his "magic" once more, bullied his way through, and
convinced the necessary people that close to 20,000, if not
more, additional American troops need to be deployed to that
war-torn nation. Short of impeachment, it seems that George
Bush has become immune to the will of the American people.
But the main point I which to emphasize here, is that Bush is
doing it again; but this time with Iran. For months now, we
have watched as the verbal battle has heated up to a fevered
pitch. Over and over, American citizens have been told what a
dangerous threat Iran will become, if it is permitted to join
the nuclear club. Conservative Christians have particularly
been the target of Bush's strategy, and are reminded of the
serious dangers that Israel would face from a nuclear-armed
Iran. Doesn't that sales pitch sound familiar? Wasn't Saddam
Hussein painted in the very same light? And how did that WMD
fairy-tale turn out? While it is indeed true that Iran hasn't
been exactly transparent in its dealings with the U.N. and
the International Atomic Energy Agency, the fact is, that to
this day, no one has been able to conclusively prove that
Iran is determined to manufacture nuclear weapons.
I honestly don't know what Iran's intentions are. Publicly,
Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahamdinejad, has denied that his
country has any nuclear ambitions whatsoever. He has also
made it clear that, based upon the tenets of the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty, his nation has every right in the
world to enrich uranium, in order to meet its electricity
needs. At the same time, I do know that it is both immoral
and unethical, and in contradiction of international norms
of behavior, to base a war on mere speculations alone, as
occurred when the U.S.A. attacked Iraq. Will Americans allow
it to happen again with Iran?
which you will hopefully begin to realize yourself, (if you
haven't already done so), by the time that you have finished
reading this commentary. Things are never what they seem;
especially when it comes to the machinations of the American
Government. Some of the things that I have discovered while
conducting research for this article, have left me awed and
dismayed. They have also left me feeling a bit angry; angry
at a manipulative government which has insulted both my and
your intelligence, by feeding us lies, because it obviously
feels that we are not worthy of the truth. It has not done
this one time, but many times, for many years. It is a
chronic condition.
As I pen these lines, it was only five days ago that former
Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, met his death in a hastily
arranged execution, by hanging, for horrible crimes against
his own people. While we could delve into the moral issues
related to this historic event, i.e., the morality of capital
punishment, and the questionable decisions which resulted in
his unexpected, sudden demise, that is not the main focus of
this article; thus, I will forego discussing it for now. At
the current time, the sovereign nation of Iraq finds itself
embroiled in a violent, extremely bloody, brutal conflict,
which many people, myself included, believe has deteriorated
into a full-scale civil war between the Shi'ite and Sunni
Muslims of that nation. This development is a tragic result
of the unfounded, illegal, poorly-conceived invasion and
war, planned and executed by President George W. Bush, and
his American co-conspirators.
For more than three years now, similar to other researchers
and writers, I have been offering my personal views on our
Christian mailing list, as well as in my articles, regarding
why the decision was made to attack and invade Iraq. Some of
my views can be found in my four-part series "The Capture Of
Saddam Hussein And The New Babylon". Some of you are already
familiar with some, most or perhaps all of the theories that
have been put forth by myself, and others. For those of you
who aren't familiar with them, allow me to list some of the
more popular positions which have been discussed to varying
degrees:
1. George W. Bush wanted to remove Saddam Hussein's capacity
to further produce WMD, (Weapons of Mass Destruction), and
to destroy those which the Bush Administration alleged were
already in existence; thus, in Bush's words, preventing a
"nuclear mushroom" from ever occurring over America.
2. George W. Bush believed that Saddam Hussein had ties to,
and may have been secretly working with al-Qaeda terrorists;
thus, attacking Iraq was an extension of the so-called "war
against terrorism", which had begun in Afghanistan.
3. George W. Bush wanted to secure control of the Iraqi oil
fields which are vital to the American economy, and America's
supremacy as a superpower in the world.
4. George W. Bush wanted to avenge the threat that Saddam
Hussein had made against his father, George H. W. Bush, and
to finish the job that his father had begun during the Gulf
War of the early 1990's.
5. George W. Bush wanted to contain Saddam Hussein, as had
been done during the Gulf War, and prevent him from upsetting
the status quo which has existed in the Middle East.
6. George W. Bush wanted to establish an American military
presence in Iraq for a variety of reasons which would all be
advantageous to the United States; such as:
a. to exert pressure on Iran and keep it under control.
b. to exert more pressure on Russia and China.
c. to establish another listening post close to Russia.
d. to protect oil interests in the Gulf Cooperation Council
nations-states-sheikdoms.
e. to better protect Israel.
7. George W. Bush wanted to free the Iraqis from Saddam
Hussein's cruel grip, and to establish an Arab democracy
the Middle East, which would serve as an example to other
Arab nations, and hopefully, bring about positive social
changes in those nations as well.
With the exception of the WMD argument, which has now been
proven to be false in many people's minds, I think that most
of the aforementioned theories have merit to some degree or
another; but I don't think it would be wise to try to assign
a specific value to each of the arguments. As one wise man
once said, "A man convinced against his will, is of the same
opinion still". Perhaps what we need to ask ourselves, is if
these are truly all of the possible reasons why George Bush
and his staff made the decision to invade and attack Iraq. As
a result of our own preconceived ideas, is it possible that
we might be overlooking something? Speaking for myself, I can
now say, to my own dismay, that I did in fact miss something.
The reason why I overlooked it, is because I was not aware of
certain facts, which have now been brought to my attention.
Having said that, allow me to share with you exactly how I
arrived at this new understanding regarding the war in Iraq,
the Iranian threat, and related issues. I believe that you
will find it rather interesting.
For quite some time now, many months in fact, I've been busy,
quietly working on a much-expanded, updated version of my old
article "Nature Of The Alien". It is far from finished, but I
can tell you that it is turning into a very informative and
in-depth series, which you'll find to be a major improvement
over the original version written about ten years ago. One of
the topics which I discuss in the new and improved "Nature Of
The Alien" series, is the coming "New World Order", (or "One
World Government", if you prefer), and the possible events
which may spawn and herald its arrival. To many of you, this
topic is nothing new; and it is something which I amply talk
about in a number of my other articles.
One idea which I, and many other writers have considered, is
that the coming "New World Order" may be precipitated by an
international crisis. One kind of crisis which has a lot of
potential for creating the necessary conditions to usher in
a New World Order, is a worldwide financial meltdown. It is
a well-known fact, at least with those who study such topics,
that a number of national and international financial crashes
have been barely averted over the years, as a result of the
implementation of certain stop-gap measures. While some of
you may not be aware of it, the financial state of the world
today is like a house built upon stilts. One of these days,
a great flood is going to arrive, which that house simply
will not be able to withstand, no matter how many stilts, or
stop-gap measures, are used to try to prop it up.
Part of the problem, is that currently, and for a long time
now, the full weight of the international financial system
has been standing upon one stilt; and that stilt is already
weakening, and is in danger of collapsing, as many financial
experts already know. I am referring to the American dollar.
For over three decades now, as a result of crafty financial
manipulation by the U.S. Government, the countries of the
world have been pressured into purchasing their much-needed
oil reserves in U.S. dollars. This, of course, is extremely
advantageous to America, as it props up, or inflates, the
value of the American dollar, even though, in reality, the
dollar is just about worthless now as a currency.
As I have explained before, the American dollar is what is
referred to as "fiat money". It has no real value other than
the faith that people place in it, and in the word of their
government; because there aren't any actual silver or gold
reserves to back it up. It is only worth something because
the U.S. Government has declared it, or decreed it, (a fiat),
legal tender. Unlike decades ago, you cannot go down to your
local bank and demand a pile of gold for your stack of money.
They'll look at you oddly; believe me.
This development came about as a result of conditions which
existed following the 1930 Great Depression. With so much
money in circulation, the U.S. Government couldn't possibly
back it all with actual gold reserves; it was non-existent.
So, in 1932, U.S. President Roosevelt took the dollar off of
the gold standard, at least as far as the national economy
was concerned. However, the governments of foreign countries
could still have their dollars converted back into gold by
the US Government, if they so demanded it. This arrangement
was a result of the Bretton Woods Agreements, which were
agreed upon and signed by forty-four Allied nations at the
United Nations Monetary And Financial Conference, which was
held at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire in 1944. Known as the
Bretton Woods System, it helped to establish the dollar as
the currency reserve of the world, and gave it tremendous
purchasing power. What also occurred at that time, was the
creation of the World Bank, and the International Monetary
Fund, which just so happen to be U.S. controlled.
However, in less than thirty years, the American economy had
reached a critical stage, as the American Government was no
longer able to convert U.S. dollars back into actual gold
for the foreign nations that demanded it. In other words, it
defaulted on its payments, and was essentially bankrupt. As
a result, the Bretton Woods System collapsed. Maybe the US
economy itself would have collapsed as well, except for one
thing. In 1972-1973, during the Nixon Administration, the
U.S. Government took a decisive step which would ensure that
the U.S. dollar would remain the world's currency reserve;
even though foreign nations realized that they were being
forced to accept bogus "fiat money". Exactly what was that
step? America made an economically-shrewd deal with Saudi
Arabia, whereby Saudi Arabia would only accept American
dollars for its oil. In exchange, the U.S. Government would
support the al-Saud dynasty, which it has been doing ever
since.
As a side note, for those of you who may not be students of
history, it may interest you to know that Saudi Arabia hasn't
always been called Saudi Arabia. For literally thousands of
years, the peninsula was simply known as Arabia. It was only
in recent times, (1932), when the al-Saud family came into
power there, by joining the regions of Najd and Hejaz, that
it acquired the name of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. But the
point is, it has been this mutual deal between the United
States of America and the al-Saud family, which has directly
resulted in the U.S.A. maintaining its financial dominance
in the world, has kept wasteful America supplied with most
of the oil products that she requires, and has also kept the
al-Saud family in power for so many decades, in spite of its
corruption. In fact, it is because of the corruption within
the Royal Family, that Osama bin Laden gained a following.
There is a lot more to this intriguing story, such as the
ties which are said to exist between the oil-oriented Bush
family, the al-Saud clan, and the bin Laden construction
empire; but I'll leave it up to you to do some research of
your own. You may be rather surprised by some of the things
that you discover. You may even form some theories of your
own concerning why, after more than five years, the Bush
administration has still been unable to find or capture its
number one enemy, Osama bin Laden. Do they really want to?
Are you starting to get the full picture? Is it possible
that this US-Saudi deal, forged back in the early 70's, is
the primary reason why the United States of America has
never really pursued the Saudis since the tragic events of
September 11, 2001, even though fifteen of the nineteen
alleged hijackers were in possession of Saudi passports?
This burning question remains to be answered. Exactly who
was sending a message to who? It may not be what we think.
Perhaps the answer to these questions can be found by asking
another related question. For example, if the Americans went
after the Saudis, and the Saudis withdrew their support for
the American dollar, who would be the real losers, and who
would suffer the most if the world lost faith in the dollar
and no longer supported it? At any rate, once Saudi Arabia
accepted the American deal, other OPEC nations began to do
the same, thus strengthening the American dollar even more.
With each passing year, the world's need for oil has only
grown greater. At the same time, the price of oil has also
continued to increase to record levels. What is the result
of this? The need for more oil equates to the need to keep
more American dollars in reserve, in order to purchase it.
So it is all about supply and demand. Because there is such a
great demand for American dollars, because everyone must buy
their oil in dollars, the value of the dollar is artificially
inflated and sustained. Even though the U.S.A. is essentially
bankrupt, and also the greatest debtor nation on the face of
the Earth, the financial game continues, because everyone is
forced to buy their oil with dollars. But what if that were
to suddenly change, and the U.S. dollar lost its purchasing
power? That is precisely what has begun to happen. Although
it had a shaky start, the Euro has been gradually gaining
in power and financial strength; and it now offers a viable
alternative to the U.S. dollar; and you can bet that this
development has officials in the USA worried. What is also
worrisome to American financiers, is that some OPEC nations
have begun to accept Euros for oil purchases.
As you may already know, several years ago, al-Qaeda, and
its Arab/Muslim supporters adopted the strategy to destroy
the United States by bringing about its financial collapse.
Blowing up people and buildings is not going to make this
happen, no matter how valuable they may be. Such terrorist
activities, regardless of who is really behind them, will
cause hiccups in the financial system, and they may reduce
national morale, (or do the exact opposite), but bombing
buildings will not result in the collapse of the American
financial empire. However, if these Muslim/Arab conspirators
can reduce the worldwide need, as well as the demand, for US
dollars, with time, that most certainly could have a drastic
effect on the American economy.
To this end, in 2005, Iran began an initiative which, if
successful, would ultimately convert the global economy from
its current dollar base, to a Euro base. Referred to as the
IOB, or Iranian Oil Bourse, it's essentially an oil exchange,
or oil stock market, which will be based upon the Euro, and
not on the American dollar. The proposed location for this
exchange is the island of Kish, located in the Persian Gulf.
The Iranian Oil Bourse had been projected to open sometime
in 2006, but certain bureaucratic issues within the Iranian
Government have caused it to be delayed. However, these
delays don't mean that it isn't going to happen. In fact, a
news article posted on the Bloomberg website in December of
2006 makes it very plain that Iran has full intentions of
going ahead with the bourse, and plans to cut the American
dollar out of the picture. That article states in part:
----- Begin Quotes -----
"Iran, the world's fourth-largest oil exporter, plans to
reduce its use of the U.S. dollar in world trade and
increase use of the euro, two Tehran-based newspapers
reported."
"The Tehran Times said today Iran has started substituting
euros for dollars in oil sales, citing an unidentified
person at the Oil Ministry. Iran Daily reported Iran wants
to cut its dollar-based transactions to a minimum, citing
Minister of Economy Davoud Danesh-Ja'fari."
". . . The dollar touched a 20-month low against the euro
this week, and central banks in the Middle East including
the United Arab Emirates have plans to convert some of their
dollar reserves into euros."
"Exporting nations 'are only holding so many dollars because
of all the trade in the currency, but if the trend begins to
move out of it, then it's going to be a positive for the
euro and add to the negative sentiment on the dollar,' said
David Mann, a foreign-exchange strategist at Standard
Chartered Bank Plc in Hong Kong."
"Iran has repeatedly said it would limit dollar-based
transactions following the U.S. decision in September to
block one of Iran's biggest state-owned lenders from doing
business with the U.S."
----- End Quotes -----
Please notice, that as of last month, (December, 2006), the
U.S. dollar had already reached a twenty-month low against
the Euro. What is going to happen once the Iranian Oil Bourse
is moving at full speed ahead, and more countries begin to
exchange their dollars for Euros, in order to purchase their
oil from OPEC nations who join the Iranian Oil Bourse?
My friends, if Iran succeeds at this, and other oil-producing
Arab/Muslim nations follow suit, and the Euro becomes the new
currency reserve of the world, because oil-consuming nations
will be forced to purchase their oil reserves in Euros, this
development is going to be considerably more explosive, and
much more damaging in a political and economic sense, to the
United States of America, than the airliners that flew into
the World Trade Center over five years ago. Please understand
that I'm by no means attempting to belittle the tragic events
that befell America that day in September; I am simply trying
to help you to understand that the success of the Iranian Oil
Bourse could have profound effects on the life of every single
American citizen, and could even be the catalyst that reduces
the United States of America to a minor power in the world.
It probably won't happen overnight, but it could happen. Once
a financial slide begins to occur, it is difficult to stop.
It is just like a row of dominoes, with each country that
rejects the U.S. dollar, being represented by one of those
dominoes.
I don't think I need to go into detail regarding what would
happen within the United States itself if the dollar were to
suddenly lose its purchasing power. I'm sure you can imagine
how such a development would affect the American financial
system, how it would affect the job market, or how it would
affect the average American's ability to place food on their
table, pay their rent and utilities, or take care of other
financial responsibilities. Law and order could quickly be
replaced by chaos and anarchy. Remember the L.A. riots? Many
Americans are used to a life of ease and comfort; at least
when compared to the rest of the people in the world. Even
some of America's poor people are considered middle class in
some other countries. But the point is, when Americans lose
their comfort items, they have a propensity for becoming
rather irritable; and sometimes irrational and violent. Of
course, if this were to happen, it would give the American
Government justification to declare martial law and call out
the troops. I'll leave the rest to your imagination.
But this is not all. If a Euro-based economy were to evolve
from the Iranian initiative, resulting in the collapse of
the American Empire, what would it mean for the rest of the
world, particularly Europe? To me, the answer seems obvious.
The European Union might indeed become a SuperState, and the
next world superpower, as a result of the impetus it would
receive from the sudden strengthening of the Euro. In short,
it would become the new master of the house, with Arab help.
For a number of years now, certain Bible scholars have been
promoting the belief that the European SuperState will be the
"womb" from which the Endtime Beast and Ten Horns will arise,
as prophesied in the Bible. While I personally do not fully
embrace this view, at least not yet, the arrival of such a
SuperState would certainly give their view more credibility.
As you may already know, particularly if you've participated
on our Christian mailing list in recent years, for some time
now, I've been pointing out the friction that exists between
the United States and the European Union. Contrary to what
some people may think, the situation is not exactly cordial
and rosy. America and Europe have had a considerable number
of spats in recent years. Some of these disagreements have
been financially oriented. These are the most dangerous kind,
since wars are quite often started over trade disagreements.
Other Euro-American disputes have been a result of the pushy,
belligerent, adamant attitude which has been adopted by the
Bush Administration. A case in point is the Kyoto Protocol.
It is common knowledge that the failure of this initiative
to fully materialize in a timely manner, was in large part a
result of the fact that the U.S. Congress has never ratified
it. Ironically, the United States happens to be the largest
polluter in the entire world, as well as the most wasteful
nation.
But returning to our central issue, as I was conducting some
online research for the "Nature Of The Alien" series, I came
across a very enlightening article that provided a new piece
of the puzzle for me. In fact, it also helped me to connect
together certain events which we have all witnessed over the
past six years. Authored by one Professor Krassimir Petrov
in January 2006, the article is called "The Proposed Iranian
Oil Bourse". According to online sources, Professor Petrov is
an Austrian-born Macro Economist/Investment Strategist. He
received his Ph. D. in Economics from Ohio State University
in the U.S.A., and now resides in Bulgaria, where he teaches
Macroeconomics, International Finance, and Econometrics at
the American University.
Before I share with you the piece of information which helped
me to better understand what is happening in the Middle East,
and why it is happening, allow me to backtrack just a bit and
impart some other information, which is directly related to
our discussion; and which in fact will help to confirm what I
am about to tell you. As my regular readers know, for quite
a few months now, even before it became such a large issue
with so many writers, I have been telling my small audience
that the U.S.A. was laying plans, in a psychological sense,
as well as in a military sense, for a potential war against
Iran. I have stated a number of times before that a country
cannot legitimately go to war, until it has psychologically
prepared its citizens for that war, and won their support.
The minute that Bush began demonizing Iran in his State Of
the Union Address in January of 2002, with his talk of the
so-called "Axis of Evil", comprised, according to Bush, of
Iraq, Iran and North Korea, I began to suspect where he was
headed. You didn't have to be a rocket scientist to see the
proverbial writing on the wall. Month after month, as Bush
and his war gang continued to psychologically manipulate the
American public, and began to employ their ever-so-faithful
wild card, (the WMD issue), I became even more convinced of
what Bush was up to.
In fact, as some of you may recall, I sat here dismayed, and
couldn't believe that Bush had the audacity to play the very
same card again, in order to pull the wool over the eyes of
the American people once more. But, it really shouldn't come
as a surprise to any of us. As I explain in my "Capture Of
Saddam Hussein" series, that tactic certainly worked in the
case of the war in Iraq. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell and
company repeatedly hit the American citizenry so hard with
their fear and paranoia tactics, (such as with the infamous
"mushroom cloud" over America speech), that eventually, a
substantial portion of American citizens were seeing things
Bush's way, and lent their support for his illegal war in
Iraq. With Powell as a spokesman, the Bush Administration
tried to sell the same WMD ticket to the United Nations, but
they saw through the smoke, and were very reluctant to hop
onto the "Let's-Get-Saddam-Hussein" bandwagon.
Sadly, as history will record, in the end, the United Nations
proved what a powerless, gutless, ineffective body it really
is, and turned a blind eye, as the bully U.S.A., along with
ever-so-faithful Great Britain, led by Tony Blair, magically
created their "coalition of the willing", and then attacked
Iraq. As I told our readers in April of 2003, even though the
United States was unable to muster up enough support in the
U.N. to get the required nine Security Council votes that was
needed in order to get the second resolution on Iraq passed,
and even though U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan begged the
U.S. to give the U.N. inspectors more time, they still chose
to attack Iraq, based upon mere speculations, and unproven
allegations.
For its part, the United Nations went through the motions of
pretending to have done all that it could to stop the United
States from attacking Iraq, and then it stood helplessly by,
wringing its hands, as the invasion and war began. The U.S.
knew that the second resolution was doomed; and that is why
in a March 4, 2003 CNN news report, Ari Fleischer, who was
at that time the White House's Press Secretary, shared the
following comments, in which he let it be known, that the
U.N. resolution was now a moot point, and that the U.S.A.
was going to do what it wanted to do, regardless of what
anyone else thought about it:
----- Begin Quote -----
"The president has said he believes that a vote is
desirable. It is not mandatory . . . The president has made
clear the outcome, whether the United Nations votes or does
not vote, [is] that we will disarm Saddam Hussein with a
coalition of the willing."
----- End Quote -----
So to reiterate my point, the truth of the matter is that the
United States knew beforehand that it hadn't garnered enough
support to secure the vote. Russia's Foreign Minister, Igor
Ivanov, had already informed the mass media that Moscow would
oppose the new resolution, and that it would use its veto
power as a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, if
it became necessary. In the aforementioned CNN news article,
Ivanov states:
----- Begin Quote -----
"Russia has this right, and if the situation so demands,
Russia will of course use its right of veto -- as an extreme
measure -- to avoid the worst development of the situation,"
----- End Quote -----
So as you can see, in reality, the Bush Administration has no
respect whatsoever for the opinion of the United Nations. It
has displayed this same arrogant attitude many times; while
at the same time, it ceaselessly promotes the importance of
respecting the rule of law. However, when those laws are in
conflict with what the United States wants to do, it chooses
to ignore them, proving that it hypocritically lives by a
double standard.
The rest, as they say, is history; a very tragic history, as
we continue to witness the ugly events transpiring in Iraq
to this very day. Well, we know how a lot of Americans must
feel now, over three years later, with over three thousand
American soldiers dead, and no certain victory in sight in
Iraq. They let their voices be heard in the recent November
2006 elections; not that it will have much bearing on what
George W. Bush will do during his final two years in office.
Rather than disengage from Iraq, as so many Americans have
desired, it appears that Mr. Bush has stomped on their vote,
worked his "magic" once more, bullied his way through, and
convinced the necessary people that close to 20,000, if not
more, additional American troops need to be deployed to that
war-torn nation. Short of impeachment, it seems that George
Bush has become immune to the will of the American people.
But the main point I which to emphasize here, is that Bush is
doing it again; but this time with Iran. For months now, we
have watched as the verbal battle has heated up to a fevered
pitch. Over and over, American citizens have been told what a
dangerous threat Iran will become, if it is permitted to join
the nuclear club. Conservative Christians have particularly
been the target of Bush's strategy, and are reminded of the
serious dangers that Israel would face from a nuclear-armed
Iran. Doesn't that sales pitch sound familiar? Wasn't Saddam
Hussein painted in the very same light? And how did that WMD
fairy-tale turn out? While it is indeed true that Iran hasn't
been exactly transparent in its dealings with the U.N. and
the International Atomic Energy Agency, the fact is, that to
this day, no one has been able to conclusively prove that
Iran is determined to manufacture nuclear weapons.
I honestly don't know what Iran's intentions are. Publicly,
Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahamdinejad, has denied that his
country has any nuclear ambitions whatsoever. He has also
made it clear that, based upon the tenets of the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty, his nation has every right in the
world to enrich uranium, in order to meet its electricity
needs. At the same time, I do know that it is both immoral
and unethical, and in contradiction of international norms
of behavior, to base a war on mere speculations alone, as
occurred when the U.S.A. attacked Iraq. Will Americans allow
it to happen again with Iran?
So ask yourself: Why was the U.S.A. so bent on going to war
against Iraq, even when international opinion condemned just
such an act? And why is the the United States so determined
now to give us a repeat performance, but this time with Iran?
What's really going on? What are the true motivations behind
America's behavior? Now, some of you reading this may say to
yourselves, "Wait a minute! What is all of this talk about
the U.S.A. attacking Iran? President Bush has no such plans!
In fact, sanctions were just leveled against Iran by the UN."
Excuse me, but are you certain that Bush has no such plans?
If you honestly believe that, then I wonder if you've really
been paying attention to the news, and using your critical
thought processes to their maximum potential. Do you really
not see the parallels between how the Bush Administration
demonized Saddam Hussein, used the WMD wild card, and then
attacked Iraq, and how the same exact tactics are being used
against Iran right now? It is the same familiar pattern all
over again: discredit, demonize, feign patient diplomacy,
and then attack! Here it is again:
Discredit - Demonize - Feign Patient Diplomacy - Attack
Yes, sanctions were just recently implemented against Iran;
but wasn't that same action taken against Iraq for many years
as well? Didn't the Americans and the British set up no-fly
zones over Iraq? In the end, the Iraqi people were hurt more
by the sanctions than Saddam Hussein and the Baathists were.
I was just looking at an Associated Press news article that I
shared with the members of our mailing list in July of 2000.
This article clearly states that it was the U.N. sanctions,
which were imposed following Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, and
the Gulf War, which crippled the economy of Iraq, and drove
literally millions of Iraqis into poverty. We can argue that
it was Saddam's fault that the sanctions were imposed in the
first place, but the truth is, that the United Nations, under
American pressure, implemented the sanctions, which resulted
in millions of Iraqis suffering:
----- Begin Quote -----
"Saddam made no mention of the U.N. trade sanctions which
have crippled the economy and driven millions of Iraqis into
poverty. The sanctions were imposed after Iraq's 1990
invasion of Kuwait, which led to the Gulf War."
----- End Quote -----
In spite of the sanctions, and the no-fly zones, is it not
true that the USA still ended up attacking Iraq anyway, and
against world opinion at that? So what makes you so certain
that the current sanctions against Iran are going to deter
the Bush Administration from attacking Iran, if and when it
feels that the time is right?
You see, despite outward appearances, I suspect that Iran's
adamant refusal to discontinue processing its uranium, may be
exactly what the United States wants, and may even be working
to the US's favor. Why? Because then, just as with Iraq, the
United States can go to the U.N., and say "See! The sanctions
aren't working; something more drastic needs to be done in
order to stop the uranium enrichment being done by Iran."
Let me remind you again that the Bush Administration has
repeatedly said, insofar as Iran is concerned, all options
are still on the table; and that obviously includes military
options. Of course, it doesn't necessarily mean that the US
will be the one to crack the whip. As you may have heard on
the news, or read somewhere on the Internet, there has been
some talk that Israel may decide to strike first, in order to
knock out Iran's uranium enrichment capabilities; just as she
took similar action against Iraq, when Israeli Prime Minister
Menachem Begin ordered the attack against the Osirak nuclear
power plant in 1981. These rumors could turn out to be true,
or they may just be a diversionary tactic. Based on what I
know now, I suspect that the United States is looking for a
more permanent solution to their problem; just as they did
with Iraq. Destroying Natanz, for example, won't eliminate
the real problem.
You see, what you need to understand is that the uranium
enrichment issue is not the real problem; at least I don't
think it is. Were WMD the real problem in Iraq, or was that
just the red herring; that is, the excuse that America used
to attack Iraq? I think most of you already know the answer
to that question, or at least you should. So that brings us
back around to our main questions again: If WMD wasn't the
real problem that the USA was having with Iraq, then what
was? And if uranium enrichment, which the USA alleges, will
ultimately result in Iran manufacturing nuclear weapons, is
not the real problem now, then what is?
What if I were to tell you that the problem, or perhaps I
should really be saying the threat, that the United States
perceived from Iraq, and now perceives from Iran, are one
and the same? What kind of threat could possibly convince
the American Government, in spite of world opinion being
totally against it, that it must go to war? There is only
one logical answer here: the threat of losing its place of
dominance in the world. Remember what I told you earlier.
America's secret weapon is the billions of US dollars that
it has foisted upon the world over the last three decades,
as a result of the convenient agreement that it made with
Saudi Arabia, and other OPEC nations. As long as the world
has been forced to pay for their oil in US dollars, America
has remained in charge, and she has pushed her weight around
at every given opportunity. The last six years of the Bush
Administration are clear proof of this, but it didn't start
with Bush by any means. He is just one of the more blatant
U.S. presidents to tell the rest of the world what to do.
Let me give you a clear example of this. I was just looking
through some old email that was sent out on our mailing list
in the early part of the year 2000. I came across one email
entitled "US Dollar Official Currency In Ecuador", where I
included a news article regarding how Congress had passed a
law which would make the U.S. dollar the official currency
of Ecuador. What?! Isn't Ecuador a sovereign South American
nation? You bet it is; or at least it was. As a result of
internal financial problems, Ecuador's local currency, the
sucre, was seriously devalued, and the Ecuadorean economy
became the most unstable economy in all of Latin America. In
an attempt to stabilize the economy, the nation's president
decided to "dollarize" the nation. Part of the article says:
----- Begin Quote -----
In a desperate attempt to stabilize South America's most
rickety economy, Congress passed a law in early March to
phase out the sucre, which lost two-thirds of its value last
year amid a severe recession. The sucre now trades at 25,000
to the dollar, and its rapid devaluation fueled annual
inflation rates of 80 percent -- the highest rate in Latin
America.
Under the government plan, the dollar will be the main
domestic currency, replacing the sucre, which will only
remain in circulation for small purchases. As of April 1,
Ecuadoreans have found that bank cash machines dispense only
greenbacks and not the multicolored sucres -- often filthy
and torn.
----- End Quote -----
Without going into a lot of detail, the article explains that
some of the reasons why Ecuador fell into financial disarray,
is because of low prices on its primary export, (oil), natural
disasters which wrecked the nation's infrastructure, as well
as its crops, and its inability to pay its external debts. In
other words, as with so many poor nations, it became caught in
the trap of owing too much money to the International Monetary
Fund, which it couldn't pay back. Let me also remind you that
the price of oil is artificially manipulated. In short, the
powers-that-be purposely created the problem by wrecking the
economy of Ecuador, and then they offered their own solution,
and put Ecuador squarely in America's grip. The article also
states that many Ecuadoreans were confused, and not happy at
all with the sudden switch to a U.S. dollar economy; but what
can they do? Absolutely nothing. Ecuador is now another slave
of the American Empire, plain and simple.
But let's get back to our discussion regarding Iraq and Iran.
So how did Iraq threaten American dominance? What did Saddam
Hussein do that caused King George (Bush) to say "Off with
Saddam's head!"? He did the exact same thing that Iran is
doing now. What is Iran doing that is so threatening to the
United States? Actually, I have already given you the answer;
or at least what I now believe may be the real answer. It is
the Iranian Oil Bourse. It's quite possible that I read about
this years ago, and just forgot about it; but according to
Professor Petrov, and other sources, in late 2000, Saddam
Hussein decided, or perhaps "insisted" is a more appropriate
word, that he would only accept Euros for Iraqi oil, just as
Iran is doing now. In his commentary, Professor Petrov
states in part:
----- Begin Quote -----
"The man that actually did demand Euro for his oil was
Saddam Hussein in 2000. At first, his demand was met with
ridicule, later with neglect, but as it became clearer that
he meant business, political pressure was exerted to change
his mind. When other countries, like Iran, wanted payment in
other currencies, most notably Euro and Yen, the danger to
the dollar was clear and present, and a punitive action was
in order."
"Bush's Shock-and-Awe in Iraq was not about Saddam's nuclear
capabilities, about defending human rights, about spreading
democracy, or even about seizing oil fields; it was about
defending the dollar, ergo the American Empire. It was about
setting an example that anyone who demanded payment in
currencies other than U.S. Dollars would be likewise
punished."
----- End Quote -----
As Petrov states, if Saddam would have gotten away with it,
other OPEC countries may have very well followed suit. In
fact, as you can see, Iran was very quick to hop on the Euro
bandwagon, because it wanted to hurt the United States, the
"Great Satan", just as bad as Saddam did. As we have already
seen, the United States of America simply couldn't allow it
to happen; just as it cannot allow it to happen now with
Iran; because the success of the Iranian Oil Bourse would
eventually result in the destruction of the U.S. economy,
and as a by-product, terminate America's dominance in the
world.
So that, my friends, is what I now believe, and what others
also believe, is the real problem; as it is perceived from
America's perspective. It has absolutely nothing to do with
real WMD in either Iraq or Iran. In both instances, WMD has
only been the red herring that the Bush Administration has
used to try to deceive the American people, and fool the
rest of the world. The real problem, the real threat to the
American Empire, as Professor Petrov referred to it, is the
simple fact that both Iraq and Iran chose to convert their
economies to the Euro. They decided to accept Euros, instead
of U.S. dollars, for their oil exports, and that is a direct
threat to the U.S. dollar's current standing as the world's
currency reserve. In a February 21, 2003 commentary entitled
"Why Black Americans Should Oppose Bush's War -- Of Oil, The
Euro And Africa", Dr. Sonja Ebron, CEO of "blackEnergy" says
it very well when she tells us that the real WMD in Iraq and
Iran, is Euros. She writes:
----- Begin Quote -----
"Enter the real "weapon of mass destruction," the euro.
Eleven European countries formed a monetary union around
this currency on January 1, 1999; Britain and Norway, the
major European oil producers, were conspicuously absent. Due
to the strength of European economies, the euro now presents
a serious challenge to the dollar in its role as key reserve
currency."
"Given the highly leveraged and fragile state of our economy,
an OPEC switch from the dollar to the euro would bring a
quick and devastating dollar and Wall Street crash that would
make 1929 look like a $50 casino bet."
----- End Quote -----
So what did the United States do to try to stop Saddam from
carrying out his plan? News articles from that time period
make it very clear what America did. As we saw a moment ago,
the Iraqi economy had already been crippled by almost ten
years of U.N. sanctions, and millions of people were out of
work. In addition to this, the country had been sliced up by
the Americans and the British into three sections, with a
no-fly zone in the northern sector, and another no-fly zone
in the south. In spite of these tactics, Saddam was still in
power. During the same year that Saddam began making demands
for Euros in exchange for Iraqi oil, (2000), the American
Government, under President William Jefferson Clinton, made
it very clear what its intentions were regarding the Iraqi
leader. One way or another, they were determined to get him
out of office. An Associated Press news article, which I
also shared with our mailing list members on August 4, 2000,
confirms that the so-called "regime change" plans did not
begin with George W. Bush; they began with Bill Clinton:
----- Begin Quote -----
"WASHINGTON (AP) - The 10th anniversary of Iraq's invasion
of Kuwait passed with the Clinton administration admitting
that many U.S. goals remain unfulfilled, including the ouster
of President Saddam Hussein . . . Welch conceded that the
February 1991 liberation of Kuwait by a U.S.-led coalition
was not the final chapter of the Iraq saga. Saddam has not
given up his weapons of mass destruction and continues
abusive practices, officials said."
----- End Quote -----
Please also notice from the previous news excerpt, that the
WMD deception did not begin with George W. Bush. President
Bill Clinton was pushing the very same lie, as a strategy to
demonize Saddam Hussein. How could Saddam give up something
which he did not possess, as U.N. inspections had clearly
shown? George W. Bush just continued the WMD deception, in
order to justify the coming war before the eyes of a naive
American public. Both U.S. presidents knew that Saddam did
not possess WMD, because Mohamed ElBaradei, Hans Blix, Scott
Ritter, and other members of the International Atomic Energy
Agency had repeatedly told them so. In another news article
that I shared with our list readers on August 4, 2000, Scott
Ritter stated that Iraq did not pose a threat to any of its
neighbors. In late January 2003, Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, who
is the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency,
addressed the U.N. Security Council, after having conducted
a two-month investigation in Iraq. According to a CNN News
report, while elBaradei didn't give Iraq a perfect score, he
did conclude his lengthy report with the following remarks:
----- Begin Quote -----
"Mr. President, members of the council, for the past 60 days
the inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency
have been engaged in the process of verifying the existence
or absence of a nuclear weapon program in Iraq . . . we have
to date found no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear
weapon program since the elimination of the program in the
1990s."
----- End Quote -----
In spite of these, and other attempts, to convince the U.S.,
and other members of the United Nations, that Iraq did not
possess WMD, from 2000, until the Spring of 2003 when the
U.S. invasion of Iraq actually occurred, the United States
Government, as well as the British Government, engaged in
a concerted effort to convince their constituents of the
exact opposite. As I've already stated, the public of both
nations were repeatedly bombarded with sly insinuations,
baseless allegations, and carefully crafted disinformation,
in order to heighten the levels of fear and paranoia, so
that in the end, they would support their governments, and
agree to the illegal invasion and destruction of Iraq. It
obviously worked.
Dr. Sonja Ebron, who we discussed earlier, likewise mentions
America's strategy in her 2003 commentary. Please note that
her article was written several months prior to the actual
invasion of Iraq. Not pulling any punches, she explains that
once the U.S.A. realized how serious Saddam Hussein was
regarding switching to the Euro, and realizing how adversely
it would affect the American economy if other oil-producing
nations were to follow his example, they crafted a strategy
to destroy OPEC. She writes:
----- Begin Quote -----
"The U.S. strategy to destroy OPEC is twofold: pressure
non-OPEC producers to flood the oil market and retain
denomination in dollars in an effort to weaken OPEC's market
control, and change the leadership of any country switching
oil denomination from the dollar to the euro (hence, the
"axis of evil")."
"[The U.S. strategy to destroy OPEC] . . . requires that the
U.S. military assert our interests in oil and gas deposits
worldwide. U.S. interests in the Caspian Sea have been
secured through regime change in Afghanistan and a deal for
a new pipeline through that country."
"U.S. interests in southwest Asia are being secured through
the planned invasion of Iraq, then Iran (both OPEC members)
if it switches oil denomination."
----- End Quote -----
So in essence, according to the American strategy, as viewed
by Dr. Ebron and Professor Petrov, any world leader who would
attempt to switch their country's economy from a dollar-based
economy to a Euro-based economy, would automatically become a
target of American aggression, and would also be eligible for
elimination, if they didn't back down from their decision. In
other words, this was Clinton and Bush's "regime change" plan
in action.
As crazy as that may seem to some people, I am convinced that
it's exactly what the United States decided to do; and she's
proven it by her very own actions. Please also note that in
her previous comments, Dr. Ebron states in parentheses "hence,
the "axis of evil". As you will recall, earlier we discussed
how President George W. Bush assigned that description to the
nations of Iraq, Iran and North Korea. According to the Bush
propaganda, this is supposedly because all three countries
have been illegally striving to create nuclear weapons.
As I stated at the very beginning of this article, when it
comes to the American Government, things are not always what
they seem; and this is clearly a case of that. For years
now, the American Government has been feeding us a distorted
picture regarding this entire issue. Millions of American
citizens are currently convinced that the reason why George
W. Bush has gone after Iraq, Iran and North Korea, that is,
their "Axis of Evil", is because of WMD. It's bogus. It's a
lie. It's an utter deception being used to hide the truth
from all of us.
We have already seen why the U.S.A. has demonized Iraq, Iran
and Afghanistan, but how in the world does Kim Jong Il's
North Korea fit into the picture? It is not Islamic or Arab;
and it is most certainly not an oil exporter; so why has the
leader of North Korea been targeted? Personally, I would have
never figured it out, but Dr. Ebron's article has established
a clear link; and it fits perfectly into everything that we
have been discussing. In her same commentary she writes:
----- Begin Quote -----
"Iraq's move to the euro -- and Iran's expected move -- are
placing tremendous pressure on OPEC countries and other oil
producers to drop our dollar as the main transaction
currency for oil."
"Jordan began using euros to buy oil as soon as its major
supplier, Iraq, began using them to sell, and North Korea
switched to the euro late last year to protest the U.S.'
halt in fuel aid."
----- End Quote -----
You see; exactly what America feared, began to happen as soon
as Saddam Hussein made the decision to accept Euros for his
oil, instead of U.S. dollars, and that is why they held him
accountable, and decided that it was time for him to go. It
had nothing to do with any alleged WMD in his country. Iran
then followed suit and also decided that it would switch to
a Euro-based economy. Jordan likewise made the same decision.
But lo and behold! Look who else decided to start purchasing
their oil with Euros instead of dollars in 2002: Kim Jong Il
of North Korea. He knew exactly how to hit the USA where it
hurts; and that is why he has been blacklisted as part of the
US's so-called Axis of Evil. Under U.S. pressure, North Korea
was deprived of its fuel aid, and so Kim Jong Il fought back
in December of 2002 by dumping the U.S. dollar from the North
Korean economy. A BBC news report dated Dec. 1, 2002, with a
heading of "North Korea Embraces The Euro", states in part:
----- Begin Quote -----
Communist North Korea has said it will stop using American
dollars from Sunday and start using euros instead.
The decision was made soon after a US-led international
consortium announced that it was halting fuel aid to the
state because of its covert nuclear weapons programme.
No official reason was given for the move but many analysts
believe the dollar ban is a direct political response to
Washington's decision last month to halt fuel aid to the
North because of its nuclear programme."
----- End Quote -----
Of course, that is not the only reason why the United States
is so upset with Kim Jong Il. It seems that for some time
now, ever-resourceful Kim has been flooding the world money
market with counterfeit $100 bills. In a Dec. 2006 article
with the heading "The Plan To Destroy America - Via The
Dollar", well-known author Hal Lindsey had this to say:
----- Begin Quote -----
"For years, North Korea's Kim Jong-il has been flooding the
global economy with so-called "supernotes" – counterfeit
U.S. $100 bills so good even Secret Service agents can't
tell the difference without conducting sophisticated tests."
"The strategy is to flood the market with counterfeit
dollars to deflate its value. Then to convert U.S. holdings
to euros, thus pushing the dollar into a deflationary
freefall."
----- End Quote -----
All of this makes perfect sense to me. It fits like a hand
in a glove. All three nations, Iraq, Iran and North Korea
became victims of America's WMD lies and accusations, and
all three nations chose to drop the dollar, and move to a
Euro-based economy. Do you think that this is just merely a
coincidence? I most certainly don't.
In that same article, Lindsey also mentions how China, Iran
and Venezuela have each taken great strides to convert their
economies to a Euro-based framework, thus hoping to speed up
the destruction of the U.S. dollar:
----- Begin Quote -----
"In January 2006, China announced an intention to reduce 75
percent of its foreign exchange reserves currently held in
U.S. dollars."
"Since China is the world's second-largest holder of U.S.
dollar-denominated foreign-exchange reserves, it has the
power to create a catastrophe. At the same time, Venezuela
and Iran are now demanding that all payments for oil
shipments be paid for in euros – not dollars.
"In addition, both nations are planning regional central
banking schemes designed to hold all foreign exchange
holdings of participating countries in euros instead of
dollars. This explains why enemy operators, spearheaded by
members of the Saudi royal family, have flooded hundreds of
millions of dollars into Venezuelan held bearer-bonds that
are used to buy as many banks as possible throughout the
Caribbean and South American areas.
"All these factors cannot be coincidence. They reveal a
concerted, well-coordinated strategy to destroy America
through economics."
----- End Quote -----
Well the plot continues to thicken. Those of you who read the
news a lot are probably aware of the fact that in May of last
year, (2006), after almost three decades of hostilities, the
United States restored full diplomatic ties with the North
African nation of Libya. If you are not yet convinced of the
arguments I have presented in this article, perhaps this bit
of news will push you a little further in my direction. How
do you suppose the Bush Administration decided to explain
this surprise reversal to the American public? Believe it or
not, the U.S. Government's propaganda organ, the mass media,
splashed the news that this "wonderful event" had come about
as a result of Libya's iron-fisted Islamic dictator, Colonel
Muammar el-Qaddafi, who has been in power since 1969, coming
to his senses, by renouncing terrorism, and coming over to
the "good side".
As you may recall, over the past two decades, Libya has been
implicated in a number of terrorist-related activities. In
1986, it was the Berlin discotheque bombing in which two U.S.
servicemen died. In 1988, it was the Pan Am Flight 103 attack
over Lockerbie, Scotland, in which 270 people perished, 189
of whom were Americans. In 1989, it was a French airliner,
UTA Flight 772, in which 171 individuals died in Niger. When
Libya refused to acknowledge its crimes, the U.N. Security
Council imposed sanctions in 1992, and then again in 1993. In
2003, after ten years of sanctions, Libya supposedly had a
change of heart, acknowledged its crimes, and agreed to pay
almost three billion dollars in compensation. It also said
that it was renouncing terrorism.
As I told my mailing list readers last May, I don't believe
the media's story for a minute. There may be some elements
of truth to the story, but I think the American decision to
restore ties with Libya has very little to do with Libya's
so-called "good behavior". Qaddafi is a dictator for life,
just like his neighbor, Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, who receives
billions of dollars in U.S. aid every year. Qaddafi has been
associated with terrorism, which has resulted in hundreds of
people losing their lives. Finally, his human rights record
is absolutely atrocious. In 2004, the U.S. Department of
State listed Libya's human rights record as "poor". In 2005,
in its annual report, the Freedom House organization rated
political rights in Libya as "7", civil liberties as "7",
and gave Libya the freedom rating of "Not Free". Their scale
is based upon "1" meaning the most free, and "7" being the
least free.
All Middle Eastern dictators, whether it is Saddam Hussein,
Hosni Mubarak, Muammar el-Qaddafi, Bashar al-Assad, al-Saud
dynasty, King Abdullah, or anyone else, treat their citizens
the same. If one overly criticizes the government, they may
just disappear for life. In spite of this fact, the American
Government openly supports some of these leaders, and pays
them millions or billions of dollars a year in financial
aid to keep their regimes afloat; and then it turns around
and proclaims to the world that it is a defender of human
rights, and points the finger at other nations.
This concocted impression of America is an absolute lie. As
I've stated many times before, America doesn't really care
how a foreign leader runs his country, just as long as that
leader is pro-American, and is smart enough to do America's
bidding. When you don't, you end up like Saddam Hussein at
the end of a rope. Earlier I spoke about how over the years,
certain stop-gap measures have had to be implemented, in
order to keep the U.S. economy from crashing. While I was
speaking in economic terms, it is safe to say that in the
case of Saddam Hussein, the stop-gap measure they resorted
to was a permanent solution. He will never be able to defy
the U.S. again. Maybe the Shi'ite executioners pulled the
lever, but they did it with the U.S.'s tacit consent, and
everyone knows it. As Professor Petrov remarked, what the
U.S. has done in Iraq is a warning to other would-be rebels.
What really upsets me, is the politically-correct hypocrisy
that we are now seeing in the world press. I am by no means
a Saddam Hussein fan; but he sat in solitary confinement for
three years, and the world hardly peeped a word. Now that he
is dead, suddenly, all of these world leaders are lamenting
that he was executed under such questionable conditions, and
with such haste. I suspect that many of them are only doing
this, because they know that it is what is expected of them
by the public. They are just playing their roles.
But let us return to the situation with Libya for a moment.
If the United States restored relations with Libya so quickly
following Qaddafi's 2003 turnaround, it is because Libya has
something that America wants; and I think you already know
what that is. I have no doubt that this diplomatic move was
all about resurrecting the warm relationship that Libya and
the U.S. had decades ago, prior to the 1969 Revolution when
Qaddafi came to power. Before that time, Libya was very pro-
West, and both the U.S. and the British had bases there. So
this was a purely strategic move to re-establish an old oil
supplier at a time when America needs it the most. What I
find a bit funny, is that the U.S. Government knew exactly
how the rest of the world would react to this announcement;
and so right away, it started to deny what was so obvious.
In a May 2006 New York Times article, which in glowing terms
explains how cooperative Colonel Qaddafi has suddenly become,
we find the following interesting quote from David Welch,
who is the U.S.'s Assistant Secretary of State for the Middle
East:
----- Begin Quote -----
"Libya is a major oil-producing state and a member of OPEC,
but David Welch, assistant secretary of state for the Middle
East, insisted: 'This decision is not undertaken because
Libya has oil. This decision is undertaken because they've
addressed our national security concerns.'"
----- End Quote -----
Folks, as far as I am concerned, that is nonsense. The man
is blowing smoke in our faces. According to 2003 figures,
Libya is the eleventh largest oil exporter in the world. As
of September 2006, she was producing 1.7 million barrels of
oil a day, which is some 300,000 barrels below Iraq's level.
That is precisely why she has been let back into America's
fold; and you can bet that Qaddafi is going to sell his oil
in American dollars, and not in Euros. In fact, this may be
why in the very same news article, it states that "Iran has
ridiculed Libya for its reconciliation with the West". Iran
wants all OPEC members to sell their oil in Euros, and not
in U.S. dollars. Let's not forget that the U.S.A. wants to
divide and destroy OPEC, if OPEC nations don't want to sell
their oil in U.S. dollars. So by selling his oil in dollars,
Qaddafi is working against the other OPEC nations who want
to sell their oil in Euros, such as Iraq and Iran. I think
there is another nation that may be doing the same thing. I
will be discussing it in a moment. So not everyone is happy
about this reconciliation. In fact, one woman, who had lost
her only child in the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing attack,
stated:
----- Begin Quote -----
"Qaddafi has triumphed. This is all done for oil; that's all
they care about."
----- End Quote -----
I think she is absolutely right. It's all about the oil, and
keeping the U.S. dollar connected to the oil. By the way, I
forgot to mention an important fact regarding the outcome of
the U.S.A.'s invasion of Iraq. In his article, Professor
Petrov also makes this enlightening comment:
----- Begin Quote -----
"Indeed, this is the case: two months after the United States
invaded Iraq, the Oil for Food Program was terminated, the
Iraqi Euro accounts were switched back to dollars, and oil
was sold once again only for U.S. dollars. No longer could
the world buy oil from Iraq with Euro."
"Global dollar supremacy was once again restored. Bush
descended victoriously from a fighter jet and declared the
mission accomplished - he had successfully defended the U.S.
dollar, and thus the American Empire."
----- End Quote -----
That is undoubtedly why, since several years ago, the U.S.A.
has been actively supporting the Shi'ites in Iraq, and is in
fact still supporting them today; even though their militias
and death squads, such as Moktada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army, have
been murdering thousands and thousands of Sunnis in Iraq. As
we saw earlier, under Saddam Hussein, the Sunnis had begun
to sell their oil in Euros; but now, with the Shi'ites in
power, the Iraqi oil exchange has been returned to a dollar
base. If they are smart, they will leave it that way, unless
they want to meet the same fate as Saddam Hussein.
What really caught me by surprise in the previous paragraphs
was Professor Petrov's second comment. Like so many other
people, I totally missed the real significance of President
Bush's "Top Gun" moment back in the Spring of 2003, when he
descended from that fighter jet on that air craft carrier.
Like other writers, considering how poorly the invasion and
war has gone, I criticized, and even mocked Bush, for being
so quick to declare the mission accomplished. However, now I
am beginning to realize that his words may not have been for
us, the general public, at all. His "mission accomplished"
message may have been a coded message meant for someone else
who is much more powerful than he, who was watching their
television set that day. This person, or group of people,
would know exactly what the president meant by the phrase.
From our perspective as outsiders to the government's inner
workings, who plainly see that civil war has engulfed Iraq,
and that three thousand people continue to be killed every
month, it most definitely appears like the mission has not
really been accomplished, and that America has obtained no
victory there. But is it possible that this is because we
have never truly understood what the mission was? Bush has
thrown all of this disinformation at us for several years
now. First we were told that America invaded Iraq to stop
Saddam, and to destroy his WMD. Then we were told that the
mission was to root out al-Qaeda from Iraq. Then they told
us that it was to free the Iraqis, and to bring a semblance
of democracy to Iraq.
For more than six years now, we have endured President Bush's
disinformation blitzkrieg. So when none of these things came
to pass -- no WMD found, al-Qaeda not removed from Iraq, and
the Iraqis still not living in a peaceful democracy -- and
the situation became increasingly worse, we naturally assumed
that Bush had been premature with his "mission accomplished"
statement so early in the conflict. Well, it's been more than
four years now since the "mission accomplished" remark, and
we are still being given a lot of disinformation, and many of
us are still wondering what Bush has really accomplished; if
anything, besides destroy Iraq, and get a lot of people mad
at him.
However, if, as Prof. Petrov suggests, we look at the real
mission as being to restore the Iraqi oil exchange to a U.S.
dollar base, then President Bush was absolutely correct when
he smiled and said "Mission accomplished!". Even though Iraq
is still in a very chaotic state, with so many people being
murdered on a daily basis, nevertheless, America did in fact
accomplish her mission there. Saddam Hussein was de-throned,
and the dollar was restored to power there.
Sadly, the tragedy is that the Iraqi people are the ones who
have been paying a terrible price for America's destructive
deeds; and thus far, it appears that the Shi'ite politicians
who are now in control of the country, are evil thugs who are
not much better than Saddam Hussein himself. Right now, while
they may not label it as such, ethnic cleansing is occurring
in Baghdad and elsewhere in the country; and the U.S. military
has not been able to prevent it from happening, in spite of
the estimated 130,000 troops that they have in the country. I
don't know what else you can call the forceful displacement
and murder of thousands of Sunnis, if not ethnic cleansing.
It is indeed true that both Shi'ites and Sunnis are currently
at each other's throats; but we know who is in power, as well
as who is in the minority, and who will thus lose in the
end; so when all is said and done, I think a lot of people
will agree that we have witnessed ethnic cleansing in Iraq.
As I stated a moment ago, the reason why the United States
accepted Libya back into its fold, even though they deny it,
is because it needs her oil. What made this become necessary?
Quite simply, the Bush administration had a major falling out
with Hugo Chávez, who is the outspoken president of Venezuela.
Some of you have undoubtedly read about this in the news. The
U.S.A. has followed her standard modus operandi, and has gone
to great lengths to vilify Chávez before the world. Venezuela
is one of the founding members of OPEC. She has also been one
of America's major oil suppliers; so it is only logical that
if that provider is in danger of being lost, America has to
find another reliable replacement. Thus, fellow OPEC member,
Libya, has been chosen. Why may Venezuela be lost? Keep on
reading, and you'll surely find out.
For your personal knowledge, the current members of OPEC, or
"Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries", are the
following: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Venezuela, the
United Arab Emirates, Algeria, Nigeria, Angola, Libya, Qatar
and Indonesia. Former members, Ecuador and Gabon, would like
to rejoin OPEC, and the countries of Syria, Sudan, Bolivia
and Mexico are potential future members. According to online
sources, OPEC member nations hold about two-thirds of the
world's oil reserves, which is a lot oil. According to 2005
figures, they also accounted for 41.7% of the world's oil
production. So you can see why when OPEC talks, everyone
sits up and listens. Some nations, like the United States,
like to downplay OPEC's overall importance in the scheme of
things, but don't let them fool you. If OPEC nations were to
severely reduce their oil output, or raise their prices to
a significant degree, the whole world would feel it; maybe
not as much as during the 1973 Oil Embargo, but still, a lot.
This brings us to another point which you may find rather
interesting. As we have already seen, America's strategy has
been to forcefully remove from power, in whatever way may be
necessary, any world leader who chooses to sell their oil in
Euros, or who refuses to support the U.S. dollar by buying
their oil reserves in U.S. dollars, instead of in Euros. In
her aforementioned article, Dr. Ebron makes a brief comment
about Venezuela. Guess what she says? Consider this:
----- Begin Quote -----
"U.S. interests in South America, despite the failure of the
coup in Venezuela (an OPEC member), are being secured via
military aid to neighboring Columbia."
----- End Quote -----
As I have mentioned a number of times before to my readers,
when the U.S.A. becomes dissatisfied with a particular world
leader, she doesn't always go in personally and remove that
person through military force. Quite often, she will get her
underdogs to do it for her. She will foment civil unrest and
revolution in a nation; she will attack its economy; she will
do whatever is needed to destabilize the government of that
country, until its undesirable leader falls. She will even
covertly send in CIA operatives and other troublemakers, in
order to mastermind a coup. Are you getting the picture? As
Dr. Ebron briefly mentioned, in April of 2002, a failed coup
attempt occurred in Venezuela. During the coup, Venezuela's
leader, Hugo Chávez, was briefly removed from power, but was
shortly restored.
You obviously already know what superpower has a long history
of clandestinely meddling in the affairs of Latin America. On
a number of occasions, their schemes have come to light and
embarrassed the leader of that nation. Shortly after the coup
in Venezuela occurred, it was widely reported that the Bush
administration had been linked to the overthrow attempt. The
Observer of London had this to say regarding the incident in
an April 2002 article entitled "Venezuela Coup Linked To
Bush Team":
----- Begin Quote -----
The failed coup in Venezuela was closely tied to senior
officials in the US government, The Observer has established.
They have long histories in the 'dirty wars' of the 1980s,
and links to death squads working in Central America at that
time.
Washington's involvement in the turbulent events that briefly
removed left-wing leader Hugo Chavez from power last weekend
resurrects fears about US ambitions in the hemisphere.
It also also deepens doubts about policy in the region being
made by appointees to the Bush administration, all of whom
owe their careers to serving in the dirty wars under
President Reagan.
One of them, Elliot Abrams, who gave a nod to the attempted
Venezuelan coup, has a conviction for misleading Congress
over the infamous Iran-Contra affair.
The Bush administration has tried to distance itself from
the coup. It immediately endorsed the new government under
businessman Pedro Carmona. But the coup was sent dramatically
into reverse after 48 hours.
Now officials at the Organisation of American States and
other diplomatic sources, talking to The Observer, assert
that the US administration was not only aware the coup was
about to take place, but had sanctioned it, presuming it to
be destined for success.
----- End Quote -----
This is the kind of aggressive American leadership that the
world is now forced to deal with. Regime change is obviously
an integral part of American strategy, whenever it deems it
necessary, with no regard for the sovereignty of any nation.
As leaders such as Slobodan Milosevic, Saddam Hussein, Hugo
Chávez, Kim Jong Il and many others have learned, no one is
immune to the long arm of American Imperialism.
While the American Government will sometimes resort to more
overt means in order to push its weight around in another
country, this isn't always necessary. As we've already seen,
this is due to the power of the US dollar, and the hold that
it has on so many countries. The truth is, that through the
financial institutions which it controls, e.g. WB, IMF, the
U.S. already controls a large portion of Latin America. You
will recall the story I shared earlier regarding Ecuador. She
isn't the only Latin American country who has become a slave
of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank; but
some nations, like Venezuela, do fight back.
As I was reading the article concerning the reconciliation
between the United States and Libya, I really had to laugh,
because while praising Colonel Qaddafi and Libya, and even
letting us know that Libya has now been removed from their
list of state sponsors of terrorism, the US Administration
used this event as a vehicle to also preach at and condemn
Venezuela, Iran and North Korea. With the heading of "U.S.
Will Restore Diplomatic Links With The Libyans", the May 16,
2006 New York Times article stated among other things:
----- Begin Quotes -----
"Libya is an important model as nations around the world
press for changes in behavior by the Iranian and North
Korean regimes," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said.
Hers was just one of several similar statements on Monday
from senior officials who worked hard to turn Libya's change
in behavior into a lesson for Iran as a resolution on Iran's
nuclear development program remains stalled in the United
Nations Security Council."
"While lifting sanctions on Libya, the United States on
Monday listed Venezuela as a country that is not cooperating
on terrorism. The State Department said the Venezuelan
president, Hugo Chávez, had given oratorical support to Iran
and to the Iraqi insurgency and had provided aid to
insurgents involved in drug trafficking in Colombia."
"Nobody is saying that Venezuela is actively sponsoring
terrorism," said a State Department official speaking on
condition of anonymity under department rules. "But
Venezuela has clearly shown a lack of interest in working
with us in combating it."
"The listing of Venezuela means that the United States
cannot sell it military equipment, but the officials said
such sales are negligible now."
----- End Quotes -----
Okay, do you realize what you just read? Do you understand
why the US Government mentions Venezuela in the article? If
not, let me tell you. They are using the very same strategy
that we have been discussing throughout this series. That
article is purposely meant to brainwash the American public,
and plant in their minds, a connection between Venezuela and
terrorism, plain and simple. Do you see how subtle they are
being? "Oh, we're not saying that Venezuela is a terrorist
nation; we're just saying that Hugo Chávez isn't helping us
to combat terrorism". You see, that is enough. That is all
that they have to do. Rumor, speculation and imagination
will do the rest of the work for them. They have planted the
suggestion in people's heads; and now, before long, a lot of
Americans, when they hear the name Hugo Chávez or Venezuela,
are going to equate him, and his nation, with terrorism. He
will become blacklisted, even though he has done nothing
remotely related to terrorism.
But is that really the reason why the American Government is
angry with Hugo Chávez? Is it because he is either supportive
of, or in some way connected to, terrorism? After reading so
much of this series, I hope you realize that it isn't. Well,
what is the real reason then? If you ask me, it is the very
same reason that the U.S. condemned Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan
and North Korea. It is all about OPEC oil, and who is buying
or selling oil in dollars or Euros. In this case, you already
know that Venezuela is an OPEC member nation; and in fact, a
founding member; which means that it has some say regarding
OPEC pricing and exportation policies. We have also learned
that together with Iran, Venezuela has been pushing for the
world to adopt the Euro as its new currency reserve, instead
of the dollar. The following excerpts, taken from a BBS news
article, dated Dec. 22, 2006 and entitled "Venezuela Mulls
Euro Oil Switch", confirms what Hal Lindsey stated earlier:
----- Begin Quotes -----
"Venezuela has expressed interest in an Iranian move to ask
buyers to pay for oil in euros rather than US dollars . . .
The oil-rich nation said it planned to see if a similar
scheme could be introduced to its crude exports . . . Iran,
the world's fourth-biggest oil producer, has already asked
customers to pay for its oil in euros because of the current
weakness of the dollar . . . Although the dollar is the
currency in which oil is usually traded, it has been falling
in value against the euro . . . The US currency tumbled to
20-month lows against the single European currency earlier
this month . . . Iran still prices its oil in dollars, but
currently receives payment for 57% of its crude exports in
euros, according to the National Iranian Oil Company . . .
Venezuela's energy minister Rafael Ramirez described the
Iranian scheme as 'very interesting'."
----- End Quotes -----
The Bloomberg news site also provides us with some pertinent
information regarding this same issue. In fact, it expands,
and states that oil producers from the United Arab Emirates
to Indonesia, and even Russia, are likewise in the process
of switching to a Euro-based economy, instead of one based
upon the US dollar. Consider the following information from
a December 18, 2006 article called "Venezuela, Oil Producers
Buy Euro as Dollar, Oil Fall". Please also notice that Hugo
Chávez first proposed the Euro switch at an OPEC meeting
this past June. That is why the U.S. Government has been
bad-mouthing him so much in the American press in recent
months:
----- Begin Quotes -----
Venezuelan leader Hugo Chávez is directing a growing share
of the country's oil profits into euros as the dollar and
crude prices fall.
The dollar, down 9.5 percent against the euro this year, may
face more pressure in 2007 because Venezuela and oil
producers from the United Arab Emirates to Indonesia plan to
funnel more money into the single European currency.
Bank Indonesia is boosting euro holdings, said Senior Deputy
Governor Miranda S Goeltom in a Dec. 13 interview in
Jakarta. Indonesia has $39.9 billion in reserves. Sultan Bin
Nasser al- Suwaidi, the governor of the Central Bank of the
UAE, last month said he was considering when to shift as
much as 8 percent of the nation's $24.9 billion in reserves
into euros.
The share of foreign-exchange deposits held in dollars by
OPEC members and Russia, the largest non-OPEC oil exporter,
fell to a two-year low of 65 percent during the second
quarter, from 67 percent during the previous three months,
Bank for International Settlements figures released last
week show.
Chávez called on OPEC to sell oil denominated in euros
rather than dollars at a meeting of the group in Caracas on
June 1, supporting a proposal made by Iran.
OPEC members and Russia increased the percentage of their
foreign-exchange deposits held in euros to 22 percent in the
second quarter from 20 percent, the BIS said. By contrast,
the global average is about a third, according to the Basel,
Switzerland-based bank.
Oil states will probably buy the European currency at a
faster rate to bring their reserves closer in line with
other nations, according to David Durrant at Julius Baer
Investment Management in New York.
----- End Quotes -----
So to reiterate, the primary reason why the United States has
been bad-mouthing Hugo Chávez, and trying to make him appear
as a friend of terrorists, is because not only does he have
tons of oil, a lot of which is imported by the U.S., but he
is also now demanding that he be paid for it in Euros, instead
of dollars. Furthermore, he is in the forefront of the move to
encourage other nations to also adopt the Euro as the currency
reserve of the oil markets. The Bush Administration's hatred
of Chávez has absolutely nothing to do with real WMD, or real
terrorism. It is a blatant lie, and they know it. Following
are some more quotes from Lindsey's article which explains
in clear terms, exactly how powerful Chávez is becoming, as
a result of Venezuela's oil reserves:
----- Begin Quote -----
"I believe oil is being used in this same overall strategy
against America. Last October, OPEC agreed to reduce
production to keep oil prices up near $60 per barrel. The
price was suggested by Hugo Chavez after consultation with
his friends in Tehran and Moscow and accepted by OPEC."
"With that one brilliant maneuver, Chavez cornered the
global oil market. Venezuela has vast deposits of heavy oil
in the Orinoco, but heavy oil is expensive to extract and
refine at free-market prices. However, at $60 per barrel,
the Orinoco reserves give Venezuela the largest proven oil
reserves in the world."
"Not just larger than the vast reserves of Iran or Saudi
Arabia, it is larger than both of them put together. In
fact, it is bigger than all the proven oil reserves in the
Middle East combined. Venezuela's deposits alone could
extend the oil age for another 100 years."
"Hugo Chavez is raking in some $200 million a day in oil
sales, most of it from the United States. If Chavez demands
payment in euros, it will throw the whole U.S. economy into
a crisis."
"Amazingly, Hugo Chavez has now become the go-to guy for all
of OPEC. He's held audience with every oil sheik and
dictator in the Middle East, including our "friends" the
Saudis and Kuwaitis. With the recent re-election of Chavez,
the U.S. is ringed by five of the most virulently
anti-American leftist regimes in Latin America."
----- End Quote -----
By now, I hope you can see how the United States of America
has used its so-called "War Against Terrorism" to cloak what
it is really doing around the world. When you see it vilify
a nation or leader, you really need to ask yourself why it
is doing it. Is it really for the stated reasons? Let me
give you one more clear example, so you can see again how
obvious this pattern is. As you are already aware, in his
State Of the Union Address in January of 2002, President
Bush referred to Iran, Iraq and North Korea as the "Axis of
Evil". Are you aware of the fact that there is actually an
appended list which people refer to as the "Beyond The Axis
Of Evil" list? This expanded list receives its name from a
speech that US Under Secretary of State, John Bolton, gave
in May of 2002 which was entitled "Beyond The Axis Of Evil".
Following are some excerpts from a news article which was
published by the BBC on May 6, 2002:
----- Begin Quotes -----
The United States has added Cuba, Libya and Syria to the
nations it claims are deliberately seeking to obtain
chemical or biological weapons.
In a speech entitled "Beyond the Axis of Evil", US Under
Secretary of State, John Bolton said that the three nations
could be grouped with other so-called "rogue states" - Iraq,
Iran and North Korea - in actively attempting to develop
weapons of mass destruction.
He also warned that the US would take action.
"America is determined to prevent the next wave of terror,"
he said, referring to the 11 September attacks in Washington
and New York that killed up to 3,000 people.
"States that sponsor terror and pursue WMD (weapons of mass
destruction) must stop. States that renounce terror and
abandon WMD can become part of our effort, but those that do
not can expect to become our targets," he said.
----- End Quotes -----
Boy, their list just keeps getting bigger and bigger! This
news is from 2002, so please don't forget that Libya made
its alleged turnaround in 2003, and is now buddy-buddy with
the USA again. Cuba is still on the U.S.'s bad guy list, but
that may change in the not too distant future; being as Fidel
Castro has been very sick, some say near death, and may not
last much longer. Even if his brother Raul takes over when
Fidel dies, Raul isn't exactly young, and can't last much
longer either; so there may possibly be a bright future for
the people of Cuba soon. But here is the interesting point
about Cuba. Guess where she buys here oil; from her good old
friend Hugo Chávez of Venezuela; the very same man who has
been pushing for the dollar to Euro switch.
Let's look at the last country on the so-called "Beyond The
Axis Of Evil" list compiled by the US: Syria. Currently, she
is not a member of OPEC; however, Syria still needs to make
financial decisions regarding its imports and exports. As
with the other nations we have looked at, the U.S.A. has
been bad-mouthing Syria for years now. However, since 2002,
just like Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, it is now accused
of making attempts to acquire Weapons of Mass Destruction.
By now, I suppose you already know what I am going to say
next, so let me just give you the facts. Yes, folks, Syria
is also converting its economy to the Euro. Actually, Syria
made this decision sometime last year. In a news article I
found on the "Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee" website",
dated July 11, 2006, it also mentions that Russia, Finland
Sweden, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates are also
converting their economies to the Euro as well. Following
are a few quotes from the article entitled "Syria Moves
Reserves To Euros And Will End Dollar Peg This Year":
----- Begin Quotes -----
Syria, accused by the U.S. of supporting terrorism, plans to
end its currency peg to the dollar by December to reflect
closer trade ties with Europe, central bank Governor Adib
Mayaleh said.
The Central Bank of Syria has already converted half its
foreign-exchange reserves to euros, Mayaleh said in a
telephone interview from Damascus, without being more
specific.
"We want to have a currency peg that will reflect our
external trade," Mayaleh said yesterday. The European Union
is Syria's largest trading partner, taking half of its
exports, he said. Italy and France are the biggest
destinations for Syrian goods abroad, according to data
published by the CIA fact book.
Central bankers from Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab
Emirates, Russia, Sweden, and Finland have this year
indicated they aim to diversify their reserves away from the
dollar.
The Syrian government is "studying options" with regard to
ending the dollar peg, Abdallah Dardari, the country's
deputy prime minister for economic affairs, told reporters
on the sidelines of a conference in Damascus on June 10.
----- End Quotes -----
With all of this information, it isn't difficult to see that
many nations are starting to become worried about the future
of the U.S. dollar. In fact, they have been worried for quite
some time. As the previous news clippings clearly point out,
many leaders are betting on the winning horse, and have begun
to slowly abandon the dollar, in favor of the Euro as the new
currency reserve of the world. Incidently, Malaysia has also
begun to transfer her market reserves to the Euro, and there
are undoubtedly other nations as well which I've overlooked.
Please understand that Euro-ization is a process in motion,
and that nations have to make financial decisions on a daily
basis, based upon the current situation of the money and oil
markets. Thus, we can expect to see other nations move over
to the Euro as well, as it continues to gain power against
the dollar.
In reality, Euro-ization is a natural flow of events; because
as a result of their oil requirements, trade agreements, and
their geographical location, the nations of Europe have long
enjoyed a close relationship with the oil-producing nations
of the Middle East; much more so than the United States has,
which is an outsider. At any rate, this current migration to
the Euro, or Euro-ization as I call it, cannot bode well for
the United States of America by any means; thus, she's begun
to strike back. She will not let her dollar empire crumble
so easily.
So now can you understand why the U.S. Government has been
so desperate for "regime change" in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan,
Syria, North Korea, Venezuela and elsewhere? Do you see how
it has lied to the world, and to the American people? Do you
see how the Bush Administration has followed a very specific
consistent pattern, and has repeatedly, and intentionally,
tried to connect its perceived enemies to WMD and terrorism,
even when no such connections exist? The United States of
America has woven a smokescreen of deception, in order to
conceal what is really going on; and what is really going
on, is an oil - dollar - Euro war; which will determine the
fate of America's future. America is fighting to save her
empire; an empire built upon the U.S. dollar, and not upon
the Euro. The Euro, as Dr. Ebron pointed out, is the real
WMD. It is the Weapon of Mass Destruction that will destroy
America's financial empire, unless America can destroy her
enemies first. If anyone is terrorized right now, it is the
U.S. Government. Perhaps they see the handwriting on the
wall.
Attacking or vilifying the above noted countries has nothing
to do with 9-11, WMD or the so-called War Against Terrorism.
It is all about protecting the American economy, and the oil.
The United States has followed this policy for many decades.
Let me remind you that prior to the 1979 Iranian Revolution,
America had another puppet leader installed in Iran. Some of
you are old enough to remember the man. He was the Shah of
Iran, formally known as Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi. He was an
American puppet who allowed all kinds of Western attitudes
into Iran, which is why Ayatollah Rouhollah Khomeini and his
followers overthrew him in 1979 with the Islamic Revolution.
So please don't forget the pattern, or the strategy, that
led up to the invasion of Iraq, not quite four years ago.
Hopefully, it will help you to recognize how this pattern is
now being repeated, in order to prepare the American people
for a potential war with Iran; and who knows who will be
America's next victim after that.
Ironically, even before the invasion of Iraq had occurred,
the American Government had already put Iran on its radar
screen, and had begun to demonize it and its leadership,
just as it had done with Saddam Hussein. As a clear example
of this, consider that an article published in the New York
Times on February 22, 2003, stated the following:
----- Begin Quote -----
"American officials believe Natanz is part of a long
suspected nuclear weapons program, an Iranian project that
American intelligence believes has benefited from Pakistani
assistance and that is far more advanced than the effort by
Iraq."
"Iran will attempt to justify Natanz as part of its civilian
nuclear power program, but it is actually an effort to
develop a nuclear weapons breakout capability," said Gary
Samore, director of studies at the International Institute
for Strategic Studies and former expert on proliferation on
President Bill Clinton's National Security Council."
----- End Quote -----
Please carefully notice what kinds of verbal strategies are
being employed in the previous statements. American officials
"believe". Uh-oh . . . Belief is not proof, is it? We can all
believe a lot of things, but it doesn't necessarily mean that
they are true. Then we are told that these American officials
have "long suspected" that Natanz is part of a nuclear
weapons program. Again, just having a suspicion isn't proof
of anything, and does not make it so. Despite this obvious
lack of solid evidence, in the second paragraph, this fellow
Samore, who we are told is an expert in his field, has the
audacity to try to tell us exactly what Natanz is; and he
obviously expects us to believe him, even though he hasn't
offered us a single solid shred of evidence. We are supposed
to accept that Natanz is "an effort to develop a nuclear
weapons breakout capability", just because he says so. We
are supposed to believe him because he is the expert.
Let me also add, that just as the U.S. and Britain turned
their people against Saddam Hussein, they have been taking
steps to do the very same thing with Ayatollah Seyed Ali
Khamenei, Iran's supreme spiritual leader, as well as with
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's current radical president. In
the case of Khamenei, the American mass media has painted
him as a dangerous, power-hungry, Muslim extremist; and in
the case of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, we are purposely given the
impression that he is just an anti-semitic kook who is not
worthy of the American Government's attention. In their own
arrogance, the Bush administration considers Ahmadinejad a
joke, and they won't even acknowledge any of his comments or
diplomatic gestures. Speaking of America's arrogance, and
the heavy-handed strategies that the Bush Administration has
been employing in order to maintain America's dominance in
the world, in her article, Dr. Ebron offers a very wise
warning which rings true. She states:
----- Begin Quote -----
"Far from staving off disaster, our arrogance may instead
compel OPEC to "go euro" en masse, taking many oil-consuming
nations with them by force of economics. And a trade war
with Europe will lend the coup de grace to our economy."
----- End Quote -----
This is precisely what has begun to happen. The Euro shift
has begun; the machine is in motion and building up speed,
and the U.S.A. may not be able to stop it. From reading the
above news articles, (and there are many more that you can
read online), it becomes obvious to me that at this moment,
a polarization is occurring, between those who will side
with America and the U.S. dollar, and those who will side
with Europe, the OPEC nations and the Euro. The lines are
being clearly drawn.
As I have explained to my readers a number of times before,
I am absolutely convinced that the United States of America
will do anything within its power, to destroy any country
which stands in its way, or dares to threaten its position
as a global superpower. Just like a merciless eagle, the
American Government will rip apart and utterly destroy any
competitor; militarily, as well as socially and financially;
but it will disguise its vile actions, and portray them as
being something entirely different; just as we have now seen
with this WMD, "War Against Terrorism", dollar versus Euro
war.
Let me say again that things are not always what they appear
to be on the surface; especially when it comes to the U.S.
Government's foreign policy. The "War Against Terrorism" is
a cleverly-crafted charade, and a rather convincing one at
that. Even the phrases "WMD" and "War Against Terrorism" seem
to be code words that only those in-the-know will understand.
They aren't meant to define real nuclear weapons, but rather
the worst weapon that the United States fears most of all:
the Euro. The Euro has the potential to bring proud, mighty
America to her knees; and it is for this reason that the US
Government has embarked on her current course of destroying
any world leader who embraces the Euros-For-Oil program. If
you doubt my words, just look at the hellhole that is now
the once proud nation of Iraq, whose rulers once built one
of the eight wonders of the world.
And ask yourself: Who is the real terrorist? Who is really
spreading terror, death and destruction all around the world,
at the expense of others, as she frantically tries to save
herself from her slow demise? Blessed are the peacemakers!
against Iraq, even when international opinion condemned just
such an act? And why is the the United States so determined
now to give us a repeat performance, but this time with Iran?
What's really going on? What are the true motivations behind
America's behavior? Now, some of you reading this may say to
yourselves, "Wait a minute! What is all of this talk about
the U.S.A. attacking Iran? President Bush has no such plans!
In fact, sanctions were just leveled against Iran by the UN."
Excuse me, but are you certain that Bush has no such plans?
If you honestly believe that, then I wonder if you've really
been paying attention to the news, and using your critical
thought processes to their maximum potential. Do you really
not see the parallels between how the Bush Administration
demonized Saddam Hussein, used the WMD wild card, and then
attacked Iraq, and how the same exact tactics are being used
against Iran right now? It is the same familiar pattern all
over again: discredit, demonize, feign patient diplomacy,
and then attack! Here it is again:
Discredit - Demonize - Feign Patient Diplomacy - Attack
Yes, sanctions were just recently implemented against Iran;
but wasn't that same action taken against Iraq for many years
as well? Didn't the Americans and the British set up no-fly
zones over Iraq? In the end, the Iraqi people were hurt more
by the sanctions than Saddam Hussein and the Baathists were.
I was just looking at an Associated Press news article that I
shared with the members of our mailing list in July of 2000.
This article clearly states that it was the U.N. sanctions,
which were imposed following Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, and
the Gulf War, which crippled the economy of Iraq, and drove
literally millions of Iraqis into poverty. We can argue that
it was Saddam's fault that the sanctions were imposed in the
first place, but the truth is, that the United Nations, under
American pressure, implemented the sanctions, which resulted
in millions of Iraqis suffering:
----- Begin Quote -----
"Saddam made no mention of the U.N. trade sanctions which
have crippled the economy and driven millions of Iraqis into
poverty. The sanctions were imposed after Iraq's 1990
invasion of Kuwait, which led to the Gulf War."
----- End Quote -----
In spite of the sanctions, and the no-fly zones, is it not
true that the USA still ended up attacking Iraq anyway, and
against world opinion at that? So what makes you so certain
that the current sanctions against Iran are going to deter
the Bush Administration from attacking Iran, if and when it
feels that the time is right?
You see, despite outward appearances, I suspect that Iran's
adamant refusal to discontinue processing its uranium, may be
exactly what the United States wants, and may even be working
to the US's favor. Why? Because then, just as with Iraq, the
United States can go to the U.N., and say "See! The sanctions
aren't working; something more drastic needs to be done in
order to stop the uranium enrichment being done by Iran."
Let me remind you again that the Bush Administration has
repeatedly said, insofar as Iran is concerned, all options
are still on the table; and that obviously includes military
options. Of course, it doesn't necessarily mean that the US
will be the one to crack the whip. As you may have heard on
the news, or read somewhere on the Internet, there has been
some talk that Israel may decide to strike first, in order to
knock out Iran's uranium enrichment capabilities; just as she
took similar action against Iraq, when Israeli Prime Minister
Menachem Begin ordered the attack against the Osirak nuclear
power plant in 1981. These rumors could turn out to be true,
or they may just be a diversionary tactic. Based on what I
know now, I suspect that the United States is looking for a
more permanent solution to their problem; just as they did
with Iraq. Destroying Natanz, for example, won't eliminate
the real problem.
You see, what you need to understand is that the uranium
enrichment issue is not the real problem; at least I don't
think it is. Were WMD the real problem in Iraq, or was that
just the red herring; that is, the excuse that America used
to attack Iraq? I think most of you already know the answer
to that question, or at least you should. So that brings us
back around to our main questions again: If WMD wasn't the
real problem that the USA was having with Iraq, then what
was? And if uranium enrichment, which the USA alleges, will
ultimately result in Iran manufacturing nuclear weapons, is
not the real problem now, then what is?
What if I were to tell you that the problem, or perhaps I
should really be saying the threat, that the United States
perceived from Iraq, and now perceives from Iran, are one
and the same? What kind of threat could possibly convince
the American Government, in spite of world opinion being
totally against it, that it must go to war? There is only
one logical answer here: the threat of losing its place of
dominance in the world. Remember what I told you earlier.
America's secret weapon is the billions of US dollars that
it has foisted upon the world over the last three decades,
as a result of the convenient agreement that it made with
Saudi Arabia, and other OPEC nations. As long as the world
has been forced to pay for their oil in US dollars, America
has remained in charge, and she has pushed her weight around
at every given opportunity. The last six years of the Bush
Administration are clear proof of this, but it didn't start
with Bush by any means. He is just one of the more blatant
U.S. presidents to tell the rest of the world what to do.
Let me give you a clear example of this. I was just looking
through some old email that was sent out on our mailing list
in the early part of the year 2000. I came across one email
entitled "US Dollar Official Currency In Ecuador", where I
included a news article regarding how Congress had passed a
law which would make the U.S. dollar the official currency
of Ecuador. What?! Isn't Ecuador a sovereign South American
nation? You bet it is; or at least it was. As a result of
internal financial problems, Ecuador's local currency, the
sucre, was seriously devalued, and the Ecuadorean economy
became the most unstable economy in all of Latin America. In
an attempt to stabilize the economy, the nation's president
decided to "dollarize" the nation. Part of the article says:
----- Begin Quote -----
In a desperate attempt to stabilize South America's most
rickety economy, Congress passed a law in early March to
phase out the sucre, which lost two-thirds of its value last
year amid a severe recession. The sucre now trades at 25,000
to the dollar, and its rapid devaluation fueled annual
inflation rates of 80 percent -- the highest rate in Latin
America.
Under the government plan, the dollar will be the main
domestic currency, replacing the sucre, which will only
remain in circulation for small purchases. As of April 1,
Ecuadoreans have found that bank cash machines dispense only
greenbacks and not the multicolored sucres -- often filthy
and torn.
----- End Quote -----
Without going into a lot of detail, the article explains that
some of the reasons why Ecuador fell into financial disarray,
is because of low prices on its primary export, (oil), natural
disasters which wrecked the nation's infrastructure, as well
as its crops, and its inability to pay its external debts. In
other words, as with so many poor nations, it became caught in
the trap of owing too much money to the International Monetary
Fund, which it couldn't pay back. Let me also remind you that
the price of oil is artificially manipulated. In short, the
powers-that-be purposely created the problem by wrecking the
economy of Ecuador, and then they offered their own solution,
and put Ecuador squarely in America's grip. The article also
states that many Ecuadoreans were confused, and not happy at
all with the sudden switch to a U.S. dollar economy; but what
can they do? Absolutely nothing. Ecuador is now another slave
of the American Empire, plain and simple.
But let's get back to our discussion regarding Iraq and Iran.
So how did Iraq threaten American dominance? What did Saddam
Hussein do that caused King George (Bush) to say "Off with
Saddam's head!"? He did the exact same thing that Iran is
doing now. What is Iran doing that is so threatening to the
United States? Actually, I have already given you the answer;
or at least what I now believe may be the real answer. It is
the Iranian Oil Bourse. It's quite possible that I read about
this years ago, and just forgot about it; but according to
Professor Petrov, and other sources, in late 2000, Saddam
Hussein decided, or perhaps "insisted" is a more appropriate
word, that he would only accept Euros for Iraqi oil, just as
Iran is doing now. In his commentary, Professor Petrov
states in part:
----- Begin Quote -----
"The man that actually did demand Euro for his oil was
Saddam Hussein in 2000. At first, his demand was met with
ridicule, later with neglect, but as it became clearer that
he meant business, political pressure was exerted to change
his mind. When other countries, like Iran, wanted payment in
other currencies, most notably Euro and Yen, the danger to
the dollar was clear and present, and a punitive action was
in order."
"Bush's Shock-and-Awe in Iraq was not about Saddam's nuclear
capabilities, about defending human rights, about spreading
democracy, or even about seizing oil fields; it was about
defending the dollar, ergo the American Empire. It was about
setting an example that anyone who demanded payment in
currencies other than U.S. Dollars would be likewise
punished."
----- End Quote -----
As Petrov states, if Saddam would have gotten away with it,
other OPEC countries may have very well followed suit. In
fact, as you can see, Iran was very quick to hop on the Euro
bandwagon, because it wanted to hurt the United States, the
"Great Satan", just as bad as Saddam did. As we have already
seen, the United States of America simply couldn't allow it
to happen; just as it cannot allow it to happen now with
Iran; because the success of the Iranian Oil Bourse would
eventually result in the destruction of the U.S. economy,
and as a by-product, terminate America's dominance in the
world.
So that, my friends, is what I now believe, and what others
also believe, is the real problem; as it is perceived from
America's perspective. It has absolutely nothing to do with
real WMD in either Iraq or Iran. In both instances, WMD has
only been the red herring that the Bush Administration has
used to try to deceive the American people, and fool the
rest of the world. The real problem, the real threat to the
American Empire, as Professor Petrov referred to it, is the
simple fact that both Iraq and Iran chose to convert their
economies to the Euro. They decided to accept Euros, instead
of U.S. dollars, for their oil exports, and that is a direct
threat to the U.S. dollar's current standing as the world's
currency reserve. In a February 21, 2003 commentary entitled
"Why Black Americans Should Oppose Bush's War -- Of Oil, The
Euro And Africa", Dr. Sonja Ebron, CEO of "blackEnergy" says
it very well when she tells us that the real WMD in Iraq and
Iran, is Euros. She writes:
----- Begin Quote -----
"Enter the real "weapon of mass destruction," the euro.
Eleven European countries formed a monetary union around
this currency on January 1, 1999; Britain and Norway, the
major European oil producers, were conspicuously absent. Due
to the strength of European economies, the euro now presents
a serious challenge to the dollar in its role as key reserve
currency."
"Given the highly leveraged and fragile state of our economy,
an OPEC switch from the dollar to the euro would bring a
quick and devastating dollar and Wall Street crash that would
make 1929 look like a $50 casino bet."
----- End Quote -----
So what did the United States do to try to stop Saddam from
carrying out his plan? News articles from that time period
make it very clear what America did. As we saw a moment ago,
the Iraqi economy had already been crippled by almost ten
years of U.N. sanctions, and millions of people were out of
work. In addition to this, the country had been sliced up by
the Americans and the British into three sections, with a
no-fly zone in the northern sector, and another no-fly zone
in the south. In spite of these tactics, Saddam was still in
power. During the same year that Saddam began making demands
for Euros in exchange for Iraqi oil, (2000), the American
Government, under President William Jefferson Clinton, made
it very clear what its intentions were regarding the Iraqi
leader. One way or another, they were determined to get him
out of office. An Associated Press news article, which I
also shared with our mailing list members on August 4, 2000,
confirms that the so-called "regime change" plans did not
begin with George W. Bush; they began with Bill Clinton:
----- Begin Quote -----
"WASHINGTON (AP) - The 10th anniversary of Iraq's invasion
of Kuwait passed with the Clinton administration admitting
that many U.S. goals remain unfulfilled, including the ouster
of President Saddam Hussein . . . Welch conceded that the
February 1991 liberation of Kuwait by a U.S.-led coalition
was not the final chapter of the Iraq saga. Saddam has not
given up his weapons of mass destruction and continues
abusive practices, officials said."
----- End Quote -----
Please also notice from the previous news excerpt, that the
WMD deception did not begin with George W. Bush. President
Bill Clinton was pushing the very same lie, as a strategy to
demonize Saddam Hussein. How could Saddam give up something
which he did not possess, as U.N. inspections had clearly
shown? George W. Bush just continued the WMD deception, in
order to justify the coming war before the eyes of a naive
American public. Both U.S. presidents knew that Saddam did
not possess WMD, because Mohamed ElBaradei, Hans Blix, Scott
Ritter, and other members of the International Atomic Energy
Agency had repeatedly told them so. In another news article
that I shared with our list readers on August 4, 2000, Scott
Ritter stated that Iraq did not pose a threat to any of its
neighbors. In late January 2003, Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, who
is the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency,
addressed the U.N. Security Council, after having conducted
a two-month investigation in Iraq. According to a CNN News
report, while elBaradei didn't give Iraq a perfect score, he
did conclude his lengthy report with the following remarks:
----- Begin Quote -----
"Mr. President, members of the council, for the past 60 days
the inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency
have been engaged in the process of verifying the existence
or absence of a nuclear weapon program in Iraq . . . we have
to date found no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear
weapon program since the elimination of the program in the
1990s."
----- End Quote -----
In spite of these, and other attempts, to convince the U.S.,
and other members of the United Nations, that Iraq did not
possess WMD, from 2000, until the Spring of 2003 when the
U.S. invasion of Iraq actually occurred, the United States
Government, as well as the British Government, engaged in
a concerted effort to convince their constituents of the
exact opposite. As I've already stated, the public of both
nations were repeatedly bombarded with sly insinuations,
baseless allegations, and carefully crafted disinformation,
in order to heighten the levels of fear and paranoia, so
that in the end, they would support their governments, and
agree to the illegal invasion and destruction of Iraq. It
obviously worked.
Dr. Sonja Ebron, who we discussed earlier, likewise mentions
America's strategy in her 2003 commentary. Please note that
her article was written several months prior to the actual
invasion of Iraq. Not pulling any punches, she explains that
once the U.S.A. realized how serious Saddam Hussein was
regarding switching to the Euro, and realizing how adversely
it would affect the American economy if other oil-producing
nations were to follow his example, they crafted a strategy
to destroy OPEC. She writes:
----- Begin Quote -----
"The U.S. strategy to destroy OPEC is twofold: pressure
non-OPEC producers to flood the oil market and retain
denomination in dollars in an effort to weaken OPEC's market
control, and change the leadership of any country switching
oil denomination from the dollar to the euro (hence, the
"axis of evil")."
"[The U.S. strategy to destroy OPEC] . . . requires that the
U.S. military assert our interests in oil and gas deposits
worldwide. U.S. interests in the Caspian Sea have been
secured through regime change in Afghanistan and a deal for
a new pipeline through that country."
"U.S. interests in southwest Asia are being secured through
the planned invasion of Iraq, then Iran (both OPEC members)
if it switches oil denomination."
----- End Quote -----
So in essence, according to the American strategy, as viewed
by Dr. Ebron and Professor Petrov, any world leader who would
attempt to switch their country's economy from a dollar-based
economy to a Euro-based economy, would automatically become a
target of American aggression, and would also be eligible for
elimination, if they didn't back down from their decision. In
other words, this was Clinton and Bush's "regime change" plan
in action.
As crazy as that may seem to some people, I am convinced that
it's exactly what the United States decided to do; and she's
proven it by her very own actions. Please also note that in
her previous comments, Dr. Ebron states in parentheses "hence,
the "axis of evil". As you will recall, earlier we discussed
how President George W. Bush assigned that description to the
nations of Iraq, Iran and North Korea. According to the Bush
propaganda, this is supposedly because all three countries
have been illegally striving to create nuclear weapons.
As I stated at the very beginning of this article, when it
comes to the American Government, things are not always what
they seem; and this is clearly a case of that. For years
now, the American Government has been feeding us a distorted
picture regarding this entire issue. Millions of American
citizens are currently convinced that the reason why George
W. Bush has gone after Iraq, Iran and North Korea, that is,
their "Axis of Evil", is because of WMD. It's bogus. It's a
lie. It's an utter deception being used to hide the truth
from all of us.
We have already seen why the U.S.A. has demonized Iraq, Iran
and Afghanistan, but how in the world does Kim Jong Il's
North Korea fit into the picture? It is not Islamic or Arab;
and it is most certainly not an oil exporter; so why has the
leader of North Korea been targeted? Personally, I would have
never figured it out, but Dr. Ebron's article has established
a clear link; and it fits perfectly into everything that we
have been discussing. In her same commentary she writes:
----- Begin Quote -----
"Iraq's move to the euro -- and Iran's expected move -- are
placing tremendous pressure on OPEC countries and other oil
producers to drop our dollar as the main transaction
currency for oil."
"Jordan began using euros to buy oil as soon as its major
supplier, Iraq, began using them to sell, and North Korea
switched to the euro late last year to protest the U.S.'
halt in fuel aid."
----- End Quote -----
You see; exactly what America feared, began to happen as soon
as Saddam Hussein made the decision to accept Euros for his
oil, instead of U.S. dollars, and that is why they held him
accountable, and decided that it was time for him to go. It
had nothing to do with any alleged WMD in his country. Iran
then followed suit and also decided that it would switch to
a Euro-based economy. Jordan likewise made the same decision.
But lo and behold! Look who else decided to start purchasing
their oil with Euros instead of dollars in 2002: Kim Jong Il
of North Korea. He knew exactly how to hit the USA where it
hurts; and that is why he has been blacklisted as part of the
US's so-called Axis of Evil. Under U.S. pressure, North Korea
was deprived of its fuel aid, and so Kim Jong Il fought back
in December of 2002 by dumping the U.S. dollar from the North
Korean economy. A BBC news report dated Dec. 1, 2002, with a
heading of "North Korea Embraces The Euro", states in part:
----- Begin Quote -----
Communist North Korea has said it will stop using American
dollars from Sunday and start using euros instead.
The decision was made soon after a US-led international
consortium announced that it was halting fuel aid to the
state because of its covert nuclear weapons programme.
No official reason was given for the move but many analysts
believe the dollar ban is a direct political response to
Washington's decision last month to halt fuel aid to the
North because of its nuclear programme."
----- End Quote -----
Of course, that is not the only reason why the United States
is so upset with Kim Jong Il. It seems that for some time
now, ever-resourceful Kim has been flooding the world money
market with counterfeit $100 bills. In a Dec. 2006 article
with the heading "The Plan To Destroy America - Via The
Dollar", well-known author Hal Lindsey had this to say:
----- Begin Quote -----
"For years, North Korea's Kim Jong-il has been flooding the
global economy with so-called "supernotes" – counterfeit
U.S. $100 bills so good even Secret Service agents can't
tell the difference without conducting sophisticated tests."
"The strategy is to flood the market with counterfeit
dollars to deflate its value. Then to convert U.S. holdings
to euros, thus pushing the dollar into a deflationary
freefall."
----- End Quote -----
All of this makes perfect sense to me. It fits like a hand
in a glove. All three nations, Iraq, Iran and North Korea
became victims of America's WMD lies and accusations, and
all three nations chose to drop the dollar, and move to a
Euro-based economy. Do you think that this is just merely a
coincidence? I most certainly don't.
In that same article, Lindsey also mentions how China, Iran
and Venezuela have each taken great strides to convert their
economies to a Euro-based framework, thus hoping to speed up
the destruction of the U.S. dollar:
----- Begin Quote -----
"In January 2006, China announced an intention to reduce 75
percent of its foreign exchange reserves currently held in
U.S. dollars."
"Since China is the world's second-largest holder of U.S.
dollar-denominated foreign-exchange reserves, it has the
power to create a catastrophe. At the same time, Venezuela
and Iran are now demanding that all payments for oil
shipments be paid for in euros – not dollars.
"In addition, both nations are planning regional central
banking schemes designed to hold all foreign exchange
holdings of participating countries in euros instead of
dollars. This explains why enemy operators, spearheaded by
members of the Saudi royal family, have flooded hundreds of
millions of dollars into Venezuelan held bearer-bonds that
are used to buy as many banks as possible throughout the
Caribbean and South American areas.
"All these factors cannot be coincidence. They reveal a
concerted, well-coordinated strategy to destroy America
through economics."
----- End Quote -----
Well the plot continues to thicken. Those of you who read the
news a lot are probably aware of the fact that in May of last
year, (2006), after almost three decades of hostilities, the
United States restored full diplomatic ties with the North
African nation of Libya. If you are not yet convinced of the
arguments I have presented in this article, perhaps this bit
of news will push you a little further in my direction. How
do you suppose the Bush Administration decided to explain
this surprise reversal to the American public? Believe it or
not, the U.S. Government's propaganda organ, the mass media,
splashed the news that this "wonderful event" had come about
as a result of Libya's iron-fisted Islamic dictator, Colonel
Muammar el-Qaddafi, who has been in power since 1969, coming
to his senses, by renouncing terrorism, and coming over to
the "good side".
As you may recall, over the past two decades, Libya has been
implicated in a number of terrorist-related activities. In
1986, it was the Berlin discotheque bombing in which two U.S.
servicemen died. In 1988, it was the Pan Am Flight 103 attack
over Lockerbie, Scotland, in which 270 people perished, 189
of whom were Americans. In 1989, it was a French airliner,
UTA Flight 772, in which 171 individuals died in Niger. When
Libya refused to acknowledge its crimes, the U.N. Security
Council imposed sanctions in 1992, and then again in 1993. In
2003, after ten years of sanctions, Libya supposedly had a
change of heart, acknowledged its crimes, and agreed to pay
almost three billion dollars in compensation. It also said
that it was renouncing terrorism.
As I told my mailing list readers last May, I don't believe
the media's story for a minute. There may be some elements
of truth to the story, but I think the American decision to
restore ties with Libya has very little to do with Libya's
so-called "good behavior". Qaddafi is a dictator for life,
just like his neighbor, Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, who receives
billions of dollars in U.S. aid every year. Qaddafi has been
associated with terrorism, which has resulted in hundreds of
people losing their lives. Finally, his human rights record
is absolutely atrocious. In 2004, the U.S. Department of
State listed Libya's human rights record as "poor". In 2005,
in its annual report, the Freedom House organization rated
political rights in Libya as "7", civil liberties as "7",
and gave Libya the freedom rating of "Not Free". Their scale
is based upon "1" meaning the most free, and "7" being the
least free.
All Middle Eastern dictators, whether it is Saddam Hussein,
Hosni Mubarak, Muammar el-Qaddafi, Bashar al-Assad, al-Saud
dynasty, King Abdullah, or anyone else, treat their citizens
the same. If one overly criticizes the government, they may
just disappear for life. In spite of this fact, the American
Government openly supports some of these leaders, and pays
them millions or billions of dollars a year in financial
aid to keep their regimes afloat; and then it turns around
and proclaims to the world that it is a defender of human
rights, and points the finger at other nations.
This concocted impression of America is an absolute lie. As
I've stated many times before, America doesn't really care
how a foreign leader runs his country, just as long as that
leader is pro-American, and is smart enough to do America's
bidding. When you don't, you end up like Saddam Hussein at
the end of a rope. Earlier I spoke about how over the years,
certain stop-gap measures have had to be implemented, in
order to keep the U.S. economy from crashing. While I was
speaking in economic terms, it is safe to say that in the
case of Saddam Hussein, the stop-gap measure they resorted
to was a permanent solution. He will never be able to defy
the U.S. again. Maybe the Shi'ite executioners pulled the
lever, but they did it with the U.S.'s tacit consent, and
everyone knows it. As Professor Petrov remarked, what the
U.S. has done in Iraq is a warning to other would-be rebels.
What really upsets me, is the politically-correct hypocrisy
that we are now seeing in the world press. I am by no means
a Saddam Hussein fan; but he sat in solitary confinement for
three years, and the world hardly peeped a word. Now that he
is dead, suddenly, all of these world leaders are lamenting
that he was executed under such questionable conditions, and
with such haste. I suspect that many of them are only doing
this, because they know that it is what is expected of them
by the public. They are just playing their roles.
But let us return to the situation with Libya for a moment.
If the United States restored relations with Libya so quickly
following Qaddafi's 2003 turnaround, it is because Libya has
something that America wants; and I think you already know
what that is. I have no doubt that this diplomatic move was
all about resurrecting the warm relationship that Libya and
the U.S. had decades ago, prior to the 1969 Revolution when
Qaddafi came to power. Before that time, Libya was very pro-
West, and both the U.S. and the British had bases there. So
this was a purely strategic move to re-establish an old oil
supplier at a time when America needs it the most. What I
find a bit funny, is that the U.S. Government knew exactly
how the rest of the world would react to this announcement;
and so right away, it started to deny what was so obvious.
In a May 2006 New York Times article, which in glowing terms
explains how cooperative Colonel Qaddafi has suddenly become,
we find the following interesting quote from David Welch,
who is the U.S.'s Assistant Secretary of State for the Middle
East:
----- Begin Quote -----
"Libya is a major oil-producing state and a member of OPEC,
but David Welch, assistant secretary of state for the Middle
East, insisted: 'This decision is not undertaken because
Libya has oil. This decision is undertaken because they've
addressed our national security concerns.'"
----- End Quote -----
Folks, as far as I am concerned, that is nonsense. The man
is blowing smoke in our faces. According to 2003 figures,
Libya is the eleventh largest oil exporter in the world. As
of September 2006, she was producing 1.7 million barrels of
oil a day, which is some 300,000 barrels below Iraq's level.
That is precisely why she has been let back into America's
fold; and you can bet that Qaddafi is going to sell his oil
in American dollars, and not in Euros. In fact, this may be
why in the very same news article, it states that "Iran has
ridiculed Libya for its reconciliation with the West". Iran
wants all OPEC members to sell their oil in Euros, and not
in U.S. dollars. Let's not forget that the U.S.A. wants to
divide and destroy OPEC, if OPEC nations don't want to sell
their oil in U.S. dollars. So by selling his oil in dollars,
Qaddafi is working against the other OPEC nations who want
to sell their oil in Euros, such as Iraq and Iran. I think
there is another nation that may be doing the same thing. I
will be discussing it in a moment. So not everyone is happy
about this reconciliation. In fact, one woman, who had lost
her only child in the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing attack,
stated:
----- Begin Quote -----
"Qaddafi has triumphed. This is all done for oil; that's all
they care about."
----- End Quote -----
I think she is absolutely right. It's all about the oil, and
keeping the U.S. dollar connected to the oil. By the way, I
forgot to mention an important fact regarding the outcome of
the U.S.A.'s invasion of Iraq. In his article, Professor
Petrov also makes this enlightening comment:
----- Begin Quote -----
"Indeed, this is the case: two months after the United States
invaded Iraq, the Oil for Food Program was terminated, the
Iraqi Euro accounts were switched back to dollars, and oil
was sold once again only for U.S. dollars. No longer could
the world buy oil from Iraq with Euro."
"Global dollar supremacy was once again restored. Bush
descended victoriously from a fighter jet and declared the
mission accomplished - he had successfully defended the U.S.
dollar, and thus the American Empire."
----- End Quote -----
That is undoubtedly why, since several years ago, the U.S.A.
has been actively supporting the Shi'ites in Iraq, and is in
fact still supporting them today; even though their militias
and death squads, such as Moktada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army, have
been murdering thousands and thousands of Sunnis in Iraq. As
we saw earlier, under Saddam Hussein, the Sunnis had begun
to sell their oil in Euros; but now, with the Shi'ites in
power, the Iraqi oil exchange has been returned to a dollar
base. If they are smart, they will leave it that way, unless
they want to meet the same fate as Saddam Hussein.
What really caught me by surprise in the previous paragraphs
was Professor Petrov's second comment. Like so many other
people, I totally missed the real significance of President
Bush's "Top Gun" moment back in the Spring of 2003, when he
descended from that fighter jet on that air craft carrier.
Like other writers, considering how poorly the invasion and
war has gone, I criticized, and even mocked Bush, for being
so quick to declare the mission accomplished. However, now I
am beginning to realize that his words may not have been for
us, the general public, at all. His "mission accomplished"
message may have been a coded message meant for someone else
who is much more powerful than he, who was watching their
television set that day. This person, or group of people,
would know exactly what the president meant by the phrase.
From our perspective as outsiders to the government's inner
workings, who plainly see that civil war has engulfed Iraq,
and that three thousand people continue to be killed every
month, it most definitely appears like the mission has not
really been accomplished, and that America has obtained no
victory there. But is it possible that this is because we
have never truly understood what the mission was? Bush has
thrown all of this disinformation at us for several years
now. First we were told that America invaded Iraq to stop
Saddam, and to destroy his WMD. Then we were told that the
mission was to root out al-Qaeda from Iraq. Then they told
us that it was to free the Iraqis, and to bring a semblance
of democracy to Iraq.
For more than six years now, we have endured President Bush's
disinformation blitzkrieg. So when none of these things came
to pass -- no WMD found, al-Qaeda not removed from Iraq, and
the Iraqis still not living in a peaceful democracy -- and
the situation became increasingly worse, we naturally assumed
that Bush had been premature with his "mission accomplished"
statement so early in the conflict. Well, it's been more than
four years now since the "mission accomplished" remark, and
we are still being given a lot of disinformation, and many of
us are still wondering what Bush has really accomplished; if
anything, besides destroy Iraq, and get a lot of people mad
at him.
However, if, as Prof. Petrov suggests, we look at the real
mission as being to restore the Iraqi oil exchange to a U.S.
dollar base, then President Bush was absolutely correct when
he smiled and said "Mission accomplished!". Even though Iraq
is still in a very chaotic state, with so many people being
murdered on a daily basis, nevertheless, America did in fact
accomplish her mission there. Saddam Hussein was de-throned,
and the dollar was restored to power there.
Sadly, the tragedy is that the Iraqi people are the ones who
have been paying a terrible price for America's destructive
deeds; and thus far, it appears that the Shi'ite politicians
who are now in control of the country, are evil thugs who are
not much better than Saddam Hussein himself. Right now, while
they may not label it as such, ethnic cleansing is occurring
in Baghdad and elsewhere in the country; and the U.S. military
has not been able to prevent it from happening, in spite of
the estimated 130,000 troops that they have in the country. I
don't know what else you can call the forceful displacement
and murder of thousands of Sunnis, if not ethnic cleansing.
It is indeed true that both Shi'ites and Sunnis are currently
at each other's throats; but we know who is in power, as well
as who is in the minority, and who will thus lose in the
end; so when all is said and done, I think a lot of people
will agree that we have witnessed ethnic cleansing in Iraq.
As I stated a moment ago, the reason why the United States
accepted Libya back into its fold, even though they deny it,
is because it needs her oil. What made this become necessary?
Quite simply, the Bush administration had a major falling out
with Hugo Chávez, who is the outspoken president of Venezuela.
Some of you have undoubtedly read about this in the news. The
U.S.A. has followed her standard modus operandi, and has gone
to great lengths to vilify Chávez before the world. Venezuela
is one of the founding members of OPEC. She has also been one
of America's major oil suppliers; so it is only logical that
if that provider is in danger of being lost, America has to
find another reliable replacement. Thus, fellow OPEC member,
Libya, has been chosen. Why may Venezuela be lost? Keep on
reading, and you'll surely find out.
For your personal knowledge, the current members of OPEC, or
"Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries", are the
following: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Venezuela, the
United Arab Emirates, Algeria, Nigeria, Angola, Libya, Qatar
and Indonesia. Former members, Ecuador and Gabon, would like
to rejoin OPEC, and the countries of Syria, Sudan, Bolivia
and Mexico are potential future members. According to online
sources, OPEC member nations hold about two-thirds of the
world's oil reserves, which is a lot oil. According to 2005
figures, they also accounted for 41.7% of the world's oil
production. So you can see why when OPEC talks, everyone
sits up and listens. Some nations, like the United States,
like to downplay OPEC's overall importance in the scheme of
things, but don't let them fool you. If OPEC nations were to
severely reduce their oil output, or raise their prices to
a significant degree, the whole world would feel it; maybe
not as much as during the 1973 Oil Embargo, but still, a lot.
This brings us to another point which you may find rather
interesting. As we have already seen, America's strategy has
been to forcefully remove from power, in whatever way may be
necessary, any world leader who chooses to sell their oil in
Euros, or who refuses to support the U.S. dollar by buying
their oil reserves in U.S. dollars, instead of in Euros. In
her aforementioned article, Dr. Ebron makes a brief comment
about Venezuela. Guess what she says? Consider this:
----- Begin Quote -----
"U.S. interests in South America, despite the failure of the
coup in Venezuela (an OPEC member), are being secured via
military aid to neighboring Columbia."
----- End Quote -----
As I have mentioned a number of times before to my readers,
when the U.S.A. becomes dissatisfied with a particular world
leader, she doesn't always go in personally and remove that
person through military force. Quite often, she will get her
underdogs to do it for her. She will foment civil unrest and
revolution in a nation; she will attack its economy; she will
do whatever is needed to destabilize the government of that
country, until its undesirable leader falls. She will even
covertly send in CIA operatives and other troublemakers, in
order to mastermind a coup. Are you getting the picture? As
Dr. Ebron briefly mentioned, in April of 2002, a failed coup
attempt occurred in Venezuela. During the coup, Venezuela's
leader, Hugo Chávez, was briefly removed from power, but was
shortly restored.
You obviously already know what superpower has a long history
of clandestinely meddling in the affairs of Latin America. On
a number of occasions, their schemes have come to light and
embarrassed the leader of that nation. Shortly after the coup
in Venezuela occurred, it was widely reported that the Bush
administration had been linked to the overthrow attempt. The
Observer of London had this to say regarding the incident in
an April 2002 article entitled "Venezuela Coup Linked To
Bush Team":
----- Begin Quote -----
The failed coup in Venezuela was closely tied to senior
officials in the US government, The Observer has established.
They have long histories in the 'dirty wars' of the 1980s,
and links to death squads working in Central America at that
time.
Washington's involvement in the turbulent events that briefly
removed left-wing leader Hugo Chavez from power last weekend
resurrects fears about US ambitions in the hemisphere.
It also also deepens doubts about policy in the region being
made by appointees to the Bush administration, all of whom
owe their careers to serving in the dirty wars under
President Reagan.
One of them, Elliot Abrams, who gave a nod to the attempted
Venezuelan coup, has a conviction for misleading Congress
over the infamous Iran-Contra affair.
The Bush administration has tried to distance itself from
the coup. It immediately endorsed the new government under
businessman Pedro Carmona. But the coup was sent dramatically
into reverse after 48 hours.
Now officials at the Organisation of American States and
other diplomatic sources, talking to The Observer, assert
that the US administration was not only aware the coup was
about to take place, but had sanctioned it, presuming it to
be destined for success.
----- End Quote -----
This is the kind of aggressive American leadership that the
world is now forced to deal with. Regime change is obviously
an integral part of American strategy, whenever it deems it
necessary, with no regard for the sovereignty of any nation.
As leaders such as Slobodan Milosevic, Saddam Hussein, Hugo
Chávez, Kim Jong Il and many others have learned, no one is
immune to the long arm of American Imperialism.
While the American Government will sometimes resort to more
overt means in order to push its weight around in another
country, this isn't always necessary. As we've already seen,
this is due to the power of the US dollar, and the hold that
it has on so many countries. The truth is, that through the
financial institutions which it controls, e.g. WB, IMF, the
U.S. already controls a large portion of Latin America. You
will recall the story I shared earlier regarding Ecuador. She
isn't the only Latin American country who has become a slave
of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank; but
some nations, like Venezuela, do fight back.
As I was reading the article concerning the reconciliation
between the United States and Libya, I really had to laugh,
because while praising Colonel Qaddafi and Libya, and even
letting us know that Libya has now been removed from their
list of state sponsors of terrorism, the US Administration
used this event as a vehicle to also preach at and condemn
Venezuela, Iran and North Korea. With the heading of "U.S.
Will Restore Diplomatic Links With The Libyans", the May 16,
2006 New York Times article stated among other things:
----- Begin Quotes -----
"Libya is an important model as nations around the world
press for changes in behavior by the Iranian and North
Korean regimes," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said.
Hers was just one of several similar statements on Monday
from senior officials who worked hard to turn Libya's change
in behavior into a lesson for Iran as a resolution on Iran's
nuclear development program remains stalled in the United
Nations Security Council."
"While lifting sanctions on Libya, the United States on
Monday listed Venezuela as a country that is not cooperating
on terrorism. The State Department said the Venezuelan
president, Hugo Chávez, had given oratorical support to Iran
and to the Iraqi insurgency and had provided aid to
insurgents involved in drug trafficking in Colombia."
"Nobody is saying that Venezuela is actively sponsoring
terrorism," said a State Department official speaking on
condition of anonymity under department rules. "But
Venezuela has clearly shown a lack of interest in working
with us in combating it."
"The listing of Venezuela means that the United States
cannot sell it military equipment, but the officials said
such sales are negligible now."
----- End Quotes -----
Okay, do you realize what you just read? Do you understand
why the US Government mentions Venezuela in the article? If
not, let me tell you. They are using the very same strategy
that we have been discussing throughout this series. That
article is purposely meant to brainwash the American public,
and plant in their minds, a connection between Venezuela and
terrorism, plain and simple. Do you see how subtle they are
being? "Oh, we're not saying that Venezuela is a terrorist
nation; we're just saying that Hugo Chávez isn't helping us
to combat terrorism". You see, that is enough. That is all
that they have to do. Rumor, speculation and imagination
will do the rest of the work for them. They have planted the
suggestion in people's heads; and now, before long, a lot of
Americans, when they hear the name Hugo Chávez or Venezuela,
are going to equate him, and his nation, with terrorism. He
will become blacklisted, even though he has done nothing
remotely related to terrorism.
But is that really the reason why the American Government is
angry with Hugo Chávez? Is it because he is either supportive
of, or in some way connected to, terrorism? After reading so
much of this series, I hope you realize that it isn't. Well,
what is the real reason then? If you ask me, it is the very
same reason that the U.S. condemned Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan
and North Korea. It is all about OPEC oil, and who is buying
or selling oil in dollars or Euros. In this case, you already
know that Venezuela is an OPEC member nation; and in fact, a
founding member; which means that it has some say regarding
OPEC pricing and exportation policies. We have also learned
that together with Iran, Venezuela has been pushing for the
world to adopt the Euro as its new currency reserve, instead
of the dollar. The following excerpts, taken from a BBS news
article, dated Dec. 22, 2006 and entitled "Venezuela Mulls
Euro Oil Switch", confirms what Hal Lindsey stated earlier:
----- Begin Quotes -----
"Venezuela has expressed interest in an Iranian move to ask
buyers to pay for oil in euros rather than US dollars . . .
The oil-rich nation said it planned to see if a similar
scheme could be introduced to its crude exports . . . Iran,
the world's fourth-biggest oil producer, has already asked
customers to pay for its oil in euros because of the current
weakness of the dollar . . . Although the dollar is the
currency in which oil is usually traded, it has been falling
in value against the euro . . . The US currency tumbled to
20-month lows against the single European currency earlier
this month . . . Iran still prices its oil in dollars, but
currently receives payment for 57% of its crude exports in
euros, according to the National Iranian Oil Company . . .
Venezuela's energy minister Rafael Ramirez described the
Iranian scheme as 'very interesting'."
----- End Quotes -----
The Bloomberg news site also provides us with some pertinent
information regarding this same issue. In fact, it expands,
and states that oil producers from the United Arab Emirates
to Indonesia, and even Russia, are likewise in the process
of switching to a Euro-based economy, instead of one based
upon the US dollar. Consider the following information from
a December 18, 2006 article called "Venezuela, Oil Producers
Buy Euro as Dollar, Oil Fall". Please also notice that Hugo
Chávez first proposed the Euro switch at an OPEC meeting
this past June. That is why the U.S. Government has been
bad-mouthing him so much in the American press in recent
months:
----- Begin Quotes -----
Venezuelan leader Hugo Chávez is directing a growing share
of the country's oil profits into euros as the dollar and
crude prices fall.
The dollar, down 9.5 percent against the euro this year, may
face more pressure in 2007 because Venezuela and oil
producers from the United Arab Emirates to Indonesia plan to
funnel more money into the single European currency.
Bank Indonesia is boosting euro holdings, said Senior Deputy
Governor Miranda S Goeltom in a Dec. 13 interview in
Jakarta. Indonesia has $39.9 billion in reserves. Sultan Bin
Nasser al- Suwaidi, the governor of the Central Bank of the
UAE, last month said he was considering when to shift as
much as 8 percent of the nation's $24.9 billion in reserves
into euros.
The share of foreign-exchange deposits held in dollars by
OPEC members and Russia, the largest non-OPEC oil exporter,
fell to a two-year low of 65 percent during the second
quarter, from 67 percent during the previous three months,
Bank for International Settlements figures released last
week show.
Chávez called on OPEC to sell oil denominated in euros
rather than dollars at a meeting of the group in Caracas on
June 1, supporting a proposal made by Iran.
OPEC members and Russia increased the percentage of their
foreign-exchange deposits held in euros to 22 percent in the
second quarter from 20 percent, the BIS said. By contrast,
the global average is about a third, according to the Basel,
Switzerland-based bank.
Oil states will probably buy the European currency at a
faster rate to bring their reserves closer in line with
other nations, according to David Durrant at Julius Baer
Investment Management in New York.
----- End Quotes -----
So to reiterate, the primary reason why the United States has
been bad-mouthing Hugo Chávez, and trying to make him appear
as a friend of terrorists, is because not only does he have
tons of oil, a lot of which is imported by the U.S., but he
is also now demanding that he be paid for it in Euros, instead
of dollars. Furthermore, he is in the forefront of the move to
encourage other nations to also adopt the Euro as the currency
reserve of the oil markets. The Bush Administration's hatred
of Chávez has absolutely nothing to do with real WMD, or real
terrorism. It is a blatant lie, and they know it. Following
are some more quotes from Lindsey's article which explains
in clear terms, exactly how powerful Chávez is becoming, as
a result of Venezuela's oil reserves:
----- Begin Quote -----
"I believe oil is being used in this same overall strategy
against America. Last October, OPEC agreed to reduce
production to keep oil prices up near $60 per barrel. The
price was suggested by Hugo Chavez after consultation with
his friends in Tehran and Moscow and accepted by OPEC."
"With that one brilliant maneuver, Chavez cornered the
global oil market. Venezuela has vast deposits of heavy oil
in the Orinoco, but heavy oil is expensive to extract and
refine at free-market prices. However, at $60 per barrel,
the Orinoco reserves give Venezuela the largest proven oil
reserves in the world."
"Not just larger than the vast reserves of Iran or Saudi
Arabia, it is larger than both of them put together. In
fact, it is bigger than all the proven oil reserves in the
Middle East combined. Venezuela's deposits alone could
extend the oil age for another 100 years."
"Hugo Chavez is raking in some $200 million a day in oil
sales, most of it from the United States. If Chavez demands
payment in euros, it will throw the whole U.S. economy into
a crisis."
"Amazingly, Hugo Chavez has now become the go-to guy for all
of OPEC. He's held audience with every oil sheik and
dictator in the Middle East, including our "friends" the
Saudis and Kuwaitis. With the recent re-election of Chavez,
the U.S. is ringed by five of the most virulently
anti-American leftist regimes in Latin America."
----- End Quote -----
By now, I hope you can see how the United States of America
has used its so-called "War Against Terrorism" to cloak what
it is really doing around the world. When you see it vilify
a nation or leader, you really need to ask yourself why it
is doing it. Is it really for the stated reasons? Let me
give you one more clear example, so you can see again how
obvious this pattern is. As you are already aware, in his
State Of the Union Address in January of 2002, President
Bush referred to Iran, Iraq and North Korea as the "Axis of
Evil". Are you aware of the fact that there is actually an
appended list which people refer to as the "Beyond The Axis
Of Evil" list? This expanded list receives its name from a
speech that US Under Secretary of State, John Bolton, gave
in May of 2002 which was entitled "Beyond The Axis Of Evil".
Following are some excerpts from a news article which was
published by the BBC on May 6, 2002:
----- Begin Quotes -----
The United States has added Cuba, Libya and Syria to the
nations it claims are deliberately seeking to obtain
chemical or biological weapons.
In a speech entitled "Beyond the Axis of Evil", US Under
Secretary of State, John Bolton said that the three nations
could be grouped with other so-called "rogue states" - Iraq,
Iran and North Korea - in actively attempting to develop
weapons of mass destruction.
He also warned that the US would take action.
"America is determined to prevent the next wave of terror,"
he said, referring to the 11 September attacks in Washington
and New York that killed up to 3,000 people.
"States that sponsor terror and pursue WMD (weapons of mass
destruction) must stop. States that renounce terror and
abandon WMD can become part of our effort, but those that do
not can expect to become our targets," he said.
----- End Quotes -----
Boy, their list just keeps getting bigger and bigger! This
news is from 2002, so please don't forget that Libya made
its alleged turnaround in 2003, and is now buddy-buddy with
the USA again. Cuba is still on the U.S.'s bad guy list, but
that may change in the not too distant future; being as Fidel
Castro has been very sick, some say near death, and may not
last much longer. Even if his brother Raul takes over when
Fidel dies, Raul isn't exactly young, and can't last much
longer either; so there may possibly be a bright future for
the people of Cuba soon. But here is the interesting point
about Cuba. Guess where she buys here oil; from her good old
friend Hugo Chávez of Venezuela; the very same man who has
been pushing for the dollar to Euro switch.
Let's look at the last country on the so-called "Beyond The
Axis Of Evil" list compiled by the US: Syria. Currently, she
is not a member of OPEC; however, Syria still needs to make
financial decisions regarding its imports and exports. As
with the other nations we have looked at, the U.S.A. has
been bad-mouthing Syria for years now. However, since 2002,
just like Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, it is now accused
of making attempts to acquire Weapons of Mass Destruction.
By now, I suppose you already know what I am going to say
next, so let me just give you the facts. Yes, folks, Syria
is also converting its economy to the Euro. Actually, Syria
made this decision sometime last year. In a news article I
found on the "Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee" website",
dated July 11, 2006, it also mentions that Russia, Finland
Sweden, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates are also
converting their economies to the Euro as well. Following
are a few quotes from the article entitled "Syria Moves
Reserves To Euros And Will End Dollar Peg This Year":
----- Begin Quotes -----
Syria, accused by the U.S. of supporting terrorism, plans to
end its currency peg to the dollar by December to reflect
closer trade ties with Europe, central bank Governor Adib
Mayaleh said.
The Central Bank of Syria has already converted half its
foreign-exchange reserves to euros, Mayaleh said in a
telephone interview from Damascus, without being more
specific.
"We want to have a currency peg that will reflect our
external trade," Mayaleh said yesterday. The European Union
is Syria's largest trading partner, taking half of its
exports, he said. Italy and France are the biggest
destinations for Syrian goods abroad, according to data
published by the CIA fact book.
Central bankers from Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab
Emirates, Russia, Sweden, and Finland have this year
indicated they aim to diversify their reserves away from the
dollar.
The Syrian government is "studying options" with regard to
ending the dollar peg, Abdallah Dardari, the country's
deputy prime minister for economic affairs, told reporters
on the sidelines of a conference in Damascus on June 10.
----- End Quotes -----
With all of this information, it isn't difficult to see that
many nations are starting to become worried about the future
of the U.S. dollar. In fact, they have been worried for quite
some time. As the previous news clippings clearly point out,
many leaders are betting on the winning horse, and have begun
to slowly abandon the dollar, in favor of the Euro as the new
currency reserve of the world. Incidently, Malaysia has also
begun to transfer her market reserves to the Euro, and there
are undoubtedly other nations as well which I've overlooked.
Please understand that Euro-ization is a process in motion,
and that nations have to make financial decisions on a daily
basis, based upon the current situation of the money and oil
markets. Thus, we can expect to see other nations move over
to the Euro as well, as it continues to gain power against
the dollar.
In reality, Euro-ization is a natural flow of events; because
as a result of their oil requirements, trade agreements, and
their geographical location, the nations of Europe have long
enjoyed a close relationship with the oil-producing nations
of the Middle East; much more so than the United States has,
which is an outsider. At any rate, this current migration to
the Euro, or Euro-ization as I call it, cannot bode well for
the United States of America by any means; thus, she's begun
to strike back. She will not let her dollar empire crumble
so easily.
So now can you understand why the U.S. Government has been
so desperate for "regime change" in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan,
Syria, North Korea, Venezuela and elsewhere? Do you see how
it has lied to the world, and to the American people? Do you
see how the Bush Administration has followed a very specific
consistent pattern, and has repeatedly, and intentionally,
tried to connect its perceived enemies to WMD and terrorism,
even when no such connections exist? The United States of
America has woven a smokescreen of deception, in order to
conceal what is really going on; and what is really going
on, is an oil - dollar - Euro war; which will determine the
fate of America's future. America is fighting to save her
empire; an empire built upon the U.S. dollar, and not upon
the Euro. The Euro, as Dr. Ebron pointed out, is the real
WMD. It is the Weapon of Mass Destruction that will destroy
America's financial empire, unless America can destroy her
enemies first. If anyone is terrorized right now, it is the
U.S. Government. Perhaps they see the handwriting on the
wall.
Attacking or vilifying the above noted countries has nothing
to do with 9-11, WMD or the so-called War Against Terrorism.
It is all about protecting the American economy, and the oil.
The United States has followed this policy for many decades.
Let me remind you that prior to the 1979 Iranian Revolution,
America had another puppet leader installed in Iran. Some of
you are old enough to remember the man. He was the Shah of
Iran, formally known as Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi. He was an
American puppet who allowed all kinds of Western attitudes
into Iran, which is why Ayatollah Rouhollah Khomeini and his
followers overthrew him in 1979 with the Islamic Revolution.
So please don't forget the pattern, or the strategy, that
led up to the invasion of Iraq, not quite four years ago.
Hopefully, it will help you to recognize how this pattern is
now being repeated, in order to prepare the American people
for a potential war with Iran; and who knows who will be
America's next victim after that.
Ironically, even before the invasion of Iraq had occurred,
the American Government had already put Iran on its radar
screen, and had begun to demonize it and its leadership,
just as it had done with Saddam Hussein. As a clear example
of this, consider that an article published in the New York
Times on February 22, 2003, stated the following:
----- Begin Quote -----
"American officials believe Natanz is part of a long
suspected nuclear weapons program, an Iranian project that
American intelligence believes has benefited from Pakistani
assistance and that is far more advanced than the effort by
Iraq."
"Iran will attempt to justify Natanz as part of its civilian
nuclear power program, but it is actually an effort to
develop a nuclear weapons breakout capability," said Gary
Samore, director of studies at the International Institute
for Strategic Studies and former expert on proliferation on
President Bill Clinton's National Security Council."
----- End Quote -----
Please carefully notice what kinds of verbal strategies are
being employed in the previous statements. American officials
"believe". Uh-oh . . . Belief is not proof, is it? We can all
believe a lot of things, but it doesn't necessarily mean that
they are true. Then we are told that these American officials
have "long suspected" that Natanz is part of a nuclear
weapons program. Again, just having a suspicion isn't proof
of anything, and does not make it so. Despite this obvious
lack of solid evidence, in the second paragraph, this fellow
Samore, who we are told is an expert in his field, has the
audacity to try to tell us exactly what Natanz is; and he
obviously expects us to believe him, even though he hasn't
offered us a single solid shred of evidence. We are supposed
to accept that Natanz is "an effort to develop a nuclear
weapons breakout capability", just because he says so. We
are supposed to believe him because he is the expert.
Let me also add, that just as the U.S. and Britain turned
their people against Saddam Hussein, they have been taking
steps to do the very same thing with Ayatollah Seyed Ali
Khamenei, Iran's supreme spiritual leader, as well as with
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's current radical president. In
the case of Khamenei, the American mass media has painted
him as a dangerous, power-hungry, Muslim extremist; and in
the case of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, we are purposely given the
impression that he is just an anti-semitic kook who is not
worthy of the American Government's attention. In their own
arrogance, the Bush administration considers Ahmadinejad a
joke, and they won't even acknowledge any of his comments or
diplomatic gestures. Speaking of America's arrogance, and
the heavy-handed strategies that the Bush Administration has
been employing in order to maintain America's dominance in
the world, in her article, Dr. Ebron offers a very wise
warning which rings true. She states:
----- Begin Quote -----
"Far from staving off disaster, our arrogance may instead
compel OPEC to "go euro" en masse, taking many oil-consuming
nations with them by force of economics. And a trade war
with Europe will lend the coup de grace to our economy."
----- End Quote -----
This is precisely what has begun to happen. The Euro shift
has begun; the machine is in motion and building up speed,
and the U.S.A. may not be able to stop it. From reading the
above news articles, (and there are many more that you can
read online), it becomes obvious to me that at this moment,
a polarization is occurring, between those who will side
with America and the U.S. dollar, and those who will side
with Europe, the OPEC nations and the Euro. The lines are
being clearly drawn.
As I have explained to my readers a number of times before,
I am absolutely convinced that the United States of America
will do anything within its power, to destroy any country
which stands in its way, or dares to threaten its position
as a global superpower. Just like a merciless eagle, the
American Government will rip apart and utterly destroy any
competitor; militarily, as well as socially and financially;
but it will disguise its vile actions, and portray them as
being something entirely different; just as we have now seen
with this WMD, "War Against Terrorism", dollar versus Euro
war.
Let me say again that things are not always what they appear
to be on the surface; especially when it comes to the U.S.
Government's foreign policy. The "War Against Terrorism" is
a cleverly-crafted charade, and a rather convincing one at
that. Even the phrases "WMD" and "War Against Terrorism" seem
to be code words that only those in-the-know will understand.
They aren't meant to define real nuclear weapons, but rather
the worst weapon that the United States fears most of all:
the Euro. The Euro has the potential to bring proud, mighty
America to her knees; and it is for this reason that the US
Government has embarked on her current course of destroying
any world leader who embraces the Euros-For-Oil program. If
you doubt my words, just look at the hellhole that is now
the once proud nation of Iraq, whose rulers once built one
of the eight wonders of the world.
And ask yourself: Who is the real terrorist? Who is really
spreading terror, death and destruction all around the world,
at the expense of others, as she frantically tries to save
herself from her slow demise? Blessed are the peacemakers!
Following is a list of nations, etc., which:
a. already use the Euro as their primary currency
b. or, which have exchange rate agreements with the Euro
c. or, which have already begun the transition from a
dollar-based, to a Euro-based economy
d. or, which have publicly announced their intentions to
build up their Euro reserves
e. or, which purchase their oil in Euros
f. or, which keep a certain percentage of their national
currency reserve in Euros.
The following list is constantly evolving, and may not be
complete at the time that you read this. Nevertheless, it is
easy to see that the Euro has steadily advanced, since its
creation in 1999. When the Euro-based economies reach a
critical mass, the U.S. dollar will explode, and the Euro
will become the de facto reserve currency of the world,
which will be used to make most oil purchases.
Andorra Guadalupe (Caribbean) Pakistan Australia Herzegovina Portugal Austria Hungary Qatar Belgium Indonesia Reunion (Indian Ocean) Bosnia-Herzegovina Iran Romania Botswana Ireland Russia Bulgaria Israel Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon Canada Italy San Marino Canary Islands Jordan Saudi Arabia Cape Verde Kosovo Serbia CFA Franc Zone Kuwait Seychelles China Latvia Slovakia Comoros Islands Libya Spain Croatia Lithuania Sweden Cuba Luxembourg Syria Cyprus Macedonia The Netherlands Czech Republic Madeira The Vatican Denmark Malaysia Tunisia Estonia Malta United Arab Emirates Finland Martinique United Kingdom France Mayotte United States French Guyana Monaco Vanuatu FYR Macedonia Montenegro Venezuela Germany Morocco Yugoslavia Greece North Korea
No comments:
Post a Comment