|
Guess the War WAS about oil, sort of...
|
|
By je2, Section Rants
Posted on Tue Apr 15th, 2003 at 11:45:29 AM PDT
|
 |
This current little skirmish in the mid-east is really about oil
indirectly. It is about liberating the Iraqi people indirectly. (Sure,
arguments can be had from both sides, the "It's all about the oil" and
the "It's about getting rid of SH and WMD" crowds, to justify this
"war" right now. But both sides are bad marksmen. They MISS the
real point of this little skirmish). Both of those items do come as a
side bonus. To the victors go the spoils as it were huh? Sure,
indirectly the USA will control oil in Iraq under the new USA friendly
regime soon to be put in place by the occupation Armies. The Iraqis do
get liberated, as long as they are pro USA\England\UN and provided they
can be "trusted" to implement "democracy" at home as it were. So here
comes the initial occupation and with it the regular ass kissers
getting in line for the good government jobs about to be handed down.
Beyond that, looks like a different battlefield.
|
Ok, so everyone noticed that the Enron and Halberton cash cows have
suddenly dried up for the Shrub and his cronies? This plan, and
subsequent action, in Iraq is the perfect opportunity to get a fresh
start for those in power at this time. Not to mention lining up for
those cushy high priced after government consulting gigs. (Hey, I'm a
capitalist tool just like Malcom Forbes and family. Being greedy and
being a capitalist don't always go hand in hand. But a good beer does
go hand in hand if you get my drift about capitalistic intentions. We
all work, and we all want to make lots of money. I personally like
making more than enough disposable income to buy good beer. Sorry I
digress).
Not surprisingly that the plan of action in the Middle East is actually
a plan that was really devised in the `90's under Shrub Sr. People
always ask why didn't Iraq get cleaned up before when Sr. had a shot.
HE had a plan. HE had the troops. Well, the coalition forces
accomplished the objective, then said the USA was on her own after
Kuwait was cleaned up. So the hands were sort of tied. No excuses were
available at the moment to invade Iraq in Gulf I. The coalition
governments balked and backed down and left the USA out to dry on that
idea. (But then again, a lot of the savvy folks up here already knew
that, so this is nothing new.)
What is new is that there has been a lack of the words "New World
Order" bandied about for this plan. Shrub Jr. calls it "Regime Change"
and "Nation Building" most of the time for those nice sound bite
descriptive adjectives. However it is the same plan that was behind
"The New World Order" ideas back under Reagan and Shrub Sr., just a
different talking head in place. But with the same puppeteers in the
background pulling the strings, not too different. (Kind of a duh
moment ok, I know. building the foundation for the title just in case
there are newbie surfers up here looking around). So it seems that is
the objective: a "New Word Order" based on old thinking with a new
title.
But this war is not based on accessing the oilfields and controlling
the flow of cheap crude to the USA and allies. It's not about Halberton
wanna bes and post government officials getting the gravy gigs. It's
about the USA controlling the world economy via dollars versus the
euro. Yep. Very simple huh? Now everyone is saying WTF kind of
conspiracy theorist is out here now? I can hear you guys all saying
"she-yeah" now.
Think about it. France doesn't want to back the USA in this war. Why?
Simple you say. They have business deals there; they sell nuclear
reactor building materials to the Iraq government. (Hell, that's pretty
no brainer. The French are the global pimps for about all kinds
of hardware and military arms. If you have the money, you could buy
shit from the French on that scale.)
Germany refused to back the USA too. Why? Another simple one; The
German government sells the engineering technology to the Iraq
government for nuclear reactors. Another no brainer. Right?
Well... scratch the surface a little deeper and look at it more closely.
France and Germany have adopted the Euro as the currency of choice in
the EC. Not so obvious is that Britain has NOT adopted the Euro as of
yet. It's in the works and they plan on it at some point in time in the
future. (They currently are working through details of that in England.
Best guess it may get put on hold now).
OK: Now, quick question: who sets the oil prices and sets the
trade standards on oil? OPEC does. Geeze, where have the news stories
been about OPEC lately?) And what is the current currency traded for
oil set by OPEC? It's the dollar. Yep Good Old USA dollars are the
standard. (Do you now see where this is going? Does anyone need to be
reminded of how many countries are currently in the EC and adopted the
Euro as the default currency of trade? If you check that list, bet you
find that most of those EC countries are opposed to the USA action in
the Mid East right now).
OPEC is in the midst of a change of currency as the standard for
trading oil. (Yessiree Bob!) OPEC is actually contemplating changing to
the Euro as the standard to trading and selling oil to the rest of the
world. (Gee. Surprise. Conspiracy theory? It's all there. These are
just the facts. (Joe Friday voice over inserted here). With the Euro as
the standard in OPEC trading and selling, the global community will
move toward the Euro, leaving the dollar sort of lagging. (Anyone
remember the Yen in the `80s and the subsequent crashing of the
Japanese markets? And you thought that the economy as shitty now.)
With Iraq firmly in place as a USA occupied and friendly voice at the
feeding trough of OPEC, and certain South American Countries that owe
the US billions in loan money, the USA has a good chance to derail the
OPEC adoption of the Euro as the default currency of trade. Not to
mention that the Iraqi oil fields comprise almost one fourth of the oil
reserves\fields in the Middle East. That's a pretty big amount of clout
to control the world economy.
JMHO....Guess we'll have to see what develops.
|
|
|
