[deconstructionist]

julianj and eastbay--i'm wondering if you read my original post... i'm not saying the war is in our (americans) best interests because it means we will continue to have access to oil, or have access to greater amounts of oil. that's not what i'm saying at all. what i'm saying is that if we were not fighting war in iraq, they would certainly have crushed the dollar by now by trading oil for euros. i hate this war, but i realize that it is being fought to protect the value of american currency, without which i and many others would surely suffer greatly. yes we CAN live without money and i would LOVE to do so--but realistically, if our currency becomes worthless in a short period of time the effects would be devastating.

yes, iran will be next in line to dump the petrodollar, and we're poised to go to war with them as well if/when they try. china will only dump the dollar if they can buy oil without it.

again--i don't think that war is right under any circumstances. i am non-violent. i abhor killing. i realize this makes me a hypocrite because while i'm triyng to change my life to make the smallest footprint possible upoin the earth--I still enjoy the american way of life and the power that my american dollar commands. all other anti-war folks who still enjoy the american life style should realize they are hypocrites too. someday maybe the wife and i will have enough guts to leave the country or try to be completely self-sustaining but until then we have no choice but to participate in the system that this war is protecting.

i think the liberal/left-wing partyline goes something like this: "oilmen are greedy. greed is bad. the war is bad because it is being fought for the greed of oilmen and to protect their interests. killing iraqis for oil is wrong. we were lied to about the reasons for this war and now that we know that there is no reason for us to be there" i agree with all of that, except the last part. the thing that is still not being talked about publicly (other than me and a few other folks) is that the war is being fought so liberals and conservatives alike can keep driving their cars (hybrids, gas guzzlers, whatever), buying their lattes (half-caff-mocha-skim-with-a-twist-or-whatever), watching their cable television (terrorism everywhere! but don't be afraid. go about your normal lives. here's a sitcom and some reality shows), going to their jobs, going to the mall, and basically going on as if nothing in their lives would change for the worse if our government weren't protecting our currency with the lives of our children.

yes, it's incredibly horribly fucked up. but i think it's a reality that we should all face. if we face the reality that war is neccessary to keep our way of lives because we've elected such a bunch of incompetant, shortsighted fuckwads that they can't even keep our money worth anything without being the global schoolyard bully... maybe that'd give some people some REAL impetus for REAL change.

[knoppix2004]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('deconstructionist', 'I')f you've read my blog or you read www.museletter.com, you know that oil is traded in dollars.

[rogerhb]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('I_Like_Plants', 'I') will defend my country and my state from the immigrant invasion

[MonteQuest]

I posted a thread on this a year ago. It is 14 pages long.

Covered the issue at length.

Euro vs the Petro Dollar

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Montequest', 'H')ow had the U.S. government come up so quickly with such a comprehensive and coordinated response to the attack of 9/11? How had they decided within hours that an extended "War on Terrorism"was the appropriate action? Why was the current administration willing to expend so much domestic and international political capital in order to pursue the Iraq war? The administration most likely was able to respond so quickly--because it simply had to pull the plans off the shelf.

Since I joined this site, I have observed that the focus on Iraq and the oil there has overshadowed the true reason for the war...that the continued strength of the dollar is in question.

[knoppix2004]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Montequest', 'H')ow had the U.S. government come up so quickly with such a comprehensive and coordinated response to the attack of 9/11? How had they decided within hours that an extended "War on Terrorism"was the appropriate action? Why was the current administration willing to expend so much domestic and international political capital in order to pursue the Iraq war? The administration most likely was able to respond so quickly--because it simply had to pull the plans off the shelfl

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('knoppix2004', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Montequest', 'H')ow had the U.S. government come up so quickly with such a comprehensive and coordinated response to the attack of 9/11? How had they decided within hours that an extended "War on Terrorism"was the appropriate action? Why was the current administration willing to expend so much domestic and international political capital in order to pursue the Iraq war? The administration most likely was able to respond so quickly--because it simply had to pull the plans off the shelfl

[knightrd]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('deconstructionist', 'T')he mass media would have you believe that we are at war because Iraq is a hotbed for breeding terrorists and we are protecting our national interests by bringing democracy there. Common liberal thinking would have you believe that we are there simply for "oil" and that the war is wrong and it only serves the interests of the rich and greedy. While the war certainly does help the rich and greedy, that characterization is not entirely true... The answer is--and it is a simple one--we are at war with Iraq to protect our currency, and to protect our way of life. While the answer is simple, understanding why that is the answer takes a bit of explaining.

[deconstructionist]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('knoppix2004', 'I') remember this case very well because my grandmother is Jewish. She used to get mad at any Jew acting like gentile. You won’t understand any of this. {deleted for hate speech by MQ}

[deconstructionist]

monte: sorry i didn't search more for the appropriate thread to post this in. i wrote the original post as part of my blog and posted it to several other places as well to get some feedback.

knightrd: thank you for your excellent critique and comments. i do back up my assertions with valid sources on my blog (the links didn't copy over). check it here.

[Petrodollar]

(I've re-posted this response given this thread is more germane to the subject than a discussion of France's nuclear power)

Deconstructionist
Please note: The global community does not want the US economy to collapse. Yes, the EU wants to buy oil in euros, and we can't destoy the euro unless we attack the whole EU, that is why a multilateral compromise is desperately needed re global monetary reform and a dual-currency oil transaction system (potentally three currencies when China's RNB becomes a convertible currency). See below for more details and a question that I hope others might consider...

What the global community desperately wants is for us to be responsible, productive citizens and good customers, not a militant empire intent on invading other countries to control the world's oil supply.

(here's an exert from my book that Americans really need to understand. Why? Because those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past...)

History has shown that opposing geopolitical alliances will form when an empire begins excessive military adventurism, and the openly stated neoconservative goal of US global domination will naturally be resisted by other powerful nations. The following quote summarized the risks inherent to neoconservative doctrine:

"One of the dirty little secrets of today’s international order is that the rest of the globe could topple the United States from its hegemonic status whenever they so choose with a concerted abandonment of the dollar standard. This is America’s preeminent, inescapable Achilles Heel for now and the foreseeable future.

That such a course hasn’t been pursued to date bears more relation to the fact that other Westernized, highly developed nations haven’t any interest to undergo the great disruptions which would follow — but it could assuredly take place in the event that the consensus view coalesces of the United States as any sort of ‘rogue’ nation. In other words, if the dangers of American global hegemony are ever perceived as a greater liability than the dangers of toppling the international order. The Bush administration and the neoconservative movement has set out on a multiple-front course to ensure that this cannot take place, in brief by a graduated assertion of military hegemony atop the existent economic hegemony."

- Anonymous former US government employee

So, here's some ideas that would prop-up the dollar, b/c the world community would support these types of policies...(exerts from the book)

The US, as the most voracious energy consumer, is the only nation that could provide global leadership in pursuing the development and implementation of energy alternatives. Along with a rejection of the “preventative war” or “Bush doctrine,” this would do much to repair its international image. Ideally, such efforts should begin immediately.

Robert Freeman eloquently wrote that only “energy reconfiguration” can save America from devolving into despotism. His essay, “Will the End of Oil Mean the End of America?” offered several specific policy recommendations that symbolized the sacrifices we must soon undertake if America is to pursue a concerted effort to enhance our national security, and preserve our freedom:

"Energy reconfiguration means retrofitting all of the nation’s buildings, both commercial and residential, to double their energy efficiency. It means a crash program to shift the transportation system — cars, trucks — to a basis that uses perhaps half as much oil per year. This is well within reach of current technology .... It means refitting industrial and commercial processes — lighting, heating, appliances, automation, etc. — so that they, too, consume far less energy than they do today. It means increasing efficiency, reducing consumption, and building sustainable, long-term alternatives in every arena in which the economy uses oil."

As for the US, an aggressive 5-year roll-out of 35 mpg Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency (CAFÉ) standards for all automobiles (including light trucks) would be a tremendous investment enhancing its national security. Writing for the Austin Chronicle, Michael Ventura advocated transitioning to a rail-based system, and made the astute observation that our ability – or inability – to quickly dismantle our military empire in exchange for enacting energy reconfiguration, will likely determine the fate of the US dollar in the new century.

"One key to America’s future will be: How quickly can we build or rebuild heavy and light rail? And where will we get the money to do it? Railroads are the cheapest transport, the easiest to sustain...There’s only one section of our economy that has that kind of money: the military budget. The U.S. now spends more on its military than all other nations combined. A sane transit to a post-automobile American will require a massive shift from military to infrastructure spending. That shift would be supported by our bankers in China and Europe (that is, they would continue to finance our debt) because it’s in their interests that we regain economic viability. What’s not in their interests is that we remain a military superpower."

Americans should harbor no illusions that, with the current campaign finance structure, it will be exceedingly difficult to enhance national security, given the powerful military and energy conglomerates who “invest” hundreds of millions in cash to political campaigns every election in order to purchase politicians in both parties. This system will have to yield to a more workable system that places humanity above political ideology and power. Considering all suppliers report that current oil production is running “flat out,” the world may have arrived at a plateau. Neither the US nor the global community is prepared for such a reality.

Following the peaking of domestic oil production in 1971 and the oil shocks of the 1970s, the US should have spent much of the past 25 years preparing for global Peak Oil. A second historic opportunity was lost in the aftermath 9/11, when, if under real leadership, the American people could have become united in the patriotic pursuit of conserving energy and seeking energy alternatives to strengthen our national security. Unfortunately that tragedy was exploited to introduce another upon the world — the unprovoked invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq.

Despite this substantial setback, Americans must have realistic faith in ourselves and believe that we can adjust to the challenges of Peak Oil, or we will certainly fail. We need a visionary leader to define America’s new role and work together toward realizing that vision.

Multilateralism and extraordinary international energy reform in the post–Peak Oil era is the key to global stability in the 21st century. In his book on Peak Oil, Hubbert’s Peak: The Impending World Oil Shortage, Kenneth Deffeyes warned his readers:

"This much is certain: no initiative put in place starting today can have a substantial effect on the peak production year. No Caspian Sea exploration, no drilling in the South China Sea, no SUV replacements, no renewable energy projects can be brought on at a sufficient rate to avoid a bidding war for the remaining oil. At least, let’s hope that the war is waged with cash instead of with nuclear warheads."


Chapter V
Dollar Dilemma: Why Petrodollar Hegemony Is Unsustainable

‘In the future the euro is (going to be) taking a place in the international markets in general as the money of exchange.’ Asked if a switch to pricing oil in euros was possible, ‘Of course, in the oil market and in any market. It’s a stable and a strong currency, the role of the euro is going to be increased step by step. It’s normal.’

– Loyola de Palacio, European Energy Commissioner, June 16, 2003

....below is what the US response was, and the only instance in all my research that someone in the Bush administration has dared to make a public comment about petroeuros.....

"I don’t see any particular merit in that for the average oil producing country. It really is question of which currency (oil producers) feel most comfortable with over the long run — and the dollar’s always won out."

– Guy Caruso, director of the U.S. Energy Information Admintration, June 17, 2003

....but nonetheless, here is what OPEC revealed a few months later despite the fact that Saddam was toppled and Iraq was run the US-appointed CPA...

OPEC Secretary General Alvaro Silva said the oil producers' cartel is considering trading oil in euros or a basket of currencies other than the dollar to compensate for the decline in the value of the greenback. ‘There is talk of trading crude in euros -- it is one of the alternatives,’ Silva told.

– OPEC Secretary Gerneral Alvaro Silva, December 9, 2003


Bottom line: I will end with post with a question for you. I will state that to date, no one has dared answer it. Question: Are you prepared to send either yourself, or your loved ones, into a frontal war against the European Union, or should we just launch a nuclear attack against Gemany in a desperate effort to maintain dollar supremacy by destroying the euro currency? Germany is the 3rd largest economy, and while this idea is utterly deplorable, it is also the logical extension of efforts to maintain petrodollar supremacy...

So, an honest answer would be appreciated. BTW, here's what a German commentator wrote about this very issue...

"The only way the US has to gain back its currency monopoly would be by destroying the country that is at the heart of the Euro, this is, by waging a Third World War against Germany. But that it cannot do because Germany has been a good girl since 1945, and the nuclear power France is standing at Germany’s side, encouraged by Russia and China in the background."

– Germar Rudolf, “On the Brink of World War Three”

Source: Germar Rudolf, “On the Brink of World War Three: Why the USA Must Wage War, But Cannot Wage It against the Country It Ought to.” Revisionist 1 (2), pp. 124–130.

Obviously, I think monetary compromise and a multilateral treaty regarding oil currency would be far more preferrable than unleashing World War III. And that is percisely why I spent hundreds of hours over a three-year period researching and writing my book, Petrodollar Warfare.

[knoppix2004]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('deconstructionist', 'y')ou're right, i don't understand you. but not because i'm a gentile (as a matter of fact, i'm jewish) but because you're not making any sense, whatsoever. either contribute to the discussion and offer a valid critique or don't, but take your rascist bullshit somewhere else.

[casual_ties]

Moderator, why does this person still have an account? This thread was great until it degererated into off-topic name calling. I also find it difficult to understand how calling {deleted}" is not rascist. Most forums I read have a zero tolerance attitude toward this sort of thing. Perhaps I shan't stick around.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')aken care of.

MQ

[Revi]

I am much more interested in the petrodollar than the two people who are arguing.

What is to be the fate of the petrodollar? Will it tank even more when the Iranians get their oil bourse going? Is it even worth saving?

If the whole suburban American lifestyle is doomed anyway, why not let it go down slowly, drowned by high gas prices and an unsustainable debt burden. Maybe if the dollar is practically worthless we can pay the debt back with deflated notes. There really is no good way out of this is there?

[casual_ties]

Caught me in a bad mood, sorry to be a prick about it. It's just hard to maintain a positive attitude about certain things sometimes.

Seems to me the US dollar is an economic weapon. Everyone has to use it in their oil dealings, and yet to hold it is to pay tax to the people printing it. Threats to this hegemony such as oil suppliers selling in euros will not be tolerated by TPTB, but how long can this scenario be maintained?
Among other reasons, America is in Iraq to control the oil, not neccessarily to pump it out right away. That is secondary to making sure it, and the wealth it generates, don't flow into the wrong hands. They have de facto control of all the oil anyway since they can print dollars to buy it, so they are protecting their energy supply by protecting their currency.

I ask the same question as Revi(I think): this can't last forever, will the transition be slow and painful or postponed/accelerated with violence?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') will end with post with a question for you... Are you prepared to send either yourself, or your loved ones, into a frontal war

[CrudeAwakening]

The US has two major weapons in its geostrategic arsenal:

1. US Dollar hegemony

2. Superior military might

When 1. begins to fail, I'm concerned they'll turn to 2. Just how or when, I don't know, but I'm struggling to see a future free of global military conflict.

[RdSnt]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('CrudeAwakening', 'T')he US has two major weapons in its geostrategic arsenal:

1. US Dollar hegemony

2. Superior military might

When 1. begins to fail, I'm concerned they'll turn to 2. Just how or when, I don't know, but I'm struggling to see a future free of global military conflict.

[rkerver]

I gave a copy of William Clark's recent book Petrodollar Warfare: Oil, Iraq and the Future of the Dollar to Cindy Sheehan last night at Boston University. She spoke with other members of " The Bring Them Home Now Tour," Gold Star Families for Peace, Iraq Veterans Against the War, Military Families Speak Out, and Veterans For Peace. It was my small contribution to the war protest movement in its current incarnation. My hope was that it would help promote a better understanding of why we are at war right now so that we as a nation can make a huge correction and prevent the escalation of this war. That escalation is even now occurring, as the rogue Bush/Cheney Administration threaten both Iran and Venezuela, and hence our own foundations as a nation. I hoped to bring focus back on Cindy Sheehan's original question back in Crawford, the WHY of this war, because that understanding is most essential. I do not believe that Cindy and her cohort understand the WHY and are therefore pressing for changes in the wrong place and will ultimately fail to prevent the escalation of our war with Iraq to the next set of targets.

For the essential understanding, in William Clark's own words:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '"')As outlined in Petrodollar Warfare, my analysis of current U.S. geostrategic, monetary, and energy polices suggests that the 21 st century will be much different from the previous century, with one possible exception. The first half of the 20th century was filled with unprecedented levels of violence and warfare on a global scale (15 million killed in WW I, 55 million in WW II). The first two decades of the 21st century present challenges that could also result in the unleashing of another period of catastrophic human suffering and destruction. In the post-nuclear age, this must not be allowed to transpire. In order to avoid such a terrible fate in this new century, American citizens, more than any others, must accept and undertake sacrifices for the betterment of humanity; we must once again begin living within our means relative to both fiscal and energy policies. It is my hope the beginning of the 21st century may be crafted by the international community into a more energy sustainable, economically stable, and less violent period than the opening decades of the previous century. Humanity and morality demand nothing less."

[Revi]

I have to agree completely. Those who oppose this war, and yet still drive huge SUVs and live in McMansions are working at cross purposes. There is no way we can continue what we're doing without war to drag home petroleum, keep the petrodollar afloat, etc. I believe most Americans sense this and are outraged that the gas keeps going up despite our efforts to grab any spare capacity floating around the planet. Almost nobody is willing to step down in energy use. A friend of mine said that there was no way he was going to step down to a small 4 cylinder car. He has a Durango and he's going to keep it. It goes against human nature. Unless there really is no other choice we don't like to use less energy. It's like shrinking, or dying as an organism. They'll just drive less. The new, shiny status symbol has got to become the prius, and the solar house. We have to reinvent the American, bigger is better mentality. If we don't there is no way out of the box we've put ourselves in. We'll keep having more and more futile wars, with less and less reward.

[deconstructionist]

revi, your sentiment is exactly what i was trying to get at with my original post. anti-war protestors who are not also anti-capitalist and who do not do everything they can to use less and change the "american dream" paradigm at least in their own lives are, to some extent, hypocrites. while i ride my bike or walk everywhere i can, while i do my best to support the local economy, i am still somewhat of a hypocrite because i hold a corporate job, take their money, have a savings account, etc.

[rkerver]

The Peak Oil War By Pat Murphy
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t was difficult to consider starting World War III based on a commitment to SUVs and large houses. The slogan “Better poor than dead” began appearing everywhere. The sudden realization of the implications of Peak Oil and the growing awareness of the seriousness of the situation caused a great deal of fear and uncertainty. As Americans became more aware of the massively disproportionate allocation of oil between the rich and poor nations, guilt seemed to arise in similar proportions. The realization that America would have to take far more serious cuts in lifestyle than any nation added to the resentment of both the Arab word and the U.S. government. This issue appeared to divide the country as much as slavery had done in the 1800s.