Loss of dollar-based oil deals reason for war
I am a regular reader of the EPCN and must commend you for your frank and courageous article in the March 21 edition.
Only the naive or totally uninformed would hold the view that wars are fought for the noble reasons of democracy and freedom.
Wars are fought for resources and domination.
And in this regard I believe that you missed a key reason for the Bush Administration's push to war in Iraq.
And I would call that the Global Economic or the Eco-Global.
Following the end of World War II. The U.S. administration at that time entered into a pact with the royal family of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia; essentially agreeing that successive American governments keep them in power in exchange for a promise that the U.S. dollar would be the currency of choice for all future middle east oil transactions.
This created a continuing demand for the U.S. dollar around the world. It kept the dollar strong against other currencies since countries would need to keep reserves in U.S. dollars in order to purchase oil products and other goods and services.
This arrangement also artificially propped up the U.S. economy.
Over the years, however, the U.S. economy has weakened and has become a net debtor nation.
We import more than we export resulting in balance of payments problems.
And with continuing budget deficits (the Reagan years, the previous Bush administration and again with this present administration) the economy is in terrible shape.
In fact were we not the US, we would be a prime candidate for structural adjustment loans from the World Bank and the IMF.
In November 2001, the Iraqi government demanded that the sale of its oil under the UN sponsored oil for food program be conducted in Euros (the new European dollar) rather than U.S. dollars.
As a result of this action, the Iraqi government making substantial profits on its oil sales, as did the large French and German banks and the new European Central Bank which backed the Euro.
This led to the nations of Venezuela and Iran deciding to follow the lead of the Iraqis in demanding that their oil sales be completed in Euros rather than dollars.
Hence the reason for the U.S. government's determination to undermine the government of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and labeling Iran as part of the axis of evil-signaling that they are next.
The Saudis also indicated that they were looking at the prospect of having a portion of their oil sales transacted in Euros.
Faced with this situation and the possibility of the dollar losing its place as the currency of choice for international oil transactions and in the long term being replaced as the premier reserve currency, the U.S. administration needed to act quickly.
This argument also provides one of the reasons why the French and German governments were so against a war in Iraq — they would lose profits by an American takeover of that country.
Iraq is a soft target: A nation on the brink.
An improvished people living under UN sanctions for the past 12 years.
No strong army and no real means of defending themselves.
A leader, whom the U.S. installed back in the 70s and supplied with chemical and biological weapons to fight the Iranians, is reviled by his people.
Add to that the U.S. population's fear of another 9/11; the complicity of the general media with the anti- Saddam rhetoric and you have a case against the enemy terrorist nation.
That this US administration is for democracy: Just look at its record at the UN.
It refuses to abide by the rules that it helped to create and when it cannot get its way it decides that everyone else is wrong and decides to act on its own; completely outside of the charter governing actions by member states.
Even now when the non-aligned movement is trying to bring this matter before the general assembly of the UN for an open debate, the U.S. administration is threatening the various countries with punitive actions.
The administration boast that it has 35 nations with a combined population of 1 billion on its side, but does not state that there are approximately 190 nations in the world with a gross population of over 6 billion; the majority of whom by their voice and actions are against this war.
Additionally, the United Nations General Assembly is made up of over 160 nations, so by saying that you have a following of 35 nations and that that somehow gives your actions legitimacy by majority, seems to me to be fuzzy math.
In your article, you stated that history would tell whether this administration is correct in its action.
I beg to differ. By trying to block open debate and labeling all persons with a different opinion as unpatriotic, history has already been told.
My mother always said there are three sides to a story: My side, your side, and then there is the truth."
Unfortunately, in war, the first casualty is always the truth.
May God bless America.
Thank you very much for this forum.Keep up the good work.
Wayne Burnette Middle Smithfield Township