the real reason for neocon warlust/regime change in Iran: read the business news

C

Cypress

Well-known member
Wanna know the real reason for chickenhawk warlust and designs on regime change in Iran? Turn off Fox News and read the business news.

Its about $$$, and geopolitical power.

George W. Chimp can't sell the nuclear threat anymore. When that excuse started falling apart, he tried to make the case that Iran was engaged in massive proxy warfare against us in Iraq. Still no sale, George. Time to flail around for another reason.

Regime change in iran is about thwarting the interests of the chinese and other powers in the region. And maintaining US dominance in the oil markets and world economy, and its geopolitical positioning in the persian gulf.

The short, readers's digest version is this: once "petrodollars" stops becoming the currency of choice for the middle eastern oil giants, the U.S. is automatically on track to eventually becoming a second rate power, in the ultimate face of chinese ascendency. Petrodollars is the keystone that props up our debt, our global economic hegemony, and our economy.

Game over, when petrodollars goes the way of the dinosuar.



Iran drops dollar from oil deals


TEHRAN (AFP) — Major crude producer Iran has completely stopped carrying out its oil transactions in dollars, Oil Minister Gholam Hossein Nozari said on Saturday, labelling the greenback an "unreliable" currency.

"At the moment, selling oil in dollars has been completely halted, in line with the policy of selling crude in non-dollar currencies," Nozari was quoted as saying by the ISNA news agency.

"The dollar is an unreliable currency, considering its devaluation and the oil exporters' losses," he added.

The world's fourth largest oil exporter, Iran has massively reduced its dependence on the dollar over the past year in the face of US pressures on its financial system and the fall in the dollar.

Nozari did not specify in which currencies Iran was now being paid. In the past, officials have said most oil income was in euros, with a significant percentage in yen.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jGC7KSKjsKYUTGAF1oR04-yOpBgg
Click to expand...
 
Petrodollar Warfare: Dollars, Euros and the Upcoming Iranian Oil Bourse

Energy Bulletin
by William Clark

“This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous...Having said that, all options are on the table.”
– President George W. Bush, February 2005


Contemporary warfare has traditionally involved underlying conflicts regarding economics and resources. Today these intertwined conflicts also involve international currencies, and thus increased complexity. Current geopolitical tensions between the United States and Iran extend beyond the publicly stated concerns regarding Iran’s nuclear intentions, and likely include a proposed Iranian “petroeuro” system for oil trade.

Similar to the Iraq war, military operations against Iran relate to the macroeconomics of ‘petrodollar recycling’ and the unpublicized but real challenge to U.S. dollar supremacy from the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency.

It is now obvious the invasion of Iraq had less to do with any threat from Saddam’s long-gone WMD program and certainly less to do to do with fighting International terrorism than it has to do with gaining strategic control over Iraq’s hydrocarbon reserves and in doing so maintain the U.S. dollar as the monopoly currency for the critical international oil market. Throughout 2004 information provided by former administration insiders revealed the Bush/Cheney administration entered into office with the intention of toppling Saddam Hussein.[1][2]

Candidly stated, ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’ was a war designed to install a pro-U.S. government in Iraq, establish multiple U.S military bases before the onset of global Peak Oil, and to reconvert Iraq back to petrodollars while hoping to thwart further OPEC momentum towards the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency (i.e. “petroeuro”).[3] However, subsequent geopolitical events have exposed neoconservative strategy as fundamentally flawed, with Iran moving towards a petroeuro system for international oil trades, while Russia evaluates this option with the European Union.


http://www.energybulletin.net/7707.html
 
looks like you have it all figured out. and they would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for you cypress.
 
shame on GWB for trying to keep america dominant. We'll be better off with a president who will work to keep america heading for second best
 
This is what I have said even before we invaded Iraq, it is why we are there.
No one ever listens to Zathrus.
 
Its not about making America dominant its about making their favored corporations dominant.

Some really forget there is a difference.
 
So the word's out - no big surprise, oil interests run the White House and they're making sure their boys look after them, to the point of using war to protect those interests. How do the Bushbots feel on this? I suppose they don't, they'll deny the bleeding obvious in their blind obeisance to Bush and Cheney. Meanwhile the rest of the world (which doesn't count in the eyes of the Bushbots) knows what's going on and why.

As for the US economy, it's not in the world's interests to see it go down the toilet, it's the biggest economy in the world and if it takes a hit it will resound far worse in small economies (like my country's). But if Bush's policy response to the economic threat is to declare war on the threat then that should be of concern to everyone (except the Bushbots who are clearly deranged and whose opinions on anything other than who'll make it to the Superbowl should be discounted).
 
Damn..............

Diuretic said:
So the word's out - no big surprise, oil interests run the White House and they're making sure their boys look after them, to the point of using war to protect those interests. How do the Bushbots feel on this? I suppose they don't, they'll deny the bleeding obvious in their blind obeisance to Bush and Cheney. Meanwhile the rest of the world (which doesn't count in the eyes of the Bushbots) knows what's going on and why.

As for the US economy, it's not in the world's interests to see it go down the toilet, it's the biggest economy in the world and if it takes a hit it will resound far worse in small economies (like my country's). But if Bush's policy response to the economic threat is to declare war on the threat then that should be of concern to everyone (except the Bushbots who are clearly deranged and whose opinions on anything other than who'll make it to the Superbowl should be discounted).
Click to expand...


Put another shrimp on the Barbee..and have a cold beer! You are losing it friend...you are becoming just another Liberal Hack...whats with the 'bushbot' comments?...the same could also apply to neolibos! Has my fav country outside of the US become a neolibo...bimbo country? Must I really sig the bimbo song to you also?
 
Battleborne said:
Put another shrimp on the Barbee..and have a cold beer! You are losing it friend...you are becoming just another Liberal Hack...whats with the 'bushbot' comments?...the same could also apply to neolibos! Has my fav country outside of the US become a neolibo...bimbo country? Must I really sig the bimbo song to you also?
Click to expand...

"Bushbots" are people who can see no wrong in the Bush administration. But they exist elsewhere and on other parts of the political spectrum. For example, after WWII the crimes of Joe Stalin were revealed but the British Left (right up until the invasion of Hungary by the Soviets) or rather some parts of the British Left, refused to believe that Stalin had done anything wrong or bad and refused to believe that Soviet Communism was really just totalitarianism. George Orwell had a huge fight with the British Left before he died in 1950 over just this and huge sections of the British Left scathingly attacked him and indulged in a bit of historical revisionism over his work for the BBC World Service during WWII. That mentality is blind to the faults of its ideology or its favoured administration (I'm generalising past the Bushbots now). It's the sort of mentality that humans have - all of us - to some degree or another - that gave us Hitler and Stalin and Mao (the Red Guard in particular) and which stops us from healthy criticism of that which we want to admire.

Bush is in the White House. Objectively his administration has been disastrous for the US but there are many people who simply refuse to accept that fact, they are from the same stable as the Orwell haters who refused to accept the evidence of Stalin's atrocities because their ideology blinded them to the faults of the man and to his actions.

Don't worry, I spray criticism around when I think it needs to be. Take Tony Blair. When he was elected I was chuffed, but I grew disillusioned with him after the Iraq invasion and after seeing his social policies in the UK which were becoming more and more authoritarian and very un-Labour. You can see it now in the Democratic Party supporters, where Clinton is, perhaps despite herself I don't know, a divisive figure. Go and have a read at DU, some of the pro-Clinton types are exhibiting the same sort of behaviours as the Bushbots, anyone who criticises her is a "Hillary hater" and is to be forthwith condemned out of hand. Not healthy.

As for the neocons, what a mob of arseholes they are. Look at Podhoretz, another so-called Leftist gone nutso neocon. He's calling for Iran to be bombed. Really stupid policy that I would think.

Independent, critical thinking is needed here, not lock-step agreement just because someone in power or who is seeking power happens to be the object of one's political affections.
 
Diuretic said:
"Bushbots" are people who can see no wrong in the Bush administration. But they exist elsewhere and on other parts of the political spectrum. For example, after WWII the crimes of Joe Stalin were revealed but the British Left (right up until the invasion of Hungary by the Soviets) or rather some parts of the British Left, refused to believe that Stalin had done anything wrong or bad and refused to believe that Soviet Communism was really just totalitarianism. George Orwell had a huge fight with the British Left before he died in 1950 over just this and huge sections of the British Left scathingly attacked him and indulged in a bit of historical revisionism over his work for the BBC World Service during WWII. That mentality is blind to the faults of its ideology or its favoured administration (I'm generalising past the Bushbots now). It's the sort of mentality that humans have - all of us - to some degree or another - that gave us Hitler and Stalin and Mao (the Red Guard in particular) and which stops us from healthy criticism of that which we want to admire.

Bush is in the White House. Objectively his administration has been disastrous for the US but there are many people who simply refuse to accept that fact, they are from the same stable as the Orwell haters who refused to accept the evidence of Stalin's atrocities because their ideology blinded them to the faults of the man and to his actions.

Don't worry, I spray criticism around when I think it needs to be. Take Tony Blair. When he was elected I was chuffed, but I grew disillusioned with him after the Iraq invasion and after seeing his social policies in the UK which were becoming more and more authoritarian and very un-Labour. You can see it now in the Democratic Party supporters, where Clinton is, perhaps despite herself I don't know, a divisive figure. Go and have a read at DU, some of the pro-Clinton types are exhibiting the same sort of behaviours as the Bushbots, anyone who criticises her is a "Hillary hater" and is to be forthwith condemned out of hand. Not healthy.

As for the neocons, what a mob of arseholes they are. Look at Podhoretz, another so-called Leftist gone nutso neocon. He's calling for Iran to be bombed. Really stupid policy that I would think.

Independent, critical thinking is needed here, not lock-step agreement just because someone in power or who is seeking power happens to be the object of one's political affections.
Click to expand...

Great post.
 
What a super bimbo you are...........

Beefy said:
Yes. Cue BattleBorne to spam the board again with that dopey "bimbo" song and put up a largely incoherent post with too many periods, and one of these: :cof1:
Click to expand...



el beefy...and those aren't periods...I may have been a C student in English in HS and College...but damn beefy you must have failed...you are not exactly coherent on most of your posts...maybe ya had a bad day...or were like the Libs love to say...Drunk! This better>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:321:
 
I would bet much that you could find a thread on here with my name on it that suggested that this is the reason we started the war in Iraq...

From long ago and far away.

I would also bet that somebody suggested that I was stupid for it.
 
I even suggested that one of the reasons we attacked Iraq was because of Iran. But heck... I was told that they didn't think that far ahead or something...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top