The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse

[nmainguy]

I stand by what i said. Sudden devastating attack before the enemy and most of the world even know whats happening, its likely to be over. Cannot really over simplify it anymore than that with out letting the cat out of the bag. Being a part of strategic planning, one sees things most others do not. There are currently only 3 nations i know of that have the capability to piece together what will happen........

Your crptic posts may lead some to think you don't even have the bag-much less the cat.

If your "info" is so vital to national security, then clearly it has been placed in the wrong hands. I suggest if you do know something that you clam up.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

Your crptic posts may lead some to think you don't even have the bag-much less the cat.

If your "info" is so vital to national security, then clearly it has been placed in the wrong hands. I suggest if you do know something that you clam up.

And thanks to me and people like me, you are free to believe as you wish and say as you wish without fear of having your head chopped off.............

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

...kinda like Al Qaida in September 11th, right? Or Japan at Pearl Harbor? I would definately consider those days full of "devastating" attacks that shocked the world with it's timimg and style of attack. How did the U.S. react? Did we back down, or get angry and get offensive. We're human beings, and if someone attacks you for whatever reason, you'd likely want justice and revenge, and wouldn't want to die without a fight.

Think about it, Mooner. Say you were right, and Iran was defeated in 30 minutes. Then what? Who would have to rebuild the nation? And how do we know that there wouldn't be sleeper cells in that country? How do you know for sure that there wouldn't be negative reactions and consequences? You really can tell me with a straight face that no American soilder's life would be in enlarged risk if they were to walk on Iranian soil after just 30 minutes? The war in Iraq was supposedly declared a victory by Bush himself three years ago, and just this past week, the Pentagon released the names of 11 soilders who are no longer with us. What exactly is the defininition of the end of a war?

I LOVE U.N. talk. I was in Model U.N. for all 4 years in high school, and had the pleasure of debating U.N. style, and hearing people like Kofi Annan speak about the U.N. when he came to Houston a few years back.

Nmainguy's right that the U.N. is not technically on American soil, but that's because the United States DONATED the land to the U.N..

I have said many times, the purpose of committing military forces to the battlefield should be for winning and winning only, no police actions as you see happening in Iraq. The military is trained to kill people, atleast that was the goal the entire time i was there.

Where is it written that we have to rebuild any nation?

Only a poor set of planners would not expect negative reactions and consequences in a war zone.

Insanity would rule the day when someone tells you no American lives would be in danger in any type military operation.

As far as the UN goes, if we continue along that path, it will not be long before that entity will become the deciding body that would authorize or send American forces into battle and not the elected officials of this country. That is something i will never support and i hope we cut that organization off at the knees now before it gets anymore power......

The definition of the end of a war? answer=military 101 What are they teaching in the military these days.......

[HeightsGuy]

I have said many times, the purpose of committing military forces to the battlefield should be for winning and winning only, no police actions as you see happening in Iraq. The military is trained to kill people, atleast that was the goal the entire time i was there.

Where is it written that we have to rebuild any nation?

Only a poor set of planners would not expect negative reactions and consequences in a war zone.

Insanity would rule the day when someone tells you no American lives would be in danger in any type military operation.

As far as the UN goes, if we continue along that path, it will not be long before that entity will become the deciding body that would authorize or send American forces into battle and not the elected officials of this country. That is something i will never support and i hope we cut that organization off at the knees now before it gets anymore power......

The definition of the end of a war? answer=military 101 What are they teaching in the military these days.......

What the US is currently doing in Iraq should be the UN's job, it's what they are good at. Tell me, when was the last time fighting broke out in Bosnia? They all still hate eachother, but the UN has kept the peace for over a decade.

[RedScare]

And thanks to me and people like me, you are free to believe as you wish and say as you wish without fear of having your head chopped off.............

If you are waiting for my thanks, you'll wait awhile. People like you, who don't understand world politics, will get us all killed. Continued invasions of countries that have not attacked will make us no better than Nazi Germany....and eventually, the world will treat us as such.

[DJ V Lawrence]

I have said many times, the purpose of committing military forces to the battlefield should be for winning and winning only, no police actions as you see happening in Iraq. The military is trained to kill people, atleast that was the goal the entire time i was there.

Where is it written that we have to rebuild any nation?

Only a poor set of planners would not expect negative reactions and consequences in a war zone.

Insanity would rule the day when someone tells you no American lives would be in danger in any type military operation.

As far as the UN goes, if we continue along that path, it will not be long before that entity will become the deciding body that would authorize or send American forces into battle and not the elected officials of this country. That is something i will never support and i hope we cut that organization off at the knees now before it gets anymore power......

The definition of the end of a war? answer=military 101 What are they teaching in the military these days.......

We weren't trained to kill. We were trained to protect and serve. At least that's what the modern military is teaching...

Where was it written that we have to rebuild a nation, you ask? What situation would we be in if we DIDN'T help rebuild Germany, Japan, Afghanistan, or Iraq after the official conflict? The problem would not be solved, and with the mindset of the people that America would only be in it for themselves, the war would just restart. If the country that wins a war doesn't help rebuild, who will?

I STRONGLY disagree with your stance on the U.N.. The U.N. is the hub of the international communication and negotiation. And the U.N. never has and never will send and lead American or ANY country's forces without that country's approval first. I think you may be mistaking the power that the U.N. does or doesn't have.

I gotta ask the question again as to the definition of the end of a war, because there's still conflict in Iraq even the war was supposedly won 3 years ago. Of course you'll hear of death in military operation, but after the war is over?

The problem we have is winning peace, and Bush is batting 0 right now.

Oye Oye Oye. A nation that wins a war may be strong, but a nation that wins peace is powerful

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

If you are waiting for my thanks, you'll wait awhile. People like you, who don't understand world politics, will get us all killed. Continued invasions of countries that have not attacked will make us no better than Nazi Germany....and eventually, the world will treat us as such.

WRONG again. People like me were trained to kill,and to win, not to be politicians. When you muddy the water between the military and politics by getting the military to act as a police force thats bad news. World politics should be left to the elected leaders of this nation to handle, not the military. Last time i checked, the military is NOT an elected body.

Nazi Germany? Every British citizen, every Jewish person, every American soldier, French citizen etc etc etc, that survived WW2, should take OFFENSE to the free flowing use of Nazi Germany in relation to American military operations. to suggest that is to water down the horror of an absolutely horrible entity. I hope you find a better way to express your point........

And as far as having your thanks, I would fall out in the fit of suprise if you were to give it. I dont expect it from you nor do i desire it. I will eat sleep live die and go in the ground and stink with or without your thanks :) :)

We weren't trained to kill. We were trained to protect and serve. At least that's what the modern military is teaching...

WHAT ?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Let me guess.....you served in the military after 1995, yes? The purging of the leadership stopped at the end of 1995. The "to protect and serve" motto for the military is DANGEROUS. Thats the sign that you see on police cars in many major cities in the USA. Im totally against using the military as a police force. If we continue along the path of police force, the UN will become more significant and gain more control over our fighting forces. You have already accepted the idea that you are not trained to kill in the military. Thats a slippery slope.......

[DJ V Lawrence]

WHAT ?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Let me guess.....you served in the military after 1995, yes? The purging of the leadership stopped at the end of 1995. The "to protect and serve" motto for the military is DANGEROUS. Thats the sign that you see on police cars in many major cities in the USA. Im totally against using the military as a police force. If we continue along the path of police force, the UN will become more significant and gain more control over our fighting forces. You have already accepted the idea that you are not trained to kill in the military. Thats a slippery slope.......

I served in the military from 2001-2005, and didn't walk around killing everything I saw. And if the military were nothing more than a bunch of killers, I wouldn't have served. I'm no killer. I love America, and if I had to defend it that way, I would, but I came in with the hope of serving in peacekeeping missions, and ended up with the blessing of serving in Korea. With all due respect, YOUR motto for the military is dangerous.

What I don't understand is who you think should be the police force of the world between the UN and the US, because it sounds like you're saying neither, and that's scary. The UN NEEDS to step in more in order to avoid war and genocide. And we shouldn't go to war just because we can. I'd rather end a conflict with a handshake than with thousands of Americans killed. If you had it your way, Iraq would be another Darfur after the "war" finished, and we'd be fighting Iran tonight. And by the way, if the US weren't acting as a police group at times, someone else would, and would be considered the Superpower and example to follow...

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

I served in the military from 2001-2005, and didn't walk around killing everything I saw. And if the military were nothing more than a bunch of killers, I wouldn't have served. I'm no killer. I love America, and if I had to defend it that way, I would, but I came in with the hope of serving in peacekeeping missions, and ended up with the blessing of serving in Korea. With all due respect, YOUR motto for the military is dangerous.

What I don't understand is who you think should be the police force of the world between the UN and the US, because it sounds like you're saying neither, and that's scary. The UN NEEDS to step in more in order to avoid war and genocide. And we shouldn't go to war just because we can. I'd rather end a conflict with a handshake than with thousands of Americans killed. If you had it your way, Iraq would be another Darfur after the "war" finished, and we'd be fighting Iran tonight. And by the way, if the US weren't acting as a police group at times, someone else would, and would be considered the Superpower and example to follow...

Then you and i agree to disagree. I dont believe the world needs a police force, especially when it involves the US military. Im NOT a politician and i dont now and never will believe in that garbage idea of world police either unilaterially or through the UN. You rightfully keep refering to Americans being killed......

If we get involved in policing the world alone or with the UN, i predict the body count will rise faster than the national debt!!!!! When the military leadership is more concerned about how things look for the TV cameras...even Helen Keller can see we are going the wrong way. The military fighting force will become nothing more in the eyes of would be enemies, a paper tiger. Waging war and waging a police action are to different things.............

[nmainguy]

And thanks to me and people like me, you are free to believe as you wish and say as you wish without fear of having your head chopped off.............

I'll take my chances without people like you-and I thank god that there don't seem to be too many people like you.

[DJ V Lawrence]

Then you and i agree to disagree. I dont believe the world needs a police force, especially when it involves the US military. Im NOT a politician and i dont now and never will believe in that garbage idea of world police either unilaterially or through the UN. You rightfully keep refering to Americans being killed......

If we get involved in policing the world alone or with the UN, i predict the body count will rise faster than the national debt!!!!! When the military leadership is more concerned about how things look for the TV cameras...even Helen Keller can see we are going the wrong way. The military fighting force will become nothing more in the eyes of would be enemies, a paper tiger. Waging war and waging a police action are to different things.............

There's two thing I agree with you 100 % with: military leadership concerned about how things look for the TV cameras is a wrong direction, and the fact that waging war and waging a police action are two different things.

Where we disagree is the fact that I don't think the war is over simply when one side's government taps out like a Chris Benoit victim. To me, it ends when all conflict is over, the rebuilding process is complete, and U.S. troop presence is at a minimum. Also, I couldn't disagree more that the world doesn't need a police force. In some regions, if no one steps up to help, then genocide will come into play. I mentioned Darfur because that's exactly what happened. No one stepped up to help secure the region, and millions died in genocide. It's one of the biggest failures in the history of mankind, in my opinion. That wasn't too long ago, either. In fact, it may still be going on. How would you suggest that the killing would end, and that region would be able to get back on it's feet as a peaceful civilization?

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

I'll take my chances without people like you-and I thank god that there don't seem to be too many people like you.

no worries sir/ma'am. i dont think there are many people like me left in military leadership positions, if so ,none of this present day "symbolism over substance"mess would be happening.......

I mentioned Darfur because that's exactly what happened. No one stepped up to help secure the region, and millions died in genocide. It's one of the biggest failures in the history of mankind, in my opinion. That wasn't too long ago, either. In fact, it may still be going on. How would you suggest that the killing would end, and that region would be able to get back on it's feet as a peaceful civilization?

In a military sense?

[RedScare]

You take great pains to say that you are not a politician, and further, that the military should not be political. The military acts only at the discretion of the civilian political leaders, however they direct it to act.

As for all of your other arguments, if you refuse to discuss the political realities of the use of military force, I don't know what you are doing in this debate. This is not a debate on how to kill people, it is a debate on whether we should attack without being first attacked. That, by definition, is a political debate.

No one cares whether we can take out Iran's political leadership in 30 minutes or 30 days. We are much more concerned with what will happen after the 30 minutes is up...not just in Iran, but the rest of the world. You seem to have the misguided notion that the rest of the world will write a few editorials and move on. It will not be quite so simple. And having watched your government in action the last few years, I'm stunned you would believe it otherwise.

But then again, you're one of those black and white guys.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

You take great pains to say that you are not a politician, and further, that the military should not be political. The military acts only at the discretion of the civilian political leaders, however they direct it to act.

As for all of your other arguments, if you refuse to discuss the political realities of the use of military force, I don't know what you are doing in this debate. This is not a debate on how to kill people, it is a debate on whether we should attack without being first attacked. That, by definition, is a political debate.

No one cares whether we can take out Iran's political leadership in 30 minutes or 30 days. We are much more concerned with what will happen after the 30 minutes is up...not just in Iran, but the rest of the world. You seem to have the misguided notion that the rest of the world will write a few editorials and move on. It will not be quite so simple. And having watched your government in action the last few years, I'm stunned you would believe it otherwise.

But then again, you're one of those black and white guys.

Nah you are misguided into thinking the military should care what the rest of the world thinks. Thats a job left to politians, ELECTED OFFICIALS!!!!! This is not a dictatorship where the military controls the civilian leadership, its the opposite. The civilian leadership controls the military...keeping that in mind the military should only be concerned with winning not with political manuevers that politicians are ELECTED to carry out and be concerned with. I dont think i can dumb it down any more than that.........

[RedScare]

Nah you are misguided into thinking the military should care what the rest of the world thinks. Thats a job left to politians, ELECTED OFFICIALS!!!!! This is not a dictatorship where the military controls the civilian leadership, its the opposite. The civilian leadership controls the military...keeping that in mind the military should only be concerned with winning not with political manuevers that politicians are ELECTED to carry out and be concerned with. I dont think i can dumb it down any more than that.........

Clearly, you typed your response without reading my post. That's EXACTLY my point. It IS the job of the elected officials to control military actions. And that is what everyone here is discussing...except, apparently, you.

We DON'T CARE if the military can strike. We are saying that if Bush orders a strike on Iran without being attacked first, the US will suffer consequences from the entire world that make it very unlikely that a first strike will be worth it.

As for the military, it does what it is told by it's civilian leaders. That is not in dispute.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

Clearly, you typed your response without reading my post. That's EXACTLY my point. It IS the job of the elected officials to control military actions. And that is what everyone here is discussing...except, apparently, you.

We DON'T CARE if the military can strike. We are saying that if Bush orders a strike on Iran without being attacked first, the US will suffer consequences from the entire world that make it very unlikely that a first strike will be worth it.

As for the military, it does what it is told by it's civilian leaders. That is not in dispute.

Huh? Have been speaking with miss Cleo? Who is the "we"?

[DJ V Lawrence]

That's EXACTLY my point. It IS the job of the elected officials to control military actions.

We DON'T CARE if the military can strike. We are saying that if Bush orders a strike on Iran without being attacked first, the US will suffer consequences from the entire world that make it very unlikely that a first strike will be worth it.

As for the military, it does what it is told by it's civilian leaders. That is not in dispute.

Absolutely.

As I stated before, the military protects and serves. We don't just go out there and shoot the first thing we see. That's Cheney's job.

You gotta wonder, if it would be okay for us to strike first on three different countries in a five year span, then what's stopping othr countries from doing that as well? It's scary to consider, but I'm sure there are many nations out there pondering that question.

In a military sense?

No. In every sense (militarily, politically, internationally, etc.). How should Darfur have been secure in your eyes? What should have happened, and who should have helped?

[nmainguy]

How should Darfur have been secure in your eyes? What should have happened, and who should have helped?

We should have but Cheney/Bush Conservative Compassion doesn't embrace this sort of assitance-even though we are a nation of power and wealth beyond belief. Maybe the ex-ExxonMobil chief could write out a check for $200,000,000-about half of his retirement package. That would set a good example.

Or maybe we could divert the cash from the "30 Minute War in Iran"?

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

Absolutely.

As I stated before, the military protects and serves. We don't just go out there and shoot the first thing we see. That's Cheney's job.

You gotta wonder, if it would be okay for us to strike first on three different countries in a five year span, then what's stopping othr countries from doing that as well? It's scary to consider, but I'm sure there are many nations out there pondering that question.

No. In every sense (militarily, politically, internationally, etc.). How should Darfur have been secure in your eyes? What should have happened, and who should have helped?

"Protect and to serve", thats on you. I really hope you believe in the policing actions, you are the one that can be recalled to support it, not me. Im a member of a "dieing breed" and im too old. If you are called for any police action, know that you and every other service person will be in my prayers for a safe return home :) :)

As for Darfur..militarily-i think we should do nothing......politically-not very familiar with the situation there to have a political opinion.......internationally-same thing.

May i request a little time to read up on it, and better give and answer for political/international response? My military stance is unchanged.

[DJ V Lawrence]

"Protect and to serve", thats on you. I really hope you believe in the policing actions, you are the one that can be recalled to support it, not me. Im a member of a "dieing breed" and im too old. If you are called for any police action, know that you and every other service person will be in my prayers for a safe return home :) :)

Serving my country and protecting my family doesn't neccesarily make me a police officer. The idea of "police action" so to speak is to avoid a war from restarting, which I'm sure would happen in Iraq if all the troops just withdrew tonight. As a result, life in America could be more dangerous. That should have been discussed before we even went on Iraqi soil, and all I heard was "Iraq had WMD's. We'll find 'em."

As for Darfur..militarily-i think we should do nothing......politically-not very familiar with the situation there to have a political opinion.......internationally-same thing.

May i request a little time to read up on it, and better give and answer for political/international response? My military stance is unchanged.

Of course. Many people are not aware of that story. Take your time, and check it out.

Changing the subject, I truly think Iran's solution can be found diplomatically, and I think the only way that doesn't happen is if Bush's administration does something foolish

[Rammer]

i thought this article was interesting because it answered, not only why America loves Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (even though they finance Wahhabism), but also i found the author's theories interesting. your opinions?

The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse

Krassimir Petrov, Ph.D.

January 15, 2006

Abstract: the proposed Iranian Oil Bourse will accelerate the fall of the American Empire.

I. Economics of Empires

A nation-state taxes its own citizens, while an empire taxes other nation-states. The history of empires, from Greek and Roman, to Ottoman and British, teaches that the economic foundation of every single empire is the taxation of other nations. The imperial ability to tax has always rested on a better and stronger economy, and as a consequence, a better and stronger military. One part of the subject taxes went to improve the living standards of the empire; the other part went to strengthen the military dominance necessary to enforce the collection of those taxes.

Historically, taxing the subject state has been in various forms-usually gold and silver, where those were considered money, but also slaves, soldiers, crops, cattle, or other agricultural and natural resources, whatever economic goods the empire demanded and the subject-state could deliver. Historically, imperial taxation has always been direct: the subject state handed over the economic goods directly to the empire.

For the first time in history, in the twentieth century, America was able to tax the world indirectly, through inflation. It did not enforce the direct payment of taxes like all of its predecessor empires did, but distributed instead its own fiat currency, the U.S. Dollar, to other nations in exchange for goods with the intended consequence of inflating and devaluing those dollars and paying back later each dollar with less economic goods-the difference capturing the U.S. imperial tax. Here is how this happened.

Early in the 20th century, the U.S. economy began to dominate the world economy. The U.S. dollar was tied to gold, so that the value of the dollar neither increased, nor decreased, but remained the same amount of gold. The Great Depression, with its preceding inflation from 1921 to 1929 and its subsequent ballooning government deficits, had substantially increased the amount of currency in circulation, and thus rendered the backing of U.S. dollars by gold impossible. This led Roosevelt to decouple the dollar from gold in 1932. Up to this point, the U.S. may have well dominated the world economy, but from an economic point of view, it was not an empire. The fixed value of the dollar did not allow the Americans to extract economic benefits from other countries by supplying them with dollars convertible to gold.

Economically, the American Empire was born with Bretton Woods in 1945. The U.S. dollar was not fully convertible to gold, but was made convertible to gold only to foreign governments. This established the dollar as the reserve currency of the world. It was possible, because during WWII, the United States had supplied its allies with provisions, demanding gold as payment, thus accumulating significant portion of the world's gold. An Empire would not have been possible if, following the Bretton Woods arrangement, the dollar supply was kept limited and within the availability of gold, so as to fully exchange back dollars for gold. However, the guns-and-butter policy of the 1960's was an imperial one: the dollar supply was relentlessly increased to finance Vietnam and LBJ's Great Society. Most of those dollars were handed over to foreigners in exchange for economic goods, without the prospect of buying them back at the same value. The increase in dollar holdings of foreigners via persistent U.S. trade deficits was tantamount to a tax-the classical inflation tax that a country imposes on its own citizens, this time around an inflation tax that U.S. imposed on rest of the world.

When in 1970-1971 foreigners demanded payment for their dollars in gold, The U.S. Government defaulted on its payment on August 15, 1971. While the popular spin told the story of "severing the link between the dollar and gold", in reality the denial to pay back in gold was an act of bankruptcy by the U.S. Government. Essentially, the U.S. declared itself an Empire. It had extracted an enormous amount of economic goods from the rest of the world, with no intention or ability to return those goods, and the world was powerless to respond- the world was taxed and it could not do anything about it.

From that point on, to sustain the American Empire and to continue to tax the rest of the world, the United States had to force the world to continue to accept ever-depreciating dollars in exchange for economic goods and to have the world hold more and more of those depreciating dollars. It had to give the world an economic reason to hold them, and that reason was oil.

In 1971, as it became clearer and clearer that the U.S Government would not be able to buy back its dollars in gold, it made in 1972-73 an iron-clad arrangement with Saudi Arabia to support the power of the House of Saud in exchange for accepting only U.S. dollars for its oil. The rest of OPEC was to follow suit and also accept only dollars. Because the world had to buy oil from the Arab oil countries, it had the reason to hold dollars as payment for oil. Because the world needed ever increasing quantities of oil at ever increasing oil prices, the world's demand for dollars could only increase. Even though dollars could no longer be exchanged for gold, they were now exchangeable for oil.

The economic essence of this arrangement was that the dollar was now backed by oil. As long as that was the case, the world had to accumulate increasing amounts of dollars, because they needed those dollars to buy oil. As long as the dollar was the only acceptable payment for oil, its dominance in the world was assured, and the American Empire could continue to tax the rest of the world. If, for any reason, the dollar lost its oil backing, the American Empire would cease to exist. Thus, Imperial survival dictated that oil be sold only for dollars. It also dictated that oil reserves were spread around various sovereign states that weren't strong enough, politically or militarily, to demand payment for oil in something else. If someone demanded a different payment, he had to be convinced, either by political pressure or military means, to change his mind.

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.

Many have criticized Bush for staging the war in Iraq in order to seize Iraqi oil fields. However, those critics can't explain why Bush would want to seize those fields-he could simply print dollars for nothing and use them to get all the oil in the world that he needs. He must have had some other reason to invade Iraq.

History teaches that an empire should go to war for one of two reasons: (1) to defend itself or (2) benefit from war; if not, as Paul Kennedy illustrates in his magisterial The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, a military overstretch will drain its economic resources and precipitate its collapse. Economically speaking, in order for an empire to initiate and conduct a war, its benefits must outweigh its military and social costs. Benefits from Iraqi oil fields are hardly worth the long-term, multi-year military cost. Instead, Bush must have gone into Iraq to defend his Empire. 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.

II. Iranian Oil Bourse

The Iranian government has finally developed the ultimate "nuclear" weapon that can swiftly destroy the financial system underpinning the American Empire. That weapon is the Iranian Oil Bourse slated to open in March 2006. It will be based on a euro-oil-trading mechanism that naturally implies payment for oil in Euro. In economic terms, this represents a much greater threat to the hegemony of the dollar than Saddam's, because it will allow anyone willing either to buy or to sell oil for Euro to transact on the exchange, thus circumventing the U.S. dollar altogether. If so, then it is likely that almost everyone will eagerly adopt this euro oil system:

The Europeans will not have to buy and hold dollars in order to secure their payment for oil, but would instead pay with their own currencies. The adoption of the euro for oil transactions will provide the European currency with a reserve status that will benefit the European at the expense of the Americans.

The Chinese and the Japanese will be especially eager to adopt the new exchange, because it will allow them to drastically lower their enormous dollar reserves and diversify with Euros, thus protecting themselves against the depreciation of the dollar. One portion of their dollars they will still want to hold onto; a second portion of their dollar holdings they may decide to dump outright; a third portion of their dollars they will decide to use up for future payments without replenishing those dollar holdings, but building up instead their euro reserves.

The Russians have inherent economic interest in adopting the Euro - the bulk of their trade is with European countries, with oil-exporting countries, with China, and with Japan. Adoption of the Euro will immediately take care of the first two blocs, and will over time facilitate trade with China and Japan. Also, the Russians seemingly detest holding depreciating dollars, for they have recently found a new religion with gold. Russians have also revived their nationalism, and if embracing the Euro will stab the Americans, they will gladly do it and smugly watch the Americans bleed.

The Arab oil-exporting countries will eagerly adopt the Euro as a means of diversifying against rising mountains of depreciating dollars. Just like the Russians, their trade is mostly with European countries, and therefore will prefer the European currency both for its stability and for avoiding currency risk, not to mention their jihad against the Infidel Enemy.

Only the British will find themselves between a rock and a hard place. They have had a strategic partnership with the U.S. forever, but have also had their natural pull from Europe. So far, they have had many reasons to stick with the winner. However, when they see their century-old partner falling, will they firmly stand behind him or will they deliver the coup de grace? Still, we should not forget that currently the two leading oil exchanges are the New York's NYMEX and the London's International Petroleum Exchange (IPE), even though both of them are effectively owned by the Americans. It seems more likely that the British will have to go down with the sinking ship, for otherwise they will be shooting themselves in the foot by hurting their own London IPE interests. It is here noteworthy that for all the rhetoric about the reasons for the surviving British Pound, the British most likely did not adopt the Euro namely because the Americans must have pressured them not to: otherwise the London IPE would have had to switch to Euros, thus mortally wounding the dollar and their strategic partner.

At any rate, no matter what the British decide, should the Iranian Oil Bourse accelerate, the interests that matter-those of Europeans, Chinese, Japanese, Russians, and Arabs-will eagerly adopt the Euro, thus sealing the fate of the dollar. Americans cannot allow this to happen, and if necessary, will use a vast array of strategies to halt or hobble the operation's exchange:

Sabotaging the Exchange-this could be a computer virus, network, communications, or server attack, various server security breaches, or a 9-11-type attack on main and backup facilities.

Coup d'

[Subdude]

I'm afraid I'm not catching your point.