Iran, Bourse And The U.s. Dollar

luka

Well-known member
'Just like our war in Iraq, Americans and foreigners will die in battle so that the historical power bankers and brokers; cartel members such as Rothschild, Morgan, Lehman, Lizard, Schrader, Lobe, Kuhn, and Rockefeller to name a few, can continue collecting interest on every single U.S. coin and dollar bill in circulation, while controlling the U.S. Congress to the extent that the U.S. taxpayer becomes the collateral and lender of last resort to cover bad loans and unpaid debts that these institutions create by loaning money to third world countries, some of which are devout enemies of the United States.'

i didn't understand it. it was too complicated. can you explain it too me in simple terms, in a single paragraph? does it have anything to do with the reptilian agenda? cos one of those bankers is called lizard.>
 
D

droid

Guest
The shift to euro is just one of many motives IMO, ranging from long term control of resources, to 'normalising' Iraq's role in the mid-east. Few situations in world politics are so simple as to be boiled down to a single motivation...
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
I'm guessing he meant Lazards but it doesn't exactly make him look good.

"Few situations in world politics are so simple as to be boiled down to a single motivation..."

I think you're spot on. The US would prefer oil to continue being quoted in dollars but it's a bit ridiculous to think that that would be reason to start another war. I reckon that they are genuinely concerned about Iran's nuclear development and I bet that they wish that they hadn't cried wolf about that over Iraq already.
 

geto.blast

snap on rims
Idle > it s linked to the US trade defecit.

If the US dollar is not the defacto currency for buying and selling commodities on the world market then the US economy dies, Argentina style. The stopping of the "M3" report is huge as well.

I thought the article was pretty clear except for the liberties taken with puns "Lizard=Lazard a big french banking family/house)" etc

This was covered extensivly by the Asia Times and other publications over the last 5-6 years.

This wikipedia article has a pile of good links on the subject http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroeuro
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
Ok, so if I understand correctly the US prefers oil to be quoted in dollars because it forces all governments to hold dollars (to protect them against fluctuations in the exchange rate) which means that the dollar cannot collapse too far as there will always be buyers.
If oil is (on at least one major exchange) quoted in euros then that will give the governments in question a choice between the dollar and the euro and this could lead to the dollar devaluing.
That all makes sense but the question is surely how many countries would change to euros and also how much it would devalue the dollar? Also, if they stop Iran doing it by force what is to stop Kuwait or Venezuela doing the same the following week? Are they going to attack them all? It doesn't seem to make sense to me as a policy decision. I really don't believe that US are in a position to attack Iran due to weaknesses arising from Iraq and the lack of popularity such a campaign would have both in the US and abroad.
 

geto.blast

snap on rims
Venezuella has already dabbled in euro denominated oil sales , remember the "coup" against Chavez a few years ago?
 
D

droid

Guest
geto.blast said:
Venezuella has already dabbled in euro denominated oil sales , remember the "coup" against Chavez a few years ago?

Exactly - a good old fashioned, by the numbers, deniable coup attempt - not an all out war...
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
"Your point?"

Without wanting to speak for him I would hazard a guess that he's saying that it's one thing to support a coup and another to launch a full scale war - in my opinion, not so much a moral distinction but a logistical distinction. Also, there is no reason to suggest that the coup was financed because of the oil/euro/dollar business, the Bush regime hates that guy just as they hate Iran, Iraq and North Korea - for a variety of reasons.
 
D

droid

Guest
IdleRich said:
Without wanting to speak for him I would hazard a guess that he's saying that it's one thing to support a coup and another to launch a full scale war - in my opinion, not so much a moral distinction but a logistical distinction. Also, there is no reason to suggest that the coup was financed because of the oil/euro/dollar business, the Bush regime hates that guy just as they hate Iran, Iraq and North Korea - for a variety of reasons.

Spot on...
 

geto.blast

snap on rims
the us has done "black ops" type stuff in central/south america for many years.

they don t need to get involved directly in latin america, they have formed a "cadre" over the years with tools like "the school of the americas" and "the war on drugs".

with the middle east it s another ballgame , just look at well they re doing tracking OBL down...
 
D

droid

Guest
geto.blast said:
the us has done "black ops" type stuff in central/south america for many years.

they don t need to get involved directly in latin america, they have formed a "cadre" over the years with tools like "the school of the americas" and "the war on drugs".

Everything you say here is just as true for the mid-east though. Theres been plenty of black ops and coups there down through the years as well, plus the original 'war on terror' - sure, theres been less direct intervention, but only because Israel, Iran, Egypt and Turkey have all, at times, worked as local 'cops on the beat', enforcing US policy through proxy...

Im not saying that the shift to euro wasnt a factor in the decision btw, just that it wasnt the only factor...
 

geto.blast

snap on rims
Droid > what were the other factors?

- the oil was already "controlled" by the UN
- there were no WMD's
- "democracy" in the middle east was bullshit.
- The "doing the bidding of israel" bit was also Buchannan & co. bullshit.
- 9/11 connection was non existant.

that leaves "he tried to kill my daddy" and the "Petrodollar theory".

call me cynical but as NWA once said : "life ain t nothing but b****es and money" ...
 
D

droid

Guest
I think I mentioned some of them above, but off the top of my head:

1. Peak Oil and its ramifications for the future
2. Long term control and ownership of Iraqs energy resources (see 1)
3. To set new precedents and new international norms for blatantly illegal 'pre-emptive wars'
4. To consolidate American power in the region by converting Iraq to a client state ala Egypt or Turkey.
5. To demonstrate American intransigence by obliterating a 'defiant' nation in the Mid-East*
6. Because of the messianic and utterly deluded belief that it would actually work...

And quite possibly, given Richard Perles resignation after the invasion, and various other financial scandals with high ranking war-mongers:

7. Personal Profit

and as always:

8. To boost domestic hi-tech and arms industries, and demonstrate US military might to friend and foe alike.

Its also worth mentioning, that even though 'support for Israels aims' isnt on my list, its true that Israel, has for decades wanted to remove the potential threat that an independent Iraq posed to their 'security'. Given the Bush administrations close ties to the Israeli right, I cant imagine, that this went unnoticed in Washington...


*without having to fight a non-crippled enemy (like Iran) of course.
 
Top