Many blogs ago, I asked Butch to elucidate on why he believed the US invaded Iraq, since the reasons offered by the Bushies were all fraudulent and contrived. Not to put him on the spot again, but rather to explain the real reason the Iraq war was pursued: The lesson can be instructive to try and understand the stepped-up rhetoric against Ahmadinejad and Chavez, especially after Chavez’s speech today at the UN.

Saddam has WMD’s and plans to use them against the US
Saddam is violating UN resolutions
Saddam is an evil Hitlerian dictator
The US will free an oppressed people
The US wants to promote democracy in the Middle East

In a nutshell, BS, BS, BS, BS, BS !

For more insight, please read the above link after my distillation of why the US attacked Iraq, and why Iran and Venezuela are soon to be the next victims of US pre-emptive attacks.

Nixon tore apart Bretton-Woods in 1971, and made a secret deal with the Saudis to only accept the US dollar in exchange for OPEC oil. Thus started dollar hegemony. Its quite ingenious, actually. Suppose country A needs OPEC oil, well country A trades goods and services to the US for the dollars our treasury prints, costing only paper and ink and labor. Well for country A it is similar to a barter system, but for the US, the dollar is the middleman in transactions that basically guarantee continued demand for the dollar. Again, the US dollar is backed by nothing except OPEC oil, and if that ever changes, the US economy will experience another depression, this time one that would inevitably drag all markets down with it.

In 2000 Saddam Hussein publicly stated that he would accept Euros for Iraqi oil. He was the first leader of an OPEC state to do so. If other nations followed suit, the dollar would be reduced to monopoly money basically.

The US invaded Iraq to ensure this would never happen. The chief architect to pushing war with Iraq was Paul Wolfowitz, if you believe Clarke or Woodward. Wolfowitz is now President of the World Bank, which is also overseeing the reconstruction of the Gaza (joke).

In fact, soonafter Saddam’s plans were made public, many NEOCON hotbeds started calling for war with Iraq …. The American Enterprise Institute, The Washington Report on Near East Policy, JINSA, The Hudson Institute, PNAC and its insidious warmongering Zionist head Bill Kristol, etc, etc etc.

Well, Ahmadinejad has proposed an Iranian oil bourse system that will accept Euros or Yen for Iranian oil, and it would completely cut out the dollar in oil exchanges.

Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela also belongs to OPEC and is the 5th largest oil-producing state. Chavez also has made overtures on accepting other currencies than the dollar. The 2 leaders have formed an alliance, and it seems the first target is the dollar.

For this reason, these 2 leaders and their countries will be next.

So look past the smokescreens of what Ahmadinejad said about the Holocaust, or wiping Israel off the map (which was misquoted by the way) and look past the smokescreen of Chavez calling Bush a devil, those 2 countries will know how fanatical this government is and how determined it is to preserve dollar hegemony.

Incidentally, the 2 banks which deal with petro-dollar exchanges are located in Atlanta, and are 2 member banks of the original Federal Reserve System, and an institution not to be trifled with. Just ask JFK.

Please read the above link now, as it contains much more insightful details.



Saddam, Ahmadinejad, and Chavez
Tagged on:

12 thoughts on “Saddam, Ahmadinejad, and Chavez

  • This may seem like a quibble but what actual evidence do you have that the Fed killed JFK? In my opinion, you lose the argument when you spout random conspiracy theory BS in the middle of your post, Scottie, and it becomes hard to take what might otherwise be valid points seriously.

  • Hey Scottie, when Bill Kristol was a young, insidious, warmongering Zionist creep, you know which Senate campaign he worked for, which guy he tried to get elected? Alan Keyes! Small world idn’t it? This was in Maryland, not the embarrassing Illinois election.

  • If the only thing the dollar has going for it is OPEC oil, than what backs the euro? Not gold, not OPEC, then what? It is a currency, right? So, what makes the euro the sows ear?

  • to johnny b :

    there was no conspiracy bs in the “middle” of the post :

    the ONLY link i made was to petrov’s article, a well-known macroeconomist.

    it was YOU who decided to add the link to JFK and Lincoln, and I relegated my comment about JFK and the Fed to the last sentence simply because i did not want to get into conspiracy theories specifically.

    i notice that had minimal comments about dollar hegemony, by far the most important idea put forth in the post.

    the euro is not backed by gold either, but it is clear that leaders of OPEC nations want to move towards th euro and away from the dollar.

  • Not a comment but a question and not minimal. Can’t answer a question about what backs the euro? What does Petrov say? What do you say? Not Opec, not gold. Simple question Scottie.

  • By the way…you keep mentioning how Ahmadinajad is being misquoted…could you give some examples? Are you saying that his intentions are being twisted…that they are indeed noble? What do you say to Chavez comments?

    What is it that you feel Ahmadinejad is being misquoted about if his comments about the holocaust are just smokescreens…are they smokescreens because they are inaccurate or just not important. And do you feel that Chavez showing up in New York and calling Bush the devil is justified?

    Do you feel Bush IS the devil…evil incarnate, or that he is protecting “dollar hegemony” because he feels he needs to…or is he just a puppet for the EVIL Neo-cons…

  • in response to johnny b again :

    i mentioned the euro is not backed by gold
    what else do you want
    it will soon be backed by oil, thats for sure, unless wars against iran and venezuela (perhaps a coup there, america’s answer when overt war cannot be justified)

    as far as what backs the euro, it is simply the collective trade of the european nations that gives value to its currency.

    what is clear is that the euro does not have the inflation surrounding it that the dollar has, and the EU has better collective foreign policies in the middle east, and that partially explains why these countries want to move to the euro in oil trades. another partial explanation is to challenge the US, not militarily, but economically in an attempt to lessen the US’s role in the world.

    as far as butch’s comments :

    ahmadinejad said in farsi, which was mistranslated by the major media outlets for obvious reasons, that eventually the zionist regime in tel aviv will fade out of history. the western media translation : ahmadinejad wants to wipe israel off the map. do you feel the 2 statements are synonymous?

    noble intentions ??????

    you are twisting my simple statement that he was misquoted. if you choose to read into my statement that i think he is “noble”, please explain your grand leap …..

    here are the facts :

    part of the non-proliferation treaty allows countries to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, so iran has not violated the spirit of this condition. if the US and israel claims that the true intentions of iran is otherwise, then the onus of that proof rests on israel and the US’s shoulders.

    would you like to seriously take up the nuclear double-standard right now?

    israel has between 200-400 nuclear weapons, supplied by the US in large part. france helped israel build its nuclear reactor at dimona because of israeli assistance on another issue. in 1977, the US congress passed a law that expressly forbids the US to give any aid to countries that secretly develop nuclear weapons, which means that every dollar of US aid given to israel since 1977 is illegal, by our own legislation.

    on one hand the US sounds the trumpets of a “nuclear-free” middle east, while on the other hand the US accepts the stance of nuclear ambiguity from israel.

    so the question is why does the only country which has actually used nuclear weapons against another nation have the moral high-ground to decide which countries get nukes and which countries don’t ? i would love an answer to this query.

    secondly, since iran has reasons to fear a US assault or israeli assault, why doesn’t that country have the right to the same nuclear deterrent that other nations possess?

    please have a memory longer than 4 years ….

    the dulles-directed coup against mossadegh in 1953, the re-instatement of the shah until the iranian revolution, the supplies of arms, chemical and conventional, to saddam so that he could pursue his US-backed war against iran : these issues are ALL related . they are not isolated but very connected events.

    now his views on the holocaust, i certainly will not defend. but he did make a superb point, which was effectively written out of the coverage of his comments : if the holocaust occurred, and this atrocity was a western european directed genocide of the jews, why should the palestinians have to suffer? these were his words, not mine.

    do you have an answer to that?

    why should the indigenous paletinians lose their homes and their land and their right to self-determination because of the nazi genocide of the jews?

    does one injustice give the victims a right to heap another injustice on an unrelated group?

    please, answer this question.

    as far as chavez, everything he said about the US pursuing a hegemonistic agenda with respect to the world was correct, and it comes straight out of chomsky’s writings, writings you know i agree with.

    as far as his personal attack on bush, it was unnecessary, undiplomatic, and actually was self-defeating, with respect to Chavez’s agenda. Now i think it was total horsehsit for the US to deny entry to his security detail and his physician, as the UN is headquartered in NY, but i think Chavez was clearly out of line, and over the top with his personal attack. But his comments about US hegemony and US imperialism, i have no problem with.

    as far as your last question, i will say that of all the lies given to the american people about the iraq war, the explanation that makes the most sense and the explanation in which all the various pieces fit, so to speak, is protecting dollar hegemony. it did not give me a better image of bush for doing it, but it did make me realize how important it is that americans closely scrutinize the role of the federal reserve system, which got us in this mess to begin with. the federal reserve act should be repealed, the US should put its currency back on the gold standard, and we should put an end to the artifical creation of banker wealth through cycles of inflation then deflation, cycles that our founding forefathers were very prescient about.

    “All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise, not from defects of the Constitution or Confederation; not from any want of honor or virtue, as much as downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation.”

    ————– Thomas Jefferson

    “If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation then by deflation, the banks and the corporations that grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent that their forefathers conquered”

    —————- Thomas Jefferson

    “I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies”

    ————— Thomas Jefferson

    “Allow me to control the issue and the nation’s money and I care not who makes its laws”

    ————– Baron de Rothschild

    The Rothschild family has perhaps the most famous name in international banking, and incidentally one of the original member banks of the federal reserve system. the rothschild family was also very generous and sympathetic to the zionist colonization of areas of palestine long before the world wars.

    anyway, i’m done responding to these comments for the moment. the ryder cup is on.


  • I find it interesting that no one responded to Scottie’s post from last week. He poses some great questions:

    1. Do you feel the 2 statements by Ahmedinijad are synonymous?

    2. if you choose to read into my statement that i think he is “noble”, please explain your grand leap

    3. why does the only country which has actually used nuclear weapons against another nation have the moral high-ground to decide which countries get nukes and which countries don’t ?

    4. does one injustice give the victims a right to heap another injustice on an unrelated group?

    5. Not really a fifth question – but an observation from the TJ quotes at the end of this post: since being exposed to this idea at the beginning of the year – I have been ridiculed many times when I have brought it up; yet no one has been able to give me a sensible refutation of the role that our pursuit of dollar hegemony has played in our foreign policy.

    Personally, I think the answers to these questions are largely rhetorical (i.e. no, you can’t, we can’t, of course not) – however if one disagrees with these implied statements, it really would help to hear why.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *