USA Vs. Rest Of The World?
By Philippe Bernave | 20 February 2007
20/02/2007
|
Some people think that these words censured by the large American media[2] aim at warning the [war hawks] on the methods that they could be tempted to use, others make the link with 09/11 and all that it implies... Yes it implies two things: First that 09/11 could have been a terrorist act [instigated] voluntarily by the Bush administration, the second that it was the pretext to go at war against Iraq! [[Please note: this is the considered opinion of an otherwise rational European: normxxx]]
Dear senators who have just been elected recently or before, there are circumstances which are not established yet, but others are, president Bush has lied upon Weapons of Massive Destruction. In 1998 one could attend the president Clinton’s procedure of impeachment 24 hours a day at TV, who was not aimed by the procedure because he had misled his wife but had lied to the Congress while denying to have had any sexual intercourse with a trainee. Your current president has lied to American people and is still lying when he talks about bringing democracy in countries where he only brings chaos, while he speaks about war against terror whereas your country has become the source of terror! He’s led pre-emptive attacks and is about to do it again exceeding the international law. He’s passed measures to watch over your own citizens. He’s authorised torture and detention [without cause], he’s authorised kidnapping in allied foreign countries.
Dear senators, dear American people your country has been largely respected as it has been associated to freedom and democracy for decades. But this has ceased. The methods described above remind [one of] the worst methods of communism that you were fighting so strongly. This legitimacy that you have had for decades has been annihilated in less than 8 years because of your greedy leaders, more interested in their own immediate Return On Investment than the unique and historic opportunity your country had to lead the new world order.
Dear senators, dear American people, do you have any single idea of what your country is about to do now? By planning[!?!] to strike Iran with nuclear weapons[!?!] you’re not only showing the way to others countries in their ability to do so whereas you’re threatening to use these same weapons that you denounce! And by doing so you are strengthening these same terrorists that your president has been denouncing so strongly. Hence your aggressive behaviour endangers not only the Middle East stability but the whole world balance. By threatening other large interests like the ones of Russia and China, you’re creating the conditions towards a more global conflict[3]. At last a conflict with Iran will worsen the economic crisis which is already unfolding to the United States[4]: This crisis is the same combined consequence of the Bush administration economic irresponsibility about external deficit and aggressive foreign policy.
Some people argue that the main reason why the United States have invaded Irak was to maintain its supremacy which closely linked to oil resources access. Others pretend that this invasion was directly due to Saddam Hussein’s decision (in 1999) to get its oil paid in € rather than in $[5]. In any case it has only guaranteed one thing: The end of the US moral legitimacy.
Of course the United States remain by far the most powerful military power in the world but…
The country [is already bankrupt] and a large part of its population is already feeling the side effects; The dollar has been collapsing for several years now and this tendency is being strengthened both by the lack of confidence in the US economy and its ever increasing huge deficits, and the resentment and fear that the US have stricken in most of the countries in the past few years. The irony is that although Iraq today maintains its oil selling in $ all other oil countries and China have started to change their dollars to euros; The US is more isolated than ever (because it has chosen it so), first by choosing not to ratify the Kyoto treaty and denying the reality of greenhouse gases, then at the security council in 2003, and at last by choosing to exceed its rights in invading others countries.And now it is going to attack Iran which will cause:
In the United States:
A dramatic increase of the oil barrel price leading to inflation pressures in all the countries and first of all in the United states then worsening more the purchasing power and debts of householders in these countries; Already high interests rates will be increased by central banks, increasing the number of householders and banks bankruptcies, first in the United states where householders are already over involved in debt then in countries largely dependent on the $; A decrease of the $ although its demand[6] might be artificially strengthened by the oil barrel high prices[!?!] as China (US first creditor) and other creditors will search to change their dollar to other currencies; This will eventually bring riots and an increased social instability in your country.In the world:
Speed up and spread of the crisis already engaged in the United States to all countries as the $ is the reserve currency and all countries owns dollars and / or depends on the $; Increased instability both linked to geo-strategic considerations of main countries and the systemic crisis arising; Increased social instability in every country, which are the side effects of any economic crisis.Increased US military expenses:
A study has evaluated the total cost of war II in Irak at $2 trillions[7]. This is well above the $700 billions US record deficit for the year 2006 or the total $300 billions debt of southern countries. And it doesn’t take into account neither the cost of any war in Iran nor the cost to cover other risks and consequences that this will for sure generate…
And this to finally realise that humanity and the United States are much more threatened by greenhouse gas caused by oil than by terrorists! And that terrorism's rise is the direct consequence of the US interference in the Middle East, when it is not directly financed by the USA[8]. If the USA would invest only 10% every year of the cost of the so called war on terror on green energy, it would for sure turn into a leading country in this field and take a strategic advantage on the future and stop generating more violence abroad and eventually against the USA.
But of course what counts at the end is to win over terrorism. USA is at war no matter the cost especially if it goes to finance the military-industry and their shareholders, by the way is there anyone in the Bush administration who might have any [personal interests] in any military or oil companies…?
Dear Senators, Dear American people, you don’t look for terrorists at the right place… search where goes the money and you’ll have more chances to find them!
Philippe Bernave, Lyon (France)
[1] http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/testimony/2007/BrzezinskiTestimony070201.pdf
[2] à l’exception du Washington Note et du Financial Times.
[3] which have already started programs to modernise their own weapons and do military operations together. See also Putin denouncing of the US unilateral military actions last week and the week before General Balouevski threatening that Russia could withdraw itself from the treaty on the missiles elimination.
[4] Global systemic crisis— April 2007: Inflexion point of the phase of impact / US economy enters recession— GEAB LEAP/E2020
[5] Petrodollars have indeed enabled the $ to ensure its supremacy once the gold has been abandoned in 1971
[6] to buy more expensive oil barrels
[7] http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0110/dailyUpdate.html
[8] Like it is now the case in Iran.
ߧ
Normxxx
______________
The contents of any third-party letters/reports above do not necessarily reflect the opinions or viewpoint of normxxx. They are provided for informational/educational purposes only.
The content of any message or post by normxxx anywhere on this site is not to be construed as constituting market or investment advice. Such is intended for educational purposes only. Individuals should always consult with their own advisors for specific investment advice.
No comments:
Post a Comment