Comment 5748

By David (anonymous) | Posted March 06, 2007 at 13:23:53

Good points, Ryan. But I think there has been a shift in thinking about what the goals are. Past presidents spoke in ways of direct support of the prosperity of the US and it's people - to make the USA strong economically by helping oil to stay cheap and plentiful to power the economy which in turn took care of the debts. But now we seemed to have entered into a period where our economy can no longer pay for our own debt, other countries are losing the desire to do that, and with the dollar teetering on the brink the Neocons turned to the high price of oil and gunfire to support it, despite the burden on the US economy. The Federal Reserve system was based on ever increasing debt, and it has reached the runaway point without desperate actions to support it, which explains the total lack of concern by the Neocons about world opinion - they appear almost insane due to the lack of truth about what is really going on. People in the US assume the madness is serving them somehow based on belief that presidents have always been on their side, but instead they are working now for the bankers.

I'm sure they are scrambling to repair Iraq's oil infastructure, as it will be a tool to help prevent runaway prices when they start bombing Iran. I used to believe that would never happen because of the consequences to oil prices, but now that we have entered this new shift in philosophy, high oil prices are exactly what is called for, along with the elimination of the additional direct threats to the dollar by Iran's move toward the Euro.

It was oil pouring out of Iraq in 1999 that caused the gas prices in the US to drop to 89 cents per gallon. Saddam had too much power to jerk the markets, and his move to the Euro was a direct threat. Nobody can conclude the Middle East was less stable then - such stability was indeed a problem for this new goal shift toward saving the dollar. The US can't allow enemies in the Middle East to have that kind of power.

In short, if you consider support of the dollar above all else, then actions past and planned do make sense. The US doesn't want the oil, they want to control it's distribution, and build a permanent presence to ward off future threats to the dollar. Although the US people may ultimately benefit from this, their prosperity has largely been considered collateral damage as a process to support the dollar's hegemony in the world. Rarely is there motive not exposed by following the money.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds