Dump the Dollar
Paul Craig Roberts endorses a move I've been advocating since last year.
Better late, than never. This is our only chance.
What would be the consequences of a US or Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear energy sites?At the 2006 Perdana Global Peace Forum, Australian medical scientist Dr. Helen Caldicott provided an authoritative analysis of the devastating impact on human life that would result from the radiation release from such an attack.
Dr. Caldicott described the catastrophic deaths that would result from a conventional attack on nuclear facilities and the long-term increase in cancer deaths from the radiation release.
Should the attack be made with nuclear weapons--as some of Bush's criminally insane neoconservative advisers advocate--the populations of many countries would suffer for generations from radioactive particles in air, water, and food chains. Deaths would number in the many millions.
Such an attack justified in the name of "American security" and "American hegemony" would constitute the rawest form of evil the world has ever seen, far surpassing in evil the atrocities of the Nazi and Communist regimes.
Dr. Caldicott detailed the horrible long-term consequences for the Iraqi population from the US military's current use of depleted uranium in explosive ammunition used in Iraq. Caldicott explained that "depleted" does not mean depleted of radiation. She explained that each time such ammunition is used, radioactive particles are released in the air and are absorbed into people's lungs. We are yet to see the horrific civilian casualty rate of the American invasion--or the true casualty rate among US troops.
Dr. Caldicott expressed bewilderment why the rest of the world does not stand up to the US and force a halt to its crimes against humanity.
One man heard her--Vladimir Putin, President of Russia.
On February 10 at the 43rd Munich Security Conference, President Putin told the world's assembled political leaders that the US was trying to establish a "uni-polar world," which he defined as "one single center of power, one single center of force and one single master."
This goal, Putin said, was a "formula for disaster."
"The United States," Putin said, truthfully, "has overstepped its borders in all spheres" and "has imposed itself on other states."
The Russian leader declared: "We see no kind of restraint--a hyper-inflated use of force."
To avoid catastrophe, Putin said a reconsideration of the entire existing architecture of global security was necessary.
Putin's words of truth fell on many deaf ears. US Senator John McCain, America's most idiotic and dangerous "leader" after Bush and Cheney, equated Putin's legitimate criticism of the US with "confrontation."
America's new puppets--the states of central and Eastern Europe and the secretary general of NATO, no longer a treaty for the defense of Europe but a military force enlisted in America's quest for empire--lined up with McCain's argument that Russia was in fundamental conflict "with the core values of Euro-Atlantic democracies."
Even the BBC's defense and security correspondent, Rob Watson, jumped on the American propaganda bandwagon, tagging Putin's speech a revival of the cold war.
No delegate at the security conference stood up to state the obvious fact that it is not Russia that is invading countries under pretexts as false as Hitler's and setting up weapons systems on foreign soil in order to achieve military hegemony.
The reception given to Putin's words made it clear to Russia, China, and every country not bribed, threatened or purchased into participation in America's drive for world hegemony that the US has no interest whatsoever in peace. Intelligent people realize that American claims to be a moral and democratic force are mere pretense behind which hides a policy of military aggression.
The US, Putin said, has gone "from one conflict to another without achieving a fully-fledged solution to any of them."
Putin has repeatedly stressed Russia's peaceful intentions and desire to focus on its economy and to avoid a new arms race. In his speech on the 60th anniversary of the victory over Nazi Germany, Putin said: "I am convinced that there is no alternative to our friendship and our fraternity. With our closest neighbors and all countries of the world, Russia is prepared to build a kind of relationship which is not only based on lessons of the past but is also directed into a shared future."
In his 2006 state of the nation speech, Putin noted that America's military budget is 25 times larger than Russia's. He compared the Bush Regime to a wolf who eats whom he wants without listening. Putin is being demonized by US propagandists, because he insists upon Russia being a politically and economically independent state.
The Bush Regime has taken the US outside the boundaries of international law and is acting unilaterally, falsely declaring American military aggression to be "defensive" and in the interests of peace. Much of the world realizes the hypocrisy and danger in the Bush Regime's justification of the unbridled use of US military power, but no countries except other nuclear powers can challenge American aggression, and then only at the risk of all life on earth.
The solution is nonmilitary challenge.
The Bush Regime's ability to wage war is dependent upon foreign financing. The Regime's wars are financed with red ink, which means the hundreds of billions of dollars must be borrowed. As American consumers are spending more than they earn on consumption, the money cannot be borrowed from Americans.
The US is totally dependent upon foreigners to finance its budget and trade deficits. By financing these deficits, foreign governments are complicit in the Bush Regime's military aggressions and war crimes. The Bush Regime's two largest lenders are China and Japan. It is ironic that Japan, the only nation to experience nuclear attack by the US, is banker to the Bush Regime as it prepares a possible nuclear attack on Iran.
If the rest of the world would simply stop purchasing US Treasuries, and instead dump their surplus dollars into the foreign exchange market, the Bush Regime would be overwhelmed with economic crisis and unable to wage war. The arrogant hubris associated with the "sole superpower" myth would burst like the bubble it is.
The collapse of the dollar would also end the US government's ability to subvert other countries by purchasing their leaders to do America's will.
The demise of the US dollar is only a question of time. It would save the world from war and devastation if the dollar is brought to its demise before the Bush Regime launches its planned attack on Iran.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com
_________________
Thanks, Atheist
Yes QRS, I concluded the same thing myeself a year ago. The dollar is Bush’s (and Israel’s) Achilles heel.
It seems we are locked in a cycle that can only end in collapse. China, for example, needs Iranian oil to run factories, but China gets IOUs in return for its goods. Japan also needs Iranian oil, but Japan has bowed to US / Zionist pressure, and recently cut (or reneged on) most of its oil agreements with Iran. This will make Japan even more dependent on Bush / Israel for oil.
It seems that rich people in all nations are grabbing all they can, while they can. It is they who have pocketed hundreds of billions through Bush’s wars. They don't seem to care that they are committing national suicide. Clearly the game cannot go on forever. We cannot borrow our way out of debt. Nor will the rich be safe when the fun starts.
Ultimately the game is not about oil. It’s about the international monetary system. When the system inevitably collapses, it won’t be pretty -- but at least Israel will be gone.
And yes, the IMF and World Bank are the two biggest loan sharking operations in history. They have caused incalculable death and suffering.
By the way, the Bush regime is already experimenting to see how the markets will react when Iran is bombed.
For example, see http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N18450915.htm
I hadn't seen that report. Thanks, for the link.
Re: Financial Collapse . . .
It's maddening - a collapse is inevitable, which is perhaps why the world keeps using the dollar like there's no tomorrow.
Like a deranged addict, the world keeps injecting itself with more and more dollars until it self-destructs.
Even if it happens, I doubt that the elites will not have planned for it in advance, maybe they own lots of Gold and Silver, land.
During the German hyperinflation many corporations and businesses were bought up by the Khazars, similarly after the Wall Street Crash many people in the know financially benefited from the crash and profited from it.
I think a dollar crash would entail a Police State globally and we would be forced to work under the regime.
"a Police State globally and we would be forced to work under the regime."
we already have that.
“Leftfield,” you make good points, and yes, the Khazars bought up Germany for pennies on the dollar after Khazar bankers engineered World War I. (Khazars also brought cabarets and mass prostitution to Germany, and took beautiful German women as concubines.)
And yes, the Great Depression (partly engineered by the U.S. Federal Reserve) allowed Khazars to once again buy up assets for pennies.
And yes, it seems we will all live in a global police state, with half of us guarding the other half.
However, since the global economy is totally networked, elements could arise that the Khazars didn’t plan for, and could not predict.
The question is…
1.Do the Khazars and their allies control everything?
Or
2. Are they little toads, some playing with matches, and some grabbing all they can before the entire ship sinks?
#1 assumes that globalists see life as a game, and are therefore above the game, controlling it.
#2 assumes that globalists see life as a game, and are therefore out of touch with reality. It assumes that chaos is real, and the Khazars' plans will go haywire.
The older I get, the more I lean toward # 2. This is not hope. Chaos brings its own nightmares. It's just that I'm not impressed with those who are in charge. They are gambling, and the stakes are so high that they too could go down in flames. Chaos, chance, and random elements are real, and risk management cannot be precise on a global scale. (Just my opinion.)
The attempt to control the flow of energy, establish total control over central asian countries and try to tie the wealth of nations through the central banking system would using the dollar as the de-facto trading vehicle for oil, would be an act of war that would may very well lead to a truly global war. The majority of nations would not stand for a unipolar world dictated to it out of Washington D.C. Dr. Roberts has the best alternative if to halt this madness by turning the US into a third world backwater economic failure. Regardless, IMHO, if the US attempts an attack and the war expands geometrically in short order, I would not be surprised if the "leadership" in Washington is given orders for a scorched earth policy.
I have gone through several options many times and the worst case scenario seems to be very possible. Decision sciences does have some good use in probabilities in risk analysis and the people that are calling the shots have not done their homework. I believe it was said that after the next world war, the fighting after that will be done with spears and rocks. This may very well become a reality.
When the major first strike takes place, oil producing nations would halt most of the exportation of oil. The US which has been building up it's emergency reserves would have a short time before it's energy runs out (perhaps a year), and the people in America will most definitely find ourselves starving. The military industrial complex, fed by the transnational central bankers should do a little more thinking before betting all they have for world domination and their one world order.