I keep hearing about Iran and quest for a bomb, in the America media.  Some people believe the Iraq war was not really based on the WMD but on Iraq's changefrom the US dollar to the Euro for oil sales. "War protesters claimed George W Bush was invading Iraq for oil. That was only partly true, and their cries for peace were uninformed. US-led invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were for oil, but not for consumption. Pre-Iraq invasion, Saddam Hussein was trading in EUROs. Afghanistan is key to piping oil out of the Caspian Basin. " http://www.thinkandask.com/news/thedollar.html" title="http://www.thinkandask.com/news/thedollar.html" target="_blank"http://www.thinkandask.com/ne... 

Now that Iran is planning on changing to the Euro in March, will America find an army to invade to protect the US dollar?

Speculations have begun regarding whether the proposed March 2006 launch of the Iranian oil bourse (IOB), will become the catalyst for a significant blow to the position of the U.S. dollar?

Iran is about to begin pricing its oil in euros. Unfortunately, just about everyone would benefit--except the United States- Without some form of U.S. intervention, the euro is going to establish a firm foothold in the international oil trade.

The U.S. dollar has been the strongest currency of the world for more than half a century, with about 70% of percent of all currency reserves in American dollars.

This could be a logical explanation for why the Islamic republic would be the U.S.’s next target.

This is closely related to the fact that oil, the most important commodity traded in the world, is mostly priced in U.S. dollars. The majority of countries that are oil importers have to buy their oil in U.S. dollars, which forces them to keep most of their foreign currency in dollars.

The crippling U.S. debt crisis makes its fragile economy mostly dependent on the high demand for its currency in order to remain afloat.

There is a move underway by Iran, the world’s second-largest producer of crude oil—and labeled a member of President Bush’s so-called “axis of evil”, that threatens the current dominant position of the American dollar.

Tehran has lately confirmed its plan to create a euro-based exchange in oil—to compete with the London and New York dollar-denominated oil exchanges, both American-owned.

If proved successful, the Iranian oil bourse (IOB) is expected to give the euro a foothold in the international oil trade, solidifying its status as an alternative oil transaction currency. This would eventually lead to a major currency flight from the dollar to the euro—and a disaster for America.

The IOB will see crude oil, petrochemicals and other commodities of the same kind traded in euros.

But the question here is what are Iran’s motives behind such a move?

According to economists, Iran’s move does make sense, especially since the European Union is Iran’s biggest trading partner. Also it will deal a major blow to Iran’s archfoe America, and, by hoping to make Iran the main hub for oil deals in the region; it will drive the Islamic Republic forward in its quest for regional supremacy.

George Perkovich, an Iran expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, has made it clear that the move is: “part of a very intelligent, creative Iranian strategy—to go on the offense in every way possible and mobilize other actors against the U.S.” (Christian Science Monitor, August 30).

This economic move could be the best and most effective strike against a mighty military foe, the United States.

According to a report published recently by Asia Times, “Oil in euros would benefit millions … in the EU and its trading partners …. And it would loosen the grip the U.S. has on OPEC members”

“One of the Federal Reserve’s nightmares may begin to unfold in the spring of 2006,” one expert on the subject stated, “when it appears that international buyers will have a choice of buying a barrel of oil for $60 on the NYMEX [New York Mercantile Exchange] and IPE [London’s International Petroleum Exchange] or purchase a barrel of oil for €45 to €50 via the Iranian bourse” (Global Politician, September 2).

The IOB will accelerate the already-existent global trend of shifting foreign currency reserves from dollars to euros would. Thus, “countries switching to euro reserves from dollar reserves would bring down the value of the U.S. currency. Imports would start to cost Americans a lot more …. As countries and businesses converted their dollar assets into euro assets, the U.S. property and stock market bubbles would, without doubt, burst” (The Foundation for the Economics of Sustainability, Nov. 15, 2004).

The impact of a reserve currency switch would be catastrophic for the U.S., according to the Global Politician. The U.S. “would simply have to stop importing” (op. cit.).

If Iran launched its IOB, the U.S. dollar will weaken and the euro strengthen—helping speed up the economic decline of the U.S.

Numerous economists have expressed optimism about Iran’s ambitions, saying that the impact of the Iran oil bourse on the American dollar—and U.S. economy could be worse than Iran launching a “direct nuclear attack.”

Source: http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?page=article&" title="http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?page=article&" target="_blank"http://www.thetrumpet.com/ind...;id=1704

What the America media does not talk about, but the asian media does.   

If Bush had come to the American people with a request to spend several hundred billion dollars and several thousand American lives in order to bring democracy to Iraq, he would have been laughed out of court."
- noted political scientist Francis Fukuyama

It turns out the eventual cost of the war in Iraq will not be several hundred billion, but according to a new study at least a thousand billion dollars - US$1 trillion, in other words. This figure dwarfs any previous estimate by orders of magnitude.

Given the projected cost of $1 trillion to $2 trillion, one might imagine that American taxpayers are now rolling on the floor in hysterical laughter while gasping for air.

To get an idea of the economic black hole the Iraq war could become, it is useful to remember some of the past estimates given by the administration of President George W Bush. Recall, for example, when then-White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey suggested in 2002, six months before the war, that the mission could cost $100 billion to $200 billion, Bush fired him because his estimate was up to three times the $70 billion the administration estimated.

Conservative columnist Paul Craig Robert wrote after the latest estimate: "Americans need to ask themselves if the White House is in competent hands when a $70 billion war becomes a $2 trillion war. Bush sold his war by understating its cost by a factor of 28.57. Any financial officer anywhere in the world whose project was 2,857% over budget would instantly be fired for utter incompetence."

The latest study was done by US economist and Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz, who teaches at Columbia University, and Linda Bilmes of Harvard University.

For the sake of comparison, consider that late last summer the Pentagon was spending $5.6 billion per month on operations in Iraq, an amount that exceeds the average cost of $5.1 billion per month (in real 2004 dollars) for US operations in Vietnam between 1964 and 1972. Currently, the Pentagon is spending about $6 billion per month in Iraq. The total direct cost of the decade-plus Vietnam War to the United States was estimated to be $600 billion. And not even three years after its start, Iraq has already cost 42% of what the Vietnam war did.

While the economic costs are staggering, they are not a total surprise. Lawrence Korb, a former assistant secretary of defense during the Ronald Reagan administration and now a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, recalled: "I said at least $500 billion or a trillion before the war."

Economically, he said, "it's a tremendous shock". He notes that the costs of the war come at a time when other governmental expenditures are scheduled to increase. "From 2007 to 2011, [baby] boomers start sucking up money, plus the Medicare drug benefits. It makes budget planning more difficult." He predicts the defense budget will be flat for at least the next five years.

Currently, according to Steve Kosiak, director of budget studies at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, the Pentagon's direct costs of military operations and foreign assistance in Iraq are about $250 billion. He notes that the government does not include many important costs.

"There are clearly additional costs. We are financing the war through deficit financing. That will be at least $100 billion over the next decade." He added that government figures do "not include overall economic impact, such as the rise in oil prices generated by the war".

Stiglitz and Bilmes agree with Kosiak. They note: "Given that at the onset of the war, the [US] was already running a deficit, and no new taxes have been levied, it is not unreasonable to assume, for purposes of budgeting, that all of the funding for the war to date has been borrowed, adding to the already-existing federal budget deficit. In the conservative scenario we assume that these funds are borrowed at 4% and repaid in full within five years. The moderate scenario assumes that the country continues to have a deficit over the next 20 years and therefore interest continues to accrue."

This presents political difficulties for the Bush administration. According to Korb, "Possible actions the administration will have to take include keeping the [military] budget flat, rescinding tax cuts and rescind drug benefits."

But some of the most interesting revelations of the new study have not been noted. For example, despite the political rhetoric one hears from all politicians, it turns out that America's fighting men and women are not worth that much.
The authors wrote: "The military may quantify the value of a life lost as the amount it pays in death benefits and life insurance to survivors - which has recently been increased from $12,240 to $100,000 [death benefit] and from $250,000 to $500,000 [life insurance]. But in other areas, such as safety and environmental regulation, the government values a life of a prime age male at around $6 million."

So a civilian death is worth at least $5.4 million or about 11 times that of a serviceman or woman. The economic cost for civilian deaths also applies to private contractors. According to the study, the cost of the American soldiers who have already lost their lives adds up to about $12 billion.

It is reminiscent of the old military cliche, "Nothing is too good for our boys, so that's what we'll give them - nothing."

The report also reveals that caring for wounded military personnel is going to be a far bigger and more expensive job than previously thought. The study notes that the Veterans Benefits Administration had originally projected that 23,553 veterans returning from Iraq would seek medical care last year, but in June it revised this number to 103,000. It also is now responsible for providing care to an estimated 90,000 National Guard personnel, who previously were not eligible for its services. To meet these unforeseen demands, the administration appealed to Congress for an emergency $1.5 billion in funding for fiscal 2005. It is likely to face a shortfall of $2.6 billion in 2006.

It is unclear, though, how much of a difference to the policy debate the study will make. According to Korb: "Had the study come out before we went to war, it might have made a difference. But now its impact will only be incremental. It might influence the administration to withdraw troops more quickly than previously planned.

"I wish we had thought about this before we got into this mess."

David Isenberg, a senior analyst with the Washington-based British American Security Information Council (BASIC), has a wide background in arms control and national security issues. The views expressed are his own.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA 14Ak01.html" title="http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA 14Ak01.html" target="_blank"http://www.atimes.com/atimes/...

This post is hilarious. This post is found on the Bring it on website. Click on link to read post.   http://www.teambio.org/2006/01/laura-dear-wh ere" title="http://www.teambio.org/2006/01/laura-dear-wh ere" target="_blank"http://www.teambio.org/2006/0...%e2%80%99d-i-put-my-balls /

I found this, it's a trailer for the Iraq war. Produce by Arab movie producers. http://media.putfile.com/kurtlar_iraq3" title="http://media.putfile.com/kurtlar_iraq3" target="_blank"http://media.putfile.com/kurt... If you speak Arabic then you understand what is being said.

After posting bond, Latham told an Oklahoma City television station that he was set up and was in the area ministering to people. http://www.thehawaiichannel.com/family/5849395/detail .html" title="http://www.thehawaiichannel.com/family/5849395/detail .html" target="_blank"http://www.thehawaiichannel.c...

It seems that homosexuality in the clergy is not only indigenous to the catholic church. A Southern church leader who says in public speechs, he is against homosexuality, and in his shadows he secretly practices homosexuality.

The cover story is he was set up, right, an obivous answer for a public leader.

ECONOMIC FORECAST, 2006
Upswings and downfalls
By Jephraim P Gundzik

Despite rising inflation in the United States, more accommodative monetary policy in the early months of 2006 will accelerate US economic growth. This stronger growth will push international oil prices toward US$100 per barrel by mid-year, causing much higher global inflation and foreign capital flight from the US.

With its credibility diminishing, the US Federal Reserve will be forced to tighten monetary policy dramatically, leading to an





 

abrupt slowdown in global economic growth in the second half of 2006.

The financial media and the Fed have trumpeted the ability of the US economy to withstand rapidly rising energy prices. The Fed’s preferred inflation measure, the core personal consumption expenditure deflator, which excludes food and energy price changes, remained virtually stable throughout 2005 as did other measures of core inflation.

However, broader measures of inflation such as the all-items consumer price index and the producer price index for finished goods are on track to reach 4.3% and 6.2% in 2005 from 2.7% and 4.4%, respectively, in 2004. Consumer price inflation in the US has not been above 4% since 1991 while producer price inflation has not been above 6% since 1980.

After raising interest rates in early December, governors of the US Federal Reserve Board indicated that the pace of US interest-rate hikes would soon slow or stop. According to the Fed, the change is justified by the stability of core inflation measures throughout 2005. One more quarter-point tightening of official interest rates may come this month.

Shortly thereafter, Fed chairman Alan Greenspan will retire in favor of Ben Bernanke. That the change in the Fed’s policy stance will correspond with the change in chairmanship is no coincidence. Nor is it a coincidence that these very significant changes at the Fed will occur nine months ahead of what could be crucial mid-term elections in the US.

In these elections, all 435 seats in the House of Representatives, 36 governorships and one-third of the seats in the Senate are up for renewal. Public support for the administration of President George W Bush and his Republican Party is quickly fading as a result of the many improprieties and failures associated with the "war on terror".

It is likely the Fed, under the leadership of Bernanke, a Bush appointee, will suspend its efforts to tighten monetary policy during the first half of 2006 to ensure that US economic growth remains robust, improving the electoral chances of the Republican Party in the mid-term elections.

The result of more accommodative monetary policy will be accelerating US economic growth in the first half of 2006. Accelerating growth is expected to increase US demand for oil. The US is by far the world’s largest oil consumer, using more than 20 million barrels of oil per day. By comparison, the entire European Union consumes about 12 million barrels per day. As US oil demand increases, global oil-supply growth is expected to remain weak. The ratio of oil-producing countries likely to experience continued natural production declines to countries expected to increase oil output in 2006 is about 6:1.

Rising oil-demand growth in the US should propel international oil prices toward $100 per barrel in the first half of 2006. Much higher oil prices will rapidly translate into accelerating US and global non-core inflation. Though core inflation in the US may remain stable, much higher non-core inflation will eventually trigger the flight of foreign capital from US bonds.

As of mid-2005, foreign investors, including foreign central banks, held an estimated $6.6 trillion worth of US bonds and equities, up from less than $4 trillion in mid-2002. About 60% of this money is parked in long-term US Treasury, agency and corporate bonds. The rapid and sustained increase of international oil prices is the main factor behind the growth in foreign holdings of US securities and the external supply of dollars used to purchase these securities.

The risk is high that foreign investors will increasingly question the credibility of the US Federal Reserve as monetary policy becomes more accommodative in the face of rising inflation. The strong advance in gold prices in recent months indicates that the Fed’s credibility is already under scrutiny. By the second quarter of 2006, foreign sales of long-term US bonds and the sliding value of the dollar could push market interest rates sharply higher.

Ironically, the Fed’s obsession with core inflation will push oil prices up and up. A decline in international oil prices will only come with a sharp reduction in oil demand. This will come when foreign capital flight forces the Fed to aggressively raise official short-term US interest rates, reducing US economic growth to less than 2% in the second half of 2006.

Unfortunately, falling international oil prices could be much more problematic for the US economy than rising prices. A sharp decline of international oil prices will deflate the external supply of dollars that has fed foreign investment in US bonds. Oil exporters will have fewer dollars to invest in US bonds. More important, oil importers will need fewer dollars to finance oil purchases, adding to upward pressure on long-term US interest rates and downward pressure on the dollar. The probability that global economic growth will decline sharply is much greater than the probability that it will accelerate in 2006.

Jephraim P Gundzik is president of Condor Advisers, Inc. Condor Advisers provides country risk analysis to individuals and institutions globally.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy /HA06Dj01.html" title="http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy /HA06Dj01.html" target="_blank"http://www.atimes.com/atimes/...