Bush Plunges US into Rapid Decline

[Nancy Waterman]

http://www.blackcommentator.com/60/60_cover_iraq.html

...Even more important than the huge and immediate boost that a Russian oil-euro arrangement would provide to the European Union, the move would signal the definitive end of America’s artificial dollar-domination of the planet, a privileged status the U.S. has abused as a weapon since the end of World War II.

As Dr. Sonja Ebron wrote in , February 20, “Given the highly leveraged and fragile state of our economy, an OPEC switch from the dollar to the euro would bring a quick and devastating dollar and Wall Street crash that would make 1929 look like a $50 casino bet.”

One month before the U.S. invasion, Dr. Ebron warned of the monstrous blowback that would result:

“War is not the answer. It's a shortsighted desperation play that is doomed to failure. Our military forces may take but cannot hold Iraq's oil, as they have failed to tame Afghanistan's land. Far from staving off disaster, our arrogance may instead compel OPEC to ‘go euro’ en masse, taking many oil-consuming nations with them by force of economics. And a trade war with Europe will lend the coup de grace to our economy.”

The Bush men launched their offensive largely to ensure that oil would continue to be priced in dollars. American military dominance of the Middle East and a series of “regime changes” would eliminate the euro-threat – or so the theory went. An opposite chain of events has occurred, with the impetus coming, not from OPEC, but from an increasingly confident and assertive Russia, for whom Shock and Awe is mere firework.

[Martin Eden]

1. US over a barrel (of oil)

One of the only things propping up a U.S. economy with huge trade and budget deficits is the status of the dollar as international currency. But if petro-dollars are replaced with petro-euros, an economic collapse is a distinct possibility.

This is the least talked about, but perhaps the largest real motivation for the invasion of Iraq. Military hegemony is a desperate measure for maintaining an economy balancing precariously on the dominance of the dollar.

But it's an unsustainable measure, even if initially successful. Our dominance is not so great that the concerted efforts of the major economic poweres we've pissed off can't force the dollar's replacement. And it's also unsustainable because the budget deficits required to sustain military expenditures and tax cuts can be economically ruinous without outside machinations. And also because an economic engine based on fossil fuels can last only as long as the dwindling supplies.

I fear hard times ahead for the Dem administration that replaces Shrub. Unless we can undo the diplomatic damage and resolve the Iraq quagmire, the economic calamity triggered by the Bushistas can come crashing down on all our heads in a few years.

The neocons would say at this point we have no choice but to carry out their agenda for military dominance to secure the economic status quo. But their plans have already proven to be horribly miscalculated and as I already pointed out -- unsustainable.

The challenges facing the Dem president in 2005 will be HUGE.

[tom_paine]

2. That is if a Democrat is "allowed" by the Busheviks to attain

the Imperial Throne of Amerika.

I myself have my doubts as to whether 2004 will be an election or a Stalinist predetermined joke.

[Emillereid]

3. Is it time to sell the house

and move to another country yet?