Click or Tap Icons to Share! Thank you!

Authored By  :
Published On :
Last Updated :

NOTE: This article or series has not been updated recently. As such, it may possibly contain some outdated information, and/or ideas and beliefs which I no longer embrace, or which have changed to some degree.



But let us return to the situation with Libya for a moment. If the United States restored relations with Libya so quickly following Qaddafi's 2003 turnaround, it is because Libya has something that America wants; and I think you already know what that is. I have no doubt that this diplomatic move was all about resurrecting the warm relationship that Libya and the U.S. had decades ago, prior to the 1969 Revolution when Qaddafi came to power. Before that time, Libya was very pro- West, and both the U.S. and the British had bases there. So this was a purely strategic move to re-establish an old oil supplier at a time when America needs it the most. What I find a bit funny, is that the U.S. Government knew exactly how the rest of the world would react to this announcement; and so right away, it started to deny what was so obvious. In a May 2006 New York Times article, which in glowing terms explains how cooperative Colonel Qaddafi has suddenly become, we find the following interesting quote from David Welch, who is the U.S.'s Assistant Secretary of State for the Middle East:

----- Begin Quote -----

"Libya is a major oil-producing state and a member of OPEC, but David Welch, assistant secretary of state for the Middle East, insisted: 'This decision is not undertaken because Libya has oil. This decision is undertaken because they've addressed our national security concerns.'"

----- End Quote -----

Folks, as far as I am concerned, that is nonsense. The man is blowing smoke in our faces. According to 2003 figures, Libya is the eleventh largest oil exporter in the world. As of September 2006, she was producing 1.7 million barrels of oil a day, which is some 300,000 barrels below Iraq's level. That is precisely why she has been let back into America's fold; and you can bet that Qaddafi is going to sell his oil in American dollars, and not in Euros. In fact, this may be why in the very same news article, it states that "Iran has ridiculed Libya for its reconciliation with the West". Iran wants all OPEC members to sell their oil in Euros, and not in U.S. dollars. Let's not forget that the U.S.A. wants to divide and destroy OPEC, if OPEC nations don't want to sell their oil in U.S. dollars. So by selling his oil in dollars, Qaddafi is working against the other OPEC nations who want to sell their oil in Euros, such as Iraq and Iran. I think there is another nation that may be doing the same thing. I will be discussing it in a moment. So not everyone is happy about this reconciliation. In fact, one woman, who had lost her only child in the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing attack, stated:

----- Begin Quote -----

"Qaddafi has triumphed. This is all done for oil; that's all they care about."

----- End Quote -----

I think she is absolutely right. It's all about the oil, and keeping the U.S. dollar connected to the oil. By the way, I forgot to mention an important fact regarding the outcome of the U.S.A.'s invasion of Iraq. In his article, Professor Petrov also makes this enlightening comment:

----- Begin Quote -----

"Indeed, this is the case: two months after the United States invaded Iraq, the Oil for Food Program was terminated, the Iraqi Euro accounts were switched back to dollars, and oil was sold once again only for U.S. dollars. No longer could the world buy oil from Iraq with Euro."

"Global dollar supremacy was once again restored. Bush descended victoriously from a fighter jet and declared the mission accomplished - he had successfully defended the U.S. dollar, and thus the American Empire."

----- End Quote -----

That is undoubtedly why, since several years ago, the U.S.A. has been actively supporting the Shi'ites in Iraq, and is in fact still supporting them today; even though their militias and death squads, such as Moktada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army, have been murdering thousands and thousands of Sunnis in Iraq. As we saw earlier, under Saddam Hussein, the Sunnis had begun to sell their oil in Euros; but now, with the Shi'ites in power, the Iraqi oil exchange has been returned to a dollar base. If they are smart, they will leave it that way, unless they want to meet the same fate as Saddam Hussein.

What really caught me by surprise in the previous paragraphs was Professor Petrov's second comment. Like so many other people, I totally missed the real significance of President Bush's "Top Gun" moment back in the Spring of 2003, when he descended from that fighter jet on that air craft carrier. Like other writers, considering how poorly the invasion and war has gone, I criticized, and even mocked Bush, for being so quick to declare the mission accomplished. However, now I am beginning to realize that his words may not have been for us, the general public, at all. His "mission accomplished" message may have been a coded message meant for someone else who is much more powerful than he, who was watching their television set that day. This person, or group of people, would know exactly what the president meant by the phrase.

From our perspective as outsiders to the government's inner workings, who plainly see that civil war has engulfed Iraq, and that three thousand people continue to be killed every month, it most definitely appears like the mission has not really been accomplished, and that America has obtained no victory there. But is it possible that this is because we have never truly understood what the mission was? Bush has thrown all of this disinformation at us for several years now. First we were told that America invaded Iraq to stop Saddam, and to destroy his WMD. Then we were told that the mission was to root out al-Qaeda from Iraq. Then they told us that it was to free the Iraqis, and to bring a semblance of democracy to Iraq.

For more than six years now, we have endured President Bush's disinformation blitzkrieg. So when none of these things came to pass -- no WMD found, al-Qaeda not removed from Iraq, and the Iraqis still not living in a peaceful democracy -- and the situation became increasingly worse, we naturally assumed that Bush had been premature with his "mission accomplished" statement so early in the conflict. Well, it's been more than four years now since the "mission accomplished" remark, and we are still being given a lot of disinformation, and many of us are still wondering what Bush has really accomplished; if anything, besides destroy Iraq, and get a lot of people mad at him.

However, if, as Prof. Petrov suggests, we look at the real mission as being to restore the Iraqi oil exchange to a U.S. dollar base, then President Bush was absolutely correct when he smiled and said "Mission accomplished!". Even though Iraq is still in a very chaotic state, with so many people being murdered on a daily basis, nevertheless, America did in fact accomplish her mission there. Saddam Hussein was de-throned, and the dollar was restored to power there.

Sadly, the tragedy is that the Iraqi people are the ones who have been paying a terrible price for America's destructive deeds; and thus far, it appears that the Shi'ite politicians who are now in control of the country, are evil thugs who are not much better than Saddam Hussein himself. Right now, while they may not label it as such, ethnic cleansing is occurring in Baghdad and elsewhere in the country; and the U.S. military has not been able to prevent it from happening, in spite of the estimated 130,000 troops that they have in the country. I don't know what else you can call the forceful displacement and murder of thousands of Sunnis, if not ethnic cleansing. It is indeed true that both Shi'ites and Sunnis are currently at each other's throats; but we know who is in power, as well as who is in the minority, and who will thus lose in the end; so when all is said and done, I think a lot of people will agree that we have witnessed ethnic cleansing in Iraq.

As I stated a moment ago, the reason why the United States accepted Libya back into its fold, even though they deny it, is because it needs her oil. What made this become necessary? Quite simply, the Bush administration had a major falling out with Hugo Chávez, who is the outspoken president of Venezuela. Some of you have undoubtedly read about this in the news. The U.S.A. has followed her standard modus operandi, and has gone to great lengths to vilify Chávez before the world. Venezuela is one of the founding members of OPEC. She has also been one of America's major oil suppliers; so it is only logical that if that provider is in danger of being lost, America has to find another reliable replacement. Thus, fellow OPEC member, Libya, has been chosen. Why may Venezuela be lost? Keep on reading, and you'll surely find out.

For your personal knowledge, the current members of OPEC, or "Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries", are the following: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Venezuela, the United Arab Emirates, Algeria, Nigeria, Angola, Libya, Qatar and Indonesia. Former members, Ecuador and Gabon, would like to rejoin OPEC, and the countries of Syria, Sudan, Bolivia and Mexico are potential future members. According to online sources, OPEC member nations hold about two-thirds of the world's oil reserves, which is a lot oil. According to 2005 figures, they also accounted for 41.7% of the world's oil production. So you can see why when OPEC talks, everyone sits up and listens. Some nations, like the United States, like to downplay OPEC's overall importance in the scheme of things, but don't let them fool you. If OPEC nations were to severely reduce their oil output, or raise their prices to a significant degree, the whole world would feel it; maybe not as much as during the 1973 Oil Embargo, but still, a lot.

This brings us to another point which you may find rather interesting. As we have already seen, America's strategy has been to forcefully remove from power, in whatever way may be necessary, any world leader who chooses to sell their oil in Euros, or who refuses to support the U.S. dollar by buying their oil reserves in U.S. dollars, instead of in Euros. In her aforementioned article, Dr. Ebron makes a brief comment about Venezuela. Guess what she says? Consider this:

----- Begin Quote -----

"U.S. interests in South America, despite the failure of the coup in Venezuela (an OPEC member), are being secured via military aid to neighboring Columbia."

----- End Quote -----

As I have mentioned a number of times before to my readers, when the U.S.A. becomes dissatisfied with a particular world leader, she doesn't always go in personally and remove that person through military force. Quite often, she will get her underdogs to do it for her. She will foment civil unrest and revolution in a nation; she will attack its economy; she will do whatever is needed to destabilize the government of that country, until its undesirable leader falls. She will even covertly send in CIA operatives and other troublemakers, in order to mastermind a coup. Are you getting the picture? As Dr. Ebron briefly mentioned, in April of 2002, a failed coup attempt occurred in Venezuela. During the coup, Venezuela's leader, Hugo Chávez, was briefly removed from power, but was shortly restored.

You obviously already know what superpower has a long history of clandestinely meddling in the affairs of Latin America. On a number of occasions, their schemes have come to light and embarrassed the leader of that nation. Shortly after the coup in Venezuela occurred, it was widely reported that the Bush administration had been linked to the overthrow attempt. The Observer of London had this to say regarding the incident in an April 2002 article entitled "Venezuela Coup Linked To Bush Team":

----- Begin Quote -----

The failed coup in Venezuela was closely tied to senior officials in the US government, The Observer has established. They have long histories in the "dirty wars" of the 1980s, and links to death squads working in Central America at that time.

Washington's involvement in the turbulent events that briefly removed left-wing leader Hugo Chavez from power last weekend resurrects fears about US ambitions in the hemisphere.

It also also deepens doubts about policy in the region being made by appointees to the Bush administration, all of whom owe their careers to serving in the dirty wars under President Reagan.

One of them, Elliot Abrams, who gave a nod to the attempted Venezuelan coup, has a conviction for misleading Congress over the infamous Iran-Contra affair.

The Bush administration has tried to distance itself from the coup. It immediately endorsed the new government under businessman Pedro Carmona. But the coup was sent dramatically into reverse after 48 hours.

Now officials at the Organisation of American States and other diplomatic sources, talking to The Observer, assert that the US administration was not only aware the coup was about to take place, but had sanctioned it, presuming it to be destined for success.

----- End Quote -----

This is the kind of aggressive American leadership that the world is now forced to deal with. Regime change is obviously an integral part of American strategy, whenever it deems it necessary, with no regard for the sovereignty of any nation. As leaders such as Slobodan Milosevic, Saddam Hussein, Hugo Chávez, Kim Jong Il and many others have learned, no one is immune to the long arm of American Imperialism.

While the American Government will sometimes resort to more overt means in order to push its weight around in another country, this isn't always necessary. As we've already seen, this is due to the power of the US dollar, and the hold that it has on so many countries. The truth is, that through the financial institutions which it controls, e.g. WB, IMF, the U.S. already controls a large portion of Latin America. You will recall the story I shared earlier regarding Ecuador. She isn't the only Latin American country who has become a slave of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank; but some nations, like Venezuela, do fight back.

As I was reading the article concerning the reconciliation between the United States and Libya, I really had to laugh, because while praising Colonel Qaddafi and Libya, and even letting us know that Libya has now been removed from their list of state sponsors of terrorism, the US Administration used this event as a vehicle to also preach at and condemn Venezuela, Iran and North Korea. With the heading of "U.S. Will Restore Diplomatic Links With The Libyans", the May 16, 2006 New York Times article stated among other things:

----- Begin Quotes -----

"Libya is an important model as nations around the world press for changes in behavior by the Iranian and North Korean regimes," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said. Hers was just one of several similar statements on Monday from senior officials who worked hard to turn Libya's change in behavior into a lesson for Iran as a resolution on Iran's nuclear development program remains stalled in the United Nations Security Council."

"While lifting sanctions on Libya, the United States on Monday listed Venezuela as a country that is not cooperating on terrorism. The State Department said the Venezuelan president, Hugo Chávez, had given oratorical support to Iran and to the Iraqi insurgency and had provided aid to insurgents involved in drug trafficking in Colombia."

"Nobody is saying that Venezuela is actively sponsoring terrorism," said a State Department official speaking on condition of anonymity under department rules. "But Venezuela has clearly shown a lack of interest in working with us in combating it."

"The listing of Venezuela means that the United States cannot sell it military equipment, but the officials said such sales are negligible now."

----- End Quotes -----

Okay, do you realize what you just read? Do you understand why the US Government mentions Venezuela in the article? If not, let me tell you. They are using the very same strategy that we have been discussing throughout this series. That article is purposely meant to brainwash the American public, and plant in their minds, a connection between Venezuela and terrorism, plain and simple. Do you see how subtle they are being? "Oh, we're not saying that Venezuela is a terrorist nation; we're just saying that Hugo Chávez isn't helping us to combat terrorism". You see, that is enough. That is all that they have to do. Rumor, speculation and imagination will do the rest of the work for them. They have planted the suggestion in people's heads; and now, before long, a lot of Americans, when they hear the name Hugo Chávez or Venezuela, are going to equate him, and his nation, with terrorism. He will become blacklisted, even though he has done nothing remotely related to terrorism.

But is that really the reason why the American Government is angry with Hugo Chávez? Is it because he is either supportive of, or in some way connected to, terrorism? After reading so much of this series, I hope you realize that it isn't. Well, what is the real reason then? If you ask me, it is the very same reason that the U.S. condemned Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and North Korea. It is all about OPEC oil, and who is buying or selling oil in dollars or Euros. In this case, you already know that Venezuela is an OPEC member nation; and in fact, a founding member; which means that it has some say regarding OPEC pricing and exportation policies. We have also learned that together with Iran, Venezuela has been pushing for the world to adopt the Euro as its new currency reserve, instead of the dollar. The following excerpts, taken from a BBS news article, dated Dec. 22, 2006 and entitled "Venezuela Mulls Euro Oil Switch", confirms what Hal Lindsey stated earlier:

----- Begin Quotes -----

"Venezuela has expressed interest in an Iranian move to ask buyers to pay for oil in euros rather than US dollars . . . The oil-rich nation said it planned to see if a similar scheme could be introduced to its crude exports . . . Iran, the world's fourth-biggest oil producer, has already asked customers to pay for its oil in euros because of the current weakness of the dollar . . . Although the dollar is the currency in which oil is usually traded, it has been falling in value against the euro . . . The US currency tumbled to 20-month lows against the single European currency earlier this month . . . Iran still prices its oil in dollars, but currently receives payment for 57% of its crude exports in euros, according to the National Iranian Oil Company . . . Venezuela's energy minister Rafael Ramirez described the Iranian scheme as 'very interesting'."

----- End Quotes -----

The Bloomberg news site also provides us with some pertinent information regarding this same issue. In fact, it expands, and states that oil producers from the United Arab Emirates to Indonesia, and even Russia, are likewise in the process of switching to a Euro-based economy, instead of one based upon the US dollar. Consider the following information from a December 18, 2006 article called "Venezuela, Oil Producers Buy Euro as Dollar, Oil Fall". Please also notice that Hugo Chávez first proposed the Euro switch at an OPEC meeting this past June. That is why the U.S. Government has been bad-mouthing him so much in the American press in recent months:

----- Begin Quotes -----

Venezuelan leader Hugo Chávez is directing a growing share of the country's oil profits into euros as the dollar and crude prices fall.

The dollar, down 9.5 percent against the euro this year, may face more pressure in 2007 because Venezuela and oil producers from the United Arab Emirates to Indonesia plan to funnel more money into the single European currency.

Bank Indonesia is boosting euro holdings, said Senior Deputy Governor Miranda S Goeltom in a Dec. 13 interview in Jakarta. Indonesia has $39.9 billion in reserves. Sultan Bin Nasser al- Suwaidi, the governor of the Central Bank of the UAE, last month said he was considering when to shift as much as 8 percent of the nation's $24.9 billion in reserves into euros.

The share of foreign-exchange deposits held in dollars by OPEC members and Russia, the largest non-OPEC oil exporter, fell to a two-year low of 65 percent during the second quarter, from 67 percent during the previous three months, Bank for International Settlements figures released last week show.

Chávez called on OPEC to sell oil denominated in euros rather than dollars at a meeting of the group in Caracas on June 1, supporting a proposal made by Iran.

OPEC members and Russia increased the percentage of their foreign-exchange deposits held in euros to 22 percent in the second quarter from 20 percent, the BIS said. By contrast, the global average is about a third, according to the Basel, Switzerland-based bank.

Oil states will probably buy the European currency at a faster rate to bring their reserves closer in line with other nations, according to David Durrant at Julius Baer Investment Management in New York.

----- End Quotes -----

So to reiterate, the primary reason why the United States has been bad-mouthing Hugo Chávez, and trying to make him appear as a friend of terrorists, is because not only does he have tons of oil, a lot of which is imported by the U.S., but he is also now demanding that he be paid for it in Euros, instead of dollars. Furthermore, he is in the forefront of the move to encourage other nations to also adopt the Euro as the currency reserve of the oil markets. The Bush Administration's hatred of Chávez has absolutely nothing to do with real WMD, or real terrorism. It is a blatant lie, and they know it. Following are some more quotes from Lindsey's article which explains in clear terms, exactly how powerful Chávez is becoming, as a result of Venezuela's oil reserves:

----- Begin Quote -----

"I believe oil is being used in this same overall strategy against America. Last October, OPEC agreed to reduce production to keep oil prices up near $60 per barrel. The price was suggested by Hugo Chavez after consultation with his friends in Tehran and Moscow and accepted by OPEC."

"With that one brilliant maneuver, Chavez cornered the global oil market. Venezuela has vast deposits of heavy oil in the Orinoco, but heavy oil is expensive to extract and refine at free-market prices. However, at $60 per barrel, the Orinoco reserves give Venezuela the largest proven oil reserves in the world."

"Not just larger than the vast reserves of Iran or Saudi Arabia, it is larger than both of them put together. In fact, it is bigger than all the proven oil reserves in the Middle East combined. Venezuela's deposits alone could extend the oil age for another 100 years."

"Hugo Chavez is raking in some $200 million a day in oil sales, most of it from the United States. If Chavez demands payment in euros, it will throw the whole U.S. economy into a crisis."

"Amazingly, Hugo Chavez has now become the go-to guy for all of OPEC. He's held audience with every oil sheik and dictator in the Middle East, including our "friends" the Saudis and Kuwaitis. With the recent re-election of Chavez, the U.S. is ringed by five of the most virulently anti-American leftist regimes in Latin America."

----- End Quote -----

By now, I hope you can see how the United States of America has used its so-called "War Against Terrorism" to cloak what it is really doing around the world. When you see it vilify a nation or leader, you really need to ask yourself why it is doing it. Is it really for the stated reasons? Let me give you one more clear example, so you can see again how obvious this pattern is. As you are already aware, in his State Of the Union Address in January of 2002, President Bush referred to Iran, Iraq and North Korea as the "Axis of Evil". Are you aware of the fact that there is actually an appended list which people refer to as the "Beyond The Axis Of Evil" list? This expanded list receives its name from a speech that US Under Secretary of State, John Bolton, gave in May of 2002 which was entitled "Beyond The Axis Of Evil". Following are some excerpts from a news article which was published by the BBC on May 6, 2002:

----- Begin Quotes -----

The United States has added Cuba, Libya and Syria to the nations it claims are deliberately seeking to obtain chemical or biological weapons.

In a speech entitled "Beyond the Axis of Evil", US Under Secretary of State, John Bolton said that the three nations could be grouped with other so-called "rogue states" - Iraq, Iran and North Korea - in actively attempting to develop weapons of mass destruction.

He also warned that the US would take action.

"America is determined to prevent the next wave of terror," he said, referring to the 11 September attacks in Washington and New York that killed up to 3,000 people.

"States that sponsor terror and pursue WMD (weapons of mass destruction) must stop. States that renounce terror and abandon WMD can become part of our effort, but those that do not can expect to become our targets," he said.

----- End Quotes -----

Boy, their list just keeps getting bigger and bigger! This news is from 2002, so please don't forget that Libya made its alleged turnaround in 2003, and is now buddy-buddy with the USA again. Cuba is still on the U.S.'s bad guy list, but that may change in the not too distant future; being as Fidel Castro has been very sick, some say near death, and may not last much longer. Even if his brother Raul takes over when Fidel dies, Raul isn't exactly young, and can't last much longer either; so there may possibly be a bright future for the people of Cuba soon. But here is the interesting point about Cuba. Guess where she buys here oil; from her good old friend Hugo Chávez of Venezuela; the very same man who has been pushing for the dollar to Euro switch.

Let's look at the last country on the so-called "Beyond The Axis Of Evil" list compiled by the US: Syria. Currently, she is not a member of OPEC; however, Syria still needs to make financial decisions regarding its imports and exports. As with the other nations we have looked at, the U.S.A. has been bad-mouthing Syria for years now. However, since 2002, just like Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, it is now accused of making attempts to acquire Weapons of Mass Destruction. By now, I suppose you already know what I am going to say next, so let me just give you the facts. Yes, folks, Syria is also converting its economy to the Euro. Actually, Syria made this decision sometime last year. In a news article I found on the "Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee" website", dated July 11, 2006, it also mentions that Russia, Finland Sweden, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates are also converting their economies to the Euro as well. Following are a few quotes from the article entitled "Syria Moves Reserves To Euros And Will End Dollar Peg This Year":

----- Begin Quotes -----

Syria, accused by the U.S. of supporting terrorism, plans to end its currency peg to the dollar by December to reflect closer trade ties with Europe, central bank Governor Adib Mayaleh said.

The Central Bank of Syria has already converted half its foreign-exchange reserves to euros, Mayaleh said in a telephone interview from Damascus, without being more specific.

"We want to have a currency peg that will reflect our external trade," Mayaleh said yesterday. The European Union is Syria's largest trading partner, taking half of its exports, he said. Italy and France are the biggest destinations for Syrian goods abroad, according to data published by the CIA fact book.

Central bankers from Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Russia, Sweden, and Finland have this year indicated they aim to diversify their reserves away from the dollar.

The Syrian government is "studying options" with regard to ending the dollar peg, Abdallah Dardari, the country's deputy prime minister for economic affairs, told reporters on the sidelines of a conference in Damascus on June 10.

----- End Quotes -----

Please go to part four for the continuation of this series.

⇒ Go To The Next Part . . .

Click or Tap Icons to Share! Thank you!

---

---

Please avail yourself of other areas of the Bill's Bible Basics website. There are many treasures for you to discover.