Friends of the euro,
Today, George Bush has begun his war against the euro. It is time for Europeans to take a stand against this arrogant act of disregard for law. Thousands, if not more, of people will die just because their government has chosen freely to sell its oil in euros and is being made an example of to prevent other nations from doing the same. This is an outrage and all decent people everywhere should be angry.
There is a way to fight back. In the best interests of Europe and the world it is imperative that action be taken, or else the Bush monster will consume the whole world.
You can fight back by effectively boycotting everything American. If you have dollars, sell them. If you own stock in any company that is associated with a US firm, sell it.
Do not buy any product that is American in origin. That includes clothes, food, arts & entertainment. Do not go to American made movies. Do not buy American music or go to clubs that play it.
Also, pass this information on to your friends and relatives. Contact every business that sells American products and ask them to stop. Contact your government officials and request they sell any American assets they may have.
Don't let tyrants have their way. It is your future they will try to destroy. Act now before it is too late. You can make a difference. Fight back!!
The war against the Euro has begun
Moderators: Fons, avij, Phaseolus
-
John S
- Euro-Regular in Training
- Posts: 101
- Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2003 12:26 am
- Location: Cleveland, Ohio
The real reasons America is invading Iraq
The TRUTH is spreading
This article is from 'The Age', an Australian newspaper published in
Melbourne. See www.theage.com.au
In this article Kenneth Davidson, a staff columnist of 'The Age', suggests
(in paragraph 13) that: 'The US would have to redirect domestic demand for imported goods paid for in dollar-denominated IOUs into exports to earn yuan and euros to pay for US imports'.
(Note: John Howard is Prime Minister of Australia)
Begin Article
The real reasons America is invading Iraq
March 20 2003
America is seeking to ward off any threat to its economic domination of the
world, writes Kenneth Davidson.
George Bush planned "regime change" in Iraq before becoming United States
President in January 2001. The events of September 11, 2001, were the
pretext for invasion of Iraq, not the reason.
The blueprint for the creation of a "global Pax America", to which Bush
subscribes and which is driving the invasion of Iraq, was drawn up in
September 2000 for Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush
(George's younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff).
The document, called Rebuilding America's Defences: strategies, forces and
resources for a new century, was written in September 2000 by the
neo-conservative think tank Project for the New American Century.
According to the document, written three months before Bush became
president, "the US for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf
regional security. While unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the
immediate justification, the need for substantial American force presence in
the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."
The document outlines the global ambitions of the Bush Administration. It
sets out a "blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the
rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in
line with American principles and interests".
The question for John Howard must be: to what extent does his Government
subscribe to the Bush strategy outlined in the think tank's document?
Howard says Australia's participation in this war is in Australia's national
interests. How?
To answer that question we must know why the war is being fought in the
first place. For all I know, Bush, Howard and Tony Blair may be absolutely
sincere when they claim that getting rid of Saddam is a humanitarian act
that will make the Iraqis better off, or that Saddam has the will, the
motive and the weapons of mass destruction capable of threatening other
countries. But these are not the real reasons for the invasion.
The real reasons can be summed up as deciding who controls Middle East oil
and gets access to the water from the Tigris and Euphrates, and what
currency will be used to pay for the development of the oil and water
resources.
According to the think tank document, the US would have to increase its
defence spending to 3.8 per cent of GDP (which it has just achieved) to
finance an American military capability "to fight and decisively win
multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars" and to "perform constabulary
duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical
regions".
This is a massive task that can only be achieved if the US can continue to
draw on the resources of the whole world, which in turn is only possible if
the US can continue to run massive trading deficits with Western Europe,
China and Japan. In other words, these regions must remain willing to
exchange the product of their industries for American dollars.
It would be fatal to America's global strategic ambitions if countries in
Europe began to ask for euros instead of US dollars for their exports, or if
China demanded settlement of their accounts with the US in yuan instead of
US dollars. The US would have to redirect domestic demand for imported goods
paid for in dollar-denominated IOUs into exports to earn yuan and euros to
pay for US imports.
It is difficult to see how the US could develop new, internationally
competitive industries and run a military machine on the scale envisaged by
the think tank without a massive increase in taxation and redistribution of
wealth to the productive elements in the economy without precipitating a
global recession.
In 2000, Saddam's regime had the temerity to demand payment in euros for the
trickle of Iraqi oil the US has allowed onto the international market. Iran
and Venezuela are following Iraq's example. This is the real threat to US
hegemony.
If the US can control Middle East oil production, it can control the
industrial development of Europe, China and Japan (and Australia), to
prevent a rival to its hegemony emerging. But to do this it must retain the
greenback as the world currency.
It is possible to make a weak case based on realpolitik why Blair is along
for the ride with Bush in Iraq (BP and Shell), but it is impossible to see
what Australia will get out of this adventure even if it "succeeds".
Bush personifies the American quest for absolute security. Americans don't
yet understand or care that this status can only be achieved by making
everybody else absolutely insecure.
This is why the most lasting thing to come out of the war with Iraq is
likely to be the faster development of a unified Western Europe and an
economically powerful China to challenge US hegemony.
Kenneth Davidson is a staff columnist.
This article is from 'The Age', an Australian newspaper published in
Melbourne. See www.theage.com.au
In this article Kenneth Davidson, a staff columnist of 'The Age', suggests
(in paragraph 13) that: 'The US would have to redirect domestic demand for imported goods paid for in dollar-denominated IOUs into exports to earn yuan and euros to pay for US imports'.
(Note: John Howard is Prime Minister of Australia)
Begin Article
The real reasons America is invading Iraq
March 20 2003
America is seeking to ward off any threat to its economic domination of the
world, writes Kenneth Davidson.
George Bush planned "regime change" in Iraq before becoming United States
President in January 2001. The events of September 11, 2001, were the
pretext for invasion of Iraq, not the reason.
The blueprint for the creation of a "global Pax America", to which Bush
subscribes and which is driving the invasion of Iraq, was drawn up in
September 2000 for Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush
(George's younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff).
The document, called Rebuilding America's Defences: strategies, forces and
resources for a new century, was written in September 2000 by the
neo-conservative think tank Project for the New American Century.
According to the document, written three months before Bush became
president, "the US for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf
regional security. While unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the
immediate justification, the need for substantial American force presence in
the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."
The document outlines the global ambitions of the Bush Administration. It
sets out a "blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the
rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in
line with American principles and interests".
The question for John Howard must be: to what extent does his Government
subscribe to the Bush strategy outlined in the think tank's document?
Howard says Australia's participation in this war is in Australia's national
interests. How?
To answer that question we must know why the war is being fought in the
first place. For all I know, Bush, Howard and Tony Blair may be absolutely
sincere when they claim that getting rid of Saddam is a humanitarian act
that will make the Iraqis better off, or that Saddam has the will, the
motive and the weapons of mass destruction capable of threatening other
countries. But these are not the real reasons for the invasion.
The real reasons can be summed up as deciding who controls Middle East oil
and gets access to the water from the Tigris and Euphrates, and what
currency will be used to pay for the development of the oil and water
resources.
According to the think tank document, the US would have to increase its
defence spending to 3.8 per cent of GDP (which it has just achieved) to
finance an American military capability "to fight and decisively win
multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars" and to "perform constabulary
duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical
regions".
This is a massive task that can only be achieved if the US can continue to
draw on the resources of the whole world, which in turn is only possible if
the US can continue to run massive trading deficits with Western Europe,
China and Japan. In other words, these regions must remain willing to
exchange the product of their industries for American dollars.
It would be fatal to America's global strategic ambitions if countries in
Europe began to ask for euros instead of US dollars for their exports, or if
China demanded settlement of their accounts with the US in yuan instead of
US dollars. The US would have to redirect domestic demand for imported goods
paid for in dollar-denominated IOUs into exports to earn yuan and euros to
pay for US imports.
It is difficult to see how the US could develop new, internationally
competitive industries and run a military machine on the scale envisaged by
the think tank without a massive increase in taxation and redistribution of
wealth to the productive elements in the economy without precipitating a
global recession.
In 2000, Saddam's regime had the temerity to demand payment in euros for the
trickle of Iraqi oil the US has allowed onto the international market. Iran
and Venezuela are following Iraq's example. This is the real threat to US
hegemony.
If the US can control Middle East oil production, it can control the
industrial development of Europe, China and Japan (and Australia), to
prevent a rival to its hegemony emerging. But to do this it must retain the
greenback as the world currency.
It is possible to make a weak case based on realpolitik why Blair is along
for the ride with Bush in Iraq (BP and Shell), but it is impossible to see
what Australia will get out of this adventure even if it "succeeds".
Bush personifies the American quest for absolute security. Americans don't
yet understand or care that this status can only be achieved by making
everybody else absolutely insecure.
This is why the most lasting thing to come out of the war with Iraq is
likely to be the faster development of a unified Western Europe and an
economically powerful China to challenge US hegemony.
Kenneth Davidson is a staff columnist.
I agree with you!. This war is the worst thing that could happen to the Iraqy people. And I hope it will be over vry soon. (well I guess it is only hopenodisch18 wrote:F**K the war!
I really get the shivers (?) when i think about those people overthere! I hope it will be a fast and clean war.... (As far as that is possible....)
)To John S
I'm personally kind of boycotting as many american things as possible. But I didn't use a lot of american stuff before anyway. (sometimes coca-cola)
The Force is like Duck-tape, it has a dark side, a light side and it holds the universe together.
-
eurobillsandcoins
- Euro-Master in Training
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 2:55 am
- Location: Hong Kong SAR
- Contact:
After the announcement of war my BNP branches currency services for the U.S. dollar dropped by more than 70%. I personally use some american products but I try to avoid them in general. Such as fast-food chains if I really need that I go to the French branded ones instead of the U.S. ones. So F*ck this stupid war!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 
Hong Kong-Asia's world city.
-
eurobillsandcoins
- Euro-Master in Training
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 2:55 am
- Location: Hong Kong SAR
- Contact:
-
Skylimit
- Euro-Master in Training
- Posts: 985
- Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2002 3:33 pm
- Location: Belgium, Izegem
- Contact:
Re: The war against the Euro has begun
I have sold all American stock over a year ago, with the dollar at historical heights. Boycotting products as an individual doesn't make sense ... nor does trying to influence global financial markets by either patriottism or boycot. This was clearly demonstrated by the immoral rise of the stock market after the announcement that Bush would invade Iraq. There was a sharp rallye the next 4 days.John S wrote: You can fight back by effectively boycotting everything American. If you have dollars, sell them. If you own stock in any company that is associated with a US firm, sell it.
!!
Furthermore, we do not want to boycot Americans ... we want nothing less than a REGIME CHANGE !! Your postings indicate that there is still hope for America
Kindest regards ... it is an interesting theory
Time is on our side ...
-
Tiger
- Euro-Master
- Posts: 1072
- Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 4:18 pm
- Location: Heverlee, at 100m from Leuven, Belgium
- Contact:
Today in school, after the first pause, every student sat on the flour of the playground, in a big circle.
In it someone put a flag with 'PACE' on it, and several other students drawed peace-signs on the ground.
I think a lot of other schools here in Belgium (and maybe other countries too) did these kinds of things, and I really hope it helps a little...
But I'm afraid it won't do anything at all
Bush is really stubborn ...
In it someone put a flag with 'PACE' on it, and several other students drawed peace-signs on the ground.
I think a lot of other schools here in Belgium (and maybe other countries too) did these kinds of things, and I really hope it helps a little...
But I'm afraid it won't do anything at all
Bush is really stubborn ...
Tiger : Dutch, English, French, German
Little Spanish and Italian
Trying Finnish and Japanese
Little Spanish and Italian
Trying Finnish and Japanese
-
Guest
Yes I am. There will be a small demonstration in my town. This Saturday there's a big one, in Amsterdam. Our goverment consist of total cowards, unable to make any decision. We'll show them they should make a decision about Bush' war, as small as the impact of it would be.Antti wrote:I'm definately boycotting American products from now on.
btw, is anyone going to demonstrations tonight?
Re: The war against the Euro has begun
Hello John!John S wrote:Friends of the euro,!!
Long messages...
John S wrote: Today, George Bush has begun his war against the euro. It is time for Europeans to take a stand against this arrogant act of disregard for law. (...)
Well, I am totally against this war that I find illegal, and criminal, which as one result of deviding Europe... but I am not thinking the MAIN goal is to fight the euro.
There are several reasons for that conflict. This one could just be the cherry on the cake
OK... I am not convinced that it could work, because:John S wrote: You can fight back by effectively boycotting everything American. If you have dollars, sell them. If you own stock in any company that is associated with a US firm, sell it.
- Europe exports more than it imports. The USA don't sell many goods for more than a decade, but they massivly consume products. Thast's why their deficit is huge.
-> a best arm would be an embargo, not a boycott.
- I am not a fan of these economical boycotts, because the money is now international. If I don't go to Mac Donald in France, it's not a bad thing for McDonald USA but for the french students who work there, the farmers who sell their wheat to them, etc...
Moreover, in Canada, I simply can't buy other things! I bought french fruitjuice in France. Here I can find only Tropicana, Minut Maid... which are americans.
Believe me, the Europeans are much more stronger than they think. Their division is only political, and if the europeans leaders are devided, I am not thinking the European peoples are.
What about the artists, the musicians... who also said they are opposed to a war? I think about Susan Sarandon, Sean Penn, Martin Sheen... Madonna...John S wrote: Do not buy any product that is American in origin. That includes clothes, food, arts & entertainment. Do not go to American made movies. Do not buy American music or go to clubs that play it.
Bush is not representing America. he has been nominated by the Supreme Court. He would have had less problems in the United Nations if we could count the voices there as we do in Florida...
The best way to fight Bush's policy is to do what we do: speak with others, try to convince, not blaming all the US nation but only its administration... and to struggle for the unity of Europe.
Re: The war against the Euro has begun
Yes!!Skylimit wrote: Furthermore, we do not want to boycot Americans ... we want nothing less than a REGIME CHANGE !! Your postings indicate that there is still hope for America
The world sympathy after the september 11 is definitly ruined... some US people feel very bad today...
Who said it?Anonymous wrote:Yes I am. There will be a small demonstration in my town. This Saturday there's a big one, in Amsterdam. Our goverment consist of total cowards, unable to make any decision. We'll show them they should make a decision about Bush' war, as small as the impact of it would be.Antti wrote:I'm definately boycotting American products from now on.
btw, is anyone going to demonstrations tonight?
I don't understand well the opinions of the Netherlands. Is it the same than in Spain ot Italy, with a government pro-Bush and a public opinion against it?
Here, the attitude of the canadian government is very ambigous!! We disagree but please, don't tell it too loudly! Our biiig neighbour of the south could be angry with our political choice...
In Quebec, it's different. Montreal had the most important demonstrations in North America. The provincial government's policy is close to the positions of Germany, Russia and France.
O.
-
Fundamental
- Euro-Master
- Posts: 2172
- Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2002 6:57 am
- Location: Tampere, Finland
- Contact: