Code ORANGE,..& the next war,..the next country.

Code ORANGE......feels different this time?.....military in LA,....flights cancelled.......Libia throwing up hands?...

It all fits in just perfectly.

So which is the next country to be involved in a war with the USA?

My best guess....Pakistan, or some semi-developed nuclear country, in indo-asia-middle east area.
Some country with trade demands, and an independent currency. The Rupee.

Why?...

Well now that I have you here, I have made a few topics, and replied to others similar topics here at ATS, in a subject that, well, draws little interest, and has little flash or pop with the public. This in my opinions and generalizations, are the underlying roots and reasons of the public and broadcast impressions.

IE- A magician uses slight of hand and distractions to mechanically do the obvious or mundane, yet with his skills he can effectively demonstrate this effort, completely in front of, yet entirely oblivious to, the paying audience. And yet also receive a hearty applause in conclusion, for blatently deceiving the public, and in appreciation. The Show.


What the heck am I talking about?!......

OK OK,....more to the topic.......yes dammit I am talking about the USD ! Dinaro! $


Yes my other posts seem to deplict a less than desirable result, and were in extreme possibly. But they also brought forth information, when considered in similar context, displayed a trend and motivation.


The USA needs the petro bill to be USD. This is how the Treasury brings in income. Thru the sales of notes, to Dollarized countries.

OPEC in 2002.....The Choice of Currency for the Denomination of the Oil Bill

The discuss the Euro being at least a bi-oil-bill currency. This would imply a large Dollarization of the Euro, into non-member countries.

First of all, let me take the opportunity to congratulate the European Union for its successful transition to the euro, from its twelve different currencies. Everyone was pleasantly surprised at how smooth and swift the switchover took place, considering it involved the largest currency swap undertaken in history. The question that comes to mind is whether the euro will establish itself in world financial markets, thus challenging the supremacy of the US dollar, and consequently trigger a change in the dollar�s dominance in oil markets. As we all know, the mighty dollar has reigned supreme since 1945, and in the last few years has even gained more ground with the economic dominance of the United States, a situation that may not change in the near future. By the late 90s, more than four-fifths of all foreign exchange transactions, and half of all world exports, were denominated in dollars. In addition, the US currency accounts for about two thirds of all official exchange reserves. The world�s dependency on US dollars to pay for trade has seen countries bound to dollar reserves, which are disproportionally higher than America�s share in global output. The share of the dollar in the denomination of world trade is also much higher than the share of the US in world trade.

Having said that, it is worthwhile to note that in the long run the euro is not at such a disadvantage versus the dollar when one compares the relative sizes of the economies involved, especially given the EU enlargement plans. Moreover, the Euro-zone has a bigger share of global trade than the US and while the US has a huge current account deficit, the euro area has a more, or balanced, external accounts position. One of the more compelling arguments for keeping oil pricing and payments in dollars has been that the US remains a large importer of oil, despite being a substantial crude producer itself. However, looking at the statistics of crude oil exports, one notes that the Euro-zone is an even larger importer of oil and petroleum products than the US.

It must also be recalled that the links between crude oil and the dollar are deeply embedded in economics, politics and trading traditions. Naturally, the trading of oil in dollars has served the interests of the US, giving it an immediate advantage over other countries because it carries no currency exchange risk. For most other oil consumers around the world, the pricing and payment of crude in dollars increases the risk for these countries because of currency fluctuations. When the dollar rises against other currencies, the price of oil is more expensive for the rest of the world, thus potentially increasing inflation in these countries.


So why Pakistan.?

Lets see. Iraq, the first non Euro oil producer, selling entirely oil for Euros. Now being flooded with the Dollarization of the USD, and probubly locked in with some new debts to World Banks. (Still alot of arguement of if Saddam had anything to do with Bin Laden or had WMD)

If my thoughts are in line with this, then the next effort will be toward the next currency,....in a non-EU state, and close to the middle east. A country industrialized, possibly nuclear, and with some border enemies.

The Rupee.
Pakistan.


WTC attack made us fear the 'terrorists' and the Anthrax made us fear our home security. Allowing for changes in our governments and country, and acceptability of an overseas intervention by the public.

A new code ORANGE, and the level of demonstrated concerns over this being more accurate of a warning, may be a prelude to a series of events that lead us to war with another country, after all, nothing but mop-up left now in Iraq, with the capture of Saddam.



The US has to know that if the Euro becomes a viable oil bill, this will mean much liquidation of foreign-held dollars (meaning less treasury notes purchased by other countries that finance the US government) as countries re-dollarize to "hedge" themselves against all oil-bill currencies.

If you were to be in the US position, you would need to also know that the dollars will have to be replaced somewhere, or a big reduction in government size, or inflation spiral to re-populate the 'outstanding(circulated) ' dollars.

You would also know that you were slowing coming into a position where you had much more currency exchange risk in your oil transactions, unlike before where you were the currency exchange risk, and experienced none upon yourself.



What do you think?

Does this have anything to do with anything?

Or is the whole world scenario, as is shown on the surface?


.

War on Terrorism,
Dec 23's Guardian headlined:"Bush thrown open Pandorla's box in a paradise for international terrorists"


Religious conflict...Will it lead to the Third World War?Maybe.

As the USA economy is based on military industries,
it needs a war sometimes to make money, and elevate the value of the dollar :/

Just found this.....gives me the same impression I had earlier.

US draws a bead on Pakistan

KARACHI - With the United States facing the prospect of continuing difficulties in Iraq and Afghanistan in the new year, there are signs that it will adopt an aggressive policy to cut all kinds of supply lines to the guerrilla movements in these countries, starting with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and making no concessions.

A well-placed source in the Pakistani strategic community tells Asia Times Online that Pakistan has been given a clear message that although Islamabad has pledged its full commitment to the "war on terror", Washington is not entirely pleased with its efforts to date and still considers the country the "naughty boy" of the region and indirectly considers it a catalyst for support of anti-US forces.

Its quite possible that our relations with Pakistan will change. Especially since they have so many high level extremists. I dont think we will invade them at all though, I think we could have India send them a few messages for us.

Next on our target will be Syria or Iran if anything. Our troops are already in position sitting in Iraq.

I dont think we would invade them by force, but just go in and generally take-over a couple of things...the nuke program, the border on Afghanistan, and of course a rebuilding (dollerization(loan)) program.

The US already has India, by paying them with US outsourcing and jobs. They will be paid in USD.

Iran,...I dont think one big insurgence after another, would be anything but exausting to the troops and economy. Critical operations would be too spread out, even though in the same region.

North Korea....Just another old fashioned standoff. Nobody makes a move, just alot of fist shaking over the fence. Both sides of the fence expect the same of each other, fierce resistance.

Everybody seems to be forgetting the original plan.The plan is to get a pipeline from the caspian region to the coast.In the beginning of this administrations reign one of the first things they did was to offer the taliban a carpet of gold or a carpet of bombs.
The taliban said F.U..That is why they went into afghanistan,not because of terrorism but to secure the area for the pipeline.Anybody can look at a map and see that afghanistan is useless for a pipeline because it is landlocked,but if you get syria,iran and iraq then the pipeline will continue to the mediterranean.As soon as iraq was the target after afghanistan it all became to clear where the next invasion would occur.It will be iran and syria.It has to be.Actually only northern iran is needed,so maybe some caarving up of that country will be necessary.Im still sticking to the original plan and saying iran and syria will be next.

Think about this also...


The whole nuclear issue with Pakistan is , are they, have they sold nuclear capability level technology, to just whoever and anybody? The thoughts I draw are, isnt this the same ploy the US used before attacking Iraq, ie- he(Saddam) has the capability...and can/has distribute/d to terrorist organizations....except that was chemicals, this is nuclear.


Lets see...

Afghanistan - Drug country
Iraq - Chemical country

Both under the guize of terrorism.
Both of them being re-dollarized to the USD.

Neither of them, have turned up what the US
originally publically went looking for.
Bin Laden and WMD.

Yet it did provide some method of injecting US influence into the countries economy, world stance's, and sovereign influences to their peoples.

Now if the US people had a reason to fear an independent non-USD dollarized, developing nuclear, country, they may be more accepting of another military operation, for the good cause.......



OH....code ORANGE....


Tic...Tic...Tic...

*Dreamz* left this link on another topic, but I felt it so relevent, I had to put the link here...

Terrorists plan to pose as disabled travelers
Thanks Dreamz

Al-Qaida is still active in Pakistan, routinely described by the administration as a "key ally" in the war on terror. U.S. intelligence believes the terror network's top leaders, including Osama bin Laden, have taken refuge in the Islamic state's northern tribal belt.

About two-thirds of all designated terrorist groups in the world have a Pakistani connection, according to the U.S. Treasury Department.

Notice the statistics source...The US Treasury Dept


Just seems to be pointing in that general direction,...still,...and more convincingly.

And a little over three month's ago, Ashcroft battened down the hatches a bit.....

U.S., Ashcroft get tough with Paki, Saudi visitors

The new policy, set to go into effect Oct. 1, is so sensitive that Justice officials refuse to talk about it � although WorldNetDaily has obtained a copy of the official four-page department memo (page 1, page 2, page 3, page 4) outlining the controversial policy.
Note the copies have been removed from the site.

Now, in a stunning reversal, the administration � led by Attorney General John Ashcroft � fears Pakistan may be sending terrorists here, and has subjected it to the same immigration restrictions imposed on the five known Middle Eastern terrorist-sponsoring countries, which are Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Libya and Syria.

Beginning Oct. 1, immigration inspectors will be required to fingerprint, photograph and track Pakistani nationals who enter the U.S. on visas, according to the internal Justice memo. Young Pakistani males will be matched against federal terrorism and criminal databases.

Ok good arguements but you still need more info on

So why Pakistan.?

Maybe for the pipeline to fill up the tankers in the Arabian sea? I have wondered what's up with all the assassination attempts on their Dictator. Muslim extremist usually get road sides bomb off right at least in Iraq they do. I was thinking some of the attempts where CIA. But I could be wrong.

Originally posted by DiRtYDeViL
Ok good arguements but you still need more info on

So why Pakistan.?

My thoughts, becouse Pakistan does not have alot of alliance, meets much of the conditions spelled out, and has the Rupee. The Rupee is a fairly powerful currency. It is also one that will never be a oil-bill. The oil-bill used by that country will be either USD, like now, or the Euro. It is up for grabs for EU, and up for loss for the USD.

I have positioned my posts to hopefully suggest that this implies a monetary motive, of who gets to trade in oil for what. A monopoly is coming under pressure, and new capital sources must be realized.

Pakistan appears to meet likelyhood conditions, and a multi-faceted net result.

DD, those attempts on Musharraf are not CIA initiated. His people hate him for his helping in the war on terror. He will be lucky to be in control through this year. Worst case scenario is that Pakistan falls into Taliban type control, and they have many appeasers of the group in Pakistan. They were the only government in the region that gave them legitimacy. With Pakistan having nuclear weapons, America cannot afford Musharraf to fall and another leader to be put in place. If Iraq was a threat to our security , Pakistan is a threat to world security with differant leadership.

America more than likely would not be involved in any war in Pakistan, we would allow India to finally use full force to gain the dead land known as Kashmir. In that instance it would allow American special forces to roam freely in Pakistan to snatch up members of Al-Queda that we currently cannot get to because of the policies in Pakistan.

Originally posted by Dreamz
DD, those attempts on Musharraf are not CIA initiated. His people hate him for his helping in the war on terror. He will be lucky to be in control through this year. Worst case scenario is that Pakistan falls into Taliban type control, and they have many appeasers of the group in Pakistan. They were the only government in the region that gave them legitimacy. With Pakistan having nuclear weapons, America cannot afford Musharraf to fall and another leader to be put in place. If Iraq was a threat to our security , Pakistan is a threat to world security with differant leadership.

America more than likely would not be involved in any war in Pakistan, we would allow India to finally use full force to gain the dead land known as Kashmir. In that instance it would allow American special forces to roam freely in Pakistan to snatch up members of Al-Queda that we currently cannot get to because of the policies in Pakistan.

Yes I know the Washington line. Thanks for pointing it out again thou.

Haha DD, I shouldve known you know my position.

Avatar looks nice.

Ok but still a hard sell. If we don't need Pakistan for the pipeline but we want it out of the way and never go to the Euro. Why not just get India and Pakistan to kill each other?

Always the conspiracy, huh?
Gotta keep making me work to debate with ya huh?

Becouse the US needs the countries to use USD, not to have the populations dis-appear. Its what keeps the USD viable, mass circulation and usage.

Originally posted by Dreamz
Always the conspiracy, huh?
Gotta keep making me work to debate with ya huh?

I've never seen you believe in any conspiracy.

You just gotta laugh.

"American special forces to roam freely in Pakistan to snatch up members of Al-Queda that we currently cannot get to because of the policies in Pakistan."?

You have no clue about the area you are talking about do you? Even if the world was invited to send in it's special ops forces it couldn't do # against the guys holding out in Northern Pakistan. You're talking about a terrain and social structure that can never be broken by military means.
Whlst I agree that Pakistan poses a major problem because of it's extremists, it is a country that is almost impossible to neutralise through force.

If it were, India would have dealt with it long ago.