the news has briefly mentioned that the u.s. is moving the ac 130 gunships used in viet nam to iraqi bases. the
speculation in the arab world is that they will be used to control the violent upheaval throughout iraq.
but reading the article in al jazeera and after looking up the ac 130, i am wondering if their deployment has another purpose!
more tinfoilery beneath the fold - or is it.....
according to
this description of the ac 130AC-130
The AC-130 gunship's primary missions are close air support, air interdiction and armed reconnaissance. Other missions include perimeter and point defense, escort, landing, drop and extraction zone support, forward air control, limited command and control, and combat search and rescue.
they have the ability to carry 120 mm mortar shells that
offer benefits to the AC-130 fleet through: Employment flexibility through use of munitions currently available; Greater lethality through more fragmentation weight and greater blast damage; Precision strike capability; Increased standoff range and attack altitude while maintaining responsiveness; Reduction in collateral damage; and Reduction in danger close distance when supporting troops in contact.
and because this airship was used successfully in desert storm, could the plan for its use in iran be the reason for it's return to iraq now?
During Operation Desert Storm, Spectres provided air base defense and close air support for ground forces. Both the AC-130A and AC-130H gunships were part of the international force assembled in the Persian Gulf region to drive out of Kuwait which Saddam Hussein had invaded in early August 1990. In the following January, the allies launched the actual war known as Desert Storm following the Desert Shield build-up. Victory was accomplished in a few weeks and Kuwait was set free of the foreign invader. Iraq shot down one AC-130H gunship. It resulted in the loss of all 14 crewmembers, the largest single air power loss of the war. Post war restriction on Iraq required the presence of gunships to enforce them.
how effective would this plane be during an airstrike in iran? an interesting article on its daytime and nighttime use are here pointing out that the airforce restricts the use of this ship to nighttime.
But the mere threat of these missiles has forced coalition and Iraqi aircraft to adopt special landing and takeoff procedures that make flying rather more uncomfortable. The missiles have also had an impact on combat operations. The U.S. Air Force, which controls the use the AC-130 gunships, refuses to allow them to be used during daylight. The main reason for this prohibition, which decreases enemy losses, and gets Americans killed, is the possible presence of MANPADS.
The U.S. Air Force has only 21 gunships (eight AC-130H "Spectre", and 13 AC-130U "Spooky"). Four more AC-130Us are in production. The last time an AC-130 was lost was at Khafji, Saudi Arabia, during the 1991 Persian Gulf War. The aircraft was leaving the combat zone at sunrise, and was visible to Iraqi gunners in the area.
However, AC-130s normally operate at 12,000 feet, or higher. The main reason for operating this high is to hide the loud sound of the AC-130s four turboprop engines (which lets the bad guys know where the aircraft is), and to keep it out of range of ground fire (small arms and MANPADS). The AC-130 can still hit targets from as far as 20,000 feet up. But the air force is worried about some of Saddam's old anti-aircraft guns that might be in the wrong hands. The 14.5mm anti-aircraft machine-gun can hurt aircraft at up to about 15,000 feet, and the 37mm auto-cannon can reach up to 20,000 feet.
again, why now? when american troops are interspersed with supposedly "friendly" iraqi troops, would the u.s. send the ac 130 back to iraq?
well, think this line of reasoning! it would seem that my choice of chapeau is not unique!
Published on 3 Aug 2005 by Media Monitors Network. Archived on 9 Aug 2005.
Petrodollar Warfare: Dollars, Euros and the Upcoming Iranian Oil Bourse
by William Clark
"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous...Having said that, all options are on the table."
- President George W. Bush, February 2005
Contemporary warfare has traditionally involved underlying conflicts regarding economics and resources. Today these intertwined conflicts also involve international currencies, and thus increased complexity. Current geopolitical tensions between the United States and Iran extend beyond the publicly stated concerns regarding Iran's nuclear intentions, and likely include a proposed Iranian "petroeuro" system for oil trade.
the most balanced coverage of this issue is found in an article dated nov. 3, 2005 in al jazeera where both the motive for moving to the euros an the effect on the u.s. economy are fairly discussed!
From an economic perspective, invoicing oil in euros would be logical for Iran as trade with the euro zone countries accounts for 45% of its total trade. More than a third of Iran's oil exports are destined for Europe, while oil exports to the United States are non existent.
The IOB could create a new euro denominated crude oil marker, which in turn would enable GCC nations to sell some of their oil for euros. The bourse should lead to greater levels of foreign direct investment in Iran's hydrocarbon sector and if it facilitates futures trading it will give regional investors an alternative to investing in their somewhat overvalued stock markets.
Euro zone countries alone account for almost a third of Iran's imports and currently Iran must exchange dollars earned from hydrocarbon exports into euros which involves exchange rate risk and transaction costs.
The decline in the dollar against the euro since 2002 - some 26% to date - has substantially reduced Iran's purchasing power against its main importing partner.
the article also points out the dependency of the u.s. on petrodollars regarding our growing national debt...
It is primarily the US which stands to lose out from any move away from the petrodollar status quo, it is the world's largest importer of oil and a move away from invoicing oil in dollars to euros will undoubtedly have a negative effect on its economy.
Fewer nations would be willing to hold the dollar in reserve which would cause a significant devaluation and result in the loss seigniorage revenues. In addition, US energy-related companies stand to lose out as they will be unable to participate in the bourse due to the longstanding American trade embargo on Iran.
Political considerations
In the 1970s, not long after the collapse of the gold standard, the US agreed with Saudi Arabia that Opec oil should be traded in dollars in effect replacing the gold standard with the oil standard.
Since then, consecutive US governments have been able to print dollar bills and treasury bonds in order to paper over huge current account and budgetary deficits, last year's US current account deficit was $646 billion.
this chilling paragraph in the lengthy article is the most worrisome
Although a matter of conjecture, some observers consider Iran's threat to the petrodollar system so great that it could provoke a US military attack on Iran, most likely under the cover of a preemptive attack on its nuclear facilities, much like the cover of WMD America used against Iraq.
and this united press article written jan 18 adds to the al jazeera analysis
Walker's World: Iran's really big weapon
By MARTIN WALKER
UPI Editor
WASHINGTON, Jan. 18 (UPI) -- The prospect of a mushroom cloud rising from the Dasht-e-Lut, Iran's Desert of Stones, may not be Tehran's greatest threat to international stability. A successful test of an Iranian nuclear weapon at some point in the next few years may prove less destabilizing than a simple free market economic measure that Iran is said to be planning for March of this year.
remember the forced urgency of the "mushroom cloud over manhattan" that pushed the congress into approving the war powers act? the rush to attack even though the inspectors were on the ground and saying that hussein had no wmds?
what was happening that caused the urgency?
Why not, in short, end the monopoly rule of the almighty dollar?
Such a move would not be welcomed in Washington, which swiftly moved after the fall of Baghdad in 2003 to reverse Saddam Hussein's impudent decision to start selling Iraqi oil for euros, rather than dollars. After all, the great benefit of running the world's reserve currency means that if all else fails, the United States Treasury can just print more and more of the stuff and pay for its oil imports that way.
ah yes, iraq had begun to sell oil for euros - JUST like iran is planning to do this month!
Most of the financial world is currently awaiting another, similar devaluation of the dollar, in response to the monstrous scale of current deficit on the U.S. current account. Writing in the Financial Times last week, Harvard Professor Marty Feldstein suggested that on the basis of the 1985-87 Louvre and Plaza devaluations, the dollar could fall as much as 40 percent or even more.
The markets simply do not know when. But should it come after an Iranian bourse is up and running, some very tidy sums could be made by those playing a dollar-euro trade on Tehran's energy futures market.
so feldstein thinks we are in for a huge fall - and our economy will definitely tank - like bush's poll numbers...
what is a (p)resident to do? pretty much the same thing he did last time - i'm afraid! as the old saying goes: same sh*t, different day! (different place)