Chavez proposes "petro-dollar" currency to vie against the U.S. dollar

[cali]

Chavez to seek Arab backing for `petro-currency'
By BRIAN MURPHY – 1 hour ago

DOHA, Qatar (AP) — Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez sought Arab support Tuesday for his idea of a new oil-backed currency to challenge the U.S. dollar at a twin-region summit whose agenda focuses on trade issue but also touches on Arab worries about rival Iran's growing influence in Latin America.

It's highly unlikely Chavez will gain any serious momentum for his "petro-currency" proposals from key oil-producing members of the Arab League such as Saudi Arabia and Gulf states, which have close ties to Washington.

But the summit between Arab and South American leaders kicks off another high-profile foreign trip for Chavez that includes stops in Iran and China in his efforts to build economic and diplomatic links to confront the United States.

"A new world is being born. Empires fall. There is a world crisis of capitalism, it's shaking the planet," Chavez told Venezuelan state radio after arriving in Qatar.

<snip>

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i6_iHdAHpT1bTNgqUvqlFYnDnUwAD978UFBG0

[ThomWV]

1. Silly silly boy.

And what, pray tell, does he suppose happens when the backing for a currency is a commodity that one burns to gain its utility?

[a kennedy]

2. ever hear of this??? Amerocurrency???

This site is intended to make United
States citizens aware of the
advancement of the agenda to launch
the nations of North America, including the U.S., into a continental union similar to the European Union.

First of all, we'd like to point out we predicted the crash and subsequent nationalization of the U.S.
banking "industry" more than two years ago. Call it a "kook-site" if you will--particularly you half-assed
"journalists" who spends about 15 minutes researching a topic, then call it a "conspiracy theory web
site"--who's dreaming now?


http://www.amerocurrency.com/index.html

Yikes..... :shrug: :scared:

[cali]

3. Uh

That site is a fucking ad And it's decorated with right wing bullshit. Mr. Weiss appreciates suckers like you.

[a kennedy]

5. wow, sorry I'm such a sucker.....

and thanks for the heads up.

[cali]

9. sorry. I shouldn't have implied that you're a sucker.

I apologize. But that site really is one big ad. It's pretty yucky fear mongering to get people to buy his shit.

[a kennedy]

10. no problem....

:pals:

[RB TexLa]

4. So you are going to be standing in the street with freepers fighting the future?

Regional political, economic unions and currencies are the way of the future. Have fun with them screaming about how your sovereignty is "precious" and how much you "cherish" it. :rofl:

[a kennedy]

6. nope I guess I won't be standing in the street with fellow freeps....

now that I know better. Thanks

[Raskolnik]

14. If you think anyone opposed to a North American / world currency is a freeper,

and anyone who values the principle of national sovereignty is silly, you may want to rethink your assumptions.

[Dorian Gray]

7. Is an oil backed dollar/currency

a good thing? There is a limited supply of oil....... wouldn't this only serve to increase our dependency on oil while refusing to continue on a very necessary search for alternative fuels?

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

8. Seems foolish to peg a currency on such a volatile commodity as oil

especially if, and that's a big if, more countries will be seeking to switch to alternatives in the future such as biofuels, hydrogen, electric, etc.

The truth of the matter is that oil is Venezuela's most important export and it needs oil guzzler people and countries including first and foremost the U.S. in order to survive. So while Mr. Chavez may be paying lip service to his constituency and the anti-Americanism/imperialism/capitalism that he is so famous for, he knows full well that without the U.S., one of the world's largest consumers of oil, he and his petro-currency will die a painful death. Ultimately, the victims will not be Mr. Chavez or his cronies; they will be the people of Venezuela.

[Peace Patriot]

11. First of all, look for the tiny "ap" in the url. It's the Associated Pukes, so beware.

Their seething, pukish vendetta against Chavez is almost laughable.

The first thing to ask is, Is the story even true? AP is capable of inventing outright lies, but they are usually a bit sneakier. Second, what did Chavez and the government document they cite--neither of which is quoted--actually say? And thirdly, what is the actual content of individual assertions of the article? For instance, "Chavez sought Arab support...". What do they mean by "Arab support"? WHO are they talking to? ARE those reports reliable? Who are they saying Chavez talked to? A "twin-region summit whose agenda...also touches on Arab worries about rival Iran's growing influence in Latin America." ??? "Touches on"? In what way? Is it on the agenda at all? Is this one guy's "worry"? The Associated Pukes' own worry? The U.S. State Dept.'s worry? No documentation for this "worry" or it being "touched upon" at the summit.

Next look at how quickly the Associated Pukes "frame" the story. Sentence #2: "It's highly unlikely Chavez will gain any serious momentum for his "petro-currency" proposals from key oil-producing members of the Arab League such as Saudi Arabia and Gulf states, which have close ties to Washington." They just jump right in--no quotes, no documentation, out of the blue--and claim that this idea, IF Chavez really did propose it, is "highly unlikely" to be successful. Why on earth, then, did Chavez propose it? No clue from AP.

The article gets stranger and stranger as it goes along. One whole paragraph is devoted to this stand-alone (ungrammatical*) sentence: "Chavez's bonds with Tehran gives Arab leaders pause."

There is not a shred of evidence in the article to back this up. Not one single quote from an "Arab leader." You almost get the feeling that the Associated Pukes are acting in lieu of the U.S. State Dept. and issuing a warning to "Arab leaders" about how they ought to behave. (It's quite interesting to read the article that way: What is the State Dept. or the CIA or the Pentagon saying to "Arab leaders" through the agency of the Associated Pukes?)

But mostly it's an unsupported opinion piece--an editorial (almost a diatribe)--against Chavez. It is not a news article, though it purports to be. They don't quote Chavez on the proposal in the article's title (though they find other irrelevant quotes to throw in). They don't quote a Venezuelan government statement that they claim exists. They don't quote any of the "Arab leaders" whom they assert will oppose Chavez's proposal. They don't quote any Arabs whatsoever (though they claim that Chavez is "wildly" popular on the Arab street). It's all just one AP assertion after another, unsupported by evidence.

And, even as an editorial, it is startlingly uninformative, for it fails to explain, or even give a hint, as to why Chavez would present a proposal (for an oil-based currency) that the Associated Pukes consider off the wall.

I know that the new South American common market, UNASUR, was/is considering a common currency. Is this related in some way to Chavez proposing a petro-currency (if he really did)? You won't find out from reading this article.

----

*(To be correct, the sentence should read: "Chavez's bonds with Tehran GIVE Arab leaders pause." The subject of the sentence is "bonds." Bonds don't "gives." Bonds give. A plural subject requires a singular verb. You don't say "Horses runs fast." You say "Horses RUN fast." Bad writing by AP has become as commonplace as their toadyism to the U.S. global corporate/war profiteer agenda. And what does "give Arab leaders pause" mean anyway? Which "Arab leaders"? There are quite a lot of them. And "Pause" in what way? A "pause" in their sips of coffee amidst idle chatter at the dinner table waiting for desert? Serious "pause," as in, 'I'd better call Washington'? What the hell do they mean?)

[cali]

12. You can find essentially the same story on Al-Jazeera and many other sources.

And the bottom line is that Chavez is proposing this. So agree with him or not, but stop doing what you always do when it comes to Chavez, which is try to discredit any source that doesn't laud him to the skies.

[Dorian Gray]

13. So it's the source at fault?

they've got it totally wrong here or are lying. So that means that... IF TRUE... you think it's a really bad idea?