It's this kind of thing from guys like Missler that really trouble me. He should know better. He has bought into the a conspiracy theory on the flimsiest of reasons.
Who says the US will flop if the Euro supplants the dollar?
How does a trade deficit bankrupt a nation? Where do all those European oil companies get oil if the US won't let them have any, and Europe doesn't have any? How do they stay in business?
The whole thing is ignorant.
And it ignores the most obvious fact of all.....and for this I have to question Missler's motives.
What about the murder of 3000 Americans on 9/11? Was that a figment of my imagination? Is Missler going the route of Moore who had to conclude that America was responsible for that, too, as part of some great conspiracy?
Isn't there someone someplace who can tell that we attacked Japan after Pearl Harbor because of the attack at Pearl Harbor?
If so, shouldn't it make sense that we attacked world terrorists and their supporters after 9/11?
Missler needs to take a vacation and get his head back on straight.
If you read the whole article it is clear that Missler is merely speculating on the reasons. He is attaching a motive to the consequences which would be a logical fallacy. The fact of the matter is that the stated reasons for going into Iraq were sufficient in and of themselves for military action and any any suggestion that the ancillary benefits to the US or coalition forces (such as oil contracts or the strengthening of currency) were a critical part of the equation is simply speculation. I think Missler harms his own reputation when he ascribes sinister motives to our entry into the war.