Steve (as 41oo): Oil, the Euro, Iraqi War
Steve (as 31oo), I was intrigued by your 11/8 post: "But its not so much the actual price paid for Iraqi oil that matters, but who controls it. Does the USA want to be dependent on the whim of Saddam? Moreover if you control Iraqi oil production, you influence the world price. You also challenge OPEC. Saddam switched from oil exports in dollars to euros in November 2000. It is my contention that that is what ultimately sealed his fate. Its no co-incidence that the first thing the American-Iraqi administration did was switch back to charging in dollars. Had the rest of OPEC moved from dollars to euros, (and there are sound reasons why they might be tempted), the value of the dollar would plunge and its status as the world's only reserve currency would be over."
I asked an Investment banker friend for his opinion re the Euro's role in the US Iraq attacked. He responded as follows:
"Thanks for asking my opinion. Not sure if MINE has any merit. Re any suggestion that the US is stealing Iraqi oil, the promised independent scruineer of the oil money account would be nice.
Well, there's a number of definitions of "stealing". As far as I see it, the US is forcing US citizens (87billion) and any Iraqi revenues it can conjure up to pay for Iraqi "reconstruction" costs - these costs, IMO, are overinflated, granted through no-bid contracts to US companies preferred
by our current administration for a number of reasons.
No doubt if Enron were still in business, it would have gotten massive contracts for building generators and supply lines. Sure, the sparse oil that Iraq has been squeezing out has been "paid" for, but all of that revenue seems to go directly into the pockets of the reconstruction - with hardly any input by the Iraqis themselves. Haliburton and Bechtel are getting rich, rich.
Now had Iraq actually attacked us (or was about to attack us), then, it
would be somewhat justified that this punishment be meted out. But since
they did not, I see the following convoluted analogy:
A school bully beats up a kid that looks different, on the pretense that the different looking kid harbored a secret hate of said bully and was just going to knock the bully on the back of the head at some point of time in the near future. Maybe they had some bad history between them in the past. But the last thing on the kid's mind was to mess with the Bully..."even if I did get a good shot at the bully", the kid thought,
"They would surely come after me with a vengeance".
And of course, the different looking kid had a nice wallet, which looked like it might have some money in it. So the bully beats him up and breaks his arm. The fight is over quickly, but the kid now needs to go to the hospital. Not being a total monster, the bully tries to help. Rather than going to the nearest or cheapest medical facility though, the Bully brings the kid to his rich uncles hospital. Instead of the usual doctor's bill for a broken arm of $100, it is $20,000. And instead of being healed in a month or so, it takes over six months for the treatment to start after long delays.
The bully has the kid pay for his own overly expensive, overly long and
tedious treatment. After all, the kid has a nice wallet. He is wealthy. Of
course, it turns out that the wallet is virtually empty...just a nice wallet. After taking the lonely $20 bill in the wallet, the bully enlists his classmates to help the kid out and of course out of shame and duty, they pony up $19,980, all of which goes to the bully's rich uncle. But now, the kid "owes" the bully, since the bully is trying to help.
At Christmastime, the uncle gives the bully the best christmas present the
bully ever got.
Had the rest of OPEC moved from dollars to euros, (and there are sound reasons why they might be tempted), the value of the dollar would plunge and its status as the world's only reserve currency would be over.
Basically, dollars vs. euros. Of course it has merit, but personally I doubt that this is THE reason why we invaded Iraq. I think it is just one of the many pieces of supporting elements that reinforced the administrations set agenda.
I'm not an international financier, but I believe the ideas I mention here get closer to the truth about the real reasons for taking control of Iraq than any notion about WMD or indeed the moral imperative to bring democracy to that part of the world."
I don't think anyone in the national/international political arena or anyone who follows it at all closely believes our invasion has to do with WMD or humanitarian reasons. It is unfortunate however that there has been such a massive media assualt on the general public to justify our action using those criteria.
Of course Iraq didn't have significant quantities, if any, WMD's for the past decade. And of course the administration and intelligence community knew that. Anyone who follows the news closely, knew that and knows that. It is the merest faint possibility that Iraq may have WMD that Bushco clung to in order to justify the invasion.
And when the issue of WMDs didn't work out for various reasons, out
trotted "humanitarian" crisis - over a decade old - a story that did not get much press at the time. Late last week they trotted out the tired story again...mass graves, 300k dead, including kids and teddy bears. Another hollow justification. If we are so concerned with the humanitarian crisis, why don't we invade Saudi Arabia? Or Uzbekistan? Two countries in the "coalition of the willing".
The real "reason", as I see it, is a complex labrinth of this and that which ultimately boils down to the naked assurtion of pure power. This manifests in:
a) money - contracts to friends and the converting of euro to dollar;
b) military and physical control which act as a visible lessons to the;
region and the world, and at the same time increases civilian morale back home (USA number one!);
c) idealogy -converting the Iraqi economy into a pure "free" market with flat rate taxes, plus the attempt to install "democracy" [oddest democracy
I've ever seen - the conquerers handpick the leaders to develop democracy, then balk when the leaders don't follow their instructions]. Both of which are illegal according to international guidelines.
My biggest bone of contention is the fact that the press does nothing on
serious issues that might hurt Bushco. What happened to the CIA leak a
month ago? What happened to the Africa uranium deal attached to that?
What happened to sexing up documents and misleading the country to war? What happened to Enron and its close tiesd with Bush, Cheney, etc.? Why aren't they following up on this and keeping it in the public eye?
Had Clinton been involved in the same dealings, forget it, we'd be hearing
about it 24/7.
Here's one of the lead stories today: "Bush pushes on with Campaign Finance Race" this is not, as you may have been led to believe, about Bush making the fight for campaign finance reform, but rather a postive story about what a smashing success he is in raising money.
It is neither here nor there that he already has far more money than the
opposition can ever hope to have when the race officially starts.
Neither is it mentioned that Gray Davis, Governor of California was
defeated in the recent recall for apparently a) building up huge deficits
(not his fault - something that most every non-partisan economist would
agree with) and b) appearing not to be interested in anything besides
raising money for his next election.
These two primatry reasons why Gray was defeated apparently aren't paired with Bush, despite the fact that:
a) The US is running up historic deficits - on par with or over the percentage that California faced.
b) The national deficits, unlike California's, have much to do with policies of the administration, namely tax "relief"
c) GW and Cheney campaign whenever on however they can, even when there more pressing issues at hand - such as whipping congress together and balancing the upcoming budget. It is never mentioned in the prominent national press that the Bush administration REGULARLY allows donors to "buy' a night in the Lincoln bedroom, the very technique so abhorred under Clinton and Gore - now, no word of it."
by Crumbly Donut
"Idiocy and Poverty
Quote:Unfortunately… since in our culture, idiocy and poverty go hand in hand.
In our culture, the USA, Idiocy and Wealth go hand in hand. See the difference?
BBB, I essentially see eye to eye with your last post.
Quote:The question of the necessity or lack thereof has been hammered into rigid, no longer maleable ideologic icons, an unfortunate state of polarization which renders pointless any further laboring of the points of either position. There are those who hold there to have been clear, compelling, self evident arguments for, and those who subscribe just as strongly to arguments against. Given that neither side will accept as valid the arguments of the other side, and that Iraq has been invaded and Saddam and his regime toppled, pursuing the arguments is simply silly diversion. Even were a resolution one way or the other somehow achievable, there remains the very real and critical, urgent matter of seeing to the needs and aspirations of the Iraqi people. The ongoing political posturing does not, will not, and can not serve them in any way. They are what matters, not why or how or by whom they came to their present condition.
Timber I am largely in agreement with what you write above. I was totally against the war, right up until the last day, although I knew that the administration had planned the agression for months if not years and that there was no going back. This war was policy. It was part of the agenda. I think that may be the scariest thing of all. As a people, we did not know "the plan." We were not given the chance for public debate or consideration of the issues. We saw it coming like a train in a dark tunnel and we had to duck or climb on top of the engine. This is not the way issues ought to be decided in our country.
I have read apologias for the war that insist that both houses of Congress approved the resolution to attack Iraq and that it was thus legal and approved by our populace. That is such BS I cannot believe it. If our senators and congresspeople fell into line out of fear of being traitorly, I lose much of my respect for the independence of thinking in our country. We were railroaded, pure and simple. If our leaders were misled, then we ought to know that. There ought to be mea culpas raining down upon us. That is not happening.
Quote:And some folks will be far too committed to partisanship ever to carry that into their own personal equations.
It has nothing to do with partisanship. Nothing. If you are against pre-emptive war, you can be of either party.
When I said I agreed with you, it was about finishing the business in Iraq. We must clean up the mess we have made. And we must do it with grants not loans. And it is bloody pitiful that we find ourselves in an election year and thus cannot do what is necessary to finish the job honorably. Every time I read about the mess in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, I ponder what could be accomplished if Bush did not have to be reelected next year.
Here's my .02c on the Euro and Iraqi oil. Since the European Union can't do it by their fledging economy, the control of oil in Euros would have definitely devalued the US dollar. We must, however, wonder what the EU would gain by such a devaluation of the US dolar, because that would make the higher value Euro less competitive in the world markets for their goods and services at a time when their unemployment is already at new highs. Just wondering......
Crumbly Donut is my youngest son, but it's plain to see that our politics have little in common.
I still believe that our intervention in Iraq was justified, and that the outcome has been largely positive. I very much disagree that the adminsitration and the intelligence community KNEW that Sadam had no terror weapons and that he posed no threat to the region. Indeed, every indicator that we know of shouted the opposit from the roof-tops.
I also take some umbridge at the characterization of the United States as a "bully", and Sadam as a poor picked-on elementary school nerd. Iraq failed to abide by the conditions of the cease-fire that brought the first Gulf War to an untimely halt. Sadam's record of deceit and uncivilized behavior to his neighbors was keeping the "pot aboil". Something had to be done to bring at least that one dangerous madman down.
It will take time and patience to achieve the result we need in Iraq, and what is that? A stable, economically sound modern state where the civil rights we here take for granted will be allowed to take root. Sadam and his minions haven't given up, they've only resorted to the last tactic available to them. In the south things already seem to be on the mend, and eventually the northern stronghold of Sadam and the Ba'ath Party will also become less dangerous. We deeply regret that our soldiers must stay longer in Iraq than they believed they would, and the deaths associated with Sadam's unwillingness to accept his defeat should be treated as murder, not military resistence.
Though the weather outside at Thanksgiving may be chilly, I'm sure that the conversation inside Corazon will again be warm and spicy.
Mislead?
Most of the Democrats that voted for giving Shrub a blank were mislead by the info. they had at the time, still by giving Shrub the blank check they gave in to power that they should not have done. Then they were in a corner when it came to the $87 Billion which they were told many times would not be needed before Shrub and gang found out that Iraq couldn't pay. I still cannot make up my mind whether the present Admin. are merely a bunch of fools or that they knew all of these things and manipulated the Congress and the people of the US.
I am convinced that the Admin. were real determined to launch the pre-emptive invasion and that they grabbed up whatever rationale that they figured would appease the Congress and the public.
Now the grand reason has been revealed. Democracy for the entire ME. That was the reason the Neo cons have been forwarding for a few years.
Quote:Now the grand reason has been revealed. Democracy for the entire ME. That was the reason the Neo cons have been forwarding for a few years.
But it is a strange and ill-shaped version of "democracy." It is democracy termpered by restrictions: Pro-US, Pro-Israel, etc.... with the caveat that should "the Iraqi People" choose someone "we" disagree with, "we" will remove them.
Wouldn't you say the ME is running out of options for governments that work?
What kind of democracy is that? Maybe a new term is needed where the invading country selects it's leaders and insists on what "we" want over their own desires. Sounds like a "colony" to me.
Gel wrote:Ok Timber, help me out here.
In your view, political or otherwise, what criteria must be accomplished before our kids can come home? What has to happen in your point of view?
1) Iraqis must be trained, equipped, and supported as may be necessary to provide and assure their own security, both in terms of civil affairs and territorial integrity.
2) The Civil Administrative infrastructure of Iraq must be developed to the extent it can effectively assume and maintaint autonomous civilian control.
3) The physical infrastructure of Iraq must be rehabillitated, preferably with significant Iraqi participation, to such an extent that will enable, empower the Iraqi Economy.
Three things, none simple or easy, and each interdependent among its fellows.
Tartar, It seems that is the plan now; to turn over the security of Iraq over to the Iraqi's as soon as possible by reducing the coalition forces by next spring down to 105,000. I hope it works for everybody.
timberlandko wrote:Gel wrote:Ok Timber, help me out here.
In your view, political or otherwise, what criteria must be accomplished before our kids can come home? What has to happen in your point of view?
1) Iraqis must be trained, equipped, and supported as may be necessary to provide and assure their own security, both in terms of civil affairs and territorial integrity.
2) The Civil Administrative infrastructure of Iraq must be developed to the extent it can effectively assume and maintaint autonomous civilian control.
3) The physical infrastructure of Iraq must be rehabillitated, preferably with significant Iraqi participation, to such an extent that will enable, empower the Iraqi Economy.
Three things, none simple or easy, and each interdependent among its fellows.
Lets see here .... political ..... political, and political. Sooooooooooo .... #1 would mean, I assume, be capable of defending her self against an imperialist invading army.
#2 The faction in control of the other two must be capable of imposing rules that satisfies the religious and socialogical values of all three factions.
#3 What would be the problem with allowing the people that constructed the infrastructure in the frst place be the people to reconstruct it?
Iraq has engineers and tradesman and with a 70% unemployment rate they have plenty of available labor.
And the time allowed should be as long as it takes right?
posting
Hmm.... Idealogically I'm pretty close to BumbleBee, but I wish she had asked my permission to make the full posting or told me in advance that my answer would be posted.
That analogy was admitedly clumsy.
But then again, so is our entire middle east policy.
Also, that post contained quite a number of sentences that I was quoting - the annotations were lost in translation. A big diffence that editing can make.
The post was not intended for public broadcast.
Finally, I am not at all an investment banker, but rather only an analyst for a mortgage lender...two very different things. I can't say I have any particular authority on high finance for those wanting to know. My father asked about how the DOW might do...a question that no one can really answer. The closest I can come is that rates and the market are a lot less volitile than they have been in the past few years, but it would be premature and blindly optimistic to assume that we are in the middle of an economic turnaround. I expected several weeks ago that the wild market swings would lessen a good deal (instead of down 150, up 225, down 200, up 100 - we would see up 25, down 50, up 15, down 5, etc.)...but where that will bear out is anybody's guess. Hopefully, we'll be seeing it hit 10k soon, but we shall see.
Sorry if I haven't refered to any of the other posts...I thought I'd correct the record first.
Til later,
crumbles
ps - I note with some humor that Bush has already "taken credit" for an economic turnaround based on revised data from the last few months. Nice that he doesn't feel it necessary to take credit for much else.
question
While I'm this board, I'd like to ask people from both (or all?) sides:
What would it take to change your mind in regards to our Iraq policy?
For those that support our action and occupation, would 10% US casualities and 50k Iraqi casualities be too much? If after 3 years, Iraq still presents moderate resistance to US "assistance", would it be clear that we aren't wanted or helpful to the region?
For those that do not support our action, would the appearance of a truckload of ricin change your mind? Or clear, undoctored documents showing plans to lauch a biological, chemical attack on the US drawn up in the past few years? How about the installation of representative Democracy in the next year? Or clear proof that Hussein materially aided the 9-11 attackers?
Should this be another thread?
again,
crumbles
What ifs.
They don't do it for me. I deal with what IS.
In my view what is consists of a land grab.
Oh, I forgot... the pre-emptive strike was for opening up all the ME countries for Democracy. Right.
I think more like 100,000 will show ....
Quote:Published on Sunday, November 9, 2003 by the Independent / UK
Families of Iraq War Dead Condemn Bush Visit to UK
by Severin Carrell
George Bush's official visit to Britain next week has been condemned as insensitive and ill-timed by some families of British troops killed in Iraq.
The relatives claimed that the continuing deaths of coalition soldiers in Iraq meant the President's state visit - the first by a US leader since the Coronation in 1953 - was inappropriate.
Reg Keys, whose son, Lance Corporal Thomas Keys, was one of the six Royal Military Police killed by a mob near Basra in June, said he had developed "a quite passionate hatred" of the US leader.
"I can't stand the man," said Mr Keys, 51, of Llanuwchllyn, north Wales. "He has a nerve coming over to this country after all the misery he's caused. I just can't understand why Bush was so keen to go to war against Iraq - it's almost as if he was hell bent on making a name for himself."
His criticisms - which follow angry criticism of Tony Blair's conduct over Iraq by the families of eight British war dead - were supported by the mother of one of the first Britons killed in the war, L/Cpl Shaun Brierley.
Christine Brierley, from Batley, West Yorkshire, said: "I think it's disgusting the way Bush is carrying on. It's a war that should never have been fought: then dragging England into it when it wasn't our war anyway. I just wish all the troops were back home - Americans and English. At the end of the day, what's going to be resolved?"
Next week President Bush and his wife Laura will stay at Buckingham Palace and be guests of honour at a state banquet. Anti-war groups plan protests in London, which have contributed to a decision by Downing Street to cancel plans for the President to address both Houses of Parliament.
The Metropolitan police has said it will ban the Stop the War Coalition from passing Downing Street and Parliament during its main march on Thursday 20 November - an event expected to attract about 60,000 people - even though Parliament is not expected to be sitting.
Several relatives linked the visit to today's Remembrance Sunday services, where Britain's 53 war dead will be particularly commemorated. Lianne Seymour, whose husband Ian, a commando, was one of the first Britons killed, said: "Being invited here for a state visit isn't appropriate now. It really isn't a time to be showing off with glorious tributes, considering the political dimension. For me, and for many other people, this war isn't over. People are still losing their lives, be it Iraqi, British or American."
Gordon Evans, whose son Lance Bombardier Llywelyn Evans was killed in the same helicopter crash as Mrs Seymour's husband, said he wanted Mr Bush to meet British relatives face to face, to explain why he went to war.
"He's the puppet-master, isn't he? If he says do something, Tony Blair jumps. I'm angry with the Prime Minister, because he conned the nation into going to war in the first place."
© 2003 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd
###
SOURCE
Blair
I have heard him speak many times. He by far a better speaker than Shrub. He conned the Brits right well. I sure don't believe that he was conned by Shrub. Blair had his own reasons for dragging the Brits into the pre-emptive invasion. The UK had governed Iraq for over 20 years via a quisling govt. A revolution ended the UK rule. A bit of history there regarding the UK and the ME. Strange that the Iraqies don't have more venom for the Brits than the Yanks, eh?
Quote: We must, however, wonder what the EU would gain by such a devaluation of the US dolar, because that would make the higher value Euro less competitive in the world markets for their goods and services at a time when their unemployment is already at new highs.
Good point ci
I don't think the EU was particularly driving for the euro to displace the dollar, but I think there was genuine fear in the US that it might especially if OPEC (not exactly a friend of the US) switched over.
The wonderful thing from the US point of view of oil being traded in dollars, is that only the Fed prints dollars.
asherman
Quote: We deeply regret that our soldiers must stay longer in Iraq than they believed they would,
Who thought they would? The military action of forcibly disarming Iraq and finding and destroying Saddams WMD necessarily suggests a limited campaign with specific objectives, the implication of which is when its done everyone comes home. But in fact it just illustrates another aspect of how the American public has been deceived. If Bush had said "we are going into Iraq to take control of that country, it might take 6 months, 6 years or 6 decades, but taking control of Iraq is what we're gonna do", it would have been more honest, but might not have commanded popular support. So he didn't say it.
crumbles and bumbles
thanks for your contribution(s) keep buzzin.
