Reasons to be warlike...part one

[nacmacfeegle 0]

Okay folks, not my own writing, but the author checks out.
In my constant quest to find some reason or rationale behind the 'ill advised' invasion of Iraq, I was forwarded this.... Interesting stuff, I don't want to see the US economy hurt, as that would hurt us all, nevertheless read on and discuss, have a good weekend.
By the way, I have in the past been an advocate of the "Its not all about oil" debate, but I may have to refine my opinion (flip flop) once more to position of "maybe oil had something to do with it".....
---------------------------------

The War to Save the Dollar

The Americans could live with Saddam until he started selling oil for euros instead of U.S. dollars. Then the Europeans could live with him.

GOOD AS GOLD

From 1944 to 1971, the U.S. dollar was ``backed'' by gold, meaning that the government agreed to buy and sell gold for a fixed price in dollars. Other governments did likewise, leading to fixed exchange rates between their currencies. In 1971, when U.S. President Nixon abandoned gold backing, the exchange rate system began to unravel. Domestically, the U.S. dollar became a ``fiat'' currency, i.e. a currency whose only ``backing'' is the legal obligation to accept it as final payment of debts. Internationally, however, there is no such thing as a fiat currency, and no currency will be accepted as payment unless it is guaranteed to buy some valuable commodity.
>
GOLD TURNS BLACK

In 1973, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) quadrupled the price of oil but continued to accept only U.S. dollars in payment, so that the demand for dollars soared. From then on, the dollar was effectively backed by oil instead of gold -- and the U.S. government didn't even have to own the oil!
>
Because dollars can buy OPEC oil, countries that need to import oil -- i.e. most developed countries -- will accept dollars as payment for their exports. Hence everyone who needs to buy from those exporters will accept dollars as payment for other things, and so on, so that the dollar is the preferred global currency. To pay their bills, importers must have reserves of dollars. To prop up their currencies
against speculative attacks, the central banks of all countries must have reserves of
dollars.
To get capital, poor countries must borrow dollars, and to service these debts they must export goods to obtain more dollars.
About 2/3 of all currency reserves, more than 4/5 of all currency transactions, more than half of the world's exports, and all loans from the  International Monetary Fund (IMF) are denominated in dollars. As these things create demand for the dollar and shore up its value, OPEC is the more willing to accept payment in dollars. So the system is self-reinforcing.
>
The result is that America can export dollars, which cost nothing to produce, and receive real goods and services in return. As long as those dollars are spent outside America, they don't cause domestic inflation. And when they eventually find their way into foreign reserves, they can only be invested in American assets. This continuous flow of foreign investment (on the ``capital account'') props up the American real-estate market and stock market, and allows America to run a mammoth trade
deficit (on the ``current account'') without devaluing the dollar. America's imports now exceed its exports by almost 50% (or 5% of GDP) and its foreign debt is 60% of annual GDP.
>
If OPEC were to abandon the dollar for some other currency, the whole process would slam into reverse. America could no longer export paper dollars for real goods and services. Corporations and central banks would sell their dollar reserves, causing the value of the dollar to plummet. The redemption of dollar reserves would force sales of the assets in which those dollars are invested, so that the American property and stock markets would crash. Other investors who have bought American property
and stocks with borrowed money would declare themselves bankrupt, causing some American banks to collapse under the weight of bad debts. The newly liberated dollars could only be spent on American goods and services, which would begin to flow out of the country (reducing living standards), while the glut of dollars chasing these same goods and services would cause rampant domestic inflation. The flow of foreign investment would
dry up, so that America could no longer run a trade deficit, but would have to export yet more goods and services to pay for its imports, and to service its massive foreign debt, and to accumulate reserves of the new global currency -- whatever that currency might be...
>
> EUROPE STRIKES BACK
>
In 1999, eleven member states of the European Union (EU) adopted the euro as a common accounting currency. Greece joined the Euro Zone a year later.
On January 1, 2002, the twelve countries withdrew their old money from circulation, completing the biggest currency reform in history.
The Euro Zone already has a bigger share of world trade than the USA.
In particular, it imports more oil than the USA and is the main trading partner of the Middle East. It offers higher interest rates than the USA, but does not have a huge foreign debt or trade deficit. These things inspire confidence in the euro. It was perhaps for that reason that in 2002, China started converting some of its currency reserves from dollars to euros, while North Korea abandoned the dollar
and started using euros for trade. The strength of the euro also encourages expansion of the EU and puts pressure on current members Denmark, Sweden and the U.K. to join the Euro Zone. In December 2002, ten new countries were accepted for EU membership with effect from May 2004. This will create a common market of 450 million people, which will buy more than half of OPEC's oil.
>
In summary, the only argument for preferring dollars to euros is that dollars can buy oil. As that argument does not affect OPEC, it would make sense for OPEC to convert its reserves to euros by mid 2004. If OPEC were then to price its oil in euros, it would increase demand for the euro, causing a huge increase in the value of its new euro reserves. These possibilities are not discussed in the U.S. media.
>
> ROGUE STATES
>
The first OPEC member to show serious disloyalty to the dollar was Iran. Since 1999, Iran has been talking about pricing oil in euros. In January 2002, George W. Bush named Iran in his ``axis of evil'' although the country is experimenting with democracy -- something that the USA, if
true to its professed values, would want to reward and encourage.
Undeterred, Iran converted most of its currency reserves to euros during 2002, and a proposal to price Iran's oil in euros is being considered by the central bank and the parliament.
>
Let us see whether the Americans find an excuse to topple Iran's fledgling democracy and to replace it with a dictatorship that just happens to prefer dollars to euros.
>
The second offender was Venezuela. In 2000, Venezuela's president Hugo Chavez called a conference on the future of fossil fuels and renewable energy. The report of the conference, delivered by Chavez to the OPEC summit in September 2000, recommended that OPEC set up a high-tech electronic barter system, so that members could trade oil for goods and services without the use of dollars or any other currency. The chief beneficiaries would be OPEC's poorer customers, who did not have large currency reserves. Chavez made 13 barter deals. In one of them, Cuba provided health services in Venezuelan villages.
In April 2002 there was a coup against the twice elected Chavez. The coup was welcomed by the Bush administration and by editorials in numerous American newspapers, but collapsed after two days, leaving evidence that the U.S. administration was behind it.
>
The third and most blatant offender was Iraq. In October 2000, Saddam decreed that Iraqi oil would be sold for euros instead of dollars, with effect from November 6. Soon afterwards, Saddam converted Iraq's entire $10 billion ``oil for food'' reserve fund from dollars to euros. These facts went unreported in the U.S. media.
>
George W. Bush assures us that Iraq's oil belongs to the Iraqi people.
But any asset priced in dollars is at least partly an American asset because it adds to the demand for dollars, allowing America to export more dollars
and receive more goods and services in return. So the test of America's sincerity will be whether its new regime in Iraq continues to accept euros for oil.
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
>
> Dr Gavin R. Putland
> Brisbane, Australia
> March 27, 2003.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[mr2mk1g 10]

That is very very interesting.

Did anyone read Red Storm Rising (Tom Clancy)? I can see some curious parallels between that fiction, and this commentary.

[kallend 2,150]

From 18 months ago:

www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=382972#382972

www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=386328#386328

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[markd_nscr986 0]

Just as an observation.......there have been a lot of theories advanced about the economic side to the war in Iraq.......sounds like more of the same to me,there are some small"grains" of truth buried in an abundance of conjecture,supposition,and hyperbole........kind of like a Micheal Moore "documentary"

Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004

[nacmacfeegle 0]

Aha, repost, sorry, move along folks, nothing new to see here.

edit to add
Mark, yes, I agree, I don't think there is one particular reason, I'd like to see Wikkipedia's entry in about 50 years time though.........

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[turtlespeed 226]

Well I haven't seen it before -

I do however agree that oil was ALWAYS a part of it.
I just agree with the goals.
I would like our country to stay strong -

China is coming.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[TypicalFish 0]

Quote

China is coming.

And will F%$# us up big time if they do.

"I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

China is coming.

And will F%$# us up big time if they do.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 3,120]

>I would like our country to stay strong -

And thus you would rather it remained dependent on Middle Eastern oil? An odd conclusion.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

>I would like our country to stay strong -

And thus you would rather it remained dependent on Middle Eastern oil? An odd conclusion.

[sarcasm] And WORLD DOMINATION IS OUR ONLY HOPE![/sarcasm]

Not to turn this away from any subject in particular - has anyone heard about the chinese naval fleet? From what I understand - they have stopped making surface ships.
They are concentrating their efforts on submarines.

With all the tech and people over there - we are fucked if they decide they don't like us anymore.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

>I would like our country to stay strong -

And thus you would rather it remained dependent on Middle Eastern oil? An odd conclusion.

[sarcasm] And WORLD DOMINATION IS OUR ONLY HOPE![/sarcasm]

Not to turn this away from any subject in particular - has anyone heard about the chinese naval fleet? From what I understand - they have stopped making surface ships.
They are concentrating their efforts on submarines.

With all the tech and people over there - we are fucked if they decide they don't like us anymore.

Thus far the Chinese have not shown much interest in forming an empire outside of their ancient (traditional) borders. Unlike the Anglo-Saxons.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Botellines 0]

So you want your country to stay strong? what for? great empires come and go. The romans, the spanish, the URRS, etc, etc. And while they remain strong, the average citizen is not necesarily happier.

if you want your country to stay strong, as billvon said do not be dependant on middle east oil. Do some research on alternative energy sources, etc. Regarding security, invest all the resources you have in homeland security wich is where the next attack will come from.

Come on, unless you have some personal interest in the oil industry, the path that your leader is taking you all is not the best for the U.S.
Understanding the U.S as the average american, not the fat cats who make indecent amounts of money at your expenses.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Thus far the Chinese have not shown much interest in forming an empire outside of their ancient (traditional) borders. Unlike the Anglo-Saxons.

Aint got none - took 'em is what we did, govn'r, from them red skinned lads[Manchester voice]know what I mean[/manchester]

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 3,120]

>has anyone heard about the chinese naval fleet?

Also, the North Koreans recently bought some old USSR submarines from Reverend Moon. Reports vary on what equipment still works on the old boomers, but the prospect of a North Korean submarine off the coast of California (or even Alaska) with even one working, launchable IRBM is a scary one.

[markd_nscr986 0]

***Thus far the Chinese have not shown much interest in forming an empire outside of their ancient (traditional) borders. Unlike the Anglo-Saxons.

I suppose you dont want to count their land grab in Tibet, the PRC's massacre of tens of thousands of Tibetan Buddhists,destruction of temples,exile of the Dalai LamaI dont think you could ever consider Tibet part of their "ancient empire" not in the strictest sense of the word.

Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

***Thus far the Chinese have not shown much interest in forming an empire outside of their ancient (traditional) borders. Unlike the Anglo-Saxons.

I suppose you dont want to count their land grab in Tibet, the PRC's massacre of tens of thousands of Tibetan Buddhists,destruction of temples,exile of the Dalai LamaI dont think you could ever consider Tibet part of their "ancient empire" not in the strictest sense of the word.

What I consider Tibet to be part of is not important. The Chinese consider Tibet to be part of their ancient empire. Just like Taiwan.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Well I haven't seen it before -

I do however agree that oil was ALWAYS a part of it.
I just agree with the goals.
I would like our country to stay strong -

China is coming.

Hear fuckin' hear!!

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

>I would like our country to stay strong -

And thus you would rather it remained dependent on Middle Eastern oil? An odd conclusion.

[sarcasm] And WORLD DOMINATION IS OUR ONLY HOPE![/sarcasm]

Not to turn this away from any subject in particular - has anyone heard about the chinese naval fleet? From what I understand - they have stopped making surface ships.
They are concentrating their efforts on submarines.

With all the tech and people over there - we are fucked if they decide they don't like us anymore.

Conan O'Brien said that a study found that 85% of Chinese people have never brushed their teeth.

They're thinking of renaming the country "England."


-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"