Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Dadano on June 19, 2007, 01:59:05 AM
-
Why is the idea of going into Iraq for oil looked down upon by so many?
-
(http://forumspile.com/Misc-Troll.jpg)
(http://forumspile.com/Misc-Buckle_up.gif)
-
It sure as hell is.
-
I think it should be something that we can all agree upon.:aok
-
Ah, you young whippersnappers...
-
This is a joke... right?
We did not go into Iraq for oil. If all we wanted was oil we could have secured it with almost no casualties, and we were in such an oil crisis as to require invasion to avert it we would have instead of a mere 25% of the U.S. Army deployed to Iraq the entire U.S. Army would have been deployed.
A war for oil sees U.S. Divisions guarding a ring of death around the oil fields, with U.S. contractors busily pumping oil into freighters escorted by heavy cruisers and the persian gulf walled off with Aircraft Carriers. As well as any ship and/or structure within 2 miles of the coast annihilated by air-strikes.
No human being allowed within 5 miles of the oil fields, and absolutely no news coverage of events. On pain of death.
The rest of Iraq be damned.
That's what a war for oil looks like.
No need to overthrow Saddam, or fight and insurgency, if a City is in the way of the supply route and there is a genuine oil crisis the likes of which America will cease to exist? A couple squadrons of B-52's will remove that problem.
Now. Why do people claim that the U.S. and our allies went into Iraq for simply oil? Because its an easy inflammatory comment that denies logic and is easy to believe by masses of stupid people who never studied Philosopy nor Military tactics or History in the least.
Personally I believe the war in Iraq is a good thing. My Father was over there, half a dozen of my closest friends have served tours over there.
We're building an entire country, whole cities at a time, up from scratch, and essentially taking millions of people out of the Third World and putting them in the First World. If anything Iraq is the single greatest Humanitarian effort of this Millenium. (Boy that sounds cool.)
More's the point it is easily definable as a Just War. (I've written an Essay on it using the Just War Theory for Ethics. I got a B in Ethics BTW. If you want me to post it just say so.)
Now the real question to ponder isn't why people hate the idea of going to war for oil so much. But what would be their opinions if America needed to invade someone to maintain its standard of living through taking oil by force?
That's a much better question to ask, and a very interesting scenario to ponder.
-
The expense would've been better spent domesticaly.
-
I'm sure it was on the news...
If it were just oil, we could have taken Venezuela and saved on shipping costs.
-
Venezuela didn't attack us on 9/11.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Venezuela didn't attack us on 9/11.
LOL
-
I'm sure the evil men at Halliburton had that contingency covered.
-
Originally posted by Dadano
Why is the idea of going into Iraq for oil looked down upon by so many?
Slow night in the MA?:huh
-
The war was/is not about stealing Iraq's oil (that's just too simplistic and daft), but it was about securing some form of stability in the oil market, which Iraq was greatly upsetting with its long conflict with the UN and the US/UK/France coalition. The war was also about securing that the oil trade continues to trade in US Dollars and not Euros. Saddam was a very vocal proponent of switching to Euros and the first oil trading nation to do so (refusing to trade in USD). The international oil trade's support (or subsidization if you will) of the USD is very important for America's continued very favorable trade with other nations. With that I mean that for every Dollar you spend in another country you get more value in trade/services than you should because the value of the USD is inflated, largely by international trade (oil being the biggest) being done in USD.
So while saying the war was about stealing Iraq's oil is wrong, the war nevertheless definitively was about oil.
(Note: This is nothing more than my personal opinion.)
-
Iran
-
Originally posted by Eagler
Iran
You mean you actually invaded the wrong country? (J/K ;))
-
Originally posted by Dadano
Why is the idea of going into Iraq for oil looked down upon by so many?
Because no one one likes a greedy guts?
Contrived justification that was sold to the rest of the world as well as America; bad timing- it was rushed and gave the strong impression of cashing in on 9/11. It wasn't very subtle.
There may never have been an opportunity to go into iraq with better justification and more support.. but who knows. Sanctions and no fly zones couldn't go on for ever, which may have been a good thing. An unhindered saddam would probably have wasted little time in setting himself up and providing the justification to be spanked just as he did for GW1. I don't think the guy could help himself; it's just the way he was. Things would have been far easier with a much bigger welcome mat rolled out and oil probably would have been less of an issue.
-
(http://www.lerepairedesmotards.com/img/forum/dont-feed-the-troll.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Hoffman
That's what a war for oil looks like.
exactly.
and this being true, make it important that we make the war look different.
as you just stated, its obvious what a war for oil would look like, so we made a war that didnt look so obvious and was facilitated with excuses like WMDs and War on Terror.
An unhindered saddam would probably have wasted little time in setting himself up and providing the justification to be spanked just as he did for GW1. I don't think the guy could help himself; it's just the way he was. Things would have been far easier with a much bigger welcome mat rolled out and oil probably would have been less of an issue.
and, for me personaly, this is the biggest problem in the world today.
WE think we have the right to control a nation less developed than ourselves from becoming equally developed as ourselves.
the whole world is a hypocratic joke, i cant wait for all this bullchit to come tumbling down on top of all of us idiotic humans.
the human race is just lame, bring on extinction.
-
so what happened to all the oil the US stole from iraq, did haliburton sell it to china?:confused:
-
The threat assessment upon which the Bush administration acted was fundamentally sound. The only mistake in its calculus, made by the CIA and numerous foreign intelligence services, was positing that Saddam possessed stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons--as well as a concealed nuclear-weapons program--after 1991. It was, however, an honest mistake. The claim that Bush lied about Saddam's WMD is itself a lie. There is no doubt that the administration sincerely believed that Saddam retained a substantial WMD arsenal.
-
Just do a forum search for my repeated stated views on it.
I really dont feel like typing it all again. LOL
Funny thing about this war though is the rift its caused in some circles.
Including between myself and my brother in law and best friend.
We are on extreme polar opposite ends reguarding the subject and its Caused a great deal of tension between us whenever the subject is brought up
-
Originally posted by Viking
Dollar you spend in another country you get more value in trade/services than you should because the value of the USD is inflated, largely by international trade (oil being the biggest) being done in USD.
Wow, don't have the time to discuss, but that is pretty out there on the currency theory.
-
Originally posted by BigGun
Wow, don't have the time to discuss, but that is pretty out there on the currency theory.
Would like to hear your take on it BigGun. I found this (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,998512,00.html) from Time and this one from CNN (http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/10/30/iraq.un.euro.reut/).
-
Originally posted by BigGun
Wow, don't have the time to discuss, but that is pretty out there on the currency theory.
When you find time please do discuss. I'd love to hear your perspective on the matter.
-
Originally posted by john9001
so what happened to all the oil the US stole from iraq, did haliburton sell it to china?:confused:
The theory isn't based in theft. It is based in access to the market and military positioning in the region.
-
what does "access to the market " mean? I thought all you needed was money to buy oil.
-
Originally posted by Dadano
Why is the idea of going into Iraq for oil looked down upon by so many?
Although I'm not among the "we", here's my view on the reasons of the Iraq war:
1. General anger and rage after 911.
2. Score was not settled with Saddam Hussein after the first Gulf War. President Bush once said (on Saddam Hussein): "After all, this is a guy who tried to kill my dad at one time. "
But not because of oil. Saudi Arabia would have been the first to be attacked if that was the real reason. Most of the 911 terrorists came from that country.
-
Originally posted by john9001
what does "access to the market " mean? I thought all you needed was money to buy oil.
From that Time article I linked to earlier, dated Monday, Nov. 13, 2000.Europe's dream of promoting the euro as a competitor to the U.S. dollar may get a boost from SADDAM HUSSEIN. Iraq says that from now on, it wants payments for its oil in euros, despite the fact that the battered European currency unit, which used to be worth quite a bit more than $1, has dropped to about 82[cents]. Iraq says it will no longer accept dollars for oil because it does not want to deal "in the currency of the enemy."
The move hurts Iraq, the U.N. and the countries receiving reparations. So why is Saddam doing it? Diplomatic sources say switching to the euro will favor European suppliers over U.S. ones in competing for Iraqi contracts, and the p.r. boost that Baghdad would probably get in Europe would be another plus.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Venezuela didn't attack us on 9/11.
Neither did Iraq
-
Originally posted by Gryffin
Neither did Iraq
Neocon little emperors.
The left owned by amoralists.
The right owned by amoralists.
:(
-
They new if they wanted to rearrange the map of the middle east to satisfy American interests,they would need a good excuse to send in the troops,.Saddam was ideal,they linked him to Bin Laden-a joke if ever their was one,they couldn't stand each other,saddam was an athiest as far as Laden was concerned-an piled on dodgy intelligence about wmd's.An American public beying for blood after 9/11 was easy to convince the troops were on their way.
What has happened since, could have ,an probabley was forseen by Bush's adviser's. they only needed to look at the British experience after wwI!!
That the greatest democracy in the world could fool an convince it's ppl and Allies in to this Illegal an disgusting act,beggars belief.This conflict shames us all in the west, and History will not be Kind.The rammifications will ring out well into the 21st century.
It is rank an stinks to high heaven,did my father fight for five years against tyrrany an injustice,just so we could do the same thig 60 years later?
Of course the real losers will be the Iraqi ppl,their suffering will go on long after the last western soldiers have left.
-
Poor Saddam, what a victim...
:lol
-
Yeah toppling a little tinpot dictator was worth billions of dollars,thousands of american lives, and the destabilisation of the Region,not to mention half a million innocent Iraqi's with more to come.Well Done.When are you going to sort out all the other dictators.Mugabe? how about china...No ??no interest.
Not got the stomach?you swallowed Bush's propaganda Hook,line, and sinker.
Why are you in Iraq?look in the mirror.:aok
-
yours is an interesting opinion hazzer, and no doubt one that is shared with a great many other people.
-
Originally posted by Hazzer
...Well Done...
An objective discussion is important. Try not to get worked up.
The idea is that we went into Iraq for a bigger stake in our own fate, our own survival. The equation is not oil for money, but rather oil for power. Oil is the life blood of capitalism and the western way of life.
Without access to adequate oil supply, the American machine breaks down. It literally seizes like any engine. We cannot let that happen. I think the war in Iraq is justified on that basis.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
The threat assessment upon which the Bush administration acted was fundamentally sound. The only mistake in its calculus, made by the CIA and numerous foreign intelligence services, was positing that Saddam possessed stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons--as well as a concealed nuclear-weapons program--after 1991. It was, however, an honest mistake. The claim that Bush lied about Saddam's WMD is itself a lie. There is no doubt that the administration sincerely believed that Saddam retained a substantial WMD arsenal.
Honest mistake? Bush correctly stated that a defector told them about stock piles of chemical weapons in Iraq, the informant also said he personally saw them destroyed... both were true, bush just had a mental lapse and forgot to mention the part about how they no longer existed.
Bush also failed to mention the shelf life of these weapons, if they did still exist as the informant stated, they were useless. Another honest omission I suppose.
Bush even admitted Saddam didn't have what he and his neo-clown cronies "had no doubts" existed, the nefarious "WMD".... listen to the man in his own words:
news interview (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9218934325755914595&q=iraq+%2B+bush&total=15994&start=0&num=20&so=0&type=search&plindex=19)
El Jefe Bush said: "...the main reason we went into Iraq, at the time, we thought he had weapons of mass destruction... turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction"
When asked what Iraq had to do with the world trade center attack, bush correctly stated "nothing".
Going to war based on intelligence that turns out to be wrong against a country that had "nothing" to do with attacking us... can make a president look pretty stupid.
-
Why did we go into Iraq?
I've thought about this long and hard.. the only answer I could come with with is..
to get to the other side.
-
I think the war in Iraq is justified on that basis.
Maybe.....
What if, instead of spending billions on a war halfway around the world. We instead invest that money into research for alternative, renewable energy?
Is the war still justified on that basis? There was an alternative.
If we find a new energy source other than oil, we make the Middle East irrelevant.
-
There is just one clear winner in this fiasco.
Israel.
-
sorry sandman i disagree.
there are no winners, just people who suffer less than others.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Maybe.....
What if, instead of spending billions on a war halfway around the world. We instead invest that money into research for alternative, renewable energy?
Is the war still justified on that basis? There was an alternative.
If we find a new energy source other than oil, we make the Middle East irrelevant.
We did elect an a duo of fossil fuel entrepreneurs (twice), what did we expect?
-
Originally posted by Dadano
We did elect an a duo of fossil fuel entrepreneurs (twice), what did we expect?
Just think of the money that could be made if you got in on the ground floor of a new energy source. Mebbe these folks in office aren't the sharpest tools in the shed.....or the garage.....or the toolbox....:t
-
Originally posted by Hazzer
They new if they wanted to rearrange the map of the middle east to satisfy American interests,they would need a good excuse to send in the troops,.Saddam was ideal,they linked him to Bin Laden-a joke if ever their was one,they couldn't stand each other,saddam was an athiest as far as Laden was concerned-an piled on dodgy intelligence about wmd's.An American public beying for blood after 9/11 was easy to convince the troops were on their way.
What has happened since, could have ,an probabley was forseen by Bush's adviser's. they only needed to look at the British experience after wwI!!
That the greatest democracy in the world could fool an convince it's ppl and Allies in to this Illegal an disgusting act,beggars belief.This conflict shames us all in the west, and History will not be Kind.The rammifications will ring out well into the 21st century.
It is rank an stinks to high heaven,did my father fight for five years against tyrrany an injustice,just so we could do the same thig 60 years later?
Of course the real losers will be the Iraqi ppl,their suffering will go on long after the last western soldiers have left.
Aye.
-
Personally i think it was to finsh the job from 1991
If coallition troops had made a left turn and headed north
then they would have been recieved as liberators/heroes
GWB wanted too finish the work daddy hadn't/could not
finish because of CNN's daily reports of the Basra Hghway
i think every soldier in GW1 wanted to head North
but thanks to CNN/BBC & public opinion
there wasn't a cat in Hells chance
-
Originally posted by Dadano
We did elect an a duo of fossil fuel entrepreneurs (twice), what did we expect?
3 times if you want to include Sr
Whats that tell you abut what the left has been offering up?
One thing I know for certain.
Politics being the way it is.
Had Clinton gone in and did it instead of Bush
The arguments would be the same.
Just who did the arguing on what would be reversed.
I personally would have been for it even if Clinton had done it.
It was something that needed to be done sooner or later. It was just a matter of whom was going to do it.
But I've covered that ground countless times already
But even then I see it like this
At this point.
Arguing over if it was a mistake to go in or not is an irrelevant and pointless argument
Fact of the matter is we're there now. And regardless of what yahoo politician says what. We aren't leaving in the immediate future.
We aren't going to just pull out No matter who from what party gets elected in and what song they try to sing you insinuating otherwise.
It aint gonna happen
So might as well get that fantasy out of your heads right now and get used to the idea.
The fact remains we ARE there and WILL be for the foreseeable future.
So
Rather then arguing over if we should be there or not.
The question should be what to do to succeed.
Pissing and moaning over going in there or not and if we should have done what we already did only serves to hurt our troops in the field.
Most of them believe in what they are doing
And pissing and moaning back here at home only serves to hurt moral over there. Rather then showing them our support.
I saw an interview with one soldier a while back who said and I will quote as best as I can remember word for word."
"If you support us. If you want to support us. Support the war. The two go hand in hand. If you don't support the war your not supporting us. And we really wish you would just STFU" (the last two sentences being word for word exact)
On a more personal note I keep hearing time and time again. The troops biggest worry is loosing the support for the war here and not being allowed to finish the job
This is what separates us from the "greatest generation" And why today's society cant even dream about measuring up or filling the shoes of our forefathers
Prior to entry into WWII most of the country was against getting involved in the war.
Yet. Once we were in it. Maximum effort was used in winning it at home as well as abroad.
And while every death is tragic. the casualties we have suffered here is a mere drop in the well when compared to what was suffered in WWII
292,131 KIA in WWII and a total of 1,078,162 casualties total in only a little more then 4 years
Not including the civil war. The KIA list is larger then all other American wars including this one combined.
Now there is a generation who knew suffering and sacrifice and understood that some things take time.
Nowadays we're and instant gratification society.
Who cant be bothered to wait a minute to get out of our own way
Anything short of instant success is viewed as an abysmal failure.
Again. while every single death is a terrible loss.
By contrast when compared to our other wars.
These numbers are nothing short of miraculously low.
but again the fact remains. We are there now. the time for arguing if we should be there has long since past
And casualties are going to happen no matter how much we do not like it.
The best we can do now. the right thing to do now. Is to help our troops succeed.
Not everybody wants to fight. but once your in one you might as well win the damn thing
-
you know, innocence, the first casualty of war.... and so on
DREDIOCK, support your troops at all cost no matter what you belief
even if its the wrong thing??
Well then, leave the brain off and hail to the fuhrer, you will be judge by your next generation anyway.
-
so Gh0stFT, retreat and surrender is the best option you have?
-
John thats option C.)
option A.) is what DREDIOCK suggests,
i would suggest option B.)
-
Originally posted by Hazzer
Yeah toppling a little tinpot dictator was worth billions of dollars,thousands of american lives, and the destabilisation of the Region,not to mention half a million innocent Iraqi's with more to come.Well Done.When are you going to sort out all the other dictators.Mugabe? how about china...No ??no interest.
Not got the stomach?you swallowed Bush's propaganda Hook,line, and sinker.
Why are you in Iraq?look in the mirror.:aok
Good thing you Brits knew better than to get involved in this one!
Funny, I don't recall Italy, and Germany, bombing Pearl Harbor, that damn FDR sent us into a European war for nothing. He could have just ignored Hitlers rantings and genocide. His declaration of war on America meant nothing, just idle treats.
-
why did USA invade france in WW2, france was no threat to the USA and had no WMD's and no oil.
-
Originally posted by Dadano
From that Time article I linked to earlier, dated Monday, Nov. 13, 2000.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Europe's dream of promoting the euro as a competitor to the U.S. dollar may get a boost from SADDAM HUSSEIN. Iraq says that from now on, it wants payments for its oil in euros, despite the fact that the battered European currency unit, which used to be worth quite a bit more than $1, has dropped to about 82[cents]. Iraq says it will no longer accept dollars for oil because it does not want to deal "in the currency of the enemy."
The move hurts Iraq, the U.N. and the countries receiving reparations. So why is Saddam doing it? Diplomatic sources say switching to the euro will favor European suppliers over U.S. ones in competing for Iraqi contracts, and the p.r. boost that Baghdad would probably get in Europe would be another plus.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i don't understand, you take your dollars and buy euros, take the euros and buy oil.
it seems simple to me, but i am a simple person.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
There is just one clear winner in this fiasco.
Israel.
You forgot about Halliburton
-
john, you talking about a former world war,
one Dictator with a few allies against whole WORLD.
Have i missed something, i cant remember Saddam
attacked the world again after Gulf war I. ?
where is the reason ??
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Just think of the money that could be made if you got in on the ground floor of a new energy source. Mebbe these folks in office aren't the sharpest tools in the shed.....or the garage.....or the toolbox....:t
Oh na they are in on that too.. They are pushing Corn Ethanol. Which will cost us more than gas costs now. Trust me they aren't dumb and by no means do they not know how to screw us over to make a buck.
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
John thats option C.)
option A.) is what DREDIOCK suggests,
i would suggest option B.)
which is what?
Piss and moan over a situation that isnt going to significantly change anytime soon?
-
:) we can end the iraqi war,just take 40 Ah'ers train them how to fly B52's and B2's
and have one bigass milkrun on iraq :D
-
Originally posted by Dadano
Would like to hear your take on it BigGun. I found this (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,998512,00.html) from Time and this one from CNN (http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/10/30/iraq.un.euro.reut/).
Neither one of those links discuss anything saying the $ is inflated because of oil. They just talk about Iraq wanting to trade oil in euros.
-
Originally posted by Viking
When you find time please do discuss. I'd love to hear your perspective on the matter.
Will discuss when have time, maybe Thursday or Friday.
Just curious about one thing & how it fits into your theory. How is it the dollar has been on downward trend (weakening) for most part of this century, at a time when the price of crude has skyrocketed? Wouldn't significant increases in the price of oil inflate the dollar? Recent history has been oil going up, value of dollar going down, just contrary to your theory.
I did find it interesting that at the time Iraq wanted to switch to Euros they were only pumping about 5% of the world output, hardly a major influence one way or the other.
-
Originally posted by BigGun
Just curious about one thing & how it fits into your theory. How is it the dollar has been on downward trend (weakening) for most part of this century, at a time when the price of crude has skyrocketed? Wouldn't significant increases in the price of oil inflate the dollar?
No. The value of the Dollar has nothing to do with the price of Oil, or vice versa. It is the fact that the majority of international trade is done with US Dollars, Oil trade being the biggest trade of all, that is propping up the Dollar value. The central banks of all oil trading nations (both buyers and sellers) have to stock billions of Dollars to facilitate international trade.
Originally posted by BigGun
I did find it interesting that at the time Iraq wanted to switch to Euros they were only pumping about 5% of the world output, hardly a major influence one way or the other.
The influence was a lot bigger than your limited focus on Iraq alone. Saddam almost got the snowball rolling (until you stopped it with armed force). Other oil exporting nations like Iran, Libya even Saudi Arabia was publically considering switching to the Euro.
Instead of me continuing to insult the English language with my limited English economics vocabulary I'll let Richard Benson, President of the Specialty Finance Group LLC, present what is in essence my view on the matter (though I obviously do not share his enthusiasm for a continuation of the status quo):
Oil, the Dollar, and US Prosperity
Richard Benson, SFGroup
August 8, 2003
Like many Americans, I greatly enjoy air conditioning in the summer, heat in the winter, and gas for my sport utility vehicle. I also happen to enjoy traveling to those civilized lands that take modern conveniences for granted - such prosperity takes a lot of energy.
In the United States, we stopped being energy independent many years ago. The rest of the world, including Europe and Asia, also come up empty in the energy department. Russia has enough oil to export for a few years until their economy develops; Japan has zilch, and China and India can never, on their own, meet the need for oil to accommodate over 2 billion drivers.
If you take the time to examine a simple map of where the Oil Reserves are in the world, you'll notice that two-thirds of the reserves sit in the Middle East, with a massive concentration in Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia.
The Dollar has grown to be the world currency for settling debts, and, with around 75% of foreign central banks holding their currency in reserves, the Dollar is still the World Reserve Currency. Only recently has the Euro come into existence as a possible viable alternative as a financial asset, that can be used to settle accounts, and store value.
The level of prosperity in the United States has, in no small measure, been helped by the fact that we have run massive deficits with the rest of the world. The US has been able to run up over $3 Trillion in debts to purchase goods and services from abroad that have yet to be paid for really. The world has been willing to accept dollar assets as investments and Asia remains delighted to have their Central banks buy Treasury and Agency securities because the United States is sending Asia our manufacturing jobs. However, at some point, the day will come when foreign dollar asset holders will want to spend their dollar reserves on something of value. There is only one thing that has universal value to all modern economies - OIL!
In the real world (which is a long way from Hollywood and the Liberal Media), the one factor underpinning American prosperity is keeping the dollar the World Reserve Currency. This can only be done if the oil producing states keep oil priced in dollars, and all their currency reserves in dollar assets. If anything put the final nail in Saddam Hussein's coffin, it was his move to start selling oil for Euros.
The US is the sole super power and we control and dictate to the Middle East oil producers. America has the power to change rulers if they can't follow the "straight line" the US dictates. America's prosperity depends on this. Moreover, Europe wants to be warm in the winter and we don't want to go down a road that leads to conflict with Asia over oil. It remains in our interest, as well as the rest of the world's, that the US insures that oil is available to all, at a reasonable price.
Removing a bloody tyrant in Iraq is certainly better for the world than seeing what might happen in Japan and China if they started freezing in the winter. Real wars are fought over oil. Germany invaded Russia for the oil in the Caucasus.
Japan bombed Pearl Harbor because the US cut off their oil. Those were real wars because the national interest, and the right to survive, were at stake (the Vietnam War was a disaster because there was no real national interest served by slaughtering peasants and American troops). The war in Iraq is a sideshow by comparison but it offers huge national interest.
At present, we notice that many US citizens are exercising their "freedom of screech" to politicize the fact that the current President miss-stated the case for immediate war with Iraq. Perhaps the President should be praised for "doing what was right" for America's interests, even though the Administration could be faulted for the "way it was done". I, for one, would not want to bring back an Arab oil embargo and long lines at the gas pump.
Governments have secrets. If politicians always told the truth, there wouldn't be any secrets. So, if governments are to keep secrets, how can you fault a politician for not telling the whole truth? We would assert that the President failed to present the real case for Iraq, which is: 1) prosperity for America based on controlling Middle East oil, and on maintaining the Dollar as the World Reserve Currency, and 2) peace and stability, which the guaranteed access to oil brings to the world.
We believe that the US Treasury deficit, and the US Trade deficits, are massive stock and credit bubbles, courtesy of the Federal Reserve. These deficits will cause significant disruption to the value of the Dollar and to US prosperity, all on their own. We do not need to give up de facto control over Middle East Oil, which in turn underpins the Dollar as the World Reserve Currency. Such action, which may be welcomed by the Liberal Media, would quickly end America's role as an economic super power and lead to the sudden and permanent demise of our prosperity.
If foreign central banks could no longer believe that holding Dollars guarantees access to oil, there would be no real reason to hold Dollars. With the US running deficits of 5% for budget and trade, in the real world the Dollar would collapse, along with our bond market, stock market, real estate market, and economic way of life.
We believe, like George Soros believes, that the dollar will weaken on fundamental grounds. Unlike Mr. Soros, we do not wish to see a catastrophic "dollar crash" (his motives should be questioned after having made $1 Billion after having helped crash the Pound). If the dollar cratered, even a "limousine liberal" could only afford a Kia.
-
Good find Viking. That article sums the idea up nicely.
-
Originally posted by Hoffman
This is a joke... right?
Personally I believe the war in Iraq is a good thing. My Father was over there, half a dozen of my closest friends have served tours over there.
We're building an entire country, whole cities at a time, up from scratch, and essentially taking millions of people out of the Third World and putting them in the First World. If anything Iraq is the single greatest Humanitarian effort of this Millenium. (Boy that sounds cool.)
this is the biggest joke i have heard in here so far
"the iraq war a humanitarian effort..."
this government has murdered over half a million people over there and you think thats a good thing????????????????????/?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
-
Originally posted by ink
this government has murdered over half a million people over there
creditable link? I didn't think so ...
-
Originally posted by Eagler
creditable link? I didn't think so ...
Why do youu ask other to provide any information?
you never provided one yourself.
-
Originally posted by ink
this is the biggest joke i have heard in here so far
"the iraq war a humanitarian effort..."
this government has murdered over half a million people over there and you think thats a good thing????????????????????/?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
What??? We missed the other half?
Can I say AsssHat in here?
Ink I left yer milk money on the nightstand next to your short bus pass.
Pfffft so goes "No Child Left Behind...."
Mac
-
Originally posted by Eagler
creditable link? I didn't think so ...
Rosie O'Donnell ??:rofl