McCain and Iraq: '100 Years' of Hurt

[AZXD]

Originally Posted by Etta Place

Admit it, McCain wants us in Iraq indefinitely whether we are sustaining casualties or not.

That's because McCain understand the importance of this country having a strong foothold in the region. It's the best way to ensure that OIL is only traded in U.S. currency.

PetroDollar Warfare .. It's the only justification that makes sense, IMO.

I can't wait to see what happens now that akmedineedadinnerjacket has publically announced that Iran will sell OIL internationally using other than U.S. dollars.
That's the threat Saddam used, and look what happened. It's the same threat that put Venezuela on the political radar.

Yea, this summer is gonna be as interesting as the next 100 years.

[Judge]

Yeah, I understand we're invading Kuwait next just like we did Venezuela... all b/c of the dollar- which even without owning kuwait, has probably bottomed out and will again strengthen.

Originally Posted by AZXD

That's because McCain understand the importance of this country having a strong foothold in the region. It's the best way to ensure that OIL is only traded in U.S. currency.

PetroDollar Warfare .. It's the only justification that makes sense, IMO.

I can't wait to see what happens now that akmedineedadinnerjacket has publically announced that Iran will sell OIL internationally using other than U.S. dollars.
That's the threat Saddam used, and look what happened. It's the same threat that put Venezuela on the political radar.

Yea, this summer is gonna be as interesting as the next 100 years.

[AZXD]

Originally Posted by Judge

Yeah, I understand we're invading Kuwait next just like we did Venezuela... all b/c of the dollar- which even without owning kuwait, has probably bottomed out and will again strengthen.

Is this your attempt at sarcasm ??
Are we gonna talk reality, or Kuwait

Venezuelan move to replace U.S. $ with the €uro

Venezuelan move to replace US$ with the €uro upsetting Washington more than Saddam's €uro conversion last [2003] November

VHeadline.com editor & publisher Roy S. Carson writes: A move by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez Frias to replace the US$ with the €uro is seen as upsetting Washington more than when Iraq's Saddam Hussein started using the €uro for oil transactions last November ... precipitating the US-led action to invade Iraq. Beltway bullies are now said to be angered by Venezuela's decision to barter oil with thirteen other Latin American countries, dealing moves to dollarize South America currencies. Intelligence reports say that while the US was able to pull the wool over the international community and ally with Britain's Blair to bulldoze action against former Iran War ally Hussein, the situation with Venezuela is proving more difficult.

While there has been political pretext to cold-shoulder Chavez Frias and his government for supposed links with Cuba's Castro and Libya's Khadaffi, the United States is loathe to do more than to give subversive support to anti-Chavez elements in Venezuela fighting against the Venezuelan President's domestic war against political and economic corruption which have permeated the South American country for the last half-century.

International finance experts see how the US dollar has been devaluing against the €uro, as important players on the international scene convert to the European currency for more stable transactions ... Russia, China, North Korea and Malaysia have begun holding €uros as important hedgings in their foreign exchange reserves as faith in American greenbacks floats down the river.

CIA and other intel organizations, including Britain's MI5, now fear that the next step is that the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) is about to switch to €uros ... the immediate effect would be a massive devaluation, perhaps sparking of domino-effect devaluations worldwide in US$-related foreign reserves and foreign debt calculations.

With a massive budget deficit, the United States is running scared of latest intel that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is on the brink of converting to the €uros and the opinion held by many OPEC ministers is that the conversion is an inevitability ... the only question left is WHEN?

Arab sources claim that €uro conversion across the Middle and Far East is a rational step to counteract the United States' capacity to "wage further illegal wars (a.k.a. State-sponsored terrorism)" around the world and that any prolonged occupation of Iraq by US/British forces ... and any move towards withdrawal of Iraq from the OPEC cartel ... will only precipitate "remedial action" by like-minded Arab nations to protect their own best interests over Washington's.

A significant step in this direction is that Iran is contemplating switching to the €uro and, as a result, is the latest object of United States undiplomatic interference ... an intel sources says "they are stimulating opposition forces, making covert threats ... the next step is destabilization and quasi-liberation warfare under the pretext of promoting US-style democracy but essentially aimed at maintaining the US dollar as a global transaction currency."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Original article available here
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Judge]

I agree with you... we're really gonna invade them aren't we - after all, it's all about money....

I head the 7th fleet had been recalled from the med to support the Venezuela invasion. Hold on though, I don't think it'll be compelete till Cheney again assumes the reigns at Halliburtion (did he ever really relenquish control) so he can properly oversee the invasion forces. I think we're gonna hit Nicaragua first, ortez just pisses us off, and use it as a base of ops.

Cool huh?

Originally Posted by AZXD

Is this your attempt at sarcasm ??
Are we gonna talk reality, or Kuwait

[AZXD]

Originally Posted by Judge

I agree with you... we're really gonna invade them aren't we - after all, it's all about money....

I head the 7th fleet had been recalled from the med to support the Venezuela invasion. Hold on though, I don't think it'll be compelete till Cheney again assumes the reigns at Halliburtion (did he ever really relenquish control) so he can properly oversee the invasion forces. I think we're gonna hit Nicaragua first, ortez just pisses us off, and use it as a base of ops.

Cool huh?

As someone who teaches Economics, you should understand this theory better than most.
So why attempt to trivialize it with BS about Cheney and Halliburton.

[Judge]

because as a researcher and economist, I understand the fallacy of the "theory".

The links are even more tenuous/imagined than those linking the Administration to 9/11 and saying a plane didn't hit the Pentagon (despite the presence of plane parts, passenger remains and over 200 eye witnesses on the interestate next to the pentagon that saw it hit.)

Oh, and what do you teach - what's your degree in?

Originally Posted by AZXD

As someone who teaches Economics, you should understand this theory better than most.
So why attempt to trivialize it with BS about Cheney and Halliburton.

[AZXD]

Originally Posted by Judge

because as a researcher and economist, I understand the fallacy of the "theory".

The links are even more tenuous/imagined than those linking the Administration to 9/11 and saying a plane didn't hit the Pentagon (despite the presence of plane parts, passenger remains and over 200 eye witnesses on the interestate next to the pentagon that saw it hit.)

Oh, and what do you teach - what's your degree in?

So explain how not attempting to secure the stability of the U.S. dollar would be a good thing, or just explain the fallacy of the theory.

Engineering Design!

[Judge]

Nutshell - the value of the dollar - it's simply not tied to control of oil. The US lost control of oil supplies/price in the 70's and the dollar has little/no correlation to it. OPEC thought they had control of it for years but found out they didn't. If they tried regulating production they found out they can't agree on quotas for each country - too many varied political interests and cash needs, most will sell above their 'quota." The market works.

Without controlling production, they can't control prices. Oil prices are set at the margins a 1 or 3% drop/increase in supply has significant impact on the pricing - which is determined generally by speculators in the futures markets - who are buying the contracts for delivery. Right now, with all the uncertainty in the markets, uncertainty means volitality, which directly translates into risk, which increases the premia, which is what we've seen. The markets work.

Expanded version - for 20 years administrations have complained about the strength of the dollar, esp against the yuan and yen - gave the chinese and japs an 'unfair' trading advantage. So this admin finally decides not to support the dollar and let it drop - causing us exports to cheapen and foreign products to be more expensive here. This also has created huge inflationary pressures in China and Japan, further encouraging them to endi the pegging of their currency to the dollar and to let them float.

Now the strength of the economy is tied to the price/supply of oil. And the strength of the economy relates directly to the value of the dollar. Combine the admin's decision not to support, the economic destruction of 9/11 with the Fed's very low rates (to keep the economy from going into a depression) and the much higher rates in europe and you have global cash leaving us (putting further pressure on the dollar) and going into LIBOR (further strengthening the euro.) To reverse this - our economy needs to bottom out and the rates need to rise some or quit falling - which is what possibly we're beginning to see. Again, no correlation to the control of oil.

More - the dollar has hit a 15 year low - meaning 15 years ago, it was lower - again, not tied to oil. We survived that and will survive this. Economies fluctuate. Ours does have temporary down periods, again, not tied to control of oil.

More - originally the critics were yelling it was a war for cheap oil, then they yelled it was a war for stable oil, now they're yelling it was a war for expensive oil. So their argument is not based on any facts or the price of oil or control of it, just hatred of all things Bush/America - we're ultimately to blame no matter what happens.

In this case we CHOSE not to have a stable dollar - it sometimes can be a good thing, especially if it forces china and japan to float their currencies - future generations will be thankful this admin took the heat, something previous ones didn't have the kahunas to attempt.

Like them or fault them, they've tried to do difficult things, regardless of the polls. I respect, even admire that.

Originally Posted by AZXD

So explain how not attempting to secure the stability of the U.S. dollar would be a good thing, or just explain the fallacy of the theory.

Engineering Design!