Democracy / Liberation vs. Power / Economic Stability

Pragnosis · 12-10-2006, 21:27 PM

Hello Everybody,

I would appreciate it if you guys (when you have a spare moment) could reply, giving your opinion of 'what you think the main reason for the 2003 invasion of Iraq was'. Just to let you know that I am a neutral observer and would not consider myself as supporting either the right or left political ideologies. I am, however, strongly considering voting for (Mr Insane) George Galloway's 'Respect' party because I totally believe that the war is completely unjustified and the true reason behind all of this is for financial gain. I'm pretty sure that the majority of people in the UK are not too concerned about the events that are taking place in Iraq as they are not involved and cannot change anything. Apathy seems to be everybody's attitude these days, which is, of course, their right.

In the past few months, I have conducted an enormous amount of research into this war. As a logical observer, with all bias aside, I have come to the conclusion that the main objective of this war is to further enhance the United States' global economic supremacy by gaining control of Iraq's Oil reserves thus enabling them to control the distribution to other nations. This is obviously considered to be a 'far left' ideology as this notion indicates a conspiracy. However, this is not necessarily the case as the US / UK has never actually denied this accusation. They basically just sell their other (not as important) objective of 'giving freedom and democracy to Iraq' through the mainstream media by using propaganda (especially Fox News in the US).

Just incase you are not aware of this interesting peice of information, the main reason that I come to this conclusion is because, according to the documents / documentaries that I've seen, Saddam Hussein decided to change oil-export payments into Euro's rather than US Dollars in 2000, just to p!ss the US off and this heavily effected the US economy. The first thing that the US did when they invaded Iraq in 2003 was to take over the Oil and convert the export payments back into US Dollars. So it's totally obvious that economic power is their main objective.

What is your opinion?

Thanks.

**Shek** · 12-10-2006, 21:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pragnosis

Hello Everybody,

I would appreciate it if you guys (when you have a spare moment) could reply, giving your opinion of 'what you think the main reason for the 2003 invasion of Iraq was'. Just to let you know that I am a neutral observer and would not consider myself as supporting either the right or left political ideologies. I am, however, strongly considering voting for (Mr Insane) George Galloway's 'Respect' party because I totally believe that the war is completely unjustified and the true reason behind all of this is for financial gain. I'm pretty sure that the majority of people in the UK are not too concerned about the events that are taking place in Iraq as they are not involved and cannot change anything. Apathy seems to be everybody's attitude these days, which is, of course, their right.

In the past few months, I have conducted an enormous amount of research into this war. As a logical observer, with all bias aside, I have come to the conclusion that the main objective of this war is to further enhance the United States' global economic supremacy by gaining control of Iraq's Oil reserves thus enabling them to control the distribution to other nations. This is obviously considered to be a 'far left' ideology as this notion indicates a conspiracy. However, this is not necessarily the case as the US / UK has never actually denied this accusation. They basically just sell their other (not as important) objective of 'giving freedom and democracy to Iraq' through the mainstream media by using propaganda (especially Fox News in the US).

Just incase you are not aware of this interesting peice of information, the main reason that I come to this conclusion is because, according to the documents / documentaries that I've seen, Saddam Hussein decided to change oil-export payments into Euro's rather than US Dollars in 2000, just to p!ss the US off and this heavily effected the US economy. The first thing that the US did when they invaded Iraq in 2003 was to take over the Oil and convert the export payments back into US Dollars. So it's totally obvious that economic power is their main objective.

What is your opinion?

Thanks.

Pragnosis,

The "take control of Iraqi oil" is a conspiracy theory. If you take a look at the cost of operations in Iraq versus the revenues we would gain if we stole every single drop, it'd be a losing proposition. As long as Iraqi oil was reaching the world market, whether it was in dollars or euros, it would satisfy demand and the effective price of oil would be the same.

As far as dollar hegemony, Iraqi oil in euros wouldn't affect the capital flows of Southeast Asia, which account for much of the demand for dollar denominated assets, because of the trade flows between the US and SE Asia. Even if euro denominated oil sales weakened the dollar, it would result in correcting the US trade imbalance.

Bottomline, we don't dictate where Iraqi oil goes, and haven't dictated it. As long as it goes to the world market, then it satisfies demand and keeps prices lower than they would be otherwise.

**Shek** · 12-10-2006, 21:50 PM

Here are the numbers for you:

http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf

Go to page 30. Peak oil revenues from exports in one month has been 3.44 billion USD (the average is somewhere around 2 billion USD a month), while we are currently spending upwards of 8 billion USD a month (I'm not sure on the average, but it is around the 6-8 billion USD a month) on operations in Iraq.

A losing proposition when you want to evaluate cost versus benefits from an economic perspective. It doesn't get any easier than that to debunk the oil for economic profit argument.

Trooth · 12-10-2006, 22:13 PM

For some reason my spidey sense is tingling. But i will go along.

Not sure about the Euros / Dollar in oil pricing being something that did happen. Can you cite your source?

There is a lot of truth to the fact that the US economy beneifts from Oil being priced in Dollars. This is one reason why central banks around the world hold large amounts of dollars and this of course provides a strengthening effect on the dollar.

At some point the ubquity of oil pricing in dollars is likely to end. For economic reasons the Euro is becoming increasingly attractive as a reserve currency and some oil producing countries might start to offer Euro pricing. Some countries, i believe Iran as threatened this in the past, might take a political view on this action.

My view on the invasion of Iraq is :-

The US was as serious as it could be with something as nebulous as "the war on Terror" given the lack of unified structure for terrorist organisations. Syria and Iran where the two countries that the US wanted to bring into line. Whether that be to stop any opportunity for state sponsorship or break up training networks, funding etc.

However Iraq posed both a problem and an opportunity. The problem was that it was going to be a difficult challenge to deal with either Syria or Iran whilst still policing the no fly zones in the North and South of Iraq. Strategically and poltically it made little sense - why let Iraq continue its 12 year policy of shooting at US/UK planes and flouting UN resolutions whils tthe US threatened neighboring countries who would - when the **** hit the fan -start doing the same thing?

The opportunity was that by ending the problem of Iraq it would provide a perfect base in the middle east for any military action needed against Syria or Iran.

With regards to the Respect Party. It's obviously up to you - assuming you get a local Respect candidate to vote for, they are very much a small shouting party who happened to land a public figure in Galloway. They only fielded about 150 candidates out of 646 seats at the last election.

To be fair, i would not judge Respect by Galloway. He is many things, certainly he can talk a good battle as TV pundits from the BBC to Sky and US senators have all found out to their cost. He has said he isn't going to stand in his seat in the next election (he might stand elsewhere) since he thinks they should have a local MP - he didn't care before when he needed a seat in 2005 nor did he seem to square his concern for his constituents political representation when he spent 3 weeks on Celebrity Big Brother when the House was still in session!

**Shek** · 12-10-2006, 22:33 PM

Trooth,

I haven't found any significant empirical papers on the subject of what would happen if dollar hegemony went away, but I did find this old article by Krugman (while I don't find much interest in his latest role as a NYT op-ed columnist, I do respect his international trade credentials)

Quote:

http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/seignor.html

Who's Afraid Of The Euro ?

Paul Krugman

I once attended a conference at which a senior Japanese official made an impassioned speech about the need to establish the yen as an international reserve currency. When my turn came, I explained that this was silly; even if the yen did become a reserve currency, it would make virtually no difference to Japan or to anyone else. At the end of the session, the moderator thanked me for my contribution--which, he said, emphasized once again the crucial importance of the yen's role as a reserve currency. I never figured out whether this was a case of the translator having trouble with my accent, or whether it was a polite way of telling me I had said something unacceptable. But I do know that people almost always attach far more importance to the issue of reserve currencies--the role of the dollar and its rivals in international trade and finance- -than the subject deserves.

And so it was inevitable that the coming of the euro --the common European currency that seems set to be introduced next year, and that may eventually challenge the dollar's dominance--would inspire irrational fear. Sure enough, a few weeks ago the intellectual fashion victims at one of those other business magazines ran an editorial entitled "The euro makes trade a new game." "Thanks to the dollar's role as reserve currency in world financial markets," they opined, "the U.S. has been able to do what no other country can-- consistently import more goods than it exports.... The U.S. owes some $5 trillion to dollar holders abroad, thanks to three decades of trade deficits." Gosh, what happens if those people switch to euros?

Well, not to worry. It just isn't true that America's ability to import more than it exports is unique. Since 1980 the U.S. current- account deficit (which includes services and investment income as well as goods) has averaged 1.5% of GDP. That's about the same as Britain's average, less than Canada's 2.2%, and nothing like Australia's 4.2%. These countries paid for their excess imports the same way we did: by selling foreigners stocks, bonds, real estate, and so on. The only difference is that because their deficits were bigger, their debts are also bigger as a share of GDP. Ours, it turns out, aren't that large--at least on a net basis. While it's true we owe foreigners about $5 trillion, they owe us more than $4 trillion; the difference is about $800 billion, or 10% of GDP.

But doesn't the dollar's special role give us some advantage? Most of the international role of the dollar comes from its use as a "unit of account"--the measuring stick for international business. When a Japanese refiner buys Kuwaiti oil, say, the contracts are in dollars. This is a testament to U.S. economic influence, but flattery aside, it's hard to see what we get out of it.

What about our ability to borrow in dollars, to sell dollar- denominated bonds to foreigners? Hey, other countries do that too. But our debts are in our own currency! So? We still pay interest on them. True, we could inflate away our foreign debt. But we won't--and if investors thought we would, they would demand higher interest rates.

Well, then, you may say, surely the international role of the dollar forces people out there to hold dollars for transaction purposes. Yes, but not so you'd notice. When Daewoo repays a dollar loan from Sanwa, it writes a check on its account with some international bank. True, that bank itself surely maintains an account in New York, backed in part by non-interest-bearing reserves held at the Fed. So the U.S. does in effect get a zero-interest loan out of the dollar's international role--but it probably amounts to only a few billion dollars, small change for an $8 trillion economy.

Where the U.S. does get a significant free ride is from the willingness of foreigners to accept our currency--actual bills. Foreigners hold more than $200 billion of American money. Guess what kind of business requires payments of large sums in cash, by people unconstrained by official restrictions on possession of foreign exchange? That's right: the dollar is the world's premier medium of illicit exchange. Every year the U.S. ships foreigners $15 billion in cash (about 0.2% of GDP), and gets real goods and services in return. Better not ask what kind.

So the threat to the U.S. from the rise of the euro is this: five years from now, when wise guys in Vladivostok make offers you can't refuse, the payoffs may be in 100- euro notes instead of $100 bills. The loss of such business might cost the U.S. economy as much as 0.1% of GDP. Somehow, I think we can live with that.

Given these numbers, the max benefit of Iraq taken to the extreme would be a gain of 13 billion USD (which is a gross exaggeration, as that calculation figures in a complete loss of dollar hegemony due to a complete switch to the euro or another currency). Thus, the benefits of invading Iraq for oil control is still by far a losing proposition.

**Parihaka** · 12-10-2006, 23:59 PM

Hmmm, it's been a while since I peered into this. The Fed has doubled the money supply since 2000. All the major trading agencies are recommending either gold or silver, and there's an awful lot of papers about how Fiat currencies can never be maintained and tend to zero value.
Doesn't seem to support the 'oil-fiat currency' conspiracy at all.

The basic premis of course is that nations give America goods to the value of the amount of oil they purchase and America gives them dollars at a cost of however much it costs to print.
The OPEC nations place the dollars in American banks in 'long-term' investments and the myth of pretty paper being worth something all by itself is maintained. Doesn't seem to be working out that way.

gunnut · 12-11-2006, 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pragnosis

Just to let you know that I am a neutral observer and would not consider myself as supporting either the right or left political ideologies. I am, however, strongly considering voting for (Mr Insane) George Galloway's 'Respect' party because I totally believe that the war is completely unjustified and the true reason behind all of this is for financial gain. I'm pretty sure that the majority of people in the UK are not too concerned about the events that are taking place in Iraq as they are not involved and cannot change anything. Apathy seems to be everybody's attitude these days, which is, of course, their right.

You just contradicted yourself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pragnosis

In the past few months, I have conducted an enormous amount of research into this war. As a logical observer, with all bias aside, I have come to the conclusion that the main objective of this war is to further enhance the United States' global economic supremacy by gaining control of Iraq's Oil reserves thus enabling them to control the distribution to other nations.

So some crazy nutjob flying a few jetliners into our buildings and killing 3000 people had nothing to do with it?

Has any of your "enormous" amount of research suggested that it's possible to sneak a few terrorists infected with biological agents into the United States and cause a good case of plague?

Have you ever been afraid in your life? Could it be possible that we were afraid that Saddam just might hand off some good stuff to some people who would like to see us dead?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pragnosis

This is obviously considered to be a 'far left' ideology as this notion indicates a conspiracy. However, this is not necessarily the case as the US / UK has never actually denied this accusation. They basically just sell their other (not as important) objective of 'giving freedom and democracy to Iraq' through the mainstream media by using propaganda (especially Fox News in the US).

How should the American government deny something that has never been officially stated? Which credible government has accused the US of invading Iraq for financial gains? I accuse the Democrats trying to turn this nation into Nazi Germany, they have never officially denied the charge. Does that make it true?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pragnosis

Just incase you are not aware of this interesting peice of information, the main reason that I come to this conclusion is because, according to the documents / documentaries that I've seen, Saddam Hussein decided to change oil-export payments into Euro's rather than US Dollars in 2000, just to p!ss the US off and this heavily effected the US economy. The first thing that the US did when they invaded Iraq in 2003 was to take over the Oil and convert the export payments back into US Dollars. So it's totally obvious that economic power is their main objective.

OOooooh, he was using the Euro rather than the dollar, oooh we care so much. Dude, when did Euro come into existance? What year was it officially adopted by the world as a currency of trade? Was it....2000????

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pragnosis

What is your opinion?

You are as biased as they come. You are either a good liar or someone in deep denial. Too many facts at one time might hurt your head. I suggest you unplug yourself from the internet and plug yourself to a Nintendo for a few years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pragnosis

Thanks.

You're welcome. I feel much better now.

Trooth · 12-11-2006, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shek

Trooth,

I haven't found any significant empirical papers on the subject of what would happen if dollar hegemony went away, but I did find this old article by Krugman (while I don't find much interest in his latest role as a NYT op-ed columnist, I do respect his international trade credentials)

Given these numbers, the max benefit of Iraq taken to the extreme would be a gain of 13 billion USD (which is a gross exaggeration, as that calculation figures in a complete loss of dollar hegemony due to a complete switch to the euro or another currency). Thus, the benefits of invading Iraq for oil control is still by far a losing proposition.

One thing, you can't take all over this points in isolation. You have to total them up.

There would be a shock from the dumping of dollars. The Fed would face the decision of whether to let the dollar float as its value declined or whether to compete with interest rates.

Conversely it would of course strengthen the Euro as it would be in more demand.

At the moment the US has a sort of artificial demand for its currency which gives it a value in addition to the performance of the US economy and the actual behaviour of the fed, this would be reduced.

**Shek** · 12-11-2006, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trooth

One thing, you can't take all over this points in isolation. You have to total them up.

There would be a shock from the dumping of dollars. The Fed would face the decision of whether to let the dollar float as its value declined or whether to compete with interest rates.

Conversely it would of course strengthen the Euro as it would be in more demand.

At the moment the US has a sort of artificial demand for its currency which gives it a value in addition to the performance of the US economy and the actual behaviour of the fed, this would be reduced.

If you wanted to add up all the dynamic effects (and I'm not sure that Krugman didn't take this into account - remember, if you have a depreciation in the dollar, there is an offsetting benefit to strengthened US exporters now that US goods look cheaper), then you'd have to add in the costs of increased oil prices on the US macroeconomy (higher fuel = inflation = less consumer confidence = slow down in growth), the costs of increased borrowing to fund OIF operations, the costs of VA benefits over the course of the lifetime of all veterans who claim benefits, etc.

I don't have the numbers at the tip of my lobe, but from the ones that I've seen, they are at least an order of magnitude, and I believe two orders of magnitude greater than just the income from Iraqi oil if we were to have stolen every single drop of it.

The fact that we set up the IRF through the auspices of the UN (there was some mismanagement of it, but this was a function of bureaucracy and not due to corrupt intent) demonstrates that we didn't have a desire to rob Iraq of oil, and the high costs of Iraq relative to oil income would have resulted in a "cash out" from Iraq a long, long time ago. The petrodollar motivation for Iraq is weak at best, and doesn't square with the facts of OIF.

Pragnosis · 12-11-2006, 12:00 PM

Thank you very much for your replies. There is something inside of me that cannot buy into the reasons given by the Bush administration for this 'War On Terror'. Firstly, as you are obviously aware, the reason sold to us through the right wing media was that US national security was under threat, that Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction and was threatening to use them against the United States. UN Inspectors found nothing and it turned out to be a false allegation. This seems a bit fishy to me!

I should have explained my position a little better, although I only talked about the Euro vs. US oil export payments, I believe that it goes even deeper than this. I understand that a lot of people cannot handle the idea of a corrupt government and need to believe that the Bush administration is doing nothing other than the good of humanity, but if you look at the 'proper' figures. The economic benefits for the US invasion of Iraq are gigantic, here are some of the main economic benefits for the US:

It seems that we have conflicting figures to back up our notions:

1) Iraqi Oil Reserves: 112.5 billion barrels @ $70/Barrel = U.S.$7.875 Trillion. The total cost of the war so far is around $400 Billion.

2) US Defense contractors such General Electric are making Billions upon Billions of Dollars from selling weaponary for use in Iraq.

3) Huge US Corporations will make Billions from the reconstruction of Iraq.

I cannot understand why so many people believe that the US and UK governments actually care about the people of Iraq. Almost 700,000 civillians have been killed: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101001442.html .

Just look at the bigger picture for a second. Do you honestly believe that the US really cares so much about the Iraqi people that they would invade a country just to give them freedom and democracy? Please! The whole of life is about Money. Money, Money, Money, Money, Money, Money.

astralis · 12-11-2006, 12:18 PM

pragnosis,

Quote:

Just look at the bigger picture for a second. Do you honestly believe that the US really cares so much about the Iraqi people that they would invade a country just to give them freedom and democracy? Please! The whole of life is about Money. Money, Money, Money, Money, Money, Money.

it's not so much that the US cares, but that it was believed that freedom and democratization would bring about a reduction in terrorism.

if you want a real war for oil, gulf war I was far more about oil than gulf war II. not that it matters, because oil is a strategic resource anyway.

in any case, the points as you've mentioned them show that you are not grasping the principles of economics, as well as the economic figures on the ground for the corporations in question.

Pragnosis · 12-11-2006, 13:40 PM

Astralis,

That's fair enough, I am new to economics and am probably a little bit out of my depth here. However, doesn't common sense prevail when we are talking about trillions of dollars worth of oil in Iraq? It seems like a great investment to invade Iraq. Also, when I was talking about the defense contractors, am I right in saying that the billions of dollars that these corporations make will during and after the war will further boost the US Economy and enhance their superpower status?

The opinion that democratisation of a country may reduce terrorism and allow freedom to it's people is well founded, however, in this situation, it simply hasn't worked. Almost 700,000 have died in this conflict and will probably reach 1 Million. Iraq did not pose a threat (as was later found) and there are other countries that pose a much greater threat than that of Iraq, such as North Korea. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that North Korea don't really have anything to offer the US / UK (such as Oil or Gas), therefore, there isn't too much urgency.

I am from the UK, not all that proud to be British but I am very lucky to live in a country with a stable economy and the luxury and freedom to do whatever I want (only if I have money that is!). I am deeply concerned about this war, firstly because of the number of deaths, secondly because the justification for the attack was weak and over-exaggerated.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...ht/4354269.stm
If we look at the whole thing from the beginning, the reason that Iraq was invaded is because of 9/11. I know there are plenty of far-left conspiracy theories regarding the 9/11 attacks. I know that they get dismissed very quickly by people who think that these theories are nuts. However, if you look closely at some of the evidence regarding the attacks, it does seem a bit odd that a country that spends $500 Billion on it's military each year, with a country that has the best military intelligence in the world didn't detect this threat. I am not accusing the US Government of an inside job or such like, but I think there is definitely something a bit weird going on.

If the US admitted in the end that the Weapons of Mass Destruction did not actually exist, what other conclusion are we meant to come to, that they got it wrong? Please, how are we meant to buy that, it's ridiculous. Don't believe everything that the media tells you, look at the overwhelming evidence that something might not be quite right. NBC News for instance is owned by General Electric and they're in the Top 5 defense contractors for the US. The propaganda on this channel is huge and is there because the channel is owned by a massive corporation that stands to make huge profits from this war.

I've already come to the conclusion on this thread that everybody will disagree with what I am saying, saying that it is a conspiracy theory. But if you search via Google, the evidence is there, the reports are there, the figures are there. This is an illegal war, there wasn't an imminent terrorist threat from Iraq, there were no weapons and the US are going to make Trillions from this war.

astralis · 12-11-2006, 14:37 PM

pragnosis,

this is what i mean.

Quote:

That's fair enough, I am new to economics and am probably a little bit out of my depth here. However, doesn't common sense prevail when we are talking about trillions of dollars worth of oil in Iraq? It seems like a great investment to invade Iraq. Also, when I was talking about the defense contractors, am I right in saying that the billions of dollars that these corporations make will during and after the war will further boost the US Economy and enhance their superpower status?

you are assuming that every drop of oil produced in iraq will be produced at no cost, and sent off to the US, and only the US, free of charge. now that'd be a pretty great world, but that's not happening.

as for the defense contractors and the theory that war is a gigantic subsidy to them, the costs as borne by taxpayers more than offsets whatever gains these contractors make. and looking at the profit margins and how well these contractors are doing on wall street...they're not doing all that well.

and what is billions of dollars in a 10-trillion dollar economy? loose change, that's what.

Quote:

If we look at the whole thing from the beginning, the reason that Iraq was invaded is because of 9/11.

well, yes; but don't forget that the impetus for regime change originated a good deal earlier than the bush administration.

Quote:

However, if you look closely at some of the evidence regarding the attacks, it does seem a bit odd that a country that spends $500 Billion on it's military each year, with a country that has the best military intelligence in the world didn't detect this threat.

you say this without putting up any accepted proof otherwise. this type of insinuation leads to conspiracy theory. in any case, the problem is that the US did detect the threat to some degree, but failed to analyze and take appropriate precautions. slowness is the nature of government work, as evidenced by the fact that some 5 years after the event, more than a few people are saying that we are hardly safer domestically than before.

Quote:

I've already come to the conclusion on this thread that everybody will disagree with what I am saying, saying that it is a conspiracy theory. But if you search via Google, the evidence is there, the reports are there, the figures are there. This is an illegal war, there wasn't an imminent terrorist threat from Iraq, there were no weapons and the US are going to make Trillions from this war.

then you are no neutral observer, and the monkee known as george galloway will appreciate your vote.

gunnut · 12-11-2006, 15:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pragnosis

There is something inside of me that cannot buy into the reasons given by the Bush administration for this 'War On Terror'.

Then you are not a neutral observer.

You already have your mind made up. Nothing anyone says can sway your opinion. So just come out and admit it that you are a leftist Bush hater.

Pragnosis · 12-11-2006, 16:14 PM

Well, ok, I suppose I might be considered a left-ist, however, I don't particularly hate Bush himself. I believe him to be a puppet, he seems far too retarded to be a president of the US. I had respect for Clinton (as he is exceptionally intelligent), George HW Bush and Raegan.

When I started this thread, I said that I was neutral because I didn't want to come across as though I am a Paranoid Conspiracy Theorist (PCT) as I do not believe that I am. It is my intention to seek the absolute truth of the main reasons that we invaded Iraq. I just care about people and when I hear that 655,000 people have died in a war that is allegedly there to reduce terrorism, it just seems utterly ludicrous!

12-10-2006, 21:27 PM	#1 (permalink)
Pragnosis Registered User Join Date: 12-10-06 Posts: 28 Country:	Democracy / Liberation vs. Power / Economic Stability Hello Everybody, I would appreciate it if you guys (when you have a spare moment) could reply, giving your opinion of 'what you think the main reason for the 2003 invasion of Iraq was'. Just to let you know that I am a neutral observer and would not consider myself as supporting either the right or left political ideologies. I am, however, strongly considering voting for (Mr Insane) George Galloway's 'Respect' party because I totally believe that the war is completely unjustified and the true reason behind all of this is for financial gain. I'm pretty sure that the majority of people in the UK are not too concerned about the events that are taking place in Iraq as they are not involved and cannot change anything. Apathy seems to be everybody's attitude these days, which is, of course, their right. In the past few months, I have conducted an enormous amount of research into this war. As a logical observer, with all bias aside, I have come to the conclusion that the main objective of this war is to further enhance the United States' global economic supremacy by gaining control of Iraq's Oil reserves thus enabling them to control the distribution to other nations. This is obviously considered to be a 'far left' ideology as this notion indicates a conspiracy. However, this is not necessarily the case as the US / UK has never actually denied this accusation. They basically just sell their other (not as important) objective of 'giving freedom and democracy to Iraq' through the mainstream media by using propaganda (especially Fox News in the US). Just incase you are not aware of this interesting peice of information, the main reason that I come to this conclusion is because, according to the documents / documentaries that I've seen, Saddam Hussein decided to change oil-export payments into Euro's rather than US Dollars in 2000, just to p!ss the US off and this heavily effected the US economy. The first thing that the US did when they invaded Iraq in 2003 was to take over the Oil and convert the export payments back into US Dollars. So it's totally obvious that economic power is their main objective. What is your opinion? Thanks.

12-10-2006, 22:13 PM	#4 (permalink)
Trooth *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 11-23-03 Posts: 2,110 Country:	For some reason my spidey sense is tingling. But i will go along. Not sure about the Euros / Dollar in oil pricing being something that did happen. Can you cite your source? There is a lot of truth to the fact that the US economy beneifts from Oil being priced in Dollars. This is one reason why central banks around the world hold large amounts of dollars and this of course provides a strengthening effect on the dollar. At some point the ubquity of oil pricing in dollars is likely to end. For economic reasons the Euro is becoming increasingly attractive as a reserve currency and some oil producing countries might start to offer Euro pricing. Some countries, i believe Iran as threatened this in the past, might take a political view on this action. My view on the invasion of Iraq is :- The US was as serious as it could be with something as nebulous as "the war on Terror" given the lack of unified structure for terrorist organisations. Syria and Iran where the two countries that the US wanted to bring into line. Whether that be to stop any opportunity for state sponsorship or break up training networks, funding etc. However Iraq posed both a problem and an opportunity. The problem was that it was going to be a difficult challenge to deal with either Syria or Iran whilst still policing the no fly zones in the North and South of Iraq. Strategically and poltically it made little sense - why let Iraq continue its 12 year policy of shooting at US/UK planes and flouting UN resolutions whils tthe US threatened neighboring countries who would - when the **** hit the fan -start doing the same thing? The opportunity was that by ending the problem of Iraq it would provide a perfect base in the middle east for any military action needed against Syria or Iran. With regards to the Respect Party. It's obviously up to you - assuming you get a local Respect candidate to vote for, they are very much a small shouting party who happened to land a public figure in Galloway. They only fielded about 150 candidates out of 646 seats at the last election. To be fair, i would not judge Respect by Galloway. He is many things, certainly he can talk a good battle as TV pundits from the BBC to Sky and US senators have all found out to their cost. He has said he isn't going to stand in his seat in the next election (he might stand elsewhere) since he thinks they should have a local MP - he didn't care before when he needed a seat in 2005 nor did he seem to square his concern for his constituents political representation when he spent 3 weeks on Celebrity Big Brother when the House was still in session! __________________ The world as it should be at surrealscoop.blogspot.com

12-11-2006, 13:40 PM	#12 (permalink)
Pragnosis Registered User Join Date: 12-10-06 Posts: 28 Country:	Astralis, That's fair enough, I am new to economics and am probably a little bit out of my depth here. However, doesn't common sense prevail when we are talking about trillions of dollars worth of oil in Iraq? It seems like a great investment to invade Iraq. Also, when I was talking about the defense contractors, am I right in saying that the billions of dollars that these corporations make will during and after the war will further boost the US Economy and enhance their superpower status? The opinion that democratisation of a country may reduce terrorism and allow freedom to it's people is well founded, however, in this situation, it simply hasn't worked. Almost 700,000 have died in this conflict and will probably reach 1 Million. Iraq did not pose a threat (as was later found) and there are other countries that pose a much greater threat than that of Iraq, such as North Korea. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that North Korea don't really have anything to offer the US / UK (such as Oil or Gas), therefore, there isn't too much urgency. I am from the UK, not all that proud to be British but I am very lucky to live in a country with a stable economy and the luxury and freedom to do whatever I want (only if I have money that is!). I am deeply concerned about this war, firstly because of the number of deaths, secondly because the justification for the attack was weak and over-exaggerated. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...ht/4354269.stm If we look at the whole thing from the beginning, the reason that Iraq was invaded is because of 9/11. I know there are plenty of far-left conspiracy theories regarding the 9/11 attacks. I know that they get dismissed very quickly by people who think that these theories are nuts. However, if you look closely at some of the evidence regarding the attacks, it does seem a bit odd that a country that spends $500 Billion on it's military each year, with a country that has the best military intelligence in the world didn't detect this threat. I am not accusing the US Government of an inside job or such like, but I think there is definitely something a bit weird going on. If the US admitted in the end that the Weapons of Mass Destruction did not actually exist, what other conclusion are we meant to come to, that they got it wrong? Please, how are we meant to buy that, it's ridiculous. Don't believe everything that the media tells you, look at the overwhelming evidence that something might not be quite right. NBC News for instance is owned by General Electric and they're in the Top 5 defense contractors for the US. The propaganda on this channel is huge and is there because the channel is owned by a massive corporation that stands to make huge profits from this war. I've already come to the conclusion on this thread that everybody will disagree with what I am saying, saying that it is a conspiracy theory. But if you search via Google, the evidence is there, the reports are there, the figures are there. This is an illegal war, there wasn't an imminent terrorist threat from Iraq, there were no weapons and the US are going to make Trillions from this war. Last edited by Pragnosis : 12-11-2006 at 13:49 PM.

12-11-2006, 16:14 PM	#15 (permalink)
Pragnosis Registered User Join Date: 12-10-06 Posts: 28 Country:	Well, ok, I suppose I might be considered a left-ist, however, I don't particularly hate Bush himself. I believe him to be a puppet, he seems far too retarded to be a president of the US. I had respect for Clinton (as he is exceptionally intelligent), George HW Bush and Raegan. When I started this thread, I said that I was neutral because I didn't want to come across as though I am a Paranoid Conspiracy Theorist (PCT) as I do not believe that I am. It is my intention to seek the absolute truth of the main reasons that we invaded Iraq. I just care about people and when I hear that 655,000 people have died in a war that is allegedly there to reduce terrorism, it just seems utterly ludicrous! Last edited by Pragnosis : 12-11-2006 at 16:18 PM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

12-10-2006, 21:50 PM	#3 (permalink)
Shek Moderator Join Date: 02-23-05 Location: Krblachistan Posts: 7,532 Country:	Here are the numbers for you: http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf Go to page 30. Peak oil revenues from exports in one month has been 3.44 billion USD (the average is somewhere around 2 billion USD a month), while we are currently spending upwards of 8 billion USD a month (I'm not sure on the average, but it is around the 6-8 billion USD a month) on operations in Iraq. A losing proposition when you want to evaluate cost versus benefits from an economic perspective. It doesn't get any easier than that to debunk the oil for economic profit argument.

12-10-2006, 23:59 PM	#6 (permalink)
Parihaka Moderator Join Date: 11-10-04 Location: Te Ika a Maui Posts: 9,336 Country:	Hmmm, it's been a while since I peered into this. The Fed has doubled the money supply since 2000. All the major trading agencies are recommending either gold or silver, and there's an awful lot of papers about how Fiat currencies can never be maintained and tend to zero value. Doesn't seem to support the 'oil-fiat currency' conspiracy at all. The basic premis of course is that nations give America goods to the value of the amount of oil they purchase and America gives them dollars at a cost of however much it costs to print. The OPEC nations place the dollars in American banks in 'long-term' investments and the myth of pretty paper being worth something all by itself is maintained. Doesn't seem to be working out that way.

12-11-2006, 12:00 PM	#10 (permalink)
Pragnosis Registered User Join Date: 12-10-06 Posts: 28 Country:	Thank you very much for your replies. There is something inside of me that cannot buy into the reasons given by the Bush administration for this 'War On Terror'. Firstly, as you are obviously aware, the reason sold to us through the right wing media was that US national security was under threat, that Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction and was threatening to use them against the United States. UN Inspectors found nothing and it turned out to be a false allegation. This seems a bit fishy to me! I should have explained my position a little better, although I only talked about the Euro vs. US oil export payments, I believe that it goes even deeper than this. I understand that a lot of people cannot handle the idea of a corrupt government and need to believe that the Bush administration is doing nothing other than the good of humanity, but if you look at the 'proper' figures. The economic benefits for the US invasion of Iraq are gigantic, here are some of the main economic benefits for the US: It seems that we have conflicting figures to back up our notions: 1) Iraqi Oil Reserves: 112.5 billion barrels @ $70/Barrel = U.S.$7.875 Trillion. The total cost of the war so far is around $400 Billion. 2) US Defense contractors such General Electric are making Billions upon Billions of Dollars from selling weaponary for use in Iraq. 3) Huge US Corporations will make Billions from the reconstruction of Iraq. I cannot understand why so many people believe that the US and UK governments actually care about the people of Iraq. Almost 700,000 civillians have been killed: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101001442.html . Just look at the bigger picture for a second. Do you honestly believe that the US really cares so much about the Iraqi people that they would invade a country just to give them freedom and democracy? Please! The whole of life is about Money. Money, Money, Money, Money, Money, Money.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)