In Mosul

[bishop]

looking into your crystal ball, eh? too bad you couldn't give more intelligent responses... i guess we get what we get...


zee... maybe... if he is planning on pulling out, using the elections is a perfect way to do it.. i would tend to believe that, especially if we get our puppet - allawi.. imo, we're still going to keep people there primarily to protect him (just like we do for karzai) - so that we can reap the benefits from iraq's oil.

gotta wonder what happens when allawi's finally assassinated...

[Melvyn]

Originally posted by bishop, imo, we're still going to keep people there primarily to protect him (just like we do for karzai) - so that we can reap the benefits from iraq's oil.

I was just wondering. What benefits we get from Iraqi oil that we couldn't have gotten by doing busness with Saddam. Does anybody think that Saddam invaded Kuwait, not to sell oil to the west. Why, if oil was our only concern, would we care which S.O.B. tyrant ruled in the mideast?

If we hadn't gone to war with Iraq, twice, would we not be in better financial shape? Would oil not be around 20.00 per barrel less? Wouldn't owners of oil companies be in better financial shape just buying and selling mideast oil rather than dealing with the unstable markets and having to spend tons of money attempting to get oil from the Caspian sea and other places?

Maybe, just maybe, there were other reasons to go to war/

Melvyn - Blogging at http://radio.weblogs.com/0137954/

[Dieval]

Originally posted by bishop, looking into your crystal ball, eh? too bad you couldn't give more intelligent responses... i guess we get what we get...

I guess you didn't read my post correctly - you are the one that appears to have the crystal ball as you seem to be able to tell the future before it happens...

[bishop]

the middle east was carved up into multiple countries for a reason - so that control of oil couldn't be monopolized by any one country. oil producing countries in that region acknowledged this structural reason - it was the motivation for them to create opec. we're building about 4 permanent bases in iraq... why would we build permament bases if our intentions were not the long-term control of iraqi oil? following desert storm, saddam drew up oil contracts with many countries - except ours. he also mentioned that he was about to begin pricing iraq's oil in euros, rather than dollars...

sure, oil wasn't the only reason - not to discount bogus claims of wmd and links to terrorism, and abstract (and bogus - since we continue to support many a dictator) excuses such as democratizing the middle east..... but, are you suggesting that concerns about oil were irrelevant?

[bishop]

Originally posted by Dieval,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Dieval,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-bishop, looking into your crystal ball, eh? too bad you couldn't give more intelligent responses... i guess we get what we get...

I guess you didn't read my post correctly - you are the one that appears to have the crystal ball as you seem to be able to tell the future before it happens...[/b][/quote]

really? i'll admit, it's hard to digest these deep thoughts, but this seemed pretty understandable:

I'm quite confident that that most, if not all, were.

what makes you so confident? your magic 8-ball told you so?


we'll see how the situation unfolds... how will the fallujahns react when they come back home - finding their homes completely destroyed... how long do you think we should wait until they begin to thank us for what we've done? hopefully not as long as the bushistas want people to wait for wmd to appear.

[Nono]

Originally posted by Melvyn What benefits we get from Iraqi oil that we couldn't have gotten by doing busness with Saddam. Does anybody think that Saddam invaded Kuwait, not to sell oil to the west. Why, if oil was our only concern, would we care which S.O.B. tyrant ruled in the mideast?

Did Saddam decide to renounce the dollar as the currency of his oil sales, or am I remembering things that didn't happen?

Is the US (understandably) scared silly of a mass move away from the dollar (especially with skyrocketing debt) or am I crazy?

If the Chinese and Indians (as they're in the process of doing) start consuming petroleum US-style, will doing business with the usual gang of SOB tyrants fail to ensure that the Hummers move cheaply down the Interstate, or am I smoking the wrong stuff?

[bishop]

yes.. he made the switch in late 2000.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,1227...1270723,00.html
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/...y/aa021601c.htm

there are lots more, but those two are good for a taste.

simply put, we need to maintain demand for dollars in order to finance our current account deficit. or put another way, maintaining global demand for dollars ensures that we can maintain our capital account surplus. the currency-for-oil issue is a very real issue, and not some simple conspiracy theory. the second we took baghdad, we immediately ended the iraqi dinar and instituted their new currency.. the next thing we did was draft up new rules saying that iraqi oil would be priced in dollars.

http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_04/po...wers060304.html

"In 1999, Iraq, with the world's second largest oil reserves, switched to trading its oil in euros. American analysts fell about laughing; Iraq had just made a mistake that was going to beggar the nation. But two years on, alarm bells were sounding; the euro was rising against the dollar, Iraq had given itself a huge economic free kick by switching. Iran started thinking about switching too; Venezuela, the 4th largest oil producer, began looking at it and has been cutting out the dollar by bartering oil with several nations including America's bete noir, Cuba. Russia is seeking to ramp up oil production with Europe (trading in euros) an obvious market. The greenback's grip on oil trading and consequently on world trade in general, was under serious threat. If America did not stamp on this immediately, this economic brushfire could rapidly be fanned into a wildfire capable of consuming the US's economy and its dominance of world trade." After the US invasion of Iraq, the country's oil exports were priced in US dollars. While Mr. Heard may have overestimated the role of the euro in the war in Iraq, there is no doubt that the falling US dollar has raised concerns over whether it is prudent for oil exporting countries to price a significant portion of their GDP in a depreciating currency.

iran is moving to trade oil for euros, same with russia.. historically, towards the end of an empire's lifespan, they begin to fight more wars for economic reasons, rather than for defensive reasons.. it's a flailing attempt to stop broad geopolitical change - and it has always ended in conflict. a political economist by the name of emmanuel wallerstein has published quite a lot of material on this subject.

[Melvyn]

Originally posted by bishop, yes.. he made the switch in late 2000. simply put, we need to maintain demand for dollars in order to finance our current account deficit. or put another way, maintaining global demand for dollars ensures that we can maintain our capital account surplus. the currency-for-oil issue is a very real issue, and not some simple conspiracy theory. the second we took baghdad, we immediately ended the iraqi dinar and instituted their new currency.. the next thing we did was draft up new rules saying that iraqi oil would be priced in dollars. "In 1999, Iraq, with the world's second largest oil reserves, switched to trading its oil in euros. American analysts fell about laughing; Iraq had just made a mistake that was going to beggar the nation. But two years on, alarm bells were sounding; the euro was rising against the dollar, Iraq had given itself a huge economic free kick by switching.

Very interesting about the switch from the dollar. All you have said about what happened is true, but I still don't see oil dominance as the prime motivation for war. Given the cost of the two wars, both political and financial, could assuring that oil from Iraq is priced in dollars really be worth the price of the war. Especially considering that the dollar is likely to rise once more. (Unless you really do subscribe to the idea that American civilization is over, which I do not)

It is true that China and other countries are becoming as oil hungry as the U.S. They may become preferred customers for the oil producing nations because of the politics. That is a problem far larger than what currency the oil is priced in. It is also a problem that won't be resolved by war.

Yes, we converted back to pricing in dollars when we took over Bahgdad . But was it not likely that since we were laying out the cash for reconstruction of the oil infrastructure, we would do so. Why would we bother to use other currency than our own. Are we to never act in our own interest?

Any advantage we get over the oil is only a temporary byproduct of the war itself. If we lose the war, we won't have anything to say about it. If we win (whatever that means) we will still face the competition other, perhaps preferred, global oil buyers.

We will not be able to control the sale of Iraqi oil.

Melvyn - Blogging at http://radio.weblogs.com/0137954/

[Nono]

Originally posted by Melvyn Given the cost of the two wars, both political and financial, could assuring that oil from Iraq is priced in dollars really be worth the price of the war.

Bush and Cheney are oilmen.
They aren't paying for it -- you are. (They cut taxes for their own income bracket.)
Whether it's worth it is a question you just voted on. I wonder what the final tally was.

[Zeebadee]

"Now Klare has turned his attention to oil and the intervention policies of the Bush administration. He lays out a bleak scenario of rapidly escalating and expensive overseas wars if the United States follows its current path. As Klare puts it: "Ensuring a continued supply of foreign petroleum will require an ever-increasing payment in American blood.""

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...RVG488IK0Q1.DTL

[Dieval]

Originally posted by bishop, what makes you so confident? your magic 8-ball told you so?

Unlike you, I have faith in this country and our military.

EDIT - what I'm trying to say that using Russia and Afghanistan and the Israeli's and Pals as a yard stick to measure us and what we're doing is a disservice to our country and our troops.

[bishop]

Given the cost of the two wars, both political and financial, could assuring that oil from Iraq is priced in dollars really be worth the price of the war. Especially considering that the dollar is likely to rise once more. (Unless you really do subscribe to the idea that American civilization is over, which I do not)

i realize that the dollar will rise.. i'm a student of economics, not a blind partisan.. it will rise primarily because we're raising interest rates. plus, our current account deficit has decreased a bit which is another plus for the dollar. controlling iraq means more than oil being priced in dollars.. it also means that we'll have a say in production levels.

It is true that China and other countries are becoming as oil hungry as the U.S. They may become preferred customers for the oil producing nations because of the politics. That is a problem far larger than what currency the oil is priced in. It is also a problem that won't be resolved by war.

i started a thread a while ago about china's link to oil.. there is an underlying theme to our foreign policy during the bush years and it does not ignore china. do you believe that a foreign policy can have intentions other than those that are publicly stated?

http://www.volconvo.com/forums/index.php?s...?showtopic=3396

Any advantage we get over the oil is only a temporary byproduct of the war itself. If we lose the war, we won't have anything to say about it. If we win (whatever that means) we will still face the competition other, perhaps preferred, global oil buyers. We will not be able to control the sale of Iraqi oil.

there is the unresolved issue of permanent bases in iraq.. i wouldn't discount their importance. i'd say we have the saudis and the kuwaitis pretty much under our thumb, wouldn't you agree? sure, there are hiccups along the way, but when we demand it, they pump it.

further, we inserted a major flaw in iraq's monetary policies.. that is, the new iraqi dinar is traded as a floating-rate currency. historically, the only countries that have moved towards a float-rate have been those that have achieved substantial economic development. india just recently moved towards a mixed bag exchange, because a flat-out float-rate policy would've been too risky for its economy. china is expected to adopt a mixed bag exchange in the next several years.. is iraq's economy comparable to india's or china's? hardly. iraq is not economically viable to the extent to justify a float-rate currency. it is not politically stable, there is massive underdevelopment, unemployment, etc... plus, this has been a boom for speculative FX investors.. the daily price fluctuations have been outstanding to put it mildly. this fluctuation highlights the inherent risk iraq's economy faces.. should they have a currency collapse, which is likely under the circumstances, the IMF will be called to give them a loan. the money will be backed by usd, putting them and their future right into our pockets. this has happened several times in latin america.

here's an article about the speculative trading bit.

http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,...7,64565,00.html

EDIT - what I'm trying to say that using Russia and Afghanistan and the Israeli's and Pals as a yard stick to measure us and what we're doing is a disservice to our country and our troops.

sorry, i don't play the simpleton "follow the leader" game. what bush is doing is a disservice to our country and our troops. here's to being deep.

[Dieval]

Originally posted by Bishop, has this mission stopped the insurrectionists? has it stabilized iraq? has it won over the hearts and minds of iraqis?

I think that removing the insurgents/terrorists from a city full of beheading chambers & bomb-making factories will help put a stop to the "insurrectionists", is a step toward stablizing Iraq, and will win over the Iraqi's hearts and minds...

[bishop]

there are many more insurgents besides the 1,000 that we killed. no doubt they'll slowly regroup and reinstate their offensive. our own people acknowledge this.. now, we're talking about doing the same to several other cities.. the chambers/labs we discovered were makeshift - which means that they can be recreated with ease.

i fail to see how demolishing a city will win over the hearts and minds of the people who live there.. who knows how many civilians we killed during this operation. as i've shown you earlier, they didn't like us to begin with. something you conveniently choose to ignore.

militarily, this was somewhat of a success. we killed lots of people, lots of them enemies on the battlefield. politically, this was not a success.. the influential AMS has called for a boycott of elections and they support the insurrectionists. the iraqi islamic party has withdrawn from the government. the shura mujahidin, another influential sunni group, have also voiced support for the insurrectionists. al sadr's people are actively looking for refugees in order to convert them into future insurrectionists..

[ur]http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1111-06.htm[/url]

http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action...item&itemid=198

[Dieval]

Originally posted by bishop, i fail to see how demolishing a city will win over the hearts and minds of the people who live there..

I don't understand...you think the residents there want to live in the middle of bomb factories and beheading chambers? I know I sure wouldn't want that...

[Nono]

Originally posted by GW Bush - 1 May 2003 Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.

[bullshitdetector]

Things change, just wake up everyday and live your life and you will see this on even the most modest of lifes events. What's your point?

[bishop]

I don't understand...you think the residents there want to live in the middle of bomb factories and beheading chambers? I know I sure wouldn't want that...

no... who would? i'm not sure i'd want my home bombed either.. not sure i'd want my fellow civilian citizens killed either.

[bullshitdetector]

Well, Bishop, as long as you're not sure....

[Nono]

Originally posted by BSd What's your point?

My point is that Boy George and his ideologue friends were out of touch with reality, in contrast to the countless figures around the world who tried to warn them that they were setting up exactly the situation they now face.

Things change? Funny how things have changed in precisely the manner predicted by a whole legion of frog-eaters, peace-wimps and other intolerables.

That's my point.