TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- it was never about oil?
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

quote:

Originally posted by marcus82 well, remember in the early 90's...IRAQ (the world's largest free standing ground army at the time)

oh, and.. what exactly does this mean? is the US not counted in this? because, i am fairly sure that the US had a larger army, and most certainly better equipped.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider How about the removal of an anti-American regime in the Middle East? Bush, Cheney, and Wolfowitz have had their eye on Iraq for quite some time. Not for the oil, but to affect regime change.

it's true, but it's related to the oil. France is not particularly fond of the americans, nor china, nor germany. that does not mean we can start dropping bombs on paris, beijing and frankfurt!

Bush, Cheney, and Wolfowitz have had their eye on Iraq for quite some time, precisely because saddamn hussein was no longer friendly to american economic interests.

no no...sorry, i should clarify that...

what i mean is...everything is relative and everybody has been a bully one time...your right that america has consistently been a bully in the world stage, but unfortunately it's during republican administrations reagan, bush, bush jr. it's also true that in almost every region in a the world there is an american airbase or naval base extending their influence.

it just really boils me over when people use 'THE US', sorry johnsmith for jumping on you, i said in a previous post that i couldn't formulate opinions on persons post cuz i haven't been here too long. my apologies..i think i need more uplifting trance right now to cool some jet's.

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith I disagree. In the absence of other factors, such as the missing WMD, and the non existant ties with al-qaeda, i am inclined to believe that oil WAS the primary factor. I am sure that there were other factors as well, but none so important as this.

Some other factors I think may have played an equal or greather role than oil in the decision include:

1. Payback by the administration to certain factions whose support helped assure Bush's election.

2. A diversion to raise Bush's approval rating and distract the public from the flagging economy.

3. The strengthening of the U.S. military presence in the gulf area to allow faster responses to terrorist "threats" (real or imagined).

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter 3. The strengthening of the U.S. military presence in the gulf area to allow faster responses to terrorist "threats" (real or imagined).

wow, very perceptive, i didn't think of that....scary...very scary

but how would that coincide with US scale back of air operations in icirlik afb (turkey) and prince sultan afb (saudi)?

perhaps the americans think that airpower does not work vs. 'the terrorist threat'?

some interesting questions there

well, i agree those could be factors. but, none justify what was done. (nor am i saying that you believe that they do)

but, i don't think any of those is important enough of a benefit to the bush administration, to have undertaken this. oil on the other hand, is a huge financial benefit.

also, please clarify:

quote:

Payback by the administration to certain factions whose support helped assure Bush's election

which factions?

corporate donors to the presidential election

i.e. halliburton (also inline with cheney)

or, in other words, oil.

well yes and no...

halliburton's KBR construction co also been awarded road and other contracts...they also do US ARMY catering...


but yeah...oil is up there...so is a foul stench...can't put my finger on it

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith ?? what the heck does that have to do with politicians being fucked up? and.. are you serious, you are being sent to jail for skipping school?

yes i am serious. they can legally lock u up and fine you if you cut more than 3
classes in one school year.adn this DOES have something to do with polititians because a polititian introduced this law...

AMERICA IS NO LONGER A DEMOCRACY

quote:

Originally posted by fuct4less yes i am serious. they can legally lock u up and fine you if you cut more than 3 classes in one school year.adn this DOES have something to do with polititians because a polititian introduced this law... AMERICA IS NO LONGER A DEMOCRACY

LoL here in Florida they sent your parents to jail instead, or get a fine. though, it isn't as bad, you should not be skipping!

WTH!

what kinda of law is that? the truant law?

are lawmakers that bored that they have to penalize students and parents for skipping?

maybe lawmakers should get their head outta their asses and impeach bush...he does so much stupid crap it's not funny.

quote:

Originally posted by marcus82 WTH! what kinda of law is that? the truant law? are lawmakers that bored that they have to penalize students and parents for skipping? maybe lawmakers should get their head outta their asses and impeach bush...he does so much stupid crap it's not funny.

Those are state laws not federal government laws.

quote:

Originally posted by marcus82 WTH! what kinda of law is that? the truant law? are lawmakers that bored that they have to penalize students and parents for skipping? maybe lawmakers should get their head outta their asses and impeach bush...he does so much stupid crap it's not funny.

no, they just want kids to go to school so they can profit off every class i go to.
i think they make anywhere from $50-$250 per class attended.it really pisses me off to know i'm part of such a corrupt system

oh...right, they did say florida did they not?

thanx occrider

well...maybe congress should constitute the intelligence amendment?

all future presidents have to have an IQ of over 110 and exhibit enought EQ (emotional intelligence) to realize that his actions piss off the world.

quote:

Originally posted by marcus82 oh...right, they did say florida did they not? thanx occrider well...maybe congress should constitute the intelligence amendment? all future presidents have to have an IQ of over 110 and exhibit enought EQ (emotional intelligence) to realize that his actions piss off the world.

lol........i dont think that any current polititians can pass those tests

quote:

Originally posted by fuct4less no, they just want kids to go to school so they can profit off every class i go to. i think they make anywhere from $50-$250 per class attended.it really pisses me off to know i'm part of such a corrupt system

Hmmmm I'm thinking that the primary motives of your legislatures in encouraging you to go to school is not so that they can get rich. Haha I've never heard of anyone describe education as a corrupt system of profitability

And I assure you ... unless entropy has reversed itself while I was taking a piss, it's going to cost not make money to educate you.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Hmmmm I'm thinking that the primary motives of your legislatures in encouraging you to go to school is not so that they can get rich. Haha I've never heard of anyone describe education as a corrupt system of profitability And I assure you ... unless entropy has reversed itself while I was taking a piss, it's going to cost not make money to educate you.

true, but i dont see the point in going to school when the teachers dont teach,
especially when i've learned most of what i know at home

War for oil? Sure, but that's not enough. There are more important things than oil in this world to rich and powerful people.

Things like security. Our military prescence in the Middle East was limited to using foreign airspace, which ultimately is under foreign control (Saudi Arabia & Turkey). America is not popular in these countries, especially; and any overthrow of the government in these countries (now much more possible due to the inspired extremists after 9/11) could lead to anarchy, and crowds could storm military bases, suicide attack them, etc. The government knew our military prescence in these countries was fueling anger, so they had to be moved. But where? Well, they decided that Iraq would be a nice, new base, a base with prime position to threaten states sponsoring terrorism (borders with Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran.) A new "base" in Iraq gets the troops out of unfriendly territories, but still in a menacing position. Any of these governments will now think twice before letting terrorism spawn from within its borders. The American troops in Iraq put pressure on all of the Middle East to make sure terrorism doesn't get out of hand.

It's just a hypothesis, but I feel as if no one will be attacked next, unless another major terrorist attack against the US happens. The rhetoric with Syria and Iran is more of a warning that we won't tolerate any lax behavior when it comes to stopping terror against the United States. It will scare their governments, and put pressure on them to at least discourage terrorists from attacking America. Because if the attackers come from your country, you're next.

umm..........................................................how many iraqis per gallon?

Another issue often overlooked is the dollar currency and it's uncertain future (I think Renegade touched on this on page 1).

Iraq switched from the US dollar to the Euro a couple of years back, declaring the dollar an "enemy currency". It is feared Iran will follow suit, putting pressure on other OPEC countries to trade in euros rather than dollars. The effects of this could be devastating for the US as a nation. For a long time the chief oil producers traded in US dollars, ostensibly a sign of confidence in the currency. But in reality, there was never a global alternative, until now.

quote:

Originally posted by evil_bastard Another issue often overlooked is the dollar currency and it's uncertain future (I think Renegade touched on this on page 1). Iraq switched from the US dollar to the Euro a couple of years back, declaring the dollar an "enemy currency". It is feared Iran will follow suit, putting pressure on other OPEC countries to trade in euros rather than dollars. The effects of this could be devastating for the US as a nation. For a long time the chief oil producers traded in US dollars, ostensibly a sign of confidence in the currency. But in reality, there was never a global alternative, until now.

The US does not want a strong dollar at this time period. At the moment a strong currency is doing more harm than good as Germany is finding out. As long as there is not a collapse of value leading to deflation, it is in the US's best interests to pursue a weak dollar policy.

Countries generally do not conduct "boycotts" in the currency market. It would be like conducting boycotts in the stock market. Financial transactions are not conducted in such a manner.

Perhaps not, but the dollar is the dominant currency traded all over the world and for a long time her position at the top has been guaranteed whatever the strength of the dollar because no competitor was ever there to fill the vacuum. Now there is, and it is plausible that the US would take proactive measures to ensure OPEC (and other oil trading nations) do not make the switch from dollar to euro. I'm not suggesting this is the primary reason for her middle eastern adventures, but it is something that should not be overlooked.

You are right that nations don't boycott a currency just like that, but they also don't stick with a currency out of benevolence, and this wouldn't be a boycott but a switch. There was never an alternative until the euro, which is almost exactly the same value.

If the standard global currency changed from dollars to euros it can't spell good things for the US economy at all. The EU is the largest trading block in the world and it looks like it's going to get bigger quite soon. By lack of alternative the US will inevitably fall back on her military muscle to try and restore the dominance of her currency. It is important to point out however that whilst these considerations make sense of American foreign policy and her European opposition, they do little to explain the eagerness of her ally, Britain, who are still flirting with the idea of adopting the Euro whilst playing America's poodle. That said, Britain has made no commitment to the Euro and is, it would seem, trying to play both sides when it suits her.

- I agree, the Euro is getting much higher value then the Dollar. Meaning, less investment from US companies to the "internationals" , this case Europe. Meaning that the US will most likely have it's companies concentrate only mainly more in the US, meaning, hell damm bad economy.

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX - I agree, the Euro is getting much higher value then the Dollar. Meaning, less investment from US companies to the "internationals" , this case Europe. Meaning that the US will most likely have it's companies concentrate only mainly more in the US, meaning, hell damm bad economy.

Not necessarily, first of all a weaker currency will result in a large increase of exports. Germany's recessionary tendencies are as a result of its decreasing manufacturing orders which are due to the strong Euro. Already, the European Central Bank is coming under much criticism for not lowering interest rates, and decreasing the value of the Euro. Instead it is fighting some kind of imaginary inflation that is not affecting most of the countries in the EU. Look at Japan, they have consistently been trying to keep the value of the yen lower than the value of the dollar in order to reap the benefits of the trade balance. With regards to opec switching currency, what impact will that bring? We're talking about countries with GDP's maybe the 10th the size of the US's. But even if it does have an impact it's unlikely that they will switch currencies based upon the value of a currency. If so they would have switched to British pounds long ago. If the value of the dollar goes down, they simply get more dollars for each barrel of oil sold. As long as the dollar remains a solvent currency that can be trusted, it will remain the dominant trading currency. Especially since it has a solid 100 year history behind it. The Euro has a 5 year history or whatever, and with an uncertain future (and an uncertain economic future) I don't see it becoming the new trade currency simply because it has a higher value.

With regards to the issue of US companies investing less overceas, that is likely true. However, this investment will be concentrated in the US which is good. Additionally a weaker dollar will attract foreign investment from countries with stronger currencies and will result in an influx of capital into the country which is also good. Currency trading and the effect of currency valuation on economics is extremely complex and it cannot be broken down to the simple equation of weaker currency = weaker economy.

Edit: It has just been confirmed that the German economy is in a state of recession (2 consecutive quarters of negative growth). For additional read on the problems between the ECB and the German economy (the largest in the EU) read this:

www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1785331

Buck up people! The US economy is comparatively in good shape. Deflation is a worry yes, but it's too early to be spouting claims of doom and gloom about deflation

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.