quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo hate to break it to ya dude, but iraq switched nov 6, 2000. so who the fuck is THEY?

thus proving why they attacked!!

They had already switched

swilly

BTW, Iran hasn't switched either 'cause of a Saudi choke hold.

any more bright idea's slick?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo BTW, Iran hasn't switched either 'cause of a Saudi choke hold. any more bright idea's slick?

source???

swilly

source? your the one who stated, and i quote...

quote:

Another country had done this earlier and guess, which country that was? Iran.

look it up. it's not that hard.


later

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo BTW, Iran hasn't switched either 'cause of a Saudi choke hold. any more bright idea's slick?

ok so i got my countries mixed up. Still the same principle
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html

Also this idea still makes more sense then the weapons of mass invisibility.

swilly

quote:

Originally posted by swilly ok so i got my countries mixed up. Still the same principle http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html Also this idea still makes more sense then the weapons of mass invisibility. swilly

i understand what your trying to say. really.

...but you have to have a broader perspective on the issue than what you have now or what your trying to claim.

fact: iraq's contributions to OPEC were negligable during the late 90's up to the start of the war. they were pumping a fraction of (we're talking 15% at the most) what they were capable of due to restrictions from the previous war.
hence oil for food. when saddam switched to EUROs in 2000, it wasn't a move designed to break the back of the U.S. dollar market, hardly. although he probably wished that true. in hindsight his reasons may have been twofold. one, out of pure spite. two, would have been a much easier transaction with countries like france and russia and germany to remain covert. he may have been willing to take a cut across the board because of the exchange rates back then, but to that greedy bastard it would have been worth it. whats losing $2 billion when your gonna make $10 billion in the end. we (U.S.)were far from afraid of what sadam was capable of economically. the world was more afraid of what they didn't know or thought they knew what he may have been capable of. just about every intelligence agency in the world knew, or thought they knew, or probably still know. leave to the U.S. to put it on the UN's side of the court.

there are so many things going on right now.
the saudis internal struggle with islamic facism
iran's nuclear game
french and russian duplicity
DPRNK nuclear game
OPEC's long term limits of production (inevitable decline)
the EURO switch
the genuine threat of global terrorism
WMD's
and a shithole called syria

just get a map, a large map of the middle east. look at it and ask yourself...saddams gone. could we have afforded to have him around?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo i understand what your trying to say. really. ...but you have to have a broader perspective on the issue than what you have now or what your trying to claim. fact: iraq's contributions to OPEC were negligable during the late 90's up to the start of the war. they were pumping a fraction of (we're talking 15% at the most) what they were capable of due to restrictions from the previous war. hence oil for food. when saddam switched to EUROs in 2000, it wasn't a move designed to break the back of the U.S. dollar market, hardly. although he probably wished that true. in hindsight his reasons may have been twofold. one, out of pure spite. two, would have been a much easier transaction with countries like france and russia and germany to remain covert. he may have been willing to take a cut across the board because of the exchange rates back then, but to that greedy bastard it would have been worth it. whats losing $2 billion when your gonna make $10 billion in the end. we (U.S.)were far from afraid of what sadam was capable of economically. the world was more afraid of what they didn't know or thought they knew what he may have been capable of. just about every intelligence agency in the world knew, or thought they knew, or probably still know. leave to the U.S. to put it on the UN's side of the court.

Some good points.

quote:

there are so many things going on right now. the saudis internal struggle with islamic facism iran's nuclear game french and russian duplicity DPRNK nuclear game OPEC's long term limits of production (inevitable decline) the EURO switch the genuine threat of global terrorism WMD's and a shithole called syria just get a map, a large map of the middle east. look at it and ask yourself...saddams gone. could we have afforded to have him around?

Perhaps we should ask ourselves if our invasion helped contribute to a few of these points above?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus the hegemonic theory at work. the fact that it is fiat money has little if anything to do with this situation IMO.

agreed

it is not merely as significant a problem as some other issues we could or will face.

an important aside to note is that much "trade" (simple terms) does not actually involve any currency at all... it may use dollars as the terms of the agreement, but actual physical dollars may never be exchanged. This can be something interesting to think about as we attempt to become a "paperless" society that happens to have its currency printed on paper.

I don't think the "issue" is a big deal right now though unless things change drastically.

___________________
"All progress is precarious, and the solution of one problem brings us face to face with another problem." --Martin Luther King, Jr.
----------------------------------
CTA #20

quote:

Originally posted by rupert 2) the US dollar is not backed by anything such as gold, meaning it has no underlying value, it is after all a piece of paper. A dollar is worth whatever people are willing to pay for it.

It is called fiat money. A close cousin would be an I.O.U. or for you more dramatic types; a promissory note. The catch is that this note is borrowed on debt already.

The common misconception people have is that the money supply is backed by the gold standard or some other kind of real commodity when it is not. Another misconception is that only the US has this type of central banking system when there are others like Canada and the EU for starters.

___________________