One of the problems is that people post because they want to be heard, and are far less interested in absorbing what is posted by others. Absolutely no one has even looked at the April, 2001 Baker Report excerpt link i posted above, for instance.
Here's one part of the report that was quite prophetic:
Quote:
The United States should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq, including military, energy, economic, and political/diplomatic assessments. The United States should then develop an integrated strategy with key allies in Europe and Asia and with key countries in the Middle East to restate the goals with respect to Iraqi policy and to restore a cohesive coalition of key allies. Goals should be designed in a realistic fashion, and they should be clearly and consistently stated and defended to revive U.S. credibility on this issue. Actions and policies to promote these goals should endeavor to enhance the well-being of the Iraqi people. Sanctions that are not effective should be phased out and replaced with highly focused and enforced sanctions that target the regime’s ability to maintain and acquire weapons of mass destruction. A new plan of action should be developed to use diplomatic and other means to support U.N. Security Council efforts to build a strong arms-control regime to stem the flow of arms and controlled substances into Iraq. Policy should rebuild coalition cooperation on this issue, while emphasizing the common interest in security. This issue of arms sales to Iraq should be brought near the top of the agenda for dialogue with China and Russia.
Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2004 3:52 pm Post subject: Euro Vs the dollar
How had the U.S. government come up so quickly with such a comprehensive and coordinated response to the attack of 9/11? How had they decided within hours that an extended “War on Terrorism” was the appropriate action? Why was the current administration willing to expend so much domestic and international political capital in order to pursue the Iraq war? Critics of the administration insist that this is a war for oil profits, but the situation is actually more complicated and can be understood only in the light of two crucial factors not widely acknowledged. The first of course is peak oil.
The second is that the continued strength of the dollar is in question. For the past half-century, the U.S. dollar has been the international currency of account for nearly all nations, and it is the currency with which all oil-importing nations must pay for their fuel from the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).
Imagine this: You are deep in debt and have very little money in the bank. But every day you write a check to cover your expenses. Your checks are worthless but they keep buying stuff because those checks you write never reach the bank. You have an agreement with the oil merchants (OPEC) that they will accept only your checks as payment for one thing everyone wants, and must have—oil.
This means everyone must hoard your checks so they can buy the oil they need. Since they have to keep a stock of your checks, they use them to buy other stuff too. You write a check to buy a TV, the TV shop owner swaps your check for oil, that seller buys some vegetables at the fruit shop, the produce man passes it on to buy bread, the baker buys some flour with it, and on it goes, round and round—but never back to the bank where it would bounce. You have generated a huge debt on your books, but so long as your checks never reach the bank, you don't have to pay. In effect, you have received your TV for free!
This is the position the U.S.A. has enjoyed for 30 years—it has been getting a free world trade ride for all that time. It has been receiving a huge subsidy from everyone else in the world. And as our debt grew, we printed more dollars (wrote more checks) to keep trading.
Then one day, one of the oil merchants—let’s say Iraq—says he is going to accept another person's checks—the euro—and a couple of others think that might be a good idea, too—let’s say Iran and North Korea. If this spreads, people are going to stop hoarding your checks and they will come flying home to the bank. Since you don't have enough in the bank to cover all the checks, you are going to be in big trouble! But you are big, tough and very aggressive. You don't scare the other guy (European Union) who can write checks (euros), he's pretty big too, but given a “legitimate” excuse, you can beat the tar out of the oil merchant and scare him and his buddies into taking only your checks again. And that, in a nutshell, is what the U.S.military is doing right now with Iraq.
Bottom line, foreign demand for the U.S. dollar funds the U.S. federal budget deficits. Foreign investors flush with dollars typically look to U.S. treasury securities as a means of secure investment. With a large reduction in such investment, the country could potentially go into default. For example: If you owe your bank $10,000 and you can’t pay it back, you’ve got a problem. But if you owe your bank $3.5 trillion and can’t pay it back, then the bank has a problem. In finance, at least, size does matter. Things could turn very bad, very quickly. Investment money would flee the country, real estate values would plummet, and Americans would shortly find themselves living in Third-World conditions. We'll be like the monarch used to riding around in an extravagant litter, only to find ourselves dropped to the ground with no hands to carry us.
Three countries are/or were selling their oil using euros, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea...the infamous "axis of evil". If the US loses the dollar hegemony, it loses more power than it has in its military.
So in the end, central bankers face a choice: let the dollar sink (stop taking our checks), or pump up their domestic money supply making credit easier to obtain. The latter option, of course, tends to be politically popular. Who doesn't like easy money? But it can have a disastrous effect on homegrown banking systems—as the Asian countries discovered, much to their sorrow, in 1997 and 98. Excessive dollar purchases led to excessive money creation, which led to rampant speculation, asset price bubbles and—eventually—a full-blown financial panic, which in turn led to the tech stock bubble crash in 2000.
The irony of this may have been lost on Americans (most of whom were oblivious anyway) but not on the Asians: In trying to prop up the dollar, they blew up their own banking systems, causing a massive run on their own currencies, forcing them to go hat in hand to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for emergency loans of, yes, dollars.
Now do you understand why the rest of the world doesn’t like us very much?
Thanks Buster. I have that linked on my energy blog. How would you recommend linking to the home page? The rest of the OpenSpeech site looks interesting.
As much as I would like there to be such a "smoking gun"
Here's some "smoking guns" I found:
The Wofowitz Memorandum 1992
A Clean Break: a New Strategy for Securing the Realm
The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives.
Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century (http://www.newamericancentury.org) _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Joined: Jul 21, 2004 Posts: 1287 Location: Suburban tar sands
Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 8:52 pm Post subject: Re: The War in Iraq
Permanently_Baffled wrote:
HI all
Just been wondering about the reasons for going to war in Iraq, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out it was for oil. But what i wanted to get peoples opinions on is what 'deal' would of been struck between the main allied participants? (ie US , UK ....erm.......can't think of anyone else...spain?)
Before the war Iraq spent much of its oil revenues on imports from Germany, France and Russia - oilfield equipment, electric generating and transmission, medical supplies, telecommunications, etc.
Now most of these revenues go to US companies, generating jobs and profits for Americans. Of course other "coalition" partners will get a few crumbs, and some benefits may eventually trickle down to Iraqis (at least those who are well connected).
BTW, an engineer friend of mine was trying to find out why they are having so much trouble getting the water and electricity back after the invasion. It turns out that the Americans didn't want to order spare parts from Germany, France and Russia (or even use spares already in Iraq). Instead they have ordered brand new American equipment (at Iraqi expense), even though this may take years.
'The Western Roman Empire was in ruins and the Eastern Empire was based in Constantinople and trying desperately to keep the power of its early grandeur while transitioning to Christianity as a de facto state religion. The costs to the average person were unbearable as he was being required to meet the constantly rising taxes levied from the state along with the tithes coerced by the Church. What Islam offered was the ?carrot or the sword?.
If you became a convert, your taxes were immediately eliminated, as was your tithe. If you didn?t, you faced death. The choice was not hard for most to make, unless you were a very devoted martyr in the making."
Or unless you didn't like "the constantly rising taxes levied from the state along with the tithes coerced by the Church". Remind me, what was the "American Revolution" about?
Wow! That guy sure had a lot of anger in his rant! George W. Bush, in an address to a joint session of Congress, shared with them, as well as all of us somewhere over the Beltway, his profound knowledge of Islam's wiles and ways: “They hate what they see right here in this chamber.”
A million Americans nodded in front of their TV sets. “Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.” At this plangent moment what American's patriotism for his country was not fed?
Understandably, Osama bin Laden dislikes the United States as symbol and as fact. But when the Saudi Royal family allowed American troops to occupy the Prophet's holy land, Osama bin Laden named the fundamental enemy, “the Crusader-Zionist Alliance.” Thus, in a phrase, he defined himself and reminded his critics that he is a Wahabi Muslim, a puritan activist not unlike our Falwell-Robertson [Christian fundamentalist] zanies, only serious. He would go to war against the U.S., “the head of the serpent.” Even more ambitiously, he would rid all the Muslim states of their western-supported regimes, starting with that of his native land. The word “Crusader” was the giveaway. In the eyes of many Muslims, the Christian west, currently in alliance with Zionism, has for 1,000 years tried to dominate the lands of the Umma, the true believers.
Many have argued that the hypocrisy of America partly explains the hatred of America, particularly in the Muslim world. This is especially true since the United States government, under the control of the collectivists, has provided covert funding and training for just about every terrorist regime in the world, including Osama bin Laden, the Taliban, and Saddam himself. We are not fighting thugs, evil doers, and foreign invaders, but rather a religious ideology just as strong as our own. We know we were attacked on 9/11 because the Islamic fundamentalists not only despise our current administration, but more importantly, they hate our foreign policy, our economic dominance with the almighty dollar, and—not to mention—our infidel presence on holy soil.
A lot of what Abrahams has to say is spot on, Keith. There are many factors at play here, not the least of which is fundamental Islamic ideology. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
In the eyes of many Muslims, the Christian west, currently in alliance with Zionism, has for 1,000 years tried to dominate the lands of the Umma, the true believers.
Many have argued that the hypocrisy of America partly explains the hatred of America, particularly in the Muslim world. This is especially true since the United States government, under the control of the collectivists, has provided covert funding and training for just about every terrorist regime in the world, including Osama bin Laden, the Taliban, and Saddam himself.
Collectivists? Surely it was the right-wing anti-communists who overthrew the leftist elected government in Iran and installed megalomaniac colonel Pahlavi who declared himself Shah.
I saw a "60 Minutes" show featuring a retired CIA guy who still thought helping Saddam to power was a good idea because he killed thousands of leftists.
The covert funding and training (not to mention recruiting) of Osama was aimed at destroying the collectivist regime in Afghanistan.
And I don't think any collectivists would support US backing of the Saudi "Royalty" or similar regimes in other Gulf states.
Many have argued that the hypocrisy of America partly explains the hatred of America, particularly in the Muslim world. This is especially true since the United States government, under the control of the collectivists, has provided covert funding and training for just about every terrorist regime in the world, including Osama bin Laden, the Taliban, and Saddam himself.
Collectivists? Surely it was the right-wing anti-communists who overthrew the leftist elected government in Iran and installed megalomaniac colonel Pahlavi who declared himself Shah.
I saw a "60 Minutes" show featuring a retired CIA guy who still thought helping Saddam to power was a good idea because he killed thousands of leftists.
The covert funding and training (not to mention recruiting) of Osama was aimed at destroying the collectivist regime in Afghanistan.
And I don't think any collectivists would support US backing of the Saudi "Royalty" or similar regimes in other Gulf states.
Those "collectivists" I speak of are the neo-con cabal behind Bush. They have great plans beyond Iraq. Look where they get their directives. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Those "collectivists" I speak of are the neo-con cabal behind Bush. They have great plans beyond Iraq. Look where they get their directives.
Yeah, but they screwed the pooch on Iraq, it has turned out NOTHING like they expected/wanted. Instead of a secure puppet regime willing to bend to the will of the USA they've got a Major International Fark™ to deal with and no money to pay for it. The Iraq Fark is going to be the undoing of the whole neocon movement, that's the good thing. The bad part is that they may take the whole USA down with them. A-holes.
Cluster Fark is hardly a new word, though quite apt in its usage.
As for who's right and who's wrong in the upcoming election and it's obvious overtones into what happens in Iraq afterwards, I don't know. I don't trust the Bush crew as far as I can throw them and I have no idea what Kerry's agenda is, as he's basically running on a "I'm not George Bush" platform.
That said, if I somehow knew that the current regime in the White House was acting so aggressively for the earnest good of the country and not the betterment of their associates, I'd have zero problem with the actions taken. And this is coming from a early 20s draftable male. People complain about Americans being soft now, and that's very true of us as a whole, but there's still an awful lot of mean left in this country that can be ignited if it becomes truly necessary to strongarm situations to protect and bolster our interests. Backbone can manifest itself in a hurry if it becomes blatantly clear what our goals are and why. Considering the way things appear to be heading, with the largest economic correction this country has seen looming not too far off on the horizon, if brute force is required, so be it. We're humans. Sometimes humans have to do "bad" things to survive. Ruthless works. Ruthless has always worked, and it always will work when things begin to get desparate.
I'm not sure any of this will result in preserving American society to an extent that would be acceptable to the plebian masses, the war in Iraq, our general presence in other countries that don't appreciate it, etc., but I'd much rather have us in control of assets that are going to become more and more precious than an entity that would have our worst intentions at heart, let alone simply be looking out for themselves. At this point, I can see where it's worth fighting for. We're doing it for oil? Right. We all know we're fighting for oil and a military presence near to sect of people that would wish us harm. So what?
We're doing it to protect OUR society- Western society as a whole, not just America. Or at least that's my hope. I know a lot of people will want to just run off into the hills(and I'm admittedly trying to prepare my own contingency plan if needed) and set themselves for their lives as a blacksmith or farmer, but why go down with a relative whisper? I for one feel that this incarnation of America is worth fighting for. Darwinism makes sense on more than just a individual level- It applies to societies. Survival of the fittest. Survival of the fittest and strongest. People point to lessons of the past- History repeats itself. Rome fell. Babylon fell. All the previous empires fell. They collapsed because they tried to defend themselves against whatever issues were upon them. They tried to ward them off. If we sit back and let things happen, it's very possible if not likely the same will eventually happen to us. Maybe 2010, maybe 2050, maybe 2100. Who knows? But just waiting for something bad to happen and hoping there's enough of us left with the skills to forge a neo-America seems silly if it's not a certainty. Learn from history? Ok. Go on the offensive. Rome had problems because they spread themselves too far? True. It's an issue we'd have to consider. On the flipside, if they'd go on the offensive before its enemies had the chance to bolster their strengths, it might have ended differently. Ever hear a football coach repeat the mantra "The best defense is a good offense"? They're right.
If we lose and fall back a couple hundred years, so be it. That is unless anyone's backing down from their gloom and doom predictions and thinks we're ride it out and keep the status quo. I think most people who've opted to inform themselves to some degree about the upcoming economic problems would agree that there's the large potential for a severe downgrade in status of living. Sitting down and taking the economic fallout pending is going to clock us hard on the chin anyways. It stands to reckon that if a show of force buys enough time to change our infrastructure in such a manner to aclimate ourselves to the pending changes, we should be all for it. The US, the UK, Canada, any developed nation allied to us that stands to crash if we run out of petroleum all should be on board. PC sucks. PC doesn't work. If we're the western devil, maybe it's time we should be acting like it.
It -has- been a bit of a cluster Fark over there though, but I don't think anyone thought deep down in their heart of hearts that it was going to be easy, regardless of why we entered the Middle East in force again. We're already over there and heavily invested, so why not try to bunker down and steel our resolve? Nobody knows for certain that we're destined to lose.
FYI: I'm not normally such a blow hard nor am I any particular measure of conservative. I do know that a lot of the time the best way to what you want or need is to pop someone in the nose as hard as you can. If the fight continues, take it to the ground and get dirty. Reading back it came off a bit militant and I'm sure I'll get a whole lot of hate, red neck comments or idiot comments. I've got tough skin and I wanted to vent a little since after reading this board fairly extensively, everyone seems resigned to their fate.
Darwinism makes sense on more than just a individual level- It applies to societies. Survival of the fittest. Survival of the fittest and strongest.
The assumption that "the fittest" = "the strongest" is the flaw in your whole post. The "fittest" are the subsistence farmers living in third world countries who aren't dependant on hydrocarbon energy in the first place.
All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3, 4Next
Page 2 of 4
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
