16 Jul 05
1 edit
Originally posted by zeeblebotI repeat my analogy from another thread: if I say "I know the moon is made of green cheese" and 2,000 people go to the moon and don't find any green cheese, can I just say "Maybe the green cheese went to Jupiter" and that makes me not lying?
what proof have you offered that the WMDs weren't buried or moved to another country?
when South Africa had the bomb, they hid them behind secret doors. walk past the door, look, no bomb!
if Iraq maintained double books, how cou ...[text shortened]... u an Iraqi supermarket and say, "oh, look, they're not here!"
The burden of proof is on those who want to start a war that the war is in self-defense. You can't just simply say "Who knows maybe Canada is going to attack us; better invade now!" (see my Abraham Lincoln quote in the other thread). What you are talking about is not a foreign policy, it's a mental disease i.e. acute delusional paranoia. 100,000 people and counting died obstensibly for this delusion, don't you have the common decency to admit that it was all lies when the truth is right there in front of you?
16 Jul 05
Originally posted by zeeblebotWell if it can be deternined within a few months by intelligence that they do have WMD's, I would have thought that three years of occupation and intelligence combined would have yielded a little more than a mouldy scud that wouldn't have flown more than three yards from it's arcadian catapult. C'mon, if Saddam can be found living in the middle of nowhere in a tiny priests hold underground, why can't these darn thangs be unearthed? Because erm????
what proof have you offered that the WMDs weren't buried or moved to another country?
when South Africa had the bomb, they hid them behind secret doors. walk past the door, look, no bomb!
if Iraq maintained double books, how could you "prove" they had no WMDs?
and the kicker, how did you know in 2002 that Iraq had no WMDs and was not pursuin ...[text shortened]... ouble books? did you walk thru an Iraqi supermarket and say, "oh, look, they're not here!"
16 Jul 05
Originally posted by zeeblebotFirst you need to understand the problem.
re "Who else publicly announced that they were seriously considering it?", googling indicates Iran, Russia, Venezuela, and OPEC, ... at least ...
let's invade all of them!
Something I've posted here long ago:
The value of the dollar is very high compared to the economic activity of the US.
Why? Because the fact that oil is traded in USD and most foreign trade is conducted in USD, the demand for USD worldwide is much higher than the demand for USD in the US (the total of world trade not connected directly to the US conducted in dollars is higher than the foreign and internal trade connected to the US)
This means that if oil was not traded in USD but in EUR the USD value would plunge down and if this was accompanied (as expected) by a international change from USD to EUR as the "international" currency, it could cause a downward spiral in the USD. Remember that the demand for USD would fall to less than half and I read a study indicating that the USD price could fall more than 30%, if this happened, in just one week.
Fast depreciations of a currency tend to lead to inflationary surges (a dollar is worth less, so the same thing costs more dollars) and a fall this high (and fast) could lead to a spiral of inflation that could throw the US in the biggest recession of its history.
Some say that the constant but slow fall of the dollar is a way to prevent the damage done by this possibility and that the fact that Saddam (Iraq is the country with the largest oil reserves) wanted to trade oil in Euros was the real motivations for this war.
It's curious that Syria also claimed this and shortly after, they were included in the famous axis-of-evil. Why Syria? That's one explanation...
(note that if this happened, a fast increase in the Euro would also be damaging, unless the ECB printed a lot more Euros to counter the increase in demand which could also help hinder the USD/EUR rate fall. Consider the revenue that is printing money when the demand for it increases, the US gain a lot by being the world currency)
16 Jul 05
Originally posted by PalynkaSyria does all kinds of things ... juxtaposition does not equal cause ... note that Venezuela has avoided being included in the axis of evil ...
First you need to understand the problem.
It's curious that Syria also claimed this and shortly after, they were included in the famous axis-of-evil. Why Syria? That's one explanation...
North Korea is also in the axis of evil ... have they considered trading oil in euros?
probably the EU would love to have oil traded in euros ... somehow they have avoided being included in the axis of evil ...
16 Jul 05
Originally posted by zeeblebotIraq was the first to change their oil currency, and Iran and Syria started mulling it. This trio could influence OPEC to turn to Euros, so the US needed to put a check to this trend. Saddam was the perfect target:
re "Who else publicly announced that they were seriously considering it?", googling indicates Iran, Russia, Venezuela, and OPEC, ... at least ...
let's invade all of them!
- Already trading in Euros
- Big oil reserve
- Known vilan of the American public
Later, after the invasion of Iraq, came the strange declaration of the Axis of Evil. Perhaps the real intent escaped most of the American public, but there was criticism whether it was wise to include Iran, which was on the path of secularization. The result of the latest elections show a clear turn to fundamentalism, proving this fears right.
The US government, hoping to put pressure on Iran and Syria regarding the oil currency, has in fact already turned Iran more fundamentalist and some analysts believe Syria is following the same path. (See The Economist of June 16th, for one example).
Venezuela's declarations of intent towards the OPEC to remove the US dollar were in 2000. Again, the alleged involvement of the US in the coup to topple Chavez arises as suspicious.
----
A little chronology to get you going:
January 1999: Euro is launched.
EUR falls towards the USD
November 2000: Iraq changes their oil currency.
EUR fall is halted
April 2002: OPEC declares they are considering a change in the oil currency
EUR rises towards the US
June 2003: US switches Iraqi oil sales back to dollar.
EUR falls
October 2003: Russia starts considering a change in oil currency and takes the issue to OPEC
EUR rises
February 2004: OPEC decides to keep the EUR
EUR falls
June 2004: Iran wants to set up an oil trading market independent of London and NY.
EUR rises.
Don't believe me? Check for yourself:
http://www.ecb.int/stats/exchange/eurofxref/html/eurofxref-graph-usd.en.html#firstdate
----
It's an awful lot of coincidences.
16 Jul 05
1 edit
Originally posted by zeeblebotNorth Korea and Lybia are obvious smokescreens.
Syria does all kinds of things ... juxtaposition does not equal cause ... note that Venezuela has avoided being included in the axis of evil ...
North Korea is also in the axis of evil ... have they considered trading oil in euros?
...[text shortened]... somehow they have avoided being included in the axis of evil ...
North Korea HAD to be in it because every critic was b|tching about it and Lybia has another villain whose name is known to the american public. Khadaffi. But the real juice of it, was sending a warning signal to Iran and Syria. "We're watching you, you'd better behave or else".
Look, it's my opinion that this was in the US best economic interest. As a sovereign nation, they have that right. The US Government has been defending what was best economically for the US. But was it moral?
I'm afraid that the US is going down that path. I don't see the capability of Europe to be a superpower and the US is turning into something different than it was. The US was once an example in civil liberties and freedom and I'd be happy to see such a country lead the world. But now, I'm afraid. I'm afraid because I see a selfish country leading the world and the alternatives are even worse.
16 Jul 05
it could very well be that the euro sees a short-term rise/fall against the dollar on the short term when various nations float the idea of basing oil transactions in euros ... and that trading oil in euros would be bad for the dollar ... how is that significant to anything? ...
but as said, none of these other various nations have been invaded ...
and Iraq presented sufficient reasons to be invaded without any consideration of oil ...
and there's still no reason to think oil was a factor except as it was used as a source of financing for terror ...
16 Jul 05
Originally posted by zeeblebotAs for the EU, if they were included, I'm sure there would be a lot more of Americans that would see what their government is really doing. And I'm sure they wouldn't be silent but, right now, they are being thrown sand in their face. I really hope they can still see through it in the near future. Or that I'm wrong.
Syria does all kinds of things ... juxtaposition does not equal cause ... note that Venezuela has avoided being included in the axis of evil ...
North Korea is also in the axis of evil ... have they considered trading oil in euros?
probably the EU would love to have oil traded in euros ... somehow they have avoided being included in the axis of evil ...
16 Jul 05
1 edit
Originally posted by zeeblebotIt's significant into proving the validity of my argument.
it could very well be that the euro sees a short-term rise/fall against the dollar on the short term when various nations float the idea of basing oil transactions in euros ... and that trading oil in euros would be bad for the dollar ... how is that significant to anything? ...
If the mere consideration of changing the currency has such impact, imagine the impact if OPEC did change it. This is crucial and this is the real motivation for the war.
Edit: some typos
16 Jul 05
Originally posted by PalynkaThere's really nothing to argue; as you point out Iraq started with the euro business in November 2000, how that accounts for an invasion in March 2003 is beyond me. The NeoCons said long ago why Iraq would be invaded; to install a pro-Western puppet state in the center of the Middle east. they believed it would be easy and would lead to other pro-Western governments being installed in other Muslim countries. I'll find a link to the paper which was published in a journal in the early 1990's; I believe Rumsfeld was one of the authors. That this policy was A) Illegal; B) Immoral; C) Certain to lead to massive amounts of bloodshed and D) Doomed to failure apparently didn't cross their minds.
Would you like to argue it or will you just call me conspiracy theorist and perhaps anti-american like the ones who attack you?
16 Jul 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderYour use of logics is amazing.
There's really nothing to argue; as you point out Iraq started with the euro business in November 2000, how that accounts for an invasion in March 2003 is beyond me. The NeoCons said long ago why Iraq would be invaded; to inst ...[text shortened]... hed and D) Doomed to failure apparently didn't cross their minds.
An early 1990's report can justify an invasion in 2003, but a growing sentiment in OPEC that started with Iraq's move (at a time most people expected Saddam to lose A LOT of money, which he DIDN'T) can't. Amazing.
When Saddam changed the currency, (for pure political reasons) the hegemony of the USD as an oil currency was not at stake, only afterwards when it became a topic in the OPEC.
It's all there in the short chronological recap, with its effects on the exchange rate.
16 Jul 05
Originally posted by no1marauderAnd, of course, there's really nothing to argue because you are so self-convinced of owning the truth that all of us must be either idiots, brainwashed or hypocrites.
There's really nothing to argue; as you point out Iraq started with the euro business in November 2000, how that accounts for an invasion in March 2003 is beyond me. The NeoCons said long ago why Iraq would be invaded; to install a pro-Western puppet state in the center of the Middle east. they believed it would be easy and would lead to other ...[text shortened]... d to massive amounts of bloodshed and D) Doomed to failure apparently didn't cross their minds.