Originally posted by flexmoreFlexmore: " .... the theory claims: sadam wanted to sell oil in euros, not in u.s. dollars."
one theory i have heard is:
it does not really matter so much what is available to the u.s.
the us.s already has plenty, and the government does not further it's cause by supplying its citizens with more.
more importantly: if a country has resources and will sell them to the u.s.'s main competitors, but not to the u.s. then the u.s. will get very upse ...[text shortened]... dollars.
can anyone enhance on this? is it true? does it enable us to see into the future?
The media are absolutely silent about this. This is one of the main reasons why the US went to war and it is the main reason why they "rushed" into war.
Where did you get that information ? Is it available on internet ?
Originally posted by Palynka
This has more implications than you wrote. I'll won't go as far as I should due to lack of time, but:
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 U ...[text shortened]... printing money when the demand for it increases, the US gain a lot by being the world currency)
Do you have any information about this on the internet ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeI read a paper about it in the internet, but it was more than a year ago.
How did you get your information ?
It was dedicated mostly to economics than politics, so it had no direct connection with the war, but the serious implications of changing the oil currency in the US economy. I don't remember the link, sorry.
Edit: That text is mine, I didn't copy+paste it...
Originally posted by Palynka
I read a paper about it in the internet, but it was more than a year ago.
It was dedicated mostly to economics than politics, so it had no direct connection with the war, but the serious implications of changing the oil currency in the US economy. I don't remember the link, sorry.
Edit: That text is mine, I didn't copy+paste it...
Thanks for the information. I've heard of this before and I wrote about it in the Forums, but it is very hard to get any information about it. Thanks again.
Originally posted by ivanhoeJust found this:
Thanks for the information. I've heard of this before and I wrote about it in the Forums, but it is very hard to get any information about it. Thanks again.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html
EDit: I haven't read it yet, but it seems about the same thing.
While I'm sure he'd like to take out countries Ann Coulter style (send in military, send in missionaries, send in American goods), but his military is stretched too thin. I would say that he couldn't get support from the American people after all his previous failures, but I'm sure his spinsters can fool enough evagelicals to get his approval rating over 65%.
By the way that was another factor in pressing to invade Iraq. Wag the dog. Numbers were bad that first year of his term. Then came 9/11. With that his support shot up. He attacked Afghanistan, even higher numbers. Then things began to dwindle back down. Economy still sucked. In such a time, he turned to the radical suggestions of the neo-cons, the oil execs, and the apocalyspe-bent, Israeli occupation loving evangelicals for ideas. Again support in the states went back up. I'd say we learned our lesson by now. You know the boy who cried, "Wolf!" and all that, but last Tuesday took care of those illusions.