Pages: 1 2

 

2006-12-06 18:06:56
jonsimon
Member
+224|6754
I was recently motivated to find reading material related to the US Oil Dollar as motivation for the war in Iraq. (Something I have asserted for a while now), and I found a really nice article about it that I thought worth posting in its own thread.

http://www.trinicenter.com/oops/iraqeuro.html

The article traces the development of the USD as the superpower currency it is known to be and the transition between gold backing and oil backing. It works upon analytical observations to explain the chief economic and political motivations for American foreign policy as it is today, and explains the relationships between OPEC, the USD, and the Euro.

Bubbalo will be happy to know it was written by an Australian. Gavin R. Putland

Thoughts, comments, arguments?
2006-12-06 18:10:11
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6664|North Carolina
Thanks for bringing this up.  I think the only thing that was even more influential in getting us to invade Iraq than this was the military industrial complex.  This currency factor was what directed us toward Iraq in particular and was what set the timetable for invasion.  We had to invade BEFORE the actual switch occurred.

Ron Paul (a Republican House member who has run as a Libertarian before) is a big supporter of the oil dollar theory for the Iraq invasion.

Thanks for the info, by the way... 
2006-12-06 18:12:01
jonsimon
Member
+224|6754

Turquoise wrote:

We had to invade BEFORE the actual switch occurred.
Actually, they successfully converted 2 years before we invaded.

The third and most blatant offender was Iraq. In October 2000, Iraq persuaded the United Nations to allow Iraqi oil to be sold for euros instead of dollars, with effect from November 6. Iraq then converted its entire $10 billion "oil for food" reserve fund from dollars to euros. These events went unreported in the U.S. media.

Last edited by jonsimon (2006-12-06 18:12:30)

2006-12-06 18:12:48
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6664|North Carolina
Oops...  my bad...  I guess I misinterpreted one of the speeches Paul made.
2006-12-06 18:55:25
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6859|132 and Bush

The invade Iraq for oil amazes me. Why did we leave Iraq after the first gulf war? We actually had more cause to be there then rather than now. Everyone should realize the US has more oil than it can handle and the problem really is we can't refine it fast enough. If only Wall Street knew this.

Last edited by Kmarion (2006-12-06 18:56:17)

Xbone Stormsurgezz
2006-12-06 18:59:15
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6664|North Carolina

Kmarion wrote:

The invade Iraq for oil amazes me. Why did we leave Iraq after the first gulf war? We actually had more cause to be there then rather than now. Everyone should realize the US has more oil than it can handle and the problem really is we can't refine it fast enough. If only Wall Street knew this.
This isn't about taking oil...  It's about making sure nations trade oil with our currency.  There's an important difference between those two concepts...

Last edited by Turquoise (2006-12-06 19:00:05)

2006-12-06 19:00:36
jonsimon
Member
+224|6754

Kmarion wrote:

The invade Iraq for oil amazes me. Why did we leave Iraq after the first gulf war? We actually had more cause to be there then rather than now. Everyone should realize the US has more oil than it can handle and the problem really is we can't refine it fast enough. If only Wall Street knew this.
Like turquoise said, we aren't there for oil, the substance, we're there for oil, the market. Try reading the article the thread pertains to before commenting on it.
2006-12-06 19:01:33
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6859|132 and Bush

jonsimon wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

The invade Iraq for oil amazes me. Why did we leave Iraq after the first gulf war? We actually had more cause to be there then rather than now. Everyone should realize the US has more oil than it can handle and the problem really is we can't refine it fast enough. If only Wall Street knew this.
Like turquoise said, we aren't there for oil, the substance, we're there for oil, the market. Try reading the article the thread pertains to before commenting on it.
If that were the case we have much more invading to do. Try looking up OPEC.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2006-12-06 19:02:29
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6664|North Carolina

Kmarion wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

The invade Iraq for oil amazes me. Why did we leave Iraq after the first gulf war? We actually had more cause to be there then rather than now. Everyone should realize the US has more oil than it can handle and the problem really is we can't refine it fast enough. If only Wall Street knew this.
Like turquoise said, we aren't there for oil, the substance, we're there for oil, the market. Try reading the article the thread pertains to before commenting on it.
If that were the case we have much more invading to do. Try looking up OPEC.
You'll notice Iran is one of the nations involved in this switch to Euros.  Iran seems to be the nation many neocons now push for an invasion of.
2006-12-06 19:20:53
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6859|132 and Bush

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

jonsimon wrote:


Like turquoise said, we aren't there for oil, the substance, we're there for oil, the market. Try reading the article the thread pertains to before commenting on it.
If that were the case we have much more invading to do. Try looking up OPEC.
You'll notice Iran is one of the nations involved in this switch to Euros.  Iran seems to be the nation many neocons now push for an invasion of.
Really which? (Actual curiosity)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2006-12-06 19:45:49
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6820

Kmarion wrote:

The invade Iraq for oil amazes me. Why did we leave Iraq after the first gulf war? We actually had more cause to be there then rather than now. Everyone should realize the US has more oil than it can handle and the problem really is we can't refine it fast enough. If only Wall Street knew this.
Not that I'm convinced on the Iraq over oil theory, but it wouldn't matter how much you had: it might be about restricting the access of others.
2006-12-06 19:53:01
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6859|132 and Bush

Bubbalo wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

The invade Iraq for oil amazes me. Why did we leave Iraq after the first gulf war? We actually had more cause to be there then rather than now. Everyone should realize the US has more oil than it can handle and the problem really is we can't refine it fast enough. If only Wall Street knew this.
Not that I'm convinced on the Iraq over oil theory, but it wouldn't matter how much you had: it might be about restricting the access of others.
Point taken but there are much pore possible (diabolical) reasons than that. Oil is the weaker side of the debate. It would be just a piece of the mindset of "total control".
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2006-12-06 20:40:02
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6664|North Carolina

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:


If that were the case we have much more invading to do. Try looking up OPEC.
You'll notice Iran is one of the nations involved in this switch to Euros.  Iran seems to be the nation many neocons now push for an invasion of.
Really which? (Actual curiosity)
I'm a little confused here...  do you mean "which neocons have suggested we invade Iran" or "which articles point out that Iran will switch to Euros in oil trade"?
2006-12-06 20:47:01
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6859|132 and Bush

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


You'll notice Iran is one of the nations involved in this switch to Euros.  Iran seems to be the nation many neocons now push for an invasion of.
Really which? (Actual curiosity)
I'm a little confused here...  do you mean "which neocons have suggested we invade Iran" or "which articles point out that Iran will switch to Euros in oil trade"?
Which Neocons, my fault. Reffering to your last sentence.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2006-12-06 20:59:49
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6664|North Carolina
Ann Coulter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYyPzakwiZ0

William Kristol: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/P … 8vqpff.asp

Charles Krauthammer: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1177002/posts

Steve Forbes: see the article posted somewhere else in this forum.  He definitely would like us to invade Iran.

Richard Perle: http://dir.salon.com/story/books/review … index.html

There are several others that would like to see us invade Iran.  I can find more if you'd like, but personally, I think the mere idea of invading Iran is delusional at best.

Last edited by Turquoise (2006-12-06 21:00:06)

2006-12-07 12:29:46
jonsimon
Member
+224|6754

Bubbalo wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

The invade Iraq for oil amazes me. Why did we leave Iraq after the first gulf war? We actually had more cause to be there then rather than now. Everyone should realize the US has more oil than it can handle and the problem really is we can't refine it fast enough. If only Wall Street knew this.
Not that I'm convinced on the Iraq over oil theory, but it wouldn't matter how much you had: it might be about restricting the access of others.
You're missing the point, it's not about who has how much oil, it's about how they paid for that oil. Read the article.
2006-12-07 12:43:25
venom6
Since day One.
+247|6817|Hungary
Everyone knows that attacking a country without any back thoughts and wishes just for "we want to help them and bla bla bla" thats bs.Usa went there to get oil and the same thing for Iran and so on.
None of the countrys would spend $$$ for tanks and soldiers do "free iraq from saddam" NOBODY...
I say again why didnt Usa help us in 1956  against the russian invadors who attacked our country without any warning.Just coz the hungarians wanted the russians go the fuck home and leave us..no they attacked us coz ppl wanted a revolution.And they got stuck here for 40 years and they fucked up our contry...
2006-12-07 12:54:50
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6859|132 and Bush

Turquoise wrote:

Ann Coulter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYyPzakwiZ0

William Kristol: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/P … 8vqpff.asp

Charles Krauthammer: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1177002/posts

Steve Forbes: see the article posted somewhere else in this forum.  He definitely would like us to invade Iran.

Richard Perle: http://dir.salon.com/story/books/review … index.html

There are several others that would like to see us invade Iran.  I can find more if you'd like, but personally, I think the mere idea of invading Iran is delusional at best.
I was interested in what our elected leaders thought, not analyst or editors. Both Libs and Cons have whack jobs. Some of them did not even say Iran should be invaded. You seem to think dealing with an issue in any manner means they are advocating an invasion.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2006-12-07 13:16:03
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,979|6890|949

venom6 wrote:

Everyone knows that attacking a country without any back thoughts and wishes just for "we want to help them and bla bla bla" thats bs.Usa went there to get oil and the same thing for Iran and so on.
None of the countrys would spend $$$ for tanks and soldiers do "free iraq from saddam" NOBODY...
I say again why didnt Usa help us in 1956  against the russian invadors who attacked our country without any warning.Just coz the hungarians wanted the russians go the fuck home and leave us..no they attacked us coz ppl wanted a revolution.And they got stuck here for 40 years and they fucked up our contry...
Read the article and previous posts.  It is not about invading Iraq for oil. 

The author is bringing forth the idea that the US Government invaded Iraq to convert their oil reserves back to the US $ instead of the Euro, which it currently is on.  The author further states that certain other countries that did the same will be the next targets.  He also relates the failed coup against Hugo Chavez to Venezuela's decision to change its oil reserves from the US $ (and all currency).

That being said, I think this is a very interesting read.  There are a few things in the article that I don't quite understand, so I am going to have to research this a little further before I can really expound on it.
2006-12-07 14:04:46
jonsimon
Member
+224|6754

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Ann Coulter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYyPzakwiZ0

William Kristol: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/P … 8vqpff.asp

Charles Krauthammer: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1177002/posts

Steve Forbes: see the article posted somewhere else in this forum.  He definitely would like us to invade Iran.

Richard Perle: http://dir.salon.com/story/books/review … index.html

There are several others that would like to see us invade Iran.  I can find more if you'd like, but personally, I think the mere idea of invading Iran is delusional at best.
I was interested in what our elected leaders thought, not analyst or editors. Both Libs and Cons have whack jobs. Some of them did not even say Iran should be invaded. You seem to think dealing with an issue in any manner means they are advocating an invasion.
Kmarion, don't deny the 'Cons' want to invade Iran. Heck, just read any of our forum threads regarding Iran.
2006-12-07 14:07:45
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6859|132 and Bush

jonsimon wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Ann Coulter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYyPzakwiZ0

William Kristol: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/P … 8vqpff.asp

Charles Krauthammer: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1177002/posts

Steve Forbes: see the article posted somewhere else in this forum.  He definitely would like us to invade Iran.

Richard Perle: http://dir.salon.com/story/books/review … index.html

There are several others that would like to see us invade Iran.  I can find more if you'd like, but personally, I think the mere idea of invading Iran is delusional at best.
I was interested in what our elected leaders thought, not analyst or editors. Both Libs and Cons have whack jobs. Some of them did not even say Iran should be invaded. You seem to think dealing with an issue in any manner means they are advocating an invasion.
Kmarion, don't deny the 'Cons' want to invade Iran. Heck, just read any of our forum threads regarding Iran.
That's not true. It's that simple. You are painting conservatives with a broad brush. I actually thought you were capable of doing better than that. Once again some has the impression of taking any action diplomatic or not is the same as an invasion.

Last edited by Kmarion (2006-12-07 14:09:00)

Xbone Stormsurgezz
2006-12-07 14:24:06
jonsimon
Member
+224|6754

Kmarion wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

Kmarion wrote:


I was interested in what our elected leaders thought, not analyst or editors. Both Libs and Cons have whack jobs. Some of them did not even say Iran should be invaded. You seem to think dealing with an issue in any manner means they are advocating an invasion.
Kmarion, don't deny the 'Cons' want to invade Iran. Heck, just read any of our forum threads regarding Iran.
That's not true. It's that simple. You are painting conservatives with a broad brush. I actually thought you were capable of doing better than that. Once again some has the impression of taking any action diplomatic or not is the same as an invasion.
Fine, let me get more general then, the typical Con wants to invade or otherwise attack Iran. How about that? All our forum posts regarding Iranian nuclear development certainly support it.
2006-12-07 14:34:08
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6859|132 and Bush

jonsimon wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

Kmarion, don't deny the 'Cons' want to invade Iran. Heck, just read any of our forum threads regarding Iran.
That's not true. It's that simple. You are painting conservatives with a broad brush. I actually thought you were capable of doing better than that. Once again some has the impression of taking any action diplomatic or not is the same as an invasion.
Fine, let me get more general then, the typical Con wants to invade or otherwise attack Iran. How about that? All our forum posts regarding Iranian nuclear development certainly support it.
Much better. It's not always that black and white, thats all. In all honesty I think you would have a hard time finding a large amount of Cons at least admitting that they would like to send troops in Iran. Most are aware of dwindling American opinion including the cost and amount of lives it would cost, as well as the current results in Iraq. I have seen plenty of Libs who advocate action as well just not as many militarily. Diplomacy is what we should always hope for.

Last edited by Kmarion (2006-12-07 14:35:13)

Xbone Stormsurgezz
2006-12-07 15:56:20
Major_Spittle
Banned
+276|6913|United States of America
this is the stupidest Article I have ever read.  Here are some of my favorites:

"and to the detriment of the working poor who live in caravans ("trailers") on the fringes of American cities because they do not "earn" enough to buy or rent a home."

"Given America's record of toppling elected governments whose policies it didn't like (as in Chile, Nicaragua, and almost Venezuela),"

"In April 2002 there was a coup against the twice-elected President Chavez. The coup was welcomed by the Bush administration and by editorials in numerous American newspapers, but collapsed after two days, leaving evidence that the U.S. administration was behind it"

"APPENDIX: THE PRICE OF FREEDOM IN AMERICA

Over 100 death-row prisoners in the USA have been found to be innocent since 1973. If we add non-death-row prisoners found innocent after serving years in prison, the number rises to over 200. More than two thirds of these people got NO COMPENSATION. Not even reimbursement of legal costs. Not even back-pay at standard rates for the work they had to do in prison.

Only 15 of the 50 American States have laws providing compensation for wrongful imprisonment. In 13 of those States the compensation is capped, and the limit is invariably less than what a film star would expect to receive for a defamatory media report. In the other 35 States the legislature can pay compensation if it wants to, which it usually doesn't. The Federal jurisdiction has a compensation scheme under which the maximum payout is $5000 (yes, five thousand dollars)."

_____________________________________________________________________________________

LOL, stupid people are so stupid.

Why can't the reason for the Iraqi war ever be the obvious one.  Saddam was a ruthless idiot not afraid to use biological weapons who already warred with Iran, invaded Kwait, threatened Saudi Arabia, attempted to assassinate an ex-US president, ignored UN resolutions, broke ceasefire agreements, shot at US jets, and would not have hesitated to use a nuke if he got his hands on it.

Gee, thats who we wanted in charge of the world 5th largest military sitting in the middle of 70% of the worlds light crude oil so he can just throw the whole region into war, disrupt the worlds oil-supply, and put the world into a depression overnite.

hmmm, that is much too far fetched for someone like jamison to believe.
2006-12-07 17:00:59
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6664|North Carolina

Major_Spittle wrote:

LOL, stupid people are so stupid.

Why can't the reason for the Iraqi war ever be the obvious one.  Saddam was a ruthless idiot not afraid to use biological weapons who already warred with Iran, invaded Kwait, threatened Saudi Arabia, attempted to assassinate an ex-US president, ignored UN resolutions, broke ceasefire agreements, shot at US jets, and would not have hesitated to use a nuke if he got his hands on it.

Gee, thats who we wanted in charge of the world 5th largest military sitting in the middle of 70% of the worlds light crude oil so he can just throw the whole region into war, disrupt the worlds oil-supply, and put the world into a depression overnite.

hmmm, that is much too far fetched for someone like jamison to believe.
So essentially, you're playing the part of Officer Barbrady...  "Nothing to see here.  Move along now..."

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard