Sarastro wrote:
Actually, it was a quite well-deserved gibe at your 'intellectual' grandstanding, dropping the names of philosophers while clearly not having the slightest knowledge about them, their works, or the blatent error you made trying to fit them into context.
Your assumptions are again misplaced, to be honest I couldn’t be bothered to peruse the issue, but as you insist, the context I raised it in was perfectly fine, and, contrary to your earlier statement, there are differences between Platonic and Socratic, we can start a thread on philosophy if you wish? Oh, and contrary to you assumption I am quite familiar with Nietzsche and Plato, but it’s a pointless area of discussion.
Sarastro wrote:
Apart, of course, from the previous bit re: philosophers. Oh, and the amusing bit re: OPEC below.
I was referring to the comment about me being a lady.
Sarastro wrote:
Anyway, just so we are clear on this. You oppose the military, you support an armed citizenry?
I am in favour of a well regulated militia and an armed citizenry yes.
Sarastro wrote:
Also, why would I accept that the UN Secretary-General is the final word in these matters when he has a vested political interest in a particular position?
Well, because he is in a far better position to know than you. There is no doubt that the Iraq war was illegal under what was, up until the illegal invasion, pretty much solid ground. You can say these laws don’t apply if you wish, but Britain would have been more than happy to pursue Iraq under International Law if they could have.
Sarastro wrote:
One, you are simply wrong. Saddam did not threaten to sell oil below OPEC prices. He pushed OPEC to price oil higher, because he needed increased revenue to finance debt & reconstruction from the Iraq-Iraq war. This would have been balanced by production cuts within OPEC.
Not only was this a problem within OPEC, not for the UK/US, but OPEC did not have the slightest intention of agreeing to Saddam's demands, so it was not even a practical threat to the UK/US economy.
Two, OPEC is not a US/UK interest. They do a great deal of business with US/UK TNC's, but they are a cartel dedicated to the interests of the largely Middle Eastern / South American member states of OPEC. As such, though US/UK TNC's are forced to do business with OPEC, the former are not happy with this arrangement (ie being subject to the whims of the cartel & subject to supply from politically unstable and West-hostile countries), and actively look elsewhere for supply. For example, they are willing to take the huge risks involved with investing in Russia (ie that the Russian government seize their assests via Gazprom) to develop alternate supply.
Point being; if Saddam had been threatening to undercut OPEC, US/UK TNC's would have welcomed him with open arms. They would not have instituted sanctions. So not only was your argument factually incorrect, but illogical even if it had been correct!
Three, Saddam threatening to switch from the $USD as reserve currency threatening the $USD. Look at this table comparing national economies GDP in 1990. See where Iraq was, at no. 89. See where the US was, at no. 2? See all those other countries inbetween, the majority of them linked to the $USD? Implying that Iraq switching from the dollar would have had even a minor effect is laughable.
On the other hand, look at this table comparing inflation. Iraq had a 30% or above inflation rate, and a shattered economy following the Iran-Iraq War. One of the standard responses of governments to inflation is to de-link from external currencies, so they can unilaterally control their own currency. Saddam did not consider de-linking from the dollar to hurt the US, or to hurt US corporations (few of whom, by the way, were still operating in Iraq at the time, mainly because Iraq's oil production had been destroyed in the previous 10 years). Saddam considered de-linking for domestic economic reasons, and such action was no threat to the US.
Not exactly true, Saddams actions had the effect of destabilizing the global energy markets.
Saddam got in trouble because one moment he would cut production to support the Palestinians and the next moment he would pump the maximum allowed (thereby forcing the price of oil to be lowered). Up and down movements in prices are destabilizing events for the oil industry.
The report, Strategic Energy Policy Challenges For The 21st Century, concludes: 'The United States remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a de- stabilizing influence to ... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export program to manipulate oil markets. Therefore the US should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq including military, energy, economic and political/ diplomatic assessments.
The report also says that Cheney should integrate energy and security to stop 'manipulations of markets by any state', and suggests that Cheney's Energy Policy Group includes 'representation from the Department of Defense'.
'Unless the United States assumes a leadership role in the formation of new rules of the game,' the report says, 'US firms, US consumers and the US government [will be left] in a weaker position.'
It is now obvious the invasion of Iraq had less to do with any threat from Saddam’s long-gone WMD program and certainly less to do to do with fighting International terrorism than it has to do with gaining control over Iraq’s hydrocarbon reserves and in doing so maintaining the U.S. dollar as the monopoly currency for the critical international oil market. Throughout 2004 statements by former administration insiders revealed that the Bush/Cheney administration entered into office with the intention of toppling Saddam Hussein. Indeed, the neoconservative strategy of installing a pro-U.S. government in Baghdad along with multiple U.S. military bases was partly designed to thwart further momentum within OPEC towards a "petroeuro." However, subsequent events show this strategy to be fundamentally flawed.
Candidly stated, ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’ was a war designed to install a pro-U.S. puppet in Iraq, establish multiple U.S military bases, and to reconvert Iraq back to petrodollars while hoping to thwart further OPEC momentum towards the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency.
A Financial Times article dated June 5th, 2003, confirmed Iraqi oil sales returning to the international markets were once again denominated in US dollars, not euros. Not surprisingly, this detail was never mentioned in the five US major media conglomerates, but confirmation of this vital fact provides insight into one of the crucial - yet overlooked - rationales for 2003 the Iraq war.
"The tender, for which bids are due by June 10, switches the transaction back to dollars -- the international currency of oil sales - despite the greenback's recent fall in value. Saddam Hussein in 2000 insisted Iraq's oil be sold for euros, a political move, but one that improved Iraq's recent earnings thanks to the rise in the value of the euro against the dollar." [1]
To say that Iraq’s switch to the Euro would not threaten US dollar hegemony is ridiculous. Many administration critics argue today that the real reason for invading Iraq in 2003 was not to remove WMD from Iraq or to establish freedom but to preserve the dollar dominance of the world's oil market. These same critics argue today that the real reason for the ramp-up of concern over Iran has nothing to do with Iran's secret nuclear weapons program or with President Ahmadinejad's alleged threats to destroy Israel but everything to do with oil.
If the Iranians persist in creating a market mechanism to settle world oil transactions in the euro, the United States will attack just to preserve the oil market for the dollar.
Today, about 70 percent of the world's international foreign currency reserves are held in dollars. If the petroeuro begins to challenge the petrodollar, this percentage could diminish drastically.
The United States depends on the dollar foreign-currency reserves in order to sell the Treasury debt that sustains budget deficits. What if foreign-exchange portfolios from oil sales fell to 60 percent being held in dollars – would that cause a crisis in the U.S. economy? Or would it take 55 percent? Most Americans are completely unaware of this threat Iran represents to the U.S. economy.
The Iranians, however, are fully aware of what they are threatening, and so are top economic experts within the administration.
The Islamic world also has realized that America is at risk because they no longer have a gold-backed currency. For years, former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad has championed a move for the Muslim nations of the world to establish the gold dinar as the standard currency for settling international oil transactions. In November 2002, the West Malaysian Royal Mint reissued the gold dinar that was in common use in the Muslim world during the Ottoman Empire.
The idea would be to challenge the dollar by arguing that a fixed-value currency backed in gold is more resistant to devaluation than a floating dollar such as the U.S. has had since the administration of Richard Nixon.
America was certainly aware of the knock-on effect Iraq’s switch to the Euro would have had, even if you are not.
Sarastro wrote:
The point, which you singularly fail to grasp or address, is that they would have had a much easier time and made just as much money by pressuring the government to allow them to operate freely in Iraq. Since you think they could make the US govt. go to war, surely they could have made them relax sanctions? A tangental point is that they did not need Iraq as the one true source of oil. Their business models are based on diversity over a huge number of countries, to maintain a steady supply in the face of political instability.
It was one of many reasons for the attack, TNCs would have been fully aware of the money to be made in Iraq, just look at how much Halliburton's stock has risen since. I don’t think I need to point out the connections between those who pushed for war and Halliburton. [2]
Sarastro wrote:
...when this is precisely what they are constantly petitioning OPEC to stop doing, and the reason for their seeking oil sources outside OPEC? Considering your past form, I'm not even going to bother arguing this one until you show me those documents.
Iraq’s oil output in 2003, 2004 and 2005 was less than produced under the restrictive Oil-for-Food program. At the same time, profits of the five US oil majors have tripled, at least in part because of artificial scarcity.
Greg Palest, BBC investigative report has uncovered the documents, I suggest you buy his book if you wan to know more, a quick look in the footnotes didn’t produce any results, if u continue to push on the issue though I will dig the name of the document out for you.
Sarastro wrote:
Really, Machiavelli? Ultimately, a fat kid eating a Big Mac is also about America's role in the 21st Century. And you realised that American foreign policy is about America's role in the 21st century? You must have at least several braincells!
My comment about Americas role in the twenty first century was in regards to a document put out by the right-wing neo-conservative think-tank PNAC (project for a New America Century) and in particular a document entitled “Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century”. It is widely known about, I’m surprised you didn’t pick up on it. Perhaps your several braincells aren’t working in unison today? Sorry I really didn’t want to bring myself to your level.
Sarastro wrote:
Take Afghanistan & Iraq out of that, and you have the map circa 2000. What do we have left? 19 major bases in countries bordering Iraq; Oman, UAE, Saudi, Turkey, etc. Almost five times the number in Iraq currently. And Afghan? 4 bordering countries with US bases, 11 of them, and aside from Iran, friendly countries nearby. Yes, they are important strategic countries. No, they are not necessary strategic countries, and the US already has significant political/military influence over the region.
Most U.S. forces in the region were based in Arabia (Saudi) it has long been know that the Saud’s were not happy with this situation, both The House, and the populace. Since the illegal take over of Iraq the U.S. has embarked on a massive construction campaign, laying the ground work for a long-term military presence in Iraq.
Also Arabia is not considered a major strategic pivot, whereas Iraq is a long sought after prize for anyone wanting to exert control over the wider region. Afghanistan also is a treasured prize, control of Afghanistan would allow for a an oil pipeline to be built, opening up access to the recently liberated independent states in the North, opening up access to the vast oil and gas reserves of the Caspian, and allowing for a pipeline to be built bypassing the politically unstable Caucasus. Control over Afghanistan would also serve to ensure any future attempt by Russia to regain control over the region would be severely weakened.
[1]
Finacial Times, June 5 2003
[2]
Halliburton Watch
