NationStates Jolt Archive

The US has welcomed a British decision to redeploy troops to central Iraq following their request for assistance.
Five hundred Black Watch soldiers and 350 support personnel in Basra will move to the American sector but remain under British control.

A White House spokesman said the move would help American-led forces address what he called the ongoing security challenges in the country.


Do you agree with the decision? Will an assault on Falluja help bring stability to Iraq? Will the country be safe enough to hold elections?

What do you think?

As long as America gets its precious oil, i dont think they care wat they do over there, whether they kill militants or civilians, whether they sell out or rescue hostages etc.

That sounds true,but do you think its possible that Iraq can have a bloodless election in January?

That sounds true,but do you think its possible that Iraq can have a bloodless election in January?
NO!

Then when CAN it have bloodless electios??

When religious people use logic. i.e. never.

Then when CAN it have bloodless electios??1994, 1998, and 2002
I might be off by a year for each of those

1994, 1998, and 2002
I might be off by a year for each of those
They may have been reported to be bloodless, but I doubt they were, as anyone who voted against Saddam dissapeared.

As long as America gets its precious oil, i dont think they care wat they do over there, whether they kill militants or civilians, whether they sell out or rescue hostages etc.
if this were a war for oil and not isszy
then why am i paying $2 a fricking gallon for regulre unleaded

As long as America gets its precious oil, i dont think they care wat they do over there, whether they kill militants or civilians, whether they sell out or rescue hostages etc.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aairaqioil.htm

Importance of Iraqi Oil to the U.S.
During December 2002, the United States imported 11.3 million barrels of oil from Iraq. In comparison, imports from other major OPEC oil-producing countries during December 2002 included:
Saudi Arabia - 56.2 million barrels
Venezuela 20.2 million barrels
Nigeria 19.3 million barrels
Kuwait - 5.9 million barrels
Algeria - 1.2 million barrels

Leading imports from non-OPEC countries during December 2002 included:
Canada 46.2 million barrels
Mexico 53.8 million barrels
United Kingdom 11.7 million barrels
Norway 4.5 million barrels

US oil consumption is 19.65 million bbl/day (it produces 8.054 million bbl/day, BTW.) http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html
This works out to about 350 million barrels per month. ((19-8)*30)

..So will the US invade Nigeria next? How about Mexico? Come *ON*.
I'm sorry, but IMHO this whole "war for oil" BULLSH*T is just a knee-jerk reaction.

They may have been reported to be bloodless, but I doubt they were, as anyone who voted against Saddam dissapeared.

A 100% turnout was reported in the elections of 2002 and Saddam won by 100%.Which means nobody voted against him...

The US has welcomed a British decision to redeploy troops to central Iraq following their request for assistance.
Five hundred Black Watch soldiers and 350 support personnel in Basra will move to the American sector but remain under British control.

A White House spokesman said the move would help American-led forces address what he called the ongoing security challenges in the country.


Do you agree with the decision? Will an assault on Falluja help bring stability to Iraq? Will the country be safe enough to hold elections?

What do you think?

Why do the US need 850 of our already stretched troops when they have 130,000 odd thousand over there? Oh I remember, because Blair is desperate for Bush to get re-elected.

This is a political move. Nothing more. Any suggestion to the contrary is pure naivety.

The US has welcomed a British decision to redeploy troops to central Iraq following their request for assistance.
Five hundred Black Watch soldiers and 350 support personnel in Basra will move to the American sector but remain under British control.

A White House spokesman said the move would help American-led forces address what he called the ongoing security challenges in the country.


Do you agree with the decision? Will an assault on Falluja help bring stability to Iraq? Will the country be safe enough to hold elections?

What do you think?

Agreeing with this decision really isn't my place and only the British people really can since it is their people. In the end though one thing to help the chances of a peaceful election is for John Kerry to be elected. Even if half of America doesn't like Kerry, he hasn't destroyed his credibility to the world like Dubya has. Iraqis could see Kerry as less of a threat.

So much of this war is ludicrous. Oh sorry, the war ended last year right? ;)
I agree with Planta Genestae- it's all a political move, a show of unity or American domination or whatever. I doubt the troops will actually make a difference. To me, this war isn't winnable. So much has been done to antagonise the Iraqi people that they will ALWAYS view the occupying force as invaders rather than liberators. Pfft, "liberators?" Who were they kidding anyway?

As for safe elections? Not bloody likely until the US pulls out. And even then, what will be left?

With Allawi as head of the interim government it is clear anyway that the US do not want Iraq to be free and selfgoverned. Allawi is a US/British puppet with CIA ties, so he has very little support in Iraq.

If the US withdraw from Iraq, the country descends into civil war, if they stay, they will remain between the religious fronts and be the fuel for the anti-American hatred in the Middle East. Either way, this war is unwinnable and no matter what, the removal of Hussein has made the Middle East a festering terrorism source. Many thanks, United States of America!

Iraq is not going to benefit from any of this.

Iraq is not going to benefit from any of this.

Totally agree with you,pal.. no country has benefited with civilian or military war...

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aairaqioil.htm

Importance of Iraqi Oil to the U.S.
During December 2002, the United States imported 11.3 million barrels of oil from Iraq. In comparison, imports from other major OPEC oil-producing countries during December 2002 included:
Saudi Arabia - 56.2 million barrels
Venezuela 20.2 million barrels
Nigeria 19.3 million barrels
Kuwait - 5.9 million barrels
Algeria - 1.2 million barrels

Leading imports from non-OPEC countries during December 2002 included:
Canada 46.2 million barrels
Mexico 53.8 million barrels
United Kingdom 11.7 million barrels
Norway 4.5 million barrels

US oil consumption is 19.65 million bbl/day (it produces 8.054 million bbl/day, BTW.) http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html
This works out to about 350 million barrels per month. ((19-8)*30)

..So will the US invade Nigeria next? How about Mexico? Come *ON*.
I'm sorry, but IMHO this whole "war for oil" BULLSH*T is just a knee-jerk reaction.

In the case of Nigeria, Chevron simply pays the local corrupt military to burn out the locals. Ask Condi, she was very effective as foreign policy advisor for Chevron. Also, I might add that Iraq has supposedly the largest untapped reserves. How doesn't that fit into the Bush regime fantasy of an easy victory and a war that pays for itself with the oil that will assuredly be produced? You do remember that don't you? This was going to cost the US 1.7 billion and the rest would be financed by Iraqi oil revenues. You're right about the knee jerk, but it was the Bush administration that knee-jerked us into a war with no real plan outside of some insane fantasy.

In the case of Nigeria, Chevron simply pays the local corrupt military to burn out the locals. Ask Condi, she was very effective as foreign policy advisor for Chevron.

That's as may be, but it still doesn't follow that invading Iraq for oil (which was the postulate) makes sense. Saddam was more than willing to deal under the table. It was known that invasion would DEstabalize the market.

Also, I might add that Iraq has supposedly the largest untapped reserves.

Probably true, or it might be a close second. Either way, given the US's repeated claims that they do NOT want to stay there, I still see the oil connection as a secondary, or ever terciary issue.

How doesn't that fit into the Bush regime fantasy of an easy victory and a war that pays for itself with the oil that will assuredly be produced?

It *was* an easy victory. And that might have occurred, had the nationbuilding plan actually been... you know, a plan.

You do remember that don't you? This was going to cost the US 1.7 billion and the rest would be financed by Iraqi oil revenues.

Yep, and I still want my $1.27 gas back, too. :(

You're right about the knee jerk, but it was the Bush administration that knee-jerked us into a war with no real plan outside of some insane fantasy.

Thanks.
I somewhat agree. They had a great war plan. Perhaps one of the best ever made in terms of speeds and combined arms. But their plan for what to do after the war was "over" was woefully inadequate.

1994, 1998, and 2002
I might be off by a year for each of those

I'm not sure if rigged elections when 99.9% of those who turn out allegedly vote for Saddam and those who don't disappear in the night really count as proper elections.

Totally agree with you,pal.. no country has benefited with civilian or military war...

You're being sarcastic I hope.

This is a list of countries that have been bombed by the U.S. after the second world war (http://www.self-gov.org/good/a0276.html)

China 1945-46
Korea 1950-53
China 1950-53
Guatemala 1954
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959-60
Guatemala 1960
Congo 1964
Peru 1965
Laos 1964-73
Vietnam 1961-73
Cambodia 1969-70
Guatemala 1967-69
Grenada 1983
Libya 1986
El Salvador 1980s
Nicaragua 1980s
Panama 1989
Iraq 1991-99
Sudan 1998
Afghanistan 1998
Yugoslavia 1999


In how many of these instances did a democratic government, respectful
of human rights, occur as a direct result of the bombings?

2001 : Afganisthan
2003 : Irak
2005 : ?

The intention of a good deal of bombing missions you mentioned above was not to promote democracy - SHOCK!!! But rather to combat terrorism, oppose the Soviets or even in the case of Yugoslavia to prevent genocide. And either way, in almost every single case the bombing was targeted.

Hey, the US was paranoid over the spread of communism during most of this time. Washington seemed to think that a brutal dictatorship that we can control somewhat is better than a democracy that we can't that has the slim possibibiliy of being taken by the Reds. Assasinating world leaders and all that the CIA did. Certainly wrong, but there it is Honey Badgers.

Honey Badgers. Amusing name.

So much of this war is ludicrous. Oh sorry, the war ended last year right? ;)
I agree with Planta Genestae- it's all a political move, a show of unity or American domination or whatever. I doubt the troops will actually make a difference. To me, this war isn't winnable. So much has been done to antagonise the Iraqi people that they will ALWAYS view the occupying force as invaders rather than liberators. Pfft, "liberators?" Who were they kidding anyway?

As for safe elections? Not bloody likely until the US pulls out. And even then, what will be left?

The point is though that so many of us non-left wing , non pacifist types predicted that this would happen. How many Left, Right and Centrist people said that Iraq would not be liberated with scenes of popular joy and flowers adourning our troops as they entered Baghdad? How many of us said that terrorism would get worse in Iraq not better? How many of us said that the different political and religious groups would all hate us equally and fight us until we pull out before fighting each other? How many of us said that we could not win this war?

A whole damn lot of us is the answer. I do not often agree with Tony Benn, but on this point I do because as he said in Iraq we have made "a serious mistake".

The only people in Britain who seemed to want this war were the politicians. The biggest protest march in London since the days of the Chartists took place just before the invasion and still they ignored us. How long can the politicians of the UK treat its people with such contempt?

I make no qualms in saying this but Blair should go, now and forever but not until he has personally apologised to each and every single bereaved British family and to the nation of Iraq. Blair must go! Who cares about what good he has done to the country? Blair has done some good for this country but that no longer matters. How can Blair survive after failing to do what a government should so above all else which is to protect his people? Lyndon B. Johnson paid for this and so should Blair. Because of him Britain is now the second most hated country in the world and each and every British citizen is in danger.

Down with Blair!

This is a list of countries that have been bombed by the U.S. after the second world war (http://www.self-gov.org/good/a0276.html)

China 1945-46 - Defend Kai-Sheck: Democracy: 1, temporarily
Korea 1950-53 - South Korea. Democracy: 2
China 1950-53
Guatemala 1954
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959-60
Guatemala 1960
Congo 1964
Peru 1965
Laos 1964-73
Vietnam 1961-73 - South Vietnam, temporary. Democracy:3.
Cambodia 1969-70
Guatemala 1967-69
Grenada 1983 - Done to keep the Cubans OUT and rescue hostages. Democracy: 4.
Libya 1986 - Done as reprisal against "the Colonel", no troops.
El Salvador 1980s - Democracy:5.
Nicaragua 1980s -
Panama 1989 - Noriega captured. Democracy:6
Iraq 1991-99 - Kuwait restored. Not technically a real democracy, but a whole lot better than life under Saddam. Democracy:7.
Sudan 1998
Afghanistan 1998
Yugoslavia 1999 - Halt genocide. Croatia, Slovenia free. Democracy:8,9.


In how many of these instances did a democratic government, respectful
of human rights, occur as a direct result of the bombings?

2001 : Afganisthan
2003 : Irak
2005 : ?

So, it's a better record than you'd suppose, even if all the bombing missions were not meant to topple governments.

Note: Toppling governments is illegal and against the UN charter/ international law.

I know it is not wise to agree with Michael Moore, but I go with the fahrenheit version that the war is all about people forgetting Osama, the thing is, religious people does not need leaders to attack (like nazis, for example), a military nation when loses its leader, surrender, a religious nation, when loses its leader, make a martyr out of it and attacks even harder, I don´t know how the hell the US defense didn´t tought about it, but well... it didn´t... this war clearly is lasting way longer then it would appear.
Now, about the oil, the thing is that Iraq oil was going to French companies, now, will go to US. US won´t invade Mexico, for example, because its oil ALREADY goes to US and gotta remember that, exporting or not, Iraq still have the second largest reserve on the world.

We get more oil from Venezuela then the Middle East anyway.

...Washington seemed to think that a brutal dictatorship that we can control somewhat is better than a democracy that we can't ......."seemed" ???

You're being sarcastic I hope.

No,really... Tell me,which nation has benefited from war.. Do not measure loss of countless lives with financial gain.

A 100% turnout was reported in the elections of 2002 and Saddam won by 100%.Which means nobody voted against him...
including all the people he supressed and also any "opposition" sounds like a fair, non-rigged election to me

including all the people he supressed and also any "opposition" sounds like a fair, non-rigged election to meYou give lessons and you talk like you know, but Iraq's election would end up in islamic dictatorship.
In the US, democracy is possible, because the system is mature enough. People are brain-washed and they are ready to accept the 2 party system where there is no difference between the 2 parties and they are ready to buy that politics is about gay marriage and marijuana legalization.
In Iraq, they are not there yet. They're not ready to buy that there is only one way to govern. The result would be unpredictable with all the different parties.

It is impossible to force a country into democracy, the willingness has to come from the people. So it surely is a difficult thing to solve.

Democracy is not possible without a brain-washed population, because the people have to agree on a common idea of the government in order to have democracy. It is a slow process.
If France for instance, it happened after Napoleon destroyed all the local cultures. He banned all the non-french language, so there was only one language and he installed mandatory public education (which is some kind of brain-washing in fact). Only after that we could have democracy.

You give lessons and you talk like you know, but Iraq's election would end up in islamic dictatorship.
In the US, democracy is possible, because the system is mature enough. People are brain-washed and they are ready to accept the 2 party system where there is no difference between the 2 parties and they are ready to buy that politics is about gay marriage and marijuana legalization.
In Iraq, they are not there yet. They're not ready to buy that there is only one way to govern. The result would be unpredictable with all the different parties.
very likely but im saying that to get 100% of the population to all vote for the same person is ludicrous

very likely but im saying that to get 100% of the population to all vote for the same person is ludicrousOh OK, then I agree there was no democracy in Iraq under Saddam, there will be no democracy in Iraq after Saddam either, but it is another different story.

Oh OK, then I agree there was no democracy in Iraq under Saddam, there will be no democracy in Iraq after Saddam either, but it is another different story.

probably not for quite some time but its a start

probably not for quite some time but its a start
Well we're back to the start indeed. There will have to be another Saddam before democracy can begin. Because now they will fight each other, problably split the country in 3, then there will have to be a Tyrany to bring back order, then it will split into oligarchy and only after that can democracy take roots.

I don't know who ahould do what anymore.
It's just sad over there. no matter what happens, inocent people will die and that is horrible.

Well we're back to the start indeed. There will have to be another Saddam before democracy can begin. Because now they will fight each other, problably split the country in 3, then there will have to be a Tyrany to bring back order, then it will split into oligarchy and only after that can democracy take roots.

...or the next election could go off without a hitch and every iraqi will accept the new president and order will be restored.... but then we have reality

...or the next election could go off without a hitch and every iraqi will accept the new president and order will be restored.... but then we have reality
Inch'allah.

Inch'allah.


and a translation please?

That sounds true,but do you think its possible that Iraq can have a bloodless election in January?
If all things were to go as good as possible, they might. But both prez candidates over here are clueless as to handle the situation.

and a translation please?Sorry I thought it was a well known expression.
Literally, in arabic, it means "if god wants it".
But when you say "inch'allah" it means that you hope it will be like that, although you have no control over it.

Sorry I thought it was a well known expression.
Literally, in arabic, it means "if god wants it".
But when you say "inch'allah" it means that you hope it will be like that, although you have no control over it.
thank you for clearing that up

Democracy is not possible without a brain-washed population, because the people have to agree on a common idea of the government in order to have democracy. It is a slow process.
If France for instance, it happened after Napoleon destroyed all the local cultures. He banned all the non-french language, so there was only one language and he installed mandatory public education (which is some kind of brain-washing in fact). Only after that we could have democracy.

Do you think that Saddam could have stayed in power without his brutal meathods and brainwashing the people to thinking they love him? How can democracy only be possible through brainwashing? The system is set up so you have a say as to who is leading your country. If we can only eliminate the Electoral College...

Do you think that Saddam could have stayed in power without his brutal meathods and brainwashing the people to thinking they love him? How can democracy only be possible through brainwashing? The system is set up so you have a say as to who is leading your country. If we can only eliminate the Electoral College...
lol. Your democracy is an illusion. Anyway I don't expect you to lighten up today.
"but I can vote Kerry so Bush can go if I don't like him ... bla bla bla... freedom ... bla bla bla ... democracy ... bla bla bla ... american dream".

Democracy is not about choosing between Kerry and Bush and be ruled by Boeing and Halliburton.

People were making the exact same dire predictions about Afghanistan as they are now about Iraq. It didn't work out the way they predicted.

It is necessary to understand who we are fighting... three separate groups (at least):
1. foreign terrorists (Zarqawi)
2. sunni tribes/baathists/ex-military
3. poor shia youth gangs (Al Sadr's militia)

Group 3 is no longer a major factor, since over the past few months they were neutralized both politically (by Sistani) and militarily (by being kicked out of Karbala, Najaf and Kut, suffering heavy casualties and losing most of their weapons).

Groups 1 & 2 were working together, but since they actually have very different agendas, they are beginning to fight with each other. It appears possible that a deal can be made with 2 against 1. Also it appears the general population in areas controlled by group 1 has grown very tired of them. See:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28105-2004Oct12.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200407/s1150925.htm

What will probably happen: we will stay on the offensive between now and election day, in order to deny the enemy the opportunity to stage a successful attack. In the next month or two we will continue to develop our intelligence network and continue targetting the foreign fighters, while attempting to drive a wedge between them and the local tribes. Eventually we will storm the remaining holdout areas in the same way as we did in Samarra. Once they have no areas to use as sanctuary, the operational capabilities of the terrorists will be greatly reduced, to near-"nuisance" levels. The elections will go on schedule, perhaps with a few isolated attacks.

No,really... Tell me,which nation has benefited from war.. Do not measure loss of countless lives with financial gain.

Poland came back into EXISTANCE after 123 years of subjugation due to WW1. In fact, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Jugoslavia all benefited directly from WW1.
The US became it's own nation due to the Revolutionary War and War of 1812.

It is impossible to force a country into democracy, the willingness has to come from the people. So it surely is a difficult thing to solve.

Well said.
Have you read Barbara Tuchman? That was one of her points, I believe in "March of Folly" .

No,really... Tell me,which nation has benefited from war.. Do not measure loss of countless lives with financial gain.

Okay, Japan, Germany, South Korea, Kuwait, virtually all of western europe (after Nazi occupation), the U.S (war of independence)...

Sorry I thought it was a well known expression.
Literally, in arabic, it means "if god wants it".
But when you say "inch'allah" it means that you hope it will be like that, although you have no control over it.

Its Insha allah-"By the grace of allah"

You give lessons and you talk like you know, but Iraq's election would end up in islamic dictatorship.
In the US, democracy is possible, because the system is mature enough. People are brain-washed and they are ready to accept the 2 party system where there is no difference between the 2 parties and they are ready to buy that politics is about gay marriage and marijuana legalization.
In Iraq, they are not there yet. They're not ready to buy that there is only one way to govern. The result would be unpredictable with all the different parties.

As soon as India acquired independence,there was a bloody civil war... all nations,at some point of time,will face confusion and strife... The difference it has come rather late for Iraq.

As soon as India acquired independence,there was a bloody civil war... all nations,at some point of time,will face confusion and strife... The difference it has come rather late for Iraq.
Isnha allah (as you spell it) it will end soon.
I hope it doesn't turn like Afghanistan after the soviet invasion.
Salaam aleikoum.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aairaqioil.htm

Importance of Iraqi Oil to the U.S.
During December 2002, the United States imported 11.3 million barrels of oil from Iraq. In comparison, imports from other major OPEC oil-producing countries during December 2002 included:
Saudi Arabia - 56.2 million barrels
Venezuela 20.2 million barrels
Nigeria 19.3 million barrels
Kuwait - 5.9 million barrels
Algeria - 1.2 million barrels

Leading imports from non-OPEC countries during December 2002 included:
Canada 46.2 million barrels
Mexico 53.8 million barrels
United Kingdom 11.7 million barrels
Norway 4.5 million barrels

US oil consumption is 19.65 million bbl/day (it produces 8.054 million bbl/day, BTW.) http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html
This works out to about 350 million barrels per month. ((19-8)*30)

..So will the US invade Nigeria next? How about Mexico? Come *ON*.
I'm sorry, but IMHO this whole "war for oil" BULLSH*T is just a knee-jerk reaction.
It's not a knee-jerk reaction.
First, you're only looking at today's oil revenue. Look 10 years or 20 years down the track and you'll see a lot of the countries you posted will have run dry. The US will be heavily dependent on Middle-East oil by then. Also China will probably be the biggest user of oil (ahead of the US, currently they're second), which will put huge pressure on the US economy.
As for Saddam being happy to deal under the table - this was nearly all to European countries. He had almost no dealings with the US.
What the US admin was accutely worried of, was not so much Saddam building his WMDs if the UN sanctions were ever lifted, but Saddam allowing European firms in to rebuild his infrastructure and run the oil lines, blocking out all US companies. He would have also then been trading in the Euro, not the US dollar which would have weakened the US dollar (and economy) significantly a few years down the track (once his oil became more valuable when other countries supplies ran out). Pegging oil to the Euro is one of the US's biggest fears. It'll cripple the economy.
There had been several European companies there for years, just waiting for the sanctions to go. Also once the sanctions lifted, the US wouldn't have been able to invade - there would have been far too many oversea nationals (particularly European and Japanese ones) there. It would have made an invasion extremely risky. And of course the possible threat of Saddam rearming. Best to do it now, while his armies are crap, and there's no friendlies in the way. And you get hold of the 2nd biggest reserve of easily-accessible oil in the World.
So, not a knee-jerk reaction. A poorly-planned and implemented one sure.

It's not a knee-jerk reaction.
First, you're only looking at today's oil revenue. Look 10 years or 20 years down the track and you'll see a lot of the countries you posted will have run dry.

Some will, some will not. But invading Iraq for oil still makes no sense. I'd be considerably cheaper to find an assassin that could get close to Hussein and his sons, or to just let him sit there.

The US will be heavily dependent on Middle-East oil by then.

Doubtful, in my mind. I think we learned our lesson from the 2 oilshocks of the 70s, plus the (smaller) one when Kuwait was invaded.

Also China will probably be the biggest user of oil (ahead of the US, currently they're second), which will put huge pressure on the US economy.


True, *if* they don't implode. There is mounting evidence that if they don't cool down their economy that they're going to bust soon. For a quick overview, please see: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3962059.stm and
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/newsweek/economy.htm

As for Saddam being happy to deal under the table - this was nearly all to European countries. He had almost no dealings with the US.


Very true. But he also had dealings with Asia too. Even just the European dealings took stress of the world oil market.

What the US admin was accutely worried of, was not so much Saddam building his WMDs if the UN sanctions were ever lifted, but Saddam allowing European firms in to rebuild his infrastructure and run the oil lines, blocking out all US companies.

It wasn't building WMDs after sanctions, it was that he already had them.
I find that a pretty low ranking priority. The US had avoided such dealings with him for over a decade, and even if (say) French and German companies got lucretive contracts, that's no big deal. At that time, the US still had major (if not dominant) dealings with the Saudis, Kuwaitis, Bharain...
It might have been a contributing factor, a fringe benefit if you will, but I can't see it being THE reason.

He would have also then been trading in the Euro, not the US dollar which would have weakened the US dollar (and economy) significantly a few years down the track (once his oil became more valuable when other countries supplies ran out).


Not really true, and here is why:
The Euro is a combined currency, based on a free floating principle amongst the various nations that use it. The US dollar is based on the US economy. In these aspects, they're similar but not the same -- the governor of Kentucky doesn't decide economic policy for a soverign nation.
That said-
Trading of anything is done on whatever currency both sides can agree to. "Trading" in Euros just means you plugged in the "1 EU = x litres of oil" to measure the transaction. If you pay 1EU or 1.12 USD, it's the *same*. Trading in one currency or another does not hurt nor help, per se. The only time it would make a difference is if you held a currency that was non-convertable. Since the USD and the Euro are both widely held and easily converted currencies, this is not a factor.

Pegging oil to the Euro is one of the US's biggest fears. It'll cripple the economy.

No it wouldn't, due to the reason above.

There had been several European companies there for years, just waiting for the sanctions to go. Also once the sanctions lifted, the US wouldn't have been able to invade - there would have been far too many oversea nationals (particularly European and Japanese ones) there.
It would have made an invasion extremely risky. And of course the possible threat of Saddam rearming. Best to do it now, while his armies are crap, and there's no friendlies in the way.


Yes, there were companies there.
Um... it didn't stop the 1st Gulf War, I doubt it'd make a difference today. Do you remember the "human shield" silliness?

And you get hold of the 2nd biggest reserve of easily-accessible oil in the World. So, not a knee-jerk reaction. A poorly-planned and implemented one sure.

That is a good reason, but it still doesn't satisfy as being the main reason for war. Especially while concurrently fighting in Afghanistan, rumblings in North Korea, and Iran looking more suspicious every day. Further, why embark on such an adventure in the first term?
Rather, I feel that Bush & co went into it believing that the intel was right.

I don't deny that you've got some really good points, here. All I'm saying is that they're ancillary, at least IMHO.

Sure let's just keep throwing more good younf bodies into this cesspool.
We have no plan, no acheivable goal, but as long as these expendables keep coming, who cares?

Falluja deserves to burn after the terrible crimes they allow the terrorist to commit. The entire world would be a better safer place without it.

Iraq will have its elections...eventually. I doubt it will descend into an Islamist regime, as Iraqis are used to having a secularist government. More likely, the early days of the Iraqi Republic would look much like Ataturk's Turkey, where any party that has as its objective the destruction of the Republic would be banned and imprisoned, while the military is what is primarily responsible for upholding the integrity of the constitution. Much has changed in Turkey since then, and in 70 years much will change in Iraq.

If nothing else, Falluja needs to be stabilized. Offering an amnesty to the insurgents was the right thing to do, as historical experience, particularly in Ireland, Lebanon, South Africa, Israel, Turkey, Yugoslavia, all over South America, and so on, shows that the only way to really deal with an embedded resistance movement is to include them in the political process. In time, they will tire of fighting and sit at the table, so long as we give them the option with no strings attached and show maximum restraint.

More importanly, more resources are needed in Iraq to stabilize the country. Iraq needs its own military, police force, etc, and foreign troops will likely be there for many years to come. Also, more money is needed to help reconstruct the economic infrastructure of the country and employ some of these impoverished, bored youths who have little better to do than take shots at US GIs. In short, give them an alternative to insurrection that lets them take some of their own destiny in their own hands. In the meantime, our mentality must not be one of fighting a war, but policing a troubled country...law and order must be established.

More importanly, more resources are needed in Iraq to stabilize the country. Iraq needs its own military, police force, etc.

All in good time.... Rome wasn't built in a day...

Trading of anything is done on whatever currency both sides can agree to. "Trading" in Euros just means you plugged in the "1 EU = x litres of oil" to measure the transaction. If you pay 1EU or 1.12 USD, it's the *same*. Trading in one currency or another does not hurt nor help, per se. The only time it would make a difference is if you held a currency that was non-convertable. Since the USD and the Euro are both widely held and easily converted currencies, this is not a factor.


Not true. Currency and exchange rates are huge factor in trade. A weak dollar is at the moment good for USA as it helps to export things e.g. to Europe. (As American things are cheap for euro users) For same reason it's harder for euro nations to export outside Europe, as their products are pretty expensive for "dollarnations". Fortunately my country's biggest trading partners don't use dollars.

That is a good reason, but it still doesn't satisfy as being the main reason for war. Especially while concurrently fighting in Afghanistan, rumblings in North Korea, and Iran looking more suspicious every day. Further, why embark on such an adventure in the first term?
Rather, I feel that Bush & co went into it believing that the intel was right.

I don't deny that you've got some really good points, here. All I'm saying is that they're ancillary, at least IMHO.
You also have some good points and I must say it makes a pleasant change having someone seriously critique an argument rather than flaming or nitpicking on minor details.
My main point is that I am looking to give some intelligence and understanding to the major players in the Bush Admin here. Much as I dislike Cheney, I would rate him as one of the most knowledgeable, intelligent and astute men in Politics today. I can't see him rushing to a costly, poorly-thought-out war without some extremely good reasons. And 'He tried to kill my daddy' with 'even though Hans Blix has said there isn't, we have scant unconfirmed evidence he might have WMDs' aren't good reasons.
But future assured supply of oil is a very good reason.

So....
Yes, there were companies there.
Um... it didn't stop the 1st Gulf War, I doubt it'd make a difference today. Do you remember the "human shield" silliness?
Yes I remember, but I meant that it was politically expedient for the US to invade before Iraq was full of foreigners, which would have really harmed international-US relationships. Look at the resentment caused from the kidnappings there now. Imagine if there'd been ten times that number already there when the invasion occurred?

Not really true, and here is why:
The Euro is a combined currency, based on a free floating principle amongst the various nations that use it. The US dollar is based on the US economy. In these aspects, they're similar but not the same -- the governor of Kentucky doesn't decide economic policy for a soverign nation.
That said-
Trading of anything is done on whatever currency both sides can agree to. "Trading" in Euros just means you plugged in the "1 EU = x litres of oil" to measure the transaction. If you pay 1EU or 1.12 USD, it's the *same*. Trading in one currency or another does not hurt nor help, per se. The only time it would make a difference is if you held a currency that was non-convertable. Since the USD and the Euro are both widely held and easily converted currencies, this is not a factor.
No, because if the oil markets went to the Euro, there'd be a massive sell-off of the US dollar as companies dealing in oil changed to the Euro. All that currency tied up in the foreign oil markets would be released back into circulation, causing the dollar to plummet and seriously affecting the US economy.
China's pegging the Yuan to the US dollar - and over-valuing it, which is annoying and hurting the US and Japanese economies. One of the reasons why China's keeping such a tight reign on the Yuan is because they have no idea how much foreign investment and money is actually in China (hundreds of billions US by some estimates). They're afraid floating the Yuan would have a lot of it pulled out immediately, which would screw the economy up.
The same thing would happen to the US, if the Saudis pulled their money out and converted it to Euros. How many trillion do they have in the US? Some horrific figure.

Originally Posted by Markreich
Trading of anything is done on whatever currency both sides can agree to. "Trading" in Euros just means you plugged in the "1 EU = x litres of oil" to measure the transaction. If you pay 1EU or 1.12 USD, it's the *same*. Trading in one currency or another does not hurt nor help, per se. The only time it would make a difference is if you held a currency that was non-convertable. Since the USD and the Euro are both widely held and easily converted currencies, this is not a factor.

Not true. Currency and exchange rates are huge factor in trade. A weak dollar is at the moment good for USA as it helps to export things e.g. to Europe. (As American things are cheap for euro users) For same reason it's harder for euro nations to export outside Europe, as their products are pretty expensive for "dollarnations". Fortunately my country's biggest trading partners don't use dollars.


Right, and I agree with you 100%.
But the point I was making that it doesn't matter which currency a particular nation cares to trade their commodities in.

You also have some good points and I must say it makes a pleasant change having someone seriously critique an argument rather than flaming or nitpicking on minor details.

I agree. There's no point in bothering, otherwise.

My main point is that I am looking to give some intelligence and understanding to the major players in the Bush Admin here. Much as I dislike Cheney, I would rate him as one of the most knowledgeable, intelligent and astute men in Politics today. I can't see him rushing to a costly, poorly-thought-out war without some extremely good reasons. And 'He tried to kill my daddy' with 'even though Hans Blix has said there isn't, we have scant unconfirmed evidence he might have WMDs' aren't good reasons.

Right. I believe that a combination of faulty intel is a much more likely reason, tho. Consider that the information was confirmed by MI6, Mossad, and quite a few other intels from around the world.


But future assured supply of oil is a very good reason.

It is, and I still buy it as a secondary/ancillary one.

So....

Yes I remember, but I meant that it was politically expedient for the US to invade before Iraq was full of foreigners, which would have really harmed international-US relationships. Look at the resentment caused from the kidnappings there now. Imagine if there'd been ten times that number already there when the invasion occurred?

Right. I understand your point, but I just don't believe it'd matter much. This is of course assuming that the Iraqis allowed folks to leave pre-invasion, which they'd likely do as they'd done in the past.
Right... but that's by extremists that are seen to be a reaction to our presence there now. Big difference to that vs. Saddam doing it.
I don't think most people would really care. Seriously. Traditionally, they don't unless it's theirs that are being taken. There was never much uproar about all the kidnappings in Sarajevo, for example.

No, because if the oil markets went to the Euro, there'd be a massive sell-off of the US dollar as companies dealing in oil changed to the Euro.

Yes, but that's the whole market, not just Iraq.

All that currency tied up in the foreign oil markets would be released back into circulation, causing the dollar to plummet and seriously affecting the US economy.

If there was such a dollar selloff, yes. But also consider that it'd be unlikely that all the members of OPEC (never mind Russia and other oil producing nations) would convert at the same time just because Iraq did.

China's pegging the Yuan to the US dollar - and over-valuing it, which is annoying and hurting the US and Japanese economies. One of the reasons why China's keeping such a tight reign on the Yuan is because they have no idea how much foreign investment and money is actually in China (hundreds of billions US by some estimates). They're afraid floating the Yuan would have a lot of it pulled out immediately, which would screw the economy up.

True. It'd also seriously erode their trade balances and probably change their wage laws and inflation rates.

The same thing would happen to the US, if the Saudis pulled their money out and converted it to Euros. How many trillion do they have in the US? Some horrific figure.

But you have to admit that is an extreme example. Also, it is a variety of holders that have that money invested, not the Saudi government. Same thing with Britain, Holland and Japan -- and I'm pretty sure that any one of them make the Saudi investments look like small potatoes. It'd have an effect, but I don't think it likely.