NationStates Jolt Archive

Remember when Iraq wanted to sell her oil for Euros?

U.N. to let Iraq sell oil for euros, not dollars (http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/10/30/iraq.un.euro.reut/)

A U.N. panel on Monday approved Iraq's plan to receive oil-export payments in Europe's single currency after Baghdad decided to move the start date back a week.

U.S. Dollar vs. the Euro: Another Reason for the Invasion of Iraq (http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2004/19.html)

In November 2000, Iraq became the first OPEC nation to begin selling its oil for Euros. Since then, the value of the Euro has increased 17%, and the dollar has begun to decline. One important reason for the invasion and installation of a U.S. dominated government in Iraq was to force the country back to the dollar. Another reason for the invasion is to dissuade further OPEC momentum toward the Euro, especially from Iran- the second largest OPEC producer, who was actively discussing a switch to Euros for its oil exports.

Now it is Iran's turn to muck about with the US dollar at stake. It is interesting to see where all of this goes??

What is the Iranian Oil Burse?

The Iranian Oil Exchange Proposal And The Demise Of The Dollar (http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2006/01/23/the_iranian_oil_exchange_proposal.htm)

The Iranian government has finally developed the ultimate "nuclear" weapon that can swiftly destroy the financial system underpinning the American Empire. That weapon is the Iranian Oil Bourse slated to open in March 2006. It will be based on a euro-oil-trading mechanism that naturally implies payment for oil in Euro. In economic terms, this represents a much greater threat to the hegemony of the dollar than Saddam's, because it will allow anyone willing either to buy or to sell oil for Euro to transact on the exchange, thus circumventing the U.S. dollar altogether. If so, then it is likely that almost everyone will eagerly adopt this euro oil system:

For the Rapture/religious fans:

Iran Vs. America … Round Two (http://www.raptureready.com/soap/iran.htm)

Iran now proposes to challenge the US by opening its own oil exchange called the Iranian Oil Burse, or IOB, and permitting customers to pay in Euros, the currency of Iran's largest trading partner. They plan to begin offering their oil on the IOB beginning in March 2006. If successful, it means that countries will soon have the choice of paying OPEC for their oil with inflated US dollars or effectively receiving a 25% discount by purchasing it from Iran in Euros. Just about every country in the world will benefit greatly by this, especially the EU, whose currency would immediately become much stronger and more stable in world financial markets.

Everyone except the US that is, where foreign oil costs would skyrocket as the dollar declined in value, as would the cost of all other foreign goods. Within a few years, the US economy would decline to near third world status, and its national debt, which has again risen to record levels, would be impossible to repay. In short, the most powerful nation on earth would again be bankrupt as countries around the world dump large portions of their dollar reserves to buy Euros, driving its value even lower.

Some experts have calculated that this would be more devastating to the US than if Iran exploded a nuclear warhead in one of our major cities or wiped out our electronics with an EMP detonation. Even though America's military power would still be intact, at least for the time being, Iran would have done nothing that could justify retaliation. Iran could rightly say that they've only employed a lesson from free market capitalism, providing the world a much needed commodity at a better price.

March 20 to 26, 2006: Iran-USA, beginning of a major world crisis (http://www.newropeans-magazine.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3463&Itemid=85)

The Laboratoire européen d’Anticipation Politique Europe 2020, LEAP/E2020, now estimates to over 80% the probability that the week of March 20-26, 2006 will be the beginning of the most significant political crisis the world has known since the Fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989, together with an economic and financial crisis of a scope comparable with that of 1929. This last week of March 2006 will be the turning-point of a number of critical developments, resulting in an acceleration of all the factors leading to a major crisis, disregard any American or Israeli military intervention against Iran. In case such an intervention is conducted, the probability of a major crisis to start rises up to 100%, according to LEAP/E2020.

I have believed since day one of the Iraq War that the real reason for the invasion was oil. My siggy says it all as far as I am concerned. Where it all ends up, is anyones guess, but I am sure that there is a lot of feverish planning going on behind closed doors. Iran is sending out the invitations for the party, and I wonder if the US will attend?

I've know about the oil bourse for quite some time and it is certainly the real reason for our present hostilities against Iran. My prediction: there will be a "terrorist" attack involving the ports being sold to Dubai Ports World which will be linked to Iran prior to the commencement of the bourse giving us the justification to attack Iran and topple their government before March 28.

Wow, quite interesting reading, I must say. Something I'll have to save for a time other than 2330. But in all honesty, I believe there's more to it than just oil. I think W wanted to show his daddy that he could finish what his daddy couldn't. Even though HW advised against invading Iraq, his son still did it. Go figure. Quite a complex relationship the Bush sons have with their fathers in several generations. Also a little something called the Project for New American Century was behind a lot of the war as well.

Wow, quite interesting reading, I must say. Something I'll have to save for a time other than 2330. But in all honesty, I believe there's more to it than just oil. I think W wanted to show his daddy that he could finish what his daddy couldn't. Even though HW advised against invading Iraq, his son still did it. Go figure. Quite a complex relationship the Bush sons have with their fathers in several generations. Also a little something called the Project for New American Century was behind a lot of the war as well.
Of course there is a multitude of other reasons for the Iraq war, especially the finishing off of Saddam that daddy started. In regards to Iran, all the familiar excuses are starting to appear, especially the old standby of WMD.

I've know about the oil bourse for quite some time and it is certainly the real reason for our present hostilities against Iran. My prediction: there will be a "terrorist" attack involving the ports being sold to Dubai Ports World which will be linked to Iran prior to the commencement of the bourse giving us the justification to attack Iran and topple their government before March 28.
An interesting theory to say the least. I am more inclined to go along with the development of nukes as a more pressing excuse.

I've been aware of the plans for a while, and certainly control of the currency is one of the primary security concerns of any empire for obvious economic reasons. I'm sure this is one of the considerations behind America's stance, but not the only one.

An interesting theory to say the least. I am more inclined to go along with the development of nukes as a more pressing excuse.

Yah, but if they agree to let Russia refine their uranium.....

Damn why hasn't someone killed the President of Iran, I just know he wants war with the US, that way he can 'Justify' blasting Israel off the map. Doesn't matter that it would lead to Nuclear War, his 'God' will be happy.

Very cohesive post, CanuckHeaven. *bows*
Believe it or not, i've heard the theory before, quite possibly on * :eek: *
Michael "Savage" Weiner's show.

Very cohesive post, CanuckHeaven. *bows*
Believe it or not, i've heard the theory before, quite possibly on * :eek: *
Michael "Savage" Weiner's show.

I believe that it was also an article in either Hustler or Playboy...I don't remember which as I only read it for the pictures

I believe that it was also an article in either Hustler or Playboy...I don't remember which as I only read it for the pictures
Are you inferring that "Savage" is writing to Hustler's letters' section again?
He has been getting a little funny since his mama kicked the bucket.

Damn why hasn't someone killed the President of Iran, I just know he wants war with the US, that way he can 'Justify' blasting Israel off the map. Doesn't matter that it would lead to Nuclear War, his 'God' will be happy.
Several questions for you:

Do you really believe that IF Iran developed nukes that they would actually use them against Israel?

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was democratically elected, after Bush declared Iran part of the "Axis of Evil". Why do you suggest the assassination of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

The Iranian people have witnessed the destruction of Iraq, also a part of Bush's "Axis of Evil", on trumped up charges of WMD. Do you not think that the Iranians have the right for self preservation?

Do you really believe that Iran wants war with the US?

Very cohesive post, CanuckHeaven. *bows*
Thank you. :)

Believe it or not, i've heard the theory before, quite possibly on * :eek: *
Michael "Savage" Weiner's show.
I really don't know much about this Michael Savage fellow, but after doing a quick Google search, I see that he is somewhat of a right wing extremist? What was his position regarding Iran and the Iranian Oil Burse?

My prediction: there will be a "terrorist" attack involving the ports being sold to Dubai Ports World which will be linked to Iran prior to the commencement of the bourse giving us the justification to attack Iran and topple their government before March 28.
Tsk, tsk, tsk, have you learned nothing? There is no need for an actual attack any more, just the implied threat of a possible attack at some unknown time in the future while invoking the spirit of 9/11.

It never ceases to amaze me how gleeful some of you sound when you hypothosize the downfall of America. Hurts quite a bit as well. But that obviously doesn't bother you in the least. It must be sad to have such a cold heart.

It never ceases to amaze me how gleeful some of you sound when you hypothosize the downfall of America. Hurts quite a bit as well. But that obviously doesn't bother you in the least. It must be sad to have such a cold heart.
I know the irony is killing mine.

It never ceases to amaze me how gleeful some of you sound when you hypothosize the downfall of America. Hurts quite a bit as well. But that obviously doesn't bother you in the least. It must be sad to have such a cold heart.
Who is gleeful? I certainly don't want to see "the downfall of America", and certainly no one has professed that so far in this thread.

Who is gleeful? I certainly don't want to see "the downfall of America", and certainly no one has professed that so far in this thread.
I wasn't referring to you, or even necessarily just this thread. More of a general comment. At least you still have a heart, unlike some others I could name.

Wow, quite interesting reading, I must say. Something I'll have to save for a time other than 2330. But in all honesty, I believe there's more to it than just oil. I think W wanted to show his daddy that he could finish what his daddy couldn't. Even though HW advised against invading Iraq, his son still did it. Go figure. Quite a complex relationship the Bush sons have with their fathers in several generations. Also a little something called the Project for New American Century was behind a lot of the war as well.

well i like the call our president King George the VI cause he does whatever he wants to do (the last king george of england was the fifth for the people who slept in history class). i could definitly see US dominating all the oil countries. once the message is sent clear to the US population that our country will suck if we arent in a war i think there will be alot more support for it. and im totaly for taking stuff that isnt ours. thats pretty much how we got our country, from france and mexico. war is necessary and invevitable, as long as the UK is under King george the VI's thumb we got it made

As much as I would like to see a decline in American hegemony the oil bourse isn't going to have quite such a severe impact as all that. It will however force America to reduce its oil consumption, perhaps a reason for Bush's state of the union address actually mentioning that oil supplies (shock horror) are not limitless.

Oh...and invasion of Iran? I don't think the US can afford to fight on another front.

Remember when Iraq wanted to sell her oil for Euros?[etc.]


oo, can't wait. although obviously i don't want america to invade iran - i want the other scenario to happen. i didn't realise it was to do with currency and oil i thought it was just control of oil reserves. sounds very plausible though. the us'll be okay though, they'll be able to get out of it by rapidly socializing the economy - there's so much money locked up in american corporations they could pay their way out of anything.

<snip>

Saddam's noises that he will go Euro was a factor for the invasion.

But I doubt Iran can change much with its oil bourse going Euro. Iran is not that big a supplier to cause a catastrophic change. In any case China, Japan and others who have huge US T-bills will not like to have the dollar devalued simply because it will devalue the value of the bills that they are holding.

It never ceases to amaze me how gleeful some of you sound when you hypothosize the downfall of America. Hurts quite a bit as well. But that obviously doesn't bother you in the least. It must be sad to have such a cold heart.

it's not the downfall of the us i want, its cutting back of us economic hegemony and empire building. if the us will just retreat back to its own borders to sort out its economy and stop bullying everyone else then thats enough for me :)

it's not the downfall of the us i want, its cutting back of us economic hegemony and empire building. if the us will just retreat back to its own borders to sort out its economy and stop bullying everyone else then thats enough for me :)
Ah, yes. Poor, poor bullied and mistreated Saddam. What a shame. :rolleyes:

well i like the call our president King George the VI cause he does whatever he wants to do (the last king george of england was the fifth for the people who slept in history class).


The last King George of England was George VI, infact he was the last King of England, Elizabeth II's father and all that. Only his real name was Albert but he chose the be crowned as George VI for dynastic reasons. Somebody wasn't paying all that close attention in history class.

It never ceases to amaze me how gleeful some of you sound when you hypothosize the downfall of America. Hurts quite a bit as well. But that obviously doesn't bother you in the least. It must be sad to have such a cold heart.

Think of it as friendly fire.

Ah, yes. Poor, poor bullied and mistreated Saddam. What a shame. :rolleyes:

i was thinking more of: poor bullied and mistreated iraqis, they get their bullying dictator deposed only to be replaced by chaos and a bullying foreign military. i don't give a flying fuck about heads of state.

It never ceases to amaze me how gleeful some of you sound when you hypothosize the downfall of America. Hurts quite a bit as well. But that obviously doesn't bother you in the least. It must be sad to have such a cold heart.

Replace America with places like Venezuela, North Korea, China, Iran, Iraq, etc, etc, and you'd realize how similar such things sound like when the hawkish people make their noises. Does that make them cold hearted too, or because it's not American interests that are being forecasts for downfall, they make people feel all warm and fuzzy?

Turnabout's a bitch ain't it?

Besides, nothing ever lasts forever. Lives, riches, power, success, all of them are finite things. If you thought America would have lasted forever as some kind of shining beacon of prosperity, it only means you have terrible foresight.

Yeah but that article misses the REALLY obvious point that it is not just the US that favours sending Iran to the UN security council but a whole host of nations (including the European ones that would benefit from the switch), including India (who currently have vested energy interests in Iran and who are generally opposed to all forms of western interventionism) and including the IAEA (international atomic energy agency) itself.

Although I did very much enjoy the fiction that if Iran makes the switch the walls of Jericho themselves will come tumbling down.

It never ceases to amaze me how gleeful some of you sound when you hypothosize the downfall of America. Hurts quite a bit as well. But that obviously doesn't bother you in the least. It must be sad to have such a cold heart.

Well, I *am* gleeful that America's dominance might be coming to an end. It is my opinion that the US's domination of the world has had mostly negative effects, and that a more multipolar world would be an undeniably good thing.

That doesn't make me cold, that gives me a different opinion that you. There IS a difference.

It never ceases to amaze me how gleeful some of you sound when you hypothosize the downfall of America. Hurts quite a bit as well. But that obviously doesn't bother you in the least. It must be sad to have such a cold heart.
If you read Joseph A Tainter's "Collapse of Complex Societies", you will find that decline and fall is a necessary and inescapable end to all societies and cultures, once they become locally or regionally hegemonic and outgrow their resource base. One hegemonic entity is very much like another when the whole of recorded human history is viewed as a continuous whole, and none especially deserve to be mourned. America's decline in significance may not give way to anything more to our liking, indeed history shows that the aftermath of collapse is almost without exception deeply unpleasant, but it will benefit humanity in the long run. Forests need the occasional fire to develop and grow. ;)

Well, I *am* gleeful that America's dominance might be coming to an end. It is my opinion that the US's domination of the world has had mostly negative effects, and that a more multipolar world would be an undeniably good thing.

That doesn't make me cold, that gives me a different opinion that you. There IS a difference.

The question is, if the US falls, what will replace us? I wouldn't object to a more multipolar world, simply because of the thing about power & corruption. But there are a lot worse things than US domination.

The question is, if the US falls, what will replace us? I wouldn't object to a more multipolar world, simply because of the thing about power & corruption. But there are a lot worse things than US domination.
It is extremely unlikely anyone would dominate anything. The demise of the US would lead to a multipolar world.

It is extremely unlikely anyone would dominate anything. The demise of the US would lead to a multipolar world.

One question there is, how well would a multipolar world deal with rogue states? The last time we had a world without a clear superpower was before WW2. Would a multipolar world be able to use force when it was needed?

The last question is a selfish one: Just what would happen to the US if we lost our dominance. Would we remain a less powerful 1st world country, or would we become a 3rd world country? As an American, that last question is significant.

One question there is, how well would a multipolar world deal with rogue states? The last time we had a world without a clear superpower was before WW2. Would a multipolar world be able to use force when it was needed?
It depends on the nature of the threat. Local threats -> local action. Similarly regional, global, etc. It is unlikely the world would unite against anything but an equivalent-technology entity though. You certainly would not have the post-Cold War beating up of Third World countries by advanced military alliances.

The last question is a selfish one: Just what would happen to the US if we lost our dominance. Would we remain a less powerful 1st world country, or would we become a 3rd world country? As an American, that last question is significant.
It depends on how well you meet the challenge. Both are possibilities this century.

Saddam's noises that he will go Euro was a factor for the invasion.
I believe that it was a huge factor considering that Iraq is sitting on the world's 2nd largest proven oil reserves.

But I doubt Iran can change much with its oil bourse going Euro. Iran is not that big a supplier to cause a catastrophic change. In any case China, Japan and others who have huge US T-bills will not like to have the dollar devalued simply because it will devalue the value of the bills that they are holding.
I disagree. Maybe it is only a small step, but it is a step that opens up a more competetive market. How long does the US continue to get away with huge trade deficits, and an ever expanding national debt? I am sure many investors get nervous looking at the numbers and I would imagine that some would gladly like some diversification. The selling of oil for euros offers that diversification.

The US's insatiable appetite for oil has created unique problems, such as ensuring a constant, adequate supply and ensuring that oil is traded for in US dollars.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/oil_market_basics/images/importorigin.gif

Getting back to China in regards to diversification, it appears that they are already planning to diversify by investing less in US treasuries (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/09/AR2006010901042_pf.html), and I am sure that buying oil in euros would also help in that diversification?

Boooo!!!

I don't want the Euro too high. I mean, personally I do cuz it would make me money, but for Germany's exports, it would suck.

Actually, that would probably hurt Europe more than it would hurt the US; we're a deficit-running nation, so any decrease in the value of the dollar makes the real value of our debt worth less. A depreciation of the dollar hurts everyone who exports to the US, and given that we're the largest single importer (as well as the largest deficit runner), any depreciation in our currency hurts everyone who sells to us while making those who sell abroad more money.

It also makes our products more attractive at home as well as abroad, boosting our exports as well as reducing our non-oil imports; really, the only countries that would benefit would be the oil producers, since the non-oil exporting nations (all of whom are either European or Asian) export many of their products to the United States and they would see demand drop accordingly.

Thirdly the bulk of trade growth is occuring in Third World nations, who almost always pay their international debts in dollars, and growth in dollar-denominated real trade is about 3x as fast as growth in euro-denominated trade, making it the de facto reserve currency for virtually all trade and international payments. Not to mention the 30-year bond is back, which is a favorite for long term debt financing in many countries, which makes our dollar more attractive; FDI in the US is also rising which is another support for the dollar.

The people most hurt by this will be the Europeans, since their economy is export driven and would be derailed by a steep appreciation of the Euro. China and Japan, and not to mention the other exporters of Asia, would also be hurt by this because their exports would be much pricier. The US would be hurt, but not by as much as the rest of the world.

I believe that it was a huge factor considering that Iraq is sitting on the world's 2nd largest proven oil reserves.

One among many factors. That Iraq was "doable", "Saddam tried to kill my daddy", nice geo-strategic location, the idea that reconstruction contracts would pay for the war, etc etc....these were all factors that must have weighed in the decision to invade.


I disagree. Maybe it is only a small step, but it is a step that opens up a more competetive market.

Like?

KSA is more or less a client state. Iraqi govt is a protectorate. They won't be joining any Iranian Euro initiative and these two countries are the heavyweights in the oil market.


How long does the US continue to get away with huge trade deficits, and an ever expanding national debt? I am sure many investors get nervous looking at the numbers and I would imagine that some would gladly like some diversification. The selling of oil for euros offers that diversification.

Those investor countries are even more nervous at the thought of the dollar devaluation due to the enormous amount of US treasury bills they hold.

The Chinese, for ex, would suffer ENORMOUS loss if the dollar devalues and US market collapses (since the US is their major export market). They will continue to buy T-bills until they are confident that their own internal market and the markets of India, SE Asia etc can withstand the shock. Yes, the Chinese are looking to diversify but not too much for the fear that it would cause a panic. They won't be dumping their holdings anytime soon.

The Iranian Euro oil bourse will be significant but it won't be catastrophic. Oh and I am economically-challenged, so economists please feel free to destroy this post.:p

Here's another thing: Iran only produces 4 million barrels per day, giving them yearly oil revenues of around $94.9 billion (at $65/bbl). Global trade is $8.8 trillion dollars, the vast majority of which is dollar denominated, so Iran's component in the world trade volume is a miniscule 1% and that quantity is slipping as their oil production falls, which means they will actually lose influence as time passes. This seems more like a bluff than a real threat, and Ahmadinejad's mismanagement of the economy will only make it worse. He's not exactly in a position to take anyone on economically.

Now, if China or Saudi Arabia were to do this kind of revaluation, it would be different.

Here's another thing: Iran only produces 4 million barrels per day, giving them yearly oil revenues of around $94.9 billion (at $65/bbl). Global trade is $8.8 trillion dollars, the vast majority of which is dollar denominated, so Iran's component in the world trade volume is a miniscule 1% and that quantity is slipping as their oil production falls, which means they will actually lose influence as time passes. This seems more like a bluff than a real threat, and Ahmadinejad's mismanagement of the economy will only make it worse. He's not exactly in a position to take anyone on economically.

Now, if China or Saudi Arabia were to do this kind of revaluation, it would be different.

Here's another thing: Iran only produces 4 million barrels per day, giving them yearly oil revenues of around $94.9 billion (at $65/bbl). Global trade is $8.8 trillion dollars, the vast majority of which is dollar denominated, so Iran's component in the world trade volume is a miniscule 1% and that quantity is slipping as their oil production falls, which means they will actually lose influence as time passes. This seems more like a bluff than a real threat, and Ahmadinejad's mismanagement of the economy will only make it worse. He's not exactly in a position to take anyone on economically.

Now, if China or Saudi Arabia were to do this kind of revaluation, it would be different.
Perhaps you are understating the potential for disaster? Any kind of movement away from dollars for oil could mark the beginning of an ever increasing euros for oil? If you think of the US as one giant company and look at who own the largest shares, China at close to $1 Trillion, then there should be some major concern?

China now boasts the world's second-largest cache of foreign exchange -- behind only Japan -- and is on pace to see its reserves climb past $1 trillion later this year. Even a slight diminishing of the dollar as a percentage of those holdings could exert significant pressure on the U.S. currency, many economists assert.

In recent years, the value of the dollar has been buoyed by major purchases of U.S. Treasury bills by Japan, China and oil-exporting countries -- a flow of capital that has kept interests rates relatively low in the United States and allowed Americans to keep spending even as debts mount. Some economists have long warned that if foreigners lose their appetite for American debt, the dollar would fall, interest rates would rise and the housing boom could burst, sending real estate prices lower.

The comments of the Chinese senior economist, made on the condition of anonymity because the government disciplines those who speak to the press without express authorization, confirmed an analysis in Monday's Shanghai Securities News stating that China is inclined to shift some its savings into other currencies such as the euro and the yen, or into major purchases of commodities such as oil for a long-discussed strategic energy reserve.

The dollar is in decline and has been for quite some time. In 2002, it cost me $1.60 CAD for $1 USD. In 2004, it was $1.35 CAD for $1 USD and in 2006, it was $1.17 CAD. China has been helping in underwriting US debt for quite some time. The trouble is that the US is becoming more and more dependent on the sale of treasury bills, which are no longer backed by the gold standard. Right now, those treasury bills are basically backed by the fact oil is purchased in dollars. Another important thing to consider is the fact that US domestic oil reserves are dwindling and consumption is increasing, resulting in an ever increasing importation of oil.

-snip-

China has absolutely no incentive to do anything to hurt the US economy, since the vast majority of their growth is driven by our own appetite for their imports and FDI in China by US firms. At the same time, US treasury bonds offer the best return on investment of any in the developed world, and the reintroduction of the 30-year bond makes debt financing even more attractive to foreign purchasers.

Any shift of Chinese purchases in to the yen or euro will be driven by a desire for diversification rather than distaste for the dollar, and probably won't occur until the trade balance between the US and China becomes more even; they are targeting a balance of payments rather than a surplus with the US, which means the US wouldn't need to finance as much debt as it currently does.

Ultimately, what is good for China is good for America, and vice versa; China's economy requires the US to keep its growth running, and the US needs China to keep inflation under control and to finance its debt.

The dollar is in decline and has been for quite some time. In 2002, it cost me $1.60 CAD for $1 USD. In 2004, it was $1.35 CAD for $1 USD and in 2006, it was $1.17 CAD. China has been helping in underwriting US debt for quite some time. The trouble is that the US is becoming more and more dependent on the sale of treasury bills, which are no longer backed by the gold standard. Right now, those treasury bills are basically backed by the fact oil is purchased in dollars. Another important thing to consider is the fact that US domestic oil reserves are dwindling and consumption is increasing, resulting in an ever increasing importation of oil.

Canadian currency is stronger because of the increase in petroleum production and FDI in the oil industry, which drives stronger economic growth and increases tax revenue, which in turn makes the currency appreciate because interest rates rise and less deficit spending is being injected in to the economy. It will probably get stronger as oil production and the economy continue to grow, and will likewise depreciate if these factors reverse.

The US dollar is so attractive not so much because of oil but because of the size of our economy. We consume so many products, invest so much, and our government spends so much that we have a gigantic share of the world economy owned by our citizens; as a result, the dollar is used because the dollar is so universally accepted as a medium of exchange because we trade with and consume products from everywhere in the world, and our trade volume in these regions is usually the largest of any nation.

Our economy also grows stronger than any other OECD nation, which means our Treasury bonds tend to have the highest yields and makes them the most attractive; unless the economy severely slows down or turns deflationary, our debt will remain attractive.

Now, if our economy were to seriously falter

Tsk, tsk, tsk, have you learned nothing? There is no need for an actual attack any more, just the implied threat of a possible attack at some unknown time in the future while invoking the spirit of 9/11.

I disagree; a staged terrorist attack would give perfect justification for an immediate strike an Iran (the attack needs to be prior to March 28) and it would also give justification to greatly curtail our civil rights (to a far greater extent than they have been). This would benefit the administration both due to their decreasing popularity and to keep everything under control back home during the war with Iran which will almost certainly involve Russia as well (the nuclear power plant has Russian personalle and Russia has a defense pact with Iran).

Damn why hasn't someone killed the President of Iran, I just know he wants war with the US, that way he can 'Justify' blasting Israel off the map. Doesn't matter that it would lead to Nuclear War, his 'God' will be happy.
Wow. Way to miss the point of the thread altogether.

http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/TMW05-04-05.jpg

Sorry, couldn't resist.

I've know about the oil bourse for quite some time and it is certainly the real reason for our present hostilities against Iran. My prediction: there will be a "terrorist" attack involving the ports being sold to Dubai Ports World which will be linked to Iran prior to the commencement of the bourse giving us the justification to attack Iran and topple their government before March 28.
Hey! That's my birthdate! What an awesome present. Thanks GWB, I didn't know you cared.