Kerry's Really Lost It Now

[nbdysfu]

you know what that's like, right

Dan Rather has done a good job of familiarizing me with that yes. But he's just one fish in a barrel of many. Until I started to really scrutinize every article I used to read from the NYT or BBC, I was convinced for years my father was a "dittohead." But now that I see things clearly, I can honestly laugh at how you thought that was going to be an easy dig.

 

[acludem]

Dick Cheney implied in a speech that if Kerry was elected, the United States would be attacked. Ms. Kerry's comment unfortunately is true. This is not to say that Bush is the cause of the terrorism, but countries that support the U.S. are being targeted. Let's not forget what happened in Spain.

Bush has no exit strategy, no plan to win the peace, and no idea what the hell he's doing. That's why the danger for countries that support us has increased. John Kerry will rebuild relations with our allies and we can make the rebuilding of Iraq a truly international project and perhaps begin to bring security and sanity back to this country. Bush has had his chance for nearly three years and he's failed miserably.

To call her comments treason is ridiculous. Look up the definition of treason and tell me how saying that countries that support us are going to be terrorist targets fits that definition.


acludem

 

[Avatar4321]

Dick Cheney implied in a speech that if Kerry was elected, the United States would be attacked. Ms. Kerry's comment unfortunately is true. This is not to say that Bush is the cause of the terrorism, but countries that support the U.S. are being targeted. Let's not forget what happened in Spain.

Bush has no exit strategy, no plan to win the peace, and no idea what the hell he's doing. That's why the danger for countries that support us has increased. John Kerry will rebuild relations with our allies and we can make the rebuilding of Iraq a truly international project and perhaps begin to bring security and sanity back to this country. Bush has had his chance for nearly three years and he's failed miserably.

To call her comments treason is ridiculous. Look up the definition of treason and tell me how saying that countries that support us are going to be terrorist targets fits that definition.


acludem

Thats almost a guarenteed. If you were the terrorists and Kerry was elected President wouldnt you try to hit the US during the transition? i mean they attacked the WTC both times right after transitions before the Clinton and Bush administration were totally on their feet (although the President probably would have been more prepared if someone hadnt sued him to illegally continue a recount cause he was a sore loser)

I honestly dont think Spain was attacked because they supported the Iraqi liberation. Spain was invaded because Muslim fundamentalist dream of regaining Al Andulus. Spain is like a holy nations to Muslims it was one of the places of their greatest achievements in the middle ages. You think they were attacked only because they allied with Bush? Not likely

Or Austrialia. You think Terrorists are attacking them because of their alliance with Bush? hardly its because Austrailia is a western representative government surrounded by Islands of Muslim people. The Muslims want power in that corner of the world. This has very little to do with Iraq. Iraq is just a convienent excuse. They would be attacking these nations anyway.

As for the exit strategy. Why on earth does he need one? Why are you so focused on raising the white flag and running away. The only way we are leaving is when we the terrorists. we are in for the long haul. These terrorists want to kill us. if we pull out now they are going to see it as a sign of weakness and attack us again. Do you really want that? Do you realize that your weak resolve is probably costing us more lives than actually being there is? as long as you are fighting the policy to fight the war on terror, you are showing Al Queda and other groups we have divisions within our ranks. meaning we are weak and welcoming other attacks on us. You dont have to agree with everything Bush says or does. I sure dont. But we have to have a united front on the war on terror.

As for rebuilding Iraq. we have nearly 50 nations participating in the rebuilding already. How many more does it have to include to be a truly international coalition?

As for treason

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

nuff said.

 

[NightTrain]

As for the exit strategy. Why on earth does he need one? Why are you so focused on raising the white flag and running away. .

Exactly.

The world is safe when the world is safe.

"Oh! We launched a few tomahawk missiles at a Goat Farm, let's congratulate ourselves for a job well done and declare the world safe for democracy!" -Bill Clinton

 

[Annie]

Bush has no exit strategy, no plan to win the peace, and no idea what the hell he's doing. That's why the danger for countries that support us has increased. John Kerry will rebuild relations with our allies and we can make the rebuilding of Iraq a truly international project and perhaps begin to bring security and sanity back to this country. Bush has had his chance for nearly three years and he's failed miserably.

acludem

You fail to apply logic regarding what Kerry would be able to accomplish at building an 'international' project. All signs, since the end of the Cold War are towards a return to 'alliances', 'counter alliances', and 'secret alliances'. It's like back to 1911...

Here is more evidence of serious problems, which are not the making of GW, nor would they be gone if Kerry were elected:

http://www.belgraviadispatch.com/archives/001548.html

September 19, 2004
"Old Europe Is as Good as New"...
...was the contrived soundbite that new Spanish Prime Minister Zapatero had all teed up for the love-in summitry with French President Chirac and German Chancellor Schroder this past week:

Calling himself and his guests "fervent pro-Europeans," Zapatero said that Germany, France and Spain had agreed to jointly begin a public-awareness campaign on the EU constitution and are committed to building a strong and unified Continent.
But in many ways symbolism appeared to be more important than substance on Monday night.

The 44-year-old Spanish prime minister summarized the talks by referring to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's characterization of France, Germany and other nations opposed to the Iraq campaign as "the old Europe."

"If I had to describe the atmosphere of this meeting in just a few words, I would say 'the old Europe' is as good as new," Zapatero said during a joint press conference following the talks.

Chirac pointed out that none of the three leaders intended to change their position on Iraq. "We have opened a Pandora's box in Iraq that we are unable to close," he said. "The situation is very serious and it is not getting better."


Put aside Chirac's naseauting statement (the disingenuous evocation of the royal "we"; the schadenfreude-laden Pandora's Box reference, the obligatory it's serious and getting worse hand-wringing, and the, just in case you were wondering--we don't plan on helping any with this big Anglo-Saxon generated mess).

Focus instead on what else these three estimable leaders (who seemingly hadn't deigned to invite Tony and Silvio to their little shindig) were cooking up last Monday. Well, this, for one.

Speaking to reporters at the EU meeting, France's defense minister restated Paris' doubts about training Iraqis in Iraq.
"We in France continue to believe that this training should be done outside Iraq," Michele Alliot-Marie said. "Iraq has to find its own sense of identity and I don't think the addition of more foreigners in uniform will help that."

Diplomats said French concerns focused on whether U.S. Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, who commands the American training operation in Iraq, also could head the NATO mission under a "double-hat" arrangement allowing him to report back to alliance headquarters.

French diplomats last week expressed concern about the alliance operation becoming "subservient" to the U.S.-led coalition.

Belgium mostly was concerned about how to share the costs of the mission, wanting more of the expenses to be covered by participating allies and not common NATO funds.

Belgium, France, Germany and Spain have said they will not send instructors into Iraq.

However, German Defense Minister Peter Struck said German military experts would instruct Iraqi military engineers and vehicle maintenance units in the United Arab Emirates. He said further training on mine-clearance likely would be conducted in Germany.


Think about all this for a second. Germany, quite disingenuously in my view, is trying to play a more 'transatlantic friendly' policy by training a few vehicle maintenance units in the environs of Dubai (see, we are being more helpful than the French!) Spain votes for nada help in Iraq. France quibbles about chain of command issues (surtout pas de 'subservience'!) and wants to avoid any NATO 'flag' in Iraq. And Belgium, incredibly, is quibbling over a few Euros regarding whether funds for such a training mission would come from national budgets or pooled NATO funds.

I have to say, even as a pretty committed trans-atlanticist, this gets me pretty steamed. Bear with me, just for kicks, and take a brief moment to recall all the U.S. assistance to Europe in the past odd century. The Doughboys in St. Ettiene during WWI. The shores of Normandy in the Second World War. Think about the almost five long decades of the Cold War as the Soviet Union loomed over Berlin. Think about the horrific carnage in Bosnia that the European governments couldn't solve until the U.S. intervened. Think about the mammoth Marshall Plan and the lead American role in NATO which, lest we forget, served as a bulwark against Soviet expansionism for these long decades too.

Now recall the death of 3,000 Americans in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania three years back. Think also about, if 3,000 had been slaughtered in Berlin or Paris, how their leaders might have reacted. Might not, even a feckless figure like Chirac, thought of potentially employing preventive means against an enemy that had tried to kill one of his predecessors, had used WMD against his own people, had started two wars in a region critical to his national interest, had ties with terror groups (even if no operational ones with the group responsible for the immediate massacre), had not expressed any regret about said attacks and was thought to possess stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons that might be transferred to terror groups? Might not, for argument's sake, it be possible that Germany or France might have, just maybe, gotten a little 'carried away' after such a national trauma in their leading city and gotten deeply involved in a country like Iraq?

Look, whatever you make of the Iraq mission, it is beyond doubt that success there is critical to the stability of the vastly important Middle Eastern region and beyond. This is a point Tony Blair made forcefully today during Iyad Allawi's visit to London. And, of course, training and equipping a viable Iraqi Army is a major component of trying to make the Iraq project successful. Can we not expect more from our European 'allies' in assisting this effort?

Well, not much; not much at all (though ultimately they will likely concede enough to allow a de minimis NATO train and equip effort in and around Iraq). Instead, it's pretty clear what's going on. Germany is offering up a 'vehicle maintenance' program to curry favor with naive Washington players who think Berlin is playing nice-nice to France's inglorious repudiation of any responsibility in trying to resuscitate the imperiled Iraq project. Belgium, as Eurocrats are wont to do, is busy pinching pennies (sorry, Euros). Zapatero is playing young, poster-boy puppy to Gerard and Jacques to rejuvenate Old Europe with a breath of Spanish 44-year old (and quite underwhelming) panache. And Chirac is rubbing Bush's nose in the Iraq imbroglio--fighting a rear-guard action to try to help Kerry get in. If Kerry does prevail, Chirac will receive him regally in Paris ("I have been to Paris" the Senator will doubtless solemnly intone again). Paris will finally offer up some cosmetic assistance with more alacrity--some gendarmerie will be trained in a neighboring country or (even!) Iraq itself perhaps. There will be talk of rapprochment in the air.

You know, rather than have our Ambassador to NATO have to endure this cheap and disheartening carpet-bazaar bartering process in Brussels--perhaps his time would be better spent focusing instead on pushing through a dramatic overhaul of NATO. The Soviet Union no longer menaces Western Europe, of course. The new perils of this century are that of asymmetric warfare, global terror, rogue nations and transnational terror cells. Sure, anyone has the right to disagree with the merits of the Iraq war--but no one can seriously deny that international terrorists like Zarqawi are now operating there. A serious French leader (like Nicolas Sarkozy, for instance) would understand this and put an end to this tedious 'will we, won't we' debate on the minute NATO assistance being offered up on training of Iraqi forces.

In the absence of real help and while a reinvigorated NATO is forged, we should query the French (and Belgians) regarding whether they really wish to remain in the alliance. The HQ in Brussels, after all, can be moved to Warsaw, Milan, or hell, Manchester. And those who might choose to remain in the soi disant alliance, like the Germans, would have to offer up a little more than vehicle maintenance units and such.

After all, many are likely happy to see NATO wither away into irrelevance it seems:

...NATO has failed the most important test, namely to ensure that its members continue to see its success as essential to their interests.
That they no longer do so is deeply disturbing. It reflects less on the shortcomings of the organization than on the shortsightedness of its members. True, their security from military attack is currently no longer at stake. But NATO is more than just a defense pact.

Like no other institution, NATO embodies Atlantic cohesion, something that remains essential for any Western effort to promote a degree of international order. NATO links Europe to the world's most powerful country and uniquely ties the United States to a common procedure of consultation and cooperation. Moreover, it is the only organization capable of generating international military operations for the many stability-building tasks that lie ahead.

European governments, therefore, are crazy not to support NATO. To watch it wither is at best frivolous, at worst dangerous. Instead of blaming the Bush administration and hoping for a change of government in the US, European members need to make NATO their own concern again. This does not imply kowtowing to every American view and whim or foregoing efforts to strengthen European defense cooperation. It does mean undertaking to make NATO again the place where both sides of the Atlantic develop a common approach to the dangers of this world.

Unfortunately, most European governments merely shrug their shoulders when the issue is raised. That dangerous indifference is the most serious sign of NATO's crisis.


Indeed.

Look, allies, like good friends, have occasional disagreements. But they do not try to block at every turn. Yes, it's true--we didn't want NATO to come into Afghanistan initially. We had just lost 3,000 of our civilians--and speed was of the essence. Friends, of course, might understand this. Now speed is less critical in places like Afghanistan where we are engaged in a long-term nation-building exercise. And so, yeah, we'd love to have a greater NATO presence there now--preferably without needing to have the NATO Secretary-General beg for every other helicopter or extra troop contingent with cup in hand. Or beg for a few trainers to teach Iraqi police (let alone army) recruits. At some point, enough is enough--you have to call a spade a spade. If some in Europe want to relegate NATO to irrelevance--perhaps we should help the process along. A 'new and improved' NATO, leaner (sans the likely candidates) and more attuned to the panoply of threats confronting us in the 21st century might be a good start.

Or, people need to get serious, and fast. Assuming basic alliance responsibilities would be a good start. After all, two alliance members alone have about 150,000 troops on the ground in Iraq right now. And NATO, to date, has only assisted with some logistical support to a Polish-led multinational contigent. That's just not going to cut it. If key NATO country leaders don't get this--we should give them a last chance to better understand the dynamics at play--and what all of us in the Atlantic Community lose if they don't better assume their responsibilities. If they aren't willing to help, or don't care, well (and with regret), we'll have to draw the obvious conclusions and move along. History, and alliances, are always in flux. As Palmerston said, "there are no permanent allies, only permanent interests." Perhaps the interests of Brussels in the post-Cold War, post-9/11 era simply are no longer those of Washington (ironically, post-Beslan, anti-NATO Russia's are likely closer to Washington's than the likes of Belgium's are...).

NB: On a slightly different topic, I'll have more on growing U.S.-Russian cooperation (including the potential perils thereto) in the security sphere soon.

Posted by Gregory Djerejian at September 19, 2004 06:04 PM

 

[Ali]

The world is safe when the world is safe.

The world is safe when US has enough oil.

 

[Annie]

The world is safe when US has enough oil.

Idiotic statement. We did not start this war on terror, of which Iraq is just one front.

 

[Ali]

Turbanator - that is still the theory eh? have any hard proof on that theory?

The U.S. Petroleum and Natural Gas Industry

Domestic Operations
The production of oil in the United States has been declining since 1986, as higher cost projects have been abandoned in the wake of that year's price collapse. In 1998, the average annual imported crude oil price (in real terms) was for the first time below that of 1973, the year of the OPEC oil embargo. This low price is one of the major reasons that crude oil production in the United States in 1998 was at its lowest level since the early 1950's. Sustained low crude oil prices have led many domestic independent producers to either shut in or idle their wells in 1998. (Note 1)

The effects of lower oil prices have been in part offset by the increased productivity of U.S. exploration, development, and production activities, which is reflected in the decline in the cost of producing oil and gas (lifting costs) and, except for the past few years, the decline in the cost of adding reserves (finding costs). Declines in exploration, development, and production costs appear to be due largely to technological advancement in the industry. Lifting costs in the United States for the major U.S. petroleum companies have been generally declining moderately since 1986. Adjusted for inflation, domestic lifting costs for these companies in 1997 were 38 percent lower than their level in 1986. (Note 2) Over the same time period, finding costs fell even more, 54 percent. However, between 1995 and 1997, domestic finding costs for the major U.S. petroleum companies have increased, especially in the offshore. It is too early to tell if this apparent reversal in trend will continue, or whether technological advances will again continue to lower finding costs over the long run.

Non-Major Companies Challenge Majors in U.S. Oil and Gas Production
The structure of the petroleum production industry in the United States has also been changing. Smaller companies have continued to gain a larger role in the development of U.S. oil and gas resources. The share of production from non-majors (including independent oil and gas producers, pipeline companies, foreign-based companies, and a variety of other companies) has been generally increasing since at least 1986. (Note 3) Oil production by non-majors from the lower 48 onshore part of the United States has exceeded that of majors since the early 1990's. These smaller companies tend to drill smaller fields and have faster depletion rates than the majors. (Note 4) However, with access to advanced technologies, the smaller companies have been able to reduce their finding costs to levels comparable to those of the majors.

The share of oil and gas produced by non-major companies (on a barrel of oil equivalent basis) rose from 44 percent in 1993 to 47 percent in 1997 (on a net ownership basis (Note 5) ) (Figure 1). Production of oil (crude oil and natural gas liquids) by the major integrated U.S. energy companies has generally declined since 1987. While the major companies' domestic production of gas (dry natural gas) has increased, it has not grown any faster over the past decade than has gas production by the non-major companies.

In 1997, the non-major companies produced an estimated 44 percent of U.S. oil, up from 39 percent in 1993. Non-major companies produced 49 percent of U.S. gas in 1997, the same share as in 1993 (Figure 2 and Figure 3). Non-major companies have also increased their amount and share of U.S. oil and gas reserves in recent years. The amount of the non-major companies' U.S. oil reserves increased 22 percent between 1994 and 1997. The major companies' U.S. oil reserves fell 6 percent over the same period; their U.S. oil reserves have fallen every year since 1988. The amount of the non-major company gas reserves increased 10 percent from 1995 to 1997. The major companies' gas reserves decreased 6 percent over the same period. At the end of 1997, the share of U.S. gas reserves held by non-major companies was almost as much as their share of gas production, but their share of oil reserves, at 38 percent, was less than their share of oil production.

From 1993 through 1997, the non-major companies improved their exploration and development results substantially. This was true for oil and gas, both in the onshore and offshore. Purchases of the major companies' castoff properties are no longer necessary as a strategy to maintain reserve levels (Figure 4). This is not to say that the non-major companies have ceased all reserve purchases from the major companies. Overall, such purchases have continued, especially for additions to oil reserves in the lower 48 States. (Table 1).

Domestic Oil Production
Domestic crude oil production peaked in 1970 and generally has been falling since 1986. In 1998, it was at its lowest level since 1950. Historically, low returns on investment in oil and gas production operations account for much of the long-term decline in U.S. exploration and development activity. Despite higher rates of return in the last couple of years, (Note 6) domestic crude oil production has not revived. Production (Table 2) may still decline in the near term, in part because of the relatively high finding costs and lifting costs in the United States.

 

[Ali]

Turbanator - that is still the theory eh? have any hard proof on that theory?

Iraq

Iraq is estimated to hold 115 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, and possibly much more undiscovered oil in unexplored areas of the country. Iraq also is estimated to contain at least 110 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

 

[Ali]

Turbanator - that is still the theory eh? have any hard proof on that theory?

Volume of US Petroleum Reserves

"The United States had 21.8 billion barrels of proved oil reserves as of January 1, 2001, twelfth highest in the world. These reserves are concentrated overwhelmingly (over 80%) in four states -- Texas (25% including the state's reserves in the Gulf of Mexico), Alaska (24%), California (21%), and Louisiana (14% including the state's reserves in the Gulf of Mexico). U.S. proven oil reserves have declined by around 20% since 1990, with the largest single-year decline (1.6 billion barrels) occurring in 1991"

 

[Annie]

They have oil, no one was disputing that. Question to you Ali, where is proof the US wants to 'steal' it? That we would go to war to keep oil flowing, yes, ala the shieks of Kuwait, that we would invade to take their oil, proof please.

 

[Ali]

Turbanator - that is still the theory eh? have any hard proof on that theory?

Oil consumption (Top 100 Countries)

Map & Graph: Energy: Oil consumption (Top 100 Countries)
View this stat: Per capita Show map full screen

Country Description Amount
1. United States 19.7 million barrels per day (2002E)
2. Japan 5.4 million barrels per day (2002E)
3. China 4.9 million barrels per day (2001E)
4. Germany 2.71 million barrels per day (2002E)
5. Russia 2.38 million barrels per day; (2001E)
6. Brazil 2.2 million barrels per day (2001E)
7. India 2.0 million barrels per day (2002E)
8. Canada 2.0 million barrels per day (2002E)
9. France 1.96 million barrels per day (2002E)
10. Mexico 1.93 million barrels per day (2002E)
11. Italy 1.87 million barrels per day (2002E)
12. United Kingdom 1.7 million barrels per day (2002E)
13. Spain 1.5 million barrels per day (2002E)
14. Saudi Arabia 1.36 million barrels per day (2002E)
15. Indonesia 1,022,000 barrels per day (2001E)
16. Taiwan 985,000 barrels per day (2002E)
17. Australia 872,000 barrels per day (2001E)
18. Singapore 722,000 barrels per day (all imported) (2002E)
19. Thailand 715,000 barrels per day (2001E)
20. Turkey 635,000 barrels per day (2002E)
21. Egypt 538,000 barrels per day (2002E)
22. Argentina 483,000 barrels per day (2002E)
23. South Africa 482,000 barrels per day (2001E)
24. Iraq 460,000 barrels per day (2002E)
25. Malaysia 460,000 barrels per day (2001E)


19.7 million barrels per day!!!

Do the math.

 

[Annie]

Oil consumption (Top 100 Countries)

Map & Graph: Energy: Oil consumption (Top 100 Countries)
View this stat: Per capita Show map full screen

Country Description Amount
1. United States 19.7 million barrels per day (2002E)
2. Japan 5.4 million barrels per day (2002E)
3. China 4.9 million barrels per day (2001E)
4. Germany 2.71 million barrels per day (2002E)
5. Russia 2.38 million barrels per day; (2001E)
6. Brazil 2.2 million barrels per day (2001E)
7. India 2.0 million barrels per day (2002E)
8. Canada 2.0 million barrels per day (2002E)
9. France 1.96 million barrels per day (2002E)
10. Mexico 1.93 million barrels per day (2002E)
11. Italy 1.87 million barrels per day (2002E)
12. United Kingdom 1.7 million barrels per day (2002E)
13. Spain 1.5 million barrels per day (2002E)
14. Saudi Arabia 1.36 million barrels per day (2002E)
15. Indonesia 1,022,000 barrels per day (2001E)
16. Taiwan 985,000 barrels per day (2002E)
17. Australia 872,000 barrels per day (2001E)
18. Singapore 722,000 barrels per day (all imported) (2002E)
19. Thailand 715,000 barrels per day (2001E)
20. Turkey 635,000 barrels per day (2002E)
21. Egypt 538,000 barrels per day (2002E)
22. Argentina 483,000 barrels per day (2002E)
23. South Africa 482,000 barrels per day (2001E)
24. Iraq 460,000 barrels per day (2002E)
25. Malaysia 460,000 barrels per day (2001E)


19.7 million barrels per day!!!

Do the math.

Again, so what? We get approximately 40% of our oil from ME. Europe and Japan higher, which is why we went for Kuwait. We could easily take over Mexico fields, Agentina, or anywhere in the ME, if we so chose. You are arguing that we just decided to pick on Iraq. Silly, prejudiced argument on your part.

 

[Ali]

They have oil, no one was disputing that. Question to you Ali, where is proof the US wants to 'steal' it? That we would go to war to keep oil flowing, yes, ala the shieks of Kuwait, that we would invade to take their oil, proof please.

Did you mean: sheik

I thought the reason you went to war was to get rid of Saddam, now you say that it was "to keep the oil flowing". That's not what your Commander in Chief keeps saying. Why would you bother to go all the way over the Atlantic and waste the lives of so many US soldiers and Iraqi civilians if you have plenty of oil, as users of this board keep telling me. I've given you hard proof of the raison d'etre for the invasion:

1. Your oil supplies are declining if not almost gone and the cost of extraction is spiralling
2. You consume more oil than the rest of the world put together (almost)

Maybe YOU don't think that oil was the reason for the invasion, possibly because you've been brainwashed by Bush and his perfoming media, or maybe you won't admit it, but for sure the rest of the world thinks it was about oil.

And more... there is a very interesting essay on the Macroeconomic reasons for the invasion. I doubt you'll take your heads out of the sand long enouh to read it, but if you do, you'll see that the invasion wasn't about oil reserves, it was about the fact that oil is traded in dollars, "Petrodollars" which gives you guys the ability to run your economy at the most unbelievable deficit, because countries have to buy $US in order to buy oil - a license to print money, in fact.

Revisited - The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War With Iraq

Original Essay January 2003
-Revised March 2003
-Post-war Commentary January 2004

Summary
Although completely unreported by the U.S. media and government, the answer to the Iraq enigma is simple yet shocking -- it is in large part an oil currency war. One of the core reasons for this upcoming war is this administration's goal of preventing further Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) momentum towards the euro as an oil transaction currency standard. However, in order to pre-empt OPEC, they need to gain geo-strategic control of Iraq along with its 2nd largest proven oil reserves. The second coalescing factor that is driving the Iraq war is the quiet acknowledgement by respected oil geologists and possibly this administration is the impending phenomenon known as Global "Peak Oil." This is projected to occur around 2010, with Iraq and Saudi Arabia being the final two nations to reach peak oil production. The issue of Peak Oil has been added to the scope of this essay, along with the macroeconomics of `petrodollar recycling' and the unpublicized but genuine challenge to U.S. dollar hegemony from the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency. The author advocates graduated reform of the global monetary system including a dollar/euro currency `trading band' with reserve status parity, a dual OPEC oil transaction standard, and multilateral treaties via the UN regarding energy reform. Such reforms could potentially reduce future oil currency and oil warfare. The essay ends with a reflection and critique of current US economic and foreign policies. What happens in the 2004 US elections will have a large impact on the 21st century.

 

[Ali]

Silly, prejudiced argument on your part.

You know very well that you don't have a reason to invade any of the other oil-rich countries, but you had a parfectly good reason to invade Iraq.

 

[Annie]

You are too funny. Pretending you misunderstood First Gulf War and present. This one had nothing to do with oil, in spite of that conspiracy link. How about something more authoratative, such as BBC or even Guardian, Le Monde-English Please?

Our oil prices have been rising, yours?

 

[dilloduck]

Did you mean: sheik

I thought the reason you went to war was to get rid of Saddam, now you say that it was "to keep the oil flowing". That's not what your Commander in Chief keeps saying. Why would you bother to go all the way over the Atlantic and waste the lives of so many US soldiers and Iraqi civilians if you have plenty of oil, as users of this board keep telling me. I've given you hard proof of the raison d'etre for the invasion:

1. Your oil supplies are declining if not almost gone and the cost of extraction is spiralling
2. You consume more oil than the rest of the world put together (almost)

Maybe YOU don't think that oil was the reason for the invasion, possibly because you've been brainwashed by Bush and his perfoming media, or maybe you won't admit it, but for sure the rest of the world thinks it was about oil.

And more... there is a very interesting essay on the Macroeconomic reasons for the invasion. I doubt you'll take your heads out of the sand long enouh to read it, but if you do, you'll see that the invasion wasn't about oil reserves, it was about the fact that oil is traded in dollars, "Petrodollars" which gives you guys the ability to run your economy at the most unbelievable deficit, because countries have to buy $US in order to buy oil - a license to print money, in fact.

Revisited - The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War With Iraq

Original Essay January 2003
-Revised March 2003
-Post-war Commentary January 2004

Summary
Although completely unreported by the U.S. media and government, the answer to the Iraq enigma is simple yet shocking -- it is in large part an oil currency war. One of the core reasons for this upcoming war is this administration's goal of preventing further Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) momentum towards the euro as an oil transaction currency standard. However, in order to pre-empt OPEC, they need to gain geo-strategic control of Iraq along with its 2nd largest proven oil reserves. The second coalescing factor that is driving the Iraq war is the quiet acknowledgement by respected oil geologists and possibly this administration is the impending phenomenon known as Global "Peak Oil." This is projected to occur around 2010, with Iraq and Saudi Arabia being the final two nations to reach peak oil production. The issue of Peak Oil has been added to the scope of this essay, along with the macroeconomics of `petrodollar recycling' and the unpublicized but genuine challenge to U.S. dollar hegemony from the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency. The author advocates graduated reform of the global monetary system including a dollar/euro currency `trading band' with reserve status parity, a dual OPEC oil transaction standard, and multilateral treaties via the UN regarding energy reform. Such reforms could potentially reduce future oil currency and oil warfare. The essay ends with a reflection and critique of current US economic and foreign policies. What happens in the 2004 US elections will have a large impact on the 21st century.

put away your dictionary Ali-----the rest of us could care less about spelling
Bush had the final say so about invading Iraq--all other guesses about "reasons" are pure speculation. We are there--get over it.

 

[Ali]

Nope, Notta, Negative, still not proof! you lose, good day sir!!!

Attaboy. Keep that head buried in the sand. Bush will protect you.

 

[Ali]

put away your dictionary Ali-----the rest of us could care less about spelling

like your teachers.

Bush had the final say so about invading Iraq--all other guesses about "reasons" are pure speculation. We are there--get over it.

Is this the same Bush with ties to Haliburton and The Carlyle Group. I'm sure it was up to him to have the final say, not the Rest of the World, after all, we don't count, do we?

 

[Ali]

it sucks having to prove your bullshit theory eh? Oh, our soil is dirt here and we use cars! no donkeys and sand here Sheik!

/ignore