What gives?
Posted by: wellyspyder on 30 March 2006
Now Iran is being flammed for trying to go nuclear. What is wrong with that? Is it not rich for those countries who have it to now say to Iran, you are not going to get it. Why not? Is Iran less trustworthy than loony bush? Or puppet blair? Or other former soviet states? This is double standard. Looks like big bully attitude.
Posted on: 02 May 2006 by 7V
I've seen this Euro/dollar oil thing before and I've also seen the articles that debunk it.
Interesting conspiracy theory, Erik but not one I'm buying into, although I'll admit it's better than David Icke and his giant lizards running the world.
Great argument. Ask questions, answer them yourself and then draw shaky conclusions built upon shaky foundations. And I'm the victim of propoganda. LOL. I would be if I believed you.
To consider Iran as democratic in any sense that we might recognize the term is fallacious. The election of Ahmedinejad resembles 'the will of the people' about as much as if we had to choose the British PM out of Nick Griffin and John Tyndall.
What a shame it wasn't considered ok to do this in Rwanda, the Congo, Cambodia or Dafur, where the world watched as millions were slaughtered.
Interesting conspiracy theory, Erik but not one I'm buying into, although I'll admit it's better than David Icke and his giant lizards running the world.
quote:Please list all the reasons as to why one country would go to war against another then see whether any of these reasons could possibly apply to Iran nuking Israel. Given that the none of the reasons could possibly apply to Iran and that Iran would invite retaliatory strikes from both Israel and the US I think it safe to say there is ZERO chance of Iran using nukes against Israel. Add to this the fact that Iran does not have Nuclear weapons and the Zero is reduced still further. You are victim of propaganda.
Great argument. Ask questions, answer them yourself and then draw shaky conclusions built upon shaky foundations. And I'm the victim of propoganda. LOL. I would be if I believed you.
quote:Originally posted by JonR:
And whatever we might think of Ahmedinejad, he was elected to office, ie. it was the will of his own people that put him there
To consider Iran as democratic in any sense that we might recognize the term is fallacious. The election of Ahmedinejad resembles 'the will of the people' about as much as if we had to choose the British PM out of Nick Griffin and John Tyndall.
quote:A dangerous precedent is being set here along with a lot of disturbingly short memories in the highest reaches of the US (and British) government(s), ie. that it is ok to invade and attempt to overthrow the leader of another sovereign nation just because we don't like what they say, or think.
What a shame it wasn't considered ok to do this in Rwanda, the Congo, Cambodia or Dafur, where the world watched as millions were slaughtered.
Posted on: 02 May 2006 by erik scothron
quote:Originally posted by 7V:
[QUOTE] I've seen this Euro/dollar oil thing before and I've also seen the articles that debunk it.
SO where are these articles?
quote:Interesting conspiracy theory, Erik but not one I'm buying into, although I'll admit it's better than David Icke and his giant lizards running the world.
Interesting attempt to deflect attention from that fact that you have not even attempted refuted the Iranian Oil Bource argument.
quote:Great argument. Ask questions, answer them yourself and then draw shaky conclusions built upon shaky foundations. And I'm the victim of propoganda. LOL. I would be if I believed you.
Great attempt at deflecting from the fact that you have totally failed to answer my challenge.
quote:What a shame it wasn't considered ok to do this in Rwanda, the Congo, Cambodia or Dafur, where the world watched as millions were slaughtered.
Are there any substantial oil fields in any of these countries?
The only value these countries have to America is that their people can be used to test drugs so American pharmaceutical companies can get richer.
Erik
Posted on: 02 May 2006 by Gianluigi Mazzorana
quote:Originally posted by erik scothron:
The only value these countries have to America is that their people can be used to test drugs so American pharmaceutical companies can get richer.
Yessssssssssss!
Posted on: 02 May 2006 by 7V
Most of the sites that talk about the Iranian Oil Bource are dipping their quills into the same ink. It's far more difficult to glean the opinions of leading economists and real experts. I myself am not an economist so I can't answer in depth. However I can perhaps point out a few aspects of the situation that aren't covered by many of the articles out there.
The reason that the Iranian Oil Bource hasn't started seems straightforward enough. Iran trades on the world markets; they don't control where their oil is traded. That means they trade in New York, Tokyo, London, etc. and they don't determine the currency of trading. Iran's own economy is totally dependent on oil revenues (around 80% of foreign earnings) and, you may have noticed, they're not doing too well economically at the moment. For Iran to withdraw its oil from the open markets would entail leaving Opec (with whom they have strict rules on the quotas of production and sales). It would also certainly plunge its own economy into such a state of chaos that public unrest would force the regime to fail. This is not a good option if you're an Ayotallah with your eye on a decent pension plan.
When we get into the general question of why oil is traded in dollars, whether that would change and what effect this might have, we're in an altogether more complex area. Firstly, you're right in so far as trading oil in dollars maintains the dollar at a higher rate than it would otherwise be at. Opec countries generally (even those who despise the USA - remember finance generally trumps politics in the real world) would think very long and hard before they entrusted their countries' fortunes to a vast stock of Euros. I'm not saying this won't ever happen, it's just that with the unification of Germany, the enlargement of the EU and the stagnation of the leading economies, this is not a particularly attractive option now or in the near future.
Finally, let me give my views briefy on what the effect might be if, at some point in the future, oil is traded in Euros. The dollar would weaken (lose value) and the Euro would strengthen, as discussed. This doesn't mean the end of the world as we know it, or even the end of the evil American empire. A weak dollar means that US goods would be cheaper and more competitive on the world market, while European goods would become correspondingly more expensive. A country like Germany, with low growth but high exports - there are a lot of BMWs, Mercedes, Audis, etc., out there - would be in dire difficulties, deep, deep Cacke. That in itself would lead to the sort of instability of the Euro that keeps oil countries trading in dollars in the first place. China on the other hand would find that its biggest market - the USA - was unable to buy as many Chinese goods any more - not the result they're looking for. Despite the conspiracy sites that talk about China itching to surplant the US as the world's superpower, my own experience of China (I've sold millions of dollars of British equipment to them) and all that we read indicates that China is far more interested in becoming an economic superpower first.
Let's also not lose sight of the fact that the USA is currently Opec's best market. Do you think they would want to throw that away?
So Erik,
No, I don't wonder. It's because the media isn't taking this stuff very seriously. You shouldn't either.
Regards
Steve
The reason that the Iranian Oil Bource hasn't started seems straightforward enough. Iran trades on the world markets; they don't control where their oil is traded. That means they trade in New York, Tokyo, London, etc. and they don't determine the currency of trading. Iran's own economy is totally dependent on oil revenues (around 80% of foreign earnings) and, you may have noticed, they're not doing too well economically at the moment. For Iran to withdraw its oil from the open markets would entail leaving Opec (with whom they have strict rules on the quotas of production and sales). It would also certainly plunge its own economy into such a state of chaos that public unrest would force the regime to fail. This is not a good option if you're an Ayotallah with your eye on a decent pension plan.
When we get into the general question of why oil is traded in dollars, whether that would change and what effect this might have, we're in an altogether more complex area. Firstly, you're right in so far as trading oil in dollars maintains the dollar at a higher rate than it would otherwise be at. Opec countries generally (even those who despise the USA - remember finance generally trumps politics in the real world) would think very long and hard before they entrusted their countries' fortunes to a vast stock of Euros. I'm not saying this won't ever happen, it's just that with the unification of Germany, the enlargement of the EU and the stagnation of the leading economies, this is not a particularly attractive option now or in the near future.
Finally, let me give my views briefy on what the effect might be if, at some point in the future, oil is traded in Euros. The dollar would weaken (lose value) and the Euro would strengthen, as discussed. This doesn't mean the end of the world as we know it, or even the end of the evil American empire. A weak dollar means that US goods would be cheaper and more competitive on the world market, while European goods would become correspondingly more expensive. A country like Germany, with low growth but high exports - there are a lot of BMWs, Mercedes, Audis, etc., out there - would be in dire difficulties, deep, deep Cacke. That in itself would lead to the sort of instability of the Euro that keeps oil countries trading in dollars in the first place. China on the other hand would find that its biggest market - the USA - was unable to buy as many Chinese goods any more - not the result they're looking for. Despite the conspiracy sites that talk about China itching to surplant the US as the world's superpower, my own experience of China (I've sold millions of dollars of British equipment to them) and all that we read indicates that China is far more interested in becoming an economic superpower first.
Let's also not lose sight of the fact that the USA is currently Opec's best market. Do you think they would want to throw that away?
So Erik,
quote:Having read these articles you may wonder why you have not seen anything about this stuff in the media
No, I don't wonder. It's because the media isn't taking this stuff very seriously. You shouldn't either.
Regards
Steve
Posted on: 02 May 2006 by 7V
quote:Originally posted by erik scothron:quote:Originally posted by 7V:
What a shame it wasn't considered ok to do this in Rwanda, the Congo, Cambodia or Dafur, where the world watched as millions were slaughtered.
Are there any substantial oil fields in any of these countries?
Well, in the case of the current genocide, Dafur, yes there is oil.
Had Sudan been in the field of US influence I guess it would have had to clean up its act by now. Unfortunately however, it's in the Chinese field of influence and China, though it wants Sudanese oil, doesn't care too much about the lives of a couple of million blacks. Therefore don't expect any action to prevent the massacres and rapes. China has also blocked the possibility of sanctions.
Erik, it does appear sometimes that your obvious hatred of the American government and policy clouds your judgement. Just because US foreign policy is flawed in some areas, doesn't mean that everyone else has it right.
Regards
Steve