US Invasion of Iraq

[bagginz]

It is an interesting article, but I think there is no reason for the US to attack Iran in order to try to forestall the petro-currency thing because a weak US dollar is not necessarily bad for the US economy, and we don't get that much of our oil from the Middle East.

Agreed that a temporarily weak dollar is not neccesarily bad for the US economy. For example, one advantage of a weak dollar is that it makes US products so much more competitive internationally in terms of price, stimulating revenue via foreign exports.

But even if the US sourced zero oil from the Middle East, it would make no difference.

Because the main underlying point of the article is that because oil is priced and traded in US dollars, it makes the US dollar the defacto international reserve currency. This alone gives the US economy a unique and massive advantage over all other world economies.

Just one offshoot of this is that it enables the U.S ecomomy to run at a huge defecit (trillions of dollars...) because the status of the US dollar as international reserve currency is effectively a license to print money.

Big defecit? No problem, just print more banknotes.

How is that possible without devaluing the currency?

Quote:

(my bolds)

"World trade is now a game in which the US produces dollars and the rest of the world produces things that dollars can buy. The world's interlinked economies no longer trade to capture a comparative advantage; they compete in exports to capture needed dollars to service dollar-denominated foreign debts and to accumulate dollar reserves to sustain the exchange value of their domestic currencies."

" To prevent speculative and manipulative attacks on their currencies, the world's central banks must acquire and hold dollar reserves in corresponding amounts to their currencies in circulation. The higher the market pressure to devalue a particular currency, the more dollar reserves its central bank must hold. This creates a built-in support for a strong dollar that in turn forces the world's central banks to acquire and hold more dollar reserves, making it stronger. This phenomenon is known as dollar hegemony, which is created by the geopolitically constructed peculiarity that critical commodities, most notably oil, are denominated in dollars. Everyone accepts dollars because dollars can buy oil. "

"By definition, dollar reserves must be invested in US assets, creating a capital-accounts surplus for the US economy. The US capital-account surplus in turn finances the US trade deficit. Moreover, any asset, regardless of location, that is denominated in dollars is a US asset in essence. When oil is denominated in dollars through US state action and the dollar is a fiat currency, the US essentially owns the world's oil for free. And the more the US prints greenbacks, the higher the price of US assets will rise. Thus a strong-dollar policy gives the US a double win."

This adds up to a huge competitive advantage in the world. One which the U.S is unlikely to give up very easily, as the entire U.S ecomomy is structured around it.


Source:

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html

cheers,
bagginz

[ethios4]

yikes

[forge]

#3, and to make daddy proud

actually these days I think they knew all along that it would be far more beneficial to weaken them with sanctions for 10 years before doing it properly

[M. Bréqs]

The idea of -in theory- creating a peaceful, democratic society in the middle of the Middle East, to be used as a model for tolerance, democracy and peace is not a bad idea at all. If it could happen, it could possibly create some ripples of change, which could not only aleviate some of the threat of terrorism from radical Islamists, but also provide a more "modern" social template where women have more equal rights and people have control of their government by electing their representatives. It's not a bad idea, really.

The REALLY BAD IDEA was how we went about trying to implement that: By lying to our own people, in order to justify an invasion. By lying to ourselves about the realities of what such an enormous undertaking would require, both troop-wise and time-wise. By not having any plan for helping the Iraqi's work out their political/religious/tribal issues and maintaining peace while a new government is formed. By losing countless resources (men and money) to corrupt tribal warlords, religious leaders, and even the two-faced "official" government in place now.

I agree. If they had followed Powell's recommendation for a quarter million men and a solid post-invasion plan ("you break it, you own it"), things would have turned out much better.

PNAC had the right idea; the current administration fncked up the execution. Unfortunately, Neo-Conservativism is now discredited, when it was probably the best shot the world had for empowering the disenfranchised.

[muscleandhate]

Unfortunately, Neo-Conservativism is now discredited, when it was probably the best shot the world had for empowering the disenfranchised.

Ah, the US elite, so disenfranchised.

[M. Bréqs]

Not necessarily. The spread of secularism, democracy and capitalism to the Middle East would help the people of that region enormously. By disenfranchised, I mean the poor bugger being brainwashed in the mosque to think that he has no right to control his own destiny, that's the mullah's job (by channeling allah's wisdom). By disenfranchised, I mean the family stuck in a refugee camp because their islamo-fascist leaders would rather destroy Israel than improve the lives of their "arab brothers".

[smutek]

PNAC had the right idea; the current administration fncked up the execution. Unfortunately, Neo-Conservativism is now discredited, when it was probably the best shot the world had for empowering the disenfranchised.

Are you smoking crack or something? Seriously, some of the stuff I see you write in these threads is just so completely detached from reality that I actually wonder if you are serious.

I used to have much more tolerance for other political views but with every passing day I find my patience becoming less and less with these ridiculous, ignorant viewpoints that show absolutely no grasp on the situation as well as no grasp on reality. There is simply no excuse. Maybe it's part of being an American citizen with somewhat of an understanding as to what is going on, as well as a bit of morals and compassion.

Every day real people are dying, in the name of American empire, while people like you, a Canadian citizen to boot, discuss tactics, troop deployment and execution. As if this is all some sort of game. Maybe if it were you, or your kids that were getting blown to pieces you'd feel different.

PNAC had it right? Please man. Give me a freakin break. They had it right for who? Neo-Conservatism the best bet for the disenfranchised? That's so absurd that it literally defies comment.

[mikemc]

Every day real people are dying, in the name of American empire, while people like you, a Canadian citizen to boot, discuss tactics, troop deployment and execution. As if this is all some sort of game. Maybe if it were you, or your kids that were getting blown to pieces you'd feel different.

PNAC had it right? Please man. Give me a freakin break. They had it right for who? Neo-Conservatism the best bet for the disenfranchised? That's so absurd that it literally defies comment.

hm. well, IMO, MB should get a bit more credit for being articulate, generally thoughtful and well informed, but I'd mostly agree with you, smutek, on the value of that statement per se.

In the best possible light, the most positive 'throw em a bone to keep them pacified' aspects of neocon worldwide manipulation and economic stratification could provide opportunities and stability where none existed, but I think lightyears from the best bet.

[M. Bréqs]

OK, here goes;

PNAC's goals were continued American security and affluence. That sounds selfish, and really it is, but I firmly agree with Ayn Rand and utilitarianism; To advance yourself doesn't necessarily mean diminishing others. It can also mean bring others up with you... So, ultimately, that which assures continued American dominance of global trade fosters an improved lifestyle for those with whom the Americans interact.

For instance, look at the British Empire. The majority of their former colonies are better off than the majority of French, Spanish, Dutch, Russian and Portugese colonies in similar geo/demographic positions.

Jamaica is better off than Haiti, in terms of economic stability and human security.

Egypt is better off than Ethiopia.

India as a sub-continent is better off than Sub-Saharan Africa as a sub-continent.

In all cases, what was the difference? The British took seriously thier duty to "bring up" the nations they had occupied. It was common for the British to train their subjugated as Lawyers, engineers and accountants. It was common for the French, Dutch, and Portugese to not train thier subjugated at all.

Why does all this matter?

Because the English, as colonial "masters", took seriously their responsibility to assist those in the world over whom they held advantage to better their own societies. That is exactly what PNAC aspired to.

Sure, colonial Britain did a lot of bad things; Churchill ordered the bombing of civilians rebelling in India I seem to recall (correct me if I'm wrong). But, overall, India is better off for having been colonized by the British; FOR IF IT WERE NOT THE BRITISH, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ANOTHER EUROPEAN COLONIAL POWER, ONLY MUCH WORSE.

That's the crux of my arguement; American hegemony might not be great, but it's better than the alternative; Russian, or Chinese or Islamic hegemony. At least the Americans hold themselves accountable to better the lives of those they influence. The others don't. I would rather be within America's sphere of influence, than subject to the Jizya, or a "comrade" in a quasi-communist regime any day.

So, you can trash PNAC. Their policies, when partially and haltingly implemented, resulted in disaster. That could be thier fault, but more likely it's the current administration's fault. But if the United States didn't control the globe, this whole planet would be much, MUCH worse off.

That's why I support the United States. That's why I think that anything that brings US inluence to other parts of the world is overall positive.

[bagginz]

For instance, look at the British Empire. The majority of their former colonies are better off than the majority of French, Spanish, Dutch, Russian and Portugese colonies in similar geo/demographic positions.

Not to mention the USA or Canada...


bagginz

[mikemc]

When oil is denominated in dollars through US state action and the dollar is a fiat currency, the US essentially owns the world's oil for free. And the more the US prints greenbacks, the higher the price of US assets will rise. Thus a strong-dollar policy gives the US a double win."

This adds up to a huge competitive advantage in the world. One which the U.S is unlikely to give up very easily, as the entire U.S ecomomy is structured around it.

This is not a reason for attacking another country, but it is interesting. If oil ends up being traded in Euros, then nothing is holding the US back from resolute investment in alternative energy, resulting in the devaluation of oil. That could only be good.

[muscleandhate]

OK, here goes;

PNAC's goals were continued American security and affluence. That sounds selfish, and really it is, but I firmly agree with Ayn Rand and utilitarianism; To advance yourself doesn't necessarily mean diminishing others. It can also mean bring others up with you... So, ultimately, that which assures continued American dominance of global trade fosters an improved lifestyle for those with whom the Americans interact.

For instance, look at the British Empire. The majority of their former colonies are better off than the majority of French, Spanish, Dutch, Russian and Portugese colonies in similar geo/demographic positions.

Jamaica is better off than Haiti, in terms of economic stability and human security.

Egypt is better off than Ethiopia.

India as a sub-continent is better off than Sub-Saharan Africa as a sub-continent.

In all cases, what was the difference? The British took seriously thier duty to "bring up" the nations they had occupied. It was common for the British to train their subjugated as Lawyers, engineers and accountants. It was common for the French, Dutch, and Portugese to not train thier subjugated at all.

Why does all this matter?

Because the English, as colonial "masters", took seriously their responsibility to assist those in the world over whom they held advantage to better their own societies. That is exactly what PNAC aspired to.

Sure, colonial Britain did a lot of bad things; Churchill ordered the bombing of civilians rebelling in India I seem to recall (correct me if I'm wrong). But, overall, India is better off for having been colonized by the British; FOR IF IT WERE NOT THE BRITISH, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ANOTHER EUROPEAN COLONIAL POWER, ONLY MUCH WORSE.

That's the crux of my arguement; American hegemony might not be great, but it's better than the alternative; Russian, or Chinese or Islamic hegemony. At least the Americans hold themselves accountable to better the lives of those they influence. The others don't. I would rather be within America's sphere of influence, than subject to the Jizya, or a "comrade" in a quasi-communist regime any day.

So, you can trash PNAC. Their policies, when partially and haltingly implemented, resulted in disaster. That could be thier fault, but more likely it's the current administration's fault. But if the United States didn't control the globe, this whole planet would be much, MUCH worse off.

That's why I support the United States. That's why I think that anything that brings US inluence to other parts of the world is overall positive.

But then I suppose you're not aware of Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Chile, Mexico, East Timor or the other US interventions that supported, armed and bankrolled far right-wing dictators, rebels or death-squads that countlessly abused human rights, murdered thousands of innocents, raped and maimed and whatever else you can think of that is totally deplorable. The US through their intelligence agencies were complicit behind the scenes, purely to stop what is frequently known as a 'good example', that is, a meaningful democracy that supported the majorities interest as opposed to a corrupted 'democracy' that was sympathetic to US interests, i.e. naked fragmented labour and the unfettered extraction of natural resources.

You might want to read up on the economic doctrine that has existed as the gospel of US economic hegemony and global expansion, otherwise known as Neo-Liberalism. This doctrine essentially favours the rich and has been imposed on most third world states, either through economic sanctions (driven by the notorious IMF, WB & WTO) or by force. It forces states to adopt various policies such as the cut-back of the welfare state (so essentially anything resembling free healthcare, education, care for the poor, anti-HIV programs etc), unbridled privitisation of markets (markets which are unfit to compete against global competition) and schemes such as the privitisation of water, or other state infrastructure. These all amount of a situation whereby the small elites of the third world are propelled to unreasonable wealth whilst the majority of people are often left without basic human rights such as fit running water. You might want to go and talk to the indigenous peoples in Bolivia who live next-door to a waterworks but are priced out of the market by French executives running the company, you might want to talk to them about how brilliant trickle-down (no pun intended) economics are.

You assert, unfoundedly, that US hegemony has benefited the world and yet I recall the wealth divide has increased thirty fold since World War II. What the fuck? The US grasp on global hegemony is slipping, and I honestly believe they'll take the world with them before they admit that they are no longer the only big boys in the playground. They are the global threat of the 21st Century par excellence.

[bagginz]

When oil is denominated in dollars through US state action and the dollar is a fiat currency, the US essentially owns the world's oil for free. And the more the US prints greenbacks, the higher the price of US assets will rise. Thus a strong-dollar policy gives the US a double win."

This adds up to a huge competitive advantage in the world. One which the U.S is unlikely to give up very easily, as the entire U.S ecomomy is structured around it.

This is not a reason for attacking another country, but it is interesting.

I totally agree that it is not a valid reason to attack another country.

However the main thrust of that quoted article was that the challenge to the status of the US dollar as the international reserve currency was in fact the principal underlying reason for the attack and subsequent occupation of Iraq, and that all other public reasons and justifications given - WMD, that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks, installing a democracy (fahhtin' fer freedum) etc. - were and are being used merely to create support for an illegal war among an unsuspecting and gullible public.

.
If oil ends up being traded in Euros, then nothing is holding the US back from resolute investment in alternative energy, resulting in the devaluation of oil. That could only be good.

Agreed. We would all be better off if that were the case. The sooner the better.

regards,
bagginz

[mikemc]

However the main thrust of that quoted article was that the challenge to the status of the US dollar as the international reserve currency was in fact the principal underlying reason for the attack and subsequent occupation of Iraq, and that all other public reasons and justifications given - WMD, Iraq was involved in 9/11, installing a democracy etc. - were and are being merely used to create support for an illegal war among an unsuspecting public.

Yup, yes indeed I got that. Here's the thing, that is the thing: if you have a chance to spend money on a war to avoid an economic downfall (where people, your own and others, get killed and maimed permanently), or you have a chance to spend money on research to create a new energy source (even though it will take a while, and there may be some discomfort) that sets you up for the future and creates a whole new energy economy, what do you do?

[edit] sorry, i'm a dimbulb with the edits, but here's what I should have said:

Yup, yes indeed I got that. Here's the thing, that is the thing: if you have a chance to spend money on a war to avoid an economic downfall (where people, your own and others, get killed and maimed permanently), or you have a chance to spend money on research to create a new energy source (even though it will take a while, and there may be some discomfort) that sets you up for the future and creates a whole new energy economy, what do you do?

[M. Bréqs]

That's the crux of my arguement; American hegemony might not be great, but it's better than the alternative; Russian, or Chinese or Islamic hegemony. At least the Americans hold themselves accountable to better the lives of those they influence. The others don't. I would rather be within America's sphere of influence, than subject to the Jizya, or a "comrade" in a quasi-communist regime any day.

But then I suppose you're not aware of Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Chile, Mexico, East Timor or the other US interventions that supported, armed and bankrolled far right-wing dictators, rebels or death-squads that countlessly abused human rights, murdered thousands of innocents, raped and maimed and whatever else you can think of that is totally deplorable. The US through their intelligence agencies were complicit behind the scenes, purely to stop what is frequently known as a 'good example', that is, a meaningful democracy that supported the majorities interest as opposed to a corrupted 'democracy' that was sympathetic to US interests, i.e. naked fragmented labour and the unfettered extraction of natural resources.

They were there to stop communism from taking hold; which I think would have been much worse in the long run for these societies you mention. Mistakes were made yes, and people supported by the US engaged in excess; and when it came to light that they did, the US stopped supporting these dictators.

Ultimately, these horrible dictators you speak of were the lesser of two evils when compared to global communism.

You might want to read up on the economic doctrine that has existed as the gospel of US economic hegemony and global expansion, otherwise known as Neo-Liberalism. This doctrine essentially favours the rich and has been imposed on most third world states, either through economic sanctions (driven by the notorious IMF, WB & WTO) or by force. It forces states to adopt various policies such as the cut-back of the welfare state (so essentially anything resembling free healthcare, education, care for the poor, anti-HIV programs etc), unbridled privitisation of markets (markets which are unfit to compete against global competition) and schemes such as the privitisation of water, or other state infrastructure. These all amount of a situation whereby the small elites of the third world are propelled to unreasonable wealth whilst the majority of people are often left without basic human rights such as fit running water. You might want to go and talk to the indigenous peoples in Bolivia who live next-door to a waterworks but are priced out of the market by French executives running the company, you might want to talk to them about how brilliant trickle-down (no pun intended) economics are.

No state is obligated to take loans from the IMF, and of course that money comes with strings. Why should they offer unguaranteed, low interest loans to nations with no appreciable credit without strings attached? Why don't you paypal me $5,000 if you feel that this is such a good idea? my email address is [email protected].

But again, I believe that it is better to teach a man to fish than to give him one. The production of a healthy private sector, which has incentive to draw international investment to create the infrastructure necessary embetter the host nation, is superior to handing out free bags of UN bailout goodies... One is a long term solution, the other is not. Remember, the process of industrialization is harsh on some sectors of society, but ultimately for the better good (look at labour conditions in late 19th century England - it's a first world country now).

You assert, unfoundedly, that US hegemony has benefited the world and yet I recall the wealth divide has increased thirty fold since World War II. What the fuck? The US grasp on global hegemony is slipping, and I honestly believe they'll take the world with them before they admit that they are no longer the only big boys in the playground. They are the global threat of the 21st Century par excellence.

My point is that if the US wasn't the world's hyperpower, the door would be open for somebody MUCH worse. China. Russia. India. An Islamic Caliphate yet to be formed.

I agreed that US hegemony wasn't perfect; but the human rights abuses you point to are MINISCULE compared to the horror that would have gripped the planet had communism won the cold war.

Be thankful for what you have, and be careful what you wish for. A diminished US presence (the largest donor of foreign aid worldwide and the cork in the bottle of communism, Islamo-fascism and other horrible forces) would be disasterous for the wellbeing of the world's poor.