Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I always said that part of the problem w/ the Iraq war was that W Bush was anti-nation building (he campaigned against the concept in 2000), then after 2003, the admin turned on a dime, and became pro-nation building. Tommy Franks, architect of the invasion, also had no interest in nation building. When Phase IV (occupation) began, he retired to write a book. It wasn't until Petraeus, who had been a long-time student of nation-buiding, that things started to go right.
I really don't see nation building in the middle east. That is not acheivable. May sound good on paper. We don't need to nation build as the US is in the perferct position in the entire world. Plenty of land to prosper, oceans on both sides to repel an invasion, pansies to the north and drug addicts to the south. We don't really want to nation build as in how France and England tried back in the day all over the world. We just want everybody to buy oil in US dollars.
That's not true. Every Arab country had their hand in trying to regain Palestine for the Palestinians and wrest it from the Jews. Nothing to do with international terrorism. The PLF was funded by Iran, Iraq's mortal enemy at the time. Iraq, did not fund, support or train any international terrorists. Iraq under Saddam was all about Iraq and only Iraq. Except when the were at war with Iran and tried to steal Kuwait. Iraq was all strictly about the business of Iraq nothing ideological about their policies. There was no policy of international terrorism.
The PLF was headquartered in Baghdad, Iraq, since the Achille Lauro attack in 1985. The leader of the PLF, Muhammad Zaidan (a.k.a. Abu Abbas) was captured by US forces in Iraq in April 2003. He died while in US custody on March 9, 2004. Like I said, you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.
Keeping the middle east in turmoil is and has been going on for years. Many factions involved and the US is one. We have one goal in mind though as is dictated by our foreign policy. The others fight for what they want and we fight for what we want............oil traded in dollars.
I understand what you're saying but in all honesty, I don't see the world markets dumping the dollar any time soon, for any reason. The dollar rules the world monetary system and will continue to do so for the long range foreseeable future.
Hey if your say X country and you don't need US dollars to buy oil why do you need US dollars? The reason the US dollar rules the world monetary system is because everybody needs it to buy oil. Now what happens if Joe Blow creates a new energy that puts oil out of business all together? Well Joe Blow gets killed. Joe Blow just took on the US dollar. Sadaam tried to do that and so did momar. Russia and china are now doing it using Iran as their proxy. That is why all this green energy nonsense is just that. The US doesn't want green energy, they don't want windmills or mirrors to work it's all a game to pay off supporters. Oil is king because the US dollar is king.
Bush became pro-Nation Building when he saw he could use it as a vehicle to get reelected in 2004. That is also when Bush changed the original purpose for invading Iraq in 2003. I cannot say I entirely blame Bush either, considering his father did everything right in the Gulf War in 1991, pulling out after the objective was completed and Kuwait was liberated, and still ended up loosing the election a year later. American voters obviously have an extremely short-term memory, and I am certain that played a big part in Bush's flip-flop from being anti-Nation Building to becoming pro-Nation Building. He was not interested in doing the right thing and pulling out of Iraq after accomplishing the mission, he was only interested in getting reelected.
I disagree with that, but it is probably largely a matter of speculation. I think Bush just had a sincere change of heart on the issue. Bush did not even like the idea of going to Iraq when it was first suggested. A big meeting was held at Camp David about a month after 9/11. Bush asked JCS chief Hugh Shelton what his opinion was on going to Iraq. Shelton argued that it would be a mistake. Bush said "That's what I think. We will get this guy [Saddam] but at a time and place of our choosing."
The main proponents, at Camp David, of targeting Iraq were Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz
I disagree with that, but it is probably largely a matter of speculation. I think Bush just had a sincere change of heart on the issue. Bush did not even like the idea of going to Iraq when it was first suggested. A big meeting was held at Camp David about a month after 9/11. Bush asked JCS chief Hugh Shelton what his opinion was on going to Iraq. Shelton argued that it would be a mistake. Bush said "That's what I think. We will get this guy [Saddam] but at a time and place of our choosing."
The main proponents, at Camp David, of targeting Iraq were Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz
After Public Law 107-40 was passed by Congress, declaring war against terrorism, there were a number of legitimate military targets they could have chosen. At that time the governments known to sponsor international terrorism were Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and Syria. I had always thought it would have been better had we started in Afghanistan with a large force, and move in to Iran after taking out the Taliban. Then after wiping out the terrorist sponsoring government of Iran, move into Iraq and take out Saddam and the Baath Party. Then finally move into Syria. However, I am no general and I am certainly not going to quibble over the order in which these terrorist sponsoring nations were taken out. I still support the invasion of Iraq as the right thing to do. I do not, however, support the Nation Building that occurred in both Afghanistan and Iraq. We should have won the war first, then rebuild those nations. Just like we did during WW II.
During WW II we did not stop to rebuild Italy and France before invading Germany. We defeated each country in turn and won the war before putting together the Marshal Plan to rebuild Europe. Bush's rebuilding Afghanistan and Iraq before winning the war was politically motivated, and a very stupid strategy that got a lot of Americans killed unnecessarily.
After Public Law 107-40 was passed by Congress, declaring war against terrorism, there were a number of legitimate military targets they could have chosen. At that time the governments known to sponsor international terrorism were Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and Syria. I had always thought it would have been better had we started in Afghanistan with a large force, and move in to Iran after taking out the Taliban. Then after wiping out the terrorist sponsoring government of Iran, move into Iraq and take out Saddam and the Baath Party. Then finally move into Syria. However, I am no general and I am certainly not going to quibble over the order in which these terrorist sponsoring nations were taken out. I still support the invasion of Iraq as the right thing to do. I do not, however, support the Nation Building that occurred in both Afghanistan and Iraq. We should have won the war first, then rebuild those nations. Just like we did during WW II.
During WW II we did not stop to rebuild Italy and France before invading Germany. We defeated each country in turn and won the war before putting together the Marshal Plan to rebuild Europe. Bush's rebuilding Afghanistan and Iraq before winning the war was politically motivated, and a very stupid strategy that got a lot of Americans killed unnecessarily.
I just read Chris Kyle's book ('American Sniper') and that is kind of what he says. In some cases Iraqis were given credit for stuff that Americans had done in an effort to put an Iraqi face on the war. Kyle's comment was along the lines of--win the war first, then worry about putting an Iraqi face on it.
"Iraq" is not a coherent country within its current borders. That's simply not going to happen. There will either be semi-official independence (like Iraqi Kurdistan), or there will be de facto independence (like large chunks of Anbar at the moment - they are simply outside of Baghdad's control). Unfortunately, the sectarian boundaries are very jagged, thus leading to a large amount of violence during the slow dissolution process.
It's important to note that "the surge" never actually worked in the sense of pacifying Iraq. Even during the lowest ebb of the insurgency, there were still around 300-400 Iraqis (civilians and security forces) being killed per month in militant attacks. That was considered a "success" compared to the peak of 3,000 per month, but as we see now, it was short-lived.
Bush would have realized that this outcome was inevitable had he read a history book, but it appears he didn't, so...
Hey if your say X country and you don't need US dollars to buy oil why do you need US dollars? The reason the US dollar rules the world monetary system is because everybody needs it to buy oil. Now what happens if Joe Blow creates a new energy that puts oil out of business all together? Well Joe Blow gets killed. Joe Blow just took on the US dollar. Sadaam tried to do that and so did momar. Russia and china are now doing it using Iran as their proxy. That is why all this green energy nonsense is just that. The US doesn't want green energy, they don't want windmills or mirrors to work it's all a game to pay off supporters. Oil is king because the US dollar is king.
The United States does not ask other countries to trade in dollars. The US dollar has oscillated up and down at will, and the US government does not care. The US dollar is not the world's reserve currency because of some conspiracy to keep the dollar supreme. It is the world's reserve currency because it has the strongest and most dynamic economy in the world since the end of WWII. On top of that, the US capital markets are so deep that even the German and Japanese capital markets pale in comparison. US stocks represent roughly 40% of world stocks and the US bonds market is 33% of the world's bonds market. Investors around the world are aware of that and they are also aware that the US economy has/had the best track record for growth and stability. The US dollar being the world reserve currency is a reflection of high global confidence in the US economy, not a reflection of some conspiracy to keep the dollar supreme.
The other major reason for why investors (individuals, corporations, governments, etc.) keep most of their foreign exchange reserves in dollars is to reduce the risk from currency fluctuations. Conducting international transactions in one currency is safer than conducting them in multiple currencies. If you trade in dollars, borrow in euros, and keep foreign exchange reserves in yen, you run several risks. If the yen falls against the dollar, your forex reserves will decline even as your imports rise. If the euro rises against the dollar and yen, your debts will increase even as your exports and foreign exchange reserves fall. Countries and corporations are risk averse. Avoiding currency risk means keeping most of the foreign transactions in one currency, and the safest currency is the US dollar. Foreign exchange reserves also help finance imports. If your reserves are in dollars, you should import in dollars too, to reduce currency risk. So, dollar dominance in reserves translates into dollar dominance for designating imports. But once you designate imports in dollars, you should designate exports in dollars too. If a company imports raw material in dollars and exports in euros, a rise of the dollar could lead to losses.
This is precisely why OPEC trades oil in US dollars. The US is the largest consumer of oil. OPEC has much of their foreign exchange reserves in dollars. Much of their imports are denominated in US dollars. It is only completely rational that they export oil in the same currency in which they buy goods and services, to reduce currency risk.
Even if other countries wanted to hold their foreign exchange reserves in euros. Will this lead the US to a collapse? No. The rising demand of euros will cause the euro to rise rapidly relative to the dollar. This will attract foreign investors to Europe, but at a cost of making European exports too expensive, which will hurt production and employment. At the same time, this will make US exports cheaper. Basically, it is a mixed blessing. This is basic economics.
This leads to me to suspect that Saddam Hussein's intentions to sell oil in euros is nothing but a political gimmick. Why? Because it lacks economic significance. This is similar to Nepal creating a 15 minute time difference from India. It had no practical significance; Nepal just wanted to demonstrate defiance in the face of Indian domination. On the same token, Saddam used the intention to sell oil in euros to demonstrate defiance to US domination. It was a political gimmick simply because he had no practical or economical reason to do it.
Last edited by Libohove90; 08-24-2013 at 04:06 PM..
I understand what you're saying but in all honesty, I don't see the world markets dumping the dollar any time soon, for any reason. The dollar rules the world monetary system and will continue to do so for the long range foreseeable future.
If the US economy goes down in flames so will the worlds economy. Look at Greece and what that little dump of a country did to the worlds economy.
The only reason the dollar rules the monetary system is because oil has to be traded in dollars. That is why countries like China gulp up treasuries. If we go down so do they and they know that. China however has other plans in mind.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not so fast buddy
