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 think you, as many others, fail to remember that there was no security agreement reached between the US (Obama) and Iraq because Iraq wanted the ability to charge American troops in Iraq with crimes and tried before an Islamic court.
Do you think that Obama was wrong for not agreeing to that? All it would have taken was for ONE US soldier to be arrested, charged and tried for Americans to go ballistic and it would have been on Obama had he signed off to Iraq's conditions.
This current mess (which started several years ago) is Iraq's creation, not that of the US. The US was asked to leave, they didn't abandon Iraq. Iraq was to arrogant and thought they could "govern" without the help of the US.
Actually, it wasn't Iraq's creation. The American public, mainly liberals, were going off 24/7 trying to make the situation way worse than it actually was. If they could have shown decapitated soldiers 24/7/365 they would have.
That caused DC to take note and abandon Iraq as soon as possible. Operation Lightfoot (I believe) was an attempt to hurry the Iraq government into being.
The SOFA that Bush agreed to was done out of the constant whining of the left. I guess now you know what you get when a war is fought on the 24 hour news cycle.
When Saddam was speaking to change Iraq's oil being traded in Euros it was 2000 and the Euro was about $.80 per dollar. By the time the Iraq war was around the corner it was about a 1:1 ratio. Now it's about 1.35:1.
What do you suppose would have occurred had Saddam been successful and without challenge? the UK is not even in the top 5 anymore for holders of US debt. That should tell you something.
What if Saddam, who's oil imports were severely limited due to sanctions, had been able to get his oil traded in a currency that might just not be around in 2020 (and if it still is, it's because the Germans have bullied Europe into holding on to what is clearly a failure)? Probably not much.
But there's a couple of problems with what you're saying.
First, is that talk of an alternative currency had already been bandied about for some time before we invaded Iraq and there's powerful countries today that would like a viable alternative to the US dollar. Invading Iraq would be nothing more than a wasteful, inhumane and poorly thought-through forestalling of the inevitable (and in fact, might speed it up as most of the world didn't exactly like it when we invaded Iraq). In other words, invading Iraq doesn't actually solve the problem, it only kicks the can down the road slightly and in actuality might make it seriously worse in the long run. It seems like a better idea would have been to prepare for the end of petrodollars (and even now with no viable alternative, I would still say it's going to happen eventually, we can't seriously invade all the countries that disagree with us on this).
Second, we could have just been nicer to Iraq. Was invading them really the only choice?
Third, that still doesn't gel with what the Bush administration was saying at the time. They weren't talking about petrodollars, they were talking about what a bad guy Hussein was, how he had secret WMD and they were conflating the Iraq issue with the 9/11 attacks in order to essentially trick people into supporting an invasion that was a terrible idea.
Fourth, anyone with half a brain should have seen the Euro problems coming (that's probably why even more than a decade ago while Russia talked about Euros, they didn't jump, they obviously saw the problem). Weaker economies adopted a single currency while keeping fiscal matters and their actual economies separate. This was just a terrible idea, and it probably doomed the Euro unless there's greater fiscal integration (which Germany and France will absolutely refuse).
What is going on in Iraq is a direct result of us INVADING Iraq in the first place. It was a clusterf*** from the start. How long do you think our troops should have remained in Iraq policing a Civil War?? 2 more years? 5 years? 10 years?? Till long after everyone posting on this board is dead?? Enough was enough we were there for almost 10 years and should have never gone there in the first place. It was long past time to GTFO.
Good point Smash255, because there were never mass graves in Iraq filled with enemies of the state until the US invaded.
Iraq started downhill the day Saddam was ousted and no plans were in place for the next step. The seeds for today were planted the day we made the decision to invade/occupy Iraq with no planning for what came after.
Actually, it wasn't Iraq's creation. The American public, mainly liberals, were going off 24/7 trying to make the situation way worse than it actually was. If they could have shown decapitated soldiers 24/7/365 they would have.
That caused DC to take note and abandon Iraq as soon as possible. Operation Lightfoot (I believe) was an attempt to hurry the Iraq government into being.
The SOFA that Bush agreed to was done out of the constant whining of the left. I guess now you know what you get when a war is fought on the 24 hour news cycle.
Right or wrong...
Read up on why the security agreement wasn't signed. Democrats/Republicans - the US - are NOT responsible for the current situation. Iraq deliberately made it impossible for US troops to remain and assist in helping with the formation of a fair and impartial (if that was ever possible) government. We did not abandon Iraq, we were asked to leave. We can only wonder if the Iraqis had excluded the part where American troops would be subject to arrest, tried and imprisoned if Obama would have signed the agreement. Shi'ites were suppressed under Hussein and the US helped to put a Shi'ite in power. The US handed the Shi'ites the power to reverse the religious power to control Iraq. Look at it as payback by the Shi'ites.
The current situation was building up for years. Iraq did not ask the US for help because by their own admission it (the current situation) was their problem. Now that they can't remedy the problem they are allowing the US to "assist" them.
Afghanistan was supposed to have signed the security agreement with the US last October and in spite of threats from Obama - sign or full US withdrawal - Obama is still waiting to see if the next president will sign it and we still have a military presence there. Instead of threatening sign or we leave, he should have called for a full withdrawal the day after time ran out for Karzai to sign.
It doesn't matter how long the US remains in these countries, the moment there is a full withdrawal in Afghanistan it will revert back to business as usual and the situation will be worse than before the US invasion.
In order to form a government that resembles anything close to a fully functioning democratic government, if that were to ever happen, it would take 25 years of military presence. Rome wasn't built in a day nor can you create a government that is good for all the people in a matter of years.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trace21230
America's liberals support genocide. Sad.
American conservatives tell us Islam is the scourge of the world and then feign outrage when we won't fight a fight for Muslims they should be fighting for themselves.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475
I'm sorry, I thought you liked your lifestyle and your safety net.
So let's say Iraq had been able to trade its oil in euros. That would have been the first OPEC partner to do so since the 70's. It would have also dropped the dollar's value by about 5% or so immidiately. That would have put a greater pressure on other countries who kept their excess money in US dollars, mainly in US treasuries. In case you didn't realize this US treasuries are how the government finances its debt.
So now you got a real problem. Would the dollar's value drop enough to create a panic and aass exodus from the dollar? Who knows? What we do know is there's about $6 trillion of our debt owned by foreign countries. What do you suppose they'd think if the value of the dollar started to drop precipitously? What is over the course of 5 years (or less) the dollar's value decreased by 1/3 and that debt they owned also dropped by 1/3?
Now you have something new to think about any while you're thinking about that also think of those on fixed incomes along with the people who rely on government assistance. Think about the federal reserve trying to pull the $4 trillion it's added to its balance sheets out while trying to also pull trillions more out of the system to try and keep inflation in check.
Given how often economic theorists have been wrong in the past why is there any reason to believe the theory that the end of the Petrodollar would be the cataclysmic event they theorize? How is it so many countries manage to maintain high standards of living without oil being traded in their currencies? Why can't the US learn the secret to that?
Given how often economic theorists have been wrong in the past why is there any reason to believe the theory that the end of the Petrodollar would be the cataclysmic event they theorize? How is it so many countries manage to maintain high standards of living without oil being traded in their currencies? Why can't the US learn the secret to that?
Okay, I'll play your silly little game.
There's $10 trillion floating around in the international and domestic accounts. What do you think would happen to your bank account, savings, retirement, etc. if suddenly there was 25 - 50% less demand for US dollars because of countries abandoning using the dollar to trade oil in?
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475
Okay, I'll play your silly little game.
There's $10 trillion floating around in the international and domestic accounts. What do you think would happen to your bank account, savings, retirement, etc. if suddenly there was 25 - 50% less demand for US dollars because of countries abandoning using the dollar to trade oil in?
Why do you think the demand for dollars is dependent solely on oil? I have no idea what would happen, I don't believe the economic theorists who frequently display their inability to make accurate economic predictions do either.
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.
