iraq the usa & oil contracts

[Zar]

I know these topics have been raised before, and especially one on the iraqi oil currency trade (credit to the person who created that thread - a while back)

... but i was speaking to my boss today about the americans in iraq, and both of us being economists (of sorts) came to the conclusion that american interests in iraq lie not with the Oil reserves primarily, but more so the oil contracts and the dollar system.

let me explain:

1) Many people yap on about how america wants to steal iraqi oil. Although i wouldnt doubt for a second that if the USA under bush had his way he would steal all the oil he possibly could. However this is unlikely and quite stupid, as it would be hard to "cover" up so to speak, and much of the world would object to such blatent pillage.

Instead if they are able to make sure that Iraq hands out its new oil pumping contracts to American (and british firms), money can be made there. The oil pumping industry is a billion dollar industry itself. We also know how well the american government, is connected to oil pumping firms, and in hand how important oil pumping itself is as an industry to britain and the usa. Lets not forget there are many HUGE oil pumping corps in both countries, that play a HUGE part on the economy. Also the fact, that governments and the military tend to have big ties to them.

By securing these contracts, the americans can ward of any foreing competitors, and increasingly anti-american iraq would have perhaps given rights to pump to.

Billions to the Corps, Billions to the Economy, Billions to Bush and his cronies.

2) The USA is almost completely dependant on the value of the Greenback. If the greenback became worthless the USA wouldnt last a day. The reason why the usa can sustain such huge debts, fiscally and in long term loans, is that everything is more or less guaranteed on the greenback, which is traditionally held as a sort of "safehaven". It is more or less guaranteed on the wellbeing of the USA and its economy. Now the oil as a commodity is almost always traded in $'s. Iraq was an exception, that had switched to trading in Euro's. With a much weaker american economy, and trouble over there especially with Fiscal policy, and huge deficits, the demand was starting to fall in Dollars, and increase in Euro's, as people saw that the USA was starting to become a risky nation. Its future will be wobbly even today. The EU, although much slower growth traditionally, became a more attractive alternative, as it is less dependant on foreign trade, than the USA is (EU is actually fairly self sufficient, with a large % of trade being domestic within member nations).

So... We know the USA survives on the strength of the Greenback. The greenback, being valued against the wellbeing of the nation and economy. The oil industry being very important to the US economy. If oil traded completely in Euro's, it would be enough to make Dollar demand fall substantially, wiping a huge sentimental value of the greenback - i.e US economy is in the ****s.

Thus if Iraq changed to trading oil in Euro's, and with pressure and perhaps natural change, other countries decided to switch also (you know the drill, when someone big changes, someone else is bound to follow) OPEC even considered switching to the Euro, perhaps the USA was afraid of the consequences, and made it a decision to make sure that the $ remained the main oil trading currency.

Then brush it off with tripe about WMD, and etc etc... and you invade iraq, secure american oil contracts (and of course other contracts for the american wellbeing), reinstate the dollar, and then pretend you did something moral.

Oh the economics of the american imperial dream!

Zar

[MrL_JaKiri]

Welcome to the world of being up to speed.

[MrL_JaKiri]

I think the vernacular is 'old'

[Dace]

Rebuilding contracts (for Iraq) are fun.

And lucrative.

And going to companies from which Nation(s) again?!

[queball]

What Zar really means to say is that we should replace fiat currencies with gold.

[Zar]

Originally posted by queball
What Zar really means to say is that we should replace fiat currencies with gold.

Currencies have already been valued against gold in the past, and it didnt work.

If you mean actually physically replacing cash with gold? I hate wallets as it is. Just imagine coin bags! Eugh

Zar

[cnaw]

Originally posted by Zar

Thus if Iraq changed to trading oil in Euro's, and with pressure and perhaps natural change, other countries decided to switch also (you know the drill, when someone big changes, someone else is bound to follow) OPEC even considered switching to the Euro, perhaps the USA was afraid of the consequences, and made it a decision to make sure that the $ remained the main oil trading currency.

i hope that wasn't a pun i saw there ;-)

[Apothos]

Originally posted by cnaw
i hope that wasn't a pun i saw there ;-)

You rock.

[inf]

Originally posted by queball
What Zar really means to say is that we should replace fiat currencies with gold.

That would be stupid.

[JammyJim]

im surprised you only just came to this conclusion.

i had already realised this when they first started moving troops into the region.

[W]

It won't be hard now to figure out why france and russia was so opposed to it?

[Cynical Oracle]

France, Germany and Belgium?

[Zar]

Originally posted by JammyJim
im surprised you only just came to this conclusion.

i had already realised this when they first started moving troops into the region.

didnt just come to this conclusion, - it just came up again in a big discussion. So decided to share it with you miserable lot

Zar

[Zar]

Originally posted by W
It won't be hard now to figure out why france and russia was so opposed to it?

on the contrary - one could argue that if these countries were so opposed to the idea of the usa stealing oil contracts, and reverting the currency exchange, then perhaps the germans and french would have joined the war to prevent the us and uk from getting too much power in iraq and stealing contracts and changing currency system etc...

They didnt go in for other reasons - what reasons they are, are debatable - probably more political (people in these countries aren't as blood thirsy and war hungry as americans are - so wouldnt have favoured well with their governments)

Zar

[Dace]

Originally posted by Zar
on the contrary - one could argue that if these countries were so opposed to the idea of the usa stealing oil contracts, and reverting the currency exchange, then perhaps the germans and french would have joined the war to prevent the us and uk from getting too much power in iraq and stealing contracts and changing currency system etc...

They didnt go in for other reasons - what reasons they are, are debatable - probably more political (people in these countries aren't as blood thirsy and war hungry as americans are - so wouldnt have favoured well with their governments)

Zar

You are wrong.

[wu_trax]

speaking for germany: there never was any economical interest in iraq, we would have made far more money if we would just have shout up and get some of the reconstruction contracts.
we dont even have ANY large oil comapnies here.

ofc, schröder never gave a damn about the people in iraq, if it would have helped him to win the election he would have done the exact opposite. but to be honest, i dont really care about that.

[Zar]

Originally posted by wu_trax
speaking for germany: there never was any economical interest in iraq, we would have made far more money if we would just have shout up and get some of the reconstruction contracts.
we dont even have ANY large oil comapnies here.

ofc, schröder never gave a damn about the people in iraq, if it would have helped him to win the election he would have done the exact opposite. but to be honest, i dont really care about that.

if you read my last post that is what im getting at. the decision was political. Germans arent as war hungry, blood loving, death wishing, as their american counterparts. Thus the government had to follow their wishes (re-election and all)

Zar

[Texan]

Originally posted by Zar
if you read my last post that is what im getting at. the decision was political. Germans arent as war hungry, blood loving, death wishing, as their american counterparts. Thus the government had to follow their wishes (re-election and all)

Zar

You, sir, are an idiot.

Americans are no different than the rest of the people of the world. I don't think I need to explain that any more.

[Zar]

Originally posted by Texan
You, sir, are an idiot.

Americans are no different than the rest of the people of the world. I don't think I need to explain that any more.

no. no

dont insult the rest of the world by saying americans are like us

Zar

[JammyJim]

Originally posted by Zar
if you read my last post that is what im getting at. the decision was political. Germans arent as war hungry, blood loving, death wishing, as their american counterparts. Thus the government had to follow their wishes (re-election and all)

Zar

this has to be the dumbest thing ive heard since i head it on Fox News 3 months ago from a retired army soldier they were interviewing.


im not going to comment apart from saying two short lines of text :



World War I
World War II






JJ

[Zar]

Originally posted by JammyJim
this has to be the dumbest thing ive heard since i head it on Fox News 3 months ago from a retired army soldier they were interviewing.


im not going to comment apart from saying two short lines of text :



World War I
World War II






JJ

dear jammyjim. Germany may have had aggressive citizens 50 years ago, but times change my friend.

Today citizens of Germany are far more liberal, left-winged and behave more pacifist like than they did before and far more so than americans in todays society.

We are talking about americans and germans today. not in ww1 and 2

thus please dont be an ignorant **** - and make even sillier comments than i am making being a chat whore - just going around called everyone an idiot without thinking about what you are writing, in reference to my comments... i know you are far more intelligent than that

Zar

[JammyJim]

Im sorry but its still the dumbest thing youve said so far.

Germany has never been a pacifist country. The reason it has no want of american invasion of iraq was because it had interests in the country much like france did.

Shroeder was facing a complete collapse in his chancellorship and was banking on the fact that germans would not like the invasion so he rode on a wave of anti-american sentiment.

Germany is no longer a military power because of WW2 and history would seem to dictate otherwise as to the disposition of the german people.


I do not merely refer to WW1 and 2 on this point. Germany has been the bone of contention for centuries.

however seeing as i study politics i will now quote your thread and begin ripping it apart.


give me a mo.

[Zar]

Originally posted by JammyJim
Im sorry but its still the dumbest thing youve said so far.

Germany has never been a pacifist country. The reason it has no want of american invasion of iraq was because it had interests in the country much like france did.

Shroeder was facing a complete collapse in his chancellorship and was banking on the fact that germans would not like the invasion so he rode on a wave of anti-american sentiment.

Germany is no longer a military power because of WW2 and history would seem to dictate otherwise as to the disposition of the german people.


I do not merely refer to WW1 and 2 on this point. Germany has been the bone of contention for centuries.

however seeing as i study politics i will now quote your thread and begin ripping it apart.


give me a mo.

jammyjim - once again you fail to read anything i say - and become a typical chat whore as one always does when they dont read and think they are being smart.

nb: im talking about "German-S" rather than "German-Y". "American-S" rather than "America"

Like i said, Germany did not go to war with iraq, because of perhaps economical and political reasons. Economical due to many reasons, and political probably due to the fact that the german population was vastly against the war and elections were facing a prob.

if you continue to be a dick and not read what i say, how can we even start to argue?

Zar

[Zar]

Originally posted by JammyJim

however seeing as i study politics i will now quote your thread and begin ripping it apart.


give me a mo.

ah - good old politic students trying to rip us economic students apart. - especially when this thread has a more economical theme than politics (although with a fair mix of politics also)

go ahead and try.

Zar

[JammyJim]

Originally posted by Zar

1) Many people yap on about how america wants to steal iraqi oil. Although i wouldnt doubt for a second that if the USA under bush had his way he would steal all the oil he possibly could. However this is unlikely and quite stupid, as it would be hard to "cover" up so to speak, and much of the world would object to such blatent pillage.

Instead if they are able to make sure that Iraq hands out its new oil pumping contracts to American (and british firms), money can be made there. The oil pumping industry is a billion dollar industry itself. We also know how well the american government, is connected to oil pumping firms, and in hand how important oil pumping itself is as an industry to britain and the usa. Lets not forget there are many HUGE oil pumping corps in both countries, that play a HUGE part on the economy. Also the fact, that governments and the military tend to have big ties to them.

By securing these contracts, the americans can ward of any foreing competitors, and increasingly anti-american iraq would have perhaps given rights to pump to.

Billions to the Corps, Billions to the Economy, Billions to Bush and his cronies.

First of all....
This has been speculated upon for some time. The Bush-Cheney Junta are personally involved in oil and have considerable private assets placed in the oil business. In afghanistan (not many people know this) a large californian oil contractor had secured a large multibillion dollar pipeline. Then the taliban government made a u-turn and demanded more and refused to cooperate.
Later that year the taliban were removed and the pipeline went ahead creating a massive influx of revenue into the states.
Coincidence?

Afghanistan was already a target for attack before 9/11 took place. This is well documented if your willing to look.

next!....

2) The USA is almost completely dependant on the value of the Greenback. If the greenback became worthless the USA wouldnt last a day. The reason why the usa can sustain such huge debts, fiscally and in long term loans, is that everything is more or less guaranteed on the greenback, which is traditionally held as a sort of "safehaven". It is more or less guaranteed on the wellbeing of the USA and its economy.

Its the Dollar. Noone calls them greenbacks. Not even americans. Its a buck or a dollar. nothing else.
The USA does not rely solely on its currency. Its GDP is far more important. IT is the largest economy in the world and its consumption out does every other major economy the world over. It relies upon this for relative stability in the markets. People know that america has a huge economy and are willing to lend as a result.

Now the oil as a commodity is almost always traded in $'s. Iraq was an exception, that had switched to trading in Euro's. With a much weaker american economy, and trouble over there especially with Fiscal policy, and huge deficits, the demand was starting to fall in Dollars, and increase in Euro's, as people saw that the USA was starting to become a risky nation. Its future will be wobbly even today. The EU, although much slower growth traditionally, became a more attractive alternative, as it is less dependant on foreign trade, than the USA is (EU is actually fairly self sufficient, with a large % of trade being domestic within member nations).

So... We know the USA survives on the strength of the Greenback. The greenback, being valued against the wellbeing of the nation and economy. The oil industry being very important to the US economy. If oil traded completely in Euro's, it would be enough to make Dollar demand fall substantially, wiping a huge sentimental value of the greenback - i.e US economy is in the ****s.

Thus if Iraq changed to trading oil in Euro's, and with pressure and perhaps natural change, other countries decided to switch also (you know the drill, when someone big changes, someone else is bound to follow) OPEC even considered switching to the Euro, perhaps the USA was afraid of the consequences, and made it a decision to make sure that the $ remained the main oil trading currency.

Then brush it off with tripe about WMD, and etc etc... and you invade iraq, secure american oil contracts (and of course other contracts for the american wellbeing), reinstate the dollar, and then pretend you did something moral.

Oh the economics of the american imperial dream!

Zar

what
the
****
are
you
talking
about
?

Oil is sold in DOLLARS per barrel. not euros per barrel. it hasnt changed. never was going to change and will never change. do you know why?
America imports more oil than any other country???
show me something to the contrary and ill rescing my comments but there has been NOTHING to say Iraq was going to sell only if it got Euros. Iraq needed valuable dollars to purchase other things. Like food.


Sentimentality has nothing to do with the value of the dollar. The americans want a strong dollar so they can purchase more in realtive terms. ITs all simple low level economics.

As for WMD. They were never found and will never be found. That was the spark to get the 500,000 troops, tanks and aircraft stationed at iraqi borders to move.
No country in the history of warfare has ever placed large amounts of troops in a foreign land and then withdrawn.

You have one thing right.
They did it for oil and oil contracts and to secure oil for the future.

[JammyJim]

Originally posted by Zar
jammyjim - once again you fail to read anything i say - and become a typical chat whore as one always does when they dont read and think they are being smart.

nb: im talking about "German-S" rather than "German-Y". "American-S" rather than "America"

Like i said, Germany did not go to war with iraq, because of perhaps economical and political reasons. Economical due to many reasons, and political probably due to the fact that the german population was vastly against the war and elections were facing a prob.

if you continue to be a dick and not read what i say, how can we even start to argue?

Zar

germany did not goto war because of political reasons. Shroeder needed voters to see he was doing what they wanted him to do regardless of his treaty commitments to nato and also to the wellbeing of the 'allies' and euro-us relations.

Germans ARE Germany. How can you possible seperate the two?

The state is born out of the people.
Every people that has been born from a state has failed.

[Zar]

Originally posted by JammyJim
germany did not goto war because of political reasons. Shroeder needed voters to see he was doing what they wanted him to do regardless of his treaty commitments to nato and also to the wellbeing of the 'allies' and euro-us relations.

Germans ARE Germany. How can you possible seperate the two?

The state is born out of the people.
Every people that has been born from a state has failed.

this one first before i rip your other thread that shows quite well that you are not a student of economics and shouldnt attempt to be. politics student should steer far clear of the brainer subjects

did you ever wonder why the uk went to war even when the majorty of the country had a problem with it? Governments arent always a fair representation of the population, and in the case of the UK - no where near a fair representation.

When people refer to countries they tend to refer to the politcal aspects behind the country i.e the government, because these governments are the aspects at which we compare against.

The general will of the population tends to be dismissed.

Zar

[JammyJim]

i hope you realise a large scale inquiriry is taking place in the uk currently because of the iraq scandel.

we were mislead.

however

I was a straight A student in economics until i reached university where i chose to steer the path of international politics instead because maths bored me.

Your original thread for all intent and purposes was actually not far from being the truth hence my 'troubles' in "ripping" it apart.

A certain bravado is required when posting on these forums. It adds to the fun.

However i still stand by the fact that your comments about german pacifism are nieve and ignorant.

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by Zar
By securing these contracts, the americans can ward of any foreing competitors, and increasingly anti-american iraq would have perhaps given rights to pump to.

Without the war, no one would have gotten any new contracts to develop or pump Iraqi oil for the simple reason that Iraq was under severe UN sanctions and permitted to sell only enough oil to pay for food and other basic necessities--which required far less oil than Iraq was already able to produce. Those sanctions were not likely to be lifted anytime soon and would probably have remained until Saddam had died of old age--at least. No one with more than two neurons to rub together was going to pay money to develop oil that couldn't be sold. There was no need to invade Iraq just to keep those contracts out of non-American hands because those contracts weren't going anywhere--no matter how much Saddam hated the US.

[JammyJim]

to accurately summarise the 'cynical' and 'pro-american' views for invasion of iraq would take awhile and several thousand words.


i plan to do this for a thesis document. not for the pa forums heh

[Deepflow]

I don't car what you think.

Neither does anyone else.

You are a bored student trying to kill time.

You have no say in what actually happens because you are a student and therefore NO ONE GIVES A F**K WHAT YOU THINK.

Stop giving youself ideas. We're all wasting our time at uni. Stop taking yourself seriously and get used to being a pisshead. No one at uni will take **** like that seriously. DRINK UP

[JammyJim]

deepflow hits jackpot


HURRAY FOR SANITY.

[W]

Originally posted by Deepflow
I don't car what you think.

Neither does anyone else.

You are a bored student trying to kill time.

You have no say in what actually happens because you are a student and therefore NO ONE GIVES A F**K WHAT YOU THINK.

Stop giving youself ideas. We're all wasting our time at uni. Stop taking yourself seriously and get used to being a pisshead. No one at uni will take **** like that seriously. DRINK UP

Things change with time.:duh:

[Zar]

Originally posted by JammyJim
First of all....
This has been speculated upon for some time. The Bush-Cheney Junta are personally involved in oil and have considerable private assets placed in the oil business. In afghanistan (not many people know this) a large californian oil contractor had secured a large multibillion dollar pipeline. Then the taliban government made a u-turn and demanded more and refused to cooperate.
Later that year the taliban were removed and the pipeline went ahead creating a massive influx of revenue into the states.
Coincidence?

Afghanistan was already a target for attack before 9/11 took place. This is well documented if your willing to look.

next!....


Its the Dollar. Noone calls them greenbacks. Not even americans. Its a buck or a dollar. nothing else.
The USA does not rely solely on its currency. Its GDP is far more important. IT is the largest economy in the world and its consumption out does every other major economy the world over. It relies upon this for relative stability in the markets. People know that america has a huge economy and are willing to lend as a result.




what
the
****
are
you
talking
about
?

Oil is sold in DOLLARS per barrel. not euros per barrel. it hasnt changed. never was going to change and will never change. do you know why?
America imports more oil than any other country???
show me something to the contrary and ill rescing my comments but there has been NOTHING to say Iraq was going to sell only if it got Euros. Iraq needed valuable dollars to purchase other things. Like food.


Sentimentality has nothing to do with the value of the dollar. The americans want a strong dollar so they can purchase more in realtive terms. ITs all simple low level economics.

As for WMD. They were never found and will never be found. That was the spark to get the 500,000 troops, tanks and aircraft stationed at iraqi borders to move.
No country in the history of warfare has ever placed large amounts of troops in a foreign land and then withdrawn.

You have one thing right.
They did it for oil and oil contracts and to secure oil for the future.

i)first part i agree with you- no need to argue that further.

ii) greenback is a term used widely among economists. and well considering we are the ones who create the system - we can call it what we want.

iii) I never said the usa solely depends on the value of the greenback. I said it mostly depends on it. NB: Jimmy once again you have a problem with simple words. "Solely" is different to "mostly".

iv) the usa is probably the only country in the world, which has its own currency that it can print almost effortlessly, and spend it - purely backed on its own economy. Its like a 3 way thing. reserves give value to dollar, dollar funds economy, economy funds reserves etc.... So yes, the economy is big and is considered a haven - i mean the us isnt going to default anytime soon? or is it? You see - the US economy was percived to be almost faultless, until this dotcom crash. Since the big recession in '29 there hasnt been anything substantional in which to doubt the might of the US. Now there are all sorts of new problems popping up.

a) the EU is a large trade zone, in itself larger than the USA. THere is increased competition. Now as the Eu unifies both economically and politcally, we can see a threat emerge.

b) The Euro is a new "super" currency. One capable of rivaling the Dollar. Problem? Demand for Dollars will suffer.

c) China, India and other emerging economies are starting to throw weight around.

The USA isnt a country which an investor can purely base on its eocnomy. If the past 3 years are to go by, the us economy would be the worst thing to base it on. The US has one safe haven, and that is in the value of the dollar. The Dollar wont slide away. It will however suffer, and notice how when the US economy was doing badly, people saught after Euro's, because the european shock wasnt as bad as the american. Now that the EU is suffering, people are buying back into Dollars. I'm not going to go into detail, but you will find that economies are often intrinsicaly linked to their currencies and vice versa. Im sure you know this, but you're just being pedantic.

BTW did you know that the net debt the usa has collected up over the years is close to 3000, 000, 000, 000. YES that many zeros! ALL other nations at this level would have crashed and been destoyed at this level. Just imagine tomorrow if this fairy money became worthless. With such a large debt, i would shudder to think of the consequences

The US basically recieves an interest free loan from the world. If countries actually started to demand euros, and sell dollars to demand these euros, the usa would find itself having to pay back these huge debts, which it anyway finances by simply printing more money. The countries economy would be wiped out in seconds. The value of the dollar is a complete illusion, and this is both its greatest strength and flaw.

v) Iraq official changed to reciving its funds for food/oil programme, in euros a while back.

http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/20...2000160846.asp

this was just a quick google. I'm sure if you want you can find more reputable sources if you look.

Sorry for late reply - phonecall from a drunk friend

Zar

[JammyJim]

i just wrote a reply and did the stupid 'back button'

when i hit forward it had gone.

basically i dont disagree with any of your points.

i just wanted an arguement heh


oh

and noone has used the term greenbacks for years. how old r u friggin text books for christ sake?

my only point left that i can be bohtered to defend is that opec wouldnt change just because iraq did. It wouldve cost opec countries trillions of dollars in lost revenue over time.


anyhoo im tired and its 3:26. maybe you can make up some other post thats slightly more ambigous and we can argue again.



until then,
dobriy vyecher

[Zar]

Originally posted by JammyJim
i just wrote a reply and did the stupid 'back button'

when i hit forward it had gone.

basically i dont disagree with any of your points.

i just wanted an arguement heh


oh

and noone has used the term greenbacks for years. how old r u friggin text books for christ sake?

my only point left that i can be bohtered to defend is that opec wouldnt change just because iraq did. It wouldve cost opec countries trillions of dollars in lost revenue over time.


anyhoo im tired and its 3:26. maybe you can make up some other post thats slightly more ambigous and we can argue again.



until then,
dobriy vyecher

ok then

as for greenbacks - i have some old economics lecturers. old fuddy duddy's - nothing i can do about that

Zar