The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
That is, those tubthumping pro-war ladies and gentlemen who never allow hard facts to get in the way of a good days crowing.
Here's a thing or two about your remarkably ill-thought through blusterings;
You're all saying "See! See! Told you, stupid hippies" and conveniently forgetting that at no point did "Anti-War" mean "Pro-Saddam"
The reasons for going to war are still invalid. NO womd found or used, NO UN approval, civilians injured in the thousands etc etc
And just what the hell has happened to Saddam then? I thought we weren't stopping until he was dead?
So where is he?
I hope that some intelligent pro-war people will take the time to respond to this. Doubtless the more moronic among them will take another opportunity to ignore the entire question and respond with their usual reality-free tirade...
Here's a thing or two about your remarkably ill-thought through blusterings;
You're all saying "See! See! Told you, stupid hippies" and conveniently forgetting that at no point did "Anti-War" mean "Pro-Saddam"
The reasons for going to war are still invalid. NO womd found or used, NO UN approval, civilians injured in the thousands etc etc
And just what the hell has happened to Saddam then? I thought we weren't stopping until he was dead?
So where is he?
I hope that some intelligent pro-war people will take the time to respond to this. Doubtless the more moronic among them will take another opportunity to ignore the entire question and respond with their usual reality-free tirade...
Page:
Miserableman wrote:
> You don't seem to know how North Korea operates. North Korea can do
> nothing but talk war - it gets the US to cough up money, some of which
> goes to feed its people and some of which goes on making more weapons.
> The US invasion of Iraq only strengthens North Korea's case, but it
> doesn't really change the dynamics of the situation. I would agree
> with you, but recent history has demonstrated that military powers
> facing the overwhelming might of the US army have often chosen to
> fight to the death, rather than choose a relatively simple
> get-out-of-jail option.
With due respect I don't think anyone outside of the top levels of North Korea's government knows how it operates, if anyone did then they could have a very highly paid position in various agencies of their choice.
Fact is, until Iraq, America and it's allies have never acted pre emptively. They've dropped the odd bomb, hit a few installations, but never gone to war. That policy has changed, and N.Korea, and everyone else, has seen it change. Saddam never believed, as he did in 1990, that the world would act against him, and he was nearly right. In the past military powers have underestimated our capability and believed victory possible, but after the TV footage everyone around the world would have seen they can no longer believe that, which is why, surprise surprise, N.Korea suddenly wants multilateral talks - which it previouly didn't want.
> It does raise questions about the moral standards of the US government
> though. Do the American administration really have any right to stand
> on a pedestal and dictate to the world what is right? Would you trust
> a Policeman who gave guns to two rival street gangs so they could
> eliminate each another? Neither would I, and I have similar
> reservations about trusting world peace to the Americans.
I don't, I think that for the first time in a long time we have administrations in the UK and USA who will act decisively and with full force. The police/gang analogy is incorrect and selectively misleading. Would you give guns to a gang, to fight another dangerous gang that you yourself could in no way be seen to fight because you were the police ? Would you then fight the gangs one by one when you decided you could attack them. Yes, and yes.
As for dictating what is right, I think democracy, freedom of speech, freedom from torture and freedom of religion are pretty damn right by any civilised persons standards....
> You don't seem to know how North Korea operates. North Korea can do
> nothing but talk war - it gets the US to cough up money, some of which
> goes to feed its people and some of which goes on making more weapons.
> The US invasion of Iraq only strengthens North Korea's case, but it
> doesn't really change the dynamics of the situation. I would agree
> with you, but recent history has demonstrated that military powers
> facing the overwhelming might of the US army have often chosen to
> fight to the death, rather than choose a relatively simple
> get-out-of-jail option.
With due respect I don't think anyone outside of the top levels of North Korea's government knows how it operates, if anyone did then they could have a very highly paid position in various agencies of their choice.
Fact is, until Iraq, America and it's allies have never acted pre emptively. They've dropped the odd bomb, hit a few installations, but never gone to war. That policy has changed, and N.Korea, and everyone else, has seen it change. Saddam never believed, as he did in 1990, that the world would act against him, and he was nearly right. In the past military powers have underestimated our capability and believed victory possible, but after the TV footage everyone around the world would have seen they can no longer believe that, which is why, surprise surprise, N.Korea suddenly wants multilateral talks - which it previouly didn't want.
> It does raise questions about the moral standards of the US government
> though. Do the American administration really have any right to stand
> on a pedestal and dictate to the world what is right? Would you trust
> a Policeman who gave guns to two rival street gangs so they could
> eliminate each another? Neither would I, and I have similar
> reservations about trusting world peace to the Americans.
I don't, I think that for the first time in a long time we have administrations in the UK and USA who will act decisively and with full force. The police/gang analogy is incorrect and selectively misleading. Would you give guns to a gang, to fight another dangerous gang that you yourself could in no way be seen to fight because you were the police ? Would you then fight the gangs one by one when you decided you could attack them. Yes, and yes.
As for dictating what is right, I think democracy, freedom of speech, freedom from torture and freedom of religion are pretty damn right by any civilised persons standards....
Star Fury wrote:
> With due respect I don't think anyone outside of the top levels of
> North Korea's government knows how it operates, if anyone did then
> they could have a very highly paid position in various agencies of
> their choice.
>
> Fact is, until Iraq, America and it's allies have never acted pre
> emptively. They've dropped the odd bomb, hit a few installations, but
> never gone to war. That policy has changed, and N.Korea, and everyone
> else, has seen it change. Saddam never believed, as he did in 1990,
> that the world would act against him, and he was nearly right. In the
> past military powers have underestimated our capability and believed
> victory possible, but after the TV footage everyone around the world
> would have seen they can no longer believe that, which is why,
> surprise surprise, N.Korea suddenly wants multilateral talks - which
> it previouly didn't want.
The modus operandi of North Korea is well known. They're not making anti-West gestures just because they're genuinely evil and they drink the blood of dead American soldiers. It goes something like this - they have plenty of weapons of mass destruction and plenty of things to shoot them at, so they know no force would dare invade. They make lots of noise about how ready they are to use them by pulling out of the nuclear treaties, kicking weapons inspectors out, test-firing missiles right over the Japanese mainland etc. They use the mass consternation this causes to bring America to the bargaining table, and screw them out of a few billion dollars in return for the closure of Yongbyon etc. Everybody wins. The situation in Iraq doesn't change this, except give the Koreans a bit more to foam off about. The US would never invade North Korea - a volatile leadership with a million-strong army, several nuclear weapons and a defense pact with China. They might not even find any ash where Tokyo and Seoul once stood.
> I don't, I think that for the first time in a long time we have
> administrations in the UK and USA who will act decisively and with
> full force. The police/gang analogy is incorrect and selectively
> misleading. Would you give guns to a gang, to fight another dangerous
> gang that you yourself could in no way be seen to fight because you
> were the police ? Would you then fight the gangs one by one when you
> decided you could attack them. Yes, and yes.
No and no. I fundamentally disagree with you on the way a nation such as the US and UK should approach its foreign policy, which is why I didn't respond to your last post. We'd argue until the end of time and still get nowhere, so I'm not going to bother.
> With due respect I don't think anyone outside of the top levels of
> North Korea's government knows how it operates, if anyone did then
> they could have a very highly paid position in various agencies of
> their choice.
>
> Fact is, until Iraq, America and it's allies have never acted pre
> emptively. They've dropped the odd bomb, hit a few installations, but
> never gone to war. That policy has changed, and N.Korea, and everyone
> else, has seen it change. Saddam never believed, as he did in 1990,
> that the world would act against him, and he was nearly right. In the
> past military powers have underestimated our capability and believed
> victory possible, but after the TV footage everyone around the world
> would have seen they can no longer believe that, which is why,
> surprise surprise, N.Korea suddenly wants multilateral talks - which
> it previouly didn't want.
The modus operandi of North Korea is well known. They're not making anti-West gestures just because they're genuinely evil and they drink the blood of dead American soldiers. It goes something like this - they have plenty of weapons of mass destruction and plenty of things to shoot them at, so they know no force would dare invade. They make lots of noise about how ready they are to use them by pulling out of the nuclear treaties, kicking weapons inspectors out, test-firing missiles right over the Japanese mainland etc. They use the mass consternation this causes to bring America to the bargaining table, and screw them out of a few billion dollars in return for the closure of Yongbyon etc. Everybody wins. The situation in Iraq doesn't change this, except give the Koreans a bit more to foam off about. The US would never invade North Korea - a volatile leadership with a million-strong army, several nuclear weapons and a defense pact with China. They might not even find any ash where Tokyo and Seoul once stood.
> I don't, I think that for the first time in a long time we have
> administrations in the UK and USA who will act decisively and with
> full force. The police/gang analogy is incorrect and selectively
> misleading. Would you give guns to a gang, to fight another dangerous
> gang that you yourself could in no way be seen to fight because you
> were the police ? Would you then fight the gangs one by one when you
> decided you could attack them. Yes, and yes.
No and no. I fundamentally disagree with you on the way a nation such as the US and UK should approach its foreign policy, which is why I didn't respond to your last post. We'd argue until the end of time and still get nowhere, so I'm not going to bother.
Miserableman wrote:
> The modus operandi of North Korea is well known. They're not making
> anti-West gestures just because they're genuinely evil and they drink
> the blood of dead American soldiers. It goes something like this -
> they have plenty of weapons of mass destruction and plenty of things
> to shoot them at, so they know no force would dare invade. They make
> lots of noise about how ready they are to use them by pulling out of
> the nuclear treaties, kicking weapons inspectors out, test-firing
> missiles right over the Japanese mainland etc. They use the mass
> consternation this causes to bring America to the bargaining table,
> and screw them out of a few billion dollars in return for the closure
> of Yongbyon etc.
Ah, but you are wrong, that was how N.Korea seems to work from the Western perspective, and how N.Korea thinks it can interact with the US is no longer valid. You point a nuke at the US or UK and just see where it gets you. Fact is that there are plenty of ways to attack a country without war, and you can only play games so long before the US and it's allies play them right back at you. Your thinking is pure Cold War my friend, and it ain't the Cold War anymore.
>Everybody wins. The situation in Iraq doesn't change
> this, except give the Koreans a bit more to foam off about. The US
> would never invade North Korea - a volatile leadership with a
> million-strong army, several nuclear weapons and a defense pact with
> China. They might not even find any ash where Tokyo and Seoul once
> stood.
Would never ? Might never is more likely. N.Korea can only push so far before it gets pushed back, and seeing as the Chinese are having major problems right now they would not support N.Korea if it came down to the 5 yard line. Million strong ? Since when does numbers matter anymore, in Iraq we just took down an army of a million with a 1/4 million ! Technology is the new force multiplier and we have that by the bucketload. And N.Korea knows it.
I notice you avoid the fact that N.Korea now accepts the US terms for talks when prior to Iraq it did not...... wonder what changed their mind, the image of Baghdad being struck night after night by precision missiles and bombs perchance ?
> No and no. I fundamentally disagree with you on the way a nation such
> as the US and UK should approach its foreign policy, which is why I
> didn't respond to your last post. We'd argue until the end of time and
> still get nowhere, so I'm not going to bother.
Well I disagree with that, someone has to be the Police and it damn well isn't the UN or anyone else. Why should this not be the case ?
> The modus operandi of North Korea is well known. They're not making
> anti-West gestures just because they're genuinely evil and they drink
> the blood of dead American soldiers. It goes something like this -
> they have plenty of weapons of mass destruction and plenty of things
> to shoot them at, so they know no force would dare invade. They make
> lots of noise about how ready they are to use them by pulling out of
> the nuclear treaties, kicking weapons inspectors out, test-firing
> missiles right over the Japanese mainland etc. They use the mass
> consternation this causes to bring America to the bargaining table,
> and screw them out of a few billion dollars in return for the closure
> of Yongbyon etc.
Ah, but you are wrong, that was how N.Korea seems to work from the Western perspective, and how N.Korea thinks it can interact with the US is no longer valid. You point a nuke at the US or UK and just see where it gets you. Fact is that there are plenty of ways to attack a country without war, and you can only play games so long before the US and it's allies play them right back at you. Your thinking is pure Cold War my friend, and it ain't the Cold War anymore.
>Everybody wins. The situation in Iraq doesn't change
> this, except give the Koreans a bit more to foam off about. The US
> would never invade North Korea - a volatile leadership with a
> million-strong army, several nuclear weapons and a defense pact with
> China. They might not even find any ash where Tokyo and Seoul once
> stood.
Would never ? Might never is more likely. N.Korea can only push so far before it gets pushed back, and seeing as the Chinese are having major problems right now they would not support N.Korea if it came down to the 5 yard line. Million strong ? Since when does numbers matter anymore, in Iraq we just took down an army of a million with a 1/4 million ! Technology is the new force multiplier and we have that by the bucketload. And N.Korea knows it.
I notice you avoid the fact that N.Korea now accepts the US terms for talks when prior to Iraq it did not...... wonder what changed their mind, the image of Baghdad being struck night after night by precision missiles and bombs perchance ?
> No and no. I fundamentally disagree with you on the way a nation such
> as the US and UK should approach its foreign policy, which is why I
> didn't respond to your last post. We'd argue until the end of time and
> still get nowhere, so I'm not going to bother.
Well I disagree with that, someone has to be the Police and it damn well isn't the UN or anyone else. Why should this not be the case ?
Star Fury wrote:
>
> Fact is, until Iraq, America and it's allies have never acted pre
> emptively. They've dropped the odd bomb, hit a few installations, but
> never gone to war. That policy has changed, and N.Korea, and everyone
> else, has seen it change. Saddam never believed, as he did in 1990,
> that the world would act against him, and he was nearly right. In the
> past military powers have underestimated our capability and believed
> victory possible, but after the TV footage everyone around the world
> would have seen they can no longer believe that, which is why,
> surprise surprise, N.Korea suddenly wants multilateral talks - which
> it previouly didn't want.
WHAT???? Never acted pre-emptively?? Hellooooo? Nicaragua, Korea, Columbia, Cuba, too many middle-american mini-regimes to name. The US have been acting pre-emptively for decades. I've no idea where you get your info, but you need to read around the subject a bit more. The US has been actively involved in subverting and destabilising regimes around the world that don't meet 'American Interests' since before WW2. The only difference here is that it's been high-profile media war as much as anything, whereas in the past, it's been kept from the public eye. I'm making no comment on the moral rights or wrongs in this post, so please don't try and antogonise me for being a liberal hippy (which I am).
> It does raise questions about the moral standards of the US
> government
> though. Do the American administration really have any right to
> stand
> on a pedestal and dictate to the world what is right? Would you
> trust
> a Policeman who gave guns to two rival street gangs so they could
> eliminate each another? Neither would I, and I have similar
> reservations about trusting world peace to the Americans.
Tough pal. The actions of the US will continue to affect us all until either (a) we're all blown to smithereens, or (b) they cease to be the dominant (both militarily and financially) power.
> As for dictating what is right, I think democracy, freedom of speech,
> freedom from torture and freedom of religion are pretty damn right by
> any civilised persons standards....
True dat.
>
> Fact is, until Iraq, America and it's allies have never acted pre
> emptively. They've dropped the odd bomb, hit a few installations, but
> never gone to war. That policy has changed, and N.Korea, and everyone
> else, has seen it change. Saddam never believed, as he did in 1990,
> that the world would act against him, and he was nearly right. In the
> past military powers have underestimated our capability and believed
> victory possible, but after the TV footage everyone around the world
> would have seen they can no longer believe that, which is why,
> surprise surprise, N.Korea suddenly wants multilateral talks - which
> it previouly didn't want.
WHAT???? Never acted pre-emptively?? Hellooooo? Nicaragua, Korea, Columbia, Cuba, too many middle-american mini-regimes to name. The US have been acting pre-emptively for decades. I've no idea where you get your info, but you need to read around the subject a bit more. The US has been actively involved in subverting and destabilising regimes around the world that don't meet 'American Interests' since before WW2. The only difference here is that it's been high-profile media war as much as anything, whereas in the past, it's been kept from the public eye. I'm making no comment on the moral rights or wrongs in this post, so please don't try and antogonise me for being a liberal hippy (which I am).
> It does raise questions about the moral standards of the US
> government
> though. Do the American administration really have any right to
> stand
> on a pedestal and dictate to the world what is right? Would you
> trust
> a Policeman who gave guns to two rival street gangs so they could
> eliminate each another? Neither would I, and I have similar
> reservations about trusting world peace to the Americans.
Tough pal. The actions of the US will continue to affect us all until either (a) we're all blown to smithereens, or (b) they cease to be the dominant (both militarily and financially) power.
> As for dictating what is right, I think democracy, freedom of speech,
> freedom from torture and freedom of religion are pretty damn right by
> any civilised persons standards....
True dat.
What's concerning me (and what people ignored in my previous post) is the whole Palestinian-Israeli issue is caught up in this. OK so my previous post was perhaps a little too satirical for its own good so I'll try to be a little more humble.
I don't know why but the Americans are Pro-Israeli and they've been trying to sort the whole conflict out since it kicked off in 1918/22 (depends how far back you go). Anyway the current plan of thinking is the Quartet Roadmap - a plan where the UK, US, Russia and EU are looking to have peace and a separate Palestinian state by 2005. Although with the current Intifada (that's been going for almost 3 years now) it's looking very unlikely, We're still going for that.
The Israelis, at the moment being dictated by Right-Wing Ariel Sharon, refuse to pull their troops out of Palestinian territories and even consider giving Palestinians power, claiming that their is too much of a threat posed upon them by neighbouring Arab states. As well as Oil and Saddam, getting rid of these Arab threats and hopefully achieving a Palestinian state is one of the key factors in this war.
I don't know why but the Americans are Pro-Israeli and they've been trying to sort the whole conflict out since it kicked off in 1918/22 (depends how far back you go). Anyway the current plan of thinking is the Quartet Roadmap - a plan where the UK, US, Russia and EU are looking to have peace and a separate Palestinian state by 2005. Although with the current Intifada (that's been going for almost 3 years now) it's looking very unlikely, We're still going for that.
The Israelis, at the moment being dictated by Right-Wing Ariel Sharon, refuse to pull their troops out of Palestinian territories and even consider giving Palestinians power, claiming that their is too much of a threat posed upon them by neighbouring Arab states. As well as Oil and Saddam, getting rid of these Arab threats and hopefully achieving a Palestinian state is one of the key factors in this war.
All I'll say to anyone who cites Chomsky is that he's great for reaffirming your own convictions and challenging nothing. Want to believe America really is "the satan" and generally bad, then go read Chomsky to tell you you're right.
And Jonman, you're wrong on several counts;
*Korea was a UN operation and not pre-emptive
*Cuba was an intelligence operation and committed by Cubans
*Grenada was at the request of the regional alliance and the island's governor
*Noriega because of his proven drugs activity
And so on. Notice how to Chomsky the Soviets seem allowed to do what they want in America's backyard during the Cold War but the moment the West intervenes its all bad ?
Anyone who says America has been sponsoring terrorism obviously has their sympathies with certain people and groups, and they ain't good ones.....
And Jonman, you're wrong on several counts;
*Korea was a UN operation and not pre-emptive
*Cuba was an intelligence operation and committed by Cubans
*Grenada was at the request of the regional alliance and the island's governor
*Noriega because of his proven drugs activity
And so on. Notice how to Chomsky the Soviets seem allowed to do what they want in America's backyard during the Cold War but the moment the West intervenes its all bad ?
Anyone who says America has been sponsoring terrorism obviously has their sympathies with certain people and groups, and they ain't good ones.....
Jonman wrote:
> Since the inception of the EU, and the introduction of the Euro,
> several of the middle eastern states that aren't so friendly to the US
> (Iraq in particular) have been threatening to start using the Euro for
> their oil transactions, which could result in a domino-rally effect of
> several other nations switching as well. This would hurt the US in
> that they'd no longer have exclusive control over the oil industry.
Well, since you make such statements, I think it only fair you back them up with facts.
Why does oil trade being primarily in dollars give the US control over the oil industry?
And how does trade being carried out primarily in EUROs for instance hurt the US?
> Since the inception of the EU, and the introduction of the Euro,
> several of the middle eastern states that aren't so friendly to the US
> (Iraq in particular) have been threatening to start using the Euro for
> their oil transactions, which could result in a domino-rally effect of
> several other nations switching as well. This would hurt the US in
> that they'd no longer have exclusive control over the oil industry.
Well, since you make such statements, I think it only fair you back them up with facts.
Why does oil trade being primarily in dollars give the US control over the oil industry?
And how does trade being carried out primarily in EUROs for instance hurt the US?
Star Fury wrote:
> All I'll say to anyone who cites Chomsky is that he's great for
> reaffirming your own convictions and challenging nothing. Want to
> believe America really is "the satan" and generally bad,
> then go read Chomsky to tell you you're right.
Rubbish. When this whole thing kicked off, I realised that my knowledge of the situation was totally lacking, so I made an effort to educate myself. In doing so, I read some Chomsky, who quotes (note: quotes, not interprets) US Goverment documentation from pre, during and post cold war that explicitly and clearly state the US's goals of protecting it's 'interests' worldwise using any means possible, and maintaining it's monopoly and hegemony on power through decisive miltary action. Now, I suppose it's possible that he made all this up, but that's not really likely. As I said, have a read of it. I certainly learnt a lot from it. It might serve you well to know _both_ sides of the argument.
> And Jonman, you're wrong on several counts;
>
> *Korea was a UN operation and not pre-emptive
> *Cuba was an intelligence operation and committed by Cubans
> *Grenada was at the request of the regional alliance and the island's
> governor
> *Noriega because of his proven drugs activity
OK, so you're choosing to believe the official story given. I tend to be rather more skeptical of propoganda, especially having been living in the States during this war, and seen the marked difference between the US press coverage of the war, and the UK. But Cuba committed by the Cubans? Riiiiight. OK.
> And so on. Notice how to Chomsky the Soviets seem allowed to do what
> they want in America's backyard during the Cold War but the moment the
> West intervenes its all bad ?
I'll not comment on that point, as to be honest, I don't know enough about that off the top of my head to make a decent comment.
> Anyone who says America has been sponsoring terrorism obviously has
> their sympathies with certain people and groups, and they ain't good
> ones.....
Yeah yeah, obviously, I'm a terrorist as well. *shakes head* As I said, read the history, see to what level they were involved in (not just sellin of arms, but training guerrilas in terrorist tactics in order to destablise the regime - I forget which central american nation that was, they've had their fingers in most of them at one time or another), and then tell me that it's not terrorism.
> All I'll say to anyone who cites Chomsky is that he's great for
> reaffirming your own convictions and challenging nothing. Want to
> believe America really is "the satan" and generally bad,
> then go read Chomsky to tell you you're right.
Rubbish. When this whole thing kicked off, I realised that my knowledge of the situation was totally lacking, so I made an effort to educate myself. In doing so, I read some Chomsky, who quotes (note: quotes, not interprets) US Goverment documentation from pre, during and post cold war that explicitly and clearly state the US's goals of protecting it's 'interests' worldwise using any means possible, and maintaining it's monopoly and hegemony on power through decisive miltary action. Now, I suppose it's possible that he made all this up, but that's not really likely. As I said, have a read of it. I certainly learnt a lot from it. It might serve you well to know _both_ sides of the argument.
> And Jonman, you're wrong on several counts;
>
> *Korea was a UN operation and not pre-emptive
> *Cuba was an intelligence operation and committed by Cubans
> *Grenada was at the request of the regional alliance and the island's
> governor
> *Noriega because of his proven drugs activity
OK, so you're choosing to believe the official story given. I tend to be rather more skeptical of propoganda, especially having been living in the States during this war, and seen the marked difference between the US press coverage of the war, and the UK. But Cuba committed by the Cubans? Riiiiight. OK.
> And so on. Notice how to Chomsky the Soviets seem allowed to do what
> they want in America's backyard during the Cold War but the moment the
> West intervenes its all bad ?
I'll not comment on that point, as to be honest, I don't know enough about that off the top of my head to make a decent comment.
> Anyone who says America has been sponsoring terrorism obviously has
> their sympathies with certain people and groups, and they ain't good
> ones.....
Yeah yeah, obviously, I'm a terrorist as well. *shakes head* As I said, read the history, see to what level they were involved in (not just sellin of arms, but training guerrilas in terrorist tactics in order to destablise the regime - I forget which central american nation that was, they've had their fingers in most of them at one time or another), and then tell me that it's not terrorism.
Garin wrote:
> Jonman wrote:
> Since the inception of the EU, and the introduction of the Euro,
> several of the middle eastern states that aren't so friendly to the
> US
> (Iraq in particular) have been threatening to start using the Euro
> for
> their oil transactions, which could result in a domino-rally effect
> of
> several other nations switching as well. This would hurt the US in
> that they'd no longer have exclusive control over the oil industry.
>
> Well, since you make such statements, I think it only fair you back
> them up with facts.
> Why does oil trade being primarily in dollars give the US control over
> the oil industry?
> And how does trade being carried out primarily in EUROs for instance
> hurt the US?
That's a fair point.
Not being an economist, I'll explain it as well as I understand it. If the oil trade is in dollars, then the industry is at the mercy of the US treasury, who controls the currentcy, it's interest rates and distribution.
The US can apply sanctions to those states it has a problem with, affecting their cash flow in dollars, and effectively crippling them.
If it were to switch to Euros, that would take the monopolistic control out of the hands of the US, such that they would no longer be able to bully the oil producing nations without agreement from the EU (unlikely to happen as we've seen during this war, even more unlikely now that Rumsfeld and Bush have repeatedly insulted the French and the Germans). Otherwise, the bullied nation simply switches it's oil currency to Euros and continues trading outside the sphere of influence of the states.
I think that's about it. Feel free to correct me if I've got it wrong or omitted anything folks.
> Jonman wrote:
> Since the inception of the EU, and the introduction of the Euro,
> several of the middle eastern states that aren't so friendly to the
> US
> (Iraq in particular) have been threatening to start using the Euro
> for
> their oil transactions, which could result in a domino-rally effect
> of
> several other nations switching as well. This would hurt the US in
> that they'd no longer have exclusive control over the oil industry.
>
> Well, since you make such statements, I think it only fair you back
> them up with facts.
> Why does oil trade being primarily in dollars give the US control over
> the oil industry?
> And how does trade being carried out primarily in EUROs for instance
> hurt the US?
That's a fair point.
Not being an economist, I'll explain it as well as I understand it. If the oil trade is in dollars, then the industry is at the mercy of the US treasury, who controls the currentcy, it's interest rates and distribution.
The US can apply sanctions to those states it has a problem with, affecting their cash flow in dollars, and effectively crippling them.
If it were to switch to Euros, that would take the monopolistic control out of the hands of the US, such that they would no longer be able to bully the oil producing nations without agreement from the EU (unlikely to happen as we've seen during this war, even more unlikely now that Rumsfeld and Bush have repeatedly insulted the French and the Germans). Otherwise, the bullied nation simply switches it's oil currency to Euros and continues trading outside the sphere of influence of the states.
I think that's about it. Feel free to correct me if I've got it wrong or omitted anything folks.
Page: