The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Blimey.
I feel silly now.
Yeah, what he said *points at Garin*
good work fella, that's pretty much what I meant. You explain it a lot better than me, and quite obviously with a much great background knowledge. You quite rightly point out that any country is free to trade in any currency, but my point was that the US will apply significant political pressure (and maybe even military action) to prevent it's allies from trading with that country in order to maintain the dollar grip on oil. Which is what it's done with Iran (I believe, correct me if I'm wrong), but Iran trades with it's neighbours who are none too fond of the US.
I feel silly now.
Yeah, what he said *points at Garin*
good work fella, that's pretty much what I meant. You explain it a lot better than me, and quite obviously with a much great background knowledge. You quite rightly point out that any country is free to trade in any currency, but my point was that the US will apply significant political pressure (and maybe even military action) to prevent it's allies from trading with that country in order to maintain the dollar grip on oil. Which is what it's done with Iran (I believe, correct me if I'm wrong), but Iran trades with it's neighbours who are none too fond of the US.
Jonman wrote:
> 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.
>
I don't think that is true. Take for example, Iran, it has a whole range of sanctions against it from the US, but still until recently it held substancial dollar reserves which it used for trading. I think its maybe an impossibility to stop a country trading in a currency, even if the US won't give a country dollars, other countries do. Iran receives dollars for its oil production, and it uses dollars to pay for whatever it buys. At the moment though, Iran is interested in switching to EUROs for oil though as most of its trading partners are european (because of US sanctions) so it makes more economic sense for it to receive EUROs rather than receive dollars.
Any country is free to trade is whatever currency it likes as far as oil is concerned (Iraq and Venezula already demonstrated this). The official currency of OPEC is dollars, but theres nothing to stop countries trading in other currencies, it isn't as profitable for them but certainly in alot of cases it can be offset with gains elsewhere especially where the middle east is concerned.
I suspect what you really mean is that if OPEC decided that oil trading should actually take place in EUROs then countries would start switching their dollar reserves to EUROs. In the extreme case the US economy could collapse. So the general theory is, US invades Iraq thus controlling the second largest oil producer and so gaining a major ally in OPEC that will reject switching to EUROs. Which is an ok theory, except I don't really agree with the economics of it. :)
> 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.
>
I don't think that is true. Take for example, Iran, it has a whole range of sanctions against it from the US, but still until recently it held substancial dollar reserves which it used for trading. I think its maybe an impossibility to stop a country trading in a currency, even if the US won't give a country dollars, other countries do. Iran receives dollars for its oil production, and it uses dollars to pay for whatever it buys. At the moment though, Iran is interested in switching to EUROs for oil though as most of its trading partners are european (because of US sanctions) so it makes more economic sense for it to receive EUROs rather than receive dollars.
Any country is free to trade is whatever currency it likes as far as oil is concerned (Iraq and Venezula already demonstrated this). The official currency of OPEC is dollars, but theres nothing to stop countries trading in other currencies, it isn't as profitable for them but certainly in alot of cases it can be offset with gains elsewhere especially where the middle east is concerned.
I suspect what you really mean is that if OPEC decided that oil trading should actually take place in EUROs then countries would start switching their dollar reserves to EUROs. In the extreme case the US economy could collapse. So the general theory is, US invades Iraq thus controlling the second largest oil producer and so gaining a major ally in OPEC that will reject switching to EUROs. Which is an ok theory, except I don't really agree with the economics of it. :)
Light wrote:
> Hmm...a good debate this.
Hmmm, was. Went away for the weekend, lost track of things, too much to reply to now to be bothered doing it :) Still reading along though.
> Hmm...a good debate this.
Hmmm, was. Went away for the weekend, lost track of things, too much to reply to now to be bothered doing it :) Still reading along though.
Hmm...a good debate this.
My next question would be this: If Iraq was such a huge threat to world peace, how come they crumbled in 3 weeks?
Nice to see Bell up to his usual trick of implying he has knowledge we don't:
Post 1 - "No-one outside of the upper echelons of North Korea's govt knows how they work"
Posts 2 and onwards - "This is how the NK govt are operating..."
Really Bell; by debunking yourself before you start, you're saving everyone else the trouble...
My next question would be this: If Iraq was such a huge threat to world peace, how come they crumbled in 3 weeks?
Nice to see Bell up to his usual trick of implying he has knowledge we don't:
Post 1 - "No-one outside of the upper echelons of North Korea's govt knows how they work"
Posts 2 and onwards - "This is how the NK govt are operating..."
Really Bell; by debunking yourself before you start, you're saving everyone else the trouble...
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.
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.
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?
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.....
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.
Page: