Cheri

I told you to let discuss this in another thread because we were going off topic in the other thread about Civil War....Moderators can you be kindly to remove the posts that are off topic in the Civil War thread and post them here.. please Thanks



First you said I was wrong up above about my post on why we have the war in Iraq. Have you ever watched the news? Have you ever saw Bush that he vows to get the person who was responsible for the attack on Sept. 11th, How was Saddam involved? Now you said it has something to do with Kuwauti? Bush did not say that after Sept. 11th.

__________________

Deafness

__________________
This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members.
Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

diehardbiker

You missed the news! Bush vow to find Bin Laden in where? Not in Iraq!!! It was in Afganstian (Spelling). The problem between US and Iraq started back in 1990, I think... not 2001 when 9-11 was attacked.

DHB

diehardbiker

I was not going off the thread in civil war, what I was trying to point out... how the stories ACTUALLY changed and misinform everybody. So, it remains the same issue, just example of other issues.

Feel free to discuss about whatever you want to.

DHB

Cheri

How did I missed the news? I watched how 9/11 happened, I watched how Bush was in Florida during America was on attacked. I watched that Bush vowed to get Osama bin Laden. Now Where is Osama bin Laden?! Why was 9/11 sweep under the carpet? We should have gotten Osama bin Laden in the very begin after we were under attacked, not Saddam. Now how long ago Iraq war begins and how long is it keep on going? Now tell me what wrong with the freggin picture here? People on 9/11 died over Osama bin Laden and there no justice done for those who were heros and those who were inocent. Now, Should we have fought for our country? not after the attacked in Kuwauti, that should have came after we took care of Osama bin Laden. Understand where I am coming from? I never said Osama bin Laden was in Iraq pay attention to my last post let me copy it for you, to refresh your memory zone here... Maybe you should be careful reading my post then there wouldn't be no misunderstanding.

__________________

The*Empress

Nobody want this war. Bush is doing this.

__________________

The Heretic

I already posted this on my boards, a year ago. Maybe this will illuminate the question.

*********************************
What could inspire the united states to wage war with another nation that did not formally declar war or directly attack its military or citizens or territories?


John Chapman of the Guardian has an interesting take:

It is about the oil, but not what most people assume. For ideological reasons are but a mask of ulterior motives, usually economical.

President Bush had to gain control over Iraq oil, not because of the superficial rhetoric (that the oil supply had to be protected) but because that was the only way to protect the United States' interests - its money.

Oil prices are figured in dollars, due to the OPEC-US agreement in the '70's. Therefore the US purchases are protected against currency fluctuations.

Yet in 1999 Iran switched to Euro, and in late 2000 Saddam had Iraq do the same. This trend was terrifying for the Americans because if the rest of the world dumps the dollar for the newer Euro, coupled with the escalating deficit, the dollar will plummet and the market will likely nosedive, and other "dramatic upheavals." Since the president could ill afford to allow that, nor could Tony Blair, who demanded the brits to support the United States because of the UK's dependence on foreign oil, and its independence from the Euro, their actions indicate that they had their nations' interest at heart.

A year after Saddam switched, Bush declared Iraq one of the Axis of Evil and a year after that Saddam is desposed.

__________________
Self-esteem is cleverer than the cleverest person in the world.

The*Empress

Bin Laden is laughing at us.

__________________

The Heretic

The fundamental assumption in my previous post is the protection of the hegemonic role of the dollar, which translates to the financial interests of the US. Contra the Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz group, there is no immediate danger to the military stature of the US whatsoever.

Expanding on the terminology a bit: ideological hegemony is where the dominant class endeavors to maintain political power by controlling public opinion that results in popular consensus. The dominant class imposes its worldview through religion, education and popular culture thoroughly that it becomes common sense. The hegemony of the ruling class is nearly omnipresent that it is virtually invisible, unperceivable.

The United States Empire is a brand new kind of animal, far different from the previous imperial empires of lore, since its might is predicated by economics, not military. The US is foremost a financial and economic empire. This is substantiated by the fact that since the end of WWII in 1945, the US dollar has been the reserve currency that denominates loans, as well as serves as the 'oil currency.' All the US military superiority requires is how fast Greenspan can print as many dollars as needed.

However, since 2000, the threats to the dollar are the following tidbits:

• By mid-2001, the dollar was at its cyclical strongest at 0.84 per Euro. This did not last long, for the deterioration was rather quick that by late 2003, the rate went up to 1.30 per. The market suddenly developed happy feet and countries like Venezuela, Iran, Russia and Taiwan began to rock the boat by moving out of the dollar. Rich Arab sheiks dumped US stocks during july/august 2002 to October 2002. Saddam also transferred Iraqi reserves across-the-board. The US could not, nor would, simply tolerate this.
• OPEC oil exports of 30 million bbls per day translates to 380 billion per year interest free loan for the US that finances its deficits. In order to import its oil requirement, the US would require to earn approximately $160 billion per year (Euro or gold).

Ergo, these financial concerns are far more important than the military reasons, since military superiority would vanish abruptly if those who held 6 to 7 trillion of US liabilities sold out. Which leads to the supposition that the invasion of Iraq was done in order to protect the dollar and the US deficits. Iraq is located conveniently at where the major interests of the US lay, and Iran and KSA are right over there. Jalamdhara mentioned Japan, themselves sitting on 1.3 trillion of US liabilities. Well they are in the same boat due to their need of oil from the Middle East. The US's invasion of Iraq was chiefly due to defending its financial empire.

The US attempted to maintain its power through ideology and politics. However, since that relies on the goodwill and the respect of the world population these means were no longer an option. Since the economic strength relies less on popular good will it may be maintained by bolstering the dollar and financial markets by gaining a greater control of the oil markets. Once the oil supplies run low, the control will become even more crucial.

Upon further research there is substantial evidence supporting the profit incentive for the switch from the dollar to the Euro.

Link to chart

in this chart, the price of the Euro (or subsumed European currencies) is recorded from 1970 till the present. As the chart shows, the Euro has been on a steady upward climb versus the dollar within 16 year wave movements. The euro has peaked (or the dollar has bottomed) on the 11th/12th year of the wave, which makes the highs higher, and the lows, higher.

The low point of the Euro or the high point of the dollar in 2001 at .84 US cents is foreboding, since the slope of the Euro climb is now escalating, and the dollar's value continues to decline. If the trends hold, circa 2010 one Euro will be approximately worth 2.00 to 2.50 dollars.

The reasons why countries may not switch dollars is not strictly limited to economics:

• potential repercussions from the US in the political, financial or military aspect.
• an injury to the dollar will harm the US economic partners as well
• China, HK, Korea and Japan desire to keep the dollar stable with regards to their currencies. Their interests are at stake as well.

However, none of these reasons will be sufficient to prevent the dollar from collapsing, since some purport to blame the US, in particular their monetary, trade and other economic policies within the past 30 years.

__________________
Self-esteem is cleverer than the cleverest person in the world.

Beowulf

My my, how our stock has fallen, eh wot?
Last year Japan bought billions of US bonds, and now they are dumping them. Why?
Tsk tsk, same old story, boys and girls, we are the last in the class to know.
Get off your gameboys and x-boxes, your lives might depend on knowing the truth!
Sheesh.

Cheri

Yep I think so too because Bush made it that why? because he put America to the wrong path and those who died on Sept. 11th meant nothing to Bush, If it did he would have gotten Bin Laden in 2001, now its 2005. That is why I cannot stand Bush and don't why he is reelected? for what? What do people see in him?

__________________

jazzy

After watched wife swap two weeks ago and this little boy shocked me. He believed we fight in Iraq is to protect our country. why would people tell lies to our children about Iraq?

The*Empress

because we like war?

I know it is sick...
but I like the time when
we bombed Iraq and took Saddam down.

But now, I think we should stop the war.

__________________

Cheri

Yep; that happened with my friend's child too, They are republicans and they voted for Bush, and explained to their child that the war in Iraq was to fight for our country because, they have weapons of mass destruction. But, when the child says that "but my teacher says that the weapons of mass destruction has not been found", The parent goes.. well son it is hidden somewhere else. How do they know?! Bush influence a lot of people expertly republicans, but afraid so they believe him and stood by him. Sad isn't it?

__________________

The Heretic

Cheri
Bush sold the American public with 3 reasons on why invasion of Iraq was necessary:

• Saddam is best friends with Bin Laden.
• Saddam is developing WMD.
• For democracy.

The first two was proven false, reasons being that Saddam was a secular Muslim, something Bin Laden hates (see his dislike of the Saudi royal family), and that the trumped up charges of WMD evidence were exactly that - trumped up. Now that the elections are over, the Republicans are scrambling and saying it was for the freedom of the Iraqis all along.

__________________
Self-esteem is cleverer than the cleverest person in the world.

Beowulf

Dnag, is that really you, Heretic, or an imposter? It does not sound like you.
A democracy is sort of like two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
But in this Iraq war, there was no choice. It was decided a long time ago it was for freedom-to free the Iraqi people from their oil.
Green zones, mumble mumble, money money, Israel calling the shots, more green getting to the right peoiple. Phooey.
It is going to end rather badly.

The Heretic

I guess the Bill Maher impersonation didn't take, eh?

Care to back up that assertion of yours, that "it was decided a long time ago it was for freedom." And that claim the Israelites are calling the shots seems absurd. Could you supply evidence?

__________________
Self-esteem is cleverer than the cleverest person in the world.

Beowulf

Back my claims? Sighhhh. Just google, just read. Just get a FEELING.
There was, and still is, so much wealth of information out there on the internet. Now, I can hear the obligatory cries of derision, that nothing is to be believed on the internet unless it is, uhhh, sorta verified by, ummm, CNN or Fox News and...oh yeah, CBS. The information is THERE.
When you challenge me to provide backup, I feel at a loss, because how in the world can I challenge you to provide LACK of information? All you got to do is stand there and say "Duhhhh, told you so."
The lack of information DOES NOT PROVE ANYTHING. Until, that is, we are TOLD it does. And soon the "proof" will be accepted because the information highway will have checkpoints.
And you knoiw what happens to people at checkpoints.
God help us all.

The Heretic

Then it should not be difficult for you to google at least ONE source to verify your assertions.

99% of the information is worthless, because they emphasize only one aspect of the situation, magnify it until the reader is numb from brain-damage, and overlook everything else.

Don't be so scared. You can find at least ONE source, and not speculate what I am going to do. I have already provided my case, that it was the american dollar's weakening state, and nobody has come within a country mile close to the ballpark of a better explanation. So put in the work, sonny.

Who said it does? Why do you presume that is what i'm going to do?

You are beating up a strawman of your own.

I knew it. Neither you nor I have any idea what you're talking about.

__________________
Self-esteem is cleverer than the cleverest person in the world.

Beowulf

I notice with your "cutie smiley" you assume the defensive posture of the lower primates.
I do not at all feel threatened.
I have posted my theories concerning 911 in this forum and I do not feel obligated to rehash them.
Ach.

sequoias

I think BUsh want war, because of OIL!!!!! That's what I think, Iraq is in middle east, where they have weath of oil, so it make sense and US uses LOT of oil, oil, oil, oil...and so on! Too many gas guzzling cars and trucks, it's sad!

__________________

The*Empress

Well give up your car and walk!!!!!

__________________

Vance

Wow, very interesting. I don't know about that.. I mean they switched to Euro... that may explain another reason (beside oil reason) why Bush decided to wage a war on Iraq.

One of many reasons why I like to read Guardian, they offer nothing but harsh facts.

Nesmuth

Why did we attack Iraq?

So Bush can satisfy his oil thirsty campaign contributors!

Richard