How much for the bridge ive always wanted one hahah.
[quote=“bing,post:111,topic:39713"”]
soo… who else read that paper?
Fry, JayS… is your interest peaked at all?
[/quote]
That was actually extremely intersting. Jay you should really suck down an extra cup of ambition this morning and read it. I’d like to read a counter-argument to that though. I know very little about economics so if there are any holes in his arguments I wouldn’t know it. :shrug: I’m not saying there are, I just like to learn different views of things that are over my head like that.
Like I mentioned to Violator the other day, I hope you don’t think that just because I don’t share your views that I think you’re unintelligent. I get too much of the childish internet bantering thing going on all too often. :redface:
But yeah that article was interesting. I’ve never read anything like that before. :tup:
i’m glad you liked it…
it is hard to find genuinely unbiased discussions for either side, this is about as good as it gets.
What you also have to consider is that US military efforts are not staged in isolation. They are interelated to foriegn policy (obviously) but also trade policy and currency issues. It is impossible to assume anything about iran, iraq, the impending election etc. without considering India, Japan, China, Russia etc. and the role they play and how they are also fighting back non-militarily to support their allies (iran).
Iran is essentially the drug-dealer of choice for these nations. You may not like your drug dealer, but if he has the good shit and he’s close and you have a long term coke-habit you bet your ass you are going to defned him against the po-po if you can.
When you bring other nations into the fold and consider their needs you start to piece together the key issues of the macro-economic landscape. They are inherently intertwined.
What i find very intersting about that article in addition to the subject matter is that you read it and you think someone wrote is last year or this year… it’s actually almost 6 years old and the predictions or strategic alternatives presented are playing out now… some of which have clearly already happened which should solidify the credibility of the piece.
Then consider that the paper was not written under a motive of profit or to convince. It is a paper written for peer-scholar review that happened to find it’s way on-line 4 years after it was written.
Been reading it this morning and researching some the complex issues he greatly over simplifies.
For example, he makes reference to the Bretton Woods system and alludes that it was some US plan to tax other nations. In reality it was an economic system designed and approved by 44 nations in an effort to fund the rebuilding after WWII.
I also makes no mention of the Marshall Plan or the Truman Doctrine, both of which can be argued led to the huge dollar to gold offset.
This part in particular:
However, the guns-and-butter policy of the 1960’s was an imperial one: the dollar supply was relentlessly increased to finance Vietnam and LBJ’s Great Society. Most of those dollars were handed over to foreigners in exchange for economic goods, without the prospect of buying them back at the same value.
The author is purposely vague on what those dollars were being exchanged for, leading the reader to believe it was part of some US government conspiracy. In reality had the it not been for the increased outflow of US dollars established by the Marshall Plan Europe may have never recovered from the war. Under the Truman Doctrine US dollars were used to assist nations fighting socialist takeovers. Again, the author avoids both these points because it doesn’t support his “dollars for material goods” arguement.
The author argues that Bush’s “master plan” about going to war with Iraq was entirely to do with securing the US dollar as the only accepted payment for oil. So the same people who claim Bush is the dumbest president we’ve ever had have no problem he orcastrated one of the most complex economic wars in modern history? I’m sorry, but it’s much easier to believe that Bush honestly, if incorrectly, believed Iraq was a serious threat to US security through their weapons program, not the monetary programs.
The other fatal flaw in this “war for oil dollars” theory is that US policy had shifted to a regime change prior to Saddam accepting Euros in 2000. Clinton’s 1998 “Iraq Liberation Act” and the US/UK’s 1998 “Operation Desert Fox” bombing campaign had much to do with Saddam’s switch from dollar to Euros. I think the author has his cause and effect timeline skewed in favor of his views.
And that gets me to the part of the article where he finally starts talking about the Iranian Oil Bourse. I will finish reading it, but the legs he’s basing his arguement on are already much weaker in my mind.
[quote=“JayS,post:124,topic:39713"”]
The author argues that Bush’s “master plan” about going to war with Iraq was entirely to do with securing the US dollar as the only accepted payment for oil. So the same people who claim Bush is the dumbest president we’ve ever had have no problem he orcastrated one of the most complex economic wars in modern history? I’m sorry, but it’s much easier to believe that Bush honestly, if incorrectly, believed Iraq was a serious threat to US security through their weapons program, not the monetary programs.
[/quote]
‘easier to beleive’ is not a debate.
more importantly though, he never claimed bush was dumb and also never claimed that the president is in control of a nation. You are pushing agendas into this that no one even mentioned.
however i do agree about your comments that some of the paragraphs are intentionally vague, but only becuase they are not the subject of the paper, they are merely a pre-context.
What about the fact that the buildup to war started before Saddam switched to the Euro?
The whole basis of the author’s arguement is all US conflict is a result of protecting this dollar standard, but the groundwork for going to war with Iraq was laid well prior to Saddam’s switch from the dollar. It’s a HUGE hole in his logic and basically invalidates his arguement.
it’s not a hole in his logic at all actually you dont just siwtch over to the Euro at random. He would have had to prepare for the switch over a timeline of years.
More importanly, the euro-motivation is a major cause but not the sole cause. There are other oil / OPEC related issues and then controlling your fellow-junky’s source for le cokanna…
Military occupation in the middle east always made perfect sense in light of China and India’s iminent rise to superiority over the US… it’s in the fucking bible of all things.
Henry Kissinger was preaching it in 1973…
we also need to be clear on what we are debating here… i am for the war in iraq and iran for the reasons i am presenting here. What i am not for is disinformation and simplfying major international issues to “spreading democracy” and nuclear weapon bullshit.
In 73 Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize for his negotiations that resulted in the ceasefire in Vietnam. The negotations took 4 years. I don’t think he had too much time to rally for war in the Middle East.
Sound like there multiple reasons for and against war in the middle east, and which ones are important and/or “real” depends on who you ask, what they value, and what their stake is…
[quote=“JayS,post:128,topic:39713"”]
In 73 Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize for his negotiations that resulted in the ceasefire in Vietnam. The negotations took 4 years. I don’t think he had too much time to rally for war in the Middle East.
[/quote]
stop using the phrase ‘i think’, it doesnt help you.
you also just suggested that all the secretary of state did for 4 years was negotiate a ceasefire.
Why should I put any more effort than “I think” when all you’re putting out there is vague references. What exactly was Kissinger preaching?
And sorry, don’t lecture me on proper debate procedure one post after you said, “then controlling your fellow-junky’s source for le cokanna”. It’s hard to take you too seriously.
military action in the middle-east to weaken OPEC… is what i mentioned and Kissinger was all for it
1973 was the year of the OPEC oil-crisis.