• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

War for Oil or War for U.S. Dollar hegemony over the Euro?

Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
In an attempt to be fair and balanced this theory which I have stumbled across needs to be examined, it by no means has the implication that I support this theory but I feel that it needs further investigation due to the fact that it has totally been ignored by the U.S. media.


The reason why the dollar holds such a high value is due to the fact that the OPEC nations have decided to tie their oil reserves to the U.S. dollar.

In the year 2000 Saddam Hussein announced that he will make all oil trades through the Euro as opposed to the dollar. This would have had disastrous results for the U.S. economy if other OPEC nations decided to go the same route.

In 2003 one of the first actions by the new Iraqi government at the behest of the United States was to place Iraqi oil transactions back onto the dollar standard.

http://www.lnreview.co.uk/world/blog/001753.html

Like I said before I'm not making any judgements here but as most of us know the U.S. has historically used the military as a resource for insuring U.S. economic interests across the globe, that's just a fact that we use the military to further our national interests, could the Iraq war be another example of this? Just some food for thought.
 
Last edited:

josh

New member
Joined
Jun 1, 2005
Messages
34
Reaction score
0
I didn't know about this but i know that Iran is considering running it's oil bourse with euros
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro
Since 2000 Iraq had used the Euro as oil export currency. In 2002, Iraq changed its US dollars into euro, a few months prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
At its introduction in 1999, the euro was traded at USD1.18; on 26 October 2000, it fell to an all time low of $0.8228 per euro.
So, at the time the euro fell by a record amount, Saddam decided to switch? Is there perhaps another explanation, such as; "It was easier for Saddam to hide purchases of prohibited materials and kickbacks from the oil-for-food program in euros than in dollars."?

Perhaps if Kofi Annan hadn't shredded so many documents in anticipation of an investigation into the oil-for-food program we would have a little more information than we do now.

Your "theory" is a "consipracy theory", at best. You don't have enough empirical evidence to support your claims and you may be inverting cause and effect with this statement:
The reason why the dollar holds such a high value is due to the fact that the OPEC nations have decided to tie their oil reserves to the U.S. dollar.
Could it be that OPEC countries only use the dollar because they make more money and the minute that economic fact changes, OPEC will switch to euros?
 

Donkey1499

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2005
Messages
3,945
Reaction score
56
Location
Under The Northern Star, Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Occam's Butter Knife said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro




So, at the time the euro fell by a record amount, Saddam decided to switch? Is there perhaps another explanation, such as; "It was easier for Saddam to hide purchases of prohibited materials and kickbacks from the oil-for-food program in euros than in dollars."?

Perhaps if Kofi Annan hadn't shredded so many documents in anticipation of an investigation into the oil-for-food program we would have a little more information than we do now.

Your "theory" is a "consipracy theory", at best. You don't have enough empirical evidence to support your claims and you may be inverting cause and effect with this statement:

Could it be that OPEC countries only use the dollar because they make more money and the minute that economic fact changes, OPEC will switch to euros?
The Roman dude didn't say it was "his theory". He said that it was something he stumbled across and that he doesn't support it, or whatever.

You're just picking on Kofi because he's black. (LOL j/k)

This theory is strange. I don't even know what it means and I read it twice. Roman dude, where's the Lamen's link to this story?
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Occam's Butter Knife said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro




So, at the time the euro fell by a record amount, Saddam decided to switch? Is there perhaps another explanation, such as; "It was easier for Saddam to hide purchases of prohibited materials and kickbacks from the oil-for-food program in euros than in dollars."?

Perhaps if Kofi Annan hadn't shredded so many documents in anticipation of an investigation into the oil-for-food program we would have a little more information than we do now.

Your "theory" is a "consipracy theory", at best. You don't have enough empirical evidence to support your claims and you may be inverting cause and effect with this statement:

Could it be that OPEC countries only use the dollar because they make more money and the minute that economic fact changes, OPEC will switch to euros?
All good points I posted this theory hoping somebody would be able to tear it to shreads, I thought about the Oil for Food scandal too when I first heard about this.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Donkey1499 said:
The Roman dude didn't say it was "his theory". He said that it was something he stumbled across and that he doesn't support it, or whatever.

You're just picking on Kofi because he's black. (LOL j/k)

This theory is strange. I don't even know what it means and I read it twice. Roman dude, where's the Lamen's link to this story?
It all circles around the fixed exchange rate as opposed to a floating exchange rate, hope that clears it up lol. It goes pretty deep into economic theory google those two phrases: fixed exchange rate and floating exchange rate.
 

Donkey1499

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2005
Messages
3,945
Reaction score
56
Location
Under The Northern Star, Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
It all circles around the fixed exchange rate as opposed to a floating exchange rate, hope that clears it up lol. It goes pretty deep into economic theory google those two phrases: fixed exchange rate and floating exchange rate.
Owl twy! But I got a C in economics, which is probably why I don't understand it... YET!
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Donkey1499 said:
Owl twy! But I got a C in economics, which is probably why I don't understand it... YET!
hay man don't listen to me I'm a biased brainwashed evil neo-con who can't think for himself just ask the leftists on this sight who wish they could fuq with this administration as well as I can :cool:
 

Bergslagstroll

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
4,938
Reaction score
937
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
It all circles around the fixed exchange rate as opposed to a floating exchange rate, hope that clears it up lol. It goes pretty deep into economic theory google those two phrases: fixed exchange rate and floating exchange rate.
Or more precise that today are the exchange rate not fixed between the major curencies. That can leads to looses and problems with exchange fluxation. But USA can be more safe against those problem because oil, the most important natural reasources is traded in dollars. So if the dollar falls the affect on rising cost of oil will not be that bad. That's why USA can have a intresting in keeping the oil trade in dollar, ecpecially sens you also have deficits both in trade and budget.

The reason for Saddam to switch can for example he didn't want to aid his worst enemy in keeping the dollar hegemony or he had advicers that though that the euro had better potential. Of course the euro didn't do well in the start, but today it is more worth then the dollar.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Bergslagstroll said:
Or more precise that today are the exchange rate not fixed between the major curencies. That can leads to looses and problems with exchange fluxation. But USA can be more safe against those problem because oil, the most important natural reasources is traded in dollars. So if the dollar falls the affect on rising cost of oil will not be that bad. That's why USA can have a intresting in keeping the oil trade in dollar, ecpecially sens you also have deficits both in trade and budget.

The reason for Saddam to switch can for example he didn't want to aid his worst enemy in keeping the dollar hegemony or he had advicers that though that the euro had better potential. Of course the euro didn't do well in the start, but today it is more worth then the dollar.
Sir, I read your post and after the first line I had to reinterpret it in its entirety, because it made no sense in the literal translation (I still got it but it won't hold up against anyone with a red pen) I must ask you to rewrite it in proper grammar. Seriously it's a good post (you just didn't try) but I don't enjoy rewriting works in English that were already supposed to have been written in English in the original.
 
Last edited:

dragonslayer

Counselor
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 2, 2005
Messages
1,856
Reaction score
139
Location
Pacific Northwest, Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I have been giving a lot of thought to George Bush. I believe that Bush has lied from the very beginning concerning the war in Iraq. From what I have read, by some exbush officials, Bush planned on going to war with Irag 2 years before he was first elected. Bush had to have known years in advance that Sadam no longer had WMD or atomic potential. Simple, UN inspectors destroyed Scuds and any weapons of MD during the years they were in Iraq, and Sadam was terrified of America after being bombed constantly during the Clinton years. Bush had to have known what he was doing when he attacked Irag. HOw do I know????? It is only logical.


Well Over a hundred American Warships ( 3 carrier battle groups + lots of missile cruisers and frigates, Troop ships, and support ships went into the Persian Gulf.

They Bombed, and launched tomahawk cruise missles at targets all over Iraq. Another group of American ships 2 carrier battle groups, sat about 25 miles off the coast of Isael and also launched strikes.
The persian Gulf is small confined area , in some areas, I read that, one can stand on the Saudi shore of the gulf and see the other side. you can easily see where bombs fall according to News Week.

If I was Bush and I thought that Iraq had Atomic Weapons or WMD and the means to launch them,,,, like Powell told the UN, in his infamous speach. Would you put a third of your fleet inside the Persian gulf if you really believed that Saddam had atomics weapons??? Would you put your fleet and hundreds of thousands of sailors and soldiers in the Persian gulf so they could have biological and chemical weapons fired at them by short range missiles and radio controlled air planes.
Heck no...... Bush would not have gone to war if he thought that Iraq had Atomic weapons and WMD. The fact that Bush did attack Iraq, is proof that Bush knew Saddam could not stop him or seriously threaten the American presence in the confined area of the Persian gulf.

It is all lies and downright murder and mutulation of over 2000 of our wonderful men and women and the death of tens of thousands of Iragi men, women, children.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
dragonslayer said:
I have been giving a lot of thought to George Bush. I believe that Bush has lied from the very beginning concerning the war in Iraq. From what I have read, by some exbush officials, Bush planned on going to war with Irag 2 years before he was first elected. Bush had to have known years in advance that Sadam no longer had WMD or atomic potential. Simple, UN inspectors destroyed Scuds and any weapons of MD during the years they were in Iraq, and Sadam was terrified of America after being bombed constantly during the Clinton years. Bush had to have known what he was doing when he attacked Irag. HOw do I know????? It is only logical.


Well Over a hundred American Warships ( 3 carrier battle groups + lots of missile cruisers and frigates, Troop ships, and support ships went into the Persian Gulf.

They Bombed, and launched tomahawk cruise missles at targets all over Iraq. Another group of American ships 2 carrier battle groups, sat about 25 miles off the coast of Isael and also launched strikes.
The persian Gulf is small confined area , in some areas, I read that, one can stand on the Saudi shore of the gulf and see the other side. you can easily see where bombs fall according to News Week.

If I was Bush and I thought that Iraq had Atomic Weapons or WMD and the means to launch them,,,, like Powell told the UN, in his infamous speach. Would you put a third of your fleet inside the Persian gulf if you really believed that Saddam had atomics weapons??? Would you put your fleet and hundreds of thousands of sailors and soldiers in the Persian gulf so they could have biological and chemical weapons fired at them by short range missiles and radio controlled air planes.
Heck no...... Bush would not have gone to war if he thought that Iraq had Atomic weapons and WMD. The fact that Bush did attack Iraq, is proof that Bush knew Saddam could not stop him or seriously threaten the American presence in the confined area of the Persian gulf.

It is all lies and downright murder and mutulation of over 2000 of our wonderful men and women and the death of tens of thousands of Iragi men, women, children.

Nope that's what Saddam did to his own citizenry so **** you.
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
In an attempt to be fair and balanced this theory which I have stumbled across needs to be examined, it by no means has the implication that I support this theory but I feel that it needs further investigation due to the fact that it has totally been ignored by the U.S. media.


The reason why the dollar holds such a high value is due to the fact that the OPEC nations have decided to tie their oil reserves to the U.S. dollar.

In the year 2000 Saddam Hussein announced that he will make all oil trades through the Euro as opposed to the dollar. This would have had disastrous results for the U.S. economy if other OPEC nations decided to go the same route.

In 2003 one of the first actions by the new Iraqi government at the behest of the United States was to place Iraqi oil transactions back onto the dollar standard.

http://www.lnreview.co.uk/world/blog/001753.html

Like I said before I'm not making any judgements here but as most of us know the U.S. has historically used the military as a resource for insuring U.S. economic interests across the globe, that's just a fact that we use the military to further our national interests, could the Iraq war be another example of this? Just some food for thought.
1) The war is not about oil. We only import 3% of our oil from the middle east.

2) Its not about dollar hegemony. We are not threatening anyone in Asia, and most nations there have gone from the dollar to a basket of currencies, which include the dollar, euro, and yuan.

3) Its about being the undisputed superpower to the point of doing whatever it takes to stay on top.
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
There are a couple of very basic reasons why oil has been historically traded in dollar terms:

> Even before the rise of OPEC, way back when ARAMCO (Arabian American Oil Company) and a few other large oil companies still owned the majority of the oil fields in the Middle East, the $ was the preferred reserve currency in the world. This was due in large part to the ability for buyers and sellers of goods to transact business almost anywhere in the industrialized world using $s as the medium of exchange. This dominance of the $ as an internationally accepted medium of exchange occured for a number of reasons, perhaps the most important of which was the strength of the US economy - it was the engine that drove the world's economies in the years following WWII.

> After the nationalization of Middle Eastern oilfields and the subsequent Arab oil embargos of the '70s, the doubling then tripling in the price of oil made the $ just that much more important as a reserve currency simply (but not solely) because of the greatly increased $ flow from the ME back to the west. Remember the 'recycling of petrodollars' debates of the late 70s, early 80s? ME owners of dollars had to do something with those dollars; they could not let them just sit idle. SAMA (the Saudi Arabian Monetary Fund) along with the Sultan of Brunei became a couple of the world's largest owners of U.S. Treasury securities. Private Saudi investors owned (and still own) huge interests in U.S. real estate.

> Underlying the acceptance of the $ as the world's primary reserve currency has been the willingness of investors all around the globe to embrace the dollar as a safe haven for their investments. That is, when trouble has erupted in various regions of the world, and when world tensions ran high at times during the Cold War, investors fled other local or regional currencies and moved their funds into dollars for the presumed safety. When and where possible, they also moved funds into gold and to a lesser extent silver, but metals are so difficult to store and were not the most easily entered into and exited investments. Dollars and dollar denominated investments are highly portable (just balances in a computer) and highly liquid (can be bought and sold virtually 24 hours a day from anywhere in the world).

Will the euro replace the dollar as the world's preferred reserve currency? Highly unlikely in mine or your lifetimes. But beyond that, who knows? Added demand for euros for oil trading will be met not only by selling dollars/buying euros but by sell every other currency/buying euros as well. Plus, even though they have increased tremendously in recent years, investments denominated in euros are still not nearly as liquid or numerous as those denominated in dollars (you can't just let those euros sit, you have to invest them somewhere - unless you are a true Muslim and don't believe in earning or paying interest for the use of someone else's money, er, euros).

Lots more could be said about the topic - this little blurb certainly doesn't do it justice. But the bottom line has always been and will continue to be the safety and liquidity of the government. So far, the euro hasn't come close to matching the dollar on those criteria.
 
Top Bottom