Economic reasons for war

edanto

I'm watching the Robert Newman History of Oil show at the moment and he's making some connections between things that seem much more likely than the standard explanations for the invasion of Iraq.

Just looking at some facts he presents
- Since a 1971 OPEC agreement, every country in the world that wants to buy or sell oil has to trade in US dollars.
- That is the reason that the US can be the most heavily indebted nation in the world (every foreign national bank that wants to holds dollar reserves to buy oil)

Then he made me think about the question - what would happen if that rule was no longer in place, what would happen if countries could use Euro to trade oil?

The national banks would deplete their stores of dollars and honestly, I don't know what would happen at that stage. Does anyone that understands economics or politics have a theory?

On the 30th October 2000, the Iraqis asked French bank BNP (Wall St branch) to change one of their accounts (through which they were selling 2.3 million barrels of oil a day under the Oil for Food programme) to change it from a Dollar denominated account to a Euro account.

The Iranians then switched and the North Koreans followed suit. You know, the three countries later known as the 'axis of evil'.

Now, I wouldn't think that this is the only reason for war, there was also the unknown fear of WMD, the blind and unquestioning support for Israel, the fact that Saddam was a pig, and the need to move the bases from Saudi Arabia because of the pressure from Bin Laden [incidentally that last reason was one that I heard in Africa after 9/11 and was never in the stories at home].

It's just that the economic reasons seem so strong (also a war would boost a flagging American enocomy after dot bomb) that I'm surprised more isn't made of them.

Now, I know that I'm bringing up things from ages ago and cobbling together things that don't seem to be connected (at least judging by most news narratives) - but it's just that the activity of the coalition in the gulf has never really sat right with me and I want to understand it. After all, we're a part of it - there must be more than a million US troops that have been on Irish soil so far.

What do you think?

Liam Byrne

edanto wrote:

what would happen if that rule was no longer in place, what would happen if countries could use Euro to trade oil?

To the best of my knowledge, that's exactly what happened.

Now, I wouldn't think that this is the only reason for war, there was also the unknown fear of WMD, the blind and unquestioning support for Israel, the fact that Saddam was a pig, and the need to move the bases from Saudi Arabia because of the pressure from Bin Laden [incidentally that last reason was one that I heard in Africa after 9/11 and was never in the stories at home]

The "unknown fear of WMD" that you mention was pure propaganda and fiction. There were weapons inspectors on the ground, and while they hadn't completed their search, they hadn't found a single shred of proof; we obviously now know why - because there weren't any - but the threat of trading oil in Euro was obviously far too much for good ol' Georgie boy's backers and vested interests to contemplate.

Saddam was a pig, true......but so is Bush, and no-one invaded his country and killed a hundred thousand Americans.

Dirk Gently

history of oil

link to OP video.

Personally I always look to econimic reasons to explain wars. They are the most logical and most obvious reasons to me.

Manic Moran

Liam Byrne wrote:

There were weapons inspectors on the ground, and while they hadn't completed their search, they hadn't found a single shred of proof; we obviously now know why - because there weren't any -

Weapons inspectors had checked out the Israeli reactor and not found a single shred of proof either. To this day the Israelis deny having nukes. Hands up who believes they don't...

NTM

edanto

Why do the Israelis get special treatment?!

Although, as much as I want to know the answer to that question, I don't want to derail my own thread.

It's just that all this war could be connected. There's another stat in that Newman video that's remarkable. In the 96 years or so since oil was discovered in Iraq, Britain has been occupying or at war with Iraq for fifty-one of them!

I mean, I'm thinking all these things about why the war is happening and I don't even work in the [strike]Defense[/strike] Attack industry. I thought that these kind of questions would have been asked by all the soldiers on the front line before rushing into battle. Or do they just follow orders without question?

Jesus Wept

edanto wrote:

Why do the Israelis get special treatment?!

Although, as much as I want to know the answer to that question, I don't want to derail my own thread.

It's just that all this war could be connected. There's another stat in that Newman video that's remarkable. In the 96 years or so since oil was discovered in Iraq, Britain has been occupying or at war with Iraq for fifty-one of them!

I mean, I'm thinking all these things about why the war is happening and I don't even work in the [strike]Defense[/strike] Attack industry. I thought that these kind of questions would have been asked by all the soldiers on the front line before rushing into battle. Or do they just follow orders without question?

I'm surrprised that this seems like a revelation to you?. There has never been any doubt whatsoever in my mind that the war in Iraq was an economical one.

With that said, most wars probably are? I'm far from an expert on the subject.

I wasn't aware of the facts you have presented, I am enjoying reading the thread.

Matt Holck

clown bag wrote:

history of oil

link to OP video.

Personally I always look to econimic reasons to explain wars. They are the most logical and most obvious reasons to me.

Very Funny

I guess Nationalism isn't dead

Matt Holck

I don't see how producing energy from uranium would produce 75% of the CO2 emmisions as buring fosil fuel would.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

the entire process, from mining, to transport to the ice cream delivery truck that brings the factory workers frozen treats every second friday contributes to that number

I don't know if it's true or anything, but it sure as **** sounds impressive. and actually doesn't invalidate nuclear power as an option.. sure it'll be bad for the panet eventually but we are going to need power once all the oil runs out.

edanto

His point that the best time to start looking for alternative energy sources is now, while we still have oil, is well made.

On the topic of the thread, he also suggests that the reason the Roman/Inca civilisations ended is because their strategies for energy capture became subject to the law of diminishing returns. All news to me, but fascinating.

Liam Byrne

Manic Moran wrote:

Weapons inspectors had checked out the Israeli reactor and not found a single shred of proof either. To this day the Israelis deny having nukes. Hands up who believes they don't...

NTM

Fair enough, but without the necessary proof there's no-one advocating an invasion, which kinda proves the OP's point, since Israel doesn't have a huge oil industry.

And the word "either" doesn't apply, since Iraq didn't have WMDs; "either" implies that there's a link which (assuming that Israel does have them, which is still a big "if" in the absence of proof, despite what anyone thinks) simply doesn't exist.

Now the FACT is that America DOES have a nuclear weapons capability and it has proven that it WILL initiate unprovoked and unjustified invasions.......hmmm.......

bonkey

Manic Moran wrote:

Weapons inspectors had checked out the Israeli reactor and not found a single shred of proof either.

The American (as opposed to IAEA) inspectors in the case of Israel, reported that their inspections were effectively useless and that they were unable to determine whether or not there was a weapons program because of a number of factors.

This is not comparable to the situation in Iraq, where the inspectors made no such claims and were willing to come to far more definite conclusions.

Furthermore, the American inspections of the Negev facility (Dimona?) coincidentally ceased around the same time as the US Intelligence Services were reporting that they believed the Israelis might have had success and built a nuclear weapon. Again, not entirely comparable with Iraq.

homah_7ft

edanto wrote:

The Iranians then switched and the North Koreans followed suit. You know, the three countries later known as the 'axis of evil'.

You might want to check out your timeline on this. The, "Axis of evil" speech was the state of the union address to congress in 2002. Iranian plans to use a Euro burse for oil trades was first mooted in 2005.

Wompa1

My memory may be tainted because I haven't really followed the news very well over the last 4 or 5 years but I thought the UN inspectors in Iraq had been stopped from searching a few times and not granted access to everything they wanted. Also Sadaam would never actually say how he disposed of the weapons he was developing in the 90's. I remember seeing something about Sadaam burying some of his military planes under sand so its possible he may have buried weapons in the sand...just a theory

jonny72

Manic Moran wrote:

Weapons inspectors had checked out the Israeli reactor and not found a single shred of proof either. To this day the Israelis deny having nukes. Hands up who believes they don't...

NTM

Its a very different situation, its like a 'known' secret, the whole nuclear ambiguity... incredibly enough its tolerated simply because they are 'on our side'.. its just schoolyard poltics really.

edanto

or if the youtube tags won't work: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2o-G_s_uKlo

This is an edit of the original Newman TV show, for those that don't have time to watch the whole thing!

homah, sorry to burst your bubble, but the Iranians have been planning the euro conversion for a good while longer than 2005. The post 9/11 state of the union address was in Jan 2002 - here's a quote

We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction. We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack. (Applause.) And all nations should know: America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation's security.

We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons. (Applause.)

Now, having set the scene with Bush's peaceful and co-operative worldview (I wonder if the thought of invading Iraq was in his mind at the time), here's an article from later that SAME year where the Iranian plans to convert to Euro are being discussed by the Central Bank of Iran.

That's not to say that August 2002 was the first time the Iranians had thought of it - I'd reckon that if a plan was close to being presented to the parliament at that time, then it had been thoroughly researched for a while beforehand. All I'm showing is that you are wrong to think that the Iranians first considered changing currency in 2005.

I was also wrong about one or two things in my narrative (e.g. 'the iranians then switched'), but I don't think that it takes away from the main point.

homah_7ft

I stand corrected. I couldn't find the original in the Dow Jones archive. Wouldn't it also be true to say that plans were being made for military intervention in Iran long before 2002?

Matt Holck

edanto wrote:

His point that the best time to start looking for alternative energy sources is now, while we still have oil, is well made.

On the topic of the thread, he also suggests that the reason the Roman/Inca civilisations ended is because their strategies for energy capture became subject to the law of diminishing returns. All news to me, but fascinating.

The classic Maya civilization produced thriving cities that attained population densities comparable to modern day cities during the zenith of its growth approximately around 750 A.D. The Mayan civilization then experienced a catastrophic collapse between 750-950 A.D. Among the various hypothesis forwarded to explain the sudden collapse, one that has recently attracted attention, is the role of deforestation and decreases of regional rainfall that could have affected the day-to-day lives of the ancient Mayas. Deep-rooted rainforest vegetation has access to water stored in deep soil layers, and this deep water is made available to the hydrological cycle through transpiration. Removal of rainforests for agricultural purposes, which is accompanied by soil compaction and reduction in the organic material at the surface,

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005AGUFM.B33F..07R

Manic Moran

homah_7ft wrote:

Wouldn't it also be true to say that plans were being made for military intervention in Iran long before 2002?

Undoubtedly.

NTM

sovtek

bonkey wrote:

The American (as opposed to IAEA) inspectors in the case of Israel, reported that their inspections were effectively useless and that they were unable to determine whether or not there was a weapons program because of a number of factors.

This is not comparable to the situation in Iraq, where the inspectors made no such claims and were willing to come to far more definite conclusions.

Furthermore, the American inspections of the Negev facility (Dimona?) coincidentally ceased around the same time as the US Intelligence Services were reporting that they believed the Israelis might have had success and built a nuclear weapon. Again, not entirely comparable with Iraq.

another incompatibility is that Iraq got the **** bombed out of it...Israel, on the other hand, got a ****load of bombs given to them.

edanto

I've heard from Avaaz that the Iraqi parliament has been given until May 31st by Bush to vote on measures that would give multinational corporations unprecendented control over the oil fields. Now this sounds terrible, it sounds like exactly the thing that people were complaining about before, during and after the war and it might be the real 'mission accomplished' moment of the war.

But, I'm looking through the legislation now and I can't find the really contentious bit. Now, it's quite long, I'm no legal expert, but I'd really like to be able to point to a bit of this law that backs up the first sentence in this post. If there is such a section that can be pointed to.

The Avaaz campaign
http://www.avaaz.org/en/iraq_oil_law

The Legislation in English
http://priceofoil.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/Iraqoillaw021507.pdf

Anyone know where to look?

Liam Byrne

a) what give Bush-brain the right to give anyone a deadline ?
b) I presume the ultimatum to "vote on measures to give multinational corporations unprecendented control over the oil fields", implies "vote MY WAY on measures...." ?

edanto

Matt Holck wrote:

deforestation and decreases of regional rainfall that could have affected the day-to-day lives of the ancient Mayas

So, if history is anything to go by, what kind of bottlenecks are we likely to face as we pass peak oil and during the next 50 years if our day to day lives started to be altered beyond the comfort zone?!? At the moment, there isn't a proven alternative to oil for supporting our food and transports flows - and it's likely that the countries with all the money will do all that they can to control the rules of international trade and also encourage conflicts to best serve their interests.

What can we each do? It's naive to think that a even a few people, acting together, could somehow rebalance the global scales of justice and wealth. But I don't like the idea of living in a future threatened by war for shrinking resources.

It won't make much difference if I just decide to recycle all my rubbish, buy a few long life bulbs and join the next anti-war or make poverty history march.

What political parties are concerned with these issues instead of the minuteae of the price of milk and eggs?

But that's certainly off-topic!

About the warXmoney link - is there a way to settle international disputes without resorting to military might? What kind of sanctions could the UN impose (and what legal backing would it need from the members) that would actually discourage warmongering for money?

Mick86

edanto wrote:

I thought that these kind of questions would have been asked by all the soldiers on the front line before rushing into battle. Or do they just follow orders without question?

I gather you are not from a military family then.

Shutuplaura

I got the below link from nother poster on a different thread so thanks mate

Anyway, the article linked to from the Asian Times puts the war, American foreign policy - and to a greater extent Russian international posturing over the last few years into economic context. Interesting stuff IMO..

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/HJ25Ag01.html

Anyway, In short for those not ar$ed about reading the jist is that the US not Russia is restarting the old cold war and that Iraq is a sideshow in that conflict. The ultimate aim for the US is to secure energy sources for the forseeable future and isolate Russia.

edanto

Mick86 wrote:

I gather you are not from a military family then.

No, I'm not. Why, is there some great cultural truth that is only passed from soldiers to their sons that I'm missing out on because my parents didn't join an army?!

I appreciate that it may have been hard for you to think of anything to contribute other than a smart one-liner at 2am, but if that's all you're going to add to my thread I'd rather you posted elsewhere.

Of course, if you want to share your own beliefs, experiences or background relevant to the topic then I'd be very interested.