Chris Phillipo <
[email protected]> wrote:
>
[email protected] says...
>> Or Iraq. At the time, it looked as if Saddam might bring reform to Iraq. And Osama looked like a
>> better bet than Afghaistan becoming one of the "Russiastans".
>>
>> The stakes are different now, and Bush has served notice that "politics as usual" don't apply any
>> more. I expect there will be a lot more transparancy - but feel free to rub my nose in it if it
>> doesn't work out that way.
>
>I would say that in and around Baghdad you will find a lot of people that think Saddam is great,
>these people were enjoying the good life and only lost it when UN/Bush sanctions took effect.
>You'll find people in the USA that hate bush as much as much as the poor people of Iraq do, we only
>hear about them when they blow up a federal building or get their compound raided by the ATF and
>fortunately they don't populate entire southern towns or mountainous regions.
Or when Senator Daschle speaks. ;-) It's not too hard to find people who "hate Bush" (look around
here fr'instance). That's how our system is set up. We will know soon enough how much REAL support
Saddam has. No doubt there ARE those loyal to him - for whatever reason, and they are likely to
fight tooth and nail. Hopefully that's only a small percentage of the total.
>> Think how cool it will be if Iraq's very capable population cranks up an economy that makes
>> Israel look like an also-ran. That, IMHO will be the true measure of success.
>
>Well I don't know if you read those articles someone posted here yesterday about the Euro vs. the
>US dollar but the theory is if the sanctions were lifted and Iraqs economy cranked up while it was
>still trading oil in euros then Iraq and Iran (if and when it changed to euros also) would have it
>within their power to topple the USA without firing a shot.
Sounds pretty unlikely to me.
> Now like all things to do with the reasoning behind this war, it is just a theory, but it is a
> very credible one.
And you doubted Powell's evidence? ;-)
> Now I never hear word one about this on CNN, programs like moneyline still call the Euro
> irrelevant even though it has gone from $.88 US to $1.06 in 6 months. It is a recorded fact that
> Saddam managed to make himself a few billion dollars through what amounts to global insider
> trading with money the UN had control of by changing his 10 billion dollar reserve fund to euros
> and driving the value of a euro up with the small amount of oil the US/UN is letting him sell. If
> you had bought $1000 in euros before Saddam did that you would have an extra $200 in your pocket
> right now. I notice Tony Blair has sidelined his effort to get Britain to join the EU in the last
> year now that he's in bed with GW. I find that a little suspect.
10 billion is chump change in the grand scheme. And besides, Britain has very little to gain by
joining the EU.
>It would be very interesting if we could go back and play it all again to see if Bush would have
>Blair's support if they had gone to the Euro a year ago. Theory or not, if Iraq was the second
>largest exporter of oil again, and trading in euros, the rest of Opec would surly follow and the US
>dollar would be on a toilet paper spindle next to the Canadian dollar in bathrooms everywhere. So
>when Bush says "We will prevail", I really get the sense now that he's saying "We will prevail, no
>matter what we can't afford to stop until we have control of that oil or at least get it trading in
>US dollars again." Then again maybe I've giving him too much credit for knowing what's going on in
>his own administration.
I think you're buying into some pretty thin and speculative theories. Iraq's oil production is a
small percentage of the total. And don't forget that a weak US dollar is actually an advantage in
the global market - our products become more attractive, and there becomes an immediate resistance
to imported (more expensive) goods within the US. Could be a very good thing right now.
Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame
