The Smallest Minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. - Ayn Rand
The only reason the Euro is a stable currency is because of German bankers.
The only frakkin reason.
The bitter irony is that nothing will stimulate U.S. ingenuity like this kind of economic shock - which will ultimately result in returning S.A. to the standard of living they "enjoyed" prior to WWII.
Well, here's P-Cube's (P^3, aka President Prancing Pony) big chance to show us what all that respect winning unilateral engagement without conditions can do.
Yeah, I'm sure another egocentric story about his days organizing some beleaguered corner of Chicago will really resonate with the sheiks, and turn it all right around.
I'd be *delighted* for my cynicism to be shown wrong, at least once, and especially in this case.
Oh, here's more: P-Cubed throws free speech under the bus in the name of multilateral engagement:
"The United States is very pleased to present this joint project with Egypt. This initiative is a manifestation of the Obama administration's commitment to multilateral engagement throughout the United Nations and of our genuine desire to seek and build cooperation based upon mutual interest and mutual respect in pursuit of our shared common principles of tolerance and the dignity of all human beings."
The man is a shambling disaster.
Iraq made a move to stop using the dollar in its oil trading - right before we invaded it. So basically that foreign policy move (which has cost a couple trillion, give or take) only served to delay the inevitable demise of the US dollar as the world's oil currency by 5 years or so. Was it worth it? Not to the average citizen (but foreign policy is never about benefiting the common man). Will be interesting to see what, if anything, our enlightened rulers will do in response. One thing they should do is stop subsidizing Europe's defense, and pull our bases out of there. But again, there are powerful interests that drive foreign policy (that have nothing to do with our well-being), and they wouldn't want to stop that cash cow. Oh well, down the drain we continue...
Iraq made a move to stop using the dollar in its oil trading - right before we invaded it.
This is the common logical fallacy known as post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "After this, therefore because of this."
Your premise is false, therefore the remainder of your argument is rendered moot. If you'd like a thorough explanation of the causes of our invasion of Iraq, I strongly suggest Steven Den Beste's Strategic Overview. I don't believe he even mentions Iraq's effort to get away from the Petrodollar.
At the very least, P-Stoned assumed that Iraq was leading a trend.
I don't think that assumption is fair, although the late Mr. Hussein did appear to assume he could lead a trend.
Up $23 an ounce already, today.
I come to this site often enough to know that you know that Stephen Den Best's after the fact attempt to cobble together a justification for the invasion of a country that did not attack nor pose a viable threat to us may be interesting (in the same way a book on the economy of the planet Vulcan might be interesting), but does in no way dictate or constitute proof for the actual reasons for the war. That being said, yes of course there can also be no proof that Iraq's move away from the dollar was a primary or even contributing reason for the invasion. But here's proof that Iraq was in fact moving away from the dollar in oil transactions: http://www.rationalrevolution.net/war/opec_iraq_euro.htm
PS, the point is you made the assertion that Iraq was attempting to move away from the dollar, and as a result we invaded. You called the invasion "that foreign policy move" and said that it "only served to delay the inevitable demise of the US dollar as the world's oil currency by 5 years or so."
Den Beste's "attempt to cobble together a justification for the invasion of a country" was, IMHO one of the clearest assessments of ALL the reasons behind that invasion I've ever read. I believe, and have stated on this blog on several occasions, that the Bush team entered the White House with the intent to topple Saddam, and with good reason(s). 9/11 only moved up the timetable.
It was against our national interests to leave a nutcase in power in Iraq with his two nuttier sons waiting in line behind him. Our error in the 1991 Gulf War was not unseating him when we had the chance.
I don't doubt that Saddam was trying to move away from the dollar, nor do I doubt he thought he could lead other nations to do the same. It didn't matter. That was not the cause of the invasion. I repeat: The premise of your argument was incorrect, therefore the remainder of your argument is rendered moot.
Why is it against national interests to leave a nutcase in power? Given that the US government provided aid to that nutcase 20 years prior (when his nuttiness was already on display), and given that there is an even greater nut sitting on a throne made of nuts, in North Korea. It does not pick your pocket or gore your ox to share a world with power-mad dictators. The small force (not associated with any government) which was able to attack us on our soil on 9/11, surely gives pause to any argument that a nutcase in power is prima facia a threat to us - if anything you want the power-mad to remain in power, because they certainly want to remain in power (and so they are less likely to engage in actions that would threaten their power).
Note I'm not making a moral argument - of course they are awful people. But the US military does not have a Constitutional mission to create Utopias or spread freedom/democracy through the barrel of a gun. We can't even afford domestic social engineering programs.
And finally, De Best's argument for why he thinks the invasion of Iraq made sense is not the same thing as proof of the real reasons for the invasion of Iraq. Nor does what would be a good move in the game of Risk equate to a proper and justified use of military force to defend our country.
"Why is it against national interests to leave a nutcase in power?"
It isn't always. A better question is, "When is it against national interests to leave a nutcase in power?"
The answer is, when the nutcase is a threat to national interests, or is attempting to become such a threat.
Why is it against national interests to leave a nutcase in power?
I'll tell you what you want to hear:
Oh, wait - (*ahem*)
Why Den Beste neglected that point I don't know, but it should have been right in the middle of this section:
Saddam represented a substantial long-term threat. He had demonstrated utter ruthlessness and viciousness in two external wars and uncountable internal repressions. He showed no sign of abandoning his ambition to develop nuclear weapons irrespective of how long it might take or how much it might cost or what political sacrifice might be required.
The "two external wars" were attempts to seize control over vast oil fields. There was no reason to suspect he would not do it again if (as it appeared) we finally pulled up stakes and left him in power.
That kind of instability was not in our national interest.
Kim Jong (Mentally) Il wasn't quite the same kind of threat until he "cheated" Madeleine Not-So-Bright.
Den Beste laid out everything but the oil as our causus belli. Petrodollars weren't even a blip on that canvas.
Why is it against national interests to leave a nutcase in power?
It's not. Notice all the nutcases we leave alone as proof. Only when they threaten the US or our allies do we act.
Given that the US government provided aid to that nutcase 20 years prior (when his nuttiness was already on display)
Which is why we went in against all those f-15s, M-60 tanks and... wait, we didn't?
No, we didn't support Saddam to beef up his army, we gave him a very little bit of support - because of the situation, and the hope that Iran and Iraq (Iran at the time was slaughtering Iraq) would be able to cancel each other out.
But the aid 20 years ago isn't even close to relevant circa 1991 events, much less 2002.
It does not pick your pocket or gore your ox to share a world with power-mad dictators.
Not so fast. Actually, it does, and there's also a moral issue. That aside, we abandoned many allies to subjugation under Russian empire, we don't topple governments just because of their dictatorship. It's a complete non-argument you're making here.
But on the other hand, if the power-mad guy is threatening you... that's a different story.