[QUOTE="jetpower3"]
[QUOTE="_R34LiTY_"]
I take it then that you laugh at Time Magazine as well....
[quote="Time Magazine"]Europe's dream of promoting the euro as a competitor to the U.S. dollar may get a boost from SADDAM HUSSEIN. Iraq says that from now on, it wants payments for its oil in euros, despite the fact that the battered European currency unit, which used to be worth quite a bit more than $1, has dropped to about 82[cents]. Iraq says it will no longer accept dollars for oil because it does not want to deal "in the currency of the enemy."
The switch to euros would cost the U.N. a small fortune in accounting-paperwork changes. It would also reduce the interest earnings and reparations payments that Iraq is making for damage it caused during the Gulf War, a shortfall the Iraqis would have to make up.
The move hurts Iraq, the U.N. and the countries receiving reparations. So why is Saddam doing it? Diplomatic sources say switching to the euro will favor European suppliers over U.S. ones in competing for Iraqi contracts, and the p.r. boost that Baghdad would probably get in Europe would be another plus.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,998512,00.html#ixzz1yi63CDSD_R34LiTY_
Incidentally, Muammar Ghadafi suffered the same fate when he too ditched the Dollar in order to sell his oil in gold backed African Dinars, a currency Ghadafi was looking to introduce.
...A country's wealth would depend on how much gold it had and not how many dollars it traded. And Libya has 144 tons of gold. The UK, for example, has twice as much, but ten times the population.
"If Gaddafi had an intent to try to re-price his oil or whatever else the country was selling on the global market and accept something else as a currency or maybe launch a gold dinar currency, any move such as that would certainly not be welcomed by the power elite today, who are responsible for controlling the world's central banks,"says Anthony Wile, founder and chief editor of the Daily Bell.
"So yes, that would certainly be something that would cause his immediate dismissal and the need for other reasons to be brought forward from moving him from power."
And it has happened before.
In 2000, Saddam Hussein announced Iraqi oil would be traded in euros, not dollars. Some say sanctions and an invasion followed because the Americans were desperate to prevent OPEC from transferring oil trading in all its member countries to the euro.
...
http://www.rt.com/news/economy-oil-gold-libya/RT
I'll take your laughter as part of your own lunacy.
Iraq can do what it wants. That doesn't mean that anyone else is going to play ball with them. As I said, Iraq's oil production alone is nothing special, and I certainly wouldn't risk empowering a man whose blatant military aggressions were well known (even if only politically).
And I'd cite something better than that sorry excuse for a news agency that is RT.
You're correct that Iraq's oil production back then wasn't anything spectacular, but then again neither was Libya's and it suffered the same adversed affect that struck Iraq. I highly doubt that switching the denomination of oil sales was the sole reason for the US & NATO to exemplify it's blatant military aggression on developing nations that only wanted to stand on their own feet without wearing the shackles of the US and it's handlers, but it certainly made the situations in those volatile areas that much more crucial into introducing "democracy" in a much more expedient fashion.
And what's wrong with RT ? Would you prefer that I cite news outlets that you trust only because those other outlets spin & spit out what you believe to be the more patriotic version of history?
Please spare me your "adversed affect" about Libya. If Gaddafi was really that good and benevolent (if only economically), then he would have never been overthrown through an air war alone. I've seen plenty of examples of air support that led to nothing because the ground forces were unmotivated, incapable, or unsupported by sufficient portions of the population. Given how quickly Tripoli was blitzed (much of the city was taken unopposed or with little resistance), and how much fighting equipment was left unused by the defending regime, I'd say that there is little evidence that the air war alone led to his overthrow. Therefore, there were obviously plenty of economic and political problems to go around and that were left unresolved (and there usually are in oil rich nations), leading to an eventual revolt.
Further, regardless of what I think about RT, can you find something unrelated that even mentions Gaddafi's proposal for a gold dinar? Before or since? This idea is usually attributed to Malaysia's former prime minister,Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad in a somewhat different form. Yet, he seems to be doing alright and not under any active threat.
Log in to comment