The PetroDollar Crisis = War with Iraq?

In Nov 2000 Saddam would sell oil in Euros instead of dollars. US was forced to buy in Euros. Iraq sold 3.3 billion barrels of oil, US bought 2 thirds of that. Petro dollar mechanism was breaking down & US had to get Euros to buy Oil. Keeping oil priced exclusively in dollars was enough cause for waging war in Iraq after Iraq's bold switch to EURO oil payments.

vs

The Euro was the Weapon of Mass Destruction according to the Bush Administration.

You mean people died for a barrel of oil? :?

ok.. Nice theory.. Just like the 911 goverment conspiracy, the 2nd shooter who killed Kenedy, and Aliens in Rosewell.ferrari2001

Hmm, no...not really.

[QUOTE="ferrari2001"]ok.. Nice theory.. Just like the 911 goverment conspiracy, the 2nd shooter who killed Kenedy, and Aliens in Rosewell.jointed

Hmm, no...not really.

yea it's just a conspiracy theory like the rest of them that can never be proven true!

[QUOTE="jointed"]

[QUOTE="ferrari2001"]ok.. Nice theory.. Just like the 911 goverment conspiracy, the 2nd shooter who killed Kenedy, and Aliens in Rosewell.ferrari2001

Hmm, no...not really.

yea it's just a conspiracy theory like the rest of them that can never be proven true!

Then tell me a better, more valid reason why we invaded Iraq.

[QUOTE="jointed"]

[QUOTE="ferrari2001"]ok.. Nice theory.. Just like the 911 goverment conspiracy, the 2nd shooter who killed Kenedy, and Aliens in Rosewell.ferrari2001

Hmm, no...not really.

yea it's just a conspiracy theory like the rest of them that can never be proven true!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar_warfare

It's nothing like "the rest of them"...

You mean people died for a barrel of oil? :?

Nude_Dude

Rather for the currency in which it can only be sold and bought in.

[QUOTE="Nude_Dude"]

You mean people died for a barrel of oil? :?

Truth_Seekr

Rather for the currency in which it can only be sold and bought in.

So they did die about a barrel of oil.

[QUOTE="Truth_Seekr"][QUOTE="Nude_Dude"]

You mean people died for a barrel of oil? :?

Nude_Dude

Rather for the currency in which it can only be sold and bought in.

So they did die about a barrel of oil.

[QUOTE="Truth_Seekr"][QUOTE="Nude_Dude"]

You mean people died for a barrel of oil? :?

Nude_Dude

Rather for the currency in which it can only be sold and bought in.

So they did die about a barrel of oil.

Or, for the entire economy, and the grip that oil has on it. We feel the need to control how oil is traded to support our wealth and consumption habits.

Interesting theory. But, you have to keep in mind that most of individuals who took the US into Iraq were part of a neo-conservative think tank in the 90s called project for a new American century. Their vision, was to remove Saddam from power, secure Iraq as a friendly country (to US interests). All in order to make a strategic foothold into the middle east to ensure stable control over energy sources later in the 21st century. Really, I'm not making it up. Anyone who wants to can go to the PNAC web site and read their letters. Look at the names, and see how many were involved in planning the Iraq war. Its eerie.

Also, I hate to stoak any conspiracies about 911, I still believe it was terrorists. But maybe the administration turned a blind eye when they could have prevented it. Read this on the PNAC Rebuilding Americas defense strategy for the 21st century. Search the PDF for the word "Pearl Harbor" (page 63) and read the paragraph. Woah, did they actually write that in 2000? Again, scan to the very bottom and look at the names. Bastards!

Interesting theory. But, you have to keep in mind that most of individuals who took the US into Iraq were part of a neo-conservative think tank in the 90s called project for a new American century. Their vision, was to remove Saddam from power, secure Iraq as a friendly country (to US interests). All in order to make a strategic foothold into the middle east to ensure stable control over energy sources later in the 21st century. Really, I'm not making it up. Anyone who wants to can go to the PNAC web site and read their letters. Look at the names, and see how many were involved in planning the Iraq war. Its eerie.

Darthmatt

That is what we are saying. If Saddam had convinced OPEC to convert to the Euro, we would have been royally and economically screwed.

[QUOTE="Truth_Seekr"][QUOTE="Nude_Dude"]

You mean people died for a barrel of oil? :?

Nude_Dude

Rather for the currency in which it can only be sold and bought in.

So they did die about a barrel of oil.

I suppose it was a mixture of everything from the currency in which it was sold to gaining and maintaining an even tighter stranglehold on the black gold.

[QUOTE="Darthmatt"]

Interesting theory. But, you have to keep in mind that most of individuals who took the US into Iraq were part of a neo-conservative think tank in the 90s called project for a new American century. Their vision, was to remove Saddam from power, secure Iraq as a friendly country (to US interests). All in order to make a strategic foothold into the middle east to ensure stable control over energy sources later in the 21st century. Really, I'm not making it up. Anyone who wants to can go to the PNAC web site and read their letters. Look at the names, and see how many were involved in planning the Iraq war. Its eerie.

Engrish_Major

That is what we are saying. If Saddam had convinced OPEC to convert to the Euro, we would have been royally and economically screwed.

[QUOTE="Nude_Dude"][QUOTE="Truth_Seekr"][QUOTE="Nude_Dude"]

You mean people died for a barrel of oil? :?

Engrish_Major

Rather for the currency in which it can only be sold and bought in.

So they did die about a barrel of oil.

Or, for the entire economy, and the grip that oil has on it. We feel the need to control how oil is traded to support our wealth and consumption habits.

Whatever. That doesn't mean you should war.

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]

Or, for the entire economy, and the grip that oil has on it. We feel the need to control how oil is traded to support our wealth and consumption habits.

Nude_Dude

Whatever. That doesn't mean you should war.

Hey, I'm not condoning it. I'm laying out the reason why it was waged.

Interesting theory. But, you have to keep in mind that most of individuals who took the US into Iraq were part of a neo-conservative think tank in the 90s called project for a new American century. Their vision, was to remove Saddam from power, secure Iraq as a friendly country (to US interests). All in order to make a strategic foothold into the middle east to ensure stable control over energy sources later in the 21st century. Really, I'm not making it up. Anyone who wants to can go to the PNAC web site and read their letters. Look at the names, and see how many were involved in planning the Iraq war. Its eerie.

Also, I hate to stoak any conspiracies about 911, I still believe it was terrorists. But maybe the administration turned a blind eye when they could have prevented it. Read this on the PNAC Rebuilding Americas defense strategy for the 21st century. Search the PDF for the word "Pearl Harbor" (page 63) and read the paragraph. Woah, did they actually write that in 2000? Again, scan to the very bottom and look at the names. Bastards!

Darthmatt

Believe you me. I of all people here would already know that. I can regurgitate some older threads/posts of mine that pertain to PNAC which was drafted by Paul Wolfowitz and a number of other top dogs. 9/11 was only the pretext before a number of results started to fall in place that would only benefit these 'Neo-Cons'. Pushing forth PNAC and the PetroDollar are only 2 benefactors of that event.

Interesting theory. But, you have to keep in mind that most of individuals who took the US into Iraq were part of a neo-conservative think tank in the 90s called project for a new American century. Their vision, was to remove Saddam from power, secure Iraq as a friendly country (to US interests). All in order to make a strategic foothold into the middle east to ensure stable control over energy sources later in the 21st century. Really, I'm not making it up. Anyone who wants to can go to the PNAC web site and read their letters. Look at the names, and see how many were involved in planning the Iraq war. Its eerie.

Darthmatt

exactly, of course we didnt go to iraq to give them true democracy, no country in history has ever invaded another nation and free its people out of the goodness of their heart. Watch: Why We Fight about the power and influence of the military industrial complex. Also the Project for the new american century plainly states that going to war to keep and control oil is justified and needs to be done. This isnt a "wild theory" this is true its what all nations have done since civilization started.

That was the motivation to go to war with Iraq . .. because you say so?

I'm not even sure what you think that theory solves or proves...

After 9/11 there was just an idiot at the helm along with some folks who had an old axe to grind. Together they built an administration that had a culture that believes because they think it is true it must be and refuse to listen to anything else.

That was the motivation to go to war with Iraq . .. because you say so?

I'm not even sure what you think that theory solves or proves...

After 9/11 there was just an idiot at the helm along with some folks who had an old axe to grind. Together they built an administration that had a culture that believes because they think it is true it must be and refuse to listen to anything else.

duxup

And what do you think your theory solves or proves?

[QUOTE="duxup"]

That was the motivation to go to war with Iraq . .. because you say so?

I'm not even sure what you think that theory solves or proves...

After 9/11 there was just an idiot at the helm along with some folks who had an old axe to grind. Together they built an administration that had a culture that believes because they think it is true it must be and refuse to listen to anything else.

jointed

And what do you think your theory solves or proves?

This isn't really a theory. The viewpoint of most of the key officials in the Bush Administration regarding Iraq has been well documented for a long time. Go look up the PNAC and their positions on Iraq in the mid 90s. You'll see that many of Bush's senior staff were members. The refusal of many administration members to consider viewpoints other than their own has also been well documented in numerous books any by statements from many former officials.

[QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="duxup"]

That was the motivation to go to war with Iraq . .. because you say so?

I'm not even sure what you think that theory solves or proves...

After 9/11 there was just an idiot at the helm along with some folks who had an old axe to grind. Together they built an administration that had a culture that believes because they think it is true it must be and refuse to listen to anything else.

RedOktobr

And what do you think your theory solves or proves?

This isn't really a theory. The viewpoint of most of the key officials in the Bush Administration regarding Iraq has been well documented for a long time. Go look up the PNAC and their positions on Iraq in the mid 90s. You'll see that many of Bush's senior staff were members. The refusal of many administration members to consider viewpoints other than their own has also been well documented in numerous books any by statements from many former officials.

meh.. mixed feelings on this.. from one end its despicable ( if true ) to wage war and cause such massive suffering and short term economic damage to secure energy. on the other hand, oil is the blood of this country.. nothing happens without it.... nothing.. and the competition for it is increasing..

so it could be seen as incredibly short sighted and irresponsible NOT to act to secure it...

meh.. mixed feelings on this.. from one end its despicable ( if true ) to wage war and cause such massive suffering and short term economic damage to secure energy. on the other hand, oil is the blood of this country.. nothing happens without it.... nothing.. and the competition for it is increasing..

so it could be seen as incredibly short sighted and irresponsible NOT to act to secure it...

comp_atkins

Yeah, but how about spending the billions of dollars on a new energy source, of which we will need in the future anyway?

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"]

meh.. mixed feelings on this.. from one end its despicable ( if true ) to wage war and cause such massive suffering and short term economic damage to secure energy. on the other hand, oil is the blood of this country.. nothing happens without it.... nothing.. and the competition for it is increasing..

so it could be seen as incredibly short sighted and irresponsible NOT to act to secure it...

Engrish_Major

Yeah, but how about spending the billions of dollars on a new energy source, of which we will need in the future anyway?

[QUOTE="RedOktobr"][QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="duxup"]

That was the motivation to go to war with Iraq . .. because you say so?

I'm not even sure what you think that theory solves or proves...

After 9/11 there was just an idiot at the helm along with some folks who had an old axe to grind. Together they built an administration that had a culture that believes because they think it is true it must be and refuse to listen to anything else.

Darthmatt

And what do you think your theory solves or proves?

This isn't really a theory. The viewpoint of most of the key officials in the Bush Administration regarding Iraq has been well documented for a long time. Go look up the PNAC and their positions on I

raq in the mid 90s. You'll see that many of Bush's senior staff were members. The refusal of many administration members to consider viewpoints other than their own has also been well documented in numerous books any by statements from many former officials.

This video goes a little bit deeper into who benefits from 9/11 and goes a bit more into what PNAC & SPP are all about

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"]

meh.. mixed feelings on this.. from one end its despicable ( if true ) to wage war and cause such massive suffering and short term economic damage to secure energy. on the other hand, oil is the blood of this country.. nothing happens without it.... nothing.. and the competition for it is increasing..

so it could be seen as incredibly short sighted and irresponsible NOT to act to secure it...

Engrish_Major

Yeah, but how about spending the billions of dollars on a new energy source, of which we will need in the future anyway?

because you can go after energy reserves AND profit from a war...

That was the motivation to go to war with Iraq . .. because you say so?

I'm not even sure what you think that theory solves or proves...

After 9/11 there was just an idiot at the helm along with some folks who had an old axe to grind. Together they built an administration that had a culture that believes because they think it is true it must be and refuse to listen to anything else.

duxup

It's the most plausible explanation from everything I've read