ucrzymofo87 wrote:The Euro is higher than the dollar, so the idea that the war was perpetrated to secure its standing isn't true.
Oil price is at an all time HIGH in the United States, hence not a war for oil. Your blog is wrong, gas prices are around 3 dollars per gallon.
Is that seriously your argument? Really? Ok, I guess I'll have to use smaller words for you. Perhaps bullet points will help.
1 - Oil is presently purchased in dollars. If Japan wants oil they have to buy dollars with their Yen (possibly at a bad exchange rate for them) and then buy oil with dollars. That makes oil more expensive in Japan.
2 - Saudi Arabia was selling oil in Euros as well as dollars. Iraq started selling oil in Euros as well. Together, those two countries represent more than 50% of the known oil reserves.
3 - The risk, therefore, is that if more than 50% of the oil sold is sold in Euros, the dollar will loose its status as the currency that you buy oil with. If that were to happen, we would have to buy Euros with our dollars (at a very bad exchange rate right now) and oil would become VERY expensive in the United States.
4 - Therefore we went to war in Iraq to prevent Iraq from selling oil in Euros anymore, thus securing the future of US oil purchases and the future of the dollar.
Now you make a number of very poorly reasoned points against this argument, which I'll correct for you.
1 -
The Euro is higher than the dollar, therefore my point is false: No, therefore my point is true. If the Euro were weaker than the dollar then we could buy LOTS of Euros for our dollars and, in theory, we could buy MORE oil. You're only proving that you have no idea how international currency exchange works.
2 -
Oil prices are at an all time high, thus not a war for oil: Good conservative, just repeat the same lie over and over and it will be true. Sorry, that's not the way it works. Oil prices are at an all time high because world wide oil demand is going up. The war in Iraq was to prevent the price of oil from going further up than that. We went into Iraq in anticipation of higher oil prices and successfully kept that from happening.
3 -
My blog is wrong, gas is $3 a gallon. My blog was written in March, as is obvious from the timestamp. Learn to read.
I didn't say Bush or Blair were idiots. Bush, like Andrew Jackson, has a cleverly crafted air of the "common man" which has served him well in politics. Bush is the son of a wealthy family, educated at Yale, and raised in the American Aristocracy. Look back at his debate videos for the governorship of Texas. Bush is well spoken, articulate, and very bright.
The Redneck persona is simply there because it is an undisputed tautology in American politics that the smartest guy seldom wins.
During the 1980s, the same people who say George Bush went to war for oil said that Ronald Reagan had a secret pact with the Vatican to declare nuclear war on the Soviet Union. Needless to say, that was also untrue. Whenever liberals start pontificating about conspiracies, don't listen.
This is an example of a typical right wing lie. First of all, less than 50% of the country thinks it's a good idea that we're in Iraq right now. That 50% is the 50% that knows the war wasn't about WMDs (because there are none), wasn't about human rights (because we're torturing people) and wasn't about democracy (because we don't give a shit anywhere else). So…
Given that we didn't find the weapons.
Given that we condone the torture of prisoners.
Given that we are not willing to intervene for democracy elsewhere and have knocked over democratically elected leaders world wide who disagreed with us....
Given all that, what's the war about again? What's the ONLY THING that separates Iraq from -- say -- North Korea? Oh that’s right, oil.
Saying this war is about oil isn’t a conspiracy theory. Saying Bush is controlled by his father’s CIA friends through a radio transmitter implanted in his ass is a conspiracy theory. Countries have gone to war over oil in the past. It’s politically unpopular to say that in this country, so the only portion of my argument that’s remotely conspiratorial is that a politician would lie.
You don’t think that’s uncommon do you?
You can't paint these people into a corner. There are serious and legitimate doubts about why we went into Iraq. Saying it's for oil is one of the kinder explanations. Given that the President has given us literally no satisfactory explanation that doesn't collapse under the weight of scrutiny, the speculation that this is personal revenge for Saddam ordering a hit on W's daddy is just as valid.
Now lets see if you can read, understand, and respond to my points. Thus far, you've only succeeded in repeating the "Big Lie." International politics is a complex business, and can't often be boiled down to one sentence quips. Until you learn that, you're not ready to leave the kid's table.