The selective reasoning of anti-Americans is so obvious. France, Germany, Russia, and China collectively could have ended the sanctions...but then, it would have made it more difficult for them to do business over the past decade.
POLL: The repercussions of a US attack on Iraq
- Thread starter candletrader
- Start date
The selective reasoning of anti-Americans is so obvious. France, Germany, Russia, and China collectively could have ended the sanctions...but then, it would have made it more difficult for them to do business over the past decade.
My "premise" huh? You mean it's not veritable fact?
But I wouldn't be so quick to jump to your conclusion.
The fact is, the state of affairs at the end of the 80s was VERY MUCH a result of US policy towards the region, and Iraq in particular.
What you essentially have, is a US government that tried to (and, judging by popular reaction, succeded) completely exonerate itself from being held responsible for what later eventuated.
It, in many, many ways, helped to create the monster that is SH. To then distance itself as if had no part in the matter is disingenuous, to say the least.
Now, I don't want to "handcuff" the US to its past, although it's role in it could do with being a LOT clearer.
I don't want to seem like I'm evading your concluding point above, so I'll get back to it very shortly, bear with me.
The picture painted of SH in the western media is of a megalomaniacal monster, with his sights set on overtaking the entire arab peninsula. "I mean, he's already done it before!", exclaim the hawks.
But is this accurate?
Just how many times did SH invade his neighbours?
A grand total of two.
And, would you believe, there are good explananations for both.
Firstly, Iraq was the aggressor in the Iran-Iraq war. However, what might be less well known, is that the US actively encouraged Iraq to attack Iran, and supplied him with arms, materials and funds to do so. Remember, Iran at this time was extremely hostile to the US. (with good reason too, if you care to check up on Iranian history.)
I might be reaching here, but I would not be the least bit surprised to find that America had even suggested the idea to Iraq.
Secondly, when it attacked Kuwait, the original reason for tension there was an oil drililing dispute over Kuwait pumping what Iraq claimed was Iraqi oil. It was this over this dispute that April Gillespie, then US Ambassador to Iraq, responded in her infamous words, "we have no opinion on that."
It is quite easy to see how someone like SH would have begun getting ideas that not only could he settle the border dispute favorably, he might even be able to grab all of Kuwait.
It's pretty clear that there was a strong element of US involvement in both cases.
So, Max, to go back to your "we should have had this war long time ago". I'm not so sure.
I would reason that it would actually have been enough to simply free Kuwait.
You should ask yourself what would have happened in the middle east had the US distanced itself from the region.
You should ask yourself also what would have happened if the US government didn't expressely ask the IMF to bailout bankrupt latin american countries like Brazil and Argentina? If we had known that latin america is filled with ungrateful sob's like you we would have done nothing and told you and your corrupt presidents to go f.yourselves.
But we always have to do something. Noblesse oblige.
Buzz, I have asked myself that question. The answer I keep forming is that things probably would have been a lot damn better.
Certainly for Americans. Of that there can be little doubt.
Yes, America being in the middle east is most certainly, absolutely, positively about the oil supply. It is as plain as the sun that it was determined to avoid a similar episode like 1973. (Although, you will note that American meddling in Iran happened much, much sooner -- when it helped depose the popularly elected government of Mossadegh. So much for 'democracy'!)
I remain rather unconvinced that America's involvement in the region post 1973 helped anything at all.
So, what would have happened if America had simply stayed out? It's obviously hard to say, but I fairly sure it would have avoided the current showdown with the Islamic world; or at least it wouldn't have been as bad.
Re the Latin American bailout, you are right in implying that things would have gotten very ugly, but please, remember that it is the US banks that had also had a HELL OF A LOT to lose themselves. So it was very much in US interests to enact a bail out also.
First, the oil BS is FALSE, the facts are all over the place you need only a minimum IQ to tie the facts together and conclude the US wouldn't give a sh*t about Iraq's oil.
1973 solved itself because the OPEC realized a price-gouging cartel is not economically viable. In effect they realized that if they didn't drop prices they were going to self-destruct.
So the US wouldn't give a sh*t about what the OPEC country members are doing.
Multinational (US, french swiss) banks are mostly unaffected by latin america these days, they are HEDGED. The ones holding UNHEDGED latin american paper are basically widows and orphans and hedge fund investors. Please get some education before making a fool of yourself.
Firstly, Buzz, if the "oil BS is FALSE", then that simply helps support MY position! That the US should have just never gotten involved in the Mid East (or anywhere else, for that matter) in first damn place!
But of course, it simply UNDENIABLE that the very reason that the US instigated Mossadegh's overthrow -- I remind you, an ELECTED leader -- was because he wanted to nationalize Iran's oil. Please, be my guest and verify this information for yourself. Maybe Babak can help you, with a name like that I imagine he's from Iran.
Re the financial bailout, are you referring to what occurred in the early 80s? If so, I can assure you that the banks stood to lose BIG TIME.
And if you're not, if you are going to suggest to me that a US bank would willingly throw away dollars, however small the amount -- and not scream for IMF intervention -- simply because it was hedged, then it is assuredly yourself who is sounding very foolish.
There are "humanitarians" like Carter who believe it is America's responsibility to stop 3rd world countries to kill themselves. You know nothing about the objectives of American foreign policy, its motivations are not solely economic. Only marxists think the only motivation for US foreign policy is economic.
The last bailout was when? two, three years ago?
Also for your information a bank doesn't lend money from its own pocket it is a financial INTERMEDIARY. Sure some banks lost a lot in the eighties but basically it was PRIVATE sector debt, and there weren't credit derivatives those days.
Nowadays banks only pocket their comission when sovereign debt is issued, after that it's not their problem anymore.
Some banks like Fleet bank lost a lot the last few years in Argentina and Brazil but that's because they lent to the PRIVATE sector, not to the government. The IMF bailout doesn't cover that kind of debt.
FYI : HEDGED = I don't care the prices of latin american sovereign bonds i don't lose or win from the movements in price of that paper... so how can a bank be hedged and lose at the same time???
And finally your benefactor's motivations is no excuse for being ungrateful, whatever the reason the US bailed out Argentina and Brazil, it avoided chaos, and a lot of people got better off (except US taxpayers).
Buzzy, thanks for your explanations.
I may have been quick to assume you were referring to the 80s crisis.
However, there is no need to go into all the detail you did regarding the latest bailout.
A bank is in the business of making loans. If S America flounders -- and countries there defaulting on sovereign debt constitutes floundering, I hope you'll agree -- it isn't really going to be in much of a position to invest in growth, obviously. So whence the demand for bank loans?
Sure, it may not BUST the US banks, and I really dont' know enough about their revenue streams as they relate to S America to comment, but if it's within their grasp to influence engineering a bail out -- and given how connected their CEOs and directors are, I see no reason why they wouldn't be in such a position -- then, surely man, you'd think they'd be pushing for it.
Yeah, I'm a read-between-the-lines type, but a grade schooler could piece together that there's absolutely no benefit for the banks to see S America wallow.
I may have been quick to assume you were referring to the 80s crisis.
However, there is no need to go into all the detail you did regarding the latest bailout.
A bank is in the business of making loans. If S America flounders -- and countries there defaulting on sovereign debt constitutes floundering, I hope you'll agree -- it isn't really going to be in much of a position to invest in growth, obviously. So whence the demand for bank loans?
Sure, it may not BUST the US banks, and I really dont' know enough about their revenue streams as they relate to S America to comment, but if it's within their grasp to influence engineering a bail out -- and given how connected their CEOs and directors are, I see no reason why they wouldn't be in such a position -- then, surely man, you'd think they'd be pushing for it.
Yeah, I'm a read-between-the-lines type, but a grade schooler could piece together that there's absolutely no benefit for the banks to see S America wallow.