The day the US declared war on Iran
Dan Bloomquist
The day the US declared war on Iran
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JD01Ak01.html
It does not say in the article. But considering the history, this is all
about the Iranian oil bourse.
http://www.energybulletin.net/12125.html
"Indeed, this is the case: two months after the United States invaded
Iraq, the Oil for Food Program was terminated, the Iraqi Euro accounts
were switched back to dollars, and oil was sold once again only for U.S.
dollars."
Michael Gordge
> The day the US declared war on Iran
Should have been the day in 1950 when the Iran govt. siezed and
nationalised all US citizen owned assets in Iran.
MG
Dan Bloomquist
Yes, tragic that the over though of Muhammad Mussadeq didn't hold up.
After all, it is our oil.....
Bret Cahill
> > Should have been the day in 1950 when the Iran govt. siezed and
> > nationalised all US citizen owned assets in Iran.
> Yes, tragic that the over though of Muhammad Mussadeq didn't hold up.
> After all, it is our oil.....
According to Henry George no one owns geo resources and everyone has
an equal share of geo wealth. Since oil would have no value w/o
western technology, some might argue that westerners get just about
all the oil.
On the down side of George, we cannot consume O2 on more than a pro
rata basis either . . .
Bret Cahill
tg
> > >> The day the US declared war on Iran
> > > Should have been the day in 1950 when the Iran govt. siezed and
> > > nationalised all US citizen owned assets in Iran.
> > Yes, tragic that the over though of Muhammad Mussadeq didn't hold up.
> > After all, it is our oil.....
>
> According to Henry George no one owns geo resources and everyone has
> an equal share of geo wealth. Since oil would have no value w/o
> western technology, some might argue that westerners get just about
> all the oil.
>
Huh? What should happen is that the most efficient producer would be
allowed to extract the oil, receiving a payment based on the labor
input to the process. Everyone on the planet would then receive a
payment based on the value of the oil itself, since they collectively
own it. (You are assuming a new world gummint of course. Those black
helicopters use quite a bit of fuel though,)
-tg
Eric Gisin
>
> The day the US declared war on Iran
> http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JD01Ak01.html
>
> It does not say in the article. But considering the history, this is all about the Iranian oil
> bourse.
Nonsense. It's about Iranian banking.
>
> http://www.energybulletin.net/12125.html
>
> "Indeed, this is the case: two months after the United States invaded Iraq, the Oil for Food
> Program was terminated, the Iraqi Euro accounts were switched back to dollars, and oil was sold
> once again only for U.S. dollars."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Oil_Bourse
Iran now sells its petro-products in Euros and Rials, not Dollars.
This occurred in 2007, and the effect on the Dollar was zilch.
From the article:
The Iranian Oil Bourse[1], International Oil Bourse[2], Iran Petroleum
Exchange or Oil Bourse in Kish[3] (IOB; the official English language name is unclear) is a
commodity exchange which opened on February 17, 2008,[4][5][6][3]. It was created by cooperation
between Iranian ministries and other state and private institutions. The IOB is a Petrobourse for
petroleum, petrochemicals and gas in various non-dollar currencies, primarily the Euro and Iranian
rial and a basket of other major currencies. The geographical location is at the Persian Gulf
island of Kish which is designated by Iran as a free trade zone.[7].
Although opening the oil bourse was delayed from the original date of March 2006, during 2007, Iran
had been asking its petroleum customers to pay in non-dollar currencies. On December 8, 2007, Iran
reported to have converted all of its oil export payments to non-dollar currencies. [8] The Kish
Bourse was offically opened in a videoconference ceremony on February the 17th 2008, despite last
minute disruptions to the internet services to the gulf regions. Currently the Kish Bourse is only
trading in oil derived products, generally those used as feedstock for the plastics and
pharmaceutical industries. However officially published statements by Oil Minister Gholamhossein
Nozari indicate that the second phase, to establish trading in crude oil directly, which has been
suggested might one day perhaps create a "Caspian Crude" benchmark price analgous to Brent Crude or
WTI will only be started after the Bourse has demonstrated a reasonable period of troublefree
running. [9]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar_warfare
Basically, it's a loony-left conspiracy theory. From the article:
The phrase petrodollar warfare refers to a hypothesis that a hidden, driving force of United States
foreign policy over recent decades has been the status of the United States dollar as the world's
dominant reserve currency and as the currency in which oil is priced. The term was coined by
William R. Clark, who has written a book with the same title. The phrase oil currency wars is
sometimes used with the same meaning.
Supporters of this hypothesis believe that the value of the U.S. dollar is determined by the fact
that many key commodities (particularly oil and natural gas) are denominated in dollars. They
believe that if the denomination changes to another currency, such as the euro, many countries
would sell dollars and cause the banks to shift their reserves because they would no longer need
dollars to buy oil and gas. This would weaken the dollar relative to the euro (see supply and
demand). The core of the hypothesis is that U.S. administrations are greatly motivated by fear of
the consequences of a weaker dollar, particularly higher oil prices. This motivation is seen as
underlying and explaining many aspects of U.S. foreign policy, including the ongoing Iraq War.
This view is controversial. Opponents dispute virtually every economic claim underpinning the
hypothesis, including the theory's emphasis on the dollar denomination of commodities and the
physical location of the major oil exchanges, the claim that the U.S. finances its current-account
deficit by printing dollars.[citation needed] Opponents also sometimes point out that the Bush
administration has repeatedly called for China to stop propping up the dollar by holding very large
dollar reserves, a stance seemingly at odds with the administration's supposed overriding interest
in maintaining a strong dollar.[citation needed]
Fred Weiss
> After all, it is our oil.....
Actually, it is.
Not "ours", but the private companies that bought the rights,
discovered it, and built the facilities to transport and process it.
The Arabs in that regard did absolutely nothing to acquire any
rights.
The *individual* Arabs who actually owned the land upon which the oil
was discovered of course needed to be compensated via private
agreement. But the Arabs, per se, collectively, have no rights to it
whatever, anymore that "we" do to the oil in the US. It is owned
by...he who owns it, i.e. the property holder, whether that it is a US
or foreign company.
Fred Weiss
Eeyore
Fred Weiss wrote:
And who regulates property rights ???
Graham
Dan Bloomquist
> "Dan Bloomquist" <publ...@lakeweb.com> wrote in message
> news:JKSIj.1083$Cn4...@news02.roc.ny...
>>
>> The day the US declared war on Iran
>> http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JD01Ak01.html
>>
>> It does not say in the article. But considering the history, this is
>> all about the Iranian oil
>> bourse.
>
> Nonsense. It's about Iranian banking.
Because you say so? Coming from you I'll take the counter. The U.S. has
been nipping at the heels of Iran for a long time. Now it is getting
serious.
>> http://www.energybulletin.net/12125.html
>>
>> "Indeed, this is the case: two months after the United States invaded
>> Iraq, the Oil for Food
>> Program was terminated, the Iraqi Euro accounts were switched back to
>> dollars, and oil was sold
>> once again only for U.S. dollars."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Oil_Bourse
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar_warfare
>
> Basically, it's a loony-left conspiracy theory. From the article:
There it is. You have a partisan agenda. Do note your paste had multiple
[citation needed]. Typical Eric Gisin.
Are you still denying peak oil?
(non response goes here.)
Dan Bloomquist
> On Apr 2, 6:12 pm, Dan Bloomquist <publi...@lakeweb.com> wrote:
>
>> After all, it is our oil.....
>
> Actually, it is.
>
> Not "ours", but the private companies that bought the rights,
> discovered it, and built the facilities to transport and process it.
Yep, there was, (as you snipped), Muhammad Mussadeq who wanted to make
it the people's oil. Can't have that. Our good buddy the Shah made sure
it was our oil. Ooops, he got carried away with his brutality and the
people had enough. We don't control Iran now. That is really pissing
someone off.
> The Arabs in that regard did absolutely nothing to acquire any
> rights.
How could they the way the west has been fucking them for a hundred years?
> The *individual* Arabs who actually owned the land upon which the oil
> was discovered of course needed to be compensated via private
> agreement. But the Arabs, per se, collectively, have no rights to it
> whatever, anymore that "we" do to the oil in the US.
Really!? So we go in there and create a western law they really don't
want anything to do with. But it is our law, so it is supreme? What
hubris...
Fred Weiss
> Fred Weiss wrote:
> > The Arabs in that regard did absolutely nothing to acquire any
> > rights.
>
> How could they the way the west has been fucking them for a hundred years?
It's nothing more or less than the Arabs have been doing to themselves
and to each other for far longer.
> Really!? So we go in there and create a western law they really don't
> want anything to do with. But it is our law, so it is supreme? What
> hubris...
True. So?
Why, you think the dictatorships and/or medieval theocracies they have
instead are better?
Look, it wouldn't matter much and no one would care except that they
happen to be sitting on a vital commodity, the source of which it is
profoundly in our - and the West's, in general - national interest to
protect.
Fred Weiss
Sevenhundred Elves
So we in the EU, or for instance the Chinese, can take as much
American uranium and coal as we see fit, then, no matter what the
Americans think of that? Thank you!
S.
jp1238
USA dominates the world with it's military and 'intelligence'. 5+% of
US GDP (?$600 billions) is spent on military each year; It's said it
promotes freedom and justice ...
US military expansion began ~200 years ago and it has not been
stopped yet, that military expansion killed millions of people. Not
much freedom or justice in the Dole's banana Nicaragua, in the
US Mob's Cuba's brothels or in our manipulated minds.
If it was not USA, it would be another one.
Force primes law :(
Jepe
ZerkonX
>> After all, it is our oil.....
>
> Actually, it is.
>
> Not "ours", but the private companies that bought the rights, discovered
> it, and built the facilities to transport and process it. The Arabs in
> that regard did absolutely nothing to acquire any rights.
By "Arabs" I guess you really mean, in extension, any people in any
country in which a similar situation exists. Iran, Venezuela and Mexico,
for instance. And, really, not just oil but anything in any country,
banana's or sugar for instance, that is of interest to a private company.
So, you are talking about is, essentially, US foreign policy.
Private company wants something in some foreign country. Since they
usually can not just walk in and take it, they have to deal with the
local political situation.
Is the local political situation 'friendly'? If not, can it be made to be
friendly? Is it in the "American interest" to exert influence, using tax
dollars, upon the local political situation in any way, say even with the
use of force?
After this, these 'private rights' are secured.
Fred Weiss
wrote:
> So we in the EU, or for instance the Chinese, can take as much
> American uranium and coal as we see fit, then, no matter what the
> Americans think of that? Thank you!
You're welcome.
I assume you plan to buy the properties first, of course.
Then what you do with it is your business.
As it is foreign companies own a significant amount of American
property and American law protects their rights to it, as it should. I
don't mind, nor should anyone else. It's of great benefit to us.
Fred Weiss
Bret Cahill
> > > > Should have been the day in 1950 when the Iran govt. siezed and
> > > > nationalised all US citizen owned assets in Iran.
> > > Yes, tragic that the over though of Muhammad Mussadeq didn't hold up.
> > > After all, it is our oil.....
>
> > According to Henry George no one owns geo resources and everyone has
> > an equal share of geo wealth. �Since oil would have no value w/o
> > western technology, some might argue that westerners get just about
> > all the oil.
>
> Huh? What should happen is that the most efficient producer would be
> allowed to extract the oil, receiving a payment based on the labor
> input to the process.
Georgists argue that the oil is just part of the land's value.
On the other hand, unlike land, oil's not a renewable so it needs to
be taxed at infinite %.
tg
> > > > >> The day the US declared war on Iran
> > > > > Should have been the day in 1950 when the Iran govt. siezed and
> > > > > nationalised all US citizen owned assets in Iran.
> > > > Yes, tragic that the over though of Muhammad Mussadeq didn't hold up.
> > > > After all, it is our oil.....
>
> > > According to Henry George no one owns geo resources and everyone has
> > > an equal share of geo wealth. �Since oil would have no value w/o
> > > western technology, some might argue that westerners get just about
> > > all the oil.
>
> > Huh? What should happen is that the most efficient producer would be
> > allowed to extract the oil, receiving a payment based on the labor
> > input to the process.
>
> Georgists argue that the oil is just part of the land's value.
>
*Some* Georgists....
The underlying principle allows for various interpretations. Mine
would have solved lots of the problems we are now having and we would
still be driving around in cars and all that. The only reason it is
worth controlling a resource is if you can make more money by
controlling it than from simply extracting it.
-tg
Sevenhundred Elves
You're right of course, according to current American law. But if laws
in America should change, say for instance that the government in your
country should decide that the coal and uranium are of such strategic
value (perhaps because of domestic energy needs) that none of it must
be exported to foreign countries, what then? Can we still come and get
it?
But this is really a question about the limits of mational
sovereignty, and I'm far from sure that we could answer it here on
sci.energy. Seems to be more of a matter for the philosophers.
S.
ro...@telus.net
<mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
Yeah, we _owned_ their stupid little country, they shoulda known they
had to just suck it up and give us the oil. Now we'll have to kill
them all for being communists. And Muslims. And terrorists. But
mainly for taking OUR OIL, that WE STILL OWN.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
<fred...@papertig.com> wrote:
>On Apr 2, 6:12 pm, Dan Bloomquist <publi...@lakeweb.com> wrote:
>
>> After all, it is our oil.....
>
>Actually, it is.
Actually, it's not.
>Not "ours", but the private companies that bought the rights,
>discovered it, and built the facilities to transport and process it.
By that "logic," slaves bought in Africa by slave traders who "built
the facilities to transport and process" the slaves were the rightful
property of their owners.
>The Arabs in that regard did absolutely nothing to acquire any
>rights.
Iran is not an Arab country, sunshine.
>The *individual* Arabs who actually owned the land upon which the oil
>was discovered of course needed to be compensated via private
>agreement.
Why would a given private individual "need" to be compensated for what
nature provided to all?
>But the Arabs, per se, collectively, have no rights to it
>whatever,
They have an absolute right to it: they would otherwise have been at
liberty to use it.
>anymore that "we" do to the oil in the US. It is owned
>by...he who owns it, i.e. the property holder, whether that it is a US
>or foreign company.
Nonsense. The "property holder" has no more right to it than a slave
holder had to own a slave -- i.e., no right whatever, other than
legally, which is a matter for the laws of those countries to decide.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
<fred...@papertig.com> wrote:
>On Apr 3, 6:53 am, Sevenhundred Elves <sevenhund...@elves.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>> So we in the EU, or for instance the Chinese, can take as much
>> American uranium and coal as we see fit, then, no matter what the
>> Americans think of that? Thank you!
>
>You're welcome.
>
>I assume you plan to buy the properties first, of course.
Well, they would, but...
The US government overturns such sales, just the way the Iranian
government did with sales of oil reserves to Americans.
Funny how what goes around comes around....
>Then what you do with it is your business.
>
>As it is foreign companies own a significant amount of American
>property and American law protects their rights to it, as it should.
You are a liar. The US government simply reverses sales of what it
finds to be unacceptable amounts of natural resources, technologies,
etc. to foreign interests.
>I don't mind, nor should anyone else. It's of great benefit to us.
?? ROTFL!! Then why doe the US government forbid it, and reverse
such sales, hmmmm?
-- Roy L
Michael Gordge
> After all, it is our oil.....
If you set up a gold mine in say NZ Aust the US today, you would pay
the govt a royalty per raw ounce (per litre for oil gas etc) levy,
which btw you would know in advance, and what ever else you make is
yours.
That system was working perfectly well in Iran prior to 1950 - as well
as it works in most civilized countries today.
In Iran that system resulted in Iranian citizens having, at that time,
one of the highest living standards per capita of all human beings on
earth, as against now one of the lowest and poorest standards of
living on earth even with all the wealth that that oil returns to that
nation today, but dont let the facts fuck your retarded version.
The simple fact is that the US was on such a guilt trip in the 1950s
with all its morally and well earned wealth and prosperity - due to
the declaration of independence and US Constitution, that when the
Iran nationalised the oil, the conscience of the US govt was so much
in the mode of guilt and moral decline, that it deliberately ignored
the fundamental premise of property rights violation taking place and
the dangerous precident it then set and which the world still is
paying the price of today.
MG
Econotron
news:6tkav3php8blf91vu...@4ax.com...
[snip]
>
> You're right of course, according to current American law. But if laws
> in America should change, say for instance that the government in your
> country should decide that the coal and uranium are of such strategic
> value (perhaps because of domestic energy needs) that none of it must
> be exported to foreign countries, what then? Can we still come and get
> it?
>
it from the another side of the globe through the Earth' core.
e.
[snip]
ruet...@outgun.com
Heh, Smedley Butler had quite a bit to say about that.
Theloner...@eatshit.com
There are things that I have never believed in life, that already happened
back in 2003 - "Iraq", so "Iran" is something I should expect as well.
Sonofagun, US has become a modern robber.
Dan Bloomquist
Actually, it is the 'West'. Western imperialism, this includes Europe,
is just the latest. Now the East is looking for their place in this
history. The Ottoman empire has been successfully cute from the game and
those of that empire that challenge the modern empire are now easily
made the bad guy. Makes their energy resource a piece of cake. And India
left with the legacy/burden of British bureaucracy, so hard for them to
find a place in the modern world. They, so far, just service the West
with cheap programmers and tele-help that is of little help.
Back to the East, they want their place. China is all over this, look at
their excellent work in Africa. Look at their posturing over the
Olympics. Don't mistake Japan for 'the East'. And Japan is so dependent
on other peoples energy.
One really needs to step back and just look at the numbers to understand
our current condition. One needs to understand the producers and
consumers of energy, the basses of all resources, to understand our
modern world. Did I mention Russia?
The world is on 'some' verge. This is not simple.
Look at some numbers. Every aspect has its own implications...
http://lakeweb.com/money/energy_history.gif
http://lakeweb.com/money/OPEC_hist.gif
http://lakeweb.com/money/iea_mar_06.jpg
http://lakeweb.com/money/creditmarketdebt_GDP_06.pdf
Oh, yea, China...
<http://lakeweb.com/money/Social%20Unrest%20in%20China.pdf>
(I'll repost the link if the spaces don't work.)
Rock Brentwood
> > "Dan Bloomquist" <publi...@lakeweb.com> wrote in message
> >news:JKSIj.1083$Cn4...@news02.roc.ny...
> >> The day the US declared war on Iran
> >>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JD01Ak01.html
Technically, the US cannot declare war on Iran since they´ve already
been at war since 1979 and have never had normalized relations since
the formation of the new government shortly before Iran´s attack on
the US that year. They're essentially already at war since Iran´s
sacking of the US embassy and taking of hostages. That is an invasion
of US sovereign territory which is an act of war. Since no relations
have ever been normalized nor any treaty signed since then to that
effect, the condition still exists.
It is Iran that has declared war on the United States -- in 1979. The
US, as is its right, has the right to meet that declaration at any
time in any way of its choosing unless or until some kind of treaty is
signed that says otherwise. If it does so, it is not "declaring war"
or even starting one, but joining battle with one already existing.
Dr. Kissinger, joining a large number of other former Secretaries of
State of the US, have called on the two countries to (belatedly)
normalize their relations. But until or unless such take place, the US
and Iran are still essentially in a state of war -- started by Iran.
Dan Bloomquist
> On Apr 7, 8:26 am, Dan Bloomquist <publi...@lakeweb.com> wrote:
>>> "Dan Bloomquist" <publi...@lakeweb.com> wrote in message
>>> news:JKSIj.1083$Cn4...@news02.roc.ny...
>>>> The day the US declared war on Iran
>>>> http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JD01Ak01.html
>
> been at war since 1979....
I see you didn't read the article......