Full Version: US vs EU
Am I alone in thinking there is more to this situation than just Saddam Hussein? I read today an interesting observation that the old 'Oil war' label is indeed very much alive and kicking, albeit with a slightly different twist. One I have not heard before.
That current American policy is a direct result of the rise in power of the EU currency; the Euro and threats to the old OPEC order of Oil for dollars only.
I would appreciate any other/ opposing views on this any one might care to offer. Thank you.
That current American policy is a direct result of the rise in power of the EU currency; the Euro and threats to the old OPEC order of Oil for dollars only.
I would appreciate any other/ opposing views on this any one might care to offer. Thank you.
The backlash in the UN is almost definitely a reaction against American power. That article you linked...hmmm
That is hogwash, as any economist will tell you. The dollar represents real wealth and is backed by the US government, which is why inflation in the US is so low. Other destablilzed currencies rapidly lose their value when that value is no longer backed by something "real" (i.e. gold, silver). You don't just print money for free.
The "petro-dollar" angle is interesting...I need to do a little more reading into that...
QUOTE
But the more dollars there are circulating outside the US, or invested by foreign owners in American assets, the more the rest of the world has had to provide the US with goods and services in exchange for these dollars. The dollars cost the US next to nothing to produce, so the fact that the world uses the currency in this way means that the US is importing vast quantities of goods and services virtually for free.
That is hogwash, as any economist will tell you. The dollar represents real wealth and is backed by the US government, which is why inflation in the US is so low. Other destablilzed currencies rapidly lose their value when that value is no longer backed by something "real" (i.e. gold, silver). You don't just print money for free.
The "petro-dollar" angle is interesting...I need to do a little more reading into that...
The euro and the dollar are freely exchanged, it matters not what currency is used for purchasing oil.
Yep. In another thread here, I posted as follows:
Nunan is quite right. Combined with the fact that our sanctions have helped to swell the oil reserves of Iraq and that they will therefore be a major player in the oil trade for years to come, we are potentially creating an even stronger economic rival in the EU (and certainly a stronger euro) - even as we continue to antagonize Europeans on a daily basis. Unwise.
Christopher Layne of the Cato Institute , Scott McConnell of the Ayn Rand Institute, and others have suggested that the neo-imperialist bent of the American hegemon will result in "new alliances" against the US - including a projected alliance between Europe and the (unoccupied) Middle East. We seem to be doing everything in our power to nudge both Europeans and the Arab world toward such an alliance. Were that to happen, the US could start looking like the challenger in a US vs EU bout.
QUOTE
...what I suspect is one of the Bush administration's most serious (if most covert) concerns [is] the fact that Iraqi oil is dealt in EC euros, not US dollars. One of the principle motivating factors behind the "war" could well be the fear that the petro-dollar might make the transition to the petro-euro.
Nunan is quite right. Combined with the fact that our sanctions have helped to swell the oil reserves of Iraq and that they will therefore be a major player in the oil trade for years to come, we are potentially creating an even stronger economic rival in the EU (and certainly a stronger euro) - even as we continue to antagonize Europeans on a daily basis. Unwise.
Christopher Layne of the Cato Institute , Scott McConnell of the Ayn Rand Institute, and others have suggested that the neo-imperialist bent of the American hegemon will result in "new alliances" against the US - including a projected alliance between Europe and the (unoccupied) Middle East. We seem to be doing everything in our power to nudge both Europeans and the Arab world toward such an alliance. Were that to happen, the US could start looking like the challenger in a US vs EU bout.
Here is another site which addresses this issue.
Nice anti-semetic, anti-American link there, moif.
It doesn't even refer to the US, it uniformly says US imperialism.
Here's a quote...
US deficits soak up the world's savings? Capture of Iraq will aid US companies while locking out corporations from other countries? Re-assertion of its (US) supremacy? Puzzling inclusion of Iran in the 'axis of evil'?
These statements make no sense.
Banks use savings as the basis of loans. A defecit by the US government WOULD soak up possible loans available to other countries...assuming the loan to the US government is made from a bank. US defecits are "balanced" by the issuance of government bonds (T bills and such) for the most part. The debt is owed to individual Americans. It is not a bank loan. US banks DO make loans to other countries, because these countries cannot raise capital in the same way that the US does it (issuance of bonds). Now you could make the argument that people buying bonds instead of savings accounts (or other investments) detracts from the overall available loan pool. You would be partially correct. But individuals choose their method of investment based on a risk/return formula. The risk is minimal with US bonds and the return is on par with savings accounts (little risk). There is greater risk, but also (possibly) greater reward with company stocks and bonds. The statement, therefore, indicates a complete lack of how an economy works.
The US does not (as a rule) lock out competing companies, if indeed you even accept the fact that the US government would control Iraq's post-war economy. The US is based on a free market economy, not crony-ism (as has been suggested on other threads).
The US does not need to "re-assert" its military superiority. It IS a fact that we have the best trained and equipped military, no question there. There is also absolutely no push for any other country to try to match ours. I could almost see this if, say, the EU were to begin developing a major military branch. Perhaps then this argument might be made. As it is now, there is no need for the US to "flex its muscles". The statement is, on its face, ludicrous.
Last point, Iran being including in the "Axis of Evil". I think this is a given. I would argue that Iran is the greater long term threat over Iraq. However, Iran is much more "fundamentalist" than secular Iraq. Were the US to attack them, more Arab nations would rally to its cause. Iraq is more on an island, not as tied (through religion) to other Middle East countries. I would agree that the US may be using the war against Iraq as a destabilizing force against Iran. Iran has clear ties to terrorists, and IS developing WMDs, including nukes.
I think that Bush's "axis of evil" statement was prescient. He knew then what challenges faced this country. Iraq and North Korea have jumped out at us. Iran is waiting in the wings.
It doesn't even refer to the US, it uniformly says US imperialism.
Here's a quote...
QUOTE
The global crisis of overproduction is showing up the underlying weakness of the US real economy, as a result of which US trade and budget deficits are galloping. The euro now poses a credible alternative to the status of the dollar as the global reserve currency, threatening the US’s crucial ability to fund its deficits by soaking up the world’s savings. The US anticipates that the capture of Iraq, and whatever else it has in store for the region, will directly benefit its corporations (oil, arms, engineering, financial) even as it shuts out the corporations from other imperialist countries. Further, it intends to prevent the bulk of petroleum trade being conducted in euros, and thus maintain the dollar’s supremacy. In a broader sense, it believes that such a re-assertion of its supremacy (in military terms and in control of strategic resources) will prevent the emergence of any serious imperialist challenger such as the EU. In that sense the present campaign is in line with the Pentagon’s 1992 Defense Planning Guidance, which called for preventing any other major power from acquiring the strength to develop into a challenger to the US’s solitary supremacy. (A European foothold even in Iran could bring about a euro-based oil economy; this perhaps explains the puzzling inclusion of Iran in the ‘axis of evil.’)
US deficits soak up the world's savings? Capture of Iraq will aid US companies while locking out corporations from other countries? Re-assertion of its (US) supremacy? Puzzling inclusion of Iran in the 'axis of evil'?
These statements make no sense.
Banks use savings as the basis of loans. A defecit by the US government WOULD soak up possible loans available to other countries...assuming the loan to the US government is made from a bank. US defecits are "balanced" by the issuance of government bonds (T bills and such) for the most part. The debt is owed to individual Americans. It is not a bank loan. US banks DO make loans to other countries, because these countries cannot raise capital in the same way that the US does it (issuance of bonds). Now you could make the argument that people buying bonds instead of savings accounts (or other investments) detracts from the overall available loan pool. You would be partially correct. But individuals choose their method of investment based on a risk/return formula. The risk is minimal with US bonds and the return is on par with savings accounts (little risk). There is greater risk, but also (possibly) greater reward with company stocks and bonds. The statement, therefore, indicates a complete lack of how an economy works.
The US does not (as a rule) lock out competing companies, if indeed you even accept the fact that the US government would control Iraq's post-war economy. The US is based on a free market economy, not crony-ism (as has been suggested on other threads).
The US does not need to "re-assert" its military superiority. It IS a fact that we have the best trained and equipped military, no question there. There is also absolutely no push for any other country to try to match ours. I could almost see this if, say, the EU were to begin developing a major military branch. Perhaps then this argument might be made. As it is now, there is no need for the US to "flex its muscles". The statement is, on its face, ludicrous.
Last point, Iran being including in the "Axis of Evil". I think this is a given. I would argue that Iran is the greater long term threat over Iraq. However, Iran is much more "fundamentalist" than secular Iraq. Were the US to attack them, more Arab nations would rally to its cause. Iraq is more on an island, not as tied (through religion) to other Middle East countries. I would agree that the US may be using the war against Iraq as a destabilizing force against Iran. Iran has clear ties to terrorists, and IS developing WMDs, including nukes.
I think that Bush's "axis of evil" statement was prescient. He knew then what challenges faced this country. Iraq and North Korea have jumped out at us. Iran is waiting in the wings.
Before this thread gets derailed into a discussion regarding Iran, I would like to remind everyone we already have such a discussion here 
Axis of Evil, as it relates to Iran.
Please keep this to a discussion of the article posted by moif.
Axis of Evil, as it relates to Iran.Please keep this to a discussion of the article posted by moif.
Jaime, the last post there was almost 2 months ago...although I will post an Iran comment there...
The thrust of my comment was aimed directly at the second link that moif posted.
I find it is very difficult (indeed impossible) to address one individual issue when it comes to foreign policy, since so many of them are interconnected.
Yes, this thread is (obstensibly) about the US vs. the EU.
The emergence of the Euro as a currency is new, but in this day and age, I don't see how that is really relevant. Currencies are readily (and easily) converted. Insisting that oil be bought in dollars, or Euros, or cofee beans, for that matter, doesn't matter much except as a matter of uniformity. If OPEC switched to a Euro standard, I do not feel that would affect the US economy one iota. The economics behind those links are weak and (quite frankly) wrong.
The thrust of my comment was aimed directly at the second link that moif posted.
I find it is very difficult (indeed impossible) to address one individual issue when it comes to foreign policy, since so many of them are interconnected.
Yes, this thread is (obstensibly) about the US vs. the EU.
The emergence of the Euro as a currency is new, but in this day and age, I don't see how that is really relevant. Currencies are readily (and easily) converted. Insisting that oil be bought in dollars, or Euros, or cofee beans, for that matter, doesn't matter much except as a matter of uniformity. If OPEC switched to a Euro standard, I do not feel that would affect the US economy one iota. The economics behind those links are weak and (quite frankly) wrong.
Amlord
Thankfully I'm not responsible for the views of these people. I'm just trying to take every aspect of this into account.
My primary interest is in the future strength of the EU. I like the idea of a strong independent EU, but not at the cost of the USA!
QUOTE
Nice anti-semetic, anti-American link there, moif.
Thankfully I'm not responsible for the views of these people. I'm just trying to take every aspect of this into account.
My primary interest is in the future strength of the EU. I like the idea of a strong independent EU, but not at the cost of the USA!
I know you didn't write that stuff, but by linking to it, you're sort of tacitly giving your support to it.
I personally would like to see a strong EU as well. Although there is alot of bad blood between some of the members, so I don't know how things will turn out long-term. The EU already has a LOT of bureaucracy. A LOT. Too much. I think they need to pare back some of the trade barriers they have with outside nations.
I personally would like to see a strong EU as well. Although there is alot of bad blood between some of the members, so I don't know how things will turn out long-term. The EU already has a LOT of bureaucracy. A LOT. Too much. I think they need to pare back some of the trade barriers they have with outside nations.
Amlord
I'm finding it rather difficult to find any in depth analysis which is totally unbiased. Frankly, I don't think the article is anti Semitic, only anti Israeli & anti US.
If you know of any opposing views/ sites which tackle the possibility of future friction between the EU and the US, then I'll be more than happy to read them!
I'm finding it rather difficult to find any in depth analysis which is totally unbiased. Frankly, I don't think the article is anti Semitic, only anti Israeli & anti US.
If you know of any opposing views/ sites which tackle the possibility of future friction between the EU and the US, then I'll be more than happy to read them!
Couple articles I found:
WSJ Opinion Page
Jonah's Take This ones's a couple years old.
Rod Dreher
Just a couple of interesting articles, from a conservative point of view, keep in mind.
WSJ Opinion Page
Jonah's Take This ones's a couple years old.
Rod Dreher
Just a couple of interesting articles, from a conservative point of view, keep in mind.
I saw absolutely nothing to support the statement that R.U.P.E. is antisemitic. To oppose the governmental policies of the state of Israel has zero to do with one's stance on Judaism.
As for bias, it seems to me that when one agrees with analysis, it has the ring of truth - it fits with what you already believe to be true. When analysis disagrees with one's view, it is biased and slanted.
Amlord, I do think you're wrong about the Euro. You say it doesn't really matter, but if, for example, OPEC switched to petroeuros, it would affect our economy. More countries would start buying euros, fewer would be buying dollars. This is my own analysis, so I can't list sources per se, but it seems to me the US has been fighting pretty hard against first the creation of the Euro, and also against oil exporting nations who may want to start selling in Euros.
As for bias, it seems to me that when one agrees with analysis, it has the ring of truth - it fits with what you already believe to be true. When analysis disagrees with one's view, it is biased and slanted.
Amlord, I do think you're wrong about the Euro. You say it doesn't really matter, but if, for example, OPEC switched to petroeuros, it would affect our economy. More countries would start buying euros, fewer would be buying dollars. This is my own analysis, so I can't list sources per se, but it seems to me the US has been fighting pretty hard against first the creation of the Euro, and also against oil exporting nations who may want to start selling in Euros.
Amlord
I'm afraid you may have misunderstood me. The three links you provided only lead to articles which sought to explain the problems with Europe from an American point of view.
What I am interested in is sites which examine the mechanics of what is happening rather than the opinions it generates. I want to know more about the power struggle between the EU and the USA.
I'm not particularly interested in how Americans feel about the Europeans (Which seems to rely heavily on a perception of France) or how Europeans regard the USA or George Bush.
Having said that, the third article did make one statement which I'd like to address;
I totally disagree with this. Europeans have been facing almost non stop terrorism throughout the continent for the last two hundred years. If any one understands the danger of terrorism and how to tackle it, t is Europe.
The idea that you can stop terrorism by utilizing a powerful military, is in my mind a dangerous miscalculation.
Sorry for going off topic.
I'm afraid you may have misunderstood me. The three links you provided only lead to articles which sought to explain the problems with Europe from an American point of view.
What I am interested in is sites which examine the mechanics of what is happening rather than the opinions it generates. I want to know more about the power struggle between the EU and the USA.
I'm not particularly interested in how Americans feel about the Europeans (Which seems to rely heavily on a perception of France) or how Europeans regard the USA or George Bush.
Having said that, the third article did make one statement which I'd like to address;
QUOTE
I must tell you that beyond particular arguments over the usefulness of this or that aspect of the Iraq standoff, I believe that experience is at the root of the American public's willingness to go to war with Iraq, versus Europe's overwhelming rejection of same. We know what these terrorists can do, and will do; for Europeans, it was all a story on television. Most Americans understand the lesson of 9/11; most Europeans, in my view, do not.
I totally disagree with this. Europeans have been facing almost non stop terrorism throughout the continent for the last two hundred years. If any one understands the danger of terrorism and how to tackle it, t is Europe.
The idea that you can stop terrorism by utilizing a powerful military, is in my mind a dangerous miscalculation.
Sorry for going off topic.
QUOTE
QUOTE
I must tell you that beyond particular arguments over the usefulness of this or that aspect of the Iraq standoff, I believe that experience is at the root of the American public's willingness to go to war with Iraq, versus Europe's overwhelming rejection of same. We know what these terrorists can do, and will do; for Europeans, it was all a story on television. Most Americans understand the lesson of 9/11; most Europeans, in my view, do not.
I totally disagree with this. Europeans have been facing almost non stop terrorism throughout the continent for the last two hundred years. If any one understands the danger of terrorism and how to tackle it, t is Europe.
The idea that you can stop terrorism by utilizing a powerful military, is in my mind a dangerous miscalculation.
I must tell you that beyond particular arguments over the usefulness of this or that aspect of the Iraq standoff, I believe that experience is at the root of the American public's willingness to go to war with Iraq, versus Europe's overwhelming rejection of same. We know what these terrorists can do, and will do; for Europeans, it was all a story on television. Most Americans understand the lesson of 9/11; most Europeans, in my view, do not.
I totally disagree with this. Europeans have been facing almost non stop terrorism throughout the continent for the last two hundred years. If any one understands the danger of terrorism and how to tackle it, t is Europe.
The idea that you can stop terrorism by utilizing a powerful military, is in my mind a dangerous miscalculation.
Europe has faced terrorism, no doubt about that...but nothing on the scale of this attack. It is a sign of escalation, and a sign that whatever measures we thought we working pre-9/11, are in fact, not working. A change in tactics is in order.
Amlord
Could that change include the rules of international diplomacy between America and Europe as well?
QUOTE
Europe has faced terrorism, no doubt about that...but nothing on the scale of this attack. It is a sign of escalation, and a sign that whatever measures we thought we working pre-9/11, are in fact, not working. A change in tactics is in order.
Could that change include the rules of international diplomacy between America and Europe as well?
QUOTE(moif @ Mar 12 2003, 01:41 PM)
Amlord
Could that change include the rules of international diplomacy between America and Europe as well?
QUOTE
Europe has faced terrorism, no doubt about that...but nothing on the scale of this attack. It is a sign of escalation, and a sign that whatever measures we thought we working pre-9/11, are in fact, not working. A change in tactics is in order.
Could that change include the rules of international diplomacy between America and Europe as well?
What is changing is the need of Europe and America to defend against a common enemy. The US and Western Europe had a common enemy in the Cold War era. Islamic terrorists are either not considered a substantial threat to many nations in Europe or are considered a lesser threat to countries which do not support the US. The US cannot dismiss the terrorist threat, nor can they continue the non-aggressive policies of the past where retaliatory measures were the only actions considered.
While i know that everyone assumed i was nevering coming back, me with my conservative views... but i'm back.
Just want to through my opinion into the mix. Any student of history knows that the current situation is very much like the stituation of the 1930's that led to WWII. The then world order League of Nations had refused to enforce their own initiatives other places other than Germany. They didnt stop Japan from invading China first, then they just made idol threats (similar to today) to Italy. Then when Hitler started taking land they were completely powerless. How do you tell one dictator not to try to conquor the world when you allowed others too.
The UN is a good idea and something that should be preserved. But if the UN wants to go the way of the league of nations by completely ruling itself powerless then soon enough there will be no UN to debate about.
Just want to through my opinion into the mix. Any student of history knows that the current situation is very much like the stituation of the 1930's that led to WWII. The then world order League of Nations had refused to enforce their own initiatives other places other than Germany. They didnt stop Japan from invading China first, then they just made idol threats (similar to today) to Italy. Then when Hitler started taking land they were completely powerless. How do you tell one dictator not to try to conquor the world when you allowed others too.
The UN is a good idea and something that should be preserved. But if the UN wants to go the way of the league of nations by completely ruling itself powerless then soon enough there will be no UN to debate about.
QUOTE(drmarcs @ Mar 12 2003, 01:31 PM)
While i know that everyone assumed i was nevering coming back, me with my conservative views... but i'm back.
Just want to through my opinion into the mix. Any student of history knows that the current situation is very much like the stituation of the 1930's that led to WWII. The then world order League of Nations had refused to enforce their own initiatives other places other than Germany. They didnt stop Japan from invading China first, then they just made idol threats (similar to today) to Italy. Then when Hitler started taking land they were completely powerless. How do you tell one dictator not to try to conquor the world when you allowed others too.
The UN is a good idea and something that should be preserved. But if the UN wants to go the way of the league of nations by completely ruling itself powerless then soon enough there will be no UN to debate about.
Just want to through my opinion into the mix. Any student of history knows that the current situation is very much like the stituation of the 1930's that led to WWII. The then world order League of Nations had refused to enforce their own initiatives other places other than Germany. They didnt stop Japan from invading China first, then they just made idol threats (similar to today) to Italy. Then when Hitler started taking land they were completely powerless. How do you tell one dictator not to try to conquor the world when you allowed others too.
The UN is a good idea and something that should be preserved. But if the UN wants to go the way of the league of nations by completely ruling itself powerless then soon enough there will be no UN to debate about.
And that has exactly what to do with the topic of this thread?
Here it is in case you missed it:
QUOTE
That current American policy is a direct result of the rise in power of the EU currency; the Euro and threats to the old OPEC order of Oil for dollars only.
Perhaps you thought this was a US v. UN thread?
BTW, I myself am a "student of history," and... you're gonna have to get a little more detailed about who in your parallel the current players represent. Start a new thread or something. In short though, ... nah.
QUOTE
What is changing is the need of Europe and America to defend against a common enemy. The US and Western Europe had a common enemy in the Cold War era. Islamic terrorists are either not considered a substantial threat to many nations in Europe or are considered a lesser threat to countries which do not support the US. The US cannot dismiss the terrorist threat, nor can they continue the non-aggressive policies of the past where retaliatory measures were the only actions considered.
This hits the nail right on the head. Europe no longer feels that it needs the US to repel a common enemy (the USSR). Terrorists are a threat that they have one view of and we have another. We no longer have common strategies against this threat, therefore they are more willing to strike out on their own.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.