what makes our market place so dynamic is that multiple waves of economic development, collapse, dissolution and formation are occurring simultaneously, and usually without regard to any other effort by others, which eventually shows up in the marketplace, and we then draw inference, but in reality is only coincidence. The gaps in the marketplace which many small businesses say could be filled by their newly developed products, and the financing that they could secure from Vultures, Ventures, traditional Family Wealth or Bank Financings, were underway irrespective of the political administrations. Certainly when the crops are being waters and fertilized with easier money (read favorable interest rates) all flowers take on explosive growth, and perhaps one preceeding administration did or did not have anything directly or indirectly to do with that process, and perhaps the following administration either did or did not have anything to do with these companies coming into a market domminate position with their radical new products. Perhaps we see the overlaps in the forest from the distance that's most comfortable. Frankly, I like to see the forest from a trading perspective, and see where the winds are blowing so that I can either Swing Trade, Scalp, Position Trade (longer term holding) or otherwise. Some of you(s) guys like to Pair Trade these same market place dynamic situations. One thing is certain, is that few other countries in the world allow what we enjoy, inclusive of these very healthy discussions to occur in such an open manner.
Well Said Swoop...........Agreed. I laugh at hearing "Why" the Mkt went up or went down because of such and such news. ( They just gotta have an answer - even if they don't know ). It went up or down because "People" bought or sold it. Sometimes the news has a strong effect on that - and sometimes - it's entirely something(s) other, and Not Necessarily Apparent.
getting back to the thread title: Blueprint for war and the big picture Three decades ago, in the throes of the energy crisis, Washington's hawks conceived of a strategy for US control of the Persian Gulf's oil. Now, with the same strategists firmly in control of the White House, the Bush administration is playing out their script for global dominance. If you were to spin the globe and look for real estate critical to building an American empire, your first stop would have to be the Persian Gulf. The desert sands of this region hold two of every three barrels of oil in the world -- Iraq's reserves alone are equal, by some estimates, to those of Russia, the United States, China, and Mexico combined. For the past 30 years, the Gulf has been in the crosshairs of an influential group of Washington foreign-policy strategists, who believe that in order to ensure its global dominance, the United States must seize control of the region and its oil. Born during the energy crisis of the 1970s and refined since then by a generation of policymakers, this approach is finding its boldest expression yet in the Bush administration -- which, with its plan to invade Iraq and install a regime beholden to Washington, has moved closer than any of its predecessors to transforming the Gulf into an American protectorate. In the geopolitical vision driving current U.S. policy toward Iraq, the key to national security is global hegemony -- dominance over any and all potential rivals. To that end, the United States must not only be able to project its military forces anywhere, at any time. It must also control key resources, chief among them oil -- and especially Gulf oil. To the hawks who now set the tone at the White House and the Pentagon, the region is crucial not simply for its share of the U.S. oil supply (other sources have become more important over the years), but because it would allow the United States to maintain a lock on the world's energy lifeline and potentially deny access to its global competitors. The administration "believes you have to control resources in order to have access to them," says Chas Freeman, who served as U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia under the first President Bush. "They are taken with the idea that the end of the Cold War left the United States able to impose its will globally -- and that those who have the ability to shape events with power have the duty to do so. It's ideology." Iraq, in this view, is a strategic prize of unparalleled importance. Unlike the oil beneath Alaska's frozen tundra, locked away in the steppes of central Asia, or buried under stormy seas, Iraq's crude is readily accessible and, at less than $1.50 a barrel, some of the cheapest in the world to produce. Already, over the past several months, Western companies have been meeting with Iraqi exiles to try to stake a claim to that bonanza. But while the companies hope to cash in on an American-controlled Iraq, the push to remove Saddam Hussein hasn't been driven by oil executives, many of whom are worried about the consequences of war. Nor are Vice President Cheney and President Bush, both former oilmen, looking at the Gulf simply for the profits that can be earned there. The administration is thinking bigger, much bigger, than that. "Controlling Iraq is about oil as power, rather than oil as fuel," says Michael Klare, professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and author of Resource Wars. "Control over the Persian Gulf translates into control over Europe, Japan, and China. It's having our hand on the spigot." Long article but worth the time http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/10/ma_273_01.html illegal war? we got the bombs!! who cares? who's gona stop us? http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14558
trader556... How very sad to read your post. Sad because it's probably true. We do not fear Iraq, and everyone knows it. Our sudden concern for her citizens is laughable. All of the excuses put forth for this war are laughable. The suggestions put forth in your post are the only ones that make sense. How unbelievably sad to think that my country might actually do something like that. But here is the real concern. What if you are right. Would the men who did this in my name then turn the Government to the other party in two, six years at the most? Something to think about. Something to keep you awake at night. Me? I'm much closer to the end of my life then the beginning. I'm from that crazy generation that questioned everything. The current generation questions nothing. Bringing up the points as you did, amounts to pissing in the wind. The picture you paint, and the things that are happening all around us, such as the Patriot Act, are nothing short of bone chilling. Couple that with the fact that this very thread now resides in the hands of one John Poindexter in the dark recesses of the Pentagon, and... Well, I surly have said far too much already for my own good. Now that I think about it, you must be crazy posting such swill. Our beloved President and the fine men around him would never stoop to such a thing. You must be an anti-American who would do best to join your friend Saddam... (yeah, that's the ticket)
remarkable that in the media almost no attention has peen paid to the fact that a couple of months ago the biggest contract deal ever in its kind to build an oil pipeline in afghanistan was made. Critics of the invasion claimed beforehand this to be the actual reason.
Some more interesting info related to your statement: UnoCal/Chevron/Taliban/Haliburton/pipelines etc... http://www.iraq.net/erica/news-e/archives/00000318.htm Mr. Joseph Clifford contributed above article to Media Monitors Network (MMN) from James Town, Rhode Island, USA Josh
"We have 50 percent of the world's wealth, but only 6.3 percent of its population. . . In this situation we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will allow us to maintain this position of disparity. We should cease to talk about the raising of the living standards, human rights, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better." -- George Kennan, Director of Policy Planning of the U.S. Dept. of State, 1948 Josh
Some of you have come close as to why we are really going to war, but not quite there. A) USA WILL NOT make any money from Iraqi oil. It is not so simple. No freaking way the E.U., China and Russia are just gonna let USA take over oil. It's going to be oil company contracts and in no way will it be exclusive to USA companies. That's not their goal. B) The definite decision to go into Iraq and get Saddam out of power was made back in November 2000, before 9/11. Also, there is quite some research out there that shows that both the Washnigton administration as well as the Israeli Mossad knew that there was going to be an attack in that time frame and that planes were going to be used. Whether they knew it was going to be WTC, I doubt. C) Hint: It's all about reserve currency. See if you can figure it out. Nov 2000 date is Key. BTW, I personally hope very much that Bush succeeds in the post war aftermath which can decide whether USA crashes and burns or recovers. Saddam has got to go regardless.