This is a discussion on Iran Invasion soon ? within the Army & Security Forces forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by the road runner
Agreed.
There is not enough gold in the world to pay for all the ...
There is not enough gold in the world to pay for all the transactions of the world,thus the US dollar as a medium of exchange.
I am curious about Iran asking Gold for Oil,might be a tactic so if its Bank account are frozen by the International community ,they can still function as a Government by paying its debts in Gold.
How do you know that there are isn't enough gold in the world to pay for oil. Since both Indian and China are paying Iran for oil with gold and Russia may do, like the commentator says, it will drive the price of gold up and drive the value of the US$ down. Originally all international debts were paid in gold and that was what currencies were valued against. It was the US who forced through the current currency valuation mechanism, the Trade Weighted Index. Russia will have a good supply of gold in Siberia and it also has a very large supply of diamonds, more than enough to well and truly put De Beers out of business over night. It is only by common agreement and good will that the US$ is used as a default currency. That good will can like steam evaporate. True there are lots of bank notes out in the world but do not forget that every bank note is not real money.
A bank note is an intangible, a promise that upon presentation that the bearer will receive another intangible, money. All money is, is a methodology for the exchange of goods and services. If you print more money and keep on printing, you devalue its worth because you only have so much physical treasure be it gold or goods against which to value it. Money is an abstract concept like numbers. An easy way to understand it is if I give you ten dollars, I physically hand you a ten dollar which is a promise by the government to pay the bearer $10.00. However can you tell me what a dollar is or even better actually give me one. Not a piece of paper but an actual physical dollar rather than something that represents it. Ok it is exactly the same with numbers. What is a number? Can you describe a number? Or can you give me a number rather than something that represents it? Money is the same, it is not a physical thing but an abstract concept built around the ideal that a promise will be fullfilled, and it is a convention that US$ are used in international trade for the payment of goods and services. Conventions have been known to change over time.
Last edited by ngatimozart; February 2nd, 2012 at 02:41 AM.
Reason: clarification
How do you know that there are isn't enough gold in the world to pay for oil.
I stated that there isnt enough gold in the world to pay for all the transactions of the world.ie to pay for coal/iron ore /oil/gas/commodities all the transactions that take place daily in the world economy.The Gold Market is valued at 3 trillion dollars(depending on the daily spot price of gold)Its a small market when you take into account the world economy.
I think i have de railed the thread ,sorry was not my intention
Given the rather poor relations Iran has with a number of other countries, both within the regional and around the globe, it is possible that Iran might opt to employ a nuclear device against another country before, during or after a conflict. This could be either via a direct attack (and Iran has been attempting to improve and expand their BM arsenal...) by potentially providing a device or devices to third party proxies. -Cheers
Yes but that would be counter productive, would lead to a retaliatory strike against Iran, and would be against the main agenda of the Iranian government - regime survival. It was the Shah who first conceived the idea of having nukes as part of his plan to make Iran a regional power and alongside Israel, a Cold War strategic partner of the U.S. The mullahs when they came to power shelved the programme because it was ''un-Islamic'' and only reluctantly revived it at the urging of the military when things started to go very bad with Iraq.
At present, from an Iranian perspective, they are surrounded by countries who have aligned themselves with the U.S. , are worried about U.S. and Israeli hegemony in the region and are totally convinced that having a nuke will guarantee that Uncle Sam, with the support of Israel and the Sunni Gulf states have no thoughts of regime change.
A third area of potential concern is that if Iran develops nuclear weaponry, even if they are/were just for use to keep the current regime in power in the face of outside threats... A nuclear armed Iran might well decide to step up its various programmes which support outside groups with weapons and kit, secure in the knowledge that if international pressure becomes too great, Iran literally has a nuclear option.
There is a greater possibility of that happening in Pakistan than in Iran. Though the Pakistani military has full control of its nukes, there is always the possibility of things getting worse in the country and ''jihadist'' elements getting hold of a nuke. Personally, I think that there is more danger and much, much greater possibility of things rapidly getting out of control between India and Pakistan - over Kashmir or something else - leading to a war and the possibility of nukes being used, than in the Middle East. In 1999, at the height of the Kargil war, Pakistan made clear that if India crossed into it's border, Pakistan was more than willing to use nukes on its own territory. And in 2002, both sides came very close to war.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Todjaeger
Iran is already known to support non-state actors in the Mideast, and has made comments about having an 'obligation to protect members of the Shia sect' outside of Iran following the suppression of various minority groups in different Gulf states during parts of the 'Arab Spring'. Whether any of the various suppressed groups have any ethnic, religious or cultural ties to Iran or not, I do not know...-Cheers
Iran is not the only country that makes use of non-state actors to support its interests . Even before the Arab Spring, Iran has always kept a ''protective'' eye out for its Shia brethren in places like Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Lebanon and Iraq. That's one reason why it supported the Northern Alliance way before 9/11 and way before 9//11 held a number of talks with the U.S. on how to contain the Taliban. In places like Karbala in Iraq, the Shiites there feel more affinity to Iran than they do with their own government and the same goes for shiites in Lebanon.
Last edited by STURM; February 2nd, 2012 at 04:23 AM.
Sorry, economics does not work that way. The only way that Iran’s shifting the euro or yuan can hurt the US is if their value goes up permanently relative to the dollar. There is NO WAY that it allows the Federal Reserve (Fed for short) (not FedEx, that is a shipping service) to print more money.
Look here, Oil (as well as about all other strategic ressources) are traded in US-dollars and a fair part of world currencies are linked to the US-dollar.
Now as, which is the case, the FED is printing more and more money, the currency market should dictate that the US-dollar would sink in value (more dollars to the same demand, it doesn't really do that, se below). That would normally mean that the US will have to pay more dollars for the same import (due to exchange rate). But oil is traded in US dollars and the only way that f.ex. Saudi arabia can offset a sinking dollar, is by increasing the general price of oil. But that is a tab that all economies (particularely those linked to US-dollar) pick up, not just the american.
On the other hand, if Sweden started to print money and its currency dropped vs. the dollar, oil price in swedish kroner, would increase by that factor.
One can view a fair part US-Chineese relations as the FED printing money, which ends up in the chineese treassury (in exchange for goods). Now the chineese can't use these huge amounts of dollars to buy american products (that would would create inflation in the US) but, at least in principle, it can buy oil and other rawmaterials traded in dollars. Now if these commodities weren't traded in US-dollars but say in Euros, then maybe the chineese wouldn't keep so many dollars in their coffers....
Look here, Oil (as well as about all other strategic ressources) are traded in US-dollars and a fair part of world currencies are linked to the US-dollar.
Now as, which is the case, the FED is printing more and more money, the currency market should dictate that the US-dollar would sink in value (more dollars to the same demand, it doesn't really do that, se below). That would normally mean that the US will have to pay more dollars for the same import (due to exchange rate). But oil is traded in US dollars and the only way that f.ex. Saudi arabia can offset a sinking dollar, is by increasing the general price of oil. But that is a tab that all economies (particularely those linked to US-dollar) pick up, not just the american.
On the other hand, if Sweden started to print money and its currency dropped vs. the dollar, oil price in swedish kroner, would increase by that factor.
One can view a fair part US-Chineese relations as the FED printing money, which ends up in the chineese treassury (in exchange for goods). Now the chineese can't use these huge amounts of dollars to buy american products (that would would create inflation in the US) but, at least in principle, it can buy oil and other rawmaterials traded in dollars. Now if these commodities weren't traded in US-dollars but say in Euros, then maybe the chineese wouldn't keep so many dollars in their coffers....
Oil, and other resources, are traded in US$ for simplicity. The value of doing so to the US is mainly prestige. But the price in US$ is NOT FIXED, but are actively traded and market value is determined by current and anticipated demand. If the value of the US$ drops the price oil and other commodities will increase to compensate, immediately if not sooner (commodity traders are a savvy lot).
If the value of the US$ drops due to inflation or a decrease in interest rates, the value of other currencies (at least those without the same problems) will rise versus the US$ by a proportional amount, so they retain the same buying power. Then when it comes time to buy those commodities the foreign currency is valued at the current value in dollars and the purchase made, there is no increase in cost to the more stable currency. The only sure loss is if you are holding US$ at the time that the value drops.
Currencies that are tied to the dollar are limited to trading in a narrow range, primarily to dampen wild swings in value caused by speculators. If they bump up against a limit for several days though that is an indication that something is wrong and the range is recalculated, or trading will stop.
As for printing money, a certain amount of growth in the money supply is required to accommodate economic growth. Otherwise when people go to purchase the additional goods and service there is nothing to buy them with. Economics dictate that when there is a surplus of something the price drops, and if there is not enough money that happens to everything at the same time and you get deflation. If there is too much money you get inflation. The exact relationship between the total economy and the money supply is referred to as the velocity of money, but that is just a measurement of something much more complicated and not well understood. Since even a little deflation tends to damage economic growth more than a moderate amount inflation, the FED tries to keep the economy slightly biased on the inflation side, as long as it can keep out of politics. Sadly this is not one of those times, as you have noted.
If the value of the US$ drops the price oil and other commodities will increase to compensate, immediately if not sooner (commodity traders are a savvy lot).
No, that obviously not the case with oil.
What is the case is that if F.ex. Sweden's currency drop, then oil meassured in Swedish currency would increase to compensate (the swedes have to exchange swedish kroner to dollars to make the buy). but That's not how it is for the US dollar.
Somebody called this a conspiracy theorm, and it is, but is one of the few that got a rationale.
There are just too many people who could make a fortune exploiting the ‘middle’ this creates. It is not sustainable, even for a short while.
What do you think they do in OPEC? Drink coffee or manipulate the oil price?
Compare a US-dollar economy and a country with a different currency. When exchange rates change, it's not the same thing that happens, because the price of oil is set in dollars.
The conspiracy theorem that connects to this, is the one f.ex. Ron Paul has put forth in the US congress; That the dollar monopoly is maintained under the threath of war.
That's not what I am saying, that's Ron Paul.
The conspiracy theorem that connects to this, is the one f.ex. Ron Paul has put forth in the US congress; That the dollar monopoly is maintained under the threath of war.
That's not what I am saying, that's Ron Paul.
Figures. One more reason to never vote for the idiot.
Can you imagine what would happen if he were elected president and acted based on the assumption that these fantasies of his were true?
p.s. What does f.ex. stand for. I googled it and the only translation that seemed to make sense in context was obscene, which I very much doubt is your intent.
Figures. One more reason to never vote for the idiot.
Can you imagine what would happen if he were elected president and acted based on the assumption that these fantasies of his were true?
p.s. What does f.ex. stand for. I googled it and the only translation that seemed to make sense in context was obscene, which I very much doubt is your intent.
If I could, I wouldn't vote for him
Sorry "F.ex." is danish for: , "ex." "e.g.", "i.e."
(for an example, or the like). my fault.
War is not as glorius and fun as the movies and games make it to be specially if your on the ground or in a convoy waiting for an EFP to pop or not :-)
That there will be a war with Iran.. or any other nation... deffinately, it's the history of the world and those that think they control it.
War and rumours of wars will always be with us untill the end of time, no peace in case you wondered. We all want peace but man cant institute it... we are too divided and there is too many that want to rule the world...
Iran is sowing seed from which they are going to reap, come hell or high water!
Many people point fingers at other nations and say : "evil, arrogant etc." but they are just as arrogant and evil as those they are pointing at.
Iran wants to destroy Israel, they cant and wont....
I know i'm saying a lot but war, i believe, is the issue here and the motives behind those that want it.
Not all those pushing for it is evil but still if one can avoid it, lets do so!
[Admin Edit: Lets learn to spell and follow forum rules and NO jabs at other countries when they are not even part of the topic!!! http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php ]
As i said it's easy to say war but fighting it is another ball game... precious blood is going to be spilt. It better be for a better cause than greed.
Last edited by WebMaster; February 4th, 2012 at 04:24 PM.
The U.S. hasn't forgotten about the Iranian hostage ordeal. In the long run the U.S. already have plans draw up to hit Iran or create ideal situation where regime change will take place. The Iranians on the other hand has been planning to defend itself against the U.S. . The Iranians lack the technology they use other way to defend itself such as milllions of miltias. The U.S. will do sometime in the future it will hit Iran in some form whether airstrikes or covert operations. The U.S. just waiting for the right time to strike. Overall it going to happen. The Iranian know its going to happen just can't get modern aircrafts or air defense equipment to counter the U.S. airstrikes.
________________
there can only be one
Last edited by surpreme; March 18th, 2012 at 01:57 AM.
The U.S. hasn't forgotten about the Iranian hostage ordeal.
And the Iranians haven't forgotten that the U.S., and a whole list of other countries, supported Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war - they remained silent when he invaded and they later provided Saddam with political, financial and military support .
Quote:
Originally Posted by surpreme
TThe U.S. will do sometime in the future it will hit Iran in some form whether airstrikes or covert operations.
What makes you think that covert actions have not been in place these past few years.
Cover actions could be in the form of aiding Iranian exiles, disinformation, the killing of people involved in the Iranian nuclear programme, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by surpreme
The Iranians lack the technology they use other way to defend itself such as milllions of miltias.
Quote:
Originally Posted by surpreme
The Iranian know its going to happen just can't get the right or modern aircrafts or air defense equipment to counter the U.S. airstrikes.
There are many ways in which the Iranians can cause trouble for the U.S. and its allies away from Iranian soil. Iranian retaliation can come in the form of nuisance attacks on Israel by Hezbollah, increased support for Syria [which was the only Arab country to back Iran during the 8 year war], asymmetric attacks on shipping in the Gulf and maybe even stirring up trouble in Afghanistan, where it has some influence. The question is how many air attacks is Israel or the U.S. willing to launch on Iran, if these air attacks will produce the desired results and what the overall consequences will be? What will the U.S. and Israel do next if even after a number of devastating air attacks, intel comes in that the Iranians are still active in trying to develop nukes?
Certain quarters have argued that instead of using military means to deal with an alleged Iranian nuke weapons programme, which may or may not exist, perhaps certain countries should use it in places where it is needed, like Syria.
And the Iranians haven't forgotten that the U.S., and a whole list of other countries, supported Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war - they remained silent when he invaded and they later provided Saddam with political, financial and military support
No, but they seem to have forgotten that Israel DID support Iran during this war, selling nearly 750 million USD worth of weapons to Iran. Sure, it was likely in Israels interest to keep the war going for as long as possible, but it may well have prevented an Iranian defeat and did contribute to the stalemate that eventually ended it.
Quote:
What makes you think that covert actions have not been in place these past few years. Cover actions could be in the form of aiding Iranian exiles, disinformation, the killing of people involved in the Iranian nuclear programme, etc.
You are correct here. I have little doubt that this has been occurring. The deaths of the Iranian scientists is a good indicator of this.
Quote:
There are many ways in which the Iranians can cause trouble for the U.S. and its allies away from Iranian soil. Iranian retaliation can come in the form of nuisance attacks on Israel by Hezbollah, increased support for Syria [which was the only Arab country to back Iran during the 8 year war], asymmetric attacks on shipping in the Gulf and maybe even stirring up trouble in Afghanistan, where it has some influence. The question is how many air attacks is Israel or the U.S. willing to launch on Iran, if these air attacks will produce the desired results and what the overall consequences will be? What will the U.S. and Israel do next if even after a number of devastating air attacks, intel comes in that the Iranians are still active in trying to develop nukes?
Certain quarters have argued that instead of using military means to deal with an alleged Iranian nuke weapons programme, which may or may not exist, perhaps certain countries should use it in places where it is needed, like Syria.
There is no doubt that Iran could harass U.S. and Israeli interests in the region, however, I believe most would consider that an acceptable risk over the possibility of a nuclear armed Iran. Most Western sources would agree that this is not going to be a simply raid like those at the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq or the suspected Syrian reactor in the Deir ez-Zor region. To stop the Iranian program, the Iranian economy would almost be required to be seen as a target. The Iranian military would be hit to prevent sorties into the Gulf and disrupting the oil shipments and incursions into Iraq and / or Afghanistan, and missile attacks against the other Arabian oil producers, and Israel; and the Iranian oil facilities would likely be hit to reduce Iran's ability to recover from the attacks quickly.
Currently, I do not see Syria getting involved until its own internal troubles are brought under control.
. Even before the Arab Spring, Iran has always kept a ''protective'' eye out for its Shia brethren in places like Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Lebanon and Iraq. That's one reason why it supported the Northern Alliance way before 9/11 and way before 9//11 held a number of talks with the U.S. on how to contain the Taliban. In places like Karbala in Iraq, the Shiites there feel more affinity to Iran than they do with their own government and the same goes for shiites in Lebanon.
