Iran nuclear deal: Saudi Arabia warns it will strike out on its own

[oberliner]

Source: Telegraph UK

A senior advisor to the Saudi royal family has accused its Western allies of deceiving the oil rich kingdom in striking the nuclear accord with Iran and said Riyadh would follow an independent foreign policy.

Nawaf Obaid told a think tank meeting in London that Saudi Arabia was determined to pursue its own foreign and policy goals. Having in the past been reactive to events, the leading Sunni Muslim nation was determined to be pro-active in future.

Mr Obaid said that while Saudi Arabia knew that the US was talking directly to Iran through a channel in the Gulf state of Oman, Washington had not directly briefed its ally.

"We were lied to, things were hidden from us," he said. "The problem is not with the deal struck in Geneva but how it was done."

Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/10472538/Iran-nuclear-deal-Saudi-Arabia-warns-it-will-strike-out-on-its-own.html

[Scootaloo]

1. That is, the wahhabist shitheads are upset we won't be killing Shia for them

Truly, rivers overflow with my tears for them.

[Jesus Malverde]

12. They are upset because they have to leave their hotels in London, Paris, and Geneva.

The Saudi royal family spends most of their time outside of the desert kingdom.

The prospects of going home, makes them really really mad! Boo hoo

[The Stranger]

32. Hey, did you see this?

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/ira-car-bomb-targets-belfasts-top-shopping-mall-21003756

[Ichingcarpenter]

2. So Israel and Saudi Arabia are pissed at international agreements

I wonder if they will join forces and plan a false flag event somewhere to blame Iran for something somewhere?

[dipsydoodle]

3. "We were lied to, things were hidden from us,"

Oh boo fucking hoo you bell ends.

"Fuck off" comes to mind.

[Laelth]

4. k&r for exposure. n/t

-Laelth

[tridim]

5. The neocon dream is dead, and the neocons are pouting. So shocking.

Hey Saudi and Israel, maybe the real problem is you?

[Jesus Malverde]

13. The neocons may have been derailed.

Considering they operate without morals or scruples, this fifth column may be more dangerous than ever as they try to get the PNAC Express back on track.

[BumRushDaShow]

6. "the leading Sunni Muslim nation was determined to be pro-active"

Like providing the Saudis in this group?



The bottom line seems to be that Saudi, as the once grand and mythically revered oil kingdom, has been replaced by other oil producers. Of course the whole cartel will probably shift strategy now and start trying to ratchet down the production (pumping, mysterious tanker leaks) in order to get the prices back up again.

[Sunlei]

7. I hope any strikeback or chemical drift will remain in Saudi Arabia/Dubai area

[hatrack]

8. Good, leave, you fucking inbred hicks

[cosmicone]

9. Stupid

When was the last time Saudi Arabia fought a war that they won? The Ottomans kicked their ass, turned them around and kicked it again.

They have their kingdom because they signed sweetheart deals with British and Dutch oil companies or the brits would have massacred them as well.

Back when Saddam invaded Kuwait, I supported Saddam saying Kuwait is legitimately a part of Iraq and an artificially created country by the brits -- like many other so called countries around the world.

[lostincalifornia]

10. I need to wonder if Saudi Arabia is more upset because of the fall of oil prices

[madrchsod]

20. you are correct

with iranian oil more or less back on the market oil prices will soften.

actually the real fear the saudis have is the liberalizing of islam. the saudis feel that their version of islam is the only true path. if iran finally joins the western nations as a full partner it would limit the saudi`s influence in islam.

[madeline_con]

30. Ya think? ;) n/t

[CanonRay]

11. They're running out of oil and are scared shitless.

Bye bye...don't let the door hit you etc. etc.

[Jesus Malverde]

16. They have plenty of oil.

They see whats going on with their cousins in Bahrain and they know the clock is ticking...

[CanonRay]

23. That as well, but they're spending billions to pump seawater into their wells

a sure sign the wells are hitting the bottom of the proverbial barrel. There hasn't been a significant new oil find in Saudi Arabia since the 60's.

[madeline_con]

31. They've been doing that for 40 years that I know of. n/t

[happyslug]

19. No, the reason is the same reason the Russians went into Afghanistan in 1979

Last edited Tue Nov 26, 2013, 03:30 AM - Edit history (1)

The generation that ran the Soviet Union from the death of Stalin till Gorbachev, was the generation raised to do so by Stalin from 1938-1952. Earlier communists were all killed off in the Purges. The one thing this "Second Generation" had was unity do to a common fear, Stalin. That unity overcame ANY dogmatic differences in how the Soviet Union was to be run (unity was more important then Dogma to this Second Generation after Stalin). Most Second Generation had been in their 30s when promoted, some in their 20s. By the 1970s, they were in their 50s and 60s, 1980s 60s and 70s. It was time for a generational change.

Now, in the years before any generational change, the third generation, the children of the second generation, also adopt a very strict interpretation of what ever is the dogma of the Second Generation (to a degree unheard of except in speeches from Second Generation members) In the Case of the Soviet Union the Dogma was Communism, as interpreted by Stalin, but NOT attributed to Stalin for he had been a butcher (one of the differences between the Soviet Union's Second generation and most Second generation dictators, through most of that difference was lost when Brezhnev took over from Khrushchev).

One of the differences between the Second and Third generation is reflected in the practical parts of Stalinism which were followed by the Second Generation, but ignored by the third generation (and dismissed by the third Generation as some sort of corruption adopted by members of the Second Generation), On the other hand the underlying dogma was viewed as "perfect". Among these third generation members becoming better communists (without the purges of the 1930s) was the key to improving the Soviet Union, This rule not only applied to the Soviet Union but all of its Allies AND other countries in its sphere of influence.

Afghanistan was the lone country in the Soviet Sphere of Influence that was NOT Communist, in fact it was a Kingdom. That Stalin was the person who had selected the King and set up how Afghanistan was ruled was dismissed by the Third Generation as a mistake by Stalin that continued under the rule of the Second Generation.

Thus the third generation saw Afghanistan as something that had to be "Reformed" along "Communist Lines". Since Afghanistan was NOT a up front country (Like the Warsaw Pact countries were viewed), Afghanistan was one aspect of the countries in the Soviet Sphere of Influence that came under control of these Third Generation members first (The second generation stayed in controlled of the Military and the Warsaw Pact). This level of control by the third generation increased, as the Second generation slowly lost control in the 1970s as the members of the Second Generation died of old age.

In many ways this change of generation was the main internal problems within the Soviet Union in the 1970s. Among the Third Generation to get promoted members of the Third Generation had to know and cite Marxism, as it was dogma among the Second Generation. The problem was such citations without also having the restrictions on applying that dogma the hard experiences of living under Stalin had taught the Second Generation. Thus Afghanistan to the Third Generation, was NOT Communist, but had to become Communist. Thus reforms were introduced into Afghanistan, including after several years the removal of the King of Afghanistan. A Communist Government was declared in Afghanistan, but it refused to do ALL of the dogmatic change the Third Generation had been taught was required. The reason the Government of Afghanistan refused to implement all of the programs was do to opposition within Afghanistan (Stalin's reality and the reason Stalin had set up Afghanistan was ignored it had worked from 1950-1975, but it had to change). The problem was enough reforms had been introduced to get the citizens of Afghanistan to revolt. Do to that revolt something had to be done to suppress it for the Afghan Army could not do it, so the Soviet Union Invaded. Note it was the remaining members of the Second Generation who ordered the invasion, but the reason for the invasion had been the work of the third generation (including members of the Third Generation who thought it was a mistake). The invasion of Afghanistan was more to preserve the country within the Soviet Sphere of Influence than to impose Communist Dogma (But further implementation of Communists had to occur after the invasion for that was the Dogma of the Soviet Union).

Notice the 1970s saw the growing participation and thus power of the Third Generation as the Second Generation slowly died of old age. Final decisions was still in the hands of the Second Generation, but the Third Generation were moving up and making more and more of the decisions (both good and bad). Finally in the 1980s the Third Generation took over in the form of Gorbachev and the real infighting among the third generation started. Gorbachev was one wing of the third generation, Yeltsin another wing, the hard liners a third (with the KGB and its connections, including Putin a Fourth, please note Putin was to young to be a member of the Third Generation, he was a post generation figure that took over as the third generation broke up as the Soviet Union broke up and ended up picking up the pieces. Putin is NO STALIN but may be the first of a new group of rulers of Russia, a new first generation).

I go into the above for this is typical of dictatorships that do not dissolve within the life of the first dictator or break up right after his death Some dictators have been called Presidents, others Kings, Emperors, Emirs, or minor tiles like Chairmen (title of both Stalin and Mao), but you see this generational change over time. In the case of Saudi Arabia it is actual descendants of King Saud I, who died in 1952. Being a traditional kingdom with rulers being picked by blood, the pool of actual potential rulers are much smaller then it had been in the Soviet Union, It was clear the son of Stalin was NOT going to succeed Stalin (Through that fear ran in the minds of the Politburo till Stalin's only surviving son died in the early 1960s, thus the understanding of Stalin's son as a drunk, where there is hard evidence he drank no more then was typical of him or a person of his position within the Soviet Military).

King Saud I had united what we call Saudi Arabia from 1920 till his death in 1952. King Saud I ruled through religious dogma, but also military might. King Saud I, like Stalin tolerated no competitors so at his death the only people who could succeed him was the entourage around him. In the case of Stalin the other members of the Politburo, in the case of King Saud I his sons.

Thus Saudi Arabia is presently ruled by the Second Generation, but with most of that generation gone, most of the underlying power is in the hands of the Third Generation. The Third Generation is becoming more and more powerful as they take over more and more positions within Arabia. This movement has accelerated since 2000, as the deaths among the Second generation has accelerated.

At the same time, that Third Generation is fighting among themselves as to who will rule Saudi Arabia, using Islamic Dogma as a test (as Stalinism was used in the Soviet Union in the 1970s). The less dogmatic you are, the less chances of promotion. Blood is big in Saudi Arabia (it was less of a factor in the Soviet Union, one side affect is the death of the Soviet Union died in 1989, while Saudi Arabia is just entering its death spiral).

I bring Blood up, for the in fighting among the Third Generation is NOT Dogmatic as it had been in the Soviet Union, but by Blood. KIng Saud I had sons, but by many wives. The number of sons is believed to be above 50 at the time of the death of KIng Saud I. When the sons were running Saudi Arabia, they worked together for they learned to do so when their Father, King Saud I was alive (Like the people Stalin Installed in the period 1938-1952 period). The problem is the grandsons are moving up in the ranks and those grandsons are now at each other throats, trying to show other grandsons of KIng Saud I, that they can lead the country against its enemies. The main enemy are the Shiites who make most of the people who live in the richest oil producing area of Arabia. These Shiites are the enemy the House of Saud most fears much more then their fellow Shiites in Iran.

I have NOT seen any actual moves by Iran to expand its control. I have seen them support they fellow Shiites in the Persian Gulf States, but nothing more. I have seen Iran support Syria, who they view as an ally AND Gaza (And this is strange for Gaza is noted to be a Sunni dominated area, and the Syrians rulers, the House of Assad, as heretics by BOTH Sunni and Shiites).

Thus the War in Syria is NOT a move by Iran to take over Syria, but Saudi Arabia to take over Syria. The bombings in Iraq is similar, it is bombing of Shiites not Sunnis, again to expand Sunni (and Saudi Arabian) control. Thus it appears to Saudi Arabia is on the March into Shiite lands, just like the Soviet Union moved into Afghanistan in the 1970s. More a demand that such countries become more loyal to the country whose sphere of influence they are in, then anything external i.e. Iran itself.

Libya is another Sunni Country taken over by Forces funded by Saudi Arabia, to strengthen Saudi Arabian power among OPEC nations AND fellow Sunni and Arab nations.

Side Note on Syria: During the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and ever after 2000, Syria was funded by Saudi Arabia and the Rulers of Syria moved their branch of Islam more and more into orthodox Sunni dogma. On the other hand that religion not only had strong Shiite roots, it had even stronger Christian Roots (They celebrate several Christian Holidays in addition to Traditional Islamic Holidays). Thus The religion of the House of Assad was NOT of the same Islamic branch that is practiced in Saudi Arabia.

Like Afghanistan to the Soviet Union, this difference in dogma was not a problem till dogma over came Political reality as the Third Generation replaced the Second Generation, Thus the Civil War in Syria appears to be a plan by people within the Third generation rulers of Arabia to make Syria more in line with their branch of Islam, just like the third generation of Stalinist did the same with Afghanistan in the 1970s.

Remember, when reality over came dogma, the Third generations of Stalinist forced the Second Generation (who were still in control at the top in the 1970s) to invade to save Afghanistan from the mistakes the Third g=Generation had done in Afghanistan by ignoring reality. I suspect the same with the recent movement in the Middle East. The Third Generation are flexing their wings as they position themselves as the best defender of Islam among their fellow Third Generation. Remember it is NOT the actual defense of Islam that is important, but the appearance that one can defend Islam (Remember Defense of Islam AND preserving the Wealth of the family of King Said I is viewed as one and the same, by defending Islam, you defend the wealth of the House of Saud).

Thus this level of infighting within Saudi Arabia, right now not at the drawing blood level, but we are getting close.

This is typical. If you read history you see it time after time. A Great Leader takes over a country, makes it strong, his sons take over at his death and it remains strong, then as the grandsons take over, not being raised together, they fight over the empire, weaken the Empire and it collapses (Or someone else takes over the Empire or a part of the Empire and the cycle re-starts). Thus Genghis Khan took over half of Asia, his sons expanded it, and then his grandsons fought over it and divided among themselves. In turn those grandsons became the founder of new countries and we see the grandsons of those grandsons fighting over what remains (in the Case of the Khan of the Golden Horde, being taken over by Russia, in the case of Kublai Khan his Grandsons losing China to the Ming Dynasty).

What I fear is something similar is happening in Saudi Arabia, the Grandsons of KIng Saud I are fighting among themselves over who will rule when the time comes to replace the last Second Generation king with a Third Generation King. From 1952 onward, whenever a King of Saudi Arabia died, he was replaced by one of his brothers, but the number of such brothers is running out, thus soon we will see a Third Generation King of Saudi Arabia. The issue is WHO (and remember Gorbachev, his election to be ruler of the Soviet Union did NOT end the infighting, in 1991 you had the coup attempt that lead to the dissolution of the Soviet Union and that failed coup put Yeltsin on top. Then ten years later Yeltsin was replaced by Putin).

This is the fear driving the actions of Saudi Arabia, they will have oil for the next 30 years at present rate of extraction, With the drop in oil production in Russia, Mexico, the North Sea and Alaska's North Slope, the price will remain high (Fracking has NOT come near to what these oil fields produced and is NOT expected to do so). The issue is NOT drop in income do to drop in oil production (The expected increase in oil prices will more then compensate for the expected drop in production), the fear is WHO in Saudi Arabia gets to decide WHO gets what money in Saudi Arabia. Right now that is up to the remaining Second Generation, the problem is the Third Generation are maneuvering for position to decided which one of them will get to decide who gets how much. That is the real problem in Saudi Arabia and why the current conflict. It is NOT oil, per se, but who gets the money from that oil.

[Ghost Dog]

29. Thank you. This is excellent information,

writing and food for thought.

[Scootaloo]

33. You're actually wrong, regarding Afghanistan...

Mohammed Zahir Shah became king of Afghanistan in the usual way - Inherited from his father, Mohammed Nadir Shah, in 1933. Stalin had nothing to do with it. Nor did Stalin have anything to do with the coup d'etat that transformed Afghanistan from a monarchy to a socialist democracy in 1973 (Seeing as Stalin was pretty dead, by then). Zahir was actually a decent guy about it - he abdicated, rather than fight to keep the throne, and years later in 2002, made it clear that he would not seek involvement in Afghanistan politics unless the people so desired - they apparently didn't. Of course, by 2002, he was ninety-two years old, and he died two years later.

The soviets went into Afghanistan because they were asked to. Both the National Revolutionary Party that took power in 1973, and the Communist People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan were aligned with the soviets, but were not part of the soviet bloc (think Mongolia.) However, interfactional fighting and the assassination of Mir Akbar Khybar led to the counter-assassination of President Daoud by the communists, who seized power. At this point, the United States became involved - rather than see Afghanistan slip further into leftism, President Carter signed onto Operation Cyclone, which provided funding and arms for counter-revolutionary guerrillas in Afghanistan.

Faced with this new insurgency, the Tariki government appealed to the Soviets for aid, which they provided. This prompted full-bore international arms and funding for the militants the US had hired, leading to the decade of war in Afghanistan, the civil war, all theway up to the Taliban.

[happyslug]

34. Afghanistan was in the sphere of Influence of Russia since the 1830s

More as the Afghan looked for support in their wars with the British out of British India. The revolution of 1917, gave the British an opportunity to extend their influence, but by the early 1930s, Afghanistan was within the orbit of the Soviet Union,. Like the Rulers of Poland, East Germany and most of the members of the Warsaw Pact from 1945 till 1989, the Rulers of Afghanistan had to be agreeable to the Soviet Union, Technically all of those countries picked their own leaders, but it was understood the Soviet Union had finally say on the Selection, Thus, while it is true Stalin did pick him directly, it was understood Stalin had final say. Thus till Stalin died in 1952, who ruled Afghanistan that person was Stalin's hand pick choice. The remain the case till the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991.

As I pointed out the Young Turks of the Third Generation had screwed up Afghanistan so much, that the locals had to ask the remaining Second generation to intervene,. Thus while our prospectives and what caused the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, that the Soviet Union invaded THEIR ALLY Afghanistan is not is dispute.

I was going into WHY the Soviet Union intervened, not the excuses used to justify that intervention,

[Bradical79]

14. So much anger over lack of war

Amazing how crazy angry certain factions are that war MAY have been averted. It's not even a guarantee as it requires a lot of follow through with Iran and the international community. President Obama hasn't even taken military intervention off the table, yet certain people are practically foaming at the mouth. A case of being able to tell the President has taken the right approach just by the type of reaction it's caused. When the leaders of one of the most oppressive nations in the world, Israel's war hungry leadership, and our right wing religious nuts are all this upset, it tells me something good has happened. I have no idea if the deal will work out in the long run, but I'm glad that his administration has not caved into the demands of these powerful lobbies in this case. The U.S. shouldn't be anybody's lap dog, no matter how much money they throw at our political system.

[karynnj]

15. Seems they are angry because they did not control our foreign policy

To me, every country should have their own foreign policy. Saudi Arabia certainly has always had its own policy - and most of us can remember when they did things that were not in our interest. This includes being part of OPEC which at one point controlled the price of oil and sometimes threatened to use that control politically.

I don't really get why they have a problem with the US and Iran secretly sounding on whether to go for a deal. It is pretty easy to realize that telling every ME country what we were doing would quickly jeopardize the entire effort as one country or another publicly condemned the effort.

Not to mention, Saudi Arabia has been at odds with the US for the last year - or longer. For one, they wanted us to be militarily involved in Syria - and they did not mean the action Obama spoke of because of chemical weapons use. The US has publicly defended its own policies to Saudi Arabia - http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/kerry-meets-with-saudi-king-abdullah-amid-policy-differences-on-mideast-issues/2013/11/04/4dbf204a-4554-11e3-a196-3544a03c2351_story_1.html

Personally, I am glad that the administration is looking at OUR national interests - not that of countries like Saudi Arabia.

[geek tragedy]

17. This deal pissed off all the right people.

The Saudis, the Israelis, the Republicans.

[oberliner]

18. Not all the right people

Syrian government welcomes Iran deal

DAMASCUS, Syria — Syria’s state media said the nation’s government welcomes the international community’s nuclear deal with Iran, calling it a “historic agreement.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/syrian-government-welcomes-iran-deal-100299.html#ixzz2lgAHFTRL

[jsr]

21. Fuck Saudi Arabia.

[Psephos]

22. All the Saudis have to do is switch from petrodollars to petroyuan for international oil sales.

That will be the end of the USD as world reserve currency, and the beginning of extreme pain for the US.

[okaawhatever]

24. The Chinese screw with the value of their money too much. Not to mention the stability. China is a

currency manipulator and can't back Saudi Arabia militarily. A shift to China would leave them vulnerable.

[Psephos]

25. The Saudis now fully realized their US "alliance" has made them quite vulnerable.

In the military sense, with the botched Egypt, Libya and Syria fiascoes as Exhibits A, B, and C. Iran is the last straw.

And more importantly, in the financial sense, with the US printing billions of faux dollars every single day, and then having the nerve to pass these imaginary dollars off for real goods, such as oil. The amount of worldwide resentment this creates is almost completely ignored in the US. (But not for long.)

When the dollar is no longer the official currency used to buy and sell oil, gas will be $10/gallon here, and imports of all kinds will double in price. That will happen almost overnight. Take a look at what's happening in Venezuela for a current example of what happens when no one wants your currency.

There is a reason the US has secretly sold much of its gold reserves, while the Chinese have been buying gold hand over fist. The US is trying to manipulate interest rates to keep them way below normal, because interest on the US debt would bankrupt the country if they rose to the levels that existed for all but the past ten years.

Meanwhile, the Chinese plan to back their currency with gold, and make it the world's reserve currency. They will become the sole financial superpower the moment that happens.

[defacto7]

26. I'm no economist.. but,

What makes us feel like the US debt means anything? at all? that is has any effect in the long haul except fear of it? We still have a debt for the Civil War that is unpaid but it has become insignificant due to the expansion of the US economy since then. Our problem is not with our debt to China or anyone else, our problem is a stagnant economy. Turn the economy loose through government program stimulus and the debt becomes a non contender at home or abroad. In that scenario, China needs us more than we need them, same with SA.

The debt is a smoke screen for fear mongering by the GOP which plays into their gutting of the US government and economy for the enrichment of corporations and other power structures... and in some extreme cases, to bring on a BS religious Armageddon.

Well, that's what I see.

[happyslug]

27. The Civil War Debt was paid off in 1874

And that rapid pay off, to get the US Dollar back to $20 to an ounce of Gold, caused the "Long Depression" of 1873-1898. Prior to the 1930s it was referred to as the "Great Depression" till the Depression of the 1930s took over that name.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Depression

Now some historians like using 1873-1879 and then call the subsequent bad period a boom broken by several other recessions as opposed to one long bad time period. The next recession was in 1882 to 1885, then 1887 to 1888, then 1890-1891, then 1893 to 1894 then 1895-1897. At that point you had massive gold coming from then new mines in Australia, South African and Alaska that lead to "Gold Inflation", i.e. what $20 in gold could buy in 1897, fell as this new gold lead to a drop in demand for gold. This inflation was what was needed and produced a post 1897 boom, that was seperated by mild recessions till 1907.

List of US recessions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States

Following the end of the episode in 1879, the U.S. economy would remain unstable, experiencing recessions for 114 of the 253 months until January 1901

Just pointing out the Civil War Debt has been paid off (Now Pensions lasted longer, the last one died in January 2003, yes the 21st century). Thus the DEBT was paid off, but Pensions continued to be paid till 2003 (The actual pensions were quite small, not increases after the reform of Pension Law in the late 1950s. While the original pensions did not increase, such widows were eligible for the "Improved Pension" program if they income was low (which was the case of the last Union Civil War Widow).

[defacto7]

28. Wow, good information it looks like...

It differs from a program I listened to this morning concerning the dangers of Austerity where the author of the book Austerity, The History of a Dangerous idea by Mark Blythe states that there is still a Civil war debt and it is insignificant merely due to the expansion of the economy. I'll look a little closer at the details.

Thanks. I appreciate clarity.

[defacto7]

35. Just another info update..

Hi happyslug,

I was searching a little concerning the source of my comment namely Mark Blythe. He is a Professor of Political Science and Director of the International Relations & Development at Brown University. I would like to know where he gets his idea that we still owe on the Civil War debt. Wikipedia is a pretty good source but it's not always correct and Prof. Blythe seems to be no slouch either but professors at major universities have been known to make mistakes.

If I had to choose, I probably would still choose your wikipedia source but only because it's more detailed, but since I don't have to choose it just becomes more of a conundrum... Wikipedia vs. a Professor of Economics at Brown U. Who's correct? I don't know. But I do like his disdain for Austerity and he makes a good argument against it.

[happyslug]

36. One of the problem is HOW do you define the Civil War Debt AND how it is paid off

Last edited Thu Nov 28, 2013, 10:11 AM - Edit history (2)

If you include the Pensions, then they were NOT paid in full till 2003 when the last Pension expired with the death of the last widow.

If you EXCLUDE Pensions, then the DEBTS issued during the Civil War were paid off in full by 1874 (When that was done, Congress in 1875 abolished the Civil War Income Tax, which had been passed by Congress in 1862, and ruled Constitutional by the US Supreme Court also in 1862, unlike 1894 when the Court ruled the Income Tax passed in the 1890s unconstitutional and ignored their decision of 1862).

Now, a complication to this is that the US issued "Fractional Currency" during the Civil War. This currency was down to three cent bills (and Stamps were used as currency). The reason for this was simple, people wanted to hold onto Gold and Silver coins in case of problem do to the Civil War. Thus Congress decided to issued paper money, and issued a law making it legal tender (that law is still on the books). Some of this Paper currency, including fractional currency has NEVER been turned in, thus outstanding debts from the Civil war period (most are held by collectors). Some of this money is still outstanding, and thus a "debt" from the Civil War.

Paying off the war debt was NOT enough for the Post Civil War Congress, it also wanted to return the value of the Dollar to its pre Civil War Value of $20 to an ounce of Gold. This was done by the Federal Government buying gold till the value of Gold was $20 to an ounce of Gold, and that was achieved in 1879 (At the tell end of the first recession of the Long Depression, The Recession ended in 1879, but then another recession started soon afterward, and this patten continued till 1897 when new Gold Fields in Alaska, South Africa and Australia opened up and started a new period of "Gold Inflation&quot .

Gold Inflation is when the value of Gold in terms of Dollars is steady, but what you can buy with that ounce of Gold or $20 declines. The decline in purchasing power in called Gold inflation, do to more Gold chasing less goods. The US and the World went through this in the 1850s do to the California Gold entering the world market, and again in the post 1897 period as Gold From Alaska, South African and Australia stated to enter the market (a similar period of "Gold Inflation occurred in the 1500s do to the massive importation of Gold ad Silver from the Conquest of Mexico and Peru). In between these Gold Inflation periods, you had deflation do to no or little gold entering the market (but a massive amount of Silver from Nevada after the Civil War, thus the demand to mint Silver Coins from the 1880s onward, to inflate the value of US Dollars, even if that meant the value of the US Dollars in term of GOLD would decline.

Back to the paying of the Civil War Debt. The last time the US paid off its entire debt was during the term of President Jackson (Which lead to a massive recession afterward). To pay off that debt, taxes had to be raised thus the Tariff was raised under Jackson. South Carolina hated the increase Tariffs for they imported most of their goods from England at that time period, and thus you had the Nullifications crisis, where South Carolina claimed the right to "Nullify" any federal law it disagreed with. To put down this rebellion, Jackson threaten to send in troops, and to get support from the nearest states to South Carolina to help him put down South Carolina, he agreed to let North Carolina, Tennessee and Georgia to sell the lands held by the Creeks, Cherokees and other tribes still in their states. Yes we paid off the Federal Debt on the backs of the Native Americans who had to move west in the trail of tears).

Since the time of Jackson, the Government has, at times, paid down the total debt but has never really paid it 100% off (No more valuable Native American land to steal, the Plains Native Americans land value did not come close to what the lands of Georgia, Tennessee and North Carolina came to thus not enough value to pay off the debt). Debt was issued all the time by the Federal Government, sometimes for nothing more then to pay ongoing debts (i.e. salaries of the troops and other Federal Employees) till the tax revenue came in.

On top of debts used to pay off ongoing debts (like wages), and some of this new debt was used to pay off old debts. This paying off of old debts by new debts occurs all the time. Except for WWI and WWII, and the post 1960 era, except for some exceptions (early 1930s are one), revenue exceeds new debts, thus part of the debt was paid off. There is two way to account for this excess of revenue over new debts, LIFO or FIFO.

Last in First Out (LIFO) in the accounting system that says any excess of revenue over payments is used to pay off the most recently incurred debts. LIFO became popular in the 1960s and 1970s, for it increased the cost of Goods Sold column in most accounting system, which is used to reduce the value of sales to get to Gross income. i.e Income less Cost of Goods Good equal "Gross Income" which in turn subject to other deductions become Taxable income. In times of inflation LIFO increases the Cost of Goods sold (for the most recent good purchased tend to be the highest priced) and thus decreases Taxable Income.
e
FIFO, First in first out, is the accounting system where you take the value of the oldest items in inventory and use that value to reduce sales to get to Gross income and then to Taxable Income.

Since the US has NEVER fully paid back its debts since the times of President Jackson, if you take a LIFO approach to the Civil War Debts, some of it is still outstanding, through the debts in more recent years have been paid in full. Remember, LIFO is Last In First Out. Thus any excess of revenue over the last 30 years is applied first to the debts incurred in the last 30 years NOT the Civil War Debts. Under LIFO the Civil War Debts may NEVER be accounted paid till the US pays off ALL of its debts as it did under President Jackson.

On the other hand if we use a traditional FIFO accounting system and states that any excess in revenue went to the oldest debts first, it was paid off in the 1870s. 1874 would be to early, some of the Civil War Debts would have been rolled over and paid by new debts, but those debts were all paid off while before 1879 when the Dollar returned to $20 to an ounce of Gold.

Just a comment, that there are many ways to look at debts. LIFO and FIFO are inventory accounting systems to allocate sales to the cost of those sales. Such allocation is the center of any Actual Accounting System, which is the system used by private businesses for it more accurately shows they income.

The Government does NOT keep an inventory of goods it later plans to sell (The Government may had items it does sell, but buying things to sell is NOT the main purpose of the US Government). The US Government uses a Cash Accounting system NOT an Accrual Accounting system.

Side Note: Silver Coins came back into general use in the 1870s, but there was resistance to it, for Silver had dropped in price from 1857 (In 1857 the US Congress revised the coins system of the US, do to the fact it could do so given the massive influx of Gold From California AND Silver from Nevada). These standards remained the Standard till Clad Coinage replaced Silver in 1964. There was never a change in Gold Coins since 1857, for they were all confiscated in 1934 and none minted since the early 1930s). The gold from California brought with it a drop in the value of Gold, the silver from Nevada brought with it a drop in the value of Silver. THe decline in both Gold and Silver Value ended during the Civil War, but the value of gold was stable after 1865, while the value of Silver continued to drop (By 1900, the Silver in a Silver Dollar had dropped to be only 55 cents, when in 1857 it had been one Dollar).
This drop in price of silver meant that dollars could be issued AND prevent the dollar from dropping to $20 to an ounce of GOLD,.

Thus we may BOTH be right, but using definition of Civil War Debt AND how it is paid off. The last time ALL debts of the US was paid off was under President Jackson in the 1820s (Which also lead to a massive recession the recession of the 1830s). Since that date part of the debt has been paid off by new debt. On the other hand most of the Civil War debt was paid off by 1874, just part of the debt was paid off by new debt (and most of that debt reflected paying current bills till the taxes came in to pay the debts back).

This was complicated by the Politics of Taxation from 1863 to 1913. The main source of income for the Federal Government was the tariff. The GOP supported HIGH Tariffs to protect domestic producers, even if the Tariff were so high, people did not import things. On the other hand the Democratic Party of that time period wanted to Lower Tariffs, to permit more imports AND MORE REVENUE TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Thus the Democratic Party when it controlled Congress, had more money to spend do to the lower taxes and higher revenue. The GOP when it was in power RAISED tariffs that cut revenue and thus had to cut expenditures do to lack of income.

Now, every so often this is brought up today, as an example when taxes are so high that revenue drops. The problem is the Tariffs have NOT been that high since the 1930s. Neither party wanted High Tariffs after WWII, for we had to support out allies and a high Tariff would wreck those economies. I mention it only to show that the US had the ability to pay off those debts in the 1870s, and 1880s and did so. Some debts continued (like Pensions) but all were minor compared to what had been the debt after the Civil War. Thus the Government does NOT use LIFO or FIFO. I bring LIFO and FIFO up for similar systems are used by people who want to claim the US has not paid off its Civil War Debts. You do NOT use them in Government or Non-profit agencies for these should have no profit to pay taxes on.

On the other hand, I have seen people use LIFO accounting to show that the Civil War Debt is not paid off, for debts incurred more recently are viewed as being paid off as oppose to applying those payments to the Civil War debts. i.e $1 million dollar to pay off the debts is applied to the Debts incurred by Reagan NOT the Civil War Debts, thus the debt incurred under Reagan is reduced, but the debt left over from the Civil War remains "unpaid". i.e. an accounting game.

Side note: Another claims for unpaid Civil War Debts involved the 14th amendment. THe 14th Amendment has four section, Section 4 forbids the payment of any debt incurred in rebellion against the US. This comes up every so often by Credit Holders of debt of various Southern States incurred between 1861-1865. Every so often. People try to claim money raised by such States to pay such debt. The states site the 14th Amendment saying they can NOT pay off those debts. Such cases never gets to court in the US for the Federal Courts knows of Section 4 and will enforce it. On the other hand some people in England tries to bring it up in English and other Foreign Courts, but it is generally dismissed as soon as it is filed for lack of Jurisdiction. Under Section 4 of the 14th Amendment, these Civil War debts can NEVER be paid off. This includes debt of those Southern States incurred pre Civil War, if such debts (and all of them were), rolled over during the Civil War as those States look for revenue to fight the Civil War. Thus these debt will NEVER be paid for it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to pay them, but at the same time an "Outstanding Civil War Debt".

[defacto7]

37. And there we have it....

Now that's an education for me. It makes sense and it completes the missing details.

Very nice summation. Thank you very much.

[happyslug]

38. I did not like what I had Written, so I rewrote it

You may want to re read it, I tried to address the same issues, accounting. Accounting is an Art (they claim it is a Science, but if you ever looked at the GAAP, General Accepted Accounting Principals, you quickly see it is more an art then a science). I have an accounting under graduated degree so I can say that with confidence (I am NOT in the profession and thus can point out Accounting is less a Science then an Art).

I hold a BS in Accounting, a Bachelor of Science. BS are given for they sound better then a BA, Bachelor of Arts. The Difference between a BA and BS is how a profession wants to view itself, for the last 100 years Science has had a higher status then Arts, thus BS are preferred to BAs. There is no real Difference between a BA and a BS, but the BS has a higher status.

Having an Accounting Back ground lets me see accounting tricks when they pop up. The line that some of the Civil War Debts is outstanding is one of them. The Civil War debt is only outstanding if you play with the numbers to show some of those debts have not been paid off, one way is to apply revenue to later incurred debts, thus leaving the Civil War Debts "Unpaid". Remember the old saying "Figures don't lie, but Liars Figure". The same with accounting, people lie with numbers all the time, you have to be careful when people cite numbers to make sure the numbers are real.

[defacto7]

39. That's pretty amazing, happyslug.

I appreciate your effort to make some logical and historical sense of the issue. Some people hate details... I swim in details for the fun of it. Thanks!