179 replies to this topic

[Little Fish]

defining it in terms of countries or oil companies gaining physical ownership of libyan oil is too simplistic. it was mainly about stopping libya switching away from the dollar as payment for its oil. the video bee posted explains that gaddaffi wanted to only exchange oil for gold. this would be disastrous for the dollar since all payments worldwide for oil are made in dollars creating a huge market for dollars, and the US can create as many dollars as it wants out of thin air. this has the effect that the US owns all the worlds oil no matter who uses or buys it, since it has limitless dollars and oil can only be traded for dollars meaning all other countries have to buy dollars to purchase oil. without this petrodollar system the dollar and the US empire would collapse. Same with iraq, saddam hussein switched away from the dollar to the euro as payment for oil just before he got whacked.

[Corp]

...what?!?

Ok the US can't just create as much money as they wanted because this would cause massive inflation and further ruin their economy. Why are they in massive debt again if they have access to magic money trees? As for controling all the oil...news to them. Hell news to the whole damn world.

And once again: the US was not the driving force behind the Libyan intervention, it was France and the rest of Europe!

[Little Fish]

Corp, on 26 October 2011 - 06:52 PM, said:

...what?!?

Ok the US can't just create as much money as they wanted because this would cause massive inflation and further ruin their economy.

as long as there is a market for dollars outside of the US borders then it will not cause massive inflation. if the world stops paying for oil in dollars then those dollars come back to the US and the currency collapses causing massive inflation. as I said, oil is priced in dollars and traded mainly on NY and London exchanges. you need dollars to buy oil so oil price increase creates a demand for more dollars. this is what happened in the 1970s, US policy was to quadruple oil price to create demand for a collapsing dollar. the net effect is that the US owns the wealth of the worlds oil. every barrel pumped creates wealth for the US.

Quote

Why are they in massive debt again if they have access to magic money trees?

the USG borrows money from private banks, the USG gave away its power to print its own money with the federal reserve act in 1913. these private banks have magic money trees in that those banks don't actually have money to lend, they create money out of thin air and then 'lend' it to governments. by 'US', I mean USG + federal reserve.

[The New Richard Nixon]

Little Fish, on 26 October 2011 - 07:59 PM, said:

as long as there is a market for dollars outside of the US borders then it will not cause massive inflation. if the world stops paying for oil in dollars then those dollars come back to the US and the currency collapses causing massive inflation. as I said, oil is priced in dollars and traded mainly on NY and London exchanges. you need dollars to buy oil so oil price increase creates a demand for more dollars. this is what happened in the 1970s, US policy was to quadruple oil price to create demand for a collapsing dollar. the net effect is that the US owns the wealth of the worlds oil. every barrel pumped creates wealth for the US.

the USG borrows money from private banks, the USG gave away its power to print its own money with the federal reserve act in 1913. these private banks have magic money trees in that those banks don't actually have money to lend, they create money out of thin air and then 'lend' it to governments. by 'US', I mean USG + federal reserve.

If your statement is true, then why attack an all'ies supply of oil?

[Q24]

Little Fish, on 26 October 2011 - 05:22 PM, said:

defining it in terms of countries or oil companies gaining physical ownership of libyan oil is too simplistic. it was mainly about stopping libya switching away from the dollar as payment for its oil. the video bee posted explains that gaddaffi wanted to only exchange oil for gold. this would be disastrous for the dollar since all payments worldwide for oil are made in dollars creating a huge market for dollars, and the US can create as many dollars as it wants out of thin air. this has the effect that the US owns all the worlds oil no matter who uses or buys it, since it has limitless dollars and oil can only be traded for dollars meaning all other countries have to buy dollars to purchase oil. without this petrodollar system the dollar and the US empire would collapse. Same with iraq, saddam hussein switched away from the dollar to the euro as payment for oil just before he got whacked.

Which is why the U.S. have upped the game against Iran too.

It was toward the end of 2005, after the Iranian oil bourse was announced, that the war drums really started beating.

http://en.wikipedia....nian_oil_bourse

[Little Fish]

Erix, on 26 October 2011 - 08:50 PM, said:

If your statement is true, then why attack an all'ies supply of oil?

I have absolutely no way of understanding your point.

[Habitat]

British SAS are hunting Gaddafi's son in the Libyan desert. Are they hunting the rebels who lynched his old man and his supporters ? Of course not, this action is not about humanitarian transgressions, it is about regime change, except this time the pretexts are unusually unconvincing. Few will mourn the passing of this dictator, but the brutality being masked by the pretence of humanitarian motives is very unsettling.

[bee]

747400, on 26 October 2011 - 12:44 PM, said:

So basically then, Gadaffi was not actually disliked by his own people [there's a video on YouTUbe! So that proves it!],

yes

Quote

and it was all a Conspiracy by the usual suspects to get their hands on his Oil. [   ]

Quote

Do people not want to consider that it may have been what it said on the label, and that his own people did want to get rid of him? I wonder why that might be; is it that the intellectuals who form Conspiracy theories are actually secretly afraid of the Masses, and would prefer that the only ones who did have any power or influence were the Usual suspects who they claim to be opposed to?  Or is it just that the Global Baddie, the U.S., was involved, and so it obviously has to be a sinister plot?
And frankly, even if it was the Usual suspects, I say good riddance to the cowardly little rat.

well, in fairness, you're not the only one thinking that.....this fellow would agree with you


http://www.telegraph...aeda-links.html



whoops.....

[bee]

Habitat, on 26 October 2011 - 11:59 PM, said:

British SAS are hunting Gaddafi's son in the Libyan desert. Are they hunting the rebels who lynched his old man and his supporters ? Of course not, this action is not about humanitarian transgressions, it is about regime change, except this time the pretexts are unusually unconvincing. Few will mourn the passing of this dictator, but the brutality being masked by the pretence of humanitarian motives is very unsettling.

well said Habitat...it IS very unsettling

I hope his son gets away...but it will be a miracle if he does

all this does not bode well for the future...IMO..people really are sick and tired of this kind of thing

[bee]

Little Fish, on 26 October 2011 - 05:22 PM, said:

defining it in terms of countries or oil companies gaining physical ownership of libyan oil is too simplistic. it was mainly about stopping libya switching away from the dollar as payment for its oil. the video bee posted explains that gaddaffi wanted to only exchange oil for gold. this would be disastrous for the dollar since all payments worldwide for oil are made in dollars creating a huge market for dollars, and the US can create as many dollars as it wants out of thin air. this has the effect that the US owns all the worlds oil no matter who uses or buys it, since it has limitless dollars and oil can only be traded for dollars meaning all other countries have to buy dollars to purchase oil. without this petrodollar system the dollar and the US empire would collapse. Same with iraq, saddam hussein switched away from the dollar to the euro as payment for oil just before he got whacked.

thanks for that Little Fish.....you explained it really clearly

There are major problems for Western economies anyway....but they have to clean up their act

and quite honestly, it feels like the whole sorry mess is teetering on the brink right now, anyway

with or without the Gold Dinar.


So the destruction of Libya and the brutal abuse and execution of it's leader is probably a case of

'locking the stable door after the horse has bolted'.....????

[el midgetron]

Scepticus, on 26 October 2011 - 01:07 PM, said:

Did you know that Saddam Hussein got american support under the 1968 coup in Iraq? They wanted him to be their puppy but that didn't happen.

He thanked the US for helping him to the power and asked them to please **** off afterwards.

That's not at all what happened with Iraq. The US was tight with Iraq right up to the invasion of Kuwait.  Saddam invaded Kuwait with the understanding that it was kosher with the US. He was wrong and that is where the ill blood started.  

You are correct about the US helping Saddam into power. Seems like every time we "liberate" a ME country it ends up in the hands of a fart-knocker. I suspect that's the nature of being a puppet.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

So are people saying, just to make it clear, that on the whole they are sorry that Gadaffi was killed, because they feel sorry for him, or because he was actually loved by his people and he was actually killed by the America as part of a conspiracy for either Global domination or to get their hands on his Oil? Do you think that he was just a victim of America's perfidy and he wasn't that bad really, or no worse than a lot of others, or that he was that bad really, but should have been put on trial? And would people say, in their own personal opinion, that he was more bad or less than Bin L, and did either of them deserve their fate, or should the same considerations - that they should both have had to face the brunt of the Law - apply to both?
I do hope people don't just say "yes..." and then post the same YouTube video again.

[Karlis]

el midgetron, on 27 October 2011 - 05:28 AM, said:

...

The US was tight with Iraq right up to the invasion of Kuwait.  Saddam invaded Kuwait with the understanding that it was kosher with the US. He was wrong and that is where the ill blood started.  

... .

Just to reaffirm what you wrote; for whatever still-undisclosed reason/s, the USA ambassador to Iraq signalled to Saddam Hussein it was OK for Iraq to invade Kuwait.

On August 2, 1990 Iraq invaded Kuwait. Some four days earlier, USA ambassador April Glaspie told Saddam Hussein:

"We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."

[Rlyeh]

Can't say I'm surprised with this reasoning coming from bee.

Gaddafi got the same "justice" he handed out, hopefully his son gets the same.

Edited by Rlyeh, 27 October 2011 - 08:04 AM.

[ether2]

i'm sure if the time was taken to ask/RESEARCH why all this BS happens you will soon understand what gets said publically or whats allowed for the the public to hear/know to that of what is real you will find mostly are two different things...

studying energy/thoughts processes/minds protection is the best start you will ever have, then you will understand why the public are led to believe in what we are led to believe in, more importantly why...

it's "up there", studying the mind being that above stated gets ya the knowledge to see/know whats "up there"...

but that "up there" is so close to being shut down now as their is another way for this to happen being more readily avaliable to the general public as a whole, being safer...

good luck

love