WW III is about to be launched!

[Oozlefinch]

Right now, the dollar is valued because it is a reserve currency. It is not a reserve currency because it is valuable.

Actually, it is not it's value that makes it the most common reserve currency, but it's stability.

For almost 100 years, the US Dollar has been the most stable currency on the planet. And if a country is going to another currency to help back it's own currency, that is the most important thing of all. The actual value itself is meaningless, it is the fact that it is largely immune to the large fluctuations that is desired. If it rises to high in value, then your currency becomes more valuable.

Sounds good, right? Well, it is unless you are an exporter nation. Then your currency is to valuable to be used in exchange, and nobody can afford your exports anymore (ask Japan about that in the 1980's, or the attempts China is going through now to purposefully devalue it's currency to maintain it's trade balance). Exporter nations want a low national currency, to encourage more countries to buy from them. Importer countries want a high national currency, so they can get more items for their money. Most nations both import and export so they want a balance between the two.

This brings us to yet another thing about the US Dollar. And that is "Dollarization" (technically "Currency Substitution").

What do the British Virgin Islands, Panama, Ecuador, Caribbean Netherlands, El Salvador, and 5 other nations all have in common?

They do not have a currency of their own, they all use the US Dollar as their currency. This is why when President George Bush Senior cut off currency transfer with Panama in 1989, it ruined their economy. And 15 other countries have the value of their currency directly tied to that of the US Dollar (including Cambodia, Uruguay, Belize, and Zimbabwe).

Some countries use the Euro, but many hesitate because the value of the Euro has fluctuated wildly since it was first introduced. In the late 1990's there was talk among some nations and groups (like OPEC) to dump the Dollar for the Euro, but this largely ended when within 5 years the value dropped by almost 50%, then within 6 years after that rose by over 50%. Nobody sane wants their economy tied to something like that. About the only countries that use the Euro as a currency but are not members of the European Union are other European countries (like Kosovo, Vatican City and Monaco).

 

[OldWorldOrder]

Wars have been fought for resources before, and openly for that reason IIRC in some instances. The question then becomes: when did wars for resources stop?

They never have. But that doesn't mean Iraq was invaded for "petrodollars" anymore than it was invaded for firewood. Or that Libya or Syria (both results of the Arab spring) have anything to do with anything. It's cherrypicked information that informs a conspiracy theory, which is just oh so typical.

 

[Jango]

They never have. But that doesn't mean Iraq was invaded for "petrodollars" anymore than it was invaded for firewood. Or that Libya or Syria (both results of the Arab spring) have anything to do with anything. It's cherrypicked information that informs a conspiracy theory, which is just oh so typical.

Okay, what was Iraq fought over then? Weapons of Mass Destruction and the al Qaeda affiliation were debunked years-and-years ago. Are you saying Iraq's black gold wasn't a motivator for the invasion? If you're not saying that, then what % of the motivation IYO did oil play in the decision to invade?

 

[German guy]

Inside the Pentagon: Preparing for War with Russia?

(...)

Some interesting info, but what seriously wonders me is where you got this notion from that the Western side is somehow the sinister bad guy here, instead of assuming Russia has its material interests as well, and will just as ruthlessly defend them and attempt to expand.

Just because Russia is the "weaker" side? The underdog is always good? Is that your reasoning? Pretty silly idea, if you ask me.

 

[Jango]

Some interesting info, but what seriously wonders me is where you got this notion from that the Western side is somehow the sinister bad guy here, instead of assuming Russia has its material interests as well, and will just as ruthlessly defend them and attempt to expand.

Just because Russia is the "weaker" side? The underdog is always good? Is that your reasoning? Pretty silly idea, if you ask me.

Personally, I suspect there's more to it than just rooting for the underdog.

 

[Thoreau72]

Some interesting info, but what seriously wonders me is where you got this notion from that the Western side is somehow the sinister bad guy here, instead of assuming Russia has its material interests as well, and will just as ruthlessly defend them and attempt to expand.

Just because Russia is the "weaker" side? The underdog is always good? Is that your reasoning? Pretty silly idea, if you ask me.

The US and many of its NATO partners have been practicing what is defined by international law as "military aggression" for more than a decade now.

To my knowledge Russia has not.

Regarding Ukraine, it seems to me that Russia's interest in that area is somehow more legitimate than NATO or US interest in regions on the other side of the planet.

US drones kill innocents on a frequent basis, and have been doing so for a number of years. To a disinterested party, that makes the operator of those drones out to be rather a criminal, all things considered.

The US government has been more than a bully for all these years. Russia has not, absent some local issues. If the US had arrested the equivalent of the band ***** Riot for misbehaving in a church, the band would still be in jail serving an obscene sentence.

At least Putin released PR after a few years, and he released the Green Peace "criminals" too.

Thus, the US is perceived easily as the sinister bad guy. Our reputation precedes us, if you know what I mean, and as an American Guy, I am embarrassed and ashamed of what my government has done in my name and with my paltry tax dollars. eace

 

[OldWorldOrder]

Okay, what was Iraq fought over then? Weapons of Mass Destruction and the al Qaeda affiliation were debunked years-and-years ago. Are you saying Iraq's black gold wasn't a motivator for the invasion? If you're not saying that, then what % of the motivation IYO did oil play in the decision to invade?

I don't have much time, so I'll just quote myself from another thread:

But having a more democratic Middle East is better for the US, in the long run. The issue with the Middle East is since the fall of the Ottoman Empire there has been precious little means for the common person to feel enfranchised. This only promotes revolutionary ideology and actions- whih is all Muslim extremism is, as dictators typically restricted all opposing parties and any civic institutions that could defy them, but left the mosque alone, where dissent was naturally funneled into, but I digress.c

As long as the only outlet for enfranchisement remained in revolutionary actions, the world was going to suffer violent Arab attacks globally- particularly with the general democratization of violence that we've seen with the rise of the internet and all that. With this in mind, the repeated violations of Saddam Hussein became an extremely attractive- and compared to any other area, a very easily sellable- opportunity for affecting that change and managing it. Of course it was going to be messy at first, but the bumbling done in 2003 made it that much harder to even institute a more open society, period, let alone manage its maturity. But by 2007 the security situation had stabilized and the next step could be initiated.

Except the folks I've mentioned in a previous post [Jango: those folks were Shiite politicans in the Iraqi parliament and anti-war folks in the US] put the brakes on all that. So that was bad.

And keeping Saddam in power wouldn't have done anything but kick that can down the road a bit, hoping it'd go away. After 9/11, policy makers weren't in the mood to just hope it'd go away. Which I understand and appreciate, but they also weren't "in the mood" to execute the invasion correctly, which I don't.

You could say that the the US is interested in the Middle East in the first place because of natural resources, but it goes a bit beyond that, too. Regardless, someone moving away from "petrodollars" was not at all the reason for the invasion of Iraq or the...the what in Syria that Sadling thinks the US created? It's a kooky conspiracy theory.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

Personally, I suspect there's more to it than just rooting for the underdog.

I really don't, actually. People like Henry David grow up thinking the US is the pure good in the world, because their simplistic worldview- the worldview that CTers generally adhere to- demands such black and white thinking. When they found out, rightly, that the US is not some shining altruistic Neverneverland, they become very disillusioned and confused. So they try to identify who it is the US has mistreated, who is it the US has bullied. Once they identify these organizations/countries/peoples/whoever, they now latch on to those groups being the "good guys". And that's where there mental construct ends. It's just that simple. It's where Henry David comes from in his posts and it's quite easy to see.

He finds an underdog, declares the underdog to be a moral hero, and doesn't need to think anymore. Quite simplistic, quite braindead, very conspiracy theorist in its general format.

To wit:

If the US had arrested the equivalent of the band ***** Riot for misbehaving in a church, the band would still be in jail serving an obscene sentence.

Just think of the level of head-in-the-sandedness you need to have to even think of writing that sentence. "Hey, if Leonardo DiCaprio had been a serial killer, he would've killed WAAAY more people than Ted Bundy!" It's like...okay, but Leonardo DiCaprio isn't a serial killer? Ted Bundy was? How does in any realistic way help your point that DiCaprio sucks and Bundy wasn't that bad?

 

[German guy]

The US and many of its NATO partners have been practicing what is defined by international law as "military aggression" for more than a decade now.

To my knowledge Russia has not.

Regarding Ukraine, it seems to me that Russia's interest in that area is somehow more legitimate than NATO or US interest in regions on the other side of the planet.

US drones kill innocents on a frequent basis, and have been doing so for a number of years. To a disinterested party, that makes the operator of those drones out to be rather a criminal, all things considered.

The US government has been more than a bully for all these years. Russia has not, absent some local issues. If the US had arrested the equivalent of the band ***** Riot for misbehaving in a church, the band would still be in jail serving an obscene sentence.

At least Putin released PR after a few years, and he released the Green Peace "criminals" too.

Thus, the US is perceived easily as the sinister bad guy. Our reputation precedes us, if you know what I mean, and as an American Guy, I am embarrassed and ashamed of what my government has done in my name and with my paltry tax dollars. eace

Well, I assume you are a conspiracy theory nut, so I guess you have your sources anyway and a thorough debate with you here is useless. That's why I just say:

Are the US/the West saints? Of course not. BUT: The West is free. We have a liberal type of government system here. Russia has not. Russia is a fascist dictatorship that pisses on all human rights that exist, especially inside their own borders.

That is why the West is right by default, regardless of any mistakes or wrongdoings it makes, and Russia is wrong by default. Fascist autocracies have no "legitimate interests" whatsoever by definition.

 

[Thoreau72]

Well, I assume you are a conspiracy theory nut, so I guess you have your sources anyway and a thorough debate with you here is useless. That's why I just say:

Are the US/the West saints? Of course not. BUT: The West is free. We have a liberal type of government system here. Russia has not. Russia is a fascist dictatorship that pisses on all human rights that exist, especially inside their own borders.

That is why the West is right by default, regardless of any mistakes or wrongdoings it makes, and Russia is wrong by default. Fascist autocracies have no "legitimate interests" whatsoever by definition.

Well, of course we must arrive at a few definitions if we are to have a rational public dialogue. But I understand your prejudice against anyone who questions government claims.

Fascist? I would like to arrive at a definition of that notion, if you're able to stomach it.

Do you suppose Mussolini's general definition is acceptable? Some sort of wicked marriage between government and corporations?

Perhaps you would offer your definition of the word, as long as you introduced it?

Also "being free". Might you offer a definition of that?

Here in this country we are growing less free by the month or year. Just last year my US government by way of its elected officials decided to nullify the age-old and constitutional principle of Habeas Corpus.

What is "free", and am I more free today than I was in 1998, or less free? Does the gathering of metadata make a society more free or less free? eace

 

[Bob0627]

Just last year my US government by way of its elected officials decided to nullify the age-old and constitutional principle of Habeas Corpus.

Last year? Habeas Corpus was dealt a death blow in 2006 with the Military Commissions Act. The coup de grace was NDAA Section 1021 (12/31/12).

Does the gathering of metadata make a society more free or less free?

That the NSA only collects "metadata" is pure hokum. The NSA captures EVERYTHING in digital form. But even if the NSA only collects metadata, it's a clear violation of the 4th Amendment and fully sanctioned by the criminals in the US government.

 

[Thoreau72]

Last year? Habeas Corpus was dealt a death blow in 2006 with the Military Commissions Act. The coup de grace was NDAA Section 1021 (12/31/12).



That the NSA only collects "metadata" is pure hokum. The NSA captures EVERYTHING in digital form. But even if the NSA only collects metadata, it's a clear violation of the 4th Amendment and fully sanctioned by the criminals in the US government.

Quite right.

I'm hoping our German Friend will engage, but I do understand his stated prejudice.

 

[gregor]

"Unless the world reins in the demented criminals in Washington, the world has signed its own death warrant." said Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts' latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West and How America Was Lost.

If Nuclear War Doesn

 

[zyzygy]

"Unless the world reins in the demented criminals in Washington, the world has signed its own death warrant." said Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts' latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West and How America Was Lost.

If Nuclear War Doesn

Which laws have these so-called demented criminals broken?

 

[Oozlefinch]

Okay, what was Iraq fought over then? Weapons of Mass Destruction and the al Qaeda affiliation were debunked years-and-years ago. Are you saying Iraq's black gold wasn't a motivator for the invasion? If you're not saying that, then what % of the motivation IYO did oil play in the decision to invade?

Were they?

Do you not pay any attention to the news?

And this is not even "old news", but released very recently (October to be exact):

American troops were exposed to chemical weapons multiple times in the years following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, while the Pentagon kept their discoveries of the expired or degraded weapons secret from investigators, fellow soldiers, and military doctors, according to a published report.

The New York Times reported late Tuesday that American troops reported finding approximately 5,000 chemical warheads, shells, or aviation bombs in the years following the 2003 invasion of Iraq. On at least six occasions, soldiers were wounded by those weapons, which had been manufactured before 1991. In all, the paper reported that 17 U.S. soldiers and seven Iraqi police officers were exposed to chemical agents during the war. The U.S. government said its number was slightly higher, but did not release a specific figure.

Pentagon withheld information about decades-old chemical weapons during Iraq War, report claims | Fox News
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0

Or even the fact that WikiLeaks itself leaked classified documents about the discovery of chemical weapons:

By late 2003, even the Bush White House’s staunchest defenders were starting to give up on the idea that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

But WikiLeaks’ newly-released Iraq war documents reveal that for years afterward, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins and uncover weapons of mass destruction.

WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq - With Surprising Results | WIRED

Or how about the Iraqi government itself?

On February 12, 2009, Iraq acceded to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), a multilateral treaty banning the development, production, stockpiling, transfer, and use of chemical weapons. (To date, 188 countries have signed and ratified the CWC.) After joining the Convention, Iraq was obligated to declare within 30 days any legacy stocks of chemical weapons it had inherited from the Saddam Hussein regime. On March 12, 2009, Iraq declared Bunkers 13 and 41 at Muthanna containing filled and unfilled chemical munitions and precursors, as well as five former chemical weapons production facilities, to the international body overseeing CWC implementation—the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in The Hague, the Netherlands.

Iraq Faces Major Challenges in Destroying Its Legacy Chemical Weapons | James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies (CNS)

Sorry, but the only thing that has been debunked for decades is the claim that there were no chemical weapons in Iraq. They keep turning up over and over and over again. What I find especially amazing is the tons of Top Secret documents that WikiLeaks itself put out there.

 

[Sadling]

Were they?

Do you not pay any attention to the news?

And this is not even "old news", but released very recently (October to be exact):


Pentagon withheld information about decades-old chemical weapons during Iraq War, report claims | Fox News
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0

Or even the fact that WikiLeaks itself leaked classified documents about the discovery of chemical weapons:


WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq - With Surprising Results | WIRED

Or how about the Iraqi government itself?


Iraq Faces Major Challenges in Destroying Its Legacy Chemical Weapons | James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies (CNS)

Sorry, but the only thing that has been debunked for decades is the claim that there were no chemical weapons in Iraq. They keep turning up over and over and over again. What I find especially amazing is the tons of Top Secret documents that WikiLeaks itself put out there.

Why don't you tell us who it was that gave Saddam Hussein chemical weapons back in the 80s?

 

[Sadling]

The US had pulled off of "The Gold Standard" way back in the early 1800's. In case you were not aware of this little fact, we were on a "bimetallic standard". Why else were they called "Silver Certificates"?

Now for the removal from this standard, it had to do with the inflationary and deflationary effects of tying the economy to a commodity that was outside the control of our or any country. Just imagine the shambles our economy would be in now if we were still tied to that? Where our currency would be over 27 times more valuable then it was when we fully left the metal standard 40 years ago?

A penny from that time would now have the value of a quarter, and a $5 bill from that time would be worth close to $150? We would be in the same trap we were in during the great depression, where deflation had rendered the currency so valuable that it stopped circulating.

And the US currency is not tied to oil, it never has been. Same problem, the price fluctuates so much it would be an insane standard to base a currency on. And any other country (like Saudi Arabia) could destroy the value of our currency by either stopping production to force the price to rise (causing deflation), or by flooding the market to force the price to plummet (causing inflation).

However, OPEC did decide to convert to the "Petrodollar" in 1973, which had not a thing to do with dollars at all. The US Dollar was picked because it was the most stable currency in the world. Also it is only a means for exchange, you do not need "actual dollars" to buy or sell gold. You can buy oil from OPEC with Yen, Kopeks, Won, Euros, Mexican Pesos, or any other currency desired. You just have to do a value exchange based upon that day's price between whatever currency is used and the US Dollar. Nothing more, nothing less.

And in case you are totally ignorant, at the time the "Petrodollar" was made a standard, most of the Middle East (including Saudi Arabia) was in a de facto state of war with the United States, and was involved in an active oil embargo with the US.

"Petrodollar" is only an agreed upon standard for buying and selling, nobody is mandated to make the actual purchase in US Dollars.



Once again, not true. They are free to buy and sell with whatever currency they want. The US Dollar is only a standard for exchange, not the actual instrument of purchase.



And over a decade ago Iran left the "Petrodollar" standard and started to primarily trade in Euros, why have we not invaded Iran? Or Mexico? Or any of the other countries that does not trade oil for the US dollar (like Russia)?

Sorry, this is nothing but silliness, with no understanding of what currency is at all.

It is not that the U.S. dollar is backed by oil. It is that the ability of oil-importing countries to purchase oil is tied to the dollar. When other countries require U.S. dollars to purchase oil, the U.S. can’t lose. Conversely, when oil-exporting nations do not require U.S. dollars to purchase their oil, the U.S. loses. There is nothing difficult in understanding this.

You appear to have forgotten that, in 1944, at the Bretton Woods conference, a new fixed exchange rate was established. All global currencies were pegged to the U.S. dollar. The reason that the rest of the world went along with this arrangement is because if at any time a nation didn’t feel comfortable with the dollar, they could easily convert their dollar holdings into gold at a rate of thirty-five dollars per ounce. Of course, this created a global demand for dollars, which gives the Federal government the “right” to print more dollars. I’m sure that you’re not ignorant of the fact that Washington’s preferred method of dealing with its economic problems is to print more dollars.

By 1971, with a two-hundred billion dollar price tag on the Viet Nam war, other countries were getting nervous because of the growing imbalance between U.S. gold reserves and U.S. debt. The U.S. did not have the money to pay its debts. To add insult to injury, its gold reserves were at an all-time low because other countries started asking for gold in exchange for their U.S. dollars. But instead of doing something about its debt, the U.S. continued to rack up more debt, which in turn increased other countries’ demand for more gold from the U.S. In response, and in contravention of the Bretton Woods agreement, Washington decided to end the convertibility of the dollar to gold.

This brings us to the issue of the petrodollar, which is, for all practical purposes, a “dollars for oil” arrangement to replace the “dollars for gold” arrangement. I will assume that I don’t have to explain the how and why of that arrangement, as it is a matter of historical record. But I would be happy to go into that issue in greater detail if you wish.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

Dollars aren't "required". Shocking ignorance at this point isn't really even that shocking. Conspiracy theorists in action.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Why don't you tell us who it was that gave Saddam Hussein chemical weapons back in the 80s?

He did.

Do you know what is needed to make "chemical weapons"?

Well, for choline gas, you only need chlorine bleach and ammonia. 2 things available in any grocery store (most of us learned this in Junior High science classes).

Sarin? Once again, nothing magical here, Germany was making it in the 1930's. A religious group in Japan whipped up to flood the Tokyo subway system in 1995, killing 12 and injuring over 6,000 others.

Mustard gas? You simply need some Ethylene (a common agricultural chemical), Disulfur Dichloride (commonly used to create dyes, vulcanizing rubber, and insecticides), and mix with hydrochloric acid (used in car batteries).

Nobody had to give him anything. There are the 3 most common chemical weapons he used, and they are amazingly easy to create. He needed no outside help from anybody in making them. In fact, the formula for most of these is available in almost any High School or College level chemistry course.

Get off of the conspiracy theories. There is nothing "secret" or "special" in making these weapons.

Wal-Mart, Walgreens and other large U.S. retailers have been found selling a chemical that can be used to manufacture deadly nerve gas weapons. The chemical is found in numerous products sold by Wal-Mart and Walgreens, and it is the same chemical that raised alarm when it was discovered that UK companies had been granted licenses to sell the chemical to Syria, where it is now believed the chemical was turned into a deadly nerve gas weapon of mass destruction.

The ingredients for making sarin, a super-powerful deadly nerve agent, are well known across the chemical industry (and widely documented on the internet, including at ScientificAmerican.com, as you'll see below). They are:

• dimethyl methylphosphonate
• phosphorus trichloride
• sodium fluoride
• alcohol

All these ingredients can be readily ordered from a chemical supply house. Two of the four ingredients can be purchased at Wal-Mart or Walgreens (sodium fluoride and alcohol).

In fact, as part of an experiment in determining the ease of manufacturing such chemical weapons, a writer for Scientific American actually ordered these ingredients online for a grand total of $130.20 and acquired enough materials to manufacture 280 grams of deadly nerve gas.

Wal-Mart, Walgreens found selling chemical used to manufacture deadly nerve gas weapons based on Nazi science research - NaturalNews.com
Better Killing through Chemistry - Scientific American

280 grams works out to just about 9.5 ounces in Imperial measure.

So please tell me once again how Saddam needed help of any sort.

Put down the conspiracy theory pipe, will ya?

It is not that the U.S. dollar is backed by oil. It is that the ability of oil-importing countries to purchase oil is tied to the dollar.

As a standard value of exchange. Nothing more then that. The purchase can be made in any currency that anybody wants, the tying of oil to the dollar is purely clerical in nature.

 

[Fledermaus]

Why don't you tell us who it was that gave Saddam Hussein chemical weapons back in the 80s?

Why don't you?

France comes to mind.

As does Russia.

And China.

Come to think of it. Do you have EVIDENCE that any chemical weapons were given to Saddam by the US.

 

[Sadling]

He did.

As a standard value of exchange. Nothing more then that. The purchase can be made in any currency that anybody wants, the tying of oil to the dollar is purely clerical in nature.

Nope, the truth is that, in exchange for agreeing to price all of their oil in dollars only, the U.S. agreed to provide weapons and guaranteed military protection to members of OPEC. I suppose you’re going to try to push the idea that the establishment of that arrangement just happens to coincide with the U.S.’s decision to end the Bretton Woods agreement. It wouldn’t surprise me.

And why are you pretending to not know that Saddam Hussein received licensed products from the U.S. to create chemical weapons despite that country’s known record of using chemical weapons?

Donald Riegle

There. Now you can't pretend anymore.

 

[Sadling]

As a standard value of exchange. Nothing more then that. The purchase can be made in any currency that anybody wants, the tying of oil to the dollar is purely clerical in nature.

Also for your edification: Marin Katusa, chief energy investment strategist with Stowe, VT-based Casey Research, wrote in January that if the U.S. dollar loses its position as the global reserve currency, the consequences for America are dire. A major portion of the dollar's valuation stems from its lock on the oil industry—if that monopoly fades, so too will the value of the dollar.

Katusa notes that the U.S. dollar's role as the prime currency for global oil transactions has reaped many rewards. "As oil usage increased in the 1980s, demand for the U.S. dollar rose with it, lifting our economy to new heights. But even without economic success at home the U.S. dollar would have soared, because the petrodollar system created consistent international demand for U.S. dollars, which in turn gained in value."

Because the value of the U.S. dollar is determined in large part by the fact that oil is sold in U.S. dollars, Katusa notes that if that trade shifts to a different currency, countries around the world won't need all their U.S. money. The resulting sell-off of U.S. dollars would weaken the currency dramatically.

Oil and the Weakening of the U.S. Dollar - US News

 

[Oozlefinch]

Nope, the truth is that, in exchange for agreeing to price all of their oil in dollars only, the U.S. agreed to provide weapons and guaranteed military protection to members of OPEC. I suppose you’re going to try to push the idea that the establishment of that arrangement just happens to coincide with the U.S.’s decision to end the Bretton Woods agreement. It wouldn’t surprise me.

So the 6 month long 1973 oil embargo never happened?

Sorry, I remember the 1973 embargo. I remember "Odd-Even" and being unable to buy gasoline. But once again you ignore and avoid any facts, and continue to spin conspiracy theories.

And why are you pretending to not know that Saddam Hussein received licensed products from the U.S. to create chemical weapons despite that country’s known record of using chemical weapons?

Donald Riegle

There. Now you can't pretend anymore.

The US also exports millions of tons in fertilizer (cow ****). That is also "dual use". Grind it up and throw it on the ground, it is an amazing plant food. Mix it in drums with diesel and you get an amazingly powerful explosive.

Now tell me how these chemicals are something special, and were not available anywhere else.

Oh, and about your reference. Sorry, it's a conspiracy theory coprolite site. Some of their other "articles"?

History Commons

What is the History Commons website?

The History Commons website is run by the Center for Grassroots Oversight ("CGO"), an organization that is fiscally sponsored by The Global Center, a 501(c)3 non-profit organization. CGO was incorporated as a public benefit corporation in late 2006, and is currently applying for its own 501(c)3 status.

History Commons: About this Site

IN essence, it is a Conspiracy Theory Wiki. And what are their other "important projects"?

Complete 911 Timeline
Iraq Under US Occupation
History of US Interventions
US Civil Liberties
War in Afghanistan
Nixon and Watergate
Prisoner Abuse in Iraq, Afghanistan
Football Business and Politics
Decision to Invade Iraq
Alleged False Flag Attacks

And their "goal"?

The History Commons makes it possible for people at the grassroots level to assume a dominant role in public and private sector oversight. By supporting this effort, you are helping civil society end its reliance on the corporate media, which has failed in its presumed role as a government and corporate watchdog. Since June of 2002, more than 20,835 new events have been added to the History Commons. These entries dealt with a variety of topics ranging from NSA domestic spying, global warming, free trade, 9/11, “the war on terrorism,” civil liberties, the Iraq war, the Iran confrontation, and more.

Yea, both of those come directly from their "home page".

Nope, nothing biased or unimpeachable there. Simply complete coprolite, random statements made out of context, mostly decades later, massaged to loose anything other then what they want people to see.

Like "giving them Anthrax", a claim from that page. Also commented on in detail in the past. Every medical research organization at that time gave out such materials to anybody who asked. Iraq also got Anthrax and Small Pox from the Pasteur Institute in France. At one time you could get Plague sent to you through the mail by the CDC, as long as you said you were going to use it for research and belonged to a research organization.

 

[Jango]

Were they?

Do you not pay any attention to the news?

And this is not even "old news", but released very recently (October to be exact):


Pentagon withheld information about decades-old chemical weapons during Iraq War, report claims | Fox News
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0

Or even the fact that WikiLeaks itself leaked classified documents about the discovery of chemical weapons:


WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq - With Surprising Results | WIRED

Or how about the Iraqi government itself?


Iraq Faces Major Challenges in Destroying Its Legacy Chemical Weapons | James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies (CNS)

Sorry, but the only thing that has been debunked for decades is the claim that there were no chemical weapons in Iraq. They keep turning up over and over and over again. What I find especially amazing is the tons of Top Secret documents that WikiLeaks itself put out there.

Yes, you are correct, there were and are chemical weapons in Iraq, and IIRC ISIL has managed to get a hold of some of them -- that's my mistake for not being specific. I was referring to nukes -- the, We don't want to wait for a mushroom cloud in the U.S. before we act.

 

[Sadling]

So the 6 month long 1973 oil embargo never happened?

Oh, and about your reference. Sorry, it's a conspiracy theory coprolite site. Some of their other "articles"?

History Commons

IN essence, it is a Conspiracy Theory Wiki. And what are their other "important projects"?

I hear you saying that because there was an embargo, the petrodollar deal struck between Kissinger and King Faisal never happened. You are wrong. It did happen.

And Saddam was being given access to supplies of chemical and biological agents by U.S. companies despite Rumsfeld's and Washington's knowledge of his history of using them on people. You have not refuted that. You have reduced yourself to attacking the messenger. Here is another messenger:

Rumsfeld 'helped Iraq get chemical weapons' | Daily Mail Online