-
TLCBonaparte wrote on 2012-11-04 05:45
Quote from RicochetOrange;975037:
Probably more of don't believe it.
It's as concrete as facts can be. It's history, I think it's pretty easy to believe, except people don't want to believe it thus they won't.
-
Joker wrote on 2012-11-04 06:02
he describes it well but whether I believe it or not is completely moot
one last thing....
HAIL ILLUMINATI....
~___~
-
TLCBonaparte wrote on 2012-11-04 06:04
Quote from Joker;975044:
he describes it well but whether I believe it or not is completely moot
one last thing....
HAIL ILLUMINATI....
~___~
It's not, if you believe the video, then you know which stage we are in, and you can actively help the cause, which might just prevent the war between China Russia and US. I know it seems like individuals don't matter but I think spreading it will help.
-
Chillax wrote on 2012-11-04 06:07
-
TLCBonaparte wrote on 2012-11-04 06:11
Quote from Chillax;975048:
tl;dr http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar_warfare
What's your opinion of the theory?
-
EndlessDreams wrote on 2012-11-04 06:23
Quote from TLCBonaparte;975046:
It's not, if you believe the video, then you know which stage we are in, and you can actively help the cause, which might just prevent the war between China Russia and US. I know it seems like individuals don't matter but I think spreading it will help.
China and US will never go to war with each other. They both depend on each other too much economically now.
-
BobYoMeowMeow wrote on 2012-11-04 06:26
Quote from EndlessDreams;975057:
China and US will never go to war with each other. They both depend on each other too much economically now.
Also, China's busy now politically with Japan
-
Chillax wrote on 2012-11-04 06:29
Quote from TLCBonaparte;975051:
What's your opinion of the theory?
I don't like to form opinions after hearing one side of the story, especially when I'm admittedly not well-versed in this subject, but if it was such a groundbreaking theory, surely there should be plenty of credible sources and an equal number of criticizers. However, I can't find them on a simple Google search.
-
TLCBonaparte wrote on 2012-11-04 06:33
Quote from Chillax;975064:
I don't like to form opinions after hearing one side of the story, especially when I'm admittedly not well-versed in this subject, but if it was such a groundbreaking theory, surely there should be plenty of credible sources and an equal number of criticizers. However, I can't find them on a simple Google search.
According to the wikipedia you provided, the Iran government take this theory as fact, I say maybe the google search is not evidence enough to discredit the theory.
-
BobYoMeowMeow wrote on 2012-11-04 06:42
Quote from TLCBonaparte;975069:
According to the wikipedia you provided, the Iran government take this theory as fact, I say maybe the google search is not evidence enough to discredit the theory.
Or maybe it's their perspective and not a fact.
Governments have different perspectives of other countries' governments and act accordingly.
For example, the Islamic countries dislike Israel for being Jewish and having a lot of nuclear weapons.
It extends to people too.
Some conservatives think Obama is Muslim and vote against him for that.
-
Sumpfkraut wrote on 2012-11-04 06:43
Could someone not on my ignore list post the groundbreaking video's link so I can be amazed myself?
Nevermind, I just put it on normal mode for a while so I could see it myself.
I wouldn't be surprised if the hardliners in the US government made sure to go to war to uphold the US' financial dominance, but I don't think the world banks couldn't live without it, so I'm not convinced that they're conspiring to make this happen, and even if they wanted to, "US gov hardliners" would be more plausible since, well, they're closer to the mechanism, and are actually directly dependant on the US government's financial dominance.
The rest is a whole bunch of leaps of faith, which means there are several very weak, unsupported points in this assumption that render it so unreliable that it's de facto a speculation, and we know how those can turn out. I wouldn't bet on its truth, albeit I can't formally discount it of course.
WWIII seems a possible outcome either way, the only condition that has to be met is that none of the three will back off, and that's not exactly the first time that none of the countries involved in a diplomatic dispute backed off. However, considering the heavy economical ties between Russia and the EU as well as China and the US, it doesn't seem as though none would back off. This is a different situation than before WWI, when Russia, Germany and France weren'T really bound to each other by anything, and the long disfunct League of the Three Emperors was merely a piece of paper with no serious commitment behind it either. Also, it had only come to war because the telegram had been sent before all variables were considered and holding it back was therefore too late. And the rest was an array of issues goading each other, not cold political calculation. I'm not convinced this situation would exactly repeat because of the different circumstances.
-
Enhalo wrote on 2012-11-04 07:48
[Image: http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/10/21/129006195649166841.jpg]
-
Sumpfkraut wrote on 2012-11-04 08:05
What is data,
baby don't test me,
don't test me,
no more!
-
Racky wrote on 2012-11-04 08:05
I feel stupid now.
I watched the video. It was actually intelligent, as opposed to someone doing something stupid for laughs.
It's changed my thinking, and my perspective. I had not realized how every single source I had used has this view.
All pieces from the video fall into place, though I haven't actually checked the sources of the video, but it makes sense.
It makes me wonder about the Middle East, about the various factors, particularly in Libya, since it has oil, or something. However, Libya also had it's population wanting a revolution, which was rather convenient. Meanwhile Iran's population is perfectly fine, and they're under attack for having nukes, yet the US also has nukes, and various other places as well. From what I see it's disguising the true motives.
Oh well, pretty "good", interesting video.
I should be more skeptical of the information I receive, and the perspective and possible bias of/with it.
I'm pretty sure anyone can come up with something more founded and intelligent than what I just wrote :/
-
TLCBonaparte wrote on 2012-11-04 16:12
I uphold my original view on the matter of outcome "US either go broke or go to war". UN has repeatedly trying to push for an international currency. China is transitioning from pure US currency trade to Yuan and Dollar trade. The question is will US attack China? Endlessdream may be a skepticist about the whole thing, but he is right about one thing, US and China are financially dependent on each other. When US go to war with China, it will be when US can no longer hold the value of dollar anyway and it has nothing to lose.
Still I think a private company running the country's finance is retarded and the video present good reason why we should not trust it even if it gave no proof. (and at this point, I eagerly await people who wish to defend federal reserve :P).