Thread: Putin's increasing police state and smth about some other countries

Originally Posted by it-ogo

Это не Ктулху, а Годзилла, друг человека. Он почти не кусается. Проблема - это астероид. Он падает.

Неправда ваша, дяденька. Астероид-то как раз себе вполне мирно летит, а падать он начинает только если вдруг Земля оказывается рядом. Поэтому Земля - более реальная проблема, чем астероид. Тем более, что вот-вот ледяной щит Антарктиды сползёт в океан. Но ящерики, пожалуй, всё-таки страшнее. Они и астероид подтолкнуть горазды, и Антарктиду потрясти на горячую голову. И Годзиллу склонировать, предварительно генно-модифицировав до безобразия. И всё это, заметь, без грамма выпивки. Ну, и как с такими иметь дело?

Those who say that there's no conspiracy are probably right. Everything is there on the plain view, so you can't call it conspiracy right? There is policy of the 'golden billion' against all others - to maintain the status quo. There are natural resources - metal, oil, gas, water, wood, etc - all of this is produced or extracted in the so called 'third world' countries. All of this is bought in exchange for US dollar - a green piece of paper that's worth nothing. If there's not enough dollars FRS will always print more.
Anyone who tries to introduce some other international reserve currency (like golden dinar as it was with Gaddafi) immediately gets a 'democracy operation' in his country. What conspiracy? It's all there and nobody makes a secret out of it. You can even hear them saying exactly what their policy is on TV.

There is policy of the 'golden billion' against all others - to maintain the status quo.
=> Please, provide some proof.

There are natural resources - metal, oil, gas, water, wood, etc - all of this is produced or extracted in the so called 'third world' countries.
=> Not all. Some of it is produced in the second world countries. For example in Canada.

All of this is bought in exchange for US dollar - a green piece of paper that's worth nothing.
=> Any money worth nothing unless another person is [temporarily] willing to give you something for it (and vice versa). I think we have discussed it extensively in the past.

Anyone who tries to introduce some other international reserve currency (like golden dinar as it was with Gaddafi) immediately gets a 'democracy operation' in his country.
=> I would really like to learn more about that. Would you be able to provide me some links (not the google search results, but something that made your mind that way). I mean, what's so special about the golden dinar?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

There is policy of the 'golden billion' against all others - to maintain the status quo.
=> Please, provide some proof.

By 'golden billion' I mean North America and Europe. All who has enough food, shelter and clothes and some extras. This definition includes you and me as well. This billion people is called 'golden' because it controls 4/5 of the world's wealth. So, tell me, will you give away 80% of your posessions in order to save the starving in Africa? No, I don't think so. You'll point at someone who is richer than you and generally say that the hunger is not your fault and blah blah blah. So this is your policy. No matter what particular government you have, they can be liberalists, conservatives, republicans, democrats or even communists - you won't give away 80% of your wealth. And nobody would. This makes you a collaborationist.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

There are natural resources - metal, oil, gas, water, wood, etc - all of this is produced or extracted in the so called 'third world' countries.
=> Not all. Some of it is produced in the second world countries. For example in Canada.

And does it prove anything?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

All of this is bought in exchange for US dollar - a green piece of paper that's worth nothing.
=> Any money worth nothing unless another person is [temporarily] willing to give you something for it (and vice versa). I think we have discussed it extensively in the past.

Yes, we discussed that. The key word is 'willing'. People don't have any choice and any attempt to provide an alternative gets smothered with 'winged democracy'. And people do want an alternative but this will be against US interests.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Anyone who tries to introduce some other international reserve currency (like golden dinar as it was with Gaddafi) immediately gets a 'democracy operation' in his country.
=> I would really like to learn more about that. Would you be able to provide me some links (not the google search results, but something that made your mind that way). I mean, what's so special about the golden dinar?

There's nothing special about it except the fact 'it's golden' and they planned to sell oil for dinars only. US can live with free yuan, rouble even, but oil is a blood of economy.

Why Qazzafi was Targeted? He was introducing Golden Dinar
Is Libya being bombed because Gaddafi wants to introduce gold dinar?
The Daily Bell - Gaddafi Planned Gold Dinar, Now Under Attack
The Gold Dinar: Saving the world economy from Gaddafi

Originally Posted by Ramil

By 'golden billion' I mean North America and Europe. All who has enough food, shelter and clothes and some extras. This definition includes you and me as well. This billion people is called 'golden' because it controls 4/5 of the world's wealth. So, tell me, will you give away 80% of your posessions in order to save the starving in Africa? No, I don't think so. You'll point at someone who is richer than you and generally say that the hunger is not your fault and blah blah blah. So this is your policy. No matter what particular government you have, they can be liberalists, conservatives, republicans, democrats or even communists - you won't give away 80% of your wealth. And nobody would. This makes you a collaborationist.

Can we go one step back though? When you said "There is policy of the 'golden billion' against all others" I was under impression you mean the 'richer' states deliberately want the existence of the 'poorer' states. And, as such, they make efforts to keep the 'poorer' states even poorer (as the anti-globalist ideology suggests). Was that your intention? Or, your way of thinking goes along with Hanna's in that there's a finite amount of resources and so the 'richer' countries possess all the resources and do not want to share any (=give some of them up) of the resources with the 'poorer' countries? So, using your and Hanna's terminology, me and you should stop taking expensive vacations to Carribean and rather send that money to Africa where that money can purchase livestock and feed the entire families? Or, you mean something else?

Originally Posted by Ramil

There are natural resources - metal, oil, gas, water, wood, etc - all of this is produced or extracted in the so called 'third world' countries.
=> Not all. Some of it is produced in the second world countries. For example in Canada.
And does it prove anything?

It proves there's no deliberate policy of the 'richer' states to deliberately keep the 'poorer' states poorer. That is also a proof that you don't need to own the FRS's printing machines to not to be poor. In addition, it's a proof that an oil/natural resources exporting country can also export goods. (When the Canadian dollar rises as a result of the oil rise, the Bank of Canada tries to lower it as much as possible by all measures to make the export of goods be profitable.)

Originally Posted by Ramil

There's nothing special about it except the fact 'it's golden' and they planned to sell oil for dinars only.

Ok, you gave me a homework to read all those articles, so I'll get back to you on that.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Anyone who tries to introduce some other international reserve currency (like golden dinar as it was with Gaddafi) immediately gets a 'democracy operation' in his country. [...] There's nothing special about it except the fact 'it's golden' and they planned to sell oil for dinars only. US can live with free yuan, rouble even, but oil is a blood of economy.

Ok, I've done my homework. Phew! Here's what I think about it. It is highly unlikely the introduction of the golden currency was so decisive as to cause the military operation in Libya, however, the operation might have won a much broader support in the goods-exporting countries for that reason.

The major point neither of those article touch (and I hope you will) is: if the US (with its allegedly еphemeral green paper) was so afraid of the golden dinar, why is that the major call for the military operation came from Europe and not from the US? Unless I get a satisfactory answer I'm not sure I can proceed any further on taking this claim any seriously. (And by a satisfactory answer I mean anything except for: "well, the US ultimately controls Europe, and the US is so inspire-conspiring that it wanted others to act on its behalf." )

As a side note, according to one of your articles Why Qazzafi was Targeted? He was introducing Golden Dinar “There were two conferences on this, in 1986 and 2000, organized by Gaddafi. Everybody was interested, most countries in Africa were keen," and neither time was Gaddafi attacked.

By the way, one of the results of the two world wars was to form an agreement to work business issues like that out collectively in a global forum and not unilaterally (which can cause new wars). So, strictly speaking, Gaddafi was provoking the goods-exporting countries to go on war with him, but every time he did it again those countries preferred relatively peaceful counter-measures. This time the military operation just coincided with the global Middle East unrest.

So, I'm afraid Hanna's bet on it was too hasty.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Anyone who tries to introduce some other international reserve currency (like golden dinar as it was with Gaddafi) immediately gets a 'democracy operation' in his country. What conspiracy? It's all there and nobody makes a secret out of it.

Wow, I'll be darned if you are not completely right. Saddam Hussein tried it too....
That's what it all comes down to. The dollar must be the top currency, even though it's actually not supported by anything other than the US military.... and then the need to commercialize everything, American style.

But there are two countries which the US cannot take on and be sure to win: China and Russia. Europe is already in the US pocket...

But if China and Russia could come to an agreement together to switch do some alternative, then things might change. Apparently China itself has masses of dollars saved though, and can not afford for them to lose their value.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Wow, I'll be darned if you are not completely right.

A little light-minded for a believer, might I say.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Wow, I'll be darned if you are not completely right. Saddam Hussein tried it too....
That's what it all comes down to. The dollar must be the top currency, even though it's actually not supported by anything other than the US military.... and then the need to commercialize everything, American style.

But there are two countries which the US cannot take on and be sure to win: China and Russia. Europe is already in the US pocket...

But if China and Russia could come to an agreement together to switch do some alternative, then things might change. Apparently China itself has masses of dollars saved though, and can not afford for them to lose their value.

Fair play, the road map seems to lead there.. but there can't be enough gas in the tank.... can there?

.. The idea that the 'golden dinar' would somehow be able to upstage not only the american dollar, but every other currency on the map? That the US should be worried that these new forms of currency would go from 0 to being the pace car of currencies, so we move in an expensive and costly (in terms of lives) "democracy operation?" I'm a conspiracy theorist enough to believe it.. but shouldn't there be something more imminently threatening than "the golden dinar?" (And, if we moved in on Saddam because of currency, then am I to believe that the stories of human torture wherein children were tied to ceiling fans until they were swung to death were fabricated? Or were they just "icing on the cake" for reasons to move in military?)

Please don't mistake this for an attempt to debate this; I merely want to know what everyone's thought are. I know nothing of these topics beyond what little I've read and I respect your opinions... my conspiracy theorist research has all been in reference to goings-on on American soil.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Wow, I'll be darned if you are not completely right. Saddam Hussein tried it too....

Ok, I finally got to look into that as well. Here's what I've found:

1. Saddam Hussein's decision was out there by at least Nov. 13, 2000 => Foreign Exchange: Saddam Turns His Back on Greenbacks - TIME
2. The Second Gulf War started on March 20, 2003.

Please, feel free to draw your own conclusion as to how tight those events are related.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

1. Saddam Hussein's decision was out there by at least Nov. 13, 2000 => Foreign Exchange: Saddam Turns His Back on Greenbacks - TIME
2. The Second Gulf War started on March 20, 2003.

Please, feel free to draw your own conclusion as to how tight those events are related.

He was talking about it just before the FIRST gulf war too, I've read. And TIME magazine? That "unbiased" publication? I'd rather trust Donald Duck!

But if you want to see the USA:s wars as completely justified freedom-and-democracy missions for the benefit of all humanity... then I don't think there is much anyone can say that will change your mind! After all, that is the official version. But did you believe in the official version in the papers when you lived in the USSR too? For example: The USSR war in Afghanistan.... That was just a humanitarian response to pleas of help from the majority of people in Afghanistan, who needed help to protect them from oppression, religious fanaticism and imperialist exploitation.... Completely justified war, right? Just like the gulf wars, the modern Afghanistan war etc, etc.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Completely justified war, right?

WAR! What is it good for? Absolutely nothin'..

Originally Posted by Hanna

He was talking about it just before the FIRST gulf war too, I've read.

I'm curious, so can you provide a link? Also, there's a HUGE difference between talking and announcing a decision, won't you think? For example, I'm talking about going on the super-dive marathon across the Atlantics. But, if I officially announce my decision to do that, that's another matter, is that not?

Originally Posted by Hanna

And TIME magazine? That "unbiased" publication? I'd rather trust Donald Duck!

I'm not sure you paid good attention to what I said. The only thing I want you to trust in the TIME magazine is the issue date.

Originally Posted by Hanna

But if you want to see the USA:s wars as completely justified freedom-and-democracy missions for the benefit of all humanity...

Goodness gracious!!!! I think we've been through that before. NEVER EVER had I said that. Why to put those words in my mouth?! It's truly wonderous to see a Political Science graduate that can only perceive the world monochromatically.

Originally Posted by Hanna

then I don't think there is much anyone can say that will change your mind!

Well, as I said I don't, so go ahead and change my mind.

Originally Posted by Hanna

After all, that is the official version. But did you believe in the official version in the papers when you lived in the USSR too? For example: The USSR war in Afghanistan.... That was just a humanitarian response to pleas of help from the majority of people in Afghanistan, who needed help to protect them from oppression, religious fanaticism and imperialist exploitation.... Completely justified war, right? Just like the gulf wars, the modern Afghanistan war etc, etc.

Ok, so you made my decision on my behalf without really asking me and now you're trying to educate me the official version can not be reflecting the entire truth? Hmm... what can I say...

Кончайте баловаться. Ваша болтовня не похожа ни на офф-топик, ни даже на троллинг. And it's not cute. Если хозяин темы пожелает, то я могу это всё вытереть.

Originally Posted by Lampada

Ваша болтовня не похожа ни на офф-топик, ни даже на троллинг. Если хозяин темы пожелает, то я могу это всё вытереть.

Пожалуйста...

Originally Posted by sperk

Пожалуйста...

Ладно, давай подождём, может, сами вытрут.

Originally Posted by Lampada

Кончайте баловаться. Ваша болтовня не похожа ни на офф-топик, ни даже на троллинг.

Правильно. Это не офф-отпик и не троллинг. Это вполне себе безобидная ирония на тему всемирных заговоров. А о полицейском государстве вообще и речи не идет. Скорее о мародерском. Выстроена демократия по принципу берегового братства XVII века.

Originally Posted by Lampada

Кончайте баловаться. Ваша болтовня не похожа ни на офф-топик, ни даже на троллинг. And it's not cute. Если хозяин темы пожелает, то я могу это всё вытереть.

Да ладно, зачем уж так кипятиться?

Лампада - либерал.

А есть ли у "буржуев" такое: Человек прибыл из другой страны, получил гражданство, затем ему ампутировали конечность, а инвалидность не дают - нет московской прописки.