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

Originally Posted by Hanna

Hehe Croc! There are always different ways to interpret history.

True words.

Originally Posted by Hanna

But it's interesting that lately there it is always the same country that invades other countries and builds up endless stories of how gruesome these countries are, and why they need to be invaded for everyones best. Yet when you scratch the surface; oil, currency or spreading commercialism is always there in the background. If I see a clear pattern then no amount of hype can get me to look around it. And I feel there is a pattern.

Good catch! The only problem is to find out what's behind that pattern. As Mr. Lenin used to say: "The politics is the most concentrated expression of the economics." As I mentioned earlier, I think the sole purpose of the local armies is to either promote or defend the local economies. What else would you expect? Do you think Charles XII of Sweden was any different? Any politician would use the force if he could, be it the US or Sweden, or Russia, or China, or New Zealand, no exceptions. The NATO presently is the most dominant military power on the planet, and that's what is observed from the outside as a "pattern". If you still don't believe me, have a closer look at the African military conflicts of the recent history. Still the same pattern.

Originally Posted by kidkboom

Most of the people who work in politics in my US are idiots - far below the requisite intellect of folks who can fool the people en-masse.. Hanna, I for one don't doubt we're being fooled. But I know the puppeteer has got to be better than the ones we've seen.

Yeah, I can see your point. The only thing is that the politicians of any other country are no different. And I think if you take a closer look, you'll find that in the constant power games the fools are being eliminated first. Those we see on the top of the political food chain are not necessarily well-educated, but very smart evil men with no principles and empathy whatsoever. If they act like idiots, that means they have their reasons to look that way at that moment. As to the shoe incident... well, give them a break, they are still people. Others chew on their their ties just as easy as they chew on their political opponents. You get the picture.

Originally Posted by Ramil

People, when you say that it's senators or congressmen and presidents who make the politics these days, you are wrong. As kidkboom has just pointed out - they are dump people mentally incapable of doing anything real.

Сперва добейся. (ТМ)

Originally Posted by Ramil

Moreover - they have no real instruments of doing anything major. A government (any government) simply represents the owner of money who had brought them on the political pinnacle to express their views and interests.

That used to be true long time ago, but these days the same businesses contribute to both parties. How on Earth a government could represent all those with the different business needs?

Originally Posted by Ramil

I still think that this world is ruled by 200-300 powerful families (or clans) and everything that is happenning in the world is done for their profit.

Yeah, we had a long talk about it some time back. I see it differently.

Originally Posted by Ramil

When some political or economical event happens I ask myself - who benefits from this? Old buddy Hercule Poirot used this trick many times and always succeeded in finding out who the criminal was.

Right, but Hercule Poirot is a character in a book. There are other books in which a criminal is not the one who seems to benefit the most, but commits the crime to make the police imprison another person for life as a revenge. IRL, we have an assasination of General Lev Rochlin and his wife was prosecuted on the grounds she benefited from his death. And so on and so forth. It's true the one who commits the crime benefits from the crime in some way, but it's not always the one who benefits the most and/or "the most" is subjective.

Originally Posted by Ramil

I won't ever believe that Nicolas Sarkozy or David Cameron or Hillary Clinton could start a war merely for the defense of 'innocent civilians molested by the evil regimes'. I won't ever believe that political circles in France, UK or USA even cared about these poor victims of dictatorships. I won't believe they ever cared about anything but their continued well-being.

I agree with each and every word you said.

Originally Posted by Ramil

@Crocodile: I don't know whether the Gaddafi's intentions triggered an attack on him or not

You kidding me, right? Earlier, you insisted you know that for sure in a rather certain way: "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." But now you back off and say you don't know? After all the homework you sent me?! That's just mean!!

Originally Posted by Ramil

but the official story they tell us about why we are bombing Libya is even less plausible.

Yup. Sadly it's not worth a dime.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

You kidding me, right? Earlier, you insisted you know that for sure in a rather certain way: "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." But now you back off and say you don't know? After all the homework you sent me?! That's just mean!!

Who am I? Nostradamus? I said what I said. Saddam wanted this and so did Gaddafi. There may be other reasons, but I only noticed similarities. What concerns the timeline you've posted - it's hard to say exactly what Saddam had actually undertaken during this period. Surely, you're not going to tell me about his threat to the civilized world with WMD? I must research however if the leaders of Tunis and Egypt in the North and Bahrain and Syria in the South supported Gaddafi's ideas.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Who am I? Nostradamus?

Well, Nostradamus used to tell the future using codes, I kind of wanted you to tell the past in a very clear way. So, I was kind of hoping you're the logical complementary of Nostradamus.

Originally Posted by Ramil

I said what I said. Saddam wanted this and so did Gaddafi. There may be other reasons, but I only noticed similarities.

Alright, but that probably does not deserve the certain tone in: "Anyone who tries to introduce some other international reserve currency [...] immediately gets a 'democracy operation' in his country." thing because my understanding is that way of thinking is part of maintaining the whole "USDs are only supported by the US military, and not by anything real" canvas, on which you use to build up other things.

Originally Posted by Ramil

What concerns the timeline you've posted - it's hard to say exactly what Saddam had actually undertaken during this period.

Yes, I agree. And I think that we would not know for real in the near future why Bush invaded Iraq. I mean, we can try and make some guesses, but that's all they are - the guesses.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Surely, you're not going to tell me about his threat to the civilized world with WMD?

No, I'm not. That would be an insult to your intelligence.

Originally Posted by Ramil

I must research however if the leaders of Tunis and Egypt in the North and Bahrain and Syria in the South supported Gaddafi's ideas.

Sure thing. Please, let me know how that reasearch would go. Especially about Egypt.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Originally Posted by Ramil
I still think that this world is ruled by 200-300 powerful families (or clans) and everything that is happenning in the world is done for their profit.


Yeah, we had a long talk about it some time back. I see it differently.

The Rich Are About To Get Very, Very Rich: Study Finds Global Millionaire Wealth Set To More Than Double By 2020 | zero hedge

Scroll down to find:

"And then a quick look at the creme of the crop: the households who likely account for well over half of the total trillions in assets held, those who have over $30 million (remember the Talebian scale issue here), are only 871 currently, of which well over half, or 496 reside in the US." => In other words, a small number of families do control majority of global assets. In other words they run most of the world. Study was done by Deloitte , an accounting firm.

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.

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/zim...ops+to+zero%29

It is the normal experience of countries that go through hyperinflation, that they never want to go through it again, and so they go to something like gold backed. Will they be bombed? Don't know. Stay tuned...

Zimbabwe, a country rich in natural resources, took so long to figure out that it was nothing but a puppet in the hands of western monetary interests. [...]
It sits on gold reserves worth trillions. It has the world’s second largest reserves of platinum, has got alluvial diamonds that can fetch the nation $2 billion annually and even boasts of chrome and coal deposits.

The magic word is corruption. In order to extract the resources you need to build the infrastructure. In order to process the resources (like clean up the raw metals, etc.) you need even more advanced infrastructure. In order for that to happen, you need to do the long-term investment. You need to educate specialists. And so on and so forth. Why would the Zimbabwe government be interested in that? They already have everything they want. As you know, it doesn't really matter how much wealth you have, the more important that you have more than the others around you. Therefore, the government goes the easy way and outsources the excavation, the processing, and all the rest to the external companies who have the expertise and the necessary tools. The government officials would prefer hand out the contracts to those companies who give them the biggest piles of cash in return. That would only be profitable for the companies if they keep the extracting costs very low, pay very low salaries to the locals, and pay very low taxes to the state. So, in some way the ordinary people's poverty is beneficial to those companies and the government officials. The golden/diamond or similar currency is not any news. While it not only slows down the production economy, it also has clear benefits of hoarding the currency, creating shortages of currency, and slowing down the overall business activity. But it makes the currency more stable, that's true. Gold is gold, no matter who presently holds the power in Zimbabwe and/or if tomorrow there's going to be a civil war in there. So, by introducing such currency, Zimbabwe officials would be richer and the other Zimbabwe citizens would not feel any difference.