World War 3 & the Petrodollar

Chuck

Active Member
Perhaps the intent and contents of this video have been covered elsewhere, but I couldn't find anything specifically related to this particular video's assertions. I have a relatively large block of friends who buy into this monolithic global conspiracy theory centered around the FED and it's complicit partners. Though U.S. foreign policy seems to make more sense when viewed through the lens presented in this video, the paradigm of the video's producer (stormcloudsgathering) appears far too simplistic.

[video=youtube_share;HP7L8bw5QF4]http://youtu.be/HP7L8bw5QF4[/video]

To debunk: Is U.S. military aggression in the Middle East centered singularly around the petrodollar? In other words, is the petrodollar the common denominator in all Middle East U.S. foreign policy decisions?

To debunk: As the video portends, will WW3 (which they argue is already underway) be a direct result of current U.S. foreign policy?

Following is another tenet of this video producer:

 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
5:25
[after the second Iraq war] switching back to the dollar meant a 15-20% loss in revenue, due to the Euro's higher value
Content from External Source
That makes no sense. They don't just replace the Euro sign with a Dollar sign. The price in Euros is different from the price in Dollars, just like it's different in Pounds Sterling, Canadian Dollars, or Dutch guilders.

He also seems to gloss over the reasons for the first gulf war.

Its clear that OPEC sales being made in dollars in the interest of the US status quo, and that changing to Euro's would change this status quo. But what's very arguable is the magnitude.

His argument boils down to "mad bankers are deliberately pushing us into WWIII to prop up the dollar, and now is the time for armed resistance".

It's unclear how global nuclear war is supposed to help the fed, or why anyone would consider it an acceptable cost.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Britain and the U.S have sought to control M.E oil since ww1. It is documented. It is still going on now.

The U.S is already at war with Iran and has been for a very long time. They are doing exactly the same as they did to Iraq via sanctions and I suggest they are preparing the way to go to physical war, probably using Israel as a catalyst.

1) They are entitled to have nuclear power.
2) There is no evidence that they are seeking nuclear weapons and they deny it. Iraq again?
3) In fact they issued a fatwa saying that they would never have a nuclear weapon as it is anti Islamic.
4) Israel has had nuclear weapons for years and they are warmongers
5) Bringing freedom? I think not.
6) Attempting to instigate Armageddon? Highly possible as Obama seems keen on carrying on Bush's aims.



A potted history of British and U.S regime changes in Iran and the control of their oil. the clue is in the name 'Anglo Iranian Oil Company'.



Then came 'Dual Containment', which basically means that the two Countries to be contained, are set to war and given the armaments etc to virtually destroy themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_containment

Dual containment was an official United States foreign policy aimed at containing Iraq and Iran, Israel's and America's two most important strategic adversaries in the Middle East. It was first outlined in May 1993 by Martin Indyk at WINEP and officially announced on February 24, 1994 at a symposium of the Middle East Policy Council by Martin Indyk, then the senior director for Middle East Affairs of the National Security Council (NSC).[1][2]


As a consequence of the policy, the U.S. had to station large number of troops nearby. Troops were stationed in Saudi Arabia, an area that many in the region regard as "holy soil," which offended many locals and is cited by Osama bin Laden as one reason for his hatred against the United States policies and part of his motivation for the September 11 attacks.
Traditional American policies had been not to engage with troops on the ground in the Middle East, but to stay "over the horizon", ready to move in at short notice. The only time the U.S. had deviated from this policy was during its intervention in the civil war in Lebanon, and that led to the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing.

By the mid-1990s there was considerable dissatisfaction with dual containment, because it made the United States the mortal enemy of two countries that hated each other, and forced Washington to bear the burden of containing both. Pressed by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and other pro-Israel forces,[3] Clinton toughened up the policy in the spring of 1995 by imposing an economic embargo on Iran. But AIPAC and the others wanted more.[3] The result was the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996, which imposed sanctions on any foreign company investing more than $40 million to develop petroleum resources in Iran or Libya.

Content from External Source
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
What about the petrodollar though Oxy? Would "they" risk WWIII just so ME oil is priced in dollars rather than Euros?
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
What about the petrodollar though Oxy? Would "they" risk WWIII just so ME oil is priced in dollars rather than Euros?

I have heard the argument that the change from dollars to Euro's pretty much incensed 'them' and they quickly put Iraq oil back to dollars after the invasion didn't they.

Seems like there is an argument there in regards to currency wars and keeping the dollar and U.S pre eminent. I don't think 'they' are too happy about BRIC and some other competition from new Commodity Exchanges in the East, even though it is still pretty much in it's infancy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRIC

What do you think?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I have heard the argument that the change from dollars to Euro's pretty much incensed 'them' and they quickly put Iraq oil back to dollars after the invasion didn't they.

Seems like there is an argument there in regards to currency wars and keeping the dollar and U.S pre eminent. I don't think 'they' are too happy about BRIC and some other competition from new Commodity Exchanges in the East, even though it is still pretty much in it's infancy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRIC

What do you think?

It's not a subject I'm very familiar with. It would be interesting to see the actual magnitudes of the figures involved in context. Also how do countries like Japan, Germany, Australia, and France fit into the picture.
 

Mackdog

Senior Member.
I've been thinking for some time now that the "uprisings" in the middle east and north africa are pretty much the signs of a new "cold war" going on between the west (USA, UK, NATO, Israel ect..) and the rest of the world powers (Russia, China, Iran) to basicly stake their claim to the natural resources and land in the mid east and central asia. On one hand we have China, a growing world super power, and Russia, still a staunch opponent of the west despite the fall of communism. This to me adds up to the perfect storm for a cold war/global proxy war fought between both sides. Just like the korean and viet nam wars were proxy wars between communist china and the US, and how the soviet afghan war was a proxy war between the USSR and the USA.

It appears that US and Israel are arming the FSA rebels in Syria just like they did in Libya 2 years ago, and I think that is one small part of a bigger picture where the west is trying to control the nations in the mid east and asia. By deposing these more powerful "regimes" like in syria, it also allows the US and Israel to wage war against Iran without the help of the Assad regime and its hezballah fighters to back up iran when the time comes.

As for past terrorist attacks on the US, I firmly believe that it was our foreign policy that got us into so much trouble. Thats why we were targeted, as stated in Bin Ladens 1996 and 1998 fatwas. Also, our continuing support of Israel and the fact that they have been taking over palestinian land by force for decades now, also was a motivation for the attacks from 1993 to 2001, as stated by bin laden himself numerous times. There is a good you tube channel called "representative press" that shows all of the proof for the motivation for these attacks and how the media is complicit in covering up the motivations for islamic terrorism.
 

jvnk08

Senior Member.
The notion that the US is heavily dependant on Middle Eastern oil is misinformed. Roughly 13%(less by now, I believe) of total imports comes from the Middle East. On a broader level, the US actually isn't even that dependent on foreign oil anymore either:

the Energy Information Administration now expects U.S. oil imports to shrink from 8.3 million barrels per day down to 6 million barrels per day by the start of 2014.
Content from External Source
(For reference, we consume ~19 million barrels per day as of 2011: source)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...here-the-u-s-gets-its-oil-imports-in-one-map/



Here's another nice piece from NPR on where the US gets its oil:

http://www.npr.org/2012/04/11/150444802/where-does-america-get-oil-you-may-be-surprised

So, I think it's safe to say that waging "world war 3" over their choice in currency is unlikely.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
The notion that the US is heavily dependant on Middle Eastern oil is misinformed. Roughly 13%(less by now, I believe) of total imports comes from the Middle East. On a broader level, the US actually isn't even that dependent on foreign oil anymore either:

the Energy Information Administration now expects U.S. oil imports to shrink from 8.3 million barrels per day down to 6 million barrels per day by the start of 2014.
Content from External Source
(For reference, we consume ~19 million barrels per day as of 2011: source)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...here-the-u-s-gets-its-oil-imports-in-one-map/



Here's another nice piece from NPR on where the US gets its oil:

http://www.npr.org/2012/04/11/150444802/where-does-america-get-oil-you-may-be-surprised

So, I think it's safe to say that waging "world war 3" over their choice in currency is unlikely.

That has always been the case but it does not negate the wish to control M.E oil. It is explained in the video above that it is necessary, one to ensure oil to the west and 2, as a means of profiteering.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
That has always been the case but it does not negate the wish to control M.E oil. It is explained in the video above that it is necessary, one to ensure oil to the west and 2, as a means of profiteering.

But what exactly would happend if the US did not "control" M.E. oil? Let's say all of OPEC switched to selling oil in Euros. What would happen? What's the magnitude? Is it really WWIII-worthy?
 

jvnk08

Senior Member.
But what exactly would happend if the US did not "control" M.E. oil? Let's say all of OPEC switched to selling oil in Euros. What would happen? What's the magnitude? Is it really WWIII-worthy?

I assume the US would continue the current trend of escalating imports from Canada and internal production.

But those countries love our money, so realistically I don't think they'd stop trading with us even if they started trading in Euros, which is far-fetched imo).
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
But what exactly would happend if the US did not "control" M.E. oil? Let's say all of OPEC switched to selling oil in Euros. What would happen? What's the magnitude? Is it really WWIII-worthy?

Ah, just refreshed on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar_warfare

Most oil sales throughout the world are denominated in United States dollars (USD).[1]
Content from External Source
And those that aren't are on the S..t list and are at risk of having their Governments overthrown by CIA activity, sanctions or all out war.

According to proponents of the petrodollar warfare hypothesis, because most countries rely on oil imports, they are forced to maintain large stockpiles of dollars in order to continue imports. This creates a consistent demand for USDs and puts upward pressure on the USD's value, regardless of economic conditions in the United States. This in turn allegedly allows the US government to gain revenues through seignorage and by issuing bonds at lower interest rates than they otherwise would be able to. As a result the U.S. government can run higher budget deficits at a more sustainable level than can most other countries. A stronger USD also means that goods imported into the United States are relatively cheap.
Content from External Source
This bit seems slightly convoluted but perhaps someone may like to clarify it.

Political enemies of the United States therefore have some interest in seeing oil denominated in euros or other currencies. The EU could also theoretically accrue the same benefits if the euro replaced the dollar. However, the European economy could also be seriously damaged if the euro were to appreciate significantly against the dollar or other world currencies, particularly its exports which would become relatively more expensive for the rest of the world. The same dynamic can apply to the dollar and the U.S. economy as well
Content from External Source
So does having the oil in Euro's make you a political enemy, or is it that political enemies prefer Euro's for another reason.

This all gets a bit moot when oil is bartered as is happening in Iran but the principle remains.

http://www.caseyresearch.com/cdd/demise-petrodollar

The Petrodollar System
To explain this situation properly, we have to start in 1973. That's when President Nixon asked King Faisal of Saudi Arabia to accept only US dollars as payment for oil and to invest any excess profits in US Treasury bonds, notes, and bills. In exchange, Nixon pledged to protect Saudi Arabian oil fields from the Soviet Union and other interested nations, such as Iran and Iraq. It was the start of something great for the US, even if the outcome was as artificial as the US real-estate bubble and yet constitutes the foundation for the valuation of the US dollar.
By 1975 all of the members of OPEC agreed to sell their oil only in US dollars. Every oil-importing nation in the world started saving their surplus in US dollars so as to be able to buy oil; with such high demand for dollars the currency strengthened. On top of that, many oil-exporting nations like Saudi Arabia spent their US dollar surpluses on Treasury securities, providing a new, deep pool of lenders to support US government spending.
The "petrodollar" system was a brilliant political and economic move. It forced the world's oil money to flow through the US Federal Reserve, creating ever-growing international demand for both US dollars and US debt, while essentially letting the US pretty much own the world's oil for free, since oil's value is denominated in a currency that America controls and prints. The petrodollar system spread beyond oil: the majority of international trade is done in US dollars. That means that from Russia to China, Brazil to South Korea, every country aims to maximize the US-dollar surplus garnered from its export trade to buy oil.
The US has reaped many rewards. As oil usage increased in the 1980s, demand for the US dollar rose with it, lifting the US economy to new heights. But even without economic success at home the US dollar would have soared, because the petrodollar system created consistent international demand for US dollars, which in turn gained in value. A strong US dollar allowed Americans to buy imported goods at a massive discount – the petrodollar system essentially creating a subsidy for US consumers at the expense of the rest of the world. Here, finally, the US hit on a downside: The availability of cheap imports hit the US manufacturing industry hard, and the disappearance of manufacturing jobs remains one of the biggest challenges in resurrecting the US economy today.
There is another downside, a potential threat now lurking in the shadows. The value of the US dollar is determined in large part by the fact that oil is sold in US dollars. If that trade shifts to a different currency, countries around the world won't need all their US money. The resulting sell-off of US dollars would weaken the currency dramatically.
So here's an interesting thought experiment. Everybody says the US goes to war to protect its oil supplies, but doesn't it really go to war to ensure the continuation of the petrodollar system?

Content from External Source
Any ideas?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
According to proponents of the petrodollar warfare hypothesis, because most countries rely on oil imports, they are forced to maintain large stockpiles of dollars in order to continue imports. This creates a consistent demand for USDs and puts upward pressure on the USD's value, regardless of economic conditions in the United States. This in turn allegedly allows the US government to gain revenues through seignorage and by issuing bonds at lower interest rates than they otherwise would be able to. As a result the U.S. government can run higher budget deficits at a more sustainable level than can most other countries. A stronger USD also means that goods imported into the United States are relatively cheap.
Content from External Source

This seems to be a very minor theory, judging by it's representation on Wikipedia. Without numbers attached to the various claims there it's difficult to give it much credence.

And do "they" even want a strong dollar?

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us...-fairy-tale-that-sends-a-message?pagenumber=2

By repeating that "a strong dollar is in the U.S. national interest," Rubin told investors that the Treasury had no plans to intervene in the foreign exchange market to weaken it. It was a signal to foreign investors that they could confidently invest in U.S. assets without fearing that dollar depreciation would erode their returns."This rhetorical policy started to lose its effectiveness in the spring of 2002, when President Bush succumbed to the demands of U.S. manufacturers calling for action against an overvalued U.S. dollar," said Ashraf Laidi, chief foreign-exchange strategist at CMC Markets.

"What he did was respond to the struggling U.S. steel manufactures in a midterm election year, and launched a steel war, and in currency markets, when a country launches any trade action, you sell its currency," Laidi said.

In 2002, the dollar fell about 15% against the euro and about 10% against the yen.

Rubin's successors at the Treasury, John Snow and Paul O'Neil, continued to recite the message, although it was clear by then that the U.S. was shifting from what Laidi called a "real" strong dollar policy to one of benign neglect.

"When they started also saying that 'recent currency action is reflective of market fundamentals,' it didn't take a genius of a currency trader to figure out that the U.S. wanted a weak dollar," he said. "But they needed to preserve the rhetorical policy as a cover."
Content from External Source
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Europe is more dependent on mid east oil. The important thing to remember is that as the current financial crisis in Europe is showing, the Euro is not as a dependable currency as the US dollar.

China holds millions of US dollars, if the value of the dollar dropped drastically, they would hurt their selves. One thing about globalization is that the more trade and investment is spread out among the world, the more doing something to 'hurt' another country ends up hurting you as well.
 

Mackdog

Senior Member.
The notion that the US is heavily dependant on Middle Eastern oil is misinformed. Roughly 13%(less by now, I believe) of total imports comes from the Middle East. On a broader level, the US actually isn't even that dependent on foreign oil anymore either:

the Energy Information Administration now expects U.S. oil imports to shrink from 8.3 million barrels per day down to 6 million barrels per day by the start of 2014.
Content from External Source
(For reference, we consume ~19 million barrels per day as of 2011: source)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...here-the-u-s-gets-its-oil-imports-in-one-map/



Here's another nice piece from NPR on where the US gets its oil:

http://www.npr.org/2012/04/11/150444802/where-does-america-get-oil-you-may-be-surprised

So, I think it's safe to say that waging "world war 3" over their choice in currency is unlikely.

I think your right about the U.S. becoming less dependent on foreign oil, however we currently get a big chunk of our heavy crude from the middle east, because north america has very little of that type of oil. But after however many decades we have been trying to become energy independent, and after creating the department of energy, who's main purpose was to get us off of foreign oil, we are now poised to become the worlds leading producer of natural gas and wet gas. Thanks to the innovation of oil companies and high tech. hydraulic fracturing and drilling operations, in other words, the U.S. in the next saudi arabia...with that said, I highly doubt the conspiracy theory regarding WW3 being waged because of oil and currency. But a global cold war fought between the east and west seems to be taking place. And to an extent, land and natural resources come into play...as they always do in wars.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
We don't get much oil of any type from the mid east, there are closer sources than them, such as South America and Canada. Canada, Mexico and Venezuela all produce heavy crude, but is not as desirable as a light, sweet crude.



Canada is far and away the biggest purveyor of crude to its southern neighbor, hitting a record 2.2 million barrels a day last year as its share of the U.S. market grew by 12 percent.

Energy expert Robert Rapier says the take-away for Americans may be "marry a Canadian," because he or she will be a citizen of an increasingly rich country. "Their budget looks good, and they're sitting on top of tremendous reserves," he says.

Saudi Arabia is a distant second, providing the U.S. with barely half as much crude as Canada. Other Persian Gulf countries also contribute to U.S. oil imports, but make up a relatively small share overall.
Content from External Source
http://www.npr.org/2012/04/11/150444802/where-does-america-get-oil-you-may-be-surprised


Here is a nice map to illustrate it.




http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...here-the-u-s-gets-its-oil-imports-in-one-map/
 

Lost World

New Member
In this age of 'clever speak' semantics and pedantics we could find ourselves in a global conflict with no one other than 'web warriors' calling it out as it really is.

Is there a plan to stage a global nuclear war for oil and/or to save the $USD? I wouldn't have thought so personally. This whole question of who benefits is kicked to the curb by the concept of global nuclear war because no one would benefit. Not the US Federal Reserve, Deutche Bank, The BOE, or anyone. There has always been one scheme or another to control ME oil. That's nothing new.

However, is there a risk of world war? Yes, I think so, and although in all probability this would be triggered out of events in the Middle East, I don't believe for a minute that it is the actual aim. It's more likely to start with a major terrorist attack on Israel, linked to Hezbollah and Iran, prompting a huge Israeli response, which could lure Russia into the mix in defence of Iran. In which case NATO would have little choice but to step in, both in defence of Israel and to ensure the Iranian oil fields don't fall into Russian hands. This situation would come about not through careful planning and conspiracy, but sheer fear and rage induced violence spiraling out of control. That situation would be terrifying and unpredictable, at least not in part because the Russians may find themselves in a 'use them or lose them' situation with their aging strategic nuclear weapons systems.

I think it was Terrance McKenna who once said, and I paraphrase "There is this idea that a small cabal of elites has control of everything, but there is a theory far more frightening than that, and that is that no one has any control over anything"

In any case, pay careful attention to what is happening in Syria right now, and how that conflict is spreading and escalating, bringing in Hezbollah on the side of Assad. Watch how the west will start arming the rebel groups, and watch how these weapons fall into the hands of radical Islamist factions. An attack on Israel, be it from a military response to another airstrike on Syrian soil, or a terrorist event, is on the cards. It's coming.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Another thing to remember is that the Saudis don't like the Iranians either. We don't need to worry about the Russians getting Iran's oil fields, Russia has a LOT of oil itself. China would be upset, since they are getting a lot of oil from Iran, the west isn't getting it now.

Is a major nuclear war possible?, yes, as long as countries have the weapons, however is it very low on priorities. NO ONE would win, ALL would lose.
 

TOMCOPELAND

New Member
Another thing to remember is that the Saudis don't like the Iranians either. We don't need to worry about the Russians getting Iran's oil fields, Russia has a LOT of oil itself. China would be upset, since they are getting a lot of oil from Iran, the west isn't getting it now.

Is a major nuclear war possible?, yes, as long as countries have the weapons, however is it very low on priorities. NO ONE would win, ALL would lose.

The two main players in the middle east are Iran and Saudi Arabia- one is Shia and the other is Sunni- The conflict in Syria goes back decades and the biggest backers of the Syrian Sunni rebels is Saudi Arabia. This is due mostly due to the opposition of the Sauds to a proposed gas pipeline that would link Iran Iraq and Syria to Europe run by Gazprom. Hence this is the reason also why Putin and Russia have staked their claim and will not leave. The Saudis have asked for US support in ousting Assad but Obama refused which is why the Saudis turned down the UN Security seat and also why there is so much chatter the Saudis moving away from the petrodollar and thus imperiling the value of US Treasuries - therefore US interest rates -

With regard to the Shiite and Sunni conflict it is the the main driver of tension in the middle east- with each country jockeying for position on how to best export energy reserves and gain and keep access to the precious water resources.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
And add into the Shia / Sunni conflict, those Muslims that are looking for a more liberal, more Western style Islam.

It is about time for a 'Muslim Reformation' , especially in the Sunnis, but also in the Shias as well. Add in countries with borders that ignored tribal, religious and ethnic areas, and you have the basis for a huge mess.

The house of Saud made a deal with the Wahhabis, to ensure their power, that is also an uncomfortable relationship.

The presence of the internet, adds to it.

During the first uprising in Egypt, one of my gamer 'friends' was in the square demonstrating. He would go back to his flat for some rest and clothes and he would upload videos of what was happening that him and his friends took in our game Skype room. About 2 years ago, a Syrian gamer 'friend' gave me his hotmail PW so he could see if the government was blocking his email. They were. Him and his family are safe in Saudi.

It is going to take some time for the mid east to settle down, and the same with the severed Soviet Union.
 

Chute

New Member
Another thing to remember is that the Saudis don't like the Iranians either. We don't need to worry about the Russians getting Iran's oil fields, Russia has a LOT of oil itself. China would be upset, since they are getting a lot of oil from Iran, the west isn't getting it now.

Is a major nuclear war possible?, yes, as long as countries have the weapons, however is it very low on priorities. NO ONE would win, ALL would lose.
For what its worth, it appears the Chinese will have access to Saudi oil also. I've read speculation the two have cozied up since the U.S. backed off on taking Assad out, which angered the Saudis. But this deal clearly predates all of that. http://www.saudiaramco.com/en/home/...-operations%2Fprojects%2Fyasref.baseajax.html
 

Rroval

Member
In this age of 'clever speak' semantics and pedantics we could find ourselves in a global conflict with no one other than 'web warriors' calling it out as it really is.

Is there a plan to stage a global nuclear war for oil and/or to save the $USD? I wouldn't have thought so personally. This whole question of who benefits is kicked to the curb by the concept of global nuclear war because no one would benefit. Not the US Federal Reserve, Deutche Bank, The BOE, or anyone. There has always been one scheme or another to control ME oil. That's nothing new.

However, is there a risk of world war? Yes, I think so, and although in all probability this would be triggered out of events in the Middle East, I don't believe for a minute that it is the actual aim. It's more likely to start with a major terrorist attack on Israel, linked to Hezbollah and Iran, prompting a huge Israeli response, which could lure Russia into the mix in defence of Iran. In which case NATO would have little choice but to step in, both in defence of Israel and to ensure the Iranian oil fields don't fall into Russian hands. This situation would come about not through careful planning and conspiracy, but sheer fear and rage induced violence spiraling out of control. That situation would be terrifying and unpredictable, at least not in part because the Russians may find themselves in a 'use them or lose them' situation with their aging strategic nuclear weapons systems.

I think it was Terrance McKenna who once said, and I paraphrase "There is this idea that a small cabal of elites has control of everything, but there is a theory far more frightening than that, and that is that no one has any control over anything"

In any case, pay careful attention to what is happening in Syria right now, and how that conflict is spreading and escalating, bringing in Hezbollah on the side of Assad. Watch how the west will start arming the rebel groups, and watch how these weapons fall into the hands of radical Islamist factions. An attack on Israel, be it from a military response to another airstrike on Syrian soil, or a terrorist event, is on the cards. It's coming.

I think there are many errors with this, first of all the notion of a 'world war' starting in the middle east pays allusions to Biblical prophecies (which is rather what the whole "WW3" thing is about actually) and also it's highly unlikey that Iran would stage a terrorist attack on Israel and plus Iran and Russia don't have analogues either so I don't think Russia would come to Iran's defense if they got attacked.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
For what its worth, it appears the Chinese will have access to Saudi oil also. I've read speculation the two have cozied up since the U.S. backed off on taking Assad out, which angered the Saudis. But this deal clearly predates all of that. http://www.saudiaramco.com/en/home/our-operations/projects/yasref.html#our-operations%7C%2Fen%2Fhome%2Four-operations%2Fprojects%2Fyasref.baseajax.html

China has had access to KSA oil for decades. This particular refinery is for oil with a high sulfur content that refineries in the West typically can't process.

What this does is underscore the fact that China is now the World's biggest importer of Oil and will be interesting to see how it handles all the geo-political baggage that goes with that.

The US only receives about 10% of its imported crude oil from the KSA (depending on year and how its measured) and "only" imports about 40% of the oil it consumes. The percentage has been declining for the most of the last decade.

http://www.eia.gov/energy_in_brief/article/foreign_oil_dependence.cfm

Elodie-China4.jpg
 
Last edited:

SR1419

Senior Member.
I think there are many errors with this, first of all the notion of a 'world war' starting in the middle east pays allusions to Biblical prophecies (which is rather what the whole "WW3" thing is about actually) and also it's highly unlikey that Iran would stage a terrorist attack on Israel and plus Iran and Russia don't have analogues either so I don't think Russia would come to Iran's defense if they got attacked.


Wait- why would Iran fake a terrorist attack on Israel?? o_O

(Sorry- Metabunk inside joke...long story...)

I think the current situation in Ukraine is actually very dangerous and it seems to me could devolve much more quickly than the proxy BS in Syria...
 

Rroval

Member
I think the current situation in Ukraine is actually very dangerous and it seems to me could devolve much more quickly than the proxy BS in Syria...

How so? Well first of all Ukarine and Crimea neither is a member of the EU or NATO so I can't see how exaggeratedly dangerous whatever your thinking of can get.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
How so? Well first of all Ukarine and Crimea neither is a member of the EU or NATO so I can't see how exaggeratedly dangerous whatever your thinking of can get.


really?

The potential for a major civil war/conflict on the border of (if not in) Europe with Russian troops marching...and you do not see the danger in that?

Large numbers of Russian troops were reported landing at a military air base in Crimea Friday, prompting Ukraine to accuse Russia of a military invasion....The new developments prompted Ukraine to accuse Russia of a "military invasion and occupation" -- a claim that brought an alarming new dimension to the crisis.
Content from External Source
meanwhile- back at the White House:

President Obama warned Russia on Friday that it should not intervene militarily in Ukraine, saying the United States will stand with the world to condemn a violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty. “There will be costs,” Mr. Obama declared in a brief statement from the White House.
Content from External Source
Ukraine is not a member of the EU or NATO- but it was trying to become a member of the EU- or at least develop closer trading relations- had not Russia got in the way. How the EU will react this remains to be seen but with Russian troops on the move and the fate of its Black Sea fleet at stake, I think its a very dangerous situation.

To me, this situation seems much more dangerous than proxy war by IED in Syria...
 
Last edited:
J

Joe

Guest

President Obama warned Russia on Friday that it should not intervene militarily in Ukraine, saying the United States will stand with the world to condemn a violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty. “There will be costs,” Mr. Obama declared in a brief statement from the White House.
Content from External Source
Putin is shaking in his boots :)
 
J

Joe

Guest
Understanding Geopolitics in that region explained by Caspian Report . A good YT channel IMO .
 

the koolaid

Banned
Banned
i knew that shit will hit the fan. I knew it all this time. And yet, no one beleived me. NO ONE did.
all of youa re so dumb for believing in the us government. Hahhahaha when you all DIE soon by nuclear fire preapre to see the end of life.

people like myself... I knew it... But no one revolted........ Hahahahaha
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Really, you were the single lone voice proclaiming doom? I think you are a member of a respectfully-sized group of like-minded people who have been pronouncing the end for thousands of years.
 
J

Joe

Guest
i knew that shit will hit the fan. I knew it all this time. And yet, no one beleived me. NO ONE did.
all of youa re so dumb for believing in the us government. Hahhahaha when you all DIE soon by nuclear fire preapre to see the end of life.

people like myself... I knew it... But no one revolted........ Hahahahaha
Well The Shit didnt hit the fan and may or may not ever . Im prepared if it does but even I doubt it ever will . Revolt against what ? Who ? What would it accomplish ? Anarchy is a vacuum something has to fill that vacuum and its usally worse afterwards . That might be exactly what they want ?
 

00Mark

New Member
There is a strong case that US policy in the ME is driven by its domestic pro-Israeli lobby rather than concern about oil or petrodollars. See http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/john-mearsheimer/the-israel-lobby

"We maintain that US policy in the Middle East is driven primarily by the commitment to Israel, not oil interests. If the oil companies or the oil-producing countries were driving policy, Washington would be tempted to favour the Palestinians instead of Israel. Moreover, the United States would almost certainly not have gone to war against Iraq in March 2003, and the Bush administration would not be threatening to use military force against Iran."

It's a long article and a few years old now but the basic premise still seems valid (to me, anyway.)
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
There is a strong case that US policy in the ME is driven by its domestic pro-Israeli lobby rather than concern about oil or petrodollars. See http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/john-mearsheimer/the-israel-lobby

"We maintain that US policy in the Middle East is driven primarily by the commitment to Israel, not oil interests. If the oil companies or the oil-producing countries were driving policy, Washington would be tempted to favour the Palestinians instead of Israel. Moreover, the United States would almost certainly not have gone to war against Iraq in March 2003, and the Bush administration would not be threatening to use military force against Iran."

It's a long article and a few years old now but the basic premise still seems valid (to me, anyway.)
This is not a political discussion forum.
 

Gary Cook

Active Member
It's unclear how global nuclear war is supposed to help the fed, or why anyone would consider it an acceptable cost.

He believes as do I that the chaos would create a situation where globalists that have committed crimes against humanity, allegedly, could make us so dependent on them for our survival so that we could not bring them to justice.

Just saying that's his general claim. One which I agree with. I watch all his videos but I dont agree with everything he says. He can be a bit of an attention seeker.
 

Sonotrue

New Member
Perhaps the intent and contents of this video have been covered elsewhere, but I couldn't find anything specifically related to this particular video's assertions. I have a relatively large block of friends who buy into this monolithic global conspiracy theory centered around the FED and it's complicit partners. Though U.S. foreign policy seems to make more sense when viewed through the lens presented in this video, the paradigm of the video's producer (stormcloudsgathering) appears far too simplistic.

[video=youtube_share;HP7L8bw5QF4]
To debunk: Is U.S. military aggression in the Middle East centered singularly around the petrodollar? In other words, is the petrodollar the common denominator in all Middle East U.S. foreign policy decisions?

To debunk: As the video portends, will WW3 (which they argue is already underway) be a direct result of current U.S. foreign policy?

Following is another tenet of this video producer:

outfacted

War is always about power that is really not news.

Even though most americans think that they are fighting for "freedom". (Which is funny)

War has always been about power and is always about power and will always be about power and YET people are not learning and keep supporting it and believing the lies. Humanity is just really dumb.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
The aftermath of a global nuclear war will see little to no heavy industry, little to no high tech industry, and complete loss of the international banking system that supposedly, the perpetrators of it wish to keep intact. Furthermore there is no garuntee that the people who are behind it will even personally survive.

Forget the adage about shooting yourself in the foot, this is shooting yourself in the head!

There simply are no winners in a global nuclear war, to argue otherwise is insanity, IMHO.

That said, the greatest losers will be the industrial west. The much larger countries and populations if Russia and China will fare "better".
 

Gary Cook

Active Member
The aftermath of a global nuclear war will see little to no heavy industry, little to no high tech industry, and complete loss of the international banking system that supposedly, the perpetrators of it wish to keep intact. Furthermore there is no garuntee that the people who are behind it will even personally survive.

Forget the adage about shooting yourself in the foot, this is shooting yourself in the head!

There simply are no winners in a global nuclear war, to argue otherwise is insanity, IMHO.

That said, the greatest losers will be the industrial west. The much larger countries and populations if Russia and China will fare "better".

Considering there is more money owed to China than the USA I would disagree. Plus we have no idea how the elitists would fair, not really. We dont know about what tech they have for sure and their ability to survive. Plus they could potentially avoid nuking certain area and live there. Albeit added by what ever tech they have to survive the fallout from other places etc.

It is a bit of a wild claim though. That I agree with. Just not complelty unfounded. Even aside from a potential nuclear war hundreds of nukes have been detonated and continue to pollute the world to varying degrees.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
5:25
Content from external source
[after the second Iraq war] switching back to the dollar meant a 15-20% loss in revenue, due to the Euro's higher value
That makes no sense. They don't just replace the Euro sign with a Dollar sign. The price in Euros is different from the price in Dollars, just like it's different in Pounds Sterling, Canadian Dollars, or Dutch guilders.

It is a big deal because other countries have to buy the U.S$ in order to buy oil. It is what allows the Fed to create as many trillions of dollars as it wants, thereby purchasing goods and services effectively for nothing and being able to fund its massive war machine.

All this is changing. Countries are ditching the $ and it has been declining for a long time against other currencies.

This site gives a thorough yet succinct history and analysis of the petrodollar.

http://www.mantalkmagazine.com.au/the-power-of-iraqi-oil-and-us-interventionism/

In 1973, U.S. President Nixon and U.S. Secretary of State, Henry Kissenger, contrived a deal with the Saudi Arabian Royal family to sell their oil only in U.S. dollars in exchange for military weapons and protection, especially from Israel who the U.S.A. is also in the business of protecting. Their terms were simple, the Saudis must agree to sell all of their oil for U.S. dollars only, and must be open to holding their surplus proceeds in U.S. Debt securities. By 1975 all of the oil producing O.P.E.C. nations had agreed to sell their oil supplies exclusively for U.S. dollars in exchange for weapons and military protection.

The creation of the Petrodollar provided the U.S.A. with three primary benefits:

  • It increased global demand for the U.S. dollar
  • It increased global demand for U.S. debt securities especially from oil producing nations
  • It enabled the U.S. to buy oil with a paper currency it can print itself
Where once the U.S.A.’s greatest export was manufactured goods, it now became the U.S. dollar itself which costs practically nothing to produce, and is backed by nothing more than militarily enforced agreements with a coalition of oil producing nations. Subsequently, we see the demise of manufacturing in the U.S. as foreign nations hungry for U.S. dollars to buy oil, strategically place themselves as off-shore manufacturing centers for U.S. consumers. So the U.S. prints fiat currency, buys oil with it, and obligates the oil producer to invest surplus dollars in U.S. treasury bonds. It also sells its currency to foreign nations, so they can buy oil with it, so the oil producer can again sink the surplus back into U.S. treasury bonds. This merry-go-round of free wealth and energy has enabled the U.S. government to maintain artificially low interest rates, a disproportionately high standard of living, and endless funds to invest in its military industrial complex.

September 12, 2001, despite zero evidence against Iraq, U.S. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, U.S. President Bush and Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz propose that Iraq should be “a principal target of the first round in the war against terrorism. Despite the fact that on 10 separate occasions that Bush asked the C.I.A. to find evidence-linking Iraq to the terror attacks of September 11, the C.I.A. repeatedly came back empty-handed. In ‘Against All Enemies’ by Bush’s former counterterrorism director, Richard A. Clarke, the author recounts in the days immediately following the 9/11 attacks, “The president in a very intimidating way left us, me and my staff, with the clear indication that he wanted us to come back with the word there was an Iraqi hand behind 9/11.”

U.S. officials began publicly demonizing Iraq, and Saddam Hussein, whipping the American public into a war-crazed frenzy with unfounded claims of Iraq’s alleged development and possession of weapons of mass destruction. In addition, Iraq’s intimate (and untrue) ties to international terrorist groups were highlighted, and hypnotically repeated, through the mainstream media outlets to a fearful and angry American public. Ironic that the U.S. who funded the Mujahedeen, and created Al Qaeda continuing to use them to this day, in Syria for example, falsely used the claim that Saddam supported them as a pretext to invade Iraq.

By 2002, Saddam had fully converted to a Petro-euro. On March 19, 2003, George W. Bush announced the commencement of a full scale invasion of Iraq. In June 2003, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said, “Let’s look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil.” In January 2003, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw admitted that oil was a key priority to the West’s involvement in Iraq. Former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, said “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.
Content from External Source
U.S foreign policy and geopolitical maneuvering are seeing massive dumping of the U.S dollar and deals being struck to bypass the USD.

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/05/12/fed-great-deceiver-paul-craig-roberts/
Is the Fed “tapering”? Did the Fed really cut its bond purchases during the three month period November 2013 through January 2014? Apparently not if foreign holders of Treasuries are unloading them.
From November 2013 through January 2014 Belgium with a GDP of $480 billion purchased $141.2 billion of US Treasury bonds. Somehow Belgium came up with enough money to allocate during a 3-month period 29 percent of its annual GDP to the purchase of US Treasury bonds.

Certainly Belgium did not have a budget surplus of $141.2 billion. Was Belgium running a trade surplus during a 3-month period equal to 29 percent of Belgium GDP?

No, Belgium’s trade and current accounts are in deficit.

Did Belgium’s central bank print $141.2 billion worth of euros in order to make the purchase?

No, Belgium is a member of the euro system, and its central bank cannot increase the money supply.

So where did the $141.2 billion come from?

There is only one source. The money came from the US Federal Reserve, and the purchase was laundered through Belgium in order to hide the fact that actual Federal Reserve bond purchases during November 2013 through January 2014 were $112 billion per month.

In other words, during those 3 months there was a sharp rise in bond purchases by the Fed. The Fed’s actual bond purchases for those three months are $27 billion per month above the original $85 billion monthly purchase and $47 billion above the official $65 billion monthly purchase at that time. (In March 2014, official QE was tapered to $55 billion per month and to $45 billion for May.)

Why did the Federal Reserve have to purchase so many bonds above the announced amounts and why did the Fed have to launder and hide the purchase?
Content from External Source
http://modernsurvivalblog.com/the-economy/when-the-dollar-is-no-longer-a-reserve-currency/
The Chinese are getting out of the dollar as fast as they can via strategic commodities.
With less demand for the dollar around the globe, interest rates will skyrocket.

Instead of getting a mortgage at today’s low rates of 5%, it may soon cost you 8% or 10% or 15%.

Stock prices will likely plummet by at least 40% in a matter of weeks as a result of this event in the currency markets.

When the U.S. dollar loses its spot as the world’s reserve currency, the brutal downturn will be about 10-times worse than the mortgage crisis of 2008.

When everyone is trying to get rid of their dollars, the government is printing more and more to pay debts, the crisis will reach epic proportions.

In the past 100 years this type of debt crisis has reared its ugly head in Germany, Russia, Austria, Poland, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, the Ukraine, Japan, and China.

Here’s the thing that most people don’t realize… The U.S. government can only continue printing dollars as long as the dollar remains the world’s reserve currency.

Reported by Robert Fisk (veteran Middle East reporter), last fall, China, Japan, Russia, and France got together for a secret meeting… without the U.S. being present or even knowing about the meeting. It was reported that Gulf Arabs are plotting to end dollar dealings for oil, moving instead to a basket of currencies including the Japanese Yen, Chinese yuan, the euro, gold, and a new unified currency planned for nations in the Gulf including Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait, and Qatar.
Content from External Source
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-...ystery-belgium-buyer-adds-another-whopping-40
Back in mid-March, there was a brief scare after the start of the Ukraine conflict, when Fed custody holdings plunged by a record $104.5 billion (if promptly bouncing back the following week), leading many to believe that Russia may have dumped its Treasurys, or at least change its bond custodian. We noted that we wouldn't have a definitive answer until the May TIC number came out to know for sure how much Russia had sold, or if indeed, anything. Moments ago the May TIC numbers did come out, and as expected, Russia indeed dumped a record $26 billion, or some 20% of all of its holdings, bringing its post-March total to just over $100 billion - the lowest since the Lehman crisis.
Content from External Source
http://ronmamita.wordpress.com/2014...casino-fight-imf-and-u-s-treasury-hypocrites/

http://thesantosrepublic.com/2012/01/25/sovereigns-declare-war-on-us-dollar/

There is really no need to have a Global Reserve Currency, it is an artificial construct designed to enrich America at the expense of other nations, which is what it has done.
 
Last edited:

Cbrian

New Member
5:25
[after the second Iraq war]


He also seems to gloss over the reasons for the first gulf war.
Content from External Source


We are involved in these wars to protect American interest. American interest is primarily oil. Stability in the Middle East means stable gas prices.
If it was truly an issue of a threat to freedom we would not have left Saddam Hessian in power after the first war in Iraq.
It is the same reason that we are rebuilding Iraq after the second Iraq war, stability. Most people who go to war do not rebuild the enemy afterwards.
Most all of these wars are trying to stabilize the rest of the world, especially gas producing countries, so as not to affect the American way of life.

You can make the argument whether it is right or wrong, but either way it seems to be the reason none the less.
Content from External Source
 
Top