Petrodollar system.

Asmo

What am i not answering

I agree that people trade petrol in dollars but i see no proof of secret 'produces' directing things from the shadows and are controling the whole of US foriegn policy to be about petrodollars.

 

I let that to Storch to point out.

I'm also interested in the answer to this. I hope storch realizes that answering it with 'I don't know' (IF that would be the actual answer) doesn't render him or the rest of what he said as useless or wrong. Why he avoids answering it is uncertain, but the assumption is easily made..

 

Really? I just told you that they're hiding in plain sight. Who was it that supplied the mainstream media with bullshit about Iraq's nonexistent WMDs? Are they the same ones who don't supply the mainstream media with details of how the petrodollar system really works? And are they also the same ones who don't inform the mainstream media about the connection between the timing of the nations being invaded and the ones being threatened by the U.S., and their subsequent bypassing of the U.S. dollar in their oil transactions? Who would that be, Balbus? Who's feeding the mainstream media bullshit? You're hoping that as long as I can't provide you with names, you won't have to commit to a position concerning the points I've made below. But you do have to address them and offer something to refute them if you disagree with them.

So . . .

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.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

So, due to its own incompetence, the U.S. could no longer afford to pay its debts. So, it came up with a solution. It arranged to basically put at tax on the rest of the world by forcing them to use dollars to pay for oil through an arrangement with the OPEC nations. And the U.S. has been getting a free ride ever since. If you need me to explain how that free ride works, just ask me and I'll tell you . . . again. Then Iraq decided to break that arrangement by selling their oil in other that dollars. So the U.S. paid them a visit, destroyed their country, killed their president, and switched the currency for oil back to dollars. But according to the soap opera narrative, Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and it would be foolish to wait for that mushroom cloud. Everyone tuned in to the soap opera narrative and sucked it up like good spectators.

Then Syria and Iran threaten to stop using the dollar, and guess what? That's right, they need regime change. But it's just a coincidence, isn't it?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

What problem do you have with that?

Also, do you deny that the following is just some bullshit?

Oil can be bought from OPEC only if you have dollars. Non-oil producing countries, such as most underdeveloped countries and Japan, first have to sell their goods to earn dollars with which they can purchase oil. If they cannot earn enough dollars, then they have to borrow dollars from the WB/IMF, which have to be paid back, with interest, in dollars. This creates a great demand for dollars outside the U.S. In contrast, the U.S. only has to print dollar bills in exchange for goods. Even for its own oil imports, the U.S. can print dollar bills without exporting or selling its goods. For instance, in 2003 the current U.S. account deficit and external debt has been running at more than $500 billion. Put in simple terms, the U.S. will receive $500 billion more in goods and services from other countries than it will provide them. The imported goods are paid by printing dollar bills, i.e., "fiat" dollars.

 

Storch

LOL why would I be asking you to tell us if I knew.

Why are you refusing to say who they are if you know who they are?

I’ve already said I agree that people trade petrol in dollars but you have produced no evidence that there are secret 'producers' directing things from the shadows and are controlling the whole of US foriegn policy to be about petrodollars.

And it all seems to be a bit too much conspiracy theory

 

Well, Balbus, whoever is supplying bullshit to the mainstream media, and not supplying the true implications of the petrodollar system which has led to the invasion of countries and the threat of invasion of other countries are the ones responsible for the ignorance of the population concerning these issues. Like I said, you hope that others will see my inability to name names as proof that what I say is wrong. But I've provided you with information regarding the petrodollar system and the connection between the timing of the nations being invaded and threatened by the U.S. and their subsequent bypassing of the U.S. dollar in their oil transactions. I've already shown you one such example.

Now:

So, due to its own incompetence, the U.S. could no longer afford to pay its debts. So, it came up with a solution. It arranged to basically put at tax on the rest of the world by forcing them to use dollars to pay for oil through an arrangement with the OPEC nations. And the U.S. has been getting a free ride ever since. If you need me to explain how that free ride works, just ask me and I'll tell you . . . again. Then Iraq decided to break that arrangement by selling their oil in other that dollars. So the U.S. paid them a visit, destroyed their country, killed their president, and switched the currency for oil back to dollars. But according to the soap opera narrative, Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and it would be foolish to wait for that mushroom cloud. Everyone tuned in to the soap opera narrative and sucked it up like good spectators.

Then Syria and Iran threaten to stop using the dollar, and guess what? That's right, they need regime change.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Your thoughts?

 

I have some things to attend to, but we'll continue this later.

 

Storch

And they are who?

To repeat I’ve said I agree that people trade petrol in dollars but you have produced no evidence that there are secret people directing things from the shadows and are controlling the whole of US foriegn policy to be about petrodollars.

If it looks like a conspiracy theory, swims like a conspiracy theory and quacks like a conspiracy theory it is probably a conspiracy theory

 

Certainly at the time, yes. Though its worthy to point out that since then A LOT of people came around to that. Even if a lot of those people (but still plenty of them it seems) don't go along with the belief in a shadow government.

Not saying the US wasn't meddling in the syrian conflict with its own opportunistic motives and that a regime change wouldn’t suit them greatly, but the civil war there started because a lot of syrians wanted a regime change for their own reasons.

 

The real key to continuation of the Petro - Dollar is Saudi Arabia that regions largest oil producer , yes any other player in the region suddenly switching poses problems as well however the Petro- Dollar deal negotiated by Kissinger/ Nixon remains solid almost 50 years later. This arrangement initiated by the Saudi's and the Nixon White House is the major underlying reason for Shiite Muslim extremists hatred for the Saudi's (Sunni) regime.

To say this near 50 year arrangement is conspiracy boggles the mind . True it's not common knowledge but lack of publication on the matter in no way renders it any less factual. As I explained earlier it was the unspoken reason for President Trump's flat refusal when a reprisal was urged against the Saudi's recently concerning the brutal murder of Jamal Khashogi . How many heard even a whisper of the Petr - Dollar during this mini-crisis ? At any rate the Petro-Dollar spoke loud and clear and will continue to do so for the time being.
All foreign policy issues relating to the Middle East must take into consideration the Petro - Dollar as a backdrop though there's never a public mention of it.

I can also state that tribalism and the deep seated animosity held for each other among the various sects of the Muslim world Sunni, Shiite , Alawites ( Bashire Assad is Alawite ) and others lies at the root of continued violence gripping the region.

 

No Balbus, it's not a conspiracy theory. Everything I've told you has been researched. Without any evidence, the U.S., through the mainstream media, spoon-fed the public bullshit that resulted in the destruction of a country and the murder of its people. And the media never mentioned anything concerning the true nature of the petrodollar and the obvious connection between the timing of the nations being invaded and threatened by the U.S., and their subsequent bypassing of the U.S. dollar in their oil and other business transactions. You have been unable to produce anything to challenge that fact. You're just hoping your crying about the fact that I don't know who provided the mainstream media with the WMD bullshit will give you some kind of traction in this discussion. No one cares about your bleating.

And you've yet to show anything that would indicate that the details of my post are false? All you can do is repeat your "who are they." But the question is still being put to you:

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.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

So, due to its own incompetence, the U.S. could no longer afford to pay its debts. So, it came up with a solution. It arranged to basically put at tax on the rest of the world by forcing them to use dollars to pay for oil through an arrangement with the OPEC nations. And the U.S. has been getting a free ride ever since. If you need me to explain how that free ride works, just ask me and I'll tell you . . . again. Then Iraq decided to break that arrangement by selling their oil in other that dollars. So the U.S. paid them a visit, destroyed their country, killed their president, and switched the currency for oil back to dollars. But according to the soap opera narrative, Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and it would be foolish to wait for that mushroom cloud. Everyone tuned in to the soap opera narrative and sucked it up like good spectators.

Then Syria and Iran threaten to stop using the dollar, and guess what? That's right, they need regime change. But it's just a coincidence, isn't it?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

What part of the above would you like to set me straight on?

And do you disagree with this:

Oil can be bought from OPEC only if you have dollars. Non-oil producing countries, such as most underdeveloped countries and Japan, first have to sell their goods to earn dollars with which they can purchase oil. If they cannot earn enough dollars, then they have to borrow dollars from the WB/IMF, which have to be paid back, with interest, in dollars. This creates a great demand for dollars outside the U.S. In contrast, the U.S. only has to print dollar bills in exchange for goods. Even for its own oil imports, the U.S. can print dollar bills without exporting or selling its goods. For instance, in 2003 the current U.S. account deficit and external debt has been running at more than $500 billion. Put in simple terms, the U.S. will receive $500 billion more in goods and services from other countries than it will provide them. The imported goods are paid by printing dollar bills, i.e., "fiat" dollars.
__________________________________________________________________________

And if so, why?

 

Well "at the time" was all that was necessary to gain public support for the attack. And it didn't have to be a shadow government. The WMD story was touted by the Administration, and subsequently repeated by members of that Administration. As time had passed, the claims coming from these characters just made them look like idiots.

“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.”

~Dick Cheney, August 26, 2002

“Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.”

~George W. Bush, September 12, 2002

“Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons...We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.”

~George W. Bush, October 5, 2002

“The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas.

“We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States. The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his “nuclear mujahideen” - his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.”

~George W. Bush, October 7, 2002

“If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again...”

~Ari Fleischer, December 2, 2002

“The president of the United States and the secretary of defense would not assert as plainly and bluntly as they have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction if it was not true, and if they did not have a solid basis for saying it.”

~Ari Fleischer December 6, 2002

“We know for a fact that there are weapons there.”

~Ari Fleischer January 9, 2003

“It appears to be a re-run of a bad movie. [Iraqi President Saddam Hussein] is delaying. He's deceiving. He's asking for time. He's playing hide-and-seek with inspectors. One thing is for certain -- he's not disarming.”

~George W. Bush, January 21, 2003

“Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.”

~George W. Bush, January 28, 2003

“We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.”

~Colin Powell, February 5, 2003

“We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.”

~George W. Bush, February 8, 2003

“So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad?... I think our judgment has to be clearly not.”

~Colin Powell, March 7, 2003

“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”

~George W. Bush, March 17, 2003

“Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.”

~Ari Fleisher, March 21, 2003

“There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And . . . as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.

~Gen. Tommy Franks, March 22, 2003

“One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.”

~Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark, March 22, 2003

“We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.”

~Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003

“We are in the process of trying to liberate that country. And at the moment where the war ends and the coalition forces occupy the areas where those capabilities -- chemical and biological weapons -- are likely to be, to the extent they haven't been moved out of the country, it obviously is important to find them.”

~Donald Rumsfeld, April 9, 2003

“We have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about.”

~Ari Fleischer, April 10, 2003

After the “fall” on April 10, 2003

“When there happens to be a weapon of mass destruction suspect site in an area that we occupy and if people have time, they'll look at it.”

~Donald Rumsfeld, April 11, 2003

“I don't think we'll discover anything, myself. I think what will happen is we'll discover people who will tell us where to go find it. It is not like a treasure hunt where you just runaround looking everywhere hoping you find something. I just don't think that's going to happen. The inspectors didn't find anything, and I doubt that we will. What we will do is find the people who will tell us.”

~Donald Rumsfeld, April 17, 2003

“We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.”

~George W. Bush, April 24, 2003

“There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country.”

~Donald Rumsfeld, April 25, 2003

“He tried to fool the United Nations and did for 12 years by hiding these weapons. And so, it's going to take time to find them. But we know he had them, and whether he destroyed them, moved them or hid them, we're going to find out the truth.”

~George W. Bush April 25, 2003

“We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.”

~George W. Bush, May 3, 2003

“I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now.”

~Colin Powell, May 4, 2003

“We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.”

~Donald Rumsfeld, May 4, 2003

“I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program.”

~George W. Bush, May 6, 2003

“U.S. officials never expected that 'we were going to open garages and find' weapons of mass destruction.”

~Condoleeza Rice, May 12, 2003

“I just don't know whether it was all destroyed years ago -- I mean, there's no question that there were chemical weapons years ago -- whether they were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they're still hidden.

~Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, Commander 101st Airborne, May 13, 2003

“Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction.”

~Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, May 26, 2003

“They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.”

~Donald Rumsfeld, May 27, 2003

“For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.”

~Paul Wolfowitz, May 28, 2003

“It was a surprise to me then -- it remains a surprise to me now -- that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Believe me, it's not for lack of trying. We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there.”

~Lt. Gen. James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, May 30, 2003

“The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq's pursuit. We acted because we saw the evidence in a dramatic new light -- through the prism of our experience on 9/11.”

~Donald Rumsfeld, June, 2003

The CIA gave us bad intelligence.

~George W. Bush, July 11, 2003

“There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things we know we don't know. But, there are also unknown unknowns. These are things we don't know we don't know.”

~Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
__________________________________________________________________________
But it didn't really matter. The U.S. destroyed the county and people, and immediately switched the currency for oil back to U.S. dollars. Mission accomplished.
__________________________________________________________________________

Did you know that even Syrian refugees in Lebanon went to Beirut to cast their vote. But that's another story.

 

Let's start first with the notion that I don't read my own posts. Actually, I do, but I'm attuned to context, nuance, and overall point. I think the article is basically correct in making the point that the petrodollar isn't the big deal that your conspiracy theory makes it out to be. The author thinks that the agreement between the U.S. and the Saudis was not primarily motivated by a need to enslave the world and find a substitute for gold to support our currency but was done at a time when U.S.had become a net importer of oil, and the rise of OPEC posed and increasing danger to U.S. oil supplies. And the author's main points are (1) the size of the U.S. economy has been the main factor accounting for a preference for the dollar as a reserve currency; (2) the alleged petrodollar problem is relatively insignificant compared to the larger problem of China holding holds over $1 trillion in currency reserves, " more than 200 times the transaction demand for oil. If China were to dump its dollars, that would be a real blow to the U.S. economy, but also to the Chinese economy, so maybe China wouldn't want to shoot itself in the foot. As another article I cited, which you didn't mention, put it: "It does matter slightly that the trade typically takes place in dollars. This means that those wishing to buy oil must acquire dollars to buy the oil, which increases the demand for dollars in world financial markets. However, the impact of the oil trade is likely to be a very small factor affecting the value of the dollar." Debunking the Dumping-the-Dollar Conspiracy

As for your petrodollar war theory, it might be that petrodollars figured in such Middle East adventures as the wars in Iraq, Libya and Syria. but before we just accept that, we should look at other explanations. I provided some for Iraq, which you brushed aside. Yes, in each case the regimes that were overthrown tried to establish an alternative trading currency to oil, which is understandable for countries hostile to the United States, but they did other things as well which put them at odds with U.S. decision makers. The actors who did this were Saddam, Gaddafi, and Assad, none of whom were just innocently walking along minding their business when these military actions hit them. The leading alternative theories as to why the United States attacked them are:(1) ideological: they ran afoul of prevailing foreign policy ideologies, namely the Cheney-Rumsfeld-Neocons and their liberal Clinton globalist alter egos seeking to stabilize the Middle East and make the world safe for Israel by spreading democracy; (2) geopolitical: they threatened disruption by aggressive moves in a strategic part of the world, which the U.S. as a status quo power opposed; (3) domestic politics: they provided a diversion from domestic economic problems and mobilized voters for forthcoming elections. i don't know that any of these theories has any more merit than the petrodollar war theory, but something to consider. For the Iraq War, I provided books and articles that try to explain the conflict, but don't consider petrodollars to be a major factor. You conceded that other factors might play a part but petrodollars were the main thing. I don't see the evidence for that.

A major issue between us is methodology. I tend to be suspicious of mono-causal explanations of complex events, especially when they're based on circumstantial evidence. Your theory lacks smoking guns, and relies almost entirely on inferences based upon circumstances. Not that circumstantial evidence isn't valid, but I expect more of it than you've provided to make your case.Just because petrodollars could have been involved in the conflict doesn't mean they were involved. It may well be that I've been duped by the powers that be, just as they may have duped me into believing the physical reality before my eyes instead of realizing that it's all a matrix-style illusion, as Professor Nick Bostrom of Oxford insists. I do try to keep an open mind, and store the petrodollar theories in my X Files for future reference, along with my friends' contentions that the earth and moon are hollow, there are pyramids in the Antarctic, and the great ancient civilizations were founded by extraterrestrials. I just need to see more evidence, preferably of the direct kind.(In your lengthy post supra, did anybody say anything about petrodollars? Might it also be possible that you've been duped by the libertarian ideologues like Ron Paul from whom you seem to get most of your information (but are unwilling to give credit) ?

 

In short, the US is good because it is the most powerful and never conspires in its own self-interests.

 

Are you summarizing someone's post? Whose, since I don't think I noticed anyone saying the U.S. is good and never conspires in its own self interest? The questions at issue on this thread are much narrower: whether the petrodollar theory is valid and explains U.S. foreign policy, and whether there's an impending apocalyptic crisis facing us because of it. It's like the Pizzagate conspiracy which you defended during the 2016 presidential campaign. Those of us who were skeptical weren't saying Hillary was a good person; we just weren't sure she was part of a conspiracy keeping child sex slaves in the basement of a pizza parlor.

 

Merely agreeing that oil is traded in dollars is a very long way from acknowledging how that came to be and why it remains so in spite of some efforts to derail the Petro-Dollar.

What I'm not understanding is the underlying failure to admit it's existence rather than dancing around the bush.
Had Nixon / Kissinger not developed this clever scheme to salvage the dollar it would have crumbled long ago and we'd be using some other currency and more than likely without the option of printing more of it which for a nation that enjoys living well beyond it's means would have upended America long ago.

 

I'm summarizing your post, because that's basically what you are saying, though it sounds really stupid when I put it so succinctly, doesn't it?

I never implicated Hillary in Pizzagate, either. My biggest quib with her was the email in which she says she's going to sacrifice a chicken to Moloch. Nowadays it's Donald Trump who is besties with Jeff Epstein, though both he and Bill are notorious for this. I suppose they just hang out with child molesters, though, and aren't guilty of any wrongdoing themselves. They probably didn't even know and were shocked.

I wonder if they'll all have fun at this year's Bohemian Grove, worshiping the owl god and Lord knows what else. Yeah, they're all totally normally people. I don't suspect them of anything at all. Donald Trump would never rape a thirteen year-old girl, that's for sure.

 

I doubt that without the agreement the dollar would have "crumbled long" ago. The dollar would have faced intense pressure; the economy might have experienced a downturn, maybe even a recession or depression. But I see no convincing evidence that the dollar would have "crumbled".

 

it's not at all what I was saying, as I explained and anyone who can read can determine. But if you believe that, no wonder you believed in Pizzagate. In researching the petrodollar on the internet, I've been struck by the number of Russian sources that come up--echoing the "U.S. plot--imminent collapse" line. (Same true of Pizzagate) I wonder why? My point being that it's not just U.S. propaganda we have to be wary of.

 

Oh, so you believe that the US does conspire and isn't just swell, that what we're doing in the Middle East is completely wrong and inexcusable. My bad. It's just when you describe anyone who doesn't want our petrodollar as a "hostile nation" I get the wrong idea. Because, you know, you're basically saying it's excusable to bomb them into the stone age.

Iraq was the very definition of a conspiracy. The masses were manipulated, and no, such manipulation is not a thing of the past. Some of the actors in this conspiracy are plain to see, and others are hidden.

Nevermind. It's useless speaking to you types. Go USA! USA! USA!

 

As long as there is an exchange rate from Dollars to Euros to Yen to Pounds to Dollars to Euros to Yen to Pounds to Dollars etc...we'll be OK. Plus if you don't like any of the world's currencies you can buy stocks or gold or something, no big deal.