Jews being told to 'register' in Ukrainian city

[prana16]

He did not bolster the Khmer Rouge , please provide evidence to back up this statement , he merely gave favourable reviews to a book that painted Cambodia as a rural paradise.

As with all intelligent men his views change as he aquires more information, here is a quote from an interview he gave to Booktalk.Org

CHOMSKY: I've learned a lot, of course. And my views have changed accordingly. Though not in fundamental ways. There are a fair number of illustrations in Interventions, in fact. To mention one, until I read the Taylor-Kiernan revelations on the US bombing of Cambodia, I had no idea of the shocking orders that Kissinger transmitted -- not easy to duplicate in the archives of any state -- or of how instrumental the US was in creating the Khmer Rouge, matters only suspected before. And there's a great deal more.

Does this sound like a man that blindly follows an ideology ? No it does not.

This thread is titled Jews being told to register in Ukranian city , it is about jews.

If you do not like me saying you have a jewish bias thats just bad luck buddy , i mean no offense ,I am just stating what i believe and look i have owned it , i am saying , i feel you have a jewish bias.

When you talk crap about a man i admire i am going to/ and have call you on that.

and you've still given zero reason to believe that i have a jewish bias I've said absolutely nothing in this thread that is pro jew or pro israel in anyway.. yet you believe it anyways.. just like the guy that you admire, you've learned chomsky's ways well .. blind adherence to what you believe, evidence be damned.

And i'll call you on your faux humanism while admiring a man that disgustingly dismissed the plight of refugees just so he could disagree with the US government. You should find some new heros

[Buddhas Hand]

and you've still given zero reason to believe that i have a jewish bias I've said absolutely nothing in this thread that is pro jew or pro israel in anyway.. yet you believe it anyways.. just like the guy that you admire, you've learned chomsky's ways well .. blind adherence to what you believe, evidence be damned.

And all call you on your faux humanism while admiring a man that disgustingly dismissed the plight of refugees just so he could disagree with the US government. You should find some new heros

I have given you a reason , the content of your posts gives me the feeling that you have a jewish bias, if you refuse to accept this reason that's up to you.

You have not provided any evidence to back up your claim that Chomsky "bolstered" the Khmer Rouge.

You seem unable to keep this debate at a philospical level you resort to personal attacks on my character as Jean Jacques Rousseau noted , Insults are the arguments used by those in the wrong.

I

[theminister]

It's sad when we still live in the world when either side makes an issue of being Jewish.

It's the Welsh we should really be concerned about.

[taxi]

With Ukraine, and Egypt, of course there are legitimate local dissents. But why does the US have to support uprisings half way across the world?

And how is Egypt doing?

Have you even read Manufacturing Consent??

Bad example.

The US supported Mubarek, not the protestors. Only when it became obvious Mubarek had no hope of surviving did the US switch sides. Mubarek was the US puppet here.

A better example would be Libya.

Even then, the US did not annex any part of Libya. That's the big difference.

[CB007]

Bad example.

The US supported Mubarek, not the protestors. Only when it became obvious Mubarek had no hope of surviving did the US switch sides. Mubarek was the US puppet here.

A better example would be Libya.

Even then, the US did not annex any part of Libya. That's the big difference.

I'll try to find a reliable source when I have more time, but from what I learned Washington played both sides (behind the scenes), until, like you said, it was over for Mubarek.

However, my actual point of bringing up Egypt is that the new government(s), did not and have not proven to be better than the old one ruled by Mubarek, at least for the time being. They just voted for a new constitution so hopefully they will have stability and real democracy from now on.

Libya is a wrong example in the scope of our topic of discussion. It was an outright military campaign by the NATO assisting the rebels against the government, not an overt training / funding program. In fact, to this day I find it extremely odd that NATO and UN decided to officially interfere with a domestic despite.

[GLASSJAW]

did prana16 supply his sources on chomsky yet?

chomsky is a total bore, but i'm pretty sure the whole khmer rouge thing is a very selective reading of his dreary work

[Mr. Ambien]

I'd actually prefer buddha not pm me with his bizarre out of no where accusations of Israeli bias, thanks. I'd rather he keep that stuff out on the open.

But i agree it would be nice to discuss the topic rather than the continual US , jew stuff.

LOL

[mdehaan]

I'll try to find a reliable source when I have more time, but from what I learned Washington played both sides (behind the scenes), until, like you said, it was over for Mubarek.

However, my actual point of bringing up Egypt is that the new government(s), did not and have not proven to be better than the old one ruled by Mubarek, at least for the time being. They just voted for a new constitution so hopefully they will have stability and real democracy from now on.

Libya is a wrong example in the scope of our topic of discussion. It was an outright military campaign by the NATO assisting the rebels against the government, not an overt training / funding program. In fact, to this day I find it extremely odd that NATO and UN decided to officially interfere with a domestic despite.

Something about using gold or gold backed currency in trade.

[mdehaan]

It's funny how many people when looking to repudiate the American state narrative run right into Russian propaganda's open arms.

Some of us may have been taking Russian propaganda with a grain of salt for longer than the past six months, ever consider that?

[Brick Tamland]

Some of us may have been taking Russian propaganda with a grain of salt for longer than the past six months, ever consider that?

You cant trust anything you see or read anymore. Everyone puts their slant on it. I mean, Al-jazeera is now reputable...

[CB007]

Something about using gold or gold backed currency in trade.

What?

[drummer4now]

What?

Its a conspiracy theory that some people believe whether its true or not I'm not sure, but apparently Western Countries in particular the USA removed Saddam and Gaddafi because they wanted to trade their oil only in gold dinar currency and not US dollars.. With Assad he apparently doesn't want a gas pipeline to go through Syria. Personally I think its a bunch of hog wash..

Im sure theres more info online..

[CB007]

Its a conspiracy theory that some people believe whether its true or not I'm not sure, but apparently Western Countries in particular the USA removed Saddam and Gaddafi because they wanted to trade their oil only in gold dinar currency and not US dollars.. With Assad he apparently doesn't want a gas pipeline to go through Syria. Personally I think its a bunch of hog wash..

Im sure theres more info online..

I wonder if it is true that the only reason the US dollar has not devalued much is because the oil trade demands it. Like you I doubt it, but I don't really know.

[mdehaan]

Its a conspiracy theory that some people believe whether its true or not I'm not sure, but apparently Western Countries in particular the USA removed Saddam and Gaddafi because they wanted to trade their oil only in gold dinar currency and not US dollars.. With Assad he apparently doesn't want a gas pipeline to go through Syria. Personally I think its a bunch of hog wash..

Im sure theres more info online..

You think it's hog wash because it's a conspiracy theory or because you have reason to believe otherwise?

Just curious.

(Thanks for summing it up by the way)

Same question to you CB007

[DarthNinja]

You think it's hog wash because it's a conspiracy theory or because you have reason to believe otherwise?

Just curious.

(Thanks for summing it up by the way)

Same question to you CB007

I think it's pretty clear that they were seriously gunning for Saddam as soon as he eliminated the USD as their oil currency and began trading in Euros (also swapping their reserve from USD to Euros) in 2000 and his removal was no coincidence. They just had to figure out the best way to deceive the public to make it happen (linking him to 9/11, Anthrax, WMD etc).

There were only two credible reasons for invading Iraq: control over oil and preservation of the dollar as the world's reserve currency...

In the 70s, the US agreed with Saudi Arabia that Opec oil should be traded in dollars. American governments have since been able to print dollars to cover huge trading deficits, with the further benefit of those dollars being placed in the US money markets. In return, the US allowed the Opec countries to operate a production and pricing cartel.

Over the past 15 years, the overall US deficit with the rest of the world has risen to $2,700bn - an abuse of its privileged currency position. Although about 80% of foreign exchange and half of world trade is in dollars, the euro provides a realistic alternative. Euro countries also have a bigger share of world trade, and of trade with Opec countries, than the US.

In 1999, Iran mooted pricing its oil in euros, and in late 2000 Saddam made the switch for Iraqi oil. In early 2002 Bush placed Iran and Iraq in the axis of evil. If the other Opec countries had followed Saddam's move to euros, the consequences for Bush could have been huge. Worldwide switches out of the dollar, on top of the already huge deficit, would have led to a plummeting dollar, a runaway from US markets and dramatic upheavals in the US.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jul/28/iraq.usa

As for Libya, it is also no coincidence that Qaddafi was taken out as he was openly calling for a new currency backed by gold to be used for trading oil and he tried rallying other Muslim nations to join. He was also trying to start a monetary fund in Africa that would unseat the IMF and World Bank by offering loans to African nations at no interest.

Remember how Obama's "no boots on the ground" turned into "well, maybe just a few boots on the ground".

The funniest part (well it's not really funny) is also no coincidence that while fighting in Libya was still going on, the rebels in Bengazi created and opened a new central bank based on the USD. Hmmm, I wonder if they had any help? Those same rebels take over an oil rig and NATO starts gunning them down!

Several writers have noted the odd fact that the Libyan rebels took time out from their rebellion in March to create their own central bank - this before they even had a government. Robert Wenzel wrote in the Economic Policy Journal: I have never before heard of a central bank being created in just a matter of weeks out of a popular uprising. This suggests we have a bit more than a rag tag bunch of rebels running around and that there are some pretty sophisticated influences.

Alex Newman wrote in the New American: In a statement released last week, the rebels reported on the results of a meeting held on March 19. Among other things, the supposed rag-tag revolutionaries announced the "[d]esignation of the Central Bank of Benghazi as a monetary authority competent in monetary policies in Libya and appointment of a Governor to the Central Bank of Libya, with a temporary headquarters in Benghazi."

Newman quoted CNBC senior editor John Carney, who asked, "Is this the first time a revolutionary group has created a central bank while it is still in the midst of fighting the entrenched political power? It certainly seems to indicate how extraordinarily powerful central bankers have become in our era."

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MD14Ak02.html

You couldn't make this stuff up!

[taxi]

The only problems with your theory:

1) The US has purposely been trying to devalue their own currency to compete with Chinese exports:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/charleskadlec/2012/02/06/the-federal-reserves-explicit-goal-devalue-the-dollar-33/

2) Switching the petro-dollar would only have a temporary effect on devaluing the currency. If a country stops trading oil in US currency, the US federal reserve can compensate by printing less money. Hardly worth trillion dollar war.

3) There is no currency to compete with the US dollar. The Euro is not a stable enough currency and there's a chance it could cease to exist. In 2000, when the Euro was high, it made sense to make the switch. Now it most certainly does not. No one is going to switch to some random currency that Libya has invented. You need oil to be traded in a relatively stable currency that is easily available. Gold is too rare and volatile.

[drummer4now]

The only problems with your theory:

1) The US has purposely been trying to devalue their own currency to compete with Chinese exports:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/charleskadlec/2012/02/06/the-federal-reserves-explicit-goal-devalue-the-dollar-33/

2) Switching the petro-dollar would only have a temporary effect on devaluing the currency. If a country stops trading oil in US currency, the US federal reserve can compensate by printing less money. Hardly worth trillion dollar war.

3) There is no currency to compete with the US dollar. The Euro is not a stable enough currency and there's a chance it could cease to exist. In 2000, when the Euro was high, it made sense to make the switch. Now it most certainly does not. No one is going to switch to some random currency that Libya has invented. You need oil to be traded in a relatively stable currency that is easily available. Gold is too rare and volatile.

Correct. Although I think Chinese currency has the potential to be a reserve currency, but China needs to prove its stability first.

[CB007]

The only problems with your theory:

1) The US has purposely been trying to devalue their own currency to compete with Chinese exports:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/charleskadlec/2012/02/06/the-federal-reserves-explicit-goal-devalue-the-dollar-33/

2) Switching the petro-dollar would only have a temporary effect on devaluing the currency. If a country stops trading oil in US currency, the US federal reserve can compensate by printing less money. Hardly worth trillion dollar war.

3) There is no currency to compete with the US dollar. The Euro is not a stable enough currency and there's a chance it could cease to exist. In 2000, when the Euro was high, it made sense to make the switch. Now it most certainly does not. No one is going to switch to some random currency that Libya has invented. You need oil to be traded in a relatively stable currency that is easily available. Gold is too rare and volatile.

1) Wasn't effective at all. It's like the Canucks adding Booth, the elite power forward, to get bigger as a team. Borderline joke.

2) You should know that the Feds don't 'print' money on a whim. To decrease money supply in this economy would be detrimental to its' recovery.

3) Eurasia is very warm to the idea of trading in Yuan. I can find sources when I have more time.

Not necessarily saying the currency issue was the issue they went to war. Just saying your explanations aren't very good.

[Monteeun]

200 years from now we'll learn who the true manipulator is...or at least the bigger picture.

[Buddhas Hand]

The only problems with your theory:

1) The US has purposely been trying to devalue their own currency to compete with Chinese exports:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/charleskadlec/2012/02/06/the-federal-reserves-explicit-goal-devalue-the-dollar-33/

2) Switching the petro-dollar would only have a temporary effect on devaluing the currency. If a country stops trading oil in US currency, the US federal reserve can compensate by printing less money. Hardly worth trillion dollar war.

3) There is no currency to compete with the US dollar. The Euro is not a stable enough currency and there's a chance it could cease to exist. In 2000, when the Euro was high, it made sense to make the switch. Now it most certainly does not. No one is going to switch to some random currency that Libya has invented. You need oil to be traded in a relatively stable currency that is easily available. Gold is too rare and volatile.

The U.S. dollar replaced the British pound sterling as the world's reserve currency circa 1945 with the help of the Bretton Woods agreements. At the time, the U.S. dollar was the currency with the greatest purchasing power and the only currency backed by gold, this backing was eliminated in 1973.

The U.S. dollar will not be the world's reserve currency forever, i believe that China's yuan is emerging as a key potential reserve currency, if it's successful in undergoing several important economic reforms, these include that China would have to ease restrictions on money entering and leaving its country, make it fully convertible for all transactionsand help make its bond market fluid.

The US has external debt over 17 billion , over 52,000 PC and 106% of GDP , China 3 billion 2,200 PC and 37.5% of GDP.

China also has the most foriegn reserve currency 3.2 trillion , ranked 5th is Brazil with 352 billion , i cannot find a figure for the US .

Countries hold reserve currency for a number of different reasons. They are an important indicator of ability to repay foreign debt, to defend a national currency, and to determine sovereign credit.

History has dictated that the worlds reserve currency is the currency of the worlds largest economy , the latest prediction is out from the Centre for Economics and Business Research, which says that the Chinese economy will grow larger than America’s in 2028, and become the worlds largest.