|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Feb 21, 2014 4:22:42 GMT -5
So now the US is trying to bring about "regime change" in democratic Venezuela. Isn't it amazing how the US only takes an interest in countries with substantial oil resources? Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Syria etc. Show me an oil-rich country and I'll show you an American president demanding regime change or trying to justify a US invasion/occupation on some bullshit pretext. Venezuela is among the world’s top five oil producers, and it has the largest proven oil and gas reserves. And the US wants that oil BAD. The US government - via the CIA - has been trying to destabilize Venezuela for years, organizing bogus protest groups, funding the country's opposition parties, orchestrating food and other shortages to promote dissent. The former president, Hugo Chavez - who was a personal friend of mine - spent most of his time and energy combating US plots to undermine his government. As soon as he was out of the way, the US stepped up its efforts to destabilize the country, on the assumption that the new president, Victor Maduro would lack the necessary experience to hold onto power. But Maduro confounded them by winning the local elections in December. So now they've pulled out all the stops. In recent weeks, a number of Washington lackeys have criticized the Venezuelan government. Last week Oscar Arias, the dictator of Costa Rica - and a Washington puppet - publicly condemned the Venezuelan government, obviously at the behest of the US State Department. (Never mind that Arias' rule has been characterized by brutality, corruption, extortion, persecution, blackmail, death threats, raids against homes, censorship of the media, money laundering, racketeering, imprisonment without trial etc.) Meanwhile, CNN - the mouthpiece of the CIA - has been running anti-government stories (agitation/propaganda) non-stop. So here we go again. The US has destabilized every country in south America. And now it is determined to get its hands on Venezuela's oil. When is America going to stop invading and plundering other countries for their oil resources? |
|
joan
Member
Posts: 1,407
|
Post by joan on Feb 21, 2014 10:44:41 GMT -5
Yes, we really benefited so much from all that cheap Iraqi oil. But I know what you mean. Someone did, just didn't filter down to us.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Feb 21, 2014 17:52:10 GMT -5
It's not about getting cheap oil (you should know better than that). It's about getting control of the world's oil resources and being able to manipulate the market. And in the case of Libya and Iraq, it was mainly about deposing the two leaders of these countries before they could put their "gold plan" into action. If you don't know what that is, basically Ghadafi and Saddam were planning on abandoning the US dollar (ie, refusing to exchange oil for dollars) and switching to a new gold currency. They were trying to persuade other ME leaders to do the same. If their plan had gone ahead it would have resulted in a complete collapse of the US dollar on the international market. The US economy has been sustained for decades by artificially expanding the money supply (printing dollars). This situation can only continue to exist for as long as there is global confidence in the dollar, and in US debt securities. This security is founded almost entirely on the petrodollar (the "dollar for oil" system). If this system were ever to collapse - ie, if Saddam, Ghadafi and one or two other oil states were to stop accepting US dollars for oil - the entire US economy would undergo a rapid and catastrophic - and probably irrecoverable - collapse.
What do you think, Bob - could the US economy ever recover from the collapse of the petrodollar system? I can't see how. All those trillions of US dollars in foreign banks would wing their way back to the US within a matter of weeks - if not days - and the value of the dollar would plummet. You'd have a situation like Germany after WW2.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 21, 2014 20:19:07 GMT -5
Oh come on. The U.S. doesn't need to destabilize Venezuela. Their incompetent government is doing that just fine all on its own. Just a couple of months ago, the Venezuelan president blamed the inflation on greedy store owners. He nationalized all the appliance stores, arrested most of the managers, and held a "sale" with all the goods marked down by 50% and more. The shelves were soon emptied. Of course, they still have to find out how to restock them.
And yes, I agree with you about the collapse. The dollar will collapse because the U.S. government will not take the necessary steps to fix the finances. Politicians make their living by paying off the power groups that support them. That takes money. They can't raise taxes too fast because people will catch on and get angry. So they borrow the money. The principle isn't due for 30 years. By that time, it's another politician's problem. They just keep borrowing more money. It's called "extend and pretend." They extend the loans and pretend that one day they will be paid back. They won't.
But the debt is too big now. Another big recession could bring it all down. Or a sudden rise in interest rates. They can't keep interest rates this low forever.
Yes, it could easily be like German hyperinflation of the 1920's. But that was localized. The German Mark was not the world's reserve currency. The dollar still is, but only because most other currencies are also in trouble. The FED has already been creating new money by buying $85 billion of bundled mortgages every month. Where does that new money go? Interest rates are too low, so it can't go into savings accounts. It ends up in the stock market as people desperately try to get a higher return on their funds. If the money printing stops, the stock market collapses.
Bob
|
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Feb 21, 2014 20:59:10 GMT -5
Oh come on. The U.S. doesn't need to destabilize Venezuela. Their incompetent government is doing that just fine all on its own. The fact is, the US *is* trying to destabilize Venezuela. Yes, the country has domestic problems, but so have many other countries. There's a big difference between having domestic problems and having a destablilized country. The last elections were in December, and the Maduro government won. As for the collapse of the dollar, yes, that's obviously inevitable, but who knows how long governments can kick the can down the street before it happens. They might get away with it for another couple of decades. What I was referring to was the plan Ghadafi was working on to switch from the petrodollar to a new gold currency (the African dinar). There was growing support for this plan among oil-producing countries before Iraq was invaded (and this was the main reason for the invasion of Iraq - Saddam had already announced he would trade in Euros instead of US dollars - and the subsequent overthrow of Ghadafi). www.thenewamerican.com/economy/markets/item/4630-gadhafi-s-gold-money-plan-would-have-devastated-dollarIf Libya, Iraq and just one or two other countries had stopped accepting US dollars for oil, the impact on the US economy would have been swift and catastrophic. The Fed wouldn't be able to print any more money, there'd be almost instantaneous hyperinflation, oil and gas prices would increase fivefold almost overnight, and interest rates would go through the roof. Basically you'd have economic Armageddon. The question is, how would the US recover if it was no longer able to print money or borrow? By the way, Ghadafi's plan still might go ahead. Several oil-producing countries - including Iran - are trying to carry it forward. If OPEC announced tomorrow that in future it would not be accepting US dollars, the American economy would grind to a halt. In effect, the deficit chickens would all come home to roost on the same day. Read more: unfacts.freeforums.net/thread/748/trying-destabilize-venezuela#ixzz2u1A71GYFwww.silverbearcafe.com/private/01.12/petrodollars.html |
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Feb 21, 2014 21:38:09 GMT -5
The fact is, the US *is* trying to destabilize Venezuela. Yes, the country has domestic problems, but so have many other countries. There's a big difference between having domestic problems and having a destablilized country. The last elections were in December, and the Maduro government won. As for the collapse of the dollar, yes, that's obviously inevitable, but who knows how long governments can kick the can down the street before it happens. They might get away with it for another couple of decades. What I was referring to was the plan Ghadafi was working on to switch from the petrodollar to a new gold currency (the African dinar). There was growing support for this plan among oil-producing countries before Iraq was invaded (and this was the main reason for the invasion of Iraq - Saddam had already announced he would trade in Euros instead of US dollars - and the subsequent overthrow of Ghadafi). www.thenewamerican.com/economy/markets/item/4630-gadhafi-s-gold-money-plan-would-have-devastated-dollarIf Libya, Iraq and just one or two other countries had stopped accepting US dollars for oil, the impact on the US economy would have been swift and catastrophic. The Fed wouldn't be able to print any more money, there'd be almost instantaneous hyperinflation, oil and gas prices would increase fivefold almost overnight, and interest rates would go through the roof. Basically you'd have economic Armageddon. The question is, how would the US recover if it was no longer able to print money or borrow? By the way, Ghadafi's plan still might go ahead. Several oil-producing countries - including Iran - are trying to carry it forward. If OPEC announced tomorrow that in future it would not be accepting US dollars, the American economy would grind to a halt. In effect, the deficit chickens would all come home to roost on the same day. www.silverbearcafe.com/private/01.12/petrodollars.html |
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Feb 22, 2014 0:24:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 22, 2014 14:00:35 GMT -5
|
|
joan
Member
Posts: 1,407
|
Post by joan on Feb 22, 2014 17:36:14 GMT -5
Zak: "t's not about getting cheap oil (you should know better than that). It's about getting control of the world's oil resources and being able to manipulate the market."
I was speaking of how the idea of invasion was sold to US, not the mechanization of what the Bush Regime, etc. was (is) actually up to.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Feb 22, 2014 19:55:21 GMT -5
bob, Yes, I read that article, and various others. Of course Venezuela as problems - mostly caused by the US, which has been trying for decades to destabilize the country. It is hardly a secret that destabilizing Venezuela is longstanding US policy. Are you denying that this is the case? www.popularresistance.org/wikileaks-exposed-us-efforts-to-destabilize-venezuela/Incidentally, I don't regard the BBC as an objective source. The BBC is to Britain what CNN is to the US - ie, the mouthpiece of the government. I post links to these mainstream media outlets because I know that you - and others - give more credence to them than to independent sources.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 23, 2014 12:22:56 GMT -5
bob, Yes, I read that article, and various others. Of course Venezuela as problems - mostly caused by the US, which has been trying for decades to destabilize the country. It is hardly a secret that destabilizing Venezuela is longstanding US policy. Are you denying that this is the case? www.popularresistance.org/wikileaks-exposed-us-efforts-to-destabilize-venezuela/Incidentally, I don't regard the BBC as an objective source. The BBC is to Britain what CNN is to the US - ie, the mouthpiece of the government. I post links to these mainstream media outlets because I know that you - and others - give more credence to them than to independent sources. No I don't deny it. The USA has been trying to destabilize many governments for decades. What I am saying is that the stupid policies of the Venezuelan government has made their job a lot easier. And I also do not regard the BBC as an objective source. I too quote it because others think it is. Bob |
|
