THE US Dollar Thread (merged)

[savethehumans]

Zed and some_guy: it's nice to know some of the other people who have a good and truthful reading list! I'm on the last few chapters of "Rubicon" now, and check out FTW several times a week--not to mention THIS site (duh) and others....the truth is amazing--so much so that The Powers That Be don't worry about the truth-tellers (who'd believe them?)--which gives us in the know a good advantage and one heck of a road block (who believes us?).

It's hard not to get discouraged, or even overwhelmed at times. But we are the type of people who HAVE TO KNOW. It is a blessing and a curse! So we will keep on seeking TO KNOW. At least we have places like this board, where we can share our thoughts and give each other empathy!

[gg3]

However, Putin did sign Kyoto, bringing it into force. What I find interesting about the mainstream media's treatment of Putin is that he is always shown in photographs taken from slightly above him looking down, and with his eyes glancing to the side. That is, these photographs deliberately convey the impression of "sneaky."

Regardless of the etiology of 9-11, attacking Iran would be the height of stupidity. Iran doesn't even have a credible capability yet, their uranium enrichment facility is still a long way from completion, so there is still plenty of time for negotiation. Given that the head of Iran's oil production, Dr. Bhaktiari, speaks freely and vigorously about peak oil (he's also a participant on this board), it's more likely that Iran is primarily seeking to supply its own energy needs with nuclear power so it can sell more of its oil to the world as the price goes through the roof. Reason it out, that would be the logical thing for any oil-producing nation to do.

The smart thing for Iran to do right now would be to declare that it was putting its nuclear enrichment program on hold pending further international negotiations. In essence stall for time, at least until after the election, and if Kerry wins, after he's sworn in. That is, don't give Bush an excuse to invade on 3 November.

Here's another piece for you.

Over the summer came the news item that someone high in the Bush Admin had leaked to one of Chalabi's people (i.e. Iranian spies) the fact that the US had successfully decrypted the top-level Iranian cipher systems. (Leaking that kind of stuff is a serious crime, that item was "top secret / SCI-crypto", and SCI means "sensitive compartmented information", which only goes out to a small list of individuals, listed by name, so those are your possible suspects, and yet no one has been charged...)

The immediate result would have necessarily been that Iran upgraded its cryptographic systems, presumably to a level it felt the US couldn't read (or could only read with much difficulty and delay; public-key systems such as RSA and its derivatives including PGP are not impenetrable).

This in turn would result in a backlog of Iranian ciphertext intercepts awaiting cryptanalysis, similar to the backlog of cleartext intercepts awaiting language translation prior to 9-11. (People at NSA are already majorly pissed-off at the Bush Admin for making their jobs harder, and this is a classic case.)

So then the Bush Admin has an excuse: "Look at all the traffic we can't read!" and then, "Look, there's been an *increase* in the traffic, we still can't read it, but it *must* mean something bad is going on!" This becomes a rationale for increasing the rhetoric level and building public support for some kind of aggressive move on Iran.

Much like the bad intel on Iraq, except this time the "proof" is *itself* "negative." Instead of "we have pictures of mobile anthrax labs" (which are later not found, creating a credibility problem), it would be "we have traffic we can't read, which means something sinister is afoot!", and there is no way to disprove that point later.

With Iraq, there was no way Saddam could "prove a negative" (prove he *didn't* have WMDs). With Iran, it's starting to look like there'll be no way that American critics, much less Iranian officials, can "disprove a negative" (disprove that the unread traffic is not sinister).

Watch out folks, this is not good. My item above is only one datapoint, but it's consistent with the others we've seen, and there are probably many more we haven't seen yet.

Y'all better get out there and vote, and then do volunteer work watching the polls for the rest of the day.

[Grimnir]

Let me try to boil it down to the basic questions:

-What things were "they" hoping to accomplish with the attacks?
-Did they accomplish these things? If not, why not?
-Why haven't they used similar tactics when it would have helped them the most?
-If the goal was to justify an invasion of Iraq, why didn't they blame Iraq in the first place instead of Afghanistan?

I read most of Ruppert's site months ago and agree that "something" was up, but I don't think "the administration planned it for political gain" is the only possible explanation.

[some_guy282]

Let me try to boil it down to the basic questions:

-What things were "they" hoping to accomplish with the attacks?
-Did they accomplish these things? If not, why not?
-Why haven't they used similar tactics when it would have helped them the most?
-If the goal was to justify an invasion of Iraq, why didn't they blame Iraq in the first place instead of Afghanistan?

I read most of Ruppert's site months ago and agree that "something" was up, but I don't think "the administration planned it for political gain" is the only possible explanation.

1. They wanted to get the American public behind the war in Afghanistan (which they had been planning for months in advance) and the war on terror in general so they could make a grab for the world's last remaining oil reserves. They also wanted to use it as an excuse to crack down on US civil liberties in advance of the police state that will be necessary to control the rioting masses in light of peak oil.

2. Yes, things have worked out pretty well for them.

3. For the most part they haven't had to. Invoking 9/11 alone has been enough to scare the American public into accepting just about anything this administration has pushed on them. Plus, staged terror attacks take longer to plan than real ones. It took them years to plan 9/11 and lay the groundwork for the myth they would later push on the public.

4. In a sense they have blamed Iraq. Recent polls show a majority of Bush supporters believe there was a link between 9/11 and Saddam. Immediately after 9/11 though, they weren't blaming Iraq because they didn't need to. It's all about the oil, and the immediate goal after 9/11 was the Caspian Sea. They thought there was plenty of oil to be found there, and once Afghanistan was conquered it would be theirs for the taking. Problem was, once they actually got into the Caspian, they found there was much less oil than was originnaly thought. It was only then that the mad dash to demonize Iraq began. I'm sure they had plans to go after Iraq anyway, but the lack of oil in the Caspian accelerated their plans. 9/11 also laid the groundwork for a possible future invasion of Saudi Arabia though - just look at where most of the alleged hijackers came from.

You're right - mere "political gain" isn't nearly enough of a motive for 9/11. The motive is peak oil.

[StayOnTarget]

Someguy - Don't forget the "unsolved" anthrax attacks.

Hmmm... anthrax sent to liberal media outlets and powerful democratic members of congress just after 9/11. Anthrax that was traced to US labs, yet no arrests after 3 years. It was after these attacks that the patriot act got ramrodded through congress.


One need only read the Project for a New American Century website to see the will buried within the rhetoric. The neocons needed 9/11.


From and earlier post on another thread:

1) Its a basic idea. Elements of the agencies and the administration charged with protecting Americans were either criminally negligent or criminally complicit. There's really no gray area. If you want to give them the benefit of the doubt and say they were merely negligent there's no way to explain the fact that noone was fired, in fact many were promoted after 9/11.

2) Follow the money. Remember the federal goverment offered victims families an avg payout of 1.65 million dollars each in exchange for their legal right to sue. I don't recall the goverment giving anything to victims families of the Oklahoma city bombing.

http://tinyurl.com/52lc2

3) If not for 9/11 the political will would not have existed to invade Afghanistan (for the pipeline), then Iraq (for the oil reserves).

[zed]

Ruppert also makes a good point about the 9/11 insider trading. The trading you heard so much about in the month after attacks and then was dropped from the mass media. The Kean Commission omits any serious discussion of this very obvious line of inquiry.

Anyway, Ruppert documents how the level of trading in United and American Airlines in the days before 9/11 (and even the morning of 9/11) were far beyond normal levels. The government has released few actual records of the trading and one of the involved institutions (Deutsche Bank) ultimately has ties to the CIA. Considering the insane amount of surveillance of world financial markets, it is preposterous to think the US government could not figure out who profited from trades. Ruppert concludes that foreign intelligence agencies (who had advance warning of 9/11) probably were responsible for much of the trading and that pursuing that line of inquiry would simply reveal the obvious - that 9/11 was not a surprise attack to many at the highest levels of world power.

[Ferretlover]

link

From the 8 November the dollar will no longer be a valid currency in Cuba. Residents have until then to exchange their dollars for Pesos convertibles. There will be no penalty for owning dollars like there has been in the past.
"the population can maintain, without restrictions of no type, any amount of dollars or another freely convertible currency" However people who want to exchange dollars for PC's will pay a fine of 10%

Castro asked the Cubans that live on the outside to send money to their relatives in Cuba in other currencies, such as euro, the British pound, frank Swiss and Canadian dollars to avoid this fine.

The official reason is the new policy of the US towards Cuba but I think that the decline of the dollar also has to do with it. A lot of people were complaining that the dollar loses its value so quickly and I've met many Cubans which were expecting that the government would make a shift to the Euro soon.

A number of countries have abandoned the dollar recently (Iran, Turkey , Russia, Cuba). Considering that about half the printed dollar bills are floating around in foreign countries as a reserve currency this represents a significant move. If all those bills make their way back to the US it will lead to a tremendous depreciation of the dollar.

[sulayman]

A number of countries have abandoned the dollar recently (Iran, Turkey , Russia, Cuba). Considering that about half the printed dollar bills are floating around in foreign countries as a reserve currency this represents a significant move. If all those bills make their way back to the US it will lead to a tremendous depreciation of the dollar.

I never knew that Russia and Turkey had abondend the dollar. When did that happen?

I guess it would depreciate the dollar and weaken its value further. Would that count as a negative feedback loop?

[smiley]

I never knew that Russia and Turkey had abondend the dollar. When did that happen

?

Euro catches on in Russia

Russians are buying more euros than dollars for the first time since the new European currency became available, according to the central bank.
The swing may signal the weakening grip in Russia of the US currency which has dominated the economy here for most of the past decade.

It comes after a 15% fall of the dollar against the euro this year.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2264012.stm

Last year I went to Turkey and everything is in Euro's now (Rental cars, hotels etc), wheras it used to be in dollars just a few years back.

[sulayman]

I see, but in Turkey then it is a concious decision by the people rather than a Government enforced policy like in Cuba....right?

[Such]

I was in Belarus back in 2003... nobody uses dollars anymore.... its all euros there.

of course, Belarus's economy is about as large as ancient indian burial ground, so not much of an impact there...

but the percept of the dollar there has changed dramatically in recetn years... people know that the US economy is a cluster.

[frankthetank]

Turkey wants in the euro union real bad. That also plays in somehow.

[Grimnir]

Here's another question. If Ruppert is on to the BA's secret plan and in the process of exposing it to the public, why haven't they thrown him in Guantanamo Bay or something?

[bobcousins]

PLEASE...if you talk to anyone about Peak Oil, don't reveal you believe that the US government orchestrated 9/11. They will think you are insane.

I've never seen such a load of nonsense. There is a "proof" that the WTC towers were deliberately demolished. The author invokes physics, but clearly has no clue what he is talking about. As for all the other misinformation and coincidences...

[TheSupplyGuy]

I don't think the government orchestrated 9/11, but I do believe they let it happen, sorta like with Pearl Harbor.

[AnnaLivia]

stealing a quote from montequest's book: the unaware are unaware that they are unaware

ahem

a big tip o' the cap to the rest of you.

one teeny disagreement: the MOTIVE is omnipotent world wealth/power dominance through one-world government. looks to me like peak oil is going to be the omnipresent MEANS. (and ain't it getting meaner everyday!)

gee, and i had a bet that cell phones were gonna dance before we fed the starving. looks like i'll never get to collect.

[AnnaLivia]

may i just add...

no matter how long it takes, no matter what energy source whatever number of humans (left) are using, there are those who are determined to be in control of world wealth/power. and they'd cancel the whole game for everyone before they'd settle for losing.

if you choose not to look into this, you might oughta seek treatment for that gambling problem you've got.....

[Ferretlover]

After reading a few stories on the decline of the value of the dollar I've decided to ask for help in trying to understand it.

I have little understanding of economics and can't work out what is causing the dollars decline. If anyone out there can explain to me how reserve currencys work or how the US government letting the dollar fall will improve it's trade deficit I would really appreciate it.


Thanks

[Agren]

check out the Goff articles on FTW, he talks about some of these things there.



(yes, I do feel like a parrot, but the articles are really good )

[stu]

Thanks Agren.

Let me see if I understand this now. If all countries that trade in the dollar or have the dollar as their reserve currency decide to switch to Euros (Like Russia seems to be doing) then this will mean that there will be billions of dollar notes floating around in the economic system that are not being used. This means that because of the amount of dollars in circulation vastly outstrips the amount of goods and services offered by America this will impact on the value of the dollar and cause it to rise severely. Like in Germany pre-World War II when there was hyper inflation and people were spending thousands of marks for a loaf of bread.