UN wants new global currency to replace dollar

blackascoal said:
Here's the point .. it's not about you .. or me.

The world is looking to change the reserve currency because there is no confidence in American monetary policy, no confidence in American leadership.

Can you blame them?
Click to expand...

nope i absolutely don't blame them. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't fight it with every option we have.
 
uscitizen said:
It is the inevitable result of globalization and free trade.
Click to expand...

yes i realize its eventual. but that doesn't mean I want to lay down and accept it. The goal of course would be to continue to be the worlds most powerfull country as well as one of the richest. There is no thats not fair in world dominance.
 
Chapdog said:
nope i absolutely don't blame them. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't fight it with every option we have.
Click to expand...

The options we have are in electing better representation .. we've failed at that absolutely.

The option we have is in ensuring that those we vote for are actually the ones who hold office .. we've failed at that miserably.

The option we have is in ensuring that our government does not engage in needless wars for profit and alienate the rest of the world .. and we've failed at that .. and we still fail at that.

It's easy to look out the window and blame the rest of the world for our problems .. much easier than looking in the mirror at our own ugly ass reflection.
 
blackascoal said:
The options we have are in electing better representation .. we've failed at that absolutely.

The option we have is in ensuring that those we vote for are actually the ones who hold office .. we've failed at that miserably.

The option we have is in ensuring that our government does not engage in needless wars for profit and alienate the rest of the world .. and we've failed at that .. and we still fail at that.

It's easy to look out the window and blame the rest of the world for our problems .. much easier than looking in the mirror at our own ugly ass reflection.
Click to expand...

Blaming the ideology of our leadership is not blaming the world.


Nothing about globalization is inevitable either way. It could be done in a way that lifts up humanity.

We could have exported our human rights values, freedoms, and minimum wage laws INSTEAD OF putting all free people out of work with slaves.

He's in the details.
 
blackascoal said:
You assume that I would rather have you agreeing with me than Asshat.

You assume that I don't think you are as loony as he is.

You assume too much.

I have much much more plain as day right in your face evidence that extends beyond 1998 .. but you could no more "debunk" that evidence than you have this evidence or for that matter, any evidence.

Question: Does 2002 come before or after 1998?

Afghanistan plans gas pipeline

May 13, 2002

Afghanistan hopes to strike a deal later this month to build a $2bn pipeline through the country to take gas from energy-rich Turkmenistan to Pakistan and India. Afghan interim ruler Hamid Karzai is to hold talks with his Pakistani and Turkmenistan counterparts later this month on Afghanistan's biggest foreign investment project, said Mohammad Alim Razim, minister for Mines and Industries told Reuters.

"The work on the project will start after an agreement is expected to be struck at the coming summit," Mr Razim said.

The construction of the 850-kilometre pipeline had been previously discussed between Afghanistan's former Taliban regime, US oil company Unocal and Bridas of Argentina.

The project was abandoned after the US launched missile attacks on Afghanistan in 1999.

US company preferred

Mr Razim said US energy company Unocal was the "lead company" among those that would build the pipeline, which would bring 30bn cubic meters of Turkmen gas to market annually.

Unocal - which led a consortium of companies from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Japan and South Korea - has maintained the project is both economically and technically feasible once Afghan stability was secured.

"Unocal is not involved in any projects (including pipelines) in Afghanistan, nor do we have any plans to become involved, nor are we discussing any such projects," a spokesman told BBC News Online.

The US company formally withdrew from the consortium in 1998.

"The Afghan side assures all sides about the security of the pipeline and will take all responsibilities for it," Mr Razim said.

Reconstructing

Afghanistan plans to build a road linking Turkmenistan with Pakistan parallel to the pipeline, to supply nearby villages with gas, and also to pump Afghan gas for export, Mr Razim said.

The government would also earn transit fees from the export of gas and oil and hoped to take over ownership of the pipeline after 30 years, he said.

The Asian Development Bank (ADB) has been surveying routes for transferring local gas from northern Afghan areas to Kabul, and to iron ore mines at the Haji Gak pass further west.

"ADB will announce its conclusion soon," Mr Razim said.

The pipeline is expected to be built with funds from donor countries for the reconstruction of Afghanistan as well as ADB loans, he said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1984459.stm

ONOCAL .. surprise, surprise

QUESTION: Does 2009i come before or after 1998?

Afghanistan and the new great game

Prized pipeline route could explain West's stubborn interest in poor, remote land

August 12, 2009

Why is Afghanistan so important?

A glance at a map and a little knowledge of the region suggest that the real reasons for Western military involvement may be largely hidden.

Afghanistan is adjacent to Middle Eastern countries that are rich in oil and natural gas. And though Afghanistan may have little petroleum itself, it borders both Iran and Turkmenistan, countries with the second and third largest natural gas reserves in the world. (Russia is first.)

Turkmenistan is the country nobody talks about. Its huge reserves of natural gas can only get to market through pipelines. Until 1991, it was part of the Soviet Union and its gas flowed only north through Soviet pipelines. Now the Russians plan a new pipeline north. The Chinese are building a new pipeline east. The U.S. is pushing for "multiple oil and gas export routes." High-level Russian, Chinese and American delegations visit Turkmenistan frequently to discuss energy. The U.S. even has a special envoy for Eurasian energy diplomacy.

Rivalry for pipeline routes and energy resources reflects competition for power and control in the region. Pipelines are important today in the same way that railway building was important in the 19th century. They connect trading partners and influence the regional balance of power. Afghanistan is a strategic piece of real estate in the geopolitical struggle for power and dominance in the region.

Since the 1990s, Washington has promoted a natural gas pipeline south through Afghanistan. The route would pass through Kandahar province. In 2007, Richard Boucher, U.S. assistant secretary of state, said: "One of our goals is to stabilize Afghanistan," and to link South and Central Asia "so that energy can flow to the south." Oil and gas have motivated U.S. involvement in the Middle East for decades. Unwittingly or willingly, Canadian forces are supporting American goals.

The proposed pipeline is called TAPI, after the initials of the four participating countries (Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India). Eleven high-level planning meetings have been held during the past seven years, with Asian Development Bank sponsorship and multilateral support (including Canada's). Construction is planned to start next year.

The pipeline project was documented at three donor conferences on Afghanistan in the past three years and is referenced in the 2008 Afghan Development Plan. Canada was represented at these conferences at the ministerial level. Thus, our leaders must know. Yet they avoid discussion of the planned pipeline through Afghanistan.

The 2008 Manley Report, a foundation for extending the Canadian mission to 2011, ignored energy issues. It talked about Afghanistan as if it were an island, albeit with a porous Pakistani border. Prime Minister Stephen Harper says he "will withdraw the bulk of the military forces" in 2011. The remaining troops will focus mostly on "reconstruction and development." Does that include the pipeline?

Pipeline rivalry is slightly more visible in Europe. Ukraine is the main gateway for gas from Russia to Europe. The United States has pushed for alternate pipelines and encouraged European countries to diversify their sources of supply. Recently built pipelines for oil and gas originate in Azerbaijan and extend through Georgia to Turkey. They are the jewels in the crown of U.S. strategy to bypass Russia and Iran.

The rivalry continues with plans for new gas pipelines to Europe from Russia and the Caspian region. The Russians plan South Stream – a pipeline under the Black Sea to Bulgaria. The European Union and U.S. are backing a pipeline called Nabucco that would supply gas to Europe via Turkey. Nabucco would get some gas from Azerbaijan, but that country doesn't have enough. Additional supply could come from Turkmenistan, but Russia is blocking a link across the Caspian Sea. Iran offers another source, but the U.S. is blocking the use of Iranian gas.

Meanwhile, Iran is planning a pipeline to deliver gas east to Pakistan and India. Pakistan has agreed in principle, but India has yet to do so. It's an alternative to the long-planned, U.S.-supported pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan and India.

A very big game is underway, with geopolitics intruding everywhere. U.S. journalist Steven LeVine describes American policy in the region as "pipeline-driven." Other countries are pushing for pipeline routes, too. The energy game remains largely hidden; the focus is on humanitarian, development and national security concerns. In Canada, Afghanistan has been avoided in the past two elections.

With the U.S. surge underway and the British ambassador to Washington predicting a decades-long commitment, it's reasonable to ask: Why are the U.S. and NATO in Afghanistan? Could the motivation be power, a permanent military bridgehead, access to energy resources?

Militarizing energy has a high price in dollars, lives and morality. There are long-term consequences for everyone. Canadian voters want to know: Why is Afghanistan so important?
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/679670

Why do you think we gave one billion US taxpayer dollars to Georgia?

You assume way too much brother.
Click to expand...

Again you twit... do try to pay attention this time... NO US company is involved in either of the above. KARZAI, wanted to talk about building the NAT GAS pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan/India. It has NOTHING to do with oil. IT DOES NOT BENEFIT THE US OR US COMPANIES. IT DOES NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH OIL AS YOU KEEP PROCLAIMING.

There is NOTHING since 1998 discussing the idiocy of trying to take Caspian oil from Turkmenistan and running it through Afghanistan.

You are an idiot. Plain and simple. No matter how many times the above is stated, you continue to try to spin it. We did not go into Afghanistan due to oil. We did not go into Afghanistan for the Nat Gas pipeline either. We went in to rid the country of those that did us harm on 9/11 and their sponsors.
 
AssHatZombie said:
You keep saying Im loony, bac, but you can never back it up..

Try backing it up.
Click to expand...

The illumanati ain't your problem brother. Your problem is that you live in a land of invented people.

Suggesting that I support the very people I rail against everyday is just loony.

You're shooting blanks at the wrong people.

Who and what do you believe is behind the fraud of 9/11 that you and I both agree on? .. Try the same people who were behind the fraud of Iraq, the same people who are behind the fraud of Afghanistan.

It wasn't the illumanati.
 
Superfreak said:
Again you twit... do try to pay attention this time... NO US company is involved in either of the above. KARZAI, wanted to talk about building the NAT GAS pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan/India. It has NOTHING to do with oil. IT DOES NOT BENEFIT THE US OR US COMPANIES. IT DOES NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH OIL AS YOU KEEP PROCLAIMING.

There is NOTHING since 1998 discussing the idiocy of trying to take Caspian oil from Turkmenistan and running it through Afghanistan.

You are an idiot. Plain and simple. No matter how many times the above is stated, you continue to try to spin it. We did not go into Afghanistan due to oil. We did not go into Afghanistan for the Nat Gas pipeline either. We went in to rid the country of those that did us harm on 9/11 and their sponsors.
Click to expand...

Just as I thought .. :0)

Don't worry .. you're just one of many very stupid people.

The US does not engage in wars for resources and never has.

Oil and pipeline have no place in US foreign policy.

... you're just one of many.
 
blackascoal said:
The options we have are in electing better representation .. we've failed at that absolutely.

The option we have is in ensuring that those we vote for are actually the ones who hold office .. we've failed at that miserably.

The option we have is in ensuring that our government does not engage in needless wars for profit and alienate the rest of the world .. and we've failed at that .. and we still fail at that.

It's easy to look out the window and blame the rest of the world for our problems .. much easier than looking in the mirror at our own ugly ass reflection.
Click to expand...

How about we look at our partners we are going to globalize with? Are they innocent? Do then not need to look at there reflections in the mirror before they inherit better lifestyles out of a balancing of currency?

China? Russia? Europe? Are these countries so innocent that we should shed our standard of living in order to balance out globally? Does a corporation powerhouse such as Apple or Microsoft share there global logistics network to competitor so that its more fair?

Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone!
 
Chapdog said:
How about we look at our partners we are going to globalize with? Are they innocent? Do then not need to look at there reflections in the mirror before they inherit better lifestyles out of a balancing of currency?

China? Russia? Europe? Are these countries so innocent that we should shed our standard of living in order to balance out globally? Does a corporation powerhouse such as Apple or Microsoft share there global logistics network to competitor so that its more fair?

Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone!
Click to expand...

Exactly. We should limit our trading to partners to those with a similar concept of human rights.
 
blackascoal said:
The illumanati ain't your problem brother. Your problem is that you live in a land of invented people.

Suggesting that I support the very people I rail against everyday is just loony.

You're shooting blanks at the wrong people.

Who and what do you believe is behind the fraud of 9/11 that you and I both agree on? .. Try the same people who were behind the fraud of Iraq, the same people who are behind the fraud of Afghanistan.

It wasn't the illumanati.
Click to expand...

There are people that run banks and the fed, and multinational corporations and countries.

It is a group of bankers, and world leaders. They want to turn us all into slaves. They do exist. you're in denial.
 
AssHatZombie said:
So why can't bac acknowledge the truth about our authoriatrian currency system?
Click to expand...
How would we reverse the effects of fiat currency? I have to go look at what Ron Paul has to say. I also think Greenspan think said an economy based on fiat currency will eventually collapse? Is there enough gold to cover what we have printed, would we need to use silver and platinum as well? Or would there be another standard. I haven't kept up on this subject as I should.
 
Chapdog said:
How about we look at our partners we are going to globalize with? Are they innocent? Do then not need to look at there reflections in the mirror before they inherit better lifestyles out of a balancing of currency?

China? Russia? Europe? Are these countries so innocent that we should shed our standard of living in order to balance out globally? Does a corporation powerhouse such as Apple or Microsoft share there global logistics network to competitor so that its more fair?

Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone!
Click to expand...

Good argument .. but every nation you mentioned has lived with the dollar as their reserve .. and would not be considering moving away from it if we knew what we were doing .. sadly we don't.

Today the US and Israel are considered the most dangerous nations on the planet by most people, including in places like England.

What is that .. propaganda?

Anti-American sentiment is everywhere. There was "hope" that Obama was different, but he's just another suit bought and paid for by corporations.

How much of your money feed the war and prison BUSINESS industries in the US?

Why aren't you upset about that?
 
froggie said:
How would we reverse the effects of fiat currency? I have to go look at what Ron Paul has to say. I also think Greenspan think said an economy based on fiat currency will eventually collapse? Is there enough gold to cover what we have printed, would we need to use silver and platinum as well? Or would there be another standard. I haven't kept up on this subject as I should.
Click to expand...

Number 1 is we should never be selling our gold reserves or any other valuable resource. we should be using our fiat currency to hoard as much oil, gold, and other national resources as possible until the world utterly rejects the monopoly money. At least then we will be left standing on even forward ground with the world (but with the most valuable natural resource stockpiles in the world). So its simple. we reject global currency as long as possible at the same time as hoarding.

FYI, china is doing just that. They are trying to buy up all the valuables in the world to sit on.

why we sell rights to china corporations to drill for oil in our backyards is beyond me and new with this administration.
 
Last edited:
AssHatZombie said:
There are people that run banks and the fed, and multinational corporations and countries.

It is a group of bankers, and world leaders. They want to turn us all into slaves. They do exist. you're in denial.
Click to expand...

I agree with that, except it isn't bankers, its corporations.

Bamkers work for corporations, not themelves.

As I said, you're shooting blanks at the wrong people.
 
Chapdog said:
Number 1 is we should never be selling our gold reserves or any other valuable resource. we should be using our fiat currency to hoard as much oil, gold, and other national resources as possible until the world utterly rejects the monopoly money. At least then we will be left standing on even forward ground with the world (but with the most valuable natural resource stockpiles in the world). So its simple. we reject global currency as long as possible at the same time as hoarding.

FYI, china is doing just that. They are trying to buy up all the valuables in the world to sit on.

why we sell rights to china corporations to drill for oil in our backyards is beyond me and new with this administration.
Click to expand...

History has a lesson for that .. it's called the Great Depression.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top