I think it was expected.


Iran has completely stopped selling oil in U.S. dollars.


The oil minister, Gholam Hussein Nozari said considering dollar depreciation and the loss of crude oil exporter countries, now dollar is not considered as a trustworthy currency any more.


Iranian authorities in the OPEC summit suggested a trustworthy currency to be determined to stop the loss of oil exporter countries, he added.

A team of oil, economy, and finance ministries of OPEC members has been organized to pursue this issue on the expert level and the results will be announced in the next meeting, he pointed.


Nozari also highlighted that the Sinopec Chinese Company has recently requested to purchase more oil from Iran and regarding fluctuating oil market such requests are usually accepted


link (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7563)

When does the invasion begin?

Sometimes its worth doing a whois search first.

He is editor for the Centre for Research on Globalization, which operates a website at globalresearch.ca. The Centre for Research on Globalization states to be "committed to curbing the tide of "globalisation" and "disarming" the New world order".

When does the invasion happen.

The attitude of the Iranians is the most interesting. Iran, which claims to be the guardian and protector of the Muslim world, has been as deafeningly silent about Kosovo as it has about the Chechens or the Uighurs.
link Ottawa Sun (http://ottsun.canoe.ca/Comment/Editorial/2007/12/22/4736955-sun.html)


Russia, China, and Iran.

This move to the EURO will come back and bite them in the ass. Why? The Euro is a currency comprised of many countries. If one of those countries starts doing something stupid, it could damage the Euro. Or if tomorrow there is a financial crisis, you need a majority to agree on what to do. However, tomorrow if the world ends, you only have to ask ONE country about the US Dollar.

When does the invasion begin?
none needed-there are enough pissed off Iranians to overthrow their own government-they just need weapons and some air support.

When does the invasion happen.

No invasion necessary.

They are just sitting back and waiting while the apple rots from within. When the rest of the world begins trading in Euros instead of dollars, the days of Empire are almost at an end.

Sic semper tyrannis.

Sic semper tyrannis.
John Wilkes Booth as a role model. why am i not surprised?

No invasion necessary.

They are just sitting back and waiting while the apple rots from within. When the rest of the world begins trading in Euros instead of dollars, the days of Empire are almost at an end.

Sic semper tyrannis.

We'll survive fine without them and can you think of anything that cannot be found in North America. Were your largest trading partner so I doubt anything would really change except your vacation expectations.

Hello Canada

OK-Whats the implications of NOT selling in dollars.

Money is money.

OK-Whats the implications of NOT selling in dollars.

Money is money.

Well it potentially could have a huge impact. Currently to buy oil - the only currency you can buy it with is the US $ (mostly traded in London).

So - to buy oil you must 1st have US$ in your hand, which means you must sell goods and get paid in $, or you must borrow $ (repaid in $). This creates demand for the US$ - which increases it's value vs other currencies. All countries that buy oil are obliged to maintain a reserve of the US$ because there is no other way to buy oil than by having US$ to buy it with. No US$ = no oil.

Now, if all oil was traded in Euro's - then the demand for the $ would plummet & the value of the $ would drop. The currency markets would be flooded with $ as people trade in their $ for the Euro.

Given that many countries (especially China) hold huge reserves of US$ - then seeing the $ drop in value is not a positive thing - it wipes away value of their $ reserves. All rich countries are against using the Euro for trading oil - even those in the Euro zone. Iran is doing this as a form of geopolitical warfare - expect Chavez to trade his oil on the Iranian Bourse also.

Interesting - Hussain tried the same thing in 2000 - Iraqi oil was traded in Euro's. Probably one of the main reasons why he got invaded. Their oil is now of course traded in US$ - as will Irans after they get invaded.

This gives the US Treasury a unique power to influence world markets surely.

Its rare for them to step into the market and influence the value of the dollar,

but the option remains.


As for Iran-I think the invasion option has been put on the back burner again,

for the time being.

Sic semper tyrannis.
There's ongoing debate here about what constitutes being un-patriotic or anti-American.

You didn't use this quote to talk about the president. You used it when referring to your country.

Does this qualify?

There's ongoing debate here about what constitutes being un-patriotic or anti-American.


I think opinions in that debate depend largely upon one's perception of what America is supposed to be.

If you think America's purpose is to maintain an economic hedgemony then I can see where you might consider that anti-American.

There's ongoing debate here about what constitutes being un-patriotic or anti-American.

You didn't use this quote --(Sic semper tyrannis)-- to talk about the president. You used it when referring to your country.

Does this qualify?

Yes, I think it does.

It was a reference to the tyrannical way that this country has treated the rest of the world for the past 60 years, since Truman (along with a few other co-conspirators) decided to make the USA into a National Security State.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

""The National Security Act (NSA) created the CIA and other covert agencies in the executive branch. It was passed in 1947 and signed by Harry Truman.....it (the NSA) was the linchpin upon which the government operations went underground and was the birth pang to the military industrial complex that Eisenhower spoke about. What most people are not aware is that all of this was about Corporate dominance and big business.

58 years later, the National Security State has metastasized into a horror for the United States and the world. The inevitable fall of the Soviet Union in the 1980s was known by the CIA at the same time that Reagan was calling for massive armaments buildups to fight the “evil empire” The sad part of all this is that the United States since the War has maintained an open and covert policy of regime change and terrorism that has killed tens of millions of people throughout the world. And the reasons are not always sinister or based upon bad faith. Most of it has to do with the influence of corporations and their economists on the operations of government. The policy has also been a bipartisan one in which both Parties have “drunk the Kool-Aid.""

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

____________________________

(note to all cretins lurking here; I am fairly certain that John Wilkes Booth is not the first or the last or the only person to be aware of the phrase "Sic semper tyrannis" and to use it. Every person who uses the phrase does not regard John Wilkes Booth to be a role model.)

58 years later, the National Security State has metastasized into a horror for the United States and the world. The inevitable fall of the Soviet Union in the 1980s was known by the CIA at the same time that Reagan was calling for massive armaments buildups to fight the “evil empire” The sad part of all this is that the United States since the War has maintained an open and covert policy of regime change and terrorism that has killed tens of millions of people throughout the world. And the reasons are not always sinister or based upon bad faith. Most of it has to do with the influence of corporations and their economists on the operations of government. The policy has also been a bipartisan one in which both Parties have “drunk the Kool-Aid.""
I know I have said it before, But Delta is "ready when you are"

I hear North Korea is very nice this time of year, and Kim Jong Il is looking for a few "good men". Unless you like the freedom to criticize and run down the current government... in that case, you better stay where you are so that your constant berating of our policies and proceedures do not land your ass in jail... or even more fun, in front of a Socialist firing squad.

Yipee kay yi yay...

It gets really tiring seeing idiots claim that everyone who criticizes the government needs to leave the country.

:rolleyes:

It gets really tiring seeing idiots claim that everyone who criticizes the government needs to leave the country.

:rolleyes:

It also gets tiring when idiots that have no clue how the U.S. works, tries to tell others how "things SHOULD be done".

:rolleyes:

It also gets tiring when idiots that have no clue how the U.S. works, tries to tell others how "things SHOULD be done".


It takes having the ability to comprehend how things work to understand what is wrong and how it could work better.

Small minds are often most comfortable attacking anyone who thinks outside the box.

The US absolutely SHOULD do everything it can to maintain it's superiority, it's financial & economic might.

Every country in the same position of the US would do absolutely the same thing. Plus - lets face it - for the most part the US is a responsible country with very good values - the world is lucky that the lone superpower is not interested in territorial conquests.

There is a point though where an action would simply be counterproductive. Bombing other countries falls into that bucket. There is no terrorist threat or security threat today that bombing other countries could ever solve. Since WWII Bombs have been used to ward off economic threats but just labelled as security threats so the apple pie god lovin majority segment of the population can swallow it while waving a flag & shouting Go USA. Why? because the majority of the population haven't got any clue what an economic threat even is & it certainly doesn't evoke patriotism which is the card most abused by politicians.

I doubt we'll bomb Iran - there is no real way to win that & the case for doing so has never really been made strongly enough that the population could look beyond the mess in iraq.

- lets face it - for the most part the US is a responsible country with very good values - the world is lucky that the lone superpower is not interested in territorial conquests.

Wow.

Given the history of this nation over the past 100 years, the statement to the effect that "the USA is not interested in territorial conquests" might be the most ironic (or maybe just bizarre) thing I have ever read on here.

Wow.

Given the history of this nation over the past 100 years, the statement to the effect that "the USA is not interested in territorial conquests" might be the most ironic (or maybe just bizarre) thing I have ever read on here.

To find the most bizarre things ever posted here just read a few of your posts - most are insane.

The US does not have any interest in territorial conquests - the US is interested in maintaining it's own hedgemony.

If the US was interested in territorial conquests - the US could take over Canada in approximately 2 to 3 minuites. The US has no territorial interest in Iraq - the US wants to secure the ability to buy reliable oil from the middle east - note I said buy, the US could just have easily said Iraq is no longer a country - we own it & we'll TAKE all the oil we want. The oil in Iraq would pay for 100 iraq wars if we just simply said it's now US oil & supressed the population in a Hussain style. The US has the ability to pretty much take whatever it wants if it really wanted to. My point is correct - the world is lucky that the US is not that.

So really - your statement is just plain stupid.

The US does not have any interest in territorial conquests - the US is interested in maintaining it's own hedgemony.


For the most part I agree, but do we have the right to promote our economic interests over those of another country to the detriment of their people?

My point is that while we may not be a dictator like Saddam in the way we deal with other countries, we have a long history of being "friends" with dictators who sold us what we wanted to buy, regardless of how it benefited the people. We've also actively supported governments, and terrorist organizations, in an effort to promote our political ideology or economic interests.

I agree that we may not be as bad as a lot of dictatorial regimes from history, but we have engaged in such behavior covertly on many occasions, and no doubt still do.

This country is like any other in that it's not a paragon of virtue, nor of vice.

In that post lies the reason the mid east is where it is today.

The Muslim masses being ignored for decades, allowing the clerics to gain

influence, from that has developed the jihadi cause against America.

My point is that while we may not be a dictator like Saddam in the way we deal with other countries, we have a long history of being "friends" with dictators who sold us what we wanted to buy, regardless of how it benefited the people.


Communist China comes immediately to mind...

For the most part I agree, but do we have the right to promote our economic interests over those of another country to the detriment of their people?

In a word - Yes.

The citizens of another country are not our responsibility - they are the responsibility of that countries government. No country is perfect in it's actions - where should the line be drawn? There are some baselines such as child or slave labour produced goods - those should always be boycotted - but no country as a whole should be boycotted because they don't happen to be as 'civilised' as we are.

My point is that while we may not be a dictator like Saddam in the way we deal with other countries, we have a long history of being "friends" with dictators who sold us what we wanted to buy, regardless of how it benefited the people. We've also actively supported governments, and terrorist organizations, in an effort to promote our political ideology or economic interests.

Yes, for sure. America is about doing whats best for America, as is every country - and unless we are dropping bombs the reality is unless interactions are win-win they mostly don't happen. Many situations are imperfect but that doesn't mean we should bury our heads in the sand. Also - no country stays the same forever and the world for the most part has trended toward democratic free market economies. The US has had a huge impact on that trend. Look at say Chile - the US may have supported Pinochet, who happened to kill a lot of people - but Chile is a relatively safe, rich country now. For the most part Latin America is a crime ridden shit-hole - Chile is a stable, low crime country. In Sao Paulo I hardly dared leave the hotel, in Santiago I walked all around that city at 3am in the morning - the only concern being the large amount of stray dogs roaming the streets. My point is - the path to "perfection" is not lined with perfection.

I agree that we may not be as bad as a lot of dictatorial regimes from history, but we have engaged in such behavior covertly on many occasions, and no doubt still do.

It's fine and dandy to be on a high horse - but if in fact your standard of living had to take a steep plunge just so you could feel good that US was the paragon of everything done to some arbrtiary high standard - then I wonder if you views would become adjusted.

This country is like any other in that it's not a paragon of virtue, nor of vice.

Absolutely correct

For the most part I agree, but do we have the right to promote our economic interests over those of another country to the detriment of their people?

My point is that while we may not be a dictator like Saddam in the way we deal with other countries, we have a long history of being "friends" with dictators who sold us what we wanted to buy, regardless of how it benefited the people. We've also actively supported governments, and terrorist organizations, in an effort to promote our political ideology or economic interests.

so which way do you want it? That we actively support the spread of democracy and consequences be damned or that we deal with dictators and consequences on the locals be damned.

Communist China comes immediately to mind...


Have you been to China. I go to China every month for last 5 years! The government there is actually doing GOOD for the people. Yes it is communist but they are actually investing in the people, infrastructure, universities, etc. etc. Go to china now and, comparatively, our infrastructure looks like hell.

there is NO difference between economic domination and military conquest.

it is all still imperialism.