Reported Post by Apith

Apith · Mar 8, 2012

Apith has reported a post.

Reason:

Please move to the SFA section. And just change the title to "America". It seems some people are offended by this and have started acting a bit.. weird.
Click to expand...

Post: America - Good or Bad?
Forum: General/Off Topic
Assigned Moderators: FishFishy, malakadang

Posted by: Apith
Original Content:

Where do I start?

I'd like to discuss this with people from all over the world in Sythe. How do you see America? For me, I see them thinking they are the superhero of the world, and anyone that stands against them for their own personal reasons gets punished.

I'll start from the information I've gathered, researched, and heard.

Let's start with Saddam. Why is he dead? Why did you believe everything the media told you? Was he really a bad man? Why is he dead right now? You want to know why?

Because Saddam didn't approve of the US. A lot of countries don't want to use $s, but they don't have much of a choice. I'll go deeper into this later.

In 2000 Saddam announced that Iraqi oil would be traded in Euros, not dollars anymore. Some say sanctions and an invasion followed because the Americans were desperate to prevent OPEC from transferring oil trading in all its member countries to the euro.

What happened to him? He's dead, he looks like he was one of the worst human beings on earth. And it's been like that for a while. He was a little bad I'll admit. But not to the extent everyone else thinks.

Next.

Gadaffi and Mubarak. They had plans to introduce "Gold Dinars". Google it and do research about it.

Some believe it is about protecting civilians, others say it is about oil, but some are convinced intervention in Libya is all about Gaddafi’s plan to introduce the gold dinar, a single African currency made from gold, a true sharing of the wealth.

“It’s one of these things that you have to plan almost in secret, because as soon as you say you’re going to change over from the dollar to something else, you’re going to be targeted,” says Ministry of Peace founder Dr James Thring. “There were two conferences on this, in 1986 and 2000, organized by Gaddafi. Everybody was interested, most countries in Africa were keen."

Gaddafi did not give up. In the months leading up to the military intervention, he called on African and Muslim nations to join together to create this new currency that would rival the dollar and euro. They would sell oil and other resources around the world only for gold dinars.

It is an idea that would shift the economic balance of the world.

A country’s wealth would depend on how much gold it had and not how many dollars it traded. And Libya has 144 tons of gold. The UK, for example, has twice as much, but ten times the population.

“If Gaddafi had an intent to try to re-price his oil or whatever else the country was selling on the global market and accept something else as a currency or maybe launch a gold dinar currency, any move such as that would certainly not be welcomed by the power elite today, who are responsible for controlling the world’s central banks,” says Anthony Wile, founder and chief editor of the Daily Bell.

“So yes, that would certainly be something that would cause his immediate dismissal and the need for other reasons to be brought forward from moving him from power.”
Click to expand...

Everybody was interested, except US. Because this would have put the US in a far worse situation than it is currently.

Some say the US and its NATO allies literally could not afford to let that happen.
Click to expand...

What do they do? They made them look bad in front of the world, so people would not question their doings. Instead people would praise the US for doing so.

Please tell me why there are over 1000 US bases around the globe? If I remember correctly, everyone of these were supposed to be temporary. Instead, they haven't moved, and they've been putting more bases around. Right now the US is some sort of super power because of this, they've given them the advantage of division. They can attack countries, if ever needed, from every side.

The US approaches everything in a different way. How come we have to use the $s? Why couldn't it be a different currency. How come it's them benefiting from this the most?

I challenge anyone to change my mind about America. I'll be looking forward to the stories made up by the media, that people would post sources to. You cannot say all of these are true, that it was the real reason the US interfered.

Edit:
Here you guys go, I didn't think I would have to spoon feed some of you. But it's been requested:
Libya:

Subsidized food, inexpensive housing, free medical care and education, and profit-sharing were among the benefits that eased the lives of all citizens. The government protected the employed in their jobs and subsidized the underemployed and unemployed. In addition, there were nurseries to care for the children of working mothers, orphanages for homeless children, and homes for the aged. The welfare programs had reached even the oasis towns of the desert, where they reportedly were received with considerable satisfaction.
Click to expand...

Today all Libyans own their own homes and cars. In the words of two Fleet Street journalists, David Blundy and Andrew Lycett, who are by no means supporters of the Libyan Arab revolution, "The young people are well dressed, well fed and well educated. Libyans now earn more per capita than the British. The disparity in annual incomes... is smaller than in most countries. Libya's wealth has been fairly spread throughout society. Every Libyan has a job and a decent salary. He gets free, and often excellent, education, medical and health services. New colleges and hospitals are impressive by any international standard. All Libyans have a house or a flat, a car and most have televisions, video recorders and telephones. Compared with most citizens of the Third World countries, and with many in the First World, Libyans have it very good indeed." (Source: QADDAFI AND THE LIBYAN REVOLUTION)

Brother Qadhafi is popular with all Libyans, especially the youth. Frequently, he will drive his own small car (green VW beetle) to factory dedications and similar ceremonies with very little personal security. He mingles freely with the people who eagerly seek to shake his hand. They frequently shout such slogans as, "I will live and die with Mu`ammar Qadhafi".

Unlike Nigeria and Mexico, where none of the oil wealth seeps down to benefit the populace, under Libya's system of direct democracy summed up in the popular slogan "all power, wealth and arms in the hands of the people", all the oil profits are transferred directly to the people. No longer is wealth hoarded by a select few as in the days before the 1969 Revolution. The streets of Tripoli are filled with privately-owned late model cars. Modern apartment complexes are going up everywhere making the city look like one huge construction site.

Housing projects have been developed right across the country so as to ensure every Libyan has the right to own his own home. Every citizen has been given a decent house or apartment to live in rent-free. In Col. Qadhafi's Green Book we read: "The house is a basic need of both the individual and the family, therefore it should not be owned by others." This dictum has now become a reality for the Libyan Arab people.

Today, Libya can boast one of the finest health care systems in the Arab world. All people have access to doctors, hospitals, clinics and medicines, completely free of all charges.
Click to expand...

Because of the deliberately dishonest and even vile portrayals of the leader in the controlled media, not much is known regarding Qaddafi's political thoughts and his guiding ideology. He is described in the media as a dictator, yet in "The Green Book", Qaddafi outlines the actual governing foundation that undergirds the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. That foundation is The Third Universal Theory -- which upon critical analysis -- puts many so-called Western Democracies and Republics to shame.
Click to expand...

More of the quotes can be read in the sources stated below.

Sources:
Source
Source
Source
Source

And another edit.

There is no real proof that it really happened. If it did, why was it reported over a decade later and brought forward to the public then? I've also put the key sentences in bold, in the quote below. As I said, he isn't as bad as everyone thinks.

Halabja (pop. 80,000) is a small Kurdish city in northern Iraq. On Wednesday, the Star reminded readers that Saddam Hussein's Iraqi army killed 5,000 Kurds in a 1988 chemical weapons attack on Halabja near the end of a bloody, eight-year war with Iran.

The statement that Saddam was responsible for gassing the Kurds — his own people — was straightforward.

Indeed, U.S. President George W. Bush has used similar language about the disaster at Halabja in making a case for a military strike to oust Saddam.

Yet the Star also reported, in a Jan. 31 Opinion page column, that there's reason to believe the story about Saddam "gassing his own people" at Halabja may not even be true.

Curious about those contradictory reports, and prodded by Star reader Bill Hynes, the ombud decided to examine how this paper covered the Halabja story 15 years ago, when Washington was tilting toward Saddam's side in the Iran-Iraq war.

The Star's early coverage was skimpy. I found no breaking news story about the March 16, 1988 gas attack on the city.

But four days later, a Reuters News Agency dispatch (filed from Cyprus) said Kurds, fighting on the Iranian side, had managed to seize Halabja and nearby villages "where Iran has accused Iraq of using chemical weapons against Kurds."

It explained that Iraq and Iran were accusing each other of using poison gas in violation of the 1925 Geneva Protocol against chemical weapons.

The former CIA official revealed that immediately after the battle the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report that said it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds.

Both sides used gas at Halabja, Pelletiere suggested.

"The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent — that is, a cyanide-based gas — which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time."
Click to expand...

The accusation that Iraq has used chemical weapons against its citizens is a familiar part of the debate. The piece of hard evidence most frequently brought up concerns the gassing of Iraqi Kurds at the town of Halabja in March 1988, near the end of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war. President Bush himself has cited Iraq's "gassing its own people," specifically at Halabja, as a reason to topple Saddam Hussein.
Click to expand...

Just google "Did Iran gas the kurds".

How did it come down to Saddam's doing, after he stepped up to America? There was on proof that it was his doing. Iran could have simply planned this and frame Iraq, which is what most likely happened.

Do keep in mind that I was not prepared for most of this, but as you guys have challenged me, I've done some digging, and it only leads me further from being convinced.

Source
Source

The president of Syria stated:

"Syria is the hub now in this region. It is the fault line, and if you play with the ground you will cause an earthquake."

"Do you want to see another Afghanistan, or tens of Afghanistans?" Assad said. "Any problem in Syria will burn the whole region. If the plan is to divide Syria, that is to divide the whole region."
Click to expand...

He knows what's been going on, and he's come prepared, warning the US of the possible outcome if they do to them what has been done to Libya.

Source
Click to expand...

n4n0 · Mar 9, 2012

The thread's closed.

Log in or Sign up

Reported Post by Apith

Apith Le

n4n0 Legend

Log in or Sign up

Reported Post by Apith

Thread Tools

Apith Le

n4n0 Legend

Useful Searches