I don't see where this should be a problem.
Is not all paper money supposed to be backed by gold to start with.

The US would only see this as a problem if say, they've been printing money without the gold to back it or if stores of gold from their vaults had gone missing.

Daily Paul Liberty Forum: Is there ANY gold in Fort Knox:
http://www.dailypaul.com/73920/is-there-any-gold-in-fort-knox

XAT3: The History Of Money - PART 3
http://www.xat.org/xat/worldbank.html

US Mint/Fort Knox:
http://www.usmint.gov/about_the_mint/fun_facts/?action=fun_facts13

Is not all paper money supposed to be backed by gold to start with.


Assuming this is a question without a question mark, the answer is no - all national currencies have been fiat money for a while now (not just US dollars).

From the video: "The United States should welcome the self determination of Africans". Guess what, it does. That's why it supports rebels not getting massacred by a horrible, moronic dictator named Qadaffi.

And I hate these "secret motivation" conspiracies. Remember how the Afghan war was all about oil, then a pipeline, then minerals, then drugs or illegal arms sales or something? Is it the same people coming up with these new dumb ideas? How come we never get a "oh yeah, guess I was wrong about all that" video? Does anyone still believe the stupid, stupid Afghanistan war-for-pipeline theory? Lots of people did. Do they experience any kind of cognitive dissonance now that the pipeline remains unbuilt? Or do they just not remember?

And the theories are pointless to begin with when we have perfectly believable explanations right in front of us. No big secrets or surprises, just human nature. For example, Afghanistan: Bush (and a good percentage of Americans) wanted a war mostly out of vengeance (and general hate), government thought it would be a huge win politically, Bush honestly thought he'd kill some terrorists and be remembered as a hero, and was certainly encouraged by a military contractors who'd make a killing (and did). That sounds like enough reasons to me.

Similarly, the humanitarian atrocity of a dictatorial government bombing its own populace sounds like enough motivation to want to help those being killed.

opec suddenly deciding to only sell oil for actual gold isn't a conspiracy... its a possibility

the NATO response and the reasons behind it is where the "conspiracy" lay...



and no offense, but thats a much more justifiable reason, than Bush/%ofAmericans wanted revenge... if those were the reasons, the war should have never happened, and war crimes charges should have been sought

how people in the US think that they are somehow above International Law, and that emotion is a good motivation to act that way is beyond me... its moronic really, and that their government's main motivation being money or strategic positioning is somehow like "Alien Anal Probes" in terms of believability is even beyond that

if you aren't aware that the US (let alone most[if not all] Western nations) couldn't operate "AT ALL" based on its actual liquidity, but only on its ability to acquire credit... and how this system benefits them, yet hinders developing nations... I don't think any reason will reach you

somehow the corporations (military contractors) are money motivated... but their lobbies, or promise of "consulting jobs" after terms of service, etc don't motivate people in government just boggles the mind... nope, motivations based on money/power stop at the corporate level, and don't seep into world politics at all



and "secret motivation" is hilarious, because you probably get most of your news from CNN or FOX or some other corporate news outlet right? because if you didn't... stories like this wouldn't be so rare that you'd actually refer to it as a "secret"



foreigners don't dislike American's because of their freedoms, they dislike them because with they waste them and accept the first and most convenient drivel fed to them... seriously

and no offense


Lets not pretend you weren't well aware of the offense in your post.

but thats a much more justifiable reason, than Bush/%ofAmericans wanted revenge... if those were the reasons, the war should have never happened, and war crimes charges should have been sought


I'm talking about psychology, and the reasons people do things. That's very different than justification. And where did I say the war should have happened? Do you think it should have happened? Either way, it's irrelevant to the point at hand: American political support for "hitting back" was a prime reason the war happened. D

because you probably get most of your news from CNN or FOX or some other corporate news outlet right


So, in summary, you're dismissing me (and anyone who doesn't fit in with your narrow world view) as some kind of sheep. If I had a dollar for every time I've heard someone hand wave away an argument this way on the Internet, I'd have many dollars.

But yeah - I'm sure you meant "no offense". You won't catch me saying "no offense" in this post - I think your world view is the result of living in an Internet echo chamber, and only reading the sites and absorbing the opinions of people who agree with you. Yes, I read mainstream news (here in Canada I don't see a lot of Fox or CNN, but I like the BBC/CBC). I also read a lot on the web. Lots of left leaning stuff, but also conservative commentators like Instapundit who, while I don't usually agree with, sometimes has insights and news that shake my preconceptions. That's important.

etc don't motivate people in government just boggles the mind


Yeah - you don't understand the very rich and powerful. To the extent that they want money, they want money to "win" - to make the deal or be part of a big transaction or be right, or leverage that money to the next win. But their prime motivator is glory, and validation (especially public, but also from friends and other people in power). People who aren't rich don't get this because there's a bunch of stuff they want and can't buy. They can't imagine what it would be like to have "enough" money and power. Nothing George Bush wants (and doesn't already have) can be had for money, and nobody who's opinion he cares about cares how much money he has. Glory, legacy, victory - that's what motivates a guy with all the power in the world.

The other thing you don't understand is that these guys (and most people in general) don't do things they think are wrong. George Bush, however stupid you think he is, doesn't think "oooh, if we invade we'll get all this money". The advisers who know they'll make a profit, they make a difference, sure. Of course money is a factor. The group think carries a strong confirmation bias for the course that will make money. But, in the end, people in that room are building on an honest base of "we'll kill some terrorists" and "they hit us first".

There's many corners of Internet group think where "the most cynical guy must be right". This is a normal stage in intellectual development, as you move into questioning your parents' and teachers' worldview. It's healthy to an extent, but too many people now get stuck there forever - the availability of like minds on the Internet amplifies this effect. You have to understand, though, that this kind of worldview isn't reality and doesn't help you understand the world. Just as not everything is as it seems, not everything is not as it seems.

It's a pleasant fiction to believe that the "people at the top" are hyper competent string pullers - but looking back at history, it's scarcely right. The sad, scary reality is that they're people a lot like us. And until you understand that, you'll never understand world politics or history.

Moving this video to waynef100's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.