Dakardii's topic

As requested, this sub-forum is for partying, fun, gossip, conundrums, flirting, comedy, tragedy, or whatever.
DaKardii
Posts: 943
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 9:17 am

Re: Dakardii's topic

Post by DaKardii »

John wrote:
Wed Sep 22, 2021 11:46 am
This goes way over the line.

Iraq annexed Kuwait. The US formed a coalition to eject Iraq from
Kuwait. That was not a lie. That was the truth. That was the actual
reason.

If you're going to manufacture additional reasons, you might as well
say that it was to protect Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan as well
as Saudi Arabia.

When the US became Policeman Of The World, the goal was to prevent a
repeat of WW I and WW II. Thus, we fought wars in Korea and Vietnam
to stop the spread of Communism, and we fought the Iraq war for the
stability of the entire Mideast. It wasn't just to protect Saudi
Arabia. It was to prevent a destabilization of the entire Mideast
that would lead to a repeat of World War I.

The stability of the Mideast is important for a lot more reasons than
your single-minded focus on the petrodollar. If the Mideast oil
supply suddenly stopped, then the US would do fine internally. But it
would instantly lead to war in Asia and Europe. Those are reasons
that go way beyond the petrodollar or some some CIA meddling fantasy.

You seem to be starting from a conclusion and then searching for
things to support it. You seem to want to blame the US for
everything, which is consistent with a number of other things you've
written. Lately you've been agreeing with the CCP propaganda that the
US army developed the Covid strain and spread it around the world,
rather than the Wuhan lab.

You can't just make up "facts" because you want to blame the US for
every problem in the world. The wars in Libya, Syria and Ukraine were
caused by the reasons that I've written about, not because of CIA
meddling. The CIA does not have that power, even when it does
"meddle." You want to blame the US for everything, and when there's
no rational reason, you make things up with no evidence at all.
Yes, Iraq did annex Kuwait. And yes, the goal of the war was to liberate Kuwait. But why was it necessary for us to libertate Kuwait? Was it to preserve the rules-based international order, as George H.W. Bush claimed? Of course not. It was to protect our oil interests in the Middle East. The most important of those interests - by far - was and is the petrodollar; and the petrodollar's very existence was and is guaranteed by OPEC in general and Saudi Arabia in particular selling oil in dollars and ONLY in dollars. This system was and is the only thing standing in the way of the dollar losing its international reserve currency status, which in turn was and is the only thing standing in the way of the dollar losing much of its value. It also was an is the only thing standing in the way of Washington being able to spend whatever it wants, whenever it wants. The petrodollar is the reason why Washington is able to get away with total fiscal irresponsibility for what appears to be perpetuity. In other words: Bush the Elder went to war in order to ensure Washington was able to keep up its self-enrichment.

Meanwhile, would Iraq getting away with the annexation of Kuwait have resulted in the Middle East destabilizing, and consequently a disruption in the global oil trade? Probably. But for the USA in particular, the collapse of the petrodollar would've had even more serious consequences than that.

As for the conflicts in Libya, Syria, and Ukraine, yes there were underlying ethno-religious tensions which made such a conflict possible. But said underlying tensions were merely the powder. For that powder to explode, a fuse would have to be lit. And in all three cases, the US government certainly played a significant role in lighting that fuse, even if it wasn't the only party that lit a match (Gaddafi also lit a match in Libya; Assad, Sarkozy, Putin, Cameron, Abdullah bin Saud, Erdogan, Khamenei, Hamad bin Khalifa all lit matches in Syria; Yanukovych, Merkel, Hollande, Putin, and Komorowski all lit matches in Ukraine).

And while were are almost never the only country to light a match to use on the fuse, we are almost always the country which is the most remote from the epicenter of the conflict in question. Thus, our intervention is often the most unnecessary out of all the unnecessary interventions with the conflict in question. It's ridiculous. We're supposed to be a Republic, not an Empire.
Last edited by DaKardii on Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

DaKardii
Posts: 943
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 9:17 am

Re: Dakardii's topic

Post by DaKardii »

Xeraphim1 wrote:
Wed Sep 22, 2021 4:28 pm
This. We keep hearing about how the US government is incompetent except when it comes to manipulating all these other countries in which case the US government is suddenly staffed by brilliant masterminds. it doesn't work that way.
They aren't incompetent because they are bad at manipulation. They are incompetent because they are reckless to the point where they could eventually find themselves in an unwinnable war.

Guest

Re: Dakardii's topic

Post by Guest »

DaKardii wrote:
Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:40 pm
Xeraphim1 wrote:
Wed Sep 22, 2021 4:28 pm
This. We keep hearing about how the US government is incompetent except when it comes to manipulating all these other countries in which case the US government is suddenly staffed by brilliant masterminds. it doesn't work that way.
They aren't incompetent because they are bad at manipulation. They are incompetent because they are reckless to the point where they could eventually find themselves in an unwinnable war.
You left out the UFOs at Area 51, DK.

John
Posts: 11478
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA USA
Contact:

Re: Dakardii's topic

Post by John »

** 23-Sep-2021 World View: Stopping Iraq
DaKardii wrote:
Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:38 pm
Yes, Iraq
> did annex Kuwait. And yes, the goal of the war was to liberate
> Kuwait. But why was it necessary for us to libertate
> Kuwait? Was it to preserve the rules-based international order, as
> George H.W. Bush claimed? Of course not. ... Meanwhile, would Iraq
> getting away with the annexation of Kuwait have resulted in the
> Middle East destabilizing, and consequently a disruption in the
> global oil trade?
This doesn't even make sense. If the Mideast were destabilized, as
you said, it would lead to a regional war. It would not have any
effect on whether oil is denominated in dollars.

The whole point of the Truman Doctrine is that it's better to spend a
small amount of blood and treasure in a police action than to allow
World War III, which would cost a million times more.

Whether you like it or not -- and you obviously don't -- America took
on the burden of Policeman of the World. This meant that when Iraq
annexed Kuwait -- similar to Hitler annexing Czechoslovakia -- then it
was necessary to stop him before he went further -- similar to Hitler
invading Poland. You said it yourself that Iraq would be threatening
Saudi Arabia, which would trigger a major war. So stopping Iraq at
Kuwait, before it invaded Saudi Arabia, would correspond to stopping
Hitler at Czechoslovakia before the invasion of Poland and WW II.

I'm sure you don't like that analogy, since you have some petrodollar
fantasy, but that's the reason, whether you like it or not.

DaKardii
Posts: 943
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 9:17 am

Re: Dakardii's topic

Post by DaKardii »

John wrote:
Thu Sep 23, 2021 10:21 am
This doesn't even make sense. If the Mideast were destabilized, as
you said, it would lead to a regional war. It would not have any
effect on whether oil is denominated in dollars.

The whole point of the Truman Doctrine is that it's better to spend a
small amount of blood and treasure in a police action than to allow
World War III, which would cost a million times more.

Whether you like it or not -- and you obviously don't -- America took
on the burden of Policeman of the World. This meant that when Iraq
annexed Kuwait -- similar to Hitler annexing Czechoslovakia -- then it
was necessary to stop him before he went further -- similar to Hitler
invading Poland. You said it yourself that Iraq would be threatening
Saudi Arabia, which would trigger a major war. So stopping Iraq at
Kuwait, before it invaded Saudi Arabia, would correspond to stopping
Hitler at Czechoslovakia before the invasion of Poland and WW II.

I'm sure you don't like that analogy, since you have some petrodollar
fantasy, but that's the reason, whether you like it or not.
Yes, I do oppose America being the Policeman of the World. Because lately we've been a bad cop.

But even if I supported America being the Policeman of the World, in hindsight it turns out that Saddam wasn't the biggest bad guy of the region. Saudi Arabia was, and still is. The only things we've gotten from Saudi Arabia aside from cheap oil are economic manipulation, government corruption, terrorism, and wars launched on false pretenses and on behalf of the Saudi lobby. The harm which Saudi Arabia has inflicted on us far surpasses that of Saddam, and is roughly equal to that of the CCP. So in hindsight, I feel that we backed the wrong side in that conflict.

As for the Middle East being destabilized by Saddam invading Kuwait, the US could've easily avoided the consequences Europe and Asia would've faced, for we had and still have the ability to become energy independent. We also had and still have the ability to serve as a backup source of energy for Europe and Asia. If we really wanted to, we could've taken the opportunity to restore the dominance of the energy sector that we had prior to WWII.

Oh, wait. We couldn't have. Because of the petrodollar. If Saudi Arabia collapsed, the petrodollar system would've also collapsed, which would've resulted in our currency becoming severely devalued and a massive inflationary crisis which would've broken the back of our economy. Which in turn would've made becoming energy independent and a massive net energy exporter more difficult because you need a healthy economy to jump start a new business. Well, that's what happens when our government is run by a bunch of people like Joe Biden. As you once implied, sometimes you can't tell if Biden is incompetent or if he's trying to sabotage the US in the name of a personal agenda. The same thing can be said about most of the people in our government, both then and now.

DaKardii
Posts: 943
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 9:17 am

Re: Dakardii's topic

Post by DaKardii »

Russia's claims that the US had biological weapons stationed in Ukraine now appear to be heavily substantiated by an exchange between Victoria Nuland and Marco Rubio during the former's testimony to the Senate on Tuesday.

Video of the exchange can be found here, starting at 3:36 and ending at 4:47.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWAgSBfU3xk

I have two comments to say about this exchange.

First, this further solidifies my suspicion that it was actually the US and not China who unleashed COVID on the world.

Second, I now fear that if the existence of other biological weapons labs or even mere biological research labs are uncovered, it could lead directly to more war. For example, if such a lab was uncovered in Taiwan the CCP could very easily invoke that revelation as a or even the casus belli to invade.

Xeraphim1

Re: Dakardii's topic

Post by Xeraphim1 »

DaKardii wrote:
Thu Mar 10, 2022 3:41 pm
Russia's claims that the US had biological weapons stationed in Ukraine now appear to be heavily substantiated by an exchange between Victoria Nuland and Marco Rubio during the former's testimony to the Senate on Tuesday.

Video of the exchange can be found here, starting at 3:36 and ending at 4:47.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWAgSBfU3xk

I have two comments to say about this exchange.

First, this further solidifies my suspicion that it was actually the US and not China who unleashed COVID on the world.

Second, I now fear that if the existence of other biological weapons labs or even mere biological research labs are uncovered, it could lead directly to more war. For example, if such a lab was uncovered in Taiwan the CCP could very easily invoke that revelation as a or even the casus belli to invade.
The thing is that you WANT to believe these things and your mind will spin anything in this direction. We've seen this from you regularly so you're not very believable.

Guest

Re: Dakardii's topic

Post by Guest »

Xeraphim1 wrote:
Thu Mar 10, 2022 7:55 pm
DaKardii wrote:
Thu Mar 10, 2022 3:41 pm
Russia's claims that the US had biological weapons stationed in Ukraine now appear to be heavily substantiated by an exchange between Victoria Nuland and Marco Rubio during the former's testimony to the Senate on Tuesday.

Video of the exchange can be found here, starting at 3:36 and ending at 4:47.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWAgSBfU3xk

I have two comments to say about this exchange.

First, this further solidifies my suspicion that it was actually the US and not China who unleashed COVID on the world.

Second, I now fear that if the existence of other biological weapons labs or even mere biological research labs are uncovered, it could lead directly to more war. For example, if such a lab was uncovered in Taiwan the CCP could very easily invoke that revelation as a or even the casus belli to invade.
The thing is that you WANT to believe these things and your mind will spin anything in this direction. We've seen this from you regularly so you're not very believable.
Yes, conspiracy theorists--there are a few on this board--believe what they want to believe. These people see false flags everywhere... :roll:

John
Posts: 11478
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA USA
Contact:

Re: Dakardii's topic

Post by John »

** 10-Mar-2022 World View: Spread of Covid around the world
DaKardii wrote:
Thu Mar 10, 2022 3:41 pm
> First, this further solidifies my suspicion that it was actually
> the US and not China who unleashed COVID on the world.
Once again, this statement is provably false.

Even if you buy the Chinese Communist nonsense that Covid was
developed in the US and somehow planted in Wuhan by the US army, your
statement is still provably false.

Covid was provably unleashed on the world by China. When it started
spreading in Wuhan, then the Chinese Communists arrested anyone who
reported what was going on.

And then, the Communists encouraged people in Wuhan to travel to
hundreds of other countries, spreading Covid to those countries, but
forbid people in Wuhan from traveling within China.

That's how the Chinese Communists spread Covid around the world, and
it's provably true.

Don't you ever get tired of being a sucker for Chinese Communist and
Russian propaganda? As Xeraphim1 says, you simply believe anything
you want to believe, irrespective of facts.

DaKardii
Posts: 943
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 9:17 am

Re: Dakardii's topic

Post by DaKardii »

John wrote:
Thu Mar 10, 2022 8:21 pm
Once again, this statement is provably false.

Even if you buy the Chinese Communist nonsense that Covid was
developed in the US and somehow planted in Wuhan by the US army, your
statement is still provably false.

Covid was provably unleashed on the world by China. When it started
spreading in Wuhan, then the Chinese Communists arrested anyone who
reported what was going on.

And then, the Communists encouraged people in Wuhan to travel to
hundreds of other countries, spreading Covid to those countries, but
forbid people in Wuhan from traveling within China.

That's how the Chinese Communists spread Covid around the world, and
it's provably true.

Don't you ever get tired of being a sucker for Chinese Communist and
Russian propaganda? As Xeraphim1 says, you simply believe anything
you want to believe, irrespective of facts.
The DARPA leaks from January established that COVID was created in the Wuhan lab, but the project behind it was both established and supervised by the US government, with the Chinese scientists working in the lab being junior partners. The leaks also established that COVID was not intended to be a bioweapon from the outset, which means that the virus' release was due to rogue activity.

It is possible that the US government was behind the virus' release, and it's equally possible that the CCP was behind the virus' release. Both have motives for doing it. But in my humble opinion there is more circumstantial evidence in favor of the former being responsible.

As for the CCP's claim that the virus was brought into Wuhan from outside of China by the US Army, that has indeed been proven false. Which begs the question. Assuming that America was indeed responsible for the virus being released from the Wuhan lab, why would the CCP still intentionally lie and manufacture that other narrative instead?

My guess is that the CCP believes it cannot get out of this looking squeaky clean if it told the truth about what was going on at the Wuhan lab, regardless of who released the virus. Because either way, the CCP was still involved in the virus's very creation. So the CCP would rather tell a narrative where it was not involved in the virus' creation in any way, rather than a narrative where it was involved in the virus' creation but not the one who released the virus.

The real irony about all this is that even if America was indeed responsible, the CCP still ended up being the less honest one regarding what was going on at the Wuhan lab!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests