[optimus_prime]

This post was originally intended to be placed in the news section of Chefelf forums. But as I tried to post, it said I didnt have authority to do so.

The more I thought about it, I saw that this could also be a debate of sorts too, so alas, it is.

While reading the news in USA Today, I came upon an interesting article about the US Dollar and how the value of it has been falling lately.

http://www.usatoday....ng-dollar_N.htm

Basically, the article says that this is bad for US citizens traveling abroad overseas when they encounter conversion rates. But is good for exportation of US goods to other countries.

This article made me think much about the value of the dollar, and currency in general.

It seems that pretty much all through US History, our focus has always been trying to find ways to strengthen the value of our money. It seems to be our sole objective. Our capitalist society has lead us to such mentality.

No one likes it when someone else stick their nose into our business, and many wonder why the US always feels they have the right to do just that. We are viewed as some sort of global police force, always ensuring the cause of good prevails.

I see things like this. The US pretty much gets involved with just about any war it can. seriously. Through effective political statements, we convince others to believe we have logical justification for entering into the war. "They have nuclear weapons hidden,..they have a communist dictatorship,..inhumane treatment of citizens...blah blah blah"

The real reason America goes to war is to strengthen its money. Since the global economy, which the US is very much a part of, depends heavily on trade. We strive to build up nations into economic powerhouses.

This is exactly what happened to Japan right after WWII.

When America had its civil war in the 1800's,.no foreign country butted into our domestic affairs. China didnt rush over and send in troops to support General Lee and the Confederacy. Great Britian didnt send ships to sail into Maryland to support the North. None of that ever happened.

But what did America do almost 100 years later? We sent in our troops over to Vietnam to support their South against the Viet Cong. The "Vietnamese Civil War", if you will.

but it wasnt just Vietnam's south we aided, also Korea's South, and even Taiwan, which is viewed by Red China as a renegade state. Yeah, The US tried to support independence for Taiwan. Why? You guessed it, a brand new (hence independent) global power to trade with (cha-ching $$$)..Thats really what it was all about.

We were quite foolish to even interfere with China's affairs. China with its 1 billion populous and iron clad military looked upon the US like we were a little yapping puppy, and China was the huge Rotweiler about to put us in our place. China warned us with a ferocious bark, and we skittled away from Taiwan.

I wont bore you with WWI, or just about any other war that america has been involved in, or tried to get involved with. but, it comes down to this, if you break it down to the core reasons of why the US got involved, it all boils down to the quest and greed of money, and/or strengthening the US dollar.

This post has been edited by optimus_prime: 17 July 2007 - 07:27 AM

[Slade]

There were also wars to seize land in the US when it couldn't be purchased due to that "Manifest Destiny" bullshit. For a while, every US dollar was backed by X amount of gold. Then the farmers wanted to change the backing to silver because there was more silver, which meant more money in circulation, which meant they'd be less poor. That eventually happened. Then later, it was decided that having any sort of meaning and backing to money, even if it was just lumps of shiny/pretty metals was silly, and they did away with that, and now the USD is worth money only because the US gov't says so and the world has entered into a collective agreement that it does.

Most people have done away with the absurd notion that the US is some sort of champion of justice. The country does inevitably go to war to protect/procure economic interests. Subjugating nations means contracting reconstruction and such out to good American folk (i.e. US-based corporations).

As regards to the Civil War, it was an enormous polarized fucking MESS. If I were the leader of another country, I, too, would have said "Whoa now! Let's let them sort that one out themselves!"

And you need to PM Barend or Chefelf if you want to post a crappy news article. If they like it, they'll put it up.

[Bond]

So, you're saying we went to Bosnia and Somalia for money, too?

[Slade]

Ach. I can't say anything about those conflicts. It was in that vortex between too modern to be covered in a history class, and me being too young to keep up with current events and therefore not really remembering anything about it or paying attention to it (which is the more important thing, since I've read up on events in history, not just listened to a professor, but I can't read about something I don't know about.)

[optimus_prime]

So, you're saying we went to Bosnia and Somalia for money, too?

in a sort of round-about way,..yes. even wars that dont show any direct link to some sort of financial gain. the involvement may have been for positive public image, to be used later for some sort of financial leverage.

[barend]

And you need to PM Barend or Chefelf if you want to post a crappy news article. If they like it, they'll put it up.

or Chyld and Ninja Duck and someone else but I can't remember who.

And now that I think about it, I haven't seen ND for a while.

Also... I hope the US dollar plummits. No Offence, but just long enough for me to do some serious online shopping.

Then it can feel free to sky rocket before getting my next remixing cheque.

[Bond]

in a sort of round-about way,..yes. even wars that dont show any direct link to some sort of financial gain. the involvement may have been for positive public image, to be used later for some sort of financial leverage.

You've got to be kidding me! Those were peacekeeping missions financed by the Clinton Administration! It was for goodwill, not profit, but they got all f*cked up anyway! My goodness, next you're going to say that the Tripoli Campaign of 1804 was for profit!


EDIT: Sorry. Didn't mean to get all worked up.

This post has been edited by Bond: 17 July 2007 - 10:34 PM