User talk:Yasis

Hi, this is my talk page, I will try to add more stuff as soon as possible.

Welcome!

Hello, Yasis, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Guinnog 08:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits[edit]

Hey there Yasis,

Please remember to mark your edits as minor when (and only when) they genuinely are minor edits (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one (and vice versa) is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'. Thanks! SGGH 10:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appeasement of Hitler[edit]

Just to say well done, and thanks for the major improvements you made to the Appeasement of Hitler article. All the best for future edits. Ian Goggin 20:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More on Appeasement of Hitler[edit]

Hi - I'm not quite sure what it is you're doing to Appeasement of Hitler right now, as you haven't give any edit summaries. All I can see is that quite a bit of text has been chopped out. Perhaps you could drop me a line (or places something in the article's talk page so that your intentions can be more clearly understood. Thanks. Nick Levine (talk) 10:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:218.186.65.34[edit]

It would appear that you are editing while logged off. Please log into your account to edit. --88.26.15.253 (talk) 17:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved, it was getting too much[edit]

Your views on USA engineering 1973 oil shock NJGW?[edit]

NJGW, what are your views on below report?

At this point he makes an extraordinary claim: 'I am 100 per cent sure that the Americans were behind the increase in the price of oil. The oil companies were in in real trouble at that time, they had borrowed a lot of money and they needed a high oil price to save them.'

He says he was convinced of this by the attitude of the Shah of Iran, who in one crucial day in 1974 moved from the Saudi view, that a hike would be dangerous to Opec because it would alienate the US, to advocating higher prices.

'King Faisal sent me to the Shah of Iran, who said: "Why are you against the increase in the price of oil? That is what they want? Ask Henry Kissinger - he is the one who wants a higher price".'

Yamani contends that proof of his long-held belief has recently emerged in the minutes of a secret meeting on a Swedish island, where UK and US officials determined to orchestrate a 400 per cent increase in the oil price.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2001/jan/14/globalrecession.oilandpetrol 218.186.65.79 (talk) 10:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I interject? The source of this interpretation may be F. William Engdahl [1]:

In May 1973, with the dramatic fall of the dollar still fresh, a group of 84 of the world's top financial and political insiders met at this secluded island resort of the Swedish Wallenberg banking family, at Saltsjoebaden, Sweden. This gathering of Prince Bernhard's Bilderberg Group heard Walter Levy outline a "scenario" for an imminent 400 percent increase in OPEC petroleum revenues. The purpose of the secret Saltsjoebaden meeting was not to prevent the expected oil price shock, but to plan and manage the about-to-be-created flood of oil dollars, a process US Secretary of State Kissinger later called "recycling the petro-dollar flows."

It is one thing to have the Bilderbergers plan to be the oil sheikhs' bankers, rather than fighting the price rise, but it's quite another to say that the Bilderbergers made it happen, which is a claim you will find on conspiracy sites. The phrase used in the Guardian - 'orchestrate' a price rise - is ambiguous; it could refer to the orchestration of events which you yourself originated, or it could refer to managing the impacts of events initiated by a third party. It is surely obvious that the price rise originated with OPEC - it was a protest against the outcome of the Six Day War! - even if the way that rise was transmitted to western consumers was shaped by western governments and corporations.

You may also find on that page the observation that the gold standard was abandoned just a few years before the 1973 oil shock, a point favored by people who want to think that fiat currency is responsible for rising commodity prices then and now, rather than issues of supply. Engdahl also works this into his conspiracy theory, on the general conspiracist principle that if action A was followed by outcome B, then B must have been the desired consequence of those who took action A - which of course is not true. Mporter (talk) 03:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still haven't read the article yet (it's in an open window on my desktop, waiting for me to have more time), but just glancing at it had reminded me of Engdahl and Lindsey Williams. Williams, besides sounding like a kook for taking over an hour to get to any real point in an hour & 1/4 presentation, has a fundamental flaw in his reasoning (he says the US caters to OPEC because they own so much of our debt, but they own a tiny fraction of what he says they do), and what I've seen from Engdahl never has any sources (just a bunch of conjecture). I might look at the article for fun if I get a chance, unless there's some really compelling reason somebody wants to point out to me. NJGW (talk) 03:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endgahl provides clear quotes from the minutes of a Bilderberger meeting in his book. He gave sources. Bilderberg did not engineer 1973 oil shock. That is distortion of the events. It was the USA that engineered the 1973 oil shock according to some researchers.

USA simply unveiled the plan to Bilderberg members.

Please don't mix serious research with loony conspiracy nonsense.

See also: See V.H.Oppenheim: “Why Oil Prices Go Up? The Past: We Pushed Them”, Foreign Policy,25 Winter 1976-77

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1148022

218.186.67.243 (talk) 11:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More on USA's orchestration of 1973 oil shock[edit]

More research by Prof. Peter Gowan:

...the Nixon administration decided to try to ensure that international financial relations should be taken out of the control of state Central Banks and should be increasingly centred upon private financial operators. It sought to achieve this goal through exploiting US control over international oil supplies.

It is still widely believed that the sharp and steep increase in oil prices in 1973 was carried out by the Gulf states as part of an anti-Israel and anti-US policy connected to the Yom Kippur war.

Yet as we now know, the oil price rises were the result of US influence on the oil states and they were arranged in part as an exercise in economic statecraft directed against America’s ‘allies’ in Western Europe and Japan. And another dimension of the Nixon administration’s policy on oil price rises was to give a new role, through them, to the US private banks in international financial relations.

The Nixon administration was planning to get OPEC to greatly increase its oil prices a full two years before OPEC did so and as early as 1972 the Nixon administration planned for the US private banks to recycle the petrodollars when OPEC finally did take US advice and jack up oil prices.

The Nixon administration understood the way in which the US state could use expanding private financial markets as a political multiplier of the impact of US Treasury moves with the dollar. But according to the Nixon’s Ambassador in Saudi Arabia at the time, the principal political objective behind Nixon’s drive for the OPEC oil price rise was to deal a crippling blow to the Japanese and European economies, both overwhelmingly dependent on Middle East Oil, rather than to decisively transform international financial affairs.

Nevertheless , Nixon’s officials showed far more strategic insight into the consequences of what they were attempting than most political scientists would credit any government with. Its capacity for deception both over the oil price rise and in the way in which it manipulated discussions with its ‘allies’ in the IMF over so-called ‘international monetary reform’ was brilliant.

The US government realised that the oil price rises would produce an enormous increase in the dollar earnings of oil states that could not absorb such funds into their own productive sectors.

At the same time, the oil price rises would plunge very many states into serious trade deficits as the costs of their oil imports soared. So the so-called petrodollars would have to be recycled from the Gulf through the Western banking systems to non-oil-producing states.

Other governments had wanted the petrodollars to be recycled through the IMF. But the US rejected this, insisting the Atlantic world’s private banks (at that time led by American banks) should be the recycling vehicles. And because the US was politically dominant in the Gulf, it could get its way...

- The Globalization Gamble: The Dollar-Wall Street Regime and its Consequences By Peter Gowan

http://www.iwgvt.org/files/9-gowan.rtf

http://www.marxsite.com/Global%20Gamble2.htm http://www.amazon.com/Global-Gamble-Washingtons-Faustian-Dominance/dp/1859842712 218.186.68.129 (talk) 07:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yasis, do you have any RS sources from contemporary historians? NJGW (talk) 14:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Gowan is a reliable contemporary historian. http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/research-units/iset/staff/gowan.cfm

Why did you ask NJGW? 218.186.69.253 (talk) 04:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'I am 100 per cent sure that the Americans were behind the increase in the price of oil.

- Sheikh Yamani, Former Saudi Oil Minister

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2001/jan/14/globalrecession.oilandpetrol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Zaki_Yamani

V.H.Oppenheim: “Why Oil Prices Go Up? The Past: We Pushed Them”, Foreign Policy,25 Winter 1976-77

Since 1971, the United States has encouraged middle east oil-producing states to raise the price of oil and keep it up...

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1148022

20 Years of Censored News: Why Oil Prices go up

While most Americans believe the increase in oil prices was due to the Arab oil embargo started in 1973, few are aware that their elected representatives collaborated with the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and Persian oil-producing nations to deliberately inflate the price of oil... [2]

Kissinger's Yom Kippur oil shock http://earth.prohosting.com/~jswift/engdahl.html#Kissingers%20Yom%20Kippur

William Engdahl's book "A Century of War" has excerpts of the minutes of a bilderberg meeting in May 1973 where members discussed the coming oil shock.

http://www.amazon.com/Century-War-Anglo-American-Politics-World/dp/074532309X http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/1973_Oil_Shock/1973_oil_shock.html

218.186.69.253 (talk) 05:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 2008[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for for continual harassment of NJGW (talk · contribs). For more information please see [3]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Tiptoety ^talk 03:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following were left by Yasis at my talk page... the belong here[edit]

NJGW, what do you mean by I "stalking" you and me being "sockpuppet"?[edit]

I do not understand all those allegations against me NJGW.

Please explain. Thanks.218.186.65.198 (talk) 04:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

NJGW, see: [1]

Stalking? Sockpuppet?

???

Please explain clearly to me NJGW. Thanks.

218.186.65.198 (talk) 04:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)(Yasis)

To NJGW, from Yasis[edit]

Extended content

Dear NJGW, please see:[4]

Thanks. 218.186.65.198 (talk) 04:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made a reply to Bwilkins above, asking him to clarify the issue of sockpuppet. The edit was in no way addressed to you NJGW. But you made allegations against me, saying that I am "stalking" you NJGW. I consider that harassment NJGW. You are trying to block me from legitimate editing on wiki NJGW. 218.186.65.198 (talk) 04:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion[edit]

I notice that you have been evading your block. [5] Don't do that, or else your block may be extended. It is late, and I am not going to extend your block at this time, but any other administrator is free to do so at any time if they feel the need. Jehochman ^Talk 04:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block[edit]

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing the English Wikipedia for your constant abuses of editing priveleges which include harassing another editor through IP addresses. This is clearly not a new issue with you. You will also find that any IP address you have used has been blocked. If you continue to abuse editing priveleges, you will find that you will be banned from the English Wikipedia until you can give sufficient evidence that you can abide by all of the English Wikipedia's rules and standards.

As with any block, you can appeal by using {{unblock}} on this page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]