Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ready for $60-a-Barrel Oil? [The Iranian election strategy at work, by Michael Ledeen]
National Review Online ^ | June 22, 2004, | Michael Ledeen

Posted on 06/22/2004 6:31:13 AM PDT by Constitution Day

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-59 next last
To: Independentamerican
I don't know what Bush should do. Iran has become a thorn in our side but Bush could not afford to do anything drastic until after the election.

Tick tock tic toc... 130 days to go when the Islamo-Commies' sphincter muscles should get tighter than 72 virgins on Sunday.

21 posted on 06/22/2004 6:51:06 AM PDT by demlosers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Constitution Day
Even if you stopped all Iraqi oil, I don't think that would have a major impact on world oil prices.

Also, oil just wouldn't rise to $60. At some point between $40 and $60, you'd have a lot of extra production come on line, from Mexico, Venezuela, Texas, Alberta, the Urals, Alaska and Oklahoma. It may not make much sense to pump it out of these places at $40, but at $45 maybe, or at $50....

22 posted on 06/22/2004 6:51:26 AM PDT by Koblenz (Not bad, not bad at all. -- Ronald Reagan, the Greatest President.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Constitution Day

Our good friends the Saudis will save us.....


23 posted on 06/22/2004 6:55:01 AM PDT by joesnuffy (Moderate Islam Is For Dilettantes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Actually, that would translate into about $3-$3.50 a gallon. Kerry for president would be a disaster for the entire world of free people.


24 posted on 06/22/2004 6:55:06 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn't be, in its eyes, a slave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

If $42 crude=$2.10 gasoline, I'd say $60 crude would be something less than $5.00 gas.


25 posted on 06/22/2004 6:55:20 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks (STAGMIRE !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Piquaboy

We'll give them plenty of radioactive material if they really want it.

: )


26 posted on 06/22/2004 6:56:18 AM PDT by GraniteStateConservative (...He had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here...-- Worst.President.Ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Constitution Day
Because they were planning to attack (or have their surrogates attack) the oil terminals, silly.

If Mr. Ledeen has a single shred of evidence to support this assertion, then I'd love to see it. Until then, I'll give these meanderings no more credibility than I'd give Slick Willie's book.

27 posted on 06/22/2004 7:01:57 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium . . . sed ego sum homo indomitus")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhombus
Oil IS the world economy. Send in the Navy to protect those ports.

I totally agree, it is.
Didn't I read that the Navy has quite a few carriers at sea now, many more than usual?

28 posted on 06/22/2004 7:02:31 AM PDT by Constitution Day (Burger-Eating War Monkey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: sgtbono2002
If he did we wouldnt have gone to Iraq.

Not really. Iraq was sold to him as a huge win-- saving the world from Iraq's WMD stockpiles and having most every Iraqi shower us with flowers and gifts with their liberation and the shiny new Arab democracy as a ray of hope to all. When he declared "Mission Accomplished," attacking Iraq looked like a brilliant move. I recall Chris Matthews talking about how we're all neo-cons now, because of how popular going to war was at that time.

29 posted on 06/22/2004 7:08:26 AM PDT by GraniteStateConservative (...He had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here...-- Worst.President.Ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: The Sons of Liberty

A nice chance for Blair to shore up his popularity, if he acts strongly and effectively here. If he doesn't defend his boys, his popularity will fall even lower.


30 posted on 06/22/2004 7:08:42 AM PDT by Bluegrass Federalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: demlosers

lol


31 posted on 06/22/2004 7:11:53 AM PDT by Independentamerican (Independent Sophomore at the University of MD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Piquaboy
"Are the Iranians prepared to have their nuclear program set back a hundred years?"

Are they prepared to have their culture set back a thousand years?
No, wait a minute: it already IS a thousand years behind...

32 posted on 06/22/2004 7:13:49 AM PDT by Redbob (still holding out for the 'self-illuminating, glass-bottomed parking lot' solution to the ME problem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Constitution Day

BTTT!


33 posted on 06/22/2004 7:14:01 AM PDT by Pentagram
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sgtbono2002

I agree that Bush is not Kerry and Kerry may not have had the nerve to go to war in Iraq. But Bush is still a politician and I would be really surprised to see any military response to Iran before Nov. I may be in for a surprise but the polls show the race is still too close to call an early victory.


34 posted on 06/22/2004 7:14:23 AM PDT by Independentamerican (Independent Sophomore at the University of MD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Independentamerican

Why are we automatically assuming that there is any need for a "military response" at all? Based on what I've read about this incident, it appears that these British sailors were captured in Iranian waters. I would hope the U.S. Navy would have done the same thing back in the 1970s if some Soviet trawler were laying marine detection equipment across the mouth of New York harbor.


35 posted on 06/22/2004 7:28:32 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium . . . sed ego sum homo indomitus")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Constitution Day
Report has been that Iranian troops are massed on the Iraqi border.

There is a set date for US troops to leave and Iranian troops are massing on the Iraqi border.

Sure doesn't sound good for the Iraqi provisional government.

36 posted on 06/22/2004 7:32:41 AM PDT by Freedom of Speech Wins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Constitution Day
"Sorry for the double ping. "

nothin' wrong with a "double-barrel ping"...

37 posted on 06/22/2004 7:41:43 AM PDT by hoot2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Well Iran supports terrorism. George Bush is fighting a war on terroism. Maybe Iran had the right to do what it did but with the new developments regarding their attempts at obtaining plutonium this places them in a very negative light. How else do you fight a war on terrorism ? Look at what Sharon has done in the last couple of months and it seems to be winning.


38 posted on 06/22/2004 7:45:32 AM PDT by Independentamerican (Independent Sophomore at the University of MD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

Horsefeathers! The Iranians could much more eaily use their network to sabotage the pipelines within Iraq without involving the British and by extension the Americans.

The Assahollahs are dangerous but not stupid.


39 posted on 06/22/2004 7:49:21 AM PDT by Anglospheroid (Body counts in the billions don't bother me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Independentamerican
Your post might provide a rationale for dealing harshly with Iran in general, but it has nothing to do with this specific incident. Go back and read the article again in the context of what we've discussed here, and you'll see just how childish and silly the author is.

I'll quote this one bit in particular:

And why, you might ask, did the Iranians feel threatened? Because they were planning to attack (or have their surrogates attack) the oil terminals, silly.

Iran picks up a bunch of British sailors laying detection equipment in the Persian Gulf region, and the author makes the wild (and thoroughly unsubstantiated) accusation that Iran did this because they are planning to attack Iraqi oil terminals.

The notion that Iran simply didn't like the idea of British sailors carrying out a covert military mission in Iranian waters is apparently beyond the author's infantile mental capabilities.

40 posted on 06/22/2004 7:53:13 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium . . . sed ego sum homo indomitus")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-59 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson