Their bedsheets were at the dry-cleaners during the jihad parade, but once cleaned that bunch will look like this Hamas IslamoKlansman.
Posted on 10/01/2005 9:29:06 AM PDT by M. Espinola
Actually the pull out of Gaza was diplomatically a brilliant move.
1) Satisfying the people for a Palestinian State.
2) Satisfying the Jew & Arabs against Zionism.
3) Satisfying the peace movement.
4) Allow Israel to target their enemies one manageable location :)
5) If peace works in the mid-east Bush should get the Nobel Peace Prize.
But their will be no peace because Iran rules HAMas and HAMas rules Gaza and part of Lebanon. So the targeting will start soon and the MSM will focus on Israel and Gaza killing each other while burying the Iran nuke story to the back pages.
Time is what Iran needs to finish their nukes.
Hot tip of the day. There is still ample room on the upside for the traded energies considering the eventual Iranian confrontation. If the oil rich Gulf's geostrategic tension elevates greatly threatening global supplies, an easy $100 a barrel or higher will result due to energy trader pandemonium. However, what soars rapidly, falls quickly after the panic subsides. Have 'puts' in place for the post-Mullah downside to the energy market.
Their bedsheets were at the dry-cleaners during the jihad parade, but once cleaned that bunch will look like this Hamas IslamoKlansman.
We need to remember these mentally unstable jihad-o-holics are the ones who pride themselves in self detonation for their trip to Islamic 'paradise', thus not too swift upstairs.
If Iran 7th century minded clerics want to self embargo or blockade's their oil shipments of crude oil - wonderful! It will save the U.S. Navy from the task of preventing Tehran's supertankers from exiting the Gulf.
Next week would be nice :)
I agree. This showdown has been in the making ever since Khomeini seized the hostages, murdered over 200 Marines in Lebanon, trained & armed to the teeth Hizballah & Hamas, and Iran was able to carry out all of their evil deeds through Tehran's OPEC oil exports.
The quickest method in toppling the Mullah régime is remove the enemy's main source of revenue, crude oil sales, triggering a domestic economic meltdown and with some 'outside' assistance it goodbye mad Mullahs.
They cannot cut back on oil exports in a big way because their economy would suffer greatly, as you said. But because of the big increase in oil prices in the last year and the lack of spare production capacity anywhere in the world, they could reduce exports by 1 to 1.5 million barrels per day and they would still have as much export revenue as in early 2004. That action could drive the price of oil up to $80 and really damage the world economy, so they do have an economic weapon here.
This is a powerful weapon, but it's so powerful that the diplomatic consequences to Iran would be very serious. That action would anger everyone in the world (except perhaps Russia which is a big oil exporter), including Iran's supporters in China and supportive third-world regimes. The diplomatic fallout would further isolate Iran and make it more difficult for Iran to win this battle over their nuclear program through diplomatic means. So they probably won't cut back oil exports substantially, although we may see a smaller cutback of 500,000 bpd that would cause a smaller increase in oil prices. If Iran cuts back exports substantially by 1.5 MM bpd, that would be a sign that the Iranian regime has gone off the deep end and is actually planning on a military conflict with a coalition of western nations and allies of the west.
Our new mantra should be "Rocky Mountain oil shale...Canadian tar sands...Rocky Mountain oil shale...Canadian tar sands."
Well, to me it was his privitization of SS that he spent the most political capital on.
BINGO! And that should answer your first rhetorical statement. Instead of weaning us from our enemies and creating jobs here in the US, he wandered around the country putting people to sleep about a problem facing the US 2~3 decades down the road. An important problem, yes, but not an immediate one like defeating our enemies and obtaining energy independence while creating jobs at home (don't get me started on ILLEGAL immigration).
Energy indepence is a huge job that will take decades to achieve, and Bush has done more to change policy and move us in that direction in five years than Clinton, Bush I, and Reagan did in 20 years. There's been a major increase in federal acreage leased to oil companies for drilling under GWB. You have to have some patience with energy because it was only 7 years ago than oil was at $10 and small oil producers had to plug and abandon wells because they were losing money on production costs. Higher prices are going to have a big impact on energy production and energy efficiency and this will happen fairly quickly in the next few years.
As for social security, Bush will ultimately be proven right that this is a big problem that needed to be addressed in 2005, but the Democrats and the uninformed, apathetic public did not want to really think about it. There's going to be a huge cash flow crisis in SS and Medicare starting in only about 12 years when payroll taxes can no longer cover payments to retirees. Then the SS system will have to redeem bonds from it's "trust fund", but there will not be any cash in the federal budget to use to redeem the bonds. That's why this prescription drug plan must be scaled back ASAP. I do agree with you that GWB has been too politcally oriented about federal spending.
I wanted to ping you to this article to further clarify my view that a domestic oil supply, while more expensive to manufacture, would not be subject to foreign black-mail.
Here you have Iran threatening to cut off its oil exports unless the west backs off on applying pressure on Iran to stop its nuke program.
Just the threat is enough to affect futures prices...especially jittery since the 2 gulf hurricanes.
To heck with foreign dependence...we may lose some economic manufacturing clout in the short run, but in the long run...a stable energy supply along with stable government institutions will ensure our nations' future.
Such as?
But these problems take a long time to solve in the right way, while you want immediate solutions to everything.
Did I say that?
Bush is doing a masterful job of steadily building a large coalition to confront Iran. You apparently want to bomb Iran way before full diplomatic pressure has even been attempted. That's why you don't work at the White House.
We're in an (unfortunately) undeclared war and while Bush is building his "coalition" (of who, the EU?, UN?) Iran is funnelling money, supplies, and men into Iraq that are killing our soldiers, all the while they are attempting to enrich uranium to build a nuke. You may be happy with the geopolitical process, but if it means our soldiers suffer in the interim, I'm not. And I'll gladly steer clear of working in the White House as I'd be far more concerned about getting the job done rather than poltics.
Energy indepence is a huge job that will take decades to achieve, and Bush has done more to change policy and move us in that direction in five years than Clinton, Bush I, and Reagan did in 20 years.
Aside from his energy legislation, what has he done in the interim to eliminate the enviro/permitting process via the EPA that could have allowed for more nukes, more clean coal, more LNG terminals, more offshore wind farms (at least the first one)?? Why no bully pulpit speeches and Executive Orders to get the ball rolling?
As for social security, Bush will ultimately be proven right that this is a big problem that needed to be addressed in 2005, but the Democrats and the uninformed, apathetic public did not want to really think about it.
Or maybe the public would rather he concentrate on immediate problems he seems to be avoiding, instead of a likely problem 3 decades down the road.
EXACTLY! This (and other issues such as our border/immigration laws) is a NATIONAL SECURITY issue that need to be given IMMEDIATE priority, not some off-the-cuff suggestion to drive less or car pool. What's on the speech calender for this winter, wear a sweater??
I already have the wool cardigan out of moth balls.
4 million barrels per day times $60 per barrel = $240 million per day = $10 million per hour.
What retard is going to give that up?
Answer = no one (or no one who is power for very long that is.)
HA! HA! HA! :)
"Aside from his energy legislation, what has he done in the interim to eliminate the enviro/permitting process via the EPA that could have allowed for more nukes, more clean coal, more LNG terminals, more offshore wind farms (at least the first one)?? Why no bully pulpit speeches and Executive Orders to get the ball rolling?"
Have you heard of these concepts known as the Legislative Branch, the Judicial Branch, seperation of powers, and checks and balances? Bush isn't dictator of the United States and neither of us would want anyone to be dictator. All the environmental laws have been passed by Congress and reviewed by the courts. It's illegal for the President to just bypass Congress and the courts and eliminate legislated environmental regulations by decree.
Bush has been working to encourage alternative energy sources and make environmental laws more reasonable and cost effective, and some of those changes were in the recent energy bill that he just signed. BTW, what is an "offshore wind farm"? We have a number of onshore wind farms in California (near Palm Springs and the Altamont Pass), but I've never heard of an "offshore wind farm" out on the ocean. Are there any wind farms out on the ocean anywhere in the world? If so, please enlighten us. My understanding is that the best place to build wind farms in the US is in the northern Great Plains in the Dakotas and Wyoming. From what I read, there were a lot of subsidies and government support for all kinds of alternative energy and nuclear energy in the energy bill that Bush just signed. I suggest that you read up on the details of the recently signed energy bill.
BTW, the social security crisis is not " 3 decades down the road." The SS administration will start to run into a cash flow crisis in only 10-15 years depending on what assumptions are used for economic growth over the next 15 years. That's not far from now and now is the time to address this issue.
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.