The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

Houston1stwordonthemoon i think your making it too simple.

What about an international protest? 3 wars in 5 years? people already hate americans all over the world, do you really want to incite them even more?

and exactly what specific threat is iran to the USA?

moreoever, iran is backed by Russia and China - you want to piss them off too? China is what holds the American economy together - unless you prefer paying $10 for a lettuce head and $12.50 for a Mcdonald's Meal.

And think of the price of gas and energy all over the world if Iran is attacked. You already have problems in Venezuela and Nigeria, you want to aggravate the situation even more?

Moreover, inciting the Muslim/Arab World even more. Do you want an economic boycott in North Africa, Middle East and SouthEast and/or Central Asia? They already have a list of grievances spanning 200 years, you wanna add to the list?

Wow, you have a lot of questions that i need more space to define the answers for you........i will try to simplify...... If the world is already pissed off, whats the harm in taking out a creepy leadership and thier goals of wanting to harm us and our allies? You cant get more pissed than pissed. You are or you are not.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

How would a 30 minute war work? I'm curious as I have never heard of a 30 minute war ever throughout history.

Could you provide specifics?

I'm serious. How would a war that destroys Iran work in 30 minutes? Are you counting the aftermath or are you only factoring in the initial genocide? I assume you are counting on total victory instead of our failure in Afghanistan [the Taliban has now regained their foothold] and Iraq where civil war has just been born.

A 30 minute war. Fascinating-especially waged by the feckless Cheney/Bush/Rumsfeld regime.

The 30 minute war is HIGHLY possible and very effective. There were certain types of weapons in the US arsenal that would achieve this goal. All of them were deemed madness by mr Clinton and removed from active service in 1995, one year after my early departure from active duty. Im sure the American public is not aware that the largest military leadership turnover in America since the end of WW2, occured in the yrs of 1994/1995. Most of the "Hawks " as we called them were removed from power, urged to retire and given early outs.The remaining "Hawks" managed to convince him not to have these weapons destroyed, but place into cold storage........

Curious things have happened as of late.....these weapons have been brought out of storage and are in the process of being upgraded for return to active service, if they are not already back in active service.

In 30 minutes, and enemy nation the size of Iran can have its forces neutralized and powerless..........

In this type of war, the stuff you see in Iraq and Afghanistan will not happen............ In order for this to occur, the president has to be willing to take it to the next level, i firmly believe this current one is capable of doing just that.......

A campaign like this would be over before the world, outside of the major world powers, knew what was happening........

[nmainguy]

In 30 minutes, and enemy nation the size of Iran can have its forces neutralized and powerless..........

In this type of war, the stuff you see in Iraq and Afghanistan will not happen............ In order for this to occur, the president has to be willing to take it to the next level, i firmly believe this current one is capable of doing just that.......

...and that is the scarey part: that this current one is capable of waging another reckless war. What is unfortunate is that he and his thugs are incapable of effectivly waging the wars we are already in.

But hey, he's yours to defend. Good luck with that...

BTW, nice try with the standard Clinton deflection-it doesn't work anymore but nice try anyway.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

...and that is the scarey part: that this current one is capable of waging another reckless war. What is unfortunate is that he and his thugs are incapable of effectivly waging the wars we are already in.

But hey, he's yours to defend. Good luck with that...

BTW, nice try with the standard Clinton deflection-it doesn't work anymore but nice try anyway.

Not to go on a Clinton bashing thing....i didnt like him because of his military decisions, not because of republican or democrat issues...too clever for that. My vote isnt decided based on party lines, but based on issue or issues i feel strongest about........

[nmm]

I dont think so.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

Just the same, the other side of the world figues it should take out America ---> the only country with the highest percentage of "born again" Christians bracing for Armageddon and unwavering support of Israel to fulfill the "prophecy" of the Messiah.

Threat to the entire world my ass.

You figure if they were such a "threat" China and Russia and United Kingdom and the rest of Western Europe would be hastening for an attack. But i suppose the rest of mankind is wrong and we are right.

Wasnt it GW Bush who said he thought God told him to go to war?

Interesting. What exactly are these weapons? What do they do? Are they biological weapons? I suppose they arent your modern day conventional weapon systems.

And how are you getting this information? Where did you read they "came out of storage"?

I'll never tell

On a serious note, some things that were declassified have been re-classified again.....so sometimes its hard to know if you can say certain things or not, so when in doubt, its safe to NOT say some things.......

[midtown 4.2]

Wasnt it GW Bush who said he thought God told him to go to war?

nmm, I believe you meant the following quote:

"President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan. And I did, and then God would tell me, George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq. . . . And I did."

The above quote turns out to be one of those internet urban myths. If you go back and read through the transcripts of his June 03 meeting with Mahmoud Abbas, it turns out that the myth probably resulted from an english translation of an arabic translation of Bush's spoken english.

By the way, can you tell me where Christians believe that it's their duty to destroy all of mankind? Whether God "spoke" to Bush or not, there is no such belief that Christians must start Armaggedon (there are many that prepare for it, but no Christian feels that it's their duty to destroy the world). I take great offense that you feel that Christians are the same as the fanatical "Twelver" sect that Ahmedinejad subcribes to . . . a sect that even the Ayahtollas of Iran believe to be fanatical.

Liberals out there, please answer this question:

Should the US stop Iran? Or, should the US sit on it's hands? . . and please be honest and list the pros and cons of each.

[RedScare]

Liberals out there, please answer this question:

Should the US stop Iran? Or, should the US sit on it's hands? . . and please be honest and list the pros and cons of each.

Why are there only two choices? Why do some believe that invading sovereign nations ends violence instead of causes it? What has happened in the last 4 years that makes another war the answer?

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

Why are there only two choices? Why do some believe that invading sovereign nations ends violence instead of causes it? What has happened in the last 4 years that makes another war the answer?

maybe they are like me. i dont believe in shades of gray, only black and white. shades of gray should be thrown in the machine and washed. when you deviate from the absolute, it creates un-needed drama.......IMO

[nmm]

They arent as bad as youd think.

[nmm]

Wow, you have a lot of questions that i need more space to define the answers for you........i will try to simplify...... If the world is already pissed off, whats the harm in taking out a creepy leadership and thier goals of wanting to harm us and our allies? You cant get more pissed than pissed. You are or you are not.

Defining creepy. Define "their goals of wanting to harm us". Because i sincerely see NO ONE in the world, besides us, calling for a third war against them. Youd think, with France's islamaphobia, they would be the first ones to jump ship with America - had they deemed Ahmedninjabadi-whatever a real threat.

A threat "all of a sudden" where once there was no threat at all.

Sincerely, if he is a threat, then we should attack. But the gung ho attitude some people are displaying is the same thing that was happening pre Operation Iraqi Invasion.

Wasnt it Scott Ritter being lambasted for being a "traitor to his nation" when he said he believed Iraq had no WMDs? I remember right before the Invasion, Scott Ritter, inspecting Iraq for WMDs went on several news channels multiple times making the same statement: "Im not particularly fond of Saddam Hussein, but Iraq does not have any WMDs." And where the hell are the WMDs anyway? 3 years into the war and we havent found them? They must be tucked away somewhere real nice, eh? Wheres Osama Bin Laden? How come we cant find a cave dweller, wasnt he the prime target? You yourself claim we can "take a nation out in 30 minutes" - but we cant find a camel jockey that figured out how to bypass the nations air defense and ram two air planes into the Twin Towers?

Whats the Downing Street Memo?

Why are their allegations that the Bush Administration was planning an Iraq invasion pre 9/11? And then connected Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden as working together on terrorism - laughable to the greatest extent to any Mid-Easterner because i remember Osama declaring "jihad" against Saddam for his rule against Islamic Shariah and suppresion of Islamic Extremism [which he viewed as a threat to himself and the Baath'ist Party] Saddam Hussein cares about only ONE thing in this world, and thats Saddam Hussein. Mind you, he is a creation of the US goverment. As is OBL. So then, does the US goverment have some kind of ambition to create terrorists on other ends of the world - and finally blame Islam or Islamic Extremism for their acts of terror?

Take a good look at that pic, go to google and type in "rumsfeld meets saddam". This is during the Reagan administration, i believe.

I mean if you want the rest of the world to take you seriously ~ your gonna have to lie better. Match the power of your brains with that of your bombs.

Honestly, some people are blind no matter what you tell them.

Id say, for our history {eastern peoples} of living under dictatorships and totalitarian goverments, we have ONE advantage over those who live in a free world. We developed an acute awareness as to when our leaders are lying their asses off. We can see through the euphamisms and the lies; we read through the public statements and orwellian diction designed to hide true intentions. We know what the goverment is really up to, and its not "to protect and to serve". Its an intuitive sense developed by living under corrupt regimes.

Honestly, i dont have any patriotism or ethnocentrism towards the Arabs/Persians or their respective nations. I dont care how many Iraqi or American soldiers die. Soldiers are hired - knowing fully well - of what they are getting themselves into. I have sympathy and respect for soldiers, but im not worried about their body count. Its ALWAYS the civilian population you fear for the most. I dont care if you nuke Iran's military base, but i do care when you bomb schools, wedding halls, parking lots, airports, hospitals, and the like. Thats the only inhibitions i have for declaring war on any people.

maybe they are like me. i dont believe in shades of gray, only black and white. shades of gray should be thrown in the machine and washed. when you deviate from the absolute, it creates un-needed drama.......IMO

Unfortunately the world isnt static - white or black. The world is dynamic, as are humans. If a person has a hard time thinking and strategically planning, maybe they shouldn't be in a postition to rule over others.

[midtown 4.2]

Why are there only two choices? Why do some believe that invading sovereign nations ends violence instead of causes it? What has happened in the last 4 years that makes another war the answer?

I liken it to being inside a burning house . . . I either get out, or I stay inside. 2 choices.

If I see a drowing child, I either help or don't help. 2 choices.

See where I'm going with this?

Of course there are exceptions to that rule, and I am open to suggestions . . . (read: very sincere statement).

Red, what would you suggest the US do . . . act?, don't act?, or your shade of grey. (please explain).

[nmainguy]

There is more than black or white. The US government could covertly fund the huge mass of young Iranians who hate their government and long for a western style of government-as flawed as it may be-such as ours.

Waging genocide by bombing millions of innocents into oblivion-as suggested by the Pat Robertsons and Parrotheads of the world in regards to N. Korea-does not really gain us much traction. There is never just an either/or in life. That's a 7th grade mentality. Grown-ups realise there are more than 2 options. Many times there are three, four, five-even ten options available. The goal is for level heads to sit down and pick apart all options and decide what if any action should be taken.

The Cheney/Bush gang have no intrest in grown-up analysis-nor have they even displayed the ability to act as such.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

Just to throw something in the mix........ Bush and Cheney are 2 seperate entities. mr Cheney has no interest in the type of 30 min attack i was speaking of. It doesnt fit with the strategy of him and his neo-con buddies. I believe they want whats best for America, but the way they go about doing some things is very dangerous......

Religious extremism on any side is insane. Pat Robertson and Falwell as well as Farakhan and his crowd leave a bad taste in my mouth.

As far as Israel goes, you may want to do some history/fact checking there.............

Palestine as a sovereign nation, NEVER existed. Palestine was the creation of the Roman Empire. The word Palestine itself was used to rename jewish lands as an insult to the jewish people. Palestine is a word play on the name Philistine, an arch enemy of the Jews. It was a way for Rome to throw salt into the wounds of the jews by taking their land/country from them and scattering them to the four corners of the Roman Empire and renaming thier land/country after the Philistines. The true Palestinians/Philistines come from Europe and not the Middle East. They were not Islamic people.

The greater Israel comment is a bit much considering the current nation of Israel only takes up 1% of the total land mass of the Middle East. The true borders or ancient borders of Israel are far much more larger than what you see today. I dont know about you, but i dont and have never seen Israel seek the old borders of Israel, but only seek the current land they have now. In case you are not aware, Israel is not out to destroy the Islamic people, its the other way around. Israel is VERY capable of handling thier own defense..to the "next level" The USA has been a major reason they have never had to resort to the "next level" strategy. All that being said, imagine the USA being attacked 9/11 style every so many years and having large numbers of Americas population killed in those attacks and consider your feelings about it......Thats something the Israelis have had to put up with for a very long time.......

Israel and Islamic relations do not fit into the Cheney/neo con play book. Its too "sticky" for them. Doesnt play out well for the TV cameras. Its hard to have good symbolism for dealing with Israel and the Islamic peoples without substance so they have no interest in it.

Funding black operations in Iran is not the answer IMO. Its just a band aid that will cover a festering wound for a short time, and send it under cover only to rise much stronger in the short term future........

[nmm]

As far as Irael goes, i have no sympathy for the Palestinian group as a whole. They signed on for their own destruction after they broke ties with the Ottoman Empire and agreed to supposrt the British. IN 1917, the Balfour Declaration was signed, and in 1947 Israel became a nation-state. In one way, the Palestinians had a good thing going, but decided to do the stupid thing and sell their souls to those who didnt have the best interest for them.

I dont know about the politics of calling Palestine "Palestine" but i do know that people lived on that land before 1947 ~ arabs and jews existing peacefully. I also know that the Israeli goverment is filled with "Hawks" who do favor a greater Israel. Its in the national interest for a Greater Israel, so they will work towards it, fine with me.

However, the violence is on both sides. And id be quick to check the facts if i were you. Besides the breaking of various United Nations resolutions, the unwarranted destruction of Palestinian homes, the continuing new settlements being built on Palestinian lands, Israel has also been sticking its hands in other Middle Eastern nations' businesses. And continously getting into what you dont have to is something to really piss others off.

check out: http://www.ifamericansknew.org/

Moreover, looking at the equation from one perspective never really solves a problem. Bigots look at everything from one perspective, it makes everything easier for them. Are we bigots?

Israel's continous encroachment of Palestinian land will foster poverty, illiteracy, hunger, and........violence. Its no secret that continously being zoned out, being unintellligent, being struck with unemployment, and being abused at checkpoints will create enmity in a person's heart.

That being said, most of the suicide bombers that attack Israel are the ones who live under terrible conditions. They see no future, they have no past, they just decide to blow themselves up and take some of the Israelis with them.

Lastly, you mentioned that the land Israel currently stands on used to be Jewish land. Guess what? For a few hundred years, it wasnt. You have no right to say "Give us back our land, after you left it/were kicked out from it for a few hundred years. Thats the way the world works; if the Cherokee came back and demanded Chicago back from the United States goverment, i doubt wed give it over to them. Wars are fought, and each side has a reason to survive.

[Rehan]

30 minute war eh?

The only country in the world that folds that fast is FRANCE.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

Lastly, you mentioned that the land Israel currently stands on used to be Jewish land. Guess what? For a few hundred years, it wasnt. You have no right to say "Give us back our land, after you left it/were kicked out from it for a few hundred years. Thats the way the world works; if the Cherokee came back and demanded Chicago back from the United States goverment, i doubt wed give it over to them. Wars are fought, and each side has a reason to survive.

Its was taken away from them for more than a few hundred years, as they were largely scattered to the 4 corners of the Roman Empire. Some were left behind to witness the slaughter while others were shipped off into forced labor. The Native American comparision is weak at best. The world isnt dangling on the edge of WW3 because of Native Americans fighting other Americans.........

The United Nations should be disbanded. I never liked it and always have the belief that one day it will bite us in the ass. That place is made up of anti-American peoples that would like nothing better than to see the destruction of this country on both an economic and military front. That "global" organization is nothing more than it has always been, a garbage pale for anti-American and anti-Western slander. Get the UN out of the US and the US out of the UN.

As far as the "Palestinians" read further into that after the Ottoman Empire. Read the original UN and Balfour/British designations for the borders of Israel, it just may shock you!

[nmm]

Its was taken away from them for more than a few hundred years, as they were largely scattered to the 4 corners of the Roman Empire. Some were left behind to witness the slaughter while others were shipped off into forced labor. The Native American comparision is weak at best. The world isnt dangling on the edge of WW3 because of Native Americans fighting other Americans.........

The United Nations should be disbanded. I never liked it and always have the belief that one day it will bite us in the ass. That place is made up of anti-American peoples that would like nothing better than to see the destruction of this country on both an economic and military front. That "global" organization is nothing more than it has always been, a garbage pale for anti-American and anti-Western slander. Get the UN out of the US and the US out of the UN.

As far as the "Palestinians" read further into that after the Ottoman Empire. Read the original UN and Balfour/British designations for the borders of Israel, it just may shock you!

I gave the Native American example because i thought you were implying the land belongs to the Jews, because it had historically been theirs. I gave the example of Native Americans claiming back the land because it too, had historically been theirs. That doesnt work in the real world. But i agree with you the difference between my metaphor and your real world situation is World War 3.

Secondly, the UN may seem Anti-American to you, but it was never meant to be pro-American in the first place. It was meant to be an institution where the world comes together and discusses worldwide problems. Sometimes those problems conflict with America's interests. If America left the United Nations - would the UN be disbanded? Or would America's position be filled by someone else?

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

I gave the Native American example because i thought you were implying the land belongs to the Jews, because it had historically been theirs. I gave the example of Native Americans claiming back the land because it too, had historically been theirs. That doesnt work in the real world. But i agree with you the difference between my metaphor and your real world situation is World War 3.

Secondly, the UN may seem Anti-American to you, but it was never meant to be pro-American in the first place. It was meant to be an institution where the world comes together and discusses worldwide problems. Sometimes those problems conflict with America's interests. If America left the United Nations - would the UN be disbanded? Or would America's position be filled by someone else?

The UN is a sink hole. I want the USA to leave it and to remove it from American soil. I want American tax dollars to stop flowing into the garbage heap. The realestate in NYC in which the UN sits on can be used for something far better than an anti-American anti-Western garbage spewing pulpit.

Start a thread called UN and i will tell you more of my great love for it........

[DJ V Lawrence]

Are you still in Korea? Did you know there were plans in place to prevent what we see today in the form of N. Korea? Think 30 minutes........... this is how i know it can be done in Iran:) :) :)

Our new leader at the time of sched. execution decided it was not a good idea and offered money instead for N Korea to stop nuclear ambitions.......Instead of stopping, they took our money and aide and took the nuke program underground.....a scenario that was voted as most likely to happen if the 30 min. option wasnt used......

If we dont do something to stop that menace, Israel will be forced to do it....and Lord knows where there will take the globe........

I wish i could tell you more, but being a former military man, you have to be aware of that darn 85yr rule......

I'm in Korea, and come home next month

I hear a LOT of misconceptions about N. Korea- S. Korea relations and intentions in the American media, and a lot of misconceptions about the mindset of that country. For one, they have only 40 million citizens, but have one of the largest militaries in the world. The whole country's economy revolves around their military. The whole nation almost looks robotic as to how they work. Have you ever seen N. Korean tv? Or a documentary? If not, I suggest you do to learn more.

Unless it were a nuclear war, no war can be won in 30 minutes in and country. A BATTLE can be won, but not a war, and a war is nothing more than a series of battles. When you used N. Korea's nuke program as an example, you were only thinking of America's offensive, and not the opponent's defensive. They would probably launch an offensive before it was all said and done.

nmm, what's the story behind that picture? Why exactly did Rumsfeld meet Sadaam in the first place? Also, you're absolutely right about the U.N.. What would the point of the U.N.'s existance be if the country that advocated for it's idea (as the League of Nations) didn'y bother to abide and work through it?

[nmm]

aha! backup article

-------------------------------------------------

The threat to a fistful of petrodollars

By Liam Halligan (Filed: 23/04/2006)

From Russia, you might say, with love. This weekend, Alexei Kudrin, Russia's finance minister, dropped a bombshell in Washington.

Attending the annual meetings of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, Kudrin caused his American hosts discomfort by openly questioning the dollar's pre-eminence as the world's "absolute" reserve currency.

The greenback's recent volatility and the yawning US trade deficit, "are definitely causing concern with regard to its reserve currency status," he said. "The international community can hardly be satisfied with this instability."

Kudrin's intervention coincided with another meeting, also in Washington, of finance ministers and central bankers from the Group of Seven - which doesn't include Russia.

Top of the agenda: the effect of ever-rising oil prices on inflation and interest rates.

G7 countries are worried the spiraling price of crude - which closed at $72.79 a barrel on Friday and which has now trebled in three years - could inflict real economic damage. The US Federal Reserve, in particular, has been forced to take drastic action - raising interest rates 15 times since June 2004 to keep inflation in check.

Given that fragility, it is significant that Kudrin is now wondering aloud if the long-standing dollar hegemony can last. For him to do so is to highlight that America is vulnerable should that status be lost. That's because Russia, with its awesome oil and gas reserves, could kick-start a challenge to the dollar's supremacy.

Most nations stockpile their foreign exchange holdings in dollars. The US currency accounts for more than two thirds of all central bank reserves worldwide.

This reserve status means that the dollar is constantly in demand, whatever the underlying strength of the US economy.

And now, with massive trade and budget deficits to finance, America is increasingly reliant on that status. The unprecedented weight of US liabilities means a threat to the dollar's dominance could result in a currency collapse, plunging the world's largest economy into recession.

That won't happen immediately. The dollar has sat astride the globe for some time now - in fact, for most of the last century. But this statement from Russia - a country of growing financial and strategic significance - still caused the dollar to slide. It also fuelled speculation that central banks could increasingly diversify their holdings away from dollars.

Kudrin's statement followed news that Sweden has cut its dollar holdings, from 37 per cent of central bank reserves to 20 per cent, with the euro's share rising to 50 per cent. Central banks in some Gulf states have also lately mooted a shift into the euro. Such sentiments helped push the dollar to a seven-month low against the single currency last week.

But Russia's intervention will have raised eyebrows in Washington because the backbone of the dollar's reserve currency status - the main guarantee that status continues -is the fact that oil is traded in dollars. And that is something the likes of Kudrin can directly affect.

For historic reasons, the dollar remains the world's "petrocurrency" - the only currency for the settlement of oil contracts on world markets. That makes the EU and Russia dependent on it. But with central banks switching to euros, the logical next step would be for fuel-exporting countries to start quoting oil prices in euros too.

The EU is Russia's main trading partner. More than two thirds of Russia's oil and gas is exported to the EU. That makes Russia a strong candidate to become the first major oil exporter to start trading in euros. Such a scenario, in recent years, has become theoretically possible. But now, with these latest comments, Kudrin has thrust that possibility into the open.

The G7 meeting was dominated, of course, by concern over Iran's nuclear programme. The threat of military action against Iran, itself a major crude exporter, is one reason oil prices are now testing record highs.

It is worth noting that Tehran has ongoing plans to set up an oil trading exchange to compete with New York's NYMEX and with London's International Petroleum Exchange. In the light of Kudrin's comments, it is significant that the Iranians want to run their oil bourse in euros, not dollars.

Were the Iranians to establish a Middle-East based euro-only oil exchange, the dollar's unique petrocurrency status could unravel. That, in turn, would threaten its broader dominance - which, given America's groaning twin deficit, could seriously hurt the US economy.

Some cite this as the real reason the US wants to attack Iran: to protect the dollar's unique position. I wouldn't go that far, but the prospect of a non-dollar oil exchange in Tehran is certainly an aggravating factor.

The opening of Iran's new oil exchange has recently been delayed. But, having spoken with numerous officials in Tehran, and western consultants who've been working with the Iranians for several years, I think it will go ahead. The exchange entity has already been legally incorporated in Iran and a site purchased to house administrative and regulatory staff.

The reality is that as long as most of Opec's oil - read Saudi Arabia - is priced in dollars, the US currency will retain its hegemony. But the opening of an oil bourse in Tehran, which now looks likely, will signal at least tacit Saudi consent for euro-based oil trading. The US knows this, which is why it is nervous about the dollar's status being questioned.

From the G7's fringe, Kudrin has now touched this raw nerve. This weekend's meetings have been dominated by questions of global financial imbalance - in particular, America's huge deficits.

Kudrin's missive comes as central bankers, and currency dealers, start to conclude the only way to resolve the massive US external deficit is a somewhat weaker US currency. As the IMF itself warned yesterday, a "substantial" dollar decline may be needed.

One way to bring that about would be for the euro to enter the global oil trading system. This is unlikely to happen soon. It might not happen at all. But the idea is now not only realistic but firmly on the table in Washington. Perhaps not with love, but it was placed there by the Russians.

Liam Halligan is Economics Correspondent at Channel 4 News

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtm...23/ccliam23.xml

[DJ V Lawrence]

aha! backup article

-------------------------------------------------

The reality is that as long as most of Opec's oil - read Saudi Arabia - is priced in dollars, the US currency will retain its hegemony. But the opening of an oil bourse in Tehran, which now looks likely, will signal at least tacit Saudi consent for euro-based oil trading. The US knows this, which is why it is nervous about the dollar's status being questioned.

So what you're saying is that to find where the next war would be, simply follow the oil? And that a war in Iran would lower the price of the barrel?

I wonder if oil prices at the pump would be 3 dollars a gallon if the oil executives weren't recieving $400 millon retirement funds

And I wonder exactly how Iran can prove they aren't producing nuclear weapons to the point where the Bush administration would back up. I remember during the pre-Iraq time period, the media would ask Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell, and the administration "Is a war with Iraq ineviable?" and "is there any way Sadaam can prove he doesn't have WMDs?" ,and they could never state that answer with a yes or no. I hope to god that this isn't the same case here...

[RedScare]

And I wonder exactly how Iran can prove they aren't producing nuclear weapons to the point where the Bush administration would back up.

That is nmm's point. It may not be nuclear capability that has Washington worried at all. It may be the loss of the dollar as oil currency. International relations are seldom as simple as they seem, or as 1stWord would say, black and white. The religious aspect to things is simply a smokescreen...on both sides of the pond...to hide the real issues at play. But, Americans like their politics simple...good vs. evil, as it were. So, the religion aspect suits us to a tee. But, if military action occurs, it won't be because of Islam, or even terrorism. It will be over something important, like oil or the dollar.

[nmainguy]

I want the USA to leave it and to remove it from American soil.

The UN is not on American soil-North, Central, South or otherwise.

The 18 acres that comprise the United Nations Headquarters are neither part of New York City, nor part of the US, but belong to the member nations of the UN as international territory.

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:8Mvb1a...us&ct=clnk&cd=6

[nmm]

Not really. No.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

The UN is not on American soil-North, Central, South or otherwise.

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:8Mvb1a...us&ct=clnk&cd=6

And my name is Tommy Tomato head too

That is nmm's point. It may not be nuclear capability that has Washington worried at all. It may be the loss of the dollar as oil currency. International relations are seldom as simple as they seem, or as 1stWord would say, black and white. The religious aspect to things is simply a smokescreen...on both sides of the pond...to hide the real issues at play. But, Americans like their politics simple...good vs. evil, as it were. So, the religion aspect suits us to a tee. But, if military action occurs, it won't be because of Islam, or even terrorism. It will be over something important, like oil or the dollar.

Keep believing that................

And this can best be observed NOW.

Clinton has blowjob in office -> Impeachment

Bush wiretaps anti-war groups and polical enemies (like Nixon did in Watergate) even though he could have VERY EASILY obtained a warrant from the FISA court, but for some dubious reasons he chose not to -> No one knows a thing about wiretaps. Or no one cares. Or under the current climate of fear, no ones dares ask.

Or maybe sex is easier to understand and not as sophisticated to comprehend as spying.

?????

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

Unless it were a nuclear war, no war can be won in 30 minutes in and country. A BATTLE can be won, but not a war, and a war is nothing more than a series of battles. When you used N. Korea's nuke program as an example, you were only thinking of America's offensive, and not the opponent's defensive. They would probably launch an offensive before it was all said and done.

nmm, what's the story behind that picture? Why exactly did Rumsfeld meet Sadaam in the first place? Also, you're absolutely right about the U.N.. What would the point of the U.N.'s existance be if the country that advocated for it's idea (as the League of Nations) didn'y bother to abide and work through it?

I stand by what i said. Sudden devastating attack before the enemy and most of the world even know whats happening, its likely to be over. Cannot really over simplify it anymore than that with out letting the cat out of the bag. Being a part of strategic planning, one sees things most others do not. There are currently only 3 nations i know of that have the capability to piece together what will happen........

[nmm]

..............

[DJ V Lawrence]

I stand by what i said. Sudden devastating attack before the enemy and most of the world even know whats happening, its likely to be over. Cannot really over simplify it anymore than that with out letting the cat out of the bag. Being a part of strategic planning, one sees things most others do not. There are currently only 3 nations i know of that have the capability to piece together what will happen........

...kinda like Al Qaida in September 11th, right? Or Japan at Pearl Harbor? I would definately consider those days full of "devastating" attacks that shocked the world with it's timimg and style of attack. How did the U.S. react? Did we back down, or get angry and get offensive. We're human beings, and if someone attacks you for whatever reason, you'd likely want justice and revenge, and wouldn't want to die without a fight.

Think about it, Mooner. Say you were right, and Iran was defeated in 30 minutes. Then what? Who would have to rebuild the nation? And how do we know that there wouldn't be sleeper cells in that country? How do you know for sure that there wouldn't be negative reactions and consequences? You really can tell me with a straight face that no American soilder's life would be in enlarged risk if they were to walk on Iranian soil after just 30 minutes? The war in Iraq was supposedly declared a victory by Bush himself three years ago, and just this past week, the Pentagon released the names of 11 soilders who are no longer with us. What exactly is the defininition of the end of a war?

The UN is not on American soil-North, Central, South or otherwise.

-----------------------------------------

The 18 acres that comprise the United Nations Headquarters are neither part of New York City, nor part of the US, but belong to the member nations of the UN as international territory.

I LOVE U.N. talk. I was in Model U.N. for all 4 years in high school, and had the pleasure of debating U.N. style, and hearing people like Kofi Annan speak about the U.N. when he came to Houston a few years back.

Nmainguy's right that the U.N. is not technically on American soil, but that's because the United States DONATED the land to the U.N..

[HeightsGuy]

I stand by what i said. Sudden devastating attack before the enemy and most of the world even know whats happening, its likely to be over. Cannot really over simplify it anymore than that with out letting the cat out of the bag. Being a part of strategic planning, one sees things most others do not. There are currently only 3 nations i know of that have the capability to piece together what will happen........

I believe you, America has no problems winning wars, but winning wars is not the issue as we have been acutely aware the past year. Libs like to make fun of the "Mission Accomplished" banner, but at that time we had won the war.

The problem we have is winning peace, and Bush is batting 0 right now.