Why Iran? Why not Saudi Arabia?
- Thread starter TOVisitor
- Start date
Just NUKE the WHOLE farkin Muddle East and be done with it.
No really, the whole frikkin thing.
.
No really, the whole frikkin thing.
.
Invade??????????????
The investments are in the largest US firms as well as US government paper. They just have to cash in their stocks and call in the paper and cut off oil supply.
Have you forgotten the dozens of jets that had special permission to take off and land in Saudi Arabia within 24 hours of 9/11.
Have you forgotten where Bin Laudons (SP?) parents and family live coupled with their wealth.
They could sink the US in seconds if it was to their advantage.
******************************red said:
The investments are in the largest US firms as well as US government paper. They just have to cash in their stocks and call in the paper and cut off oil supply.
Have you forgotten the dozens of jets that had special permission to take off and land in Saudi Arabia within 24 hours of 9/11.
Have you forgotten where Bin Laudons (SP?) parents and family live coupled with their wealth.
They could sink the US in seconds if it was to their advantage.
I’m not sure you understand how stocks and “paper” work. You can’t “cash in” stocks. They are claims to equity in private firms. All you can do is sell them to other buyers. By U.S. “government paper”, you undoubtedly mean U.S. government bonds and T-bills. Again, you can’t cash them in but you can sell them to other buyers. If the Saudi’s suddenly sold their U.S. assists, it would depress their prices and lead to some disruption of private markets. Moreover, the U.S. would lose a buyer of their debt. Given the amount they borrow, it would not be good for the U.S. However, it is not as if the Saudi’s could demand immediate payment from the United States, which seems to be what you are implying.toughb said:
Just a thought... in times of crisis the US Government has halted trading in stocks and bonds... usually only for a short time... like on 9/11. Banks were ordered closed during the great depression...
No government can "sink" the US without sinking the entire world economy.
The United States govenment has never defaulted on its debt. That is why foriegn goverments buy us treasury notes. When the US goes to war against a government the FIRST thing the US government does is FREEZE the assests of the country that they are about to attack. So if the US attacked Saudi Arabia the Saudi's wouldn't have access to their money.
Saudi Arabia happens to be an ally of the US, just because a few fanatics were grown their doesn't change that.
The Iranian government on the other hand, finacially supports known terrorist orginizations... the ones that say its OK to kill woman and children in the name of the cause. And before you state the US kills woman and children, the fact is that we spend billions on weapons systems designed to minimize civilian deaths and damage, but when your enemy hides behind civilians, some will die. If you don't think the US tries to minimize civilian casulties then why would the US spend over 1 million dollars for a 2000 pound guided bomb to blow up one building, when they could just use conventional "dumb" bombs and level an entire city at far less cost.
No government can "sink" the US without sinking the entire world economy.
The United States govenment has never defaulted on its debt. That is why foriegn goverments buy us treasury notes. When the US goes to war against a government the FIRST thing the US government does is FREEZE the assests of the country that they are about to attack. So if the US attacked Saudi Arabia the Saudi's wouldn't have access to their money.
Saudi Arabia happens to be an ally of the US, just because a few fanatics were grown their doesn't change that.
The Iranian government on the other hand, finacially supports known terrorist orginizations... the ones that say its OK to kill woman and children in the name of the cause. And before you state the US kills woman and children, the fact is that we spend billions on weapons systems designed to minimize civilian deaths and damage, but when your enemy hides behind civilians, some will die. If you don't think the US tries to minimize civilian casulties then why would the US spend over 1 million dollars for a 2000 pound guided bomb to blow up one building, when they could just use conventional "dumb" bombs and level an entire city at far less cost.
DonQuixote said:
Thanks, I was in a pissy mood when I said it but it does not detract from my abject frustration with that pissant fuktard section of the world. Maybe we could all do with a little less in the short term if we knew it would get rid of that damn problem for good.
DonQuixote said:
Ruskies we could ultimately deal with because beneath the veneer of communism, they wre essentially a Christian country. Heck even Sting sang about "the Russians love their children too", but that terrorist islum crowd is beyond any redemption. The whole of the muddle east needs a purging of the biped biological infestation that is the seed of so many of the worlds hot points.
I'd like to see what it would be like without that lot causing sh*t whereever they pop up. Once they were gone it would make for slow news days.
Christian values are espoused by various world leaders when it suits their purposes.
Islamic values are demonized by various world leaders when it suits their purposes.
And vice versa.
Have the British and American policy makers always valued democracy?
If so then why replace a democratically elected government in Iran with an overthrown dictator?
1953 Iranian coup d'état
Answer: Because the real values of the controlling powers in Britain and America at the time wanted Iranian oil controlled by Western oil companies rather than by the Iranian people.
Islamic values are demonized by various world leaders when it suits their purposes.
And vice versa.
Have the British and American policy makers always valued democracy?
If so then why replace a democratically elected government in Iran with an overthrown dictator?
1953 Iranian coup d'état
Answer: Because the real values of the controlling powers in Britain and America at the time wanted Iranian oil controlled by Western oil companies rather than by the Iranian people.
No matter how much paper US business interests invest in building infrastructure in foreign lands, the foreigners still own their land and everything on it and under it ... until someone takes it by force. If these US business interests use their political pull to use this force then that's the way the cookie crumbles. But I call hypocrisy when the bought politocos spew hypocrisy that the wars they wage in the Middle East are about divergent religious ideologies or spreading democracy rather than about oil.bbking said:
My post above was in response to Lancslad. I don't seek to demonize him, but I think that Christian values are being held up as good while Muslims are demonized by some Western vested interests just as Muslim values are held up as good while Christians are demonized by some Middle Eastern vested interests. While people have done evil in the name of both these religions, I don't think that Christians or Muslims are inherently evil.bbking said:
I won't call it demonizing me, but you are trying to label me as being on the far left. I've previously linked to Ron Paul's words about the 1953 Iran coup being related to oil interests.
Here is another link (at the beginning of the clip, Paul discusses the coup):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvFCPkvNMY4
Ron Paul is a Republican congressman seeking the nomination to be the Republican Presidential candidate. I also support Ron Paul's desire to eliminate income tax. So how am I on the far left?
Mike Gravel is a former Democrat senator seeking the nomination to be the Democrat Presidential candidate, and he is against using interventionalist foreign policy to control access to oil. He speaks at the end of the above link. So how is inverventionalist vs non-interventionalist foreign policy even a left vs right issue?
Last edited:
