But so does the right. Neocons are in bed with the mercantile bankers. This playing favorites is fascist and leftist. It is Hitler and Hamilton.
On Nov 20 09:49 AM Brandon211 wrote:
> Folks should really use "leftist" rather than "liberal." A liberal > is a person who believes in freedom. What you guys are referring > to is a "leftist." A leftist is a person who worships the state like > a mindless sheep.
Amazing, the Saudis and the Chinese are helping the American consumer fight massive asset speculation and appreciation. That makes the Saudis and Chinese more patriotic than our own Larry Summers!!!! hubpages.com/hub/The-R...
Dollar Danger: Iran's Oil Bourse Steps Up Activity [View article]
Ah, Fallujah, the hidden massacre. Just another war crime from Bush and Cheney. I agree that China has put the breaks on. If their oil gets disrupted, they will sell treasuries like no tomorrow. And if there is to be a world recovery, China is crucial to that recovery.
On Nov 01 02:13 PM Chris Cook wrote:
> @Old trader > > Clearly the distrust has historical roots in respect of Perfidious > Albion which go back a long way. > > I think the US has tended to be more open in their self-interest > - at least in terms of energy security - than the Brits. Even though > I am a Brit myself, I recognise that if there were an Olympic gold > medal for dissimulation and hypocrisy, we would win it out of hand. > > > @User 357705 > > I think that the US, under Bush, fully intended to bring democracy > to Iran, after Iraq. Real Men Go To Tehran etc etc > > But post Fallujah they recognised their mistake, and the 'nuclear > threat' (not visible anywhere before Fallujah) was created as a justification > for a strategy to bomb Iran (but not its oil fields) back to the > Stone Age, leading to regime change at best and a failed state at > worst. > > I think that in mid 2007 the Chinese asserted themselves for the > first time, and pulled the plug on Bush's adventurism. I see that > point as the "Suez Moment" for the US. ie In the same way that a > US threat to pull the economic plug forced the Brits and French to > pull out from Suez, so the Chinese probably 'persuaded' the US to > give up any idea of bombing Iran. > > So in summary the US will not bomb Iran - period - without Chinese > agreement, I think, which would only be forthcoming if the Iranians > went mad. And whatever the propaganda view of Iran may be, my view, > having met some of the Iranian decision makers, is that the top level > Iranians are anything but mad. > > So to bomb Iran that leaves only Israel, and - putting the issue > of US permission/approval to one side - I think it suits Israel to > demonise Iran, to distract from their settlement agenda, in the same > way that it suits Ahmadinejad to demonise Israel as a distraction > from a failing economy.
The Slippery Truth About Oil Price [View article]
On Nov 20 09:49 AM Brandon211 wrote:
> Folks should really use "leftist" rather than "liberal." A liberal
> is a person who believes in freedom. What you guys are referring
> to is a "leftist." A leftist is a person who worships the state like
> a mindless sheep.
The Slippery Truth About Oil Price [View article]
Dollar Danger: Iran's Oil Bourse Steps Up Activity [View article]
On Nov 01 02:13 PM Chris Cook wrote:
> @Old trader
>
> Clearly the distrust has historical roots in respect of Perfidious
> Albion which go back a long way.
>
> I think the US has tended to be more open in their self-interest
> - at least in terms of energy security - than the Brits. Even though
> I am a Brit myself, I recognise that if there were an Olympic gold
> medal for dissimulation and hypocrisy, we would win it out of hand.
>
>
> @User 357705
>
> I think that the US, under Bush, fully intended to bring democracy
> to Iran, after Iraq. Real Men Go To Tehran etc etc
>
> But post Fallujah they recognised their mistake, and the 'nuclear
> threat' (not visible anywhere before Fallujah) was created as a justification
> for a strategy to bomb Iran (but not its oil fields) back to the
> Stone Age, leading to regime change at best and a failed state at
> worst.
>
> I think that in mid 2007 the Chinese asserted themselves for the
> first time, and pulled the plug on Bush's adventurism. I see that
> point as the "Suez Moment" for the US. ie In the same way that a
> US threat to pull the economic plug forced the Brits and French to
> pull out from Suez, so the Chinese probably 'persuaded' the US to
> give up any idea of bombing Iran.
>
> So in summary the US will not bomb Iran - period - without Chinese
> agreement, I think, which would only be forthcoming if the Iranians
> went mad. And whatever the propaganda view of Iran may be, my view,
> having met some of the Iranian decision makers, is that the top level
> Iranians are anything but mad.
>
> So to bomb Iran that leaves only Israel, and - putting the issue
> of US permission/approval to one side - I think it suits Israel to
> demonise Iran, to distract from their settlement agenda, in the same
> way that it suits Ahmadinejad to demonise Israel as a distraction
> from a failing economy.