On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 15:45:09 GMT, "Bob Crantz"
wrote:

Isn't almost all of Iran's income from oil?

Probably, but I'm talking about the region, Kuwait, SA....

Isn't it in their best interest to promote demand for oil?

Yes, if you are talking about free enterprise. We are not talking
about that in this region. We are talking about keeping the energy
spigots out of the hands of dictators and "religious" fanatics who
might use it to "bring down the infidels" and prop up their own power
position. The people who might have interest in using the oil for
their benefit will not get to vote on that.

Is the threat that they will blow themselves up and diminish the oil supply?

No, that they will create a destablized market. Top dictator has the
spigot. Demand is still there within countries that are not
considered the "top infidel"

Did oil dollars pay for their atomic development program?

Probably.

Iran has invaded/attacked less countries than France.

France has atomic weapons.

France doesn't have energy.

What is the actual source/cause of the danger/threat?

If you live in the U. S. and you are sitting in the dark, cold and
hungry without a job, your neighbor becomes the threat. That
situation can be created by destabilization of the energy markets.

IMHO

Frank

Amen!

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 14:27:19 GMT, "Bob Crantz"
wrote:

You decide:

http://www.freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/re...i?ArtNum=19036



As with Irac, he is probably right but not for the stated reasons.

The biggest threat to the United States is the disruption of the flow
of energy from producing regions to the U. S. That would result in
utter chaos, mass unemployment and a depression that would make '29
look like a picnic.

If Iran is the highest and most imminent possibility of that happening
then it is the biggest threat to the U. S.

That is what Irac was all about, not WMD's. When they invaded Kuwait,
it was the first step in complete domination of the region to get
control of the energy resources. That was still S. H.'s goal prior
to the second war.

It all has to do with what may be a futile attempt to stabilize the
energy markets and avoid the catastrophic outcomes in the U. S.that
would occur if the spigot is turned off.

It is never pitched this way because the voting public does not have
enough understanding of macro economics to be comfortable with it. So
it gets pitched as a more understandable threat.

IMHO

Frank