You decide:

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

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

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

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

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

Did oil dollars pay for their atomic development program?

Iran has invaded/attacked less countries than France.

France has atomic weapons.

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

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

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

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
...
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.


Religious fanatics are a serious threat.

They cannot be bribed with riches.

Same for people of strong moral convictions, except they do not want to go
out an kill infidels.


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"


If someone offered a free energy device that would destabilize the market
also.

What is really at risk here is the current American way of life.



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.

France has atomic reactors supplying most of its electricity.



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.

No, if your neighbor is sitting in the cold and dark, then he is a threat.

The disaffected peoples of the Mid East are sitting in the cold and dark.

If they can be supplied with elements of the American way of life they will
become fat and happy and no longer will the region be a breeding ground for
terrorists.

Or, they can be made to realize they are thin and unhappy because of their
repressive governments and should overthrow them.

Send them small, covert satellite television receivers!

Amen!


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

"Bob Crantz" wrote
"Frank Boettcher" wrote

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.


Religious fanatics are a serious threat.

A rogue bear wandering around your cabin is a threat unless you take the
initiative and shoot him. Sea Lions are threatening SoCal because the folks
there lack the gumption to thin them out. Iran, North Korea, et al are threats
for the same reason - most Americans lack the gumption to eliminate their
threat.

Isn't almost all of Iran's income from oil?
No - its from control of the stock market

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

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

Now you're just daydreaming. That would be the best thing for us. Even
a nuke would leave the place free and clear in 10 years

Did oil dollars pay for their atomic development program?
Probably not considering how much of the stock market that region
controls.

Isn't almost all of Iran's income from oil?
No - its from control of the stock market

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

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

Now you're just daydreaming. That would be the best thing for us. Even
a nuke would leave the place free and clear in 10 years

Did oil dollars pay for their atomic development program?
Probably not considering how much of the stock market that region
controls (about 43% acording to one report I read a while back).

Which stock market do they control?

Wouldn't it be even more effective then to nuke the stock market to get at
the Iranians?

Amen!


"Da Kine" wrote in message
oups.com...
Isn't almost all of Iran's income from oil?
No - its from control of the stock market

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

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

Now you're just daydreaming. That would be the best thing for us. Even
a nuke would leave the place free and clear in 10 years

Did oil dollars pay for their atomic development program?
Probably not considering how much of the stock market that region
controls (about 43% acording to one report I read a while back).

Simple Logic....