“This site is dedicated to preying on peoples vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Wednesday, December 05, 2012

As Texas Congressman and former Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has often said, when we aren't trying to bomb countries into submission, we are usually bribing them to do our will. And sometimes we do both.




Monday, 03 December 2012 17:52
U.S. Leaning On Iraq Over Iran's Arms Shipments to Syria
Written by  Jack Kenny

Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate who is reportedly under consideration for Secretary of State in Obama's next term, has suggested that if Iraq doesn't offer more cooperation in the effort to stop the transport of Iranian arms to Syria, "maybe we should make some of our assistance or some of our support contingent on some kind of appropriate response."

In a Middle East triangle more dangerous than the romantic affairs of Generals Petraeus and Allen, the United States is leaning on Iraq to stop the shipment of arms from Iran to Syria, while the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is battling to hold power against rebel forces that have the diplomatic backing of the United States and other western nations.
The United States is pressuring the Iraq government led by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki to forbid the use of Iraq's air space for Iran-to-Syria flights unless Iran agrees to have the planes land in Iraq for inspection to ensure no weapons are being sent to the Damascus government. U.S. officials are concerned that the Baghdad regime is not cooperating in that effort, the New York Times reported. "The abuse of Iraqi airspace by Iran continues to be a concern," said an unnamed American official, as quoted by the Times. "We urge Iraq to be diligent and consistent in fulfilling its international obligations and commitments, either by continuing to require flights over Iraqi territory en route to Syria from Iran to land for inspection or by denying overflight requests for Iranian aircraft going to Syria." A spokesman for al-Maliki, however, denied Iraq is ignoring the U.S. requests.
"We wouldn't be able to convince them, even if we searched all the airplanes, because they have prejudged the situation," Ali al-Musawi told the Times. "Our policy is that we will not allow the transfer of arms to Syria." On the other hand, Hadi al-Amiri, Iraq's minister of transportation, struck a more defiant tone when denying reports that Iraq had been colluding with Iran and tipping off the Iranians about when the supposedly random inspections would occur.
"This is untrue," Amiri said. "We are an independent country and our stance is clear. We will search whichever plane we want, whenever we want. We will not take orders."
There have also been reports that on at least one occasion, an Iranian pilot simply ignored a request to land for inspection. Iraq has no air force with which to enforce the inspection requirement or to deny Iran the use of its Iraqi air space. Iraqi officials confirmed that they have inspected only two Iranian planes since making a commitment to the inspections policy in September, and none since October 27, when they inspected a plane on its return flight from Damascus, something al-Musawi said was an error. But officials in Baghdad also cite both Iran's claims that it is carrying only humanitarian aid to Syria and the expense of carrying out the inspections.
"We can't search every plane because there are so many heading to Syria,"said Nasir Bender, the head of civil aviation in Iraq. "It would be a big waste of money. Each plane we take down we must refill with fuel." The search thus far has turned up only "medical supplies and clothing," he said.
But U.S. officials believe Iran has been a key supplier of arms to the Assad regime, which is Tehran's most loyal Arab ally and a conduit for Iranian support of the militant Islamist group Hezbollah in Lebanon. And the predominantly Shiite government in Baghdad, where many officials have friendly ties with Iran, may be worried that Assad's fall from power would encourage Sunni and Kurdish forces in Iraq, where they could pose a threat to the Maliki regime.
Meanwhile, U.S. officials are quietly expressing concerns over intelligence reports of activity at chemical weapons sites in Syria. "It's in some ways similar to what they've done before," an American official told the Times on condition of anonymity. "But they're doing some things that suggest they intend to use the weapons. It's not just moving stuff around. These are different kind of activities."
That, together with reports of Iran's arm shipments to Syria, may increase calls in Washington for the shipment of U.S. arms to the Syrian rebels, something the Obama administration has thus far resisted. Washington appears to have little influence on the Baghdad government it brought into power and the classified documents that Bradley Manning is accused of transmitting to Wikileaks reportedly show the Iraqi government in recent years has been no less ruthless in the use of torture than was the Saddam Hussein regime that was ousted nearly a decade ago by a U.S.-led invasion. The American public may have little appetite for anything suggesting another effort in regime change or humanitarian intervention based on reports of "weapons of mass destruction" in the Middle East.
Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate who is reportedly under consideration for Secretary of State in Obama's next term, has suggested that if Iraq doesn't offer more cooperation in the effort to stop the transport of Iranian arms to Syria, "maybe we should make some of our assistance or some of our support contingent on some kind of appropriate response."
As Texas Congressman and former Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has often said, when we aren't trying to bomb countries into submission, we are usually bribing them to do our will. And sometimes we do both.

64 comments:

  1. Look at the astonishing map of US military bases in South West Asia.

    What could possibly be going through Iranian political minds to think that they need nuclear deterrence?

    If one hostile military power surrounded US territory with similar foreign legions, what would any patriotic American with a brain want his government to do?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When were those bases installed, before or after the Iranian Revolution? You remember, the act of war.

      Delete
  2. we are usually bribing them to do our will

    Yes, yes, I know. Like bribing Egypt to keep the peace with Israel for instance, which it did for decades.

    What heinous bastards we were to do that. No blood, no oil, just the greenbacks. And peace.

    It's all part of 'the American Empire' or something.

    I wish it would work so well everywhere. I'd rather be taxed for that than ObamaNoCare.

    Unfortunately, Barky seems intent on aiding and abetting the MB, who want Israel in the sea, so the payments will probably continue.

    ReplyDelete

  3. Those bases, at least many of them, were there before the mullahs came along.
    ......



    Inward Ho! [Paperback]
    Christopher Morley (Author)
    Be the first to review this item | Like (0)

    Available from these sellers.


    1 used from $436.26
    Formats
    Amazon Price New from Used from
    Hardcover -- -- $3.87
    Paperback -- -- $436.26



    Holly shit! What's going on here? I was thinking of buying it.

    ReplyDelete


  4. Which one of those foreign bases makes any US city safer, smarter and richer?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Safer?

      All of them if they help 'deter' Iran from madness.

      Smarter?

      Can anything make Americans smarter these days? Since when was make smarter a prerequisite for a military outpost?

      Richer?

      Might help Boeing workers, shipbuilders, ammo makers, radar producers, etc.
      But no one should build up a military just for the business in it, though nearly everyone has done so somewhere along the line.

      Why should one not deal in arms? According to the Buddha, because it does not conduce to liberation. Same as dealing in drugs, booze, pornography does not conduce to liberation. Most people aren't interested in this reason however.

      Delete
  5. Calling Israel 'the Little Satan' and praying, and promising her end, and building the weapons to do just that is not deterrence. It is the rhetoric and behavior of aggression.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Replies
    1. You can buy topography maps of the Idaho outback, the national forests. If one is hiking into a mountain lake, maps can be a great good thing. Map out the easiest route to the lake. Go this way, won't be too steep, maybe a little longer though....

      Delete
  7. By the way, before I hit the sack, what is our Ecological Green President doing cutting down over 50 oxygen producing trees for the Christmas about which he gives not a damn?

    To impress, and act showy is all I can guess.

    And think of all the electricity!

    ReplyDelete
  8. With Afghanistan winding down, and Iraq "wound down," the bastards are trying really, really hard to get us involved in the Iran/Syria/whatever mess.

    They want it; they need it; and they're going to go to their graves trying to get it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Someone asked what is the real problem with using poison gas on the MB and al-Qaeda in Syria anyway?

      Delete
  9. Keeping Benghazi alive -


    Families want to know what happened in Benghazi
    Obama administration not telling whole story, they say


    Noting that Tyrone Woods left behind “a newborn baby and a beautiful wife,” Mr. Woods said his son was “a hero who was willing to sacrifice his life.”

    Mr. Woods repeated assertions that he has made to other news organizations during recent weeks — that the White House is involved in a “100 percent cover-up” because “no effort whatsoever was made to rescue” his son and the other Americans who were killed.


    Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/4/families-want-to-know-what-happened-in-benghazi-ob/?page=3#ixzz2ECUHKzcc
    Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter


    ((((“no effort whatsoever was made to rescue” ))))


    Good article. Woods was firing his machine gun until his body ran out of blood from his wounds and he died.


    Tyrone Woods, 41, was found “slumped over his machine gun, which was caked with blood,” Charles Woods, the former SEAL’s father, said during a telephone interview from his home in Hawaii.

    “He had continued to fire until he had no blood left and was unable to fire anymore,” Mr. Woods said.


    He at least was following Obama's order 'to do everything possible to secure', which of course was never really given, in fact it must have been just the opposite.

    I want to hear from General Ham.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Benghazi is over. It's been a "suckers' play" from the start.

      If the Pubs really cared about stopping Susan Rice they would concentrate on her ties to the oil industry, and how that might have played into her hawkish Libya agenda.

      Delete
    2. Rufus, are you ready to forget 9-11-2012 already?

      Delete
    3. .

      Rufus forgot about it by 9-12-2012.

      :)

      .

      Delete
    4. Never paid much attention to it from the start.

      Delete
    5. What would you have US remember, Dman?

      That the consulate in Benghazi was not a consulate?

      That the CIA did not adequately secure the US compound in Benghazi?

      That no one at the CIA thought to call our NATO allies for help?

      That General P's career ending operation was a total fiasco?

      Delete
    6. We had a cowboy Ambassador, and a group of CIA yahoos involved in a "gun-running to Libya" operation, deep in Indian Country.

      They got ambushed.

      What else is there to "remember?"

      Delete
    7. .

      The issue with Benghazi is not that we haven't recieved answers on what happened but rather that we have recieved so many conflicting answers its hard to keep track of them.

      The administration is definately guilty of something.

      Either a cover-up or felony incompetence.

      Read the article. You would need a Cray computer to track all the different explanations we have been given on what happened and who said and did what.

      .

      Delete
    8. .

      What the fuck does that mean?

      .

      Delete
    9. From the movie, "Chinatown."

      Pretty good movie.

      Delete
    10. .

      I know what it's from.

      What's your point?

      .

      Delete
    11. .

      What would you have us remember?

      That it wasn't a consulate?

      After all, the rat tells us so. Yet no one else in the administration is willing to say it wasn't a consulate. That might go against the story they concocted about this all being about the ‘video’. Likewise, if not a consulate, it appears a lot of people in the State Department on the ground in Libya were a little confused also since it was these people who were requesting additional security from the appropriate State Department personnel in DC. However, even assuming the consulate wasn’t a ‘consulate’, so what? What is the point? Even if it were a location for passing through arms to Syria, does that make the terrorist attack any less egregious?

      That the CIA did not provide adequate security?

      Funny, in Congressional testimony under oath, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Programs Charlene Lamb, indicated she was the person responsible for security arrangements in Benghazi. Was she lying under oath? Was she instructed to do so by higher ups and merely falling on her sword? The rat tells us evidently so since it was really the CIA that was responsible for security in Benghazi. Lying to Congress? Pretty serious.

      That no one at the CIA thought to call our NATO allies for help?

      Curiouser and curiouser. The rat tells us that it was the CIA’s responsibility to call on our allies for help. Strange that it was Hillary Clinton (State) that took responsibility for the clusterfuck in Benghazi. Of course that was before Obama took responsibility and quite a bit before Panetta (DOD) took responsibility for it. Funny that for some reason the CIA never took responsibility. Could it be because State was aware of what was going on there almost immediately through audio transmission? Was it possibly because DOD had drones in the air giving video of the scene? Was it possibly because all key departments in the national security infrastructure as well as the White House were made aware of what was going on in Benghazi? Or perhaps, since they were the only organization that made any effort at all to rescue those being attacked, the CIA wasn’t in any mood to accept responsibility for actions that should have been initiated by the White House.

      That General P's career ending operation was a total fiasco?

      Say what? I am as big a critic of the P-man as anyone here; however, I would appreciate a little more clarification from you, rat, on what point you are trying to make.

      .

      Delete
    12. Yeah, Q, they have done a great job of keeping the 'Real' mission obscured in the purple haze. The 'cover up' just the misinformation campaign to maintain secrecy and security of future operations.

      General P and his people screwed the pooch.

      He got fired.

      That's all we 'Need to Know'

      Delete
    13. Yes, they lie under oath, to maintain operational security.
      Colonel North did.

      It is common enough in the 'Public' hearings.

      I believe that Cap Wienburger was tried and convicted, then pardoned, back in the day.

      Pick any storyline you want, it is as 'true' as the next.

      Delete
    14. .

      We had a cowboy Ambassador, and a group of CIA yahoos involved in a "gun-running to Libya" operation, deep in Indian Country.

      This appears to be an attempt to belittle the ambassador and/or the CIA or, in some way, to indicate that they weren't pursuing official US policy.

      If you have evidence of that, I for one would be interested in seeing it.

      .

      Delete
    15. Chinatown - a confusing, convoluted place of sin, and secrets, where very little is as it seems.

      Delete
    16. .

      Yeah, Q, they have done a great job of keeping the 'Real' mission obscured in the purple haze.

      A great job? Read the article I posted. These guys look like they are straight out of Monty Python. Nobody (except for you kool-aid drinkers) would belive the bull they are handing out. That gets back to my point about a cover-up or incompetence. In this case,
      it appears it is both.

      General P and his people screwed the pooch.

      You keep saying that but you haven't told me how.

      That's all we 'Need to Know'

      That's all you and Rufus need to know but I suspect Benghazi won't be going away for awhile. At least, not until the four Congressional hearingss are completed.

      Yes, they lie under oath, to maintain operational security.
      Colonel North did.


      And North got caught. That's another reason I don't see this going away too soon.

      Pick any storyline you want, it is as 'true' as the next.

      That's a little hard to do at the moment. There are so many of them. However, I do agree that any one of those we have been given so far are as 'true' as the next.

      .

      Delete
    17. You expect Robert Ludlam or Tom Clancy?

      No one in the general public knows what happened, or why.

      There is great speculation, but no conclusive or even standaardized storyline.

      Therre was a bungled operation involving the Ambassador.

      He was staying iin a multi-use Federal compound when it was attacked, during a series of protests at US faciliities across the Islamic arc.
      Some claim a correlation, others do not.

      Some claim the compound was a consulate, but on Sep 11 of this year the State Dept did not have a facility listed for Benghazi, Libya.

      More disinformation in the data dump.

      Of course there is a 'cover up'. It's all classified stuff.
      You hhave no Need to Know

      None of US do. So we don't ...
      ... and won't.

      Delete
    18. It will go away.
      Exemplified by the fact that McCain did not bother going to the committee heariing on the subject

      Delete
    19. The CIA took the initial reports of gun fire at the compound.
      The CIA sent the rescue duo. Or they went on their own inititiive.
      The rescued US staff were sheltering in the CIA annex.

      The CIA had the ball on the ground.
      The ambassador was missiiing, at best.

      Yes, the CIA would have been responsible for calling and coordinating local support from local NATO assets.

      Delete
    20. .

      None of US do. So we don't ...
      ... and won't.


      Never said WE need to know.

      What I have said is that the Congressional committees that have oversight on these matters need to know.

      Benghazi was oviously a screw up, a screw-up that needs to be investigated to try to prevent the same screw-up from happening again. The oversight committees are the place to investigate it.

      Your argument that the screw-up was the CIA's responsibility doesn't make sense to me if in fact they were carrying out US policy and not some rogue black-ops operation the President or the National Security Council was unaware of. If that is your position, I'd like to see some proof of it (even if you have to quote Ludlam or Clancy). Going by Occam's Razor it makes more sense to assume they were carrying out the job of collecting loose weapons left from the Libyan war and/or passing on the weapons to countries like Saudi Arabia or Qatar for transmission to rebels in Syria or other ME countries. Again, it makes more sense to me to believe if that was being done, it was in done in line with US policy dictated from the top. These 'yahoos' as Rufus likes to put it were doing what they were told to do.

      Your comment that the CIA "would have been responsible for calling and coordinating local support from local NATO assets" is ridiculous. Since we are talking asking the allies, foreign countries, for help the call would likely come from the top. At a minimum, it would have involved the State Department. Even DOD would make more sense than CIA.

      With regard to Susan Rice, had she come out on that Sunday and and said we have conflicting stories at present and it will take a while to get to the bottom of it, her part in this fiasco would have ended almost immediately. But she didn't. Instead, she went on national TV and presented a fabricated story about videos (either on her own or because she was instructed to). One more case of either lying or incompetance.

      This whole episode started out as a tragedy. It could have ended as such. With the incompetent way it has been handled, it has devolved into a farce.

      Hell, the Keystone Cops would have looked more competant than the whole of the Obama administration.

      .

      Delete
    21. The CIA was runniing the show in Benghazi.

      Their people were there and had been.

      There was no consulate security force, there was no consulate.
      There is no US military security force iin Benghazi, none ikn Libya other than the Mardikne guards at the Esmbasssey and 'Real' consulates.

      The CIA was armed up, machne guns, armored cars and laser target identiers. The CIA station chief should have had relationships ongoikng with the. Turks and Brits, along with the locals assigned the security etail at the US. Compound. If he didn't, little wonder P got the boot.

      If all contact amongst NATO forces has to be coordinated through DC, Brussels and other capitals, rather than in theater, little wonder things did not gob well after the compound was evacuated.

      Delete
    22. .

      The CIA may have been running the bulk of the show in Benghazi. So what? No one is denying what they were doing there. Reports put out the day of the attack indicated that one of the people that was with the ambassador was there trying to run down weapons that went missing during the war.

      But how do you write off the the requests for more security in Benghazi made by the ambassador and his people at State? You can't just ignore the wires, the e-mails the official requests that no one in the administration is denying came through from State prior to the attack? They were all processed through the State Department.

      What were those? Cover for the CIA?

      The CIA probably did have the contacts you mention. What they didn't have was the authority or the responsibility to be calling for help to foreign nations. Even if the CIA were used to coordinate operations, the request would have come from the State Department (either the embassy in Tripoli or higher up stateside) or from the administration in DC. Libya was a NATO operation, even DOD should have been in a better position to request help, although I doubt they would have assumed the authority without going through DC.

      The embassy in Tripoli as well as the people in DC were in touch with Benghazi in real time.

      Besides, now you are trying to blame this FUBAR mess on the fact that the CIA didn't call the Brits and ask for help?

      Don't bogart that toad my friend, pass it over to me.

      .

      Delete
    23. .

      We need Trish here to settle this.

      If I'm wrong, she would probably be in a position to know.

      .

      Delete
  10. Truth is, boobie, no cares about what you want to hear.

    The Hamster will not discuss classified operations.
    Not today, not ever.

    Won't risk the pension.

    Even if he wanted to, or had something to add to the discourse

    ReplyDelete
  11. As to Mr Woods, he never heard any orders from the President.

    He was getting his directions from General P's staff, at the CIA.

    The fella that was relieved of duty following the incident and internal investigation of it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well shiver me timbers, here I thought the CIA was under direct supervision of the National Security Council and the President. They really must be a power of unto themselves, the CIA. I see now how Barky can say he gave orders to do all necessary, and nuttin' happened. We need to put General P under oath then. The President has been telling us the truth all along then. Barky has promised us he will get to the bottom of this, and he will. All we have to do is wait patiently. No one wants to know the truth about this more than Barky. He has assured us of that.

      Delete
    2. .

      Don't forget Clapper, Bob.

      He was the one that said he changed the intelligence reports for Rice.

      Of course, that was right before the FBI said they were the ones that changed the intelligence which was right before the FBI changed their story and said they didn't change the intelligence.

      The administration looks like a one-handed three-card monte player wearing a ski mitt.

      .

      Delete
    3. And that, Q, explains why General P is gone.

      His folks were wearing the masks, and got caught, regardless.

      Everything that followed, a.n attempt to keep the mission clandestine.
      Whatever that mission may have been. It is so sensitive as to make these public gyrations required.

      I guess if Mr Woods was manning the machine gun he was not paintiing to Islamoid mortor position with a laser.

      More disinformation in the data dump?

      Delete
    4. .

      His folks were wearing the masks, and got caught, regardless.

      How you can continue to try to blame the CIA for doing a job they were assigned to do is beyond me.

      How you ignore the fact that it was the US Ambassador attacked, in the 'multi-purpose' building as you put it, and not the CIA annex is also beyond my ken.

      Everything you have offered up is mere speculation but it doesn't meet the Occam Razor test. There is just a much simpler explanation for it all.

      .


      Delete
  12. And a jolly holiday Good Morning to you, crapper.



    The case for and against renewables, at the Platts Global Energy Forum


    http://blogs.platts.com/2012/12/02/gea_forum/

    ReplyDelete
  13. Meanwhile, on to some really good news:

    DuPont is building one of the world’s largest cellulosic biofuel plants in Nevada, Iowa; and it’s going to take a lot of corn stover to keep this baby humming, to the tune of 30 million gallons of ethanol per year. Corn stover is the leaves, stems, and anything else left over from harvesting the edible part of the corn harvest. The facility won’t be up and running until mid-2014, but DuPont is already looking ahead to contracting with more than 500 farmers to keep the stover coming. Aside from providing some extra income, the project could also help local farmers resolve some sticky crop management issues.
    Clean Technica (http://s.tt/1vUPJ)


    { ...}


    DuPont is building one of the world’s largest cellulosic biofuel plants in Nevada, Iowa; and it’s going to take a lot of corn stover to keep this baby humming, to the tune of 30 million gallons of ethanol per year. Corn stover is the leaves, stems, and anything else left over from harvesting the edible part of the corn harvest. The facility won’t be up and running until mid-2014, but DuPont is already looking ahead to contracting with more than 500 farmers to keep the stover coming. Aside from providing some extra income, the project could also help local farmers resolve some sticky crop management issues.
    Clean Technica (http://s.tt/1vUPJ)

    As a next-generation biofuel feedstock, corn stover fills multiple roles. First and foremost it piggybacks on a food crop, so at least theoretically it crowds out zero acres of land for human or animal feed.

    Secondly, the use of corn stover as a feedstock can help farmers achieve more efficient crop management.

    According to DuPont, corn stover is a “major challenge” for many corn farmers, because it can harbor pests, contribute to nitrogen depletion, and interfere with the next planting.

    Generally, leaving some residue after harvest is good for soil preservation, but too much of a good thing can be a headache.

    The new facility will collect about 375,000 dry tons of stover annually, from about 190,000 acres in a radius of 30 miles from Nevada (Nevada, Iowa that is).


    160 bu/acre

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Even using less stover/acre than Dupont is using (I'm looking at 1 1/2 ton/acre, on average) I figure we could get 10 Billion Gallons per Year just from corn stover.

      It's a "win" for the farmers, and a very large Win for the American Cosumer.

      Delete
    2. One place where the ethanol folks have messed up is in not educating the masses on the fact that cattle feed isn't just corn. There is, also, a significant component of Soy Bean Meal in cow rations. Why is this important?

      It is important because Distillers Grains are an, almost, one for one substitute for Soy Bean Meal, and an acre of corn used for ethanol will just about yield enough Distillers Grains to replace an Acre of Soy Beans.

      I'll let That soak in for a minute.

      Delete
    3. So, here's what's happening. More farmers are raising "corn-on-corn." That means they're planting corn, year after year, on the same ground, and not "rotating" the corn with soybeans (corn, due to its much higher yield, is a more valuable crop,) and, as a result, are ending up with TOO MUCH STOVER on the fields. This is bad for a number of reasons that are covered in the article.

      By selling the stover they win in two ways. They get rid of some stover that, in many cases, they would actually Pay Someone to Take Away, anyway, and they're making more money per acre.

      Delete
    4. Now, here's something else; Those cellulosic plants don't have to use nat gas, or coal. They create their own energy from the left-over lignin.

      In fact, and this is why they're building the first plants next to existing corn ethanol refineries, a 30 Million Gallon Cellulosic Plant will provide enough Excess Energy to power the 50 Million Gallon Corn Ethanol Plant next door.

      On average, a gallon of ethanol will be embedded with about $0.20 of nat gas from the processing.

      Delete


  14. http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/50586

    Time to buy a bomb shelter.





    ReplyDelete
  15. The Platinum Trillion back in the news as the debt ceiling nears -

    http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/12/how-could-washington-avoid-a-debt-ceiling-default-mint-a-few-trillion-dollar-platinum-coins-seriously/

    With Barky all things are possible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No more outlandish than 'Zero Reserve Banking'

      Delete
  16. I guess I would want people to remember that it was a terrorist attack.
    That the US government will acknowledge that and resolve to take the fight to these islamists.
    To take every measure and opportunity in every theatre of this war that was declared ON US
    years ago.
    War declared on reason, logic and truth.
    Who will stand for what is right?

    ReplyDelete
  17. I guess I would want people to remember that it was a terrorist attack.
    That the US government will acknowledge that and resolve to take the fight to these islamists.
    To take every measure and opportunity in every theatre of this war that was declared ON US
    years ago.
    War declared on reason, logic and truth.
    Who will stand for what is right?

    ReplyDelete
  18. The US is joined at the hip with the Waahabbi, Dman.
    There is no reason or logic to it other than the US addiction to sweet Saudi crude and the global economy it lubricates.

    That's the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Little Rock, Arkansas

    American icon, Charlie Brown was savagely attacked and forced to retreat from theater by secular progressives.

    ReplyDelete
  20. the top ten countries that the U.S. imports from:

    1. Canada
    2. Mexico
    3. Saudi Arabia
    4. Venezuela
    5. Nigeria
    6. Angola
    7. Iraq
    8. Algeria
    9. United Kingdom
    10. Brazil

    In 2007, about 23% of U.S. "imported" oil came from the Middle East. This percentage includes the following countries: Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. Saudi Arabia makes us 17% of that 23%. This is according to the U.S. Department of Economics.



    This is why we are fooling around in oil rich countries like, Libya, Egypt and Syria, Afghanistan, and have gotten out of Iraq.

    And must be the reason too why we seen unable to approve that pipeline from Canada, as of this date anyway, and don't make full use of our own resources.

    All makes perfectly good sense to me.

    ReplyDelete
  21. A mllion barrels a day, from the Saudi, we import.
    More or less
    44 gal per barrel

    At whatever the going rate is.

    Every day, 365 days of the year

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Damn Canadians really have us over a barrel.

      Delete
  22. Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard to fight for Aussies 'to the very end.' Good Luck to you all.....


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebtj3gDaE64

    ReplyDelete