Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

[Sip]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

... The tactics that will be used against obama are that he lacks experience, his color ...

Actually I don't think his color will be much of a factor at all. The main reason is that the states in which his color matter aren't going to vote for him anyway (regardless of color). It's again going to come down to the usual places like Ohio, Nevada, Colorado, and Florida and if it is really between McCain and Obama, then ideologically there are large enough gaps between the two that the color "noise" is not going to swing it one way or the other IMO.

[Armanen]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

Actually I don't think his color will be much of a factor at all. The main reason is that the states in which his color matter aren't going to vote for him anyway (regardless of color). It's again going to come down to the usual places like Ohio, Nevada, Colorado, and Florida and if it is really between McCain and Obama, then ideologically there are large enough gaps between the two that the color "noise" is not going to swing it one way or the other IMO.

I understand what you are saying, but in those close call states (swing states) the anti blacks will be enough to decide the outcome for mccain. I actually want obama to win as I see him to be less likely to pander to the zionist lobby and to be more friendly with Armenia.

[Armenian]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

Obama Walks a Difficult Path as He Courts Jewish Voters

As he battles for the Democratic nomination, Senator Barack Obama is trying to strengthen his support among xxxish voters and in doing so, is navigating one of the more treacherous paths of Democratic politics. The challenge of meeting the concerns of the xxxish electorate, a cornerstone of the Democratic base, was evident Tuesday when Mr. Obama was asked at the Democratic debate in Cleveland about Louis Farrakhan, the Nation of Islam leader who has endorsed him. Mr. Obama called Mr. Farrakhan an anti-Semite and denounced his support, but was pressed to go further by his rival, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, an experienced hand at Democratic politics who herself has been on the defensive with xxxish voters after an encounter in 2000 with Suha Arafat, the wife of the Palestinian leader.

Mr. Obama has also faced criticism over remarks he made about the suffering of Palestinians — remarks he says were incorrectly reported — and about who is advising him on foreign affairs. And he has had to beat back false tales, spread in viral e-mail messages, that he is a Muslim who attended a madrassa in Indonesia as a boy and was sworn into office on the Koran. In fact, he is a Christian who was sworn in on a Bible. Winning the trust of xxxish Democratic voters is all the more difficult for Mr. Obama because of the tenuous relations between blacks and xxxs. He addressed that very issue at the Cleveland debate when he used the answer to the Farrakhan question to call for a renewal of the ties between blacks and xxxs. But other issues he faces arise from his newness to national politics. While his positions hew to mainstream Democratic views, some critics have expressed concerns that they are not heartfelt.

“His record is relatively sparse, so I want to look at the totality of influences that might bear on Senator Obama,” said Ed Lasky, news editor of the online magazine, American Thinker, whose criticisms of Mr. Obama for aligning himself with allegedly anti-Israel advocates have been widely circulated among xxxish voters. Mr. Obama said on Thursday that some questions about his commitment to Israel and the Middle East are being provoked by Mrs. Clinton and her advisers, as well as other rivals. “Those concerns have been continually stoked, whether through these e-mails that suggest that I’m a Muslim and attended madrassas and was sworn in with my hand on the Koran and scurrilous e-mails that were untrue,” Mr. Obama said. “Or whether it was an article that was in Newsweek recently indicating the degree to which Clinton supporters had questioned my positions on Israel.

“I think it’s very clear why there have been problems,” he added. “It’s been part of a series of political strategies not all necessarily, by the way, by the Clinton administration.” Campaign advisers said they approached xxxish voters the way they did others, confident that once they knew more about Mr. Obama, they would be reassured. At the same time, they acknowledged that many xxxish voters were “vigilant” in testing candidates for president, particularly on Israel. “The xxxish community, rightfully so, is a sensitive and anxious community and has many historical reasons for that,” said Representative Robert Wexler of Florida, a top adviser to Mr. Obama on Israel. Campaign officials said they were surprised, however, by the penetration of the viral e-mail messages, which were background static in the campaign until they began flooding the inboxes of xxxish voters right before nominating contests.

The e-mail messages have not gone unchallenged. xxxish supporters of Mr. Obama have sent thousands of their own e-mail messages, and some have started an online petition for other xxxs who support his candidacy. The campaign in recent days has moved to shore up xxxish support, with Mr. Obama speaking last Sunday to an influential group of xxxish leaders in Cleveland and addressing their questions about Israel, Mr. Farrakhan and even his church in Chicago, whose pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., has been viewed with suspicion. “Nobody has ever been able to point to statements that I made or positions that I’ve taken that are contrary to the long-term security interests in Israel and in any way diminish the special relationship we have with that country,” Mr. Obama told reporters Thursday in Texas. “My job is just to keep on getting the information out and this is part of the political process.”

xxxs make up about 1.7 percent of the adult population, but they are a stronghold of the Democratic base and important to the party’s fund-raising. Over all, xxxs made up 5 percent of the voters when more than 20 states voted on Feb. 5, and they divided their votes 54 percent for Mrs. Clinton and 44 percent for Mr. Obama, according to exit polls by Edison/Mitofsky. But while Mrs. Clinton took the xxxish vote by 2 to 1 on her home turf, New York, and also in New Jersey — states she won — Mr. Obama captured the xxxish vote in Connecticut 61 to 38, which he won, and in Massachusetts, 52 to 48, which he lost. And he split it with Mrs. Clinton in California, where she won. On some levels, that is hardly a surprise. Democratic xxxish voters, like any voting cohort, are hardly monolithic.

Some xxxish leaders said the anxiety over Mr. Obama might reveal more about xxxs than about the candidate. By their analysis, those who heed the e-mail are generally older and have closer ties to Israel. The break is between “those who are motivated by traditional xxxish liberalism and those motivated by traditional xxxish anxiety over Israel,” said J. J. Goldberg, editorial director for The Forward, a xxxish newspaper. On Israel, some xxxs have found fault with Mr. Obama’s commitment, if not his policies. They worry about his call for direct talks with Iran over its nuclear program. Many also point to a now oft-repeated remark of his, made last year in Des Moines, that “no one has suffered more than the Palestinians.” His supporters say his stance toward Iran does not mean capitulation. Further, Mr. Obama has repeatedly said that his remarks about the Palestinians were incomplete, and that he went on in his remarks to blame their leaders for the Palestinians’ plight. His campaign Web site says the American commitment to Israel’s security is “incontrovertible.” As a senator, he backed Israel during its invasion of Lebanon in 2006 and supports military aid to Israel. Weeks after he was sworn in in 2005, he visited Israel.

E-mail messages circulating about Mr. Obama’s untrustworthiness assert that the former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski and diplomat Robert Malley, figures loathed by many xxxs, are top advisers to his campaign. Mr. Brzezinski has met with Mr. Obama, but he is not a top adviser. Mr. Malley has communicated with the campaign by e-mail but has never spoken to Mr. Obama, a campaign spokesman said. The candidate’s Israel advisers are three former staff members to President Bill Clinton: Dennis Ross, a top Mideast adviser; Anthony Lake, national security adviser and Susan Rice, assistant secretary of state. Other advisers on Israeli and Mideast matters are Mr. Wexler; Dan Shapiro, formerly of the Clinton national security council, and Eric Lynn, a former Congressional aide. (All but Ms. Rice are xxxish.) Many xxxs have expressed concern about Mr. Obama’s minister, Mr. Wright of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. In an article in The Jerusalem Post that is being circulated on the Internet, Marc Zell, co-chairman of Republicans Abroad in Israel, described Mr. Wright as “well known for his virulent anti-Israel remarks.”

The Anti-Defamation League, however, has said that it has found no evidence of anti-Semitism on Mr. Wright’s part. The concerns of xxxish skeptics, meanwhile, are shared by conservative Christians, passionately protective of Israel as the Holy Land, and by many Republicans. Criticism over Israel in the Democratic race now hints at fights Mr. Obama could face should he end up the nominee: This week, the Tennessee Republican Party issued a news release that said there was “a growing chorus of Americans concerned about the future of the nation of Israel, the only stable democracy in the Middle East, if Sen. Barack Hussein Obama is elected president of the United States.”

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/01/us...1obama.html?hp

[Armenian]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

Bringing Iraq and Iran Closer Together

Amidst all the hoopla over whether the surge in Iraq has been a success, Americans might have missed the latest development in the Iraq mess — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s historic and much-acclaimed visit to Iraq, one in which the presidents of Iraq and Iran even held hands.

That’s right — I said, Iraq … and Iran. Iraq, as in the country that the U.S. government invaded six years ago and has occupied ever since. And Iran, as in the country that the U.S. government might yet invade before President Bush leaves office. As some of us have long been pointing out, the real winner of the Iraq War was Iran, not the United States. The U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq succeeded in installing a radical, Islamic, Shiite regime in Iraq, one that aligned itself with Iran, a country that President Bush and Vice President Cheney are sanctioning and still might even bomb. Now, if that’s not a perverse outcome of an invasion of a country that never attacked the United States and which has killed hundreds of thousands of people, I don’t know what is. It means that U.S. troops have killed and died for the sake of an Islamic regime — one that they continue to kill and die for as part of their indefinite occupation of Iraq.

One irony, of course, in this perversity is that many supporters of the invasion and occupation still justify the intervention on the grounds that Islam presents a dire threat to the United States. Well, what in the world do they think is the guiding religion of the regime that now governs Iraq? It was Saddam Hussein’s regime that was secular, not the regime that the U.S. invasion and occupation ended up installing in Iraq. Fortunately, the anti-Islamic neo-con crowd here in the United States hasn’t yet started calling for the bombing of the radical Islamic regime that now governs Iraq and that has aligned itself with Iran. My hunch is that this discomforting fact — i.e., the partnership between Iraq and Iran — has still not settled into the consciousness and conscience of the American people, in large part because they generally don’t like to hear or read bad news about Iraq. Think about it: 4,000 American troops dead. Thousands more wounded. A million Iraqis dead. Countless more wounded. The entire country destroyed. Museums ransacked. Suicide bombers. Millions of Iraqis fleeing the country. Torture. Gangs. Arbitrary searches, seizures, and arrests. Indefinite incarcerations. And all for what? So that a brutal pro-Iran regime could rule Iraq rather than Saddam Hussein. In case you missed it, here’s a link to Reuter’s account of Ahmadinejad’s visit to Bhagdad:

“Pomp and ceremony greeted Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on his arrival in Iraq on Sunday, the fanfare a stark contrast to the rushed and secretive visits of his bitter rival U.S. President George W. Bush. Ahmadinejad held hands with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani as they walked down a red carpet to the tune of their countries' national anthems, his visit the first by an Iranian president since the two neighbours fought a ruinous war in the 1980s. His warm reception, in which he was hugged and kissed by Iraqi officials and presented with flowers by children, was Iraq's first full state welcome for any leader since the U.S.-led invasion to topple Saddam Hussein in 2003. His visit not only marks the cementing in ties between the neighbours, both run by Shi'ite majorities, but is seen as a show of support for the Iraqi government and an act of defiance against Iran's longtime enemy, the United States, which has over 150,000 troops Iraq. A line of senior Iraqi political leaders welcomed Ahmadinejad when he arrived at Talabani's palatial home.”

According to the Chicago Tribune, Ahmadinejad promised a $1 billion loan to Iraq and “the two countries negotiated seven deals on economic and cultural cooperation.” Oh well, faced with an indefinite occupation of Iraq, a continually crashing dollar, ever-rising prices, and devalued homes, Americans can console themselves with, “At least we’re rebuilding Iraq!” Let’s just hope that President Bush doesn’t try to save his legacy by starting a war against Iran before he leaves office because there’s little doubt that Iraq would align itself with Iran in such a war, leaving American troops to fight enemies in front, in back, and in the middle of them. And think how much time, money, and lives it would take to rebuild Iraq again!

Source: http://mwcnews.net/content/view/20692&Itemid=1

Iran Offers $1 Billion Loan for Iraq Projects

Iran is offering a $1 billion loan to Iraq for projects to be handled by Iranian companies, an Iranian deputy foreign minister said Friday. The announcement came two days before a landmark visit by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Baghdad, the first by an Iranian president since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Iran and Iraq fought an eight-year war in the 1980s that left about one million people dead, but relations between the countries have warmed substantially since the United States-led invasion in 2003 that toppled the Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. Mr. Ahmadinejad is scheduled to arrive Sunday for a two-day trip to build on business and political ties with Iraq. “Iran’s $1 billion loan to Iraq has been one of the main issues of discussion with the Iraqi side,” the deputy foreign minister, Alireza Sheikh-Attar, told the official Iranian news agency IRNA in Baghdad. The loan would cover basic projects by Iranian contractors using Iranian goods and equipment, he said. The United States has accused Iran of financing, training and equipping Iraqi militias to destabilize Iraq, a charge Iran has denied, blaming the American presence for instability. Iran says it wants a stable neighbor and American troops to leave.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/01/wo...html?ref=world

[Armenian]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

Admiral Fallon's abrupt resignation today is a very significant development. Fallon had been instrumental in defusing the tensions in the Persian Gulf region and had stated on many occasions that he would rather resign than go to war against Iran. After a long lull, time to get worried again...

*************************************

Fallon Resigns As Mideast Military Chief

The top U.S. military commander for the Middle East resigned Tuesday amid speculation about a rift over U.S. policy in Iran. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that Adm. William J. Fallon, whose area of responsibility includes Iraq, had asked for permission to retire and that Gates agreed. Gates said the decision, effective March 31, was entirely Fallon's and that Gates believed it was "the right thing to do." Fallon was the subject of an article published last week in Esquire magazine that portrayed him as opposed to President Bush's Iran policy. It described Fallon as a lone voice against taking military action to stop the Iranian nuclear program.

"Recent press reports suggesting a disconnect between my views and the president's policy objectives have become a distraction at a critical time and hamper efforts in the Centcom region," Fallon, who is traveling in Iraq, said in a statement issued by his U.S. headquarters in Tampa, Fla. "And although I don't believe there have ever been any differences about the objectives of our policy in the Central Command area of responsibility, the simple perception that there is makes it difficult for me to effectively serve America's interests there," he said. President Bush praised Fallon in a statement. "During his tenure at Centcom, Admiral Fallon's job has been to help ensure that America's military forces are ready to meet the threats of an often-troubled region of the world, and he deserves considerable credit for progress that has been made there, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan," Bush said.

Gates announced that Fallon's top deputy, Army Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey, will take over temporarily when Fallon leaves. A permanent successor, requiring nomination by the president and confirmation by the Senate, might not be designated in the near term. Dempsey could be elevated to Central Command chief, although he already has been selected to become the top U.S. Army general in Europe. Among other possible candidates for the post — considered one of the most important in the U.S. military — is Army Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who had just been named to a top post on the Joint Chiefs of Staff and who had been commander of U.S. special operations forces in Iraq. Another possibility is Army Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, who serves as Gates' senior military assistant and is a former senior commander in Iraq.

Gates described as "ridiculous" any notion that Fallon's departure signals the United States is planning to go to war with Iran. And he said "there is a misperception" that Fallon disagrees with the administration's approach to Iran. "I don't think there were differences at all," Gates added. He said he believed Fallon was fully supportive of the administration's policy on dealing with Iran through diplomatic and economic pressures. Fallon, 63, a veteran of the Vietnam War and a former vice chief of naval operations, has had a 41-year Navy career. He took the Central Command post on March 16, 2007, succeeding Army Gen. John Abizaid, who retired. Fallon previously served as commander of U.S. Pacific Command. Gates called Fallon a very able military strategist and said his advice will be missed at the Pentagon. "I think this is a cumulative kind of thing," said Gates, speaking of the circumstances leading up to Fallon's decision. "It isn't the result of any one article or any one issue."

Source: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g...pbwmwD8VBET400

[Armenian]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

Iran Willing to Become Full Member of SCO

Iran has applied to the Secretariat of Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) to become its full member, RIA Novosti reported. Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki declared his country’s intention to change the observer’s status at SCO to the status of permanent member after he met with President of Tadjikistan Emomali Rakhmonov in Dushanbe. Tadjikistan backs up this intention of Iran, the official specified. Tadjikistan has been the SCO member since the time of its establishment and presides in this organization in 2008. Mottaki said his country proceeds with cooperating with IAEA but develops its own nuclear program at the same time. Manouchehr Mottaki and Afghanistan’s Foreign Minister Rangin Dadfar Spanta are in Dushanbe now, deliberating with Tadjikistan’s authorities on issues of three-party cooperation, including setting up a common TV Channel that will broadcast in the Persian language and building a railway road from Tadjikistan to Iran via Afghanistan. The visits of Afghanistan’s and Iran’s foreign ministers to Tadjikistan set the stage for the meeting of presidents of those countries.

Source: http://www.kommersant.com/p-12231/Iran_SCO/

[Armenian]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

Iran proposes missile shield against U.S., Israel

Iran's defense minister said on Monday the world needs a missile shield to protect against threats from Israel and the United States. Tehran has joined Russia in opposing U.S. plans to deploy elements of its missile defense system in Central Europe to counter possible strikes from "rogue states," specifically Iran. "If the world needs an anti-missile shield, it must be used to counter missiles and the nuclear menace coming from the U.S. and Israel, which directly or indirectly threaten different countries with aggression and war," Mostafa Mohammad Najjar said. The minister said U.S. claims that the European missile shield would defend against Iran's missiles were nothing but a sham. "Our country's missile arsenal is purely defense-oriented and is only a threat to aggressors," the minister said. Washington plans to deploy interceptor missiles in Poland in addition to installing radars in the Czech Republic. The ten missiles in Poland could be placed on duty by 2013. Najjar said Tehran was open to cooperation with every country except Israel, which Iran does not recognize, to ensure stability and security in the Middle East.

Source: http://en.rian.ru/world/20080407/103957109.html

[Azad]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

"Iranian, Afghan forces clash at southwestern border
By AMIR SHAH, Associated Press Writer

Sun Apr 20, 8:38 AM ET
KABUL, Afghanistan - Afghan police clashed with Iranian forces at the southwestern border between the two countries, leaving one civilian dead and two Iranian officers wounded, officials said Sunday.

The incident in the village of Pul-e-Abreshum in Nimroz province happened Saturday after an Iranian patrol entered Afghanistan, the Interior Ministry said in a statement...."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080420/ap_on_re_as/afghanistan

Wonder if this is yet another provocation towards Iran from a different angel ... since all other approaches aren't working?

[Sip]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

How is it a provocation towards Iran if Iranian patrol entered Afghanistan? I wouldn't think much of this at this point since this is not that uncommon in that region.

[Kevin_B]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

http://www.itulip.com/forums/archive/index.php?t-796.html

The Neobolshevik Neocon Fairy Tale attack on Iran

The great fairy tales are written in a way to make the unbelievable reality. J.K. Rowling certainly made a large fortune with her best selling Harry Potter series doing just that. The villains are always true psychopath’s intent on ruling the world and this Iranian War fairy tale certainly has plenty of villains in its cast of characters. I guess if you can believe in witches, flying broomsticks, magic wands, casting spells and secret potions you can believe in the upcoming Iranian War fantasy.

The realities of an Iranian War are such that you know from the outset it will never take place, but that never stops a great fairy tale from being told and for many to believe in it. For those caught up in the fantasy wishing it to be true, maybe we should review the very basic principle of why witches can’t fly. Even the psychopath won’t take an action when he knows that the outcome will lead to his downfall and the psychopaths that are trumpeting this upcoming war certainly realize they have no chance of success.

The list of reasons there will be no war is a long one, so I will only touch upon a few of them to prove this point. Preceding the Iraq War there was $50 billion of foreign investment d0llars waiting to be invested. This money had not yet been spent so there were only opportunity costs that were lost when the war took place. Preceding the Iranian fantasy we find that China and India have committed $200 billion towards Iran’s oil and natural gas industry, much of these investment d0llars having already been spent. These two Iranian oil and gas customers have large armies, navies, air forces and nuclear weapons to defend their investment. Most importantly what these two countries have is between them over a trillion d0llars of US and British oligarch investments that have been made in their two countries. If war breaks out, at the stroke of a pen these investments will be nationalized by China and India. India was just told that Michael Dell of Dell Computer was hiring 5,000 people in India; Bill Gates was just in India getting ready to invest $4 billion, IC foundries are being set up in India and if these investments get nationalized it’s the Oligarchs not India who become the losers. This I can assure you will not be allowed to happen and the only way this doesn’t happen is there is no war.

Russia another large nuclear armed country has a lot to lose in any Iranian conflict as well. Currently Russia is building a nuclear power plant in Iran with contracts in place to build 20 more. In 1981 Israel launched a surprise attack on Iraq’s Osiraq nuclear facility; this is a matter of recorded history. Certainly there were guarantees made by Russia that this type of attack couldn’t occur and Russia placed surface to air missile systems in place to protect this investment. Before the Iraq War foreign contractors left the country, today we find that Russian contractors working on Iran’s nuclear power plants are still in the country.

Recently we even had Georgia a country in the coalition of the coerced that just signed a natural gas deal with Iran. Why would this deal occur if there was going to be a war? Certainly stable natural gas supplies during winter are something that needs to be counted on. Pakistan as well stands to lose billions if their natural gas pipeline is not allowed to go forward as well. France and Japan rely heavily upon Iranian crude and I’m sure they don’t have the reserves to handle any long term interruption of supply. Chirac has already implied that any disruption to Frances strategic supplies will be answered with nuclear weapons. Certainly any attack on Iran will lead to a long term disruption of supply; the Strait of Hormuz would be too easy for the Iranians to close down.

Preceding the Iraq War the build-up of military sales going on in the US was huge. Today against a much larger foe there is no US build-up of military sales going on. According to the GDP report for the fourth quarter of 2005, actual defense spending in the US declined by 13%. The believers of the Iranian War fantasy will cry out this is just a ruse, but when looking at the actual numbers from defense contractors in the US there is no visible activity going on to justify the war fantasy. No matter what military action the US would take against Iran, munitions will be used and need to be replaced. Assets such as planes, ships and helicopters will be lost and I’m sure the US would already have an idea of how many and orders six months ago would have been made for their replacement. No such actions by the US have been taken.

Preceding the Iraq War we know that Iraq was subject to 10 years of sanctions and virtually had no military defense capabilities. Iran has not been subject to such sanctions and is guaranteed to put up a good fight. Iran has missiles capable of hitting Jerusalem and Tel Avi; Iraq certainly had no such deterrent. Iran can hit Saudi oil fields as well as shut down the Strait of Hormuz that would prevent about 60% of the world’s oil exports from taking place. Iran unlike Iraq is more than capable of defending itself.

Preceding the Iraq War, Saddam found himself with no allies. Preceding this Iranian War fantasy Ahmadinejad finds himself with countless allies. Venezuela could easily stop the flow of 15% of US oil imports if this fantasy is to occur. More importantly South America still finds itself with hundreds of billions of US and European investments that the new nationalists of South America would love to nationalize. I would think to a large degree Iran can count on China, India, Russia, Brazil, Pakistan, South Africa, Venezuela, Argentina, Chile, France and much of the Arab world to play some role in fighting off US/UK/Israeli aggression. Against such a foe the psychotic villains that are playing the bad guys will not venture to fight. Remember according to the fantasy world of Harry Potter these villains only attack little boys and girls.

If there is going to be no war than what are the intentions of the US/UK/Israeli aggressors? I can assure you there is trillions of d0llars worth of reasons for this little fantasy to be playing out. All one has to do is look back to the Dot.com bubble implosion to see how those in the know can pull-out trillions of d0llars worth of wealth. Remember that Sir Templeton and Charles Swaab had no money invested in the NASDAQ bubble when that bubble popped. Likewise with the commodity bubble that has been created, bringing us almost $70 oil, almost $600 gold, record copper prices, none of the insiders are buyers right now and all of them are sellers. Certainly in a war these commodities will skyrocket and any idiot knows that’s what would occur. One only needs to ask oneself why the commodity insiders aren’t buying to know what is about to occur. There are trillions of d0llars about to be pulled from the commodity market that is guaranteed.


I wrote this almost a year ago, I see no reason for this position to change.