Posted on 11/24/2013 3:05:43 PM PST by WilliamIII
Oil prices are likely to drop, analysts said, as the nuclear accord between Iran and six world powers potentially paves the way for more crude oil to reach the global market.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Currently there are four such countries designated by the United States as state sponsors of terrorism.
These countries are Syria, Cuba, Sudan, and Iran.
Essentially Obama is cutting a deal to provide economic relief to a country that is officially on the US government list of countries that sponsor terrorism.
Are you saying the Soviets weren’t sponsoring terrorism?
You have a lot to learn. Start with the famous book by Claire Sterling, The Terror Networks.
I hereby apologize to Israel, on behalf of all REAL Americans. Many Americans suspect President Muhummad Al-Obama is a Kenyan, but few know Valerie Jarret, who secretly negotiated this “deal”, is Iranian. PERSIAN. Check Wikipedia or Google it.
No, I am not saying that. I am saying the US State Department has never designated the Soviet Union as a state that sponsors terrorism. Nor has it listed many other countries that have done the same.
Like it or not, historically the US has limited the number of states it puts on the state sponsor of terrorism list because the ramifications of being on the list are severe and codified in law.
If you go to the US State Department website you can see what it means to be on this list. Iran is one of four on the list, and Obama is cutting a deal to give economic relief to Iran.
That is what I am saying.
Comments?
You said: I am saying the US State Department has never designated the Soviet Union as a state that sponsors terrorism.
My comment: Big friggin deal. Whatever report the State Department did or didn’t issue, The Soviets were terror sponsors — that’s a fact, Jack — but Reagan still negotiated with them. Was Reagan a “Neville Chamberlain”?
Wrapped in a 7 Bil dollar gift to the Mullahs to kill Jews and Americans.
I think you can figure out where a lot of that American ‘aide’ will go. Valerie’s boys.
“Top Iranian Mullahs Corrupt, Official Says”
http://www.newsmax.com/KenTimmerman/iranian-mullahs/2008/06/10/id/339882
Iran will choke on its own oil puke.
________________________________
DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW!
Say, looking over your posts in forum, you seem to be one of these insidiously subtle trolls...feeding the Viking kitties just enough catnip to keep the “zots” at bay.
John Kerry got rolled like a pudgy old drunk on a park bench. Knowing his history, he never met an enemy of the United States that he couldn’t find any agreement with. We are worse than “Jengis Kahn” according to him; didn’t you know that?
We'd be "giving" Iran nothing.
That is what it says, but I have an idea that something else is going on there.
hmmmm...all of the 911 terrorists were Saudis. Osama BinLaden was a Saudi. The Saudis are still funding terrorists in Syria. They oppose anyone buying Iranian oil, thus keeping the demand and price for their oil high.
Maybe the US should choose better friends.
Has he said anything worth zotting yet?
If not, we can wait. A good opus is worth it. :p
His postings always seem to start with the right lingo then shift the conversations leftward...but he might just be a true man of the mushy middle!
He might be the Michelin Man? Stay Puffed Marshmallow Man? Wooden Indian?... you mean a *whispers* “moder-ite?”
No.
This a thread about Iran. Why you want to redirect to a discussion about Russia is curious.
Evidently you don’t understand or care why Iran is on the list of states that sponsor terrorism.
All your redirection does not alter the fact Obama is cutting his deal with a country his own State Department designates as a country that supports terrorism.
The price effect won’t be so large. Of the 1,000,000 bbls/day supposedly to hit the oil market again, 800,000 was already making it to the market, covertly, mainly to China.
Why you want to redirect to a discussion about Russia is curious.
It’s no more curious than the many posters who cite to Munich 1938. They’re drawing a historical analogy - and so am I . I’m saying that negotiation even with bad guys who sponsor terrorism doesn’t automatically make you an appeaser. If it did, Reagan was an appeaser for negotiating with Soviets - and striking a deal that left them with far more nuclear capability than Iran has.
Bottom line: I prefer some realistic negotiated deal with Iran over a war with Iran. In my mind, that’s following Reagan’s example, and it’s certainly following common sense. A lot of the same folks who want war with Iran also promoted the Iraq war - and I consider that war to be a historic disaster.
If you "hunger for war," take the Obama approach. As you said yourself, the Reagan approach kept the peace.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.