"Bang $100,000 goes up in smoke..."

[JP76er]

Originally posted by JP76er:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by abneo3sierra:

Bigduke..As someone who myself has a shattered leg that, hopefully, will be back to normal soon, and constant headaches, that may never be, and a shattered marriage, I deeply resent your implication that sacrifices were somehow made for the selfish reason of "combat duty" for glory, etc..I would have left a very long time ago, if I did not believe in the cause. I do..to have not acted, would have left many more dead, and would have left people such as my 5 year old son, having to "pay the bill" as it were, because, trust me, whether or not you see it, it still will come due.

Appeasement does not save lives, in the long run, sure, it may save a few now, but it strengthens the enemy, and in the end will cost far more than anyone is willing to imagine.

Hey Man,

Did you get my email? Get in touch. The Websites are to help Vets like yourself. Get back to me & I will get one of the Rangers in touch with you. </font>

[FAI]

Originally posted by abneo3sierra:

Hey Bigduke

As to the last point, I know who wrote the article he referred to. I know the man may not have been "stoned" when he actually wrote it, but it is a better than 50/50 bet.

Saddams country was providing a place for people who, indeed, were planning to attack the US, without going into retyping things, read my post about the things found there.

The rest..as I said to you in my post, if a person THINKS, themself, and comes to a conclusion, fine. I respect yours..

FAI..his whole case came to putting what someone else thought, up..that was his entire post, and as I said to you, such intellectual dishonesty, flips a switch in me, sorry FAI

edit

In all honesty, I am unsure what gives "Fred" the right to dismiss many hundreds of thousands of other war veterans, who were older than him, and participated in a tougher war than he did, as well.

Hey, they guy put it in words better than me. I happen to agree with his opinion. And if that one flipped you, the rest of his other articles could give you a heart attack

[Bigduke6]

Skelly,

Chinese annual oil import growth is about 7.5 per cent.

China think tank disagrees with Skelly

Indian annual oil import growth is about 3 per cent.

Reuters subcontinent energy wonk disagrees with Skelly

Chinese and India future demand is about 1/2 and 1/3 of what you claim it to be.

High oil prices are not because of tundra-loving reindeer huggers, but because:

1. Major potential producers like Iraq and Iran are bringing next to nothing to market.

2. Major swing producers like Saudia Arabia and to a lesser extent Kuwait, are doing nothing to press the price of oil downward.

3. Other major producers have little excess capacity.

4. The US has been going out of its way to irritate oil producers even with a little excess capacity, to include especially Russia and Venezuela.

5. No one, with the possible exception of the Canadians, has any interest in helping out the Americans on oil. Most of the world is happy as Hell to see OPEC stick it to the arrogant, paranoid Americans.

The simplest way to push down the price of oil quickly, is for the Americans make friends with the Iranians, followed by the Russians and the Venezuelans.

It would also even better for our alleged allies the Saudis to act like Allies and pump some more oil, and best of all would peace in Iraq. But not much hope of either, I'm afraid.

As to Dick Cheney's motivations and patriotism, I remind you he dodged the Vietnam draft, and that he retains millions of dollars of stock in Halliburton, and so become substantially richer, because the price of oil has gone through the roof. Americans may be paying more at the pump, but Dick Cheney is an even richer man than he was before, as a result of US foreign policy. True Conservative Values?

As to Halliburton, here is the testimony to Congress of a whistle-blower:

Oh sure, Halliburton was the best firm for the job

There were alternatives you know. Bechtel, Fluor, Gazprom; and I guarantee you the British, French, and Indians could have done the job as well, if we had thought to ask.

Willful ignorance of alternatives, is not the same as absence of alternatives.

Edited to add the line about Iraq and the Saudis.

[ March 27, 2008, 03:54 AM: Message edited by: Bigduke6 ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

1. Major potential producers like Iraq and Iran are bringing next to nothing to market.

I've seen you say this before, and I am curious to know why 2.5 million bbl/d (Iran) is "next to nothing".

[Bigduke6]

A fine question.

*ahem*

It is because Iran has proven reserves roughly 40 per cent of Saudi Arabia, wants money in the worst way, and yet it is incapable of increasing production substantially. Saudi Arabia is a useful comparison.

Saudi Arabia produces about 11 million barrels a day, in other words with about 60 per cent more reserves than Iran, they are producing 400 to 500 per cent more oil.

The Saudi Royal family of course says the difference is due to their munificent good will, but really, it is because Saudi's oil production infrastructure is world class and lacks nothing for capital, while the Iranian oil production infrastructure is in part still damaged from the wars of the 1980s, and badly strapped for capital due to international sanctions against Iran.

So, not only are the Iranians not pumping oil volumes out of the ground four to five time slower than the Saudis, because the sanctions prevent the Iranians from getting equipment and (I believe) expertise, but the Iranians as a result of the same tech weaknesses also have next to no capacity to pump substantial extra oil. As much as the can get, they already pump.

Meaning, no matter what Iran does, worldwide supply stays pretty much the same.

In other words, the Saudi influence on the market is huge, and the Iranian influence is minor - although there are good market reasons it should be greater.

After all, you would think if price of oil went up 20 per cent over a couple of months, which it has done, the market would react.

But when countries with huge reserves (Iran, Iraq) can't add supply to the market, then you have reduced the number of suppliers, and of course the less suppliers the closer you are to monopoly. The Saudis have little need of extra cash (in contrast to the Iranians and the Venezuelans), and so they say "screw you" when the price rises and their American weapons suppliers ask for some relief.

The logical market solution is to bring the more suppliers into the market. As long as the suppliers that need money, cannot get it, you leave the market biased towards price increase.

Were there better relations with Venezuela, Iran, and Russia, that would logically allow more western capital into those countries, and so improve production capacity.

It's not a 0/1 paradigm, for instance the key to getting more Russian oil on the market is greater Russian integration into the world economy, giving the Russians more reason to sell oil there. Better relations with Moscow would push trends in that direction, but obviously throwing capital at Iran would be more effective than throwing capital at Russia - the Russians need the oil money less. Still, the logic is the same: better friends = more capital going where it needs to go = more oil on the market.

[abneo3sierra]

Just a note here that I have heard amounts as high as 60% of the Saudi oilfields exist in Alaska, and are unable to be tapped due to the tree huggers mentioned above. To this I add a caveat that I really, in this topic(oil reserves and pumping capacities), have no knowledge above what I read or hear, but regardless of the numbers, there is an immense amount of oil there. On the other side however, I think I have heard quite a few arguments disputing the cost in money and in time, even if we were to green light the drilling up there.

[Omenowl]

5. No one, with the possible exception of the Canadians, has any interest in helping out the Americans on oil. Most of the world is happy as Hell to see OPEC stick it to the arrogant, paranoid Americans.

And stick it to the rest of the world as well. Lets be honest Russia likes high oil prices, as does OPEC. Hell the economy here in Texas is doing pretty well as long as you aren't in the housing industry. Speculators keep the price high just like why the commodity market is doing so well.

It also doesn't help the dollar has fallen by 2/3 of its value to the Euro. Compared to the 1990s where they were near parity. If they were still near parity it would be about 60 dollars per barrel.

Iran's problem is mismanagement amongst other things. It is ironic that much smaller countries who share oil fields with Iran actually pump more out of those fields.

It also doesn't help Americans shifted from cars to SUVs. It makes a huge difference when my girlfriends Honda Civic gets 41 mpg and her truck gets less than 18mpg.

We also have no clue what the real state of the middle east has for their oil fields. They do not allow independent oversight to examine their oil fields. Some estimates put their reserves as much lower than they say officially.

I will say this much in Texas oil has a been a boon for the economy. Many of my friends are looking at starting salaries 5-10k higher than they would have otherwise just because of the competition. Those in the oil industry are much higher than that (15-25k higher).

Overall, I am looking forward to 5-10 years when engines and compressors are efficient enough for drastically reduced oil consumption.

[Bigduke6]

The wonderful magic thing about the oil business is that it is built on huge promises, and giant rolls of the dice. Sure, the scientists might be right, there is a ton of oil under the Alaskan tundra. But sometimes they guess wrong, and until they drill the wells and check out the actual flow, and do the math against the curret price of oil, you don't know.

In a place like the Arctic, it can be several billion dollars to drill a hole, and find out the oil isn't there in the quantity you expected, or the volume you expected, or the chemical make-up you expected. Which makes what was supposed to be a profitable oil play, a huge bust.

The energy companies have to be incredibly conservative when it comes to developing new reserves, because they can get burned so badly. And the easiest way not to get burned, is get more out of a known existing field. Which brings us back to the Persian Gulf. All Saudi Arabia has to do, is pump more. All Iran has to do, is get some capital, and they pump more. All Iraq has to do, is have the war end (hah!), get alot more capital, and then pump more. And so on.

So you have to take these statements like "there's an elephant (super-giant oil field) under the Caspian, or off Point Barrow, or in Russia's Komy province, or off the Mekong Delta, or in the Black Sea, or just a little bit deeper in the Gulf of Mexico." Maybe. Maybe it's there in commercial quantities, and maybe it ain't, but the main thing is the people with the capital to decide where to try and pump next, are incredibly risk-averse.

So right now, the energy companies' logical policy is limit the supply, jack up the price, and make sure that enough new oil comes on stream in the future, to replace the present volumes. It suits them just fine if overall supply falls, the per barrel price goes up, they get the same income as long as demand stays the same. With prices the way they are, why should they look for more oil? They're like the Saudis, they've got excess profits, the thing to do now is make the cash cow live as long as possible.

So that's why I say the only solution, short term, is to get fears of further reduced supply out of the market, and then medium term get the producers that want to produce, back into the market as fast as you can. This is why ending wars in Moslem countries is a good idea, it reduces risk, insurance costs, transport cost, yada yada yada.

And at the same time, according to the plan, push replacement tech as hard as you can; even if it ultimately doesn't do much, the very effort, the logic goes, will reduce upward pressure on the price.

The longer-term you go, the hard it is to see the thing through. Getting Iraqi production fully on line, and Allah knows they need the money, would take years even if there wasn't a war, and there is.

But the immediate fixes are screamingly obvious: stop isolating Iran, stop isolating Venezuela. Get those countries producing, now. It plays to the hands of every oil-producing country, every energy company, and against the economic interests of the US and Europe.

And for those crazies that think the Iranians are just drooling at the mouth to get nuclear weapons, ask yourself, which Iran is more likely to nuke Israel: The one isolated from the world and that has nothing to lose, or the one that's a major player on the world energy markets, and if it wants to get attention it can muck around with production just like our supposed friends the Saudis?

Ya gotta wonder, what it is that's making the decision-makers in Washington avoid this policy path. It's almost like they have a vested interest in high oil prices, even at the expense of US energy security and even soldier lives.

Nah. They say they're honorable men. So they must be.

Originally posted by abneo3sierra:

Just a note here that I have heard amounts as high as 60% of the Saudi oilfields exist in Alaska, and are unable to be tapped due to the tree huggers mentioned above. To this I add a caveat that I really, in this topic(oil reserves and pumping capacities), have no knowledge above what I read or hear, but regardless of the numbers, there is an immense amount of oil there. On the other side however, I think I have heard quite a few arguments disputing the cost in money and in time, even if we were to green light the drilling up there.

[skelley]

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/07/25/cheney.finances/index.html

www.globalpolicy.org/nations/launder/regions/2002/cheney.htm

As to Dick Cheney's motivations and patriotism, I remind you he dodged the Vietnam draft, and that he retains millions of dollars of stock in Halliburton, and so become substantially richer, because the price of oil has gone through the roof.

CNN disagrees with you Big Duke. He sold all of his stock in Haliburton and the left busted his nuts about that.

I have my stats wrong about the China and India, thanks for setting me straight. I believe I heard it originally on CNBCs morning financial show. But, China will be equal to the US in 22 years are you saying that isn't pushing up the price? We import a hell of a lot of oil and if they import the same then oil will be astronomical in price. The entire world is using more and more fuel.

The simplest way to push down the price of oil quickly, is for the Americans make friends with the Iranians, followed by the Russians and the Venezuelans.

No thanks. Do you mean we sit back and watch russia help Iran build nuclear capability so that they can weaponize it. Then they can fulfill their desire to wipe Israel off the map. I would rather develop an alternative source and put all of these jackasses out of business. I don't much like making tyrants richer while making my self poorer. As for Venezuela, I see Chavez as being the one that is pissing us off and stealing his peoples private property. Maybe that sits well with you but I believe in private property rights.

Will Get back to ya later on Haliburton. At work right now and can't type forever

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

It is because Iran has proven reserves roughly 40 per cent of Saudi Arabia, wants money in the worst way, and yet it is incapable of increasing production substantially. Saudi Arabia is a useful comparison.

Saudi Arabia produces about 11 million barrels a day, in other words with about 60 per cent more reserves than Iran, they are producing 400 to 500 per cent more oil.

You have a point about Iran's lack of investment in future production, with regard to current production you are comparing SA's production with Iran's exports only. Iran's total production was 4.1 mil/bbl/d.

[Bigduke6]

Vanir,

Fair comment, my error. I realized I had made it as I was going home and I was hoping that in the two hours or so between the time I left and the time I could get back to a computer, you forumites would cut me some slack. No such luck.

In my defense I think point still stands - Saudi Arabia's exports are close to four times larger than Iran's, although Iran rougly has a bit less than half the reserves. But no question, I should have written 300 to 400 per cent, not 400 to 500 per cent.

Skelly,

As I understand from Wiki, Cheney put his Halliburton shares in a blind trust, and then retired from the company, and claimed that represented removal of personal interest.

I find that questionable, the Halliburton shares he owns have value no matter if it's a fund or his stock broker that are playing with them. From what I can tell, it works through a wierd insurance policy where he gets a fixed payment deriving from Halliburton stock for five years, and eventually the stock options go to charity.

It seems clear to me he owns the stock right now, and it seems clear that when the stock is sold, the profits go to charity. It also seems clear tha t the stock itself remains his property and income from the sale of the principle would be his as well.

But if he sold out and owns no Halliburton stock, I owe you an apology. And if this stock shelter deal is as clean as Dick Cheney says it is, then I owe you an apology.

Of course...since your question led me to google about a bit more, I find this paragon of conservative values, among other interesting CEO moves, set up a Halliburton branch office in none other than Teheran, although they registered the parent company in Caymen Islands and called it "Halliburton Services".

If you want a conservative hero, for Heaven's sake pick Ridgeway. The current US President ain't worth emulating.

[skelley]

If you want a conservative hero, for Heaven's sake pick Ridgeway. The current US President ain't worth emulating.

I am the last person who would defend this president's conservative credentials. The only thing domestically I agree with is cutting taxes, beyond that he has been a big government Lib on every other issue. In fact I see no conservative out there. All we have anymore is Lib-Light or the real Libs to choose from. I am not looking for a conservative hero as there has never been a human that can live up to my conservative beliefs at all times, myself included. Even Ronald Reagan raised taxes on occasion.

What exactly makes Ridgeway a conservative hero? As far as I know he has never held political office. It is when you are in political office and the majority is clamoring for somebody else's money and you don't give it to them while explaining why you won't that makes you a conservative. When has he ever had to take an unpopular stand.

[Omenowl]

Lets see why we have so many problems with oil.

Russia is resurgent and has a strong distrust of the US after the 1990s economic policies crippled it. It has nationalized some of its oil and uses it to intimidate its neighbors.

Venezuela is saber rattling with Columbia and has kicked out some foreign oil companies after nationalizing the oil. You can already see its efficiency has diminished. It has dropped almost 8%.

Iraq is still fragile with its aging infrastructure.

Iran is more worried about pursuing nuclear power than refineries and investing in its oil infrastructure. It also doesn't help that most of the people put in charge of the national oil are incompetent.

The price of oil is about speculation and when there is instability it goes up regardless of the real economic conditions.

You can hate Cheney and Bush all you want, but I see little hatred towards Putin or Chavez. I also see little talk about illegal actions in Haiti, Bosnia, Serbia or kosovo. Even though none of them had explicit permission to invade or attack we did it anyway.

My only wish is that we leave Iraq stable enough so it won't tear itself apart or threaten its neighbors. The argument of what happened over the past 4 years is one thing, but very few people ask what legacy do we want when we leave? Do we want another Somalia or Haiti or a Germany and Japan? I see no good options besides staying.

I don't relish the idea of Turkey invading Iraq because of Kurds, Iran supporting shias and the arab world supporting the Sunnis. If we think it is bad now it could get much worse.

[MD82]

So how about we cut our use of oil and let all those bastards drink it?

[abneo3sierra]

Originally posted by MD82:

So how about we cut our use of oil and let all those bastards drink it?

I'd actually be in favor of this one..I was so pi$$ed off at the implication from Iran and Venezuela that somehow the US is hurting those countries by purchasing oil..I would love them to be left holding something of limited value while the world moves past the need for their black mud..unfortunately, seems likely to happen only in the future.

[skelley]

quote:

Originally posted by MD82:

So how about we cut our use of oil and let all those bastards drink it?

I'd actually be in favor of this one..I was so pi$$ed off at the implication from Iran and Venezuela that somehow the US is hurting those countries by purchasing oil..I would love them to be left holding something of limited value while the world moves past the need for their black mud..unfortunately, seems likely to happen only in the future.

Absolutely, Its pretty hard to wage Jihad with no funds.

[FAI]

Originally posted by skelley:

quote:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MD82:

So how about we cut our use of oil and let all those bastards drink it?

I'd actually be in favor of this one..I was so pi$$ed off at the implication from Iran and Venezuela that somehow the US is hurting those countries by purchasing oil..I would love them to be left holding something of limited value while the world moves past the need for their black mud..unfortunately, seems likely to happen only in the future.

Absolutely, Its pretty hard to wage Jihad with no funds. </font>

[FAI]

Incidentally, five former U.S. secretaries of state urged to open a dialogue with Iran.

Link

[MD82]

Originally posted by FAI:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by skelley:

quote:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MD82:

So how about we cut our use of oil and let all those bastards drink it?

I'd actually be in favor of this one..I was so pi$$ed off at the implication from Iran and Venezuela that somehow the US is hurting those countries by purchasing oil..I would love them to be left holding something of limited value while the world moves past the need for their black mud..unfortunately, seems likely to happen only in the future.

Absolutely, Its pretty hard to wage Jihad with no funds. </font>

[MD82]

Originally posted by FAI:

Incidentally, five former U.S. secretaries of state urged to open a dialogue with Iran.

Link

Probably can't hurt and maybe it can help.

Falls under "know your enemy"(or adversary)

[abneo3sierra]

Originally posted by FAI:

Incidentally, five former U.S. secretaries of state urged to open a dialogue with Iran.

Link

I think once they apologize for killing US soldiers, I would be willing to talk to them, too.

And yeah, SUVs are part of the problem

[Bigduke6]

Kinda tricky, the Iranians for sure are going to want an apology for all that American metal and money that Iraq fired at Iran during the 1980s. By body count the Iranians are way ahead in the "you're the bad guy" argument. And with veterans from that war now pretty much running Iran, I doubt they would back down.

I think a better solution would be to do things like with Vietnam, roughly, let bygones be bygones, and yes we disagree on some of the bygones.

Looks like former US Secretaries of State are reading this thread, that's a start.

[abneo3sierra]

As for the Iran/Iraq war, the Iranians were the side using alot of US equipt , having been an ally until they went crazy back in 1979, but I grant that diplomacy means forgiving, however, it is the US who would be doing the forgiving..storming an embassy, continually funding terrorism, and to this day killing our troops. I could do that(forgive), provided they actually stopped what they are doing now,and issued a formal state apology.Considering the "veterans"from that war are the ones running the country now, anyway, they should be more thankful for all the US equipment that kept them in it, when by all counts, they should have lost easily.. Also, just as was the case in Desert Storm, Iraqi equipment, contrary to recently popular view, was not American in origin, it was Soviet, French, and German. When we fought to free Kuwait in Desert Storm, their tanks were mostly Soviet, a few French, aircraft were mostly Soviet, some French Mirages, missiles etc were mostly Soviet.

In the Iran/Iraq war, most percentages were close to the same. see http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/iran-iraq.htm

especially this part "s the Baathists planned their military campaign, they had every reason to be confident. Not only did the Iranians lack cohesive leadership, but the Iranian armed forces, according to Iraqi intelligence estimates, also lacked spare parts for their American-made equipment. Baghdad, on the other hand, possessed fully equipped and trained forces. Morale was running high. Against Iran's armed forces, including the Pasdaran (Revolutionary Guard) troops, led by religious mullahs with little or no military experience, the Iraqis could muster twelve complete mechanized divisions, equipped with the latest Soviet materiel . With the Iraqi military buildup in the late 1970s, Saddam Hussein had assembled an army of 190,000 men, augmented by 2,200 tanks and 450 aircraft.

[ March 28, 2008, 10:40 AM: Message edited by: abneo3sierra ]

[Bigduke6]

What I meant was, it was US-orchestrated opposition to Iran that kept Iran from winning the war. Saddam attacked and the Iranians didn't fold, instead in about six months they were close to overruning the entire wash of the Tigris.

Some people of said that this happened because Iranians are a real nation with real patriotism and a real history, while Iraq was a Third World nation led by an overarmed dictator, and his troops wouldn't fight. Other people say it's because the Iranians are Shia and the Iraqis drafted by Saddam were Sunnis, and Shia have always fought harder than Sunnis. And still others say that Persians pretty much always beat Arabs.

In any case the US got busy organizing support to Iraq, Saudis financing purchases approved by the US all over the world, and result was a stalemate; and 750,000 to 1 million casualties, of which 250,000 or so dead, and 100,000 poison gas victims.

That the Iraqis held is generally considered to have been a direct result of US commitment to support Saddam, and US orchestration of arms supplies to Iraq from Europe and the Soviet Union mostly, but also wherever else, and the Saudis and the Kuwaitis picked up the bill.

Which, to be fair, is a pretty good arguement to say "Screw the world, we're getting nukes!" for the Iranians. After all, the world tried to bury them in the 1980s.

If you factor in the fact that the Iranian regime that fought the Iraqis, came to power in Iran because of a national and popular revolt against a truly nasty dictator (the Shah), then by almost any standard if you're looking at Tehran- Washington relations, the Iranians are on the moral high ground.

- The Shah was an authoritarian ruler with a secret police, Khomeni and the Revolutionary came to power via a popular revolution because the Shah was so hated, and the US response is to villify the Khomeni regime.

- Another dictator, Saddam, invades Iran in a blatant act of agression, and the US not only doesn't condemn the agression, it supports Iraq and close to a million Iranians are war casualties, and maybe 250K are dead as a direct result.

- The US now is on this "no WMD for Iran!" obscession, when twenty years ago the US not only countenanced the use of the WND poison gas against Iran by Iraq, but arguably helped Iraq get the gas, and certainly led a coalition of nations against Iran in support of Iraq.

In other words, any rational leader of Iran has every reason to get nukes. What, he's going to tell all the war veterans in the country "No need my Brothers, I have seen the light, now the Americans are trustworthy!"

- The US is all bent out of shape because of some minor assistance Tehran is giving Shia insurgents in Iraq. A couple of hundred extra US dead because of some shaped charge bombs allegedly made in Iran is not going to impress a country that lost about 200,000 - 250,000 dead because the US sided with Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. The moment you start complaining about the shaped charge bombs, they'll say "Fine, we'll pay your war widows if you pay our war widows, and of course all those mustard and nerve gas victims still alive."

- The US was cynical enough even to provide some arms and spare parts, secretly, to Iran even though the US overtly was supporting Iraq. Yet the US asserts it is the honest, open negotiator, it is the Iranians that are unreliable and sneaky.

Sure, the Iranian position is of course baseless, if you assume that the life of an Iranian soldier isn't as valuable as the life of a US soldier.

But you will never, ever, convince an Iranian of that. And even less an Iranian war veteran.

If your starting point is Iran = bad, US = good; US = always right and Iran = always lying, then there is no point in talking. The Iranians aren't going to lie down, they'll tell you to blow it out your ear.

[abneo3sierra]

You must have misread my post..

The Iraqi forces were A)Better led,

B)Better trained

C)Better equipped

than the Iranians.. It was not necessary for US to aid Iraq, they should have won hands down. The ONLY aid the USa provided was not to provide spare parts for Iranian equipment, understandable considering they had just held American diplomatic personnel hostage for over a year.

Also, the major Iraqi supplier was the Soviet Union, and the cold war was ongoing still at that point, we were funding Afghans AGAINST the Red Army..we had no ability to encourage Soviet arms sales to Iraq, even if we had wanted to, which, admittedly, we probably did want to.

As for Secret Police..the current Iranian government is doing nearly as bad in that category as the prior one. Say a bad word about their leadership, and your door is kicked in, and you are..to use the old Soviet phrase.."disappeared"

Edit: I do not equate Iranians with always wrong, that I reserve for their leadership. Most Iranians, I believe , want the same thing as most people, to just live. Their leaders are the problem.

[ March 28, 2008, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: abneo3sierra ]