Naam Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Israel has condemned Iran's plan to deploy warships to Syria as a "serious provocation." and right they are! even the Holy Bible stated clearly a few milleniae ago that no Mullah Navy vessels are never under no circumstances allowed to pass no Suez Canal because that would be an abomination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaoPo Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Israel has condemned Iran's plan to deploy warships to Syria as a "serious provocation." and right they are! even the Holy Bible stated clearly a few milleniae ago that no Mullah Navy vessels are never under no circumstances allowed to pass no Suez Canal because that would be an abomination. LaoPo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
churchill Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Bernake/King/Lagarde look terrified to me - I think they have lost control / Sarkosy /Obama/Merkel/Cameron - talk ....... The rulers in Bahrain have no idea - and so where next ... Where is there a leader ? The world is rudderless at this time IMO / Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midas Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Israel has condemned Iran's plan to deploy warships to Syria as a "serious provocation." and right they are! even the Holy Bible stated clearly a few milleniae ago that no Mullah Navy vessels are never under no circumstances allowed to pass no Suez Canal because that would be an abomination. LaoPo Of course no one mentions the land grabbing and war crimes in Gaza which is an equally " serious provocation " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaoPo Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Bernake/King/Lagarde look terrified to me - I think they have lost control / Sarkosy /Obama/Merkel/Cameron - talk ....... The rulers in Bahrain have no idea - and so where next ... Where is there a leader ? The world is rudderless at this time IMO / Oh, but although Washington uses strong words against the absolute ruler King of Bahrain, their words are hollow since Bahrain is of the most importance to Washintong since they have their 5th fleet Navy base there, protecting all the oil, on it's way to the US. It's not like Egypt where more than 1 million people are celebrating their "freedom" right now; not exacly the same as in Bahrain where people were shot and killed on the first day they protested. Well, after all, all the multi $Billion equipment of ALL racing teams for the F1 is already on it's way to Bahrain and Mr. Eccelstone will decide Tuesday or Wednesday if it's safe enough to hold the first race in the 2011 season If not, Bahrain will lose face big time and it will probably the last time that the F1 circus was planned to race there; after all Bahrain paid a huge amount of money to ""get" the race (somewhere in the region of $ 70 million in total) on it's $ 250 million race circuit. Maybe that's why the King was in a hurry to finish the demonstrations but Washinton, not to loose face HAD to say something. LaoPo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaoPo Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Israel has condemned Iran's plan to deploy warships to Syria as a "serious provocation." and right they are! even the Holy Bible stated clearly a few milleniae ago that no Mullah Navy vessels are never under no circumstances allowed to pass no Suez Canal because that would be an abomination. LaoPo Of course no one mentions the land grabbing and war crimes in Gaza which is an equally " serious provocation " I agree. LaoPo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
churchill Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Bernake/King/Lagarde look terrified to me - I think they have lost control / Sarkosy /Obama/Merkel/Cameron - talk ....... The rulers in Bahrain have no idea - and so where next ... Where is there a leader ? The world is rudderless at this time IMO / Oh, but although Washington uses strong words against the absolute ruler King of Bahrain, their words are hollow since Bahrain is of the most importance to Washintong since they have their 5th fleet Navy base there, protecting all the oil, on it's way to the US. It's not like Egypt where more than 1 million people are celebrating their "freedom" right now; not exacly the same as in Bahrain where people were shot and killed on the first day they protested. Well, after all, all the multi $Billion equipment of ALL racing teams for the F1 is already on it's way to Bahrain and Mr. Eccelstone will decide Tuesday or Wednesday if it's safe enough to hold the first race in the 2011 season If not, Bahrain will lose face big time and it will probably the last time that the F1 circus was planned to race there; after all Bahrain paid a huge amount of money to ""get" the race (somewhere in the region of $ 70 million in total) on it's $ 250 million race circuit. Maybe that's why the King was in a hurry to finish the demonstrations but Washinton, not to loose face HAD to say something. LaoPo Agreed Money 1st / as this is happening now - Bahrain: An ambulance worker tells CNN that four people have been killed in clashes on the Pearl Roundabout in Manama, Bahrain Friday. 'Al Jazeera's @evanchill: 'Our correspondent in #Bahrain reports live ammo, not birdshot, not rubber bullets, being used on protesters' Follow News Of Live Shooting In Bahrain On Al Jazeera http://www.zerohedge.com/article/follow-news-live-shooting-bahrain-al-jazeera Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimsKnight Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 J Rockefeller said he wished the internet had never been invented! ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kv2oCXbW4r0&feature=player_embedded That's because people keep slagging off his elite family and friends off on it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaoPo Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 (edited) Agreed Money 1st / as this is happening now - Bahrain: An ambulance worker tells CNN that four people have been killed in clashes on the Pearl Roundabout in Manama, Bahrain Friday. 'Al Jazeera's @evanchill: 'Our correspondent in #Bahrain reports live ammo, not birdshot, not rubber bullets, being used on protesters' Follow News Of Live Shooting In Bahrain On Al Jazeera http://www.zerohedge...rain-al-jazeera ...Yes, I've seen and watched the images on television. The comments by the "government" (controlled by the King) are disgusting and they said that the deadly casualties occurred during cleaning of the square and that they are so sorry about the deaths.... A total power minority royal regime which is so wealthy but where ethnic Bahraini represent only 62% of the popualtion and of those the vast majority is Shiite whilst the royalty rulers, the Al Khalifa family, are Sunnites, backed by .....yes, Saudi Arabia. LaoPo Edited February 18, 2011 by LaoPo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naam Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 A total power minority royal regime which is so wealthy but where ethnic Bahraini represent only 62% of the popualtion and of those the vast majority is Shiite whilst the royalty rulers, the Al Khalifa family, are Sunnites, backed by .....yes, Saudi Arabia. Bahrain depends economically on Saudi Arabia. not because of the causeway which Saudis use on weekends to drive to Bahrain to enjoy freely available alcohol and working girls from two dozen countries but because crude pumping of the offshore Abu Safah field is handled by Saudi-Aramco. Bahrain gets approximately 10% (30k barrels/day) of the production. moreover, the sunni/wahhabi Saudis who "fear" their own Shias in the al-Hasa province will do each and everything to keep the bahraini sunni "royals' in power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigt3365 Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Bernake/King/Lagarde look terrified to me - I think they have lost control / Sarkosy /Obama/Merkel/Cameron - talk ....... The rulers in Bahrain have no idea - and so where next ... Where is there a leader ? The world is rudderless at this time IMO / Oh, but although Washington uses strong words against the absolute ruler King of Bahrain, their words are hollow since Bahrain is of the most importance to Washintong since they have their 5th fleet Navy base there, protecting all the oil, on it's way to the US. It's not like Egypt where more than 1 million people are celebrating their "freedom" right now; not exacly the same as in Bahrain where people were shot and killed on the first day they protested. Well, after all, all the multi $Billion equipment of ALL racing teams for the F1 is already on it's way to Bahrain and Mr. Eccelstone will decide Tuesday or Wednesday if it's safe enough to hold the first race in the 2011 season If not, Bahrain will lose face big time and it will probably the last time that the F1 circus was planned to race there; after all Bahrain paid a huge amount of money to ""get" the race (somewhere in the region of $ 70 million in total) on it's $ 250 million race circuit. Maybe that's why the King was in a hurry to finish the demonstrations but Washinton, not to loose face HAD to say something. LaoPo So all of the oil goes to the US? None to any other country? Come on...I bet even your country gets "some" oil from that region? Maybe it's better to let the Iranian navy protect the gulf states? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackJack Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 from the NIA To summarize, Obama expects our budget deficit to decline from $1.645 trillion this year down to a low of $607 billion in 2015 by having 5% per year GDP growth, only 2% per year inflation, unemployment in 2015 of only 5.9%, and an overall interest rate that is only 1/2 of historical 10-year treasury yields. NIA projects that the U.S. will see zero GDP growth adjusted for inflation and if we are right, and we also see the U-3 unemployment rate rise back above 10% along with our overall interest rate on our debt rising back to historical levels of 7.2%, our actual deficit in 2015 could very easily surpass $3 trillion. In early 2008, the Bush Administration was projecting the U.S. budget deficit to decline to $160 billion in 2010, $96 billion in 2011, and for the U.S. to have a $48 billion surplus in 2012. Look how easily a $96 billion projected deficit turned into a $1.645 trillion deficit, 17 times higher than projected. It is nearly impossible to reduce budget deficits once they begin spiraling out of control, unless the government acted to dramatically slash spending by 50% or more in all areas of the budget including the so-called untouchable areas like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Obama pledged while running for President to cut the budget deficit in half during his first term, but it has so far increased by 262%. If we have just a few more years of trillion dollar plus budget deficits, interest payments on our national debt will begin to approach half of U.S. government tax receipts and at that point, hyperinflation will be all but guaranteed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigt3365 Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 from the NIA To summarize, Obama expects our budget deficit to decline from $1.645 trillion this year down to a low of $607 billion in 2015 by having 5% per year GDP growth, only 2% per year inflation, unemployment in 2015 of only 5.9%, and an overall interest rate that is only 1/2 of historical 10-year treasury yields. NIA projects that the U.S. will see zero GDP growth adjusted for inflation and if we are right, and we also see the U-3 unemployment rate rise back above 10% along with our overall interest rate on our debt rising back to historical levels of 7.2%, our actual deficit in 2015 could very easily surpass $3 trillion. In early 2008, the Bush Administration was projecting the U.S. budget deficit to decline to $160 billion in 2010, $96 billion in 2011, and for the U.S. to have a $48 billion surplus in 2012. Look how easily a $96 billion projected deficit turned into a $1.645 trillion deficit, 17 times higher than projected. It is nearly impossible to reduce budget deficits once they begin spiraling out of control, unless the government acted to dramatically slash spending by 50% or more in all areas of the budget including the so-called untouchable areas like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Obama pledged while running for President to cut the budget deficit in half during his first term, but it has so far increased by 262%. If we have just a few more years of trillion dollar plus budget deficits, interest payments on our national debt will begin to approach half of U.S. government tax receipts and at that point, hyperinflation will be all but guaranteed. scary.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naam Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 To summarize... In early 2008, the Bush Administration was projecting the U.S. budget deficit to decline to $160 billion in 2010, $96 billion in 2011, and for the U.S. to have a $48 billion surplus in 2012. Look how easily a $96 billion projected deficit turned into a $1.645 trillion deficit.. To summarize...in early 2008 a lot of clowns, banksters, economic and political criminals projected and published wet dreams and wishful thinking which then was their daily pastime. in early 2008 Mr Bear and Mr Stearns as well as the Brothers Lehman were (or seemed to be) well and alive. from 2009 onwards that was all forgotten and the wishful thinkers, wet dreamers and criminals got the chance of a life time, namely to use the utterly lame excuse "da n-word did done it!". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naam Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Israel has condemned Iran's plan to deploy warships to Syria as a "serious provocation." and right they are! even the Holy Bible stated clearly a few milleniae ago that no Mullah Navy vessels are never under no circumstances allowed to pass no Suez Canal because that would be an abomination. LaoPo Of course no one mentions the land grabbing and war crimes in Gaza which is an equally " serious provocation " any land grabbing was sanctioned by the LORD himself! even my agnostic and atheist jewish friends (all with Israeli passports but none of them residing there) know how to cite half a dozen passages of the Old Testament or at least this single one "To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates - the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites." surprisingly the Philistines (Falastini / Palestinians) were (at that time) not mentioned by the Lord and nobody knows whether this was an oversight or whether it was done deliberately Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midas Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 any land grabbing was sanctioned by the LORD himself! even my agnostic and atheist jewish friends (all with Israeli passports but none of them residing there) know how to cite half a dozen passages of the Old Testament or at least this single one "To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates - the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites." surprisingly the Philistines (Falastini / Palestinians) were (at that time) not mentioned by the Lord and nobody knows whether this was an oversight or whether it was done deliberately But they cannot communicate directly today with the LORD himself to settle this , so they are stuck with having to rely on INTERNATIONAL LAW and it says illegal under international law Exposed: The truth about Israel's land grab in the West Bank " Under international law, any Jewish settlements built on occupied territory are illegal. These include all the settlements in the West Bank, and thousands of Jewish homes in East Jerusalem, the Arab-dominated sector of the city annexed by Israel after the 1967 Six Day War. The international community still regards East Jerusalem as occupied territory. Despite firm commitments from successive Israeli governments to dismantle illegal outposts built after 2001 and to cease expansion of the settlements, Israel has provided millions of dollars worth of incentives to encourage poorer families to move into the West Bank. Some 300,000 settlers live in the West Bank." http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/exposed-the-truth-about-israels-land-grab-in-the-west-bank-2020110.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midas Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 I spent 5 years working many of the major financial institutions based in New York City. Morgan, Goldman, Salomon, Citicorp, Deutsche Bank, etc, and many smaller ones. I did multi million dollar, multi year, global IT contracts. Signed off usually by the CEO. Met several of them personally and pretty much every CIO. Still keep in contact with these guys. They are some of the sharpest people you will ever met. Period. Even worked with the NYSE and have spent a fair amount of time on the trading floor, as our software tracked all the hardware on the floor. Met many, many traders. Of course i don't know these people and they may very well have a sharp mind but how do you know they don't think with the same criminal minds as all the other banksters ? And straight talking Hugh Hendry also has a sharp mind and i would rather believe his outlook any day - because in a nut shell " there are too many contradictions to sustain any meaningful growth." :jap: Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/hedge-fund-manager-hugh-hendry-we-are-preparing-for-a-global-boom-2011-2#ixzz1ENSsjpaT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naam Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Under international law, any Jewish settlements built on occupied territory are illegal. that must be some misunderstanding Midas. only yesterday the United Nations did NOT pass a resolution against the settlements February 18, 2011 U.S. vetoes UN settlements resolution The Obama administration issued its first UN Security Council veto Friday, when U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice voted alone against a resolution declaring Israeli settlement activity to be illegal. The 14-1 vote failed after Rice raised her hand alone to vote in opposition to the resolution, which had several dozen co-sponsors, including the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, Serbia, China, etc. Rice said the U.S. vote against the resolution should not be misunderstood as U.S. support for Israeli settlement activity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midas Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Under international law, any Jewish settlements built on occupied territory are illegal. that must be some misunderstanding Midas. only yesterday the United Nations did NOT pass a resolution against the settlements February 18, 2011 U.S. vetoes UN settlements resolution The Obama administration issued its first UN Security Council veto Friday, when U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice voted alone against a resolution declaring Israeli settlement activity to be illegal. The 14-1 vote failed after Rice raised her hand alone to vote in opposition to the resolution, which had several dozen co-sponsors, including the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, Serbia, China, etc. Rice said the U.S. vote against the resolution should not be misunderstood as U.S. support for Israeli settlement activity. What a joke ! The U.S. was a lone voice on the UN Security Council Friday " all fourteen of the remaining members of the United Nations most senior governing body voted to condemn Israel over its settlements activity, which the resolution described as "illegal." I don't consider USA is even capable of interpreting whether Israel is breaking international law or not because they are such good bedfellows, the next thing is they will be claiming spousal privilege Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackJack Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Under international law, any Jewish settlements built on occupied territory are illegal. that must be some misunderstanding Midas. only yesterday the United Nations did NOT pass a resolution against the settlements February 18, 2011 U.S. vetoes UN settlements resolution The Obama administration issued its first UN Security Council veto Friday, when U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice voted alone against a resolution declaring Israeli settlement activity to be illegal. The 14-1 vote failed after Rice raised her hand alone to vote in opposition to the resolution, which had several dozen co-sponsors, including the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, Serbia, China, etc. Rice said the U.S. vote against the resolution should not be misunderstood as U.S. support for Israeli settlement activity. Our apologies to Ambassador Rice Her red packet was unfortunately misplaced This oversight will not happen again and Ambassador Rice will vote appropriately next time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigt3365 Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Under international law, any Jewish settlements built on occupied territory are illegal. that must be some misunderstanding Midas. only yesterday the United Nations did NOT pass a resolution against the settlements February 18, 2011 U.S. vetoes UN settlements resolution The Obama administration issued its first UN Security Council veto Friday, when U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice voted alone against a resolution declaring Israeli settlement activity to be illegal. The 14-1 vote failed after Rice raised her hand alone to vote in opposition to the resolution, which had several dozen co-sponsors, including the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, Serbia, China, etc. Rice said the U.S. vote against the resolution should not be misunderstood as U.S. support for Israeli settlement activity. What a joke ! The U.S. was a lone voice on the UN Security Council Friday " all fourteen of the remaining members of the United Nations most senior governing body voted to condemn Israel over its settlements activity, which the resolution described as "illegal." I don't consider USA is even capable of interpreting whether Israel is breaking international law or not because they are such good bedfellows, the next thing is they will be claiming spousal privilege First, I think this is horrible. Most American's don't understand what is going on here...other than the fact the "Jewish" group in our society is pretty much the strongest there is. Sad, but true. But I don't agree with your comment that they are incapable of interpreting international law. They know exactly what is going on. But unable to do anything about it. In American politics, go against the Israeli coalition, and you won't get elected. Period. I dream of a day when this situation gets resolved and we can get out of that part of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
churchill Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 As the G20 try to agree this Oxford Union type Debate 'French President Nicolas Sarkozy on Friday called on finance ministers and central bank governors of the G20 to reach an agreement on indicators to measure the macroeconomic imbalances. "You will discuss tomorrow the common indicators of imbalances in order to better target remedial measures that everyone should take to re-balance growth," Sarkozy told finance ministers and central bank governors at a two-day meeting at the Elysee Palace. "I hope that your meeting would advance the mandate you have told the heads of state and government in Seoul," he said, calling on the ministers and bank governors "to implement the decisions already taken." (France-Imbalance)' http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews/articleid/4906261 But they cannot agree - China resists G20 deal on indicators http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wxel/news.newsmain/article/0/0/1765312/Business/China.resists.G20.deal.on.indicators what can they agree on ? 'France has also run into opposition with its two other G20 priorities -- greater transparency and regulation of commodities prices and reform of the international monetary system. On Friday, ministers said there was broad agreement over two indicators measuring public and private debt but France, and most of the group, wants a full slate covering not just those areas but the current account, the real effective exchange rate and currency reserves as well. China's trade surplus has shrunk of late, perhaps explaining why it prefers that measure' What is the point of the meeting ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaoPo Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 (edited) Bernake/King/Lagarde look terrified to me - I think they have lost control / Sarkosy /Obama/Merkel/Cameron - talk ....... The rulers in Bahrain have no idea - and so where next ... Where is there a leader ? The world is rudderless at this time IMO / Oh, but although Washington uses strong words against the absolute ruler King of Bahrain, their words are hollow since Bahrain is of the most importance to Washintong since they have their 5th fleet Navy base there, protecting all the oil, on it's way to the US. It's not like Egypt where more than 1 million people are celebrating their "freedom" right now; not exacly the same as in Bahrain where people were shot and killed on the first day they protested. Well, after all, all the multi $Billion equipment of ALL racing teams for the F1 is already on it's way to Bahrain and Mr. Eccelstone will decide Tuesday or Wednesday if it's safe enough to hold the first race in the 2011 season If not, Bahrain will lose face big time and it will probably the last time that the F1 circus was planned to race there; after all Bahrain paid a huge amount of money to ""get" the race (somewhere in the region of $ 70 million in total) on it's $ 250 million race circuit. Maybe that's why the King was in a hurry to finish the demonstrations but Washinton, not to loose face HAD to say something. LaoPo So all of the oil goes to the US? None to any other country? Come on...I bet even your country gets "some" oil from that region? Maybe it's better to let the Iranian navy protect the gulf states? ..did I step on your toe Craigt3365? I merely said what all media confirm and that is that one of the tasks of the 5th fleet is to protect the oil on it's way to the US and not ALL oil of course coming from the Gulf countries. Maybe it's the way I wrote and the way you read my little sentence but it was meant as the 5th fleet protecting the oil tankers on their way to the US The main point is that Bahrain is of major importance to the US and although Washington repeats itself with "don't use violence upon your protesting citizens dear King" it's a voice without power and absolutely different than the situation in Tunisia and Egypt; Bahrain is now on the same line with Lybia where the forces also shoots with real bullets, killing people, the same as in Bahrain... . Maybe the upcoming F1 circus is of more importance to the King of Bahrain rather than the voices of the MAJORITY of the Bahrain people, the Shia, who are dead poor versus the disgusting wealth of the royals belonging to the minority of Sunnis who feel themselves backed by the Saudis (and the US). LaoPo Edited February 19, 2011 by LaoPo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midas Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 In American politics, go against the Israeli coalition, and you won't get elected. Period. I dream of a day when this situation gets resolved and we can get out of that part of the world. yes but then take the question to the next stage......... Why and how did the " Israeli coalition " become so powerful that the biggest economy and most powerful nation on earth with 300 million people is so scared of upsetting a country with just 6 million people? IMHO it is because they control your purse strings.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronz28 Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 It was good to be the king... or whatever he was... Click on the video and see the jewels and cash he had stashed. http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/02/20/138358.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naam Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 What a joke ! The U.S. was a lone voice on the UN Security Council Friday " all fourteen of the remaining members of the United Nations most senior governing body voted to condemn Israel over its settlements activity, which the resolution described as "illegal." I don't consider USA is even capable of interpreting whether Israel is breaking international law or not because they are such good bedfellows, the next thing is they will be claiming spousal privilege spousal privileges are granted sind 1948 Midas. but it was interesting to watch yesterday's interview with Rice on al-Jazeera. Rice was quite obviously very uncomfortable when insulting the intelligence of the moderator and viewers with utter rubbish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigt3365 Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 Maybe the 5th fleet is also trying to help stabilize an extremely volatile area? Keeping the Iranian interests at bay? Protecting shipping going through the canal? For sure it's about oil...but not just about oil going to the US. Sometimes the US does try to protect other countries interests... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naam Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 Maybe the 5th fleet is also trying to help stabilize an extremely volatile area? Keeping the Iranian interests at bay? Protecting shipping going through the canal? For sure it's about oil...but not just about oil going to the US. Sometimes the US does try to protect other countries interests... canal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flying Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 Maybe the 5th fleet is also trying to help stabilize an extremely volatile area? Keeping the Iranian interests at bay? Protecting shipping going through the canal? For sure it's about oil...but not just about oil going to the US. Sometimes the US does try to protect other countries interests... Something like that..... Good to remember though extreme volatility is their employer/bread & butter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigt3365 Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 It was good to be the king... or whatever he was... Click on the video and see the jewels and cash he had stashed. http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/02/20/138358.html Wow...unreal. For sure it's good to be the king! Thanks for sharing! Maybe the 5th fleet is also trying to help stabilize an extremely volatile area? Keeping the Iranian interests at bay? Protecting shipping going through the canal? For sure it's about oil...but not just about oil going to the US. Sometimes the US does try to protect other countries interests... canal? I was guessing part of their mission is to provide security for the area. I am guessing the Suez Canal is a biggie in terms of security requirements???? Fifth Fleet exemplifies the Department of the Navy's strategic concept "Forward... From the sea," by providing the ability to respond immediately to any emerging crisis from peace-keeping and humanitarian missions to asserting necessary force in regional conflicts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now