Obama kills KeystoneXL but of course delays actual decision until after election
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| Kissy Kissy |
Anonymous
Come to think of it, has ANY Republican president stood up to Iran? Obviously Reagan and Bush didnt, but I held out hope for George HW Bush. So what did HE do when he came into power, while Iran-controlled Hezbollah had American Hostages in Lebanon? This is what he said toIran in his inaugural address: "There are today Americans who are held against their will in foreign lands, and Americans who are unaccounted for. Assistance can be shown here, and will be long remembered. Good will begets good will. Good faith can be a spiral that endlessly moves on." I suppose it's not as missy kiddy as handing them a cake and a truckload of missies, but geez that's not exactly getting tough. So is it the oil? What has caused three Republican presidents to do nothing but favors for Iran? |
jsteele
Site Admin Offline
Site Admin Offline
Frankly, I'm not sure that Democratic presidents have acted much differently. I'm kind of thinking out loud here, but traditionally (i.e. before the Islamic Revolution in Iran), Iran was an ally of Israel. The Turkey-Israel-Iran axis was a counterweight to the Arab states. Even after the revolution in Iran, there have been covert ties between Iran and Israel (remember that Israel was smack in the middle of the Iran-Contra affair). Iran served the purpose of drawing the Arabs' attention from Israel, with the Iran-Iraq war being the most concrete demonstration. But, after the US invasion of Iraq which removed Iran's most immediate threat and replaced it with a pro-Iranian government, the threat to the region posed by Iran outgrew it's usefulness. From the US viewpoint, Iran should present just enough of a threat to keep the Saudis dependent on America, maintaining stable oil prices and buying US weapons, but not enough of a threat to actually do anything. Nuclear weapons and a controlling interest in Iraq would push Iran over that threshold. Hence, the current policy to knock the country down a peg or two. |
Anonymous
You do know that the oil was not destined for U.S. distribution right. It was always meant to go overseas via a pipeline through the U.S., not to the U.S. |
Predictable, I suppose. But, let's stipulate that I'm a racist. Even so, what possible upside is there, for the U.S., of killing Keystone XL and ensuring that Canada needs to find another market for the tar sands, most likely China? Oil-filled supertankers chugging off the coast of British Columbia -- what could possible pose less environmental risk? It's like the Valdez happened in an alternate universe. Enlighten me, why would we rather have the tar sands oil burned, less efficiently and at greater environmental risk elsewhere in the world, than shipping it overland to the U.S.?
Anonymous
All that's irrelevant! Obama is engaged in reducing DoD expenditures on redundant weapons systems designed to fight the Soviets in World War III. Therefore he's a fifth columnist. Can't tell if these Obama-haters actually believe this shit, or if they just like feeling like they're riling some imagined liberal out there. Either way, it's hilariously douchebaggy behavior. As you said, the Bush/Cheney administration has done more in 7 years to destroy the US security than anyone since Benedict Arnold. But a sane person would ascribe that to incompetence, not malice. Meanwhile Obama tables a permit for a pipeline that would have very little real effect on US energy policy and they're shitting their pants. Remember when the GOP were the "adults". I miss those days. |
Anonymous
| Hmmm. Is the OP a Big Oil flack or a GOP flack? You decide, America. |
Anonymous
|
TheManWithAUsername
Member Offline
Member Offline
Did I nap through that? |