She is one tough cookie

[RedSea]

Now that was a tough Mu'minah. Thanks guys.

[BonaFied_CriTic]

That Wafa is my sworn enemy - I swear can't stand the lady -

[makalajabti]

The Islam World needs more people like the lady.

She is saying some truth no muslim wants to deal with.

[Socod_badne]

^^^She's not a muslim, why would the muslim world need her?

 

 

Castro,

 

My reply is forthcoming, my tardiness notwithstanding.

[makalajabti]

Because she is telling some truth.

We shouldn't care is she is muslim or not. It is not our business like she said

[Castro]

^ Aren't you pushing an agenda (and some buttons) nowadays.

 

SB, I ain't going no where atheer.

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by Castro:

Saaxib you've confirmed my suspicions of you and that is you're trumpeting the official US State department line for the first Gulf War.

 

If that the case then let me say it wasn't deliberate. But purely accidental confluence of viewpoints. It would still be my view for the causes of 1st Gulf War had the US publically stated otherwise. I arrived at my conclusion after considering all the evidence and other speculated reasons. Not only are all the other speculations regarding reasons for 1st Gulf war unsupportable evidence wise but unreasonable as well. Your disagreement with my position is noted. However, we're getting sidetracked on dwelling on this issue. The point of contention here, however, is: was it cheaper for the US to invade Iraq or to buy all of its proven oil reserves? I said YES, you said NO.

 

 

I'm sure you think this current war in Iraq is to bring them democracy as well.

 

 

The primary objective of the current war in Iraq was to take out the Saddam regime.

 

 

Atheer it's their bloody business what they want to do with it.

 

I agree and all oil producing countries have decided time and again to sell their oil. And again to who they sell to is iconsequential since oil is itinerant market commodity -- constantly changing hands between buyers and sellers.

 

 

The American insatiable appetite for oil does

not

justify pillaging a sovereign nation to get it.

 

 

BUT I showed it was cheaper for the US to buy all the oil Iraq is able to produce in a year than to invade. So you are demonstrably in error when you say Iraq was invaded for its oil.

 

 

The greenback is not a currency of choice but one imposed by the barrel of a gun.

 

That is not true. At the end of WW2 the US economy was not only the largest but mainly undamaged by the war while the rest of the major economies were in shambles if not completely ruined. That is how the US dollar gained its reputation.

 

 

And now that another currency shows any sort of competition to the dollar and Saddam hints at using it for his oil sales, suddenly American bombers are in the air. Can you connect the dots atheer?

 

 

Why did the US bomb Saddam in the 1st Gulf War? The Euro, for which your entire thesis hinges on, wasn't even established before 1992, a full year before 1st Gulf war. So what was the 1st Gulf war all about?

 

 

Saaxib last time you compared oil to stones and now it's cow manure? Walee the only thing that reeks of cow manure are your arguments, I'm sad to say.

 

 

But Castro oil IS comparable to stones in Stones Ages. Both served the SAME purpose: the driving force/energy for our technological development. I'm fully cognizant of the fact of your palpable dislike for this line of reasoning I've contructed but you haven't demonstrated to be in error. Not yet at least! The other arguement which you left unscathed is what reasons or evidence do you have for beleiving that the world will run out of oil? Why shouldn't a new energy source be discovered tomorrow which the world adapts in very short time?

[Castro]

SB, if you still think this is not about oil, Euros or hegemony, may be this viewpoint will explain things in better terms than I have. Please take the time to read it, specially the areas I put in bold, just for you.

 

Published on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 by The Age (Australia)

Bush's Iran Plan A Time Bomb With Explosive Results

by Kenneth Davidson

 

The updated version of the Bush Administration's 2002 national security strategy, released in Washington last week, identifies Iran as the country that may pose the biggest danger to the United States.

 

According to Reuters, the strategy document, which reaffirms pre-emptive military action as a central tenet of US security policy, raises fears the Bush Administration will resort to force to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.

 

If force is used, it will come in the form of air strikes, as US land forces are already overstretched in the occupation of neighbouring Iraq.

 

One question still to be confronted is the impact such a strike would have on the US economy and how that would affect the global economy, particularly Australia, which is, after the US, the largest-deficit country in the advanced industrial world.

 

At the very least, a broadening of the war in the Middle East would be certain to push up interest rates in the US and Australia, because the central banks there would have to protect the currencies' value by increasing yields. How far and fast would depend on judgements about the likely outcome of the military intervention.

 

An air strike against Iranian nuclear facilities is unlikely to be surgical. There are about 50 sites associated with nuclear development in Iran and they are mainly sited in towns where civilian populations would be at risk. An attack would be certain to inflame the Islamic world against the US, almost certainly lead to a full-scale civil war in Iraq with the support of the predominantly Shiite Iranian people, and the US fleet in the shallow and narrow Persian Gulf would have to withdraw or be vulnerable to Iranian missile attack.

 

Worse, any air strike against Iran is unlikely to get the support of the United Nations Security Council, given that China and Russia would likely veto any resolution put up by the US.

 

Why would the Bush Administration risk widening Gulf War II to include Iran when it still has the chance to limit its losses to Iraq? The most popular explanation is that the US wants to pre-empt the Iranian decision to set up a Tehran oil bourse to facilitate the selling and buying of oil in euros instead of US dollars. [Remember Saddam was contemplating the same thing in the late 90's and early 2000's.]

 

The idea is that this would cause a chain reaction in which more and more oil producers and their customers would trade in euros and eventually force the US to pay for its oil in euros too. This would mean the US would have to do what every other country in the world has to do, namely earn foreign exchange through exports in order to pay for its oil imports. [ That whole stand-in-line thing I kept repeating to you.]

 

Last year the US trade deficit for petroleum products was about $300 billion. While the $US remains the international reserve currency and oil continues to be traded in dollars, the US can pay for its oil simply by printing more IOUs in the form of US treasury bills.

 

If the US had to find euros (or yuan) to pay for its oil, it would have to increase taxes, cut consumption and increase exports. In short, according to this scenario, the US could no longer afford to be a military superpower and would have to cut back its global adventures.

 

In the process, the $US would collapse, wiping out the accumulated financial assets of America's major creditors and probably causing a depression of 1930s dimensions. More generally, such a development opens up the question of whether the reserve status of the $US is supporting US superpower status, or whether US military power is propping up the reserve currency status of the $US.

 

While the possibility of oil trading in euros and the yuan present a possible long-term threat to US economic and military hegemony, it doesn't have to be dealt with immediately.

 

Similarly, the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran is at least some years into the future. But even with nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them and the control systems to guide them, deterrence and the doctrine of mutually assured destruction (MAD) applies to Iran as much as it did to the Soviet Union.

 

The main strategic change is that if Iran gets the bomb, the US (and Israel) can't attack Iran unless they are prepared to risk MAD.

 

The cynical explanation for the Bush Administration's threats against Iran is that, like the build-up to the invasion of Iraq, the real objective is "regime change", which has been re-enforced by the slump in President Bush's approval rating to 34 per cent.

 

The only thing on the political horizon that might restore Republican fortunes is a new and credible national security threat in order to keep control of Congress in the November elections.

 

If the Republicans lost control of Congress, the way becomes open for hearings into the constitutionality of the Bush Administration's use of wiretaps on Americans without warrants as required by legislation.

 

The Republican majority in both the Senate and the Reps has blocked examination of the legality of this and other actions by the Bush Administration.

 

How far the Bush Administration is prepared to go in Iran in order to avoid losing control of Congress to a hostile Democrat majority, which might opt for impeachment, will have fundamental consequences for the global economy in 2006.

 

Source

[Khayr]

Back to the topic, per original post

 

Who does Wafa Sultan think she's fooling?

 

The criminal neocon blogosphere is abuzz with praise of some tool named "Wafa Sultan." So what did this Arab-American psychologist( currently unemployed and hunting for a residency at the ripe age of 47) with delusions of granduer do to earn such heart warming approval from the usual suspects? Well, theres an Al-Jazeera video clip recently put out by MEMRI(an Israeli disinformation front which (mis)translates selected articles from the Arab media) showing Sultan taking on some big bad Algerian "Islamist."

I noticed that the MEMRI clip edited out any responce by the opposition(which reportedly trashed her), so all we have a few minutes of Sultan essentially bloviating the failed neocon narrative. Predictably the right wing septic sewer is ecstatic. Wafa Sultan's spurious posturing was just the bone these rabid chihuahuas needed. What about those death threats she claims to have received? Do you want to see my inbox? You want to see someone with courage? Look no further then Cindy Sheehan. Looking for a gallon of gravitas? Try George Galloway bringing it on in the US senate.

Thats the mendacious magic ticket to stardom folks. Simply regurjitate recycled horse manure which finds currency amongst the most racist, reactionary, uninformed, unintelligent and yes, criminal elements of the neocon malignancy, right, left and center. Facts as usual need never apply. Its become the favored tactic of the usual suspects to roll out charlatans with Muslim names to lend credibility to anti-Muslim propaganda and misinformation(sort of like Ward Connerly of anti-affirmative action fame). Sultan, like Manji and co. isnt a Muslim but an athiest, just like As'ad AbuKhalil. Difference is AbuKhalil isnt an opportunistic liar, nor does he play to anyone else's tune which is why you wont see him on MSM or receiving accolades from disingenuous dirt.

Look out for the sycophantic Sultan in the coming days and weeks, just follow the 15 minute slime trail. Wheres Muhammed Ali Hasan when you need him?

 

Wafa the CLOWN