Brian Smith wrote: Since Ransom was kind enough to respond to me I will respond to him. The support that Obama has given for rebels Libya, Egypt, and Iran was necessary and wise because the conclusion is inevitable (the dictators are falling) and the sad fact is we (The United States and our policies) are largely resposible for putting them there. As far as Iraq as concerned we were also responsible for propping up Saddam Hussien. As the Russians learned in Afghanistan a military victory in the region is meaningless. - Kerry, Obama Seek Regime Change for Syria, Egypt...But Not Iraq or Iran
Dear Comrade Smith,
If the United States was responsible for Saddam Hussein, how do you explain the decade in which the U.S. actively opposed him with sanctions and military force yet he still retained power? The problem with liberals like you is that you think the government does everything by fiat.
“You shall have healthcare”—poof—healthcare appears!
“You, Saddam Hussein, shall have power” – poof—Saddam is in power!
The best advice I can give you is to buy books and read them. That’s because the coup that brought Hussein’s Ba’ath party to power in 1968 was antithetical to U.S. foreign policy goals. In fact, by 1969 the Soviet Union was providing Iraq with a great deal of military aid. Iraq was actually a member of the Eastern Bloc economic cooperation treaty organization.
We provided military support to Iraq only to prevent them from losing the Iran-Iraq war.
Or are you saying an Iraq absorbed by Iran is something that is in the best interest of the United States, either then or now?
I’ll hang up and wait for your answer.
If you bought good books and read them, instead of just consulting your prejudices like Obama does, you’d know that very few of the world’s ills are the responsibility of the U.S. In fact, about the only thing that is right with the world is what used to be thought of as the American Way of Life.
I’m sick in tired of liberals like you spouting off the ill-informed opinion that the U.S. is behind every nefarious thing that happens. It seems if you don’t blame the U.S. then you end up blaming Jews.
It’s true that dictators are failing. But you and Obama would replace them with worse dictators, dictators who are brutal to their own people and those who will wage an unending war against the United States.
I’m sure that whatever sins you think we have committed, we don’t deserve an unending war on our citizens in the name of Islam. Or am I wrong here?
I willing to admit that I might be wrong.
Because whether you want an unending war against the U.S. or not the actions of your president certainly are creating such conditions where war against the U.S. will be the norm in state relations.
I’m still puzzled as to why Obama supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt; I’m still puzzled as to why he gave ISIS its initial impetus by arming rebels in Syria. He was told that the action would lead to the very eventuality that now has Iraq fighting for its life against the most extreme Islamic elements. I’m surprised too that Obama would decide to take all of our troops from Iraq and then give Iran permission to fight a ground war in Iraq that we are too cowardly to fight. I’m surprised too that Obama is okay with Iran’s nuclear plans.
Had you forecast all these eventualities to the public in 2008 as certainties, Obama I am sure, would have been roundly defeated. Conservatives like myself tried, but were shouted down by mobs like your’ns who would rather carry torches than read books.
Jimmy wrote: I'm starting to think TH is the MSNBC of the online world, this use to be the first website I would go to in the morning but then the columns started to become predictable and smelling phony, it looks like everyone sells out to the establishment republicans leaving me with no place to go and vote freedom. - The World Really is Full of Oil
Dear Comrade Jimmy,
I have no idea what you are talking about.
I speak only for myself, not for Townhall, but I don’t see anyone here selling out to the GOP. I have a variety of columnists, like Shedlock, Sorrentino, Schaus, Mitchell (both of them) who I am sure have done as much for freedom, if not more, than you have.
Or are you just a liberty snob who thinks that everyone who disagrees with you is evil?
Kirk McDonald wrote: JR, how will this effect gas prices? The price per gallon was as low as $1.92, but is now $2.29, and going up. Will we see say $2.00 average price per gallon?I agree we have the oil, will exporting crude help us? I know a lot of questions, but you are my Finance guy. - The World Really is Full of Oil
I don’t think we’ll see $2.00 gas again.
The price of gas today is constrained somewhat by our ability to refine crude into gasoline. You can, of course, thank our Democrat friends for that. They have made it so hard to permit refineries that while oil prices have come down, we can turn it into fuel.
That said I think gas prices should remain stable, except in places like California where prices are $1.00 a gallon higher thanks to the state’s tax-and-cap tax system that just started.
The Democrats here have decided that California will reduce its dependence on fossil fuels by 50 percent in 15 years.
People ask me why I moved to California: Someone will have to clean up the mess, that’s why.
Back to your point: Yes, exporting will help. Dollars that we are sending abroad, to China for example, will come back to the U.S. Those dollars will support American jobs…and importantly…will compound over time. I’ve calculated previously that it could create 10 million jobs and $15 trillion in GDP over ten years. My calculations have been confirmed by PwC, a worldwide accounting agency.
That’s a lot of money, that’s a lot of jobs.
ericynot wrote: In other words, giant solar arrays are probably not generally a viable approach, but putting solar cells on individual homes is becoming very much so. Given current solar cell prices, folks living in sunny areas either have, or soon will have, the opportunity to pay less for their energy needs by installing a solar system on the roofs of their houses than they pay to energy companies burning coal or gas to generate electricity.- The World Really is Full of Oil
Dear Comrade Y,
If it’s such a great deal, then why have the government pay for it?
I’m all for solar where it makes sense.
But in most cases it only makes sense if you get someone else to pay for it.
You may be a capitalist, as you say, but it’s always with someone else’s money.
Let’s not pretend it’s not a racket. Let’s call it what it is: Welfare.
Lazerus1 wrote: I'm sure now that we have 600 years of oil reserves if we build Keystone we will go on an oil binge and burn it all up in 10 years. - The World Really is Full of Oil
Dear Comrade Lazerus,
Go back to sleep. Death becomes you.
Elucidated1 wrote: It's too bad we never see an article here about the SS/Medicare plans that are supported by Republican Congressmen to privatizes SS and Medicare. Why is that? - Don't Expect Social Security to Pay More
Dear Comrade Dated,
Probably because there are no plans by GOP Congress to privatize either program.
I’ve written about privatizing Social Security, but not Medicare.
Thanks for the reminder though. I’ll write about it soon.
Anytime the government does something poorly, there is an opportunity for private enterprise.
Think about this: We beg and plead for people to just save 10 percent of their earnings to provide for a nice retirement. Yet the government’s biggest tax, and it falls on rich and poor alike, is 25 percent tax on earned income. And most people will never see as much in benefits as they put into the system.
Only the government could provide net negative returns in a retirement programs and then have the nerve to tell us we aren’t paying our fair share. If they would just give people a 2 percent guaranteed return on their 25 percent FICA tax, there would be no retirement crisis at all, ever
Tamardinwalk wrote: Being held "ransom" to right-wing fear mongering by Mr. Ransom! - Being Held Hostage by Obama...and Iran
Dear Comrade Tard,
Ha! You used my name twice in a joke. How clever.
bernardini wrote: “But polls do indicate Americans are looking to deal with Iran to limit its nuclear program,” wrote the Post at the beginning of the month, “and are willing to back it up with the full force of the U.S. military." Well military force covers a wide range of options short of a full scale invasion. Remember Iran is three times bigger than Iraq in both area and population. So take what you had in Iraq and multiply by three. I don't think that is what the American public is looking for. If keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of rogue states was the major goal we would have invaded North Korea. But there are no fringe benefits in that. So with that in mind and looking at history I'd say we are going to war with Iran sometime in 2017 or 2018 no matter who is elected President. - Being Held Hostage by Obama...and Iran
Dear Comrade Nard,
Well when going to war you don’t multiply the area and population by three to determine how much force you need to apply. You must be consulting with your friend above, Comrade Smith.
Read a book before offering up amateurish advice.
rome44 wrote: You're a neo-con or a hawk who advocates war. You have the audacity to criticize the opposition to the Viet Nam war but tell us what was the outcome What ? You say you don't know, well let me tell you, we lost about 57,000 American young men and for what, we lost So. Viet Nam, all we have to show for it is the Memorial in Washington dedicated to those men. Who are you anyway what's your take on this? You're critical of Carter but Reagan did no better he traded arms for hostages. Why do you write this crap it's baseless, are you in hopes that no one will call you on it that no one is the wiser. Just letting you know some of us remember and you sir are are attempting to rewrite history.
Lastly, you want war head for the front line, stop writing and show us the courage of your conviction. - Being Held Hostage by Obama...and Iran
I met a young lady from South Vietnam recently who is now an American citizen. She was seven years old when she escaped from the communists. She was one of those boat people.
You ask her what the Vietnam war was about.
She knows better than you.
That’s it for this week,