poor shrub

rodbolt · Dec 12, 2006

now even his suadi oil partners are threatening him, those threats he will listen to cause popa bush, himself, wheezy,rummy and cheney'spersonal wealth are tied to thye same folks that gave us 9/11.
anyone who dont believe the current debacle aint about oil is delusional, but if the sauds carry with the threat, stand by.
will be funny.
however I moved allmy mutual funds some months ago.

let the intrest rate and oil price rise begin.
I am all for 7 dollar a gallon gas, in fact I bet my money on it

but its very funny, the prince of camel jocky dom, threatened the president, heck when knuckle bunny called him the devil the world turned upside down.now on of the Bush familiy trading pardners threatens a bit and it gets no coverage.
aint the world funny.

crunch · Dec 13, 2006

Re: poor shrub

I am all for 7 dollar a gallon gas, in fact I bet my money on it

If that is in futures, drag your investment out now, or you will lose more than you already have.

RubberFrog · Dec 13, 2006

Re: poor shrub

snooze

I think the txwhiner hijacked rodbutts computer.

oddjob · Dec 13, 2006

Re: poor shrub

RubberFrog said:
snooze

I think the txwhiner hijacked rodbutts computer.

Good, at least TXS is consistant. I guess good mechanics ARE hard to come by though . I'll just fish from the bank thanks!

jtexas · Dec 13, 2006

Re: poor shrub

Unable to locate any Saudi threat against the president. Please elaborate.

crunch · Dec 13, 2006

Re: poor shrub

Report: Saudis may back Sunnis

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/12/12/usa.saudi.iraq.reut/index.html

The Saudi ambassador to the United States Prince Turki al-Faisal told his staff on Monday that he had resigned. His resignation emerged just days after Turki fired a consultant who wrote an opinion piece in The Washington Post suggesting that the Saudis would back Iraq's Muslim Sunnis in the event of a wider sectarian conflict.

The article by a Saudi government security adviser, Nawaf Obaid, said the oil-rich desert kingdom would intervene with funding and weaponry to prevent Shiite militias from attacking Iraq's Sunnis. It also suggested Saudi Arabia could bring down world oil prices to squeeze Iran's Shiite rulers.

Best be re-thinking your investments Rod.

KaGee · Dec 13, 2006

Re: poor shrub

Let's see... post time 2:52 A.M..... Bars closed at 2:00.....Hmmmmmmm?

Link · Dec 13, 2006

Re: poor shrub

KaGee said:
Let's see... post time 2:52 A.M..... Bars closed at 2:00.....Hmmmmmmm?

now Now KaGee!

QC · Dec 13, 2006

Re: poor shrub

Actually isn't that 1:52 AM? Maybe they have a wireless network there?

BTW, I saw this story on Fox News last night. Maybe they are biased . . . against the right? hmmmmmmmm . . . No, wait, it is still right biased, because what the Saudi's were mad about was a possible pull-out (redeployment) of Iraq, so it is actually in support of "stay the course", so it is a conservative, pro-Bush position, so again, they suck!!! Reporting stuff others don't. Scumbags!!!

technostingray · Dec 13, 2006

Re: poor shrub

Now what did I do with that whistling emoticon I stole from ham? :scratchhead:

RubberFrog · Dec 13, 2006

Re: poor shrub

I'm really starting to like this feisty militant QC!

jtexas · Dec 13, 2006

Re: poor shrub

rod might've meant this economic threat:
"It also suggested Saudi Arabia could bring down world oil prices to squeeze Iran's Shiite rulers."

but wouldn't that lead you to bet against $7 gas? unless he's banking on the "theory of contrary opinion"

Sounds to me kind of like an offer from the Saudi's to take over - maybe we ought to think about it...

crunch · Dec 13, 2006

Re: poor shrub

Sounds to me kind of like an offer from the Saudi's to take over - maybe we ought to think about it...

They don't want us to leave, they made that very clear to Cheney when he was there last month.

This is an opinion piece written by Nawaf Obaid for The Washington Post, Nov. 29th. He was subsequently fired by his boss, Prince Turki al-Faisal for it... al-Faisal just resigned his position as US ambassador last Monday.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/28/AR2006112801277.html

Because King Abdullah has been working to minimize sectarian tensions in Iraq and reconcile Sunni and Shiite communities, because he gave President Bush his word that he wouldn't meddle in Iraq (and because it would be impossible to ensure that Saudi-funded militias wouldn't attack U.S. troops), these requests have all been refused. They will, however, be heeded if American troops begin a phased withdrawal from Iraq. As the economic powerhouse of the Middle East, the birthplace of Islam and the de facto leader of the world's Sunni community (which comprises 85 percent of all Muslims), Saudi Arabia has both the means and the religious responsibility to intervene.

Just a few months ago it was unthinkable that President Bush would prematurely withdraw a significant number of American troops from Iraq. But it seems possible today, and therefore the Saudi leadership is preparing to substantially revise its Iraq policy. Options now include providing Sunni military leaders (primarily ex-Baathist members of the former Iraqi officer corps, who make up the backbone of the insurgency) with the same types of assistance -- funding, arms and logistical support -- that Iran has been giving to Shiite armed groups for years.

Another possibility includes the establishment of new Sunni brigades to combat the Iranian-backed militias. Finally, Abdullah may decide to strangle Iranian funding of the militias through oil policy. If Saudi Arabia boosted production and cut the price of oil in half, the kingdom could still finance its current spending. But it would be devastating to Iran, which is facing economic difficulties even with today's high prices. The result would be to limit Tehran's ability to continue funneling hundreds of millions each year to Shiite militias in Iraq and elsewhere.

jtexas · Dec 13, 2006

Re: poor shrub

custombycrunch said:
Sounds to me kind of like an offer from the Saudi's to take over - maybe we ought to think about it...

They don't want us to leave, they made that very clear to Cheney when he was there last month.

just reading between the lines... :devil:

crunch · Dec 13, 2006

Re: poor shrub

Actually it would be a very attractive option for us... we could then fight it as a proxy war against Iran, although it might really pizz off the Saudis... Have to think about that one.

PW2 · Dec 13, 2006

Re: poor shrub

It seems like GW has got himself (and the US) into something of a box. In order to "stay the course" he must support Maliki, the Shiite leader who is aligned with Iran (fundamental bad news fo the US, and certainly never to be an ally in the war on terror

---OR---

withdraw and face the wrath of the Saudis and other Sunni based states over there who certainly don't want a dominant Iran in the region, which is also something the US doesn't want.

It's a bad thing when the two choices available both lead to very undesirable results.

I agree with Jtex that it sounds to me like there is room for some leverage to be exerted by some creative, skilled diplomatic effort in the region.
Too bad we have Bush's team in there.

QC · Dec 13, 2006

Re: poor shrub

Sounds to me like we are providing exactly the buffer needed, but that would be positive thinking. Shame on me . . .

jtexas · Dec 13, 2006

Re: poor shrub

QC said:
Sounds to me like we are providing exactly the buffer needed, but that would be positive thinking. Shame on me . . .

I'll agree that we're providing a needed buffer, if you'll agree that there is a "maximum cost" above which it's just not worth it. I mean total cost of all resources, monetary as well as human. Then all that's left is to negotiate that "maximum cost."

QC · Dec 13, 2006

Re: poor shrub

I agree to agree. I may have trouble with the next part of this though. Way too nebulous for me . . .

xtraham · Dec 13, 2006

Re: poor shrub

technostingray said:
Now what did I do with that whistling emoticon I stole from ham? :scratchhead:

poor shrub

Supreme Mariner

Commander

Rear Admiral

Commander

Fleet Admiral

Commander

Admiral

Rear Admiral

Supreme Mariner

Banned

Rear Admiral

Fleet Admiral

Commander

Fleet Admiral

Commander

Commander

Supreme Mariner

Fleet Admiral

Supreme Mariner

Lieutenant