Libya?

Libya does not have to have anything to do with it. Gas prices have a mind of their own, and world aggravation will have a much greater effect. Watch the price of gold spike now, too.

Gas prices are allegedly supply and demand, based on the price of crude oil. Yet other things (motor oil, plastics, etc) which also depend on oil do not experience the price spikes at the same time as gas. That tells me it's manipulated for short term profit. Got nothing to do with Libya etc, that's just a convenient excuse. The real deal is futures trading:

http://www.theoptionsguide.com/gasoline-futures-buying.aspx

http://www.theoptionsguide.com/gasoline-futures-selling.aspx

That's what really drives gas prices.

carguy123 wrote: Printing more money to give us an unlimited QE3 will probably help in lots of ways outside of my paycheck which means that ultimately it will hurt.

Found this article interesting...

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-animated-gif-of-boy-throwing-money-out-of-the-window-is-not-a-metaphor-for-qe-2012-9

rebelgtp wrote:

moparman76_69 wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFlosNODqhE

Spooky thing is they were only a few months off on the death of Kim Jong-il and the game came out I think 6 months to a year before he died?

Homefront came out in 2011 iirc......thank you for posting the intro vid moparman.....its all very believable too.

yamaha wrote: its all very believable too.

Um... besides the fact that South Korea could completely annihilate North Korea at the drop of a hat?

HiTempguy wrote:

carguy123 wrote: Printing more money to give us an unlimited QE3 will probably help in lots of ways outside of my paycheck which means that ultimately it will hurt.

Found this article interesting... http://www.businessinsider.com/the-animated-gif-of-boy-throwing-money-out-of-the-window-is-not-a-metaphor-for-qe-2012-9

That's not a boy, THAT'S SPANKY! From the Little Rascals. My hero! Or at least he was when I was a kid.

I found this video the other day about the federal reserve. Pretty interesting once you get past the first 3 minutes of story telling. Not really a political stancing video. If you have 30 minutes, its worth a watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGk5ioEXlIM

I'll just leave this here: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/14/Colonel-Says-Hillary-Clinton-Made-Decision-to-Have-No-Marines-at-Benghazi

Dr. Hess wrote: I'll just leave this here: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/14/Colonel-Says-Hillary-Clinton-Made-Decision-to-Have-No-Marines-at-Benghazi

OK. A link to an article from Breitbart bashing Hillary Clinton.

This sounds like a political thread to me.

Looks like somebody is taking his canoe over the Watergate again.

Snowdoggie wrote:

Dr. Hess wrote: I'll just leave this here: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/14/Colonel-Says-Hillary-Clinton-Made-Decision-to-Have-No-Marines-at-Benghazi

OK. A link to an article from Breitbart bashing Hillary Clinton. This sounds like a political thread to me.

True, using Breitbart as a source puts a "political" spin on things. But, take away the politics and it still raises some questions.

Was the Ambassador's security team comprised of military personel, private contractors or locals?

Does Libya or the State Department allow US security teams to actively engage in potentially lethal defense or does said defense fall into the purview of domestic personnel?

If the US security team is allowed to forcefully defend itself, why was there no reported collateral damage to the attackers or even any of the protestors?

Did the consul security team intentionally not defend itself with lethal force (an incredibly brave decision, btw) or was it not equipped/allowed to do so?

Remove the politics and there are still legitimate questions.

I didn't get here quickly enough to read the article before you answered Oldsaw, but those were exactly the questions I had heard asked in a number of places and they made me wonder.

I have no idea what policies are, but I had heard that as a gesture of good will most if not all of the security detail was from native sources.

That doesn't sound good to me if the embassy is on friendly soil much less one of the middle eastern countries.

I'm by no means an expert on international law. It does seem to me that the two contractors killed along with the ambassador were not there in a capacity as members of the US military, therefore they were not bound by the rules of engagement. That means they'd be able to shoot to kill BUT would be subject to prosecution under the laws of that country.

It does seem stupid to not use US military to guard an embassy in a hostile country such as Libya, no matter where the decision came from. Again from my limited understanding of these things, an embassy is considered to be the sovereign soil of the country that occupies that embassy, therefore it can have military there and the host country can't do much about it except sever diplomatic relations and throw them out, which opens a whole 'nother can of worms.

The hammer of ban looms large over this thread. Sad, because it seemed like we had something relevant and interesting going on here.

kazoospec wrote: The hammer of ban looms large over this thread. Sad, because it seemed like we had something relevant and interesting going on here.

Yeah, it's likely to happen now that "someone" decided to punch this into a more political realm.

Thanks, dude.

The more pertinent questions (IMHO) have to do with security standards regardless of who or what party is in office. For all I know, what we did in Libya may be the de facto procedure for any embassy or consulate on a foreign soil. If it is, then there is a serious need to re-assess that position.

If it isn't, then there plenty of reasons for criticism and condemnation no matter who made that decision. It doesn't have to be political to ask questions and assign accountability.

Anyway, the thread was interesting while it lasted.

In reply to HiTempguy:

That is questionable......basically, that story line goes into more detail through the game by finding newspaper articles in the levels. Some talked about how the north forced the south into it with the use of blowing up nuclear plants and such........the funniest article in there claimed they purchased US weapons because "americans know how to kill each other the best"

South Korea in general is reliant on its allies to prevent an invasion.......if we are involved elsewhere, it could happen.

yamaha wrote:

rebelgtp wrote:

moparman76_69 wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFlosNODqhE

Spooky thing is they were only a few months off on the death of Kim Jong-il and the game came out I think 6 months to a year before he died?

Homefront came out in 2011 iirc......thank you for posting the intro vid moparman.....its all very believable too.

Yeah looks like it came out in March of 2011. Kim Jong-il died in December of 2011 and they said in the game he was to die in 2012. Somebody was a good guesser on that one.

This easter egg video for the game made me laugh because I know many people that think this way

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYwej9der68&feature=relmfu

And here's you gas price spike: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/09/16/iran-commander-nothing-will-remain-israel-if-it-takes-military-action/?test=latestnews

Honestly, I don't really think Iran could close the straights even if they wanted to unless, as some reports claim, China has supplied them with Silkworm missles. If that's not true, I don't think they have the capability to do much to stop the flow of oil in the gulf. The limited success they had with speed boat attacks during the "tanker war" with Iraq would be pretty much suicide with the JSTARS platform in the air. Their air force and navy are full of hardware relegated to museums everywhere else. The "threat" of proxy terror attacks are exactly the excuse Israel has been looking for to clean house along their borders and they know it. All they can really do is bluster and hope to drive up oil prices and bring international pressure to bear. At that, with the help of a bunch of commodities trainers hoping to cash in, they may have some success.

In reply to kazoospec: Israel of all nations understands this......they play for keeps everytime because of it. I doubt they will be any less likely to attack iran because of that statement.

Conversely, I believe Iran would have to attack our fleetsor bases in the middle east to draw us into a direct role in any confrontation........as that would most likely be unwise.

Never count out nations with obsolete military arms......technology can be beaten with sheer numbers(see ww2 german eastern front for proof)

Kazoo,
I was in the PG during the "tanker wars" era, on an unarmed tanker going to Bahrain. There were no Iranian speed boats. They used jet aircraft to bomb the tankers. We would see tankers that had been hit when we were in port. We, on MSC charter, had a US destroyer escort from the Gulf of Oman on up to Bahrain and back. The Iranians had a BIG ship come out and challenge everyone coming through the strait. They always backed down. I don't know my navy ships, being a merchant sailor, but I think it was a "cruiser" and our captain said that being in the middle of that thing and the destroyer going off would be a bad thing.
Anyway, you can't just "close" the strait. Sure, they could launch a silkworm, but they could only do that once, as after that, there would be no more places to launch one from. Whatever they hit and sank would just be a navigation hazard at worst.

Hope y'all are getting ready... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/16/hezbollah-protests-innocence-muslims_n_1888452.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Ccompaq-desktop%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D206338

In reply to racerfink:

Meh, it's modus operandi for the radical elements within Islam. They use any pretext to rile-up poor, uneducated, hopeless young men and have them go after the leaders who show any co-operation with the US. Under those circumstances it's not all that difficult.

Not so long ago it was a book, then it was cartoons and now it's a movie.

Israel is right there in the middle of it all. Our embassy "issues" are minor compared to what they experience every single day of the year so of course they can be testy and play for keeps. It's the only thing that keeps the wolves at bay.

Snowdoggie wrote: And since we are talking about 'foreign policy' and not 'politics' I am going to drop this here too. It raises some serious questions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bZkp7q19f0 Margie. You can lock this thread and ban us all at any time now.

We had a little chat-see here, and we're just going to start with you.

Margie