Homestead mailing list

[Clansgian AT wmconnect.com]

> McCain really does want to bomb, bomb, bomb Iran. I don't. Hillary
> probably would, if reluctantly, to prove she has figurative cojones.
> That leaves Obama.

Iraq was invaded in order to prevent a non-dollar oil bourse from coming into 
existence.  In all likelihood, the primary purpose for invading Afghanistan 
was as a preparation for invading Iraq.

Had we NOT invaded Iraq and the bourse had come to be, our economy and way of 
life would have drastically changed, we would no longer be dipping our finger 
in the word's oil pie and taking our cut from every transaction of same.

To everyone who has been a virulent war protestor, I say, you might as well 
have been carrying signs that said "Tear down the McMansions and get a horse" 
because it was a clear choice, maintain our lifestyle or invade Iraq.

Now we have gotten poor exhange for our efforts because in the end we are 
still loosing our oily grip on the word's economic affairs.  C'est la huile!

We will not bomb nor invade Iran over nukes or any other reason, no matter 
the rhetoric and no matter from whom.  We would only consider that if Iran 
bade 
fair to be successful in a non-dollar oil bourse, as it seems they are indeed 
succeeding.  No matter who, McCain, Obama, Alfred E. Neuman, the decision 
then 
will be to allow the dollar to collapse or bomb Iran.

It isn't going to make any difference who is making that decision.

Equally, all three candidates know (or they don't) that the jig is up.  Even 
if we do bomb Iran, it will only slightly delay the inevitable.  I don't see 
any advantage in Obama over the others in this.   </HTML>