UPS on MSNBC last night?

[The-UK-Guy]

First off,
"you are a wigger"....thats kind of rascist UKGuy, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, maybe you meant Whig-ger....An American favoring independence from Great Britain..


Anyhow, AV8 wants to take away money from our retiree's (veterans and non-veterans) who paid into the SS fund for years and instead give it to a un-neccessary war and occupation(majority opinion) we started under false pretenses? So you want to support the citizens and infrastructure of another country before our own citizens. I know your a veteran and love your country but this statement doesn't strenghten your case. Our founding fathers would not have started this war or thought it was needed and certainly would have followed the constitution to the tee. And BTW SS is for retiree's so they don't have to work, or maybe your confusing it with welfare.

oops. spelling was never one of my strong points

 

[upsgrunt]

Hey Griff, ever see these numbers?
In just one year. Remember the election in 2006?
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.
Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we have
seen:
1) Consumer confidence plummet;
2) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $3.50 a
gallon;
3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);A
4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity
value evaporate (stock and mutual fund losses);
5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2
trillion dollars;
6) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
America voted for change in 2006, and we got it!
Remember it's Congress that makes law not the President.
He has to work with what's handed to him.
Part 2:
Taxes...Whether Democrat or a Republican you will find these statistics
enlightening and amazing.


Taxes under Clinton 1999 Taxes under Bush 2008
Single making 30K - tax $8,400 Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $14,000 Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $23,250 Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K - tax $16,800 Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $21,000 Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $38,750 Married making 125K - tax $31,250
Both democratic candidates will return to the higher tax rates
It is amazing how many people that fall into the categories above think
Bush is screwing them and Bill Clinton was the greatest President ever.
If Obama or Hillary are elected, they both say they will repeal the Bush tax cuts and a good portion of the people that fall into the categories above
can't wait for it to happen.

 

[upsgrunt]

Here's the rest of it:

PART 3:
You think the war in Iraq is costing us too much? Read
this:
Boy, am I confused. I have been hammered with the
propaganda that it is the Iraq war and the war on terror
that is bankrupting us. I now find that to be RIDICULOUS.
1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to
illegal aliens each year by state governments.


2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food
assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free
school lunches for illegal aliens.

3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid
for illegal aliens.

4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and
secondary school education for children here illegally
and they cannot speak a word of English!


5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for
education for the American-born children of illegal
aliens, known as anchor babies.


6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate
illegal aliens.


7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal
aliens.


8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal
aliens for Welfare & social services by the American
taxpayers.


9. $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American
wages are caused by the illegal aliens.


10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime
rate that's two and a half times that of white
non-illegal aliens. In particular,
their children, are going to make a huge additional
crime problem in the US


11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION
illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border also, as
many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries.
Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and
marijuana, crossed into the U. S from the Southern
border.


12. The National Policy Institute, 'estimated that the
total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and
$230 billion or an average
cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five
year period.'
Verify at:
https://web.archive.org/web/20060617002018/http://nationalpolicyinstitute.org/pdf/deportation.pdf
13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in
remittances back to their countries of origin.


14. 'The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One
Million Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The
United States.'


The total cost is a whopping $ 338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A
YEAR.

 

[Jones]

There are problems with at least the first two emails you copied and pasted:

click#1

click#2

Either way I fail to see what any of that has to do with Iraq.
Tax rates and Illegal immigration are separate issues, the fact that we might be screwing up those two things doesn't somehow justify the Iraq war.

 

[av8torntn]

There are problems with at least the first two emails you copied and pasted:

click#1

click#2

Either way I fail to see what any of that has to do with Iraq.
Tax rates and Illegal immigration are separate issues, the fact that we might be screwing up those two things doesn't somehow justify the Iraq war.

Your click 2 says it is basically correct that tax rates are lower across the board even though the email does not take into account the alternative minimum tax. I am pretty confident that married making under 125k will have a very difficult time hitting the AMT. Your article says they basically got the answer right they just do not agree with how they arrived at the answer.


Your click number one says that Lieberman is an independent and I was fairly sure he was a member of the Democratic caucus. I am also pretty sure that Sanders is a member of the Democratic caucus.

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

Your click 2 says it is basically correct that tax rates are lower across the board even though the email does not take into account the alternative minimum tax. I am pretty confident that married making under 125k will have a very difficult time hitting the AMT. Your article says they basically got the answer right they just do not agree with how they arrived at the answer.


Your click number one says that Lieberman is an independent and I was fairly sure he was a member of the Democratic caucus. I am also pretty sure that Sanders is a member of the Democratic caucus.

Well of course that is what it says. Liberals are known for lying about something even when the truth is staring them right in the face. That is why they are masters at misinterpreting things. They've figured out how to make damaging facts go away. Either by ignoring them or totally twisting them.

 

[brett636]

Maybe Pres. Bush should have taken lessons from our brave Fireman and Policeman who didn't hesitate like a deer in headlights or shown "remarkable restraint" to respond to those in the twin towers (good thing your not in the Civil Service business) we'll leave that up to the professionals. Instead of channeling anger towards Micheal Moore, and Obama's (decorated ex-marine) preacher (which in your estimation makes the same cherry picked sermon every Sunday for the last twenty years and you compare him to the KKK), how about staying focused on the real issues effecting Americans, like War, Economy, Science and Technology, etc....instead, the only focus of the conservative's mudslinging agenda and those who share their views is Rev Wright, Bill Ayers, bitter comments, Obama's middle name,Obama's father, Obama's white grandmother, Liberal Media, Racism card, flagpins, Micheal Moore etc.....shouldn't Republicans, Rush, Sean, Ann and Fox groupies be addressing the REAL issues that effect Americans, or, with the Republican track record of the last 8 years there conceding they can't win on the issues.

Your absolutly right. Lets not look into the background of the man who wants to be the president of the united states. Lets all believe everything he has to say on the issues since we know politicians never lie about how they will conduct themselves in office. Lets ignore the fact that he has a racist as a mentor, an unrepentant terrorist as a close friend, and looks down on small town Americans who "cling" to their bibles and guns simply because they are bitter of their economic situations. Just ignore the man behind the curtain.

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

Your absolutly right. Lets not look into the background of the man who wants to be the president of the united states. Lets all believe everything he has to say on the issues since we know politicians never lie about how they will conduct themselves in office. Lets ignore the fact that he has a racist as a mentor, an unrepentant terrorist as a close friend, and looks down on small town Americans who "cling" to their bibles and guns simply because they are bitter of their economic situations. Just ignore the man behind the curtain.

But hey....he wants "CHANGE" so let's just follow him blindly down the path into socialism. LOL!

 

[Bush ruined America]

Hey Griff, ever see these numbers?
In just one year. Remember the election in 2006?
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.
Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we have
seen:
1) Consumer confidence plummet;
2) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $3.50 a
gallon;
3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);
4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity
value evaporate (stock and mutual fund losses);
5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2
trillion dollars;
6) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
America voted for change in 2006, and we got it!
Remember it's Congress that makes law not the President.
He has to work with what's handed to him.
Part 2:
Taxes...Whether Democrat or a Republican you will find these statistics
enlightening and amazing.
www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html;
Taxes under Clinton 1999 Taxes under Bush 2008
Single making 30K - tax $8,400 Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $14,000 Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $23,250 Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K - tax $16,800 Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $21,000 Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $38,750 Married making 125K - tax $31,250
Both democratic candidates will return to the higher tax rates
It is amazing how many people that fall into the categories above think
Bush is screwing them and Bill Clinton was the greatest President ever.
If Obama or Hillary are elected, they both say they will repeal the Bush tax cuts and a good portion of the people that fall into the categories above
can't wait for it to happen.

Dude, gas prices have been rising ever since America went to war with Iraq back in 2003.
So your theory about the Dems being responsible for the rise in gas prices is shot down because you say they took over in 2006. You need to do research a little bit better and not post only what you want to post. According to what I read your tax numbers are all bull*h*t also..

 

[brett636]

Dude, gas prices have been rising ever since America went to war with Iraq back in 2003.
So your theory about the Dems being responsible for the rise in gas prices is shot down because you say they took over in 2006. You need to do research a little bit better and not post only what you want to post. According to what I read your tax numbers are all bull*h*t also..

Dude, gas prices have been rising since it has been on the market. Its called inflation. The problem is the rate of the increase. In Nov of 2006 I went fulltime combo, and on my route was a shell station selling 87 octane for $1.83/gallon. Today I drove home from school and every station was at $3.55 for that a gallon of 87 octane. The democrats took congress on a promise to lower gas prices, yet we have seen record increases since they gained control. I don't see that as being a coincidence.

 

[Jones]

Your click 2 says it is basically correct that tax rates are lower across the board even though the email does not take into account the alternative minimum tax. I am pretty confident that married making under 125k will have a very difficult time hitting the AMT. Your article says they basically got the answer right they just do not agree with how they arrived at the answer.

Eh, that's not actually what it says. Taxes are lower under Bush, but that's about the only thing they got right. The numbers quoted in that email are completely off base. And it's not because they did not take into account the AMT, it's because they didn't take into account anything, not even the standard deduction. Snopes diplomatically attributes these oversights to plain old ignorance, but I think that's being a little generous.

For instance, in grunt's email the chart indicates that someone making 30k is paying about $4000.00 less in taxes under Bush than under Clinton. Now I don't care who you are, 4K is a chunk of cash! If you're making 30k a year it's about 10 weeks pay. If this were actually true it would be something to get worked up about. But according to the Tax Foundation, it's not true. The actual difference is about $400.00 (closer to just one weeks pay). Grunt's chart isn't just a little wrong, it's literally 1000% wrong. So it's not just the methodology that's incorrect, it's the numbers as well.

Taxes are lower under Bush, and Snopes says as much. If that's the point you want to make it should be enough to just give the real numbers,no? Why twist and misinterpret to make things look ten times as bad (or as good) as they actually are? As best I can make out from Big's latest gibberish, that's supposed to be what the evil liberals do.

 

[av8torntn]

Eh, that's not actually what it says. Taxes are lower under Bush, but that's about the only thing they got right. The numbers quoted in that email are completely off base. And it's not because they did not take into account the AMT, it's because they didn't take into account anything, not even the standard deduction. Snopes diplomatically attributes these oversights to plain old ignorance, but I think that's being a little generous.

For instance, in grunt's email the chart indicates that someone making 30k is paying about $4000.00 less in taxes under Bush than under Clinton. Now I don't care who you are, 4K is a chunk of cash! If you're making 30k a year it's about 10 weeks pay. If this were actually true it would be something to get worked up about. But according to the Tax Foundation, it's not true. The actual difference is about $400.00 (closer to just one weeks pay). Grunt's chart isn't just a little wrong, it's literally 1000% wrong. So it's not just the methodology that's incorrect, it's the numbers as well.

Taxes are lower under Bush, and Snopes says as much. If that's the point you want to make it should be enough to just give the real numbers,no? Why twist and misinterpret to make things look ten times as bad (or as good) as they actually are? As best I can make out from Big's latest gibberish, that's supposed to be what the evil liberals do.

From your article.

"The gist of comparison presented here is correct."

It goes on to say that it is over simplified in part because it assumes that you have no children and does not account for the AMT.


There is an entire paragraph scolding the email author for not showing his work.

The email says taxes are lower under Bush than Clinton, the snopes article says taxes are lower under Bush than Clinton, and you even admit taxes are lower under Bush than Clinton so you just seem upset that they did not apply the standard deduction to both years. Is that correct?

When I said the article says the email got the answer basically right to me question was did Bush just cut taxes only for the rich.

This is for the other article you posted.

http://democrats.senate.gov/members/

Seems the Democrats claim both Senators that were mentioned in the article are members of their caucus. If this is true as the Dem's claim then they would indeed have control of the Senate. This would not be a evenly divided Senate. This gives the Democrats all kinds of powers with rules and committees.

 

[Jones]

The email says taxes are lower under Bush than Clinton, the snopes article says taxes are lower under Bush than Clinton, and you even admit taxes are lower under Bush than Clinton so you just seem upset that they did not apply the standard deduction to both years. Is that correct?

Not at all. What I don't like is that they specifically chose to leave out things like the standard deduction in order to make the difference in tax rates seem more dramatic than it actually is, ie, making a $400 dollar per year difference into a $4000.00 dollar per year difference.

When I said the article says the email got the answer basically right to me question was did Bush just cut taxes only for the rich.

I don't remember anyone asking that question, and the charts provided in the email only go up to 125k. That's certainly well off, but I wouldn't call it rich. To me the point of the email was to point out the (supposed) dramatic differences in tax rates on the working class, hence the misrepresentation of the numbers. Some people might get worked up about $400, but a whole lot more will get worked up about $4000, especially if they are making 30k. This type of fearmongering is dishonest, and it's precisely the kind of thing that Brian Wesbury was concerned about in the article you posted here.

This is for the other article you posted.

http://democrats.senate.gov/members/

Seems the Democrats claim both Senators that were mentioned in the article are members of their caucus. If this is true as the Dem's claim then they would indeed have control of the Senate. This would not be a evenly divided Senate. This gives the Democrats all kinds of powers with rules and committees.

I'm not sure you're responding to the main point of that article. Yes, Lieberman and Sanders have chosen to caucus with the Democrats, which is their right as Independents. But Snopes admits that they are just quibbling about that (hence their reference to it not being "technically correct"). The main point is that the problems we are seeing currently like the housing market meltdown have been years in the making, and it's a real stretch to try and pin it all on the democrats who got elected less than 2 years ago.

 

[Leftinbuilding]

Said I was finished posting here, but had to sneak back in for a minute. Did you know "Snopes" is a housewife in S. Cal.? Not exactly the end all for any topic. Ok, I am gone again.

 

[av8torntn]

Not at all. What I don't like is that they specifically chose to leave out things like the standard deduction in order to make the difference in tax rates seem more dramatic than it actually is, ie, making a $400 dollar per year difference into a $4000.00 dollar per year difference.



I don't remember anyone asking that question, and the charts provided in the email only go up to 125k.

I probably took it wrong but when I read this I was thinking about the whole tax cut for the rich thing or Bush only cut taxes for the rich or any other way it has been phrased this last year leading up to the election.

"It is amazing how many people that fall into the categories above think Bush is screwing them "



That's certainly well off, but I wouldn't call it rich. To me the point of the email was to point out the (supposed) dramatic differences in tax rates on the working class, hence the misrepresentation of the numbers. Some people might get worked up about $400, but a whole lot more will get worked up about $4000, especially if they are making 30k. This type of fearmongering is dishonest, and it's precisely the kind of thing that Brian Wesbury was concerned about in the article you posted here.



I'm not sure you're responding to the main point of that article. Yes, Lieberman and Sanders have chosen to caucus with the Democrats, which is their right as Independents. But Snopes admits that they are just quibbling about that (hence their reference to it not being "technically correct"). The main point is that the problems we are seeing currently like the housing market meltdown have been years in the making, and it's a real stretch to try and pin it all on the democrats who got elected less than 2 years ago.

 

[Bush ruined America]

You know, you Bush lovers act like he did such a great job for this country. When will you admit he ruined this country. He comes from a wealthy family who have ties to big oil. His popularity is at an all time low. Is that a coincidence? Or are people just fed up with him. Once again, you cannot give a reason why he invaded Iraq after 9/11 when it was Osama Bin Laden who was responsible for the attacks on America and not Iraq. And all you can do is blame the Democrats. Just imagine had his daddy not been saved after being shot down in World War II. No Bush to ruin this country!!!!

 

[Bush ruined America]

Whenever we look forward to a potential war with Iran, the first logical question to ask is: why did the United States invade Iraq? Naturally, the mainstream media (as well as the alternative media) have given us plenty of supposed reasons, from WMD’s, terrorism, oil, Saddam Hussein, al Qaeda, 9-11, and the desire to spread 'freedom and democracy' (ha, that's a good one) throughout the Middle East. But every one of these explanations is a smokescreen to cover our true motives.

The real reason we waged war with Iraq is that in November, 2000 Saddam Hussein refused to accept the U.S. dollar for his oil, and instead switched to the euro. Hussein also made a dramatic move by switching all of his U.N. reserves from the dollar to the euro. Thus, our invasion was nothing more than an attempt to maintain the dollar’s monopoly on oil purchases throughout the world. Stated differently, we wanted there to be no other choice than the dollar as the world’s sole petro-currency. Our attack, then, was an example to other countries – don’t convert your system over to the euro, and don’t challenge the dollar’s dominance.

And today, even though the U.S. is mired in a godawful war, we did thwart a widespread move to an alternate currency. In addition, we’ve also encircled the Middle East with military bases (especially Iran) so that any future uprisings or shifts away from “popular convention” can be immediately quelled.

To prove this is what happened, ask yourself: what is the first thing the United States did in 2003 after invading Iraq? Answer: after our troops “shocked and awed” their way into Baghdad, they immediately set-up a central bank! Now think about this scenario. We’re in the middle of a war, and what do we do first, above and beyond everything else? We set-up a bank! How much importance do you think this notion has? An enormous amount.

We then ripped-up all of Saddam’s old euro-based oil contracts, switched everything back to the dollar, and tied the whole damn thing back into the Federal Reserve. Our planners also cut-off the euro-based Oil-for-Food program within two months of “Mission Accomplished.”

Now when you think back to America’s invasion of Iraq, why do you think so many countries were perturbed by our actions? It’s because our Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) nullified all of the previous euro-based oil contracts that Saddam Hussein made between 1997-2002 with countries such as France, Russia, and China. The total worth of these agreements totaled $1.1 trillion! They all disappeared into thin air, and had to be renegotiated in dollars.

At this point, one must wonder: how did things get this way? When you consider all the different countries in the world, and all its various people and currencies, why are they only able to buy oil with one type of currency? To answer this question, we need to return in time to 1971. Richard Milhouse Nixon was president, and to appease his Rockefeller controllers who put him in office, he committed one of the gravest offenses ever against this country by taking it off the gold standard.

Shortly thereafter, Henry Kissinger, along with Treasury Secretary William Simon, made a secret deal with Saudi Arabia’s King Fahd where all OPEC oil could only be sold in U.S. dollars. [For a much more extensive explanation of this closed-door deal, see The New World Order Illusion]

Therefore, in the early 1970’s the gold standard was replaced by the oil standard, and since all oil was now priced in U.S. dollars, the oil standard became the dollar standard! So, since everyone in the world needed dollars to buy oil, our dollar became the de facto fiat currency for nearly all international trade, including the World Bank and the IMF (International Monetary Fund). What this phenomenon essentially did was allow the U.S. to be subsidized by the entire world.

Why, you may wonder? Because, since everybody needs our dollar, and since the dollar was no longer constrained by a “gold standard,” we (meaning our Federal Reserve) could literally have the Treasury Department print money at will. Of course this scenario was highly beneficial to America, but at the same time it created huge problems. First, because we aren’t able to control our spending, an astronomical $8 trillion deficit has resulted. But instead of restraining our carte blanche excess (especially on the War Machine and social programs – remember, George Bush hasn’t vetoed one single spending bill since he took office in 2001), we simply print more money at will to cover our debts.

Of course we’ll analyze this situation more thoroughly in subsequent installments of this article, but the point to remember right now is that the real reason we attacked Iraq wasn’t WMD’s; and Iran’s threat of developing “nuclear capabilities” is likewise propaganda.

The real intent behind all these veils is the dollar’s monopoly on international oil trading, along with the New World Order’s plan to reshape the global economic system. Will our dollar survive, or will it tank in the near future? Or, will America merely be used to do the NWO’s dirty work until our usefulness is completely exhausted; at which point we’ll be discarded like yesterday’s trash?

 

[traveler]

You know, you Bush lovers act like he did such a great job for this country. When will you admit he ruined this country. He comes from a wealthy family who have ties to big oil. His popularity is at an all time low. Is that a coincidence? Or are people just fed up with him. Once again, you cannot give a reason why he invaded Iraq after 9/11 when it was Osama Bin Laden who was responsible for the attacks on America and not Iraq. And all you can do is blame the Democrats. Just imagine had his daddy not been saved after being shot down in World War II. No Bush to ruin this country!!!!

You certainly have alot to say for a person without the guts to register. I copied your shorter post just so I didn't take too much space. Both posts are just silly!

 

[1989]

Here is an article on the ethanol proplem i've been talking about. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24361263

 

[wkmac]

wkmac,
I think that it is probably my fault. I made that comment that not too many people watch MSNBC and Griff gave his interpretation of that. Sorry to turn a thread.............

Scratch,

You should be drawn and quartered!


Had you not stepped in someone else would have so might as well get it over with!

That said and who am I to fight "DEMOCRACY" and the will of the people here!

Bush Ruined America,

I have to agree with Traveler that at least have the decency to register instead of hiding behind the "BUSHES" so to speak!


You did however raise a extremely valid and surprisingly little known point about the events leading up to Iraq and it didn't help that Saddam tried to pull this rabbit out of his hat but IMO it really was an afterthought on his part. The assault to remove Saddam and install a US/Israeli controlled "democracy" was began as far back as the mid 1990's when Richard Perle under the commission of Institute of Advanced Strategic and Political Studies in Israel prepared the document entitled "A Clean Break" https://web.archive.org/web/20060416082235/http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm
in which a key essential was the bringing down of Saddam and the conversion of Iraq to a western style democracy for the advantage of securing oil for the west and making Iraq a center pin on containment for Iranian Shia's and Arab Sunni's who oppose Israeli expansionism to the biblical fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise in Genesis 12 of what is known as "Greater Israel."

Many in the American christian right who hold a post millenial eschatology see this fulfillment as a means of accelerating the rapture, Jesus' return and the 1000 year King of God. In other words, it's a means of self fulfilling prophesy. In the Muslim world, we have the same clash as they believe the Abraham promise came to their forefather Ismael and they hope is a greater Islamic world of controlling the entire Middle East according to that promise. The Mauhdi army takes it's name from the Shia messiah of the future who is called by the name Mauhdi. We are caught in the middle of a literal Holy War with global business interests on the sides manipulating for the purpose of power and control.

More on Perle and the document "A Clean Break" can also be found at Wikipedia however I'd pay more attention to the footnotes and external links to verify all that is claimed in the articles and I say that about any Wiki article.

On Perle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Perle

On " A Clean Break":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_for_Securing_the_Realm

You might also look at Perle and his activities in the late 90's in the waining years of the Clinton adminstration and his actions with the Project for A New American Century.

Now let's talk Iran for a minute. Unlike the Arab Sunni, the Iranian Shia are Persian and have a rather different history and perspective. It may also shock and surprise many that much of our customs, religious beliefs, etc. come more from Persia and that area of the world than it does having any origins in western Europe. (Thank you Imperial Roman Empire and the later Holy Roman Empire)

We also share common heritage somewhat in the Proto-Indo European peoples but that link dates back 6000 years ago. Being those links have all but broken let's look at Iran today in light of you comment about Saddam and the euro for oil.

Back around 2005-2006, we heard the beginnings of saber rattling towards Iran after all the focus had been on the sunni world. The Shia had been a silent friend in the overthrow of Saddam because odd as it may be, they shared a common benefit with Israel with this guy being gone. But Iran made a terrible mistake in judgement as one William Clark points out from the global research website. The plans exposed may seem very striking to another ill fated attempt in the year 2000' by another miscalculating Middle East leader.

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CLA410A.html

Should we be surprised that history just repeats itself because we'd to stupid to learn from it?

C Ya!