Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

FreeMarkets (40.49)

Peace is Naive!



April 27, 2012 – Comments (7)

I haven't blogged in quite some time.  I like to be ahead of the curve and for some reason the issue of Iranian nuclear weapons hasn't been front page news in quite some time.  Come the election, this will probably come back front and center since saber rattling seems to get Americans juiced up and will make Obama's re-election that much easier. 

So here's my latest.

7 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On April 27, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Valyooo (35.29) wrote:

Peace also isn't as fun as stabbing babies

Report this comment
#2) On April 27, 2012 at 4:16 PM, DJDynamicNC (38.57) wrote:

You think Obama will start saber-rattling?

Hasn't it been the same New American Century fools all along who have been complaining about how much of a peacenik he is on Iran?

I'm sorry, this is just a shocking kind of statement that bears no resemblance to the reality I've experienced. I'd be interested in some examples you have of Obama being not only war-like with Iran, but also MORE war-like than his Republican opponents.

Report this comment
#3) On April 27, 2012 at 5:05 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

Obama's stated position is that he will attack under certain conditions and that Iran must buckle under in the face of all military options being open.

That position is no different than Mitt Romney's. The rhetoric that Obama uses is less hawkish. That may mean something in the cosmic sense of things, but I don't think so.

Rombama 2012!

David in Liberty


Report this comment
#4) On April 27, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Option1307 (30.58) wrote:

Rombama 2012!

Ha ha ha new bumper sticker slogan? I think so! +1

Report this comment
#5) On April 27, 2012 at 5:39 PM, DJDynamicNC (38.57) wrote:

David - I quite agree, actually, but the initial claim was regarding saber rattling, which I associate with rhetoric and, consequently, with the Republicans (in this instance).

Could simply be a difference of perceived connotation.

Report this comment
#6) On April 29, 2012 at 3:23 PM, leohaas (30.06) wrote:

So, how do I hedge my investment portfolio against the ultimate outcome of the saber ratling by "Rombama"?


Report this comment
#7) On April 30, 2012 at 1:06 AM, rfaramir (28.69) wrote:

"how do I hedge my investment portfolio against the ultimate outcome of the saber ratling by "Rombama"?"

Contribute all you can to Ron Paul 2012. He's the only peace candidate. If he were to win, it would also help your portfolio (so long as you're not long financials) by him being the pro-prosperity candidate.

As to which party goes to war more often (as opposed to rhetoric)... Wilson (D) WWI, FDR (D) WWII, Truman (D) Korean War, Johnson (D) Vietnam, Reagan (R) Grenada Libya, Bush 41 (R) Panama Gulf I, Clinton (D) Bosnia Herzegovina Macedonia Albania Afghanistan Sudan Kosovo, Bush 43 (R) Afghanistan and Iraq, Obama (D) Libya.

It's actually kind of close. The D's go to war much more than perceived, noticably more than the R's. I'd've added bigger, but W's Afghan and Iraq wars have been too costly, in terms of money, at least, to say that.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners