And if you read Rantburg's This Week in Guns weekly column on Saturday, you would already know the collapse is well underway.
The Obama caused bubble in ammunition prices seems ready to bust. Over the last few years people have seen ammunition prices double or triple. Handgun and rifle ammunition has been hard to find at times. .22 long rifle ammunition tripled in price over the last 18 months. People would line up to buy ammunition at prices two and three times the level that they were just two years ago.
All of that is about to change. Ammunition supply looks as though it is ready to catch up with demand. Centerfire pistol and rifle cartridges are available on most store shelves. When I walked into a local Wal-Mart this morning, their were over 30 signs on the ammunition case indicating a rollback of prices by 10-15%.
In classic economic fashion, the bubble was fueled by actions of the Federal government. Many federal agencies bought enormous quantities of ammunition. While the quantities were only a small percentage of total production, the raw figures fueled conspiracy theories. Obama administration actions fueled fear of coming shortages, gun bans, registration of ammunition sales, even potential low level warfare. All of this led to the current bubble of ammunition sales.
In response, the economy reacted the way that free markets are supposed to work. Ammunition suppliers started running their manufacturing plants day and night, adding additional shifts. Importers scoured the world markets, trying to buy everything they could to satisfy the insatiable demand. Foreign manufacturers bumped up their production to try to fill the desire for more and more ammunition. Ammunition production was at the highest level ever for small arms, short of war.
But unlike during war, this ammunition was not being fired in combat. Most of it was not being fired at all. It was being stored against future need. Very little was actually being used.
There are limits to this sort of demand. I gave away a couple of thousand .22 rounds to make a point. A person who only had 37 .22 shells out of a box of 50 is well justified in wanting a thousand or two, or a case of 5,000 "just because". Once they have the 5,000, their desire for more becomes less. Then demand drops, likely below pre-bubble levels for a while.
In the meantime, manufactures cannot stop production instantly. They have orders in the pipeline. They have supplies coming in that they have no storage space for. They have employees that they have trained and who they do not want to lay off. For all these reasons, demand drops suddenly, but supply cannot drop as quickly. As supply took a while to spin up, it will take a while to spin down.
This means that retailers and wholesalers will be saddled with a glut of merchandise that they cannot sell at the current high prices. They will have to put it on sale. Lower prices bring about the expectation that prices will fall even further. The prices crash.
That is when a prudent person buys what they want, at very good prices. Demand will not stay at the artificially low prices of the crash. The new crop of urban, hip, shooters will want to feed their equipment, and the new demand will be higher than it was before the bubble, but it will take a while to settle out.
Metal prices have already fallen from the highs of the bubble. Copper and lead are far lower than they were. You will know that the bubble is close to the bottom when you see .22 LR on sale for below 4 cents per round. At the lowest, we might see .22 cartridges below $10 for 500.
Š2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
#2
My Wal-Mart hasn't had .38 or .357 ammo since forever; I even stopped checking the firearms counter.
Guess I'll start checking again. :-D
Posted by: Barbara ||
06/09/2014 12:53 Comments ||
Top||
#3
This also means that all the 170 million gun owners in the US have what they surmise is enough cellar ammo to last them through whatever comes. Now they will buy new stock and shoot old stock keeping their reserve up.
I don't quite agree with everything the ranter sez here, but it is a good rant nevertheless.
When a liberal can't win an argument with facts, he pulls out one of the following cards. 1. Race. 2. Culture. 3. Gender.
Let's take a look the drivel Joni Balter has written:
You would think that a proposal to require background checks on virtually all gun sales would be a no-brainer in the blue state of Washington.
You would think pro-choice feminists would be OK with parental rights when it comes to abortion, but they're not.
A recent poll, taken before the killings last month in Santa Barbara, California, showed that 72 percent of the state's voters support a background-check measure on November's ballot — 77 percent of women and 68 percent of men. #1. Our 2nd Amendment is not subject to a vote.
#2 More women than ever are buying guns, getting concealed carry licenses, even going hunting.
Women are the key in gun-control initiatives. A national 2013 NBC-Wall Street Journal poll, for example, found that 65 percent of women favor stronger gun laws, compared with 44 percent of men. But certain groups of female voters in particular — unmarried, younger, minority — are known for sitting out midterm elections. Exactly! Because in reality they don't care. A proud NRA member always votes, because he cares. Gun grabbers are bitching about guns today, saving the whales tomorrow.
The measure would expand criminal and public safety background checks to almost all sales and transfers, including online purchases and from private sellers at gun shows. Federal law already requires background checks on sales from licensed dealers to block purchases by criminals and the dangerously mentally ill. Lies, the blackmarket will remain just as strong. Ever heard of Facebook, Instagram, etc? There are many ways to execute a person to person gun sale without going through a background check. On the other hand, most smart criminals prefer not to leave an online trail, so these measures are nothing more than law-abiding gun owner harassment.
Activists see a path to success in Mothers Against Drunk Driving, which won tougher laws with grass-roots networking and lobbying efforts. After the Newtown killings, a group called Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America emerged to create a similar strategy on guns. (That group is working in a coalition, Everytown for Gun Safety, alongside Mayors Against Illegal Guns, which was started by former New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, the founder of Bloomberg News parent Bloomberg LP.) All these groups are staffed and run by the same small cabal of people, who network, work with and run other progressive groups. It's a small community and they all know each other.
Using digital peer pressure, She means spamming...
advocates will be contacting infrequent voters via Facebook and Twitter, with everything from campaign logos in place of personal profile pictures to gun-safety postings and tweets. Women are much more likely than men to use Facebook and other social-networking tools. These people think we're just going to sit down and let them do what they want. The NRA, Gun Owners of America, even Guns Save Lives has far more followers than MDA and the Bloomberg posse. Even the Open Carry movement gets more publicity than the dumb mothers. As for Bloomberg, I've heard from more than one liberal that they're actually embarrassed by Bloomberg, the guy's "stop and frisk" practices and some of his nanny state policies have pissed them off.
Frankly, there's nothing more infuriating than some billionaire telling you how to live your life, this is why there's backlash against Bloomberg from all corners. Even Moms Demand Action lost what little credibility they had after they partnered with MAIG.
Voting is ridiculously easy in Washington. All anyone has to do is watch for the ballot in the mail, mark it, affix a stamp and return it. If women voters are somehow too distracted or blase to participate, measures such as the one in Washington won't succeed. That's crazy. This year, citizens, not politicians, are making the decision. They have a chance to take a simple, logical stand. She's right, voting is ridiculously easy, and as long as the Republican party nominates pro-gun candidates, we'll be flooding the polls while liberal women are doing their nails.
So bring it on, Joni, even in liberal Washington State we have influence, even there we can win.
#1
The problem for MDA is they are headed by a ignorant moron. She keeps telling, and getting busted in, lies. Also, unlike MADD (the right to drink and drive is not in the constitution), the 2nd amendment and the SC decisions do not support them in the least, so even if they can sneak through some laws, there is a likelihood they will get overturned by the courts.
#2
"...As for President Obama, how about just one word of thanks to the families of those fallen soldiers you sent out to find Bowe Bergdahl?"
because the Administration cannot bring itself to admit that soldiers were killed looking for Bergdahl
Posted by: lord garth ||
06/09/2014 0:59 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The left is constantly confusing one thing for another. Condescending snideness for real humor. The welfare state for authentic charity. The apparatus of state for authentic religion. Contempt for authentic Christianity as a shibboleth signifying intellectualism, instead of what it really signifies, which is vulgar bigotry.
Envy as a virtue instead of a vice. And ruthlessness as intelligence instead of what it really is - sociopathy.
When you are publicly funded and/or have hitched your bizarrely crafted philosophy on life to voting Dem no matter what, this is what ensues.
Obama's rise and presidency were supposed to be the shining example of the virtues and successes of affirmative action. Instead, he is an object lesson and a definitive example of its irredeemable failure. Those whose worldview is deeply invested in perceiving affirmative action as a positive will go through whatever contortions of logic and dishonesty they must to preserve the narrative. Mental laziness of the that type is rampant amongst our current education and information industries and is a hard thing to shake, apparently.
Such as these are easily blindsided.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
06/09/2014 4:44 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Envy as a virtue instead of a vice.
Krasnyi mech (The Red Sword), the newspaper of the Kyiv Cheka:
We reject the old systems of morality and "humanity" invented by the bourgeoisie to oppress the "lower classes." Our morality has no precedent, and our humanity is absolute because it rests on a new ideal. Our aim is to destroy all forms of oppression and violence. To us, everything is permitted, for we are the first to raise the sword not to oppress races and reduce them to slavery, but to liberate humanity from it's shackles.
Courtois, Werth, Panne, Paczkowski, Bartoski, and Amrgolin, The Black Book of Communism, p.102
#6
Obama and Team are not exactly imbued with American history and cultural values. Instead of being guided by these values, they are awkward and fumbling around these values.
#7
We reject the old systems of morality and "humanity" invented by the bourgeoisie to oppress the "lower classes." Our morality has no precedent, and our humanity is absolute because it rests on a new ideal. Our aim is our feet stamping on human faces, forever.to destroy all forms of oppression and violence. To us, everything is permitted, for we will are the first to raise the sword not to oppress races and reduce them to slavery, but to liberate humanity from it's shackles.
FIFY.
#8
I wonder if Team Obama gives a rat's butt, or this is another example to them of how dumb the rest of the Country is? I suppose we'll know if Champ keeps trying to explain it to us morons.
Posted by: Bobby ||
06/09/2014 12:43 Comments ||
Top||
#9
I will continue to go back to a single important point. The Democrats NEVER vetted this guy AT ALL when he first started assembling his team to run for the Presidency.
If they had vetted him, they would have all run for cover and left him to swing in the breeze and fail OR worse yet, they (the Democratic ruling class) thought they could get this empty suit elected and then use him as a sock puppet for a variety of pet Democratic tax and spend programs. I believe that is why Joe Biden was put in as VP, to control the empty suit.
Unfortunately, their vetting of the empty suit did not include an MMPI or they would have found out he was an uncontrollable toxic narcissist with strong sociopathic tendencies.
Either way, I find it hard to believe that any yahoo with a slick staff and a good gift for gab and a boat load of campaign money can run for president no matter how ill-prepared and unsuited for the challenges they are.
Unbelievable, from the day he surfaced in the first primary, he was the Manchurian Candidate, a man with no birth certificate, no academic records, and no classmates at either Columbia or Harvard that could remember attending class with him, only a few pictures, and a couple of pretty books ghost written by a radical.
Posted by: Bill Clinton ||
06/09/2014 14:14 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Why were they blindsided?
Because they've got used to press conferences with a sea of bobble-heads, all nodding agreement with whatever ludicrous statement is made. In the outside world, BS isn't self-propelled, people go What?
Posted by: ed in texas ||
06/09/2014 14:16 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Unfortunately, their vetting of the empty suit did not include an MMPI or they would have found out he was an uncontrollable toxic narcissist with strong sociopathic tendencies.
Requiring an MMPI would have been seen as racist. Besides, we really should steer clear of his genetic endowments and thinly veiled predisposition to hatred and envy.
#13
Bill Clinton, I'm afraid all of these issues you mention are features and not bugs. They wanted him. You think Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi are unhappy with him? I don't.
Because the concept of service, the concept of honor, the concept of sacrifice is entirely foreign to their way of thinking. That is why they have no problem with him deserting his unit during a time of war.
So he left his teammates in the lurch or even collaborated with the enemy once he found it wasn't what he expected. So what? That is what they (Obama and company) would have done in the same situation.
And if people died looking for him so what? They were only soldiers and most probably psychopaths - it's not like they were holding Obama's umbrella or something. And they probably would only vote R anyway
That is their way of thinking. Every word they say reflects that.
[NYPost] If you think of the United States of America as a store, its recent decisions and scandals resemble a sale, perhaps a fire sale. Or maybe even a "Going Out of Business" sale.
The list of dramatic markdowns is breathtaking. They include trading away five murderous terrorists for a likely Army deserter, an open invitation to tens of thousands of illegal immigrants to cross the Mexican border, and a decision to recognize the terrorist group Hamas as part of the Palestinian government.
On the home front, environmental regulations will cost thousands of coal miners their jobs and drive up the cost of electricity for millions. The ObamaCare mess is hardly resolved, and the Veterans Affairs scandal keeps getting worse. The acting agency head reported the deaths of 18 more vets who were kept off the official waiting list in Phoenix.
Ticking quietly in the background is the mother of all threats -- an Iranian nuclear bomb. That ticking grew louder last week as the ayatollah mocked our nation by standing in front of a banner that proclaimed, "America cannot do a damn thing."
Technically, he's wrong. It's not that we cannot stop the mad mullahs' march. It's that President Obama has taken the military option off the table, and without it, Iran has nothing to fear. Our impotence was a choice.
Add to the combustible mix the expansionist moods in Russia and China, and the series of events recalls an observation by the late economist Herb Stein. Speaking in another context, he said that, "If something can't go on forever, it won't." That sums up the current sense of the nation as a whole.
What seemed for years a steady and slow decline increasingly feels like a headlong race to the bottom. America is careening downhill, and a crack-up appears inevitable.
It is no coincidence that the deal with the Taliban to release five terrorist leaders from Guantanamo brought the first threat of presidential impeachment from a respected member of Congress. GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said that if Obama tried to release others without lawmakers' approval, it would lead to "people on our side calling for his impeachment."
That is the nuclear option, and there is good reason why it has been so rarely invoked throughout history. And yet the intense fever gripping Washington, largely created by Obama's go-it-alone approach, needs to be broken. The country simply cannot continue to remain the beacon of the free world if we are consumed by our own dysfunction and distrust.
Impeachment is one way to try to resolve a political crisis, but as former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy argues in his new book, public opinion is a vital ingredient, and it is missing. Titled "Faithless Execution," his book's subtitle, "Building the Political Case for Obama's Impeachment," is based on McCarthy's claim that the legal case is solid that Obama has violated his oath to execute the laws faithfully.
That's an arguable point, but even to concede it means nothing because the Democratic Party has been so cowed into supporting Obama, regardless of what he does, that there is no chance to make the political case.
Indeed, we have reached this crisis largely because centrist Democrats have failed to stand up against Obama and demand more moderate policies.
Leaving aside occasional grumbling from party elders, he gets "almost unanimous support from every Dem in Congress for every piece of his radical agenda. Evidence shows that one of his most pernicious practices, using the IRS to punish conservative groups, grew out of congressional demands from liberals. While that doesn't excuse Obama's role, it does demonstrate that his party has enabled and encouraged his improper conduct.
The result is that the constitutional system of checks and balances has been gutted as Democrats act as an amen chorus for the executive branch.
The framers put a high bar on impeachment, and merely attempting to draw up the articles is viable only when there is a bipartisan consensus that the president's immediate removal is necessary. We are a long way from that consensus.
Still, something has to give. And unless Democrats begin to put duty to country over loyalty to Obama, America as we know it is headed to a point of no return.
#1
There is NO SUCH THING as a centrist Democrat. At least not in Congress.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
06/09/2014 4:09 Comments ||
Top||
#2
There will be no impeachment. The author is correct. Without bipartisan consensus, a drawing up of 'acticles' is an act of futility. I suspect there are many who would support the Champ if he personally supervised summary executions of his political opposition on the White House lawn.
Hopefully over time, this disaster and it's lessons learned can be fully documented for posterity. For now however, we in something of a political Abilene Paradox in which far too many have leaped headlong onto the Affirmative Action train for fear of being branded a hater or racist. As in the Paradox, it will be a long, hot, and dusty road home. As long as the 22nd Amendment survives, we still have hope.
#3
I've, since the age of about 13, been politically aware and of conservative/libertarian bent. I remember when there were true competitive elections where I could have voted for the D. One of the foremost of these was the NY Senate race between Daniel Patrick Moynihan and James Buckley.
I couldn't vote then but while I preferred Buckley I didn't loathe DPM. Moynihan, Scoop Jackson and others are long gone and have been replaced by the sniveling socialist septic tank scum that we have now.
"Driving the country to ruin"? Of course he is, that was the plan all along.
#4
In don't think the military option is off the table, completely. I do think that if Iran squirt off a nuke at, say, Diego Garcia, O would show forbearance and open negotiations, sending in the Kerry swiftboat SWAT team (that'll do a lot of good).
I DO think that if public demonstrations and disturbances were to occur here, he'd be perfectly capable of using a military option to 'restore order'. 'Cause he's real smart and we're just peons anyway.
Posted by: ed in texas ||
06/09/2014 8:12 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I read a piece in our morning paper which said that Senator Corker got in hot water with the PC police for the following statement with regards to a debate over CBO figures. He said: "I'm sorry, it just feels like bunch of midgets up here worrying about some CBO issue." The comment was declared "embarrassing and insulting" by the Little People of America in a news release. They considered the word midget as a slur. Later, Corker apologized--he said he did not mean to offend anyone.
GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said that if Obama tried to release others without lawmakers' approval, it would lead to "people on our side calling for his impeachment." A moving line which will me moved again and again. Just as the Muslims and the Russians do not view Obama as a credible strong president, many also view the Pubs as being neutered.
Impeachment is not going to happen. Everyone is scared to death of the blowback from impeaching the first African-American President--no matter that the guy is an abject failure and has broken the law many, many times.
#6
Just one more time, huh, Lindsey? You sniveling coward, you're no better than Obama. If Republicans had any guts they'd be screaming bloody murder. If Obama is driving the country to ruin, then Republicans are asleep in the back seat.
#7
Remember when, at the beginning of the Obama debacle, when they started ramming things thru: Repubs were complaining about things, and were told 'you can ride, in the back'?
Guess who got on board?
Posted by: ed in texas ||
06/09/2014 14:02 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Notice he said 'calling for impeachment'... not actually starting the process.
Again, one way to justify + empower OWG-NWO Global Federal Unions is to foster such anarchies + chaoses, etc. that real or potential Union Member-States are forced to rely on one another, iff only for base survival.
NAU, TPP, + TAP, etc. includ post-2015
"borderless" anti-sovereign Socialist Amerika are all PCorrect-Deniable means or tools towards that end.
The prob for mainstream America = Amerika is ...
* E.G. TOPIX > [Pointof View] HOW OBAMA ENDS WARS: FRANK GAFFNEY.
IMO the Bammer doesn't end wars as much as as he DOESN'T FIGHT 'EM. As seen in the ME from Libya to the Assad-Syria Crisis + Iran's NucProgs, + most notably vee Russia + Ukraine-Crimea Crisis, OBAMA-THE-POOR-PRO-US-US-NATIONALIST-BUT-HELLUVA-OUTSTANDING-ANTI-US-US-GLOBALIST VIOLATES HIS OWN "RED LINES" WHILE SIMUL DELIBERATELY ALLOWING RISING IRAN + PUTINIST RUSSIA, AKA GLOBALIST-DESIRED OWG CO-SUPERPOWERS, TO EXPAND THEIR SPHERES OF INFLUENCE SEEMINGLY AT THE EXPENSE OF THE US-ALLIES.
OWG GLOBALISM = can be ascribed as HOW MUCH OR HOW FAR CAN THE SUPERPOWER USA SAFELY GIVE UP OR RETREAT, ETC. WIDOUT BEING EXISTENTIALLY THREATENED OR DESTROYED BY ONE OR MORE GEOPOL WANNABES, I.E. SO-CALLED OWG CO-SUPERPOWERS + "UNIONS".
Raising or training one's own Replacement(s) whom also may turn on you + destroy you one day iff thingys go wrong.
* E.G. TOPIX > [News24]BOKO HARAM MAY GO GLOBAL, i.e. become linked to the pan-Africa + Worldwide Militant network.
As wid other AQ Affiliates, Boko Haram may one day devol into Soon-to-be-Nuclear Boko Haram thanks to the Bammer's + OWG Globalists helping the Muslim World to nuclearize-n-weaponize in the name of good Globalism.
* SAME > [Japan Times] OPINION; ASIAN PROVOCATIONS GIVE RISE TO WIFFS OF WAR.
* SAME > [Washington Examiner] CHINESE MILITARY GROWS STRONGER, CHALLENGES OBAMA'S "PIVOT".
Ina nutshell,RISING CHINA WANTS ITS OWG CO-SUPERPOWER STATUS, WHERE IT BELIEVES IT GETS CONTROL OF AT LEAST ONE-HALF OF THE PACIFIC [WestPac] WHILST THE US CONTROLS THE OTHER HALF [EastPac], + ITS NOT TAKING "NO" FOR AN ANSWER.
NOT FROM OBAMA, NOT FROM VIETNAM OR THE PHILIPPINES OR JAPAN, ETAL.
[Ynet] The fact that US president is basing his future foreign policy doctrine on his personal aversion to military solutions has reassured Tehran that his military threats have never been credible.
US President Barack Obama I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody... 's West Point foreign policy speech has given Israel both good and bad news.
The good news for Israel is that the president has given up on the idea of achieving a so-called "peace" deal between the Israelis and the Paleostinians during his presidency, but the bad news is that Obama has no intention of ever attacking the Iranian nuclear program militarily even as a last resort, and will never support an Israeli attack.
Consequently, ongoing useless and endless negotiations, as well as meaningless diplomatic agreements, will lead to a nuclear Iran unless it is stopped by Israel or the US congress.
Obama's commencement speech outlining his foreign policy doctrine confirmed at last what Israel and the Gulf states -- as well as Iran -- have all suspected, that the president was bluffing when he repeatedly stated that all options are on the table to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon including the military option.
He has used the idea of such an attack as a bargaining chip against the Israeli prime minister who perceives protecting the Jewish state against a nuclear holocaust by Iran to be his ultimate responsibility. He has been bluffing to woo and pressure Israel to make major concessions to the Paleostinians in any peace deal. But when he recently realized that there is no chance for any major breakthrough between Israelis and the Paleostinians during his presidency, he showed his hand at last regarding Iran.
The fact that in his West Point speech Obama chose not to even mention the so-called "grinding of the peace processor" between Israel and the Paleostinians marks quite a telling departure for this president who told the UN General Assembly last September, as he outlined US foreign policy priorities during the remainder of his presidency, that "America's diplomatic efforts will focus on two particular issues: Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and the Arab Israeli conflict."
But the fact that Obama in his speech chose to base his future foreign policy doctrine on his personal aversion to military solutions, actions and the use of military force after a decade of US wars, has reassured Iran that his military threats against them have never been credible.
In the Middle East, which houses the most brutal dictators in the world, perception of the use of power is more important than having the power. Tyrants only change their behavior if they believe you will use your power against them.
Unbridgeable gap
After such a speech, Iran and others will perceive the US as a paper tiger. The only time Iran suspended its nuclear program was 2003, after the US invaded their next door neighbor Iraq because the ayatollah truly believed President Bush's warnings that it will be attacked next.
But in his speech, Obama highlighted the fact that under his watch all US troops were removed from Iraq and that those remaining in Afghanistan would soon be removed. He talked repeatedly about America's "costly wars" and that "not every problem has a military solution" and that "some of our costly mistakes came...from our willingness to rush into military adventures," as well as that "US military action cannot be the only or even primary component of our leadership."
When the president specifically discussed Iran, he stated, "And now we have an opportunity to resolve our differences peacefully. The odds of success are still long, and we reserve all options to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. But for the first time in a decade, we have a very real chance of achieving a breakthrough agreement, one that is more effective and durable than we could have achieved through the use of force."
Unfortunately, reality shows that Obama is deluding himself. For the first time in a decade the Iranians know that they can achieve their nuclear capability without paying a price, as long as they are making believe they are truly negotiating.
The Iranians have already witnessed Obama's desperate concessions to induce them to engage in these negotiations. In exchange for Iran agreeing to six months negotiations with the six major powers over their nuclear program, Obama conceded them the right to continue enriching uranium while lifting many of the economic sanctions which brought Iran almost to its knees economically.
Moreover, Obama fought hard to convince the pro-Israel Senate, including many Democrats, to shelf the Menendez-Kirk sanctions bill, which is the legislative threat of imposing additional crippling economic sanctions against Iran if the negotiations fail.
The July 20 deadline for the six months talk is approaching and the gap between Western and Iranian demands is evidently unbridgeable. However, the difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits... it seems that Obama and the Western powers have already agreed that the deadline could be extended by a further six months.
The only way Iran will not have a nuclear weapon is if they agree to shut down their uranium enriching underground military reactor at Fordo, remove 15,000 centrifuges, downgrade the reactor at its plutonium production facility at Arak, and export its entire stockpile of enriched uranium, which can produce a few bombs.
Of course, the Iranians will never agree to such conditions if they stop believing in the credible threat of a military attack.
On Wednesday, in his first public reaction to Obama's West Point speech, Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, asserted in an address to the country's political and military establishment that the B.O. regime had taken the option of a military intervention to resolve conflicts off the table, saying: "A military attack is not a priority for Americans now. They have renounced the idea of any military actions."
However, the difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits... the Iranians should not forget that Israel destroyed both the Iraqi and the Syrian nuclear programs alone, without getting US permission or assistance.
Posted by: trailing wife ||
06/09/2014 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
#1
"When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become President. Now I'm beginning to believe it."
-- Clarence Darrow
#2
Good men sleep well at night because rough men stand ready to do violence in their behalf.
He never read that.
Obviously, he is the logical evolution of one hundred years of "liberal" and leftist pacifism...peace at all cost, nothing is worth fighting for, and living under a brutal tyrant or oppressive government is better than one day on the battlefield.
The peace movement isn't about peace, it is about subservience to a tyrant.
Posted by: Bill Clinton ||
06/09/2014 14:19 Comments ||
Top||
#3
ISRAEL IS BASICALLY SAYING THAT THE BAMMER IS DOING THINGS INTENTIONALLY.
As a OWG Globalist, its should be self-obvious to anyone that the Bammer + aligned intend for Iran to be the principal = major domo Great Power [OWG Co-Superpower] in dominance of one or more OWG Global Federal Unions as per Muslim + Regional States.
Each OWG Co-Superpower + Global Fed Union is intended to par wid the Superpower USA + NAU, EU, NOT INFERIOR TO SAME.
BY DEFINITION, IRAN MUST-NOT-COULD HAVE NUKES BECAUSE GLOBALISM'S TENETS WOULD ARGUE OR REQUIRE IRAN CAN'T BE PAR WID THE SUPERPOWER USA + OTHER WIDOUT THEM.
IMO the real OWG CoSuperpower + Region to watch is China + East Asia, espec as per Vietnam + Japan whom have histories fighting China in war.
IN A WORST-CASE EAST ASIA SCENARIO, IFF OBAMA-THE-GLOBALIST = USA CHOOSES NOT TO INTERVENE WID US MILFORS IN RIGHTEOUS BAMMERIAN/GLOBALIST RED-LINE ABANDONING INDIGNATION, IT MEANS VIETNAM + JAPAN, ETAL. WILL HAVE TO BE THE ONES-N-ONLY-ONES TO MILITARILY DEFEND THEMSELVES AGZ CHINA + PLA.
THE GLOBIES MAY NOT BE ABLE TO CONTROL THE CONSEQUENCES OR OUTCOME(S), ETC. LIKE THEY THINK THEY CAN.
Pesky Persians = Chinese = even iff they don't win or prevail the first time, they will come back again + again + again, ...@etc. until their enemies give up or are too worn down to continue the fight.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[Ynet] The fact that US president is basing his future foreign policy doctrine on his personal aversion to military solutions has reassured Tehran that his military threats have never been credible.
