» the new american oil boom

is a stupid move try attack on Persian, the Persian are one of the first nation was had school, when some others nation was living in cave as cave man? this move made by Jews people to attack on Iranian and a erasion to every one heath the Iran brainwashes the nation make them ready to Bush go head and attack on Iran .same they did with Iraq, go head and please study about world and others nation do not trust the Hollywood move, they are bunch monkey with drug’s problem,s which we saw all the times on news .after Islam land in Iran almost 1400 years a go Iran had so many bad times, like British are bring own army in Persian golf and take over the Iranian oil, and also separated the north of Iran from this country, Azerbaijan’s , this country Iran all ways be under threat by the american or British, and why Iranian can not trust any one and staying with Islam, there is so many war we had in history of Iran murdered hundred thousand Iranian in a week, or cut the head of the thousand women and children blood any where like last one CIA USA order to the Saddam Hussein to attack on Iran ,war and chemical boom.s which I wounded also
1 second ago – Report Abuse

~Gee, maybe I’m as ignorant of history as you appear to be of the use of the English language, but:

Didn’t the Persians attack the Greek City States and wasn’t the movie about the Spartan suicide defense of their homeland at Thermopylae? Couldn’t that be construed as a tribute to the Iraqi freedom fighters today? Any vastly outnumbered force who holds out against far superior numbers is always compared to the Spartans at Thermopylae, except in the US where the Texicans at the Alamo are substituted.

Is the movie stupid because Persia lost? Gee, even Islamic history books must confirm that Xerxes got beat at Thermopylae. I suppose Darius wasn’t defeated at Marathon either, and surely Themistocles and Eurybiades didn’t wipe out the Persian fleet at Salamis. After all, if all that had happened, there would have been unification of the Greeks, the Golden Age of Athens would have followed and Western civilization would have been born. Oops, I guess given the undeniable history, all that stuff must have gone down, and all because of the imperialistic yen of the invading Persians and their inability to get the job done. Meanwhile, the Jews were scattered, with no homeland and possible means to unite as an independent people (although the Persians had allowed them back into Jerusalem and let them rebuild the temple there after the Babylonians had kicked them out).

As to the danger to Iran from the US, weren’t the two nations the best of friends until the Iranian students (including now president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) seized the US embassy and kidnapped 66 diplomats and staff and held hostage 52 of them for 444 days, with the full backing and support of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini as he tried to solidify his power and finalize his revolution? And didn’t that revolution topple the oldest continuous government on earth at the time?

Wasn’t the US still selling arms to Khomeini even as he refused to release the hostages? Wouldn’t it have been more logical (or certainly more appropriate from a fundamentalist Islamic point of view) for the US to have attacked Iran then if such was the goal of the Great American Devil?

Didn’t Iraq wait until Iran and the US were no longer allies before Saddam attacked Iran? Was that Iraqi invasion the great stride forward that Khomeini sought when he severed ties with the US? If so, why did he come to the devils in Washington for arms and assistance when he was getting his butt kicked? And yes, you are right. Saddam was a US ally at the time, too.

Wouldn’t the Iranian F-14’s provided by the US have been the deciding weapon in that war if only Iran had not terminated the US alliance and essentially engaged in an act of war against the US by the kidnapping holding for ransom those diplomats? And didn’t that spur the US into denying Iran the spare parts necessary to put the planes in the air, thus rendering them useless? Wouldn’t a little common sense and rational diplomacy with the US have helped end that little war? And didn’t the specter of deeper US and USSR involvement help to contain it?

I presume you are sure that Zack Snyder, Gianni Nunnari, Mark Canton, Bernie Goldmann, Jeffrey Silver, Kurt Johnstad and Frank Miller are all Jewish, although I am not sure where you got that information. In case you are wondering who they are, they wrote, produced and directed the movie.

Hasn’t the standard of living of the average Iranian fallen miserably since the Islamic Republic was created. Certainly Iranian security was stressed to the breaking point while Saddam was still in the picture. Now, the roles are reversed and once the US and British pull out of Iran it is going to be a race to see who invades Iraq first, be it Iran, the Saudis or Syria. I agree the US had no legal or moral right or justification to invade and Saddam was the only stabilizing force in Iraq and his presence tended to pacify the region somewhat, but with him gone it is certain where the next major war will be and the US is not going to be the one who starts it. Of course, once it gets going and everyone turns their guns on Israel (yet again) the US may have no choice but to react in order to keep Israel from tossing a few nukes in self-defense.

I am sure you understand that Xerxes had already conquered Jerusalem (but the Jews had not held sway there for centuries, already having been conquered by the Egyptians, Babylon and others) before he turned his sights on Leonidas and the Greeks,. What with Cyrus, Xerxes and Darius, the world had nothing to fear from the peace loving Persians as they went about their goal (almost successfully) to rule the known world, right?

The movie is a fictionalized account of a real event and anyone with half a brain and access to uncensored historical references knows that the battle occurred. The bad guys in the movie and the wars would have to be the Persians – Cyrus started it, Darius tried to finish it but kept getting beaten and Xerses finally finished it by losing to the Greeks. The Jews weren’t part of it, other than as Persian citizens and Persian subjects. They were mostly building the Temple in Jerusalem at the time.

By the way, although Darius most advanced Persian culture, coinage and commerce, road building, engineering (and let us not forget he was the first to build a canal from the Nile to the Red Sea and the Greeks and Romans borrowed heavily from his works when they built their road systems and aqueducts), law, art and governmental administration, human rights and religious tolerance, he was not Islamic, he was Zoroastrian. Most Persians were, but Persia was the most religiously tolerant empire on the globe in its Golden Age. Where have those days gone? Mohammad wouldn’t be born until almost 1,000 years after Darius and his son, Xerxes, died. Much could be learned by modern Iran if only the Iranians would follow the ideals and protocols of the Cyrus Cylinder, as established by Cyrus (the only Gentile to have been designated a messiah by the Jews) and perpetuated and expanded by his successor, Darius, and his grandson, Xerxes.

Yes, Persia has become increasingly more Islamic for 1,300 years or so. That started when the Muslim armies of Khalid and Umar forced Persia to convert.- or did you think the conversion was willing and voluntary? It took centuries of bloodshed to bring that about. Mohammad said Jews and Christians were to be tolerated as long as they remained subservient to Muslim rulers, but that courtesy was not extended to Zoroastrians. They were given the simple choice of ‘convert or die’. The Sunni held sway from the 10th to the 15th century, then the Shi’ites took over. More blood was spilled to accomplish that. What ever did happen to the religious tolerance of Cyrus?

Just like with all empires before and after Persia, once the day in the sun is over, subjugation and defeat follows. Just look at Egypt, Babylon, Sumeria, Greece, Rome, the Incas, Mayas, Aztecs, Iroquois and Sioux, Spain, France, Great Britain, Japan and the Soviet Union. History tells us the US will follow suit. Once vanquished, the glory days of empire are lost forever. Such is life. Get over it. But you really ought to learn a little about that of which you speak before going off on an infantile rant which proves only that you don’t know what you are talking about.

Of all these wars you mention, how many times was Persia the aggressor and how many times was Persia invaded. Surely you don’t blame the British for the invasion by the Islamic Arabs or Genghis Khan? Or the Americans for Tamerlane? I don’t think any western power got involved when Persia went after the Greeks or Babylon or Egypt or Sumeria or Turkey or Afghanistan. The Romans weren’t even around yet when most of the happened, at least the first time or two. Persia and Iran have a history of war that was four millennia old before the US was born. I guess lust for the good old days would require a shell of a has been empire to point the finger at the current superpower out of jealousy and envy, but the facts belie the accusation.

The sad part is, you may believe that what you are saying is even in some small part true. At least Pahlavi believed in knowledge and a balanced education.

The majority of working Americans are elligible to invest a percentage of their income into a 401. Once this money is invested by the worker it is controlled by a fund manager who does their best to bring the highest return possible on the investment.

But does the 401k actually help or hurt the ecomomy? Were investors in times before the 401 more apt to ride out down-times corporations had, instead of immediately moving their money like we do today? Has this investment tool caused us to turn a blind eye to corporate greed? Did the 401 cause the dot.com boom and bust, has it enabled oil companies to show the record profits in recent years? Will history show the 401 as a great investment tool, or something that cost millions of jobs, and harmed the ecomomy?
due to the push for companies to show maximium profits, which raises the price of their stock. Doesn’t this hurt the ecomomy overall since the main ways to do this is cut jobs and outsource work overseas?

No, the 401(k) has not harmed the economy. In fact, it has provided many people with a significant retirement income that they probably would not have otherwise done on their own. Further, the 401(k) makes a social security income go a lot further.

POLICYMAKERS and legislators often fail to consider the law of unintended consequences. The latest example is their attempt to reduce the United States’ dependence on imported oil by shifting a big share of the nation’s largest crop, corn, to the production of ethanol for fueling automobiles.

Good goal, bad policy. In fact, ethanol will do little to reduce the large percentage of our fuel that is imported (more than 60%), and the ethanol policy will have widespread and profound ripple effects on other markets. Corn farmers and ethanol refiners are ecstatic about the ethanol boom and are enjoying the windfall of artificially enhanced demand. But it will be an expensive and dangerous experiment for the rest of us.

On Capitol Hill, the Senate is debating legislation that would further expand corn ethanol production. A 2005 law already mandates production of 7.5 billion gallons by 2012, about 5% of the projected gasoline use at that time. These biofuel goals are propped up by a generous federal subsidy of 51 cents a gallon for blending ethanol into gasoline, and a tariff of 54 cents a gallon on most imported ethanol to help keep out cheap imports from Brazil. The proposed legislation is a prime example of throwing good money after a bad idea.

President Bush has set a target of replacing 15% of domestic gasoline use with biofuels (ethanol and biodiesel) over the next 10 years, which would require almost a fivefold increase in mandatory biofuel use, to about 35 billion gallons. With current technology, almost all of this biofuel would have to come from corn because there is no feasible alternative. However, achieving the 15% goal would require the entire current U.S. corn crop, which represents a whopping 40% of the world’s corn supply. This would do more than create mere market distortions; the irresistible pressure to divert corn from food to fuel would create unprecedented turmoil.

Thus, it is no surprise that the price of corn has doubled in the last year — from $2 to $4 a bushel. We are already seeing upward pressure on food prices as the demand for ethanol boosts the demand for corn. Until the recent ethanol boom, more than 60% of the annual U.S. corn harvest was fed domestically to cattle, hogs and chickens or used in food or beverages. Thousands of food items contain corn or corn byproducts. In Mexico, where corn is a staple food, the price of tortillas has skyrocketed because U.S. corn has been diverted to ethanol production.

And any sort of shock to corn yields, such as drought, unseasonably hot weather, pests or disease could send food prices into the stratosphere. Such concerns are more than theoretical. In 1970, a widespread outbreak of a fungus called southern corn leaf blight destroyed 15% of the U.S. corn crop.

Politicians like to say that ethanol is environmentally friendly, but these claims must be put into perspective. Although corn is a renewable resource, it has a far lower yield relative to the energy used to produce it than either biodiesel (such as soybean oil) or ethanol from other plants. Moreover, ethanol yields about 30% less energy per gallon than gasoline, so mileage drops off significantly. Finally, adding ethanol raises the price of blended fuel because it is more expensive to transport and handle.

Lower-cost biomass ethanol — for example, from rice straw (a byproduct of harvesting rice) or switchgrass — would make far more economic sense, but large volumes of ethanol from biomass will not be commercially viable for many years. (And production will be delayed by government policies that specifically encourage corn-based ethanol by employing subsidies.)

American legislators and policymakers seem oblivious to the scientific and economic realities of ethanol production. Brazil and other major sugar cane-producing nations enjoy significant advantages over the U.S. in producing ethanol, including ample agricultural land, warm climates amenable to vast plantations and on-site distilleries that can process cane immediately after harvest.

Thus, in the absence of cost-effective, domestically available sources for producing ethanol, rather than using corn, it would make far more sense to import ethanol from Brazil and other countries that can produce it efficiently — and also to remove the 54-cents-per-gallon tariff on Brazilian ethanol imports.

Our politicians may be drunk with the prospect of corn-derived ethanol, but if we don’t adopt policies based on science and sound economics, it is consumers around the world who will suffer the hangover.
________________________________________

actually, here in corn country…the government is already experimenting with other crops to see if they can produce ethanol here cheaply…they are using crops that we dont eat, so that there is no problem with demand…be patient…youre not the first one to see the problem…its already being taken care of…

When majority of you all work there
67895 Americans serve in Saudi Aramco
12560 Britons serve in Bahrain (more britons then nationals)
2 million Europeans serve in Dubai
1.75 million Americans are in Qatar in Oil and gas companies

Qatar has THE SECOND HIGHEST GNP PER CAPITA IN THE WORLD.do u know what that means a national in Qatar is 25 times richer then one in England.(Royals are not counted)
UAE -Dubai and Abu Dhabi
35 percent Europeans 47 percent from Asia nd just 18.15 percent nationals.7 highest GNP per capita
Saudi Arabia ahh the favourite nation of Americans
-199 billion dollar economy
Saudi Aramco 275 billion dollar it generates
175 billion dollar worth of properties in Europe
39 billion dollar worth of properties in America
World happiness Survey puts Saudi Arabia at 47 postion of 199 countries
Gives more scholarship to students then entire Germany and Spain put together
More trips by a US president to Riyadh then any other nation

Turkey
Country with ninth largest tourist recipent in the whole world

Lebanon
Tourism has boomed 45 percent up from the previous year
more tourists then Netherland

Basically speaking,they really dont care if you give them all curses.For them,just continue giving Yukons XL BMWs and Porshe and they will be happy

MIND NO ROYALS COUNTED IN THESE SURVEY,ITS A LAW FOR THESE NATIONS PROHIBITING THEM TO TAKE THEM.
i havent even speaken about Indonesia,malaysia,Maldives and Russia.
Frankly i think u should atleast know about these
CIA world factbook and various other sources
I completely agree with fox news

There are 58 Muslim countries, some of the ones ( as you mentioned) such as Qatar, Kuwait, and UAE are extremely wealthy and are among the wealthiest nations in the world.
Some such as Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Oman, and Libya are technically 1st world countries, but are on the "low end" of first world countries. Qatar, as you know, has the highest or 2nd highest (depending on the source) per capita GDP.

Muslim countries like Turkey, Muslim countries in Eastern Europe, Iran and Lebanon are best described as 2nd world countries, as they are neither too rich or too poor, they are kind of in the middle.

Some Muslim countries such as Pakistan, Indonesian, Egypt, and many others are poor, although a high purchasing power allows them to have a decent standard of life, even if it is bad. Also although these technically may be third world countries, they have very rapidly developing and growing, and it is expected that in 20 years, they will move past the "third world" stage. Also, some of the countries, despite their overall poverty, have many businesses and increasing number of advancements in technology, some are planning to launch a space program, and also Pakistan has made many advancements in alternative energy vehicles as well as advanced missile technology, and some of their people are very wealthy, so don’t underestimate them, even if the countries as a whole are poor.

Lastly, some Muslim countries such as Sudan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Solamia, Mali, and many other countries which lie in the region between North Africa and SubSaharan Africa, are very, very poor with almost no development at all, and many of them have a per capita GDP of less than $1000, and that’s after taking the purchasing power into account! These countries are so poor that there are still a large number of people without water or electricity in them! Also there are very few roads in these countries, and almost no cars at all. These are some of the poorest of the poor countries.

Here a list of per capita GDP of all OIC states (although I think it’s outdated):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Organisation_of_the_Islamic_Conference_member_states_countries_by_GDP_per_capita_%28PPP%29

I believe the GDP of the Arab League as a whole, which makes up 23 of the 58 Muslim countries is around 7000, which is average on a global scale.

So there you go, there are many Muslim countries, some are rich, some are poor, some are in between.