The real reason behind all this gubbins with Iran?
Archived145 replies · 1,872 views
I was saying (or I suppose I meant to say) that if Iran did go on its own and try to sell its own oil directly, rather than thru NY or London markets, if people (or the US, which buys half of the oil traded in the world) wanted to boycott Iran, it'd be a lot easier than it is now, and the hurt would hit Iran more. With Iran part of OPEC and trading through the established exchanges right now, if the US wanted to formally boycott Iran, OPEC might get miffed and boycott us in return, whereas if Iran sold it themselves, the US simply could avoid buying from Iran without ever formally making an annnouncement. I don't mean to write a treatise, but to simply state the writers of the article just don't get how things work - there's a lot more to the US economy than oil, and a lot more factors at work with the dollar -- someone earlier said that if the US goes to hell, the rest of the world does too, and that's pretty much true - Americans buy a whole lot of stuff, finance a whole lot of stuff and invent a whole lot of stuff (like the Internet, for instance), so places like China have a huge self-interest in making sure the dollar doesn't take a dive. In the grander scheme of things, I can't deny that it would be less beneficial for the US ultimately if the world changed to euros as the common currency of international trade, but not catastrophic, just as it hasn't been catastrophic for Europe the past few decades with the dollar being the main currency of trade. But I don't see it happening - even with us living in bizarro land here the past 6 years with the doofuses in power like Bush and Cheney, the US economy has still outpaced Europe's this decade.
But why would the trading situation change?.. Only the currency would change. Iran would trade through OPEC just as other Euro trading countries do. I can't see a need or a justification for a boycott.
Unless, perhaps, a UN resolution imposes sanctions on them, (i.e. just before they switch to the Euro), or an invading force stops them switching, then I can't see switching as being in anyway non-beneficial.
As I said, March 20 is the proposed switching date, and guess what, they are being voted on by the UN Security Council as we speak. Coincidence, perhaps?!
Well Diggity Dawg.
Burt Reynolds wrote:
68 Pontiac wrote: Ummm, I believe what I see on TV???
I'm talking from actual firsthand knowledge, not what the tv says. Actually the TV is so full of it on our progress in Iraq. We are alot further ahead than journelists would lead us to believe.
Like I said in my first post, after 9 months of being as close as family to many Iraqis, I still have a very difficult time understanding their decision making. The average Westerner wants to live in peace, not all cultures live that way. . .which is the major disconnect that makes the Middle East difficult to understand. We see EVERY life as important, but the Middle East societies do not veiw their own lives as we do. They live moment to moment, not looking towards their future.
Difficult and far fetched? I agree, but this is our issue over there.
JHC
Still missing the point I see, Pontiac.
OK, fuck it.. Let's bomb them all
The point is you trying to bring on a debate on how Middle East interests are solely brought on by world economics. This is NOT the main threat that Iran poses. I guess it's easier to imagine our govt. is messed up, so we can actually do something about it. The fear that vast amount of people live unlike us is disturbing and not something we can easily fix.
You want this discussion to go in YOUR direction, however the points I am bringing up are the real threats that the Middle East possesses.
Instead of getting all your info off of Google, how about going down there yourself and see for yourself what the issues are, since you won't believe me. You'll be enlightened a little bit.
JHC
Nothing is wrong with countries or peoples having different points of view. That is assuming that it is a peaceful point of view.
That you have known a few Iraqis, I'm not grasping your point, where? In your hometown?
Let me make this a little more simple. The Emums (priests and community leaders), they are the brains, thought process, and political stance for all those in their communities; and they are terribly corrupt. Everyone blindly follows their Emum. If one says "hate Denmark and burn down thier embassy", there are no questions, they follow it. There is NO individual thought process. Also they don't care for life, human or animal. That is against all ideals that all of us have grown up around.
It is not about religon or finances, it is about old grudges and power. Simple.
The point is not to carpet bomb them all (though it would be a quick solution), the solution is to teach them to think for themselves, but that takes a couple generations to grasp.
JHC
68 Pontiac wrote:
The fear that vast amount of people live unlike us is disturbing and not something we can easily fix.
JHC
This, and the quote, "The average Westerner wants to live in peace, not all cultures live that way. . .which is the major disconnect that makes the Middle East difficult to understand. We see EVERY life as important, but the Middle East societies do not veiw their own lives as we do. They live moment to moment, not looking towards their future.
Difficult and far fetched? I agree, but this is our issue over there"
are really disturbing.
Are we to assume that you are happy for the US to bomb every culture that doesn't follow your beliefs and ideals for living as potential targets.
If so, much of Europe could be on the list.
I've met many Iraqis and some Afghans too. They were impressively nationalistic in general, and friendly, mostly. I'm sure their depth of conversation is vastly improved when you meet them in another country (in this case, the UK), without occupying forces patrolling with guns nearby.
68 Pontiac wrote:
It is not about religon or finances, it is about old grudges and power. Simple.
The point is not to carpet bomb them all (though it would be a quick solution), the solution is to teach them to think for themselves, but that takes a couple generations to grasp.
JHC
Jesus, thats seriously fucked up. Particularly the (though it would be a quick solution) bit.
See the above to reply to most of your last post.
As for the Iraqis you have met, in what class were they? The Middle East has a HUGE gap between those that are rich and poor. . .those that are educated and those that are not. About 90% of the populations are in poverty in most of those countries, while the others are rolling in money, supressing the have-nots.
Ask those same Iraqis how many of their countrymen they trust. The answer will suprise you.
JHC
Burt Reynolds wrote: And really, I can't believe the thing about Iraq being the third biggest military power
How'd they figure that one out?
Not much to quibble with in that article. I read about the PetroEuro market before, in a non-socialist news article, so writing that off as socialist nonsense won't fly.
No quibbles with the geopoitical analysis either.
Now, about Iran's push to acquire nukes, I believe it's a threat, and can't be dismissed by saying it's all about PetroEuros. Of course, I also believed the WMDs were a threat...
Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Not much to quibble with in that article. I read about the PetroEuro market before, in a non-socialist news article, so writing that off as socialist nonsense won't fly.
No quibbles with the geopoitical analysis either.
Now, about Iran's push to acquire nukes, I believe it's a threat, and can't be dismissed by saying it's all about PetroEuros. Of course, I also believed the WMDs were a threat...
that is true, but they'd better find some real evidence of wmds this time, if they are indeed producing nuclear weapons. if iran wants a nuclear reactor, who are we to deny them that. many countries have those.
From what I understand, they're pursuing a program that could be EITHER nuclear power OR nuclear weapons. Considering the possibility that Iran would (a) follow through on its call to wipe Israel off the map, or (b) that radical Islamists would get their hands on a nuclear weapon, we can't, and won't, allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons.
sorry to say pontiac 86 but just because you experienced the frontline does not mean you are an authority on the the war itselt. Maybe on the realities of war but your missing the politics of deceit. Very short sighted of you. Consider the leaders of the war. Neo-cons who never spent a day in war. They rather just play war. Before you say somebody has no right to see deceitful reasons of the war beacause they havent been to the middle east consider who the leaders are.
Comrade Shampanyov wrote: From what I understand, they're pursuing a program that could be EITHER nuclear power OR nuclear weapons. Considering the possibility that Iran would (a) follow through on its call to wipe Israel off the map, or (b) that radical Islamists would get their hands on a nuclear weapon, we can't, and won't, allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons.
i remember israel once bombing a nuclear reactor. don't you think that if they felt really threatened, they would do the same again?
Ronald Kirsch wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote: From what I understand, they're pursuing a program that could be EITHER nuclear power OR nuclear weapons. Considering the possibility that Iran would (a) follow through on its call to wipe Israel off the map, or (b) that radical Islamists would get their hands on a nuclear weapon, we can't, and won't, allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons.
i remember israel once bombing a nuclear reactor. don't you think that if they felt really threatened, they would do the same again?
Guaranteed.
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
Ronald Kirsch wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote: From what I understand, they're pursuing a program that could be EITHER nuclear power OR nuclear weapons. Considering the possibility that Iran would (a) follow through on its call to wipe Israel off the map, or (b) that radical Islamists would get their hands on a nuclear weapon, we can't, and won't, allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons.
i remember israel once bombing a nuclear reactor. don't you think that if they felt really threatened, they would do the same again?
Guaranteed.
so what are we worried about then?
Comrade and ronald,
Completely agree with you both.
Ghostrider, Assuming I'm simpleminded and short sighted, well shame on you. There are more reasons for us to be in Iraq than freedom and oil. I am not contesting that, but there is a real threat with the culture of the Middle East, which is what I was refering to. It is the main reason we are there. Everything else is spoils of war.
JHC
Ronald Kirsch wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
Ronald Kirsch wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote: From what I understand, they're pursuing a program that could be EITHER nuclear power OR nuclear weapons. Considering the possibility that Iran would (a) follow through on its call to wipe Israel off the map, or (b) that radical Islamists would get their hands on a nuclear weapon, we can't, and won't, allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons.
i remember israel once bombing a nuclear reactor. don't you think that if they felt really threatened, they would do the same again?
Guaranteed.
so what are we worried about then?
One going off in New York.
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
68 Pontiac wrote: Comrade and ronald,
Made him call me Comrade.
Truce?
Yeah, just be careful on what you say about vets, they are close to my heart as Brothers in arms. I get defensive over those type of issues.
JHC
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
Ronald Kirsch wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
Ronald Kirsch wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote: From what I understand, they're pursuing a program that could be EITHER nuclear power OR nuclear weapons. Considering the possibility that Iran would (a) follow through on its call to wipe Israel off the map, or (b) that radical Islamists would get their hands on a nuclear weapon, we can't, and won't, allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons.
i remember israel once bombing a nuclear reactor. don't you think that if they felt really threatened, they would do the same again?
Guaranteed.
so what are we worried about then?
One going off in New York.
well yes.
just how would they get one there though?
Ronald Kirsch wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
Ronald Kirsch wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
Ronald Kirsch wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote: From what I understand, they're pursuing a program that could be EITHER nuclear power OR nuclear weapons. Considering the possibility that Iran would (a) follow through on its call to wipe Israel off the map, or (b) that radical Islamists would get their hands on a nuclear weapon, we can't, and won't, allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons.
i remember israel once bombing a nuclear reactor. don't you think that if they felt really threatened, they would do the same again?
Guaranteed.
so what are we worried about then?
One going off in New York.
well yes.
just how whould they get one there though?
A suitcase.
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
Ronald Kirsch wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
Ronald Kirsch wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
Ronald Kirsch wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote: From what I understand, they're pursuing a program that could be EITHER nuclear power OR nuclear weapons. Considering the possibility that Iran would (a) follow through on its call to wipe Israel off the map, or (b) that radical Islamists would get their hands on a nuclear weapon, we can't, and won't, allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons.
i remember israel once bombing a nuclear reactor. don't you think that if they felt really threatened, they would do the same again?
Guaranteed.
so what are we worried about then?
One going off in New York.
well yes.
just how whould they get one there though?A suitcase.
are we talking about a nuclear bomb here? or one of those dirty bonb devices?
Hmmm... good question. My understanding, if I remember correctly, is that if a terrorist could get their hands on a nuclear weapon, it could be configured to fit inside a suitcase. Islamic extremists are looking for a nuclear weapon, and the possibility that they could get their hands on one is why we got a little nervous when the Soviet Union disintegrated, and later, why Pakistan had theirs airlifted to the top of some mountain in the Himalayas.
A dirty bomb could be hidden in a suitcase as well, and would certainly cause major problems, but I think our biggest concern is an actual nuclear weapon going off in a major population center like New York City.
Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Hmmm... good question. My understanding, if I remember correctly, is that if a terrorist could get their hands on a nuclear weapon, it could be configured to fit inside a suitcase. Islamic extremists are looking for a nuclear weapon, and the possibility that they could get their hands on one is why we got a little nervous when the Soviet Union disintegrated, and later, why Pakistan had theirs airlifted to the top of some mountain in the Himalayas.
A dirty bomb could be hidden in a suitcase as well, and would certainly cause major problems, but I think our biggest concern is an actual nuclear weapon going off in a major population center like New York City.
I'm not an expert, but i thought a nuclear warhead was actually quite large, whereas on of those dirty bomb devices could probably fit inside a suitcase.
Ronald Kirsch wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Hmmm... good question. My understanding, if I remember correctly, is that if a terrorist could get their hands on a nuclear weapon, it could be configured to fit inside a suitcase. Islamic extremists are looking for a nuclear weapon, and the possibility that they could get their hands on one is why we got a little nervous when the Soviet Union disintegrated, and later, why Pakistan had theirs airlifted to the top of some mountain in the Himalayas.
A dirty bomb could be hidden in a suitcase as well, and would certainly cause major problems, but I think our biggest concern is an actual nuclear weapon going off in a major population center like New York City.
I'm not an expert, but i thought a nuclear warhead was actually quite large, whereas on of those dirty bomb devices could probably fit inside a suitcase.
I'm not an expert either. Just going by memory here. Here's a link, and another. However, according to Wikipedia, only an extremely advanced nuclear weapons program, such as the U.S. program, could actually build one.
Then there's this article...
I dunno. 
Now I'm probably going to get a visit from Homeland Security for looking this stuff up... 
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
Ronald Kirsch wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Hmmm... good question. My understanding, if I remember correctly, is that if a terrorist could get their hands on a nuclear weapon, it could be configured to fit inside a suitcase. Islamic extremists are looking for a nuclear weapon, and the possibility that they could get their hands on one is why we got a little nervous when the Soviet Union disintegrated, and later, why Pakistan had theirs airlifted to the top of some mountain in the Himalayas.
A dirty bomb could be hidden in a suitcase as well, and would certainly cause major problems, but I think our biggest concern is an actual nuclear weapon going off in a major population center like New York City.
I'm not an expert, but i thought a nuclear warhead was actually quite large, whereas on of those dirty bomb devices could probably fit inside a suitcase.
I'm not an expert either. Just going by memory here. Here's a link, and another. However, according to Wikipedia, only an extremely advanced nuclear weapons program, such as the U.S. program, could actually build one.
Then there's this article...
I dunno.
Now I'm probably going to get a visit from Homeland Security for looking this stuff up...
well i just checked all those links too. thanks for that btw. so, it seems a suitcase bomb is possible. the question is what kind of bomb would iran construct, were they to build one. i believe they would go for something, that well they could use as n offensive weapon against its neighbours.
if those articles are to be believed than those suitcase bombs could actually already be in circulation, and in at least that regard it won't matter what iran does.
Yeah, who knows what's out there. Still, I don't think we're going to take a chance with Iran building more. Here's an interesting question, though: Why haven't we done more to stop North Korea? Surely they could use the cash terrorists would be willing to pay for nuclear weapons?
Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Yeah, who knows what's out there. Still, I don't think we're going to take a chance with Iran building more. Here's an interesting question, though: Why haven't we done more to stop North Korea? Surely they could use the cash terrorists would be willing to pay for nuclear weapons?
are you beginning to sound like your mate W? Simple answer really. if you do nasty things to north korea, then north korea will do nasty things to south korea.
