REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Iran threatens Europe

POSTED BY: PIZMOBEACH
UPDATED: Monday, February 20, 2012 18:11
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1901
PAGE 1 of 3

Wednesday, February 15, 2012 10:56 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/16/world/europe/iran-says-it-will-cut-o
il-supplies-to-6-european-nations.html?hp


"Besieged by international sanctions over the Iranian nuclear program including a planned oil embargo by Europe, Iran warned its six largest European buyers on Wednesday that it might strike first by immediately cutting them off from Iranian oil."

"In Tehran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad presided over ceremonies to mark advances in Iran’s nuclear program, partly to project an image of Iranian defiance against the Western sanctions. The new advances include centrifuges that Iran said were capable of enriching uranium at a much faster rate, and the insertion of the first domestically produced nuclear fuel rod into a nuclear reactor in Tehran.

“The era of bullying nations has past,” Mr. Ahmadinejad said in a televised broadcast of the ceremony. “The arrogant powers cannot monopolize nuclear technology. They tried to prevent us by issuing sanctions and resolutions but failed.”

This guy is making it easy for nations to hate him.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 15, 2012 11:04 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

It's their oil. They can do with it what they like. I don't see the problem.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 15, 2012 11:05 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



They can eat that oil, for all I care.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 15, 2012 12:47 PM

FREMDFIRMA



Awww, ain't it a pity, when they DO IT BACK everyone acts like it's such a tragedy, whinewhinewhimper....
*hissss*
You wanna talk about fekkin entitlement issues, there ya go, on a national scale.

Worse is the damned attitudes about it, it's THEIR stuff, if they don't WANT to sell it to us, they have that right, in a moral sense...
In a physical sense, they've gotta ENFORCE it, and our own behavior has shown there's really only one way to do that.

Were I Putin, I would publicly ship them an ICBM, complete with bells, whistles and a parade on worldwide television - not only would that put a stop to it, I am SURE they'd be happy to continue servicing his country as they cut the rest of us malicious bastards off.

And oh what a PITY that would be....
*makes littlest violin gestures*

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 15, 2012 2:50 PM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Too bad none of us have a say in the outcome.
Iran with a nuke is bad world mojo - not because it isn't fair (there's no fair in international politics!), it's because too many people will do too much to make sure they don't get one and guess who will ultimately pay for that? You and me and plenty of innocent Iranians. So yippy, more stupidity.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 15, 2012 2:56 PM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

It's their oil. They can do with it what they like. I don't see the problem.




It's not that simple of course, nations rise and fall and go to war for oil. I know, you'd think people would plan so it's not a problem, but it's just not like that. If you are for a destabilized region (even more so) then this is fine, but if you'd like to see some kind of bigger thinking used toward peace just one time in the area, this isn't it.

I liked this comment after the article:

"I'm not sure that this threat has significant consequences. If Iran withholds oil from the European market, and sells it somewhere else, that frees up an equivalent amount of oil in the world market for Europe to buy. It represents a redistribution of supply, but not a change in overall quantity. The implicit message here is that Iran's economy would be in peril if a complete embargo was enacted. They need to sell oil to survive."


Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 15, 2012 3:15 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

It's their oil. They can do with it what they like. I don't see the problem.




It's not that simple of course, nations rise and fall and go to war for oil. I know, you'd think people would plan so it's not a problem, but it's just not like that. If you are for a destabilized region (even more so) then this is fine, but if you'd like to see some kind of bigger thinking used toward peace just one time in the area, this isn't it.





Hello,

It really is that simple. Or it ought to be. The governments concerned with regional stability are often partially responsible for destabilizing it. Not leaving these people alone is a plan that's going to bite us.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 15, 2012 4:12 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

It's their oil. They can do with it what they like. I don't see the problem.




It's not that simple of course, nations rise and fall and go to war for oil. I know, you'd think people would plan so it's not a problem, but it's just not like that. If you are for a destabilized region (even more so) then this is fine, but if you'd like to see some kind of bigger thinking used toward peace just one time in the area, this isn't it.

I liked this comment after the article:

"I'm not sure that this threat has significant consequences. If Iran withholds oil from the European market, and sells it somewhere else, that frees up an equivalent amount of oil in the world market for Europe to buy. It represents a redistribution of supply, but not a change in overall quantity. The implicit message here is that Iran's economy would be in peril if a complete embargo was enacted. They need to sell oil to survive."




They need to sell oil to survive, and if I'm not wrong, they only need one paying customer in order to do so.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 15, 2012 4:54 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

As far as I'm concerned, any attempt to complicate this issue must begin with the premise, "It's not their oil."

I don't think that's a case anyone can make, so things remain blindingly simple to me.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 15, 2012 5:02 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

As far as I'm concerned, any attempt to complicate this issue must begin with the premise, "It's not their oil."

I don't think that's a case anyone can make, so things remain blindingly simple to me.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner





Yup. I can't remember seeing the thread titled "Europe Threatens Iran" when they were talking about sanctions and embargoes against Iran. Yet somehow Iran is now "threatening" Europe by saying they might not sell Europe what Europe says it might not buy.

Awesome.

I'm sure the die-hard free-market capitalists in here can explain to me why Iran has no say who buys their oil or who they sell to.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 15, 2012 9:47 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


... Well, it is their oil so they can decide what to do with it.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 16, 2012 3:59 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

As far as I'm concerned, any attempt to complicate this issue must begin with the premise, "It's not their oil."

I don't think that's a case anyone can make, so things remain blindingly simple to me.



It's not their oil. If there are contracts and agreements in place then the oil has been promised - I would guess that's the case here. Can't run a country without some kind of long term guarantees for oil delivery.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 16, 2012 4:07 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

It's their oil. They can do with it what they like. I don't see the problem.




It's not that simple of course, nations rise and fall and go to war for oil. I know, you'd think people would plan so it's not a problem, but it's just not like that. If you are for a destabilized region (even more so) then this is fine, but if you'd like to see some kind of bigger thinking used toward peace just one time in the area, this isn't it.

I liked this comment after the article:

"I'm not sure that this threat has significant consequences. If Iran withholds oil from the European market, and sells it somewhere else, that frees up an equivalent amount of oil in the world market for Europe to buy. It represents a redistribution of supply, but not a change in overall quantity. The implicit message here is that Iran's economy would be in peril if a complete embargo was enacted. They need to sell oil to survive."




They need to sell oil to survive, and if I'm not wrong, they only need one paying customer in order to do so.




It does seem odd that they had chosen to sell to people who they don't seem to get a long with. I don't think we're dealing with a brilliant statesmen in Ahmadinejad, he pushes too many wrong buttons and has no idea with regards to his audience. I'm not saying our guys are much better.
I've known sales people that would make it so both sides got exactly what they wanted and also felt like they screwed the other one over (appeals to the baser side when deals get done), like a double win.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 16, 2012 5:15 AM

CAVETROLL


They've reduced their pool of possible customers, to say nothing of the contract violations angle. A smaller customer pool means lower price per barrel of oil. They're cutting off their noses to spite their face.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 16, 2012 5:20 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

As far as I'm concerned, any attempt to complicate this issue must begin with the premise, "It's not their oil."

I don't think that's a case anyone can make, so things remain blindingly simple to me.



It's not their oil. If there are contracts and agreements in place then the oil has been promised - I would guess that's the case here. Can't run a country without some kind of long term guarantees for oil delivery.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com






Hello,

If indeed there are contracts in place, then it is their contracted customers who have already threatened to break the deal. They are responding to that.

It sometimes seems as if all just action only flows in one direction, against Iran. Every time Iran asserts a right, they are frowned upon.

Meanwhile, everyone else has the right to tell Iran what to do, and how, and when, and how much.

--Anthony





_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 16, 2012 5:42 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Hello,

If indeed there are contracts in place, then it is their contracted customers who have already threatened to break the deal. They are responding to that.

It sometimes seems as if all just action only flows in one direction, against Iran. Every time Iran asserts a right, they are frowned upon.

Meanwhile, everyone else has the right to tell Iran what to do, and how, and when, and how much.



That's not necessarily true. The contract probably doesn't have any language concerning sanctions, those are based on other actions, so by the terms of the oil delivery contracts the EU nations involved are probably not breaking anything.
More importantly though, does any of it matter really? Nations can get their legals and politicians to justify anything. We all know the larger issue is Iran getting nukes. I don't feel good about that, do you? I don't trust any nation that says they have every intention to wipe another one off the map. Maybe we should be glad they at least announce their intentions?

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 16, 2012 5:48 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Hello,

If indeed there are contracts in place, then it is their contracted customers who have already threatened to break the deal. They are responding to that.

It sometimes seems as if all just action only flows in one direction, against Iran. Every time Iran asserts a right, they are frowned upon.

Meanwhile, everyone else has the right to tell Iran what to do, and how, and when, and how much.



That's not necessarily true. The contract probably doesn't have any language concerning sanctions, those are based on other actions, so by the terms of the oil delivery contracts the EU nations involved are probably not breaking anything.
More importantly though, does any of it matter really? Nations can get their legals and politicians to justify anything. We all know the larger issue is Iran getting nukes. I don't feel good about that, do you? I don't trust any nation that says they have every intention to wipe another one off the map. Maybe we should be glad they at least announce their intentions?

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com






Hello,

It is because we think we have the right to do what we please that they feel they need this capability.

I do not trust or like Iran, but I don't feel we have the right to squeeze or crush them. I've already seen wars conducted based on what someone might do, and it hasn't excited me to salivate for more of the same.

--Anthony

ETA: "More importantly though, does any of it matter really?"

No, but you brought it up.



_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 16, 2012 6:03 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Hello,

It is because we think we have the right to do what we please that they feel they need this capability.

I do not trust or like Iran, but I don't feel we have the right to squeeze or crush them. I've already seen wars conducted based on what someone might do, and it hasn't excited me to salivate for more of the same.

--Anthony

ETA: "More importantly though, does any of it matter really?"

No, but you brought it up.




Yeah, I thought "it's their oil" was a little thin so I went for the numbing "contract law." But in the end that's just a silly thing, people will reach out and grab what they want if they're pushed far enough. I'm referring to both sides - we seem to be on a collision course on this one.
I don't get why any of us can't get along, there seems to be plenty of everything. I'm hopeful that the digital revolution will eliminate a lot of that - the trade off is a loss of uniqueness - maybe something for another thread.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 16, 2012 6:16 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


"I don't get why any of us can't get along, there seems to be plenty of everything."

Hello,

I feel we are in an age where 'enough' is insufficient. People used to worry about getting fed, staying warm, staying dry. Now we fight wars to enrich the rich further, and to avoid even the most temporary of discomforts and inconveniences.

If Israel goes to war with Iran, it will be about fear. If the rest of the world gets involved, it will be about greed.

"I'm hopeful that the digital revolution will eliminate a lot of that - the trade off is a loss of uniqueness"

Having seen several foreign films remade in the U.S. recently, I am convinced that no matter how much information gets transferred from one place to another, each region will retain its own flavor. Caribbean Barbeque and Texas Barbeque will always be different. As will Cuban food and Mexican food. Even naked ideas take on distinctive flavors as they move from mind to mind.

But I'd be happy to talk about that in the new thread you propose.

--Anthony



_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 16, 2012 6:29 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

We all know the larger issue is Iran getting nukes.


They're not. They're enriching Uranium. Based on the centrifuges they're using, the worst they could do would be to build a dirty bomb, and while that would be a scummy thing to do, that is not a nuke.

You have to have over 90% enriched Uranium for it to be weapons grade, and it's a fairly involved process. Reactor grade material is 3-4% enriched Uranium, which is what they can do with what they have.

Everything else is just panic without understanding the science. Or people just looking for any excuse to start a fight. On Iran's part they're just saber rattling.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 16, 2012 6:59 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quote:

We all know the larger issue is Iran getting nukes.


They're not. They're enriching Uranium. Based on the centrifuges they're using, the worst they could do would be to build a dirty bomb, and while that would be a scummy thing to do, that is not a nuke.

You have to have over 90% enriched Uranium for it to be weapons grade, and it's a fairly involved process. Reactor grade material is 3-4% enriched Uranium, which is what they can do with what they have.

Everything else is just panic without understanding the science. Or people just looking for any excuse to start a fight. On Iran's part they're just saber rattling.



"We all know the larger issue is [the potential of] Iran getting nukes."

People understand the science well enough - it's not a Big Mac, they are not there yet, and then there are delivery issues, but doesn't it looks like that's the path they are on however far off? Would you suggest they'd stop at generating electricity? I wouldn't if I were them.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 16, 2012 7:13 AM

BYTEMITE


Let me put it this way. Even if they got a nuke, how many nations in the world currently have them, and how many nations have ever used them on a populated area?

How much do you hear about North Korea now that they certainly have a nuke? Did they bomb Japan like so many were fearing?

It's not about USING it. It's about HAVING it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 16, 2012 7:22 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


I do find it amusing that they are threatening to stop selling oil to Europe when Europe has considered embargoing their oil. Wouldn't Europe have already made contingencies in order to threaten that? It seems funny to threaten not to sell something to someone who's threatening not to buy your product...

I think if Iran would back off their promise to wipe Israel off the map, there might be some hope. As it is, that threat hangs over Israel like the sword of damoclese, with the predictable result that Israel is paranoid where Iran is concerned and would like to take "pre-emptive" steps. The difference between Korea and Iran is that LOTS of nations threaten to bomb other nations, etc., but Iran has said from Day One that they want to wipe Israel off the map, and given it's about religion, it's natural that people take them seriously.

Stupid, stupid nations. I'm hearing now that Ahmadinejad is actually a MODERATE compared to others in the government...oh joy...




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 16, 2012 7:27 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Let me put it this way. Even if they got a nuke, how many nations in the world currently have them, and how many nations have ever used them on a populated area?

How much do you hear about North Korea now that they certainly have a nuke? Did they bomb Japan like so many were fearing?

It's not about USING it. It's about HAVING it.



They're connected in a hierarchy - the threat of USING it is what makes the threat of HAVING it have any value. Can't use one if you don't have one so prevention starts there. Ask any nation: "would you feel better if the world were nuke free?" I think it would be unanimous. No Nukes - at the very least start reducing them, not adding to their numbers. We're not sophisticated enough to have them.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 16, 2012 7:38 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
I don't trust any nation that says they have every intention to wipe another one off the map.


And yet you trust one that fed you a deliberately and malicious translation via MEMRI that was so distorted it was factually untrue ?

What he said was far more equivalant to my "cast into the dustbin of history", same sentiment, without the threat, implied or otherwise.

Exact: “This occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the arena/page of time.”

Not that there isn't antagonism, but when the primary source of english translation for US media distribution is part of one of the players in the game here, one might think to take those often seriously warped "translations" with a grain of salt.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 16, 2012 7:49 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

They're connected in a hierarchy - the threat of USING it is what makes the threat of HAVING it have any value.


Mutually Assured Destruction. You don't have to use it for it to be a threat. Isreal has nukes we gave them, Iran wants nukes to discourage Israel from using theirs.

And again, no one since the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima has used a nuclear device on a populated area, because they know what would happen.

Sure, I'd like to see less nukes... Though I suspect you'd all send your dismantled bombs and fissile material to bury in Utah. But on the other hand, nukes have been outclassed by research in more conventional explosives nowadays. There's a far bigger threat in nuclear reactors to the people LIVING around them nowadays than there is to people using radioactive weapons on their enemies. People running after nukes are just showing how behind the times they are. Anyone threatening to use one is just laughable. Both nations know tensions are a better way to rake in cash, supplies, and international support than open warfare. Why is any of this frightening?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 16, 2012 7:58 AM

BYTEMITE


That's right, international political theatre, I'ma callin' you out!

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LikeYouWouldReallyDoIt

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 16, 2012 8:09 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
I don't trust any nation that says they have every intention to wipe another one off the map.


And yet you trust one that fed you a deliberately and malicious translation via MEMRI that was so distorted it was factually untrue ?

What he said was far more equivalant to my "cast into the dustbin of history", same sentiment, without the threat, implied or otherwise.

Exact: “This occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the arena/page of time.”

Not that there isn't antagonism, but when the primary source of english translation for US media distribution is part of one of the players in the game here, one might think to take those often seriously warped "translations" with a grain of salt.



Good point - and the press isn't known for being shy about going extreme.
Seems I've heard variations on that intention though from a number of sources and not just this famous one:

"The translation presented by the official Islamic Republic News Agency has been challenged by Arash Norouzi, who says the statement "wiped off the map" was never made and that Ahmadinejad did not refer to the nation or land mass of Israel, but to the "regime occupying Jerusalem". Norouzi translated the original Persian to English, with the result, "the Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."[11] Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, agrees that Ahmadinejad's statement should be translated as, "the Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[12] According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to 'wipe Israel off the map' because no such idiom exists in Persian." Instead, "he did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."[13] The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translated the phrase similarly, as "this regime" must be "eliminated from the pages of history."[14]
Iranian government sources denied that Ahmadinejad issued any sort of threat. On 20 February 2006, Iran's foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference: "How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognize legally this regime."

Hard to get the exact meaning of a phrase, even the context of where the thing is said. I took, "roast their bellies in Hell," as pretty easy to get. How do you know what "dustbin" is unthreatening?

"What should we drink to, Sir?"
"Down with Hitler."
"All the way down, sir."

Doesn't sound very threatening.

I've definitely heard A. speak in English, the way his mind works (doesn't work) makes me think bombing a nation into oblivion is well within his personal ideology.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 16, 2012 8:18 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quote:

They're connected in a hierarchy - the threat of USING it is what makes the threat of HAVING it have any value.


Mutually Assured Destruction. You don't have to use it for it to be a threat. Isreal has nukes we gave them, Iran wants nukes to discourage Israel from using theirs.

And again, no one since the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima has used a nuclear device on a populated area, because they know what would happen.

Sure, I'd like to see less nukes... Though I suspect you'd all send your dismantled bombs and fissile material to bury in Utah. But on the other hand, nukes have been outclassed by research in more conventional explosives nowadays. There's a far bigger threat in nuclear reactors to the people LIVING around them nowadays than there is to people using radioactive weapons on their enemies. People running after nukes are just showing how behind the times they are. Anyone threatening to use one is just laughable. Both nations know tensions are a better way to rake in cash, supplies, and international support than open warfare. Why is any of this frightening?



How is this helping Iran rake in cash and supplies and International support? Sanctions? You don't trust humans with reactors but humans with bombs are ok? You're afraid of dismantled nukes but not live ones? You're working awfully hard just to be contrary.. you might need your own personal mini-reactor at this rate.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 16, 2012 8:27 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Let me put it this way. Even if they got a nuke, how many nations in the world currently have them, and how many nations have ever used them on a populated area?

How much do you hear about North Korea now that they certainly have a nuke? Did they bomb Japan like so many were fearing?

It's not about USING it. It's about HAVING it.




Bingo. And sometimes a joke "news" site like The Onion just nails it:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/iran-worried-us-might-be-building-850
0th-nuclear-w,27325
/


How worried is every other nation on Earth because the U.S. has thousands of nuclear devices, and has shown a clear proclivity for using them against other nations?

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 16, 2012 8:34 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

How is this helping Iran rake in cash and supplies and International support? Sanctions?


The UN is not the only international organization in existence. I don't think it would surprise you to know that Iran has a lot of support in Russia and China. And China currently has a lot of money, and they're willing to bite back at the US.

Quote:

You don't trust humans with reactors but humans with bombs are ok?


I don't like either, but seriously, all of this "Omigosh they're building a reactor and they might (just might!) build a bomb" is ridiculous.

Quote:

You're afraid of dismantled nukes but not live ones?


Because no one is going to USE a nuke in this day and age, but I can get poisoned if you bury the material here.

I'm not particularly afraid of either one, but I put "being poisoned by nuclear reactor radiation and nuclear waste" at a far higher possibility of happening than I do a bomb explosion, just from the pure statistical standpoint. But to be fair, there's a lot of native uranium around here anyway I guess, so maybe your poisoning me won't make a damn lot of difference.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 16, 2012 8:44 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
I don't trust any nation that says they have every intention to wipe another one off the map.


And yet you trust one that fed you a deliberately and malicious translation via MEMRI that was so distorted it was factually untrue ?

What he said was far more equivalant to my "cast into the dustbin of history", same sentiment, without the threat, implied or otherwise.

Exact: “This occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the arena/page of time.”

Not that there isn't antagonism, but when the primary source of english translation for US media distribution is part of one of the players in the game here, one might think to take those often seriously warped "translations" with a grain of salt.



Good point - and the press isn't known for being shy about going extreme.
Seems I've heard variations on that intention though from a number of sources and not just this famous one:

"The translation presented by the official Islamic Republic News Agency has been challenged by Arash Norouzi, who says the statement "wiped off the map" was never made and that Ahmadinejad did not refer to the nation or land mass of Israel, but to the "regime occupying Jerusalem". Norouzi translated the original Persian to English, with the result, "the Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."[11] Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, agrees that Ahmadinejad's statement should be translated as, "the Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[12] According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to 'wipe Israel off the map' because no such idiom exists in Persian." Instead, "he did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."[13] The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translated the phrase similarly, as "this regime" must be "eliminated from the pages of history."[14]
Iranian government sources denied that Ahmadinejad issued any sort of threat. On 20 February 2006, Iran's foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference: "How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognize legally this regime."

Hard to get the exact meaning of a phrase, even the context of where the thing is said. I took, "roast their bellies in Hell," as pretty easy to get. How do you know what "dustbin" is unthreatening?

"What should we drink to, Sir?"
"Down with Hitler."
"All the way down, sir."

Doesn't sound very threatening.

I've definitely heard A. speak in English, the way his mind works (doesn't work) makes me think bombing a nation into oblivion is well within his personal ideology.




How many times have you heard Americans - politicians, generals, etc. - utter things like "Kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out!", or "Bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb Iran!" or "Nuke 'em 'til they glow, then shoot 'em in the dark!" or "Let's bomb 'em into the Stone Age!"

Given that the U.S. has the world's premier nuclear arsenal, shouldn't this be seen as incredibly threatening behavior? Haven't we in essence threatened to wipe entire countries off the map? Hell, our President even called such efforts a "crusade" after 9/11...

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 16, 2012 8:58 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


I'm confused. However the translation comes out, the basic idea is that "occupation regime over Jerusalem" must be wiped out. Isn't the only "regime" occupying Jerusalem Israel? How is that phraseology any different than the sentiment that Israel must be wiped out? Any way you put it, the "regime" over Jerusalem IS Israel, isn't it?

As to nobody using nukes, I wouldn't bet the store on it. We're NOT "sophisticated" enough to guarantee nobody will, and there are crazies in every country. Given the state of our armed forces and how they're scattered around, given our current weakness, given China and Russia being firmly behind Iran and THEIR power, who can guarantee someone hasn't worked out the situation in such a way as to believe it would end up with them "winning"?

Sorry, I don't place that much faith in mankind's common sense. I'm not convinced Iran necessarily WILL, but I'm not convinced it's impossible.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 16, 2012 9:18 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Just spotted the following:
Quote:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is offering to resume talks over his country's nuclear program as soon as possible, according to a letter he sent to the European Union. http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/16/world/meast/iran-nuclear/index.html?hpt=
hp_t1
has all this been sabre rattling after all? Was it a last-ditch attempt to scare the world into letting them develop nukes which has failed? Are they hurting enough that it not working has them doing an about-face? Verrrrry strange...

Before that was announced, this came out, possibly explaining all the recent developments?
Quote:

But negotiations could be the name of the game. Just as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was placing fuel rods into Tehran's research reactor to great fanfare, the regime was sending a letter to European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton about resuming nuclear talks with world powers. Coincidence? Unlikely.

Ahmadinejad's show may have merely been staged for public consumption, designed to wrap the regime in a nuclear flag and rally them in the face of crippling sanctions. Iran's nuclear program is still an issue of national pride and one rare point of consensus among Iran's fractured regime, which Ahmadinejad could use to his advantage in next month's parliamentary elections.

Or it could, as some experts believe, be meant to suggest that Iran is willing to negotiate with the West about its nuclear program.

Tough sanctions on the regime have begun to trickle down to the Iranian people, and the suffering is sure to intensify once curbs against Iranian oil exports take effect in June. By responding to an invitation for talks from so-called P5 Plus 1 (the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany) on the same day it declares nuclear advances, Tehran may be saying it expects to come to the table from a position of strength. More at http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/15/does-irans-nuclear-announceme
nt-spell-defiance-or-desire-to-talk/?hpt=hp_bn2
?




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 16, 2012 9:37 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quote:

How is this helping Iran rake in cash and supplies and International support? Sanctions?


The UN is not the only international organization in existence. I don't think it would surprise you to know that Iran has a lot of support in Russia and China. And China currently has a lot of money, and they're willing to bite back at the US.

Quote:

You don't trust humans with reactors but humans with bombs are ok?


I don't like either, but seriously, all of this "Omigosh they're building a reactor and they might (just might!) build a bomb" is ridiculous.

Quote:

You're afraid of dismantled nukes but not live ones?


Because no one is going to USE a nuke in this day and age, but I can get poisoned if you bury the material here.

I'm not particularly afraid of either one, but I put "being poisoned by nuclear reactor radiation and nuclear waste" at a far higher possibility of happening than I do a bomb explosion, just from the pure statistical standpoint. But to be fair, there's a lot of native uranium around here anyway I guess, so maybe your poisoning me won't make a damn lot of difference.



I don't trust your judgement on this: "no one is going to USE a nuke in this day and age."
That means one of us is wrong. If I'm wrong then no bombs go off, if you're wrong things go boom. If you were put in charge of such things which scenario is the wisest one to plan for?

If Iran would never use one then they won't mind us making sure they can't, right?

China and Russia, yeah they're a safety net of sorts. I'm not sure how much money China has - aren't they bracing for the effects of having built so much so fast? I don't know how the average Iranian is effected by current sanctions - all I get is ny times & John Stewart coverage, and sometimes I check out BBC and Al Jazeera - who can you trust though? Stewart?

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 16, 2012 9:39 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

How many times have you heard Americans - politicians, generals, etc. - utter things like "Kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out!", or "Bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb Iran!" or "Nuke 'em 'til they glow, then shoot 'em in the dark!" or "Let's bomb 'em into the Stone Age!"


I've heard "melt that pit of sand into glass."

Ahmedinejad might very well be crazy in real life, he might even be DUMB enough to think that nuking another nation (or even passing a nuke onto terrorists in an easily traceable way) might be a good idea. He might be flat out suicidal, and or a megalomanic. I don't know the guy. But considering he managed to play the political game and not get himself shot before getting into office, I imagine he's playing to an audience. Even if he believes everything he says, Iran is a nation, not just one person.

This is a poll I found.

http://www.usip.org/files/MWI/iran_presentation.pdf

People are people, no matter where you are. And people understand basic human decency.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 16, 2012 9:45 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

So has all this been sabre rattling after all?


Of course it was.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 16, 2012 9:47 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
How many times have you heard Americans - politicians, generals, etc. - utter things like "Kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out!", or "Bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb Iran!" or "Nuke 'em 'til they glow, then shoot 'em in the dark!" or "Let's bomb 'em into the Stone Age!"

Given that the U.S. has the world's premier nuclear arsenal, shouldn't this be seen as incredibly threatening behavior? Haven't we in essence threatened to wipe entire countries off the map? Hell, our President even called such efforts a "crusade" after 9/11...




Newt - seriously - equally crazy. I see the lights dimming as he takes the oath... cue the red colored gels and the fire pit and the under lighting... and watch for the tail. Yeah, we do crazy well.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 16, 2012 9:47 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

That means one of us is wrong. If I'm wrong then no bombs go off, if you're wrong things go boom. If you were put in charge of such things which scenario is the wisest one to plan for?


The one that's more likely to happen, because the other one's a non-existent threat?

Nothing short of military intervention is going to stop Iran from pursuing their nuclear reactor technology. You'd start a war over something you don't even know is going to happen, and which probably isn't? That's how worried you are over the Iranian nuclear threat.

Quote:

If Iran would never use one then they won't mind us making sure they can't, right?


EXCEPT the stuff has more than one use and they're buildin' a friggin' nuclear reactor!

It's like saying, no, you can't buy gasoline, because what if you blow up someone's car!

That is NOT any kind of valid induction on motive. What on earth? Guilty before proven guilty or what?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 16, 2012 10:21 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quote:

That means one of us is wrong. If I'm wrong then no bombs go off, if you're wrong things go boom. If you were put in charge of such things which scenario is the wisest one to plan for?


The one that's more likely to happen, because the other one's a non-existent threat?

Nothing short of military intervention is going to stop Iran from pursuing their nuclear reactor technology. You'd start a war over something you don't even know is going to happen, and which probably isn't? That's how worried you are over the Iranian nuclear threat.

Quote:

If Iran would never use one then they won't mind us making sure they can't, right?


EXCEPT the stuff has more than one use and they're buildin' a friggin' nuclear reactor!

It's like saying, no, you can't buy gasoline, because what if you blow up someone's car!



It's not how worried I am, more like Israel. I'd like to avoid war.

Non-existent threat - you even used the word "likely," so not for sure 100% non-existent? You like to gamble with millions of lives?

My admitted limited understanding is that it's obvious to inspectors the difference between what's used and needed, both in hardware and nuclear goo stuff, for bombs versus making electricity - that's what inspectors get paid for.

Anyway, looks like the sanctions worked, they're coming back to the table.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 16, 2012 10:22 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


You're missing something, Byte. Ahmedinejad, according to everything I've heard (from people who've INTERVIEWED HIM and others) is a MODERATE in Iran right now. The powers behind him are MORE extreme, he's the one trying to keep the lid on. So take him out of the equation before arguing that TPTB in Iran have more common sense than to nuke someone...and bear in mind that those who make up TPTB are ULTRA-religious, and hate Israel far more as a result.

Nobody's saying we should go to war, but to be realistic about potentials is, in my mind, better than burying one's head in the sand and saying "it can't happen here" or "it won't happen because it never has". JMHO



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 16, 2012 10:28 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Nobody's saying we should go to war


That IS what you're saying because it's the logical extrapolation of your argument.

Sanctions haven't worked so far, so what exactly are you suggesting to STOP Iran if you're so worried?

Quote:

but to be realistic about potentials is


This is realistic? Assuming everyone is so mindbendingly idiotic that they're just darwin awards waiting to happen? Not basing threat assessment on statistical probability?

As for those crazy nuke-loving clerics:

Quote:

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has issued a fatwa saying the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons was forbidden under Islam.[49] The fatwa was cited in an official statement by the Iranian government at an August 2005 meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna.[50]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei#Fatwa_against_nuclear_weapon
s

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 16, 2012 12:02 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


I don't want them to have nuclear weapons either, but I can't stop them, neither, technically, can anyone else unless we go to war and I don't want anymore wars for a while. We can discourage it but there is no way to stop them if they're dead set on doing it. Once they have it then we just have to keep them from using it, as we need to not use it, as others shouldn't use it.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 16, 2012 12:08 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

My admitted limited understanding is that it's obvious to inspectors the difference between what's used and needed, both in hardware and nuclear goo stuff, for bombs versus making electricity - that's what inspectors get paid for.


And even inspectors are saying that the flat plates and the type of centrifuges they're using could only be used to generate reactor fuel. Which is the same thing I've been saying.

I'm not risking a million lives first because I'm not in charge, second because I'm against a war in which a million people would die WITHOUT nuclear weapons involved, and third because there's no risk. They can't do something with technology they DON'T HAVE.

But even if they HAD it, or were working to develop it, and had the capacity? They'd be just like all the other rogue nations we thought were going to go attacking other nations around them like crazy. They would be cowed by MAD. Therefore still no risk.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 16, 2012 12:09 PM

BYTEMITE


Riona: Agreed.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 16, 2012 12:53 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

Well said, Riona.

The last time we got into the pre-crime business in order to stop a country from developing weapons of mass destruction, over a hundred-thousand people died.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 16, 2012 12:58 PM

OONJERAH



Quote PismoBeach "The implicit message here is that Iran's economy would be in peril if a complete embargo
was enacted. They need to sell oil to survive."

As usual, I am behind on the facts of the news, especially any news beyond movie news.

I interpret Iran's position as, "If all the big, powerful, Christian nations of the world have nuclear power,
then it is only fair that we, Iran, should have nuclear power." Do they imply the other Moslem nations as
well should have it or that all nations should have the same rights? I gather they feel nuclear power is more
necessary to their survival than oil sales to Big Bullies.

OTOH,
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel#Economy
"Israel is considered one of the most advanced countries in Southwest Asia in economic and industrial development."
... "Leading exports include electronics, software, computerized systems, communications technology, medical
equipment, pharmaceuticals, fruits, chemicals, military technology, and cut diamonds; in 2006, Israeli exports
reached $42.86 billion, and by 2010 they had reached $80.5 billion a year."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_economy
"The economy of Iran is the world's 26th largest economy by market value nominal GDP, and the seventeenth largest
in the world by purchasing power parity (PPP). The economy of Iran is a mixed and transition economy with a large
public sector and some 50% of the economy centrally planned. It is also a diversifed economy with over 40 industries
directly involved in the Tehran Stock Exchange. Yet, most of the country's exports are oil and gas, accounting for
a majority of government revenue in 2010" ...
"High oil prices in recent years have enabled Iran to amass well over $100 billion in foreign exchange reserves.
Whilst this has aided self-sufficiency and domestic investment, double-digit unemployment and inflation remain
problematic. Iran's educated population, economic inefficiency, and insufficient foreign and domestic investment
have prompted an increasing number of Iranians to seek employment overseas, resulting in a significant 'brain drain'."

Few people know less about the Middle East than I.
In existence less than 60 years, Israel is financially sound with diversified economy. Other nations may have
helped them some, but they did the work.
In existence since Biblical times, Iran (and perhaps other Arab neighbors) "need to sell oil to survive."

How come? We've been messing with them, bullying them since when? -- before WWII? Our foreign policy sucks badly.
Iran is rich. Why isn't its land and economy developed? Did they have a brain drain before they even met us?

If they are this impractical, it is no wonder that no one wants them to have nuclear power.
Heck! Now that I've thought it over, I don't want them to have nuclear power.

I'm not sure we are fully to blame for this one. Not that anyone said we were.

See Lawrence of Arabia, 1962, Peter O'Toole:
"So long as the Arabs fight tribe against tribe, so long will they be a little people, a silly people - greedy, barbarous,
and cruel, as you are."


"All I suggest is a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest" ~Paul Simon

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 16, 2012 1:24 PM

BYTEMITE


"Does it surprise you, Mr Bentley? Surely, you know the Arabs are a barbarous people. Barbarous and cruel. Who but they! Who but they!"

- Said to Lawrence of Arabia in the quoted movie, after revenge slaughtering an entire unit of Arabs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 16, 2012 1:39 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

Quote:

In existence since Biblical times,"


I'm not sure it's fair to say Iran has been in existence since Biblical times. The dirt has been there since Biblical times, but not a continuous government. We (the West) have indeed been messing with them since before WWII, and we (the British and USSR) ousted one of their more progressive leaders in 1941 and we (the United States) kicked out their rightfully elected leadership in the 50's and replaced him with a tool. Our tool. That guy was so bad that the people eventually overthrew him. The Iran of today only came into being in the 1970's.

Quote:

"If all the big, powerful, Christian nations of the world have nuclear power, then it is only fair that we, Iran, should have nuclear power."


Yes, but perhaps more importantly, "If we are able to advance ourselves and develop nuclear power, by what right do you stop us?"

Quote:

Iran (and perhaps other Arab neighbors) "need to sell oil to survive." How come?


Well, it's a resource. Nations tend to use their resources as survival assets. Israel doesn't have much in the way of oil, but if they did I'd wager they'd be selling it, too. They sell the resources they do have, after all.

But I wonder how well we'd tolerate it if Iran ever wanted to stop selling oil. Some people would probably roll the drums of war for that offense.


Quote:

If they are this impractical, it is no wonder that no one wants them to have nuclear power. Heck! Now that I've thought it over, I don't want them to have nuclear power.


It shouldn't be our call. But even if we could have our way with the wave of a magic wand... Iran's trying to move into the late 20th century, and saying 'no' because they are 'impractical' seems to me like saying, "You are too barbaric for us to allow you any advancement out of your barbarity."

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 16, 2012 2:14 PM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:

This is realistic? Assuming everyone is so mindbendingly idiotic that they're just darwin awards waiting to happen? Not basing threat assessment on statistical probability?



There's another way to look at this that may be more supported by history:

"This is realistic? Assuming everyone is so mindbendingly trusting that they're just darwin awards waiting to happen? Not basing threat assessment on statistical probability?"

Ask Neville Chamberlin, ask pretty much any N.Am. Indian, the notion that "people are just people" and we should trust Iran is mind numbingly naive. Hitler, Stalin, come on, only takes one crazy person, including our own crazies, and they can inflict decades of damage to their own people.

"basing threat assessment on statistical probability" is what Israel has been doing - what % do you think is ok with them with the stakes being so high? 1%?



Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
You can't take the sky from me
Thu, October 30, 2014 12:59 - 66 posts
Alternating text direction
Thu, October 30, 2014 12:57 - 3 posts
Rush was wrong today!
Thu, October 30, 2014 12:56 - 9 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine
Thu, October 30, 2014 11:07 - 600 posts
Charles Barkley explains it all.
Thu, October 30, 2014 09:19 - 24 posts
What New Zealand Could Teach US About Indigenous Culture
Thu, October 30, 2014 06:10 - 30 posts
Coffee - Cheers!
Wed, October 29, 2014 23:57 - 141 posts
Election predictions?
Wed, October 29, 2014 23:53 - 6 posts
2nd healthcare worker tests positive for Ebola
Wed, October 29, 2014 21:14 - 54 posts
Minimum Wage
Wed, October 29, 2014 19:01 - 34 posts
More great moments from that religion of PEACE !
Wed, October 29, 2014 06:16 - 133 posts
Can You Love Me Again at the Edge of Tomorrow....
Tue, October 28, 2014 15:43 - 16 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL

OUR SPONSORS