Iran nuclear power - what's the problem?

Catsmokinpot

Orizio wrote:

The US gets most of its oil from South America,not the ME.Invading Iraq and doing severe damage to its oil infastructure seems a moronic thing to do when it would just have been easier to drop the stringent sanctions on the Iraqi oil industry,no?

Sorry but this whole oil thing makes little sense.

its not about how much oil they get its about what currency its traded in, its traded in dollars, which means america can prettymuch print off as much money as they want as long as the oil keeps flowing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollars changing to euros could damage them

and iran are the 4th biggest oil producing nation in the world if they started trading in euros that would be a massive hit to their economy.....

bonkey

Whistle Blower wrote:

And Nuclear Power for Energy RIGHT we believe that,

Why is it so incredible to countenance?

GWB in his State of the Union went on about how America was addicted to oil for which it had to often rely on foreign nations. This reliance on other nations is increasingly been seen as unacceptable.

There has been some press here in Switzerland recently about the reliance of Europe on various ex-USSR states for its fuel - smoething thats increasingly been seen as unacceptable.

Why, then, is it so incredible that a nation like Iran doesn't want to leave itself at the mercy of any foreign nation in a similar manner?

What possible advantage would it gain by ensuring that its nuclear generating capacity is entirely reliant on someone else being willing to sell them the raw materials?

I don't rule out that Iran may also seek nuclear weapons capability, but the simple fact is that they absolutely do want enrichment capability for their generating capabilities no matter how you might want to scoff at it.

jc

Pa ElGrande

Iran's economy, is state-dominated, and largely supported by its oil sales, it has large scale youth unemployment. I believe is was Tip O'Neill who said "All Politics is Local". In this case the president of Iran is playing his countrymen, by demonising America. He presents himself as the strongman and diverts from the state of the Iranian economy and perceived "liberal" agenda of the young population within Iran who are pushing for a better standard of living.
Sanctions will only strenghten his hand.

More information about Iran : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran

Americas isolated goverment is an easy target for the Iranian govt., and the poor intelligence which pervades political circles in Washington only compounds the mistakes they are likely to make.

The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse
http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_05/petrov011606.html

The Iran Crisis “Diplomacy” as a Launch Pad for Missiles
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2814

No moral high ground
http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/26503

Iran bravado on UN sanctions may ring hollow
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-02-01T103650Z_01_OLI133302_RTRUKOC_0_US-ECONOMY-IRAN-SANCTIONS.xml&archived=False

Why the Iranian menace must be stopped
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/lweinstein/060115

A brief biography of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/ahmadinejad.htm

Iran halts snap nuclear checks
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4687506.stm

Islamic Republic News Agency
http://www.irna.ir/en/

sovtek

Orizio wrote:

Very clever.



The US gets most of its oil from South America,not the ME.Invading Iraq and doing severe damage to its oil infastructure seems a moronic thing to do when it would just have been easier to drop the stringent sanctions on the Iraqi oil industry,no?

Sorry but this whole oil thing makes little sense.

It makes loads of sense and it's documented that the Bushies wanted control of Iraq for a while now. This is old hat here in boards.
Access and control are two entirely different animals.

sovtek

Nuttzz wrote:

all valid, except Israel hasnt said it will wipe <insert middle east country here> off the face of the earth....

No but many politicians have stated that they want to push the Palestinians into the sea...oh and it's attacked it's nieghbors on almost a constant basis since it's inception in 1948

Pa ElGrande

sovtek wrote:

No but many politicians have stated that they want to push the Palestinians into the sea...oh and it's attacked it's nieghbors on almost a constant basis since it's inception in 1948

This is true some Isreali leaders have the intention to push the palestinians into the sea and rebuild the original kingdom of David. However in the context of this thread (Iran's nuclear weapon ambitions), Isreal is not a threat to the Iranians. The politics or populism in the middle east means that the Israeli's are an easy bogeyman to use to distract your poplulation.
e.g.
The <insert state here> needs a large security apparatus - to protect you from Isreal and root out the zionist conspirators (and anyone else who disagrees).
High unemployment - again that will be the Israeli's.
We need nuclear weapons - can't trust those Isreali's.

In practice most middle eastern leaders don't care about the Palestinians, but are quiet happy to use the situation to their advantage.

Pa ElGrande

What the Iran 'nuclear issue' is really about

Letter on Al Jazeera

Freddie59

Hobbes wrote:

Actually they have said they will (and have) use force to pre-emptively protect themselves which isn't that far off then what the other side is spouting.

OK. Let's say someone was threatening to burn your house down and is standing in your front garden with the petrol, ready to go. You have called the guards but have been ignored - thus you must protect yourself.

Now, instead of petrol you have a gun. You can shoot the arsonist before he lights the fuse, thus preserving yourself and your family. Which would you choose? Now, for you and your family write Israel, for the guards write the UN, and for Iran write the arsonist.

Get the picture my friend?

Nuttzz

sovtek wrote:

.oh and it's attacked it's nieghbors on almost a constant basis since it's inception in 1948

take off the blinkers man, the arabs arent innocents in all of this for example:

the arabs invaded israel in 1948 after it declared independence

egypt initiated a limited war from 69-70 to try and get back the gazza strip

the yom kippur war was started when syria and egypt attacked israel

sovtek

Nuttzz wrote:

take off the blinkers man, the arabs arent innocents in all of this for example:

No they aren't but not for the reason's you state...

the arabs invaded israel in 1948 after it declared independence

This was after 3 years of terrorism on the part of Israel that was mandated by the UN and the borders of Israel being"legitimised" even though it was taken by force. It wasn't the arabs that expelled hundreds of thousands of jews...quite opposite.

egypt initiated a limited war from 69-70 to try and get back the gazza strip

After it was taken from them by Israel in 1967, when Israel attacked Egypt.

the yom kippur war was started when syria and egypt attacked israel

Again to take back territory it won by aggression against Egypt in 1967 and that UNSC Resol 242 tells them to give back.

Nuttzz

sovtek wrote:

This was after 3 years of terrorism on the part of Israel that was mandated by the UN and the borders of Israel being"legitimised" even though it was taken by force. It wasn't the arabs that expelled hundreds of thousands of jews...quite opposite.

but the UN, the UN like, isnt that the scared cow? once you have a UN mandate you have the backing of the "international community"???

Are UN sanactioned actions now terrorism?