Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Will Israel Vs Iran start world war 3?
Comments
-
Oh and my understanding is the US would need to do the strikes it if it were to have any chance of success - no other nation has the numbers, doctrine or even the technology to carry it out with anything approaching success.0
-
every country that illegaly gets nuclear weapons should have targeted sanctions placed on them
Are Israel's nukes legal?
Incidentally...when asked whether it would be better for both Israel and Iran to have the bomb, or for neither to have it, 65 percent of Israeli Jews said neither. And a remarkable 64 percent favored the idea of a nuclear-free zone, even when it was explained that this would mean Israel giving up its nuclear weapons
Source (PDF)0 -
It is my position? How nice of you to tell me my own position! Please tell me where I said anything like that. Im not stupid enough to think that Iran is only really threatening if they go through a list of the people they will kill in Israel :rolleyes: Really the position that what Iran says and does is all perfectly in line with that of a normal state that should be treated as such has no basis in reality.
If you cannot see the enormous threat in the links I posted, which btw are merely a drop in the ocean of the vitriol that is the Iranian leadership, you really lack basic reading comprehension skills, much less any nuanced view of international affairs.
Where is your evidence that Iran is planning to wipe out the nation of Israel?? where is it?? This is the Israeli position and why they feel they are justified in their lunacy should it happen. You keep typing the same thing and rolling your eyes but where is your evidence? Evidence please perhaps its yourself that lacks comprehension skills and I know from engaging with you on other topics that International affairs wouldnt be your strong point. Evidence please, keep posting your non evidence and I will keep calling you on it.Nope, the BS that stops me having even the beginings of an intelectual debate with you is your total dismisal of enormous evidence that Iran is both threatening and dangerous, purely on the basis that it would force some complexity into your own opinion.
Where is the evidence they are intent on launching a military strike and wiping out the nation of Israel. Where is the evidence theY have nuclear weapons and intend to wipe the nation of the map?? Where is it? you dont have any evidence and if you believe you do youre delusional. Myself and you were engaged in an "intellectual" debate on another thread, the Syria one if I remember correctly. You were dishing out one of your usual rants loaded with questions to which I replied and then you disappeared. Seems like you pick and choose when you want to engage in debate. Stick around this time lets talk. Intellectual has a double L after the first E not one, going forward.Please, if its such BS, tell me who these Zionists are that you believe are so seperate from the citizens of Israel? This is extremly important, and not to be blown off. If you are so comfortable with these people being killed (for, amoungst other things starting both world wars) who are they? And, perhaps more importantly, please explain to us who the president of Iran believes they are and why this mean that really threatening to wipe them out is not big deal?
Where did I say that I am comfortable with anybody being killed?? or I believed they started both wars? are you feeling ok or just making things up. Youre the only person talking about that not me in effect youre talking to yourself because I neither agreed with people being killed nor brought up world war 1 and 2.I havent even given my position on whether or not Israel should attack yet, your vision of the entire situation is so warped I cant even get to that. Really its fascinating how enormously simplistic peoples views are on this and other topics. Either Iran is a victim and is only gently chiding when calling Israel a tumour or they are the devil incarnate and Israel can do no wrong. You people are completly incapable of analysing evidence in a fair fashion.
If that truly is this case why dont you kindly state your position.. Speaking out against an unjust illegal and morally wrong attack is simplistic? do you understand the meaning of the word irony. We know the Israelis are threatening war and nuclear catastrophe ironically to stop a paranoid fantasy of the same thing being carried out against them? evidence?? I mean Ive asked you so many times now where are the Iranians threatening to strike Israel blow up their nuclear plants and wipe them off the map? where?..:rolleyes: so it has everything to do with it not being as general as them threatening destroying the tumour that is Iran and wiping out its supporters and nothing to do with your politics? Please, its a very blatant attempt to vilify one party for threatening an attack and shrugging off the other, far more vitriolic, threat. Its completly transparent to be honest.
Vilify?? should we not vilify lunatics threatening to blow up nuclear plants? or should we condone it? or be indifferent. The only thing that is transparent is your simplistic and total lack of understanding of the bigger picture.That is text book apologism, really if that wasnt your intention you should work on your communication skills.
No it isnt. I ask you again what do you expect them to say in the face of such threats?? answer the question please.Hardly, the enormous rascism and hate does not stem from Israels nuclear weapons program.
Why should they give a crap if you believe they would gain the moral high ground? I have the distinct feeling you, and people like you, and more importantly Iran would then change your position to "they must destroy the weapons to have the moral high ground".
They are treated in the same fashion as Pakistan and India, actually. They get away with double standards because
1./ the international system requires states to sign up to the NPT
2./ every state is not going to react in the exact same way when another state oversteps its bounds. The very idea is ludicorous. The last line of argument from apologists of various regimes is often "The West did nothing when x y or z did a similar thing" as though this somehow sinks the legality or morality of an action. It doesnt, to put it simply - who the **** cares? Governments certainly shouldnt - they should be concerned with defending their citizens and their interests, not running around being a world policeman.
And you accused me of apologism in your previous comment. Sit down please.If Iran wished leway to the same extent India, Pakistan or Israel enjoy a good start would be not chanting "death to America" whenever they got a crowd together. Or not declaring how much they believe the hidden Imam is soon to reveal himself.
Countries are free to form a policy based on what country they are dealing with. That you would even imply thats not the case is an indication of, at least, extreme childishness.
Childishness says the man/woman who inserts roll eyes post after post. Explain what you mean by countries are free to form a policy based on what country they are dealing with? What has that go to do with nuclear double standards? considering you went out of your way to make excuses for it perhaps you could elaborate on that please..So, your position is Israel should only be worried if Iran releases a statement saying how they wish to kill every man woman and child in Israel? :rolleyes: Powerful argument, you must work for the CFR.
Ive made my position quite clear though you are obviously struggling or are just being purposely obtuse but Ill state it again for you. Israel has no right to launch an unjust illegal morally wrong attack because their leaders fear a hypothetical future. They have no right to blow up nuclear plants because they are paranoid. Its quite simple you see:)There is more than enough evidence that Iran considers Israel an enemy, really I couldnt be bothered to google it again, everyone is more than aware that Iran has basiccally defined itself as an enemy of the US and Israel since the revolution. But no point in me wasting my time googling - Ill just grab a quote from about 2 weeks ago.
The head of Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guards, General Mohammad Ali Jafari, told the Fars news agency as he attended the Tehran rally that "the Iranian nation has always been at the forefront of the (regional anti-Israeli) resistance in showing its animosity with Israel."
You really dont get anymore unambiguos than that.
Just drop the point that Iran means no harm and never said anything to indicate it ment it - very very clearly its a non starter.
The General was even nice enough to basically directly contradict you.
But that isnt evidence do you even understand the meaning of that word?? Nations all over the world consider other nations enemies that isnt the point. At this stage its clear that you dont understand the meaning of the word evidence. What part of Israel is threatening a military strike against Iran and the Iranians are talking tough in return dont you understand? Which nation is threatening war? Can you please answer the question. Show me some evidence please? Every time you post non-evidence claiming its evidence of upcoming Iranian armageddon against the nation of Israel - unlike the public and constant threats of military strikes by the Israelis - I will continue to call you on it. Evidence is the key here - reality not hypothetical futures based on paranoia - it really couldnt be any more unambiguous than that.:)0 -
My personal opinion, on a wider scale, is that every country that illegaly gets nuclear weapons should have targeted sanctions placed on them untill the nuclear arsenal is confirmed to be destroyed
This applies to Israel of course? As a non-declared known nuclear power and non-signatory of the NPT? I agree completely. I think targeting their entire financial and banking structure causing misery to the everyday man and woman is a good place to start. Do you think this would be a good place to start considering you agree that every country who illegally obtained a nuclear weapon should be punished?? looks like we finally agree on something:)0 -
With Irans only ally Syria busy with some other matter at the moment, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the Sunnie ruled countries like Saudia Arabia and UAE, teamed up with Israel to take down Irans nukes.
I'm sure UAE and Bahrain would like to stop cowtowing to Iran.
All those jets and technology that Saudia Arabia bought off the US is for some purpose.
http://middleeast.about.com/od/middleeast101/a/arabs-iran.htm
Wouldn't be surprised if Morocco also jumped on Iran.
The US might supply some ordnance to Israel but that will be it's only involvement, and the just sit back and watch.0 -
Advertisement
-
old_aussie wrote: »With Irans only ally Syria busy with some other matter at the moment, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the Sunnie ruled countries like Saudia Arabia and UAE, teamed up with Israel to take down Irans nukes.
What nukes would these be now? The nuclear weapons that the IAEA, US intelligence and Israeli Intelligence all agree that Iran doesnt have?? those nukes?? would it be them..you forgot Russia and China there in your calculations the Iranians do have other allies not just the Syrians.0 -
old_aussie wrote: »With Irans only ally Syria busy with some other matter at the moment, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the Sunnie ruled countries like Saudia Arabia and UAE, teamed up with Israel to take down Irans nukes.
I'm sure UAE and Bahrain would like to stop cowtowing to Iran.
All those jets and technology that Saudia Arabia bought off the US is for some purpose.
http://middleeast.about.com/od/middleeast101/a/arabs-iran.htm
Wouldn't be surprised if Morocco also jumped on Iran.
The US might supply some ordnance to Israel but that will be it's only involvement, and the just sit back and watch.
This is all wrong.
Bahrain would stay well out of a conflict with Iran. There's a Sunni minority ruling a Shiite majority. There'd be a risk that the the Bahraini Shiites would rise up.
The US 5th fleet is based in Bahrain too so the US wouldn't let them.
Iran would be able to mobilise allies in many places around the Persian gulf and other areas in the event of an Israel/US attack on its non-existent nukes.0 -
old_aussie wrote: ».................
I'm sure UAE and Bahrain would like to stop cowtowing to Iran.
...............
I'd like to know, with some references - from a mainstream source - when they started to 'kowtow' to Iran.0 -
Where is your evidence that Iran is planning to wipe out the nation of Israel?? where is it?? This is the Israeli position and why they feel they are justified in their lunacy should it happen. You keep typing the same thing and rolling your eyes but where is your evidence? Evidence please perhaps its yourself that lacks comprehension skills and I know from engaging with you on other topics that International affairs wouldnt be your strong point. Evidence please, keep posting your non evidence and I will keep calling you on it.
I roll my eyes at your constant childish evasions of evidence. If you think what Ive already shown can be blown off, knock yourself out and do it. Dont be surprised when Israel or the US doesnt follow your attitude.
You dont think they threatened / the language used was sufficiently threatening. No one gives a **** - the people who matter do find it so.
That you dont even take as evidence some racial threat to remove those who caused world war 1 and 2 from the Middle East says a whole lot about you and nothing about the level of the threat itself.
Again - no one cares if you dont personaly see the language as threatening - get over it.Where is the evidence they are intent on launching a military strike and wiping out the nation of Israel. Where is the evidence theY have nuclear weapons and intend to wipe the nation of the map?? Where is it? you dont have any evidence and if you believe you do youre delusional. Myself and you were engaged in an "intellectual" debate on another thread, the Syria one if I remember correctly. You were dishing out one of your usual rants loaded with questions to which I replied and then you disappeared. Seems like you pick and choose when you want to engage in debate. Stick around this time lets talk. Intellectual has a double L after the first E not one, going forward.
What the hell are you talking about?
The sanctions are on Iran because they do not fully disclose their nuclear program. Where ever you got the rest of the theories your demanding evidence for I assume some sort of CT is involved, as there usually is when my "?" meter goes through the roof.
Yes usually I do pick and chose - usually because it comes down to a bunch of CTs being thrown out with little to no evidence and no actual attempt at inference of causation. There is little to no point me hanging around shooting down one after another of your points, whilst you wheel out more "evidence" for another global CT...
If I didnt bother writing back it was because I was so overwhelmed by the amount of BS that I just said to myself that if another person doesnt realise how dumb this is on the face of it there is no hope for them.
A good example was your last post in that thread, actually. You basicaly claimed that the news the CIA was giving information to the rebels meant it was an American CT. You actually managed to disregard TIME ITSELF. This was so laughable I just left it.Where did I say that I am comfortable with anybody being killed?? or I believed they started both wars? are you feeling ok or just making things up. Youre the only person talking about that not me in effect youre talking to yourself because I neither agreed with people being killed nor brought up world war 1 and 2.
Christ, try and follow at least a little bit.
You claimed Iran's presidents claims to wipe out this "regime" that caused world war 1 and 2 was in no way a threat to Israel. Im just curious as to who the hell you think it was threatening, who is this group that you and Ahmadenijad are so sure Israel has no business worrying over?If that truly is this case why dont you kindly state your position.. Speaking out against an unjust illegal and morally wrong attack is simplistic? do you understand the meaning of the word irony. We know the Israelis are threatening war and nuclear catastrophe ironically to stop a paranoid fantasy of the same thing being carried out against them? evidence?? I mean Ive asked you so many times now where are the Iranians threatening to strike Israel blow up their nuclear plants and wipe them off the map? where?.. .
Again, you just failed entirely to engage with the article, including declarations of enmity from their top military man.
Again if you dont think this is sufficient for Israel to be worried, fantastic, it just doesnt matter one bit.Vilify?? should we not vilify lunatics threatening to blow up nuclear plants? or should we condone it? or be indifferent. The only thing that is transparent is your simplistic and total lack of understanding of the bigger picture..
Yes yes yes, because believing Iran should not be allowed a nuclear weapon it must therefore follow that I support any Israeli attack :rolleyes:No it isnt. I ask you again what do you expect them to say in the face of such threats?? answer the question please.
Ah so I see! Surprise surprise you take two different positions on the same issue in one post. Not only are Iran not threatening ISrael, but they are also comlpetly entitled to do so given that they are threatened. Typical stuff.
Firstly they have used similiar language for decades. The Islamic regime has defined itself in opposition to the US since its creation, and not in a peaceful mannor. So your contention that its merely a reaction to the present threats is patantly false.
Secondly, they should say nothing and allow IAEA full access. They will find nothing and Israel and the US will look like the evil dogs they are! I cant remember, why dont they do this again?Childishness says the man/woman who inserts roll eyes post after post. Explain what you mean by countries are free to form a policy based on what country they are dealing with? What has that go to do with nuclear double standards? considering you went out of your way to make excuses for it perhaps you could elaborate on that please...
Not making excuses - explainin pretty basic principles of the international system.
My point about countries now taking Iran to task for pursuing nuclear technology without the safeguards is not delegitimiced at all by the faact they did not do the same in other cases, for example Israel.
Again, where are the double standards? Israel is in a very similiar position to the other non signatories - India and Pakistan.
Its also assuming an equality between Israel and Iran - according to who? If you say the international system well then its within that system that it must be dealt with, ie by sanctions and the IAEA.Ive made my position quite clear though you are obviously struggling or are just being purposely obtuse but Ill state it again for you. Israel has no right to launch an unjust illegal morally wrong attack because their leaders fear a hypothetical future. They have no right to blow up nuclear plants because they are paranoid. Its quite simple you see:)
Ball is completly in Iran's court to be able to stop it, or stop any causus beli for it. Your right, it is very simple.But that isnt evidence do you even understand the meaning of that word?? Nations all over the world consider other nations enemies that isnt the point. At this stage its clear that you dont understand the meaning of the word evidence. What part of Israel is threatening a military strike against Iran and the Iranians are talking tough in return dont you understand? Which nation is threatening war? Can you please answer the question. Show me some evidence please? Every time you post non-evidence claiming its evidence of upcoming Iranian armageddon against the nation of Israel - unlike the public and constant threats of military strikes by the Israelis - I will continue to call you on it. Evidence is the key here - reality not hypothetical futures based on paranoia - it really couldnt be any more unambiguous than that.:)
Wow you ask for evidence mutliple times in the same post getting angrier and angrier... Are you feeling ok?
Again I sent three links, I could find hundreds but there is no point, you will make excuses and equivocate on each one. "ITS THE REGIME HES THREATENING MAN! DOES HE SAY ANYTIHNG ABOUT WOMEN AND CHILDERN!?" I believe was your response to a very clear threat to wipe out that fictional regime that started the first and second world war...
Its not that you want evidence for a threat, clearly its the last thing you want, like so many CTers you have your story decided looong before there is evidence, any new bit will just be twisted and turned untill it fits said story.
You can find proof in your unwillingness to actually google and see for yourself what is and isnt said between the different governments. ITs a good test to see if your actually looking for facts rather than trying desperatly to reinforce your own entrenched positions.
Its sad really, but really I shouldnt have bothered engaging with a CTer.0 -
This applies to Israel of course? As a non-declared known nuclear power and non-signatory of the NPT? I agree completely.
Of course it should, in a perfect world.
But just because it is not, or India, or Pakistan is one weak ass reason to completly ignore Iran's flouting of the rules.
The anti- Israel/US brigade have become nigh on rabid, actually going so far as to be against NUCLEAR NON PROFLIFERATION in an attempt to get some sort of political "one up".
I mean really, let the stupidity of that detonate in your mind. You would think support for the Syrian regime would have marked the lowest point the (thankfully) irrelevant reactionists had reached, but oh well.0 -
Advertisement
-
Chuck Stone wrote: »Iran would be able to mobilise allies in many places around the Persian gulf and other areas in the event of an Israel/US attack on its non-existent nukes.
You mean non State allies in the shape of, say Hezzbollah, or do you think some states would actively help?
I have a feeling the oligarchies and kingdoms of the Arabian peninsula would make sounds of muslim unity but be secretly delighted.
Nobody argues actually that they have nukes already, they argue that every indication they have is that Iran is pursuing the technology.0 -
Chuck Stone wrote: »Are Israel's nukes legal?
Incidentally...
I said all I ment all. I know it must be difficult, looking at this board, to think someone actually believes proliferation of nuclear weapons should be punished and stopped at pretty much all economic costs, but then thats just sadly where Ireland is at with regards to its politics. Anyone that breaks a perceived "line" is a complete enigma.
Its so sad the conversation has deteriorated to the point that pointing out Israel has nuclear weapons is a victory.
I believe Ive said this before, it doesnt matter to me in regards to stopping further proliferation, it shouldnt matter to anyone with even a tinsy bit of common sense. It should still be stopped whenever and wherever it comes up.
The idea that Israel having them should green light everyone else, and particularly their enemies just to make it "fair" is just plain childish and fails completly to engage with what could happen.0 -
Sam, you feel strongly about bombing Iran. Will you be volunteering then to march into Tehran?0
-
Its so sad the conversation has deteriorated to the point that pointing out Israel has nuclear weapons is a victory.
It's a victory?
Israel will never get rid of its nukes and tbh I don't blame them. The notion that Israel will ever give them up is frankly ridiculous. Regardless, it smacks of hypocrisy in the extreme for Israel to be sabre rattling about Iran's non-existent nukes while not acknowledging their own real world nukes.
Also it behoves the nation who initiates war to prove that the threat to them is/was real. For the moment a few assholes in Iran talking shit does not constitute proof. Iran is a rational actor and they are all too aware of the ****-storm they would invite from the US/Israel/West if they attacked Israel which makes a mockery of Israel's claims that the threat of an Iranian attack is real."I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran (if it attacks Israel)," [Hillary] Clinton said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."
"In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them," she said.
reuters.com0 -
Iran doesn't need nukes anyway. All they have to do is aim a high explosive penetration MRBM at Dimona nuclear weapons/energy plant and Israel is history. This would devastate Israel more per square mile than any Israeli attack on Iran, including nuclear.0
-
Border-Rat wrote: »Iran doesn't need nukes anyway. All they have to do is aim a high explosive penetration MRBM at Dimona nuclear weapons/energy plant and Israel is history. This would devastate Israel more per square mile than any Israeli attack on Iran, including nuclear.
You do know that hitting a nuclear plant with conventional weapons does not, and never will, cause a "nuclear explosion", as in like a nuke, right?0 -
Border-Rat wrote: »Sam, you feel strongly about bombing Iran. Will you be volunteering then to march into Tehran?
Christ I actually specifically said I tought it was a bad idea.
Im really getting worried about our education system... Or maybe its just the CT brigade - you see what you want to, everywhere. Im becoming convinced it rests somewhere on a scale towards schizophrenia - these respsonses actually bear so little resemblance and so little engagment to what was said before, it would be funny if it wasnt so ridiculous.0 -
Chuck Stone wrote: »It's a victory?
Israel will never get rid of its nukes and tbh I don't blame them. The notion that Israel will ever give them up is frankly ridiculous. Regardless, it smacks of hypocrisy in the extreme for Israel to be sabre rattling about Iran's non-existent nukes while not acknowledging their own real world nukes.
Also it behoves the nation who initiates war to prove that the threat to them is/was real. For the moment a few assholes in Iran talking shit does not constitute proof. Iran is a rational actor and they are all too aware of the ****-storm they would invite from the US/Israel/West if they attacked Israel which makes a mockery of Israel's claims that the threat of an Iranian attack is real.
God thank you! Someone with a reasoned and well thought out response.
I dont think it should or will reach the state of war, and yes of course its hypocritical for them to be sabre rattling in this regard. However the nuclearisation of the Middle East is a much wider and more pressing potential problem than even Israels security.
I agree in theory Israel will not be attacked directly by a conventional or nuclear means - the worry I see, and this was stated to by US officials as their own worst fears regarding the issue, is the nuclearisation of a revolutionary Islamic regime (or even for them to be on the cusp of it) has and will make surrounding states turn towards the same weapons. People build them with the intent that there may be some situation, no matter how remote, in which they will use them. Nuclear weapons proliferating in the most unstable, politically volatile region on earth is and should be a nightmare scenario for everyone.
On a broader note it is important to punish to the hilt (economicaly) any state that seeks to procure nuclear weapons, or seeks to shrug off the safeguards against them. This is for the very very good reason that other regimes will not see it as an easy choice and do the same. Yes there are some states that have gotten away with developing their own without much backlash but the less that happens, the better for everyone. The stakes really are too high for this bull**** childishness that your getting for reasons to "leave Iran alone". It is probably the most important international responsibility - keep the petty politics to CTs and domestic issues.0 -
However the nuclearisation of the Middle East is a much wider and more pressing potential problem than even Israels security <snip> Nuclear weapons proliferating in the most unstable, politically volatile region on earth is and should be a nightmare scenario for everyone.
I don't think you'll find much argument there.the worry I see, and this was stated to by US officials as their own worst fears regarding the issue, is the nuclearisation of a revolutionary Islamic regime (or even for them to be on the cusp of it) has and will make surrounding states turn towards the same weapons.
Fair enough. The US/West has to take some responsibility for the ratcheting up of tensions in the middle east with the failed policies of the past though. It has been said that the Iranian regime would be mad not to seek to deter an attack in light of US/Western military adventurism in recent years. Remember, it's not so long ago (shortly after Iraq 2003) that Iran offered a pretty comprehensive cessation of hostilities including withdrawing support for Hezbolla and other non-state actors and were basically told 'fuck off - you're next'.On a broader note it is important to punish to the hilt (economicaly) any state that seeks to procure nuclear weapons, or seeks to shrug off the safeguards against them. This is for the very very good reason that other regimes will not see it as an easy choice and do the same. Yes there are some states that have gotten away with developing their own without much backlash but the less that happens, the better for everyone.
Again I'd say you won't find much argument there but it does bring back the double standards issue (Israel, Pakistan, India). If the west was a little more consistent in its application of what's expected from 'the international community' then perhaps we wouldn't be arriving at these choke points.0 -
Chuck Stone wrote: »Israel will never get rid of its nukes and tbh I don't blame them. The notion that Israel will ever give them up is frankly ridiculous. Regardless, it smacks of hypocrisy in the extreme for Israel to be sabre rattling about Iran's non-existent nukes while not acknowledging their own real world nukes.
100000% agree
basically it's all a pile of crap that makes no sense... Israel have loads of nukes and are considered a bit insane by the international community and yet we don't see uproar about their secret nukes all over the media which makes no sense at all on any level (unless you want to get all CT but lets not shall we)
Iran 100% definitely has no nuclear weapons and has definitely NOT got an advanced nuclear weapons program either and yet gets all the **** from the media... how the hell does that makes sense.
Ahmadinejad is a complete dik.. his own people don't like him and the other senior leaders in the country don't like him..... and so is Netanyahu... actually they're both just a couple of cocks lets be honest.... but there are smart people in Israeli politics/media and in Iran and in Washington (Obama is one of these people, most of the time) so what ya gotta do is go find these people on the net and watch them in interviews and in articles etc and you'll see there is some level heads out there in each country (Dr Larijani is kinda one of them... he's a crafty fox but he knows the deal... as does General Martin Dempsey.... and some guys like Fareed Zakaria and Noam Chomsky etc) go listen to those guys and hear what they have to say.
Iran is NOT an existential threat to Israel... not at all... there is nothing to support that notion and people need to get away from any rhetoric like 'wiping them off the face of the map' or world or whatever that they base their ignorant unsupported opinions upon. They are as people say rational actors.... here's one for ya... go find out how many Iranians have done suicide bombings ..... ever.... ever ... look it up go on. They act rationally.
One of the major problems that we in the west have is that we usually know fuk all about any of this stuff.. I'm not gona mince my words it's true we know fuk all about Iran... fuk al about Islam and Islamic countries and the history of countries from the west raping and changing these nations in the past. We usually have no real deep knowledge to base our pop opinions upon... I have some... I've read a feckin lot and watched a lot and learned a lot but I still admit I don't 'get' the Islamic nation culture that is Egypt or Iran or Afghanistan and I don't think on average any of us here or in the US do either... we don't even try most fo us. So we approach this whole thing armed with feck all knowledge and understanding and we throw out comments... major sweeping big comments about this country and that and this leader and that and the relationship between this country and that without really trying to put ourselves in the shoes of say... an average Iranian person... an Iranian leader... a deeply committed Muslim in Iran trying to live their lives (under a completely alien incomprehensible set of rules and ethics and laws and concepts and ideals and expectations than anything we know or understand...assuming most of us on this forum right now are white Irish or American males in the range of 20-45 years old who believe in capitalism to some degree, drink, shag and smoke and inherently and unashamedly part of an partially/wholly Americanized western capitalist culture.. I know I am.
So I'm saying basically try and put yourself right down at street level in an Islamic (deeeeeeply) country like Iran and really understand the totally alien culture loosely capitalist in some natures, very educated, very modern in some ways and totally ancient in otehrs... people who have utmost respect for American citizens and even the culture to some degree and who know all about America and western culture but don't necessarily jump into it entirely... moderate western views mixed with deep Islamic belief who have come through a 3 or 4 generation period where their country as been everything and anything any country has ever been... a strict dictatorship, stazi like police stuff, an Islamic Ayatollah lead country where his word is gods word and he gets treated like a god himself, a country raped and abused in every way by Britain and America at the behest of massive western companies, a country completely ridden with CIA spies at one time, controlling the Shah (when he was controllable) and who suffered massive poverty while the Shah wallowed publicly in gross wealth, a country where their leader was deposed directly by a CIA/MI6 coup and a dictator imposed upon them, a country where Islamic fundamentalist groups angry for proxy wars in the middle east conducted by American and Russia who financed and directly grew mujahideen forces all over the place to do their bidding who would then become the Al Qaedas, Hezbollahs of today... a country who's youth right now lost parents and grand parents and family in vast numbers during the Iran Iraq war during and after which it was found out that America has clearly and provably and admittedly played one side off the other whether it was to do with the Iran contra affair or to do with Saddam and appeasing him or containing him... these people know that the citizens of all OUR western countries are not themselves to blame but that our governments be it the UK or US have acted so immorally in certain periods upon their lives and familes and countries futures that it is almost impossible to even imagine a situation where 'they' could trust 'us' truly ever. But saying all that their citizens are not in control - Iran has a weird and complex leadership system based on nepotism, the totally bizaar Islamic leadership pyramid who decree what is right and wrong, a president with limited and strange powers who on one hand acts like a dictator and crushes the rebellious youth but who can't tie his shoelace without the Ayatollahs permission. And then there's the whole Israel/Iran relationship...they got on great for hundreds of years and there's been Jews in Iran for nearly 3000 years.. but then Israel became a state and lines were drawn and there's a whole complicated story after the war where Jewish powerful people and groups in the states (not getting CT here) trying to aggressively protect their Jewish homeland interests USED American power channels and the cold war with Russia (and used Russia similarly too) to grow Israel and cling on to and increase territories for an explosively growing Israeli population all while within a vast deeply Islamic central region who saw all these American actions as a US+Zionist conspiracy against everything they believed in right there around their holiest cities and sites all while American and the west pumped billions and billions and billions into the coffers of those that would rule these people, some with a more iron fist than the other but allll while getting rich off the west... and so creating dictatorships and supporting them and financing them to maintain or stabilize order in a massively historically warrior based wartorn region with a tendancy to just ignite for no rational reason oevr and over again which didn't suit the exploding middle class American dreamworld which was forming over the Atlantic in the 50's and 60's.... and this whole messy proxy-war/dictatorship supporting/hypocritical Israeli US partnership/oil rich arab Islamic-annoying story of distrust and invasion and tyranny and hyper regional militarization is well known and understood and in the cultural fabric of 3 or 4 generations of Iranians... and their leaders.... and their Ayatollahs all reacting to and dealing with the West in different ways in different extremes culminating on one hand in student protests against Ahmadinejad on one hand, against Israeli anti-Palestinian actions on the other hand and anti-American pop media anti-Iran rhetoric war mongering stupidity on the yet another hand.. sometimes their leadership literally paid for Terrorists to fight their 'cause' against Israel (which is assumed to be against the US too by definition) ... sometimes their leaders postured and made extreme anti-Israel comments...which always got the headlines (as opposed to Israels extreme right anti-Iran comments which did not so much here in the west) and all of this PLUS the inarguable oxymoron of Israels ****e about Irans potential nukes when Israel acting clearly as a dangerous rogue state themselves developed (with massive trucks of money from American individuals) went rogue and developed its own large nuclear arsenal and a few subs to put them on, tested them illegally on oceans far way and have not been pressured hard enough or publicly enough by the west or its media or citizens to admit to and join the NPT and adhere to its rules of inspection as Israel would like Iran to do.
there's a lot to consider before we just throw out comments like 'Iran said it wants to wipe Israel off the map so Israel obviously live with an existential threat and so SHOULD have their nuclear weapons and BECAUSE Iran has supported 'Terrorists' (and I only parenthesize that because as we know one mans terrorist is another man freedom fighter... I don't condone Hamas or Hezbollah but this understanding is important in the context of all that is the history of Israel and Iran in the last 50 years)... this means Iran is
an irrational actor, EVIL in fact, as our media has so successfully (though not intentionally so, I believe just as a matter of course) and so Iran is an irrational, terrorist supporting, American hating, west despising nation, with a singular goal of entirely vaporizing Israel literally off the planet in a rain of Ultra Islamic nuclear missiles when in fact,
Iran is more like,
a highly educated, forward thinking, proudly Islamic republic (and remember that doesn't mean incredibly Evil as a natural progression:) with a young vibrant quite westernized population who have great respect for America and would just like to continue to gain a more free society so that they can continue to grow as a modern Islamic republic, prosperous and free
(remember the average Islamic Iranian 25 year old college grads version of free is just not comparable to the average US 25 year old's understanding or vision of what is free.... in fact truth be known... the word 'Free' has been prostituted so far away from its roots in the media and within political language and memes in recent years as to unrecognizable and even a negative word in that it's used by so many so often in such hyperbolic hypocritical fashion as to confuse us all at this stage to what it really means to us, as individuals)
and so armed with more background knowledge (and I'm clearly no expert) and the ability to put yourself in their shoes (whether that be their quasi leaders or citizens shoes which all have different world views) it is more likely to achieve a realistic grounded debate that doesn't deteriorate into needless war mongering... and I mean that in that case of us here in this forum right now as I waffle right up to the AEI in Washington or the congressmen or Senate who vote for these issues... our opinions on the net are part of the wave of 'memes' that create opinions in voters and in leaders at every level so the better we understand this sh1t the better everybody will... we all dump our opinions and views out there into the ether and so the harder we try to keep those arguments grounded and supported and based on logic and humane ideals the better we contribute to 'global consciousness'.0 -
Advertisement
-
You do know that hitting a nuclear plant with conventional weapons does not, and never will, cause a "nuclear explosion", as in like a nuke, right?
You don't know that, because it has never been attempted. A power surge at Chernobyl was all it took to lead to a criticality accident, leading to a steam explosion. This is what results in human error, yet you deduce that, lets say, a massive thermobaric MRBM warhead would be of no consequence. It would almost certainly lead to a criticality accident. Secondly, I was referring to an irradiated exclusion zone.
Tell us, Sam, who'll be among the Coalition who goes into Dimona to put a sarcophagus over a destroyed and leaking reactor? During peacetime, the Ukrainians, with all of the help of their Soviet Alies had trouble enough. So during a hot war, with missiles hitting the wrecked reactor - who'll come to the assistance of the worlds most hated Country? I think we can rule the Arabs out, don't you?
Do you think things like this through in your head? The fact that this didn't even occur to you makes you education jibe below appear a bit ironic, doesn't it?Christ I actually specifically said I tought it was a bad idea.
You have been evaluating the success of a potential war declared on Iran in this thread.Im really getting worried about our education system... Or maybe its just the CT brigade - you see what you want to, everywhere. Im becoming convinced it rests somewhere on a scale towards schizophrenia - these respsonses actually bear so little resemblance and so little engagment to what was said before, it would be funny if it wasnt so ridiculous.
I think its safe to assume the bombing of nuclear reactors causing havoc is a foregone conclusion, not a 'CT'. We know this, Sam, if we examine history. Did they teach you about Chernobyl at school?
Did they teach you about the word irony?0 -
Border-Rat wrote: »You don't know that, because it has never been attempted. A power surge at Chernobyl was all it took to lead to a criticality accident, leading to a steam explosion. This is what results in human error, yet you deduce that, lets say, a massive thermobaric MRBM warhead would be of no consequence. It would almost certainly lead to a criticality accident. Secondly, I was referring to an irradiated exclusion zone.
:rolleyes: No we know that because of science.
Yes, it probably would cause an irradiated exclusion zone.
Of no consequence? Please, show me where that particular gem came up.Border-Rat wrote: »Tell us, Sam, who'll be among the Coalition who goes into Dimona to put a sarcophagus over a destroyed and leaking reactor? During peacetime, the Ukrainians, with all of the help of their Soviet Alies had trouble enough. So during a hot war, with missiles hitting the wrecked reactor - who'll come to the assistance of the worlds most hated Country? I think we can rule the Arabs out, don't you?
What are you even talking about? I pointed out that it would not cause a nuclear explosion ala a nuke. Thats a scientific fact, for many many reasons, and you take that as some sort of assertion that it wouldnt be a bad thing?
Im just pointing out the enormous fallacies and disinformation in your post, not callign for an attack :rolleyes:
No Arab state has the technological know how to deal with a nuclear fallout, let alone an explosion.Border-Rat wrote: »Do you think things like this through in your head? The fact that this didn't even occur to you makes you education jibe below appear a bit ironic, doesn't it?
The fact you dont realise there is a difference between an explosion with nuclear materials and a nuclear explosion bring it right back into contention Im afraid.Border-Rat wrote: »You have been evaluating the success of a potential war declared on Iran in this thread.
Thats what happens, BR, its a disscussion thread. Now if you could please point to where I said it should be carried out that would be great.
Wow. I dont know how to make it anymore clear - I think an attack would be a terrible idea.
I argued that it was BS that Iran has not threatened Israel.
You dont see the difference? There is no CT here, kid.Border-Rat wrote: »I think its safe to assume the bombing of nuclear reactors causing havoc is a foregone conclusion, not a 'CT'. We know this, Sam, if we examine history. Did they teach you about Chernobyl at school?
Did they teach you about the word irony?
Please, point out where I said it wouldnt be.
Christ - Im actually shocked how many non sequitors you can fit into a small post. It would be impressive ...
Im starting to think you didnt go to school to be honest.0 -
Chuck Stone wrote: »Fair enough. The US/West has to take some responsibility for the ratcheting up of tensions in the middle east with the failed policies of the past though. It has been said that the Iranian regime would be mad not to seek to deter an attack in light of US/Western military adventurism in recent years. Remember, it's not so long ago (shortly after Iraq 2003) that Iran offered a pretty comprehensive cessation of hostilities including withdrawing support for Hezbolla and other non-state actors and were basically told 'fuck off - you're next'.
No matter how much responsibility the West should or shouldnt take is immaterial to the question of whether or not a nation should be allowed to pursue a nuclear weapon (or avoid the safeguards, whichever you like) without repurcussions.
Im sure there are dozens of states that would feel safer with nuclear weapons, the fact is in the long run they make us all far less safe and thats the long view policy makers have to take.
Since Ahmadenijad took office Iran has been as hardline as you like towards both Israel and the US. You may feel they are entirelly entitled to this line, however then you must also recoginse the right of the US and Israel to thier tought stance on what they see as their own (and their allies) security.Chuck Stone wrote: »Again I'd say you won't find much argument there but it does bring back the double standards issue (Israel, Pakistan, India). If the west was a little more consistent in its application of what's expected from 'the international community' then perhaps we wouldn't be arriving at these choke points.
Perhaps, but it is entirelly unreasonable to persume on any state the role of looking out for everyones interests equally - they do and shoudl look out for their own. Now people often level acusations at the US for not being "fair" - the irony being this often comes from people who hate the idea of them being world policemen and the sad part being we wouldnt even begin to put that to our OWN foreign policy.
The question of whether there should or could be a body that applies all rules equally everywhere is right now an entirely hypothetical one, and couldnt or shouldnt impact to heavily on the question of what approach should be taken towards Iran at the moment.
There are many many failings of the international system - taking the threat of nuclear proliferation throughout the middle east very seriously is not one of them.0 -
:rolleyes: No we know that because of science.
Talk us through the scientific consequences of a high explosive medium range ballistic missile hitting a nuclear power plant that develops nuclear weapons then, Sam.Yes, it probably would cause an irradiated exclusion zone.
In effect, rendering Israel largely uninhabitable.Of no consequence? Please, show me where that particular gem came up.
What, in your brain, might the consequences be?What are you even talking about? I pointed out that it would not cause a nuclear explosion ala a nuke. Thats a scientific fact, for many many reasons, and you take that as some sort of assertion that it wouldnt be a bad thing?
Reactor four at Pripyat exploded due to human error. Now, Sam. We're going to think real hard here - if a missile kills the men working at the reactor, then the same results are possible, if not worse. I'd like you to refute this.Im just pointing out the enormous fallacies and disinformation in your post, not callign for an attack.
I'm afraid you're doing none of the sort. Claiming that there is a fallacy does not mean that you've refuted one.No Arab state has the technological know how to deal with a nuclear fallout, let alone an explosion.
Whoosh. There it goes, Sam. The point flying over your head that even if they did know, they wouldn't lift a finger. We're not discussing whether they could, rather whether they would. If anything, they're more likely to attack. That would make things more difficult still.The fact you dont realise there is a difference between an explosion with nuclear materials and a nuclear explosion bring it right back into contention Im afraid.
Sam, an MRBM hitting Israel's nuclear weapons facility will create an explosion and render most of Israel uninhabitable. We know this because a mere power surge caused one of Chernobyls reactors to explode in 1986. Even if there isn't a nuclear chain reaction, the effects will devastate Israel as a Country.
A point you seem keen to avoid, Sam.Wow. I dont know how to make it anymore clear - I think an attack would be a terrible idea.
I argued that it was BS that Iran has not threatened Israel.
It is BS. The only Country threatening between the two is Israel. Secondly, the only Country in the past generation who has attacked another population is Israel. Third, even if Iran had threatened Israel, which it hasn't, the fact that it has done nothing despite being capable of destroying Israel proves no malicious intent.
Of course, to any sane person this means the only entity worthy of condemnation here is Israel. It is armed with nuclear weapons, has invaded a neighbour in the past decade and is threatening to use them against another Country.You dont see the difference? There is no CT here, kid.
Tell us, Sam, what 'conspiracy' am I asserting here? Against whom and who are the conspirators? Surely you don't think that by someone pointing out that a small Country the size of Israel cannot endure its own Chernobyl is a 'conspiracy'? Even by the definition of the word, this does not make sense.Please, point out where I said it wouldnt be.
So you're agreeing that Iran could wreck Israel without even nukes. Good, you're making progress. Now Sam, why haven't they done it yet, these dastardly Iranian villains?0 -
MOD NOTE:
There is too much overly personal sniping going on here - cut it out.0 -
Border-Rat wrote: »Talk us through the scientific consequences of a high explosive medium range ballistic missile hitting a nuclear power plant that develops nuclear weapons then, Sam.
Not spontaneous nuclear fusion of fission, thats for sure.Border-Rat wrote: »What, in your brain, might the consequences be?
What?
You said I claimed it would be of no consequence, be a gent and show where.Border-Rat wrote: »Reactor four at Pripyat exploded due to human error. Now, Sam. We're going to think real hard here - if a missile kills the men working at the reactor, then the same results are possible, if not worse. I'd like you to refute this.
Yes it would cause nuclear fallout. Very very differnt from a nuclear explosion.Border-Rat wrote: »I'm afraid you're doing none of the sort. Claiming that there is a fallacy does not mean that you've refuted one.
Claiming I said a whole bunch of things doesnt make anything either, Im afraid.Border-Rat wrote: »Whoosh. There it goes, Sam. The point flying over your head that even if they did know, they wouldn't lift a finger. We're not discussing whether they could, rather whether they would. If anything, they're more likely to attack. That would make things more difficult still.
There wasnt a point there to begin with worth noticing.Border-Rat wrote: »Sam, an MRBM hitting Israel's nuclear weapons facility will create an explosion and render most of Israel uninhabitable. We know this because a mere power surge caused one of Chernobyls reactors to explode in 1986. Even if there isn't a nuclear chain reaction, the effects will devastate Israel as a Country.
A point you seem keen to avoid, Sam.
I am? No, your confusing yourself and basically arguing with yourself - YOU claimed I said it would be of no consequence - Im afraid this is all a figment of your imagination.Border-Rat wrote: »It is BS. The only Country threatening between the two is Israel. Secondly, the only Country in the past generation who has attacked another population is Israel. Third, even if Iran had threatened Israel, which it hasn't, the fact that it has done nothing despite being capable of destroying Israel proves no malicious intent.
Yes, so it only threatens to wipe out the "Zionist regime" mere days ago was just a friendly riposte
Im afraid your opinion has no basis in reality with regard to Iran "not threatening".
I fail to see why a nation not attacking another in the past generation, considering if it did it would more than likely be destroyed a la Iraq 1992. Intent is crucial in this - the Iranians have no where near the capability of Israel, let alone the US, that it hasnt fought an overt war - judging by its rehtoric, as it should, is a product of its weakness not its ideals.Border-Rat wrote: »Of course, to any sane person this means the only entity worthy of condemnation here is Israel. It is armed with nuclear weapons, has invaded a neighbour in the past decade and is threatening to use them against another Country.
Yes yes everyone that does not believe Iran is blameless is suffering from mass psychosis. Theres a CT for you.Border-Rat wrote: »Tell us, Sam, what 'conspiracy' am I asserting here? Against whom and who are the conspirators? Surely you don't think that by someone pointing out that a small Country the size of Israel cannot endure its own Chernobyl is a 'conspiracy'? Even by the definition of the word, this does not make sense.
The conspiracy is your constant attacking points no one made, and making right out assertions I said things that have no basis in reality. Maybe its just a game? I dont know, Ill probably stop answering after this seeing as though you seem very intent on reading between non existant lines so much.Border-Rat wrote: »So you're agreeing that Iran could wreck Israel without even nukes. Good, you're making progress. Now Sam, why haven't they done it yet, these dastardly Iranian villains?
What?
No, they couldnt. Probably not even without the US being Israels ally, which is a very big change to reality right there even GEOGRAPHY means they couldnt invade Israel.
Why would they not just bomb Israels nuclear plants? Simple self preservation would explain that without any need to look at morality, consequences or feasibility. Any one of which could preclude an attack on its own. It really is that simple, so reading as much into it as you have is just more crazy. Its not even a reasonable option unless something very serious changes.0 -
Be like Nutella wrote: »Iran 100% definitely has no nuclear weapons and has definitely NOT got an advanced nuclear weapons program either and yet gets all the **** from the media... how the hell does that makes sense.
Because the IAEA are not allowed full access, and they and several intelligence agencies dont agree with your assessment, at least with regard to the intent of Iran's nuclear ambitions.0 -
-
World War III was the Cold War by the way so don't worry about that.
The Arabian Peninsula is key for control of the worlds energy supply, therefore the U.S has had to keep it bought and sold since the 1950's as the U.S's domestic reserves aren't getting any larger. Now the problem is that the Iranians
won't get into bed with the states easily and the Iranians know that if they had a nuclear weapon like Pakistan, it would secure their bargaining power and security from foreign attacks.
The Iranians being scapegoated as a threat to global security is nonsense. Pakistan and India both have nuclear capabilities and they both hate each others guts, their last war was as recent as 1999 so that's more much more worrying. Pakistan supports and aids 'terrorist' (A loaded term to be honest) operations in Afghanistan but why doesn't the US invade Pakistan? Oh yeah those nukes...
Anyway if Iran did build a nuclear weapon they would never use it, as their sole weapon would be dwarfed by Israels and the U.S's arsenals not to mention NATO's capabilities so they know they'd get annihilated on a good day. Iran wants to protect its position after seeing what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan not to mention Libya as well.0 -
Advertisement
-
The Arabian Peninsula is key for control of the worlds energy supply, therefore the U.S has had to keep it bought and sold since the 1950's as the U.S's domestic reserves aren't getting any larger.
Actually because of shale gas reserves the availabe oil and gas in the US is rising extremly rapidly. In a few years it is projected to become a net energy exporter. Not exactly the same thing, I know, but for the point you were making it is effectivly.0 -
In a few years America will be a net exporter of energy?
really?
in a few years?
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
oh good mother of charlie please oh please say you made a mistake with that comment... or support it... I know what you're trying to say at least I think I do but please don't tell me you believe that They'll be a net exporter of oil
in a few years?
what's a few.... I would think a few is eh say 4 or maybe even 9 in the context of what we're talking about... actually even 13 years... that would be a few in the context of oil and America's use and need and importation of it. It's a major issue... it's like the central part an awful lot of puzzles... America's need for oil has driven it to do so much stuff in the last I don't know ...90 years?... that it's just had a completely indescribably huge effect on the world as a whole so.... IF THEY'RE GONA BE EXPORTING OIL IN 4 YEARS TIME AND WILL HAVE VERY LITTLE INTEREST IN THE OIL IN SAUDI FECKIN ARABIA THEN I'LL JUST GO GET MY PARTY HAT ON AND GET OUT MY WORLD PEACE CIGAR THAT IVE BEEN KEEPING FOR THIS VERY MOMENT...
just saying... I think you may be wrong is all... just where did you hear/read/see that America will be oil self sufficient/sorry more than self-sufficient - a freakin net oil exporter?? IN A FEW YEARS??
sorry to get a little extreme there just it's like one of those mental huge fact areas that people just glance over that is more important than everything else combined when we're talking about anything to do with the mid east or terrorism or anything at all goin on in that area...
just a few links... some data... or somethin... coz I may have to realize that literally everything I thought I knew about oil and America and world energy is completely wrong.0 -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMZSwSTGXBI
For those that think ww3 is not on the agenda. the neo cons definately think it is and depending on how the election goes ,with Aipacs influence it will be back to the top of the agenda. instead of trying to sort out and help their own citizens , America seems more interested in being israels bff.
when the truth regarding israel and indeed america comes out and becomes common knowledge then it will mean the collapse of both regimes.
we can all see that a high number of american citizens are armed to the teeth, if the public ever truly rebel against their government they will be almost unstoppable.
Interesting too that canada has closed their embassy in Iran. they certainly are preparing for the worst.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-195227440 -
in the interest of public knowledge I actually can't wait for you to come back about your comment I'll just have to post some data so people have it quite clear in their minds (as I'm sure they do anyway).
So lets just talk Saudi Arabia: the US imported about 1.2 Million barrels of oil every year from S.A. for the last 20 years - so for instance this past June they got 43 Thousand Barrels off the Saudi's - and in the last 20 Junes the average is approx 40 thousand barrels so that's as you'd say stable as a rock i.e. no trend of decline etc..
on a macro scale the US imports more than 70% of its oil each year... mainly from 5 countries in this order (may surprise you)
Canada
Saudi Arabia
Mexico
Venezuela
Nigeria
Mexico and Venezuela account for 20%... which is a lot
But between all the Gulf countries it gets 13% of its oil every year... 8-9% of that comes from the Saudi's (man they got it locked up)
to be self sufficient America would need to (I can't believe I'm bothering to do this) replace ..
730 Million barrels a year....
so the shale oil has great potential... and it will eventually yield great quantities of oil but it's gona take a long time to make it cheap enough to do on a large enough clean enough scale and as true as gravity guaranteed the pen I threw when I read that comment to come down - America will not be a net exporter of oil 'in a few years' and will continue to be verrrry interested in middle east oil and all those things that influence that sweet oil getting to America at the right price.
Incidentally people can get a little confused about how much oil comes from the mid east and how important it is to America and why. The fact is that it's not really the amount of oil that matters the most its the fluctuating price...which as we know can go up real quick.
Like think of it this way: 5/6 years ago each barrel was costing them $50 instead of well over $100 sometimes now... and the thing that drove that price up was various stuff goin on in the mid east and to do with the mid east... and because the whole oil market is so connected (any dealer will tell ya it doesn't matter where you get the oil from coz it's the market's so inherently connected) the price shot up and stayed higher in general and it's all connected to stuff in the mid east even though it's only getting (I say 'only' to underline my macro point) 13% from the Persian Gulf states (mostly S.A.).
Until that % is down to like 5% or less say 3% then stuff in the mid east is gona fluctuate market price and so will remain very important to the US... every military thing it's done in the area forever hinges primarily on that fact... everything else...EVERYTHING ELSE... is secondary... and simply connected to this whole energy story... I know crazies like Michael Moore and so forth spout this stuff so much that righties tend to fall into the 'well that's just all lefty poppycock' but really the facts are just the facts - 25%of all that beautiful oil in the world is guzzled by America... 25% !!!!! like the maths are mental: 300 million say... out of 7 Billion = what? 3% of the world .... use 25%!! I wonder is there a direct correlation between the history of that stat and the history of the US Defense budget... hmm might have to look into that out of interest.
anyway oil and stuff0 -
paddylanger wrote: »we can all see that a high number of american citizens are armed to the teeth, if the public ever truly rebel against their government they will be almost unstoppable.
Interesting concept... a massive American uprising. I know people talk about it a lot but as a mental exercise it would be an interesting one to have a think tank produce a study upon. What are we talking - something like 150-250 Million guns are out in the population I think I remember hearing. (will check it)... so lets say 250 million just for chucks.
Ranging from light hand guns (prob mostly hand guns I imagine to high powered sniper rifles to even the likes of assault rifles but very few fully auto machine guns I'd hazard a guess and I don't imagine the average owner has too much ammo in storage. There are feckin many thousands of gun shops though and they're owned by civilians so that's a whole other ball game there...
but to imagine a loose civilian chaotic uprising with all those arms is one thing as a mental exercise. The problem you face quite quickly is of course... who would they be shooting at? congressmen on the steps of the Capitol? hmmm I think that's why Washington DC was made into Washington DC... to allow a security force to withstand a forceful rebellion to counter political decisions made in congress which I think was actually used once if I remember right... anyway...so IF we imagine that the million or two soldiers remain loyal for chucks then hard to imagine that the people who did rise and physically tried to usurp power from Washington could/would be put down effectively by a much superior and unbelievably out matched military force... but there's too many what ifs in the equation to consider so.... yeah
interesting one though... love to see more qualified people actually produce something on it showing various scenarios etc.. just as a military conflict study
on a broader note I can see America gettin more and more pissed off with things in Washington if this whole stalemate extreme right extreme left crap continues as it is right now for another term or two while the Ron Pauls and Bernie Sanders still have somethin to say about it.. but a couple of yokly clan red necks swingin rifles at the TV isn't gona do jack **** except give Homeland Sec so much internal terrorism worries they'll need a daily prostate check0 -
Be like Nutella wrote: »In a few years America will be a net exporter of energy?
really?
in a few years?
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
oh good mother of charlie please oh please say you made a mistake with that comment... or support it... I know what you're trying to say at least I think I do but please don't tell me you believe that They'll be a net exporter of oil
in a few years?
what's a few.... I would think a few is eh say 4 or maybe even 9 in the context of what we're talking about... actually even 13 years... that would be a few in the context of oil and America's use and need and importation of it. It's a major issue... it's like the central part an awful lot of puzzles... America's need for oil has driven it to do so much stuff in the last I don't know ...90 years?... that it's just had a completely indescribably huge effect on the world as a whole so.... IF THEY'RE GONA BE EXPORTING OIL IN 4 YEARS TIME AND WILL HAVE VERY LITTLE INTEREST IN THE OIL IN SAUDI FECKIN ARABIA THEN I'LL JUST GO GET MY PARTY HAT ON AND GET OUT MY WORLD PEACE CIGAR THAT IVE BEEN KEEPING FOR THIS VERY MOMENT...
just saying... I think you may be wrong is all... just where did you hear/read/see that America will be oil self sufficient/sorry more than self-sufficient - a freakin net oil exporter?? IN A FEW YEARS??
sorry to get a little extreme there just it's like one of those mental huge fact areas that people just glance over that is more important than everything else combined when we're talking about anything to do with the mid east or terrorism or anything at all goin on in that area...
just a few links... some data... or somethin... coz I may have to realize that literally everything I thought I knew about oil and America and world energy is completely wrong.
www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=13&ved=0CGwQFjAM&url=http%3A%2F%2Fabcnews.go.com%2FBusiness%2Fus-energy-independence-longer-pipe-dream%2Fstory%3Fid%3D16353891&ei=NaBKULmlA-e20QWBqICoDg&usg=AFQjCNGU5CjI2_WzFempihvJk68L1sPYWw&sig2=BCYcFIP4qMpQsKG08nmUnw
Factor in Canada's, let alone S America's and you'll see peoples, ahem, "theories" about the Middle East and US energy security are, to put it bluntly, bull****.
Do people on this thing actually read news ever, or just kind of guess whats going on?0 -
Advertisement
-
Be like Nutella wrote: »I wonder is there a direct correlation between the history of that stat and the history of the US Defense budget... hmm might have to look into that out of interest.
No, there is a direct correlation between that and their wealth though. They produce about 23% of the worlds GDP. The amount they, and everyone else uses, has more to do with the amount you CAN use, given what your country produces economically, nothing else really.
If Irish people were as wealthy, we would use pretty much the same amount (per head obviously).0 -
paddylanger wrote: »when the truth regarding israel and indeed america comes out and becomes common knowledge then it will mean the collapse of both regimes.
And what "truth" is that? Evidence to please, I have a feeling your going to need alot.0 -
"Now I know people in their 20s with high school (diplomas) making $120,000 a year." Holy ****... Can the shell to sea people please back the hell off?0
-
"North America may be self-sufficient in oil by 2030 "
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-26/north-america-may-be-self-sufficient-in-crude-oil-by-2030.html
"completely independent of imported oil, probably by 2030".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18828714
In less than 20 years, the United States will be energy independent. That's the upshot of a new report just published by BP, titled (appropriately) "BP Energy Outlook 2030."
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/02/21/america-will-be-energy-independent-by-2030/
http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/STAGING/global_assets/downloads/O/2012_2030_energy_outlook_booklet.pdf
BP (NYSE: BP) reaches a similar but slightly less optimistic conclusion to Citigroup, stating in its Energy Outlook 2030 (pp. 5, 78-79) that U.S. oil import dependency will be halved by 2030, but 32% of its oil demand will still need to be imported. The good news is that U.S. import demand will be fully satisfied by friendly countries in the Western Hemisphere: Canada, Mexico, and Brazil:
http://www.investingdaily.com/14806/us-energy-independence-and-247-oil-by-2030
do some independent thinking and research this area a bit on the net and you'll see most opinions say minimum 2035/2040 at best and that the BP study which is what all those pieces are based upon (all of them by the way) is probably a bit of bull**** and can't really be trusted... ya know... slight conflict of interest there.... but CT aside - go look into it - US not importing oil by 2020 is my ass-hole and by 2030 - unbelievably unlikely... but some mental unforeseeable development could take place so who am I to say... the facts and the opinions in general do not support your 'net oil exporter' comment 'in a few years' or anything like it....at all... under any circumstances... a load of pisssssssss is what that comment was... you should just admit it and move on... we all make invalid statements I've done it myself but in this case I'd hate for even ONE SINGLE PERSON to have read your comment and assume it could be true or accurate. Oil explains the world we know so much it's not even funny, so understanding a bit about it is vital IMO.
America imports >70% of its oil currently and there is nothing to support the notion that it won't be importing a huge percentage still by 2025... even IF as you point out shale oil is a massive deal and will bring them in the right direction (if you believe they should go that direction I suppose)0 -
It actually already exports oil, what I should have said is it will be, or is projected to be, energy independant.
Yes, its projections and is therefore debatable. Thats the nature of projections.
Another then http://www.bentekenergy.com/CrudeAwakening.aspx an energy market analasys company. And another http://www.chron.com/business/article/U-S-oil-gusher-blows-out-projections-3341919.php Their business depends on them being as right as possible. So lets say your theory about BP being able or wanting to lie outright for whatever reason is true, it must then conversly be true that this scource would want to be as truthful as possible. The key here being - "BENTEK expects total U.S. imports of foreign oil to fall 41% or more than 2,800 Mb/d by 2016." 4 years before the Middle East (in this regard) starts looking irrelevant is quick enough.
The Economist ran a piece stating that N America will be the block which will be energy dependant by 2020 or therebouts. Are they in on it to? Can we really not go two posts without people claiming CTs to support their opinions? Is it so hard to just change your mind instead of seeking to explain away all contradictory evidence? There has yet to be one post here disagreeing with me that hasnt had to use CTs to make their position even remotly realistic - if it isnt Israeli's at it its the IAEA, if it's not the Americans its "mainstream media". Does it never occour to people that instead of the entire world being in on things trying to prove you wrong that maybe, just maybe, you are just WRONG?
Trust me, I almost certainly know more about oil and global politics than you do. Given that you evidently believed
most of the US' oil came from the ME is just testament to that.
Wow, you find it unlikely in 20 years? Im glad Ive gotten such an expert opinion on the subject.
If you think oil alone "explains the world we know so much" then you have little complexity in your opinions. It alone explains little to no international politics. It has a part to play - but when it comes to nuclear weapons the biggest part will always be national security. That CTers always try and make it central has much more to do with petty politics - they want everyone to believe that the "bad guys" are always just looking out for base interests, and never have any security fears of their own. Coupled with that, it makes it easier for them to try and pretend the "good guys" only ever have sweet intentions and mean the best towards everyone, with no interests, ambitions or ideology of their own.
Its a cheap tool to facilitate politicaly motivated reductionism. Not the answer to every foreign policy question.
Lets just say your right, and BP have doubled the projections, or even trippled them, the US would not be in need of any Middle Eastern oil in 15 years, let alone somehow needing Iran's in that time. And thats if there is no dip in demand, which has been falling at an enormous rate for years.
Very very clearly Iran's oil exporting nature is, at the very best, extremly overstated as a reason for todays tensions.
People that have been piping the oil theory for absolutly everything that happened in the Middle East for the last few decades very clearly didnt catch the memo about how much things have changed and are changing. Not that you would get an acknowledgment for how wrong they have been in the past0 -
Advertisement
-
Distancing himself from any Israeli plan to bomb Iran, Dempsey [Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] said such an attack would "clearly delay but probably not destroy Iran's nuclear programme".
He added: "I don't want to be complicit if they [Israel] choose to do it''
guardian.co.uk
(My bold emphasis)
This is the clearest public indication yet that Netenyahu and other neocon (chicken) hawks are not being pandered to by the Pentagon. It seems that Israeli and US strategic interests diverge markedly on Iran so this war is highly unlikely to go ahead imo. The Israelis have too much to lose (US public support being amongst the most critical) and so does the US (soldiers in body bags, and an even worse image in the middle east, a fragile economy damaged by oil price spike).
The significance of the statements above are even further reinforced by the apparent absence of political capital being made of them by the Romney camp in spite of being funded by right wing pro-Netenyahu funder Sheldon Adelson who vowed to spend up to $100m to defeat Obama.
Interesting.0 -
Canada suspends diplomatic relations with Iran is being seen as a pre-emptive move in anticipation of tougher action against the Islamic Republic.
Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Cutting+ties+with+Tehran+portends+tougher+action/7209973/story.html#ixzz25snkD1md0 -
Chuck Stone wrote: »(My bold emphasis)
This is the clearest public indication yet that Netenyahu and other neocon (chicken) hawks are not being pandered to by the Pentagon. It seems that Israeli and US strategic interests diverge markedly on Iran so this war is highly unlikely to go ahead imo. The Israelis have too much to lose (US public support being amongst the most critical) and so does the US (soldiers in body bags, and an even worse image in the middle east, a fragile economy damaged by oil price spike).
The significance of the statements above are even further reinforced by the apparent absence of political capital being made of them by the Romney camp in spite of being funded by right wing pro-Netenyahu funder Sheldon Adelson who vowed to spend up to $100m to defeat Obama.
Interesting.
Just with regard to the oil spike threat - that has been projected to be able to throw the Us back into recession. Because oil is a global commodity, it does not even require the US to buy most or even any Middle Eastern oil for it to be badly affected by a detiorating situation there.
The key for big energy importers, and the goal, has always been stability in the Middle East. That can and does change with other factors, for example after 9 11, however it is always formost in policy mmakers minds when it comes to energy.0 -
Trust me, I almost certainly know more about oil and global politics than you do. Given that you evidently believed
most of the US' oil came from the ME is just testament to that.
ok I'll tell ya what we'll do if you like we'll agree you know more about everything than I do but what we must do deal with the argument in question. You said that America will not have any need to import oil from abroad within a few years.. that's what you said. It was a grossly incorrect statement and you haven't done anything to prove otherwise...
like just look at the statement in that BP report that all of this is based on:
'Energy demand will increase by 39% by 2030'
so basically your statement of the US (as opposed to N. America which incl Canada and Mexico) being independent of foreign oil within 'a few years' would require an increase in domestic production by more than four-fold !! to replace ALL oil from Saudi Arabia, Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Nigeria, Kuwait etc when this BP 'increase of 39%' is taken into account.
I can see shale oil becoming somewhat economic and evolving in efficiency and environmental cleanliness enough to make a massive impact but not on any huge scale within the next decade - and certainly not enough to replace 'all' foreign imports within 20 years even and there's a lot in that report itself which supports that. It's going to be a much slower and much more complicated process than you think and it ain't gona happen in a few years or anything like it.0 -
20-30% of the oil the world uses every single day comes from the Persian Gulf.
That is the region which provides the volatility which most often affects oil price.
That is the region who has banded together to fix oil price arbitrarily depending on how much money they are making at any given time... they help the world when volatility pushes oil price too high too fast (when they feel up to it) and they do the opposite when the market or demand causes oil price to fall all by itself too low too fast... they just get the Saudi's to 'turn down' the oil volume.
So apart from this ridiculous argument about America not caring about middle eastern oil within a few years it's irrelevant anyway, because as I said and as people generally know oil is traded on a global system and what happens in one place affects oil price everywhere so America is ALWAYS going to be interested in what happens in the Mid East (certainly in the foreseeable future). This is actually the crux of the whole thing - it's about America playing an active role in influencing order and chaos... having a say or trying to have a say in how volatile a region is/is not as that effects oil price volatility (as per their experience in the oil shock 70's).
Ask yourself this... does America really want a massive mid east wide uprising that spreads to Saudi Arabia? causing the fall of the whole Saudi royal family system? making all 'long time solid deals' with Saudi Arabia null and void? add that to the small gulf states Oman, Kuwait etc and you've got a big big oil supply problem for the US. This is and will remain a MAJOR problem for the US for 'more than a few years' whether or not they get their oil from them or not! America in one way sees itself as the only player who can actively influence this outcome, this region, by force (monetary and military) and so this is the real reason for such great interest in the mid east - and always has been... and is blatantly obvious and provable and bleeding insanely clear and simple to anyone with half a brain... mid east = oil supply issues... simple as that... after that there are other issues which make the mid east important to America... but primarily America cares most for the issue of stability in the mid east - as it affects oil supply/price. America has always been based on cheap oil (as well as cheap enough money and labor)
as Rockefeller said,
"we are refining oil for the poor man and he must have it cheap and good."0 -
The key for big energy importers, and the goal, has always been stability in the Middle East.
Yes, and that's why US interests have no problems doing business with brutal dictatorships and police state in the region.
Dictators provide more stability to US interests than democracies would in the region.0 -
Chuck Stone wrote: »Yes, and that's why US interests have no problems doing business with brutal dictatorships and police state in the region.
Dictators provide more stability to US interests than democracies would in the region.
Try everyone, not "the US". Where do you think Europe, Canada Australia etc etc etc get their energy needs? Its interesting how we hold the US to a much higher standard than our own.
The same acussation can be leveled with regard to the Israeli situation, the EU is its biggest trading partner but the idea that we take moral and political responsibilty for putting preassure on them never seems to enter the minds of those who support the Palestinian cause. At best its a peripheral campaign, its so clearly a cognitive position designed to deflect responsibility away from the institutions we have a direct hand in its laughable. Well it would be, if it werent so pathetic.
The assumption that the Us is the only one with intersts in the area, or intersts in stability over other issues there, is probably one of the main reasons so many people have such an unrealistic view of the situation.0 -
Thanks for repeating my post Nutella, in a much more longwinded manner...0
-
Be like Nutella wrote: »ok I'll tell ya what we'll do if you like we'll agree you know more about everything than I do but what we must do deal with the argument in question. You said that America will not have any need to import oil from abroad within a few years.. that's what you said. It was a grossly incorrect statement and you haven't done anything to prove otherwise...
No, I said it was projected that they would be energy independant in the near future. I proivded 3 links from companies dedicated to projecting exactly that which agreed with me.
The fact is it was a rebuttle of the reductionist "its all about oil maaaan" that has little basis in reality and is starting to even have less so. Even if those projections are entirelly wrong THAT consequence is as inevitable as anything in Middle Eastern politics, its something that is only disregarded because of the nature of entrenched positions - no one wants change their mind on an issue they have held as gospel for years.
If you cannot see how enormous drops in the amount of US oil being imported from that region effects the, already entirelly speculatory, assumption of oil as the primary factor in any and all descision in the region then really there is little more to be said that would make it clearer.0 -
Be like Nutella wrote: »Ask yourself this... does America really want a massive mid east wide uprising that spreads to Saudi Arabia? causing the fall of the whole Saudi royal family system? making all 'long time solid deals' with Saudi Arabia null and void? add that to the small gulf states Oman, Kuwait etc and you've got a big big oil supply problem for the US. This is and will remain a MAJOR problem for the US for 'more than a few years' whether or not they get their oil from them or not! America in one way sees itself as the only player who can actively influence this outcome, this region, by force (monetary and military) and so this is the real reason for such great interest in the mid east - and always has been... and is blatantly obvious and provable and bleeding insanely clear and simple to anyone with half a brain... mid east = oil supply issues... simple as that... after that there are other issues which make the mid east important to America... but primarily America cares most for the issue of stability in the mid east - as it affects oil supply/price. America has always been based on cheap oil (as well as cheap enough money and labor)
as Rockefeller said,
"we are refining oil for the poor man and he must have it cheap and good."
Whats your point?
Everywhere depends on the cost of energy.0 -
Advertisement
Advertisement