War in Iran
haven't really read much about this (or anything else so far this year), but say they're not thinking about weapons, or not just thinking about weapons - how many nuclear power stations would iran be looking at building, and with what sort of output?
are there other threats to western interests, purely in terms of how iran fuels itself?
quite pissed.
are there other threats to western interests, purely in terms of how iran fuels itself?
quite pissed.
It's an interesting situation, with Iran going to nuclear power, while they sit on more oil than anyone besides Saudi Arabia and Iraq (maybe not exactly, but somewhere in there).4days wrote:haven't really read much about this (or anything else so far this year), but say they're not thinking about weapons, or not just thinking about weapons - how many nuclear power stations would iran be looking at building, and with what sort of output?
are there other threats to western interests, purely in terms of how iran fuels itself?
quite pissed.
Maybe the west doesn't like the idea that once Iran goes nuclear, they won't care what happens to the oil? Maybe if Iran gets full nuclear power, they can hike the price way up on theirs without damaging themselves?
Don't know, just speculation on your question. It doesn't seem very likely that's the situation though honestly.
Isn't this a bit of a hinge point?R00k wrote:It's an interesting situation, with Iran going to nuclear power, while they sit on more oil than anyone besides Saudi Arabia and Iraq (maybe not exactly, but somewhere in there).4days wrote:haven't really read much about this (or anything else so far this year), but say they're not thinking about weapons, or not just thinking about weapons - how many nuclear power stations would iran be looking at building, and with what sort of output?
are there other threats to western interests, purely in terms of how iran fuels itself?
quite pissed.
Maybe the west doesn't like the idea that once Iran goes nuclear, they won't care what happens to the oil? Maybe if Iran gets full nuclear power, they can hike the price way up on theirs without damaging themselves?
Don't know, just speculation on your question. It doesn't seem very likely that's the situation though honestly.
Iran has virtually limitless oil supplies, but instead chooses to begin enrichment of uranium.
See, that really doesn't add up in my mind.
No, I agree that it's strange, I just don't think it's grounds for an invasion or Security Council referral, in and of itself.
On the other hand, any country would be very wise to seriously look into alternate energy sources right now. Especially a country that has only one really desirable natural resource, and wants to make as much money off it as possible before it's gone.
On the other hand, any country would be very wise to seriously look into alternate energy sources right now. Especially a country that has only one really desirable natural resource, and wants to make as much money off it as possible before it's gone.
You're right on the invasion front, regarding referral - I'm not so sure. Regardless of the scaremongering, the notion of a new nuclear power would be a very serious development on a global level.R00k wrote:No, I agree that it's strange, I just don't think it's grounds for an invasion or Security Council referral, in and of itself.
On the other hand, any country would be very wise to seriously look into alternate energy sources right now.
I think if (in the face of considerable political pressure) Iran does not back down over this issue, that adds even more suspicion to the motives behind enrichment. After all, all of this political pressure ultimately results in lost finance down the line and reduced standing on the world stage, and if the purpose of enrichment truly is for power supply, at some point the potential financial gain from this is going to be outmatched by the losses of political sanction.
This is true, although I don't think it's unheard of for an oil exporter to buy in power from neighboring states for less than their oil export profits.Especially a country that has only one really desirable natural resource, and wants to make as much money off it as possible before it's gone.
Can you not get a fucking joke?Dave wrote:The inclusion of Jordan makes me think he's either incredibly stupid or incredibly sarcastic...seremtan wrote:paving a route made of glass, right canis?Canis wrote:Syria and Jordan are also terrorists. They'll have no problem in paving a route through those countries.
-- quite amused. Holy shit things get taken seriously...FFS!Nonsense, when India and Pakistan went nuclear it made a few headlines, and that was the end of the story. It hardly changed the regional balance - shit, you could even argue the region is more balanced than it was before they went nuclear.Foo wrote: You're right on the invasion front, regarding referral - I'm not so sure. Regardless of the scaremongering, the notion of a new nuclear power would be a very serious development on a global level.
A few things here:Foo wrote: I think if (in the face of considerable political pressure) Iran does not back down over this issue, that adds even more suspicion to the motives behind enrichment. After all, all of this political pressure ultimately results in lost finance down the line and reduced standing on the world stage, and if the purpose of enrichment truly is for power supply, at some point the potential financial gain from this is going to be outmatched by the losses of political sanction.
- Iran does not fear sanctions because they have the oil price weapon. There will be no sanctions, i'm sure of it.
- Iran does not fear war because it is a major regional power and it has the support of Russia and more importantly, China.
- The world doesn't like Iran much and they know it. A possible reduced standing on the world stage isn't much of a reason to not do it.
No, this is a win win situation for the Iranians.
it's not that strange. the shah started a nuclear power program back in the 70s without a murmur of disapproval from the west. iirc the reasoning was quite sound, having to do with covering certain possibilities resulting from a mid-east war, blockade of hormuz, persian gulf etc.R00k wrote:No, I agree that it's strange, I just don't think it's grounds for an invasion or Security Council referral, in and of itself.
On the other hand, any country would be very wise to seriously look into alternate energy sources right now. Especially a country that has only one really desirable natural resource, and wants to make as much money off it as possible before it's gone.
all this talk of whether iran does or doesn't need nuclear power is really contributing to any future case for war, because it's assumed that it isn't really iran's decision to make, and that it's ours instead (which it isn't)
I was referring more the :retard: reaction you received to your post more than I was referring to youCanis wrote:Can you not get a fucking joke?Dave wrote:The inclusion of Jordan makes me think he's either incredibly stupid or incredibly sarcastic...seremtan wrote: paving a route made of glass, right canis?
-
Freakaloin
- Posts: 10620
- Joined: Tue May 07, 2002 7:00 am
I have not read all of the comments of the 2 page thread, but I want to comment on why there will not be a war in Iran any time soon.
First of, Russia builds Iran's Nuclear Generators for power, and they get a lot of money for that. Next, Iran all so has a lot of oil. And a major factor of it is exported to China. China's economy is on the rise and they will require -and all ready do- a lot more oil.
The UN nations have been in talks, every day for the past number of weeks on the subject of forwarding Irans actions to UN Security Resolution. Now due to this fact both Russia and China, due to their economic interest in the matter before hand, have been trying to stall the progress. They have done this in the past, and it has worked.
If severe sanctions are placed on Iran, and especially in the US should decide to invade, due to economic interest of raising national Oil reserves. They would in turn eliminate a big chunk of China's Oil reserves, and the US would all so see this as a plus as China's rising economy is a direct threat to US's economy. Plus, Russia would lose their multi-billion dollar contracts, and being dry on money Russia would not like this. Now this would be a good thing for the US, as Russia would now not have large money founds to support it's Armed Forces. Thus, China and Russia would not be happy, not to mention Iran.
China, Russia, Iran, this would present some powerfully enemies to the US. A situation in to which North Korea would be more than glad to jump in to, given their dislike of the US grip on major Eastern Hemisphere assets.
In conclusion, no war any time soon.
.
First of, Russia builds Iran's Nuclear Generators for power, and they get a lot of money for that. Next, Iran all so has a lot of oil. And a major factor of it is exported to China. China's economy is on the rise and they will require -and all ready do- a lot more oil.
The UN nations have been in talks, every day for the past number of weeks on the subject of forwarding Irans actions to UN Security Resolution. Now due to this fact both Russia and China, due to their economic interest in the matter before hand, have been trying to stall the progress. They have done this in the past, and it has worked.
If severe sanctions are placed on Iran, and especially in the US should decide to invade, due to economic interest of raising national Oil reserves. They would in turn eliminate a big chunk of China's Oil reserves, and the US would all so see this as a plus as China's rising economy is a direct threat to US's economy. Plus, Russia would lose their multi-billion dollar contracts, and being dry on money Russia would not like this. Now this would be a good thing for the US, as Russia would now not have large money founds to support it's Armed Forces. Thus, China and Russia would not be happy, not to mention Iran.
China, Russia, Iran, this would present some powerfully enemies to the US. A situation in to which North Korea would be more than glad to jump in to, given their dislike of the US grip on major Eastern Hemisphere assets.
In conclusion, no war any time soon.
.
[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v74/Turbinator/knocked_the_fuck_out.gif[/img]
-
Freakaloin
- Posts: 10620
- Joined: Tue May 07, 2002 7:00 am
Turbine wrote:I have not read all of the comments of the 2 page thread, but I want to comment on why there will not be a war in Iran any time soon.
First of, Russia builds Iran's Nuclear Generators for power, and they get a lot of money for that. Next, Iran all so has a lot of oil. And a major factor of it is exported to China. China's economy is on the rise and they will require -and all ready do- a lot more oil.
The UN nations have been in talks, every day for the past number of weeks on the subject of forwarding Irans actions to UN Security Resolution. Now due to this fact both Russia and China, due to their economic interest in the matter before hand, have been trying to stall the progress. They have done this in the past, and it has worked.
If severe sanctions are placed on Iran, and especially in the US should decide to invade, due to economic interest of raising national Oil reserves. They would in turn eliminate a big chunk of China's Oil reserves, and the US would all so see this as a plus as China's rising economy is a direct threat to US's economy. Plus, Russia would lose their multi-billion dollar contracts, and being dry on money Russia would not like this. Now this would be a good thing for the US, as Russia would now not have large money founds to support it's Armed Forces. Thus, China and Russia would not be happy, not to mention Iran.
China, Russia, Iran, this would present some powerfully enemies to the US. A situation in to which North Korea would be more than glad to jump in to, given their dislike of the US grip on major Eastern Hemisphere assets.
In conclusion, no war any time soon.
.
man this guy is dumb...period...
those are good enough reasons why a UNSC resolution against iran would be a hard sell to russia and china, but not good reasons why a war or attack of some sort won't happen. you have after all just listed all the reasons why the US would want such a war, and furthermore the US isn't renowned for its concern for the UN or international law. nor for that matter is israelTurbine wrote:I have not read all of the comments of the 2 page thread, but I want to comment on why there will not be a war in Iran any time soon.
First of, Russia builds Iran's Nuclear Generators for power, and they get a lot of money for that. Next, Iran all so has a lot of oil. And a major factor of it is exported to China. China's economy is on the rise and they will require -and all ready do- a lot more oil.
The UN nations have been in talks, every day for the past number of weeks on the subject of forwarding Irans actions to UN Security Resolution. Now due to this fact both Russia and China, due to their economic interest in the matter before hand, have been trying to stall the progress. They have done this in the past, and it has worked.
If severe sanctions are placed on Iran, and especially in the US should decide to invade, due to economic interest of raising national Oil reserves. They would in turn eliminate a big chunk of China's Oil reserves, and the US would all so see this as a plus as China's rising economy is a direct threat to US's economy. Plus, Russia would lose their multi-billion dollar contracts, and being dry on money Russia would not like this. Now this would be a good thing for the US, as Russia would now not have large money founds to support it's Armed Forces. Thus, China and Russia would not be happy, not to mention Iran.
China, Russia, Iran, this would present some powerfully enemies to the US. A situation in to which North Korea would be more than glad to jump in to, given their dislike of the US grip on major Eastern Hemisphere assets.
In conclusion, no war any time soon.
.
it makes more sense to see the US 'use' of the UN not so much as a desire to do things legally but as a desire to create a veneer of pseudo-legality that can be sold to domestic doubters. if the UN refuses to play ball, they can simply switch to plan B, which is to accuse the UN of 'irrelevance' or (as in the case of iraq) pretend publicly that previous resolutions provide all the pretext they need. or they could simply indulge in a propaganda campaign against russia and china, claiming that they oppose war for 'selfish economic reasons' (as they did with france viz iraq) - which ironically are the very same reasons the US wants to attack iran in the first place
most likely israel will unilaterally strike at iranian nuclear targets and claim 'self-defence', a ridiculous orwellian claim the US will be only too happy to back