Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pizmobeach:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

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

---

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pizmobeach:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

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

---

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

I liked this comment after the article:

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

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

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

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

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

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pizmobeach:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

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

---

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

I liked this comment after the article:

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

---

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pizmobeach:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

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

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

---

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

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Hello,

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

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

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pizmobeach:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Hello,

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

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

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

---

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

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Hello,

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

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

--Anthony

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

No, but you brought it up.

---

Quote:

---

We all know the larger issue is Iran getting nukes.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:

Quote:

---

We all know the larger issue is Iran getting nukes.

---

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

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

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

---

Quote:

---

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

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

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

---

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

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

---

Quote:

---

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

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

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

---

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pizmobeach:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

Doesn't sound very threatening.

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

---

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

So has all this been sabre rattling after all?

---

Quote:

---

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

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

---

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

---

Quote:

---

Nobody's saying we should go to war

---

Quote:

---

but to be realistic about potentials is

---

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

In existence since Biblical times,"

---

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:

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

---