U.S. warns China on energy ties to Iran

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex



To bad they would rather challange US supremecy then join it.


Only a moron wants to join someone elses "supremacy."

If the US insists on being "number one", we can count on the rest of the planet overtly or covertly planning to knock us off our throne. Nobody wants to be ruled by foreigners.


No, only a moron would want to challange supremecy for the sake of challanging it.

The smart calculated person would consider what would happen in bot situations, both short and long term, and then make a choice.

As far as being "ruled by foreigners"... What are you reffering to?




posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by futuretense
Iran is determined to have ........nuke energy sitting on that oil field of their's like Jay Leno needs a bicycle to ride to work cause he's out of cars


- I'm sure you've noticed the world is crying out for Iranian oil, this oil isn't going to last forever for them, not with so much of it being exported.

How come the USA thought it was such a great idea 30yrs ago for Iran to have nuclear power (and by the way were the people who got the Iranian nuclear ball rolling all those years ago) yet now (despite the decades of depletion and hugely increased global demand) it's so utterly unacceptable?
The "lake of oil" arguement must have been so much more convincing back then, no?

Much as I'd love to see a non-nuclear world maybe the really hard thing for the US to take is that it was the USA herself that made such a good job persuading them of the case for nuclear power that you just have to lump the consequences of what you guys started, hmmm?


[edit on 9-9-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 05:49 PM
link   
Thats easy Sminky.

30 years ago, Iran didn't have a government who had publically stated that the complete destruction of Isreal was among it's main national goals. 30 years ago, there was a dictatorship which could be managed by the US.

Today, Iran is controled by a fanatical Islamic nut jobs. You are comparing apples and oranges.



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 06:02 PM
link   
I don't doubt there is a change in attitudes following the fall of the pro-American, US-supported, repressive dictatorship in Iran AMM but you are avoiding the point with this comment.

The 'need' or otherwise that is percieved may have absolutely nothing to do with the gov they have.

Either there was a case for having nuclear power that convinced sufficient of them or there wasn't.

In any case as I have said before Iran has had chemical and biological weapons for decades and never once used them against anyone that had not attacked her with them (apparantly they responded to Iraqi chemical attacks in the original Iran-Iraq Gulf war).

They also are known to have the missile tech to deliver them to Israel or Europe (apparantly this is the kind of thing we are all supposed to fear so much if they get nuclear weapons) yet they have never once given the slightest indication that they have that intention.

It seems to me that the chemical and biological weapons have been 'airbrushed out' of the equation exactly because they have had them and the means to deliver them (without ever giving anyone the slightest suspicion of doing so) for so long.
It kind of makes these claims somewhat lame and weak, to say the least, wouldn't you say?
Obviously it's just best to ignore that part of the story and frighter as many people as possible with wild tales of what they are bound to do if they get nuclear weapons, right?



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
It kind of makes these claims somewhat lame and weak, to say the least, wouldn't you say?
Obviously it's just best to ignore that part of the story and frighter as many people as possible with wild tales of what they are bound to do if they get nuclear weapons, right?


But you ignore the reason that these C/B weapons have not been used. That is nuclear inferiority. They know that if they used them against Isreal, Isreal would nuke them. Same goes for Europe (in the case of non nuclear countries in Europe, their allies would respond for them).

As far as your argument that if Iran needed nuclear power in the 70s, then they need it now - you have a point. The problem as I see it is that getting civilian nuclear energy helps their nuclear weapons program. That, I believe, is the crux of the problem as far as Europe, Isreal, and the US is concerned. I can not support Iran gaining ground in nuclear weapons.


Sep

posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
But you ignore the reason that these C/B weapons have not been used. That is nuclear inferiority. They know that if they used them against Isreal, Isreal would nuke them. Same goes for Europe (in the case of non nuclear countries in Europe, their allies would respond for them).


Can you clear one point. Sorry my English isnt very good, but are you saying that Iran hasnt used chemical and biological weapons until now, because they fear being nuked? In that case, if this fear exists, then they are not some "islamic nutjobs" as you claim. They want to survive and using nuclear bombs against Israel isnt the way to achieve this goal.


Originally posted by American Mad ManAs far as your argument that if Iran needed nuclear power in the 70s, then they need it now - you have a point. The problem as I see it is that getting civilian nuclear energy helps their nuclear weapons program. That, I believe, is the crux of the problem as far as Europe, Isreal, and the US is concerned. I can not support Iran gaining ground in nuclear weapons.


So what you are proposing is double standards in international law, simply because you dont feel secure?



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 12:09 AM
link   
Iran was offered nuclear fuel by the EU for their “civilian” nuclear project, yet they refused and want to do it on their own, ignoring everyone. Now, that surly has to raise some concerns. If it doesn't, your either to naive to see it, or don't want to see it.



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sep
Can you clear one point. Sorry my English isnt very good, but are you saying that Iran hasnt used chemical and biological weapons until now, because they fear being nuked? In that case, if this fear exists, then they are not some "islamic nutjobs" as you claim. They want to survive and using nuclear bombs against Israel isnt the way to achieve this goal.


Iran will not use chemical or biological weapons against it's main enemy (Isreal) because Isreal has nuclear weapons to respond with. Since Iran does not currently have nuclear weapons of their own, they can not act on (and I would like to emphasize this point) their OWN PUBLICALLY DECLARED POLICY of the total destruction of Isreal.

It is my, and the rest of the western worlds concern, that Iran wishes to obtain nuclear weapons not as a deterent (as the US, China, Russia, Isreal, India, Pakistan, the UK, and France use them), but as a weapon with which to strike Isreal with. Frankly, they have made their own bed on this subject. They have openly declared a wish to destroy another country. If Germany were to declare that they wished the total destruction of Italy, do you think the world community would want to see Germany obtain nuclear weapons?



So what you are proposing is double standards in international law, simply because you dont feel secure?


What you call a double standard, I call logic. You don't let psychopathic people own guns just because everyone else is allowed to. They are not like other people who wish to own guns to protect themselves and/or hunt. They are people who would use the weapons to harm others.

Likewise, you don't let a country which, again, has PUBLICALLY STATED that they wish to destroy another country get nuclear weapons if you can help it. If Iran was just a nice country which wished to increase their options for domestic energy, it wouldn't be a problem. The problem is that's NOT what they want. They want nuclear plants to advance their nuclear weapons program.

Besides, there is no international law saying that every country is entitled to nuclear power. None. So there is no double standard in international law.

And frankly, it's not me that Iran most threatens...It's Isreal and Europe. Hence why EUROPE and not the US is taking things into their hands. But yes, I will tell you, the thought of Iran gaining nuclear weapons does make me uncomfortable. They are a nation run by Islamic fundamentalists, a nation which has publically said that they wish the destruction of another country, and a country which has consistantly backed anti-western terrorists.

I'll tell you right now, I will support what ever action is needed to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons, and I would choose to error on the safe side.

EDIT: By the way, your English is excellent.


I wish I could learn a second language as well as you have.

[edit on 10-9-2005 by American Mad Man]



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 01:02 AM
link   
What a parody this would make.

We know these people.
They have oil.
We want their oil.
But we call them nutjobs of the axis of evil.
So they won't give us their oil.

Now these nutjobs decide if they are among the axis of evil then they need to defend themselves which makes those of the axis of good very mad.

So we, the axis of good start warning anyone these nutjobs would do business with to not do business with them.

Sounds like kids on a playground.


Sep

posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Iran will not use chemical or biological weapons against it's main enemy (Isreal) because Isreal has nuclear weapons to respond with. Since Iran does not currently have nuclear weapons of their own, they can not act on (and I would like to emphasize this point) their OWN PUBLICALLY DECLARED POLICY of the total destruction of Isreal.


Iran has stored quite a few tons of chemical weapons. If they wished, they could increase their production, as they already have the capability, and reach the degree where they can destroy Israel. However they have not done so. Using chemical weapons would be smarter than using nuclear weapons as it would ensure that the holy sites to Islam, which are located in Israel, are not destroyed. But again, the people who run the country are not crazy or stupid. They will not use a nuclear bomb against Israel, just like they haven’t used any other WMDs.


Originally posted by American Mad ManIt is my, and the rest of the western worlds concern, that Iran wishes to obtain nuclear weapons not as a deterent (as the US, China, Russia, Isreal, India, Pakistan, the UK, and France use them), but as a weapon with which to strike Isreal with.


Everyone is allowed to have concerns, however these concerns should be backed by evidence to show that Iran is planning to carry out a strike against Israel. Concerns do not substantiate to a military strike.


Originally posted by American Mad ManFrankly, they have made their own bed on this subject. They have openly declared a wish to destroy another country. If Germany were to declare that they wished the total destruction of Italy, do you think the world community would want to see Germany obtain nuclear weapons?


An intelligent audience should be able to distinguish between rhetoric and reality. The US called Iran axis of evil. The US declared Iran a terrorist state and also stated that they wish for the destruction of terrorism. Does that mean that the US wants to use nuclear weapons against Iran? Does that mean that everyone in Iran should panic and call for attacks against the US?

Also regarding the analogy that you stated, if the entire German government is against the gaining of nuclear weapons and they are against using nuclear weapons and if Italy was known to have one of the biggest undeclared nuclear weapons arsenals in the world, then I would say that if the IAEA and the international community inspected the facilities on a regular basis, as they are with Iran, then the German people should be allowed to enjoy electricity.



Originally posted by American Mad ManWhat you call a double standard, I call logic. You don't let psychopathic people own guns just because everyone else is allowed to. They are not like other people who wish to own guns to protect themselves and/or hunt. They are people who would use the weapons to harm others.


And who would decide who is a responsible country and who isn’t. I mean the United States, in my opinion does not have the right to tell the world what it can and cant do. Russia believes Iran is responsible, so do China and India. So again who do you think should be the policeman of the world?


Originally posted by American Mad ManLikewise, you don't let a country which, again, has PUBLICALLY STATED that they wish to destroy another country get nuclear weapons if you can help it.


No country should have nuclear weapons, doesn’t matter if they are "mature" or “psychotic"


Originally posted by American Mad ManIf Iran was just a nice country which wished to increase their options for domestic energy, it wouldn't be a problem. The problem is that's NOT what they want. They want nuclear plants to advance their nuclear weapons program.


That is a good theory. When there is some proof, ANY proof, then we have something to discuss.


Originally posted by American Mad ManBesides, there is no international law saying that every country is entitled to nuclear power. None. So there is no double standard in international law.


You heard of NPT. Under the law the United States has the responsibility to provide Iran with nuclear technology. Why do you think so many countries signed it? So they would let the US public sleep easier at night? I don’t think so.


Originally posted by American Mad ManAnd frankly, it's not me that Iran most threatens...It's Isreal and Europe. Hence why EUROPE and not the US is taking things into their hands.


Europe has declared they are against any military action.

news.bbc.co.uk...

www.bloomberg.com...
news.bbc.co.uk...




Originally posted by American Mad ManBut yes, I will tell you, the thought of Iran gaining nuclear weapons does make me uncomfortable. They are a nation run by Islamic fundamentalists, a nation which has publically said that they wish the destruction of another country, and a country which has consistantly backed anti-western terrorists.


Well the US is harbouring anti-Iran terrorists, the MKO. The US helped Saddam in the destruction of a massive part of Iran killing over a million Iranians. The US helped the Shah kill thousands of Iranians. You can see while the threats are coming from Iran the US is the one doing the killing.



Originally posted by American Mad ManI'll tell you right now, I will support what ever action is needed to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons, and I would choose to error on the safe side.


Would you say that if you family were in Iran? Would you say it is worth killing thousands of Iranians so you could sleep better at night?


Originally posted by American Mad ManEDIT: By the way, your English is excellent.


I wish I could learn a second language as well as you have.


I appreciate the compliment. I still have a while to go till I can express myself the way I want to but hopefully as time goes by it will improve.


Sep

posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Iran was offered nuclear fuel by the EU for their “civilian” nuclear project, yet they refused and want to do it on their own, ignoring everyone. Now, that surly has to raise some concerns. If it doesn't, your either to naive to see it, or don't want to see it.


Iran now has a civilian nuclear project. Perhaps the EU would like to scrap their nuclear programs and buy their uranium from Iran. I mean its cheaper for Iran to produce enriched uranium as they already prossess the mines, so its illogical for the EU countries to produce their own uranium.



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Iran was offered nuclear fuel by the EU for their “civilian” nuclear project, yet they refused and want to do it on their own, ignoring everyone. Now, that surly has to raise some concerns. If it doesn't, your either to naive to see it, or don't want to see it.


Then what twisted purpose would the US have to try and block the IRan-Pak-India gas pipeline venture..
That cannot have anything to do with nukes..
The US is just trying to impose an economic embargo..



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 11:42 AM
link   
A few more comments to add to the mix.........

"Alliance"

"An alliance with your neighbor should not be made unless you know the internal workings of their system" - Sun Tzu - "the Art of War"

hmm..........China knows this..........do we (USA)?..........or are we in denial of it??

Regarding the posturing over energy between the US and China.......in particular with Iran.........

As long as the World's oil supplies can meet current demands and those future demands of developing nations........then the capitalistic "supply and demand" process will remain with US and China continuing their diatribe of posturing with each other..............

But............if oil supplies cannot meet those demands and we start playing a Worldwide musical chair game with energy on this planet.......

.....well, then all bets are off...........

Now I read a book last night about China and their position on energy.......interesting in that as a national state, China is very diligent on the use and need of oil for now and in the future......they are more willing to delay gratification and scarifce usage in order to save energy for a "rainy day"............they claim they do not want to make the mistakes that the West has done where the economic engine of growth due to oil has left us with a hyper oil dependant economy and just a 30 day emergency supply.........

China says they plan to monitor their economic growth and demand of oil in such a manner that if it runs out.............it will run out first for the West long before it runs out for them...................if that were to happen then they would have the ablity to make a move and strike us at our weakest...........

Many things have to happen for this to take place, but it would appear to me that China is taking this senario into consideration...........

Now go back to the Sun Tzu statement above and read it again........





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join