It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iran's options

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by mttlacroix

I think the UK would probably use their military as they have troops in Irak. Most of the Arab peninsula will send some troups (won't make too much of a difference), Israel for sure, Egypt, Russia, Canada, China won't for sure, It would be interesting to see if India would, Australia, and most other EU countries.

Any thoughts?


In a pre-emptive attack on Iran, you will not see any overt British presence. You may have a couple of squadrons of SAS bumming about in the desert, but we certainly won't be joing you on this silly adventure. Only if Iran attacks first will you see that.

mod edited quote

[edit on 8-1-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]




posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Hey stu, since you are in control of the British military, maybe you wouldn't mind sending a few men across the pond here to help me with my yardwork, I just can't seem to get motivated to get it done.



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 01:20 PM
link   
27jd you read the entire article right? so then you see how much iran will benefit just by making 1 reactor right? they dont have the money to do it in the next 20 years, but 10% in 20 years is a reasonable goal. in 50 year it might be half or so. they want to convert. it will save them a load of money, thats plain to see.

of course they cant make nuclear energy an immediate main power source, unlike our economy they cant go 13 trillion dollars into debt and still be considered credible. they need to actually keep their economy afloat.



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Let's take a look at what you said.....


Originally posted by grimreaper797
nuclear power was there plan to be main power source, you know the constant oil fear of oil crisis over hear


That is clearly not the case, now your argument is switching to that it might be 50% in 50 years based on nothing more than your pure, 100% speculation? For now Iran should place the mere 10% of it's power in the hands of Russia, that's hardly putting the fate of Iran in their hands as you've stated so many times. If Russia bails, we can enrich it for them. It would be cool if Iran and the U.S. got along better anyway.



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 05:45 PM
link   
main power source would be where a majority came from. i never said 100%. i said a main power source to be. they dont have the money to make it an immediate main power source, over time though they will need to in order to get out of their own crisis. using 4 times as much fuel while still pumping out the same amount. it wont add up the more their population grows. they are on a road to trouble economically and source of power wise.

like i said, i have no problem with a multi country enrichment program for both iran and israel. this way if a country bails they still have some coming in til the problem is solved. this would go for both countries though.



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 05:56 PM
link   
10% is far from a majority of anything. And the 50% number in 50 years is merely your personal speculation. Iran has no plans for nuclear energy to be a main source of power, at all.



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 06:03 PM
link   
if you really want to get specific 10% cant be accurate either. its just a guess as well. they dont know if they will need more power. they dont know if their population will start growing even faster. whether or not they will make nuclear power a main source immediately doesnt change the fact that they will need a new power source, much like we see in our future right now.

we also know that oil is going to be harder to come by. if we continue to deny iran nuclear power and make them use oil as a main source, eventually they wont be able to export thier main source of revenue because they will need to use it instead. if you look at it, its not just in their best interests, untill the US stops depending on oil so much it effects us just as much. they lose money because they cant export it anymore and the big oil companies profit while we lose money paying 5 or 6 dollars a gallon because iran no longer exports oil to us.

you think it couldnt happen but as long as their population grows at this rate, eventually they will have to cut off oil as an export. that will probably crash their economy but its either that or they cut off power to their people and eventually it happens anyway.



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Oil only provides 18% of Iran's fuel currently. The main power source in Iran, is natural gas. They also have decent hydroelectric supply, which could increase to help meet demand. They don't need nuclear energy as much as you think, regardless, even if they did, they have an option but they have refused so far. If Russia backed out, there are other countries that they could make a deal with.



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 06:16 PM
link   
it should already be worked out, a multiple nation deal. doesnt matter if they dont need it at this very moment, they want it because they believe they are going to need it.(not to mention the fact it would save them ALOT of money)



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 11:24 PM
link   
www.freerepublic.com...

some research for you, still think that iran doesnt think israel is a threat and should be pressured before it backs down? well apparently iran begs to differ with what some one said on that.



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
Hey stu, since you are in control of the British military, maybe you wouldn't mind sending a few men across the pond here to help me with my yardwork, I just can't seem to get motivated to get it done.


I'll see what I can do, how about some Welsh Fusiliers? Hard working bunch...

Seriously though, I may not be the Chief of Her Majesty's Armed Forces (as I would be the Monarch instead
) but I do know that the majority of people here will not so easily be led into another "He's got WMD!!" war. That one is not going to cut it this time.



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 10:01 AM
link   
What everyone fails to see here is that Iran is in fact a major importer of oil themselves. Iran's economy is crumbling, its gotten so bad that Iran themselves just last week lifted an embargo on British and South Korean goods.

The people of Iran are not happy at this stage; Iran has no options. The president (Iran's) is not a powerful figure within the government; simply a voice of the true power, and a dissenting one as of late. He has not been silenced yet as the need to show a united front due to the current situation.

We do not need to go to war with Iran, we can place progressive embargo's on the country and their economy would collapse. They would literally be another Cuba or N.K., and this is exactly the position I think we are trying to push them to as a majority of Iranians are progressive youths.

You won't see any bombs falling on Terhan, but this does not mean it will not fall.

[edit on 9-1-2006 by crisko]



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 10:25 AM
link   
Irans economy isn't crumbling, where did you get this from? They are making a pretty packet from Oil Sales alone....

Where is the info showing them as a net importer of Oil as well? That is in complete contradiction from what everyone else is saying.



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 03:10 PM
link   
do some research it is falling, and its not going back up until they change something. they need to save money and exporting oil isnt enough. they need nuclear reactors because each one will save them millions a year. the more reacotrs they use instead of natural gas the more liekly their economy will become stable again.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Irans economy isn't crumbling, where did you get this from? They are making a pretty packet from Oil Sales alone....

Where is the info showing them as a net importer of Oil as well? That is in complete contradiction from what everyone else is saying.


Here is a quote for you:




Despite higher oil revenues, Iranian budget deficits remain a chronic problem, in part due to large-scale state subsidies on foodstuffs, gasoline, etc. Expenditures on fuels were estimated at $4.7 billion in 2004, and the country's parliament (the Majlis) has rejected measures to raise consumer prices. To the contrary, in January 2005, the Majlis decided to freeze domestic prices for gasoline and other fuels at 2003 levels. Currently, gasoline costs less than 40 cents per gallon in Iran, far below market cost, contributing to a rapid (8-10 percent per year) growth rate in gasoline consumption. In addition, the country imports around one-third of its gasoline.


Here is a link:

Iranian Country Analasis

4 Billion on Fuel Imports?

Here is a quote from that link to support my statement on the youths of the nation:




Another problem for Iran is lack of job opportunities for the country’s young and rapidly growing population. Unemployment in Iran averages around 14 percent, but is significantly higher among young people.


It is no shock to some that Iran does indeed need an alternative fuel to ease it's expendatures. It had froze eneregy costs so that it's populace can maintain the standard of living they are accustomed to.

Sadly, the means to this solution can indirectly involve the construction of nukes. With the recent rhetoric coming from the county as of late, this cannot be allowed.

Our best bet is to make things so bad that the people take a stand for themselves, at which point you will see U.S. boots on the ground as "advisors".

Iran won't be another Iraq, it will be Iranians fighting for themselves with U.S support. You will see a free Iran very soon.

EDIT: Spelling...MGD is kicking in



[edit on 10-1-2006 by crisko]



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 08:59 AM
link   
I think anyone who expects the youth of Iran to rise up and take power is being a bit naive. I seem to remember similar arguments about Iraq, flowers and candy and such.

Wanting to change your regime is one thing. When a country is attacked and civilians are killed I would guess Iran will have popular support among it's people to retaliate anyway they can.

I also think it Iran's response would not be a full scale military operation besides the lock down of their border to prevent a US ground invasion. I think the theory of sleeper cells is far more possible. Attacks within the US by terrorist would be far more devastating to the American public then another war in the mid east with our troops already there. Most Americans would not see much difference between insurgent attacks and Iranian attacks. Start blowing up shopping malls and the world changes from that point on.

Personally I have always feared the Iranian sleeper cells. It does seem that in my part of the country most of the middle eastern immigrants are from Iran. While I am sure 99% of them are not involved in potential sleeper cells it does make you wonder if this is not the largest possible pool available to any foreign nation.

How would the American people respond if Israel or US forces bombed Iranian Nuclear facilities and the impact was a wave of terror violence on the homeland? That is a huge issue that hopefully our administration is considering and planning for.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 09:45 AM
link   
Well, I've been to Iran, I am not sure if I can assume the same from you.

They are unemployed, do not have access to the media they want, and have had further restrictions placed on them very recently on the types of media they have access too.

While they can attend prestegious universities, they cannot work for most of the world's powerhouses. In fact, their life is dictated to them.

Iran's government will be overthrown, and seeing as you want to vote for hillary I can only take you as seriously as those wanting to vote for Perot.

Iran will fall; sit in your arm chair and think otherwise.

It's been in the works. Afghanistan is gone, Iraq is going through change, Lebanon was taken peacefully. Iran and Syria are the only two left and then the U.S. and her allies can be considered the victor of WW3.

That what this is, don't fool yourselves. This IS a World War. Various nations (mostly those responsible for winning WW2) are involved in this. Stop feeding from the mass media and compare it to history.

Please provide me links to your opinoins, as I have provided you links (U.S. Government ) to my facts.

EDIT: MGD


[edit on 10-1-2006 by crisko]



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
I'll see what I can do, how about some Welsh Fusiliers? Hard working bunch...


They can just bring the goat to eat the grass while we drink beers, good thinking!




Seriously though, I may not be the Chief of Her Majesty's Armed Forces (as I would be the Monarch instead
) but I do know that the majority of people here will not so easily be led into another "He's got WMD!!" war. That one is not going to cut it this time.


I think everybody is just stuck in Iraq mode, and that's valid. However, at this point anyway, things seem different. Everybody (government wise) is ticked at Iran right now, including France, Germany, Russia.



A senior U.S. State Department official said the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council in recent days had all warned Iran not to make good on its threat, and to return to the negotiating table with the European Union.

"We have coordinated very closely with the Russians, Chinese, French and British to deliver very similar messages to the Iranians over the past several days," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

www.cnn.com...



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by crisko
Well, I've been to Iran, I am not sure if I can assume the same from you.

They are unemployed, do not have access to the media they want, and have had further restrictions placed on them very recently on the types of media they have access too.

While they can attend prestegious universities, they cannot work for most of the world's powerhouses. In fact, their life is dictated to them.

Iran's government will be overthrown, and seeing as you want to vote for hillary I can only take you as seriously as those wanting to vote for Perot.

Iran will fall; sit in your arm chair and think otherwise.

It's been in the works. Afghanistan is gone, Iraq is going through change, Lebanon was taken peacefully. Iran and Syria are the only two left and then the U.S. and her allies can be considered the victor of WW3.

That what this is, don't fool yourselves. This IS a World War. Various nations (mostly those responsible for winning WW2) are involved in this. Stop feeding from the mass media and compare it to history.

Please provide me links to your opinoins, as I have provided you links (U.S. Government ) to my facts.

EDIT: MGD


[edit on 10-1-2006 by crisko]


Wow, where to start.
Let's try this one. First who I vote for has nothing to do with anything in this discussion. The fact that you have compared voting for Hillary Clinton to Ross Perot shows you are pretty ignorant of US politics.

The lack of access within Iran to outside media, etc seems to make the possibility of an internal fall (something we have heard about non stop since the early 80's by the way) less likely. They must have world support behind them for this, is that support there? If so how will they know?

I don't sit in my armchair and expect anything to happen. I work to make things happen by supporting candidates that I believe will make the US safer, supporting candidates I believe will help drive peace in the world and traveling beyond the southern US unlike most of our leaders today.

No I have not been to Iran. I have lived in Saudi Arabia and worked in both Pakistan and Jordan though. I am glad you got to visit Iran, although I seriously doubt that makes you an expert on the subject. Oh did I mention my brother in law is an Iranian Immigrant? He left Iran just 6 years ago, he is who I consider my expert source on the topic.

How in the world could I provide you a link to my opinion? Are you aware of what an opinion is?

I reject your World War III as propaganda. This is not World War III. One nation with a few smaller allies standing against a terror organization is not a world war. This is the war on terrorism, hardly a world war. Outside of Britain who is really helping us to fight this war? Okay a couple of hundred troops from some smaller nations but let's not dishonor those millions who fought the Nazi and Japanese regimes by trying to make this more than it is.




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join