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.

 

NEWS: Iran Threatens To Create An Oil Crisis

page: 3
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 10:24 PM
link   
Call me crazy, but I would welcome $3.00 or even $4.00 gas, if it serves to move us away from our addiction to Middle Eastern oil. Market foirces being what they are, we won't.....until it hurts. Given the technological possibilities its obscene that the oil companies and there interest in the status quo have suppressed alternatives.

We in the U.S. are in need of an intervention.

Its time




posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn

Yes, because I believe it is so, and it's a waste to get hung up on the emotional side like with what happened in Iraq, when this is merely about power. If you believed contrary to this, you would have said so and I invite you to say so if you still want to.


This thread is not about Iraq.... Looking at the rest of your post you are talking about " people hijacking threads"?.....

Is this about power?....of course it is... This latest move by the iranian president is just another way for him to try to stop anyone from investigating his obssesion with nuclear weapons and his obssesion to "wipe Israel off the map" etc, etc.

This latest threat is made by the regime of Iran to stop the world from referring them to the U.N. because of their research into nuclear technology which ultimate goal is to obtain nuclear weapons.

Why would their state agencies be training their scientists in all matters that concern nuclear technology?....all matters means that they are being trained in nuclear weapons development also.


The Iranian government has given approval for the establishment of a secret nuclear research centre to train its scientists in all aspects of atomic technology, The Telegraph can reveal.
......................
While the Iranians claim that their nuclear activities are entirely peaceful, nuclear experts working for the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the United Nations-sponsored nuclear watchdog, have found incontrovertible proof that Iran has been involved in the production of weapons-grade uranium.

The establishment of Iran's first post-graduate nuclear research faculty is seen as evidence that the Iranians are pressing ahead with their secret programme to become self-sufficient in the production of nuclear weapons.


Excerpted from.
www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2005/03/20/wiran20.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/03/20/ixportal.html

Shall we see some of the... items that iran has bought "for peaceful purposes"?....


On 28 January 2005, Ukranian parliamentarian Hryhoriy Omelchenko issued an open letter to President Viktor Yushchenko that Ukraine had illegally sold cruise missiles to Iran. It's was a credible report, which names dates, names, the bank accounts, fictitious shell companies that were set up to extradite the transfer of money from Iran. Plus there was collaborating evidence to this whole affair. He refered to a paper company set up in Cyprus to channel money for the missiles.


Excerpted from.
www.globalsecurity.org...

So, do you think that Iran buying X-55 cruise missiles is for peaceful purposes?....

Now, I am pretty sure you, and some other members, are going to be working hard in trying to dismiss this and other evidence which shows what the Iranian regime has really in mind when they claim "for peaceful purposes."



Originally posted by Jamuhn
I know you have some mean-spirited vendetta against me and some others and that you would like to hijack this thread, but I am asking you to control yourself and stay on topic.[edit on 21-1-2006 by Jamuhn]


Mean spirited vandetta?....not really. Talking about hijacking threads, this thread is about Iran threatening to create an oil crisis....it is not about your, and some other members, ill concieved idea that "the U.S. is behind all of this and everything else that happens in the world."

The Iranian president has made several statements freely concerning what "he and his regime want to do."

The U.S. has not put a gun to his head, the Iranian president is the one pointing a gun to the world's head telling them it is the right of the Iranian regime to pursue nuclear technology, and it does include nuclear weapons as quite a few of the Iranian president's statements, and actions of the regime keeps demonstrating, as well as statements which come from the "Revolutionary Guards" of Iran and other authorities in the regime.

[edit on 24-1-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Guy....do you just read what you feel like reading? Why do you feel the need to ascribe words and concepts to me that I never wrote?


Originally posted by JamuhnI agree it's possible they are building a nuclear weapon


So what do you say this then?.....


Originally posted by MuadibbNow, I am pretty sure you, and some other members, are going to be working hard in trying to dismiss this and other evidence which shows what the Iranian regime has really in mind when they claim "for peaceful purposes."


I've already said it's possible they are creating nuclear weapons even though they say they are not, although my trust in intelligence over such matters is weak. My point is about turning this into an argument that appeals to the logic instead of one that appeals to the emotions. This is global politics, not a counselor's office.


this thread is about Iran threatening to create an oil crisis....it is not about your, and some other members, ill concieved idea that "the U.S. is behind all of this and everything else that happens in the world."


How can you even think of talking about global politics surrounding the potential Iran embargo and its consequences without bringing the US into it? The original article itself mentioned the United States 3 times. Of course the US does not manufacture all the world problems, whose saying they do? You're the only one I'm seeing.

This is a power struggle between the West and Iran, and there is definitely an identity crisis that has been happening in Iran for awhile now. I know it's hard for you to look at this in an objective manner and you probably don't want to, but guess what, I am and so are others, get used to it.

This is not some issue where all of a sudden Iran wants to kill everyone, this situation has a context, a history, and cultural differences that you are failing to take into account when holding the US blameless for everything. No country wants to bow down to another.


In 1953 Iran's elected prime minister Mohammad Mosaddeq, was removed from power in a complex plot orchestrated by British and US intelligence agencies (dubbed "Operation Ajax"). The operation was conducted following the Prime-Minister's nationalization of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. It reinstated the Iranian monarchy against the people's will, handing power back to former Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

Following Mosaddeq's fall, Pahlavi grew increasingly dictatorial. With strong support from the USA and the UK, the Shah further modernized Iranian industry but crushed civil liberties. His autocratic rule, under which systematic torture and other human rights violations were known to occur, led to the Iranian revolution and overthrow of his regime in 1979. After more than a year of political struggle between a variety of different groups, an Islamic republic was established under the Ayatollah Khomeini by a revolution.

The new theocratic political system instituted some conservative Islamic reforms as well as introducing an unprecedented level of direct clerical rule. It also engaged in an anti-Western course. In particular Iran distanced itself from the United States due to the American involvement in the 1953 coup, which supplanted an elected government with the Shah's repressive regime. It also declared its refusal to recognize the existence of Israel as a state. The new government inspired various groups considered by a large part of the Western World to be fundamentalist.


en.wikipedia.org...

And at the same time this should not serve as an excuse for Iran if they support or carry out an attack on another country. They need to learn to come-to-terms with their past, modernise their country, and find their own identity as a people that can lead them strongly into the future.

[edit on 24-1-2006 by Jamuhn]



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 01:53 PM
link   
man, I'm tellin ya, all these jokers are in on the same game. bin laden makes a tape very time bush has bad press
and now the iranian guy is foolishly daring the internationl community to come down on him, practically laying the ground work for a war. I guess he's just following orders like W does

the beat goes on




posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by USCMD
Call me crazy, but I would welcome $3.00 or even $4.00 gas, if it serves to move us away from our addiction to Middle Eastern oil. Market foirces being what they are, we won't.....until it hurts. Given the technological possibilities its obscene that the oil companies and there interest in the status quo have suppressed alternatives.

We in the U.S. are in need of an intervention.

Its time

It's not just oil companies that want and need oil, we need oil in virtually all the aspects of our modern day lives.

Like, how does the food on your supermarket shelf get there? How do you produce it?

You gotta plow the field, how do you plow the field? With an oil powered vehicle.
You gotta plant the seeds, how do you plant the seeds? With an oil powered vehicle.
You gotta fertilize the crops, what are fertilizers made out of? Natural gas.
You gotta irregate the crops with water, how do you irregate the crops? You pump the water with electricity, how do you generate electricity? With oil, natural gas or coal in most cases.
You gotta spray pesticides on the crops, what are pesticides made out of? Oil.
You gotta harvest the crops, how do you harvest the crops? With an oil powered vehicle.
You gotta drive the harvest to a food processing plant, how do you do that? With an oil powered vehicle.
In the food processing plant they use more electricity and chemicals, and then wrap it in plastic which is made from oil. Then they drive the food to your supermarket with an oil powered vehicle.
Then you drive your oil powered vehicle to the supermarket and buy the food with a piece of plastic, which is again made from oil. Then you drive your oil powered vehicle home and put the food in the microwave which uses electricity and then you eat it.

... and this is just one example, a very important one. Do you get the picture?

Oh, and do you think average Americans will just give up their lifestyles and use less oil?
I didn't think so.

The only way I see that happening is if the economy crashes and there's a major depression
or should I say wealth transfer


It's called 'demand destruction' btw, it's a modern way of saying catastrophic recessions and shortages.

[edit on 25/1/2006 by SwearBear]



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by SwearBear
Well they are stupid in many ways but they are not suicidal. If they were to use nukes on South Korea or Japan they would be destroyed by the West and would gain nothing. That's a fact, and they know it.

One of the reasons their "masters" dont want them too, otherwise the gig is up for them and the problem solved/eliminated .



That makes you think that Iran will use nuclear weapons against the West or Israel? They can talk all they want, but it's not happening because as I said, self assured destruction.

What do you think they will let happen. let their country be subjected to the dictums of non-muslim kafirs, especially the US ? The average person in the middle east will never allow that especially the Iranian "mobs" that back the ayotallah. They would prefer to stand against the " hell goers " and die ensuring their passage to heaven on the day of resurrection.

That in short is how they think, it is not an exaggeration. Before the frenzied mobs of fundamentalists those with reason stand not a chance.



Sure, but I don't think they will risk much just to become 'popular', what do you mean hit back in Iran?

If the chinese would risk it, they would do it for Taiwan. Only with Taiwan will the CCP feel that they have truly won China, otherwise it is half done.


The Chinese have like $850 billion in foreign exchange, mostly in dollars, if they drop the dollar the US economy will definately crash,

Well, that is puny compared to other nations like JAPAN which has something like $40 trillion or so and not to forget other nations in the world like the middle east, the Americas, Africa and I think some nations in Australia and Europe too.


The only reason that the CCP currently has control over China is because the economy is doing well and getting better,... even if it means interfering in Iran to keep the economy running.

Yes but the chinese have made do with disappointment along way also, like how Japan stole their deal with Russia for a pipeline, Japan wasnt invaded or attacked, they simply moved on. They will do the same here if it means that they have to go to war to protect it. A war that china knows it cant win.



China has signed that $100 billion LNG deal and is about to sign $70 billion oil deal, which according to sources might total $200 billion of energy agreements between China and Iran, once concluded.

I read about those too but the thing is that that LNG deal is meant for 25 years and it is being worked out and has not come to frutition as of yet. Also the other deal is proposed and they hope to make it too.



That would be the reserves you're refering to, they have 2.2 million active servicemen, the US has 1.4 million, then if they intervene in a possible invasion of Iran, they still have 500k Iranian soldiers as allies.

Firstly, the cant move those many over to IRan and second they wont move all of them and I would say not more than a 100,000 if worst comes to worst. Any military junkie on ATS will tell you that no way in hell can the chinese defeat the US in war especially if it is in IRAN.
[ oh if you bring up the korean war, that was a long time ago and the US did win that battle by resisting the invading North ! ]


The US is technologically speaking still superior to China, but they're working on modernizing their military, the Chinese navy is already worrying the US. It's only a matter of years before the Chinese military is technologically near the same level as the US is.

The chinese military is built from Russian hand-me downs and that is said to be mordernization for the PLA. The Russian themselves cant stand up to the US even if they had the money to make enough equipment forget the chinese.
This is not some under-estimation but a fact that has been contested on ATS
again and again only to be proven true.
Also the Chinese economy is just 1/3 or the US economy and that militarily it is nearly 30 odd years behind. In 30 years they will be what the US is now, in 30 years the US will have moved way ahead of what it is now. So all that talk of China is catching up is part propaganda and part hysteria spread partly by the chinese and the media.


How will they run out? Well they export 2.1m barrels of oil every day, they have 395m barrels of proven reserves, 395/2.1 = 188, this means they can export at 2.1mbbl/d for 188 days, the Ukraine is dependent on foreign oil and gas, as we've seen this winter.

So you are saying that by Summer Ukraine will be dry ? That way many nations would have been dry a long time ago but are still pumping at about he same levels.
The largest find recently was in Kazakistan when the chinese bought up Petro Kazakistan. The find found recently is estimated to be bigger than Kazakistans
other major oil field.


What do you mean "they can find new reserves" ? Don't you think it's about time they discover these magical reserves that are supposedly out there?

They are trying to find resources, it depends on who is looking and with what intensity. The Russians are in no hurry because they know that they have enough. Plus their is no point finding all the oil in your region as this would decrease prices and effect their profits.



Exactly, they are sucking Central Asia dry, which means it isn't going to last, the only place in the world that will last is the Middle East, Iran is the line in the sand.

It is in a dangerous neighbourhood for the chinese, close to India, in shipping routes that the US monitors and also the locals dont like the chinese in that region. SEE


Look, if the US controls all the oil reserves in the Middle East, the Chinese will eventually have to submit to US hegemony after their reserves run dry, same goes for the rest of the world ... and most other reserves around the world are tiny compared to those in the Middle East.

True, but the Chinese hold great control in Africa and have one of the largest suppliers as its neighbours apart from producing massive amounts of oil itself. Plus they have bought up oil fileds all over the world. Now they should consolidate their aquisitions and make effective use of these.



No it wouldn't, Europe is already turning it's back against the US and starting to do deals with the Chinese, since the US economy is not what I'd call stable. The Chinese offer more profits to Europeans than the US, and in the end that's all that they really care about.

The EU has taken a recent interest in china, that is not to say they have turned their backs on the US. When the time comes to pick sides the Europeans will always be on our side of the fence because in the end we are one and the same. The chinese may offer the Europeans profits but the europeans trade 80% inside europe and they have their own "cheap labour camps" in Eastern Europe to cut costs.
Granted the economy is not what it was but still the economy has defied the skeptics and grew even with all the bad-mouthing it has received. Just recently there was talk in the Senate about a new energy plan that seeks to invest more in offshore platforms off Albuquerque-Florida and in the pacific. A plan to redefine the Energy policy and make supply more reliable and decrease demand in the country.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 09:39 AM
link   
It takes far less than you think to create an oil crisis. The US currently imports over a quarter of its 20 Million Barrels a day requirement. 15 Million barrels of world production comes down the Straits Of Hormuz, within missle distance of Iran. Anyone around in the eighties will remember the tanker wars in that region.

The real problem comes from financial markets confidence in avaailbity of oil. Once a financial markets analyst gets wind that the availability of petroleum is dropping it can lead to a stock market frenzy.
During the last oil price crisis Saudi Arabia increased its production to help ease the price hikes. The evidence points to Saudi Arabia being unable to meet the increased production increase if someone like Iran turned of the taps. The Saudi's are currently pumping water into their largest fields as the pressure is dropping so fast.

Imagine you are a chemical company involved in making plastics, which requires refined petroleum products, and the avaialbility of oil is in qiestion. This will lead to a loss in productivity, and as a consequence a loss in profits. Now if you had shares in such a company you would sell your shares.
Of the items in your local store 95% require refined petroleum in either production or transport.
This over dependancy on oil means that any disruption to the supply means loss of revenue for companys, this undermines stockholder confidence and the markets go into free fall.
We would be plunged into recession, economies would grind to a halt, and you would not have to worry about finding $3 dollars for a gallon of fuel as most people would be out of work.

It is not the actual supply of oil that is the problem, all that is needed is the threat of a major distruption for a prolonged period and the markets will do the rest.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by IAF101
What do you think they will let happen. let their country be subjected to the dictums of non-muslim kafirs, especially the US ? The average person in the middle east will never allow that especially the Iranian "mobs" that back the ayotallah. They would prefer to stand against the " hell goers " and die ensuring their passage to heaven on the day of resurrection.

That in short is how they think, it is not an exaggeration. Before the frenzied mobs of fundamentalists those with reason stand not a chance.

So you're saying the majority in Iran are religious fanatics? I personally do not know, I have never been in Iran ... have you?
I know we have some Iranian people on ATS, maybe they could enlighten us.




If the chinese would risk it, they would do it for Taiwan. Only with Taiwan will the CCP feel that they have truly won China, otherwise it is half done.

I don't think so.




Well, that is puny compared to other nations like JAPAN which has something like $40 trillion or so and not to forget other nations in the world like the middle east, the Americas, Africa and I think some nations in Australia and Europe too.

No it isn't. Japans foreign exchange reserves are at about $850 billion, and at the end of 2005 China had about $819 billion, in the end of 2004 they had $514 billion, while Japan had $830 billion, can you see the difference in growth?
Japan's foreign exchange reserves mainly come from huge trade surplus. Foreign direct investment accounts for merely 0.25 percent or so of Japan's GDP, while in China the colossal foreign exchange reserves are not generated by trade but come from increased foreign direct investment.
China will surpass Japan eventually.




Yes but the chinese have made do with disappointment along way also, like how Japan stole their deal with Russia for a pipeline, Japan wasnt invaded or attacked, they simply moved on. They will do the same here if it means that they have to go to war to protect it. A war that china knows it cant win.

Actually China didn't loose the pipeline deal, it will first go to China and then continue on towards Japan.
Why would China invade Japan over a deal anyway? It's not like Japan invaded Russia and stole their oil reserves, in which China had hypothetically invested billions of dollars in.




Firstly, the cant move those many over to IRan and second they wont move all of them and I would say not more than a 100,000 if worst comes to worst. Any military junkie on ATS will tell you that no way in hell can the chinese defeat the US in war especially if it is in IRAN.

Why would they move all their troops there? The U.S. can't place all their soldiers in Iran either.
Well, if the U.S. decides to invade Iran, which they won't, they can't win either, the U.S. government is broke, they're going to hit the debt ceiling of $8.182 trillion in February. Besides, they don't have enough public support for it, unless there's another terrorist attack in the U.S. that is ... and even if that happens the U.S. doesn't have enough troops for it, the army is already stretched to a breaking point in Iraq and Afghanistan ... unless there's a draft, of course.




So you are saying that by Summer Ukraine will be dry ? That way many nations would have been dry a long time ago but are still pumping at about he same levels.

If they keep pumping at the same rates and don't find any new reserves, yes.
It's absolutely logical. If I have $100 dollars and use $1 everyday and don't get any more dollars, then I will run out of money in 100 days.




They are trying to find resources, it depends on who is looking and with what intensity. The Russians are in no hurry because they know that they have enough. Plus their is no point finding all the oil in your region as this would decrease prices and effect their profits.

Actually when a company finds more new oil reserves their stock price goes up.




True, but the Chinese hold great control in Africa and have one of the largest suppliers as its neighbours apart from producing massive amounts of oil itself. Plus they have bought up oil fileds all over the world. Now they should consolidate their aquisitions and make effective use of these.

True, but the U.S. has moved troops to many African countries, and the U.S. is near other countries where the Chinese have made investments, like Canada and Venezuela.
I'm actually writing a text on recent U.S. troop deployments and energy deals since the "War on Terror" began, I'll post a link to it once I'm done with it.


Right on the dot Expositor!



[edit on 25/1/2006 by SwearBear]



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Guy....do you just read what you feel like reading? Why do you feel the need to ascribe words and concepts to me that I never wrote?


Guy....I am not "reading only what i feel like reading." I can say I am pretty sure I understand exactly what you are trying to claim.


Originally posted by Jamuhn
I've already said it's possible they are creating nuclear weapons even though they say they are not, although my trust in intelligence over such matters is weak. My point is about turning this into an argument that appeals to the logic instead of one that appeals to the emotions. This is global politics, not a counselor's office.


It is you who is trying to "turn this into an argument that appeals to the emotions instead of one that appeals to the logic." On the one hand you are trying to claim that "it is possible Iran is building a nuclear weapons", but then you want to claim that "the west reaction to this is just for "global politics and not about what is good for humanity."

Your argument and reaction towards this event is clearly dominated by your own emotions on the topic, and not about what is the reality of the situation and what logic mandates for the good of humanity.

Logic would mandate that the world would make sure nuclear weapons do not fall in the hands of a man, and regime, who have called for "wiping Israel off the map" and have made calls "to destroy Anglo-Saxon nations such as the U.S. Canada, Australia and other European nations." But according to you making sure such a "madman, and his crazy regime" does not get their hands on nuclear weapons is "just about global politics and not about what is good for humanity."

----Edited to add following comment----

BTW, I think that Chirac's statement about using nukes against terrorist nations that attack France was meant for Iran, and any other nation that has claimed to want to "destroy western civilization."

----End


Originally posted by Jamuhn
How can you even think of talking about global politics surrounding the potential Iran embargo and its consequences without bringing the US into it? The original article itself mentioned the United States 3 times. Of course the US does not manufacture all the world problems, whose saying they do? You're the only one I'm seeing.


Simply because this is not about anything the U.S. or any western country has done in the past. If you want to start playing the"blame game" trying to blame any nation about current events, then the Islamic nations are to blame for many of the recent events, including trying to bring Islam by the sword to the known world in the past, which is exactly what the present radical Islamists, which includes the regime of Iran, seem to be trying to bring to the world once again.

The following excerpt and link is about some of the plans of the current regime of Iran.


AN ADVENTURE THAT CAN BACKFIRE
by Amir Taheri
Arab News
October 8, 2005
...................
Having secured most key positions in the past few months, the new generation of Iran's Islamic revolutionaries is now invited to prepare for playing "chicken" with the United States.

"The Satanic powers want to play chicken with us," says Gen. Muhammad Hijazi, the man in charge of the Islamic army's office of war preparation. "We must show that we are eagles."
.................
According to Tehran sources, Abbasi is the architect of the so-called "war preparation plan" currently under way in Iran.

Last month Abbasi presented an outline of his analysis in a lecture at the Teachers Training Faculty in Karaj, west of Tehran.
.................
According to Abbasi, the global balance of power is in a state of flux and every nation should fight for a place in a future equilibrium. The Western powers, especially the United States, still wield immense military and economic power that "looks formidable on paper." But they are unable to use that power because their populations have become "risk-averse."

"The Western man today has no stomach for a fight," Abbasi says. "This phenomenon is not new: All empires produce this type of man, the self-centered, materialist, and risk-averse man."

..................
Abbasi and his disciples in the new Islamic elite believe that this is the best time to engage the US in a "game of chicken."

"The Western regimes lack popular legitimacy," Abbasi told his audience. "The Western economy is based on shaky foundations that depend on oil. Divisions within the Western camp, the West's economic fragility, and the distrust of the people (in Western countries) toward their governments render their side vulnerable."
.................
But it is not only the US that Abbasi wants to take on and humiliate. He has described Britain as "the mother of all evils". In his lecture he claimed that the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, and the Gulf states were all "children of the same mother: the British Empire." As for France and Germany, they are "countries in terminal decline", according to Abbasi.

"Once we have defeated the Anglo-Saxons the rest will run for cover," he told his audience.


Excerpted from.
www.benadorassociates.com...



Originally posted by Jamuhn
This is a power struggle between the West and Iran, and there is definitely an identity crisis that has been happening in Iran for awhile now. I know it's hard for you to look at this in an objective manner and you probably don't want to, but guess what, I am and so are others, get used to it.


This is about Iran trying to bully the world into submission.

I know i am looking at this situation in an objective manner, and guess what, I am not the only one who sees this either Jamuhn....



Originally posted by Jamuhn
This is not some issue where all of a sudden Iran wants to kill everyone, this situation has a context, a history, and cultural differences that you are failing to take into account when holding the US blameless for everything.


You have fallen for the blame game that regimes such as the one in Iran are trying, and it seems they are succeding, to use to blame the west and claim this is the reason why they are doing all of this.

Perhaps the west should have "wiped off the map" every Islamic nation, since in the past Islamic nations tried to bring Islam to the known world by the sword, which is what radical Islamists, such as the regime of Iran are trying to do these days.

BTW, i am not saying that we should "wipe off the map Islamic nations", but I am trying to make a point that blaming current events on what has happened in the past is no way to solve problems, and it is just an excuse.

The reaction of the world to current events should be solved according to what is currently happening in the world and because of statements made by current regimes not because of what happened 50 years ago, or 14 centuries ago.



Originally posted by Jamuhn
No country wants to bow down to another.


Then perhaps you should read the following statement.


"The world has to bow down and respect the will of the Iranian nation," the official Islamic Republic News Agency on Tuesday quoted Ahmadinejad as saying during a meeting with Foreign Ministry officials.


Excerpted from.
www.dailystar.com.lb...




Originally posted by Jamuhn
en.wikipedia.org...

And at the same time this should not serve as an excuse for Iran if they support or carry out an attack on another country. They need to learn to come-to-terms with their past, modernise their country, and find their own identity as a people that can lead them strongly into the future.

[edit on 24-1-2006 by Jamuhn]


humm, you sure excerpted quite a bit from that link then you claim this should not serve as an excuse. If you think so, then why the lenghtly excerpts?....

Should i make lenghtly excerpts to what the Muslim nation did 14 centuries ago and then claim those are not excuses for what is happening now?..... What exactly would be the point of that?

[edit on 26-1-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 08:27 AM
link   
I'm providing historical reasons why Iran feels the way they do towards the West, that is the point. And I stated that that these are not excuses, but rather, are meant for us to better understand a people in the sake of knowledge. That is the point of this site, right? Deny Ignorance. If you feel the urge to post what Muslims did 14 centuries ago, go ahead, noone is stopping you.

But, if you don't think I'm being sincere in saying that Iran does not have an excuse for its ill will towards others, than it's your problem and I have no need to further defend myself against questions of my allegiances.

[edit on 26-1-2006 by Jamuhn]



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by SwearBear
So you're saying the majority in Iran are religious fanatics? I personally do not know, I have never been in Iran ... have you?

The majority of Iranians have only basic education and the ones who make it to university generally move to the West, it is these semi-educated group that is easily manipulated by the Islamic clergy. Moreover it is not like Iran is a totally free nation, religion plays a prominent role in governance of the state and in lives of the people.
No, I have not been to Iran but have stayed in the region for a considerable amount of time.


Japan's foreign exchange reserves mainly come from huge trade surplus. Foreign direct investment accounts for merely 0.25 percent or so of Japan's GDP, while in China the colossal foreign exchange reserves are not generated by trade but come from increased foreign direct investment.

Exactly, the Japanese have played it smart and the Yen is balanced on their own economy parameters while the Chinese have gone in for the fixed assets model that puts them at the mercy of their investors rather than their own productivity.
The Chinese would have to shut shop if the they dumped the dollar, these reserves support their own credit and money growth which inturn have affected real estate in china. Also some 85% of their revenues has been through FDI which are subject to reversals. The Chinese are caught between a rock and a hard place on account of poorly developed domestic capital markets and an unprofitable banking system which still sits on a pile of non-performing and uneconomic loans. Thus any revaluation of the dollar would effectively kill the chinese and in return boost global demand for US products and services in the process creates a latent inflation bias in US finances, since it allows the government sector in the U.S. to expand financed by debt sold to foreign central banks. OF course the property bubble will burst but this will cripple the middle class but holistically it would effectively transfer the debt burden to foreign banks and redistrubute the "wall street" class. Also the whole world would be effected by such an action as the dollar makes up a major component of many nations reserves, it will heavily depend on international reaction to the chinese suicidal revalution. Thus, the chinese need this dis-equillibrium in as much as the US benifits from it.



It's not like Japan invaded Russia and stole their oil reserves, in which China had hypothetically invested billions of dollars in.

Exactly, the chinese $100BN deal mearly involves SINOPEC importing 250 million tones of LNG from IRan along with petroleum for the next 25 years. It would be a give and take thing and thus the chinese would have no fixed assets that would be in jepordy due to the war. Sinopec would only deal with the logistical and explorative phases of the Iranian oil industry without actually holding stake in its oil fields. And it would be reasonable that any disruption in supply would signify that the deal would lapse.



Why would they move all their troops there? The U.S. can't place all their soldiers in Iran either.

The US has the "capability" to do so, while China doesnt. IF the US chooses to do so or not would be a different matter. Also who says that the US will lead the world this time against Iran ??


Well, if the U.S. decides to invade Iran, which they won't, they can't win either, the U.S. government is broke, they're going to hit the debt ceiling of $8.182 trillion in February.

The only reason the US govt spent so much money in Iraq is due to the massive build up of military personel and reconstruction rather than teh actuall fighting. Also in Irans case it would be more Europe's war with American guidence. Congress has already stopped the allocation of funds to Iraqi reconstruction beyond 2007. Also the US debt is not that much of a worry to Congress as is the energy situation in the US.
$8.182BN of the debt though fatal for most nations is still just 7% in GDP terms for the US. Contrary to what the will have you believe the US still has a long way to go before you can write it off as broke.


Besides, they don't have enough public support for it, unless there's another terrorist attack in the U.S. that is ... and even if that happens the U.S. doesn't have enough troops for it, the army is already stretched to a breaking point in Iraq and Afghanistan ... unless there's a draft, of course.

That may be true but as I have said this will mostly be Europes War against Iran and US pressure will mostly be to get Iran to the UNSC and then doom its fate. Apart from that I doubt that they would do " Iraq " again on Iran. The troops on the other hand would necessarily have to be redeployed from Iraq and from across the world. But then again with 1.6 million active troops plus Europes men and just 160,000 of them in Iraq it is possible but maybe improbable.



If they keep pumping at the same rates and don't find any new reserves, yes.
It's absolutely logical. If I have $100 dollars and use $1 everyday and don't get any more dollars, then I will run out of money in 100 days.

So if I take Saudi Arabi which has 216 billion barrels of oil reserves and it produces 10 million barrels a day then it should last about 60 years ?
So in 60 years the worlds largest supplier will be out of oil ?? IF that was the case do you think they would still sell it for 65 a barrel



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 09:48 PM
link   
Here's an interesting article from Newsmax.com: www.newsmax.com...

I'm sure we've all heard about Ahmadinejad's replacing a lot of bureaucrats, diplomats, and commanders with his IRGC friends, and so on, just like any new president would when he's bent on consolidating his power. But these guys apparently all come from a secretive, mystical Islamic sect that even Khomeini thought was radical. And Ahmadinejad has stated several times that he expects to usher in the return of the 12th Imam within 2 years of when he took office (last August), and that this would be accompanied by a war and a lot of confusion.

Well, if that's what Ahmadinejad intends to do, and if it will be at least 9-12 years (as they say) before Iran could ever get nuclear weapons at its current pace of development, then what role could Iran's nuclear research have in Ahmadinejad's efforts to usher in the return of the 12th Imam? My thought is that he's not concerned about the weapons themselves, merely about giving the world the impression that he's building them, because he really has no plans for the nukes themselves. He merely plans to use them as bait to get the US to attack Iran.

And actually, despite the ruckus such an attack would cause, since Ahmadinejad probably also wants to see the return of the Islamic Empire, and wants Iran to be the Keepers of the Shrine too (instead of Saudi Arabia), he probably doesn't want the US to stop with merely an attack on his nuclear facilities. Rather Ahmadinejad probably wants the US to actually invade Iran.

If the US invaded Iran while we were still entangled in Iraq, and especially if we didn't get much help from other countries, it would seriously strain our military and endanger our economy. That might be Iran's and Al Qaeda's one hope of actually winning the war, is to get us bogged down in both Iraq and Iran at the same time.



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by IAF101
The majority of Iranians have only basic education and the ones who make it to university generally move to the West, it is these semi-educated group that is easily manipulated by the Islamic clergy. Moreover it is not like Iran is a totally free nation, religion plays a prominent role in governance of the state and in lives of the people.
No, I have not been to Iran but have stayed in the region for a considerable amount of time.

Fair enough. I would like a second opinion on that though.



The Chinese would have to shut shop if the they dumped the dollar, these reserves support their own credit and money growth which inturn have affected real estate in china.

Sure, if they dumped the whole motherload at the same time, or even half of it, they would have some economic problems, the Yuan is currently tied to the dollar. However, the Chinese are gradually moving away from the dollar by diversifying their currency-basket.

Another warning sign that the dollar may be heading for the dumpster, is that Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have also moved their money from the dollar to the euro. They are the two richest individuals on the planet, I think they know what they're doing.

The price of gold has also doubled in less than a year. As I said in another topic, gold is like the canary-bird in the coal mine, it's constantly rising price is a sign that major investors see structural vulerabilities in the system and begin bailing out.



Exactly, the chinese $100BN deal mearly involves SINOPEC importing 250 million tones of LNG from IRan along with petroleum for the next 25 years. It would be a give and take thing and thus the chinese would have no fixed assets that would be in jepordy due to the war. Sinopec would only deal with the logistical and explorative phases of the Iranian oil industry without actually holding stake in its oil fields. And it would be reasonable that any disruption in supply would signify that the deal would lapse.

I doubt China and Russia would allow the West to get control over all the oil reserves in the Middle East in the first place, since they are the biggest and the ones that will run dry last.



The US has the "capability" to do so, while China doesnt. IF the US chooses to do so or not would be a different matter. Also who says that the US will lead the world this time against Iran ??

You do have a point there. The U.S. has built permanent and semi-permanent military bases in Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkey.
If we take a look at the map, the U.S. has a buffer zone and this means China and Russia are basicly cut off from the Middle East oil reserves.





$8.182BN of the debt though fatal for most nations is still just 7% in GDP terms for the US. Contrary to what the will have you believe the US still has a long way to go before you can write it off as broke.

No, not $8.182 billion, but $8.182 trillion ($8182 billion).
The U.S. GDP is about $12.37 trillion ($12370 billion), according to the CIA world factbook.
www.brillig.com...
www.cia.gov...



So if I take Saudi Arabi which has 216 billion barrels of oil reserves and it produces 10 million barrels a day then it should last about 60 years ?
So in 60 years the worlds largest supplier will be out of oil ??

Actually that's not exactly true.

There are a few basic questions I think people should ask about oil reserves in general.

How many of the estimated oil reserves are proven, and how much of the proven oil reserves are recoverable?
When you've pumped about 50% of the oil from an oil field it becomes much harder and more expensive to extract. At some point, no matter how much energy or money you throw at the extracting process you can't raise the rate of extraction without consuming more energy or wasting more money that you'd get from that which you'd extract, and after that the rate of extraction keeps on getting lower and lower by the years.
An oil field is deemed dry when it takes more than a barrel of oil to extract another, energy-wise.
At what point will this happen to the oil fields in question?

So, basicly at some point in time, the rate of oil extraction in any given oil field will decrease, while global demand for oil increases. U.S. domestic oil production peaked in the 70s and has been on a irreversible decline ever since.
We're in trouble when production can't meet the demand, think of the oil shortages in the 70s, except the situation will never return to normal.
But before that happens, it is likely that conflicts will occur as nations scramble to secure oil reserves for themselves as their domestic production decreases, like the U.S. is doing in the Middle East, Central Asia and West Africa with it's military strength and as China is doing in the same places, except also in South America and Canada, by diplomatic means, so far ...

[edit on 28/1/2006 by SwearBear]




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join