US criticises Turkey-Iran gas deal, page 2
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 18-7-2007 @ 07:47 AM by xpert11
Originally posted by DYepes
sorry buddy you are quite wrong about iran's economy. thats part of the 'free your mind' from baseless propoganda. rationing gas temporarily does not mean your economy is about to collapse.


Baseless propaganda?
North Korea economy is in very poor shape and the Soviet Union caved economically both countries are or did suppress people. Even if Iran's economic problems are overstated you cant painted an rose picture about an country that imports petrol while sitting on top of the thirds world largest oil reserves.


it really is irrelevant anyways how or why you feel that iran's economy needs to be destroyed, because dozens of countries that are trading with them on a regular basis, and signing new energy, technology, and manufacturing deals with them on a monthly basis disagree with that theory.


Indeed there are an couple of factors at work here.
The first is as what was mentioned a lot countries have an trading relationship with Iran. The second factor is that thanks to the Iraq blunder people view the US as having cried wolf one to many times.
So those who disagree with me can rest ease my point of view is hardly going to prevail in terms of real world policy.

if the world believed it was in their best interest to destroy the american or european economies in order to make political reforms, i am sure you would be singing a different tune.


Well when you think about it the above statement makes no economic sense apart from the fact that the likes of China could call in all the loan the US has made from them in order to maintain the current spending rate. I suppose European economy's could be more vulnerable to sanctions. But European countries haven't made statements about wiping there neighbours off the map.


reply posted on 19-7-2007 @ 12:50 AM by DYepes
is the UN put sanctions on IRAN


Do you happen to know what those sanctions were? I believe it went something like this
The sanctions ban the supply of nuclear-related technology and materials and impose an asset freeze on key individuals and companies.


Hmm I wodner if that has anything to do with natural gas? Oh no? Sorry buddy, India was not buying nor selling nuclear technology or materials to Iran. they signed an agreement to run a pipeline with natural gas through Pakistan into India. So the blackmail and harassment was not only unnecessary, but unfounded. No violation of sanctions occured.

[edit on 7/19/2007 by DYepes]


reply posted on 19-7-2007 @ 07:29 AM by InSpiteOf
Originally posted by xpert11
DYepes you have added another spin on the wipe Israel off the map comment anyway moving along I don't want to destroy per say Iran if I wanted to do that would be calling for nukes to be dropped on that country. All I am going to say about the US dropping atomic bombs is that the US was no threat to its neighbours and that the US stayed out of the war until Pearl harbour.

Yeah after Bush leaves office it is very likely that the withdrawl from Iraq and its effects will become centre stage of the US ME policy.


1) DYepes hardly spun the Isreali comment, infact i think s/he (no offence intended to DYepes) spoke quite acurately on the account.

2) Your right, your not calling for the complete destruction of Iran, its citizens, and its infastructure, what your calling for is crushing Irans economy. You said it best
Never underestimate how powerful (a) weapon economics (can be)
(brackets mine) But who is it a weapon against? The people are the ones that will suffer the most. Those that barely scrape buy will fully go under, whatever middle class Iran has will become the dregs, and the upper class, well they might have to squeeze a few pennies, but they'll still have food on the table. What your advocating would take a long, long time to recover from. Much longer than any democratic reforms would take.

3)The US government may have avoided fighting in the war, but they were knee deep in suppling and funding the Nazi's rigth from the beginning. Hell
William Randolph Hearst, one of the biggest media mogules at the time of the war ran pro-Nazi columns all the time, he even had some Nazi officals right guest columns for his paper.

Companies like IBM and DuPont were absolutly cozy with Nazi's and what they stood for. And instead of being procecuted after the war for teason, they sued the US government for war damages, and collected! To say that the US stayed out of the war up until pearl harbour is to ignor history.
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^



Russian scientists reach buried Antarctic Lake Vostok
  Posted 5 days ago with 83 member flags
Monsanto quits as GM results announced (EUROPE)
  Posted 7 days ago with 72 member flags
Strange noises reported around North Battleford
  Posted 18 days ago with 67 member flags
Ayatollah: Kill all Jews, annihilate Israel
  Posted 6 days ago with 49 member flags