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.

 

Decision time for US over Iran threat

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shroomery
So out of all the countries in the world you think it's Iran that should be stopped? And not.. let's say... the US?

Why on Earth would I mean the U.S.? Of course Iran should NOT have nuclear weapons.


How sad that you really see it that way. It makes me wonder, do you realize this idea you have is just planted there by propaganda? Or are you unaware of that?

How sad that you have your head stuck in the ground.

It makes we wonder, do you realize this idea you have is just planted there by propaganda via brainwashing.



Shouldn't you be taking a long and hard look at what your country is doing to the world right now?

I have taken a long hard look and agree. The U.S. stands for good. If not for the U.S. you would be speaking Japanese or German.



But let me guess, you were fooled about the WMD in Iraq, you were fooled about the so called terrorism problem in the world, and now they are fooling you about Iran being a threat to anyone other than the local boys band.

Sad, just sad. If you really think there is no terrorism then nothing I can say will change your mind. Pathetic.




posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
you do realize oil trade is pretty much the key to their development as a nation. Without that, they would have nothing of value and be nothing more than a desert between pakistan and africa.

Umm....you do realize they have more than enough oil and man power to trade and use for their consumption right?



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 04:10 PM
link   
*Removed because it's pointless bickering that's been rehashed ad nauseum. Bah!*

[edit on 16-11-2007 by Beachcoma]



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Beachcoma
You do realize their oil won't last forever, right?

So you are saying Iran want nuclear power because they want to conserve their oil right? Is this what you are saying?
PLEASE......don't make me laugh. How much oil does Iran have? How many years will it last?
Iran has enough oil for trade and consumption to last generations or longer.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 04:21 PM
link   
4thDoctorWhoFan Do you care to comment on the full Reuters article I posted on page one?

You seem more than willing to discuss everyone elses contribution, why not discuss the full version of the OP?



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
4thDoctorWhoFan Do you care to comment on the full Reuters article I posted on page one?

You seem more than willing to discuss everyone elses contribution, why not discuss the full version of the OP?


How about you just tell me what about the so called 'full' Reuters article you think that I have not addressed. I would be happy to discuss anything. My knowledge is endless.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan
Umm....you do realize they have more than enough oil and man power to trade and use for their consumption right?

www.rawstory.com...

really?



The result: Iran's oil exports could dry up in as little as a decade, according to some who have studied the situation.

That's a looming disaster for Iran, which derives about 85% of its export income from the sale of oil. "The industry is in a crisis," says Mehdi Varzi, a former Iranian diplomat and national oil company official who heads a London-based consulting company, Varzi Energy.


The FACT is they don't have enough oil to run the country and keep exports at 85%. They need to sell all the oil they can because the world needs oil, and they can make more money off it for the country by selling it rather than using it at home.

If you can use oil at home for say 5 dollars. Nuclear energy costs you 7. But you can sell that oil for 10 dollars, what is the best method? Go to nuclear energy, sell your oil, and industrialize your nation. The sanctions the US places so that oil companies cannot work with Iran is keeping them from being able to get their hands on their oil.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan
So you are saying Iran want nuclear power because they want to conserve their oil right? Is this what you are saying?
PLEASE......don't make me laugh. How much oil does Iran have? How many years will it last?
Iran has enough oil for trade and consumption to last generations or longer.


you are unbelievable. You make comments rolling your eyes at everyone like they are all stupid for making every comment they have ever made and you don't even look into the situation AT ALL. Iran is in an oil shortage. There is a difference between oil and oil you can get to economically. There is pleanty of oil that you cannot get to because it costs too much to retrieve it.

Your statements are as baseless as they are arrogant, and for the future I would suggest you read some facts on the situation before acting like you are the higher authority on the situation.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by 4thDoctorWhoFan
 


Ok, here is my initial post in this thread: Here

My main points summerized:
1) Iran is running those centrifuges at very low capacity. In the current political climate, if they were trying to build a bomb, dont you think they would be running those centrifuges at full capacity in order to speed up their enrichment process, and thus have the fissil material ASAP?
2) Testing a bomb in the real world can ammount to a number of problems including but not limited to:
1) Detonation failure. Which would result in their enemy having weapons grade urainium to use against them
2) Low yield detonation. Which would do only a fraction of the intended damage, and would also lead to full scale retaliation and give them no time to re-enrich and rebuild.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
really?

Umm....Yes....Apparently you did not comprehend the article.


The FACT is they don't have enough oil to run the country and keep exports at 85%.

The story says they don't have enough production, NOT oil. Meaning they don't have the infrastructure to produce the oil into gasoline. All they have to do is build more refineries.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
You make comments rolling your eyes at everyone like they are all stupid for making every comment they have ever made

The 'rolleyes' does not mean you think people are stupid. Apparently this is a problem that only you can resolve.



Iran is in an oil shortage. There is a difference between oil and oil you can get to economically. There is pleanty of oil that you cannot get to because it costs too much to retrieve it.

Iran is NOT in an oil shortage. As the article you posted stated. They have a production problem and not a oil quantity problem. And my point was Iran DOES have plenty of oil. Wow, I'm correct again. Thanks!



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 05:15 PM
link   
4thDoctorWhoFan=just another soulless war mongerer. The united states government, and I do live here, is the biggest terrorist organization in the world and you are just another [...] that support it. shameful.

-----------------------------------

removed personal attack.

Please read the T&C's

2) Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive, hateful and/or racist manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.



[edit on 16/11/07 by masqua]



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
My main points summerized:
1) Iran is running those centrifuges at very low capacity.

And how do we know this?
I mean the UN does not given they are putting out conflicting reports. One says Iran is behaving and the next one says they are not. In fact, I doubt we really know how many they actually have. Even IF 3000 is correct, that is whats known publically. Lord only knows what is going on secretly.


2) Testing a bomb in the real world can ammount to a number of problems including but not limited to:

Well of course testing a bomb in the real world can cause problems. But then again, with all the help from the Russians and North Korea, the problems could be ironed out from the beginning.


1) Detonation failure. Which would result in their enemy having weapons grade urainium to use against them

Not sure what point you are trying to make.
Iran would probably attempt to destroy Israel first and since they already have nuclear material and the bomb, I don't see that it really matters.


2) Low yield detonation. Which would do only a fraction of the intended damage, and would also lead to full scale retaliation and give them no time to re-enrich and rebuild.

This is true. It would still however do massive damage.
Given that we really don't know Irans nuclear capabilities, they could have another bomb ready in case the first one fails. Lunatics don't care about retaliation because they are deranged.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 05:20 PM
link   



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan
The 'rolleyes' does not mean you think people are stupid. Apparently this is a problem that only you can resolve.


apparently then you come from a different society where rolling of the eyes means something other than disrespect/"you don't know anything".



Iran is NOT in an oil shortage. As the article you posted stated. They have a production problem and not a oil quantity problem. And my point was Iran DOES have plenty of oil. Wow, I'm correct again. Thanks!


Then you must have a comprehension problem. There is a great deal of oil in this world, but if you cant get to it economically, it really doesn't matter. Its worth less than dirt if you can't get it out of the ground. You tell Iran to use oil, but they only have X amount per day. They rely greatly on the exportation of this oil, and rightfully so.

What you are saying is that they shouldn't be able to use nuclear fuel, because they have oil. If oil makes up 85% of their export, and they can only produce so much of it at a time, you are telling them to do something not in their best interests. Just because our government is throwing a fit as a result of Iran trading oil in euros instead of dollars doesn't mean we can try to crash their economy.

It is in their best interests to start a nuclear program and make more oil avalible for trade because it means more profit. It is also better for them to trade in euros because the dollar is taking a dive. If you don't like that, well too bad. You can't control other countries when they do something in their own best interests.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 08:51 PM
link   
Like grimreaper797 has already mentioned, oil is only valuable if its economically feasible to extract. In the oil industry, oil production is used synonymously with oil quantity, and really has nothing to do with the refining process or the ability to refine it. The rate at which oil is extracted from the ground is the production rate.

Anyway, to get back on topic, I believe the US attacking Iran with military action would be the worst thing it could do. The international popularity of the American government as it stands is quickly dwindling, and the anti-American extremists out there are just waiting for another bullet point to add to the list to persuade young minds to join terrorist groups. And it’s really unfortunate that a lot of other countries judge the American people by what their government does, which is unfair. From what I observe and read in the news, and what my American friends say, the government there does not represent what the people want. What’s the definition of democracy again?

Should Iran have nukes? No. And I don’t think any country should. It just blows my mind to think about the time and energy and money that is spent on such pointless wars. But unfortunately, as past dictates, it seems to be human nature to kill in the name of power and wealth. The US needs to diplomatically resolve this issue with compromise and reasoning, as opposed to threaten military action, or things will globally get a lot worse. Maybe that’s the plan of the elite or whatever, but we are on the way to total destruction, way before global warming will get us. And if that truly is the case, then I advocate expediting global warming, because it’s getting cold here, and I’d like to spend my last years with a bit more heat!



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 09:07 PM
link   
I seem to be using this link quite a bit tonight. Iran is already trading in the oil bourse in other currencies. Japan has started trading in the bourse as of this Sept. and the euro appears to be fine, $1.50/$1e. There's no money left to do anything for an attack on Iran. Nada, they're talking about talking "from the budget" to pay for the rest of Iraq/Afghan quagmires.

And should you care about the terror "war" -- try this article.

With a 9$ trillion deficit, the U.S. aren't going to be attacking anyone but the middle class and their children, since millions are currently in trouble.


[edit on 16-11-2007 by anhinga]



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 09:17 PM
link   
Yup, decision time indeed. What Iran is trying to do is worse than what Saddam's tried to do. If you're interested, here's the real Iran threat.
If you're still interested, check this thread from a fellow member. Sorry if repost.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by 4thDoctorWhoFan
 


You don't happen to watch fox news do you? or CNN, you know... the most trusted name in news? They sure are working their magic...



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan
Why on Earth would I mean the U.S.?


Oh I don't know, the active use of nuclear and radioactive weapons, torture, millions of dead people, an obvious quest for global domination. The fact that they're turning into a fascist country with concentration camps in place and copying every trick such a regime ever used.

Take your pick.


Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan
How sad that you have your head stuck in the ground.

It makes we wonder, do you realize this idea you have is just planted there by propaganda via brainwashing.


Hey whatever you need to maintain your bubble.


Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan
I have taken a long hard look and agree. The U.S. stands for good. If not for the U.S. you would be speaking Japanese or German.


Wow, thanks for sharing your ignorance with us.
You don't even realize that you are now the German who was fooled by their government into thinking jews were the problem.
You're the one cheering the fascist leaders, proudly, without even realising it, you don't even want to listen to the possibility.

That's how history repeats itself.

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"



Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan
Sad, just sad. If you really think there is no terrorism then nothing I can say will change your mind. Pathetic.


Oh I never said there wasn't any terrorism. I just don't see it as a problem bigger than.. lets say shower accidents. Which, kills more people each year than terrorism. Do you see your government making plans to do anything about that? For how long will this slippery atrocity go on? Shouldn't we be spending billions to counter this death trap?

Sound ridiculous yet?



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join