Remind us again how Iran is not...

[DeadCanDance]

Actually, I don't think Iran has many refineries, so they actually have to import refined oil and gas. It doesn't change your argument (it actually makes it stronger), but I just wanted to clarify.

Yes, I have heard that Iran's refining capacity lags behind its booming population. They could ramp up their refining capacity to meet domestic demand, but then they lose money by selling it domestically. Which gets back to my point: its all about money. They make more money by selling their petroleum on international markets, rather than selling it domestically and losing money by doing so.

 

[Gunny]

Its a matter of simple economics, for anybody who pays attention to credible media.

The issue is not about how much oil iran has for domestic consumption. The issue is how much money (hard currency) iran can make off its reserves.

Iran can make more money, by selling its oil abroad, rather than using it for domestic consumption. As a relatively poor country with a large population, Iran has to refine and sell its petroleum fuel domestically at below market costs. In other words, they lose money, when they refine their oil and sell it domestically. They can make more money by selling more of their petroleum on world markets, rather than using it for domestic consumption.


Caveat: This is not an apology for Iran. This is a simple fact.

Really? DO tell which media you consider credible ...

You might have a point had I said Iran use its oil exclusively in Iran.

To respond to your post preceeding this one ... it doesn't take much assumption at all to come to the conclusion Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons ... unless you're an ostrich.

 

[Shogun]

Obviously not Shogun, Doniston or a couple others on this very board.

I guess I'd retort that there are more ways to skin a cat than shoving a stick of TNT up it's ass when it doesn't dance like a monkey on your command. Calling Iran the next nazi germany is only a solution for those who WANT a war regardless of the excuses for conflict. Crying wolf while picking the dead japanese civilians out of your teeth won't make you any more credible in the world community, dude. Hell, we COULD pick apart their motives for wanting a nuke but who wants to actually treat palestinians like human beings? We COULD sponsor their desire for nuclear ENERGY but why not insist that they use their oil reserves first, eh? There IS a path to de-escalation but who wants to consider it when a mushroom cloud solves problems so well and we can pretend that our pre-emptive strike isn't an ATTACK so much as it is DEFENSE? There are millions of people in Iran who want peace. Who want to be treated fairly my the international community. There IS a younger generation worth reaching out to in Iran.


nuking them for the sake if Israel only perpetuates the cycle and gives them another reason to hate. But, you are kinda counting on that, arent you?

 

[Shogun]

Really? DO tell which media you consider credible ...

You might have a point had I said Iran use its oil exclusively in Iran.

To respond to your post preceeding this one ... it doesn't take much assumption at all to come to the conclusion Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons ... unless you're an ostrich.

yea... just like Saddam had WMDs and mobile chem labs...


I DONE SEEN THE SATTELITE PICS! Circles and Arrows!

 

[Shogun]

You missed Donistons reply above I take it. And you have not seen Shogun's argument that since we used the bomb in 1945 Iran should have it for protection I guess? Then there is a couple other posters that have specifically said it is none of our business and that Iran is just as safe to have a nuke as any other current country with them. I would mention names but then , since they have not posted in this particular thread I will get the " your fixation on me is unnerving" response.

Hell, given the track record of who actually used the nukes IT SURE IS A ******* MYSTERY WHY MAJOR POWERS SCRAMBLE TO GET THEM OVER THE LAST 50 YEARS...


Indeed, this is that pandora's box I told you about. Rationalize all you want to, old man, but you refuse to accept the reaction to your actions. Given how America would look to muslim in the M.E. you are GODDAMN RIGHT i'd want nukes to fend off you zealot bastards.

Again, it's laughable that you cry wolf while picking the dead japanese civilians from your teeth.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Really? DO tell which media you consider credible ...

You might have a point had I said Iran use its oil exclusively in Iran.

To respond to your post preceeding this one ... it doesn't take much assumption at all to come to the conclusion Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons ... unless you're an ostrich.

it doesn't take much assumption at all to come to the conclusion Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons ... unless you're an ostrich

That's what you and your buddies in the white house said about Iraq. Need I say more?

We have every right to be suspicious of Iran. And to use aggressive diplomacy to make their nuclear activities more transparent.

As far as selling wars based on your assumptions, you won't get far with that.


EDIT:

Really? DO tell which media you consider credible ...

You appeared to be completely unaware of the straightforward economic and logistical reasons for why Iran might want nuclear power.

I can only assume you read rightwing blogs and fox news - sources that didn't bother to inform you about the relatively simple reasons a large, populous, oil rich, yet relatively poor country might want nuclear power.

Several posters on this thread were fully aware of those reasons. You appeared to be in the dark. To me, credible media would have informed you of the reasons and needs for iran to have nuclear power. Its no great secret, and the reasons are very straight forward.

 

[doniston]

I don't know that they so much think that an Iran with nuclear weapons is not a concern. My impression is merely that they are loath to trust the evidence that Iran is attempting to obtain nuclear weapons (for obvious reasons). Furthermore, they may also think that even if Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, military intervention would in the end be counter-productive. These are both reasonable positions to hold.

it is not that Nuke weapons is not a concern. Rather it is that I think ALL Nukes are a concern regardless who has them, but also. that we are hypocritical enough to think that we are God almighty, and have the right to dictate to the world.

We should ALL get rid of ALL nukes

, one last point. Unfortuately all to many of you have been sold a bill of goods, that Iran is trying to build Nikes. as I have stated before. if Iran wanted nukes, they would already have bought them. they would not have to develope them

 

[doniston]

You missed Donistons reply above I take it. And you have not seen Shogun's argument that since we used the bomb in 1945 Iran should have it for protection I guess? Then there is a couple other posters that have specifically said it is none of our business and that Iran is just as safe to have a nuke as any other current country with them. I would mention names but then , since they have not posted in this particular thread I will get the " your fixation on me is unnerving" response.

Obviously, I was also one of those.

 

[ReillyT]

it is not that Nuke weapons is not a concern. Rather it is that I think ALL Nukes are a concern regardless who has them, but also. that we are hypocritical enough to think that we are God almighty, and have the right to dictate to the world.

We should ALL get rid of ALL nukes

, one last point. Unfortuately all to many of you have been sold a bill of goods, that Iran is trying to build Nikes. as I have stated before. if Iran wanted nukes, they would already have bought them. they would not have to develope them

While I agree nuclear weapons are a concern regardless of who is holding them, I do feel more unease with some countries possessing them more than others. Do we have the right to dictate to the world? On some level, I don't think it is about the right, it is only about the ability. If we have the ability to make sure that a country that has an unstable (or potentially unstable) or particularly hostile government doesn't obtain nuclear weapons, than I think we should act on that ability. This doesn't necessarily mean war. I advocate bribing rather than burning. It is cheaper, more humane and ultimately more effective.

As for whether Iran could have purchased a nuclear weapong by now, I don't know. Nuclear materials are surely available, but a whole nuclear weapon, I don't know.

 

[doniston]

While I agree nuclear weapons are a concern regardless of who is holding them, I do feel more unease with some countries possessing them more than others. Do we have the right to dictate to the world? On some level, I don't think it is about the right, it is only about the ability. If we have the ability to make sure that a country that has an unstable (or potentially unstable) or particularly hostile government doesn't obtain nuclear weapons, than I think we should act on that ability. This doesn't necessarily mean war. I advocate bribing rather than burning. It is cheaper, more humane and ultimately more effective.

As for whether Iran could have purchased a nuclear weapong by now, I don't know. Nuclear materials are surely available, but a whole nuclear weapon, I don't know.

The ussr had lots of them.

 

[ReillyT]

The ussr had lots of them.

And?

 

[Shogun]

While I agree nuclear weapons are a concern regardless of who is holding them, I do feel more unease with some countries possessing them more than others. Do we have the right to dictate to the world? On some level, I don't think it is about the right, it is only about the ability. If we have the ability to make sure that a country that has an unstable (or potentially unstable) or particularly hostile government doesn't obtain nuclear weapons, than I think we should act on that ability. This doesn't necessarily mean war. I advocate bribing rather than burning. It is cheaper, more humane and ultimately more effective.

As for whether Iran could have purchased a nuclear weapong by now, I don't know. Nuclear materials are surely available, but a whole nuclear weapon, I don't know.

Flip it around. If YOU were in Iran and saw what kind of bullshit WMD hysteria can do to validate an invasion and you knew that the only nation to ever USE a nuke was the same nation giving Israel a blank check and you knew goddamn well that muslims < christian and jews would YOU just TRUST the US? I wouldn't. Any more than Russia would during the cold war. Any more than WE trusted Russia during that same period. When gunpowder made swords obsolete was it a giant mystery why EVERYONE wanted to know how to make gunpowder? Sure, it's easy to feel nervous about muslim nations getting nukes when we know damn well that there are pertinent reason for those same muslim nations to not only distrust us but also want to lash out. Did the Irish react any different? The native Americans? the Watts riots didn't occur just because blacks hated white mans freedom. Iran has given SPECIFIC reasons for discontent. Instead of trying to find an amicable solution we label them evil and put a hand on the big red button. We could lean on Israel to solve the Pal issue but Israel doesn't want to do that any more than we want to make them so that we can nuke iran, ironically, for persueing nukes. Instead of actually talking with Iran and taking their seriously we call them hitler and demonize the whole damn nation. Sure, there ARE rabid muslims in Iran just like there ARE rabid christians in America. Instead of appealing to the younger generation we write them off as civilian casualties in our third foray into dropping nukes. If conservatives, and their president, had any balls they would face those they are accusing instead of running like a ***** when Saddam challenged for a debate before the invasion of Iraq just lie how Iran is doing now. Bush ran like a ***** when Saddam wanted to debate the WMDs and, WHOOPS, look how it turned out. Like I said, i'm betting that half of the warmonging bastards praying for war want to drop a nuke REGARDLESS of how Iran behaves or is unable to achieve IMPOSSIBLE demands.

 

[ReillyT]

Flip it around. If YOU were in Iran and saw what kind of bullshit WMD hysteria can do to validate an invasion and you knew that the only nation to ever USE a nuke was the same nation giving Israel a blank check and you knew goddamn well that muslims < christian and jews would YOU just TRUST the US? I wouldn't. Any more than Russia would during the cold war. Any more than WE trusted Russia during that same period. When gunpowder made swords obsolete was it a giant mystery why EVERYONE wanted to know how to make gunpowder? Sure, it's easy to feel nervous about muslim nations getting nukes when we know damn well that there are pertinent reason for those same muslim nations to not only distrust us but also want to lash out. Did the Irish react any different? The native Americans? the Watts riots didn't occur just because blacks hated white mans freedom. Iran has given SPECIFIC reasons for discontent. Instead of trying to find an amicable solution we label them evil and put a hand on the big red button. We could lean on Israel to solve the Pal issue but Israel doesn't want to do that any more than we want to make them so that we can nuke iran, ironically, for persueing nukes. Instead of actually talking with Iran and taking their seriously we call them hitler and demonize the whole damn nation. Sure, there ARE rabid muslims in Iran just like there ARE rabid christians in America. Instead of appealing to the younger generation we write them off as civilian casualties in our third foray into dropping nukes. If conservatives, and their president, had any balls they would face those they are accusing instead of running like a ***** when Saddam challenged for a debate before the invasion of Iraq just lie how Iran is doing now. Bush ran like a ***** when Saddam wanted to debate the WMDs and, WHOOPS, look how it turned out. Like I said, i'm betting that half of the warmonging bastards praying for war want to drop a nuke REGARDLESS of how Iran behaves or is unable to achieve IMPOSSIBLE demands.

First, it is not about crazy muslims. It is about nations hostile to us, or nations that are unstable for any reason. Christian and Muslim and Buddhist nations fall into one of these categories.

Second, does Iran have a reason (or feel that they have a reason) to distrust the Us? Sure. Do I understand why Iran might want nuclear weapons? Sure. However, when it comes down to the singular issue of whether we are willing to let Iran have nuclear weapons, those issues are beside the point.

Third, not wanting Iran to obtain nuclear weapons does not equal wanting to nuke Iran. Lots of perfectly reasonable people think it would be a good idea to open diplomatic relations with Iran and have a real dialogue about the issue. I personally think that Iran could be bought off, just like North Korea. I believe we are a far measure from having to consider a military option.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Are you actually going to pretend that the head of your beloved Nuclear watchdog agency did NOT say Iran could have the bomb in as little as 3 years and no longer than 8 years?

Well of course you did, cause your to stupid to understand the written word.

Lets recap shall we?

According to the UN watch dog for Nuclear energy, the beloved peacenik, Iran is within 3 to 8 years of developing a Nuclear weapon. Further he announced, that this is backed up by the WORLD'S Intelligence Agencies ( wait, I thought only Bush believed this, and Israel of course) They all agree that it will be 3 to 8 years.

Now lets try again, Since only ( according to you leftoid moonbat retards) Bush and his cabal of neocon idiots believe Iran wants and is capable of building a nuclear weapon, why is it that the entire world believes they are 3 to 8 years away from having one? Which by the way IS exactly what the US has been saying, that Iran wouldn't have the bomb tell around 2016. You know, the same US that is lying to everyone.

This is the Agency that is task with preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and you do not give one good rats ass that even the head of it says that in as little as 3 years Iran could have a nuclear weapon. Wait now, why would he even say that IF they could not actually have said bomb?

One has to be working on and HAVE THE technology and capability to be that close to making a device. But sure thing you retards bury your heads in the sand and pretend otherwise.

Ohh and yes I DID read the article, I suggest you go back and read it until it sinks into your ignorant thick skull what it is saying.

This is the Agency that is task with preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and you do not give one good rats ass that even the head of it says that in as little as 3 years Iran could have a nuclear weapon. Wait now, why would he even say that IF they could not actually have said bomb?

I really wish you would get educated on this subject.

ANY nation, with civilian nuclear technology, a research program, and centrifuge enrichment capacity has the potential to make nuclear weapons. That DOESN'T mean its going to happen. Brazil - a nation with a civilian nuclear program - was reported to be one or two years away from potentially making a bomb, previously. Whether or not they make a bomb depends on a range of assumptions: the regimes intent, their technical capacity to enrich uranium to weapons grade quality, and last but not least, the technical capability to actually weaponize the enriched uranium and put in on a credible delivery platform.

 

[Shogun]

first off, to many on here who are all to wiling to write off an entire muslim nation as terrorists it IS merely all about crazy muslims.

second, the same thing was said when competing with Russia during the cold war. We couldn't stop them from achieving nuclear capabilities and I garentee, even if we nuke Iran on some paranoia, another nation will pop up looking for the only tool capable of keeping the US at bay. It's the pandora's box of WW2. I'll remind you that the ONLY reason the cold war ended was because of mutual communication with Russia while looking for symbiotic solutions in order to avoid mutually assured destruction. This communication just doesn't seem fashionable with muslim nations. They can see it, We can see it, and you know damn well that the pals and iraqis can feel it. Perhaps if we had not heard the same shit for invading Iraq... Perhaps if it could be said that every effort had been made to show the muslim world our benevolence via investing in Palestine. But, just as American gun owners hold stead fast to THEIR defensive measures so to will the rest of the world when being labeled "terrorist" in order to move the war machine. Like I said, if you were in Iran would YOU want nukes? I would.

Third, giving Israel a double standard and a blank check on pre-emptive attacks are probably a larger threat to Iran than Iran having a nuke is to the US. You don't trust Iran? How the heck do you think they feel about the US and Israel?


Like I said, there ARE options. But who wants to give slack to those already labeled "terrorist"? It would go a LONG way in the M.E. if our example resulted in fair treatment of Pals and other muslim communities. Appealing to a younger generation not already scarred by western foreign policy would change more there than what see can see isn't the result of invading Iraq over the EXACT SAME bullshit accusations.


circles and arrows on the satellite image showing the mobile chem lab, right?

 

[Gunny]

it doesn't take much assumption at all to come to the conclusion Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons ... unless you're an ostrich

That's what you and your buddies in the white house said about Iraq. Need I say more?

I don't care what the White House said, but I STILL stand behind what I've said all along. Saddam pursued, possessed and used WMDs,
period.

It is intellectually dishonest, not mention nonsensical, to turn around assume that leopard changed his spots. You only do so out of political partisanship without regard to the facts, logic, and/or common sense.

We have every right to be suspicious of Iran. And to use aggressive diplomacy to make their nuclear activities more transparent.

As far as selling wars based on your assumptions, you won't get far with that.

You are presuming. I am not selling war. I merely stand by my opinion that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons.

Let me clear up your erroneous assumption for you ... I advocate whatever it takes to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of fanatical, militant Islamics.


EDIT:

Really? DO tell which media you consider credible ...

You appeared to be completely unaware of the straightforward economic and logistical reasons for why Iran might want nuclear power.

I can only assume you read rightwing blogs and fox news - sources that didn't bother to inform you about the relatively simple reasons a large, populous, oil rich, yet relatively poor country might want nuclear power.

Several posters on this thread were fully aware of those reasons. You appeared to be in the dark. To me, credible media would have informed you of the reasons and needs for iran to have nuclear power. Its no great secret, and the reasons are very straight forward.

As already pointed out, I am not in the dark ... your economic and logistical reasoning is irrelvant to what I posted. You had to assume and cherrypick to reach the conclusion you did.

A point you convenienty ignored or you would not have even made this statement.

For your further edification ... feel free to find any thread I have posted that comes from a rightwing blog and/or Fox News, or any other rightwing source.

Matter of fact, I would consider my opinion more objective than yours simply because I don't discount what CNN, CBS or other liberal-biased news sources have to say just because of their name as you obviously do if it says "Fox News" on it.

 

[doniston]

And?

So could they perhaps have sold one or two of them to Iran????

perhaps even now. Putin is getting very chummy with Iran.

 

[ReillyT]

first off, to many on here who are all to wiling to write off an entire muslim nation as terrorists it IS merely all about crazy muslims.

I am assuming you are writing in response to me based on the crazy muslim comment, but if I am wrong, please tell me. Anyway, to me it is not about crazy muslims.

second, the same thing was said when competing with Russia during the cold war. We couldn't stop them from achieving nuclear capabilities and I garentee, even if we nuke Iran on some paranoia, another nation will pop up looking for the only tool capable of keeping the US at bay. It's the pandora's box of WW2. I'll remind you that the ONLY reason the cold war ended was because of mutual communication with Russia while looking for symbiotic solutions in order to avoid mutually assured destruction. This communication just doesn't seem fashionable with muslim nations. They can see it, We can see it, and you know damn well that the pals and iraqis can feel it. Perhaps if we had not heard the same shit for invading Iraq... Perhaps if it could be said that every effort had been made to show the muslim world our benevolence via investing in Palestine. But, just as American gun owners hold stead fast to THEIR defensive measures so to will the rest of the world when being labeled "terrorist" in order to move the war machine. Like I said, if you were in Iran would YOU want nukes? I would.

To be perfectly honest, there is a lot of rambling here, so I will try to respond, but it may not answer all of your concerns. (I really do love you Shogun, but break up your paragraphs a bit and it will be easier to understand your sentiments.)

Yes, there will likely always be a nation looking for nuclear weapons.

No, "mutual communication with Russia while looking for symbiotic solutions in order to avoid mutually assured destruction" was not the only reason the cold-war ended. That is overly simplistic and silly and you should know better. In fact, it had more to do with economics.

Yes, we should attempt more dialogue with Muslim nations and we should push Israel to peaceably end the conflict with the Palestinians.

Yes, I can understand why Iran would want nuclear weapons, but... we still should make every effort that they do not obtain them.

Third, giving Israel a double standard and a blank check on pre-emptive attacks are probably a larger threat to Iran than Iran having a nuke is to the US. You don't trust Iran? How the heck do you think they feel about the US and Israel?

They probably (and quite reasonably) don't trust the US and Israel, and yet that does not mean that I should trust Iran. Of course, trust has to be weighed against risk. I might trust my teenage neighbor to feed my dog while I am on vacation, but not my kid. When we are talking about nuclear weapons, I need a whole lot more trust. I think that is true for pretty much everybody.

Like I said, there ARE options. But who wants to give slack to those already labeled "terrorist"? It would go a LONG way in the M.E. if our example resulted in fair treatment of Pals and other muslim communities. Appealing to a younger generation not already scarred by western foreign policy would change more there than what see can see isn't the result of invading Iraq over the EXACT SAME bullshit accusations.

circles and arrows on the satellite image showing the mobile chem lab, right?

I agree that there are options, and I believe we should be more even-handed in the Israel-Palestinian conflict. I don't think we should invade Iran. Neither am I comfortable with Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.

 

[ReillyT]

So could they perhaps have sold one or two of them to Iran????

perhaps even now. Putin is getting very chummy with Iran.

Possible. Like I said, I don't know. It very well might have happened. I just have no way of knowing.

 

[doniston]

I am assuming you are writing in response to me based on the crazy muslim comment, but if I am wrong, please tell me. Anyway, to me it is not about crazy muslims.



To be perfectly honest, there is a lot of rambling here, so I will try to respond, but it may not answer all of your concerns. (I really do love you Shogun, but break up your paragraphs a bit and it will be easier to understand your sentiments.)

Yes, there will likely always be a nation looking for nuclear weapons.

No, "mutual communication with Russia while looking for symbiotic solutions in order to avoid mutually assured destruction" was not the only reason the cold-war ended. That is overly simplistic and silly and you should know better. In fact, it had more to do with economics.

Yes, we should attempt more dialogue with Muslim nations and we should push Israel to peaceably end the conflict with the Palestinians.

Yes, I can understand why Iran would want nuclear weapons, but... we still should make every effort that they do not obtain them.



They probably (and quite reasonably) don't trust the US and Israel, and yet that does not mean that I should trust Iran. Of course, trust has to be weighed against risk. I might trust my teenage neighbor to feed my dog while I am on vacation, but not my kid. When we are talking about nuclear weapons, I need a whole lot more trust. I think that is true for pretty much everybody.



I agree that there are options, and I believe we should be more even-handed in the Israel-Palestinian conflict. I don't think we should invade Iran. Neither am I comfortable with Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.

Do you think it is more reasonable- AND SAFE, for Israel to have them??? I sure as hell don't. they are a powder keg.