Join 3,496 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


And why might we be asking ?
October 6, 2004 10:02 PM   Subscribe

"Q: What is the % likelihood that the US might Invade Iran in the Next Decade ?.... What kind of process did you go through to answer the question ?" - from a recent Powerpoint presentation on future trends given to ExxonMobil executives. (see also : Low fat Humanized Pigs)
posted by troutfishing (13 comments total)

 
Every single presentation I've seen by a futurist to a group of executives looks exactly like that first link. Their whole purpose is to be provocative, to get people to realize their industry could look completely different in 10 years, so they think creatively about the future for a couple hours. I wouldn't try to deduce anything interesting about corporate America from it.
posted by lbergstr at 11:22 PM on October 6, 2004


Also, it's Patrick Dixon, who's a complete arsehole, if he the same evangelical christian who used to scare-monger about aids.
posted by alloneword at 12:29 AM on October 7, 2004


Maybe troutfishing wants us to think creatively about the future for a couple of hours...
posted by sic at 12:45 AM on October 7, 2004


Also, it's Patrick Dixon, who's a complete arsehole

That not so much of an “also...” – more of an “on an unrelated note...”.
posted by ed\26h at 3:58 AM on October 7, 2004


I'm sure ExxonMobil execs have mixed feelings about the prospect of the US invading Iraq.

Not doubt, they know that the situation would be like an inner ring of Dante's Inferno.

But......ahhh! - The oil, the oil!

_________________

ed/26h - I bet I'm not nearly as much of an asshole as Patrick Dixon, but nobody pays me to give cheesy Powerpoint presentations.

Maybe I just need to ask.
posted by troutfishing at 6:43 AM on October 7, 2004


If the United States invades Iran I will eat my hat. You heard it here first.
posted by gwint at 7:49 AM on October 7, 2004


Considering what the US is going through in Iraq, and that the Iranis apparently are going nuclear, it would be a big surprise if we figured out how to invade Iran without getting nuked or having revolution in this country.
posted by alumshubby at 9:12 AM on October 7, 2004


It's basically a race between (1)Israel and/or the US taking some kind of military action against Iran, and (2) Iranian moderates defeating the mullahs, either by vote or uprising. Yesterday's NY Sun spoke of an Israeli attack on Iran in November; hopefully they know what to bomb. And someone should definitely bomb, because an Islamic fundamentalist with a nuke is a bad thing. Bad!
posted by ParisParamus at 9:17 AM on October 7, 2004


I wonder if the Iranis learned anything about protecting strategic assetsfrom the Israeli airstrike on Osirak back in '82

By the way, the slide show has some pretty interesting stats. I never considered that the over-65 set in the US controls such a high proportion of wealth, for example. Or that GM spends so much more on health care than steel.
posted by alumshubby at 9:29 AM on October 7, 2004


Kerry's line in the Debate about discontinuing development of nuclear "bunkerbuster" type weapons was disheartening. We should want the Mullahs to know that taking them out for bad behavior is an option (albeit a remote one).

If your government, on an ongoing basis, chants "death to America," having your nuclear facilities taken out should be a priority.
posted by ParisParamus at 9:47 AM on October 7, 2004


Paris, I'm not about to argue for nuclear proliferation, but is there anything I can read on the possible hazards of bombing a facility where nuclear materials are being made into weapons? Especially if it's a facility near a power plant. I agree that we need to stop Iran, et al from having nuclear weapons, but if it means causing a release of radioactive materials across the landscape, there might need to be some more planning.

That said, the US recently sold Israel a large number of weapons that could be used in such an attack. I can't see why Israel would target Iran at this point, but it's definitely a chilling thought.
posted by mikeh at 12:29 PM on October 7, 2004


someone should definitely bomb, because an Islamic fundamentalist with a nuke is a bad thing. Bad!

Pakistan already has the "Islamic bomb". (ah, what a great way to frame the debate...). "they" already have the technology. simple and plain. learn to live with that fact.

saner politicians would have chosen to launch a "war on terror" trying to trace "loose nukes" before some of them find their way, say, to Lower Manhattan or DC or whatever. but of course following Ahmad Chalabi's orders and fuck Iraq's shit up was way more important for America. scared shitless by those silly aluminum tubes and stuff.
posted by matteo at 12:44 PM on October 7, 2004


christ I hate powerpoint.
posted by kaibutsu at 3:24 PM on October 7, 2004


« Older RSS Mailer...  |  What are the US and Israel rea... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments