Iran: “We Have The Oil, Go Fuck Yourself” America: “OK”
January 23, 2006 5:37 AM Subscribe
Iran may be trying to get nuclear weapons. In the process potentially starting a new war with Israel, fun times. America on the other hand isn't going to do all that much because Iran controls a large amount of the worlds oil, and with prices already high, they don't want to spark another oil crisis.
Iran may be trying to get nuclear weapons.
Then again, they may not. Unlike other nuclear powers in the local-land-mass area, they are signatories to the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Is it worth billions of American Taxpayer dollars to go to war over? If you are supporting the idea of an attack, are you buying war bonds? Sending extra money to the government?
Someone has to eventually pay for the borrowing. Unless you plan on defaulting.
posted by rough ashlar at 6:15 AM on January 23, 2006
Then again, they may not. Unlike other nuclear powers in the local-land-mass area, they are signatories to the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Is it worth billions of American Taxpayer dollars to go to war over? If you are supporting the idea of an attack, are you buying war bonds? Sending extra money to the government?
Someone has to eventually pay for the borrowing. Unless you plan on defaulting.
posted by rough ashlar at 6:15 AM on January 23, 2006
There's no need to reduce dependence on oil ; scrap photovoltaic, fusion, controlled fission , hydro , hydrothermal and all the alternatives !
Also there's absolutely no need to create an energy efficient public transportation network , everybody should have a SUV car sharing is a bad idea because a car sitting idle is producing wealth !
posted by elpapacito at 6:27 AM on January 23, 2006
Also there's absolutely no need to create an energy efficient public transportation network , everybody should have a SUV car sharing is a bad idea because a car sitting idle is producing wealth !
posted by elpapacito at 6:27 AM on January 23, 2006
With all the news sources out there, why use a link that requires registration?! The article itself was pretty short and uninformative anyway.
---------------------------------------
WASHINGTON, Jan. 22 - Iran's chief nuclear negotiator said Sunday that if his nation is referred to the United Nations Security Council for its failure to fully cooperate with international nuclear inspectors it would resume full-scale production of nuclear fuel.
The statement by Ali Larijani, the secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, came in an interview with The Financial Times of London, which published a transcript of the discussion on its Web site. Mr. Larijani spoke in Persian, and the transcript was published after it had been translated into English.
Mr. Larijani's comments appeared to be part of a broader effort by Iranian officials to warn the West of possible retaliation if the United States, France, Germany and Britain make good on their threat to have the issue sent to the Security Council. In the past week a succession of Iranian officials have threatened to cut oil exports, move Iranian assets out of European banks that might freeze them, and end what they termed "voluntary" compliance with an accord permitting international inspection of any site suspected to be part of nuclear operations.
"If we are referred to the Security Council, the government is obliged" by Iranian law "to lift all voluntary measures," Mr. Larijani said. That would effectively blind the inspectors at a moment when they are seeking additional access to a number of facilities, and explanations about Iran's nuclear activities.
Mr. Larijani spoke as both Republicans and Democrats appear internally divided about how to handle Iran's announcement that it is resuming nuclear research. Senator John McCain said on Fox News Sunday that while the United States had to pursue diplomacy, "we cannot take the military option off the table, but we have to make clear it's the last option."
European and American officials say the initial action they are seeking would be deliberately undramatic, and well short of sanctions. Instead, they are likely to settle first for a statement from the president of the Security Council, which would amount to a warning to Iran to reimpose its freeze on nuclear activities and to resume negotiations with Europe.
Sanctions would only come later, the officials said, and would be limited in scope.
But Tehran's leaders are taking no chances, and in the transcript of the interview Mr. Larijani portrayed his country as the subject of a Western effort to keep it in an industrial backwater. "In Iran's case, this is not just denial of nuclear technology," Mr. Larijani said. Iran has been denied technology in a number of fields, from biotechnology to nanotechnology, he said.
He did not specify how much fuel would be produced if Iran resumed production. An underground facility at the main nuclear site in Natanz was built to hold up to 50,000 centrifuges, which purify uranium, but Iran appears to lack the parts for anywhere near that number, experts and inspectors say.
Nonetheless, the C.I.A. has estimated that in several years, Iran could produce a significant amount of bomb-grade uranium, and develop a weapon in five to 10 years. Other experts say the time frame could be shorter
posted by insomnia_lj at 6:27 AM on January 23, 2006
---------------------------------------
WASHINGTON, Jan. 22 - Iran's chief nuclear negotiator said Sunday that if his nation is referred to the United Nations Security Council for its failure to fully cooperate with international nuclear inspectors it would resume full-scale production of nuclear fuel.
The statement by Ali Larijani, the secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, came in an interview with The Financial Times of London, which published a transcript of the discussion on its Web site. Mr. Larijani spoke in Persian, and the transcript was published after it had been translated into English.
Mr. Larijani's comments appeared to be part of a broader effort by Iranian officials to warn the West of possible retaliation if the United States, France, Germany and Britain make good on their threat to have the issue sent to the Security Council. In the past week a succession of Iranian officials have threatened to cut oil exports, move Iranian assets out of European banks that might freeze them, and end what they termed "voluntary" compliance with an accord permitting international inspection of any site suspected to be part of nuclear operations.
"If we are referred to the Security Council, the government is obliged" by Iranian law "to lift all voluntary measures," Mr. Larijani said. That would effectively blind the inspectors at a moment when they are seeking additional access to a number of facilities, and explanations about Iran's nuclear activities.
Mr. Larijani spoke as both Republicans and Democrats appear internally divided about how to handle Iran's announcement that it is resuming nuclear research. Senator John McCain said on Fox News Sunday that while the United States had to pursue diplomacy, "we cannot take the military option off the table, but we have to make clear it's the last option."
European and American officials say the initial action they are seeking would be deliberately undramatic, and well short of sanctions. Instead, they are likely to settle first for a statement from the president of the Security Council, which would amount to a warning to Iran to reimpose its freeze on nuclear activities and to resume negotiations with Europe.
Sanctions would only come later, the officials said, and would be limited in scope.
But Tehran's leaders are taking no chances, and in the transcript of the interview Mr. Larijani portrayed his country as the subject of a Western effort to keep it in an industrial backwater. "In Iran's case, this is not just denial of nuclear technology," Mr. Larijani said. Iran has been denied technology in a number of fields, from biotechnology to nanotechnology, he said.
He did not specify how much fuel would be produced if Iran resumed production. An underground facility at the main nuclear site in Natanz was built to hold up to 50,000 centrifuges, which purify uranium, but Iran appears to lack the parts for anywhere near that number, experts and inspectors say.
Nonetheless, the C.I.A. has estimated that in several years, Iran could produce a significant amount of bomb-grade uranium, and develop a weapon in five to 10 years. Other experts say the time frame could be shorter
posted by insomnia_lj at 6:27 AM on January 23, 2006
Once again, people repeat the media line without giving it even an ounce of thought. Where is the evidence that Iran is intent on building nuclear weapons? There is less proof that Iran is developing WMDs than there was for Iraq and we all know how that turned out. I also like how the Times and all the other papers are avoiding the 'WMD' term. Well, the more things change and all.
posted by nixerman at 6:27 AM on January 23, 2006
posted by nixerman at 6:27 AM on January 23, 2006
Oh it's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine . . .
posted by mk1gti at 6:29 AM on January 23, 2006
posted by mk1gti at 6:29 AM on January 23, 2006
One of the goals of the Nuclear Non Proliferation treaty is "to promote co-operation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy" telling Iran that they can't use nuclear energy to produce electricity seems to run counter to that sentiment.
posted by zeoslap at 6:30 AM on January 23, 2006
posted by zeoslap at 6:30 AM on January 23, 2006
Curses, was supposed to link the NNPT bit, not the counter to that sentiment bit.
posted by zeoslap at 6:30 AM on January 23, 2006
posted by zeoslap at 6:30 AM on January 23, 2006
One of the goals of the Nuclear Non Proliferation treaty
Another part is about working for disarmament.
posted by rough ashlar at 6:42 AM on January 23, 2006
Another part is about working for disarmament.
posted by rough ashlar at 6:42 AM on January 23, 2006
Another part is about working for disarmament.
That only applies to non-white countries. I think it's in the invisible fine print.
posted by wah at 6:48 AM on January 23, 2006
That only applies to non-white countries. I think it's in the invisible fine print.
posted by wah at 6:48 AM on January 23, 2006
The neocons think there's a fledgling democratic resistance in Iran that's going to fill the vacuum once they've taken out the Iranian Government. Turkey's already been prepped on our plans - coincidentally, Iran has been reducing the Natural Gas they've been supplying to Turkey (our Aircraft would most likely overfly and be based in Turkey). Also, see all the coverage regarding Iran and their new Oil Bourse, and there switch to the Euro. Funny, but I seem to recall Iraq wanting to do somthing very similar prior to the start of their liberation?!?
posted by rzklkng at 6:51 AM on January 23, 2006
posted by rzklkng at 6:51 AM on January 23, 2006
Funny, but I seem to recall Iraq wanting to do somthing very similar prior to the start of their liberation?!?
posted by rzklkng at 6:51 AM PST on January 23 [!]
Alas, your memory is bag. Iraq did switch to the Euro.
Now they are back to using the US Dollar.
posted by rough ashlar at 6:55 AM on January 23, 2006
posted by rzklkng at 6:51 AM PST on January 23 [!]
Alas, your memory is bag. Iraq did switch to the Euro.
Now they are back to using the US Dollar.
posted by rough ashlar at 6:55 AM on January 23, 2006
"Another part is about working for disarmament." So what? They don't have any weapons to disarm, claim they don't even want them and the signatories that do have weapons that they could actively be disarming seem in no hurry to do so. So why shouldn't they be allowed to create a nuclear power station which so many folk are touting as a great alternative to oil?
posted by zeoslap at 6:56 AM on January 23, 2006
posted by zeoslap at 6:56 AM on January 23, 2006
Then again, they may not.
If they're not, they should have no problem with UN Inspectors, no?
posted by delmoi at 6:57 AM on January 23, 2006
If they're not, they should have no problem with UN Inspectors, no?
posted by delmoi at 6:57 AM on January 23, 2006
Once again, people repeat the media line without giving it even an ounce of thought. Where is the evidence that Iran is intent on building nuclear weapons?
Where is the evidence Iran is allowing Weapons inspectors into the country. That ought to be the test, I'm confident in the ability of the U.N. Weapons inspection team to prevent the building of nuclear weapons.
Keep in mind Iraq was allowing weapons inspectors into the country in April of 2003, and for a few months before that.
posted by delmoi at 7:00 AM on January 23, 2006
Where is the evidence Iran is allowing Weapons inspectors into the country. That ought to be the test, I'm confident in the ability of the U.N. Weapons inspection team to prevent the building of nuclear weapons.
Keep in mind Iraq was allowing weapons inspectors into the country in April of 2003, and for a few months before that.
posted by delmoi at 7:00 AM on January 23, 2006
But what's the point of letting weapons inspectors in if, whatever they report, someone is going to decide they like your shiny oil too much to listen?
posted by NinjaPirate at 7:04 AM on January 23, 2006
posted by NinjaPirate at 7:04 AM on January 23, 2006
Not that I am suggesting for a moment that GW Bush is easily distracted from dialogue by shiny things.
posted by NinjaPirate at 7:05 AM on January 23, 2006
posted by NinjaPirate at 7:05 AM on January 23, 2006
Iran may be trying to get nuclear weapons.
(Since no one else has said it yet)
Well, DUH!
posted by mooncrow at 7:09 AM on January 23, 2006
(Since no one else has said it yet)
Well, DUH!
posted by mooncrow at 7:09 AM on January 23, 2006
yea, i posted this to show what happens when you rely on the oil from other places, and really what happens when you rely on oil at all. the point was it puts you in these no win situations. the only way to get out of this is to have enough clean renewable energy sources at home that you can tell Iran to go fuck itself, then its the worlds largest holder of useless black sludge and sand...
posted by stilgar at 7:10 AM on January 23, 2006
posted by stilgar at 7:10 AM on January 23, 2006
Nonetheless, the C.I.A. has estimated that in several years, Iran could produce a significant amount of bomb-grade uranium, and develop a weapon in five to 10 years. Other experts say the time frame could be shorter
Yeah, and It's highly possible that GWB could have a big fuck off nuclear missile shoved up his ass that could explode any second.
My dog however, believes that it could take years. In fact, I would estimate that if the nuclear missile up his ass does explode then it could emit toxins that could be a threat to global security.
Is that grounds enough to go to war with America?
Didn't think so. But then again, it could be
posted by twistedonion at 7:15 AM on January 23, 2006
Yeah, and It's highly possible that GWB could have a big fuck off nuclear missile shoved up his ass that could explode any second.
My dog however, believes that it could take years. In fact, I would estimate that if the nuclear missile up his ass does explode then it could emit toxins that could be a threat to global security.
Is that grounds enough to go to war with America?
Didn't think so. But then again, it could be
posted by twistedonion at 7:15 AM on January 23, 2006
also with the cost of the current war of choice, and the war in Afghanistan, we really cant afford to go to war with iran...unless you impose war taxes and reinstate the draft.
posted by stilgar at 7:15 AM on January 23, 2006
posted by stilgar at 7:15 AM on January 23, 2006
Nuclear power is expensive. Iran has a massive supply of oil and natural gas. It doesn't make sense that they would want nuclear power for electricity. I smell shenigans. I'm not saying we should go to war but I find it doubtful that Iran's motives are pure.
posted by I Foody at 7:15 AM on January 23, 2006
posted by I Foody at 7:15 AM on January 23, 2006
Where is the evidence Iran is allowing Weapons inspectors into the country.
Serious question...
Does America allow independent weapons inpectors?
posted by twistedonion at 7:16 AM on January 23, 2006
Serious question...
Does America allow independent weapons inpectors?
posted by twistedonion at 7:16 AM on January 23, 2006
America on the other hand isn't going to do all that much because Iran controls a large amount of the worlds oil, and with prices already high, they don't want to spark another oil crisis.
American corporations do well when gas prices are high, so that can't be the reason this Administration wouldn't take action.
posted by clevershark at 7:16 AM on January 23, 2006
American corporations do well when gas prices are high, so that can't be the reason this Administration wouldn't take action.
posted by clevershark at 7:16 AM on January 23, 2006
Delmoi, about the April thing: Exactly.
What good is sending inspectors if they have no bearing on whether or not we bomb the shit out of a country?
posted by dougunderscorenelso at 7:20 AM on January 23, 2006
What good is sending inspectors if they have no bearing on whether or not we bomb the shit out of a country?
posted by dougunderscorenelso at 7:20 AM on January 23, 2006
Personally, I'd rather take my chances and wait for the mushroom cloud. Even then, there are a number of countries that have nukes, so it would have to be PROVEN it was from Iran.
Really, the next country to use a nuke as a weapon will probably be the antagonist for the next world war.
It'll probably be the United States. Or Israel.
posted by Balisong at 7:48 AM on January 23, 2006
Really, the next country to use a nuke as a weapon will probably be the antagonist for the next world war.
It'll probably be the United States. Or Israel.
posted by Balisong at 7:48 AM on January 23, 2006
I'm not saying we should go to war but I find it doubtful that Iran's motives are pure.
Who says "we" need to go to war if Iran acquires a nuclear arsenal? As an American, I don't feel any more threaten by a nuclear armed Iran than I do by a nuclear armed Russia, France, UK, India, Pakistan or Israel. A nuclear armed North Korea does make me a bit nervous, but no one else seems to be worried about it so neither should I.
Being neither Jewish nor Christian, I am not the least bit interested in seeing American fight another war on behalf of Israel. What is the benefit to America? If Israel were to be liberated by Iran tomorrow how would it change my life?
If Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear arsenal, then Israel cannot be allowed to stay out of the NPT. If Israel offers to give up her nuclear weapons, and allows inspectors into Israel I suspect Iran will do the same. Let the Israelis - for once - deal with their own problems that they created and they alone can solve. "We" have enough of our own.
posted by three blind mice at 7:50 AM on January 23, 2006
Who says "we" need to go to war if Iran acquires a nuclear arsenal? As an American, I don't feel any more threaten by a nuclear armed Iran than I do by a nuclear armed Russia, France, UK, India, Pakistan or Israel. A nuclear armed North Korea does make me a bit nervous, but no one else seems to be worried about it so neither should I.
Being neither Jewish nor Christian, I am not the least bit interested in seeing American fight another war on behalf of Israel. What is the benefit to America? If Israel were to be liberated by Iran tomorrow how would it change my life?
If Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear arsenal, then Israel cannot be allowed to stay out of the NPT. If Israel offers to give up her nuclear weapons, and allows inspectors into Israel I suspect Iran will do the same. Let the Israelis - for once - deal with their own problems that they created and they alone can solve. "We" have enough of our own.
posted by three blind mice at 7:50 AM on January 23, 2006
Why is everyone so obsessed with Israel. Iran wants to nuke Iraq. For chrissakes, did Israel drop chemical weapons on Iranians? I don't think so.
posted by Pollomacho at 7:55 AM on January 23, 2006
posted by Pollomacho at 7:55 AM on January 23, 2006
Where is the evidence Iran is allowing Weapons inspectors into the country.
Serious question...
Does America allow independent weapons inpectors?
posted by twistedonion
Shut up! Shut up! Shut up!
Why do you hate America? :-)
Iran is EVIL!! Dubya said so. If I were Iran I would be getting nukes as fast as I could considering how well it keeps Dubya on a leash.
Now let's review.
Does the incredibly out-of-control, rule-of-law means nothing to me, nutjob Dubya have nukes? Affirmative.
Which country is the ONLY country to ever use nuclear weapons? Is that America?
Affirmative.
Is it hypocritical to DEMAND those countries which we threaten to invade that they should disarm while we continue to build and improve nuclear weapon stockpiles?
Affirmative.
Which country is a bigger threat to the stability of the region right now, Iran or the US in Iraq?
And Iran posits they are pursuing peaceful development which is very much allowed, just ask our friend Pakistan.
posted by nofundy at 7:58 AM on January 23, 2006
Serious question...
Does America allow independent weapons inpectors?
posted by twistedonion
Shut up! Shut up! Shut up!
Why do you hate America? :-)
Iran is EVIL!! Dubya said so. If I were Iran I would be getting nukes as fast as I could considering how well it keeps Dubya on a leash.
Now let's review.
Does the incredibly out-of-control, rule-of-law means nothing to me, nutjob Dubya have nukes? Affirmative.
Which country is the ONLY country to ever use nuclear weapons? Is that America?
Affirmative.
Is it hypocritical to DEMAND those countries which we threaten to invade that they should disarm while we continue to build and improve nuclear weapon stockpiles?
Affirmative.
Which country is a bigger threat to the stability of the region right now, Iran or the US in Iraq?
And Iran posits they are pursuing peaceful development which is very much allowed, just ask our friend Pakistan.
posted by nofundy at 7:58 AM on January 23, 2006
pollo its cause the Jews and Arabs don't get along very well, and if both sides end up with the nuke, well lets just say radioactive oil is harder to refine, hence American and china (the worlds biggest oil hogs) will be having a bad day.
posted by stilgar at 8:00 AM on January 23, 2006
posted by stilgar at 8:00 AM on January 23, 2006
Nuclear power is expensive. Iran has a massive supply of oil and natural gas. It doesn't make sense that they would want nuclear power for electricity.
Not really. The cost of oil is going up, and holding onto an appreciating resource is not a bad idea. Especially when it's your only resource. Investing the oil money in something that is also useful is a rational idea as well. Not to mention the generation of new high-tech jobs and the industries they help sustain.
Regardless though, our actions in Iraq and Israel's weapons make a strong argument for creating the ability to obtains super-weapons quickly...at least from a strategic standpoint.
posted by wah at 8:00 AM on January 23, 2006
Not really. The cost of oil is going up, and holding onto an appreciating resource is not a bad idea. Especially when it's your only resource. Investing the oil money in something that is also useful is a rational idea as well. Not to mention the generation of new high-tech jobs and the industries they help sustain.
Regardless though, our actions in Iraq and Israel's weapons make a strong argument for creating the ability to obtains super-weapons quickly...at least from a strategic standpoint.
posted by wah at 8:00 AM on January 23, 2006
three blind mice, are you saying that iran has used a nuclear weapon against iraq? if so i would like to see a link showing why you think that?
posted by stilgar at 8:02 AM on January 23, 2006
posted by stilgar at 8:02 AM on January 23, 2006
From an Iranian perspective, nuclear weapons are the only option they have against a traditional superpower such as the US. Why asymmetric warfare works, it doesn't help keep the current powers in place. For an organized government to combat the US in pitch battles small-scale nuclear warfare seems to be the only way (I would venture to guess it would take an overwhelming force like China or a consortium such as the EU to resist a US invasion). I don't think the US would invade Iran anyway, but Iranians have good reason to want to protect themselves from invasion.
Not to mention that whether we like it or not, countries with nuclear weapons gain respect and street cred in the world stage. By the way, I would fear North Korea launching an offensive attack before Iran. North Korea is just crazy, Iranians are barely sane enough to realize that a nuclear strike upon Israel will lead to their destruction.
posted by geoff. at 8:03 AM on January 23, 2006
Not to mention that whether we like it or not, countries with nuclear weapons gain respect and street cred in the world stage. By the way, I would fear North Korea launching an offensive attack before Iran. North Korea is just crazy, Iranians are barely sane enough to realize that a nuclear strike upon Israel will lead to their destruction.
posted by geoff. at 8:03 AM on January 23, 2006
Israel is a nation controled by a democratically elected government that has been responsible considering its circumstances. Iran, on the other hand, has made very loud claims of its desire to destroy Israel. The Iranian government has executed its own people, blocked freedom of expression (including even banning CNN for a misquote, and later reversing the ban).
If a country proclaims its desire to destroy another country and to spread extremist Islam across the Middle East, and then moves to acquire the means to do what it proclaims then it is our responsibility to stop them. Iran has a lot of oil and a lot of natural gas -- the claim that it needs nuclear power for energy is very doubtful. Letting Iran go ahead with its nuclear program, just in case it may truly have good intentions isn't an option.
A nuclear Iran isn't just Israel's problem, it's a problem for every Western democratic nation. Israel just happens to be the country that will feel the effect of a nuclear Iran most closely.
posted by yevge at 8:04 AM on January 23, 2006
If a country proclaims its desire to destroy another country and to spread extremist Islam across the Middle East, and then moves to acquire the means to do what it proclaims then it is our responsibility to stop them. Iran has a lot of oil and a lot of natural gas -- the claim that it needs nuclear power for energy is very doubtful. Letting Iran go ahead with its nuclear program, just in case it may truly have good intentions isn't an option.
A nuclear Iran isn't just Israel's problem, it's a problem for every Western democratic nation. Israel just happens to be the country that will feel the effect of a nuclear Iran most closely.
posted by yevge at 8:04 AM on January 23, 2006
three blind mice, are you saying that iran has used a nuclear weapon against iraq?
Of course not, but I bet I could find a link for you that says so if you want proof.
My point is why would Iran want to nuke Iraq now that it has been broken beyond repair by George Bush?
The obvious reason for Iran to acquire a nuclear arsenal is so that the same thing doesn't happen to them.
posted by three blind mice at 8:06 AM on January 23, 2006
Of course not, but I bet I could find a link for you that says so if you want proof.
My point is why would Iran want to nuke Iraq now that it has been broken beyond repair by George Bush?
The obvious reason for Iran to acquire a nuclear arsenal is so that the same thing doesn't happen to them.
posted by three blind mice at 8:06 AM on January 23, 2006
And as regarding weapons inspectors, there's some suspicion amongst Arab leaders that a lot of the weapons inspectors are reporting to foreign intelligence agencies about a little more than just nuclear weapons. That's one legitimate justification for the Iranians to be inspector-shy.
That's about all the devil's advocating I can do on behalf of Iran, though.
posted by anthill at 8:10 AM on January 23, 2006
That's about all the devil's advocating I can do on behalf of Iran, though.
posted by anthill at 8:10 AM on January 23, 2006
But what's the point of letting weapons inspectors in if, whatever they report, someone is going to decide they like your shiny oil too much to listen?
Because it would give them one less excuse to try to steal your oil. No nukes, no excuse. No inspections, no reason you have to not belive them.
posted by delmoi at 8:11 AM on January 23, 2006
Because it would give them one less excuse to try to steal your oil. No nukes, no excuse. No inspections, no reason you have to not belive them.
posted by delmoi at 8:11 AM on January 23, 2006
Israel is a nation controled by a democratically elected government that has been responsible considering its circumstances.
If people can't vote based on ethnicity or locale, then it's not really a "moral" democracy. Not that I think democracy in itself is moral, but some people feel that way and if so I don't think isreal qualifies. It certanly hasn't been "responsible" in any sense of the word.
posted by delmoi at 8:14 AM on January 23, 2006
If people can't vote based on ethnicity or locale, then it's not really a "moral" democracy. Not that I think democracy in itself is moral, but some people feel that way and if so I don't think isreal qualifies. It certanly hasn't been "responsible" in any sense of the word.
posted by delmoi at 8:14 AM on January 23, 2006
A nuclear Iran isn't just Israel's problem, it's a problem for every Western democratic nation. Israel just happens to be the country that will feel the effect of a nuclear Iran most closely.
Sorry yevge. I ain't buying it. You cannot lump Israel in with "every Western democratic nation." Not unless Sweden starts building "settlements" in Norway.
I feel Israel's pain, but again as an American with no vested interest in which religion wins, I fail to see how a nuclear armed Iran is more of a threat TO AMERICA than Pakistan - or North Korea both of whom are tolerated to have nuclear weapons.
posted by three blind mice at 8:14 AM on January 23, 2006
Sorry yevge. I ain't buying it. You cannot lump Israel in with "every Western democratic nation." Not unless Sweden starts building "settlements" in Norway.
I feel Israel's pain, but again as an American with no vested interest in which religion wins, I fail to see how a nuclear armed Iran is more of a threat TO AMERICA than Pakistan - or North Korea both of whom are tolerated to have nuclear weapons.
posted by three blind mice at 8:14 AM on January 23, 2006
Iran has a lot of oil and a lot of natural gas -- the claim that it needs nuclear power for energy is very doubtful.
It's not going to last forever. Besides, the less they use, the more they can export.
In any event, there are ways to build nuclear reactors that do not produce any fisionable material. (Light water reactors, etc)
posted by delmoi at 8:15 AM on January 23, 2006
It's not going to last forever. Besides, the less they use, the more they can export.
In any event, there are ways to build nuclear reactors that do not produce any fisionable material. (Light water reactors, etc)
posted by delmoi at 8:15 AM on January 23, 2006
I feel Israel's pain, but again as an American with no vested interest in which religion wins, I fail to see how a nuclear armed Iran is more of a threat TO AMERICA than Pakistan - or North Korea both of whom are tolerated to have nuclear weapons.
You're kidding right? This is the country that starts parlement sessions with chants of "Death to America" If you were in some other country besides Isreal, the US, or maybe the UK I might agree with you, though.
posted by delmoi at 8:17 AM on January 23, 2006
You're kidding right? This is the country that starts parlement sessions with chants of "Death to America" If you were in some other country besides Isreal, the US, or maybe the UK I might agree with you, though.
posted by delmoi at 8:17 AM on January 23, 2006
The Iranian government has executed its own people, blocked freedom of expression (including even banning CNN for a misquote, and later reversing the ban).
You do know certain Western democracies do the same right?
If a country proclaims its desire to destroy another country and to spread extremist Islam across the Middle East, and then moves to acquire the means to do what it proclaims then it is our responsibility to stop them. Iran has a lot of oil and a lot of natural gas -- the claim that it needs nuclear power for energy is very doubtful. Letting Iran go ahead with its nuclear program, just in case it may truly have good intentions isn't an option.
and in my opinion that's exactly what America did a couple of years ago. There's no such thing as good government in this world, just varying degrees of evil.
posted by twistedonion at 8:19 AM on January 23, 2006
You do know certain Western democracies do the same right?
If a country proclaims its desire to destroy another country and to spread extremist Islam across the Middle East, and then moves to acquire the means to do what it proclaims then it is our responsibility to stop them. Iran has a lot of oil and a lot of natural gas -- the claim that it needs nuclear power for energy is very doubtful. Letting Iran go ahead with its nuclear program, just in case it may truly have good intentions isn't an option.
and in my opinion that's exactly what America did a couple of years ago. There's no such thing as good government in this world, just varying degrees of evil.
posted by twistedonion at 8:19 AM on January 23, 2006
You're kidding right? This is the country that starts parlement sessions with chants of "Death to America"
delmoi, please. At the risk of exposong my age, I grew up under the threat of 40,000 Russian ICBMS pointed at me.
A crude nuke on top of a North Korean-manufactured missile in a silo in Iran fails to arouse any concern in me whatsoever.
posted by three blind mice at 8:23 AM on January 23, 2006
delmoi, please. At the risk of exposong my age, I grew up under the threat of 40,000 Russian ICBMS pointed at me.
A crude nuke on top of a North Korean-manufactured missile in a silo in Iran fails to arouse any concern in me whatsoever.
posted by three blind mice at 8:23 AM on January 23, 2006
"Because it would give them one less excuse to try to steal your oil. No nukes, no excuse. No inspections, no reason you have to not belive them."
No it doesn't. Iraq only just happened but you're forgetting that the leaders of the mighty West barrelled in with cries of "We don't believe you!" despite repeated assurances from the weapons inspectors that they couldn't find any evidence of WMD at all.
All they did have to the contrary was Saddam losing the paperwork to the destruction of some medium-range missiles and then refusing to let the inspections continue when it was becoming clear that Iraq was now a fairly naked dust bowl and ripe for exploitation. It was the worst poker face in recent history but it was enough to convince those who wanted be convinced that here lay danger.
Or, if you'd like to think rationally, it was enough to make those who wanted to be convinced look convinced.
posted by NinjaPirate at 8:26 AM on January 23, 2006
No it doesn't. Iraq only just happened but you're forgetting that the leaders of the mighty West barrelled in with cries of "We don't believe you!" despite repeated assurances from the weapons inspectors that they couldn't find any evidence of WMD at all.
All they did have to the contrary was Saddam losing the paperwork to the destruction of some medium-range missiles and then refusing to let the inspections continue when it was becoming clear that Iraq was now a fairly naked dust bowl and ripe for exploitation. It was the worst poker face in recent history but it was enough to convince those who wanted be convinced that here lay danger.
Or, if you'd like to think rationally, it was enough to make those who wanted to be convinced look convinced.
posted by NinjaPirate at 8:26 AM on January 23, 2006
This is the country that starts parlement sessions with chants of "Death to America"
Got proof?
posted by rough ashlar at 8:26 AM on January 23, 2006
Got proof?
posted by rough ashlar at 8:26 AM on January 23, 2006
To finish the thought.... a crude nuke on top of a North Korean-manufactured missile in a silo in Iran fails to arouse any concern in me whatsoever.... but if they installed them in Cuba, then yes, I would feel threatened.
And that is the situation in which Israel finds itself. That's why the issue of a nuclear armed Iran is, in my view, more about Israeli security than American security.
Pretending that it is not appears to me as just more lies and obfuscation of the truth. If the people don't know what they are voting for this is not Democracy either.
posted by three blind mice at 8:33 AM on January 23, 2006
And that is the situation in which Israel finds itself. That's why the issue of a nuclear armed Iran is, in my view, more about Israeli security than American security.
Pretending that it is not appears to me as just more lies and obfuscation of the truth. If the people don't know what they are voting for this is not Democracy either.
posted by three blind mice at 8:33 AM on January 23, 2006
Iran may be trying to get nuclear weapons.
If so, perhaps they're doing so because they're afraid someone might be planning to attack them.
posted by alumshubby at 8:39 AM on January 23, 2006
If so, perhaps they're doing so because they're afraid someone might be planning to attack them.
posted by alumshubby at 8:39 AM on January 23, 2006
delmoi, please. At the risk of exposong my age, I grew up under the threat of 40,000 Russian ICBMS pointed at me.
Well, I didn't (except as a small child), and I don't want to.
posted by delmoi at 8:53 AM on January 23, 2006
Well, I didn't (except as a small child), and I don't want to.
posted by delmoi at 8:53 AM on January 23, 2006
...refusing to let the inspections continue when it was becoming clear that Iraq was now a fairly naked dust bowl and ripe for exploitation.
Actualy, the inspectors left because we were about to start bombing, at least in 2003.
posted by delmoi at 8:55 AM on January 23, 2006
Actualy, the inspectors left because we were about to start bombing, at least in 2003.
posted by delmoi at 8:55 AM on January 23, 2006
If people can't vote based on ethnicity or locale, then it's not really a "moral" democracy. Not that I think democracy in itself is moral, but some people feel that way and if so I don't think isreal qualifies. It certanly hasn't been "responsible" in any sense of the word.
I just came back from a trip to Israel. One of the stops was Eilat, Israel's "Cancun", a city on the Red Sea full of hotels and night clubs. I stayed in a hotel in Eilat during a weekend when approximately half of it was taken up by Israeli Arabs (vacationing to celebrate the Muslim holiday that marks the end of Ramadan I believe). The Israeli Arabs are Israeli citizens just like any Israeli Jew. They have voting rights, full protection under the law, and every other right that comes with being an Israeli citizen. [With one exception: they aren't offered the opportunity to serve in the military, which is quite significant in a country where military service is mandatory. Since most of Israel's military actions are in the West Bank and Gaza, having Israeli Arabs in the army would create a weird conflict of interests. There are initiatives today to create an alternative civil service corps as an alternative for Israeli Arabs. While this is still not 100% equal, considering the situation it's most likely the best option for now. By the way, the Druze (Muslim but not Arab) can serve in the military.] Anyway, while in the hotel in Eilat, I spoke to an Israeli Arab. I asked him what he thought about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Confused, he replied "I'm not a Palestinian!."
He then proudly said, "I'm an Israeli!" Israeli Arabs are for the most part very patriotic and peaceful citizens of Israel. There is segregation in the sense that Arabs tend to live in Arab towns and Jews in Jewish towns. The situation is not perfect -- but Israel is a young democracy, still trying to correct the problems that the US has been working on for 300 years, all while focusing on external threats.
As for the Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza, they don't vote and can't vote in Israeli elections because they are not Israeli. Gaza has been given up, the West Bank will be too. Arab residents of the Golan Heights (technically Syrian territory occupied by Israel) are offered the same citizenship any Jew can get.
Painting a picture of Israel as some sort of racist state that denies people the right to vote based on ethnicity is wrong and very incorrect. Given it's situation, Israel has been responsible. Israel has a primary duty to defend its citizens (both Jewish and Arab) from attack. Stopping suicide bombings by executing terrorist leaders is part of that responsibility. Has Israel made unnecessary mistakes that caused the deaths of innocent people? Yes. Were any of these purposeful? No. Is there some Israeli policy to make life hard for Palestinians? No. Quite the contrary -- Israel is under the microscope of every international and Israeli rights group.
Sorry to take this thread into a slightly different direction, but I had to reply.
If country A repeatedly says "I will destroy country B" and then country A gets the means to destroy country B, we can't stand by hoping that country A was just kidding and wait for it to happen.
posted by yevge at 8:58 AM on January 23, 2006
I just came back from a trip to Israel. One of the stops was Eilat, Israel's "Cancun", a city on the Red Sea full of hotels and night clubs. I stayed in a hotel in Eilat during a weekend when approximately half of it was taken up by Israeli Arabs (vacationing to celebrate the Muslim holiday that marks the end of Ramadan I believe). The Israeli Arabs are Israeli citizens just like any Israeli Jew. They have voting rights, full protection under the law, and every other right that comes with being an Israeli citizen. [With one exception: they aren't offered the opportunity to serve in the military, which is quite significant in a country where military service is mandatory. Since most of Israel's military actions are in the West Bank and Gaza, having Israeli Arabs in the army would create a weird conflict of interests. There are initiatives today to create an alternative civil service corps as an alternative for Israeli Arabs. While this is still not 100% equal, considering the situation it's most likely the best option for now. By the way, the Druze (Muslim but not Arab) can serve in the military.] Anyway, while in the hotel in Eilat, I spoke to an Israeli Arab. I asked him what he thought about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Confused, he replied "I'm not a Palestinian!."
He then proudly said, "I'm an Israeli!" Israeli Arabs are for the most part very patriotic and peaceful citizens of Israel. There is segregation in the sense that Arabs tend to live in Arab towns and Jews in Jewish towns. The situation is not perfect -- but Israel is a young democracy, still trying to correct the problems that the US has been working on for 300 years, all while focusing on external threats.
As for the Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza, they don't vote and can't vote in Israeli elections because they are not Israeli. Gaza has been given up, the West Bank will be too. Arab residents of the Golan Heights (technically Syrian territory occupied by Israel) are offered the same citizenship any Jew can get.
Painting a picture of Israel as some sort of racist state that denies people the right to vote based on ethnicity is wrong and very incorrect. Given it's situation, Israel has been responsible. Israel has a primary duty to defend its citizens (both Jewish and Arab) from attack. Stopping suicide bombings by executing terrorist leaders is part of that responsibility. Has Israel made unnecessary mistakes that caused the deaths of innocent people? Yes. Were any of these purposeful? No. Is there some Israeli policy to make life hard for Palestinians? No. Quite the contrary -- Israel is under the microscope of every international and Israeli rights group.
Sorry to take this thread into a slightly different direction, but I had to reply.
If country A repeatedly says "I will destroy country B" and then country A gets the means to destroy country B, we can't stand by hoping that country A was just kidding and wait for it to happen.
posted by yevge at 8:58 AM on January 23, 2006
Iran's nervous. I would be, too. From what I recall, they had a fairly progressive movement going on until we set up shop in Iraq, and then their government (elected, by the way) sorta swung back hard to the right. As I understand it, Iran's current president is ideologically more conservative than most of the Mullahs, but I'm hard-pressed to find supporting information on that. It would, however, logically point to a certain degree of paranoia on their part - and well-justified, I think.
posted by TeamBilly at 8:58 AM on January 23, 2006
posted by TeamBilly at 8:58 AM on January 23, 2006
This is the country that starts parlement sessions with chants of "Death to America"
yes. Well, in this case a few lawmakers shouted it out when the nuke bill was passed in parlement. And speaking of how wonderful "democracy" is, this bill was passed by Iran's elected parlement.
posted by delmoi at 8:58 AM on January 23, 2006
yes. Well, in this case a few lawmakers shouted it out when the nuke bill was passed in parlement. And speaking of how wonderful "democracy" is, this bill was passed by Iran's elected parlement.
posted by delmoi at 8:58 AM on January 23, 2006
(including even banning CNN for a misquote, and later reversing the ban)
That was quite an interesting incident if I can recall - wasn't that because the misquote actually said that the pres wanted nuclear weapons when he was saying he didn't? Quite a delicate comment given the situation and understandable that CNN got a beat down because of it - I'd be pissed off too if something similar happened due to irresponsibleness/slackitude. Nothing to do with freedom of expression at all (although of course, they do block that in other places).
posted by Mossy at 9:02 AM on January 23, 2006
That was quite an interesting incident if I can recall - wasn't that because the misquote actually said that the pres wanted nuclear weapons when he was saying he didn't? Quite a delicate comment given the situation and understandable that CNN got a beat down because of it - I'd be pissed off too if something similar happened due to irresponsibleness/slackitude. Nothing to do with freedom of expression at all (although of course, they do block that in other places).
posted by Mossy at 9:02 AM on January 23, 2006
By the way, I don't think that a nuclear armed Iran is much of a United States security issue. It's definately more of a risk to Israel than any other country.
I think that it's the duty of Western nations to defend other Western nations. If Britain were ever threatened, if Canada were threatened, if France were threatened ... etc. etc, it's our duty to help out.
posted by yevge at 9:03 AM on January 23, 2006
I think that it's the duty of Western nations to defend other Western nations. If Britain were ever threatened, if Canada were threatened, if France were threatened ... etc. etc, it's our duty to help out.
posted by yevge at 9:03 AM on January 23, 2006
I asked him what he thought about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Confused, he replied "I'm not a Palestinian!."
He then proudly said, "I'm an Israeli!" Israeli Arabs are for the most part very patriotic and peaceful citizens of Israel.
That's fantastic. Maybe the rest of the Arabs over there would feel the same way if they hadn't been locked down in settled Bantustans for decades. Where is the logic in allowing settlers to vote, but not people living in the "occupied territories"? Jews living in the occupied territories can vote and are Israelis, Muslims and Christians cannot. There is simply no way to say that's not racist, IMO.
I realize the settlements are being phased out, but I'm not familiar with extent of that program.
Still, those people have lived under absolute (and pretty brutal) Israeli control for decades, and have no say whatsoever in their government. That's not democracy.
posted by delmoi at 9:04 AM on January 23, 2006
He then proudly said, "I'm an Israeli!" Israeli Arabs are for the most part very patriotic and peaceful citizens of Israel.
That's fantastic. Maybe the rest of the Arabs over there would feel the same way if they hadn't been locked down in settled Bantustans for decades. Where is the logic in allowing settlers to vote, but not people living in the "occupied territories"? Jews living in the occupied territories can vote and are Israelis, Muslims and Christians cannot. There is simply no way to say that's not racist, IMO.
I realize the settlements are being phased out, but I'm not familiar with extent of that program.
Still, those people have lived under absolute (and pretty brutal) Israeli control for decades, and have no say whatsoever in their government. That's not democracy.
posted by delmoi at 9:04 AM on January 23, 2006
pollo its cause the Jews and Arabs don't get along very well
Since neither make up a majority in Iran I fail to see your point.
My point is why would Iran want to nuke Iraq now that it has been broken beyond repair by George Bush?
The obvious reason for Iran to acquire a nuclear arsenal is so that the same thing doesn't happen to them.
Who's going to do it to Iran? The US? They have enough trouble in smaller, more homogenous Iraq.
Iran has revenge fantasies, they want revenge against Iraq and have no cares if Saddam is there or not. Israel is a crock, they aren't nearly as obsessed with Israel as we are.
This is the country that starts parliament sessions with chants of "Death to America"
Not only is this false, but the reality is that what they do say about the US in their Parliament is equivalent to calling us part of an "Axis of Evil," of course we're above such name calling in our government.
The Iranian government has executed its own people, blocked freedom of expression (including even banning CNN for a misquote, and later reversing the ban).
You know it's funny. We only complain about Iran executing its people and blocking freedoms, when it's no longer our puppet doing the killing and oppressing (with our full and complete backing, funding and instruction).
Incidentally, we execute people in this nation as well.
posted by Pollomacho at 9:06 AM on January 23, 2006
Since neither make up a majority in Iran I fail to see your point.
My point is why would Iran want to nuke Iraq now that it has been broken beyond repair by George Bush?
The obvious reason for Iran to acquire a nuclear arsenal is so that the same thing doesn't happen to them.
Who's going to do it to Iran? The US? They have enough trouble in smaller, more homogenous Iraq.
Iran has revenge fantasies, they want revenge against Iraq and have no cares if Saddam is there or not. Israel is a crock, they aren't nearly as obsessed with Israel as we are.
This is the country that starts parliament sessions with chants of "Death to America"
Not only is this false, but the reality is that what they do say about the US in their Parliament is equivalent to calling us part of an "Axis of Evil," of course we're above such name calling in our government.
The Iranian government has executed its own people, blocked freedom of expression (including even banning CNN for a misquote, and later reversing the ban).
You know it's funny. We only complain about Iran executing its people and blocking freedoms, when it's no longer our puppet doing the killing and oppressing (with our full and complete backing, funding and instruction).
Incidentally, we execute people in this nation as well.
posted by Pollomacho at 9:06 AM on January 23, 2006
Well, in this case a few lawmakers shouted it out when the nuke bill was passed in parlement. And speaking of how wonderful "democracy" is, this bill was passed by Iran's elected parlement.
em, delmoi.... your democratically elected Government effectively destroyed another nation. And I can remember George saying "Bring it On!"
Double standards.
posted by twistedonion at 9:08 AM on January 23, 2006
em, delmoi.... your democratically elected Government effectively destroyed another nation. And I can remember George saying "Bring it On!"
Double standards.
posted by twistedonion at 9:08 AM on January 23, 2006
Delmoi, you realize that the two country solution is just a way for Israel to give the Palestinians "freedom" without making them the majority of Israeli citizens, no?
Why are we still talking about Israel in an Iran thread again?
posted by Pollomacho at 9:10 AM on January 23, 2006
Why are we still talking about Israel in an Iran thread again?
posted by Pollomacho at 9:10 AM on January 23, 2006
delmoi, you're right, it really isn't very fair, but the way things look, it will stay that way until there is a Palestinian state. Let's hope that happens soon so that those living in the West Bank and Gaza and determine their own leadership without Israeli interference.
those people have lived under absolute (and pretty brutal) Israeli control for decades
Not exactly. Without a doubt it's no picnic. Before the intifadas though, life in Gaza and the West Bank wasn't that bad. This doesn't make the current situation OK, or even the previous situation OK. I'm just trying to point out that today's living conditions in the West Bank and Gaza aren't a result of a puproseful Israeli policy to make it so. It's a result of an attempt to defend Israel from terrorist attacks -- something that any responsible government would do.
posted by yevge at 9:12 AM on January 23, 2006
those people have lived under absolute (and pretty brutal) Israeli control for decades
Not exactly. Without a doubt it's no picnic. Before the intifadas though, life in Gaza and the West Bank wasn't that bad. This doesn't make the current situation OK, or even the previous situation OK. I'm just trying to point out that today's living conditions in the West Bank and Gaza aren't a result of a puproseful Israeli policy to make it so. It's a result of an attempt to defend Israel from terrorist attacks -- something that any responsible government would do.
posted by yevge at 9:12 AM on January 23, 2006
Yevge, the Druze are Arab, but not Muslim, they are Druze.
posted by Pollomacho at 9:17 AM on January 23, 2006
posted by Pollomacho at 9:17 AM on January 23, 2006
Serious question...
Does America allow independent weapons inpectors?
Short answer: Yes.
By the late 1960s, the safeguards issue had grown to become a serious obstacle to acceptance of the NPT by major industrialized NNWS. To remove this obstacle, in 1967, U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson announced that the United States would not ask any country to accept safeguards the United States itself was unwilling to accept. Accordingly, the United States offered to permit the IAEA to apply the same safeguards it applies in NNWS to "all nuclear activities in the United States, excluding only those with direct national security significance."
This offer—often called the Voluntary Offer because the NPT does not require NWS to submit to IAEA safeguards—and a similar offer by the United Kingdom were instrumental in gaining acceptance of the NPT by major industrialized NNWS. Intended to provide the timely detection of the diversion of a significant quantity of nuclear material, IAEA safeguards utilize a comprehensive, integrated system of:
* accounting and reporting procedures;
* on-site inspections;
* nuclear material measurements; and
* containment and surveillance techniques.
Long answer: There are periodic technical disputes about which facilities and activities are subject to inspection.
posted by dhartung at 9:18 AM on January 23, 2006
Does America allow independent weapons inpectors?
Short answer: Yes.
By the late 1960s, the safeguards issue had grown to become a serious obstacle to acceptance of the NPT by major industrialized NNWS. To remove this obstacle, in 1967, U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson announced that the United States would not ask any country to accept safeguards the United States itself was unwilling to accept. Accordingly, the United States offered to permit the IAEA to apply the same safeguards it applies in NNWS to "all nuclear activities in the United States, excluding only those with direct national security significance."
This offer—often called the Voluntary Offer because the NPT does not require NWS to submit to IAEA safeguards—and a similar offer by the United Kingdom were instrumental in gaining acceptance of the NPT by major industrialized NNWS. Intended to provide the timely detection of the diversion of a significant quantity of nuclear material, IAEA safeguards utilize a comprehensive, integrated system of:
* accounting and reporting procedures;
* on-site inspections;
* nuclear material measurements; and
* containment and surveillance techniques.
Long answer: There are periodic technical disputes about which facilities and activities are subject to inspection.
posted by dhartung at 9:18 AM on January 23, 2006
em, delmoi.... your democratically elected Government effectively destroyed another nation. And I can remember George saying "Bring it On!"
How is that a double standard? I said democracy sucks. You're just proving my point.
posted by delmoi at 9:20 AM on January 23, 2006
How is that a double standard? I said democracy sucks. You're just proving my point.
posted by delmoi at 9:20 AM on January 23, 2006
Delmoi, you realize that the two country solution is just a way for Israel to give the Palestinians "freedom" without making them the majority of Israeli citizens, no?
Um, yes I realize this. I think you have me confused with another poster (who brought up the two state solution). If it were my choice I would have a one state solution with universal sufferage (and very powerful civil liberties safeguards). But obviously, it's not up to me.
posted by delmoi at 9:23 AM on January 23, 2006
Um, yes I realize this. I think you have me confused with another poster (who brought up the two state solution). If it were my choice I would have a one state solution with universal sufferage (and very powerful civil liberties safeguards). But obviously, it's not up to me.
posted by delmoi at 9:23 AM on January 23, 2006
I did indeed actually, too many quick posts.
Anyway, as I've asked before, what does the Israel/Palestine debate we have daily have to do with Iran other than they are in the same region and they make terroristic threats to each other occasionally?
posted by Pollomacho at 9:29 AM on January 23, 2006
Anyway, as I've asked before, what does the Israel/Palestine debate we have daily have to do with Iran other than they are in the same region and they make terroristic threats to each other occasionally?
posted by Pollomacho at 9:29 AM on January 23, 2006
Let's assume that Iran could produce the makings of nuclear bomb. They will still need a reliable long-range rocket and guidance system to threaten the US. No matter how smart they are and how much money they throw at the problem, Iran could doubtfully develop their own. If they do make their own, they have to test it for any reliability or face the risk of it blowing up in their face due to ineptness.
Now I know for a fact that we have the ability to monitor any nuclear explosions anywhere in the world, so a test would be immediate and overwhelming evidence that they do in fact have a nuclear weapons program. If that were the case then we would have grounds for military intervention and only then. Obviously any attempt by them to bomb us would be instant annihilation for Iran. I even imagine we already have a few remaining silos pointed at them now.
Another option they have is to buy ICBM rockets from China or elsewhere. That possibility is very hard to hide from our prying eyes and would also be incontrovertible evidence of an arms program.
Give me some hard evidence and I'll fight to be first in line to push a button at the local missile silo. But until that possibility is more than a could or may, then I say we let them play with nuclear power.
posted by JJ86 at 9:29 AM on January 23, 2006
Now I know for a fact that we have the ability to monitor any nuclear explosions anywhere in the world, so a test would be immediate and overwhelming evidence that they do in fact have a nuclear weapons program. If that were the case then we would have grounds for military intervention and only then. Obviously any attempt by them to bomb us would be instant annihilation for Iran. I even imagine we already have a few remaining silos pointed at them now.
Another option they have is to buy ICBM rockets from China or elsewhere. That possibility is very hard to hide from our prying eyes and would also be incontrovertible evidence of an arms program.
Give me some hard evidence and I'll fight to be first in line to push a button at the local missile silo. But until that possibility is more than a could or may, then I say we let them play with nuclear power.
posted by JJ86 at 9:29 AM on January 23, 2006
How is that a double standard? I said democracy sucks. You're just proving my point.
Cool cause that's pretty much my point too. Apologies for misreading your comments
posted by twistedonion at 9:32 AM on January 23, 2006
Cool cause that's pretty much my point too. Apologies for misreading your comments
posted by twistedonion at 9:32 AM on January 23, 2006
I Foody they also have a lot of uranium, that oil could be better used bringing in cash from outside while growing their nuclear expertise.
posted by Mitheral at 9:33 AM on January 23, 2006
posted by Mitheral at 9:33 AM on January 23, 2006
Bingo, why would you burn your cash cow? Iran has enough uranium to fuel a nuclear power/weapons program. They aren't going to be able to sell off that uranium as people tend to not like that, but selling oil is great so long as it keeps prices down, why not make electricity (and bombs) out of the uranium and sell the oil?
posted by Pollomacho at 9:41 AM on January 23, 2006
posted by Pollomacho at 9:41 AM on January 23, 2006
"Where is the evidence Iran is allowing Weapons inspectors into the country."
Maybe it had something to do with the fact that Iran has already let weapons inspectors into their country. Iran: Like Iraq, only with weapons inspectors
"Iran has a lot of oil and a lot of natural gas -- the claim that it needs nuclear power for energy is very doubtful"
The other day, I was reading an article about how one of the Arab emirates is looking into building a nuclear power plant too. They figure that it would save them money, as the price of nuclear energy is constant, while the price of oil is bound to go up sharply as supplies diminish. It would also help them to desalinate water on a massive scale, allowing them to take back the desert.
"A nuclear Iran isn't just Israel's problem, it's a problem for every Western democratic nation."
Because, of course, Israel has no nukes. If attacked, they'll have to respond with kittens instead.
By the way, my toilet is on the fritz. Someone please send Benjamin Netanyahu over to fix it for me.
"a few (Iranian) lawmakers shouted it out when the nuke bill was passed in parlement."
Just the other day, the newly elected leader of Bolivia said, "Long live coca, death to the gringos!"
Personally, I can't wait until the Government of Bolivia sends me my own complementary 5 lb. bag of cocaine.
posted by insomnia_lj at 9:47 AM on January 23, 2006
Maybe it had something to do with the fact that Iran has already let weapons inspectors into their country. Iran: Like Iraq, only with weapons inspectors
"Iran has a lot of oil and a lot of natural gas -- the claim that it needs nuclear power for energy is very doubtful"
The other day, I was reading an article about how one of the Arab emirates is looking into building a nuclear power plant too. They figure that it would save them money, as the price of nuclear energy is constant, while the price of oil is bound to go up sharply as supplies diminish. It would also help them to desalinate water on a massive scale, allowing them to take back the desert.
"A nuclear Iran isn't just Israel's problem, it's a problem for every Western democratic nation."
Because, of course, Israel has no nukes. If attacked, they'll have to respond with kittens instead.
By the way, my toilet is on the fritz. Someone please send Benjamin Netanyahu over to fix it for me.
"a few (Iranian) lawmakers shouted it out when the nuke bill was passed in parlement."
Just the other day, the newly elected leader of Bolivia said, "Long live coca, death to the gringos!"
Personally, I can't wait until the Government of Bolivia sends me my own complementary 5 lb. bag of cocaine.
posted by insomnia_lj at 9:47 AM on January 23, 2006
This is the country that starts parlement sessions with chants of "Death to America"
yes. Well, in this case a few lawmakers shouted it out when the nuke bill was passed in parliament. And speaking of how wonderful "democracy" is, this bill was passed by Iran's elected parliament.
posted by delmoi at 8:58 AM PST on January 23 [!]
The MS NBC link says nothing about 'starting parliament sessions chants of "Death to America"'.
So, again, I ask - where is the proof to your claim?
posted by rough ashlar at 9:55 AM on January 23, 2006
yes. Well, in this case a few lawmakers shouted it out when the nuke bill was passed in parliament. And speaking of how wonderful "democracy" is, this bill was passed by Iran's elected parliament.
posted by delmoi at 8:58 AM PST on January 23 [!]
The MS NBC link says nothing about 'starting parliament sessions chants of "Death to America"'.
So, again, I ask - where is the proof to your claim?
posted by rough ashlar at 9:55 AM on January 23, 2006
Seriously, With all the problems associated with Nuclear power plants (Chernobyl, 3MI) and Nuclear Waste why would an oil rich country such as Iran want to develop "peaceful Nuklear Power Plants"? Read between the lies people.
posted by Gungho at 9:59 AM on January 23, 2006
posted by Gungho at 9:59 AM on January 23, 2006
Personally, I can't wait until the Government of Bolivia sends me my own complementary 5 lb. bag of cocaine.
The way I heard it, they're just promising the leaves.
So, again, I ask - where is the proof to your claim?
Who cares rough ashlar? Iran's Parliament can shout "Death to America with Nasty, Sharp, Pointy, Teeth" twice at the beginning and three times at the end of each session and I couldn't care less. Iran with or without nuclear weapons is NO IMMINENT THREAT to America and any talk of war or military strikes against Iran is ridiculous in the extreme.
If your primary interest is Israel, then that's another story.
posted by three blind mice at 10:02 AM on January 23, 2006
The way I heard it, they're just promising the leaves.
So, again, I ask - where is the proof to your claim?
Who cares rough ashlar? Iran's Parliament can shout "Death to America with Nasty, Sharp, Pointy, Teeth" twice at the beginning and three times at the end of each session and I couldn't care less. Iran with or without nuclear weapons is NO IMMINENT THREAT to America and any talk of war or military strikes against Iran is ridiculous in the extreme.
If your primary interest is Israel, then that's another story.
posted by three blind mice at 10:02 AM on January 23, 2006
Iran is a threat.
We need to strike fast and strike hard.
Now is not the time to default on the USA. Stand up for America. Stand up as a patriot.
This message brought to you by the shareholders of KBR.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 10:03 AM on January 23, 2006
We need to strike fast and strike hard.
Now is not the time to default on the USA. Stand up for America. Stand up as a patriot.
This message brought to you by the shareholders of KBR.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 10:03 AM on January 23, 2006
TJH - I know now that I have had a long day at work - when I first saw that image I could have sworn that there was a T.rex in it.
Incidentally is anyone else bored of nofundy's tired one liner screeching today or is it just me?
posted by longbaugh at 10:10 AM on January 23, 2006
Incidentally is anyone else bored of nofundy's tired one liner screeching today or is it just me?
posted by longbaugh at 10:10 AM on January 23, 2006
JJ86 writes "Now I know for a fact that we have the ability to monitor any nuclear explosions anywhere in the world, so a test would be immediate and overwhelming evidence that they do in fact have a nuclear weapons program. If that were the case then we would have grounds for military intervention and only then. Obviously any attempt by them to bomb us would be instant annihilation for Iran. I even imagine we already have a few remaining silos pointed at them now."
On the other hand once a nation has demonstrated a nuclear weapon the US tends not to invade.
Gungho writes "Seriously, With all the problems associated with Nuclear power plants (Chernobyl, 3MI) and Nuclear Waste why would an oil rich country such as Iran want to develop 'peaceful Nuklear Power Plants'? Read between the lies people."
Do you have the same problem with Canada having nuclear power?
posted by Mitheral at 10:15 AM on January 23, 2006
On the other hand once a nation has demonstrated a nuclear weapon the US tends not to invade.
Gungho writes "Seriously, With all the problems associated with Nuclear power plants (Chernobyl, 3MI) and Nuclear Waste why would an oil rich country such as Iran want to develop 'peaceful Nuklear Power Plants'? Read between the lies people."
Do you have the same problem with Canada having nuclear power?
posted by Mitheral at 10:15 AM on January 23, 2006
Seriously, With all the problems associated with Nuclear power plants (Chernobyl, 3MI) and Nuclear Waste why would an oil rich country such as Iran want to develop "peaceful Nuklear Power Plants"? Read between the lies people.
posted by Gungho at 9:59 AM PST on January 23 [!]
Simple. If you have a X megawatt facility, you can power lots of EQ/homes and have control over that power.
If homes/businesses have useage of X kilowatts and makes X+y kilowatts, the owners of the powerplant infrastructure become brokers rather than manufactors. And the broker has less power to shut off the electrical power.
Thus - businesses who own the power grids have maximum influence when they ALSO are the only provider of electrical power on that grid. Centralized maintence is historically simpler. Alas, sand will not be kind to wind machines or solar panels.
posted by rough ashlar at 10:44 AM on January 23, 2006
posted by Gungho at 9:59 AM PST on January 23 [!]
Simple. If you have a X megawatt facility, you can power lots of EQ/homes and have control over that power.
If homes/businesses have useage of X kilowatts and makes X+y kilowatts, the owners of the powerplant infrastructure become brokers rather than manufactors. And the broker has less power to shut off the electrical power.
Thus - businesses who own the power grids have maximum influence when they ALSO are the only provider of electrical power on that grid. Centralized maintence is historically simpler. Alas, sand will not be kind to wind machines or solar panels.
posted by rough ashlar at 10:44 AM on January 23, 2006
rough ashlar you have no idea what you are talking about as far as sand and solar panels, so long as we are not talking sand storms on a regular basis (once a week all year long) the maintenance for both is relatively minor...however if Iran can see the future and realizes that it will need both nukes and nuclear power (to keep America from invading, and to replace the power when the oil runs out). shouldn't we wake up and smell the bacon. The oil is running out, i figure Iran would be better off simply starting to pump out solar panels at low cost, that way they can get in on the new energy racket. but when you throw in all this religious crap the whole problem gets even more complicated.
posted by stilgar at 10:55 AM on January 23, 2006
posted by stilgar at 10:55 AM on January 23, 2006
come to think about sand storms would not pose a problem for solar at all, unless the sand covers the panels or scratches the glass, but they have glass tuff enough to withstand sand abrasion. as far as wind turbines the hubs are sealed so grit wouldn't get into them.
posted by stilgar at 11:01 AM on January 23, 2006
posted by stilgar at 11:01 AM on January 23, 2006
rough ashlar you have no idea what you are talking about as far as sand and solar panels,
I just said it was not going to be kind. Are you claiming a sand environment is better for panels than a non-sand environment?
In addition to the sand, the higher operating temprature should result in a shorter lifespan/overall power output over the lifetime of the panel.
posted by rough ashlar at 11:02 AM on January 23, 2006
I just said it was not going to be kind. Are you claiming a sand environment is better for panels than a non-sand environment?
In addition to the sand, the higher operating temprature should result in a shorter lifespan/overall power output over the lifetime of the panel.
posted by rough ashlar at 11:02 AM on January 23, 2006
as far as wind turbines the hubs are sealed so grit wouldn't get into them.
posted by stilgar at 11:01 AM PST on January 23 [!]
Sand will effect the leading edges of the wind turbines.
The US military has noted the higher level of sand/grit shortens the lifepan of their equipment, so why would wind turbines be different?
posted by rough ashlar at 11:05 AM on January 23, 2006
posted by stilgar at 11:01 AM PST on January 23 [!]
Sand will effect the leading edges of the wind turbines.
The US military has noted the higher level of sand/grit shortens the lifepan of their equipment, so why would wind turbines be different?
posted by rough ashlar at 11:05 AM on January 23, 2006
Mitheral
No I have no problem with Canada having Nuclear power, nor Britain, nor France...(well maybe not France), because none of them have threatened to wipe a neighboring country off the map.
posted by Gungho at 11:05 AM on January 23, 2006
No I have no problem with Canada having Nuclear power, nor Britain, nor France...(well maybe not France), because none of them have threatened to wipe a neighboring country off the map.
posted by Gungho at 11:05 AM on January 23, 2006
gungho: what if they're secretely planning to do so ? It's no unheard of, people doing stuff without telling anybody.
Notice it's all the religious hate that is turning again the world to war...maybe it's time we get rid of religions OR find a way to renderm them ineffective. It's propagation of irrationality, blind faith that's again turning the whole world to war. Who stands to profit ? The same guys who market you the product you don't need yet feel bad if you don't buy them ...are the guys who propagate that Iran is evil or that U.S. is evil.
posted by elpapacito at 11:28 AM on January 23, 2006
Notice it's all the religious hate that is turning again the world to war...maybe it's time we get rid of religions OR find a way to renderm them ineffective. It's propagation of irrationality, blind faith that's again turning the whole world to war. Who stands to profit ? The same guys who market you the product you don't need yet feel bad if you don't buy them ...are the guys who propagate that Iran is evil or that U.S. is evil.
posted by elpapacito at 11:28 AM on January 23, 2006
Gungho, the US has threatened to wipe countries off the map (or bomb them back into the stone age ... the closest proxy to wiping a country off the map, which is not really a feasible venture). The US has plenty of oil reserves: why does it have nuclear technology? Why does it not use its own oil first? The same applies to Russia, which has ample natural gas and oil reserves and also has invaded sovereign countries and made mischief on a global scale.
Iran, like any other country, should have the right to develop nuclear technology to protect its future. Iran has a civilization that pre-dates that of the U.S. by several millenia, and I believe is rightly taking a long-term view of its own sustainability as an independent nation, not dependent purely on oil for its own energy needs.
Furthermore, should Iran manage to develop nuclear weapons, it would serve as a deterrent to Israel's illegal nuclear weapons program, given that Israel is the sole country in the Middle East that has nukes. If Iran were to develop weapons, it would merely deter Israel from undertaking a nuclear strike on it. Once two opposing countries have nukes, that makes the use of nuclear weapons less likely, in contrast to when only one antagonistic country has such an ability (contrast US-Japan in WWII and India-Pakistan since they both became nuclear states). A regional nuclear imbalance is unsafe. A balance of power (whether nuclear or conventional) renders the possibility of war less likely. Had Iraq had nuclear weapons, the US would have paused before invading on pretext, which is precisely the reason that North Korea and its far-more-brutal-than-Iran regime has been able to retain its sovereignty.
As for the threat to neighboring countries and countries as far away from Iran as the U.S., it is one thing to develop nuclear technology, another to develop nuclear weapons, and a totally different matter to develop a nuclear-weapons delivery system that can penetrate across continents and oceans.
posted by Azaadistani at 12:02 PM on January 23, 2006
Iran, like any other country, should have the right to develop nuclear technology to protect its future. Iran has a civilization that pre-dates that of the U.S. by several millenia, and I believe is rightly taking a long-term view of its own sustainability as an independent nation, not dependent purely on oil for its own energy needs.
Furthermore, should Iran manage to develop nuclear weapons, it would serve as a deterrent to Israel's illegal nuclear weapons program, given that Israel is the sole country in the Middle East that has nukes. If Iran were to develop weapons, it would merely deter Israel from undertaking a nuclear strike on it. Once two opposing countries have nukes, that makes the use of nuclear weapons less likely, in contrast to when only one antagonistic country has such an ability (contrast US-Japan in WWII and India-Pakistan since they both became nuclear states). A regional nuclear imbalance is unsafe. A balance of power (whether nuclear or conventional) renders the possibility of war less likely. Had Iraq had nuclear weapons, the US would have paused before invading on pretext, which is precisely the reason that North Korea and its far-more-brutal-than-Iran regime has been able to retain its sovereignty.
As for the threat to neighboring countries and countries as far away from Iran as the U.S., it is one thing to develop nuclear technology, another to develop nuclear weapons, and a totally different matter to develop a nuclear-weapons delivery system that can penetrate across continents and oceans.
posted by Azaadistani at 12:02 PM on January 23, 2006
OK, guys, this isn't Arabia we're talking about here. Iran is not that sandy (nor dusty like Iraq). Think rocky, more Denver than Dhahran, more El Paso than Al Jazeera (yes, I know El Paso gets an ocasional dust storm, lived there, but it's not like a regular thing like Iraq). There are parts where there are large sandstorms (NE and far West particularly), but then again there are parts where there are permanent glaciers too.
posted by Pollomacho at 12:38 PM on January 23, 2006
posted by Pollomacho at 12:38 PM on January 23, 2006
higher operating temperatures are bad for silicon based solar systems, but mirror based reflector systems that heat salt to the boiling point to make steam (to turn turbines) love a nice hot sunny environment, as far as silicon based panels, they are designed to be out in the sun, every day, for ever. i see no reason that sand and grit would lower there operating life. wind turbines are mostly sealed, there life span is not long enough for the grit and or sand (which according to pollo isn't even that bad) is not going to have enough impact on them to matter....there are wind turbines that operate in the north sea, which get salt water and freezing wind constantly for years with no problem. the point is Iran would be very well situated to take advantage of the hight solar gain that it gets. And i am sure they have at least a couple good wind sites. The could use nuclear, but they could also go renewable.
posted by stilgar at 12:51 PM on January 23, 2006
posted by stilgar at 12:51 PM on January 23, 2006
and fandango, it was called the "cold war" you might have heard about it :)
posted by stilgar at 12:51 PM on January 23, 2006
posted by stilgar at 12:51 PM on January 23, 2006
Perhaps the Iranians know something we don't. Peak oil?
posted by nlindstrom at 1:21 PM on January 23, 2006
posted by nlindstrom at 1:21 PM on January 23, 2006
Azaadistani;
Are you referring to MAD/ Mutually assured destruction? As far as I know the US has never threatened to nuke a nation based on their religious differences. Please provide a reference when you say that we have threatened Nuclear bullying.
I don't deny any nation the right to develop peaceful nuclear power technology. They just have to show that they can be trusted. Rhetoric like that which has been coming out of Iran lately does not inspire any confidence. lets bring this down to a level that is closer to home... Jimmy has been talking all year long how when he gets his gun license he's gonna take it to school and shoot it up because he hates school... Do you give Jimmy the gun?
BTW MAD only works when both parties have something to lose. All it takes is a few self appointed Martyrs on either side to spoil the whole MAD concept.
posted by Gungho at 1:52 PM on January 23, 2006
Are you referring to MAD/ Mutually assured destruction? As far as I know the US has never threatened to nuke a nation based on their religious differences. Please provide a reference when you say that we have threatened Nuclear bullying.
I don't deny any nation the right to develop peaceful nuclear power technology. They just have to show that they can be trusted. Rhetoric like that which has been coming out of Iran lately does not inspire any confidence. lets bring this down to a level that is closer to home... Jimmy has been talking all year long how when he gets his gun license he's gonna take it to school and shoot it up because he hates school... Do you give Jimmy the gun?
BTW MAD only works when both parties have something to lose. All it takes is a few self appointed Martyrs on either side to spoil the whole MAD concept.
posted by Gungho at 1:52 PM on January 23, 2006
Pollomacho wrote:
Why is everyone so obsessed with Israel. Iran wants to nuke Iraq. For chrissakes, did Israel drop chemical weapons on Iranians? I don't think so.
Sadly, no. You'd think that Middle-Easterners would know how to keep a grudge, too.
> In the span of a week, Iraq's Foreign Minister and one of the most influential religious leaders in Iraq have met with Iranian officials and expressed solidarity and support. Indeed, after meeting with al Sadr, the Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, Ali Larijani, called Iran and Iraq "natural allies."
That, by the way, is this week. Remember that the majority in Iraq's government is now (like Iran) Shi'ite.
In truth, I'm not particularly frazzled by the idea of a nuclear Iran. It's likely to bring a gravitas to their foreign policy rather than an excuse to fulfill the rhetoric of their crazy president (who isn't the Commander-in-Chief, it should be noted [Iranian constitution]). It's also unlikely that they would pass this technology even to pet clients such as Hezbollah (although I'm not certain they wouldn't threaten that self-same thing). With Iraq gone Shi'a, Iran doesn't even have that dualism thing that Pakistan has with India. I suspect that a bit like Turkey wanting into the EU this is largely a bid for being taken seriously.
posted by dhartung at 3:12 PM on January 23, 2006
Why is everyone so obsessed with Israel. Iran wants to nuke Iraq. For chrissakes, did Israel drop chemical weapons on Iranians? I don't think so.
Sadly, no. You'd think that Middle-Easterners would know how to keep a grudge, too.
> In the span of a week, Iraq's Foreign Minister and one of the most influential religious leaders in Iraq have met with Iranian officials and expressed solidarity and support. Indeed, after meeting with al Sadr, the Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, Ali Larijani, called Iran and Iraq "natural allies."
That, by the way, is this week. Remember that the majority in Iraq's government is now (like Iran) Shi'ite.
In truth, I'm not particularly frazzled by the idea of a nuclear Iran. It's likely to bring a gravitas to their foreign policy rather than an excuse to fulfill the rhetoric of their crazy president (who isn't the Commander-in-Chief, it should be noted [Iranian constitution]). It's also unlikely that they would pass this technology even to pet clients such as Hezbollah (although I'm not certain they wouldn't threaten that self-same thing). With Iraq gone Shi'a, Iran doesn't even have that dualism thing that Pakistan has with India. I suspect that a bit like Turkey wanting into the EU this is largely a bid for being taken seriously.
posted by dhartung at 3:12 PM on January 23, 2006
So, again, I ask - where is the proof to your claim?
Who cares rough ashlar?
If you have a set of data that you feel is a 'fact', yet said set of data isn't factual, I'm old-fashioned enough to think its important.
YOU may not care, but I do.
posted by rough ashlar at 4:17 PM on January 23, 2006
Who cares rough ashlar?
If you have a set of data that you feel is a 'fact', yet said set of data isn't factual, I'm old-fashioned enough to think its important.
YOU may not care, but I do.
posted by rough ashlar at 4:17 PM on January 23, 2006
I’m pretty sure stilgar’s
read “Dune” - anyone else?
“Iran has a massive supply of oil and natural gas. It doesn't make sense that they would want nuclear power for electricity”
and
“They will still need a reliable long-range rocket and guidance system to threaten the US.”
and
“Iran, like any other country, should have the right to develop nuclear technology to protect its future.”
We’re still thinking - and arguing - in WWII terms with borders and strikes on foreign soil, soverign rights, etc.
That isn’t the point anymore.
As a f’rinstince - chess. It is not only the move or the threat of the move, but the threat of the threat. This now has real value in the world. You don’t, say, need to own the real estate if you have a lien on the property.
Perhaps I’m getting ahead of myself....
The world has been changing for a long time now. Since the early 60’s. We can’t use real force against real force because there are nukes now. So the game switches from feet to inches and the values of things switch to the meta-level.
As a f’rinstance - no one contests now as a matter of course the question of whether the U.S. government owns the property when, say, selling a house.
It’s an established force reality.
Contesting that reality is as nutty as overstating the point - e.g. sending in a division of infantry to serve an eviction notice.
So the game becomes one of money rather than force. In the same way - it’s resources not real estate.
It’s an oversimplification, but that’s the gist.
So the use of force becomes a matter of degrees less than nuclear and the control of resources becomes one of stability vs. value.
Skipping ahead - if I’m the Iranians I want nukes so I can use them on my oilfields if the Americans push too hard. It’s my lever.
I don’t need to - and I can’t really - play on the nuclear level with a country that has been a nuclear power and putting money into programs for that long.
But I can threaten to destroy stability and be just as effective at influencing the world stage as a nuclear power.
From Dune - he who can destroy a thing, can control a thing.
And if lotsa things depend on that one thing, you have control of those as well.
So I can force a stalemate with a much more powerful opponent, by the very nature of their power. They can’t nuke me without destabilizing the world stage and they can’t use any less power because I will nuke the oil fields - destabilizing the world stage.
And I’m not technically guilty of anything because I didn’t do any harm - by the old rules anyway. I won’t get into speculation as to who has “rights” to what resources others depend on simply because they live on them. I’m of course avoiding the moral issues - which I recognize, but have discarded for the sake of argument and brevity here. (might have failed that latter one)
That’s all speculation really, but it’s the move.
And the trick will only stand up so long. Eventually concessions would be reached one way or the other.
The bullshit with Israel is just elbow jostling. A red herring. I think it’s just crap to make people overreact.
(...unless of course it isn’t.)
But it would be stupid of Iran to try to become something the United States is. All they need to do for the next few hundred years is occupy a niche - make oil expensive, but not cost prohibitive to use and the wealth will flow in their direction and they can more or less rule until something changes the environment.
Same sort of thing happened with China and the U.K for a while there - Opium wars, all that. It’s an easy enough trick.
The key from the U.S. angle is making the other guy fuck up the play. For that you need special ops and dirty tricks. Kennedy recognized that way back in the early 60s.
Unfortunately it’s a double edged sword and humans have human failings. But, no one’s nuked anyone or anything yet, so we’re ahead of the game.
Like three blind mice, I thought every day the ground wasn’t molten glass was a good day in the cold war.
(The coup in Russia was a shit-our-pants moment for lots of us serving at the time.)
This is a different game, but the risks of nukes flying (and resulting radiation, etc.) at a lower level is greater.
Which in some ways is worse.
The less nukes in the world the better.
posted by Smedleyman at 6:24 PM on January 23, 2006
read “Dune” - anyone else?
“Iran has a massive supply of oil and natural gas. It doesn't make sense that they would want nuclear power for electricity”
and
“They will still need a reliable long-range rocket and guidance system to threaten the US.”
and
“Iran, like any other country, should have the right to develop nuclear technology to protect its future.”
We’re still thinking - and arguing - in WWII terms with borders and strikes on foreign soil, soverign rights, etc.
That isn’t the point anymore.
As a f’rinstince - chess. It is not only the move or the threat of the move, but the threat of the threat. This now has real value in the world. You don’t, say, need to own the real estate if you have a lien on the property.
Perhaps I’m getting ahead of myself....
The world has been changing for a long time now. Since the early 60’s. We can’t use real force against real force because there are nukes now. So the game switches from feet to inches and the values of things switch to the meta-level.
As a f’rinstance - no one contests now as a matter of course the question of whether the U.S. government owns the property when, say, selling a house.
It’s an established force reality.
Contesting that reality is as nutty as overstating the point - e.g. sending in a division of infantry to serve an eviction notice.
So the game becomes one of money rather than force. In the same way - it’s resources not real estate.
It’s an oversimplification, but that’s the gist.
So the use of force becomes a matter of degrees less than nuclear and the control of resources becomes one of stability vs. value.
Skipping ahead - if I’m the Iranians I want nukes so I can use them on my oilfields if the Americans push too hard. It’s my lever.
I don’t need to - and I can’t really - play on the nuclear level with a country that has been a nuclear power and putting money into programs for that long.
But I can threaten to destroy stability and be just as effective at influencing the world stage as a nuclear power.
From Dune - he who can destroy a thing, can control a thing.
And if lotsa things depend on that one thing, you have control of those as well.
So I can force a stalemate with a much more powerful opponent, by the very nature of their power. They can’t nuke me without destabilizing the world stage and they can’t use any less power because I will nuke the oil fields - destabilizing the world stage.
And I’m not technically guilty of anything because I didn’t do any harm - by the old rules anyway. I won’t get into speculation as to who has “rights” to what resources others depend on simply because they live on them. I’m of course avoiding the moral issues - which I recognize, but have discarded for the sake of argument and brevity here. (might have failed that latter one)
That’s all speculation really, but it’s the move.
And the trick will only stand up so long. Eventually concessions would be reached one way or the other.
The bullshit with Israel is just elbow jostling. A red herring. I think it’s just crap to make people overreact.
(...unless of course it isn’t.)
But it would be stupid of Iran to try to become something the United States is. All they need to do for the next few hundred years is occupy a niche - make oil expensive, but not cost prohibitive to use and the wealth will flow in their direction and they can more or less rule until something changes the environment.
Same sort of thing happened with China and the U.K for a while there - Opium wars, all that. It’s an easy enough trick.
The key from the U.S. angle is making the other guy fuck up the play. For that you need special ops and dirty tricks. Kennedy recognized that way back in the early 60s.
Unfortunately it’s a double edged sword and humans have human failings. But, no one’s nuked anyone or anything yet, so we’re ahead of the game.
Like three blind mice, I thought every day the ground wasn’t molten glass was a good day in the cold war.
(The coup in Russia was a shit-our-pants moment for lots of us serving at the time.)
This is a different game, but the risks of nukes flying (and resulting radiation, etc.) at a lower level is greater.
Which in some ways is worse.
The less nukes in the world the better.
posted by Smedleyman at 6:24 PM on January 23, 2006
I say we pass a law saying that if your country is, for example, 100X older than another one, then you should be able to have 100X more destructive power than that other one. New countries need to establish a record before they are given destructive credits. That will make the world righter.
posted by shoos at 4:06 AM on January 24, 2006
posted by shoos at 4:06 AM on January 24, 2006
shoos - That would be nice for countries like the USA in comparison to, say China or Korea. Both of whom would then be allowed unfeasably large amount of nukes (>200,000 nukes each by my quick reckoning) just in case those uppity yanks started telling them what to do for example.
/sarcasm
posted by longbaugh at 9:56 AM on January 24, 2006
/sarcasm
posted by longbaugh at 9:56 AM on January 24, 2006
« Older Geek Life, Illustrated | Art imitating life imitating art... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by mulligan at 5:59 AM on January 23, 2006