[quote]Inner Hulk wrote:
Are you suggesting that Iran must share their oil?^
Is that what you are seriously saying?
The only intelligent response to this is no.[/quote]
I’ll slow down so you can catch up. HH brought up the notion that Iran could give everyone in Iran a share of the nations oil profits - if they wanted to. He made the comparison to what Alaska does.
lixy countered that offer by reminding us Iran invented the windmill.
If you can connect those dots - you need to be committed.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
he (the Shah) attempted to establish a modern secular state
The guy had less legitimacy than Louis XVI.
This 500 or so formed an unholy alliance calling themselves the Revolutionary Guard. Like a large terror cell, they pulled a Bolshevik style revolution (where a tiny minority takes over the government). The population was silenced by the dictum ‘This is Allah’s revolution!!’ Iran thus became the theocratic, vote-for-the-candidate-of-OUR-choice hellhole that it is.
Would have this happened if the West accepted the right of Iranians to decide their own destiny? I have to ask.
Mossadeq was democratically elected, you know.
A great country, Iran, has been captured by maniacs, a lot like the Nazis. Gotta root 'em out or bug bomb the whole place. Take your pick.
God forbid you let a democracy blossom in Iran.
The place is like a 100 times more democratic than Saudi Arabia, yet I see you very pleased with the Al Sauds.
All the Iranians have to do is shut up and sell oil. They could then give everyone in Iran a share, much like we do in Alaska (a state here that shares oil revenues).
[/quote]
As usual, you have no idea what you’re talking about. Alaska has less than a million people. Iran has over 65 million. The jobless rate is at least 20%, they’re going to run out of oil within a couple of decades, and they even have to import the stuff because they lack refining capability.
None of that justifies theocracy, numerous human rights abuses, or funding terrorists, obviously. But again, you have no idea what you’re talking about.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
he (the Shah) attempted to establish a modern secular state
The guy had less legitimacy than Louis XVI.
This 500 or so formed an unholy alliance calling themselves the Revolutionary Guard. Like a large terror cell, they pulled a Bolshevik style revolution (where a tiny minority takes over the government). The population was silenced by the dictum ‘This is Allah’s revolution!!’ Iran thus became the theocratic, vote-for-the-candidate-of-OUR-choice hellhole that it is.
Would have this happened if the West accepted the right of Iranians to decide their own destiny? I have to ask.
Mossadeq was democratically elected, you know.
A great country, Iran, has been captured by maniacs, a lot like the Nazis. Gotta root 'em out or bug bomb the whole place. Take your pick.
God forbid you let a democracy blossom in Iran.
The place is like a 100 times more democratic than Saudi Arabia, yet I see you very pleased with the Al Sauds.
All the Iranians have to do is shut up and sell oil. They could then give everyone in Iran a share, much like we do in Alaska (a state here that shares oil revenues).
But no, let’s call for Jihad, call for our ally to be wiped off the map, and send IEDs to terrorists in Iraq
[/quote]
And nobody needs to send the Iraqis IEDs, they have enough munitions in their country to make them for a long time, partially because we didn’t send enough troops to secure the Iraqi army’s supplies. If you meant EFPs, there are enough of them in Sunni hands to suggest that most of them are being made by knowledgeable ex-soldiers (who we laid off), not shipped in from Iran.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
And nobody needs to send the Iraqis IEDs, they have enough munitions in their country to make them for a long time, partially because we didn’t send enough troops to secure the Iraqi army’s supplies. If you meant EFPs, there are enough of them in Sunni hands to suggest that most of them are being made by knowledgeable ex-soldiers (who we laid off), not shipped in from Iran.[/quote]
You might have a point there, but you’ve got to admit that Iran is helping the Shia element in Iraq. And the Shia are the majority in Iraq. They were also persecuted by Saddam, who was a Sunni.
The Sunnis are getting their help from Damascus and the Saudis.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
I’ll slow down so you can catch up. HH brought up the notion that Iran could give everyone in Iran a share of the nations oil profits - if they wanted to. He made the comparison to what Alaska does. [/quote]
HH said the following,
“All the Iranians have to do is shut up and sell oil.”
I reminded him that there’s no way a proud people like the Iranians will “shut up and sell oil”. They aspire to a little more than fishing in a pond. They have a very solid industry, good technology, and an immensely rich culture. The country comprises a great deal of educated people, and the population is very young with over 1/4 under 15 years old. Contrast with Alaska.
Iran is NOT like Kuwait or Alaska. They are more ambitious and refuse to act as an oil well. They’re not moronic, and know the oil will dry up someday.
Clear?
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
he (the Shah) attempted to establish a modern secular state
The guy had less legitimacy than Louis XVI.
This 500 or so formed an unholy alliance calling themselves the Revolutionary Guard. Like a large terror cell, they pulled a Bolshevik style revolution (where a tiny minority takes over the government). The population was silenced by the dictum ‘This is Allah’s revolution!!’ Iran thus became the theocratic, vote-for-the-candidate-of-OUR-choice hellhole that it is.
Would have this happened if the West accepted the right of Iranians to decide their own destiny? I have to ask.
Mossadeq was democratically elected, you know.
A great country, Iran, has been captured by maniacs, a lot like the Nazis. Gotta root 'em out or bug bomb the whole place. Take your pick.
God forbid you let a democracy blossom in Iran.
The place is like a 100 times more democratic than Saudi Arabia, yet I see you very pleased with the Al Sauds.
All the Iranians have to do is shut up and sell oil. They could then give everyone in Iran a share, much like we do in Alaska (a state here that shares oil revenues).
As usual, you have no idea what you’re talking about. Alaska has less than a million people. Iran has over 65 million. The jobless rate is at least 20%, they’re going to run out of oil within a couple of decades, and they even have to import the stuff because they lack refining capability.
None of that justifies theocracy, numerous human rights abuses, or funding terrorists, obviously. But again, you have no idea what you’re talking about.[/quote]
Iran has the 4th largest reserves in the world. Cry me a river.
If they’re too busy engaging in Jihad against the Great Satan to develop their primary resource, that’s their own damn fault.
Oh, and could there be a connection BETWEEN sponsoring terrorism and their lack of development? No decent company or individual will help them develop, due to the terrorism and because the theocracy would pull a Hugo Chavez and thank them for the contribution.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
IEDs…
[/quote]
Don’t forget the Saudis!
US envoy accuses Saudis on Iraq
[i]The US ambassador at the UN, Zalmay Khalilzad, has accused Saudi Arabia of undermining efforts to stabilise Iraq.
Mr Khalilzad said he was referring to Saudi Arabia in an article last week in which he said US friends were pursuing destabilising policies. [/i]
[quote]lixy wrote:
Nothing at all…
Clear?[/quote]
You never addressed the real comparison HH made to Alaska: will they offer shares to the people like Alaska does?
I still don’t know what windmills have to do with any of this, other than you are acting like a little Don Quixote trying to slay them.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
But you’re right, any US action would galvanize the Iranians into allegiance with the fundamentalists. They had a moderate president and replaced him with a fundamentalist nut job already, so who knows what they would do next.
They did so because you called them axis of evil.[/quote]
Yes, I mentioned that fact in another post above. It was because Israel caught them smuggling arms to their enemy Hezbollah, which was an enemy of the US and UN in the 80’s during the Lebanese civil war. Since the US remembers this and considers Hezbollah a terrorist group, Iran was therefore arming terrorists and thus, was labeled a member of the axis of evil.
Interesting how you rip on the US for including Iran in the axis of evil, yet on another thread agreed that they should not have been supplying arms to Hezbollah in the first place.
It seems in this arguement as in all others, the muslims, in this case Iran, are perpetual victims and the US is the perpetual evil in the world, always wrong and never right.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
lixy wrote:
Nothing at all…
Clear?
You never addressed the real comparison HH made to Alaska: will they offer shares to the people like Alaska does?
I still don’t know what windmills have to do with any of this, other than you are acting like a little Don Quixote trying to slay them. [/quote]
Amazing how they bitch about America but won’t give their citizens a little slice of the pie, esp with an unemployment rate like that. Investing too much in developing nukes and their jihad BS I suppose…
sorry to be late to respond here, but Iran’s revolutionary Guard vs 10 full strength Army Combat Divisions? Yeah sure. the Guard would get their asses handed to them. Destroyed, over, erased, out. I didn’t even factor in the Marines either.
30 days to Tehran, that’s it.
This is all just standard saber rattling between Iran and the United States that has existed since the 1979 Iranian revolution and the takeover of the U.S. Embassy. Remember in the 80’s the Iranians mined portions of the Strait of Hormuz and we put U.S. flags on Kuwaiti oil tankers.
The USS Samuel B. Roberts struck an Iranian sea mine in in the strait and we were actually in a one day shootout with the Iranian navy.
The comments about our recent naval deployments as provocation are bunk.
We have historically enforced the right of passage of all maritime shipping through the Strait of Hormuz and will continue to do so as long as Iran presents a threat to international oil shipping.
They routinely threaten oil tankers by surging their small boats out and surrounding oil tankers as they pass through the straits. They usually won’t do that when a Carrier Battle Group or an Amphibious Task Force is in the area.
Iran’s characterization of the U.S and Isreal as the greater Satans (Russia is one of the lesser satans) are a tactic the Iranian government uses to control its people, much like North Korea. As long as there is a common external enemy for the Iranian’s to blame for their third world living conditions, there is no need to blame the Iranian government.
Iran threatens, we threaten back, and things remain the same. The matter of who the good guy is and who the bad guy is is really the major fight, it will continue at least until the 2008 US Presidential elections.
Let me make this prediction, if the next US president doesn’t pay attention to the Middle East with an aggressive naval deployment, Iran will make moves towards entering Iraq and firing on international shipping.
[quote]BH6 wrote:
This is all just standard saber rattling between Iran and the United States that has existed since the 1979 Iranian revolution and the takeover of the U.S. Embassy. Remember in the 80’s the Iranians mined portions of the Strait of Hormuz and we put U.S. flags on Kuwaiti oil tankers.
The USS Samuel B. Roberts struck an Iranian sea mine in in the strait and we were actually in a one day shootout with the Iranian navy.
The comments about our recent naval deployments as provocation are bunk.
We have historically enforced the right of passage of all maritime shipping through the Strait of Hormuz and will continue to do so as long as Iran presents a threat to international oil shipping.
They routinely threaten oil tankers by surging their small boats out and surrounding oil tankers as they pass through the straits. They usually won’t do that when a Carrier Battle Group or an Amphibious Task Force is in the area.
Iran’s characterization of the U.S and Isreal as the greater Satans (Russia is one of the lesser satans) are a tactic the Iranian government uses to control its people, much like North Korea. As long as there is a common external enemy for the Iranian’s to blame for their third world living conditions, there is no need to blame the Iranian government.
Iran threatens, we threaten back, and things remain the same. The matter of who the good guy is and who the bad guy is is really the major fight, it will continue at least until the 2008 US Presidential elections.
Let me make this prediction, if the next US president doesn’t pay attention to the Middle East with an aggressive naval deployment, Iran will make moves towards entering Iraq and firing on international shipping. [/quote]
bh6, I think you meant to say, this “is not standard saber rattling.”
See your last paragraph.
JeffR
UN’s IAEA says Iran nuclear accord ‘significant step’
Forbes
VIENNA (Thomson Financial) - The IAEA said Iran’s decision to answer key questions about its nuclear programme is ‘a significant step forward,’
http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2007/08/31/afx4071397.html
Now, let’s see the US, UK and France dismantle their nuclear arsenals…
[quote]mstott25 wrote:
…It pisses me off to see people picking a fight with Iran like this is some varsity football game. [/quote]
Your misunderstanding of the situation is staggering. Reread BH6’s post.
[quote]lixy wrote:
UN’s IAEA says Iran nuclear accord ‘significant step’
Forbes
VIENNA (Thomson Financial) - The IAEA said Iran’s decision to answer key questions about its nuclear programme is ‘a significant step forward,’
http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2007/08/31/afx4071397.html
Now, let’s see the US, UK and France dismantle their nuclear arsenals…[/quote]
You are so eager to see Iran as the innocent victim in all of this that you are grasping at any good news. They haven’t actually answered any questions, and they haven’t let UN inspectors see how much uranium they have refined.
They haven’t dismantled anything and they haven’t disclosed the full extent of their weapons program. A “significant step forward” is not a move towards giving up on building nuclear weapons.
[quote]BH6 wrote:
They haven’t dismantled anything and they haven’t disclosed the full extent of their weapons program. A “significant step forward” is not a move towards giving up on building nuclear weapons. [/quote]
What was I thinking? The IAEA clearly doesn’t have as much insight into the matter as you. Forgive Forbes and the hundreds of media that carried the piece.
Sarcasm aside, Iran has the right to acquire civil nuclear technology. It’s what they agreed on by signing the NPT. Now, for some obscure reason brought forth by the neo-cons, you suddenly decide that anyone who knows how to make a bomb is a threat and should be eliminated. It’s called unilateralism and I piss on it.
Iran is most certainly not a victim. Their belligerence is showing and got them where they are today. But to say that there is anything moral or legal about stripping them from their right to have nuclear fuel is nonsense.
[quote]lixy wrote:
BH6 wrote:
They haven’t dismantled anything and they haven’t disclosed the full extent of their weapons program. A “significant step forward” is not a move towards giving up on building nuclear weapons.
What was I thinking? The IAEA clearly doesn’t have as much insight into the matter as you. Forgive Forbes and the hundreds of media that carried the piece.
Sarcasm aside, Iran has the right to acquire civil nuclear technology. It’s what they agreed on by signing the NPT. Now, for some obscure reason brought forth by the neo-cons, you suddenly decide that anyone who knows how to make a bomb is a threat and should be eliminated. It’s called unilateralism and I piss on it.
Iran is most certainly not a victim. Their belligerence is showing and got them where they are today. But to say that there is anything moral or legal about stripping them from their right to have nuclear fuel is nonsense.[/quote]
When a country with the 4th largest known oil reserves, and with a checkered history such as Iran has, announces that it now wants nuclear power for ‘peaceful’ purposes, I just have to laugh at that — and anyone gullible enough to believe such nonsense.
I am very much in favor of nuclear power, btw. It may be the key to uplifting 3rd world countries — cheap energy makes everyone better off. The problem is that these poor countries are unstable. It is likely that the leadership would use nuclear power to put on a megalomaniacal show.
In that sense, I wish that somehow the 1st world nations could develop nuclear power and sell it to 3rd world countries at cost. Countries like Rwanda, where the poverty is horrifying, would possibly begin to develop economically (esp if they finally figure out that all socialism is simply pure evil).
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
When a country with the 4th largest known oil reserves, [/quote]
How long is it gonna last? Wake up! The peak is around the corner my friend.
Checkered? Last I checked, Iran was not going around invading nations.
It’s your right to do so, but a hunch is no proof.
I am not sure if the Ayatollah seriously meant what he said, but I know for a fact that a fatwa is no joking matter in that part of the world.
Now you’re just being a total moron. Pakistan is many folds poorer than Iran, and they will never EVER use a nuke.
Get over it! Those things are a deterrent, period.
The only reason the US used nukes is because they knew that they were none others around.
Might as well put a chain around their necks and lash 'em when you feel like it.
The South struggled really hard to break free of colonialism. There is no way they’ll ever agree to turning themselves into bitches again.
[quote]mstott25 wrote:
How is this any different from the smear campaign we got going against Iran? I wonder if President Bush had named Pakistan an honorary member of the Axis of Evil club, if more people were aware of AQ Khan, government links to terrorism, and the fact that Musharaff is a dictator who overthrew the democratically elected Prime Minister of Pakistan in 1999 if we’d be more suspicious of who our enemies are and why they’re worse than our allies.
[/quote]
True. What do you think of the development in Pakistan with Bhutto? Do you think Musharaff will step down soon? What do you think will happen then, will the fundamentalists gain the upper hand?