Real World Event Discussions

Iran threatens Europe

POSTED BY: pizmobeach
UPDATED: Tuesday, June 2, 2026 17:14
VIEWED: 8095
PAGE 5 of 11

NIKI2

Thursday, February 16, 2012 8:22 PM

You're missing something, Byte. Ahmedinejad, according to everything I've heard (from people who've INTERVIEWED HIM and others) is a MODERATE in Iran right now. The powers behind him are MORE extreme, he's the one trying to keep the lid on. So take him out of the equation before arguing that TPTB in Iran have more common sense than to nuke someone...and bear in mind that those who make up TPTB are ULTRA-religious, and hate Israel far more as a result.

Nobody's saying we should go to war, but to be realistic about potentials is, in my mind, better than burying one's head in the sand and saying "it can't happen here" or "it won't happen because it never has". JMHO

BYTEMITE

Thursday, February 16, 2012 8:28 PM

Quote:
Nobody's saying we should go to war

That IS what you're saying because it's the logical extrapolation of your argument.

Sanctions haven't worked so far, so what exactly are you suggesting to STOP Iran if you're so worried?

Quote:
but to be realistic about potentials is

This is realistic? Assuming everyone is so mindbendingly idiotic that they're just darwin awards waiting to happen? Not basing threat assessment on statistical probability?

As for those crazy nuke-loving clerics:

Quote:
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has issued a fatwa saying the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons was forbidden under Islam.[49] The fatwa was cited in an official statement by the Iranian government at an August 2005 meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna.[50]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei#Fatwa_against_nuclear_weapon
s

RIONAEIRE

Thursday, February 16, 2012 10:02 PM

I don't want them to have nuclear weapons either, but I can't stop them, neither, technically, can anyone else unless we go to war and I don't want anymore wars for a while. We can discourage it but there is no way to stop them if they're dead set on doing it. Once they have it then we just have to keep them from using it, as we need to not use it, as others shouldn't use it.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

BYTEMITE

Thursday, February 16, 2012 10:08 PM

Quote:
My admitted limited understanding is that it's obvious to inspectors the difference between what's used and needed, both in hardware and nuclear goo stuff, for bombs versus making electricity - that's what inspectors get paid for.

And even inspectors are saying that the flat plates and the type of centrifuges they're using could only be used to generate reactor fuel. Which is the same thing I've been saying.

I'm not risking a million lives first because I'm not in charge, second because I'm against a war in which a million people would die WITHOUT nuclear weapons involved, and third because there's no risk. They can't do something with technology they DON'T HAVE.

But even if they HAD it, or were working to develop it, and had the capacity? They'd be just like all the other rogue nations we thought were going to go attacking other nations around them like crazy. They would be cowed by MAD. Therefore still no risk.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, February 16, 2012 10:09 PM

Riona: Agreed.

ANTHONYT

Thursday, February 16, 2012 10:53 PM

Hello,

Well said, Riona.

The last time we got into the pre-crime business in order to stop a country from developing weapons of mass destruction, over a hundred-thousand people died.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

OONJERAH

Thursday, February 16, 2012 10:58 PM

Quote PismoBeach "The implicit message here is that Iran's economy would be in peril if a complete embargo
was enacted. They need to sell oil to survive."

As usual, I am behind on the facts of the news, especially any news beyond movie news.

I interpret Iran's position as, "If all the big, powerful, Christian nations of the world have nuclear power,
then it is only fair that we, Iran, should have nuclear power." Do they imply the other Moslem nations as
well should have it or that all nations should have the same rights? I gather they feel nuclear power is more
necessary to their survival than oil sales to Big Bullies.

OTOH,
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel#Economy
"Israel is considered one of the most advanced countries in Southwest Asia in economic and industrial development."
... "Leading exports include electronics, software, computerized systems, communications technology, medical
equipment, pharmaceuticals, fruits, chemicals, military technology, and cut diamonds; in 2006, Israeli exports
reached $42.86 billion, and by 2010 they had reached $80.5 billion a year."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_economy
"The economy of Iran is the world's 26th largest economy by market value nominal GDP, and the seventeenth largest
in the world by purchasing power parity (PPP). The economy of Iran is a mixed and transition economy with a large
public sector and some 50% of the economy centrally planned. It is also a diversifed economy with over 40 industries
directly involved in the Tehran Stock Exchange. Yet, most of the country's exports are oil and gas, accounting for
a majority of government revenue in 2010" ...
"High oil prices in recent years have enabled Iran to amass well over $100 billion in foreign exchange reserves.
Whilst this has aided self-sufficiency and domestic investment, double-digit unemployment and inflation remain
problematic. Iran's educated population, economic inefficiency, and insufficient foreign and domestic investment
have prompted an increasing number of Iranians to seek employment overseas, resulting in a significant 'brain drain'."

Few people know less about the Middle East than I.
In existence less than 60 years, Israel is financially sound with diversified economy. Other nations may have
helped them some, but they did the work.
In existence since Biblical times, Iran (and perhaps other Arab neighbors) "need to sell oil to survive."

How come? We've been messing with them, bullying them since when? -- before WWII? Our foreign policy sucks badly.
Iran is rich. Why isn't its land and economy developed? Did they have a brain drain before they even met us?

If they are this impractical, it is no wonder that no one wants them to have nuclear power.
Heck! Now that I've thought it over, I don't want them to have nuclear power.

I'm not sure we are fully to blame for this one. Not that anyone said we were.

See Lawrence of Arabia, 1962, Peter O'Toole:
"So long as the Arabs fight tribe against tribe, so long will they be a little people, a silly people - greedy, barbarous,
and cruel, as you are."

"All I suggest is a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest" ~Paul Simon

BYTEMITE

Thursday, February 16, 2012 11:24 PM

"Does it surprise you, Mr Bentley? Surely, you know the Arabs are a barbarous people. Barbarous and cruel. Who but they! Who but they!"

- Said to Lawrence of Arabia in the quoted movie, after revenge slaughtering an entire unit of Arabs.

ANTHONYT

Thursday, February 16, 2012 11:39 PM

Hello,

Quote:
In existence since Biblical times,"

I'm not sure it's fair to say Iran has been in existence since Biblical times. The dirt has been there since Biblical times, but not a continuous government. We (the West) have indeed been messing with them since before WWII, and we (the British and USSR) ousted one of their more progressive leaders in 1941 and we (the United States) kicked out their rightfully elected leadership in the 50's and replaced him with a tool. Our tool. That guy was so bad that the people eventually overthrew him. The Iran of today only came into being in the 1970's.

Quote:
"If all the big, powerful, Christian nations of the world have nuclear power, then it is only fair that we, Iran, should have nuclear power."

Yes, but perhaps more importantly, "If we are able to advance ourselves and develop nuclear power, by what right do you stop us?"

Quote:
Iran (and perhaps other Arab neighbors) "need to sell oil to survive." How come?

Well, it's a resource. Nations tend to use their resources as survival assets. Israel doesn't have much in the way of oil, but if they did I'd wager they'd be selling it, too. They sell the resources they do have, after all.

But I wonder how well we'd tolerate it if Iran ever wanted to stop selling oil. Some people would probably roll the drums of war for that offense.

Quote:
If they are this impractical, it is no wonder that no one wants them to have nuclear power. Heck! Now that I've thought it over, I don't want them to have nuclear power.

It shouldn't be our call. But even if we could have our way with the wave of a magic wand... Iran's trying to move into the late 20th century, and saying 'no' because they are 'impractical' seems to me like saying, "You are too barbaric for us to allow you any advancement out of your barbarity."

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

PIZMOBEACH

Friday, February 17, 2012 12:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:

This is realistic? Assuming everyone is so mindbendingly idiotic that they're just darwin awards waiting to happen? Not basing threat assessment on statistical probability?

There's another way to look at this that may be more supported by history:

"This is realistic? Assuming everyone is so mindbendingly trusting that they're just darwin awards waiting to happen? Not basing threat assessment on statistical probability?"

Ask Neville Chamberlin, ask pretty much any N.Am. Indian, the notion that "people are just people" and we should trust Iran is mind numbingly naive. Hitler, Stalin, come on, only takes one crazy person, including our own crazies, and they can inflict decades of damage to their own people.

"basing threat assessment on statistical probability" is what Israel has been doing - what % do you think is ok with them with the stakes being so high? 1%?

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com