Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: The Iran Nuclear Excuse

Posted 2 years ago on Dec. 28, 2011, 12:13 p.m. EST by reality101 (61) from Bradenton, FL
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The war with Iraque was stared/justified with the WMD lie.

Does Iran realy pose a national threat to us if they had nuclear weapons. Stop and think about it.

They might have or get one- tiny Bomb and a poor delivery system.

The US has Stealth Bombers and Smart Bbombs and Delivery Systems.

Do we realy need to start a WAR?? ?

Do we need a pre-emptive strike??

I believe we need BREAD, BUTTER and HOUSING for the HOMELESS.

135 Comments

135 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by toukarin (488) 2 years ago

If the military industrial complex decides to go to war... there is nothing we can do about it... all we can do is stand by and watch... I have no expectations about the truth being reported in the media...

This is not to say that I, in any way shape or form support the Iranian govt and their policies, but... seriously... Why do we give a damn?

As I have said before... in other similar threads...

If we are going to go by the rationale of "stopping a rogue nation from acquiring nukes" we need to invade Pakistan first (cause they already have them and are KNOWN to be backstabbing sons of bitches)....

If we are going by the rational of "liberating people from oppression" lets first talk about Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, one is a country where women cant drive, the other where protests similar to the ones in the rest of the middle east were suppressed using military force but no questions were raised...

Whatever rationale they decide to use, people should and probably do know that its BS... cause there exist offenders worse than Iran, but they are our allies... what does that say about us as a nation?

How many more families must sacrifice their loved ones for a war that is not of their choosing?

What right have we to deny another sovereign nation access to nuclear weapons when we remain the only country in the world to have actually used them? (against defenseless civilians at that)

[-] 1 points by 4closed (2) 2 years ago

look up the neo-cons to find who is behind the neo con job.

[-] 1 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

So after all of that's here in this thread the conclusion is that nobody knows nuttin'? Where's Valerie Plame when we need her?

[-] 1 points by reality101 (61) from Bradenton, FL 2 years ago

it's not so much that we know nothing. Its more like don't take nothing and make it into something its not.

Starting a fight is easy. Once started it's difficult to get out. I don't believe that we should get into one. Its not in my best interest. But it is in some one's best interest and they will create a atmosphere of hate and distrust so they can get their own interest and agendo going.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 2 years ago

one is all it takes to wipe tel aviv off the map or destroy an aircraft carrier group. so yes it is a threat to us and our allies. if they try to build a bomb they will be bringing about their own destruction.

[-] 1 points by reality101 (61) from Bradenton, FL 2 years ago

One bomb is not a threat to us. It is a inconvience. You can argue about the loss of lives..

Now were we talking about the US Soldiers loss of life on the ground in IRAN?

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 2 years ago

no soldiers on the ground needed

[-] 1 points by reality101 (61) from Bradenton, FL 2 years ago

That was the same argument used in Iraq "Shock and AWE". Mision accomplished is weeks. We were there for years.

I wish it was that easy.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 2 years ago

the goal there was regime change different goals now if we can cripple the regime great but taking out their nuclear ambitions is essential.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

Actually, the Iraq story was a mistake not a lie, and there's a huge difference between the two. Saddam had used chemical weapons, and the UN was monitoring them for quite a while. Saddam then kicked out the monitors. When they returned (after sanctions), they found the chemical weapons were no longer where they were, and Saddam refused to disclose what happened to them. Furthermore, when we first encountered the Republican Guard's tanks, we discovered each was equipped with chem-bio suits.

Intelligence is a very unsure process that requires interpretation of and connection of information 'dots' to draw a 'picture.' In my opinion, which Colin Powell apparently shares, we were primed to view Saddam as the 'bad guy' and the intelligence analysts were biased in their interpretation of the facts. Note that the same facts behind their interpretation were also reviewed by the Senate and House Intelligence committees, and they accepted the interpretation. History is full of erroneous interpretation of intelligence, and errors are very different than lies.

As for Iran, I ask the poster whether they believe stopping Hitler or Stalin before their crimes against humanity might have been worth the effort or whether we should always wait until after the calamity to address the problem. I also ask whether they accept the lessons of history showing small regional conflicts often explode into much larger problems, especially in areas rich with natural resources needed by the entire world.

Iran has been very vocal in declaring Israel should be wiped off the map, and they are quite open in exporting terrorism in the region. They have long standing conflicts with the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and others in their region. According to the best intelligence from outside the USA, they now seek nuclear weapons under the guise of 'peaceful civilian power' while sitting on the world's 3rd largest stockpile of oil and gas reserves.

A nuclear exchange between two nations of the gulf, no matter which two are involved, will have catastrophic effects, and could well spark larger conflict. Any such exchange will put the military forces of all nations on high alert, and a single stupid blunder can have dire consequences. Consider Pakistan and India, for example, both nuclear and on high alert. Very scary.

[-] 1 points by reality101 (61) from Bradenton, FL 2 years ago

I dissagree about the mistake and lie. Lies were told and we reacted. Its the hype.. NEW YORK CITY DIRTY BOMB threat etc. Lies that create the excuse for action. Lies that are used to take away civil rights.

Yes Hitler was a threat. He created a police state. The Nazi's lied and eliminated their political competion. With 20/20 hindsight-He should have been taken out.-

Look at the US today. We are in the process of becoming a police state. In Germany it was the Jews. In the United States its Iran and Iraq. Like it or not history is repeating itself. Hitler bombed their "House of Congress" himself and blamed it on the opposition. He eliminated his political oposition/threats thru lies.

Our goverment is passing self serving laws to eliminate opposition. Power corrupts absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Iran does not and never will have the industrial base to take over the world. They can buy equipment and parts from other countries. That flow can be easily stopped if it gets out of hand.

Pre-emptive strikes only makes us the perpetual 500 lb gorila. What gives us the God Given Right to take pre-emptive stike because of faulty inteligence/lies.

The old phrase "Sticks and stones might break my bones but names will never hurt me" Just because it is politically expediant for Iran to say "Wipe Isreal of the map" does not give us the right to a pre-emptive strike.

"TERRORISM" is this years catch phrase. It is being used to validify our actions.

30 % of convicted rapist in the United states have been proven innocent thru DNA testing. How many people have been wrongfully executed for crimes they did not commit. How many US Soldiers need to DIE before the Inteligence community gets it right.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

You can't prove they were lies anymore than I can prove they were errors. What I can say is that I happen to have known many people in government service over the years, and on balance, they share the same ethics and morals as you or I. The opinions we hold about others in the absence of any objective proof is more a reflection of our own biases than truth. I chose to believe that our government is comprised of people not unlike you and I. There are certainly some who are corrupt, but the majority are just as moral as myself and my acquaintances; we often make errors of judgment, but we don't lie as a matter of course.

Iran does more than just talk they fund Hamas and Hisbolla operations across the region. Furthermore, they were quite violent in the suppression of their own Arab Spring movement and allow access to only state media outlets. I haven't heard anyone arguing in favor of preemptive strike. If it happens, I bet it will be by Israel rather than us; Remember, they previously struck reactors in Iraq and Syria. I suspect we're doing our utmost to hold Israel back and trying to solve the problem using sanctions. At some point, Israel will act if sanctions don't work. Personally, I suspect the ultimate objective of sanctions is an Iranian Spring; sanctions don't hurt the government they hurt the people and cause them to rise up against their government.

Any time we deign to judge our fellow man, we do so at the risk of making errors and unfairly judging some. Does this mean we should not judge ? Of course not. It only means we must be careful in our judgments. Note, by the way, the the American system of justice did allow post-de-facto testing of DNA to confirm or refute our prior judgments in the cases you cite. A corrupt system would not allow reexamination of those cases. We are certainly imperfect, but we're aren't wholly corrupt.

Like any individual person, we tend to learn from our mistakes. I will bet you every last bit of wealth I possess that we will be more careful in our intelligence assessments and subject them to more critical review from this point forward given our experience in Iraq.

[-] 1 points by reality101 (61) from Bradenton, FL 2 years ago

If you and I accomplish this thru this forum then this post and everyone's comments will have been worthwhile.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

They don't have a nuclear weapons program. Period. If they started today, they would still need over a decade.

[-] 2 points by flip (7544) 2 years ago

SEYMOUR HERSH: Well, very simply, it’s — you know, you could argue it’s 2003 all over again. Remember WMD, mushroom clouds. There’s just no serious evidence inside that Iran is actually doing anything to make a nuclear weapon. You know, making a weapon is a big deal. You have to have fabrication facilities. You have to convert a very toxic gas into a metal and then mold it into a core. It’s big stuff, and there’s no sign of any of it.

We’ve been looking — Cheney was convinced, Dick Cheney, the former vice president, there was a secret facility à la what we probably saw in the movie Bananas. Remember Woody Allen’s movie, the little robots running underground? He was convinced there was an underground facility somewhere. And we had special forces units in there since '04, really, perhaps as late as — early as ’05, maybe, looking. We've been paying off people — the Kurds, the Azeris, the opposition groups. We’ve been giving a lot of money to various defectors. We’ve been looking with satellites for telltale signs, air holes, air vents, somewhere in the desert or somewhere in an arid area. And we’ve found nothing, not for lack of trying. We looked very hard. And there’s just no evidence on the inside.

And it’s not only here, it’s known in Europe. It’s a much easier situation, at least for a journalist, to go to Europe, because the European intelligence officials are much more open about it. "Yes, we are very skeptical," they will say, "but we’ve found nothing." So, the fact is, we have a — the evidence is pretty strong — I mean, very strong — that we have a sanctions program that’s designed to prevent the Iranians from building weapons systems they’re not building.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Sy Hersh, your article details some extraordinary efforts by the United States. You talk about the special forces operations actually replacing street signs in Tehran with radiation detectors and replacing bricks in buildings. Could you talk about some of that? I mean, because that’s enormous risk that they’re taking actually going into the country and doing that.

SEYMOUR HERSH: Oh, it’s amazingly complicated. And I will tell you, obviously, I hate to write about operational stuff, but let me just say that whatever we were doing, we have a new generation now that’s more sophisticated. But in those early days — early days being '05, 2005, 2006 — there was a tremendous concern that various buildings, laboratories and academic buildings in the city of Tehran were being used as secret facilities to enrich uranium to a high degree. Right now the Iranians are absolutely within the law. It turns out they're signatories to the NPT, Non-Proliferation Treaty. And there’s no evidence whatsoever that — the IAEA, the group that Mr. ElBaradei headed, International Atomic Energy Agency, which monitors nuclear developments, they consistently report that there’s no evidence of any diversion of any of the enriched materials they now have.

We’re enriching — the Iranians are enriching to about 3.7 or so percent to run civilian power plants. There’s one small pilot project for medical research that gets up to 20 percent. But everything that’s being enriched is under camera, under watch, by the IAEA. There’s just no sign of any diversion. There’s just no evidence. This doesn’t mean we can go to intent. It doesn’t mean that there’s a lot of concern in the United States and appropriate concern about the Iranian intent. It doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t watch what they do. But it does mean that we’re sort of beating a dead horse here.

AMY GOODMAN: Talk about your sources, Sy Hersh.

SEYMOUR HERSH: Thanks a lot, Amy. Look, there’s been two very secret studies done, called National Intelligence Estimates, NIEs, and these are the most sort of sacrosanct internal studies done by the community. Almost all the time they’re private. There are studies going on, NIEs going on all the time — the situation now in Ecuador, for example, other issues. Venezuela is always looked at. The situation in the war, war-peace stuff, is constantly being looked at by groups of people in the intelligence community. And these documents are promulgated without anybody knowing it.

For some reason, in 2007 there was an NIE put out about the Iranian nuclear weapons program, and the White House wanted a summary made. And I think at that point 16 intelligence agencies were involved in the final conclusions. And internally, the guys running it, to their credit, voted 16 to nothing to say what they said, which is that, in a summary put out about the NIE — as I say, unprecedented summary — saying there’s no evidence they had done any weaponization since 2003.

And there’s a new study that was just done. It was published in February of this year. And it — we knew about it, but nobody has actually — you’re getting me in a tricky area, but I can just say, people that have worked on the study and have read the study will attest — have attested that it doesn’t take us any further. There’s no further evidence of any weaponization.

And what’s even more important that I write is that this, the latest study, was actually supposed to be promulgated — is the word they use in the community — last fall, and it was delayed because the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Pentagon intelligence agency, had an assessment that was — knocked everybody’s socks off. Their assessment was, the only reason Iran even looked at weaponization — and we’re not talking about building anything, we’re talking about doing studies, paper studies — was because they were frightened of Iraq. They had had an eight-year war, as many in your audience will remember, between 1980 and 1988, with Iraq, a terrible, brutal war. And when they — their worry was, in the early — in the 2001, 2002 period, that if Iraq went nuclear, they might need some deterrent. So what they even looked at, the papers they did, was aimed not at us or the Israelis, but aimed at the Iraqis. That didn’t get into the final judgment, but it affected the debate in a pretty positive way.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And Sy Hersh, one of the things you say in your article is that these latest intelligence assessments — that a lot of the career intelligence people in the government now have pushed back a lot more against political pressure, after the debacle with Iraq and the pressure on the intelligence community to skew intelligence assessments about weapons of mass destruction, that now the career people are a lot more willing to buck any political pressure.

SEYMOUR HERSH: You know, it really depends on who’s running the agency. The Defense Department, the DIA, Defense Intelligence Agency, has a career general named Burgess who’s been in a lot of tough places. You know, he was in the Joint Special Operations Command. And he really has, all I can say is — again, I’m getting into — the people who work for him will tell you that they’re no longer afraid to go up against the established judgment. And so, what we really have been happening, in an amazing way — and I have to say this about the American government because I’m always very critical — but we do have an enormous number of people in the government and the intelligence community who don’t take — who take an oath of office to the Constitution, and not to the general who’s in charge of them or to the president. And we’re seeing more and more of that kind of attitude coming out inside. I can’t tell you why, but there’s more people really — there’s a lot more concern about where we are in the world right now. And the last decade has been a pretty horrible one for the United States, and I think the future is very, very sort of frightening, too, in terms of what’s been going on in the Middle East, etc. So there’s more integrity in the process. It doesn’t mean the White House likes it.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

LOL ! You must have access to highly classified intelligence to be so sure. Where do you work that you have such access ?

Iran is sitting on the world's 3rd largest stockpile of oil and gas reserves, and have near year-round sun, yet they seek nuclear power for power generation ? Really ? Would you please explain why this makes any sense at all, particularly after Fukishima has nearly all nations backing off from nuclear power ?

Iran has no need for nuclear power the rest of the world is abandoning and, according to their stated desire to wipe another country off the map, they are bent on genocide. Worse, this is all occurring in a region with resources on which the world depends with nuclear neighbors like Pakistan and India already on the brink. World Wars have started in similar situations.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Go read some shit. Their nuclear weapons program was stopped in 2003.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

I make an effort not to read 'shit,' and the ministers of the world's powers who have access to intelligence you will never see clearly disagree with your layman opinion.

[-] 0 points by reality101 (61) from Bradenton, FL 2 years ago

From some of the comments I have read there are covert operations taking place. This has been a military practice for ages. Diplomacy makes perfecty sense unless you are in the arms industry.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Oh, I remember coming across an article in maybe 2003/2004 where it was admitted.

Yet, there is no nuclear weapons program.

[-] 1 points by reality101 (61) from Bradenton, FL 2 years ago

Proper sanctions will work. The important part is not to make them so severe that the "RAT" is cornered and has no way to escape.

It only takes one person to start a fight. The bully can provoke a fight and then say he was only definding himself.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Sanctions don't work. Iran is only sanctioned by the US. There is no reason for sanctions to begin with.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 2 years ago

no reason for sanctions??? are you insane???

[-] 1 points by timir (183) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago
[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Information

Joined Dec. 28, 2011

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 2 years ago

show me a credible article csm is highly credible.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I wouldn't be so sure. Further, your article is dated October. Mine is November. So further information was known.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 2 years ago

csm is more acceptable for academia that the nytimes, washingtonpost, or wsj. and last i heard nothing has changed dude is in jail

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I am aware of what is acceptable for academia. Last I checked, propaganda is afloat in msm. That said, your article doesn't make the case.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 2 years ago

you do realize that it is in no way shape or form christian right.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 2 years ago

the christian science monitor is msm??? really they are regarded as one of the truly independent sources of media.

[-] -1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

yes, we always trust the First Church of Christ. :/

[-] 1 points by reality101 (61) from Bradenton, FL 2 years ago

So are the sanctions failures being used as a reason for a pre-emptive strike?

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

It is the oil.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

So I presume you support bringing that Canadian oil into the US, right ?

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

You mean the pipeline? No., which is what makes this another circle jerk. The oil is not for US consumption.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

Right. The US is readying for war to ensure someone else gets the oil. Would you mind educating me on who that would be and why we would care so much ?

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

Your link doesn't work, but I was able to figure out that it's a post on the Wilderness Society's web-site. I have no idea why you would expect me to accept an opinion from the Wilderness Society as relevant in a discussion of policy toward Iran.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago
[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

You just keep jumping around the topic. The introduction to the Cornell report declares, "The purpose of this briefing paper is to examine claims made by TransCanada Corporation and the American Petroleum Institute that, if constructed, TransCanada’s proposed Keystone XL (KXL) pipeline will generate enough employment to kick-start important sections of the US economy through the creation of tens of thousands—perhaps even hundreds of thousands—of good, well-paying jobs for American workers." It goes on to conclude the figures have been inflated.

The purpose of the report is to debunk employment claims. In regards to whether the oil will be consumed in the USA, it says "Much of the Tar Sands oil will be refined in Port Arthur, Texas, where the refinery is half-owned by Saudi Aramco, the state-owned oil company of Saudi Arabia, and a good portion of the oil that will gush down the KXL will, according to some studies, probably end up being finally consumed beyond the territorial United States."

Though the Cornell paper references some studies saying the oil will probably not be consumed in the US, they actually reference only one study. That paper is produced by a Canadian environmental group Pembina (http://www.pembina.org/). A summary of the referenced report, "The link between Keystone XL and Canadian oilsands production" is available at http://pubs.pembina.org/reports/kxl-production-backgrounder-pembina.pdf . This report opposes the pipeline because it would increase production at the oilsands sites and have negative impact on the Canadian environment.

The Cornell report very appropriately uses soft language when it says "the oil that will gush down the KXL will, according to some studies, probably end up being finally consumed beyond the territorial United States." They are distancing themselves from the Penbina report when they say "some studies," or "we're not saying this, but someone else did." and toss in "probably" to reflect that fact that there are no actual figures given in the report they reference.

Sloppy journalism happens all over the place, and critical reading is always required before forming an opinion.

Aside from the sloppiness of the sources you keep citing, I see zero connection between them and your assertion that the USA is preparing to go to war for oil, not so she can use it, but apparently so she can refine it and sell it abroad. Even if this were true, it's pretty obvious that we could fill our refineries with Canadian oil, so why would we even need to fight for Iranian oil.

Your arguments are unsubstantiated and make no sense whatsoever.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

You are full of shit, Rico. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-gerry-connolly/keystone-pipeline-payroll-tax_b_1161129.html

The oil is to be transported to what is called a "foreign zone". Do you understand what that means? Can you say no taxes?

You just don't like what I am telling you.

Nonetheless, Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program, the sanctions are a farce, and you have no business inciting shit in Iran for the pretence of democracy.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

The US is readying for war to ensure someone else gets the oil. Would you mind educating me on who that would be and why we would care so much ?

Exporting America's Heritage The Export Picture, Fuel by Fuel Oil: The United States exports finished petroleum products, which includes gasoline, kerosene and other refined products, to foreign nations, a trend that has been increasing in recent years. In 2010, our gross exports of petroleum products were over 1.9 million barrels per week, a 9% increase from the year before. The 4 week average for mid-October 2011 shows us exporting a net of 693,000 barrels per day of total petroleum products. For reference, at the same point in 2010, we were net importers of 279,000 barrels per day. Significant amounts of crude oil from Canada’s tar sands strip mines -- carried by the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline to the Gulf of Mexico --will not end up fueling America either.

You need to start there. http://wilderness.org/content/exporting-americas-heritage

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

From your own link , "Much of the tar sands oil that would come from Canada through the proposed Keystone XL pipeline isn’t earmarked for domestic U.S. consumption, either. The companies at the end of the pipeline are intending to ship much of it to South America, Europe and Asia."

Is this what you consider factual information? It says "Much of" the oil isn't "earmarked" for US consumption. What kind of journalism is that ? Where are the figures and references to back up that statement ? It also says "The companies at the end of the pipeline are intending to ship much of it to South America, Europe and Asia." Really? Is there some document or factual reference that backs up the author's statement of intention ?

At the very end, the author reveals his biases by saying, "Instead of drilling away America's lands, we should focus on responisible wind and solar energy development, along with improvements in energy efficiency, to become truly energy independent." Anyone practiced in critical reading would recognize this as a statement by the author that this is not journalism but an editorial. I happen to agree with his conclusion, by the way, but it has nothing to do with Iran, and he is very sloppy with his facts.

You can't just surf around and find people stating opinions you agree with then extrapolate them to foreign policy and then claim your positions are fact based.

For some reason or another, you have formed an opinion of the world and now only accept information that agrees with your opinion as accurate. That's precisely what the folks who listen to Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity do. We need to do better or we are no better than they.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

The oil from the Keystone is not for US consumption.

I have already posted that report.

But, hey, have a little more: MONTREAL –The new Canadian sanctions against Iran could hit Canadian firms which have trade ties with Iran, and also will deprive Canada from millions of dollars of Iranian investments, experts warned.

In November, Canada imposed its third round of sanctions against Tehran since July. The measures target "virtually all transactions" with Iran. http://www.tehrantimes.com/economy-and-business/93991-iran-sanctions-hit-millions-of-dollars-to-canada

So, sanctions are only sanctions unless they aren't.

Despite the pressure of western countries to sanction Iran’s oil industry, Turkey's biggest crude oil importer Tupras has renewed its annual deal to buy crude oil from Iran for 2012, the Mehr news agency reported.

Tupras purchased 7.41 million tons of crude oil from Iran in 2010, which makes up for almost 38 percent of the 19.6 million tons of crude it refined in 2010.

Currently, Turkey and Greece are among the most reliant on Iranian crude, which makes up more than 30 percent of both countries' total oil imports, according to data from the International Energy Agency (IEA).

The Islamic Republic has signed new deal with Turkey to surge oil exports to Turkey from present 150,000 barrels per day to 180,000 bpd, Mohsen Qamsari, director for international affairs in National Iranian Oil Company said in October.

In July, Iran has exported 1.3 million tons of its crude oil to Turkey standing as the first oil exporter among the 22 countries from which Turkey buys crude oil, Qamsari said.

At present, Iran exports some 450,000 barrels of crude oil to Europe, accounting for 18 percent of total oil exports to the continent. Greece, Italy and Spain are the major European importers of Iranian crude.

On November 21, The United States, Britain and Canada announced new measures against Iran's energy and financial sectors, and France proposed new sanctions, including the freezing of Central Bank of Iran assets and suspending the purchase of Iranian oil. http://www.tehrantimes.com/economy-and-business/93828-iran-extends-crude-oil-sales-contract-with-turkish-refinery

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

Wow! You just love to reference the state-owned Tehran times.

Are you posting from Iran ?

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

No, US. I read newspapers from around the world. Don't you?

Oct. 5 (Bloomberg) -- “U.S. and international officials appear to agree that the sanctions have not, to date, hurt Iran’s economy to the point at which the core Western goals on Iran’s nuclear program can be accomplished.”

That was the conclusion of a report last month by Kenneth Katzman of the Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan group that writes policy and legal analysis for lawmakers.

A prime example of the porousness of the sanctions can be found in November’s issue of Bloomberg Markets magazine, which focuses on the business ethics of the petrochemical conglomerate owned by Charles and David Koch, the billionaire brothers who are big donors to conservative political causes. Starting in the 1990s and until at least 2007, a Koch Industries Inc. subsidiary with offices in Italy and Germany circumvented the U.S. embargo by selling millions of dollars of equipment to Iran’s oil industry.

Did Koch break the law? It seems not. The company relied on a loophole in the 1996 Iran Sanctions Act and subsequent laws and executive orders that make it illegal for U.S. companies to do business in Iran’s oil sector, the lifeblood of the rogue nation’s economy. This weakness in the sanctions regime has allowed opportunistic foreign subsidiaries of American companies to conduct business in Iran as long as American or U.S.-based employees weren’t involved in the transactions.

A subsidiary, Koch-Glitsch, sold products to a unit of the state-owned National Iranian Petrochemical Co. to help build the largest plant in the world to process natural gas into methanol, a compound used in plastics, paints and chemicals. According to documents obtained by Bloomberg Markets, Koch-Glitsch also sought to work on the expansion of the largest refinery in Iran and the development of South Pars, the world’s largest natural- gas field.

Koch-Glitsch began to wind down its involvement in Iran in 2006, and Melissa Cohlmia, the director of corporate communications for the Wichita, Kansas-based parent company, informed Bloomberg that the European unit’s actions “were consistent with applicable U.S. laws allowing such sales at the foreign subsidiary level.”

Koch is hardly the only U.S. company to have benefited from this shortcoming in the law. According to the Congressional Research Service report, Honeywell International Inc., General Electric Co., Caterpillar Inc., Halliburton Co. and Huntsman Corp. -- the family business of Republican presidential hopeful Jon Huntsman -- have all conducted business in Iran through foreign subsidiaries.

These companies began pulling back operations only after a 2005 scandal, when it came to light that Halliburton, where Vice President Dick Cheney had served as chief executive officer, used a subsidiary registered in the Cayman Islands to carry out contracts for work on oil fields in Iran. Nobody knows how much commerce is being done this way with Iran today -- because it is not illegal, it isn’t being carefully tracked.

Last year’s Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act strengthened previous restrictions for U.S. companies and their subsidiaries. It prohibited U.S. companies from doing energy-sector work -- particularly work that could help Iran produce or import gasoline. The legislation also set penalties for financial institutions that did business with the entities affiliated with the Tehran regime.

Although the law was a step in the right direction, gaps remain. Some American companies are likely to turn a blind eye to unsavory practices by subsidiaries as long as there is “wiggle room,” says Gary Milhollin, the director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, which monitors business dealings with Iran. Despite the sanction, it remains possible for subsidiaries of U.S. companies to provide Iran so- called dual-use supplies that could be adopted for use in missile and nuclear programs.

This dangerous situation could be remedied with an unequivocal prohibition on commerce by U.S. companies and their subsidiaries with Iran. Language to that effect was included in the Senate version of last year’s measure, but was stripped out of the law before it was sent to President Barack Obama -- another demonstration of effective resistance by some business trade groups and their allies in Congress.

Iran gets closer each day to developing a nuclear weapon, further destabilizing an already shaky region. The U.S. faces an uphill battle in rallying international support for tougher sanctions, and the unseemly laxity toward American companies leaves the administration open to justified accusations of hypocrisy. Congress could ease this diplomatic challenge -- and make the world a somewhat safer place -- with a stricter law on sales to Iran.

--Editors: Max Berley, Tobin Harshaw http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-10-04/lax-law-gives-u-s-subsidiaries-an-opening-to-sell-to-iran-view.html


pay attention to who has been dealing with them. Again, sanctions are sanctions 'cept when they are not.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

Who thinks sanctions can be absolute, total, and impermeable ? I sure don't, and I doubt any reasonable person does. One could even say "the sanctions have not, to date, hurt Iran’s economy to the point at which the core Western goals on Iran’s nuclear program can be accomplished” [emphasis added]. This does not mean they won't work, it only means they haven't worked yet.

The CIA Fact Book you referenced indirectly in one of your prior responses ( https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html ) shows Iran's per-capita GDP is falling, their inflation is at 10%, their prime lending rate is at 12.5%, and their taxes are at 31%. The same factbook shows they are 60th in infant mortality (better than many African nations, but few others) and 146th in life expectancy. The population of Iran is not doing well.

Economic sanctions have no direct impact on the government, they impact the populace. The intent is to further promote civil unrest such as we saw after the 2006 elections and now see spreading across the middle east via the 'Arab Spring.' We can't, and don't have to, stop all trade with Iran, we only need to keep the pressure on the citizens of Iran to promote the second Iranian Spring.

The people of Iran are proud and noble people who have made great contributions to civilization. At present, they are ruled by a Fascist state that uses nationalism and control of media to control their people. These type states have proven to be particularly dangerous throughout history, and this particular one has advocated genocide against another people while simultaneously seeking nuclear arms.

I have absolute faith in the proud people of Iran. They will soon rise and join the national community as a peaceful and uniquely Iranian citizen of the world.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Iran has already come out and stated that if the US does not want to do business with them that is fine and they are willing to network with other emerging economies in other nation-states and, thus far, have.

I am well aware of what this is designed to do.

Do not play that spread democracy shit. It doesn't work with me. You have no business trying to stir up shit in Iran. None. Except oil.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (22355) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

So if for no other reason than "In Vital Defense" of our nation/country we should implement alternative energy. It should be clean energy as well like Solar and Wind, but also Hydrogen Fuel and power generation as well as Geo-thermal heating/cooling/power generation.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

I argue we need to develop all sources of oil outside of the middle east until such time as we can get of oil altogether. Nobody would even care about the middle east if not for oil, we wouldn't be there, and none of the radicals there with be targeting us if we could just get off their oil.

Priority #1: Get off middle eastern oil and out of the middle east.

Priority #2: Get of oil altogether for the sake of the planet.

The first is an immediate priority, the second is a long term priority.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (22355) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

2 would not need to be a long drawn out effort. The infrastructure is mostly in place now. We just need to pick a place to start implementation. This will get us off of oil and coal the quickest. this would also speed the process of #1 in abandoning foreign oil.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

Agreed. I watch what's happening in alternate energy pretty continuously via my daily reading of www.physorg.com, and I am encouraged by the progress being made. I'm an engineer by trade, and I'm confident we'll get there soon.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I'll take it anyway it comes.

If we put our Machiavelli hat on, then we say, it isn't really important if the US needs it or not. It is important that we control it.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Sanctions are a joke.

But, hey I will take it.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (22355) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I kind of like the idea of taking the essential public service corporations like Electricity, Water, Oil/Gas and make them public non-profits. Reinvesting revenue to improve and/or replace infrastructure, making it robust and flexible rather than weak and fragile. Then shut down things like nuclear reactors and coal and oil burning operations as they become outdated/obsolete/unnecessary because whether the waste/pollution goes into the air or is stored on the ground, it remains a toxic danger/threat.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by reality101 (61) from Bradenton, FL 2 years ago

Like the way that oil was going to pay for thr Iraque war.

I remember "Its not going to cost us anything" by the Admistration.

The lives lost, the permanently disabled and the Billions of dollars.

Smart move by someone? Who gained.?.

The 99% got the debt. The service members who took the risks of life and limb got the debt a poor economy and illegal evictions.

And Congress wonders why people are upset.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (22355) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

While war industry corporations are drooling for more conflict to line their pockets with.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

Who gained were the people of the Middle East and the rest of the world.

Do you think it's an accident that we have a solid military presence on both sides of Iran ? Do you think it is coincidence that the Democracy we planted in Iraq preceded the Arab Spring ?

Strategy demands you look past the tactical details to see the bigger picture.

P.S. If you understood the meaning of "debt" as it applies to the holder of the world's reserve currency, you'd be less concerned about it; it's not like your VISA debt.

[-] 1 points by reality101 (61) from Bradenton, FL 2 years ago

Have you seen the infrastucture that we left.. I don't think the middle east or the rest of the world gained anything. It looks like we have just replaced one OLD dictator with a new one.

Tactically we have not gained anything. Once we were a great nation- Respected and often envied. We have lost our industrial base. We have lost and trown away our wealth thru war. I don't feel that I am safer now.

I remember "Tactical".. It was used to justify the Vietnam War and the Domino Theory. The Gulf of Tonkin Lie.

How many US lives were lost In Vietnam. Not only did we loose that war but they are now sending us their manufactured goods.

[-] 0 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

The conclusion of the Vietnam story has not yet been written; these things take 50 years or so, just as John McCain said during the 2008 election (not a McCain supporter, but he was dead-on there). The result of Britain's nation-building in India, Singapore, and Hong-Kong as well as our own efforts in Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and the Philippines is largely evident.

Granted, there was deception behind Vietnam. Note, however, that the deception was 'outed' by insiders as soon as they saw it. Remember the 'Pentagon Papers' ? I have seen no such report regarding Iraq. What I have seen regarding Iraq suggests the scenario I described; we have a good number of folks predisposed to form the conclusion they did, and both the Senate and House Intelligence Communities reviewed their work and agreed. The deceptions exposed by the Pentagon Papers were not approved by Congress.

Globalization does result in the more advanced economies suffering while they support the maturation of modern economies and societies around the world. I, for one, am very annoyed at my fellow Americans for having piled on record levels of household debt to buy foreign goods while complaining the bankers got rich and we have no jobs (arrrggghh!). On the other hand, globalization does have some benefits.

Few seem to realize the linkage between Capitalism and Democracy. Under Capitalism, we 'vote' for the companies producing the products and services we desire, and a bunch of 'rights' accompany the decision to develop a Capitalist society. China, for example, had to accept the tenent of property rights and right to redress in court before she could receive the Direct Foreign Investment that fueled her growth. China is no longer Communist by any objective measure, and her people are already showing hunger for more freedom and rights. History will show the west 'defeated' China and Russia via Capitalism and the improved standard of living and personal rights that it generates rather than by military power.

The interdependence, communications, and rights being spread through the world via globalization is reducing the likelihood of nation-on-nation warfare fueled by nationalism. As we become more interconnected, we become less like the tribes of the past and more like global citizens, and we are much less willing to engage in large scale warfare. We see this now in the global spirit of the Occupy Movement, Global Warming, etc.

The few nations that still deny their citizens access to communication with the rest of the world remain the hot-beds of violence. They are disconnected from the world and fed nationalistic sermons by their government and religions preaching intolerance for others. These insular societies are trouble, and the middle east is prime among them. We have planted Democracies and Capitalism in that region with the specific intent of making them more connected to the world both socially and economically. The Arab Spring provides proof of our success thus far.

Finally, in closing, I ask you to consider the following statement from Vietnam's official foreign policy ( http://www.mofa.gov.vn/en/cs_doingoai/ ) then decide whether we 'lost' the war on the grander scale of history, "Proactively and actively engage in international economic integration following a roadmap in conformity with the national development strategy till 2010 and the 2020 vision. Make proper preparations for the signing of bilateral and multilateral free trade agreements. Promote comprehensive and efficient cooperation with ASEAN and Asia-Pacific countries. Consolidate and develop reliable bilateral cooperation with strategic partners; effectively take advantage of opportunities and minimize challenges and risks following our accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO)."

[-] 1 points by reality101 (61) from Bradenton, FL 2 years ago

The path to Globalization is the problem. I don't have a problem with it. For a stable, peacefull global economy there has to be a redistribution of wealth. Well fed populations are not likely to go to war. Moderation to live within our resources, gradual growth. We have turned into a throw away society, wasting our resources and letting our neighbors starve. The path we are on is one that leads to chaos and global distruction...

A small example of that is EASTER ISLAND. I hope to get everyone to think things out before rash action is taken

There was a TV History Channel program about the Birth of China. The name China comes from the Chin Dynasty. Chin a Fuedal lord killed of all of his Fuedal Rivals. This included the Lords, their families and anyone loyal to the past. In other words China had a 1000 years of peace after China's other states were killed of and brought down to their knees.

I hope that WE do not suffer the same fate.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

We'll get there. As the world's leading, no only, economy after WW II, we had to assume we would someday see our fortunes decline as the rest of the world recovered and grew. It had to come at our expense.

At present, the big problem is that we're trying to integrate a huge amount of "new labor" in China, and the price of integrating all that labor is substantial. Once they're fully integrated and mature, there are only comparatively small economies remaining.

After all economies are stable, we will see wages equalize and tensions diminish if we can can get population growth stabilized and renewable energy on-line. It won't happen in my time, but it will happen in my son's time.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Oh, they do not care if it pays for itself or not. At this point, they know that they cannot possibly bullshit the entire public and have just come out and acted like the jackoffs that they truly are.

[-] 1 points by reality101 (61) from Bradenton, FL 2 years ago

Sanctions work if everyone agrees to observe them.

Could it be that the rest of the world does not see the same threat?

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

LOL ! You're buying into GirlFriday's assertions without checking her facts.

Per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iran , the UN has sanctioned Iran four times since 2006, the EU has sanctioned them once before and appears to be ready to do so again (see http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,15633714,00.html ). The United States, Canada, Australia, South Korea, Japan, Switzerland, India, and of course Israel have also sanctioned Iran.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

According to a report by the Economist, Iran has been ranked 39th for producing $23 billion of industrial products in 2008.[1] From 2008 to 2009 Iran has leaped to 28th place from 69th place in annual industrial production growth rate.[2] A recent report by the World Fact Book ranks Iran 3rd among “emerging industrial powers” in the world (after China and India) in terms of its industrial growth. According to the report, Iran’s industrial sector grew by 4% in the year 2009. Iran was ranked 13th among emerging economies in 2006. Overall, Iran is ranked 31st in the world in terms of its industrial production growth rate.[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industry_of_Iran

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

You need to check those sources, both their date and origin.

Reference [1] claims to be a link to the Economist magazine, but it actually points to http://www.iran-daily.com/1388/3410/html/economy.htm , a state-owned newspaper of Iran.

Reference [2] points to http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=215089 , another state-owned newspaper.

There is no reference cited for the statement "A recent report by the World Fact Book ranks Iran 3rd among “emerging industrial powers” in the world (after China and India) in terms of its industrial growth." except to say it's from the CIA's World Fact Book. If we check the CIA's factbook, we see Iran's GDP growth rate in 2010 was ranked #171 in the world ( https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2003rank.html?countryName=Iran&countryCode=ir&regionCode=mde&rank=171#ir ).

Reference [3] points to the website of an Iranian investment firm called "Turquoise Partners" at http://www.turquoisepartners.com. Upon first entering their website, we are confronted with a statement that says "TP makes no representation that the information or opinions contained on its website are accurate, reliable or complete... Persons in the United Kingdom of any other description may not access this website and may not participate in the investments described in this website."

The Wikipedia article you cite is clearly in need of revision, and I will do so when I get a chance lest others fall victim to the misinformation presented there.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Gross domestic product 2010 (millions of Ranking Economy US dollars)

29 Iran, Islamic Rep. 331,015

So, try this in 2010 they ranked 29th in GDP http://databank.worldbank.org/databank/download/GDP.pdf

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

I'm not sure how Iran's rank in GDP has any bearing on the discussion. I never even commented on it's absolute rank, only it's growth.

FYI, you should note that any measure of GDP in a Fascist state is misleading as it includes revenue from state-owned 'companies' (i.e. oil exports by the government) that do not represent income to the population. A better measure would be per-capita GNI (Gross National Income). By this ranking, we see the people of Iran receive less annual income than those of Panama, Uruguay, Botswana, etc. See http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GNP.PCAP.PP.CD?order=wbapi_data_value_2009+wbapi_data_value&sort=asc .

[-] 0 points by timir (183) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

According Gross domestic product and Gross national income of India with their population, we can assume that they have Fascist state. Why indian government having those incredible spendings? they sneaking nuces. lets strike them!

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

I call Iran Fascist according to the very definition of Fascism, "Fascism is a radical authoritarian nationalist political ideology. It advocates the creation of a totalitarian single-party state that seeks the mass mobilization of a nation through discipline, indoctrination, physical education, and family policy. This state is led by a supreme leader who exercises a dictatorship over the fascist movement, the government and other state institutions. Fascist governments forbid and suppress opposition. Fascists seek to rejuvenate their nation based on commitment to the national community as an organic entity, in which individuals are bound together in national identity by suprapersonal connections of ancestry, culture, and blood. To achieve this, fascists purge forces, ideas, people, and systems deemed to be the cause of decadence and degeneration."

Iran has no privately owned media and imposes strict firewalls on all communications. It has a single party and the government runs the oil business. It adheres to Sharia law and imposes strict rules of behavior on it's people. It appeals to the proud history of Persia and fosters hatred of external enemies such as Israel, the USA, Britain, etc to unify it's people behind the nationalist cause.

India is a Federal Democratic Republic with many political parties. It has a multitude of free press outlets, and it does not impose censorship on it's people. India isn't even close to being a Fascist state.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Fosters hatred of external enemies such as Israel, the USA, Britain, etc to unify it's people behind the nationalist cause.


Ah, they nationalized their oil and it makes people angry. Sorry, the US kind of fucked that up in 1953.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

Take the oil out of the discussion, and Iran still meets the definition of a Fascist state. India does not.

[-] 0 points by timir (183) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

why you always correlate stealing oil and being a Fascist state. it just happend to be that all western media The United States, Canada, Australia, South Korea, Japan, Switzerland, India, UK, Germany and others broadcasting you what is wrong. telling you, people have minimum understanding of real situation. it is gonna be bloody war. People of Iran will protect their national treasure like their own, as well as protect themself and each other. they will be civilians in a day time and terrorist at night. and it's never end. Until nuclear weapons will be applied

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

Iran meets the definition of Fascism with or without it's oil.

I know folks in Iran have very limited access to information other than that provided by their rulers, but Iranians are smart people, and they need to think about what they're being told.

The USA did not take Iraq's oil, so there goes the whole "USA wants to take your oil" argument. Heck, if your firewalls will let you, read the report from reuters at http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/12/12/us-iraq-usa-oil-idUSTRE5BB18Q20091212 stating that Chinese and Russian firms received the majority of oil service contracts awarded by the Iraqi government.

Furthermore, the USA doesn't need Iranian oil, and that's proven by the fact that we and much of the western world are currently imposing sanctions on Iran.

Note, there were no American soldiers in the crowds gathering in Tehran demanding freedom and fair elections after your 2006 elections. Those were Iranians seeking their freedom just like the people of Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, and Syria. I'm guessing things will be even worse after the next elections.

Finally, note your own references to the use of nuclear weapons by Iran. That's the kind of language that has turned the world against Iran.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

I just love your responses. This one is essentially spam trying to promote Iran without regard for the topic at hand.

FYI, you might note how the page you're linking to describes a wealth of media in Iran without ever mentioning that it's all state-owned. The page pulls similar tricks in regards internet connectivity; zero mention of Iran's firewalls.

As soon as I saw generous omissions regarding censorship in Iran on the Wiki page, I decided to look into who has been editing the page. It turns out it is heavily edited by people in Pakistan and Tehran. Note that any post out of Iran is de facto approved by the government of Iran as they run very strict firewalls (and strengthened them further after the 2006 uprising).

[-] 0 points by timir (183) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

what do you mean by firewall? Rico? Right here in Brooklyn... and again, you are misinformed by media and mislead by US government. What do you think US were tried to do in Iraq all this years? "economic and democratic transformation", - according Hillary Clinton speach. what that mean economic transformation? regime change. Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Iraq "Between June 2009 and February 2010 the Iraqi Oil Ministry tendered for the award of Service Contracts to develop Iraq's existing oil fields. The results of the tender, which was broadcast live on Iraqi television, are as follows for all major fields awarded but excluding the Kurdish controlled areas where Production Sharing Contracts have been awarded which are currently being disputed by the Baghdad government. All contracts are awaiting final ratification of the awards by the Iraqi government. Company shares are subject to change as a result of commercial negotiations between parties. If all contracts awarded reach their stated target plateau production then this will increase Iraqi production from today's 2.5 mb/d by 9.4 mb/d to a total of 11.9 mb/d, comparable to current Saudi declared capacity of 12.5 mb/d" - other words, iraq's oil companies and infrastructure works with 20% of power. who is going to control oil extraction? who is control the power in region? whose individuals in power? why political analysts and people in age thinks that the war is about the oil? "Finally, note your own references to the use of nuclear weapons by Iran. That's the kind of language that has turned the world against Iran" - i'm not from Iran, stupid. What i had in mind is that iranians evil rabbits can be stopped only by the bomb. i have to text it again: don't touch it, and it is not gonna smell bad.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Iran is not a threat.

Sanctions have never worked.

[-] 2 points by reality101 (61) from Bradenton, FL 2 years ago

I agree that Iran is not a threat.

I am concerned that the new US legislation cutting of financial transactipons/sanction will be realy counter productive and lead to a major political backlash arround the word.

The rest of the world could be thinking "Will we be the Bully's next victim?"

That begs the question"How do you stop a bully?

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Well, around the world we have people that are saying the same thing we are. Antiwar protests have already started in the UK.

There are also those sitting there just waiting for a good slice of the pie.

[-] 0 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

Do you understand how the prior two World Wars erupted ? Iran is not a threat to the US* per se, but a threat to world** peace.

Iran is sitting on the world's 3rd largest stockpile of oil and gas reserves, and have near year-round sun, yet they seek nuclear power for power generation. This makes zero sense at all, particularly after Fukishima has nearly all other nations backing off from nuclear power generation.

Iran has no need for nuclear power the rest of the world is abandoning and, according to their stated desire to wipe another country off the map, they are bent on genocide. Worse, this is all occurring in a region having resources on which the world depends with nuclear neighbors like Pakistan and India already on the brink. World Wars have started in similar situations.

Iran is a threat to world peace.

[-] 1 points by reality101 (61) from Bradenton, FL 2 years ago

Germany started the second world war because of the economic conditions imposed on it after the First World War.

That the important lesson. People with full bellies like to sleep they don't go to war.

Just because Iran has the oil and gas does not give us the right to take it away.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

Who said anything about taking away Iran's oil ? How much Iraqi oil did we 'take away' ?

Economic satisfaction ? Agreed. That's one reason why we promote globalization. See my post above at http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-iran-nuclear-excuse/#comment-545088 .

Iran is disconnected, nationalistic, and seeking nuclear arms. They're dangerous. We will first try to show them the cost of being so disconnected via sanctions intended to spark the second attempt at an Iranian Spring. If that doesn't work, I'm not sure we will be able to keep Israel from preemptive action. I sure hope sanctions combined with the wider Arab Spring are effective.

[-] 1 points by reality101 (61) from Bradenton, FL 2 years ago

Its about power and controll. Iran has oil. Oil sales provide revenue. Iran with the revenue can do what it wants. That is the threat.. Motives can be disguised anyway you wan't.

North Korea has atomic weapons and we are not talking about pre-emptive strikes there.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

Who has been talking about preemptive strikes ? If anyone does that it will be Israel repeating their actions in Iraq and Syria. We don't want them to do that and are probably doing everything we can to get them to hold back and let sanctions and a hoped for Second Iranian Spring to effect regime change.

The world is so worried about Iran because it's in the center of a very volatile region where a lot of nations have vital interests. A nuclear exchange in the Middle East could spark another World War, especially if the increased tensions cause Pakistan and India to start trading blows.

North Korea is largely "under control" of the stable state of China, it is surrounded by other relatively stable states, and the world does not have a lot of interests in the peninsula. Strategically, it's much less dangerous. An annoying loose end from the 1950's really.

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

& NK has no oil, gas or viable economy !!!

[-] -1 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

FALSE.

Per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iran , the UN has sanctioned Iran four times since 2006, the EU has sanctioned them once before and appears to be ready to do so again (see http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,15633714,00.html ). The United States, Canada, Australia, South Korea, Japan, Switzerland, India, and of course Israel have also sanctioned Iran.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Which is why they keep trading with them?

The only group of people who seem to think that the sanctions are really in force is Americans.

[-] 0 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

LOL ! You are a veritable fountain of unsubstantiated opinion. I disprove your assertion nobody but the US is sanctioning Iran, and you counter with another unsubstantiated assertion to avoid the facts.

You seem to have an agenda and don't mind trouncing on fact to promote it.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I will wait until you have read what I left you.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

Already did. Though no fault of your own, the Wikipedia entry you cited is seriously flawed. It never ceases to amaze me how much disinformation there is on the Internet and how much effort is required to fact check before forming an opinion.

The really sad aspect of the Internet is that there are 'sources' out there that can be used to substantiate nearly any opinion. If we select our sources based on what resonates with our own biases and fears, we simply keep reinforcing those biases and fears. It takes a lot of effort to fact-check and make sure we're forming our opinions based on objective fact to the maximum extent possible. In my experience, most folks don't bother with the fact-checking, and that does not bode well for our Democracy.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

So, I guess the best thing to do is wait until they deliver the Nuclear Bomb before we act. Good plan.

[-] 1 points by reality101 (61) from Bradenton, FL 2 years ago

First of all they have to have it. Please do not buy into the lies.

Under your theory should we not strike against FRANCE, RUSSIA, NORTH KOREA, INDIA, PAKISTAN today. We are not sure what they might do to us tomorrow. Now that is a plan for world peace. Please think before you advocate the use of force.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

The point is not about them having Nuclear Weapons - the point is "trusting them not to use it".

Do you really think the leaders over there can be trusted when they make comments about wanting to wipe "Israel off the map".

[-] 1 points by reality101 (61) from Bradenton, FL 2 years ago

There are a lot of things I don't trust.

I just don't think that US soldiers lives should be wasted on a issue of "TRUST".

I DON"T trust our polliticians. Should we kill them all..pre-emptive..or perhaps let them live and vote them out of office.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Well, we can become a isolationist nation and let the rest of the world deal with their own problems.

[-] 1 points by reality101 (61) from Bradenton, FL 2 years ago

Isolation is not an answer. We did this just before WWII.

Rational thinking is required. A sociopath is a danger to society and society has a right to protect itself. The answer is not easy. If it was it would be in place already.

We as a society are on a long road. We have stumbled in the past. WWI, WWII, The Cold war, The Cuban Missle Crisis for those who are old enough to remember.

Human existence on this Earth is not guaranteed. Irrational actions are no longer local issues.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by DanMich (49) 2 years ago

It has been rumored that they are buying some of their nuclear missile building supplies from China. If that is true then the only place I would be afraid to be at is in Iran, when that China junk falls apart.

[-] 1 points by reality101 (61) from Bradenton, FL 2 years ago

I agree.

Anyone can buy parts. It takes a lot of expertise to put it all toghether.

I remember when business thought if they bought a computer all their problems would be so;lved.

Implimentation is a major problem and I don't believe they have that capability.

[-] 1 points by fucorporatemedia (451) 2 years ago

like the patriot missiles that Israel just sold to China?

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

FALSE.

Unabashed propaganda with zero substantiating evidence.

[-] 1 points by fucorporatemedia (451) 2 years ago

Why did Finland confiscate this shipment?

Why were the missiles marked 'fireworks' from Israel and headed to China?

Why do you expect us to believe some damage control article that changes the story? Since Germany suddenly claimed responsibility, why hasn't Korea asked for their missiles yet? We are not as stupid as you and the corporate media think. Ron Paul leading in the polls proves that even mindless Republicans no longer believe you, and his stance on the phony war in Iran and cutting funding to Israel has popular support so suck on it you paid propagandist.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

LOL ! You are a very skilled propagandist. Are you government trained ?

The missiles weren't marked "fireworks from Israel"

South Korea hasn't "asked for their missiles" because they are letting Finland work through their legal process just like any respectable nation would.

""As far as we can make out the shipment was legal," said Virtanen. "They were not trying to smuggle the missiles ... they are destined for South Korea." He tells CBS News the ship's two most senior officers "are still being interrogated" Thursday. "The patriot missiles are being transported from the ship to a more secure location under the protection of the Finnish military," says Virtanen. "The explosives onboard the ship are not being confiscated... the problem with the explosives is that they are supposed to be inside containers, but they are legal." He confirmed that the Finns are investigating two crimes; that the shippers did not ask for permission to transit the missiles and explosives via Finland, and the explosives being inappropriately loaded."

There is zero mention of Israel anywhere among the credible media sources. This is a lie that you are trying to promote so it appears widely on the Internet and becomes accepted as "social fact" by mere repetition.

I'm glad to see you finally outed yourself as a Paulista. That would explain a lot. I am amazed, however, at how far you are willing to go to support your candidate. I have encountered many of his supporters here, and I don't agree with them, but most have some integrity. You have none. You lie.

[-] 1 points by fucorporatemedia (451) 2 years ago

"LOL ! You are a very skilled propagandist. Are you government trained ?"

Thanks, but no.

You might have noticed that our government supports Israel in everything they do....so who would be the paid government propagandist now?