Iran tested weapon

[Tone Capone]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/08/11/iran.missile.reut/index.html

I read this in CNN. Discuss?

[ChrisLove]

This nothing to worry about in my opinion. Just maintaining the principles of mutually assured destruction, if Israel raisied the bar then it is inevitable that its enemys will respond. If anything the Iranian attempts to reduce the firepower mismatch reduce the danger of war.

[Tone Capone]

This nothing to worry about in my opinion. Just maintaining the principles of mutually assured destruction, if Israel raisied the bar then it is inevitable that its enemys will respond. If anything the Iranian attempts to reduce the firepower mismatch reduce the danger of war.

I'm worried if it really reduces anything. Israel is as crazy and fanatical as any middle eastern territory. And we all know Iran is crazy as well. I think something bad will happen.

[ChrisLove]

I'm worried if it really reduces anything. Israel is as crazy and fanatical as any middle eastern territory. And we all know Iran is crazy as well. I think something bad will happen.

Well as long as Israel is the only one with THE BOMB you cn rule out an attack on Israel. You gotta think though, sooner or later.... its just a matter of time before some nutcase gets atomic power and then............

[Lilb]

I'm worried if it really reduces anything. Israel is as crazy and fanatical as any middle eastern territory. And we all know Iran is crazy as well. I think something bad will happen.
What do you mean by crazy?

[Tone Capone]

What do you mean by crazy?

Don't you watch the news? Read the paper? Check the internet?

[Lilb]

um yes, so what gives us the right to call other countries crazy if we do the same thing? The U.S. hasn't ever made a bomb? ;)

[Tone Capone]

um yes, so what gives us the right to call other countries crazy if we do the same thing? The U.S. hasn't ever made a bomb? ;)

HA! I knew you were trying to pull me into that. How come instead of something that matters, you people always switch to "well the us has blah blah blah". Not falling for it. Israel=crazy, Iran=crazy. crazy+crazy= bad times.

[Lilb]

HA! I knew you were trying to pull me into that. How come instead of something that matters, you people always switch to "well the us has blah blah blah". Not falling for it. Israel=crazy, Iran=crazy. crazy+crazy= bad times.
You people? What is meant by that? Not falling for what? Listen, are you an american citizen? Just because some other countries technology is far better than what ever else is out there doesn't mean they are crazy.... Maybe far more intellegent. I am not an advocate for bombs and violence and stuff like that but.......
America does what they want to do right? and p.s. calling countries crazy is not nice .... remember intolerance is not tolerated here! :p

[Tone Capone]

You people? What is meant by that? Not falling for what? Listen, are you an american citizen? Just because some other countries technology is far better than what ever else is out there doesn't mean they are crazy.... Maybe far more intellegent. I am not an advocate for bombs and violence and stuff like that but.......
America does what they want to do right? and p.s. calling countries crazy is not nice .... remember intolerance is not tolerated here! :p

Well, I guess you'll keep rationalizing when they start blowing up the world. Either that or you'll side with whatever is cool to you types.

[Lilb]

Aww come on....you think America will let anyone blow up the world? We wouldn't want anyone to do that now would we? Or at least let anyone beat us to it....(lol) and anyhow...what do you mean by "you types" you don't know what type of person I am so you can just skip "that" generalization. It's all in fun my dear boy.....losen up a little the world is not gonna blow up anytime soon and if bombs do start going up in the air....dear god I hope I am on the right side.....the smart side! ( um whichever that is)

[Tone Capone]

Aww come on....you think America will let anyone blow up the world? We wouldn't want anyone to do that now would we? Or at least let anyone beat us to it....(lol) and anyhow...what do you mean by "you types" you don't know what type of person I am so you can just skip "that" generalization. It's all in fun my dear boy.....losen up a little the world is not gonna blow up anytime soon and if bombs do start going up in the air....dear god I hope I am on the right side.....the smart side! ( um whichever that is)

Sorry for generalizing... as you can see I'm not very good at expressing my views :o

[Señor Stino]

in fact, there are already reasons to believe Iran has atomic power, ..
but to expect the end of the world out of that Capone seems a bit to pessimistic.
stop worrying and start to love the bomb ;)

[100% ILL]

Russia also tested an ICBM, supposedly to check it's service life, they have also said they have tested a "space vehicle" which would avoid a missle defence system.

http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/2004/08/11/1092102532146.html

We will be back in the Cold War shortly....


I agree, Russia never realy stopped the arms race. In my opinion they're just being quieter about it. Also the U.S.S.R went through some political and social turmoil, not to mention the economic problems they had. But it would be presumptious to assume that they do not have "old school" socialists still active in their military and political leadership who have a bad taste in their mouth about the Regan administration's Glastnost.

[Echewta]

If the "most powerful country" in the world said that my country was in the axis of evil and then attacked one of those countries that just happened to be nextstore and helped that attacked country 2 decades earlier by supporting the attack of me as well as a decade before that installing a puppet Shaw in my country, well, I to might want to have a nuke to protect myself and keep the "most powerful country" in the world out of my business for once.

[Jasonik]

Is it plausable that one of the unspoken motives for going to Iraq was to 'keep an eye on Iran?' I guess I'm optimistic we're always one step ahead of our enemies....(I mean enemies of FREEDOM :rolleyes: )

[ChrisLove]

in fact, there are already reasons to believe Iran has atomic power, ..
but to expect the end of the world out of that Capone seems a bit to pessimistic.
stop worrying and start to love the bomb ;)

Is there any credible evidence that Iran is a nuclear power - surely the whole point of having such power is to make sure everyone knows about it - If you have seen Dr. Strangelove you know there is no point in having a secret super weapon for defence.

[Lilb]

I just love how the U.S. always turns and diverts it's attention to Iran. Like there isn't anything else going on in the world. Although they may posses atomic this and deadly that I think that the news media always turns to Iran as a scapegoat of sorts. And that is right what about Russia or who knows what is going on in North Korea
Even though Iran may have done "evil" deeds in the past we always seem to look at the bad. Doesn't anyone remember the history of Iran before the cultural revolution? Or does the U.S. just start off with all the bad history of countries?
Word...

[Señor Stino]

I agree, Russia never realy stopped the arms race. In my opinion they're just being quieter about it. Also the U.S.S.R went through some political and social turmoil, not to mention the economic problems they had. But it would be presumptious to assume that they do not have "old school" socialists still active in their military and political leadership who have a bad taste in their mouth about the Regan administration's Glastnost.


the REAGAN adm"s Glasnost ??, and perestroika aswell I suppose :p
stop thinking of reagan as "the man who beat communism", please

but yeah, so what are you saying here, Russia is still making weapons?, yes ofcourse, they do still have the highest number of nuclear warheads, this makes them "evil" or what?

us promised (in 97) to destroy its stockpile of chemical weapons by 2003, but they were unable to meet the deadline

now i will go search were the h*ll I've read about the nuke(s) Iran has.

[Lilb]

It all goes back to what country isn't making weapons? ;)

[100% ILL]

the REAGAN adm"s Glasnost ??, and perestroika aswell I suppose :p
stop thinking of reagan as "the man who beat communism", please

but yeah, so what are you saying here, Russia is still making weapons?, yes ofcourse, they do still have the highest number of nuclear warheads, this makes them "evil" or what?

us promised (in 97) to destroy its stockpile of chemical weapons by 2003, but they were unable to meet the deadline

now i will go search were the h*ll I've read about the nuke(s) Iran has.

The comments were in reference to Rhytmn Fiction's post about the cold war. The general perception is that Reagan is the man who ended the Cold War and defeated communism, thereby implying that perhaps the Russians may still hold some anamosity. As to their evil quotent, I have no idea.
That being said I don't see how you could not agree that Reagan was very influential in bringing about an end to the Cold War. Communism, at least in Russia collapsed under it's own weght.

[Ace42]

Communism, at least in Russia collapsed under it's own weght.

It collapsed due to complicated reasons. The most obvious one being a rebellion by the nation's military commanders who espoused regressive Stalinist politics and were frustrated by Gorbachev's progressive socialist agenda. Yeltzin manipulated the situation to his own ends, and defused it, but guaranteed the end of the USSR.

Gorbachev was the man. Propz out to the guy with bird-shit birthmark on his bonce.

[100% ILL]

It collapsed due to complicated reasons. The most obvious one being a rebellion by the nation's military commanders who espoused regressive Stalinist politics and were frustrated by Gorbachev's progressive socialist agenda. Yeltzin manipulated the situation to his own ends, and defused it, but guaranteed the end of the USSR.

Gorbachev was the man. Propz out to the guy with bird-shit birthmark on his bonce.


Lol The birthmark :D

My statement was an attempt to simplify an otherwise complicated explanation.

[Señor Stino]

Ace42 is more right in his communism-collapse theory I guess.

I justed wanted to point out to you, 100% ill, that you named it "reagan's glasnost", a terrible error, and for me he will not be the man who beat communism, that will always be Gorbatsjev, Reagan just pointed out that the Russians couldn't keep up with his extra military expenses.

[100% ILL]

So sorry for the terrible error

[Echewta]

Is it plausable that one of the unspoken motives for going to Iraq was to 'keep an eye on Iran?' I guess I'm optimistic we're always one step ahead of our enemies....(I mean enemies of FREEDOM :rolleyes: )

Is that unspoken motive only allowed for us or can other countries have an unspoken movite as well? Now that we live in the country next to Iran, how are we able to see things differently? Are we better able to attack Iran now than before? Preemptive for false reasons (lied, didn't lie, bad intel, policitcal reasons, congress said ok, etc.) makes you optimistic about our government motives and steps ahead?

[Tone Capone]

It's pretty much a sure bet that we'll be having to take care of Iran sooner than later.

[ChrisLove]

It's pretty much a sure bet that we'll be having to take care of Iran sooner than later.

Do you mean 'take care' as in increase foreign aid, trading, support Iranian interests in the US with grants and stuff?

Or do you 'take care' in the Bond Villian sense of the phrase?

[Lilb]

I think that the U.S. should worry about taking care of the U.S.

[Ace42]

I think that the U.S. should worry about taking care of the U.S.

Patriot Act

[Lilb]

Patriot Act
?????? What do you meant?
You think the Patriot Act is taking care of us?

[Tone Capone]

I think that the U.S. should worry about taking care of the U.S.

Hey you know that a confrontation with Iran is coming, and they will be taken care of. Do you think it's NOT going to happen?

[Ace42]

?????? What do you meant?
You think the Patriot Act is taking care of us?

In a purely euphemistic sense.

[Jasonik]

Yeah, like Bush is taking care of business in the Middle East.

[Jasonik]

Echewta, ever play chess? Ever play man to man defense? Ever keep your cards close to your chest? Ever use a fakeout play to catch your opponent by surprise? Ever not use a fakeout play because it would be sneaky or dishonest?
Is that unspoken motive only allowed for us or can other countries have an unspoken movite as well?
You want me to pass judgement? You aren't naive enough to think that countries don't, (and shouldn't) covertly work for their best interests?

Now that we live in the country next to Iran, how are we able to see things differently? Are we better able to attack Iran now than before?
Yes, it's easier to attack, but this is hopefully a deterrent since now they know we won't hesitate to attack.
Preemptive for false reasons (lied, didn't lie, bad intel, policitcal reasons, congress said ok, etc.) makes you optimistic about our government motives and steps ahead?
There are sophisticated and brilliant military & geopolitical strategists at work at the highest levels of our government. To dismiss them as shortsighted madmen who would pull off a move as bold as this for mere trifles is beyond pessimistic. Point taken that the present action is more hawkish than most Americans are willing to stomach, but I take you back to chess. You will NEVER win a game without losing some of your pieces.

[Lilb]

Hey you know that a confrontation with Iran is coming, and they will be taken care of. Do you think it's NOT going to happen?
I hope not...we have better things to spend our money on.

[Tone Capone]

I hope not...we have better things to spend our money on.

Yeah I hope not too, but it's going to happen... ESPECIALLY if a certain somebody is running things.

[Lilb]

Yeah I hope not too, but it's going to happen... ESPECIALLY if a certain somebody is running things.
What a way to look at things-what do you really want it to happen? You keep on pressing the issue.Do you know something we don't know?
You think that a certain somebody will be back to run things?
God save us all, and if he does......I wouldn't mind being blown up or something....

[Señor Stino]

yeah, now Capone has me curious aswell, why will there be a military confrontation with Iran ? do you also know when it will be?

things can change, and they can change fast

oh, and btw, you CAN win a chess game without losing pieces :-)

[TheWedge]

oh, and btw, you CAN win a chess game without losing pieces :-)

Or you can not play games altogether, ensuring you keep all of your pieces. ;)

[Ace42]

yeah, now Capone has me curious aswell, why will there be a military confrontation with Iran ? do you also know when it will be?

things can change, and they can change fast

Well, being the future, it is anyone's guess. But, judging by the almost psychic predictions of Noam Chomsky about a decade ago, it strikes me as being quite likely. Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq. The one thing they all have in common is the wet-black stuff. And specifically, in the wet-black stuff that is primarily referenced to in numerous CIA and industrial analysis going back for well over a decade.

They have been planning this for decades, I don't think a little thing like a change of President will effect the end-game.

[Señor Stino]

don't know about that Ace, I am almost certain that we will not see an invasion of Iran within the next precidency, and that chance only gets bigger if Kerry beats Bush, in my opinion that is.

and by the way, where will they find another hundredthousand troops, willingly to engage (is that spelled correctly,?) in another "war against terror", unless the administration finds a good reason to invade a country, it won't be easy to pull of "a second Iraq", people aren't stupid

for what that I understand a lot of US GI's in Iraq thought they would be long home by now, and are getting tired of fighting, of being in a war. These guys cant be motivated to go on "a mission" in Iran.

[Jasonik]

oh, and btw, you CAN win a chess game without losing pieces :-)

Or you can not play games altogether, ensuring you keep all of your pieces. ;)

Sorry, my bad..."You can't win a chess game unless you're willing to lose some of your pieces."

Would it be better to have to make a pact with your opponent before the game, not to take pieces, but to only try to checkmate? Would you relax your defenses? Would you be wary of an opponent who keeps positioning himself to take your pieces even though you have 'agreed' not to? Like it or not there are matches being played all over the globe, and folding up the board and refusing to play with untrustworthy opponents is never an option.

This dynamic is the basis and downfall of diplomacy and negotiation. The problem being the other person cannot always be trusted.

[Ace42]

don't know about that Ace, I am almost certain that we will not see an invasion of Iran within the next precidency, and that chance only gets bigger if Kerry beats Bush, in my opinion that is.

and by the way, where will they find another hundredthousand troops, willingly to engage (is that spelled correctly,?) in another "war against terror", unless the administration finds a good reason to invade a country, it won't be easy to pull of "a second Iraq", people aren't stupid

for what that I understand a lot of US GI's in Iraq thought they would be long home by now, and are getting tired of fighting, of being in a war. These guys cant be motivated to go on "a mission" in Iran.

Give it another 5-10 years, a few terrorist attacks which have NOTHING TO DO WITH IRAN, generally pissed off people who have an even worse quality of life because of spiralling oil costs, more people pushed into military service.

"It will be all over by Christmas" - didn't the US learn anything from two world wars? Nope, not even Vietnam. There'll be more fresh meat, just like there was for this ridiculous joke of a 'war' mark my words.

[TheWedge]

Sorry, my bad..."You can't win a chess game unless you're willing to lose some of your pieces."

Would it be better to have to make a pact with your opponent before the game, not to take pieces, but to only try to checkmate? Would you relax your defenses? Would you be wary of an opponent who keeps positioning himself to take your pieces even though you have 'agreed' not to? Like it or not there are matches being played all over the globe, and folding up the board and refusing to play with untrustworthy opponents is never an option.

This dynamic is the basis and downfall of diplomacy and negotiation. The problem being the other person cannot always be trusted.

Who said the "other player" was the one not adhearing to the rules?
Isn't it possible that you first positioned your players to take out theirs?
So, if you didn't agree to play the game in the first place MAYBE their wouldn't be an issue.

[Jasonik]

Who said the "other player" was the one not adhearing to the rules?
Isn't it possible that you first positioned your players to take out theirs?
So, if you didn't agree to play the game in the first place MAYBE their wouldn't be an issue.

What is the 'issue' you speak of?

[TheWedge]

What is the 'issue' you speak of?
OOPS!
Sorry.
Maybe there wouldn't be an issue.

Meaning, if you weren't seen as a "cheat" to begin with, the other player wouldn't be positioning his pieces that way.

[Señor Stino]

let's stop the comparison with the chess game for a minut plz, it's getting too hard :-)

hmm Ace, don't know, the number of "generally pissed off people" will be smaller, and certainly the number of pissed off people who are willingly to go to another war, I think.

i dont think people, or american people, have that much hatred within them, and a new (or a 2nd bush) administration will just not be able to pull of the same money trick twice to fool the nation (world) I believe

[ASsman]

Meh, fuck it. *ASsman moves to Canada*.

[Tone Capone]

NO! I don't have any info that you don't... that was dumb of you to even ask that. I'm just using common sense. With the rhetoric against Iran increasing, it's only common sense that a confrontation with them is coming and when it does happen, they will be taken care of.

[ASsman]

Yah, if people dont tell their congressmen what the fuck they want. You have to be like, BITCH YOU BEST VOTE THIS WAR TO THE GROUND, or your not getting re-elected motherfucker.

[Señor Stino]

that's what the american people thought in the 60s aswell, the confrontation with the evil redskis

[Tone Capone]

Yah, if people dont tell their congressmen what the fuck they want. You have to be like, BITCH YOU BEST VOTE THIS WAR TO THE GROUND, or your not getting re-elected motherfucker.

LOL!!! goos way to do it.

I'm torn though, I don't want them having those weapons... as stereotypical as this is, I think that country is crazy. They'll use those weapons quick, and then crazy ass israel will get crazy too and then BOOM!!! I wouldn't want to be stuck in Iran for 20 years either... I think a confrontation is coming though.

[ASsman]

WHAT ABOUT KOREA!!

[Tone Capone]

WHAT ABOUT KOREA!!

What about Korea? How come everyone on this board replies to opinions with "what about..."? We'll have to see what happens with Korea.

[Ace42]

It is called egalitarianism, it is pretty much the antithesis of hypocrisy and double-standards.

[Tone Capone]

It is called egalitarianism, it is pretty much the antithesis of hypocrisy and double-standards.

interesting... yet somehow, not interesting.... which in itself is ~interesting~

[Señor Stino]

LOL!!! goos way to do it.

I'm torn though, I don't want them having those weapons... as stereotypical as this is, I think that country is crazy. They'll use those weapons quick, and then crazy ass israel will get crazy too and then BOOM!!! I wouldn't want to be stuck in Iran for 20 years either... I think a confrontation is coming though.

what exactly makes you think Iran is a "craaazy" country?, do you even know shit about that country?
what makes other atomicpowers non-crazy

your theory is bullox,

[ASsman]

N Korea threatens US with first strike

Pyongyang asserts right to pre-emptive attack as tensions rise over American build-up

Jonathan Watts in Pyongyang
Thursday February 6, 2003
The Guardian

North Korea is entitled to launch a pre-emptive strike against the US rather than wait until the American military have finished with Iraq, the North's foreign ministry told the Guardian yesterday.

Warning that the current nuclear crisis is worse than that in 1994, when the peninsula stood on the brink of oblivion, a ministry spokesman called on Britain to use its influence with Washington to avert war.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,889679,00.html

Poopy face....

[Señor Stino]

your point being?

[ASsman]

I was answering Capone, foolio.

[EN[i]GMA]

WHAT THE HELL!!! WE CANT HAVE COUNTRIES GOING AROUND WAGING WARS BEFORE THEIR ATTACKED!!! THE STUPID BASTARDS!!! WHO WOULD DARE ATTACK A COUNTRY BEFORE THEY ATTAcKED THEM ONLY UNDER THE PRETENSE THAT THEY MIGHT ATTACK THEM!!! WE CANT HAVE THAT!!! I WONDER WHAT KIND OF MANIAC WOULD DO SUCH A THING!!!

[ASsman]

Someone with a future telling machine.

[Tone Capone]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/26/ahmadinejad/index.html


But they aren't crazy! :rolleyes: ;)

[Ali]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/26/ahmadinejad/index.html


But they aren't crazy! :rolleyes: ;)They aren't the craziest.

From: The American Conservative (http://www.amconmag.com/2005_08_01/article3.html)

In Washington it is hardly a secret that the same people in and around the administration who brought you Iraq are preparing to do the same for Iran. The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney’s office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing—that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.So, if there's another terrorist attack in the US, or against a US target, Iran's going to get nuked, whether they are involved or not.

What's to stop anybody who wants Iran to get nuked from staging a terror attack and then sitting back and enjoying the show?

The US wouldn't dare nuke Iran. They are far too well armed and are backed by China and Russia.

If they do, they will be sorry. Very sorry.

And if they don't, they'll be even more sorry, when Iran launches its Oil Bourse (http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1502905,00120001.htm) in March 2006. It is the Iranian plan for a Euro-denominated oil bourse to be commissioned by March 2006 that has sent shock waves in Washington. If this happens, then London’s International Petroleum Exchange and New York’s Mercantile Exchange, both owned by American companies, could feel threatened. This would make Iran the regional hub, attract European buyers paying in euros as well as oil-starved Chinese and Indians. Both India and China could offer lucrative trade in exchange to an Iran whose industry has been hurt by sanctions. The global demand for billions of dollars for buying the oil would go down along with the requirement that the US may have to buy a part of its needs in euros. Further, if other commodities move away from the dollar, this would be the end of dollar supremacy. Some European analysts like Toni Straka describe the effect of this changeover as worse than a nuclear attack on the US. This is the urgency for the US and Iran must pay for it. and this isn't the least of their worries... Iraqi oil exports grind to a halt (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4372434.stm)

Oil exports from Iraq have been completely halted by a combination of attacks and bad weather, reports say.
Four sabotage attacks brought exports from Northern Iraq to a halt on Sunday and officials warned the damage may take a month to repair.

The problem worsened on Monday when a pipeline carrying crude to the Turkish port of Ceyhan was hit in an attack.

Meanwhile, bad weather has prevented tankers from loading at terminals in the south, Agence France-Presse said. :p poor Don, Dick and George. All their plans to rule the world have turned out to be completely and utterly idiotic and now the people of the United States of America are going to pay.

I say get some rope, find a tree and sort this out once and for all.

[Tone Capone]

They aren't the craziest.....


I say get some rope, find a tree and sort this out once and for all.

Yeah...
This thread is about Iran, if you want to talk about the US, that's what MOST of the other threads are for.

Love,
tony


ps. Iran is CRAZY!!! (y)

[Ali]

Yeah...
This thread is about Iran, if you want to talk about the US, that's what MOST of the other threads are for.

Love,
tonyDear Tony,

Please read my post.

Love,
Ali

[Tone Capone]

Dear Tony,

Please read my post.

Love,
Ali


Yeah you are right. Iran isn't crazy. What the Iranian president said was awesome. What the Iranian government has been doing since as long as anyone can remember is totally cool too!!! :rolleyes:

[Ali]

Yeah you are right. Iran isn't crazy. What the Iranian president said was awesome. What the Iranian government has been doing since as long as anyone can remember is totally cool too!!! :rolleyes:OK, so nuke 'em.

Is that what you want?

[Funkaloyd]

What the Iranian government has been doing since as long as anyone can remember...
You have a short memory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax).

[Monsieur Decuts]

I wonder what sally fields would say after her experiences.

[Tone Capone]

OK, so nuke 'em.

Is that what you want?

Don't put words in my mouth.

[Ali]

Don't put words in my mouth.OK, what do you want 'them' to 'do' about Iran?

[sam i am]

Well, being the future, it is anyone's guess. But, judging by the almost psychic predictions of Noam Chomsky about a decade ago, it strikes me as being quite likely. Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq. The one thing they all have in common is the wet-black stuff. And specifically, in the wet-black stuff that is primarily referenced to in numerous CIA and industrial analysis going back for well over a decade.

They have been planning this for decades, I don't think a little thing like a change of President will effect the end-game.

Since when has AFGHANISTAN been known for oil? Maybe you're referencing the pipeline again?

[Ali]

Since when has AFGHANISTAN been known for oil? Maybe you're referencing the pipeline again?Ask Hamid Karzai, former advisor to UNOCAL and now President of this country which is not known for oil. Ask him what about oil and gas reserves in the Caspian Sea. Ask him why the Russians wanted Afghanistan for so long and fought so hard for it?

Also, read this (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/afghan.html) article to see that Afghanistan does actually have oil and gas reserves of its own, making it more than just a useful place from which to attack other Middle Eastern countries which have huge oil reserves, plans to sell their oil in Euros and enemies in Tel Aviv.

[sam i am]

Ask Hamid Karzai, former advisor to UNOCAL and now President of this country which is not known for oil. Ask him what about oil and gas reserves in the Caspian Sea. Ask him why the Russians wanted Afghanistan for so long and fought so hard for it?

Also, read this (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/afghan.html) article to see that Afghanistan does actually have oil and gas reserves of its own, making it more than just a useful place from which to attack other Middle Eastern countries which have huge oil reserves, plans to sell their oil in Euros and enemies in Tel Aviv.

Let's see....Afghanistan does NOT border the Caspian Sea. AND, there's already pipelines leading from there to the Black Sea and through Turkey.

As for the article :

"Energy Overview
Between the 1960s and mid-1980s, the Soviets had identified more than 15 oil and gas fields in northern Afghanistan. Only three gas fields -- Khwaja Gogerdak, Djarquduk, and Yatimtaq – were developed in the area surrounding Sheberghan, which is located about 120 kilometers west of Mazar-i-Sharif. Afghan natural gas production reached 275 million cubic feet per day (Mmcf/d) in the mid-1970s. The Djarquduk field was brought online during that period and boosted Afghan natural gas output to a peak of 385 Mmcf/d by 1978. About 100 mmcf/d of this amount was used locally in gas distribution systems in Sheberghan and Mazar-i-Sharif as well as at a 100,000 mt/y urea plant located near Mazar-i-Sharif. One oil field, Angot, was developed in the late 1960s, but aside from production tests, oil production was intermittent, with daily outputs averaging 500 b/d or less.

Northern Afghanistan has proved, probable and possible natural gas reserves of about 5 trillion cubic feet (Tcf). This area, which is a southward extension of the highly prolific, natural gas-prone Amu Darya Basin, has the potential to hold a sizable undiscovered gas resource base, especially in sedimentary layers deeper than what were developed during the Soviet era. Afghanistan’s crude oil potential is more modest, with perhaps up to 100 million barrels of medium-gravity recoverable from Angot and other fields that are undeveloped. Afghanistan also may possess relatively small volumes of gas liquids and condensate.

Outside of the North Afghan Platform, very limited oil and gas exploration has occurred. Geological, aeromagnetic, and gravimetric studies were conducted in the 1970s over parts of the Katawaz Fault Block (eastern Afghanistan – along the Pak border) and in the Helmand and Farah provinces. The hydrocarbon potential in these areas is thought to be very limited as compared to that in the north.

The Soviets had estimated Afghanistan's proven and probable natural gas reserves at up to 5 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) in the 1970s. Afghan natural gas production reached 275 million cubic feet per day (Mmcf/d) in the mid-1970s. The Djarquduk field was brought online during that period boosted Afghan natural gas output to a peak of 385 Mmcf/d by 1978-79. After the Soviet pullout and subsequent Afghan civil war, most gas wells at Sheberghan area fields were shut in due to technical problems and the lack of an export market in the former Soviet Union.

At its peak in the late 1970s, Afghanistan supplied 70%-90% of its natural gas output to the Soviet Union's natural gas grid via a link through Uzbekistan. In 1992, Afghan President Najibullah indicated that a new natural gas sales agreement with Russia was in progress. However, several former Soviet republics raised price and distribution issues and negotiations stalled. In the early 1990s, Afghanistan also discussed possible natural gas supply arrangements with Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and several Western European countries, but these talks never progressed further. Afghan natural gas fields include Djarquduk, Khowaja Gogerdak, and Yatimtaq, all of which are located within 20 miles of the northern town of Sheberghan in Jowzjan province. In 1999, work resumed on the repair of a distribution pipeline to Mazar-i-Sharif. Spur pipelines to a small power plant and fertilizer plant also were repaired and completed. Mazar-i-Sharif is now receiving natural gas from the pipeline. The possibility of exporting a small quantity of natural gas through the existing pipeline into Uzbekistan also is reportedly being considered.

Soviet estimates from the late 1970s placed Afghanistan's proven and probable oil and condensate reserves at 95 million barrels. Most Soviet assistance efforts after the mid-1970s were aimed at increasing gas production. Sporadic gas exploration continued through the mid-1980s. The last Soviet technical advisors left Afghanistan in 1988. After a brief hiatus, oil production at the Angot field was restarted in the early 1990s by local militias. Output levels, however, are though to have been less than 300 b/d. Near Sar-i-Pol, the Soviets partially constructed a 10,000-b/d topping plant, which although undamaged by war, is thought by Western experts to be unsalvageable.

Petroleum products such as diesel, gasoline, and jet fuel are imported, mainly from Pakistan and Uzbekistan, with limited volumes from Turkmenistan and Iran serving regional markets. Turkmenistan also has a petroleum product storage and distribution facility at Tagtabazar ( Kushka – it’s on the Turkmen side) near the Afghan border, which supplies northwestern Afghanistan."

I quoted the above so we are sure to be talking about the same things. The words and phrases that jump out at me are bolded. The problem with many of these articles you cite, ali, are that they are riddled with such nebulousities. It's well-nigh impossible to pin down an actual FACT due to the use of such modifiers and hedgers, which detract from the total picture you are attempting to paint.

Now, if you are IMPLYING that there exist some potentialities for the extraction of gases from Afghanistan, well then, IMPLY away. BUT, the FACTS have not been established to make an assertion that there is deviousness or ulterior motives.

Just saying....

making it more than just a useful place from which to attack other Middle Eastern countries which have huge oil reserves, plans to sell their oil in Euros and enemies in Tel Aviv.

Are you IMPLYING Iran? Pakistan? To which country are you referring?

Also, are you IMPLYING that the US would support Israel (which you cleverly covered by inserting Tel Aviv instead of the actual name of the country) over some other, yet to be named Middle Eastern country? Hmmmm?

Oh, just as an aside, IS Iran "planning to sell their oil in Euros?" Or, were you referring to Iraq there?

Please elucidate....

[Ali]

Let's see....Afghanistan does NOT border the Caspian Sea. AND, there's already pipelines leading from there to the Black Sea and through Turkey. Wrong (http://www.nelsonresources.com/NR/map.htm). The pipeline through Turkey's only just been opened (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2263611.stm) and there are plans for a pipeline through Afghanistan to the Arabian Sea.

The problem with many of these articles you cite, ali, are that they are riddled with such nebulousities. It's well-nigh impossible to pin down an actual FACT due to the use of such modifiers and hedgers, which detract from the total picture you are attempting to paint.What!?!?!?! That article is from the Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government (http://www.eia.doe.gov/). You cannot get more FACTUAL than that!!! The problem with you, sam, is that you resort to questioning the validity of any source used to own you, instead of defending your POV with a valid counterpoint, because you don't actually have one. Or you claim you were joking. It's impossible to debate with someone who ducks and weaves in this cowardly manner. Fight like a man, or don't fight at all!

Now, if you are IMPLYING that there exist some potentialities for the extraction of gases from Afghanistan, well then, IMPLY away. BUT, the FACTS have not been established to make an assertion that there is deviousness or ulterior motives. The facts HAVE (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2263611.stm) been established. The Caspian region has long been thought to contain large quantities of oil and gas. Initial surveys found that these were understated, but the increase in the oil price has now made those reserves viable, as well as new seismic findings.

Afghanistan may not have the largest oil and gas reserves in the region, but it does have some and, more importantly it is, strategically, an extremely important region to hold. It borders 5 countries, including Iran and is very close to oil-rich, land locked Kazakhstan (http://www.worldpress.org/specials/pp/kazakhstan.htm).

Iran is now neatly sandwiched (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/asie/images/iran-map.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/asie/irancarte.htm&h=689&w=706&sz=66&tbnid=6Dw_M5hnL5AJ:&tbnh=134&tbnw=137&prev=/images%3Fq%3Diran%2Bmap%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D&oi=imagesr&start=1) between two American-held territories and can be attacked from both directions... but noooooooooo there was nothing more to the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan than removing the Taliban, who were, of course, directly responsible for 9/11, and ensuring that a democratically elected government (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2005/10/mil-051031-rferl04.htm) came into power (something you guys are good at).

Are you IMPLYING Iran? Pakistan? To which country are you referring?Here's a clue. One is a US ally, one is in the Axis of Evil.

Worked it out yet?

Also, are you IMPLYING that the US would support Israel (which you cleverly covered by inserting Tel Aviv instead of the actual name of the country) over some other, yet to be named Middle Eastern country? Hmmmm?Do I have to?

Oh, just as an aside, IS Iran "planning to sell their oil in Euros?" Or, were you referring to Iraq there?Both. Read my earlier posts. I stated that Iraq were planning to sell oil in Euros before they were invaded and it's common knowledge that Iran will sell their oil in Euros as of March 2006. References are above, but you'll probably dismiss them or try to draw the argument into safer waters.

Please elucidate....I don't know why I bother. I've tried being civil you you, but you seem to enjoy personally attacking other people, instead of engaging in debate, so I don't see the point in trying any more.

[sam i am]

Wrong (http://www.nelsonresources.com/NR/map.htm). The pipeline through Turkey's [/URL] only just been opened

Actually, it was opened September 17, 2002. That's more than 3 years ago, dude.

and there are plans for a pipeline through Afghanistan to the Arabian Sea.

Plans, but not actualities. The article you cited also talked about the barriers in Pakistand and India that will likely preclude the piepline coming to fruition. It's certainly a debatable point, however.

What!?!?!?! That article is from the [URL=http://www.eia.doe.gov/]Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2263611.stm). You cannot get more FACTUAL than that!!!

Is this the same US Government you berate and deride as the nexus of evil in the world? The one that had faulty intelligence that led the US into Iraq? The one that believed in weapons of mass destruction that have yet to be found?

The problem with you, sam, is that you resort to questioning the validity of any source used to own you, instead of defending your POV with a valid counterpoint, because you don't actually have one. Or you claim you were joking. It's impossible to debate with someone who ducks and weaves in this cowardly manner. Fight like a man, or don't fight at all!

The source did not "own" me. I question the validity based on the qualifiers employed and the facts that came from Soviet-era research as well. Although there exist probabilities and likelihoods, until the reality comes to fruition, it is speculation and obfuscation on your part to twist it into facts. As for my debating style, well, it's open to interpretation as to how you view it. I WAS joking throughout the thread entitled "It's still fun to pick on the French." I made it clear, from the beginning of my posts, that I was posting in jest. The fact that you fell for it and went along seriously on such a ludicrous philosophy was funny to me. I simply pointed out absurdity by being absurd myself. I ATTEMPTED to come clean many times and end the joke, but you and others continued to take it seriously for some unknown reason, so I kept it up because it AMUSED me to see you all twist in the wind. Talk about owned :rolleyes: ;)

The facts HAVE (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2263611.stm) been established. The Caspian region has long been thought to contain large quantities of oil and gas. Initial surveys found that these were understated, but the increase in the oil price has now made those reserves viable, as well as new seismic findings.

Granted about Caspian oil and gas reserves. My point was that there exist easier transit routes, already functioning, through Turkey, as well as through Armenia, Azerbaijan, the Ukraine, etc.

Afghanistan may not have the largest oil and gas reserves in the region, but it does have some and, more importantly it is, strategically, an extremely important region to hold. It borders 5 countries, including Iran and is very close to oil-rich, land locked Kazakhstan (http://www.worldpress.org/specials/pp/kazakhstan.htm).

We're not arguing here. You made an assertion in your original post that was quite bold about the presence of Afghani oil : "that Afghanistan does actually have oil and gas reserves of its own." You then cited an article to back your assertion. I talked about the qualifiers and modifiers in that article that predicated your assertion. I simply stated that facts have not been established, but rather probabilities and likelihoods. Those have not come to fruition, YET. They may, but time will tell. They are not CURRENTLY significant exporters nor a source of oil or gas (Afghanistan).

Iran is now neatly sandwiched (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/asie/images/iran-map.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/asie/irancarte.htm&h=689&w=706&sz=66&tbnid=6Dw_M5hnL5AJ:&tbnh=134&tbnw=137&prev=/images%3Fq%3Diran%2Bmap%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D&oi=imagesr&start=1) between two American-held territories and can be attacked from both directions... but noooooooooo there was nothing more to the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan than removing the Taliban, who were, of course, directly responsible for 9/11, and ensuring that a democratically elected government (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2005/10/mil-051031-rferl04.htm) came into power (something you guys are good at).

All true. I'd much rather NOT have us go after Iran, though. They have a powerhouse defense establishment and are proven warriors. IF we do go after them, it will likely only be with full UN backing. The jury's still out on this question, as the Iranians are being both cooperative and instrangient by turns (i.e., allowing weapons inspections while also recalling 40 moderate foreign diplomats in favor of more hardline diplomats).

Here's a clue. One is a US ally, one is in the Axis of Evil.

Worked it out yet?

Do I have to?

Nope. Are you referring to Iran or not? :rolleyes: ;)

Both. Read my earlier posts. I stated that Iraq were planning to sell oil in Euros before they were invaded and it's common knowledge that Iran will sell their oil in Euros as of March 2006.

What's your source for this?

References are above, but you'll probably dismiss them or try to draw the argument into safer waters.

Nope. I'll debate you point by point. We really don't disagree as much as you think. I agree with you that there is a strategic plan to isolate Iran. Whether there is a military soultion or not is iffy at best. Afghanistan is not going to be the next great oil producer nor is the pipeline likely to go through Afghanistan anytime soon. Time will tell if you or I is correct on this particular point.

I don't know why I bother. I've tried being civil you you, but you seem to enjoy personally attacking other people, instead of engaging in debate, so I don't see the point in trying any more.

I really don't think I've ever personally attacked you. We agreed that we both started on the wrong foot, but I actually do enjoy our "disagreements." You passionately believe in what you believe and I passionately believe in what I believe. Although the twain rarely meet, it doesn't mean I begrudge your your POV. I think you are wrong oftentimes and that you place too much weight on your sources' infallibility, but I respect your right to assert and defend yourself, as I hope you would mine.

[sam i am]

Continued fallout from Iran.....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051104/ts_nm/iran_un_israel_dc

When does the US invade again? ;)

[Ali]

When does the US invade again? ;)As soon as the EU3 let you...

UN inspectors visit Iran complex (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4401844.stm) United Nations nuclear inspectors have been allowed to visit Iran's sensitive Parchin military complex.

Iran seeks to renew nuclear talks (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4412314.stm) Iran's chief nuclear negotiator has written to the UK, France and Germany to call for the resumption of stalled talks over its atomic programme.

Historic Iraqi flight to Tehran (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4412154.stm) An Iraqi passenger plane has landed in the Iranian capital, Tehran, for the first time since the outbreak of war between the two countries 25 years ago

Oh dear. They're playing Ball again.

I wonder why...

Iran oil bourse (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/C1C0C9B3-DDA9-42E2-AE9C-B7CDBA08A6E9.htm) by Emilie Rutledge
Thursday 03 November 2005 10:01 AM GMT
Iran's decision to set up an oil and associated derivatives market next year has generated a great deal of interest.

This is primarily because of Iran's reported intention to invoice energy contracts in euros rather than dollars.

The contention that this could unseat the dollar's dominance as the de facto currency for oil transactions may be overstated, but this has not stopped many commentators from linking America's current political disquiet with Iran to the proposed Iranian Oil Bourse (IOB).

The proposal to set up the IOB was first put forward in Iran's Third Development Plan (2000-2005). Mohammad Javad Assemipour, who heads the project, has said that the exchange will strive to make Iran the main hub for oil deals in the region and that it should be operational by March 2006.

Geographically Iran is ideally located as it is in close proximity to major oil importers such as China, Europe and India.

It is unlikely, in the short term at least, that large numbers of energy traders will decamp and set up shop in Iran; a country which happens to be categorised as a member of the "axis of evil" by the president of the world's largest oil-importing country; the United States.

But over time, Iran could take some business away from the two incumbent energy exchanges, the International Petroleum Exchange and the New York Mercantile Exchange who both invoice sales solely in dollars.

Economic motives

If successful, the IOB will provide Iran with concrete economic benefits especially if it invoices at least some of its energy contracts in euros.

Iran has around 126 billion barrels of proven oil reserves about 10% of the world's total, and has the world's second largest proven natural gas reserves.

From an economic perspective, invoicing oil in euros would be logical for Iran as trade with the euro zone countries accounts for 45% of its total trade. More than a third of Iran's oil exports are destined for Europe, while oil exports to the United States are non existent.

The IOB could create a new euro denominated crude oil marker, which in turn would enable GCC nations to sell some of their oil for euros. The bourse should lead to greater levels of foreign direct investment in Iran's hydrocarbon sector and if it facilitates futures trading it will give regional investors an alternative to investing in their somewhat overvalued stock markets.

Euro zone countries alone account for almost a third of Iran's imports and currently Iran must exchange dollars earned from hydrocarbon exports into euros which involves exchange rate risk and transaction costs.

The decline in the dollar against the euro since 2002 - some 26% to date - has substantially reduced Iran's purchasing power against its main importing partner.

If the decline continues, more states will increase the percentage of euros vis-ê-vis the dollar they hold in reserve and in turn this will increase calls both in Iran and the GCC to invoice at least some of their oil exports in euros.

A move away from the dollar and a strengthening of the euro would further benefit Iran as according to a member of Iran's Parliament Development Commission, Mohammad Abasspour, more than half of the country's assets in the Forex Reserve Fund are now euros.

It is primarily the US which stands to lose out from any move away from the petrodollar status quo, it is the world's largest importer of oil and a move away from invoicing oil in dollars to euros will undoubtedly have a negative effect on its economy.
Fewer nations would be willing to hold the dollar in reserve which would cause a significant devaluation and result in the loss seigniorage revenues. In addition, US energy-related companies stand to lose out as they will be unable to participate in the bourse due to the longstanding American trade embargo on Iran.

Political considerations

In the 1970s, not long after the collapse of the gold standard, the US agreed with Saudi Arabia that Opec oil should be traded in dollars in effect replacing the gold standard with the oil standard.

Since then, consecutive US governments have been able to print dollar bills and treasury bonds in order to paper over huge current account and budgetary deficits, last year's US current account deficit was $646 billion.

Needless to say, the current petrodollar system greatly benefits the US; it enables it to effectively control the world oil market as the dollar has become the fiat currency for international trade.

In terms of its own oil imports, the US can print dollar bills without exporting commodities or manufactured goods as these can be paid for by issuing yet more dollars and T-bills.

George Perkovich, of the Washington based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, has argued that Iran's decision to consider invoicing oil sales in euros is "part of a very intelligent strategy to go on the offense in every way possible and mobilise other actors against the US."

This viewpoint however, ignores Iran's economic motives, just because the decision, if eventually taken, displeases the US does not mean that the rationale is purely political.

In light of such sentiments and the US's current insistence that Iran be referred to the UN Security Council Iran must consider and weigh carefully the economic benefits against the potential political costs.

Although a matter of conjecture, some observers consider Iran's threat to the petrodollar system so great that it could provoke a US military attack on Iran, most likely under the cover of a preemptive attack on its nuclear facilities, much like the cover of WMD America used against Iraq.

In November 2000, Iraq began selling its oil in euros, its Oil For Food account at the UN was also transferred into euros and later it converted its $10 billion UN held reserve fund into euros.

At the time of the switch many analysts were surprised and saw it as nothing more than a political statement, which in essence it may have been, but the euro has gained roughly 17% over the dollar between then and the 2003 US invasion of Iraq. Perhaps unsurprisingly, since the US led occupation of Iraq its oil sales are once again being invoiced in dollars.

The best policy choice for Iran would be to proceed with the IOB as planned as the economic advantages of such a bourse are clear, but in order to mitigate against the potentially greater political "threat" should provide customers with flexibility.

It would make it much harder for America to object to the new bourse, overtly or covertly, if Iran allows customers to decide for themselves which currency to use when purchasing oil, such an approach would facilitate for euro purchases without explicitly ruling out the dollar.

Emilie Rutledge is a British economist who is currently based at the Gulf Research Center in Dubai. :cool:

[Tone Capone]

As soon as the EU3 let you...


PshtHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! yeah right :rolleyes:

[Ali]

PshtHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! yeah right :rolleyes:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4412314.stm

Can you read?

[Tone Capone]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4412314.stm

Can you read?

Can YOU read (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=1038846&postcount=83) ?

:rolleyes:

[Ali]

Has anyone got anything to contribute to this thread, other than this stupid fucking chav, who is back on my ignore list, after a very brief spell?

[Tone Capone]

Has anyone got anything to contribute to this thread, other than this stupid fucking chav, who is back on my ignore list, after a very brief spell?

Yeah, anyone who doesn't feel the need to spit out the same ignorant rhetoric, feel free. (y)

[sam i am]

Has anyone got anything to contribute to this thread, other than this stupid fucking chav, who is back on my ignore list, after a very brief spell?

Here's some factual info. :

http://www.grc.ae/?PHPSESSID=fe60dd5ea4dee10469c7177b45af4738&sec=About%2BGRC&home=0&sec_type=h&sub_opt=64&override=&frm_show=1

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC07.php?CID=221

http://jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2369683&printthis=1

"Iran's reported intention ," "The contention that this could unseat the dollar's dominance as the de facto currency for oil transactions may be overstated," "It is unlikely, in the short term at least, that large numbers of energy traders will decamp and set up shop in Iran," "It would make it much harder for America to object to the new bourse, overtly or covertly, if Iran allows customers to decide for themselves which currency to use when purchasing oil, such an approach would facilitate for euro purchases without explicitly ruling out the dollar."

And there it is, at the very end of the OPINION piece : the fact that free trade and choice of currency COULD occur.

Now, since this article was published, the price of oil has gone down, the US is likely to start drilling in ANWR, and the euro has fallen against the dollar. The US stock market is up. AND, most significantly, oil companies are beginning to hedge their bets on oil disruptions via the possible introduction of a GCC currency or a conversion to euros.

IF the petrodollar is replaced by indexing to the euro, I'd venture to bet that most oil companies will be well-hedged and able to profit from the conversion. Wanna bet Halliburotn is invested in those pushing both for AND against the change, just so they win either way?

[Ali]

Now, since this article was published, the price of oil has gone down, the US is likely to start drilling in ANWR, and the euro has fallen against the dollar. The US stock market is up. AND, most significantly, oil companies are beginning to hedge their bets on oil disruptions via the possible introduction of a GCC currency or a conversion to euros.Oh, good. Now the US doesn't have to invade Iran. (y)

And you now believe me that another OPEC country is going to sell its oil in Euros. For a moment there, I thought you didn't.

Just wondering how the US is going to maintain that gargantuan deficit without the license to print money that the Petrodollar curently provides. I'm sure that despoiling an Alaskan wildlife area and reducing spending on Education, Welfare and Agriculture, while taxing the rich even less is going to help reduce it by a tiny fraction, but you might have to find other ways to finance your debt.

The free ride's coming to an end.
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC07.php?CID=221Let me say a word about: why worry more about Iran’s nuclear program than Israel’s? One answer is that Iran has solemnly promised in a treaty not to develop nuclear weapons, while Israel never did. So, Israel has WMD's and that's OK, because it refused to agree not to develop WMD's.

Iran has promised never to develop WMD's and is now being accused that it has.

I see.If we think that treaties and international organizations make a difference, then we have to be concerned when Iran ignores its treaty obligations.but not when Israel ignores the treaty altogether :rolleyes:

Perhaps Iran wants WMD's in order to deter a neighbour who has WMD's and has never promised not to use them?Second, the United States has a vital interest in preventing a nuclear arms race throughout the regionThird, a consensus has emerged in the United States that proliferation of weapons of mass destruction poses the most serious threat to U.S. national security. Maybe the US should be focusing on forcing Israel to disarm - thereby ensuring that there will never be an arms race in the middle east, because as long as Israel has The Bomb, you can be sure that everybody else will want it. If Iran wants Israel to give up nuclear weapons, then it needs to stop saying that Israel is an illegitimate country which should be wiped off the face of the earth.And that's their justification for WMD's, is it?

Maybe if Israel stopped wiping Palestine off the face of the earth, then other Middle Eastern countries might not want to do the same to it.In fact, Israel, like every other government in the Middle East, supports the objective of establishing a region-wide WMD-free zone. However, it is not practical to implement this objective until all the states in the region are at peace with each other. Specifically, that means no such initiative can be implemented until all Middle East countries recognize Israel’s right to exist in secure boundaries.And where, exactly, would these boundaries be?

Let's see Israel sign the NPT, destroy their stockpile and recognise the rights of the Palestinians and THEN we'll discuss whether other NPT signees have or don't have Nuclear Weapons Programs.

At least India and Pakistan have declared that they have WMD and are prepared to use them against one another... thereby establishing a Mexican standoff, but Israel has always denied having WMD's although not too much (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordechai_Vanunu), just to keep everybody guessing. Does Israel want them to disarm, too?

http://jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2369683&printthis=1 Um. What does this have to do with Iran having WMD's? I searched the entire document and could find only this. The Iraq factor

The proximity of the war zone has also had a telling impact on the spread of al-Qaeda's influence in Kuwait. While the authorities admit to the death of two Kuwaitis in Iraq, some reports suggest that the number could be as high as 11 dead in suicide missions. When the U.S. launched air strikes on al-Qaeda's infrastructure in Afghanistan, there were about 150 Kuwaitis in the training camps. While about 50 were killed, the remaining Kuwaiti mujahideen melted into the neighboring countries or found their way back into Kuwait. [14]

Zarqawi also instructed some Iraqi terrorist cells to move their operations to Kuwait and attack U.S. forces, their supply lines, and Kuwaiti government officials. [15]

Repercussions from the attack on the insurgents' stronghold in Fallujah reverberated in Kuwait. Four Islamic groups – the Muslim Brotherhood, the Salafis, the Scientific Salafis, and the pro-Iran Popular Islamic Alliance – issued a communiqué condemning the attack on Fallujah and calling for parliamentary condemnation of it. At the same time, tapes containing Zarqawi's call to fight back were distributed anonymously in car parks during Friday prayers in some areas. [16]

Islamic websites were also flooded with reports on the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. guards in Abu Ghraib, with many calling for revenge against the "new Crusaders". A message on www.qal3ah.net by Kuwaiti Salafist leader Sheikh Hamed bin Abdallah al-Ali in May 2004 read: "The new conservatives, and particularly the gang of [U.S. President George W.] Bush, are enjoying the humiliation of the Muslims." Nice site, BTW :p I especially like this (http://www.jamestown.org/news_details.php?news_id=147) article, which concludes: Al-Qaeda’s post-bin Laden effectiveness will, in significant measure, depend on leadership qualities of his successor. Realistically, there is little reason to think a potential successor will have the same credentials and talents that have powered bin Laden’s leadership. Yet, his successor may not need equivalent credentials and talents. Al-Qaeda is now a well-established, 17-year-old firm; indeed, the parts of it that developed from mechanisms that supported the Afghans against the Soviets have been operating for 25 years. In short, al-Qaeda is now what its founders intended: a reliable, professional organization that has demonstrated long-term durability. Thus, bin Laden’s successor will inherit a proven, well-functioning organization, one that will give him time to grow on the job without the need to spend most of his time keeping the organization running.Ooohhh, is he alive or is he dead. GW Bush sure doesn't care, but we want you to keep on believing that he's alive, or if he's dead that the evil terrorist network is still functioning perfectly and can strike at any time; despite the fact that we've razed two countries to the ground and killed tens of thousands of civilians in the process. Better make sure you support us next time there are any elections, or there will be more terror attacks by this shadowy group, which so beautifully serves our purposes by keeping you so afraid that you'll allow us to siphon all your taxes into the Armed forces and thereafter our pockets.

SUCKERS!

[sam i am]

Hey ali!

How come you never responded to my analysis above regarding the pipeline in or to Afghanistan?