Iran switching to a euro backed oil standard is a real big threat to the US dollar. If Iraq did it in 2002, Venezuala is on the verge of switching over, and now Iran. This will mostly likely cause the other OPEC nations to do the same (excluding Saudi Arabia, but they have their other problems). The only thing that can stop this from happening is if some stability is created in Iraq. That way their oil pumps can start running at full efficency (7 million b/d compared to 2 million b/d OPEC quota) thus effectively eliminating the cartel powers of OPEC. Then each oil exporting country will pump as much oil as they can to challange Iraq's high oil production and overall lower oil prices.
one thing that would really work to make the westen world more independen from the OPEC, is to change to a new fuel, like Hydrogen, which there are alot of, since is a componet in water and its very easy to produces, so if the westen world changed to use Hydrogen as fuel, bye bye OPEC
Do you think that Monkeynejad's (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) recent Israel wipped of the map statement may be the precurser to international embargo, and investment in dissidents, and a revoloution by Persians against their Mullahcracy Tyrants? The jails of Iran are being filled with young freedom minded people as we speak, Israel Radio Persian is listened to secretly by many Persians, and Kurds, and the other minorities, the Politicians of both sides of the spectrum in Italy, along with thousands of WILLING VOLUNTEER Italian Protestors (As oppossed to the hired ones of the Iranian Regime) have declared their solidarity with Israel, Jerusalem Day Parades protesting the existance of Israel was boycotted by the Iranians, the Kurds are fighting with the army, regime militias, and police in the streets as we speak despite lack of arms, there are record number of clashes between dissidents and police even in the Persian Areas, the European Union is withdrawing the terrorist label for Iranian Dissident Groups, and pledged they will try to bring sanctions, the regimes execution of young girls continues to bring discontent, and last but certainly not least Shaul Mofaz Israel's defense minister (Himself an Iranian) has on the record stated there will be no need for a military strike, and so it is off the table. It seems like the forces on the outside are going to crack down on the regimes cash, and the forces on the inside are on the move against the opressors to me. 2005 Monkey Terror Award goes to 2005 Monkey Terror Award Goes To Ahmadinejad For 1000s Of Islamist Terror, Top Monkey Policy and Israel 'Wiped Off the Map' Statement I hope my pictures got through.
International Atomic Energy Agency will debate about the iranian question this coming thursday. It is possible that they hand it over to the UN security council.
And the UN Security Council will, most likely, do little or nothing about the situation. I know that sounds cynical, but I believe that I have history on my side on this one.
...and Iran has re-opened it's nuclear plants. :-? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10784050/ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 597738.stm
Well, yes, because the US and the USSR have a whole many more nukes than Iran, and both counted roughly half the world as a potential target.
Well, Iran has still has a very very long way to go if it wants atomic weapons. According to most experts, even if Iran's Uranium enrichment plant in Natanz gets to work at a high rate(which by far is not the case in a near future)it would still take them a few years(5-6) to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a single nuclear weapon.... At the moment I do not think that the iranian governement really wants to aquire atomic weapons.(Or should I say that it is willing to accept the isolation and other consequences that would be related to such a step). It is more likely that Teheran wants to develop a latent nuclear weapons capability, which would enable it to develop atomic weapons in a rather short time, should it feel the need for them in the future. Thus, the probability of Iran getting such weapons in the 10 years to come is not very high. But that being said, the west(+Russia+China) must of course try to dissuade Iran from going such a way, the only question is how....?
Tiso wrote: Why insult Col. Oliver North? How does that add to the point you are trying to make? No it isn't a fact as stated by you. It is a fact that the US supported Iraq in the Iraq/Iran conflict because the Iraqis were seen as a counterbalance to the demonstrated radical fundamentalist Islamic factions in Iran that were destabilizing the region. The use of chemical weapons was not established as a fact until much later and there is zero evidence that the US knew of much less supported their use. A good example of what? To begin with you are wrong. The Airbus was four miles outside the commercial corridor and flying directly towards a US warship located inside a warzone. The airliner did not have the IFF (indentification friend or foe) transponder on as it should have. the Iranian airliner did not respond to radio calls to identify itself. Considering all those facts combined with the unprovoked missle attack on the Stark the Vincennes crew acted properly. Their actions were proper despite the fact that a tragic error occurred. The error was 99% Iranian and about 1% Vincennes. What is your point in bringing it up? Are you charging that the Vincennes knowingly shot down a civilian airliner..creating a public relations fiaso that made them and the US look bad in the eyes of the world? What would be the benefit in doing that? Indeed you do need to know some history, not propoganda. ps recent developments indicate that the US isn't the only one concerned about the Iranians enriching weapons grade fissionable material. Do the French and Germans have the same kind of attitude towards Iran that you claim the US does?
Well, they could pull an 'Israel', and bomb their reactors. Although this is probably not recommended... :-?
And there's nothing quite like starting a war to restore the balance to an area, is there? I really don't understand why you're trying to justify this policy, especially since the US itself realized its own mistake and went to war with Saddam Hussein's Iraq, twice.
Actually that doesn't prove that it was a mistake. The situation changed. Was it a mistake to ally with the Soviets to defeat Hitler. Not at the time. After the war the situation changed and so did US policy towards the USSR. The Iran/Iraq war tied up significant resources in pointless costly battles that accomplished nothing. Had those efforts and resources been directed in another direction they might have served to destabilize the entire Persian Gulf, thus jeapordizing the world supply of oil. Disruption of oil supply = world economic turmoil = opportunities for bad people to do gain power = economic harm to western economies = real suffering in some countries = other unpredictable events--none of them desirable.
The situation did indeed change; it became more unbalanced. Was it a mistake to ally with the USSR to defeat Hitler is a completely different question, mostly because it's arguable that the USSR didn't behave like an ally at all. Was it a mistake to support Saddam Hussein in a war against Irani fundamentalists to "restore the balance" in the Middle East? The facts speak for themselves, don't they? The war led to nothing but death in the region, but American backing of a murderous tyrant who then became a danger to his former protectors has definitely contributed to the stability there. :-?
It must of course be said that it wasn't only the US that supported Saddam in those days.Several european countries, as well as the soviets also were part of the Saddam fanclub. I certainly understand that given the fact that the new regime in Teheran obviously had less than friendly intentions towards the west, we had the best possible relations with Saddam and therefore economically helped him and supplied him with weapons. However deliberately encouraging Saddam to start the war gainst Iran and thus breach international security and peace and ultimately cause the death of millions of people....there's no reason to be proud about that.
For all of you I suggest these readings: 1). Hegemony or Survival, America's quest for Global Dominance; Noam Chomsky, 2003. Henry Holt and Company Noam Chommsky is a professor of linguistics and philosophy at MIT, this book has all of its research in its end notes to back up everything that is stated; this is why those political and military institutions mentioned cannot sue him, and all those who contributed to the book. 2). Ignorant Armies, Sliding into War in Iraq; by Gwynne Dyer, 2003, McClelland and Stewart Ltd 3). Future Tense, The Coming World Order; Gwynne Dyer, 2004, McClelland and Stewart Ltd.
Poodle, I am reasonably certain that your average American is not interested in ruling or dominating the world; we have far better things to do with our time. And I wouldn't discount the possibility of Mr. Chommsky getting sued, whatever research he (and Gwynne Dyer) may have done; you'd be amazed at how litigious so many in the USA have become. And as far as his research goes, you can do all the research in the universe and still be wrong. The people who believe in the theory of evolution have proven that to my satisfaction.
Or you can stubbornly hold on to an unfounded belief without doing any research at all, of course. Why would Chomsky be sued over his publications?
