N Korea helping Iran with nuclear testing

[xxxHxxx]

LOL. You made a mistake Slip, get over it. If you'd have simply said you'd edited the post instead of making facetious comments implying it was my fault I hadn't seen it, we could actually carry on the debate.


FYI I have asked a couple of questions about your response a couple of posts back.

 

[vahagnK]

This is the part that I'm most curious about. For a long time you've talked as if Iran were the real enemy, saying that attacking Iraq was a mistake because they were, effectively, a bastion of secularism against fundamentalist Islamic states.

But since the topic of dealing with the rise of Iran's nuclear capability came up, you've always come in with anti-US rants against whoever was saying something should be done about the possibility of Iranian nukes.

 

[yakketyass13]

err... seems your the one with trouble getting over it.
The post was edited in matter of minutes of it being originally posted.
Again - go back and look at the time it was posted and then the time edit was reposted. It wasn't hours... it wasn't days... it's was minutes.
A grand whopping total of six minutes.

I then came back and posted in two seperate posts a direct link back to that post that had been edited.

You're still on about it... the post is there.. it hasn't gone anywhere.
If you can't figure out what was posted after the edited version was updated and after reading the two additional links I provided... then I think that's right where it's at.

 

[HappyHiram]

err... you must be reading someone elses posts.
I certainly haven't posted to the effect that Iran is the real enemy.
I've not even implied it.



Hmm... that's not what I said.
I think you're reading a whole lot into what I've posted.
I never delved into the secularism vs. the fundamentalist Islamic issues... again go back and read what I posted... the two words aren't even in there.

The issue of power shift has more to do with the Sunni and Shi'ite power bases than anything else. That's been a point I've brought up on more than one thread pertaining to the subject. There has been a developing trend away from Sunni powerbases and towards Shi'ite powerbases... much of it having to do with population explosions amongst teh Shi'ites. Again - I've posted at length on this issue in several threads you yourself have posted in before here at MAP.



I guess it depends on if you consider stating relevant facts and issues as a rant. I don't. That may be part of your problem... because you certainly are coming away with something very different than what I've posted.

The US is spearheading the possibility of a war with Iran. They are the media machine behind it. The US is also the one who stands to lose the most face if Iran does develop nuclear capabilities.

Earlier in the thread someone said that Iran is an 'unstable' country.
I fail to find that they are unstable... after all it's not Iran running around invading countries when it suits them on false pretenses and outright lies to protect their financial and oil interests.

That's not an anti US rant... that's the simple reality at the moment.

 

[AritistsAS]

I read an interesting article a few weeks back that gave an interesting twist on Iran. According to our own oil guys, Iran has one of the lesser amounts of oil in reserve in the middle east and their production has decreased in recent years. It said that one of the reasons they are trying to build nuclear plants really is for power, not weapons (though that could be done as a by product). By using nuclear power for their own needs, it would free up more oil for export and increase or maintain their outside income.

Here is the article from the Washington Post. I have edited it to make it easier to read.
Iran Oil Revenue Quickly Drying Up, Analysis Says
Associated Press
Tuesday, December 26, 2006; Page A09


Iran is suffering a staggering decline in revenue from its oil exports, and if the trend continues income could virtually disappear by 2015, according to an analysis published yesterday in a journal of the National Academy of Sciences.

Iran earns about $50 billion a year in oil exports. The decline is estimated at 10 to 12 percent annually. In less than five years, exports could be halved, and they could disappear by 2015, Stern predicted.

Stern's analysis, which appears in this week's edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, supports U.S. and European suspicions that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons in violation of international understandings. But, Stern says, there could be merit to Iran's assertion that it needs nuclear power for civilian purposes.

He said oil production is declining and both gas and oil are being sold domestically at highly subsidized rates. At the same time, Iran is neglecting to reinvest in its oil production.

Iran produces about 3.7 million barrels a day, about 300,000 barrels below the quota set for Iran by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. The shortfall represents a loss of about $5.5 billion a year, Stern said. In 2004, Iran's oil profits were 65 percent of the government's revenue.

If the United States can "hold its breath" for a few years, it may find Iran a much more conciliatory country, he said. And that, Stern said, is good reason to delay any instinct to take on Iran militarily.

"What they are doing to themselves is much worse than anything we could do," he said.

 

[KiraJenLove]

Interesting stuff there.
Iran has been at work diversifying their economy for quite some time.
Not that you'd eve here much reported on that in American driven media.

What I find so ironic about the whole thing is that Iran had a relatively thriving democracy and had it not been for the Brit's wanting to remain the in control of and continue to plunder Iranian oil - then the hardliners in Iran may have never made it into power.

When Prime Minister Mussadiq nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now British Petroleum) that had a backdoor deal with Iran's government the Brits finally convinced the US under President Eisenhower to send in the fixers... The MI6 and the CIA are directly responsible for the coup that put the Shah in power (1953 - Operation Ajax)... it was a total sham. Surprise, surprise the Brits were back in control of Iran's oil.

The US was essentially clandestinely allied with the Brits in the overthrow of the Iranian government that represented popular national interests. With the Shah in power - it was the start of a quarter-century of political repression, torture, and killing.

If people don't think the Iranians didn't see this for what it was and didn't develop a healthy animosity towards the Americans they know jack-sh*t about Iran/US relations.

 

[Monmonz]

And Iran isn't like Iraq in that its a big desert with green only around the rivers. Iran is a very vibrant, green country with deserts, mountains, forests, lots of social freedoms (within limits by our standards).

 

[Babyluv]

Wow, you really can't let it go, can you?


That's right, six minutes after I replied, and over ten minutes after you posted, and you expected me to somehow know that you'd made the edit.







Then when you finally posted the link (simultaneously insulting me for not having known about the edit), you flat out lied and said you'd made the edit 10 seconds after your first post.



Then you changed your mind and said it was "a couple of minutes" before you edited... which was also a lie.




I have no issue with you editing a post... but your arrogant, condescending responses to your own failure in communication are what brought this thread to grinding halt.

Your attempts at saying I'm "whining" are made doubly funny by your own obvious refusal to admit that you were wrong and got called on it.

 

[Pink08]

What I'm trying to clarify, is that in the past, regardless of the causes, the backbone of your argument against the Iraq war seemed to be that it was in fact reinforcing the power shift to Shi'ite Islam that you were talking about.

Now, if you're not convinced the current Iranian government is in some way a threat, what's the problem with (in your eyes) having reinforced that power shift?

 

[KeeganYiHangS]

Are you done playing crybaby yet Medi?

The only one who seems to have come to a halt because of this is you.
So like I said... if you don't like it... you know what to do.

disclaimer:
This post may or may not meet the time and editing criteria and conditions set forth by Medi here at MAP. To which I can only say... I don't really give a rat's ass.

 

[Mateo]

Whatever. I know you know I'm right, but you being you, you'll never be able to admit it.

 

[amybeader]

err... no.
That was not my arguement. Not in the least.
I've never explicity stated that. Nor was it implied.
My point always was that the war with Iraq contributed greatly to the shift in power. It was partially a result of the war against Iraq that hastened that shift from Sunni power towards Shi'ite power.




Again - what you're saying doesn't make sense because it was based on what you thought I was saying. I'm not sure how you arrived at that but... whatever.

Like I said - the shift in power was largely a result of the war in a Iraq not some sort of arguement that I devised against the war in Iraq.

 

[enegue]

The Iran-Iraq War pales into insignificance compared to the feud between Slip and Medi.

 

[MitchD]

ROTFLMAO!!

Medi... producer of broken records.

 

[pa3ck]

Yeah, that's how I understood it. Ok, so going back a step, do you view the power swing as a positive thing, in regards to our interests?

 

[rushrocks603]

I'm assuming that by 'our' interests you mean metaphorically the interests of the US and/or it's western allies in the region. Which would be primarily to control and maintain access to oil.

To that end... no I don't think the power shift is neccessarily a positive thing.

The US has worked long and hard to marginalize and isolate Iran.
They made a career out of it - quite literally hundreds of thousands of tax payers dollars were spent on it. This isn't going to win them any friends in the Shi'ite world and in the long run it's probably going to backfire on the Americans. Same story over and over.

In conjunction with that power shift are the the results of other US policies set up to control/marginalize/penalize Ira. The US spent years and millions of dollars and thousands upon thousands of man hours helping Iraq to develop it's war machine against Iran. Again - it's not going to win them any favored status amongst Shi'ite dominated Iran. Though who knows... Reagan sure sold them a lot of arms during the Iran/Contra scandal. So maybe the Shi'ites have a soft spot for Reaganites.

With the sale of much of Iraq's oil cut off because of US led sanctions etc... major buyers from the world economies had to go looking other places... two of them... the Russians but more significantly the Chinese went knocking on Iran's door. I doubt that China and Russia are going to stand by if the US launches strikes against Iran.

Anyhow - I don't see the shift in power as anything positive for the US. I think the Iraq quagmire was a bigger blunder than they could have imagined... and I think that the implications of that blunder are going to be further reaching than any of us could have imagined when it started.

disclaimer: this post and $2.50 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks

 

[claire2012]

Well suofftopicrized, Spirit.

It's clear to me that Israel is the primary driver behind the impetus to attack Iran. If Iran poses a threat to anyone, it is to Israel, and Israel's quest for regional hegemony.

 

[Er1c7o4]

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

 

[Nashi]

Thanks for the reply Slip. Food for thought.

We'll have to wait and see about Iran's oil "allies" supporting them though, in the light of the earlier post about declining exports.




See everyone? We do lub each other