Bill's Solution (TM) for the Iran issue

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

QUESTION

Doesn't Iran have a SHIT LOAD of OIL?????

Why does it need nuclear power?
I don't think it is because they want to protect the environment.

They could use their own oil for energy!!!! THere's a bright idea!!!

ANSWER

Oil is their cheif export and the what their economy is based on and they have a limited amount. When it runs out they're done. Nuclear energy is cheaper and allows them to export their oil for income rather than burning up their own GDP.

[storm1977 0]

Quote

Quote

QUESTION

Doesn't Iran have a SHIT LOAD of OIL?????

Why does it need nuclear power?
I don't think it is because they want to protect the environment.

They could use their own oil for energy!!!! THere's a bright idea!!!

ANSWER

Oil is their cheif export and the what their economy is based on and they have a limited amount. When it runs out they're done. Nuclear energy is cheaper and allows them to export their oil for income rather than burning up their own GDP.

What's a limited amount?
How much would they need for their own consumtion...How much do thay export.... How much do they project they have.

I think we need to answer these questions first. If it turns out they have more than enough in the country, I suspect they want nuke power for energy, and also a means to create weapons.....

I would be curious to see the figures. Anyone have them handy?

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[storm1977 0]

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/pgulf.html

There are some links at the bottom of this page which may answer some questions.

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

What's a limited amount?
How much would they need for their own consumtion...How much do thay export.... How much do they project they have.

Who are we to ask? Why would they be under any obligation to tell us? How on earth do you come to the conclusion that we have any right to interfere in how a sovereign nation comes by its electricity? They’re entitled, just as the US is, to manage their economy in any way they see fit. They don’t have to justify their actions to anyone.

That is the first problem to be surmounted when looking into this issue – no one has any rights to interfere in the way they go about solving their energy supply issues.

[billvon 2,433]

>They could use their own oil for energy!!!!

They could, or they could use reactors. Their choice. If they are going to use reactors, it would behoove us (in terms of limiting nuclear proliferation) for them to use CANDU's. Offering them CANDU's with strings attached is one way for both of us to get what we want.

[Ron 7]

Quote

They could, or they could use reactors. Their choice. If they are going to use reactors, it would behoove us (in terms of limiting nuclear proliferation) for them to use CANDU's. Offering them CANDU's with strings attached is one way for both of us to get what we want.

Yes, IF they play along, and by the rules.
Which would be nice.
BTW I doubt they will.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[SkyDekker 1,144]

Quote

Bills thread, not mine, I asked him a question since he left out a very large, and very probable situation.

Its very easy to always ask questions and never provide answers.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Bills thread, not mine, I asked him a question since he left out a very large, and very probable situation.

Its very easy to always ask questions and never provide answers.

It's also very easy to continiously criticize without offering solutions.

[Ron 7]

Quote

Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Bills thread, not mine, I asked him a question since he left out a very large, and very probable situation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Its very easy to always ask questions and never provide answers.

Its even easier to actually READ all the posts and see that an answer was already given.

It would be stupid to not ask questions to try and get a larger picture of a plan and to cover the possible, and in this case probable situations.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[boudy 0]

Here is an interesting site that promotes a book & a strategy for preventing a looming catastrophe. (Even offers a blast map for your favorite zip code.) http://www.nuclearterrorism.org

The author is credited with developing & administering a plan in the 90's which brought "loose" nukes in some former Soviet satelite countries under control. Heard him on C-span & Milt Rosenburg's talk show (WGN Chicago).

He does not seem that impressed with the dirty bomb scenerio. But with our porous borders & embarrassing inability to prevent illegal immigration & smuggling, Allison says it would be quite a simple matter to send a real city-leveling nuclear bomb in a shipping container, or in large van across the Mexican border or smuggled in a bale of marijuana etc. He says that detection of such nukes would be nearly impossible -

He believes the solution to the threat is a broad commitment led by US & allies to stop all further proliferation of fissonable material & lock down all the thousands of ready made nukes in existence.

He proposed a carrot & stick approach to both Iran & N. Korea.

(I have yet to purchase book - don't know if the reactors Bill discusses are touched upon.)

The Carrot for Iran he suggested was a supply of lowly enriched uranium for fuel - but strickly monitored with spent fuel being collected & returned to the source. A consortium of our allies would supervise the arrangement. I think this is similar to the recent EU - Iran agreement except perhaps a bit more stringent.

The Stick would be harsh - threat of an imminent attack -carried out if necessary by the US, Israel or an alliance if Iran tried to proceed with development of a weapon. Iran would be forbidden from developing enrichment facilities further & would have to dismantle existing facilities.

For the record, he did not favor the Iraq war at this time largely because he did not consider Iraq's nuke threat realistic & the war diminishes our military options regarding Iran & NK. But given the reality we must deal with, he still favors a firm (militarily backed) but face-saving approach to deal with these 2 trouble makers.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"Do you expect the UN to enforce its sanctions? Cause it does not. "

The UN can't 'enforce' anything, only its member states can. If individual members conduct sanction busting there is nothing the UN can actually do about it, apart from imposing more 'peer pressure' on the offenders. The UN does not have permanent military force, it doesn't have ships to blockade ports, neither does it have troops to siege borders.
The UN is only as strong as its member countries.

The UN is a vast and complex organisation comprising representatives from various countries and provides various guidance via sub organisations, eg the IAEA is linked as is the WTO and the IMF. Even the ICAO is part of the UN.
http://www.un.org/aboutun/chart.html

So if we ignore the UN, who would conduct monitoring of nuclear activities, cause with out the UN there is no IAEA.

I understand many folks reluctance to be governed by yet another layer of buraucracy, but I'm not seeing any workable alternatives to the UN, from anyone, not even a whisper of a suggestion. Think about the alternatives before you villify them next time.

Oh and by the way folks, those who want Iran to sell their oil and suspect Iran are rogues for not exploiting their own limited resources, consider this, why haven't you drilled the North Slope dry yet? Is it because you don't want to? If so why not? The technology exists to do it safely and responsibly. Same case deep water GOM, and West Coast.

Wouldn't it make more sense to make Iran a strategic partner for American oil reserves, given the state of stability in Venezuela and Nigeria right now? Consider also that many of you have a gloomy outlook for Saudi Arabia, surely having more friends than enemies in the Middle East should be high on your agenda, now more than ever.
Bill's suggestion is beneficial on so many levels I can't believe you are all dissing it in favour of conflict, a conflict that neither the US nor the rest of the world can afford.

Sorry I was pissy earlier Ron, bad day at the office, didn't mean to rag on you .

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[Botellines 0]

Quote

to a country that has a history of not giving a shit what the rest of the world wants it to do. And one that has supported terrorism.

Ron, are you speaking about Iran or the U.S.?

Just my two cents: I think they want WMD, and no matter what kind of deal you make with them, they will try to keep their effort up to get some WMD. I don´t think you should trust them, but not because they has a history of lying (all countries do) or support terrorism (many countries do, including the U.S. Not bashing, just stating facts), but because it is the most sensible thing to do.
If you were running a country, you would want the safety of your people, and being labeled as a member of axix of evil by the U.S and Israel so close with an unknown number of WMD, the smartest thing you could do would be getting WMD as well.
And what is happening in Iraq doesn´t help at all to see the U.S as a trustworthy country, specially for muslim countries.

[Ron 7]

Quote

The UN can't 'enforce' anything, only its member states can

And there is the problem. The UN really can't do anything. All it can do is ask countries to do things. Even then the *members* don't have to follow the orders they even asked for.

And when people violate the very rules that they put into place, still nothing happens.

The UN is powerless, yet they think they are all powerful. Also the UN does not think it needs to answer to anyone but themselves.

So you have an organization that imposes rules, that it can't enforce, that the members themselves violate and they have no accountability.

That does not sound like an organization that I think I would support.

Quote

So if we ignore the UN, who would conduct monitoring of nuclear activities, cause with out the UN there is no IAEA.

What did the IAEA do about N Korea?

Quote

I understand many folks reluctance to be governed by yet another layer of buraucracy, but I'm not seeing any workable alternatives to the UN, from anyone, not even a whisper of a suggestion. Think about the alternatives before you villify them next time.

A One World Order is not a good idea. And an organization that is corrupt with no power and no accountability is not a good thing.

At least they DON'T have any power....If they did it could be bad.

Quote

Oh and by the way folks, those who want Iran to sell their oil and suspect Iran are rogues for not exploiting their own limited resources, consider this, why haven't you drilled the North Slope dry yet?

Because we don't have to.

Quote

Wouldn't it make more sense to make Iran a strategic partner for American oil reserves, given the state of stability in Venezuela and Nigeria right now?

Iran will not help the US.

Quote

Bill's suggestion is beneficial on so many levels I can't believe you are all dissing it in favour of conflict, a conflict that neither the US nor the rest of the world can afford.

Who said I was dissing it? I asked a question on a part of his plan that he did not cover.

What do we do if they take our Billions of dollars of aid, and build nukes anyway?

Are we going to bomb a live nuclear reactor? Im not an expert on nuclear reactors...But I know something about explosives....Taking a reactor and blowing the shit out of it would be bad.

Since we tried this kind of tact with NK and it failed really bad....We had better have a GOOD plan on what we will do if Iran ignores us and continues to build nukes anyway.

I am not a fan of conflict. I have friends that are there, I have friends that were shot, and I have friends that died there.


But to ignore the very probable situation is short sighted at best. And we had better have a plan for every possible out come.

Like I said, blowing the shit out of a nuclear reactor is not a good idea.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 7]

Quote

to a country that has a history of not giving a shit what the rest of the world wants it to do. And one that has supported terrorism.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Ron, are you speaking about Iran or the U.S.?

I am talking about Iran. You of course are trying to bad mouth the US again.....Of course, what is news there?

Quote

Just my two cents: I think they want WMD, and no matter what kind of deal you make with them, they will try to keep their effort up to get some WMD. I don´t think you should trust them, but not because they has a history of lying (all countries do) or support terrorism (many countries do, including the U.S. Not bashing, just stating facts), but because it is the most sensible thing to do.
If you were running a country, you would want the safety of your people, and being labeled as a member of axix of evil by the U.S and Israel so close with an unknown number of WMD, the smartest thing you could do would be getting WMD as well.

I agree with all of that.

Quote

And what is happening in Iraq doesn´t help at all to see the U.S as a trustworthy country, specially for muslim countries.

And the US does not trust muslim countries since they seem to like killing us.

Ya know with SH saying all the time that the US was the great Satan, and that he wanted us destroyed...You know the fastest way to become my enemy?

Say I am yours and want to hurt me. Even if I didn't care or even know about you before that...You now are what you wanted...My enemy.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"A One World Order is not a good idea."
I think thats he basis of our different opinions. I still uphold the old Euro-Socialist (I am after all, a European Socialist)idea of a One World Utopia.

We are going to have to agree to disagree on whether the UN is potentially a good thing, or a bad thing. Or even whether this Utopic dream is a nightmare.
We can both bump our gums about it for a long time to come, and not change anything.

Okay?

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

And there is the problem. The UN really can't do anything. All it can do is ask countries to do things. Even then the *members* don't have to follow the orders they even asked for.

So, are you advocating a world ruler that can dictate what they want to everyone else? Oh wait, you voted for Bush, I guess you are.

[Ron 7]

Quote

So, are you advocating a world ruler that can dictate what they want to everyone else?

No, I am just saying I don't want to support a corrupt organization that does not follow its own rules, and does not enforce the ones it does pass.

Quote

Oh wait, you voted for Bush, I guess you are.

You lost, get over it.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

You lost, get over it.

Oh you're right. All the horrible things that Bush has done and will do don't matter anymore because he has a mandate. I should just shut up now and take the ass reeming he's giving the world in peace.

Quote

No, I am just saying I don't want to support a corrupt organization that does not follow its own rules, and does not enforce the ones it does pass.

The UN is not corrupt. There are corrupt members. It's better than nothing and should be fixed. Not thrown out and done away with.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"The UN is not corrupt. There are corrupt members. It's better than nothing and should be fixed. Not thrown out and done away with."

Are you sure you're not a European socialist?

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

You lost, get over it.

Oh you're right. All the horrible things that Bush has done and will do don't matter anymore because he has a mandate. I should just shut up now and take the ass reeming he's giving the world in peace.

Quote

No, I am just saying I don't want to support a corrupt organization that does not follow its own rules, and does not enforce the ones it does pass.

The UN is not corrupt. There are corrupt members. It's better than nothing and should be fixed. Not thrown out and done away with.

Thats like saying the barrel isn't rotten, just the apples in it.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"Thats like saying the barrel isn't rotten, just the apples in it."

Almost, but in his instance its just a few of the apples, and unless they are quickly exorcised, they will spoil the entire barrel, and the reputation of all apples everywhere.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

"Thats like saying the barrel isn't rotten, just the apples in it."

Almost, but in his instance its just a few of the apples, and unless they are quickly exorcised, they will spoil the entire barrel, and the reputation of all apples everywhere.

Except the apples were rotten before they were put in the barrel. I suspect the corruption is deeper than we will ever know.

[storm1977 0]

I say we get rid of the UN and come up with something better.... I mean let's face it, the U.N. is hardly what its name implies!!!!!

I don't think the UN can funtion with Nations Iraq or syria etc.... being members. IMO there are too many members in the UN. Soon, every nation in the world will be in the UN, which means it will serve no PURPOSE!!!!!

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"I suspect the corruption is deeper than we will ever know."
Could be, no real way of knowing,, the only report published on the whole debacle to date had names of companies/individuals removed, US based companies and individuals, specifically.

Organisations all over have been through similar allegations, Iran/Contra over there, Westland and Matrix Churchill over here. It doesn't mean that the entire government structure should be disbanded and we start all over again. Why should it be the case with the UN?

What normally happens is that there is a witch hunt, obvious witches are publicly burned at the stake, and then its back to business as usual.

Also bear in mind, many of these alegations are based on dodgy paperwork found in Iraq, same source as those alegations that would have had George Galloway swinging from a gibett, he's still at work, as an MP.......

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[Gravitymaster 0]

One of the differences is there are laws in place in the US and the UK to punish this type of corruption. It doesn't prevent it from occuring, but it provides some sembalance of a deterrent. The UN has no such provision and therefore lends itself to corruption without consequence. Perhaps the solution is to create a law enforcement component?