Crown Jewel FTWKmarion wrote:
Maybe some but America will never recoup the amount of money it has dumped into Iraq. The oil conspiracy kinda fails in that aspect.Turquoise wrote:
Basically, there are some people in America that would profit tremendously from attacking Iran, and they've been saber rattling for quite some time.
Poll
Is Iran pursuing Nuclear Technology for Weapons?
| Yes | 78% | 78% - 84 | ||||
| No | 21% | 21% - 23 | ||||
| Total: 107 | ||||||
Usmarine, if you'd like to send more tax money toward Blackwater for more contractors that get paid way more than soldiers, be my guest. Personally, I think it decreases troop morale to have paramilitary people supplement our forces for these massive occupations, when they typically make about twice what a soldier makes for the same duties.
All I am saying is.....simple fact, the first mission to start the invasion was securing an oil field. Nothing wrong with that, since oil drives the world and we do not need it blown to shit.Turquoise wrote:
Usmarine, if you'd like to send more tax money toward Blackwater for more contractors that get paid way more than soldiers, be my guest. Personally, I think it decreases troop morale to have paramilitary people supplement our forces for these massive occupations, when they typically make about twice what a soldier makes for the same duties.
Actually, you'll be surprised by this. I don't think oil itself had much to do with Iraq.usmarine2007 wrote:
All I am saying is.....simple fact, the first mission to start the invasion was securing an oil field. Nothing wrong with that, since oil drives the world and we do not need it blown to shit.Turquoise wrote:
Usmarine, if you'd like to send more tax money toward Blackwater for more contractors that get paid way more than soldiers, be my guest. Personally, I think it decreases troop morale to have paramilitary people supplement our forces for these massive occupations, when they typically make about twice what a soldier makes for the same duties.
It's the oil trade that matters. A lot of our dollar's power in the currency exchange is through the oil trade. Most OPEC nations trade with the dollar, and this serves as a powerful way to prop up its value vs. others.
About a year before Iraq was invaded, they switched to the Euro for oil trade. This is the point in time where the talk of Saddam being a threat really came to a head. As was shown in another thread, even Clinton spoke of how Saddam needed to be taken out.
WMD's provided a convenient excuse to remove a leader of a country trading with a currency other than ours. We didn't want Iraq to set a precedent with this move, but alas, Iran is switching to the Euro for oil trade now as well. We didn't make a big deal out of Iran's nuclear ambitions until this currency switch became known.
This is about dollar hegemony and the military industrial complex, not oil or terror.
Last edited by Turquoise (2007-02-14 19:45:57)
Oil and terror kill the dollar.
Oil trade helps the dollar, but only if we remain oil dependent.usmarine2007 wrote:
Oil and terror kill the dollar.
My argument is that another $400 billion toward alternative energy research would get us out of this mess faster than it would being spent on trying to stabilize Iraq.
Is there a need for that ? can you play nicer please tyThomasMorgan wrote:
Ugh. Shut up. Their leader doesn't acknowledge it. That's far different from saying their entire nation doesn't acknowledge it.soldevilla13 wrote:
Uhm, it is pretty obvious that they are in fact using it for nuclear weponry. They are an angry nation bent on world domination (remember, these are the guys that don't even think that the holocaust happened).
George Bush is an idiot. Does that mean you are too? Ok, nevermind, bad example, since obviously in this case it does.
Also, since when does not acknowledging the holocaust mean you're hellbent on world domination?
Never thought this had such an important impact. Thanks for pointing this out. +1 to you.Turquoise wrote:
It's the oil trade that matters. A lot of our dollar's power in the currency exchange is through the oil trade. Most OPEC nations trade with the dollar, and this serves as a powerful way to prop up its value vs. others.
About a year before Iraq was invaded, they switched to the Euro for oil trade. This is the point in time where the talk of Saddam being a threat really came to a head. As was shown in another thread, even Clinton spoke of how Saddam needed to be taken out.
WMD's provided a convenient excuse to remove a leader of a country trading with a currency other than ours. We didn't want Iraq to set a precedent with this move, but alas, Iran is switching to the Euro for oil trade now as well. We didn't make a big deal out of Iran's nuclear ambitions until this currency switch became known.
This is about dollar hegemony and the military industrial complex, not oil or terror.
I found some info on the www:
and this very intresting article:global research
The Iranians are about to commit an "offense" far greater than Saddam Hussein's conversion to the euro of Iraq’s oil exports in the fall of 2000. Numerous articles have revealed Pentagon planning for operations against Iran as early as 2005. While the publicly stated reasons will be over Iran's nuclear ambitions, there are unspoken macroeconomic drivers explaining the Real Reasons regarding the 2nd stage of petrodollar warfare - Iran's upcoming euro-based oil Bourse.
The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War With Iraq: A Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth, by William Clark
Although Iraq's oil currency switch appears to be completely censored by the U.S. media conglomerates, this UK article illustrates that the euro has gained almost 25% against the dollar since late 2001, which also applies to the $10 billion in Iraq's U.N. `oil for food' reserve fund that was previously held in dollars has also gained that same percent value since the switch. It was reported in 2003 that Iraq's UN reserve fund had swelled from $10 billion dollars to 26 billion euros. According to a former government analyst, the following scenario would occur if OPEC made an unlikely, but sudden (collective) switch to euros, as opposed to a gradual transition.
"Otherwise, the effect of an OPEC switch to the euro would be that oil-consuming nations would have to flush dollars out of their (central bank) reserve funds and replace these with euros. The dollar would crash anywhere from 20-40% in value and the consequences would be those one could expect from any currency collapse and massive inflation (think Argentina currency crisis, for example). You'd have foreign funds stream out of the U.S. stock markets and dollar denominated assets, there'd surely be a run on the banks much like the 1930s, the current account deficit would become unserviceable, the budget deficit would go into default, and so on. Your basic 3rd world economic crisis scenario."
Well...they now have enough for a bomb.
They'd have to be crazy not to.
If Israel can have them I don't see why they shouldn't.
Iran's comments on 'wiping Israel off the map' were misinterpreted - they aren't that stupid.
Israel has already wiped a nation off the map.
What is it with this necro-posting?
I thought USM and GS had been banned again for a second there.
If Israel can have them I don't see why they shouldn't.
Iran's comments on 'wiping Israel off the map' were misinterpreted - they aren't that stupid.
Israel has already wiped a nation off the map.
What is it with this necro-posting?
I thought USM and GS had been banned again for a second there.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-11-22 04:23:34)
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
No nation has the right to tell another nation what to do...but every nation has a right to protect and defend their interests. And every country also has to deal with the repercussions of said protection/defense of their interests.ThomasMorgan wrote:
Actually since we're talking about doing two identical things, it's not like punching someone in the arm and having them swing a baseball bat at you, but nice attempted analogy.Kmarion wrote:
So you think since it's hypocritical, it's ok to give Nuclear weapons away to whoever? lol.. it's like punching someone in the arm and allowing them to hit you back but instead they are swinging a baseball bat. Can you really not discern the difference?ThomasMorgan wrote:
I'm saying it's extremely hypocritical of the US to go around denouncing another nation's research of nuclear technology when we're doing the exact same thing.
Also, saying that Iran has a history of supplying weapons to unstable third party organizations means nothing since the US has a history of doing the same thing.
What don't you understand?
I'm saying that the US has no right to say what another nation can or cannot do. Can you really not understand that?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Just get some mercs to blow their shit up already.
If anything, Israel is more likely to attack Iran.Dilbert_X wrote:
They'd have to be crazy not to.
If Israel can have them I don't see why they shouldn't.
Iran's comments on 'wiping Israel off the map' were misinterpreted - they aren't that stupid.
And why is that?Turquoise wrote:
If anything, Israel is more likely to attack Iran.Dilbert_X wrote:
They'd have to be crazy not to.
If Israel can have them I don't see why they shouldn't.
Iran's comments on 'wiping Israel off the map' were misinterpreted - they aren't that stupid.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Didn't you hear? Israel already wiped a country off the map!Kmarion wrote:
And why is that?Turquoise wrote:
If anything, Israel is more likely to attack Iran.Dilbert_X wrote:
They'd have to be crazy not to.
If Israel can have them I don't see why they shouldn't.
Iran's comments on 'wiping Israel off the map' were misinterpreted - they aren't that stupid.
Which one I have no idea
It might have something to do with those practice air runs they've been doing...Kmarion wrote:
And why is that?Turquoise wrote:
If anything, Israel is more likely to attack Iran.Dilbert_X wrote:
They'd have to be crazy not to.
If Israel can have them I don't see why they shouldn't.
Iran's comments on 'wiping Israel off the map' were misinterpreted - they aren't that stupid.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/washi … 0iran.html
This was Israel's response, but it seems like they were just backpedalling.
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribun … _07_02.asp
You say it because you speak parsi and can understand, or someone told you that it was misinterpreted? lolDilbert_X wrote:
'wiping Israel off the map' were misinterpreted
Does the expression "to wipe something off the map" even exist in Farsi? Because I'd be willing to bet it doesn't.Lisik wrote:
You say it because you speak parsi and can understand, or someone told you that it was misinterpreted? lolDilbert_X wrote:
'wiping Israel off the map' were misinterpreted
So we're agreed... Iran has the right to develop nuclear weapons to defend itself. Good, looks like we're all done here... next.FEOS wrote:
No nation has the right to tell another nation what to do...but every nation has a right to protect and defend their interests. And every country also has to deal with the repercussions of said protection/defense of their interests.
So Iran lied when said their nuke program is peaceful. And you proudly support these liars. Well done.
And if "to wipe something off the map" exist in Hebrew, English and Russian i believe it also exist in Farsi.
And if "to wipe something off the map" exist in Hebrew, English and Russian i believe it also exist in Farsi.
To be fair Lisik... you more than anyone else on this forum are probably in the most hypocritical position to criticize Iran for pursuing nuclear weapons being that you are from Israel - a country that have themselves illegally built up a huge stockpile of nuclear weapons and are currently in contravention of 52 UN resolutions.Lisik wrote:
So Iran lied when said their nuke program is peaceful. And you proudly support these liars. Well done.
And if "to wipe something off the map" exist in Hebrew, English and Russian i believe it also exist in Farsi.
pot... kettle... black.
Israel isn't likely to give them away to a terrorist group and they haven't used them in several wars over 30-40 years.
Oh I see, we take Israel at their word because they're all such a nice bunch of people but Iran are the big bad psychopaths who will immediately sell them to Islamic extremists and kick off an Armageddon... is that how it is? Pakistan haven't used their nukes either by the way and I'm sure plenty of people thought of them the same way as people are now thinking of Iran. Iran want nukes so that they can do exactly what Israel does... rest easy in the knowledge that they have the big weapons locked in the cupboard should they ever be needed (that's why most nations want nukes, they don't want to use them they just want mutually assured destruction in the event of all out war).M.O.A.B wrote:
Israel isn't likely to give them away to a terrorist group and they haven't used them in several wars over 30-40 years.
Who do most people asume that Iran is so willing to use nuclear weapons if they get them?
Do Iranians not value their own lives like we do so they might as well just blow the planet to bits and pieces, is that your concern?
Do Iranians not value their own lives like we do so they might as well just blow the planet to bits and pieces, is that your concern?
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Iran has precons for giving high end military weapons to Hezbollah.Braddock wrote:
Oh I see, we take Israel at their word because they're all such a nice bunch of people but Iran are the big bad psychopaths who will immediately sell them to Islamic extremists and kick off an Armageddon... is that how it is? Pakistan haven't used their nukes either by the way and I'm sure plenty of people thought of them the same way as people are now thinking of Iran. Iran want nukes so that they can do exactly what Israel does... rest easy in the knowledge that they have the big weapons locked in the cupboard should they ever be needed (that's why most nations want nukes, they don't want to use them they just want mutually assured destruction in the event of all out war).M.O.A.B wrote:
Israel isn't likely to give them away to a terrorist group and they haven't used them in several wars over 30-40 years.