War in Gaza - Page 9

On December 31 2008 16:13 ieatkids5 wrote:

I was commenting on the similarity of the two numbers entered, presumably at random, to lighten up the thread
Wasn't questioning what you've read

On December 31 2008 16:12 ahrara_ wrote:

Iran is not a net importer of oil what are you smoking? Just to make sure I didn't pull a van winkle and wake up in an altered dimension I looked it on the CIA world factbook:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html#Econ

If Iran is a net exporter, and it is, then there is no reason for it to want to invest in nuclear power unless it's to help develop weapons. It doesn't get to export as much, but developing nuclear power is in itself an extremely costly endeavour. The reason the US or net importing nations has an interest in developing nuclear power is more strategic than economic. First, they know how to and have a lot more experience with them. Second, it allows them to reduce dependence on imports, enhancing their soft power. Down the road, it could become a profitable investment for Iran, but for now, its money could be spent on better things than nuclear weapons.

The fact is, Iran exports nothing but oil today. Western sanctions have all but obliterated its export sector. These sanctions don't work for oil because demand is high in places like China. Iran could greatly improve its own economy if it were to comply with western demands. It doesn't do so for a couple of geopolitical reasons: a.) Nuclear power enhances its status in the region. Iran would very much like to be a leader in the Middle East. b.) Nuclear power keeps the US from executing, erm, "regime change."

On December 31 2008 15:49 Xeris wrote:


This post shows how ignorant you really are about the issue. First off, I already explained why Iran wouldn't give their nukes away. How the fuck do you get around explaining why a terrorist group GOT A NUKE IN THE FIRST PLACE??? "They built it themselves, it wasn't us I swear" isn't gonna fly. Everyone will know it was Iran - they wouldn't do that, their government is not retarded. The fact that you seem to think they are is the biggest mistake anyone who ever deals with Iran will make.

Iran is "floating on oil" but do you have any idea what their oil production actually looks like? No you don't, because if you DID KNOW, you would know that Iranian oil production is not nearly producing at its peak capacity, their oil refining infrastructure is still weakened from the Iran-Iraq war and from 50 years of imperialism to British influences, who pretty much controlled their oil and didn't let Iranians run it, Iran is still figuring out how to refine it's oil better. In fact, Iran is actually a net importer of oil, that shows how much farther they have to go when it comes to their oil.

The nuclear program if completed and used wisely will be the best thing they've ever done because it will given them cleaner, cheaper, and more renewable energy.

Again, a nuke given to a fundamentalist group would be a fucking terrible idea. Money alone doesn't explain it, what the fuck good is $50 billion (for example) going to do them if they are invaded by the entire world? None.

Please don't talk about the region, ESPECIALLY IRAN, if you haven't actually done research and don't know wtf you are talking about.

On December 31 2008 16:20 Xeris wrote:


sorry, I mis-said... I was stating that Iran's oil production is a lot lower than it should, I.E, they don't even produce enough oil after exports for their own domestic use.

PS. CIA factbook is not entirely accurate.

On December 31 2008 16:11 Xeris wrote:


No, I guess the number of books I've read is about 30-35, not including about 10-15 different public opinion polls, hundreds of news articles (I thumb through them daily and look for interesting stuff), and a couple other online articles / video conferences and interviews.

On December 31 2008 17:34 Wolverine wrote:


I apologise for my ignorance earlier.. But may I ask you, in your country, do you really get stoned to death for adultery or homosexuality? In that case are you able to surf porn sites? If porn sites are restricted, then how are you able to read objective articles on the internet for other things, for example, articles that are pro-Israel?

Correct me if I'm wrong I don't know how liberal/totalitarian the legal system is in your country, cyber-laws or otherwise.

By the way Locke, I genuinely hope you would give this article a read: http://www.bidstrup.com/zionism.htm - gives you a good background behind the conflict.

On December 31 2008 18:08 QibingZero wrote:
Gah, Savio has reared his closed-minded and propaganda-filled head. Oh the joy.

It's nothing short of amazing that people actually believe Iran with a nuke is somehow any worse than Bush with a nuke. Or Pakistan, Israel, and India for that matter - all of which (unlike Iran) are not members of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

It reeks of self-righteous exceptionalism in here, and the culprit is, unsurprisingly, the only country to actually have used a nuclear weapon.

On December 31 2008 15:58 ahrara_ wrote:
I would agree with Xeris that no country would ever knowingly hand a nuclear weapon to a terrorist organization it doesn't directly control. The risk is too high, in fact it is almost certain in Iran's case, that the weapon could be traced back to its original owner. Moreover, these groups are unpredictable and have a history of biting the hand that feeds it -- Pakistan and the Taliban are a good example. Their loyalties are fickle and they have their own agenda which ultimately conflict with that of any nation-state. Not even Khamanei wants an Islamic Caliphate telling him what to do, for example.

The real proliferation threat in this instance comes in the case of political instability. There's a significant, if not very likely, chance that if Iran were to experience enough of a political upset that the military chain of command were to fall apart (highly unlikely), radical elements within the regime could covertly get their hands on a weapon. But then again, the last time this happened -- in the instance of the Soviet Union, which owned several thousand nukes, IIRC, there were no nuclear weapons lost.

The problem of proliferation comes from the accumulation of many such insignificant threats. If all of a sudden there's a dozen nuclear armed middle eastern countries with radicalist sympathies, then the chances of a nuke being placed in the wrong hands increases exponentially. This scenario is much more likely to happen if Iran were to get its hands on a nuclear weapon. Like with Pakistan, China, and France, it's likely they'll want to share or trade that information with allies, encouraging further proliferation.

So yes, a nuclear armed Iran is bad.

On December 31 2008 18:08 QibingZero wrote:
It reeks of self-righteous exceptionalism in here, and the culprit is, unsurprisingly, the only country to actually have used a nuclear weapon.

On December 31 2008 19:10 Creationism wrote:
first, his post was directed somewhere else, not towards your post, so ur post does not and would not derive from his argument that the people constantly worried about nuclear proliferation are the only ones to have used nuclear arms.

concerning political instability as a catalyst that actually makes nuclear proliferation dangerous because radical terrorist groups would get a hold of the nuclear technology, that is false from both historical aspect and pragmatic aspect.

historically, we have seen the nuclear weapon as the key issue several times, key points in WWII and the cold war. in both cases, it was a weapon of war, a military tactic, that requires economic backing and outright full-scale programs. why is this different from terrorist weapons? it is a military strategy on a level that terrorist are unable to attain. terrorist groups constantly use tactics that attack the civilian population at the cheapest cost: bombings, gunned attacks, hijacks.

pragmatically, a terrorist group cannot maintain such a weapon or even realistically launch it. unlike science fiction, a nuclear weapon is not constantly placed inside a silo that will open any second, with probably the exception of the U.S. they are not linked up to a red button that the terrorist leader can press once and launch. they are unstable nuclear arms that require scientific knowledge and a team of well trained men to manage, both of which requires a stable and powerful economic backing government.

lastly, the very fact that the first thing that radical power do when they come to power is nuke all their enemies, who happen to have nukes too, is asinine. the first order of business, no matter what world country you inspect, for any power that comes to power is securing its power. and it's sure as hell not going to do that by nuking its foreign enemies.

On December 31 2008 19:59 StarBrift wrote:
Both sides are retarded. Anyone who dies and lets his family die (or worse) for something as fake as a nation (borders people drew on maps because they like to own stuff) is stupid and / or brain washed. I'm not saying Israeli or Palestine civilians are to blame but when two entire populations are hell bent on living in a war zone then something is very very wrong. The ones with power need to take responsibility for this and do something about it.

The countries down there need to get peace for 50 or so years so they can start educating people to break out of ignorance. It's fucking sick when an entire people breed their children as warriors because there is no other way of living for them.

Uhhh..I am pretty sure that the Jews didn't just charge into the middle East after WW2 blowing people away with guns. The UN set that land apart for them and the moved there