NationStates Jolt Archive

During the entire standoff with Iran, neither the US no the so called EU-3 were willing to take Iran to the UN Security Council, despite their stonewalling and bellligerant language. Now, it seems as if both the US and the EU-3, being intermediaries in the conflict, are finally taking action.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L2545618.htm
If sanctions are reccomended, a lot can happen to the negotiations. Russia may abstain, as it supplies nuclear material to Iran already. China is a wildcard. While generally not that interested in Middle East affairs, it will be now seeing that a significant portion of China's imports come from Iran. A veto would be suicide, and Beijing knows it. But they may want to water down any resolution just like they did regarding another oil supplier, Sudan.
Yet diplomacy at the Security Council will be different. Iran may not have much say about what goes on, and their will be a new cast of characters. For now, however, we have done what I believe is the best we can do: have a significant section of the world admonish Iran formally. Besides, I find it likely that the Europeans will declare sanctions unilaterally, and may be followed by a few others. Now that, my friends, is a real success.

I'm not sure about the diplomatic miracle, but I'm quite sure that the diplomatic nightmare is John Bolton.

I'm not sure about the diplomatic miracle, but I'm quite sure that the diplomatic nightmare is John Bolton.
And may I ask what some fluffy walrus in the UN has to do with this?

Sanctions will actually hurt us more than Iran. (Can anybody say "Oil"?)

I'm not sure about the diplomatic miracle, but I'm quite sure that the diplomatic nightmare is John Bolton.

I live in Connecticut. We will trade you our Michael Bolton for John.

:headbang:
I will say this one last time. <yes the caps are neccisary>

*grabs megaphone*
IRAN HAS DONE NOTHING WRONG. THEY HAVE NOT VIOLATED INTERNATIONAL LAW. THEY HAVE NOT VIOLATED THE NUCLEAR NON PROLIFERATION TREATY - WHICH HAS AN ARTICLE(ARTICLE IV) - WHICH GUARENTEES AN INALEINABLE RIGHT TO PEACEFUL NUCLEAR TECHONOLGY FOR SIGNATORY NATIONS. THEY HAVE NOT BUILT A NUCLEAR WEAPON. THEY NEVER SAID THEY DESIRE A NUCLEAR WEAPON.

THERE IS NO BASIS FOR ACTION. THE SECURITY COUNCIL HAS NO RIGHT TO ACT. NEITHER DOES THE EU, THE US, CHINA OR THE FRACKING MARTIANS.
*puts down megaphone, takes deep breath*

This is not a miracle, this is a collective schism from reality and interational law.

That is all.

Sanctions will actually hurt us more than Iran. (Can anybody say "Oil"?)
I don't know exactly how much oil Iran produces, except that it has never produced much since the revolutiion. In any case, I imagine that these sanctions won't be as tough as the ones on Iraq. They can't be enforced in this climate, as Iran's borders are too big. Besides, limited oil sales will be allowed, though I bet that capital inflows will be restricted, alongside many other goods. Food may get in. And there will definitly be no nuclear material entering the country.

:headbang:
I will say this one last time. <yes the caps are neccisary>

*grabs megaphone*
IRAN HAS DONE NOTHING WRONG. THEY HAVE NOT VIOLATED INTERNATIONAL LAW. THEY HAVE NOT VIOLATED THE NUCLEAR NON PROLIFERATION TREATY - WHICH HAS AN ARTICLE(ARTICLE IV) - WHICH GUARENTEES AN INALEINABLE RIGHT TO PEACEFUL NUCLEAR TECHONOLGY FOR SIGNATORY NATIONS. THEY HAVE NOT BUILT A NUCLEAR WEAPON. THEY NEVER SAID THEY DESIRE A NUCLEAR WEAPON.

THERE IS NO BASIS FOR ACTION. THE SECURITY COUNCIL HAS NO RIGHT TO ACT. NEITHER DOES THE EU, THE US, CHINA OR THE FRACKING MARTIANS.
*puts down megaphone, takes deep breath*

This is not a miracle, this is a collective schism from reality and interational law.

That is all.

If you ask me, internatioinal law was pretty stupid. It is unenforceble, since it brings together many systems that will eventually destroy the other. The only law in the world are strong ideas over the weak, as we have been seeing for the past twenty years.

I don't know exactly how much oil Iran produces, except that it has never produced much since the revolutiion. In any case, I imagine that these sanctions won't be as tough as the ones on Iraq. They can't be enforced in this climate, as Iran's borders are too big. Besides, limited oil sales will be allowed, though I bet that capital inflows will be restricted, alongside many other goods. Food may get in. And there will definitly be no nuclear material entering the country.Now what do you think will happen to oil prices when Iran (3.962 million bbl/day [CIA World factbook]) gets cut out? Thing is, they don't NEED any nuclear material anymore, so the sanctions won't help there.

If you ask me, internatioinal law was pretty stupid. It is unenforceble, since it brings together many systems that will eventually destroy the other. The only law in the world are strong ideas over the weak, as we have been seeing for the past twenty years.How much do you know about international law? Have you studied it?

And may I ask what some fluffy walrus in the UN has to do with this?Absolutely nothing. You're thread is off to a slow start, so I thought that was better than just giving it a bump.
I live in Connecticut. We will trade you our Michael Bolton for John.Would you really want to make that trade? I'd keep Michael despite everything.

Now what do you think will happen to oil prices when Iran (3.962 million bbl/day [CIA World factbook]) gets cut out? Thing is, they don't NEED any nuclear material anymore, so the sanctions won't help there.


In the long run, 4 million barrels a day is just a drop n the bucket.

In the long run, 4 million barrels a day is just a drop n the bucket.Maybe, but it will be 4 million less in a time when oil is a desireable commodity. It will hurt. See how much the terror attacks against Saudi oil infrastructure hurt the price. And that didn't decrease anything.

In the long run, 4 million barrels a day is just a drop n the bucket.

4.59% of world energy production. I'm sure that wouldn't be too hard to make up, especially once we start drilling the gulf and extracting oil sands (it becomes profitable at $35-40/bbl.)

Maybe, but it will be 4 million less in a time when oil is a desireable commodity. It will hurt. See how much the terror attacks against Saudi oil infrastructure hurt the price. And that didn't decrease anything.

That was speculation, not fundamentals. Any upward moves now are caused by speculators doing anything in their power to bid up oil, regardless of fundamentals or reality. Personally, I think Saudi Arabia does it intentionally to keep their regime in power.

Maybe, but it will be 4 million less in a time when oil is a desireable commodity. It will hurt. See how much the terror attacks against Saudi oil infrastructure hurt the price. And that didn't decrease anything.

Speaking as how the US would be the ones to introduce these sanctions, I would wonder how much it really would hurt them. Does Iran even export oil to the US? If they dont, the end of Iranina exports will only hurt the european community.

Now what do you think will happen to oil prices when Iran (3.962 million bbl/day [CIA World factbook]) gets cut out? Thing is, they don't NEED any nuclear material anymore, so the sanctions won't help there.
They get spent fuel rods from Russia.
And since you'll want to see it:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iran/2003/iran-030604-irna03.htm
And yes, I have studied international law. Though I don't call it studying. Studying is a chore. Learning is more like it. Anyhow, I'm not a lawyer, nor do I need to be to understand how weak it is.

Absolutely nothing. You're thread is off to a slow start, so I thought that was better than just giving it a bump.

Oh, okay. Though my bet is that we'll see him more often if this thing goes to the Security Council.

Speaking as how the US would be the ones to introduce these sanctions, I would wonder how much it really would hurt them. Does Iran even export oil to the US? If they dont, the end of Iranina exports will only hurt the european community.That isn't the point. Gas prices rise in part due to the situation in Iraq even though the US doesn't receive it's oil from there. As far as I know, Europe get's most of it's oil from Norway, Scotland, and Russia anyway, so it wouldn't matter in that respect. But it would fuel speculation. Any fear that there will be a drop in oil production or oil on the market will drive the price upwards, and you'll feel it every time you go to get gas.

The US has had sanctions on Iran since 1980, and Cuba since 1960.

Can someone point to a time when sanctions actually did anything? I'm drawing a blank... even South Africa doesn't stand up to the benchmark, since it had quite a few other factors (ie: apartheid & Nelson Mandela)...

They get spent fuel rods from Russia.
And since you'll want to see it:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iran/2003/iran-030604-irna03.htm
And yes, I have studied international law. Though I don't call it studying. Studying is a chore. Learning is more like it. Anyhow, I'm not a lawyer, nor do I need to be to understand how weak it is.Thanks for the link.
What did you learn it for?

The US has had sanctions on Iran since 1980, and Cuba since 1960.

Can someone point to a time when sanctions actually did anything? I'm drawing a blank... even South Africa doesn't stand up to the benchmark, since it had quite a few other factors (ie: apartheid & Nelson Mandela)...
It punishes the leaders of that country. Take Cuba, whose leader is a sworn enemy of the US, and tried to push for nuclear war. That same leader is still in power. He still has the zeal to destroy the US, because he knows that, after he dies, the ideaology 90 mi. away will threaten his friends once he finally rolls over and croaks.

That isn't the point. Gas prices rise in part due to the situation in Iraq even though the US doesn't receive it's oil from there. As far as I know, Europe get's most of it's oil from Norway, Scotland, and Russia anyway, so it wouldn't matter in that respect. But it would fuel speculation. Any fear that there will be a drop in oil production or oil on the market will drive the price upwards, and you'll feel it every time you go to get gas.


You misunderstand my point. I am saying that the very people who determined that iran with nukes is a threat are the very same people that sanctions would hurt the less. Very hypocritical, if'n you ask me.

Thanks for the link.
What did you learn it for?
The anarchic theory of international relations.

The US has had sanctions on Iran since 1980, and Cuba since 1960.

Can someone point to a time when sanctions actually did anything? I'm drawing a blank... even South Africa doesn't stand up to the benchmark, since it had quite a few other factors (ie: apartheid & Nelson Mandela)...Turned Iraq into a poor nation. I'd call that "did something". Sanctions only do something when they're imposed by the whole world, or if the major trading partner does it. Canada would get hurt by US sanctions in the short run while Iran wouldn't feel anything.

The anarchic theory of international relations.
In college or school? (I'm just curious, I'm not trying to question your knowledge or anything)

In college or school? (I'm just curious, I'm not trying to question your knowledge or anything)
In school. Actually, in a college program during high school. I didn't go to college for law or anything. I'm just on here because I find this relaxing. You do know, actually, that in the US Congress, most of the congressmen actually have MBAs? I guess that means I can run. I certainly am opinionated enough, even if I am a dumbfuck.

The US has had sanctions on Iran since 1980, and Cuba since 1960. Iran? did those sanctions include a higher price tag on missiles? :D

In school. Actually, in a college program during high school. I didn't go to college for law or anything. I'm just on here because I find this relaxing. You do know, actually, that in the US Congress, most of the congressmen actually have MBAs? I guess that means I can run. I certainly am opinionated enough, even if I am a dumbfuck.Heh, I've never heard of that stopping anybody.
Anyway, I've been taking Int'l Law courses at my University and I can assure you that people discovered a long time ago that anarchy spawns unfluffy situations (such as WWI) and while the right of the stronger still prevails, the weak get accepted too. It's an incredibly compley field, since you might pwn someone in one field, they have you by the balls in another. And that's not considering nuclear weapons and the arguements they put on the table.

You do know, actually, that in the US Congress, most of the congressmen actually have MBAs? I guess that means I can run. I certainly am opinionated enough, even if I am a dumbfuck.
One could argue one's dumbfuckedness can be an asset, a boon even, in politics. Why... now I don't have to go any further on this one, do I...?

:headbang:
I will say this one last time. <yes the caps are neccisary>

*grabs megaphone*
IRAN HAS DONE NOTHING WRONG. THEY HAVE NOT VIOLATED INTERNATIONAL LAW. THEY HAVE NOT VIOLATED THE NUCLEAR NON PROLIFERATION TREATY - WHICH HAS AN ARTICLE(ARTICLE IV) - WHICH GUARENTEES AN INALEINABLE RIGHT TO PEACEFUL NUCLEAR TECHONOLGY FOR SIGNATORY NATIONS. THEY HAVE NOT BUILT A NUCLEAR WEAPON. THEY NEVER SAID THEY DESIRE A NUCLEAR WEAPON.

THERE IS NO BASIS FOR ACTION. THE SECURITY COUNCIL HAS NO RIGHT TO ACT. NEITHER DOES THE EU, THE US, CHINA OR THE FRACKING MARTIANS.
*puts down megaphone, takes deep breath*

This is not a miracle, this is a collective schism from reality and interational law.

That is all.


Remember Catz's law: Nations and men will only act reasonably when all other actions have been exhausted.

Sanctions will actually hurt us more than Iran. (Can anybody say "Oil"?)
Touche!

Heh, I've never heard of that stopping anybody.
Anyway, I've been taking Int'l Law courses at my University and I can assure you that people discovered a long time ago that anarchy spawns unfluffy situations (such as WWI) and while the right of the stronger still prevails, the weak get accepted too. It's an incredibly compley field, since you might pwn someone in one field, they have you by the balls in another. And that's not considering nuclear weapons and the arguements they put on the table.
Yeah, but it's no accident about the world order if you ask me. The US spends nearly half of the world's defense budget, and even without GWOT, it would still be a very high figure. Yet it hardly makes a dent in the economy, whereas many nations spend far less in absolute terms, and far more in terms of GDP. This is because the US can afford it. More importantly, however, I believe it can afford it because its ideas are so much stronger than those across the world. This situation is true in many countries: they are about the same size as their neighbors, yet have better guns for less sacrifice.
This is just an example. But I believe that this is the basis of international law. It was almost a boon that the US never joined the League of Nations, or else it'd be much stronger, and negotiate an end to fascist aggression. If it did, fascism would've never been destroyed as soon as it was.

Touche!
Be careful when considering markets. For one, Iran is just a link in a giant chain of suppliers and consumers. Single commodity concerns that don't affect all suppliers are really fickle because the price can fluctuate, and I believe that oil will plummet by the next trough of the business cycle.

It punishes the leaders of that country. Take Cuba, whose leader is a sworn enemy of the US, and tried to push for nuclear war. That same leader is still in power. He still has the zeal to destroy the US, because he knows that, after he dies, the ideaology 90 mi. away will threaten his friends once he finally rolls over and croaks.

Right... Castro is *still* in power.... I don't call that effective. What good have sanctions really done? It's made his rule hard, and made lots of people suffer, but the sanctions haven't really solved anything.

Iran? did those sanctions include a higher price tag on missiles? :D

Yep. :p

Turned Iraq into a poor nation. I'd call that "did something". Sanctions only do something when they're imposed by the whole world, or if the major trading partner does it. Canada would get hurt by US sanctions in the short run while Iran wouldn't feel anything.

Iraq? Poor? Where?!?
Even under sanctions, Saddam was still spending the treasury on palaces and what arms he could scrounge. How about the millions of dollars and Euros that were captured by Allied troops, and the billions Saddam has spirited away offshore?

Nope, it wouldn't hurt Canada any more or less than the US sanctions on Iran for has for the past 25 years. I mean, what are we going to do? Not trade with them *even more*?!?


BTW, for those of you whom are interested: Iran supplies no oil to the US.... (TIME magazine, 29 August issue:)

42% Domestic
11% Canada
11% Mexico
9% Saudi Arabia
8% Venezuela
7% Nigeria
4% Iraq

...and 8% from the rest of the world, most notably Russia, Egypt, Indonesia, Norway, et al.

Yep. (about higher price tag on missiles to Iran):pDoes the concept of not negotiating with terrorists mean anything to repbulicans or do they say that just to appeal to the bible tossers?

Diplomacy doesn't seem to achieve anything. I'm tempted to say we should just let Iran build it's nuclear plants, and then when they come online just bomb the hell out of them.

Does the concept of not negotiating with terrorists mean anything to repbulicans or do they say that just to appeal to the bible tossers?

Got me. I was 9 at the time.