NationStates Jolt Archive

Well this isn't what I expected from Iran today, not many news agencies are reporting this story. Apparently Iran fired on a Romanian oil rig in the Persian Gulf today and Romania has lost contact with the 26 member crew. What does it mean? No idea...you tell me.

here's the linkage...

JPOST: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525924105&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Bloomberg.com: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=adVreywC1G_k&refer=home

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/22/iran.romania.ap/index.html

CNN has it.

Well, there was a dispute over the rig. Maybe the Iranians decided to kill them and take it - dispute resolved.

Iran keeps upping the ante.


Maybe the rest of the world should try reasonable talks with them.

that isn't good, weren't they shelling N. Iraq yesterday?

sounds to me like their trying to stir up some stuff.

You think the Romanians might declare war? :eek:

that isn't good, weren't they shelling N. Iraq yesterday?

sounds to me like their trying to stir up some stuff.

No, the argument goes we should do what Chamberlain did.

You know, let them play their little games, blowing up stuff and killing people, and fighting proxy wars in Lebanon, it's all in good fun, nothing to worry about, peace in our time...

No, the argument goes we should do what Chamberlain did.

You know, let them play their little games, blowing up stuff and killing people, and fighting proxy wars in Lebanon, it's all in good fun, nothing to worry about, peace in our time...
And I suppose we should invade Iran with all of our remaining forces. Those plastic GI Joes would sure show them, Go Joe!

And I suppose we should invade Iran with all of our remaining forces. Those plastic GI Joes would sure show them, Go Joe!
Did I say that? No.

No, the argument goes we should do what Chamberlain did.

You know, let them play their little games, blowing up stuff and killing people, and fighting proxy wars in Lebanon, it's all in good fun, nothing to worry about, peace in our time...

so their screwing around with Uranium, shelling Kurds, and taking Romanian oil rigs. Yet the U.N. is still debating setting up sanctions:rolleyes:

(the proxy war theory is a wee bit iffy to me)

so their screwing around with Uranium, shelling Kurds, and taking Romanian oil rigs. Yet the U.N. is still debating setting up sanctions:rolleyes:

(the proxy war theory is a wee bit iffy to me)

Hezbollah is paid for, armed, and trained entirely by Iran and Syria. A better proxy could not exist.

Hezbollah is paid for, armed, and trained entirely by Iran and Syria. A better proxy could not exist.

you got evidence?

you got evidence?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/hizballah.htm

Hizballah was established by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards who came to Lebanon during the 1982 "Peace for Galilee" war, as part of the policy of exporting the Islamic revolution. It receives substantial amounts of financial, training, weapons, explosives, political, diplomatic, and organizational aid from Iran and Syria. Published reports that Iran provides hundreds million dollars of aid annually are probably exaggerated. Iran probably provides financial assistance and military assistance worth about $25-50 million.

Hizballah is closely allied with, and often directed by, Iran but has the capability and willingness to act independently. Closely allied with, and often directed by Iran, it may have conducted operations that were not approved by Tehran. Though Hizballah does not share the Syrian regime’s secular orientation, the group has been a strong ally in helping Syria advance its political objectives in the region.

No, the argument goes we should do what Chamberlain did.
You are right. We should follow the lead of Chamberlain and JFK and not plunge the world into a war if it is not necessary.

The question is, 'is it necessary'?
If Iran is going to continue to bomb and shell other nations then the answer is 'yes'.
The question is, where does the rest of the world need to draw the line?
Bearing in mind that Israel has just finished testing the waters of international opinion I don't think the world is going to be too upset by anything that doesn't produce at least 1,000 dead.

You are right. We should follow the lead of Chamberlain and JFK and not plunge the world into a war if it is not necessary.

It's not my idea. The question is, how long will Iran be allowed to do whatever it wants before someone stops them.

Hizbollah has been trained and financed by many people. But substantial evidence exists that Iran has been in partnership with it for twenty years.
Syria's ties are less certain, indeed at one point Asad came very close to trying to destroy Hezbollah.

Hizbollah has been trained and financed by many people. But substantial evidence exists that Iran has been in partnership with it for twenty years.
Syria's ties are less certain, indeed at one point Asad came very close to trying to destroy Hezbollah.
Syria likes it because it hurts Israel. But, Syria is secular.

Iran, on the other hand...

I can't wait to see CNN footage of B2 bombers destroying all of Iran's nuclear facilities and military bases. That's entertainment.

I can't wait to see CNN footage of B2 bombers destroying all of Iran's nuclear facilities and military bases. That's entertainment.
It was disappointing the last time around with B-2s.

You didn't see or hear the planes. And then select buildings went up in little mushroom clouds lighting up the skyline.

It was disappointing the last time around with B-2s.

You didn't see or hear the planes. And then select buildings went up in little mushroom clouds lighting up the skyline.
That's the neat thing about them. Shit starts blowing up for what seems like no reason at all.

That's the neat thing about them. Shit starts blowing up for what seems like no reason at all.


I have a strong feeling they are baiting us.

I'm concerned as soon as we start that, shit may start blowing up here for what seems like no reason at all.

I have a strong feeling they are baiting us.

I'm concerned as soon as we start that, shit may start blowing up here for what seems like no reason at all.

I'm convinced that since Hezbollah started that stuff against Israel, that was intentional baiting.

And Iran runs Hezbollah to a large extent. At the very least, there is extremely close coordination between the two.

Looks like baiting to me. And if we don't react, they'll take that as a sign that they can do whatever they want.

Hey, if you can take one oil rig in the Persian Gulf, you can have them all.

Well this isn't what I expected from Iran today, not many news agencies are reporting this story. Apparently Iran fired on a Romanian oil rig in the Persian Gulf today and Romania has lost contact with the 26 member crew. What does it mean? No idea...you tell me.

here's the linkage...

JPOST: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525924105&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Bloomberg.com: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=adVreywC1G_k&refer=home


Not only that but iran has been firing artillery shells on Iraqi kurdistan for the past few days. Its killed 2 people, yet nobody has heard of it because of damn jonbenet ramsey and john mark karr.

I'm convinced that since Hezbollah started that stuff against Israel, that was intentional baiting.

And Iran runs Hezbollah to a large extent. At the very least, there is extremely close coordination between the two.

Looks like baiting to me. And if we don't react, they'll take that as a sign that they can do whatever they want.

Hey, if you can take one oil rig in the Persian Gulf, you can have them all.


Exactly. Its like WWII, "ok fine hitler, take czecholslovakia, fine hiter, take austria"....and so on.

I have a strong feeling they are baiting us.

I'm concerned as soon as we start that, shit may start blowing up here for what seems like no reason at all.
Meh, so what? We can take some casualties here at home and keep on fighting. If, however, Iran hits us here we can reduce their whole country to rubble.

Exactly. Its like WWII, "ok fine hitler, take czecholslovakia, fine hiter, take austria"....and so on.

I agree. The religious government in Tehran is looking to have another brutal, messy war so that they can consolidate their hold on power for another generation.

Whenever they have an extended period of peace without incidents the mullahs can point to as "another attempt by the Great Satans to destroy Islam", people in Iran start looking around and asking questions, and some of them start talking reform. The Islamic Republic's leaders don't want reform, so they push the outside world and manufacture a crisis. During a crisis they can say "whoever isn't with us is against us" (sound familiar?) and destroy any organized opposition without looking dictatorial.

Of course, if we DON'T respond, they'll figure they can get away with anything. 1936 all over again...

Not only that but iran has been firing artillery shells on Iraqi kurdistan for the past few days. Its killed 2 people, yet nobody has heard of it because of damn jonbenet ramsey and john mark karr.

Iran: "We were targeting terrorists. Part of the global war on terror, innit?"

Ain't it great when people can trudge that old warhorse out to justify their actions.

Iran: "We were targeting terrorists. Part of the global war on terror, innit?"

Ain't it great when people can trudge that old warhorse out to justify their actions.
More like beating the old, dead warhorse.
"Uhh.. uh.. terrorism! uhh.. 9/11!"

Meh, so what? We can take some casualties here at home and keep on fighting. If, however, Iran hits us here we can reduce their whole country to rubble.

I'm not ready to willingly accept "some casualties here at home".

Our enemies have been watching our reactions to various situations for several years now- militarily, politically, finacially. How we respond to catastrophic natural disasters. What divides us.
I fear there could be a large scale plan in the works, with many known and unknown players. We have so much to lose here. Some Americans bitch like its the end of the world if they lose electrical power for a few days.

I'm concerned people here may be about to learn a lesson loss.

Iran being reduced to rubble doesnt help me at all.

The ones causing the trouble need to be surgically removed like the two- legged tumors they are.

I'm not ready to willingly accept "some casualties here at home".

Our enemies have been watching our reactions to various situations for several years now- militarily, politically, finacially. How we respond to catastrophic natural disasters. What divides us.
I fear there could be a large scale plan in the works, with many known and unknown players. We have so much to lose here. Some Americans bitch like its the end of the world if they lose electrical power for a few days.

I'm concerned people here may be about to learn a lesson loss.

Iran being reduced to rubble doesnt help me at all.

The ones causing the trouble need to be surgically removed like the two- legged tumors they are.


Don't say that! I have it on authority from other NSers that Iran poses no threat, and we have nothing to worry about! And if you propose removing them, or even criticizing them, you're a bigot!

Don't say that! I have it on authority from other NSers that Iran poses no threat, and we have nothing to worry about! And if you propose removing them, or even criticizing them, you're a bigot!

What we should be afraid of is Iran pushing Bush into doing something stupid. :(

Maybe some of us will get lucky and see Mushroom clouds up close in the near future.

Don't say that! I have it on authority from other NSers that Iran poses no threat, and we have nothing to worry about! And if you propose removing them, or even criticizing them, you're a bigot!

So I'm a bigot then. I'm not one of those guys that needs to label others to make myself feel better. Being able to call someone a racist,etc... doesnt soothe me and I dont need it to justify who I am or how I live.

I also take things where they come from. There are very few whose opinions of me a worth anything.

Something has to be done, but its time for someone else to step up to the plate on the Iran issue. Its in a dozen back yards closer than our own.

We also dont need to deal with another islamic insurgency.

What we should be afraid of is Iran pushing Bush into doing something stupid. :(


President Bush hasnt, nor will he do anything "stupid".

He has the luxury of watching the rest of the countries in that region just sit there and discuss it with psuedo-intellectual detachment as if it were some intersting culture in a petri dish.

President Bush hasnt, nor will he do anything "stupid".

He has the luxury of watching the rest of the countries in that region just sit there and discuss it with psuedo-intellectual detachment as if it were some intersting culture in a petri dish.

If Iran keeps flexing its military muscles then who knows what Bush may end up doing? He may not be able to do a full invasion but bombing the country isn't out of the question.

The invasion of Iraq kind of refutes the point of Bush not doing anything stupid by the way. All we can do is hope that Bush doesn't decide to go after another member of the "Axis of Evil".

President Bush hasnt, nor will he do anything "stupid".

He has the luxury of watching the rest of the countries in that region just sit there and discuss it with psuedo-intellectual detachment as if it were some intersting culture in a petri dish.

What will be interesting is what the EU will do - or not.

Iran may discover that it can take the whole Persian Gulf without anyone interfering, because the EU will object to any action by the US.

If Iran keeps flexing its military muscles then who knows what Bush may end up doing? He may not be able to do a full invasion but bombing the country isn't out of the question.

The invasion of Iraq kind of refutes the point of Bush not doing anything stupid by the way. All we can do is hope that Bush doesn't decide to go after another member of the "Axis of Evil".

You an I may not see eye to eye there. I dont feel the invasion of Iraq was stupid. There are as many people that share my opinion as share yours.

I would prefer someone else "go after" Iran before we do.
Unfortunately, we'll more likely see them continue to bluster and bicker, until Iran gains an advantage and the rules change.

I would like to see Iran dealt with before they hold a better hand. You dont want to have to deal with them on their terms.

They need an immediate and resolute stomping now.

And no- I dont want to see apartment building full of average civilians reduced to rubble.

I dont know what the right answers are. But the time to discuss things with them has passed.

President Bush hasnt, nor will he do anything "stupid".
Of course if you define stupid as something as extreme as trying to reach down the toilet paper for your rubber ducky, no I guess he hasn't.

Maybe some of us will get lucky and see Mushroom clouds up close in the near future.

I consider myself already being lucky as I've never seen a mushroom cloud.

I think lucky is staying that way.

Of course if you define stupid as something as extreme as trying to reach down the toilet paper for your rubber ducky, no I guess he hasn't.

uh-what? that statement may just corner the entire market on stupid.

I consider myself already being lucky as I've never seen a mushroom cloud.

I think lucky is staying that way.
agreed.

uh-what? that statement may just corner the entire market on stupid.
careful, he's only seconds away from calling you a warmonger or a bigot...

careful, he's only seconds away from calling you a warmonger or a bigot...

I'll have to deal with that tragedy when it hits.

You an I may not see eye to eye there. I dont feel the invasion of Iraq was stupid. There are as many people that share my opinion as share yours.

Yes we are going to have to disagree here. Given that we went in on false information and the current state of Iraq I feel that it is proven to be a huge mistake. Not that I'm surprised.

I would prefer someone else "go after" Iran before we do.
Unfortunately, we'll more likely see them continue to bluster and bicker, until Iran gains an advantage and the rules change.

If we or someone else went after them now then perhaps it would finally get other Muslim countries into the act of actively hating the U.S. or increase fanaticism even more after we prove yet again that we only know violence in dealing with Arabs.

I would like to see Iran dealt with before they hold a better hand. You dont want to have to deal with them on their terms.

Seems they are trying to dictate now by provoking a military response from the West. We should wait for the young generation to take over and perhaps we will actually have a successful homegrown democracy.

They need an immediate and resolute stomping now.

Same as the above.

And no- I dont want to see apartment building full of average civilians reduced to rubble.

That is certainly good to know. Wars should certainly do their best to minimize that.

I dont know what the right answers are. But the time to discuss things with them has passed.

I disagree. Besides Iran has offered to talk in the past and Bush has decided to ignore them. Perhaps blame cannot be placed all on Iran?

I don't think anyone has pointed out yet that Romania has been a member of NATO since 2004. Therefore, if the Romanian government interprets this as an act of war (which it is, IMHO) then ALL NATO countries are treaty bound to respond with force.

Yes we are going to have to disagree here. Given that we went in on false information and the current state of Iraq I feel that it is proven to be a huge mistake. Not that I'm surprised.



If we or someone else went after them now then perhaps it would finally get other Muslim countries into the act of actively hating the U.S. or increase fanaticism even more after we prove yet again that we only know violence in dealing with Arabs.



Seems they are trying to dictate now by provoking a military response from the West. We should wait for the young generation to take over and perhaps we will actually have a successful homegrown democracy.



Same as the above.



That is certainly good to know. Wars should certainly do their best to minimize that.



I disagree. Besides Iran has offered to talk in the past and Bush has decided to ignore them. Perhaps blame cannot be placed all on Iran?


Then we just dont agree. Its clear we speak from different experience.

Either way-I dont see any obvious or painless solution.

I know my Iranian counterpart sitting in Iran right now likely doesnt want me dead and my property destroyed anymore than I want that for him.

It would be nice if we could make a connection on a wide scale and they could see I dont want to steal their oil, threaten their religious beliefs or shove Israel's agendas down their throat. That my needs and concerns are similar to his-I want my family to thrive and learn and be free and healthy and I dont need to hurt his to reach that end.

I don't think anyone has pointed out yet that Romania has been a member of NATO since 2004. Therefore, if the Romanian government interprets this as an act of war (which it is, IMHO) then ALL NATO countries are treaty bound to respond with force.

maybe Romania is going to have to wait while they discuss it for a while.

It would be nice if we could make a connection on a wide scale and they could see I dont want to steal their oil, threaten their religious beliefs or shove Israel's agendas down their throat. That my needs and concerns are similar to his-I want my family to thrive and learn and be free and healthy and I dont need to hurt his to reach that end.

Diplomacy would be nice. I don't think the Bush administration is really all that big on compromise however.

Diplomacy would be nice. I don't think the Bush administration is really all that big on compromise however.
Neither are the Iranians, it would appear.

Iranian President: "Look, dammit. Stop talking with those fucking Romanians, and just take some soldiers out there and shoot the shit out of that oil rig. I want action, not excuses and talk."

I think more facts are needed before we can really say what happened. If Iran seized this rig illegally, then we're going to have to take whatever diplomatic actions are necessary to restore the rig to its rightful owners; however, there might be extenuating circumstances beyond a simple seizure of the rig. However, if this rig was seized illegally and diplomatic efforts fail then some kind of military action may be necessary to recover it; I would prefer this option be the very last but if necessary we should do it.

However, I do think it's time that the Persian Gulf states start developing alternative means of shipping oil other than the Strait of Hormuz; honestly, the UAE should consider building a shipping canal through their territory to create a link between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman in order to ensure a secure shipping route for oil regardless of any problems with Iran.

careful, he's only seconds away from calling you a warmonger or a bigot...

DK, you aren't a victim. You are a racist and a bigot and a warmonger. When you want all muslims imprisoned or killed in america, just for being muslim, you cannot act like a victim and have any credibility.

Neither are the Iranians, it would appear.

Iranian President: "Look, dammit. Stop talking with those fucking Romanians, and just take some soldiers out there and shoot the shit out of that oil rig. I want action, not excuses and talk."

Sure just replace "Iranian" with American, "Romanians" with Iranians and "oil rig" with country. Then it would work better. ;)

Diplomacy would be nice. I don't think the Bush administration is really all that big on compromise however.


I think compromising with Iran would be a big mistake-but thats just me.

I shudder to think of how they would compromise with the rest of us when they are dealing from a position of power.

proof that islam is evil.

I think compromising with Iran would be a big mistake-but thats just me.

I shudder to think of how they would compromise with the rest of us when they are dealing from a position of power.

What power? He is just a loudmouth who if he tries anything direct will get slapped down. He is all bluster, hoping that we will act first and be seen as the aggressors.

What power? He is just a loudmouth who if he tries anything direct will get slapped down. He is all bluster, hoping that we will act first and be seen as the aggressors.
He has a lot of oil. That's power.

They may also have a nuclear weapon as a hole card.

Nice hand to play.

What power? He is just a loudmouth who if he tries anything direct will get slapped down. He is all bluster, hoping that we will act first and be seen as the aggressors.


Its clear to me every effort is being made in Iran to produce or obtain a nuke.

That will give him significant power. He may not have anything now and look at how he runs roughshod over everything.

He keeps trying stuff- every week, there is something new and aggressive-wether its defying the UN, lobbing shells into northern Iraq or advising the rest of us that its his opinion that israel is wiped off the map.

The bluster is to confuse the ones with no backbones as their mouths flap. It clouds the water.

He has a lot of oil. That's power.

Not as much as you might think. Almost all of Iran's government revenues come from oil exports; if exports are stopped, they lose almost all of their government revenue. Iran is also heavily dependent on OECD nations for its refined fuels and a big chunk of their oil export money is spent on subsidies for gasoline; they actually are in a crisis right now because they have run out of money for gasoline imports and can't afford to raise prices due to their economic crisis and the risk of civil unrest.

If Iran's oil is cut off, they lose big time. Not only does their government revenue plunge to nearly nothing, but they also suffer crippling shortages of fuel and literally go bankrupt overnight. This leads to hyperinflation and total economic collapse, and undoubtedly the collapse of the regime as well.

We have Iran by the balls...they don't like to admit it, and hope that no one knows it, but we do. They are the ones in the position of weakness...even the most apocalyptic effects from an Iranian embargo would be another 1979-style energy crisis, and that's far less serious than what Iran faces.

I don't think anyone has pointed out yet that Romania has been a member of NATO since 2004. Therefore, if the Romanian government interprets this as an act of war (which it is, IMHO) then ALL NATO countries are treaty bound to respond with force.

I think it requires an attack on the country proper before that can come into effect.

proof that islam is evil.


No, it's proof that that lunatic in Tehran is evil.

No, it's proof that that lunatic in Tehran is evil.
and what, pray tell, does evil have to do with it?

Iran is gaming this out, just like any other country.

I think it requires an attack on the country proper before that can come into effect.


that sucks if that is the case if the rig is Romanian property, if what it produces is Romanian propoerty and if the men working it are Romanian citzens.

Do we know what their condition is? Were they murdered or just being held hostage?

Do we know what their condition is? Were they murdered or just being held hostage?

I don't know.

Does anyone know if the rig is in international waters?

and what, pray tell, does evil have to do with it?

Iran is gaming this out, just like any other country.



NO! Really? You're not serious! That couldn't possibly be it. Other countries do it too? No, you must be mistaken. Only Muslims do that. Personally, I think there are any number of world leaders that could be described as evil, cynical lunatics. And just what, pray tell, makes you think I care what you think? Ahmadinejad would look better with a bullet in his head, but my point (to the person my post was addressed to, which wasn't you BTW) is that his actions are not the responsibility of all Muslims any more that Bush's actions are the responsibility of all Americans, or Blair's actions are the responsibilty of all British citizens.

NO! Really? You're not serious! That couldn't possibly be it. Other countries do it too? No, you must be mistaken. Only Muslims do that. Personally, I think there are any number of world leaders that could be described as evil, cynical lunatics. And just what, pray tell, makes you think I care what you think? Ahmadinejad would look better with a bullet in his head, but my point (to the person my post was addressed to, which wasn't you BTW) is that his actions are not the responsibility of all Muslims any more that Bush's actions are the responsibility of all Americans, or Blair's actions are the responsibilty of all British citizens.

Every time I tried to explain Realpolitik, people kept saying "bullshit". Even Muslims are gaming things out (amongst themselves, even).

And what makes you think I care what you think? You're just another poster on NS General...

I think more facts are needed before we can really say what happened. If Iran seized this rig illegally, then we're going to have to take whatever diplomatic actions are necessary to restore the rig to its rightful owners; however, there might be extenuating circumstances beyond a simple seizure of the rig. However, if this rig was seized illegally and diplomatic efforts fail then some kind of military action may be necessary to recover it; I would prefer this option be the very last but if necessary we should do it.

However, I do think it's time that the Persian Gulf states start developing alternative means of shipping oil other than the Strait of Hormuz; honestly, the UAE should consider building a shipping canal through their territory to create a link between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman in order to ensure a secure shipping route for oil regardless of any problems with Iran.


What other way is there to seize an oil rig by force of arms with a country yoou are at peace with unless its illegal ?

Diplomacy by Iran vs diplomacy by the EU.....:p

Irans diplomacy wins :p

Not as much as you might think. Almost all of Iran's government revenues come from oil exports; if exports are stopped, they lose almost all of their government revenue. Iran is also heavily dependent on OECD nations for its refined fuels and a big chunk of their oil export money is spent on subsidies for gasoline; they actually are in a crisis right now because they have run out of money for gasoline imports and can't afford to raise prices due to their economic crisis and the risk of civil unrest.

If Iran's oil is cut off, they lose big time. Not only does their government revenue plunge to nearly nothing, but they also suffer crippling shortages of fuel and literally go bankrupt overnight. This leads to hyperinflation and total economic collapse, and undoubtedly the collapse of the regime as well.

We have Iran by the balls...they don't like to admit it, and hope that no one knows it, but we do. They are the ones in the position of weakness...even the most apocalyptic effects from an Iranian embargo would be another 1979-style energy crisis, and that's far less serious than what Iran faces.

Iran has enough cash reserves to ride out an embargo and the west cant afford 400.00 a barrell oil .

Iran wins again .

Iran has enough cash reserves to ride out an embargo and the west cant afford 400.00 a barrell oil .

Iran wins again .


It'll be sweet when the US is a major producer of oil and the middle east can slip back into the stone age.

He has a lot of oil. That's power.

If he keeps up his rhetoric then he will find himself short of buyers.

They may also have a nuclear weapon as a hole card.

Nice hand to play.

I will believe the weapons inspectors who all say that Iran is at least 5 years away from even testing a nuclear weapon. Anyone who says anything else is just paranoid or simply trying to induce fear needlessly.

If he keeps up his rhetoric then he will find himself short of buyers.






I hope thats all that would be needed to improve his behavior.

I agree with Carnivorous. It would be so cool, but...
What do you think would happen if we suddenly lost all supplies of oil from the mid east(including Iran); if we just shut off all flow from that section of the world? Would we suddenly cease as a country and be sent back to pre industrial society aand lose millions of people to death and starvation? No, we'd come up with ways to get around having no oil. If a resource just no longer exists for all practical purposes, someone will make a profit off of it. Why not your next door neighbour or you? Someone will come up with a solution to the fuel crisis in short order and become stinking rich from it and cause, like Carnivorous said the collapse of places like Iran. A win-win situation, we lose dependance on fossil fuels(as long as the solution doesn't involve natural gas or some other fossil fuels, only replacing oil as our lifeblood) and we save the Earth from ultimate destruction, yay! Plus, the world will be run on technology instead of natural limited resources.

No, the argument goes we should do what Chamberlain did.

You know, let them play their little games, blowing up stuff and killing people, and fighting proxy wars in Lebanon, it's all in good fun, nothing to worry about, peace in our time...
Trouble is, you've got Neville Chamberlain on the brain. Seems like not a day goes by without you alluding to Chamberlain - almost like you're hedging all your bets in the hopes that one of the many Chamberlains you've identified in the world today will do something that you can later wag a finger at and tell the rest of us, "See? I toldja so - in your face, everybody who calls me out for being a perpetually paranoid armchair general".

I am more likely to actually ignore whatever news item you choose to analyze through the auspices of your patented "Chamberlain-vision" technique, DK. Mostly 'cause it usually amounts to a load of self-righteous war-mongering crapola that never materializes into anything even remotely like what you choose to hype it as supposedly being.

And oh- care to quote that stupid article what shows how clever the sons of Jacob are at me again? I don't think I got quite enough opportunities to pointedly ignore that smelly bit of bait the last couple of days. :rolleyes:

It'll be sweet when the US is a major producer of oil and the middle east can slip back into the stone age.


Sweet would be getting off the oil tit and developing an alternative fuel and then selling it for less than the oil in the Mid East...;)


be able to tell a bunch of fuckers to do themselves then and lower the defense budget .:)

I agree with Carnivorous. It would be so cool, but...
What do you think would happen if we suddenly lost all supplies of oil from the mid east(including Iran); if we just shut off all flow from that section of the world? Would we suddenly cease as a country and be sent back to pre industrial society aand lose millions of people to death and starvation? No, we'd come up with ways to get around having no oil. If a resource just no longer exists for all practical purposes, someone will make a profit off of it. Why not your next door neighbour or you? Someone will come up with a solution to the fuel crisis in short order and become stinking rich from it and cause, like Carnivorous said the collapse of places like Iran. A win-win situation, we lose dependance on fossil fuels(as long as the solution doesn't involve natural gas or some other fossil fuels, only replacing oil as our lifeblood) and we save the Earth from ultimate destruction, yay! Plus, the world will be run on technology instead of natural limited resources.


We'd suffer first. Some much more than others. And we'd pay a steep price trying to retrofit our existing vehicles to work on whatever new fuel is produced.
And we would be paying that not only for our own vehicles but for every product we buy-that cost would be passed on to us.

No, no, I mean we would not be reliant on a physical fuel, instead something that is unlimited and abundant. Yes, for a couple of years we would be screwed over in economical terms. But, when the breakthrough comes, it'll be huge. Basically, it's asking people to think in the long term instead of the short term. Of course, in a perfect world, communism works so...

Sweet would be getting off the oil tit and developing an alternative fuel and then selling it for less than the oil in the Mid East...;)


be able to tell a bunch of fuckers to do themselves then and lower the defense budget .:)


You are absolutely right. But-I do think we are closer to extracting the oil we have in North America-and prfotting from it- than we are to developing a more efficient and plentiful fuel.

It would be great if both could be developed at the same time. And the competition gave us consumers better choices. And as a country we profit and create many jobs in the indistries.

And yeah- not have to maintain a fleet in that turd filled litter box.

No, no, I mean we would not be reliant on a physical fuel, instead something that is unlimited and abundant. Yes, for a couple of years we would be screwed over in economical terms. But, when the breakthrough comes, it'll be huge. Basically, it's asking people to think in the long term instead of the short term. Of course, in a perfect world, communism works so...


ahhh grass hopper the US has fuel reserves enough in the US ..shale oil coal oil etc. and if combined with ethanol could be stretched for years ...the price of oil is getting to the point of making it attractive to use this method..but its stop gap until we get better tech ...

but its short term pain for long term gain and stability..

We only win if we can nuetralise Iran by economic or military means...and I fear the military means at this time ..unless we want to absorb some terrorist hits ..big time ..I doubt we have the balls .

besides I agree with the old chinese dude... that the best way to win a war is to never fight it.

I don't know.

Does anyone know if the rig is in international waters?

Depends on your definition. Iran claims the entire north end of the Straight, based on their other territorial claims.

You see, national law only extends out twelve miles, though most countries claim exclusive fishing rights out to two hundred kilometers. But there's a loophole; if you own both sides of a straight or two islands near one another, you can claim the entire area between as national waters, even if that distance is greater than 24 miles. That's black-letter, generally accepted international law.

Iran claims both sides of the Straight. The fact they CONTROL only one side, and that no one else acknowledges their claim to the other, hasn't prevented them from advancing the extension to that claim that they therefore own the Straight of Hormuz.

So, the question of whether the rig was in international waters depends on who you ask.

Iran has enough cash reserves to ride out an embargo and the west cant afford 400.00 a barrell oil .

Iran wins again .

Iran's only got $46 billion in reserves. That's going to be drained pretty quickly especially since Iran's yearly budget is $60.28 billion and they're already running $12 billion deficits and have $19 billion in debt. They'd be totally exhausted within 1 year, and probably even earlier as hyperinflation sets in and their economy collapses. $46 billion in reserves is less than half the growth in US GDP in the last quarter...it's a trivial amount of money.

Oil wouldn't hit $400; Iranian oil exports are only 4% of world oil production, and a 10% drop in 1979 only pushed prices up 133% despite a simultaneous outbreak of the Iran-Iraq war and the 1979 revolution. You'd be looking at about 50%, which brings us to $105-$115...that's hardly a situation for economic collapse or even a recession. The US's SPR alone could cover all of Iran's oil exports for a year, and Saudi Arabia could easily produce 2.5 million bpd more if they had to, let alone any of the other OPEC or non-OPEC producers. Iran's oil exports simply aren't as important as they were in the 1970's and there is more than enough surplus capacity, strategic reserves, and demand flexibility to more than make up for their capacity.

They are weak, and they are dependent on us for their very existence. We're in a position of total strategic dominance...Iran's gotten steadily weaker since 1979.

Iran's only got $46 billion in reserves. That's going to be drained pretty quickly especially since Iran's yearly budget is $60.28 billion and they're already running $12 billion deficits and have $19 billion in debt. They'd be totally exhausted within 1 year, and probably even earlier as hyperinflation sets in and their economy collapses. $46 billion in reserves is less than half the growth in US GDP in the last quarter...it's a trivial amount of money.

Oil wouldn't hit $400; Iranian oil exports are only 4% of world oil production, and a 10% drop in 1979 only pushed prices up 133% despite a simultaneous outbreak of the Iran-Iraq war and the 1979 revolution. You'd be looking at about 50%, which brings us to $105-$115...that's hardly a situation for economic collapse or even a recession. The US's SPR alone could cover all of Iran's oil exports for a year, and Saudi Arabia could easily produce 2.5 million bpd more if they had to, let alone any of the other OPEC or non-OPEC producers. Iran's oil exports simply aren't as important as they were in the 1970's and there is more than enough surplus capacity, strategic reserves, and demand flexibility to more than make up for their capacity.

They are weak, and they are dependent on us for their very existence. We're in a position of total strategic dominance...Iran's gotten steadily weaker since 1979.

What makes you think you would be able to get oil shipped out of the persian gulf if the US was at war with iran ? the straight of hormuz is a choke point..remember what happened in the Iran iraq war ?

Also you did not have the stress from China and india on the world oil market at that time...so you can forget about a 50 % rise dont you think ?:D

If you sanction Iran ..who exactly will abide by it ? the same group that went along with Sanctions on Iraq ?????:D

factor in the goofball Chavez..who supports Iran .

BTW ..6% of the US oil supply is frozen until the pipeline gets fixed...the strategic reserve is making up that difference now...but add what happens if Iran blows up ?

At any rate Iran seems VERY confident NO ONE has the balls to stop it .

So far all I see is a bunch of talking from the west and a bunch of action from Iran .

It sure seems like a Chamberlain moment to me .

What makes you think you would be able to get oil shipped out of the persian gulf if the US was at war with iran ? the straight of hormuz is a choke point..remember what happened in the Iran iraq war ?

Also you did not have the stress from China and india on the world oil market at that time...so you can forget about a 50 % rise dont you think ?:D

If you sanction Iran ..who exactly will abide by it ? the same group that went along with Sanctions on Iraq ?????:D

factor in the goofball Chavez..who supports Iran .

BTW ..6% of the US oil supply is frozen until the pipeline gets fixed...the strategic reserve is making up that difference now...but add what happens if Iran blows up ?

At any rate Iran seems VERY confident NO ONE has the balls to stop it .

So far all I see is a bunch of talking from the west and a bunch of action from Iran .

It sure seems like a Chamberlain moment to me .

Given that in event of an all out war the entire Iranian Air Force and Navy will cease to exist within a couple days, followed shortly afterwards by much of their Army, I'm not as convinced as you that they can close the Straits of Hormuz for very long at all.

Also, the second Chavez openly acts against the US his country will be up to its neck in the 82nd Airborne and his military will be bitch stomped into nothing.

Iran's only got $46 billion in reserves. That's going to be drained pretty quickly especially since Iran's yearly budget is $60.28 billion and they're already running $12 billion deficits and have $19 billion in debt. They'd be totally exhausted within 1 year, and probably even earlier as hyperinflation sets in and their economy collapses. $46 billion in reserves is less than half the growth in US GDP in the last quarter...it's a trivial amount of money.

Oil wouldn't hit $400; Iranian oil exports are only 4% of world oil production, and a 10% drop in 1979 only pushed prices up 133% despite a simultaneous outbreak of the Iran-Iraq war and the 1979 revolution. You'd be looking at about 50%, which brings us to $105-$115...that's hardly a situation for economic collapse or even a recession. The US's SPR alone could cover all of Iran's oil exports for a year, and Saudi Arabia could easily produce 2.5 million bpd more if they had to, let alone any of the other OPEC or non-OPEC producers. Iran's oil exports simply aren't as important as they were in the 1970's and there is more than enough surplus capacity, strategic reserves, and demand flexibility to more than make up for their capacity.

They are weak, and they are dependent on us for their very existence. We're in a position of total strategic dominance...Iran's gotten steadily weaker since 1979.


Good analysis.

Given that in event of an all out war the entire Iranian Air Force and Navy will cease to exist within a couple days, followed shortly afterwards by much of their Army, I'm not as convinced as you that they can close the Straits of Hormuz for very long at all.

Also, the second Chavez openly acts against the US his country will be up to its neck in the 82nd Airborne and his military will be bitch stomped into nothing.

Preach the truth!

Amen!

:D

(IBTIIAPAHPP)

(In before the Iran is a peaceful and happy place people)

More like beating the old, dead warhorse.
"Uhh.. uh.. terrorism! uhh.. 9/11!"
Warhorse (http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/beat_deadhorse.gif)