Another good reason to invade Iran?

[diamond geezer]

link (http://www.theinsider.org/mailing/article.asp?id=0508)

* *** In 2005 Iran will launch a new oil exchange that is expected to put an end to Western domination of the international oil trade. The US and UK, currently home to the world's largest oil markets, are unlikely to allow Iran to undermine their control of the oil trade without putting up a fight. ***

Iran is to launch an oil trading market for Middle East and Opec producers that could threaten the supremacy of London's International Petroleum Exchange.

A contract to design and establish a new platform for crude, natural gas and petrochemical trades is expected to be signed with an international consortium within days.

Top oil producing countries are determined to seize more control of trading after being advised that existing markets such as the IPE and Nymex in New York are not working in their favour.

Three years ago a former compliance director accused the IPE of manipulating prices, although these allegations were dismissed after an investigation.

The Tehran oil bourse is scheduled to open in 2005, according to its architect, Mohammad Javad Asemipour, who is a personal adviser to the Iranian energy minister.

"We are in the final stage of choosing a concession for what is going to be a very big development for us and the region," he said.

The expected winner of the contract is a consortium of Iranian and international companies known as Wimpole, which is understood to include PA Consulting and a former director of Nymex.

Mr Asemipour has been in London in the last few weeks visiting commodity traders to encourage them to participate in his new venture.

He played down the dangers that the new exchange could eventually pose for the IPE or Nymex, saying he hoped they might be able to cooperate in some way.

Some industry experts have warned the Iranians and other Opec producers that western exchanges are controlled by big financial and oil corporations, which have a vested interest in market volatility.

The IPE, bought in 2001 by a consortium that includes BP, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, was unwilling to discuss the Iranian move yesterday. "We would not have any comment to make on it at this stage," said an IPE spokeswoman.

Many of the contracts for crude oil being exported from producers such as Iran and Saudi Arabia are linked to prices for the UK North Sea Brent blend.

The Middle East producers would like to establish a rival Persian Gulf blend contract alongside hedging mechanisms that could operate around the new bourse.

The regional initiative is significant but not entirely new. The Dubai Mercantile Exchange recently tried to develop an oil trading market with the help of Nymex but it collapsed through lack of interest.

The Tehran bourse is considered to be more likely to succeed because Iran exports 2.7m barrels a day and produces 13m tonnes of petrochemicals every year. The country has the second biggest oil reserves in the world behind Saudi Arabia.

But Adam Sieminski, oil analyst with Deutsche Bank in London, questioned whether it would succeed. "The IPE and Nymex work because there are many sellers and many buyers. They are regulated markets based on well-established systems for trading and I think the Iranians will struggle to duplicate that."

[Dont Hurt Me]

A better reason is the Bomb. The free west can not let them get this weapon but Europe may be to blind ,dumb and greedy to bother doing anything. The proliferation of nukes has to be halted and its in everyones best interest. Wake up Europe.

[blackfox]

A better reason is the Bomb. The free west can not let them get this weapon but Europe may be to blind ,dumb and greedy to bother doing anything. The proliferation of nukes has to be halted and its in everyones best interest. Wake up Europe.
Although I see your point, a couple points:
1. While nonproliferation is indeed a goal worth working towards, it does not help when several key "leaders" of the group continue to design new weapons (eg: the US and Russia). Under such a scenario, cooperation, incentive and consensus are lost with the resultant political wrangling and greivances that are an inevitable result of hypocrisy. There is also, to an extent, an lack of viable leadership on this issue, either because those with power to lead do not have credibility (see: hypocrisy), or because those with credibility do not have sufficient influence/power. You see similar problems with Global Environmental issues and Trade issues.

2. As far as Iran is concerned, while I feel that whenever possible, no more countries should possess nuclear weaponry, it is in some cases inevitable. I feel it is somewhat overblown to think that a Nuclear Iran will give terrorists access to nuclear material, as Pakistan is more of a hotbed of Islamic Fundamentalism, more unstable, and have yet to put Nuclear material into the "wrong hands".

I feel Iran, as a regional leader in the ME, has every right to pursue self-determination on this issue, and that while they should be strenously asked to halt weapons manufacture, it is their perogative. It must smart to some degree to have countries sanctioning, decrying and possibly taking military action against you, when those same countries armed or aided Israel to the same ends only a generation ago.

[mactastic]

If there is one lesson Bush has taught world leaders, it's that having a nuke is the best protection there is.

And as has been pointed out, there is little incentive for any nation to abandon nuclear arms research unless and until the US does. And of course, we reserve the perogative to defend ourselves in any way we feel is necessary. Looking like a hypocrite to the rest of the world on the nuclear issue doesn't give us much of a moral high ground.

Seriously, put yourself in the Iranian leadership's position. Would you give up working towards a nuke? Or would you be thinking, 'We have the right to defend ourselves any way we see fit.'?

[Dont Hurt Me]

Id rather look at it from our point of view. Iran needs nuke's for no reason when on top all that oil and short sighted europe has never gotton it. This has to be stopped and if not it will lead towards sanctions and war. The world should be smarter then allowing the spread of nukes but if not then there isnt any hope for mankind. Thats the way i see it.

[Blue Velvet]

The world should be smarter then allowing the spread of nukes but if not then there isnt any hope for mankind. Thats the way i see it.

There isn't any hope for humanity if the military invasion of a sovereign country is mooted as the only solution to something that doesn't further US strategic geo-political goals.

[Dont Hurt Me]

There isn't any hope for humanity if the military invasion of a sovereign country is mooted as the only solution to something that doesn't further US strategic geo-political goals.
Not true, we all know Saddam wanted all kinds of bad weapons including his destroyed nuke program . You guys just dont get it. you didnt before WW1. you didnt before WW2 and you wont in WW3 but it will be our butts over there saving your behinds once more....just as we did in WW1,WW2 and cold war until today.

ignoring Tyranny doesnt work

[Peterkro]

[
Hurt Me]A better reason is the Bomb. The free west can not let them get this weapon but Europe may be to blind ,dumb and greedy to bother doing anything. The proliferation of nukes has to be halted and its in everyones best interest. Wake up Europe.[/QUOTE]
The free west now that is a joke.Presumably you are aware the only ones to have used nuclear weapons are the US.If your'e going to discourage countries from developing nukes you've got to start decommisioning yours US and Russia(brits + France).Threatening to bomb the **** out of countries only teaches them,best we get them as soon as possible.
I missed out several other nuclear powers Israel being the most dangerous of these.Ukraine voluntarily gave up its weapons with no noticeable effect on its world position.

[mactastic]

Understanding you opponent is essential if you want to defeat them. Or tie with them. I'm not suggesting we act on their point of view, but if you can't see things their way you will mess things up. That is the reason Bush is in so much trouble in Mess-o-potamia, he completely misread the reaction of the Iraqi people to a unilateral US invasion.

If you know the enemy and know yourself you need not fear the results of a hundred battles.
Sun Tzu

[miloblithe]

I for one certainly did not get it before WWI.

[mactastic]

Not true, we all know Saddam wanted all kinds of bad weapons including his destroyed nuke program . You guys just dont get it. you didnt before WW1. you didnt before WW2 and you wont in WW3 but it will be our butts over there saving your behinds once more....just as we did in WW1,WW2 and cold war until today.

ignoring Tyranny doesnt work

Thing we could do them the honor of arriving on time this time eh?

[Blue Velvet]

Not true, we all know Saddam wanted all kinds of bad weapons including his destroyed nuke program . You guys just dont get it. you didnt before WW1. you didnt before WW2 and you wont in WW3 but it will be our butts over there saving your behinds once more....just as we did in WW1,WW2 and cold war until today.

First of all, you guys means nothing to me. I'm from New Zealand – a country which has successfully kept your nuclear warships from our waters for the last 15 years or so...

And where's the evidence for Saddams WMDs? Didn't the CIA say they the programmes never existed after being destroyed? You are a fool if you believe the real reason for the invasion of Iraq was to find & destroy WMDs...

What has WW1 & WW2 to do with this argument anyway? The situation is completely different. In WW2, the US didn't enter the war until Pearl Harbour...

The US's fruitless invasion of Vietnam is a perfect example of this trigger-happy idiocy.

Your attitude is a perfect example of why America is loathed in many parts of the world today... you guys just don't get it.

[Dont Hurt Me]

[
Hurt Me]A better reason is the Bomb. The free west can not let them get this weapon but Europe may be to blind ,dumb and greedy to bother doing anything. The proliferation of nukes has to be halted and its in everyones best interest. Wake up Europe.
The free west now that is a joke.Presumably you are aware the only ones to have used nuclear weapons are the US.If your'e going to discourage countries from developing nukes you've got to start decommisioning yours US and Russia(brits + France).Threatening to bomb the **** out of countries only teaches them,best we get them as soon as possible.
I missed out several other nuclear powers Israel being the most dangerous of these.Ukraine voluntarily gave up its weapons with no noticeable effect on its world position.[/QUOTE]
First of all we used it to end WW2 thank you and have not used it since showing amazing restraint i might add.

[Dont Hurt Me]

First of all, you guys means nothing to me. I'm from New Zealand – a country which has successfully kept your nuclear warships from our waters for the last 15 years or so...

And where's the evidence for Saddams WMDs? Didn't the CIA say they the programmes never existed after being destroyed? You are a fool if you believe the real reason for the invasion of Iraq was to find & destroy WMDs...

What has WW1 & WW2 to do with this argument anyway? The situation is completely different. In WW2, the US didn't enter the war until Pearl Harbour...

The US's fruitless invasion of Vietnam is a perfect example of this trigger-happy idiocy.

Your attitude is a perfect example of why America is loathed in many parts of the world today... you guys just don't get it.go back to the first gulf war to look for Saddams Nuke program.

[mactastic]

... you guys just don't get it.

Now, now...

Unfortunately only about 48% of us get it.

[Peterkro]

The free west now that is a joke.Presumably you are aware the only ones to have used nuclear weapons are the US.If your'e going to discourage countries from developing nukes you've got to start decommisioning yours US and Russia(brits + France).Threatening to bomb the **** out of countries only teaches them,best we get them as soon as possible.
I missed out several other nuclear powers Israel being the most dangerous of these.Ukraine voluntarily gave up its weapons with no noticeable effect on its world position.
First of all we used it to end WW2 thank you and have not used it since showing amazing restraint i might add.[/QUOTE] WW2 was from any point of view finished before the US nuked Japan the main reason was to stop the USSR invading Japan first.(sorry about the quote mistake)

[Dont Hurt Me]

USSR another beacon of democracy and human rights??? If not for the U.S there would be only chaos with dictators,tyranny & communism.

[Blue Velvet]

go back to the first gulf war to look for Saddams Nuke program.

So where's the justification for the second gulf war then?
Regime change... because it didn't suit US or UK policy.

There's plenty of oppressive regimes around the world but some you guys just love to support instead... whose assistance to Indonesia helped the massacres in East Timor? Whose support of the Pinochet government put thousands to their deaths in Chile?

You guys are unfortunately turning into the armed fascist thugs that you hold to despise... and your incessant bloated bragging about freedom is the biggest load of BS, constantly churned out to calm the folks back home...

[Dont Hurt Me]

Saddam ignored 14 UN resolutions didnt he???Bush smoked us on this but im glad a dictator killer is gone. Ignoring these guys empowers them.

[Blue Velvet]

USSR another beacon of democracy and human rights??? If not for the U.S there would be only chaos with dictators,tyranny & communism.

Let some others show you a list of dictators and tyrants that the US has supported throughout the years... it's quite a long one. It may come as a surprise to you...

I can't believe how ignorant you are of what your country is responsible for in the world...

[blackfox]

Not true, we all know Saddam wanted all kinds of bad weapons including his destroyed nuke program . You guys just dont get it. you didnt before WW1. you didnt before WW2 and you wont in WW3 but it will be our butts over there saving your behinds once more....just as we did in WW1,WW2 and cold war until today.

ignoring Tyranny doesnt work
simplistic, jingoistic and uncalled for.

WWI was a particularily complex web of causes, including:

Nationalism - inevitable fallout of Congress of Vienna a century earlier, which favored unity over nationalism. Germany and Italy were divided states, until unification in the late 19th Century, with rises in popular Nationalistic tendencies in those countries. France's loss of Alsace-Lorraine in the Franco-Prussian war incited French Nationalism.

Imperialism - The need for new markets by Britain, France and Germany led to conflict in Africa. The collapse off the Ottoman Empire proved tempting to the Austria-hungarian Empire, which wished to capitalize on the power vaccuum in the Balkans and the ME. The annexation of Bosnia by the AH empire precipitated the assination of the archduke by a Serb national, which in turn made AH (allied with Germany) declare war on Serbia, which was unacceptable to the Russians, who had their own ambitions in the Balkans, and subsequently allied with the British (the french had a previous alliance with the Russians). French policy was independent and they chose to mobilize forces in reaction to the russian-prussian war. Britain only entered the war after Germany invaded Belgium, violating it's neutrality.

In any case, this had very little to do with tyranny, it had to do with power, relationships, nationalism, and historical grievances. Transposed to the modern ME, it is perhaps the US that has not learned it's lesson(s).

WWII was less about Fascism per se, than about the same issues as the above paragraph, being merely a means to an end. (oh, what about Franco?)

The US separated by a great ocean, and only peripherarily involved in WWI, had had the luxury and the naivety to look at things from a idealistic, moralistic standpoint, which directly contributed to the problems in the Current ME, the Balkans and WWII Germany. European nations never had that luxury. So get off your high-horse, would you? You might learn something.

It is often the "good guys" that are the root causes for many (if not all) of the great conflicts, and the tyrants you so despise being merely a necessary symptom of said problem created. If you are looking for an answer, you might have better luck looking at causes rather than effects.

[Peterkro]

USSR another beacon of democracy and human rights??? If not for the U.S there would be only chaos with dictators,tyranny & communism.
If you think the US is a beacon of human rights your sadly deluded(I'm not talking about US citizens but US government/big business).There is more in common between the USSR and the US than of any two powers of the twentieth century.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Ask yourself this is it better or worse for Iran to have the Bomb.? go ahead be honest.

[Peterkro]

Ask yourself this is it better or worse for Iran to have the Bomb.? go ahead be honest.
It would be better if nobody had nuclear weapons the point is who has them.

[blackfox]

Ask yourself this is it better or worse for Iran to have the Bomb.? go ahead be honest.For who? Whose gets to make that choice? Iran? US? Why?

Is it better or worse that the US has a policy of "pre-emption"? go ahead, be honest.

[Dont Hurt Me]

It would be better if nobody had nuclear weapons the point is who has them.Dont spin, do we need or want Nukes in the hands of islamist extremist???Yet we have major nations turning a blind eye. Sorry that doesnt cut it for the free world.

[mactastic]

Ask yourself this is it better or worse for Iran to have the Bomb.? go ahead be honest.

Anytime anyone gets a nuke it's bad.

But answer this... if you were making the decisions in Iran, would you give it up? Go ahead, be honest.

[Dont Hurt Me]

what do you mean?

[mactastic]

Nevermind... you can't seem to put yourself in anyone else's shoes. Which really is a critical skill for getting along in the world.

[Peterkro]

Dont spin, do we need or want Nukes in the hands of islamist extremist???Yet we have major nations turning a blind eye. Sorry that doesnt cut it for the free world.
We don't want nuclear weapons period.If you think Bush or Kennedy(who came within one word of wiping out both the USSR and the US) are more responsible than the present looneys in power in Iran you should perhaps stand back and look at their actions in the past.

[blackfox]

Dont spin, do we need or want Nukes in the hands of islamist extremist???Yet we have major nations turning a blind eye. Sorry that doesnt cut it for the free world.
As opposed to? Christian extremists/moralists (US)? Jewish extremists (Israel)? Authoritarian governments (Russia, China)?Potentially unstable countries (N. Korea, Pakistan, India)? Other Islamic "extremists (Pakistan)?

That is not the point, this has nothing to do with "extremism", it has to do with balances-of-power, like it always does.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Sorry not when your talking nukes......The world doesnt need a Nuclear Iran argue all you want and if Europe isnt bright enough to see it then there isnt any hope anyways for those folks or anyone else.

[blackfox]

Sorry not when your talking nukes......The world doesnt need a Nuclear Iran argue all you want and if Europe isnt bright enough to see it then there isnt any hope anyways for those folks or anyone else.
Does the world need the alternative? Which is worse? Iran is no 1930's Germany, it is no Empire.

A completely destabilized ME, with Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan in chaos, resultant popular uprising, Arab Nationalism, Islamic Fundamentalism, and a domino-effect throughout the rest of the ME. That is a recipe for a major conflict, a WWIII if you will. Just take a look at history (or my earlier post about WWI) to see.

[zimv20]

Ask yourself this is it better or worse for Iran to have the Bomb.? go ahead be honest.
if the world were that black and white, there wouldn't be any problems, anywhere, anytime.

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. -- Bertrand Russell

[mactastic]

Sorry not when your talking nukes......The world doesnt need a Nuclear Iran argue all you want and if Europe isnt bright enough to see it then there isnt any hope anyways for those folks or anyone else.

The world doesn't need a nuclear US either. Will you accept leading the way to disarmament, or will you only accept everyone else disarming first?

[Peterkro]

Does the world need the alternative? Which is worse? Iran is no 1930's Germany, it is no Empire.

A completely destabilized ME, with Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan in chaos, resultant popular uprising, Arab Nationalism, Islamic Fundamentalism, and a domino-effect throughout the rest of the ME. That is a recipe for a major conflict, a WWIII if you will. Just take a look at history (or my earlier post about WWI) to see.
erm sorry to be picky(I generally agree with your posts) but Iranians are Persians and not Arabs so pan arabism is not part of their deal.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Does the world need the alternative? Which is worse? Iran is no 1930's Germany, it is no Empire.

A completely destabilized ME, with Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan in chaos, resultant popular uprising, Arab Nationalism, Islamic Fundamentalism, and a domino-effect throughout the rest of the ME. That is a recipe for a major conflict, a WWIII if you will. Just take a look at history (or my earlier post about WWI) to see.recipe for WW3 is right and thrown in nukes just to make sure. This is why its in everyones interests meaning the world that Iran isnt allowed to get em and we have to stop those idiots in pakistan and N korea who seem to want to spread these things. Where is China and Russia?Where is Europe? OOps i forgot they are the ones selling all this technology to Iran......................like i said they learned squat nothing from WW1,WW2 and the next one thats coming.

[mactastic]

Just what do you propose doing about it DHM? You want ANOTHER war on our hands right now?

And as for weapons sales, why shouldn't countries work toward strategic aims that benefit them? Iran poses little threat to China, just as Israel poses little threat to the US. But Isreal poses a large threat to others from their POV, just as Iran poses a large threat to us from our POV.

You can't argue both that the US gets to do whatever is in its strategic interests and that others cannot. It's a naive concept that worsens matters.

[blackfox]

erm sorry to be picky(I generally agree with your posts) but Iranians are Persians and not Arabs so pan arabism is not part of their deal.I know, but I was speaking of the larger make-up of the ME, with Iran being only a piece. Nevertheless, I am am perhaps guilty of not making that distinction clear. Sorry about that...

[Peterkro]

I know, but I was speaking of the larger make-up of the ME, with Iran being only a piece. Nevertheless, I am am perhaps guilty of not making that distinction clear. Sorry about that...
Yes I reread your post and you didn't actually say that. Its just that most people lump Iranians in as Arabs(and Afghanis for that matter)It just that it annoys me. The fact that original dwellers in the present Israel are Semitic,
that is Arabs just amuses me :)

[blackfox]

recipe for WW3 is right and thrown in nukes just to make sure. This is why its in everyones interests meaning the world that Iran isnt allowed to get em and we have to stop those idiots in pakistan and N korea who seem to want to spread these things. Where is China and Russia?Where is Europe? OOps i forgot they are the ones selling all this technology to Iran......................like i said they learned squat nothing from WW1,WW2 and the next one thats coming.
Did you not pay attention to my post at all? A Nuclear Iran does not necessarily mean a destabilized ME, at least not to the extent that external military intervention by the US will. It is not in Iran's interest to destabilize the region, only to gain power regionally, which tends towards stability.

It should also be mentioned that Nuclear weapons have only been used once, by the US. This is mentioned not to smear the US, but to remind that Nuclear weapons are primarily a deterrent, a weapon of last resort. Since demographically-speaking, the ME has greater numbers of potential fighters for conventional warfare, it seems a strech to think that the nuclear option would be eagerly deployed. The fallout (bad pun) of using (or providing access to those who did) would be so swift and focused that it would be in no-one's interest to use them. Which is why they generally haven't been.

If they (nw) were used regionally in the ME, the effects would effect the users, and likewise a strike on a distant country (like the US) would provoke retaliation which would also not serve any practical end.

As mentioned, the US does not shy away from arming some pretty nasty regimes when it serves their interests, and neither do China and Russia. Why? Because while we are moralizing, they are forming alliances and trade agreements which as abhorrent as they might seem to the idealistic, foster stability by tying together mutual geopolitical and economic interests of all parties. These interests breed influence, and that is what get things done and moves things forward.

[miloblithe]

Russia also doesn't have all that much else to export. Natural resources and weapons technology are the only biggies.

To nitpick, I think Iran technically is an empire. Iran is the inheritor of the most recent, contracting 'Persian' empire. It's ethnic makup of only 51% Persians is a good indicator of this.

Iran is one of the region's strongest democracies. Recognition of this fact and engagement with the country could yield some positive results. Normalizing relations would be a nice first step. US threats towards Iran are probably the main reason Iran wants nuclear weapons. In the long run, open, engaged relations are the only way to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. Either that or invade. I'd say invading Iran would probably facilitate the final push over the edge that would lead to the effective collapse of the US as the kind of world power it has decreasingly been for the last 60 years. We simply can't afford it. Iran has three times the population of Iraq, a functional military (not that big a deal), and neighbors Pakistan, the collapse of which would mean we're all screwed.

[blackfox]

To nitpick, I think Iran technically is an empire. Iran is the inheritor of the most recent, contracting 'Persian' empire. It's ethnic makup of only 51% Persians is a good indicator of this.

man, I am having all kinds of problems with Iran in this thread...
I meant empire in an active sense, meaning seeking to expand the scope of it's dominion to include several countries etc. I am aware that modern Iran is what remains of the Persian Empire of antiquity, but in terms of Iran posing a threat to the Region or the US, Russia or Europe, it does not have the power to be an imperialist country, an expansive empire, if you will...meh.

Anyway, good post milo.

[miloblithe]

man, I am having all kinds of problems with Iran in this thread...
I meant empire in an active sense, meaning seeking to expand the scope of it's dominion to include several countries etc. I am aware that modern Iran is what remains of the Persian Empire of antiquity, but in terms of Iran posing a threat to the Region or the US, Russia or Europe, it does not have the power to be an imperialist country, an expansive empire, if you will...meh.

Anyway, good post milo.

Thanks. As are yours. And I think you're right. I think like any country Iran is seeking to expand its influence and advantage, like in its efforts to have Central Asian oil and gas head south rather than west, east, or north, and I assume Iran is taking a pretty active interest in Iraq these as any days, but the idea of a resurgent Persian empire is, I'll completely agree, pretty preposterous. I think moreso they seek to extend their regional dominance. Pipelines from the north, nuclear weapons, and more influence on world energy markets would certainly raise Iran to the status of a pretty significant player. Maybe even one other powerful countries wouldn't want the US to destroy.

[pseudobrit]

Id rather look at it from our point of view. Iran needs nuke's for no reason

Iran needs nukes to keep Bush from invading them.

[takao]

Where is Europe? OOps i forgot they are the ones selling all this technology to Iran......................like i said they learned squat nothing from WW1,WW2 and the next one thats coming.

what does selling arms have to do with WW1/WW2 ?

ww1 was as stated before more about imperialism,nationalism,coalitions and the militarism in germany and austria-hungary where the military staffs recommended war...

in the second it was more about manipulation through fears,blind patriotism,and still the same old militarism...and i wont get into discussions about where it was won/lost ... good history books are there for a reason

oh and i can assure, you europe (at least most people..politicians have proven otherwise in some places) learned enough from history... that's why a lot of countries didn't jump on the "war wagon" ...

[Dont Hurt Me]

What it has to do with Europe is they are very short sighted to things leading up to war. Look at the past 100 years. So we have a nation sponsering terrorism and you want them to have nukes......Am i missing something? Ok so say we do have a Nuke Iran dont you think they will be giving this stuff to their other buddies in the mideast? Then its all over Europes backyard so again is europe safer with more or less nukes in the playground? I say less.

[zimv20]

Ok so say we do have a Nuke Iran dont you think they will be giving this stuff to their other buddies in the mideast?.
who is that, exactly?

[takao]

What it has to do with Europe is they are very short sighted to things leading up to war. Look at the past 100 years. So we have a nation sponsering terrorism and you want them to have nukes......Am i missing something? Ok so say we do have a Nuke Iran dont you think they will be giving this stuff to their other buddies in the mideast? Then its all over Europes backyard so again is europe safer with more or less nukes in the playground? I say less.

isn't the US & Russia developing _new_ nukes as well ? ...aren't there US nukes in germany ?

and what is europes backyard ? for me the middle east is still far away ..

i don't have a problem with iran or other middle east countries (what are irans buddies ? i see much more "US buddies" in the middle east) we don't have thousands of troops in the middle east and neither do we want to send troops there

and why should i fear iran or any other middleeast countries ? they don't have huge airforces and navys to invade austria or something...and most important why should they ?

is europe safer with starting wars all over the place or bullying around and making ridiculous claims ? harldy...

destroy your own nukes,stop starting wars and then you can talk about the (so far nonexistant) nukes of other countries

[Peterkro]

There is a very interesting article in todays Guardian about US nuclear weapons in the UK. There are 100 at Lakenheath base in Suffolk three times the previously known number and 480 in total spread around Europe and Turkey.It says volumes about Russia's unwillingness to disarm or to stop developing new weapons.I'm sorry I can't provide a link as it hasn't appeared online yet.
Whoops yes it is,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1409542,00.html

[miloblithe]

For as much as the US gripes and has griped about Europe (NATO) not being militaristic enough (only spending 2.0% of GDP on military vrs ~3.2% for the US -- probably about 4% these days), if Europe were to increase spending, the US were to decrease its presence, that would probably lead to greater European military integration, which would be yet another push for greater European political integration: Common Foreign and Security Policy.

The US has a dilemma: keep up expensive presence and keep Europe relatively subservient, or cut costs and have to contend with more powerful rival.

[diamond geezer]

Wow, 3 pages of replies and every one off-topic.

A new record?

A far as Iran and nukes. They need them if they want to stop aggressive countries like the US from invading.

And as far as Europe being shortsighted, let's not forget that Iran is the way it is today, thanks to the US overthrowing their democratic government and installing the Shah.