Another good reason to invade Iran?

diamond geezer

macrumors regular
Original poster
Jan 26, 2004
156
0
link

* *** 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

macrumors 603
Dec 21, 2002
6,056
6
Yahooville S.C.
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

macrumors 65816
Feb 18, 2003
1,208
4,026
PDX
Dont Hurt Me said:
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

macrumors 68040
Apr 24, 2003
3,647
661
Colly-fornia
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

macrumors 603
Dec 21, 2002
6,056
6
Yahooville S.C.
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

Moderator emeritus
Jul 4, 2004
21,652
123
Dont Hurt Me said:
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

macrumors 603
Dec 21, 2002
6,056
6
Yahooville S.C.
Blue Velvet said:
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

macrumors 68020
Aug 17, 2004
2,143
1,361
Communard de Londres,Tiocfaidh ár lá
[
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

macrumors 68040
Apr 24, 2003
3,647
661
Colly-fornia
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
 

mactastic

macrumors 68040
Apr 24, 2003
3,647
661
Colly-fornia
Dont Hurt Me said:
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

Moderator emeritus
Jul 4, 2004
21,652
123
Dont Hurt Me said:
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

macrumors 603
Dec 21, 2002
6,056
6
Yahooville S.C.
Peterkro said:
[
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

macrumors 603
Dec 21, 2002
6,056
6
Yahooville S.C.
Blue Velvet said:
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.
 

Peterkro

macrumors 68020
Aug 17, 2004
2,143
1,361
Communard de Londres,Tiocfaidh ár lá
Dont Hurt Me said:
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)
 

Blue Velvet

Moderator emeritus
Jul 4, 2004
21,652
123
Dont Hurt Me said:
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...
 

Blue Velvet

Moderator emeritus
Jul 4, 2004
21,652
123
Dont Hurt Me said:
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

macrumors 65816
Feb 18, 2003
1,208
4,026
PDX
Dont Hurt Me said:
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

macrumors 68020
Aug 17, 2004
2,143
1,361
Communard de Londres,Tiocfaidh ár lá
Dont Hurt Me said:
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.
 

blackfox

macrumors 65816
Feb 18, 2003
1,208
4,026
PDX
Dont Hurt Me said:
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.