Huge Iranian energy plant explosion coincides with bid on Ahmadinejad's life!

[Michael Tee]

<<Yeah why would anyone, a country, or a team care if their arch enemy gets stronger?>>

Think about it, CU4 - -

Why is Iran your "arch enemy?" 

What does the U.S. have that Iran either wants to take by force or has a realistic hope of ever taking by force?

Who has interfered more in the other country's government, the U.S.A. in Iran's government, or Iran in the U.S.A.'s government?

What are the realistic prospects of Iran attacking the U.S.A. with nukes? 


<<It is soooooo illogical to not want an enemy to get stronger.  Roll Eyes>>

And how are they your enemies?  Did America land on their doorstep or did Iran land on America's doorstep?  While John McCain was singing "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran," what Iranian leaders were singing "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb America?"  Which country is threatening to obliterate the other, Iran threatening America or America threatening Iran?


<<Heck we should hope all our enemies get stronger and stronger!>>

If you think THAT would be stupid, what about treating someone who's NOT your enemy as if they were, until they ultimately become so?

<<In fact I hope the burglar that wants to break down my door has the proper tools.>>

Better get back to the real world, CU4.  When have the Iranians ever threatened to nuke the U.S.A.?  When have the Iranians ever tried to incite a trade boycott of the U.S.A.?  It is the U.S.A. that is taking the offensive against Iran, not the other way round.


<<heck if the burglar only has a crow bar maybe I should not care if gets a sledgehammer!
<<I mean I have a sledgehammer so who the hell am I to not want him to have one?>>

If you already have a sledgehammer and you and your fellow-citizens are constantly threatening Iran with it, why the hell shouldn't they get one themselves?  Don't you think it would make those who are threatening aggression actually think twice about it?  You don't seem to have any objection to arming yourself if you live in an unsafe neighbourhood and your neighbours are constantly threatening to attack you, why should it be any different for the people of Iran?  They only want the same weapons you have.  You don't even pretend that yours are for defensive reasons because Obama has refused to rule out the use of nukes in a first strike on Iran.

[sirs]

Ahhhh, the old implied "it's for the oil" tact.  LOL   Love when that one comes up.  Strongest nation on the globe supposedly into Iraq for the oil.  Strongest military on the globe, and could have annexed Iraq's oil fields as payment for taking out Saddam...surrounded them with a platoon of Abrams.  And of course, we did...........oh wait, you mean we didn't??  You mean we let Iraq keep their oil wells, even make deals with other countries??  *gasp*   How could that have been, if we were in it for the oil, and we're just that evil of a nation

Iran, supposedly going after them for their oil now.  Because of course we have a neo-con as Commander & Chief of the greatest military on the globe.  What's that you say??  We have a socialist running the country??  One who's now taking soldiers out of Iraq and bombing terrorists with drones.....not even in Iraq??

Yea, it's all about the oil.  Now, pull the other finger

 

[Christians4LessGvt]

Michael....I'm not biting professor...lol
I am not taking the bait as you change the subject
It's ok to change the subject...and we can discuss those different issues next
but first we must settle this one
my point was why should one allow an enemy to get stronger if you dont have too?
as far as the point I am making it doesn't matter who is at fault
it doesn't matter who did what when
the point isn't what Iran wants or thinks it needs
the point is why sit by and let someone that wants to destroy you load up when you dont have too?
the US should destroy the Iranian nukes now

[Xavier_Onassis]

 I am not going to show you proof of a clandestine attack on Amedinejad by the CIA or Massad or some other affiliated intelligence/dirty tricks agency. If I had the proof, you would not believe me anyway. The wars on Iraq are about oil and have never about anything else. And not oil for America or Americans, but about oil that American companies can sell to whomever will pay them the best price.

It is funny that you can dispel the truth of what I said with dumb cowboy songs, but it changes nothing.

[BT]

but about oil that American companies can sell to whomever will pay them the best price.

What american companies are selling the oil?

[Michael Tee]

<<What american companies are selling the oil?>>

What's the point of that question?  As an argument against the proposition that the war was all about oil, it's dumb because it presupposes that only by selling Iraqi oil can Americans profit from the oil.  Control of the oil fields and/or the Iraqi government gives America opportunities to profit from the oil in less obvious and more indirect ways: by controlling the allocation of concessions to exploit the wells, by bidding to subcontract for the nominal concession-holders, by controlling the government that lets out the "reconstruction" contracts paid for by oil sales. 

Suppose you ask what American companies are profiting directly or indirectly from the sales of oil that before the invasion of Iraq would have been marketed by the Iraqi government itself.  THAT'S how America would have structured its profits from the oil that they went to war for, not in some simplistic smash-and-grab operation of invade the country and then have the puppet government award every oil concession to American oil companies.

[Michael Tee]

<<Michael....I'm not biting professor...lol
<<I am not taking the bait as you change the subject
<<It's ok to change the subject...and we can discuss those different issues next
<<but first we must settle this one
<<my point was why should one allow an enemy to get stronger if you dont have too?>>

I got that, CU4, but my point was that they aren't an enemy.  They don't have any intention of attacking the USA.  Even if they had the intention and nuclear weapons too, they would not have the delivery options.  Even if they had the intention and the delivery options, there is no way they could survive the inevitable retaliation for a first strike on the US, so why would they want to commit national suicide?

<<as far as the point I am making it doesn't matter who is at fault
<<it doesn't matter who did what when>>

I agree with you, but my comments weren't directed primarily at who was "at fault" or "who did what when."  My comments were meant to show that Iran has never taken any aggressive steps against Americans in America.  They have only attacked Americans who invaded their neighbours, and attacked them only in the neighbouring countries that the Americans had invaded.  They have no reason to attack America, whereas America has huge reasons (oil) to attack Iran, and if that wasn't enough of a reason, the Zio-Nazis are pushing America to attack Iran for reasons that essentially benefit only Israel.

<<the point isn't what Iran wants or thinks it needs
<<the point is why sit by and let someone that wants to destroy you load up when you dont have too?>>

Sure, and MY point was that Iran is NOT "someone that wants to destroy you," but someone that only wants to be safe from your threats and the threats of your Zio-Nazi protegees.

<<the US should destroy the Iranian nukes now>>

There AREN'T any Iranian nukes now.  The issue is really whether Iran should be allowed to get them.  I say they need themselves for self-defence.  The US and Israel are all too obviously the aggressor nations here, not Iran.  Every nation has the right to arm itself as it sees fit to drive off aggressor nations.  Are you really expecting Iran NOT to improve its armaments, when it lives under daily threats coming from the US and Israel to nuke its reactors and centrifuges? 

[BT]

What's the point of that question? 

The question was in response to a claim that XO made. Nothing dumb about it.  What's dumb is thinking that claims will not be challenged in this forum.

[sirs]

I am not going to show you proof of a clandestine attack on Amedinejad by the CIA or Massad or some other affiliated intelligence/dirty tricks agency. If I had the proof, you would not believe me anyway.

Sure I would.  Why wouldn't I, if it were from a credible source, like one of the MSM outlets?  Oh, I see what you mean.  Kinda hard to find one of those sources.  Kinda debunks your own claim, right from the get go

Oh, and I see you must be doing some painstaking research, in coming up with all these instances where I use my favorite word.  Can't wait to see that list, with all the time its taking you

The wars on Iraq are about oil and have never about anything else.

LOL........gotta love that one as well, with how we so secured Iraq's oil wells for ourselves   

[Plane]

plane asks me:  <<You can't answer the question?>>

plane, your question was:  <<What could possibly serve this purpose better than Iranian atom bombs?>>

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the purpose to which you referred ("this purpose") was the whipping up of anti-Iranian war fever in America, was it not?

I answered your question as follows, and you quoted that answer as well:  <<WTF do the American people really care if the Iranians have atom bombs? >>

I consider that my answer, which you yourself quoted accurately, was a full and complete answer to your question.  I do not understand why you would imply that I was unable to answer your question.  Are you not able to understand my answer?  It was a rhetorical question, the import of which was, "The American people really don't give a shit whether the Iranians have nukes or not, so the possession of atomic weapons by the Iranians should not be considered a legitimate justification for anti-Iranian war fever."  

Of course, the Zio-Nazi propagandists, ever ready to sucker the  U.S. again and again into taking Israel's side and fighting Israel's enemies, no matter how much to America's detriment, (and they have cost America trillions of dollars and thousands of lives to date) will nevertheless continue to try to whip up anti-Iranian war fever exactly as they did in the case of Iraq, by inciting spurious and ridiculous fears of nations that would never threaten the American homeland, but have more right than America to seek hegemony in their own region.


<<Really there is not anything that can excite hatred and fear better than a-bombs.>>

That is just nonsense.  The sentiment against the Japs and Nazis of WWII was intense, and derived from their total abandonment of all principles of mercy and humanity in their treatment of conquered populations.  Had nothing to do with nuclear or other weapons and in fact was much more intense than the feeling against either Iraq or Iran.  

<< I am an aircraft worker so I know how much less they can deliver than we , but in the US and Iran there are only just so many who understand how useless a small number of these wepons without a practical delivery are.>>

So instead of spreading irrational, hysterical fear to the public, why don't these Zio-Nazi neo-cons say what you already know, that the absence of viable delivery systems makes possession of these weapons by Iran virtually irrelevant to America?

<<Iranians who are jingoistic can puff up with false confidence , Americans who are worried arn't comforted by the math.>>

So what you're basically saying is that well-informed Americans don't give a shit about the Iranian nuclear program, but that the fears being whipped up are irrational and deceitful, based on a total disregard for relevant facts like the importance of delivery systems.  Whose interests do you think are served by those who whip up fear and hatred of Iran based on a "nuclear threat" which in fact does not exist because they can't deliver the nukes to America?

Yes.

And you still cannot think of anything that would engender fear , lothing , hatred etc twards the Iranian government better than an atomic bomb program? How about a young woman stoning program?

No? Do you suppose that a program of useless and expensive bombs is the very best way to justify actions against the Iranian government?

How are these Americccan warlike ogliarchs able to get the Iranians warlike ogliarchs to co-operate so well?

[Michael Tee]

<<The question was in response to a claim that XO made. Nothing dumb about it.  What's dumb is thinking that claims will not be challenged in this forum. >>

Fine.  So it was a dumb response to XO's claim.  The argument the question, obviously rhetorical, tried to make was that if no American companies are selling Iraqi oil, then the invasion could not possibly have been about oil.  The implicit underlying assumption of the question was that the only way that American corporations could have profited from the invasion was by seizing and selling the oil themselves.  And, nothing personal, but that is just plain dumb.  I am not saying that you, personally, are a dumb person, only that you just made a very dumb argument.  Which I proceeded to rebut logically by showing several ways other than direct seizure and sale of the oil by US corporations that US corporations could have (and in all probability did) directly and/or indirectly from deposing the Iraqi government, destroying the political party that it belonged to, re-writing the Iraqi constitution and arranging the type of government that would succeed that of the Ba'ath Arab Socialist party.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Iraq has huge oil reserves. With Saddam in power, those reserves were unavailable. The US had an embargo on Iraq, and would have lost credibility with everyone to have lifted that embargo, and of course, lifting the embargo would have given Saddam even more power. The price of oil is determined by production, so the US companies would be better able to set and control the price if Iraq's oil were available. OPEC and the large oil companies, most of them American and/or defended by the US (as are Shell and BP) operate in cooperation with OPEC.

In short, the US companies do not have to buy any Iraqi oil in order to benefit greatly from its availability on the market. With the PRC and India using increasing amounts of oil, it was essential to put Iraq into production or risk huge fluctuations that would cause a switch to non-petroleum production of electricity and other types of energy. A secondary reason to remove Saddam was to please Israel.

[BT]

Except the sanctions were placed by the UN. And many countries especially those with increasing demands for oil benefited from the increase in supply.  And yet those same countries were apparently against regime change and thus the lifting of the embargo.

And i'm not sure i agree that the "US Oil Companies" are in cahoots with OPEC. Perhaps you could expand on that.

[sirs]

And i'm not sure i agree that the "US Oil Companies" are in cahoots with OPEC. Perhaps you could expand on that.

Good luck with that bit of irrationalization.  It's still amazing how evil this country is supposed to be, nastiest meanest military on the globe, going into Iraq "for the oil", and yet we don't get the oil.  1st it was simply how incompotent Bush was supposed to be.  Now its twisted stories of how the U.S. military complex is in cahoots with U.S. Oil Companies, which are in cahoots with OPEC.  And now with Obama running things, we're still in it "for the oil", with the above twisted reasoning.

[Michael Tee]

<<Yes.>>

So you admit that American fears of Iraq are irrational.  Would you also admit that a state of irrational fear of Iran can be stoked or promoted by persons having the interests of another nation (say Israel) at heart, rather than the interests of the U.S., in the hope that an irrational fear, stoked as high as it can be stoked, could lead the U.S. to attack Iran, to the benefit, not of the U.S., which you admit has no reason to fear Iran, but of the State of Israel?

<<And you still cannot think of anything that would engender fear , lothing , hatred etc twards the Iranian government better than an atomic bomb program? How about a young woman stoning program?>>

There are a lot of things that will engender loathing and hatred, if not fear, towards Iran - - the torture and murder of the Canadian journalist Zahra Kazemi, the sentencing of a woman to be stoned to death for "improper conduct,' the atrocious persecution of the Bahai religion through torture, rape and murder and the public hanging of two 17-year-old alleged homosexual lovers.  The whole fucking country is an abomination.

<<No? Do you suppose that a program of useless and expensive bombs is the very best way to justify actions against the Iranian government?>>

Yes, the American sheeple don't hate and fear the Iranian regime for its wickedness, since many of its own puppet rulers are equally wicked and atrocious, but the charges of nuclear weapons will galvanize the Americans like nothing else - - because they fear attacks on their own soil after 9-11 showed that it could be done.  Doesn't matter one bit that 9-11 did not involve nukes and was totally low-tech; such is the fear, hysteria and outright cowardice of the American people that they are like elephants quaking in fear of mice.. Their racism leads them to fear the craftiness and malice of dark-skinned people, which they judge to be infinite.

<<How are these Americccan warlike ogliarchs able to get the Iranians warlike ogliarchs to co-operate so well?>>

That's like asking how does the cock's crow get the sun to rise in the sky.  The Americans don't "get" the Iranians to cooperate, the Iranians are simply pursuing their legitimate national interests, and the rulers of America capitalize on this by falsely portraying it as some kind of dire threat to America.  Nothing could be further from the truth.