By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - If Iran becomes a nuclear power?

NJ5 on 27 July 2008
Bursche said:
NJ5 said:

@Bursche: Just because USA's efforts with Iraq went horribly wrong, that doesn't mean that American companies won't profit from USA being there. Using the oil price as "proof" that USA didn't benefit from that doesn't make any sense. Please clarify if you mean something else.

By the way, here are the approximate oil reserve sizes:

Venezuela: 80-100 billion barrels
Iraq: 80-110 billion barrels

Iraq is only topped by Iran and Saudi Arabia (and Canada if you count non-conventional oil). Does your argument still seem valid after seeing this data?

 

I didnt say American companies didnt profit, I said that we did not go in for oil. If you argue we went in to just start a war for our military contracters and the sort, I would disagree, but that has more merit than the oil argument.

Having oil reserves, and annual oil production, are different. We have spent billions of dollars in the war effort, which if it was for oil, would be the most idiotic quest in the history of man. We could have spent those dollars buying or drilling for our own oil.

Most people start calling out theories to blame the US government for Iraq because they feel dooped. While you dont want to believe that there were WMD's, during the start of the war, the US public, the UN, the President and most of Washington believed there were.

 

You are very naive if you think drilling in USA will amount to much. The easy USA oil is mostly gone, production peaked decades ago. It's about securing supplies for the future, which the USA government can do much better if they have wide military presence in the Middle East.. Oil reserves are very important even if you want to ignore them, oil production can be increased as soon as the country is more stable. Iraq has loads of oil.

Another reason is, of course, the importance of military presence in the middle east, which allows for easier control of some bad regimes there.

For example, why do you think China is investing more and more in Africa? Securing resources for the future... Securing oil supplies was definitely one of the reasons for going to Iraq, even if it backfired (at least in the short/medium term).

Even John McCain has admitted so:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/02/mccain-implies-iraq-war-i_n_99866.html

 



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

Around the Network
hasanraza on 27 July 2008

Bursche what so ever u say does not justify the war on Iraq.U r right Sadam was a tyrent but the one who attacked them was a far more bigger tyrent.U people should see that bcz of the ambitions of one man thousands of peopel have died and millions have been affected by this war. U r sitting in ur drawing room and trying to justify what Bush did i think u have seen nothing.



FINAL FANTASY VIII THE GREATEST GAME EVER

NJ5 on 27 July 2008

By the way, I can't let this one pass:

 

Bursche said:

(...)

While you dont want to believe that there were WMD's, during the start of the war, the US public, the UN, the President and most of Washington believed there were.

 


US public - of course the US public believed so, and why? Because of invalid (possibly manipulated) intelligence reports.

UN - Not true, in fact UN's weapons inspectors repeatedly failed to find any evidence of WMDs being in Iraq:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2007/0628tolduso.htm

It said that during its brief stay in Iraq, UNMOVIC carried out 731 inspections covering 411 sites, but it implied that U.S. and British anxiety to invade Iraq had hampered its work. "Had UNMOVIC not been under such a stringent time constraint, the inspections could have been more detailed and thorough and many issues which emerged could have been pursued to a conclusion allowing greater confidence in the inspection process," it said. Hans Blix, the Swede who headed UNMOVIC at the time, has been more outspoken. "The U.S. and the U.K. chose to ignore (our reports) and to base their action upon their intelligence," Blix said in a 2005 interview. "We didn't want an invasion; we wanted inspections."

The President - how do you know what he really believed?

Most of Washington - see "US public" and "The President" above.

But hey, why would I expect more from someone who dismisses Iraq's oil reserve sizes as unimportant?

 



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

Bursche on 27 July 2008
hasanraza said:
Bursche what so ever u say does not justify the war on Iraq.U r right Sadam was a tyrent but the one who attacked them was a far more bigger tyrent.U people should see that bcz of the ambitions of one man thousands of peopel have died and millions have been affected by this war. U r sitting in ur drawing room and trying to justify what Bush did i think u have seen nothing.

 

 I in no way have tried to justify why the Bush administration pushed for war. I also in no way said that oil was not at least a part of the reason, I said it was not the biggest reason which some people thing it is. But if you think it is the top most reason, then I will debate with you, which you indicated in a previous post. The war in Iraq happened for problem several reasons, most of which is to help America's interests. It is never for one singular reason like WMD's or oil though.

Also, if you think that Bush is a bigger tyrant than Saddam, then go open a history book. He was responsible for killing thousands, if not in the hundreds of thousands of people in his own country and in the various wars he was in.

Iran might not be as harsh as I envision, and they might not even want to go to war with Israel, let alone drop a nuclear device on them, but I still would not let them get their hands on a nuclear device. For example, if you knew a guy who hated another, and has made threats and even tried to kill them before, would you give him a gun anyway just for him to say it is for protection?



Brawl FC: 4382-1668-1880
Name:Brsch

Animal Crossing City Folk

FC: 2492-8227-9090           Town: McAwesom          Name: Gary

Add me and send me a PM with your FC!

hasanraza on 27 July 2008

A good reply posted by NJ5 for Bu.s.h.



FINAL FANTASY VIII THE GREATEST GAME EVER

Around the Network
Bursche on 27 July 2008
NJ5 said:

By the way, I can't let this one pass:

 

Bursche said:

(...)

While you dont want to believe that there were WMD's, during the start of the war, the US public, the UN, the President and most of Washington believed there were.

 


US public - of course the US public believed so, and why? Because of invalid (possibly manipulated) intelligence reports.

UN - Not true, in fact UN's weapons inspectors repeatedly failed to find any evidence of WMDs being in Iraq:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2007/0628tolduso.htm

It said that during its brief stay in Iraq, UNMOVIC carried out 731 inspections covering 411 sites, but it implied that U.S. and British anxiety to invade Iraq had hampered its work. "Had UNMOVIC not been under such a stringent time constraint, the inspections could have been more detailed and thorough and many issues which emerged could have been pursued to a conclusion allowing greater confidence in the inspection process," it said. Hans Blix, the Swede who headed UNMOVIC at the time, has been more outspoken. "The U.S. and the U.K. chose to ignore (our reports) and to base their action upon their intelligence," Blix said in a 2005 interview. "We didn't want an invasion; we wanted inspections."

The President - how do you know what he really believed?

Most of Washington - see "US public" and "The President" above.

But hey, why would I expect more from someone who dismisses Iraq's oil reserve sizes as unimportant?

 

 

 It doesnt matter if we all know now that Iraq had WMD's or not, my point was that most people feel dooped, and rightfully so, about the WMD's. People like hasanraza are mad and trying to find other reasons why we went, and are only creating conspiracy theories.

And just for the record, I dont even support Bush. I am just trying to clear the page of wrong information that hasanraza and the like have been filling it with.



Brawl FC: 4382-1668-1880
Name:Brsch

Animal Crossing City Folk

FC: 2492-8227-9090           Town: McAwesom          Name: Gary

Add me and send me a PM with your FC!

NJ5 on 27 July 2008

I don't get your point then... You admit that people feel rightfully duped about the WMD matter, yet you don't believe people should look for the real reasons for invading Iraq?

The other two reasons you pointed out were:

1- Eliminating the evil dictator Saddam.
2- Increasing USA's influence.

Regarding number 1, let it be said that USA never had a problem with evil dictators in general, in fact it has supported or even installed some.

That leaves us with number 2 as the only valid reason you pointed out. Do you really think USA would spend hundreds of billions simply to increase influence?

 



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

Pretty Cool Guy on 27 July 2008
ssj12 said:
Rock_on_2008 said:
War on Iran or war on Iraq. America will kill the terrorists. BTW: I always thought Iran and Iraq was the same thing.

The bad part is how you look at it. In their culture terrorists are looked at as freedom fighters. Like my heros and villians thread says, there is no per se good and bad in this war. It is a war of beliefs. American thinks one way and the Islamic faith believes another. They are terrorists here as we are terrorists there.


Only voice of reason in this thread. You might be as cool as me.

Kasz216 on 27 July 2008
megaman79 said:
Kasz216 said:
megaman79 said:
Depends on whether you watch Fox News. Israel has 120 nukes, had them for over 30 yrs so is that a problem to you? US, of course the only country insane enough to test them on actual people. If you learn about security threats you would know that competitors are simply out doing each other. India / Pakistan, US / Russia, etc. The real question is whether a country is legitimatly able to develop Nuclear power, as an energy supply, without paranoid lunatics assuming, as in iraq, that they are actually up to no good.

If Iran wasn't up to no good they would accept the UKs deal to have nuclear power plants not only for free... but actually getting paid to have them.

Israel hasn't ever threatened to wipe a nation off the earth by any means neccesairy either. Nukes are a problem. You can't just take them from the countries that have them though because they have... well nukes.

Citation, evidence of this free plant offer? Firstly the UK would not be an adequte business partner considering past history between Iran and UK. News previously suggested distrust of Western developed tech hence Russian involvement. Secondly other than rhetoric, a technique famously demonstrated through Bush speeches, what are they actually doing? Considering Iraq, are people willing to believe anything coming from the media or western gov. sources any more.

Thirdly, sanctions work though dieing of hunger, loosing jobs and the in ability to actually motivate change are the problem here.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/2126315/West-to-offer-Iran-help-in-building-nuclear-industry.html Help paying for it combined with a bunch of restrictions and embargos lifted as well as some other stuff. The gains would be far greater then the mere cost of the nuclear plant.



Kasz216 on 27 July 2008
hasanraza said:
pray not NJ5 bcz America is already in trouble in Iraq and Afghanistan and attacking Iran would be something foolish especially when the european nations are not willing. If Israel attacks then i believe WW3 is near............

Europe is MORE willing at this point. UK and France talk about it a lot more then our government. Most likely they'll just go back to the Clinton doctrine of war. Screw about the people, just bomb the entire country and wait till they give up.