🇮🇷 The Iran Thread II

[Asteroid-Man]

Well depending who you ask, the Iraq War was started either because Bush intentionally misled the country into war for profit and / or imperialism. Or because he got faulty intelligence, and jumped the gun like a moron.

Obviously no one wants to make that mistake again.

I'm actually surprised that Iran has been fairly peaceful with Arab Spring happening next door.

A lot of the reason as to why the Arab Spring began leads back to the rigged election in Iran (2009) - after over a year it died out because of a lack of international support and a lack of news coverage. If the USA and the UK and Israel REALLY cared about making a change in Iran, they would have endorsed the students, but then the Iranian people would have elected a democratic government and nationalised the oil like they almost did in the 1920s, and the USA doesn't want that.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

A lot of the reason as to why the Arab Spring began leads back to the rigged election in Iran (2009) - after over a year it died out because of a lack of international support and a lack of news coverage. If the USA and the UK and Israel REALLY cared about making a change in Iran, they would have endorsed the students, but then the Iranian people would have elected a democratic government and nationalised the oil like they almost did in the 1920s, and the USA doesn't want that.

Yep.

 

[hippie_hunter]

A lot of the reason as to why the Arab Spring began leads back to the rigged election in Iran (2009) - after over a year it died out because of a lack of international support and a lack of news coverage. If the USA and the UK and Israel REALLY cared about making a change in Iran, they would have endorsed the students, but then the Iranian people would have elected a democratic government and nationalised the oil like they almost did in the 1920s, and the USA doesn't want that.

Last time I checked, Iran had already nationalized it's oil industry back in 1979 with the National Iranian Oil Company and the entire industry is controlled by the Ministry of Petroleum.

You're like.....30 years late on that theory.

 

[hippie_hunter]

The only way to prevent such large corporate greed and control over the economy is to limit their size to only a certain percentage of the market such as 10% that they are allowed to be the size of so that oligopolies cannot form.

That would never....ever work. I'm going to use the smartphone market as the best example:

1. There is no guarantee that there will be enough companies that will allow a government to limit the market share of a company. Right now, there are essentially four major companies that are in the smartphone market: Apple and the iPhone, Google and Android, Microsoft and Windows Phone, and Research in Motion and Blackberry. I doubt that the government is going to convince many more companies to come in and join the smartphone race. It's a very tough market to get into, just look at how hard it is for Microsoft and Research in Motion right now in the mobile markets. It would also cost billions of dollars for cash rich companies (Apple, Google, Microsoft) to pay for the research and acquisitions needed to get into the market.

2. Some companies just flat out deserve to fail. Research in Motion and their Blackberry platform is the best example of this. By sticking with their outdated and antiquated (technologically speaking) system, Research in Motion allowed themselves to get out-innovated by Google and Apple.

3. By limiting the size of their marketshare, companies like Google and Apple will have no incentive to continually innovate and improve their products.

4. You can't go off and tell consumers what brands they want to buy. You know why Android and the iPhone dominate the market? Because Google and Apple put out the best smartphone products. Consumers want the best at the most affordable prices and what you have is essentially the government telling consumers that they can't buy the brand that they want if a certain marketshare quota has been met.

5. The economic laws of supply and demand will be thrown into complete and utter chaos.

 

[8wid]

^You not damage competition or the law of supply and demand. Just force the large corporations that control the market to break up and the staff go on to form new corporations to invest in. By increasing the size of the competitive, base the competition and demand for a better product increases as does the quality of the product. If the new larger number of corporations want to produce a viable product, they will form better partnerships with each other and pull new resources from a variety of locations. More ideas than before will be produced. There will be more affordable and quality products that have adapted to the changes in the market that should be better than before. I'm not saying the government should be telling consumers a certain brand because a quota has been met, only the size of the corporation cannot dominate a certain percentage of the market. This lowers the barriers to entry for other businesses and encourages greater competition. Incentive to dominate the global market and only worry about profit would be limited as their need to compete and research more would decrease sole control.

 

[Wheels]

subscribed

 

[Destructus86]

wow...do they WANT to start a war? (I know I know...stupid question)
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57378108/iran-claims-new-advanced-nuclear-centrifuges/

 

[8wid]

Mahmoud Ahmedinejad on Iran's nuclear progress

As crazy as Ahmedinejad is about many things I have to agree whole heartidly with the sincerity of this statement. The only reason the West so violently opposes Iran's development of nuclear power plants and accusses them of secretly being a nuclear weapons program is because they want to seize the natural resources of Iran for their own business interests through regime change.

 

[Destructus86]

Mahmoud Ahmedinejad on Iran's nuclear progress

As crazy as Ahmedinejad is about many things I have to agree whole heartidly with the sincerity of this statement. The only reason the West so violently opposes Iran's development of nuclear power plants and accusses them of secretly being a nuclear weapons program is because they want to seize the natural resources of Iran for their own business interests through regime change.

Really? I thought it was because the leader of Iran is a lunatic with dreams of genocide? silly me....sorry.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

Last time I checked, Iran had already nationalized it's oil industry back in 1979 with the National Iranian Oil Company and the entire industry is controlled by the Ministry of Petroleum.

You're like.....30 years late on that theory.

Actually you're mistaken. One of the primary reasons that the United States DID support the revolution in '79 was to renew their oil contracts (not government to government, but the businesses from respective countries who were funding their respective governing bodies). It was all under the tables, but those contracts are still in place.

The only time Iran came close to nationalising its oil was with Mossadeq - which led to a coup backed by the United States and the United Kingdom.

EDIT: My mistake, I meant 50's. Further evidence of this being the case is that the price of oil has been more or less stable since the United States regained control of the oil supply in the west (post opec). Consider the prices of oil during the opec situation to now (taking inflation into account) - it's pretty damn stable.

 

[Paradoxium]

We should add a poll:

We will go to war with Iran, in a year or two?

Yes

No

 

[Asteroid-Man]

Ask and ye shall receive, apparently.

 

[8wid]

I voted definently not because a war in Iran would not be sustainable in the current economic condition nor would it be feasible to militarily occupy a civilian population that size nor the nation's natural resources. After the war in Iraq the international community is not on our side, nor is the American public stupid enough to legimately fall for it again without rioting and possibly is so educated now compard to the last few centuries of wars not to be tricked into anymore major wars like we have been with the exception of World War II.

 

[enterthemadness]

I voted definently not because a war in Iran would not be sustainable in the current economic condition nor would it be feasible to militarily occupy a civilian population that size nor the nation's natural resources. After the war in Iraq the international community is not on our side, nor is the American public stupid enough to legimately fall for it again without rioting and possibly is so educated now compard to the last few centuries of wars not to be tricked into anymore major wars like we have been with the exception of World War II.

Oh please, Washington doesn't care what we think...a war will most likely happen.

 

[8wid]

^That may the one good thing out of a war there. Combined with skyrocketing fuel prices, costs of invasion and occupation, too a hyperinflation of the world's leading currency will send the American and global economy into collapse. The US wouldn't recover for years and the break down of civil order in many already oppressed places will occur and rioting greater than the scale of the 1960s will follow including in Washington. A war in Iran is a suicide mission for Wall Street greed and its influence on Pennslyvania Ave. Big business influence in the world would never recover after the collapse of the world economy starts a massive economic depression. Americans will wondering how things got so bad and when they finally figure how unhealthy the corporate influence was over so many decades the culture will grow in apathy to them and that will continue for years.

 

[enterthemadness]

^That may the one good thing out of a war there. Combined with skyrocketing fuel prices, costs of invasion and occupation, too a hyperinflation of the world's leading currency will send the American and global economy into collapse. The US wouldn't recover for years and the break down of civil order in many already oppressed places will occur and rioting greater than the scale of the 1960s will follow including in Washington. A war in Iran is a suicide mission for Wall Street greed and its influence on Pennslyvania Ave. Big business influence in the world would never recover after the collapse of the world economy starts a massive economic depression. Americans will wondering how things got so bad and when they finally figure how unhealthy the corporate influence was over so many decades the culture will grow in apathy to them and that will continue for years.

Or well....couldn't the govt introduce a new currency if war or recession caused the dollar to bite the dust? Technically speaking, our dollar is worthless already. Lost well over 90% of value since 1913.

 

[8wid]

U.S., Iran, Israel should cool the rhetoric

 

[DBryan]

How the UK and American media state the exact opposite of the facts in order to drum up propaganda for war with Iran.

[YT]qg09rW9TogI[/YT]

 

[Hobgoblin]

Washington, EU Pressure SWIFT to Expel Iran from the Banking Organization

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73034.html

 

[8wid]

Or well....couldn't the govt introduce a new currency if war or recession caused the dollar to bite the dust? Technically speaking, our dollar is worthless already. Lost well over 90% of value since 1913.

Thing is even if the US did reset the value of the currency who would trust them with controlling the global currency after having to nearly go bankrupt just to take steps to avert their debt. I could see a dumping of the Euro and Dollar as the global currency of choice in exchange for something that a BRICK nation would put out. Probably not China because their currency is too weakened by taking so much US debt.

MSM Hyping Iran Threat, Warmongering

 

[enterthemadness]

Whoa at link, 8wid. Also, youngturks are on tv now, right?

 

[DBryan]

Sky News lying about Iran.

[YT]0a8MdKnm3fw[/YT]

 

[craigdbfan]

U.S. to Israel: Don't attack Iran

The United States is urging Israel to forgo a military strike against Iran over its nuclear program, and give international sanctions more time to work.

"We think that it's not prudent at this point to decide to attack Iran," said Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, speaking Sunday on CNN. "I mean, that's been our counsel to our allies, the Israelis, well-known, well-documented."
Dempsey also said that U.S. officials believe that Iran has not decided whether "to weaponize their nuclear capability."

Because of that uncertainty, Dempsey said, "I think it would be premature to exclusively decide that the time for a military option was upon us."

 

[8wid]

More war mongering on the part of CNN again...

Nuclear officials meet Iranian leaders as war talk looms

 

[Hobgoblin]

One in Three Chance of $5 Gas This Summer if War with Iran
http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/20/markets/oil_gas_iran/index.htm?hpt=hp_c1

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Oil prices rose Monday after Iran cut exports to Britain and France, raising worries that higher gas prices may follow suit.

Iran's oil ministry said Sunday that it would stop exporting oil to French and British companies. The announcement came just days after Iran threatened to cut supplies to some European Union countries in retaliation for sanctions put in place by the EU and United States.



U.S. crude for April delivery jumped nearly 2% to $105.08 per barrel. Brent crude, Europe's benchmark, rose about 0.5% to $120.18 per barrel.

Prices for Brent haven't been above $120 for more than a year, and that could prove worrisome for U.S. drivers since many U.S. refineries use imported oil to produce gas, especially on the East Coast.

Prices are already up nearly 9% from the start of the year. According to motorist group AAA, the national average price of $3.56 a gallon marks the 13th consecutive increase.
Gas prices may hit $5

The price of unleaded gasoline in the U.S. will likely hit a nationwide average of $4 by this summer, said Dan Dicker, oil trader and author of "Oil's Endless Bid." The last time prices topped $4 was 2008 and Dicker said there's a one in three chance that gas could reach $5 a gallon.

If gas prices do head to those lofty levels, that could put a crimp in the economic recovery as consumers will likely cut down on spending if they have to pay more to fill up their cars.


Just last month, higher gas prices were to blame for an uptick in inflation. And it's not just consumers who will suffer. Companies facing higher shipping costs may reel in their hiring plans, slowing job growth and putting a crimp into the overall economic recovery.

"This price juggernaut has taken on a life of its own since the Iran/Israeli threat flinging began and [the] boycott/sanctions war continues to ratchet upwards, and it's been made worse by the big run in stocks since the start of the year," said Dicker.

Capital Economics analyst Julian Jessop said the stock market rebound has contributed at least $5 worth of gains to the price of oil.

Israel has contributed to the market mayhem by openly considering an attack on Tehran's nuclear infrastructure.

Iran exports 2.2 million barrels of oil per day, a sliver of the 89 million barrels that is consumed worldwide on a daily basis. Less than one-fifth of Iran's exports are sent to Europe.

The move by Iran is "essentially an empty gesture, as the UK and France buy hardly any oil," said Jessop in a client note.
Check gas prices in your state

But it doesn't take much to trigger a fluctuation in prices, and even a bit player like Iran can wreck havoc on international markets.

"The supply is tethered so tightly to demand, that if you do lose even a small percentage of supply, it could have a big effect on the price," said Dicker.

-- CNNWires staff contributed to this report To top of page
First Published: February 20, 2012: 10:00 AM ET