Europe stops Iranian imports, and blocks key technology exports

[Catfish]

The first ones to suffer will be iranian civilians, of course.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

The first ones to suffer will be iranian civilians, of course.Unfortunately I have to agree with this. In my opinion this is unlikely to have any significant effect into Iran.

Here is link to BBC's article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16674660

[Type941]

They SHOULD have banned exports to iran of refined petroleum products. SInce Iran has no refining capacity of scale, they rely on this much much more.

Iranian people elected these towel heads who keep saying silly things. So it's only right to make them feel the pain a little like we're feeling he pain at the pumps. That whole middle east is like Europe in 18-19th century, everyone's developing and getting richer but wants to fight wars all the time. It's just a phase they'll have to go through.

[MH]

The first ones to suffer will be iranian civilians, of course.


Any suggestions about how to deal with it in a better way?

[Buddahaid]

Any suggestions about how to deal with it in a better way?

Yes have God and Allah come down to Earth and explain to all the idiots what they actually stand for. After that we can all agree on whose right and stop fighting senseless battles over unsupportable claims of righteousness. I won't hold my breath.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Any suggestions about how to deal with it in a better way?Asking help from tooth fairy? :hmmm: Other than that I don't think there is any real options. I'm quite convinced that this disagreement will be solved only by war or nuke lobbing contest. Which one becomes reality depends on whether Iran will have nukes on top of ICBMs by the moment west goes on war path.

[Skybird]

Oil imports are not stopped, but will be stopped not before summer in another 6 months. Loss of income to Iran is expected to be around one quarter of it'S regular earnings from oil. In other words, 75% of its oil incomes of today stay unaffected.

And the estimation still is questionable, for the oil price is already climbing, and Iran will seek and probably find customers replacing those who now threatened to stop buying in 6 months. What could counter this, is a strong global economic recession and thus falling demand for oil. Anyone interested in more recession?

Iranian population does not uprise against their masters and does not fight to free and change the country, so that they are effected by sanctions maybe is not as undeserved as Catfish indicated. My impression always was that a majority of the population supports and wants the bomb, as a symbol of national pride and sovereignity. To me, it compares to the German population in WWII. While not everybody was a Nazi, still resistence to Hitler was singular only (and even that we do not see in Iran to that scale). The Germans had it coming at them, so do the Iranians.

If your living place is tyranny, you have three options. You stay and adapt, that is what most people do. You leave and run, starting new in another place, that'S what quite some exile Iranians did. Or you stay and fight by any means, that'S what only the few chose to do.

Negotiations did never work and will never work, since it is the itnention of Iran to get the bomb, no matter what. The sanctions in summer are just an expression of how helpless the West feels so that it accepts to buy some more time in the unfounded hope that this nwoulkd make them change their minds. For the West is more afraid of war than Iran is. It also would be expensive - and this with the current crisis of politics and finances.

Iran possessing nuclear bombs and according know-how is still totally unacceptable to me.

[magicstix]

The "sanctions only hurt the people" or "an embargo is an act of war" arguments always get me. If you have a neighbor who is selling you things and then using the money to build a cannon to shoot you with, and you stop buying things from him, how is that an act of aggression?

The European nations are sovereign states who can decide who they want to do business with. If they don't agree with the stance of the seller, then it's their right to boycott said seller. It's the same as if you didn't want to buy from Wal-mart because they destroy small business or you don't buy from GoDaddy because they support SOPA. The only difference is this is on the scale of nations.

Iran acting like they have the right to shut down an international waterway because Europe won't buy oil from them is like McDonald's saying they have the right to starve me to death because I don't want to eat their hamburgers.

Unfortunately, the Iranian people are irrelevant here, as the oil money is being used to directly fund Iran's bomb program (which exists, to believe otherwise is dangerously naive). Europe and the US have to look out for their own, and it makes no sense to be paying for the noose that hangs you (or in this case the nuke that melts you).

The only other options here are war now, or let Iran get a bomb, then war later. If Iran develops a bomb, the Saudis most definitely will.

[soopaman2]

The "sanctions only hurt the people" or "an embargo is an act of war" arguments always get me. If you have a neighbor who is selling you things and then using the money to build a cannon to shoot you with, and you stop buying things from him, how is that an act of aggression?

The European nations are sovereign states who can decide who they want to do business with. If they don't agree with the stance of the seller, then it's their right to boycott said seller. It's the same as if you didn't want to buy from Wal-mart because they destroy small business or you don't buy from GoDaddy because they support SOPA. The only difference is this is on the scale of nations.

Iran acting like they have the right to shut down an international waterway because Europe won't buy oil from them is like McDonald's saying they have the right to starve me to death because I don't want to eat their hamburgers.

Unfortunately, the Iranian people are irrelevant here, as the oil money is being used to directly fund Iran's bomb program (which exists, to believe otherwise is dangerously naive). Europe and the US have to look out for their own, and it makes no sense to be paying for the noose that hangs you (or in this case the nuke that melts you).

The only other options here are war now, or let Iran get a bomb, then war later. If Iran develops a bomb, the Saudis most definitely will.

I agree with all but the last sentence. The Saudis got more money than god yet needed the US to defend them in the first Gulf War, they buy their defense with oil. The West always jumps for them.

The only other option IMHO is Israel taking their own measures as they done in the past.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Osirak.html

Then us acting all stupid, and fake outraged, while patting Israel on the back for taking the flak for us.

[antikristuseke]

Yes have God and Allah come down to Earth and explain to all the idiots what they actually stand for.

they are the same being, suposedly

[magicstix]

they are the same being, suposedly

Then why is it you have to say "there is no god but allah?"

Not to get into a religious discussion, but when you compare what's written in the torah and bible about YHWH to what's written in the Koran about Allah, they're almost exact opposites (genocides aside that is)...

[Dowly]

Then why is it you have to say "there is no god but allah?"



Allah means God, so it's just a statement that there are no other gods but the God.

Other than that, are you REALLY surprised to find contradictions when it comes to different religions supposedly speaking about the same God? :88)

[magicstix]

Allah means God, so it's just a statement that there are no other gods but the God.

Other than that, are you REALLY surprised to find contradictions when it comes to different religions supposedly speaking about the same God? :88)

Allah actually is the name of an older moon good that was at the head of a pantheon of gods worshiped by tribal Arabs. When Islam came along, all of the other lesser gods got the boot and Allah was all that was left. He was supposedly a god of the moon, which is why the symbol for Islam today is the crescent moon.

[Takeda Shingen]

Then why is it you have to say "there is no god but allah?"

Not to get into a religious discussion, but when you compare what's written in the torah and bible about YHWH to what's written in the Koran about Allah, they're almost exact opposites (genocides aside that is)...

Islam holds Abraham, Moses and even Jesus to be prophets of god. As such Allah, Yahweh and God the Father are all the same god, ie Creator of the Universe. Where the three faiths differ is in regard to the natures and actions of later prophets and messiahs, as well as styles of worship and interpretation of will.

All of this theological discourse is, however, pretty left-field of the thread topic.

[mapuc]

So much for this embargo

https://rt.com/news/iran-india-gold-oil-543/

Markus

[Skybird]

Muhammad came into contact with many cults and sects during his early years when he led his uncle's trade-caravans around, because back then Arabia was the total opposite of today, it was a "multi-cultural" place, home to so very many different communities and sects, and Muhammad probably travelled far to the North as well, where the peninsula ended. He had a special interest in Christian and Jewish traditions and more or less "lectured" himself on them without ever entering any of them. Linguists would point out that even the origin of words like "Quran" seem to indicate that the collection originally maybe was meant or understood as a liturgic ammendement or comment to existing scriptures of Christians and Jews. But that is a complicated matter and not free of dispute, since a language "reform" of the Arabic also adds to the complexity, that meant dramatic changed for Arabic vocabulary. However, not before the Jews raised Muhammad'S rage and anger when they showed him in Medina during his meetings with the pharisees how small his insight of the Jewish teachings really was, and not before the conflict with the Mekkanese people forced him - or allowed him - to turn into a social rebel now also playing the military card, he tried to turn his so far fictional own creation of an ideology (basing on already existing beliefs) into a religion claimed to be the real fundament of the former religions, because he needed that to set himself aside and outside the reach of his critics, and to justify his ambitions and deeds. It was then when not only his hate on Jews broke out openly, in a search for revenge over narcissistic offence he suffered from them, but that he added changes to his religious model that should make it obvious to every casual observer that his Islam was not just a third version of the two others, but was independent, and even the real basis of the former two. He challenged the places of worship by Christianity and Jews and claimed dominance and ruling over them, he also changed certain habits in the practice of praying, most obviously changing the direction at which to pray.

The dispute amongst linguists how it all falls into place still continues. I found it to be complicated matter when I read about it several years ago. Also, historic research like this never is a precise, exact science, more a detective's work.

I think a very valuabe question always is: "Who benefits, who has a profit from it?". I never hid it that to me Muhammeddanism is nothing else but history's most monumental project of disguising an attempt of narcissistic self-justification.

[magicstix]

Muhammad came into contact with many cults and sects during his early years when he led his uncle's trade-caravans around, because back then Arabia was the total opposite of today, it was a "multi-cultural" place, home to so very many different communities and sects, and Muhammad probably travelled far to the North as well, where the peninsula ended. He had a special interest in Christian and Jewish traditions and more or less "lectured" himself on them without ever entering any of them. Linguists would point out that even the origin of words like "Quran" seem to indicate that the collection originally maybe was meant or understood as a liturgic ammendement or comment to existing scriptures of Christians and Jews. But that is a complicated matter and not free of dispute, since a language "reform" of the Arabic also adds to the complexity, that meant dramatic changed for Arabic vocabulary. However, not before the Jews raised Muhammad'S rage and anger when they showed him in Medina during his meetings with the pharisees how small his insight of the Jewish teachings really was, and not before the conflict with the Mekkanese people forced him - or allowed him - to turn into a social rebel now also playing the military card, he tried to turn his so far fictional own creation of an ideology (basing on already existing beliefs) into a religion claimed to be the real fundament of the former religions, because he needed that to set himself aside and outside the reach of his critics, and to justify his ambitions and deeds. It was then when not only his hate on Jews broke out openly, in a search for revenge over narcissistic offence he suffered from them, but that he added changes to his religious model that should make it obvious to every casual observer that his Islam was not just a third version of the two others, but was independent, and even the real basis of the former two. He challenged the places of worship by Christianity and Jews and claimed dominance and ruling over them, he also changed certain habits in the practice of praying, most obviously changing the direction at which to pray.

The dispute amongst linguists how it all falls into place still continues. I found it to be complicated matter when I read about it several years ago. Also, historic research like this never is a precise, exact science, more a detective's work.

I think a very valuabe question always is: "Who benefits, who has a profit from it?". I never hid it that to me Muhammeddanism is nothing else but history's most monumental project of disguising an attempt of narcissistic self-justification.

Careful there, they'll get a fatwa issued against subsim and we'll all be doomed. :arrgh!:

[Type941]

So much for this embargo

https://rt.com/news/iran-india-gold-oil-543/

Markus

I HOPE this isn't surprsing for you. :)
Embargo itself is surprising though. Things must be not as bad in EU as they try to tell us.

[Skybird]

In an attempt to turn around the pointy end of the sword, Iran says it will stop oil deliveries to Europe from next week on. For Southern European countries like Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece, who did not want that embargo anyway since they again slept and still depend heavly on Iranian oil imports, that is bad news, since they do not have the 5 months planned by the EU to look for replacements of Iranian oil now, as was the intention when the sanction on Iranian oil was delayed until this summer, July.

[Skybird]

By chance I stumbled over this article from two days ago, in German language: The hearts of the schoolkids shall be filled with hate (http://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article13842155/Die-Herzen-der-Schueler-sollen-von-Hass-erfuellt-sein.html).

It is a very disillusionising piec eon how iran educates its youth from earliest childhood on to be hateful against anybody not being truly Islamic, and how the schoolbooks printed even under the so-called reformist :haha: Chatamei brainwash kids and teenagers to be eager to waste their life for the cause of wiping out everybody not beign Islami8c and standing in the way of Islam'S goal to rule all the world, becasue this is the will of Allah.

It also reminds of one of the worst and almost enver told stories of the Iran-Iraq war: in order to clear minefields, the Iranians send 500,000 of their kids into them, to clear passage lines by blowing up themselves so that the adult combat troops could pass without harm. 36,000 kids got bloown up by Iranian leaders sending them out to die when tripping a wire.
Witnesses say that the 12 and 14 year olf kids were chanting and singing in joy when hoping that indeed they would meet death when walking on the fields. They had truly internalised the message of their leaders that death means entrance to paradise and that life in this world means nothing.

By Irtanian lecturing, this means that they won. Because either Islam wins by submitting all the world, or, if Allah prefers it that way, by every Iranian becoming a martyr. Both ways mean victory.

If anybody still has illusions about the Iranian seriousness when they claim they want to wage wear against the Satanic powers and all the other evil they have primised to the world, their schoolbooks and the mine-clearing stories maybe make him think twice - it is to be hoped. The Iranian threats to wipe out Israel, are bitterly serious, I think. And I think there are quite many Iranian leaders who will to sacrifice the Iranian people for that, because they already have demonstrated that - see above - and they live indeed by the belief that martyrdom on behalf of Allah'S will means victory, and paradise. This is not a metaphor. They mean it serious, and literal.

[soopaman2]

Someone in the high establishment really wants war with Iran...

I wonder which country will bear the brunt of that, life and materiel wise...

I know who and I say bugger off. Europe, do it yourself.

It is about time you guys did something without American funerals in Arlington, the Falklands was the last time? Seriously? Man up!

To think most you fine peoples hate us...

[Catfish]

Why do you always say those are "our" (european) wars ?
Do you really think we (Europe) would have invaded Iraq ? Or Korea, Vietnam, whatever ? Afghanistan ?

When we (Germany, the Michael Jordan of occupation) backed off from Iraq, you should have thought about it.
:O:

Apart from that it will be as usual:
America: Weapons and fighting.
England: Support
France: Refreshments
Rest: Unavailable because of continuous debate.
:shifty:

[magicstix]

Why do you always say those are "our" (european) wars ?
Do you really think we (Europe) would have invaded Iraq ? Or Korea, Vietnam, whatever ? Afghanistan ?

When we (Germany, the Michael Jordan of occupation) backed off from Iraq, you should have thought about it.
:O:

Apart from that it will be as usual:
America: Weapons and fighting.
England: Support
France: Refreshments
Rest: Unavailable because of continuous debate.
:shifty:

France started Vietnam, by the way...

The point he's making is that Iran is a bigger threat to Europe than the US, and Europe suffers more from Middle Eastern instability than the US, since Europe is more dependent on ME oil.

[TLAM Strike]

Apart from that it will be as usual:
America: Weapons and fighting.
England: Support
France: Refreshments
Rest: Unavailable because of continuous debate.
:shifty:

Reminds me of a joke:

Q) What do you call NATO without the USA?
A) Russia!


It also reminds of one of the worst and almost enver told stories of the Iran-Iraq war: in order to clear minefields, the Iranians send 500,000 of their kids into them, to clear passage lines by blowing up themselves so that the adult combat troops could pass without harm. 36,000 kids got bloown up by Iranian leaders sending them out to die when tripping a wire.
Witnesses say that the 12 and 14 year olf kids were chanting and singing in joy when hoping that indeed they would meet death when walking on the fields. They had truly internalised the message of their leaders that death means entrance to paradise and that life in this world means nothing.

They still have large numbers of Basij troops:
http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/3035/basijyoungrecruits.jpg

[Takeda Shingen]

When we (Germany, the Michael Jordan of occupation) backed off from Iraq, you should have thought about it.

No, we simply should never have gone in there in the first place. It was, and is a complete disaster; one that continues to unfold. Similar action against Iran will result in an identical situation.

[MH]

..... The Iranian threats to wipe out Israel, are bitterly serious, I think. And I think there are quite many Iranian leaders who will to sacrifice the Iranian people for that, because they already have demonstrated that - see above - and they live indeed by the belief that martyrdom on behalf of Allah'S will means victory, and paradise. This is not a metaphor. They mean it serious, and literal.


Iranians ranting about Israel has it purpose, it is serious but in many ways but smokescreen.
Nobody really wants to go to war over Israeli interests.....while Iranian interest is the ability to dominate the region first, then Israeli issue.
Regional domination is more of everyone's business but again its political call to some extent as well.

[Penguin]

The Mossad already has its best agents operating in Iran, here is the video proof:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hoHrLL-tVw :DL
(understandable without English subs)

[MH]

The Mossad already has its best agents operating in Iran, here is the video proof:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hoHrLL-tVw :DL
(understandable without English subs)




What? you mistablet?

[Tribesman]

It is about time you guys did something without American funerals in Arlington, the Falklands was the last time? Seriously? Man up!

:doh: Seriously, think.

Iranians ranting about Israel has it purpose, it is serious but in many ways but smokescreen.

Spot on.

[Type941]

It is implied Iran is happy to DIE because it's martyrdom etc.
Well, they should all go to war yesterday with everyone.
BUt they don't.
So theyre not crazy after all?
If they're not crazy, then there is thought process that calculates moves.
Thus they should know that going to war first will mean they'll be wiped out by US.
Hence, they won't go to war.
The threat?
An idiot making a mistake.
The hope?
Someone smart enough will stop things from escalating.
The problem:
With stupid rhetoric the war machine has started up.
The real problem:
Not Iranian Islamist views but fact that once war machine starts up it is almost impossible to stop as it's committed and people in power want to see it through.

It can be like the movie "Se7en". Who is going to win here? Noone.

[Skybird]

Oh these witty concerns. These clever reasonings.

80 years ago many people could not imagine that somebody would treat a whole people like cattle, lead them into death factories and kill them in masses, like vermin, or like processing mineral ore. Could even experiment with industrially exploiting body components like fats, hair, skin, to find out if it could be used for industrial lubricants, pipe seals, and lampshades. And organise all that perfectly, efficiently, and reasoning rationally about it. One could also not imagine that this somebody would will to sacrifice his own people because he thought that did not deserve to survive if it could not win, or that this somebody would sacrifice uselessly whole armies and lead whole chorps into their doom, for - well, for what? Military incompetence and symbolic actions.

With Iran you have a player that teaches in his schoolbooks that a devoute Muslim fighting the infidels always is a winner, either by overturning all the world into a place worshipping and being submissive to Allah, or by dying for the the cause, turning him into a martyr enjoying paradise. And as I have said, they have already demonstrated that they are unscrupulous enough to sacrifice even their children for this perverted reasoning. They maintain a police dictatorship in their country and exceute and torture their own people. They export this wicked ideology they base upon. They have their hands in every armed conflict ion the region, and are enagged in a clash with the Sunni world since over a millenia. And they take Muhammad by his word when they express their strong hate and antipathy against Jews in general, and Israel in special. They support terror organisations.

And some of you guys are still so superior in your understanding of them so that you can say for sure they will not proliferate nuclear wepaons to terror organsiation, and will not will to put their own peoplke at risk in order to appease Allah in their bid to claim victory against the evil pigs in Israel and the dirty rest of the world? Religous, by deifjntion highly irraitonal hysterics that are in control of their m,ilitary, the RG, and the key parts ofd their industry?

Do you really know it better, or are you jst taking dangerous bets in an uncalculatable gambel, because you are too afraid to face the challenge in all its unfriendly dimension?

Stop judging them by your own rational, Western terms. You must start to see it through the glasses of their religious maniacs.

The whole West being nuclearly blackmailed. The threat of nuclear proliferation to terror cells, and nuclear suitcase bombs. The constant threat that they will make true their threat to strike Israel in an attempt to clean the world'S surface off the dirt of the Jewish state.

Some of you guys dare to take these risks with the stakes being so high? You gamble and put your money whiule playing Russian roulette with your own head?

Some of you guys to me sound simply insane, totally disconnected from reality. You base on the assumnption that while you mean it well, the other, no matter his bullying behaviour over the past 30 years, means it well also.

Anyhow, with the US now having left Iraq, the Iraqi airspace is uncontrolled and thus open for Israel to pass at will. And with the presidential elections in the US upcoming, no candidate is likely presenting his open flank when refusing to support a military strike by Israel. Also, Israel claims the time window is closing. These are three reasons why it is a good bet to assume that they will strike this year - before the US elections anyway. Barak calls it the Iranians reaching immunity, moving their key installations beyond reach of conventional weapons. Once they have done that, their victory is complete. From then on even the mere threat that they will use a bomb they have build, will give them immunity - they must not even really be finsihed with the work. Just claiming the threat will make everybody slamming the brakes.

I personally think they already have done that, and as long as these installations are not taken out by ground forces or by mininukes, I will not support a war against Iran, since it is doomed to fail. I hate waste of military effort and life. Either you go all the way with all determination, or you don't. I'm for the first, absolutely, but my thinking is that of a minority. And that will save Iran, and cost the rest of the world dearly. Hooray.

The mentality difference already was an issue during the crusades and wars for Jerusalem. Wetsern armies were3 superior in armour and weapons, tactics and logistically supporting an army, but thgeir soldiers and knights were very much influenced by a mentality that tries to survive and save its own life. The Muslim armies of that time were much more embracing coincepots of martyrdom and self-sacrifice, for them it was a way to find religious fulfillment and gaining access to paradise, as Muhammad has taught. That'S why the variuous Muslim enemy factions we fight today use even children to transport belts with explosives and why their fighters do not hesitate to blow themsleves up even for symbolic actions only, while the US army doe snot have comparable suicide commandos. If you try to assess the probability of the enemy using suicide-vests by the rationals of your own cultural Western logic, you are already inside the trap, and will lose.

It'S a form of megalomania by Western "intellectuals" to assume that everybody else also operates by the same arguments like they do themselves. As if their own arguments would really have that cionvincing power for the rest of the world outside the old, falling Western sphere! More denying of reality.

[Type941]

how do you win war in Iran and not destabilize global economy because of oil doubling in price? answer this and we'll agree on how to proceed. But i don't have a clue. Iran holds everyone hostage right now. There is a need for regime change in brutal swiftness. But how do you do this?

[Takeda Shingen]

how do you win war in Iran and not destabilize global economy because of oil doubling in price? answer this and we'll agree on how to proceed. But i don't have a clue. Iran holds everyone hostage right now. There is a need for regime change in brutal swiftness. But how do you do this?

If we should have learned anything over the past decade, it would be that we cannot effectively enact regime change, which is exactly what would be required. As many of our resident hawks have giddily pointed out, the traditional war will be swift and one-sided. What many fail to see is that what comes afterward will be yet another foreign policy disaster. We cannot and will not win the hearts and minds of these people; our noses have been in their business for too long to make any sincere cooperation possible. And so the chickens of our aggressive policy in this region (and the world, for that matter) are coming home to roost.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

If we should have learned anything over the past decade, it would be that we cannot effectively enact regime change, which is exactly what would be required. As many of our resident hawks have giddily pointed out, the traditional war will be swift and one-sided. What many fail to see is that what comes afterward will be yet another foreign policy disaster. We cannot and will not win the hearts and minds of these people; our noses have been in their business for too long to make any sincere cooperation possible. And so the chickens of our aggressive policy in this region (and the world, for that matter) are coming home to roost.Being best friend of Israel won't help either, nor will supporting Saddam's regime during Iran-Iraq war. During the war Saddam used WMD against iranians.

Now your (and Europeans as well) latest stunt is ousting Saddam for "freedom" and to remove "WMD threat" (which proved to be nonexistent). How do you explain to iranian civilians that USA is country of freedom, peace and liberty with this kind of track record?

[Type941]

I think there is plenty of stories in history when someone with resources wants to make it bad for those who don't have resources and ends up in a lot of pain as a result.

Iran will end badly. One way or the other. Let's hope normal people make it through this too.

[Skybird]

Like I do not accept just a short delay of their program as an objective worth to go to war over, I also do not care for waging war in order to enforce or enocurage regime change. The regime changes we have had recently, for the most backfire now. Tunisia is uncertain, Libya is a fail, Egypt is a fail. Powerful hostile parties have been brought to power and influence, and that wil bring problems for us in the forseeable future. Syria: note that while everybody hits out at China and Russia, the socalled opposition is massively financed and supported by ultra-conservatives in Saudi-Arabi and Quatar, and Salafi movements. For that reason, Israel so far has not moved a finger in support of the Syrian opposition. The opposition could turn out to be far worse a scenario for them, than the relatively stable Assad regime of the past.

I do not aim for regime-change in Iran as a purpose for itself - just the destruction of their nuclear weapon program and the attached facilities, and the elimination of their personell representing the brain power to run or rebuild such a program.

Costs for the global economy - will be there, yes. But - I see the costs of a nuclear armed Iran for the world as multiple times more severe, and pushing wide open the door for a huge nuclear war in the future - wider open than it ever was during the past cold war with the exception of the Cuba crisis. Such a war could be launched by religious irrationality and hysteria, but also by a nuclear terror strike. We have both threats already present in Pakistan - and it can hardly be argued that Pakistan represents a stable situation that in any way would be considered as "being under control" - it is not. Getting a multi-polar nucleare arms race in the ME with all its centuries-old open bills, religious hysteria, hot-boiling temerament and Shia-Sunni civil war, is the last thing the world needs. We are already an endangered civilisation even without such a new madhouse being installed.

I also maintain a zero tolerance policy for any scenario that the West gets blackmailed by nuclear armed Islamic terrorists (or any other terrorists). Somebody start swinging the nuclear or biological suitcase bomb, and I am willing to open all gates of hell to wipe that somebody out before he could realise his threat. I see no space whatever for any kind of negotiation there. It is either "us" or them", in that kind of scenario. I vote for "them", without any moral scruples.

[Type941]

look if the stories of Iran being this crazy are true, that they'll supply nukes to terrorists who will blackmail us, then yeah, total war is only solution. But either way basically there is a big war coming in middle east. US in a precarious position which it was in the past and both times a global war was a way for it to leap forward. I think you're way more aware of this thing that I am at least.

[Tribesman]

Takeda, you are sounding like Ron Paul when he is doing his sane stuff.