[Olebrum]

So the sabre rattling had its desired effect and now the price of oil can remain at this artificially high level.

[RufflesTheGuineaPig]

Sour Mash, on 20 February 2012 - 12:23 PM, said:

They've substantially drawn down forces from Iraq and also scaled back in Afghanistan. They have plenty of spare capacity to feck over another Middle Eastern country on behalf of their friends in the Promised Land, especially if it means big US interests getting control over more oil reserves.

You are kind of right.

They have plenty of grunts with guns, however they no longer have the skilled soldiers they need, particularly specialists such as medics and engineers. With good money to be made in the private sector, they weren't re-enlisting at the end of their tours.

The result was the US was forced to (ilegally) force medics and engineers to stay on past the end of their tours, sometimes even past the end of their enlistment, using bizarre antiquated or often made-up rules to prevent them leaving. The simplest was to just say there were no flights available... no, really, this actually happened a lot. And they couldn't make their own way home as they are considered to be "on duty" until stood down at the airport when they get home... if they had made their own way back they'de be counted as AWAL and arrested on arrival in the US and returned to operations. They couldn't even let them go home on leave/R&R as they would have refused to come back, and with the US court system it would be hard to force them. The suicide rate among those trained specialists skyrocketted as they were basically faced with being in a war zone indefinately.

All the reservists trained as medic and engineer were called up and they too were forced to stay in the operation area for well beyond the time they were supposed to. The fact was simply that the US needed these specialist so they had to make them stay until they could be replaced or were no longer needed.

As a result of what happened, the US army now has major shortages of these skills and simply is in no fit state to fight another major conflict... they would, essentially, need to have a draft to obtain the required specialists.

[tomandlu]

JustAnotherProle, on 20 February 2012 - 12:38 PM, said:

I think it's less to do with oil ( that it isn't getting anyway) and more about an Islamic fundamentalist state obtaining nuclear weapons?.

I must admit that I always struggle to understand the moral logic of nuclear weapons restrictions. Why does one country with nuclear weapons get to tell another country that they can't develop their own? Where does the moral authority come from?

[JustAnotherProle]

tomandlu, on 20 February 2012 - 01:45 PM, said:

I must admit that I always struggle to understand the moral logic of nuclear weapons restrictions. Why does one country with nuclear weapons get to tell another country that they can't develop their own? Where does the moral authority come from?

Thats a good question, but if we apply a bit of logic and common sense you can safely say that the nuclear capability of a secular western democracy with many avenues of checks and balances before such a weapon could ever be deployed is far less likely to lead to the extermination of civilization than say..a theocratic dictatorship which is openly hostile to it's neighbors and wishes to wipe them of the face of the earth. The moral question, in this case, is fairly easily resolved in my opinion.

[MarkG]

JustAnotherProle, on 20 February 2012 - 12:38 PM, said:

I think it's less to do with oil ( that it isn't getting anyway) and more about an Islamic fundamentalist state obtaining nuclear weapons?.

So a country which has spent the last decade spreading Islamic fundamentalism throughout the Middle East is now worried about Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East?

Even US intelligence agencies have said that Iran couldn't build nukes for years, and they would be totally out-matched by all the other nuclear powers in Europe and the Middle East. Using a nuke would be suicidal on their part.

[Charlie The Tramp Returns]

Quote

Iran Halts Oil Supplies To Uk And France

Well we and France could also halt Medical Supplies to Iran, that would shake them. Come on let us play the Mr Nasty game as well.

[Buccaneer]

JustAnotherProle, on 20 February 2012 - 01:51 PM, said:

Thats a good question, but if we apply a bit of logic and common sense you can safely say that the nuclear capability of a secular western democracy with many avenues of checks and balances before such a weapon could ever be deployed is far less likely to lead to the extermination of civilization than say..a theocratic dictatorship which is openly hostile to it's neighbors and wishes to wipe them of the face of the earth. The moral question, in this case, is fairly easily resolved in my opinion.

Secular western democracy?

What about the USA where belief in an invisible god is a prerequisite for being president and the government is run by the corporate lobbyists? How many atheists without a billion dollars of campaign contributions have ever stood a chance? If you want a taste of religious extremism examine the views of Romney or Santorum.

To suggest that the USA has any more right to have nuclear weapons than Iran because their government is free from religious cranks or more responsive to the will of the people is disingenuous.

[tomandlu]

Buccaneer, on 21 February 2012 - 03:02 AM, said:

To suggest that the USA has any more right to have nuclear weapons than Iran because their government is free from religious cranks or more responsive to the will of the people is disingenuous.

In addition (and having done some reading up since I posted), it would appear that the US and most of the other countries with nuclear capability have not honoured the terms of the treaties they signed.

Don't get me wrong - I'm very happy that Iran (hopefully) doesn't have atomic weapons. I just don't see how trying to build them justifiably triggers sanctions.

[DarkHorseWaits]

Buccaneer, on 21 February 2012 - 03:02 AM, said:

Secular western democracy?

What about the USA where belief in an invisible god is a prerequisite for being president and the government is run by the corporate lobbyists? How many atheists without a billion dollars of campaign contributions have ever stood a chance? If you want a taste of religious extremism examine the views of Romney or Santorum.

To suggest that the USA has any more right to have nuclear weapons than Iran because their government is free from religious cranks or more responsive to the will of the people is disingenuous.

+1 agreed

[Venger]

Charlie The Tramp Returns, on 20 February 2012 - 10:09 PM, said:

Well we and France could also halt Medical Supplies to Iran, that would shake them. Come on let us play the Mr Nasty game as well.

CNN last night said UK and France take 0% of Iran's crude. There's no point resorting to sanctions for medical supplies. Isn't it all just a sideshow from Iran's elders to distract from their domestic problems, project power, cause problems to make themselves look like they are doing important jobs.

Quote

The EU oil embargo, agreed last month, was phased so member states that were relatively dependent on Iranian crude - notably Greece, Spain and Italy - had enough time to find alternative sources.

[Stay Beautiful]

Venger, on 21 February 2012 - 07:29 AM, said:

CNN last night said

Thats cleared it all up then.

[JustAnotherProle]

Buccaneer, on 21 February 2012 - 03:02 AM, said:

Secular western democracy?

What about the USA where belief in an invisible god is a prerequisite for being president and the government is run by the corporate lobbyists? How many atheists without a billion dollars of campaign contributions have ever stood a chance? If you want a taste of religious extremism examine the views of Romney or Santorum.

To suggest that the USA has any more right to have nuclear weapons than Iran because their government is free from religious cranks or more responsive to the will of the people is disingenuous.

Are you seriously comparing the USA to Iran in their adherence to the freedoms of its people or to theological encroachment on the state?

Quote

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. - The First Amendment of the Constitution of the USA"

I do not dispute that they have their fair share of religidiots but the point I was actually making is that, by definition, the USA is a secular democracy, the Establishment Clause is even clearer "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", despite the various cranks that may hold office this is enshrined in it's laws and constitution and they are bound by it, can you say Iran has a similar control?

I am struggling to understand how you can seriously not see the difference between the USA and it's allies, who have maintained an equilibrium based on secular democratic discourse, and a theocratic state who's intentions towards its neighbors and ultimately human civilization have been made very clear. If you wish to allow Iran to arm itself then be my guest, but anyone who wants to live in a free and largely secular world must make a stand against it, because if you seriously think they will not use them, then you are the one being naive and disingenuous.

This post has been edited by JustAnotherProle: 21 February 2012 - 10:06 AM

[Riedquat]

JustAnotherProle, on 21 February 2012 - 09:51 AM, said:

I am struggling to understand how you can seriously not see the difference between the USA and it's allies, who have maintained an equilibrium based on secular democratic discourse, and a theocratic state who's intentions towards its neighbors and ultimately human civilization have been made very clear. If you wish to allow Iran to arm itself then be my guest, but anyone who wants to live in a free and largely secular world must make a stand against it, because if you seriously think they will not use them, then you are the one being naive and disingenuous.

It's oversimplifying and is all too common. Take a simple position and apply it regardless of any other factors. I think that it's related to an inability to acknowledge shades of grey. X isn't perfect so treat it exactly the same as Y.

[snowflux]

JustAnotherProle, on 21 February 2012 - 09:51 AM, said:

I am struggling to understand how you can seriously not see the difference between the USA and it's allies, who have maintained an equilibrium based on secular democratic discourse, and a theocratic state who's intentions towards its neighbors and ultimately human civilization have been made very clear. If you wish to allow Iran to arm itself then be my guest, but anyone who wants to live in a free and largely secular world must make a stand against it, because if you seriously think they will not use them, then you are the one being naive and disingenuous.

How about comparing past records:

On the one side you've got the US, which has initiated and/or been involved in countless wars a long way outside its own boundaries, and is the only country to have actually used nuclear weapons in anger.

On the other side you have Iran, which has, within living memory, not been involved in any wars except when defending itself against the US-backed Iraqi attack in the 1980's. And which is constantly being threatened with attack by US-backed Israel.

Who are the bad guys again?

[Riedquat]

snowflux, on 21 February 2012 - 02:37 PM, said:

How about comparing past records:

On the one side you've got the US, which has initiated and/or been involved in countless wars a long way outside its own boundaries, and is the only country to have actually used nuclear weapons in anger.

On the other side you have Iran, which has, within living memory, not been involved in any wars except when defending itself against the US-backed Iraqi attack in the 1980's. And which is constantly being threatened with attack by US-backed Israel.

Who are the bad guys again?

Thank you for illustrating my point about oversimplifying.