Is war with Iran next?

TheBoyBlunder

Diamond Member
Apr 25, 2003
5,742
1
0
linkage

Japan signs huge Iranian oil deal

Japan has signed an estimated $2bn deal to exploit Iran's Azadegan oil field, one of the largest in the Middle East.

Japan will have full development rights to the southern part of Azadegan, which has estimated reserves of 26bn barrels.

Japan depends on imports for almost all its energy needs and wants to diversify its supplies amid concerns about existing oil sources in the Gulf.

The agreement, under discussion for three years, had been delayed by US concerns about Iran's nuclear plans.

The US State Department spokesman, Richard Boucher, said he was "disappointed" that the deal had been completed.

The project is one of the largest Iran has signed with a foreign country since the Islamic Revolution of 1979.

The Japanese partner will have a 75% interest, and Iran the remaining 25%.

Getting on target

Japan has been keen to reach agreement on developing Azadegan to meet its long-term energy needs, and reduce its reliance on Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which accounted for nearly two-thirds of Japan's oil imports in 2001.

The talks appeared to stall last July when Washington, which dubbed Iran part of an "Axis of Evil" for its nuclear programme, criticised Tokyo for being ready to deal with Tehran.

The negotiations reportedly resumed after Iran agreed to inspections of its nuclear facilities late last year.

"Japan is the world's second largest oil consumer and Iran is the second largest oil producer in OPEC, so we are actually two sides of the same coin," said Iranian Oil Minister Bijan Zanganeh.

JAPAN'S ENERGY DILEMMA
Half of Japan's energy comes from oil 88% of oil imported from Middle East, mainly from Saudi Arabia and UAE
Japan pays $1 more per barrel than Europe or US, because of transport costs A Japanese government-backed consortium hopes to begin production at Azadegan in 2006, reports say.

Azadegan is expected to pump 150,000 barrels per day by mid-2008, and reach 260,000 bpd by early 2012, said Iran's upstream development chief Mehdi Hosseini.

Experts say the deal will push Iran closer to its production capacity goal of 5m bpd from the current 4.2 bpd.

The news of the deal was greeted with concern by the US Government.

"Our policy has been, with respect to Iran, to oppose petroleum investment there," Mr Boucher was quoted as saying by Japan's Kyodo news agency.

"We remain deeply concerned about deals such as this," he said.
 

tallest1

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2001
3,474
0
0
I was gonna vote no but if you're implying that we would raid Iran's oil fields regardless of who owns them, I'll have to put on a big tin foil hat and say you're crazy.

If we get into a new war, we better come out of it with Bin Laden's head on a stick
 

Insane3D

Elite Member
May 24, 2000
19,446
0
0
OMG! BBC LINKS! But they're BIASED!!!!1111! We never use biased stuff in P&N!

:beer:
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,862
84
91
they can't even handle earth quakes or trains full of chemicals.. bah. its always a question if your complicit in propping up an oppressive government by doing business with em:p irans democracy is a sham.
 

HardWarrior

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,385
7
81
There won't be any more "hot preemption" from the Bush coven. The focked it up too bad the last time.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
23,583
25,292
136
I think war with NK would be next. Something like 70% of all Iranians are under the age of 30. Once the fundamental old coots leave "office," a younger liberal generation has the potential to turn Iran into a nice place. NK makes Iran look like a friendly summer resort.
 

HardWarrior

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,385
7
81
Originally posted by: kage69
I think war with NK would be next. Something like 70% of all Iranians are under the age of 30. Once the fundamental old coots leave "office," a younger liberal generation has the potential to turn Iran into a nice place. NK makes Iran look like a friendly summer resort.
Really? N. Korea is strarving but has a long memory, so that makes them the "enemy?" Interesting. So, that "younger liberal generation" will be completly willing to kiss our asses as soon as their current form of government dies out, which will turn Iran into a "nice place." Also interesting.

 

dirtboy

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,745
1
81
How about a war with Haiti, since Clinton and his "non-warmongering" buddies had fun attacking there and look at the mess they left behind.
 

MegaWorks

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
3,819
1
0
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
they can't even handle earth quakes or trains full of chemicals.. bah. its always a question if your complicit in propping up an oppressive government by doing business with em:p irans democracy is a sham.
can you tell me how can we handle earth quakes?

------------------------------------------------------
AMD Athlon XP T-Bred B DLT3C 1700+ @ 2.3GHZ (1.775v) 400FSB = 3200+
Abit NF7-S V.2 (nForce2 U 400)
Corsair TwinX XMS 3200LL 512MB @ 2-3-2-6 (2.6v)
Sapphire Radeon 9500 Pro 128MB
Antec TrueBlue 480W
Thermalright SLK-947U with 92mm Vantec Tornado @2800RPM
Maxtor 91531U3 15GB
2x Western Digital WD400BB 40GB serials
Antec PlusView 1000AMG
Cambridge SoundWorks MegaWorks THX 550 5.1



 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
23,583
25,292
136
Really? N. Korea is strarving but has a long memory, so that makes them the "enemy?" Interesting. So, that "younger liberal generation" will be completly willing to kiss our asses as soon as their current form of government dies out, which will turn Iran into a "nice place." Also interesting.
Yes, really! I didn't say North Korea is the enemy because it's starving or has a long memory, where did you get that? North Korea is an enemy because technically we're still at war, the peace being brought about by an armistice, not a truce. NK is dangerous because it has the ability to "turn SK into a sea of fire", abducts foreign nationals, trades in narcotics to subsidize the national income, and the complete psychopath running the show over there doesn't help either. Their idea of a joke is sending a long range missile over the heads of their neighbors. Do I need to bring up the concentration camps?
You really need to read things a bit more carefully next time you want to chime in. I said the younger generation has the potential to turn things around in Iran, and no mention of them kissing ass was made. I'd like to think once the oppresive theocratic regime in Iran is gone, Iran would lose the sanctions and open up a little. Yeah, it very well could turn out to be a nice place.

Less putting words into others mouths, and more comprehension please.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
23,583
25,292
136
can you tell me how can we handle earth quakes?
You could start by being more interested in finding survivors then proclaiming "No survivors!" days into the disaster. Slinging mild-insults to a country that flies in to help with food, medicine, personel, and water doesn't help that impression.

 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,707
6
0
Originally posted by: dirtboy
How about a war with Haiti, since Clinton and his "non-warmongering" buddies had fun attacking there and look at the mess they left behind.
Wow, you put alot of effort into clinton-bashing in a totally irrelevent thread.
 

Spencer278

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 2002
3,637
0
0
Isn't installing one radical islamic goverment enough for bush. Is it really nessicary to see if bush can get invading a country right?
 

MegaWorks

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
3,819
1
0
I think Iran changing, tomorrow there's gonna be an election reformists vs the conservatives, I hope the reformists win the election because this country will never change if the conservatives are in power.

------------------------------------------------------
AMD Athlon XP T-Bred B DLT3C 1700+ @ 2.3GHZ (1.775v) 400FSB = 3200+
Abit NF7-S V.2 (nForce2 U 400)
Corsair TwinX XMS 3200LL 512MB @ 2-3-2-6 (2.6v)
Sapphire Radeon 9500 Pro 128MB
Antec TrueBlue 480W
Thermalright SLK-947U with 92mm Vantec Tornado @2800RPM
Maxtor 91531U3 15GB
2x Western Digital WD400BB 40GB serials
Antec PlusView 1000AMG
Cambridge SoundWorks MegaWorks THX 550 5.1



 

MegaWorks

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
3,819
1
0
The problem in Iran elections is the GUARDIAN COUNCIL. The council has to approve all bills passed by parliament and make sure they conform to the constitution and Islamic law. In effect, the council also has the power to vet all candidates in elections to parliament, the presidency and the Assembly of Experts. One major source of tension is an attempt by the reformists to reduce the council's vetting power. These guys are the problem they're all conservatives, man I hate the conservatives.


------------------------------------------------------
AMD Athlon XP T-Bred B DLT3C 1700+ @ 2.3GHZ (1.775v) 400FSB = 3200+
Abit NF7-S V.2 (nForce2 U 400)
Corsair TwinX XMS 3200LL 512MB @ 2-3-2-6 (2.6v)
Sapphire Radeon 9500 Pro 128MB
Antec TrueBlue 480W
Thermalright SLK-947U with 92mm Vantec Tornado @2800RPM
Maxtor 91531U3 15GB
2x Western Digital WD400BB 40GB serials
Antec PlusView 1000AMG
Cambridge SoundWorks MegaWorks THX 550 5.1



 

maddogchen

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2004
8,905
2
76
Originally posted by: MegaWorks
I think Iran changing, tomorrow there's gonna be an election reformists vs the conservatives, I hope the reformists win the election because this country will never change if the conservatives are in power.
How can they win the election if all the reformists were banned from running?
 

HardWarrior

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,385
7
81
Originally posted by: kage69
Really? N. Korea is strarving but has a long memory, so that makes them the "enemy?" Interesting. So, that "younger liberal generation" will be completly willing to kiss our asses as soon as their current form of government dies out, which will turn Iran into a "nice place." Also interesting.
Yes, really! I didn't say North Korea is the enemy because it's starving or has a long memory, where did you get that? North Korea is an enemy because technically we're still at war, the peace being brought about by an armistice, not a truce. NK is dangerous because it has the ability to "turn SK into a sea of fire", abducts foreign nationals, trades in narcotics to subsidize the national income, and the complete psychopath running the show over there doesn't help either. Their idea of a joke is sending a long range missile over the heads of their neighbors. Do I need to bring up the concentration camps?
You really need to read things a bit more carefully next time you want to chime in. I said the younger generation has the potential to turn things around in Iran, and no mention of them kissing ass was made. I'd like to think once the oppresive theocratic regime in Iran is gone, Iran would lose the sanctions and open up a little. Yeah, it very well could turn out to be a nice place.

Less putting words into others mouths, and more comprehension please.
No, but you did frame NK as something less than optimal when compared to Iran, didn't you? The fact that I added their current situation to the mix doesn't modify your premise one bit. So the fact that we STILL can find a technical reason (we're still at war though no shots have been fired in decades) to hate them, we're justified in spending billions to screw with them? We're JUST as dangerous then. Because I hear people like Bush and Rumsfeld talk constantly how we need to be be prepared for a PERPETUAL war. Just because you indulge in bluster, again something WE do all the time, doesn't mean you're going to bust a grape. You should know that. Or are you under the impression that the NK government would be STUPID enough to touch-off a situation that would lead to the utter devestation of their country? Jung il wants his comforts, not hit by a few small suns. Come on dude, don't you think that the US would have responded to that "test" more harshly if Japan wanted us too. We are Japans "father protector", aren't we?

International relations ain't bean-bag. Nations poke fingers in each other's eyes ALL the time, but that in NO way means WE need to step in like we're in charge of the show. Oh, the "they're run by MADMEN and PSYCHOPATHS" excuse again. You may be suprised to hear this, but many nations think the same of OUR government. And considering current events, I'd say they have more credibility than we do when it comes to pointing-fingers. Maybe when we go bankrupt (officialy) and don't have the money for this BS you'll understand what I'm talking about.

 

HardWarrior

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,385
7
81
Originally posted by: kage69
Really? N. Korea is strarving but has a long memory, so that makes them the "enemy?" Interesting. So, that "younger liberal generation" will be completly willing to kiss our asses as soon as their current form of government dies out, which will turn Iran into a "nice place." Also interesting.
Less putting words into others mouths, and more comprehension please.
Sorry, I missed this but wanted to reply. No, how about less attempted control of the scope of the argument and more understanding that the US isn't the world?

 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
23,583
25,292
136
No, but you did frame NK as something less than optimal when compared to Iran, didn't you?
Correct. Extrapolate however you want, but don't make it sound like I said it.

The fact that I added their current situation to the mix doesn't modify your premise one bit. So the fact that we STILL can find a technical reason (we're still at war though no shots have been fired in decades) to hate them, we're justified in spending billions to screw with them?
Actually, many shots have been fired over the decades. There have been numerous incidents along the DMZ over the years resulting in deaths on both sides. Not all out war obviously, but far from the placid time-out you seem to be portraying. We don't need a technical reason to hate them, and I even hesitate to use the word 'hate.' Our problem with NK hedges on their insane, meglomaniac of a 'great leader.' Were he to stop constantly trying to instigate or blackmail his neighbors, perhaps relations would be better. We screw with them? We maintain the boundaries set forth by the armistice along with our SK allies (who want us there btw) and even go so far to send NK food and fuel oil. Yeah, we got some nerve screwing with them like that.

We're JUST as dangerous then. Because I hear people like Bush and Rumsfeld talk constantly how we need to be be prepared for a PERPETUAL war.
No, we're MORE dangerous. Being the only global mega-power sets you above the rest of the community as far as destructive capability. As much as I hate to say it, Bush and Rumsfeld are doign their jobs in this respect. I'd prefer to hear it from the Pentagon though, but that doesn't make me think the message is any less valid. Perhaps if people like Kim Il weren't in power that would change...

Just because you indulge in bluster, again something WE do all the time, doesn't mean you're going to bust a grape. You should know that. Or are you under the impression that the NK government would be STUPID enough to touch-off a situation that would lead to the utter devestation of their country?
Please, spare us the lecture.
Kim Il's father didn't seem to have too much of a problem with plunging Korea into a bloody drawn-out war, even knowing the South had the backing of the US. I find it hard to believe you could really discount that so easily, what with the 'cult of personality' enjoyed by NKs leadership. I don't think it's a stretch to think Kim Il (and his immediate minions) would share in his father's goals and views. They've already proved to the world that they can't be trusted, and don't give a rat's @ss about the lives of thier own people, let alone the lives of foreign nationals.

Jung il wants his comforts, not hit by a few small suns. Come on dude, don't you think that the US would have responded to that "test" more harshly if Japan wanted us too. We are Japans "father protector", aren't we?
No, I don't. I hardly think Japan, the only country to be on the receiving end of a nuke in history, would 'request' that from us - short of their very existance being in jeopardy. Every year NK spends nearly a third of it's GDP on the military. Have you ever seen a map of NK? The landscape lends itself quite well to the creation of hardened fortresses. Kim Il couldn't care less if half of his population is incinerated, he knows he'll be in a secure bunker smoking his Havanas, sipping his cognac, and amusing himself with an impressive DVD collection.
Also, don't discount Japan and South Korea in the event of a war. Sure both are within range of NKs weaponry, but both also command quite proficient militaries which I doubt will stand idle and let their yankee friends do all the work.

International relations ain't bean-bag. Nations poke fingers in each other's eyes ALL the time, but that in NO way means WE need to step in like we're in charge of the show. Oh, the "they're run by MADMEN and PSYCHOPATHS" excuse again.
You seem to be under the impression that I have advocated we step in and attempt to remove NK as a threat. Guess again. No one is making excuses here bub. Do you really need me to cite examples of why I consider Kim Il a psychopath? Take your displeasure with the Iraq situation elsewhere. NK has a nut at the wheel - deal with it.


You may be suprised to hear this, but many nations think the same of OUR government. And considering current events, I'd say they have more credibility than we do when it comes to pointing-fingers.
Somehow, I'm not surprised. Gee, you're right - I'd forgotten all about the American concentration camps we have going that exterminate political dissidents. I also managed to forget about the government writing off the bottom 30% of our population and letting them die from starvation. Putting Canada in line by firing that ICBM over them, yeah, guess I spaced on that one too. Using the Navy to ferry drugs. Kidnapping foreign directors so Bush could try his hand at producing a movie. What was I thinking? You see where I'm going with this?

Maybe when we go bankrupt (officialy) and don't have the money for this BS you'll understand what I'm talking about.
I don't think you even know what you're talking about. I'm sorry that you consider preventing Kim Il from murdering millions classifies as 'BS.' I really am.

Sorry, I missed this but wanted to reply. No, how about less attempted control of the scope of the argument and more understanding that the US isn't the world?
I'll conceed on the first point, and I'll give you the chance to qoute me as either saying or implying that "the US is the world." Otherwise, I guess you're just a troll lookin for an argument.
 

Sleepyjoe

Junior Member
Jan 27, 2004
7
0
0
I've always found it pretty pathethic that the U.S. Goverment is so quick to sound the alarms each time a country start a nuclear program peaceful or military. I mean, we're talking about THE nuclear super power. The U.S. has so many nukes that it could destroy the world 3 times over.

Anyways, all I see when the U.S. talks down Iran and North Korea is a way to eliminate any possible remaining threat to its national security. When you think about it, how could you possibility hurt the U.S (by conventional state sanctioned military action)? The minute a country would try the stupid idea of lauching an offensive it would see its whole infrastructure desintegrate in 48 hours and never see one radar blip. No, the only threat is by nuclear weapons.

The only reason why the U.S. hasn't taken more "direct" action with North Korea is nukes: North Korea might have them and China has them. If you ask me, the North Korean regime sound a lot nastyer than the one that was just removed from Irak.

I am in no way saying that everyone should have nukes, I'm just saying that because of the fact that the U.S. has the largest nuke arsenal in the world, it doesn't make them very credible when it comes time to force someone else not too have a nuclear program.

 

smashp

Platinum Member
Aug 30, 2003
2,443
0
0
Originally posted by: Sleepyjoe
I've always found it pretty pathethic that the U.S. Goverment is so quick to sound the alarms each time a country start a nuclear program peaceful or military. I mean, we're talking about THE nuclear super power. The U.S. has so many nukes that it could destroy the world 3 times over.

Anyways, all I see when the U.S. talks down Iran and North Korea is a way to eliminate any possible remaining threat to its national security. When you think about it, how could you possibility hurt the U.S (by conventional state sanctioned military action)? The minute a country would try the stupid idea of lauching an offensive it would see its whole infrastructure desintegrate in 48 hours and never see one radar blip. No, the only threat is by nuclear weapons.

The only reason why the U.S. hasn't taken more "direct" action with North Korea is nukes: North Korea might have them and China has them. If you ask me, the North Korean regime sound a lot nastyer than the one that was just removed from Irak.

I am in no way saying that everyone should have nukes, I'm just saying that because of the fact that the U.S. has the largest nuke arsenal in the world, it doesn't make them very credible when it comes time to force someone else not too have a nuclear program.

YOu forget, were the only ones Responcable enough to posess weapons of such power.



 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
23,583
25,292
136
Exactly, you can argue tit for tat all you want, but it comes down to this: nukes don't mix well with fundamental theocracies, or madmen. It's that simple. All the "well we have them, they should be allowed to too!" types are just illustrating their naivete'.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
23,583
25,292
136
I don't think Japan would agree with you.

Maybe so, but that doesn't change anything. Both countries know that if the bombs hadn't been dropped, the outcome would have been worse. The US would have incurred incredible loses, and the population of Japan would most likely have been decimated. Remember, the majority of Japan had no intention of surrendering; they were equipping old men, women, and children with bamboo spears to repel Marines with guns,tanks, and air support! Even after the first bomb hit, they were going to keep fighting. Groups of spear-wielding 'troops' were told to wear pure white sheets as pancho-esque uniforms, in the belief that it would offer protection from the searing light and heat of another bomb attack.

The bombs, as ugly as their use was, saved more lives than they took. That will not be the case next time around I think, if there is a next time anyway...
 

Sleepyjoe

Junior Member
Jan 27, 2004
7
0
0
Yeah, so essentialy, the U.S. should be the only one that has them right? So lets say that the U.S. goverment has another "regime change" craving and this time its apparent that its for self interest instead of security concerns and country in question isn't one that the world doesn't really care about. What does the rest of the world do to persuade the U.S. not to go through with it? Economic sanctions? No...that means economic suicide for most countries. Discuss it at the U.N. ? Nope doesn't work either. Military threat...? In the rest of the worlds dreams. Well I guess we're left with "Ask politely"
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY