Iran

Consider specific people in the fusion research community, business, or politics who should be made aware of polywell research, and how we might reach them.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Sat Dec 15, 2007 8:05 am

Zixinus wrote:I don't think they have enough money to fund the research, and I'm sure that they won't due to political concern.

I find it a sad story that such a country has to be without electricity because of the paranoia of the West.


They have been spending their money on a war with the West. Syria has gotten a lot. Hizballah in Lebanon has gotten a lot.

Which is why they are a little short at this time.

In addition they promised to use nukes on Israel as soon as they had some. Are they bluffing or is it an Austrian Corporal situation? One way to find out is to wait until they have weapons and see if they use them.

You might find this of interest:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... -iran.html

It runs down the Iran North Korea connection.

Nanos
Posts: 339
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 8:57 pm
Location: Scunthorpe, North Lincolnshire, UK
Contact:

Postby Nanos » Sat Dec 15, 2007 9:49 am

I have to say I'm ashamed to be on the side that went in and attacked Syria.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Sat Dec 15, 2007 2:14 pm

Nanos wrote:I have to say I'm ashamed to be on the side that went in and attacked Syria.


The rumors have it that it was a nuke bomb production facility. The strange behavior of Syria, Iran, and North Korea after the fact tends to confirm that view. Also the speed at which they buried the complex is suspicious as well.

Now I don't know your views, but mine are that a Syria under the current regime in possession of nuke weapons is a bad idea. A very bad idea.

That attack may have prevented a nuke war in the ME. Which seems like a good idea to me.

Nanos
Posts: 339
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 8:57 pm
Location: Scunthorpe, North Lincolnshire, UK
Contact:

Postby Nanos » Sat Dec 15, 2007 3:00 pm

Just because a country has nuke weapons doesn't mean it has to use them, I think most countrys nowdays are grown up enough to only use them in self defence, rather than be aggressive with them.

After all, if you use them, your rather going to make a mess of the land you want to take, and using them in your own backyard isn't going to do your own people favours from the fallout.

And to be frank, what business is it of ours anyhow how other countries far away from us handle their neighbours ?

Mumbles
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 3:03 am
Location: Leonardtown, MD, USA

Isolationism...?

Postby Mumbles » Sat Dec 15, 2007 4:34 pm

Nanos wrote:Just because a country has nuke weapons doesn't mean it has to use them, I think most countrys nowdays are grown up enough to only use them in self defence, rather than be aggressive with them.

No, it doesn't have to use them. But Iran has stated publically that Israel should be wiped off the face of the planet. And they just tested a new ballistic missile. Where is this leading, do you think?

They have the stated intent. They have the delivery vehicle (not even taking into account a suicide delivery by hand...). Their oil reserves appear to be dwindling, adding to the pressure that might lead them to do something rash. And they don't have the same cultural frame of reference than those of us in the "west".

They don't think the same. It is NOT possible to reason out what they would or would not do based on western values and expectations.

Nanos wrote:After all, if you use them, your rather going to make a mess of the land you want to take, and using them in your own backyard isn't going to do your own people favours from the fallout.

But they don't care about the land. They probably don't intend to occupy it. That is a holdover from the European nuclear exchange way of thinking. They want to "wipe Israel off the planet"...

Nanos wrote:And to be frank, what business is it of ours anyhow how other countries far away from us handle their neighbours ?
Wow. And here I thought Americans were the main folks who had isolationist tendencies! I guess some in the United Kingdom do as well...

Did none of the myriad of terrorist attacks teach us anything? Iran has been accused :!: of supporting non-state terrorist organizations. What if they just let one weapon slip into terrorists' hands?...

The modern speed of travel, the use of non-traditional weapons and delivery systems (aka, 11 September 2001), the state-bred hatred towards other countries (USA, Israel, and probably the UK to some extent...) and peoples (Jews, Americans). All these things add up to making it a bad idea to sit idly by and wait for Iran to announce they have nuclear weapons. Because that announcement might be a mushroom cloud over Jerusalem, or Haifa, or Tel Aviv... Or New York, D.C., or even London.

My two cents
Be Safe
Mumbles

Roger
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:03 am
Location: Metro NY

Re: Isolationism...?

Postby Roger » Sat Dec 15, 2007 6:18 pm

Mumbles wrote:And they just tested a new ballistic missile.


Who? Saudi Arabia ? Kidding.

Iran has had 2000+km missiles for a while. The Liquid fueled Shahab-4 has the same 2000km range as the Ashoura missile.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite? ... e/ShowFull

I'd be more worried about the 10,000 km range Shahab-6.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world ... issile.htm

A 2000km range missile is owned by most oil rich ME nations. I fail to fathom why you think this Iran missile test is something to even worry about. In the larger context of the region, this test means next to zip.


What worries me is the Iranian Sunburn, mach 4+ cruise missle designed by Russia to defeat the US Aegis based carrier groups. Which is why the US NAvy is replacing the Aegis systems, because of that vulnerability.

Mumbles, I forgot what you were talking about... remind me please.
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.

Roger
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:03 am
Location: Metro NY

Re: Isolationism...?

Postby Roger » Sat Dec 15, 2007 7:02 pm

Mumbles wrote:
Nanos wrote:And to be frank, what business is it of ours anyhow how other countries far away from us handle their neighbours ?
Wow. And here I thought Americans were the main folks who had isolationist tendencies! I guess some in the United Kingdom do as well...


Conflating Isolationism with National Sovereignty ?
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Sat Dec 15, 2007 10:04 pm

BTW we heard a lot of these same arguments in the 30s about the Austrian Corporal.

It scares me. Because I have read my history and I know where that leads.

Let me add that the Corporal's main work of literature is still a best seller in the ME. Do you think the reason so many read it is literary criticism?

What is the Iranian position on Jew genocide in '41 to '45?

It didn't happen (at least on the scales reported) and some one needs to finish the job.

Are those the kind of folks you want to trust with nukes?

===

And what was the Iranian response to the possibility of a nuke counter attack?

We can kill all the Jews in Israel and still only suffer the loss of 20 or 30% of our population.

===

Some people prefer to avoid looking into the abyss. It is so unpleasant. It might require doing bad things.

The avoiders got their noses rubbed in it '39 to '45. It seems they are aching for a second round. It is my fear that the Peacemongers will lead us into another world war by failing to take care of problems when they are small. You know because it might involve attacks and innocents will get killed.

I think avoidance is a bad idea. YMMV.

===

My mom, a staunch Democrat who hates the Iraq war and who lived through WW2 (she was in her late teens at the start), is very afraid of Iran. I take her very seriously on the subject.

Roger
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:03 am
Location: Metro NY

Postby Roger » Sun Dec 16, 2007 3:12 am

It is my fear that the Peacemongers will lead us into another world war

Horse shit, It was the warmongers that started the 1st 2. Lets give equal time to the mongerers. Does make for a more balanced picture, NO ?
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Sun Dec 16, 2007 6:06 am

Roger wrote:It is my fear that the Peacemongers will lead us into another world war

Horse shit, It was the warmongers that started the 1st 2. Lets give equal time to the mongerers. Does make for a more balanced picture, NO ?


Well yes. And had we not listed to the Peacemongers in the 30s you would have another example.

That is the trouble with history. You can't re-run the experiment.

Still - it is well known in geopolitics that weakness invites attack. The weakness need not be military. Political weakness will do as well.

In any case Roger, doesn't the fact that MK is a best seller in certain regions ring your alarm bells? Or do we take the 1930s attitude: is is all hyperbole and clearly not rational, not to mention uncivilized. i.e. it was just bluff, nothing to be concerned about. Well maybe some concern. But war? Out of the question.

The Austrian corporal said if he had been opposed by one company of stout French fighters in his Rhineland adventure he would have been an ex-dictator.

If the current war prevents a worse one we will never know it. Unless we decide to quit to see what happens.

Keegan
Posts: 206
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 6:29 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Postby Keegan » Mon Dec 17, 2007 8:10 am

Mumbles i didnt even need to look at your location info to know you were American.

Im getting rather sick of all these news agencies telling people what to think, rather than reporting the news.

So here is the deal. The war in Iraq was about oil. Possible future wars (Iran) will be about oil. Its not so much about oil itself, its about what currency oil is traded in. There has been a seldom discussed rule over the past decades, enforced by the US that states that oil must be traded in US dollars. This situation helps keep as much American currency circulating as possible. It is good for the US economy. When people stop dealing in US currency this upsets the balance greatly. Endangering further the shaky (psuedo bankrupt) US economy.

Did you know that in 2002 Saddam Hussein tried to move its oil trading away from US currency. Look what happened to him and the county. The moment the US took occupation, oil trading was reset to the US dollar.

Early this year Iran has been threatening to do the same, and look at all the anti Iran televised BS that has been rammed down the publics throat.

Who knows what the future will bring. I personally have got nothing against Iran, but when people sit down for their nightly news i ask that they take what they hear with a grain of salt and be aware of the powers that be, their lies, their agenda and the bigger picture.

peace -k
Purity is Power

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Mon Dec 17, 2007 8:55 am

Keegan wrote:Mumbles i didnt even need to look at your location info to know you were American.

Im getting rather sick of all these news agencies telling people what to think, rather than reporting the news.

So here is the deal. The war in Iraq was about oil. Possible future wars (Iran) will be about oil. Its not so much about oil itself, its about what currency oil is traded in. There has been a seldom discussed rule over the past decades, enforced by the US that states that oil must be traded in US dollars. This situation helps keep as much American currency circulating as possible. It is good for the US economy. When people stop dealing in US currency this upsets the balance greatly. Endangering further the shaky (psuedo bankrupt) US economy.

Did you know that in 2002 Saddam Hussein tried to move its oil trading away from US currency. Look what happened to him and the county. The moment the US took occupation, oil trading was reset to the US dollar.

Early this year Iran has been threatening to do the same, and look at all the anti Iran televised BS that has been rammed down the publics throat.

Who knows what the future will bring. I personally have got nothing against Iran, but when people sit down for their nightly news i ask that they take what they hear with a grain of salt and be aware of the powers that be, their lies, their agenda and the bigger picture.

peace -k


Red herring. It makes no difference what currency oil is traded in when you have floating exchange rates and an efficient market for currency trading.

The problem with Iran is not what currency they trade in, but what the geopolitical ambitions of the regime are.

The whole region is overflowing with despotism. Iraq is an attempt to reverse that trend. Self government being an improvement over rule by fiat. According to us.

Iraq had two important advantages from our stand point. No one liked Saddam and its central location in the region gives us dominance of the region.

Oil is important only so far as it finances bad intentions.

===

Had we dictated oil prices to Iraq that might bolster your argument. Instead we let them sell it for whatever they can get and keep the money.

===

So if it was all about oil why didn't we just take ownership?

scareduck
Posts: 552
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:03 am

Postby scareduck » Mon Dec 17, 2007 7:32 pm

MSimon wrote:So if it was all about oil why didn't we just take ownership?

This is a good question; the obvious answer is that it would wreck our relations with the other oil states, and you've got to pick your battles (literally, in this case). Why did the U.S. quickly back down after the abortive coup in Venezuela? There's only so many wars you can fight at once.

Regardless of what happens in the Persian Gulf states, it's vital that the West figure out how to make terrestrial controlled fusion work. Obviating all of that expense of maintaining standing armies in areas that do not want them would be a huge boost.

Nanos
Posts: 339
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 8:57 pm
Location: Scunthorpe, North Lincolnshire, UK
Contact:

Postby Nanos » Tue Dec 18, 2007 7:31 am

I disagree about the importance of which currency oil is traded in, some links for those interested in the possible side effects of going from dollar to euro;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Oil_Bourse

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CLA410A.html

http://www.worldpress.org/Mideast/2314.cfm


What are the geopolitical ambitions of Iran ?

So far, we have had one of their decision makes voice off about one of their neighbours, no difference to any of our leaders doing the same thing about how we are going to go in and sort out some other country..

We all also know that politicans tend to say one thing and do another.


If Iran had more of an economic symbiotic relationship with its neighbours, it would have less reasons to want to upset them, so sanctions tend to hurt the situation rather than improve it in my view..


> Instead we let them sell it for whatever they can get and
> keep the money.

Actually.. don't they only keep something like 17% of the money I seem to recal, and has that strike ever ended in the main refinary in Iraq ? (Last I heard it was still going and as a consquence Isreal was benefiting from the stuff going in their direction..)

The price of petrol since the US went in has gone up 300%, for all of Saddams faults, he at least helped provide cheap fuel for his people..

We liked Saddam when it suited us, and people are beginning to notice that you do need a firm hand to control the local population in Iraq, so whilst Saddam welded a rod of iron, it was necessary to keep his country together.

You only have to look to such places as the UK to see what effect a more liberal approach to law and order has on decent citizens.

If you speak with actual good citizens from Iraq, you soon discover that many miss the old days, and many of the ones that do not, are themselves former criminals !

Nowdays hospitals go short of supplies, fuel is expensive, local gangs are beginning to run the neigbbourhoods, its starting to sound like the UK...


Return to “Networking”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests