I had to smile in disbelief at the appalling arrogance you demonstrate with these statements. We are so disappointed in ourselves, and are sorry to have disappointed you. I’ll try to stay in-bounds next time.Try to get past all the conspiracy theories and self-loathing and consider that some of the members of the "self-selected" community might see things differently:
It is possible that the Iranian regime is irrational in its motivations. Read a bit about Shia eschatology.
It is possible that they are developing a nuclear weapons capability. There are far easier roads to nuclear electrical generation.
It is possible that they seek to strike Israel with nuclear weapons. Are we to ignore concurrent advances in ballistic missile technology?
I am as open to these possibilities as I am to the idea that the situation is being manipulated to further other objectives. I don’t see this as evidence of a lack of critical thinking, but a consideration of the facts about the Iranian theocracy, the nature of Shia Islam and twelvers in particular, and the statements of the Iranian leadership. Lots of people can understand Farsi, and there is no mistranslation of say, the speech Ahmajinadad gave at the UN (for example).
It is possible that this is a real threat, and one that will resolve itself. I am not willing to accept a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv as one of the outcomes. I am suspcious of the timing (as CM stated). I am aware that war has a cost (I am a former infantry officer in the US Army), but I am also aware that allowing a dangerous regime to obtain nuclear weapons is a bad thing.
A nuclear detonation anywhere may bring "ruin upon us all" too.
Get off your high horse and consider that you may not be the smartest guy in the room.
Rector
That’s why the US put Marines in Australia. You always need a Plan B.
[quote=debu]That such a significant cohort of CM.com commenters are members of the war party is worrying, and disappointing. To a person I suspect they are unaware of the fact helpfully noted by HarryFlashman above regarding the deliberate mistranslation of Ahmedinejad’s remarks by MEMRI and, as intended, the subsequent parrotting of it ad nauseam by the MSM and politicians.
I had hoped that this self-selected community at CM.com were true critical thinkers but it seems that the MSM has done its job well as even here we find many supporting a war that will bring ruin upon us all.
[/quote]
I’m wondering who is delusional. No one said anything advocating or supporting war. It’s quite insulting to call folks here "members of the war party". I’m just curious. In your opinion, did Ahmedinejad deny the existence of the Holocaust or was he just misquoted? You evidently are well informed on the issue and I’d like to get your take on things.
(CM wrote)It seems confusing if they think as we do, but odds are their motivations are very different so they are probably approaching the issue from a different direction. Some possible intentions and motivations that come to mind:Once again, I am deeply confused as to the timing of the perception of an Iranian threat, right now at this critical moment of economic weakness. The very last thing the world economies need is a vastly increased price for oil, which is precisely what a war with Iran will deliver.
Possibility #1: The US and Western leadership intentions are for war, and they are (over?)confident in their ability to neuter Iran and secure the Strait within one or two months’ time and avoid prolonged economic distress. I like some others think that is unrealistic (I think Iran could be mostly neutralized but taking far longer and at a much higher cost), but we’ve seen how over-optimistic the US leadership was about taking care of Iraq. The motives for taking on Iran may include thwarting it’s nuclear ambitions and preventing a nuclear arms race in the region, but the primary motive is securing a long-term source for oil. The US makes deals to "buy off" China & Russia into not getting involved, and China & Russia accept the deal assuming that the US will be biting off more than it can chew in trying to secure the region, and ready themselves to move into the power vacuum created when the West eventually leaves. Kind of a "take one step back to take two steps forward" motivation.
Possibility #2: The US and West don’t want war, but want to "contain" Iran and are deliberately trying to keep tensions high to keep attention diverted from domestic issues. If Iran over-reacts then the likely result is war and worldwide economic decline, but Iran gets assigned much of the blame for triggering it and the West can use the opportunity to install a friendlier regime for long term stability. This also implies a certain level of confidence or over-confidence in their ability to neutralize Iran quickly.
Possibility #3: The US leadership doesn’t want war, but are feeling very threatened by the possibility of Iran delivering oil without the use of dollars. The US leadership feels a massive threat display and crippling sanctions are needed to dissuade Iran from moving away from the dollar. They may or may not feel confident in their ability to neutralize Iran quickly, but feel risking a potential war is better (for them) than the alternative of an almost certain major weakening in dollar dominance.
In all three of these cases, I’m assuming that they think of the nuclear issue as either a secondary concern or a convenient justification. If military action occurs, I think we’ll see if this turns out to be true or not by seeing if any Western military actions are limited to bombing nuclear sites and the military defenses near those sites or the Strait of Hormuz. If the scope expands far outside these areas, then I think that will go a long way demonstrating that the real motivation is about oil or power.
And lastly, as a more "outside" possibility… say there are certain power players in government and finance who would find such a disruption an opportunity to increase their wealth or power. What may be bad for the economy as a whole might be exceptionally profitable for an influential few. If those power players have done their homework they might (like us) see a painful economic decline as an inevitability, and may decide to choose the trigger-point and nature of the decline so they have a greater chance to personally profit from it. It’s a kind of mindset that reminds me of a Star Trek quote regarding the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition:
Dax: As the 34th Rule of Acquisition states, "Peace is good for business".
Quark: That’s the 35th Rule.
Dax: Oh, you’re right. What’s the 34th?
Quark: "War is good for business". It’s easy to get them confused.
- Nick
Aaaah… if only we HAD oil!!
Mike
[quote=Mark_BC][quote=Ruhh]
Just a thought. A friend of mine mentioned that an oil shock would be a great way to gain more support for the XL Keystone pipeline.
[/quote]
I didn’t understand why Obama opposed the pipeline. As you say, maybe we need a shock first. I personally am deadset against the Northern Gateway pipeline, for both environmental and strategic reasons. North America’s oil should stay in North America. We shouldbe using it to build out a solar energy infrastructure, not sending it to Asia to burn in ICE’s, never to be seen again. Plus, when global currencies collapse and the only thing of value is energy, food and to some extent minerals, then why would any country export oil? What is there of value that it could be traded for?
[/quote]
What may we want to sell it for you ask? Well, maybe something that we dumbasses Canadians can’t make for ourselves: cars!
[quote=debu]
I had hoped that this self-selected community at CM.com were true critical thinkers but it seems that the MSM has done its job well as even here we find many supporting a war that will bring ruin upon us all.
[/quote]
Who cares if war brings ruin upon us…gold will skyrocket and we will all be RICH!!!
Oops, I forgot, I sold my gold . So much for my career as a war profiteer…
I would click on it for JAGs comment 
[quote=nickbert]
Possibility #1: The US and Western leadership intentions are for war, and they are (over?)confident in their ability to neuter Iran and secure the Strait within one or two months' time and avoid prolonged economic distress. Possibility #2: The US and West don't want war, but want to "contain" Iran and are deliberately trying to keep tensions high to keep attention diverted from domestic issues. Possibility #3: The US leadership doesn't want war, but are feeling very threatened by the possibility of Iran delivering oil without the use of dollars. The US leadership feels a massive threat display and crippling sanctions are needed to dissuade Iran from moving away from the dollar. They may or may not feel confident in their ability to neutralize Iran quickly, but feel risking a potential war is better (for them) than the alternative of an almost certain major weakening in dollar dominance. [/quote] My feeling is that it's a combination of 2 and 3. Any command-level officer in the US armed forces that's telling the politicos that Iran will be a "cakewalk" or quick, or that the risks are "manageable" is outta their ever-lovin' mind. Outright acts of war will bring on all sorts of asymmetric responses by Iran (in addition to whatever military responses they can muster) in the form of terror attacks up and down the ME (and possibly in the US and Europe [if NATO or EU countries are "with us"]), in my opinion. And the economies of the world are stretched so tight (and so reliant on figurative duct tape and baling wire to hold them together) that the shocks that would accompany an actual outbreak of hostilities IMO will send them careening into brick walls everywhere. But maybe the folks in charge know the economy is going down anyway, and they figure they can blame the Big Crash on Iran. "Gee, all them green shoots were coming up all over and then IRAN had to go and ruin it all!" In happier news, it's almost time to get my seeds started for Garden-Rama 2012... Viva -- Sager
(CM wrote)
Once again, I am deeply confused as to the timing of the perception of an Iranian threat, right now at this critical moment of economic weakness. The very last thing the world economies need is a vastly increased price for oil, which is precisely what a war with Iran will deliver.
My pea sized brain says it is all a load of crap . The war mongers and the oil cartel are loving the income they are getting off this Iran mess .
If the price of oil was to drop 50% the economy would fix itself in short order . I know this would not fix the other 2 "E’s" but might buy some time…
It is not going to happen so no reason to dwell on it but …
You smart one can blow holes in my thinking and come up with something .
FM
New regs are expected to add 25 cents to price of gas. So let’s invade Iran, Libya may devolve into civil war still, and Iraq is going that way. Good Job America!
Are government insiders rigging events to play oil price swing? Think it is not possible? Read the book "Throw Them All Out" as it will change your mind. Our global leaders are corrupt (see U.N. past leaders for an example).
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/13/us-iran-russia-nato-idUSTRE80C1BI20120113
Russia says would be threatened by Iran military action
Rogozin was speaking two days after the killing of a nuclear scientist in Tehran by a hitman on a motorcycle.
Kremlin Security Council head Nikolai Patrushev, who is close to Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, said Israel was pushing the United States towards war with Iran, according to the Interfax news agency.
Russia, however, opposes a boycott of Iranian oil.
"We are definitely interested in the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction," Rogozin said on Friday. "But at the same time, we believe that any country has the right to have what it needs to feel comfortable, including Iran."
Rogozin, often described as an anti-Western hawk, was appointed deputy prime minister in December, and will oversee Russia’s defense sector when he returns to Moscow.
Roundhouse -Ask and ye shall receive. Comment ‘liking’ will be included in the new site - which should be available to interested beta testers in just a few weeks.
A
What I like(d) about this site was that it DIDN’T have like buttons. I find on sites with heavy comment rating capabilities people tend to spend too much time focused on ganging up on posters or winning points, rather than analysis. Sometimes new and insightful ideas are not well received by the herd mentality.You can "dislike" this comment if you choose…
I think rather than Dislike buttons, only Like buttons, would help. It would guage how well a person’s post was received - without too adversely penalizing how unwell a post might be received.
At the same time, how will we handle removal of controversial topics or comments (y’know what I’m talking about) that are well-liked?
Poet
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-16565563
China has criticised sanctions imposed by the US on a Chinese firm for selling refined petroleum products to Iran.
China’s foreign ministry said imposing unilateral sanctions on Zhuhai Zhenrong based on US law was "unreasonable".
The US said on Thursday Zhuhai Zhenrong was one of three international firms to be punished for dealing with Iran.
It comes as Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao visits Arab oil-producing nations amid fears of major sanctions-related disruption to Iranian oil exports.
Mr Wen visited Saudi Arabia - China’s biggest source of imported oil - on Saturday.
He told Saudi Prince Nayef both countries are "in important stages of development and there are broad prospects for enhancing cooperation," China’s state-run news agency Xinhua reports.
Rial @ 17,500. I don’t get it! Both oanda.com and Yahoo finance show the the Rial has not been higher than 11,200 in the past year. Did any one else check this fact?
War is one way to temporarily get out of a recession. Of course $250 per barrel would send the world into a depression…
Will China really stop importing the half million BBL/Day from Iran? I can’t imagine that would be in their best interest…
MrEnergyCzar