Sanctions on Iran are good for the environment

[Hells Bells]

It seems to me that america has by far become alot more eco aware in the past few years. Probably because eco is more economical, with the rise in gas prices, wind power being cheaper than regular power for the first time ever. If this trend continues i can see an eventuality where our addiction to oil is cured completely. I think that sanctions on iran will jumpstart this process, and will get the more right wing people on board, simply because nobody wants to get nuked any time soon. A certain percentage of ethanol is being added to the gasoline at stations, and hybrid cars are in the works, so when the international community wises up and passes those sanctions, america and hopefully the rest of the world will be ready to change off of oil. I dont think anyone is willing to tolerate any higher gas prices, and this isnt the 1980s, there are other options available. So that is one of the reasons i think the other arab nations, such as saudi arabia are afraid of irans nuclear programme, the end of foreign dependency on oil would be just as disastrous to them and most likely more than a nuclear disaster in iran. Seriously president achmenidijad is stupid, his country is very seismically unstable and they are just inviting a disaster.

so do you agree with my notion that sanctions on iran will be good for the environment?


edit i wont be replying for a few hours as i have to go to a barbeque

[John Wayne]

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/topworldtables1_2.html

I think that this table shows jut how...important Iranian oil really is. Out of thirteen countries that produce more than two million barrels of oil perday, Iran is number four on the list with 4.09 million barrels perday. The USA is at DOUBLE the production capacity of the Iranians! I do consent that this data is old and was taken from a wikipedia link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum), but I do not think that much has changed in two years. So while economic sanctions against Iran might be a good idea in dealing with the readicalized Gov. that is in power, it is just a simple fact that those same sanctions will not have an effect on the eco. of the world.

[Last Roman]

ya, not much of our oil comes from Iran, so I don't know how much good economic sanctions would do.

[Freddie]

ya, not much of our oil comes from Iran, so I don't know how much good economic sanctions would do.

Sanctions can take years to take effect. Using Iraq as precedent in the end scansions only punish the civilians as the leaders and corrupt officials will reap any profits from illegal smuggling or concessions. Then to stop the civilians overthrowing the establishment they use the military to punish towns and villages they dare to stand up the ruling party and to prevent them from overthrowing them.

Sadly in places like this war is for the want of a better word the best option if you want to get things done.

[gigagaia]

Sadly in places like this war is for the want of a better word the best option if you want to get things done.

So, let me get this straight, war is the best option...
I don't see any of the intended effects come through in Iraq in the timeframe given.
I don't belive war solved our problems in Vietnam.
I don't really remember Soviet results in Afghansitan.
Nicaragua didn't really go through as planned.

Do you have any examples where war has been a chosen option and has payed off long-term to prove your theory?

[Freddie]

So, let me get this straight, war is the best option...
I don't see any of the intended effects come through in Iraq in the timeframe given.
I don't belive war solved our problems in Vietnam.
I don't really remember Soviet results in Afghansitan.
Nicaragua didn't really go through as planned.

Do you have any examples where war has been a chosen option and has payed off long-term to prove your theory?

Let’s see now....

Slavery, Nazism, Communism............no your right war has never solved anything.

I’m saying War is right or is the only means to an end I was merely contrasting it to the effectiveness of sanctions.

[gigagaia]

Let’s see now....

Slavery, Nazism, Communism............no your right war has never solved anything.

I’m saying War is right or is the only means to an end I was merely contrasting it to the effectiveness of sanctions.

Let's see now:

Slavery was not ended by a war as such, the civil war was about a lot more than just slavery and left lasting divisions among the American people.
Nazism got itself into a war (read my post thoroughly please), and was not solved by an aggressive war.
Communism was not ended by a war either. In fact it spread despite American wars in Vietnam and sponsored wars in Central America.

Sometimes hard military force is needed to stop grave crimes against humanity (slavery). But almost always, aggressive war causes more problems than you think it solves, wedging in social divisions, hatreds and reasons to keep fighting (see Iraq).

Give me a real example.

[Carach]

So, let me get this straight, war is the best option...
I don't see any of the intended effects come through in Iraq in the timeframe given.
I don't belive war solved our problems in Vietnam.
I don't really remember Soviet results in Afghansitan.
Nicaragua didn't really go through as planned.

Do you have any examples where war has been a chosen option and has payed off long-term to prove your theory?

iraq has a lot of outside influence, has been plagued by bad luck and annoying media since the start.

America were winning vietnam but public opinion back home forced them to pull out (public opinion wants that again now, but looks like the govt. have learned a lesson and stuck it out this time)

Your selective about afghanistan? is that because the coalition have done well in afghanistan?

cant comment on the last.

Nazi germany could only be stopped by war.
Agressive germany could only be stopped by war (ww1).
theres quite a few so im not going to list them all, theres 2 examples for you.
Hitler was similar to what iran are like now, stalling with talks all the time but never intending the talks to go anywhere - he was agressive too (iran make lots of threats, supply terrorists, building up a massive armed forces etc etc)

Action speaks louder than words. Talking can only get you so far...Action is the only way to get some things done.

There are different ways to try to solve problems other than bombing people who may pose a threat.

If the US really wants to prevent Iran from having nuclear-warfare capabilities, the gov't could choose an option cheaper than a multi-billion dollar war; multi-million dollar CANDU reactors. The Canadian nuclear reactor design uses NON-enriched U 238 (UO2). Yep - thats right - it doesn't use weapons-grade uranium. Instead of bombing a nuclear plant and starting an international war, investment in CANDU reactors would get rid of the weapons problem, and there would be no need for enrichment facilities. They are already in use in India, S Korea, Canada, China, and a few other places.
Also, not invading the ME for 10 years could help out with the USA's reputation among the Islamic youth, who will not have grown up in a world of US invasions and rule. Even if it doesn't, it saves money and international support. Just a suggestion.

people have tried doing things along those lines prophet (russia offering to enrich the uranium etc) and iran refused.
they are stalling until they achieve their goals, just like N.Korea did

[LSJ]

I know that it will be very unlikely, because the Iranian government is very non-cooperative.
In any case, I believe that a war would not be a great course of action unless Iran becomes actively aggressive and is proven to have nuclear weapons in production.
If the country does start to get a nuclear arsenal in production, I would support some sort of aggressive action due to the threat the leaders pose to peace in the ME.

[Mangalore]

...
Agressive germany could only be stopped by war (ww1).
...

that's a myth, aggressive Europe could only be stopped by war. Germany was not any more or less warlike than the rest of europe, their military was in relative terms not unusually high if one considers the strategic situation. 40 years of peace without peaceful understanding had led to an arms race that left every single European power itching for using their weapons to resolve their problems. Germany was sadly ruled by incapable men when the crisis hit the fan and was thus inept in calming the escalation, instead they ended up accelerating it because of the disfavour in odds against germany.

[Hub'ite]

Forget sanctions, war is the only answer.

[John Wayne]

In the immortal words of a good friend of mine, "We should carpet bomb the [explative deleted] to [dito]!!!!""

And in this case, I think he may be right!

[IamthePope]

In the immortal words of a good friend of mine, "We should carpet bomb the [explative deleted] to [dito]!!!!""

And in this case, I think he may be right!

This could be the "final solution" to just about every problem. I imagine it might be what the Roman's would have contemplated: Just nuke 'em until the desert becomes an ash tray. But economic sanctions might prove more politically sound, especially since economic sanctions could be the reaction of the rest of the world towards the US should we use the nuclear option.

I still find it pretty freakin awesome that we have the capability to annihilate another nation on a whim. Maybe that's what the Iranians want. Puts it in perspective.

[Tom Paine]

Of course, let's get the whole Middle East (minus Israel) up in arms against us, along with the rest of the world, and still be utterly ineffective....

[John Wayne]

Of course, let's get the whole Middle East (minus Israel) up in arms against us, along with the rest of the world, and still be utterly ineffective....

Isn't that already happening? With the 'Oil Wars' of Bush in full swing and the unwavering American alliance with Israel, not to many people, especially the 1.0+ billion muslims, in the world are fans of the good ol' USA.

[Tom Paine]

Isn't that already happening? With the 'Oil Wars' of Bush in full swing and the unwavering American alliance with Israel, not to many people, especially the 1.0+ billion muslims, in the world are fans of the good ol' USA.

You really want to alienate the few allies you ahve left, then? Because carpet bombing a nation will do exactly that.

[John Wayne]

You really want to alienate the few allies you ahve left, then? Because carpet bombing a nation will do exactly that.

Not really. I'm just sick and tired of listening to the same message, that the ME is a moshpit from ****, every single day. And this...

In the immortal words of a good friend of mine, "We should carpet bomb the [explative deleted] to [dito]!!!!""

Was written when I was under extreme duress. I apologize for it, as it was stupid.

[Hub'ite]

Of course, let's get the whole Middle East (minus Israel) up in arms against us, along with the rest of the world, and still be utterly ineffective....

Does it matter? The ME hates us anyways. They're a 3rd world mess anyways.

[ErikinWest]

Does it matter? The ME hates us anyways. They're a 3rd world mess anyways.

Actually they're not a third world mess. All of the Middle-Eastern countries are 2nd World (Developing). Yemen is the only 3rd World Country.

And UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait are considered developed 1st World nations.

Please don't spout off random ignorant statements.

Erik

[Erik]

Actually they're not a third world mess. All of the Middle-Eastern countries are 2nd World (Developing). Yemen is the only 3rd World Country.

No no NO!
The words 1st/2nd/3rd world are based on a book about the French revolution:
1st world = the church = the western democracies.
2nd world= the royalty = the communists.
3rd world = the people = the newly independant formar colonies.

This makes Iran ("Persia") 3rd world.

And UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait are considered developed 1st World nations.

No, they are also 3rd world.
The idea was actually that the 3rd world would become as rich and successfull as the 1st and 2nd world. (just like the free people from the French revolution).
If anything they are a shining example of what the 3rd world was supposed to be.

Is it just me, or is the West emphasizing the revolutionaries and not on the ones who actually like their leader, and when they DO look at the pro-Governmentals, they are put across as right-wing radicals, not as people with their own opinions?

I got the same feeling.

The West has a very bad reputation on knowing what the Iranian people wants.
And I doubt they have learned much in the past decades.

Sanctions will do nothing but effect the people, the idea that iran is not a violent dictatorship is laughable. The Mullahs grow fat off the oil profits.

Can somebody comfirm this?
I always beleived all Islamic religious leaders lead a simple life without much luxeries, not at all like their secular leaders.
Or is Iran an exception to this rule?