Go Back   English Forum Switzerland > Off-Topic > Off-Topic > International affairs/politics  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #161  
Old 04.01.2012, 17:27
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 787
Groaned at 77 Times in 59 Posts
Thanked 1,540 Times in 741 Posts
leonie has a reputation beyond reputeleonie has a reputation beyond reputeleonie has a reputation beyond reputeleonie has a reputation beyond reputeleonie has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Strike on Iran's Military Base. WW3 Anyone?

Quote:
View Post
About "Economically it may not make much sense for Iran to produce its own enriched uranium"

It is not an economic question; the unanswered question is "apart from weapons what do you use enriched uranium for?"
Civil nuclear power generation...
http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=133185
Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 04.01.2012, 17:37
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 11,625
Groaned at 580 Times in 488 Posts
Thanked 20,915 Times in 10,988 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Strike on Iran's Military Base. WW3 Anyone?

Quote:
View Post
from Wikipedia:


Iran has the right to civilly use nuclear power. Economically it may not make much sense for Iran to produce its own enriched uranium. This is no proof that the production of enriched uranium is part of a weapons program (it would not be the first time that a government pursue uneconomical solutions).

Of course Iran's behaviour is very suspicious, but I believe there should be no military measures taken until it is proven beyond reasonable doubt, that Iran is indeed guilty of the crime which it is accused of.
I see you did not give the link to this Wikipedia article; probably because it distinguishes between "low enriched uranium" for civil use (usually 3/5%) & "high enriched uranium" for military use (high means 20% or more).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_uranium

I quote "Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said his country has produced its first batch of uranium enriched to 20%."

@Leonie - why did you post an article on "natural" uranium when we are talking about enriched uranium
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 04.01.2012, 17:41
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 787
Groaned at 77 Times in 59 Posts
Thanked 1,540 Times in 741 Posts
leonie has a reputation beyond reputeleonie has a reputation beyond reputeleonie has a reputation beyond reputeleonie has a reputation beyond reputeleonie has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Strike on Iran's Military Base. WW3 Anyone?

Quote:
View Post
@Leonie - why did you post an article on "natural" uranium when we are talking about enriched uranium
because I didn't read it... carefully sorry
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank leonie for this useful post:
  #164  
Old 04.01.2012, 17:52
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: CH
Posts: 11,145
Groaned at 357 Times in 292 Posts
Thanked 16,471 Times in 8,374 Posts
greenmount has a reputation beyond reputegreenmount has a reputation beyond reputegreenmount has a reputation beyond reputegreenmount has a reputation beyond reputegreenmount has a reputation beyond reputegreenmount has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Strike on Iran's Military Base. WW3 Anyone?

Quote:
View Post
Are you sure there is no difference between liking a country and wanting to live in a place with a vastly superior standard of life? You should not forget that most people are opportunists. It is possible that some people despite hating US policy want to live there, because the living standard there is vastly superior to where they happen to live. The USA just happen to be the developed country which is most present in this places and thus it's way of live is the best known.
It's not only the higher standard of living people are looking for, but also the openess of society and USA is still regarded as a melting pot where everyone has more or less equal chances no matter the place of origin. USA has a better image, no doubt about that, although maybe not realistic.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank greenmount for this useful post:
  #165  
Old 04.01.2012, 23:40
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 787
Groaned at 77 Times in 59 Posts
Thanked 1,540 Times in 741 Posts
leonie has a reputation beyond reputeleonie has a reputation beyond reputeleonie has a reputation beyond reputeleonie has a reputation beyond reputeleonie has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Strike on Iran's Military Base. WW3 Anyone?

Quote:
View Post
....
That's the idea of war for oil: You ensure instability and therefore no price fixings. That's much more important that securing the oil fields of one or two countries.
I think there is no mastermind creating instability around the oil fields...
US has to be constantly at war because it has a huge Army. It has grown a really big industrial military complex which must be at work. I was looking for the numbers and came across a recent article about it:
Quote:
The numbers stagger: Over 3 million “defense” employees run with a budget of more than a trillion dollars a year (this includes not only the Department of Defense, but also the myriad of secret and not-so-secret departments and agencies that participate in the imperial project). This insular and self-contained World of War-making spends more dollars, directs more persons, and ruins more lives and economies than any other organization on the planet. The Navy has 11 super-carrier battle groups. The rest of the world, combined, has zero. The Air Force has hundreds of stealth bombers and fighters. The rest of the world, combined, has zero. There are over 1,000 military installations scattered across 63 countries, covering 1,105 square miles — the equivalent of 48 Manhattan Islands. The rest of the world’s countries prefer to keep their bases inside their own borders. While foreign armies tend to stand still, our military has hopped, skipped, and jumped its way across the world — in the ’80s: Iran, El Salvador, Libya, Lebanon, Grenada, Honduras, the Persian Gulf, Bolivia, Panama; in the ’90s: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Zaire, Sierra Leone, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Somalia, Serbia; in the last decade: Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq (again), the Philippines, Georgia, Haiti, Pakistan; and at present, with drone assassins at our happy fingers, our nation wars without warning, without debate, without vote, at any time, in any place, for any reason.
..............
With the cost of conquest running up to a trillion dollars a year, America’s national debt has grown to $15 trillion, with 80% of the interest due solely to military expenditures. This catastrophic bill exceeds imagination.
http://original.antiwar.com/wildermu...standing-army/

Nobody can simply stop feeding this apparatus. Millions of families, jobs, people at all levels of power are a part of this complex. Maybe US has a huge military not because it always participates in wars but vice versa -- US always participates in wars because it has developed a huge military?

Last edited by leonie; 04.01.2012 at 23:58.
Reply With Quote
  #166  
Old 05.01.2012, 14:59
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 11,625
Groaned at 580 Times in 488 Posts
Thanked 20,915 Times in 10,988 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Strike on Iran's Military Base. WW3 Anyone?

Quote:
View Post
To be honest has the strategy worked more often than it backfired. In the 19th century the world was simple: You start a war to win territory. Today life isn't so easy anymore thanks to all this freedom, democracy, UN, international laws and stuff... so what does a super power that is technically not able to become more super through invasions? Making sure that others don't manage to catch up. Easiest way to destabilize regions is to give two sides weapons and let them kill each other. Those bad Mullahs in Iran? They got US weapons from Reagan. Not to win against Saddam, but to make this war long and bloody.
If the costs are high on both sides the entire region will not stabilize for decades. That's a good thing cause one really strong country that could lead the other OPEC gang would be a pretty high risk.

That's the idea of war for oil: You ensure instability and therefore no price fixings. That's much more important that securing the oil fields of one or two countries.
Trouble is that everybody is doing it now; I mean causing instability, e.g. Pakistan in Afghanistan, Iran in Lebanon, multiple countries in Palestine.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank marton for this useful post:
  #167  
Old 07.01.2012, 18:09
phdoofus's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: City by the Bay
Posts: 2,357
Groaned at 96 Times in 56 Posts
Thanked 3,205 Times in 1,227 Posts
phdoofus has a reputation beyond reputephdoofus has a reputation beyond reputephdoofus has a reputation beyond reputephdoofus has a reputation beyond reputephdoofus has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Strike on Iran's Military Base. WW3 Anyone?

Quote:
View Post
Nobody can simply stop feeding this apparatus. Millions of families, jobs, people at all levels of power are a part of this complex. Maybe US has a huge military not because it always participates in wars but vice versa -- US always participates in wars because it has developed a huge military?
The American public would gladly not pay for a lot of theirs if, for example, the Euros could be counted on to contribute (policing actions in their own back yard, protecting trade routes, etc). As it is, it's most America that's paying for NATO and that's the way the Euros like it: free protection.

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-06-10/w...er?_s=PM:WORLD
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank phdoofus for this useful post:
  #168  
Old 08.01.2012, 01:42
Wollishofener's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Glattbrugg
Posts: 18,978
Groaned at 332 Times in 257 Posts
Thanked 11,715 Times in 6,858 Posts
Wollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Strike on Iran's Military Base. WW3 Anyone?

Quote:
View Post
Trouble is that everybody is doing it now; I mean causing instability, e.g. Pakistan in Afghanistan, Iran in Lebanon, multiple countries in Palestine.
Instability is not the aim of those regional powers but a side-result of their attempt to get more international influence. Pakistan does not want instability in Afghanistan but more stability their way as an instable Afghanistan is a danger for Pakistan. What makes Afghanistan instable is that Pakistan tries to extend its influence in the North-East and the centre (mainly Sunni areas) while Iran wants to extend its influence in the mainly Shi'ite Herat region, and the both want to hinder either Pakistani or Afghan or Iranian Belutchistan from developing secessionist aspirations. Iran in case of Lebanon, when being visited by Lebanon State President General Michel Sulaiman entered into various economic co-operation agreements with him even if this infuriated Sheikh Nasrullah. In the meantime, also the Prime Minster went into touch with Tehran, and so, the Iranians are in business with competing political movements in Lebanon, which is good for stability in Lebanon. Palestine is more complicated as everybody has his local allies. Saudi interests with Hamas, the USA with Israel, Syria with el-Saika, Egypt with el-Fatah and the PLA (both PLO members). Things are on the move anyway, with the future of Syria becoming more uncertain by the hour, most of the establishment of the Tunisian Néo-Destour Party (Social Democrats) having joined that "moderate Islamist Party" makes Tunisia a support basis for el-Fatah. More complicated even in Egypt where the party establishment of the National Democratic Party disappeared but apparently re-emerged as part of the "Moderate wing of the Muslim Brotherhood" and where nobody knows what play the officers-corps is playing. And Israel lost a potentially valuable ally in Western Europe, when that Moroccan Jew, Strauss-Kahn, had to bury his dreams of becoming French President. For Hamas, matters look bad. For years, Iran had its supplies to Hamas financed by Saudi Arabian interests, but as the IRI-KSA relations have cooled down drastically the deal no longer works as it did before. And Iran is not so much in favour of Sunni Hamas as some people in the West believe. Interesting will be the developments at PFLP and PDFLP, the two organisations (both of them PLO members) with leftwing-socialist leanings who for ages were supported by Mr Khaddafi and Hussein al-Takriti (Saddam), and were to some extent allied with el-Saika and so indirectly with the Syrian Mukhaberat. Both organisations in fact are lead by some Greek-Orthodox gents who will fight Hamas influence as much as they can.
Reply With Quote
  #169  
Old 08.01.2012, 01:54
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 787
Groaned at 77 Times in 59 Posts
Thanked 1,540 Times in 741 Posts
leonie has a reputation beyond reputeleonie has a reputation beyond reputeleonie has a reputation beyond reputeleonie has a reputation beyond reputeleonie has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Strike on Iran's Military Base. WW3 Anyone?

Quote:
View Post
The American public would gladly not pay for a lot of theirs if, for example, the Euros could be counted on to contribute (policing actions in their own back yard, protecting trade routes, etc). As it is, it's most America that's paying for NATO and that's the way the Euros like it: free protection.

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-06-10/w...er?_s=PM:WORLD
Free protection? Correct me if I am wrong... Looks like you are saying that by providing military assistance America is practicing charity of some kind and gives Europe free protection.

And a link to an old CNN article about US army building schools and vaccinating livestock in Africa...


And you were saying I was living in a nice merry cul-de-sac?
Quote:
View Post
It's a nice merry little cul-de-sac of unicorns and puppies you live in.
Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 08.01.2012, 01:58
Wollishofener's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Glattbrugg
Posts: 18,978
Groaned at 332 Times in 257 Posts
Thanked 11,715 Times in 6,858 Posts
Wollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Strike on Iran's Military Base. WW3 Anyone?

Quote:
View Post
The American public would gladly not pay for a lot of theirs if, for example, the Euros could be counted on to contribute (policing actions in their own back yard, protecting trade routes, etc). As it is, it's most America that's paying for NATO and that's the way the Euros like it: free protection.

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-06-10/w...er?_s=PM:WORLD
To put it bluntly, NATO still is THE organisation for the containment of Russia. And Russia is the largest and most sizeable European country. NATO not only generally has an American general as its military commander, it simply is a tool of US international politics.

Free protection ? Against whom ? And this explains why countries like Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czechia and Slovakia are such eager supporters of NATO, as NATO for them is THE guarantee power against feared Russian hegemony aspirations. And Poland very discreetly also perceives NATO as THE guarantee against feared German re-expansion desires. Beside the point that few West-Europeans feel threatened by Russia, quite many of these countries, Malta, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Austria, Finland, Sweden and Ireland are neutral, and so not bound to NATO anyway. And Austria and Finland even are still bound to neutrality by their state-treaties with Moscow (originallly USSR, but now the legal successor to the USSR, the Russian Federation.

So, my suggestion is that the USA either takes the initiative to dissolve NATO, that outdated dinosaur, or else simply retreats from NATO, leaving it to the Europeans to proceed with that structure as they like it.
Reply With Quote
  #171  
Old 08.01.2012, 02:03
Wollishofener's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Glattbrugg
Posts: 18,978
Groaned at 332 Times in 257 Posts
Thanked 11,715 Times in 6,858 Posts
Wollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Strike on Iran's Military Base. WW3 Anyone?

Quote:
View Post
Free protection? Correct me if I am wrong... Looks like you are saying that by providing military assistance America is practicing charity of some kind and gives Europe free protection.

And a link to an old CNN article about US army building schools and vaccinating livestock in Africa...


And you were saying I was living in a nice merry cul-de-sac?
The USA in the past 20 years has delivered lots of military hardware (tanks and fighter-planes) at extremely subsidized prices to countries like Czechia and Poland. BUT, the US prices were so low that France had no chance to sell the Rafale fither-jets there, nor could Germany sell the Eurofighter or Sweden its Gripen. So that, by being "charitable" the USA improved the position of the USA military aviation production sector and severely damaged the European military aviation production sector.

If NATO is dissolved by 1st April 2012, Poland and Czechia may purchase Rafale and Eurofighter fighter-jets in the next procurement round
Reply With Quote
  #172  
Old 08.01.2012, 02:11
cannut's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: canada
Posts: 6,911
Groaned at 182 Times in 142 Posts
Thanked 6,191 Times in 3,404 Posts
cannut has a reputation beyond reputecannut has a reputation beyond reputecannut has a reputation beyond reputecannut has a reputation beyond reputecannut has a reputation beyond reputecannut has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Strike on Iran's Military Base. WW3 Anyone?

Quote:
View Post
invasions? Making sure that others don't manage to catch up. Easiest way to destabilize regions is to give two sides weapons and let them kill each other. Those bad Mullahs in Iran? They got US weapons from Reagan. Not to win against Saddam, but to make this war long and bloody.
If the costs are high on both sides the entire region will not stabilize for decades. That's a good thing cause one really strong country that could lead the other OPEC gang would be a pretty high risk.

That's the idea of war for oil: You ensure instability and therefore no price fixings. That's much more important that securing the oil fields of one or two countries.
We have to make sure Lichtenstein never gets there own police force
Reply With Quote
  #173  
Old 11.01.2012, 14:24
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 11,625
Groaned at 580 Times in 488 Posts
Thanked 20,915 Times in 10,988 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Strike on Iran's Military Base. WW3 Anyone?

Seems another nuclear scientist got blown up in Tehran. Surprising in a State that has such a strong police presence.
Reply With Quote
  #174  
Old 12.01.2012, 08:10
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 787
Groaned at 77 Times in 59 Posts
Thanked 1,540 Times in 741 Posts
leonie has a reputation beyond reputeleonie has a reputation beyond reputeleonie has a reputation beyond reputeleonie has a reputation beyond reputeleonie has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Strike on Iran's Military Base. WW3 Anyone?

http://www.theatlantic.com/internati...ntists/251271/
Reply With Quote
  #175  
Old 12.01.2012, 14:13
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 11,625
Groaned at 580 Times in 488 Posts
Thanked 20,915 Times in 10,988 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Strike on Iran's Military Base. WW3 Anyone?

Does not make much sense, look at a map. Iran could only attack Israel by crossing at least two other (probably unfriendly) countries who might take exception & attack the Iran forces before they even reach Israel?

Or catch them on the way back when they are low on ammo?

Last edited by marton; 12.01.2012 at 14:36.
Reply With Quote
  #176  
Old 12.01.2012, 17:47
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 787
Groaned at 77 Times in 59 Posts
Thanked 1,540 Times in 741 Posts
leonie has a reputation beyond reputeleonie has a reputation beyond reputeleonie has a reputation beyond reputeleonie has a reputation beyond reputeleonie has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Strike on Iran's Military Base. WW3 Anyone?

Quote:
View Post
Does not make much sense, look at a map. Iran could only attack Israel by crossing at least two other (probably unfriendly) countries who might take exception & attack the Iran forces before they even reach Israel?

Or catch them on the way back when they are low on ammo?
To attack Israel, Iran doesn't have to show up there. It has a plenty of missiles.
http://www.timesofummah.com/2011/11/...aiting-israel/

This thread is actually about a strike on Iran's missile base
Reply With Quote
  #177  
Old 12.01.2012, 18:20
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 11,625
Groaned at 580 Times in 488 Posts
Thanked 20,915 Times in 10,988 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Strike on Iran's Military Base. WW3 Anyone?

Quote:
View Post
To attack Israel, Iran doesn't have to show up there. It has a plenty of missiles.
http://www.timesofummah.com/2011/11/...aiting-israel/

This thread is actually about a strike on Iran's missile base
Dropping their inaccurate or unreliable missiles all over the Middle East ;
makes for happy neighbours....
Reply With Quote
  #178  
Old 06.02.2012, 19:39
flavio's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Winterthur
Posts: 764
Groaned at 69 Times in 40 Posts
Thanked 614 Times in 345 Posts
flavio has an excellent reputationflavio has an excellent reputationflavio has an excellent reputationflavio has an excellent reputation
Re: Strike on Iran's Military Base. WW3 Anyone?

Niall Ferguson: Israel And The US Should Bomb Iran — It Will Be Easy

http://www.businessinsider.com/niall...be-easy-2012-2
Reply With Quote
  #179  
Old 14.02.2012, 16:09
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 11,625
Groaned at 580 Times in 488 Posts
Thanked 20,915 Times in 10,988 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Strike on Iran's Military Base. WW3 Anyone?

You could not invent this stuff; I assume he is just some random nutter not a real Iranian spy, but then who knows

"An Iranian man has blown off his own legs and wounded at least four other people in grenade attacks in Bangkok, according to the police.
Thai security forces found more explosives in the suspect's rented house in the capital, said Police General Pansiri Prapawat.
The Thai-Asean News network said police had identified the man as Sayed Murabi, an Iranian thought to have set off a bomb at his own house and then hailed a taxi.
When the driver refused to pick him up, Murabi reportedly threw a grenade at the car. Police then pursued him before he tried to throw another grenade at them, but failed and blew off his own legs."
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
iran ww3 strike nuclear




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Geneva police on strike over night duties jrspet Swiss politics/news 21 23.01.2014 23:00
What Comes after Strike 1 and 2! Strike 3 mamasita Forum support 35 03.10.2011 15:31
Blair - 'we must be prepared for attack on Iran'... Taichief International affairs/politics 133 06.09.2010 17:50


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 17:24.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0