I think this may be an excerpt of this longer post (mine incidentally):

http://www.videosift.com/video/Iraq-and-the-Petrodollar-first-step-on-the-march-to-war

That was 2006, it's now 2008, so did they make the switch - does Iran now trade in Euros?

Either way it's just a matter of time, the US is in it's end of empire phase. Actually the Chinese could topple the dollar any time they wanted, with little consequence to themselves.

Ill put it over! TO THE FRONT WITH THIS!

What we have to understand, is that at any moment this whole bowl of toilet water could start circling the drain at any moment. So why would people keep fighting change? You cannot fight change, because change happens every time an atom fires.

>> ^Memorare:
That was 2006, it's now 2008, so did they make the switch - does Iran now trade in Euros?
Either way it's just a matter of time, the US is in it's end of empire phase. Actually the Chinese could topple the dollar any time they wanted, with little consequence to themselves.

Yes, they made the switch. The Iranian oil bourse now deals in Euros.

However, for now they only support cash operations (i.e., one can't trade future contracts), so the bad effects on the dollar are partially contained. By far the largest commodities trading is done by speculators who have no need for the actual goods. These guys trade future contracts, who are bought near their expiration date by people who actually need the goods.

Don't overplay your hand... most developed countries, including countries that use the Euro, are opposed to Iran getting nukes. (They don't care about the USD.)

When did people forget that nuclear weapons tend to lead towards mutual destruction. Iran doesn't even have adequate delivery systems. Even if they snuck a couple bombs into cities I doubt you could hide where the bombs were from for very long. They'd be asking for their own destruction if they ever used nukes on anyone. I think if the Americans and other countries were able to develop and even use these weapons they have no right telling other countries what they can and can't do with research. This kind of power over other people has been one of the most corrupting factors in American policy.

>> ^manfromx:
When did people forget that nuclear weapons tend to lead towards mutual destruction. Iran doesn't even have adequate delivery systems. Even if they snuck a couple bombs into cities I doubt you could hide where the bombs were from for very long. They'd be asking for their own destruction if they ever used nukes on anyone. I think if the Americans and other countries were able to develop and even use these weapons they have no right telling other countries what they can and can't do with research. This kind of power over other people has been one of the most corrupting factors in American policy.


So youre asking to give every single country on this earth nukes so that nukes will never befired since every country knows if it uses them, they will be wiped off the map?
Interesting logic. Too bad it doesnt include the unstable human psychology factor.

You miss the point. This is not about nukes.. as George W Bush says it is. This whole argument is about oil. Nukes is the 'attention getter' Bush is using to keep you distracted from what is really going on.

You fell for it with Iraq. You fall for it yet again with Iran.

This vid is about oil, how come the conversation is about nukes?

Why the concern about Iranian nukes? Why not Pakistani nukes, Indian nukes, or North Korean nukes?

Oh, oil.

Not that there isn't reason to be concerned about all countries looking to join the "nuclear club", but so far we've used diplomacy, economic sanctions, surveillance, and in extreme cases surgical air strikes to control it.

Launching a full-scale invasion w/regime change is outside the norm, and the most logical explanation for the difference is oil.

There's also defending Israel...but only presidents named Bush seem to think that requires using troop deployments.

Yeah, some countries have slipped through the cracks, but I think nuclear non-proliferation and moving away from Mutually Assured Destruction is still the most sensible goal .

Honkeytonk, even Russia and China conceded to UN sanctions against Iran, so it doesn't seem to be about Bush.

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Sunday, June 22nd, 2008 2:40pm PDT - promote requested by deathcow.

My logic wasn't saying to give everyone nukes. Americans, Indians, Chinese, Russians are all vulnerable to your "unstable human psychology factor".

I'm simply saying that preventing countries from developing a technology that is incredibly useful for energy out of the fear that they aren't using it for energy and without proof is a bad game to get into. I don't understand how any of the countries that have them are superior to those that do not and have the intellect and ability to do it.

Doesn't matter anyway. If anyone can do it, or steal an existing one and use it it will happen.

I think if a country wants to make some reactors we should be working with them. Not making remarks about how they are inherently evil and need to be protected/controlled by us.

>> ^chilaxe:
Yeah, some countries have slipped through the cracks, but I think nuclear non-proliferation and moving away from Mutually Assured Destruction is still the most sensible goal .
Honkeytonk, even Russia and China conceded to UN sanctions against Iran, so it doesn't seem to be about Bush.


Numerous nations and the UN also thought there were WMD in Iraq after the US lied about it.

"Who's the more foolish - the fool, or the fool who follows it?"

FYI, one of the speakers in the video is from ANSWER, which is a Communist front of some kind, last I heard. Not saying this invalidates everything in the video, though.

>> ^NetRunner:

Why the concern about Iranian nukes? Why not Pakistani nukes, Indian nukes, or North Korean nukes?


1. Last time I checked America and the UN had good relationships with Pakistan and dont see them as theat. They even get active weapon shipments from the US and other UN states.
2. Last time I checked America and the UN had good relationships with India and dont see them as theat. They even get active weapon shipments from the US and other UN states.
3. Last time I checked there was indeed a lot of concern about North Korean nukes, even though they have no oil.
4. The first 2 countries mentioned already have nukes. Theres nothing you can change about that easily. You can, however, stop other countries today from acquiring nukes.


Americans, Indians, Chinese, Russians are all vulnerable to your "unstable human psychology factor".

No shit? That wasnt the point. The point is its better to have less variables in the MAD scenario than more.
More countries being able to develop nukes (maybe even silently) = more variables. Power alone is tempting enough. The power you get with nuclear weapons is even more tempting. You should read some history.

I wonder how difficult a non-profit nuclear power plant would be to get going?

... probably exceptionally difficult...

This is just another stupid and over simplified conspiracy theory. No country can just print more of their own currency for free. Printing more American dollars or more Euros devalues the currency by the same amount, period. The only difference to America is they print more American dollars, exchange them for euros and continue buying oil. There is no trillion dollar threat to the american economy. If you need any more proof, look at all the opponents to the war. What's one of the biggest criticisms? The enormous debt that the war is driving the country into. America as a nation is taking a hit to their economy by supporting the war. If you want the real dirty side, look to the individual American corporations like Haliburton that are profiting off of contracts paid out with American tax dollars.

No need to get offensive here. Would you have any history in mind for me to read?

My point of view simply derives from the opinion that right now the people who hold nukes are in a sort of big boys club. They call the shots. They say who can have them and who can't. Of course seeing as these big boys may have their own agenda's they may withhold the tech from countries they don't like for reasons other than "Oh if you get them you'll nuke everyone". Maybe more like, "Stop selling your oil in euros jerks."

I don't like nukes either. You're right, there is nothing you can do about the people who have them. I'm simply saying what are you going to do if someone wants to make one and tells you to piss off when you say stop? Kill them? Trade embargo? Starve out their people?

I think the point you're missing is when we get balls to bone on enforcing these policies the enforcement itself can cause intense resentment with the people of these countries. Making it more likely that people may want that nuclear weapon AND use it. And even if they don't want to use it, by having the tech they have all of sudden proliferated. So... embargo off? No more antagonizing? Now they have an extra card in their hands.

So in some circumstances the pursuit of the technology is actually being encouraged because once you have it it's much harder for anyone to tell you what you can do anymore.

*dead

This published video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by eric3579.