babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Why does China support Iran?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Why does China support Iran?
prowsej
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 798

posted 11 January 2006 10:33 PM      Profile for prowsej   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Iran is developing nuclear weapons. The UN Security Council will not take action unless Russia and China end their tacit support for Iran.

Russia supports Iran because they are being paid off (and want to find employment for their nuclear scientists) and because they want to be the mediators between Iran and the West and because they do not feel threatened by Iran's nuclear weapons since proliferation of their own weapons is more of a threat.

China supports Iran because they earn money from selling nuclear technology (and Iran has lots of money to buy with oil prices so high). But it would appear that the proliferation threat from Iran having nuclear weapons outweighs the short-term value for China of a few bucks (after all, aren't there Muslim separatists in China who would love to get their hands on some Iranian nuclear technology?).

So, how is Iran acquiring nuclear weapons in China's interest? Or why is China willing to support them at the UNSC - is this about something unrelated like Taiwan or maybe Iran bribing China with cheap oil? If it's oil for nukes, then you can't blame China - but it shows how we really need to expand the Sustainable Development Mechanism under the Kyoto protocol.

Thoughts? The geopolitical guessing game: let's banter like it's 1980. (:


From: Ottawa ON | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Prima Donna
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10672

posted 11 January 2006 11:42 PM      Profile for Prima Donna     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oil might have something to do with it. I don't think China is too worried about its Muslim separatists.
I think the Chinese will be looking to exert their influence wherever they can. What can the US do about it? The chinese hold $80 billion in U.S bonds.
This idiocy in Iraq has left the US in a very weak position strategically.

From: Alberta | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322

posted 11 January 2006 11:49 PM      Profile for Jingles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

From the people who brought us the 2003 blockbuster "Operation Iraqi Freedom" comes a story so spine tingling, critics are calling it "a masterpiece".

CIA studios and Fox network present a PNAC production:

Iranyana

Starring Condileeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, and George W Bush as The Commander In Chief:
"I'm a war president"

Executive producers: AIPAC, Halliburton, General Electric

"A riveting story of dangerous weapons in the hands if terrorists. I wish I wrote it"- Judy Miller

"Be prepared to be blown away"- The New York Times

"It will leave you shocked and awed"- CNN


From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Prima Donna
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10672

posted 11 January 2006 11:51 PM      Profile for Prima Donna     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I can't see the Americans going after Iran, for the simple reason that they can defend themselves.
From: Alberta | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michael Watkins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11256

posted 12 January 2006 12:21 AM      Profile for Michael Watkins   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
China has large energy deals with Iran; but they are not the only ones. Europe and Japan as well have interest and needs. Iran has oil and natural gas (quite a bit of the latter too) for export.

The entire Caspian basin is a big resource play which the US has had interests in for decades and was exploiting until its ham-handed moves in the region 40 - 50 years ago, and every decade since, shaped the place into what it is today.

Iran is quite right in seeking alternative forms of energy for domestic supply / electricity generation. Their oil will not last forever; while it does they should maximize it by selling at high prices; conserving what they need for themselves, and seeking alternative sources.

I believe them when they say they want to develop nuclear technology for domestic energy purposes. That doesn't mean they aren't also pursuing a weapons program... but do remember they are quite within their rights to develop an energy program.

There's going to be a lot of hysteria over Iran's nuclear ambitions. Some of it justified; some of it not. Just remember that the west usurped a democratically elected government back in the 50's, and every move in the region since has helped set them, and us (the west) on the track they are currently headed down.


From: Vancouver Kingway - Democracy In Peril | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 12 January 2006 01:03 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think the chickenhawks are at it again. While accusing Iran of having nuclear ambitions, the US has no intention of reducing its own stockpiles of WMD. In fact, they only discuss nukes in space with our weak and ineffective liberal and conservative lapdogs in Canada and have produced bunker-busting nukes in the meantime. It's total hypocrisy, all the time with these fascist bastards.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 12 January 2006 01:40 AM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Michael Watkins

I agree with every word you wrote in the above post and while I'm not saying you are blase about yet another country obtaining nuclear weapons I do not feel comfortable about the spread of nukes.

Nevertheless I would not be for military intervention.

I disagree with the poster who wrote that they US doesn't have the means to attack because Iran can defend itself.

Missiles -US or Israeli- could easily take out Natanz (and kill a lot of Iranians in the course of it) without any significant caualties, I think.

It's different from Iraq IMO; they don't have to occupy it.


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Clog-boy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11061

posted 12 January 2006 02:14 AM      Profile for Clog-boy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'd like to turn the situation around: Why shouldn't China support Iran...?
Afaik, China and Iran never had problems with each other, haven't been any wars between them.
China has hardly anything to lose by supporting them, yet probably much to gain. The only loss is disturbed relations with the West, who of course oppose support to Iran. Those disturbances can easily be overcome.

Iran holds a grudge against the West, not against China. The West kinda is an "enemy" of Iran.
The Chinese economy competes with the West. Therefore, the West also is somekind of "enemy" of China.
To use the Arab proverb: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"

And I think China will retaliate more ruthless than the West if Iran would try anything. I also think Iran is under impression of this, so they won't be thinking of playing chicken with China...

So all in all, I think it's not such a bad idea for Iran and China to support each other (from their points of view, of course!)

[ 12 January 2006: Message edited by: Clog-boy ]


From: Arnhem, The Netherlands | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
prowsej
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 798

posted 12 January 2006 02:41 AM      Profile for prowsej   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Fidel: I am more worried about nuclear weapons in the hands of Pakistan, India, North Korea, Russia, and Iran than I am about nuclear weapons in the hands of the USA, Britain, and France. I really think that all countries should unilaterally and permanently dismantle their nuclear weapons stockpiles, but I am more concerned about countries that are so close to their nuclear enemy that they don't have time to properly assess misfires (India and Pakistan), have opaque decision-making structures that make them unpredictable (North Korea), have publicly expressed an offensive and hostile desire to exterminate another country (Iran), or do not have sufficient financial resources to do basic maintenance on their nuclear stockpile (Russia).

Jingles: Nobody is suggesting that we invade Iran. People are talking about less stringent sanctions, which are justified. We must not let reflexive anti-war sentiment cause us to do nothing when some response is necessary. Iraq didn't have WMD. But the case for Iran is much, much better.

Clog-boy: China does not want nuclear proliferation because this makes nuclear weapons more likely to be used (against them) and because it devalues nuclear weapons (if everyone gets them, China's are less special). But I think there is an awful lot of short-term thinking today in China; the government is afraid about surviving for 10 more years, let alone 50. That's why pollution isn't a concern (even though 16 of the 20 most polluted cities in the world are in China). They just aren't thinking long term.

[ 12 January 2006: Message edited by: prowsej ]


From: Ottawa ON | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 12 January 2006 03:14 AM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by VanLuke:
I disagree with the poster who wrote that they US doesn't have the means to attack because Iran can defend itself.

At the risk of speaking for Prima Donna, I think she meant that the US doesn't like to attack countries that can defend themselves -- not that the Americans don't have the means to attack. Americans have more than enough air power to decimate Iran. But for the last 60 years, America has attacked only countries that cannot defend themselves -- Grenada, Cuba, right up to Afghanistan and Iraq. The response to Iran and North Korea (members of the "axis of evil") was not military -- perhaps because confrontation was not assured to result in success with anything less than "just widdle" nuclear weaponry.

quote:
It's different from Iraq IMO; they don't have to occupy it.

True, but also potentially more deadly. Iran's nuclear programmes are mostly placed in highly populated civilian areas. Which lends some truth to Iran's claim that they are being used for energy purposes. The USian claim is that they are placed in civilian areas so that civilians can provide a "military shield" against military response.


From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
prowsej
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 798

posted 12 January 2006 03:22 AM      Profile for prowsej   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I believe what The Economist writes: "Few governments in Europe and America doubt that Iran is using its civilian atomic-energy efforts as a cover for a nuclear weapons programme. Western suspicions are based on Iran’s record of hiding nuclear work from IAEA inspectors for 18 years until discovered in 2003. Now Iran has spurned a Russian proposal to enrich uranium on its behalf which would have provided material to be used for civilian, but not military, ends."

We can say two things with reasonable certainty:
-Iran has an active civilian nuclear power program
-Iran has an active nuclear weapons program

The two are complimentary, not contradictory.


From: Ottawa ON | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 12 January 2006 03:27 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by prowsej:
I am more worried about nuclear weapons in the hands of Pakistan, India, North Korea, Russia, and Iran than I am about nuclear weapons in the hands of the USA, Britain, and France.
If the thought of George W. Bush having his finger over the little red button doesn't strike absolute terror into your heart, then you haven't been paying attention.

The U.S. is the only country that has ever used nuclear weapons. And unlike Pakistan, India, North Korea, Russia, and Iraq, they have the means to deliver them on target anywhere in the world.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 12 January 2006 03:35 AM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think this adds some immediacy to what you are saying, prowsej:


quote:
Tehran says it broke the United Nations seals on the Natanz nuclear research facility on Tuesday because it wants to produce electricity, not because it is pursuing nuclear weapons.

The UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), has said Tehran is about to start small-scale nuclear enrichment.

BBC


To me, the situation is not the clear opportunistic invasion that pertained regarding Iraq. I really don't know what the Iranians are setting in place.

However, I would definitely dispute your reading of China's response to pollution. We are all conditioned to think of the government crack down on democracy in Tiananmen square. That is not the reality in China today. In smallish towns and farming areas, particularly along rivers, the Chinese are rebelling in huge numbers. The government is having a great deal of difficulty quelling the unrest. Mostly peasants are rising up against the pollution they see killing their lands, children and future. The Chinese govt. has govt. officials officially (!) looking into pollution.

The only references I can give for this is a recent Walrus article and my years working in China.


From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
prowsej
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 798

posted 12 January 2006 03:39 AM      Profile for prowsej   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Iran is quite right in seeking alternative forms of energy for domestic supply / electricity generation. Their oil will not last forever; while it does they should maximize it by selling at high prices; conserving what they need for themselves, and seeking alternative sources.

I believe them when they say they want to develop nuclear technology for domestic energy purposes. That doesn't mean they aren't also pursuing a weapons program... but do remember they are quite within their rights to develop an energy program.


I do not believe Iran when it says that it is legitimately pursuing civilian nuclear power technology. Yes, it is pursuing the technology, but only as a cover for its illegal activities. This US government powerpoint slideshow from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace web site makes the point on page 20 that if Iran was really concerned about energy they would be investing in rudimentary measures to make their oil and gas extraction more efficient. They are not investing in those measures. Therefore they don't care about energy supply as much as they care about acquiring nuclear technology because weapons are their top goal, not energy security.

[ 12 January 2006: Message edited by: prowsej ]


From: Ottawa ON | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
prowsej
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 798

posted 12 January 2006 03:46 AM      Profile for prowsej   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
siren: I have heard that pollution is so bad in China that they are now trying to treat it seriously. I have never been to China. What sort of work do you do there?

I just don't think that there has been a concrete reduction in pollution anywhere in China as a result of recent measures - it's early days yet, but I think it's all talk (and some money) at this stage.

[ 12 January 2006: Message edited by: prowsej ]


From: Ottawa ON | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 12 January 2006 04:02 AM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I work there periodically teaching English as a Second Language. It's that or corporate use of poorly paid labour -- and no one in the latter field of endeavor would be posting on this board!

I worked last in a small farming community and learned that one response to Tiananmen was to punish protesters and organizers by sending them to this area. Perhaps that is one reason why the rebellion has not been contained. Rather than, ahem, eliminating the dissent, Chinese politicians spread those responsible for it all over the land.

China is such a tumultuous country -- the chances of real progression there are immense. Unfortunately, so are the chances of real regression.


From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 12 January 2006 12:08 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by siren:
I worked last in a small farming community and learned that one response to Tiananmen was to punish protesters and organizers by sending them to this area.

Why did the west have nothing to say when S. Korean government killed some 2000 students as they protested in 1980 ?.

I think that if Iran has learned anything from US aggression, it's that countries without nuclear weapons capability and posess oil are vulnerable. The incentive for them perhaps to want to have nukes is so the US military might not beckon Iranian women and children to banquets of death and destruction in the middle of the night.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
het heru
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11011

posted 12 January 2006 12:12 PM      Profile for het heru     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So that Stephen Harper can take us in with the US as they start WWIII?


No wait, that was the answer to "why are Canadians planning to vote in a Conservative majority?"


Yes, I am bitter(er) today.


From: Where Sekhmet sleeps | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 12 January 2006 12:29 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, and I'm cynical and all.

American woman gonna mess your mind ...


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322

posted 12 January 2006 12:53 PM      Profile for Jingles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
es, it is pursuing the technology, but only as a cover for its illegal activities

And it is illegal because...those countries which already posess large stockpiles of nuclear weapons say so. Great.

The US has stated again and again the Iran, charter member of the Axis of Evil, is on their hit list. They make no secret of the fact that they greatly wish to kill as many Iranians as they possibly can, all in the name of the War of Terror and Israeli "security".

The US has demonstrated with every act that they have no respect for international law, nor do they respect treaties that limit their lust for weapons from tactical battlefield nukes to anti-personnel mines. They have also amply demonstrated that they cannot be believed or trusted when they make claims about nations which they have specifically targetted for destruction. That anyone cannot see through their hypocracy, lies, and propaganda to the real reasons they want Iran disarmed, especially after Iraq, is astounding.

If it is justifiable for the US and Israel to stockpile nuclear weapons which are openly targetting Iran, then Iran has every right to defend itself from the aggression of those rogue states which have violated UN resolutions, attacked their neighbours, oppress their citizens, and continue to pursue more and deadlier weapons in violation of international laws.


From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
prowsej
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 798

posted 12 January 2006 01:28 PM      Profile for prowsej   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And it is illegal because...those countries which already possess large stockpiles of nuclear weapons say so.
Ummm, no. It's illegal because Iran signed the NPT to voluntarily restrict their ability to develop nuclear weapons. Iran is violating its own agreement, its own word.

Nuclear weapons scare the beejezus out of me - no matter which country possesses them. But I grow increasingly alarmed as more countries acquire these weapons. And I'm really bothered when one of the P5 - China - is willing to support proliferation because that's an even more direct violation of the NPT than the US' general refusal to disarm.

Yeah, the US has made the situation worse with "Axis of Evil" and with the Shah and their hamfisted interventions in the region. But Iran says that the US has made things worse by defending Israel's right to exist. And US support for Israel is not something that America should drop altogether.

The Israeli government. The Iranian government. Choose one: they can't both exist in their present forms.

[ 12 January 2006: Message edited by: prowsej ]


From: Ottawa ON | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 12 January 2006 01:56 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Iraq had no nuclear weapons.
North Korea had a nuclear program of some sort.

Which one did the US attack?

Lesson for Iran: get nuclear program going ASAP.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
RookieActivist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4089

posted 12 January 2006 02:11 PM      Profile for RookieActivist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That is the dangerous precedent that George Bush has set. His foreign policy has been so short sighted as to place the entire world in greater danger.

Instilling democracy in the mideast, preventing the proliferation of dangerous weapons, these are, for the most part, good goals. But if Bush were interested in these goals he is absolutely clueless on how to achieve them.

So then we are left with two possibilities: that Bush has alternative motives or he is incompetent. I suggest that the two are not mutually exclusive.


From: me to you | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michael Watkins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11256

posted 12 January 2006 02:27 PM      Profile for Michael Watkins   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by prowsej:
This US government powerpoint slideshow from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace web site makes the point...

Are you in the habit of taking US government slides at face value?

If so, I direct you to all the slides that Sec State Colin Powell presnted to the UN Security Council, and US and the world, in order to rally opinion at home to invade Iraq.

Almsot the entire presentation was bogus, as confirmed, rather ironically, by the very detailed CIA Report on WMD in IRAQ


From: Vancouver Kingway - Democracy In Peril | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
ceti
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7851

posted 12 January 2006 02:38 PM      Profile for ceti     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I would dispute that China has short term thinking. I think their long term planning, despite the appalling effects on the environmental present, is much more well developed than one can imagine.

There's also an issue of double standards which was also applied to China in the 1960s and India in the 1970s, so both have a much more nuanced reading of Iran's nuclear development that the West which cannot fathom any challenges to their supremacy.


From: various musings before the revolution | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michael Watkins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11256

posted 12 January 2006 02:56 PM      Profile for Michael Watkins   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by prowsej:
This US government powerpoint slideshow from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace web site makes the point on page 20 that if Iran was really concerned about energy they would be investing in rudimentary measures to make their oil and gas extraction more efficient.

Lets look at the report in some detail, but first some background.

Since the 40's and 50's, many decades before any nuclear research was ever done or contemplated in Iran, conservation of non-renewable resources - oil and gas - was a primary theme of energy planners in Iran. The two primary drivers behind the formation of OPEC, Iran and Venezuela, both believed strongly in *conservation*.

Seeking alternative energy sources for the future is not a new endeavour - its part of their culture. Not to the same extent, lets say, as in Iceland, but nevertheless its part of their culture.

1. Slide 21 sais that Iran's supply of energy resources are far from depleted. Well... that's both true and not true. The reality is that the world wants Iran's resources at least as much if not more than Iran. Those resources have finite life to them and that life is in this century.

The slide also says that Iran lacks adequate internal resources of uranium; this may be true, but its irrelevant.

The world has said to Iran - you can pursue nuclear power - no problemo, but we don't want you to be able to produce your own fuel. Which means no enrichment facilities.

Iran has said piss off, you can't hold us hostage like that. Its quite a different matter to withhold fully produced nuclear fuel than to withhold Uranium - Uranium is found in many parts of the world including in countries which have more friendly relations to Iran, therefore relying on external *raw* U is much less risky to Iran than relying on Europe to provide U *Fuel*.

A European or UN embargo could cut Iran off from U *Fuel* very effectively but more than likely not cut iran off from *raw* U. So their arguement than self-production of Fuel is a domestic security issue is... VALID.

22. They talk about costs; costs are irrelevant (as I've been discussing in another thread on war and economics) and frankly when you look at the costs, they are petty change.

23. They talk about upgrades to infrastructure, which is a little rich, since the US enforces an embargo on selling and doing biz with Iran and much of the technology is US these days; besides that, the US intimidates (Japan, for example) friendly western countries into avoiding Iran as much as opssible. There's a decades old patern of international intimidation to prevent Iran from becoming self-sufficient and extend its relations with other countries.

Also, many of the discussed enhancements are in fact going ahead - Iran is selling new gas to China and has been trying to gain agreement on pipelines that would pass through Pakistan and India, two notional US allies. Guess that - stall after stall on those pipelines due to US pressure.

Some of the discussed "upgrades" to recover are no more than these pipelines which would take gas which otherwise gets burned up as waste and ship it instead to paying customers. The US gains much by holding Iran back, reducing its revenue in the process.

Simple bottom line here: Iran can't recover more gas than it can process and sell. Its being thwarted in selling all that it would like to.

This allows you to throw out all the calculations presented in the following pages.

28 - buying foriegn fuel vs making it yourself - a savings of ONLY 59 - 161 million. Petty change. Remember, the real goal is security of supply and buying processed ready to use fuel from ABROAD means it would be much easier for world powers to cut off that supply.

29, 30, 31 - talks about "known" supplies; its certainly possible Iran has more, but again, importing raw U ore allows them to be more self-sufficient.

32, 33 - uses current production and current consumption to establish timelines. That's nutz. Consumption world wide goes up on average near 1.65% per annum; over the past few years the consumption rate has gone up much faster. Iranian reserves will last no where near the time frames that are listed here - some younger policy makers in Iran will still be alive when their reserves are running dry.

Note that total reserves is no way to measure reserve life. Once you get to PEAK output capacity, your total output goes down from there, and MUST be replaced with an alternative. The PEAK output point will be reached much, MUCH, earlier than the total reserve life.

This slide (33) was produced for SIMPLETONS who have no notion of how oil production and longevity work.

Its a marketing slide.

Now, having said all this, I tend to believe Iran wants the bomb. I'm not happy about this. But, I can see how decades of western policy in Iran would drive it to seek the bomb.

But the hawks seek to use its petro energy picture to justify the argument - I'm merely pointing out that the arguements they use are pretty shallow and in many cases make conclusions which are not only wrong, are designed for an un-educated consumer of information to shift their opinion.

There is an awful lot of propaganda going on in this debate, admittedly from both sides. That set of slides is the US version of propaganda.

[ 12 January 2006: Message edited by: Michael Watkins ]


From: Vancouver Kingway - Democracy In Peril | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
prowsej
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 798

posted 12 January 2006 02:57 PM      Profile for prowsej   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You're saying that Iran is being thwarted in selling all the gas that it would like to.

But Iran is on the coast - they can ship out as much as they can produce and with gas prices what they are today they can profitably sell as much as they can ship - virtually the entire world is operating at maximum gas production.

[ 12 January 2006: Message edited by: prowsej ]


From: Ottawa ON | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 12 January 2006 03:06 PM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ceti:
There's also an issue of double standards which was ... applied to ... India in the 1970s,

How so when we provided them with the means to build their bomb?

quote:
... Canada suspended nuclear cooperation with India following the explosion of a bomb at the Pokhran site in May 1974. The bomb had used plutonium manufactured in a research reactor known as "CIRUS" given to India by Canada...

http://www.ccnr.org/india_pak_coop.html


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 12 January 2006 03:08 PM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
security of supply

They are keenly aware of that with their planes crashing because the US refuses to sell them spare parts (they claim).


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
sidra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11490

posted 12 January 2006 04:04 PM      Profile for sidra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What boggles my mind is that Britain, France, Germany, the US and Russia seem oblivious to the double standard. Israel can have it without any questions asked, but not Iran.

I must be missing something.

Edited for typo.

[ 12 January 2006: Message edited by: sidra ]


From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 12 January 2006 04:32 PM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Britain actually helped Israel to build their bombs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4515586.stm

So did France as it "practically owed the bomb" to Israel.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3340639.stm

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/

[ 12 January 2006: Message edited by: VanLuke ]


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michael Watkins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11256

posted 12 January 2006 04:39 PM      Profile for Michael Watkins   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by prowsej:
You're saying that Iran is being thwarted in selling all the gas that it would like to.

But Iran is on the coast - they can ship out as much as they can produce and with gas prices what they are today they can profitably sell as much as they can ship - virtually the entire world is operating at maximum gas production.


Incorrect.

NG is largely a localized market place due to transportation issues. Unlike oil you can't just jack up your exports by hiring some ships.

The world is suffering from an acute lack of liquified natural gas (LNG) production plants and receiving terminals. The gas produced at the well head that travels over conventional pipelines is *not* LNG.

Iran can build production terminals, sure (and I think they have plans for some if not mistaken) but it takes time but what's more important, customers have to have receiving terminals to take the gas.

That last point is important: in many countries, its very difficult if not almost impossible to get the public / govt to approve LNG reception terminals, particularly the western nations which care about things like the environment a little more than the less developed, or who have very robust populations near the coast.

Why?

A LNG tanker blowing up in the harbour will do more than blow halifax to bits...

So location of terminals is a big issue and there's a lot of NIMBY politics which slow down approvals. Still, they will be built, eventually.

A VERY small percentage of world wide gas is shipped via LNG at present. It will grow, but no where near at the rate that traditional pipeline delivery will grow.

The easiest way to get a large quantity of gas from one point of the planet to another is via a pipeline. Obviously there's a geography limit here -- pipelines can only go far and have to travel over friendly territory to the destination.

There is a massive pipeline development from Iran up through India and Pakistan which just can't get off the ground, in part thanks to pressure from the US.

Bottom line: they can not produce and ship all the natural gas that they'd like to. There is no magic bullet fix, and their options for shipping are being contrained, as always, by world wide energy cartels and governments.

Same old same old - it was this way decades ago.

edit: added some more detail on NIMBY issues.

[ 12 January 2006: Message edited by: Michael Watkins ]


From: Vancouver Kingway - Democracy In Peril | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michael Watkins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11256

posted 12 January 2006 04:54 PM      Profile for Michael Watkins   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by VanLuke:
Britain actually helped Israel to build their bombs. So did France

Yes... and there's an energy angle in there too.

The middle east is the big energy pearl; the big oyster. Always has been. Ever since the discovery of Ghawar and exploration done by folks like my father in law who traipsed the deserts of the region (we've got a pic of him on a camel... on an off day) the western oil companies and their governments have long known that the ME was the big prize that had to be held in control at all costs.

Reagan didn't support the mujahadeen in afghanistan because he wanted to keep Russia out of the poppy fields; it was a strategic move to block a communist threat but even then not an ideological move - its just that its hard for capitalist govts and biz to negotiate with communists. Remember the times.

Allowing Russia to creep into the area further (when they were already there in other respects) could not be tolerated. Mission one: protect the ME resources for western interests whenever possible.

Back to Israel... look at the major nuclear powers. Britain and France had and have major oil interests. Total and its predecessors and BP - the most govt-aligned oil company in the world (well except for Russian and Chinese oil cos) had major assets in the region.

Back in the days of MAD and cold wars, I suppose they believed that giving a "western democracy" the bomb might be helpful in keeping some overarching peace in the region by using Israel as a bulwark against arab or muslim expansionism by any one of the more aggressive states.

No doubt some of their foreign policy folks felt it was acceptable to arm Israel purely for its own protection, but they must also have expected that eventually an arab or muslim state would get there too.

Israel by default has always acted as an extension of western power in the region.

I do not take anything away from Israel by stating this; they are being used just like other nations in the region are being used.


From: Vancouver Kingway - Democracy In Peril | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 12 January 2006 07:09 PM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Watkins:
...they must also have expected that eventually an arab or muslim state would get there too....

And more. Eisenhower expected that much.

quote:
This address was given by Dwight D. Eisenhower before the General Assembly of the United Nations on Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy, New York City, December 8, 1953.

....

On July 16, 1945, the United States set off the world's first atomic explosion. Since that date in 1945, the United States of America has conducted 42 test explosions.

...

If at one time the United States possessed what might have been called a monopoly of atomic power, that monopoly ceased to exist several years ago. Therefore, although our earlier start has permitted us to accumulate what is today a great quantitative advantage, the atomic realities of today comprehend two facts of even greater significance.

First, the knowledge now possessed by several nations will eventually be shared by others--possibly all others.

...


http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/atoms.htm


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 12 January 2006 08:05 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Watkins:

Incorrect.

NG is largely a localized market place due to transportation issues. Unlike oil you can't just jack up your exports by hiring some ships.

The world is suffering from an acute lack of liquified natural gas (LNG) production plants and receiving terminals. The gas produced at the well head that travels over conventional pipelines is *not* LNG.


For anyone else who might have the wrong idea, Canadian taxpayers paid 90 percent of the bills for building TransCanada NG pipelines. Interconnected main lines extend over 38 000 Km from northern Alberta to the Martimes and connecting to American feeds to Central USA.

And Russia supplies NG to as far as Western Europe through Ukraine, just to give us an idea of how far natural gas can be piped.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
I'm Batman
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11706

posted 12 January 2006 08:05 PM      Profile for I'm Batman        Edit/Delete Post
[Removed long URL.]

[ 12 January 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: ontario | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fartful Codger
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9019

posted 12 January 2006 08:15 PM      Profile for Fartful Codger     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Saving from sidescroll.
From: In my chair | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 12 January 2006 08:30 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
[removed bad vibe for humanitarian reasons]

[ 13 January 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 16 January 2006 02:48 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
China's interest is the same as Iran's: the prevention of a US takeover of the Iranian oilfields.

The US wants Iran un-nuclear because they want to keep the possibility of an invasion in the cards, in case the Invasion of Iraq goes much better or much worse than presently.

The US wants iranian oil because they know that soon engough, they'll be competing with China for energy, and the winner will be the dominant power both economically and hence militarily.

China knows this too, and they want to prevent an invasion.

The only failsafe means is a nuclear Iran. So, they'll hem and haw and finally veto any effective UN response.

~~

The guff about the danger of islamic terrorists getting nukes is so much bullshit. It's for the rubes. No one in power seriously believes any of that's at all likely; certainly not the Chinese.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca