Page 16 of 18 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 174
Like Tree51Likes

Thread: Israeli officials: Obama too soft on Iran

  1. #151
    geolib
    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    50,634
    Likes Received
    11684 times
    Likes Given
    9396

    Re: Israeli officials: Obama too soft on Iran

    Quote Originally Posted by grip View Post
    You're not scared of a skunk or hornet? You're either braver than me or a whole lot dumber.
    I'm an ex-paratrooper finishing my PhD (independant research, alone, in Africa). You figure it out.

    I'm also not scared of terrorists and whatever you think their massive come-from-behind counter-attack is going to be.
    Last edited by ecofarm; 12-19-11 at 01:25 AM.

  2. #152
    Sage
    Medusa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Turkey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,930
    Likes Received
    5362 times
    Likes Given
    10331

    Re: Israeli officials: Obama too soft on Iran

    Quote Originally Posted by toomuchtime_ View Post
    I am not a Turkey hater, I am a Turkey disliker. It's not that I like PKK, it's that I dislike Turkey's lies about PKK being used as an excuse to bomb Kurdish villages in northern Iraq.
    you are a liar because you can never prove your claims,you just bring here some kurdish blogger's demafations.....
    Last edited by Medusa; 12-19-11 at 07:27 AM.

  3. #153
    Sage
    Medusa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Turkey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,930
    Likes Received
    5362 times
    Likes Given
    10331

    Re: Israeli officials: Obama too soft on Iran

    Quote Originally Posted by EagleAye View Post
    Well, it's pretty clear to me that Iran does hate Israel, and they're quite happy supplying weapons to Hezbollah and Hamas to attack Israel with. That's what my concern is about. Israel is quite competent at defending itself. Unfortunately anytime Israel does so it's always considered a wanton act of violence no matter what happened to Israel beforehand. I'd like for Israel to be insulated from that as much as possible in the event that strikes on Iran are carried out.

    If strikes are made on Iran, you can be certain that Iran's SSMs (Surface-to-Surface Missiles) are a primary target, because they are likely to be used for retribution strikes on US allies, including Turkey. So anything that can be used against Turkey, Israel, Germany, France, Britain will be hit hard and hit early.

    I think everyone would prefer that sanctions have the desired result. But they must work soon or stronger measures must be employed.
    ı agree with you but as you see some of you really wait for turkey to be hit...

  4. #154
    Randian PUA
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    45,681
    Likes Received
    16767 times
    Likes Given
    23303

    Re: Israeli officials: Obama too soft on Iran

    Quote Originally Posted by EagleAye View Post
    Well, lets have a look at this, then. I posted the following links as proof of Iran's proxy war against Israel.
    Wikileaks Revelations on Iran Hamas Syria and Turkey | IsraelSeen.com
    Iran and its Proxies Center For Defense Studies
    The Enduring Iran-Syria-Hezbollah Axis :: Middle East Forum
    http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/mal.../iran_e004.pdf

    Your response was: "Arguments from authority are logical fallacies and prove nothing.," thus you deny this is acceptable proof. From your link defining the authority fallacy we get this:

    Since the "people" in all of the links agree on the same point we can determine there is a consensus. But Item #1 must be fulfilled for me to have a valid argument. Remember, a consensus is already reached amongst four separate sources so you must be claiming that I did not produce "legitimate experts," in order for your assertion of a fallacy to be correct. Here are the sources:

    You are claiming the:
    AEI Center for Defense Studies headed by Tom Donnelly knows nothing about military activities. Here's Tom Donnelly's qualitifications.


    You are claiming that Michael Rubin can know nothing about Iran activities. Here are Michael Rubin's qualifications:


    You are claiming that the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center headed by Dr. Reuven Erlich knows nothing about the Middle-East intelligence activities. Here are Dr. Reuven Erlich's qualifications:


    I think these people qualify as experts, and they reach a consensus. So items 1 and 2 are fulfilled to make a valid argument. I find it interesting that you believe these people aren't qualified. What are your qualifications that say you have more expertise than these people?
    You misuderstand the definition of the argument from authority. It is and argument from authority because those people are experts.

    The flaw in the logic is to think that just because they are experts, they are right. Anyones' opinion, even an experts, can be wrong. Experts are considered experts because they know the facts. However, just because they know their facts, that doesn't mean that their opinions are always correct.

    I's say that both Bill Clinton and George Bush are both experts on being president, having held the office for 8 years each. That doesn't mean that all of their opinions or all of their decisions were correct.


    Forget it, Sangha. I was asking about activities within a certain time frame. You failed yet again to answer correctly. The stuxnet virus was outside the time frame. But don't worry, Grip correctly comprehended my request, did not evade, demonstrated a good work ethic and talent for research, and gave an excellent answer.
    I'm sorry, but you dont get to decide which history is relevant, and which is not. Stuxnet was discovered in 2010. That's years AFTER 9/11, which is still a very relevant factor wrt our history with Iran. If 9/11 is relevant (and it is), the so is stuxnet
    Quote Originally Posted by GBFAN View Post
    Biology says that all pregnancies happen to men, too.
    Quote Originally Posted by buck View Post
    I..am happy they are limiting the networks...it makes Obamacare look bad...and second it saves the taxpayer money... Smaller networks = lower premium = smaller subsidies = less tax dollars.

  5. #155
    Sage
    Medusa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Turkey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,930
    Likes Received
    5362 times
    Likes Given
    10331

    Re: Israeli officials: Obama too soft on Iran

    some claim that US has the right to attack any country in the middle east to protect itself but Turkey has no right to defend itself against bloody kurd organizations in its own territory or near its boundary!

    and turks kill lots of kurds! but US wil never kill any civillian in case of a war because american army is angel,whereas turkish army is devil!
    if they are that democratic and humanist they must react against every war!


    how am I supposed to believe in such personalities......
    Last edited by Medusa; 12-19-11 at 08:11 AM.

  6. #156
    Light△Bender


    grip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    ☚ ☛
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    14,222
    Likes Received
    5944 times
    Likes Given
    6069
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Israeli officials: Obama too soft on Iran

    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    I'm an ex-paratrooper finishing my PhD (independant research, alone, in Africa). You figure it out.

    I'm also not scared of terrorists and whatever you think their massive come-from-behind counter-attack is going to be.
    I knew an ex paratrooper who had dropped behind enemy lines several times during WWII. I asked him how he survived and wasn't he scared? He said his fear is what kept him alive.
    I also knew a brave Green Beret who served in Vietnam and said they were all scared out of their minds. There's a small jellyfish in the beaches of Australia that's sting is so painful they have to knock the people out in the ER. You'd have to be completely bananas not to fear that. I'm not saying you're not an exceptionally tough or less intimidated individual, they do exist. But like Colonel Flagg on the comedy MASH it makes you look more daffy than brave.

    And I've already stated several times it's not the terrorist activities alone of Iran and others that particularly worry me it's the financial impact on an already fragile US economy that a conflict involving oil supplies will have. Market speculators have been jumping from market to market since the credit bubble popped after they lost that easy stream of paper wealth. Major oil shares and reserves would be sat on till the prices peaked before they'd sell causing havoc in everyday life from coast to coast. It would make the rapid climb of gold values look like a Tupperware sale.

  7. #157
    Educator
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    10-29-12 @ 08:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    797
    Likes Received
    170 times
    Likes Given
    7

    Re: Israeli officials: Obama too soft on Iran

    Quote Originally Posted by grip View Post
    I knew an ex paratrooper who had dropped behind enemy lines several times during WWII. I asked him how he survived and wasn't he scared? He said his fear is what kept him alive.
    I also knew a brave Green Beret who served in Vietnam and said they were all scared out of their minds. There's a small jellyfish in the beaches of Australia that's sting is so painful they have to knock the people out in the ER. You'd have to be completely bananas not to fear that. I'm not saying you're not an exceptionally tough or less intimidated individual, they do exist. But like Colonel Flagg on the comedy MASH it makes you look more daffy than brave.

    And I've already stated several times it's not the terrorist activities alone of Iran and others that particularly worry me it's the financial impact on an already fragile US economy that a conflict involving oil supplies will have. Market speculators have been jumping from market to market since the credit bubble popped after they lost that easy stream of paper wealth. Major oil shares and reserves would be sat on till the prices peaked before they'd sell causing havoc in everyday life from coast to coast. It would make the rapid climb of gold values look like a Tupperware sale.
    Regardless of what Iran might try to do, it is unlikely to have a greater effect than a brief spike in spot oil prices and it will have no effect on consumers and industry in most developed countries. If no oil were being produced anywhere in the world, the global strategic oil reserves would be sufficient to supply the world at its present rate of consumption for 41 days, and of course Iran can only effect some oil shipments in one part of the world and then only briefly. Of the world's 4.1 billion barrel strategic oil reserves, 2.6 billion is held by private industry, so it is unlikely that a brief spike in spot oil prices would have any effect on the cost of goods and services to consumers or to profits enjoyed by businesses. In addition, in an election year when the election will likely be decided largely by economic conditions, it is unlikely Obama would allow even gasoline prices to rise too much before releasing the government's strategic reserves.

    It is not even clear that Iran is capable of slowing the rate of oil exports from the Gulf for more than a very short period of time, probably days. With the massive amount of US naval power in the Gulf, any attempt to attack Gulf shipping would be futile and probably result in severe punishment. The threat to block the Straits of Hormuz is likewise an empty bluff. The Iranian navy would be quickly destroyed if it tried to hold positions there and if it sank ships and laid mines, these would be quickly cleared. The world has been preparing for these events for years and Iran would only hurt itself by doing either of these things. Iran's threat to stop exporting oil is also ludicrous. China is the principal buyer of Iranian oil and 80% of China's oil imports come from Iran. If Iran stopped exporting oil, it would mostly harm China, one of the few states still friendly to Iran, and if it stopped exporting only oil not sold to China, it would amount only to a trickle of oil the world would not even notice.
    "A belief is not merely an idea the mind possesses; it is an idea that possesses the mind."

    Robert Oxton Bolt

  8. #158
    Light△Bender


    grip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    ☚ ☛
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    14,222
    Likes Received
    5944 times
    Likes Given
    6069
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Israeli officials: Obama too soft on Iran

    Quote Originally Posted by toomuchtime_ View Post
    Regardless of what Iran might try to do, it is unlikely to have a greater effect than a brief spike in spot oil prices and it will have no effect on consumers and industry in most developed countries. If no oil were being produced anywhere in the world, the global strategic oil reserves would be sufficient to supply the world at its present rate of consumption for 41 days, and of course Iran can only effect some oil shipments in one part of the world and then only briefly. Of the world's 4.1 billion barrel strategic oil reserves, 2.6 billion is held by private industry, so it is unlikely that a brief spike in spot oil prices would have any effect on the cost of goods and services to consumers or to profits enjoyed by businesses. In addition, in an election year when the election will likely be decided largely by economic conditions, it is unlikely Obama would allow even gasoline prices to rise too much before releasing the government's strategic reserves.

    It is not even clear that Iran is capable of slowing the rate of oil exports from the Gulf for more than a very short period of time, probably days. With the massive amount of US naval power in the Gulf, any attempt to attack Gulf shipping would be futile and probably result in severe punishment. The threat to block the Straits of Hormuz is likewise an empty bluff. The Iranian navy would be quickly destroyed if it tried to hold positions there and if it sank ships and laid mines, these would be quickly cleared. The world has been preparing for these events for years and Iran would only hurt itself by doing either of these things. Iran's threat to stop exporting oil is also ludicrous. China is the principal buyer of Iranian oil and 80% of China's oil imports come from Iran. If Iran stopped exporting oil, it would mostly harm China, one of the few states still friendly to Iran, and if it stopped exporting only oil not sold to China, it would amount only to a trickle of oil the world would not even notice.
    It's not the actual amount of oil reserves that will be tested it's the oil markets in general. Investors go by momentum when buying and selling and information about possible slow ups in supplies. They're always perched to make a superior profit and will attract other money into their plans. You can side step this reality all you want but even the expert opinions from pundits and government officials recognize this very real possibility. All it would take is a few dozen major suppliers, shippers and pipelines damaged to create an upheaval. The President may institute a form of Marshall Law or moratorium on gas prices but not before it starts coming unglued. I think this because of the sheer influence big intl. money investors and oil companies have in DC. Everyone thinks Iran won't hurt their own oil buyers but if their military assets are decimated like Iraq's were they won't care about their buyers for awhile. If it weren't for such economic weaknesses world wide Israel and the US would've hit Iran's nuke sites a couple years ago. Our economies are so interlinked with China, Europe, Japan, India and many others that one more straw on the camels back might just break it.
    Last edited by grip; 12-19-11 at 02:12 PM.

  9. #159
    Sage
    EagleAye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Last Seen
    03-28-13 @ 07:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,697
    Likes Received
    3242 times
    Likes Given
    4165

    Re: Israeli officials: Obama too soft on Iran

    If Iran cutoff oil supplies it would probably be only to US allies. That would mean Spain, Greece, Italy, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. But the slack could likely be picked by Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Libya. Iraq and Libya could likely use new found revenue. In fact, if new channels like this are established, Iran may lose US allied customers permanently. Cutting oil supplies is a risky game for Iran and one they should not start playing.

    Found some interesting articles here about the impact of Iran oil sanctions/Iran stopping oil flow:
    Michael Levi: Energy, Security, and Climate Incoherent Thinking About An Iranian Oil Embargo
    This prospect has elicited a flood of market impact analyses. The ones Ive seen are proprietary, so I wont post or quote them here, but they appear to have one important thing in common. Parts of each analysis look country-by-coutnry to see who is currently most dependent on Iranian oil. They then suggest that those countries are at greatest risk in the event a cutoff. Other parts of each analysis estimate the rise in world prices that sanctions would provoke as a way of explaining how bad the consequences would be.

    This is, quite literally, incoherent. To argue that each country will be affected differently depending on its level of imports from Iran, one must conceive of the world oil market as a place where geography matters deeply. This is inconsistent with thinking about a single world price for oil.
    Iran faces prospect of EU crude embargo - FT.com
    If current clients do not offset the loss of the European market, Tehran could try to look for new buyers or dust off old ones, such as Pakistan. But the impact of the financial sanctions imposed by Western countries is likely to prevent importers paying for the oil.

    Thus, Tehran is unlikely to make up for the loss of the European market, particularly in the short-term, forcing it to either cut production or start storing the crude.
    China is in a payment dispute with Iran over Chinese oil purchases. So China is halving it's purchase of Iran oil for January. Iran is playing with the big boys now and starting to see who's boss.
    UPDATE 2-China halves Jan Iran oil imports in payment dispute | News by Country | Reuters
    BEIJING, Dec 19 (Reuters) - China's top refiner Sinopec Corp will in January buy less than half the crude it typically imports from Iran, trade sources said on Monday, as the two haggle over terms against a backdrop of rising international pressure on Tehran.

    Iran's largest crude buyer has cut its January purchases by about 285,000 barrels per day (bpd), sources said. That is over half of the close to 550,000 bpd that China has been buying on annual contract this year.
    Last edited by EagleAye; 12-19-11 at 02:20 PM.
    Check out my Blog http://momusnews.wordpress.com/
    Sherry's Photography site: http://www.sheywicklundphotos.com/

  10. #160
    Randian PUA
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    45,681
    Likes Received
    16767 times
    Likes Given
    23303

    Re: Israeli officials: Obama too soft on Iran

    Quote Originally Posted by EagleAye View Post
    If Iran cutoff oil supplies it would probably be only to US
    Oil is sold on an international market.
    Quote Originally Posted by GBFAN View Post
    Biology says that all pregnancies happen to men, too.
    Quote Originally Posted by buck View Post
    I..am happy they are limiting the networks...it makes Obamacare look bad...and second it saves the taxpayer money... Smaller networks = lower premium = smaller subsidies = less tax dollars.

Page 16 of 18 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •