The interesting distinction, though, is that a big part of Obama's campaign was centered around ending the exact partisan politics we see.

The difference is the relationship between intent and results.  If, for example, we found that PETA was directly responsible for making an insane amount of species go extinct, second only to Microsoft... it would be logical that we should hold people who are advocating removal of a problem to a higher standard than those who don't advocate removal of the problem, because one case is blatant hypocrisy, while the other is ignorance.

It's the same reason why civil rights organizations get on the backs of liberal Western nations for minor abuses more than they would for dictators rampantly making such abuses... the liberal Western nation should know better.

Copyrights last for the life of the author+75 years, even in the most generous situations.  Best estimates give that John died in 100 AD, which is 1,400 years before the printing press.

Full disclosure: The second half of that 8 years would involve the secret service desperately trying to reason with a drunk V. Kemp, explaining to him that he lost reelection and needs to vacate the premises. 

*replies*

Yep.  Don't see any problems there, though I'll admit that Indian-Iranian relations aren't exactly one of my strong suits, so I'll defer  to you on that.

> Firewing wrote:

> > Zarf BeebleBrix wrote:

> Saudi Arabia has already said it can increase production to offset European losses from ending trade with Iran.  So that argument's a non-starter.

Saudi Arabia sells for world market prices, Iran does not. Iranian oil is cheap and for the ruined european states a good choice. Nobody knows how the european states shall pay world market prices.

Iranian oil is cheap because Iranian oil isn't of the quality used by conventional oil assessments (light, sweet crude oil).  And I just checked... both Saudi Arabia and Iran produce sour crude oil, so I dunno where this is coming from.

> "As for India, although I definitely see articles that say India is willing to continue current purchases of Iranian oil, I find nothing indicating they would increase purchases of oil in response to the sanctions, as you seem to indicate.  Regardless, though, this is all still preliminary.  The next 180 days is the time for the US to pressure nations (including India, a nation with very close relations with the US, and which requires the US to legally supply nuclear material for its nuclear power program)."

The next 180 days will be full of propaganda in Iran. The regime will tighten their grip on the population.

No argument there.  But remember, Iran's influence abroad is waning... giving the US capability to try and get other actors on board with the sanctions.

"I'd also like the source on China.  As far as I can tell, China hasn't taken an official stance, except to say the sanctions are a bad idea (which is very different from saying they won't cooperate)."
There is no source, because China celebrates new year. But this may help:
http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/20/china-foreign-investment-tracker-markets-economy-glonal-2000-10-derek-scissors.html
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R40361.pdf

As you can read China tried several investments in Iran, their hunger for energy has no limits.

Fair enough.  However, recognize that, in the next 180 days, China will essentially have to choose its relations between two of its most important trade relations.  Calling China now as an Iran supporter could definitely be shortsighted, especially with so much time for new energy development to offset Iran.  China may feel they have no choice but to support Iran now, but if the effort to isolate Iran is comprehensive, they may yet have a choice.

"Even if you're correct, though, Iran is already seeing the economic pressure.  The rial has utterly collapsed in value over the past couple months (shortly following the announcements of sanctions by the US and EU), which means Iran has to pay more for any imports due to currency conversions.  This may affect the oil exchange, because the system which insulated oil markets from inter-currency instability (global use of a single currency for the oil market) would no longer protect the market... thus Iran should receive much smaller return than it would otherwise gain."

The world needs oil and there will be ways to avoid the sanctions. Iran will sell oil and when the current economic crisis is over, the world demand for oil will hurt the euopean economy. For the US this may be good, but not for europe.

You're missing the point.  Market corrections assume things like whether illegal oil sales exist.  Even if they do sell oil, Iran will need to jump through hoops to sell it.  But yeah... if you're acknowledging here "the Iranian economy is taking a hit..." you're acknowledging that the sanctions are doing at least part of their job.  +1 sanctions

"Add to this that Obama suddenly wants to expand US natural gas production (which could very easily be an effort to further push Iran out of the oil market by freeing up US consumption away from petroleum for use in the global market)... and yeah, Iran's role in the oil market is getting slowly marginalized."

These plans would take years or even decades. We need solutions now.

Yeah... scratch that argument. 

"And even if this fails... there's no non-military alternative, really.  Unless you've got some other idea... just sitting there without employing sanctions is easily the best way to ensure Iran builds a nuclear weapon.  I'm all ears on alternatives, Firewing."

Let them build nuclear weapons. We live with North Korea and their nuclear weapons. As for Israel we shall not fear, they have nuclear weapons and thanks to german submarines retaliation capabilities. M. A. D. will do the rest.

Let them?

North Korea.  Israel.  Pakistan.  India.  Four countries which have violated the NPT by building nuclear weapons... and which we've had no success in enforcing the treaty against.  Long story short, the treaty is slowly losing its credibility... especially when the world brings its full attention to the issue, knows the nuclear development is occurring, and fails.  Trying and failing is one thing... but saying "screw it, you win, Iran" would utterly devastate the credibility of the NPT.  Result: Nations globally which were considering developing nuclear weapons would have relatively little inhibition against doing so, as long as they have a friend or two at the UN Security Council.

Specifically, there are a couple nations which would suddenly become scared shitless.  Remember, Iran's the only Shiite Islamic nation in a region dominated by Sunni Muslims, with a relationship being tenuous at best.  One could very easily see Saudi Arabia or Egypt feeling the need to obtain a nuclear weapon in response to an Iranian nuclear weapon.

MAD is an extremely unstable principle.  First of all, it makes that assumption of rationality, which has definitely been called into question (the 12th Iman thing).  Second, MAD doesn't work if one nation believes another nation will inevitably take a 1st strike.  Israel, more than about 90% of nations in the world, has been willing to cross the line and make unilateral military strikes against foreign facilities and people to achieve its objectives.  No restraint, no regret.  Israel is believed to have first strike capabilities (missiles able to fuel, launch, and hit their targets before the other side can launch their own weapons... the perfect weapon for taking out an adversary's nuclear force).  One enemy having first strike capability against you is the perfect case to justify launching one's own capabilities.

Next, use of nuclear weapons isn't the only scary scenario from an Iranian nuclear weapon.
So far, Pakistan and North Korea have both been examples of some of the worst case scenarios for nuclear weapons.  No, they haven't used them.  But they did sell secrets to unstable regimes (a Pakistani scientist sold to Iran and North Korea, North Korea sold to Syria).  Each time one nation develops a nuclear weapon, the risk increases that said nation will sell secrets or otherwise give aid to the nuclear program of another non-nuclear nation.  Each time, we end up recreating the exact same problem we are having right now.  And each time, we place our hopes of preventing nuclear war on the fact that the most recent guy who doesn't give a shit about his people will be nice with his nuclear weapons.  Even if MAD works for 9, 10, or 11 nations, once you start turning that number to 20, 30, or more... at some point, it's inevitable that one guy won't trust one other guy, and the system breaks down.

Then there's the Pakistan scenario.  One of the biggest fears regarding Pakistani nuclear weapons isn't focused on its direct use.  Pakistan has obviously had a ton of instability through the past decade.  One of the big worries, then, was that if Pakistan becomes unstable, it may not be able to secure its own weapons... a terrorist group may be able to hijack a nuclear weapon in the midst of any instability.  The result... terrorists get a nuclear weapon, deterrence doesn't work against terrorists... boom.  2-km wide crater in some major metropolitan area.

Not to mention... you're willing to vouch for every Iranian leader in history?  Even if you're right that Ahmadinejad is a rational individual... it would be speculation to assume that every leader following Ahmadinejad would be.  Basing policy on said speculation is just utterly irresponsible.

Finally, MAD only works when nations are actually talking to one another.  Iran and Israel are not on speaking terms.  Unless they're actually talking, accidental wars can always spring up.  Remember, it's only 25 years since the US and USSR almost went to nuclear war over... a weather balloon... the only thing which prevented the war being that the Russians called us first.  And considering Iran's military trade relationships... Iran would most likely be getting that same hardware from Russia for its own threat detection.

Also... moving to Questions!

Marsha Marsha Marsha!!

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-26/ahmadinejad-says-iran-open-to-fresh-talks-on-nuclear-program.html

Not going to call any predictions just yet, but... it's possible Iran may have just chickened out. 

> xeno syndicated wrote:

> I really wish people would stop playing stupid.  I know you are not this dumb.  What I don't understand is why you must flame, troll with your constant devil's advocacy, knowing full well what I am saying is right.

Wait a sec... Wornstrum's question is definitely valid.  You're the one who raised the argument, and the only thing Wornstrum is doing is asking you to clarify your own statement.  Where would the violation be?

> Firewing wrote:

> These sanctions are stupid. Iran is important for the european economy, especially now in the face of the Euro crisis. now the Russians, Indians and Chinese will step in. They don't care about an Iran with nuclear weapons, they just need the oil. The "Western World" has again proved its stupidity.

1: Other countries such as Iraq and Saudi Arabia are offsetting Iranian oil.
2: If Europe doesn't care about an Iranian nuclear weapon... why did they impose harsher sanctions than even the US?  Your logic is backwards.
3: US sanctions do, however, pressure foreign countries to stop trading oil with Iran)... Japan has already said it's going to reduce Iranian oil trade.  China and India still have some time to decide.  Russia's a net exporter of oil, so I'm not sure what you're on about with that.

That works.  I'm busy as well, so take your time.