^ Fair enough. Why don't you go have a group hug then with all your recently out of the closet she-men? :rolleyes:

^ Who said he is a she? Mise anyone who shows strong opinions or an ounce of brains is a "gurl"? :rolleyes:

How about them Arabs with equally gigantic balls, eh? I'd have liked to see the oil production drop to 4 barrels per day. Mostly cooking oil. Oil attacks costing Iraq $6.25bn Attacks by insurgents on Iraq's oil industry cost the country $6.25bn (£3.6bn) in lost revenue during 2005, according to the Iraqi oil ministry. A total of 186 attacks were carried out on oil sites last year, claiming the lives of 47 engineers and 91 police and security guards, a spokesman said. Iraq's government has been struggling in the wake of a violent insurgency following the US-led invasion in 2003. US officials say the cost of rebuilding Iraq could reach more than $56bn. US Special Inspector-General Stuart Bowen earlier this month warned that Iraq's rebuilding was being undermined by continuing insurgent attacks. Pipelines targeted Most of attacks on Iraqi oil installations occurred in the north of the country, where crude is pumped through pipelines to the Turkish port of Ceyhan. "Iraq lost oil revenues worth $6.25bn in 2005 due to sabotage on the country's oil infrastructure," oil ministry spokesman Assem Jihad said. The attacks prevented Iraq from exporting about 400,000 barrels of oil a day, the ministry said. Iraq currently produces about two million barrels of oil a day, mostly from oil fields in the southern and northern tips of the country. However, that is down by about 800,000 barrels from production levels before Saddam Hussein's regime was toppled in 2003. Violent attacks on foreign contractors in Iraq have also hit the economy, pushing up security costs and delaying reconstruction projects. Source

How's this for Orwellian: the US might be considering using nuclear weapons to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. I don't know whether I should laugh or cry walaahi. WWIII or Bust: Implications of a US Attack on Iran by Heather Wokusch "This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous... Having said that, all options are on the table." -- George W. Bush, February 2005 Witnessing the Bush administration’s drive for an attack on Iran is like being a passenger in a car with a raving drunk at the wheel. Reports of impending doom surfaced a year ago, but now it’s official: under orders from Vice President Cheney’s office, the Pentagon has developed “last resort†aerial-assault plans using long-distance B2 bombers and submarine-launched ballistic missiles with both conventional and nuclear weapons. How ironic that the Pentagon proposes using nuclear weapons on the pretext of protecting the world from nuclear weapons. Ironic also that Iran has complied with its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, allowing inspectors to “go anywhere and see anything,†yet those pushing for an attack, the USA and Israel, have not. The nuclear threat from Iran is hardly urgent. As the Washington Post reported in August 2005, the latest consensus among U.S. intelligence agencies is that “Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon, roughly doubling the previous estimate of five years.†The Institute for Science and International Security estimated that while Iran could have a bomb by 2009 at the earliest, the US intelligence community assumed technical difficulties would cause “significantly delay.†The director of Middle East Studies at Brown University and a specialist in Middle Eastern energy economics both called the State Department’s claims of a proliferation threat from Iran’s Bushehr reactor “demonstrably false,†concluding that “the physical evidence for a nuclear weapons program in Iran simply does not exist.†So there’s no urgency - just a bad case of déjà vu all over again. The Bush administration is recycling its hype over Hussein’s supposed WMD threat into rhetoric about Iran, but look where the charade got us last time: tens of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians, a country teetering on civil war and increased global terrorism. Yet the stakes in Iran are arguably much higher. Consider that many in the US and Iran seek religious salvation through a Middle Eastern blowout. “End times†Christian fundamentalists believe a cataclysmic Armageddon will enable the Messiah to reappear and transport them to heaven, leaving behind Muslims and other non-believers to face plagues and violent death. Iran’s new Shia Islam president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, subscribes to a competing version of the messianic comeback, whereby the skies turn to flames and blood flows in a final showdown of good and evil. The Hidden Imam returns, bringing world peace by establishing Islam as the global religion. Both the US and Iran have presidents who arguably see themselves as divinely chosen and who covet their own country’s apocalypse-seeking fundamentalist voters. And into this tinderbox Bush proposes bringing nuclear weapons. As expected, the usual suspects press for a US attack on Iran. Neo-cons who brought us the “cakewalk†of Iraq want to bomb the country. There’s also Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, busy coordinating the action plan against Iran, who just released the Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review calling for US forces to “operate around the globe†in an infinite “long war.†One can assume Rumsfeld wants to bomb a lot of countries. There’s also Israel, keen that no other country in the region gains access to nuclear weapons. In late 2002, former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Iran should be targeted “the day after†Iraq was subdued, and Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of the Likud Party, recently warned that if he wins the presidential race in March 2006, Israel will “do what we did in the past against Saddam’s reactor,†an obvious reference to the 1981 bombing of the Osirak nuclear facility in Iraq. It doesn’t help that Iran’s Ahmadinejad has called the Holocaust a myth and said that Israel should be "wiped off the map." In the eyes of the Bush administration, however, Iran’s worst transgression has less to do with nuclear ambitions or anti-Semitism than with the petro-euro oil bourse Tehran is slated to open in March 2006. Iran’s plan to allow oil trading in euros threatens to break the dollar’s monopoly as the global reserve currency, and since the greenback is severely overvalued due to huge trade deficits, the move could be devastating for the US economy. So we remain pedal to the metal with Bush for an attack on Iran. But what if the US does go ahead and launch an assault in the coming months? The Pentagon has already identified 450 strategic targets, some of which are underground and would require the use of nuclear weapons to destroy. What happens then? You can bet that Iran would retaliate. Tehran promised a “crushing response†to any US or Israeli attack, and while the country – ironically - doesn’t possess nuclear weapons to scare off attackers, it does have other options. Iran boasts ground forces estimated at 800,000 personnel, as well as long-range missiles that could hit Israel and possibly even Europe. In addition, much of the world’s oil supply is transported through the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow stretch of ocean which Iran borders to the north. In 1997, Iran’s deputy foreign minister warned that the country might close off that shipping route if ever threatened, and it wouldn’t be difficult. Just a few missiles or gunboats could bring down vessels and block the Strait, thereby threatening the global oil supply and shooting energy prices into the stratosphere. An attack on Iran would also inflame tensions in the Middle East, especially provoking the Shiite Muslim populations. Considering that Shiites largely run the governments of Iran and Iraq and are a potent force in Saudi Arabia, that doesn’t bode well for calm in the region. It would incite the Lebanese Hezbollah, an ally of Iran’s, potentially sparking increased global terrorism. A Shiite rebellion in Iraq would further endanger US troops and push the country deeper into civil war. Attacking Iran could also tip the scales towards a new geopolitical balance, one in which the US finds itself shut out by Russia, China, Iran, Muslim countries and the many others Bush has managed to piss off during his period in office. Just last month, Russia snubbed Washington by announcing it would go ahead and honor a $700 million contract to arm Iran with surface-to-air missiles, slated to guard Iran’s nuclear facilities. And after being burned when the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority invalidated Hussein-era oil deals, China has snapped up strategic energy contracts across the world, including in Latin America, Canada and Iran. It can be assumed that China will not sit idly by and watch Tehran fall to the Americans. Russia and China have developed strong ties recently, both with each other and with Iran. Each possesses nuclear weapons, and arguably more threatening to the US, each holds large reserves of US dollars which can be dumped in favor of euros. Bush crosses them at his nation’s peril. Yet another danger is that an attack on Iran could set off a global arms race - if the US flaunts the non-proliferation treaty and goes nuclear, there would be little incentive for other countries to abide by global disarmament agreements either. Besides, the Bush administration’s message to its enemies has been very clear: if you possess WMD you’re safe, and if you don’t, you’re fair game. Iraq had no nuclear weapons and was invaded, Iran doesn’t as well and risks attack, yet that other “Axis of Evil†country, North Korea, reportedly does have nuclear weapons and is left alone. It’s also hard to justify striking Iran over its allegedly developing a secret nuclear weapons program, when India and Pakistan (and presumably Israel) did the same thing and remain on good terms with Washington. The most horrific impact of a US assault on Iran, of course, would be the potentially catastrophic number of casualties. The Oxford Research Group predicted that up to 10,000 people would die if the US bombed Iran’s nuclear sites, and that an attack on the Bushehr nuclear reactor could send a radioactive cloud over the Gulf. If the US uses nuclear weapons, such as earth-penetrating “bunker buster†bombs, radioactive fallout would become even more disastrous. Given what’s at stake, few allies, apart from Israel, can be expected to support a US attack on Iran. While Jacques Chirac has blustered about using his nukes defensively, it’s doubtful that France would join an unprovoked assault, and even loyal allies, such as the UK, prefer going through the UN Security Council. Which means the wildcard is Turkey. The nation shares a border with Iran, and according to Noam Chomsky, is heavily supported by the domestic Israeli lobby in Washington, permitting 12% of the Israeli air and tank force to be stationed in its territory. Turkey’s crucial role in an attack on Iran explains why there’s been a spurt of high-level US visitors to Ankara lately, including Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, FBI Director Robert Mueller and CIA Director Porter Goss. In fact, the German newspaper Der Spiegel reported in December 2005 that Goss had told the Turkish government it would be “informed of any possible air strikes against Iran a few hours before they happened†and that Turkey had been given a "green light" to attack camps of the separatist Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) in Iran “on the day in question.†It’s intriguing that both Valerie Plame (the CIA agent whose identity was leaked to the media after her husband criticized the Bush administration’s pre-invasion intelligence on Iraq) and Sibel Edmonds (the former FBI translator who turned whistleblower) have been linked to exposing intelligence breaches relating to Turkey, including potential nuclear trafficking. And now both women are effectively silenced. While the US public sees the issue of Iran as backburner, it has little eagerness for an attack on Iran at this time. A USA Today/CNN Gallup Poll from early February 2006 found that a full 86% of respondents favored either taking no action or using economic/diplomatic efforts towards Iran for now. Significantly, 69% said they were concerned “that the U.S. will be too quick to use military force in an attempt to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.†And that begs the question: how can the US public be convinced to enter a potentially ugly and protracted war in Iran? A domestic terrorist attack would do the trick. Just consider how long Congress went back and forth over reauthorizing Bush’s Patriot Act, but how quickly opposing senators capitulated following last week’s nerve-agent scare in a Senate building. The scare turned out to be a false alarm, but the Patriot Act got the support it needed. Now consider the fact that former CIA Officer Philip Giraldi has said the Pentagon’s plans to attack Iran were drawn up “to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States.†Writing in The American Conservative in August 2005, Giraldi added, “As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States.†Chew on that one a minute. The Pentagon’s plan should be used in response to a terrorist attack on the US, yet is not contingent upon Iran actually having been responsible. How outlandish is this scenario: another 9/11 hits the US, the administration says it has secret information implicating Iran, the US population demands retribution and bombs start dropping on Tehran. That’s the worst-case scenario, but even the best case doesn’t look good. Let’s say the Bush administration chooses the UN Security Council over military power in dealing with Iran. That still leaves the proposed oil bourse, along with the economic fallout that will occur if OPEC countries snub the greenback in favor of petro-euros. At the very least, the dollar will drop and inflation could soar, so you’d think the administration would be busy tightening the nation’s collective belt. But no. The US trade deficit reached a record high of $725.8 billion in 2005, and Bush & Co.’s FY 2007 budget proposes increasing deficits by $192 billion over the next five years. The nation is hemorhaging roughly $7 billion a month on military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and is expected to hit its debt ceiling of $8.184 trillion next month. So the white-knuckle ride to war continues, with the administration’s goals in Iran very clear. Recklessly naïve and impetuous perhaps, but clear: stop the petro-euro oil bourse, take over Khuzestan Province (which borders Iraq and has 90% of Iran’s oil) and secure the Straits of Hormuz in the process. As US politician Newt Gingrich recently put it, Iranians cannot be trusted with nuclear technology, and they also "cannot be trusted with their oil." But the Bush administration cannot be trusted with foreign policy. Its military adventurism has already proven disastrous across the globe. It’s incumbent upon each of us to do whatever we can to stop this race towards war. Source

LOL. As long as they're not hurt in the process, I don't worry too much about anything my girls break. Except my powerbook. I can probably get used to them breaking anything but not my laptop. There's no use explaining to a 2-3 year why breaking things is bad. It's like talking to a 3-foot high wall that speaks Somanglish.

^ It's convenient that the churches (or mosques) would go up in flames whenever people rise up againt the oil giants in Nigeria. Similarly, there's a rash of church burnings in the southern US states right now. The FBI "vowed" to find the culprits. Yeah right. :rolleyes: My suspicion is this has something to do with FEMA, Katrina and how the lack of help for evacuees of New Orleans continues to this day. It's funny how religion can often be used to distract from what really matters to people.

^ You don't happen to have a helmet handy, do you? Yes? Wear it.

^ It's a nine month old baby. You know Blessed, these days, I'm seeing everything as corruption, empire, oppression, lies, propaganda, injustice and starvation. Sometimes I get depressed and blue without anything going on in my life.

^ Saaxib you're even less coherent on weekends than on weekdays. Exactly what are you saying above?

^ How long do you think this latest "insurgency" of the locals will last then? It really is only a matter of time before overwhelming force is used against them. What does such overwhelming force entail? It entails using the CIA (or CIA trained Nigerians) to quel this uprising. It's the standard operating procedure in such matters. The CIA (and all of the armed US forces and their US-trained local cohorts) are nothing but debt collectors for US corporations. Or more accurately, the collectors of the pound of flesh. If these Nigerians find any success in disrupting oil supplies for any extended period of time or make oil prices rise significantly, watch how Nigeria will suddenly become a nation "close" to developing nuclear weapons. Then the marines (the amphibious debt collectors) will arrive to "spread democracy" and "free" the Nigerian people.

^ I'm afraid you're right good Yeniceri. The nuclear threat is but a ruse. As you alluded to, here's real reason the for the upcoming invasion.

^ Remember Ken Sara Wiwa? He was hung by Royal Dutch Shell, oops, I mean the Nigerian government in the 1990s. His, however, was a peaceful struggle not unlike that of Dr. Martin Luther King. Here's the lesson boys and girls, whether you march in peace or kidnap foreigners and torch oil tankers, the end result is the same: they will kill you. Martin, Ken and Malcom were assassinated and so will Godswill Tamuno, the military leader of the Mend movement. Still, that should not be a deterrent to continue the struggle. I think it was Lincoln who said: You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.

^ Huh? Naden, I loved this part of the article: The rebels recently blew up two oil pipelines, held four foreign oil workers hostage and sabotaged two major oilfields. The group wants greater control of the oil wealth produced on their land. Nigeria is Africa's leading oil exporter and the fifth-biggest source of US oil imports, but despite its oil wealth, many Nigerians live in abject poverty. This is the sort of thing Che would lend a helping hand to had he not been murdered by the United Food Company, oops, I mean the CIA. :rolleyes:

^ I'm glad comrade. Welcome aboard and do carry on your subversion activities. You have my not so tacit approval. This lot here is ripe for indoctrination. Like taking candy from a kid.

I'm only publicly rooting for them. Together with anyone that blows up a pipe or destroys a tanker taking the wealth (and blood) of the local people to the West. I agree with you. If the locals can't get it out, let it stay there until they can. You don't see "foreign" companies mining for minerals or oil in Colorado or Alaska, do you?

^ You are a communist then. My evidence is your use of the word "masses". Oh I need a big word. Got it. Obfuscate. I need to obfuscate the shidh out of some people here. Pi: how's this for topic hijacking?

^ I think naden is a communist. What say you? Make sure to use at least one big, important-sounding word in your response.

^ Naden, you're here to subvert the no spell-check culture on SOL, aren't you? The heathenism inherent in the use of a dictionary or a thesaurus is well documented. I encourage you to refrain from using sarcasm to get your point across. You might just be mistaken for a numskulled pseudo cerebral mongrel bij.

^ I wouldn't mind taking a peek at what's inside that box. Here's an excerpt of an article speaking of when Iran will be bomb-ready. Notice the tone of the article: Iran plans to install 50,000 centrifuges in underground halls at Natanz, Iran. But fewer than half of the 1,140 machines Iran had assembled by 2004 were good enough, the UN nuclear agency has reported. Hinderstein's institute suggests Iran could speed things up to produce enough bomb fuel for one weapon. Even then, the process would take the project into 2009. And, asked Barnaby, "Who do you deter with just one weapon?" Source

^ Undetected? By whom? Do you scan people's writings for Somali genes saaxib? Get real atheer. Mr. Jibis? As in the Somali way of saying chips?

Xiinow, here's the deal. Unless and until there's a client regime in Iran, it will remain a threat to US interests in the region. Furthermore, the lack (or delay) of success in Iraq has given the impression the US is incapable of undertaking other similar endeavors. This perception has resulted in the US worrying its hegemony being threatened and has afforded the likes of Iran and Venezuela the audacity to be more vocal and overtly antagonistic towards it (the US). This climate has put the US between two bitter choices: negotiate with a regime it labels rogue or destroy the regime's nuclear ambitions. The first, as the report accurately states, is becoming increasingly unlikely. Both sides are showing an arrogant posture. Even worse, the US continues its rhetoric about Iran's alleged terror links effectively destroying any hopes of a peaceful resolution. What remains then is the military option. Rememeber, as I said earlier, there is a great race against time as no one really knows how close the Iranians are to a bomb. So, if they are close, as everyone suspects, it is unlikely that even with enough carrots via negotiation they would abandon their efforts. If they're not close, it behooves them to speed up their efforts to build it. Either way, and depending on their determination, the US is "fundamentally" opposed to resistance from anyone in the region. This is a classic impasse that can only end in violence. Yes Iran is weak relative to the US. But Iraq was exponentially weaker than Iran when it was invaded in 2003. And we all know how well that occupation is going. Iran also has nearly three times the population of Iraq and twice the land area. Unlike Iraq, however, the US is not interested in regime change in Iran. As the report states, that lack of interest is a function of the difficulty of such an undertaking. It requires more ground troops than the US has available. What remains then is aerially bomb the sites and facilities suspected of involvement in nuclear research. When that happens, indeed Pandora's box will open.

^ Will return with a proper reply later. Though I'm surprised you (the quintessential realist) would resort to such a dreamer analysis.

^ Really? I thought they covered the consequences on the region pretty well. At least the tangible effects on neighboring countries and the greater Middle East. They even went as far as showing the involvement China might have with it. Though the latter is a matter for speculation at the moment. It is quite difficult to foretell and quantify just how such a conflict could affect the whole world. The dynamics of it would be played out over years or decades and other than the immediate impact on oil prices, lives lost in the region and the involvement of Muslim nations in the conflict, it is nearly impossible to predict, in my view, what world wide ramifications this will have. Both Iran and the US are in a time crunch. The former is rapidly developing its nuclear capability while the latter is building permanent bases on both sides of Iran. Let's see who reaches the goal line first.

^ A chilling report indeed. And for those of you who don't want the gory details, here's the conclusion of the report: Conclusion A US military attack on Iranian nuclear infrastructure would be the start of a protracted military confrontation that would probably involve Iraq, Israel and Lebanon as well as the United States and Iran, with the possibility of west Gulf states being involved as well. An attack by Israel, although initially on a smaller scale, would almost certainly escalate to involve the United States, and would also mark the start of a protracted conflict. Although an attack by either state could seriously damage Iran’s nuclear development potential, numerous responses would be possible making a protracted and highly unstable conflict virtually certain. Moreover, Iran would be expected to withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty and engage in a nuclear weapons programme as rapidly as possible. This would lead to further military action against Iran, establishing a highly dangerous cycle of violence. The termination of the Saddam Hussein regime was expected to bring about a free-market client state in Iraq. Instead it has produced a deeply unstable and costly conflict with no end in sight. That may not prevent a US or an Israeli attack on Iran even though it should be expected that the consequences would be substantially greater. What this analysis does conclude is that a military response to the current crisis in relations with Iran is a particularly dangerous option and should not be considered further – alternative approaches must be sought, however difficult these may be.

Executive Summary An air attack on Iran by Israeli or US forces would be aimed at setting back Iran’s nuclear programme by at least five years. A ground offensive by the United States to terminate the regime is not feasible given other commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, and would not be attempted. An air attack would involve the systematic destruction of research, development, support and training centres for nuclear and missile programmes and the killing of as many technically competent people as possible. A US attack, which would be larger than anything Israel could mount, would also involve comprehensive destruction of Iranian air defence capabilities and attacks designed to pre-empt Iranian retaliation. This would require destruction of Iranian Revolutionary Guard facilities close to Iraq and of regular or irregular naval forces that could disrupt Gulf oil transit routes. Although US or Israeli attacks would severely damage Iranian nuclear and missile programmes, Iran would have many methods of responding in the months and years that followed. These would include disruption of Gulf oil production and exports, in spite of US attempts at pre-emption, systematic support for insurgents in Iraq, and encouragement to associates in Southern Lebanon to stage attacks on Israel. There would be considerable national unity in Iran in the face of military action by the United States or Israel, including a revitalised Revolutionary Guard. One key response from Iran would be a determination to reconstruct a nuclear programme and develop it rapidly into a nuclear weapons capability, with this accompanied by withdrawal from the Non-Proliferation Treaty. This would require further attacks. A military operation against Iran would not, therefore, be a short-term matter but would set in motion a complex and long-lasting confrontation. It follows that military action should be firmly ruled out and alternative strategies developed. Read the entire report here. Incidently, the site is called IranBodyCount.org (like the Iraqi site except this one the count is zero so far.)