The historic way up to and including {Iraq 2003 - Present} is not to take control of an oil industry abroad but to sell arms to countries abundant in oil thereby converting significant portions of a nations oil wealth into US corporate profits and sales. As a matter of fact we are selling Abrams Tanks and F-16’s to Iraq as we speak. But I do not see what we did in Iraq being applicable to Iran. The US invasion of Iraq ultimately strengthened Iran’s influence in the region and occurred in parallel with the growth of the strategic alliance between Iran and the Russian Federation.
I do not think Iran needs a nuclear bomb to defend herself against the type of American aggression that you describe. Iran needs to play the Russian need for an alliance, cooperation and trade with the EU against any US moves against the regime’s sovereignty within Iran.
Indeed Russia, under Putin seems to be confident that Iran is not seeking to build a nuclear weapon. Putin has defended Iran’s right to build peaceful nuclear energy at the risk of Iranian meddling in other contentious areas of Russian concern such as Chechnya and other areas of the soft underbelly of the Russian Federation where Islamic beliefs prevail. Putin also has brought Iran in to heel when the EU specifically applies pressure on the need to do so. Putin has manipulated a delicate balancing act with Iran’s drive for peaceful nuclear power and the major worries that members of the EU certainly have. Russia also has ties to Israel, Syria and Turkey that are involved in the balancing act.
Russia cannot afford to allow Iran to “GET THE BOMB”. It will not work.
Just to reiterate some of what I’m saying here’s Putin’s comment on the interim deal signed in November this year. (Bolding at the end is mine)
And here’s an interesting report from 2006 if you’d like to read more:
Russia, Iran, and the Nuclear Question: The Putin Record
Authored by Dr. Robert O. Freedman. | November 2006
I know that you aren’t interested in anything that contradicts your patent lack of knowledge about current events. It isn’t much of a debate if you can’t respond to well-known facts that undercut your absurd statements.
You’re throwing out arguments that are just fundamentally wrong: that the EU and US sanctions on Iran are somehow like the US embargo on Cuba; that the US had a poor economy in the mid-1940s; and that the current dispute is only between the US and Iran. Those are just totally wrong. There’s no arguing about those points, it is like you are saying that the world is flat, or that water freezes at 78 degrees.
Earlier you proclaimed that your access to documentary films in your country made you and your countrymen more informed on current events. But you can’t even get the most basic facts right. How can you claim to be better informed when there are such fundamental gaps in your understanding of current events? And how is it that you can claim to be enlightened by all this media you have access to, when you deny that corrections of your misinformation are relevant?
I have a lot of family in Sweden. Aside from misunderstandings of American life – a number of my relatives actually think that there are routine gun battles in city streets that look like something you’d see in action movies, or that Southern Baptists are some kind of bizarre cult because there’s lots of singing and talking in church – they are pretty well informed. But they also accept corrections of those misunderstandings, much to their credit. This is the first time I’ve encountered a Swede who seemingly doesn’t understand issues that are well covered in newspapers, like that Sweden is fully participating in the sanctions against Iran’s nuclear program. For example, Sweden is not buying oil, natural gas, or government bonds from Iran, and has participated in freezing Iran’s offshore assets and has stopped financial transactions with Iran.
I assume he’s Swedish because there’s been a couple references to Sweden. If he is Australian, here’s a virtually identical list of sanctions that Australia has on Iran. Oil, gas, financial transactions, travel restrictions, etc.
No, you are introducing pears into the discussion about apples and think you can sneak a point in if I don’t notice the side-step. And then there are the consecutive absurd conclusions you like to drop, building upon them in the following post, treating them as truth from the file.
I’d be genuinely grateful if you could provide a list of what Sweden enforce as what you call “travel restrictions”. That would be interesting - and because you say such a reference does exists I know you have it close at hand. There are no restrictions stated in my passport and no restriction warnings posted anywhere. So be a good lad and give us a look-see. OK?
It’s in my cite. You’ll have to actually click on it yourself and apply your eyeballs to it. I’m afraid I can’t spare the time or the expense to fly out to where ever you are and manipulate the mouse for you.
[QUOTE=Travel restrictions ]
”Travel restrictions are in place in EU Member States, in the form of prohibitions on entry and transit for persons that the Security Council or the EU considers to have a particular connection to Iranian activities that the Security Council wishes to prevent. In certain cases, it is possible to obtain exemptions from these travel restrictions. The prohibition and the possibilities of obtaining exemptions are found in Article 19 of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP. The annexes of this Decision, which list the natural and legal persons concerned, have successively been expanded and revised. The persons currently covered by travel restrictions can be seen from an overall reading of Annexes I and II of the Council Decision, as successively amended (see Council Decisions 2010/644/CFSP, 2011/299/CFSP, 2011/783/CFSP, 2012/35/CFSP, 2012/205/CFSP, 2012/457/CFSP, 2012/635/CFSP, 2012/687/CFSP and 2012/829/CFSP). The list of natural persons subject to travel restrictions broadly matches the list of natural persons whose assets have been frozen under Article 23 of the Regulation (see point N). The prohibition is implemented through the national law of the Member States, and in Sweden is covered within the framework of aliens legislation.
The competent authorities are the Swedish Migration Board and Sweden’s missions abroad. ”
[/QUOTE]
Some of this might just as well been written in Greek but if I understand, it has nothing to do with restricting me from travelling to Iran. I’ve actually been to Iran but that was in late 1979, during the Revolution. Furthermore, those travel restrictions (again if I understand it) apply only to Iranian citizens who have questionable connections …… and have nothing to do with me as a Swedish citizen.
MY FAULT. My understanding was that you were saying my government restricts my travel in the way the U.S. restrict its population from travelling to countries such as Cuba, the former North Vietnam, etc. Sweden does not restrict us in any such way.
It isn’t the airfare, it’s all the damn airport taxes you socialists put on travel! I just looked it up – I can find a $850 fare to Stockholm, and the actual ticket cost is – get this – $285!
Right, I was not claiming that citizens of country cannot travel to Iran. As far as I know, the only country that US citizens are not free to visit is Cuba, unless under certain exchange programs. And I think that’s completely ludicrous.
For some reason it is dirt cheap for us to fly to the U.S. if you know how to scan the flights on the internet, but it is really expensive to fly from the U.S. to Sweden. I don’t know if it’s any better flying to central Europe then continue from there.
I think the U.S. may have lifted the restrictions on their citizens to travel to Cuba, at least there was some talk about Obama removing it.
What I think is completely ludicrous was some convention that came to Sweden, not that many many years ago. They were all booked at the American-owned Hilton. When they arrived from the airport the Cuban delegates were refused access to the hotel because of U.S. policies! In Sweden! :eek: My government had nothing to say about it.
A deliberate manifestation of the new health care laws. Its OK if Swedes come to America, see how things are here, the Swedish gov has not objections. But if Americans go to Sweden and witness first hand the horror of socialized medicine, well…
It’s pretty common here for localities to pay for billion dollar new sports stadiums by leveling higher and higher taxes on things like hotel rooms, car rentals, and other services that only non-locals really use. I can only assume that the Scandinavian equivalent of the Dallas Cowboys’ taxpayer-subsidized stadium is free gall bladder and sex reassignment surgeries for Swedes.
So, Riga, next time you get major surgery, thank an American!
Aw, come on man! Be a sport! It doesn’t cost that much to fly over … unless the all mighty dollar has lost its ummmmph?