Glad it moved you! 
Several? Ha! Around this board, you can’t swing a cat without hitting one, if that’s your idea of a good time. ::waggles eyebrows::
Well, upon my superficial analysis it seems that if nuclear fuel can be produced more cheaply than the oil can be sold then it would mightily behoove Iran to sell their oil rather than burn it for and forgo the additional cash (the difference between the price to produce nuclear energy and the price oil can be sold at).
If you you have a more thorough analysis that shows why it’s foolish for Iran to use nuclear energy rather than burn their #1 cash crop, please share it with me.
I know that was addressed to Shayna, but WTF are you saying?
Are you saying that we can only evaluate the truth or falsity of words we hear in person, rather than over the TV or radio, or that we read in the newspapers? And we can only do that if we personally see the evidence of truth or falsity with our own eyes?
What a crock of shit. At least, around here. (You want to try this argument out elsewhere, it’s between you and whatever naifs you can find who might buy your crock of shit.) I mean, you know why people say stuff like “Cite?” all the time, right? It’s because we assume that we can evaluate sources, and (within reason) depend on their veracity. So yeah, by the time-honored standards of proof in place on this board, Shayna is perfectly justified in calling Bush a liar.
Here’s a little light reading if you don’t believe me. And they cite their sources, in showing that the Administration knew the claims about Saddam’s nuclear program, the African uranium, the aluminum tubes, the al-Qaeda-Saddam connection, the Prague meeting, the chemical and bio-weapons - that they didn’t have a leg to stand on in support of any of these claims. Ergo, they lied when they said they did. Enjoy.
I’d still like to know how much, if any, refining capability Iran has. I don’t know a hell of a lot about petrochemicals, but I’m pretty sure the oil they suck up out of the ground isn’t much use as a fuel source until its been pretty heavily processed. Can Iran do this processing on its own, or does it have to sell its oil to the West and then buy it back as gasoline? The fact that Iran is a net exporter of oil doesn’t really say anything about their ability to meet their energy needs.
Well, even if heavy refining is needed, which I am not sure about, I am sure that it would be far easier, cheaper, and faster to build oil refineries than uranium refineries.
According to the 2004 edition of the CIA World Factbook on Iran Iran is currently consuming approximately 33% of its own oil production (based on 2001 estimates). When combined with the following statement, it would appear that a shift to nuclear power would substantially increase Iran’s export cash:
With no other industry on which to fall back, anything that enhances oil revenues would appear to be a plus.
Here are the OPEC figures on Iran production and export.
Hit SUBMIT when I meant to hit PREVIEW.
The crude and refined numbers are:
So they appear to be consuming the vast majority of their refined output which is near the maximum of the capacity they have.
Well, that’s actually my point. Is Kerry talking about selling them nuclear fuel, or petroleum fuel? If Iran doesn’t have enough oil refineries to meet its domestic energy needs, then it would make sense to buy oil from them, refine it ourselves, and then sell some of it back to them at cost. From tom’s cite, it looks like they are meeting their requirements, but only just. An influx of cheap gas might make it easier to expand their infrastructure, or help bring down prices on consumer products across the board, raising the standard of living for the average Iranian, and hopefully making them not hate us quite so much.
Sounds like a plan to me.
It would be better for Iran to use nuclear power, IMO. It would be cheaper and allow them to generate more revenue from oil sales. Why dick around with paying the US to refine their oil when they can just go nuclear and sell more oil for more profit?
Probably. My only point is that it is not beyond the realm of the possible that Kerry is talking about selling them normal, conventional, petroleum-based fuel. There still seems to be a decided dearth of cites in this thread that show Kerry was talking about nuclear fuel, as claimed by the OP.
Guys, Kerry is proposing offering nuclear fuel to Iran. It’s a gambit based partly on the old adage “keep your friends close —and your enemies closer”, but mainly on the entirely sensible idea that such a deal would be contingent on close, verifiable international monitoring of the nuclear facilities in question.
From Kerry’s campaign website (the nuclear proliferation section under “National Security” ), as part of the “Prevent Iran From Developing Nuclear Weapons” sub-bullet:
Now, if you’re a Bushite, you may (hypocritically) take issue with Kerry’s desire to go to the Security Council instead of taking unilateral action, but you really show your ignorance if you deride the overall proposal on the basis of practicability.
Oh, ye of little analytical ability…lemme 'splain it to ya.
Of course I’m not saying we can only evaluate truth in words we hear in person. What did I say that indicated to you I believed that?
And of course I’m not saying we can only evaluate falsity with our own eyes. Where did I say anything that would indicate I was saying that?
And while the tone of your post would ordinarily generate a more vituperative response, I promised EddyTeddyFreddy I’d be good, so here goes:
If you want me to answer questions you have regarding my posts, you’re going to have to limit your claims to what I actually said. (I may adopt this as my signature line.)
I said Shyla did not know (and could not know) that Bush was lying. Not unless she was a mind reader. Bush believed the same things that most of Europe believed, that most of the Middle East believed, that Russia believed, that the U.N. believed (damn, I get tired of having to go through this litany), that the CIA believed, that the FBI believed, that Bill Clinton himself believed, but no…Bush knew better than them all that what they believed was untrue but deliberately decided to take advantage of the fact to lie to the American people by telling them the same things they were already being told were true were in fact true when he knew they weren’t.
Pretty ridiculous, don’t you think? A classic example of bias and hatred at work.
Thanks for the link, xenophon41. I owe Sam Stone a rather large apology.
I apologize, Sam.
No problem. Thank you.
More one Iran’s energy use:
Iran -EIS.gov
Fuel Share of Energy Consumption (2001E): Oil (51%), Natural Gas (47%), Coal (1%), Hydroelectric (1%)
and
I’ve been afraid to look.
While I’m not convinced that Kerry’s any better than Bush, I’m not ready to be forced to relinquish hope that he’s at least no worse.
I know I do.
Does it eliminate an excuse for Iran to be to buying dual use technologies related to processing (and reprocessing) nuclear materials so that the amount of nuclear fuel in the hands of Iranians is easier to monitor than if Iraq goes into the business of making its own nuclear fuel?
If this were so, then it may actually be a preferable alternative to Iran pursuing its own nuclear technology. It would also be preferable to the costs of military action it would take to stop Iran in its pursuit of nuclear technology.
This may be just a reflexive matter on behalf of the Iranian government. Protestations of innocence spring full formed from the mouths of politicans everywhere everytime their brain reboots.
Is this based on an assumption that Iran won’t acquire nuclear fuel on its own?
Cause it seems inevitable that Iran will one way or the other. If it is indeed the case that Iran will eventually acquire nuclear fuel, then we are behived to find the best possible set of circumstances as judged by our national interests that this inevitability should come to pass.
If we supply them with the fuel, then Iran has no need of the dual sue technologies needed to manufacture their own nuclear fuel.
Then imports of dual use technologies would be automatic warning bells.
What about the terrorists?
What happenned to these terrorists who wanty to kill all of us hedonistic Dopers?
Why’s he off fucking with a little third rate Hitler-wannabe while there are terrorists who want to kill us hedonistic Dopers?
What kind of fucked national priorities are those?
Then they have bungled it very, very, very badly. AFAICT, thery bungled it from the front end and have been playing catch-up ever since.
What is this a citation for? It’s not very clear from its context in the paragraph. the immediately proceeding staements involve the spread of democracy and a clarion call of the West. This bit about Hussein and the Palestinians doesn’t seem related.
As if we were ready to engage in another major military committment.
If anything, Iran is making out like a bandit. Their influence in the region has grown by leaps and bounds now that Iraq cannot present any sort of counter balance. And Iran’s prestige has grown immensely in recent months now that it has come out that they suckered the Great Satan by way of their intelligence agents amongst the Pentagon’s darlings, Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress. How’s that for counting coup? Trick the leaders of history’s most powerful nation.
I don’t think that I’m comfortable with you referring to me and ‘adult pleasure’ in the same context.
You shouldn’t oughta do that.
What’s with the facts, jack?
I don’t think that ‘please’ really is a magic word.
If it is indeed the case that Iran will eventually acquire nuclear fuel, then we are behived to find the best possible set of circumstances as judged by our national interests that this inevitability should come to pass.
shoud read
If it is indeed the case that Iran will eventually acquire nuclear fuel, then we are behooved to find the best possible set of circumstances (as judged by our national interests) in which this inevitability comes to pass.
SimonX says:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone
So…
Anyone think giving nuclear fuel to Iran is a really good idea?
Or even offering it to ‘call their bluff’? Is this a bluff that needs to be called? What happens if they accept?
Let’s hear the defense.
*
Does it eliminate an excuse for Iran to be to buying dual use technologies related to processing (and reprocessing) nuclear materials so that the amount of nuclear fuel in the hands of Iranians is easier to monitor than if Iraq goes into the business of making its own nuclear fuel?
If this were so, then it may actually be a preferable alternative to Iran pursuing its own nuclear technology. It would also be preferable to the costs of military action it would take to stop Iran in its pursuit of nuclear technology.
[/quote]
Except that Iran IS trying to build weapons, and they aren’t about to give up their weapons program. This is the essential problem with the Kerry ‘plan’. Iran would either reject it outright if they couldn’t figure out a way to use it to their advantage, or they’ll game it. This is the same problem you have with North Korea. Neither have a reputation for keeping their word when it comes to matters nuclear.
In the meantime, proposals like this give you the illusion that you’re accomplishing something, while Iran keeps saying “nice doggie” until they can find a big stick.
Iran has the same rights to build nuclear weapons as the US does. They have the same right to defend themselves, and the US has no moral authority to dictate what sort of technology another country may or may not develop.
I am FOR Iran getting the bomb.
Should read:
if nuclear energy can be produced more cheaply
What the fuck does a moral right have to do with anythng in this instance?
It doesn’t matter if we have a moral right to dictate what sort of technology. We have a national imperative to do certain things.
If we can figure out anacceptable way to prevent Iran from getting The Bomb then we shoud by all mean do so.
the question arises when one begins to consider the cost benefit rations of differing strategies for doing so. I mean, we could nuke Iran til it looks like Iraq. It’d be a big, fat, fucking, hairy-ass (like elucidator) deal if we did though, so we look for a way to accomplish the same goals but in a less expensive or ideally a beneficial way.
Cooperation among players in this sort of an open ended game can be beneficial for all involved.
What’s best for the US is what the US needs to worry about? Screw other nations ‘rights’ to weapons. They have whatever it suits us to let them have. If it becomes an issue, we go to war. But this is an extremely expensive and destructive course of action. This keeps it from being as good of a choice as otehr less expensive means.
Only war profiteers benefit from war. War’s a racket.
Again with the corrections:
What’s best for the US is what the US needs to worry about?
should read
What’s best for the US is what the US needs to worry about.