That's really all I was saying. It's the fear factor. Not really because of any talks with the militarily inactive EU. How could it be?
$$$ See also: http://europa.eu.int/comm/trade/issues/bilateral/countries/iran/index_en.htm The US can't hit Iran where it hurts. Europe can.
If I may paraphrase Team America: Hans Blix: You must let me see the rest of the compound, or else. North Korean Dictator Who Shall Remain Anonymous: Or else, what? Hans Blix: Or else we will be very angry with you and write you a letter telling you how angry we are. That is the real power of the UN!! Anyone who thinks that this action is because of the UN must have fallen for the got your nose prank multiple times in their youth.
Interesting figures. The article mentions that Iran has a quite diversified market where the EU is its main trading partner then with 28% of total market share and that 80% of it's exports are energy related mainly oil products. If one accepts that oil is a commodity that can be freely sold in the market place - and therefore that if the EU stopped buying oil - Iran could sell it to say - China or Australia or maybe Japan it's second largest partner - then it would be easy to make the case that the EU has limited economic leverage and that it had to be the US presence in Iraq and Afghanistan Iran's neighbors to the west and east - that is affecting Iran's decision making.
I spent part of my youth, in the '50's, hearing about some action we were in on the Korean Peninsula. We did the bulk of the fighting, true, but I think the UN had a little bit to do with it. I could be confused, of course. It's that stuff you get in history in high school. They still teach history in high school, don't they? Keep D&D Civil!!
yes, if you pretended to solely focus on exports and not imports, you could say that. But if you realize that Iran actually needs you know, goods and services, to, you know, run its oil industry, and you know, like exist, you know, inter alia. Do you honestly think they could just turn around and buy fuel pumps from New Zealand tomorrow if Halliburton's French subsidiaries were barred from doinig business with them? Europe is Iran's largest trading partner, by a wide margin, and has been for the last 25 years. Removing them from its economy would represent economic catastrophe for Iran. As before, only somebody who is an idiot or is being dishonest would not realize this.
They still teach history in high school and thats where the UN belongs, in the past. It's an antiquated attempt at diplomacy. Here's the problem: Terrorists don't understand diplomacy and neither do dictators. Why should they? They know NOTHING is going to happen to them. The letters just keep coming in with no action. The UN is a morally bankrupt program with no real power. All it has done lately was pay Saddam over 20 Billion in the oil-for-food program. This is a great organization?
The UN's IAEA were the ones who had sealed and knew where the 380+ tons of high grade explosives were that the invading forces failed to secure. The UN did a good job there, and we let our guard down. The IAEA is the reason we know about Iran's nuke problem in the first place. The IAEA did the work finding out about it documenting it etc. The EU especially France, GB, and Germany began going back and forth with diplomacy, ideas, proposals, and in the end got the agreement. People can GUESS that the U.S. played a part in Iran's agreement but that is all it is at this point is a guess. If we want to look at actual facts, then we will see that the IAEA, the UN, and EU were working on this, putting forth the effort, and they are the ones who received the agreement from Iran. We can GUESS all day about how scared they are of American Military might, and fill ourselves up with national pride that we are the ones taking care of business. But in the end I have to give at least part of the credit to those that were actually doing the work, and making the deals. I am torn on whether I think fear of America sped the process along. I think it is equally logical to think that they want nukes in order to make sure that we won't invade them. We haven't invaded a nuclear country despite the fact that they are out there and present a greater threat to us than Iraq ever did. It would make sense to think that the only to make we don't invade would be to create nukes. On the other hand a president willing to invade countries at the drop of the hat, might make them more eager to reach an agreement. I don't deny that possibility. But all of that is only guesswork. Like I said that only think we know is that the EU and the UN did the work necessary to get the deal, and it was done by them.
You posted the information supporting a claim you made - I was only noting that after a quick review - IMHO the content did not provide very good support for your claim. In your response you cling fervently to your ideas - like they're a security blanket or something - and throw back unsubstantiated claims - (how the heck to you know what the content is of European exports to Iran and whether they could be gotten elsewhere) and indirect name calling - this is a pattern. No prob. - good discussion - - i respect your opinion - even though people who hold that opinion are delusional.
The claim that it made is that Europe is far and away Iran's largest trading partner, both in terms of oil and non-oil products, than any other group of concerted actors (unless ESCAP has some regional trading block that negotiates collectively on its behalf - unlikely to say the least) and far and away Iran's lifeline to the first world, both culturally (via immigration), politically (no relations w/US) and economically (trade embargo w/ the US) This is an indisputable fact, which you cannot deny. This is supported extensively by the facts I have provided, as well as by anybody knowledgeable on the subject. In response, you respond with 1. backwards conjecture about China being able to buy all of Iran's oil, and 2. purposefully ignored the fact that Iran will now have to homegrow its own industrial and services sectors overnight, or else find some hypothetical australian or asian replacements, and somehow be able to avert catastrophe.. How do I know what Europe exports to Iran? I know that ABB (german based MNC) does a lot of work in Iran, as do several French firms. I could tell you how I know but I don't really feel like it. The point is, it is undeniable from the data presented that economic sanctions on Iran by the EU would represent a catastrophic short term blow to its economy and be highly destabilizing to its political regime. Any person who can read would surely realize this based on the data presented. I would say I respected your opinion too but...you're lucky I've bothered.
So why the heck where the heck did those who support the invasion of Iraq continue to bring up UN resolutions or argue that this was the will of the UN? The invasion supporters try to have it both ways. On one hand the say the UN is totally worthless when it won't go along while on the other hand they say they are doing the will of the UN as cited by previous resolutions.
Absolutely. But they've been caught off guard and pretty much jerked around, to varying extents, by Libya, NK, Iran, Pak, India. The US & other western intel folks haven't been too precient either, and western diplomacy has failed in many of these situations as well. Not an easy job, none of those govts are very transparent with their military doings.
Nono, you misunderstand. We were saying that we tried the diplomatic way. It didn't work. Like you said the UN brought up and passed countless resolutions and none of them were worth the paper they were printed on. We were simply saying that the diplomatic process had run its course and that it was time to act.
I don't believe the IAEA had access to a lot of those countries or was conducting investigations of them, right? (I believe a bunch of them weren't NPT treaty signers - thus no obligation for IAEA access) I think they are more of an "oversight" place once a problem is identified, than to chase down programs before the fact, no?
How dumb do you think "we" are? (I probably shouldn't even ask that question...) No one here that I know of has ever tried to say it was the "will of the UN." They (meaning France, Germany, Russia et al) had their chance to get on board with the new and/or continuing Coalition but because their hands were already in Saddam's pockets, they declined. Meanwhile the US gets besmirched for the monetary motivations. Ironic.
I don't think the European countries you mentioned are free from monitary considerations either, but they knew they were going to lose them anyway if the U.S. went in. Going in with the U.S. would have been their best way to protect them. There is also the possibility that they were better judges of what was a threat, and decided not to invade. In the end they were correct.
Not exactly sure either, Sam. I believe the information collection and disbursement capabilities of the one known in these parts as "Mango" would come in handy right about now...
Huh? Their preference was to leave Saddam in the seat of power so that their dirty dealings were not uncovered and, instead, left undisturbed. Remember those all-powerful UN sanctions?
The diplomatic process never had the chance to run its course because the invasion was initiated before there was a final UNSC vote on whether Saddam was in inviolation of Res. 1441.
