Thanks to Trump, the Iranian Mullahs Are Going Bankrupt

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

On 12/28/2019 at 1:50 AM, REG CROWDER said:

I think Frankfurter made the essential point. The United States doesn't bring Democracy or freedom to anybody. At the end of World War II the most vibrant Democracy in the Middle East was Iran. Then the US and UK overthrew the government, installed a puppet military dictator and sent their torture trainers in to teach the new military government all the arts of state terrorism. The Iranians will fight amongst themselves when they disagree but they will NEVER against allow themselves to come under the power of the United States or the United Kingdom. And this whole thing may blow over soon. Saudi Arabia is quietly trying to calm things down with Iran.

You single out the US and the UK as the ‘troublemakers’ after WW2, and granted there were some serious political mistakes by these two countries after the war, but reading this thread would lead one to believe that they were the ‘only’ victorious powers making mistakes. Is that accurate?

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

On 12/18/2019 at 7:36 PM, Marcin said:

Guys you are again polluting the forum with off-topic chats on virtually all threads. Create thread for you titled: Jan, DayTrader and Tom Kirkman virtual beer small talk.

Back on topic, which sounds bizarre at oilprice forum.

Please remind me, because I forgot, why Iran should not have nuclear weapons in the first place. (It would have them for sure in next 5 years, but I am just asking about the motivation of backlash against this fact).

Country is much more important than France or UK (globally totally unimportant countries) because of vast hydrocarbons reserves, strategic location between Persian Gulf, Caspian Sea and Indian Ocean, major power in Middle East.

Contrary to these facts both France and UK are only historically important countries, still sometimes dreaming about their past colonial greatness, having no globally important natural resources, located in the middle of nowhere, somewhere at the end of this peninsula of Eurasia called Europe. France and UK have nuclear weapons.

Nothing would actally change in the world if France and UK would disappear tomorrow, well I would actually miss the Queen.

Whereas if we would wake up tomorrow without Iranian hydrocarbons we would be in desperate situation.

So please explain to me, outrage or "it was always like this" or "you are Iranian bot" are not explanations.

 

Marcin trying to stay on topic here and not reacting to the anti UK/France part of your post (even though both are in the G8 so must have some global significance IMO)

Do you think nuclear weapons in the hands of  Ayatollah Khomeini makes the ME a safer place?

Do you not think that this would destabilise even further the troubles that this area has let alone potentially further afield such as Europe etc.

It is likely although not official that Israel already has nuclear weapons and if provoked by an Iran with the same then it would be the most likely area on the globe for nuclear war.

My opinion is that the fewer countries that have nuclear weapons the better globally.

I do agree that Iran is hell bent on attaining these to become the new bully in the Me

You ask the question "why Iran should not have nuclear weapons in the first place" I think this is tongue in cheek on your part as you are smarter than that.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

Let’s see....

Iran has access to sophisticated surface to air missiles along with the sophisticated tracking and targeting radars that come with them....and manage to shoot down a civilian 737.

Now they want nuclear ballistic missiles...

[PE Scott + 563]

1 hour ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Let’s see....

Iran has access to sophisticated surface to air missiles along with the sophisticated tracking and targeting radars that come with them....and manage to shoot down a civilian 737.

Now they want nuclear ballistic missiles...

That would take care of those pesky black boxes, or most other evidence for that matter.