EU Moves To Ban Iran Crude Oil 361
rtoz writes with this snippet from the BBC: "EU member states have agreed in principle to ban imports of Iranian crude oil to put pressure on the country over its nuclear programme. ... The US, which recently imposed fresh sanctions on Iran, welcomed the news. ... The Iranian state gets more than half of its revenue through the export of crude oil, says the BBC's James Reynolds. If Europe does stop buying, Iran will have to turn to countries in Asia to replace its lost trade, who will demand a discount, he adds."
Here we go again... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why does Iran deny having a nuclear programme? (Score:5, Insightful)
All they need is to withdraw from the NPT. Iran has a perfect right to develop nuclear weapons, and a very plausible reason of deterring foreign invasion, given what happened to Iraq. Why pretend not to have a nuclear program when nobody believes you? At least they could take the "no comment" approach that Israel has.
The EU are surely better than this... (Score:4, Insightful)
...I mean, they should know that sanctions do not work, never have and more than probably never will.
If Iran ends up having to look for new markets in Asia, with the Asian demanding a discount, Iranians will offer the discount, but maintain revenues by pumping more.
Remember, Iran and other gulf oil states have billions and billions of oil in wells. Adding extra pumps or bringing new wells online is not that hard.
Eu is US's bitch (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't agree with the way Iran's government thinks, but it seems clear that the US government, especially the Republicans, are spoiling for another pointless and costly war, so are pressurising Iran with punitive sanctions in order to make them take the first punch so that the US can justify it.
Even if Iran is developing a nuke, it isn't the job or right of the US to be world police. Why is it that the west can make nukes but not other countries?
Its sad to see the EU isn't using some independent judgement instead of just falling into line with US policy and acting like the US's bitch.
Re:Oh great (Score:2, Insightful)
Another move to artificially increase the already artificially high price of oil. I live in the UK and can barely afford to leave the house to go to work as it is.
Just wait until the next President bombs Iran and Iran starts firing missiles at oil tankers. $500 a barrel, anyone?
It's almost like the US and EU are in a joint suicide pact.
Re:Iran better hurries up (Score:4, Insightful)
i'm guessing you have no idea how international relations work? it's ok, i remember when i was in grade school
That's pretty much how it works.
Re:Why does Iran deny having a nuclear programme? (Score:4, Insightful)
Look at what happened to Iraq when they bluffed and postured about (still) having a nuclear program, refused access to inspectors, that sort of thing.
You mean the Iraq where the weapon inspectors said 'no, Iraq doesn't have WMDs' but Colin Powell said 'Iraq does so have WMDs, I have pictures of these kebab vans, sorry, chemical weapons vans' and... uh... they didn't?
BTW, didn't the claims of Iraqui WMDs come from an Iranian agent because Iran wanted Bush to invade and get rid of Saddam Hussein and put their friends in power?
Re:Why does Iran deny having a nuclear programme? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, it is not that clear and cut shenanigans. Hussein *had* chemical and biological WMDs. Hussein had plans for nukes. These - and the fact that he used it against it's own nation and enemy in Iran's war - were reasons for sanctions. Which in the end were very effective, because it pushed Hussein to liquidate his WMD program (yes, they also did lot of harm to common crowd, I know). That's a nice and small side note everyone rush to forget. It was also a reason which gave leaders of the world benefit of doubt here.
So did Bush and co knew it is very high propability that weapons are gone? I bet they knew. CIA knew this. Military knew this. But still they decided to act? My guess - spending government money on military contracts and contractors. But I think they didn't thought this trough, and they never got friends they wanted to be installed as leaders of "great Iraqi nation".
And why shouldnt iran have nuclear weapons ? (Score:4, Insightful)
the signs that israel has nuclear capability is always dodged by all international agencies and governments. yet, iran gets the heat for less.
or maybe it is because only countries that are either in angloamerican or russian alliances are entitled to have nuclear weapons ?
never mind. the question was rhetorical.
Re:Why does Iran deny having a nuclear programme? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, it is not that clear and cut shenanigans. Hussein *had* chemical and biological WMDs.
Well, we know that because we sold them to him. But the inspectors went looking for them and said 'he doesn't have any any more'. And Bush invaded anyway.
Re:Eu is US's bitch (Score:5, Insightful)
Think of the royal family of the UK as a tourist attraction, and something to talk about in the tabloid press, and you wouldn't be far wrong.
Re:Cutting the nose to spite the face (Score:2, Insightful)
Hilariously, this is exactly what happened in Sudan. West imposed sanctions expecting unfriendly government to fold in expedient manner as such governments did many times before. Suddenly China showed up in Sudan money in hand and now Sudan is selling all of its oil to China rather then to West as it did before, and pretty much entire oil industry is in the hands of Chinese.
Apparently this lesson has not been learned yet. Strange, considering that when Libyan oil started to go into Chinese direction, both EU and US got scared shitless and bombed the country into stone age. I guess this is just incompetence, left hand not learning the same lessons that right hand has learned.
Re:The EU are surely better than this... (Score:5, Insightful)
There is not that much demand for oil,
Oh really? world oil demand 1996-2012.png [internetional.se]
Also never mind that lot of these countries are actually self-sufficient in oil needs too.
Can you name a single EU country that is self-sufficient in oil? EU is a net importer, it has to buy on the world market, restricting supply by refusing to buy from one country means that the price goes up (unless other suppliers have the motivation and resources to increase supply at no cost, which seems doubtful in this case).
Re:Cutting the nose to spite the face (Score:5, Insightful)
Look how they killed the solar industry in the US.
Let's be clear, China didn't do anything alone. They whipped the slaves, the slaves were industrious, we bought the fruits of their industry. With few exceptions the Chinese are working in conditions of one sort or another which would be illegal here, even if they are not literal slaves literally being whipped. I would imagine that happens less in Solar production and more in cheap crap consumer goods.
As long as we on one hand pass laws which claim to protect the rights of the laborer and on the other hand continue to purchase goods from countries which do not respect any such rights we are continuing to fund our own devastation through the application of hypocrisy.
We choose to purchase goods from China, both at the personal and national level. What effect did you think that would have?
Geez, how dumb can you get (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean Sudan that has now been split off into two countries, the new one being south-sudan which is now more free then before from the north-muslim and Iran backed mass murderers?
Sorta like a not perfect but better then before result of the embargo?
Gosh, as an example of why embargo's don't work a embargo that gave millions a change to create their own country with a better future.... why not show how the storming of the Bastille did nothing to get rid of the corrupt king. How the US decleration of dependence did not result in indepedence?
Next time before spouting off, check what actually happened.
Re:Cutting the nose to spite the face (Score:5, Insightful)
Strange, considering that when Libyan oil started to go into Chinese direction, both EU and US got scared shitless and bombed the country into stone age.
Is this what passes for intelligent commentary these days?
1) Libya was not bombed into the stone age. The Ghaddafi regime lost some tanks, artillery, choppers and a few buildings were hit in the process as well.
2) Libya was free to sell its oil to whomever it wanted before the Ghaddafi regime change, and it is so now.
Man, and you people vote. Scary.
Re:And why shouldnt iran have nuclear weapons ? (Score:5, Insightful)
For the same reason that we occasionally take drivers licenses or weapons permits away from people that have demonstrated an inability to use their fun toys in a responsible manner conducive to the safety of others. Do you have a problem with your neighbor having a small arsenal when he behaves like a responsible citizen? No. However, when he starts brandishing the weapons around and threatening your family you call the cops and have him dealt with.
Iran has expressed a repeated and rather vocal interest in destroying the US and Isreal. I happen to live in the US and so have a vested interested in our continued existence. No one gives a crap about countries like France having nukes because no one thinks France is crazy enough to destroy the world. We like to postulate about Russia's nukes, but in the end Russia also does not want to destroy the world because Russia likes living in the world. Iran, conversely, has stated multiple times that self-destruction is an acceptable end game provided they get to take us with them. If I thought Iran would play nice, I wouldn't have a problem with them arming themselves. Once they demonstrate the ability to behave like a responsible nation in the world community, they too can have the big weapons.
Re:Geez, how dumb can you get (Score:5, Insightful)
You should stop drinking from the tap of wonderful Western propaganda and read on what's actually happening - because you're regurgitating hilarious amounts of bullshit that has been fed to you. West isn't half happy (and for a reason) about what happened in Sudan. Sudanese had their nice post-independence slaughterfest, these are dime-a-dosen in African countries who's borders were drawn by colonialists and disregarded all cultural and ethnic borders.
Chinese came with their non-interventionist doctrine. They do it everywhere right now, "we don't care about your politics, as long as you let us be your preferred trading partner you can rape, slaughter and pillage each other all you want".
You see, China, they don't care what colors will be flown on the flag pole. As long as they keep their stakes in oil industry (which they now own lock, stock and bolt) and remain preferential trading partners, they couldn't care less who slaughters who, and what do butchers and victims choose to call themselves. That's the major ideological difference between China and West, and why China is expanding its influence in Africa so fast while Western influence in there is going down.
And for the record, West doesn't really care about these slaughters either, until it's their dictator and favored tribe that start getting killed. Chinese on the other hand just deal with everyone, as they do not have the long colonial history and baggage associated with it and don't care about ideology of locals.
If you seriously believe that splitting Sudan is for "creating your own country with a better future", I have land on the moon to sell you. Reality is, it's going to be another post-colonialist independence dictatorial shit hole split along tribal lines like dozens of other countries that went down that path ended up. There is no culture of democracy in Africa - but there is a long culture of colonialism, slavery and tribal warfare. And once you understand this and stop looking at African countries like you look at Western ones, a lot of things in there make actual sense without needing to listen to talking heads trying to shove bullshit down your throat about "what you should think is happening there".