EU Moves To Ban Iran Crude Oil

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."

Comments

Here we go again...

[jholyhead]

We ban crude oil imports, Iran blockades the Straight of Hormuz, the US bombs Iran. They wont even need a dodgy dossier this time around. Here's to another decade of war.

Why does Iran deny having a nuclear programme?

[quenda]

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.

Re:Why does Iran deny having a nuclear programme?

[0123456]

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?

[0123456]

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.

And why shouldnt iran have nuclear weapons ?

[unity100]

pray tell me. if you say 'they are a hardliner state', you will find israel MUCH more hardliner than any other country on the planet. just listen to what liebermann says (external affairs minister of israel). you'll be dumbfounded. just watch what gets publicly spoken in one of their leading party assemblies. youll be appalled.

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:And why shouldnt iran have nuclear weapons ?

[mjr167]

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:Eu is US's bitch

[L4t3r4lu5]

Hahaha, theocratic monarchy... You clearly aren't from the UK. The "ruling" monarch has such important duties as welcoming foreign dignitaries, visiting poor people, and talking rubbish at Christmas. We're run by a parliament, and if the Queen ever decided that wasn't going to work out, dissolution of the monarchy would be instantaneous.

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:The EU are surely better than this...

[chrb]

There is not that much demand for oil,

Oh really? world oil demand 1996-2012.png

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

[drinkypoo]

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

[SmallFurryCreature]

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:Geez, how dumb can you get

[Luckyo]

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".

Re:Cutting the nose to spite the face

[NeutronCowboy]

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.