Egypt-Israel peace agreements since 1979.

[jimnyc]

I said from day one that I was worried about these long standing treaties when the Muslim Brotherhood got involved. Before they even got a foot in office they were speaking out about receiving aid from the USA and how peace for Israel couldn't be guaranteed of they didn't receive this money. The treaty being referenced can be found here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel-Egypt_Peace_Treaty

Now here's the latest coming out of Egypt. I really don't understand this. Can they really make connections between these horrible ailments and the agreements in 1979?


Treaty with Israel has brought cancer, hepatitis to Egypt, and must be changed, says adviser to Morsi’s partyEgypt’s peace accord with Israel is “a mark of shame upon the Egyptian people” and must be amended, a media adviser for Egypt’s Freedom and Justice Party, the political movement of Muslim Brotherhood, said Thursday.

Ahmed Subei told Al-Alam Iranian TV that Egypt should reexamine “everything to do with… sovereignty over its land,” and claimed that increased instances of hepatitis, cancer and kidney infections in his country were are all results of the Camp David accords.

Subei made the comments in an August 22 broadcast, and his comments were translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute. He also voiced support for the liberation of Palestine and for Palestinian “resistance.”

The accords were the basis for the 1979 Israel-Egypt peace agreement and Israel’s subsequent withdraw from the Sinai Peninsula.

“This agreement has been a heavy burden upon the Egyptian people, undermining Egypt’s sovereignty. It has even undermined projects for the development of the Sinai. Therefore, it is an unjust and unfair agreement, which has isolated Egypt from its Arab and Islamic environs, and from the pan-Arab effort to liberate the land of Palestine, and to support Palestinian resistance,” Subei said.

Subei connected the peace agreement and Israel with “endemic diseases” in Egypt. “In addition, carcinogenic pesticides were imported from the Zionist entity, and Egyptian agriculture was made available to the Zionist entity. This led to the destruction of various sectors in Egypt.

“Egypt now suffers from endemic diseases, such as various types of cancer, hepatitis, and kidney infections. All these and other diseases are the result of the carcinogenic pesticides, which were brought here along with that agreement.”

http://www.timesofisrael.com/cairo-must-amend-shameful-treaty-with-israel-says-egyptian-official/

[red states rule]

Jim, IMO the only peace agreement the Arabs will accept with Israel is when every Jew in Israel stops breathing

Then and only then, will Arabs be happy and content

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I said from day one that I was worried about these long standing treaties when the Muslim Brotherhood got involved. Before they even got a foot in office they were speaking out about receiving aid from the USA and how peace for Israel couldn't be guaranteed of they didn't receive this money. The treaty being referenced can be found here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel-Egypt_Peace_Treaty

Now here's the latest coming out of Egypt. I really don't understand this. Can they really make connections between these horrible ailments and the agreements in 1979?



http://www.timesofisrael.com/cairo-must-amend-shameful-treaty-with-israel-says-egyptian-official/

They talk that lying trash to give fodder to their allies around the world , especially American idiots that defend them. Have to give them something to twist and spin with in their dumbass attempts to defend such vermin. Any lie is a good lie is their policy . Setting the stage for the great Unification of carpet prayerrug liars..-Tyr

[jimnyc]

I'm not convinced, yet, that they would be prepared to waste years of efforts and actually bring violence and end everything. I think they'll take advantage of the change in power and know just how important this treaty is, for many reasons. I think they'll use it to maybe bring more money to Egypt, and perhaps try and get less restrictions, or maybe more offerings from Israel. Personally, I think like "MEN", they should honor these agreements and move forward trying to work things out in a positive diplomatic manner. I'll wait for a year or 2 before seeing how the new government handles things.

[Little-Acorn]

Now here's the latest coming out of Egypt. I really don't understand this. Can they really make connections between these horrible ailments and the agreements in 1979?


Indeed. Why don't they blame George W. Bush, like modern, "progressive" folks all do?

[abso]

I'm not convinced, yet, that they would be prepared to waste years of efforts and actually bring violence and end everything. I think they'll take advantage of the change in power and know just how important this treaty is, for many reasons. I think they'll use it to maybe bring more money to Egypt, and perhaps try and get less restrictions, or maybe more offerings from Israel. Personally, I think like "MEN", they should honor these agreements and move forward trying to work things out in a positive diplomatic manner. I'll wait for a year or 2 before seeing how the new government handles things.

reasonable response :D

Morsi can never cancel the peace treaty, at least for now, maybe Egypt has adequate military power for a war but we don't have a strong economy that can sustain a war, not before 10~20 years Egypt will be ready for any war, for now i think morsi will work on strengthening the economy and building new modernized egypt, he is trying to introduce advanced technology industries, he will also try to achieve self sufficiency in food crops, there are many problems he will try to solve before even thinking about Israel.

1- Traffic
2- Health
3- Food
4- Low Salaries
5- Garbage
6- Security
7- Fuel
8- Industry
9- Water
10- Sewage

and many other problems that i can't remember ....

for now maybe he will try to change the peace accords but not before a year or two at least.

and about those men who talk about cancelling the peace treaty right now and waging war against Israel and such things, they are just people who think they are patriots but at the same time they never think about what will happen to poor people who can barely survive each day, they don't think about the devastation that will happen to the country while in war, they only think that be talking like that, they are the only ones who love and care about their country.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I'm not convinced, yet, that they would be prepared to waste years of efforts and actually bring violence and end everything. I think they'll take advantage of the change in power and know just how important this treaty is, for many reasons. I think they'll use it to maybe bring more money to Egypt, and perhaps try and get less restrictions, or maybe more offerings from Israel. Personally, I think like "MEN", they should honor these agreements and move forward trying to work things out in a positive diplomatic manner. I'll wait for a year or 2 before seeing how the new government handles things.

My take is that they will play it out waiting for two things. To see what happens with Iran and its nukes vs. Israel and to see if obama gets booted out or not. Obama stays in lok out during his second term , if Iran nukes Egypt will do as Iran's mullahs instruct is my guess. Either one will be bad for Israel which obama hates .-TZS

[jimnyc]

Here's some related news on the subject just coming out:


U.S. nears deal for $1 billion in Egypt debt relief

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration is close to a deal with Egypt's new government for $1 billion in debt relief, a senior U.S. official said on Monday, as Washington seeks to help Cairo shore up its ailing economy in the aftermath of its pro-democracy uprising.

U.S. diplomats and negotiators for Egypt's new Islamist president Mohamed Mursi - who took office in June after the country's first free elections - were working to finalize an agreement, the official said.

Progress on the aid package, which had languished during Egypt's 18 months of political turmoil, appears to reflect a cautious easing of U.S. suspicions about Mursi and a desire to show economic goodwill to help keep the longstanding U.S.-Egyptian partnership from deteriorating further.

The United States was a close ally of Egypt under ousted autocratic President Hosni Mubarak and gives $1.3 billion in military aid a year to Egypt plus other assistance.
...

Obama first pledged economic help for Cairo last year. Obstacles remained to completing the debt relief deal - which is reported to involve a mix of debt payment waivers and complicated "debt swaps" - and it was not immediately clear when an agreement might be announced.

But even as the negotiations proceeded in Cairo, Washington has also signaled its backing for a $4.8 billion loan that Egypt is seeking from the International Monetary Fund and which it hopes to secure by the end of the year to bolster its stricken economy. IMF chief Christine Lagarde visited Cairo last month to discuss the matter.

Egypt's military-appointed interim government had been negotiating a $3.2 billion package before it handed power to Mursi on June 30. Mursi's government then increased the request.

http://news.yahoo.com/u-nears-deal-1-billion-egypt-debt-relief-030837695.html

[jafar00]

While I agree the treaty with Israel is lopsided as are most agreements with the Zionists, Morsi has too many more pressing matters to attend to before attending to that.

[jimnyc]

While I agree the treaty with Israel is lopsided as are most agreements with the Zionists, Morsi has too many more pressing matters to attend to before attending to that.

But when his pressing matters are behind him, do you agree that violence is perhaps on the menu towards Israel if Egypt doesn't receive a certain amount of $$$ from America?

[NightTrain]

Treaty with Israel has brought cancer, hepatitis to Egypt, and must be changed, says adviser to Morsi’s party


Egypt’s peace accord with Israel is “a mark of shame upon the Egyptian people” and must be amended, a media adviser for Egypt’s Freedom and Justice Party, the political movement of Muslim Brotherhood, said Thursday.

Here's a problem - "A media adviser" said? Who the hell is that? Some copy clerk that picked up the phone?
Ahmed Subei told Al-Alam Iranian TV that Egypt should reexamine “everything to do with… sovereignty over its land,” and claimed that increased instances of hepatitis, cancer and kidney infections in his country were are all results of the Camp David accords.

This is the kind of mentality that we're dealing with - somehow, magically, there are arabs being infected with diseases directly due to the peace accord stemming from getting their asses kicked by Israel.


“This agreement has been a heavy burden upon the Egyptian people, undermining Egypt’s sovereignty. It has even undermined projects for the development of the Sinai. Therefore, it is an unjust and unfair agreement, which has isolated Egypt from its Arab and Islamic environs, and from the pan-Arab effort to liberate the land of Palestine, and to support Palestinian resistance,” Subei said.

You lost the war that you initiated, along with other arab nations who also got their asses handed to them simultaneously by a country 1/4 of your size. You had the numerical advantage, you had strategic advantage, you were the aggressor, and most importantly, you had Soviet backing in intelligence and hardware - a world SuperPower at the time. You lost land, consider yourselves lucky you didn't lose your whole country - Cairo was in easy reach if the Israelis chose to take it - but they next needed to address the Syrians and were stretched thin, so you are lucky to have escaped that stupid war with your capitol intact.


Subei connected the peace agreement and Israel with “endemic diseases” in Egypt. “In addition, carcinogenic pesticides were imported from the Zionist entity, and Egyptian agriculture was made available to the Zionist entity. This led to the destruction of various sectors in Egypt.

“Egypt now suffers from endemic diseases, such as various types of cancer, hepatitis, and kidney infections. All these and other diseases are the result of the carcinogenic pesticides, which were brought here along with that agreement.”

This sort of statement continues to explain to the rest of the civilized world why you are all still living in the 4th century while the rest of the world ponders how to deal with you short of a Thermonuclear Solution.

There will come a point where the rest of the civilized world will grow tired of your barbaric actions, I am already there and I suspect the majority of the world is as well.

[NightTrain]

Apologies for the bold text above, for some reason when replying to that it wouldn't un-bold it.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Treaty with Israel has brought cancer, hepatitis to Egypt, and must be changed, says adviser to Morsi’s party



Here's a problem - "A media adviser" said? Who the hell is that? Some copy clerk that picked up the phone?

This is the kind of mentality that we're dealing with - somehow, magically, there are arabs being infected with diseases directly due to the peace accord stemming from getting their asses kicked by Israel.



You lost the war that you initiated, along with other arab nations who also got their asses handed to them simultaneously by a country 1/4 of your size. You had the numerical advantage, you had strategic advantage, you were the aggressor, and most importantly, you had Soviet backing in intelligence and hardware - a world SuperPower at the time. You lost land, consider yourselves lucky you didn't lose your whole country - Cairo was in easy reach if the Israelis chose to take it - but they next needed to address the Syrians and were stretched thin, so you are lucky to have escaped that stupid war with your capitol intact.



This sort of statement continues to explain to the rest of the civilized world why you are all still living in the 4th century while the rest of the world ponders how to deal with you short of a Thermonuclear Solution.

There will come a point where the rest of the civilized world will grow tired of your barbaric actions, I am already there and I suspect the majority of the world is as well.


According to some posters we just need to step back and start --understanding- these people and give them cookies and milk.. We must not engage them with violence! Apparently we are to just kiss their asses until they come around to our way of thinking. Then comes the crusade accusations as if the crusaders were automaticly in the wrong and were attacking little angels over there instead of murdering bastards that killed at least 270 million people over a 1400 year period of spreading the Religion of Peace!--Tyr

[NightTrain]

According to some posters we just need to step back and start --understanding- these people and give them cookies and milk.. We must not engage them with violence! Apparently we are to just kiss their asses until they come around to our way of thinking. Then comes the crusade accusations as if the crusaders were automaticly in the wrong and were attacking little angels over there instead of murdering bastards that killed at least 270 million people over a 1400 year period of spreading the Religion of Peace!--Tyr


See what appeasement got the British prior to WWII.

[Gaffer]

Morsi and the MB don't want to go after Israel...yet. There is a long range plan in place that is being carefully followed. They need Israel as the scapegoat for all blame of everything wrong in the middle east. They have a problem with iran pushing things and wanting to lead the caliphate. They will sit back and watch as iran is put in it's place by Israel and the US. They will make a lot of noise about the wrongness of attacking iran while doing nothing and quietly thanking the US. It's important that Israel is destroyed by the caliphate and not an individual county.

After taking care of the countries important needs, as abso said, they will then begin putting together the caliphate encompassing the entire middle east. All those "new democracies" will be brought under one roof. Then they will go after Israel. It's a 20 year plan laid out by the MB years ago.

[NightTrain]

Interesting, Gaffer.

However, I don't care how much the supposed planning goes on, Israel always has and always will kick the ass of any Arab nation attempting to wipe it out.

Every time it's been attempted by the muzzies, they've been spanked mercilessly and impressively.

A thinking person would ask which side God is on, considering the outstanding military victories the Israeli Military has achieved against staggering odds.

Really, think about the wars that country has fought - multiple front wars with what - 1:20 odds in troops or worse? Israel kicked the dogshit out of them at the same time!

I'm not a Jew, but seeing the evidence of who God favors, I'm thinking about conversion - it certainly isn't Islam that is getting divine intervention.

[NightTrain]

Morsi and the MB don't want to go after Israel...yet. There is a long range plan in place that is being carefully followed. They need Israel as the scapegoat for all blame of everything wrong in the middle east. They have a problem with iran pushing things and wanting to lead the caliphate. They will sit back and watch as iran is put in it's place by Israel and the US. They will make a lot of noise about the wrongness of attacking iran while doing nothing and quietly thanking the US. It's important that Israel is destroyed by the caliphate and not an individual county.

After taking care of the countries important needs, as abso said, they will then begin putting together the caliphate encompassing the entire middle east. All those "new democracies" will be brought under one roof. Then they will go after Israel. It's a 20 year plan laid out by the MB years ago.


If the Caliphate comes to be, it will be richly rewarding to watch Israel kick their asses simultaneously.

Again.

[Gaffer]

If the Caliphate comes to be, it will be richly rewarding to watch Israel kick their asses simultaneously.

Again.

I expect that to be the case.

It will be another case of Israel having the war over before we even get there.

[jafar00]

But when his pressing matters are behind him, do you agree that violence is perhaps on the menu towards Israel if Egypt doesn't receive a certain amount of $$$ from America?

I don't think it would come to that. However I would imagine that breaking the Israeli blockade of Gaza is the right thing to do and allowing international trade across the border.

The last time I got some Palestinian Olive Oil, it had to be smuggled through a damn tunnel!

[abso]

Morsi and the MB don't want to go after Israel...yet. There is a long range plan in place that is being carefully followed. They need Israel as the scapegoat for all blame of everything wrong in the middle east. They have a problem with iran pushing things and wanting to lead the caliphate. They will sit back and watch as iran is put in it's place by Israel and the US. They will make a lot of noise about the wrongness of attacking iran while doing nothing and quietly thanking the US. It's important that Israel is destroyed by the caliphate and not an individual county.

After taking care of the countries important needs, as abso said, they will then begin putting together the caliphate encompassing the entire middle east. All those "new democracies" will be brought under one roof. Then they will go after Israel. It's a 20 year plan laid out by the MB years ago.

believe me, if the Arab countries are united under one leadership, we won't need to use war against anyone, with just an oil embargo we can get what we want.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis

[jimnyc]

believe me, if the Arab countries are united under one leadership, we won't need to use war against anyone, with just an oil embargo we can get what we want.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis

I'm glad your line of thinking comes forefront. :laugh:

But keep in mind, don't think the rest of the world would sit back for long while some oil hoarders try to bring everyone to their knees. Such a tactic might very well lead to a lot of bloodshed, and as usual, a lot more of that blood will be from Muslims than anyone else. That type of extortion wouldn't go over very well and certainly won't get the Islamic world what they think they would get.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I'm glad your line of thinking comes forefront. :laugh:

But keep in mind, don't think the rest of the world would sit back for long while some oil hoarders try to bring everyone to their knees. Such a tactic might very well lead to a lot of bloodshed, and as usual, a lot more of that blood will be from Muslims than anyone else. That type of extortion wouldn't go over very well and certainly won't get the Islamic world what they think they would get.

When Iran gets nukes it will be top dog there with the muslims and will immediately start making demands. That is how bullies act. If unification/Caliphate truly does occur then there will be war with Israel as soon as they can arrange it. If obama gets another term the chances of war against Israel increases greatly. Surely the Jews here know that and will not vote for him as they did last time.-Tyr

[Gaffer]

When Iran gets nukes it will be top dog there with the muslims and will immediately start making demands. That is how bullies act. If unification/Caliphate truly does occur then there will be war with Israel as soon as they can arrange it. If obama gets another term the chances of war against Israel increases greatly. Surely the Jews here know that and will not vote for him as they did last time.-Tyr

That's why the MB will not interfere in any action that takes iran down. iran is a wild card that will not tow their line.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

That's why the MB will not interfere in any action that takes iran down. iran is a wild card that will not tow their line.

I agree the MB does not want Iran to be top dog. How they play it may be to simply wait for us or Israel to strike Iran hard hoping for Iran to be put in place. Then they think to rise up to replace Iran . Neither one will be a good choice to be top dog over there. We should get a helluva lot more in return for the billions we give Egypt but obama will give and ask no real concessions of his muslim brothers IMHO.-Tyr

[logroller]

I'm glad your line of thinking comes forefront. :laugh:

But keep in mind, don't think the rest of the world would sit back for long while some oil hoarders try to bring everyone to their knees. Such a tactic might very well lead to a lot of bloodshed, and as usual, a lot more of that blood will be from Muslims than anyone else. That type of extortion wouldn't go over very well and certainly won't get the Islamic world what they think they would get.

I'm glad you admit to your line of thinking Jim-- " if you don't give us what we want, we'll kill you and take it! " :beer:

Me thinks that's what got us into this whole terrorism beef. :dunno: like I don't know, say we impose some financially lopsided deals in foreign countries, might that tactic lead to bloodshed, like,,, attacking a western financial center. Hmm. Not to let a good crisis go to waste-- maybe use that focusing event to impinge upon the privacy of American citizens...maybe go occuoy a foreign country and depose a no-longer agreeable dictator under the auspices of terrorism and wmd's. Rinse, and repeat! :coffee:

[jimnyc]

I'm glad you admit to your line of thinking Jim-- " if you don't give us what we want, we'll kill you and take it! " :beer:

Me thinks that's what got us into this whole terrorism beef. :dunno: like I don't know, say we impose some financially lopsided deals in foreign countries, might that tactic lead to bloodshed, like,,, attacking a western financial center. Hmm. Not to let a good crisis go to waste-- maybe use that focusing event to impinge upon the privacy of American citizens...maybe go occuoy a foreign country and depose a no-longer agreeable dictator under the auspices of terrorism and wmd's. Rinse, and repeat! :coffee:

He outright made mention the threat of an embargo - I repeat, a threat. So I made my comments about his line of thinking based on his own words. In your retort, you make up more or less what I said and twisted a little. I can understand you needing to bend the rules a tad though! LOL

What I'm saying is, threatening the world with an oil embargo is not simply saying we won't send a shipment of something on time. This is an act that can bring the world to it's knees. It can ultimately harm people, throw countries into recessions and in some cases literally harm people physically as a result. Their threat will be seen almost as an act of war, which of course is debatable and above my pay grade. But what that would mean is major problems for many countries, destructive problems. People aren't going to sit back and just take it forever. It would lead to force if something didn't give. And that's hardly saying give it to us or we'll kill you and take it. We're willing to pay fair market value and have been doing so, amongst major contracts. They would be in breach if they just cut everyone off. No one wants to rob them. No one wants it for free. No one is saying they would even kill them. But it's that they need to honor the contracts or men will step in and honor it for them. It's up to them at that point if they would prefer war. Those coming there would simply be looking for the honoring of the contracts that they are paying for. So THAT'S my line of thinking - "Give us what we have a contract for and have held up our end, or alternative means will be taken to satisfy the contract"

Then of course long term strategies, other forms of energy and such will need to go into hyperdrive. We need to take their Ace card away from them, then they would truly be useless. But so long as they have contracts with countries, they can't be using these resources as a method to bring harm to other places, at least not without expecting some sort of recourse.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I'm glad you admit to your line of thinking Jim-- " if you don't give us what we want, we'll kill you and take it! " :beer:

Me thinks that's what got us into this whole terrorism beef. :dunno: like I don't know, say we impose some financially lopsided deals in foreign countries, might that tactic lead to bloodshed, like,,, attacking a western financial center. Hmm. Not to let a good crisis go to waste-- maybe use that focusing event to impinge upon the privacy of American citizens...maybe go occuoy a foreign country and depose a no-longer agreeable dictator under the auspices of terrorism and wmd's. Rinse, and repeat! :coffee:

I hate to point out the glaring and obvious flaw in that bolded statement quoted by you above but they do not --GIVE--us the oil.
They charge a right fine price for it.
So I go into a store and force the clerk to sell me the beer at the price the store has chosen, whats the beef with that, why the sarcasm ?-Tyr

[abso]

I'm glad your line of thinking comes forefront. :laugh:

But keep in mind, don't think the rest of the world would sit back for long while some oil hoarders try to bring everyone to their knees. Such a tactic might very well lead to a lot of bloodsished, and as usual, a lot more of that blood will be from Muslims than anyone else. That type of extortion wouldn't go over very well and certainly won't get the Islamic world what they think they would get.

sorry, but that isn't extortion, its just supply and demand rule, and using the economy to control the politics is the main tactic used by USA in the first place, everyone has the right to refuse to serve a certain customer, this is what you said about the airline business, right ???

we have the right to not supply oil to the countries which actually works against our best interests, and by supplying Israel with more advanced weapons USA is actually endangering the safety of arab countries, so don't get surprised if they decide to ban the oil anytime they wish, and you can expect your whole economy to break down if the oil is stopped.

what you didn't get right is that i am not saying that because i hate your country or anything like that, i am just saying what arab countries can do to protect and serve their best interests.

i don't suppose USA is selling weapons to Iran for an example, and that is because Iran does not comply with what USA wants, so its not really strange that we stop selling oil to whoever does not comply with what we want.

[jafar00]

sorry, but that isn't extortion, its just supply and demand rule, and using the economy to control the politics is the main tactic used by USA in the first place, everyone has the right to refuse to serve a certain customer, this is what you said about the airline business, right ???

we have the right to not supply oil to the countries which actually works against our best interests, and by supplying Israel with more advanced weapons USA is actually endangering the safety of arab countries, so don't get surprised if they decide to ban the oil anytime they wish, and you can expect your whole economy to break down if the oil is stopped.

what you didn't get right is that i am not saying that because i hate your country or anything like that, i am just saying what arab countries can do to protect and serve their best interests.

i don't suppose USA is selling weapons to Iran for an example, and that is because Iran does not comply with what USA wants, so its not really strange that we stop selling oil to whoever does not comply with what we want.

That lop sided gas deal with Israel is one example of how the Egyptians got screwed in treaties with the Israelis. Not being able to properly police Sinai is another.

[red states rule]

He outright made mention the threat of an embargo - I repeat, a threat. So I made my comments about his line of thinking based on his own words. In your retort, you make up more or less what I said and twisted a little. I can understand you needing to bend the rules a tad though! LOL

What I'm saying is, threatening the world with an oil embargo is not simply saying we won't send a shipment of something on time. This is an act that can bring the world to it's knees. It can ultimately harm people, throw countries into recessions and in some cases literally harm people physically as a result. Their threat will be seen almost as an act of war, which of course is debatable and above my pay grade. But what that would mean is major problems for many countries, destructive problems. People aren't going to sit back and just take it forever. It would lead to force if something didn't give. And that's hardly saying give it to us or we'll kill you and take it. We're willing to pay fair market value and have been doing so, amongst major contracts. They would be in breach if they just cut everyone off. No one wants to rob them. No one wants it for free. No one is saying they would even kill them. But it's that they need to honor the contracts or men will step in and honor it for them. It's up to them at that point if they would prefer war. Those coming there would simply be looking for the honoring of the contracts that they are paying for. So THAT'S my line of thinking - "Give us what we have a contract for and have held up our end, or alternative means will be taken to satisfy the contract"

Then of course long term strategies, other forms of energy and such will need to go into hyperdrive. We need to take their Ace card away from them, then they would truly be useless. But so long as they have contracts with countries, they can't be using these resources as a method to bring harm to other places, at least not without expecting some sort of recourse.

That would be the best thing you assholes could do for the future of America. We have more oil reserves then the Middle East but the libs and enviro wqckos block all attempts to drill for that oil

I would like nothing better then to tell you idiots to sit on your oil rigs and rotate as we put millions of our own people back to work and watch gas prices droip back to more reasonable levels

And I would love to see how fast your countries would go broke without those US dolllars flowing in to fund your terrorist operations and palaces your leaders live in

[logroller]

I hate to point out the glaring and obvious flaw in that bolded statement quoted by you above but they do not --GIVE--us the oil.
They charge a right fine price for it.
So I go into a store and force the clerk to sell me the beer at the price the store has chosen, whats the beef with that, why the sarcasm ?-Tyr
You force the clerk to sell you the beer...havent they the right to refuse or is it like eminent domain?

I seem to remember a cake baker refusing to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple; with resounding support from many a poster here. I thought it was foolish from an economic standpoint, (I'd of raised the price) but still within her rights.
The raising of oil prices is different though; due to the inelastic demand for oil, raising the price doesn't diminish demand significantly--hence the embargo. The embargo accomplished its desired political effect; Israel withdrew. while the embargo had a far more devastating effect politically, OPEC raised prices too-- which had drastic and lasting economic impact well beyond the embargo period (late 70's recession). Due to the price inelasticity, OPEC profits soared and following the cessation of the embargo many OPEC members invested those profits into developing production of previously western provided goods which, now stunted by the embargo, were under-supplied. This gained them significant political capital in the region. Of course, we do it too. Why do you think we give aid to Egypt? Also, I know domestic oil producers, despite windfall profits, aren't producing anywhere near capacity.

Sort of a side note, you heard about the helium shortage brought about by market deregulation and the ending of subsidized helium storage in the Texas bush dome? You'd of thought my mother in law was expecting the zombie apocalypse. :laugh:

And Jim, there at contracts, lots of 'em-- OPEC has deals with each other too; but they can and do violate those agreements if it suits them. After we cut of Iranian exports, guess who picked up the slack in supply-- Saudi Arabia did, and they did so because it was in their best interests.
Fun fact. France and the uk didn't face an embargo in 73-74 because they took a pro-Arab stance; even going so far as to disallow American military traffic through the UK. Special relationship :scoff: interestingly though, France and Japan both invested heavily in nuclear power following the oil embargo.
Regardless, as I become more and more aware of the intricacies of politics, the less stock I put in the reasoning put forth from behind the curtain.

[jimnyc]

sorry, but that isn't extortion, its just supply and demand rule, and using the economy to control the politics is the main tactic used by USA in the first place, everyone has the right to refuse to serve a certain customer, this is what you said about the airline business, right ???

we have the right to not supply oil to the countries which actually works against our best interests, and by supplying Israel with more advanced weapons USA is actually endangering the safety of arab countries, so don't get surprised if they decide to ban the oil anytime they wish, and you can expect your whole economy to break down if the oil is stopped.

what you didn't get right is that i am not saying that because i hate your country or anything like that, i am just saying what arab countries can do to protect and serve their best interests.

i don't suppose USA is selling weapons to Iran for an example, and that is because Iran does not comply with what USA wants, so its not really strange that we stop selling oil to whoever does not comply with what we want.

Contracts, look them up. They can't just abruptly stop the flow and breach long standing contracts. Well, they can, but it's against local and international laws. I would like to think that contracts are taken seriously in most Islamic countries as well. If someone doesn't want to renew a contract, that's another story, but I think you'll find that these aren't monthly or yearly contracts. And then there are contracts with every country to look at. If we can't get the oil from country A we will then go to B. If you say you'll then stop B too, then you have to look at that contract. Unless of course the plan is to unilaterally cease every contract in existence.

As for Iran, we don't have a contract to sell them weapons. But if we did, say for example have a contract to build and send them say 50 fighter jets over a 10yr period, we can't stop halfway through and tell them they are shit out of luck - without breaking the contract of course, or making them "whole", which I doubt would happen.

It sounds to me like you believe each purchase of oil is something that is done on the fly. You're naive if that's the case.

[jimnyc]

That lop sided gas deal with Israel is one example of how the Egyptians got screwed in treaties with the Israelis. Not being able to properly police Sinai is another.

Another good example. And if that's the case, you hit the table and negotiate for what is in everyone's best interest. You can't just kick the deal to the door and ignore it. I'm honestly not familiar in depth of what you're speaking of, but I do know that tossing the "contract" aside and doing something as punishment would clearly be the wrong way to go about it.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You force the clerk to sell you the beer...havent they the right to refuse or is it like eminent domain?

I seem to remember a cake baker refusing to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple; with resounding support from many a poster here. I thought it was foolish from an economic standpoint, (I'd of raised the price) but still within her rights.
The raising of oil prices is different though; due to the inelastic demand for oil, raising the price doesn't diminish demand significantly--hence the embargo. The embargo accomplished its desired political effect; Israel withdrew. while the embargo had a far more devastating effect politically, OPEC raised prices too-- which had drastic and lasting economic impact well beyond the embargo period (late 70's recession). Due to the price inelasticity, OPEC profits soared and following the cessation of the embargo many OPEC members invested those profits into developing production of previously western provided goods which, now stunted by the embargo, were under-supplied. This gained them significant political capital in the region. Of course, we do it too. Why do you think we give aid to Egypt? Also, I know domestic oil producers, despite windfall profits, aren't producing anywhere near capacity.

Sort of a side note, you heard about the helium shortage brought about by market deregulation and the ending of subsidized helium storage in the Texas bush dome? You'd of thought my mother in law was expecting the zombie apocalypse. :laugh:

And Jim, there at contracts, lots of 'em-- OPEC has deals with each other too; but they can and do violate those agreements if it suits them. After we cut of Iranian exports, guess who picked up the slack in supply-- Saudi Arabia did, and they did so because it was in their best interests.
Fun fact. France and the uk didn't face an embargo in 73-74 because they took a pro-Arab stance; even going so far as to disallow American military traffic through the UK. Special relationship :scoff: interestingly though, France and Japan both invested heavily in nuclear power following the oil embargo.
Regardless, as I become more and more aware of the intricacies of politics, the less stock I put in the reasoning put forth from behind the curtain.

Obvious that my using the word -force- in that comment was to highlight the absurdity of your using the word -"give"- in your comment that I replied to. Yes, I forgot to do this-"force"... yet was unnecessary because one does not have to force a cashier to make an ordinary purchase of a item for sale in a store.
Japan invested in nuclear power has now cost them because they did not take extreme safeguards against possible damage to those facilities. If one goes nuclear to save billions a year one must spend the extra billions to increase safeguards against damage from natural disasters as well as human error . Japan failed to do so and now pays the heavy price..-Tyr

[jimnyc]

You force the clerk to sell you the beer...havent they the right to refuse or is it like eminent domain?

I seem to remember a cake baker refusing to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple; with resounding support from many a poster here. I thought it was foolish from an economic standpoint, (I'd of raised the price) but still within her rights.

Had the baker signed a contract to make the cake, then my position would be different. But they didn't. Apples and oranges.


And Jim, there at contracts, lots of 'em-- OPEC has deals with each other too; but they can and do violate those agreements if it suits them. After we cut of Iranian exports, guess who picked up the slack in supply-- Saudi Arabia did, and they did so because it was in their best interests.
Fun fact. France and the uk didn't face an embargo in 73-74 because they took a pro-Arab stance; even going so far as to disallow American military traffic through the UK. Special relationship :scoff: interestingly though, France and Japan both invested heavily in nuclear power following the oil embargo.
Regardless, as I become more and more aware of the intricacies of politics, the less stock I put in the reasoning put forth from behind the curtain.

Just because someone CAN violate an agreement/Contract, doesn't mean they should or that it's legal. And every time someone does commit a violation, there are bound to be some sort of expected repercussions. Violating a contract that can do so much damage isn't in anyone's best interest and IS a form of extortion. OPEC and Islamic leaders would ONLY do so if they aren't getting something they want. It's almost textbook extortion, IMO.

[jafar00]

Another good example. And if that's the case, you hit the table and negotiate for what is in everyone's best interest. You can't just kick the deal to the door and ignore it. I'm honestly not familiar in depth of what you're speaking of, but I do know that tossing the "contract" aside and doing something as punishment would clearly be the wrong way to go about it.

That particular deal was kept alive by Mubarak for his own corrupt reasons. I believe that is being revisited now.

[logroller]

Had the baker signed a contract to make the cake, then my position would be different. But they didn't. Apples and oranges.
Is an oral agreement not the same...should homebakers have lawyers now? its not apples and oranges jim; its the right of person NOT to sell something to somebody when information arises which compromises their mutual or separate interest.
heres an example...notice the date.

"Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud letter to President Bush dated 27 August 2001"quoted in "Saudi Leader Warns U.S. of 'Separate Interests' "
James M. Dorsey. The Wall Street Journal, 29 October 2001.


[excerpt] ...a time comes when peoples and nations part. We are at a crossroads. It is time for the United States and Saudi Arabia to look at their separate interests. Those governments that don't feel the pulse of the people and respond to it will suffer the fate of the Shah of Iran.


Just because someone CAN violate an agreement/Contract, doesn't mean they should or that it's legal. And every time someone does commit a violation, there are bound to be some sort of expected repercussions. Violating a contract that can do so much damage isn't in anyone's best interest and IS a form of extortion. OPEC and Islamic leaders would ONLY do so if they aren't getting something they want. It's almost textbook extortion, IMO.

Extortion:laugh: uh no its not. Textbook extortion would be a cop soliciting money to let you off on a ticket. Its like the opposite of bribery, but with the same effect.


Futures contracts for oil rarely extend more than a few months. Regardless, what if the saudis just pay whatever fines for breaking a contract..a few hundred billion ain't gonna make any difference when there's no oil to be had. Unless by "repercussions" you have an act of war in mind...

[abso]

Contracts, look them up. They can't just abruptly stop the flow and breach long standing contracts. Well, they can, but it's against local and international laws. I would like to think that contracts are taken seriously in most Islamic countries as well. If someone doesn't want to renew a contract, that's another story, but I think you'll find that these aren't monthly or yearly contracts. And then there are contracts with every country to look at. If we can't get the oil from country A we will then go to B. If you say you'll then stop B too, then you have to look at that contract. Unless of course the plan is to unilaterally cease every contract in existence.

As for Iran, we don't have a contract to sell them weapons. But if we did, say for example have a contract to build and send them say 50 fighter jets over a 10yr period, we can't stop halfway through and tell them they are shit out of luck - without breaking the contract of course, or making them "whole", which I doubt would happen.

It sounds to me like you believe each purchase of oil is something that is done on the fly. You're naive if that's the case.

i believe that contracts of buying Iranian oil has been violated after the ban of Iranian oil selling, right ???

so if USA can just decide that none can buy anymore Iranian Oil and they have to cancel all the contracts, it's easy for Arabs to also cancel all the contracts and decide that countries which support our enemy can no more buy our oil.

believe me, we can and we will eventually stop the Oil selling to whoever acts against our best interests, and USA will have nothing to do about it, because no country will allows USA to go to war against Arabs, as this will crash the world oil trade, since we will only be stopping selling to some countries, the other ones will not allow the war, like Russia for an example, and of course Russia will be very happy to see us cutting Oil supply to USA, so a war against the Arabs to force them to sell oil will probably mean another world war.

and again believe me that i am not saying all this because i hate anyone or because i have a grudge against any country, i am just analyzing the situation, if the current policies of USA continues, it will only lead to what i just that, maybe after two or three decades, but eventually Arabs will refuse the unfair policies in the ME which is based on the basic need of supremacy of Israel against all Arab countries, USA could have used its influence to solve the Israel-Arab conflict decades ago, but of course the zionist lobby in USA never allowed that to happen, a peaceful solution could have happened if USA really had its own decision, but your country was never like that, its controlled by Men who has the money, not by the the president and the decisions is rarely in the best interest of the american people, they are just in the best interest of whoever pays more in the presidential campaigns.

[jimnyc]

Is an oral agreement not the same...should homebakers have lawyers now? its not apples and oranges jim; its the right of person NOT to sell something to somebody when information arises which compromises their mutual or separate interest.
heres an example...notice the date.

Someone agrees to buy oil for a certain term. They draw up and sign contracts reflecting such. Compared to a baker saying no to doing business, therefore never reaching the necessary elements to form a contract. One needs to follow through and the other does not. One now has a contractual obligation while the others have already parted ways as they couldn't come into an agreement in principal and never made it to the contract level. But the person who has the contract now doesn't have a "right" to sever business in violation of the terms of the contract.


extortion:laugh: uh no its not. Textbook extortion would be a cop soliciting money to let you off on a ticket. Its like the opposite of bribery, but with the same effect.


Futures contracts for oil rarely extend more than a few months. Regardless, what if the saudis just pay whatever fines for breaking a contract..a few hundred billion ain't gonna make any difference when there's no oil to be had. Unless by "repercussions" you have an act of war in mind...

Repercussions can come in many forms, up to and including force. Their money is only as valuable as their oil. I'm sure the kings and princes will be ok, but not selling any oil will be harmful to them as well. BTW, on a side note, wouldn't "futures contracts" be a stock market thing, something traded on by the wall street junkies? I don't think that's the same thing I'm talking about. I'd have to do more research on the actual contracts our government has with foreign entities to purchase oil.

[jimnyc]

i believe that contracts of buying Iranian oil has been violated after the ban of Iranian oil selling, right ???

so if USA can just decide that none can buy anymore Iranian Oil and they have to cancel all the contracts, it's easy for Arabs to also cancel all the contracts and decide that countries which support our enemy can no more buy our oil.

believe me, we can and we will eventually stop the Oil selling to whoever acts against our best interests, and USA will have nothing to do about it, because no country will allows USA to go to war against Arabs, as this will crash the world oil trade, since we will only be stopping selling to some countries, the other ones will not allow the war, like Russia for an example, and of course Russia will be very happy to see us cutting Oil supply to USA, so a war against the Arabs to force them to sell oil will probably mean another world war.

and again believe me that i am not saying all this because i hate anyone or because i have a grudge against any country, i am just analyzing the situation, if the current policies of USA continues, it will only lead to what i just that, maybe after two or three decades, but eventually Arabs will refuse the unfair policies in the ME which is based on the basic need of supremacy of Israel against all Arab countries, USA could have used its influence to solve the Israel-Arab conflict decades ago, but of course the zionist lobby in USA never allowed that to happen, a peaceful solution could have happened if USA really had its own decision, but your country was never like that, its controlled by Men who has the money, not by the the president and the decisions is rarely in the best interest of the american people, they are just in the best interest of whoever pays more in the presidential campaigns.

Who did this to Iran? Was it a single country that took issue with them, or was it the UN acting in the worlds interest and doing so via sanctions? If these bans are based on UN sanctions, these individual countries are following UN mandates which should supersede any contracts. Countries used to have contracts to sell Iran all kinds of military related stuff to, which has also been called to a halt by the UN.

The US will use oil reserves. They will open up ANWR in Alaska. They would find a way to get oil from other countries. It would be nice to seee MUCH MORE offshore drilling as a reult and bring us to independence from those who would rather use the commodity as a tool to get what they need. We would have alternatives, but admittedly it would be very costly. Anything more harmful than that and I assure you that the US won't sit back and fall apart, won't happen. And if you think intervening countries might stop an attack, you might be right, but you'll know who is responsible when oil reserve areas suddenly go up in flames. <--we learned that from the terrorists, by the way.

On another note, kind of off topic - but do YOU recognize Israel's right to exist? Jafar has already answered no. And I see you tossing around the term zionists too, as if these magical people run our country more so than congress and our president. You guys continually call for the US to be out of everything and to stay in our own backyard and let you guys handle your own business. But then here you are saying we should have gotten involved for decades. You guys only want what is good for you but have no interest whatsoever in bending or compromising and doing what is good for others at the same time.

[abso]

Who did this to Iran? Was it a single country that took issue with them, or was it the UN acting in the worlds interest and doing so via sanctions? If these bans are based on UN sanctions, these individual countries are following UN mandates which should supersede any contracts. Countries used to have contracts to sell Iran all kinds of military related stuff to, which has also been called to a halt by the UN.

you mean UN which is controlled by USA and its continuing threats of stopping the USA annual share in the UN funds if any decision that USA refuses is taken ?

anyway, if you think UN is a legitimate entity that can produce such ban, then i think that the Arab league of Nations is also a legitimate entity that can also ban the oil selling to a country that support our enemy.

i remember that USA threatened to stop funding UN if the general assembly gave Palestine the membership in UN, so it's okay for USA to threaten if something against its interest is done, but its a crime for the Arabs to threaten ???, its your money and its out Oil, you keep your money and we keep our oil, its that simple, if USA is more interested in our oil then i think maybe it should be more interested in us not Israel which i think has never done anything in the best interest of your country.



The US will use oil reserves. They will open up ANWR in Alaska. They would find a way to get oil from other countries. It would be nice to seee MUCH MORE offshore drilling as a reult and bring us to independence from those who would rather use the commodity as a tool to get what they need. We would have alternatives, but admittedly it would be very costly. Anything more harmful than that and I assure you that the US won't sit back and fall apart, won't happen. And if you think intervening countries might stop an attack, you might be right, but you'll know who is responsible when oil reserve areas suddenly go up in flames. <--we learned that from the terrorists, by the way.

good luck with that, specially when it will take years to construct enough oil fields to compensate for the sudden shortage of supply, and those years will strongly shake the american economy which is already in enough debts, your government is barely sustaining the current debts and a sudden oil ban will nearly destroy the whole economy.

and about getting oil supplies from other countries, with the Arabs suddenly out of the markets the oil will be more expensive than ever, and buying from other countries will not be an easy option, and even if that is done, the companies and factories will raise its product prices to an extent that you will be barely able to buy what you need, and the world oil supply will never be enough to return the market prices to normal again.

with 2 thirds of the US annual oil needs is imported, and with about 40% of your energy depending on your, the world largest oil importer which is USA, the country which uses about 25% of the world oil annually will never survive oil ban without a very strong blow, and you can review what happened back in 1973 to understand that more, and ask your government about what it has done to survive such ban again, which is nearly nothing.

again i am not against USA and i don't have any grudge against it, but i just want you to notice something, that the Arabs and muslims which you hate so much are the ones who supply more than 50% of you annual needs of oil, your best interest as an american citizen lies with arabs, while Israel never did or will do anything to make your life any better, but your electricity, car gas, work, even food prices, all that depends on arabian oil,

anyway, USA will survive such ban, but millions of american people will not survive it safely, millions will lose their jobs, and that is enough to change the US policies which will be the actual cause of such embargo if it ever happened.


On another note, kind of off topic - but do YOU recognize Israel's right to exist? Jafar has already answered no. And I see you tossing around the term zionists too, as if these magical people run our country more so than congress and our president. You guys continually call for the US to be out of everything and to stay in our own backyard and let you guys handle your own business. But then here you are saying we should have gotten involved for decades. You guys only want what is good for you but have no interest whatsoever in bending or compromising and doing what is good for others at the same time.

as sorry as I am to say this but i do recognize the current Israeli people right to exit in the land that they call home since birth, if we were in 1948 i would have said hell no, but now the situation is changed, innocent people have been born here, they have the right to exist as much as I or you do, they have the right to live where they were born, but we have to reach a fair deal, and the deal closest to fairness is to return all the land occupied at and after 1967 war, but Israel can't keep occupying lands and talk like they are victims, Israel has invested the holocaust and have demonized us Arabs to get western support to occupy more lands, but it wasn't Arabs back in 1948 that invaded Israel which didn't even exist, i believe that it was armed gangs that drove Arabs out of their villages and slaughtered them in many known massacres to start a new country which did not have the right to exist.

anyway, all that is old story, i do say that the current generation of Israel have the right to live in peace, but they have to acknowledge what their fathers and grandfathers done to Arabs so that they can live here, they have to do the right thing and offer a fair deal.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

all i am saying, USA better start working for the best interest of its people and its economy, not for the best interest of other countries like Israel, your welfare as an american citizen is dependable upon Arab countries not Israel, you call Israel a friend, but a friend is not the one who has been benefiting from you since birth while giving absolutely nothing in return, and in policy there is no such thing as friendship, policy is revolved around interests or give and take principle, but i only see USA giving.

[abso]

Another good example. And if that's the case, you hit the table and negotiate for what is in everyone's best interest. You can't just kick the deal to the door and ignore it. I'm honestly not familiar in depth of what you're speaking of, but I do know that tossing the "contract" aside and doing something as punishment would clearly be the wrong way to go about it.

the gas deal was stopped for just a single reason, its because the contracting company which worked as a middle man between Egypt and Israel stopped paying money for more than 4 or 6 months, it has been warned that such action will mean cancelling the contract, but the company ignored the warnings, so the government stopped the contract based on the contract conditions, policy had nothing to do with it, even Israel announced that the gas deal was cut due to the middle company failure to comply to the contract conditions and it didn't pay in time.

[logroller]

Someone agrees to buy oil for a certain term. They draw up and sign contracts reflecting such. Compared to a baker saying no to doing business, therefore never reaching the necessary elements to form a contract. One needs to follow through and the other does not. One now has a contractual obligation while the others have already parted ways as they couldn't come into an agreement in principal and never made it to the contract level. But the person who has the contract now doesn't have a "right" to sever business in violation of the terms of the contract.



Repercussions can come in many forms, up to and including force. Their money is only as valuable as their oil. I'm sure the kings and princes will be ok, but not selling any oil will be harmful to them as well. BTW, on a side note, wouldn't "futures contracts" be a stock market thing, something traded on by the wall street junkies? I don't think that's the same thing I'm talking about. I'd have to do more research on the actual contracts our government has with foreign entities to purchase oil.
There are contracts and there are agreements. Contracts include specifics and often describe penalties for violating the contracts. An agreement is just that, an agreement and parties can change their agreement at any time. The baker likely had an agreement, not a contract. If i go to you and ask you make me a cake, and we agree to meet later with my fiance-- i think its agreed that you intend on baking me a cake; of course, we haven't settle on price, flavor, size etc- thus - not a contract. We likely have an agreement with Saudi Arabia. Contracts are different, stating prices, quantities delivery dates etc.
The futures contract for oil is not a stock market thing specifically, but rather a commodities thing-- oil is a commodity, traded on commodities markets. There are specified terms to a contract, (often bereft with hedging, where prices are sorta gambled upon) but all that I'm aware of for oil are quarterly. There may be agreements which exist in perpetuity, but they aren't binding. Certainly those between countries are conditional upon good will between them.

Btw, the UN imposed those sanctions on Iran are the same thing; just because the UN was involved doesn't mean its not the US. Bear in mind the us has significant influence over the UN. Not to mention we'll just flat out skip it when it suits us.see the Iraq war, where we withdrew our request for authorized force when it seemed unlikely we'd get the votes-- easier to ask for forgiveness than permission. We're bigger than the UN Jim. I've mentioned it before how we were found culpable for crimes against another state but were allowed to veto the ruling...imagine if Iran were allowed to veto the resolutions against them-- assuredly, you'd think that asinine.

[jimnyc]

you mean UN which is controlled by USA and its continuing threats of stopping the USA annual share in the UN funds if any decision that USA refuses is taken ?

Are you insane? LOL Americans can't stand the UN. And to say that Americans control it shows your ignorance on the issue. It's impossible for any one country to run the UN, unless you have proof of those with veto power working together to bypass UN rules and regulations. No matter what the US says or does, Russia, China, UK or France can stop any vote we give or anything we submit, simply with their veto power. This is why we have such a hard time to get MORE sanctions given to Iran right now, as Russia won't vote for it and will simply veto anything they disagree with. And yes, the US has the ability to veto things we disagree with. This was by design to prevent the very accusation you make, that any one country can run the show. And many in the US, government included, complain further that the UN doesn't backup , or help backup, when sanctions and similar are ignored. Come back again when you understand how such entities work, what powers they have, what powers the convening members have & ultimately what powers are granted when sanctions and penalties are voted upon.

The Arab League was designed for Arab nations, I suppose as a way to convene Arab nations in one location and to help these countries work with one another. I don't think they stand "internationally" or speak for the international community like the UN does. If the intention and work is to be the same, why would these countries also be members of the UN? It's 2 totally different type of organizations. Does this mean therefore that they cannot do as you say? Of course they can, and even individual countries can decide to ignore the UN, ignore the AL, and do as they please. And then they must deal with any backlash as a result and any repercussions. So I suppose the AL can post sanctions and such, but it will obviously only apply to member nations, which is quite small in comparison to the UN. But certainly enough oil rich nations to do a lot of damage, but they would not have control or a say in what non Arab countries do or say.

[abso]

Are you insane? LOL Americans can't stand the UN. And to say that Americans control it shows your ignorance on the issue. It's impossible for any one country to run the UN, unless you have proof of those with veto power working together to bypass UN rules and regulations. No matter what the US says or does, Russia, China, UK or France can stop any vote we give or anything we submit, simply with their veto power. This is why we have such a hard time to get MORE sanctions given to Iran right now, as Russia won't vote for it and will simply veto anything they disagree with. And yes, the US has the ability to veto things we disagree with. This was by design to prevent the very accusation you make, that any one country can run the show. And many in the US, government included, complain further that the UN doesn't backup , or help backup, when sanctions and similar are ignored. Come back again when you understand how such entities work, what powers they have, what powers the convening members have & ultimately what powers are granted when sanctions and penalties are voted upon.

The Arab League was designed for Arab nations, I suppose as a way to convene Arab nations in one location and to help these countries work with one another. I don't think they stand "internationally" or speak for the international community like the UN does. If the intention and work is to be the same, why would these countries also be members of the UN? It's 2 totally different type of organizations. Does this mean therefore that they cannot do as you say? Of course they can, and even individual countries can decide to ignore the UN, ignore the AL, and do as they please. And then they must deal with any backlash as a result and any repercussions. So I suppose the AL can post sanctions and such, but it will obviously only apply to member nations, which is quite small in comparison to the UN. But certainly enough oil rich nations to do a lot of damage, but they would not have control or a say in what non Arab countries do or say.

so basically you mean that UN which is controlled by the 5 major powers is legitimate entity in which the Arab countries which have no right to vote in the UN decision but also must comply with the decision, but at the same time the Arabs who control the world trade market have no say about how and when to sell their own Oil ???

and believe me, i do understand how the UN power and veto system works, but it's you who try to ignore the fact of how the system really works, the major powers never have to comply with the UN decisions even if they don't veto it, Russia agreed on many sanctions that prevent selling weapons to Iran or buying oil from it, yet do you really think that they comply with it ????, do you really think that even american oil corporations comply with the sanctions, the Iranian oil can be sold via multiple corporation and finally arrives to USA and be used inside it, none can stop such multi billion business, the UN can issue sanctions as much as they want, but when its about money and profit, none will comply, specially american corporations, right now the Iranian oil is more probable to be sold less than it's market value due to the sanctions, so many companies and countries will be willing to buy that oil, and it will be bought, and you are naive if you think for a second that it wont be bought.


anyway, you accept the legitimacy of UN which is run by your country and other major powers, and i see the Arab league of nations as a legitimate entity that can impose oil embargo on whoever works against our best interests.

its the same thing when USA prevents weapons companies from selling weapons to regimes that it considers as a terrorist supporting regimes even if the UN doesn't say so, now tell me that this doesn't happen :D

so USA have the right to control its weapons trade, but we don't have the right to control our oil trade ?, is this how you think ? :rolleyes:

and please don't lecture me about the contracts thing again because even if a weapon company is suddenly told by the US government that they can't sell to a certain country, they won't sell even if they already signed the contract, and they will probably pay nothing due to breaking the contract because they will just say that it wasn't their decision ;)

[red states rule]

Abozo, riddle me these.......................


What do you ask a man who's just converted to Islam?


Have you started beating your wife?





and how many Muslims does it take to change a lightbulb?


None, they prefer to sit in the dark and blame it on the Jews.