Post: #76

What's the best way to prepare for all this shit that will probably go down?

Post: #77

(02-01-2012 04:15 PM)mofo Wrote:  What's the best way to prepare for all this shit that will probably go down?

Probably investments in non-Iranian oil

Post: #78

(02-01-2012 11:05 PM)YoungGunner Wrote:  

(02-01-2012 04:15 PM)mofo Wrote:  What's the best way to prepare for all this shit that will probably go down?

Probably investments in non-Iranian oil

And U.S military contractors. Basically the whole "military industrial complex".

Post: #79

When I was in DC I worked with some Persians who ducked out after the Shah. I'm not saying they were fond of the Shah, but some of them were involved in organizations that sought to end the current regime. This was all during Iraq and Afghanistan. I'd ask these guys what they thought about US intervention...

They were unanimously against it. Keep in mind, they were very passionate - moreso than any politician - in getting rid of this regime. Their reasoning was that if the US rolled into Iran any people on board with getting rid of the current regime (according to them, there are many within Iran) would, by default, side with the regime. They still feel the same way. While I haven't read a ton about the most recent "developments" with Iran, their reasoning makes sense.

On a broader scale:

Domestically, we print money out of thin air to "fix" the economy.

Internationally, we use that same money to fund expensive, pre-emptive wars in the name of "freedom, security, and peace."

It's like a two lane, one way, road to ruin with no speed limit.

Post: #80

in my opinion eventually yeah unless they allow capitalism into their country or they get nukes.

Post: #81

No one's going to invade anyone. They just report this kind of stuff in the news because low-lying death anxiety is the second arm of a consumerist culture.

(01-30-2012 04:56 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

Quote:We can't let Iran get a hold of nuclear weapons.

Why not?

It actually makes a great deal of sense for any country to develop nuclear weaponry, since it is, historically, the lone deterrent against western attack.

Quote:Let's keep in mind that the regime in Iran isn't above proclaiming death sentences on authors, sending kids into minefields or violently suppressing their own populace.

Newt Gingrich, current presidential candidate, declares Wikileaks founder Julian Assange an "enemy combatant", potential target for assassination.


Army recruiters lie to applicants, downplay the certainty of their deployment.

Scott Olson, veteran, put into critical condition after attacked by Oakland police during Occupy protests.

Post: #82

I have learned over the years not to try to predict anything in politics. It's harder than picking stocks; there are way too many variables to take into account, and you can't really count on the key actors to have any specific objective in mind. That said, I think a lot of top military brass in the U.S. are opposed to invading Iran, and the American public will not be dragged into this war quite as easily as it was dragged into other wars. I would imagine very serious civil unrest at home if war with Iran broke out.

Post: #83

(02-03-2012 01:56 AM)DLuzhin Wrote:  It actually makes a great deal of sense for any country to develop nuclear weaponry, since it is, historically, the lone deterrent against western attack.

You could turn the question around.

Iran is obviously seeking regional dominance after more than a century of Western dominance. Fair enough. Every country tries to do this. Why on Earth should the West give it to them?

Why didn't Kennedy let the Soviets put missiles in Cuba?

Why didn't Chamberlain let the Germans wipe out Poland?

I mean.. if a fanatical dictator WANTS to do what he says is right for his people, surely he's justified?

Post: #84

(02-01-2012 04:15 PM)mofo Wrote:  What's the best way to prepare for all this shit that will probably go down?

(02-01-2012 11:05 PM)YoungGunner Wrote:  

(02-01-2012 04:15 PM)mofo Wrote:  What's the best way to prepare for all this shit that will probably go down?

Probably investments in non-Iranian oil

(02-02-2012 12:29 AM)P Dog Wrote:  

(02-01-2012 11:05 PM)YoungGunner Wrote:  

(02-01-2012 04:15 PM)mofo Wrote:  What's the best way to prepare for all this shit that will probably go down?

Probably investments in non-Iranian oil

And U.S military contractors. Basically the whole "military industrial complex".

For those convinced we are going to war with Iran (as I stated before, I do not believe there will be war), oil is indeed the obvious play. The easiest way to invest in oil is to purchase an oil exchange-traded-fund (ETF) which derives its value from the spot price of oil on the NYMEX or LME. West Texas Intermediate (WMI) is the benchmark on the NYMEX, Brend Crude is the benchmark on the LME. Currently there is a spread between the two prices in favor of Brent which is historically unusual, and an attack on Iran would probably benefit Brent prices more simply because Europe is more dependent on oil from the Near East than the USA is (given our own high and rising oil production along with imports from Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela). Most oil ETFs however hold several different kinds of crude.

The most liquid ETF is the United States Oil Fund, which is traded on the NYSE with the ticker symbol USO. It's not a perfect tracker of oil prices, but it's pretty good.

For those of you who REALLY believe in war, consider a leveraged ETF. The ETF ProShares UltraShort DJ-AIG Crude Oil (NYSE ticker: SCO) has 2x leverage and is pretty liquid. If the oil price goes up by a dollar, you make two dollars. The downside is that you can lose a lot more money if the price drops.

Another investment that always tends to benefit from war and oil inflation is gold. There are plenty of gold ETFs out there, and it's easy to purchase physical gold (and that way you can't lose your gold from a fund going up in smoke). I buy mine from Kitco, a Canadian outfit with great service and low prices. Gold mining stocks are seriously undervalued now, but I suspect they will continue to be undervalued. ETFs have killed the market for gold mining stocks, that or investment banks and hedge funds are rigging the market so they can end up owning most of the world's gold producers. Sooner or later I suspect some private equity group will make a play on one of the larger producers like Newmont or Barrick.

Defense stocks obviously tend to benefit from war. Since a war with Iran would likely be mostly aerial, good plays would be Boeing (produces the Massive Ordnance Penetrator for instance) and Raytheon (world's largest missile manufacturer). We're unlikely to invade and rebuild Iran, don't bother with construction plays like Halliburton or Chicago Bridge & Iron.

One possible play would be to short shipping lines with heavy exposure to crude shipping in the Persian Gulf. Shipping insurance doesn't cover war and major insurers like Lloyd's will stop insuring tankers in that region in the event of war. Iran poses a credible threat oil shipments from the Gulf given that the Straits are so narrow, and narrower still are the portions of the Straits deep enough to accommodate the largest tankers. The Gulf Arabs have been preparing for this and there now exists a major highway past the Straits to ports in the Gulf of Oman, so oil shipments would not stop entirely even if Iran were to sink a CVBG.

Mitsui OSK Lines I believe is the world's biggest tanker line (if not it's definitely in the top five) and a major shipper of Iranian oil. They're traded on the Tokyo Stock Exchange under the symbol 9104. EDIT: Be warned that since none of you guys are Japanese, this carries exchange rate risk. The Japanese Yen has been the world's best performing major currency for a long time (even more so than the Swiss Franc).

Post: #85

Post: #86

Isreal is preparing to bomb Iran.

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02...-iran.html

Post: #87

(01-30-2012 03:11 PM)Roosh Wrote:  It sure seems like it. I've always been anti-US aggression but I don't know how I'd feel if my country invades my father's homeland where I have many relatives.

Romney is definitely headed that way,and if he wins the war is inevitable.

Post: #88

For those who think we shouldn't bomb Iran, answer two questions:

1) Is Iran trying to build a bomb? Whether they're justified or not isn't the question. The question is whether they are trying to.

2) Will the Middle East be more or less stable with Iran having a nuclear weapon? Do you think Iran will absolutely never use it?

Post: #89

(02-03-2012 07:59 PM)ao85 Wrote:  For those who think we shouldn't bomb Iran, answer two questions:

1) Is Iran trying to build a bomb? Whether they're justified or not isn't the question. The question is whether they are trying to.

2) Will the Middle East be more or less stable with Iran having a nuclear weapon? Do you think Iran will absolutely never use it?

Iran is not a country overrun by terrorists. WHy the hell should they be not allowed to create nuclear weapons?

So many countries in the world now have nuclear weapons, do you think these other countries will never use their nuclear weapons either?

Post: #90

Israel would be the first in the region to use nukes. This is almost a certainly. Iran would use its nukes to deter and Israeli or USA attack. Lets be honest here if anybody were to attack Israel with large scale bombs or nukes they would be bombed 12 times over by the USA into dust. This is why I laugh at the media projection of Iran as a boogie man in the ME. Iran is simply trying to protect its ass, as Israel is relentless in keeping its dominance in the ME, A strong Iran means Israel can't strong arm countries and keep feeble monarchs like SA or UAE on their side.

A strong Iran would mean that *gasp* Israel would be forced to act in professional and responsible diplomatic fashion when dealing with Iran or any of its allies whiten the region. TO this day it has been able to run around like a child with a big older brother with little reprimands for its actions.

Asian with regards to weapons there is no "legitimate" proof that Iran is overstepping its civilian and sovereign right in producing nuclear energy. They have mused about plans and concepts with the Russians but outside of this they are still some 10 years by some estimates of getting to the point to successively produce bomb-grade uranium. the media acts like they could have warheads by next week when they still are in the baby stages of producing low levels for energy use. To achieve the point where you can outfit bombs with nuke warheads it takes a shit load of time and resources. It is a 7-10 year project sometimes even longer. Then you have to test... as the USA and Israel spy on the greater ME with drones how easy do you think Iran could do this? Its all bullshit, its simply money reasons why war is being pushed. Iran is Russians and China block in the regions, this points to greater motives to isolate China and Russia by chocking off its economic plays and allies throughout the globe.

If the USA and Israel we're serious about Nuclear harmony in the regions Israel would declare its nukes and work to produce dialog with Therahn on limiting or stooping there nuclear aspirations. Why doesn't the puppet IAEA go into Tel Aviv and look at Israels nuclear facilities?

Every action from ABMs systems in western Europe, to current fragmentations in Africa, the turmoil in the Arab regions, to the EU mess is all linked back to USA policy which looks to maintain its fragile hegemony on globe while limiting China and Russian expansion. To get to Moscow DC has to go through Tehran and Beijing.

Post: #91

(02-03-2012 08:12 PM)bengalltigerr Wrote:  

(02-03-2012 07:59 PM)ao85 Wrote:  For those who think we shouldn't bomb Iran, answer two questions:

1) Is Iran trying to build a bomb? Whether they're justified or not isn't the question. The question is whether they are trying to.

2) Will the Middle East be more or less stable with Iran having a nuclear weapon? Do you think Iran will absolutely never use it?

Iran is not a country overrun by terrorists. WHy the hell should they be not allowed to create nuclear weapons?

So many countries in the world now have nuclear weapons, do you think these other countries will never use their nuclear weapons either?

Iran IS actively supporting terrorism in the form of Hezbollah and militants in Iraq IED bombing American troops there.

Here is direct proof that the regime is nuts.

“In light of the realization of the divine promise by almighty God, the Zionists and the Great Satan (America) will soon be defeated,” Ayatollah Khamenei, the Iranian supreme leader, is warning.

Khamenei, speaking to hundreds of youths from more than 70 countries attending a world conference on the Arab Spring just days ago, told a cheering crowd in Tehran that “Allah’s promises will be delivered and Islam will be victorious.”

You think this regime should have nukes? At some point the cultural relativism has to go out the door and we have to realize that the West is morally superior to these backwards Islamic regimes.

No one wants war, despite all the claims of this military industrial complex pushing for war...the fact is that not less than 100 years ago the Jewish people faced extermination. They don't take threats lightly. Humanity is a species with a history of brutality. You can't assume your enemies will not attack you.

Post: #92

i think not

Post: #93

(02-03-2012 09:08 PM)kosko Wrote:  Israel would be the first in the region to use nukes. This is almost a certainly. Iran would use its nukes to deter and Israeli or USA attack. Lets be honest here if anybody were to attack Israel with large scale bombs or nukes they would be bombed 12 times over by the USA into dust. This is why I laugh at the media projection of Iran as a boogie man in the ME. Iran is simply trying to protect its ass, as Israel is relentless in keeping its dominance in the ME, A strong Iran means Israel can't strong arm countries and keep feeble monarchs like SA or UAE on their side.

A strong Iran would mean that *gasp* Israel would be forced to act in professional and responsible diplomatic fashion when dealing with Iran or any of its allies whiten the region. TO this day it has been able to run around like a child with a big older brother with little reprimands for its actions.

Asian with regards to weapons there is no "legitimate" proof that Iran is overstepping its civilian and sovereign right in producing nuclear energy. They have mused about plans and concepts with the Russians but outside of this they are still some 10 years by some estimates of getting to the point to successively produce bomb-grade uranium. the media acts like they could have warheads by next week when they still are in the baby stages of producing low levels for energy use. To achieve the point where you can outfit bombs with nuke warheads it takes a shit load of time and resources. It is a 7-10 year project sometimes even longer. Then you have to test... as the USA and Israel spy on the greater ME with drones how easy do you think Iran could do this? Its all bullshit, its simply money reasons why war is being pushed. Iran is Russians and China block in the regions, this points to greater motives to isolate China and Russia by chocking off its economic plays and allies throughout the globe.

If the USA and Israel we're serious about Nuclear harmony in the regions Israel would declare its nukes and work to produce dialog with Therahn on limiting or stooping there nuclear aspirations. Why doesn't the puppet IAEA go into Tel Aviv and look at Israels nuclear facilities?

Every action from ABMs systems in western Europe, to current fragmentations in Africa, the turmoil in the Arab regions, to the EU mess is all linked back to USA policy which looks to maintain its fragile hegemony on globe while limiting China and Russian expansion. To get to Moscow DC has to go through Tehran and Beijing.

The difference is that Israel is a rational, at least somewhat responsible stakeholder in the world system. Iran is a state sponsor of terror that suppresses its own people. The fundamental question is whether Iran (the regime, NOT the Iranian people) is going to rationally act in its self interest, or will attempt to destroy Israel, due to religion. I think it's too naive to expect good behavior from a regime that still tries to stone women to death.

Post: #94

(02-04-2012 07:20 AM)ao85 Wrote:  The difference is that Israel is a rational, at least somewhat responsible stakeholder in the world system. Iran is a state sponsor of terror that suppresses its own people. The fundamental question is whether Iran (the regime, NOT the Iranian people) is going to rationally act in its self interest, or will attempt to destroy Israel, due to religion. I think it's too naive to expect good behavior from a regime that still tries to stone women to death.

I'm not looking to defend the Islamic Republic but of curiosity, how is what Israel does more rational than what Iran does? The "state sponsorship of terrorism" you're talking about is most likely Hezbollah in Lebanon, which, if I remember correctly, came about to end the occupation of South Lebanon by Israel (so perhaps, if one wants to be crafty with words one can call them Freedom Fighters?).

If you want to talk about rationality, the most rational thing a state can do is defend its territories. As many posters before have already brought up, it is very rational for Iran to be doing what it is today. You might not agree with it, but if you're going to make an argument against them you ought to use a word that doesn't discount your argument.

To further question your use of the word 'rationality', is it rational for a group of people to use a text written thousands of years ago, to justify their return to a land at the time occupied by people who really didn't like them? That sounds pretty irrational to me.

Post: #95

(02-04-2012 01:45 AM)ao85 Wrote:  

(02-03-2012 08:12 PM)bengalltigerr Wrote:  

(02-03-2012 07:59 PM)ao85 Wrote:  For those who think we shouldn't bomb Iran, answer two questions:

1) Is Iran trying to build a bomb? Whether they're justified or not isn't the question. The question is whether they are trying to.

2) Will the Middle East be more or less stable with Iran having a nuclear weapon? Do you think Iran will absolutely never use it?

Iran is not a country overrun by terrorists. WHy the hell should they be not allowed to create nuclear weapons?

So many countries in the world now have nuclear weapons, do you think these other countries will never use their nuclear weapons either?

Iran IS actively supporting terrorism in the form of Hezbollah and militants in Iraq IED bombing American troops there.

Here is direct proof that the regime is nuts.

“In light of the realization of the divine promise by almighty God, the Zionists and the Great Satan (America) will soon be defeated,” Ayatollah Khamenei, the Iranian supreme leader, is warning.

Khamenei, speaking to hundreds of youths from more than 70 countries attending a world conference on the Arab Spring just days ago, told a cheering crowd in Tehran that “Allah’s promises will be delivered and Islam will be victorious.”

You think this regime should have nukes? At some point the cultural relativism has to go out the door and we have to realize that the West is morally superior to these backwards Islamic regimes.

No one wants war, despite all the claims of this military industrial complex pushing for war...the fact is that not less than 100 years ago the Jewish people faced extermination. They don't take threats lightly. Humanity is a species with a history of brutality. You can't assume your enemies will not attack you.

You must really hate Persians! Do you honestly believe Iran stands a chance to bomb Israel and get away with it? Nobody bombs America's "best friend" and gets away with it.

By the way, are you so naive to believe everything the media wants you to believe?

Post: #96

(02-03-2012 11:52 AM)Thorfinnsson Wrote:  EDIT: Be warned that since none of you guys are Japanese

Speak for yourself.

Gonna check that out. Thanks for the info.

Post: #97

(02-04-2012 01:15 PM)kerouac Wrote:  

(02-04-2012 07:20 AM)ao85 Wrote:  The difference is that Israel is a rational, at least somewhat responsible stakeholder in the world system. Iran is a state sponsor of terror that suppresses its own people. The fundamental question is whether Iran (the regime, NOT the Iranian people) is going to rationally act in its self interest, or will attempt to destroy Israel, due to religion. I think it's too naive to expect good behavior from a regime that still tries to stone women to death.

I'm not looking to defend the Islamic Republic but of curiosity, how is what Israel does more rational than what Iran does? The "state sponsorship of terrorism" you're talking about is most likely Hezbollah in Lebanon, which, if I remember correctly, came about to end the occupation of South Lebanon by Israel (so perhaps, if one wants to be crafty with words one can call them Freedom Fighters?).

If you want to talk about rationality, the most rational thing a state can do is defend its territories. As many posters before have already brought up, it is very rational for Iran to be doing what it is today. You might not agree with it, but if you're going to make an argument against them you ought to use a word that doesn't discount your argument.

To further question your use of the word 'rationality', is it rational for a group of people to use a text written thousands of years ago, to justify their return to a land at the time occupied by people who really didn't like them? That sounds pretty irrational to me.

Perfect response, couldn't of said it any better.

Israel shouts at Iran whom has signed and ratified the NPT that it can;t have nukes when Israel itself poses illegal bombs itself. IF anybody told me that I would tell them to fuck off, seriously how can anybody take Tel Aviv at their word. Netanhyahu is just as much a nut as Ahmadinejad. Bring Romney into the picture (possibly) and you have 3 right wing hard liners mulling over the chips in the region... not a good look.

Nobody likes to talk about the obvious that the sporadic activity in the ME is a direct result and answer to Israels stiff arm policies. Lets be frank also and understand the largest supporters of terrorist activity on earth have always been the USA and Israel. Even to the point where American helps fund and arm a man whom killed Americans Armed Forces in cold blood in Afghanistan during the fighting in Libya. So many networks exists that American funds its enemies and both sides the majority of the time, they really do not care as long as the end results ends favorable for them.

What Iran is doing right is what any legitimate sovereign nation would do. It has evrey right to do every action is is doing right now. Israel really needs to cool its jets, I have always said that the greatest threat to the Jewish nation is Israel its self. It will do something to brazen to warrant the USA distancing itself from her. Things may remain tense with another dominate regional power in your backyard but its represents the need then for formal dialogue and discussions to take place. You can't and don't have this with only one person strong arming everybody else. You need to sides for diplomacy.

There is also talk that Israel is a grave need of Water resources and the failed push at South Lebanon (which has a plentiful amount of water) has had dire effects for them on the Water front. From a domestic standpoint this could also be a reason why they are pushing things very aggressively.

Off topic but Interesting fact that during the time when the British we're mulling what to do with British Palestine when the question of where to send the mass of Jewish refuges many other sites we're put into the conversation. Back then locations in Africa to all the way in Brazil. The "book" was never brought up as a reason in decision, only hard-lined Zionists brought that into the equation. The UK decided on the former territory as simply a easier means to get things through as the financiers (Rothschilds, etc.) whom supported the UK during the war viewed it as a lest costly measure then having to figure out a way to send millions of refuges to Africa of Brazil... always follow the money.

Post: #98

(02-04-2012 01:15 PM)kerouac Wrote:  

(02-04-2012 07:20 AM)ao85 Wrote:  The difference is that Israel is a rational, at least somewhat responsible stakeholder in the world system. Iran is a state sponsor of terror that suppresses its own people. The fundamental question is whether Iran (the regime, NOT the Iranian people) is going to rationally act in its self interest, or will attempt to destroy Israel, due to religion. I think it's too naive to expect good behavior from a regime that still tries to stone women to death.

I'm not looking to defend the Islamic Republic but of curiosity, how is what Israel does more rational than what Iran does? The "state sponsorship of terrorism" you're talking about is most likely Hezbollah in Lebanon, which, if I remember correctly, came about to end the occupation of South Lebanon by Israel (so perhaps, if one wants to be crafty with words one can call them Freedom Fighters?).

If you want to talk about rationality, the most rational thing a state can do is defend its territories. As many posters before have already brought up, it is very rational for Iran to be doing what it is today. You might not agree with it, but if you're going to make an argument against them you ought to use a word that doesn't discount your argument.

To further question your use of the word 'rationality', is it rational for a group of people to use a text written thousands of years ago, to justify their return to a land at the time occupied by people who really didn't like them? That sounds pretty irrational to me.

Ultimately this is all speculation in terms of trying to understand what Iran will do once it gets a nuclear bomb. Will it use it only for defense? Will they give it to Hezbollah? Will they use it to hold the world hostage to build even more bombs without interference? Will they use it to hold the world hostage and ramp up terrorist activity in Lebanon and Iraq?

Ultimately we don't know. But can you base policy off of believing in the best of a country's intentions? If you're the President of the United States, is it worth the risk to allow a nuclear Iran to avoid conflict in the short term? If you're the president of Israel, your responsible for the safety and security of your people. Can you take the risk of assuming that Iran won't use its bomb as a safety measure to ramp up terrorism?

If only the world was not such a terrible place. If only the holocaust had never occurred, I'd be inclined to agree with you and believe in the best of other nations. Unfortunately, we must deal with the world as it is and not how we wish it to be, conspiracy theories aside.

Post: #99

(02-05-2012 03:04 AM)ao85 Wrote:  

(02-04-2012 01:15 PM)kerouac Wrote:  

(02-04-2012 07:20 AM)ao85 Wrote:  The difference is that Israel is a rational, at least somewhat responsible stakeholder in the world system. Iran is a state sponsor of terror that suppresses its own people. The fundamental question is whether Iran (the regime, NOT the Iranian people) is going to rationally act in its self interest, or will attempt to destroy Israel, due to religion. I think it's too naive to expect good behavior from a regime that still tries to stone women to death.

I'm not looking to defend the Islamic Republic but of curiosity, how is what Israel does more rational than what Iran does? The "state sponsorship of terrorism" you're talking about is most likely Hezbollah in Lebanon, which, if I remember correctly, came about to end the occupation of South Lebanon by Israel (so perhaps, if one wants to be crafty with words one can call them Freedom Fighters?).

If you want to talk about rationality, the most rational thing a state can do is defend its territories. As many posters before have already brought up, it is very rational for Iran to be doing what it is today. You might not agree with it, but if you're going to make an argument against them you ought to use a word that doesn't discount your argument.

To further question your use of the word 'rationality', is it rational for a group of people to use a text written thousands of years ago, to justify their return to a land at the time occupied by people who really didn't like them? That sounds pretty irrational to me.

Ultimately this is all speculation in terms of trying to understand what Iran will do once it gets a nuclear bomb. Will it use it only for defense? Will they give it to Hezbollah? Will they use it to hold the world hostage to build even more bombs without interference? Will they use it to hold the world hostage and ramp up terrorist activity in Lebanon and Iraq?

Ultimately we don't know. But can you base policy off of believing in the best of a country's intentions? If you're the President of the United States, is it worth the risk to allow a nuclear Iran to avoid conflict in the short term? If you're the president of Israel, your responsible for the safety and security of your people. Can you take the risk of assuming that Iran won't use its bomb as a safety measure to ramp up terrorism?

If only the world was not such a terrible place. If only the holocaust had never occurred, I'd be inclined to agree with you and believe in the best of other nations. Unfortunately, we must deal with the world as it is and not how we wish it to be, conspiracy theories aside.

Of course you throw in the H bomb to sure up your weak arguments. Your shooting air balls bro.

Post: #100

The heart of Iran's secret weapons program: female ninjas