Oil backed up, Iranians put it on idled ships,Sanctions hitting hard onIran

[Arian]

irans economy is 480 billion , and gdp per capita $6,000

First go get educated and understand what purchase power parity(PPP) means. I don't have to explain everything for you.

Iran:
GDP (PPP) 2011 estimate
- Total $990.219 billion[7]
- Per capita $13,053[7]

yes fighter nation that got ruled by turks and azeri turks , got battered by 300 naked men .

The fighter nation who ruled you over your waste land for 1000 years before you guys even know to wear pants. And please take your tork crap somewhere else.

 

[Serpentine]

irans economy is 480 billion , and gdp per capita $6,000



yes fighter nation that got ruled by turks and azeri turks , got battered by 300 naked men .

Your obsession with being ruled by Turks and Azeri bullshit is ridiculous.Get out of your hole,get a life.We are living in present time,not the past.

 

[Ottoman-Turk]

lol you admitted you got ruled and now you are insulting hahaa , i see , you dont want to accept .

GDP (nominal) 2011 estimate
- Total $482.445 billion[7]
- Per capita $6,359[7]

First go get educated and understand what purchase power parity(PPP) means. I don't have to explain everything for you.

Iran:
GDP (PPP) 2011 estimate
- Total $990.219 billion[7]
- Per capita $13,053[7]


The fighter nation who ruled you over your waste land for 1000 years before you guys even know to wear pants. And please take your tork crap somewhere else.

Your obsession with being ruled by Turks and Azeri bullshit is ridiculous.Get out of your hole,get a life.We are living in present time,not the past.

i always look at present but when i put up data he says bull s...

Iran:
GDP (PPP) 2011 estimate
- Total $990.219 billion[7]
- Per capita $13,053[7]

so you are saying india is 3rd biggest economy in the world? isnt economy calculated by nominal figure ? if so better as we are ranked as 15th according to wiki world bank with 1.114 gdp (ppp)

 

[Surenas]

iyes fighter nation that got ruled by turks and azeri turks , got battered by 300 naked men .

I think you guys ***** still hurts after 12.000 Persians defeated 300.000 Turks at this war:

First Perso-Turkic War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We gave you guys a rematch and decided that 12.000 man is too many against 300.000 and so we sent only 2000 men this time. But even then you guys were completely slaughtered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Perso-Turkic_War

More about our fighting spirit:

Remember how the Persians defeated the Romans led by Valerian, were an entire Roman army was defeated and he himself was made a prisoner. Remember how the Parthians defeated the Romans in the Battle of Carrhae, were they defeated a Roman invasion force led by Crassus. Rember how the Romans led their biggest loss under the Roman Emperor Gordian were more than 60.000 Romans were captured by the Persians led by Shapur and Rome paid a huge amount of money to them. Remember how the Persians defeated the Romans at the Battle of Barbalissos. The Greeks defeated the Persians occasionally, yes, but they never had the strength/power to defeat the Persians in the heart of the empire. The Macedonians did, but they couldn't hold the empire under control after a short time. When the Turks invaded Persia, the Persian empire was degenerated and not at their height of power. Also remember how the Parthians defeated the Greeks.

''So it is well to understand what these Persians did. No one has ever questioned the prowess of the Roman legions. Only one people ever met them on equal terms in open fight. These were the Persians. They first challenged Rome in the very height of her power; and throughout four centuries the greatest forces the mistress of the world could gather were repeatedly and vainly hurled against Persia. Not one Persian army was destroyed; not one Persian king was led captive in a Roman triumph. Battles were won as often by one nation as by the other; but Rome suffered the great disasters of which we have told; and Rome paid Persia large sums of money for peace so often that the Roman populace complained bitterly, declaring they were become mere tributaries of Persia.''

Also remember how European empires/armies were influenced by Persian military inventions. The Persians were the first who used heavy cavalry. The Cataphract was introduced by the Iranians, and was adopted by the Greeks and Romans. The European knight culture was heavy influenced by the Persians.

You Turks are only famous for one thing:

"I wish fervently that the Turkish barbarians be chased away immediately out of the country of Xenophon, Socrates, Plato, Sophocles and Euripides. If we wanted, it could be done soon but seven crusades of superstition have been undertaken and a crusade of honour will never take place. We know almost no city built by them; they let decay the most beautiful establishments of Antiquity, they reign over ruins."

- Voltaire.

Nietzsche on Persians:

"I must pay tribute to Zarathushtrâ, a Persian (einem Perser): Persians were the first who thought of history in its full entirety."

Jean Chardin on Persians:

''The Persians are the most civilized of the peoples of the East, and what the French are to Europe, they are to the Orient... Their bearing and countenance is the best-composed, mild, serious, impressive, genial and welcoming as far as possible. They never fail to perform at once the appropriate gestures of politeness when meeting each other... They are the most wheedling people in the world, with the most engaging manners, the most supple spirits and a language that is gentle and flattering, and devoid of unpleasant terms but rather full of circumlocutions.''

One conclusion: superior.

 

[Juice]

Of course. But what are we fighting for? We can always achieve a good nuclear infrastructure in Iran, but I would like to see all nuclear enrichment stop right now. Ordinary Iranians are fighting to get food on the table, while the mullahs are fighting their war with the west. I have spoken to family members in Iran and the situation is getting worse by the week. Even a poll on a Iranian website showed that a majority of Iranians is for stopping the enrichment now.

I'm still fuzzy on the semantics...I know that there is a complaint about enriching weapons-grade material...what is the stance on Iran having civilian reactors (such as, do the western powers wish to do the enriching, then ship civilian fuel to Iran, or do they have no concern about Iran making civilian grade fuel?)

I think you guys ***** still hurts after 12.000 Persians defeated 300.000 Turks at this war:

First Perso-Turkic War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We gave you guys a rematch and decided that 12.000 man is too many against 300.000 and so we sent only 2000 men this time. But even then you guys were completely slaughtered.

Second Perso-Turkic War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More about our fighting spirit:

Remember how the Persians defeated the Romans led by Valerian, were an entire Roman army was defeated and he himself was made a prisoner. Remember how the Parthians defeated the Romans in the Battle of Carrhae, were they defeated a Roman invasion force led by Crassus. Rember how the Romans led their biggest loss under the Roman Emperor Gordian were more than 60.000 Romans were captured by the Persians led by Shapur and Rome paid a huge amount of money to them. Remember how the Persians defeated the Romans at the Battle of Barbalissos. The Greeks defeated the Persians occasionally, yes, but they never had the strength/power to defeat the Persians in the heart of the empire. The Macedonians did, but they couldn't hold the empire under control after a short time. When the Turks invaded Persia, the Persian empire was degenerated and not at their height of power. Also remember how the Parthians defeated the Greeks.



Also remember how European empires/armies were influenced by Persian military inventions. The Persians were the first who used heavy cavalry. The Cataphract was introduced by the Iranians, and was adopted by the Greeks and Romans. The European knight culture was heavy influenced by the Persians.

You Turks are only famous for one thing:



Nietzsche on Persians:



One conclusion: superior.

Mostly true....but Byzantium was "Roman" in name only, the real Rome fell awhile back (and I don't just mean the city, I mean the old culture and spirit)

 

[Harry_Thomason]

I'm still fuzzy on the semantics...I know that there is a complaint about enriching weapons-grade material...what is the stance on Iran having civilian reactors (such as, do the western powers wish to do the enriching, then ship civilian fuel to Iran, or do they have no concern about Iran making civilian grade fuel?)

US demands Iran to stop all civilian nuclear enrichment, since they dont even have weapons-grade enrichment.

Irony is, there was already 20% fuel swap deal made few years ago, but US sabotaged it as well.

 

[Surenas]

I'm still fuzzy on the semantics...I know that there is a complaint about enriching weapons-grade material...what is the stance on Iran having civilian reactors (such as, do the western powers wish to do the enriching, then ship civilian fuel to Iran, or do they have no concern about Iran making civilian grade fuel?)

I think the west do have some concerns about low enrichment, but they can accept a maximum of 20% enrichment. And by the west I mean US + friends. Israel is a different story. They already said they won't accept any enrichment at all and Obama should bring this message also to Tehran, but I think it's not that realistic. Israel probably is trying to aim high, while could possibly life with low enrichment + international monitoring.

Mostly true....but Byzantium was "Roman" in name only, the real Rome fell awhile back (and I don't just mean the city, I mean the old culture and spirit)

That's right. But If I'm right the Persians also confronted them at the height of their power.

 

[Arian]

***A full load of horse manure***

You don't even know what Purchase Power Parity is? Right? You don't even bother to check wikipedia so you get informed and don't look too ignorant? OK, I'll copy it for you here:

Purchasing power parity (PPP) is an economic theory and a technique used to determine the relative value of currencies, estimating the amount of adjustment needed on the exchange rate between countries in order for the exchange to be equivalent to (or on par with) each currency's purchasing power.[1] It asks how much money would be needed to purchase the same goods and services in two countries, and uses that to calculate an implicit foreign exchange rate. Using that PPP rate, an amount of money thus has the same purchasing power in different countries. Among other uses, PPP rates facilitate international comparisons of income, as market exchange rates are often volatile, are affected by political and financial factors that do not lead to immediate changes in income and tend to systematically understate the standard of living in poor countries, due to the Balassa–Samuelson effect.

Using Purchasing Power Parity GDP per capita instead of nominal is a well-founded method to do calculations for poverty. Even the UN and the World Bank use Purchasing Power Parity to calculate poverty line, which is what I was talking about. Let me explain it in simple terms for you if you still don't understand what PPP is. PPP, in simple English, Purchasing Power Parity GDP indicates the ratio of the amount of goods you could buy with a dollar in different countries. For example, in the USA, you may be able to buy one unit of X with 1$, but in another country, you could be able to buy 2.05 units of that good with 1$ (considering the unit could be taken as a real value, not an integer). So, we'll say that one dollar has more value in the later country than in the USA. This is important when you want to talk about poverty, because you may be very poor if you live with an income of 500$ per month in New York, but if you live in Zimbabwe with that money, you'll live like a king. Because 1$ is more valuable in Zimbabwe than the USA.
Setting the US dollar as the basis of calculation, you see that the US GDP(PPP) and nominal GDP are the same. And that's obvious, because the basis of our calculations are the US dollar. In Iran, the ratio of Iran's PPP GDP to Nominal GDP is roughly about 2.05, which means in Iran, one dollar, has twice the value it has in the USA for buying goods.

I hope you would understand it better now.

 

[Arian]

I'm still fuzzy on the semantics...I know that there is a complaint about enriching weapons-grade material...what is the stance on Iran having civilian reactors (such as, do the western powers wish to do the enriching, then ship civilian fuel to Iran, or do they have no concern about Iran making civilian grade fuel?)

Unfortunately the western countries have refused to sell us uranium even for the Tehran University nuclear reactor which is solely used for medical and research purposes against the NPT laws.

 

[Juice]

Well to be honest that does seem unfair....but then I'm all for letting Iran make a bomb if they wish to waste the cash. If they do something stupid with it, we have a few of our own to show what a bad idea that would be.

 

[Arian]

Well to be honest that does seem unfair....but then I'm all for letting Iran make a bomb if they wish to waste the cash. If they do something stupid with it, we have a few of our own to show what a bad idea that would be.

Iran couldn't go after nukes when it's engulfed by nuclear powers from the right and the left. A nuclear bomb is only deterrence, you could not do something stupid with it any more. Just like what I was pointing out to Skorpion in another post, even the USA can't use her nukes against another nation unless a real nuke war erupts. Nuclear deterrence caused the world to be safe from the WWII till now, so it acts as deterrence more than anything else.

The story of Iran's denial of rights regarding the nuclear issue is really sad, double standards are really clear if you study the case.

 

[Juice]

I have studied, and understand why nuclear powers don't want the tech to spread. How ever, once a tech is out there (like steam-power, electricity, cars, etc), hoping it won't spread is dreaming. Like I said, I understand the thinking behind non-proliferation...but it has failed (India, Isreal, China, South Africa, Pakistan prove this). A new method of control needs to be thought up. A world agreement on what happens to those who use first, perhaps? (or perhaps the world watching to small states in ...let's say Africa, going full nuclear on each other...and the rest of the world realising they don't want to go that route)

 

[Arian]

I have studied, and understand why nuclear powers don't want the tech to spread. How ever, once a tech is out there (like steam-power, electricity, cars, etc), hoping it won't spread is dreaming. Like I said, I understand the thinking behind non-proliferation...but it has failed (India, Isreal, China, South Africa, Pakistan prove this). A new method of control needs to be thought up. A world agreement on what happens to those who use first, perhaps? (or perhaps the world watching to small states in ...let's say Africa, going full nuclear on each other...and the rest of the world realising they don't want to go that route)

As you rightly pointed out, it's impossible to prevent the tech from spreading. Ultimately, maybe in the next 5 decades, even African countries would go for it. You can't stop this from happening, you could only delay it. The USA knows that pretty well, but I think it's delaying it so they could find a way to counter the threats posed by non-allied nuclear states. The world is defenseless against a nuclear attack, that's why it looks very horrible and formidable now. If the USA and her allies find ways to protect themselves from nuclear attacks I'm sure they won't mind if even Somalia acquires nukes.

Also, it's not really the nukes that is the main problem, it's also about the hegemony western countries have built over the rest of the world in science. They don't want this to break easily by few adventurous countries like Iran who they see them as outlaws trying to defy their rules.

 

[Juice]

Every country likes to have advantages, and punish those who try to undermine them (remeber the events in "300", the Persians have been playing that a long time, now it's our turn). And I also realise why Isreal doesn't want Iran to have nukes (Remember that example I used with Africa? Well I'm sure Isreal doesn't want to be the example that the rest of the world looks at and says "wow, that was a really bad idea", neither should Iran)

 

[Arian]

Every country likes to have advantages, and punish those who try to undermine them (remeber the events in "300", the Persians have been playing that a long time, now it's our turn). And I also realise why Isreal doesn't want Iran to have nukes (Remember that example I used with Africa? Well I'm sure Isreal doesn't want to be the example that the rest of the world looks at and says "wow, that was a really bad idea", neither should Iran)

Israel's real concern isn't Iran gaining nukes, because it knows very well that Iran can not and will not nuke Israel. Their main concern is that if Iran obtains nukes, it will have a deterrence against a possible US strike. So they couldn't beat the drums of war any time they want and they lose their military advantage over their neighbors. Israel's main advantage over her neighbors, beside using high-tech equipments, is that she knows she won't get punished whatever she does, on the other hand, her enemies get punished for the least harm they could do to Israel. If Iran goes nuclear, this will definitely change. Because when Iran's position is stabilized and other states know that Iran won't go down, that would change the equations in the region. The main fear of Israel is to lose her levers against Arabs, because her military advantage could easily get compensated by the quantity of Arab troops and the Muslim population.