Page 1 of 1
#1 Pipeline deal 'soon', says India
Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 11:07 pm
by frigidmagi
BBC
India will soon sign an agreement with Iran and Pakistan to construct a multi-billion dollar gas pipeline, its petroleum minister has said.
Murli Deora said some "minor problems" over the pipeline had been sorted out.
The pipeline will transport gas from Iran to India through Pakistan, and is seen as crucial to Indian energy needs.
Analysts say the pipeline could contribute to regional security as Iran, Pakistan and India would depend on each other more.
A deal has been stalled by disputes over transit fees and security issues.
Mr Deora, who attended a meeting of leading oil exporting countries in Saudi Arabia, told an Indian news channel that the agreement to construct the pipeline would be signed "very soon".
"There were... some issues with Pakistan that have been taken care of," he said.
In April, Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, had told the Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, that all obstacles holding up the long-delayed project would be resolved within 45 days.
The 2,600-km (1,620-mile) pipeline would initially transport 60 cubic metres of gas (2.2bn cubic feet) a day.
The Indian government has said the project is feasible, but needs to be financially viable with assured supplies.
India has boycotted trilateral meetings since mid-2007, saying it wants to resolve the issues of transit fees and transportation tariffs with its long-standing regional rival Pakistan first.
In what may be shocking to you I think this is a good idea. It gives Pakistan and India a vital economic connection, which may help them continue avoiding a nuclear war (this rates very high on my list o'stuff) and might open up Iran a little.
Odds are Iran will turn around and use the money to buy guns for it's favorite terrorist groups though, but I can hope...
#2
Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:59 pm
by Cynical Cat
Iran's economy is in pretty bad shape. I imagine as long as the clerics are running things giving money to people with guns will continue, but ordinary Iranian is hurting pretty bad and the clerics have been running things longer than he's been alive.
In other words, they need the money and they're going to do nasty things anyway.
#3
Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 4:08 pm
by LadyTevar
It will also provide a lot of jobs for people, which is always a good thing. Better pay does wonders for improving people's moods and mindset.
#4
Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 5:51 pm
by General Havoc
Generating a middle class in a country is the best way for us to bring that country around from cukoo-land to our way of thinking, as it turns out that when people have something to lose, they get a little less eager to wage perpetual Jihad for the hell of it at the behest of corrupt autocrats who enjoy sending 13-year olds to blow themselves up with bombs in backpacks.
Who'd have thought?
#5
Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 7:35 pm
by frigidmagi
Iran had and has a middle class. The Iranians don't blow themselves up. When they were blowing themselves up and using children chained in groups of ten as portable mine detector kits, they were being invaded by Iraq. They make the bombs and give money for other people to blow themselves up. Hezbollah and HAMAS for example. At the moment they have nothing to do with Al Qeada or the Taliban and such(that pesky Sunni/Shitte divide being what it is). At the moment.
It's not always as easy as it looks.
#6
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 12:50 am
by General Havoc
I'm well aware that Iran had and has a middle class, and that said middle class is at the center of what opposition there is in Iran (a complex issue). I am also aware that the Iran/Iraq war was the source of most of the Iranian mine-detonating, and that they prefer to bankroll suicide bombers now rather than supply them. None of the above was my point.
My point was that economic integration in the form of generating a larger middle class is a good thing, even for our enemies, in fact especially for our enemies. Every country has a middle class, but the larger the segment of the population that is in the middle class, the better off in terms of insane policies. In general, countries that have some kind of economic growth in real terms (not in kleptocratic ones). Anything of that sort in Iran will probably decrease the "fuckwad" element in Iranian policy, as it does in other countries, by and large.
It's got nothing to do with Al Qaeda.
#7
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 1:15 am
by frigidmagi
Okay I specifically said that Iran had nothing to do with Al Qeada.
You know that whole
At the moment they have nothing to do with Al Qeada or the Taliban
Also, I said this was a good thing in my very first post. So get off the high horse.
Lastly a larger middle class doesn't mean much in Iran. The clerics decide who gets to run. They decide who gets to forms parties. All government programs must be approved so on and so forth. In other words the only thing that matters in terms of Iran's polices are the Clerics. People have been chanting Iran can't last to me since I was 12 years old and where we are 15 years later. So yes, while this is a good thing. I am telling y'all not to expect any drop in Iranian related terrorism. I am accepting this as a cost of business. Sucks but the alternative is worse. [/quote]
#8
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 1:29 am
by General Havoc
I never brought up anything about Al Qaeda until you decided that my mentioning the fact that Iran's middle class expanding was a good thing warranted a lecture on the matter. You were the first one to bring up Al Qaeda in any respect, and as I was attempting to state, they have nothing to do with my point. I shall get off my high horse when you dismount from yours.
I do however disagree with you on the idea that a larger middle class means nothing. The clerics control everything there now, yes, and I am not telling you to expect Iran to collapse any time soon (or ever). But I do think that increasing the size and economic power of the Iranian middle class will result in a drop in support for terrorism. There's a few reasons behind this, but basically it boils down to there being a class of people who have some economic sway who will be looking for political sway of some kind, and those people will tend to have more domestic concerns than the endless chants of "Death to America".
Now... whether this pipeline will lead to that... is something of another question.
#9
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 1:53 am
by frigidmagi
I mentioned Iran does not support Al Qeada because everytime I talk about Iran supporting Terrorist someone always come wondering in to yell that Iran has nothing to do with Osama. I took preventive measures. Sue me.
There's very little support for spending money Iran doesn't have in arming terrorists in Iran right now. Most people are worried about raising prices and wishing the cops would just let them hold a co-ed party. The policy already lacks popular support. It never really had a lot of popular support. It does not require popular support.
#10
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 2:16 am
by SirNitram
I'm just curious what an expanded middle class is supposed to do against the actual power-wielders in Iran, the Ayatollahs. But this might be a basic breakdown where the West thinks 'President' has power beyond economic.
#11
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 10:43 am
by Cynical Cat
The security services are still loyal and that's what matters. The army refused to put down a public demonstration a few years back, saying that wasn't their job, but that really doesn't mean much. A non-political army isn't going to overthrow the clerics. Unpopular dictatorships and oligarchies have survived in the past and they will do so now. The widespread dissatisfaction with their rule isn't sufficient to bring them down.
#12
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:55 am
by Derek Thunder
Cynical Cat wrote:The security services are still loyal and that's what matters. The army refused to put down a public demonstration a few years back, saying that wasn't their job, but that really doesn't mean much. A non-political army isn't going to overthrow the clerics. Unpopular dictatorships and oligarchies have survived in the past and they will do so now. The widespread dissatisfaction with their rule isn't sufficient to bring them down.
I don't know if it's an exact analogue but the pro-Kremlin oligarchy of the Ukraine was brought down by a democratic movement combined with international pressure. Whether this would carry over to Iran I don't know.
#13
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 12:39 pm
by Cynical Cat
Derek Thunder wrote:
I don't know if it's an exact analogue but the pro-Kremlin oligarchy of the Ukraine was brought down by a democratic movement combined with international pressure. Whether this would carry over to Iran I don't know.
It isn't. The Ukraine also had elections for the actual leadership positons of the country and the West isn't viewed as the enemy. Pressure from guys who want to do business with your country as opposed to rattle sabers at it is a lot different.
#14
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 1:36 pm
by frigidmagi
Here's another factor, the security forces are staffed full of Pakistani and Palenistian mercs. To use an analogy that doesn't completely fit.
It's like if our President had replaced the SSN (secret service) and the National Guard with Blackwater.
#15
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 1:42 pm
by Cynical Cat
frigidmagi wrote:Here's another factor, the security forces are staffed full of Pakistani and Palenistian mercs. To use an analogy that doesn't completely fit.
It's like if our President had replaced the SSN (secret service) and the National Guard with Blackwater.
A better analogy would be the barbarian mercenaries the Roman Emperors used as bodyguards and the Varangian Guard employed by the Byzantines.
#16
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 1:44 pm
by frigidmagi
Yeah but I was going for a modern day one that American readers could get right away on how bad it was.
#17
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 1:56 pm
by Cynical Cat
frigidmagi wrote:Yeah but I was going for a modern day one that American readers could get right away on how bad it was.
We're all geeks here frigid. No need to dumb it down too far.
#18
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 4:51 pm
by General Havoc
frigidmagi wrote:Here's another factor, the security forces are staffed full of Pakistani and Palenistian mercs. To use an analogy that doesn't completely fit.
It's like if our President had replaced the SSN (secret service) and the National Guard with Blackwater.
Now THAT is a new one to me...
Hrm...
This is a bit strange though, aren't Palestinians on the other side of the Sunni/Shia divide than Iranians?
#19
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 5:56 pm
by Derek Thunder
General Havoc wrote:Now THAT is a new one to me...
Hrm...
This is a bit strange though, aren't Palestinians on the other side of the Sunni/Shia divide than Iranians?
Hezbollah is a Shi'a party, and Lebanon has a sizeable minority of Shi'a muslims, about 32%.
#20
Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 2:27 am
by frigidmagi
This is a bit strange though, aren't Palestinians on the other side of the Sunni/Shia divide than Iranians?
That doesn't stop Iran from shipping HAMAS weapons. Nor does it stop them from sending young men over to the Iranians for use in their security forces. After all Shia oil money spends just as good as Sunni oil money.
#21
Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 6:18 pm
by Cpl Kendall
I don't forsee this ever getting completed, I'm sure the wackaloons in the tribal areas will be itching to sabotage it.
