Iran under Sanction Pressures Reaction?


View Poll Results: Oil Sanction
Is the West right to impose sanctions -Morally -Legally 5 29.41%
Is the West wrong to impose sanctions-Morally -Legally 4 23.53%
Will this cause War 1 5.88%
Will this force/persuade Iran to negotiate Nuke Program 1 5.88%
Iran will find other markets-India-China etc 7 41.18%
This will lower the price for Iranian Oil exports 3 17.65%
Is this a positive step by the West 7 41.18%
Is this a negative step by the West 3 17.65%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 17. You may not vote on this poll

gerryh
#211
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post


So why would Iran subject themselves to the same process which the US and UK abused in order to successfully invade and occupy Iraq?



It's not the same at all. No one is trying to get Iran to disarm.
 
Goober
#212
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

At first Iraq was loathe to subject themselves to the abuses of the previously discredited inspection process. But Iraq did eventually actively and proactively cooperate.

Notice the date of this report relative to yours:

SECURITY COUNCIL 7 MARCH 2003
Iraq?

1 month or so between the dates based over how many years. Is that the best you can do.
Saddam had interfered with inspections for how long, since 1992 - That is why many believed he had WMD's
Appears he waited much to long.

The IAEA has been trying since 2003 or so to resolve these issues. Of course it is all the fault of the US.
You stated the US was going to invade Iran - Not a chance - The US does not have the resources for this.

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) :: IAEA and Iran :: IAEA Reports (external - login to view)
 
earth_as_one
#213
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

It's not the same at all. No one is trying to get Iran to disarm.

Iran is a sovereign nation. They signed the NPT and as a result they have a legal NPT guaranteed right to pursue peaceful nuclear technology including enrichment to 20%. The UNSC resolution ordering Iran to stop their legal NPT compliant enrichment activities violates Iran's right to peaceful nuclear technology as an NPT signatory.

The US and their allies want to open all of Iran up to inspection, rather than just their declared nuclear facilities. When Iraq did that, UNSCOM used their access to spy on Iraq's legal defense systems. Allegedly US/UK spies in UNSCOM illegally planted eavesdropping and homing devices on Iraq's legal defense systems and in their command and control centers. UNSCOM also deliberately disrupted events and made ridiculous demands in order to provoke an Iraqi response.

When Iraq opened themselves up to unrestricted inspections, not finding anything was twisted into proof that Iraq was not cooperating. Goober still believes that falsehood today.

Iraq was forced to prove the non-existence of WMD stockpiles. The IAEA is now making similar demands of Iran to prove the non-existence of a nuclear weapon program. Lack of evidence is again being being portrayed as proof Iran is not cooperating and hiding their nuclear weapon program.

Just like Iraq, no action by Iran would result in the US lifting their sanctions.

I can see enough parallels that I understand why Iran would choose to not to follow the same path as Iraq.

What Iran wants, they already have. Iran has a nuclear weapon break out capability. Iran is a few months away from building and testing a nuclear weapon. Iran has no need to build nuclear weapons at this time. They have their nuclear deterrent.

Iran will not build nuclear weapons, unless they are attacked.

If Iran is invaded and occupied, the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution (IRGC) will resort to asymmetric warfare. The IRGC which guards Iran's nuclear sites would lead the Iranian resistance. They would also possess all Iran's nuclear secrets and technology.

What's going on is that the US and Israel want to weaken Iran and soften them up for invasion/occupation, the same way they did to Iraq. This time its not going to work.
 
Goober
#214
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

Iran is a sovereign nation. They signed the NPT and as a result they have a legal NPT guaranteed right to pursue peaceful nuclear technology including enrichment to 20%. The UNSC resolution ordering Iran to stop their legal NPT compliant enrichment activities violates Iran's right to peaceful nuclear technology as an NPT signatory.

.

A UNSC Resolution is indeed legal - Iran is not going to be invaded. Any nutbar with a clue would understand that. Iraq stated on Mar 07, 2003 that they would be cooperative. How many years did Iraq dick the UN around on inspections. Legal inspections. You should have that number handy.
 
darkbeaver
+1
#215
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

A UNSC Resolution is indeed legal - Iran is not going to be invaded. Any nutbar with a clue would understand that. Iraq stated on Mar 07, 2003 that they would be cooperative. How many years did Iraq dick the UN around on inspections. Legal inspections. You should have that number handy.


Excuuuuse me, if A UNSC resolution is "INDEED LEGAL" Israel can be legally reduced to rubble to force compliance to the numerous UNSC decisions against that same pustulating boil of a fake state.
 
Goober
#216
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

Excuuuuse me, if A UNSC resolution is "INDEED LEGAL" Israel can be legally reduced to rubble to force compliance to the numerous UNSC decisions against that same pustulating boil of a fake state.

Have you been playing with the 220 again???
 
darkbeaver
-1
#217
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Have you been playing with the 220 again???

Not as much as you play with the truth.

Examination of the ME situation indicates without doubt the cause and most likely cure of same problems and that would be dismemberment and dissolution of the illegal Israeli genocidal apartheid state. The complaints would fall away to nothing.
 
Goober
#218
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

Not as much as you play with the truth.

Truth as laid out over time. It is common for it to take time to find the truth. Now back to the 220, one foot in the water, and prepare to dance.
 
darkbeaver
#219
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Truth as laid out over time. It is common for it to take time to find the truth. Now back to the 220, one foot in the water, and prepare to dance.

The truth about Israel is plainly and perfectly laid out over the time of its brutal murderous and corrupt existence.
 
gerryh
#220
I see you ignored the question again eao.
 
Goober
#221
EAO - As per the norm a question is asked and you up a fuk off as usual.
I also asked a question about Iran trying to aquire uranium - outside of the nomal regulations of course.

Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_one
Still can't find the answer I already gave I see. How about you repost your question and then I'll repost my answer.

Gerry H
Fine, but if it's the non answer you already gave.... it would be a waste of time.


If Iran blocked the straight, forcing the u.s.'s hand and the u.s. and their allies invaded. Where would you stand
 
gerryh
#222
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

EAO - As per the norm a question is asked and you up a fuk off as usual.
I also asked a question about Iran trying to aquire uranium - outside of the nomal regulations of course.

Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_one
Still can't find the answer I already gave I see. How about you repost your question and then I'll repost my answer.

Gerry H
Fine, but if it's the non answer you already gave.... it would be a waste of time.


If Iran blocked the straight, forcing the u.s.'s hand and the u.s. and their allies invaded. Where would you stand


He's not going to answer, as I am sure he can already see that he has placed himself between a rock and a hard place and any straight on answer will show his hypocrisy.
 
Goober
#223
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

He's not going to answer, as I am sure he can already see that he has placed himself between a rock and a hard place and any straight on answer will show his hypocrisy.

I think everyone with the exception of Dancing Loon are well aware of his character.
 
earth_as_one
#224
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

I see you ignored the question again eao.

I see you refused to repost the question again gerryh
 
ironsides
#225
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

Iran does not have to meet the conditions of agreements that it did not ratify. Iran can legally defy the UNSC... at its peril. Iran has a good case that it is being treated unfairly by a subjective IAEA and UNSC.

Countries can legally impose sanctions against Iran for not ratifying the additional confidence building protocols while ignoring India, Pakistan and Israel which have nuclear technology which have not signed the entire NPT and possess nuclear weapons.

A traffic cop could also hand out a speeding ticket to someone driving 5 km/h over the speed limit, while ignoring all the other cars traveling 50 km/h over the speed limit. However a case could be made that the traffic cop is not applying the same standards to everyone.

If Iran is not treated objectively by the IAEA then they would be justified in unsigning themselves from the NPT in the same way that Canada unsigned itself from the Kyoto Protocols regarding climate change.

Iran can defy the UNSC, with little fear that China would allow any UNSC resolution which would interfere with their ability to buy Iranian oil. China might choose to not protect Iran if they built a nuke, which is yet another reason why I doubt Iran is building nukes.

The guy driving 5 MPH over the limit is still breaking the law. Iran is the only country (I am aware of developing nuclear weapons) at this moment. (get the guy off the street before he hurts someone) Never mind what China might or might not do, they are not the problem.

Spread of nuclear capability is feared (San Diego Union-Tribune) (external - login to view)
VIENNA, Austria At least 40 countries from the Persian Gulf to Latin America have recently approached U.N. officials to signal interest in starting nuclear power programs, a trend that proliferation experts say could provide the building blocks of nuclear arsenals in some of those nations.)

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/france-says-iran-developing-nuclear-arms/story-e6frfku0-1226235972374 (external - login to view)

To br fair:
US: Iran has not yet decided to build nuclear bomb (external - login to view)


Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says Iran is laying the groundwork for making nuclear weapons someday, but is not yet building a bomb and called for continued
diplomatic and economic pressure to persuade Tehran not to take that step

 
Goober
#226
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

I see you refused to repost the question again gerryh

Here it is

If Iran blocked the straight, forcing the u.s.'s hand and the u.s. and their allies invaded. Where would you stand
 
gerryh
#227
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

I see you refused to repost the question again gerryh


How many times do I need to repost it?
 
earth_as_one
-2
#228
gerryH:

If Iran blocked the straight, forcing the u.s.'s hand and the u.s. and their allies invaded. Where would you stand?

It would depend on context and our obligations.

Canada does not have a NATO obligation to get involved in a dispute between the US/Israel and Iran. If the US or Israel attack Iran (an act of war) and Iran closes the strait, Canada should condemn the US/Israeli attack and not get involved. As per rules of war, Iran would have a right to close the gulf.

If the US closed down the strait to Iran and its trading partners, then Iran can close the strait down to the US and its trading partners. Canada should not intervene or choose sides. We should try to remain neutral and avoid sending ships to region.

If Iran mined the gulf illegally closing the strait, then I support Canadians intervening to clear to strait at the request of our trading partners in the region and under UN authority.

If Iran illegally, unilaterally and militarily closed down the strait, with no justification, then its up to nations which have an interest in the region to decide what to do. Canada would have no NATO obligation to pick sides in this conflict. I'd support Canada putting its interests first. While a closed Persian Gulf might have a big negative impact on the rest of the world, Canada would see a net benefit. Canada owns the world's largest proven oil reserve outside of the gulf. Israel is not part of NATO. Israel's fight with the entire Muslim world and most of the middle east isn't our fight. Israel's problems with Iran aren't any more Canada's business than India's problems with Pakistan. I'd support Canada acting pragmatically to the benefit of Canadians, especially Canadians who work in Canada's oil industry. I'd support massive government intervention to build oil infrastructure to the West Coast.

If anyone attacks the American in the US or Europeans in Europe, then I support Canada acting as per its NATO obligations. Iran and their allies have an interest in not taking this conflict to Europe or the US.

If the war goes badly for Israel, I support opening Canada up to Israeli refugees.
Last edited by earth_as_one; Jan 8th, 2012 at 06:02 PM..
 
DaSleeper
#229
 
gerryh
#230
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post



Yup.... completely.
 
Goober
#231
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

gerryH:

If Iran blocked the straight, forcing the u.s.'s hand and the u.s. and their allies invaded. Where would you stand?

It would depend on context and our obligations.

Let us make it clear-

Iran blocks the straits -

Threatens to sink tankers

US - French and other escort tankers thru the stait

They are attacked by Iranian forces.

US - French etc retaliate

Where do you stand?

And leave the FFn Jews out of it.
Israel will do SFA, same as Gulf War 1
 
earth_as_one
#232
If Iran closes the strait and the French try to send tankers through, then I'd say that's the business of the French and the Iranians.

Canada has no obligation to defend French or US interests in the Persian Gulf.
 
Goober
+1
#233
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

If Iran closes the strait and the French try to send tankers through, then I'd say that's the business of the French and the Iranians.

French are part of NATO.
 
earth_as_one
#234
Canada does not have any NATO obligations outside Europe and the North Atlantic. Hence the name...

Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

Yup.... completely.

It would depend on context and our obligations.

You never gave me enough information. Give me a possible likely scenario...
 
gerryh
#235
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

Canada does not have any NATO obligations outside Europe and the North Atlantic. Hence the name...


It would depend on context and our obligations.

You never gave me enough information. Give me a possible likely scenario...


It's a straight forward question. I have no problem answering it, why are you having so much trouble with it?
 
Goober
#236
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

Canada does not have any NATO obligations outside Europe and the North Atlantic. Hence the name...


It would depend on context and our obligations.

You never gave me enough information. Give me a possible likely scenario...

Most of Eastern Canada's oil comes from OPEC - It would be raised to a strategic interest by NATO ASAP - SFD -Same FFFn Day. Soon as Iran stated it would/ could / threaten and in fact closed the strait. You know that as well as I. But you keep on piling on the BS.

And NATO would destroy Irans capability to attack, produce oil. Back to the stone age.



www.virtualjerusalem.com/news.php?Itemid=5717 (external - login to view)

US and NATO task forces in the Persian Gulf have been placed on alert after US intelligence warned that Iran's Revolutionary Guards are preparing Iranian marine commandos to sow mines in the strategic Strait of Hormuz.

The new deployment, debkafile's military sources report, consists of USS Combined Task Force 52 (CTF 52), which is trained and equipped for dismantling marine mines and NATO Maritime Mine Counter measures Group 2 (SNMCMG2). The American group is led by the USS Arden mine countermeasures ship; NATO's by the British HMS Pembroke minesweeper. Other vessels in the task forces are the Hunt-class destroyer HMS Middleton and the French mine warfare ships FS Croix du Sud and FS Var.
Last edited by Goober; Jan 8th, 2012 at 06:31 PM..
 
earth_as_one
#237
Sure oil would get a lot more expensive. I'm almost in favor of shutting down the gulf for purely environmental reasons. Canada would see a net benefit from a closed Persian Gulf. Explain to me how a closed Persian Gulf is bad for Canada...

Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

It's a straight forward question. I have no problem answering it, why are you having so much trouble with it?

If you asked me if I believed in shooting people, I'd also say it depends on context.
 
gerryh
#238
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

Sure oil would get a lot more expensive. I'm almost in favor of shutting down the gulf for purely environmental reasons. Canada would see a net benefit from a closed Persian Gulf. Explain to me how a closed Persian Gulf is bad for Canada...


If you asked me if I believed in shooting people, I'd also say it depends on context.


Shooting people depends on context????????????????????????????? I thought you had said you were a pacifist.
 
Goober
#239
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

Sure oil would get a lot more expensive. I'm almost in favor of shutting down the gulf for purely environmental reasons. Canada would see a net benefit from a closed Persian Gulf. Explain to me how a closed Persian Gulf is bad for Canada...


If you asked me if I believed in shooting people, I'd also say it depends on context.

No sense in explaining the economic impact.

Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

Shooting people depends on context????????????????????????????? I thought you had said you were a pacifist.

From EAO's mouth.

I am a non-violent pacifist secular humanist. If everyone shared my philosophy there would be no violence, war or crime.
 
Goober
#240
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

No sense in explaining the economic impact.


From EAO's mouth.

I am a non-violent pacifist secular humanist. If everyone shared my philosophy there would be no violence, war or crime.

EAO

How many opposing opinions do you have on the same topic??? Related to Eve by chance?????
 

Similar Threads

no new posts