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

Machjo
#241
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

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.



Iran to Mine Hormuz, US, NATO On Alert (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.

If most of Eastern Canada's oil is imported, would it not make more sence then instead of building a pipeline to Asia to build a trans-Canada pipeline?

Personally I'd say Canada should withdraw from NATO, NORAD and SEATO while still committing to support any UN resolution for war against Iran. Should the UN resolve to fight Iran, then Canada would give all it has to fight it. but at least the UN does not declare wars frivolously and generally has very good reason to declare them as a last resort.
 
ironsides
#242
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...

Your sounding more like Nevel Chamberland everyday.

Iran nuke work at bunker is confirmed


VIENNA (AP) — Diplomats on Monday confirmed a report that Iran has begun uranium enrichment at an underground bunker and said the news is particularly worrying because the site is being used to make material that can be upgraded more quickly for use in a nuclear weapon than the nation's main enriched stockpile.
The diplomats said that centrifuges at the Fordo site near Iran's holy city of Qom are churning out uranium enriched to 20 percent. That level is higher than the 3.5 percent being made at Iran's main enrichment plant and can be turned into fissile warhead material faster and with less work.
Iran nuke work at bunker is confirmed - Yahoo! News (external - login to view)
 
Machjo
#243
If there is enough evidence, then certainly the UN would approve attacks against Iran, and then I would certainly support such attacks. Short of that though, we should stay out.
 
ironsides
#244
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

If there is enough evidence, then certainly the UN would approve attacks against Iran, and then I would certainly support such attacks. Short of that though, we should stay out.

So far we are staying out, and hoping they collapse on their own.
 
Goober
#245
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsidesView Post

Your sounding more like Nevel Chamberland everyday.

[FONT=Arial][SIZE=4]Iran nuke work at bunker is confirmed]

He has differring opinions on what the topic is - One minute a Non violent, pacifist, secular humanist blah, blah blabber - then Bang, pun intended, killem but make sure it is in the proper context. Immoral to killem if the context is not correct. Heaven forbid we get our context mixed up.

Those that are right out there do have some FF Up temrinolgy for justifying their wacked opinions.
 
darkbeaver
#246
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsidesView Post

So far we are staying out, and hoping they collapse on their own.

Iran has decided to execute the latest CIA operative they captured. How is it that the USA is staying out of the fight?
 
Goober
+1
#247
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

Iran has decided to execute the latest CIA operative they captured. How is it that the USA is staying out of the fight?

Yes, their Judicial System is an example to the world.
 
Goober
#248
Israel preparing for a nuclear-armed Iran: report | News | National Post

LONDON — Israel is preparing for Iran to become a nuclear power and has accepted it may happen within a year, the London Times reported on Monday citing an Israeli security report.

The Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) think-tank prepared scenarios for the day after an Iranian nuclear weapons test at the request of former Israeli ambassadors, intelligence officials and ex-military chiefs, the paper reported.


Israel has so far maintained it will do all within its power to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear capabilities, but has shifted its position following recent United Nations’ reports, according to the Times.

If Iran does test a nuclear weapon, INSS predicts a profound shift in the Middle East power balance.

According to extracts of the report seen by the British publication, experts believe the US would propose a defence pact with Israel, but would urge it not to retaliate.

Russia would seek an alliance with the US to prevent nuclear proliferation in the region, although Saudi Arabia would likely pursue its own nuclear program, the report concluded based on current policies.

INSS specialists believe that an Iranian test in January 2013 would follow increasingly provocative demands by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s regime, including the redrawing of its Iraqi borders and action against the vessels of the US Fifth Fleet.

“The simulation showed that Iran will not forgo nuclear weapons, but will attempt to use them to reach an agreement with the major powers that will improve its position,” said a passage of the report published by the Times.

“The simulation showed that (the Israeli military option), or the threat of using it, would also be relevant following an Iranian nuclear test,” it added.
 
MHz
#249
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

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

If they were trying to kill you would you have the right to take your machete and make the 'rest in pieces'? How about taking just a hand or a foot?

Christian soldiers might actually be useful, if they wounded the enemy rather than kill them then you tie up more of their resources, in theory, taking it out on civilians wouldn't mean anything to any military other than a 'better them than us' attitude anyway.

Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

“The simulation showed that (the Israeli military option), or the threat of using it, would also be relevant following an Iranian nuclear test,” it added.

Which 3 Israel targets were taken out in the preemptive strike test?

Israel is too small for nuke yet Israel would deliver a 100 or more to an area the size of Iran in a do or die situation. There is no cost benefit to Iran fighting any war outside her own borders, let alone the added expense after such an attack.
Perhaps looking at recent articles about $200M being spent on trying to subvert the Cuban Govt after some 50 years is a lot more serious than a 'bruised ego on the world stage'. Think how it would look if the countries that refused US domination turned out to be 2x as successful as Kuwait in terms of riches being passed down to the citizens to the point they the richer than any 'middle class'. That isn't more money it is just spent differently, in the West most of the money gets passed around in back-room deals/agreements, no way that could be allowed if the US was to be the one dominate player. If it take a Nation a year ot two to gear up for a war with their next door neighbor then that is a good thing. It gives time to find other solutions and it would be impossible to pull off in secret, sanctions on steel might be warranted if combat systems were being developed. Had Saddam not been armed by the US in the feud against Iran then they could not have even invaded Kuwait as that was done with hardware already on hand. Without the US inspired war with Iran Saddam may have found other ways to settle the cross-drilling question in the few years it took to acquire the arms. Along the same lines, if he was flat-ass broke from the 7-8 year war then what did it cost Iran at it was a tit-for-tat war, hardware got replaced by younger and younger drivers.

Who designs these simulations?? Did they do one where Iran tests one and has 9 more in hiding? Did they do one where STUXNET damaged their own nuclear plant? After all this time I would think 'somebody' has an A-Bomb that does an airburst and sends out enormous amounts of DU dust in such quantities and qualities that extermination of all flesh in a certain predictable is in less than 10 years instead of the 10 generations that is the normal mutation rate for 100% sterility to be the rule. (yet safe to return to in 20 years) The story will be some mythical migration as war refugees that just got swallowed up by other societies. More likely they were sailed just over the horizon and given a short plank to walk. If you can use the right DU it might be easier to sterilize a whole city (in one run and give it some time) than try to win it one street at a time when the means of defense is guerrilla warfare which never has a clearly defined area.
 
earth_as_one
#250
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

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

I am a pacifist, but I'm also realistic and practical. Non-violence would not be an intelligent, realistic or practical reaction to an attack by a mad dog. If you can't outrun the dog, then even a pacifist would have to stand and fight. Non-violence is the first choice or the preferred choice. But in some cases DEPENDING ON CONTEXT, even a pacifist has to resort to violence especially if non-violent options don't exist.

If you don't think context is important then you must believe that killing someone in self defense is the same as killing someone for their money.

Quote: Originally Posted by ironsidesView Post

Your sounding more like Nevel Chamberland everyday.

[FONT=Arial]Iran nuke work at bunker is confirmed


VIENNA (AP) — Diplomats on Monday confirmed a report that Iran has begun uranium enrichment at an underground bunker and said the news is particularly worrying because the site is being used to make material that can be upgraded more quickly for use in a nuclear weapon than the nation's main enriched stockpile.
The diplomats said that centrifuges at the Fordo site near Iran's holy city of Qom are churning out uranium enriched to 20 percent. That level is higher than the 3.5 percent being made at Iran's main enrichment plant and can be turned into fissile warhead material faster and with less work.
[FONT=Arial]Iran nuke work at bunker is confirmed - Yahoo! News (external - login to view)

The above article posted by IS is an example of deliberate spin and misinformation.

1) Iran already declared this facility to the IAEA in 2009 when it was still being excavated and more than a year before installing any equipment as per the voluntary confidence building NPT protocol that Iran ratified in 2003.

2) The IAEA has constantly monitored this site since Iran's announcement. IAEA inspectors supervised the completion of the facility, the installation of the centrifuges and now they monitor Iran's enrichment activities at this site. All enriched material produced in this facility is tracked by IAEA inspectors. Iran could not divert any enriched uranium from this facility without the IAEA noticing.

3) In theory, US led sanctions weren't supposed to interfere with Iran's ability to produce medical isotopes. Despite assurances that this would never happen, Iran can't buy the 20% enriched uranium fuel required for its medical isotope producing reactor anymore nor can they import medical isotopes. As a result, Iran now faces severe shortages of medical isotopes. People will die as a direct consequence of deliberate US interference in Iran's peaceful nuclear medicine program. Soon Iran will be able to use the 20% enriched uranium from this new facility to create fuel rods to power their medical isotope producing reactor and save thousands of lives.


01/06/2010
UN Sanctions Hit Hospitals
Iran Running Out of Life-Saving Isotopes

...The sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council, aimed at moving Iran to halt its uranium enrichment program, are supposed to leave medical practice unaffected. In reality, however, Iran has become unable to procure a wide range of medical products. Body scanners cannot be imported from the US or the EU, since parts in these machines could also be useful to Iran's nuclear program. An embargo on medical isotopes was introduced in 2007, in defiance of the medical exception clause... ...Iran might produce new fuel itself, which would prove a sensitive issue. Iran would need to enrich uranium up to 19.75 percent purity....
UN Sanctions Hit Hospitals: Iran Running Out of Life-Saving Isotopes - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International (external - login to view)

BTW, medical isotopes cannot be turned into nuclear weapons. US actions forced Iran to produce 20% enriched uranium in order to save lives. If the US and other nations weren't jerking Iran around they wouldn't have had a need to produce 20% enriched uranium.
Last edited by earth_as_one; Jan 10th, 2012 at 05:55 PM..
 
Angstrom
#251
Its not like NATO countries have 4 more trillion sitting around to go to war with Iran.
Who care's if Iran have Nukes. I don't see what the big deal with that is. The worst country's that could have nuke already have them.

Sanction, Spy's, assassination's
All we do is slow the inevitable.

I say the sooner everyone has nukes the better off we all are, that way everyone treats everyone nice and with respect.
Like it was before nukes where invented.
 
gerryh
#252
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

I am a pacifist, but I'm also realistic and practical. Non-violence would not be an intelligent, realistic or practical reaction to an attack by a mad dog. If you can't outrun the dog, then even a pacifist would have to stand and fight. Non-violence is the first choice or the preferred choice. But in some cases DEPENDING ON CONTEXT, even a pacifist has to resort to violence especially if non-violent options don't exist.

If you don't think context is important then you must believe that killing someone in self defense is the same as killing someone for their money.


Killing another human is killing and none is acceptable.
 
Goober
#253
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

I am a pacifist, but I'm also realistic and practical. Non-violence would not be an intelligent, realistic or practical reaction to an attack by a mad dog..


As usual you come back with a BS reply.
 
ironsides
#254
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post


01/06/2010
UN Sanctions Hit Hospitals
Iran Running Out of Life-Saving Isotopes

...The sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council, aimed at moving Iran to halt its uranium enrichment program, are supposed to leave medical practice unaffected. In reality, however, Iran has become unable to procure a wide range of medical products. Body scanners cannot be imported from the US or the EU, since parts in these machines could also be useful to Iran's nuclear program. An embargo on medical isotopes was introduced in 2007, in defiance of the medical exception clause... ...Iran might produce new fuel itself, which would prove a sensitive issue. Iran would need to enrich uranium up to 19.75 percent purity....
UN Sanctions Hit Hospitals: Iran Running Out of Life-Saving Isotopes - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International (external - login to view)

BTW, medical isotopes cannot be turned into nuclear weapons. US actions forced Iran to produce 20% enriched uranium in order to save lives. If the US and other nations weren't jerking Iran around they wouldn't have had a need to produce 20% enriched uranium.

Kind of hard to block one thing without blocking everything that can be created with it. They could have bought medical isotopes if they were not trying to build a nuke. Their government had a choice and chose wrong. They cannot be trusted.
 
Goober
#255
Quote: Originally Posted by AngstromView Post

Its not like NATO countries have 4 more trillion sitting around to go to war with Iran.
Who care's if Iran have Nukes. I don't see what the big deal with that is. The worst country's that could have nuke already have them.

Sanction, Spy's, assassination's
All we do is slow the inevitable.

I say the sooner everyone has nukes the better off we all are, that way everyone treats everyone nice and with respect.
Like it was before nukes where invented.

I really do not think that you think things thru. You mentioned that the US used Nukes in Iraq. Proof please.
 
Cliffy
+1
#256
I just love the way people keep repeating propaganda until they believe it is true. A friend asked me yesterday why people haven't learned yet from the past: WMDs, Hussein connection to Al Quida, etc. Makes one wonder.
 
Dexter Sinister
#257
It has long seemed perfectly obvious to me what's going on in Iran, it's a time-honoured behaviour pattern followed by almost all thuggish, unpopular autocracies. First you create internal agencies of oppression and call them something high sounding, like The Revolutionary Guards or the Committee for Defense of the Faith, then use them to ruthlessly suppress any signs of internal dissent. Once it has things under control at home, or at least believes it does, it'll go looking for external threats in order to promote internal unity. It'll claim it needs heavy weapons for the defense of the regime against those enemies, and it'll start a series of provocations, such as throwing out IAEA inspectors, showing signs of developing WMDs, threatening to close a vital transportation corridor, and ostentatiously conducting military exercises. Foreign reactions will serve to demonstrate that the external enemies are real, and this process also serves to probe the resolve of those enemies. Depending on how stupid and/or megalomaniacal the regime's leaders are, it may actually follow through on one of its provocations, like lobbing a nuke over onto Tel Aviv--Iran's been bellowing impotently for years about destroying Israel--or closing the Strait of Hormuz, and then the stuff hits the fan. And I think Iran's leaders are indeed stupid and/or megalomaniacal enough to try it.
 
earth_as_one
+1
#258
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

Killing another human is killing and none is acceptable.

You are entitled to your opinion, but our criminal justice system disagrees with you. Killing someone can be legal depending on context. You can legally kill someone in self defense or in defense of someone else. So can a soldier in the middle of a firefight with the enemy.

Quote: Originally Posted by ironsidesView Post

Kind of hard to block one thing without blocking everything that can be created with it. They could have bought medical isotopes if they were not trying to build a nuke. Their government had a choice and chose wrong. They cannot be trusted.

But they aren't building a nuke... Their government never claimed they they were trying to build nukes. Most of the evidence supports the Iranian government's claims, not their adversaries claims. Their government made a choice... not to build nukes... which is the right choice. No government can be trusted, which is why Iran's nuclear sites must must be continuously inspected.

Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter SinisterView Post

It has long seemed perfectly obvious to me what's going on in Iran, it's a time-honoured behaviour pattern followed by almost all thuggish, unpopular autocracies. First you create internal agencies of oppression and call them something high sounding, like The Revolutionary Guards or the Committee for Defense of the Faith, then use them to ruthlessly suppress any signs of internal dissent. Once it has things under control at home, or at least believes it does, it'll go looking for external threats in order to promote internal unity. It'll claim it needs heavy weapons for the defense of the regime against those enemies, and it'll start a series of provocations, such as throwing out IAEA inspectors, showing signs of developing WMDs, threatening to close a vital transportation corridor, and ostentatiously conducting military exercises. Foreign reactions will serve to demonstrate that the external enemies are real, and this process also serves to probe the resolve of those enemies. Depending on how stupid and/or megalomaniacal the regime's leaders are, it may actually follow through on one of its provocations, like lobbing a nuke over onto Tel Aviv--Iran's been bellowing impotently for years about destroying Israel--or closing the Strait of Hormuz, and then the stuff hits the fan. And I think Iran's leaders are indeed stupid and/or megalomaniacal enough to try it.

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
You mean like the "Department of Homeland Security" and the "Patriot Act"?

Sure Iranians are oppressed by a Theocratic government, but they have more more rights and freedoms than Saudis. Iranian women can travel on their own, drive cars and show their faces in public. If they did that in Saudi Arabia, they'd be arrested. Pretty much every country in the region is oppressive with a few exceptions... yet our MSM only focuses on human rights issues in countries our leaders don't like and ignores the same problems or worse in countries our leaders do like. That selective "outage" is deliberately manipulative. Our leaders and MSM care about Iranians rights and freedoms about as much as they care about Saudi or even even Palestinian rights and freedoms.

Iran has what it wants regarding nuclear technology. They have a nuclear break out capability. Then ability to build nukes within a relatively short time, if and when they made that choice. BTW, Iran never had any plans to enrich uranium to 20% 5 years ago. That medical reactor used to run on HEU. The Iranians modified it to run on 19.75% LEU so that they could produce their own fuel and not exceed the 20% NPT limit. That's yet another clue that the Iranians intend to respect the mandatory parts of the NPT. If they hadn't modified their medical reactor, they'd now have a justification for making HEU.

I recommend we let the Iranians do what they want as long as they don't violate the NPT. Left alone ,I'm certain sane Iranians will eventually reform their political system. If we attack them or start an unprovoked war, the Iranian government would become more entrenched and they'd have a reason to build nukes.
 
Goober
#259
[QUOTE=earth_as_one;1531936]
QUOTE]

And now we will see the Saudi's and others go Nuclear. I imagine that you would call that a success.
 
Machjo
#260
One thing I could see would be some kind of law requiring all residents of Iran coming to Canada and all residents of Canada going to Iran to sign an open petition to the UN against the persecution of the Baha'is of Iran.

This would likely stall trade considerably as no one wanting to be able to enter or reenter Iran safely would sign it.

Of course you might want to consult with the UN on the wording of the petition to ensure it is in full accordance with all applicable international laws to require people to sign it.
 
Dexter Sinister
#261
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

I recommend we let the Iranians do what they want as long as they don't violate the NPT. Left alone ,I'm certain sane Iranians will eventually reform their political system. If we attack them or start an unprovoked war, the Iranian government would become more entrenched and they'd have a reason to build nukes.

Closing the Strait of Hormuz doesn't violate the NPT, but I'm pretty sure it'd be viewed as an act of war by much of the world, it's an international waterway vital to the global oil trade. At the very least, it'd be taken as a major provocation justifying the use of force to open it again. There won't be a land invasion, but a short and nasty naval engagement is a strong possibility.
 
Goober
#262
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter SinisterView Post

Closing the Strait of Hormuz doesn't violate the NPT, but I'm pretty sure it'd be viewed as an act of war by much of the world, it's an international waterway vital to the global oil trade. At the very least, it'd be taken as a major provocation justifying the use of force to open it again. There won't be a land invasion, but a short and nasty naval engagement is a strong possibility.

The US stated that closing the Strait would mean crossing the Red Line - Translation - Open the strait or War will ensue.
 
darkbeaver
#263
The war started with economic sanctions against Iran. Those sanctions are without doubt acts of war.
 
Goober
#264
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

You are entitled to your opinion, but our criminal justice system disagrees with you. Killing someone can be legal depending on context. You can legally kill someone in self defense or in defense of someone else. So can a soldier in the middle of a firefight with the enemy.
s.

A technicality – You know it, I know it, and everyone knows it. Not how people normally interpret & use “context”. Normally refers to grammar, an error etc. So continue on with your slippery dick ways.
 
MHz
#265
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

The war started with economic sanctions against Iran. Those sanctions are without doubt acts of war.

They would appear to be a blockade that takes place in areas other than the surface of the water. How much oil does the US actually get from that waterway, if it was a considerable bit then they would be better off building some new pipelines to other ports as their feud with Iran is now 30 years old and it isn't going to end anytime soon. Is that how far back you were referencing?
 
Cliffy
+1
#266
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

A technicality – You know it, I know it, and everyone knows it. Not how people normally interpret & use “context”. Normally refers to grammar, an error etc. So continue on with your slippery dick ways.

Actually eao's use of context is legitimate, but you constantly attacking the messenger and not the message is not.
 
DurkaDurka
+1
#267
Quote: Originally Posted by AngstromView Post

Its not like NATO countries have 4 more trillion sitting around to go to war with Iran.
Who care's if Iran have Nukes. I don't see what the big deal with that is. The worst country's that could have nuke already have them.

Sanction, Spy's, assassination's
All we do is slow the inevitable.

I say the sooner everyone has nukes the better off we all are, that way everyone treats everyone nice and with respect.
Like it was before nukes where invented.

Yeah, that's a brilliant ideas.
 
Goober
#268
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

Actually eao's use of context is legitimate, but you constantly attacking the messenger and not the message is not.

Thank you for your opinion though I beg to differ.

Oh yes - Please explain to me a Non Violent Pacifist???? That was another where the messenger was attacked.

Or just check my signature for more.
 
Cliffy
+1
#269
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Thank you for your opinion though I beg to differ.

Oh yes - Please explain to me a Non Violent Pacifist???? That was another where the messenger was attacked.

Or just check my signature for more.

I don't agree with anything you say about Iran, but I wouldn't and haven't attacked you by calling you names. Disagreeing with a person's views is one thing, personal attacks are another. I was just pointing out an obvious forum rule violation.
 
Goober
#270
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

I don't agree with anything you say about Iran, but I wouldn't and haven't attacked you by calling you names. Disagreeing with a person's views is one thing, personal attacks are another. I was just pointing out an obvious forum rule violation.

Slippery dick is vulgar?
 

Similar Threads

no new posts