Such as?
If holding war games is provacation then N orea should have attacked S Korea and the US when they held some war games, oh wait, they did, they snuck in and sunk a ship using one of their diesel subs.
Iran under Sanction Pressures – Reaction?
- Thread starter Goober
- Start date
Such as?
If holding war games is provacation then N orea should have attacked S Korea and the US when they held some war games, oh wait, they did, they snuck in and sunk a ship using one of their diesel subs.
If some are so eager to start yet another war, this time on Iran, why aren't they equally enthused about starting one in North Korea?
You would think this would be a perfect time for N Korea to revolt (and enjoy unlimited attention various several dozen US NGO's that are more than willing to help, such as in the recent Russian elections and Egypt once they publish something more than one scant headline. To get the ones running those organizations one year after the revolt should net you the best of the ones planning the recapture of what was lost, only this time the NGO's would be totally exposed on what they were actually promoting and who their rats were to make sure those 'interests' were the ones that implemented in the gov after the whole revolt was over. What happens there will tell if it has been a real revolt or not.
Sanctions are an act of war and why it won't work:
Escobar: US, Iran... 2012 will be hardcore - YouTube
Escobar: US, Iran... 2012 will be hardcore - YouTube
First of all, international treaties of human rights and freedom to do anything including religion
are not worth the paper they are written on. All of these agreements are subject to the will of
the national governments that sign onto them and sometimes we watch some countries sign
knowing they do not intend to live up to them.
As for a bomb, any country can build a bomb and should be able to do so within the boarders
of their own nation. The problem is, when they begin to threaten others outside their boarders
or begin to take aggressive actions the world community must contemplate action. The other
problem is, with a weapon such as the bomb the devastation can cause more problems that
cannot wait for the niceties of international politics.
Should the Iranians decide to implement a law that closes the straight to foreign ships and or
be they, military vessels, I believe it is time for gun boat diplomacy. Face it the other big powers
are going to scream but they will not act. China and Russia are quietly concerned about being
dragged into a war by Iran, and they are not in the mood for such a military action.
If Iran were to fire on a US ship in open waters, I think a full response would of course be in
order regardless of what might transpire and I have no doubt such a reaction would be the
opening act of war.
I have repeatedly said sooner or later we will be at war with this region not because of religion
but because the various tribal groups in the Middle East need to focus the efforts of their terror
actions into something with justifiable meaning. If they want to die who are we to deprive them
of their greatest desire.
It should also be noted the divide between Shiite and Sunni Muslims is great. Iraq, Saudi Arabia
and others will not be too unhappy to see Iran considerably weakened, and an action against
Iran may mean a better chance for peace there in the long run.
are not worth the paper they are written on. All of these agreements are subject to the will of
the national governments that sign onto them and sometimes we watch some countries sign
knowing they do not intend to live up to them.
As for a bomb, any country can build a bomb and should be able to do so within the boarders
of their own nation. The problem is, when they begin to threaten others outside their boarders
or begin to take aggressive actions the world community must contemplate action. The other
problem is, with a weapon such as the bomb the devastation can cause more problems that
cannot wait for the niceties of international politics.
Should the Iranians decide to implement a law that closes the straight to foreign ships and or
be they, military vessels, I believe it is time for gun boat diplomacy. Face it the other big powers
are going to scream but they will not act. China and Russia are quietly concerned about being
dragged into a war by Iran, and they are not in the mood for such a military action.
If Iran were to fire on a US ship in open waters, I think a full response would of course be in
order regardless of what might transpire and I have no doubt such a reaction would be the
opening act of war.
I have repeatedly said sooner or later we will be at war with this region not because of religion
but because the various tribal groups in the Middle East need to focus the efforts of their terror
actions into something with justifiable meaning. If they want to die who are we to deprive them
of their greatest desire.
It should also be noted the divide between Shiite and Sunni Muslims is great. Iraq, Saudi Arabia
and others will not be too unhappy to see Iran considerably weakened, and an action against
Iran may mean a better chance for peace there in the long run.
Say Iran was to stop every tanker and take a sample of the oil being carried to be tested against known samples from all the various fields in the area with the reason being voluntary compliance with the sanctions with steps being taken to show active inspections taking place. If Isreal can determine what goods get into Gaza as a security concern I would not see why Iran doesn't have the right to hold inspections of ships coming into the waters past the Straits and that island that looks like an Killer Whale. The slowdown would certainly help in detection of the comings and goings of subs. Who could argue if Iran searched incoming ships for 'nuclear devices' on the word of some anonymous source or simply because it is part of the new security measures to fit an ever dangerous world? A new port to the south of that bend would save the inner waterways from dander of pollution due to accidental and intentional spills. It is safer to load/unload dangerous goods well away from 'residential waters' when trucking/trains would be just as efficient and the cost of tearing down the old ports is delayed and there is no real disruption to services while the new facilities are built, one side for Iran the other for Kuwait/Iraq/ etc. Should tensions ever decrease then that area could become a new Med with unspoiled shores and unlimited access to electricity and barren beaches. With enough wind turbines pumping air into the water it might even become a fishery that is renewable and a profit maker not that international trawlers would be banned.
Let's say they did do something that ended the tankers sailing those waters that was short of an act of war. Inspections for contraband (by Iran) could create a backlog two or three weeks long and that would be enough to deter tankers from going there at all. Say that caused the price of oil to rise considerably, and that increase caused hardships at home for us in North America, does that come under unintended consequences or will the Fed simply print coupons and confiscate everything the refineries can produce.
Do you drool at all when you type this sort of stuff?
Yes, ... how dare Iran allow women to vote AND drive cars, WTF is up with that? Next thing you know is they will want to not have to ask for permission to speak, no telling where it would end.
Iran would soon meet the P8A and all associated support. Of course all sanctioned by thr UN, NATO and EU.
P-8A Poseidon: Nowhere to Run | Military.com
In your battle damage assessment for this operation how many children are expected to die? If 500,000 died during the 'war for oil' period how many children are slated to be killed during the destruction of Iran? Of course all sanctioned by thr UN, NATO and EU.
Madeleine Albright - 60 Minutes - YouTube
Somehow I think her war-woodie would allow her to have 5M children die in Iran and the price would not be too great.
In that sales commercial did it cover being able to choose friend/foe based on transponder codes, the military only uses that system while flying near civilian airports. I would think there would be some sort of sign to remind all Pilots and ground-crew to turn off transponders when the craft is headed for a hostile zone.
Lets run the same commercial using Crews and Plots who have been on 45 days of heightened alert status with only catnaps and speed in the mashed potatoes keeping everybody going a full steam.
irish shipper vs captain us navy who will win funny - YouTube
Madeleine Albright - 60 Minutes - YouTube
Somehow I think her war-woodie would allow her to have 5M children die in Iran and the price would not be too great.
In that sales commercial did it cover being able to choose friend/foe based on transponder codes, the military only uses that system while flying near civilian airports. I would think there would be some sort of sign to remind all Pilots and ground-crew to turn off transponders when the craft is headed for a hostile zone.
Lets run the same commercial using Crews and Plots who have been on 45 days of heightened alert status with only catnaps and speed in the mashed potatoes keeping everybody going a full steam.
irish shipper vs captain us navy who will win funny - YouTube
Interesting analysis.
Supreme Loser - By Ali Vaez | Foreign Policy
The United States and Iran are once again set on a collision course -- this time over the world's narrowest choke point, the Strait of Hormuz. With the specter of more draconian sanctions hovering over its oil exports, the Iranian regime threatened in late December to seal off the strait through which 30 percent of the world's oil supply travels. Iran's menacing rhetoric was matched by a bellicose rebuff from the U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet, based in neighboring Bahrain, warning that any disruption of the strait "will not be tolerated."
Supreme Loser - By Ali Vaez | Foreign Policy
The United States and Iran are once again set on a collision course -- this time over the world's narrowest choke point, the Strait of Hormuz. With the specter of more draconian sanctions hovering over its oil exports, the Iranian regime threatened in late December to seal off the strait through which 30 percent of the world's oil supply travels. Iran's menacing rhetoric was matched by a bellicose rebuff from the U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet, based in neighboring Bahrain, warning that any disruption of the strait "will not be tolerated."
Not sure what you are referring to? Was it this?
On Tuesday the exchange rate for dollar was 15,300 rials at the free market, from around 13,400 rials to the dollar last week. The rial has lost over 50 percent value against the dollar in the past few months.
International sanctions imposed on Iran since 2006, particularly those which made it difficult to transfer cash in and out of Iran, have had a negative impact on the value of the currency and made it difficult for Iranian banks to do business with western banks.
Oil earnings still account for up to 60 percent of state income and a surge in consumer imports under Ahmadinejad and fuel and food subsidy cuts since 2010 have hit local industries and forced some plants to close.
A member of Tehran's Chamber of Commerce said the rial will further lose value in the coming days.
"Iran's foreign exchange system is suffering from weak management (failing) to curb the exchange rate," said Asadollah Asgaroladi, the Jomhuri-ye Eslami daily reported.
Revelation of a $2.6 billion embezzlement case in October also caused distrust among ordinary Iranians.
Some hardline politicians linked the main suspect in the fraud to a so-called "deviant current", allegedly led by Ahmadinejad's chief of staff and closest ally Esfandiar Rahim Mashaie.
He is accused by many Shi'ite clerics and politicians of trying to undermine the central role of the clergy in politics by emphasising the nationalist strain of Iranian history and culture.
Some MPs said the government was linked to the scam in order to fund monthly compensation of $40 per person introduced since eliminating fuel and energy subsidies.
"People do not trust the Central Bank's monetary policies," said economist Abolqasem Hakimipour, the semi official Fars news agency reported.
"The continued increase of the foreign exchange rate will lead to inflation rate to be over 27 percent and preventing this requires the Central Bank's swift action." (Reporting By Mitra Amiri)
I was referring to the percentage of the world's oil that goes through the Strait. Your article points to it being the 30% one that is specific to oil shipped by water rather than it being 30% of all oil moved worldwide
This represents 35% of the world's seaborne oil shipments, and 20% of oil traded worldwide in 2011.[2]
Strait of Hormuz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Located between Oman and Iran, the Strait of Hormuz connects the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea. Hormuz is the world's most important oil chokepoint due to its daily oil flow of almost 17 million barrels in 2011, up from between 15.5-16.0 million bbl/d in 2009-2010. Flows through the Strait in 2011 were roughly 35percent of all seaborne traded oil, or almost 20 percent of oil traded worldwide.
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
Thirty percent of global seaborne crude shipments and 17 percent of oil traded worldwide passes through the waterway.
Strait of Hormuz threat rattles oil markets. Time to sell? - CSMonitor.com
With tankers getting bigger all the time I would think some nice big new ports south of the Strait would be a wise move just because cleanup costs keep rising. Monorail trains designed for cargo containers would do it faster than could a ship and once on the rail system it could go straight to destination without a lot of time in various depots. The inner harbor would see more hydro-foil ferrys than the lumbering tankers and container ships as well as the tourist super boats. If money is going to be spent in the area you will be happier in the end to go this route than opening up another war that cost just as much if not more and has nobody smiling in the end, even the shareholders lose their smile because the war eventually has to end. Creating an affordable resort for tourism means generations after generations can reap the rewards of some building that went on at one point and then from then on everybody seemed to have free time and money, a commodity lacking for some in this day and age.
I fully support imposing sanctions against countries with poor human rights records like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel...
No one here has provided any proof that Iran has violated any agreement that they signed. If you listen closely, the MSM doesn't claim this either. They claim Iran isn't compliant with the NPT, which is true. They are not compliant with one of the voluntary protocols. But since they didn't ratify that additional voluntary protocol, they aren't bound by it.
BTW, this is the same rationale Israel uses regarding the entire NPT. Not only has Israel not signed any of the voluntary protocols, they haven't even signed any of the mandatory ones. Since they possess nuclear technology and haven't signed the NPT, Israel should face even more severe sanctions that Iran faces for refusing to sign one voluntary confidence building protocol.
Regarding the peaceful nature of Iran, you seem to imply Iran is war like. Please list the wars initiated by Iran since the 1980's. If you like we can compare that with a list of wars initiated by the US and Israel during the same time period to determine which nations are more war like.
Can you list even a single war started by Iran since 1980, when it became a Theocracy? I can think of several countries the US and Israel have attacked since the 1980's. In the case of the Iraq war, the US invented justifications for war, which were believed by millions of gullible people. Now the same countries which pushed for an unprovoked war with Iraq are pushing for yet another unprovoked war with Iran.
If someone kept tell me lies over and over, I'd consider them untrustworthy. How is it that you can believe anything from the sources which claimed Iraq had WMD stockpiles and links to 9/11? I'd say you'd have to be gullible... yet here you guys are believing that Iran is building nuclear weapons without any conclusive proof.
Last edited:
Take your concerns to the IAEA - They are the UN Police for the NPT. Are they in error?
Oh yes - Would arming Hamas & Hezbollah be considered acts of War or Terror?
Also the Thugocracy has been killing dissidents abroad for decades.
Last edited:
No the IAEA isn't in error. But what they have reported is being spun.
I suggest you read this commentary which explains the subtleties of where Iran is relative to its NPT obligations and what is being reported about Iran's alleged nuclear weapon program:
Uncertainty made certainty in responses to the IAEA on Iran 23 November 2011 by Ernie Regehr
While Iran is clearly ignoring the Security Council’s demand that it suspend uranium enrichment, and while it also fails to satisfactorily address the outstanding questions raised by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the true nature and objective of Iran’s nuclear activity is much less certain than some reporting and commentary suggests.
Canadian Conservative MP Chris Alexander insisted on the CBC’s As it Happens that the IAEA’s most recent reporthttp://disarmingconflict.ca/2011/11...ainty-in-responses-to-the-iaea-on-iran/#_edn1 is “conclusive” on the question of whether or not Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. That’s not what the report says – it in fact goes to some lengths to say that its findings are inconclusive. Indeed, the IAEA’s most prominent refrain is that the lack of cooperation from Iran prevents it from being conclusive: “The Agency is unable to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran.” It is of course that very uncertainty that is the source of worry – in other words, the fact that it is not able to say conclusively that Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons is the problem. And since you can’t prove a negative, it becomes a matter of positing degrees of confidence....
The rest here:
Uncertainty made certainty in responses to the IAEA on Iran | disarmingconflict.ca
I suggest you read this commentary which explains the subtleties of where Iran is relative to its NPT obligations and what is being reported about Iran's alleged nuclear weapon program:
Uncertainty made certainty in responses to the IAEA on Iran 23 November 2011 by Ernie Regehr
While Iran is clearly ignoring the Security Council’s demand that it suspend uranium enrichment, and while it also fails to satisfactorily address the outstanding questions raised by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the true nature and objective of Iran’s nuclear activity is much less certain than some reporting and commentary suggests.
Canadian Conservative MP Chris Alexander insisted on the CBC’s As it Happens that the IAEA’s most recent reporthttp://disarmingconflict.ca/2011/11...ainty-in-responses-to-the-iaea-on-iran/#_edn1 is “conclusive” on the question of whether or not Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. That’s not what the report says – it in fact goes to some lengths to say that its findings are inconclusive. Indeed, the IAEA’s most prominent refrain is that the lack of cooperation from Iran prevents it from being conclusive: “The Agency is unable to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran.” It is of course that very uncertainty that is the source of worry – in other words, the fact that it is not able to say conclusively that Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons is the problem. And since you can’t prove a negative, it becomes a matter of positing degrees of confidence....
The rest here:
Uncertainty made certainty in responses to the IAEA on Iran | disarmingconflict.ca
As I mentioned earlier - Iran has refused for the last year to discuss this with the Europeans /US
Sanctions have brought them back to the table.
The IAEA has legitimate concerns and states that Iran is not providing information as requested and agreed upon. Spin it anyway you want. Those are the facts.
You stated Iran has not attacked another country. I asked 2 questions. Care to answer?
Oh yes - Would arming Hamas & Hezbollah be considered acts of War or Terror?
Also the Thugocracy has been killing dissidents abroad for decades.
What I should have said was it didn't have anything to do with this op. This is about sanctions because of a possible nuclear threat. It would be up to Isreal to decide if the arming of her enemy's was an act of war.