Iran under Sanction Pressures – Reaction?

[Dexter Sinister]

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]

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]

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

 

[Goober]

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]

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]

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]

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. :roll:

 

[Goober]

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]

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]

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?

 

[Cliffy]

Slippery dick is vulgar?

That depends on the context. Back in the 60s when I first got married, I was having sex with my wife on a Saturday morning when a couple of old JW ladies knocked on my door. I jumped up, put on a house coat, thinking it was my brother calling. When I unlocked the door and the women said they had come to talk to me about god, I flashed them with a slippery dick and said "that is god". Today I would get arrested for that.

 

[Goober]

That depends on the context. Back in the 60s when I first got married, I was having sex with my wife on a Saturday morning when a couple of old JW ladies knocked on my door. I jumped up, put on a house coat, thinking it was my brother calling. When I unlocked the door and fteh women said they had come to talk to me about god, I flashed them with a slippery dick and said "that is god". Today I would get arrested for that.

Not today.

 

[ironsides]

Metal Storm - Being tested in Afghanistan now. This is what Iran will face if they continue in the direction they are heading. By the way it is made in Australia.


Future Weapons: Metal Storm : Video : Discovery Channel


http://www.spacedaily.com/news/missiles-04v.html

 

[earth_as_one]

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.

Each nation would have to decide how they would react. I'm pretty sure the US would get additional allies ,so I doubt the Iranians would do this overtly. On the other hand a few floating naval mines of unknown origin would effectively shut down the gulf without a war. That's the most likely method the Iranians would use.

I doubt the Iranians could be stopped from closing the gulf with a short nasty naval engagement. As long as Iran has a coastline, they'll be able to send their little 2 man torpedo boats on suicide missions and fire antiship missiles from their mobile launchers. The US would have to invade and occupy Iran's entire coastline to be effective, which means they'd have to invade and occupy the entire country.

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

The US can choose their trading partners and punish anyone who does business with Iran. The UN Charter prohibits signatory countries from engaging in war except 1) as a means of defending themselves against aggression, or 2) unless the UN as a body has given prior approval to the operation.

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

I agree. We should all try to keep debates civil. I'd like to attack more people to this forum. Trolling, personal attacks and other forum rule violating behavior is childish and counter productive.

Metal Storm - Being tested in Afghanistan now. This is what Iran will face if they continue in the direction they are heading. By the way it is made in Australia.


Future Weapons: Metal Storm : Video : Discovery Channel


Metal Storm Part of Team to Deliver 'Thunder and Lightning' to US Navy

Even this technology can be overwhelmed by sheer numbers of incoming threats. It might take out the first attack, and maybe even the second. But it can't stop a constant barrage of missiles nor can it stop torpedoes. BTW, Iran has super cavitation capable torpedoes.

 

[ironsides]

Torpedoes

Torpedoes and the Next Generation of Undersea Weapons

Supercavitating Torpedo | Popular Science


Bottom line is Iran does not have a chance, and some new people will be facing the Iranian court system when it is over.

 

[Goober]

Each nation would have to decide how they would react. I'm pretty sure the US would get additional allies ,so I doubt the Iranians would do this overtly. On the other hand a few floating naval mines of unknown origin would effectively shut down the gulf without a war. That's the most likely method the Iranians would use.

I doubt the Iranians could be stopped from closing the gulf with a short nasty naval engagement. As long as Iran has a coastline, they'll be able to send their little 2 man torpedo boats on suicide missions and fire antiship missiles from their mobile launchers. The US would have to invade and occupy Iran's entire coastline to be effective, which means they'd have to invade and occupy the entire country.

[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

Let me put this in context for you.
It will be a nasty and short engaement with the Iranians shxt kicked back 20 years. Iran tried to close the straits during the Iran - Iraq War - Oil still moved - they mined the strait - oil still moved.

Fast attack craft are no match for air power. They cannot outrun an air to surface missile.
NATO - and Arab countries will make very short work of the Iranian assets. Will some targets be hit by Iran -Yes. But technology, anti missile systems have improved greatly.

NATO also has a substantial number of advanced cruise missiles. Consider how many are carried on ships of the 5th fleet. Add in the Arab airpower - naval assets etc.

Next - NATO will also target their oil - gas productions - Ports for exports etc. The country will literally be bankrupted without oil. As to Chinese facilities. They will still be targeted. And oil production will not return to normal for years.

NATO will not put troops on the ground. Though they will also go after Iranian Nuke sites. Including their new one buried inside the mountain.

 

[mentalfloss]

Hai guyz I has a question.

Is Irans gunna drops a bomb?

 

[Goober]

Hai guyz I has a question.

Is Iran's gunna drops a bomb?

If they have enough material, trigger etc. All they have to do is one successful nuke test explosion. Then the equation changes - Saudi will go Nuclear - Iran will be more provocative in their actions.Hezbollah - Hamas will be protected by a nuclear state.

The straits if closed will result in war - No way will the west allow that - war or not.

Yet many think it is Iran's right to go nuclear and do not see the repercussions.

So then we have a war where both sides have nukes, Israel is nervous as hell. Israel would be told to stay out as they did during Gulf War 1 - yet every missile launched by Iran towards Israel would increase the stakes of the war going nuclear.

 

[mentalfloss]

If they have enough material, trigger etc. All they have to do is one successful nuke test explosion. Then the equation changes - Saudi will go Nuclear - Iran will be more provocative in their actions.Hezbollah - Hamas will be protected by a nuclear state.

The straits if closed will result in war - No way will the west allow that - war or not.

Yet many think it is Iran's right to go nuclear and do not see the repercussions.

So then we have a war where both sides have nukes, Israel is nervous as hell. Israel would be told to stay out as they did during Gulf War 1 - yet every missile launched by Iran towards Israel would increase the stakes of the war going nuclear.

But will Iran drop ze bomb?

 

[Goober]

But will Iran drop ze bomb?

No - But the threat is still there
Go thru the cold war history and find how many times we almost had a nuclear war due to mistakes made.
Now put that into the situation in the Mid East. More wars, more mistakes,and it will do nothing but further destabilize an area not known for stability. And other countries, Sunni will acquire nuclear capability. How does that stabilize a region.

Next - Iran is filled with various factions - one small tactical nuke going off in a Euro or US city. What do you think will happen. How long before retaliation starts.

That question I would be interested in hearing what your opinion would be.