Iran warns oil blockade if sanctions imposed

page: 12
15
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 02:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Foppezao
 


THis is how I see it. Iran strategists aka consulted by foreign allies see it as a win/win or lose/lose situation. If they make the blockade clear and present as an option then the USA has to consider taking the actions in DC against Iran as far as sanctions goes off the table. The USA will most likely not do this though as it would show weakness. If the USA engages Iran in the Straight then it sparks an potential all out war among both sides and there allies. I think both sides are just posturing more than anything to see who flinches first.

This is the kind of crap that goes from posturing to war fast though. It is very possible to forsee an act of war being declared by the USA against Iran.




posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 04:07 AM
link   
I wouldn’t under estimate the Iranians....

Yes, its a well-known fact that the US Navy would annihilate the Iranian Navy in a matter of days.

... So you really think Iran’s stupid enough to put all its worth on its navy, knowing this fact?

My guess is there's something pretty.. clever.. very.. damaging.. planned and prepared and practiced by the Iranian special guard.

Especially when they’ve proven themselves to be more than willing to just line charge into certain death with gusto!


.. you know what the most important component of a nations war machine is? the part it absolutely must excel in to be able to dominate nations?

Smart, fit and dedicated youth.

America's all outta that!



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 04:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alien Abduct
If they stopped all of their oil flow it would devastate their own country far worse than ours they couldn't handle it its a bluff all the way.

Of course, it would be suicide. But if they are being set up fo slaughter, why wouldn't they commit suicide, if by so doing they can hurt the enemy a bit as well?

So you are FOR Iran obtaining nuclear weapons?

It is not my business whether Iran has nukes or not. It is theirs.

They agreed NOT to obtain nuclear weapons we are trying to hold them to their agreement for a reason.

Yes, they agreed and they have fulfilled every requirement of the agreement. Westerner are lying psychopaths, who are inventing excuses to satisfy bloodlust. We recently saw that with Iraq and now we see it with Iran.

I mean where would YOU draw the line?

Nowhere.

If it were up to YOU would YOU just let every country in the world obtain nuclear weapons?

Absolutely. But they should get out that NPT like DPRK did, before they get their nukes. It is not polite to get into agreements and break them.

Can you imagine what kind of world that would be?

It will be a much better world than what we have today, if the nukes were cheap enough that everybody who wanted them could get them.

How long do you think our very existence would last in that situation?

A very very long time.

Even if they put their entire navy at that straight in an attempt to stop us it would be obliterated within a matter of about one day after the United states President gives the go-ahead.

Perhaps. May be Iran will take out every oil installation in the ME before that.
edit on 29-12-2011 by Observor because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 08:21 AM
link   
So it's really gonna happen...
Lies and sanctions are great war tools. It worked with Japan pushing them to Pearl H. and it will do a job again. US can't live without war. Ayatollah with his beliefs is not against it so let's have another decade of suffering. What a silly world.
Would naval blocade be such precedent? When US or Israel are doing it it's ok, is it?



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bigjohns82
reply to post by Foppezao
 


I don't see how blocking the straight would benefit Iran. This is probably just more postering to keep the worlds attention away from their Nuclear program. At this point, Iran just wants to make it into the nuclear club so we will leave them alone.



Maybe Iran is just trying to distract attention away from the civil war going on in Syria.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by infiniteobserver
Dear Iran, no one is buying your tough guy saber rattling. NO country could by themselves effectively block that port much less compare it to drinking water. The most you can hope for is a couple of hit and run attacks. It's dumb crap like this that scares my idiot friends here in America. You see most here don't realize that our news is just as censored as some of these countries we uh "liberated" and that you are just talking crap. They think you are really serious. Everyone should know you're not going to nuke Israel because the rest of the world including the Sunni Muslims would wipe you and your buddies off the map. Honestly, someone has to take the first real steps. Kicking out the IAEA inspectors and hiding facilities doesn't quite fit with the "just for peaceful enrichment". If instead of responding like a third grader trying to scare people with what his father or the cops are gonna do you should try cooperating. Then if that doesnt work then by all means...act like third graders.


I get a kick out of Iran talking the talk. Yes, the same Iran that just 3 decades ago couldn't take out Saddam's military while the US made them look like ants getting vaporized by a mammoth magnifying glass.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by SGTSECRET

Originally posted by Alien Abduct

Originally posted by michael1983l

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
empty threat

the us EXPORTED more oil than it imported this year, and we get a lot more of it from canada, venezuela than we do the middle east

this would be wonderful, the average citizen might come to realize we don't need them
edit on 27-12-2011 by syrinx high priest because: (no reason given)


You do get alot from Saudi you are right however you fail to see that blocking the homouz straight would stop you buying said oil from Saudi arabia.

Question also begs, that if the US exports more oil than it needs, then why buy oil off of all said nations?


Even if they put their entire navy at that straight in an attempt to stop us it would be obliterated within a matter of about one day after the United states President gives the go-ahead.



-Alien


its congress who is supposed to send us to war, not the president. many people seem to have forgotten that fact after afghanistan and iraq


Congress gives the president permission then the president gives the go ahead and commands the military.

I wasn't attempting to explain every step of the process I am very aware of the processes.

-Alien



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Alien Abduct
 


I think the POTUS has the power to move the U.S. Marines without the consent of congress.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Observor
 



If he were a psychopath like Westerners, that would be plausible. I don't find any evidence to his being anything like Westerners. But totally understand you projecting your behaviour onto the others.


Would you like to generalize any more? Anything else irresponsible or mean to add to that comment?

People on here love to say "We don't hate westerners, we simply hate your Govts."

Now we have people calling all westerners "psychopaths'?? really?
edit on 29-12-2011 by Suibom1974 because: (no reason given)
edit on 29-12-2011 by Suibom1974 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by infiniteobserver
Dear Iran, no one is buying your tough guy saber rattling. NO country could by themselves effectively block that port much less compare it to drinking water. The most you can hope for is a couple of hit and run attacks. It's dumb crap like this that scares my idiot friends here in America. You see most here don't realize that our news is just as censored as some of these countries we uh "liberated" and that you are just talking crap. They think you are really serious. Everyone should know you're not going to nuke Israel because the rest of the world including the Sunni Muslims would wipe you and your buddies off the map. Honestly, someone has to take the first real steps. Kicking out the IAEA inspectors and hiding facilities doesn't quite fit with the "just for peaceful enrichment". If instead of responding like a third grader trying to scare people with what his father or the cops are gonna do you should try cooperating. Then if that doesnt work then by all means...act like third graders.




The truth is Iran is going to be forced into abiding by their agreements period.

As many people have pointed out, it is not just the western countries that are against Iran having nukes and it is not just the west that wants Iran to abide by their agreements. Most of their middle eastern neighbors also want this.

Iran has no choice in the matter they will submit or else. No matter how much they talk and no matter how much Iranian supporters on this thread blab their support it will not make one ounce of difference. This is absolutely the way it is.

Their threat of blockade does not worry us it does not slow us down it does not make us even think twice about enforcing our agreements.

I agree one hundred percent that Iran should not obtain nuclear weapons, I agree on the sanctions if they do not comply, I also agree that we should do whatever we deem necessary to stop them and any other country from obtaining nukes.

Even the dullest minds would agree that every nation in this world should not and can not have nuclear weapons else the world be a ticking time bomb that WILL go off. And we all know what would happen if that happened.

-Alien



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by Alien Abduct
 


I think the POTUS has the power to move the U.S. Marines without the consent of congress.


Truly, and spec-ops for that matter, you know the ones who wear no markings that would signify country of origin.

-Alien



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Iran is doing the only mature thing left for them to do. Keep in mind that they are not threatening anyone with anything, all they are saying is that in case they are cut off, they will also cut others off. Treat others as you would like to be treated.

Although not strictly said i am quite positive they will allow ships to pass that sail under the flag of countries who will not take part in the possible embargo. Tit for tat.
edit on 29-12-2011 by varikonniemi because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by varikonniemi
Iran is doing the only mature thing left for them to do. Keep in mind that they are not threatening anyone with anything, all they are saying is that in case they are cut off, they will also cut others off. Treat others as you would like to be treated.

Although not strictly said i am quite positive they will allow ships to pass that sail under the flag of countries who will not take part in the possible embargo. Tit for tat.
edit on 29-12-2011 by varikonniemi because: (no reason given)


That may sound reasonable in their heads but in reality the rest of the entire world will
demand that the Strait of Hormuz remain open.

I checked a map. Couldn't Saudi Arabia just load the oil tankers in the Red Sea?
Forget the Strait of Hormuz.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 12:30 PM
link   
These empty threats being made by Iran are cute...



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Suibom1974
reply to post by Observor
 



If he were a psychopath like Westerners, that would be plausible. I don't find any evidence to his being anything like Westerners. But totally understand you projecting your behaviour onto the others.


Would you like to generalize any more?

Wasn't that general enough for you?


Anything else irresponsible or mean to add to that comment?

Not sure what is irresponsible about it. If a pattern of behaviour is observed across generations, it is fair, in my book, to expect it from and attribute it to the people.

People on here love to say "We don't hate westerners, we simply hate your Govts."

I can't speak for people on here, but I never said anything even remotely resembling that. Anyway, aren't Western states democracies? If the Western governments act in a certain manner and the same behaviour is seen election after election, why would anyone want to believe the people's preferences are different from the governments' actions?

Now we have people calling all westerners "psychopaths'?? really?

I never said all. Offhand, I can't say anything about a specific Westener. But the majority are psychopaths. So given a specific Westerner, the chances of that person being a psychopath are higher than not being one.
edit on 29-12-2011 by Observor because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   

If they stopped all of their oil flow it would devastate their own country far worse than ours they couldn't handle it its a bluff all the way.

"Of course, it would be suicide. But if they are being set up fo slaughter, why wouldn't they commit suicide, if by so doing they can hurt the enemy a bit as well?"

If you think they are being set up for slaughter then you would have to agree that they set themselves up for the slaughter being that the reason why they are being sanctioned is because they are not obiding by the very rules that they have put into place for themselves within the international community.


So you are FOR Iran obtaining nuclear weapons?

"It is not my business whether Iran has nukes or not. It is theirs."

Its not your business until the fallout reaches your backyard and your children's hair begins to "fall-out" right? But by then it will be too late. Good thing we have people in charge that are not like you and can think forward a bit.



They agreed NOT to obtain nuclear weapons we are trying to hold them to their agreement for a reason.

"Yes, they agreed and they have fulfilled every requirement of the agreement. Westerner are lying psychopaths, who are inventing excuses to satisfy bloodlust. We recently saw that with Iraq and now we see it with Iran."


-2003-

Aug. 26 – IAEA inspectors found traces of highly enriched uranium at Iran's Natanz nuclear plant. Iran claimed the traces came from equipment imported from another country.
Sept. 19 – President Khatami said, "We don't need atomic bombs, and based on our religious teaching, we will not pursue them...but at the same time, we want to be strong, and being strong means having knowledge and technology."
Sept. 25 – U.N. weapons inspectors found traces of highly enriched weapons-grade uranium at a second site near the capital city of Tehran. The IAEA set a deadline of Oct. 31 for Iran to prove it was not making nuclear weapons. Oct. 21 – In talks with Britain, France and Germany (EU-3), Iran agreed to suspend uranium enrichment and processing activities and to open nuclear sites to unannounced inspections by the U.N. watchdog agency. It also agreed to sign the Additional Protocols of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and its safeguards agreement with the IAEA.
Dec. 18 – Tehran signed the Additional Protocol to the Non-Proliferation Treaty’s Safeguards Agreement. The Additional Protocol granted IAEA inspectors greater authority in their nuclear verification programs. Since then, Iran has at times voluntarily allowed more intrusive inspections, but the Iranian parliament has not yet ratified the Additional Protocol.

-2004-

Feb. 22 – Iran acknowledged having secretly bought nuclear parts from international sources, although Tehran continued to insist that its goal was electricity production and not nuclear weapons.
Aug. 28 – President Khatami said Iran had a right to enrich uranium and was willing to provide guarantees to the IAEA that it was not developing nuclear weapons.
Nov. 14 – In negotiations with Britain, France and Germany, Iran accepted the Paris accord, which recognized Tehran's rights to pursue nuclear technology for peaceful purposes and reaffirmed Iran's commitment not to acquire nuclear weapons. In exchange, Iran voluntarily agreed to temporarily suspend uranium enrichment activities and allow the IAEA to monitor the suspension.

-2005-

Feb. 28 – Tehran and Moscow signed an agreement that stipulated that Russia would supply nuclear fuel for the Bushehr facility and that Iran would return all spent fuel rods to Russia to ensure the fuel was not diverted for other use.
Aug. 9 – Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa forbidding the “production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons.”
Sept. 24 –The IAEA found Iran in noncompliance with the NPT Safeguards Agreement and decided to refer Tehran to the U.N. Security Council for further action. The decision followed Iran’s repeated failure to fully report its nuclear activities. Tehran countered that it might suspend its voluntary implementation of the Additional Protocol that allowed more intrusive and sudden inspections.

Source



If it were up to YOU would YOU just let every country in the world obtain nuclear weapons?

"Absolutely. But they should get out that NPT like DPRK did, before they get their nukes. It is not polite to get into agreements and break them."


Can you imagine what kind of world that would be?

"It will be a much better world than what we have today, if the nukes were cheap enough that everybody who wanted them could get them."

How long do you think our very existence would last in that situation?

"A very very long time."

I think your last three answers here pretty well sum up your ignorance level in this matter, I'm done wasting my time with you.

-Alien
edit on 12/29/2011 by Alien Abduct because: (no reason given)
edit on 12/29/2011 by Alien Abduct because: Was having trouble with the color
edit on 12/29/2011 by Alien Abduct because: (no reason given)
edit on 12/29/2011 by Alien Abduct because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   

"Satellites of all sorts orbiting the earth have unique capabilities and functions, not the least of which is to surveil activities of other nations. Over the weekend, the handful of satellites flying above with geo-spatial purposes has discovered Iran is bustling with busy work. It is not the crime but its the cover-up that tells the story and Iran is performing the diligent task of covering up their nuclear weapons program."






"The New York Times reports Wednesday that Iran has been hiding much of its nuclear infrastructure in tunnels and bunkers across the country over the past decade.

The Times says that by doing so Iran has protected its nuclear infrastructure from attack, and has also obscured the scale and nature of its atomic program.

The paper cites unnamed U.S. government and private experts as its sources for the article. It says its sources report there may be thousands of big tunnels in heavily mountainous Iran, but that the purpose of all of the tunnels is not clear.

Iran has acknowledged it is developing uranium enrichment facilities at several sites, including Isfahan and Natanz. But Iran says all of its nuclear activities are for peaceful purposes - mainly to generate electricity.

In September, U.S. President Barack Obama and other Western leaders accused Iran of building a secret nuclear plant inside a mountain in the city of Qum, south of Tehran. Iran admitted developing the facility but denied it had been kept a secret.

The Times reports that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has long played a prominent role in developing Iran's tunnel infrastructure, first as an engineer and founder of Iran's Tunneling Association, and now as president."

Source



---Another source containing information about Iran's attempted nuclear weapons program cover up.....
Source


It is clear that Iran is trying to dodge the rest of the international community in an attempt to hide their nuclear weapons program. They can say its for peaceful purposes but much evidence suggests otherwise and indeed our spy's, spy satellites , drones, internal sources etc. tell a different story.

The fact that they are attempting to make nuclear weapons is obvious and it will be dealt with very soon because well....that's the right thing to do.


-Alien



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by varikonniemi
Iran is doing the only mature thing left for them to do. Keep in mind that they are not threatening anyone with anything, all they are saying is that in case they are cut off, they will also cut others off. Treat others as you would like to be treated.

Although not strictly said i am quite positive they will allow ships to pass that sail under the flag of countries who will not take part in the possible embargo. Tit for tat.
edit on 29-12-2011 by varikonniemi because: (no reason given)


Its not tit for tat. There is no "tit" for them to be giving their "tat".

Don't you people get it? They agreed to NOT manufacture nor obtain nuclear weapons.

Within these agreements THEY AGREED TO ECONOMIC SANCTIONS AS A CONSEQUENCE IF THEY DIDN'T FOLLOW THE RULES THAT THEY THEMSELVES AGREED TO.

There is good reason why these agreements were made as such
these economic sanctions didn't just come from nowhere and they didn't come for no good reason.

-Alien



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alien Abduct
If you think they are being set up for slaughter then you would have to agree that they set themselves up for the slaughter being that the reason why they are being sanctioned is because they are not obiding by the very rules that they have put into place for themselves within the international community.

Iran has fulfilled and continue to fulfil every single obligation under the NPT. That the lying psychopaths of the world say otherwise is not their responsibility.

Its not your business until the fallout reaches your backyard and your children's hair begins to "fall-out" right? But by then it will be too late. Good thing we have people in charge that are not like you and can think forward a bit.

That is sure how the psychopathic animals, only about the repurcussions for themselves and their children. Human beings see things differently. If it is OK for any country to possess a certain kind of weapons, it is OK for anyone else too.

That large quote about Iran in 2004 and 2005 does not show Iran as violating NPT.


I think your last three answers here pretty well sum up your ignorance level in this matter, I'm done wasting my time with you.

Thank you! I am not keen on wasting my time on lying psychopaths.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by SGTSECRET

Originally posted by Alien Abduct

Originally posted by Observor

Originally posted by Foppezao
reply to post by Observor
 

One of the main purposes of the sanctions act, and the sanctions to follow, is not solely to boycot Iranian crude oil but also to prohibit companies from selling refined oil products to Iran.

OK.

I just red that Iran is one of the most energy intensive countries of the world per capita, even more then Japan en the EU, mostly because it is very inefficient.Interesting note is that in Iran, of the refined oil they consume, 40% is imported from India, more of an ally then say China or Pakistan.If it comes to a dramatic halt of refined exports to Iran, they're all dried up and if bombs start falling on petrochemical industries, their fancy flying boats aren't even able to start their engines let alone train in those things..Even before then internal turmoil may increase when Iranians can't fuel their cars, can't get food supplies or warm their houses etc..

India imports 11% of its oil from Iran and that accounts for more than the oil products India sells Iran. Not sure India can afford to cut off trade with Iran to please the West.

But if they do and no one else steps in to fill the gap, then Iran will know a Western bombing of their country is imminent. All kinds of interesting things can happen when someone becomes aware of certain destruction. Can Iran hurt the West to the same degree the West can hurt Iran? Of course, not! But they sure as hell have enough to make life extremely interesting for everyone and I sincerely hope they take that opportunity.
edit on 29-12-2011 by Observor because: (no reason given)


So you are FOR Iran obtaining nuclear weapons? They agreed NOT to obtain nuclear weapons we are trying to hold them to their agreement for a reason.

I mean where would YOU draw the line? If it were up to YOU would YOU just let every country in the world obtain nuclear weapons? Can you imagine what kind of world that would be? How long do you think our very existence would last in that situation?

-Alien


actually no nation should have nuclear weapons. including the 'always the good guy' united states. do you not realize that the rest of this world views the u.s. as one of the biggest threats to world peace? so yeah, thats where the line is - no one gets them.


I agree, no nation should have them, so what should we do about the countries that are trying to obtain them?

Also being that some countries already have nuclear weapons what would you do about those countries?

-Alien





new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join