Iran warns oil blockade if sanctions imposed

page: 8
15
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by LadySkadi
 


Sanctions don't work. The only thing they do is keep the normal people starving. A country under a worldwide sanction its ruling elite will still get its popcorn and HDTV, the people on the other hand will just die.

If iran tries to do a blockade of hormuz, you'll see another shock and awe from the decks of one of the carrier task forces LIVE via CNN...

And the hawks will have there war of oil.

What if...

CNN Reporter...By all the inhumity at 9:45 am several nuclear tipped torpedoes detonated in the straits of hormuz today. I can see ships burning on the horizon. And..Oh god...static...

he forgot about the EMP that goes off after a atomic drop...cnn is now off the air but will return shortly..




posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by jhn7537
reply to post by Bearack
 


But to be honest with you, maybe our US Navy has grown a little complacent in recent decades due to the fact that other nations never had the capabilities of our own. Today we are seeing countries like China and Russia who are slowly gaining ground on us and now its getting to the point where the US military has to treat them like worthy adversaries and understand that they likely are working with the same technology that we are... China is now showing the world that we arent the only nation with Stealth technology...


I would disagree. China has technology of much of our older equipment while there is nothing in comparison to our modern technology. They'd have to spend nearly the same amount for as long as the US to match our capacity and or technology advancements.

Even the likes of the F-16 which was first developed by General Dynamics in 1974 still, to this day is one of the most proficient fighters out there.

Remember, Russia is in a redevelopment stage. Much of their military is still old, antiquated Soviet technology. Their last nuclear sub developed, well, didn’t fair very well now did it. They haven’t built a carrier in over 30 years (IIRC) and the aircraft they’ve developed recently is still about on a 20-1 ratio with the F-22.

And China, well, they just retrofitted a 1980’s Soviet hull and will not be able to catapult aircraft for some time. The second carrier won’t even be sea worthy until 2015, giving them 2 carriers. That will but them 2 carriers to 12 super carriers. Their J-20, well, is of a Soviet Sukhoi design and which by all models, show that its faster than the F-22, but has way less maneuverability which spells doom in any dog fight encounter.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by peck420
If you think Iran ending its nuclear ambitions will change anything, you are clueless to what is going on.
Iran has been on the US top 10 enemy lists since the day 'their' man got evicted from power.
Iran has been backed into a corner intentionally. There is nothing they can do now to change what is coming.
The sad part is, it has very little to do with Iran and a lot to do with where Iran is. Nothing any Iranian could change if they wanted too.


Cut your BS once again please and stick to the topic and facts.

The world is RULED BY LAWS and INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS.

IF you want conspiracies, go to the conspiracy boards and spew your vitrol and bs, BUT DO NOT IGNORE THE CRITICAL SITUATION IN THE STRAITS NOW which is a REALITY and FACT.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 


Then spell out how Iran get avoid a war?

They can't opt out of NPT. Which would legally allow them to build nuclear as they wish. Bombs would be falling before the ink dries.

They can't stay in the NPT and develop nuclear weapons. Bombs will be dropping before it is finished and tested.

They can't defend themselves from global interests without a nuclear deterrent, they don't have the manpower or the technological expertise to do so.

Iran's only current options are submit or war.

Easy for you to say that that is an option when it is not your country in that position.

I know that for myself, I would die fighting before I submit to any one.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Foppezao
 


There would be a slowdown in the Strait of Hormuz. Iran's sunken and destroyed ships and subs would be all over the place after the USA annihilates them.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Observor

Originally posted by Bearack

Originally posted by Observor

Originally posted by Bearack

Originally posted by Observor
If there are any human being living in the West, they should stop their governments from waging an attack on Iran. If Iran is not attacked, the straits are safe.


Do you suggested we just let Iran, who has stated (and documented) thousands of times, that they will destroy Israel. Do we just allow another holocaust to take place?

As far as I remember, the holocaust wasn't committed by Persians or Arabs. Systematically victimising the Jews is not an Arab/Persian/Muslim speciality. That credit goes to some others.


So in essence, since the holocaust wasn't perpetrated by either Persians or Arabs, then the eradication of the Jewish nation wouldn't be considered a "holocaust"? Are you actually justifying the destruction of an entire people?

Guess need to be more explicit. None other than some psychopathic garbage of the world ever exhibited a tendency to wipe out whole people, especially Jews. And Arabs/Persians/Muslims are not part of that garbage.


So them telling the world they will push every last jew into the ocean is merely rhetoric... I see


Let me post just a few quotes from THOUSANDS from the great leader of Iran.

"Israel is destined for destruction and will soon disappear." [64] (Nov. 13, 2006)

"…the United States and the Zionist regime of Israel will soon come to the end of their lives." [60] (Jan. 23, 2007)

"With God's help, the countdown button for the destruction of the Zionist regime has been pushed by the hands of the children of Lebanon and Palestine. By God's will, we will witness the destruction of this regime in the near future." [55] (June 3, 2007)

“The Zionist regime is the flag bearer of violation and occupation and this regime is the flag of Satan…It is not unlikely that this regime be on the path to dissolution and deterioration when the philosophy behind its creation and survival is invalid.” [51] (Aug. 18, 2007)

"[The] creation of the Zionist regime, [and the] continuation of its existence... are an insult to human dignity." [49] (Oct. 5, 2007)

"They [world powers] should not think that the Iranian nation and other nations in the region will take off their hands off the throat of the Zionists and their supporters." [48] (Oct. 5, 2007)

I could go on, and on, and on.....


Originally posted by Observor

Originally posted by Bearack
So I don't anticipate Iran doing it, especially since they don't have the means to achieve it.


Originally posted by Observor
If someone has owed to wipe out another who is 100 times stronger and has never attempted it, I don't think another has to bother about "defending" this "little guy" with 300 nukes


I didn't know the amount of nukes Israel has is so well known. And from what publication did you get your intel?

I got the number from the statements of a United State Congressman named Ron Paul. I didn't ask for the publications. If you have access to him, you may.
edit on 28-12-2011 by Observor because: (no reason given)


Ron Paul is your source?? Well, president Clinton told me that getting a BJ isn't really sex



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   
I cant see the US getting in an all out war with Iran, the US navy would just set up a blockade so Irans navy cannot shut down the strait. I really dont think Iran wants a fight, they are talking tough because thats all they can do , Iran knows that they cannot win a war agaist the US.

If Iran blocks oil it effects the entire world, and the entire world will be rather pissed at them. This is a last ditch effort of desperation. Sorry Iran ...when TPTB want you out, dead, wiped off the face of the planet...they usually get what they want.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   
If we attack Iran, i wounder how hight oil price will reach, 125 or 150 or 175 maybe 200$ a barrel
that could really be a fatal attack to our economy



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 


Oh, I see. So it is all this Ayatollah's fault.

No Western powers have made threats of any kind and have left Iran alone to do as they wish inside their territory and inside their laws (per International Laws btw).

Iran's ayatollah will fall as soon as the west stops making threats. He will loose his power over his people, the constant fear created by western threats and demands.

Ironic isn't it.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   
I'm sure our response would be the same as it was years ago, when they pulled the same thing (I think it was around 2008). Simply put, any such attempt to cut off traffic through the straight would be viewed by the US as an act of war.

In addition, under the United Nations treaty governing laws of the sea, I'm pretty sure a strong case could be made by the entire international community, so it wouldn't be just the US here. I'm sure Oman would have a thing or two to say about it also as they too have territorial waters there.

This is just more empty saber rattling...something that is pretty old hat, but seems to be a favorite with the Iranian regime. If you think the world (not just the US) would stand for it (sealing the strait)...you're crazy.


It's like a big poker game...



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by jonnywhite
 


"All they gotta do is readmit inspectors back into Iran and to show the world they have no nukes and that they're willing to have their operations watched 24/7"

Show "the world"?.. you can't seriously believe that rhetoric..

114 nations support iran's nuclear ambitions (look it up, they're called the Non-Alignment Movement (NAM)).. Iran has much more world wide support, than not... the DC mafia propaganda machine likes to belch Iran is defying "the world"..it's just another inflated lie.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bearack
So them telling the world they will push every last jew into the ocean is merely rhetoric... I see


Let me post just a few quotes from THOUSANDS from the great leader of Iran.

"Israel is destined for destruction and will soon disappear." [64] (Nov. 13, 2006)

"…the United States and the Zionist regime of Israel will soon come to the end of their lives." [60] (Jan. 23, 2007)

"With God's help, the countdown button for the destruction of the Zionist regime has been pushed by the hands of the children of Lebanon and Palestine. By God's will, we will witness the destruction of this regime in the near future." [55] (June 3, 2007)

“The Zionist regime is the flag bearer of violation and occupation and this regime is the flag of Satan…It is not unlikely that this regime be on the path to dissolution and deterioration when the philosophy behind its creation and survival is invalid.” [51] (Aug. 18, 2007)

"[The] creation of the Zionist regime, [and the] continuation of its existence... are an insult to human dignity." [49] (Oct. 5, 2007)

"They [world powers] should not think that the Iranian nation and other nations in the region will take off their hands off the throat of the Zionists and their supporters." [48] (Oct. 5, 2007)

I could go on, and on, and on.....

Funny how everyone of those quotes only refers to the state of Israel or Zionist regime. Don't see them referrong to wiping off Jews


If you still don't get it, may be example will help. The USSR is wiped off the map, but the people are still around.

Ron Paul is your source?? Well, president Clinton told me that getting a BJ isn't really sex

What I got from Ron Paul was information, that was also corroborated by many other sources, not an opinion on what constitutes something.

Anyway, are you claiming Israel doesn't have nukes? I am not very insistent on a specific number they have. Since they don't openly admit to having nukes any number is only an estimate by someone else.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by GovtFlu
reply to post by jonnywhite
 


"All they gotta do is readmit inspectors back into Iran and to show the world they have no nukes and that they're willing to have their operations watched 24/7"

Show "the world"?.. you can't seriously believe that rhetoric..

114 nations support iran's nuclear ambitions (look it up, they're called the Non-Alignment Movement (NAM)).. Iran has much more world wide support, than not... the DC mafia propaganda machine likes to belch Iran is defying "the world"..it's just another inflated lie.


Do they support Iran's access to nuclear energy or do they all support Iran having nuclear weapons? In honesty, if they would allow inspectors to these facilities, there might be 196 countries that would support them. But when you have a nation that will not show us what they are doing while saying they will destroy Israel and the US, well, I think that support falls to the side.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bearack

Originally posted by GovtFlu
reply to post by jonnywhite
 


"All they gotta do is readmit inspectors back into Iran and to show the world they have no nukes and that they're willing to have their operations watched 24/7"

Show "the world"?.. you can't seriously believe that rhetoric..

114 nations support iran's nuclear ambitions (look it up, they're called the Non-Alignment Movement (NAM)).. Iran has much more world wide support, than not... the DC mafia propaganda machine likes to belch Iran is defying "the world"..it's just another inflated lie.


Do they support Iran's access to nuclear energy or do they all support Iran having nuclear weapons? In honesty, if they would allow inspectors to these facilities, there might be 196 countries that would support them. But when you have a nation that will not show us what they are doing while saying they will destroy Israel and the US, well, I think that support falls to the side.

Exactly when did Iran refuse IAEA access to its nuclear facilities?



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Doesn't Iran have the right to shut down traffic through the Strait of Hormuz?

www.rense.com...

The water there is not international...or at least not entirely. Due to the width of the strait, Neither Iran, nor Saudi Arabia can claim the minimal 12 mile territorial zone, but at 21 miles in width, they can both claim 10.5 miles. In the center of the strait, there is also an "International Shipping Corridor", with a 2 mile incoming path, 2 miles outgoing, and 2 miles of separation between them.

The agreement around these shipping corridors seems to be that they are open to all peaceful international travel. The fact that the majority of US war supplies to that area are shipped through the Strait of Hormuz should be argument enough that the traffic is not peaceful, but I think Iran could easily (and legally) enforce it if the war supplies were being brought in to threaten Iran itself. (I'm not sure if this would apply only to the 10.5 nautical miles adjacent to it, as well as the "International Shipping Corridor, though. That would leave the 7.5 nautical miles on the Saudi side open, I believe...)



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
reply to post by peck420
 


There you go again, more BS. Please keep to the topic and facts.

C'mon, if that raghead had not started on the suspect nuke weaponization programme, you think ANY western country will bother with Iran? All the world and humanity wants is peace and trade, NOT wars

Bold by me.

Your peacefulness is showing.

Now, how come the US had no problems with the Iranian nuclear program until the Shah was ousted? Funny, that. Even funnier is that the US funded the program until the Shah was ousted.



If the nuke programme is as peaceful as he claims, then by all means, why the fear, the belligerance, the threats for IAEA safety and compliance inspections? Even the Arab neighbours are concerned. The horrors of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, created at a time of war and used, CANNOT be forgotten and MUST NEVER be allowed to proliferate.


Even funnier is how the IAEA had no issues with Iran's regularly inspected program until the war drums started beating. I encourage you to go read the IAEA reports prior to 2010.



IT's power is far too awesome. Since '45, USA, Russia, China and even unstable Pakistan had not dared to use nukes, for when one is activated, it will be MULTIPLE launches by every nuke power, friend and foe alike and the world will end.


Yet, the only country to actuall use a nuclear weapon on humanity is allowed to keep their arsenal, but no new ones are allowed...unless you are friendly (or necessary) to said powers (cough...India...cough...Israel...cough...Pakistan...cough).



You and I may hate each other due to perhaps of our differences over many issues, but they are minor, and we both share more common aspirations than petty differences, and one of them is PEACE, if not for us, it will be for the next innocent generations. You and I have a stake in this world, and equal responsibility to do all we can.


I would never use the term hate for anything that happens on a word only basis.


I save my 'hate' for those that take things beyond words.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   
This excerpt from a Washington Post article sums it up pretty well...


“We would be committing economical suicide by closing off the Hormuz Strait,” said an Iranian Oil Ministry official who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject. “Oil money is our only income, so we would be spectacularly shooting ourselves in the foot by doing that.”

Ahmad Bakhshayesh Ardestani, a political scientist running for parliament from the camp of hard-line clerics and commanders opposing Ahmadinejad, said it is “good politics” for Iran to respond to U.S. threats with threats of its own.

“But our threat will not be realized,” Ardestani said. “We are just responding to the U.S., nothing more.”


Funny when even the hard-liners are basically saying they are bluffing, hehe...

Thing about nukes is, the tech has been out there for over half a century, so if someone really wants to develop them, there really isn't too much we can do to stop them. Sure, nobody really wants to see Iran with nukes, but in reality, there isn't much we can realistically do about it in the long-run. I'd bet heavily that they already have some of the "missing" Russian nukes from back when they had the breakup. Sure, the nuclear power ambitions are a joke, and a coverup for the real aim (i.e. developing weaponized materiel), but they know nobody's buying it.

Personally, I think the responsibility of having nukes would likely make them much more relaxed and low key. If we look at other nuclear powers, we'll see this, as once in the club, they too are a candidate for MAD, and find themselves with a weapon they never want to use, lest it be used on them. Does anyone really believe they'd try and USE them? I doubt it.

edit on 28-12-2011 by Gazrok because: fixed quote



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Observor
Funny how everyone of those quotes only refers to the state of Israel or Zionist regime. Don't see them referrong to wiping off Jews


If you still don't get it, may be example will help. The USSR is wiped off the map, but the people are still around.


/double take

Really??? The Soviet Union went into financial turmoil and went back to its original borders, releasing the city states back to their own sovereignty. How in the hell do you get Iran destroying Israel in the same breath of the Soviet Union returning states that we're not rightfully theirs to begin with????

That's the most asinine comparison I think I've ever seen!


Originally posted by Observor

What I got from Ron Paul was information, that was also corroborated by many other sources, not an opinion on what constitutes something.

Anyway, are you claiming Israel doesn't have nukes? I am not very insistent on a specific number they have. Since they don't openly admit to having nukes any number is only an estimate by someone else.


I'd need to see those sources to make my own determination how many nukes Israel has, but I'm fairly sure that a congressman from Texas isn't privy to Israelis classified information. Even if our president had this information, I don't think our congressman would but I could be wrong.

I'm also not advocating the Israel doesn't have nukes. I'm fairly sure they do. I also know that Israel would not use them unless the complete destruction of Israel was a known fact. The radiation to surrounding nations would be as bad for Israel as the nation that was attacked. It would make the region potentially un-inhabitable which would defeat their whole existence.

edit on 28-12-2011 by Bearack because: (no reason given)
edit on 28-12-2011 by Bearack because: (no reason given)
edit on 28-12-2011 by Bearack because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
15
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join