It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iran threatens U.S. Navy as sanctions hit economy - (China blinks)

page: 2
22
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   
China doesn't want Iran to have the bomb either. That is why they blinked.
It would be against China's best interests to have a nuclear Iran.

Iran's threats as far as military and navy power are nothing.
If they were to close the strait, it would be the guaranteed end of Iran.
Iran doesn't want that.
China doesn't want that.
Russia doesn't want that.

But they all know that the US will without a second thought, attack Iran and end Iran's nuclear program or at least set it back 10 years if the strait is closed. It is a vital interest of the USA and much of the world.




posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Ho Hum,floppy hats.

Take away any conspiracy that might be involved and what do we have here.?
Take away any pushing and shoving from the West and what do we have here?

Answer to the first is a simple power struggle.
Answer to the second is much more comlpex and should be considered.

If Iran had been left unchecked over the years, we would have a new name for the Middle East Region.

It would be called the United Middle Eastern States of Iran.

This is just the culmination of 30 odd years of work, A long long plan
being played out.Iran has over reached, played it's cards very badly, and they will pay the price.

Iran or at least it's government is history, as all dictators will be. The world has moved on. China will be tolerated
for the forseeable future, but no others will stand much longer.

The Mullahs are threatening the wrong people, The United states will kick their asses.
or maybe the people will get smart and overthrow the Mullahs before the get sent back to the stoneage.

If I were them i would seriously be considering my options rightnow, is it not better to fight the mullahs and win, (~with some casualties), or wait untill the mullahs bring american airforce to their skies.

I know i would be heading for the mullahs buildings to take ownership.


edit on 3-1-2012 by rigel4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by michael1983l
 
nor should america have nuclear weapons since they are the only country that have used them in anger and with no regard for innocent civilians .
it is truely sickening to read all these posts by americans that want to blow a country off the face of the map just because they will not bow down to a war mongering nation



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by tom.farnhill
reply to post by michael1983l
 
nor should america have nuclear weapons since they are the only country that have used them in anger and with no regard for innocent civilians .
it is truely sickening to read all these posts by americans that want to blow a country off the face of the map just because they will not bow down to a war mongering nation



Well, as far as the US having nuclear weapons, I believe you are wrong. Nuclear weapons are a terrible thing, we all know that, and it sucks that they were ever invented. But I would of much rather seen the US and Russia have them than Germany.
I wrote a paper back in high school in the 80's on our decision to drop the atom bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, asking if it was the right thing to do and answering myself at the end.

The invasion of Japan would of cost the Japanese and Americans MUCH more than was lost on the dropping of the bombs. The scientific aspects of what the US did helped the entire world to see how terrible these weapons are. They must be used once in order for people to understand their power and the horrible aftermath. (and we did). That is not to say it was OK, but a necessary evil in my mind.

Millions and Millions of people died during world war 2, and atrocities were carried out on all sides as that is what war IS.

Japan sucker punched the US in Pearl Harbor, and the answer they got was 2 atom bombs in the end. That was THEIR fault. They along with Germany tried to take over the world, what do you think would of happened had they won? BUT.....

The only good thing that ever came out of the development of nuclear weapons was MAD....

Mutually Assured Destruction.

Nukes are terrible, and I hope they are never used again, but the reality is that we have them,lots of them.
And with every country that gets the bomb, the risk of global nuclear war increases along with the chance of some small terrorist organization acquiring one. The minute the bomb is developed in a country, other countries set their targets to vaporize that country should it use them. It is a part of MAD.

MADNESS....

My point is that Iran, although under a military threat right now, is not under the nuclear umbrella threat that it will be under once it does develop the bomb. It is a double edged sword having a nuclear weapon.

My opinion



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by TheMindWar
 


Actually no trade sanctions arent Illegal. All trade is to be conducted in freewill playing by the rules is part of trading. Dont like it dont trade.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by corporation
Iran says depreciation in riyal not linked to latest US sanctions




TEHRAN, Iran — Iran said Tuesday that the steep depreciation in the country’s currency against the U.S. dollar was not linked to U.S. new sanctions targeting its Central Bank, while officials geared up for a meeting to assess possible measures to shore up the riyal in an already ailing economy.

www.washingtonpost.com... pm_business_pop


Then what prompted them to close down financial institutions to prevent the Iranian people from dumping Iranian currency? While I get that both sides of this are going to go down the road of "the other side is pushing propaganda gambit", as all politics are local.

However the cause they offer is not believable in my opinion. Iran has lied before in the past when it has come to their country and the effects other countries can have on them. That presents a real problem for the Ayatollah and Iranian government because it reinforces the fact they dont have the total and complete control, which they routinely state.


***************

Originally posted by Darkblade71
China doesn't want Iran to have the bomb either. That is why they blinked.
It would be against China's best interests to have a nuclear Iran.

Iran's threats as far as military and navy power are nothing.
If they were to close the strait, it would be the guaranteed end of Iran.
Iran doesn't want that.
China doesn't want that.
Russia doesn't want that.

But they all know that the US will without a second thought, attack Iran and end Iran's nuclear program or at least set it back 10 years if the strait is closed. It is a vital interest of the USA and much of the world.



Sounds like something directly out of a Tom Clancy novel. As far as shutting the straights down, it will eventually present the problem of allowing vessels through while denying navigation to others. If Russian and Chinese vessels / bound for those ports are allowed, and other nations are not allowed, those vessels will be fair game under UN law since they are technically being protected by foreign naval warships in a combat zone.

That will force Russia and China to decide exactly what their involvement is going to be.

Secondly I dont think people realize that Russia and China aren't looking out for Iran's interest, but their own. Do we honestly believe Russia / China are going to go to war and risk their own countries all in an effort to save a country that in the long term offers Russia / China nothing in return to justify it.


***********


Originally posted by tom.farnhill
reply to post by michael1983l
 
nor should america have nuclear weapons since they are the only country that have used them in anger and with no regard for innocent civilians .
it is truely sickening to read all these posts by americans that want to blow a country off the face of the map just because they will not bow down to a war mongering nation



When did war become fair? The goal is to beat the other side, not be nice and hug them in hopes of getting them over their anger problem. Japan attacked the US, not the other way around. Japan and Germany both had nuclear weapons programs, and Germany was developing long range abilities in order to deliver those payloads to the US. Had Germany or Japan acquired them first, are you honestly trying to tell us they never would have used them in order to win? If that is something you believe, then please do some more research about that time period, including looking at sources that come directly from the Nazi / Imperial Japanese archives from the period.

was is also a gamble regardless...

If a person is going to play stick-ball in Brooklyn, they better know the rules.
edit on 3-1-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   
read my post again , i was talking about the innocent civilians



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


absolutely.....maybe the rest of Africa will follow like muamar al gadafi wanted.....the pan African union is a great idea for that part of the world....more stability for them means more security for us



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by tom.farnhill
read my post again , i was talking about the innocent civilians


I read it.. I am pointing out that war is not fair, and the expectation that the "rules" work is a farce, because even the rules allow for them to be violated based on the other side violating them.

Feel free to take a gander at the records about how Germany and Japan treated people under their occupation, and im referring to civilians and not military, although thei treatment of captured military is just as horrific.

War, obviously, is bad and all avenues should be taken to avert it at all costs. However, one must allow for the possibility that just may not be an option in some situations.

How long has Iran had to deal with the UN over the issues in question?

How long did Iraq have to deal with the UN before 2003?

How long did we deal with N. Korea over their nuke program, before they withdrew from the treaties and test detonated a nuke?

How many countries did Hitler conquer, as well as Japan, through appeasement?

How many times has appeasement worked?

edit on 3-1-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


My thoughts exactly.

In war, everyone dies. Military, civilians,pets,plants......

no one is safe in war.

And although there are supposed to be "rules",
The only real rule is WIN at all costs.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


We have always been in the business of war because they are profitable to those who finance them.

Read War is a Racket....by Major General Smedly Butler twice medal of honor recipient ....a very good book.

This sabre rattling ...and now sanctions against Iran is more of the same old tune....this is dating back to the pinning of the explosion and destruction of the USS Maine by the media upon the Spanish and launching the Spanish American war....

The same old #### different decade.

Peace




posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by nh_ee
 


The same as the Maine? I was not aware that Spain at the time was secretly developing nuclear weapons? If you are going to try to limit the debate by using history, then maybe we should go back farther and look around the globe to see how this game had played out.

Its been going on a LONG time before the US were even colonies of the British crown, even before the discovery of the new world. Yet people wish to lay the blame on the US doorstep. We did our best to stay out of WWI and WWII, and in the end not only had to get involved because it was becoming more and more apparent we were on the target list, we had to deal with the aftermath and help rebuild the world, whose destruction was not a direct result of US actions, but the failed policies of appeasement.

Even if the US rolled up the sidewalks, closed all bases, brought all troops home and stayed out of world affairs, we are still going to be a target.

They don't hate the US, they hate what the US is.. they hate our freedoms, they hate the fact we can have independent thought, they hate the fact we have been successful in areas they have not.

People make the argument the US covets what Iran has. Using their same logic, they covet what the US has and since that is something they cannot provide to their own people, instead of explaining why, they would rather end our way of life.
edit on 3-1-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Hmmm... alright a couple of quick thoughts off the top of my head.

On the Iranian threat about the carrier. Iran knows they can't do squat if that carrier decides to move in. But, not saying anything and backing down immediately wouldn't really look too brave. So, they talked big - possibly in hopes that one or both of their larger buddies (China and Russia), would say - "You mess with my little buddy and you mess with me!!".

However, neither has really said that yet. But, that does make a nice lead in to talk about China.

The way I see it is like this.

Your buddy is in trouble and is about to pick a fight with someone that can likely mop the floor with him. He's been looking at you that with, "You are gonna bail me out - right?!?!" look. You've helped him in the past but now you have a few choices. You can -

1. Help him no matter what cause he is your little buddy.
2. Wish him the best and let him know you'll be cheering for him as you watch from the sidelines.
3. Realize he has no room at all to negotiate and use this chance to rob him blind of whatever he has that you want in exchange for even the tiniest bit of help.

I agree we don't know all that is going on with China. But so far, it looks like they are taking option 3.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheMindWar
I would just like to add, I believe Iran has every right to attack the US fleet in the gulf for what the US has done. And I dont think the US has any right to defend itself against such and attack. The reason why I say I think they have no right to defend itself is because I truely believe the USA deserves to be seriously punished for its illegal actions.


So what exactly is "illegal" we can trade with whom ever we please..
Thatsaid:
Well; .Um.. I believe the gulf is considered "international waters" Not to mention it laps the shores of several different sovereign countries. Iraq, Bahrain and kuwait export oil through the straits of Hormuz. Iran shooting at our ships in international waters is an overt act of war and should spark reprisal anywhere in the world Iranian "ships"( "bass tracker" ring any bells
) navigate.

One Chinese-made "silkworm" anti-ship missile fired into the straits and the gloves come off. B2 bombers will converge from all corners of the globe raining conventional dumb bombs on any shorebased suspected anti-ship missile launch facilities identified and illuminated by Marine force recon and navy seals . I'd imagine Israeli f-16's will be enroute momentarily to ensure any nuclear capability is eliminated(in their own interest). The Stennis airwing will not take kindly to attacks either.

I'm sorry; but it would be an incredibly bad day to be an Iranian citizen above ground ..I sincerely doubt any u.s sailors would get their feet wet or miss lunch.


edit on 3-1-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-1-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-1-2012 by 46ACE because: structure

edit on 3-1-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-1-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by michael1983l
I can't believe people on here actually think that Iran should be protected. This is a society that is happy to stone a woman to death in front of children, just because she dared to cheat on her husband. The people of Iran may be innocent and do not deserve war, but their government is indefensible and war should be a very realistic option. This government cannot have nuclear weapons.


You missed part of that, it should read "because her husband claimed she cheated and a womens word is worth a fifth of a mans."



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

How many times has appeasement worked?

edit on 3-1-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



I know this one.... I think I know a few examples.

Let's see the greeks tried to appease the persians and the persians tried to sneek an army into greece. I believe it was the spartans not trusting the persians that saved the rest of greece from conquest. Ok that one didn't work

Ok, how about Chamberlain claiming the Munich pack was Peace for our time", oh yeh Hitler invaded less than 12 months later.

The US tried to appease Japan by letting them take manchuria in return for peace. Oh yeh there was that little pearl harbour issue a few years later. The Japenese admirals figured the US was weak and would allow them to have hawaii.

The west let Stalin gobble up little nations one by one, oh yeh that's a bad example too since it just eboldened Stalin.

JFK and the cuban missle crisis... oops he didn't appease cuba.

A more modern one would be iran, who has been "sternly" talked to several times about there funding terrorism and there nuclear aims, but every time we do nothing that get more agressive.

So the correct answer is ZERO.... NEVER..... It does not work.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by michael1983l
I can't believe people on here actually think that Iran should be protected. This is a society that is happy to stone a woman to death in front of children, just because she dared to cheat on her husband. The people of Iran may be innocent and do not deserve war, but their government is indefensible and war should be a very realistic option. This government cannot have nuclear weapons.


If Iran has laws with certain punishments that is their business.

What do you say about this sort of thing that US authorities do LINK



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


This is for internal consumption by the Iranian people no doubt. I'd imagine when the sanctions take full effect, they will need to keep their own people from resuming their call for real elections and an elected government instead of the fake President and Theocracy.

Reminds me of the way the Soviets dealt with things until their people finally said enough.

They know they cannot control International Waters and that their Navy can be taken out in a matter of hours at any time. These threats are clearly not for us and are pure propaganda.

The bragging about the Rod will come back to bite them in the butt big time. These Theocratic Dictators are not to smart it seems. Their citizens have to much info available and to much access to the outside news.

China blinking is the same as agreement in Chinese Government doublespeak.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


We are in a time that whether something is legal or not doesn't matter anymore. What is right is all that matters.

Those who made these bull# global trading laws are the one that deserve to be arrested. How convenient that all they do is legal...by their own terms.

Iran might just be the new Iraq...



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Gab1159
 


The problem with your argument is the free-will factor in trading. Simply put, if you don't want to trade with a country, you DO NOT have to. If your buddy, who trades with you, decides he doesn't want to trade with a country and in turn tries to persuade you to cease trading with said country, it may be in your best interest to not upset your buddy.

It may not be fair, but by no means can we deny one country the right to decide who to trade with.

I think it would be in Iran's best interest to either accept the sanctions and work around them, regardless of how harsh they may be, or cease its nuclear program and fall in line with the West's demands. If they keep up this "belligerent rhetoric" they are going to get many innocent people, who have no say, and play no part, whatsoever in this power struggle, killed.

If Iran decides to go to war, it will play right into America's hand. With Russia and China hinting at jumping ship rather than aiding Iran, it would be suicide for Iran to show resistance towards the West. However, to refute the claim that China and Russia have nothing to gain by aiding Iran, I believe that at some point the less belligerent/pretentious superpowers in the world need to make their presence known and say to America, "enough is enough." Look at how we're chewing our way through so many countries, leaving them weak, dependent, and unstable (aka "liberated"). I can't help but think that soon enough Russia and/or China are going to intervene out of fear that we are getting too drunk on our own power. This is perhaps why Iran is so crucial: after Iran, who's next? How many innocent people have to die for us to feel "safe"?

Iraq happened almost 9 years ago, and we're seeing the same war propaganda and rhetoric being used to lure the American people into supporting a war with Iran. Let us not forget that concrete evidence HAS NOT been presented to us proving that Iran is indeed pursuing a nuclear weapon, nor has Iran admitted to doing so. Iran HAS NOT ATTACKED another country in over 300 years, making it a rather peaceful country; if they were so determined to wipe Israel off of the map, they could have already done plenty of damage with their surplus of missiles. They don't NEED a nuke to hurt Israel. The only thing we have to go off of is our government's word, and that, quite frankly, should be quite worthless after they dragged us through Iraq. Are we really going to dismantle another country on the basis that they are a "threat" and that they have a crazy (yet powerless) "leader?" I think the Iranian "elections" are coming up this year, if not the next, so Ahmudinejad may even be replaced soon enough in the Mullah's best interests.

As for those who advocate Iran trying to bankrupt Spain and Greece, please explain to me why this would be in Iran's interests and how, if at all, it would favor Iran. Greece and Spain are not spewing war rhetoric, last I checked. If Britain/France decide to slap further sanctions on Iran, then so be it, and they can be responsible for the economic damage this will cause to struggling countries in the EU, but, as far as I'm aware, Iran has not made threats to, nor been threatened by, said countries. For Iran to decide to retaliate to our sanctions by attacking Spain/Italy/Greece's economy would be stupid, piss off a lot of people, and childish (though after seeing how they are handling the Hormuz ordeal I wouldn't put it past them to act so negligently).



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join