Iran Warns Region Against Stance On Hormuz, page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 13 times

reply posted on 19-1-2012 @ 03:01 PM by RSF77

reply to post by loveguy

I don't think that's very realistic, they could try. Are you forgetting about the other countries that border the gulf, not to mention the US Navy foaming at the mouth just a short distance away. Iran would lose it's Navy in a day, whatever remains probably wouldn't be any bigger than a coastal patrol boat, maybe a submarine or two if they didn't use them.

I don't see how electric cars are going to help them close the straight either.

edit on 19-1-2012 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 19-1-2012 @ 05:36 PM by LaughingatHumanity

The best thing Iran could do to end all this is to do a very public invitation for the inspection of all sites and ensure it is fully documented by multiple independent parties. If they can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt their capacity then the U.S. and NATO loose the only real card they have in a stacked deck against Iran.

At such a juncture Iran should do the very thing it speaks of, sell the oil and use it to become a technological super power and one that lives through conservation while the rest of the world continues to glut itself along. It will position them much more securely internationally and make their culture ultimately stronger.

If they are developing one for self defense they should stop for now and focus their energies on a completely clean approach and use the opportunity to address the real imbalance in the ME; a nuclear Israel that abides by no international law or standard. Home to a hostile and belligerent culture that is the equivalent of a sand locked Cuba sitting at Russia's front door that had been armed by the U.S. Israeli's might be clever but it took Uncle Sam to position them as a nuclear power so rapidly.

reply posted on 19-1-2012 @ 06:39 PM by Blaine91555

Originally posted by vogon42
When are we (USA), going to leave this region of the world?

I say we take a large portion of "defense" spending, and put that money towards wind and solar power.

Why keep putting out fires when instead we can find and eliminate the cause of the fires.

(yes, thats borrowed from Demming, for those of you who know who he is)
edit on 19-1-2012 by vogon42 because: (no reason given)

Actually that is likely a good idea, at least heading that direction at a speed that won't destroy economies and cause suffering.

Problem is that alternative energy is not ready for prime-time yet. If it were it would already be happening. If there is a profit to be made somebody would do it.

We have all or nothing coming from both sides. Truth is it needs to happen over time and cannot happen overnight no matter how much people think it can. You make the switch overnight the price of food skyrockets as the cost of energy skyrockets. Real people starve, real people suffer. So what do we do instead of slowly making the change in a responsible way; both sides want it there way or the highway.

Most of the worlds issues are because people cannot compromise for their own good.

Islamic extremists expecting the last Imam want to take over the whole world and force everyone to live under their rules. Environmental activists want alternative energy right now and how many suffer or starve because of it matters nothing to them. Those on the other side want to deplete all the oil before they do anything at all.

The problem is always caused by extremists who simply must have it there way. Until people start to compromise (which is not a dirty word) we will never have solutions.

The take all the oil crowd needs to see that we need to start slowly replacing oil with alternative energy. The environmentalists need to wake up to the fact we need to head their direction slowly so people don't suffer. Islamic extremists need to realize there is room on this planet for all religions and cultures and they don't need to kill everyone else or take over the planet.

Won't happen though. Humans are just to stupid to do smart things.

reply posted on 19-1-2012 @ 07:37 PM by randomname

impossible for iran to close the straight of hormuz realistically?

scuttling barges, deploying thousands of naval mines, patrolling with battleships and shooting any ship that tries to go thru. launching anti-ship missiles, air strikes, dumping hundreds of thousands of gallons of crude, lighting it on fire, aa batteries around the coast launching 120mm shells, cruise missiles, subs etc.

basically all out war.

reply posted on 19-1-2012 @ 09:56 PM by lonewolf19792000

Originally posted by YouAreLiedTo

Well now.

Iran is warning its fellow Arab countries to back down if Iran decides to go through with closing the Strait.

The article also highlights tensions between the UAE, the Saudis, and Iran.

Basically Iran is heated that the Saudis told the world if Iran's oil were cut off, that the Saudis could make up the production.

As for that secret little letter we have been hearing about, now the government is denying it altogether.

Fun times ahead...

www.reuters.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 19-1-2012 by YouAreLiedTo because: (no reason given)

Whats Iran going to do? Go to war with Saudi Arabia when the Saudis decide to profit off Iran's obstinence? That's called good business.

With China and Russia backing away from Iran (probably because they have suspicions Iran's already got nuke weapons if thyre sporting 20% uranium enrichment), Iran may end up caving in because i don't see any other alternative.

reply posted on 19-1-2012 @ 11:11 PM by superman2012

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

With China and Russia backing away from Iran (probably because they have suspicions Iran's already got nuke weapons if thyre sporting 20% uranium enrichment), Iran may end up caving in because i don't see any other alternative.

I don't know why China and Russia are backing away from Iran. They haven't been proven to be doing anything wrong, that being said I also don't know why they are being so secretive. Although 20% is enough for a weapon (less is also enough) it is also good for medical purposes, which they have claimed it is being used for. With the sanctions thrown on it as well as the military machine moving closer and closer, they should either let the IAEA in to inspect ALL areas or keep on doing what they are doing. If the US attacks them and they are proven to not have weapons, then that pretty much kills what remaining credibility the US has. At least they have agreed to let a high-level IAEA delegation to visit Iran January 29-31. That's one step in the right direction.

reply posted on 19-1-2012 @ 11:34 PM by lonewolf19792000

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

With China and Russia backing away from Iran (probably because they have suspicions Iran's already got nuke weapons if thyre sporting 20% uranium enrichment), Iran may end up caving in because i don't see any other alternative.

I don't know why China and Russia are backing away from Iran. They haven't been proven to be doing anything wrong, that being said I also don't know why they are being so secretive. Although 20% is enough for a weapon (less is also enough) it is also good for medical purposes, which they have claimed it is being used for. With the sanctions thrown on it as well as the military machine moving closer and closer, they should either let the IAEA in to inspect ALL areas or keep on doing what they are doing. If the US attacks them and they are proven to not have weapons, then that pretty much kills what remaining credibility the US has. At least they have agreed to let a high-level IAEA delegation to visit Iran January 29-31. That's one step in the right direction.

They've allowed the IAEA in before and didn't show them everything and had armed gaurds on them everywhere they went too. Not to mention moving their facilities to undisclosed underground locations reeks of secrecy. At this point there's just no way to tell whose lieing and who isnt.

reply posted on 20-1-2012 @ 12:11 AM by superman2012

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

They've allowed the IAEA in before and didn't show them everything and had armed gaurds on them everywhere they went too. Not to mention moving their facilities to undisclosed underground locations reeks of secrecy. At this point there's just no way to tell whose lieing and who isnt.

Agreed. I wish we could actually tell who was lying. I have been reading about Iran and it seems the Grand Ayatollah Hussein-Ali Montazeri issued a fatwa denouncing nuclear weapons. He was also a critic of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad so I don't know if he would follow that fatwa or not.

reply posted on 20-1-2012 @ 12:47 AM by RSF77

Originally posted by randomname
impossible for iran to close the straight of hormuz realistically?

scuttling barges, deploying thousands of naval mines, patrolling with battleships and shooting any ship that tries to go thru. launching anti-ship missiles, air strikes, dumping hundreds of thousands of gallons of crude, lighting it on fire, aa batteries around the coast launching 120mm shells, cruise missiles, subs etc.

basically all out war.

Well... because...

Scuttling barges would have no effect whatsoever.

The US has some of the best mine sweeping ships in the world.

Iran has no "battleships", the best warships they do have are mostly decades old imports, the missiles they hold are fewer and inferior.

Iran can't shoot any ship that get's through, their ASMs are vastly inferior.

The US Navy's AAW equipment is a lot better than Iran's airborne ASW missiles, not to mention they would be intercepted anyways even if they somehow got within range.

They could dump oil into the gulf if they wanted, it wouldn't have any effect other than environmental effects and effects on their own economy and foreign relations.

"AA Guns" don't really pose a threat to modern aircraft.

Iran doesn't have any effective cruise missiles that any US Naval group couldn't just shoot down with interceptors easily.

Iran's subs are loud, short ranged and would be detected and destroyed while they were sitting still in the water.

This is the 21st century, not world war 2. It is not realistic.

reply posted on 20-1-2012 @ 01:09 AM by superman2012

reply to post by RSF77

I found an interesting site that lists Iran as #12 under Global Firepower. Pretty cool site, remember though, if the US attacks Iran, everything Iran has, is at its disposal, the US only has what they bring. It wouldn't be pretty for either side. Let's hope it doesn't come to that.

reply posted on 20-1-2012 @ 01:10 AM by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by vogon42
When are we (USA), going to leave this region of the world?

During the Cold War, these were the three major regions because controlling them meant stemming geopolitical power from either the USSR or PRC. The US bolstered Europe after WWII with NATO, then the US fought in Korea and Vietnam. The third region is the Middle East. This is where the Soviets were stopped by American global primacy.

The situation has defaulted since the collapse of the USSR. NATO has progressed more and more into Eastern Europe, the US has its own strategy for manipulating East Asia, and the West is in the Middle East to make sure other rival powers are not.

This is about much more than just oil. The thing that it isn't about, is the people there. Millions have died while many more have been displaced, entire national infrastructures decimated, and regimes enforced into power just to entrench American primacy in the region. Other coalition nations have also engaged in this imperialist endeavor, but in the end it is just a mere coalition.

When American primacy initiatives collapse along with the American economy and thus its logistical support for its global empire, then the fun begins. That's when the world will enter a new era.

reply posted on 20-1-2012 @ 01:29 AM by RSF77

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by RSF77

I found an interesting site that lists Iran as #12 under Global Firepower. Pretty cool site, remember though, if the US attacks Iran, everything Iran has, is at its disposal, the US only has what they bring. It wouldn't be pretty for either side. Let's hope it doesn't come to that.

Well, that's nice and all, but #12 is far from #1. In fact, #2 is far from #1.

I wasn't talking about a website with rankings, I was talking about what actual military assets they have. Do some research on the military technology that those countries have, you'll find that much of it is old US, Russian technology from the cold war and just after that.

A chart with national rankings of military power only goes so far, look up the actual missiles, naval vessels, aircraft, etc. You'll find that anything Iran has would be destroyed before it could even be used. Much of it because of range, speed and detection capability.

For example if an old American Seawolf submarine had unlimited torpedoes, it could sink the entire Iranian navy without endangering itself. Matter of fact, if Iran decided to blockade the straight and I was an American commander, that is exactly what I would do, send in a few submarines and sink everything Iranian without one loss. Iranian ships literally wouldn't know what hit them until it was too late.

I don't mean to sound arrogant, but the difference really is that much.

edit on 20-1-2012 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 20-1-2012 @ 02:09 AM by freetree64

US Military Chief in Israel to Discuss Iran Nukes

Getting warm in here....????

By DAN PERRY and JOSEF FEDERMAN Associated Press

JERUSALEM January 19, 2012 (AP)

The top U.S. general, visiting Israel at a delicate and dangerous moment in the global standoff with Tehran, is expected to press for restraint amid fears that the Jewish state is nearing a decision to attack Iran's nuclear program.

abcnews.go.com...

edit on 20-1-2012 by freetree64 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 20-1-2012 @ 02:13 AM by freetree64

OMG!!!!

Getting close to flames people!!!!

www.businessinsider.com...

reply posted on 20-1-2012 @ 02:23 AM by freetree64

"So long, and thanks for all the fish"......

youtu.be...

www.guardian.co.uk...

reply posted on 20-1-2012 @ 02:43 AM by superman2012

Originally posted by RSF77

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by RSF77

I found an interesting site that lists Iran as #12 under Global Firepower. Pretty cool site, remember though, if the US attacks Iran, everything Iran has, is at its disposal, the US only has what they bring. It wouldn't be pretty for either side. Let's hope it doesn't come to that.

Well, that's nice and all, but #12 is far from #1. In fact, #2 is far from #1.

I wasn't talking about a website with rankings, I was talking about what actual military assets they have. Do some research on the military technology that those countries have, you'll find that much of it is old US, Russian technology from the cold war and just after that.

A chart with national rankings of military power only goes so far, look up the actual missiles, naval vessels, aircraft, etc. You'll find that anything Iran has would be destroyed before it could even be used. Much of it because of range, speed and detection capability.

For example if an old American Seawolf submarine had unlimited torpedoes, it could sink the entire Iranian navy without endangering itself. Matter of fact, if Iran decided to blockade the straight and I was an American commander, that is exactly what I would do, send in a few submarines and sink everything Iranian without one loss. Iranian ships literally wouldn't know what hit them until it was too late.

I don't mean to sound arrogant, but the difference really is that much.
edit on 20-1-2012 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)

I hope I don't come across as arrogant or anti-american but, in 2010, IED attacks in Afghanistan wounded 3,366 U.S. soldiers, which is nearly 60% of the total IED-wounded since the start of the war.

An improvised explosive device (IED), also known as a roadside bomb, is a homemade bomb constructed and deployed in ways other than in conventional military action. It may be constructed of conventional military explosives, such as an artillery round, attached to a detonating mechanism.

Doesn't really matter if you are #1, #51 is using homemade weapons, plus, the King of Terror took 10 years to find. Imagine how long a war would last with one of the top 20? Again, the US would only have what it brings, it wouldn't be at full #1 capacity, whereas Iran would be at full #12 capacity. I don't want either side to suffer casualties though.

reply posted on 20-1-2012 @ 03:37 AM by RSF77

reply to post by superman2012

Why would the US have to invade Iran to re-open the straight of Hormuz? That's irrelevant.

reply posted on 20-1-2012 @ 04:54 AM by PrinceDreamer

Why is everyone going on about the might of this or that nation, IF and it still is a big IF, Iran decide to close the straight, then it will be closed, they have shore to ship missiles (mobile so not a target for cruise missiles) all they have to do is say the straight is closed and sink ANY oil tanker going through, they don't have to take out an American war ship to close it, no tanker is going to sail through, their mini subs don't have to take out any of the carrier fleets, they just have to wait in the straights and sink any commercial ship passing through, and the straight is shut.

The Iranians are not stupid, they wont fight their battle on America's terms they will fight it on their own ones

reply posted on 20-1-2012 @ 08:31 AM by superman2012

Originally posted by RSF77
reply to post by superman2012

Why would the US have to invade Iran to re-open the straight of Hormuz? That's irrelevant.

Invade Iran, open the strait, it doesn't make a difference. My facts still stand. Plus, if Iran attacks, US will invade.

Pages: << 1 2 >> ^^TOP^^