Iran lawmakers prepare to close Hormuz Strait

reply to post by Romekje


Ok lets try this again.. Please provide your sources that support your claims of-

NATO will attack a nation who does not comply with the sanctions.

That NATO nations are required to comply with the sanctions.

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by DukeEligos

 

The U.S. military always increases it's presence in the area when there's a threat against closing the Strait. They're presence is to help make sure that everyone gets in and out safely with no incident from Iran.

Exactly my point the strait is not near america at all , but they increase the military 'presence' to save everyone from war by instigating conflicts? its shutting cause every other country and their mother is where they don't belong .

All they want to protect is those huge lovely tankers full of oil, i think at any given time there's a couple hundred tankers full of oil sitting ready to go to the us...

ships


Team america saving the day...World Police

reply to post by Xcathdra


Where did i say anything about a "boots on the ground" attack?

Trade sanctions are a form of economic warfare, i thought this much was obvious?

reply to post by Romekje


The point is that ANYTHING can be declared an act of war from anyone at any time. The truth is, it's not really war until someone takes the first shot.

China has warned Obama that if we sanction any Chinese company doing business with/in America because they're still doing business with Iran also, that they would consider that an act of war. Everything is a threat until someone actually makes due on their threats with something greater.

reply to post by Xcathdra

Enforcement actions are the domain of the Security Council. Article 24(1) gives the Security Council the "primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security . . . ." Where there is a threat to international peace and security, the Charter gives the Council various powers to deal with the situation, including the use of military force. These powers are set forth in Chapter VII (Articles 39-51) of the Charter. Article 39 states that the Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, and, where the Security Council makes such a determination, it shall either recommend or decide the remedial measures to be taken under Articles 41 and 42. Article 41 provides for the application of enforcement measures not involving the use of force, e.g., economic sanctions or embargoes. Where the Security Council considers that non-military measures are inadequate, Article 42 permits the Council to take all necessary military action to maintain or restore international peace and security. Article 25 obliges all members of the UN to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council.

Source

reply to post by Xcathdra


we all know other world forces have been in this area for a long time.


strait of hormuz


news< br />

link to old news





if everyone stuck to their own countries it'd not be happening

Originally posted by Romekje
Where did i say anything about a "boots on the ground" attack?

Your post here

Originally posted by Romekje
Any member state of NATO is obliged to follow the sanctions.
Any non-member state of NATO will declare war to NATO if they don't follow the sanctions.

I asked you to support these 2 claims in your last post you just made about NATO and member nations required to follow sanctions or non NATO members declaring war to NATO.

I am asking you to support these 2 claims with sources.


The following is from the same post I linked above and your position on economic sanctions.

Originally posted by Romekje
A nation can NOT choose who to do business with if their are active sanctions against a certain country.
You know how sanctions work right?
Trade sanctions are a form of economic warfare, i thought this much was obvious?

No, sanctions are not economic warfare in the manner you are using it.

ICRC - Economic Sanctions

......Limitations under international law -- in peacetime

Before considering the rules applicable to peacetime sanctions regimes, which derive from human rights law, it is important to mention that the use of a naval or air blockade to enforce a sanctions regime in peacetime will not necessarily transform a situation from one of peace to one of armed conflict. The stage at which such blockades should be seen as creating an armed conflict is unclear in both practice and doctrine. This is a question of fact and law which needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis. One factor which would clearly be decisive is whether fighting takes place to enforce or secure the blockade.

and.....

....sanctions are legal in terms of international law, provided they comply with applicable rules of human rights and international humanitarian law. ...

Iran can sell their oil to whomever wishes to buy it, and as we have seen countries are buying their oil.

Its your comment that suggests you want the bombs to fly.
Can you tell me where Sub, said anything to do with your statement? NO!

Submarines...
At least they can try to close it.
It won't be closed for long.

reply to post by mackey1224uk


Thanks Mackey!

People like to put their own spin on other people's statements, rather than reading a statement
for what it is.

reply to post by Romekje


The sanctions are not derived from the UN. They come from a term called Bilateral sanctions. Bilateral sanctions are valid and legal under international law (ICRC / IHL).

reply to post by DukeEligos


Your article is from 2011 and states -

Admiral Sayari said the US aircraft carrier was monitored by Iranian forces as it passed from the Strait of Hormuz to the Gulf of Oman, according to state television.

The US is not blocking any part of the straights. US forces transit the straights, as any vessel and aircraft does under ICLOS.

reply to post by mkgandhas


What are your sources?

I'm not sure what this has to offer to the conversation.

here is how its going to go down iranian patrol boats going to block tankders out of sky will come missile equiped drones or surface to surface missiles BOOM BOO M followed by glub glub glub of iranian sailors tankers will go on unimpeded and who said it would be us doing it maybe maybe not those tankers represent billions of dollars and we know how oil sheiks hate to lose money they could easily hire a merc group like the former blackwater to do this for them.

Maybe Iran really is that stupid.

Hopefully they are. We can go ahead and get this war over with.

Iran is a threat to the entire world's national security.

reply to post by milkyway12

Iran is a threat to the entire world's national security.

It would be a much safer to say that US/NATO are the biggest threat to world security.

How many nations have Iran invaded in the last 20 years?

How many of the US/NATO led invasions have actually made those countries a better place?

Once Iran has invaded as many countries as US/NATO have over the last couple decades I might consider your opinion, until then it's nothing more than just that, opinion based on blind patriotism.

reply to post by The Sword




news.yahoo.com...

Dont back down-close it and keep it closed. If you have to set the auto self destruct sequence the password is Jean4 alpha 314532 charlie victor alpha Luke 22 Delta Picard 5

Draw the darkness out of those that call you dark so the world can see. You are up against the Borg basically(G20)

reply to post by Xcathdra

It has always been kicking off since the beginning of time. Ever since man left the garden of eden or whatever place it was where we knew everything we needed to know and god took care of the rest.

You see, each person and each nation has limited information and fills in the gaps with their own expectations. These expectations are based on previous (and limited) experiences. This ensures we'll always be at war. Maybe not constant war, but periodic. We simply cannot see eye to eye because there's always missing information rocking the boat and confusing us and making us panic.

Then there's hte information/travel technology problem. On the road to reducing war we try to improve communication and travel so that we can reduce information gaps and control crime. If we fail to meet communication requirements then we increase the odds of information gaps and expectations filling them in. If we fail to meet travel requirements then the odds of crime and violence spreading climb. This is more or less what happend with Rome. It expanded beyonds its technological means and collapsed as a result. If we expand too much globally and are unable to police and communicate effectively, we too will fail in the same way that Rome did. But even if we get everything right we still cannot prevent sh** from happening. As I stated already, we're always behind and catching up with the gaps, whether we're doing everything perfectly or not.

In htis way, we'll always have sh** on our face and always smell its putrid odor.

reply to post by Xcathdra

NATO will attack a nation who does not comply with the sanctions.

Sanctions are an act of war and constitute an attack in itself. How would you like it if I would not allow you to get to work or conduct your business outside of your home and close of all your business channels not enabling you to make a living?

reply to post by milkyway12


The USA has a history of the country with the most military interventions out of anybody. So who is now the threat to world security?

How many bases does USA have around Iran?
How many bases does Iran have around the USA?