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 lawmakers prepare to close Hormuz Strait

page: 7
35
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by WorkingClassMan

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by buster2010
As far as the inbound part of the straits they have every right to close because it goes into their coastal waters. But commercial ships that aren't hostile to Iran has every right to use the straits as marine law dictates. And any country that supports sanctions against Iran are committing an act of war against Iran so they have every right to close it to them.


Sanctions are not an act of war


Moreover all that has to be done is declare a different port for tankers than one in a country that supports sanctions - simple


Or if that is too difficult rearrange the shipping lanes to be outside Iran's waters - there's plenty of room to do so.

Map of the shipping lanes in the straights


Why do people keep saying this "Sanctions are not an act of war
" of course they are,


Uh...no...they are not!!

People keep saying it isn't the case because it isn't the case.

for any UN member the only legal causes of war are if it is attacked - and sanctions are NOT an attack - or if the Security council says it is allowed to do so.


they are an attack on another country


what rubbish - sanctions are not an attack - you are supposed to deny ignorance on here, not demonstrate it!!



Do you realy think it is as simple as changeing lines or ports, why not just go the long way round, not like people will mind paying $10/L for petrol.


If they close their territorial waters then yes - it is as simple as avoiding their territorial waters - which can be done in the SOH.




posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Submarines

Originally posted by Romekje
reply to post by Submarines
 


No because NATO will make sure of that, right?

Bet you just can't wait for bombs to start flying.


Oh, did I say that?

No, I did not. that is what you said. They don't have the right to close an international traffic portal. That would be like the US closing the Gulf of Mexico.


We did close a huge chunk of the Gulf of Mexico.

It was in all the papers.



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 11:00 PM
link   
Iran will do nothing. It depends on the Strait of Hormuz for having a route to ship Iranian Oil so they would be cutting their own throats. Plus Iran knows that it does not have the Military ability or Naval ability to close the Strait. This strait of water is the Oil Bloodline to much of the Planet and any Iranian Military action to close it would not be allowed by any means.

Sanctions are the sole fault of the Iranian Leadership for breaking the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Because of Iran's complete disregard to follow this treaty which allowed it to purchase Nuclear Tech. that it had no ability to develop on it's own...allows actions such as Sanctions to be imposed on countries that break the Treaty.

This whole mess is of Iranian Making and Iran has little ability to do anything to prevent sanctions other than empty threats...for if Iran were to actually follow through on a threat...would be the END OF THE IRANIAN LEADERSHIP.
Split Infinity



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by mkgandhas
reply to post by Romekje
 


The situation in Gulf of Hormuz looks like the movie Avatar to me.Iran reminds me of the N'avi and USA reminds me of the corporation hellbent on exterminating the N'avis. Seriously,Thank God that Russia is there still to keep the peace or else Rockefeller would have murdered billions by now.

What a freaking crock.

Say what you will about the US, but Iran are certainly no saints themselves. The discriminate against women, publicly hang homosexuals then announce proudly to the UN that "Iran has no gays", abuse their own citizens when they protest shams of elections and so much more.

They are every bit as corrupt as any country, with a fanatical religious leadership to back that up.

edit on 4-7-2012 by nightbringr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by lokdog
Iran is like that little boy who keeps calling wolf. I predict this is more of the same on Irans part, global political theater.


The United States of Israel is like the class bully that keeps punching himself in the face and pointing at Islam.



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by nightbringr
 


How many nations has Iran invaded, covered with depleted uranium and turned over to Al CIA Duh? Didn't Uncle Sham say that Al CIA Duh is your worst enema? So why did you give Iraq and Libya and a few others to them? Hell, why did the CIA create them to begin with? Why are the citizens stupid enough to put up with being lied to by the corporatocracy?



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 11:09 PM
link   
Iran could play "rope a dope" in the strait for a long time if it really wanted to. I won't go into the details because in the times we are living in, to do so could create problems.

What happens when somebody phones a bomb threat into a high school?



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
** MODS I did a search and nothing current came back**


We all saw this coming... It looks like Iran is making good on its threats to shut down the straights of hormuz if the EU oil ban went into effect.

So far the bill has over 100+ votes for yes out of 290 so far. I caught a blurb on Foxnews who reported the bill actually passed however I have not been able to find that story / confirmation.

This explains whey there was a quick but quiet build up of military forces in the region in the last few days.

Anyone want to wager when all of this is going to kick off?

www.rt.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 4-7-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)


If the bill passed, I'm sure it would be all over MSM by now. Al Jazeera has absolutely nothing on this, They're the network I trust most for all things news related on the Middle East.



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Numbers33four

Originally posted by Darkrunner
So, let the tankers go through on the UAE side. Problem solved.

But if Iran tries to blockade UAE waters, well, send their tinker toy ships to the bottom.


The moment Iran starts dropping mines no insurance company on earth will cover any tanker that gets burned. That will stop the flow.


I disagree.

Iran can drop as many mines as they want in there own waters. If they start dropping them in UAE waters, where tankers could seek safe passage, then there is a problem and it will be dealt with. Not just by the US, but by other arab countries that are not going to put up with Iran's nonsense, blocking their exports.



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
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?


Sanctions are not an act of war and simply repeating it over and over while ignoring the facts doesnt make it an act of war. I posted the info on how international law and freedom of navigation works.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Romekje
Are you serious?

I am serious...


Originally posted by Romekje
They are called bilateral sanctions -because- they involve the UN/NATO

As amusing as I find your attempt to somehow lay blame on NATO, NATO has NOTHING to do with sanctions. Bilateral sanctions are between 2 countries.



Originally posted by Romekje
If it would be only the USA, or just some country in Europe, they would be unilateral, and people don't really need to care about unilateral sanctions unless they are trading with both the sanctioner, and sanctioned country.

Please read the links I posted and understand what the terms mean.



Originally posted by Romekje
But since these sanctions envelop all NATO countries, pretty much the entire western world is involved.

It includes non NATO countries as well. A fact you are despartely trying to ignore because it undermines your blame the West / NATO argument you use.



Originally posted by Romekje
And just because something is legal, doesn't make the act less agressive.

The sanctions are legal and are in compliance with International law. Sanctions are not an act of war and the UN states as much in their defintiions.



Originally posted by Romekje
Name ONE conflict where sanctions have NOT led to war.

North Korea
Iran
India
Syria
China

just to name a few nations that have had US sanctions placed on them with no war result.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 12:07 AM
link   
I don't know why people can't see all this as the 2000 year old holy war that it is. YOU ARE NOT SERVING YOUR COUNTRY FIGHTING ISRAEL'S HOLY WAR!



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 12:07 AM
link   
There is a good analysis of the issue of blocking the strait in a Congressional Research Service document entitled Iran's Threat To The Strait of Hormuz.

docs.google.com...:EU9qNDZkELUJ:www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/R42335.pdf+can+iran+close+strait+of+hormuz&hl=en&gl=ca&pid=bl&srci d=ADGEEShxxyQHelz3U8k_g3C3dViGrMcsXMRnx-d5cvPS_cOEoth6H1y74mNFiMiJjYoOB6FPV8dsNkpjaj8ibOzgfa-GsrS3Wx50zhbcp422baO1xJw265yesZDCw3Qt72g6oyfa7D-W&sig=AHI EtbSiyzWbBgl3mxwL4R2CHb_in_Z5Rg&pli=1

It looks like mines are considered to be the most nuisance and could take months to clear in the worst case scenario.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by fnpmitchreturns
The US won't even sign the Law of the Sea treaty.. yet you and other use it as an excuse to keep the SOH open?

en.wikipedia.org...

The US is in fact a signatory... the treaty has not ben ratified by Congress. The US complies with the treaty stipulations.



Originally posted by fnpmitchreturns
WTF? Oh, the US refuses to sign the treaty because of what?

The US has signed the treaty. The Congress has not ratified it yet.



Originally posted by fnpmitchreturns
Yet, so called patriots use it to attack another nations sovereignty...
pathetic!
edit on 4-7-2012 by fnpmitchreturns because: sp

Please show me where the UNCLOS is being used to attack a nations sovereignty. As has been pointed out and resolved, neither Iran nor the UAE have jurisidiction in the transit zone. They are international waters and any nation can transit.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by fnpmitchreturns
To bad ignorance isn't painful. Look at a map before you make your statements.

Iran's territorial waters does NOT extend across the straits., therefore they do NOT have the right.:




reply to post by Romekje
 




Territorial water extends out anywhere from 3 to 12 nm. The straights are divided into 3 sections - the territorial waters of Iran and the UAE and the third is a 6 mile wide transit passage which is international waterways covered by UNCLOS.
edit on 4-7-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)


Too bad your leaving out one major point!

That even though Iran has signed the law of the Sea Treaty it has not yet been ratified by the Iranian Parliament therefore the treaty is NOT in effect!

Law of Sea Treaty is not even a factor here!

Actually it is because of the people in the begining of the thread were claiming Iran could shut the straights because it was in their territorial waters. I pointed out they are not and brought up the UNCLOS for the transit passage.

And the US is a signatory to the treaty. Our Congress has not ratified it yet.

Maybe you should go back and read the thread before commenting.
edit on 5-7-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by WorkingClassMan

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by buster2010
As far as the inbound part of the straits they have every right to close because it goes into their coastal waters. But commercial ships that aren't hostile to Iran has every right to use the straits as marine law dictates. And any country that supports sanctions against Iran are committing an act of war against Iran so they have every right to close it to them.


Sanctions are not an act of war


Moreover all that has to be done is declare a different port for tankers than one in a country that supports sanctions - simple


Or if that is too difficult rearrange the shipping lanes to be outside Iran's waters - there's plenty of room to do so.

Map of the shipping lanes in the straights


Why do people keep saying this "Sanctions are not an act of war
" of course they are,


Uh...no...they are not!!

People keep saying it isn't the case because it isn't the case.

for any UN member the only legal causes of war are if it is attacked - and sanctions are NOT an attack - or if the Security council says it is allowed to do so.


they are an attack on another country


what rubbish - sanctions are not an attack - you are supposed to deny ignorance on here, not demonstrate it!!



Do you really think it is as simple as changing lines or ports, why not just go the long way round, not like people will mind paying $10/L for petrol.


If they close their territorial waters then yes - it is as simple as avoiding their territorial waters - which can be done in the SOH.


When a country attempts to crush your economy by using it's political/military/world influence what ever, in order to force you to submit to their will, it is an attack on that country and an act of war, all that is left is for that country to retaliate against the aggressor. Combine sanctions with constant threats of attack, illegal spying, assassinations and someone moving a metric s$%t tonne of military hardware into your neighbourhood it can be considered nothing else.
The only people who wouldn't view sanctions designed to cripple a countries economy and have them bow down to your demands as an act of war are those imposing the sanctions or benefiting from them.
Would you consider the following an act of war or business?
If someone doesn't want to trade with the US that's their business if that same person then through one method or another ensures no country buys a US export and only allows sale to US of certain goods up until the time the US agrees to hand over all current & former leaders to an INDEPENDANT/FAIR war crimes tribunal to face the death penalty, and have them replaced with a ME puppet.
I think you would consider it war America is very good at hypocrisy.

This reeks of that American hypocrisy "you are supposed to deny ignorance on here, not demonstrate it!!
"
If only Team America would practise what it preaches.

Dear lord give me strength, you really think it's that simple no other variables to consider? If Iran moves to close the passage my guess would be they close the lot, but even if they just close their part it creates major head aches for the companies involved in transport. You can equate headaches to loss of $ which in turn means enjoy that $10/L petrol. Heaven forbid there is a major environmental disaster then unless you are a lot better off financially than me you can just trade that car for a push bike.
Sorry not sure what fantasy land you are in but in the real world nothing is that simple, not even the simple things are that simple.
Sanctions are designed to FORCE a country to submit to your will, not exercise your right to free trade I would put it in an easier to understand format but I'm all out of crayons and scrap paper.
If you disagree the please explain and I hope you have something more to base the theory on than some polished turd of a document that means as much as any other polished turd created by criminals acting for their own selfish interests.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by WorkingClassMan
I don't agree when you initiate an attack on a foreign country under any form it is an act of aggression & therefor an act of war.

We have not attacked Iran and sanctions are not an act of war, no matter how many time people who ignore the facts want to repeat it in hopes of making it that.



Originally posted by WorkingClassMan
Who cares what international law that is very open to interpretation and wasn't written by Iran says, an attack is an attack no matter how you try to polish it up.

No one has been attacked


Originally posted by WorkingClassMan
Tell me when a country is under attack do they usually abide by international treaties which allow the enemy to resupply or do they set a defensive line and inhibit them as much as possible. Sorry boys those oil tankers are 13miles of the coast not 12 better let them go resupply the enemy.

No country is under attack.


Originally posted by WorkingClassMan
Yes any nation can choose who to do business with but when that nation starts to use its power to influence/threaten everyone else to do the same then you change the ball game and it becomes something more than exercising a personal right. FYI that new ball game is called war.

Again its not, its called economic sanctions (Bi lateral), its legal under international law and is not an act of war. Again repeating something that has already been disproved does not make it a war.



Originally posted by WorkingClassMan
This is a poor analogy at best "Iran has declared war on Israel by refusing to trade / but their products and vice versa"
How about if Iran is the worlds to dog and not only does it cancel trade with Israel it bullies/bribes/threatens/manipulates most of the other people who trade with them to do the same, effectively crushing their economy causing internal strife and suffering of the people. Then imagine Iran constantly manipulates world media & opinion against them calls for preemptive strikes, initiates cyber attacks and assasinations and then moves mass amounts of millitary hardware of their borders.

Thats right Iran can never do any wrong and have never engaged in actions against another nation in a clandestine manner.

Secondly, as I stated to another poster I state to you now, read the entire thread before picking and choosing and only seeing what you want. I used the analogy with trade, Iran and Israel because people who are woefully uneducated in this area claim a nation commits and act of war by refusing to do business with nother. I pointed out Iran has this stance towards Israel, yet for those same people, and now you, its not the same thing.

Hypocritical much?



Originally posted by WorkingClassMan
When you lay it out a little clearer yes 100% Israel or America would consider such actions an act of war.
Someone likend this to closeing the gulf of Mexico, well sorry if US was in Irans position I highly doubt oil tankers would be cruising just off the coast of mexico on rout to Iran.

There is now war...
The actions of the US are legal; under international law.
The US is not the only nation involved, nor it is restricted to just EU or NATO countries.

Please take the time to get all of the conversation before posting. This way I wont have to go back and constantly explain the parts you missed.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by chemistry
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Good to see Iran standing up for itself.


When they stand up let me know.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 12:22 AM
link   
Ignore the obvious. Let the Chinese, Israel and the corrupt politians suck every ounce of blood we have left in this country while you people sit here and argue over if more military action is required against people that pose no threat to us. Stop #ing with the arabs and maybe they won't # with us huh? Too simple for morons to grasp. Sit here argue over bombing the piss out of some middle eastern country and then wonder why they hate us. #ing retarded.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkrunner
So, let the tankers go through on the UAE side. Problem solved.

But if Iran tries to blockade UAE waters, well, send their tinker toy ships to the bottom.


Again, for those who refuse to learn, there is no Iran or UAE / Oman side. There is a 6 mile wide strtch in the center that is international waters. When Iran talks about closing the straights, they are stating they will deploy military assets into International waters and disrupt freedom of navigation.

The 6 miles in the middle is not under the control of Iran the UAE / Oman.



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join