StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid people
Login   Register FAQ    Search

View unanswered posts | View active topics


It is currently 2014-09-14 10:04pm (All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ])

Board index » Non-Fiction » News and Politics


Quote of the Week: "A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within." - Will Durant, American historian (1885-1981)

Iran may block oil supply.

Moderators: SCRawl, Thanas, D.Turtle, PeZook, Edi, Stas Bush

Post new topic Post a reply  Page 3 of 4
 [ 98 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
  Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message

Lonestar
PostPosted: 2012-01-03 11:46pm 

Keeper of the Schwartz


Joined: 2003-02-13 04:21pm
Posts: 12600
Location: The third best place to live in the country.
Bakustra wrote:
So why is it that the US should have the right to cut off free trade and Iran should not, Justforfun?

Meanwhile, I see that Shep is still the quintessential imperialist: ignorant, contemptuous, enamored with violence, and delusional.



:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Are you fucking kidding me? "Ignorant"? Because of...what, exactly, in the context of the article he posted?

And by the way, the difference between the US cutting off free trade and Iran is that the US doesn't threaten to use indiscriminate military force to block off geographical locale that, at best, it only has 50% claim to.
   Profile |  

MKSheppard
PostPosted: 2012-01-04 05:07pm 

Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger


Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm
Posts: 28163
Link

Quote:
Iran's parliament said Wednesday it was preparing a bill that would prohibit all foreign warships from entering the Persian Gulf unless they received permission from the Iranian navy.

The bill, disclosed by the the semiofficial Fars News Agency, surfaced a day after Iran’s armed forces commander warned a U.S. nuclear-powered aircraft carrier not to return to the gulf, remarks that rattled commodities markets and helped drive up oil prices.

The proposed legislation suggested that at least some Iranian officials are serious about trying to stop the U.S. Navy from entering the oil-rich gulf waters. Iranian analysts said the bill probably would not have been introduced if it were not supported by higher authorities.

“If the military vessels and warships of any country want to pass via the Strait of Hormuz without coordination and permission of Iran’s navy forces, they should be stopped by the Iranian armed forces,” Fars quoted lawmaker Nader Qazipour as saying in explaining the bill. He noted that Iran regards the strait as part of its territorial waters and said the bill would be presented to parliamentary leaders next week.

Iranian Foreign Minister Ahmad Vahidi restated Iran's position that “transnational forces” have no place in the region. Vahidi also said Iran is willing to organize joint military drills with neighboring countries, Fars reported Wednesday.

The news agency, which has ties to Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, claimed that the carrier USS John C. Stennis, which steamed out of the Persian Gulf last week, had escaped while being “chased by Iranian warships.”


Awwwwwwww.......they're so cute like I said before, when they act like this!
   Profile |  

Sidewinder
PostPosted: 2012-01-04 05:13pm 

Sith Acolyte


Joined: 2005-05-18 10:23pm
Posts: 5107
Location: Feasting on those who fell in battle
Quote:
Iran's parliament said Wednesday it was preparing a bill that would prohibit all foreign warships from entering the Persian Gulf unless they received permission from the Iranian navy.

Way to go, Iran. Instead of you versus the United States, you've made it you versus the United States, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, and Iraq- all of whom have navies, and all of whom now have a further reason to bomb you back to the Stone Age.
   Profile |  

Pelranius
PostPosted: 2012-01-04 05:17pm 

Sith Devotee


Joined: 2006-10-24 11:35am
Posts: 3159
Location: Around and about the Beltway
What does the average man on the street in Iran make of all of this grandstanding by their government?
   Profile |  

Isolder74
PostPosted: 2012-01-04 05:22pm 

Official SD.Net Ace of Cakes


Joined: 2002-07-10 01:16am
Posts: 6520
Location: Weber State of Construction University
I'd just love to see Iran try to attack a US Carrier task force. That would go over about as well as kicking a fire anthill.
   Profile |  

Mr Bean
PostPosted: 2012-01-04 05:24pm 

Lord of Irony


Joined: 2002-07-04 08:36am
Posts: 20930
Pelranius wrote:
What does the average man on the street in Iran make of all of this grandstanding by their government?

There is an excellent chance his only information about it is from friends and family or state run TV. There is outside access in Iran but it's limited to the better offer so the "average" Iranian might not have idea it's even happening. But then so would the average American have any idea that shortly we might see the entire Iranian "navy" being sunk again.
   Profile |  

Alkaloid
PostPosted: 2012-01-04 06:15pm 

Jedi Knight


Joined: 2011-03-21 07:59am
Posts: 956
Quote:
As someone mentioned above..the stupidest thing you can do is provoke a confrontation involving something like oil that practically all countries value as liquid gold. Sure you can dick-wave about your own personal stores but you want to cry and stomp your feet when sanctions interfere with your business because you won't play fair with everyone? Tough. That's one of the very FEW methods we can use to actually enforce civility in the world.


Given that they are already in a position where they are being spied on constantly and they know it, their air space is being violated consistently and they know it, their scientists are either being assassinated or coincidentally exploding, and they know it, and their infrastructure is being sabotaged by exceedingly clever and effective electronic warfare, and they have finally worked that out, how do you expect them to act? I mean yeah, they are spending a lot of their time dick waving and foot stamping here, but it's not like the rest of the world is playing fair either. Short of military action, cutting off the oil they supply is about the only diplomatic action they can take because the rest of the world pretty much refuses to deal with them like a nation unless the entire government more or less stands down, so they are going to threaten to do it from time to time.
   Profile |  

Simon_Jester
PostPosted: 2012-01-04 06:37pm 

Emperor's Hand


Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm
Posts: 21524
This is a fair point. The Iranians face the brute reality that few other countries take their sovereignty seriously; given that their government does not think it wise or proper to step down, what option do they have other than confrontation? What do they have to lose by rattling sabres?

They could abandon their nuclear program and as far as I know, we'd still reserve the right to stick our nose into their affairs- so what good would it do them, really?
   Profile |  

Block
PostPosted: 2012-01-04 06:37pm 

Jedi Council Member


Joined: 2007-08-06 02:36pm
Posts: 2094
Alkaloid wrote:
Quote:
As someone mentioned above..the stupidest thing you can do is provoke a confrontation involving something like oil that practically all countries value as liquid gold. Sure you can dick-wave about your own personal stores but you want to cry and stomp your feet when sanctions interfere with your business because you won't play fair with everyone? Tough. That's one of the very FEW methods we can use to actually enforce civility in the world.


Given that they are already in a position where they are being spied on constantly and they know it, their air space is being violated consistently and they know it, their scientists are either being assassinated or coincidentally exploding, and they know it, and their infrastructure is being sabotaged by exceedingly clever and effective electronic warfare, and they have finally worked that out, how do you expect them to act? I mean yeah, they are spending a lot of their time dick waving and foot stamping here, but it's not like the rest of the world is playing fair either. Short of military action, cutting off the oil they supply is about the only diplomatic action they can take because the rest of the world pretty much refuses to deal with them like a nation unless the entire government more or less stands down, so they are going to threaten to do it from time to time.

Or they could ya know, stop trying to develop nuclear weapons.
   Profile |  

Col. Crackpot
PostPosted: 2012-01-04 06:47pm 

That Obnoxious Guy


Joined: 2002-10-28 06:04pm
Posts: 9950
Location: Rhode Island
Destructionator XIII wrote:
And give up their best method to defend themselves.


So you are for nuclear proliferation then. Glad you clarified that.
   Profile |  

Darth Wong
PostPosted: 2012-01-04 06:53pm 

Sith Lord


Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Posts: 70016
Location: Toronto, Canada
Col. Crackpot wrote:
Destructionator XIII wrote:
And give up their best method to defend themselves.

So you are for nuclear proliferation then. Glad you clarified that.

You know, it's possible to recognize valid motives for a nation to do something without necessarily believing that it is a good thing for the world at large. Your conclusion is a non sequitur.
   Profile |  

Mr Bean
PostPosted: 2012-01-04 06:54pm 

Lord of Irony


Joined: 2002-07-04 08:36am
Posts: 20930
Lets be clear Iran's problem is that they are developing Atomic weapons. Once they have Nukes they will slip into the North Korea situation where they no longer need to fear direct US Invasion even if they have to start worrying about US support of internal dissidents.

*Edit to add something since DW posted
Iran is no more dangerous to the US today than it was thirty years ago. It's always been a nation unfriendly to the US that had access to strategic materials we want(Oil). Lots of those countries in the last thirty years have had force used against them in one form or another. Nukes however get the US or other nations to back off from direct invasions. It makes perfect sense from Iran's long term goals of becoming a regional player to acquire nuclear weapons as both a status and defense method. It just so happens that US policy is that Iran with nukes will instantly use them against us or Israel. I'd call that thinking based in racism but that's a separate topic entirely.
   Profile |  

Alkaloid
PostPosted: 2012-01-04 07:01pm 

Jedi Knight


Joined: 2011-03-21 07:59am
Posts: 956
Quote:
Or they could ya know, stop trying to develop nuclear weapons.


Yup, cos as soon as they stop trying to do that everyone will leave Iran alone and it will all be fine and dandy.

Quote:
Iran is no more dangerous to the US today than it was thirty years ago. It's always been a nation unfriendly to the US that had access to strategic materials we want(Oil). Lots of those countries in the last thirty years have had force used against them in one form or another. Nukes however get the US or other nations to back off from direct invasions. It makes perfect sense from Iran's long term goals of becoming a regional player to acquire nuclear weapons as both a status and defense method. It just so happens that US policy is that Iran with nukes will instantly use them against us or Israel. I'd call that thinking based in racism but that's a separate topic entirely.


Or their more short term goals of making sure no one is going to invade them.
   Profile |  

Col. Crackpot
PostPosted: 2012-01-04 07:02pm 

That Obnoxious Guy


Joined: 2002-10-28 06:04pm
Posts: 9950
Location: Rhode Island
Darth Wong wrote:
Col. Crackpot wrote:
Destructionator XIII wrote:
And give up their best method to defend themselves.

So you are for nuclear proliferation then. Glad you clarified that.

You know, it's possible to recognize valid motives for a nation to do something without necessarily believing that it is a good thing for the world at large. Your conclusion is a non sequitur.


True. Though if the past 10 years have taught us anything, there is a not so fine line between recognizing those motives and justifying them.
   Profile |  

Mr Bean
PostPosted: 2012-01-04 07:04pm 

Lord of Irony


Joined: 2002-07-04 08:36am
Posts: 20930
In this case the short term and long term goals are in unison. Becoming the leader of the Middle East and staving off an international invasion can both be met by acquiring nukes and public demonstration of that fact.
   Profile |  

Simon_Jester
PostPosted: 2012-01-04 09:07pm 

Emperor's Hand


Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm
Posts: 21524
Block wrote:
Or they could ya know, stop trying to develop nuclear weapons.
How would that make them better off? Everyone already despises and embargoes their regime for political reasons; at least having a nuclear deterrent gives them a sharp enough sword to keep anyone from interfering too heavy-handedly in their interests and affairs.

Col. Crackpot wrote:
True. Though if the past 10 years have taught us anything, there is a not so fine line between recognizing those motives and justifying them.
I must be a slow pupil, Crackpot. Would you care to explain how the past ten years have taught us that? Who was handing out that lesson, and when?

Also, I have to ask you- how do you expect to offer any meaningful challenge to an opponent you refuse to understand? If you don't know why Iran wants a nuclear arsenal, or choose to invent reasons and assign them to the Iranians, you don't stand any chance of convincing them to stop trying. Not short of a massive war- a war you'd be fighting pretty much blind, as far as grand strategy is concerned, because you don't know your enemy.
   Profile |  

Alkaloid
PostPosted: 2012-01-04 10:11pm 

Jedi Knight


Joined: 2011-03-21 07:59am
Posts: 956
Quote:
Also, I have to ask you- how do you expect to offer any meaningful challenge to an opponent you refuse to understand? If you don't know why Iran wants a nuclear arsenal, or choose to invent reasons and assign them to the Iranians, you don't stand any chance of convincing them to stop trying. Not short of a massive war- a war you'd be fighting pretty much blind, as far as grand strategy is concerned, because you don't know your enemy.


To be fair, it's not just him. Since about the end of the cold war as far as I can tell, actual diplomacy has been abandoned in favour of sanctions and embargoes, which we now call diplomacy.
   Profile |  

Simon_Jester
PostPosted: 2012-01-04 10:43pm 

Emperor's Hand


Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm
Posts: 21524
Well, that sort of thing has always been common when strong states deal with weak ones- but if we're going to be intelligent about using sanctions and ultimatums, we need to be able to understand how other countries will react to them. You can't expect a stubborn, determined government to wither away and die just because they don't have your permission to rule.
   Profile |  

Alkaloid
PostPosted: 2012-01-04 11:06pm 

Jedi Knight


Joined: 2011-03-21 07:59am
Posts: 956
Yeah, I get that, it's just depressing. I think it may actually be a result of the whole 'we don't negotiate with terrorists' idea, which is sensible enough for an individual terrorist act, like hostage taking or a bomb threat, but falls apart when you label a group of people running a country terrorists or something similar and then flat out refuse to negotiate with them, which seems to be that standard response to the middle east at the moment. It's like a checklist.

1. Muslim? Yes
2. Organised group of some description? Yes.
Terrorists! No negotiating! Use force! What? Not a whole army! Sanctions! Yes, Sanctions!
   Profile |  

Ryan Thunder
PostPosted: 2012-01-04 11:30pm 

Village Idiot


Joined: 2007-09-16 07:53pm
Posts: 4139
Location: Canada
Simon_Jester wrote:
Block wrote:
Or they could ya know, stop trying to develop nuclear weapons.
How would that make them better off?

It won't, but that's the idea. Hopefully they can take the hint and allow the people to adopt a more appropriate regime (hopefully one that we can get along with) without bloodshed.
   Profile |  

Alkaloid
PostPosted: 2012-01-04 11:34pm 

Jedi Knight


Joined: 2011-03-21 07:59am
Posts: 956
Quote:
It won't, but that's the idea. Hopefully they can take the hint and allow the people to adopt a more appropriate regime (hopefully one that we can get along with) without bloodshed.


Well then whats the fucking point? You offer nothing, demand everything and hope, presumably due to magic and the peaceful regime change fairy, that conflict will be avoided?
   Profile |  

Ryan Thunder
PostPosted: 2012-01-04 11:36pm 

Village Idiot


Joined: 2007-09-16 07:53pm
Posts: 4139
Location: Canada
Alkaloid wrote:
Well then whats the fucking point? You offer nothing, demand everything and hope, presumably due to magic and the peaceful regime change fairy, that conflict will be avoided?

Whether its peaceful or not is up to the regime at this point.
   Profile |  

Alkaloid
PostPosted: 2012-01-04 11:46pm 

Jedi Knight


Joined: 2011-03-21 07:59am
Posts: 956
Yes, because the only options they have are now to either bow to the demands of foreign powers and stop developing weapons and stand down the fucking government, or start retaliating by cutting of vital exports to the rest of the world if not actually starting a shooting war. Given that no government in the world would stand down just because someone told them to, and anyone with half a brain would realise this, I don't see how engineering a situation that will inevitably lead to conflict helps anyone, least of all the citizens of the country most likely to be bombed back to the stone age.
   Profile |  

Ryan Thunder
PostPosted: 2012-01-04 11:53pm 

Village Idiot


Joined: 2007-09-16 07:53pm
Posts: 4139
Location: Canada
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that anybody really wants an avowed theocracy around, and furthermore that its any good for the people it rules over. So yes, I do expect them to stand down, and anything less is a moral failing on their part.

I don't think they should do just anything the Americans say, of course. They're just a convenient motivator in this case.
   Profile |  

Alkaloid
PostPosted: 2012-01-05 12:00am 

Jedi Knight


Joined: 2011-03-21 07:59am
Posts: 956
So, you expect a theocracy that you find to be unpleasant and presumably immoral (I mean, I sure do, what with the stonings and the acid burnings and the general terribleness) to stand down because not doing so would be immoral. The strategy you are espousing in an attempt to prevent bloodshed is barely any different than a parent saying to a child 'stop what you're doing or you don't get X' and it barely works on children, so I don't see why you expect armed insane fanatics to react reasonably to it. Yes, Iran needs to be fixed, but brinkmanship and threats are not going to solve the problem, they are far more likely to lead violence than prevent it.
   Profile |  

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Post a reply  Page 3 of 4
 [ 98 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

It is currently 2014-09-14 10:04pm (All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ])

Board index » Non-Fiction » News and Politics

Who is online: Users browsing this forum: DireApostasy, Google [Bot], Highlord Laan and 4 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group