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 2014-07-23 07:58am (All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ])

Board index » Non-Fiction » News and Politics


Quote of the Week: "History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives." - Abba Eban, Israeli statesman (1915-2002)

Iran may block oil supply.

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

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

Ryan Thunder
PostPosted: 2012-01-05 12:07am 

Village Idiot


Joined: 2007-09-16 07:53pm
Posts: 4139
Location: Canada
I just don't want them to get nukes because if they do, there's very little anybody will be willing or able to do about that unpleasantness. Nobody wants those not-yet-existing nukes to get lost in a civil war or whatever, after all, and we already know that invading is only going to do more harm than good.

Just to be clear, once they get themselves a reasonable regime I am totally OK with them having nukes to secure the interests of their people since that is, sadly, what it will probably take for them to be taken seriously. They deserve no less than that, just like anybody else. It's only the theocracy that's the issue.
   Profile |  

Block
PostPosted: 2012-01-05 12:26am 

Jedi Council Member


Joined: 2007-08-06 02:36pm
Posts: 2059
Destructionator XIII wrote:
Are they evil because they are a theocracy, or are there specific issues you're concerned about?

For example, rather than toppling the government, perhaps you could push for better women's rights inside the existing system; support an Iranian feminist movement (they do exist).

If you must get involved at all, this kind of thing seems a lot more productive than "watch them crash and hope it magically gets better once the dust settles".

My specific concern is the link between Hezballah and the Quds force. They are the reason I, personally, worry about Iran getting a nuclear weapon, because they're a pack of fanatics, and the only governmental organization I'm aware of that keeps an active corps of suicide bombers on the payroll.
   Profile |  

Simon_Jester
PostPosted: 2012-01-05 01:19am 

Emperor's Hand


Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm
Posts: 20952
Ryan Thunder wrote:
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.
Why on Earth would they do this? What's in it for them?

And don't tell me it's a more ethical outcome. You think so. They don't. You're trying to convince them to do it, so it's folly to expect them to harm themselves for the sake of doing what you think is right.

Ryan Thunder wrote:
Just to be clear, once they get themselves a reasonable regime I am totally OK with them having nukes to secure the interests of their people since that is, sadly, what it will probably take for them to be taken seriously. They deserve no less than that, just like anybody else. It's only the theocracy that's the issue.
Yes, but why is the theocracy going away in this plan again?

It's impossible to have meaningful thoughts about an issue like this without being able to understand the other person's mindset, motivations, and interests.
   Profile |  

Col. Crackpot
PostPosted: 2012-01-05 08:48am 

That Obnoxious Guy


Joined: 2002-10-28 06:04pm
Posts: 9950
Location: Rhode Island
Simon_Jester wrote:
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?


For example, you can recognize the motive for invading Iraq, but even those like myself who supported the decision have a hard time justifying it with the benefit of hindsight.

Simon_Jester wrote:
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.


I don't support the further proliferation of nuclear arms. Period. Furthermore, Iran is a fundamentalist theocracy whose government has expressed a desire to wipe a particular neighbor off the face of the earth. Hyperbole or not, that is most especially someone who should not have a nuclear arsenal. Sure, we should seek to understand their motives, but i'm willing to bet they are something along the lines of "Make the west look bad, give the Iranian people some villian to hate as to distract them from how bad we are fucking with them, drive up the price of oil"
   Profile |  

Skgoa
PostPosted: 2012-01-05 08:50am 

Jedi Master


Joined: 2007-08-02 01:39pm
Posts: 1388
Location: Dresden, valley of the clueless
Mr Bean wrote:
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.

Actually, most Iranians are pretty well informed. Especially when meassured against what is the norm in the region. Most of them hate Achmesomethingsomething and they very well know he is a rightwing loonatic. That's why they resoundedly voted him out of office. almost had a counter-revolution when the Ayatollah basicly faked the election.
And if Bush the lesser had not included Iran in the AXES OF EVIL (dun dun duuun), Achme* would have never even gotten into office in the first place. But I guess that's beside the point, since clearly Iran is a rogue state that is threatening and invading other countries. :roll:
   Profile |  

mr friendly guy
PostPosted: 2012-01-05 09:55am 

The Doctor


Joined: 2004-12-12 11:55pm
Posts: 7997
Location: In a 1960s police telephone box somewhere in Australia
Lonestar wrote:

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.

You know, if you are going down that route you leave yourself vulnerable to the claim that the US has used military force on a geographical locale that at best, it has 0% claim to. Actually it has used it on several places but who is counting?
   Profile |  

Shroom Man 777
PostPosted: 2012-01-05 10:58am 

FUCKING DICK-STABBER!


Joined: 2003-05-11 08:39am
Posts: 19927
Location: Bleeding breasts and stabbing dicks since 2003
I don't think we should be trying to analyze the reasons why these people want to do the things they do. What can we ever learn from that anyway? That sounds like effete loser-like poppycock that'll take us nowhere. What can we ever gain from understanding other people? Nothing, that's what. We know everything there is to know anyway. So I think the best thing to do with Iran is that, when they've got a relatively not-insane Presidente in power, we should go on painting them in the Axes of Evil which we are sworn to wage war against, and then invade and destroy two countries right beside them, with the whole Axes of Evil thang implicating that They're Next, so that they'll - you know - appreciate all the freedom and democracy happening next door and... I dunno, elect a hardliner militant Presidente-leader promising them increased military power to contest the apparent regional encirclement around them that they have no other means to counteract, and thus provide the regime with an outside threat to solidify their rule by using the threat of terrorizing foreign enemies to curb back civil liberties and enable those in power to enact further atrocifications with these "justifications" hold some grand... democracy party where they can vote for McDonalds, elect hamburgers into office, and wear designer jeans so tight that their back pockets are indistinguishable from their ass-cracks, and like do great wholesome family-freedomy things like having a pie eating contest on Sunday or something.

Oh wait, we already did that? In that case, great! Carry on with the eneaglement of the world! Ten years later, the entire region will be basking in the warm glowing warming glow of peace and democracy! We will be regarded as heroes, our nations will be prosperous, and everyone will love us for the great job we did at making the world better and safer!
   Profile |  

Simon_Jester
PostPosted: 2012-01-05 02:32pm 

Emperor's Hand


Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm
Posts: 20952
Col. Crackpot wrote:
Simon_Jester wrote:
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?
For example, you can recognize the motive for invading Iraq, but even those like myself who supported the decision have a hard time justifying it with the benefit of hindsight.
That doesn't sound like what you're talking about- do you honestly think that everyone who knew why Bush said he wanted to invade Iraq, or had notions about his unadmitted reasons for it, supported the war?

I still don't get how trying to know what people want and why they want it translates into thinking they should get it.

Quote:
I don't support the further proliferation of nuclear arms. Period. Furthermore, Iran is a fundamentalist theocracy whose government has expressed a desire to wipe a particular neighbor off the face of the earth. Hyperbole or not, that is most especially someone who should not have a nuclear arsenal. Sure, we should seek to understand their motives, but i'm willing to bet they are something along the lines of "Make the west look bad, give the Iranian people some villian to hate as to distract them from how bad we are fucking with them, drive up the price of oil"
So, you don't think they're worried about being bombed and invaded if they don't have a nuclear deterrent?

I'd be happier in a world without an Iranian nuclear arsenal. What I can't for the life of me figure out is how to convince the Iranian government of that, short of a war that I am really not sure is worth the price.
   Profile |  

Lonestar
PostPosted: 2012-01-06 05:01am 

Keeper of the Schwartz


Joined: 2003-02-13 04:21pm
Posts: 12583
Location: The third best place to live in the country.
mr friendly guy wrote:
You know, if you are going down that route you leave yourself vulnerable to the claim that the US has used military force on a geographical locale that at best, it has 0% claim to. Actually it has used it on several places but who is counting?



So, your claim is that the US has threatened(in the past 2 decades or so) to unilaterally use military to impede freedom of Navigation? Because you do realize that's EXACTLY what Iran is threatening?
   Profile |  

mr friendly guy
PostPosted: 2012-01-06 08:55am 

The Doctor


Joined: 2004-12-12 11:55pm
Posts: 7997
Location: In a 1960s police telephone box somewhere in Australia
Lonestar wrote:
mr friendly guy wrote:
You know, if you are going down that route you leave yourself vulnerable to the claim that the US has used military force on a geographical locale that at best, it has 0% claim to. Actually it has used it on several places but who is counting?



So, your claim is that the US has threatened(in the past 2 decades or so) to unilaterally use military to impede freedom of Navigation? Because you do realize that's EXACTLY what Iran is threatening?


Lets not beat around the bush. Your original statement implied that the difference between the US and Iran in terms of limiting free trade, NOT impeding freedom of navigation. The difference was in using its military in a region which it has at best "only has 50% claim to". If the US can use its military in an area where it has 0% claim then hell yeah, that same logic can be used by Iran to do the same thing. And no I don't want oil supply to be restricted in such a manner either, but the double standard is so funny I couldn't help myself.

If you are going to argue its ok limit free trade so only with certain methods (ie ones that don't impede freedom of navigation for third parties) you might have a point if you arguing from a diplomatic POV (ie pissing off others who aren't siding with the US isn't a good idea for Iran), HOWEVER from a "applying the same standards to everyone" POV both methods are equal. If the US can restrict trade to Iran, then turnabout is fair play as the saying goes. Nitpicking over methods used to restrict trade is like the Minbari getting outraged that John Sheriden destroyed the Blackstar, even though he did to it what it was trying to do to him, only he did a better job of it.
   Profile |  

Broomstick
PostPosted: 2012-01-06 09:08am 

Emperor's Hand


Joined: 2004-01-02 08:04pm
Posts: 21149
Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest
Quote:
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.”

This reminds me soooo much of Baghdad Bob.
   Profile |  

Lonestar
PostPosted: 2012-01-06 12:26pm 

Keeper of the Schwartz


Joined: 2003-02-13 04:21pm
Posts: 12583
Location: The third best place to live in the country.
mr friendly guy wrote:

Lets not beat around the bush. Your original statement implied that the difference between the US and Iran in terms of limiting free trade, NOT impeding freedom of navigation. The difference was in using its military in a region which it has at best "only has 50% claim to". If the US can use its military in an area where it has 0% claim then hell yeah, that same logic can be used by Iran to do the same thing. And no I don't want oil supply to be restricted in such a manner either, but the double standard is so funny I couldn't help myself.

If you are going to argue its ok limit free trade so only with certain methods (ie ones that don't impede freedom of navigation for third parties) you might have a point if you arguing from a diplomatic POV (ie pissing off others who aren't siding with the US isn't a good idea for Iran), HOWEVER from a "applying the same standards to everyone" POV both methods are equal. If the US can restrict trade to Iran, then turnabout is fair play as the saying goes. Nitpicking over methods used to restrict trade is like the Minbari getting outraged that John Sheriden destroyed the Blackstar, even though he did to it what it was trying to do to him, only he did a better job of it.



Alright fine, conceded, and in fact I regretted going using the words "limiting free trade" instead of impeding freedom of navigation, since the two are very different things. But my statement stands; The US has not unilaterally threatened military force to impede freedom of navigation in...how long? Compared to Iran who is effectively threatening to impede freedom of navigation for...dozens of countries? The US use of unilateral military force tends to be dramatically less disruptive to international trade then, say, mining the strait of Hormuz would be.
   Profile |  

MKSheppard
PostPosted: 2012-01-06 12:31pm 

Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger


Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm
Posts: 28163
The Royal Navy Will Bombard Your Worthless Asses

Quote:
Philip Hammond, the defence secretary, told delegates in Washington DC yesterday that Britain will not tolerate an enforced closure of the 34-mile Strait of Hormuz, where 20 per cent of the world's oil passes through.

Tehran threatened to cut off the waterway this month in response to US and EU sanctions against the regime's suspected nuclear weapons programme.

Mr Hammond warned Iran of Britain's "determination" to keep the Strait open in a speech at the Atlantic Council.

"We are an integrated part of the naval task force in the Gulf and one of the missions of that task force is to ensure that those shipping lanes remain open," he said. "Any attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz would be illegal and we need to send a very clear message to Iran that we are determined that the Strait remains open."

Royal Navy ships based in Bahrain are already poised to ensure tanker traffic remains unrestricted. US warships are also on patrol in the area.

"Very clearly the Strait of Hormuz is one of the great commercial arteries of the world – it must remain open and flowing, or there would be very significant consequences for the economies of the region and indeed of the world," Mr Hammond said. "We've heard these kinds of threats from Iran before, but there should be no miscalculation by the Iranians about the importance that the international community attaches to keeping the Strait of Hormuz open."

EU diplomats agreed sanctions this week, imposing a trade embargo on Iranian oil imports. The measures are expected to be formally announced on January 30. Cutbacks in the purchase of Iranian oil are also being explored by China and Japan.

Europe is the second-biggest buyer of Iranian oil after China, with 450,000 barrel being bought daily. Iran exports 2.5 million barrels a day worldwide.

Earlier this month Barack Obama agreed to impose tough financial sanctions against the Iranian Central Bank in response to the country's refusal to halt nuclear testing.

Iran test fired a surface-to-surface cruise missile in a show of military prowess shortly after the US measures were put in place.

Israel has also been flexing its military muscle in the region, agreeing to joint missile defence drills – code-named "Austere Challenge 12" – with the US. Israel and the United States have a long-standing strategic alliance and are jointly developing the Arrow anti ballistic missile system.
   Profile |  

MKSheppard
PostPosted: 2012-01-06 12:50pm 

Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger


Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm
Posts: 28163
Destructionator XIII wrote:
And give up their best method to defend themselves.


Incorrect.

A very significant fraction of Iran's military funding goes to the BOMB AND ICBM program; leaving the rest of Iran's military to fight over the scraps.

Everything is at maybe a 1994 level of modernization -- their newest warship has just a mere FOUR SM-1 Standards to defend it -- a 1960ies US weapon system we long ago retired.

To put this in numbers it's possible to understand; their BOMB program alone is easily several billion a year. This could fund several S-300 battalions. A few years of S-300 buys would assemble an air defense network that would make even the US take a moment to reconsider.

Offensive wise, well, you don't need the BOMB or BALLISTIC MISSILES:

The US military back in the 1990ies bandied this talking point about when it came to upgrading PATRIOT and other air defense systems:

Code:
For example, for $50 million dollars an adversary could purchase:

1 or 2 advanced tactical fighters
or
4 attack helicopters
or
10 utility helicopters
or
15 theater ballistic missiles to fire off 3 TELs.
or
100 cruise missiles
   Profile |  

MKSheppard
PostPosted: 2012-01-06 12:54pm 

Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger


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

Quote:
TEHRAN — At a time when U.S. officials are increasingly confident that economic and political pressure alone may succeed in curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the mood here has turned bleak and belligerent as Iranians prepare grimly for a period of prolonged hardship and, they fear, war.

This stark contrast has been evident in the Iranian capital this week as a top military commander declared a “critical point” in the country’s long feud with the West and ordinary Iranians stocked up on essential supplies. Merchants watched helplessly as the Iranian currency, the rial, shed more than a third of its value, triggering huge increases in the prices of imported goods.

“I will tell you what this is leading to: war,” said a merchant in Tehran’s popular Paytakht bazaar who gave his name only as Milad. “My family, friends and I — we are all desperate.”

The sense of impending confrontation is not shared in Washington and other Western capitals, where government officials and analysts expressed cautious satisfaction that their policies are working.

...

In Tehran, that tightening is being felt by millions of people. Economists and independent analysts say the sanctions have aggravated the country’s chronic economic problems and fueled a currency crisis that is limiting the availability of a broad array of goods, including illegally imported iPhones and life-saving medicines.

While dollar injections by the Central Bank of Iran in recent days appeared to stabilize the rial, foreign-exchange traders said Wednesday that they were not selling dollars because the rate set by the bank was “artificial.”

In Tehran, that tightening is being felt by millions of people. Economists and independent analysts say the sanctions have aggravated the country’s chronic economic problems and fueled a currency crisis that is limiting the availability of a broad array of goods, including illegally imported iPhones and life-saving medicines.

While dollar injections by the Central Bank of Iran in recent days appeared to stabilize the rial, foreign-exchange traders said Wednesday that they were not selling dollars because the rate set by the bank was “artificial.”

In a move that underscored a lack of options in quelling the currency crisis, Iranian authorities resorted to ordering money changers to post much lower exchange rates for dollars in their shop windows Wednesday. Authorities also blocked Web sites that listed real-time rates, according to Khabaronline, a Web site critical of the government.

...

The price of the Apple iPhone 4S, reexported from nearby Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and highly prized by many young Iranians, had surged, like most other imported products. The phone now costs 35 percent more.

The money changer involved in most of the merchants’ purchases from Dubai also had disappeared with more than a million of their dollars after the rial suddenly collapsed. “Nobody is buying or selling,” said Nader Kamali, who owns a cellphone shop. “How can we live like this?”

The pain extends to the country’s large industries. According to the Iranian Labor News Agency, high prices for commodities and raw materials, caused by the rial’s plunge, have led to the closure of 50 percent of businesses in the biggest industrial zone near Tehran.

...

Among those complaining about the rial’s drop were producers of medicine, importers of foreign cars and food, and truck drivers on international routes. In some cases, they decided to stop working because they could no longer make a profit.

Siavash Saadat said he did not know how he was going to pay for the goods he ordered from India for his Mina pharmaceutical factory.

“We either have to close down or I will be forced to lay off workers,” he said.
   Profile |  

MKSheppard
PostPosted: 2012-01-06 01:00pm 

Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger


Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm
Posts: 28163
mr friendly guy wrote:
Lets not beat around the bush. Your original statement implied that the difference between the US and Iran in terms of limiting free trade, NOT impeding freedom of navigation.


:!:

Freedom of Navigation IS Freedom of Trade. How the hell do you think oil and other stuff like manufactured goods get around?

Magic PONIEZ who fly them around the world?

Quote:
The difference was in using its military in a region which it has at best "only has 50% claim to". If the US can use its military in an area where it has 0% claim then hell yeah, that same logic can be used by Iran to do the same thing.


:?:

In October 1991, Bahrain signed an agreement that gave the US access to Bahraini facilities and let us preposition materiel for future crisis.

In October 2001, we then designated Bahrain a Major Non-NATO Ally [tm].

Why do you not want us to help our friends out? Are you a commienist?
   Profile |  

mr friendly guy
PostPosted: 2012-01-06 01:14pm 

The Doctor


Joined: 2004-12-12 11:55pm
Posts: 7997
Location: In a 1960s police telephone box somewhere in Australia
Lonestar wrote:
Alright fine, conceded, and in fact I regretted going using the words "limiting free trade" instead of impeding freedom of navigation, since the two are very different things. But my statement stands; The US has not unilaterally threatened military force to impede freedom of navigation in...how long? Compared to Iran who is effectively threatening to impede freedom of navigation for...dozens of countries? The US use of unilateral military force tends to be dramatically less disruptive to international trade then, say, mining the strait of Hormuz would be.

What Iran is proposing will likely have more "collateral damage" to international trade no doubt. However saying Iran utilises its military in a different manner to the US strikes me as simply rhetoric because Iran has found a way to hurt American trade the same way the US is doing to Iran.
   Profile |  

Lonestar
PostPosted: 2012-01-06 01:17pm 

Keeper of the Schwartz


Joined: 2003-02-13 04:21pm
Posts: 12583
Location: The third best place to live in the country.
True, but even the US "Collateral Damage" is going to be narrowly defined, since the law specifically exempts punitive actions against allied countries like Turkey who get over a certain percentage of their oil from Iran.
   Profile |  

mr friendly guy
PostPosted: 2012-01-06 01:37pm 

The Doctor


Joined: 2004-12-12 11:55pm
Posts: 7997
Location: In a 1960s police telephone box somewhere in Australia
MKSheppard wrote:
:!:

Freedom of Navigation IS Freedom of Trade. How the hell do you think oil and other stuff like manufactured goods get around?

Magic PONIEZ who fly them around the world?

Aside from the fact its possible to restrict trade without restricting navigation. Case in point sanctions against Iran. Now imagine if Iran had the same or greater diplomatic clout than the US, and managed to convince China, the EU, other nations to boycott the US even though it would hurt like hell economically. Their merchant ships still navigate unimpeded no?

But in any event, Lonestar has clarified he prefered to debate it from a freedom of navigation rather than freedom of trade angle and agrees with me that there is sufficient difference between the two terms. So there is not much point beating this dead horse.
MKSheppard wrote:
Quote:
The difference was in using its military in a region which it has at best "only has 50% claim to". If the US can use its military in an area where it has 0% claim then hell yeah, that same logic can be used by Iran to do the same thing.


:?:

In October 1991, Bahrain signed an agreement that gave the US access to Bahraini facilities and let us preposition materiel for future crisis.

In October 2001, we then designated Bahrain a Major Non-NATO Ally [tm].

Why do you not want us to help our friends out? Are you a commienist?

I wasn't specifically referring to US use of Bahraini facilities. I was thinking more in terms of US attacking other nations which I think Lonestar got where I was coming from. If the US can attack Iraq (an area where it has 0% claim) to settle a geopolitical dispute not related to its self defense, then it opens the doors for others to do the same.

Its just not in Iran's interest to try blockading the Straits at the present time, for reasons already elucidated in this thread. But to turn a phrase from US diplomats, "all options are on the table," so I don't see why Iran can't consider it.
   Profile |  

Beowulf
PostPosted: 2012-01-06 06:54pm 

The Patrician


Joined: 2002-07-04 01:18am
Posts: 10227
Location: 32ULV
MKSheppard wrote:
Destructionator XIII wrote:
And give up their best method to defend themselves.


Incorrect.

A very significant fraction of Iran's military funding goes to the BOMB AND ICBM program; leaving the rest of Iran's military to fight over the scraps.

Everything is at maybe a 1994 level of modernization -- their newest warship has just a mere FOUR SM-1 Standards to defend it -- a 1960ies US weapon system we long ago retired.

To put this in numbers it's possible to understand; their BOMB program alone is easily several billion a year. This could fund several S-300 battalions. A few years of S-300 buys would assemble an air defense network that would make even the US take a moment to reconsider.

Offensive wise, well, you don't need the BOMB or BALLISTIC MISSILES:

The US military back in the 1990ies bandied this talking point about when it came to upgrading PATRIOT and other air defense systems:

Code:
For example, for $50 million dollars an adversary could purchase:

1 or 2 advanced tactical fighters
or
4 attack helicopters
or
10 utility helicopters
or
15 theater ballistic missiles to fire off 3 TELs.
or
100 cruise missiles


Incidentally, if Iran gave up the BOMB and the ICBM, we'd probably not lean on Soviets Russians to not sell them the S-300.
   Profile |  

Zixinus
PostPosted: 2012-01-06 09:12pm 

Sith Acolyte


Joined: 2007-06-19 12:48pm
Posts: 5270
Location: Grazing on Hungarian steppes
The sad thing about this situation is that I don't see a way that this won't end in some conflict, either internal or external.

If the Iranians give in, then the government in power will be seen as weak. That may lead to serious problems, even a revolution attempt (although I do not know how ready are the people inside Iran are for that). Thing is, that the Iranians WANT nuclear power and have a strong drive to be committed to it. At best, I can only imagine them abandoning it temporarily.

If the USA gives in and backs off with opposing the nuclear program, then... well, that can't happen as far as I can see. The USA is committed to Israel and Israel is committed to crippling Iran.

If by some miracle the USA DOES decide to back off on the sanctions, then Obama can kiss any of his hopes to get reelected goodbye. However, I am guessing that the EU may soon back out after a while too, lacking US support.

Out of curiosity: has this crisis/threat spiked any oil prices?
   Profile |  

whackadoodle
PostPosted: 2012-01-06 11:26pm 

Padawan Learner


Joined: 2008-12-27 12:48am
Posts: 187
Quote:
ABOARD THE FISHING VESSEL AL MULAHI, in the Gulf of Oman — Senior Iranian military officials this week bluntly warned an American aircraft carrier that it would confront the “full force” of the Iranian military if it tried to re-enter the Persian Gulf.

On Friday, Fazel Ur Rehman, a 28-year-old Iranian fisherman, had a warmer greeting for the carrier task force.

“It is like you were sent by God,” said Mr. Rehman, huddled under a blanket in this vessel’s stern. “Every night we prayed for God to rescue us. And now you are here.”

In a naval action that mixed diplomacy, drama and Middle Eastern politics, the aircraft carrier John C. Stennis broke up a high-seas pirate attack on a cargo ship in the Gulf of Oman, then sailors from an American destroyer boarded the pirates’ mother ship and freed 13 Iranian hostages who had been held captive there for more than a month.


Tons of diplomacy indeed.
   Profile |  

Shroom Man 777
PostPosted: 2012-01-07 05:01am 

FUCKING DICK-STABBER!


Joined: 2003-05-11 08:39am
Posts: 19927
Location: Bleeding breasts and stabbing dicks since 2003
BEIJING (AP) — China, the biggest buyer of Iran's oil, has publicly rejected U.S. sanctions aimed at Tehran's energy industry while American allies Japan and South Korea are scrambling to find a compromise to keep critical supplies flowing.

Beijing is buying less Iranian crude this month, but analysts say China is unlikely to support an oil embargo. Instead, they say, the smaller purchases might be a tactic aimed at obtaining lower prices as the West squeezes Tehran.

The sanctions approved by President Barack Obama on New Year's Eve have highlighted the importance of Iranian oil supplies to East Asia's energy-hungry economies. They have led to a clash of interests between Washington and key commercial and strategic partners over efforts to stop Iran's nuclear program.

"We are considering our response and are closely discussing the matter with the U.S.," a Japanese Foreign Ministry official, Kazuhiro Kawase, said Friday.

A South Korean foreign ministry spokesman said this week Seoul is in talks with Washington aimed at "minimizing the negative impacts" of sanctions. South Korea imports 97 percent of its oil and depends on Iran for up to 10 percent of its supplies.

China's foreign ministry rejected the sanctions this week and called for negotiations, leaving unclear whether Beijing might defy Washington, straining relations between the world's biggest and second-biggest economies.

"Sanctioning is not the correct approach to easing tensions," said a ministry spokesman, Hong Lei. "China opposes the placing of one's domestic law above international law and imposing unilateral sanctions on other countries."

U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is due to visit Beijing and Tokyo next week for talks that officials say will include the sanctions.

China could be the toughest part of Washington's thorny diplomatic challenge as it tries to enforce the sanctions. The fast-growing Chinese economy is the world's biggest energy consumer and imports half its oil.

The sanctions target financial institutions that do business with Iran's central bank by barring them from opening or maintaining correspondent operations in the United States. It would apply to foreign central banks only for transactions that involve the sale or purchase of petroleum or petroleum products.

Japanese and South Korean institutions, with a bigger U.S. presence, would be more exposed to such penalties. But Chinese institutions also do business in the United States and Beijing might see such restrictions as interference in its foreign affairs.

About 11 percent of China's oil imports in 2011 came from Iran, or about 560,000 barrels per day, a flow that increased in the latter half of the year, according to oil industry analysts Argus Media. The daily average for November was 617,000 barrels, close to a third of Iran's total oil exports of 2.2 million barrels a day, Argus said.

Analysts say China would have a tough time replacing that supply.

"China is the biggest buyer of the Iranian oil. How could China stop buying just because of the sanctions?" said Zhu Feng, a Peking University specialist in international relations.

This month, Chinese buyers have reduced daily purchases of Iranian crude, though that apparently stems from price negotiations and a payment dispute that began last year, according to a Singapore-based trader.

The two Chinese state-owned companies that buy Iranian oil reduced purchases by about 5,000 to 15,000 barrels per day, the trader said. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak publicly for his company.

It is "within the realm of possibility" that a small reduction in Chinese purchases might be "a shrewd attempt to squeeze the Iranians on pricing," said Victor Shum, an energy analyst for Purvin & Gertz in Singapore.

"As the pressure gets more intense on Iran and Iran wants to ensure its oil revenue, I'm sure Iran will be eager to keep China as a customer and China will be in a good position to negotiate a good price," Shum said.

Iran is China's third-biggest oil supplier after Saudi Arabia and Angola.

The importance of Asian sales makes it unlikely Tehran will make good on threats by some officials to close the Strait of Hormuz, through which Gulf oil flows, said Shum.

That would "really hurt Iran's important customers in Asia — namely China, Korea and Japan," he said. "No supplier wants to anger its key customers."

Japan is especially dependent on imported oil and natural gas, one-third of it from the Gulf, after shutting down nuclear reactors following last year's tsunami, said Koichiro Tanaka, director of the JIME Center at the Institute of Energy Economics Japan in Tokyo.

Japan's foreign minister will be visiting major oil exporters Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar in the next few days on a previously scheduled trip, but Tanaka said it was unclear whether he would get directly involved in trying to line up additional oil supplies.

"There are some thorny issues between the U.S. and Japan, but since we're so dependent on the U.S. forces for our national defense, I don't think we have any other choice but to follow the lead of Washington," Tanaka said.

On Friday, Japan's industry minister acknowledged its dilemma in trying to balance economic and diplomatic demands.

"This is a very important issue that could affect international crude oil prices," Yukio Edano said at a news conference in Tokyo. "The Iranian nuclear issue is also a very important one."


May these kind nations persevere in their struggle to aid a beleaguered country that is being encircled by rogue terroristic powers that have already destroyed two nations beside it. Hopefully through their compassionate actions, they can help stabilize the region and thwart the ruthless designs of those who would - and have already - massively destabilize the area and spark yet another war in this new decade, just as how they filled the last with so much violence and bloodshed.

God bless us all.
   Profile |  

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

It is currently 2014-07-23 07:58am (All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ])

Board index » Non-Fiction » News and Politics

Who is online: Users browsing this forum: AniThyng, Purple and 8 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