Iran: Oil Strait Will ‘Definitely’ Close

I dont think we need to hit them just yet. The embargo may suffice.

Also, were Iran to possess nuclear weapons (which they don't want), it would constitute an excellent deterrent against Israeli threats to nuke Iran.

How can you know that they dont if they wont let us investigate.

They have invited investigators, the US refused.

Because she believes them on this question and then ignores their statements about the 12th Mahdi, their funding of terrorist organs and operations, etc.

What evidence is there that anyone could even demand an investigation?

Signatories to the NNPA can ask for the investigation.

For no reason? Or do they have to have some sort of reason in order to do that? (Seriously asking)

As a side note, it would be a simple thing for Iran to develop a Nuclear weapon if they wanted. They could simply withdraw from the NNPT. Once a nation has withdrawn then the U.N. would have no "legal" recourse. Until November of last year the IAEA had continually stated (their SUSPICIONS not with standing) that there was no evidence that Iran was enriching any nuclear fuel for Weaponization.

Furthermore, Iran has made numerous overtures in allowing full access to inspectors in exchange for a lifting of sanctions. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/06/world/middleeast/06iran.html and http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/world/middleeast/05nuke.html

However the United States and its Western Allies refuse. I thought negotiations were about both sides coming to a mutual agreement. This seems more like 'Do what the fuck we tell, how the fuck we tell you or we will bomb the shit out of you." And when the other person says no, we say they asked for it.

I wonder why it is that when a group of nations order sanctions against one country and enforce it with a blockade, that is considered perfectly ok. However when that nation also threatens a blockade it is considered an act of war? How is this in keeping with being intellectually honest?

I don't know how the process works whereby signatories can request investigations of other signatories. I would hope that a certain amount of "evidence" is presented before "investigations" are performed otherwise the system could be potentially abused.

I agree it would be simple for Iran to develop nuclear weapons. I happen to believe that that is precisely what they are doing.

The United States has offered dialogue to resolve the issue several times, to include a secret letter send by the administration. The Iranians have refused.

You ask an interesting question but I am not sure it is the most relevant one. The question I would ask is given that Iran is responsible for more US deaths than any other country since 1979, given that it unabashedly trains, finances, and directs terrorist organizations, given its pursuit of nuclear weapons, given its weekly denunciations of America and the chanting of death to America every Friday, what should the US do to protect itself?

Why should they? It's not preferred that nations own nuclear weapons, but neither is it illegal. We have enough nukes to blow the world up several times over. Yet we insist that Iran shouldn't have any. Would we be willing to open up our nuclear facilities for them to inspect? Very doubtful. In essence what the US is saying to them is "don't do what I do, do what I say". That's degrading to any nation with an ounce of self respect. If we want to lead we should do so by example. For instance, getting rid of of our nuclear weapons would allow us to ask Iran to do the same. But we won't do it for the same reason they want to acquire them, they are see as deterrents to attack.

Additionally Israel is estimated to have about 200 nukes. Did we ever ask them to not build them? No.I wouldn't be the least surprised if we helped them. Why should Israel be allowed to retain them but Iran be forbidden to own any? Because Americans have been told Iran is intent on destroying Israel? We armed and encourage Iraq to attack Iran. Is it therefore rational to assume Iran is more aggressive than the US, or less sane than Israel who won't even acknowledge the Palestinians as human beings? Lots to think about.

all governments only serve their own perpetuation...ours is no gem

the difference being China and Russia will stand with Iran...that has been made very clear.

There were no WMD's in Iraq, just as there no nuclear weapons in Iran.

Iraq had plenty of yellowcake they didn't have to buy it or smuggle it from Niger. In fact, US forces found over 550 tons of natural unranium and stole it from Iraq in 2008 and sold it to a Canadian company.

This was not yellow cake that was smuggled in from anywhere, this was yellowcake mined from Iraq's natural uranium resources.

The whole premise of Saddam "standing up" to Bush is a fraud, just like Ahmadinejad "standing up" to the West is a fraud.

Iran is a nation that is simply doing what other nations are doing and they are doing it legally under internationally agreed upon international treaties such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Iran has signed and Israel refuses to sign.

The problem is once again, Israel, and a bunch of Jewish supremacists who want to bomb Iran and take over their oil and other natural resouces under the ridiculous and totally fraudulent premise that Iran is going to start another holocaust by bombing Israel. Just like they did in Iraq and Libya.

But people dismiss this fact as politically incorrect, anti-semitic or an oversimplifaction of the issue, when really if one examines the facts, this is the logical conclusion of why there is this huge propaganda push to go to war with Iran.

Who want's war with Iran? A bunch of crazies in Israel along with their media mouthpieces.

The problem with Iran and a nuclear weapon is not that it will threaten Israel with it if it actually gets a weapon, the problem would be if Iran got a nuclear weapon and DIDN'T threaten anyone with it, hence there would be no reason to attack Iran.

Agreed, what I was trying to say and my nook isn't the best to type on, is: Sadam had the option to wait until we had all the forces in place. Then, he could have said "my borders are open, UN is welcome to go anywhere they want to search for WMD." We know he had nothing of consequence. I know people who were on the ground in Iraq after the invasion and there were items there but not enough to satisfy the ensuing war. He could have cut GW off at the knees and because he wanted to save face/pride he didn't do it. Where do you get your information that this view is a fraud? I have read extensively that this was exactly what he said when interviewed and if it wasn't he had opportunity to state something different to the media at anytime before the war started.

I don't know why Iran is moving in the same direction other than pride/arrogance. They also know that any attack in the Straight of Hormuz will bring the west and others down on them like heavy rain.

I know not having a real keyboad sucks for long messages!

Agreed although, China and Russia will never more than verbally protest any attack should Iran threaten the Straight. China depends on this oil too and will not threaten our mutually beneficial trade/loan arrangement for Iran.

Exactly. Rhetorical support.

Invaded? Have you any idea about the actual size and topography of Iran? Invading Iran would be suicide.

Because your country loves war silly rabbit.

We're not.

Well said sir.

Yeah, I remember. I think the question was more volatile then the response. Anyone who asks this kind of inflammatory and ignorant question should automatically be sent to the front lines when the fighting starts. If that was the case these people would stay under a rock in their basement where they belong.

Very true, and a good point as well.

Yes , it is insane .

Yep. Same old wine in a brand new bottle.

Good find, thanks.

You're welcome, Vierotchka.

Because it will effectively be an embargo on the rest of the world, since like 40% of the world's oil travels through that strait.

My point is it will be a short lived embargo. Iran cant afford to keep it closed for long. They know we have a superior navy. One of our strike group alone could potentialy annihilate the entire Iranian navy.

they are not in it alone...war is never an answer. It is us that are being the bully here...the US is prepared for war and we are being led to the trough and forced to drink.

That would force us into an act of war against them, which definitely makes *us* the bad guys in that situation.

Moreover, you can't force open a straight with military force anymore than you could unclog a drain with a grenade.

Plus, they still control the *oil*. Say you actually could force open the strait without causing a huge, international war. What would you do? Force the Iranians to start shipping again?

America needs to just to puts its dick away and actually think about this for a minute.

not advocating war. just pointing out they stand no chance. I support the embargo. war should always be last resort or for retaliation

No they would be the bad guy for blockading a waterway that is not thiers.

Similar statements were made with regard to Saddams army. But it took nine years, 4500 US lives and an estimated 100,000 Iraqi lives and trillions of wasted dollars before we were able to extricate ourselves from that mess. Iran has a very capable navy and army. It would only take a couple of Iranian anti-ship missiles to raise hell with the US fleet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Anti-ship_missiles_of_Iran If one or several of these missiles sank a carrier all hell would break loose.

since we developed nukes we have been in over our head, don't think they stopped researching...they have many more technical ways to end life here now...that's why they've built themselves deep underground bunkers to hide in and push buttons from. Good luck surviving the mess to come if this continues...it will be a global impact.

A Blockade banning the trading of Oil to and from Iran IS the same thing. I'm not advocating one way or the other, but to say that a blockade against Iran is OK, but Iran blockading is not is complete and total intellectual dishonesty.

Really? Is that how all the other countries would perceive it?

Forget what you think for a minute, because it doesn't matter. What is everyone else going to think?

It would be a complete god damn disaster.

It will be a very bad day for the regime that stones gay people to death.

It's a little weird to consider a counter-embargo an act of aggression.

Gopher jerkey?

The US, as always.

How so? Isn't it an int'l waterway?

Read the history of Iran since the fifties. Then perhaps you'll understand.

Ah. Quite familiar thank you. An honest question--if the US wanted war with Iran, why has it not engaged directly, yet?

Obviously not familiar at all. As for engaging directly, the US is trying to push Iran into reacting so as to create a casus belli. Time you ate your dinner, for a change.

I will give you one guess. The same folks that use most of the Oil.

Answer: The US(MIC) is waiting(baiting) for a pearl harbor moment, or a 911 moment.
Question: Aren't you missing fox and friends or something?

I will accept truth from wherever it comes, even from one who presents it with contempt such as yourself. Europe must be nice this time of year.

Oh thank you for the witty insult!

The US has the might to go after Iran if it wanted to. It doesn't.

You saw contempt where there was none - perhaps it is within yourself.

Ah, My apologies. I must have misinterpreted what you meant when you wrote "Obviously not familiar at all." or "Time you ate your dinner, for a change." Perhaps the term "snotty" is more accurate than the phrase "with contempt."

Closing the strait is an act of war so Iran is staring it, not us. Dont worry they aint gonna do shit. As they say down south.

I agree. After all, who would rescue their fisherman from pirates when kidnapped in the Straits?

true! They dont seem to be complaining about us rescuing them!

The first is quite accurate, as you have shown. As for the second, it was a play on your seemingly misguided choice of handle. Not snotty at all, hate to disappoint you.

The high number of actions the US has carried out against Iran over the decades were all acts of war, as are the sanctions.

Ah yes of course, now I am misguided. I see. Completely snotty, but no disappointment felt.

The sanctions are being imposed by the EU as well as the US.

Read again and try to understand what I wrote - "your seemingly misguided choice of handle". Not only do you seem to be totally obtuse but also bereft of any sense of humour!

Yes, like an obedient and scared puppy. Pandering to Israel is not an US exclusivity, and Israel has a vast arsenal of nuclear weapons, most of which are pointing at Europe.

DO you have resources to back that up?

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/destroycaps.html
http://northerntruthseeker.blogspot.com/2010/03/israel-aims-its-nuclear-warheads-at.html
http://mathaba.net/news/?x=622465
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x304864

Etc.

Those are not resources. They are anti-semetic propganda. Are you by chance a huge Mel Gibson fan?

They are not antisemitic sources or propaganda at all, neither am I since I am Jewish. Thou knowest not what thou blabblest about.

No Jew would say the blasphemous things you say about God and Israel. You are a liar.

What blasphemous things, precisely? Do you honestly believe that Jews never blaspheme, not that I have blasphemed. No, I am not a liar, so please take back your insult.

Many of your past statements indicate an athiestic nature. Everyone knows that athiests are prone to blaspheme and why not if thier is no God.

Wrong - agnostic, not atheistic, and very much aware that nobody really knows anything about God, and that trying to describe God and make claims about what God thinks and wants is hubris at best, and lies at all times. I have never met or read an atheist that is prone to blasphemy, but I have known and met countless Christians, Jews, Moslems, etc., who do a lot of blaspheming. Go figure!

If this guy were in Iran he would be able to attend the state sponsored stoning of the very people he is condemning.

you just said you were Jewish. How can you be agnostic and Jewish? Do you mean just jewish heritage but not of the jewish faith? And agnostics are just athiests who are unsure of thier own disbelief or at least belivers who dont have enough faith.

All of it absurd and shameful - no matter where it occurs.

"Death Penalty For Gays: Ron Paul Courts The Religious Fringe In Iowa"
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/ron-paul-hired-anti-gay-activist-to-ru...

Agnosticism and being Jewish are not mutually exclusive. I am Jewish by the matrilineal line. As for agnostics, your definition is completely wrong. Completely.