Iran warns oil blockade if sanctions imposed

reply to post by Intrud3r


Pakistan should not have them, thats the whole point. Just because one slipped through the net does not mean we should sit by and allow another to arrive at the table.

And for the US using nukes on Japan, well it could be argued that many less people lost their lives than would have should the war have dragged on. Lets not forget that Japan only waived the white flag because nukes meant they could wipe out Tokyo in the swoop of a bomber.

reply to post by stumason


Got to dig deeper about that, but if you are right, anticipate my apologies.

empty threat

the us EXPORTED more oil than it imported this year, and we get a lot more of it from canada, venezuela than we do the middle east

this would be wonderful, the average citizen might come to realize we don't need them

reply to post by Foppezao


Well now this little geopolitical game has changed from, blow up the nuke sites, to, eliminate there government. Followed by a UN controlled zone protecting the water way for the foreseeable future.

I believe this comment was ment more for the Russians and Chinese in hopes of provoking a veto at the next round of UN sanctions vote.

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
empty threat

the us EXPORTED more oil than it imported this year, and we get a lot more of it from canada, venezuela than we do the middle east

this would be wonderful, the average citizen might come to realize we don't need them

edit on 27-12-2011 by syrinx high priest because: (no reason given)

You do get alot from Saudi you are right however you fail to see that blocking the homouz straight would stop you buying said oil from Saudi arabia.

Question also begs, that if the US exports more oil than it needs, then why buy oil off of all said nations?

Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by Intrud3r

 

Pakistan should not have them, thats the whole point. Just because one slipped through the net does not mean we should sit by and allow another to arrive at the table.

Again, who has the right to decide what country should or should not have nuclear weapons ? Why is it allright for Israel to have nukes but not Iran?

Originally posted by Intrud3r

Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by Intrud3r

 

Pakistan should not have them, thats the whole point. Just because one slipped through the net does not mean we should sit by and allow another to arrive at the table.

Again, who has the right to decide what country should or should not have nuclear weapons ? Why is it allright for Israel to have nukes but not Iran?

Humanity and all those that stand for the preservation of it.

Originally posted by Intrud3r
Again, who has the right to decide what country should or should not have nuclear weapons ? Why is it allright for Israel to have nukes but not Iran?

Simply put, Iran has signed the NPT, where as Israel hasn't.

If Iran wants nukes, it must leave the NPT and give it's 6 month notice for doing so. While still part of the Treaty, however, they are subject to its binding commitments.

That is "who" gets to decide.

in their eyes an act of defense, but to the world, this would be a direct act of war.
at which point the americans would just do the old support the Iranian opposition with weapons and money to fight off the remaining loyalists to Ahmadenijad then have the rebels move in and start oil production again.

reply to post by airforce47


Found the next vote for sanctions on Iran.

France, Germany and the UK are pushing for an embargo on Iranian oil exports to Europe, although several countries, including Greece, have some reservations. EU foreign ministers are scheduled to consider the embargo on January 30.

Link to article
www.ft.com...

IMO the next round of sanctions wont start this.... seems like it might happen before wait for Jan 30th and see what the vote is... My questions is doing something to Syria enough to invoke Iran to close the straights?

Originally posted by michael1983l

Originally posted by Intrud3r

Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by Intrud3r

 

Pakistan should not have them, thats the whole point. Just because one slipped through the net does not mean we should sit by and allow another to arrive at the table.

Again, who has the right to decide what country should or should not have nuclear weapons ? Why is it allright for Israel to have nukes but not Iran?

Humanity and all those that stand for the preservation of it.

Cut the BS. Give me an concrete answer. Is Israel the face of humanity the way they treat their neighbours ? Oh wait, humanity is when USA bombs Iraq back to the stoneage.

Hypocrites decide who is allowed to have nuclear weapons. How can war be humanity ?

reply to post by SloAnPainful

but is the usa sinks the ships blocking the canal it will still be blocked by the sunken ships

reply to post by Intrud3r


No state represents humanity, but humans do. Do you believe that the majority of humanity are happy to see war? I don't think they do but only those that profit from war like to see this. Unfortunately Iran getting nuclear weapons increase the risk to humanity expodentially and it is in humanities interests to stop it from happening, not any state. Just you, me and the rest of those that care about their children.

reply to post by Intrud3r


I've already pointed out the who, what, where, when and why of Nuclear Weapons.

If Iran wants them, it can have them, but it must leave the NPT first and give notice.

Israel has never signed the NPT so isn't governed by it's tenets.

Iran to halt oil?!

WOOT!!!!!

Can we say economic boom for me!

Sorry to those of you not in an oil producing location.

reply to post by stumason


Stumason,

That argument completely ignores the fact that Iran was never given the choice.

The actual leaders of Iran were not in control at the period of signing (1968). The Britain and US backed ruler was (Operation Ajax - Installation of the Shah, etc.).

That would be like me taking over the US, signing treaties, and the US being forced to honour them after regaining control.

Amazing what gets forgotten when the need suits...

Does anyone remember the HBO movie from 1983 called Countdown to Looking Glass?

It was pretty much based upon the SAME situation, There was a blockade of the Strait of Hormouz (by Yemen in the movie) and all out Nuclear War ended up in the end....

Scary parallel

Originally posted by peck420
Stumason,

That argument completely ignores the fact that Iran was never given the choice.

The actual leaders of Iran were not in control at the period of signing (1968). The Britain and US backed ruler was (Operation Ajax - Installation of the Shah, etc.).

That would be like me taking over the US, signing treaties, and the US being forced to honour them after regaining control.

Amazing what gets forgotten when the need suits...

I know all about Ajax, thankyou, but fail to see it's relevance here. If the Iranians feel being part of the NPT isn't in their interests, they are free to leave. So, if they feel the same as you and it wasn't "their" choice, then they should submit their notice to the IAEA and be done with it.

And you will find most countries, at some point or another, have Treaties signed by previous Governments and Administrations that the current one doesn't agree with, but they still abide by it, take the UK and the Lisbon Treaty for example.

Originally posted by stumason
I know all about Ajax, thankyou, but fail to see it's relevance here. If the Iranians feel being part of the NPT isn't in their interests, they are free to leave. So, if they feel the same as you and it wasn't "their" choice, then they should submit their notice to the IAEA and be done with it.

And you will find most countries, at some point or another, have Treaties signed by previous Governments and Administrations that the current one doesn't agree with, but they still abide by it, take the UK and the Lisbon Treaty for example.

Lol, no they are not.

They are no more free to leave the NPT than Canada is free to leave NAFTA.

Something about political ramifications and all that jazz. Global powers and all their interests, etc, etc.

If countries were actually allowed to do what was best for them without outside interference the world would be a much less complicated place. Not any safer, just less complicated.

Edit to add:

You and I both know that Israeli bombers would be over Iran before the ink was dry if Iran decided to opt out of the NPT. Probably with US, Saudi, hell, a lot of other countries as well.

Iran currently has no options and we all know what happens when people are backed into a corner...

If anybody actually wanted to diffuse the situation, you would see less sanctions not more. You would see cultural exchange treaties, trade agreements, et, etc.

reply to post by peck420


You're missing the point... The question was "who decides who can have Nuclear weapons". I answered that.

They are free to leave the NPT if they desire Nuclear Weapons. If they do not desire Nuclear Weapons, then the question is moot and they must abide by the rules, which should be no problem if they don't want the bomb.

The fact they are being cagey about things AND being an NPT signatory is what is landing them in hot water with the IAEA. They only have to give 6 months notice and there is no legal requirement for them to submit to any inspections.

It really is quite simple. If they only desire Nuclear power, then IAEA inspections should be a doddle. If they desire the bomb, then they either have to be cagey with the IAEA and try to hide the fact (which is what they appear to be doing) or leave the NPT, when they can avoid inspections.

Obviously, a country leaving the NPT would signal to everyone else that they are probably going after the bomb, so are likely to suffer some kind of ramifications as a result, but that is another matter entirely.

There are currently 4 countries with declared weapons outside the NPT and not much happened to them. One country left the NPT and that was North Korea. They got the bomb, of sorts anyway and were already sanctioned to the hilt for many other reasons.