Support NeoGAF

[Alpha-Bromega]

They're not saying anything about the sender, passenger it belonged to or place it was sent from yet? My German might be letting me down but I don't see it.

nope, you got it right, it's undisclosed

 

[Gustav]

They're not saying anything about the sender, passenger it belonged to or place it was sent from yet? My German might be letting me down but I don't see it.

No. Currently no information, other that it belonged to a passenger. Nationality was not confirmed. The Rosatom Nuclear Energy State Corporation (Russias regulatory body all things nuclear) says that they suspect the package is not of russian origin.

 

[Kayo-kun]

The people hoping for a war are pathetic. I wish you'd be in a position where war would potentially risk the lives of your family and friends, and see if you'd still hope for it then. It's easy to sit behind your desk in a safe place in the US and want war just because you might be pissed at Iran for whatever reason.

 

[jaxword]

The people hoping for a war are pathetic. I wish you'd be in a position with war potentially being harmful for your family and friends, and see if you'd still hope for it then.

I'm against war with Iran (or in general) for exactly that reason. I don't have any kids, but I would want them to grow up in a world without the threat of a nuclear war wiping them out.

 

[SmokyDave]

I'm against war with Iran (or in general) for exactly that reason. I don't have any kids, but I would want them to grow up in a world without the threat of a nuclear war wiping them out.

Is that even possible? The nuclear genie is out of the bottle now. Short of an outbreak of world peace (yeah right), I'd say they'll probably get that fear at one time or another anyway.

Unless we've invented something much worse by then, of course.

 

[jaxword]

Is that even possible? The nuclear genie is out of the bottle now. Short of an outbreak of world peace (yeah right), I'd say they'll probably get that fear at one time or another anyway.

Unless we've invented something much worse by then, of course.

I suppose nuclear war is probably just the blanket term I was using instead of "Being wiped out by a city-destroying fireball of destruction."

I mean, we know there's plenty of other tools of death out there, like chemical weapons, disease bombs, angry plane suicide bombers...the list goes on and on.

I'd rather a world where people realized that killing someone else inevitably comes back to haunt you.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=455873

No real details on the case yet it seems, or the evidence presented. Any news on the nuclear package from Russia? I get fucking annoyed when media does this, they drop a ''bombshell'' and then they give literally zero information. The story starts leading a life of it's own and before you know it the president is calling for a nuclear strike on Iran.

 

[theignoramus]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=455873

No real details on the case yet it seems, or the evidence presented. Any news on the nuclear package from Russia? I get fucking annoyed when media does this, they drop a ''bombshell'' and then they give literally zero information. The story starts leading a life of it's own and before you know it the president is calling for a nuclear strike on Iran.

I'll add it to the timeline if it turns out to be something substantive. That radioactive suitcase found in Moscow wasnt all that significant either, upon further reading.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

Significant or not, it's a news story that broke and it's forever imprinted on to the internet and forums/websites around the net. I don't like that follow ups rarely get the same attention as the controversial statements and headlines of the original articles when it comes to this.

 

[liger05]

Because Israel has shown their willingness to use nukes offensively.

But the US has and they still have them.

Israel is not a friend of Iran in the region and if it was me I would be looking to make sure I can at least match what my enemy has. Not forgetting Iraq and Afghanistan both border Iran and both have been invaded by the US. You have Nukes and there is no chance of anyone invading.

It would be better if noone had them but they do and its absurd for nations to decide who can and cannot have them when the same rules are not applied to everyone.

 

[theignoramus]

I'm not sure Israel or Israeli nukes even figures prominently in the Islamic Republic's nuclear posture. The issue is mainly Iran facing overwhelming conventional superiority from the US and the states in the Gulf Cooperation Council. Iran's ability to project power is weak and limited, especially in comparison to its Sunni Arab neighbours in the Gulf, armed with advanced US aircraft and weapons systems.

 

[liger05]

I'm not sure Israel or Israeli nukes even figures prominently in the Islamic Republic's nuclear posture. The issue is mainly Iran facing overwhelming conventional superiority from the US and the states in the Gulf Cooperation Council. Iran's ability to project power is weak and limited, especially in comparison to its Sunni Arab neighbours in the Gulf, armed with advanced US aircraft and weapons systems.

I dont doubt that. I was just looking at it from the Iranian position and with Israel, the US and her allies in the region you can see why Iran would be thinking of making sure they had something which says 'dont fuck with us'.

 

[theignoramus]

No oil will be allowed to pass through the Strait of Hormuz if the West applies sanctions on Iran's oil exports, Iranian Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi has warned.

The threat was reported on Tuesday by the state news agency IRNA as Iran conducted its fourth day of naval drills near the Strait of Hormuz, at the entrance to the oil-rich Arabian Gulf.

"If sanctions are adopted against Iranian oil, not a drop of oil will pass through the Strait of Hormuz," Rahimi was quoted as saying.

"We have no desire for hostilities or violence ... but the West doesn't want to go back on its plan" to impose sanctions, he said. "The enemies will only drop their plots when we put them back in their place."

The threat underlined Iran's readiness to target the narrow stretch of water along its Gulf coast if it is attacked or economically strangled by Western sanctions.

More than one-third of the world's tanker-borne oil passes through the Strait of Hormuz. The US maintains a navy presence in the Gulf in large part to ensure that passage remains free.



Iranian ships and aircraft dropped mines in the sea on Tuesday as part of the drill, according to a navy spokesman.

Although Iranian war games occur periodically, the timing of these is seen as a show of strength as the US and Europe prepare to impose further sanctions on Iran's oil and financial sectors.

The last round of sanctions, announced in November, triggered a pro-regime protest in front of the British embassy in Tehran during which Basij militia members overran the mission and ransacked it.

London closed the embassy as a result and ordered Iran's mission in Britain shut as well.

Tehran in September rejected Washington's call for a military hotline between the capitals to defuse any "miscalculations" that could occur between their military forces in the Gulf.

An Iranian lawmaker's comments last week that the navy exercises would block the Strait of Hormuz briefly sent oil prices soaring before that was denied by the government.

While the foreign ministry said such drastic action was "not on the agenda", it reiterated Iran's threat of "reactions" if the current tensions with the West spilled over into open confrontation.


EU ministers said on December 1 that a decision on further sanctions would be taken no later than their January meeting but left open the idea of an embargo on Iranian oil.

Countries in the 27-member EU receive 450,000 barrels per day of Iranian oil, about 18 per cent of the Islamic Republic's exports, much of which go to China and India.

China, the biggest buyer of Iranian crude, has warned against "emotionally charged actions" that might aggravate tension in the nuclear standoff with Iran.

Russia for its part has warned against "cranking up a spiral of tension", saying this would undermine the chances of Iran co-operating with efforts to ensure it does not build atom bombs.

About a third of all sea-borne oil was shipped through the Strait of Hormuz in 2009, according to the US Energy Information Administration, and US warships patrol the area to ensure safe passage.

Most of the crude exported from Saudi Arabia, Iran, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Iraq - together with nearly all the liquefied natural gas from lead exporter Qatar - must slip through the 6.4km-wide shipping channel between Oman and Iran.

Some analysts say Iran would think hard about sealing off the Strait since it could suffer just as much economically as Western crude importers.


Industry sources said on Tuesday that top oil exporter Saudi Arabia and other Gulf OPEC states were ready to replace Iranian oil if further sanctions halt Iranian crude exports to Europe.

Iranian Oil Minister Rostam Qasemi had said that Saudi Arabia had promised not to replace Iranian crude if sanctions were imposed.

"No promise was made to Iran, its very unlikely that Saudi Arabia would not fill a demand gap if sanctions are placed," an industry source familiar with the matter told the Reuters news agency.

"If the sanctions take place, the price of oil in Europe would increase and Saudi and other Gulf countries would start selling there to fill the gap and also benefit from the higher price," said a second industry source.

Brent crude oil futures jumped nearly a dollar to over $109 a barrel after the Iranian threat, but a Gulf OPEC delegate said the effect could be temporary.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2011/12/2011122715516459511.html
Iran rejecting a military hotline with Washington seems petulant and short sighted to me. They have nothing to lose by doing it and much to lose by not doing it.

 

[Pollux]

While Iran has every right to do this, and while the US comes off as a bit of a bully overall, Iran seems to be acting like a petulant child.

 

[Ghost_Protocol]

I was just reading about how the U.S/CIA paid Bin Laden to run the Soviets out of afganistan earlier today. I sometimes cant believe how deeply our gov has fucked around in the middle east for as long as it has, and then we're surprised when it comes back to bite us in the ass.

 

[[Nintex]]

Well shit is going south fast:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/28/us-iran-hormuz-closure-idUSTRE7BR09E20111228

"Closing the Strait of Hormuz for Iran's armed forces is really easy ... or as Iranians say it will be easier than drinking a glass of water," Iran's navy chief Habibollah Sayyari told Iran's English language Press TV.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/28/us-iran-us-hormuz-idUSTRE7BR0OE20111228

(Reuters) - The U.S. Fifth Fleet said on Wednesday it will not allow any disruption of traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, after Iran threatened to stop ships moving through the strategic oil route.

 

[el retorno]

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2011/12/2011122715516459511.html
Iran rejecting a military hotline with Washington seems petulant and short sighted to me. They have nothing to lose by doing it and much to lose by not doing it.

If Iran does that I can´t see many people having much sympathy for them if the US decides to make sure it stays open. That would be Iran starting the conflict not the "war-mongering west."

And what they heck is their reason for rejecting the hotline?

Anyways the very fact that the US wants one kind of shows there isn´t the appetite like there was in Iraq for conflict

 

[legacyzero]

So this is how it all begins, eh?

 

[Meus Renaissance]

I was just reading about how the U.S/CIA paid Bin Laden to run the Soviets out of afganistan earlier today. I sometimes cant believe how deeply our gov has fucked around in the middle east for as long as it has, and then we're surprised when it comes back to bite us in the ass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_(intelligence)

 

[Rocket Scientist]

Now I'm curious if there have been polls in the US about the CIA - Bin Laden connection and how many people know about it and knew about it over the years.

As for Iran. Whatever happens they're going to look like the bad guy, so I hope for them they have something better than starting a war in Strait of Hormuz. Obviously nobody will care about the fact that Israel and perhaps the US have already done military strikes and reconnaissance inside of Iran, as those pictures of the rocket facility showed. And the sanctions against them are already accepted by the masses of course.

 

[Al-ibn Kermit]

If Iran does that I can´t see many people having much sympathy for them if the US decides to make sure it stays open. That would be Iran starting the conflict not the "war-mongering west."

The conflict was started with the sanctions and attempts to block development of any sort of nuclear program. The entire point of blocking the straight is to do economic damage to those who have imposed these sanctions. It's really an equal and deserving response, certainly not war-mongering.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

The conflict was started with the sanctions and attempts to block development of any sort of nuclear program. The entire point of blocking the straight is to do economic damage to those who have imposed these sanctions. It's really an equal and deserving response, certainly not war-mongering.

His point is that it will be presented that way in the media and people will feel that way regardless of why Iran is doing it and what has led to this. And he's right. Iran will be seen as the bad guy no matter what they do.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Iran is never going to use a nuke on any country. How many countries have nuclear weapons and how many countries in the last 70 years have used them? Exactly. Since WWII, they're used simply as a deterrent. Iran, NK, Pakistan, India. All use the weapons for deterring other countries from attacking them.

I'm not saying we should just accept/let Iran get the nuke but it certainly isn't worth starting a war over. If the Arab Spring should've taught us anything it is to stay out of other countries affairs if we're hoping for revolution. Let it be natural. Let the people fight back for themselves.

 

[Meus Renaissance]

The conflict was started with the sanctions and attempts to block development of any sort of nuclear program. The entire point of blocking the straight is to do economic damage to those who have imposed these sanctions. It's really an equal and deserving response, certainly not war-mongering.

I'm pretty confident there will be no discussion in the media on the relation between the sanctions and the act of closing the Strait of Hormuz thus leaving the impression of it being a random act provocation.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

I'm pretty confident there will be no discussion in the media on the relation between the sanctions and the act of closing the Strait of Hormuz thus leaving the impression of it being a random act provocation.

Now, now, no need to be that pessimistic =) Obviously the media will report it with ''in retaliation to the sanctions...''. However, the sanctions will be seen as just by the majority of people, since Iran is accused of developing nuclear capability and refusing to give in to the wishes of the Western majority.

 

[theignoramus]

If Iran does that I can´t see many people having much sympathy for them if the US decides to make sure it stays open. That would be Iran starting the conflict not the "war-mongering west."

And what they heck is their reason for rejecting the hotline?

Anyways the very fact that the US wants one kind of shows there isn´t the appetite like there was in Iraq for conflict

"Starting the conflict" is a totally misleading summary of the situation. The US is already engaged in low intensity conflict with Iran. it's already involved in covert operations against that country's nuclear program. Whether or not you and others think those actions are justified is irrelevant, the fact is, they are engaged in covert warfare against Iran, so a state of conflict already exists between the two entities.

But back to the central point, banning Iranian oil exports from the world market is an extremely hostile act, given how reliant their economy is on these exports. it's an extremely provocative measure and could rightfully be construed as an act of war.
(just like blowing up an ambassador in a crowded restaurant on US soil could be construed as an act of war on Iran's part)

Now mining the Straits of Hormuz is a separate thing. It's probably illegal under international law,as the mines dont discriminate between civilian and military vessels, and it would turn international opinion firmly against Iran for such a reckless act.

But the chance of this happening in the next five years is remarkably slim. Unless Iran does something crazy, like a tests a nuclear weapon underground or pulls out of the NPT, China will never sign on to the kind of security council resolution needed to block Iran's oil from the world market.


edit:

yall need to watch this documentary on iran's green movement. (it's going in the OP)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqtsGAYk6QU

To my mind, it reinforces two things: number 1, the Iranian regime is brutal and cruel and really should NOT have nuclear weapons. number 2, using brute force to try and stop this from happening will cause the opposite of what western powers intend. open war will destroy the green movement and give the mullahs as good a reason as any to develop nukes.

 

[Al-ibn Kermit]

I'm pretty confident there will be no discussion in the media on the relation between the sanctions and the act of closing the Strait of Hormuz thus leaving the impression of it being a random act provocation.

I just can't see US sending their own troops to do it. Maybe backing Israel/Saudi Arabia or something but I doubt most Americans can be convinced that this is unrelated/unequal to the sanctions imposed on them. And it would be especially hard to justify direct military action after the Iraq war and the recent withdrawal.

 

[ctrayne]

If the Arab Spring should've taught us anything it is to stay out of other countries affairs if we're hoping for revolution. Let it be natural. Let the people fight back for themselves.

I agree. I have a hard time commenting on international affairs since I feel like I know so little of the other side's viewpoint, but I try to educate myself and see the big picture, and I agree that these countries need to fight their own fights.

Interesting topic, going to follow.

 

[speculawyer]

This dick swinging on both sides is madness.

 

[el retorno]

The conflict was started with the sanctions and attempts to block development of any sort of nuclear program. The entire point of blocking the straight is to do economic damage to those who have imposed these sanctions. It's really an equal and deserving response, certainly not war-mongering.

And they could have opened their program up fully.... Economic sanctions are a deserving response to a country that is building nukes in violation of the NPT. Puts it back on Iran. The US didn´t start this recent flare up. Iran started building nukes. The Clintons and Khatami were talking and were close to better relations.

I think it is fair to say that hardliners in both countries are to blame for most of the provocations (Cheney and someother neocons in the US and the conservatives in Iran) both don´t even want to talk to the otherside.

I just can't see US sending their own troops to do it. Maybe backing Israel/Saudi Arabia or something but I doubt most Americans can be convinced that this is unrelated/unequal to the sanctions imposed on them. And it would be especially hard to justify direct military action after the Iraq war and the recent withdrawal.

This is the only way the Obama administration would ever get involved with a preemptive attack on Iran.

"Starting the conflict" is a totally misleading summary of the situation. The US is already engaged in low intensity conflict with Iran. it's already involved in covert operations against that country's nuclear program. Whether or not you and others think those actions are justified is irrelevant, the fact is, they are engaged in covert warfare against Iran, so a state of conflict already exists between the two entities.

But back to the central point, banning Iranian oil exports from the world market is an extremely hostile act, given how reliant their economy is on these exports. it's an extremely provocative measure and could rightfully be construed as an act of war.
(just like blowing up an ambassador in a crowded restaurant on US soil could be construed as an act of war on Iran's part)

As I said it was the nuclear program that started much of this. And Iran has been funding people that have attacked US soliders in Iraq so its not like they haven´t been in "low intensity conflict." I know it would be an extreamly hostile act but its goal is to get them to stop the nukes.


Now mining the Straits of Hormuz is a separate thing. It's probably illegal under international law,as the mines dont discriminate between civilian and military vessels, and it would turn international opinion firmly against Iran for such a reckless act.

But the chance of this happening in the next five years is remarkably slim. Unless Iran does something crazy, like a tests a nuclear weapon underground or pulls out of the NPT, China will never sign on to the kind of security council resolution needed to block Iran's oil from the world market.

yall need to watch this documentary on iran's green movement. (it's going in the OP)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqtsGAYk6QU

To my mind, it reinforces two things: number 1, the Iranian regime is brutal and cruel and really should NOT have nuclear weapons. number 2, using brute force to try and stop this from happening will cause the opposite of what western powers intend. open war will destroy the green movement and give the mullahs as good a reason as any to develop nukes.

I agree with your paragraph here. I think the best thing the US can it apply diplomatic pressure with sanctions and what not also look for some kind of bargin with the current regime with the eye on the longer game. If some kind of deal on smaller things were reached (there were supposedly deals offered to Bush in 2003) and a kind of Gadaffi type welcoming into the fold could really boslter the opposition and lead to the ultimate downfall of the regime.

I´d hate to see a US diplomate shaking a current member of the Iran regime but looking at recent dictatorships that have all fallen one thing in common is that they were "western friendly" which tampers the "western interference" card that they often play.

This is not to say if they block hormuz I don´t support action to open it back up or if god forbid they start openly testing nukes.

 

[speculawyer]

Maybe we should just talk with the Iranian people.

Didn't we just end a certain war in a certain somewhere nearby...? hmm

Congress just passed legislation making talks illegal. Go Figure.

 

[Al-ibn Kermit]

And they could have opened their program up fully.... Economic sanctions are a deserving response to a country that is building nukes in violation of the NPT. Puts it back on Iran. The US didn´t start this recent flare up. Iran started building nukes. The Clintons and Khatami were talking and were close to better relations.

They did as much as was required by the IAEA. Having as much secrecy as possible makes sense considering the direct attempts by the US/Israel to sabotage the program.

 

[speculawyer]

If only there were a neighboring country that has a feud with Iran that we could use as a proxy to combat Iran.

 

[el retorno]

They did as much as was required by the IAEA. Having as much secrecy as possible makes sense considering the direct attempts by the US/Israel to sabotage the program.

What are they hidding? Do you think the US would be looked at very nicely if they were attacking a wide open program that was clearly just for civilian power?

 

[Ikael]

If only there were a neighboring country that has a feud with Iran that we could use as a proxy to combat Iran.

Saudi Arabia, you mean? ;P

 

[speculawyer]

Iran should look to get Nukes. Israel has them and for that reason alone if I was the leader of Iran I would be looking to get them.

Stupidest thing I've read on the internet all year.

You lack the ability to step into someone else's shoes and understand the situation from their point of view. That severely degrades your ability to understand the situation fully and react in the best manner. Thankfully you are not in charge.

 

[speculawyer]

Saudi Arabia, you mean? ;P

Good point . . . but Saudi Arabia likes to keep their feud private and cold. The privately rail against Iran and complain about 'outside agitators' in Bahrain. But Saudi Arabi prefers not to directly criticize Iran. I'm not exactly sure why. Perhaps because they want to keep the holy cities open to all Muslims?

 

[Enco]

If Israel has nukes and the west turns a blind eye to it, a country which is one of the most vicious and warmongering in the world, whilst the Iranians have not invaded or attacked anyone, I think its the height of hypocrisy to declare war on Iran.

I don't blame Iran for wanting nukes when you have crazies like the Republicans only a few steps from the White House.

The US is Israel's bitch.

At least that's what everyone apart from the Whitehouse sees it as.

 

[Choke on the Magic]

The US is Israel's bitch.

At least that's what everyone apart from the Whitehouse sees it as.

Here we go.

 

[Al-ibn Kermit]

What are they hidding? Do you think the US would be looked at very nicely if they were attacking a wide open program that was clearly just for civilian power?

For example they would not disclose the location of a new facility until as late as permitted by the IAEA. This is totally legal.

The US has been trying to sabotage their program without any evidence that directly shows that Iran is also trying to build a nuclear weapon in addition to the reactors for civilian power. There was no real outrage at the stuxnet hacking but I doubt the US would directly attack a middle eastern country any time soon, so they'll probably back a proxy and stay behind the scenes.

 

[theignoramus]

And they could have opened their program up fully.... Economic sanctions are a deserving response to a country that is building nukes in violation of the NPT. Puts it back on Iran. The US didn´t start this recent flare up. Iran started building nukes. The Clintons and Khatami were talking and were close to better relations.

the sort of economic sanctions that indiscriminately punish the civilian population fall into the category of collective punishment, which is not legal under international law. You dont get to dismiss international law in this instance, because the US and its cohorts are using Iran's violation of Security Council resolutions to mobilize support for more sanctions.

 

[Choke on the Magic]

For example they would not disclose the location of a new facility until as late as permitted by the IAEA. This is totally legal.

The US has been trying to sabotage their program without any evidence that directly shows that Iran is also trying to build a nuclear weapon in addition to the reactors for civilian power. There was no real outrage at the stuxnet hacking but I doubt the US would directly attack a middle eastern country any time soon, so they'll probably back a proxy and stay behind the scenes.

There's no "real evidence that the US has been trying to sabotage anything. There's evidence we've probably been spying via drones, not sabotage.

 

[astroturfing]

one thing that drives me mad about this whole thing is how Iran is portrayed as some Nazi Germany 2.0, wanting to "wipe out Israel" and massacre Jews. that is a blatant fucking lie and when i see a monster like Michelle Bachmann on TV perpetrating that lie without anyone challenging her on that lie, i just want to snap. she deserves to be humiliated and cast out from society.

do the "born again" Israel-fetishist Americans who would support attacking Iran on the hysterical "they hate Jews" premise know that Iran itself actually has a Jewish minority, many synagogues, and even a Jewish parliament member? if they hated Jews so much you would think they would have massacred their own already and burnt down some synagogues, right?

if America starts bombing Tehran, will they at least shed a tear when a synagogue or another Jewish center is hit?

 

[theignoramus]

one thing that drives me mad about this whole thing is how Iran is portrayed as some Nazi Germany 2.0, wanting to "wipe out Israel" and massacre Jews. that is a blatant fucking lie and when i see a monster like Michelle Bachmann on TV perpetrating that lie without anyone challenging her on that lie, i just want to snap. she deserves to be humiliated and cast out from society.

do the "born again" Israel-fetishist Americans who would support attacking Iran on the hysterical "they hate Jews" premise know that Iran itself actually has a Jewish minority, many synagogues, and even a Jewish parliament member? if they hated Jews so much you would think they would have massacred their own already and burnt down some synagogues, right?

if America starts bombing Tehran, will they at least shed a tear when a synagogue or another Jewish center is hit?

Bachmann was challenged though, quite sharply, by "crazy man" Ron Paul.

 

[el retorno]

For example they would not disclose the location of a new facility until as late as permitted by the IAEA. This is totally legal.

The US has been trying to sabotage their program without any evidence that directly shows that Iran is also trying to build a nuclear weapon in addition to the reactors for civilian power. There was no real outrage at the stuxnet hacking but I doubt the US would directly attack a middle eastern country any time soon, so they'll probably back a proxy and stay behind the scenes.

I know your going to brush aside that IAEA report but it still exists.

And you did answer my statement if why aren´t the completly open and play the bigger man on their nuclear program if its peaceful? Show the world that they are getting bullied.

the sort of economic sanctions that indiscriminately punish the civilian population fall into the category of collective punishment, which is not legal under international law. You dont get to dismiss international law in this instance, because the US and its cohorts are using Iran's violation of Security Council resolutions to mobilize support for more sanctions.

Economic sanctions aren´t legal? What can they do then? Also its the SC council that is doing a lot of the sanctions. so are they violtating international law?

 

[astroturfing]

Bachmann was challenged though, quite sharply, by "crazy man" Ron Paul.

nope, he left the biggest and most dangerous lie be.

And you did answer my statement if why aren´t the completly open and play the bigger man on their nuclear program if its peaceful? Show the world that they are getting bullied.

what country in the world has a completely open nuclear program? that is very unrealistic to expect that from anyone. and to start a war over that would certainly be complete madness.

 

[Meadows]

50% of China's oil passes through that Strait, and China's economy is obviously heavily dependent on the USA having oil to keep itself going.

China will hate this as much as the US, Russia on the other hand will support this.

 

[theignoramus]

I know your going to brush aside that IAEA report but it still exists.

And you did answer my statement if why aren´t the completly open and play the bigger man on their nuclear program if its peaceful? Show the world that they are getting bullied.



Economic sanctions aren´t legal? What can they do then? Also its the SC council that is doing a lot of the sanctions. so are they violtating international law?

reread what I wrote. I said economic sanctions that indiscriminately harm the civilian population is illegal, not that economic sanctions were illegal. The UNSC isnt doing that in Iran as of now, but what it did in Iraq, imposing a medieval siege on the country, is an example of what Im talking about.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Iran using dat hard power

 

[[Nintex]]

50% of China's oil passes through that Strait, and China's economy is obviously heavily dependent on the USA having oil to keep itself going.

China will hate this as much as the US, Russia on the other hand will support this.

I'm shocked that Iran actually considers such actions. One wrong move and Russia, China and the US turn the country into a parking lot. You especially don't want to fuck with Russia.