• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US carrier crosses Hormuz against Iran threats

Mya said:
yes :mrgreen: I suggest SuperBird! ( we better laugh while we wait for this new war huh? :2razz:)


Free-Super-Man-Bird-Twitter-Icon.gif
Click to expand...

There is already a war as far as I am concerned, a "shadow war" between Iran and Israel. ( a little birdy told me that chrip-chrip...;) )
 
Connery said:
There is already a war as far as I am concerned, a "shadow war" between Iran and Israel. ( a little birdy told me that chrip-chrip...;) )
Click to expand...


chip chip :lamo:lamo
 
Connery said:
The nukes do not provide them any protection. The very idea of nukes only suggest annihilation.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Who would attack Iran once they have a nuclear arsenal? Certainly not Israel and certainly not us.

I can only assume what you mean is that DEVELOPING nuclear weapons puts Iran at risk of annihilation? In other words, like right now Iran's quest for nuclear weapons makes them vulnerable to attack since they do not yet have a working weapon.

My response to this is that, firstly, Iran is not certain it will trigger foreign military intervention. Hell, the U.S. doesn't know for certain and I don't believe Israel has made the decision yet either (I expect they would wait until after the election and see how things pan out first). Second, Israel and Iran really don't know how far along Iran's development is. The attack, if it comes at all, may come too late. So, basically, I think Iran is making a gamble and banking on the unknowns working out in their favor.

Connery said:
Again, my proposal would be to keep the old guys there and use them to support both US and Iranian goals such as economic stability in Iran.
Click to expand...

What makes you think Iranian economic stability is a direct, primary goal of the Iranian regime? If you believe that, how would you explain Iran's willingness to subject itself to the current sanctions that are utterly crippling its economy?

Economic stability is only an indirect, tertiary goal. The regime's primary goal is self-preservation. Very often that goes hand in hand with appeasing the populace and having a healthy economy. But not always. The only way to explain Iran's willingness to endure the current oil embargoes is that the regime views the reward of obtaining nuclear weapons as more important to self-preservation than a healthy economy.

Again, look to North Korea. Kim Jong willingly starved millions of his people in the 90s while redirecting tremendous resources into developing the bomb. Iran sure looks to be heading down a similar path...
 
more on this latest news as it happens....


 
Mya said:
more on this latest news as it happens....


Click to expand...


The other ships part happens all the time. Literally. We used to hate news networks who loved to see how close they could get before getting chased off, and then would use the footage of being chased off on the news. Every time we would get called to GQ. At no point where the iranian ships or aircraft considered threatening.
 
Redress said:
The other ships part happens all the time. Literally. We used to hate news networks who loved to see how close they could get before getting chased off, and then would use the footage of being chased off on the news. Every time we would get called to GQ. At no point where the iranian ships or aircraft considered threatening.
Click to expand...


I do understand what you are saying! :)

I hope and pray that in the coming weeks and months it will be the same.... just a game like the one you are talking about ... a fun game and nothing more...
 
the_recruit said:
Nonsense. Who would attack Iran once they have a nuclear arsenal? Certainly not Israel and certainly not us.

I can only assume what you mean is that DEVELOPING nuclear weapons puts Iran at risk of annihilation? In other words, like right now Iran's quest for nuclear weapons makes them vulnerable to attack since they do not yet have a working weapon.

My response to this is that, firstly, Iran is not certain it will trigger foreign military intervention. Hell, the U.S. doesn't know for certain and I don't believe Israel has made the decision yet either (I expect they would wait until after the election and see how things pan out first). Second, Israel and Iran really don't know how far along Iran's development is. The attack, if it comes at all, may come too late. So, basically, I think Iran is making a gamble and banking on the unknowns working out in their favor.



What makes you think Iranian economic stability is a direct, primary goal of the Iranian regime? If you believe that, how would you explain Iran's willingness to subject itself to the current sanctions that are utterly crippling its economy?

Economic stability is only an indirect, tertiary goal. The regime's primary goal is self-preservation. Very often that goes hand in hand with appeasing the populace and having a healthy economy. But not always. The only way to explain Iran's willingness to endure the current oil embargoes is that the regime views the reward of obtaining nuclear weapons as more important to self-preservation than a healthy economy.

Again, look to North Korea. Kim Jong willingly starved millions of his people in the 90s while redirecting tremendous resources into developing the bomb. Iran sure looks to be heading down a similar path...
Click to expand...


The country is alone in this world.The idea of nuclear capability has brought them to their knees as a nation. Economic stability is one spillover benefit this is the extent.
 
Mya said:
I do understand what you are saying! :)

I hope and pray that in the coming weeks and months it will be the same.... just a game like the one you are talking about ... a fun game and nothing more...
Click to expand...

The Iranians are not going to hurt a carrier. Not even if they wanted to. It is a game.
 
sharon said:
How is that different from preventing Iran from selling its oil?

Its myopic to think that Iran will close the Straits which could easily and quickly be cleared.

If Israel attacks Iran, Iran will blow up all the Saudi oil installations and take 10 million bpd off the market.
Click to expand...

Who is stopping Iran from selling oil to anyone willing to buy it?

And it wouldn't be that difficult to close the strait through the use of mines and/or missiles.

Possibly... and then get a bigger pounding in response
 
Fletch said:
This is just another example of that opportunist Obama and his Gunboat Diplomacy....Ooops, thats right, Bush is no longer is president, let me amend that....If GW were still POTUS it would be just another example of Dubya showing bold and decisive leadership in the face of international danger.
Click to expand...

Altered your text to ensure the other 50% of partisan hacks don't feel left out. **** like this stinks from both ends, don't you find?
 
Redress said:
Talking two different situations here. Strikes to stop Iranian nuclear capability and a reaction to acts of war would be different situations. Admittedly the latter does not mean regime change, but there would be heavy strikes on iranian military targets and would probably heavily destablize Iran. With the precarious situation Iran is in, that could easily precipitate internal regime change.
Click to expand...
And what would that achieve? The imposition of a régime more friendly to western interests? It wouldn't be a liberal democratic one, that's for sure. I believe the US and UK tried this strategy once before, in the Fifties. How did that work out?

What I'd most like to hear from the more hawkish posters is exactly what their endgame would be. What exactly might the US hope to achieve in escalating the situation vis-a-vis Iran?
 
Andalublue said:
Altered your text to ensure the other 50% of partisan hacks don't feel left out. **** like this stinks from both ends, don't you find?
Click to expand...
I dont know. It is hard to take anyone with an avatar like yours seriously, dont you find?
 
Fletch said:
I dont know. It is hard to take anyone with an avatar like yours seriously, dont you find?
Click to expand...

I dunno. Stupid avatar or stupid partisan hackery. Which is most likely to derail a debate?
 
the_recruit said:
Nonsense. Who would attack Iran once they have a nuclear arsenal? Certainly not Israel and certainly not us.

I can only assume what you mean is that DEVELOPING nuclear weapons puts Iran at risk of annihilation? In other words, like right now Iran's quest for nuclear weapons makes them vulnerable to attack since they do not yet have a working weapon.

My response to this is that, firstly, Iran is not certain it will trigger foreign military intervention. Hell, the U.S. doesn't know for certain and I don't believe Israel has made the decision yet either (I expect they would wait until after the election and see how things pan out first). Second, Israel and Iran really don't know how far along Iran's development is. The attack, if it comes at all, may come too late. So, basically, I think Iran is making a gamble and banking on the unknowns working out in their favor.



What makes you think Iranian economic stability is a direct, primary goal of the Iranian regime? If you believe that, how would you explain Iran's willingness to subject itself to the current sanctions that are utterly crippling its economy?

Economic stability is only an indirect, tertiary goal. The regime's primary goal is self-preservation. Very often that goes hand in hand with appeasing the populace and having a healthy economy. But not always. The only way to explain Iran's willingness to endure the current oil embargoes is that the regime views the reward of obtaining nuclear weapons as more important to self-preservation than a healthy economy.

Again, look to North Korea. Kim Jong willingly starved millions of his people in the 90s while redirecting tremendous resources into developing the bomb. Iran sure looks to be heading down a similar path...
Click to expand...

Again, another person talking about NK's nuclear "deterrence"
As for Iran, it's not a problem of whether it can get a nuke. Nukes can be smuggled, and there are variety of nukes, from ones that can launched from an ICBM to one that can be launched from a small infantry mortar.
The problem is the method of delivery. Missiles are harder to smuggle, and harder to build. Iran hardly has a capacity to build a long-range missile. Trying to hope for one that can bypass the Aegis or any of those anti-nuke measures is like dreaming for a rich Somalia. Impossible.
 
Andalublue said:
I dunno. Stupid avatar or stupid partisan hackery. Which is most likely to derail a debate?
Click to expand...
Since my post didnt derail the thread, looks like we are going to have to go with the stupid avatar.
 
Andalublue said:
And what would that achieve? The imposition of a régime more friendly to western interests? It wouldn't be a liberal democratic one, that's for sure. I believe the US and UK tried this strategy once before, in the Fifties. How did that work out?

What I'd most like to hear from the more hawkish posters is exactly what their endgame would be. What exactly might the US hope to achieve in escalating the situation vis-a-vis Iran?
Click to expand...

That may be a problem. Iraq made no sense and still doesn't unless you consider oil. Afghanistan has been insanity since day one. We had nothing to gain there. We are still there and for what? Why are we involved in Syria and Bahrain, where we are "covertly", I'm told, supplying weapons. The endgame maybe a few things oil, empire and religion.

The world has probably reached Peak Oil or soon will. Don't ask me to explain empire but I can tell you that there are many Americans who believe the world belongs to the USA and must submit on command. Everyone must have a democracy even though here in the US we are losing our Constitutional Rights by the day. Far too many people believe the West must conquer the ME and control it, tame it and force it to become more westernized. The Republican Party is rife with religious extremists. They set out years ago to infiltrate the party and influence government and they have done that. Not a small number of these extremists believe it is God's will that America convert Muslims. End Timers believe a war is necessary between Israel and Muslim countries. Do not pass their influence off as inconsequential. Coupled with Zionist in America they are dangerous and powerful.

Finally, it is an election year and as Congress has long ago relinquished its Constitutional mandate to declare war. Congress will take no unified stance, though most members of the GOP will support some form of armed aggression (see above). It will be Obama's call. I believe our involvement will be a response to a provocation. A false flag is not out of the question either.
 
Last edited:
Risky Thicket said:
Sorry to say it but around the first week of March the fit will hit the shan. I do hope I am wrong though I don't believe I will be. Washington has been pounding the war drugs. The same neocons that supported our invasion of Iraq are screaming for war with Iran. I'm afraid this time it'll get ugly and Americans will really understand war for the first time.
Click to expand...

Bush has been out of office for over 3 years, and you still blame the neocons for Obama's decisions. WTF is wrong with you, did you fail to get the memo?
 
Redress said:
The other ships part happens all the time. Literally. We used to hate news networks who loved to see how close they could get before getting chased off, and then would use the footage of being chased off on the news. Every time we would get called to GQ. At no point where the iranian ships or aircraft considered threatening.
Click to expand...

A Navy friend of mine also said that the ships are all at GQ when passing through that area. I think the lack of threat has to do with the shear power of our Navy and the readiness of the crews. Anyone that tries to get near a carrier, especially at GQ, would have to have a galactic size set of nuts.
 
American said:
Bush has been out of office for over 3 years, and you still blame the neocons for Obama's decisions. WTF is wrong with you, did you fail to get the memo?
Click to expand...

The Zionist/Neocon connection is as strong as it ever was. Even John Bolton is back on the telly blathering on about Iran and calling for war. The Israeli lobby is pushing hard and will push hard on Obama in this election year. I don't believe Obama wants war with Iran. The military is opposed. Who do you suppose is beating the war drums?
 
Risky Thicket said:
The Zionist/Neocon connection is as strong as it ever was. Even John Bolton is back on the telly blathering on about Iran and calling for war. The Israeli lobby is pushing hard and will push hard on Obama in this election year. I don't believe Obama wants war with Iran. The military is opposed. Who do you suppose is beating the war drums?
Click to expand...
The Iranians.
 
Risky Thicket said:
The Zionist/Neocon connection is as strong as it ever was. Even John Bolton is back on the telly blathering on about Iran and calling for war. The Israeli lobby is pushing hard and will push hard on Obama in this election year. I don't believe Obama wants war with Iran. The military is opposed. Who do you suppose is beating the war drums?
Click to expand...
Bolton will know more than most about what's going on, so he's not "blathering". I don't give a damn who's lobbying, the communist are lobbying for their causes too. What's your beef? If Obama can't man-up, then he needs to go. I don't hear any war drums.
 
It would be nice if we could get Iran busy fighting from within so they would turn their attention away from terrorism elsewhere or building bombs.
 
American said:
Bolton will know more than most about what's going on, so he's not "blathering". I don't give a damn who's lobbying, the communist are lobbying for their causes too. What's your beef? If Obama can't man-up, then he needs to go. I don't hear any war drums.
Click to expand...

OK, this thread has been going great. I do not want to divert it. If you'd like to start a thread to discuss your questions I promise I'll join and address the issues. But not here. I should not have taken your bait initially. My apologies to the others here. Back to the topic of the OP.
 
This, this morning at rt.com

Iran's Oil Ministry has refuted media reports on the country stopping its crude exports to six EU nations on Wednesday.

"We deny this report… If such a decision is made, it will be announced by Iran's Supreme National Security Council," a spokesman for the ministry told Reuters.
The European Commission has "absolutely no information" about the news and will check it, said the spokesman for Foreign Policy, Michael Mann.
The initial news from Tehran nonetheless sent Brent crude prices up nearly $2 a barrel to $119.28, hitting a six-month high.

Earlier, Iran’s state Press TV reported that Tehran had corked crude supplies to Spain, Italy, Greece, Portugal, France and the Netherlands. That would have fulfilled Iran's threat to retaliate for the EU’s oil embargo, agreed by the bloc in January.

The ambassadors of the six EU countries were summoned to the Iranian Foreign Ministry on Wednesday to be notified on the oil cut, says the Press TV. Other media reported that while Iran declared its intentions to the envoys, the actual halt in oil supplies was delayed for some time.

Out of the six countries listed by Wednesday’s report, Italy, Spain and Greece account for up to 68 per cent of Iranian oil consumed in Europe. Half of Spanish and a third of Greek oil imports come from that country. The Spanish ambassador to Iran has voiced concerns that Tehran’s preemptive oil action would deliver a heavy blow to Madrid’s staggering economy.
Click to expand...

Also, today Iran reports that it is "two steps to nuclear self-sufficiency".

Iran doesn't appear to be doing anything to de-escalate the situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom