Iran lawmakers prepare to close the Strait of Hormuz
Discussion
Mermaid said:
The strange thing is the Iranians will be left well alone once they have the nuke, no need for sanctions too. 
It is self prophesying. They have no nuke. Sanctions, retalliations, threats of war, and so on, and so forth, and they will eventually say "f
k it", (but in Arabic), and get one, simply to be left alone. It worked for India, and Pakistan.TheHeretic said:
OK then Jim.
Cuban embargo = good
Hormuz closure to goods to certain countries = Bad.
Gotcha.
Except for stopping the Russians from planting nukes on Cuba in the early 60s, the decades long embargo on Cuba has not been enforced by closing an international waterway. Why is this so difficult?Cuban embargo = good
Hormuz closure to goods to certain countries = Bad.
Gotcha.
Mermaid said:
Jimbeaux said:
.. Iran cannot close a water highway to other exporting nations. If it does, that is Iran's choice but it will be others' choices as to what is done about it as they will be fair game.
I cannot recall exactly but what was the situation with the Turkish vessel near Israeli waters a few years ago... serious question.
Art0ir said:
Jimbeaux said:
Could be, so could farting in a closed room I suppose. A sanction is an act agreed upon by those participating in the sanctions. Closing an international waterway inhibits others who may not be participating in none of this. See the difference?
Not really no.What have the Iranian people done to deserve the effects economic sanctions are having on them? Iran's shipping industry is on the absolute brink because they're struggling to get insurance thanks to sanctions.
How many wars have Iran started in the last few centuries?
Mermaid said:
Art0ir said:
What have the Iranian people done to deserve the effects economic sanctions are having on them? Iran's shipping industry is on the absolute brink because they're struggling to get insurance thanks to sanctions.
How many wars have Iran started in the last few centuries?
The strange thing is the Iranians will be left well alone once they have the nuke, no need for sanctions too. How many wars have Iran started in the last few centuries?
Jimbeaux said:
Except for stopping the Russians from planting nukes on Cuba in the early 60s, the decades long embargo on Cuba has not been enforced by closing an international waterway. Why is this so difficult?
Because you commented that it would affect other countries. The embargo on Cuba, (which was tit for tat with regards to nuke placement), affected other countries, as the US 'punished' other countries who traded with them. It was not just between you and them. You involved everyone else. That was why I mentioned it Jim. You have been doing the same thing for decades, as you say, to Cuba, (I've been there, by the way. Great place). Why is it so difficult? Because they will not be closing the waterway. They will be only allowing certain vessels, (according to the article I read), that are heading to countries that support sanctions agains Iran. Basically, they are attempting to disrupt trade to those countries, as the US disrupted trade to Cuba, and still do.
That is why Jim. I see them as quite similar.
TheHeretic said:
Jimbeaux said:
Except for stopping the Russians from planting nukes on Cuba in the early 60s, the decades long embargo on Cuba has not been enforced by closing an international waterway. Why is this so difficult?
Because you commented that it would affect other countries. The embargo on Cuba, (which was tit for tat with regards to nuke placement), affected other countries, as the US 'punished' other countries who traded with them. It was not just between you and them. You involved everyone else. That was why I mentioned it Jim. You have been doing the same thing for decades, as you say, to Cuba, (I've been there, by the way. Great place). Why is it so difficult? Because they will not be closing the waterway. They will be only allowing certain vessels, (according to the article I read), that are heading to countries that support sanctions agains Iran. Basically, they are attempting to disrupt trade to those countries, as the US disrupted trade to Cuba, and still do.
That is why Jim. I see them as quite similar.
You said we "punished" those who traded with them. Yes, diplomatically and economically, I am talking about physically blocking an international waterway. You say "no, only to countries' ships that are against them". That is still a physical obstruction of a waterway that does not belong to them, that is an act of war. If you wish to compare economic or diplomatic sanctions to physically blocking a nation's ship in an international waterway by military means an equal activity, then you go right ahead.
Jimbeaux said:
So you choose to compare economic sanctions, agreed upon by a group of nations who choose to participate to Iran threatening to close an international waterway used by countries not even involved in sanctions against them? You go ahead and do that, I don't agree.
Yes closing a waterway sounds much more drastic. They're obviously trying to "one-up" the US, sorry UN, sanctions.Maybe it's time Iran said enough is enough..
Jimbeaux said:
Been there myself, great place, great people, enslaving government. It will be a happy day when they are free.
You said we "punished" those who traded with them. Yes, diplomatically and economically, I am talking about physically blocking an international waterway. You say "no, only to countries' ships that are against them". That is still a physical obstruction of a waterway that does not belong to them, that is an act of war. If you wish to compare economic or diplomatic sanctions to physically blocking a nation's ship in an international waterway by military means an equal activity, then you go right ahead.
I don't recall saying either are correct, merely comparing the 2. You said we "punished" those who traded with them. Yes, diplomatically and economically, I am talking about physically blocking an international waterway. You say "no, only to countries' ships that are against them". That is still a physical obstruction of a waterway that does not belong to them, that is an act of war. If you wish to compare economic or diplomatic sanctions to physically blocking a nation's ship in an international waterway by military means an equal activity, then you go right ahead.
Art0ir said:
Jimbeaux said:
So you choose to compare economic sanctions, agreed upon by a group of nations who choose to participate to Iran threatening to close an international waterway used by countries not even involved in sanctions against them? You go ahead and do that, I don't agree.
Yes closing a waterway sounds much more drastic. They're obviously trying to "one-up" the US, sorry UN, sanctions.Maybe it's time Iran said enough is enough..
TheHeretic said:
Jimbeaux said:
Been there myself, great place, great people, enslaving government. It will be a happy day when they are free.
You said we "punished" those who traded with them. Yes, diplomatically and economically, I am talking about physically blocking an international waterway. You say "no, only to countries' ships that are against them". That is still a physical obstruction of a waterway that does not belong to them, that is an act of war. If you wish to compare economic or diplomatic sanctions to physically blocking a nation's ship in an international waterway by military means an equal activity, then you go right ahead.
I don't recall saying either are correct, merely comparing the 2. You said we "punished" those who traded with them. Yes, diplomatically and economically, I am talking about physically blocking an international waterway. You say "no, only to countries' ships that are against them". That is still a physical obstruction of a waterway that does not belong to them, that is an act of war. If you wish to compare economic or diplomatic sanctions to physically blocking a nation's ship in an international waterway by military means an equal activity, then you go right ahead.
Jimbeaux said:
Neither do I; serious answer.
Israel has a blockade of Gaza. Flotilla of Turkish ships attempted to reach Gaza with supplies, etc, and we're attacked. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/01/world/middleeast...
TheHeretic said:
Jimbeaux said:
Neither do I; serious answer.
Israel has a blockade of Gaza. Flotilla of Turkish ships attempted to reach Gaza with supplies, etc, and we're attacked. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/01/world/middleeast...
I missed the bit about US condemnation.
Mermaid said:
TheHeretic said:
Jimbeaux said:
Neither do I; serious answer.
Israel has a blockade of Gaza. Flotilla of Turkish ships attempted to reach Gaza with supplies, etc, and we're attacked. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/01/world/middleeast...
I missed the bit about US condemnation.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff