International News
See other International News Articles
Title: British navy to Iran: Back the hell off
Source:
HotAir
URL Source: https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morr ... itish-navy-iran-back-hell-off/
Published: Jul 11, 2019
Author: Ed Morissey
Post Date: 2019-07-11 12:09:36 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 15462
Comments: 89
Do the Iranians want a war? They nearly got one overnight, not with the US but with the United Kingdom. The British navy aimed its guns on several Iranian ships attempting to block passage through the Strait of Hormuz of a British oil tanker, which caused the smaller ships to retreat: A British navy ship, the HMS Montrose, “was forced to position herself between the Iranian vessels and [the tanker] British Heritage and issue verbal warnings to the Iranian vessels, which then turned away,” the British government said in a statement. “We are concerned by this action and continue to urge the Iranian authorities to de-escalate the situation in the region,” the statement said. Last month, the Iranians shot down a US drone operating in international airspace, which nearly prompted a military strike in retaliation. The Iranians have now apparently either shifted their focus or broadened it, also in retaliation. The UK seized a Panamanian oil tanker carrying Iranian crude off the coast of Gibraltar, accusing Tehran of violating EU sanctions by selling oil to Syria’s Bashar al-Assad. Iran called it “an act of piracy” and threatened “consequences” for the seizure. This seems to be the UK’s reminder that even consequences have further consequences. For the moment, anyway, the Iranians got the message. However, they clearly want to start a fight in the Strait of Hormuz with someone, even though it’s becoming clearer that the US and the UK are willing to shoot back now after the attacks on other shipping in the Hormuz area. Iran may not have much choice. Their economy is collapsing again under the weight of US sanctions, and their population is growing restive. The Trump administration announced yesterday that more sanctions are coming now that Iran has openly admitted breaking past the restrictions on uranium enrichment: The United States called an emergency meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna on Wednesday in response to the Iranian moves, while a senior French envoy was in Tehran exploring ways to reopen negotiations on compliance with the deal. Iran called this “warfare“: Iran’s representative to international organizations in Vienna, Kazem Gharib Abadi, told a meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency Wednesday U.S. actions were “neither legitimate nor legal” and should not be accepted by the international community. He says that the “costly” consequences of American sanctions mean “they should be seen as weapons of warfare.” Iran had better be careful before they find out what warfare actually would look like against the US and UK. They’ve been testing Western responses in the Hormuz area for some time, and the British navy gave the Iranians something to think about. If the mullahs are getting nervous about the misery of their population, then they should rethink their nuclear and ballistic missile programs as well as their support for Iranian proxy terror networks in the region. Poster Comment: When the British allies on the British protectorate of Gibralter stopped the Iranian tanker illegally bound for Syria last week, Iran's leader vowed revenge on Britain, suggesting that Iran would seize a British tanker in retaliation. Britain did lawfully interdict a contraband oil shipment destined for Syria contrary to international agreements. Well, Iran tried to seize a Brit tanker and Britain made it clear they aren't going to be victims of Iranian piracy in the Strait of Hormuz. They sent Iran a message. I think they should have punctuated it with sinking one or more of the three Iranian ships to make their point to Iran even clearer. But that will be the next step if Iran tries something like this again.
Three Iranian vessels attempted to stop a British tanker traveling through the Strait of Hormuz, Britain said Thursday, in the latest escalation between Iran and Western powers in recent weeks. The United States on Wednesday accused Iran of “nuclear extortion” and threatened further sanctions against Tehran, which has begun stockpiling and enriching uranium beyond the limits set in the 2015 accord that President Trump has abandoned. Iran says it’s prepared to return to “full implementation” of its landmark 2015 nuclear deal with world powers, but only when matched by the full compliance of “all participants.” …
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-7) not displayed.
.
.
.
#8. To: Tooconservative (#6)
I do not believe it is true that the shipment was "illegal". That's the rub. The sanctions are not UN based. Russia has veto power in the UN and would not have ever gone along with it. They appear to be, at best, EU and US based, neither of which Iran or Syria are a legal party to and in which they have no representation. Given that framework, this is much more akin to a dozen city thugs telling a few residents in a community that they can't visit with one another. Or if you prefer, a majority of voters voting away the rights of the minority. Or 3 wolves and a sheep voting on dinner. Take your pick. The seizure of Iran's tanker (or its crude, at least, as it seems the tanker was Panamanian) is what was illegal, no matter what the EU or US might say otherwise.
You mean, before last week when they announced they were exceeding the level of enrichment allowed under JCPOA? If you enrich plutonium past 18% purity, your only objective is to produce modern nuclear weapons. And Iran is exceeding the limit now, by their own admission. That means only one thing. They are trying to use this threat to get the EUroweenies to pressure the US into returning to the terms of the JCPOA. And that will not happen. And now, because of Iran's admission to illegal enrichment, the EUroweenies can no longer pretend that Iran is in compliance in any way with JCPOA and therefore the EU will have no way to oppose the US/UK sanctions regime against Iran. Or to try to plot ways to evade the sanctions with John F'n Kerry and other anti-American elements. BTW, we are now increasing the already murderous level of sanctions we have imposed against Iran in direct retribution for their admission to illegal enrichment. So new and even more crippling sanctions will come very soon against Iran. Iran was responsible for the mines. And for shooting down the drone in international airspace. Something not mentioned widely is that that happened to be one of the original prototypes of that drone model, one which wasn't armed but was loaded to the gills with sensors. It was considered to be a technology demonstrator unit, a first-of-breed kind of thing. And it is a very large drone craft. But it is outmoded and was scheduled to be scrapped and parked in a desert boneyard later this year. Many defense analysts have speculated that we flew that drone deliberately in international airspace right on the edge of Iran's airspace (possibly taking advantage of the fact that we could prove the drone was outside Iran's airspace even if their second-rate radars said otherwise), just to see if we could get Iran to shoot it down. You may recall how FDR and even LBJ wanted always to make the enemy shoot at American ships first. It's very effective at making the American public mad as hell if you attack ships of the American navy. Defense analysts have stated that getting Iran to make the mistake of shooting down our drone would serve two purposes: 1) Iran can be proven to be an aggressor against aircraft in international airspace as well as well as a direct menace to oil shipping that is vital to the EU/China/Japan/Asia and 2) a drone like the one that was shot down has full high-speed electronic links to our intel satellites and could easily have provided America with a full electronic road map of the entire Iranian air defense network, information that could be shared, if Trump chose to, with Iran's main enemies: the Saudis (with all those shiny American jets we sold them) and the Israelis. And don't forget about that other main radar we have pointed directly at Iran in Israel's desert; it is said that you can't throw a soccer ball in the air in downtown Tehran without that radar seeing it. That radar unit happens to be in Israel for some years now but it is operated by American troops. Go ahead and cheer for Iran getting nukes.
Okay. So you think of the US and the UK and the EU as thugs. And Iran are the Good Guys. I don't care if Russia or anyone else supplies Assad with oil. But not Iran. I don't want to see a Shi'a crescent across Syria/Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan with a supporting worldwide terror network, backed by Iranian mullahs and their nuclear weapons.
"Allowed" you say? Is this the same JCPOA that Trump pulled the US out of? There is no deal, TC. None. Deals are two-way streets. You can't make an agreement with someone, and then break the deal while expecting the other person to stick to its terms. You cannot rule out the motivation of Saudi Arabia or Israel to have been responsible for the tanker damage when increasing hostilities with Iran play directly into their interests. Do you really think Iran would have sabataged the Japanese tanker while a Japan envoy was making a historic visit to Iran? At some point, you really need to be open to the possibility that they were framed. Very possible. Or maybe it actually did violate Iranian airspace for the exact same reason. Look TC, I don't trust the US military when it says stuff about Iran any more than I trust the FBI when it says stuff about Trump. Why (some) Trump supporters are only critical of corrupt motivations within the Fed gov when it's about Trump but fully trusting when it's about anyone else is a real mystery. The Deep State is real. Fake News is real, and not just when its about Trump. I am. You, in turn, can cheer for tyranny.
I'd like to see Israel reigned in. The country that attacked the USS Liberty to goad the US into the 67 war, and very possibly had advance knowledge of 911 but said nothing -- why would they when the political response to it was so very much in their favor?
So...to punish the US for allowing the CIA to depose the moderate Mossadegh regime in 1953 at the behest of BP who didn't want to see their oil wells in Iran nationalized after the Brits invested so much to develop them, you want to reward the mullahs and their theocracy with nukes some forty years after the mullahs deposed the Shah? Pahlevi was a crap strongarm dictator, supported by America, after the 1953 coup. Not so different from Marcos in the Philippines or Saddam in Iraq or, well, lots of other petty tyrants who ruled with U.S. support, more or less. Many of these were countries that were newly independent, new to democracy. And they were client states of a superpower, much as the world was divided up during the Cold War years. During the Cold War, we found it is difficult to establish durable functioning democracies in the Third World. The Soviets found instilling communism in the Third World no more rewarding. These were the primary duelling white men's burdens of civilization in the second half of the twentieth century. And both were dealing with newly independent countries with a new colonial elite that had formed new national governments after WW II and the final collapse of the European colonial empires across the Mideast and Asia and Africa. However, there was certainly a rivalry between the US and USSR for influence over many of these young countries. Iran was one of those countries at the heart of Cold War geopolitics. India is a similar country, emerged as a new democracy post-WW 2 as a former Brit colony. So maybe we should look a little more at the entire era and not pretend that history began in 1953 with the CIA-organized coup to oust Mossadegh as PM and install Pahlevi as the new Shah of Iran. You are right, of course, that the Shah was a terrible mistake for both Britain and America, even without the further problem of his succession by the mullahs of Iran. A lot of these countries, like Iraq or Iran or India or Pakistan etc., were former British colonies. America was the only real Western power as the British empire collapsed after WW II. Their borders were drawn up on maps as military and administrative districts by generals and diplomats in the Foreign Ministry in London. They were not really nations in the sense that Europe had historical nations like the Brits and the French. And even the Germans and Italians, coming late to their own modern nationhood. Not so long ago, Germany and Italy were regions, not unified nations. It's no coincidence that it was Italy and Germany who succumbed to fascism; they were Europe's newest nations. And that should give us some perspective on the new democracies after WW II that were former Brit colonies that became new countries. And how the US and USSR, as Cold War rivals, competed for influence in all these countries. Of course, we can chew the fat historically in a lot of ways. In the end, it still comes down to whether we would rather see a nuclear-armed Iran squaring off against a nuclear Saudi Arabia along with a nuclear Israel. I oppose any further nuclearization of the Mideast, regardless of the region's rather brief history. If Iran gets nukes, there will be no stopping the Saudis from doing the same. And the Turks would probably try for nukes too. Iranian nukes would likely lead directly to Saudi nukes and possibly Turkish nukes. The world really does not need more nuclear weapons.
Very true, of course. But that's not the question. The question is, can Iran be strong armed into not making them, or will strong arming them inspire and encourage them into making them. We have to accept that as tech progresses, it will only get easier for countries to build them. That's the reality. We also have to accept that the US cannot completely control what Iran and other countries do in terms of pursuing nuke weapons. Too many Americans do think that we can and failure to accept our limitations will only make things worse. I'm posting on Fox News again, and it's very common on the Iran articles to see people practically cheering for war over there. A lot of Fox viewers there think we can rule the world while at the same time being the envy of the world for our "freedom and democracy". We really do need to accept that the world is not a melodramatic place where everyone is either a good hero or an evil villain. We have to accept that political motivations will encourage both allies and adversaries to do both good and evil things. Israel will do evil sometimes. And Iran will do good sometimes. Which is why I can easily believe Israel attacked the tankers to inflame tensions. On the drone, it's a toss up to me to believe Iran vs the US on whether the drone actually entered Iran airspace. Iran may have lied and shot it down to both demonstrate their AA abilities and to get the damn spy plane away. That it cost $120 million is a bonus and could discourage it's replacement from at least coming that close again. The US may have violated Iran airspace or tricked Iran into thinking it had for the express purpose of getting Iran to shoot it down to inflame tensions. Anyway, that's just to show I don't always believe one country and disbelieve another. I look for motives. I see no motive for Iran on the tanker attacks. I do see it for Israel and Saudi Arabia. It's a complex world and treating it as a melodramatic play is naive.
I've seen the allegations, pretty thin on evidence. Anyway, I don't think Israel poses the kind of direct threat to anyone in the region that a country like Iran does, situated as it is next to the Gulf of Hormuz where so much oil traffic passes. And Iran does operate an extensive terror network across the region. Every country in the region is afraid of them. Syria's Assad would like to get rid of the Iranians and the Russians also don't like the rise of Iran as a dominant regional power. And Israel isn't the cause of the Iranian nuke program anyway. Iran dawdled along for decades after Israel got nukes before Iran started their own nuke program, probably following their observance of the North Korean nuclear program. The Norks and the Iranian mullahs are allies. It's clear that the Iranians had a lot of help in their missile and nuclear program from the Kim regime in North Korea. We need a containment policy across the Mideast and Asia. Especially with Iran and North Korea.
Iran has been a hazard to free passage in the past. I probably don't have to remind you of their capture of American sailors and a capture of some British sailors a few years back? They made propaganda films of them as captives, kept them a few days and released them. Iran is not a naval Good Guy here. They're a bad regime and they issue hostile statements about how they could mine the Straits or interdict shipping, all contrary to international law and treaty that governs the waterway. The US Navy and the British navy are present in the Straits just to keep Iran from doing things like blocking ships.
You mean the ones that drifted into Iranian territorial waters after one of the boats had an engine failure? I would call that a case of Iran doing exactly what the US Coast Guard would do if it happened in US waters. They did nothing wrong in that case.
Perhaps you mean advance 911 knowledge. On the USS Liberty, they absolutely did attack it, and if you listen to some interviews of the survivors....
I would call that a case of Iran doing exactly what the US Coast Guard would do if it happened in US waters. Parading captives is distasteful, akin to making propaganda films of POWs under duress. You may recall that Iran doesn't flinch from holding hostages, including U.S. embassy staff and making propaganda films? That violates the Geneva conventions. At least, I think it does. We don't parade military captives for the cameras, probably haven't since at least the Vietnam era. Our Pentagon doesn't want such displays. Iran is an ugly little regime in many ways. Their civil society is fairly strict in Muslim observance but not as much as Saudi Arabia is.
I accept that the Liberty should be remembered. But should we, for instance, continue to obsess over the capture of the Pueblo by North Korea, with the capture and torturous confinement of over 80 American sailors. Trying to see policy toward Israel or North Korea as being defined by the Liberty or the Pueblo naval incidents of the 1960's is perhaps not the most constructive way to conduct foreign policy. As much as those things will ever be resolved, they have been resolved. They are officially closed matters. Our relations with North Korea and Israel can't be focused on naval incidents from 50 years ago.
Gee, wonder why that is... I'm sure there are more than a few Iranians that think the same about your filthy-dirty, corrupt, lying, blood-thirsty regime of war criminals too. Iran didn't overthrow the elected government in the US in 1953 though. And Americans weren't even told about that CIA coup until the 1990's, which means they never ever even debated the actual cause for the hostage holding in the first place. Here's an idea- DON'T GO TO IRAN. That nation is none of your business. And try to get your nation to stop committing war crimes.
I think this is too difficult for Tooconservative to comprehend. Make it simpler.
We had no legal deal with Iran. Obama the fake President never ratified it. Also since you still talk about the Liberty which was clearly an accident Lets talk about the hostage taking which was on purpose Iran deserves to be destroyed for that alone The government not all the people. Just the people who support their evil muslim piece of shit terrorist illegitimate government.
Muslims are all liars. The Koran teaches them to lie. You are gullible if you believe a Muslim who is trained to lie to you.
We should have supported a coupe in Iran in 1953. We invested in their oil industry and they stole it by nationalizing it. They are lucky we did't invade them.
The way you talk it sounds like you are an Iraian. You seem to have a deep unnatural hatred of Israel. The good guys in the middle east. Who could destroy Iran if they wanted to. But they don't because they genuinely want peace unlike the Muslim pieces of shit in Iran who are commanded by their cult book to kill pillage and rape. A sick religion that muslim gutter religion is. The koran would be more useful beint turned into toilet paper to wipe peoples ass with. Much more useful.
It does sound as though some posters here would, in the event of hostilities with Iran, immediately take Iran's side. One has to wonder, given all that we know about how Iran's terror network has operated for decades, just what would it take for the mullah-coddlers to turn on Iran. You suppose they'd finally be on America's side if Iran nuked an American city? Or started a serious pandemic among the homeless hordes in L.A. or S.F. or Seattle? Or would they continue to support the Iranian mullahs and their theocracy?
This is what you are dreaming about? Bad boy.
As I've pointed out to others elsewhere on this: It doesn't matter. If you are claiming no deal ever existed, then it's impossible for Iran to have violated this deal. In which case, what's the basis of complaining that Iran enriching nuke material to any level? If there never was any deal then Iran STILL hasn't broken it. It was clearly an attack by Israel that Israel claimed was an accident... If you want to talk about the hostages, fine. But don't talk about them in a vacuum. It needs to be discussed in the context of all the US has done there.
You are gullible if you believe a Muslim who is trained to lie to you. Do you believe the FBI? James Clapper? Gulf of Tonkin? Saddam had WMD's?
I knew a few Muslims. They were much more trustworthy than you Mr Stone!
You are one of those people who would cheer if Iran attacked America or Israel. But you would whine if Iran attacked the EUroweenies who have steadfastly caved in to Iran's demands and been only too happy to provide them with dual-use technology for their missile/nuke programs. So the EU can help Iran build nukes and missiles to harm her allies. Like America. We really need to disband NATO. It's entirely useless if not counterproductive.
A lot of people are. With 85 million, Iran is fully 20% of the size of the USA. Do you not hate Iran? Do you not hate muslims? And how is it that a country of 7.5 million was able to obtain nukes before a country of 85 million? Because they exploited the US into giving them away. What ever happened to the virtues of "non-proliferation" if we give nukes to a tiny country like that? Iran is much more civilized than you think, and probably on the more westernized compared to the rest of the countries in the region. I'm convinced Israel doesn't want peace at any fair price. If they had peace with the Palestinians, they wouldn't be able to create more illegal settlements.
Do we know that? Or is that just long standing fake news coming from Israeli intelligence? That claim has been out there a while. But can you state a single terror act carried out by the Iranian gov? I can name one carried out by Israel, when they assassinated an Iranian nuke scientist. Remember that one which involved forging an Ireland passport to effect the deed? I'm sure they'll be given a waiver for that terror act because it was a *nuke* scientist they murdered. But it was terror. Hypothetical. If Israel nuked an American city, would that sway pro-Israel Americans? That does actually invoke a memory of a radioactive hotspot being allegedly ID'd in the the Israeli embassy or similar in the USA. But I'd turn on Iran more strongly if they did engage in hostilities WITHOUT having economic war declared upon them first. War has been declared already. By the US.
I think they got the nukes from the French, earlier.
I think it is more likely that Cuba will try to conquer USA, as it is closer ;) Think about.
During the Cuban missile crisis, Castro was frothing at the mouth, screaming for the Soviets to launch WW III on America from Cuba. NYTimes, 2012: Twenty years ago, we spent four days in Havana discussing the missile crisis with Mr. Castro, former Soviet officials and American decision makers from the Kennedy administration, including the former defense secretary Robert S. McNamara. Mr. Castro’s interest had been piqued by the declassification and release of Soviet and American documents in 1991 and 1992, which both surprised and angered him. These included long-suppressed passages from memoirs, released 20 years after Khrushchev’s death, in which he wrote that Mr. Castro had become irrational and possibly suicidal and that the crisis had to end before Cuba ignited a nuclear war. In addition, declassified letters between Khrushchev and Kennedy revealed the extent to which Washington and Moscow cut Cuba out of negotiations, refused to consider Cuban demands and eventually resolved the crisis in spite of Mr. Castro’s objections. So to truly understand how the world came close to Armageddon, one must look not to Washington and Moscow but to Havana. ... There are many parallels between communist Cuba in 1962 and our current bad actors, Iran and North Korea, in 2019. These are not countries that should ever have nuclear weapons.
Another that comes to mind is their assassination of the Canadian arms builder Gerald Ball. They killed him to stop his work on one or more supercannons capable of hitting Israel from Iraq. Iran is the worst state sponsor of terrorism. Everyone around the world considers this to be the case. They act in bad faith constantly, issue radical statements, organize assassinations and bombings around the world, even in places that don't matter, just to intimidate everyone else. Israel has no comparable terror network or history of mad dog attacks. Iran has earned its bad reputation and nothing they've done in the last decade has improved their standing as a state sponsor of terror and as a warmonger and regional troublemaker.
You forgot other "second Hitlers", Milosevic, Kadaffi, Saddam, the endless list. Each made from the same cookie cutter, created in Hollywood long time ago (I recommend Wag the Dog movie). Every brainwashed zombie, that cannot even show a respective country on the map, "knows" well, how wicked their leader is. No knowledge, no understanding, only Pavlovian conditional reflexes. "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
I never saw any of them as a "Hitler". Not even Saddam. But I knew more than most people about how our government funded Saddam's military buildup covertly via BCCI, if you recall that chapter of the Iraq-Iran war (which we certainly joined Saddam by providing a manned barge platform and continuous AWACS coverage of the region and served as the air controllers and intel source for Iraq's air force. Our navy was also quite nearby to keep the Iranian navy in check. The mullahs and the Norks are very much in the Hitler mold. The Norks even have a racial purity and supremacy political doctrine. They are profoundly racist as a regime and consider themselves genetically superior to the South Koreans who they are duty-bound to conquer by the sacred principles of Lenin and Stalin. And Iran has their Twelver apocalyptic, their version of Armageddon. It's akin to how evangelicals and Protestants considered that re-establishing Israel in the modern era fit into Bible prophecies about the Christian apocalypse. It's one of the main reasons why Israel gets so much support in Christian circles that go in for apocalyptic Left Behind stuff. Iran has that same sort of thing but they are much more serious about it, including all the senior leadership. They consider that it may be necessary to sacrifice various nations and even themselves to establish the final Twelver Caliphate, the end of history for Muslims. This would be comparable to the thousand-year reign of Christ following the Second Coming, for instance. Both North Korea and Iran are extremist totalitarian regimes that regularly break agreements and foment terrorism. Kim killed his own brother overseas with nerve gas. And Iran's list of crimes as a state sponsor of terrorism is endless. And not just against Israel. Far from it. A country like Nazi Germany shouldn't have nuclear weapons. And Iran and North Korea are both too much like Nazi Germany in the worst ways.
Pure unadulterated bullshit.
There is no such thing as illegal settlements. Palestinians are illegal aliens in israel.
Vox: Juche, the state ideology that makes North Koreans revere Kim Jong Un, explained
Due to a biblical claim going back thousands of years. Yes. And THAT attitude is why there won't be peace. Never mind that it's highly doubtful that even a single present day Israeli can even trace his lineage back that far. Like I said.... it can be tempting to simplistically think present day Israelis and ancient Israelies are related by blood. The reality may closer reflect the fact that before 100 years ago, a sizeable percentage of people generally didn't move more than 20 miles from their place of birth. Go back to times of antiquity, and you'll find people intermarry into neighboring cultures. Which is why the irony of this whole mid-east situation may be that the Palestinians may have, in spite of their current Islamic faith, more blood of ancient Israel in them than present day Israelis do, who are, I understand, mostly of Eurasian descent. And if THAT is true, then you would be cheering for the persecutors of God's chosen people.
From what I know from people that lived under Hitler and what I've read and heard about life in N. Korea and Iran, there's a lot in your comparison that bears credible consideration. But when I read "Texas Court Orders Father to Raise His Son As A Transsexual" I wonder how a liberal democracy like the one we've been taught to honor from the day we learned to tie our shoes has so suddenly and inexplicably turned to shit.
You are gullible if you believe a Muslim who is trained to lie to you. You seem to have become even more unhinged than was noticeable 2 years ago, which is a remarkable achievement.
The Koran says to lie to non muslims. Do you have your head up your ass jwpegler, or are you just not paying attentiona? Of course Clapper is a liar too and maybe the other video you posted has a liar in it too.
Comments (48 - 89) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Britain interdicted an Iranian tanker that was illegally attempting to deliver oil to Bashar Assad. The U.N. has authorized such interdictions as part of their policy.
#9. To: Pinguinite, Vicomte13 (#4)
I believe they have already stated they are not interested in nuke weapons.
I do not believe Iran attacked the tankers, but on the drone, it's a toss up as to whether it violated Iran airspace. Iran may have wanted to prove its air defense capabilities by shooting down an aircraft that was 11 miles high and if so, it was an adequate demonstration.
If there is a war, I for one will not be cheering for American forces. Count me out.
#10. To: Pinguinite (#8)
They appear to be, at best, EU and US based, neither of which Iran or Syria are a legal party to and in which they have no representation. Given that framework, this is much more akin to a dozen city thugs telling a few residents in a community that they can't visit with one another.
#11. To: Tooconservative (#9)
You mean, before last week when they announced they were exceeding the level of enrichment allowed under JCPOA?
Iran was responsible for the mines.
Many defense analysts have speculated that we flew that drone deliberately in international airspace right on the edge of Iran's airspace (possibly taking advantage of the fact that we could prove the drone was outside Iran's airspace even if their second-rate radars said otherwise), just to see if we could get Iran to shoot it down.
Go ahead and cheer for Iran getting nukes.
#12. To: Tooconservative (#10)
I don't want to see a Shi'a crescent across Syria/Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan with a supporting worldwide terror network, backed by Iranian mullahs and their nuclear weapons.
#13. To: Pinguinite (#7)
I refuse to be a cheerleader for the USA just because I was born there. Me, I prefer morality and justice, and the US treatment of Iran over the last 65 years has been quite unjust. We have exploited that country for their oil.
#14. To: Tooconservative (#13)
The world really does not need more nuclear weapons.
#15. To: Pinguinite (#12)
The country that attacked the USS Liberty to goad the US into the 67 war, and very possibly had advance knowledge of 911
#16. To: Pinguinite (#14)
Anyway, that's just to show I don't always believe one country and disbelieve another. I look for motives. I see no motive for Iran on the tanker attacks. I do see it for Israel and Saudi Arabia. It's a complex world and treating it as a melodramatic play is naive.
#17. To: Tooconservative (#16)
I probably don't have to remind you of their capture of American sailors
#18. To: Tooconservative (#15)
I've seen the allegations, pretty thin on evidence.
#19. To: Pinguinite (#17)
You mean the ones that drifted into Iranian territorial waters after one of the boats had an engine failure?
#20. To: Pinguinite (#18)
On the USS Liberty, they absolutely did attack it, and if you listen to some interviews of the survivors....
#21. To: Tooconservative (#19)
We don't parade military captives for the cameras, probably haven't since at least the Vietnam era. Our Pentagon doesn't want such displays.
Iran is an ugly little regime in many ways.
#22. To: Pinguinite (#11)
Deals are two-way streets. You can't make an agreement with someone, and then break the deal while expecting the other person to stick to its terms.
#23. To: Pinguinite (#11)
You can't make an agreement with someone, and then break the deal
#24. To: Pinguinite (#4)
I believe they have already stated they are not interested in nuke weapons.
#25. To: Pinguinite (#4)
The fact is the USA has abused and exploited Iran starting in 1953.
#26. To: Pinguinite (#14)
Israel will do evil sometimes. And Iran will do good sometimes. Which is why I can easily believe Israel attacked the tankers to inflame tensions.
#27. To: A K A Stone (#26)
(Edited)
#28. To: Tooconservative (#27)
You suppose they'd finally be on America's side if Iran nuked an American city? Or started a serious pandemic among the homeless hordes in L.A. or S.F. or Seattle? Or
#29. To: A K A Stone (#23)
We had no legal deal with Iran. Obama the fake President never ratified it.
Also since you still talk about the Liberty which was clearly an accident
Lets talk about the hostage taking which was on purpose Iran deserves to be destroyed for that alone The government not all the people. Just the people who support their evil muslim piece of shit terrorist illegitimate government.
#30. To: A K A Stone (#24)
Muslims are all liars. The Koran teaches them to lie.
#31. To: A K A Stone (#24)
You are gullible if you believe a Muslim who is trained to lie to you.
#32. To: A Pole (#28)
#33. To: A K A Stone (#26)
The way you talk it sounds like you are an Iraian.
You seem to have a deep unnatural hatred of Israel.
Who could destroy Iran if they wanted to.
Israel exploits the USA. I know you and other Christians favor Israel, but it's not because of what they've done. It's because of a religious belief that they are Biblical prophesy fulfilled. The irony is that the Palestinains and other actual semites in the area probably have more blood of ancient Israel in them than present day Israelis.
But they don't because they genuinely want peace unlike the Muslim pieces of shit in Iran who are commanded by their cult book to kill pillage and rape. A sick religion that muslim gutter religion is.
#34. To: Tooconservative (#27)
One has to wonder, given all that we know about how Iran's terror network has operated for decades,
You suppose they'd finally be on America's side if Iran nuked an American city?
#35. To: Pinguinite (#33)
Because they exploited the US into giving them away
#36. To: Tooconservative (#32)
(Edited)
You are one of those people who would cheer if Iran attacked America or Israel.
#37. To: A Pole (#36)
think it is more likely that Cuba will try to conquer USA, as it is closer ;) Think about.
...
#38. To: Pinguinite (#34)
That claim has been out there a while. But can you state a single terror act carried out by the Iranian gov? I can name one carried out by Israel, when they assassinated an Iranian nuke scientist. Remember that one which involved forging an Ireland passport to effect the deed? I'm sure they'll be given a waiver for that terror act because it was a *nuke* scientist they murdered. But it was terror.
#39. To: Tooconservative (#37)
(Edited)
There are many parallels between communist Cuba in 1962 and our current bad actors, Iran and North Korea, in 2019
#40. To: A Pole (#39)
You forgot other "second Hitlers", Milosevic, Kadaffi, Saddam, the endless list.
#41. To: Tooconservative (#40)
The Norks even have a racial purity and supremacy political doctrine. They are profoundly racist as a regime and consider themselves genetically superior to the South Koreans
#42. To: Pinguinite (#33)
#43. To: A Pole (#41)
#44. To: A K A Stone (#42)
There is no such thing as illegal settlements. Palestinians are illegal aliens in israel.
#45. To: Tooconservative (#40)
The mullahs and the Norks are very much in the Hitler mold.
#46. To: A K A Stone (#24)
Muslims are all liars. The Koran teaches them to lie.
#47. To: Operation 40 (#46)
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]