Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Iran on the Brink
#81
Referring to people/sites that actually tried to understand what has happened, not merely reprinted US admin versions that instantly contradict common sense.

(Example: type of munition used to attack the tankers. Not consistent with torpedoes or mines as claimed by the US, too high above the waterline. Consistent with Hellfire missiles. Does not mean it was exactly that, of course.)
Sanders 2020

Reply
#82
[Image: IMG_7761.jpg]The Iranians had patrol boats put magnet charges on the tankers, a Hellfire missile would have either sunk or caused a massive explosion and fire on the tanker. Several sunk tankers would have impeded Irans ability to move its oil to markets.
The true purpose of democracy is not to select the best leaders — a clearly debatable obligation — but to facilitate the prompt and peaceful removal of obviously bad ones. 
Reply
#83
How would a patrol boat have been able to sneak in and do this? Wouldn't there be lookouts for just such things? After all, this location is a constantly dangerous area. Also, don't these ships have radar that would have identified the boats?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Socialism always begins with a universal vision for the brotherhood of man and ends with people having to eat their own pets.”
Reply
#84
Yes, these arguments argue strongly against the boat.

There is however one possibility: a boat (or small sub) was used to deliver a trained terrorist who approached a tanker underwater, then climb on the side of tanker and placed a mine or two high above the waterline.

(Do notice that there was no explosion and no spill either -- and I think this might have been was a part of the perp plan to limit the damage.)|

Now, an air-to-ground missile (Hellfire is surely not the only one): no explosion is not a problem if what the tankers carried was not oil. the reports said "chemicals").

And I would not find it now but a blogger a few days ago posted comparison photos of damage in this incident and some old tests of Hellfire that we on internet, indeed looked similar.

Basically we can exclude torpedoes and nearly exclude small boats.... but not find out what it was.

Quote:Several sunk tankers would have impeded Irans ability to move its oil to markets.
You are missing a huge factor.

Iran cannot sell oil right now -- part of the US sanctions blockade.

Iran further stated -- officially -- that if they cannot export oil, no one else will be able too.
(but this does not mean that they are the culprits).

And this is HALF of what I meant that Trump's reelection in case of an attack on Iran is questionable : to stop Iran from carrying this threat one would need a full size war, Vietnam-level.

The situation is actually quite similar to 1940 in the Pacific when the US began a war on Japan.
Sanders 2020

Reply
#85
JohnL Wrote:How would a patrol boat have been able to sneak in and do this?
Greenpeace does it regularly.

mv Wrote:Iran cannot sell oil right now -- part of the US sanctions blockade.
Iran still sells and export oil.
Reply
#86
Fred Wrote:
Quote:JohnL Wrote:
How would a patrol boat have been able to sneak in and do this?
Greenpeace does it regularly.

Slightly different circumstances.  Greenpeace is using 'civil disobedience' and the subjects above are using military action, and shooting at each other.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Socialism always begins with a universal vision for the brotherhood of man and ends with people having to eat their own pets.”
Reply
#87
LOL. I'll go further on this : Greenpeace would not mind being caught. Free publicity and donations. Heck, they would not mind being shot at even, at least the leaders of Greenpeace would not mind their volunteers being shot S6

Quote:Iran still sells and export oil.

Very little and the US is doing everything possible to cut this income. Natural gas is to be next.

This is a full scale economic war, and this is the reason why the idea of Iran provoking the US into a military attack is not totally crazy, it may be their only way to win.
Sanders 2020

Reply
#88
US sanctions are beginning to hurt the government, as the citizenry take to the streets to cause chaos and destruction. I believe we are getting closer to the end here.

Quote:Iran says hundreds of banks were torched in 'vast' unrest plot

Iran’s top leader on Wednesday denounced an outbreak of deadly unrest as a “very dangerous conspiracy” as authorities reported about 731 banks and 140 government sites had been torched in the disturbances.

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said the protests amounted to a plot that Iranians had defeated, referring to the worst anti-government unrest in Iran since authorities put down demonstrations against election fraud in 2009.

The disturbances began on Nov. 15 after the announcement of gasoline price hikes, but quickly turned political, with protesters demanding top leaders step down.

.........

The struggle of ordinary Iranians to make ends meet has become harder since last year when U.S. President Donald Trump withdrew the United States from Tehran’s nuclear deal with world powers and reimposed sanctions on the country.

Combined with the rising inflation, growing unemployment, a slump in the rial and state corruption, Washington’s “maximum pressure” has caused Iran’s economy to deteriorate.

The government said the gasoline price rises of as much as 50% aim to raise around $2.55 billion a year for extra subsidies to 18 million families struggling on low incomes. The monthly cash payments are set at just 550,000 rials ($4.44) per person.

Breaking News as Massive Protesters turns against the Banks & Regime of Iran!!
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Socialism always begins with a universal vision for the brotherhood of man and ends with people having to eat their own pets.”
Reply
#89
JohnL Wrote:US sanctions are beginning to hurt the government
AFAIK there is no sanction from France, Russia or China. So your US sanctions have minimal to no effect on the economy of Iran.

It only profits to those working for the Iranian nuke program. They just got a delivery of brand new centrifuges, 100 times faster than the old ones they had before the US sanctions.
During the Evil-Obama deal Iran couldn't buy new technologies related to uranium enrichment. Thanks to Trump-the-Perfect who signed the authorisation with his own hand, now, they can.

S20  S25   Iran announces new centrifuges on 40th anniversary of US embassy siege  S27 S22

Since Iran can afford to boost its nuke program and since the Revolutionary Guard's Immortals are still supporting the Grand Ayatollah, I don't see this regime falling anytime soon.
They will shoot with life bullets as they did in Iraq last week. Same culture. Same methods.

When there were similar unrest when Obama was president, you didn't say it was thanks to Obama. Did you?
Reply
#90
(11-30-2019, 08:21 PM)Fredledingue Wrote: ...When there were similar unrest when Obama was president, you didn't say it was thanks to Obama. Did you?

What are you saying? Of course Obama was blamed for Iran's problems. He emboldened them with his unTreaty and gave them pallets of untraceable dollars and foreign currency to directly fund terrorism. What's not to blame?
Internal insurgency has been bubbling over for decades. Obama just made it easier for the government to resist their people.
Reply
#91
WmL It's was not Obama's treaty nor did Obama sent Iran untraceable US banknotes. It was a UN treaty and the money was released by US banks according to the international agreement. The US was only part of the negotiation.

I prefer to see the mullahs resist their people and not being able to build nukes than seeing them being able to biuld nukes and still resist their people.
Reply
#92
(12-14-2019, 09:50 AM)Fredledingue Wrote:
WmL It's was not Obama's treaty nor did Obama sent Iran untraceable US banknotes. It was a UN treaty and the money was released by US banks according to the international agreement. The US was only part of the negotiation.

I prefer to see the mullahs resist their people and not being able to build nukes than seeing them being able to build nukes and still resist their people.

Au Contraire...It was John Kerry's and Obama's Treaty that the UN agreed to. They told us so. The reason Obama and Kerry gave for its legitimacy was international law - which they bent over backwards to embrace. Funny thing is, our sanctions prevented US banks from giving them money, and our Constitution does not follow international law. It was not a Treaty, because Congress didn't even know about it until that $1.8 billion in unmarked bills was transferred in the dark of night at an airport. In essence it was an Executive Order that ignored our own sanctions and had the money delivered from non-disclosed accounts with the complicity of the UN. The much larger portion of money did go through the banks.

BTW, one earlier post somehow disappeared.
Reply
#93
More info on Obama's Iran deal can be found here: Marc Theissen in the Washington Post June 8, 2018 - How Obama took lying to new heights. (Note: this artcle costs a dollar at the Post archive website, but it is reprinted here for free.)

Quote:the Obama administration:
(1) told Congress it would not allow Iran access to U.S. financial institutions;
(2) issued a special license allowing Iran to do exactly that;
(3) unsuccessfully pressured U.S. banks to help Iran;
(4) lied to Congress and the American people about what it had done;
(5) admitted in internal emails that these efforts "exceeded" U.S. obligations under the nuclear deal;
(6) sent officials, including bank regulators, around the world to urge foreign financial institutions to do business with Iran; and
(7) promised that they would get nothing more than a slap on the wrist for violating U.S. sanctions.
Reply
#94
That's a very americano-centrist version of the events. In Europe we were told that the US was only part of the negotiations.
Reply
#95
Yeah, Obama and Kerry were the instigators and chief arrangers of the entire deal. They got the Five + one to agree to it, but it was O & K who got the pallets of money to go to Iran in the middle of the night and gave them a pathway to nukes. The Euros were flattered to think they were a big part, but they weren't. It was O & K who let Iran never allow real inspections by the AEIA.
Reply
#96
(01-15-2020, 05:35 PM)Fredledingue Wrote: That's a very americano-centrist version of the events. In Europe we were told that the US was only part of the negotiations.

Fred, perhaps you can tell me just what the EU has, in order to back up its enforcement with Iran.  And remember, 'harsh language' doesn't count.  And lets say the US withdraws from this and lets the Euros lead the way, i.e. threaten and bluster,.....and Iran does what it damn well pleases.  What is the one thing that the Euros will ultimately do?  And who will be left stuck with the entire bill?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Socialism always begins with a universal vision for the brotherhood of man and ends with people having to eat their own pets.”
Reply
#97
JohnL, Actually the nuke deal is still in effect with every other countries (EU + Russia and China).
Iran is not doing what they please because they rely on those still on board for their oil money.

Iran could have enrich uranium to multi-digit levels but they abstained because of the EU and Russia and China too. Russia and China don't want Iran to access nukes but they don't tell it too loudly because they want to keep the illusion of a Russia-Iran-China axis. Purely illusion but it works because they align themselves on many things.
Russia especially is making sure Iran never get a nuke because once Iran has a nuke, Russia will be useless in the M-E. Nuclear threats will replace russian interference. It may even returns against Russia.
China may be less concerned about Iranian nukes (they themselves helped proliferate atomic weapons to Korea) but they would also prefer Iran has no nuke if asked.
Iran as a result has enriched uranium only to 4%. Just symbolically to mark Trump's departure from the deal.

After Soleimani's death, Europe did everything to keep the deal in place but they also didn't condemn the assassination. (I forgot to check what was Russia's and China's reactions).
The deal is not dead but it's complicated. Iran announced enrichment to much higher levels but they didn't start it yet.

You think the US are the only ones watching the World. That others are too corrupt, too lazy, too weak to do anything. That's not true.

WmLambert Wrote:but it was O & K who got the pallets of money to go to Iran in the middle of the night

OK, let's assume it's true. What's wrong with that if sending pallets of untraceable banknotes was part of the deal?
A deal is a deal.
You give the money in cash or by wire transfer, what's the difference?
You think O & K could have this money straight from the Treasury press, and sent by an airplane without anyone checking? No GOP people around to take a look, and start an impeachment process?

Once I have the time, I'll investigate this and see what's the part of truth and part of myth in this palet story.
Reply
#98
(01-19-2020, 08:43 PM)Fredledingue Wrote: ...What's wrong with that if sending pallets of untraceable banknotes was part of the deal?
A deal is a deal.

That's why Trump said it was a stupid deal, designed to allow Iran to move money to Terrorists without laundering the money first. What's more, the "inspections" end of the deal was virtually non-existent. The AEIA was not allowed to make inspections without a two-week lead time, and then, only if Iran permitted. The only way we get metrics on what you claim to be 4%-only enrichment is from embedded Israeli spies. The AEIA has no clue.
Reply
#99
Quote:The only way we get metrics on what you claim to be 4%-only enrichment is from embedded Israeli spies. The AEIA has no clue.


No, it's because Iran told so. (but maybe Israeli spies have gone there to check) .

And now Iran announced they will enrich without limit. Then retracted and said that they would do it only if the deal is resubmitted to an UN panel.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  North Korea on brink of first nuclear blast, warn Americans Gunnen4u 15 5,296 05-10-2005, 02:07 PM
Last Post: Ron Lambert

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)