[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Son Volt’s "Union" Joins in the Anti-Trump Clamor

Rep. Elise Stefanik Discusses Schemes, Ploys and Manipulative Games of Adam Schiff…

Sacré Bleu! Trump-Basher Pierre Delecto’s Approval Rating is Now Underwater in Utah

HERE WE GO: SchiffÂ’s Star Witness Who Met with Staffers Claims Trump Quid Pro Quo

Out-Of-Control Pelosi & Schiff Ban Republicans From Viewing Transcripts Of ‘Secret’ Impeachment Hearings Says Report

Texas: Jury Rules Against Dad Fighting 7-Year-Old Son’s Gender Transition

Male-to-female professor wins women’s cycling championship again, taunts female critics

Trans Activists Force Procter & Gamble To Remove Female Venus Symbol From Sanitary Pads Packaging

Senate Leader McConnell Rebuffs President Trump – Introduces Resolution To Keep US Troops In Syria

Mitch McConnell Says He Will Sit Down with Chuck Schumer to Discuss Impeachment Proceedings

Trump defends Gabbard in Clinton spat, says she's no agent

What if the Police Don’t Identify Themselves?

WATCH: SWAT Wakes Up Disoriented Homeless Man, Execute Him for Reaching for His Waistband

https://futurism.com/the-byte/us-army-tom-delonge-ufo-research

Officer Who Shot Atatiana Jefferson Wasn't Asked to Do Wellness Check Despite Neighbor's Request

Ready to Pay $30,000 for Sharing a Photo Online? The House of Representatives Thinks You Are

The Pathocracy of the Deep State: Tyranny at the Hands of a Psychopathic Government

Hillary telling friends: If I thought there was an opening in the primary, I’d consider jumping in

AGW Escalation

Stockholm Syndrome

The IRS Admits it is Targeting the Poor Because it is “Easier and Cheaper” Than Auditing the Wealthy

NBC News Thinks Getting Microchipped Sounds Super-Convenient

Seattle Public Schools Will Start Teaching That Math Is Oppressive

Is Sam Adams' New 28 Percent ABV Beer Legal in Your State?

San Francisco Mint striking Enhanced Reverse Proof silver American Eagle

Louis Vuitton designer declares Trump 'a joke' after Texas workshop visit

184 House Republicans Back Bill to Censure Adam Schiff Ahead of Monday Vote

Greta Van Susteren: Fox News’ Wallace Wants to ‘Smear and Cause Trouble’ with Anonymous Impeachment Claim

Trump Will Win in 2020 *Because* of Impeachment

Florida Cops Went to Absurd Lengths to Entrap Man Who Showed No Interest in Underage Sex

Report: CIA Deep State Actors Linked to Origin of Russia Hoax Lawyer Up

Poll: Iowa caucuses are 'up for grabs' as Pete Buttigieg surges into top tier

Mitt Romney's secret Twitter account Pierre Delecto reveales

Durham’s Trail Leading to SSCI – Ali Watkins Never Slept With James Wolfe – It Was a Cover Story….

New Democrat Icon Mitt Romney Prepares to Unseat Donald Trump

Automotive Pre-Emption

Should You Get A Flu Shot?

Mifsud’s Phones Obtained by Durham Have UK Sim Cards Tying Them to the UK — AND BACK TO JOHN BRENNAN

Napolitano Wrong Again: Schiff Inquiry a Kangaroo Court

World's longest nonstop commercial flight lands in Sydney

Portland Police Review Board Says It's OK For Officers To Lie To Get Someone To Stop Filming Them

The Founding Father Who Told Americans We Have A Right To Military Weapons

A Colorado officer shot an armed man through the window of the man's home, police say

The Gun in Atatiana Jefferson’s Hand Will Be Far from Irrelevant

Gabbard says Clinton 'Russian asset' remarks are part of 'smear campaign' as 2020 Dems voice support

Elijah Cummings' widow expected to run for his House seat: report

‘I’ll Shoot You In The F—king Face’: Video Shows Cop Threaten to Murder 16yo Boy

Cops Walk Up to Family’s Home Unannounced, Shoot Dad in the Back Through a Window

Whoa! LOUISIANA ELECTION.Exit Polls!!!

Cops Mistake Powdered Milk for Cocaine, Innocent Man Thrown in a Cage for Months


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

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: 1597
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:

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.

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 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.

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 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.” …

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. (1 image)

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Tooconservative (#0)

The real hypocrisy here, as I see it, is that the EU/UK/US have already declared war on Iran via crippling sanction and now seizing an Iranian tanker. Seizing the foreign property of another country is called piracy when it's done by a non-state entity, and war when it's done by a state entity.

What is the hell is Iran supposed to do? There is no deal in place. Trump, who wrote a book called "The Art of the Deal" is clearly not attempting to create a new deal to replace the one he pulled out of. Iran is obviously technologically advanced enough to make nuclear material and nuclear bombs but no one wants to talk to them about it.

At the same time, Iran is supposed to respect sanctions imposed by a bunch of foreign countries on Syria but the EU is NOT supposed to respect sanctions that Iran might want to impose on the UK.

This is lawlessness upon the part of the EU. Iran is not provoking. They are being provoked. War has been declared upon Iran. It's just not a hot war yet. The west is simply making life miserable for Iran enough to compel them into firing the first shot.

The only way out of this for Iran is for them to create a nuclear weapon. Once they do that, then the US/UK/EU will be forced to actually negotiate, and/or realize that continuing to sanction a new nuclear power is more dangerous than not. Pakistan has nukes, but they aren't getting sanctioned.

And Iran will have nukes eventually. There's no stopping that.

Pinguinite  posted on  2019-07-11   12:37:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Tooconservative (#0)

The UK, Britain or England. It is always the same. They drag us into a war the populace does not want, for reasons not clear and we send our best and brightest to die. It is time to bring our troops home from nearly everywhere. We have over how many bases in foreign countries? 100? Think of the money we could use to rebuild America, put up a proper wall, high speed rail coast to coast in more than one place. Maybe we could lower spending by TRILLIONS?

THIS IS A TAG LINE...Exercising rights is only radical to two people, Tyrants and Slaves. Which are YOU? Our ignorance has driven us into slavery and we do not recognize it.

jeremiad  posted on  2019-07-11   16:52:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Pinguinite (#1)

What is the hell is Iran supposed to do?

Iran is supposed to renounce nuclear weapons, make peace with Israel and stop givi g givi giving financial support to terrorist militias. Those are the terms for peace.

We, in turn, will lift all sanctions.

Iran will never be permitted to develop nuclear weapons, not ever. We will l launch airstrikes on their facilities before they get there.

Vicomte13  posted on  2019-07-11   17:47:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Vicomte13 (#3)

Iran is supposed to renounce nuclear weapons, make peace with Israel and stop givi g givi giving financial support to terrorist militias. Those are the terms for peace.

We, in turn, will lift all sanctions.

Iran will never be permitted to develop nuclear weapons, not ever. We will l launch airstrikes on their facilities before they get there.

I believe they have already stated they are not interested in nuke weapons. How much peace Israel is interested in is questionable, and certainly Israel is an aggressive country itself. How much support they give to "terrorist militias" is also questionable as it seems Israel is the primary intelligence agency making the claim.

No, I think it's unlikely the Iranians will ever be treated as an equal country. Sanctions won't be lifted without an agreement, and there is no interest from the west in any agreement. We dictate to Iran, "no nukes" and expect them to obey. But it's doubtful that anyone will ever believe Iran has abandoned them no matter what they do or don't do.

I for one don't trust Israel as far as I could throw it, and Israel has nukes enough to keep Iran in line.

The hardliners greatly desire to control what Iran does and see that as the only solution. It won't work. Iran cannot be invaded as unlike Iraq, there is no border country that is likely to permit itself to be a staging area. Without that, an Omaha Beach style sea invasion is required.

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. A weak point for the US is the ability to stomach casualties, and a manned air strike into Iran may prove a political disaster if crews are killed or captured.

The fact is the USA has abused and exploited Iran starting in 1953. Iranians have a patriotic right to be pissed at the USA. But the vast majority of Americans are oblivious to that, having knowledge of US Iranian relations that only date back to 1979.

If there is a war, I for one will not be cheering for American forces. Count me out.

Pinguinite  posted on  2019-07-11   18:26:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Pinguinite (#1)

The real hypocrisy here, as I see it, is that the EU/UK/US have already declared war on Iran via crippling sanction and now seizing an Iranian tanker. Seizing the foreign property of another country is called piracy when it's done by a non-state entity, and war when it's done by a state entity.

So, you are on Iran's side. Okay.

At the same time, Iran is supposed to respect sanctions imposed by a bunch of foreign countries on Syria but the EU is NOT supposed to respect sanctions that Iran might want to impose on the UK.

I don't think anyone cares if Iran imposes sanctions on the UK. Including the UK.

The only sanctions that really mean anything are U.S. sanctions. Because we can force all other trading partners to follow our lead. Or we will impose sanctions on them as well. So, for instance, Germany got mad at our ambassador, Grenell, for telling them to be prepared for a renewal of sanctions. And France and some German pols plotted ways to evade the new sanctions with an assist from the traitor John F'n Kerry. Grenell made the Germans very mad with this, about six months ago. And now? They are toeing the line, exactly as they were told to do. Merkel can turn her vagina inside out in rage but she can't do anything about it. The U.S. alone controls the entire international sanctions regime.

Of course, if other countries don't like it, they are free to start their own international economic system. Ask the Russians how well that worked for the old Soviet regime. We strangled the USSR following this same exact containment strategy.

The only way out of this for Iran is for them to create a nuclear weapon. Once they do that, then the US/UK/EU will be forced to actually negotiate, and/or realize that continuing to sanction a new nuclear power is more dangerous than not. Pakistan has nukes, but they aren't getting sanctioned.

Pakistan is different. First and foremost, they are not a rabid enemy of America for the last 40 years.

If Iran creates a nuke, we'll increase the sanctions to the point where everyone in Iran just starves. And they are in the midst of a major drought already, due to the insanely bad water management policy of the regime. One of their nicest inland lakes has virtually dried up, much like that huge inland lake did in the old Soviet Union, also due to grossly inept water management policy. And that has ruined much of Iran's irrigation which came from this lake, much as happened to the idiotic Soviet policy that destroyed the fourth largest inland sea in the world, the Aral Sea. A first-order environmental disaster, entirely the fault of ignorant Soviet water policy and ineffective dam/canal design and construction.

And Iran will have nukes eventually. There's no stopping that.

Trump: Hold muh beer...

Go ahead and cheer for Iranian nukes to teach those dirty Brits and us fucking Yanks a thing or two.

I'll bet on the Anglosphere to prevail even if the Persians end up being forced to eat their own children to avoid starving.

Trump may well prevail with both Iran and the Norks where all our previous presidents have failed. But you go ahead and cheer for the most rabid America-haters on the planet if that's what you prefer. We'll see how it turns out.

Tooconservative  posted on  2019-07-11   18:32:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: jeremiad (#2)

The UK, Britain or England. It is always the same. They drag us into a war the populace does not want, for reasons not clear and we send our best and brightest to die.

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.

Iran, furiously, threatened to grab a British tanker. The Brits defended their tankers and made the Iranians look silly.

And the U.S. wasn't involved either time. Nor did it cost the Brits anything since they already have their naval presence in the Straits of Hormuz and at Gibraltar.

The Iranian regime is near collapse. There will be no war with UK/US. And Iran will have no nukes and no missiles to threaten US/EU/Israel/Saudis.

I want the mullahs of Iran driven from power and put on trial.

Tooconservative  posted on  2019-07-11   18:37:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Tooconservative (#5)

So, you are on Iran's side. Okay.

Fine. Why not?

I refuse to go with the "might makes right" line of thinking which it seems from your post is what you subscribe to. So France and Germany have been whipped into line by a tyrannical and dominating USA! That's how we spread democracy, right? That's what makes us the beacon of freedom, setting an example of how the world should be!

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. Pakistan doesn't have quite so much, which is probably the catalyst defining the only meaningful difference in relations.

And I would trust Iran with nuke weapons before I'd trust Israel which has this final Samson option where they nuke all their enemies in the event they are ever invaded and defeated as a country. Iran has something to lose, and always will have something to lose. Israel is more dangerous in that regard.

I will never understand any brand of conservatism that embraces tyranny as you have so aptly described.

Pinguinite  posted on  2019-07-11   18:52:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: Tooconservative (#6)

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.

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.

Pinguinite  posted on  2019-07-11   19:03:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Pinguinite, Vicomte13 (#4)

I believe they have already stated they are not interested in nuke weapons.

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.

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.

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.

If there is a war, I for one will not be cheering for American forces. Count me out.

Go ahead and cheer for Iran getting nukes.

Tooconservative  posted on  2019-07-11   19:12:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

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.

Tooconservative  posted on  2019-07-11   19:18:23 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: Tooconservative (#9)

You mean, before last week when they announced they were exceeding the level of enrichment allowed under JCPOA?

"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.

Iran was responsible for the mines.

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.

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.

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.

Go ahead and cheer for Iran getting nukes.

I am. You, in turn, can cheer for tyranny.

Pinguinite  posted on  2019-07-11   19:58:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

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?

Pinguinite  posted on  2019-07-11   20:02:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

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.

Tooconservative  posted on  2019-07-11   20:51:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: Tooconservative (#13)

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.

Pinguinite  posted on  2019-07-11   21:08:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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

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.

Tooconservative  posted on  2019-07-11   21:13:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

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.

Tooconservative  posted on  2019-07-11   21:24:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: Tooconservative (#16)

I probably don't have to remind you of their capture of American sailors

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.

Pinguinite  posted on  2019-07-11   21:46:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: Tooconservative (#15)

I've seen the allegations, pretty thin on evidence.

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....

Pinguinite  posted on  2019-07-11   21:48:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: Pinguinite (#17)

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.

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.

Tooconservative  posted on  2019-07-11   21:58:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: Pinguinite (#18)

On the USS Liberty, they absolutely did attack it, and if you listen to some interviews of the survivors....

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.

Tooconservative  posted on  2019-07-11   22:14:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

Gee, wonder why that is...

Iran is an ugly little regime in many ways.

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.

Operation 40  posted on  2019-07-12   2:14:13 ET  (6 images) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

I think this is too difficult for Tooconservative to comprehend. Make it simpler.

A Pole  posted on  2019-07-12   5:05:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: Pinguinite (#11)

You can't make an agreement with someone, and then break the deal

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.

A K A Stone  posted on  2019-07-12   6:48:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: Pinguinite (#4)

I believe they have already stated they are not interested in nuke weapons.

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.

A K A Stone  posted on  2019-07-12   7:04:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: Pinguinite (#4)

The fact is the USA has abused and exploited Iran starting in 1953.

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.

A K A Stone  posted on  2019-07-12   7:06:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

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.

A K A Stone  posted on  2019-07-12   7:10:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: A K A Stone (#26) (Edited)

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?

Tooconservative  posted on  2019-07-12   9:56:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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

This is what you are dreaming about? Bad boy.

A Pole  posted on  2019-07-12   10:24:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: A K A Stone (#23)

We had no legal deal with Iran. Obama the fake President never ratified it.

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.

Also since you still talk about the Liberty which was clearly an accident

It was clearly an attack by Israel that Israel claimed was 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.

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.

Pinguinite  posted on  2019-07-12   11:16:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: A K A Stone (#24)

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.

Do you believe the FBI? James Clapper? Gulf of Tonkin? Saddam had WMD's?

Pinguinite  posted on  2019-07-12   11:17:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: A K A Stone (#24)

You are gullible if you believe a Muslim who is trained to lie to you.

I knew a few Muslims. They were much more trustworthy than you Mr Stone!

A Pole  posted on  2019-07-12   11:26:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: A Pole (#28)

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.

Tooconservative  posted on  2019-07-12   11:30:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: A K A Stone (#26)

The way you talk it sounds like you are an Iraian.

A lot of people are. With 85 million, Iran is fully 20% of the size of the USA.

You seem to have a deep unnatural hatred of Israel.

Do you not hate Iran? Do you not hate muslims?

Who could destroy Iran if they wanted to.

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?

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.

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.

Pinguinite  posted on  2019-07-12   11:52:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: Tooconservative (#27)

One has to wonder, given all that we know about how Iran's terror network has operated for decades,

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.

You suppose they'd finally be on America's side if Iran nuked an American city?

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.

Pinguinite  posted on  2019-07-12   11:59:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: Pinguinite (#33)

Because they exploited the US into giving them away

I think they got the nukes from the French, earlier.

A Pole  posted on  2019-07-12   11:59:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: Tooconservative (#32) (Edited)

You are one of those people who would cheer if Iran attacked America or Israel.

I think it is more likely that Cuba will try to conquer USA, as it is closer ;) Think about.

A Pole  posted on  2019-07-12   12:01:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: A Pole (#36)

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.

Tooconservative  posted on  2019-07-12   14:57:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

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.

Tooconservative  posted on  2019-07-12   15:07:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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

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."

A Pole  posted on  2019-07-12   15:22:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: A Pole (#39)

You forgot other "second Hitlers", Milosevic, Kadaffi, Saddam, the endless list.

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.

Tooconservative  posted on  2019-07-12   16:41:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (41 - 89) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com