PDA

View Full Version : Iran Would be Justified in Closing Strategic Waterway in Response to Sanctions



txradioguy
12-30-2011, 02:30 PM
As Iran ratcheted up its rhetoric Thursday about closing the Strait of Hormuz, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul revisited his earlier criticisms of Western policy towards Tehran, adding that Iran would be justified in cutting off the strategic waterway in response to sanctions.

Paul’s views on Iran and other foreign policy issues – essentially a noninterventionist, anti-war approach – have sparked clashes on several occasions during the GOP presidential primary season, and are attracting growing scrutiny as the Iowa caucus looms.

At a campaign event in Iowa Thursday, Paul called Western sanctions imposed against Iran over its nuclear activities “horrendous” and “acts of war,” while repeating earlier assertions that Iran would understandably want to develop a nuclear weapons capability, the Los Angeles Times reported.
On Iran’s threat to close Hormuz, the Texan congressman said that as president he would not respond with military action to any such move, as he would not consider it an act of war against the United States. Instead, he would refer the matter to the U.S. Congress.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ron-paul-iran-would-be-justified-closing-strategic-waterway-response-sanctions

Tipsycatlover
12-30-2011, 02:46 PM
Ron Paul is a lunatic.

AmPat
12-30-2011, 02:56 PM
They close it, we re-open it. This would make for a nice catalyst to sink a few of their prized ships and subs, blow their aircraft out of the sky, and test a few thousand bunker busting bombs on their nuke sites.

Starbuck
12-30-2011, 03:52 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ab/Bild-Prayingmantis5sahand.jpg/640px-Bild-Prayingmantis5sahand.jpg
Picture of Sahand, an Iranian Frigate who took on the U.S. Navy in '87.

AmPat
12-30-2011, 03:54 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ab/Bild-Prayingmantis5sahand.jpg/640px-Bild-Prayingmantis5sahand.jpg
Picture of Sahand, an Iranian Frigate who took on the U.S. Navy in '87.

I bet the 7th century savages aren't showing this on their propaganda news outlets.

Molon Labe
12-30-2011, 04:47 PM
They close it, we re-open it. This would make for a nice catalyst to sink a few of their prized ships and subs, blow their aircraft out of the sky, and test a few thousand bunker busting bombs on their nuke sites.

they can't project shit. (http://www.scribd.com/doc/30277432/DoD-Unclassified-Report-on-Military-Power-of-Iran)



At present Iran's forces are sufficient to deter or defend against conventional threats from Iran's weaker neighbors such as post-war Iraq, the GCC, Azerbaijan or Afghanistan but lack the air power and logistical ability to power much beyond Iran's boarders or to confront regional powers such as Turkey or Israel."

When fretting over Iran I always like to think of things in perspective.

Let's see...Pakistan

1. Harbored Bin laden
2. Really has nukes
3. More Islamic miltiant than Iran
4. US gives billions in aid to Pakistan

Something is wrong here.

Tipsycatlover
12-30-2011, 05:50 PM
obaaabaaa could never give that kind of order. He is spineless and witless.

Rockntractor
12-30-2011, 06:33 PM
I ain't skeert!:mad:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-mn0pDBLLgsM/TpMkQlN3iJI/AAAAAAAAAsM/IKn4UfAcw-Q/s1600/ship+of+the+dessert.jpg

djones520
12-30-2011, 08:25 PM
obaaabaaa could never give that kind of order. He is spineless and witless.

Based on what reasoning? He gave the order to overthrow Qadafi when there was nothing to be politically gained, and quite frankly he had a ton to lose on the call.

You think he'd just sit there and dither when Iran cut off 1/6th of the worlds oil supply? You buy the bulk packages of tin foil at Sams Club don't you?

Rockntractor
12-30-2011, 08:43 PM
Based on what reasoning? He gave the order to overthrow Qadafi when there was nothing to be politically gained, and quite frankly he had a ton to lose on the call.

You think he'd just sit there and dither when Iran cut off 1/6th of the worlds oil supply? You buy the bulk packages of tin foil at Sams Club don't you?

What did we gain in Libya? Nothing was gained, we spent money to set up another government controlled by extremists.

Rockntractor
12-30-2011, 08:54 PM
Based on what reasoning? He gave the order to overthrow Qadafi when there was nothing to be politically gained, and quite frankly he had a ton to lose on the call.

You think he'd just sit there and dither when Iran cut off 1/6th of the worlds oil supply? You buy the bulk packages of tin foil at Sams Club don't you?

A tin foil hat because she does not support the biggest socialist we have ever had for president.

txradioguy
12-31-2011, 03:51 AM
Based on what reasoning?

Based on the fact that when it comes to an actual shooting war that might hurt him politically he takes MONTHS to make a decision and even then he doesn't listen to his Generals?

Look at how long it took for him to make a decision about more troops in Afghanistan.

THAT is the reasoning.



He gave the order to overthrow Qadafi when there was nothing to be politically gained, and quite frankly he had a ton to lose on the call.

Obama had nothing to lose by supporting the Muslim Brotherhood rebellion in Libya. No U.S. lives at stake. Everything done on our part from the air and at great distances from any real danger. There was no political risk whatsoever. It was the perfect liberal war. The type they love to support where nothing can be pinned on them come election time and THEY think it bolsters them with us military types.



You think he'd just sit there and dither when Iran cut off 1/6th of the worlds oil supply?

Yes...I think he would. It's the perfect political move the go "see...see why we need to move to green energy!".

It would allow him to accelerate his push to move to to "green" energy PLUS have the added advantage of picking up political points with his radical leftist base.

I could see him allowing it to happen very easily.



You buy the bulk packages of tin foil at Sams Club don't you?

AmPat makes more sense on this than you do.

djones520
12-31-2011, 06:43 AM
What did we gain in Libya? Nothing was gained, we spent money to set up another government controlled by extremists.

That is my whole point. There was nothing there for him to gain by going into Libya. But we want to assert that when he has everything to gain, or everything to lose, he'll sit on his ass and not do a thing? It's ludicrous.

Rockntractor
12-31-2011, 12:25 PM
That is my whole point. There was nothing there for him to gain by going into Libya. But we want to assert that when he has everything to gain, or everything to lose, he'll sit on his ass and not do a thing? It's ludicrous.

You will be rewarded greatly for your loyalism..........for awhile.

DumbAss Tanker
01-03-2012, 12:10 PM
That is my whole point. There was nothing there for him to gain by going into Libya. But we want to assert that when he has everything to gain, or everything to lose, he'll sit on his ass and not do a thing? It's ludicrous.

Not really, it does not detract from the point that when something big really is at stake, he has problems reaching a decision. Nothing was really at stake in Libya. The groundwork for the Arab Spring so beloved of journalists, and so likely to be a long-term disaster for moderation in the Arab world, was a joint child of Bush and Obama State Department efforts, and one which predictably got out of control very quickly once initiated. There was an ideological momentum to supporting it in the delusional wings of both parties, as well as tremendous press impetus to involve ourselves.