R.C. Christian
Gold Member
There are a lot of veterans from the Liberty that would disagree that it was a mistake, but the entire argument is pointless. It has no relevancy to anything current.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It was listed as an example of unprovoked Israeli aggression, in response to a request to cite examples of same.There are a lot of veterans from the Liberty that would disagree that it was a mistake, but the entire argument is pointless. It has no relevancy to anything current.
If Iran attempted to close the straits, US and allied countries would escort tankers through the straits. Any attack would bring a response just as in 1988. 17% of the world's oil supply comes through the straits therefore prices would rise worldwide. Iraq and Kuwait would transport oil overland to Saudi ports.What would the US do if Iran closed off oil supplies from the Gulf? Strangely enough the president didn't respond to the question even though it is his responsibility. Neither did the Secretary of State. The administration left it to the Pentagon to respons with "yada yada not tolerate yada yada" but the Pentagon doesn't get to say what the US will or will not tolerate. A female Lt. spokesperson for the 5th fleet claimed "the US is ready to counter malevolent actions". Well duh. My guess is that Barry and the radical greenies would like nothing better than closing off oil to the US.
If Iran attempted to close the straits, US and allied countries would escort tankers through the straits. Any attack would bring a response just as in 1988. 17% of the world's oil supply comes through the straits therefore prices would rise worldwide. Iraq and Kuwait would transport oil overland to Saudi ports.
Iran has a lot more to loss than gain by this action. Military action in the straits would block Iranian oil shipments as well as their neighbors. Iran has a number large oil platforms in the Persian Gulf which would make easy targets. Iran also has a fledgling nuclear weapons industry which they could easily lose with any conflict involving the US. Unlike Iraq, in Iran there is strong opposition to the current government. Sanctions, and blockades would only strengthen that opposition. Iran has already started to back down from their threats.
Well, I know the difference between "you" and "your", but gee, I'm sure they didn't cover that bit of grammer in Home Skule.
They wont. They're now talking about making a deal on their Nukes. They're completely isolated. Their only ally in the region Syria,can no longer help them. They're in a state of chaos. Iran has run out of friends. No Sunni Arab Nations are going to rush to their defense. So a somewhat acceptable deal is all they have left. But once they grab the deal,they can just go on developing their Nukes just like North Korea did. The UN isn't gonna stop them.
So Iran should just take a deal and then do what they have to do. Then once they have the Nukes,the West will be forced to respect them. Joining the 'Nuclear Club' brings respect & prestige. That's where Gaddafi went wrong. If he hadn't given up on his Nuclear ambitions,he would still be alive and ruling Libya today. Having the Nukes gets you into an exclusive club. And Iran will have them eventually. It wont matter what the West does. Short of all-out War,there is nothing they can do. Iran should just take the deal.
[
5) Going further inland to hit nuclear facilities would probably go beyond any UN Mandate to clear the shipping lanes. .
Joe is a one-trick Jew-hating pony. It's best to leave the bigot alone to wallow in his hate.Well, I know the difference between "you" and "your", but gee, I'm sure they didn't cover that bit of grammer in Home Skule.
That bit of 'what,'? YOU FUCKING MORON.
I love silly people such as yourself.False. Whoops.The navigable potion of the straits are in Omanian waters.
Whoops.
File:Strait of hormuz full.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Zoom in if necessary.
What would the US do if Iran closed off oil supplies from the Gulf? Strangely enough the president didn't respond to the question even though it is his responsibility. Neither did the Secretary of State. The administration left it to the Pentagon to respons with "yada yada not tolerate yada yada" but the Pentagon doesn't get to say what the US will or will not tolerate. A female Lt. spokesperson for the 5th fleet claimed "the US is ready to counter malevolent actions". Well duh. My guess is that Barry and the radical greenies would like nothing better than closing off oil to the US.
What would the US do if Iran closed off oil supplies from the Gulf? Strangely enough the president didn't respond to the question even though it is his responsibility. Neither did the Secretary of State. The administration left it to the Pentagon to respons with "yada yada not tolerate yada yada" but the Pentagon doesn't get to say what the US will or will not tolerate. A female Lt. spokesperson for the 5th fleet claimed "the US is ready to counter malevolent actions". Well duh. My guess is that Barry and the radical greenies would like nothing better than closing off oil to the US.
[
5) Going further inland to hit nuclear facilities would probably go beyond any UN Mandate to clear the shipping lanes. .
LOL! That's funny. You're a funny little girl.
[
5) Going further inland to hit nuclear facilities would probably go beyond any UN Mandate to clear the shipping lanes. .
LOL! That's funny. You're a funny little girl.
You do understand that any UN mandate we'd be working under would limit what we could attack, don't you.
Obama's not Bush
LOL! That's funny. You're a funny little girl.
You do understand that any UN mandate we'd be working under would limit what we could attack, don't you.
That's hilarious, little girl. Do YOU understand that pretty soon we will have a president in the White House with actual functioning balls, unlike your soon-to-be-retired hero?