US declares war on Iran

mozetti

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

However recently news sources out of Russia have been the first to report on Iran going off the dollar for oil, and guess what? They were right! Did the US media EVER report on that? No.

Actually, I think they did. I'm pretty sure I heard about that a few weeks ago.

I just happen not to trust news sources that have a headline about the U.S. "declaring war on Iran", only to find out that a U.S. financial organization placed sanctions on Iranian banks. It's sensationalism. That source lost all credibility with me at that point.

lazymoon13

mozetti wrote:

Actually, I think they did. I'm pretty sure I heard about that a few weeks ago.

I just happen not to trust news sources that have a headline about the U.S. "declaring war on Iran", only to find out that a U.S. financial organization placed sanctions on Iranian banks. It's sensationalism. That source lost all credibility with me at that point.

I agree. thats what I said in the 3rd post of this thread.

DriftingByTheStorm

mozetti wrote:

Actually, I think they did. I'm pretty sure I heard about that a few weeks ago.

I just happen not to trust news sources that have a headline about the U.S. "declaring war on Iran", only to find out that a U.S. financial organization placed sanctions on Iranian banks. It's sensationalism. That source lost all credibility with me at that point.

Why?
It went on to explain exactly what it meant.
And putting a 100% financial global financial embargo up against ALL iranian banks is certainly an agressive act, which would traditionaly be considered one of war.

What do you think the US would do if China put out a memo to the world saying that ANY bank accepting ANY transaction from ANY US bank would face unspecified strong actions in response?

You think we would consider that an act of war or not?

:cool:

lazymoon13

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Why?
It went on to explain exactly what it meant.
And putting a 100% financial global financial embargo up against ALL iranian banks is certainly an agressive act, which would traditionaly be considered one of war.

What do you think the US would do if China put out a memo to the world saying that ANY bank accepting ANY transaction from ANY US bank would face unspecified strong actions in response?

You think we would consider that an act of war or not?

:cool:

in the minds of many war = bombs and death. like he said, its sensationalism

DriftingByTheStorm

lazymoon13 wrote:

in the minds of many war = bombs and death. like he said, its sensationalism

i'm not concerned with what the masses think.

Here.
From lectlaw - Legal Definition of War

lectlaw wrote:

War is not only an act, but a state or condition, for nations are said to be at war not only when their armies are engaged, so as to be in the very act of contention, but also when, they have any matter of controversy or dispute subsisting between them which they are determined to decide by the use of force

So here we have "any matter of controversy or dispute", correct?

Now, if Iran steps up and decides force is needed to rectify this dispute -- US banking embargo against Iran -- then the US actions become an "act of war".

On the other side, the US has ALREADY seemingly decided that Iranian pursuit of peacefull nuclear energy is a controversy or dispute that should be resolved through armed conflict.

Thus, in the eyes of the US, the mere decision by Iran to pursue nuclear energy becomes an "act of war". Of course, the official US position is that they are pursuing nuclear ARMS, so THAT is what the US MIC considers an "act of war".

See how that works?

lazymoon13

fair enough. but I still believe the headline could have read "a financial war". dont pretend that 9 out of 10 people would NOT have read that and assumed we have begun dropping bombs.

I also see you are completely sold that Iran is pursuing nukes for peaceful purposes. not sure why they would keep secrets from the IAEA if thats the case.

DriftingByTheStorm

lazymoon13 wrote:

not sure why they would keep secrets from the IAEA if thats the case.

not sure what you are refering to.

Have you read any recent IAEA reports?

I have.
Their only criticism remains that "Iran has remained reactive to our requests, rather than proactive" ... and goes on about how while they have acted with full disclosure to all agency requests, a show of good faith by volunteering even more information would be good for western relations.

Yeah. Okay.
Hi, i'm Iran, and let me just volunteer to give you heaps and reams of material and information that you have yet to ask for, because we are so glad to be so arrogantly scrutinized by the west, that we would love to show our corresponding kindness to your arrogant impositions.

Why are you so sure they want nuclear arms, when IAEA reports have stated over and over since at least 2006 that enrichment remains BELOW 5%, and must exceed 95% for weapons grade use?

Iran has passed EVERY point of IAEA inspection for over 3 years.

The last time they "kept secrets" was, per Iranian officials directly, in response to US aggressive dialogue, and was being used as a bargaining chip. As in, "Hey you stupid American assholes, quit talking about war, and we might actualy show you what we are doing."

lazymoon13

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

not sure what you are refering to.

Have you read any recent IAEA reports?

I have.
Their only criticism remains that "Iran has remained reactive to our requests, rather than proactive" ... and goes on about how while they have acted with full disclosure to all agency requests, a show of good faith by volunteering even more information would be good for western relations.

Yeah. Okay.
Hi, i'm Iran, and let me just volunteer to give you heaps and reams of material and information that you have yet to ask for, because we are so glad to be so arrogantly scrutinized by the west, that we would love to show our corresponding kindness to your arrogant impositions.

Why are you so sure they want nuclear arms, when IAEA reports have stated over and over since at least 2006 that enrichment remains BELOW 5%, and must exceed 95% for weapons grade use?

Iran has passed EVERY point of IAEA inspection for over 3 years.

The last time they "kept secrets" was, per Iranian officials directly, in response to US aggressive dialogue, and was being used as a bargaining chip. As in, "Hey you stupid American assholes, quit talking about war, and we might actualy show you what we are doing."

maybe I haven't seen the most recent ones. care to post them? I do not think its unreasonable to not automatically trust everything Iran says.

DriftingByTheStorm

lazymoon13 wrote:

maybe I haven't seen the most recent ones. care to post them? I do not think its unreasonable to not automatically trust everything Iran says.

IAEA - Iran Website

Current Issues from Feb IAEA Report wrote:

The Agency has been able to continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material
in Iran. Iran has provided the Agency with access to declared nuclear material and has provided the
required nuclear material accountancy reports in connection with declared nuclear material and
activities. Iran has also responded to questions and provided clarifications and amplifications on the
issues raised in the context of the work plan, with the exception of the alleged studies. Iran has
provided access to individuals in response to the Agency’s requests. Although direct access has not
been provided to individuals said to be associated with the alleged studies, responses have been
provided in writing to some of the Agency’s questions.
53. The Agency has been able to conclude that answers provided by Iran, in accordance with the
work plan, are consistent with its findings — in the case of the polonium-210 experiments and the
Gchine mine — or are not inconsistent with its findings — in the case of the contamination at the
technical university and the procurement activities of the former Head of PHRC. Therefore, the
Agency considers those questions no longer outstanding at this stage. However, the Agency continues,
in accordance with its procedures and practices, to seek corroboration of its findings and to verify
these issues as part of its verification of the completeness of Iran’s declarations.
54. The one major remaining issue relevant to the nature of Iran’s nuclear programme is the alleged
studies on the green salt project, high explosives testing and the missile re-entry vehicle. This is a
GOV/2008/4
Page 10
matter of serious concern and critical to an assessment of a possible military dimension to Iran’s
nuclear programme. The Agency was able to show some relevant documentation to Iran on 3–5
February 2008 and is still examining the allegations made and the statements provided by Iran in
response. Iran has maintained that these allegations are baseless and that the data have been fabricated.
The Agency’s overall assessment requires, inter alia, an understanding of the role of the uranium metal
document, and clarifications concerning the procurement activities of some military related institutions
still not provided by Iran. The Agency only received authorization to show some further material to
Iran on 15 February 2008. Iran has not yet responded to the Agency’s request of that same date for
Iran to view this additional documentation on the alleged studies. In light of the above, the Agency is
not yet in a position to determine the full nature of Iran’s nuclear programme. However, it should be
noted that the Agency has not detected the use of nuclear material in connection with the alleged
studies, nor does it have credible information in this regard. The Director General has urged Iran to
engage actively with the Agency in a more detailed examination of the documents available about the
alleged studies which the Agency has been authorized to show to Iran.

Notice that the one remaining concern, "green salt project" is a NEW (if you've been following IAEA reports) issue, and one that it (IAEA) admits is an unsubstantiated claim against iran, for which they have no proof. I wonder who would submit unsubstantiated claims to the IAEA that Iran was testing re-entry vehicles and explosive devices? Hmm. :cool:

lazymoon13

the Agency is not yet in a position to determine the full nature of Iran’s nuclear programme.

don't shoot the messenger, it's what they are saying. now, do I think it's right for the US to act so boldly about this? no. and maybe, just maybe, they (and Israel) know something the IAEA doesn't?

DriftingByTheStorm

lazymoon13 wrote:

don't shoot the messenger, it's what they are saying. now, do I think it's right for the US to act so boldly about this? no. and maybe, just maybe, they (and Israel) know something the IAEA doesn't?

Dude.
they ALWAYS say that.

It doesn't matter HOW much info Iran provides, they always say that (go check every report), usualy just after saying that EVERYthing they requested information on turned out to be 100% in compliance with IAEA and that there was NO NONDIVERSION ...

but yet every report there is always some new issue,
and ever following report that issue is always addressed in full, and then a NEW issue is raised.

But go back and read the last 5 reports, and you will see that Iran has repeatedly and successively met and exceeded all IAEA requests and requirements.

NO NONDIVERSION. FULL COMPLIANCE.
No evidence to suggest diversion.

But then,
ALWAYS, "the Agency is not yet in a position to determine the full nature of Iran’s nuclear programme."

So you tell me.
What are they really saying?

I have to go to lunch.
Back around 2est.

lazymoon13

well until they can say that, and issues STOP arising, why should we assume they are 100% honest. we are talking about nuclear technology. it's kinda a big deal

RolandTD20Kdrummer

lazymoon13 wrote:

and maybe, just maybe, they (and Israel) know something the IAEA doesn't?

If they did it would be all throughout the media whatever suspicions they have.....kinda like the "suspicions" that started war in the first place :rolleyes:

DriftingByTheStorm

lazymoon13 wrote:

well until they can say that, and issues STOP arising, why should we assume they are 100% honest. we are talking about nuclear technology. it's kinda a big deal

\i think the point is that Iran as successively dealt with ALL issues and resolved them to the indication that their aims are NOT for arms use.

Of course new issues will arise,
because the IAEA is an agency doing an ongoing job.

However, you are correct that the US has no business taking such an agressive stance on this.

You know why nuclear technology is such a big deal with regards to Iran?

Because they are a soverign muslim nation that has grown weary of the west (because of repeated western covert interference with their internal policies) and if they ever actualy got off their dependence on their one natural resource -- oil -- that is quickly drying up, Iran might actualy rise to some prominence in the region.

And THAT, the US views as an imminent threat.
It has VERY LITTLE to do with nuclear arms, and EVERYTHING to do with Iran becoming a functioning soverign power in the Middle East with enough fuel and resources to fund a burgeoning economy.

Truth.

mozetti

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

i'm not concerned with what the masses think.

Here.
From lectlaw - Legal Definition of War


So here we have "any matter of controversy or dispute", correct?

Now, if Iran steps up and decides force is needed to rectify this dispute -- US banking embargo against Iran -- then the US actions become an "act of war".

On the other side, the US has ALREADY seemingly decided that Iranian pursuit of peacefull nuclear energy is a controversy or dispute that should be resolved through armed conflict.

Thus, in the eyes of the US, the mere decision by Iran to pursue nuclear energy becomes an "act of war". Of course, the official US position is that they are pursuing nuclear ARMS, so THAT is what the US MIC considers an "act of war".

See how that works?

Well, you're interpreting the meaning of that passage through your own bias. If I may explain:

1) Yes, we have a matter of controversy or dispute. Let's discuss that. The U.S. has said there should be a global financial embargo -- we can't force anyone to actually do it except for ourselves.

2) But, there is still a dispute with Iran. However, if Iran decides force is needed to rectify the dispute then it is Iran that is making an act of war, not the U.S.

3) In your point about the U.S. position that force is necessary you use one word that negates your argument -- "seemingly." If the U.S. actually decided that it needs to resolve the dispute through armed conflict then we would have heard about it. Sure, I'd bet there are folks within the administration that are of that opinion, but the position of a nation and the opinions of some officials administering that nation are two different things. As a nation, in regards to an issue such as being at war, you can't seemingly decide that armed conflict is necessary. You can decide it isn't necessary. You can decide it may be necessary, which in my opinion is where we're currently at and I view it as strategic posturing to influence the actions of the opposition. Or you can decide armed conflict is necessary and you declare war.

4) I'd like to see some attribution to the administration that pursuing nuclear energy is an act of war. Barring that, how about a source saying pursuing nuclear arms is an act of war? That second may be out there, but it's also possible that it isn't.

And in regards to the energy/arms question, hasn't the Iranian President said he wanted a nuclear weapon? I know he said he wanted to erase Israel, but I can't remember if he has said the country should pursue nuclear weapons. Knowing this guy's past and his intentions, I really don't trust that he's only pursuing nuclear technology for energy. Sure, the program is structured that way now. But, up to a certain point the technology and research can be applied equally to arms & energy. I wouldn't be surprised if the research switched to arms in the future, if that hasn't happened already.