> for Iranian citizens, and an aging and increasingly unsafe civil
> aircraft fleet. According to the Arms Control Association, the
> international arms embargo against Iran is slowly reducing Iran's
> military capabilities, largely due to its dependence on Russian and
> Chinese military assistance. The only substitute is to find
> compensatory measures requiring more time and money, and less
> effective.
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 9:26 PM, Sage2 <wisdom812@gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 11, 11:39 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
Sounds to me more like UN interference than US ? !!!!!!!
****************************************************************************************************
> UN sanctions against Iran
> United Nations Security Council Resolution 1737 - passed on 23
> December 2006. Banned the supply of nuclear-related materials and
> technology and froze the assets of key individuals and companies
> related to the program.United Nations Security Council Resolution 1747
> - passed on 24 March 2007. Imposed an arms embargo and expanded the
> freeze on Iranian assets.United Nations Security Council Resolution
> 1803 - passed on 3 March 2008. Extended the asset freezes and called
> upon states to monitor the activities of Iranian banks, inspect
> Iranian ships and aircraft, and to monitor the movement of individuals
> involved with the program through their territory.United Nations
> Security Council Resolution 1929 - passed on 9 June 2010. Banned Iran
> from participating in any activities related to ballistic missiles,
> tightened the arms embargo, travel bans on individuals involved with
> the program, froze the funds and assets of the Iranian Revolutionary
> Guard and Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines, and recommended
> that states inspect Iranian cargo, prohibit the servicing of Iranian
> vessels involved in prohibited activities, prevent the provision of
> financial services used for sensitive nuclear activities, closely
> watch Iranian individuals and entities when dealing with them,
> prohibit the opening of Iranian banks on their territory and prevent
> Iranian banks from entering into relationship with their banks if it
> might contribute to the nuclear program, and prevent financial
> institutions operating in their territory from opening offices and
> accounts in Iran.[edit]EU sanctions against Iran
> The European Union has imposed restrictions on cooperation with Iran
> in foreign trade, financial services, energy sectors and technologies,
> and banned the provision of insurance and reinsurance by insurers in
> member states to Iran and Iranian-owned companies.[edit]National
> sanctions against Iran
> U.S. sanctions against Iran: The United States has imposed an arms ban
> and an almost total economic embargo on Iran, which includes sanctions
> on companies doing business with Iran, a ban on all Iranian-origin
> imports, sanctions on Iranian financial institutions, and an almost
> total ban on selling aircraft or repair parts to Iranian aviation
> companies. An exception from the Treasury Department is required to do
> business with Iran.Canada imposed a ban on dealing in the property of
> designated Iranian nationals, a complete arms embargo, oil-refining
> equipment, items that could contribute to the Iranian nuclear program,
> the establishment of an Iranian financial institution, branch,
> subsidiary, or office in Canada or a Canadian one in Iran, investment
> in the Iranian oil and gas sector, relationships with Iranian banks,
> purchasing debt from the Iranian government, or providing a ship or
> services to Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines, but allows the
> Foreign Minister to issue a permit to carry out a specified prohibited
> activity or transaction.[2]Australia has imposed financial sanctions
> and travel bans on individuals and entities involved in Iran's nuclear
> and missile programs or assist Iran in violating sanctions, and an
> arms embargo.[3]South Korea imposed sanctions on 126 Iranian
> individuals and companies.[4]Japan imposed a ban on transactions with
> some Iranian banks, investments with the Iranian energy sector, and
> asset freezes against individuals and entities involved with Iran's
> nuclear program.[5][dead link]Switzerland banned the sale of arms and
> dual-use items to Iran, and of products that could be used in the
> Iranian oil and gas sector, financing this sector, and restrictions on
> financial services.[6]India enacted a ban on the export of all items,
> materials, equipment, goods, and technology that could contribute to
> Iran's nuclear program.[7]Israel banned business with or unauthorized
> travel to Iran under a law banning ties with enemy states.[8] Israel
> has also enacted legislation that imposes sanctions on any companies
> that violate international sanctions.[9] Israel later extended the
> sanctions by imposing a series of administrative and regulatory
> measures to prevent Israeli companies from trading with Iran, and
> announced the establishment of a national directorate to implement the
> sanctions.[10][edit]Effects
> The sanctions have had a substantial adverse effect on the Iranian
> nuclear program by making it harder to acquire specialized materials
> and equipment needed for the program. The sanctions have also had a
> strong impact on the Iranian economy. As well as reduced access to
> products needed for the oil and energy sectors, the sanctions have
> prompted many oil companies to withdraw from Iran, and have also
> caused a decline in oil production due to reduced access to
> technologies needed to improve their efficiency. According to U.S.
> officials, Iran may lose up to $60 billion in energy investments
> annually. Many international companies have also been reluctant to do
> business with Iran for fear of losing access to larger Western
> markets. The effects of U.S. sanctions include expensive basic goods
> for Iranian citizens, and an aging and increasingly unsafe civil
> aircraft fleet. According to the Arms Control Association, the
> international arms embargo against Iran is slowly reducing Iran's
> military capabilities, largely due to its dependence on Russian and
> Chinese military assistance. The only substitute is to find
> compensatory measures requiring more time and money, and less
> effective.[11][12] According to at least one analyst (Fareed Zakaria),
> the market for imports in Iran is dominated by state enterprises and
> regime-friendly enterprises, because the way to get around the
> sanctions is smuggling, and smuggling requires strong connections with
> the regime. This has weakened Iranian civil society and strengthen the
> state.[13][edit]
> On Nov 11, 6:38 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > What is it that you think our Nation is doing that interferes with Iran,
> > internally or externally?
>
> > On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 2:50 PM, plainolamerican
> > <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > is the problem solely fear
> > > based??
> > > ----
> > > good observation
>
> > > those who live in fear will go to extremes to feel safe
>
> > > On Nov 11, 11:02 am, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Lets see..... a foreign naval vessel in international waters.... I do not
> > > > see the problem.
>
> > > > Tell me....EXACTLY.... what is the problem?? Or is the problem solely
> > > fear
> > > > based??
>
> > > > On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com
> > > >wrote:
>
> > > > > *Iranian Navy to Patrol off U.S. Coast, What!?
> > > > > *
> > > > > Read more:
> > > > >http://defensetech.org/2011/09/28/iranian-navy-to-patrol-off-u-s-coas.
> > > ..
> > > > > Defense.org
>
> > > > > "No word on what type of ships Iran will send to establish this
> > > "powerful
> > > > > force." Keep in mind, that this light frigate<
> > >http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/jamaranmowjclassmult/>known as
> > > the Jamaran, is one of Iran's most modern and powerful ships. It
> > > > > carries four Noor class anti-ship missiles with a range of about
> > > 125-miles
> > > > > along with four SM-1 anti-aircraft missiles, light torpedoes and a 76
> > > mm
> > > > > gun. Not exactly an Aegis destroyer."
>
> > > > > Read more:
> > > > >http://defensetech.org/2011/09/28/iranian-navy-to-patrol-off-u-s-coas.
> > > ..
> > > > > Defense.org
>
> > > > > On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 9:32 AM, THE ANNOINTED ONE <
> > > markmka...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > > >> whoop-di-whoop!!!!!! Keith.... Irans capability is 1250 miles. No
> > > > >> more of a threat to the US than one that flies 10 miles or 90 miles.
> > > > >> According to British sources (much more reliable than US sources now
> > > > >> that the Blair Gov. is gone) they have stopped trying to increase
> > > > >> distance as Israel is well within range now.
>
> > > > >> The problem is that to have a massive capability (nuke) Iran has
> > > > >> realized that hitting Israel will kill/affect more Moslims/Arab
> > > > >> nations than Jews and so have the other Moslim nations in the area.
> > > > >> the inverse is not true.
>
> > > > >> On Nov 10, 7:46 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> > You better read up on Iran's capabilities Sarge.....You sound like a
> > > > >> > Moonbat this week.
>
> > > > >> > (Good to see ya by the way!)
>
> > > > >> > KeithInTampa
>
> > > > >> > On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 1:40 AM, SgtUSMC <devildawg...@gmail.com>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >> > > Yea, well, Iraq was going to attack us with Scuds that only had a
> > > 90
> > > > >> > > mile range. Some people are clueless.
>
> > > > >> > > --
> > > > >> > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > > >> > > For options & help seehttp://
> > > groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > > > >> > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > > > >> > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > > >> > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> > > > >> --
> > > > >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > > >> For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > > > >> * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > > > >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > > >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> > > > > --
> > > > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > > > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > > > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> > > > --
> > > > *Mark M. Kahle H.*
> > > > *
> > > > *
> > > > *
> > > > *
>
> > > --
> > > Thanks
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Mark M. Kahle H.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment