----
To traverse the Strait, ships pass through the territorial waters of
Iran and Oman under the transit passage provisions of the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Territorial waters are regarded as the sovereign territory of the
state, although foreign ships (both military and civilian) are allowed
innocent passage through it; this sovereignty also extends to the
airspace over and seabed below.
On Jan 22, 11:16 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "How" prey tell, is Russia, the United States, England, France, or any
> other nuclear capable Nation-State "hiding" their nuclear enrichment
> program(s)? Most of these referenced programs are well documented on the
> web. Some even have 24/7 web cams.
>
> I don't think anyone questions Iran's province, ability or right to being
> present in the Straights of Hormuz. When Iran starts military manuevers,
> with the intent to mine the Straight, or interfere with international
> shipping, then there is a concern, and it needs to be brought to "Monkey
> Man's" attention that the world won't play that game, nor allow Iran to
> intimidate. The Straights of Hormuz are international waters, by treaty,
> and by international need and demand. The Straights of Hormuz are not
> Iranian waters. Just as twelve or fifteen miles off of the coast of
> Florida, in the Gulf of Mexico, these waters are not United States'
> domestic waters. We have a vested interest in anything that happens in the
> Gulf of Mexico, but we have no dominion to challenge or attack any
> shipping outside of our twelve mile limit.
>
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 12:06 PM, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Given that the Straights of Hormuz are in fact Iranian home waters and
> > that ALL international traffic must pass through the unquestioned
> > territorial waters of Iran their presence in them should be no more of
> > a surprise than a US vessel in the Canadian waters of Sault Ste.
> > Marie. There is NOTHING arrogant about them being there. Monkey Man
> > does have an arrogant attitude about EVERYTHING.
>
> > Should there be any concern that EVERY country in the world hides its'
> > nuclear enrichment facilities?? yes. Should that include Iran..yes.
> > Should that concern be given any more weight than it is in Argentina,
> > Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, Iran, Japan, the Netherlands,
> > North Korea, Pakistan, Russia (and a couple of the USSRs' ex
> > Satellites), the United Kingdom, and the United States Belgium, Italy,
> > Spain, Lybia, Niger, Australia, etc. ...I think not.
>
> > The US does have a "bunker buster" that goes down three hundred
> > feet... If it does become a problem. These facilities and the massive
> > activity they require are not "Hide-able".
>
> > On Jan 22, 9:32 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > This was a thoughtful article by Dan Murphy, and for the most part, I
> > > agree with him. I actually agree with PlainOl.....I think.
>
> > > As Murphy pointed out:
>
> > > "*The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Yukiya Amano, told
> > > the Financial Times' German edition yesterday: 'What we know suggests the
> > > development of nuclear weapons' ".*
>
> > > This is cause for concern. At least to most Americans, who are familiar
> > > with the region and the theocratic regime in Tehran.
>
> > > Nevertheless, the distinction, is that I don't see (or hear) ANYONE
> > (other
> > > than maybe Rick Santorum, and Santorum's even set preconditions for such
> > an
> > > attack) calling for an immediate attack on Iran. Should there by
> > concern
> > > over the fact that Iran seems to be hiding their research and development
> > > over their nuclear enrichment program? Absolutely.
>
> > > I do think that collectively as a people, and as a Nation, we have
> > learned
> > > that, "Nation Building" don't work! We are not all that eager to engage
> > > another theocratic Nation-State when we haven't even concluded whatever
> > the
> > > Hell it is that we are doing in Afghanistan, and especially if there is
> > no
> > > visible, obvious, clear convincing danger posed to the United States
> > > and/or the world, I'm not hearing anyone suggest that an attack on Iran
> > is
> > > imminent. Even the article that Murphy references written by Helprin in
> > > the WSJ is not calling for an imminent attack on Iran.
>
> > > We would neverhtless be fools not to watch with interest what takes place
> > > and transpires in that region of the world. Iran's recent arrogant
> > > military manuevers in the Straights of Hormuz should have been dealt
> > with,
> > > and forcefully. This doesn't mean we need to have an all out attack on
> > > Iran.
>
> > > On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 9:06 AM, plainolamerican
> > > <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > > Diplomats and leaders, from President
> > > > Obama to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, will sit back
> > > > awhile
> > > > and watch to see if sanctions are working, if the regime will start to
> > > > unravel from within, well aware that wars are much easier to start
> > > > than to
> > > > get out of.
> > > > ---
> > > > those who want war should go expediently
>
> > > > the peaceful will not miss them
>
> > > > On Jan 22, 6:28 am, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > --------
>
> > > > >http://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/print/content/view/print/452210
>
> > > > > By Dan Murphy, Staff writer
> > > > > posted January 19, 2012 at 11:57 am EST
>
> > > > > The war drums on Iran continue to beat onward. Hawkish editorials and
> > > > > opinion pieces adopt the style and content of articles from a decade
> > ago,
> > > > > in which a Middle Eastern country run by a "madman" was on the brink
> > of
> > > > > obtaining weapons of mass destruction – weapons that would almost
> > > > > certainly be used to threaten the security of the world.
>
> > > > > The older articles were about Iraq and the weapons of mass
> > destruction
> > > > > that Saddam Hussein almost certainly had (except he didn't). The
> > current
> > > > > crop are about Iran. Front and center is an op-ed by Mark Helprin in
> > the
> > > > > Wall Street Journal yesterday titled "The mortal threat from Iran."
> > He
> > > > > writes that the "primitive religious fanatics" who rule Iran don't
> > think
> > > > > rationally about their own nation's interests, and that, absent a US
> > > > > attack soon, "Iran will get nuclear weapons, which in its eyes are an
> > > > > existential necessity."
>
> > > > > Mr. Helprin, a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute in
> > California,
> > > > > even echoes Condoleezza Rice's January 2003 warning that the smoking
> > gun
> > > > > of an Iraqi nuclear program could be a "mushroom cloud." He writes:
> > "We
> > > > > cannot dismiss the possibility of Iranian nuclear charges of 500
> > pounds
> > > > or
> > > > > less ending up in Manhattan or on Pennsylvania Avenue."
>
> > > > > RELATED: Iran nuclear program: 5 key sites
>
> > > > > To be sure, Iraq and Iran are not the same; Iran is indeed enriching
> > > > > uranium, a key component of a nuclear weapon. But the fear-mongering
> > > > > sounds the same. What today's arguments about Iran ignore, however –
> > much
> > > > > as the arguments in favor of the Iraq war ignored – was the position
> > of
> > > > > the US intelligence community that Iran is not currently building a
> > > > > nuclear weapon. The US position appears to be that Iran is seeking
> > the
> > > > > ability to build a weapon, without actually taking that final step.
>
> > > > > Two weekends ago, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said: "Are they
> > trying
> > > > to
> > > > > develop a nuclear weapon? No. But we know that they're trying to
> > develop
> > > > a
> > > > > nuclear capability and that's what concerns us and our red line to
> > Iran
> > > > > is: Do not develop a nuclear weapon."
>
> > > > > And it's not just the US assessment. Israel's liberal newspaper
> > Haaretz
> > > > > reported yesterday that "Iran has not yet decided whether to make a
> > > > > nuclear bomb, according to the intelligence assessment Israeli
> > officials
> > > > > will present later this week to [visiting] Gen. Martin Dempsey,
> > chairman
> > > > > of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff." Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak
> > > > > poured cold water on speculation that his country is planning a
> > > > unilateral
> > > > > attack against Iran. "This entire thing is very far off. I don't
> > want to
> > > > > provide estimates [but] it's certainly not urgent," he said.
>
> > > > > To be sure, there are concerns. US, European, and Israeli officials
> > > > > suspect that Iran is concealing much of its nuclear work, which it
> > > > insists
> > > > > is for peaceful purposes only, and that weapons-related work that
> > they
> > > > > don't know about could be taking place. The head of the International
> > > > > Atomic Energy Agency, Yukiya Amano, told the Financial Times' German
> > > > > edition yesterday: "What we know suggests the development of nuclear
> > > > > weapons," according to a Reuters translation.
>
> > > > > War with Iran? A briefing.
>
> > > > > But the flow of recent statements has been mostly in the opposite
> > > > > direction. Concern? Yes. Redoubled efforts to use sanctions to force
> > more
> > > > > light onto Iran's nuclear activities? Yes, absolutely. Hair-on-fire
> > > > panic?
> > > > > No.
>
> > > > > The tone from private-sector analysts is something else, however.
> > One of
> > > > > the latest examples is from Jamie M. Fly and Gary Schmitt, writing in
> > > > > Foreign Affairs. They even quote former Secretary of Defense Donald
> > > > > Rumsfeld's line about "known unknowns," (that is, things that Saddam
> > > > > Hussein might be hiding) being a cause to consider going to war with
> > Iraq
> > > > > in February 2002.
>
> > > > > They write that in the case of Iran, the "known unknowns" are
> > > > "troubling,"
> > > > > and go on to outline a case for a broad US war to bring down the
> > Islamic
> > > > > Republic. Having asserted that US airstrikes targeting Iran's nuclear
> > > > > sites would probably fail in ending the program, they write: "Given
> > the
> > > > > likely fallout from even a limited military strike, the question the
> > > > > United States should ask itself is, Why not take the next step? After
> > > > all,
> > > > > Iran's nuclear program is a symptom of a larger illness – the
> > > > > revolutionary fundamentalist regime in Tehran."
>
> > > > > They then suggest that a broad US air campaign against Iran would be
> > > > > popular with Iranians. "It is sometimes said that a strike would
> > lead the
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--
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