Iran vows "roaring missiles" if threatened, defies new sanctions

[Orac]

Unless the US is prepared to go down the nuclear route there is not much a military threat can do to them without major economic and regional consequences to the rest of the world given their geographical position and Gulf coastline.

Fascinating article here regarding potential military conflict here recounting how 'Iran' sank two thirds of the fifth fleet in a US war game that was supposed to demonstrate US capabilities to them.

https://pando.com/2014/05/26/the-war-nerd-iran-is-building-a-fake-aircraft-carrier-how-can-you-tell/

[Prbkk]

Obama's policy of engagement looks pretty sensible to me. After DECADES of WICKED interference in Iran's affairs by US, GB and France, finally someone had the good sense to try a different tack....and the signs were all good. Now undone in a flash by the weirdo assortment of Dr Strangeloves in control, led in the charge by the great fruitcake himself. Pathetic brinkmanship and destined to cause even more trouble rather than resolve it.

[Galactus]

iran has every right to do ballistic missile test for self defense. like many countries on Earth. and look where is Iran located? on the most dangerous area on earth called middle east.

i find it always odd that USA, the only country used atomic bombs as deadly force in human history can freely design and test missiles and others cannot?!!

i trust Iran more than US to be frank.

 

 

[Slip]

8 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

          To give a window on how much Trump knows about int'l affairs;  months after the Russians rolled into Ukraine and wrenched Crimea from them, Trump was asked a question about Ukraine.  Trump said, and it's on video: "The Russians won't go into Ukraine, you can take that to (the bank) ....wherever. It won't happen."  

 

        Note: Russia has military posted on Ukraine's eastern border as we speak, and there have been military clashes on the Ukrainian side of the border for months - including a passenger jet shot down by Russkies there.

 

        Americans are going into the 3rd week of a 224 week presidential term, and already Trump is proving what many of us saw coming for the past years:  a man at the helm of the US Titanic - taking it into dangerous waters with barely a clue how to deal with dangerous challenges.  He put Bannon as his Security chief, but that's like putting a loose cannon on a greasy rotten-wood deck. 

You're not a famous cartoonist by any chance are you?

[55Jay]

3 hours ago, Orac said:

Unless the US is prepared to go down the nuclear route there is not much a military threat can do to them without major economic and regional consequences to the rest of the world given their geographical position and Gulf coastline.

Fascinating article here regarding potential military conflict here recounting how 'Iran' sank two thirds of the fifth fleet in a US war game that was supposed to demonstrate US capabilities to them.

https://pando.com/2014/05/26/the-war-nerd-iran-is-building-a-fake-aircraft-carrier-how-can-you-tell/

It wasn't that long ago the US Navy didn't operate carriers inside the Gulf, and there's no reason to presume they would if they got into a shooting war with Iran.  They don't need to.  When Iran was laying mines in the Gulf and Strait in the 80s, US Carriers operated in the N. Arabian Sea and launched sorties from there.  

 

[copa8]

On 2/5/2017 at 3:00 AM, boomerangutang said:

Like Poland was smacked by the Germans in 1939?

 

or perhaps like Tibet was smacked by China in the 1950's.

China smacked by Japan in the 1930s, which resulted in 15-20 million deaths.
The Hutu was smacked by the Tutsi in 1994.

[stevenl]

Didn't take long for Obama's trust in the Iranians to be exposed for the misjudgement it was. Thanks to him, they have loadsacash to develop even better missiles to use against the west.

Missiles against the west? Nonsense. The deal with Iran was the right thing to do.

sent using Tapatalk

[alanrchase]

America can "smack" most countries in the world. A bully mentality. These days the people of countries do not lay down and accept defeat. Terrorism takes hold. Thought recent history would prove that but the bullies still persist.

Sent from my SM-A500F using Thaivisa Connect mobile app

[surangw]

sounds like the leaders of Iran are starting to believe the b.s.  they have been telling their  citizens ( sheep_

[alanrchase]

sounds like the leaders of Iran are starting to believe the b.s.  they have been telling their  citizens ( sheep_

You seem to believe the BS your leader is feeding you so why not?

Sent from my SM-A500F using Thaivisa Connect mobile app

[surangw]

6 minutes ago, alanrchase said:

 

You seem to believe the BS your leader is feeding you so why not?

Sent from my SM-A500F using Thaivisa Connect mobile app
 

 

or we know its bs, but  we go with the flow

[Ulysses G.]

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

Missiles against the west? Nonsense. The deal with Iran was the right thing to do.
 

The right thing to do for Iran. Not the civilised world. They got billions of dollars, sanctions releaved and an eventual path to nuclear weapons that had been forbidden to them before. The West got diddly-squat.

[Naam]

7 hours ago, copa8 said:

The Hutu was smacked by the Tutsi in 1994.

actually the Tutsis were smacked by the Hutus.

[Naam]

5 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

The right thing to do for Iran. Not the civilised world. They got billions of dollars, sanctions releaved and an eventual path to nuclear weapons that had been forbidden to them before. The West got diddly-squat.

they got billions of Dollars in your dreams!

[stevenl]

The right thing to do for Iran. Not the civilised world. They got billions of dollars, sanctions releaved and an eventual path to nuclear weapons that had been forbidden to them before. The West got diddly-squat.

Again the same old, already many times proved incorrect nonsense.

sent using Tapatalk

[Ulysses G.]

2 hours ago, Naam said:

they got billions of Dollars in your dreams!

That does not even include all the money they made when the sanctions were relieved. What a deal for THEM.

 

The controversial $400 million payment that the U.S. sent to Iran in January, just as four American hostages were released—a planeload of Euros, Swiss Francs and other currencies—was only the first of three American cash deliveries to the country, the Obama administration reportedly told lawmakers on Tuesday.

During the 19 days following the first shipment, the U.S. sent two more planeloads of cash, totaling $1.3 billion, to Tehran, reports The Wall Street Journal. The two planeloads, which passed through Europe on Jan. 22 and Feb. 5, followed the same route as the earlier payment, a congressional aide who was briefed told the Journal. In the first payment, an Iranian cargo plane picked up the money in Geneva.

 

http://fortune.com/2016/09/07/us-iran-billion-hostages-arms-deal/

[alanrchase]

That does not even include all the money they made when the sanctions were relieved. What a deal for THEM.
 
The controversial $400 million payment that the U.S. sent to Iran in January, just as four American hostages were released—a planeload of Euros, Swiss Francs and other currencies—was only the first of three American cash deliveries to the country, the Obama administration reportedly told lawmakers on Tuesday.
During the 19 days following the first shipment, the U.S. sent two more planeloads of cash, totaling $1.3 billion, to Tehran, reports The Wall Street Journal. The two planeloads, which passed through Europe on Jan. 22 and Feb. 5, followed the same route as the earlier payment, a congressional aide who was briefed told the Journal. In the first payment, an Iranian cargo plane picked up the money in Geneva.
 
http://fortune.com/2016/09/07/us-iran-billion-hostages-arms-deal/

So according to that article Obama possibly saved th US 2.3 billion dollars and got 4 Americans released.

Sent from my SM-A500F using Thaivisa Connect mobile app

[Naam]

50 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

The controversial $400 million payment that the U.S. sent to Iran in January, just as four American hostages were released—a planeload of Euros, Swiss Francs and other currencies—was only the first of three American cash deliveries to the country, the Obama administration reportedly told lawmakers on Tuesday.

the controversial $400mm and the subsequent payment was Iranian money stolen temporarily, id est "frozen" for years by "so-called" US judges.

Quote

The currency shipped to Iran in the dead of night drew attention from presidential candidate Donald Trump this week, who on Friday appeared to walk back an earlier assertion that he had seen a payment being delivered. But that money was owed to the Islamic Republic since 1979, the year the U.S. froze all the Iranian funds in American banks as retribution for seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran, as revolution swept that nation.

http://time.com/4441046/400-million-iran-hostage-history/

 

Edited February 7, 2017 by Naam

[Ulysses G.]

27 minutes ago, alanrchase said:

 

So according to that article Obama possibly saved th US 2.3 billion dollars and got 4 Americans released.
 

Nope. They just reported the Obama administration's spin. Read further. Marco Rubio was a lot more accurate about the "deal":

 

“President Obama’s disastrous nuclear deal with Iran was sweetened with an illicit ransom payment and billions of dollars for the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism.”

[stevenl]

4 minutes ago, Naam said:

the controversial $400mm and the subsequent payment was Iranian money stolen temporarily, id est "frozen" for years by "so-called" US judges.

That has been pointed out many, many times already, but he still keeps ignoring facts. Just like his idol who is suddenly not his idol anymore, but the behaviour is very similar.

[alanrchase]

Nope. They just reported the Obama administration's spin. Read further. Marco Rubio was a lot more accurate about the "deal":
 
“President Obama’s disastrous nuclear deal with Iran was sweetened with an illicit ransom payment and billions of dollars for the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism.”

You are somewhat guilty of what you often complain about of others. The article is fairly balanced and gives both sides of the argument. You are choosing to accept Rubio's opinion as fact.

Sent from my SM-A500F using Thaivisa Connect mobile app

[craigt3365]

16 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

Nope. They just reported the Obama administration's spin. Read further. Marco Rubio was a lot more accurate about the "deal":

 

“President Obama’s disastrous nuclear deal with Iran was sweetened with an illicit ransom payment and billions of dollars for the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism.”

Best if you read this:

http://fortune.com/2016/09/07/us-iran-billion-hostages-arms-deal/

Quote

According to Obama administration officials, the U.S. government worried that a tribunal set up in The Hague to resolve U.S.-Iran claims would have awarded Iran $4 billion or more, so the U.S. and Iran negotiated a deal that gave Iran the original $400 million plus $1.3 billion in interest. The two more recent payments would complete that initial $1.7 billion agreement.

 

[Ulysses G.]

20 minutes ago, stevenl said:

That has been pointed out many, many times already, but he still keeps ignoring facts.

Not in anyway. However, there were legal reasons to keep that money and it was also being used as collateral until Iran complied with UN Resolutions concerning the pact they had signed to never develop nukes. The insane "deal" allowed them to get around that and the collateral is long gone.

Edited February 7, 2017 by Ulysses G.

[Ulysses G.]

3 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Best if you read this:

http://fortune.com/2016/09/07/us-iran-billion-hostages-arms-deal/

 

I obviously already did. Hence the mention of Obama administration spin.

[craigt3365]

21 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

I obviously already did. Hence the mention of Obama administration spin.

Versus the Marco Rubio spin? LOL

[Credo]

Trump thinks it's a good idea to get along with Russia because we've done some very bad things.   Obama thought it was a good idea to get along with Iran so they wouldn't build a nuclear weapon.   

 

[earlinclaifornia]

On 05/02/2017 at 2:55 PM, boomerangutang said:

       You're partially right: It was the US and European experts who signed the agreement. People with knowledge and wisdom who actually read things - the opposite of Trump and Bannon.

 

        P.S. The biggest terrorist country on the planet is N.Korea, followed by China.  Which country keeps threatening to launch nuke strikes against the US?  Yup, N.Korea.  Which country takes other countries territories (Tibet and Phil' islands) and militarizes them?  Yup, China.  

Iran doesn't do any of those things, not even remotely, unless you count watching US war ships as they cruise within 10 miles of their coastline.

 

           And how would Trump improve on the deal that western powers took years to hammer out with Iranian leaders?  Would he trash the deal altogether?  ....and then stand back as Iran cranked up their U enrichment programs?  P.S.S.  Iran doesn't react well to bullying trash talk.  Take my word on it.  

 

         Trump can bully two Latino chefs in his kitchen (Trump is suing them for several million dollars for quitting their jobs), but he won't have much luck trying to bully unfriendly foreign powers.

 

Spot on!

[stevenl]

4 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

Not in anyway. However, there were legal reasons to keep that money and it was also being used as collateral until Iran complied with UN Resolutions concerning the pact they had signed to never develop nukes. The insane "deal" allowed them to get around that and the collateral is long gone.

No, there were no legal reasons. US can not hold Iranian money until US feels they have complied, that is not how international law works.

 

US was obliged to release, and did so.

[copa8]

On 2/6/2017 at 5:16 PM, Naam said:

actually the Tutsis were smacked by the Hutus.

You're right.  I meant to type that, but somehow typed the opposite. Doh!

[Ulysses G.]

On 2/6/2017 at 10:08 PM, stevenl said:

No, there were no legal reasons. US can not hold Iranian money until US feels they have complied, that is not how international law works.

 

US was obliged to release, and did so.

The  Islamic government of Iran violated the terms of a weapons deal in 1979 and kidnapped the staff of the American Embassy in Tehran. That is when the Iranian funds were frozen. We kept that money for almost 40 years and we could have continued to do so until when and if there was a court  decision otherwise. We certainly did not have to pay them when we did.