Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
U.S. Congress Getting Tougher With Iran  
User currently offlineRJpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1420 times:

New comprehensive legislation to impose additional sanctions against Iran was introduced in the House of Representatives last week and will probably get overwhelming bipartisan support in the coming weeks. The Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007 aims to adopt "smart sanctions" in order to make the cost of pursuing a nuclear weapons program to great for Iran to cope with.

I personally think this is a great way plan of action. The only real way to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is to make the cost too much for them--let them face international isolation, declining trade, and frozen assets if they continue developing nuclear weapons and threatning their neighbors. Racheting up economic pressure is the best course of action at this point...

http://www.internationalrelations.house.gov/press_display.asp?id=312

"Iran’s theocracy must understand that it cannot pursue a nuclear weapons program without sacrificing the political and economic future of the Iranian people."

"My legislation will increase exponentially the economic pressure on Iran, and empower our diplomatic efforts by strengthening the Iran Sanctions Act. It will put an end to the Administration’s ability to waive sanctions against foreign companies that invest in Iran’s energy industry.

Until now, abusing its waiver authority and other flexibility in the law, the Executive Branch has never sanctioned any foreign oil company which invested in Iran. Those halcyon days for the oil industry are over.

If Dutch Shell moves forward with its proposed $10 billion deal with Iran, it will be sanctioned. If Malaysia moves forward with a similar deal, it too will be sanctioned. The same treatment will be accorded to China and India should they finalize deals with Iran. "

12 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20751 posts, RR: 62
Reply 1, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1414 times:

Quoting RJpieces (Thread starter):
If Dutch Shell moves forward with its proposed $10 billion deal with Iran, it will be sanctioned. If Malaysia moves forward with a similar deal, it too will be sanctioned. The same treatment will be accorded to China and India should they finalize deals with Iran. "

Sure thing. Let's disrupt world trade, the oil supply, and have a few countries sell off U.S. debt in retaliation. Yup, great plan.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineRJpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1410 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 1):
Let's disrupt world trade, the oil supply, and have a few countries sell off U.S. debt in retaliation.

Imagine what would happen to the global economy if the Islamic Republic of Iran had nuclear weapons and thus control over most of the world's oil supply...None of the options are great in dealing with Iran, but I prefer economic sanctions to war...Don't you agree?


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20751 posts, RR: 62
Reply 3, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1405 times:

Quoting RJpieces (Reply 2):
None of the options are great in dealing with Iran, but I prefer economic sanctions to war.

Well I'd like to see where economic sanctions have actually worked to any great degree. Now we're proposing to go after the few friends we have left in the world. Bad idea. Sure, let's just piss everyone off. I wonder what we'll do then.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21700 posts, RR: 55
Reply 4, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1381 times:

Unless we can get a good number of countries to go along with this, it's a bad idea. The days of the US being able to pull this kind of thing off unilaterally are over.

The principle is nice, but actually putting it into effect may well cause more harm than good.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1443 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1378 times:

Quoting RJpieces (Thread starter):
Iran’s theocracy must understand that it cannot pursue a nuclear weapons program without sacrificing the political and economic future of the Iranian people."

What makes you think the Mullahs give a damn about the Iranian people, they are just like the majority of the US congress both sides of the aisles just out for their own power.



I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlineJetjack74 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 7414 posts, RR: 50
Reply 6, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1375 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 3):
Well I'd like to see where economic sanctions have actually worked to any great degree.

Well, it could if other countries would honour the sanctions put in place rather than undermine them. If the enablers France, Russia, China and others would stop providing the Iranians with the materials needed to make nuclear components, we might make some headway. But also, allowing Iran to enrich the uranium without action is just foolish in itself though.

Quoting Mir (Reply 4):
Unless we can get a good number of countries to go along with this

Yep.



Made from jets!
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20751 posts, RR: 62
Reply 7, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1373 times:

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 6):
Well, it could if other countries would honour the sanctions put in place rather than undermine them.

The current sanctions put in place against supplying Iran with items, materials, equipment, goods and technology which could contribute to Tehran’s uranium enrichment program just came into being at the end of December 2006. I wasn't aware of France, Russia and China (who voted for the sanctions in the U.N. Security Council), having openly breaking these self-imposed sanctions that quickly. How are the sanctions being broken by these three countries?



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineJetjack74 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 7414 posts, RR: 50
Reply 8, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1329 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 7):
I wasn't aware of France, Russia and China (who voted for the sanctions in the U.N. Security Council), having openly breaking these self-imposed sanctions that quickly.

Well, there isn't any evidence to say they have, BUT they(France Russia, China and Germany) also agreed to imposed sanctions against Iraq(which they broke), so more than just a 3 month moratorium is needed to prove they're willing to stand by sanctions they endorsed. As far as the Russians and the Chinese, they along with France in this situation, built the nuclear programme for the Iranians. So there is reason to be suspicious of their level of commitment.



Made from jets!
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20751 posts, RR: 62
Reply 9, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1327 times:

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 8):
So there is reason to be suspicious of their level of commitment.

I agree with you that this should be viewed a healthy dose of skepticism, as nothing should be bought out of hand outright when there are long-term ties between these nations. It seemed by your post that you had run across something concrete, and I was curious as to what that might be.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineJetjack74 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 7414 posts, RR: 50
Reply 10, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1309 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 9):
It seemed by your post that you had run across something concrete, and I was curious as to what that might be.

Sorry, I can't say that I do. It's more along the lines of the "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me 2wice, shame on me" kind of opinion. It's wrong to pigeon-hole some parties for the past, but you can't help but be suspicious. Arguably, there are few regimes more dangerous in this day and age than the Iranians. It just seems that everytime the Iranians say they'll negotiate, some parties back off of the hardline stance just before Ahmadinejad releases another genocidal fatwa, and we're back to square one with no consensous. It's the run-around.



Made from jets!
User currently offlineCairo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1287 times:

Quoting RJpieces (Thread starter):
The only real way to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is to make the cost too much for them

The only way to ensure the long term survival of Israel, your real concern here, is to stop antagonizing its neighbors in ways like, for instance, constantly bribing US politicians to enact sanctions or 'regime changes' such as those US policites that worked so well in Iraq. Engaging the govt and people of Iran might work, but hostile sanctions endorsed by www.aipac.com will only inflame the situation.

Lets say all of your dearest wishes come true and Iran is somehow prevented from creating a nuclear weapon. How long do you think this will last? Maybe a few years, maybe 20 years, who knows???? ....but at some point you are going to have to deal with the fact that the current enemies of Israel will sooner or later obtain a nuclear weapon and Israel will either learn how to negotiate and deal with them or suffer a nuclear catastrophe.

Quoting RJpieces (Reply 2):
Imagine what would happen to the global economy if the Islamic Republic of Iran had nuclear weapons and thus control over most of the world's oil supply

The global economy and the free flow of oil are not your concern, but nice try. You'd gladly sacrifice the US economy, the world economy and the free flow of oil all to protect Israel, there is in fact no price too great for America to pay, in your mind, to protect Israel.

Cairo


User currently offlineCheckraiser From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1266 times:

Quoting Cairo (Reply 11):
The global economy and the free flow of oil are not your concern, but nice try. You'd gladly sacrifice the US economy, the world economy and the free flow of oil all to protect Israel, there is in fact no price too great for America to pay, in your mind, to protect Israel.

 rotfl 


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Playing Ball With Iran.... posted Tue Jun 6 2006 22:49:18 by TedTAce
How To Deal With Iran? posted Fri Jan 13 2006 20:01:21 by MaverickM11
Iraq Signs Military Pact With Iran? posted Thu Jul 7 2005 23:17:03 by Clickhappy
The Tough Times Keep Getting Tougher For Americans posted Tue May 3 2005 01:56:21 by TedTAce
Getting Even With The 2 Girls? posted Fri Sep 24 2004 06:19:50 by KLM672
Halliburton Under Investigation For Ties With Iran posted Wed Jul 21 2004 14:31:10 by Alpha 1
Getting Rich With Hot Pickles posted Wed Oct 11 2000 02:51:11 by Matt D
US Congress NOT Getting A Pay Raise! posted Wed Jan 31 2007 08:19:06 by UH60FtRucker
Congress Sends Bush Bill To Ban Contact With Hamas posted Fri Dec 8 2006 18:42:31 by RJpieces
Getting Back Together With The Ex...? posted Mon Nov 27 2006 21:13:55 by Blackbird07