Russia, China Agree to Referral of Iran to UN Security Council

[ntdz]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=...&sid=aGTMEGCBCcTc&refer=top_world_news

Looks like Iran is getting referred...there is pretty much no good outcome out of this, but it's what has to be done I guess.

 

[EndGame]

Scouped ya! LOL! You have a more "in-depth" article though. Mine was the lead in as soon as they got the word...

 

[Genx87]

It is better to do this now than in 10 years when they have a nuclear device.

 

[RichardE]

The drums of war forever beat

 

[Aimster]

U.S must have offered China and Russia some great deals.

 

[Cooler]

Originally posted by: Aimster
U.S must have offered China and Russia some great deals.

well china got wall mart?

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Aimster
U.S must have offered China and Russia some great deals.

Probally they just realised there is nothing they can do about the US attacking... and its better to try and resolve this..They probally tried to reason with Iran, and Iran gave them the finger too and used there oil card.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Aimster
U.S must have offered China and Russia some great deals.

Probally they just realised there is nothing they can do about the US attacking... and its better to try and resolve this..They probally tried to reason with Iran, and Iran gave them the finger too and used there oil card.

More like they realize Iran going Nuclear and lobbing one over to Israel will cut off the majority of their oil supply.

Unlike the US where we import about 10% of our crude from the ME. China imports around 40+%.

 

[imported_Aelius]

They will not be able to invade Iran. There is no army to do it with unless they plan to leave Iraq to fend for itself. Great plan. Plus how would they be able to hold Iran?

I think we are looking at a draft coming to a news conference near you. Well you are if you are American.

Unless someone suggests that a multi national force go in. Other then US/UK. I doubt NATO would do it but I have been wrong before.

I suppose it's conceivable that a multinational force invaded which would have to include Russian and Chinese troops. There is no way they would allow NATO to do it. But again I have been wrong before.

Will be intresting to see what happens next anyway.

 

[bctbct]

Is there no way to avoid the US being the leader here? Could we just send a note to Isreal saying "we are going to bomb you" and sign it Iran?

There is no way to we execute this without real hardship.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Aimster
U.S must have offered China and Russia some great deals.

Probally they just realised there is nothing they can do about the US attacking... and its better to try and resolve this..They probally tried to reason with Iran, and Iran gave them the finger too and used there oil card.

More like they realize Iran going Nuclear and lobbing one over to Israel will cut off the majority of their oil supply.

Unlike the US where we import about 10% of our crude from the ME. China imports around 40+%.

Yeah, i meant to say that, forgot to put it in. Iran has oil yes, but everyone needs it, us and our enemies, they can't mess around with oil supply. If they threaten to cut it off, they will see a nice coalition of governments happily take it over for them.

 

[jpeyton]

There's a BIG difference between a referral to the UNSC, and an approval of UNSC actions.

Russia and China have nothing to lose because either one is capable of, and likely to, veto whatever is recommended if it results in any backlash regarding Iranian resource exports.

You think China cares more about making the US/GB happy with UNSC actions, or more about their $100+ Billion contract for Iranian natural gas?

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
There's a BIG difference between a referral to the UNSC, and an approval of UNSC actions.

Russia and China have nothing to lose because either one is capable of, and likely to, veto whatever is recommended if it results in any backlash regarding Iranian resource exports.

You think China cares more about making the US/GB happy with UNSC actions, or more about their $100+ Billion contract for Iranian natural gas?

They might care if the US bombs the hell out of Iran...or they could have a hand in it, and make sure the oil/gas structures are not bombed/disabled/fall into US hands.

China can sit back and watch the US do it, and risk the US taking all the oil reservers..or it can participate and have a hand in whatever happens.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: jpeyton
There's a BIG difference between a referral to the UNSC, and an approval of UNSC actions.

Russia and China have nothing to lose because either one is capable of, and likely to, veto whatever is recommended if it results in any backlash regarding Iranian resource exports.

You think China cares more about making the US/GB happy with UNSC actions, or more about their $100+ Billion contract for Iranian natural gas?

They might care if the US bombs the hell out of Iran...or they could have a hand in it, and make sure the oil/gas structures are not bombed/disabled/fall into US hands.

China can sit back and watch the US do it, and risk the US taking all the oil reservers..or it can participate and have a hand in whatever happens.

You really think there is any chance of the US bombing Iran with our troops overextended in Iraq? We would be dropping our boys into the middle of a bad situation then. Iraqi Shiites are currently on our side right now, but they also have strong ties to Iranian Shiites.

Not a pretty thought to think about Iranian missiles striking US bases in Iraq.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: jpeyton
There's a BIG difference between a referral to the UNSC, and an approval of UNSC actions.

Russia and China have nothing to lose because either one is capable of, and likely to, veto whatever is recommended if it results in any backlash regarding Iranian resource exports.

You think China cares more about making the US/GB happy with UNSC actions, or more about their $100+ Billion contract for Iranian natural gas?

They might care if the US bombs the hell out of Iran...or they could have a hand in it, and make sure the oil/gas structures are not bombed/disabled/fall into US hands.

China can sit back and watch the US do it, and risk the US taking all the oil reservers..or it can participate and have a hand in whatever happens.

You really think there is any chance of the US bombing Iran with our troops overextended in Iraq? We would be dropping our boys into the middle of a bad situation then. Iraqi Shiites are currently on our side right now, but they also have strong ties to Iranian Shiites.

Not a pretty thought to think about Iranian missiles striking US bases in Iraq.

Thanks for the laugh!!
Iran has no military capability whatsoever.....bottom line is real simple....
If they did they they would have used it by now......rofl..
Thanks for the laugh anyways!!

 

[Aimster]

Maybe this is a way to delay any future attacks?

That way they get more out of Iran in the next few months.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: jpeyton
There's a BIG difference between a referral to the UNSC, and an approval of UNSC actions.

Russia and China have nothing to lose because either one is capable of, and likely to, veto whatever is recommended if it results in any backlash regarding Iranian resource exports.

You think China cares more about making the US/GB happy with UNSC actions, or more about their $100+ Billion contract for Iranian natural gas?

They might care if the US bombs the hell out of Iran...or they could have a hand in it, and make sure the oil/gas structures are not bombed/disabled/fall into US hands.

China can sit back and watch the US do it, and risk the US taking all the oil reservers..or it can participate and have a hand in whatever happens.

You really think there is any chance of the US bombing Iran with our troops overextended in Iraq? We would be dropping our boys into the middle of a bad situation then. Iraqi Shiites are currently on our side right now, but they also have strong ties to Iranian Shiites.

Not a pretty thought to think about Iranian missiles striking US bases in Iraq.

Thanks for the laugh!!
Iran has no military capability whatsoever.....bottom line is real simple....
If they did they they would have used it by now......rofl..
Thanks for the laugh anyways!!

Sorry to hurt your feelings

but Iran has enough military power to harm U.S forces in Iraq in great numbers. They have missiles capable of hitting U.S bases in Iraq. To suggest they don't is showing a lack of information on the topic.

They also control the path for 40% of the world's oil.

Why would Iran have used it by now?
This is not a video game.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Iran has no military capability whatsoever.....bottom line is real simple....

No military capability? Pwned!

Thanks for playing little one.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: jpeyton
There's a BIG difference between a referral to the UNSC, and an approval of UNSC actions.

Russia and China have nothing to lose because either one is capable of, and likely to, veto whatever is recommended if it results in any backlash regarding Iranian resource exports.

You think China cares more about making the US/GB happy with UNSC actions, or more about their $100+ Billion contract for Iranian natural gas?

They might care if the US bombs the hell out of Iran...or they could have a hand in it, and make sure the oil/gas structures are not bombed/disabled/fall into US hands.

China can sit back and watch the US do it, and risk the US taking all the oil reservers..or it can participate and have a hand in whatever happens.

You really think there is any chance of the US bombing Iran with our troops overextended in Iraq? We would be dropping our boys into the middle of a bad situation then. Iraqi Shiites are currently on our side right now, but they also have strong ties to Iranian Shiites.

Not a pretty thought to think about Iranian missiles striking US bases in Iraq.

Thanks for the laugh!!
Iran has no military capability whatsoever.....bottom line is real simple....
If they did they they would have used it by now......rofl..
Thanks for the laugh anyways!!

but Iran has enough military power to harm U.S forces in Iraq in great numbers. [

Only if they use chemical weapons. Also depends on what you mean by "great numbers".

Originally posted by: Aimster
They have missiles capable of hitting U.S bases in Iraq. To suggest they don't is showing a lack of information on the topic.

They do, but not particularly accurately.

Originally posted by: Aimster
They also control the path for 40% of the world's oil.

Not even close. More like 8%.

Originally posted by: Aimster
Why would Iran have used it by now?
This is not a video game.

Iran is playing the North Korea posturing game. But the fact is that other than China (which has a vested interest in the Middle East unrest causing as much harm to the Western World as possible, there is no other powerful country on Earth that wishes Iran to have nuclear arms. Actually, China probably doesn't either, because it may spell the end of Iran, and that would be bad for the Chinese economy.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Meuge
Not even close. More like 8%.

Taken from doe.gov:

Oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz account for roughly two-fifths of all world traded oil

Last time I checked, 2/5 = 40%. You can ask your math teacher to double check that one.

 

[Aimster]

Meuge

I already told you Iran hit MEK bases with accuracy in 2001. What part of that do you not understand?
It is a fact. If you can show me how their missiles missed the targets and hit residential sites then do it.
The MEK bases were in cities. Iran launched the missiles to the cities and bombed them.

If Iran can attack MEk bases that are in cities why in the hell can they not attack U.S bases inside cities as well?

After the 2001 attacks the MEK basically stopped their attacks on Iran. The missile attacks were accurate and worked

Iran controls 40% of the world's oil supply.
Do more research on the Persian Gulf and the area that Iran controls.
40% of the world oil passes thru there.

Iran has anti-tank weapons capable of doing great damage to U.S tanks/Humvees.

They have thousands of missiles with accuracy (I explained to you how short-term missiles are accurate)

They have enough forces in the Navy to close the Persian Gulf path where the oil tankers pass.
- They have Russian mines which are go underwater and rise up whenever something passes over it. These are deadly.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: jpeyton
There's a BIG difference between a referral to the UNSC, and an approval of UNSC actions.

Russia and China have nothing to lose because either one is capable of, and likely to, veto whatever is recommended if it results in any backlash regarding Iranian resource exports.

You think China cares more about making the US/GB happy with UNSC actions, or more about their $100+ Billion contract for Iranian natural gas?

They might care if the US bombs the hell out of Iran...or they could have a hand in it, and make sure the oil/gas structures are not bombed/disabled/fall into US hands.

China can sit back and watch the US do it, and risk the US taking all the oil reservers..or it can participate and have a hand in whatever happens.

You really think there is any chance of the US bombing Iran with our troops overextended in Iraq? We would be dropping our boys into the middle of a bad situation then. Iraqi Shiites are currently on our side right now, but they also have strong ties to Iranian Shiites.

Not a pretty thought to think about Iranian missiles striking US bases in Iraq.

Bombing Iran would be easy and wouldn't require any ground troops...Iraq has nothing to do with that...

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Meuge
Not even close. More like 8%.

Taken from doe.gov:

Oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz account for roughly two-fifths of all world traded oil

Last time I checked, 2/5 = 40%. You can ask your math teacher to double check that one.

2/5 of the worlds TRADED OIL, not all oil. Most oil is consumed by the country...

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
There's a BIG difference between a referral to the UNSC, and an approval of UNSC actions.

Russia and China have nothing to lose because either one is capable of, and likely to, veto whatever is recommended if it results in any backlash regarding Iranian resource exports.

You think China cares more about making the US/GB happy with UNSC actions, or more about their $100+ Billion contract for Iranian natural gas?

They may care when the nutjobs running Iran manage to get those gas fields turned into a sheet of glass via an Israeli retaliation strike.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: jpeyton
There's a BIG difference between a referral to the UNSC, and an approval of UNSC actions.

Russia and China have nothing to lose because either one is capable of, and likely to, veto whatever is recommended if it results in any backlash regarding Iranian resource exports.

You think China cares more about making the US/GB happy with UNSC actions, or more about their $100+ Billion contract for Iranian natural gas?

They may care when the nutjobs running Iran manage to get those gas fields turned into a sheet of glass via an Israeli retaliation strike.

Israel wont strike Iran's oil

Foreign workers
+ Foreign contracts.