Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

U.S. May Sanction India Over Level of Iran-Oil Imports

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    S2 and BM

    By the way, just to put it out there, since you, Steve, keep referring to me and Blademaster synonymously; reading BM's above post, there is no way we are on the same page!

    @ Blademaster

    Iran has no legal right to a nuclear weapon due to being a signatory to the NPT. The Israel example which you keep invoking does not fly with Iran since Israel is not a signatory to the NPT. If Iran wishes to build a bomb, it has the right to walk out of the NPT! That said, America, Israel, or whatever other country feeling threatened has the causus belli to attack Iran. I do not deny or debate against this.
    Cow is the only animal that not only inhales oxygen, but also exhales it.
    -Rekha Arya, Former Minister of Animal Husbandry

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
      Iran has no rights to use NPT benefits to acquire nuclear weapons.

      And we keep going in circles, again. Does that include forced compliance to NPT? No. I agree that Iran has no right to use NPT benefits to acquire nuclear weapons as a signatory. But NPT, despite all your assertions, does not include force as an authorized mechanism to force compliance. Only economic or sanctions are authorized. You can claim violations of NPT as a basis for economic sanctions or embargo but not for force.

      Casus belli comes from other area like as impending threats. Go from there and start working your way there. What's so hard to understand about that. It is not rocket science.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Tronic View Post
        By the way, just to put it out there, since you, Steve, keep referring to me and Blademaster synonymously; reading BM's above post, there is no way we are on the same page!

        @ Blademaster

        Iran has no legal right to a nuclear weapon due to being a signatory to the NPT. The Israel example which you keep invoking does not fly with Iran since Israel is not a signatory to the NPT. If Iran wishes to build a bomb, it has the right to walk out of the NPT! That said, America, Israel, or whatever other country feeling threatened has the causus belli to attack Iran. I do not deny or debate against this.
        Again, I do not deny or debate that Iran has no legal right. What I debate is that NPT automatically gives right to P5 to launch a war. It doesn't. As for causus belli to attack Iran, it slices both ways. Just don't go around and say NPT allows you to do it. Get the point?

        Comment


        • #79
          Tronic Reply

          "By the way, just to put it out there, since you, Steve, keep referring to me and Blademaster synonymously; reading BM's above post, there is no way we are on the same page!"

          Your position is crystalline on where Blademaster and you differ WRT NPT obligations.

          Thank you for the clarification.
          "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
          "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
            Again, I do not deny or debate that Iran has no legal right. What I debate is that NPT automatically gives right to P5 to launch a war. It doesn't. As for causus belli to attack Iran, it slices both ways. Just don't go around and say NPT allows you to do it. Get the point?
            No one that I know of is arguing that the NPT gives any country the right to retaliate against another for violating the treaty. Rather the right to retaliate is implicit in the fundamental right of all countries to protect their vital interests. Whether a threat comes from violating a treaty or any other act makes no difference. The only argument you could have is non-existent: that the NPT forbids military action against violators. Had such a clause been in the draft treaty, I doubt any country would have signed it.
            To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
              Casus belli comes from other area like as impending threats. Go from there and start working your way there. What's so hard to understand about that. It is not rocket science.
              Because the history already said you are wrong. Sino-Soviet and Soviet-Israeli. Both were on a nuclear war footing with the NPT as justification.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                And we keep going in circles, again. Does that include forced compliance to NPT? No. I agree that Iran has no right to use NPT benefits to acquire nuclear weapons as a signatory. But NPT, despite all your assertions, does not include force as an authorized mechanism to force compliance. Only economic or sanctions are authorized. You can claim violations of NPT as a basis for economic sanctions or embargo but not for force.

                Casus belli comes from other area like as impending threats. Go from there and start working your way there. What's so hard to understand about that. It is not rocket science.
                Isn't the following your quote?

                Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                By legal definition, enforced sanctions or embargoes are an act of war.
                No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Blademaster Reply

                  ""Based on your logical reasoning (or illogical shall I say?) I can make the same argument when I say, "Israel failed to convert to Islam. If only had Israel convert to Islam, then we wouldn't be having this terrible conflict. Therefore, Israel is causing this or that." That is a fallacious argument and does not bear legal scrutiny. Same thing with your argument."

                  Your analogy is laughable. Israel has made no commitment to mass conversion to Islam. Iran, contrasting, has fully committed to the requirements imposed by the NPT. Willfully choosing to avoid adherence shall eventually bring war upon Iran by their own actions unless sanctions and diplomacy somehow work to dissuade their intransigence.

                  You still haven't answered WHY Iran so routinely refuses compliance?

                  "...That is America's choice. But it won't get moral support or the support of history, if history is any guide."

                  Not that moral support is necessary but neither are you qualified to determine history's judgement.

                  "Was Pakistan having nukes in the world's interests? Did the world impose sanctions upon pakistan?"

                  Sanctions are an alternative to war. I repeat that it's in the world's interest to have meaningful sanctions that dissuade Iran from their recalcitrance. Why do you conflate the issue and toss red herrings to boot? Pakistan is not the issue here. Neither are India's nukes.

                  "...And one thing, I don't recall USA being the world. Are you claiming that USA speaks for the world? Wow that is a pretty big estimation of yourself. Talk about big egos right there, considering, that together China and India makes up 40 percent of the world's population. Throw in Russia and other central Asian countries and Iran, and pretty much, that is more than half of the world's population. Are you claiming that USA and European Union thus speaks for the world? Great logical thinking right there, Sherlock Holmes."

                  Are you suggesting then, aside from the IAEA and the G-5 (UNSC) plus 1 (Germany), the rest of the world wishes war?

                  Just my opinion but I'd venture that most see sanctions as the final means available, short of war, to steer Iran from their chosen path. It's now come to that.

                  "...And based on the language of US senators and Hillary Clinton, they are not really asking. They are telling. So spare me with your syntax nonsense."

                  I didn't write "ask" in one sentence and "tell" in another. I'm therefore not responsible for your imprecision. Nonetheless you'd be wrong unless you're suggesting India's leaders are mindless toadies for our government. I don't believe any responsible senior American diplomat, bureaucrat or politician would suggest such about India's leadership. We can TELL India the consequences which may be imposed by America upon India. We can't tell India what to do.

                  "...It would be one thing if the oil prices spiking up would be out of GoI's control but when it occurs based on that GoI restricting Iranian oil from supply, then people has a big fucking problem with that."

                  War shall certainly assure those prices spiking beyond India's control. Especially Iranian energy. You can take comfort in that.

                  "...So it is not US or Iranian that India has to answer but its own people and that is why nobody can speak for India but Indian people itself. I hope you can understand this basic tenet of the lesson of democracy in action. It is Democracy 101 and you really don't need to hone your debating skills in ad nauseum arguments to see the light."

                  We are privileged by your presence. May the light of your wisdom continue to grace this modest forum.

                  "...Read again Sherlock Holmes."

                  I've read and answered Tronic's thoughtful retort to Double Edge's article. I see nothing of consequence offered by you.

                  "As for my government, it is USA government."

                  Nothing here at WAB that I've read would suggest such. Thank you for the clarification.

                  "...I am an American citizen..."

                  Aren't we blessed?

                  "I am debating a certain group's thinking who proclaim to speak for the entire country when it is not the case..."

                  You're debating me and I speak for myself.

                  "...There is no anti-american thinking here..."

                  I disagree. Every indication provided by you suggests an eagerness to see Iran circumvent the NPT and obtain a nuclear capability. I consider that in diametric opposition to the objectives of our government and dangerous to America's good fortunes.

                  "What I have is the anti-whatmacallit geo political strategic thinking here when it comes to Iran."

                  What you have is a very poor grasp of Iran's treaty obligations within the NPT. That's been repeatedly demonstrated. Tronic's post to distance his position from your's makes that clear.

                  "...Ooooh big smack talk from you when considering that you use logical reasoning commonly associated with 3rd graders."

                  If so we can take heart that most third graders possess a debating acumen exceeding some attornies at law.:)

                  "...I don't show off my debating skills for free."

                  That's evident here.
                  Last edited by S2; 18 Mar 12,, 19:30.
                  "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
                  "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Firestorm View Post
                    One problem for India Which everybody overlooks is that several of the Indian refineries which process Iranian crude were originally built to process only that specific type of crude. It is not a trivial task to retool those refineries to accept crude from another source. If India suddenly cuts oil imports from Iran in lieu of oil from another US approved supplier a part of it's refining capacity will suddenly go offline. How is India supposed to overcome that?
                    I'd pointed this out a couple of weeks ago, since then i've had a rethink.

                    We don't import our oil from Iran in toto. There are other suppliers as well. The import from those suppliers goes to refineries designed to refine that kind of oil. There's only so many exporters out there and we will be importing from them anyway.

                    So all it takes is to scale up those refineries that handle those suppliers.

                    The problem with this is if certain importers only deal with one country. They will lose a hefty amount of business as they won't be able to rebuild new refineries. Therefore the line of reasoining you offered affects only those individual refiners rather than India at large.

                    Originally posted by Firestorm View Post
                    The govt. was having a hard time controlling inflation already. Imagine what will happen if the domestic fuel prices shoot up on account of this.
                    Compare that to a complete cut off in the event of a war. Do we want to have more alternatives in that scenario or less.

                    Originally posted by Firestorm View Post
                    The problem for the India is that if the balloon goes up in the middle east and oil supplies from Iran are disrupted, it will suddenly lose 12% of it's supply and fuel prices will skyrocket leading to the exact situation they were trying to avoid. No easy choices here.
                    Prices will spike for everybody, they go up even further for us if there is no alternative supply. Supply vs. demand and all that.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by S2 View Post
                      Time for Indians here like Blademaster and yourself to see they're behind the curve, if true, or provide compelling evidence that India intends defying sanctions.
                      The bolded bit is the crux of it. To date i see more bluster than action. Admittedly its still early days.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by commander View Post
                        Maybe this would help to shed some light in this issue. I believe S2 was looking for a news something like this ???
                        Nope, still quoting GOI and buying into what they're saying.

                        It's too early to call, 6 months a year from now, India's position will be clearer.

                        I would not be surprised if we managed to reduce our import from Iran even further. The americans are working with us on this.

                        The rest is just hot air.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Tronic View Post
                          Steve, DE's article proved nothing.
                          How about the disconnect between what GOI is saying vs the realities reflected by the articles presented figures of the last couple of years ?

                          You will say what about the parts you brought up that the article does not address.

                          Originally posted by Tronic View Post
                          The article that DE posted only puts a positive spin on things. It is true that Indian imports of Iranian oil are falling, but it is far too early to tell. The article overlooks the fact that Indian imports of Iranian oil had been increasing, not decreasing, up until 2010. It downplays the fact that a recent Indian trade delegation signed a bilateral agreement aiming to increase trade to $25 billion within the next 4 years. It totally leaves out the fact that recently the Indian government has amended the Indian Income Tax Act, adding a clause which states, "to provide for exemption in respect of any income of a foreign company received in India in Indian currency on account of sale of crude oil to any person in India...,", providing, "receipt of money is the only activity carried out by the foreign company in India". A clause obviously aimed at making transactions with Iran tax free. It also leaves out the fact that India's Oil and Natural Gas Corporation along with the Hinduja Group have investments in Iran of almost $8 billion for a stake in Iran's South Pars gas fields.
                          What happens to all those investments in the event of a war ?

                          I've yet to find any articles that go into this. Its almost like India does not believe there will be a war there ever. That all options are not on the table even though POTUS has repeatedly said so.

                          Is it any surprise that we would look to scale back in some way given the hysteria over the likelihood of a war there. Yet, i see little acknowledgement of that from GOI sources. In fact i'm of the opinion that rather than listening to GOI to just keep an eye on the oil import figures. Those will tell a more accurate story. Just a matter of locating the appropriate source.

                          The beauty of this particular topic is there is a foreign yardstick with which to guage whatever GOI says. When it comes to domestic issues things are a great deal less clear, then they get politicised and any objectivity goes straight out the window. At this point you are reduced into a footsoldier arguing your preferred parties lines against the opponent. Doing their bidding having lost sight of the goal much earlier.

                          Originally posted by Tronic View Post
                          As long as it isn't, "either you're with us, or against us".
                          To me it sounds like, they're giving us ample warning that our investments there might be at risk. If ever there is a war and we haven't scaled back adequately then the interruption will be a loss to us. Now if there are any sanctions on top of that we're losing more. Its true tha the tech industy will be affected the most but do not discount the pull they have in the halls of power. What about other Indian companies that have large investments in the US, they're not going to be quiet either.

                          Reliance had big plans in 2006 to invest in Iran but refrained from getting into it. They had their US investments to protect.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                            Ok then why does Israel have problems with Iran having nukes then?
                            Because Iran has expressly threatened them... ... must i add, without cause.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                              Based on your logical reasoning (or illogical shall I say?) I can make the same argument when I say, "Israel failed to convert to Islam. If only had Israel convert to Islam, then we wouldn't be having this terrible conflict. Therefore, Israel is causing this or that." That is a fallacious argument and does not bear legal scrutiny. Same thing with your argument.
                              You are being desperate here Hitesh. Not even once did the Israelis promise or want to be muslims. Iran signed the NPT and made promises as such, so they can't have the nuke.
                              Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                              That is America's choice. But it won't get moral support or the support of history, if history is any guide.
                              Don't be so sure about that. Not after all these UN resolutions and the experience with NK.
                              Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                              India has tens of millions of people are living on subistence means and they depends on oil subsidies to make their lives barely tolerable.
                              India is not alone. The US is taking it on itself to source alternative suppliers for her.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                                And we keep going in circles, again. Does that include forced compliance to NPT? No. I agree that Iran has no right to use NPT benefits to acquire nuclear weapons as a signatory. But NPT, despite all your assertions, does not include force as an authorized mechanism to force compliance. Only economic or sanctions are authorized. You can claim violations of NPT as a basis for economic sanctions or embargo but not for force.
                                The consequences of breaching the NPT are up to whoever will be the sponsor of the penalties draft. They can sponsor a draft ranging from sanctions to containment, blockade, or even war depending on the circumstances.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X