• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Yet another war, this time with Iran

Derec said:
He may not approve of the outcome (more expensive oil) but he thinks it's their right to close the Strait.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. Inevitable, yes, but "rights" have nothing at all to do with any part of this conflict. I don't give a flying fuck about the price of oil, for that to be the main point of discussion for Americans concerning this war is, in my view, proof our utter and complete moral degeneracy.
 
Politesse said:
Are you admitting that the president has illegally declared war?
Click to expand...
It is a de facto war, but Trump never declared it.

Are you still insisting that the Regime was right in closing the Strait, but that US is committing war crimes by blockading vessels coming from Iranian ports?
 
Derec said:
laughing dog said:
You said posters which is plural.
Click to expand...
Now you are picking nits. But in any case, Jimmy Higgins seems to agree with that in post #1,472.
Click to expand...
There is not a single word in that response that suggests JH is okay with Iran blocking the Strait of Hormuz. Clear reading of his posts indicates he is against it.

Clearly you were exaggerating,
Derec said:
Moreover, the Strait of Hormuz is Iranian and Omanian waters. While the UN International Convention on the Law of the Seas indicates ships of transit rights, Iran claims since it never ratified it, they can charge tolls. The USA has no such claim.
Click to expand...
It is not against laws of war to blockade enemy ports.
Click to expand...
I believe he was referring to Trump’s claim about extracting tolls. Is that permitted by laws of war?

Derec said:
I don’t know if Iran is correct. Regardless, Politesse’s argument suggests there is a legal basis but does not suggest approval.
Click to expand...
Splitting hairs. He may not approve of the outcome (more expensive oil) but he thinks it's their right to close the Strait.
Click to expand...
It is neither nit picking nor splitting hairs to adhere to content. Politesse did not say it was their right. Your inference is unsupported by the text.
 
Last edited:
Derec said:
Politesse said:
Incorrect. Inevitable, yes, but "rights" have nothing at all to do with any part of this conflict.
Click to expand...
So, what's your problem with US blocading Iranian ports then?
Click to expand...
It advances no goal at all, and if Iran's claim is dubious, ours is completely non-existent. We have no right to be invading a sovereign nation in the first place, let alone using that same conflict, which we initiated, to justify further acts of piracy against other non-military vessels from other nations that aren't even involved in the conflict. And yes, pointing a gun at someone's ship and demanding cash tribute is piracy. Fucking duh.
 
Derec said:
Are you still insisting that the Regime was right in closing the Strait, but that US is committing war crimes by blockading vessels coming from Iranian ports?
Click to expand...
Trump said Iran was committing terrorism when they closed the strait. So what is it when we close the strait?
 
laughing dog said:
So your original claim was wrong.
Click to expand...
Again, if you split hairs fine enough, you'll always find something to complain about.
This is generally your tactic. What remains though, is that both Politesse and Higgins view US blockading Iranian ports as somehow worse than the Regime blockading the Strait.
 
Derec said:
It is not against laws of war to blockade enemy ports.
Click to expand...
What war? It is unconstitutional to have a war without asking Congress.

What enemy? If you are allowed to blockade "enemy ports", and can unilaterally declare someone an "enemy", then you are allowed to blockade any port in the world.

It's certainly against UNCLOS to blocade foriegn ports in the absence of a declaration of war.
 
Orange (in order to alleviate oil prices) lift sanctions on Iranian oil and then "blockades" iranian oil shipments.
China is not gonna be hurt much because they have access to Russian oil and and have their own. Most of their consumption (60-70%) is their own.
 
Politesse said:
laughing dog said:
Politesse said:
laughing dog said:
The USA will blockade the Strait of Hormuz in order to force Iran to open the Strait of Hormuz.

Does anyone else find that confusing?
Click to expand...
Iran is only blockading enemy ships, their allies are allowed through "for a small fee". We are essentially threatening to copy what they are doing, and cut off access to the Strait altogether. Presumably unless "for a small fee". The difference being that they aren't our waters, so when we do it, it's piracy.
Click to expand...
What is confusing is why that would induce Iran to open the Strait of Hormuz.
Click to expand...
That isn't the goal. The goal is to try and goad them into firing on one of our ships
Click to expand...
I know we in the west are accustomed to believing that Iranians are nothing but a bunch of religious ideologues stuck in the 14th century, too backward to understand much or care about anything beyond their religious beliefs. As weird as it is to write this, in this situation, Iran is the rational one. They don’t want to destroy the world. Trump will have no problem destroying the world. If he has an excuse.
 
Derec said:
laughing dog said:
So your original claim was wrong.
Click to expand...
Again, if you split hairs fine enough, you'll always find something to complain about.
This is generally your tactic. What remains though, is that both Politesse and Higgins view US blockading Iranian ports as somehow worse than the Regime blockading the Strait.
Click to expand...
The fuck. I'm looking at this pragmatically, not in some sort of Hollywood film ending sort of way.

Iran blocked the Strait. That isn't good, it isn't legal, we can't do fuck all to stop it. When you know that a bully will fight back unfair when confronted, you need to do the damn math.

And now Trump is blockading oil to China potentially.

You're obsessed with "being right" instead of "real world consequences" that we aren't capable of stopping.

State sponsor of terrorism closes strait after being attacked and their theocratic leader killed... no fucking kidding. And Trump had no plan for stopping it.
 
Toni said:
Politesse said:
laughing dog said:
Politesse said:
laughing dog said:
The USA will blockade the Strait of Hormuz in order to force Iran to open the Strait of Hormuz.

Does anyone else find that confusing?
Click to expand...
Iran is only blockading enemy ships, their allies are allowed through "for a small fee". We are essentially threatening to copy what they are doing, and cut off access to the Strait altogether. Presumably unless "for a small fee". The difference being that they aren't our waters, so when we do it, it's piracy.
Click to expand...
What is confusing is why that would induce Iran to open the Strait of Hormuz.
Click to expand...
That isn't the goal. The goal is to try and goad them into firing on one of our ships
Click to expand...
I know we in the west are accustomed to believing that Iranians are nothing but a bunch of religious ideologues stuck in the 14th century, too backward to understand much or care about anything beyond their religious beliefs. As weird as it is to write this, in this situation, Iran is the rational one. They don’t want to destroy the world. Trump will have no problem destroying the world. If he has an excuse.
Click to expand...
There is no "the Iranians", any more than there is "the Americans". Every nation and every government on Earth is filled with every kind of person imaginable.

Unfortunately, a few fingers on a few triggers can cause an awful lot of trouble for all of us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom