Yet another war, this time with Iran

[Politesse]

Just because I disapprove of what we're doing, doesn't mean that I approve of Iran's actions. As indeed I do not.

You defended Regime's blockade by saying that it was their waters.

I did not, in fact, say that.

 

[Politesse]

It is not against laws of war to blockade enemy ports.

Are you admitting that the president has illegally declared war?

 

[Politesse]

He may not approve of the outcome (more expensive oil) but he thinks it's their right to close the Strait.

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.

 

[Derec]

Are you admitting that the president has illegally declared war?

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]

Incorrect. Inevitable, yes, but "rights" have nothing at all to do with any part of this conflict.

So, what's your problem with US blocading Iranian ports then?

 

[laughing dog]

You said posters which is plural.

Now you are picking nits. But in any case, Jimmy Higgins seems to agree with that in post #1,472.

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,

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.

It is not against laws of war to blockade enemy ports.

I believe he was referring to Trump’s claim about extracting tolls. Is that permitted by laws of war?

I don’t know if Iran is correct. Regardless, Politesse’s argument suggests there is a legal basis but does not suggest approval.

Splitting hairs. He may not approve of the outcome (more expensive oil) but he thinks it's their right to close the Strait.

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.

 

[Politesse]

Incorrect. Inevitable, yes, but "rights" have nothing at all to do with any part of this conflict.

So, what's your problem with US blocading Iranian ports then?

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.

 

[Politesse]

Also, what fucking "laws of war" are you even referring to?

It is not against laws of war to blockade enemy ports.

 

[ZiprHead]

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?

Trump said Iran was committing terrorism when they closed the strait. So what is it when we close the strait?

 

[Derec]

So your original claim was wrong.

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.

 

[bilby]

It is not against laws of war to blockade enemy ports.

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.

 

[barbos]

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.

 

[Toni]

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?

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.

What is confusing is why that would induce Iran to open the Strait of Hormuz.

That isn't the goal. The goal is to try and goad them into firing on one of our ships

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.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So your original claim was wrong.

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.

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.

 

[Politesse]

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?

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.

What is confusing is why that would induce Iran to open the Strait of Hormuz.

That isn't the goal. The goal is to try and goad them into firing on one of our ships

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.

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.

 

[laughing dog]

So your original claim was wrong.

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.

if it makes you feel better to think being held accountable for your wirds as “splitting hairs”, then fine.

Neither poster said anything that remotely suggests such a thing. I think it should be obvious that both are saying both blockades are wrong.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Trump Officially Renames Strait Of Hormuz The 'Donald J. Trump Strait Of America'

WASHINGTON, D.C. — As part of ongoing ceasefire negotiations with Iran to bring the weeks-long conflict to a close, U.S. President Donald Trump announced that the Strait of Hormuz had been officially renamed as the "Donald J. Trump Straight of America."

babylonbee.com

 

[blastula]

Babylonbee so lazy.

Trump JOKES about renaming the Strait of Hormuz | Fox News Video

President Donald Trump jokingly refers to the Strait of Hormuz as the 'Strait of Trump' during a speech at the FII Priority Summit in Miami.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Toni]

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?

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.

What is confusing is why that would induce Iran to open the Strait of Hormuz.

That isn't the goal. The goal is to try and goad them into firing on one of our ships

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.

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.

Of course the world is comprised of unique individuals. But it takes a great deal of naïveté or willful blindness to believe that it requires every individual comprising a group to agree on everything it even most things for that group to share a common goal, mindset, group or national identity.

Do I believe that most Iranians want war with..,anyone, much less the US? No. Nor do I believe that most Americans want to have a war with Iran or Cuba or whoever else dementor in chief decides must be obliterated.

 

[Politesse]

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?

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.

What is confusing is why that would induce Iran to open the Strait of Hormuz.

That isn't the goal. The goal is to try and goad them into firing on one of our ships

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.

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.

Of course the world is comprised of unique individuals. But it takes a great deal of naïveté or willful blindness to believe that it requires every individual comprising a group to agree on everything it even most things for that group to share a common goal, mindset, group or national identity.

Do I believe that most Iranians want war with..,anyone, much less the US? No. Nor do I believe that most Americans want to have a war with Iran or Cuba or whoever else dementor in chief decides must be obliterated.

My point is quite the opposite. "Serbia" did not shoot Archduke Ferdinand. One frightened, angry teenager did. Austrians did not declare war in response. Their government did. And well over 200 million people died over the next thirty years as a result. Not really Princip's fault. But we designed a social system that guaranteed millions of deaths in retribution for such an act. Of our response to notorious events is uncompromising war, it quickly ceases to matter what Iranians want or what Americans want or what Russians want or what Vietnamese people want or what anyone at all wants. Most people in most countries just want to live in peace, do their jobs, raise their families. Once the shelling starts, that opportunity is denied them.