• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Strait of Hormuz standoff: Iran films US aircraft carrier

DaveFagan said:
This is all a result of media generated hysteria promoted by US intelligence, warmongers, corporations, and politicians to demonize Iranians just like they demonized Saddam, Saddam and Iraq were no threat to the USA and neither is MudBob and Iran. Now wars do make money and if wars make you money, then you have to use every opportunity to gin up war, wherever you can find it. Wars are very profitable. Wait a minute, that's sounding like business. Even, business as usual. Screw that liberty and justice crap, let's profit handsomely from more war. That's how I sees it.
Click to expand...

Iran made the threat to close the Strait of Hormuz. The threat was not an invention of U.S. Intelligence or others.
 
donsutherland1 said:
It would be nice if others assisted since most nations share major interests in the free passage of shipping through the Strait. However, the U.S. is in the best position to act quickly and decisively and given its vital interests at stake could do so on its own.
Click to expand...

I think you are right on that, however it gives me pause to think that if Paul were in this would not be so.

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
I think you are right on that, however it gives me pause to think that if Paul were in this would not be so.

j-mac
Click to expand...

Ron Paul believes the Iranians would be justified in blocking shipping through international waters and he would ignore the vital U.S. interests involved. From The Los Angeles Times:

Paul, one of the leading contenders to win next week's Iowa caucuses, said Iran would be justified in responding to the sanctions by blocking the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz. He compared the western sanctions to a hypothetical move by China to block the Gulf of Mexico, which Americans would consider an act of war.

He also said he would not respond militarily to keep the strait open—because he would not consider it an act of war against the U.S. But if he were president, he would report to Congress on the issue, leaving it up to lawmakers to declare war if they wanted.
Click to expand...

Ron Paul: Sanctions against Iran are 'acts of war' - latimes.com
 
If Iran blocks the straight, we hit them, and we hit them hard, all their nuclear facilities. We need to show Russia as well as China that we don't give a donkey's ass what they think.
 
j-mac said:
Good GAWD! This guy is dangerous.


j-mac
Click to expand...

For all intents and purposes he might as well have followed that with, "and I am now formally withdrawing from the presidential race."
 
BmanMcfly said:
Just because YOU are not being spoon fed the information does not mean that those involved in this production are not aware.

These places are either tapped and waiting, or in the process of being tapped for when the middle east oil supply gets cut off in this upcoming war with Iran.

The catch is that most of these BIG oil reserves are at this point called "nature conservatories" of sorts.
Click to expand...

He's right. Fracking oil shale in the U.S. and Canada could allow us to let the Middle East become China and India's problem. We could be completely self-sufficient in oil and natural gas.
 
j-mac said:
Good GAWD! This guy is dangerous.


j-mac
Click to expand...

The naivete and weakness inherent in a Paul Presidency would be ruthlessly exploited by the nation's enemies and America's allies would be disheartened. Geopolitically, a Ron Paul Presidency would be highly destabilizing and the destablization that would result from it would make conflicts more likely not less likely. The interests of the United States and its allies would be badly damaged.
 
Bettina said:
With all due respect, the current president of Iran - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - is the real demon here. His direct threats and hatred toward the state of Israel is well documented and should be taken at it's face value.



I hope we don't go that far. I remember reading about the Carter Doctrine in school where we would keep the strait open at all costs and I think it still applies here. But in the case of Iran I would just meet force with force but not escalate to a point of full out war. Sinking an Iranian ship, or ships, that is attempting to block the free flow of shipping in international waters would be appropriate and legal according to international law....although a few of my friends think like you. :)

Bee
Click to expand...

I'm in no way calling for war with Iran. Please, don't misunderstand me here. I'm just saying that as long as Iran doesn't do something stupid such as attack any of our warships or aircraft in the region, we'll leave them alone as well. However, should they carry through with their threat of a naval blockade of the Staits of Hormez, we shouldn't go it alone to get them to lift the blockade as the Staits are part of international waters. It should require the consent of the international community to force Iran to concede should a blockade come to pass.

Nonetheless, rest assured if Iran messes with us, we have more than enough fire power between our forces patroling the Mediterranean Sea and the India Ocean/Adriatic Sea to light up the region and make Iran wish they'd kept well enough alone.

Tis all I'm saying...far from being a warmongerror.
 
Wiggen said:
There is absolutely no need to attack Iran. Just sink any ship or shoot down any aircraft that attempts to enforce any blockade.
Click to expand...

Okay, now that I've re-read my post I think I need to state the obvious - I was being over dramatic with the "turn Iran into a desert wasteland" comment. Surely, we'd retaliate in-kind should Iran attack one of our warships and not make a counter-strike against the Iranian mainland.

My point was should Iran attack us, we have more than enough fire power to strike back.
 
Wiggen said:
Ahh, the giant secret oil reserves conspiracy. Got it!
Click to expand...

It's not even all that secret...

World's Largest Drilling Rig To Drill Longest Horizontal Wells | TheInfoMine

They aren't building up the infrastructure because they like building stuff.

j-mac said:
Good GAWD! This guy is dangerous.

j-mac
Click to expand...

Not nearly as dangerous as what some here are spouting... willing to go to war with China and Russia just to prevent Iran from getting a nuke.

And Ron Paul, the guy who says he does NOT want war is "dangerous".

Good grief.

AdamT said:
For all intents and purposes he might as well have followed that with, "and I am now formally withdrawing from the presidential race."
Click to expand...

Actually, the opposite, every time there's an attack ad against Ron Paul, his numbers surge.

donsutherland1 said:
The naivete and weakness inherent in a Paul Presidency would be ruthlessly exploited by the nation's enemies and America's allies would be disheartened. Geopolitically, a Ron Paul Presidency would be highly destabilizing and the destablization that would result from it would make conflicts more likely not less likely. The interests of the United States and its allies would be badly damaged.
Click to expand...

Good... there's too many wars as it is... let our "allies" that use our "military good will" to their own ends be pissed that we're not their little tool anymore under Ron Paul.

Mind you, Ron Paul would be assassinated within the week if he did become president, so it's kind of moot.
 
ChuckBerry said:
He's right. Fracking oil shale in the U.S. and Canada could allow us to let the Middle East become China and India's problem. We could be completely self-sufficient in oil and natural gas.
Click to expand...

Probably not, Chuck. You want to tote that up for us?

No Particular Place To Go was always a favorite. Stick to music, it's your strength.
 
donsutherland1 said:
It would be nice if others assisted since most nations share major interests in the free passage of shipping through the Strait. However, the U.S. is in the best position to act quickly and decisively and given its vital interests at stake could do so on its own.
Click to expand...

We almost certainly have a force if not within a day, then no further than about 3 days from there, and a force more than large enough to get the job done(Carrier Task Force).
 
Awesome! said:
If Iran blocks the straight, we hit them, and we hit them hard, all their nuclear facilities. We need to show Russia as well as China that we don't give a donkey's ass what they think.
Click to expand...

That's awesome, Awesome! When do you ship over?
 
Risky Thicket said:
That's awesome, Awesome! When do you ship over?
Click to expand...

You realize that is an entirely illogical argument? In my case, I have been through the straits multiple times, and done my time. That is also irrelevant. People are entirely able to have opinions on foreign policy without having to put themselves at risk. Here is a thought: instead of trying to discredit the person who's opinion you disagree with, why not try and discredit the opinion. It's much more effective.
 
j-mac, et al,

I know that many, many people would agree with you on this. But, there are other issues, concepts and principles involved. I may not totally agree with Ron Paul's logic; but it does give pause for concern.

j-mac said:
Good GAWD! This guy is dangerous.
Click to expand...
(THE ARGUMENT - THUMBNAIL - GOES LIKE THIS)

The US needs to rank it's "vital interests" with the "vital interests" of all the key players. This constant use, by political midget minds, of the phrase "US vital Interests" and "National Security" as an excuse for unilateral authority to enter into military conflicts is becoming overworked.

There are about 15-20 VLCC Oil Tankers that transit the Straits of Hormuz daily. Only a faction of them are US Flagged. But none of the Persian Gulf Terminals are US. They belong to some of the riches nations in the world. Filthy rich! (Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman!!!) And every one of them (with the exception of Iraq) can afford to fund their own protective defense force.

Iran has a GNP of about $187B. Kuwait $59B, Saudi Arabia $289B, Bahrain $10B, Qatar $15B, United Arab Emirates $112B and Oman $23B; not counting Iraq with $16B. For most of them, oil is their only significant export. The Straits are much more critical a passage to them, than to the US. Without the Straits, they are shut-down.

Why is it the US that has to defend the Straits? Well the answer is, the US does not. The US does so because it wants to be Regionally Relevant and exercise hegemonic like influence. The Persian Gulf/Arabian Sea Neighbors to Iran cannot afford to let Iran block the straits any more than Iran itself can afford to box-in its own exports.

Yes, I've heard all the arguments that the 5th Fleet is the only force in the region that can challenge Iran. But each time we play the role of "World Police" - we get our reputation massacred and get virtually no return on our investment. And, we further convince the Regional Government that they need not invest in their own critical defense soft points.

At a time when unemployment is at an all time high, and when the budget is stretched to its limit, when American credit has been internationally down graded, when multinational and transnational corporations (like Exxon $370B, Royal Dutch Shell $368B, BP $297B, Sinopec $289B, etc, most having a annual revenue greater than the Persian Gulf States) are exporting jobs like crazy, do we need to spend money maintaining the 5th US Fleet to protect Persian Gulf Interests.

Author unknown said:
“Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime”—
Click to expand...

Defend the Persian Gulf Region today, and you'll have to do it again tomorrow; even as they condemn you for it. Make them defend themselves, and you'll save yourself the problems associated with infidels interfering.

At some point, you would think we would have learned that we cannot trust these people; and nor can we afford to defend them.

If the Regional Governments of (Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman!!!) And if they don't have a problem with Iran, and are concerned enough to contain Iran, then why should the US?

(COMMENT)

There is some merit to the argument. And, there are some ironies.

The US did not ratify the UNC Law of the Seas convention when it was introduced nearly 30 years ago. Nor has the US ratified the International Criminal Code (Rome Statues) introduced a decade ago. Yet we tend to exercise military force under the flag of "customary law." Other nations see this as recognizing the conventions as - "when it is convenient for America." They have learned that America will selectively enforce conventions as the "World Police." But are not subject to them. We circumvent UN decrees - when they don't act the way we want (Coalition of the Un-willing), and use them when we take action.

But no matter what the argument - it will not stop the US from taking a military confrontational position. The US needs, it is an essential need, to be militarily relevant in the region.

People like Ron Paul see a different way. Let's not be too hard on them.

Most Respectfully,
R
 
Last edited:
RoccoR said:
The US needs to rank it's "vital interests" with the "vital interests" of all the key players. This constant use, by political midget minds, of the phrase "US vital Interests" and "National Security" as an excuse for unilateral authority to enter into military conflicts is becoming overworked.

There are about 15-20 VLCC Oil Tankers that transit the Straits of Hormuz daily. Only a faction of them are US Flagged. But none of the Persian Gulf Terminals are US. They belong to some of the riches nations in the world. Filthy rich! (Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman!!!) And every one of them (with the exception of Iraq) can afford to fund their own protective defense force. ..........................



Defend the Persian Gulf Region today, and you'll have to do it again tomorrow; even as they condemn you for it. Make them defend themselves, and you'll save yourself the problems associated with infidels interfering.

At some point, you would think we would have learned that we cannot trust these people; and nor can we afford to defend them.

If the Regional Governments of (Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman!!!) And if they don't have a problem with Iran, and are concerned enough to contain Iran, then why should the US?

(COMMENT)

There is some merit to the argument. And, there are some ironies.

The US did not ratify the UNC Law of the Seas convention when it was introduced nearly 30 years ago. Nor has the US ratified the International Criminal Code (Rome Statues) introduced a decade ago. Yet we tend to exercise military force under the flag of "customary law." Other nations see this as recognizing the conventions as - "when it is convenient for America." They have learned that America will selectively enforce conventions as the "World Police." But are not subject to them. We circumvent UN decrees - when they don't act the way we want (Coalition of the Un-willing), and use them when we take action.

But no matter what the argument - it will not stop the US from taking a military confrontational position. The US needs, it is an essential need, to be militarily relevant in the region.

People like Ron Paul see a different way. Let's not be too hard on them.

Most Respectfully,
R
Click to expand...
Clapping smiley.gifClapping smiley.gifClapping smiley.gifClapping smiley.gifClapping smiley.gifClapping smiley.gif
Excellent post
 
I listen to all the cheerleaders for war mouthing their inane platitudes. Review history. Iran has never attacked anyone. Who has Iran terrorized? Are they a threat. "The threat to close the straits" is an easy to remember slogan to demonize and is being used on non thinking sheep to keep them in their corral. Brain dead. Can't think for themselves. Throw some bombs at somebody, and do it quick. Always works! Well, except for Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, and you know, places like that. Some of you pretend to be sane, but it is hard to even suggest that warmongers are sane, don't you think? This is likely Iran posturing to take advantage of the USA overflights on sovereign Iranian terrority and those are acts of war, but Iran just says they won't give us our toy back. Yeh, big threat. 60 million people we took a crap on in the past, and Gee, golly sakes, they haven't forgotten. Who'd a thunk it?
 
Redress said:
You realize that is an entirely illogical argument? In my case, I have been through the straits multiple times, and done my time. That is also irrelevant. People are entirely able to have opinions on foreign policy without having to put themselves at risk. Here is a thought: instead of trying to discredit the person who's opinion you disagree with, why not try and discredit the opinion. It's much more effective.
Click to expand...

Fair question. It should be, though it isn't, the People who decide through their elected officials whether we go to war as a nation or not. Un****ingfortunately the War Powers Act circumvented the Constitution. Military service is sacrifice as we both know. Civilians have no ****ing clue. YOu know that too. It is soooooo damned easy to sit back and advocate the death and destruction of other nations. Tell me darlin' there's no difference in putting your butt on the line and sending others to do it for you. You know better than that.

Americans for the most part have NO ****ING CLUE what it is to serve or to go to war and as such they have no problem sending Americans to die. No sweat. No personal sacrifice. Maybe we should make America sacrifice where it hurts. Maybe we should establish a mission for war and criteria for success and maybe we should assess every American household their firstborn of legal age or $10,000 against accomplishing the mission. How many Americans do you think would be up for it? Seriously. We are a soft assed nation of ******s. You know it and I know as every veteran does.

I would add that it is a different argument for my brothers and sisters who have served. We may not agree regarding everything, but we are indeed different from most of the nation. I may not agree with you or with J-Mac, but I do know and acknowledge that we have a common bond and I will forever respect that.
 
Last edited:
Risky Thicket said:
Fair question. It should be, though it isn't, the People who decide through their elected officials whether we go to war as a nation or not. Un****ingfortunately the War Powers Act circumvented the Constitution. Military service is sacrifice as we both know. Civilians have no ****ing clue. YOu know that too. It is soooooo damned easy to sit back and advocate the death and destruction of other nations. Tell me darlin' there's no difference in putting your butt on the line and sending others to do it for you. You know better than that.

Americans for the most part have NO ****ING CLUE what it is to serve or to go to war and as such they have no problem sending Americans to die. No sweat. No personal sacrifice. Maybe we should make America sacrifice where it hurts. Maybe we should establish a mission for war and criteria for success and maybe we should assess every American household their firstborn of legal age or $10,000 against accomplishing the mission. How many Americans do you think would be up for it? Seriously. We are a soft assed nation of ******s. You know it and I know as every veteran does.

I would add that it is a different argument for my brothers and sisters who have served. We may not agree regarding everything, but we are indeed different from most of the nation. I may not agree with you or with J-Mac, but I do know and acknowledge that we have a common bond and I will forever respect that.
Click to expand...


I can respect that. And I do not disagree that most people that have never put on this nations uniform have any idea what it means to do so. But, what we are talking about here is the situation we find ourselves in now. Hell, I can even respect that those who support a more non interventionist want to step back because they mistakenly believe that if we detach from our role in the world for the past 100 plus years was wrong. But nature abhors a vacuum, and would fill it with less attractive alternatives. If we are to regain our momentum as the nation that sets the standard, then we must remain vigilant, and continue this role. That doesn't mean we can't bill those who would take advantage of that truism.


j-mac
 
Redress said:
We almost certainly have a force if not within a day, then no further than about 3 days from there, and a force more than large enough to get the job done(Carrier Task Force).
Click to expand...

Good thing we haven't given into the wishes of some and withdrawn all our forces back to our own borders.
 
donsutherland1 said:
The naivete and weakness inherent in a Paul Presidency would be ruthlessly exploited by the nation's enemies and America's allies would be disheartened. Geopolitically, a Ron Paul Presidency would be highly destabilizing and the destablization that would result from it would make conflicts more likely not less likely. The interests of the United States and its allies would be badly damaged.
Click to expand...

While I understand your concerns, I have no doubt that Congress would approve a declaration of war in that situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom