• 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

PeteEU said:
LOL yea .. like the sanctions it has had against Cuba and Iran for the last few decades have matter at all. And like it or not, it is not the rhetoric coming from the right.. it is war talk.
Click to expand...

you mean that 50 year embargo of cuba has not resulted in regime change [/s]

what is amazing, for both cuba and iran, is that the people still like/admire American culture ... despite the hardships imposed upon them by the embargoes
 
justabubba said:
you mean that 50 year embargo of cuba has not resulted in regime change [/s]

what is amazing, for both cuba and iran, is that the people still like/admire American culture ... despite the hardships imposed upon them by the embargoes
Click to expand...

What hardships? Cuba's hardships is not because of the American embargo, but because of their policies. The rest of the world trades with Cuba. Cuba could and can via Spain or other friendly countries, trade in whatever they want. Problem is their local policies prevent a lot of that trade for political reasons.. it easier to sell the "victim" card to the people with the big bad US embargoing them.. just blame the US embargo for the fact they dont have Nissans and what not running around.. that way the revolution will continue because the hardships are not the fault of the government. If the US was serious about getting rid of Castro.. dump all embargoes and sanctions.. life might just get so good for Cubans that they will kick out the Castros... but of course there is no political will for that.

Iran is pretty much the same.. sure they cant get American made products directly, but come on.. you looked around at how many "American products" that are out there? Not that many and it is not like those American companies who have to not trade with Iran, dont do it any ways through 3rd and 4th parties. Else how come they have iPhones, computers (with Intel and AMD chips) and so on Iran? So what if they missed out on Pepsi, Coca Cola or McDonalds.. But again as long as the US has its embargoes and what not, the Iranian regime can blame the problems in the country on the US, aka the great Satan. Add to that, that the US removed the only effective stopgap in Saddam, then the Iranian regime is loving the situation right now.. they can piss of the US who knows it cant do jack ****, all in the while spreading its own form of religious bullcrap across the world via terror and worse.

An embargo that is not global, means absolutely NOTHING. The embargo against Saddam, as holed as it was, had a far far far greater impact since it was the world community doing it.. but when the US does it unilaterally.. it means nothing. It is the same with certain countries embargoing Israel.. dont matter squat as long as the rest of the planet still trades with them.

As for the two societies admiring the US.. so what. Most societies admire other societies in one way or another. Even I admire parts of the US.. it means very little other than to stroke some nationalistic ego of some.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
He wouldn't save the banks or pump the economy with money or even help people save their homes.
Click to expand...

No responsible leader would willfully allow the economy to disintegrate into another Great Depression. Anyone with reasonable knowledge of the Great Depression knows that there was true misery and hardship. Deliberately imposing people to severe and unnecessary hardship simply to test a personal macroeconomic theory is irresponsible.

If that truly was his design, he failed the test of leadership in the worst possible way. If not, he still failed by offering no alternative solutions to the one he opposed. Doing nothing was not a viable option.

...and yes the constitution does stop those activities regardless of what the SC says.
Click to expand...

The reality is that the Supreme Court is the arbiter of disputes over what is and what is not constitutional. Each of us may have opinions, but it is the Supreme Court that decides and it is the Supreme Court's opinions that have the weight of law until or unless they are either reversed or an amendment modifying/repealing them is adopted.
 
j-mac said:
So, my question here. If Iran tries to block the Straight, 1. is that an act of war? and 2. Would the US be justified in taking out Iran's navy, and possibly further action in Iran?


j-mac
Click to expand...

The question of whether the US is "justified" is irrelevant for all practical purposes because the US govt has a long-standing reputation of ignoring international laws whenever obeying them is detrimental to the interests of the its owners.

So the relevant issue is whether

1) Iran can actually block the Strait

2) Iran has a means of effectively countering any subsequent US naval retaliation to the point where it can win, i. e. force the US govt into a checkmate in N moves scenario.

If both 1 and 2 are true, then the US govt will be forced to cancel its sanctions. Other, the govt won't.
 
solletica said:
The question of whether the US is "justified" is irrelevant for all practical purposes because the US govt has a long-standing reputation of ignoring international laws whenever obeying them is detrimental to the interests of the its owners.

So the relevant issue is whether

1) Iran can actually block the Strait

2) Iran has a means of effectively countering any subsequent US naval retaliation to the point where it can win, i. e. force the US govt into a checkmate in N moves scenario.

If both 1 and 2 are true, then the US govt will be forced to cancel its sanctions. Other, the govt won't.
Click to expand...

Leaving aside the first bit, in answer to your questions:

1) Without intervention, yes they can block the straits.

2) Depends on how they block the straits. If they attempt a naval/shore blockade, no. The US could trivially break such a blockade. If they pull off something like sinking ships in the deepest part to physically block the channel(not sure if it would work in Hormuz, but maybe), they could temporarily block it, but would hurt themselves as much or more by doing so.
 
justabubba said:
you mean that 50 year embargo of cuba has not resulted in regime change [/s]

what is amazing, for both cuba and iran, is that the people still like/admire American culture ... despite the hardships imposed upon them by the embargoes
Click to expand...

Speaking of the Cuban embargo, here is an in-depth study that examines why the Cuba has not democratized despite its going through so many changes that should have arguably led to democracy. The study is by Darren Hawkins and was published in Comparative Politics, Vol. 33, No. 4. (Jul., 2001).

Link to study: Democratization Theory and Nontransitions: Insights from Cuba
 
Redress said:
Pete, try and understand this. The US is planning sanctions against Iran instead of military strikes. The US will stop any effort of Iran to close the straits, which is hardly going to war. And some of us liberals agree that Iran cannot be allowed to close the straits.
Click to expand...
PeteEU said:
LOL yea .. like the sanctions it has had against Cuba and Iran for the last few decades have matter at all. And like it or not, it is not the rhetoric coming from the right.. it is war talk.
Click to expand...

Sanctions are having an effect per this recent article from MSNBC.com today though I do worry about the anxiety building up from both sides.

Chalmers said sanctions were most effective in influencing behavior when they were imminent and credible but not yet in place as, once in place, they were hard to lift, short of a comprehensive conflict resolution.

"The Iranians know this, and are seriously worried by the prospect of an EU oil embargo, especially as it could be followed by action by the U.S.'s close Asian allies," he said.

"They could then be left at the mercy of China and India, who are likely to demand big price discounts in order to shift purchases from Arab countries, who will not be happy, to Iran."

The rising tensions are having an impact at home. Iran's currency has nosedived in recent weeks as ordinary Iranians have moved money from savings accounts into gold or foreign currency.

The price of staple foods has increased by up to 40 percent in recent months and many critics have put the blame on increasing isolation brought about by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's economic and foreign policies.

Iran's massive media coverage of the naval maneuvers appeared an attempt by the authorities to strike a patriotic chord among ordinary Iranians worried about a military strike.

"I have already witnessed a war with Iraq in the 1980s ... I can hear the drumbeat of war," said merchant Mohsen Sanaie, 62, glancing over newspaper headlines at a central Tehran newsstand. "One stray bullet could spark a war."
Click to expand...

As this portion of the article clearly indicates, Iran's being back into an economic and energy reserve corner with very little wiggle room. If you recall world and U.S. history, this is pretty much what happened between the U.S. and Japan leading up to the attack on Pearl Harbor only in reverse. Back then, we squeezed Japan and basically kept them from getting access to any foreign oil reserves. Now with Iran, sactions will make it much more difficult for them to sell oil on the international market. And seeing that oil is their last remaining commodity...

Unless Iran backs down, gives up their nuclear (weapons) ambitions and returns to the negotiating table...well, let's not even think about it.
 
i doubt nuclear weapons are too big a reason,if it were israel could have easily destroyed their reactor and is not afraid of iran.this has to do with the fact the world prices and pays for oil in dollars and iran has threatened to switch to another currency which would hurt our currency's value.as well as iran iraq and venezuela have all threatened to switch trading currencies which one of them we have already went to war with,iraq switched to euros in 2000 and was invaded 3 years later with plans spanning back to the beginning of bush's presidency.

for a pretty simple explanation go to Petrodollar warfare - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Objective Voice said:
Sanctions are having an effect per this recent article from MSNBC.com today though I do worry about the anxiety building up from both sides.



As this portion of the article clearly indicates, Iran's being back into an economic and energy reserve corner with very little wiggle room. If you recall world and U.S. history, this is pretty much what happened between the U.S. and Japan leading up to the attack on Pearl Harbor only in reverse. Back then, we squeezed Japan and basically kept them from getting access to any foreign oil reserves. Now with Iran, sactions will make it much more difficult for them to sell oil on the international market. And seeing that oil is their last remaining commodity...

Unless Iran backs down, gives up their nuclear (weapons) ambitions and returns to the negotiating table...well, let's not even think about it.
Click to expand...

I actually just was looking into this, but you beat me too it. Yes, surprise, sanctions are working. Once again, people assume since it did not work in another country with an entirely different situation, it must never work. In this case, Iran is now looking to negotiate on the topic of nuclear weapons. Sanctions do not always work, but they are effective with some frequency, and they are a much better opening step than military options.
 
beerftw said:
i doubt nuclear weapons are too big a reason,if it were israel could have easily destroyed their reactor and is not afraid of iran.this has to do with the fact the world prices and pays for oil in dollars and iran has threatened to switch to another currency which would hurt our currency's value.as well as iran iraq and venezuela have all threatened to switch trading currencies which one of them we have already went to war with,iraq switched to euros in 2000 and was invaded 3 years later with plans spanning back to the beginning of bush's presidency.

for a pretty simple explanation go to Petrodollar warfare - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

We do not want Israel striking Iran. Israel does not want to if they can avoid it. The potential destabilization in the region from such is large.
 
Redress said:
We do not want Israel striking Iran. Israel does not want to if they can avoid it. The potential destabilization in the region from such is large.
Click to expand...

you really underestimate israel,they have the best spies in the world and are know for being sneaky,they dealt with this problem once before in iraq without raising much attention.
 
beerftw said:
you really underestimate israel,they have the best spies in the world and are know for being sneaky,they dealt with this problem once before in iraq without raising much attention.
Click to expand...

There are significant limits to what can be done covertly.
 
Redress said:
There are significant limits to what can be done covertly.
Click to expand...
not to mention just isreals swift silent response,i am torn between having to go to war with iran,i left active army to go guard.on one hand it could be really fun or it could be like my last deployment that ended six months ago as an expeditionary force building everything out of nothing,which was still fun except the 10 foot cobras deadly pit vipers and monster centipedes,though the scorpions there were quite tiny :/.

i have faith the problem will be solved unless there is lots of money and fun to be involved!
 
beerftw said:
i doubt nuclear weapons are too big a reason,if it were israel could have easily destroyed their reactor and is not afraid of iran. this has to do with the fact the world prices and pays for oil in dollars and iran has threatened to switch to another currency which would hurt our currency's value.as well as iran iraq and venezuela have all threatened to switch trading currencies which one of them we have already went to war with,iraq switched to euros in 2000 and was invaded 3 years later with plans spanning back to the beginning of bush's presidency.

for a pretty simple explanation go to Petrodollar warfare - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

You must've read "Bad Money," by Kevin Phillips because that's exactly what he said in his book, that Iran stopped selling oil in U.S. dollars and had encouraged other nations to start doing the same thing. And it's true that former President Bush did, in fact, have plans already in place to invade Iraq which he upgraded in the months before actually invading the country. That information was published in national news. So, the real reason we invaded Iraq makes sense. It was about oil, but it was also about currency manipulation.
 
Objective Voice said:
You must've read "Bad Money," by Kevin Phillips because that's exactly what he said in his book, that Iran stopped selling oil in U.S. dollars and had encouraged other nations to start doing the same thing. And it's true that former President Bush did, in fact, have plans already in place to invade Iraq which he upgraded in the months before actually invading the country. That information was published in national news. So, the real reason we invaded Iraq makes sense. It was about oil, but it was also about currency manipulation.
Click to expand...

i actually learned from my deployment to afghanistan,from documentaries to history lessons from german and swedish soldiers.its amazing how much has happened in us history that is removed from history books.i didnt even know until i deployed that in word war one england and germany were fighting over what is now modern day iraq over oil.ww1 in itself seems to be blank from all shool history books.also learned about the ending of the gold standard and trading for oil in dollars and the oil crisis happened all roughly around the same time.i cant remember the name of documentary but it was by an english comedian and he went in depth over all the blank spots in oils history,it was someone someone's history of oil.
 
et al,

Reference: http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ft-carrier-post1060070530.html#post1060070530

My apologies. It was brought to attention that I did not supply a link to articles from which I made a quote. Here they are:


Sunday 4 December 2011 The Guardian. Afghan anti-corruption watchdog threatens to quit:
Afghan anti-corruption watchdog threatens to quit | World news | The Guardian

September 11, 2011|By Raheem Salman, Los Angeles Times. Nouri Maliki accepts resignation of top Iraq corruption fighter
Nouri Maliki accepts resignation of top Iraq corruption fighter - Los Angeles Times

CNN US June 15, 2004: Bush: Afghanistan is a victory over terrorism
Bush: Afghanistan is a victory over terrorism - CNN
​


Again, my apologies.

Best Regards,
R
 
Last edited:
beerftw said:
not to mention just isreals swift silent response,i am torn between having to go to war with iran,i left active army to go guard.on one hand it could be really fun or it could be like my last deployment that ended six months ago as an expeditionary force building everything out of nothing,which was still fun except the 10 foot cobras deadly pit vipers and monster centipedes,though the scorpions there were quite tiny :/.

i have faith the problem will be solved unless there is lots of money and fun to be involved!
Click to expand...

Sorry but war is NEVER fun. I'd suggest you put yourself on the front line with bullets flying over and watching your friends die around you and then attenst that it is fun. Sad state that some live in to think war is fun.
 
j-mac said:
So, my question here. If Iran tries to block the Straight, 1. is that an act of war? and 2. Would the US be justified in taking out Iran's navy, and possibly further action in Iran?


j-mac
Click to expand...

1. It is traditionally seen as an act of war to deny access to international waterways.
2. Yes, absolutely justified to do to the Iranian navy what the Japanese did to the Russian navy in the Strait of Tsushima in 1905.
 
DaveFagan said:
Two sides to this story. Our embargo against Iran constitutes an "act of war." Would you rather forget that, or are you still hearing the old Saddam lark "mushroom clouds in the US?" Complete bullcrap taking residence in your cerebellum.
Click to expand...

Deciding not to do business with a foreign state is NOT an act of war. There is no requirement under international law to do business with every state in teh world. Access to international waterways IS protected under international law and the Strait of Hormuz is an international waterway.
 
BmanMcfly said:
Where in America is this straight again that gives us the claim to have the rights to defend it??

Why are we justified in retaliating against someone trying to defend their own sovereign interests??

Would the Norwegians be justified in taking out Cuba's navy if the Cuban's prevented shipment of their cigars around the world??
Click to expand...

The Strait of Hormuz is an international waterway, and this is not Iran's sovereign interest...

Your comparison is so nonsensical it doesn't deserve any other comment..
 
Temporal said:
The U.S. doesn't have rights to the Strait, so I don't see how it would be a direct declaration of war against the U.S. to block it. Obviously it would affect our oil economy, but in terms of legal provisions, the Strait is not ours so all of this entitlement to attack Iran about it is uncalled for. If the U.S. attacks Iran over the Strait then we would be violating international law. Despite what the warhawks would have us believe, we can't just go to war with any country we want. Mind you, the UN law has been flouted many times in recent years by several of the big powers, so it might not matter, especially if the U.S. forms a coalition again.

I have to agree though that during a recession and an election year, another major war would be extremely unpopular - but it could happen anyway, since oil industry is our biggest sacred cow. Anything that obstructs it would suffer the rath of the Republocrats. Not to mention, the POTUS has the unilateral power to deploy the military now, so it would actually be up to King Obama and not so much our Congress, unless the GOP makes a push for it to happen.

The only loose canon here is Israel, and their government has been looking for any excuse to bomb the **** out of Iran for several years now. The tensions are climbing. It wouldn't be so severe if Iran weren't already surrounded by nations that have been infiltrated by our military. They are likely to be more nervous, and more nervous means they will take measures to procure their security.
Click to expand...

The strait is international waters and this EVERYONE has the right to use it. Iran has no legal authority to try to block it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom