• 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!

Navies of Iran, Pakistan to hold joint drill in Hormuz strait

The Iranian navy isn't really the problem. Mines and land based anti-ship missiles are. Oil tankers are slow, huge, incredibly fragile and filled to the brim with flammable materials. The strait makes it impossible to hide or maneuver. Even then, the biggest problem is that civilian operators have zero tolerance for any kind of casualties.

The U.S. has the ability to force open the strait eventually if Iran tries to close it, but don't pretend that it won't be very very expensive in economic terms.

Tankers are emphatically not fragile. They are some of the largest most heavily hulled vessels afloat today. They can sustain an enormous amount of punishment before being sunk or even damaged beyond repair. Of the 239 crude tankers (from Suez/Afro Max to VLCC) struck by ASCM's, mines, and other weapons during the eponymous 'Tanker War' only 23% were actually sunk or damaged to the point of being written off as a loss by their firms. Even suicide attacks such as the boat bomb that penetrated the outer hull of the Limburg in 2002 was quickly repaired and never endangered the ship.

These vessels are enormous. Most of the weapons in the Iranian and Iraqi arsenals were too small to do serious damage while military circumstances prevented protracted engagement with vessels other than raids, circumstances that would certainly repeat themselves in a conflict in the Gulf.
 
Hang on aren't Pakistan and Iran opposing sects of islam? This announcement would only make sense if Pakistan followed the Shia sect of Islam.

Contrary to what some narratives would have you believe there are more factors at work in the Middle East than religious predilections.
 
Sounds like two neighbors who share land borders working together, is that odd?

is it any different than Canada and the U.S. working together?
 
Given our economic interests in the region, thats a bad bet to make.

With the current performance of our CIC, they might disagree with you.
 
Sounds like two neighbors who share land borders working together, is that odd?

is it any different than Canada and the U.S. working together?

Is it any different than Germany and Rumania working together in the summer of 1941?
 
Is it any different than Germany and Rumania working together in the summer of 1941?
Everybody is hitler now?
 
With the current performance of our CIC, they might disagree with you.

Iran might hate us but they don't suffer from the Obama Derangement Syndrome that so many in this country do. They don't share a belief in this caricature you've concocted for yourself.
 
Iran might hate us but they don't suffer from the Obama Derangement Syndrome that so many in this country do. They don't share a belief in this caricature you've concocted for yourself.

They certainly don't worship the silly bastard like you do. They view hin as a weak, cartoonish head of state. Obama has been stepping on his dick ever sense his, "red-line", bull****.
 
Bush was Hitler, Obama is Hitler, maybe we should stop ****ing electing Hitler!

Maybe you should stop trying to be so damned dramatic!
 
Power, money, prestige, a chance to hurt western countries.

Look at what's going on, all of a sudden, NK and China making a show in Asia. Russia pushing west in Europe and Iran conducting joint excersizes with Pakistan in. The Straits of Hormuz. All on the heels of a lack of backbone by the president, the purging of our general officer corps and the announcement that we're drawing our armed forces down to one of it's lowest levels in American history.

I think in each instance the activities of the countries are not the result of perceiving weakness on the part of Obama, but rather the result of US foreign policy that is perceived by those countries as either US encroachment on their sphere of influence right next to their borders, US interference in unresolved territorial disputes with other nations, or the imposition of harsh US sanctions that crippled a country's economy.

In the case of Pakistan, it was forced by the US to engage in a war against people that they had been living with relatively peacefully before the US invasion of Afghanistan. I recall well how Pervez Musharraf pleaded that we urge our friends to wrap up their mission as soon as possible because it was causing Pakistan great difficulty. Instead the US keep up the pressure on Pakistan and eventually the relations turned to their current sour state. Pakistan's moves to create stronger ties with Iran should be seen in that light, rather than some perceived weakness on the part of Obama.

I find it rather remarkable that at this time, people who purport to be patriots appear to be rather eager to paint the US as weak. It is amazing what people won't do to score political points.
 
A demonstration of practical trust-building efforts between two states that have historically enjoyed relatively stable relations but have the potential for much friction. People should not read more into this than there is.

Perhaps. But why stage them in such a strategically important location? It is perhaps a message from both countries that if they are attacked, this is the type of response that is to be expected? I really don't know.
 
Perhaps. But why stage them in such a strategically important location? It is perhaps a message from both countries that if they are attacked, this is the type of response that is to be expected? I really don't know.

To twit the United States and because that is where Iran's major naval facility is (at Bandar Abbas) and it's very close to Pakistan's largest naval base at Karachi so it's easy to organize.
 
To twit the United States and because that is where Iran's major naval facility is (at Bandar Abbas) and it's very close to Pakistan's largest naval base at Karachi so it's easy to organize.

That sounds reasonable. What I don't see happening anytime soon is Pakistan coming to aid Iran against the US in case of a US attack on Iran. I don't think Pakistan is that foolish.
 
That sounds reasonable. What I don't see happening anytime soon is Pakistan coming to aid Iran against the US in case of a US attack on Iran. I don't think Pakistan is that foolish.

Of course not. Pakistan is a country that values our relationship to the point where they let us bomb them, they aren't about to throw their rickety fleet to the bottom of the ocean for a war that Iran would lose.
 
I think in each instance the activities of the countries are not the result of perceiving weakness on the part of Obama, but rather the result of US foreign policy that is perceived by those countries as either US encroachment on their sphere of influence right next to their borders, US interference in unresolved territorial disputes with other nations, or the imposition of harsh US sanctions that crippled a country's economy.

In the case of Pakistan, it was forced by the US to engage in a war against people that they had been living with relatively peacefully before the US invasion of Afghanistan. I recall well how Pervez Musharraf pleaded that we urge our friends to wrap up their mission as soon as possible because it was causing Pakistan great difficulty. Instead the US keep up the pressure on Pakistan and eventually the relations turned to their current sour state. Pakistan's moves to create stronger ties with Iran should be seen in that light, rather than some perceived weakness on the part of Obama.

I find it rather remarkable that at this time, people who purport to be patriots appear to be rather eager to paint the US as weak. It is amazing what people won't do to score political points.

Of course they're cross, because we hamper their ability to harm freedom, around the world.
 
Of course not. Pakistan is a country that values our relationship to the point where they let us bomb them, they aren't about to throw their rickety fleet to the bottom of the ocean for a war that Iran would lose.

Unless they think they could win. The Kaiser thought he could win.
 
That sounds reasonable. What I don't see happening anytime soon is Pakistan coming to aid Iran against the US in case of a US attack on Iran. I don't think Pakistan is that foolish.

Countries have done things before.
 
Of course they're cross, because we hamper their ability to harm freedom, around the world.

Your position is contradictory because while you claim to be the champion of freedom, you actually don't want others to be free to chose a destiny that is contrary to your set of values.
 
Countries have done things before.

This is true, ourselves included. But I really don't think they are that foolish. Of course, if we were actually attacking both Pakistan and Iran at the same time, it would make sense.
 
Your position is contradictory because while you claim to be the champion of freedom, you actually don't want others to be free to chose a destiny that is contrary to your set of values.

Do I want to deny tyrrants to spread tyrrany? You're damn right!
 
This is true, ourselves included. But I really don't think they are that foolish. Of course, if we were actually attacking both Pakistan and Iran at the same time, it would make sense.

You're making the dangerous assumption that everyone thinks the same way you do.
 
You're making the dangerous assumption that everyone thinks the same way you do.

So are you saying that Pakistan will attack the US in case of a US attack on Iran?
 
Back
Top Bottom