|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Dec 29, 2011 9:56:16 GMT -5
I'm no international law expert, but are those waters not, in fact, theirs to do with as they wish? "Well yeah, usually we're all about territorial sovereignty, but this is inconvenient!" At the very most, their territorial waters would include the northern half. The southern half would be owned by Oman, and as such attempting to blockade the whole thing (at least without their okay) would be a violation of Oman's territorial sovereignty. Observe: Thanks. Because the US navy would never do anything like blockade a port or anything. Again, Fred, how are us American posters here supposed to keep our military in line? Direct question. Ballot box? |
|
|
|
Post by the sandman on Dec 29, 2011 11:27:18 GMT -5
It is true that Americans have influence over government policy through the ballot box....at least in theory and intention. Unfortunately the entire system has grown so obnoxiously corrupt that that simply isn't the reality anymore. Super PACs and Citizen's United have essentially set up a direct translation of corporate cash = political influence. That combined with the unfortunate belief among politicians in the USA that half of what they "need to do" must be done clandestinely makes it so the average American has about as much say in the governance of the country as your average Iranian does now.
As for the whole Iran in Hormuz thing, the issue isn't as black and white as people want to make it. Yes, the USA has indeed blockaded foreign ports and sovereign waterways. Yes, the USA has indeed violated the sovereign territories of other lands in the cause of supposed "national interests." But that doesn't mean the the USA (or other nations) have no right to protest Iran's own threatened blockade.
No, the USA has no defensible right to interfere in the national affairs of foreign, sovereign nations. But a nuclear-capable Iran, which is what the fascist theocracy in Tehran desperate desires to be, is a terrifying possibility.
North Korea is a joke. They have only a single (already nuclear-armed) ally, a nuclear program that fails to function 90% of the time, and no viable delivery system for their "arsenal" of a few Wile E. Coyote style bombs other than Fed Ex. North Korea, even under the new boss, is just not really a viable nuclear threat. Hell, with rumors of power-sharing, the new boss is probably safer.
but Iran? Iran is not ruled by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. That nutburger is just a figurehead. Iran is, in reality, ruled by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. This asshole is a religious fanatic/insane freak of the highest order. He makes Ahmadinejad look like Jimmy Carter. Hell, he comes from an organization called the "Combatant Clergy Association!"
Kamenei is a true piece of work. He refuses to learn, speak, or hear any languages except Arabic and Persian, believing all other tongues to be corrupt and evil, especially English and French, was a close companion of the Ayatollah Khomeini, and has vowed to eradicate any "deviation [from strict sharia], liberalism, and American-influenced leftists". This man is fucking dangerous. He would cheerfully use nuclear weapons on Israel, Europe, America, or any of a hundred other nations and regions he considers "satanic." When he ascended to the position of Supreme Leader from the Presidency, he didn't bother to give up any of the powers of President (which is why Ahmadinejad is irrelevant) making himself, in the words of Iran experts, the "omnipotent overseer of Iran's political scene." He has no challenges to his power, no limits on his authority, and believes himself to be the "scourge of god on Earth," placed here to punish and convert all those who fail to acknowledge the supremacy of his lunatic deity and violently insane prophet.
As a Grand Ayatollah (a position that is disputed in the Islamic world), Khamenei has issued thousands of fatwas concerning everything from betting on basketball (NEVER!), to taking out student loans in order to get an education (ABSOLUTELY NOT!), to children in day care with other, non-Muslim children (HELL NO!), to women riding motorcycles (NEV... oh you get the idea), to staying in hotels that allow Buddhists. He has ruled the wearing of neckties to be "unclean and vile" and the listening to music and news from foreign sources to be forbidden on pain of eternal damnation. In 2010, he issued a fatwa which punishes any insult to the companions of Muhammad (or his wives) with death.
This is a man that would cheerfully burn down the world if he felt his god wanted him to. Under no circumstances can he ever be permitted to obtain the use of nuclear weapons. If he did not use them himself, he would absolutely get that technology into the hands of terrorist groups who would.
So no, the USA should not be interfering in the sovereign affairs of other nations.....but in this case the alternative may simply be too horrible to contemplate. In real life it is often necessary to choose the lesser of two evils. I just wish I had confidence that out "elected officials" have the wisdom and restraint necessary to be able to do that intelligently and responsibly.
|
|
|
|
Post by priestling on Dec 29, 2011 11:30:20 GMT -5
*adds another notch to the amount of beers he needs to buy Sandy... and looks up Shepherd's Pie while he's at it*
|
|
|
|
Post by scotsgit on Dec 29, 2011 11:42:30 GMT -5
I'm having shepherd's pie for dinner.
|
|
|
|
Post by the sandman on Dec 29, 2011 12:56:34 GMT -5
Made from real shepherd?
|
|
|
|
Post by Her3tiK on Dec 29, 2011 13:14:53 GMT -5
Oh look, Iran's navy is undergoing war games:
Apologies if RT isn't the most accurate source on this subject; I'm having a hard time finding anywhere else that even discusses this issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by gyeonghwa on Dec 29, 2011 13:53:41 GMT -5
Sandman, would I ran really risk alienating themselves from their Arab neighbors though? I am quite certain that they don't regard the Kamenei as highly as Iran does.
In any case, this why I want reduce oil consumption. If we can let those straits fall into disuse, them blocking it would be pointless.
|
|
|
|
Post by the sandman on Dec 29, 2011 14:02:59 GMT -5
Sandman, would I ran really risk alienating themselves from their Arab neighbors though? I am quite certain that they don't regard the Kamenei as highly as Iran does. Logic becomes unreliable as a prediction of likely behavior when dealing with religious fanatics. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Dec 29, 2011 19:14:48 GMT -5
Because the US navy would never do anything like blockade a port or anything. Again, Fred, how are us American posters here supposed to keep our military in line? Direct question. Firstly, I'm just suggesting that the Navy's statement is a bit silly. If a nation that blockades another is beyond the pale, a bunch of nations are beyond the pale- including the US. A blockade is an act of war, not a war crime, muppets. Secondly, Occupy Democratic Party. Reform media, reform elections. Then you've got a democracy. That's the way. |
|
|
|
Post by scotsgit on Dec 29, 2011 19:16:38 GMT -5
No, nicked from his freezer. |
|
|
|
Post by scotsgit on Dec 29, 2011 19:20:15 GMT -5
Sandman, would I ran really risk alienating themselves from their Arab neighbors though? I am quite certain that they don't regard the Kamenei as highly as Iran does. Logic becomes unreliable as a prediction of likely behavior when dealing with religious fanatics. Iran seems to have a habit of annoying their Arab neighbours (the Iranians don't see themselves as Arabs though) largely through the Fatwas issued by Kohmeni and Kameini and the idea that only Iran could have a 'Grand Ayatollah'. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Dec 29, 2011 19:23:08 GMT -5
Sandman, would I ran really risk alienating themselves from their Arab neighbors though? I am quite certain that they don't regard the Kamenei as highly as Iran does. Logic becomes unreliable as a prediction of likely behavior when dealing with religious fanatics. Does it, though? Take the first Ayatollah. He was allegedly a fanatic, too. And yet he died at the age of 86. How many fanatics retire? I think the Iranian government is deeply cynical. Allegedly, democracy is anti-Islamic, and yet Iran is officially a democracy. Allegedly, the US is the great Satan and Israel is the lesser one- and yet Iranian troops have fought alongside American ones, barely a decade ago. Allegedly, Iran is surrounded by enemies that have to be challenged and can be defeated by Iran's mighty legions- and yet, Iran has launched a single aggressive war, ever (on Oman). In my view, Iran would not suicidally use nuclear weapons. Iran would use them just like China or the Soviets did- as a deterrent. Preferably, Iran would not have them, but preferably, Israel wouldn't have them. |
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Dec 29, 2011 20:09:47 GMT -5
Sandman, would I ran really risk alienating themselves from their Arab neighbors though? I am quite certain that they don't regard the Kamenei as highly as Iran does. Aside from the few that are Shiite ruled, they already hate each other. Or in Iran's case, despises. |
|
|
|
Post by N. De Plume on Dec 29, 2011 20:12:08 GMT -5
This is a man that would cheerfully burn down the world if he felt his god wanted him to. Under no circumstances can he ever be permitted to obtain the use of nuclear weapons. If he did not use them himself, he would absolutely get that technology into the hands of terrorist groups who would. Yeah. The entire concept of Mutually Assured Destruction as a deterrent does tend to fall apart when one of the opponents to be destroed has no problem being destroyed. MAD is of little use against madness. Just peppered on top. Secondly, Occupy Democratic Party. Reform media, reform elections. Then you've got a democracy. That's the way. None of that will be happening any time soon. Hopefully, it will happen. Just won’t be soon. |
|
|
|
Post by jackmann on Dec 29, 2011 20:29:13 GMT -5
Logic becomes unreliable as a prediction of likely behavior when dealing with religious fanatics. Iran seems to have a habit of annoying their Arab neighbours (the Iranians don't see themselves as Arabs though) largely through the Fatwas issued by Kohmeni and Kameini and the idea that only Iran could have a 'Grand Ayatollah'. Iranians aren't Arabs. They're Persians. The two are distinct cultural/ethnic groups. As a general rule, Arabs don't trust Persians, and Persians don't trust Arabs. There's a great deal of interesting history involving invasions, murder, and general mayhem that makes them view each other a little cock-eyed. Most Arab Shiites would much rather work with Arab Sunnis than with Persians, especially Iranian Persians. They are traditionally regarded as an enemy of the Arab world. They are viewed only slightly more fondly than Israelis. |
|
