Iranian commander threatens to close Strait of Hormuz to US

[silent]

This Iranian sheit will stop when "Hawk" Hillary gets in power!

Very unlikely...

She will kowtow and that is why world leaders fear Trump because he wont give in.

What you mean like the time Trump had the opportunity to serve his country in Vietnam but apparently needed 5 deferments to avoid going there. Strange how those who are so eager to send others to war don't seem so keen to go themselves.

Just ask the duck and he'll tell you it's because fools rush in where wise men fear to tread and he was ahead of his time standing up for democratic rights while a different excuse of a hero simply took the easy way out by getting himself captured to spend most of the war doing nothing but be in camps. Hillary hasn't got a chance.

[RuamRudy]

Iran is the country threatening to close down the Straits of Hormuz and, suddenly, it is the fault of the US?

You folks, in your blatant hatred of all things American, are an amazing group.

Slag off the US Military until you get your collective tits in a wringer and then call the US to get you out of the mess you got yourselves into.

This isn't about Trump. He has absolutely nothing to do with the US position in the Arabian Gulf nor the power to do anything about it.

You want to blame an American?

How about the guy that has occupied the White House for the last 7+ years?

He is the policy maker now.

Try reading the article again. There was no mention of general blockade but only one targetting US interests, AND only in the event of Iran being threatened by the US.

The current POTUS has worked hard to undo the decades of damage that self serving policies from previous Western governments have caused, but clearly there is still some way to go. I think most posters are suggesting that The Donald is not the man to be trusted to continue along the path to normalisation of relationships.

Edited May 5, 2016 by RuamRudy

[chuckd]

If I leave my house to show my gun and my strength in front of yours, what will you do?

You will load your weapons and organize a possible defense.

This is what happens wherever US Navy left its shores to intimidate potential adversaries

Here's our gun. Where's yours?

Phalanx CIWS:

20 mm Gatling gun with a range of 2.2 miles and a rate of fire of 75 rounds per SECOND.

<snip>

everyone has them pal

Another master of the obvious surfaces.

What Iran doesn't have is the US 5th Fleet.

PS: Don't assume I am your pal.

Edited May 5, 2016 by chuckd

[billd766]

Closing off the Straits would affect two countries. It is not under the sole jurisdiction of Iran.

It would affect every oil producing country in the Arab Gulf and almost every ship that passes through the Straits of Hormuz. The price of oil would sky rocket, the price of shipping insurance would go up even faster.

It would directly affect Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Iraq. All oil producing and exporting countries and of course Iran as well.

In turn that would both directly and indirectly affect most oil importing countries both in the west and also in Asia and Japan. Thailand would also be affected as it imports LNG from Qatar.

For today's modern supertanker the Straits of Hormuz is relatively narrow and it would only take a small number of tankers sunk in the right place and the Straits would be blocked and polluted for a long time. Also if a LNG tanker was hit the resulting explosion would be tremendous.

[elgordo38]

Boy, like to see them try! The USA would unleash a shit storm on them, haha

As the US is broke I wonder who will bankroll that operation. Lack of credit is one of the reasons Obama is shrinking the US military. All the generals and Fox TV are squawking. The days of fighting wars on credit and just adding it to your tab is over.

[craigt3365]

US Navy shows its strength everywhere. Hormuz Strait, South China Sea, Baltic, Korea.

Thus it forces its potential opponent to arm themselves. We learn that Iranians now have drones defense pretext. But these weapons could be used later to other targets...

Who would believe that the Chinese do not prepare a strong response to the event. Same obviously for Putin's Russia. The common enemy is now USA.

And when we read here the Yank arrogance, we can understand why nobody wants them. US go home was said in my native country 40 years ago, This childish slogan becoming a global rallying cry.

Ummm....let's see. North Korea with nuclear threats. China building military bases on coral islands in areas they don't "own". Iran's leader end every sermon with "Death to America". And you are blaming the US? Really?

If I leave my house to show my gun and my strength in front of yours, what will you do?

You will load your weapons and organize a possible defense.

This is what happens wherever US Navy left its shores to intimidate potential adversaries

Exactly! When NK, China and Iran show their strength and threaten others inappropriately, what are you suppose to do? Run and hide? Great point!

[Grouse]

Yet again, problems because our cousins don't read the history

Relations with Iran were quite cordial after the war until the CIA coup which installed the Shah. The Shah was of course a good ally, but oppressed the indigenous population

This was the direct cause of the Islamic Revolution

Iran was then attacked by Iraq with American support

And you wonder why Iran is a bit negative about USA?

Best investment the new POTUS (whoever she is) would be to buy history books for the entire population

[Grouse]

US Navy shows its strength everywhere. Hormuz Strait, South China Sea, Baltic, Korea.

Thus it forces its potential opponent to arm themselves. We learn that Iranians now have drones defense pretext. But these weapons could be used later to other targets...

Who would believe that the Chinese do not prepare a strong response to the event. Same obviously for Putin's Russia. The common enemy is now USA.

And when we read here the Yank arrogance, we can understand why nobody wants them. US go home was said in my native country 40 years ago, This childish slogan becoming a global rallying cry.

Ummm....let's see. North Korea with nuclear threats. China building military bases on coral islands in areas they don't "own". Iran's leader end every sermon with "Death to America". And you are blaming the US? Really?

If I leave my house to show my gun and my strength in front of yours, what will you do?

You will load your weapons and organize a possible defense.

This is what happens wherever US Navy left its shores to intimidate potential adversaries

Exactly! When NK, China and Iran show their strength and threaten others inappropriately, what are you suppose to do? Run and hide? Great point!

No, just laugh!

Contempt is a powerful weapon

[smutcakes]

Craig if i was a US citizen i would want my Government to stay out of it and let their close neigbours deal with it.

The US among others have been the main instigators of numerous questionable wars over the years a lomg way from their shores.

I just want my country to stay out of things and concentrate on matters at home.

[chuckd]

Iran is the country threatening to close down the Straits of Hormuz and, suddenly, it is the fault of the US?

You folks, in your blatant hatred of all things American, are an amazing group.

Slag off the US Military until you get your collective tits in a wringer and then call the US to get you out of the mess you got yourselves into.

This isn't about Trump. He has absolutely nothing to do with the US position in the Arabian Gulf nor the power to do anything about it.

You want to blame an American?

How about the guy that has occupied the White House for the last 7+ years?

He is the policy maker now.

Try reading the article again. There was no mention of general blockade but only one targetting US interests, AND only in the event of Iran being threatened by the US.

The current POTUS has worked hard to undo the decades of damage that self serving policies from previous Western governments have caused, but clearly there is still some way to go. I think most posters are suggesting that The Donald is not the man to be trusted to continue along the path to normalisation of relationships.

Make up your mind. In one post you say my brain is the size of a planet and in the next one you claim I can't read.

No wonder nobody takes you seriously.

[craigt3365]

These statements and those about the Russian and Chinese are exaggerated and sensationalised in the Western media for one reason. To justify the continued eroding of your Civil rights and freedoms. In order to justify continued extravagant spending by you Military Industrial complexes. I am sure the same BS is spread the opposite way by the other side. By puffing up your chests and crying we can clean up. Simply shows how small is our ability to take a step back from the path of confrontation. Look at the madness and misery caused by 70 years of unwanted interference and Military misadventure by all the major powers. When the World accepts Military Force are unacceptable except for self defence this cycle of endless waste will continue

I think some in Ukraine, Georgia, Tibet, the Philippines, Syria, Vietnam and the Caucasus might argue with you a bit. Hard to calm things down when countries are in massive buildups of their military capabilities.

The US defense budget has been on the decline lately.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#Historical_spending

[daveAustin]

"If the Americans and their regional allies want to pass through the Strait of Hormuz and threaten us, we will not allow any entry,"

Whilst I am unsure what provoked this particular comment, on the balance of things it doesn't seem unreasonable. If the Iranian navy was to have a similar presence in the Gulf of Mexico, I am certain that it would not go down so well with the self appointed defenders of the free world.

It is not equal.

The ayatollahs are the bad guyz and we are the good guyz.

Get used to it cause it's true everywhere, to include the Old World elites of Russia, CCP China, North Korea, the Assads, Daesh (non state), Zimbabwe, the gold bugs of the Austrian school of economics and its Mad Max lunacy; the global right reactionaries who might be right under our noses.

USA has always done the post WW II heavy lifting by the conscious agreement of the Anglophile world, Europe, Nato, Japan, South Korea et al.

When the bad guyz in Tehran, Moscow, Beijing mention a Potus Hillary Clinton their nuts shrivel up. Other places too btw.

Just listen to yourselves. The world is in the state it's in because of your bumbling about like a bull in a china shop... and you wonder why they can't stand you.

[Thorgal]

Some even pretend that there's no US threat in the region...

[chuckd]

Yet again, problems because our cousins don't read the history

Relations with Iran were quite cordial after the war until the CIA coup which installed the Shah. The Shah was of course a good ally, but oppressed the indigenous population

This was the direct cause of the Islamic Revolution

Iran was then attacked by Iraq with American support

And you wonder why Iran is a bit negative about USA?

Best investment the new POTUS (whoever she is) would be to buy history books for the entire population

"Relations with Iran were quite cordial after the war until the CIA coup which installed the Shah."

Have you absolved MI6 in any part of the overthrow of the Mossadegh government?

The Brits actually started the ball rolling when Mossadegh nationalized the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, the forerunner of BP.

http://www.coldwar.org/articles/50s/iranian_overthrow.asp

[RuamRudy]

Iran is the country threatening to close down the Straits of Hormuz and, suddenly, it is the fault of the US?

You folks, in your blatant hatred of all things American, are an amazing group.

Slag off the US Military until you get your collective tits in a wringer and then call the US to get you out of the mess you got yourselves into.

This isn't about Trump. He has absolutely nothing to do with the US position in the Arabian Gulf nor the power to do anything about it.

You want to blame an American?

How about the guy that has occupied the White House for the last 7+ years?

He is the policy maker now.

Try reading the article again. There was no mention of general blockade but only one targetting US interests, AND only in the event of Iran being threatened by the US.

The current POTUS has worked hard to undo the decades of damage that self serving policies from previous Western governments have caused, but clearly there is still some way to go. I think most posters are suggesting that The Donald is not the man to be trusted to continue along the path to normalisation of relationships.

Make up your mind. In one post you say my brain is the size of a planet and in the next one you claim I can't read.

No wonder nobody takes you seriously.

Here's a hint: on my of my replies to you, I was being a tad disingenuous.

[hawker9000]

US Navy shows its strength everywhere. Hormuz Strait, South China Sea, Baltic, Korea.

Thus it forces its potential opponent to arm themselves. We learn that Iranians now have drones defense pretext. But these weapons could be used later to other targets...

Who would believe that the Chinese do not prepare a strong response to the event. Same obviously for Putin's Russia. The common enemy is now USA.

And when we read here the Yank arrogance, we can understand why nobody wants them. US go home was said in my native country 40 years ago, This childish slogan becoming a global rallying cry.

Ummm....let's see. North Korea with nuclear threats. China building military bases on coral islands in areas they don't "own". Iran's leader end every sermon with "Death to America". And you are blaming the US? Really?

If I leave my house to show my gun and my strength in front of yours, what will you do?

You will load your weapons and organize a possible defense.

This is what happens wherever US Navy left its shores to intimidate potential adversaries

Yeah, that "organized defense" sure worked great for Japan, 1941-1945; then for the N. Koreans at Inchon in '50; and for the USSR during the Cuban Missile Crisis, didn't it? 'Course the USN was credible then; and Obama wasn't the Organizer-in-Chief... And who is it that's "left their house" to squat on the entire South China Sea, and who ELSE has threatened to close an international waterway, and who ELSE built nuclear weapons to intimidate its neighbor with?? Eh? You've got your street addresses a little mixed up, don't you?

"Yank arrogance." Such a tired expression, but there's a certain pathetic, helpless-with-envy, humor to it.

Edited May 5, 2016 by hawker9000

[craigt3365]

Craig if i was a US citizen i would want my Government to stay out of it and let their close neigbours deal with it.

The US among others have been the main instigators of numerous questionable wars over the years a lomg way from their shores.

I just want my country to stay out of things and concentrate on matters at home.

As a citizen of the world, I'm very concerned about this. First, Iran doesn't have control over the entire strait. So if they were to block it, that would be an act of war. Second, as mentioned before, costs for almost everything we buy would sky rocket. I don't think anybody here would like that. Probably hate it worse than they hate the US! LOL

I'm all for staying out of this. But if it has an impact on me, then I'm behind efforts to deal with it. Iran is far from a stable nation. Amazing at how many here seem to hate the US more than Iran.

[Baerboxer]

Closing off the Straits would affect two countries. It is not under the sole jurisdiction of Iran.

Exactly. Iran can do what they want, within reason, in their own territorial waters. But they have absolutely know legal right or jurisdictions outside of them.

Should they try and close this important seaway, or hound and hinder other nation's vessels legitimately sailing through, they should incur the wrath of more nations than the USA.

Many Arab countries in the GCC see Iran as a mutual enemy and the EU and NATO would have to step up to the plate.

[Baerboxer]

US Navy shows its strength everywhere. Hormuz Strait, South China Sea, Baltic, Korea.

Thus it forces its potential opponent to arm themselves. We learn that Iranians now have drones defense pretext. But these weapons could be used later to other targets...

Who would believe that the Chinese do not prepare a strong response to the event. Same obviously for Putin's Russia. The common enemy is now USA.

And when we read here the Yank arrogance, we can understand why nobody wants them. US go home was said in my native country 40 years ago, This childish slogan becoming a global rallying cry.

Ummm....let's see. North Korea with nuclear threats. China building military bases on coral islands in areas they don't "own". Iran's leader end every sermon with "Death to America". And you are blaming the US? Really?

If I leave my house to show my gun and my strength in front of yours, what will you do?

You will load your weapons and organize a possible defense.

This is what happens wherever US Navy left its shores to intimidate potential adversaries

Yeah, that "organized defense" sure worked great for Japan, 1941-1945; then for the N. Koreans at Inchon in '50; and for the USSR during the Cuban Missile Crisis, didn't it? 'Course the USN was credible then; and Obama wasn't the Organizer-in-Chief... And who is it that's "left their house" to squat on the entire South China Sea, and who ELSE has threatened to close an international waterway, and who ELSE built nuclear weapons to intimidate its neighbor with?? Eh? You've got your street addresses a little mixed up, don't you?

"Yank arrogance." Such a tired expression, but there's a certain pathetic, helpless-with-envy, humor to it.

The thing is Hawker that without the "Yank arrogance" Happy Joe complains about, he probably wouldn't be able to be posting here. His home country had idiots ranting "Yanks go home 40 years ago". If he's European and they'd gone home he'd have lived a a lovely people's socialist republic where Russia dictated everything and people simply vanished for upsetting someone or saying the wrong thing. If he's from the ME, Africa or SEA then he would certainly be in a worse state without American support, aid and co-operation of many spheres. Even Viet Nam wants to be friends with America - they can't trust fellow communists apart from all the other reasons.

America took over the role of trying to police large swathes of the world from Britain. And like all policeman who try to enforce laws and rules, gets little thanks.

[boomerangutang]

It sounds like it's one Iranian top brass letting off some steam, if that.

Drink a tall glass of water. Iran knows if it tries to block the Strait, a lot of pain will come to it quickly. It's not going to happen on Cool-Hand-Luke Obama's watch. If Trump becomes prez, anything's possible, because he's like a flaming soccer ball ball tumbling down a bumpy hill of dry brush. Even Trump doesn't know what his core beliefs are. He contradicts himself day to day.

[billd766]

Closing off the Straits would affect two countries. It is not under the sole jurisdiction of Iran.

Exactly. Iran can do what they want, within reason, in their own territorial waters. But they have absolutely know legal right or jurisdictions outside of them.

Should they try and close this important seaway, or hound and hinder other nation's vessels legitimately sailing through, they should incur the wrath of more nations than the USA.

Many Arab countries in the GCC see Iran as a mutual enemy and the EU and NATO would have to step up to the plate.

I don't understand why NATO would be involved as it should be CENTO really.

Anyway what could the US/EU/NATO etc actually do other than attack Iran? If they invaded Iran there would have to be somebodies boots on the ground for a good many years and there would need to be a lot of them as there are over 79,xxx,xxx people in the country.

Certainly they can win a war against Iran but could they afford to garrison the country for years or even decades?

To answer that question just look back a few years to Iraq, Afghanistan and more lately Libya and look at the costs in deaths, injuries, material and costs.

The EU has more than enough problems on its plate at the moment with a million or so refugees entering the country. The UK under Big Dave won't do anything without the US approval and there isn't that much military to spare for a long drawn out campaign. NATO consists of so many countries now but only the older NATO countries would be likely to want to play.

Edited May 5, 2016 by billd766

[RuamRudy]

If I leave my house to show my gun and my strength in front of yours, what will you do?

You will load your weapons and organize a possible defense.

This is what happens wherever US Navy left its shores to intimidate potential adversaries

Yeah, that "organized defense" sure worked great for Japan, 1941-1945; then for the N. Koreans at Inchon in '50; and for the USSR during the Cuban Missile Crisis, didn't it? 'Course the USN was credible then; and Obama wasn't the Organizer-in-Chief... And who is it that's "left their house" to squat on the entire South China Sea, and who ELSE has threatened to close an international waterway, and who ELSE built nuclear weapons to intimidate its neighbor with?? Eh? You've got your street addresses a little mixed up, don't you?

"Yank arrogance." Such a tired expression, but there's a certain pathetic, helpless-with-envy, humor to it.

The thing is Hawker that without the "Yank arrogance" Happy Joe complains about, he probably wouldn't be able to be posting here. His home country had idiots ranting "Yanks go home 40 years ago". If he's European and they'd gone home he'd have lived a a lovely people's socialist republic where Russia dictated everything and people simply vanished for upsetting someone or saying the wrong thing. If he's from the ME, Africa or SEA then he would certainly be in a worse state without American support, aid and co-operation of many spheres. Even Viet Nam wants to be friends with America - they can't trust fellow communists apart from all the other reasons.

America took over the role of trying to police large swathes of the world from Britain. And like all policeman who try to enforce laws and rules, gets little thanks.

The police is actually a very good metaphor for US foreign policy. While nobody doubts the intrinsic value of a strong and reliable police force, there are undeniably dark, corrupt aspects to it. Just ask the people of Central and South America, whos' countries are still in turmoil because of US state machinations at the behest of US conglomerates. Unfortunately, the immoral, illegal, downright repuslive side of US foreign policy detracts from the overall picture of your positive contributions to the world.

[craigt3365]

The police is actually a very good metaphor for US foreign policy. While nobody doubts the intrinsic value of a strong and reliable police force, there are undeniably dark, corrupt aspects to it. Just ask the people of Central and South America, whos' countries are still in turmoil because of US state machinations at the behest of US conglomerates. Unfortunately, the immoral, illegal, downright repuslive side of US foreign policy detracts from the overall picture of your positive contributions to the world.

Umm....CA and SA were devastated by European actions many years ago. I've read about a few issues with US conglomerates, but that exists with many other foreign countries. Perhaps even yours?

https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/7851-China-has-big-role-in-Latin-America-s-environmental-problems-report

[RuamRudy]

The police is actually a very good metaphor for US foreign policy. While nobody doubts the intrinsic value of a strong and reliable police force, there are undeniably dark, corrupt aspects to it. Just ask the people of Central and South America, whos' countries are still in turmoil because of US state machinations at the behest of US conglomerates. Unfortunately, the immoral, illegal, downright repuslive side of US foreign policy detracts from the overall picture of your positive contributions to the world.

Umm....CA and SA were devastated by European actions many years ago. I've read about a few issues with US conglomerates, but that exists with many other foreign countries. Perhaps even yours?

https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/7851-China-has-big-role-in-Latin-America-s-environmental-problems-report

I agree fully - I am sure that since the dawn of time, stronger nations have preyed on weaker ones, and as a Brit, I am fully aware of the legacy of the British empire, but many people, myself included, wish to think that we live in more enlightened times. Contemporary pillage is arguably worse because we are part of it, wilful or not.

[Publicus]

"If the Americans and their regional allies want to pass through the Strait of Hormuz and threaten us, we will not allow any entry,"

Whilst I am unsure what provoked this particular comment, on the balance of things it doesn't seem unreasonable. If the Iranian navy was to have a similar presence in the Gulf of Mexico, I am certain that it would not go down so well with the self appointed defenders of the free world.

It is not equal.

The ayatollahs are the bad guyz and we are the good guyz.

Get used to it cause it's true everywhere, to include the Old World elites of Russia, CCP China, North Korea, the Assads, Daesh (non state), Zimbabwe, the gold bugs of the Austrian school of economics and its Mad Max lunacy; the global right reactionaries who might be right under our noses.

USA has always done the post WW II heavy lifting by the conscious agreement of the Anglophile world, Europe, Nato, Japan, South Korea et al.

When the bad guyz in Tehran, Moscow, Beijing mention a Potus Hillary Clinton their nuts shrivel up. Other places too btw.

SecDef Ashton Carter is a hawk yet he is prudent. Carter ended 15 years of US strategic ambiguity by naming Russia as behind Door Number One, CCP China behind Door Number Two, Iran behind Door Number Three. The USN 5th Fleet is based in Bahrain for a reason.

This blather out of Iran is the Revolutionary Guards soiling and staining their revolutionary undergarments. They seized the Marines then let 'em go. They proved they were allowed to seize US Marines and that they let 'em go, virtually immediately. Nobody shot up anybody. The ayatollahs do not want an actual or serious incident.

Poof goes the Guards.

so international law depends on who a guy like you defines as good guys?? lol

International law did not drop out of the sky.

Nor was it discovered accidentally while exploring caves or later on while drilling for oil.

No one walked down from the mount bearing tablets of international law for all the world to read and to live by.

The post WW II international order was created by men for a purpose, for reasons, and toward specific goals using specified ends. The men who defeated global fascism.

Iran does however have its own laws and its own ideas of international law that did come down from on high and above, definitely written in stone, i.e., their exclusive book. The ayatollahs are being arbitrary, authoritarian, and elitist to try to impose their narrow view of international law on the region and against the established international order by consensus.

If Iran wants to create a new consensus of international law, then let them begin in rational and reasonable ways rather than by military belligerence or bellicose nuclear threats.

Global sanctions plus the P-5 + 1 combined did force negotiations that whipped the ayatollahs into some semblance of shape concerning their nuclear program. Still however, the ayatollahs have yet to display any tendencies away from their own and exclusive book of laws for everyone. The once upon a time book written by their own men of long ago.

[Rancid]

Boy, like to see them try! The USA would unleash a shit storm on them, haha

You could well be right. There again didn't Russia finally start delivering those S300 anti air missiles? Bombing a country that actually has an air defence system might be more problematic than in the recent virtually defenceless invasions.

Also what do the Iranians have in the way of anti-ship missiles? Read reports a while back suggesting the technology now makes navies very vulnerable.

Regardless, the Iranian is probably just flapping his gums anyway.

[tonbridgebrit]

"If the Americans and their regional allies want to pass through the Strait of Hormuz and threaten us, we will not allow any entry,"

Whilst I am unsure what provoked this particular comment, on the balance of things it doesn't seem unreasonable. If the Iranian navy was to have a similar presence in the Gulf of Mexico, I am certain that it would not go down so well with the self appointed defenders of the free world.

It is not equal.

The ayatollahs are the bad guyz and we are the good guyz.

Get used to it cause it's true everywhere, to include the Old World elites of Russia, CCP China, North Korea, the Assads, Daesh (non state), Zimbabwe, the gold bugs of the Austrian school of economics and its Mad Max lunacy; the global right reactionaries who might be right under our noses.

USA has always done the post WW II heavy lifting by the conscious agreement of the Anglophile world, Europe, Nato, Japan, South Korea et al.

When the bad guyz in Tehran, Moscow, Beijing mention a Potus Hillary Clinton their nuts shrivel up. Other places too btw.

SecDef Ashton Carter is a hawk yet he is prudent. Carter ended 15 years of US strategic ambiguity by naming Russia as behind Door Number One, CCP China behind Door Number Two, Iran behind Door Number Three. The USN 5th Fleet is based in Bahrain for a reason.

This blather out of Iran is the Revolutionary Guards soiling and staining their revolutionary undergarments. They seized the Marines then let 'em go. They proved they were allowed to seize US Marines and that they let 'em go, virtually immediately. Nobody shot up anybody. The ayatollahs do not want an actual or serious incident.

Poof goes the Guards.

so international law depends on who a guy like you defines as good guys?? lol

International law did not drop out of the sky.

Nor was it discovered accidentally while exploring caves or later on while drilling for oil.

No one walked down from the mount bearing tablets of international law for all the world to read and to live by.

The post WW II international order was created by men for a purpose, for reasons, and toward specific goals using specified ends. The men who defeated global fascism.

Iran does however have its own laws and its own ideas of international law that did come down from on high and above, definitely written in stone, i.e., their exclusive book. The ayatollahs are being arbitrary, authoritarian, and elitist to try to impose their narrow view of international law on the region and against the established international order by consensus.

If Iran wants to create a new consensus of international law, then let them begin in rational and reasonable ways rather than by military belligerence or bellicose nuclear threats.

Global sanctions plus the P-5 + 1 combined did force negotiations that whipped the ayatollahs into some semblance of shape concerning their nuclear program. Still however, the ayatollahs have yet to display any tendencies away from their own and exclusive book of laws for everyone. The once upon a time book written by their own men of long ago.

"The post WW II international order was created by men for a purpose, for reasons, and toward specific goals using specified ends. The men who defeated global fascism."

Correct, and the five big nations who defeated global fascism and then became the corner-stone of the new United Nations were Britain, USA, France, Russia and China. Them five are permanent members of the UN security council. We have a small problem in that some people demonise two of those victors (Russia and China) today.

You want to talk about global sanctions against Iran ? Look, Washington does actually know that Iran is practically harmless, that's why "Prez. Obama" lifted the sanctions. And indeed, I fully back "Prez. Obama" lifting sanctions against Iran. I do get a bit concerned that Hillary Clinton might put the sanctions back on again, and indeed, Hillary might put the US back on the war-path with Iran. Hillary is almost as much a war-monger as George W. Bush. We musn't forget, Hillary voted FOR the invasion of Iraq back in 2003.

You want to mock Iran because of "The once upon a time book written by their own men of long ago." ???

Publicus, I'm not American, but I know what Americans know about their government and country. This is something that most Europeans don't know, but I do.

Okay, it's this. US foreign policy in the Middle East. It's not just based on getting oil from the area. There's something more important than that.

Basically, there is belief that Jesus is coming back, yes, we're talking here about the Second Coming. Judgement Day. And, and we know that something big is going to happen in the Middle East. Yes, the Big One, the Final Countdown, the War to End all Wars, the Mother of all Wars, call it what you want, it all means the same thing.

And all this America building a vast military (a powerful military that YOU love to publicise and promote), it's all about America getting ready for this massive war that will happen just before Jesus comes back. Yes, America's foreign policy IS actually built on building an army and preparing for the great war of the End Times, and it will happen in the Middle East.

How do we know that Jesus is coming back ? How do we know that all this is going to happen in the Middle East ? Well, it says it in the Bible. And off-course, the Democrats accept this almost as much as the Republicans.

Now then, I certainly DO NOT say that Washington's foreign policy is built on a book that is a fairy-tale. Bearing in mind that you love to bang the American drum, well, can you please not mock Iran for building THEIR society and foreign policy based on a "Once upon a time book". Thanks.

(please note, for anybody who thinks that I'm mad to think that this is what Washington's foreign policy is built on, please, talk to people from America, they will confirm what I've just written).

[Grouse]

Nurse! Nurse! Tonbridgebrit is out of bed again!

[ilostmypassword]

Yes, Hillary is most definitely a hawk.

Trump is much more of an ISOLATIONIST in the tradition of racist American fascists such as Henry Ford.

Try to be honest. Trump has a daughter who identifies as Orthodox Jewish. Hillary has contacts with the rabidly anti-Israel Blumenthals not to mention a confidante with Muslim Brotherhood connections.

More lunacy. The person with Muslim Brotherhood connections alluded to is Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton's aid. The charge is nuts. Especially considering the Abedin has the misfortune to be married to Anthony Wiener. Say what you will about him, last time I checked he was rabidly pro Israel and definitely Jewish.The charge that Abedin has Muslim Brotherhood connections began with Michelle Bachmann. Always a good source. And this is from snopes.com.

Huma Mahmood Abedin is a long-time aide to Hillary Clinton who served as Deputy Chief of Staff at the State Department while Clinton was Secretary of State from 2009-2013; she is also the wife of former Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner of New York. Abedin is the American-born daughter of an Indian father and a Pakistani mother, and although she was raised in Saudi Arabia and is a practicing Muslim, claims that her late father, her mother and her brother were all "connected" to Muslim Brotherhood have no factual basis to them. That rumor was promulgated by former Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, who in June 2012 sent a letter to the Deputy Inspector General at the Department of State asserting that "infomation has recently come to light that raises serious questions about Department of State policies and activities that appear to be a result of influence operations conducted by individuals and organizations associated with the Muslim Brotherhood."

Is it any wonder that the people who believe this kind of stuff, also believe in Donald Trump?

Edited May 5, 2016 by ilostmypassword

[ilostmypassword]

Craig if i was a US citizen i would want my Government to stay out of it and let their close neigbours deal with it.

The US among others have been the main instigators of numerous questionable wars over the years a lomg way from their shores.

I just want my country to stay out of things and concentrate on matters at home.

As a citizen of the world, I'm very concerned about this. First, Iran doesn't have control over the entire strait. So if they were to block it, that would be an act of war. Second, as mentioned before, costs for almost everything we buy would sky rocket. I don't think anybody here would like that. Probably hate it worse than they hate the US! LOL

I'm all for staying out of this. But if it has an impact on me, then I'm behind efforts to deal with it. Iran is far from a stable nation. Amazing at how many here seem to hate the US more than Iran.

Iran is so far from being a stable nation that even with the a massive american armed forces stationed right next door in Iraq it seemed to manage just fine Despite a few foolish attempts by the US to destabilize it. In fact, it gave a lot worse than it got. Iran has existed as a nation, Persia, for about 2500 years. You can read about them in Herodotus.