Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Houthis 'take control' of key island in global shipping route

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

611–620 of 678 posts

Re: Houthis 'take control' of key island in global shipping route

#611

Post by autoexec »

ericmay wrote: post #596
autoexec wrote: post #591

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why do we need to have some sort of deal in the first place? Why does Iran of all countries need to have this special treatment where they threaten to build nuclear weapons unless we all do or give them something. Iran signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty ages ago which put certain limits on what they could do. Other countries had growing concerns that Iran wasn't living up to that treaty, and those violations (plus…

Sorry I do not follow this line of reasoning at all. Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Then they started a nuclear program, then they wanted some sort of special treaty, and yet they aren't being treated specially or differently than other countries?

Iran signed a treaty that let them have a nuclear program but with rules. Iran didn't follow the rules so they got in trouble. New president comes in and agrees to follow rules if it means they won't be in so much trouble anymore and works with a bunch of countries on a new agreement. That's pretty much just the standard treatment isn't it?

The new agreement itself was kind of impressive in some ways. It's really long. There's lots of special provisions for making sure Iran does what they're supposed to do and detailing what would happen if they don't because they had a sketchy history, but otherwise it just meant that Iran followed rules just like other countries do and they weren't punished like other rule following countries weren't. It took a new agreement to get there, but things were basically back to normal

Re: Houthis 'take control' of key island in global shipping route

#612

Post by kadoban »

LarsKrimi wrote: post #567
kadoban wrote: post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Don't interrupt your opponent when they're making a mistake" Yeah, that's the obvious answer, but I suspect there's a point where if the US fucks things up too quickly and too messily, there's fewer customers for China's crap and/or the random throws of monkey shit drag China into messes they don't feel like dealing with. Slow erosion of the US's global power is likely better for them than an implosion that might…

I'm curious what you think that may be. The situation you're imagining is one of a global all encompassing depression caused by a single government. Not unthinkable, but the Americans would feel that deeply. Do you think they want to?

> The situation you're imagining is one of a global all encompassing depression caused by a single government.

Doesn't even have to go that far (though it pretty easily can, the US is a big enough market). If the US causes a refugee crisis that affects one of China's allies, or fucks with the global oil supply enough or a thousand other things, that stuff is still annoying to China even if it's usually relatively better for them than it is for the US.

> Not unthinkable, but the Americans would feel that deeply. Do you think they want to?

The people in the US choosing do not care if the rest of America feels it or not.

Re: Houthis 'take control' of key island in global shipping route

#613

Post by LorenPechtel »

marcyb5st wrote: post #261
ericmay wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> Iran can't have a nuclear weapon. It's an intolerable premise and if the price to be paid is global oil catastrophe it's a price well worth paying Says you. All other nuclear nations behave (even Pakistan and India, which are at each other throat all the time). What makes you think that Iran won't? It will also have Russia and China keep a lid on them, same as North Korea. And I don't buy the "Iran is different" go…

And Russian Roulette is 100% safe. Just ask anyone who has played it, they weren't hurt.

(In other words, just because we haven't blown ourselves up yet doesn't mean it's safe to have nukes in the hands of lunatics.)

Re: Houthis 'take control' of key island in global shipping route

#614

Post by asah »

pphysch wrote: post #152
ericmay wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Why can Israel have a nuclear weapon? It is also an insanely violent ethno-theocratic regime.

The argument goes:

Iran has repeatedly called for "death to America," "death to Israel" and so on.

Israel's leaders do not generally call for the destruction of other countries.

Re: Houthis 'take control' of key island in global shipping route

#615

Post by ericmay »

autoexec wrote: post #611
ericmay wrote: post #596

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry I do not follow this line of reasoning at all. Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Then they started a nuclear program, then they wanted some sort of special treaty, and yet they aren't being treated specially or differently than other countries?

Iran signed a treaty that let them have a nuclear program but with rules. Iran didn't follow the rules so they got in trouble. New president comes in and agrees to follow rules if it means they won't be in so much trouble anymore and works with a bunch of countries on a new agreement. That's pretty much just the standard treatment isn't it? The new agreement itself was kind of impressive in some ways. It's really lon…

If it's just standard treatment can you name the other countries where they agreed to the rules, didn't follow them, and then wanted a specific treaty in order to keep them following the rules?

Why not just not have a treaty and they just follow the rules? I think you're jumping through some hoops here to justify the need for the JCPOA when at the end of the day Iran needs to simply acquiesce to the international community and no longer pursue nuclear weapons. Of course they also need to stop murdering people throughout the region too. Nuclear disarmament is just one step.

Iran themselves said they enriched uranium up to 40%-60%. The US offered "free nuclear fuel forever" to get them to stop and they also refused. I can find sources for you if you'd like but both of these were widely reported.

Re: Houthis 'take control' of key island in global shipping route

#616

Post by throwaway473825 »

chasd00 wrote: post #493
epolanski wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oil is sold globally. It doesn't matter if in Texas wells are producing it at a penny for barrel, if the global prices are high that oil is going to be sold to Philippinos, Japanese, Italians or South Africans. So, at the same time, it doesn't matter if some new routes open or close, it doesn't particularly favor one or the other buyer, it's still sold globally on a bid.

i don't see why deals can't change. It's just a contract, the IRS could create a tax incentive for US producers to sell to US refineries at a discount. US producers could do it on their own if they so chose as well.

The US produces light oil that's easier to refine and hence more profitable to export since it has many buyers.

The US refines heavy oil that's harder to refine and hence more profitable to import since it has few buyers.

Re: Houthis 'take control' of key island in global shipping route

#617

Post by soperj »

bluGill wrote: post #331
soperj wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can ask the same question of the US. They're the only ones to have actually used them (and they try to justify it still). For all those who are about to reply saying it was justified because it saved American lives, why didn't you use it Afghanistan or Iraq?

Almost nobody today was alive when the US used nuclear weapons. We can ignore them at this point. Judge the current US policy by the current US.

Are you for real? That was 81 years ago, which is actually less than some US states average lifespan.

There are roughly 12 million Americans over the age of 80.

Re: Houthis 'take control' of key island in global shipping route

#618

Post by toyg »

saturn8601 wrote: post #584
fnordpiglet wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a suspicion that the caring is starting to mount, otherwise there’s no need to offer a $1.3T election bribe (which I’ll file a the other dividend / bribes that were never sent and the bridge Trump sold me)

Thats just the weekly circus. If Dems win everything this election, the next circus will be months of impeachment inquiries followed by no action.

If more action is even more meddling with Middle East countries, at this point no-action might be the right thing to do...

Re: Houthis 'take control' of key island in global shipping route

#619

Post by HappyPanacea »

makotech221 wrote: post #121
andrewla wrote: post #113

My quibble here is with the house style "Iran-backed" that they attach to every mention of the Houthi's. While it's fine for governments to use that language, I don't think journalists should use it without being very specific to its relevance to the particular subject under discussion. The "Houthis claim major advance in Yemen - what you need to know" article could omit "Iran-backed" in its entirety and lose no info…

its a hint to the western audience that they're supposed to be sad about this.

The western audience doesn't need the hint to dislike it - the curse upon the Jews victory to Islam and shooting random vessels and taking crew hostages (very relevant here) are doing the job just fine.

Re: Houthis 'take control' of key island in global shipping route

#620

Post by watwut »

ciconia wrote: post #459
jollyllama wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not clear that non-mercenary Arab armies are much better in this respect.

It's not clear that Western armies are better either, as we've seen time and again in Iran, Afghanistan and Syria.

What are you talking about here, exactly?
Post reply on HN