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

Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

lloydslist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 198 posts

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#171

Post by dotancohen »

slater wrote: post #160
dotancohen wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never advocated attacking civilians. If you are suggesting that the Iranian military uses civilian human shields, then maybe you should reconsider which side you support.

> why is "glass the entire country" not an option? > I never advocated attacking civilians.

I did not realize that "glass the entire country" means to use nuclear weapons. Maybe I don't watch enough movies. I'm all for attacking Iranian military assets across Iran, but obviously not the civilians if that can be avoided.

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#172

Post by microgpt »

hammock wrote: post #45
msabalau wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is fundamentally a failure of political leadership. You don't try to achieve a goal when you don't have the military means to achieve at a cost you are willing to bear. There are endless numbers of military objectives that the US military that could have been sent on where they would have had no chance to succeed. That they generally weren't is a function other administrations, however bad, not being so embarras…

You’re making an orthogonal point. His point was that regardless of political decision making, the US Navy has demonstrated an incapacity of controlling the Strait of Hormuz, which is bad

[dead]

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#173

Post by microgpt »

cloche wrote: post #58
energy123 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's not true. CENTCOM can reopen the strait whenever they want, but doing it is slow and expensive, so there is insufficient political will to do it. It's still a strategic defeat, but for different reasons than what you are saying. Recommend studying the public comments of General MacKenzie who was the previous CENTCOM commander, comments from Admiral Cooper before he was appointed to current CENTCOM comman…

This sounds a lot like what some lazy people will say "I could be a doctor/astronaut/millionaire/movie star. I just don't want to"

[dead]

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#174

Post by microgpt »

Levitz wrote: post #92
spiderfarmer wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US will never recover from the reputation damage they sustained by voting in a mindbogglingly stupid buffoon. Twice.

That's just not true. Most people forgot Bush by Obama's second year.

[dead]

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#175

Post by microgpt »

bulbar wrote: post #151
giardini wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And should any "new world order" have the US in its center now? We've paid for the entire world order outside the Soviet Union/Russia and China for decades. Time to present a bill, close the relationships (e.g., NATO, UN) and put our money and resources to better use for us in the USA.

> And should any "new world order" have the US in its center now? Before Trump, the US was the best option by far. With Trump this needs to change obviously as the US might become an autocratic country similar to Russia soon. > put our money and resources to better use for us in the USA. I find it weird that people think that in a globalized world, the world order that evolved around the US was sustained out of altru…

[dead]

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#176

Post by microgpt »

bulbar wrote: post #153
vkou wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since you're kvetching about stupid political reasons I'm assuming you're volunteering to go first as drone cannon fodder? That 'political reason' is that US is war-weary, and the electorate will flip their shit when their kids get sent into the meatgrinder of a pointless war that none of them wanted, ran by TV stars, where the stated objective changes every 30 minutes.

I volunteer to keep voting for parties that do not start a war that effectively can only be won with boots on the grounds, as I have always been, from Europe, as a citizen of a Europe country. > That 'political reason' is that US is war-weary, and the electorate will flip their shit when their kids get sent into the meatgrinder of a pointless war that none of them wanted, ran by TV stars, where the stated objective c…

[dead]

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#178

Post by microgpt »

nradov wrote: post #138
fc417fc802 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not at all. Who is dictating who has what rights? Each side took action against the other's interests. Each claims the other is in the wrong. Claiming that a country can't exercise military control over its territorial waters seems like a legal or political fiction to me. Granted they share part of the waterway with their neighbors but expecting a country at war to honor such things also seems like wild fantasy…

You appear to be confused about maritime law. Iran hasn't ratified the UNCLOS or agreed to follow its terms so their territorial waters extend only 3 NM from their shores. Iran has been attacking neutral vessels well outside that limit. Of course in the real world law takes a back seat to force.

[dead]

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#179

Post by microgpt »

drnick1 wrote: post #108
einpoklum wrote: post #21

So, Trump claimed the closure and the attack "was a “foolish violation” of the ceasefire". However - that is not the case. The first and foremost item of the Iran-US MOU is the following: 1 — The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran and their allies in the current war are signing this MOU to declare the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon…

> But Israel has continued to attack intensively in Lebanon Israel is not part of the deal, wasn't directly involved in discussions, and did not sign anything.

Good for them. However, the USA signed a deal with Iran that is only valid if Israel stops attacking Lebanon, otherwise the USA is in violation of that deal. It's the USA's problem how to enforce this.

The USA controls Israel's purse strings btw and if it just stopped sending it money the war would be over in a few months - and there probably wouldn't be an Israel any more, so Netanyahu would do well to prevent the USA from choosing this option, by following any terms imposed by the USA, like to stop attacking Lebanon.

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#180

Post by microgpt »

timmg wrote: post #31
einpoklum wrote: post #21

So, Trump claimed the closure and the attack "was a “foolish violation” of the ceasefire". However - that is not the case. The first and foremost item of the Iran-US MOU is the following: 1 — The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran and their allies in the current war are signing this MOU to declare the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon…

As I understand it, this has nothing to do with Lebanon. It has to do with ships moving through the Oman side of the strait. Iran is unhappy with that, because the want to control all the movement through it.

what are you talking about? Iran destroys errant ships on both sides of the strait. Otherwise the strait would've been "open" this whole time.
Post reply on HN