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

191–198 of 198 posts

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#191

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

ngai_aku wrote: post #82
derwiki wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Memories are short. Neither Andrew Jackson nor Nixon improved the reputation of the US.

The same Nixon whom JD Vance praised yesterday and called a victim of a deep state witch hunt?

Mr Vance's thoughts are more about the current administration that he is a part of, than the Nixon administration. His desire is to not be held to the level of accountability that president Nixon was. Mr Vance's claim that they do Watergate level things twice daily (1) may be true, but it is IMHO not positive and should not be a boast. Accountability is good.

1) https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/vance-says-wa...

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#192

Post by thisislife2 »

microgpt wrote: post #180
timmg wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

@timming is right. This particular incident was triggered because Oman announced a parallel route in Strait, and some ships were lead to believe that you don't need to talk / coordinate with Iran to use this new route. See this thread for more details - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48692620

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#194

Post by dotancohen »

orwin wrote: post #164
dotancohen wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that Arab doctrine is to deliberately target civilians, whereas Western doctrine attack military targets but accept that there may be unintended civilian casualties along the way.

Schools, hospitals, desalination plants, museums and churches, those well know dual use infrastructure. So sad they were unlucky civilians there.

It is extremely sad that the Hamas, the Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for Palestine Liberation, the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, the Popular Resistance Committee, the Mujahideen Brigades, the Huthis, and Hezbollah see fit to use these structures to launch attacks against Israel. I highly suggest taking your complaints to them.

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#195

Post by dotancohen »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #70
dotancohen wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Because all the american assets in countries around iran will be "glassed" too, like american bases are already. And then special forces deep in US will start "glassing" US infrastructure, power, water, logistics, etc. (It's not terrorism if you're in war, it's just special units behind enemy lines). Looking at eg. texas, it doesn't take a lot to bring the whole power grid down, especially if properly planned. If you…

> Because all the american assets in countries around iran will be "glassed" too, like american bases are already. And then special forces deep in US will start "glassing" US infrastructure, power, water, logistics, etc.

I would like to hijack your comment to point out a small detail. I was attacked in other threads for asking why glassing Iran is not an option. Either this comment supports my assertion that the term glassing does not clearly refer to nuclear weapons, or this comment makes it clear that Iran is a nuclear threat to the United States. Either way, thank you.

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#196

Post by cmxch »

rayiner wrote: post #2

Nobody is talking about how big of a failure this has been on the part of the U.S. Navy. Controlling and securing shipping routes has been a fundamental function of a navy since Roman times. The U.S. Navy was unable to achieve that objective in this war. Ill-advised American wars often end up as losses because we fail to achieve our political objectives. But this may be one of the few times we have been unable to ach…

By whose measure and what priors do they hold of the US?

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#197

Post by dotancohen »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #169
dotancohen wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Or just bomb a random school in retaliation for the one you guys bombed in iran? Yes, Iran likely has assets in the US who would attack US civilian targets. There is a big difference between deliberately attacking civilians and accepting that some civilians may be unintentional casualties. > Flying half the planet away to attack someone who in no way endangers you is controversial... You could either argue that Ira…

Luxembourg has assets in US that could endanger the US, but Luxembourg as a country is not endangering US. But if US attacked Luxembourg, all those people seeing their family being killed by the US might behave differently. > I'll remind you that Iran's whole problem with Israel is due to Israel being allied with the US - not the other way around. They call you The Big Satan and chant for your death regularly, while…

  > Once the germans were pushed back to germany and taught a lesson, and when the bad guys in charge dealth with, we stopped.
Yes, that's the problem with Israel. While we are under attack, the world is silent. But as soon as we gain the upper hand in any conflict, the world bodies start pressure for a ceasefire. We are never allowed to "push back and teach a lesson" as you put it. The middle east conflict could have been over in the 1970s and the Palestinians could already have a state.

  > And yes, looking at all the attacks against Iran, of course they need a nuke, they wouldn't be attacked now if they had one, they'd be safe. Since they don't have one, they've been attacked one way or another for the last 70+ years. That's what US and israel are afraid of, they want to attack iran again and not get nuked.
Lots of countries are attacked, both those with nukes (Israel is heavily suspected of having nukes) and those without. The difference with Iran is that they regularly call for the destruction of several other peoples, and they also arm and fund regular terrorist attacks. I personally have lost friends and coworkers in Iranian-sponsored terrorism. And I personally have been injured in an Iranian missile attack. This is not some theory and news for us. For my family it is reality.

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#198

Post by giardini »

bulbar wrote: post #155
giardini wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The USA has never been an empire. And there are no "upcoming super powers" that are remotely able to "fill the vacuum".

Power vacuums get filled, obviously. Why even maintain such a vast navy to consume money in international waters? Just protect your immediate coast line, why would you care what's going on in the Pacific or Atlantic Ocean or the Arctic, that's just costing money.

bulbar sez "Why even maintain such a vast navy to consume money in international waters?"

Perhaps your citizenry want to buy or sell something from overseas?

Post reply on HN