41–50 of 57 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hezbollah is the consequence of Israel Invading Lebannon.
Sure, but Lebanon attacked Israel first (in 1948). Lebanon was the aggressor. Assigning blame to only one side is meaningless when both sides go tit-for-tat for decades. Both Israel and Lebanon are complicit in this mess.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
... and do you think that's a reasonable position to take? If these treaties are not in force, a lot of countries cannot trade freely internationally. These days all countries are dependent on free international trade, but for obvious reasons it goes double for desert countries like the ones behind the strait of Hormuz, even without considering oil. Geography allows a number of countries like Iran, but also Spain, In…
> Second, the "Pax Americana" is over, the post-WW2 security architecture is over I’m sorry but it ended when the US started to threaten Denmark with invasion. That genie isn’t going back into the bottle.
So no, quite the opposite. Thankfully.
I have worked for the EU, and the EU has wanted an EU military since before I was born. Hell, my father was in diapers the first time it was called for (Charles De Gaulle demanded it before he returned to France from Berlin. And I assure you, at the time Charles De Gaulle's voice was louder than if God himself would have come down to earth, shouting. He couldn't make it happen). Europe is not suddenly waking up to reality.
You know how much the US pays for it's military? About the same as EU states pay for unemployment in bad years (as in 30% more than the average now). What I mean is the question is not "Does the EU want a military?". That's obvious.
The question is the price, and not really in money, but in the economic effort required to do it (in other words, most of the abstraction that is money won't apply. You cannot borrow an army, for example. Whatever you spend on an army you will be increasing the budget with at least inflation every year, and so on). And even then, keep in mind the US does not really pay for soldiers. In the US it's effectively the case that some social benefits, mostly free in Europe, are only available in the US if you join the army first. This is why every country tries to get foreign nations to pay for their military, like the UK did before and Iran is trying to do now.
And there are only a few big expenses in EU government budgets. So ...
The question becomes "There's 3 components to social security in European countries. Medical insurance, unemployment and pensions. The only way to get an army is to trade in one of the 3. So which one do we trade in for an army?"
But yeah, the EU countries could cancel unemployment and instead do something like "if you lose your job, serve 5 years in the military for almost no pay, THEN you can get unemployment". That is the level of effort required.
I don't think we have to go through the effort of scheduling a vote, do we?
By "control" Iran doesn't mean they will operate or maintain these cables. They mean "pay up, or we'll destroy these cables when we feel like it". Modern day piracy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
nit: The strait of Hormuz is not considered international waters. It's split between Iranian and Omani territorial waters. The strait itself is classified as a "transit passage" under Articles 37–44 of UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which guarantees ships the right of continuous and expeditious transit.
Iran has not ratified UNCLOS, and Oman has ratified it but then negated the implied right of transit passage in domestic law - they only recognise innocent passage. So the Strait has no clear legal status. In theory since Iran didn't ratify UNCLOS they can only claim 3nm of territorial water, but they claim 12nm anyhow. The USA insists on the right of transit passage, but itself isn't even a signatory to UNCLOS so th…
The USA and Israel clearly don't care or abide by international law anyway. US is already pirating unarmed ships on international waters, blowing up schools and hospitals as it pleases.
None of the western countries held them accountable until IRAN started putting pressure on them via the strait.
Now suddenly everyone is up in arms about the intricate details of "UNCLOS", while a second genocide is about to happen via Israel in Lebanon.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the UN security council, which is both the judge, the appelate court, the supreme court and the enforcement mechanism of maritime law, has publicly declared they won't do anything about it. In any other legal situation, if the supreme court says it's OK, there's nothing to be done. There's a word for that: legal. As in whatever happens is legal, even if everyone kills each other. You are rhetorically clever but ana…
Can I just point you to the first line of Wikipedia's definition of law? Law is what's enforced, not the rules by themselves. Oh and it's pretty revealing which situations you think are worthy of law violation and which ones aren't (e.g. as per usual Boucha and anything relating to Russia's, or Iran, or offensive Palestinian actions aren't mentioned. It "almost seems" the argument you're making is that law only serve…
Sure, and this is the first line of Wikipedia's definition of law [0].
Law is a set of rules that are created and enforced by governmental or societal institutions to regulate behavior, with its precise definition a matter of longstanding debate.
Ouch, that obviously doesn't agree with your definition. What a flagrant error. Did you even look at the Wikipedia article before writing your comment?
By "control" Iran doesn't mean they will operate or maintain these cables. They mean "pay up, or we'll destroy these cables when we feel like it". Modern day piracy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
You've invented an argument I didn't make and then attacked it. That's a classic strawman. I never mentioned a Western-backed dictatorship, the Shah, or any conditions about Israel recognition. You invented that. My argument is simple: 60%+ of Iranians want regime change. 69% want the government to stop funding foreign proxy wars. The regime has a 12% approval rating. Iranians want something else. I cited polling dat…
I think that your post could certainly have been read that way. Like, the regime of the Shah was also hated by lots of Iranians (hence the revolution). Leaving out that context is somewhat misleading.
I agree with you that lots of Iranians want change (and I'd love to see it for them), but bombing people is rarely an effective strategy for removing regimes you don't like (has it ever worked? Maybe Serbia I suppose).
It would be great if Israel/US/Iran all had friendly relations, but the most recent war is likely to make that much less likely, unfortunately.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Second, the "Pax Americana" is over, the post-WW2 security architecture is over I’m sorry but it ended when the US started to threaten Denmark with invasion. That genie isn’t going back into the bottle.
The main component of it is the US enforcing the law of the seas (as in actually enforcing it, not the way the UK serviced itself before WW2). So no, quite the opposite. Thankfully. I have worked for the EU, and the EU has wanted an EU military since before I was born. Hell, my father was in diapers the first time it was called for (Charles De Gaulle demanded it before he returned to France from Berlin. And I assure…
By "control" Iran doesn't mean they will operate or maintain these cables. They mean "pay up, or we'll destroy these cables when we feel like it". Modern day piracy.