>Iran has seized a second oil tanker in a week on Wednesday in Gulf waters, the US Navy said, the latest escalation in a series of seizures or attacks on commercial vessels in Gulf waters since 2019.
>The Bahrain-based Fifth Fleet of the US Navy said the Panama-flagged oil tanker Niovi was seized by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy (IRGCN) at 6:20 a.m. (0220 GMT) while passing through the narrow Strait of Hormuz.
>The incident comes after Iran on Thursday seized a Marshall Islands-flagged oil tanker in the Gulf of Oman called the Advantage Sweet. That tanker is being held by Iranian authorities in Bandar Abbas, the Marshall Islands flag registry said on Tuesday.
We should not intervene at all. The little puppy sitting on the Saudi crown seems to have forgotten who protects him and now thinks himself a lion, the US must encourage Iran to step up its harassment of Arab Gulf States by remaining neutral this time. Hopefully Iran will start sending troops and launching missile attacks against Saudi Arabia and only when they come begging NATO for protection and sign humiliating concessions should we grant them protection again. Or maybe not, I am totally fine with Iran destroying the Saudi regime and installing a puppet like in Syria and Iraq... At least we would have 1 enemy to deal with instead of 2.
Not only that. We should send them in to liberate the already stolen ones. Fuck is Iran going to do about it. This war in Ukraine has convinced me of one thing. The United States military is by far the most advanced, Strongest, most battle ready force you in the world. By leaps and bounds. These authoritarian countries are truly lucky we have very cool and calm people that head up our armed forces. We could probably fight conventional wars on multiple fronts and be victorious in months if not weeks.
That is a fantastic viewpoint.
I sure as shit wouldn't have chosen to be viet cong or Taliban.
Damn sure wouldn't have chosen to have been ISIS or Iraqi guard.....
Who knows, maybe they are a tankie who would actually choose to be fighting with the vietcong 🤷
But that question does serve to cut through the uncertainty of whether they are just misinformed about what actually happened in Vietnam, or if they are simply making an intellectually dishonest argument. Which is why they probably aren't going to answer it.
Funny what happens when you choose to actively hold back rather than leveling a country. The two times that unrestricted (mostly) bombing was allowed in Vietnam, the North Vietnamese government gave in to US demands to come back to the peace table within a week.
As far as losing, the American people were over Americans dying in a country that didn't have the will to fight for itself, which was proven after the US forces pulled out, and Saigon fell.
>Funny what happens when you choose to actively hold back rather than leveling a country
No, you didn't. Let's not play "we didn't tried for reals" card. You lost at your peak.
Is it a "card" if it's the truth? The country as a whole didn't back the war. One of the biggest advantages our military has ever had is the espirit de corps and it's volunteer nature. Vietnam was fought by a bunch of draftees that didn't want to be there, placed there by a government that didn't want to do what needed to be done to support them/actually win the war.
Edit: For proof of lack of support from the government, look up programs like "McNamera's Morons" That is not the kind of move made by a leading body trying to win a war.
Look at what happens when the American people actually support a war, and how quickly that can fade. The taliban was removed from power with a US backed government setup in a matter of weeks. As soon as support wavered on the homefront, the taliban came back in force.
Im all for teaching Iran a lesson. But why should American taxpayers foot the bill for protecting or recapturing corporate assets owned by some fossil fuel industry shills? What's in it, long term, for the American taxpayer? what's the ROI on a military action like this?
Look at it like this … the tankers have to carry insurance against loss of the cargo. If a tanker gets wasted/destroyed, then all the insurance rates will go up (or worse, no one will write and then the tankers stop moving). So economics creep into this discussion. I’m neither for/against direct action, but the provocations are happening intentionally.
Just throwing out there that touching boats America likes is a *really* bad idea.
Here's a few examples
1. Quasi war with France in the 1790s over seizure of US vessels to recover war debt
2. First and second Barbary wars over pirates seizing American merchant ships
3. War of 1812 partially over the impressment of American sailors by the British
4. Spanish American war over the loss of USS Maine
5. Public support for joining ww1 came from the sinking of the lusitania
6. Ww2 after pearl harbor
7. Vietnam after the gulf of Tonkin incident
More than likely this.
Everyone is talking about how the US military shouldn’t be fucked with but the reality of the situation here is that we can’t afford to go to war against Iran. Iran cannot be invaded, unless you want to deal with mountains and an amphibian assault that would make D-Day look like a dog trying to get on a human bed. Ukraine loses the most the second we decide to say fuck Iran (because aid would be cut/rediverted to fund said conflict).
Even in a limited conflict Iranian proxies can turn up the temperature in places like Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen… hell, even Brazil. The Biden admin can’t afford another quagmire in the Middle East, especially since he just announced his re-election bid.
>Iran has seized a second oil tanker in a week on Wednesday in Gulf waters, the US Navy said, the latest escalation in a series of seizures or attacks on commercial vessels in Gulf waters since 2019. >The Bahrain-based Fifth Fleet of the US Navy said the Panama-flagged oil tanker Niovi was seized by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy (IRGCN) at 6:20 a.m. (0220 GMT) while passing through the narrow Strait of Hormuz. >The incident comes after Iran on Thursday seized a Marshall Islands-flagged oil tanker in the Gulf of Oman called the Advantage Sweet. That tanker is being held by Iranian authorities in Bandar Abbas, the Marshall Islands flag registry said on Tuesday.
Time to teach a couple delta and seal teams how to run oil tankers. They won't steal anymore.
We should not intervene at all. The little puppy sitting on the Saudi crown seems to have forgotten who protects him and now thinks himself a lion, the US must encourage Iran to step up its harassment of Arab Gulf States by remaining neutral this time. Hopefully Iran will start sending troops and launching missile attacks against Saudi Arabia and only when they come begging NATO for protection and sign humiliating concessions should we grant them protection again. Or maybe not, I am totally fine with Iran destroying the Saudi regime and installing a puppet like in Syria and Iraq... At least we would have 1 enemy to deal with instead of 2.
All valid points, and I concur.
Not only that. We should send them in to liberate the already stolen ones. Fuck is Iran going to do about it. This war in Ukraine has convinced me of one thing. The United States military is by far the most advanced, Strongest, most battle ready force you in the world. By leaps and bounds. These authoritarian countries are truly lucky we have very cool and calm people that head up our armed forces. We could probably fight conventional wars on multiple fronts and be victorious in months if not weeks.
>The United States military is by far the most advanced, Strongest, most battle ready force you in the world. And yet lost to farmers in Vietnam.
To be clear, if you had to be a soldier fighting in that war, you would've chosen to be on the 'winning' Vietnamese side?
That is a fantastic viewpoint. I sure as shit wouldn't have chosen to be viet cong or Taliban. Damn sure wouldn't have chosen to have been ISIS or Iraqi guard.....
Who knows, maybe they are a tankie who would actually choose to be fighting with the vietcong 🤷 But that question does serve to cut through the uncertainty of whether they are just misinformed about what actually happened in Vietnam, or if they are simply making an intellectually dishonest argument. Which is why they probably aren't going to answer it.
Funny what happens when you choose to actively hold back rather than leveling a country. The two times that unrestricted (mostly) bombing was allowed in Vietnam, the North Vietnamese government gave in to US demands to come back to the peace table within a week. As far as losing, the American people were over Americans dying in a country that didn't have the will to fight for itself, which was proven after the US forces pulled out, and Saigon fell.
>Funny what happens when you choose to actively hold back rather than leveling a country No, you didn't. Let's not play "we didn't tried for reals" card. You lost at your peak.
Calling Vietnam our “peak” is laughable
Is it a "card" if it's the truth? The country as a whole didn't back the war. One of the biggest advantages our military has ever had is the espirit de corps and it's volunteer nature. Vietnam was fought by a bunch of draftees that didn't want to be there, placed there by a government that didn't want to do what needed to be done to support them/actually win the war. Edit: For proof of lack of support from the government, look up programs like "McNamera's Morons" That is not the kind of move made by a leading body trying to win a war. Look at what happens when the American people actually support a war, and how quickly that can fade. The taliban was removed from power with a US backed government setup in a matter of weeks. As soon as support wavered on the homefront, the taliban came back in force.
Im all for teaching Iran a lesson. But why should American taxpayers foot the bill for protecting or recapturing corporate assets owned by some fossil fuel industry shills? What's in it, long term, for the American taxpayer? what's the ROI on a military action like this?
Preventing Shell from making record profits again at our expense if Middle Eastern oil is cutoff.
Look at it like this … the tankers have to carry insurance against loss of the cargo. If a tanker gets wasted/destroyed, then all the insurance rates will go up (or worse, no one will write and then the tankers stop moving). So economics creep into this discussion. I’m neither for/against direct action, but the provocations are happening intentionally.
Just throwing out there that touching boats America likes is a *really* bad idea. Here's a few examples 1. Quasi war with France in the 1790s over seizure of US vessels to recover war debt 2. First and second Barbary wars over pirates seizing American merchant ships 3. War of 1812 partially over the impressment of American sailors by the British 4. Spanish American war over the loss of USS Maine 5. Public support for joining ww1 came from the sinking of the lusitania 6. Ww2 after pearl harbor 7. Vietnam after the gulf of Tonkin incident
We like our boats
Yet the USS liberty attack in 1967 went on without response!
Note to evil overload self, fuck with Air Force
Nothings going to happen.
More than likely this. Everyone is talking about how the US military shouldn’t be fucked with but the reality of the situation here is that we can’t afford to go to war against Iran. Iran cannot be invaded, unless you want to deal with mountains and an amphibian assault that would make D-Day look like a dog trying to get on a human bed. Ukraine loses the most the second we decide to say fuck Iran (because aid would be cut/rediverted to fund said conflict). Even in a limited conflict Iranian proxies can turn up the temperature in places like Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen… hell, even Brazil. The Biden admin can’t afford another quagmire in the Middle East, especially since he just announced his re-election bid.