Got Bike?

[joey9139122]

Asking what would happen if the Persians shut down the Straits of Hormuz is like asking what would happen if Santa Clause and Jesus got in a fight over Christmas.

They tried it once before, and it didn't work out for them. Our technology and determination are a lot better now, and earlier Republican administrations have already set the precedent for invading sovereign nations without legal justification, so it's likely the US would just carve out the Iranian coast and set the locals free of the mullahs. This isn't the Iran of the 80s. Most of the Persian people hate the mullahs now, and would gladly accept freedom - specially given the example of us voluntarily exiting Iraq after everything calmed down.

Also the coalition arrayed against them would be huge - and Iraqi oil can go north through Azerbaijan, while Arab peninsular oil can go west and north. No big deal.

This is what happens when you threaten sanctions. The one being threatened then counter threats.

 

[Leonidas]

I suppose you suggest moving it by pipeline. Do you have any info about the capacity of those lines to absorb that massive volume. I am dubious. Then there's the problem of transfer and loading facilities elsewhere. I suspect that it actually is a big deal.

 

[Leonidas]

joey, you seem to be up to speed on Paul's foreign policy. The standing question is "What would he do?" Here's an opportunity to persuade.

 

[joey9139122]

joey, you seem to be up to speed on Paul's foreign policy. The standing question is "What would he do?" Here's an opportunity to persuade.

He wouldn't threaten sanctions, doesn't believe in them.

He also would open up more access to drilling and production which wouldn't make our dependence on foriegn oil so great. I know Irans oil doesn't make it to the US, but if Europe needs oil then they will start tapping into the foriegn oil reserves that we need access too and make the prices skyrocket.

He would open up talks and trade with them. Fair trade with countries greatly reduces the possibility of heightened tensions.

He nor I sees Irans desire for a nuclear weapon as a direct threat to the US. They would not have the missles capable of delivering them to US soil. We have sworn Iran as our enemy, have them surrounded and are backing them into a corner. You know what happens when someone is backed into a corner... They defend themselves.

Instead of trying to take their resources by force and installing a central bank in Iran by force we could simply trade with them.

I know this will be hard for you too accept, but it is simple logic. Put yourself in thier position just for a few minutes and see if you would react anyother way.

As John Galt's disciple, you should be able to see that free trade and not trade by force is the only way to avoid conflict.

 

[Leonidas]

All well and good. But it does not address the question. What would he do now, today if they shut it down. Keeping in mind that we are not chartered as world police. It's looking as if you are attempting to avoid a question, the answer to which may rattle the foundation of your faith.

 

[joey9139122]

All well and good. But it does not address the question. What would he do now, today if they shut it down. Keeping in mind that we are chartered as world police. It's looking as if you are attempting to avoid a question, the answer to which may rattle the foundation of your faith.

If he were elected right now and inherited this exact situation...

I believe he would get on the phone, let them know that the threat of sanctions is gone but the US Navy will remain unless the threat of closing the strait was lifted. That way our Navy would be able to pull back only once the Iranian Navy did so first.

He would then send a diplomatic team overthere to relive tensions and open up communications and install trade opportunities. He would also start to move out of the UN and let them figure out how to fight their own wars and protect their own asses instead of making us stick our neck out all of the time.

 

[Leonidas]

But why would the navy remain?

 

[Leonidas]

You have also already defeated your own argument about UN sanctions (important to note they are not our unilateral sanctions). Read about the proposed action here http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/04/world/04sanctions.html

All they amount to is a boycott. It is no more than a matter of us and other nations exercising our free trade rights by refusing to do business. You did, after all, challenge my status as a Galt disciple. He and his predecessor Howard Roark also recognize the right to not trade.

It amounts to no more than a boycott. They are the ones attempting to impose forced trade.

It would be similar to people here announcing a boycott of K&B drugs for some reason and K&B sending thugs out to block access to Walgreens, Eckerd's and every other pharmacy.

 

[joey9139122]

But why would the navy remain?

Don't want to look weak and like we just cut and run. We are still a superpower. Like when Kennedy made the deal for Russia to leave Cuba and then we waited to pull missles out of Turkey. We have to show they they pulled back first, and they will.

 

[Leonidas]

You may want to reevaluate that argument, in that the Cuban blockade was an act of war. You just argued to make us world police.

 

[joey9139122]

It was an act of war. We were directly threatened... How did I argue to make us world police? The only reason I suggest to move our Navy only after they do is because we would go to the table first and promise to remove the treat of sanctions if they remove their threat. Our Navy would stay just to ensure they make their promised move and to not make us look as if we were backing from Iran.

How would that make an argument for us being world police?

I was using the how we got out of the CMC as an example of how to get what you want with out looking like you gave in.

 

[Leonidas]

How were we threatened? Certainly the Cubans have as much right to nuclear weapons as Iran.

As to the navy remaining, that would just be an act of world policing. The Strait of Hormuz isn't ours.

 

[joey9139122]

How were we threatened? Certainly the Cubans have as much right to nuclear weapons as Iran.

As to the navy remaining, that would just be an act of world policing. The Strait of Hormuz isn't ours.

They weren't cuba's missles, they were given to them by our enemy and they were pointed directly at us. Direct threat.

I know the strait isn't ours, but you asked about the current situation we are in. I don't think Ron Paul would be sworn in and the next day turn the Navy around and come home.

I think the situation I suggested is a logical one and would be similar the the one Dr. Paul would take.

 

[Leonidas]

Doesn't matter whose they were. They were allies/clients of the owners. They still had every right to maintain them on their sovereign territory.

I saw Paul state on TV today that he would not "water down his beliefs" if elected. And his stated policy is non-intervention unless attacked. To remain would betray his "beliefs."

SOS, different President. Except he would be far superior in his choice of when to meddle. B*****t.

 

[joey9139122]

Just giving my thought on how he would handle the current situation.

I do not believe for one minute that he would get us into a similar situation, just my thoughts on how he would get us out of this one.

Not SOS and wouldn't meddle.

 

[Leonidas]

Exactly SOS. Our navy has no business over there meddling in regional affairs.

And you have not addressed Iran's attempt to force us and others to trade with them. Have we no right to NOT trade with them? Further the sanctions are a UN action. You propose that President Paul dictate to scores of other nations that they must trade with Iran.

Do you not see how completely ridiculous and inconsistent these policies are? It is pure fantasy. And fantasy is the realm of neurotics/psychotics.

 

[joey9139122]

Exactly SOS. Our navy has no business over there meddling in regional affairs.

And you have not addressed Iran's attempt to force us and others to trade with them. Have we no right to NOT trade with them? Further the sanctions are a UN action. You propose that President Paul dictate to scores of other nations that they must trade with Iran.

Do you not see how completely ridiculous and inconsistent these policies are? It is pure fantasy. And fantasy is the realm of neurotics/psychotics.

Who funds your beloved UN?

No, I say that the US will trade with Iran if we want too and the UN will not tell us who we won't trade with.

Where do you get that Dr. Paul would "tell other nations that we they must trade with Iran"? Are you that backwards? Is that what you really get out of this conversation? That we would tell other nations that they have to trade with Iran? That is some dumb **** and you really need to pay attention to what you are reading and writing. Instead of that flipped statement you made why aren't you asking why we would have to follow the sanctions imposed by the UN? Unbelievable.

We would get out of the UN and not be dictated by them. If other countries want to stay in the UN, then so be it. I could give two shits.

As far as the Navy being there... I explained in previous posts how Ron Paul would never have us in this situation. You begged for an answer on this exact current situation. If you really think that Ron Paul would be doing the SOS as far as foriegn policy then you would be voting for him. You love the Neoconnery. You know it would not be the SOS and are starting to sound silly.

 

[Leonidas]

Reread your posts. You said that he would call 'em up and tell them there would be no sanctions. If they are UN sanctions, the only way he can give the Iranians that assurance is by presuming to speak for the UN.

I believe he would get on the phone, let them know that the threat of sanctions is gone

That amounts to de facto dictating to other sovereign nations that they cannot exercise their freedom of trade. This is not that difficult, unless one sees no logical way of defending their statements.

It's post number 31, btw.

The only thing I have gotten from this conversation is contradictory, incoherent gibberish. Backed into a corner and unable to coalesce random dreams into a unified, consistent philosophy, your only retreat is to pull the stupid card. Many of us measure the good doctor by the calibre of his minions. And that is why he hasn't a prayer of victory.

 

[my-rifle]

I suppose you suggest moving it by pipeline. Do you have any info about the capacity of those lines to absorb that massive volume. I am dubious. Then there's the problem of transfer and loading facilities elsewhere. I suspect that it actually is a big deal.

That's the pipeline built by Russia back in the 80s and 90s but taken over by the Americans when they moved into Iraq as part of the "Take as much oil as you want as war reparations" - deal that the US used to get oil out of Iraq post-war. I don't know if you recall back in 2004 I think China tried to buy a California-based energy company, but the Commerce Dept. shut it down. I'm convinced the reason the deal fell through was the company owned a big stake in the pipeline being built to tap the Russian pipeline at Azerbaijan and run the oil through Georgia to the oil terminals being built on the Black Sea.

Sheds a new light on Russia's occupation of South Ossetia, doesn't it?

 

[my-rifle]

Who funds your beloved UN?

No, I say that the US will trade with Iran if we want too and the UN will not tell us who we won't trade with.

Where do you get that Dr. Paul would "tell other nations that we they must trade with Iran"? Are you that backwards? Is that what you really get out of this conversation? That we would tell other nations that they have to trade with Iran? That is some dumb **** and you really need to pay attention to what you are reading and writing. Instead of that flipped statement you made why aren't you asking why we would have to follow the sanctions imposed by the UN? Unbelievable.

We would get out of the UN and not be dictated by them. If other countries want to stay in the UN, then so be it. I could give two shits.

As far as the Navy being there... I explained in previous posts how Ron Paul would never have us in this situation. You begged for an answer on this exact current situation. If you really think that Ron Paul would be doing the SOS as far as foriegn policy then you would be voting for him. You love the Neoconnery. You know it would not be the SOS and are starting to sound silly.

The Iranian people want to trade with the US, but the mullahs hate us. The mullahs are a thin ruling class grafted onto the Persian society. The Persians hate them, but there's no way to shake them off to date.