Why the US Navy has not opened the Strait of Hormuz yet

[Care4all]

They weren’t at the verge of launching a nuclear attack.

You think the Islamic Terrorist Regime of Iran should be allowed to have nukes?!

I don't think anyone should have them, Lisa!!! I've always been against any country having them.....it's just a countdown for the destruction of the world as we know it...guaranteed!!!

 

[Dragonlady]

According to this video we are close to being able to reopen the Strait

But the decision depends on factors that are political and strategic not military

I think as I have said for weeks that we must seize Kharg Island first

That ensures that no one can buy Iranian oil unless the US sells it to them

And unless the money is held in escrow for a new Iranian government that the US approves of

The US Navy has publically stated that it will not attempt to open the Strait, and to send US Naval vessels into the Strait would be sending them into a "killbox".

The Strait of Hormuz is an Iranian 'kill box,' preventing the U.S. Navy from securing it right now and letting tankers pass through freely | Fortune

"Iran has extensive tunnel networks to protect and launch such vessels surreptitiously, including midget submarines and other submersibles useful for mine laying."

fortune.com

Iran has crafted a perfect kill box for US Navy, and it's waiting

Iran's strategy in the Strait of Hormuz presents a challenge for the US Navy. The narrow waterway is seen as a potential kill box. Iran uses asymmetric tactics like drones and missiles. The US seeks a coalition to secure the strait. Unilateral action risks falling into Iran's trap. Global...

m.economictimes.com

The US needs to pack up and go HOME.

 

[JoeB131]

Ugh. Another America-hating foreigner weighs in.

1) First, the US has murdered NO Iranians.

Sure we have. We've denied them food, medicine, and repair parts to keep their infrastructure going. This results in deaths.

2) Iranian TERRORISTS have murdered 50,000 of their own people in recent months. Why doesn’t that trouble you?

Internal matter to Iran, none of our business.

If anything, we are culpable, as years of sanctions on Iran have contributed to the economic misery these people were protesting.

 

[SeaMajor7]

50 already? Seems like yesterday there were only 13. Out of your ass as usual or Trump told you so?

ONE is too many. What the hell is wrong with you?

 

[Lisa558]

I don't think anyone should have them, Lisa!!! I've always been against any country having them.....it's just a countdown for the destruction of the world as we know it...guaranteed!!!

But some countries exercise self-restraint, and others have declared their intent to murder millions of people as soon as they get nukes.

Not all countries are equal, just like all people are not equal.

 

[Zavulon]

But some countries exercise self-restraint,

No one is actually self-restraint. There is always deterrence by the outer force. If no one deter you - you are going loose cannon.

and others have declared their intent to murder millions of people as soon as they get nukes.

Yep. How it was in the popular Persian song "When they drop the Atomic bomb"?



Oh, wait... It's American song.

Not all countries are equal, just like all people are not equal.

Basically all humans are more or less equal. For most of us self-preservation is one of the most important motivations.

 

[kevinthrowe]

I didn't say it was a good idea for us to attack them, I simply wanted to point out that the current regime is a murderous Islamic regime, and it's human-rights record is no better than what was experienced prior to their revolution. But you can't bring yourself to denounce it, can you?

As I denounced Myanmar, Israel , Sudan , Yemen and every killing field in my daily emails to Ohio representatives. Someone being the bad government is not legal grounds for attack.

 

[Mac-7]

Actually, no, it really isn't that divided.

Most of the major unrest in Iran was over prices and lack of government services, NOT that anyone wants the Shah back.

It's like you people learned NOTHING from Iraq. Or Vietnam, for that matter.

Many Irans under 30 do not want to starve or die for a false god known as allah

 

[kevinthrowe]

Many Irans under 30 do not want to starve or die for a false god known as allah

Recall the protests were about the economy
The drought from climate change is a big issue

 

[Mac-7]

Recall the protests were about the economy
The drought from climate change is a big issue

Do you believe that the public is happy except for the drought?

 

[BackAgain]

Have you read “ Collapse, why societies choose to fail “?

Irrelevant.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Did Sadam have WMD?
Same here Bibi needed cover

That was not the exclusive reason for removing him. You’re parroting democrat propaganda.
Apples and oranges.

 

[Dragonlady]

Many Irans under 30 do not want to starve or die for a false god known as allah

Many more Iranians fear the chaos and destruction of a civil war in the wake of the US attack. They don't want to live in uncertainty and starvation in a civil war either, and they fear that MORE than the US attack.

See Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, and Viet Nam. Libya is still experiencing death and chaos that started when Khadaffi was taken out. Syria recovered its population but things are still not good there. The new government doesn't seem much better than Assad, but it's still early for them.

 

[BackAgain]

I don't think anyone should have them, Lisa!!! I've always been against any country having them.....it's just a countdown for the destruction of the world as we know it...guaranteed!!!

Wow. You tend to frequently say silly childish shit. But that one is a classic.

I am gonna guess that you are blissfully ignorant of the absurdity of hoping you can get the toothpaste back into the tube.

Given that several nations already have nuclear weapons, and they aren’t likely to be scuttled, the question is the one you just ducked. Should anyone accept allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons?