Iran threatens to block straights of Hormuz - Again

Under chapter VII they are legally binding and 2231 specifically makes that clear for all member states.

 

No, you are threatening all other nations who trade with Iran as well and everyone knows that these were exactly the type of threats and sanctions that were imposed on Iraq that killed thousands of children and civilians before you actually invaded.

 

Clearly you don't understand international law.

 

Your "empathy and compassion for innocent civilians?"

That would be hilarious if the truth were not so tragic. Sanctions alone have killed millions many children.

And that is not including the millions who die in your wars of aggression

Why do you think other countries don't want to give up their nukes?

 

Regime change is the goal no mayter how many innocent civilians are slaughtered.

Oops, buggered that up didn't I?

 

Our compassion is what drives our R&D into weapons systems that reduce collateral damage. No one else but maybe England bothers with such things.

 

Have you read Article 41 of Chapter VII?

It says that the UN has the right to impose sanctions. It doesn't say that individual countries don't have that right. It certainly doesn't make all the resolution legally binding.

The resolution calls on United States to support implementation of the treaty, but neither the resolution nor the JCPOA say that the US is obligated to do so under international law. The JCPOA was never binding.

 

Well, then that explains EVERYTHING!!!!
But... wasn't Reagan talking about the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan?
Is "Wall Street" Republican? I mean, we know that the Indian killing
Dixicrats, Slavery, the KKK and Segregation were all 100% Democrat,
but I hadn't encountered any statistic on "Wall Street" (whatever that
means) political affiliation.
And yes, America has business interests all over the world. But that's
not the same as foreign policy.

 

We fought Soviet Union and Communist China in Korea and Vietnam.

 

Clearly foreigners like you do not ubderstand the US Constitution

 

How about everybody block Iran ships, boats and dingys from leaving any ports they have. See what they do about that.

 

I don't think they need to use "force" - I think the threat of force would do the trick. Also, it is not like they would have to blow up a tanker or anything. They could just send a ship in the path of a tanker and tell it to turn back.

How does the US respond while maintaining the principle of proportionality ? A major disruption could be caused with no use of force.

 

Most citizens - including yourself - do not understand the principles on which this nation was founded either.

Second - if you are going to claim some poster does not understand something - at minimum you should explain what that something is and why the understanding was in error.

 

Not sure what any of this has to do with the fact that our military capabilities have not been tested against a "real" enemy. Why you would even bring up small arms and killing with bare hands in a conversation relating to modern military power is perplexing ?

Then you use the analogy of gurilla warfare ? again this has nothing to do with what a conflict between two modern powers would look like.

 

No we didn't. How many Russian Soldiers were killed in Vietnam and Korean conflicts.

Regardless - had we been engaged in a conventional battle with Russia or China 5 decades ago - we would have crushed (it would have been more difficult but, we were way more advanced over these nations than we are today)

It is a simple fact that our modern military equipment has not been tested against a significant enemy with modern military equipment under real world conditions. Technology has completely changed and we simply do not have enough information/battle experience to go on.

This is on a conventional basis and on this basis most of our stuff is obsolete in the face of modern missile technology.

If we are talking outside conventional - the whole conversation becomes mute. There is no realistic way for a carrier group to defend against a tactical nuke/ nuclear cruise missile.

 

This is not realistic.

 

Only Trump is motivated to do that, as head of a major nation. The EU, Russia and China be laughing in your face.

And it sounds legit, that when the US is starting blockade in the straight of Hormuz against Iran, than the US turned it in a war zone, making it possible for Iran to block everything out of safety concerns.

 

Oh, it could be done with ease if certain Countries wanted it done. There wouldn't be anything the Iranians could do to prevent it.

 

Really, I haven't seen Trump say anything about preventing Iranian ships from leaving their ports. Link that up with Trump saying something about preventing the Iranians ships leaving their ports.

He doesn't need to do that. His sanctions are crippling Iran.

 

It's in the link of the OP

 

There would be nothing easy about getting all countries to go along with the scheme - especially Russia and China. Such a blockade would have to involved preventing Russian and Chinese ship from delivering and/or leaving port in Iran.

Things would get messy in a big hurry.

 

It is? Here is the OP's link.

https://www.rferl.org/a/iran-s-pres...ormuz-if-u-s-blocks-oil-exports/29636728.html

Just where is that in the link?

 

I didn't say anything about anyone delivering. Just Iran not being able to get their ships out of ports.

 

Obviously if a ship delivers it is going to try and leave port at some point. It would defeat the purpose of a blockade to only block Iranian ships.

 

True.....but I was specific about Iranian ships, boats, or dingy's not being able to leave.