Iran, the Red Sea, and the West (tm).

[r16]

also noted is the US declarations that their ships came under direct attack for the first time only yesterday or today or whatever . So , like people will be on their best attitude and post carefully on CFC . They are watchin' , you know .

 

[Birdjaguar]

Moderator Action: Israel related posts have been removed.

 

[NinjaCow64]

And so I ask the Question
Would the Houthis whos slogan is "Death to America"
Possibly attack America ?

What if they did? What if they didn't? What if the world was made of pudding?

 

[NinjaCow64]

However the "Death to America" slogan had been used by Iran long before that.

Because America had been interfering in Iranian affairs for that long. They overthrew the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran and enforced an absolute monarchy because the Prime Minister tried to nationalise oil rather than have it be owned by BHP.

 

[REDY]

You can blame history, but there are always at least two in relations. When is one declaring intention to kill it would be foolish for second to lower the weapon.
I have zero sympathy for houthis regime, in ideal world it would be destroyed by international coalition. As Iran, Russia or North Korea. But if it wants to play diplomacy games, it needs a better state motto.

 

[Lexicus]

You say this, but that definition does not seem to match how it is used today.

That is correct. The apparent similarity of US sanctions to blockade is because most globally-consequential businesses do some business with the US that is more essential than whatever business they do with entities sanctioned by the US. It's basically exploiting the US's role embedded in the international financial system to simulate a blockade.

 

[NinjaCow64]

You can blame history, but there are always at least two in relations. When is one declaring intention to kill it would be foolish for second to lower the weapon.
I have zero sympathy for houthis regime, in ideal world it would be destroyed by international coalition. As Iran, Russia or North Korea. But if it wants to play diplomacy games, it needs a better state motto.

Why? Because they're on team anti-America?

 

[Lexicus]

Naval blockades are generally considered an act of war.

Gaza couldn't really do anything about theirs though.

Blockade of the Gaza Strip - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The partial blockade of the Red Sea with drones and missiles?

It hurts global corporations and Egypt somewhat. (Suez $$)

I think of the partial blockade as a sort of trial run of what Iran could do on a much greater scale in the Persian Gulf if the US ever tried anything more dramatic than sanctions.

Correct, and what Iran might do is a yet smaller version of what China might do along its own littoral.

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

Because America had been interfering in Iranian affairs for that long. They overthrew the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran and enforced an absolute monarchy because the Prime Minister tried to nationalise oil rather than have it be owned by BHP.

I am, at least, aware of this perception; I'm not sure if any modern Iranians hold Mohammad Mosaddegh in particularly high regard for them to really care about who was replaced by the Shah. Just that it happened...
This among other things is just a convenient prop to expand terror, piracy, what have you, well beyond the mandate of defending one's own country with such phrases like "Death to America".

 

[REDY]

Why? Because they're on team anti-America?

Opposing hegemony is a worthy in itself, this is where liberals are right and conservatives are wrong.

These countries discredit it because being anti-America is a tool for isolating and repressing opposition, starting wars and terrorist attacks against neighbors, and indoctrinate own population with hate and nonsense.
The reasons behind it are different, but one thing is clear - people there would not live better if Americans disappeared, and a new foe would have to be crafted.

 

[Samson]

Opposing hegemony is a worthy in itself, this is where liberals are right and conservatives are wrong.

These countries discredit it because being anti-America is a tool for isolating and repressing opposition, starting wars and terrorist attacks against neighbors, and indoctrinate own population with hate and nonsense.
The reasons behind it are different, but one thing is clear - people there would not live better if Americans disappeared, and a new foe would have to be crafted.

It is always difficult to tell the future, but it is fairly clear that Yemen would be better off without the western influence it has had in the past. That makes their argument easier.

 

[Moriarte]

but one thing is clear - people there would not live better if Americans disappeared

How clear? You seem to feel better after Russians disappeared from your back yard.

There's no people on Earth who wouldn't prefer their own bad government to the good government of a foreign power. (c)

 

[NinjaCow64]

Opposing hegemony is a worthy in itself, this is where liberals are right and conservatives are wrong.

Neither liberals or conservatives usually oppose hegemony, but I agree that opposing it is correct.

These countries discredit it because being anti-America is a tool for isolating and repressing opposition, starting wars and terrorist attacks against neighbors, and indoctrinate own population with hate and nonsense.

I think that is a vast oversimplification, because...

The reasons behind it are different, but one thing is clear - people there would not live better if Americans disappeared, and a new scapegoat would have to be crafted.

Yes they would. Like, objectively. I have major criticisms of all four governments that you mentioned (Russia, Iran, DPRK, the Houthis who are defacto the government of Yemen), however:

• All three nations are under crippling US sanctions. While those sanctions are at least on paper for morally righteous reasons (especially in the case of Russia), the morality of those actions are undercut by the US tolerating behaviour just as bad if not worse in her allies (e.g Israel, Saudi Arabia). These sanctions are imposed on these people because they oppose US Hegemony or they simply don't to give the US all their natural resources for free. If the US was no longer in a position to enforce these sanctions, the standard of living would increase immensely in these countries.
• US meddling has severely negatively impacted all countries in their past (the Korean War, the coup that made Iran an absolute monarchy and renationalised the oil and shock therapy are examples that immediately come to mind). If the US was not in the position to impose such things on those countries in the past then the citizens of those countries would have benefited immensely. Additionally, who is to say that the US won't arbitrarily punish civilians from enemy nations in the future?

I have zero sympathy for houthis regime, in ideal world it would be destroyed by international coalition.

Considering your other posts in the thread I am confident that you don't mean this, but you get how this post can very easily be read as "in [an] ideal world [the Houthis] would be destroyed by an international coalition led by the United States" right?

 

[Gorbles]

A lot of "the leopards are good because the faces they're eating deserve to be eaten, unlike mine" energy in the thread, eh?

 

[r16]

in an ideal world Russia would be destroyed by America and everything would be allright . ı remember a thread or two which implied Russian nuclear weapons would not work , at a "distant" past when the media said the land war was going blissfully good . Don't go too hard on the guy , he is speaking out of conviction .

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

I have zero sympathy for houthis regime, in ideal world it would be destroyed by international coalition.

In an ideal world, the Houthi would have no sympathy for blocking cargo to the bloc of countries responsible for aiding and abetting the genocide of the Palestinians

Because in an ideal world there would be no Israel or the US (not as we know them, at least)

 

[Lexicus]

Opposing hegemony is a worthy in itself,

So what mental gymnastics do you perform to avoid admitting that the US is the global hegemon?
Moderator Action: Warned for trolling. The_J

 

[Zelig]

the morality of those actions are undercut by the US tolerating behaviour just as bad if not worse in her allies

Certainly the perceived morality, but the hypocrisy doesn't change the actual nature of the actions; in the same way, an arsonist being vocally anti-arson doesn't weaken the case against lighting people's homes on fire.

 

[Kyriakos]

So what mental gymnastics do you perform to avoid admitting that the US is the global hegemon?

I'd say it is the very clear hegemon of the "west" (anglosphere+Eu+Japanokorea). The rest are set in other spheres or try to play both sides.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I'd say it is the very clear hegemon of the "west" (anglosphere+Eu+Japanokorea).

And what would Europe and the world look like today if there had not been a US led hegemon after WW 2? Once in place it has persisted for both good and ill but that is the nature of both regional and wider political power. Over time it changes and becomes something different. In our world the military hegemon of the late 1940s has become a slowly expanding economic one with some dance partners arriving late to the party and others leaving early. Those who cannot dance or who choose to sit along the wall are usually jealous of the party happening on the dance floor. They want power and prosperity created by such a sphere of influence and want to replace it with their own. Everywhere the individuals are often left behind.