Posted on 01/06/2024 6:54:12 AM PST by logi_cal869
What you said !
Houthis are engaged in reckless f—— ing. Around and need to exponentially find out
“...especially considering the USN failure to adopt any effective weaponry/tactics to defeat Iranian manned fast attack craft, let alone the LO USV threat.”
You should contact NAVCENT, Bahrain immediately to request adding “logi_cal869” to their TS Security Distribution email lists. Can’t have you out of the loop on threat deterrence operations.
I don’t suppose anyone would consider using the Suez Canal?
Along with Bidenomics, we have the most inept and weak foreign policy since Jimmy Carter... and the world knows it.
China is making threats
North Korea is back to all their practice shots and nuke games
Putin emboldened
Hamas/Islamic Jihad/Hezbollah all back in full intifada mode
And so much more - all as a gift of Quid Pro Joe and his band of thieves.
Thats the deal - Biden and his puppetmasters are trying to intentionally create a war that would, as is historically pretty effective - at keeping the incumbent President in office.
My thought: if they are willing to forsake the nation they otherwise would cry to if threatened - then they can pick up the phone and call Liberia or Panama and ask THEM to protect them...
Brandon is busy filling his own diaper...
As if inflation hasn’t already been artificially driven skyward...
So yes America must make all it goods - is your thesis?
That wasn’t even true in the 1940s.
“It’s not the job of the U.S. government to punish the bad behavior of Houthi rebels that act against the commercial interests of other countries.”
Denying nations and commercial crew members the right of self-defense in international waters?
In your eyes it’s obviously “the job” of Houthi rebels to attack commercial shipping in international waters.
Do you just cede that right to them out of animosity to Westerners?
Guess, what? The right of collective self defense against terrorist attacks in the Red Sea is already declared. That ship has sailed. We all missed your application of UN petition in support of the Rebels.
https://insidedefense.com/insider/new-operation-named-protect-freedom-navigation-red-sea
Maybe you now file a petition in the World Court or a GD UN Binding Resolution in support of Houthi terror attacks?
To the extent possible -- YES.
And in any case, the U.S. military has no business protecting commercial vessels in international waters that don't fly U.S. flags ... especially in this day and age when the international maritime shipping industry has gone out of its way to remove itself from U.S. jurisdiction when it comes to legal oversight and taxation.
I have never said such a thing -- or even suggested it. Stop lying about what I've posted here on this website.
See Post #55. If we use the example I've presented there -- which was based on the actual facts involving the Maersk ship that was attacked in the Red Sea within the last week or so ...
Any of these nations may have a legitimate interest in defending the ship in question:
1. Denmark
2. Singapore
3. The Philippines
One nation I know for certain has absolutely no "self-defense" interest in that case is the United States of America.
They are. The ships that are being attacked are passing through the Red Sea before or after they transit through the Suez Canal.
The biggest loser in this whole fiasco is Egypt -- because the country generates a huge portion of its revenues from collecting transit fees at the Suez Canal.
Why don't you tell us how strongly John McCain and Lindsey Graham would support a military campaign to protect foreign interests at the expense of American taxpayers, while you're at it?
And maybe you can use Brandon administration actions to support a policy of open borders and a flood of Third World peasants into the U.S., too. LOL.
If they round the Cape, they’ll still have to go through the Red Sea to get anywhere near Eilat, KSA or Aqaba. But the rest of Asia will be sufficiently distant. Time to arm ships’ crews and drill them. We’re back in the 17th Century, but with bigger and better guns.
I don’t recall US signing Law of the Sea treaty. I do know our Constitution gave Congress authority to act against piracy. Which, from the same kind of bad guys, was a big deal, as in largest Fed budget item, at ratification.
However, there was more latitude than you suggest, and not limited to only US Flagged vessels.
When the US was founded, Piracy was a big deal, and Jefferson acted properly, without the benefit of American law, and with the benefit of the law of the sea when he tasked the US Navy and Marines with the subjugation of the Barbary Pirates as Pirates, including issuance of letters of marque and reprisal, to protect Irishmen, Britons, Frenchmen, and eventually Italians and their shipping.
This established US Naval Precedent for dealing with Pirates.
...for pirates attacking United States ships. Don't forget that point.
Thomas Jefferson did NOT send U.S. Navy ships to protect vessels from Denmark shipping to England.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.