Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a bit inaccurate to say Iran "opens" the strait of Hormuz. Would it not be more accurate to say Iran stops terrorizing free passage in the strait of Hormuz? You don't really close something you do not own. It's like saying a terrorist reopens a street just because they stopped shooting everyone who walks down it. We don't say "terrorist reopens street". We say "terrorist stops threatening the area."

It's a bit inaccurate to say that the US was engaged in war with Iran. Would it not be more accurate to say that they were engaged in a terrorist campaign against Iran?

No, it actually wouldn't. Attacking a belligerent, fanatical, tyrannical, murderous terrorist state in order to get it to stop being a terrorist state is hardly engaging in a terrorist campaign. But nice try.

Is it the job of the US to go around attacking all the "belligerent, fanatical, tyrannical, murderous terrorist state" around the world?

If they directly threaten the US and/or US interests, then in some cases yes, depending on the circumstances.

+1
The world would be better off without the mullahs of Iran sponsoring terrorism.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What the f? You start a war which every expert said would closes the strait. Now you think the real estate guy is successful because the strait is open for another week? This is the dumbest tweet every.

The Strait is at risk of closure...forever (or until the oil and gas run out). Iran has newly-realized power that they can exercise at will.

Sure, they could certainly try to keep the strait closed. They would be bombed into smithereens if they attempt it. And it looks like they understand that, which is why they've backed off.
DP

Yes just like before the ceasefire when Trump was begging the Iranians to agree to a ceasefire. Trump agreed to the Iranian surrender terms. You remember that? Remember how we ran out of bombs and interceptors? Bombing them again seems likely to work.

The Iranians have said the strait is not open as long as there is a blockade. Better start bombing again and hope they do not blowup 20% of world’s oil production for 5-7 years.

Why would the Iranians give up anything? Republicans and Israel took their best shot and it was not enough. Iranians control the strait, they can take out anything in the gulf and they have humiliated Trump and Israel.

The Iranians don't control anything. But I do like your persistence.

The Iranians control what you pay for gas, food, and electricity for the next five years. But I do like your persistence.

Nah. The U.S. has plenty of its own resources - we don't rely on Iran for any of those things the way some other countries do. If they do try and close the strait (again) the international community will have more to say about it. Iran is a pariah state, the world over.

Oil is priced globally in US dollars. It's called the petrodollar. If you'd like it to be priced in Chinese Yuan, you can kiss the American economy goodbye. But for now, the world pays the same price in US dollars for a barrel of crude. Which means the world needs US dollars to pay for their oil. It's the entire basis for American dominance and the existence of our financial system.

The US can't withdraw from that financial system and separate their own oil from the global markets without collapsing everything. Your dollar will be worth a nickel two minutes after that happens. The US dollar being the world's reserve currency and the currency used for oil is everything for the US. Without that, we are Bangladesh tomorrow.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a bit inaccurate to say Iran "opens" the strait of Hormuz. Would it not be more accurate to say Iran stops terrorizing free passage in the strait of Hormuz? You don't really close something you do not own. It's like saying a terrorist reopens a street just because they stopped shooting everyone who walks down it. We don't say "terrorist reopens street". We say "terrorist stops threatening the area."

It's a bit inaccurate to say that the US was engaged in war with Iran. Would it not be more accurate to say that they were engaged in a terrorist campaign against Iran?

No, it actually wouldn't. Attacking a belligerent, fanatical, tyrannical, murderous terrorist state in order to get it to stop being a terrorist state is hardly engaging in a terrorist campaign. But nice try.

Sounds like the perfect description of Israel. Should be our primary target.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a bit inaccurate to say Iran "opens" the strait of Hormuz. Would it not be more accurate to say Iran stops terrorizing free passage in the strait of Hormuz? You don't really close something you do not own. It's like saying a terrorist reopens a street just because they stopped shooting everyone who walks down it. We don't say "terrorist reopens street". We say "terrorist stops threatening the area."

It's a bit inaccurate to say that the US was engaged in war with Iran. Would it not be more accurate to say that they were engaged in a terrorist campaign against Iran?

No, it actually wouldn't. Attacking a belligerent, fanatical, tyrannical, murderous terrorist state in order to get it to stop being a terrorist state is hardly engaging in a terrorist campaign. But nice try.

Is it the job of the US to go around attacking all the "belligerent, fanatical, tyrannical, murderous terrorist state" around the world?

If they directly threaten the US and/or US interests, then in some cases yes, depending on the circumstances.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What the f? You start a war which every expert said would closes the strait. Now you think the real estate guy is successful because the strait is open for another week? This is the dumbest tweet every.

The Strait is at risk of closure...forever (or until the oil and gas run out). Iran has newly-realized power that they can exercise at will.

Sure, they could certainly try to keep the strait closed. They would be bombed into smithereens if they attempt it. And it looks like they understand that, which is why they've backed off.
DP

Yes just like before the ceasefire when Trump was begging the Iranians to agree to a ceasefire. Trump agreed to the Iranian surrender terms. You remember that? Remember how we ran out of bombs and interceptors? Bombing them again seems likely to work.

The Iranians have said the strait is not open as long as there is a blockade. Better start bombing again and hope they do not blowup 20% of world’s oil production for 5-7 years.

Why would the Iranians give up anything? Republicans and Israel took their best shot and it was not enough. Iranians control the strait, they can take out anything in the gulf and they have humiliated Trump and Israel.

The Iranians don't control anything. But I do like your persistence.

They control "STRAIGHT OF IRAN".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a bit inaccurate to say Iran "opens" the strait of Hormuz. Would it not be more accurate to say Iran stops terrorizing free passage in the strait of Hormuz? You don't really close something you do not own. It's like saying a terrorist reopens a street just because they stopped shooting everyone who walks down it. We don't say "terrorist reopens street". We say "terrorist stops threatening the area."

What's funny is that it *is* their territorial waters. They just never tried to control it before being provoked.

Wrong. The Strait of Hormuz is an international waterway and doesn't belong to anyone. Shipping lanes are governed, and navigation rights are protected by international maritime law.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a bit inaccurate to say Iran "opens" the strait of Hormuz. Would it not be more accurate to say Iran stops terrorizing free passage in the strait of Hormuz? You don't really close something you do not own. It's like saying a terrorist reopens a street just because they stopped shooting everyone who walks down it. We don't say "terrorist reopens street". We say "terrorist stops threatening the area."

It's a bit inaccurate to say that the US was engaged in war with Iran. Would it not be more accurate to say that they were engaged in a terrorist campaign against Iran?

No, it actually wouldn't. Attacking a belligerent, fanatical, tyrannical, murderous terrorist state in order to get it to stop being a terrorist state is hardly engaging in a terrorist campaign. But nice try.

Is it the job of the US to go around attacking all the "belligerent, fanatical, tyrannical, murderous terrorist state" around the world?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What the f? You start a war which every expert said would closes the strait. Now you think the real estate guy is successful because the strait is open for another week? This is the dumbest tweet every.

The Strait is at risk of closure...forever (or until the oil and gas run out). Iran has newly-realized power that they can exercise at will.

Sure, they could certainly try to keep the strait closed. They would be bombed into smithereens if they attempt it. And it looks like they understand that, which is why they've backed off.
DP

Yes just like before the ceasefire when Trump was begging the Iranians to agree to a ceasefire. Trump agreed to the Iranian surrender terms. You remember that? Remember how we ran out of bombs and interceptors? Bombing them again seems likely to work.

The Iranians have said the strait is not open as long as there is a blockade. Better start bombing again and hope they do not blowup 20% of world’s oil production for 5-7 years.

Why would the Iranians give up anything? Republicans and Israel took their best shot and it was not enough. Iranians control the strait, they can take out anything in the gulf and they have humiliated Trump and Israel.

The Iranians don't control anything. But I do like your persistence.

The Iranians control what you pay for gas, food, and electricity for the next five years. But I do like your persistence.

Nah. The U.S. has plenty of its own resources - we don't rely on Iran for any of those things the way some other countries do. If they do try and close the strait (again) the international community will have more to say about it. Iran is a pariah state, the world over.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a bit inaccurate to say Iran "opens" the strait of Hormuz. Would it not be more accurate to say Iran stops terrorizing free passage in the strait of Hormuz? You don't really close something you do not own. It's like saying a terrorist reopens a street just because they stopped shooting everyone who walks down it. We don't say "terrorist reopens street". We say "terrorist stops threatening the area."

It's a bit inaccurate to say that the US was engaged in war with Iran. Would it not be more accurate to say that they were engaged in a terrorist campaign against Iran?

No, it actually wouldn't. Attacking a belligerent, fanatical, tyrannical, murderous terrorist state in order to get it to stop being a terrorist state is hardly engaging in a terrorist campaign. But nice try.

Anonymous wrote:It's a bit inaccurate to say Iran "opens" the strait of Hormuz. Would it not be more accurate to say Iran stops terrorizing free passage in the strait of Hormuz? You don't really close something you do not own. It's like saying a terrorist reopens a street just because they stopped shooting everyone who walks down it. We don't say "terrorist reopens street". We say "terrorist stops threatening the area."

What's funny is that it *is* their territorial waters. They just never tried to control it before being provoked.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What the f? You start a war which every expert said would closes the strait. Now you think the real estate guy is successful because the strait is open for another week? This is the dumbest tweet every.

The Strait is at risk of closure...forever (or until the oil and gas run out). Iran has newly-realized power that they can exercise at will.

Sure, they could certainly try to keep the strait closed. They would be bombed into smithereens if they attempt it. And it looks like they understand that, which is why they've backed off.
DP

Yes just like before the ceasefire when Trump was begging the Iranians to agree to a ceasefire. Trump agreed to the Iranian surrender terms. You remember that? Remember how we ran out of bombs and interceptors? Bombing them again seems likely to work.

The Iranians have said the strait is not open as long as there is a blockade. Better start bombing again and hope they do not blowup 20% of world’s oil production for 5-7 years.

Why would the Iranians give up anything? Republicans and Israel took their best shot and it was not enough. Iranians control the strait, they can take out anything in the gulf and they have humiliated Trump and Israel.

The Iranians don't control anything. But I do like your persistence.

The Iranians control what you pay for gas, food, and electricity for the next five years. But I do like your persistence.

Channel 4 News was there when Trump announced his “ceasefire” and caught a different perspective of Israel bombing the funeral for ambulance workers in South Lebanon. To be clear, these were medics attending a funeral of other medics that Israel killed the day before.

https://www.instagram.com/p/DXOouXMganC/

Anonymous wrote:It's a bit inaccurate to say Iran "opens" the strait of Hormuz. Would it not be more accurate to say Iran stops terrorizing free passage in the strait of Hormuz? You don't really close something you do not own. It's like saying a terrorist reopens a street just because they stopped shooting everyone who walks down it. We don't say "terrorist reopens street". We say "terrorist stops threatening the area."

It's a bit inaccurate to say that the US was engaged in war with Iran. Would it not be more accurate to say that they were engaged in a terrorist campaign against Iran?

It's a bit inaccurate to say Iran "opens" the strait of Hormuz. Would it not be more accurate to say Iran stops terrorizing free passage in the strait of Hormuz? You don't really close something you do not own. It's like saying a terrorist reopens a street just because they stopped shooting everyone who walks down it. We don't say "terrorist reopens street". We say "terrorist stops threatening the area."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What the f? You start a war which every expert said would closes the strait. Now you think the real estate guy is successful because the strait is open for another week? This is the dumbest tweet every.

The Strait is at risk of closure...forever (or until the oil and gas run out). Iran has newly-realized power that they can exercise at will.

Sure, they could certainly try to keep the strait closed. They would be bombed into smithereens if they attempt it. And it looks like they understand that, which is why they've backed off.
DP

Yes just like before the ceasefire when Trump was begging the Iranians to agree to a ceasefire. Trump agreed to the Iranian surrender terms. You remember that? Remember how we ran out of bombs and interceptors? Bombing them again seems likely to work.

The Iranians have said the strait is not open as long as there is a blockade. Better start bombing again and hope they do not blowup 20% of world’s oil production for 5-7 years.

Why would the Iranians give up anything? Republicans and Israel took their best shot and it was not enough. Iranians control the strait, they can take out anything in the gulf and they have humiliated Trump and Israel.

The Iranians don't control anything. But I do like your persistence.