False flag tanker attack

[SpeareChucker]

PS Johnny


If every nation is to protect its ships with its navy...,

Would we still not be required to keep a presence there?
Or do we tell them, after you're taken and kidnapped, we will mount an aggressive investigation?

 

[JohnnySavage]

For years our biggest economic competitors have been Japan, Germany and South Korea. Those countries were able to invest in their industrial infrastructure, in part, because they didn't have to spend much of their GDP on defense. The US tax payer picked up the bill. We've been subsidizing those countries to destroy our own industry.

 

[bellisarius]

PS Johnny


If every nation is to protect its ships with its navy...,

Would we still not be required to keep a presence there?
Or do we tell them, after you're taken and kidnapped, we will mount an aggressive investigation?

Research the Bretton Woods accords.

 

[oralaccents]

Could you imagine the cost of importing goods if we decided to leave the sea shipping lanes to whoever else was interested?

The minute we stop patrolling and policing, then the pirates take over,
some of them, as in the good old days being state sponsored...

Those waters are Territorial Seas of Iran and Oman, so everyone else should probably start making nice with both countries if they want to enjoy innocent passage permission.

 

[SpeareChucker]

For years our biggest economic competitors have been Japan, Germany and South Korea. Those countries were able to invest in their industrial infrastructure, in part, because they didn't have to spend much of their GDP on defense. The US tax payer picked up the bill. We've been subsidizing those countries to destroy our own industry.

No, we subsidized them so that they would be prosperous because prosperity and trade tend to promote peace...

AND

We also got cheaper goods in the process by way of payback.
Think of it as a "negative" tax, to coin a phrase.

 

[SpeareChucker]

Those waters are Territorial Seas of Iran and Oman, so everyone else should probably start making nice with both countries if they want to enjoy innocent passage permission.

No they are not by international law.
After seven miles, it is international water.

Would you so happily stop the flow of oil to Europe, Russia and China
because the pirates jumped into the vacuum that we left?

 

[Que]

Could you imagine the cost of importing goods if we decided to leave the sea shipping lanes to whoever else was interested?

The minute we stop patrolling and policing, then the pirates take over,
some of them, as in the good old days being state sponsored...

On the other hand, rather than flags of convenience the merchants would have to decide to flag as US ships if they wanted our protection. I'm not sure how all of that works and whether that benefits us through some sort of fee or taxing structure but I agree with Johnny: not our ships not our fight.

 

[SpeareChucker]

On the other hand, rather than flags of convenience the merchants would have to decide to flag as US ships if they wanted our protection. I'm not sure how all of that works and whether that benefits us through some sort of fee or taxing structure but I agree with Johnny: not our ships not our fight.

And I'll ask you the same question(s) about your bumper-sticker response.

If it is up to every other nation to take care of their flagged ships, including us, do we allow their ships into our harbors? Is it better to have many navies, for those whom can afford them, sailing in the gulf?

Would it be a safer world if we turned international waters into a free-for-all?
It's a much more complex question with extreme economic and geopolitical implications.

If we applied that thinking to all theaters, including land and return to isolationism,
does it then lead to a more peaceful world?

Are you prepared to pay the tax on your thinking?
Because it means that you will pay more for goods
and we will not profit as much on trade, because
trade will suddenly become much more expensive...

 

[HisArpy]

We can't afford to be the world's policeman. I agree with the Trump Doctrine - we're done with being the big stupid kid on the playground that the smart kids go to for protection.

Japan's ship was attacked. Japan has a Navy (that we mostly paid for). Japan is a lot closer than we are. It's Japan's problem.

So, you're good with the idea that we should just stay out of other nations' problems? ALL of their problems?

Get rid of NATO?
Stay completely out of S. America's drug cartels?
Ignore human tragedy and suffering in the other shithole countries around the world like Somalia?
Not care about the Ukraine takeover by Putin?


Be "isolationists"?

On the other hand, rather than flags of convenience the merchants would have to decide to flag as US ships if they wanted our protection. I'm not sure how all of that works and whether that benefits us through some sort of fee or taxing structure but I agree with Johnny: not our ships not our fight.

Our fight.

Allowing a single nation to restrict free trade results in all nations restricting free trade as a political and economic weapon. If that happens, it WILL impact you directly by reducing the availability of food for your family, lower net income after higher taxes, higher costs for goods consumed, and less personal and national security.