U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Contries should protect their own oil tankers
YES 33 84.62%
NO 6 15.38%
Voters: 39. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-25-2019, 10:07 AM
 
21,540 posts, read 11,615,071 times
Reputation: 12302

Advertisements

If nations cannot protect their shipping then leave the job of shipping goods to American, British, French and Russian ships.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-25-2019, 10:07 AM
 
Location: NE Mississippi
13,678 posts, read 8,585,088 times
Reputation: 19877
No. He's wrong. The US should continue to do it.
In the first place, few countries are in a position to protect their interests world wide. The US makes up 1/4 of the world's GDP so we have a much greater interest than any other country in keeping sea lanes open.
To abandon the basic mission of the US Navy is to invite terrorism and piracy on a scale that has never been seen. Shrugging and saying, "Not my job" is foolish. Do that, and we'll end up being on the receiving end of a hijacked Liquified Natural Gas tanker being sailed into New York's harbor and then detonated.


It reminds me of the days when "terrorist training camps" were some sort of joke. Who did we think they would hit once they were trained?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2019, 11:15 AM
 
Location: NC
7,015 posts, read 4,969,886 times
Reputation: 7770
Here is why this is such a "simpleton question":

Let's take the OP at face value. The country who owns the ship should protect it. Is that right?

OK, now, let's say a Chinese Ship is delivering raw materials to St. Louis. They are steaming up the Mississippi River and they perceive a threat. Doesn't matter if it's real or not, because our POTUS has just told them they are responsible to defend their cargo, so they launch a missile at the percieved threat (which is probably just a few Rednecks with Maga Hats having fun). They blow the threat away.

You're OK with this? Because hypothetically speaking, that is the kind of wild-west that Trump is asking for. Yes, it sounds good to his simpleton base (shoot now, ask questions later), but it's not a good idea.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2019, 12:08 PM
 
Location: NE Mississippi
13,678 posts, read 8,585,088 times
Reputation: 19877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myghost View Post
Here is why this is such a "simpleton question":

Let's take the OP at face value. The country who owns the ship should protect it. Is that right?

OK, now, let's say a Chinese Ship is delivering raw materials to St. Louis. They are steaming up the Mississippi River and they perceive a threat. Doesn't matter if it's real or not, because our POTUS has just told them they are responsible to defend their cargo, so they launch a missile at the percieved threat (which is probably just a few Rednecks with Maga Hats having fun). They blow the threat away.

You're OK with this? Because hypothetically speaking, that is the kind of wild-west that Trump is asking for. Yes, it sounds good to his simpleton base (shoot now, ask questions later), but it's not a good idea.
I get what you are saying. You're right.
Still, there is a problem you may not be aware of:

1) Ships can no longer steam up the Mississippi - at least not big ones. Huey P Long put a stop to that when he built a bridge too close to the water. He wanted the ships to stop in Baton Rouge; Mission Accomplished, and the long slow decline of Natchez began.


And now we return to our regularly scheduled program....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2019, 12:37 PM
 
20,150 posts, read 11,172,468 times
Reputation: 20161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myghost View Post
Here is why this is such a "simpleton question":

Let's take the OP at face value. The country who owns the ship should protect it. Is that right?

OK, now, let's say a Chinese Ship is delivering raw materials to St. Louis. They are steaming up the Mississippi River and they perceive a threat. Doesn't matter if it's real or not, because our POTUS has just told them they are responsible to defend their cargo, so they launch a missile at the percieved threat (which is probably just a few Rednecks with Maga Hats having fun). They blow the threat away.

You're OK with this? Because hypothetically speaking, that is the kind of wild-west that Trump is asking for. Yes, it sounds good to his simpleton base (shoot now, ask questions later), but it's not a good idea.
Trump's idea is stupid, but you haven't posted a good argument against it.

The obvious implication is that Trump really meant "in international waters."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2019, 12:46 PM
 
11,458 posts, read 8,443,788 times
Reputation: 7089
Quote:
Originally Posted by Listener2307 View Post
I get what you are saying. You're right.
Still, there is a problem you may not be aware of:

1) Ships can no longer steam up the Mississippi - at least not big ones. Huey P Long put a stop to that when he built a bridge too close to the water. He wanted the ships to stop in Baton Rouge; Mission Accomplished, and the long slow decline of Natchez began.


And now we return to our regularly scheduled program....
Thanks, I've never seen ships in the Mississippi.

Lots of barges and tugs though. That's a different thing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2019, 12:48 PM
 
Location: Jewel Lake (Sagle) Idaho
27,580 posts, read 17,653,386 times
Reputation: 15644
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
No one asked US to be the world police man. Trump is acting as one because he wants to. As a matter of fact for decades both Americans and foreign countries have been wondering why US insists on playing the police. Trump asked for more spending on crap like this, and his loyalists cheered, and now Trump complains about it, so they feel compelled to complain as well. Nothing new under the sun. Just a bunch of minions dancing to the music.
It does appear that reading comprehension is not a strong suit of those afflicted with TDS. Trump is asking that other nations contribute something to their own defense (and the defense of their interests, such as shipping) and NOT just the American taxpayer. And of course the deranged, hate-addled anti-Trump contingent rants and raves. So what is it? Do you want the US to play the world's police all alone (and funded by the US taxpayer) or do you want a collation where other countries contribute something?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2019, 12:49 PM
 
Location: Jewel Lake (Sagle) Idaho
27,580 posts, read 17,653,386 times
Reputation: 15644
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myghost View Post
Here is why this is such a "simpleton question":

Let's take the OP at face value. The country who owns the ship should protect it. Is that right?

OK, now, let's say a Chinese Ship is delivering raw materials to St. Louis. They are steaming up the Mississippi River and they perceive a threat. Doesn't matter if it's real or not, because our POTUS has just told them they are responsible to defend their cargo, so they launch a missile at the percieved threat (which is probably just a few Rednecks with Maga Hats having fun). They blow the threat away.

You're OK with this? Because hypothetically speaking, that is the kind of wild-west that Trump is asking for. Yes, it sounds good to his simpleton base (shoot now, ask questions later), but it's not a good idea.
From the OP:

Quote:
President Donald Trump said on June 24 that foreign countries should protect their own oil tankers in the Middle East, suggesting that other countries have been relying too heavily on the United States to ensure the safe passage of their oil around the world without giving back.

In case you didn't get the memo, let me inform you-the Mississippi River is not in the Middle East.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2019, 06:34 PM
 
26,697 posts, read 9,085,250 times
Reputation: 9307
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake View Post
From the OP:




In case you didn't get the memo, let me inform you-the Mississippi River is not in the Middle East.
They don't know that in Minneapolis !!!

If its not in the ME bring the ME to Minnesota !!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top