Switch Theme:

Diplomatic ties cuts off QATAR by rest of GCC countries.  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in au
Stalwart Veteran Guard Sergeant





What do you mean external non-US processes? A foreign country's own process to create legislature? Obviously not, why should you?

I imagine Americans do give a feth about whether or not a country lives up to its side of an agreement with the US though.

 Psienesis wrote:
I've... seen things... you people wouldn't believe. Milk cartons on fire off the shoulder of 3rd-hour English; I watched Cheez-beams glitter in the dark near the Admin Parking Gate... All those... moments... will be lost, in time, like tears... in... rain. Time... to die.


"The Emperor points, and we obey,
Through the warp and far away."
-A Guardsman's Ballad 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

 Humble Guardsman wrote:
What do you mean external non-US processes? A foreign country's own process to create legislature? Obviously not, why should you?

I imagine Americans do give a feth about whether or not a country lives up to its side of an agreement with the US though.


There isn't an agreement until its valid however. Even then such agreements are only valid if the countries abide by them (remember "trust but verify.")

IO would love it if the world thought we were untrustworthy, then they would quit asking us for money / troops etc. etc. You wanted it, hey you got it.

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in au
Stalwart Veteran Guard Sergeant





 Frazzled wrote:
 Humble Guardsman wrote:
What do you mean external non-US processes? A foreign country's own process to create legislature? Obviously not, why should you?

I imagine Americans do give a feth about whether or not a country lives up to its side of an agreement with the US though.


There isn't an agreement until its valid however. Even then such agreements are only valid if the countries abide by them (remember "trust but verify.")


What are you defining as a valid agreement? There is a difference between making an agreement and then upholding your end of it. Ratification through domestic legislature is part of the latter, not the former.

President Obama did not say "Sure, the United States of America might be interested in the Paris thingy you've got going. I can't make any promises on it's behalf though. Have to check in with my Congress buddies."

Even if he made the agreement in error or with an unrealistic belief that Congress would ratify it, he still made the agreement as the democratically elected representative of the USA.

IO would love it if the world thought we were untrustworthy, then they would quit asking us for money / troops etc. etc. You wanted it, hey you got it.


I shouldn't get into this. Suffice to say the US is nowhere near as popular or trusted as it was some 30-40 years ago.

 Psienesis wrote:
I've... seen things... you people wouldn't believe. Milk cartons on fire off the shoulder of 3rd-hour English; I watched Cheez-beams glitter in the dark near the Admin Parking Gate... All those... moments... will be lost, in time, like tears... in... rain. Time... to die.


"The Emperor points, and we obey,
Through the warp and far away."
-A Guardsman's Ballad 
   
Made in gb
Courageous Grand Master




-

Apologies for not posting on this thread earlier, but I'm just out of hospital. When the Saudis accused Qatar of funding terror groups, I laughed so hard, I cracked some ribs, and needed emergency surgery.

"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

EDIT: never mind, I'm taking the topic off topic.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/08 12:27:41


-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in au
Stalwart Veteran Guard Sergeant





 Frazzled wrote:

In this instance, Obama has no more authority than Bob the Tourist.


If you're talking about entering into international agreements, that is just flat out wrong.

I believe you are mistaking the ratification in Congress of a treaty with the actual discussion, formation and signing of said treaty.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or you're confusing domestic validity with international validity.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/08 12:29:05


 Psienesis wrote:
I've... seen things... you people wouldn't believe. Milk cartons on fire off the shoulder of 3rd-hour English; I watched Cheez-beams glitter in the dark near the Admin Parking Gate... All those... moments... will be lost, in time, like tears... in... rain. Time... to die.


"The Emperor points, and we obey,
Through the warp and far away."
-A Guardsman's Ballad 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 Humble Guardsman wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:

In this instance, Obama has no more authority than Bob the Tourist.


If you're talking about entering into international agreements, that is just flat out wrong.

I believe you are mistaking the ratification in Congress of a treaty with the actual discussion, formation and signing of said treaty.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or you're confusing domestic validity with international validity.

Humble... you would be incorrect... but, this topic is wildly offtopic. Want to take this to PM or a new thread?

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in au
Stalwart Veteran Guard Sergeant





I'm fine with a bit of PMing.

I've just submitted a 3,500 word essay on Public International Law so if I'm wrong, well I may have buggered myself.

 Psienesis wrote:
I've... seen things... you people wouldn't believe. Milk cartons on fire off the shoulder of 3rd-hour English; I watched Cheez-beams glitter in the dark near the Admin Parking Gate... All those... moments... will be lost, in time, like tears... in... rain. Time... to die.


"The Emperor points, and we obey,
Through the warp and far away."
-A Guardsman's Ballad 
   
Made in gb
Keeper of the Holy Orb of Antioch





avoiding the lorax on Crion

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/06/analysis-turkey-deploying-troops-qatar-170607174911372.html

Turkey deploying troops to the country in a support move it seems. But are playing both sides... theres alot f games going on.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/06/analysis-turkey-deploying-troops-qatar-170607174911372.html

http://uk.businessinsider.com/r-food-families-and-flights-anxiety-and-confusion-descend-on-qatar-2017-6?r=US&IR=T

Blockade is pretty strict, land, air , sea, economic, they under a nigh siege it seems


Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.

"May the odds be ever in your favour"

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.

FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.  
   
Made in se
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan






Sweden

Would the Saudi army actually be capable of defeating Qatar bolstered by Turkish troops? I know the Saudis have the gear, but are their troops well-trained enough?

For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back. 
   
Made in gb
Keeper of the Holy Orb of Antioch





avoiding the lorax on Crion

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Would the Saudi army actually be capable of defeating Qatar bolstered by Turkish troops? I know the Saudis have the gear, but are their troops well-trained enough?


Is there not also big US bases for the fleet there?

i mean that would be bloody tricky to not manage to end up in fire fights with either nation, and the US fleet might have a potent battle group in persian gulf that might not take kindly to attacking US facilities.

in general if right, your risking engaging in combat, mistakes and ending up with a 3-4 way battle.

Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.

"May the odds be ever in your favour"

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.

FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.  
   
Made in us
Combat Jumping Rasyat






 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Would the Saudi army actually be capable of defeating Qatar bolstered by Turkish troops? I know the Saudis have the gear, but are their troops well-trained enough?
The Saudi army couldn't fight it's way outta a wet tent.

Can't even suppress the Yemeni next door. They have to bring in mercenaries to supplement their inadequate armed forces, they and the Qatari (lol) straight up paid the Sudanese gov't $2.2 billion cash money for 2 brigades in 2015.

Their officer and logistics corps used to blow. Quality is unit dependent. They overhauled their military prior to the Yemen intervention since the Houthis gave them a bloody nose in the border skirmishes leading up and the majority of their competent units (airborne and marines) are deployed in Yemen. Problem is those units are stretched too thin, so they've been forced to bring in more troops and PMCs to consolidate their position and provide security/law enforcement in Yemen.

Equipment is good, but they didn't really have thought out purchasing plan for awhile. That is to say they bought some equipment for political reasons rather than military ones, which contributes to their logistics problem.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/08 17:13:34


 
   
Made in se
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan






Sweden

On the other hand, what's Turkey's supply chain to Qatar going to look like? The Saudis have the advantage of being right next door after all.

For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back. 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

Are they trying to actually blockade Qatar? Absent that Qatar is on a peninsula.

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in au
Stalwart Veteran Guard Sergeant





I imagine it'd be similar to the US supply route, except the US won't be immediately concerned with what's occurring beyond their base perimeter.



Does anyone else reckon the Emir has a really nice smile in this picture? I mean, I'd be happy too if I'd stalled a powerful neighbor's hostile designs on my nation. But I don't know, it's just such a genuine and pleasant looking smile. Especially when compared to Edrogan's 'going through the motions' stance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Frazzled wrote:
Are they trying to actually blockade Qatar? Absent that Qatar is on a peninsula.


They don't actually need to. Every single ship that heads into (or out of) the Gulf to Qatar generally stops at the UAE port of Jebel Ali. Unless you're looking at ships carrying cargo solely bound for Qatar, of which there aren't nearly enough for their current needs, the closing of that port to ships intending to make Qatar their next stop has a similar effect. It's the landbased routes that Qatar really relies on for food anyway, the Gulf is mostly their route for exportation of crude gas.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-gulf-qatar-commodities-idUSKBN18X1Y2

Also, under international law, a blockade is an act of war. Hence the Cuban 'embargo'.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/06/08 19:23:43


 Psienesis wrote:
I've... seen things... you people wouldn't believe. Milk cartons on fire off the shoulder of 3rd-hour English; I watched Cheez-beams glitter in the dark near the Admin Parking Gate... All those... moments... will be lost, in time, like tears... in... rain. Time... to die.


"The Emperor points, and we obey,
Through the warp and far away."
-A Guardsman's Ballad 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Frazzled wrote:
On the flip side, finally no one gives a feth about external non-US processes here. We are at an empass.


No, there's no impasse. What's happening is that the last 70 years of US leadership is rapidly ending because the US is having a temper tantrum, driven by people who barely understand the international environment they're whinging about.

It isn't an impasse, its the US no longer doing what it used to, and other countries saying 'okay, I guess we'll do something else to establish a new way forward'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Frazzled wrote:
There isn't an agreement until its valid however. Even then such agreements are only valid if the countries abide by them (remember "trust but verify.")

IO would love it if the world thought we were untrustworthy, then they would quit asking us for money / troops etc. etc. You wanted it, hey you got it.


And here's the central foolishness of the temper tantrum, you've somehow decided that your position in world leadership only gave obligations, no benefits.

It's like if you were the guy with a car, so you drove everyone to lunch. You moaned about it costing you gas money, while ignoring that everyone pitches in an equal share of gas. Then you moan that you always have to drive... while ignoring that because you drive you get to pick the restaurant every day.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/09 03:02:03


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in fi
Confessor Of Sins




 avantgarde wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Would the Saudi army actually be capable of defeating Qatar bolstered by Turkish troops? I know the Saudis have the gear, but are their troops well-trained enough?


The Saudi army couldn't fight it's way outta a wet tent.


That's a pretty good assessment of most arab armies.

The gear might be OK or even superb, but it doesn't do a whole lot of good when officer positions are awarded more for loyalty than skill. Which ofc also means that junior officers with ideas fear acting on them - making your superior look like the ass he is means your career just ended. Better drive straight into the enemy's guns and hope to survive while loyally following the rigid and inflexible plan. Knowledge is also not shared because hey, as the only one who knows something you're irreplaceable! That sucks if you're killed but it doesn't matter to you anymore...

To make matters worse the Turks are sure to know exactly what tactical weaknesses to look for.
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

Turks vs. Arabs? paging Dr. Lawrence, Dr. Lawrence!

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




North Carolina

Steelmage99 wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:

The president doesn't have the authority to commit the US to an international treaty that power resides with Congress. That's the whole point of a representative democracy you don't have one person with the capacity act on behalf of the country unilaterally. The president can't make the country adhere to any treaty only Congress can pass the laws that require the US to be in compliance with the treaty. If the president can't convince congress to support joining a treaty then whatever promises or commitments the president made are worthless. I much prefer Trump withdrawing from the treaty that we're ignoring, that's more honest and straightforward than Obama promising to support a treaty and then having congress and by extension the rest of the country deliberately ignoring it.


Legal details about ratification aside, isn't that the whole basic idea behind a representative democracy?

A small number of people represents the larger body of citizens at various levels of government?

Representatives (in the House) represent their constituents at House level.
Senators represent their states as a whole at Senate level.
The President (of the United States) represents the country (as a whole) at international level (sometimes using a proxy).

Am I getting the pyramidical power structure of one person, or a small number of people, representing a larger number of people in a representative democracy wrong?


You're not wrong you're just overlooking our system of checks and balances. The PotUS represents the entire country but is still dependent on cooperation from Congress (who represent the people) to get anything done. The President can believe that signing a treaty or committing to signing a treaty is a good idea but the President doesn't have the power to make the US adhere to a treaty, that takes an Act of Congress because the President has to convince a majority of the country via their representation in Congress that it's also a good idea.

It's like the President is the Commander in Chief of the military but only Congress has the power to declare war and Congress determines the budget with which the military operates. The President administers the military but Congress/the People determine how big/powerful the military is and when where it can be used.

 Humble Guardsman wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
 Humble Guardsman wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:

2) Treaties work when they are passed by the Senate. This one wasn't.


That's the process of ratification, giving effect to the international pledge in domestic law.


A country signing a treaty and then not ratifying or otherwise enforcing it is the equivalent of a roommate promising to do the dishes but spends the rest of the day on the couch playing video games.

As President Obama was, well, The President there can be no more direct representation of the nation in an international forum. Same as any promise or deal made by President Trump is a deal made on behalf of the State of the United States of America. The obligations entailed in international treaties are not at all discarded on the whims of a changing government, at least not without reneging on their promise.


The president doesn't have the authority to commit the US to an international treaty that power resides with Congress. That's the whole point of a representative democracy you don't have one person with the capacity act on behalf of the country unilaterally. The president can't make the country adhere to any treaty only Congress can pass the laws that require the US to be in compliance with the treaty. If the president can't convince congress to support joining a treaty then whatever promises or commitments the president made are worthless. I much prefer Trump withdrawing from the treaty that we're ignoring, that's more honest and straightforward than Obama promising to support a treaty and then having congress and by extension the rest of the country deliberately ignoring.


I think we're arguing at cross-purposes here. Very few countries introduce international treaties as binding on their own domestic environment without their own legislature putting in laws to the same effect. I'm not disputing that Congress (or Parliament across the Pacific pond here) would need to support any treaty signed for it to be enforced (and therefore upheld). However international bodies will never be addressing Congress for these negotiations. International treaties are made on the promise of the representatives of their State. President Obama certainly had the authority to sign that treaty and make that promise on behalf of the US. The fact that Congress did not pass this treaty is in itself a preliminary failure to uphold the promise made to the international community. That the US is so divided internally that it cannot ratify and uphold the promises made on its behalf does not make that less of a failure to abide by that promise. I agree with you that President Trump hasn't broken the promise himself by withdrawing, the promise was already broken when it became clear that it would never be ratified by the Senate (the merits of that promise not withstanding).

To use the roommate anology again, let's assume Roomate 1 is considered a representative of the household when dealing with other people. Roommate 1 makes a promise to a Birthday Friend that he and the household will attend a birthday party and bring a bag of chips. He returns to the household and talks with Roomate 2 and Roomate 3. Roomate 2 is okay with attending a birthday party, but not bringing a bag of chips. Roomate 3 refuses to have any of them attend the party at all. Because no one can come to an agreement, none of them end up going to birthday Friends party.
If Roomate 1 is consider a representative of the household to 'other people' (the international community), he has the authority to make agreements or promises to other people on behalf of the household regardless of whether he thinks or believes that the other roommates will prevent the household from meeting those obligations.


Yeah I think we're in agreement that a commitment from the President was broken, that makes the US look bad, and the President and Congress have much better cooperation and communication concerning international commitments. I wasn't trying to argue that this is a good situation only that our commitment to the Paris Accords was never finalized. We got engaged and then decided to break up instead of get married.

I think your room mate analogy is a little off. It's more like the President has the checkbook and decides when to write checks and to whom to write checks but all of the US' money is in a savings account and the checking account always has a zero balance and Congress has to decide whether or not to transfer money from savings to checking to cover the checks written by the President. If the President writes a check to the Paris Accords and Congress doesn't transfer the money from savings to checking to cover the check, the check bounces, and the US is embarrassed and the international community becomes leery of accepting checks from the President in the future. Now there can always be debate regarding the merits of the President's decision to write a check but bouncing the check makes everybody involved in the process look bad.

This is the problem the US faces with a hyper partisan 2 party system, it creates acrimony and a victory or death mindset in a system of government designed with pragmatic compromise as a foundational principle. Now we're facing situations akin to the frog and scorpion parable. A Democratic President makes a commitment to an international treaty and dares a Republican Congress to fail to ratify it making the US look bad internationally, a Republican Congress refuses to ratify the treaty breaking the President's promise not caring that it humiliates the US internationally. Sane people in the US and the world over look at the politicians in DC and say WTF guys? Act like grown ups and do your job. Finding common ground regarding the US' national interest shouldn't be an impossible task for the people running the country.

Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

Actually Jon... it's incumbent for the POTUS to actually submit a treaty like the Paris Accord to Congress... which Obama never did.

That's the breakdown. Congress never had the chance to say YUP or HELL NAW. Thus, we see this mess today...

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Incorporating Wet-Blending





Houston, TX

Paris Accord discussion is way OT and needs to be dropped, before thread lock. Please?

This seems like a deadly serious problem. KSA hypocritically denouncing Qatar and now taking actions consistent with a buildup to armed conflict is deeply troubling. While no doubt emboldened by the current US leadership (or lack thereof), surely they can see how this could blow up into a major regional conflict? Do they expect that Qatar will blink and that will help strengthen KSA's place as the regional leader, perhaps?

-James
 
   
Made in gb
Keeper of the Holy Orb of Antioch





avoiding the lorax on Crion

 jmurph wrote:
Paris Accord discussion is way OT and needs to be dropped, before thread lock. Please?

This seems like a deadly serious problem. KSA hypocritically denouncing Qatar and now taking actions consistent with a buildup to armed conflict is deeply troubling. While no doubt emboldened by the current US leadership (or lack thereof), surely they can see how this could blow up into a major regional conflict? Do they expect that Qatar will blink and that will help strengthen KSA's place as the regional leader, perhaps?


Yeah things are getting hot...

i mean no ones done anything too military yet but the whole blockade has not begun to truly bite yet and its only been one week.

Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.

"May the odds be ever in your favour"

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.

FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.  
   
Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN (Currently in WY)

What is the US committment to ensuring the free navigation of the Persian Gulf? I seem to recall some crisi int he 80's about the straits of Hormuz and free navigation (Back then it was Iran, so different aggressors).

Does a blockade of Qatar cause any issue with this free navigation? I mean, I know the Persian Gulf is not that big, but I am not a navigational expert for the region.

Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




North Carolina

 Easy E wrote:
What is the US committment to ensuring the free navigation of the Persian Gulf? I seem to recall some crisi int he 80's about the straits of Hormuz and free navigation (Back then it was Iran, so different aggressors).

Does a blockade of Qatar cause any issue with this free navigation? I mean, I know the Persian Gulf is not that big, but I am not a navigational expert for the region.


The way it's been explained to me is that the US doesn't have any claim on international waters or shipping lanes but we can act in defense of shipping lanes through international waters, such as the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz. So the US can take action to protect international shipping lanes/international waters from foreign powers that try to interdict commercial shipping or restrict access through international waters or internationally recognized shipping lanes.

Here's a summation from the US State Dept

https://www.state.gov/e/oes/ocns/opa/maritimesecurity/

Maritime Security and Navigation
Overview. Maritime security is a global issue with numerous stakeholders having varying interests. Cooperation and coordination are required on a multilateral and bilateral basis along with international organizations and nongovernmental organizations. Key among these groups is the International Maritime Organization (IMO). National Security Presidential Directive 41/Homeland Security Presidential Directive 13 establishes U.S. policy guidelines to enhance national and homeland security by protecting U.S. maritime interests. The National Strategy for Maritime Security (NSMS) and its eight supporting plans, including the Department-led International Outreach Plan, implement this policy directive. Actions to implement this policy are taken in a manner that facilitates global commerce and preserves the freedom of the seas for legitimate navigation and other activities. Continual coordination with foreign governments and other partners and stakeholders assures the achievement of maritime security.

Piracy. Piracy, particularly off the coast of Somalia, has become an urgent maritime security matter. Attacks on shipping vessels can be expected to increase without enhanced international efforts. Pirates have received million dollar ransoms for the release of hostages, and Somali-based pirates have disrupted critical humanitarian aid deliveries to Somalia. An international Contact Group on Somali Piracy has been established to facilitate discussion and coordinate the activities of states and international organizations to suppress piracy off the coast of Somalia pursuant to UN Security Council Resolution 1851.

Vessel Tracking. Long Range Identification and Tracking of Vessels (LRIT) and the Maritime Security and Safety Information System (MSSIS) contribute to the achievement of maritime security. LRIT is a U.S. Coast Guard-led initiative through the International Maritime Organization (IMO) that requires vessels to report, in real time, data about their vessel identification and position. LRIT will allow States to track reporting vessels within 1000 nautical miles of their coasts. MSSIS is an Internet-based system to share Automatic Identification System (AIS) data among participating authorities. Under IMO requirements, vessels transmit AIS data to shore-based receiving stations and nearby vessels to aid in the safety of navigation. MSSIS participants share the AIS data that they receive, and a more complete picture of offshore vessels results. Originally designed as a NATO demonstration project in the Mediterranean Sea by the U.S. Navy, the Office for Global Maritime Situational Awareness is spearheading an effort to establish this system in other regions of the world.
International Navigation
Freedom of Navigation (FON) Program. U.S. policy since 1983 provides that the United States will exercise and assert its navigation and overflight rights and freedoms on a worldwide basis in a manner that is consistent with the balance of interests reflected in the Law of the Sea (LOS) Convention. The United States will not, however, acquiesce in unilateral acts of other states designed to restrict the rights and freedoms of the international community in navigation and overflight and other related high seas uses. The FON Program since 1979 has highlighted the navigation provisions of the LOS Convention to further the recognition of the vital national need to protect maritime rights throughout the world. The FON Program operates on a triple track, involving not only diplomatic representations and operational assertions by U.S. military units, but also bilateral and multilateral consultations with other governments in an effort to promote maritime stability and consistency with international law, stressing the need for and obligation of all States to adhere to the customary international law rules and practices reflected in the LOS Convention.


I don't think we'll other countries having a lot of overt direct involvement between KSA and Qatar unless it starts to negatively impact the flow of oil out of the Gulf. Iran will certainly be involved covertly and with back channels but I don't think they'd want to show any signs of real links with Qatar as that would only be fuel for the KSA accusations of terrorism links and increase any furor along the Sunni/Shia and Arab/Persian fault lines.

Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

You know in the good old days tensions in the Gulf would send the price of oil spiking.

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in gb
Keeper of the Holy Orb of Antioch





avoiding the lorax on Crion

Prestor Jon wrote:
 Easy E wrote:
What is the US committment to ensuring the free navigation of the Persian Gulf? I seem to recall some crisi int he 80's about the straits of Hormuz and free navigation (Back then it was Iran, so different aggressors).

Does a blockade of Qatar cause any issue with this free navigation? I mean, I know the Persian Gulf is not that big, but I am not a navigational expert for the region.


The way it's been explained to me is that the US doesn't have any claim on international waters or shipping lanes but we can act in defense of shipping lanes through international waters, such as the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz. So the US can take action to protect international shipping lanes/international waters from foreign powers that try to interdict commercial shipping or restrict access through international waters or internationally recognized shipping lanes.

Here's a summation from the US State Dept

https://www.state.gov/e/oes/ocns/opa/maritimesecurity/

Maritime Security and Navigation
Overview. Maritime security is a global issue with numerous stakeholders having varying interests. Cooperation and coordination are required on a multilateral and bilateral basis along with international organizations and nongovernmental organizations. Key among these groups is the International Maritime Organization (IMO). National Security Presidential Directive 41/Homeland Security Presidential Directive 13 establishes U.S. policy guidelines to enhance national and homeland security by protecting U.S. maritime interests. The National Strategy for Maritime Security (NSMS) and its eight supporting plans, including the Department-led International Outreach Plan, implement this policy directive. Actions to implement this policy are taken in a manner that facilitates global commerce and preserves the freedom of the seas for legitimate navigation and other activities. Continual coordination with foreign governments and other partners and stakeholders assures the achievement of maritime security.

Piracy. Piracy, particularly off the coast of Somalia, has become an urgent maritime security matter. Attacks on shipping vessels can be expected to increase without enhanced international efforts. Pirates have received million dollar ransoms for the release of hostages, and Somali-based pirates have disrupted critical humanitarian aid deliveries to Somalia. An international Contact Group on Somali Piracy has been established to facilitate discussion and coordinate the activities of states and international organizations to suppress piracy off the coast of Somalia pursuant to UN Security Council Resolution 1851.

Vessel Tracking. Long Range Identification and Tracking of Vessels (LRIT) and the Maritime Security and Safety Information System (MSSIS) contribute to the achievement of maritime security. LRIT is a U.S. Coast Guard-led initiative through the International Maritime Organization (IMO) that requires vessels to report, in real time, data about their vessel identification and position. LRIT will allow States to track reporting vessels within 1000 nautical miles of their coasts. MSSIS is an Internet-based system to share Automatic Identification System (AIS) data among participating authorities. Under IMO requirements, vessels transmit AIS data to shore-based receiving stations and nearby vessels to aid in the safety of navigation. MSSIS participants share the AIS data that they receive, and a more complete picture of offshore vessels results. Originally designed as a NATO demonstration project in the Mediterranean Sea by the U.S. Navy, the Office for Global Maritime Situational Awareness is spearheading an effort to establish this system in other regions of the world.
International Navigation
Freedom of Navigation (FON) Program. U.S. policy since 1983 provides that the United States will exercise and assert its navigation and overflight rights and freedoms on a worldwide basis in a manner that is consistent with the balance of interests reflected in the Law of the Sea (LOS) Convention. The United States will not, however, acquiesce in unilateral acts of other states designed to restrict the rights and freedoms of the international community in navigation and overflight and other related high seas uses. The FON Program since 1979 has highlighted the navigation provisions of the LOS Convention to further the recognition of the vital national need to protect maritime rights throughout the world. The FON Program operates on a triple track, involving not only diplomatic representations and operational assertions by U.S. military units, but also bilateral and multilateral consultations with other governments in an effort to promote maritime stability and consistency with international law, stressing the need for and obligation of all States to adhere to the customary international law rules and practices reflected in the LOS Convention.


I don't think we'll other countries having a lot of overt direct involvement between KSA and Qatar unless it starts to negatively impact the flow of oil out of the Gulf. Iran will certainly be involved covertly and with back channels but I don't think they'd want to show any signs of real links with Qatar as that would only be fuel for the KSA accusations of terrorism links and increase any furor along the Sunni/Shia and Arab/Persian fault lines.


Yeah last thing we want is more up in the air potential problems like some countries deciding that there there tankers or cargo ships need military escorts, adding yet more potential sides.

Anya ction that forces another to posture, others to show there military. Its upping the danger as it goes.
More sides = more risk.

Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.

"May the odds be ever in your favour"

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.

FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.  
   
Made in gb
Bryan Ansell





Birmingham, UK

Iran are directly supplying food stuffs.

KSA maybe antagonised.

Sunni and Shia issues are going to dominate the peninsula for years to come.
   
Made in gb
Keeper of the Holy Orb of Antioch





avoiding the lorax on Crion

Iran, well any chance to spite the KSA and Gulf states.

Plus the Shia divide with Sunni.
There not going to leave a chance to get at a regional enemy.


Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.

"May the odds be ever in your favour"

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.

FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.  
   
Made in fr
Hallowed Canoness





Caspian Report made a video about this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3t6NkVcyMA

I don't think Iran will stop at Shia. It's more political than sectarian, and they will play the sectarian card if that gets them a political advantage but they will gladly set it aside if it's inconvenient for their political aims…

I don't know about KSA, but from what I can see I guess unlike Iran they are not confident at all with their Shia religious minorities and therefore they are very very invested into supporting Sunni against Shia…

"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1 
   
Made in us
Incorporating Wet-Blending





Houston, TX

Well, now Iran is moving warships around and Qatar is moving tanks out of storage.

Qatar had formerly been pretty independent compared to the rest of the GCC (Gulf Cooperative Council), but a big trigger seems to be the fake news, suspected to be planted by the Russians who just happen to be the world's largest natural gas producer. Guess who is #2.

It is also interesting timing considering the reception of Trump in Riyadh, despite his anti-Muslim comments. The Saudis seem to be aggressively trying to discredit Qatar, especially in the eyes of the Trump administration.

This is not a religious conflict- it is a regional power play.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/12 20:01:37


-James
 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: