US Navy almost fires on Iranian ships after provocation - Page 9 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

User avatar
By casablancaunited
#1424088
No. If a hostile foreign power began amassing it's military on your borders you would have a problem with it regardless of who is in your gov'


Who said anything about boarders? We're talking about international waters here. We can't just assume they're going to launch an attack on our soil just because a couple of battleships are cruising around in international waters.
User avatar
By Nets
#1424097
No thats wrong.
The iranians approached US warships close to their territorial waters.


Exactly, close to, not in. There is a big difference there. Furthermore, Abu Musa Island is disputed anyway, so I don't buy the approaching territorial waters anyway.

You might have a case if Iranians ships had approached the pacific seaboard and threatened LA or San Fran.
American ships approached the Iranians by sailing to the gulf.


The Iranians don't have sovereignty over the Gulf, they share it. It is an international waterway. The US was not doing anything threatening. Iran (or independent Iranian actors) made the choice to escalate.
User avatar
By Arthur2sheds_Jackson
#1424158
Who said anything about boarders? We're talking about international waters here. We can't just assume they're going to launch an attack on our soil just because a couple of battleships are cruising around in international waters.

The point at where territorial waters cease and international waters begin is still a border.
And this whole thread has been about the US 'assuming' the Iranians were about to launch an attack because they saw some dingies and heard a few dodgy radio transmissions (the source of which they are totally clueless about)

NNJF
Exactly, close to, not in. There is a big difference there. Furthermore, Abu Musa Island is disputed anyway, so I don't buy the approaching territorial waters anyway.

Unless Abu Musa island is disputed by the US that is a spurious point to bring up.
Iran still has territorial waters to guard even in the strait of hormuz, it would appear that your (US) warships were a cause to concern for them. They were quite right to identify the ships.
The Iranians don't have sovereignty over the Gulf, they share it. It is an international waterway. The US was not doing anything threatening. Iran (or independent Iranian actors) made the choice to escalate.

Iran has territorial waters in the gulf even the CIA accepts that
https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... r.html#Geo
By Maas
#1424220
Please stay on subject.
You brought up the question of what the US ships were doing in the Strait, I responded. A response from you on that that doesn't include non-related rhetoric would be much appreciated, if you have one.

I guess it bites when what you claim to be rhetoric is the truth. Your last response is just trolling.

As far as I can see, questioning what the US was doing there is exactly on topic. Your response on what they did over there, is just a general theme that can be applied to any boat that passes by. I highly doubt that the US presence near the Iranian border applies to that general theme. It's more a spy thing just like Nato is flying planes around russian airspace. Russians have recently responded by flying planes too, just to annoy each other. In that sence it's totally expected that Iranians drive spies further away.
The Iranians don't have sovereignty over the Gulf, they share it. It is an international waterway. The US was not doing anything threatening. Iran (or independent Iranian actors) made the choice to escalate.

Iran has territorial waters in the gulf even the CIA accepts that

any map that has territorial lines in the gulf will make that clear. It seems every square meter is claimed there.
By Piano Red
#1424468
arthur_two_sheds_jackson
I'd love to see a link that backs that up.


Sorry don't have one (though i'm sure some google-fu would back it up). Unless you own a copy of the "Geography of Transport Systems" index that is.

1 It's not a fact till you've proved it.


It's been proven by the US DoD and confirmed by dozens of news agencies around the world. Aside from the fact that the Iranians have never argued that the US ships were in violation of their waters.

Therefore I don't need to prove anything. If you'd employed some common sense you would've arrived at the same conclusion awhile ago.

2 The Strait is composed of Iran and Omans territorial waters, did your ships 'hop' over the area?


You do realize that even at it's narrowest point the Strait is only 34 miles accross correct?

Using some simple math and...34 - 12(x2) = 10.

Need I mention that there are internationally mandated 2 mile wide channels for inbound/outbound traffic transitting the Strait? Along with additional 2 mile wide buffer zones to either side of that corridor?



Don't worry, they were all rhetorical questions anyway. :hmm:

Are US coastal waters greater than 12 miles?


No, but under UN treaty the US is one of many nations that exercises the maritime jurisdiction of contiguous zones that extend an additional 12 miles beyond it's territorial waters.

Exactly, close to, not in. There is a big difference there. Furthermore, Abu Musa Island is disputed anyway, so I don't buy the approaching territorial waters anyway.


It wouldn't matter, the dispute over that island wouldn't impede on the traffic routes through the Strait remaining open.

The point at where territorial waters cease and international waters begin is still a border.
And this whole thread has been about the US 'assuming' the Iranians were about to launch an attack because they saw some dingies and heard a few dodgy radio transmissions (the source of which they are totally clueless about)


All perfectly good reasons to assume a defensive posture, especially given the reputation the Iranians have for trying to harass traffic in the Strait. Not to mention that little incident involving some British sailors a few months ago....or that little boat that got alongside the USS Cole a few years back.

You know...little stuff like that.

Iran still has territorial waters to guard even in the strait of hormuz, it would appear that your (US) warships were a cause to concern for them. They were quite right to identify the ships.


Would you like to pat yourself on the back for taking the Iranian depiction of events at prima facie face value? Or should I?

The US ships were no where near their territorial waters.

That is fact.

Iran has territorial waters in the gulf even the CIA accepts that
https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... r.html#Geo


What doesn't any of that have to do with the Strait of Hormuz?

Maas
As far as I can see, questioning what the US was doing there is exactly on topic.


One that I have no problems with.

....But, what's the correlation between raising that notion and going on a generalized tirade decrying US foreign policy in the middle east like you did?

Your response on what they did over there, is just a general theme that can be applied to any boat that passes by. I highly doubt that the US presence near the Iranian border applies to that general theme.


On the contrary that statement couldn't be further from the truth. When I said that US warships operate in that area for the purpose of the keeping the Strait of Hormuz open I wasn't being general.

Hell, one of the main strategic pillars for the existance of CentCom's naval component is the protection and security of the Strait and other vulnerable strategic areas in the Persian Gulf from being disrupted. Something that is administered not only by the US 5th Fleet, but by a rather firm international commitment of warships from NATO and non-NATO US allies alike.

It's more a spy thing just like Nato is flying planes around russian airspace. Russians have recently responded by flying planes too, just to annoy each other. In that sence it's totally expected that Iranians drive spies further away.


Read above.

That comparison is flawed in so many ways that I really don't need to address it. Other than that, were are you getting the notion that the Iranians are able to drive anything away? the last time they tried to do that the USN pretty much sunk their entire navy.
User avatar
By Bosnjak
#1424483
The US Forces are overstreched, therefore USA can not afford a further war...

The Iranians are using this situation to send warnings to the USA.


Possibly the 2 "crashed" F-18 near the streat of Hormuz were shot down by Iranians.
By Balzak
#1424519
Piano Red wrote:The same democratic government that had dissolved Parliament and was increasingly becoming authoritarian and corrupt?

Actually, it was Mossadeq who dissolved the Majlis. Many members of the National Front quit their post to protest his decision. But Mossadeq only decided to dissolve parliament after he had learnt about the US plans to topple him by bribing Majlis members to vote him out. It is believed that already 1/3 of the Majlis were on the British payroll; they only needed a few more defectors. And there was more. The CIA-led coup also included:
- murdering government officials
- paying ‘demonstrators’ to turn the streets into battlegrounds, ransacking in the name of Mossadeq
- newspapers on the CIA payroll writing slanderous articles about him, manipulating public opinion
- paying thugs to launch staged atttacks on religious leaders and make it appear they were ordered by Mossadeq ...

And under these circumstances you expect Mossadeq to do nothing and stand idle?

And corrupt? Apart from those who were already paid by the British for years, the only corrupt ones were his former allies who defected him after being bribed by the CIA/SIS, like Kashani and Bakai. Name one member of the National Front, who remained loyal until the end, who was corrupt. Mossadeq was known even by his enemies as scrupulously honest.

And increasingly authoritarian? Despite writing outright lies about him, Mossadeq allowed the press to operate freely. Despite knowing the names of those who were plotting against him, he undertook little action against them. He refused to violently crack down on the ransacking paid thugs because he firmly believed in free speech.

Why do you think the ayatollahs in Iran ignore him and his legacy? Because, just like the shah before them, they realize that allowing their subjects to honour Mossadeq would inevitably lead to calls for a government based on his principles.

But nice attempt to try to portray Mossadeq as the villain nonetheless.

Piano Red wrote:Correct, blame the mullahs for that clusterfuck. Iran's internal geo-political factionalism hasn't been the same since.

Blaming only the mullahs would be to easy. Iran’s factionalism hasn’t been the same since the shah immediately after the coup crushed all legitimate political parties, driving many of their supporters into the arms of opposition groups who were less inclined to use legal means in their resistance against the shah. The coup and 25 years of repression with unconditional US support paved the way for extremism with a strong anti-American character.

The CIA chief in Tehran at that time believed that this coup would be an enormous mistake and warned that Iranians would forever view the US as a supporter of colonialism. And Truman himself predicted that mishandling the Iran crisis would create a disaster to the free world. How prophetic they were.

Piano Red wrote:The US was well in it's rights to refuse to negotiate with people who had broken with every convention of international law and who had incurred upon sovereign American territory.

Fair enough, but the seizure of the US embassy wouldn’t have happened if you ‘didn’t break with every convention of international law and incurred upon sovereign Iranian territory’ 26 years before the hostage crisis. The hostage takers remembered that when the shah fled in 1953 the CIA organised a coup from within the US embassy. Iranians feared that, with the admission of the shah to the US in 1979, history was about to repeat itself.

And as I implied in my previous post, your refusal to negotiate with the moderate elements of Iran's provisional government, who denounced the hostage-takers, bolstered the extremists.

You also didn’t mind dealing secretly with the same extremists a few years later. I wonder what the ayatollahs did with that Bible signed by Reagan. I have to admire your principles.

Piano Red wrote:Business as usual within the great game of international relations.

So when Iranians (or others) infringe on your rights/interests, its terrorism, but when you apply the same tactics against them you call it “business as usual within the great game of international relations”. Again, I have to admire your principles and everything else that you claim to stand for.

Piano Red wrote:Last year good enough for you?

Granted, you’re probably right here. How could I forget that if there’s one thing that the coup taught despots in the world is that powerful governments are willing to tolerate limitless oppression as long as the despotic regimes are friendly to the West and its interests.

NetsFan wrote:The US was not doing anything threatening. Iran (or independent Iranian actors) made the choice to escalate.

Probably not. See above.
User avatar
By Oxymoron
#1424549
Possibly the 2 "crashed" F-18 near the streat of Hormuz were shot down by Iranians



:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


When talking about Israel every one keeps saying they are protected by the most powerful army in the world, when talking about Iran America is a little puppy that is militarily incompetant.


We were ready to fight the Soviets in all parts of the world, but we are not able to fight 1 regional power and 2 insurgencies get your head out of your ass. If you think the US is powerless against Iran well if that helps you sleep at night more power to you.
By Maas
#1424677
....But, what's the correlation between raising that notion and going on a generalized tirade decrying US foreign policy in the middle east like you did?

Dude WTF.
Foreign policy of the US in the middle east..... :lol:
Everything fails and is even coutner producive
Osama still riding his camel and instead of finding WMD's it created armies of terrorists.

On the contrary that statement couldn't be further from the truth. When I said that US warships operate in that area for the purpose of the keeping the Strait of Hormuz open I wasn't being general.

Hell, one of the main strategic pillars for the existance of CentCom's naval component is the protection and security of the Strait and other vulnerable strategic areas in the Persian Gulf from being disrupted. Something that is administered not only by the US 5th Fleet, but by a rather firm international commitment of warships from NATO and non-NATO US allies alike.

The biggest fuckup in the area is the US. The straight would remain perfectly open without the US. Half of it is claimed by Oman. Nobody got a problem with them.
And CentCom :p Stay on topic. You might as well mention what the pentagon does.
Other than that, were are you getting the notion that the Iranians are able to drive anything away?

The last time they took some soldiers as prisoners.
User avatar
By Kirillov
#1424730
We were ready to fight the Soviets in all parts of the world, but we are not able to fight 1 regional power and 2 insurgencies get your head out of your ass. If you think the US is powerless against Iran well if that helps you sleep at night more power to you.


The question is whether the US thinks it is worthwhile mobilising its entire population (i.e. conscription) in order to fight a war over a relatively unimportant state in the Middle East.

If they do think its worth conscription, then I should imagine you will be one of the first to be enlisted. Salesmen are unimportant and unintelligent parasites: thus they generally make good cannon fodder.
User avatar
By Arthur2sheds_Jackson
#1424763
Piano, leaving aside the fact you can't prove what you claim (and ignoring your repeated statement claiming so)
You do realize that even at it's narrowest point the Strait is only 34 miles accross correct?

Using some simple math and...34 - 12(x2) = 10.

Need I mention that there are internationally mandated 2 mile wide channels for inbound/outbound traffic transitting the Strait? Along with additional 2 mile wide buffer zones to either side of that corridor?



Don't worry, they were all rhetorical questions anyway. Hmmm

Actually the Strait is 21 miles across at its narrowest point, thus making your calculations nonsensical.
Ask the UN they know:
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_ ... ective.htm

21 miles is less than 2x12 miles so therefore the strait is composed of Iran and Omans territorial waters.
Easy isn't it?
Would you like to pat yourself on the back for taking the Iranian depiction of events at prima facie face value? Or should I?

The US ships were no where near their territorial waters.

That is fact.

No matter how many times you repeat this claim it is not a fact till you have proven it.
And I'm more willing to believe the Iranians than the US after WMDs etc.
You on the other hand will swallow absolutely anything you hear coming from the US gov't - despite the fact they are proven liars.
In the OP you wrote
I'd shutter to think at what kinds of whoop ass the USN would be eager to open up on them now if things escalated after an incident like this.

Only there never was an 'incident like this' as you say.
Oh dear :roll:
User avatar
By Oxymoron
#1424835
Salesmen are unimportant and unintelligent parasites: thus they generally make good cannon fodder.


:lol: For the most part your correct.


The question is whether the US thinks it is worthwhile mobilising its entire population (i.e. conscription) in order to fight a war over a relatively unimportant state in the Middle East.


I dont think we need to mobilise the whole nation to fight Iran, perhaps drafting 18-20 year old Hippies and Communist we will bring some manpower and turn them into killing machines thus killing 2 birds with one stone.
By Maas
#1424886
The US ships were no where near their territorial waters.

Buy a map! :roll:

That piece of straight they all were in, is darn narrow.
You simply can not help being close to their territorial waters if you're there.
User avatar
By ingliz
#1424908
The US is protecting its interests, as usual its the oil.If they can achieve this by abiding by international law they will be good world citizens.If they believe they cannot they will be criminals.Who will stop them?
User avatar
By casablancaunited
#1424910
The US is protecting its interests, as usual its the oil.


How?
By Piano Red
#1425350
Balzak
Actually, it was Mossadeq who dissolved the Majlis.


That's what I was referring to.

But Mossadeq only decided to dissolve parliament after he had learnt about the US plans to topple him by bribing Majlis members to vote him out.


Doesn't change the fact that such an action was illegal, or that he used authoritarian measures and electioneering to grant him emergency powers.

As for US plot, I feel I need to correct you again.

It was a joint UK/US plot, one that was primarily driven by British interests. The US barely had any care for the Middle East at that point in time, hell it was only after the British used a nice touch of "Red Scare" on the Soviets trying to gain a geo-political foothold in Iran (which they actually were) that Eisenhower actually decided to lend support.

It is believed that already 1/3 of the Majlis were on the British payroll; they only needed a few more defectors. And there was more. The CIA-led coup also included:
- murdering government officials
- paying ‘demonstrators’ to turn the streets into battlegrounds, ransacking in the name of Mossadeq
- newspapers on the CIA payroll writing slanderous articles about him, manipulating public opinion
- paying thugs to launch staged atttacks on religious leaders and make it appear they were ordered by Mossadeq ...


Mossadegh's response, and those of his supporters, were all just as dirty. Do I even need to go into some of the practices utilized by the Tudeh Party?

And under these circumstances you expect Mossadeq to do nothing and stand idle?


Replace Mossadegh with the Shah and you'll be on the right track.

And corrupt? Apart from those who were already paid by the British for years, the only corrupt ones were his former allies who defected him after being bribed by the CIA/SIS, like Kashani and Bakai. Name one member of the National Front, who remained loyal until the end, who was corrupt.


Sure, his supporters in Parliament, the appointments to the Iranian Ministry of Defense and Foreign Ministry, plenty of members in the Tudeh party, elements in his nationalist movement (not to be confused with the national front), and some of the Islamic clerics that supported him.

And increasingly authoritarian?


Yes, his illegal dissolution of Parliament being one point of evidence on that. And I guess you never learned about the death threats his supporters sent, with his approval, to his political opponents? Not to mention the electioneering tactics he used in order to remain in power?

Why do you think the ayatollahs in Iran ignore him and his legacy?


Because he was a secularist, and also because they probably despised him even more than the British did. Operation Ajax simply beat them to the chase in terms of plans they had to remove him from power. Something which, going by their MO, probably would've resulted in his assassination.

Because, just like the shah before them, they realize that allowing their subjects to honour Mossadeq would inevitably lead to calls for a government based on his principles.


That too.

But nice attempt to try to portray Mossadeq as the villain nonetheless.


Considering the absurd of amount of revisionist history that portrays him as a saint of God I doubt i'd be successful.

The man was as much (not) a villain just as he was not a hero either, regardless of the hindsighted rhetoric that most people (and you) allude to with regard to Mossadegh.

Blaming only the mullahs would be to easy.


Fine, blame the Shah and the Revolution then, not much of a difference as far as i'm concerned. Iran has been locked in a virtual tug of war between competing interests ever since it's contemporary inception.

Iran’s factionalism hasn’t been the same since the shah immediately after the coup crushed all legitimate political parties, driving many of their supporters into the arms of opposition groups who were less inclined to use legal means in their resistance against the shah.


Uh, some of those opposition groups didn't use legal means to oppose the Shah long before Mossadegh ever came to power, or was removed.

The CIA chief in Tehran at that time believed that this coup would be an enormous mistake and warned that Iranians would forever view the US as a supporter of colonialism. And Truman himself predicted that mishandling the Iran crisis would create a disaster to the free world. How prophetic they were.


Beggars can't be choosers, the risk of Iran viewing the US as such was viewed as an acceptable loss at the time.

Fair enough, but the seizure of the US embassy wouldn’t have happened if you ‘didn’t break with every convention of international law and incurred upon sovereign Iranian territory’ 26 years before the hostage crisis.


We didn't, the US and UK both worked with the support and consent of the Shah, as well as other elements in the Iranian political sphere that were opposed to Mossadegh.

The hostage takers remembered that when the shah fled in 1953 the CIA organised a coup from within the US embassy. Iranians feared that, with the admission of the shah to the US in 1979, history was about to repeat itself.


So? Regardless of such reasoning, it never excused or gave them the authority to execute a defacto act of war against the US by invading the embassy.

And as I implied in my previous post, your refusal to negotiate with the moderate elements of Iran's provisional government, who denounced the hostage-takers, bolstered the extremists.


And as I said, it was something well within the US' rights. Considering the huge degree with which the Provisional government remained impotent through most of the affair, or were later sidelined, the US was right not to open a dialogue with them.

You also didn’t mind dealing secretly with the same extremists a few years later. I wonder what the ayatollahs did with that Bible signed by Reagan. I have to admire your principles.


Come now, "principles" in international relations are all relative. Sometimes they can mean something, other times...less so. I fail to see how that issue has much to do with the point I raised.

So when Iranians (or others) infringe on your rights/interests, its terrorism, but when you apply the same tactics against them you call it “business as usual within the great game of international relations”.


Correct.

Granted, you’re probably right here. How could I forget that if there’s one thing that the coup taught despots in the world is that powerful governments are willing to tolerate limitless oppression as long as the despotic regimes are friendly to the West and its interests.


In order to avoid the greater of two evils? You're damn right.

Better to tolerate certain regimes in the Arab world at the expense of their limited oppression, and in favor of the semblance of stability they bring to that corner of the world, than to see events unfold that would lead to the disrupting of a potential geo-strategic flashpoint as important as the Middle East to US (and Global) interests.


Dude WTF.
Foreign policy of the US in the middle east.....
Everything fails and is even coutner producive
Osama still riding his camel and instead of finding WMD's it created armies of terrorists.


*sigh*

Again, what does that have to do with the more specific topic of the presence of US ships in Strait of Hormuz? Or the particular incident we're talking about in this thread?

If you want to talk about all that, then go make another one.

The straight would remain perfectly open without the US. Half of it is claimed by Oman. Nobody got a problem with them.


Just as it did before US intervention during the Tanker War?

The fact is that it wouldn't matter if no one has a problem with Oman. Do they have minesweepers? Or any other means of keeping the Strait open for commercial traffic if a war were to break out?

If you can understand that then i'm sure you can understand the reasons for why they allow US and other Coalition warships to operate in their waters.

The last time they took some soldiers as prisoners.


Only because they caught them offguard, and at a time when their home ship wasn't in a position to lend backup.

Hardly comparable to the incident between them and the US ships.

Kirillov
The question is whether the US thinks it is worthwhile mobilising its entire population (i.e. conscription) in order to fight a war over a relatively unimportant state in the Middle East.


None of which would ever happen.

Short of a world war against a major power like China and Russia the US would never have to draft conscripts to fight a paper tiger like Iran.

arthur_two_sheds_jackson
Piano, leaving aside the fact you can't prove what you claim (and ignoring your repeated statement claiming so)


What do you mean can't prove my claim? If you want a link to the book's website because you were too lazy to look it up yourself then here you go.

Actually the Strait is 21 miles across at its narrowest point, thus making your calculations nonsensical.
Ask the UN they know:
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_ ... ective.htm


If you're going to take a bad link off of wikipedia than the least you can do is be honest about it.

FYI it doesn't give any specific geographic information about the Strait of Hormuz. My book does, but if you want a more concrete web source then fine.

Google is your friend.

21 miles is less than 2x12 miles so therefore the strait is composed of Iran and Omans territorial waters.
Easy isn't it?


No.

Mainly because the Strait of Hormuz isn't 21 miles long at it's narrowest point. Feel free to use Google Earth if you want, I already have.

No matter how many times you repeat this claim it is not a fact till you have proven it.


So you don't believe the US sailor in the video when he clearly states that the US ship was in international waters?

You don't believe the facts i've stated about how the shipping and transit lanes in the Strait of Hormuz are organized?

You don't believe the numerous news agencies around the world that have confirmed the location of the US ships at the time of the incident?

You don't believe the Iranians themselves when they have yet to raise a single point of issue with regards to the US ships supposedly being close to their territorial waters?

You don't believe...oh forget it. Trying to state the truth to you is not easy it would seem.

And I'm more willing to believe the Iranians than the US after WMDs etc.


Considering that they've changed their depiction of what happened during the encounter (aside from initially not acknowledging the incident ever took place) six times already, i'd say you're hopelessly naive.

Try to lay off the Strawmen next time.

You on the other hand will swallow absolutely anything you hear coming from the US gov't - despite the fact they are proven liars.


Considering that statements made by the US govt. are readily availible to be cross-referenced, why not?

Iran? Not so much. :?:

Only there never was an 'incident like this' as you say.


Uh there have actually been several incidents like this...

This one is just unique due to the abnormal behavior exercised by the IRGC boats. Unless of course those boats shown in the video were all just a figment of my imagination. Right?

Buy a map!

That piece of straight they all were in, is darn narrow.
You simply can not help being close to their territorial waters if you're there.


Already have one, do you?

So, i'll repeat myself, those ships were no where near Iran's territorial waters.
User avatar
By Arthur2sheds_Jackson
#1425381
Piano Red:
What do you mean can't prove my claim? If you want a link to the book's website because you were too lazy to look it up yourself then here you go.

I did originally ask YOU for the link - and you couldn't be bothered to provide one to back up your assertion.
Hows that my fault for being lazy? :roll:
Google is your friend.

Or yahoo is - as the case may be.
I prefer to believe the UN to be honest
The UN wrote:
A 12-mile territorial sea would place under national jurisdiction of riparian States strategic passages such as the Strait of Gibraltar (8 miles wide and the only open access to the Mediterranean), the Strait of Malacca (20 miles wide and the main sea route between the Pacific and Indian Oceans), the Strait of Hormuz (21 miles wide and the only passage to the oil-producing areas of Gulf States) and Bab el Mandeb (14 miles wide, connecting the Indian Ocean with the Red Sea).

There is also the Energy Information Administration who provide 'Official Energy statistics from the US Government'who say
At its narrowest point the Strait is 21 miles wide, and consists of two-mile wide channels for inbound and outbound tanker traffic, as well as a two-mile wide buffer zone.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/World_Oil_T ... ormuz.html

As you say google is your friend, the first image result from google of the strait of hormuz is this one
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_e ... z_2004.jpg
Which shows shipping lanes well within Iranian waters.
No.

Mainly because the Strait of Hormuz isn't 21 miles long at it's narrowest point. Feel free to use Google Earth if you want, I already have.

I prefer official bodies for my information.
So you don't believe the US sailor in the video when he clearly states that the US ship was in international waters?

Why should I?
I presume he's under orders to repeat the US version of events.
You don't believe the facts i've stated about how the shipping and transit lanes in the Strait of Hormuz are organized?

What you have stated has been factually incorrect.
You don't believe the numerous news agencies around the world that have confirmed the location of the US ships at the time of the incident?

Numerous news agencies around the world confirmed the attack in the Gulf of Tonkin :roll:
You don't believe the Iranians themselves when they have yet to raise a single point of issue with regards to the US ships supposedly being close to their territorial waters?

If I was the Iranian government I wouldn't say a thing I would just let the clown show that is US propaganda become an even bigger laughing stock to the world.
Considering that they've changed their depiction of what happened during the encounter (aside from initially not acknowledging the incident ever took place) six times already, i'd say you're hopelessly naive.

Of course the US has been remarkably consistant in its version of events :roll:
This one is just unique due to the abnormal behavior exercised by the IRGC boats. Unless of course those boats shown in the video were all just a figment of my imagination. Right?

What is abnormal about wanting to know who's ships are close to your waters?
User avatar
By ingliz
#1425383
casablancaunited-The US believe Iran to be a threat to their interests.The naval patrols in the Strait of Hormuz are a very visible projection of American resolve to defend those interests and are perfectly legal. The covert missions by US forces on Iranian sovereign territory, murdering Iranian nationals, kidnapping Iranian diplomats, funding anti-government terrorist groups etc etc are criminal acts.
By Maas
#1425426
Buy a map!
That piece of straight they all were in, is darn narrow.
You simply can not help being close to their territorial waters if you're there.
Already have one, do you?

I don't need one since I've lived in Oman.
By Piano Red
#1425957
arthur_two_sheds_jackson
I did originally ask YOU for the link - and you couldn't be bothered to provide one to back up your assertion.
Hows that my fault for being lazy?


And I gave you one, it just didn't happen to be an online source. I can't help it if you don't want to check Amazon for a simple ISBN number or some such.

Or yahoo is - as the case may be.
I prefer to believe the UN to be honest
The UN wrote:


It was at the top of the results page. :roll:

You apparently didn't go through that link very well did you?

I've also got more sources than you (and hey, would you look at that...one of them is the UN too!)

Sources: International Energy Agency (IEA), U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), GlobalSecurity.org, U.S. Navy's Military Sealift Command, Clarkson shipping consultancy.


There is also the Energy Information Administration who provide 'Official Energy statistics from the US Government'who say


Read directly above.

As you say google is your friend, the first image result from google of the strait of hormuz is this one
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_e ... z_2004.jpg
Which shows shipping lanes well within Iranian waters.


International maritime law deems shipping and transit lanes as international waters. Aside from the fact that there are a variety of different lanes within the Strait with and to either side of Iran's or Oman's marked territorial waters.

Need I remind you that the incident never took place in the shipping lanes which, according to that map, would be within Iranian waters?

We can go back and on forth on this as much as you want until you concede.

I prefer official bodies for my information.


I have more "official bodies" than you in that case.

Why should I?
I presume he's under orders to repeat the US version of events.


Are you implying that the sailer had time to rehearse what he was saying when the video was recorded? Because if you are then that's got a be a whole new level of tin foil hattery of you.

Where's your evidence that the sailer would've been under orders to repeat the US "version" of the events (especially in light of the Pentagon releasing the full unedited video a few days ago)?

What you have stated has been factually incorrect.


Based on what? I've supported my statements with some of the same sources you keep falling back on, in addition to a number that you don't have.

One of us is factually incorrect here (especially as it relates to the position of the US ships in relation to Iranian waters during the incident in the first place), and I know it's not me.

Numerous news agencies around the world confirmed the attack in the Gulf of Tonkin


Another Strawman, surely you can do better? Right? Right?

If I was the Iranian government I wouldn't say a thing I would just let the clown show that is US propaganda become an even bigger laughing stock to the world.


Fortunately you're not, the only thing sadder than that is you having yet to truely answer the question.

Of course the US has been remarkably consistant in its version of events


Evidence of where it has not?

What is abnormal about wanting to know who's ships are close to your waters?


Oh I don't know...closing to within a breath's reach of such ships (in nautical terms), swarming around them and dropping white boxes in the water (forcing them to take evasive action), and doing the usual range of dickish moves the Iranians have a well establish reputation for in that part of the world.

Don't be so blatantly naive.

...oh, and as i've repeatedly said, those ships were no where near Iranian waters when the incident occured.

Maas
I don't need one since I've lived in Oman.


So you know the Strait like the back of your head I can assume then? You've been on a ship as it passed through?
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10

Did anyone question the source and its claims? h[…]

CNN's Erin Burnett speaks with Rep. Ilhan Omar (D[…]

^^^ My favorite Erin Burnett li(n)e, uttered by h[…]

He marches with nazis and provides cover for them.[…]