US Navy almost fires on Iranian ships after provocation - Page 8 - 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

By Balzak
#1422855
More from the Washington Post:

Iranian Boats May Not Have Made Radio Threat, Pentagon Says

By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 11, 2008; Page A13

The Pentagon said yesterday that the apparent radio threat to bomb U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf last weekend may not have come from the five Iranian Revolutionary Guard speedboats that approached them -- and may not even have been intended against U.S. targets.

The communication Sunday was made on radio channel 16, a common marine frequency used by ships and others in the region. "It could have been a threat aimed at some other nation or a myriad of other things," said Rear Adm. Frank Thorp IV, a spokesman for the Navy.

In the radio message recorded by the Navy, a heavily accented voice said: "I am coming to you. You will explode after a few minutes." But Farsi speakers and Iranians told The Washington Post that the accent did not sound Iranian.

In part because of the threatening language, the United States has elevated the encounter into an international incident. Twice this week, President Bush criticized Iran's behavior as provocative and warned of "serious consequences" if it happens again. He is due to head today to the Gulf area, where containing Iran is expected to be a major theme of his talks in five oil-rich sheikdoms.

Pentagon officials insist that they never claimed Iran made the threat. "No one in the military has said that the transmission emanated from those boats. But when they hear it simultaneously to the behavior of those boats, it only adds to the tension," said Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell. "If this verbal threat emanated from something or someone unrelated to the five boats, it would not lessen the threat from those boats."

The warning was picked up on a bridge-to-bridge communication received by many ships in the region about seven minutes after the five Iranian patrol boats first appeared on the horizon, Thorp said. The main threat, Pentagon officials said, was the way the five boats swarmed erratically around the USS Port Royal, an Aegis cruiser, and its accompanying frigate and destroyer, and then dropped small, white, box-like items in the water.

"When you get a bridge-to-bridge call, you have no way of knowing where it came from," Thorp said. "Nobody ever, with any certainty, knew it was from them. But it did escalate it up a notch as it was happening at the same time" that the patrol boats, manned by Revolutionary Guards, engaged in menacing behavior, Thorp said.

Yet the Pentagon had consistently given the impression that the threat was linked to the Iranian boats.

"This is more serious because of the aggregate of the actions, the coordinated movement of the ships, the boats, the aggressive maneuvering, the more or less simultaneous radio communication, the dropping of objects. . . . So, yes, it's more serious than we have seen," Vice Adm. Kevin Cosgriff, head of U.S. Naval Forces Central Command, said at a briefing on Monday.

The Pentagon's audiotape of the warning was released Tuesday, with the videotape, in an abridged four-minute package of the incident, which U.S. officials said lasted between 20 and 30 minutes. The U.S. ships were within seconds of opening fire on the Iranian speedboats when the boats turned and headed toward Iran, Pentagon officials said.

The radio threat was merely a "sideshow" to the physical threat, a senior U.S. official familiar with the incident said. "What was the command-and-control mechanism here? Was Tehran aware of what they were doing? They made these provocative moves. The radio was a sideshow to the event," he said.

To further challenge the U.S. version, Iran yesterday released what it asserted was an abridged video of the same incident, which shows a calm exchange. "Slowly get a little closer . . . can't make out the ship number," says a Revolutionary Guardsman on a small patrol boat, speaking in Farsi. "I hear something being announced from its loudspeakers; what is it saying? I think they're talking to us."

"Which channel?" says a second Iranian. "Coalition warship 73," he says, speaking in English through his radio mike. "This Iranian navy patrol boat. Request side number . . . operating in the area this time."

A U.S. ship radios back: "This is coalition warship 73. I read you loud and clear."


The five-minute video, released by Iranian television yesterday, offers no indication of the tensions that supposedly sparked the encounter between U.S. and Iranian vessels in the Strait of Hormuz -- and no indication of an intention to attack. The Pentagon said it does not dispute anything in the Iranian video.

In Tehran, Revolutionary Guards Brig. Gen. Ali Fadavi charged that the United States was creating a "media fuss," the Fars News Agency reported. He said the Iranian objective was to obtain registration numbers that were unreadable.

The U.S. presence in the Gulf's international waters is a sensitive issue in Iran because the USS Vincennes, another Aegis cruiser, shot down an Iranian passenger plane in 1988, killing all 290 people on board. The United States at first contended that it was a warplane and then said that it was outside the civilian air corridor and did not respond to radio calls. Both were untrue, and the radio calls were made on military frequencies to which the airliner did not have access. A subsequent investigation showed that the U.S. ship was off course.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said the Iranian video does not refute the U.S. version. "Simply choosing not to reveal the careless and reckless actions in this video does not change the facts from what took place," he said in an e-mail.

The United States yesterday sent an official protest to Tehran through Switzerland, while Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates charged that Iran had acted aggressively. "What concerned us was, first, the fact that there were five of these boats and, second, that they came as close as they did to our ships and behaved in a pretty aggressive manner," he said at a news conference.

Quoting former defense secretary William S. Cohen, Gates said: " 'Are you going to believe me or your lying eyes?' I think that aptly characterizes and appropriately characterizes the Iranian claim."

Staff writer Ann Scott Tyson contributed to this report.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/10/AR2008011000692_2.html?sub=AR


And from The Guardian I found this particular piece quite interesting:

But the mystery remains of where the voice that apparently threatened to bomb the US ships came from. The Pentagon has said that it recorded the film and the sound separately, and then stitched them together - a dubious piece of editing even before it became known that the source of the voice could not, with certainty, be linked to the Iranian patrol boats.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2239119,00.html

Apparently this 'provocation' has been shamefully exaggerated and exploited by the US government to convince the Arab states of the 'Iranian threat'. And only a few days before Bush's first visit to the Middle East. How convenient.
User avatar
By naked_turk
#1423054
The sad thing about these incidents that cause a lot of media attention and turn out to be falsifications is that they do what they were meant to do, even after the facts come out.

A week of broadcasting the US version undisputed, followed by an almost abrupt end to coverage on the topic once it is established that the case was fully or partially falsified.

Lots of people have an opportunity to see the original story, but not so much the followup.
User avatar
By KurtFF8
#1423115
It is quite interesting that the AP headline on Yahoo! News is "US admiral says Iran risks Gulf conflict" instead of something like the Washington Post article "Iranian Boats May Not Have Made Radio Threat, Pentagon Says"
User avatar
By Galoredk
#1423137
Cry Wolf:)

Tonkin Bay, WMDs, Osama smoking gun tape and now this.

It only assures me that the US have no believability and will not stop at lying to start a war.

Oxy, if you are so willing to fight for your country, why dont you just join the army and put your money where your mouth is?
By Ash
#1423243
This is part of a United States global policy to intimidate and harass countries that do not follow Washington's dictates in international affairs, but instead choose their own path of development. The hegemonic designs of the United States, its hatred of revolutions, its desire to change the course of history and its unscrupulous nature are evident in this threat against a poor Muslim country. The United States is trying to dominate the world with its war machine, indiscriminately crushing underfoot anything in its path. The United States has long committed aggression against Iran by penetrating her airspace and territorial waters, as the murderous downing Iran Air Flight 655 demonstrates. This latest provocation must be seen in the context of the serious doubt expressed by the international community regarding the spurious claims by the United States that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. The United States is cynically trying to slander Iran as an aggressor despite the fact that the Persian Gulf is more than 10,000 kilometers away from the territory of the United States.

The presence of United States fleets off the Persian Gulf, whether in international or territorial waters, is a continuous source of threat and aggression and constitutes interference in the sovereign descision-making powers of the coastal countries. Since the Persian Gulf is thousands of kilometers from the United States, there cannot be a rational explanation for it dangerous military presence. Iranian territorial waters are violated when the United States warships penetrate waters surrounding Abu Musa island. The United States has arrogated to itself the right to use the open sea for provocative military maneuvers and to test weapons, while at the same time exploiting and pillaging the resources of the sea. The provocative military exercises by the United States in the Persian Gulf is a serious violation of international law, which forbids the threat to use force against another country.

The right to use international waters is quite different from using the gulf adjacent to Iran for dangerous militarist endeavors, since that region is the cradle of civilization and religion and its inhabitants have long lived in peace and security.

As the New York Times puts it:
"Naval and Pentagon officials have said that the video and audio were recorded separately, then combined. On Wednesday, Pentagon officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak officially, said they were still trying to determine if the transmission came from the speedboats or elsewhere.
"The audio includes a heavily accented voice warning in English that the Navy warships would explode. However, the recording carries no ambient noise — the sounds of a motor, the sea or wind — that would be expected if the broadcast had been made from one of the five small boats that sped around the three-ship American convoy.

"Pentagon officials said they could not rule out that the broadcast might have come from shore, or from another ship nearby, although it might have come from one of the five fast boats with a high-quality radio system."


The video released by the Iranian media is more coherent and more credible than Washington's cock and bull story. It should be considered that such allegations of an Iranian provocations are disseminated by the same regime that consciously fabricated the non-existent nuclear weapons program of Iraq.

Mike Nizza, writing on the New York Times blog, reports:

"The list of those who are less than fully confident in the Pentagon's video/audio mashup of aggressive maneuvers by Iranian boats near American warships in the Strait of Hormuz now includes the Pentagon itself. Unnamed Pentagon officials said on Wednesday that the threatening voice heard in the audio clip, which was released on Monday night with a disclaimer that it was recorded separately from the video images and merged with them later, is not directly traceable to the Iranian military."http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/degrees-of-confidence-on-us-iran-naval-incident/


"? As a commenter on the Times blog notes
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/0 ... with-iran/

"Over in the Gulf, Ch. 16 [the commonly-used UHF frequency] is like a bad CB radio. Everybody and their brother is on it; chattering away; hurling racial slurs, usually involving Filipinos (lots of Filipinos work in the area); curses involving your mother; 1970's music broadcast in the wee hours (nothing odder than hearing The Carpenters 50 miles off the coast of Iran at 4 a.m.)

"On Ch. 16, esp. in that section of the Gulf, slurs/threats/chatter/etc. is commonplace. So my first thought was that the ‘explode' comment might not have even come from one of the Iranian craft, but some loser monitoring the events at a shore facility. "
User avatar
By Oxymoron
#1423308
Oxy, if you are so willing to fight for your country, why dont you just join the army and put your money where your mouth is



I have my profesion and soldiers have theirs, if my country needs me I am ready to go.
User avatar
By Oxymoron
#1423329
CAIRO, Egypt - The U.S. Navy said Friday that one of its ships fired warning shots at a small Iranian boat in the Strait of Hormuz in December during one of two serious encounters that month.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080111/ap_ ... an_us_navy

The USS Whidbey Island fired the warning shots on Dec. 19 in response to a small Iranian boat that was rapidly approaching it, said a U.S. Navy official.

"One small (Iranian) craft was coming toward it, and it stopped after the Whidbey Island fired warning shots," said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

It was the first official confirmation that the United States had fired warning shots in any recent confrontation with Iran in the Gulf.

In the second incident that month, the USS Carr encountered three small Iranian craft on Dec. 22, two of which were armed, said the official. The USS Carr did not fire warning shots, but sent warning blasts on the ships whistle, which caused the boats to turn around.

The reports come a day after the United States lodged a formal diplomatic protest with Iran over an incident Sunday in which Iranian speedboats harassed U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf.

Adm. William J. Fallon, the top U.S. military commander in the Mideast, said Friday that Iran runs the risk of triggering an unintended conflict if its boats continue to harass U.S. warships in the strait.
User avatar
By Nets
#1423606
This is part of a United States global policy to intimidate and harass countries that do not follow Washington's dictates in international affairs,


But the Iranian ships approached us, not vice versa. You don't slap someone, get hit back and whine about their aggressive hit.

but instead choose their own path of development.


Even if that supposed choice is an undemocratic, Islamic theocracy. But who are we to judge? :roll:

The hegemonic designs of the United States, its hatred of revolutions, its desire to change the course of history and its unscrupulous nature are evident in this threat against a poor Muslim country.


A threat against a poor muslim Country? What do you call their rallies burning American flags yelling death to the Great Satan, just joking around?

Furthermore, Iran is not so poor. It is wealthier than most destitute Arab/Muslim countries, and is well-off enough to fund terror networks in Iraq and especially in Lebanon.

Iran maintains a Revolutionary Guard trained army in Lebanon which throws shit-fits in that country whenever the democratic government there does anything it doesn't like. Who's the regional hegemony now?

The United States is trying to dominate the world with its war machine, indiscriminately crushing underfoot anything in its path.


Indiscriminately crushing? Prove it. Why are Venezuela, North Korea, Sudan, Iran, Syria,......., still around? Had we really wished to indiscriminately crush all opposition our air force could have easily done this in a week. You can pretend we have the entire world under our boots, but it just ain't so.

The United States has long committed aggression against Iran by penetrating her airspace and territorial waters, as the murderous downing Iran Air Flight 655 demonstrates.


Do you have something more recent than a one-off naval accident 20 years ago?

The Persian Gulf is an international body of water. Every country bordering that waterway (except Iran) supports and even asks for our presence there. This isn't aggression, rather it is the defense of our Arab allies from Iranian aggression. Sailing in an international waterway at the behest of the countries there will only be considered aggression to the most hotheaded and paranoid of countries.

This latest provocation must be seen in the context of the serious doubt expressed by the international community regarding the spurious claims by the United States that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. The United States is cynically trying to slander Iran as an aggressor despite the fact that the Persian Gulf is more than 10,000 kilometers away from the territory of the United States.


Serious doubts of the International community? The UN Security Council seems to take the threat pretty seriously, as do our Arab allies. Though the Gulf maybe 10,000 miles away, it laps at the shores of our friends in the region, and we believe in helping friends.

The presence of United States fleets off the Persian Gulf, whether in international or territorial waters, is a continuous source of threat and aggression and constitutes interference in the sovereign descision-making powers of the coastal countries. Since the Persian Gulf is thousands of kilometers from the United States, there cannot be a rational explanation for it dangerous military presence. Iranian territorial waters are violated when the United States warships penetrate waters surrounding Abu Musa island. The United States has arrogated to itself the right to use the open sea for provocative military maneuvers and to test weapons, while at the same time exploiting and pillaging the resources of the sea. The provocative military exercises by the United States in the Persian Gulf is a serious violation of international law, which forbids the threat to use force against another country.

The right to use international waters is quite different from using the gulf adjacent to Iran for dangerous militarist endeavors, since that region is the cradle of civilization and religion and its inhabitants have long lived in peace and security.


And here you just repeat yourself again.

I have already explained the rational reasons we patrol that gulf, and why it is not a threat to all but one of the countries there, and even in this case the case is weak.

Also, the case of Iranian sovereignty over the Abu Musa Island is weak at best. Legally, according to both Iran and the United Arab Emirates, Abu Musa is officially under UAE sovereignty and has been so since 1971 officially. Therefore, the US entered the territorial waters of an American ally, not Iran, so there is no aggression here. ;)

These are only dangerous militarily endeavors if dangerous speedboats approach a US ship without provocation...then it becomes dangerous.

And since when has the region lived in peace and security? Its been a violent region for a century.

So are you done frothing at the mouth and are you ready to debate reasonably?


Also, welcome to the forums. I'm sure you'll find lots of friends here. :)
User avatar
By Arthur2sheds_Jackson
#1423834
But the Iranian ships approached us, not vice versa.


No thats wrong.
The iranians approached US warships close to their territorial waters.
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.
By Maas
#1423846
American ships approached the Iranians by sailing to the gulf.

indeed... and them were warships too.
And what were they doing there exactly anyways? That's been left totally out of the equation.
I have already explained the rational reasons we patrol that gulf, and why it is not a threat to all but one of the countries there, and even in this case the case is weak.

To be precise them warmachines have pounded 2 countries in that area in to the stone age very resently.
Iran maintains a Revolutionary Guard trained army in Lebanon

The US used the CIA and special forces to controle a lot of Middle- and South America governments. Even helping with the overthrowing elected leaders and such. :hmm:
Indiscriminately crushing? Prove it. Why are Venezuela,

There was a coup placed on Chavez... it was co-funded by US non profit organisations. This aint a secret at all. The US government aint doing anything about them, but they do block accounts of organisations who do simular things in other countries.
Do you have something more recent than a one-off naval accident 20 years ago?

Musharraf told the U.S. to stay out of Pakistan... today
By Piano Red
#1423890
arthur_two_sheds_jackson
No thats wrong.
The iranians approached US warships close to their territorial waters.
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.


I don't even know where to begin, the fact that you misrepresent INTERNATIONAL WATERS as being "close" to Iranian territorial waters (you do know what a Strait is right?), or the horrible analogy of comparison to Iranian ships approaching the US coast.

There's no restriction on ships of any nation sailing anywhere in the world so long as they're in international waters.

Maas
And what were they doing there exactly anyways? That's been left totally out of the equation.


Does it matter? They could've been there for shits and giggles and it still would've been entirely legal.

Warships from several navies across the world operate in the Persian Gulf and the Straits of Hormuz, primarily with the intent of keeping such a strategically vital economic chokepoint from being disrupted.
By Balzak
#1423908
NetsFan wrote:But the Iranian ships approached us, not vice versa. You don't slap someone, get hit back and whine about their aggressive hit.

Apparently they approached you because they were unable to identify the ship numbers:

"Slowly get a little closer . . . can't make out the ship number," says a Revolutionary Guardsman on a small patrol boat, speaking in Farsi. "I hear something being announced from its loudspeakers; what is it saying? I think they're talking to us."

"Which channel?" says a second Iranian. "Coalition warship 73," he says, speaking in English through his radio mike. "This Iranian navy patrol boat. Request side number . . . operating in the area this time."

A U.S. ship radios back: "This is coalition warship 73. I read you loud and clear."


From IPS:

The five Iran boats involved were hardly in a position to harm the three U.S. warships. Although Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman described the Iranian boats as "highly maneuverable patrol craft" that were "visibly armed," he failed to note that these are tiny boats carrying only a two- or three-man crew and that they are normally armed only with machine guns that could do only surface damage to a U.S. ship.

The only boat that was close enough to be visible to the U.S. ships was unarmed, as an enlarged photo of the boat from the navy video clearly shows.

The U.S. warships were not concerned about the possibility that the Iranian boats were armed with heavier weapons capable of doing serious damage. Asked by a reporter whether any of the vessels had anti-ship missiles or torpedoes, Vice Adm. Kevin Cosgriff, Commander of the 5th Fleet, answered that none of them had either of those two weapons.

"I didn't get the sense from the reports I was receiving that there was a sense of being afraid of these five boats," said Cosgriff.

Cosgriff's answers to reporters' questions indicated that the story promoted earlier by Pentagon officials that one of the U.S . ships came very close to firing at the Iranian boats seriously distorted what actually happened. When Cosgriff was asked whether the crew ever gave warning to the Iranian boats that they "could come under fire", he said the commanding officers "did not believe they needed to fire warning shots".

As for the report circulated by at least one Pentagon official to the media that one of the commanders was "close to firing", Cosgriff explained that "close to" meant that the commander was "working through a series of procedures". He added, "In his mind, he might have been closing in on that point."
http://ipsnews.net/text/news.asp?idnews=40747


NetsFan wrote:Even if that supposed choice is an undemocratic, Islamic theocracy. But who are we to judge?

And who are you to topple Iran's democratically elected government and to unconditionally support an undemocratic, megalomaniac dictatorship for 25 years?

I don't disagree with what you're saying but you fail to see the things in perspective. Iran's first provisional government actually was rather progressive and was dominated by liberal nationalists who wanted to establish a normal relationship with the US. A relationship based on mutual respect. Unfortunately the ayatollah managed to seize power, to consolidate it, and to outlaw and prosecute his former allies beacause of two particular events: the seizure of your embassy which was a consequence of the shah's admisson to the US and Saddam's invasion of Iran. And who refused to deliver the shah to Iran where he should have been prosecuted for his crimes? (Recently you invaded a country after the 'leadership' there refused to deliver its 'special guest' to you.) And who encouraged and supported Saddam to go to war with Iran?

Netsfan wrote:What do you call their rallies burning American flags yelling death to the Great Satan, just joking around?

One million Iranians died in the Iran-Iraq war. You will hardly find a family in Iran that hasn't been directly affected by that war. The Iranians, unlike the rest of the world, perfectly know which countries armed, funded and supported Iraq in this 'Imposed War' of which the consequences are still visible in Iran today.

And what do you call threatening Iran with nuclear weapons, supporting terrorist, secessionist groups aimed at the disintegration of the Iranian state? Just joking around?

NetsFan wrote:It is wealthier than most destitute Arab/Muslim countries, and is well-off enough to fund terror networks in Iraq and especially in Lebanon.

Which terror networks in Iraq do you mean? The Iraqi government? And I recall that only a few years ago Iran, in a 'grand bargain', offered to transform Hezbollah into a mere political organisation.

NetsFan wrote:Iran maintains a Revolutionary Guard trained army in Lebanon which throws shit-fits in that country whenever the democratic government there does anything it doesn't like.

Sounds familiar. Aged Iranians who remember Mossadeq know all about it.

NetsFan wrote:Who's the regional hegemony now?

Hezbollah is the sole "success" which the "Iranian Revolution" produced. And It's not Tehran's fault that your removal of Saddam paved the way for Iraqi islamist parties with very close ties to Iran. The US on the other hand has litterally surrounded Iran with hundreds of thousands of US-troops. So who is the real regional hegemonist? On a side note, I wonder how you would feel if Iran masses so many troops in Mexico and Canada and frequently threatens your country with an invasion.

NetsFan wrote:Indiscriminately crushing? Prove it. Why are Venezuela, North Korea, Sudan, Iran, Syria,......., still around?

I do recall Hugo Chavez being removed from power for a few days after a US-backed coup. In Iran's case you do support terrorist groups in order to topple Iran's government.

NetsFan wrote:Do you have something more recent than a one-off naval accident 20 years ago?

But twenty years ago you did distort facts about this 'incident' several times and apparently you're applying the same tactics now.

NetsFan wrote:Every country bordering that waterway (except Iran) supports and even asks for our presence there.

No doubt this was the case during the Iran-Iraq war, but when was the last time the Gulf states explicitly asked for your presence there? Also note that it was Saddam who started the Tanker War, not Iran. Saddam was only able to continue this war due to the billions of dollars he received from the Gulf states of which he could afford to buy advanced weapons from the Sovjets and the West. So I wonder who the real aggressors were.

NetsFan wrote:This isn't aggression, rather it is the defense of our Arab allies from Iranian aggression.

Iran hasn't behaved aggressively against the Gulf states since Khomeini's death almost 20 years ago. In fact, much to the chagrin of the US, the relations between Iran and the Arab states are warming every day that passes. In december the Gulf Cooperation Council (which was initially founded to counter Iran's influence) invited an Iranian leader for the very first time to address this alliance. A few weeks later Saudi Arabia invited Iran's president for the hajj (which was Ahmadinejad's third visit to Saudi Arabia in a year). And recently Iran's National Security Council head visited Cairo for the highest level of talks since the revolution.

The US government blew this whole incident completely out of proportion because if the Arab states can't be convinced of the so called Iranian threat, then why would they still buy your weapons.

NetsFan wrote:Sailing in an international waterway at the behest of the countries there will only be considered aggression to the most hotheaded and paranoid of countries.

Of course you won't be paranoid if its Iran that masses a few hundred thousand troops alongside your borders, frequently threatens you, and which ships appear just off the coasts of Florida.

NetsFan wrote:Serious doubts of the International community? The UN Security Council seems to take the threat pretty seriously

Iran's non-existent nuclear 'weapons' program poses indeed an enormous threat to the international community. And Ash is right. Many countries indeed expressed their doubts after the NIE released its report about Iran's nuclear program and are calling to send Iran's file back to where it belongs: the IAEA.

NetsFan wrote:as do our Arab allies

Your allies who also happen to be undemocratic dictatorships, but then again, who are we to judge, right?
Last edited by Balzak on 12 Jan 2008 19:34, edited 1 time in total.
By Maas
#1423919
And what were they doing there exactly anyways? That's been left totally out of the equation.

Does it matter? They could've been there for shits and giggles and it still would've been entirely legal.

Warships from several navies across the world operate in the Persian Gulf and the Straits of Hormuz, primarily with the intent of keeping such a strategically vital economic chokepoint from being disrupted.

The biggest disrupting factor by far in that area is the US.
Oil prices have skyrocketed since they came by.
The entire region has been destabilized.
User avatar
By Arthur2sheds_Jackson
#1424011
Piano Red wrote:
I don't even know where to begin, the fact that you misrepresent INTERNATIONAL WATERS as being "close" to Iranian territorial waters (you do know what a Strait is right?), or the horrible analogy of comparison to Iranian ships approaching the US coast.

There's no restriction on ships of any nation sailing anywhere in the world so long as they're in international waters.


I take it you would not have a problem if Iran began sending warships across the pacific and amassed them 12 miles off the coast of California just inside international waters? :roll:

As for the strait, wikipedia says:
Ships moving through the Strait follow a Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS), which separates inbound from outbound traffic to reduce the risk of collision. The traffic lane is six miles wide, including two two-mile-wide traffic lanes, one inbound and one outbound, separated by a two-mile wide separation median. To traverse the Strait, ships pass through the territorial waters of Iran or Oman under the transit passage provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.[1]

:D
User avatar
By casablancaunited
#1424022
I take it you would not have a problem if Iran began sending warships across the pacific and amassed them 12 miles off the coast of California just inside international waters?


If they were a dominant power dealing with a negligent and abrasive administration that has continually defied the U.N. and its own allies, no. I would not have a problem with it. However that is not the case. No one is keeping this nation in check, not even the beloved United Nations. To secure the interests of us and our allies (speaking obviously of Israel) We do have to suppress them, constrict them, etc.

If that means amassing warships with obviously no intent to harm (as shown in this standoff) then so be it!
User avatar
By Arthur2sheds_Jackson
#1424062
Casablancaunited wrote:
If they were a dominant power dealing with a negligent and abrasive administration that has continually defied the U.N. and its own allies, no. I would not have a problem with it.

If Iran was a dominant power doing this shit to you, you really would have a problem with it.
However that is not the case. No one is keeping this nation in check, not even the beloved United Nations. To secure the interests of us and our allies (speaking obviously of Israel) We do have to suppress them, constrict them, etc.

If that means amassing warships with obviously no intent to harm (as shown in this standoff) then so be it!


I've highlighted the contradiction in bold for you
User avatar
By casablancaunited
#1424069
If Iran was a dominant power doing this shit to you, you really would have a problem with it.


I believe that depends on who was running my country, and if I agreed with their policy.

I've highlighted the contradiction in bold for you


No contradiction present. I don't speak for the government, nor do I know their intentions. It is quite apparent that they meant no harm--but simply by being in the Strait of Hormuz, we are basically playing the role of the protagonists. Which is fine by me.

But the question I'd like to ask is, how is suppressing the Iranian government by amassing warships in the Persian gulf "intent to harm?"
By Piano Red
#1424072
Balzak
And who are you to topple Iran's democratically elected government and to unconditionally support an undemocratic, megalomaniac dictatorship for 25 years?


The same democratic government that had dissolved Parliament and was increasingly becoming authoritarian and corrupt?

I don't disagree with what you're saying but you fail to see the things in perspective. Iran's first provisional government actually was rather progressive and was dominated by liberal nationalists who wanted to establish a normal relationship with the US.


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

A relationship based on mutual respect. Unfortunately the ayatollah managed to seize power, to consolidate it, and to outlaw and prosecute his former allies beacause of two particular events: the seizure of your embassy which was a consequence of the shah's admisson to the US and Saddam's invasion of Iran. And who refused to deliver the shah to Iran where he should have been prosecuted for his crimes?


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.

And what do you call threatening Iran with nuclear weapons, supporting terrorist, secessionist groups aimed at the disintegration of the Iranian state? Just joking around?


Business as usual within the great game of international relations.

No doubt this was the case during the Iran-Iraq war, but when was the last time the Gulf states explicitly asked for your presence there?


Last year good enough for you?

Maas
The biggest disrupting factor by far in that area is the US.
Oil prices have skyrocketed since they came by.
The entire region has been destabilized.


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.

arthur_two_sheds_jackson
I take it you would not have a problem if Iran began sending warships across the pacific and amassed them 12 miles off the coast of California just inside international waters?


Aside from the fallacious red herring such an analogy would imply, seeing how they would still be within (and in violation of) a nautical area under US jurisdiction...no. The Coast Guard would deal with it.

In all seriousness, there is no real comparison that can be made. The US doesn't border one of the handful of the world's most important economic waterways (and strategic chokepoints).

As for the strait, wikipedia says:


Yeah, because wikipedia is so trustworthy. :roll:

Most Strait traffic (and all US ships) go through Oman's waters anyway. Which of course leaves out the fact that they weren't in any territorial waters at the time of the incident, but I guess you didn't pick up on that.
User avatar
By Arthur2sheds_Jackson
#1424086
Oh dear Piano:
Most Strait traffic (and all US ships) go through Oman's waters anyway.

I'd love to see a link that backs that up.

Which of course leaves out the fact that they weren't in any territorial waters at the time of the incident, but I guess you didn't pick up on that.

1 It's not a fact till you've proved it.
2 The Strait is composed of Iran and Omans territorial waters, did your ships 'hop' over the area?

Aside from the fallacious red herring such an analogy would imply, seeing how they would still be within (and in violation of) a nautical area under US jurisdiction...no.

Are US coastal waters greater than 12 miles?

Casablanca

I believe that depends on who was running my country, and if I agreed with their policy.

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't.

But the question I'd like to ask is, how is suppressing the Iranian government by amassing warships in the Persian gulf "intent to harm?"


Another contradiction meaning your question becomes self explanatory
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
Trump and Russiagate

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2[…]

Puerto Rico has been vacillating about its status […]

Syrian war thread

@Zionist Nationalist Don't give yourself too […]

Obese Donald's "cabinet" is a aspect of […]