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 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
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.
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10

Trump's got enough money to raise a lot of kids, […]

I don't think that is a safe assumption. If you[…]

Iranian Situation...

UK says it will not join US against Iran. Russ[…]

June 25, Tuesday Many Northern cities, such as […]