News Iranian speedboats threaten US ships.

[caslav.ilic]

The sub commander signaled his non-hostile intent by surfacing in a non-threatening manner.

The Iranians demonstrated hostile intent. Can you tell the difference?

I cannot. I could equally well say that the unidentified boats signalled their non-hostile intent by turning away, or that the Chinese submarine demonstrated its hostile intent by closing into firing range without announcement.

Merely closing into firing range -- which both the sub and the boats did -- cannot be taken as a hostile intent by itself, even if "under cloak" as in case of the sub.

Who do YOU think the Iranians were broadcasting to when they transmitted "prepare to explode"

Did the US mistranslate the phrase?

It is entirely irrelevant what I think they ment, and yes, at the spot the phrase may quite well have been misinterpreted. Let me remind of the article passages: "...close to three U.S. Navy ships and intercepted radio signals...", thus the transmission was intercepted and surely in Persian, and then "...that was threatening in nature to the effect that they were closing our ships and that ... the U.S. ships would explode.", i.e. an interpretation of the fragments, rather than a coherent transcript of the exchange. A worried US commander, probably. Legal basis for taking action due to hostile intent -- certainly not.

At any rate, after the fact it is obvious that interpreting the radio intercept as coordination of the attack would have been wrong, since nothing had happend, the boats turned away.

So, you want to quibble?

In a way. I was expecting a lot of thrashing of Iranian elements responsible for the childish pranks such as this, to have instead seen several posts claiming that the American commander should have committed, as I would judge it more probably than not, an act of war. Thus, I have to respond :)

My personal opinion of the matter is this: a stupid provoking, but otherwise probably not illegal action (minus the possible "pirate" qualification) on part of Iranian elements, where the American commander professionally and cold-bloodily did everything by the book, and certainly reported on the event in the same way. Everything after that are political games, of which I have no interest.

--
Chusslove Illich (Часлав Илић)

 

[kroni3us]

It was stated as a fact that the Iranian speedboats acted illegally I am asking for the proof of this claim. A very straightforward request.

It was also stated as a fact that Iran is a rogue nation though seeing as how they were awarded this title by a man who subverted democracy in his own country, waged an illegal war resulting in the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians and who authorised the illegal detention and torture of prisoners whilst simultaneously spying on his own countrymen I am sure it is a badge they wear with honour.

btw The Iranian account of the incident is that this was SOP, they asked the US ships to identify themselves and once they had done so they left them alone. They also deny any threats were made so it would be good if the US gov't were to clear up that point by making the tapes available of the radio interchange.

There he goes again with his anti -american anti bush antics. His use of the word "subverted" against my president lacks premise. Democracy is alive and well in America thank you. I am concluding that you are referring to the Iraq war that was voted for and by congress. I understand that no WMDs found nor will they probably ever be found. I do believe Saddam had a lot of time to dispose of WMDS before the invasion. I as an american welcome my government to monitor phone calls /cell phone calls etc to protect me and my family from terrorist already in the country, If you have nothing to hide why worry, its a new world out there, times have changed we have to adapt to these changing times. I also say to Detain ANY and ALL terrorist and use all means neccesary to obtain information needed to protect the american people. Maybe ART you should complain about insurgents beheading innocent people and by the way filming it, bombint their own innocent people, Or Saddam using chemical warfare against women and children KURDS.

 

[Cyrus]

I as an american welcome my government to monitor phone calls /cell phone calls etc to protect me and my family from terrorist already in the country, If you have nothing to hide why worry, its a new world out there, times have changed we have to adapt to these changing times.

Thats the most unpatriotic thing in your entire post. Go read the constitution, yikes.

 

[kroni3us]

Thats the most unpatriotic thing in your entire post. Go read the constitution, yikes.

If they Have any clue that a terrorist cell is operating in my city, and they didnt stop them from killing a million people in Los Angeles, because they couldn't monitor or track a cell phone call is totally rediculous in my opinion, and by the way I have read the constitution and have fought for the right in this country and also have a son fighting for our democracy.

 

[Cyrus]

Government is not here to spy on its citizens. Civil liberty is wroth more than even the city of LA.

I find it odd that someone would readily give up something they have fought for.

 

[kroni3us]

Thats where we defer, I value human Life and the United States Of America, more than a SEGMENT of the constitution that should be amended to give our voted in government the tools to protect my children. And tracking phone calls of SUSPECTED TERRORIST CELLS should be ok. People look way to far into us loosing all rights as a democratic system, which would never happen.

 

[Cyrus]

But our rights are being erroded away each time you allow these things you propose to happen. The problem is, there is no definite list of 'suspected terrorist cells'. Would Timothy Mcveigh be on your list? You're list will include every middle eastern person in the United States.

Life is not greater than liberty. I don't need America turned into a police state.

 

[kroni3us]

And so I guess All the people in LA hypothetically lost all their rights because of someone like you, who would be the first to complain about our government or president no being able to stop it ... unreal

 

[Cyrus]

What is so hard to understand? You have rights. The government can protect you without stealing your rights. I find your position to be unreal, specially being from the military. The purpose of the government is to protect your rights, first and foremost.

 

[Gokul43201]

I value human Life and the United States Of America, more than a SEGMENT of the constitution that should be amended to give our voted in government the tools to protect my children.

Take our liberty, but don't take our lives!

 

[kroni3us]

I would and do suspect that we watch people that are on a terrorist list, already in circulation, suspected people coming into the country, or someone being turned in by someone in the public with knowledge of terrorism activities. trust me i doubt if they would be monitering your phone

 

[Cyrus]

Your doubt is not good enough.

 

[kroni3us]

The Patriot ACT was put in place to protect us from terrorist, now we have mostly liberals fighting every provision in the act, that being said I would be the first one to fight and dye to protect our liberties. I believe the act was put in place in good faith, not to spy on you or me. Hopefully they can fight terrorism without interupting what is put in place but if needed to protect a million people use it

 

[caslav.ilic]

Come on folks, don't turn a nice techno-legal high-seas quibble into debate about human rights in the USA :)

I've found an online "guide" to the UN Law of the Sea, here: http://www.bernaerts-unclos.de/. Couldn't find anything about enter-and-perish exclusion zones around warships in international waters, but did find a bit about piracy, http://www.bernaerts-unclos.de/42-49.html (look for "Article 110"). It states that on "reasonable grounds", any warship has the right to board a suspected pirate vessel, and there: verify the right flag, check documents and inspect the ship. Couldn't find anything about "reasonable grounds" though, e.g. if it depends on the caliber of the visible weaponry, etc. Regardless, I think this means a warship cannot just blow a suspected pirate out of the water.

--
Chusslove Illich (Часлав Илић)

 

[Cyrus]

The Patriot ACT was put in place to protect us from terrorist, now we have mostly liberals fighting every provision in the act, that being said I would be the first one to fight and dye to protect our liberties. I believe the act was put in place in good faith, not to spy on you or me. Hopefully they can fight terrorism without interupting what is put in place but if needed to protect a million people use it

Oh, no controvery in that act. </sarcasm> Sure, blame 'liberals'...

 

[drankin]

Come on folks, don't turn a nice techno-legal high-seas quibble into debate about human rights in the USA :)

I've found an online "guide" to the UN Law of the Sea, here: http://www.bernaerts-unclos.de/. Couldn't find anything about enter-and-perish exclusion zones around warships in international waters, but did find a bit about piracy, http://www.bernaerts-unclos.de/42-49.html (look for "Article 110"). It states that on "reasonable grounds", any warship has the right to board a suspected pirate vessel, and there: verify the right flag, check documents and inspect the ship. Couldn't find anything about "reasonable grounds" though, e.g. if it depends on the caliber of the visible weaponry, etc. Regardless, I think this means a warship cannot just blow a suspected pirate out of the water.

--
Chusslove Illich (Часлав Илић)

I'm sure any vessel on international waters has the right to defend itself against another vessel that shows itself to be hostile. Common sense really.

 

[caslav.ilic]

I'm sure any vessel on international waters has the right to defend itself against another vessel that shows itself to be hostile. Common sense really.

I don't see how anything but weapons fire or boarding attempt could be clear indication of hostility.

In fact, back to the article, it states Pentagon's spokesman claimed the event to be "...careless, reckless and potentially hostile activity." (my emphasis). Thus, not even US military claims it hostile, and the State Department spokesman was "...not aware of any plans to lodge a formal protest," which would surely follow in wake of an illegal action.

Furthermore, the event occurred in good visibility ("...The small Iranian boats also threw boxes into the water...") and there is no report of the boats even training their machineguns on American warships. Whereas the converse did take place.

Thus, I see no sources of hostile behavior, other than an intercepted communication possibly (and obviously after the fact) interpreted wrongly. Being careless, reckless and rude is certainly not nice, but also no legal ground for being fired upon.

--
Chusslove Illich (Часлав Илић)

 

[Gokul43201]

In the words of Vice Adm. Cosgriff (quote from article in OP):

"At one point during this encounter ... the ships received a radio call that was threatening in nature to the effect that they were closing our ships and that ... the U.S. ships would explode," Cosgriff said, speaking via video camera from Bahrain.

Does this say that the Iranian vessels were communicating with the US or among themselves? Is "received" = "intercepted" or not?

 

[kroni3us]

Has anyone seen the video I guess its posted on MSNBC

 

[Gokul43201]

From navy.mil:

http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=34207
http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=34211

He [Pentagon spokesman, Bryan Whitman] said the speed of the Iranian boats and their distance from the U.S. Navy vessels demonstrated potentially hostile intent. Bridge-to-bridge radio communications between the Iranian vessels and the U.S. Navy ships reinforced this impression, he said.

 

[drankin]

I wonder what the boxes were that they dropped. Explosives? Maybe, that alone could be perceived as a hostile action.

The laws we live by in America, we only need to be convinced that our lives or the lives of another is jeopardized in order to exercise lethal force to stop it. I don't see why international law would be any different. Those ships could have legally sunk those boats based on the information I've read so far. They simply chose not to. I wonder if the IRG will try that stunt again, a little closer next time. Whoever is commanding a ship at that time may not be so forgiving.

 

[caslav.ilic]

http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=34207[/quote]

Eh, when they said speedboats, they really ment speedboats. Not even visibly armed. Two men each, in bright red lifevests of the good-for-search-and-rescue variety. Messages like "...ships will explode" which mean exactly nothing and directed to the adversary at that -- "Coming to impact your ships, but we're fair and give you a sporting chance to react (even if we know that your Phalanx systems will intercept supersonic skimmers at point blank range)."

How incredibly hostile.

--
Chusslove Illich (Часлав Илић)

 

[drankin]

Eh, when they said speedboats, they really ment speedboats. Not even visibly armed. Two mean each, in bright red lifevests of the good-for-search-and-rescue variety. Messages like "...ships will explode" which mean exactly nothing and directed to the adversary at that -- "Coming to impact your ships, but we're fair and give you a sporting chance to react (even if we know that your Phalanx systems will intercept supersonic skimmers at point blank range)."

How incredibly hostile.

--
Chusslove Illich (Часлав Илић)

All it takes is the perception of hostility to justify it. If they had sunk those boats, the story we would have gotten would be a lot different.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm confused by your post. Why would the US be legally entitled to sink Iranian vessels who are also exercising their right to sail in international waters or do you think only the US have this right?

This is very simple, Art. The Iranian boats were acting overtly hostile, and therefore the American ships would have been justified in acting in self-defense.

When a Chinese submarine surfaced in the middle of a US battle fleet recently I don't remember the same indignation and boasts of how kind the US were not to sink it.

That was an accident. This clearly was not.

Are there different international laws and standards depending on the countries involved.

From a neutral viewpoint...

Neutral?

Are you actually serious? C'mon, Art. You've been here long enough, you don't fool anyone. The facts of this incident are clear.

 

[russ_watters]

Eh, when they said speedboats, they really ment speedboats. Not even visibly armed.

Do you have a source for that? I don't think it is correct.

An ad-hoc armed speedboat could do no more damage than visibly unarmed speedboat for that matter, namely that of around 10-30 dead servicemen and one destroyer in need of tugging.

Just to make sure everyone is clear here, when the news says "speedboats", people think civilian pleasure/racing boats (aka cigarette boats) with deck-mounted machine guns like you sometimes see in the movies. That's not what we're dealing with here. The boats were gunboats - most news sources I saw did actually use the correct wording. They are specially-designed military boats with deck-mounted guns (up to 3") and anti-ship missiles, potentially capable of sinking a US Navy ship. Think USS Stark, not USS Cole.

Gunboats are "speedboats" in that they have planing hulls and big engines, which allow them to go much faster (up to 40mph) than ships with displacement hulls. It's probably a stock photo on this article:

http://www.gulfnews.com/region/Iran/10180305.html

...but here's a list of what Iran actually has: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_Iranian_Navy_Vessels

If I had to guess, it was probably the small Chinese craft, not the larger French one which is pictured in that article. According to the Wik link, the French one had American supplied Harpoon ASMs, but they ran out. That gunboat boat does have a larger deck-mounted gun, though.

 

[russ_watters]

It was stated as a fact that the Iranian speedboats acted illegally I am asking for the proof of this claim. A very straightforward request.

btw The Iranian account of the incident is that this was SOP, they asked the US ships to identify themselves and once they had done so they left them alone. They also deny any threats were made so it would be good if the US gov't were to clear up that point by making the tapes available of the radio interchange.

The facts of the case are clear, so really what matters is if you accept them or not. You seem to be implying here that you will not, so there really isn't anything to discuss, is there?

But let's start with this: assuming you did accept the US account, would you agree these three actions are overtly hostile:

1. Dropping objects into the water in the path of the ships.
2. Making an overt threat (something to the effect of "we are going to blow you up").
3. Steaming at high speed toward the US fleet, coming within a few hundred yards of it.

I suspect you will simply refuse to accept the facts as reported, so this is probably just pointless. BTW, you have not provided an account of what happened or evidence to support it. It is reasonable for us to assume that you've at least read the article in the OP, so you already know these facts. There is nothing for us to substantiate.

 

[russ_watters]

It was also stated as a fact that Iran is a rogue nation...I am sure it is a badge they wear with honour.

Indeed they do. It, and the band of psychopaths that support them in it, is what allows them to get away with actions like this. They revel in it. They must see how 'I'm crazy, appease me or I'll do something crazy!' has worked for 'lil Kim, and they follow the same mo.

 

[caslav.ilic]

Eh, when they said speedboats, they really ment speedboats. Not even visibly armed. [...]

Do you have a source for that? I don't think it is correct. [...] The boats were gunboats[...]

Check the US Navy links that I quoted when making the statement (after Gokul43201 pointed to them few posts above).

My first impression of the report was that of small enclosed boats with a single MG mount on the front deck, but the photos clearly show them to be unarmed, with crews in plain view of the warships.

But let's start with this: assuming you did accept the US account [...]

Although this question is not directed at me, let me state that I do take reports as accurate, as otherwise this discussion would make no sense (anyone could hypothesize anything). In light of that:

[...] would you agree these three actions are overtly hostile:

I entirely disagree that these three actions are overtly hostile -- and so does the Pentagon ("...potentially hostile...") What is more important, there isn't chance in hell that these actions could be interpreted as an act of agression under international law, the only thing which would permit a warship to open fire -- which the State Department agrees with too ("...no formal protest...")

1. Dropping objects into the water in the path of the ships.

Irrelevant. Without the examination of the objects, of which none was given, random objects cannot be considered weapons, and their release cannot be considered an act of aggression.

2. Making an overt threat (something to the effect of "we are going to blow you up").

Irrelevant. Noone said "we are going to blow you up"; "something to the effect of" interpretations are just that, arbitrary interpretations.

3. Steaming at high speed toward the US fleet, coming within a few hundred yards of it.

Irrelevant. I did give a link towards an abriged guide to the UN Law of the Sea, anyone is welcome to find articles prohibiting such behavior in international waters. Especially in case of unarmed vessels approching warships capable of vaporizing them in an instant.

Firing based on these facts alone, would be less justified then a person six feet tall, visibly armed, gun ready in the hand, shooting to kill an unarmed skinny person circling two metres away and murmuring "you're ******* dead!" (Please don't someone respond "yeah, in Texas we damn well could!", because even if so, the event did not take place in Texas.)

--
Chusslove Illich (Часлав Илић)

 

[Art]

... They must see how 'I'm crazy, appease me or I'll do something crazy!' has worked for

Bush

...and they follow the same mo.

 

[Art]

The facts of the case are clear, so really what matters is if you accept them or not. You seem to be implying here that you will not, so there really isn't anything to discuss, is there?

But let's start with this: assuming you did accept the US account, would you agree these three actions are overtly hostile:

1. Dropping objects into the water in the path of the ships.
2. Making an overt threat (something to the effect of "we are going to blow you up").
3. Steaming at high speed toward the US fleet, coming within a few hundred yards of it.

I suspect you will simply refuse to accept the facts as reported, so this is probably just pointless. BTW, you have not provided an account of what happened or evidence to support it. It is reasonable for us to assume that you've at least read the article in the OP, so you already know these facts. There is nothing for us to substantiate.

Mmmm so it boils down to no you can't support your claim that Iran acted illegally. Why not just admit you made that up to lend false legitimacy to your argument?

As for overt hostility; the captains involved make no such claim and neither does the pentagon which is why I guess you felt the need to support your personal contention with fictitious law.

That was an accident. This clearly was not.

An accident! lol You obviously missed the less than subtle point the Chinese were making so here's a clue, it was similar to the point made when they shot down a satellite or did you think that was another accident?

American military chiefs have been left dumbstruck by an undetected Chinese submarine popping up at the heart of a recent Pacific exercise and close to the vast U.S.S. Kitty Hawk - a 1,000ft supercarrier with 4,500 personnel on board.

By the time it surfaced the 160ft Song Class diesel-electric attack submarine is understood to have sailed within viable range for launching torpedoes or missiles at the carrier.

According to senior Nato officials the incident caused consternation in the U.S. Navy.

The Americans had no idea China's fast-growing submarine fleet had reached such a level of sophistication, or that it posed such a threat.

One Nato figure said the effect was "as big a shock as the Russians launching Sputnik" - a reference to the Soviet Union's first orbiting satellite in 1957 which marked the start of the space age.

The incident, which took place in the ocean between southern Japan and Taiwan, is a major embarrassment for the Pentagon.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...ews.html?in_article_id=492804&in_page_id=1811

China rattles America's cage with satellite shot
The test comes mere months after the US revamped its space policy, taking a more militaristic tone than in the past. The policy scrupulously avoided any commitment not to develop space-based weapons.

It doesn't take much imagination to see China's missile launch, which it has yet to confirm, as a reply to the US's new policy.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/19/china_satellite/

Notice a pattern developing?

 

[seycyrus]

Art,

Your hypocrisy is noted, as is your deception. I can guarrantee you that your life your everyday life contrary to your pretense here.

If a group of persons started running at you screaming "You going to die mutha-&^%&..."
you wouldn't claim that was non-provocative. You'd probably stand flat footed with your mouth open, but that's another matter.

There is now videofootage of the event in question. It now turns out that the "prepare to explode" message was broadcast in english.

Perhaps your mind is too clouded to understand the potential harm that could be caused by people probing a military vessel's military response. Or perhaps it's something else entirely...

Either way, the truth is transparent.

 

[daveb]

I have a question...why is it that when someone questions the current administration, its policies, or something the military may or may not have done, why is that person labeled as unpatriotic, anti-American, or that they hate America?

 

[Art]

Art,

Your hypocrisy is noted, as is your deception. I can guarrantee you that your life your everyday life contrary to your pretense here.

If a group of persons started running at you screaming "You going to die mutha-&^%&..."
you wouldn't claim that was non-provocative. You'd probably stand flat footed with your mouth open, but that's another matter.

There is now videofootage of the event in question. It now turns out that the "prepare to explode" message was broadcast in english.

Perhaps your mind is too clouded to understand the potential harm that could be caused by people probing a military vessel's military response. Or perhaps it's something else entirely...

Either way, the truth is transparent.

More strawman arguments I didn't say it wasn't provocative I questioned if it was illegal as claimed.

Acting in a childish and irritating manner doesn't give just cause for the recipient on the receiving end of such behaviour to blow their tormentors to pieces as some here have advocated. That would be a gross over-reaction.

Also this is not such an unusual event which makes one wonder if the administration has an agenda in blowing this up into a major incident

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, speaking aboard the USS New Orleans pierside in San Diego, told reporters on Monday ''it would be nice to see the Iranian government disavow this action and say that it won't happen again.''

Gates said there had been two or three similar incidents -- ''maybe not quite as dramatic'' -- over the past year. He offered no details, but one Navy official said there have been several similar incidents that involved ''aggressive maneuvering'' by small boats in the Gulf. In one instance, a U.S. Navy vessel fired warning shots across the bow of the small boat, said the official, who requested anonymity because details of the earlier encounters have not been made public.

The official said that while at least one of the small boats in the Sunday confrontation was flying an Iranian flag, that was not the case in the earlier incidents. Thus, while there is suspicion that they may have been Iranian boats, it is not certain.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-US-Navy-Iran.html

 

[seycyrus]

I have a question...why is it that when someone questions the current administration, its policies, or something the military may or may not have done, why is that person labeled as unpatriotic, anti-American, or that they hate America?

When one uses illogical argument to contrive positions that they would not take in their ordinay life, it is proper to point point out that they might have certain motivations.

 

[seycyrus]

More strawman arguments I didn't say it wasn't provocative I questioned if it was illegal as claimed.

You chose to quibble on a point, attempting to distract from the "threaten" title of the thread.

Acting in a childish and irritating manner doesn't give just cause for the recipient on the receiving end of such behaviour to blow their tormentors to pieces as some here have advocated. That would be a gross over-reaction.]

Yes it does. We are talking about military vessels here.

Again you are trying lighten the issue. Ahh, it was only "childish" and "irritating", I see ...

Sorry Charlie, that doesn't float.

Also this is not such an unusual event which makes one wonder if the administration has an agenda in blowing this up into a major incident

It's not unusual? They do it on a "usual" basis? Sounds like they are rapidly approaching ther freebies, where we don't blow them to smithereens.

 

[daveb]

When one uses illogical argument to contrive positions that they would not take in their ordinay life, it is proper to point point out that they might have certain motivations.

Perhaps so, but there is a huge difference between pointing out they may have certain motivations, and outright accusing them of hatred towards the America. One does not necessarily follow from the other.

 

[Art]

You chose to quibble on a point.

lol Therein lies the problem. You appear to see the mass of law governing the relationships between countries as irrelevant whereas civilised people see them as very important, carefully thought out and well constructed rules to be abided by.

It's not unusual? They do it on a "usual" basis? Sounds like they are rapidly approaching ther freebies, where we don't blow them to smithereens.

Could you translate this into English please?

 

[seycyrus]

Perhaps so, but there is a huge difference between pointing out they may have certain motivations, and outright accusing them of hatred towards the America. One does not necessarily follow from the other.

You are free to offer alternative interpretations of their motivations and also assign motivations to my statements.

 

[seycyrus]

lol Therein lies the problem. You appear to see the mass of law governing the relationships between countries as irrelevant whereas civilised people see them as very important, carefully thought out and well constructed rules to be abided by.?

Not even close, nice try tho.

I see through your attempts to reduce these matters which are rightly taken as serious to simple "irritating" and "childish" behaviors.

Could you translate this into English please?

If it's being done all the time, it is being done as a matter of policy. Therefore a more severe response would be warranted.

 

[daveb]

You are free to offer alternative interpretations of their motivations and also assign motivations to my statements.

Offering alternative interpretations is irrelevant, as is assigning motivations to your statements. I am merely trying to get people to understand that calling someone unpatriotic for questioning administration policies is an ad hominem attack that does nothing to support your position, nor does it undermine theirs (at least from a debating the issues perspective).

 

[Cyrus]

daveb, art is not even American. Hes just anti-us from across the pond.

 

[Gokul43201]

Do you have a source for that? I don't think it is correct.
Just to make sure everyone is clear here, when the news says "speedboats", people think civilian pleasure/racing boats (aka cigarette boats) with deck-mounted machine guns like you sometimes see in the movies. That's not what we're dealing with here.

Russ, have you seen the video?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7177946.stm

As expected, IRG is claiming the video was faked by the US Navy!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7178878.stm

 

[Art]

daveb, art is not even American. Hes just anti-us from across the pond.

Does that mean ad-hominem attacks are alright then?

Cyrus as I am sure you know I am not anti-US in the slightest. I am anti-jingoistic warmongering though.

This penchant some people have for giving a dog a bad name and then obliterating it makes for a dangerous world. Despite the lessons which should have been learned from the disaster that was Iraq it seems there are still a lot of Ramboesque characters around gleefully cheering on the next debacle. The US commanders on the scene did very well as they appeared to handle the situation with aplomb. It is a pity some of the posters here do not show the same common sense and restraint.

 

[drankin]

Does that mean ad-hominem attacks are alright then?

Cyrus as I am sure you know I am not anti-US in the slightest. I am anti-jingoistic warmongering though.

This penchant some people have for giving a dog a bad name and then obliterating it makes for a dangerous world. Despite the lessons which should have been learned from the disaster that was Iraq it seems there are still a lot of Ramboesque characters around gleefully cheering on the next debacle. The US commanders on the scene did very well as they appeared to handle the situation with aplomb. It is a pity some of the posters here do not show the same common sense and restraint.

Obviously they did not feel they were an imminent threat or they'd be sunk. I think it is obvious that those boats were trying to provoke a response or at least harass. It caused the ships to deviate from their course. If they continue to harass warships in this way, what do you suggest should be done, Art?

 

[Art]

Obviously they did not feel they were an imminent threat or they'd be sunk. I think it is obvious that those boats were trying to provoke a response or at least harass. It caused the ships to deviate from their course. If they continue to harass warships in this way, what do you suggest should be done, Art?

Exactly what the US commanders on the scene did do. As I said, I think they behaved very professionally. The problem was solved with no loss of life, a win-win where everybody went home happy. I'd be pretty sure the US commanders have rules of engagement which comply with international law and so as long as they abide by these rules I don't see a problem.

I think you are missing the point of my posts. I object to folk making totally spurious claims that the Iranians' actions were illegal and that in consequence the US ships had a legal right to blow them away. Claims such as that per the rules of this forum require substantiation.

 

[drankin]

Exactly what the US commanders on the scene did do. As I said, I think they behaved very professionally. The problem was solved with no loss of life, a win-win where everybody went home happy.

You didn't answer my question, Art. What should be done if they continue to harass warships in this way? Their harassment is unjust, provocative, and potentially dangerous even if no shots are ever fired.

 

[Cyrus]

Exactly what the US commanders on the scene did do. As I said, I think they behaved very professionally. The problem was solved with no loss of life, a win-win where everybody went home happy.

hmmmm...

btw The Iranian account of the incident is that this was SOP, they asked the US ships to identify themselves and once they had done so they left them alone. They also deny any threats were made so it would be good if the US gov't were to clear up that point by making the tapes available of the radio interchange.

Good ole trusty Iranian governments version of things. Total nonsense to the core, as usual.

Those boats were wayyyy to close to US ships. Had they moved an inch closer I would have fully supported blowing them into little pieces.

 

[kyleb]

Does the video from the Navy show any guns on the boats at all, or the "prepare to explode" message broadcast in English, or the boxes being dropped into the water for that matter? I've just seen low quality streams of it so far, like the one Gokul posted, and at least in those I'm not seeing anything of the sort.

 

[Cyrus]

I don't care if they said nothing, and dropped nothing. You don't race around a warship the way they did.

 

[kyleb]

I don't care if they said nothing, and dropped nothing.

Do you also not care if our government fabricated claims to the contrary?

You don't race around a warship the way they did.

Seems you can if you want, or at least I've yet to see any law agaisnt it.