Incident between Iran and US Navy

[Independent_CA]

CAIRO, Egypt - The U.S. military has video and audio recordings of Iranian boats that threatened to blow up U.S. Navy vessels in the Strait of Hormuz and plans to release them, the top Navy commander in the Mideast said Tuesday. President Bush described the confrontation as a "provocative act."
ADVERTISEMENT

Vice Adm. Kevin Cosgriff disputed Iranian claims that the incident early Sunday was a routine encounter, saying Iran's "provocative" actions were "deadly serious" to the U.S. military.

"It was a dangerous situation," Bush told reporters at the White House. "They should not have done it, pure and simple. I don't know what their thinking was, but I'm telling you what my thinking was. I think it was a provocative act."

The confrontation was an unusual flare-up of U.S.-Iranian tensions in the Persian Gulf as Bush begins his first visit to the Mideast. In the tour, Bush is to visit Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Arab allies, in part to coordinate in confronting Iran.

Many Arab countries fear the Iranian-American rivalry could erupt into a military confrontation that would put them in the crossfire and hurt vital Gulf oil traffic.

Iran's Revolutionary Guards said that its high-speed boats never threatened the U.S. vessels during the encounter, insisting it only asked them to identify themselves, then let them continue into the Gulf. A Guards commander defended his force's right to identify ships in the sensitive waterway.

Cosgriff, the commander of U.S. 5th Fleet, which patrols the Gulf and is based in nearby Bahrain, said the American vessels had already been identified by Iranian authorities earlier in the day before the confrontation occurred.

"The group had been successfully queried by an Iranian ship, possibly a Revolutionary Guards ship, and two or three Iranian (shore) stations and an Omani station," Cosgriff told The Associated Press in a telephone interview Tuesday.

The U.S. commander also pointed out that the American ships were clearly marked and the incident took place during the day when they could be seen. "I can't help but conclude that it was provocative," Cosgriff said.

"There is video" of the incident, Cosgriff said. "We're using it as part of our assessment. That will be made available in due course, as well as the audio."

The White House echoed Cosgriff's characterization Tuesday, calling Iran's actions "reckless."

"It was not normal behavior," said White House press secretary Dana Perino. "It's just another point of reference for people in the region who are concerned about the behavior of Iran."

The Pentagon has said the U.S. ships were on the verge of opening fire on the Iranian boats when they fled.

Cosgriff said the five Iranian boats, outfitted with outboard motors and carrying three to four people each, rapidly approached three U.S. warships — cruiser USS Port Royal, destroyer USS Hopper and frigate USS Ingraham, which were passing through the Strait into the Gulf.

Two of the Iranian boats went to the ship's left side, three to the right, he said. The two on the left "were more energetic and made a number of runs toward the lead ship, the USS Hopper."

As the two boats did so, the USS Hopper's crew heard a radio call threatening that the U.S. ships would "explode." The two boats dumped boxes into the water.

However, U.S. military officials, including Cosgriff, said they have not been able to definitively connect the radio call with one of the Revolutionary Guards boats.

"The ships were close enough to shore that the call could have come from a shore station, it could have come from another boat," said Cdr. Lydia Robertson, the 5th Fleet spokeswoman. "But the call did happen while the small boats were there."

Iran's Foreign Ministry called the incident a "normal" encounter between the two countries' ships and said it had been resolved.

"No threatening messages were exchanged," state television quoted an unidentified Iranian Revolutionary Guards official as saying Tuesday.

Senior Revolutionary Guards commander Ali Reza Tangsiri said Iran had the right to ask any ships to identify themselves upon entering or leaving the Persian Gulf.

"It is a basic responsibility of patrolling units of the Revolutionary Guards to take necessary interception measures toward any vessels entering into the waters of the Persian Gulf," Tangsiri said, according to the Mehr news agency.

Cosgriff objected to Iranian attempts to downplay the incident, saying, "This is deadly serious to me."

"I hope from this lesson they realize that we are concerned by small, high-speed vessels," said Cosgriff. I hope they understand we will take those actions we deem appropriate to defend our ships and our sailors."

Riad Kahwaji, a Dubai-based analyst with the Institute for Near East and Gulf Military Analysis, said Iran may have been seeking to send a "political message" to Arab Gulf states to highlight the dangers of military confrontation.

"When somebody gets so close to a big ship then he's very likely asking for trouble or trying to provoke something," he said. "Opening fire means sparking a war ... Does anyone really want to take that risk?"

___

Associated Press writers Ali Akbar Dareini in Tehran and Barbara Surk in Dubai contributed to this report.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080108/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_us_navy;_ylt=AkvQL3Z36.TDbTP84BQQjoJvaA8F

Figured some of you might be interested in this. Pretty laughable and ill-advised on the Iranian's part if you ask me.

[Smokey D]

I think the hardline portion of the Iranian government (ie, the bit backed by the Revolutionary Guard) would be bolstered by a low-grade diplomatic incident in the Persian Gulf. They know the US wouldn't go to war over an incident like this, but that US ships firing on Iranian boats would alienate the moderates and ratchet up the tension.

[McP3000]

If Iran doesn't want their country invaded on the drop of a hat, they shouldn't fire a gun within 100 miles of American troops.

[gregulus]

If Iran doesn't want their country invaded on the drop of a hat, they shouldn't fire a gun within 100 miles of American troops.
Because we are totally prepared to invade Iran. I agree with Smokey.

[TheDarkHorse]

I doubt Iran's government even knew cared about this, let alone even was aware of it.

They're not a nation to provoke-thats up to the U.S, who's blowing this out of proportion to give another firm warning. They should just know they're not prepared to take on a country of Iran's caliber.

[Smokey D]

Of course Iran is provocative.

[TheDarkHorse]

no, they're not.

They do what they're free to do while the oversensitive U.S takes it as an insult to their "authority."

[Smokey D]

They also say **** like 'the Jews are evil' 'go Hizballah!' and 'we're not going to give you oil, mwuahahaha.'.

Which is provocative because it's challenging the established interests of the US, and they know damn well it is.

[Mr. Ron]

They also say **** like 'the Jews are evil' 'go Hizballah!' and 'we're not going to give you oil, mwuahahaha.'.

I agree with everything, except why do they have to give us oil?

[TheDarkHorse]

They also say **** like 'the Jews are evil' 'go Hizballah!' and 'we're not going to give you oil, mwuahahaha.'.
.
since you're one for citations, can you give me a credible link to where any of that was said?

Which is provocative because it's challenging the established interests of the US, and they know damn well it is
sounds like a personal problem.

Iran, unlike saudi Arabia, is not indebted to the U.S and does not have an obligation to meet their interests.

[Smokey D]

They don't. But the threat not to is still provocative.

since you're one for citations, can you give me a credible link to where any of that was said?

Hizballah has well established ties with the Revolutionary Guard.

The Jews are evil could come from about a dozen of Ahmadinejad's speeches.

We're not going to give you oil is from the oil shocks of 70s and 80s.

[TheDarkHorse]

Hizballah has well established ties with the Revolutionary Guard.
Hizbollah is not an enemy of the United States.

If you'd like to use our relationship with Israel to say "the enemy of our friend is our enemy, too" then I'll have to ask why we would consider Israeli terrorists our friend.

The Jews are evil could come from about a dozen of Ahmadinejad's speeches.
Just like he said he'd wipe Israel off the map, right?

again, it would be a little irrational to say this is provocation when this is only opinionated and far from direct.

We're not going to give you oil is from the oil shocks of 70s and 80s.
So they won't meet our capitalist needs with their freedom, therefore they have provoked us.

does that even look right?

[Independent_CA]

I doubt Iran's government even knew cared about this, let alone even was aware of it.

They're not a nation to provoke-thats up to the U.S, who's blowing this out of proportion to give another firm warning. They should just know they're not prepared to take on a country of Iran's caliber.

Approaching ships at sea in an aggressive and unannounced manner would be looked down upon by any seafaring nation. They were testing to see how the US military would react to this type of engagement. If you think somebody in the Iranian government or military didn't know about or plan this then you're just naive.


[B]Iran, unlike saudi Arabia, is not indebted to the U.S and does not have an obligation to meet their interests.
Right, but they do have an obligation to observe internationally accepted protocols when approaching other ships in international waters. At least that's the case if they don't want their gunboats getting shredded to pieces by whoever they decide to play chicken with.

[Smokey D]

sounds like a personal problem.

Sounds like you don't understand how IR works.

Iran, unlike saudi Arabia, is not indebted to the U.S and does not have an obligation to meet their interests.

There's no obligation whatsoever. But playing hardball with the US and challenging those interests, even when interference might be justified, is still provocative.

Hizbollah is not an enemy of the United States.

If you'd like to use our relationship with Israel to say "the enemy of our friend is our enemy, too" then I'll have to ask why we would consider Israeli terrorists our friend.

The US considers any threat to Israel a threat to its interests, and thus an enemy.

I dunno why they like Israel, but the morality of that relationship is completely irrelevant. The fact is they do, and backing organisations that want to destroy Israel is definitely provoking the US.

Just like he said he'd wipe Israel off the map, right?

No.



again, it would be a little irrational to say this is provocation when this is only opinionated and far from direct.

It's irrational to consider a direct challenge to the established interests of the US (however moral they are) provocative?

So they won't meet our capitalist needs with their freedom, therefore they have provoked us.

does that even look right?

DAMMIT you've got it backwards. It doesn't matter whether they're justified or not. It's still a provocation.

And oh yeah, threatening to attack ships in international waters is really really provocative.

[TheDarkHorse]

Approaching ships at sea in an aggressive and unannounced manner would be looked down upon by any seafaring nation.

maybe a century ago

They were testing to see how the US military would react to this type of engagement. If you think somebody in the Iranian government or military didn't know about or plan this then you're just naive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident

This is obviously blown out of proportion. Any other event, like the undetected Chinese sub a few months ago, would not have had such a presence in the media.

just How long have you lived in this country?

Right, but they do have an obligation to observe internationally accepted protocols when approaching other ships in international waters.
you're assuming this was a government-ordered altercation, while it could've been (and most likely was) a band of guerrillas.

As if the Iranian navy would send a few speedboats to show their naval prowess.

Sounds like you don't understand how IR works.
One country can't alter relations for their own benefit.


There's no obligation whatsoever. But playing hardball with the US and challenging those interests, even when interference might be justified, is still provocative.

This just shows that anything can be defined as provocative. The United States is over-sensitive, as we've seen to the point of preemptive strikes. Should the rest of the world bow down to them like Children, or exercise their freedom regardless of their threats and criticisms (the former would be preferable to avoid conflict, I agree, but not in the least ethical)?


The fact is they do, and backing organisations that want to destroy Israel is definitely provoking the US.
Unintentional, indirect provocation.
Iran could easily say they are being provoked by the U.S, and they have a far better case for carrying out a preemptive strike on us then we had on Iraq.

It's irrational to consider a direct challenge to the established interests of the US (however moral they are) provocative?
wheres the "direct challenge?"



DAMMIT you've got it backwards. It doesn't matter whether they're justified or not. It's still a provocation.
then by your logic, anything can be considered a provocation.

To say that ethics don't matter is nonsensical.

And oh yeah, threatening to attack ships in international waters is really really provocative.
so we must take it up with the government?

Maybe they believe this is some sort of conspiracy, and had they warded off those much-smaller speedboats, Iran would attack them.

A possibility (like all conspiracies), but this looks like the U.S is blowing this out of proportion.

[Det_Nosnip]

Well, the last war went pretty well...maybe it's time for another?

[Independent_CA]

maybe a century ago
What?!

In case you haven't noticed, modern ships use radar, as well as several types of high-tech equipment and weaponry, enabling them to be a threat from much further away than ever before. This is why crews extend the common courtesy of identifying themselves and stating their intentions to each other. Otherwise the ocean might be a bit more messy.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae

BUT THE PERSIANS ARE EVIL!!!


This is obviously blown out of proportion. Any other event, like the undetected Chinese sub a few months ago, would not have had such a presence in the media.
Maybe that's because there's no video or photo record of the event like there is here? That Chinese sub incident got plenty of attention, I remember it, it was just mainly in the form of written media.

Just out of curiosity, you are familiar with the USS Cole incident right?

just How long have you lived in this country?
My whole life. Long enough to smell the different brands of BS that are out there.

you're assuming this was a government-ordered altercation, while it could've been (and most likely was) a band of guerrillas.
Well considering that Iran acknowledged the incident I'd say that's a fairly obvious assumption to make. You have some kind of...reasoning for thinking this was a band of guerrillas?

As if the Iranian navy would send a few speedboats to show their naval prowess.
It's actually much safer for them to do that if they want to keep their assets and gather any information, which was likely the point of this. Had they sent an actual warship or sub, which is a much greater threat at a much greater range and had it behave in the same way, the US would have fired without a doubt. There would have at least been warning shots if not more, and who knows what would have developed from that.



One country can't alter relations for their own benefit.
That's been going on for centuries. It just takes enough power to do so.

[TheDarkHorse]

In case you haven't noticed, modern ships use radar, as well as several types of high-tech equipment and weaponry, enabling them to be a threat from much further away than ever before.

maybe thats why they couldn't detect the chinese


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae

BUT THE PERSIANS ARE EVIL!!!
lololol


Maybe that's because there's no video or photo record of the event like there is here?
oh come on! there's hardly video of this "incident" (video editing and snip-its do not count). And never has the mainstream media needed video-its so easy to show a naval exercise from 10 years ago.

That Chinese sub incident got plenty of attention, I remember it, it was just mainly in the form of written media.
but it did not reach mainstream media outlets, namely on television. Thats hardly attention seeing how your average citizen does not read the paper (was it even on a national paper?).

Just out of curiosity, you are familiar with the USS Cole incident right?
yes
.......


Well considering that Iran acknowledged the incident I'd say that's a fairly obvious assumption to make. You have some kind of...reasoning for thinking this was a band of guerrillas?
they acknowledged it because the U.S brought it up.

there's no way to just assume this was government sponsored. Thats just looking for a reason to attack a country.

If a 14 year old, wearing his school shirt, throws rocks at your car while you're driving by, will you hold his school responsible?

If anything, you would call the school and notify them about such incident, which is pretty much what the U.S did here (with a little more whining, of course).

Had they sent an actual warship or sub, which is a much greater threat
well had the U.S not parked a carrier off Iran's coast to intimidate them, they wouldn't have to worry about "wargames."

the U.S has to remember where it is. If an Iranian carrier was that close to our coast, we would be at conflict right now. Iran is being generous.

That's been going on for centuries.
Back when blatant imperialism wasn't out of style.

[Valhall]

In case you haven't noticed, modern ships use radar, as well as several types of high-tech equipment and weaponry, enabling them to be a threat from much further away than ever before. This is why crews extend the common courtesy of identifying themselves and stating their intentions to each other. Otherwise the ocean might be a bit more messy.
To add to that a bit...

Even if this wasn't the case, Iranian vessels had already had contact with the U.S. ships earlier in the day without incident; the Iranians knew they were there and knew their intent. So either the Iranians are trying to provoke us or the Iranian military has serious communications issues (within itself), neither of which is our fault.

[Independent_CA]

maybe thats why they couldn't detect the chinese
Diesel electric submarines are actually HARDER to detect than nuclear submarines and all submarines are designed to be stealthy. The fact that it wasn't detected simply validates my point, todays warships are much more dangerous than those of the past, making protocols necessary.


lololol
Yes, I thought so too.


oh come on! there's hardly video of this "incident" (video editing and snip-its do not count). And never has the mainstream media needed video-its so easy to show a naval exercise from 10 years ago.
Well it's not just US media hyping it up. There's a couple BBC clips and some Australian clips on it too. Why is it so hard to believe that this actually happened?



but it did not reach mainstream media outlets, namely on television. Thats hardly attention seeing how your average citizen does not read the paper (was it even on a national paper?).
It got reported in AP so it was on many news sites and I do remember seeing it on TV, don't remember what channel.

yes
.......
Then there's precedent for small boats being a threat to ships in the Middle East.


they acknowledged it because the U.S brought it up.
Which means they knew about it and don't deny those were their boats.

there's no way to just assume this was government sponsored. Thats just looking for a reason to attack a country.
Well they called the contact "normal" which means they have fairly accurate knowledge of what went on. Kind of hard not to put it on them when they're like "yeah it was us".

If a 14 year old, wearing his school shirt, throws rocks at your car while you're driving by, will you hold his school responsible?

If anything, you would call the school and notify them about such incident, which is pretty much what the U.S did here (with a little more whining, of course).
I'd find his parents and make them pay for the damage to my car utilizing the school and/or the police to accomplish this. Even if this was some rogue group of Iranian citizens or military members, it's still Iran's responsibility.

well had the U.S not parked a carrier off Iran's coast to intimidate them, they wouldn't have to worry about "wargames."

The Persian Gulf is small just about anywhere in it could be "off Iran's coast".

the U.S has to remember where it is. If an Iranian carrier was that close to our coast, we would be at conflict right now. Iran is being generous.
We'd announce who we were rather than charging up on them.

Back when blatant imperialism wasn't out of style.
It's not out of style today either, people just think it is.

This was likely a probing operation by the Iranians. They were likely testing US rules of engagement and seeing how US commanders would react to these kind of situations and what they might be authorized to do on their own and on short notice. Basically it was somewhat of an intelligence gathering operation with some political goals as well.

[TheDarkHorse]

Why is it so hard to believe that this actually happened?

the fact that it happened doesn't bother me; the fact that it was completely blown out of proportion does.


Then there's precedent for small boats being a threat to ships in the Middle East.
then by all means, protect yourself. Did the U.S retaliate to any one country after, let alone to anyone? No, they didn't. In this case, they're trying to blame an entire country. Thats unnecessary.
If they physically attack (the attackers of the U.S cole did not play games) then fight back. Just don't use this less-than skirmish to make a case for war.
Looks like the U.S needs all the help it can get to legitimize an attack on Iran


Which means they knew about it
it means they were aware of it, if anything, after it occurred.
and don't deny those were their boats.
Saddam didn't deny he had weapons of mass destruction. He was just astounded that the U.S made such a claim that he had no room for denial.
Even if he did deny it, does that take away from the U.S trying to make a case for war?

I'd find his parents and make them pay for the damage to my car utilizing the school and/or the police to accomplish this.

but you wouldn't call his principle with a warning that you would bomb his school if he provoked you again.

Even if this was some rogue group of Iranian citizens or military members, it's still Iran's responsibility.
That's pretty oxymoronic to say guerrilla's are the responsibility of any government.

The Persian Gulf is small just about anywhere in it could be "off Iran's coast".
then even more so, the U.S should mind its space.

We'd announce who we were rather than charging up on them.

im pretty sure an Iranian carrier would be sunk if it was that close.

It's not out of style today either, people just think it is.
no, its not (for the United States), but people now realize how unethical it is.

This was likely a probing operation by the Iranians. They were likely testing US rules of engagement and seeing how US commanders would react to these kind of situations and what they might be authorized to do on their own and on short notice. Basically it was somewhat of an intelligence gathering operation with some political goals as well.
conspiracy theorist. :rolleyes:

:p

[Amit]

I think the hardline portion of the Iranian government (ie, the bit backed by the Revolutionary Guard) would be bolstered by a low-grade diplomatic incident in the Persian Gulf. They know the US wouldn't go to war over an incident like this, but that US ships firing on Iranian boats would alienate the moderates and ratchet up the tension and insure the longevity of the hardliner party.

this+fixed

[Smokey D]

maybe a century ago

erm, law of the Sea.

One country can't alter relations for their own benefit.

It can, but it has to understand that the established order will find attempts to reorganise relations a challenge to its interests, and therefore will be provoked. Hence provocative.

This just shows that anything can be defined as provocative. The United States is over-sensitive, as we've seen to the point of preemptive strikes. Should the rest of the world bow down to them like Children, or exercise their freedom regardless of their threats and criticisms (the former would be preferable to avoid conflict, I agree, but not in the least ethical)?

Threatening to blow up ships in the Gulf of Hormuz (one of the most important shipping lanes in the world) is not just any diplomatic incident.

But you're missing the point. Whether or not the US has a right to be in the Gulf of Hormuz (which it does, by the way), attempts to disturb the prevailing order will be considered provocative.

Unintentional, indirect provocation.

Hardly, since Hizballah was formed well after American support for Israel became well known. They know exactly who were they are provoking.

Iran could easily say they are being provoked by the U.S, and they have a far better case for carrying out a preemptive strike on us then we had on Iraq.

They can and do. Glad to see you're catching on.

wheres the "direct challenge?"

Are we talking about threatening shipping in the Gulf of Hormuz or threatening to eliminate Israel?

The US has a vested interest in preventing both of those, if even (but probably not only) for the sole reason of protecting its hegemony.

then by your logic, anything can be considered a provocation.

Within reason. But some behavior is undoubtedly more provocative than others.

To say that ethics don't matter is nonsensical.

It's completely irrelevant to whether an action is provocative or not, though.

so we must take it up with the government?

There is the small chance that this was a renegade attack by the Revolutionary Guard, but considering how much influence the Guard has in the government, I think that's wishful thinking.

Besides, governments have an obligation to protect shipping/prevent piracy near their borders.

Maybe they believe this is some sort of conspiracy, and had they warded off those much-smaller speedboats, Iran would attack them.

They dropped boxes in the water, said the US ships would soon be blown up and then approached them at high speed.

A possibility (like all conspiracies), but this looks like the U.S is blowing this out of proportion.

There's nothing out of proportion to say this action was provocative and unwelcome.

Shelling the Iranian coast would be out of proportion.

[Independent_CA]

the fact that it happened doesn't bother me; the fact that it was completely blown out of proportion does.


then by all means, protect yourself. Did the U.S retaliate to any one country after, let alone to anyone? No, they didn't. In this case, they're trying to blame an entire country. Thats unnecessary.
If they physically attack (the attackers of the U.S cole did not play games) then fight back. Just don't use this less-than skirmish to make a case for war.
Looks like the U.S needs all the help it can get to legitimize an attack on Iran
Who's trying to justify an all out attack on Iran because of this? From what I've heard the general message is that if the Iranians do things like this in the future, the vessels involved may be fired upon, probably with warning shots first and then move on from there depending how the situation progresses.

Each of those US ships costs hundreds of millions and has hundreds of crew members, it'd be irresponsible to write an incident like this off.

Other than the FOX propaganda machine saying that those boats should have been destroyed, I haven't heard much besides "don't do it again".


it means they were aware of it, if anything, after it occurred.
It means they were aware of it. The timing of that awareness is unknown, but it is unlikely to assume that they didn't know about this during or prior to it.

Saddam didn't deny he had weapons of mass destruction. He was just astounded that the U.S made such a claim that he had no room for denial.
Even if he did deny it, does that take away from the U.S trying to make a case for war?
No, but it's usually a good idea to deny responsibility for something that you didn't do if it might get you into some kind of trouble.

but you wouldn't call his principle with a warning that you would bomb his school if he provoked you again.
I don't think anyone has gone quite that far yet.

That's pretty oxymoronic to say guerrilla's are the responsibility of any government.
Control over your own territory and what goes on within it is your responsibility.

then even more so, the U.S should mind its space.
International waters means anyone can be there.

im pretty sure an Iranian carrier would be sunk if it was that close.
No, it would be contacted and likely intercepted, but as long as it remained in international waters and didn't do anything threatening, it would probably be left alone.

conspiracy theorist. :rolleyes:

:p
It's actually a fairly common military tactic used by most military forces in the world. Granted they usually aren't this flashy, but they have and do occur often. During the Cold War, the US and USSR did this type of thing to each other on practically a daily basis. A couple of military analysts I saw interviewed on TV shared a similar opinion.

[TheDarkHorse]

Threatening to blow up ships in the Gulf of Hormuz (one of the most important shipping lanes in the world) is not just any diplomatic incident.
with speedboats?

I mean, I know it could happen, but come on. You're in a carrier


Hardly, since Hizballah was formed well after American support for Israel became well known. They know exactly who were they are provoking.
i like how you use the United States for the reference point of everything.

Hezbollah was formed after Israel went into Lebanon. As far as I'm concerned, the U.S is a non-issue for a palestinian group aiming for liberation of Israeli land.

Surely you can't say that a bully has provoked a boy's father when he beats up his son. He doesn't pick on him with the consequences of the boy's father's reaction in mind.

Are we talking about threatening shipping in the Gulf of Hormuz or threatening to eliminate Israel?
You tell me. Neither one of those are direct.

You know Iran's not trying to pick out the U.S as an enemy. They speak out against the state of Israel, once again without the U.S in mind.

Within reason.

If reason is objective, then how can we use any subjective definition for provocation?
Or better yet, what we can display as reasonable to the public for grounds for war? I mean, surely the WMD case was within reason...or so bush made seem.

But some behavior is undoubtedly more provocative than others.
once again, this is subjective. Anyone can say the U.S foreign policy is provocative and thus have a case.


It's completely irrelevant to whether an action is provocative or not, though.
didn't you just say "within reason?"

Besides, governments have an obligation to protect shipping/prevent piracy near their borders.
so then report them. Don't threaten a country and try and make a case for war.

They dropped boxes in the water, said the US ships would soon be blown up and then approached them at high speed.
and this has what to do with a consequent attack from Iran sure to follow?

There's nothing out of proportion to say this action was provocative and unwelcome.
wake up and realize this is a blatant attempt to make a case for war.

[McP3000]

Wake up and realize that it was dumb of the Iranians to do that no matter what conclusion the American government comes to

[Against Miik!]

The whole thing looks a bit fishy to me. I saw the video, and if I heard correctly, the Iranians were speaking like perfect English. I mean, it makes perfect sense that the gov't would set something like this up, after the NIE foiled their plans last time. It was looking like a no brainer that were going into Iran before that was released. This will probably work much better than just lying, like we did to go into Iraq. But people need to wake up a bit.

[Smokey D]

with speedboats?

I mean, I know it could happen, but come on. You're in a carrier


The threat is still a provokation

And speedboats are the most commonly used means of piracy.

Not to mention the UK sailors were captured in something similar.

i like how you use the United States for the reference point of everything.

Given it was the US that called this action provocative, I don't see where else to start.

Hezbollah was formed after Israel went into Lebanon. As far as I'm concerned, the U.S is a non-issue for a palestinian group aiming for liberation of Israeli land.

Well it would be aside from a) the US (especially this Administration) considers itself to have a vested interest in the continued survival of Israel and b) Hizbollah is a stated enemy of an ally of the US and thus is an enemy of the US itself.

Surely you can't say that a bully has provoked a boy's father when he beats up his son. He doesn't pick on him with the consequences of the boy's father's reaction in mind.

Um, yes you can.

You tell me. Neither one of those are direct.

A threat to shipping in the Gulf of Hormuz threatens international commerce and the position of US soldiers in the region. A threat to Israel threatens the most stable democratic government in the region from where the US can spread its influence.

You know Iran's not trying to pick out the U.S as an enemy. They speak out against the state of Israel, once again without the U.S in mind.

The US, not Israel, is the great Satan.

Besides, they're not in a vacuum; they know what picking on Israel will provoke.

If reason is objective, then how can we use any subjective definition for provocation?

Because different actors respond in different ways to different events. Some actions considered provocative by one will not be provocative for another.

Or better yet, what we can display as reasonable to the public for grounds for war? I mean, surely the WMD case was within reason...or so bush made seem

Irrelevant.

once again, this is subjective. Anyone can say the U.S foreign policy is provocative and thus have a case.

Irrelevant.

didn't you just say "within reason?"

All actions might piss some one off.

Whether that action is ethical or not is irrelevant to whether it will piss them off since lots of people get pissed off at ethical things.

so then report them. Don't threaten a country and try and make a case for war.

Lol. No-one did that.

and this has what to do with a consequent attack from Iran sure to follow?

What? That's what the Iranians did.


wake up and realize this is a blatant attempt to make a case for war.

You really are clueless if you think the US wants a war with Iran at the moment.

The whole thing looks a bit fishy to me. I saw the video, and if I heard correctly, the Iranians were speaking like perfect English. I mean, it makes perfect sense that the gov't would set something like this up, after the NIE foiled their plans last time. It was looking like a no brainer that were going into Iran before that was released. This will probably work much better than just lying, like we did to go into Iraq. But people need to wake up a bit.

NO DAMMIT THE US IS NOT GOING TO INVADE OR DECLARE WAR ON IRAN.

[Independent_CA]

The whole thing looks a bit fishy to me. I saw the video, and if I heard correctly, the Iranians were speaking like perfect English. I mean, it makes perfect sense that the gov't would set something like this up, after the NIE foiled their plans last time. It was looking like a no brainer that were going into Iran before that was released. This will probably work much better than just lying, like we did to go into Iraq. But people need to wake up a bit.

The threat is heard twice on the tape. The first time in what is far from perfectly accented English, and the second time when one of the US bridge officers is relating what he heard over the radio.

[Against Miik!]

The threat is heard twice on the tape. The first time in what is far from perfectly accented English, and the second time when one of the US bridge officers is relating what he heard over the radio.

Hmm maybe that was it then. But my point still stands. Even if it was actually Iranians, they were definitely in the wrong, but not completely, given the U.S.'s actions towards them recently.

[Smokey D]

If the US threatened ships in international waters, can you imagine the furore?

[Against Miik!]

Well realistically, we are held to higher standard than much of the rest of the world, as we should be.

[Smokey D]

Regardless, you can't threaten foreign ships in international waters and expect to get away with it Scott-free, especially if you are in a state of diplomatic tension with the state whose ships you are threatening.

[Against Miik!]

Well they shouldn't. And they won't. But I'm am still not completely convinced by this story. You know, Hitler bombed his own Reichstag in his rise to power.

[Smokey D]

You're ****ing nuts.

And a) the US is a lot more robust than Weimar Germany ever was and b) Congress and the states aren't in the mood to take **** from a lame duck president, especially something which could so easily be proven wrong.

[Against Miik!]

I'm just saying, it's happened before. In this day and age, I don't take anything for granted, especially if it has a federal government stamp on it. I don't see anything wrong with that.

[McP3000]

Well they shouldn't. And they won't. But I'm am still not completely convinced by this story. You know, Hitler bombed his own Reichstag in his rise to power.
It was Dubya and Cheney who drove the boats

i have pictures

[Against Miik!]

http://www.shoutwire.com/viewstory/127551/Iran_Accuses_US_of_Faking_Video

well its no CNN, but they wouldn't do a story like this anyways. I couldn't find a direct link, but this is the same thing.

[Smokey D]

I'm just saying, it's happened before. In this day and age, I don't take anything for granted, especially if it has a federal government stamp on it. I don't see anything wrong with that.

There's a difference between healthy skepticism and batshit crazy tinfoil hattery. You are inventing scenarios in which to ensnare the Federal government without actually assessing whether it's in the interests of the government (which it's not) or within its capabilities (which it's not).


http://www.shoutwire.com/viewstory/127551/Iran_Accuses_US_of_Faking_Video

well its no CNN, but they wouldn't do a story like this anyways. I couldn't find a direct link, but this is the same thing.

The BBC has the same story running. Don't go to the crazy sites.

Iran apparently doesn't know what to do, since it's released about 4 contradictory responses to this whole thing. That strikes me as a lot more suspicious than anything the US has done.

[Against Miik!]

Don't worry. I'm not really that crazy at all. It's just that this administration hasn't exactly been the most honest, so we have no reason to take their word for granted. You wouldn't do that with a personal friend who is a known liar, so why do it with the government? I'm not Alex Jones or anything. I don't let this stuff dominate my life.

[rudolphhess88]

Iran is not being generous. They are being, in the simplest terms, cowards. In a "traditional" war and without the Democrats handcuffing our military, Iran has a McDonalds, and an Abercrombie and Fitch by next week we are enjoying 40 cents a gallon after we pummel their backwards asses into oblivion.

[Amit]

yeah and doing that will definitely stop terrorism oh wai

[Against Miik!]

Yeah setting a puppet government in Iran would definitely work...O wait, we already did that in Iran once, and here we are.

[TheDarkHorse]

Who's trying to justify an all out attack on Iran because of this?
you really don't know how this country works, do you?
Other than the FOX propaganda machine saying that those boats should have been destroyed, I haven't heard much besides "don't do it again".
hm, I guess I was watching the wrong channel then :p

No, but it's usually a good idea to deny responsibility for something that you didn't do if it might get you into some kind of trouble.
since when has adamant denial ever changed the U.S's plans?

I don't think anyone has gone quite that far yet.
you're right. I guess i'm reading too much in this for what will happen in the future.

Control over your own territory and what goes on within it is your responsibility.
so, if guerrilla's attack your carrier, you should blame the govt, giving you a reason to bomb the piss out of the country? You have not solved the problem, since guerrillas, whether they agree or disagree with the people as a whole, are not associated with the government.


International waters means anyone can be there.
for what purpose? Should we parade our carriers around their country because we can?
The threat is still a provokation

its as provoking as a 4 year old who threatens beat you.

Not to mention the UK sailors were captured in something similar.
that was trespassing.

Given it was the US that called this action provocative, I don't see where else to start.
I mean as a reference point for international relations. You see Israel as nothing more than an American interest. You view Iran's oil supply as just an American import. Why can't they be seen as they are? Why is it immediately a provocation to the all-powerful Americans when either of these are undermined (without America in the picture, mind you)?
Um, yes you can.

well, you can irrationally state anything you want.

A threat to shipping in the Gulf of Hormuz threatens international commerce and the position of US soldiers in the region. A threat to Israel threatens the most stable democratic government in the region from where the US can spread its influence.
These are both clearly indirect.

The US, not Israel, is the great Satan.
in this specific case, the U.S is not the country being blasted. You did say speaking out on Israel was a direct challenge to America, which is blatantly false.

Because different actors respond in different ways to different events. Some actions considered provocative by one will not be provocative for another.
then we can no longer put a rational boundary around this all-inclusive, subjective definition of "provocation."

Irrelevant.
its called a parallel.

I use it to point out your faulty logic, yet you write it off.

Irrelevant.

Once again, real life applications are just written off as irrelevant. You're missing the point and dodging the holes your own logic created.


All actions might piss some one off.

Whether that action is ethical or not is irrelevant to whether it will piss them off since lots of people get pissed off at ethical things.
where is your defense for "within reason?"

Lol. No-one did that.
what the hell do you think they're doing? Hyping up the media for fun?

You really are clueless if you think the US wants a war with Iran at the moment.
they want a case.
NO DAMMIT THE US IS NOT GOING TO INVADE OR DECLARE WAR ON IRAN.
I'm saving this quote for future references.

that includes any strategic strikes done in part with the U.S

[Iskandar]

Stop talking about Iran. Nobody wants war with Iran, including Iran.

[Valhall]

Stop talking about Iran. Nobody wants war with Iran, including Iran.

Are you sure about that? lol

[Amit]

valhall i think it's incredible how ignorant and stupid you are

congratulations for being a clear sociopath

i mean

YEAH TOTALLY MAN IRANIANS AREN'T EVEN HUMAN LOL

[Iskandar]

Are you sure about that? lol
what

[Mother]

I heard on CNN international that the US are taking this "deadly seriously".

[Iskandar]

I bet they are!

[TheDarkHorse]

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSDAH03820820080110?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0

apparently the video was faked. Press TV released their own video of the "incident"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_OnPjqjMCI

now what? discuss our government's credibility?

[ringworm]

now what? discuss our government's credibility?
i think this has been a big issue for several years now :)


but I dont know what to think about the fact that the video shown across the nation wasnt even real, how credible is this?

[Valhall]

what

What I meant is that Iran has a history of war. In addition, they have shown that their general sentiment is that they would rather demolish a country like Israel than get along with it. Don't tell me Iran wants nothing but peace; it's a load of crap. The government is based on a religion which tells it's followers to destroy anyone who does not believe. If you don't believe me, go read the Koran. It's not just an extremist mentality; it's imbedded in the religion itself, and almost has just as violent of a history as Christianity, regardless of how many Muslims actually read and follow thier own book (sounds familar, eh, Christians?).

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

--George Santayana

--

[The Chemist]

Gulf of Tonkin anyone?

[Independent_CA]

you really don't know how this country works, do you?
Sure I do, just like any other. The powerful make policies and control what the public hears. Welcome to civilization?

since when has adamant denial ever changed the U.S's plans?
It still makes you look better in the eyes of the international community and you never know, it might actually change the other country's mind if you can prove it.

so, if guerrilla's attack your carrier, you should blame the govt, giving you a reason to bomb the piss out of the country? You have not solved the problem, since guerrillas, whether they agree or disagree with the people as a whole, are not associated with the government.
Yes, you should blame the government for not controlling their own territory and your vessels being attacked due to their negligence. You tell them to clean up the situation. If they fail to do this and attacks continue, then you threaten to take out the guerrillas yourself. You don't just let them sit there and do nothing about it.

These weren't guerrillas anyway so it's irrelevant.

for what purpose? Should we parade our carriers around their country because we can?
You don't need a purpose for being in international waters. That's the point of calling them "international waters".


http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSDAH03820820080110?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandCha nnel=0

apparently the video was faked. Press TV released their own video of the "incident"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_OnPjqjMCI

now what? discuss our government's credibility?

Wait a second lets examine this here. The incident supposedly lasted about 20 minutes or so. The US Navy releases an edited, short video showing the aggressive activities and you completely dismiss it and call it a cover up. A few days later, the Iranians release their own edited, short video of the incident showing them doing nothing wrong, and you simply accept it without question?

I don't understand how you can be so skeptical in one situation and not the other.

One thing I noticed in the Iranian video is that you only really see what is going on with one of those boats. You never see all five that were there. In the US video only two or three of the boats actually come near the ships. Also at the end of the Iranian vid, another boat comes speeding up from the direction of the US group, you never see what it was doing beforehand. Also note that the entire time, the Iranian boats you do see are to the right side or behind the US ships, which is where a few of them end up at the end of the US video.


Gulf of Tonkin anyone?
I though I already dealt with this?...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae

[Amit]

What I meant is that Iran has a history of war. In addition, they have shown that their general sentiment is that they would rather demolish a country like Israel than get along with it. Don't tell me Iran wants nothing but peace; it's a load of crap. The government is based on a religion which tells it's followers to destroy anyone who does not believe. If you don't believe me, go read the Koran. It's not just an extremist mentality; it's imbedded in the religion itself, and almost has just as violent of a history as Christianity, regardless of how many Muslims actually read and follow thier own book (sounds familar, eh, Christians?).

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

--George Santayana

--

could there be an even more ironic pairing of an argument with a quote or what

[monkeysonmars.]

What I meant is that Iran has a history of war.
--

pretty much every country has a history of war, it says nothing about that country.

[Amit]

yeah especially since we're talking about the US too lmao

THE US HAS A HISTORY OF WAR

[Mr. Ron]

And terrorism. Don't forget terrorism.

[TheDarkHorse]

Yes, you should blame the government for not controlling their own territory and your vessels being attacked due to their negligence.

then you have missed the problem, and you have two large sides fighting one another for no apparent reason.

then you threaten to take out the guerrillas yourself.
good luck.

However this should have been your first option.

Once again, guerrilla's and a country are unconnected. Tell afghanistan to control the taliban fighters, and they simply can't, so you attack them. What happens is innocents killed with the problem still at had


You don't need a purpose for being in international waters. That's the point of calling them "international waters".
for parading your ships, I believe you do.

Unless there's trade, you should not be there.


Wait a second lets examine this here. The incident supposedly lasted about 20 minutes or so. The US Navy releases an edited, short video showing the aggressive activities and you completely dismiss it and call it a cover up.

No I didn't. I said, assuming the incident was true, that it as blown out of proportion. Never did I say it was a cover up.

you're wrong right off the bat.

A few days later, the Iranians release their own edited, short video of the incident showing them doing nothing wrong, and you simply accept it without question?
just as you were too close-minded to leave open the possibility that you're honorable government may have just been making a case for war?

Here, they have denied it using video evidence, yet you pass it off as counterpropaganda. Do you now see how denial doesn't change anything?

One thing I noticed in the Iranian video is that you only really see what is going on with one of those boats. You never see all five that were there.

The video showed the communication between the two. Translated, he couldn't make out the number on the U.S ship, so a few boats went closer for confirmation

If you didn't know now, the U.S's responses vary, from someone stating that the Iran video does not refute the Pentagon's, to saying the radioed threat likely emerged from another vessel or off shore.
They should have investigated this if the latter is what they're sticking by.

In the US video only two or three of the boats actually come near the ships. Also at the end of the Iranian vid, another boat comes speeding up from the direction of the US group, you never see what it was doing beforehand.
actually, you never do see any footage when the Iranian made the threat, which made me believe that this is old footage.


I though I already dealt with this?...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae
I could've sworn you were joking.

Seriously.

[Det_Nosnip]

What I meant is that Iran has a history of war. In addition, they have shown that their general sentiment is that they would rather demolish a country like Israel than get along with it. Don't tell me Iran wants nothing but peace; it's a load of crap. The government is based on a religion which tells it's followers to destroy anyone who does not believe. If you don't believe me, go read the Koran. It's not just an extremist mentality; it's imbedded in the religion itself, and almost has just as violent of a history as Christianity, regardless of how many Muslims actually read and follow thier own book (sounds familar, eh, Christians?).

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

--George Santayana

--

Aahhahahahahahahaha. :lol: You are endlessly entertaining!

[Against Miik!]

So, wait, not all Arabs are terrorists? I don't get it.

[Independent_CA]

then you have missed the problem, and you have two large sides fighting one another for no apparent reason.

good luck.

However this should have been your first option.

Once again, guerrilla's and a country are unconnected. Tell afghanistan to control the taliban fighters, and they simply can't, so you attack them. What happens is innocents killed with the problem still at had
No no, you've misunderstood me. Attacking the guerrillas was what I meant in that scenario. The "threatening" part of it is that you would be operating inside the aforementioned countries borders. Some would welcome the help, others not so much. Either way if people are launching attacks from a countries territory, the country needs to do something about or either ask for/allow outsiders to take care of the problem for them.


for parading your ships, I believe you do.

Unless there's trade, you should not be there.
The Straight of Hormuz is a very important waterway and the entrance to the Persian Gulf. Passing through it is not "parading". International waters were set up to keep countries from making such claims, among other reasons.


No I didn't. I said, assuming the incident was true, that it as blown out of proportion. Never did I say it was a cover up.

you're wrong right off the bat.
You suggested it was an old video which is basically the same thing.


just as you were too close-minded to leave open the possibility that you're honorable government may have just been making a case for war?

Here, they have denied it using video evidence, yet you pass it off as counterpropaganda. Do you now see how denial doesn't change anything?
No, I don't. The incident supposedly lasted 20 minutes, which means both sides should have longer, un-edited tapes. If either side wanted to prove beyond a doubt that they were right, they'd show those. Right now they're just playing games with each other.

And I wouldn't exactly call the US government honorable, especially under it's current leadership.

The video showed the communication between the two. Translated, he couldn't make out the number on the U.S ship, so a few boats went closer for confirmation

If you didn't know now, the U.S's responses vary, from someone stating that the Iran video does not refute the Pentagon's, to saying the radioed threat likely emerged from another vessel or off shore.
They should have investigated this if the latter is what they're sticking by.

actually, you never do see any footage when the Iranian made the threat, which made me believe that this is old footage.
Again, maybe the full tapes should be released.


I could've sworn you were joking.

Seriously.
I was. I just figured it was funny enough for a second round. No?

[McP3000]

So, wait, not all Arabs are terrorists? I don't get it.
wait what

[TheDarkHorse]

You suggested it was an old video which is basically the same thing.

I said any media outlet can play archived footage from years ago if they didn't have actual video of the incident. Thats not the same as a cover-up. I've been arguing with you, all the while assuming the incident happened. I just said it was blown out of proportion.

Again, maybe the full tapes should be released.
this just shows the naivety of americans who will believe anything thats on video.
Notice when the threats were radioed in, the screen went black-in other words, there was no video. A video was only edited for illusionary purposes, and you, along with others, bought it hook, line & sinker.

You see why I have completely lost faith in America?

I was. I just figured it was funny enough for a second round. No?
oh ok, I guess so!

[Smokey D]

so, if guerrilla's attack your carrier, you should blame the govt, giving you a reason to bomb the piss out of the country? You have not solved the problem, since guerrillas, whether they agree or disagree with the people as a whole, are not associated with the government.

They're not guerillas. They're part of the Revolutionary Guard, the most powerful faction in the Iranian government.

for what purpose? Should we parade our carriers around their country because we can?

If by around their country you mean through international waters protecting the interests of the US, then yes.

its as provoking as a 4 year old who threatens beat you.

A four year old with a bomb, maybe.

that was trespassing

My point is that you shouldn't think speedboats aren't effective weapons.

I mean as a reference point for international relations. You see Israel as nothing more than an American interest. You view Iran's oil supply as just an American import. Why can't they be seen as they are? Why is it immediately a provocation to the all-powerful Americans when either of these are undermined (without America in the picture, mind you)?

I'm saying threats to the interests of the United States will be considered provocative by the United States because that's how IR works. Whatever else they are is completely irrelevant to whether the US was correct in identifying the behavior of Iran as provocative so stop strawmanning and focus on the point at hand -- the point you raised.

well, you can irrationally state anything you want.

A threat's a threat.

These are both clearly indirect.

Not really. And directness is such a minor piece of detail nobody who understands the US (or any state acting in international relations) is going to care.

in this specific case, the U.S is not the country being blasted. You did say speaking out on Israel was a direct challenge to America, which is blatantly false.

The US considers it a direct challenge, which is the important bit.

And it is a challenge to US hegemony, which is the other important bit.

then we can no longer put a rational boundary around this all-inclusive, subjective definition of "provocation."

Trying to apply an objective definition to something which necessarily has different causes, courses and outcomes is pretty stupid.

its called a parallel.

No, it's called a fallacy because nobody cares about that when we're talking about whether something is provocative. It's entirely unrelated. So stop talking about it.

I use it to point out your faulty logic, yet you write it off.

Hey man, you were the one who brought up provocation. If you brought up the morality of the presence of the US, you might have a case.

Once again, real life applications are just written off as irrelevant. You're missing the point and dodging the holes your own logic created.

No, I understand the logic. But it's irrelevant to the particulars of this case.

where is your defense for "within reason?"

Within reason meaning almost everything is going to be provocative to someone but attempting to apply that is going to corrode the meaningfulness of the word so that's why we don't.

what the hell do you think they're doing? Hyping up the media for fun?

Pointing out that Iran is being provocative, ratcheting up tension on the hardline, telling them to knock it off. All of which have very little to do with going to war.

they want a case.

They aren't in a position to enforce it, so even if they do you're being stupid.

I'm saving this quote for future references.

that includes any strategic strikes done in part with the U.S

Tell you what. If we come back at the end of the summer and the US has gone crazy and declared war on Iran, I owe you a coke.

[TheDarkHorse]

My point is that you shouldn't think speedboats aren't effective weapons.
talk about irrelevant

A threat's a threat.

how will you say a bully is intentionally provoking a kids father?

you will not answer me directly

The US considers it a direct challenge, which is the important bit.
Which is why they don't matter.

North Korea can test missles and not be considered a threat, while a country with no weapons easily can

Trying to apply an objective definition to something which necessarily has different causes, courses and outcomes is pretty stupid.
I don't know why you attempted to do so, then.

No, it's called a fallacy because nobody cares about that when we're talking about whether something is provocative. It's entirely unrelated. So stop talking about it.
don't be thick. Its the same situation over again.

This is exactly why america goes to war. Looks like the rest of the world is beginning to (not) think like them.
Hey man, you were the one who brought up provocation.
I did?
Of course Iran is provocative.

my name is not SmokeyD

No, I understand the logic. But it's irrelevant to the particulars of this case.
obvvviously its not the same exact case. Its deadly similar.
Within reason meaning almost everything is going to be provocative to someone but attempting to apply that is going to corrode the meaningfulness of the word so that's why we don't.

So I can say, once again, that by your reasoning, anything can be considered provocative.


They aren't in a position to enforce it, so even if they do you're being stupid.

they can create one.

of course they're being stupid whats new?


Tell you what. If we come back at the end of the summer and the US has gone crazy and declared war on Iran, I owe you a coke.
you have to pay for shipping, too.

[Independent_CA]

I said any media outlet can play archived footage from years ago if they didn't have actual video of the incident. Thats not the same as a cover-up. I've been arguing with you, all the while assuming the incident happened. I just said it was blown out of proportion.
Ok, but you you started off stating that the Iranian government probably didn't know about this and that it was done by a band of guerrillas or something, which has since been proven false by the Iranians themselves.

this just shows the naivety of americans who will believe anything thats on video.
I believe evidence, which videotape is a very valid and often hard to come by form of. What is shown on the US video are speedboats of the same configuration, and manned by the same number of crew wearing what appear to be the same uniforms, acting suspiciously towards three US ships. Except for the last part, these all match the video released by the Iranians.

Could it have been faked? Possibly, but that's a bit difficult to prove at the moment. That's why I'd like to see the full versions of both tapes.


You see why I have completely lost faith in America?
Shock? Denial?

The entire human race has and does behave in such manners and will probably continue to do so in the future. The US just happens to be the star player right now.

You need to lose faith in all of humanity.


Tell you what. If we come back at the end of the summer and the US has gone crazy and declared war on Iran, I owe you a coke.
:lol:

I know that wasn't directed at me, but if that does come true then I'll send you whatever the Persian equivalent is. Considering I'd probably be on the first wave over there, I'd probably have a chance to do it. I hear soda in the Middle East is pretty good actually...always look on the bright side!!...

[Smokey D]

talk about irrelevant

I know. Why'd you bring it up? Whether speedboats are an actual threat to US warships is entirely irrelevant to whether attempting to use them as in threatening manner is a provocation.


how will you say a bully is intentionally provoking a kids father?

If the bully knows that the father of the bullied is going to respond with hostility, then he is intentionally provoking the father.

RE: If Iran knows that the US would respond with hostility to attacks on Israel (which it does) and to threats/attacks on its ships (which it does), then deciding to carry out those actions is an intentional provocation of the US.

Not that intention is very important either.


North Korea can test missles and not be considered a threat, while a country with no weapons easily can

What? North Korea is the biggest threat and gets called provocative all the time.

I don't know why you attempted to do so, then.

How so?

don't be thick. Its the same situation over again.

This is exactly why america goes to war. Looks like the rest of the world is beginning to (not) think like them.

It's not the same because America won't go to war with Iran.

I did?

When you said 'They're [Iran is] not a nation to provoke'.

obvvviously its not the same exact case. Its deadly similar.

Whether the US is attempting to use this to build a case for war (which it's not) is irrelevant to whether this action was provocative. It's not hard to see.

So I can say, once again, that by your reasoning, anything can be considered provocative.

Yeah, but only by idiots.

And threatening the ships of a state with whom you're in diplomatic tension in the Strait of Hormuz is not just 'anything' .

they can create one.

No, they really really really can't. Like at all. Like the possibility of going to war with Iran without Iran declaring war on the US first is so incredibly minute I can't foresee it happening in the next 10 years. The US is not in a position to go to war, and NOBODY in government has the political capital to launch a war after the debacle of Iraq.


you have to pay for shipping, too.

I'll have to fly it. It might get intercepted in the Persian Gulf otherwise.

[TheDarkHorse]

I believe evidence, which videotape is a very valid and often hard to come by form of.

video can be edited

ur a sucker


The entire human race has and does behave in such manners and will probably continue to do so in the future.

no sir. Americans cannot think to save their country.

Do some traveling and then let me know just how much more critically third world countries think.


If the bully knows that the father of the bullied is going to respond with hostility, then he is intentionally provoking the father.
but i said he didn't know
What? North Korea is the biggest threat and gets called provocative all the time.
they're almost invisible on the radar these days.

How so?

by using reason as a consideration

It's not the same because America won't go to war with Iran.

I remember saying the same thing about iraq in my 8th grade class

my was I ever wrong


When you said 'They're [Iran is] not a nation to provoke'.

I never said that

Whether the US is attempting to use this to build a case for war (which it's not) is irrelevant to whether this action was provocative. It's not hard to see.
it goes hand-in-hand actually.

Yeah, but only by idiots.
which administration do you think we're dealing with?

The US is not in a position to go to war, and NOBODY in government has the political capital to launch a war after the debacle of Iraq.
I would think so too
I'll have to fly it. It might get intercepted in the Persian Gulf otherwise.
:lol:

I thought it was NZ? I can't exactly remember the geography right now.

[Smokey D]

but i said he didn't know

Then the comparison is a useless one because Iran does know.

they're almost invisible on the radar these days.

Because a) they stopped firing missiles and testing bombs and b) because the people negotiating with them understand that the only way to get North Korea to do anything is to appeal to its sense of vanity. If the US talks about North Korea being a rogue nation and a threat to international security, it closes down and withdraws from discussions.


by using reason as a consideration

You read way to much into the within reason idiom.


I remember saying the same thing about iraq in my 8th grade class

Yeah, but everyone else knew the US would invade Iraq while everybody now knows that it can't (not won't but literally cannot) invade Iran at the moment.


I never said that

I doubt Iran's government even knew cared about this, let alone even was aware of it.

They're not a nation to provoke-thats up to the U.S, who's blowing this out of proportion to give another firm warning. They should just know they're not prepared to take on a country of Iran's caliber.

it goes hand-in-hand actually.

No, because an action can be provocative even if the US wasn't going to war.


which administration do you think we're dealing with?

One so politically hamstrung that it can barely move under its own steam let alone build the support necessary for an invasion of Iran.


I would think so too

Then what the hell?!



I thought it was NZ? I can't exactly remember the geography right now.

Can't trust them Iranians.

[TheDarkHorse]

You read way to much into the within reason idiom.

because reason suggests objectivity.

No, because an action can be provocative even if the US wasn't going to war.
it wouldn't be a media fuss if the govt didn't want us to know about it and brand Iran as public enemy number 1.

Then what the hell?!

I don't put anything past Americans

[J Rad]

I only read the first post, but I'll just speak my mind and say that this whole thing was probably blown way out of proportion just to give my government an excuse to make this an international incident as it aids in validating their desired preemptive action against Iran.

I really, really doubt that the Iranian government is stupid enough to threaten the US navy.

[Independent_CA]

video can be edited

ur a sucker
No, I'm not. I said it before, I WANT TO SEE BOTH TAPES IN THEIR FULL, UNEDITED VERSIONS.


no sir. Americans cannot think to save their country.
Some can't, some do, and many choose not to.

Do some traveling and then let me know just how much more critically third world countries think.
Sounds like someone has a bias.

I have friends from foreign countries, and I'm going to hopefully be visiting and studying in a few this summer. The critical thinking abilities of the people I have met aren't any better than anyone else.

[J Rad]

I have friends from foreign countries, and I'm going to hopefully be visiting and studying in a few this summer. The critical thinking abilities of the people I have met aren't any better than anyone else.

oh but of course they are because they aren't americans everyone knows that there are only stupid people in america durr

;)

[Give me Beer]

I'm lolling at this incident because the US would never ever allow warships from a hostile nation to even come that close to US shores without some intimidation, but Iran is supposed to just allow it to happen. I love all the exceptions in world politics. Iran knows the US is not going to do anything 'cause they really can't afford it right now, so they can do whatever the **** they please. Don't like it? Don't post your warships there. :lol:

[Aaron]

If someone walks into my front yard with weapons i'd likely be provocative as well.

[Independent_CA]

If someone walks into my front yard with weapons i'd likely be provocative as well.

International waterways that are major trade routes are NOBODY'S front yard, that's why they're considered INTERNATIONAL WATERWAYS!

The Persian Gulf has 9 countries that border it. Not to mention a good portion of global trade goes on there and through the straight. Warships of literally dozens of countries have gone in and out of it for years, this was no different.

What is so hard to understand about this?

[Aaron]

Alright, I'll word it differently.

If someone who I've long had an uneasy relationship with, went and sat outside of my yard but quite near my house with weapons, I'd likely ask them to move along.

[Independent_CA]

Alright, I'll word it differently.

If someone who I've long had an uneasy relationship with, went and sat outside of my yard but quite near my house with weapons, I'd likely ask them to move along.

There is a US Navy base in Bahrain inside the Persian Gulf and it's been there for a while now. US ships going in and out of it is nothing new. Why ratchet things up now?

[TheDarkHorse]

No, I'm not. I said it before, I WANT TO SEE BOTH TAPES IN THEIR FULL, UNEDITED VERSIONS.
ur a sucker
Sounds like someone has a bias.
you would have one too if you were only american by birth.

I have friends from foreign countries, and I'm going to hopefully be visiting and studying in a few this summer.

cool :thumb:

The critical thinking abilities of the people I have met aren't any better than anyone else.
lol no way man
Alright, I'll word it differently.

If someone who I've long had an uneasy relationship with, went and sat outside of my yard but quite near my house with weapons, I'd likely ask them to move along.
you must spread some rep..
There is a US Navy base in Bahrain inside the Persian Gulf and it's been there for a while now. US ships going in and out of it is nothing new. Why ratchet things up now?
so the guy with weapons has friends which just happen to be your neighbors.

[Smokey D]

because reason suggests objectivity.

What? The phrase within reason means I was agreeing with you, but you couldn't take it too far.

it wouldn't be a media fuss if the govt didn't want us to know about it and brand Iran as public enemy number 1.

They want you to know about it, but they don't want to go to war.

I don't put anything past Americans

You don't understand how governing a country works, then.



If someone who I've long had an uneasy relationship with, went and sat outside of my yard but quite near my house with weapons, I'd likely ask them to move along.

If they were on a public road, you wouldn't have that right.

[Independent_CA]

ur a sucker
Understanding how international relations work doesn't make me a sucker, in fact quite the opposite. You being blind to how international relations works doesn't make me a sucker either.

you would have one too if you were only american by birth.
Ok... :confused:

lol no way man
Yes way. I know being on the opposite of everything the US says or does publicly has gotten trendy in the last several years, and for many good reasons. However, automatically assuming that position on every issue is the exact opposite of critical thinking.

so the guy with weapons has friends which just happen to be your neighbors.
So now your neighbor isn't allowed to have friends over just because you don't like them?

People also aren't allowed to go down the street in front of your house to use the store at the end of the block just because you don't like them?

That's just getting ridiculous.

Anyway, a new development:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080112/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iran


WASHINGTON - Recent clashes between Iranian and U.S. Navy forces in the Persian Gulf reflect Iran's shifted military strategy to use its Revolutionary Guard's fast boats more aggressively in the region, the top U.S. military officer said Friday.
ADVERTISEMENT

In a confrontation Sunday — captured on a 36-minute video the Pentagon made public Friday — military officials said boxes were thrown into the water by the Iranians, triggering concerns about potential mine threats. And in an incident last month, a U.S. ship fired warning shots at a rapidly approaching Iranian boat.

While there are lingering questions about the origin of menacing verbal threats heard during the confrontation Sunday in the Strait of Hormuz, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Friday that the clash was the most "provocative and dramatic" he has seen.

"The incident ought to remind us all just how real is the threat posed by Iran and just how ready we are to meet that threat if it comes to it," Mullen said.

Iran denied its boats threatened the U.S. vessels and accused Washington of fabricating its video. A five-minute video released by Iran shows a man speaking into a handheld radio, with three U.S. ships floating in the distance. That footage did not show any Iranian boats approaching the U.S. vessels nor any provocation.

Adm. William J. Fallon, the top U.S. military commander in the Mideast, told The Associated Press that Iran runs the risk of triggering an unintended conflict if its boats continue to harass U.S. warships in the strategic waterway.

Both Mullen and Fallon said they could not tell if the verbal threats heard in a Pentagon-released audio tape came from the Iranian boats. In the recording, a man with an accent can be heard warning in English: "I am coming to you" and then, "You will explode after ... minutes."

The United States has lodged a formal diplomatic protest with Iran over Sunday's incident, underscoring the increasing tension between the two countries.

Also Friday, the Navy for the first time described the December encounters in detail.

The USS Whidbey Island fired the warning shots on Dec. 19 in response to a small Iranian boat that was rapidly approaching, said a Navy official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

Three days later, the USS Carr encountered three small Iranian craft, 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.

Sunday's incident, in which five Iranian fast boats swarmed a convoy of three U.S. warships, caused the most concern in the Pentagon and also heightened interest in the grainy video shot by a crew member on the destroyer USS Hopper.

The video, which Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said was unedited, showed U.S. sailors answering radio calls from the Iranians and monitoring the five fast boats. For much of the time, the camera followed one or more of the fast boats moving around the U.S. ships. And at one point, it zoomed in on an object floating in the water — which Navy officials said was one of the boxes the Iranians were seen throwing overboard.

As the incident escalated, sailors on the Hopper can be heard growing more agitated about how fast and close the small boats were moving near the ships. They can also be heard referring to the fact that the U.S. ship had gone on high alert, in which all of the hatches and doors on the main deck and below were closed to prepare the ship for potential damage.

The verbal threats cannot be heard in the video because they were in a separate audio recording released earlier in the week.

Fallon said that while the U.S. was still trying to determine the source of the threatening radio call, he remained convinced that it was related to the actions of the Iranian boats.

"The voice is very strange. I don't know whether it came from the boats or one of the shore stations," Fallon said in a telephone interview from U.S. Central Command headquarters in Florida. "But the timing of it is pretty suspicious. In my mind, it is related to the maneuvers."

"It certainly doesn't sound like a third party that just happened to say something threatening at that moment," he added.

Mullen, speaking at a Pentagon briefing, also said that while it was unclear where the radio transmission came from, it was equally threatening if it originated from the boats or from someone coordinating with them from shore.

If the assumption is that it was the Iranians, "that, to me gets to a level of sophistication that also is something that we ought to be concerned about," Mullen said.

Regarding the Iranian strategy, Mullen told reporters that the U.S. has been focused "for several years" on this shift to greater use of small, fast boats by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, which has taken over patrols in the Gulf from Tehran's regular navy.

"It's clearly strategically where the Iranian military has gone," Mullen said in his first solo Pentagon press briefing. "There's a projection they were going to do that over a number of years. ... That was a big concern to me because of the history and the background with the IRGC (Revolutionary Guard.) This fit that mold, as far as I was concerned."

Fallon added that the Navy believes the Revolutionary Guard now has responsibility for the whole Gulf, and has moved the Iranian navy further out into the Indian Ocean.

"The Revolutionary Guards have been the actors exporting trouble in the region," said Fallon. "If they intend to increase tension or ratchet up the level of confrontation, these are the guys who are going to do it. The Iranian navy has been better behaved and much more professional."

Mullen said that what bothered him most about the incident was that the boats swarmed so close to the U.S. ships and were dumping boxes into the water.

"We've been concerned for years about the threat of mining those straits," Mullen said.

And sometimes at sea, it can be pretty difficult to determine "what they really did put in the water, depending on the range and the other kinds of conditions," he said.

After reviewing the reports about Sunday's incident, Mullen said, he believes the sailors and commanders acted "exactly right" given the behavior of the Iranian boats.
Looks like I'll get my wish to see at least one sides full video. I haven't actually found it posted anywhere yet though. If someone finds it, post it here so we can discuss it.

[Give me Beer]

There is a US Navy base in Bahrain inside the Persian Gulf and it's been there for a while now. US ships going in and out of it is nothing new. Why ratchet things up now?

Okay, have you looked at the international politicial scene lately? That's why, they can, they have before, and they will again. It's not like this is the first time that Iran does anything like this and it's probably no the last time.

You call it international waters, and while you're right about it, it only takes one look at the map to see how ****ing close it is to Iran.

Cuba was an independent nation during the crisis in the '60s as well, and as I remember the American president threatend Soviet ships with retaliation if they crossed some line in INTERNATIONAL WATERS.

[Independent_CA]

Okay, have you looked at the international politicial scene lately? That's why, they can, they have before, and they will again. It's not like this is the first time that Iran does anything like this and it's probably no the last time.
Yes I have looked. I never said it was the first or the last time.


You call it international waters, and while you're right about it, it only takes one look at the map to see how ****ing close it is to Iran.
Actually, the rest of the world calls it international waters. There's a rule on where exactly those start and end in case you didn't know.

There are 9 countries that border the Persian Gulf and use the Straight of Hormuz. I don't hear about Oman or the UAE doing things like this.

Cuba was an independent nation during the crisis in the '60s as well, and as I remember the American president threatend Soviet ships with retaliation if they crossed some line in INTERNATIONAL WATERS.
Well, there were these things called nuclear missiles involved there. That gets back to what Smokey has been saying this whole time about "provocative acts". Sailing your ships through a straight from point A to point B isn't a provocative act.

Now if the US was shipping nuclear missiles to Saudi Arabia or something, then yeah, that would be like the Cuban Missile Crisis. This isn't.

[Give me Beer]

Yea, and the US had nuclear missiles in Turkey, which bordered on the Soviet borders, but that was okay and ****, right?

Anyway, looks like you aren't really trying to understand what I'm saying. I don't know, am I wording this badly or something? Yes, I know everybody calls it international waters, jeesh, are you doing this deliberatly? I'm trying to draw your attention to the fact that it's very ****ing close to Iran. A country which is on almost HOSTILE terms with the US. The rest of the countries are not on hostile terms with the US, so obviously they are not going to do this, is this hard to understand or something?

You've got months and months of the US and Iran having this showdown on the international stage, and then you act suprised when Iranian ships actually check on US warships that float so close to their homeland? Oviously they're doing military checks, it's not like people thought up the tactic of attacking warships with a lot of small ships to confuse them yesterday. Iran is letting the US know that they are there, and that they don't like the US warfleet that close to him, especially not since the US has been threatening things like strategic strikes on Iran and declaring parts of their army "terrorists".

I don't get what the ****ing big deal is, it's hilarious that people are making it so big. If you sail big *** warships so close to a hostile nation, you can expect a little harrasment. The US would do the ****ing same thing if Iran let convoys of warships sail around in the straight between Cuba and Florida.

They know the US can't do anything, and they relish in it, don't like it, too bad. The US navy misleading the public with slightly buffed up tapes is rather funny, it's not outright lying, but honest is something else.

[Independent_CA]

Yea, and the US had nuclear missiles in Turkey, which bordered on the Soviet borders, but that was okay and ****, right?
No, it was just as stupid as what the Soviets were doing.

Anyway, looks like you aren't really trying to understand what I'm saying. I don't know, am I wording this badly or something? Yes, I know everybody calls it international waters, jeesh, are you doing this deliberatly? I'm trying to draw your attention to the fact that it's very ****ing close to Iran. A country which is on almost HOSTILE terms with the US. The rest of the countries are not on hostile terms with the US, so obviously they are not going to do this, is this hard to understand or something?

You've got months and months of the US and Iran having this showdown on the international stage, and then you act suprised when Iranian ships actually check on US warships that float so close to their homeland? Oviously they're doing military checks, it's not like people thought up the tactic of attacking warships with a lot of small ships to confuse them yesterday. Iran is letting the US know that they are there, and that they don't like the US warfleet that close to him, especially not since the US has been threatening things like strategic strikes on Iran and declaring parts of their army "terrorists".

I don't get what the ****ing big deal is, it's hilarious that people are making it so big. If you sail big *** warships so close to a hostile nation, you can expect a little harrasment. The US would do the ****ing same thing if Iran let convoys of warships sail around in the straight between Cuba and Florida.
And what you're not getting is the absurdity of the situation.

People keep bringing up the "well what if Iran sailed ships past the US" idea as an equivalent argument. That doesn't really work because there's not any strategic waterways as important as the Strait of Hormuz, or Panama Canal or anything like that bordering the US. The waterway separating the US and Cuba is like 90 miles wide, and the Bearing Strait between Alaska and Russia is like 50 miles wide or something, both far larger than the Strait of Hormuz. Warships and other traffic pass through them all the time and the US does nothing but monitor them.

Iran is doing this because it wants to be the dominant power in the region.

They know the US can't do anything, and they relish in it, don't like it, too bad. The US navy misleading the public with slightly buffed up tapes is rather funny, it's not outright lying, but honest is something else.
"Can't do anything" is a vague term. There's plenty the US could do if it wanted to short of actually invading. The Iranians are seeing how far they can push without getting bit.

Honesty? You mean like how the Revolutionary Guard has been totally honest in the past few years right? The US isn't the only one who released an edited tape remember.

[Futue te Ipsum]

the lengths people will go to to believe what the want to believe are often amazing.

[Give me Beer]

And what you're not getting is the absurdity of the situation.

People keep bringing up the "well what if Iran sailed ships past the US" idea as an equivalent argument. That doesn't really work because there's not any strategic waterways as important as the Strait of Hormuz, or Panama Canal or anything like that bordering the US. The waterway separating the US and Cuba is like 90 miles wide, and the Bearing Strait between Alaska and Russia is like 50 miles wide or something, both far larger than the Strait of Hormuz. Warships and other traffic pass through them all the time and the US does nothing but monitor them.

Iran is doing this because it wants to be the dominant power in the region.

"Can't do anything" is a vague term. There's plenty the US could do if it wanted to short of actually invading. The Iranians are seeing how far they can push without getting bit.

Honesty? You mean like how the Revolutionary Guard has been totally honest in the past few years right? The US isn't the only one who released an edited tape remember.

Dear God, are you arguing for the sake of arguing or something? Obviously I get the absurdity of the situation, I think it's one big fat loltastic moment.

I'm not screaming conspiracy or pointing an accusing finger at the US Navy for being there. I thought it was hilarious that it happened, I think it's hilarious that they make such a big a deal out of it. The funiest part is the added voice which was initially claimed to have come from the ships, when it wasn't, that's kind of stupid, I mean, why even do that?

I'm just saying that expecting anything else from Iran is just dumb. You're a couple of miles from their shores, they feel threatend by the US and now they're trying to assert to them that they aren't an easy target and that the US has to watch its step. The US can't really do anything about it short of shooting one of the boats to smitereens, which will cause all around grins in Tehran.

I'm just saying that these situations are going to keep happening and that the US really can't do **** about it. I read somewhere that most of the oil that we use here in the West passes thorough that strait. Imagine if Iran gets in a war and closes it, we would all be ****ed, that's why nobody is going to do a thing.

Welcome to the international arena where things aren't played fair. It's loltastic, it really is. Complaining about provocation is even better, of course it' provocation, so what? If you get provoked you lose.

By the way, where did I state that the Iranians were completely honest? This is not a "but they started it :( " moment you know.

[TheDarkHorse]

They want you to know about it, but they don't want to go to war.
thats the definition of propaganda.

they want us to do so.



You don't understand how governing a country works, then.

I will show examples of American blunders in the past and you will just say "irrelevant" if I do.


If they were on a public road, you wouldn't have that right.
But they have been threatening and sanctioning Iran. Here in TX, if we feel threatened we have the right to shoot em up.

Understanding how international relations work doesn't make me a sucker, in fact quite the opposite. You being blind to how international relations works doesn't make me a sucker either.
you understand how International relations work from the perspective of imperialist, global superpower United States.

That's just being ignorant. Once again, one country does not dictate international relations, lest we think the rest of the world is this childish and unethical.
However, automatically assuming that position on every issue is the exact opposite of critical thinking.

when things don't add up, I question them.
Apparently our government doesn't realize that it has thinking citizens, unlike nationalists like yourself who cling to your government in false hope.

So now your neighbor isn't allowed to have friends over just because you don't like them?
because they threaten me.
And when they go to my neighbor's house, they drive by with a rack of assault weapons on top of their car, while intimidatingly staring me down.

You think you would find some way to protect yourself just-in-case?

People also aren't allowed to go down the street in front of your house to use the store at the end of the block just because you don't like them?
see above, and I didn't say "not allowed."

That's just getting ridiculous.
as is your equivocating

Looks like I'll get my wish to see at least one sides full video.
Before being so easily captivated by the wonders of motion picture, ask yourself some questions: Why didn't they release the full video before?

Why is there no video playing when the threats were radioed in?

[Independent_CA]

the lengths people will go to to believe what the want to believe are often amazing.
Cool...

Dear God, are you arguing for the sake of arguing or something? Obviously I get the absurdity of the situation, I think it's one big fat loltastic moment.
Well, it won't be lolastic when the Revolutionary Guard does something stupid that gives Bush's dumbass an excuse to start another war.

I'm not screaming conspiracy or pointing an accusing finger at the US Navy for being there. I thought it was hilarious that it happened, I think it's hilarious that they make such a big a deal out of it. The funiest part is the added voice which was initially claimed to have come from the ships, when it wasn't, that's kind of stupid, I mean, why even do that?
Ok, fine. I wasn't accusing you of crying conspiracy, but you were like the 5th person to bring up the "if Iran sailed by the US..." argument and I was just tired of hearing it and decided to counter it. I wasn't accusing you of anything.

I'm just saying that expecting anything else from Iran is just dumb. You're a couple of miles from their shores, they feel threatend by the US and now they're trying to assert to them that they aren't an easy target and that the US has to watch its step. The US can't really do anything about it short of shooting one of the boats to smitereens, which will cause all around grins in Tehran.
Actually, you can expect professionalism from the Iranians in accordance with the protocols adopted by everyone else in the world. But given the nature of the Iranian government, I suppose you're right.

I'm just saying that these situations are going to keep happening and that the US really can't do **** about it. I read somewhere that most of the oil that we use here in the West passes thorough that strait. Imagine if Iran gets in a war and closes it, we would all be ****ed, that's why nobody is going to do a thing.
That's what I'm getting at, anything that happens in this strait affects everyone. The Iranians and Iraqis both tried mining it or obstructing oil shipments during their war in the 80's. That can't be allowed to happen again.

Welcome to the international arena where things aren't played fair. It's loltastic, it really is. Complaining about provocation is even better, of course it' provocation, so what? If you get provoked you lose.
I never said they were fair nor do I believe so.

you understand how International relations work from the perspective of imperialist, global superpower (insert powerful nation here).
*Fixed

Right, the same way they were in the distant past and the same way they will be in the distant future. What's so hard about that?



That's just being ignorant. Once again, one country does not dictate international relations, lest we think the rest of the world is this childish and unethical.
One country can easily dictate international relations, it just takes enough leverage.

The protocols I keep talking about are part of a UN treaty, so it's not just "one country dictating international relations".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_Sea


when things don't add up, I question them.
Oh really? You came up with that whole "guerillas that Iran had no idea about" argument all by yourself. Nice addition.

you're assuming this was a government-ordered altercation, while it could've been (and most likely was) a band of guerrillas.


Apparently our government doesn't realize that it has thinking citizens, unlike nationalists like yourself who cling to your government in false hope.
:lol: "Nationalist" ... "clinging to my government in false hope" :lol:


If you're going to resort to name calling, at least get it right. It's realist. Thanks.

because they threaten me.
And when they go to my neighbor's house, they drive by with a rack of assault weapons on top of their car, while intimidatingly staring me down.

You think you would find some way to protect yourself just-in-case?
Sure, get your own assault rifle in case they try to actually do something to you. Running out into the street after them isn't necessarily a good idea if you want to avoid a conflict.


as is your equivocating
And so is yours. Maybe stick to the topic at hand then?


Before being so easily captivated by the wonders of motion picture, ask yourself some questions: Why didn't they release the full video before?

Because both sides wanted to show the portions that backed up their side of the story, obviously.

As Give Me Beer was saying a good portion of world oil goes through that strait, about 30% to be more specific. Iran and others have tried to cut this supply off within the last 25 years. If anything happens in the Gulf that causes that or even the threat of it to happen again, the world economy is in for some trouble along with a number of other consequences. That's why I think this is worth paying attention to. It has nothing to do with "nationalism".

[Give me Beer]

Well, it won't be lolastic when the Revolutionary Guard does something stupid that gives Bush's dumbass an excuse to start another war.


Bush won't start another war 'cause he really can't afford it.

Iran is playing from a position of strength there, and they know it. They want the US to know that they're vunerable and that Iran is not a push over, it's simple power-politics if you ask me. If the US blows up one of those boats, it's a major propaganda victory for Iran, if they don't, they get to see how to best apprach them and make a statement at the same time. It's win-win for Tehran. Iran is not such a push-over regime as Iraq had become, and while I don't doubt the US would win the war, I doubt the US army has the reserves to carry it out, never mind that the political will to drive it through is just non-existent in the US.

It's just loltastic to see the US government cry foul when they get pushed around for a change, that's all. It's even funnier to me when they try to put the incident on their hand and fail horribly at it. That's just me though. :) Hey, I think the Iran regime is bad news too, but I don't think we can actually do something about it in the current climate, only the Iranian people themselves can do that at the moment.

[Independent_CA]

Bush won't start another war 'cause he really can't afford it.

Iran is playing from a position of strength there, and they know it. They want the US to know that they're vunerable and that Iran is not a push over, it's simple power-politics if you ask me. If the US blows up one of those boats, it's a major propaganda victory for Iran, if they don't, they get to see how to best apprach them and make a statement at the same time. It's win-win for Tehran. Iran is not such a push-over regime as Iraq had become, and while I don't doubt the US would win the war, I doubt the US army has the reserves to carry it out, never mind that the political will to drive it through is just non-existent in the US.

It's just loltastic to see the US government cry foul when they get pushed around for a change, that's all. It's even funnier to me when they try to put the incident on their hand and fail horribly at it. That's just me though. :) Hey, I think the Iran regime is bad news too, but I don't think we can actually do something about it in the current climate, only the Iranian people themselves can do that at the moment.
Fair enough. I still think Bush or Cheney would be dumb enough to try something though.

[TheDarkHorse]

*Fixed

Right, the same way they were in the distant past and the same way they will be in the distant future. What's so hard about that?
it was not like this in the past, and will not be when the U.S ceases to be a superpower.

For one, we're living in a post colonial era, so the past would be irrelevant. Secondly, you cannot name another nation that puts such an effort to imperialize another region (whether it be through globalization or brute force).

One country can easily dictate international relations, it just takes enough leverage.
why would they?

If every country's policy was identical to the United States, then I would understand.

The protocols I keep talking about are part of a UN treaty, so it's not just "one country dictating international relations".
its also the united nations sanctioning the crap out of iran with pressure from the U.S is it not?

Oh really? You came up with that whole "guerillas that Iran had no idea about" argument all by yourself. Nice addition.
That was a possibility. Its certainly not as dangerous as being a close-minded American who still trusts unreasonably in his/her government.


:lol: "Nationalist" ... "clinging to my government in false hope" :lol:


If you're going to resort to name calling, at least get it right. It's realist. Thanks.

nationalist

1. one who loves and defends his or her country [syn: patriot]


na·tion·al·ism
1: loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups
which definition would you like?

I'm really not trying to call names. I'm just pointing out your personality drawn from your nonsensical defense of the U.S government.


Sure, get your own assault rifle in case they try to actually do something to you. Running out into the street after them isn't necessarily a good idea if you want to avoid a conflict.
if you're going to make a direct parallel, then we could say the neighbor's friend was really driving an 18-wheeler while some four year olds chased him on tricycles.

Do you not understand? THEY WERE SPEEDBOATS AGAINST A CARRIER!

and don't waste your time comparing it to the USS Cole. In that situation, it was a surprise. Here, they were communicating with them.


And so is yours. Maybe stick to the topic at hand then?
I don't see how i've deviated.


Because both sides wanted to show the portions that backed up their side of the story, obviously.
so what happens when this longer, uncut version just happens to have more evidence in favor of the pentagon's side? What's the point, even, of releasing the entire video when you've already shown the strongest piece of evidence (unless they do so to show the other video)? Why, oh why, did the video go out when the threats were voiced? Doesn't that signal the end of a video?
If anything happens in the Gulf that causes that or even the threat of it to happen again, the world economy is in for some trouble along with a number of other consequences.
That's why I think this is worth paying attention to.

"World economy?" Whats their currency?
You couldn't care less about the rest of the world; they're in good shape. The U.S is the one who now has to pay Iran in euros.

It has nothing to do with "nationalism".
Besides the obvious, "putting your countries status and interests above everything else?"

[Independent_CA]

it was not like this in the past, and will not be when the U.S ceases to be a superpower.
You've never heard of the United Kingdom, France, Spain, the USSR, Rome, and so on have you?

The opinions and wills of the powerful tend to carry more weight than others. Whether that's ethical or just doesn't matter, it's still true.

For one, we're living in a post colonial era, so the past would be irrelevant. Secondly, you cannot name another nation that puts such an effort to imperialize another region (whether it be through globalization or brute force).
Yeah, we're living in an era of economic domination, way to catch on.

No, I can't name another country at the moment that puts in that much effort. That's because there isn't one that has the ability to match the efforts of the US yet. Give it some time though, China and India are on their way there, and Russia is starting to climb back up too.

why would they?
Are you seroius?

For their own gain, to increase their own influence, and diminish that of their opponents. Iran does this in the Middle East, so does Saudi Arabia and others. Other countries do it in other regions.

If every country's policy was identical to the United States, then I would understand.
See above.

its also the united nations sanctioning the crap out of iran with pressure from the U.S is it not?
The EU was behind that too. The UN is constantly under pressure from a number of countries.

That was a possibility. Its certainly not as dangerous as being a close-minded American who still trusts unreasonably in his/her government.
Not much of a possibility considering Iran said it was involved virtually from the beginning. I guess it makes sense to go with the least likely possibility as long as it's consistent with your sense of reality.

If you knew anything about me, you'd know I don't trust the government all that much, especially these days. But keep telling yourself otherwise if you want.





which definition would you like?
Well, lets take both shall we?


Originally Posted by dictionary.com
nationalist

1. one who loves and defends his or her country [syn: patriot]
Nation is separate from state. Yes, I like America in general. The government (state), not so much. I'll defend it when it's right, and criticise it when it's wrong.


Originally Posted by m-w.com
na·tion·al·ism
1: loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups
Where did I ever emphasize that America was superior or above other nations? I do not believe this, and you need to stop putting words in my mouth.


I'm really not trying to call names. I'm just pointing out your personality drawn from your nonsensical defense of the U.S government.
I'm defending the government in this one instance, I'm not defending it's entire modus operandi.


if you're going to make a direct parallel, then we could say the neighbor's friend was really driving an 18-wheeler while some four year olds chased him on tricycles.
Tricycles that could've had bombs or mines. There's precident for both in the Persian Gulf.

Do you not understand? THEY WERE SPEEDBOATS AGAINST A CARRIER!
Actually they were destroyers and a frigate. Big diference between that and a carrier. Still though, the US ships could have easily destroyed the Iranian boats had they felt the need. The fact that the captains didn't do so shows restraint and kept the situation from getting much worse.

and don't waste your time comparing it to the USS Cole. In that situation, it was a surprise. Here, they were communicating with them.
How does that negate a potential threat?


I don't see how i've deviated.
All of these attempts at drawing parallels between tricycles and four year olds are pointless. We're talking about international law, politics, and military tactics relating to a specific incident.

so what happens when this longer, uncut version just happens to have more evidence in favor of the pentagon's side? What's the point, even, of releasing the entire video when you've already shown the strongest piece of evidence (unless they do so to show the other video)? Why, oh why, did the video go out when the threats were voiced? Doesn't that signal the end of a video?
I don't know, if I did I'd tell you. That's why I'd like to see all of the relevant information.

"World economy?" Whats their currency?
Energy.

You couldn't care less about the rest of the world; they're in good shape. The U.S is the one who now has to pay Iran in euros.
What? If the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf gets cut-off because of some incident or war, the economies of many, many countries, including the EU, are going to be affected. The fact that you apparently don't realize this or find it significant is troubling.

Besides the obvious, "putting your countries status and interests above everything else?"
When did I do that? Again, stop putting words in my mouth.

[TheDarkHorse]

Yeah, we're living in an era of economic domination, way to catch on.
you mean global domination.
The U.S isn't dominating anything economically.
That's because there isn't one that has the ability to match the efforts of the US yet. Give it some time though, China and India are on their way there, and Russia is starting to climb back up too.
not likely.

We were grounded in imperialist roots, so its only fitting that we sprouted into a full-grown country of the sort.


For their own gain, to increase their own influence, and diminish that of their opponents.
you mean, in defense of the U.S, who can easily take over their country had they not had a valuable resource

, so does Saudi Arabia and others.
bad example; The united States owns them


If you knew anything about me, you'd know I don't trust the government all that much, especially these days. But keep telling yourself otherwise if you want.
from what you're conveying, you take the complaint of the first side as truth, and are easily moved by video images.

Nation is separate from state. Yes, I like America in general. The government (state), not so much. I'll defend it when it's right, and criticise it when it's wrong.
you do realize I said you were a nationalist and you cling to your government in false hope?

now you know.


Where did I ever emphasize that America was superior or above other nations? I do not believe this, and you need to stop putting words in my mouth.
didn't think I was discerning, did you?


I'm defending the government in this one instance, I'm not defending it's entire modus operandi.
and I think its naive to do so based on what you've told me.


Tricycles that could've had bombs or mines. There's precident for both in the Persian Gulf.
Tricycles that can be run over, mind you

Actually they were destroyers and a frigate. Big diference between that and a carrier.
but consistent with my point.

Still though, the US ships could have easily destroyed the Iranian boats had they felt the need. The fact that the captains didn't do so shows restraint and kept the situation from getting much worse.
if it really was as bad as they say, they would've fired. since they threatened them, why not avoid danger?

See how things don't add up? Think about it for a second.

How does that negate a potential threat?
the threat is no longer potential; its imminent. In other words, you know that you will "explode in few minutes."


All of these attempts at drawing parallels between tricycles and four year olds are pointless. We're talking about international law, politics, and military tactics relating to a specific incident.
you, too, don't seem to understand analogies

Energy.
surely we can't group the world as one when it comes to "energy"

What? If the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf gets cut-off because of some incident or war, the economies of many, many countries, including the EU, are going to be affected. The fact that you apparently don't realize this or find it significant is troubling.
thats not what you cared about. You argued something different. Don't try some emotional argument with me now.

[Independent_CA]

you mean global domination.
The U.S isn't dominating anything economically.
The industrialized world dominates everything economically.

not likely.
Ok, the vast majority of diplomats, economists, business, and military people disagree with you but whatever.


you mean, in defense of the U.S, who can easily take over their country had they not had a valuable resource
Ok, let me connect the dots. Iran wants to be the major regional power in the middle east for a number of reasons. So, they carry out political power plays, like this one, that whole situation with the UK navy last year, and a number of other ones to try and establish their dominance. Many are more subtle than this but they are still aimed at that same goal. Most, if not all countries do this on some level.

bad example; The united States owns them
There's no such thing as a bad example if they engage in that behavior. Here's some others: China, Russia, Pakistan, India, North Korea, plus others.


from what you're conveying, you take the complaint of the first side as truth, and are easily moved by video images.
When someone complains about something, you find out if it's true or not. You don't just ignore it.

you do realize I said you were a nationalist and you cling to your government in false hope?
Yes I can read quite well thank you. You typing the same flawed remarks again doesn't make them suddenly correct.

now you know.
Know what? That you mis-use political terms and make wild assumptions? Thanks for the info I guess.


and I think its naive to do so based on what you've told me.
It's also naive to right off events that can have global consequences if they go wrong.


but consistent with my point.
It's usually a good idea to have the basic facts of a subject down before you start debating about it.

if it really was as bad as they say, they would've fired. since they threatened them, why not avoid danger?
Because doing so would have been a huge political win for the Iranians. I figured that was pretty obvious by now considering one or two people have said it already.


the threat is no longer potential; its imminent. In other words, you know that you will "explode in few minutes."
So they should have just shot first and asked questions later right?


you, too, don't seem to understand analogies
I understand them just fine. They're superfluous to this discussion.

surely we can't group the world as one when it comes to "energy"
Yes you can. The industrialized world feeds off of energy. You could say resources if you wanted to be more general, but it doesn't really matter.

thats not what you cared about. You argued something different. Don't try some emotional argument with me now.
If stating a fact makes it an emotional argument then I guess you got me...

[TheDarkHorse]

...and I'll let you have the last word.

If there be any updates, we will go further into this discussion. I'm off to school, so I'll be talking to you when I can.

[Independent_CA]

Fair enough. I've been trying to find that full video but still haven't had any luck. You'd think the youtube junkies would have had it posted in quadruplicate by now.

[Iskandar]

The U.S isn't dominating anything economically.what

[Smokey D]

thats the definition of propaganda.

they want us to do so.

This is obviously a PR exercise, but that's a giant step from setting you up for war.

I will show examples of American blunders in the past and you will just say "irrelevant" if I do.

That's because you think American blunders are relevant to whether Iran was acting aggressively.

But they have been threatening and sanctioning Iran. Here in TX, if we feel threatened we have the right to shoot em up.

Well, to be honest, I'm sick of inane comparisons like comparing a complex diplomatic situation to a personal dispute.

hat's just being ignorant. Once again, one country does not dictate international relations, lest we think the rest of the world is this childish and unethical.

A hyperpower by definition makes the rules. If it couldn't, it wouldn't be a hyperpower. It doesn't make it right, it doesn't make the hyperpower virtuous or something we should feel morally obliged to listen to, but the power is still there.


Apparently our government doesn't realize that it has thinking citizens, unlike nationalists like yourself who cling to your government in false hope.

Understanding the behavior of states and why they would consider actions like this provocative isn't a) being nationalist or b) even supporting the government. It's just stating the facts.


The U.S isn't dominating anything economically.

It is in the sense that without the US, the rest of the world would go down the toilet economically.