Middle East News
Bush warns Iran about attacking US ships
Jan 9, 2008, 20:19 GMT
In this handout photo dated 09 September 2006 the U.S. Navy guided missile destroyer USS Hopper conducts exercises. Sometime during the 05-06 January 2008, following a routine transit through the Strait of Hormuz three U.S. Navy ships operating in international waters in the Persian Gulf were approached by five Iranian small boats that demonstrated confrontational behavior near the U.S. ships. EPA/MC2 John L. Beeman
Washington/Jerusalem - US President George W Bush sternly warned Iran on Wednesday of 'serious consequences' if it attacks US warships in the Gulf.
'We have made it clear publicly, and they know our position, and that is, there will be serious consequences if they attack our ships, pure and simple. And my advice to them is don't do it,' Bush said at a press conference in Jerusalem with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.
Bush's comments came four days after five small Iranian boats speeded around three US warships in international waters in the Strait of Hormuz before vanishing after the ships were preparing to open fire, an incident that came close to escalating already high tensions between the two countries.
'Iranian boats came out and were very provocative, and it was a dangerous gesture on their part,' Bush said.
'All options are on the table to protect our assets,' he said.
Iran has played down the incident, saying it routinely identifies ships passing through the strait and denied the five boats operated by the Revolutionary Guard were provoking the Americans.
The Pentagon on Tuesday released a video showing the Iranian speedboats scrambling near and around the much larger and heavily armed US vessels. The tape contained a radio conversation between the US sailors and the Iranians, with a voice warning the US Navy in heavily accented English that 'you will explode.'
At one point, one of the five Iranian boats came within less than 200 metres of a destroyer, the USS Hopper, despite requests by an unidentified US officer for the Iranians to identify themselves and warnings they could be fired upon.
'I am coming to you,' the voice said.
'Inbound small craft, you are approaching a coalition warship operating in international waters,' a US sailor replied. 'Your identity is not known. Your intentions are unclear.'
The sailor urged the Iranian boats to change their course or be 'subject to defensive measures.'
'Request you alter course immediately to remain clear,' the sailor added.
'You will explode after (inaudible) minutes,' the voice replied before the boats vanished.
The Iranian government has denounced the tape as a fake. Defence Minister Mostafa Mohammad-Najar called it 'pure propaganda.' US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack dismissed Mohammad-Najar's allegations as 'ridiculous.'
'Maybe they're embarrassed by what these individuals do,' McCormack said. 'You know, I can't account for it. But it's a ridiculous claim.'
© 2008 dpa - Deutsche Presse-AgenturCOMMENT
blog comments powered by DisqusLatest Headlines in Middle East
- 1. Jerusalem prelate tells Arab Spring youth to have confidence
- 2. More than 100 killed in Syria ahead of ceasefire deadline
- 3. At least 43 killed in Syria, despite UN criticism
- 4. 19 killed in Syria as ceasefire deadline approaches
- 5. Pilgrims flock to Jerusalem for Easter, Passover
Older Talkback
page: 1
Golly...guess what he'll do!?
I watched the video and found it as a joke. Five small boats with no visible arms with such a speed and still their forged voices like comming from an well isolated room (in contrast to the americans) were no threat to Americans. I would say the incident could be a great help to fuel the initiative Mr. Bush is intend to creat. If there is going to be a war it's not going to be a hit an run for any party.
@Iranian
A small boat with explosives almost sunk a US warship and killed 17 sailors. 5 small boats with explosives could certainly sink a ship. The USN knows this. Iran knows this. That is why a large part of their naval doctrine involved large numbers of small fast ships 'swarming' an enemy.
The Irainian action was definitely provocative. I'm not sure what words/threats were exchanged, but normal high seas protocal would entail that long before approaching the US ships, the speedboats would identify themselves. In any case they would NEVER approach so closely. Within a certain close radius, the ships ability to defend itself would be compromised. A captain would be negligent to ship/crew if he allowed his ship to be put in such jeopardy.
Your navy was playing a dangerous game that allowed them to assess US tactical response protocols, as well as create propaganda opportunities.
Next time they may be sunk. It would be unfortunate but they should not threaten USN ships in such close proximity.
It did say on the BBC News that the rag hats were dropping suspicious packages in he path of the US warships. They should blow them out of the water just as a precaution.
Interesting post from comment section at NY Times:
'Folks, I’ve sailed through that area, in my past life as a surface warfare officer aboard a U.S. Navy destroyer (I also stood watch as officer of the deck (OOD), the person responsible for driving the ship.)
I can tell you right now that this harassment episode is totally believable; these ships no doubt were trying to interfere with our ships’ navigation through those waters, and really put themselves in danger. The fact that our ships came close to firing really helps me understand the immediacy of the perceived threat.
What we DO need to be careful about, though, is where that “explode” comment came from. All ships at sea use a common UHF frequency, Channel 16, also known as “bridge-to bridge” radio. Over here, near the U.S., and throughout the Mediterranean, Ch. 16 is used pretty professionally, i.e., chatter is limited to shiphandling issues, identifying yourself, telling other ships what your intentions are to avoid mishaps, etc.
But over in the Gulf, Ch. 16 is like a bad CB radio. Everybody and their brother is on it; chattering away; hurling racial slurs, usually involving Filipinos (lots of Filipinos work in the area); curses involving your mother; 1970’s music broadcast in the wee hours (nothing odder than hearing The Carpenters 50 miles off the coast of Iran at 4 a.m.)
On Ch. 16, esp. in that section of the Gulf, slurs/threats/chatter/etc. is commonplace. So my first thought was that the “explode” comment might not have even come from one of the Iranian craft, but some loser monitoring the events at a shore facility. The Navy even seemed to admit as much today when they said the transmission could not be traced directly to the small boats.
So I hope everybody exercises great caution here and doesn’t jump to conclusions, given the circumstances and potential for escalation.
What I do want everybody to know is that those Navy crews are doing their damned best out there, and given the current situation/previous experience with the USS Cole, would certainly be justified in shooting at any small craft that makes aggressive runs at them, especially after being warned.
— Posted by Former SWO'
SP4: Playing Chicken with BushJan 9th, 2008 - 20:46:12
Golly...guess what he'll do!?
He'll unzip his pants, pull out his limp noodle and say: 'mine is bigger than yours.'
LOL LOL LOL There's a reason middle eastern men are so angry you know. They got the 'short' end of the stick. Ha Ha, I made a funny.
to And he'd be correct!!!
LOL LOL LOL There's a reason middle eastern men are so angry you know. They got the 'short' end of the stick. Ha Ha, I made a funny.
Not funny, until one of those shorties puts a big firecracker up yours.
The US Navy should have introduced the aggressors to some twin 50s.
The Iranians were obviously testing tactics and equipment. One thing they found out for certain; our rules of engagement are entirely too tight.
I guess you neo-cons do not get it. Let me repeat, we do not have the soldiers to start another war, I know that would not stop you idiots, but if you think Iraq has been tough take on a country 5 times the size with a worn out army. Catch a clue!
If the Yanks had blown those pieces of krap out of the water they would have made up for the humiliation of the British Navy.
Iran claims the incident to be forged by the US.Impossible ?Not at all,remember the lies from Bush and Cheney about Iraq,the trumped up charges against Iran concerning the nuclear program of that country .Bush has a history of lies ,the fact that he is so stupid as to even know what his neocon friends are doing behind his back is enough to take away his credibility once and for all.
By the way ,find out what Colin Powell's former chief of staff has to say about Bush,Cheney and their program for the USA and the world.Larry Wilkerson is the example of the honest kind of american,intelligent and attached to the real principles of democracy ,the kind of man SP4 claims not to exist;
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/hardtalk/7174868.stm
I am more inclined to believe the Iranians that anything that Bush’s Whitehouse puts out.
Remember the small matter of WMD.
The Americans can’t be trusted at all they have bad faith and intentions for that part of the world.
Looks as though the Americans are as courageous as them 15 Jokers Britain had in defending the Queen and the country.
When will we ever learn.
Perhaps the Greenpeace crew could have been out there between the boats and the ships to help prevent any escalation of a potential environmental disaster.
bush has almost a year to wipe out america.
so he's in no big hurry...yet
@Pperfect/others
Please people relax with your straw man 'war' argument.
This was a simple but dangerous (for Iranian sailors) provocation by Iran. They do it all the time in different contexts. Not too long ago they kidnapped 15 UK sailors. If you cannot admit this obvious point of fact, that you are completely deluded.
No one is suggesting that a war should be started over this. No one. It is just your fantasy.
All we are trying to point out is that this behavior could lead to an exchange of fire that Iran would lose. Not a war. Just broken boats and dead sailors. A USN Captain is charged first and foremost with the defense of his ship and crew cannot let potentially hostile 'Death to America' speedboats within a certain radius of his vessel. If they cross it they are dead.
Bush had nothing to do with this. You people are insane to think so. It was long over before he even heard about it.
Clearly the Bush Administration is trying a PR one two puch here.
Bush in the MidEast seeking a peace treaty, the Iranians in small craft provocatively attacking US Naval vessels bristling with advanced and deadly weaponry.
It cannot be clearly that Bush is ginning American public opinion up for an offensive against the Iranians.
Whether it comes in the form of secret covenants, more weaponry to Israel and Saudi Arabia, or an outright attack, Bush has made clear his aggressive intentions.
Under Bush America has turned its back on its history.
We are no longer the defenders of the innocent, under Bush America is the militarist power bent on world domination.
This was a simple but dangerous (for Iranian sailors) provocation by Iran. They do it all the time in different contexts. Not too long ago they kidnapped 15 UK sailors. If you cannot admit this obvious point of fact, that you are completely deluded.
Or perhaps you are deluded.
One has to think that Iran has something to gain from these provocations:
the whole rationale of staying the course in Iraq is to deter countries like Iran from attacking US/UK interests. Either our current policy is a total failure, or Iran has a legitimate point to make in these demonstrations.
Another commentor suggested the US Navy introduce the Iranians to its twin fifties.
Perhaps that very reason that the twin fifties were not used is because the provocation never exceeded the nuisance level.
American public opinion is entirely too willing to resort to war to deal with nuissances.
The Iranian leader MughIamaterd gains a great deal from all of this, he is thumbing his nose at the US. That may not impress you and I, but if you were a rag hat then he is an hero.
' Either our current policy is a total failure, or Iran has a legitimate point to make in these demonstrations.'
What possible point could that be? Iran has had many such 'demonstrations since 1979. Iranians or Iranian funded and controlled terrorist groups have; invaded the US embassy and held our diplomatic staff for 444 days, took American journalists and a British minister hostage in Lebanon, killing William Buckley, bombed the US embassy in Lebanon killing 17 Americans, bombed the US barracks Beirut which killed 241 Americans on a peacekeeping mission, bombed the Khobar Towers killing 19 Americans, hijacked an aircraft and killed Robert Stethem and dumped his body on the tarmac, bombed a Jewish center in Argentina, killing 85, their proxy Hezbollah has started several conflicts with Israel, including the one last summer which left hundreds dead. They still have a bounty on the head of Salmon Rushdie for writing a book that they didn’t like, they have provided the Shiite death squads in Iraq with training and material as well as the Sunni death squads that go after the Shiites with the objective of creating as much bloodshed in Iraq as passable. They have also been supplying shaped charges and shoulder launched anti-aircraft missiles to kill coalition troops. They Chant 'death to America' on a daily basis in their schools and Mosques, they continually threaten to wipe Israel off the map, they have mined the Strait of Hormuz, they publicly lynch girls for being 'disobedient', they publicly lynch boys for being homosexual, they publicly lash women for the crime of being raped, they stone women to death for infidelity, they censor their news, They beat a Canadian journalist to death because she wrote unflattering stories, they murder political dissidents, invented the suicide bomber, kidnapped British sailors and holding them hostage, kidnapping American aid workers and holding them hostage...ect
Could it be that they are 'demonstrating' that they are dangerous terrorist supporting maniacs that can't be trusted with a sharp stick let alone an atomic bomb?
'One has to think that Iran has something to gain from these provocations'
Absolutely. He must think he has something to gain by confronting US in international waters. Here are some possibilities:
1. Propaganda - he shows he is not afraid of US and that the US (foreign navies) must submit to his requirements by being inspected, etc. Iran is basically saying that they 'own' the bottleneck of the 'Persian' gulf.
2. Military - his navy gains experience by watching US defensive protocols, timing, and analyzing ramp up of defensive electronics/signals. Also makes the tactic of swarming foreign vessels a commonplace event so that foreign navies do not take it as potential threat. Swarming is an official Iranian naval doctrine so they might gain an additional advantage at the opening of any future conflict. They know they wouldn't have a second chance in a naval battle. Their only hope would be initial successes during first moments of conflict. Refining their tactics and lowering defensive posture of adversaries is a normal and rational approach for them to take.
Its really win/win for Iran. If they get too close and we blow them out of the water, the US becomes bad guy and Iran is hero. If US allows itself to be swarmed and harassed, then Iran is hero/brave and they gain tactical experience/advantage.
I think foreign navies should officially announce an exclusion zone around their ships of say 1 km (or other?). No military vessel should approach without specific approval and a damned good reason. Unidentified vessels will immediately be treated as hostile.
Let Iran argue that they need to have the right in international waters to come in close under the guns of our ships. We would all like to hear their justification.
Some of the comments here are from competent people who knows a great deal about what they write but lets not forget about some questions. Have any of you seen the Iranian version of the event? (www.presstv.com) Second, we are talking about Iran's backyards. How would you feel if an Iranian vessel showed up in your backyard? Let's say the same international water. Wouldn't you like to know how they operate? What's their aims and how you can counter the threat? American have shown no restrain in any case. Any body remember when they shut down the Iranian passenger aircraft? Did they repeatedly called them to identify themselves? I also see a lot of comments from some people who try to put more fire to what we already see and it's only because of hate they have towards my country. I challenge every one of you to tell me when was the last time we attacked a country? and please do not repeat the same allegations from Israel or US. We know their aims. Iranians are doing their job the same way a doctor do to identify the desease and to find cure. Are you blaming us to prepare ourselves to defend the country? Do we have the right to defend ourselves or we should simply bow to your so called interests in our backyards? We certainly have to know how Americans operate and we have to monitor them to learn and to counter and if anybody don't like it it's not our problem.
@Iranian
'Have any of you seen the Iranian version of the event? (www.presstv.com)'
Yes. Why did Iranian naval vessels get so close to US warships in international waters? Getting so close is a deliberate escalation. Tensions are high. There is no other possible explanation other than Iran wanted to escalate. That does not mean that US/Iran want war. Its just an unfortunate deadly game.
'Wouldn't you like to know how they operate? What's their aims and how you can counter the threat?'
Yes. US/Soviets did the same thing with deadly consequences in many cases. Just be advised that if your navy gets too close, it is the Captain's duty to eliminate the potential threat. You will have no one to blame but yourselves. The closer you get, the more the decision to 'fire' moves from the government policy, down the chain of command to the individual sailor manning the .50 cal. Anything could happen.
'and it's only because of hate they have towards my country.'
You may want to look in the mirror first. I think it is your country that breeds hatred towards the US from early childhood through government sponsored propaganda. Americans are pretty good natured and we have nothing against Iranians. We do worry when your government does not disclose secret nuclear facilities/programs, threatens to wipe out a member of the UN, supplies/trains insurgents in Iraq to kill US citizens, etc. Do you realize that if any weapons/operations can be officially traced back to your government then we are already at war??? Is that what you want???
No one is threatening to wipe out Iran. Work to liberalize your government (for your own benefit) and we may one day be great allies.
'I challenge every one of you to tell me when was the last time we attacked a country?'
1979 you attacked US sovereign territory and kidnapped US citizens for over a year. A previous poster had long list of your proxy wars and terrorist support.
'Are you blaming us to prepare ourselves to defend the country?'
Nope. Go for it. But lay off the 'death to america' and 'destroy israel' (a un member by the way), supporting proxy terrorists, etc., and we will all get along fine. I look forward to it.
'and if anybody don't like it it's not our problem.'
It will be the problem of your sailors (or worse) if they insist on challenging the right of free passage in international waters and threatening our ships by approaching too closely. Again, it won't be war - it will just be dead sailors. If your navy airforce retaliates, so will we.
My advice is to not get too close to foreign naval vessels in international waters and be glad that oil is $100 a barrel. It is a huge boon for your country.
Charles;
From the words you write I understand you're a fan of the Israel and it makes it easier to catch the intention. You talk as a superior and order me to keep my distant and you will allow me to be a frien, even a great friend as long as I do exactly as you say. This is not a way to make friends. This is your first mistake. We did not attack an embassy, we took over a spy nest and there are thousands of documents your people did not have the time to distroy. The list you mentioned in the previous writing which is obviously words of a zionist has been repeated many times with no evident proof. I could blame your country(in case you're an American) for an endless crimes against humanity throughout your short history. Ultimately, you understimate your enemy and that is your last mistake.
'Bush warns Iran about attacking US ships': When??
@ Iranian
'You talk as a superior and order me to keep my distant and you will allow me to be a frien,'
In case you aren't aware of it, my recommendation is both common sense and high seas courtesy and practice. In any case, you are paranoid. I wasn't 'allowing' - I was hypothetically but in good faith 'offering.'
You should not ever approach a warship without explicit authorization. Period. You have no explicit right to demand anything of the USN in international waters. As any seafaring nation with a modicum of courtesy, we will certainly respond to identification requests and expect the same in return. The fact that you are not aware of these most basic norms simply underscores the case that Iran is dangerous. You could start a conflict out of ignorance and arrogance.
'We did not attack an embassy'
You certainly did. Again, you show your utter ignorance of civilized norms of behavior. Don't try to explain that because 2000 years ago persia bla bla bla. We have seen your raving mobs. Show us you are civilized 'today'.
'you understimate your enemy and that is your last mistake.'
I think this is where the lawyer says: 'I rest my case.'
You are the aggressive one. You are the one provoking conflict with the US. You are right that the US always underestimates its enemies and that makes efforts to defeat them costlier. I hope it won't come to that.
Charles;
Ok, Let us do your way, we may understan eachother better. I also offer my courtesy in good faith and ask you politely to stop funding Israel, help Palestinians get back home, move your warships out of our backyards, Stop killing Iraqis and let them decide for themselves, release the documents about the 1953 military coup in Iran, release the billions of dollars you have frozen after the revolution in Iran, stop funding terrorists in eastern and western of Iran, stop helping the production of puppy cultivation in Afganistan which has grown three times after the invasion, etc and etc and I would personally invite you for a cold beer and a friendly hanshake.
'Have any of you seen the Iranian version of the event? '
An EXCELLENT version of Iranian events can be seen at these links:
www.liveleak.com/view?i=271_1189517695
www.liveleak.com/view?i=d7a2bd098f
www.liveleak.com/view?i=518_1190245078
www.liveleak.com/view?i=44a_1176709269
'How would you feel if an Iranian vessel showed up in your backyard? Let's say the same international water.'
It is INTERNATIONAL WATERS. The US Navy is only there because the Iranians were mining the Strait of Hormuz a few years ago to drive up oil prices.
'American have shown no restrain in any case.'
They could have blown them out of the water. That is restraint.
'Any body remember when they shut down the Iranian passenger aircraft? Did they repeatedly called them to identify themselves?'
YES, they did. Can you see how an Aircraft would be shot down when you have idiots in the revolutionary guard trying to provoke a confrontation?
' I challenge every one of you to tell me when was the last time we attacked a country?'
LOOK AT THE ABOVE LIST. HERE: Iranians or Iranian funded and controlled terrorist groups have; invaded the US embassy and held our diplomatic staff for 444 days, took American journalists and a British minister hostage in Lebanon, killing William Buckley, bombed the US embassy in Lebanon killing 17 Americans, bombed the US barracks Beirut which killed 241 Americans on a peacekeeping mission, bombed the Khobar Towers killing 19 Americans, hijacked an aircraft and killed Robert Stethem and dumped his body on the tarmac, bombed a Jewish center in Argentina, killing 85, their proxy Hezbollah has started several conflicts with Israel, including the one last summer which left hundreds dead. They still have a bounty on the head of Salmon Rushdie for writing a book that they didn’t like, they have provided the Shiite death squads in Iraq with training and material as well as the Sunni death squads that go after the Shiites with the objective of creating as much bloodshed in Iraq as passable. They have also been supplying shaped charges and shoulder launched anti-aircraft missiles to kill coalition troops. They Chant 'death to America' on a daily basis in their schools and Mosques, they continually threaten to wipe Israel off the map, they have mined the Strait of Hormuz, they publicly lynch girls for being 'disobedient', they publicly lynch boys for being homosexual, they publicly lash women for the crime of being raped, they stone women to death for infidelity, they censor their news, They beat a Canadian journalist to death because she wrote unflattering stories, they murder political dissidents, invented the suicide bomber, kidnapped British sailors and holding them hostage, kidnapping American aid workers and holding them hostage...ect
'. Are you blaming us to prepare ourselves to defend the country? '
You are living in the west. If you want to 'defend' the rights of the unelected totalitarian theocracy to drag 'your country' back in to the dark ages the least you could do is have the common decency to live there. You wouldn't be such a hypocrite and a coward if you were willing to risk lynchings, stonings, amputations or beatings at the whims of the mullahs.
'if anybody don't like it it's not our problem.'
Iranians are making problems for themselves. It seems that is what they do best.
The guy that used my signature about bolstering whatever is probably some idiot trying a dirty trick,it is not me.
The conflict between Iran and the USA goes back a long way ,all the way to Mossadegh,the first democratically elected preseident of Iran,in the fifties,and the first to be murdered by the CIA and us europeans,because he nationalized the oil industry .THe Shah was brought in by the USA out of nowhere with only one goal,defend the interests of our dear western oil lobbies nwhatever the cost....for the iranians .The SAVAK was trained by US torturers and provided with all the gears and techniques to act as perfect henchmen .No wonder the Iranians still hold a grudge against the USA as for decades the USA has done nothing more than reap the benefits from all the deals ,and the SHah has squandered the natural ressources to buy weapons,more weapons,etc.The only opposition possible was by the clergy ,hence the strong role played by Khomeiny,not unlike the Burmese monks nowadays forming the only possible opposition against their military regime .Similar conditions lead to similar results .
I am sorry so few americans know the roots of the problem.Perhaps a good book can help to form an opinion.More than ever I suggest Robert Fisk,a perfect introduction to Middle East problems.
'he conflict between Iran and the USA goes back a long way ,all the way to Mossadegh,the first democratically elected preseident of Iran,in the fifties....I am sorry so few americans know the roots of the problem.Perhaps a good book can help to form an opinion.'
Oh we know about the coup, which was mostly a British affair to protect BP. We just think the excuse for violence and terrorism has been worn out for over half a century.
Zionist;
I have already mentioned about these allegation from your people. What do you gain by repeating them? Don't you ever get tired. I certainly am of hearing from you. You belong to the most savage community throughout the history. You spread hate, misery and fabricate history...change religion, killed prophets and establish mafia like bussiness for pornography and dirty games. God knows how evil your people are.
@ Iranian
Spare me the ideological smoke and mirrors. We can start by Iranian naval vessels staying clear of the USN in international waters. If that obvious point, and the subject of this thread, can't be agreed upon, then the complex issues will be impossible.
'stop funding Israel'
Israel is a sovereign nation and member of the UN. Can you grasp that? You cannot compare our support for Israel - and other countries in ME, with Iranian support for terrorist proxies.
'help Palestinians get back home'
This is a thornier issue. Shall all arabs return to arabia? Shall the Armenians and Kurds be given sovereign control over all of their past territories? The difference with the 'Palestinians' is that the whole movement is a fabrication. There is no language/culture that could define a Palestinian. Why not call them 'lower Syrians'? How about 'former ottoman provincians?' It is a very successful myth created by surrounding countries to oppose the existence of Israel.
Isn't it amazing that more people live in squalid Palestinian refugee camps in arab countries than actually left Israel to begin with? Imagine - generations of people who could have easily been incorporated into local populations are left in poverty and squalor to prove a political point. What shame!
The Palestine mandate was divided giving about 80% to arabs. For the most part the 'Palestinians' are just arabs who also migrated to the Palestine mandate in the 19th/20th centuries. Pretty fair. They fought a war, and arabs in Palestine supported by all surrounding countries did not succeed in the stated goal of annihilating the Israelis (they tried several times and did not, as your current leader, even try to hide their intentions). Israel will never allow anyone that option.
'move your warships out of our backyards'
Iran has explicitely threatened to close/disrupt one of the worlds most vital shipping lanes. The US and other civilized countries will patrol these waters and protect the rights of free navigation in international waters. Iran has threatened to annihilate an ally and UN member state. We will position ourselves to protect our ally. Iranians have foamed at the mouth for decades and demanded our blood and death. We hear you. Forgive us if we don't oblige. I really hope you think your government's aggressive bluster is worth it - because that is the cause of all of this.
'Stop killing Iraqis and let them decide for themselves'
The only reason the Iraqis even have a remote hope of deciding anything for themselves, is because US/allied soldiers fought and died to give them a chance for freedom. If Iraq's neighbors, and the rest of the world, had lifted at least a tiny finger and not instead supported chaos, Iraq would be quite different today. The fact that Saddam's thugs, shiite extremists, and foreign terrorists keep brutally killing people is exactly because they do not want to let the iraqi people decide. True freedom and democracy will take a long time to establish itself -and it is fighting against utterly ruthless and depraved forces.
Everyone knows that Iran cannot tolerate a liberal democratic regime in Iraq, and it therefore supports extremists. You are truly cynical to blame the deeds of your murderous proxies on the US.
Damn right!
'Zionist;'
I assume that is code word for 'Jew'. Nope. Just someone who can see things for what they are wasting his time with a bigot who sees things the way he was told to see them.
Seriously, if you are defending the monsters who lynch 16 year old girls for the 'crime' of being raped or 17 year old boys for the 'crime' of being homosexual you need to have the decency and moral courage to go back and live under their thumb instead of defending them from the safety and liberty of the west. Your free speech here is paid for by the very same people you conspire against and is a freedom that you deny your fellow Iranians.
God Bless our Sailors!
God Bless Israel!
Death to our enemies!
Need I say more?
The less we treat one another as enemies, the less chance we have of making war a common occurrence.
RE:'One has to think that Iran has something to gain from these provocations:
the whole rationale of staying the course in Iraq is to deter countries like Iran from attacking US/UK interests. Either our current policy is a total failure, or Iran has a legitimate point to make in these demonstrations.'
From Iran's perspective they have several valid goals. One is to put the US on notice that they are indeed ready to defend their shores. The other is to allow their men to test tactics and equipment against the USN.
The Iranians are not too terribly keen on 'international norms' because they have been reputedly abused by western nations, so minor violations of this kind trouble them not at all.
Someone has already mentioned this, but it bears repeating. Iran is definitely 'a bridge too far' and, in my opinion, it is the WRONG bridge. Our storming into Iraq could very easily provoke a massive war involving more than the US and Iran. It is NOT a good idea. The whole world is better off if Iran remains independent and stable for a long list of reasons.
Oh, and Iran does have a republican form of government. We do not like it very much, and we certainly are not fond of its sitting president, but it really is a republic and we should show some respect for that.
...why would they want to do this? It makes no sense to a legit gov't type. They get no benefit in International relations. It pisses off the west, and nothing good can possibly come from that.
Answer: 'they' do not. President alphabet soup has a tenuous hold, so attacking the false enemy is usual for a guy like him. Saddam did this. So did Hitler. So,he curries favor with the nutballs by letting them.
The Islamic crazies do this, because the legit gov't types do not control them, so the nutballs do this to pass the time and recruit. The religious guys let them because it helps them hold power and influence too. Like all gov'ts with a terrorist arm, control is fleeting.
Who is really in charge, right?
@ noharness
No one suggests starting a war. The 'issue' is that speedboats that harass and get too close to warships in international waters face the obvious risk of destruction. The US simply wants to warn Iran in case it wasn't clear to them that trying to approach USN vessels and provoke them is dangerous.
'so minor violations of this kind trouble them not at all.'
Their unwillingness to acknowledge many of these norms (kidnapping, etc.) is another thing that adds edginess to the relationship. The 'norms' create predictability. The more unpredictability in any relationship, the greater the risk for intentional - or even unintentional, escalation.
'Iran is definitely 'a bridge too far''
Other than paranoid libs fearing evil carl rove, no one is seriously suggesting starting a war over this. That is straw man argument.
'Oh, and Iran does have a republican form of government.'
Just like the German Democratic Republic was 'Democratic?' What does North Korea call itself? But seriously, Iranians do not enjoy freedom of the press, and a host of other basic human rights. If you hold certain opinions that disagree with hard liner doctrine, you may be killed outright. Individual citizens have the right to murder other citizens for holding certain beliefs. Here is an overview: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Iran. Feel free to identify inaccuracies as wiki is not totally reliable.
As I understand it, there is an unelected religious council that decides who can actually run in elections. Didn't they disqualify almost all of the reform candidates last time around?
Don't forget the USSR also held elections and had extremely high turnout.
RE:'No one suggests starting a war.'
I know, but we do have a news media fond of exaggeration in order to sell ad space. That can have unintended consequences.
RE:The 'issue' is that speedboats that harass and get too close to warships in international waters face the obvious risk of destruction.'
The issue presented by the article is, yes.
RE:'The US simply wants to warn Iran in case it wasn't clear to them that trying to approach USN vessels and provoke them is dangerous.'
Or should be. This really is a nasty situation. The USN sinking Iranian patrol boats could start a war. Iranian patrol boats sinking or heavily damaging an American destroyer would almost certainly start a war.
RE:'Their unwillingness to acknowledge many of these norms (kidnapping, etc.) is another thing that adds edginess to the relationship. The 'norms' create predictability. The more unpredictability in any relationship, the greater the risk for intentional - or even unintentional, escalation.'
Absolutely true, but who then, should be maintaining the coolest heads? The Iranians have far more reason to be non-linear than we do. Can you imagine what emotional state the USN would be in right now if the Iranian Navy were operating in the Gulf of Mexico?
RE:'Other than paranoid libs fearing evil carl rove, no one is seriously suggesting starting a war over this. That is straw man argument.'
Now we are back to the tendency of certain parties to exaggerate.
RE:'Just like the German Democratic Republic was 'Democratic?' What does North Korea call itself?'
The Iranian government is not really anything like the old Soviet inspired 'democracies'.
RE:'But seriously, Iranians do not enjoy freedom of the press, and a host of other basic human rights. If you hold certain opinions that disagree with hard liner doctrine, you may be killed outright.'
To a degree, yes, but a lot of what goes on in Iran is not that different from what went on in the US during the nineteenth century. They have not yet outgrown their cultural and religious biases. In Iran, as it was in the US and still is to a degree, many of the bad things that happen to dissenters is inspired by social pressure, and is not really imposed from the top down.
RE:'Individual citizens have the right to murder other citizens for holding certain beliefs. Here is an overview: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Iran. Feel free to identify inaccuracies as wiki is not totally reliable.'
My point, exactly. In the US, this was de facto rather than de jure, but it boiled down to the same thing. Iranians are free to criticize their government and their governors and very often do so.
RE:'As I understand it, there is an unelected religious council that decides who can actually run in elections. Didn't they disqualify almost all of the reform candidates last time around?'
No, they must run, or stand if you are British, for election every eight years.
RE:'Don't forget the USSR also held elections and had extremely high turnout.'
In the case of Russia we were talking about Joseph Stalin and his successors. In the case of Iran the 'dictator' we are talking about is religious belief. The key difference between the republic we developed here in the States and the one the Iranians developed is the exclusion of religious belief from our governance--or at least a strong attempt to exclude religious belief. The Iranians have tried to incorporate religious belief into their system of checks and balances.
By what authority do we in the US presume that we can dictate to Iranians the structure of their government and the nature of their governance? We lack any such authority and rightly so. The government of Iran is a constitutionally limited republic with democratically elected representation, just as the United States is. I don't like the result in Iran, but I am not an Iranian. I have no say in how they govern themselves and rightly so.
It is we in the west who have made a mess of our relationship with the Iran. The ball is in our court, not theirs. They are reacting to what we did to them.
I go to the trouble of posting all this because so few Americans realize how badly our former leadership dealt with Iran. I don't think the Iranians really want a war with us. We scare the bejeebers out of them. They do not, however, lack courage and they will fight us tooth and nail, just as they did the Iraqis.
Remember the USS Cole????
No need to start a war. Simply protect our assets in international waters. If that takes a few bursts from twin fifties over the bow, or into the bow, of craft displaying hostile intent - then so be it.
Attempting to reason with zealots willing to blow themselves up to further their cause does not solve the problem. You want to meet Allah – so be it. Have a nice journey.
@ noharness
'Absolutely true, but who then, should be maintaining the coolest heads?'
Don't give them a pass. If the 'norms' aren't maintained, they won't be respected. I respect the Iranians enough to expect them to make their own rational decisions and deal with the consequences.
'if the Iranian Navy were operating in the Gulf of Mexico?'
We had the soviets off our shores for decades. That's life. I think this was definitely brought forward (publicly) by the US as a policy issue. They are laying the groundwork for a potential slapdown. Not a war. The US will support the rights of free navigation and the Iranians have been given explicit warning that approaching our vessels unnecessarily close could have fatal consequences.
'The Iranian government is not really anything like the old Soviet inspired 'democracies'.'
Let's not split hairs. But don't try to use the word 'Republic,' in the modern liberal democratic sense, in the same sentence with 'Iran.' If the re'PUBLIC' does not enjoy freedom of expression, press, dissent, congregation, etc., you cannot pretend that the people they are force fed to elect truly represent them.
'To a degree, yes, but a lot of what goes on in Iran is not that different from what went on in the US during the nineteenth century.'
You are losing me. Any commonalities will be the exception rather than the rule. Freedom of expression, religion, separation of church/state, etc., are absent. Without these values codified and vigorously defended, the concept of democracy itself is meaningless (as per German Democratic Republic, People Democratic Republic of Korea, etc.).
'many of the bad things that happen to dissenters is inspired by social pressure, and is not really imposed from the top down.'
Murder and oppression imposed by government sponsored and protected thugs, and top down codified law.
'Iranians are free to criticize their government and their governors and very often do so.'
At what risk? And what recourse do they have to change? If there is no separation between church/state, and if you are allowed to assassinate neighbors whom you feel are impious (religious and therefore political dissent), who will dare resist?
'No, they must run, or stand if you are British, for election every eight years.'
Wrong. Half are appointed by supreme leader, other half nominated by guy who is appointed by supreme leader. Do you see a pattern?
'The Iranians have tried to incorporate religious belief into their system of checks and balances.'
And the result is exactly why our forefathers made the separation. Human reason is subordinated to arbitrary religious dogma.
'By what authority do we in the US presume that we can dictate to Iranians the structure of their government and the nature of their governance?'
The main thing we want to dictate - or convey, is that if they approach our ships they may be sunk.
Also, don't confuse Iranians (the people) with the Theocracy. The Iranian people, as I have established above, whether or not they realize it, are being dictated to by their theocratic government. They have no choice in the matter and no recourse. If they call this relationship into question they can be legally murdered by any passer by.
'The government of Iran is a constitutionally limited republic with democratically elected representation.'
Only if your definition is so broad it loses all meaning. If the people are not allowed to congregate, promulgate dissenting ideas, and decide who they want to represent them (not just people they are told can represent them), then 'representative democracy' is not the right term.
'I have no say in how they govern themselves'
And neither do they.
'They are reacting to what we did to them.'
They are really milking it for all its worth. The cruel danes with their insensitive cartoons had their embassy burned. Shame on them.
Lots of things happened in past. We probably didn't like Iran's leadership flirting with soviets in 50's. Maybe we were wrong to oppose spread of communism? Heck, as far as islam is concerned, communists are not even considered human. Whatever happened is long gone history and wholly disproportionate to the propaganda the poor Iranian kids are raised on. The Europeans are getting on pretty well these days even though they slaughtered tens of millions of eachother some number of decades ago. Whatever perceived offenses the great satan committed to the Iranians is just not even registerable on the objective scales of history. In proportion to their 'madness' at the great satan, it is truly absurd.
I really enjoed this time beeing serounded by so many zionists and few quite intelligent people. I did learn a lot and to you charles; You really are a brain teaser. It's an insult to talk to you and less even listen to your words.
..that the Royal Navy weren't near by or the American's might have accidently torpedoed/bombed/launched missles/fired shells/sunk them. Like the seem to do with some relative frequency.
RE:'Don't give them a pass. If the 'norms' aren't maintained, they won't be respected. I respect the Iranians enough to expect them to make their own rational decisions and deal with the consequences.'
Agreed. I will repeat what I posted elsewhere. It seems to me that our rules of engagement are too tight.
RE:'We had the soviets off our shores for decades. That's life. I think this was definitely brought forward (publicly) by the US as a policy issue. They are laying the groundwork for a potential slapdown. Not a war. The US will support the rights of free navigation and the Iranians have been given explicit warning that approaching our vessels unnecessarily close could have fatal consequences.'
We had Soviet reconnaissance vessels and aircraft off our shores, yes, but never Soviet aircraft and troop carriers. We may have had Soviet submarines off our shores as well, but that seems to have been limited to the upper eastern coast. I may be wrong and it may be a hundred years before we know for certain.
RE:'Let's not split hairs. But don't try to use the word 'Republic,' in the modern liberal democratic sense, in the same sentence with 'Iran.' If the re'PUBLIC' does not enjoy freedom of expression, press, dissent, congregation, etc., you cannot pretend that the people they are force fed to elect truly represent them.'
When it is the people themselves who do these things what are we to do? On the face of it, the Constitution of the United States was designed to protect the minority from the unfettered will of the majority. As a practical matter, it does only a half-assed job because the majority of Americans will not tolerate certain kinds of dissent. I have learned this the hard way.
RE:'You are losing me. Any commonalities will be the exception rather than the rule. Freedom of expression, religion, separation of church/state, etc., are absent. Without these values codified and vigorously defended, the concept of democracy itself is meaningless (as per German Democratic Republic, People Democratic Republic of Korea, etc.).'
I'll give you a milder example of this same exact flaw in the country both of us love, okay? Look at what Fox did to Ron Paul. I don't agree with Doctor Paul's foreign policy positions, but that does not mean that I would try to bar any attempt he made to air his views. Do you think a Pagan could get the time of day in American politics? How about an atheist? Believe me when I tell you that neither group is welcome in either party because I've been there and done that.
RE:'Murder and oppression imposed by government sponsored and protected thugs, and top down codified law.'
And to deny that it happened here in the US during the nineteenth and early twentieth century would be hypocrisy. It did most certainly happen here and it happened a lot. It happened a great deal under FDR.
RE:'
At what risk? And what recourse do they have to change? If there is no separation between church/state, and if you are allowed to assassinate neighbors whom you feel are impious (religious and therefore political dissent), who will dare resist?'
At a very significant risk. Have you demonstrated against the IRS lately? Why not?
RE:'
Wrong. Half are appointed by supreme leader, other half nominated by guy who is appointed by supreme leader. Do you see a pattern? '
According to my sources, and granted it is the Wikipedia and could therefore be wrong, that council must run for re-election every eight years.
RE:'And the result is exactly why our forefathers made the separation. Human reason is subordinated to arbitrary religious dogma.'
With only limited success. As I pointed out, I do not like the results in Iran, but to equate the Islamic Republic of Iran to one of the old Soviet inspired states is erroneous. They have very little in common.
RE:'Also, don't confuse Iranians (the people) with the Theocracy. The Iranian people, as I have established above, whether or not they realize it, are being dictated to by their theocratic government. They have no choice in the matter and no recourse. If they call this relationship into question they can be legally murdered by any passer by.'
I do NOT confuse them with their radical leaders, but how many Americans reject the sermons of their preachers out of hand? Can you see what I am driving at here? The Iranians established this government for themselves. They did not have the same experiences as us and they place much greater value on religious beliefs than we Americans do, as hard as that is to believe, it is true. And the proof that it is true is that they included religious guidance in their system of checks and balances.
RE:'We probably didn't like Iran's leadership flirting with soviets in 50's.'
Absolutely true.
RE:'Maybe we were wrong to oppose spread of communism?'
Of course not. That does not mean that we paid for all of that fight up front. We are still reaping some of the bad seed we sewed in an effort to stifle communism.
RE:'Heck, as far as islam is concerned, communists are not even considered human. Whatever happened is long gone history and wholly disproportionate to the propaganda the poor Iranian kids are raised on.'
Therein lies the rub. For many of their teachers it's recent history, isn't it? And it would be hard for me to find a Texan who does not hate 'the damned Iranians' out of pure reflex over what happened during the Carter Administration. My dad was still trying to fight the frikkin' civil war, for crying out loud. Do you expect the Iranians to be superior to us in this regard? I don't.
RE:'The Europeans are getting on pretty well these days even though they slaughtered tens of millions of each other some number of decades ago.'
On the surface, at least. I am not at all certain that they would be completely above a fracas or two if the right stimulus were provided.
RE:'Whatever perceived offenses the great satan committed to the Iranians is just not even registerable on the objective scales of history. In proportion to their 'madness' at the great satan, it is truly absurd'
Even though many of the people now teaching in school were in their teens and twenties during the last days of the Shah? I think we are expecting too much too quickly in this case, especially seeing as how we have never really gone out of our way to make amends.
RE:'..that the Royal Navy weren't near by or the American's might have accidently torpedoed/bombed/launched missles/fired shells/sunk them. Like the seem to do with some relative frequency.'
The Brits have always been crack gunners. They justifiably pride themselves on that difficult skill. They have shot down more than a few American aircraft and shelled a few American troops a time or two. You don't hear much about that from us because we were/are allies and know that it was not intentional.
There is something I think we Americans desperately need to face up to. The reason we have this mess is because the Middle East is overvalued. It is overvalued by us every time we get under the wheel and turn the ignition switch. Until we in the United States do something about our oil consumption, we will be fueling this unending series of crises. Not only are we making the region too valuable to ourselves, we are overvaluing it for every other nation on Earth.
How anyone can worry about carbon dioxide concentrations in the face of something this overwhelmingly obvious is ASTOUNDING! Our balance of trade is a mess because of our appetite for oil. We are under an exceedingly dangerous debt overhang because of what? Crude oil. We find ourselves obliged to send our nineteen year-olds off to fight and die in distant sands because why? Because we gave so much money to those who possessed oil. The whole of the South American continent is being destabilized by a strutting nut case in Venezuela and why is he able to do such a thing? We gave him the money in exchange for oil!
Is the message clear yet? Can you not see the writing on the fracking wall? How tall do the letters need to be writ before you can see it? Can you spell stupid? D-U-M-P-H-U-K, right?
'Its a good thing..
..that the Royal Navy weren't near by or the American's might have accidently[sic] torpedoed/bombed/launched missles[sic]/fired shells/sunk them.[sic] Like the[sic] seem to do with some relative frequency.'
Yeah, it's a good thing the Royal Navy wasn't around, the last time they ran in to a bunch of Iranians in zodiac inflatable 'boats' they surrendered and were paraded around in polyester suits.
'The whole of the South American continent is being destabilized by a strutting nut case in Venezuela and why is he able to do such a thing? We gave him the money in exchange for oil!'
What about that strutting texass nutcase in the Oval Orifice?
One person's destabilization is another's realignment. So they aren't doing exactly as you want them to? Tough.
'Can you spell stupid? D-U-M-P-H-U-K, right?'
Yup, and I usually spell it Noharness, the sloshed texas twit; spfool; Charles, the drunken navy man; or Realist, who needs a head job.
These folks with the speed boats....what happens when they have nuclear weapons?
if SPfool ever got a brain?
No body would waste a nuke on a tin pot. They'd smuggle it into New York, ya dork.
Referring to the British, 'They have shot down more than a few American aircraft and shelled a few American troops a time or two.'
Exactly when and exactly where?
Charles, You Rock! Will you run for president?
Here is one example of why the US was not and still isn't exactly a perfect place, Charles:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wheeler
I really do love my country. I may actually love it more than most, but I know She ain't perfect. She isn't perfect because the people who make Her aren't perfect. Perfection is something we strive to achieve, not what we are.
'What about that strutting texass nutcase in the Oval Orifice?'
Isn't it pretty infantile that it always has to go back to one man?
@noharness
States_v._Wheeler? Interesting situation. You had to really dig for that one. I'll certainly grant that the US isn't perfect. I don't recall ever arguing otherwise.
In fact I don't really care THAT much about Iran's form of government. Its the threats and bluster I could do without. It is dangerous.
I also agree that it would be wonderful if we did not need oil from ME (or anywhere). I wonder what the governments over there would do without oil to prop their regimes?
RE: I wonder what the governments over there would do without oil to prop their regimes?
They would likely invest more in ventures outside their realms. Perhaps, buyout a fair number of businesses in the U.S. or around the world, except India.
@Wonder
Without oil revenue what would they have to invest?
@ Charles
The facts are that they invest now in diverse areas so if oil revenues ever disappear, they can continue to keep their regimes economically viable.
One who buys the world rules the world.
page: 1
BritJan 9th, 2008 - 20:32:30
Why is he warning them? Any idiot knows you'll get blown away for threatening another country's ship. Duh!! Film the backwards, inbred plonkers harrassing the ship, then blow them up. Problem solved.
Report this comment