Recordings Show Iran-US Clash in Gulf

watch the video here al jezzera is all i could find

Sorry once agian.. apears to only be a news update without said video.. odd

Sky news has the clip with video, although a reporter is talking over most of it Direct Link

Seed from my column

some short, slightly different, video at msnbc:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22558709/

What if the wolf turned out to be 5 chihuahuas? What's the end of that story?

It depends, were the chihuahuas loaded down with explosives?

Good poiint Chasing:

What would we we do with an aggressive armada of warships off our coast. This level of hypocrisy, and arrogance is fascist, imperialist, and mindless

What would we we do with an aggressive armada of warships off our coast. This level of hypocrisy, and arrogance is fascist, imperialist, and mindless

Except of course that this was a convoy of three ships (not an armada) who were in international waters (not the coast of Iran) and were not taking any aggressive action towards Iran at the time.

The aggressors, in this case, were the Iranians in the boats, and not the US Navy.

You'd have to be quite ignorant to look at this situation and say that it is the fault of a "fascist," "imperialist" and "mindless" United States. Rather the truth is that brave American sailors showed great valor and restraint in the face of unprovoked aggression.

Recall the British ship that captured and the conclusion was a mistake in exactly where the boarder is.

Perhaps the US ships were close to this impossible to determine line, then it's the same thing isn't it?

It's not impossible to determine by any stretch of the imagination. The shipping lanes, which constitute international waters, are clearly delineated. When the Brits were taken they were operating in the Shatt al-Arab where it empties into the Gulf not the Strait of Hormuz.

Thanks for clearing that up, do you have a link to the map that shows where ships were? (not being sarcastic, just love me some maps/data)

And the one you link to is waaaay to general..

Check with the US Navy. ROTFLMAO. You're going to tell me that a group of US Navy detroyers and frigates, operating in clearly defined international shipping lanes in clear weather outfitted with the most sophisiticated navigational aids known to man didn't know where they were? Yeah ------------ right.

Of course they knew where they were (though it happened to the Brits who have the same technology).
The guys in the PT boats may have mistaken where the convoy was, but either way I don't think this is what really happened.

The Iranians also have released a video of their communications with the US vessels, and I must say it's better than what the Pentagon released, it actually shows the individual speaking with the US ship.

Link opens Telegraph.co.uk in a new window/tab

For the umpteenth time the British were not operating in the Strait of Hormuz but rather in the area where the Shatt al-Arab empties into the gulf. The territorial boundaries of those waters have been in dispute going back to the Iran-Iraq war. Apples and oranges.

That's why I said

but either way I don't think this is what really happened.

;) for the second time now.. did you view the Iranian video?

i have to remain cynical. why the hell would iran intentionally provoke the united states less than 11 months before an election

Because contrary to popular American opinion the rest of the world does not revolve around our elections or the opinion of the United States of America.

Not a bad idea to remain somewhat cynical but keep in mind there is a long history with Iran behaving territorially and fairly irrationally in the strait of Hormuz. Also to extend additional unwarranted benevolence to Iran, the behavior of one aggressive naval commander does not necessarily reflect the policy of the whole country... yes, Ahmedinajed rhetoric aside.

Definitely share your cynicism. Bush and his thuggish regime already are going to leaver the next president (which will no doubt be a Dem) with hellish baggage from this war. And because he and his neocon cronies are hell bent on shaping the world as they see it, in bloodshed and power struggles, they're going to do anything to provoke other nations to war. This government is simply not be trusted. There's simply nothing for Iran to gain in confortation with the U.S. It wants respect, but there's simply nothing to gain.

It also seems we have quickly forgotten the "abduction" of the UK sailors who ventured near Iranian territorial waters last year and were held "hostage" for a short time.

Similar questions were asked... How could Iran do that and risk the chance of starting a war???

I don't think they expect that their behaviors toward expanding or "defending" their sovereign maritime territory are grounds enough to provoke war.

Because contrary to popular American opinion the rest of the world does not revolve around our elections or the opinion of the United States of America.

no, but if you're going to threaten the most powerful military in the world, it makes sense to wonder what might happen based on that nation's current political climate. contrary to popular opinion, nations foreign to the US arent stupid or ignorant to whats going on in the world.

i mean, @!$%# - our own government would have us think that by electing a democrat to the oval office, the result will be an increased danger of terrorist attacks.

cant have it both ways. either our threats are paying attention or theyre not. lucky me, i can believe that they are paying attention without believing that they give a @!$%# about who's in office. the important thing is that we understand that other nations - all other nations - who might want to be a threat to the US are self-aware enough to calculate a predicted response should they decide to fire a shot across the bow. right now, bush is in office and based on his record, a predictable response would be some kind of secret and inappropriate aggression.

Amercian officials and Pentagon officials routinely lie, and the corporate media and this propaganda piece routinely echoe those lies. Remember the Gulf of Tonkin incident?? But then the corporate media could not remember the infamous handshake between Rumsfeld, Reaganites, and Saddam, supporting dictators, as part of our fascist foreign policies, but did the arroganc corrupt corporate media attempt to enlighten us? or were they its lying imperial cheerleaders of "officials say"

why the hell would iran intentionally provoke the united states less than 11 months before an election which is (by all polling accounts, not by all predictors) likely to swing towards the democrats?

You assume that Iran, or more specifically Iran's leaders, would benefit from Democrat control if the US. But remember, Iran's leaders are politicians as well. It might just be in their interest to attempt to unite their people against the common enemy of America in order to stay in power. If the Democrats come into power, that scenario may be less likely.

It might just be in their interest to attempt to unite their people against the common enemy of America in order to stay in power. If the Democrats come into power, that scenario may be less likely.

For what long term purpose would they do this? Would they gain oil from it? Would they be able to topple this government--demo or republican? In what way is the U.S. an enemy to Iran except for that fact that the U.S. has consistently bullied Iran and propped up a dictator in their country to serve US interests in the region.

What oil fields does Iran seek here? What investments does it have here? How would they even possibly win a war against a thug/rogue nation like this one?

Bakari, again you assume the leaders of Iran act in Iran's best interest. You can look to America to see that leaders do not in fact always act in the best interest of the people. The leaders of Iran don't care about long term goals and purposes, they care about staying in power now. If they can use the idea of America as the enemy to stay in power, they will do so. Just like if Bush or Rudy can use the idea of Iran as the enemy to stay in power or gain it, they will do so.

It is also not possible to rule out a renegade military commander either. Remember, other nations don't trust their commanders and military leaders anywhere as close to as much as we trust ours. That's why back in the Cold War days, the USSR was scared @!$%# of one of their Nuke boat captains going renegade. They ensured against this through the use of political officers as well as keeping the Captains on a very short lease as to how long they were out to see. I would not be surprised at all if Iran had the same military trust issues as well, just on a lesser scale not currently involving nuclear weapons.

You assume that Iran, or more specifically Iran's leaders, would benefit from Democrat control if the US.

lets keep the speculation as to what i "assume" to asking me what i mean. i'm not assuming that iran would benefit from democrat control of the US. what i'm saying is that the reaction of the current administration is rather easily predicted. it has nothing to do with what exactly it will mean when the election changes our administration, it only has to do with that election removing the current cowboy administration. it should be obvious to anyone wherever they are that the bush adminstration has been routinely twisting reality in order to achieve its goals, and it's already taken an unduly aggressive approach with iran. so why would iran assist the US administration in its efforts to vilify the iranian govt?

It is also not possible to rule out a renegade military commander either.

that scenario makes the most sense. add to that the relatively new situation of the US presence and the suspicion that iran is delivering resources to iraq, and the actions of iranian commanders on the ground (or on the water, as it were) become less predictable.

So Adam and firsty, when and how does this @!$%# stop? I mean clearly there are renegade military regimes (including the U.S., commanded a thug president and his regime), but it seems like all people in power want to do is point fingers and make ordinary citizens pay the price. Where in the hell does this @!$%# end? Why do so many people have a @!$%#ing death wish, constantly seeking ways to start wars. If Iran has a renegade military, then America's only response is to provoke them more?

I mean Bush sounded like a street thug in response to the list latest incident. Sounded like a complete turf war between two gangs. So now the propaganda has to be about making one thug machine sound more ligit than the other.

If this is way things are, we humans deserve whatever happens to us. All this sounds very childish and thuggish. But it's being done in very high and powerful places while all we can do is sit back and watch it take place.

ho ho wo there friend — there arent many issues that adam and i can be asked a question about as a team. i hope i'm not being misunderstood. this @!$%# has to stop now. the US has no place in the first place in the middle east. we shouldnt be there, we shouldnt be building the largest foreign embassy (fort) in the world, we shouldnt be in iraq at all except to provide labor to rebuild that which we've destroyed. and most of all, we shouldnt be engaging in playground threats with iran, which we've been doing ever since bush realized that the surge wasnt going to do what he wanted it to do. he's been looking for another scapegoat in the region so that he can renew american interest in pushing people around with our tanks and bombs.

like i said, if the roles were reversed, i'd be on a military boat doing just about everything to move the foreign threat away from our shores. iraq did not provoke a war with the US, and iran, even if they were to have done this thing which they likely did not do, would not have been throwing the first punch. we are provoking iran, and we need to stop it right now before something stupid happens. again.

there arent many issues that adam and i can be asked a question about as a team.

I don't know firsty, what you said sounds pretty good. If we didn't have military presences in all of these nations in the first place, the temptation for renegade, or even official confrontations would be far far less. We need to stop policing the world, because eventually the world gets pissed off at the policeman, especially when they didn't choose us or the rules we are trying to enforce.

amen. i guess we'll only disagree when it comes time to install the mcdonalds.

:)

Sorry, firsty, I think misread you.

And firsty, there's the rub. Who needs a military when the best way to invade a nation is economically and culturally. We need to keep our military away from Iran but send in MTV and Starbucks :-)

And firsty, there's the rub. Who needs a military when the best way to invade a nation is economically and culturally. We need to keep our military away from Iran but send in MTV and Starbucks :-)

Which is why those crafty Chinese have tried to erect a great Firewall (as impossible as the task of protecting their people for our infectious culture is).

But China forgot that their super-lax copyright laws means that it's even easier for our culture to infect them, they just don't have to pay Disney or NBC in the process.

i dont object to expansion of businesses, but only when the world turns the theory of a free market into a reality. i could sell futures on how long i'll have to hold my breath before that happens, and even the most vigorous capitalists will be betting llllllllllllllllllong-term.

But China forgot that their super-lax copyright laws means that it's even easier for our culture to infect them, they just don't have to pay Disney or NBC in the process.

Exactly. Of course, I meant to say "from our", not "for our".

Really, their only recourse is to try to infect *our* culture with their ideology (oh, wait, the Communists have been trying to do that for a long time).

Really, their only recourse is to try to infect *our* culture with their ideology (oh, wait, the Communists have been trying to do that for a long time).

That's why it works so well for us. Really, we're not trying to inject China or Iran or whomever else with capitalism. We just want them to watch American Idol, listen to Green Day and eat McDonald's. It's in the process of taking in our products one by one that consumerism, capitalism and such start creeping in. And the one good thing about consumerism is that it doesn't work in a closed and non-free society. If you want choices in your soda or movies, then you'll sure as hell eventually going to want choices in your politics.

Of course if you society gets a bit too consumerist, then you start "amusing yourself to death" as Neil Postman would say.

There's a balance that needs to be in place. Consumerism may be the best or at least fastest way to bring American values and ideals abroad, but too much consumerism at home creates its own problems. Stuff is nice, but there are more important things in life.

There's a balance that needs to be in place. Consumerism may be the best or at least fastest way to bring American values and ideals abroad, but too much consumerism at home creates its own problems. Stuff is nice, but there are more important things in life.

Two thumbs up!!!

This sure seems like another Gulf of Tonkin type incident. Provoke the "enemy" into attacking you and all that.

so we should probably blow iran back to the middle ages for this huh?

Has anyone said that? (Yet?)

JoulesBeef:

Arrogant, hypocritical cheerleading imperial class mercenaries our elites are, including the corporate media shills.

with how many times i have been mislead, unreasonably scared, lied too by this admin

Joules, I totally agree with you, but we gotta start naming @!$%# on the real. We're not governed by an "administration"; we have bona fide thugs and cronies in the highest office in the nation dressed up in suits and repeating words like freedom, democracy, and terrorist. They can't talk directly to the people. They can't even answer the people's question. They can't even go amongst the people for fear of being assassinated. Thy need to be called out on their @!$%#. They have tricked and lied to us and have been responsible for the killing of untold amounts of people. It's only the propaganda that makes them appear like an "administration." If they were "administering" in other part of the world, they'd be called dictators leading a rogue state. We gotta name this @!$%# correctly.

This statement only makes sense if you mean the IRANIANS are looking for a gulf of tonkin incident.

When was the last time the Iranians attacked another nation?

When was the last time the U.S. attacked another nation?

Who's more aggressive?

Just *how* does your take make more sense?

Just *how* does your take make more sense?

Because Tonkin was fakery perpetrated by the US in order to get itself involved in a conflict. If this incident were at all like the Tonkin incident, the US would have a) faked the incident, and b) ensured US ships were attacked and quite possible damaged. A faked repeat of the Cole incident would qualify. In this instance, regardless of which nation has attacked some other nation most recently (apropos of nothing), it was the Iranians who were (possibly) attempting to provoke an incident, which they could then blame on the Evil Americans. Ergo Jak's statement is fairly accurate. Otherwise the US ships would have opened fire.

In any case, incidents like this are not rare, and it is highly likely that those in charge of the boats took this action (chest thumping, really) without the knowledge or consent of Tehran.

When was the last time the Iranians attacked another nation?

Counting proxy attacks? Very recently.

Counting proxy attacks? Very recently.

Perhaps. As for formal attacks, I've heard the figure 2000 years used.

America (or at least a particular, very visible segment of the population) seems to be much more belligerent than the Iranians (who, no doubt are not homogeneous in their attitudes any more than Americans are).

Perhaps. As for formal attacks, I've heard the figure 2000 years used.

Iraq and Iran had a very public war only 20 some years ago. And why do only formal attacks count? Is it okay if we start attacking other nations just as long as we don't do it with the uniformed military?

I wouldn't disagree, but then Iran hasn't had the capability, either. I'm not sure what that proves, however. I certainly won't argue that the US hasn't behaved in a shady manner in the past (and present), but I see no reason to believe that this incident has been faked. Could my mind be changed on that? Certainly. It'd take some doing (and some proof), though; otherwise I'm just inclined to think it's machismo gone amok on a gunboat - and why not. I'm sure it gets boring out there, and plenty of people get perverse enjoyment out of provoking bears, tigers, what-have-you. It just seems a simpler answer, is all.

Iraq and Iran had a very public war only 20 some years ago. And why do only formal attacks count? Is it okay if we start attacking other nations just as long as we don't do it with the uniformed military?

I'm not intimately familiar with the history, but didn't Iraq attack Iran? Wasn't Iran defending itself.

Also, wasn't the *U.S.* fighting a war with Iran via their Iraqi proxy?

I'm not saying only formal attacks count, but the U.S. is every bit as guilty as anybody else of fighting wars by proxy.

I'm sure it gets boring out there, and plenty of people get perverse enjoyment out of provoking bears, tigers, what-have-you. It just seems a simpler answer, is all.

Fair enough. Boys with guns will be boys. What fun is it if you do all that training and you never get to shoot anybody?

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I tend to jump to the paranoid conclusion whenever something like this happens. After all, there are ample precedents to support the "paranoid" stance.

thats all the more reason NOT to jump to the paranoid conclusion, mighty.

What kind of reasoning is *that*???

Just because each time I've banged my head against the wall it hurt, I shouldn't believe that if I bang my head against the wall *this time* it'll also hurt?

We didnt back one side against the other with any consistency (for instance, we sold weapons to saddam but also exchanged arms for hostages with iran). Its complicated all around, there are PLENTY of bad guys to choose from.

War profiteers will happily sell arms to whomever has the money to buy them, won't they?

well look at it this way - one day you'll come to a wall thats going to give way, but because of your past experiences, you have stopped trying. Whose loss is that?

Good retort!!

Of course, if I was really wise, I'd get a bulldozer, wouldn't I?

Oooh!! You slay me!

If I feel the pain, it must mean I'm still alive.

This reads like a developing conspiracy theory.

This reads like a developing conspiracy theory.

So every critique of the Bush regime has to be a conspiracy theory? If people had said that Bush would lie the American people into war, that would have been a conspiracy theory. Man oh man, we just never learn.

So, I guess there is a wolf over there after all.

Who's the wolf? The U.S. or Iran?

From Wikipedia:

In 2003, the United States spent about 47% of the world's total military spending of US$910.6 billion, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

The United states spends 3.7% of its GDP on its military, more than France's 2.6% and less than Saudi Arabia's 10%.[8] This is historically low for the United States since it peaked in 1944 at 37.8% of GDP. Even during the peak of the Vietnam War the percentage reached a high of 9.4% in 1968.[9]

From Wikipedia:

Iran's 2005 defense budget was estimated to be $6.3 billion by London's International Institute for Strategic Studies. This was $91 per capita, a lower figure than other Persian Gulf nations, and lower as a percentage of gross national product than all other Gulf states except the United Arab Emirates.[21]

I'm not good at math, by what percentage do we outspend the Iranians?

I would venture to guess that Iran has a higher % of their "wolfy" defense spending active in the Persian Gulf than does the US. Possibly even more billions around the Persian Gulf than US billions around the gulf.

But I don't think this line of debate is productive or very revelant.

MightyMait, that is not even close to relevant. What does the fact that we outspend Iran have to do with Iran vessels testing US vessels?

I was someone skeptical at first, but I think I'm leaning towards this being true assuming this is a genuine, first person account.

No, I never served in the military.
But what is missing here is the shooting down of a civilian passenger jet in, (I believe in 1988), by the US.
The plane was Iranian.
The US was wrong!
The cover up was full of lies.
This latest video could have been made by anyone.
Can you say "special effects"?

i would ask one question: who is the you you are asking the question of? or doesnt it matter, just a rhetorical question to introduce your opinion?

MightyMait, that is not even close to relevant. What does the fact that we outspend Iran have to do with Iran vessels testing US vessels?

If we're using the boy who cried wolf analogy, the wolf would tend to be the larger, more menacing of the two parties.

If the current administration wants war with Iran, what better way is there to accomplish that than by provoking the Iranians to "start" a conflict? This seems to be a tactic they teach the officers in the military academies.

The question is directed at Firsty.

To Eric Albert. You are the clueless one here. Our military is full of tradition and history, obviously something you know nothing about. ALL people that serve, do it so you can have to freedom to say that they are "clueless about history, ideology, and arrogant little yahoo redneck know nothings..." Your Welcome for that right. Don't forget how you got it. If you don't like it, get out of my country.

Don't mind Eric, his/her conspiracy theories and ideations of potential global domination only fill a nutshell of a some of the smallest nuts.

Who cares that you served in the Navy.

The 200+ million people in the US who are protected by less than 0.3% of a population willing to protect an idea.

..so true...those idiots don`t know just how close they came to swimming with the fishes..

Good luck with this crowd Vet. The skippers and sailors on those vessels showed admirable restraint during this Iranian stunt in international waters. Those Iranians are damn lucky that the final hail didn't come from the ships R2D2s.

Who cares that you served in the Navy. Most military people who serve are clueless about history, ideology, and arrogant little yahoo redneck know nothings who think the world owes its fascist foreign polcies a Big Sieg Heil!!!

Eric, you really are full of BS you know that?

Did you serve in the US Navy? I didn't think so. I made 4 trips to the Persian Gulf in my 6 year career and every time, Iran tested the bounds of our defensive capabilities.

it makes it easier to know who you're addressing if you 1. use the quote feature and 2. respond to the thread you're responding to.

did i serve in the navy? no. but if iran had warships floating around the new york harbor, i'd join up and make sure that they knew damn sure that we werent going to just allow them to do whatever they wanted so close to my country.

it seems that what you're providing in terms of your naval experience and how it relates to this issue is that iran regularly tests the US. well, i should hope so. there is so little testing of the US foreign policy on our own shores by our own citizens, and when we do start to ask questions, we tend to be confronted by people who claim that by virtue of their personal experience, they bring an inherently more accurate picture to the table. for a casual discussion about what happens in somewhat disputed waters, it's fun to hear from someone who was there. but unless you were there when this event occurred, your being in the navy has nothing to do with what happened.

on the other hand, we tend to get our share of veterans who dismiss charges of accountability directed at our military personnel or leadership based on the fact that, as soldiers, they know only about that which is directly in front of them. which is it? because if the argument is that you've seen iranian boats "test" US boats, then that doesnt add much to the discussion about what really happened, nor does it preclude superunspecial people like me from pointing out that we need evidence from more than just our own military to be able to believe this story.

Can anybody point out to me a time when the U.S. military has defended the U.S. from a credible foreign military threat since the War of 1812 or so? The question eliminates the Civil War from consideration.

I don't buy that the U.S. military is defending my Constitutional rights. It seem a lot more like it's defending the interests of the moneyed elite.

I guess the Imperial Japanese Navy and the Red Army, navy and air force weren't "credible threats" in your view not to mention the U-boats of the German navy that sank US merchant mariners within spitting distance of the beaches in FL and all along the east coast. Mighty, you ain't, mate.

I guess the Imperial Japanese Navy and the Red Army, navy and air force weren't "credible threats" in your view not to mention the U-boats of the German navy that sank US merchant mariners within spitting distance of the beaches in FL and all along the east coast. Mighty, you ain't, mate.

It's pronounced "Mighty-Mite", not "Mighty-Mate".

US merchant mariners, eh? Nothing to do with my Constitutional rights. Moneyed interests.

Was there ever a credible threat of invasion by either the Japanese or the Red Army? I think not.

You're grasping at straws.

US merchant mariners, eh? Nothing to do with my Constitutional rights. Moneyed interests.

Was there ever a credible threat of invasion by either the Japanese or the Red Army? I think not.

You're kidding right? If we had not turned the Japanese and Germans around, if we had just sat back and said: "Well they are not threatening to invade us yet..." the Germans would have conquered Europe, the Japanese would have taken the Pacific, and eventually they would have turned their war machines to the US. The Axis powers wanted nothing less than complete global domination.

Same with the Red Army. While invasion was improbable, they sure were ready to nuke the daylights out of us, and indeed they were powerhungry, so don't give me none of that, "they were just defending themselves" crap.

If the United States had not acted in WWI, WWII you might not have your precious Constitutional rights.

If the United States had not acted in WWI, WWII you might not have your precious Constitutional rights.

What you say *may* be true. I'm not so sure.

What *is* sure is that the war-profiteers profited handsomely, and many young men died (perhaps needlessly).

Somehow, I believe Lord Jesus meant "turn the other cheek" to apply universally, not just when somebody slaps you at the bar.

Was there ever a credible threat of invasion by either the Japanese or the Red Army? I think not.

Depends on how you define "credible", since Japan occupied Wake Island (and American territory), and the Philippines (a U.S. commonwealth).

I guess you dont consider 9/11

Too be fair, the US Military didn't do such a great job at defending the US from that treat.

US merchant mariners, eh? Nothing to do with my Constitutional rights. Moneyed interests.

Um, not sure what Constitution you are reading, but the Army and Navy are supposed to protect all Americans, and that includes those in the Merchant Marines. The Constitution is about more than your rights. There are other people in this nation as well, and their lives matter.

Depends on how you define "credible", since Japan occupied Wake Island (and American territory), and the Philippines (a U.S. commonwealth).

Perhaps. However, the U.S. used that (and other events) as a pretext to nuke Japan and occupy it for more than 50 years (with U.S. servicemen raping Okinawans and other Japanese with some regularity).

The U.S. has not been invaded in the 20th century. How many nations have we invaded?

Um, not sure what Constitution you are reading, but the Army and Navy are supposed to protect all Americans, and that includes those in the Merchant Marines. The Constitution is about more than your rights. There are other people in this nation as well, and their lives matter.

I said *my* Constitutional rights. I didn't mention Merchant Marines, did I.

Were those attacks prior to a declaration of war (not that formally declaring war seems to matter much these days)? If not, then weren't those attacks legitimate acts of war (I don't honestly know if merchant marines are "fair" targets in times of war)?

Germany and Russia never invaded the U.S. The U.S. and Russia *did* partition and occupy Germany for 40 plus years, though.

If anybody is a threat to national sovereignty and world peace, it's the U.S.

this seems to assume that only a direct invasion constitutes a 'threat', but i think you know thats not true.

Selling off all our assets to the Japanese back when they were tigers, moving all of our manufacturing over-seas, and accruing an ever-increasing trade deficit with the Chinese are a much more credible threat than any so-called "terrorist" threat. Yet, we do those things *willingly* and eagerly.

Give me a break!!

A non-existent problem? Some guys throw suspicious boxes out in front of a multi-million dollar ship with hundreds of people aboard and attempt to pick a fight when tensions are already high. That's not a problem?

Out of proportion? See above.

US Navy's response? Nobody got blown up... so I think they did good holding back their trigger finger.

Exactly.

This is NOT the first time this has ever happened. This happens all the time. News to the civilians is old and redundant to some vets who deal with this $#&T everyday.

Thanks NiteQ. Finally someone else who has some common sense.

Does the Iranian navy have submarines or torpedoes? Seems to me that five crazy ass suicide bombers in speed boats could wipe out three ships if they got all ramped up. I've had five kamikazes tonight and I'm sunk. Why have not the Iranians taken an airplane filled with fuel and crash it into an a United States of American naval ship? Have they run out of suicide bombers? They could easily get some Saudis...

...no, but really, what is all this posturing about? Do they just want to protect international territory and the recognized border, their economic interest and an important oil shipping channel. Do they just want to show off their boats and float around with their biggest guns or do they want to distract the home audience?

Why have not the Iranians taken an airplane filled with fuel and crash it into an a United States of American naval ship? Have they run out of suicide bombers?

Because unlike the Saudis, the USN is armed with a 60mm Phalanx gun, also known to us Army folks as C-RAMs. They would easily take down any incoming kamikaze or rocket automatically.

Who knows what it is all about, only the Iranians know. BUT, a smart enemy is one who does not attack first. He tests his opponents defenses and it's weaknesses, sometimes even sacrificing a few pawns before striking at their Queen.

Have you military boosters never heard of "black operations" or "false flag operations"?

Just because a vessel is flying an Iranian flag doesn't mean it isn't crewed by CIA operatives.

Have you heard about what Kermit Roosevelt did to Prime Minister Mossadeq of Iran in 1953? Is it any wonder that the Iranians treat the U.S. Government with just the slightest bit of mistrust?

I'm glad you're not in charge of the country, mighty.

I thank God for that. I'm still working on being in charge of my own mind and emotions.

One, Iranians are Persians not Arabs. Two, the part of the Strait of Hormuz the US ships were operating in are international waters. Next question. . .

Hetep and Respect Bill Harrison, you must put your thinking cap on. The WAR ships may have a right to be there, but the "Next question" is, is it right to be there.

I stand corrected, I would probably be better advised to refer to them by the more regionally unifying designation of Muslims.

If China, Russia or Cuba had "war" ships off the cost of New York City in "international" waters would it would be a provocation? Do you believe Bush and the American people would just think ii was business as usual?

The Point is, these are Western war ships, which should be in the West and nowhere near Muslim lands.

China and Russia have warships right off the coast of Alaska all the time. As a matter of fact, I saw a Russian destroyer last June on my Alaskan cruise. What's your point? You don't see us provoking them.

Do you actually know the vast coverage of the USN? They are practically everywhere, every ocean and major sea that you can think of. International waters is just that... a freezone.

These are WARSHIPS, designed for destruction. Provoke a bear and it will bite soon enough.

Hetep and Respect NiteQwill, Remember Vietnam and the use of ships in false flag operations.

When I was in the service my computers were responsible for the defense of a part of the East cost. You and I both know, it would be a whole different ball game if those same ships all of a sudden moved off the cost of New York City.

These are WARSHIPS, designed for destruction. Provoke a bear and it will bite soon enough.

Now you get it, Bush put his bears in someone else's pick nick to start WWIII. IMHO, he will drop the mini nukes on Iran in February. This spin is just to soften up the sheepeople, like he did just before his unilateral unprovoked attack on Iran.

and nowhere near Muslim lands.

I didn't realize that religions were claiming lands now...

IMHO, he will drop the mini nukes on Iran in February.

I sure as hell hope not. I just got back from a long deployment and would like to enjoy myself for once. ;)

Hetep and Respect NiteQwill, I sure hope you get to enjoy yourself too good Spirit, :-)

Adam

I didn't realize that religions were claiming lands now...

Bush says he talks to his Christian God and has called his Iraq war a "Crusade". Your boy bush seems to "realize" this.

What it is important to realize, as these elections will demonstrate, America needs to get her nose out of other peoples business and fix the massive problems (recession, etc) Bush and the Republican criminals have created here at home.

So Aunk, you are excusing your own words by using the reasoning that Bush did it to?

And I do fully realize that the American government, especially its military, does need to get its nose out of the world's affairs, not to mention most of the affairs of Americans themselves. But that does not excuse the actions of anyone else. Two wrongs does not make a right.

Hetep and Respect Adam, I think we agree more or less.

Two wrongs does not make a right.

yes, but two lefts do make a Right

If China, Russia or Cuba had "war" ships off the cost of New York City in "international" waters would it would be a provocation?

Look, we aren't talking about huge vast spaces of oceans here - were talking about a strait. What do you expect these ships to do - teleport past the narrowest bits, to get where they're going? If they're going to move between the Gulf and the seas beyond, they have to go through Hormuz. You know, just like every other ship, warship or not, that must make that same journey. If you don't like it, load up the planet into some Godsim and rearrange things so that Iran has more breathing room and the strait is wider. Can't do that? Tough luck, then.

yes, but two lefts do make a Right

actually it would take three lefts to go right from the starting position, assuming your are making 90° turns.

Hetep and Respect Mr. Miller and Jak, oops you got me, I stand corrected. In the best tradition of NV you sharp cookies don't mis a trick.

actually it would take three lefts to go right from the starting position, assuming your are making 90° turns.

You are correct, I needed to make one more left to turn my wrong into a right. tnx for heading me back in the right direction. Now if we can just help our fellow Americans, who have been temporally turned into warmongering sheepeople, to grasp the new math, we can once again point our country in the "right" moral direction. ;-)

Hetep and Respect Narky, you seemed to have overlooked the fact that Iran has not invaded and occupied Canada with ships threating us of the cost of America.

I must give bush and the spin machine credit for their powerful Orwellian magic. Somehow, even though Iran has no ships near America, they have convinced you that Iran is the one picking a fight.

Well, in order for Iran to invade Canada hang out near American shores they need a bigger boat.

Well, in order for Iran to invade Canada hang out near American shores they need a bigger boat.

Or bigger... well, I'll leave that topic alone...

Hetep and Respect Narky, it is good to see you have a sense of humor, Hope you will maintain it as bush sticks his WWIII match.

Iran has more then a 1000 missiles that will destroy Israel in the first 10 minutes. Israel will automatically activate their dooms day plan China and Russia will come in on the side of Iran. As we Speak Bush is meeting with who? You don't really think this mad criminal is over there for peace do you. He is their to give his boys "fare" warning about the next war he is about to start. So you must maintain your sense of humor, as the radioactive clouds drift over your Neighborhood, be sure and follow the government script to duck and cover.

;-)

He is their to give his boys "fare" warning about the next war he is about to start.

Which war is that?

Hetep and Respect krishna, PNAC you will recall is the play book bush and the crime family are working from It calls for attacking Iraq first.

Which war is that?

And Iran second. If there is one thing you can depend on, it is that the anti-humanists will attack, or try to attack, who they say they will attack. see tread #12

We must put bush\Chaney on trial before they can light the WWIII match.

Again I would ask related to my comment in #4.3

Did Iran's abduction of the UK sailors correspond with a Bush visit, travel, election cycle or some other US related activity??

Why do a couple speed boats acting foolishly in close proximity to warships appear to be an Iranian governmental manipulation to correspond with Bushs travel itinerary and provoke war?

I am very pleased with the response of our sailors for keeping the incident in the proper proportions, the rest of the world could do so well.

Quite honestly next time I hope we respond if we're provoked. Regime change in Iran might actually be a great, great thing - and whats more, most of the sunni nations in the middle east would probably get on board once it started.

Regime change starts at home. How about we get a U.S. regime that will pay more attention to our own collapsing infrastructure, health care system, etc.?

Why do our internal difficulties, for you, preempt protecting ourselves abroad?

Somehow, I don't consider antagonizing people with powerful allies (Russia) as "protecting ourselves". If anything it places us (and Americans traveling abroad) at *more* risk.

"There will be peace in the Middle East when the Arabs love their children more than they hate the Jews." --Golda Meir--

How incredibly presumptuous and condescending.

"Woe to the apathetic who don't prepare themselves to thwart every danger; woe to those who harbor false illusions "…

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert speech at Track 17,Grunewald Train Station,Berlin.Dec 12,2006

Woe to those who have no faith in their God.

And woe to those who mistake their faith in their religious institution for their faith in their God.

In Bhagavad Gita, Sri Krishna (an aspect or incarnation of God) says:

Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reaction. Do not fear.

Woe to those who woe... woops

:)

Whoa there, Nelly!!

Blessed is he who woes for no apparent reason