Pentagon says ships harassed by Iran

[SnakeProphet]

How could they have done this knowingly and not intentionally? I dont see how this could have been accidental. It seems pretty intentional going up to US ships, dropping boxes infront of them and transmitting death threats to them.

Intentional on which level? The one in charge of the patrol may have intentionally harrassed those ships(with lord knows what kind of result in mind(think greenpeace and japan)) , but was not necessarily thinking of the political consequences. The one's ACTUALLY in charge of the country sure seem to be trying very hard to make it go away like it didn't happen.

[Q24]

Iran's actions, if true, make them clearly the aggressor, rather than the defensive party.

Yes, in much the same way an animal backed into a corner which then bites you is the aggressor. In any case there are always two sides to the story and the other version says the Iranian boats were approached by the US warships - follow link from Wikipedia Altercation between Iranian Revolutionary Guard and U.S. Navy

From what I understand, they were on their way in the Persian Gulf. Iraq's up there, ya know.

From what I understand, the US Navy routinely patrols the Strait of Hormuz. Perhaps, considering the current climate, they should stick to the Oman/U.A.E. side of the Strait and if that is not possible do the courtesy of informing the Iranians of their presence well in advance of arrival. I am not saying this is procedure the US Navy are obliged to follow, though it would certainly ease tensions and prevent this type of incident from occurring.

Edited January 8, 2008 by Q24

[Unlimited]

The US navy has every right to be there...the iranians need to back off....

[ships-cat]

The US navy has every right to be there...the iranians need to back off....

In terms of territorial waters, perhaps.

However, how would the White House react - do you think - if a bunch of Iranian destroyers started steaming back and forth 12 miles outside of the Norfolk naval base ? Or New York harbour ? (e.g. within missile range)

Or if the Kirov carrier battle-group started fishing 12 miles from the SanDiego coast ? (within both missile and aircraft strike range).

Would the US government respect their 'right' to be there ? Methinks the Navy would be scrambled in force.

Meow Purr.

[Unlimited]

They have an established presence patrolling the oil routes...how can you compare?....the iranians would have no business here..keeping the oil aflow is all of our business...

[stevewinn]

the Iranians most probably thought the ships where the Royal navy, thats why they acted in such a manner, but when they seen the Ships guns moving, they thought hang on, these cant be British, oh sh**, it must be the US navy and every one knows the US takes no sh**, Iranian commander poo poo's his pants and gives orders to return to base,

[ships-cat]

the Iranians most probably thought the ships where the Royal navy, thats why they acted in such a manner, but when they seen the Ships guns moving, they thought hang on, these cant be British, oh sh**, it must be the US navy and every one knows the US takes no sh**, Iranian commander poo poo's his pants and gives orders to return to base,

Hmmm... intriguining thought Stevewinn....

Meow Purr.

[questionmark]

They have an established presence patrolling the oil routes...how can you compare?....the iranians would have no business here..keeping the oil aflow is all of our business...

So, we come to the conclusion: It is about oil!!!!

[Unlimited]

So, we come to the conclusion: It is about oil!!!!

of course its about oil and the flow of all commodities worldwide...we've been in a war for 7 years, and havent seen the disruption of any commodities..thats a testament to the US....

[explorer]

So, we come to the conclusion: It is about oil!!!!

Well indeed, maybe the Iranian gunships suddenly found themselves running low on 'gas', just in the nickle of time before the Americans prepared to shlock the markets again, shooting the price of oil up a few more thousand Rials. Anything to keep the price up. The oil industry's got something in common with the porn industry these days, slipping a c*** ring on for an oil erection. Here's to a sub-prime market in oil revealing it's ugly head. Motorfists beware!

Edited January 8, 2008 by explorer

[Aztec Warrior]

This event was premeditated by the IRG. Just look at their actions, the dumping of boxes in front of the US vessels causing them to take evasive actions and their radio message.

I am sure there is not only a radio recording of the event, but most likely video of the beligerent Iranian boats as they throw the boxes off and cut back and forth in front of the US vessels. Like police vehicles have a camera mounted inside the cruiser, I am sure navy vessels have the same.

And if they would have had orders from the top to do it they would have. A Navy ship's commander's worst nightmare is to set off an international incident without authorization from the top brass. That is unbecoming to one's career...

It is also "unbecoming to one's career" to have your ship attacked, damaged or sunk.

We havent had a big navy battle in a long time

Who told you that? The US has the largest navy in the world.

As with the British sailors who were detained, I would question what the US Navy thinks its business is patrolling so close to Iran's territory...

I can certainly see why the Iranian forces are a little edgy, and the US don't seem to be helping ease tensions.

How do you know how close the ships were to Iranian terrority? The entire strait is considered intl waters.

Edited January 8, 2008 by Aztec Warrior

[Ins0mniac]

As with the British sailors who were detained, I would question what the US Navy thinks its business is patrolling so close to Iran's territory...

Well from the look of that map you supplied, it seems fairly clear that it is the only way to get through to Iraq by sea. I have a feeling the U.S millitary has some business in Iraq.

Edited January 8, 2008 by Ins0mniac

[Stellar]

Intentional on which level? The one in charge of the patrol may have intentionally harrassed those ships(with lord knows what kind of result in mind(think greenpeace and japan)) , but was not necessarily thinking of the political consequences. The one's ACTUALLY in charge of the country sure seem to be trying very hard to make it go away like it didn't happen.

Ahh, yes, thats what I meant though. The actions themselves by whoever orchestrated them were quite intentional. They can not possibly be considered accidental on that level.

Yes, in much the same way an animal backed into a corner which then bites you is the aggressor. In any case there are always two sides to the story and the other version says the Iranian boats were approached by the US warships - follow link from Wikipedia Altercation between Iranian Revolutionary Guard and U.S. Navy

Which is why I said if the original claim on the USs side is true, then Iran is the aggressor. They were in no way "backed into a corner" in the original story.

However, how would the White House react - do you think - if a bunch of Iranian destroyers started steaming back and forth 12 miles outside of the Norfolk naval base ? Or New York harbour ? (e.g. within missile range)

Or if the Kirov carrier battle-group started fishing 12 miles from the SanDiego coast ? (within both missile and aircraft strike range).

Would the US government respect their 'right' to be there ? Methinks the Navy would be scrambled in force.

Do you think the US would start harassing the ships in that battle group, dropping "boxes" in the water ahead of them and radioing death threats to them? What about if it was a single ship? What about 3 ships, none of which is a carrier?

So, we come to the conclusion: It is about oil!!!!

What's about oil? Honestly... I'm trying to understand why it seems you're jumping around victoriously... Afterall, oil is an important resource and regardless of whether the war in Iraq was about oil or not, it would still need to be protected.

Edited January 8, 2008 by Stellar

[Stellar]

Who told you that? The US has the largest navy in the world.

He said battle...

[Aztec Warrior]

He said battle...

Thanks, I missed battle in his statement. Still, I fail to see how five small coastal boats agaisn't three US Navy warships could ever be considered a big naval battle. It would last 1 minute or less.

Edited January 8, 2008 by Aztec Warrior

[Moon Monkey]

Iran are up to something. On top of this they have suddenly green-lighted a rocket attack on Israel from Lebanon, the bombing of UNIFIL patrols, killing 2, and hamas attacks on Israeli MTBs. A show of intention for Bush's visit ?

[Stellar]

Isreali MTBs?

[questionmark]

How do you know how close the ships were to Iranian terrority? The entire strait is considered intl waters.

Negative, the entire minus 14 miles on either side.

These 14 miles are irrevocably considered territorial waters unless the distance between two countries is less, then it is in the middle where territorial waters end.

Now, if the US "considers" it international waters that is up to them... international law and conventions are not very respected lately.

[Q24]

The US navy has every right to be there...the iranians need to back off....

However, how would the White House react - do you think - if a bunch of Iranian destroyers started steaming back and forth 12 miles outside of the Norfolk naval base ? Or New York harbour ? (e.g. within missile range)

Did any other regulars notice the Freaky Friday moment there?

[louie]

so is everyone in here telling after the years of this govt lieing to its people and dragging them into wars under false pretences, that you actually believe this story.

[ships-cat]

so is everyone in here telling after the years of this govt lieing to its people and dragging them into wars under false pretences, that you actually believe this story.

Louie... a degree is skepticism is healthy and intelligent. However, I assume you're not aware that the Iranian Foreign Ministry have acknowledged this event, and responded to it ?

Meow Purr.

[louie]

Louie... a degree is skepticism is healthy and intelligent. However, I assume you're not aware that the Iranian Foreign Ministry have acknowledged this event, and responded to it ?

Meow Purr.

no i dident. but still the german govt warned the american people not to enter its waters an the american govt allowed the ship the Listhuania full of american civlians enter the waters there fore sinking the ship causing outrage by the american people and entering the americans into world war.

Edited January 8, 2008 by louie

[ships-cat]

no i dident. but still the german govt warned the american people not to enter its waters an the american govt allowed the ship the Listhuania full of american civlians enter the waters there fore sinking the ship causing outrage by the american people and entering the americans into world war.

Ahhh.... I THINK I understand what your aiming at Louie.. "the american ships shouldn't have been there" ???????

Bear in mind that the Lucitania was sunk on the "high sea's" ... about 30 miles off the coast of Ireland... and many HUNDREDS of miles away from German (at the time) territorial waters ?

This was at a time of war... and the "rules" (a sick concept in themselves) change.... however... I don't believe we're actually at WAR with Iran. (though I genuinly believe that elements of the Iranian government believe they are at war with ... well.. EVERY country that is not under Dhimmitude and Sharia Law).

Soo...where does that leave us ? Was the US navy being "confrontational" by sailing close to (but not WITHIN) Iranian territorial waters ? Or where the Iranian Islamic Republica Guard acting as pirates ?

Meow Purr

[louie]

Louie... a degree is skepticism is healthy and intelligent. However, I assume you're not aware that the Iranian Foreign Ministry have acknowledged this event, and responded to it ?

Meow Purr.

i done some searching and Iran didnt acknowledge "this event", they acknowledged "an event" took place. They called it "a routine identification" and say "no threatening message" was sent. Two very different events are being acknowledged by two different sides, ships cat makes it sound like they agreed to the American version of events... but now the US say they have video,

[Unlimited]

i done some searching and Iran didnt acknowledge "this event", they acknowledged "an event" took place. They called it "a routine identification" and say "no threatening message" was sent. Two very different events are being acknowledged by two different sides, ships cat makes it sound like they agreed to the American version of events... but now the US say they have video,

So you trust the Iranian guard?...i'd like to see the video..