Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: AmbulanceDriver on May 13, 2019, 03:29:48 PM
-
https://news.yahoo.com/saudi-oil-tankers-hit-sabotage-attacks-gulf-tensions-072309087.html
http://news.trust.org/item/20190512203243-xaijb
Looks like the Iranians are getting a little frisky out there. Not sure if this is more saber rattling from Rouhani or the Mullahs, or if this is the opening moves of an all out war.
-
Operation Ernest Will (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Earnest_Will) II coming up?
bob
-
Operation Ernest Will (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Earnest_Will) II coming up?
If so, would it be asking too much to hope that we go in prepared for what we'd be facing this time?
Rhetorical question ...
-
If so, would it be asking too much to hope that we go in prepared for what we'd be facing this time?
Rhetorical question ...
Wouldn't that be going against tradition?
-
If so, would it be asking too much to hope that we go in prepared for what we'd be facing this time?
Rhetorical question ...
Well to tell the truth, when we went there we took basic P3s, one day chasing subs and doing surface search and the next doing night OPS in the gulf. The follow on squadrons came in a little more prepared, they had foam in the fuel tanks (we had wet wings), IR lasers, flare pods and other defensive stuff. Our lessons learned at being first really helped them prepare for what they were actually doing. But that is just one platform specific.
As a whole if we were to go there we would make the same mistakes as always, trying to do too little too late and not try to offend the natives which results in just getting mired into a geopolitical mess we should stay out of. Unless of course the CIC follows his SW Asia doctrine and allows the war fighters to fight the war as they see fit for the most part. IMO
bob
-
Well to tell the truth, when we went there we took basic P3s, one day chasing subs and doing surface search and the next doing night OPS in the gulf. The follow on squadrons came in a little more prepared, they had foam in the fuel tanks (we had wet wings), IR lasers, flare pods and other defensive stuff. Our lessons learned at being first really helped them prepare for what they were actually doing. But that is just one platform specific.
I was thinking of fundamental goof like sending the Navy into mine-laden waters with no minesweepers anywhere in the region. It calls to mind an old saying ... something about "This ain't rocket surgery."
-
I was thinking of fundamental goof like sending the Navy into mine-laden waters with no minesweepers anywhere in the region. It calls to mind an old saying ... something about "This ain't rocket surgery."
That's one of the main reasons we flew every night, they used small boats to lay mines so we would check out each and every contact inside the Gulf every night, sometimes multiple times a night. We would get alerts from the AWACS over SA that they launched an F14 or some other fighter so we would scoot back behind the Saudi Hawk sites until we could go back out. I guess they expected us to find the mine-layers, which we found a few. But yea, they knew the Gulf was mined and should have had better plans in place. Those were actually some good times for us, lots of flights.
bob
-
I like how the media is trying to make it out like Trump is taking some unprecedented warmongery steps. Yawn. Pretty sure he wasn't the boss one of the many times I played Iranian missile target. Sometimes really close, like see sailors on the deck close.
-
I ran getting frisky, China getting pissy on trade deal...
I wonder how much of this is due to a perception that Trump is in a week political position at home?
-
I ran getting frisky, China getting pissy on trade deal...
I wonder how much of this is due to a perception that Trump is in a week political position at home?
Possible. They may consider anti-Trump sociopolitical angst to be synonymous with a personal weakness. If so, they're in for a nasty surprise. You don't get where he is by being indecisive, cowardly, or weak.
Brad
-
Possible. They may consider anti-Trump sociopolitical angst to be synonymous with a personal weakness. If so, they're in for a nasty surprise. You don't get where he is by being indecisive, cowardly, or weak.
Brad
Obama did.
-
Could be something, could be nothing
The State Department urged staff to take the following actions in an official security alert:
Depart Iraq by commercial transportation as soon as possible
Avoid U.S. facilities within Iraq
Monitor local media for updates
Review personal security plans
Remain aware of surroundings
Review the complete Travel Advisory for Iraq
Visit our website for Travel to High-Risk Areas
Imminent Threat: State Department Pulls Staff From Iraq
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2019/05/15/state-department-pulls-staff-from-iraq-n2546355
-
Could be something, could be nothing
Imminent Threat: State Department Pulls Staff From Iraq
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2019/05/15/state-department-pulls-staff-from-iraq-n2546355
Saw that this morning. Caused the ol' eyebrows to ratchet up another few millimeters.
-
Obama did.
True, but getting elected due to personal charm and political tokenism, and getting elected because you're the anti-politician who fought his way to the top of the business world through guts, determination, and sheer stubborn attitude aren't exactly similar paths.
Brad
-
Both Obama and Iran were richer at the end of his presidency than at the beginning
-
I was thinking of fundamental goof like sending the Navy into mine-laden waters with no minesweepers anywhere in the region. It calls to mind an old saying ... something about "This ain't rocket surgery."
Well when you are looking for an excuse for war a US ship hitting an Iranian mine is as good as any to initiate "dynamic action" so why not let it happen? Sunken ships have justified many a war in US history ;)
-
So....... Two tankers hit in the Gulf of Oman. Now there's allegedly a video of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards removing what may be an unexploded limpet mine from one of the two tankers that were attacked. The other allegedly was hit by a torpedo or other submerged ordnance.
This is starting to look *really* twitchy over there. It's not gonna take much for things to go all asplodey over there in a big way.
-
So....... Two tankers hit in the Gulf of Oman. Now there's allegedly a video of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards removing what may be an unexploded limpet mine from one of the two tankers that were attacked. The other allegedly was hit by a torpedo or other submerged ordnance.
This is starting to look *really* twitchy over there. It's not gonna take much for things to go all asplodey over there in a big way.
They were Japanese tankers, right? I say let the Japanese Self Defense force handle it.... would be most amusing... :lol:
(https://media.newyorker.com/photos/590972e21c7a8e33fb38f02c/master/w_649,c_limit/Alt-Japans-Cute-Army.jpg)
-
Nothing has happened that persuades me that the USA needs to kill some Iranians and/or blow a bunch of their stuff up.
-
Nothing has happened that persuades me that the USA needs to kill some Iranians and/or blow a bunch of their stuff up.
That's good, because we aren't killing Iranians or blowing there stuff up.
Folks (or at least I) am concerned because as things like this escalate, countries end up being backed into corners (or backing themselves into corners) from which the only options left are killing and blowing stuff up.
The global oil economy does not operate in a vacuum. There's a lot of money and power that shifts around the world based on who is selling who the energy needed to feed their people and heat their countries. When portions of that supply are changed, unpredictable power changes happen all over. Russia get's more powerful and influential in Europe as the Mid east oil becomes more expensive and harder to get. China get's more aggressive about pushing their boundaries and willing to take more risks as their ability to keep their population under control is threatened. Poor people living on the edge of survival the world over end up dying because the energy they need to survive becomes too expensive.
There are many reasons the US should be interested in the worldwide energy economy, and should pursue our goals. Everyone hopes that those goals can be reached with diplomatic and economic pressures, but unpredictability is just that, unpredictable, and even more so when actions are being carried out by folks that are pursuing religious convictions as well as practical considerations. Iran is opposed to many of out interests in the world, and especially in the energy economy. It's always a little concerning when your opposition starts being unpredictable. Hence the concern about their "friskiness".
-
They were Japanese tankers, right? I say let the Japanese Self Defense force handle it.... would be most amusing... :lol:
Especially after they sick Godzilla on them
Go Go Go Godzilla!
-
The global economy (multi national corporations of all stripes) is only interested in US interests as far as it can extract resources from the USA.
I’m done conflating global economic interests and the best interests of the people of the USA.
Our economy should serve our people, not the globe.
The people of the USA don’t exist to serve the global economy.
-
The global economy (multi national corporations of all stripes) is only interested in US interests as far as it can extract resources from the USA.
I’m done conflating global economic interests and the best interests of the people of the USA.
Our economy should serve our people, not the globe.
The people of the USA don’t exist to serve the global economy.
You either misread or misinterpreted what I wrote.
The global economy affects US interests. It is in our interests to have the global energy economy act in certain ways. I specifically used the words "our goals". Nothing in my post was about serving the global economy, but rather having it serve US interests. Iran is, by and large, opposed to those interests.
-
You either misread or misinterpreted what I wrote.
The global economy affects US interests. It is in our interests to have the global energy economy act in certain ways. I specifically used the words "our goals". Nothing in my post was about serving the global economy, but rather having it serve US interests. Iran is, by and large, opposed to those interests.
Got ya
Remember that aphorism?” extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence “
The need to use military force against another nation is now in the “extraordinary claim” category for me.
I don’t care who is President and how little or much good he has done.
To get me to sign on and assent to the use of force requires extraordinary evidence.
That is the legacy of the Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama administrations for me.
The government lies about war and I’m not convinced they did it for our national best interests.
My support or lack thereof means little in the long run.
I’m just hyper aware of the use of influence and propaganda against us by our own government now.
-
The global economy (multi national corporations of all stripes) is only interested in US interests as far as it can extract resources from the USA.
I’m done conflating global economic interests and the best interests of the people of the USA.
Our economy should serve our people, not the globe.
The people of the USA don’t exist to serve the global economy.
Correct. 100 percent.
That, however, does not preclude the possibility that preserving stability in the oil market may be in the best interest of the USA.
-
Correct. 100 percent.
That, however, does not preclude the possibility that preserving stability in the oil market may be in the best interest of the USA.
Oil is a global commodity. And other markets react to the cost/price of energy.
-
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/2c/31/94/2c3194e689c1b2f642479c6d8c9ecfb3.jpg)
-
The really odd thing is just before the tankers were attacked our gas was $2.80+-. Tankers attacked, gas prices dropped to the $2.50s and today I saw 3 stations at $2.29.
-
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/2c/31/94/2c3194e689c1b2f642479c6d8c9ecfb3.jpg)
If that actually happened, we'd be rid of a largish part of current global conflict.
Long as we airlifted everyone home first, I'm fine with it.
As the Brit officer in Pirates of the Caribbean replied to Captain Jack Sparrow's question "what do you have to lose?"
Nothing I'd miss.
-
How much of a problem are they to US citizens if there are no US citizens in the region?
We don’t really “need” their oil.
If our goal is stable global oil prices then we sure are going about it in a weird way, destabilizing the whole Middle East.
-
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/2c/31/94/2c3194e689c1b2f642479c6d8c9ecfb3.jpg)
What did you use, a Photon Torpedo? ? ? ? ? ? [popcorn] :O [popcorn] [tinfoil]
-
How much of a problem are they to US citizens if there are no US citizens in the region?
We don’t really “need” their oil.
If our goal is stable global oil prices then we sure are going about it in a weird way, destabilizing the whole Middle East.
How powerful would you like Russia and China to be?
-
How powerful would you like Russia and China to be?
Has the financial black hole of our involvement in destabilizing the Middle East made our lives better?
Has it made us more powerful?
If we were worried about China we wouldn’t tolerate American consumers and corporations funding their military build up and we wouldn’t tolerate their stealing of technologies. Trump is the only one acting like he cares.
Russia really only has a few cards to play, energy/teaming up with China, and their nukes. Once again, it’s Trump who wants to drive a wedge between China/Russia by having better relations with Russia.
Blowing up Middle East countries and deposing their governments, certainly on the face of it, doesn’t enhance our position in the world.
-
Guess who
She hasn't got a clue who we're dealing with
This administration needs to put down its saber and pick up a phone.
Diplomacy is what grants us peace and stability – not war. #NoWarOnIran https://t.co/NZtifF3eki
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) June 21, 2019
OMG make it STOP! AOC’s Iran strategy not quite as dumb as her concentration camps take, but it’s close (watch)
https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2019/06/21/omg-make-it-stop-aocs-iran-strategy-not-quite-as-dumb-as-her-concentration-camps-take-but-its-close-watch/
The first reply at the link after this says it all.
-
Guess who
She hasn't got a clue who we're dealing with
OMG make it STOP! AOC’s Iran strategy not quite as dumb as her concentration camps take, but it’s close (watch)
https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2019/06/21/omg-make-it-stop-aocs-iran-strategy-not-quite-as-dumb-as-her-concentration-camps-take-but-its-close-watch/
The first reply at the link after this says it all.
God, she's an idiot.
In the meantime, Trump appears to be acting very rationally and contemplative. If this is accurate, then to me, he's approaching the problem carefully and with a restraint that in fact keeps the chance for negotiations open, yet without appearing weak. AOC apparently wants to have tea and crumpets with them, while gays are smacking on the sidewalk around the cafe.
"We apologize that you shot down our UAV. Can we maybe send you a pallet of cash to make amends?"
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/us-called-off-retaliatory-strike-against-iran-in-last-minute-wsj
-
God, she's an idiot.
Neville Ocasio-Cortez?
Meanwhile, the British have seized an Iranian oil tanker in Gibraltar:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-uk-oil-tanker-syria-ambassador-gibraltar-seized-middle-east-a8988346.html
British Royal Marines detained an oil tanker in Gibraltar suspected of carrying oil to Syria in violation of EU sanctions on Thursday – a dramatic step that could escalate confrontation between the West and Iran.
Iran claimed the seizure by Britain was “destructive” and could increase tensions in the Gulf.
The government in the British overseas territory say port and law enforcement agencies, assisted by the Royal Marines, boarded the Grace 1 supertanker on Thursday.
-
Well this is sure to calm things down.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/18/politics/trump-us-destroyed-iranian-drone/index.html
-
and this
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/18/middleeast/iran-tanker-intl/index.html
-
It seems the drone was downed without a shot being fired, but rather an ATV mounted system, kind of neat.
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/07/18/heres-new-marine-corps-weapon-just-destroyed-iranian-drone.html
bob
-
It seems the drone was downed without a shot being fired, but rather an ATV mounted system, kind of neat.
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/07/18/heres-new-marine-corps-weapon-just-destroyed-iranian-drone.html
bob
So I have two questions after reading this article:
1. How do you give multiple calls to a drone telling it to stand down? Did they know it was an Iranian drone and were calling on an emergency radio frequency or the like monitored by the Iranians?
2. If you jam a drone, does it immediately nose over and crash, and that is how you destroy them?
-
So I have two questions after reading this article:
1. How do you give multiple calls to a drone telling it to stand down? Did they know it was an Iranian drone and were calling on an emergency radio frequency or the like monitored by the Iranians?
2. If you jam a drone, does it immediately nose over and crash, and that is how you destroy them?
If I had to make a SWAG;
1. Multiple calls on Guard (Always monitored emergency supposedly) frequencies plus any known Iranian frequencies.
2. Probably just interrupts the controlling frequency and they lose control and the drone goes it's merry way with no control until it crashes.
bob
-
So I have two questions after reading this article:
1. How do you give multiple calls to a drone telling it to stand down? Did they know it was an Iranian drone and were calling on an emergency radio frequency or the like monitored by the Iranians?
2. If you jam a drone, does it immediately nose over and crash, and that is how you destroy them?
1. The standard is calls on Guard, and probably Marine VHF 16. Most military grade UAV's have the capability to receive and relay to the operator normal aviation voice coms.
2. Depends. There are systems which can hijack UAVs, but that also depends on the strength of the UAV's encryption. Easiest is to just jam all reception, obviously.
-
On #2, there's also RTB. If it loses signal, it just goes home, or to whatever pre-programmed goto lat/long is set. Depending on the UAS of course.
-
[popcorn]
BREAKING: Iran Has Seized A British Oil Tanker
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/timothymeads/2019/07/19/breaking-iran-has-seized-british-flagged-tankers-n2550344
-
They are really pissed off over that tanker in the Med.
-
[popcorn]
BREAKING: Iran Has Seized A British Oil Tanker
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/timothymeads/2019/07/19/breaking-iran-has-seized-british-flagged-tankers-n2550344
Trump really needs to stop provoking Iran.
And, does formerly Great Britain have any stones left? I'm gonna bet they don't.
-
Trump really needs to stop provoking Iran.
And, does formerly Great Britain have any stones left? I'm gonna bet they don't.
They still have 22 SAS. So I wouldn't count them out yet... And for all of Theresa May's fault's, I doubt she wants to go out like Jimmy Carter. Thatcher is remembered more for the Falklands then anything else she accomplished.
-
I don't know if I fault Iran for the first tanker they captured. From what I've heard it was sketchy in the ownership department and was almost certainly smuggling oil from Iran.
Not sure about the most recent two.
Iran is claiming their drone came home. I wonder if the "kill" ended up just being an RTB.
-
Two tankers
According to Middle East expert Charles Lister, a separate oil tanker called the "Mesdar" has also been intercepted by the Iranian government. Moments ago, the IRG confirmed they had taken a second tanker. Lister surmised this would force some sort of response if true.
BREAKING: Iran Has Seized A British Oil Tanker UPDATE: Second Tanker Taken
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/timothymeads/2019/07/19/breaking-iran-has-seized-british-flagged-tankers-n2550344
-
According to this the 2nd ship has been released
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/07/19/reports-irans-islamic-revolutionary-guard-corps-seizes-british-tanker/
-
Reading around the net ... the war drums are beating.
Forgive me but I'm failing to see a compelling US interest in going to war with Iran.
There is a lot of justification of preemptive action based on "what if blah blah blah".
Certainly I understand that the .gov has intelligence they won't share with the public.
That's the same rationalization that won over support for bunches of us during the Iraq War build up and action.
I'm not buying into this continuation of blowing up stuff and killing people in that region for others interests.
What is our compelling national interest?
The last several Presidents have immediately ignored the Nation on this subject, almost as soon as they took office.
Who do they represent?
-
I don't think Trump is going to go to war with Iran unless he's backed into a corner. He knows a new land war in the Mideast loses him the election.
Maybe some retaliatory airstrikes, maybe SOCOM gets the tanker crews out, but we aren't invading unless they kill US service members.
The wild card is what the extremist elements of the IRGC do. I don't think they are as tightly controlled by the mullahs as we'd like to think.
-
Why should U.S. SOCOM rescue British tanker crews? GB has special forces.
-
Why should U.S. SOCOM rescue British tanker crews? GB has special forces.
We're allies,
we're on ground with assets already,
SOCOM (in this case actually SOCCENT, Special Operations Command CENTral) includes UK forces,
That tanker got grabbed in the first place because SAS did us a solid
I'm expecting there to be more ship seizures as there has been no real downside to this one.
Pick a reason.
-
Sounds like it's time to start running protected convoys through the Strait of Hormuz.
-
Why should U.S. SOCOM rescue British tanker crews? GB has special forces.
What dogmush said.
Plus, we take the tanker back, and start running convoys. If Iran doesn't like it what can they really do? Declare outright way over an act of self defense? Let them continue to be the badguys.
-
Send Q-ships into the area? (why haven't we done that already off the coast of Somalia?)
-
Send Q-ships into the area? (why haven't we done that already off the coast of Somalia?)
Who says we haven't! We have in a manner of speaking. No results in the case I know of, but the bait was there.
-
Send Q-ships into the area? (why haven't we done that already off the coast of Somalia?)
Armed, undeclared spy ships firing on the flagged and declared Navy of a sovereign country. Who, exactly, do you imagine is the bad guy in that situation?
Sounds like it's time to start running protected convoys through the Strait of Hormuz.
Many countries, including us, maintain a heavy military presence in the Straights of Hormuz and the Gulf of Oman. There are a variety of reasons that military escorts of every ship transiting is undoable. For 1, Oman wouldn't take kindly to it. Remember, there is no international waters in the straight, just Oman and Iran. for 2. large convoy staging areas on either side are actually better targets. Most obviously though, is that 5th fleet just doesn't have the ships to do that, even if you limit it to ships owned in countries friendly to us.
-
I agree with Ron. No war with Iran.
-
Armed, undeclared spy ships firing on the flagged and declared Navy of a sovereign country. Who, exactly, do you imagine is the bad guy in that situation?
Many countries, including us, maintain a heavy military presence in the Straights of Hormuz and the Gulf of Oman. There are a variety of reasons that military escorts of every ship transiting is undoable. For 1, Oman wouldn't take kindly to it. Remember, there is no international waters in the straight, just Oman and Iran. for 2. large convoy staging areas on either side are actually better targets. Most obviously though, is that 5th fleet just doesn't have the ships to do that, even if you limit it to ships owned in countries friendly to us.
Your second point seems valid enough, but in regards your first point "armed spy ships firing on ...the navy of a foreign country" which is engaged in an act of piracy on the high seas (or low seas?) by boarding a commercial ship and kidnapping it's crew?
I say "go for it,".... assuming it's practical. I'd love the idea of seeing a Iranian commando team fast roping down from a Soviet built chopper only to see the ship's crew was Seal Team 6. And Seal Team 5. And Seal Team 4. And Seal Team 3. And a few British S. A. S. Teams as well.
I know. That's Hollywierd....
I don't want a war with Iran either. CERTAINLY NOT a war where we invade boots on the ground like Iraq 2.0.
But b*t*h slapping Iran around a bit would improve my schadenfreude quotient. >:D
-
Your second point seems valid enough, but in regards your first point "armed spy ships firing on ...the navy of a foreign country" which is engaged in an act of piracy on the high seas (or low seas?) by boarding a commercial ship and kidnapping it's crew?
But b*t*h slapping Iran around a bit would improve my schadenfreude quotient. >:D
They aren't engaged in piracy though. They are the Navy of a sovereign nation conducting Marine Security Patrols off their shore, boarding and inspecting vessels suspected of crimes, and seizing contraband.
Remember that picture of the Coast Guardsman jumping on the narco sub from a couple weeks ago? Yeah, That. That's what the IRGCN sees themselves as doing. You know why no one's talking about the first tanker Iran nabbed? Because it WAS smuggling fuel.
What, exactly, do you think the US response would be if Mexican troops started riding along on boats heading north, and shooting Coast Guard cutters doing patrols?
If you really don't want a war, then stop advocating that we shoot at another country. We might still get a war, after all the enemy gets a vote, but let's try not to start one.
-
You know why no one's talking about the first tanker Iran nabbed? Because it WAS smuggling fuel.
I clearly didn't get the memo. Explain, please.
-
I clearly didn't get the memo. Explain, please.
Gimme an hour or two to get to a real keyboard.
ETA:
On July 14th, 2019, a couple days after aggressively trying to stop the M/T British Heritage (and being run off by HMS Montrose) the M/T Riah was finishing up a westbound Transit of the Straights of Hormuz when she slowed to two knots, turned off her AIS transponder, and then turned north towards Iranian waters. She subsequently dropped off RADAR. The IRGCN later released video of them seizing the Riah in international waters. As far as I know without digging the ship and her 12 crew are still in Iran.
The Riah is Panamanian flagged vessel (probably) owned by a company out of the UAE. The UAE has denied owning her since the seizure, and Panama recinded her flag a couple days ago. Iran claims, with some evidence, that she was smuggling gasoline out of Iran and selling it overseas. Gasoline is heavily subsidized in Iran, so you can make a tidy profit that way. They claim small dhows were meeting up with the Riah and transferring fuel to her, then she would transfer it to other, larger tankers in the Gulf of Oman. Smaller tankers transferring fuel to larger tankers just outside the straights is not an uncommon practice even with legal cargos, but especially with smuggled petroleum.
So it's likely that this vessel WAS smuggling fuel, and Panama is too small, far away, and out of *expletive deleted*s to give about their flag, while UAE (with plausible deniability) isn't going to piss off Iran by making a fuss over it. Those twelve foreign sailors are probably going to spend a long time in Iranian jail unless one happens to come from a powerful country.
In contrast the Stena Impero seems to be a much more straight forward tit-for-tat over the Brits grabbing Grace 1 in the Med. The IRGCN claims they wanted to conduct a security inspection because she entered the SOH in the wrong lane, while transponder logs the UK released seem to show that she didn't. I pretty thin excuse to grab her. FWIW HMS Montrose was nearby and tried to help again, radioing Stena that she should continue on course and they were inbound but the tanker slowed and turned into Iranian waters before she got there.
-
I get a kick out of how the word "sovereign" gets so popular, anytime the prospect of war is discussed.
-
I get a kick out of how the word "sovereign" gets so popular, anytime the prospect of war is discussed.
Sovereign Nation has a specific definition under international law, and there is a finite list of them. When discussing military (or police) action, the distinction is important because it changes what is legal, and what is likely to get one's nation sanctioned.
Iran is a Sovereign Nation. Tibet, for example, is not. Taiwan, for now, is despite China's protestations.
-
Sovereign Nation has a specific definition under international law, and there is a finite list of them. When discussing military (or police) action, the distinction is important because it changes what is legal, and what is likely to get one's nation sanctioned.
Iran is a Sovereign Nation. Tibet, for example, is not. Taiwan, for now, is despite China's protestations.
For most people who bandy the term about, it's just talk. They're not consulting any list, and they don't know the legalities.
-
They aren't engaged in piracy though. They are the Navy of a sovereign nation conducting Marine Security Patrols off their shore, boarding and inspecting vessels suspected of crimes, and seizing contraband. .....
Sure. And Jack the Ripper was a good samaritan, and Hitler was a humanitarian. :facepalm:
-
Sure. And Jack the Ripper was a good samaritan, and Hitler was a humanitarian. :facepalm:
Is the USCG engaged in piracy when they seize vessels off our coast?
Words have meanings. You can facepalm all you want, but it doesn't make you correct.
Yes, their legal justifications are sometimes pretty damn thin. (Sometimed they aren't, as I explained above) but they do exist.
But here's the real, no bullshit bottom line. Do you want to kick the ground war in Iraq back off and expand it threefold or so? We are in a medium intensity proxy war with Iran. Their proxys (Horthi, ISIS, Hezbollah) fight our proxys (Arab partner states) and we throw economic sanctions at them.
If we escalate, or push them too far into a corner so they escalate, they will try to Pearl Harbor 5th fleet, and ramp their proxys in Iraq back up to 2007-2008 levels. Plus add Yeman, KSA, and Kuwait to the target list. We'd be in for 15 more years of war in the Mideast.
So maybe we stop pretending we can do whatever we want with no consequences?
-
I'm not trying to be a dick, but it seems like we talk a big game of not wanting a war, then advocate actions that will lead to one.
You would think we'd have learned our lesson about picking fights with religious fanatics.
I haven't even mentioned that Iran has reasonably decent ties with both Russia and the PRC.
-
Is the USCG engaged in piracy when they seize vessels off our coast?
Words have meanings. You can facepalm all you want, but it doesn't make you correct.
Yes, their legal justifications are sometimes pretty damn thin. (Sometimed they aren't, as I explained above) but they do exist.
But here's the real, no bullshit bottom line. Do you want to kick the ground war in Iraq back off and expand it threefold or so? We are in a medium intensity proxy war with Iran. Their proxys (Horthi, ISIS, Hezbollah) fight our proxys (Arab partner states) and we throw economic sanctions at them.
If we escalate, or push them too far into a corner so they escalate, they will try to Pearl Harbor 5th fleet, and ramp their proxys in Iraq back up to 2007-2008 levels. Plus add Yeman, KSA, and Kuwait to the target list. We'd be in for 15 more years of war in the Mideast.
So maybe we stop pretending we can do whatever we want with no consequences?
So Iran takes ....4? British tankers hostage ... and ...their legal justification is "pretty damn thin?? ?? "
Really?
Can Iran do whatever it wants with no consequences?
I guess so....they already export butt-loads of terrorism .....
If they try to Pearl Harbor the fifth fleet, it will not end well for Iran.
I find it difficult to believe anyone on this forum would attempt to defend or justify Iran's actions .... perhaps I accidentally fell through a spacewarp into an evil mirror universe ..... [tinfoil]
-
I'm not trying to be a dick, but it seems like we talk a big game of not wanting a war, then advocate actions that will lead to one.
You would think we'd have learned our lesson about picking fights with religious fanatics.
I haven't even mentioned that Iran has reasonably decent ties with both Russia and the PRC.
Picking fights with religious fanatics? Oh. You must mean September 11, 2001.... when the Twin Trade Towers viciously swatted a couple of planes being flown by JihadI nutcakes when their pilots died of natural causes --
No. Just. NO. I am not going to continue this idiocy with someone who thinks WE attacked THEM.
-
https://apnews.com/65890b80d403489c8b1b249cdc954857
No guarantte they will, but it's aout time someone other than the US stepped up.
-
Rumor has it Turkish President Erdogan has died of a heart attack, interesting times ...
At this time it's just a rumor.
-
interesting times ...
SNAFU
-
So Iran takes ....4? British tankers hostage ... and ...their legal justification is "pretty damn thin?? ?? "
Really?
Can Iran do whatever it wants with no consequences?
I guess so....they already export butt-loads of terrorism .....
If they try to Pearl Harbor the fifth fleet, it will not end well for Iran.
I find it difficult to believe anyone on this forum would attempt to defend or justify Iran's actions .... perhaps I accidentally fell through a spacewarp into an evil mirror universe ..... [tinfoil]
In the order you asked:
1 British tanker.
No, they can't do whatever they want with no consequence, hence the sanctions that are currently destroying their economy.
Pearl Harbor didn't end well for the Japanese either, but there was a few rough years before the end.
I'm not defending Iran's actions, I'm pointing out that we can't pin any real international crime on them. All the chest thumping you see around forums like this ends in US being the aggressor, and in some cases breaking the law.
-
Picking fights with religious fanatics? Oh. You must mean September 11, 2001.... when the Twin Trade Towers viciously swatted a couple of planes being flown by JihadI nutcakes when their pilots died of natural causes --
No. Just. NO. I am not going to continue this idiocy with someone who thinks WE attacked THEM.
No, I didn't actually. But good on you for breaking out that Jump to Conclusions Mat.
-
In the order you asked:
1 British tanker.
No, they can't do whatever they want with no consequence, hence the sanctions that are currently destroying their economy.
Pearl Harbor didn't end well for the Japanese either, but there was a few rough years before the end.
I'm not defending Iran's actions, I'm pointing out that we can't pin any real international crime on them. All the chest thumping you see around forums like this ends in US being the aggressor, and in some cases breaking the law.
The sanctions, iirc, we're on Iran prior to the tanker fiasco.
Whether it's one or four tankers, I think hijacking them is usually considered a crime. It is not equivalent to the USCG interdiction some drug running cartel submarine (not a flagged vessel), having a military force board and take over a flagged vessel of a sovereign country strikes me as being eminently worthy of being a crime. Perhaps even an act of war.
You may not be defending Iran .... but you're sure doing a great imitation of it ....
-
No, I didn't actually. But good on you for breaking out that Jump to Conclusions Mat.
If you don't want me to conclude what I did, you'd better learn to express yourself more clearly. My conclusion might have been wrong .... but I only got there from responding to what YOU posted.
-
If it was an act of war, it wasn't an act of war against the USA.
-
If it was an act of war, it wasn't an act of war against the USA.
True. Despite certain conclusions being erroneously drawn by ... certain Un named members ... I AM NOT advocating America going to war against Iran.
I'm really essentially saying this: If Iran perceives what it is doing achieves the ends it wants, it will continue to employ the same means to obtain future desires. Risk>reward.
If the world wants Iran to stop doing this, Iran must be taught that it is very unprofitable to use these methods.
Maybe the sanctions will work .... maybe not.
Right now England is the country missing a vessel. They are apparently debating their response right now. As they have a new P. M. it will be .... interesting to see what happens, and when ....
-
[deep sigh]
Whatever man, it's a discussion forum, and I was trying to discuss some profoundly ignorant statements made by several folks, yourself included, on this thread. Statements in the vein of "Why don't we just X?". Well I told you why. International Maritime Law does exist, and it says what it says no matter how much the Iranians are pissing us off and destabilizing the region.
But sure, I'm an Iranian and Islamic apologist. That's definitely what my post history on this site points to.
Enjoy your circle jerk.
-
@dogmush: as one of the ignorant -- thanks for not saying stupid -- I appreciated the lesson. I still think heavily armed and armored decoy ships is part of the solution in Somalia. (another part is to somehow get China to stop illegally fishing the Somali coast, and the EU dumping toxic waste there) But we're not talking about Somalia...
-
@dogmush: as one of the ignorant -- thanks for not saying stupid -- I appreciated the lesson. I still think heavily armed and armored decoy ships is part of the solution in Somalia. (another part is to somehow get China to stop illegally fishing the Somali coast, and the EU dumping toxic waste there) But we're not talking about Somalia...
It can be, although in practice it has limited success. I personally think it's because, as much as you read about Piracy of the Horn of Africa, the ships nabbed as a percentage of ships in the region is pretty small, so the decoy ship just doesn't get attacked very often. And you can't have it just troll back and forth because then it's obviously not a merchant ship.
The most effective piracy deterrent in that region is armed private security teams on board ships. Usually it's just a team with small arms (up to like .50cal/12.7mm) and they are only on the ship for the transit, but they pretty effectively fight off the small boarding crafts the pirates use. There's also some physical measures that merchant ships can do to make themselves harder to board. This has worked well for the ships and companies willing to spend the money and effort. These days, the ships getting nabbed are the smaller, poorer vessels from countries that no one cares about.
The waters off the Horn of Africa also have pretty heavy anti piracy patrols from PRC, Russia, US, EU powers, Iran, and the KSA. That deters piracy against ships they care about. It's still not a great place to be a 300ft Liberian flagged ship crewed by Malaysians.
-
Maybe the Royal Marines should start looking at updating their hymn (do they even have one?). You know, something like "from the mudflats of Pehio to the Port of Bandar Abbas". Just sayin. Our Marines already have a hymn and as there are no US citizens in harms way (yet) on this one the UK should be getting the job done one way or the other.
bob
-
It can be, although in practice it has limited success. I personally think it's because, as much as you read about Piracy of the Horn of Africa, the ships nabbed as a percentage of ships in the region is pretty small, so the decoy ship just doesn't get attacked very often. And you can't have it just troll back and forth because then it's obviously not a merchant ship.
The most effective piracy deterrent in that region is armed private security teams on board ships. Usually it's just a team with small arms (up to like .50cal/12.7mm) and they are only on the ship for the transit, but they pretty effectively fight off the small boarding crafts the pirates use. There's also some physical measures that merchant ships can do to make themselves harder to board. This has worked well for the ships and companies willing to spend the money and effort. These days, the ships getting nabbed are the smaller, poorer vessels from countries that no one cares about.
The waters off the Horn of Africa also have pretty heavy anti piracy patrols from PRC, Russia, US, EU powers, Iran, and the KSA. That deters piracy against ships they care about. It's still not a great place to be a 300ft Liberian flagged ship crewed by Malaysians.
When we caught an already pirated ship we put the creatures in the brig, one in the morgue, the crew lived in a troop berthing. Then we loaded up what few Marines we had on board and a bunch of gunners mates. Then the ship cruised ahead of home base by twenty or so nm. No takers, eventually turned the ship back over to it's crew once we reached Kenya. We actually carried around dead pirate for over a month because we thought someone would want him. Bernie rated a Suez certificate before we sent him somewhere.
-
... (another part is to somehow get China to stop illegally fishing the Somali coast, ...
Just to prolong the aside for another moment: Chinese poaching is a worldwide problem. Chile's tiny Navy and Coast Guard expend a major portion of their time and effort chasing after Chinese ships fishing in Chilean territorial waters.
-
Just to prolong the aside for another moment: Chinese poaching is a worldwide problem. Chile's tiny Navy and Coast Guard expend a major portion of their time and effort chasing after Chinese ships fishing in Chilean territorial waters.
China is a worldwide problem.