Iranian Navy just fails in Darwin Award attempt

[K Frame]

So, a ship transiting in recognized INTERNATIONAL waters is automatically aggressive and is to be challenged?

That's...

well...

dumb.

"will they be afforded the same presumption of non-aggression?"

Yes, they will.

They'll be watched, but as long as they're in INTERNATIONAL waters (you do know what that term means, right? RIGHT? You say you do, but I think it's evident that you really dont...) they won't be accosted in the manner which the Iranian vessels challenged the US ships.

[Bogie]

If the Iranians _had_ closed with a ship, and detonated a bomb, apologists in this country would be claiming that our Navy did it to themselves.
 

[De Selby]

So, a ship transiting in recognized INTERNATIONAL waters is automatically aggressive and is to be challenged?

That's...

well...

dumb.

"will they be afforded the same presumption of non-aggression?"

Yes, they will.

They'll be watched, but as long as they're in INTERNATIONAL waters (you do know what that term means, right? RIGHT? You say you do, but I think it's evident that you really dont...) they won't be accosted in the manner which the Iranian vessels challenged the US ships.

You honestly believe that if the Iranian navy sailed a warship to the nearest possible point off the coast of the US, but still in international water, we wouldn't send out warships to challenge it???

Our government makes it clear that it believes Iran is a hostile state that makes acts of war against Americans.  Just like anyone who believed that Iranian ships should be presumed just playing around off the coast of the US would be nuts, the Iranians would be equally nuts to not recognize American ships off their own coast as a threat.

[The Rabbi]

I don't know where the Americans would ever get an idea like that.  Iran has been a peaceful ally and peaceful member of the family of man ever since the Shah was overthrown.

[Firethorn]

If Iranian ships sail into international waters off the coast of South Carolina, will they be afforded the same presumption of non-aggression?  And would American ships that menaced Iranian ships off the coast of South Carolina be guilty of aggression? 

They made threats.  After the Cole, do you expect US military ships not to take them seriously?

Even 100-200 yards can make quite a difference in whether a ship borne IED can penetrate a combat ship's armored hull.

I think that Iran's making power plays; they probably know the range at which we'll open fire and are playing a game of chicken.

You honestly believe that if the Iranian navy sailed a warship to the nearest possible point off the coast of the US, but still in international water, we wouldn't send out warships to challenge it???

Challange?  Yes.  Follow?  Certainly.  Threaten?  Nope.

What could they really do?  They send a destroyer equivalent, we send a cruiser to follow them around.

[Manedwolf]

Shootinstudent,

STRAITS OF HORMUZ.

You're not even listening. Or reading.

[K Frame]

"You honestly believe that if the Iranian navy sailed a warship to the nearest possible point off the coast of the US, but still in international water, we wouldn't send out warships to challenge it???"

Are you watching the news or the video released by the Navy, or are you just pulling "information" from the most anti-American websites you can find?

The US ships had already had several identification encounters with other Iranian coastal craft earlier that day, which took place at distance and also in international waters. This encounter was significantly different in the manner in which the Iranian ships acted.

They didn't challenge the US ships, they showed aggressive intent. There's a huge difference.

Heard clearly on radio transmissions from the Iranian craft: ""I'm coming at you and you will blow up in a couple of minutes."

Oh, I know, that just means that they were going to deliver a bunch of Iranian delicacies that would fill the bellies of American sailors with foodly goodness, right?

The Iranian craft also allegedly dropped numerous objects into the paths of the ships.

Don't know if you have any sense of what the Iranians have done in the past in the Straits of Hormuz, but they have had a nasty penchant for dropping floating mines and launching anti-ship missiles in the INTERNATIONAL shipping channels.

[Paddy]

They didn't challenge the US ships, they showed aggressive intent. There's a huge difference.

Then have Congress declare it an Act of War and nuke their country.  This continuing provocation by the U.S. is tiresome and expensive.

[De Selby]

Don't know if you have any sense of what the Iranians have done in the past in the Straits of Hormuz, but they have had a nasty penchant for dropping floating mines and launching anti-ship missiles in the INTERNATIONAL shipping channels.

All true.

As is the antagonism by Iran (and by the US towards Iran.)

As the Iranians are well aware.

Which is why it should not be shocking to you that they view American ships within a couple of miles of Iran as hostile, and act accordingly.

Just like we would act as if the Iranians were hostile should they try to park a dozen nautical miles off the coast of the US, or should they come to an arrangement with some other country that supposedly justified their doing so.

The point is that we know there are hostilities with Iran-so what are warships doing in Iran's back yard?  Certainly not defending America and avoiding war.  If the Iranians sent warships so close to America, even in international water, the act would rightly be decried as dangerous provocation because of the state of hostility between the two states.  The fact that the straits of hormuz are "international water" does not make the presence of US warships there any less provocative towards Iran, than Iranian ships next to American coastal waters would be to America.

[roo_ster]

SS:

Sorry, but your argument is ridiculous.

Iran wants the gulf to itself and has destroyed oil tankers, boarded oil platforms & killed the inhabitants, and mined the gulf to that end.

This is just the latest in their attempt to gain hegemony over the Gulf. 

Riley:

The USA, WRT the Straits of Hormuz, is enforcing the rights of all by keeping them open.

The USA doesn't even use that oil, it goes to E Asia.

[Paddy]

Well, I just saw the video, and it looks like the "attack from the Iranian navy" consisted of 5 little open speedboats buzzing around our ships.  It's a joke.  Why would anyone have their panties in a wad over this?

[Brad Johnson]

Well, I just saw the video, and it looks like the "attack from the Iranian navy" consisted of 5 little open speedboats buzzing around our ships.  It's a joke.  Why would anyone have their panties in a wad over this?

U.S.S. Cole vs. "little open speedboat"
October 12, 2000
17 dead, 39 injured.

Next question?

[mtnbkr]

Brad beat me to it.

Who would scream the loudest about Bush's latest "failure" if one of the Iranian boats pulled the exact same stunt this time?

Chris

[280plus]

They'd be banking on at least one of them getting through...

[Paddy]

I was thinking it was a military confrontation with the Iranian navy.  This looked more like some wannabe terrorists out for a joy ride.  I would have dropped the hammer on them, probably one at a time, especially if/when they got too close.

[CAnnoneer]

Riley, the bottom line is we need oil, and we will keep needing it for a long time, even if the feds get off their behinds and really fund a sensible comprehensive national energy policy. In the meantime, it is to our benefit to work towards continued supply and political stability. You have to explain to us why you think that policy is "stupid". What would you suggest as a replacement policy that is both practicable and more beneficial than the current one?

[K Frame]

Well, I just saw the video, and it looks like the "attack from the Iranian navy" consisted of 5 little open speedboats buzzing around our ships.  It's a joke.  Why would anyone have their panties in a wad over this?

A joke?

As mentioned, there's the joke that was played on the USS Cole. Then there's the little joke that was played on the USS Samuel B. Roberts in 1988 from a joy buzzer launched by a small craft...

Then there are the jokes that the Iranians are known to have mounted on small, fast speedboats... anti-tank and anti-ship missiles...

[Jamisjockey]

Well, I just saw the video, and it looks like the "attack from the Iranian navy" consisted of 5 little open speedboats buzzing around our ships.  It's a joke.  Why would anyone have their panties in a wad over this?

Are you really that daft?  It was a damn skiff loaded with explosives that nearly sank the USS cole.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Let's be fair.  If that wasn't an act of aggression by the Iranian speedboats, then it wouldn't have been an act of aggression if the US Navy had perforated them. 

[Paddy]

Riley, the bottom line is we need oil, and we will keep needing it for a long time, even if the feds get off their behinds and really fund a sensible comprehensive national energy policy. In the meantime, it is to our benefit to work towards continued supply and political stability. You have to explain to us why you think that policy is "stupid". What would you suggest as a replacement policy that is both practicable and more beneficial than the current one?

I thought I explained all that back in post #36.  Yes, we need oil, and the reason we need so much of it is because we have no national energy policy. The fact that we need so much of it from foreign sources places us in an increasingly weak position. Especially as those sources become more hostile to us, overtly (Venezuela, for example) or covertly (Saudi Arabia, for example). So we're forced to patrol the world, using our military to protect our international oil interests.  That, IMO, 1) is an extremely poor use our resources; 2) with ever diminishing results 3) risking inevitable military conflicts.

The goal should be 'energy independence'. We need some national plan to move toward that end.  It is a vital national security issue, every bit as important as 'the War on Terror'.  That goal should include development of alternative energy sources as well as ways to reduce energy consumption.  That this is not a national priority is stupid.
   

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Riley, the bottom line is we need oil, and we will keep needing it for a long time, even if the feds get off their behinds and really fund a sensible comprehensive national energy policy. In the meantime, it is to our benefit to work towards continued supply and political stability. You have to explain to us why you think that policy is "stupid". What would you suggest as a replacement policy that is both practicable and more beneficial than the current one?

I thought I explained all that back in post #36.  Yes, we need oil, and the reason we need so much of it is because we have no national energy policy. The fact that we need so much of it from foreign sources places us in an increasingly weak position. Especially as those sources become more hostile to us, overtly (Venezuela, for example) or covertly (Saudi Arabia, for example). So we're forced to patrol the world, using our military to protect our international oil interests.  That, IMO, 1) is an extremely poor use our resources; 2) with ever diminishing results 3) risking inevitable military conflicts.

The goal should be 'energy independence'. We need some national plan to move toward that end.  It is a vital national security issue, every bit as important as 'the War on Terror'.  That goal should include development of alternative energy sources as well as ways to reduce energy consumption.  That this is not a national priority is stupid.
   

I trust, therefore, that you support attempts by Big Oil to lobby the government for permission to drill oil in ANWR and sell it at it to oppressed middle class Americans at as high a price as those eeeevil capitalists can manage.  Right? 

Or do you only support the ability of America to produce our own energy if we do it without using our eeeeevil rich corporations?

[Paddy]

I trust, therefore, that you support attempts by Big Oil to lobby the government for permission to drill oil in ANWR and sell it at it to oppressed middle class Americans at as high a price as those eeeevil capitalists can manage.  Right?

You trust correctly.  The more domestic oil production the better IMO.  And the more supply, the lower the price.

[Manedwolf]

Never mind the fact that even if we did drill there, a drop of that entirely different sort of crude that requires completely different cracking than Mideast crude wouldn't get to market for about a decade...

Wave a magic wand!

Personally, I'm all for a crash program to build nuke plants NOW. Pebble-bed reactors, linked, but non-interdependent grids that CAN share load, but do not HAVE to.

[Paddy]

Personally, I'm all for a crash program to build nuke plants NOW. Pebble-bed reactors, linked, but non-interdependent grids that CAN share load, but do not HAVE to.

That's another thing we're not doing right.  First, we don't build enough nuke power plants.  Second, we build each one differently.  They should all be built the same, cookie cutter fashion, with proven designs and construction techniques.  That would not only lower costs, but NRC approval times and all that jazz.

[Jamisjockey]

Finally something we can agree on.
Demand isn't going to go down in this country.  Its what the consumer wants.  We could, however, not only find but refine more oil in our own country.  Shifting to alternate energy sources for the power grids, the key being nuclear energy.