US warships frightened by Iranian boats; War of Terror; US foreign policy, etc...

I would only point out that "his ilk" is a fairly large group.

(Also, while I wholly understand that typos happen, I wanted to note that it's 4,500 rounds per minute.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thanks Tiassa, you are correct. But the Bush II ilk is a small percentage of the population. Even his own party has abandoned him. We are going through an election cycle now and the candidates from his own party are running on a change platform.

I think history will not treat Bush II well and deservedly so. I never once voted for him. So I have no blood on my hands. For the first time in my life, I have been ashamed to be an American under the Bush II regime. He and his friends used some pretty disgusting lies and abuses of power to get into office. History may even reveal there was some election fraud thrown in the mix by his powerful friends to help him obtain office. No I don’t think history will be kind to Bush II. He is now desperately trying to get an Israel-Palestinian peace agreement….as something good to show for his time in office.

But to the point, his time is limited. Americans now realize they were lied to and deceived by Bush II. The credibility of Bush II is practically null here and everywhere else. Under those conditions and with the opposition party controlling congress, it will be difficult for him to step out of line now.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So let me get this right. The US BATTLESHIPS can go through the Strait of Hormuz because they are international waters as defined by the US.

But an Iranian CIVILIAN aircraft cannot fly over them because they are not permitted to.

Is that right?

And btw, if you invade a foreign country, is it surprising that they are wearing their traditional clothes and if you bomb cities with high density populations how is that considered "hiding"? That is THEIR country, they can damn well live and dress as they like. Capische?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No one wanted war in 2001, either - until 9/11, and the propaganda machine got rolling. Most Americans can't find Iraq on an unmarked map, and more than half think Saddam was some kind of violent threat to the US in '03, to this day. They view the situation next to Iran - right on Iran's borders, where the US military has set up full scale carrier groups and built air bases - as one of discussions about how far Iran will go, how big a threat the belligerence and bluster of the Iranians really is. That media setup is not going anywhere.

Most people were tired of the lies and incompetence in 2004. That didn't keep them from swallowing the Swiftboating, or getting all excited about how insane Iran's president was supposed to be. Now, as of Friday, half the work force at my local machine shop is arguing about whether Obama is a secret Muslim.

The power setup behind the media setup is not going anywhere.

To expect that the US will shed the fundamental problems that got us into Iraq by shedding W's coterie is blindness.

More than warned, one would say. Directly and repeatedly threatened. That's how we know they are the enemy.

Is everyone who fights from their homes against an invading army, then, a coward ?

Compared with, say, people who drop bombs on those homes from the safety of airplanes high above ?

And when did the cowardice of this or that people become a justification for invasion and war, for killing them and their families ?

 

They need to file and follow flight plans. But it would seem good sense to me, that if I knew hostile actions were taking place in area, to avoid going anywhere near that area. And If I did have to cross that area to get clearances from all combatants. But in my humble opinion, the best sense is to stay the heck away from people firing upon each other or areas with the prospect of people firing upon each other....just my humble opinon.

 

Cowardice is not a justification for war. Until your comment, I have never heard it used as such by anyone. But putting innocent civilians in the line of fire and screaming bloody murder when they become casualties is the worse kind of cowardice. You ask if my country were invaded, would I fire on the enemy from my house. NO, especially if my family were in it. That is STUPID in my opinion for a multitude of reasons.

I am not here to defend Bush II, I think he and is ilk are criminal scumbags! For the record, I was not for the first Iraq war under Bush I. As I am going to pay premium dollar for fuel and oil no matter who controls the regions oil assets, am I am, we all are.

A lot of my countrymen have swallowed the Bush II lies for too long. But they are waking up. They did sawllow the Swith Boat lies and Bush and his buds have done a good job of keeping the American people in fear. But as I have said, their days are numbered and if there is a God, they will pay in hell for what they have done.

Debating if OBAMA is secret Muslim is another tatic of the George Bush types. And I expect to see a lot of garbage thrown at Obama over the course ahead, because he is a serious threat to the special interests that back Bush. But frankly, who cares if he is a muslim...not me. I think most people in the United States want change, including those in Bush II's party.

Bombing and attacking the ememy where he resides is common military practice. It has been so since the dawn of warfare. If the enemy, as I said, hides behind children and burkaks then he is responsible for what happens to them. It just so happens that the United States goes to great lengths to avoid hitting civilians...heard of smart bombs? And our efforts to minimize unnecessary deaths continue. We are spending a lot of money on weapons that do not kill so when we deal with cowards we only nail the cowards.

 

joepistole: "No one hear wants war...except Bush II and his ilk."

We have a prevalent attitude in the USA that consistently threatens war, by demanding exceptional hegemony over foreign lands and waters, in a manner that we would find entirely unacceptable in the USA, if the tables were turned. This hostile national stance is the most blatant invitation to provocation and war in the world today. Projecting deadly force beyond home defense is nothing less than an invitation to war, and a display of a tacit desire for war. It's the same if an individual walks into a normal gathering of people waving weapons in the faces of everyone encountered- it's just not reasonable to behave that way while insisting one isn't looking for a fight. Even considering a self-appointed role of World Policeman, we can all understand why policemen patrolling with weapons drawn and fingers on the trigger, warning of deadly force if approached, would be a counterproductive practise.

"When our troops are endangered, they need to respond with whatever force is necessary to save their lives."

Because a shootout with Iran would be deadly for US personnel throughout the region, it is not strategically prudent for the US Navy to escalate any isolated encounter in the Persian Gulf. Additionally, we remain equally subject as all nations do to the protocols of peacetime maritime and aviation law.

"In this case the enemy has been warned on several occasions. We have here an enemy who hides behind children and burkaks to kill and murder not only Americans but children and women of their own people. I call them cowards, any one or group that uses innocents as a shield is indeed a coward."

You are obviously conflating Iranian patrol vessels with unspecified terrorists, and that's a very dangerous and unreasonable assumption.

"They need to file and follow flight plans... you know as well as I that [IA 655] was where it did not belong."

You're repeating a long-exposed lie, and your readiness to do so is exemplary of belligerent US propaganda. Iran Air 655 followed her scheduled flight plan, and communicated with ATC on normal channels in plain English- right up until the moment they were blown out of the sky. That tragedy underlined in blood the imperative for naval vessels to comport themselves in accordance with international law in commercial lanes and under peacetime conditions- even as the standing-down of full defense may compromises a ship's security against real and present dangers.

In confined foreign waters, our formations are indeed more vulnerable to attack than they would be under hair-trigger wartime conditions. The law applies equally for any foreign vessels transiting American waters: Ready combat battle-group defenses are unacceptably hazardous to vessels sharing the sea and airspace, and it is improper to maintain a combat stance amidst normal commercial and patrol operations.

We have similarly compromised our own interests with inappropriate force-protection and Rules of Engagement in the streets of Iraq. The incongruity continues to result in unjustifiable casualties to Iraqi bystanders, and the accumulation of intense public antipathy to our military presence; false security. If US forces persist in endangering others by interjecting combat defenses amidst peacetime activities, we will continue to destroy the legitimacy of our unraveling mandate, and invite further resentment and retaliation. Similarly in the Strait of Hormuz, we're not in our own alleyway, and inappropriately hair-trigger defenses are false security.

In such delicate situations as this, potential adversaries must basically be allowed a greater opportunity to take the first shot than they would be in a war zone. The alternative to a restrained posture is a state of war with everyone encountered, which would directly result in multiplied danger to personnel in all our ships and garrisons. Hair-trigger defenses in this context multiply the likelihood of incidents getting out of control. The United States cannot long swagger around the planet in a deadly, unnapproachable posture before we forfeit our friends, our influence, and our security.

 

No they are international waters because those waters, have been designated so by International Treaties.

No they have the same right to passage as any other aircraft, as long as they operate with in the International treaties.

Yes they can wear anything they want as long as they are not acting as a military force engaged in combat, read the Geneva Convention, that to is a International Treaty.

To receive protection as a POW must do these things.

Third Geneva Convention

Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include:
4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
4.1.3 Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4.1.4 Civilians who have non-combat support roles with the military and who carry a valid identity card issued by the military they support.
4.1.5 Merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favorable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
4.3 makes explicit that Article 33 takes precedence for the treatment of medical personnel of the enemy and chaplains of the enemy.

 

First off, I don't care about the delicate situation...come near my boat in a hostile maner and you will be history before you can bat your eyelids. This is not as complicated as you make it. I am not afraid of Iran. It Iran wants war, I am prepared to give it to them in no small measure. All they need do is attack the United States. I am not confusing Iran with terrorists. You the one talking terroists not me. But frankly I don't care who they are teorrists or Iranians, threaten my boat and you are toast! But I would hope that they would choose the path of peace. The Iranian leadership is not stupid, wish I could say the same about Bush. The Iranian leadership understands that it is not prudent on their part to attack the United States. Judging from Iran's actions, I don't think they have very good comand and control over their forces. I would bet the yahoos threatening the naval vessels were just out on their own.

Second, international waters are not foriegn waters and the ships are only in the national waters of those countires in the Gulf who have invited them to be there. Those countres also provide bases for the fleet. There is only one country in the region who does not want our vessels there (Iran). Let's be clear there are several counties in the region and only one has a problem with us being there. And that one has been known to invade the waters of its neigihbors, take oil that was not theirs and dump mines in international waters. I can understand why the bully in the region does not want the cops nearby.

Third, you have to deal with the enemy on his grounds. When you have an enemy without honor, you cannot give him the benefit of the doubt...wittness USS Cole. Two natives approached in a friendly manner waving and smiling and they blew a hole in the ship. I am sure they wanted to sink the boat. But it takes more than that to sink a Naval vessel. Try that stunt again and they will be entertaining virgins in heaven.

As for the Iranian airplane that was shot down, apparently every thing I said went way over your head. This is not that complicated, dont fly in harms way...common sense. And when you are hailed on the appropriate frequencies, answer. You have a mindset that Americans are blood craving monsters. And no matter what I say or do or for that matter what any one says or does you will always believe that. Even if I had proven my point a thousand fold over, you would never believe. Your are like those in the Republian Party (current ruling party in the United States), you can prove your point a thousand times over and they would never get it, because they are emotionally attached to their belief system.

One final point, you fail to differentiate the people of the United States versus the Leadership of the United States. They are two very seperate entities. The people of the United States do not want to send their children to war. But when they are at war, they will support them with everything they have.

The current leadership of the country I do not defend.

 

joepistole: "First off, I don't care about the delicate situation..."

Then you'd fit right in with the Bush II Cabinet- They might offer you a Pentagon or diplomatic post. If you act now, there are new temporary positions available every day.

"come near my boat in a hostile maner and you will be history before you can bat your eyelids."

But these Iranian small boats didn't present a serious threat, and that's why they weren't lit up. The important aspect to understand in this story is the manufactured distortion of news that we- and that you - have been revealed to be under. You're not being riled by Iran, or by me. Someone else is trying to provoke your anger through the media, at any bullshit opportunity. We're being suckered in the USA.

"This is not as complicated as you make it."

Yes it is. We're being deliberately lied to. Things are not what they seem according to Washington and our major media.

"If Iran wants war, I am prepared to give it to them in no small measure. All they need do is attack the United States."

They haven't displayed any intention of doing so, while they enjoy ample opportunity. Our forces in Iraq and the Gulf are vulnerable to Iran. Iran is much more powerful than Iraq was when we invaded, and they have more genuine friends around them than we do. We have to be very careful about what Iraqis get inside our perimeters, and even some of the vetted ones are prone to fragging us.

"I am not confusing Iran with terrorists. You the one talking terroists not me."

Let's back up-joepostole: "In this case the enemy has been warned on several occasions. We have here an enemy who hides behind children and burkaks to kill and murder not only Americans but children and women of their own people. I call them cowards, any one or group that uses innocents as a shield is indeed a coward."

"But frankly I don't care who they are teorrists or Iranians, threaten my boat and you are toast!"

Start an unnecessary war, and you can get a lot of shipmates killed for nothing.

"The Iranian leadership understands that it is not prudent on their part to attack the United States."

There is a limit to how much a government can bend to foreign humiliation and still maintain political power. If forced to choose between domestic political defeat and a horrific war, Iranian leadership has already been through it before, and come out on top- They'll choose war if cornered, and they are armed and very dangerous to the 7th Fleet. Remember what others here have pointed out: Iran is defending their Homeland in this situation- not us. That means they have the moral advantage in any local pissing contest.

"Judging from Iran's actions, I don't think they have very good comand and control over their forces. I would bet the yahoos threatening the naval vessels were just out on their own."

Do you mean like the Skipper of the USS Vincennes? I'm not privy to the inner workings of Iran's navy, but I suspect that if the encounter was a joyride, it didn't receive a happy reception back in home port. If you want to learn something about Iranian military discipline, read up on the trench warfare of the Iran-Iraq war. As I already speculated earlier in the thread, the mission of those boats last week was more likely provoking a certain threshhold of response for Iranian sensors to monitor, to reassert the lawful right of Iran to challenge vessels without violence, and then to disengage.

"international waters are not foriegn waters and the ships are only in the national waters of those countires in the Gulf who have invited them to be there."

Iran made no invitation. The 7th Fleet's presence far predates any invitations by other Gulf states, which are more like young family dynasties than nations. The American presence predates most every modern institution in the Gulf, except oil companies. Even so, during the last tanker war in the GUlf, the US had to re-flag tankers under escort for legal jurisdiction under maritime law. We're not the popular or legal cops of the Persian Gulf- we're just acting like it until someone calls our bluff.

"Those countres also provide bases for the fleet. There is only one country in the region who does not want our vessels there (Iran)."

We are not talking about democracies. There is rioting in Bahrain, and US basing is a key to the unrest. US basing was so dangerously unpopular in Arabia that the Saudis evicted them. None of our Gulf ports are safe, and none of our Sailors are safe in them. The natives are restless. We have to be very careful now.

"Let's be clear there are several counties in the region and only one has a problem with us being there."

That just isn't true in the least.

"[Iran] has been known to invade the waters of its neigihbors, take oil that was not theirs and dump mines in international waters."

You should bear in mind that this occured while Iran was at war with our ally, Saddam Hussein's Iraq. You remember, the regime that was completely forgiven for the attack on the USS Stark that killed 37 of our fellow sailors. There was no retaliation whatsoever for that attack, because we do follow orders in the US Navy.

"I can understand why the bully in the region does not want the cops nearby."

There are no cops in the Persian Gulf today- only bullies.

"Wittness USS Cole."

You mean while she was berthed in one of those "friendly" ports?

"Two natives approached in a friendly manner waving and smiling and they blew a hole in the ship."

That's right. US warships are obviously vulnerable in these "friendly" ports. No more shore leave now. Somebody wasn't very choosy about port security when they pulled into Aden, were they. We had better security in Norfolk, and that town kinda likes the Navy. We're still grossly underestimating how much our naval presence has become despised, and underestimating the continuing growth of that resentment. We're not the Good Guys to the underprivileged majorities in the Gulf.

"I am sure they wanted to sink the boat. But it takes more than that to sink a Naval vessel."

Cole was very badly damaged, and would have settled deeper in a deeper port.

"Try that stunt again and they will be entertaining virgins in heaven."

It was a suicide attack, and you're just talking empty bravado. We US Sailors are human flesh and bone, and when we're set up as cannon fodder, we can suffer agonies and death just like any other unfortunate sailors do.

"As for the Iranian airplane that was shot down, apparently every thing I said went way over your head. This is not that complicated, dont fly in harms way...common sense. And when you are hailed on the appropriate frequencies, answer."

The Iran Air crew was still talking routinely with Departure, at a busy time for them in a short hop. They had been airborne for only 7 minutes, still getting thorugh their climbout checklists when two missiles tore them apart. Aboard the Vincennes it was a complete clusterfuck, and IFF and wrnings were completely bungled. Iran Air 655 was on schedule, on course, and communicating in English just as they did every other routine day. The Vincennes was far out of her assigned sector and violating Iranian waters. Captain Rogers started his own little war with innocent civilians his only victims.

"You have a mindset that Americans are blood craving monsters."

Our nationalistic pride, our fears, and our ignorance about how we are perceived abroad have lately overcome our reason. We are being gravely misled, and there will be grave consequences. We have become dangerous to others and ourselves, and most USAmericans still can't face that reality.

"Your are like those in the Republian Party (current ruling party in the United States), you can prove your point a thousand times over and they would never get it, because they are emotionally attached to their belief system."

Check out what I have offered here for yourself. It's the truth, and your antithesis is just denial.

"You fail to differentiate the people of the United States versus the Leadership of the United States."

We are responsible for our leadership. Our Founders charged us with the Constitutional responsibility to correct just such abuses of power. If we don't take down this corporatocracy that has run out of control, then the world is going to take us down with it, and we'll deserve it.

"They are two very seperate entities."

We like to proclaim in the USA that we are more democratic than Iran.

"The people of the United States do not want to send their children to war. But when they are at war, they will support them with everything they have."

That isn't true. World War II was the last US war that merited overwhelming popular support.

"The current leadership of the country I do not defend."

We have a lot in common, but you're still falling for the lies, even after they've been exposed.

 

Hype, you claim to be an American, which given your positions i find hard to believe. Your fanatism is clouding your judgement. I am not going to spend much more time on this topic because I have said and others have said all that needs to be said. There is no rational argument with fanatics...with people who ignore the truth to support a preordained conclusion.
The United States is not always right but it is not always wrong either. The citizens are correcting the mistakes of the past with our leadership. But it takes time. It does not happen over night. If you are an American you know we have the rule of law. So change takes time.
Your point about popular wars, yes wars are unpopluar with Americans...a far cry from the war mongering you think we engage in. But we do support our troops even if the wars are unpopular. I am a veteran of the Vietanam war, a very unpopular war. It was unpopular because our children were fighting and dying in far away place for a people that did not appear to appreciate our sacrafice. And the politicians had mismanaged the war, but the troops still had what they needed to conduct the war. And the war dead were honored.
I know of no other Americans with your fanatic anti-American attitude. I have served my country in war. I love my country, and I try to do my best to keep it on track.
Our troops, our sailors have the right to defend themselves against aggression and they should.
Also, I don't care what kind of government the Iranians have or want, it is there business. I don't care who is or is not more democratic.
Has the United States government misled its citizens? Indeed it has and it has lied to us. That is why Bush II has low credibility globally and domestically. The lies are well known now. They way to know truth is where it comes from. If if comes from low ranking military officials, it has credibility as it did with these Iranian boats. If it comes from Bush II alone, it must be checked and vaildated.

The USS Cole was in Yemen when it was attacked, not one of the countries I referenced earlier as inviting and providing harbors and bases for our ships. Yemen is not anywhere close to the Persian Gulf where the fleet is currently stationed. The Cole was in port in Yemen as part of a diplomatic mission with Yemen. And the ships rules of engagement forbade firing on vessels unless they were fired upon first.

If a country is humiliiated by the mere presence of another countries war ships then I think somebody has a serious inferority complex. We had soviet war ships off our coasts armed with nuclear weapons for decades...big deal.

As for your statement about the USS Cole being nearly sunk, take a look:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing

It does not look like she almost sunk to the bottom to me. And frankly, ships of the United States Navy are built to take a licking. A hole like that is not enough to sink the ship or any ship of the fleet because the are compartmentalized, meaning holes, big or small can be quickly isolated and sealed. It would take several explosions of similar size to take it to the bottom.

And I just don't get your arguement about Iran, no body but the Iranians are in Iranian waters. So who cares what they do in their own waters? I don't. I think the Iranians are distressed that nobody cares about them.

 

Are you even reading hypes posts?

 

Yes I have, and I think I have refuted everything quite well. And this is my last post on this thread. As I have said all that needs to be said. When logic is lost and arguements are emotional, there is no basis for further discusiion. So we are just going to have to agree to disagree.

 

So it would seem.

 

Truth may be between the two extremes but Buffalo is only a few hundred miles away and SAM is a few hundred light-years away.

 

* Die absolute Versklavung der Menschheit hat begonnen *

 

I try to remain hopeful, but look what we're up against: The sore-loser meme that is gripping the USA kills reason, and blocks the perception that our society is degenerating, and it won't confront the reality that we're progressively corrupting every aspect that made us a great and innovative nation.

joepistole and many other Americans cling to "We Support Our Troops" as a moral smoke-screen, pretending this differentiates us from any other people who loathe dishonor and harm on their children. This is the irrational voice of fear and anger, interjecting emotion into vital national discussions of our place in the world and our future. But the quality of patriotism that founded the United States and made it a beacon of hope and freedom is under domestic attack. The admonishments of our founders about the innate corruption of unchecked power are now commonly, reflexively rejected as subversion. Our society is developing an increasingly-evident antidemocratic and authoritarianistic metabolism. The "We Can't Be Wrong" psychosis is enslaving us, compelling us to destroy- as if this test of our integrity is only a game, and as if it is honorable for the United States to behave as a petulant child in a tantrum, who won't play by any rules, and who can't stand losing: "Waaaaaaaah!"

Send in the clowns.

 

Thats not scares me the most.

What scares me is the building up of arsenal, the military bases rising every day, the flooding of arms in conflict ridden areas, the secret prisons, the detention without trial, the unilateral, premptive invasions, the massive civilian casualties from (1) indiscriminate bombing responded to by "we don't do body counts" (2) indifference to civilian torture, rape and murder, and the complete, utter lack of accountability or self restraint. A police state

 

Such crimes are only enabled when in a nation's internal dialogue reason and self-examination are suspended, while cheap facsimiles of honor are slapped into place. "Support Our Troops" drowns out public examination of what we're involved in. We're not the first great nation to fall for this, and we sadly won't be the last. What scares me most as an American is that we could put off self-correction for so long that the accumulating weight of our crimes could drag us down. Great nations have always gone to excess, and at a certain degree of ruined reputation, options dwindle down to nothing more than the imperative to scrap the whole thing and begin anew- something our Founders also warned us about. But I still have enough pride and recognition in my country to appeal for us to turn it around. But as the stakes get higher, our opportunity to back down gracefully is approaching a bitter end.

 

Apart from that everythings fine.