U.S. says Iranian gunboats harassed warships

[grandpa]

U.S. says Iran gunboats harassed warships - Iran - MSNBC.com

WASHINGTON - Iranian Revolutionary Guard gunboats harassed three U.S. Navy warships in the Strait of Hormuz Sunday, in what U.S. military officials described as a "significant, provocative act." Iran, for its part, described the incident as a mistake "that takes place every now and then" and that it was resolved.

Hopefully it was resolved. What do you think?

Grandpa h.

[Dieval]

Quote by: grandpa U.S. says Iran gunboats harassed warships - Iran - MSNBC.com Hopefully it was resolved. What do you think? Grandpa h.

Fox had this little peice in their story, which I didn't see on MSNBC...

The small Iranian boats also threw boxes into the water ahead of the U.S. boats before speeding off. It could not immediately be determined what was in the boxes. FOXNews.com - U.S. Warns Iran Against 'Provocative Actions' Following Incident in Strait of Hormuz

I think they were testing our defenses and to see what they can get away with...maybe see how hard it would be to get explosives right infront of our ships..

[simple simon]

Iran said it was a mistake ??????

can we use that excuse when we nuke them and they no longer exist ?

[lsbskins1]

This sounds a little familar to me. Umm...maybe this is the nerve it is hitting: 30-year Anniversary: Tonkin Gulf Lie Launched Vietnam War

Guess they figure it is better to try a tested, successful lie than come up with a new one that is not proven to work.

[thx1138]

Quote by: lsbskins1 This sounds a little familar to me. Umm...maybe this is the nerve it is hitting: 30-year Anniversary: Tonkin Gulf Lie Launched Vietnam War Guess they figure it is better to try a tested, successful lie than come up with a new one that is not proven to work.

I'm glad someone else can see this also, the Tonkin Gulf Lie Launched Vietnam War and the the Strait of Hormuz lie could be the beginning of the next phase in the war on terror.

If the U.S. goes to war with Iran, how do you think that would change the voting?

[Dieval]

I guess it all depends on who's version of history you want to beleive about the Tonkin Gulf Crisis...
USN Ships--USS Maddox (DD-731) -- Actions in the Gulf of Tonkin, August 1964


As for this incidnet....Iran just probed the defenses of our ships and we flinched....

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: simple simon can we use that excuse when we nuke them and they no longer exist?

Yeah, I can see that... dropping some boxes into the water in front of a warship... nuking Iran off the face of the earth...

Sounds like a proportionate response to me, simon.

.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Sonart . Yeah, I can see that... dropping some boxes into the water in front of a warship... nuking Iran off the face of the earth... Sounds like a proportionate response to me, simon. .

US almost opened fire on Iranian boats, Pentagon says - Independent Online Edition > Middle East
"The US and Iran have engaged in their most serious military confrontation in recent times, with American warships on the verge of opening fire on gunboats of the Revolutionary Guards which had threatened to blow them up.

The incident, details of which were confirmed by the Pentagon yesterday, came on the eve of President George Bush's visit to the Middle East and follows claims by US commanders in the Persian Gulf that Iran was trying to destablise the region."
-------------------------------------

[thx1138]

"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

Here is a nice one if you want to walk down memory lane... USS Liberty (AGTR-5) -- Attack by Israeli forces, 8 June 1967
USN Ships--USS Liberty -- Attack by Israeli forces, 8 June 1967 (Part II)

The BBC made a documentary on this event...
USS Liberty: Dead in the Water (2002)

[simple simon]

Quote by: Sonart . Yeah, I can see that... dropping some boxes into the water in front of a warship... nuking Iran off the face of the earth... Sounds like a proportionate response to me, simon. .

well sure it is .... the Middle East has been warring for thousands of years ..... it's time to nuke the entire area, give it 100 years or so to cool off, then start all over again

[Rainbow]

Iranian Revolutionary Guard gunboats harassed three U.S. Navy warships in the Strait of Hormuz Sunday, in what U.S. military officials described as a "significant, provocative act." Iran, for its part, described the incident as a mistake "that takes place every now and then" and that it was resolved.

The Iranian governing body takes and/or recognizes the Strait of Hormuz as a part of Iranian territory.
Since Saddam (Hussain) went for "lifetime-vacation", Iranian governing body seems not to find any opposition to that disputed zone, and granted the Strait of Hormuz to itself, by default.
This is one of the examples for Iran's real intentions within the Middle-East region.

It was not any accident, as it seems to be reported by mass-media coverage. The Iranian naval units tried to extract some data from U.S. naval operational units - in that region, and with no satisfied response - despite of "heroic efforts" - conducted by "mighty-revolutionary-cutting-edge" naval boats, they seemed to manifest their displeasure in front of U.S. naval units within appx 200 yards.
Camel and 5 turbans for those guys.
Can we split some, please ?
Jason would arrange it as "Volcanvo"s cordial and sincere donation, I bet :-)))

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: grandpa US almost opened fire on Iranian boats, Pentagon says - Independent Online Edition > Middle East "The US and Iran have engaged in their most serious military confrontation in recent times, with American warships on the verge of opening fire on gunboats of the Revolutionary Guards which had threatened to blow them up. The incident, details of which were confirmed by the Pentagon yesterday, came on the eve of President George Bush's visit to the Middle East and follows claims by US commanders in the Persian Gulf that Iran was trying to destablise the region." -------------------------------------

After the Cole bombing I don't see any problem with firing on hostile vessels openly making threats. Come within so much distance, begin firing warning shots. Come any closer and we fire upon you.

I don't think we need to go to war with Iran over these really unimportant occurrences but we shouldn't be afraid to let our navy defend itself.

[Fulcanelli]

This is just a perfect example of why we should just leave the Middle East alone. If we don't, then we might have a couple thermonuclear ballistic missles coming onto us. The reason we have some many terrorist attacks everywhere is because the fact that we get into other people's buisness. How about we just leave everyone else alone? One of my favorite ideas about America is that we should just swallow our pride, pack up, and move out of Iraq, Iran, all these stupid hostile countries. Let's not have more arguments about if we can have more military and aid rescue operations, let's pull out and raise moral while we still can.
Don't stick your hand into a fire ant hill with a treaty.

[Dieval]

Quote by: Fulcanelli This is just a perfect example of why we should just leave the Middle East alone. If we don't, then we might have a couple thermonuclear ballistic missles coming onto us. The reason we have some many terrorist attacks everywhere is because the fact that we get into other people's buisness. How about we just leave everyone else alone? One of my favorite ideas about America is that we should just swallow our pride, pack up, and move out of Iraq, Iran, all these stupid hostile countries. Let's not have more arguments about if we can have more military and aid rescue operations, let's pull out and raise moral while we still can. Don't stick your hand into a fire ant hill with a treaty.

Ahhh...the old blame the US first routine.... I've heard this before...We pull our troops and citizens out of every country, skulk back to our own, and everyone will just leave us alone making the world better, safer, and happy place, right?

Sorry, but that's just not the way the world works.

[Fulcanelli]

Well of course that is another view of it. But have you thought about the view of what it is too them? Maybe everyone would like American's more if we just swallowed our pride. Allowed other views than our own. Even accepted the fact that some countries are just a little bit better than us. But you put up a good point my friend, and I could just as easily flame you, hate you, your view, and your country. But I actually accept your view.

[thx1138]

Quote by: Dieval Ahhh...the old blame the US first routine.... I've heard this before...We pull our troops and citizens out of every country, skulk back to our own, and everyone will just leave us alone making the world better, safer, and happy place, right? Sorry, but that's just not the way the world works.

So, Imperialism is good and the right way to go about foreign policy?

We pull our troops and citizens out of every country
Why would citizens have to leave? you're a bit too extreme... citizens and companies should be allowed to do business, live and trade with all countries. But the putting troops in foreign countries and building bases is Imperialism (business at gun-point).

How would you feel if foreign troops came to your country built bases?

Why are these pro Imperialism types so think? Keeping troops out of foreign countries doesn't mean Isolationism. 2 + 2 is not 5!!

Isolationism is a foreign policy which combines a non-interventionist military policy and a political policy of economic nationalism (protectionism). In other words, it asserts both of the following: Non-interventionism - Political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense. Protectionism - There should be legal barriers to control trade and cultural exchange with people in other states. Isolationism is not to be confused with the non-interventionist philosophy and foreign policy of the libertarian world view, which espouses unrestricted free trade and freedom of travel for individuals to all countries. This "libertarian isolationist" view is best defined as a policy of nonparticipation in foreign political relations, but free trade and affability to all.

[Dieval]

Quote by: Fulcanelli Well of course that is another view of it. But have you thought about the view of what it is too them?

Since Iraq was the only country you mentioned by name where we have military forces(not sure about your comments about Iran and the other "stupid hostile countries") Have you thought about what it's like to live under the rule of a brutal dictator? Have you thought about why we are there in the first place? And don't claim the old "lies" propaganda put out by the anti-war/anti-Bush crowd..

Quote by: Fulcanelli Maybe everyone would like American's more if we just swallowed our pride.

Why? A projection of weakness accomplishes what? Not that I believe we were wrong in the actions we've taken so far. But what do you think swallowing our pride will accomplish?

Quote by: Fulcanelli Allowed other views than our own.

Since we have given the people of Iraq the ability to form a government that's fair to everyone(hopefully), they're written their own constitution and are in the process of training and transferring their own security forces to take charge of their own country...how are we not allowing "other views", other than Saddam's views.

Quote by: Fulcanelli Even accepted the fact that some countries are just a little bit better than us.

Um, yeah, ok...opinions vary. I happen to hold the oppinion that the US is the greatest country in the world, but you're entitled to view other countries as being "better than us".

Quote by: Fulcanelli But you put up a good point my friend, and I could just as easily flame you, hate you, your view, and your country. But I actually accept your view.

My point wasn't to "flame you" but rather point out that it is a naive opinion to suggest that we pull everyone back the US to solve the worlds problems.

But I digress...back on the topic at hand...Iranian gunboats..

[Dieval]

Quote by: thx1138 So, Imperialism is good and the right way to go about foreign policy?

If "Imperialism" was the goal of our foreign policy, you might have a point. But it isn't, so you don't.

Quote by: thx1138 How would you feel if foreign troops came to your country built bases?

If I lived in Iraq, under Saddam, I'd welcome foreign troops coming in to remove him.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Dieval If "Imperialism" was the goal of our foreign policy, you might have a point. But it isn't, so you don't.

Do you have any proof otherwise? Historically, the US has been very imperialistic. Military force might have wiped out most of the "Native American" population, had disease not worked so well. The US had its clutches in Mexico and Central America (still does, in fact). The modern Middle East was significantly a European invention (in fact, the very term "Middle East" itself was).

Anyway, back to the main issue:
US Navy threat may not have been Iranian | Herald Sun

THE US navy says there is "no way to know" if a threat radioed to US warships in the Strait of Hormuz came from Iranian speedboats, casting doubt on the earlier US version of Sunday's confrontation. "There is no way to know where this (radioed threat) exactly came from. It could have come from the shore... or another vessel in the area,'' Lieutenant John Gay of the US Navy Fifth Fleet in Bahrain said.

Meanwhile:
Iran airs its own video of Gulf incident - USATODAY.com

CAIRO (AP) — Iran aired video Thursday of its boats and U.S. naval ships in the Persian Gulf in an apparent attempt to show that there was no confrontation between the vessels. The grainy 5-minute, 20-second video showed a man speaking into a handheld radio, with three U.S. ships floating in the distance. It appeared to be shot from a small boat bobbing at least 100 yards from the American warships. The footage did not show any Iranian boats approaching the U.S. vessels or any provocation. But the short clip likely did not show Sunday's entire encounter, which U.S. Navy officials described as threatening, and said lasted about 20 minutes.

Grandpa h.

[Charlatan]

Well I think Iran was just getting morale for their side, as they didn't do anything really strong, just wanted to show their people that they are not 'shy' of the powers that be. If they wanted to start something strongly they would have made 'audio contact' and tried a little more action. That they didn't do that means that they are wanting America to be in the wrong by 'getting angry' first, so it could be a little trick to make America engage in more talks - with hostility - and they could be peaceful in return, being seen as the rational party. Or they are trying to make America see that they cannot take on the middle east region at once, and that is what they are threateningly saying, by America seeing them as the voice of the region, where Bush is currently, but as far as a warning goes, it was mild. Maybe they are saying there is a surprise in the box, do the Americans want to find out what it is? Then they should 'probe' further to open the box, which is not the desire of America I am sure.