Iran - what is the truth

While beside the point the "bring it on" statement was his crowning glory IMHO,funny how everyone who likes war hasnt been there.

 

I watched Pres Bush talking to the Israeli Prime Minister on TV today, but didn't get the part about his threat to Iran.There was a clip showing the US Navy.

Has there been an incident between the US and Iran recently?

 

Was it faked? Or are they just idiots?
Video here:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/01/09/us.iran/index.html#cnnSTCVideo

 

Well, if it was faked, then I'm sure they won't mind being blown out of the water, since they supposedly aren't there.

 

roflmao

 

It was a small boat that blew a 35 by 36 foot hole into the USS Cole and killed 17 sailors, wounding 39 more. As an ex-sailor, I say use the BIG GUNS!

 

I can guarantee that a small boat comes within threatening distance of another US Navy ship, it will disappear. I would bet that there is already a distance set and "shoot, if fired upon" orders given. Naval officers have a duty to their country, yes, but above all comes protection of their ships. A naval captain is given the authority to perform actions, including firing upon a threat, if their ship is in imminent danger. And being in hostile waters such as those, they are prepared to do that in seconds. General Quarters was probably sounded when those boats came within a mile of those ships.

 

Here is a bit more info. If this incident was faked why would Iran report this?

Every U.S. Navy ship flies our colors at sea and those flags are very large. It was reported that the boats came within 500 yards of the ships. I think the Navy showed remarkable restraint. The 4:34 minute video here shows how close one boat came. It looks too close considering the speed those boats can go. Also, if they had been carrying some kind of shoulder launched missile weapon, they would have been destructively close.

 

I think he has been pretty out-spoken and probably shouldn't have been, but the issue is their Nuclear Program and what exactly their intentions are. Do we really need a country who supports terrorism and hates every non-Islamic country (including the United Kingdom) having the potential to create nuclear weapons?

Right-wing or not, every American, British, or other nation's ships have the right to travel in International Waters, unharrassed. There was never a mention of an infringement into Iranian territory.

This is in the article on the page I linked to. here

 

There has been political confrontations and sanctions placed against N. Korea. Here is a country that is spewing the old anti-democracy, communist drivel and at the same time pushing hard to develop an accurate long-range missile, along with their nuclear intentions. It remains to be seen if there will be an armed conflict with them.

The Pakistanis and Indians may use their nuclear weapons on each other, but neither support global terrorism. Both were scolded during their nuclear development. Neither country is oil-rich as is Iran and nuclear power was a way to bring their countries more into the modern world. Same with N. Korea in that sense.

Israel is sometimes over-zealous in their efforts to keep their people safe. The Palestinians have opposed and fought against the Israeli's ever since the British helped them to that land. (Hmm, who actually started this problem?) If Palestine wants a better life for it's people, wouldn't it make more sense to live peacefully alongside the nation of Israel? Do you suppose if the Palestinians stopped bombing and attacking Israel, that Israel would continue defending itself with retaliations and pre-emptive strikes?

Iran supports terrorism. Iran is oil- and natural gas-rich and capable of producing cheap power for their people, without using expensive nuclear power. Only the naive would think they are doing that solely to generate power.

 

This is the truest statement I have heard to date. The only people who have been there who do like war are those who don't actually have to get into the fighting (read here - the Senior Officers and above them - the politicians) Other than that, is the state of the world any better for war? I think not. Only thing - it is the human condition to war. Anyone who thinks it isn't should look around their own neighborhood. There is always one neighbor who needs to be in chaos. Now expand that neighborhood to the whole of a small city, or to a borough of a larger city - same thing only in groups. Now larger cities and countries - same thing only now it is gangs and then armies. Until there is one single unified Global government, this is the way it will be (and that ain't happnin' in my lifetime and probably not in my childrens or grandchildrens lifetimes) And any excuse for a war is enough for those who wish one. Religion, Politics, Finances, Drugs, Diamonds - anything.:major As far as what the truth of Iran is - it doesn't matter. To those who make policy, it is the perception of the truth of Iran that counts to them. The foregoing is only my opinion which don't mean sh*t.

 

Terrorism doesn't care whether people like war or not.

 

You are just as much an armchair general as everyone else. The only facts that exist are:

1. The media twist the truth to serve their own purpose. So does every government.
2. History is written by the winners.


To think that your "facts" are any closer to the truth than anyone else...heh.

Anything anyone posts here is speculation and what they have read in the media.

 

I guess I misunderstood all the things you "think" should be done mentioned this thread. Hence the armchair general comment.

You are correct. As do I. So, as long as you continue the hostile attitude towards the US, when you clearly don't know the real score (as I doubt anyone here does), I will react accordingly.

 

The voice did not sound American to me, so I highly doubt that it came from one of our ships. Was there an Iranian one nearby? Possibly. If it came from an on-shore transmitter, whose shore were those ships off of? Iran, of course. Doesn't explain anything. And it's very odd that it was transmitted at that moment.

And I'm sorry if you think I air brushed the situation in Israel. If the Palestinians want peace with Israel, they need to give up their hatred for them. The WWII Jews needed a homeland, the British gave it to them. It is not Israel that Palestine should be angry at.

 

http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/forum/offtopic.gif This debate was fun while debating IRAN, which is what this thread is about. Not Palestine or Israel. We are getting way off topic. If you want a debate about something else start a new thread, please.

 

Thats enough. Keep it on topic, or the thread will be nuked.

Probably against my better judgement, I am reopening it.

 

You know this is what I thought when the war first started, could not believe the people would allow a war after Nam.
On further thoughts I came to conclusion there is a whole generation who knows nothing about that war. People in their 30's even 40's were children at the time. After banging my head against the wall equated it to my family, then duh!

 

Thanks Musksnipe for the link to the video

And thank you everyone else for their opinions on Iran and the threat they pose.

I really must watch the news on TV more and stay out of the Arcade

 

I don't know why you think I got snippy. I have responded nicely and with facts, be it that they may very well be "propagandized". (Who actually knows what is true in news accounts) The only reason I said WE were getting off-topic is because WE were. This thread was already hijacked once and I didn't want to see it happen again.

I am very concerned with what is going on in Iraq and Iran. To me, it is another Viet Nam (which I am a veteran of) There were many political ploys used there, causing some of my friends to be killed. Politicians fought that war and we lost. (Us servicemen got caught in the crossfire)
Propaganda is used by every government in the world. The idea here (at least my idea of what is going on) in this thread is to get as many varied and different opinions and news reports as possible and sort the facts from the propaganda.
Politician's are the one's fighting the war in Iraq right now and more soldiers are dying. I hate to see that happening. But, I would also hate to see a nation dedicated to terrorism and hate for the U.S. and any non-Islamic country, come into possession of nuclear weapons.

 

I wonder where the Iranians are going with this? Is it a cunning ploy to get the US to attack their boats in order to justify their pursuance of Nuclear weapons? It seems to me that not even Iran could be so stupid but looking at the Middle East in general I have to say they could be. The sooner we find an alternative to oil the sooner we can leave them to their own devices.
Can't come soon enough for me, all my life has been spent fearing a holocaust in the Middle East, to hell with the lot of them.

 

Hopefully not in mine either
It would be just as likely for it to be yet another empire as it would for it to be a truly 'democratic' system

 

I hope it wasn't me posting the article on the Iran Contra hearings. I try to keep personal opinion out and post published information.
That information being Iran got their weapons from us although we were at odds with them even back in 1987.
Just goes to show our leaders make one blunders decision after another, it never stops.

 

No, Darlene. Wasn't you, your post added more insight to the whole stupid mess going on over there. Now it is time for me to close my BIG mouth.

 

The provocative actions of the Iranian patrol boats as they approached U.S warships serve several useful functions.

1. They discover the readiness and the resolve of the U.S. ship's command. The "zone of death" is resolved by the U.S. threats and U.S. military radio frequencies and message traffic in a crisis become known to Iran.

2. The lttle boats versus the huge American Warships, provides enormous propaganda benefits for the Iranian regime. As in: "The Big American Warship is afraid of our tiny little patrol boats! What kind of men are these? I'll tell you my friends - they are not men - they are women!!!". It makes it easier to recruit conscripts to fight the American women than it is to recruit them to fight "shock and awe" and the American bomber's "rain of sudden death".

3. It highlights the rules of International Shipping and one tenet of "The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea". Apparently, the US Senate has not yet ratified this treaty, as it flies counter to US interests in "certain parts of the world". If you remember, in 2002 a couple of Spanish warships at the request of the US, interdicted a North Korean cargo ship in international waters in the Gulf of Aden. The Spanish vessels were soon joined by an American Warship and cosequently the cargo ship was searched. SCUD missle parts were found and then the cargo ship was "escorted" toward a British owned island in the Indian Ocean. When the Americans were asked "What gives you the right to hijack ships on the high seas?". The response was that 1. The ship flew no flag. 2. The ship's registration name and markings were painted over. 3. The occupants of the vessel refused to identify themselves. The Iranians were just taking a jab at the American Warship when they asked them to identify themselves. The implication being, that if the Americans didn't identify themselves, then the Iranians, invoking "American rules of the sea" could board and hijack the American warship in international waters.

 

@ prometheos
Very good points, although the last seems a little off (from the Iranian side). All American warships fly the flag at sea and it is easily visible, especially from astern. The Iranians knew who they were confronting and were just playing dumb.

 

Of course the Iranians knew who the ship belonged to. I was merely suggesting that it was a "jab" at the "American way" of using any excuse to do whatever they want. Under the "International Law" that the Americans use, Pirate Ships may be siezed for inspection. One of the criteria in the identification of a Pirate Ship, is it's refusal to identify itself when signaled. The Americans were forced to identify themselves when the Iranians signaled that intent. If they had refused, they might be mistaken for a Pirate Ship and forceably siezed. LOL. Most of the Maritime Laws were co-authored by British and American business interests in the 18th and 19th centuries. The Mediterranean Sea was rampant with Pirates until British US, Italian, and Austrian ( when Austria was an Empire) ships systematically hunted them down. To justify seizing a ship in International Waters, a signaling system was devised that all legitimate shipping firms adhered to. Apparently, only the Pirate ships did not and were therefore siezed. Checking the history books would also indicate that most of these Pirates were also Muslim - but I'm sure the Iranians wouldn't know anything about that.

 

That's exactly what I meant when I said the Iranians were playing dumb. I'm just not as eloquent as you are.
Great info!