[QUOTE=Squink]
I see someone’s released a 4:20 video of the incident now. Given that it was shot from the bridge of the USS Hopper, and considering how many videos the navy has released of its ships on manuevers over this past year, I’m certain that there were no shennanagins involved in getting it out in time for the president’s big legacy push. 
[/QUOTE]
4:20 video? See, I told you they were dumping their stash. Or maybe it was just, you know, 4:20 and time to do a bowl.
I wonder if this thing was designed to embarrass Ahmedinejad? Provoke an incident? There may be more than meets the eye!
OK, it is the Pit. I feel better now that I’ve been insulted. Keep it up, big man!
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
It is another in a long line of provocative actions by a regime irrationally hostile to us.
[/QUOTE]
Irrational?, as in the US never doing things that the Iranians may find hostile and provocative?
I think you are forgetting some big chunks of history here.
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
Also, I remind you that the Iranians detained British sailors not even a year ago, which underscores the danger here, doesn’t it?
[/QUOTE]
Shortly after we (Americans) detained several Iranian diplomats in Iraq.
Which we did because we figured they were helping the insurgents trying to blow up our guys. Which they probably did because they figured we were gearing up to invade them next. Which the administration hasn’t exactly taken off the table. Which may be because of incidents like this. Which takes us back to the top of the thread, with the Stark and Cole, and the airliner. Which was partially around the time of the quasi “war” with Iran in the eighties, which was also around the time we were funding Saddam Hussein lob chemical warheads at them. Which was partially because of the threatening Islamic revolutionary zeal they were all excited about. Which was partially enflamed cuz of us, tho we weren’t too happy about them detaining our embassy staff. Which happened partially because we kind of overthrew their government a little earlier. Which happened not too long after our friends the British invaded them in the forties, which was because…
This stuff goes on and on. Everybody’s a bit miffed at each other and has something to cite for it. On another note, anyone ever read The Butter Battle Book?
[QUOTE=wolf_meister]
Tapioca Dextrin
I’m glad you brought up the incident aboard the USS Vincennes and how the sailors fired upon a civilian passenger jet. Perhaps the Captain and crew of the Vincennes might have been a little “trigger-happy” considering what happened a little over a year before that incident. Read about the USS Stark May 17, 1987:
Thirty-seven sailors killed.
Maybe sometimes it’s good to err on the side of caution?
[/QUOTE]
Are you trying to equate an attack (even unprovoked) against a warship with an attack on an obviously unarmed civilian passenger jet?
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
Are you trying to equate an attack (even unprovoked) against a warship with an attack on an obviously unarmed civilian passenger jet?
[/QUOTE]
And a minor point to keep in mind, that the plane that shot the Stark was Iraqi, not Iranian.
[QUOTE=Ale]
Irrational?, as in the US never doing things that the Iranians may find hostile and provocative?
I think you are forgetting some big chunks of history here.
[/QUOTE]
I forget nothing.
Whatever grievances the Iranians have with the American people, holding diplomats hostage isn’t a solution. Neither is state sponsorship of terrorism. Neither is providing weapons to insurgents that kill and maim our forces. And neither is provocative actions like what happened over the weekend.
Since 1979, Iran has been at war with us, in their minds. They strike at us through proxies and by indirect means, but their intent is pretty clear. Considering all of this, American policy toward them for the last quarter century has actually been pretty restrained.
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
Whatever grievances the Iranians have with the American people, holding diplomats hostage isn’t a solution. Neither is state sponsorship of terrorism. Neither is providing weapons to insurgents that kill and maim our forces.
[/quote]
So, basically, we can do most of those things to them, and worse, and they are just supposed to take it ?
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
Since 1979, Iran has been at war with us, in their minds. They strike at us through proxies and by indirect means, but their intent is pretty clear. Considering all of this, American policy toward them for the last quarter century has actually been pretty restrained.
[/QUOTE]
Hardly. You can’t make the argument that we’ve been restrained towards them without making the argument that they’ve been restrained towards us, which pretty much eliminates your argument for them being “At war” with us in the first place.
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
I forget nothing.
[/QUOTE]
Except the 1953 CIA coup, obviously.
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
…As to danger, there is danger too in trying to minimize incidents like this. As a nation, we tend to ignore threats until way too late - and you seem to be studiously ignoring this one.
[/QUOTE]
The incident minimizes itself. Nothing much happened. No shots were fired, no lives lost. This incident has one predominant quality, its damned silly. It makes no sense.
You glower darkly about the “threat”. If Iran were to start a military conflict with the US Navy, is there the slightest doubt of its outcome? So, then, we may fairly assume that such an attack would be, how to put this…stupid? What would account for this sudden surge of dumbitude?
I have a guess, and its only a guess. I think Iran and we are in mirror image, we reflect each other. There is a faction of madmen in Iran, men who believe that a war with America would have a positive, nay, miraculous outcome for Iran, that Allah would show his favor for Islam…for* Shia * Islam.. by humbling the Great Satan.
In America, we have somewhat more rational madmen, they aren’t depending on God to smite the infidel hip and thigh. They intend to rely on armored divisions and stealth bombers, to seize the Middle East by the scruff of the neck and shake it till it behaves.
Both factions amplify and exaggerate the threats, both are eager to promote hostility. An effort by a radical millitary faction to provoke war? Well, then, why screw around with insulting radio messages and mystery boxes? Open fire, have your war quick enough. None of this makes a lot of sense, and that worries me more than the incident itself.
(By the way, the video I saw of this gave no indication of markings, or numbers on the speedboats. How were they identified as military vessels of the Iranian Navy?)
I commend what appears to be the cool deliberation of the officers, the courage of patience. There is surely courage in accepting the risks of combat, and just as surely there is courage in accepting the risks of avoiding combat. I think my prefernce is pretty much known, YMMV.
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
. Neither is providing weapons to insurgents that kill and maim our forces.
[/QUOTE]
To be fair, a lot more Iranian troops have been killed by American supplied weapons than American troops by Iranian weapons.
[QUOTE=Tapioca Dextrin]
Except the 1953 CIA coup, obviously.
[/QUOTE]
Does this give the regime a perpetual pass for their behavior?
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
Does this give the regime a perpetual pass for their behavior?
[/QUOTE]
Dunno, how long are you going to milk 79?
[QUOTE=treis]
To be fair, a lot more Iranian troops have been killed by American supplied weapons than American troops by Iranian weapons.
[/QUOTE]
But the lives of Iranians don’t count. Just as we have the right to screw with Iraq, but the Iran doesn’t.
[QUOTE=Omegaman]
I think they did the right thing in not responding with force. The Iranians were just showing they have balls. Kind of like a toy poodle. Yap Yap Yap. Big Fucking Deal. Be sure the poodle knows it’s not even a snack.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know about you, but I don’t have time to stomp every poodle that nips at me. I reserve my stomping for only those who really draw blood, and even then, sometimes it’s better to rethink the issue before ending the poodle. Besides, I like some dogs, and if I stomp a poodle, what will the others think?
Gee, I should have come back to this thread more quickly especially since I started the damned thing and I will admit it was worded rather harshly and in quite an inflammatory tone. (I thought the smilie face would have countered that - guess not 
)
Among other things Eonwe told me “fuck you” - well this is the Pit and I did not take it personally.
First of all, since I haven’t been posting much lately, some folks seem to have the wrong impression about me. I’m one of the more liberal posters on this message board (even though the OP makes me sound like I’m some die-hard “better dead than red” conservative who will let you have his gun once you have pried it from my cold dead hands, etc)
Quickly establishing my liberal standing I’m 100% pro-choice; I have been involved in Dubya Bashing quite often here at the Pit; I think the Loch Ness Monster, Crop Circles and Bigfoot have Nobel prize-winning scientific validity … when compared to Creationism and Intelligent Design. And maybe my most left-leaning trait - I hate John Wayne. :eek:
Anyway, here at the SDMB, I have always taken the side of US Military personnel (especially when they are in danger of being injured or killed). So, when I hear stories such as this, I tend to think that the US military should be a little more “assertive” in displaying its disdain for idiotic dipshits who pull stupid stunts like this one. Call me racist, narrow-minded, etc but I think we have good reason to fear the Middle East.
As far as the US being thought of as aggressive well heck, let’s see what Israel did a few decades ago when Iran was attempting to build their first reactor:
Here’s a link to that story BBC NEWS | Programmes | This World | Will Israel bomb Iran?
with information that they may do that again. And I don’t blame them.
Israel has to launch their satellites westward which is much more difficult to do than launching eastward. Perhaps Israel fears that some Middle Eastern country will shoot satellites out of the sky before achieving orbit or maybe that country will get very bitter about having their air space violated. As I said, that is one seriously screwed-up part of the world.
As far as other countries behaving aggressively, I’m sure most of us remember the story of Korean Air Line flight 007 in Sept, 1981
Yes, a civilian airliner went off course into Soviet air space and Russian fighter jets shot it out of the sky.
Well I’m really tired now and I hope to rejoin this thread soon but I hope I’ve added a little more facts for this discussion.
[QUOTE=BlackKnight]
Almost lose to the Canadians?
[/QUOTE]
In America, we have a word for “almost lose”. It’s “win”.
[QUOTE=wolf_meister]
As far as the US being thought of as aggressive well heck, let’s see what Israel did a few decades ago when Iran was attempting to build their first reactor:
…<story>…
Here’s a link to that story BBC NEWS | Programmes | This World | Will Israel bomb Iran? with information that they may do that again. And I don’t blame them.
[/QUOTE]
The Osirak reactor destroyed by the Israelis in 1981 was in Iraq, not Iran (as your link clearly states). It may seem like a small deal, but there has already been quite enough conflation of different issues (e.g., Iraq & 9/11) in this “War on Terror” to make it important to distinguish between the different players on the Middle Eastern political stage.
[QUOTE=wolf_meister]
As far as other countries behaving aggressively, I’m sure most of us remember the story of Korean Air Line flight 007 in Sept, 1981
Yes, a civilian airliner went off course into Soviet air space and Russian fighter jets shot it out of the sky.
[/QUOTE]
Most regrettable indeed, but KAL007 had been violating a militarily-sensitive part of Soviet airspace, and the Soviets gave internationally-recognized warning signals (which were apparently ignored). The crew of the USS Vincennes had no equivalent excuse in the downing of Iran Air Flight 655.
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
Whatever grievances the Iranians have with the American people, holding diplomats hostage isn’t a solution. Neither is state sponsorship of terrorism. Neither is providing weapons to insurgents that kill and maim our forces. And neither is provocative actions like what happened over the weekend.
…
[/QUOTE]
The way you write that, it is almost as if US forces have the right to be in Iraq.