US vessel fires at Iranian boats.

[tl8]

I don't think the US in general should be stero-typed here if you are referring to the war in Iraq. The Bush Administration came up with the "excuse" and we as American citizens had no say in the matter what so ever.

Please forgive me:

Why doesn't Bush solve this problem by going to war with Iran. I'm sure he can come up with some bull excuse, He did last time:dry:

 

[Urwumpe]

Threatening is still a relative term. When a drunken hooligan charges against a soldier, the soldier can shoot at him, but that will give him in the worst case the fastest way out of the army. The use of force has to be done with measure.

So, the situation has to be known.

WASHINGTON, April 25 (Reuters) - A cargo ship contracted by the U.S Military Sealift Command fired "a few bursts" of warning shots in the Gulf at small boats believed to be Iranian, U.S. defense officials said on Friday.

"They were able to avoid a serious incident by following the procedures that we use," said Commander Lydia Robertson, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Navy's Bahrain-based Fifth Fleet.

The Westward Venture, a cargo ship chartered by the U.S. Department of Defense, was traveling north in international waters in the central Gulf at around 8 a.m. local time on Thursday when the incident took place, Robertson said.

The ship was approached by two unidentified small boats and its crew issued "standard queries" to the vessels by radio but did not receive a response, she said. The ship then fired a flare, which also produced no response, she said.

The boats continued to approach the cargo ship and its onboard security team fired "a few bursts" of machine gun and rifle warning shots, Robertson said.

"The small boats left the area a short time later," Robertson by telephone.

So, it was not a case of a big warship firing large shots at small boats in the tightly packed waters close to Iraq, but a incident in international waters. The region where it possibly happened is pretty disputed as Iran claimed to own some islands there, but Iran also officially no longer harasses the transit corridors because of it.

Also, it had not been official Iranian boats. Iran is not the only owner of speedboats. They just believe it had been Iranians.

But the measures they have chosen were well-thought. There had not been many other options to do except maybe calling for a helicopter to investigate. It could have been piracy, terrorist attacks or just juveniles with strange hobbies.

The ship was about 50 miles off the coast of Iran when the fast boats approached. A Navy security team, armed with M16 rifles and .50-caliber machine guns, was on-board at the time the warning shots were fired.

When the US ship was traveling northward, it was either a bit off-course or at a very special point in the strait of Hormuz.

Also the Cole attack is no excuse for the present and future. Unless they carry nuclear bombs, such a boat would need to get closer than 5m to do serious damage against a ship.

 

[Native Son]

Wars are started this way. Ridiculous. I am not having another damn war!

 

[Urwumpe]

There will be no war. It would be so stupid, that even GWB should not be capable of it. But the Iranians also know that.

 

[pattersoncr]

A very clear, consise, level headed, and well thought out summary, Thanks Urwumpe.
One minor point, the report states the ship was in the central part of the Gulf, not in the Strait of Hormuz so I dissagree with this statement,

When the US ship was traveling northward, it was either a bit off-course or at a very special point in the strait of Hormuz.

But otherwise, this is exactly the sort of fact based discussion I'd like to see more of.

 

[Zatnikitelman]

I wouldn't put another war past bush. Constitutionally, he has the right to put American forces anywhere he darn well pleases for 60 days. If he starts a 60 day war, the likely the hollow-headed congress would just go along with the BS excuse of "having to stick with what we started" last Congress did just that and now look where we are 5 years and 1.5 months later.

 

[Andy44]

I hate to be such a stickler, but you need to remember that presidents do not have any rights beyond what you and I have; they have authority delegated to them from the constitution and congress. There are people who would argue that the law allowing the president to commit forces for 60 days without a congressional declaration of war is unconstitutional in any case, except for actual emergencies (like, say the USSR sending bombers over the north pole). Nothing Iran does can possibly threaten the existence or survival of the U.S. so quickly that Congress can't be allowed time to deliberate.

But what do I know? We are now going into year 6 of an undeclared war (actually 2 at the same time), and have blown off the constitution since WWII anyway, so I guess I'm just tilting at windmills to expect the executive and congress to actually follow the law.

 

[Native Son]

I hate to be such a stickler, but you need to remember that presidents do not have any rights beyond what you and I have; they have authority delegated to them from the constitution and congress. There are people who would argue that the law allowing the president to commit forces for 60 days without a congressional declaration of war is unconstitutional in any case, except for actual emergencies (like, say the USSR sending bombers over the north pole). Nothing Iran does can possibly threaten the existence or survival of the U.S. so quickly that Congress can't be allowed time to deliberate.

But what do I know? We are now going into year 6 of an undeclared war (actually 2 at the same time), and have blown off the constitution since WWII anyway, so I guess I'm just tilting at windmills to expect the executive and congress to actually follow the law.

Well said. Having two family members deployed overseas makes you appreciate the liberties and rights we as a nation deserve. I'm all for a leadership change at this point. The only threat Iraq delivers is the roadside bombs they lay out for our boys.

And I'm tired of the Iranian government. If they want to send a message, we'll send them the appropriate response.

 

[Zatnikitelman]

Good point, technically, it isn't a right. My mistake.

 

[Urwumpe]

And I'm tired of the Iranian government. If they want to send a message, we'll send them the appropriate response.

I can recommend one response:

"If you keep on talking bad about us, we'll send our president to talk to your president in a diplomatic way. And bring you very cheap and ugly presents."

Or: "If your speed boat teenagers keep on provoking our ships, we could decide that you are not capable of educating your youth to respect the property of others. And maybe we could decide to stop them, invite them on our ship and have some serious talking before we let you deal with them."

Or: "We have absolutely no problems with you wanting nuclear power. Honestly. We are all for raising the standards of living in your country. By the way, are you insured against nuclear accidents? Can be very ugly. Don't you want to buy some safe US know-how instead of starting from zero?"

It's all about finding the right response. And nothing can be as cruel as diplomatics.

 

[ryan]

Well said. Having two family members deployed overseas makes you appreciate the liberties and rights we as a nation deserve. I'm all for a leadership change at this point. The only threat Iraq delivers is the roadside bombs they lay out for our boys.

And I'm tired of the Iranian government. If they want to send a message, we'll send them the appropriate response.

If you looked in the eyes of the soldiers themselves, things change much differently.

 

[Zatnikitelman]

Gotta agree about the nuclear bit. I frankly want the entire world to be powered by nuclear power. It's the cleanest we really got right now that doesn't take a lot of energy to make the fuel (hydrogen, biofuel etc.). Solar is better, but not powerful enough to be deployed widespread just yet. 'long as they don't use any of their nukes offensively, I could care less what kinds of radioactive metal they have.

 

[Donald]

A short history lesson.

In 1952 the Iranian people elected Mohammed Mossadegh to the office of Prime Minister. He then proceeded to nationalize the oil industry as British Petroleum had been ripping of the government and the people for many years.

The Brits attempted a coup to remove him but failed. They then enlisted the US CIA and an operative named Roosevelt succeeded on I believe his third try and Mossadegh was deposed, put under house arrest, and the ultra corrupt Shah was reinstated. This led to terrible reppression by Savak, the Iranian secret police. The result of the Shah's reppresive regime was the islamic revolution and the rise of the Ayatollah Kholmeini.

The US then in order to fix what they broke supported and gave military and economic aid to Saddam Hussein as an attempt to create a balance of power. Hussein was encouraged to go to war with Iran and thus the bloody and terrible Iran Iraq war.

The rest of the history lesson is recent enough that I don't need to expound on it. The point is the US has caused and is causing horrendous suffering and pain to that area of the world.

The US and Britain owe a big apology and billions in reparations to both Iraq and Iran for meddling in their affairs for years. It actually goes way back to WW1, the Brits, and the breakup of the Ottoman empire, but that is another lesson another time.

The point is that the US is wrong, totally wrong to be over there at all, and I don't want to hear any rebuttals about national security, economic security or any of that rubbish. The US is going down the same path of every empire that has ever been. The US military industrial congressional complex is dragging this country into ruin.

Sincerely, Donald.

 

[Notebook]

It actually goes way back to WW1, the Brits, and the breakup of the Ottoman empire, but that is another lesson another time.

Before the British Mandate of Messopatamia, post WW I, was authorised by the League of Nations, here's another viewpoint of the fall of the
Ottoman Empire (British, I'm afraid).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/middle_east_01.shtml

N.