Easy E wrote: So they detained them, and it seems like they let them go? Did i miss read the story?
You're missing the point. That sailors from the world's most powerful military were detained in the first place, speaks volumes at how low American might has sunk in the eyes of Iran. That they even had the nerve to do this tells its own message.
Nobody did this to Britain in the 19th century without a gak storm heading their way in retaliation.
Sailors from the world's most powerful military (were they Navy vessels or private vessels?), who were experiencing mechanical problems and were stopped in the water, were detained?
Easy E wrote: So they detained them, and it seems like they let them go? Did i miss read the story?
You're missing the point. That sailors from the world's most powerful military were detained in the first place, speaks volumes at how low American might has sunk in the eyes of Iran. That they even had the nerve to do this tells its own message.
Nobody did this to Britain in the 19th century without a gak storm heading their way in retaliation.
Gak storm. That act would trigger a Royal Navy hammer down if not released immediately back in empire days. No one fethed with the RN back before in history.
Easy E wrote: So they detained them, and it seems like they let them go? Did i miss read the story?
You're missing the point. That sailors from the world's most powerful military were detained in the first place, speaks volumes at how low American might has sunk in the eyes of Iran. That they even had the nerve to do this tells its own message.
Nobody did this to Britain in the 19th century without a gak storm heading their way in retaliation.
Well, the article did say this happened after one of our ships had mechanical problems, and the Iranians said the sailors are safe and will be allowed to continue as soon as possible.
For all we know, the Iranians were helping them with whatever the nautical equivalent of a flat tire is.
Because it really seems unlikely that they're going to be thumbing their nose at us in that particular region. I'm sure there's got to be a carrier group or two within a day's sail of the gulf, given the region's instability.
It's one thing for an ayatollah to yell 'death to america' in their capitol, and quite another face down a carrier group with that same bad attitude.
Easy E wrote: So they detained them, and it seems like they let them go? Did i miss read the story?
You're missing the point. That sailors from the world's most powerful military were detained in the first place, speaks volumes at how low American might has sunk in the eyes of Iran. That they even had the nerve to do this tells its own message.
Nobody did this to Britain in the 19th century without a gak storm heading their way in retaliation.
Gak storm. That act would trigger a Royal Navy hammer down if not released immediately back in empire days. No one fethed with the RN back before in history.
Agreed. Let's not forget that it's only been a week or so since they were firing rockets/missiles near US ships.
The Iranians clearly feel that they have nothing to fear from a President who has one eye on the exit door.
d-usa wrote: Sailors from the world's most powerful military (were they Navy vessels or private vessels?), who were experiencing mechanical problems and were stopped in the water, were detained?
Seems they were Riverine Command Boats (also used for coastal ops) if what I saw is true.
President is weak. No one would do that with a stronger leader.
And Turkey blew up a Russian bomber with little repercussion. Isn't Putin supposed to be the poster boy for "tough" leaders?
By the way, whats up with all the hawkish British posters in this thread? Go rile up your own people, limeys.
Putin's not stupid enough to take on a NATO member over that level of incident.
The USA Vs. Iran is a completely different ball game, unless Iran can call on help from it's fellow WARSAW Pact members
You've discovered Britain's secret plan: get the USA and the rest of the world to fight it out, and when it's over, Britain can take advantage and forge a new British Empire
Easy E wrote: So they detained them, and it seems like they let them go? Did i miss read the story?
You're missing the point. That sailors from the world's most powerful military were detained in the first place, speaks volumes at how low American might has sunk in the eyes of Iran. That they even had the nerve to do this tells its own message.
Nobody did this to Britain in the 19th century without a gak storm heading their way in retaliation.
Gak storm. That act would trigger a Royal Navy hammer down if not released immediately back in empire days. No one fethed with the RN back before in history.
Of course, when Iran did this to your sailors in the recent past, you guys were not so tough...
d-usa wrote: Sailors from the world's most powerful military (were they Navy vessels or private vessels?), who were experiencing mechanical problems and were stopped in the water, were detained?
Seems they were Riverine Command Boats (also used for coastal ops) if what I saw is true.
Yeah, when the article was originally posted I couldn't tell if they were sailors or 'sailors'.
Interesting little boats. If they were in fact having mechanical problems I could see how they wouldn't want to be stuck anywhere.
Easy E wrote: So they detained them, and it seems like they let them go? Did i miss read the story?
You're missing the point. That sailors from the world's most powerful military were detained in the first place, speaks volumes at how low American might has sunk in the eyes of Iran. That they even had the nerve to do this tells its own message.
Nobody did this to Britain in the 19th century without a gak storm heading their way in retaliation.
Gak storm. That act would trigger a Royal Navy hammer down if not released immediately back in empire days. No one fethed with the RN back before in history.
Agreed. Let's not forget that it's only been a week or so since they were firing rockets/missiles near US ships.
The Iranians clearly feel that they have nothing to fear from a President who has one eye on the exit door.
What a strongly worded press conference.
Persian gulf fleet and bases are probbly on high alert and bringing systems warm if not hot.
Its a small one but, if they can get away with small, what next. It gets dangerous with weak leaders and such. Those things can lead to wars.
Easy E wrote: So they detained them, and it seems like they let them go? Did i miss read the story?
You're missing the point. That sailors from the world's most powerful military were detained in the first place, speaks volumes at how low American might has sunk in the eyes of Iran. That they even had the nerve to do this tells its own message.
Nobody did this to Britain in the 19th century without a gak storm heading their way in retaliation.
Well, the article did say this happened after one of our ships had mechanical problems, and the Iranians said the sailors are safe and will be allowed to continue as soon as possible.
For all we know, the Iranians were helping them with whatever the nautical equivalent of a flat tire is.
Because it really seems unlikely that they're going to be thumbing their nose at us in that particular region. I'm sure there's got to be a carrier group or two within a day's sail of the gulf, given the region's instability.
It's one thing for an ayatollah to yell 'death to america' in their capitol, and quite another face down a carrier group with that same bad attitude.
You can have all the carrier groups in the world, but if the commander in chief doesn't have the guts to make a decision when it's crunch time...
Easy E wrote: So they detained them, and it seems like they let them go? Did i miss read the story?
You're missing the point. That sailors from the world's most powerful military were detained in the first place, speaks volumes at how low American might has sunk in the eyes of Iran. That they even had the nerve to do this tells its own message.
Nobody did this to Britain in the 19th century without a gak storm heading their way in retaliation.
Gak storm. That act would trigger a Royal Navy hammer down if not released immediately back in empire days. No one fethed with the RN back before in history.
Of course, when Iran did this to your sailors in the recent past, you guys were not so tough...
It's not news to Brits that we're no longer the world's most powerful military or superpower. We've been in decline for a long time. I know it, you know it, and everybody in the UK would say the same.
Still, we're not the nation with the 600 billion dollar defence budget
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: So the latest tl:dr version of current events:
Two American ships enter Iranian territorial waters and have a mechanical problem near one of the Iranian naval bases, so they get picked up by Iran.
I can see how Iran is the great Satan here...
Iran is playing the long game, testing the waters here for a reaction
I suspect with the tension between Iran and other Gulf States, their anti-ISIS involvement, and the Iran Nuke deal, they won't be doing much to antagonize us. They probably want our help in all of the areas listed above.
I suspect that as soon as those sailors get their boat moving, they will have them on their way.
d-usa wrote: Sailors from the world's most powerful military (were they Navy vessels or private vessels?), who were experiencing mechanical problems and were stopped in the water, were detained?
Seems they were Riverine Command Boats (also used for coastal ops) if what I saw is true.
Doesn't matter if it were a rubber duck floating along. If it's under the US navy flag, that should mean something.
d-usa wrote: Sailors from the world's most powerful military (were they Navy vessels or private vessels?), who were experiencing mechanical problems and were stopped in the water, were detained?
Seems they were Riverine Command Boats (also used for coastal ops) if what I saw is true.
Doesn't matter if it were a rubber duck floating along. If it's under the US navy flag, that should mean something.
It probably means that if a foreign navy flying a foreign flag with foreign soldiers hangs out inside your territorial waters near one of your military bases you are going to pick them up and ask them a couple questions before you send them on your way?
Is the UK cool with Russian ships and planes and such flying inside their territorial waters?
Easy E wrote: I suspect with the tension between Iran and other Gulf States, their anti-ISIS involvement, and the Iran Nuke deal, they won't be doing much to antagonize us. They probably want our help in all of the areas listed above.
I suspect that as soon as those sailors get their boat moving, they will have them on their way.
I would probably agree.
Weak or strong leadership of the US doesn't matter in this case. No reason why a sovereign power shouldn't ask a few questions of a foreign powers armed forces tootling around its territorial waters
d-usa wrote: Sailors from the world's most powerful military (were they Navy vessels or private vessels?), who were experiencing mechanical problems and were stopped in the water, were detained?
Seems they were Riverine Command Boats (also used for coastal ops) if what I saw is true.
Doesn't matter if it were a rubber duck floating along. If it's under the US navy flag, that should mean something.
The US would have picked up anyone in waters they aren't cleared to be in flying any flag of anywhere, as would any nation with any naval presence whatsoever. You seem to have quite the hard-on for seeing the US in another military action. Compensating for something lacking in your national character, perhaps?
Easy E wrote: I suspect with the tension between Iran and other Gulf States, their anti-ISIS involvement, and the Iran Nuke deal, they won't be doing much to antagonize us. They probably want our help in all of the areas listed above.
I suspect that as soon as those sailors get their boat moving, they will have them on their way.
I would probably agree.
Weak or strong leadership of the US doesn't matter in this case.
It's all about perception. Iran fires missiles near US ships. No response. Iran detains US sailors. No response.
Iran is sending a message to American allies in the Middle East that American won't lift a finger to protect its own assets, never mind your stuff.
Syria is in trouble, so its ally Russia sends in help.
Who do you want on your side? America or Iran/Russia?
That's the message here, folks. Do you think it's a coincidence this is happening this year? One President heading for the exit door, and an unknown new guy/woman coming in.
Iran is trying to make America's allies nervous.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jasper76 wrote: Pretty troubling that Iran feels emboldened enough to detain our military personnel...simple malfunction or no.
d-usa wrote: Sailors from the world's most powerful military (were they Navy vessels or private vessels?), who were experiencing mechanical problems and were stopped in the water, were detained?
Seems they were Riverine Command Boats (also used for coastal ops) if what I saw is true.
Doesn't matter if it were a rubber duck floating along. If it's under the US navy flag, that should mean something.
The US would have picked up anyone in waters they aren't cleared to be in flying any flag of anywhere, as would any nation with any naval presence whatsoever. You seem to have quite the hard-on for seeing the US in another military action. Compensating for something lacking in your national character, perhaps?
Not at all. Remember how peaceful the world was in the 1990s when the Soviet Union collapsed and America had no rivals for the top spot? I do, and I enjoyed that peace. History shows us that wars tend to happen when people think that the number one guy is no longer number one.
Germany sensed weakness in Britain pre-WW1 and pre-WW2.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Is the UK cool with Russian ships and planes and such flying inside their territorial waters?
No, we chase them out, when we can get a ship out of mothballs, but we're not daft enough to detain them.
And it sounds like they were, in fact, in Iranian waters.
Has that been established as a fact yet? Your own link does not confirm that as the case.
"Iranian forces are holding 10 American sailors in custody Tuesday after two U.S. Navy boats moving between Kuwait and Bahrain reportedly drifted into Iranian-claimed waters."
UK sends any Russians a escort and watches any foreign aircraft coming into our claimed airspace, sea space or protection zones.
It may be dwarfed by russsains but as a matter of international games you always send a watcher.
RAF been playing it for decades.
And no, i doubt uk would detain them, maybe secure weapons until there fixed and off but i doubt arrest them as such. Its Russia. There still dangerous
And it sounds like they were, in fact, in Iranian waters.
Has that been established as a fact yet? Your own link does not confirm that as the case. "Iranian forces are holding 10 American sailors in custody Tuesday after two U.S. Navy boats moving between Kuwait and Bahrain reportedly drifted into Iranian-claimed waters."
From the link:
UPDATE: 5:50 p.m. EST — Two small U.S. Navy boats that were stopped by Iran Tuesday may have run out of gas or had mechanical problems when they drifted into Iranian territorial waters in the Persian Gulf UPDATE: 4:45 p.m. EST — Secretary of State John Kerry called Iranian officials in Tehran Tuesday to explain that two U.S. Navy vessels had mistakenly strayed into Iranian territorial waters in the Persian Gulf.
Doesn't sound like anybody on the US side is trying to deny that so far.
I'm surprised that the GOP haven't declared that they are going to have an empty chair for these sailors at the SOTU speech tonight...
Easy E wrote: So they detained them, and it seems like they let them go? Did i miss read the story?
You're missing the point. That sailors from the world's most powerful military were detained in the first place, speaks volumes at how low American might has sunk in the eyes of Iran. That they even had the nerve to do this tells its own message.
Nobody did this to Britain in the 19th century without a gak storm heading their way in retaliation.
I dunno I'd still say play it careful for now. If they keep acting like idiots maybe use embargos or some such (you said we were already doing that right?). There has to be some way to hit em hard without being too violent. A lot of America's enemies want to paint us the bad guy or make us look violent. Best to show us as merciful unless tested and them as the extremists they really are.
If you see yourself as the good guy you should act like it. Basically be the more merciful one.
Relapse wrote: How is a malfunctioning boat going anywhere, though? I 'd hate to be in the crew that signed off on the maintanence of that thing right now.
My question is; If there were two of the same type, why didn't they tow the broke one?
Relapse wrote: How is a malfunctioning boat going anywhere, though? I 'd hate to be in the crew that signed off on the maintanence of that thing right now.
My question is; If there were two of the same type, why didn't they tow the broke one?
It'll be interesting to find out the details when the crews are released.
Relapse wrote: How is a malfunctioning boat going anywhere, though? I 'd hate to be in the crew that signed off on the maintanence of that thing right now.
My question is; If there were two of the same type, why didn't they tow the broke one?
It'll be interesting to find out the details when the crews are released.
Yep.
I've heard the Iranians took comms gear off at least one boat. If true I sure hope the crew was squared away enough to have at least zeroed everything out.
UPDATE: 5:50 p.m. EST — Two small U.S. Navy boats that were stopped by Iran Tuesday may have run out of gas or had mechanical problems when they drifted into Iranian territorial waters in the Persian Gulf
UPDATE: 4:45 p.m. EST — Secretary of State John Kerry called Iranian officials in Tehran Tuesday to explain that two U.S. Navy vessels had mistakenly strayed into Iranian territorial waters in the Persian Gulf
Your quotes are incomplete. They should read;
UPDATE: 5:50 p.m. EST — Two small U.S. Navy boats that were stopped by Iran Tuesday may have run out of gas or had mechanical problems when they drifted into Iranian territorial waters in the Persian Gulf, the Washington Post reported.
UPDATE: 4:45 p.m. EST — Secretary of State John Kerry called Iranian officials in Tehran Tuesday to explain that two U.S. Navy vessels had mistakenly strayed into Iranian territorial waters in the Persian Gulf, NBC News reported.
UPDATE: 5:50 p.m. EST — Two small U.S. Navy boats that were stopped by Iran Tuesday may have run out of gas or had mechanical problems when they drifted into Iranian territorial waters in the Persian Gulf
UPDATE: 4:45 p.m. EST — Secretary of State John Kerry called Iranian officials in Tehran Tuesday to explain that two U.S. Navy vessels had mistakenly strayed into Iranian territorial waters in the Persian Gulf
Your quotes are incomplete. They should read;
UPDATE: 5:50 p.m. EST — Two small U.S. Navy boats that were stopped by Iran Tuesday may have run out of gas or had mechanical problems when they drifted into Iranian territorial waters in the Persian Gulf, the Washington Post reported.
UPDATE: 4:45 p.m. EST — Secretary of State John Kerry called Iranian officials in Tehran Tuesday to explain that two U.S. Navy vessels had mistakenly strayed into Iranian territorial waters in the Persian Gulf, NBC News reported.
The top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee said Iran needs to free 10 U.S. sailors it captured Tuesday, or else the implementation of the nuclear agreement will be threatened.
"I think it endangers everything, I really do," Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., the panel's ranking member, told the Washington Examiner.
"I'm outraged, and Iran needs to release these people as soon as possible or else it would be unthinkable or impossible to make further progress with them on anything as far as I am concerned," he said.
The Associated Press reported the Iranian military has seized two U.S. Navy boats with 10 American sailors on board. The sailors are being held on an island in Iranian waters. The Iranian foreign minister has told Secretary of State John Kerry the sailors will be released soon.
The Iran nuclear agreement would lift U.S. sanctions on the Islamic State in exchange for a reduction in its nuclear program. But Iran has already violated a United Nations ban on testing ballistic missiles and remains a major sponsor of terrorism.
Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., said the seizing of the U.S. boats, which Iran said were captured in Iranian waters, will increase pressure on President Obama to abandon the terms of the nuclear deal. King said Democrats as well as Republicans are increasingly wary of the deal.
"This is going to add to it," King said.
King said Iran's taking of the sailors is "open defiance of the U.S." and a "direct shot at the president," taken purposely on the day he is to deliver his final State of the Union address. But Congress has no power to break the deal.
Still, King called on Obama to walk away from it.
"I think we should suspend the agreement," King said. "Don't turn over the funds at all."
The House is scheduled to vote Wednesday on legislation that would preserve economic sanctions against Iran that are to be lifted as part of the nuclear agreement.
The bill is poised to pass with mostly Republican support, but is not on the schedule in the Senate and is guaranteed to earn a presidential veto.
Engel said he won't back the GOP sanctions bill because it changes the terms of the nuclear agreement, which Congress failed to block last year.
"I'm not interested in poking the president in the eye," said Engel, who opposed the nuclear deal.
Engel said he is working on a bill that would sanction Iran if it violates the terms of the nuclear deal. The bill would also include resources to bolster Israel's defense system, he said.
d-usa wrote: I'm surprised that the GOP haven't declared that they are going to have an empty chair for these sailors at the SOTU speech tonight...
It's right beside the empty chair for the children killed by drone strikes.
I'm sorry I didn't include "x reported" when posting and quoting the article reporting it.
The source said that Kerry admitted they were in Iranian waters, so unless there is a correction to the source or a statement by the DoD or DoS I will be just fine when I type "they were in Iranian waters", especially since there hasn't been a single peep from anybody saying they were taken in international waters.
d-usa wrote: The source said that Kerry admitted they were in Iranian waters, so unless there is a correction to the source or a statement by the DoD or DoS I will be just fine when I type "they were in Iranian waters", especially since there hasn't been a single peep from anybody saying they were taken in international waters.
Kerry admitted they were in Iranian waters? The Washington Post said;
"Kerry “made the case very strongly” to Zarif that the incident had stemmed from a mechanical problem aboard one of the boats, and that they appeared to have drifted into Iranian territorial waters"
Saying they :appeared to" isn't an admission. I'll wait until something more substantial is released.
d-usa wrote: The source said that Kerry admitted they were in Iranian waters, so unless there is a correction to the source or a statement by the DoD or DoS I will be just fine when I type "they were in Iranian waters", especially since there hasn't been a single peep from anybody saying they were taken in international waters.
Kerry admitted they were in Iranian waters? The Washington Post said;
"Kerry “made the case very strongly” to Zarif that the incident had stemmed from a mechanical problem aboard one of the boats, and that they appeared to have drifted into Iranian territorial waters"
Saying they :appeared to" isn't an admission. I'll wait until something more substantial is released.
d-usa previously reported that the International Business Times previously reported that John Kerry reportedly called Iran to report how the boats ended up in Iranian waters and that the International Business TImes also reported that the Washington Post reported that the boats may have ran out of gas when they drifted into Iranian waters. The report that John Kerry reported to Iran how the boats ended up in Iranian waters were an update to the initial report that the boats reportedly were in Iranian waters and after the reported admission by John Kerry there have not been any reported updates that contradict the report that John Kerry reportedly explained how the boats ended up in Iranian waters.
Source: Abrams, A. (2015, January 12). Iran-US navy dispute live updates: Iranian military holds 10 American sailors on Iran’s farsi island. International Business Times. Retrieved January 12, 2015.
Can we be done with the pedantic stuff now? If you have a source denying they were in Iranian waters, feel free to post it.
Overreacting to the slightest perceived offense is the thing confident world powers are supposed to do now? I thought that's what insecure teenagers did.
d-usa wrote: d-usa previously reported that the International Business Times previously reported that John Kerry reportedly called Iran to report how the boats ended up in Iranian waters and that the International Business TImes also reported that the Washington Post reported that the boats may have ran out of gas when they drifted into Iranian waters. The report that John Kerry reported to Iran how the boats ended up in Iranian waters were an update to the initial report that the boats reportedly were in Iranian waters and after the reported admission by John Kerry there have not been any reported updates that contradict the report that John Kerry reportedly explained how the boats ended up in Iranian waters.
Source: Abrams, A. (2015, January 12). Iran-US navy dispute live updates: Iranian military holds 10 American sailors on Iran’s farsi island. International Business Times. Retrieved January 12, 2015.
Can we be done with the pedantic stuff now? If you have a source denying they were in Iranian waters, feel free to post it.
Talking in 3rd person now?
I apologize for you misreading my seeking an accurate account of events as pedantry. But given that they were either in international waters or not establishing that fact is somewhat important.
1) IBT is compiling information from other news sources and omitting a lot of details, this is the reason for asking has it been established as fact
2) The Washington Post said "appeared to" not, that the boat had in fact been outside international waters
3) NBC said " it's unclear whether the sailors — nine men and one woman — had strayed into Iranian territorial waters before they were captured."
Other news is reporting that there was no distress call by the boats (which complicates claims there were mechanical difficulties).
I have neither admitted or denied that the boats were in Iranian waters. I have asked if it was a fact that they were because the reporting is unclear as to whether they were or were not.If you have a source confirming that the boats were in Iranian waters feel free to post it.
d-usa wrote: I have posted an article that reported that Kerry called Iran to explain why the boats were in Iranian waters.
If that's not good enough for you feel free to ignore it.
I didn't ignore it, in fact I read it and the article it came from. The article itself stated;
"The officials said it's unclear whether the sailors — nine men and one woman — had strayed into Iranian territorial waters before they were captured."
So at this point the location of the boat when it was intercepted is still unclear.
d-usa wrote: I have posted an article that reported that Kerry called Iran to explain why the boats were in Iranian waters.
If that's not good enough for you feel free to ignore it.
I didn't igniore it, in fact I read it and the article it came from. The article itself stated;
"The officials said it's unclear whether the sailors — nine men and one woman — had strayed into Iranian territorial waters before they were captured."
So at this point the location of the boat when it was intercepted is still unclear.
Original Story: 4:43 p.m. EST — Officials said it was unclear whether the 10 American sailors on one of the boats had gone into Iranian waters before being captured
UPDATE: 4:45 p.m. EST — Secretary of State John Kerry called Iranian officials in Tehran Tuesday to explain that two U.S. Navy vessels had mistakenly strayed into Iranian territorial waters in the Persian Gulf
UPDATE: 5:50 p.m. EST — Two small U.S. Navy boats that were stopped by Iran Tuesday may have run out of gas or had mechanical problems when they drifted into Iranian territorial waters in the Persian Gulf
Yes, the article said it was unclear if they were, and after that there have been two updates reporting that it was clear that they were.
Washington (CNN)—Ten American sailors were being held in Iranian custody after two small U.S. naval craft entered Iranian territorial waters, defense officials said Tuesday.
The 10 American sailors aboard the small riverine vessels were on a training mission around noon ET when one of the boats may have experienced mechanical failure and drifted into Iranian-claimed waters, officials said..
I can't realistically imagine patrol boats loaded with military personnel from any country drifting into a non-ally's coastal waters and not being briefly detained.
Ouze wrote: I can't realistically imagine patrol boats loaded with military personnel from any country drifting into a non-ally's coastal waters and not being briefly detained.
Briefly being the key word here, of course.
The latest reported news are that they will be reunited with the US Navy in international waters at dawn.
I'm not holding my breath that the boats will be returned, but if they are that will give Iran plenty of time to check things out on them.
Iran has stated the crew and boats will be returned.
There's actually nothing to suggest this is a real (edit: real as in significant) incident beyond how Republicans are jumping on it for political points. All of this 'arrested' stuff comes from a single Iranian news source that was translated as 'arrested' and everyone else is just rolling the ball downhill on that alone. The Iranian government doesn't actually seem to consider this incident anything more than "some boats broke down and we went to pick them up." EDIT: The original report seems to be from either Fars News or Tasnim News but their English pages don't have any reports on this up yet that I can find.
I'm not a military person, so maybe some of our military members can educate me on this:
Is it normal for the US Navy to take two small unit CB90s that were designed for river and shallow water use and equipped with enhanced communication equipment and optical gear that make it particularly useful for night operations, and send them on a 200 mile journey that takes them far enough away from the coastal waters that it was designed for and close enough to an Iranian military base located in the middle of the gulf that it ended up drifting less than 12 miles from the coast when the mechanical malfunction happened?
d-usa wrote: I'm not a military person, so maybe some of our military members can educate me on this:
Is it normal for the US Navy to take two small unit CB90s that were designed for river and shallow water use and equipped with enhanced communication equipment and optical gear that make it particularly useful for night operations, and send them on a 200 mile journey that takes them far enough away from the coastal waters that it was designed for and close enough to an Iranian military base located in the middle of the gulf that it ended up drifting less than 12 miles from the coast when the mechanical malfunction happened?
Bro I'm going to need a properly formatted cite that they had that enhanced equipment, that they were less than 12 miles away, that they were military, that they were American, and that they were actually in a boat.
d-usa wrote: I'm not a military person, so maybe some of our military members can educate me on this:
Is it normal for the US Navy to take two small unit CB90s that were designed for river and shallow water use and equipped with enhanced communication equipment and optical gear that make it particularly useful for night operations, and send them on a 200 mile journey that takes them far enough away from the coastal waters that it was designed for and close enough to an Iranian military base located in the middle of the gulf that it ended up drifting less than 12 miles from the coast when the mechanical malfunction happened?
A good friend of mine is a SWO who finished out his days with RIVRON 2. I asked him that very question. Wasn't something he ever did, but we were still around and relevant before the Iraq pullout, and he hasn't kept up with what Riverine's up to since he got out, so this could very well be what they do now. Coastal patrol would be something that falls within their capabilities. They're a new and bastardized organization, so mechanical faults are kinda par for the course.
Well it looks like the 'crisis' is over. Still a lot of unanswered questions that remain...unanswered.
Whenever I see incidents like this happening, so close to crucial treaties being implemented, I'm reminded of Eisenhower, the CIA, U2 spy planes, and a certain nuclear treaty.
Relapse wrote: How is a malfunctioning boat going anywhere, though? I 'd hate to be in the crew that signed off on the maintanence of that thing right now.
My question is; If there were two of the same type, why didn't they tow the broke one?
A very good point. Iran accused the sailors of being "unprofessional."
d-usa wrote: Original Story: 4:43 p.m. EST — Officials said it was unclear whether the 10 American sailors on one of the boats had gone into Iranian waters before being captured
UPDATE: 4:45 p.m. EST — Secretary of State John Kerry called Iranian officials in Tehran Tuesday to explain that two U.S. Navy vessels had mistakenly strayed into Iranian territorial waters in the Persian Gulf
UPDATE: 5:50 p.m. EST — Two small U.S. Navy boats that were stopped by Iran Tuesday may have run out of gas or had mechanical problems when they drifted into Iranian territorial waters in the Persian Gulf
Yes, the article said it was unclear if they were, and after that there have been two updates reporting that it was clear that they were.
Washington (CNN)—Ten American sailors were being held in Iranian custody after two small U.S. naval craft entered Iranian territorial waters, defense officials said Tuesday.
The 10 American sailors aboard the small riverine vessels were on a training mission around noon ET when one of the boats may have experienced mechanical failure and drifted into Iranian-claimed waters, officials said..
Leaving aside your omissions of context again; Thank you for finally acknowledging what I have been saying - that the news reports are giving conflicting information as to where the boat was intercepted.
Ouze wrote: I can't realistically imagine patrol boats loaded with military personnel from any country drifting into a non-ally's coastal waters and not being briefly detained.
Briefly being the key word here, of course.
That is my view also, provided that it is finally established that the vessels were in fact in Iranian waters
Ouze wrote: Well, did you interview the principals yourself? I really can't trust you when you say "the news" without an APA citation.
Ouze wrote: Bro I'm going to need a properly formatted cite that they had that enhanced equipment, that they were less than 12 miles away, that they were military, that they were American, and that they were actually in a boat.
Not at all. Remember how peaceful the world was in the 1990s when the Soviet Union collapsed and America had no rivals for the top spot? I do, and I enjoyed that peace. History shows us that wars tend to happen when people think that the number one guy is no longer number one.
Germany sensed weakness in Britain pre-WW1 and pre-WW2.
You mean when the US was under attack from al Qaeda prior to 9/11, at war in Iraq, at war in Bosnia, in a dust-up in Somalia, in a dust-up in Haiti, and engaged with narcotics traffickers in South and Central America?
No, I fething well *don't* remember the peace of the 1990s, because it damned well wasn't peaceful.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Well, this is interesting. Is Obama about to have his Jimmy Carter moment?
Despite the dozen or so times you've tried to make this analogy happen, the answer is still "no".
People think I'm trying to stir up a gak storm here, but a peaceful world is what I'm after.
If Iran is firing live ammunition near US ships, grabbing its sailors, and the US doesn't lift a finger in reply, then that will only embolden Iran to go further, which could lead to a serious situation. That's my concern.
Iran is about to have sanctions against it lifted = an increase in Iranian power and influence = Saudi Arabia, America's ally, annoyed and anxious.
The Saudis and Iran are already engaged in two proxy wars, and tensions between them are only likely to increase.
I've consistently argued that the best thing the USA could do is stay well clear of the Middle East - it'll only drag you down.
But America has chosen to stay, which is fair enough, but at the very least, it could start acting like it gives a damn, and it could start reassuring its allies by showing the Iranians who's boss, instead of acting in a half ass manner.
It's simple geo-politics. Like I said earlier, if America doesn't give a damn about its own military being menaced, then its allies will only concluded that they won't give two hoots for them.
That nobody in Washington sees this, is only cause for further concern.
Not at all. Remember how peaceful the world was in the 1990s when the Soviet Union collapsed and America had no rivals for the top spot? I do, and I enjoyed that peace. History shows us that wars tend to happen when people think that the number one guy is no longer number one.
Germany sensed weakness in Britain pre-WW1 and pre-WW2.
You mean when the US was under attack from al Qaeda prior to 9/11, at war in Iraq, at war in Bosnia, in a dust-up in Somalia, in a dust-up in Haiti, and engaged with narcotics traffickers in South and Central America?
No, I fething well *don't* remember the peace of the 1990s, because it damned well wasn't peaceful.
The world trade centre bombing, as bad as it was, was an isolated incident. Home grown terrorists were more of a threat to the USA.
The first gulf war showed quick, effective and decisive American action that nipped that situation in the bud.
Bosnia was a civil war, so can hardly be construed as a threat to the US or the world, and ended up being contained within Europe, so these are not valid comparisons IMO.
Desert storm was one of the the first time the US let loose with its entire arsenal as part of a massive coalition force of a scale not seen in decades. Thousands of tanks, Armour, artillery brigades and old fashioned Battleship 16 inch guns.
It was a real peak of US power. after that all seems downhill.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: People think I'm trying to stir up a gak storm here, but a peaceful world is what I'm after.
(snip)
But America has chosen to stay, which is fair enough, but at the very least, it could start acting like it gives a damn, and it could start reassuring its allies by showing the Iranians who's boss, instead of acting in a half ass manner.
I definitely believe you're using the US as a proxy in a pecker measuring contest, which is unfortunate.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: People think I'm trying to stir up a gak storm here, but a peaceful world is what I'm after.
(snip)
But America has chosen to stay, which is fair enough, but at the very least, it could start acting like it gives a damn, and it could start reassuring its allies by showing the Iranians who's boss, instead of acting in a half ass manner.
I definitely believe you're using the US as a proxy in a pecker measuring contest, which is unfortunate.
On the contrary, it's unfortunate that a non-American gives more of a damn about American interests than an American!
All I'm saying is that America should have one eye on the future, the long term gameplan.
Instead, it finds itself distracted by a loud mouth billionaire with a dodgy toupee, a fact which will have been noted in Tehran and Beijing...
"Nobody did this to Britain in the 19th century without a gak storm heading their way in retaliation."
"Gak storm. That act would trigger a Royal Navy hammer down if not released immediately back in empire days. No one fethed with the RN back before in history."
"Yes. But Royal Navy is a weak shadow of itself."
"It's not news to Brits that we're no longer the world's most powerful military or superpower. We've been in decline for a long time. I know it, you know it, and everybody in the UK would say the same. Still, we're not the nation with the 600 billion dollar defence budget"
Truly, Britain is the Al Bundy of the world stage.
To be fair, we do have weak leadership and an easily distracted populace...
I'm wondering what those specifically advocating for a strong US response think should be done. I'm no fan of Iran, but with the available information I can't really say they are in the wrong especially if we get our people and stuff hack in a timely manner. I can't really fault any country, whether I like them or not, for protecting the integrity of their territory. If the US crossed into that territory, it is wrong and should be escorted back into international waters.
Someone or several persons in our armed forces probably need an ass chewing at the very least. I don't know if it was bad maintenance, mission planning or execution, inadequate support, or something else, but we shouldn't have been in the position for this to happen in the first place.
Gwaihirsbrother wrote: I'm wondering what those specifically advocating for a strong US response think should be done. I'm no fan of Iran, but with the available information I can't really say they are in the wrong especially if we get our people and stuff hack in a timely manner. I can't really fault any country, whether I like them or not, for protecting the integrity of their territory. If the US crossed into that territory, it is wrong and should be escorted back into international waters.
Someone or several persons in our armed forces probably need an ass chewing at the very least. I don't know if it was bad maintenance, mission planning or execution, inadequate support, or something else, but we shouldn't have been in the position for this to happen in the first place.
They were not escorted back to international waters though. They were boarded, made to kneel with hands on heads, removed from their boats and detained on land while the boats and the associated gear were gone over.
You are right though, intercepting the boats after they crossed into Iranian waters is what we should expect sovereign nations to do. I do think treating the crews and boats as if they were captured went a bit further than I would expect from a country we are removing sanctions from. Of course, the 4 hostages they've had for a while should also have be released as part of the nuke deal, and that more than reaction or lack there of for this incident, is what shows the current administration to be weak in my opinion.
CptJake wrote: is what shows the current administration to be weak in my opinion.
You're literally saying in the same post that they did what the should have done, but it was wrong because Obama weak blahblahblah. Yeah, this never would have happened under a strong administration like George W Bush, in which American aviators were held for 2 weeks until the letter of two sorries was sent.
CptJake wrote: is what shows the current administration to be weak in my opinion.
You're literally saying in the same post that they did what the should have done, but it was wrong because Obama weak blahblahblah. Yeah, this never would have happened under a strong administration like George W Bush, in which American aviators were held for 2 weeks until the letter of two sorries was sent.
You guys are unbelievable.
Read my whole post, not just the few words you quoted. I said the Administration not making release of the four hostages the Iranians are currently holding as a condition of the nuke deal makes them weak in my opinion.
Is what I typed really that hard for you to grasp?
I'm agreeing this 10 sailor incident does not show the administration as weak, and further agreed with the post I replied to that stopping the boats/intercepting the boats was what sovereign nations do.
I then added my opinion that there ARE examples of the Obama Admin being weak in their dealings with the Iranians (the existing hostages), but again, agree yesterday's incident and the administration's response is not what shows weakness.
Want me to PM you my phone number so you can call me and hear me say the words instead of having deciphering my attempts at explaining them again via posting?
My take as a civilian who doesn't read Twitter or milblogs (and I'm sure that if I'm completely off the mark our military guys can tell me):
Two small shallow water boats with small crews were out in the middle of the gulf near an Iranian military base in Iranian waters. The articles from the US Navy when the boats were purchased make it sound like these boats would be good boats for some special operations missions. They seem like the kind of small fast vessel you might like to use if you are doing some spying tactical intelligence gathering inside the territorial waters of your frenemy. They got caught and everyone went with the "oh...hey there.....can you believe we were going from coast to coast and somehow ended up in the middle of the gulf and inside your water when the engine broke down and we were fresh out of rope to tow ourselves back home....can you help" plausible deniability routine. We know we were snooping, Iran knows we were snooping, our allies know we were snooping, their allies know we were snooping. Considering we were caught with our hands in the cookie jar it makes sense that we didn't respond in full DEFCON 3 mode and instead went with the more reasonable "hey guys, thanks for detaining our spies rescuing our sailors, can we please have them back pretty please" routine.
That's my suspicion, and nobody has reported any of this.
On another forum, yesterday afternoon/early evening is mentioned "I'm guessing we were probing (show of force/quick runs to determine reactions, gather some intel on sensors that lit up) after the recent rocket firing and they had an engine crap out in the wrong place. "
These were not naval spec ops types though, that is pretty clear from the pictures of the crews (and the small boat units that support SEALs use different boats). That does not change my guess as to what happened though. It would be interesting to see what air platforms we had collecting in the area.
So maybe the naval equivalent to reving the engine at the stoplight to challenge a drag race only to have your engine blow while the cop lights up behind you?
d-usa wrote: So maybe the naval equivalent to reving the engine at the stoplight to challenge a drag race only to have your engine blow while the cop lights up behind you?
More like revving your engine in the hopes your potential opponent shows he has nitro hooked up so you can better understand his capabilities.
But the reality is we don't know, and likely never will have the real reasons/sequence of events released in open source reporting. It could have just been our guys screwed up (bad navigation/poor maintenance) or whatever. It could be the IRG jammed/spoofed GPS to get them to go inside Iranian waters. It could a bunch of factors. gak happens...
I remember the Cav scouts the Serbs captured in '99. It took a while for the truth to come out about what really happened (and I can't remember if it ever came out open source).
d-usa wrote: My take as a civilian who doesn't read Twitter or milblogs (and I'm sure that if I'm completely off the mark our military guys can tell me):
Two small shallow water boats with small crews were out in the middle of the gulf near an Iranian military base in Iranian waters. The articles from the US Navy when the boats were purchased make it sound like these boats would be good boats for some special operations missions. They seem like the kind of small fast vessel you might like to use if you are doing some spying tactical intelligence gathering inside the territorial waters of your frenemy. They got caught and everyone went with the "oh...hey there.....can you believe we were going from coast to coast and somehow ended up in the middle of the gulf and inside your water when the engine broke down and we were fresh out of rope to tow ourselves back home....can you help" plausible deniability routine. We know we were snooping, Iran knows we were snooping, our allies know we were snooping, their allies know we were snooping. Considering we were caught with our hands in the cookie jar it makes sense that we didn't respond in full DEFCON 3 mode and instead went with the more reasonable "hey guys, thanks for detaining our spies rescuing our sailors, can we please have them back pretty please" routine.
That's my suspicion, and nobody has reported any of this.
A very good point.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gwaihirsbrother wrote: I'm wondering what those specifically advocating for a strong US response think should be done. I'm no fan of Iran, but with the available information I can't really say they are in the wrong especially if we get our people and stuff hack in a timely manner. I can't really fault any country, whether I like them or not, for protecting the integrity of their territory. If the US crossed into that territory, it is wrong and should be escorted back into international waters.
Someone or several persons in our armed forces probably need an ass chewing at the very least. I don't know if it was bad maintenance, mission planning or execution, inadequate support, or something else, but we shouldn't have been in the position for this to happen in the first place.
A lot of people seem to be under the impression that I will fight to the last American Marine, but nothing could be further from the truth.
To use a cliché, Iran is playing chess, whilst America is playing checkers. Capturing American sailors and firing live missiles near American ships, is not a message to the USA, it's a message to Iran's regional rivals. Iran is saying they're back in business.
When the sanctions are lifted, and Iran's economy gets boosted, that extra money will be spent on Hezbollah, propping up Assad, and propping up Iran's allies in Iraq. And will probably be used in proxy wars against the Saudis.
This is not news to American intelligence agencies, but the question is this: what is America going to do about it in order to protect its interests and allies in the long term?
CptJake wrote: On another forum, yesterday afternoon/early evening is mentioned "I'm guessing we were probing (show of force/quick runs to determine reactions, gather some intel on sensors that lit up) after the recent rocket firing and they had an engine crap out in the wrong place. "
These were not naval spec ops types though, that is pretty clear from the pictures of the crews (and the small boat units that support SEALs use different boats). That does not change my guess as to what happened though. It would be interesting to see what air platforms we had collecting in the area.
You're not technically wrong, but it's worth mentioning that RIVRONs did do a few SEAL-ferrying runs during OIF. But you're correct in that anything with even a whiff of Iran to would have SWCCs rather than RIVRON guys involved.
To use a cliché, Iran is playing chess, whilst America is playing checkers. Capturing American sailors and firing live missiles near American ships, is not a message to the USA, it's a message to Iran's regional rivals. Iran is saying they're back in business.
When the sanctions are lifted, and Iran's economy gets boosted, that extra money will be spent on Hezbollah, propping up Assad, and propping up Iran's allies in Iraq. And will probably be used in proxy wars against the Saudis.
This is not news to American intelligence agencies, but the question is this: what is America going to do about it in order to protect its interests and allies in the long term?
You've identified the problem, what's the solution? I don't have a particularly strong view on all of this, so I'm curious what actions people think the US could/should take. How do we start paying chess instead of checkers?
I see posts saying we need a strong response, and this president is weak (this latter sentiment I strongly agree with), but no proposals on what should be done beyond the vague act tough.
(I don't recall which posters said what and am not calling you out specifically, just making a general inquiry to those holding that position.)
To use a cliché, Iran is playing chess, whilst America is playing checkers. Capturing American sailors and firing live missiles near American ships, is not a message to the USA, it's a message to Iran's regional rivals. Iran is saying they're back in business.
When the sanctions are lifted, and Iran's economy gets boosted, that extra money will be spent on Hezbollah, propping up Assad, and propping up Iran's allies in Iraq. And will probably be used in proxy wars against the Saudis.
This is not news to American intelligence agencies, but the question is this: what is America going to do about it in order to protect its interests and allies in the long term?
You've identified the problem, what's the solution? I don't have a particularly strong view on all of this, so I'm curious what actions people think the US could/should take. How do we start paying chess instead of checkers?
I see posts saying we need a strong response, and this president is weak (this latter sentiment I strongly agree with), but no proposals on what should be done beyond the vague act tough.
(I don't recall which posters said what and am not calling you out specifically, just making a general inquiry to those holding that position.)
Well, America first needs to decide upon a strategy. Put simply, what are our interests/allies, and how do we protect them?
America's regional allies are nervous about Iran's rise, so short term, America should throw them a bone. Send Joe Biden, or Kerry, or even the president himself, on a regional tour to shore up support, fly the flag etc etc Promise the allies a few new arms deals, hold a large scale military exercise in the region etc etc
This costs nothing.
Another short term measure is stop spouting rubbish about Iran being a valuable strategic partner. The Saudis must feel like the only girl not to get a prom date. Again, this costs nothing.
Long term, America won't win every 'battle' but it only has to win the important battles, and it does this by using its advantages in situations where it holds all the cards.
Iran has three major spheres of influence in the region: Lebannon, Iraq, and Syria. America needs to contain or un-hitch Iran's influence in these areas.
America is fortunate by the fact that they have a strong ally, Israel, who have their own vested interest in keeping watch on Lebannon and Hezbollah.
Syria is different. It's a mess, and now the Russians, as well as the Iranians are involved. And there are things that the USA should have done a while back, but didn't. so that ship's sailed.
None the less, America has Turkey, and the Kurds, and they should be pushing for the end of the Assad regime (let him go into exile) to be replaced by a new regime that is friendly to the USA's interests. This won't be easy, it will take skill. But a peace deal in Washington's favour should be a priority.
Iraq is just as complicated - the government is pro-Iran, but again, opportunities present themselves. There is a large Sunni block in Iraq that America could use as leverage, if it gets them on board.
I freely admit these are diplomatic challenges that would test even Bismarck, but these are opportunities none the less.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: what is America going to do about it in order to protect its interests and allies in the long term?
Obama's only interest at this point is not to upset the Iranian cart in his quest to implement his "Nuke Agreement" (which isn't legally binding).
So... beyond that, your guess is as good as mine.
As I said before, America has challenging times ahead of it this century. China of course, Russia as well, and as always, the Middle East problem.
You guys can't wish these problems away. It will take inspired leadership to meet these tests. Unfortunately, I don't think the USA, and I include my own country in this, is capable of producing such leaders anymore.
So this particular incident isn't necessarily where we need to make the show of strength, it's the overall approach that needs to be adjusted. Is that a fair summary of your view?
Like I said, I'm not pushing any particular idea here, just curious what people are thinking.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I don't think the USA, and I include my own country in this, is capable of producing such leaders anymore.
I disagree with this. Change the word "producing" to "selecting" and I'd have a harder time disagreeing.
Shockingly, not every issue needs to be solved by starting a war or bombing the gak out of something. Or threatening massive violence.
Seriously. This sounds like a non-incident. Escalations happen because the weaker nation needs to posture for ANY gain for itself. Why do you think North Korea keeps making provocative statements, testing missiles and the like? Because they're in the weaker position!
It's not in the US's interests to damage it's own propsperity (and the world's) by engaging in punitive measures as king of the world. That actually weakens the US further by expending strength in useless things.
Killionaire wrote: Shockingly, not every issue needs to be solved by starting a war or bombing the gak out of something. Or threatening massive violence.
Seriously. This sounds like a non-incident. Escalations happen because the weaker nation needs to posture for ANY gain for itself. Why do you think North Korea keeps making provocative statements, testing missiles and the like? Because they're in the weaker position!
It's not in the US's interests to damage it's own propsperity (and the world's) by engaging in punitive measures as king of the world. That actually weakens the US further by expending strength in useless things.
Sheesh. American power has never been greater.
Exactly. The US got its sailors back with a phone call.
It didn't even need to threaten to use force. That is true power.
Killionaire wrote: Shockingly, not every issue needs to be solved by starting a war or bombing the gak out of something. Or threatening massive violence.
Seriously. This sounds like a non-incident. Escalations happen because the weaker nation needs to posture for ANY gain for itself. Why do you think North Korea keeps making provocative statements, testing missiles and the like? Because they're in the weaker position!
It's not in the US's interests to damage it's own propsperity (and the world's) by engaging in punitive measures as king of the world. That actually weakens the US further by expending strength in useless things.
Sheesh. American power has never been greater.
Exactly. The US got its sailors back with a phone call.
It didn't even need to threaten to use force. That is true power.
A phone call to a country that hates us (at least it's leadership) and that was likely the recipient of us doing something shady in the area. Meh, let them posture.
It probably wasn't all that shady, because these wouldn't be the dudes doing shady stuff. I think CptJake was on the right track earlier - we were probably fething around and doing the time-honored "flirt with their boundaries" thing that everybody does to everybody else. Then our gakky boats broke down.
We'd have plucked them if we could've done it without inevitably having to splash Iranian fighters or strafe their dumbass little outboard-equipped skiffs (seriously, Iran, hella impressive navy). But we couldn't, so the next best option is to throw anything sensitive (likely not much) in a sink bag, apologize curtly for the navigational error, and sit tight.
gak happens. Iran could've made a big deal about if if they wanted, but it's not in their interests right now. We could've made a big deal of it and told LT "Not Making LCDR Thanks To His Crew Gundecking 3M And Winding Up As The Face Of America's Apology To Iran (And Navigational Ineptitude)" to have his guys keep their mouths completely shut, but that's also not in our interests. Nobody wants Iran Hostage Crisis 2: Carter Harder.
A phone call to a country that hates us (at least it's leadership) and that was likely the recipient of us doing something shady in the area. Meh, let them posture.
Yup. US gets its boats and servicemen back and Iran gets to show off to its friends, enemies and frenemies about how it caught some western devils in its waters.
A phone call to a country that hates us (at least it's leadership) and that was likely the recipient of us doing something shady in the area. Meh, let them posture.
Yup. US gets its boats and servicemen back, Iran gets to show off to its friends, enemies and frenemies about how it caught some western devils in its waters.
Everybody wins.
Exactly. If we can get someone that loathes us to release our people with a phone call when we were caught in their waters meh. We're good. And don't think for a second our true allies in the region (the few we actually have) would be worried about us appearing weak when this happened.
Everything turned out exactly as it should, and people saying otherwise have political agendas of their own that have nothing to do with Iran for the most part.
Does anyone else think that Iran could be the key to normalizing the Middle East?
We know that this hardcore Islamism is relatively new, all things considered in the area.
We know that the majority population is quite young. And from what I've read, and seen from expats, the West doesn't really seem to be as much of the Great Satan as party lines would have us believe.
Geographically, minus oil and religious structures, is pretty well situated to dominate the region.
Clearly 1980-88 showed they will commit anything to win in war.
Could the West help change (echoes of 1953 I know) Iran back from the path they've taken? I have to think its possible. Nobody will ever know, but wouldn't have letting the democratic government nationalize AIOC, and not supporting the Shah have helped? I know it wasn't politically feasible, but still.
We fething nuked Japan. How is there no way we can't patch things up with Iran? The hostages they didn't kill?
Oh wait the KSA. The Sunni/Shia split America is still involved with.
DutchWinsAll wrote: Does anyone else think that Iran could be the key to normalizing the Middle East?
If we hadn't screwed the pooch with Operation Ajax, yeah maybe. Unfortunately Ajax should most certainly be recorded as one of the US' greatest foreign blunders. Our support for the former Monarchy despite an obvious populist uprising kind of screwed our relationship with the Iranian people. They kind of liked us before the 80s Guess their patience ran out.
We know that this hardcore Islamism is relatively new, all things considered in the area.
It's really not. Islamic Fundamentalism is a long standing issue in every corner of the Middle East and has been for many centuries. It got ignored by the west in part because first we had the Ottomans keeping them down, and then Colonial rule, and some Neo-Colonialism after that. All thats kind of been stripped away, revealing what was there all along. It's not new. We just had the luxury of not having it right in our face before the 60s and 70s.
Today there are a number of issues at play. Though Iran supported Israel way back when, but that supported has faded. Ours has not,. Plus, we put Saddam in charge of Iraq and one of the first things he did was start a war with Iran, which Iran has traditionally viewed as a war with the goal of genocide (good old Sunni vs Shia stuff). We continue to support the Saudis, which isn't helping. Plus our long time habit of propping up dictators. For better or worse, Iran does embrace a democratic ideal culturally so that habit of ours doesn't play well with the Iranian public. Then there's the whole economic sanctions and nuclear stuff.
Iran has a lot of reasons to not like us. Most of them very valid. They'd rather grow closer to Russia and China than to us, which is what's been happening the past few years.
One of the military sites on Facebook I follow is going crazy about this and has turned into a conspiracy theory. It is a bit sad, especially the guy who said "I worked on small boats and they break down all the time but I'm sure this one time they didn't and the administration is just trying to weaken us". Someone else tied it to allowing women into combat.
Unfortunately it has devolved into a bunch of people taking government checks making up gak about the people who actually write those checks they take.
Everything turned out exactly as it should, and people saying otherwise have political agendas of their own that have nothing to do with Iran for the most part.
Not me, I'm pro-American.
In my life experience, if you let somebody push you around, they usually keep on pushing.
IMO as a historian, when great powers abdicate their responsibilities, or begin to decline, or take a step back, bad things usually happen, because other countries want what they have, and trouble starts.
I'm not calling for WW3 because some US sailors had a night in some Iranian jail, I'm saying that America should adopt a measured, but firm, long term plan for the region, that will discourage Iran from brazen acts against America in the future, which is likely to lead to worse trouble than a few sailors getting embarrassed.
The last time the USA took a step back from the world, you ended up with the Japanese fleet sailing for Pearl Harbour...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DutchWinsAll wrote: Does anyone else think that Iran could be the key to normalizing the Middle East?
We know that this hardcore Islamism is relatively new, all things considered in the area.
We know that the majority population is quite young. And from what I've read, and seen from expats, the West doesn't really seem to be as much of the Great Satan as party lines would have us believe.
Geographically, minus oil and religious structures, is pretty well situated to dominate the region.
Clearly 1980-88 showed they will commit anything to win in war.
Could the West help change (echoes of 1953 I know) Iran back from the path they've taken? I have to think its possible. Nobody will ever know, but wouldn't have letting the democratic government nationalize AIOC, and not supporting the Shah have helped? I know it wasn't politically feasible, but still.
We fething nuked Japan. How is there no way we can't patch things up with Iran? The hostages they didn't kill?
Oh wait the KSA. The Sunni/Shia split America is still involved with.
I agree that in an ideal world, Iran would be a good partner, but that ship sailed a long time ago, and the USA has to deal with the world how it is, and not how they want it to be.
I would say the same thing to LordofHats, as well.
The USA needs realpolitik, and although I have no love for the Saudi regime, for better or for worse, they are an American ally, and should be supported more.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: One of the military sites on Facebook I follow is going crazy about this and has turned into a conspiracy theory. It is a bit sad, especially the guy who said "I worked on small boats and they break down all the time but I'm sure this one time they didn't and the administration is just trying to weaken us". Someone else tied it to allowing women into combat.
Unfortunately it has devolved into a bunch of people taking government checks making up gak about the people who actually write those checks they take.
Nobody does checks anymore - it's all electronic payment...Don't tell me they got to you as well!
Ahtman wrote: One of the military sites on Facebook I follow is going crazy about this and has turned into a conspiracy theory. It is a bit sad, especially the guy who said "I worked on small boats and they break down all the time but I'm sure this one time they didn't and the administration is just trying to weaken us". Someone else tied it to allowing women into combat.
Unfortunately it has devolved into a bunch of people taking government checks making up gak about the people who actually write those checks they take.
Yeah, well, the Navy really doesn't like Obama. And it hates Ash Carter.
Not too wild on women in combat either, come to think of it.
That said, the conspiracy guys are dumb. This whole thing doesn't make a ton of sense, but it's probably more indicative of RIVRON squadrons trying to find a way to stay relevant rather than one of the nefarious commies high up in the administration trying to start something.
That said, the conspiracy guys are dumb. This whole thing doesn't make a ton of sense, but it's probably more indicative of RIVRON squadrons trying to find a way to stay relevant rather than one of the nefarious commies high up in the administration trying to start something.
I agree. As a side note, RIVRON and 5th Fleet may want to set up some Code of Conduct training for their junior ossifers...
That said, the conspiracy guys are dumb. This whole thing doesn't make a ton of sense, but it's probably more indicative of RIVRON squadrons trying to find a way to stay relevant rather than one of the nefarious commies high up in the administration trying to start something.
I agree. As a side note, RIVRON and 5th Fleet may want to set up some Code of Conduct training for their junior ossifers...
I was kind of thinking the same. Had a bit of a visceral reaction to the video. But I'm pretty sure they got on the horn with whoever was in charge of this fustercluck before getting scooped up and got told to say what they said. If not...yeesh.
