Gunboat Diplomacy?

[jwoodie]

It will be interesting to find out the specific circumstances surrounding the seizing (and subsequent release) of the American naval ship and crew operating in the Gulf of Oman. Absent a clear and intentional invasion of their territory, it seems like the Iranian actions violated all conventions regarding ships at sea and, technically, constituted an act of war against the United States.

I doubt this would have occurred under a Republican President. Do you?

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, it does not. Trot along.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

It will be interesting to find out the specific circumstances surrounding the seizing (and subsequent release) of the American naval ship and crew operating in the Gulf of Oman. Absent a clear and intentional invasion of their territory, it seems like the Iranian actions violated all conventions regarding ships at sea and, technically, constituted an act of war against the United States.

I doubt this would have occurred under a Republican President. Do you?

BS. Nations have a right to defend their borders, even from us, right?

 

[daws101]

It will be interesting to find out the specific circumstances surrounding the seizing (and subsequent release) of the American naval ship and crew operating in the Gulf of Oman. Absent a clear and intentional invasion of their territory, it seems like the Iranian actions violated all conventions regarding ships at sea and, technically, constituted an act of war against the United States.

I doubt this would have occurred under a Republican President. Do you?

true if turd cruz or the Donald were in office it would have been far worse .

 

[daws101]

the OP is one of those dumbfucks who "thinks' we have carte blance .

 

[Intolerant]

I don't understand the US Navy allowing for this humiliation, letting two armed warships drift into hostile Iranian water with carrier airpower a few minutes away, then permitting their surrender to the Iranians, the crews being filmed in a position of complete submission and Kerry's supplication to Iran. Perhaps they did not have their M2s on board and had no way of defending themselves or calling for air support. The photos I have seen show the M2 cradles empty. The hot climate over their is tough on the engines and can cause breakdowns but airpower could have kept the baddies at bay for sometime. I hope I am wrong about this for our Navy's sake.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We entered Iranian waters, and the Iranians had every right to do what was done. What is wrong with you folks?

 

[bendog]

They blew up our Marines under Ronnie, and ... we ran.

 

[Mr Natural]

How dare they question our intentions!

 

[mascale]

The apology of the commander on Iranian TV explains what had to happen. That is now regarded an allegedly deliberately staged apology: To calm the vehemently anti-US factions within the Iranian borders. The government works better with the United States showing that U. S. gunboats, warplanes, and armored vehicles are not allowed to come and go at will--within Iranian protected space.

On our side, of course, and no doubt, the U. S. would welcome an invasion of any locations where Donald Trump is a part or full-owner: And with nuclear capabilities, ready to be "Fired!"

That would appear to have Bi-Partisan support, and probably Senator Sanders, and the other one(?). Surely Her Majesty's government would easily be on board. . . not to mention any incursion into the rebellious Scottish north(?)!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!
(Snake of Lethal Venom now arriving in California--In time for Academy Awards--maybe expecting something in bad taste, disgraceful, off-color, and over-produced: aka Donald Trump!)

 

[deltex1]

We should have known not to have guns on our boats. Guns can kill people. Like those people in the church...or the kids in that school. Obabble should ban guns on our boats.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It will be interesting to find out the specific circumstances surrounding the seizing (and subsequent release) of the American naval ship and crew operating in the Gulf of Oman. Absent a clear and intentional invasion of their territory, it seems like the Iranian actions violated all conventions regarding ships at sea and, technically, constituted an act of war against the United States.

I doubt this would have occurred under a Republican President. Do you?

You're mentally retarded.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

We should have known not to have guns on our boats. Guns can kill people. Like those people in the church...or the kids in that school. Obabble should ban guns on our boats.

Those guns were almost where guns should be, at war and why they were invented in the first damn place.

 

[deltex1]

We should have known not to have guns on our boats. Guns can kill people. Like those people in the church...or the kids in that school. Obabble should ban guns on our boats.

Those guns were almost where guns should be, at war and why they were invented in the first damn place.

Those goddam chinks...

 

[AceRothstein]

I doubt this would have occurred under a Republican President. Do you?

Did you forget the Hainan Island incident under Bush? It wasn't that long ago.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

It will be interesting to find out the specific circumstances surrounding the seizing (and subsequent release) of the American naval ship and crew operating in the Gulf of Oman. Absent a clear and intentional invasion of their territory, it seems like the Iranian actions violated all conventions regarding ships at sea and, technically, constituted an act of war against the United States.

I doubt this would have occurred under a Republican President. Do you?

If what you claim about your interest about learning the "...specific circumstances surrounding the seizing (and subsequent release) of the American naval ship and crew operating in the Gulf...", then you should start by educating yourself. The two boats, not a ship as you claim, entered the territorial waters of Iran at Farsi Island and loitered there. That was a clear violation of their territorial waters and the boat crews, navigator(s) and boat commanders would have been briefed on that information and NOT to violate same before operations were initiated near those waters. Here is what Iran communicated to the UN in 1993 regarding the UN Law of the Sea Convention (UNCLOS) and "innocent passage" in territorial waters or "harmless passing" as the Iranians define it:

Law of Marine Areas of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the Persian Gulf and Oman Sea

Chapter One, Article 5, Harmless passing;
"Except to the provisions of the article (9), harmless passing of foreign vessels form the territorial waters of Iran, so long as it is not a disturbing cause to the discipline, tranquility and security of the country, is subject to the terms of "harmless passing". Except to the emergency state, passing (from the territorial waters) should be done in a usual speed and without any interruption."

Article 9 noted above could well apply because these were foreign military vessels loitering in Iran's territorial waters;

Chapter One, Article 9, Exceptions to the harmless passing;
"Passing of warships, submarines, ships containing nuclear fuel or any other kind of floating, and ships and submarines carrying nuclear, or other dangerous or harmful materials with respect to the protection of environment, and also other foreign fishing vessels from the territorial waters is subject to an earlier approval of the authoritative officials of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Submarines have to pass over the sea while raising their flag up.
< http://faolex.fao.org/docs/texts/ira1666.doc >

You have been shown their was a provocation on the part of the US Naval forces and Iran acted lawfully under the authority of the LOS Convention so your assertion that "...Iranian actions violated all conventions regarding ships at sea and, technically, constituted an act of war against the United States...." is dead wrong and uninformed.

 

[daws101]

I don't understand the US Navy allowing for this humiliation, letting two armed warships drift into hostile Iranian water with carrier airpower a few minutes away, then permitting their surrender to the Iranians, the crews being filmed in a position of complete submission and Kerry's supplication to Iran. Perhaps they did not have their M2s on board and had no way of defending themselves or calling for air support. The photos I have seen show the M2 cradles empty. The hot climate over their is tough on the engines and can cause breakdowns but airpower could have kept the baddies at bay for sometime. I hope I am wrong about this for our Navy's sake.

another clown who thinks the rules ( which the us helped write ) are for every body else but not US .
major hubris or what?

 

[daws101]

We should have known not to have guns on our boats. Guns can kill people. Like those people in the church...or the kids in that school. Obabble should ban guns on our boats.

 

[mascale]

After all, soon: Iran will also be in the Oil Market! They just may have to pay the U. S. navy to take it off their hands: And that is at today's prices(?)!

Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Old Warrior on horseback--Putin--now probably noting the clever Iran Deal, of Clinton-Kerry-Obama! Maybe find sword of Old Samurai--and fall on it, in time-honored tradition(?)! Maybe jump onto it from horse(?)! Governor Palin no longer have something to see, from Front Porch!)

 

[jwoodie]

It will be interesting to find out the specific circumstances surrounding the seizing (and subsequent release) of the American naval ship and crew operating in the Gulf of Oman. Absent a clear and intentional invasion of their territory, it seems like the Iranian actions violated all conventions regarding ships at sea and, technically, constituted an act of war against the United States.

I doubt this would have occurred under a Republican President. Do you?

If what you claim about your interest about learning the "...specific circumstances surrounding the seizing (and subsequent release) of the American naval ship and crew operating in the Gulf...", then you should start by educating yourself. The two boats, not a ship as you claim, entered the territorial waters of Iran at Farsi Island and loitered there. That was a clear violation of their territorial waters and the boat crews, navigator(s) and boat commanders would have been briefed on that information and NOT to violate same before operations were initiated near those waters. Here is what Iran communicated to the UN in 1993 regarding the UN Law of the Sea Convention (UNCLOS) and "innocent passage" in territorial waters or "harmless passing" as the Iranians define it:

Law of Marine Areas of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the Persian Gulf and Oman Sea

Chapter One, Article 5, Harmless passing;
"Except to the provisions of the article (9), harmless passing of foreign vessels form the territorial waters of Iran, so long as it is not a disturbing cause to the discipline, tranquility and security of the country, is subject to the terms of "harmless passing". Except to the emergency state, passing (from the territorial waters) should be done in a usual speed and without any interruption."

Article 9 noted above could well apply because these were foreign military vessels loitering in Iran's territorial waters;

Chapter One, Article 9, Exceptions to the harmless passing;
"Passing of warships, submarines, ships containing nuclear fuel or any other kind of floating, and ships and submarines carrying nuclear, or other dangerous or harmful materials with respect to the protection of environment, and also other foreign fishing vessels from the territorial waters is subject to an earlier approval of the authoritative officials of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Submarines have to pass over the sea while raising their flag up.
< http://faolex.fao.org/docs/texts/ira1666.doc >

You have been shown their was a provocation on the part of the US Naval forces and Iran acted lawfully under the authority of the LOS Convention so your assertion that "...Iranian actions violated all conventions regarding ships at sea and, technically, constituted an act of war against the United States...." is dead wrong and uninformed.

Thanks for reminding me to put you on my IGNORE list. The main difference between you and the other imbeciles on that list is that you are more long-winded. Other than that, you share a basic lack of reading comprehension, combined with a tendency for hysterical outburst and mindless vilification of anyone who even mentions a subject to which you have some emotional personification.

For the record, I will repeat my post and try to explain it in simpler terms:

It will be interesting to find out the specific circumstances surrounding the seizing (and subsequent release) of the American naval ship and crew operating in the Gulf of Oman.

This means that I do yet know what these circumstances are. Do you? If so, what is your source?

Absent a clear and intentional invasion of their territory, it seems like the Iranian actions violated all conventions regarding ships at sea and, technically, constituted an act of war against the United States.

Was this a clear and intentional invasion of their territory? By "all conventions regarding ships at sea" I meant generally recognized international agreements, not unilateral revisions of such agreements by the Iranians. By "act of war" I meant the military seizure of American property and personnel by a foreign country.

I doubt this would have occurred under a Republican President. Do you?

For those lacking any knowledge of recent history, I was referring to the directly comparable Iranian seizure of U.S. Embassy property and personnel while Democrat Jimmy Carter was President and their release immediately prior to Republican Ronald Reagan's Presidential Inauguration.