Iran Guards warn U.S. of "fallout" over bomb attack

[Gerald]

Story,
(Reuters) - The United States will face "fallout" from a deadly rebel bomb attack in southeast Iran, a senior Revolutionary Guards commander was quoted as saying on Saturday by a semi-official Iranian news agency.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66G0NT20100717

[Oberon]

Is the prevailing wind blowing into Afghanistan then? :hmmm:

[Jimbuna]

Is the prevailing wind blowing into Afghanistan then? :hmmm:

LOL :DL

What Iran needs now is a more moderate leader...a Mullah Lite .

[TLAM Strike]

Is the prevailing wind blowing into Afghanistan then? :hmmm: Naw the prevailing winds over Bushehr (where they got that PWR) blow in to the Gulf. :ping: So we got to stay south east of the STOH. :03:

LOL :DL

What Iran needs now is a more moderate leader...a Mullah Lite .

When we told them they needed a moderate they took it to mean this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_moderator).

[Gerald]

Naw the prevailing winds over Bushehr (where they got that PWR) blow in to the Gulf. :ping: So we got to stay south east of the STOH. :03:



When we told them they needed a moderate they took it to mean this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_moderator). Yes :yep:

[Castout]

When you have less than credible election you better come out with a strong external enemy fast even when it's imaginary.:D

Iranians deserve better than a dirty election. They are the kind of people who deserve seeing their country to prosper and dignified. It has the propensity to be a great nation seeing the young people there.

I hope there won't be another Neda . . .

[onelifecrisis]

What Iran needs now is a more moderate leader...a Mullah Lite .

Haha! That tickled me.

[krashkart]

When you have less than credible election you better come out with a strong external enemy fast even when it's imaginary.:D

Iranians deserve better than a dirty election. They are the kind of people who deserve seeing their country to prosper and dignified. It has the propensity to be a great nation seeing the young people there.

I hope there won't be another Neda . . .

+1 :up:

Did anyone here see that Ted Koppel special a couple years back where he went to Iran? I believe it was aired on the Discovery Channel.


EDIT - Found YouTube links. Pretty sure it's the right one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0B-Y_qMnaM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KR0FysIVTqA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwStjKAf59w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nslKX2Q9X44
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wot2eoYSdXk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lX5juA_ye5s

[Skybird]

I hope there won't be another Neda . . .
If that woman would have been the only victim, you would have a point. But behind eachletter of that name are hundreds more, so in a grim, brutally meaningless way this women called Neda - is no special case at all - just one amongst many.


What Iran needs now is a more moderate leader...a Mullah Lite
What is that term supposed to mean...

Meanwhile:
A Quiet Axis Forms Against Iran in the Middle East (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,706445,00.html)



Shia versus Sunni, Arabs versus Persians: a thousand years of civil war - that's what I call "putting your heart and soul in it".

[Oberon]

What is that term supposed to mean...

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/02_02/mullerDM2002_400x377.jpg

[Raptor1]

What is that term supposed to mean...

Meanwhile:
A Quiet Axis Forms Against Iran in the Middle East (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/A%20Quiet%20Axis%20Forms%20Against%20Iran%20in%20t he%20Middle%20East)



Shia versus Sunni, Arabs versus Persians: a thousand years of civil war - that's what I call "putting your heart and soul in it".

Your link, sir, is incorrect.

[STEED]

P*** off Iran. :DL

[Skybird]

Sorry for that broken link. The linking feature of this forum often leaves me in the dust, that'S why I almost never use it - sometimes it works, sometimes it replaces the http link I paste and copy with the subsim homepage.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,706445,00.html

[Jimbuna]

What is that term supposed to mean...



A Mullah.....holy man educated in Islamic theology and sacred law....a leader like the Ayatollah.

A Lite version....one that is not so intense or anti-western.

= a new Iranian leader that would be easier to get along with.....A MULLAH LITE (also the name of a dessert) :DL

It's a play on words....British humour :hmmm:

[FIREWALL]

A Mullah.....holy man educated in Islamic theology and sacred law....a leader like the Ayatollah.

A Lite version....one that is not so intense or anti-western.

= a new Iranian leader that would be easier to get along with.....A MULLAH LITE (also the name of a dessert) :DL

It's a play on words....British humour :hmmm:


And I thought you meant this:
http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/9928/vortexbottle.jpg

:haha:

[Skybird]

A Mullah.....holy man educated in Islamic theology and sacred law....a leader like the Ayatollah.

A Lite version....one that is not so intense or anti-western.

= a new Iranian leader that would be easier to get along with.....A MULLAH LITE (also the name of a dessert) :DL

It's a play on words....British humour :hmmm:

Öh - I am afraid I must tell you that you took me a bit too - literally. ;) :)

[Moeceefus]

For every IED they ship over to our enemies, should result in a cruise missle hitting thier leaders and infrastructure. I still cant believe Brittian surrendered a gunship to them, and our own navy allows them to harass and threaten our ships on thier little speed boats. Its craziness.

[Jimbuna]

And I thought you meant this:
http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/9928/vortexbottle.jpg

:haha:

LOL :DL

Öh - I am afraid I must tell you that you took me a bit too - literally. ;) :)

Ya bad bugga!! :03:

[Jimbuna]

For every IED they ship over to our enemies, should result in a cruise missle hitting thier leaders and infrastructure. I still cant believe Brittian surrendered a gunship to them, and our own navy allows them to harass and threaten our ships on thier little speed boats. Its craziness.

What gunship?

Are you talking about the small inspection boat fitted with an outboard?

[Moeceefus]

What gunship?

Are you talking about the small inspection boat fitted with an outboard?


No, I'm refering to the big boat that the Iranians boarded to "inspect" for suspicion of smuggling so they claim.

[TLAM Strike]

For every IED they ship over to our enemies, should result in a cruise missle hitting thier leaders and infrastructure. We go bankrupt. BGM-109 $57,500 per unit. I could build an IED for under $50.

I still cant believe Brittian surrendered a gunship to them, and our own navy allows them to harass and threaten our ships on thier little speed boats. Problem is location. The oil terminals are within 10 miles of the IRGCN forward base (AKA "The Finger")
http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/8568/fingerloc.gif
How fast can a Boghammar cross 10 miles? Fast!

Unless we are willing to cross in to their waters and sink them there is not much we can do.

Its craziness. Its the Middle East, they invented crazy.

[Moeceefus]

We go bankrupt. BGM-109 $57,500 per unit. I could build an IED for under $50.

Its the Middle East, they invented crazy.




I'm not being literal of course, but something needs to be done to show them we aren't pushovers or they will only continue to push the limits until who knows what. Most likely a nuclear who knows what.

[Weiss Pinguin]

And I thought you meant this:
http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/9928/vortexbottle.jpg

:haha:
Same here :lol:

[krashkart]

Öh - I am afraid I must tell you that you took me a bit too - literally. ;) :)

Ha! This place never gets old.:rotfl2:

[The Third Man]

May I give some advice? Kill. Forget about anything else. Shoot now and ask questions later.

[Skybird]

Ya bad bugga!! :03:

http://urlaub-mit-hund.themental.de/images/Urlaub-mit-Hund-image1.jpg

[Jimbuna]

No, I'm refering to the big boat that the Iranians boarded to "inspect" for suspicion of smuggling so they claim.


I'm afraid I need something more detailed than 'gunship' and 'big boat'.

Those two references would suggest a warship (HMS - Her Majestys Ship).

A link to some info would be appreciated...I'm intrigued.

[TLAM Strike]

I'm afraid I need something more detailed than 'gunship' and 'big boat'.

Those two references would suggest a warship (HMS - Her Majestys Ship).

A link to some info would be appreciated...I'm intrigued.

Two incidents he could be talking about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Iranian_seizure_of_Royal_Navy_personnel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Iranian_seizure_of_Royal_Navy_personnel

In 2004 they captured some kind of riverine patrol boat. In 2007 they captured a Zodiac boat.

[Gerald]

Media blow it up,right too get attention in this case :yep:

[Tribesman]

Two incidents he could be talking about:
So in the first it appears the British were in Iranian waters where they are not allowed to be, in the second they were in disputed waters where they certainly are not allowed to be.
Oh those naughty Iranians going where they are not allowed to be.

still cant believe Brittian surrendered a gunship to them, and our own navy allows them to harass and threaten our ships on thier little speed boats. Its craziness.
What was crazy about the speedboat incidents is the obvious lies the US told about them.

[TLAM Strike]

So in the first it appears the British were in Iranian waters where they are not allowed to be The Iranian claim they were in Iranian waters the British claim they were still in Iraqi waters.


in the second they were in disputed waters where they certainly are not allowed to be. They are allowed to be their since they are operating on behalf of the Iraqi government.

The reason these waters are disputed is tides. A high tide the line of demarcation is in one position at low its at another. Also neither the Iranians or Iraqis will come to an agreement over just where the border is, one side wants it down the center of the Shatt al-Arab while the other wants it at shore.

The reason the IRGCN is harassing Coalition forces and Iraqi shipping in this area is that:
A) Coalition patrols make it difficult to smuggle weapons (http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2009/1106/p11s01-wome.html) in to Iraq and fuel (http://www.iwpr.net/report-news/basra-fishermen-smuggle-subsidised-fuel) out.
B) Coalition patrols prevent them from extorting the Iraqi fisherman for protection. (http://articles.latimes.com/2008/oct/21/world/fg-fishermen21)

[Tribesman]

The Iranian claim they were in Iranian waters the British claim they were still in Iraqi waters.

That why I used the word "appears", besides which the shatt is a matter of dispute between two nations which Britain has no role in. which also comes to.....
They are allowed to be their since they are operating on behalf of the Iraqi government.

No, the mandate was very clear, they were operating under a strict mandate and they were specificly not allowed to enter disputed territory as that would be an act of aggression. That was reinforced by orders from the British military.
I will see if I can find the statement from the British admiralty that they released at the time of the incident(though most of the media ignored it of course) Though the so far released parts of the Air chief marshals inquiry and of course by the UK government enquiry by the foreign affairs commitee all backthat up as does the problems Britain had with trying to go through the UN to pressure Iran as at that time it was a UN mandate the British were under and that UN mandate that they broke.

The reason the IRGCN is harassing Coalition forces and Iraqi shipping in this area is that:

Hold on coilition forces no longer do the Iraq Iran border down south as that is done by the new Iraqi forces made up from the Iranian trained and funded Badr brigades so why would they bother smuggling by sea when their people are running both sides of the land border?

[Jimbuna]

Two incidents he could be talking about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Iranian_seizure_of_Royal_Navy_personnel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Iranian_seizure_of_Royal_Navy_personnel

In 2004 they captured some kind of riverine patrol boat. In 2007 they captured a Zodiac boat.

Yep, I remember those but it was the reference to 'gunship' and 'big boat' that had me wondering if I'd forgotten about some frigate or destroyer we'd lost :DL

[TLAM Strike]

That why I used the word "appears", besides which the shatt is a matter of dispute between two nations which Britain has no role in. which also comes to.....

No, the mandate was very clear, they were operating under a strict mandate and they were specificly not allowed to enter disputed territory as that would be an act of aggression. That was reinforced by orders from the British military.
I will see if I can find the statement from the British admiralty that they released at the time of the incident(though most of the media ignored it of course) Though the so far released parts of the Air chief marshals inquiry and of course by the UK government enquiry by the foreign affairs commitee all backthat up as does the problems Britain had with trying to go through the UN to pressure Iran as at that time it was a UN mandate the British were under and that UN mandate that they broke. That is its disputed is disputed (its the middle east nothing can be agreed upon!) The 2007 boat was seized south east of both the Algeria Agreement and International boundary lines. The IRGCN on the other hand ignores all boundaries and has jurisdiction where ever no one has a bigger gun.


Hold on coilition forces no longer do the Iraq Iran border down south as that is done by the new Iraqi forces made up from the Iranian trained and funded Badr brigades so why would they bother smuggling by sea when their people are running both sides of the land border? The Badr Brigates are just one group of many the IP and Iraqi Navy patrol the Tigris and Shatt al-Arab as well.

[Moeceefus]

What was crazy about the speedboat incidents is the obvious lies the US told about them.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bLqPSjD7P8

[Tribesman]

Moeceefus.
Do you realise that the video you linked to was thoroughly trashed as complete rubbish the very day it was released?

That is its disputed is disputed
Can you find any agreement between the two nations that both recognise an established maritime boundary between the two states in that location?
No, so it is disputed and that is beyond dispute.

The 2007 boat was seized south east of both the Algeria Agreement and International boundary lines.
The problem there is that though the treaty was signed the demarcation wasn't completed so there is still no agreed international boundary lines there, since of course that constitutes breaking the spirit of the treaty that puts #4 into play which means it isn't a solution.
Though as you wished to mention that treaty, if it were in effect it would mean that the sofa Iraq has given the coilition would be invalid and the US and British could not be in Iraq at all.

[Moeceefus]

[QUOTE=Tribesman;1449371]Moeceefus.
Do you realise that the video you linked to was thoroughly trashed as complete rubbish the very day it was released?

QUOTE]


What would be the point of faking that and where is your proof that thats the case? Do you not believe Iran is trying to incite more problems in the middle east?

[TLAM Strike]

Moeceefus.
Do you realise that the video you linked to was thoroughly trashed as complete rubbish the very day it was released? It was not. It was just a misunderstanding. Some @$$ holes on the guard net (or its naval equivalent) talking $h!t in the middle of an encounter between IRGCN and USN forces and the USN forces assumed they were taking to them. If this happened in US waters the USCG would have found out who was misusing the radio net and prosecuted them.

This was the equivalent of listening on a police scanner and in the middle of a standoff going on your own radio on the police channel and saying "Shots fired".


Can you find any agreement between the two nations that both recognise an established maritime boundary between the two states in that location?
No, so it is disputed and that is beyond dispute. The boundary is recognized by the parties what is not recognized is where boundary currently falls. The required surveys were not conducted after the Iran-Iraq war so the current charts showing the boundary are not up to date with the current holographic situation.


Though as you wished to mention that treaty, if it were in effect it would mean that the sofa Iraq has given the coilition would be invalid and the US and British could not be in Iraq at all. The Treaty was between Iran and Iraq the US and the UK Etc were not participants.

[Castout]

+1 :up:

Did anyone here see that Ted Koppel special a couple years back where he went to Iran? I believe it was aired on the Discovery Channel.


EDIT - Found YouTube links. Pretty sure it's the right one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0B-Y_qMnaM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KR0FysIVTqA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwStjKAf59w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nslKX2Q9X44
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wot2eoYSdXk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lX5juA_ye5s

I wouldn't call Iran as the most dangerous nation. Sure their current leadership is very anti American and Israel but they are not as stupid and desperate as the North Korean leadership who imo fits the title of the most dangerous nation.

[TLAM Strike]

I wouldn't call Iran as the most dangerous nation. Sure their current leadership is very anti American and Israel but they are not as stupid and desperate as the North Korean leadership who imo fits the title of the most dangerous nation.

Agree for different reasons. The Iranians simply lack significant numbers of modern jets, ships and tanks for a conflict with the west or the GCC. At least with the Norkors they follow Stalin's old dictum.

Iran is more destabilizing than outright dangerous.

[Castout]

Agree for different reasons. The Iranians simply lack significant numbers of modern jets, ships and tanks for a conflict with the west or the GCC. At least with the Norkors they follow Stalin's old dictum.

Iran is more destabilizing than outright dangerous.

Well only because of their current leadership.

I still believe you could talk with Iran as long as you keep the lunatic Israeli right wing extremist at bay :D. Sometimes no make that a lot of times I'm worry about Israel getting out of hand than I worry about Iran rhetoric. I guess Israel developed that trait to keep them safe understandable knowing their history.

[TLAM Strike]

Well only because of their current leadership.

I'm not so sure, Iran has always been a regional powerhouse since the end of WWII. Its just until the revolution they were working against the Communist supporting regimes in the region. But they did have confrontations with the western allied UAE that culminated in the invasion and capture of several UAE islands by the Iranian Navy and Marines.

[Tribesman]

This was the equivalent of listening on a police scanner and in the middle of a standoff going on your own radio on the police channel and saying "Shots fired".

Rather like the claims initially made about the transmissions during Gaza ships incident.

The boundary is recognized by the parties what is not recognized is where boundary currently falls
Exactly, there is a boundary as there are two states but the location of that boundary is not established therefore the territorial claims by those two states are disputed.
The UN mandate under which the coilition remained in Iraq, and the british government and armed forces policies do not allow for operations in the disputed territory as that would be an act of aggression.

The Treaty was between Iran and Iraq the US and the UK Etc were not participants.
And what does the treaty say about foreign countries?

It was not. It was just a misunderstanding.
A misunderstanding??????
Was it what it was claimed to be? No
Did the naval personell featured make several glaringly obvious mistakes in their own transmission? Yes
Were the claims made by the DoD and Whitehouse spokesmen at the time false? Yes.
The incident was indeed a misunderstanding by the US, but its portrayal was deliberatly misleading and false....rather like the claims made by the British at the time of their incidentand indeed the claims that were found to be tantamount to lying to Parliament.
I suppose its kinda like the Tonkin incident where the only real truth in the statement given was that the USS Maddox was indeed a US Destroyer:yep:

[Skybird]

Agree for different reasons. The Iranians simply lack significant numbers of modern jets, ships and tanks for a conflict with the west or the GCC. At least with the Norkors they follow Stalin's old dictum.

Iran is more destabilizing than outright dangerous.

Iran is well-armed eough to make an oinvasion of it and groundwar on its territory a thing so compolicated that it makes Afghanistan and Iraq looking easy. And this ability is what counts. If they accheivbe it with traditional jets and tank fleets, or via guerilla warfare, asymmetricl war and all that beefed up with scores of missile systems, does not really matter.

Israel is a factions that can be calculated in its (limited) regional interests. that has been understood by many Araba nations, and that is why they formed secret but de facto alliances with Israel against the Sunni Persians. Iran'S interests goes far beyond the block it lives in. The malicious nature of their policies and leaders is illustrated by their dogma to destroy Israel, and their massive, really massive support for international terrorism and warf factions in and around Israel, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan.

One must draw a line in the sand and make clear to them: not one step beyond this line - or else. But the Western policies of the past ten years , with so many ultimatums and final demands and negotiations where Iran just wanted to buy time and timetables raised only to see them getting forgotten, does not make me optimistic that Western politicians have what it takes to understand what they are dealing with. Becasue then they would need to recognise that they must not talk but act with solid determination - and if there is one thing poltiicians really hate, then it is taking a stand on something that cannot be defended by words only, but need solid action to be defended.

My bet is that Iran is winning the race for the bomb, and that the West will make a loud tam-tam about it and prefers to do nothing substantial. and then we have what at all cost we should avoid, no matter the cost: a second Pakistan. I personally am not willing to accept a second Pakistan, even more since this will trigger a regionaol nuclear arms race, and Israel very likely prefering to strike before Iran has functional nukes - evcen if it only is to delay it (more the Israelis cannot do, and this also only if their operation runs optimal - which should not be taken for granted).

I also want to remind of the fact that the Iranian opposition leader Mussawi has made it very clear that he also would run for the nuclear bomb, if he would have gotten elected. He is often called a reformer, becasue people in the West do bnot known anythiung about him and only see that he does not openly attack the West in words so hilariously like Ahmadinejadh. But if anyone thinks he must conclude from that that he a "moderate", he probably conlcudes wrong. Mussawi also is a conservative Muhammedan basing in strict Islam, and he wants the bomb, too, he said that clearly in interviews before the elections. Also please remember that the man has no real references that would qualify him as a "reformist". In fact, in the late 80s he alrready should run for the presidency - in the name of the radicals, and then again in the late 90s. He has a reputation. but not as a reformer, but as a hardcore conservative. He lost nomination becasue Rafsandjani and Chatami beat him - by personal networks of theirs, and becasue it was believed that Mussawi would give Iran a more radical face to the West that would trigger more resistance to Iran'S plans than was inevitable. Mussawi also hailed the US embassy drama as "a second Iranian revolution". Mussawi broke diplomatic relations with Saudi arabaia, and cracked down on many foreign cultural institutions in the 80s.

Mussawi is not about reforms and moderate Islam when he ran for the elecitons last year, that is a total mispercpetionb by the West, and many young Iranians. Mussawi simply was about coming to power. Since he does not act as rethorical as Ahmadinejadh (minimisng oppositon from the West that way), but in principle runs the same agenda, I rate Mussawi as the far more dangeorus man, compared to Ahmadinejadh.

[TLAM Strike]

Rather like the claims initially made about the transmissions during Gaza ships incident. I heard no such claims so I can not comment.


Exactly, there is a boundary as there are two states but the location of that boundary is not established therefore the territorial claims by those two states are disputed.
The UN mandate under which the coilition remained in Iraq, and the british government and armed forces policies do not allow for operations in the disputed territory as that would be an act of aggression.It is established. The current location of the established boundary is unknown. Colition forces operated under the most recent known location of the established boundary while the IRGCN operates where they wish and routinely violate the boundary.


And what does the treaty say about foreign countries? What is interference to one country is assistance to another.


A misunderstanding??????
Was it what it was claimed to be? No After the political BS died down it was.


Did the naval personell featured make several glaringly obvious mistakes in their own transmission? Yes Where? The two videos of the incident are of communications from two different ships! The IRGCN boat is in contact with the USS Port Royal ("Coalition Warship 73") while the USS Hopper is on a different channel. The channel the IRGCN ship was previously transmitting on- they switched from Channel 16 to channel 11 but continued to transmitted briefly on channel 16 before the commander realized his radio operator had not switched the channel. (I have a feeling that the "Glaring Mistakes" you mention were not the obvious poor training of the IRGCN) FWI Channel 16 is requied to be monitored by all US vessels (USN, USCG, Civil) and is to be used for both distress calls and contacts between two approaching vessels. At that point a some local jack ass sends the famous transmission on Channel 16.

Were the claims made by the DoD and Whitehouse spokesmen at the time false? Yes. False and in error are two different things, false implies malice. The Press Secretaries are not experts they are just good at talking.

The incident was indeed a misunderstanding by the US, but its portrayal was deliberatly misleading and false....rather like the claims made by the British at the time of their incidentand indeed the claims that were found to be tantamount to lying to Parliament. How were the British lying? They agreed with the first Iranian claim of where the RN sailors were captured. The Iranians first press release showed the IRGCN boarded the RN zodiac in Iraqi Waters! :haha: It wasn't until the British government mentioned that that they changed their story.

Yea someone was lying to their government and I have the feeling it was an officer in the IRGCN.


I suppose its kinda like the Tonkin incident where the only real truth in the statement given was that the USS Maddox was indeed a US Destroyer:yep: And that the North Vietnamese Navy operated torpedo boats, and the USS Maddox was hit by a 14.5mm shell, and a USN F-8 was also hit. Did we distort what happened? Sure. Did the North Vietnamese? Sure, they claimed to have hit the Maddox with a torpedo!

[tater]

There is a long standing way for navies to resolve such disputes.

Fight it out. We'll see how that works for Iran. I frankly don't particularly care what Iran's opinion on anything is, they need a good bitch-slapping.

Maybe we should secretly arm all the gays in Iran (that don't exist)—they might as well shoot it out, since the alternative is being hung from a crane on the back of a truck (along with women who have the temerity to hang out with men).

[TLAM Strike]

Iran is well-armed eough to make an oinvasion of it and groundwar on its territory a thing so compolicated that it makes Afghanistan and Iraq looking easy. And this ability is what counts. If they accheivbe it with traditional jets and tank fleets, or via guerilla warfare, asymmetricl war and all that beefed up with scores of missile systems, does not really matter. Still nothing preventing a major air offensive. Any Iranian counter attack by land would be in to deserts (both on the east and west of Iran) where US forces could do "Mother of all battles part II". increased guerilla warfare in Iraq or Afghanistan simply becomes a situation of "the same $h!t, just more of it".

Maybe we should secretly arm all the gays in Iran (that don't exist)—they might as well shoot it out, since the alternative is being hung from a crane on the back of a truck (along with women who have the temerity to hang out with men). Or have you wiener cut down the middle and turned inside out. Seriously Iran is second only to Thailand in sex reassignment surgeries (http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2008/02/25/want_the_government_to_pay_for_your_sex_change_go_ to_iran). Unfortunately the US armed gays will have to fight it out with the Iranian armed Pedophiles (That's legal over there along with most of the ME).

Having known a girl who was raped as a young child I have no problem with US troops castrating every prisoner they got in Gitmo or where else with rusty bayonets. :down:

[Tribesman]

It is established. The current location of the established boundary is unknown.
If a boundary has no known location then it isn't established.
Colition forces operated under the most recent known location of the established boundary
Bull. Plus they specificly were not allowed to opearate in disputed territory.
Where?
In what they were saying.
False and in error are two different things, false implies malice.
Deliberatly misleading clearly implies the malice element if you want to put it that way, and the claims made were deliberately misleading
How were the British lying?
Ask them, thats what their own inquiry said, deliberatly misleading is the term.

Having known a girl who was raped as a young child I have no problem with US troops castrating every prisoner they got in Gitmo or where else with rusty bayonets.
Wow I didn't know Gitmo was being used for convicted sex offenders, did they have to change its purpose as they were they having problems getting enough real terrorists to lock up?

[Skybird]

Still nothing preventing a major air offensive. Any Iranian counter attack by land would be in to deserts (both on the east and west of Iran) where US forces could do "Mother of all battles part II". increased guerilla warfare in Iraq or Afghanistan simply becomes a situation of "the same $h!t, just more of it".

That may be like you say - or not, but one thing I am certain of, and have said so since years: you canot destroy the Iranian bomb program from the air alone as long as you do not will the sue of socalled mini-nukes. Precise target coordinates simply are not avialable to the needed ammount for precisely bombing key installations and subterranean hardened constructions that are jhidden inside a prhibited area of lets say 20x50 km.

You can delay it a bit by doing some damage - but you canot stop it from the air, even more so since the psychlogical facts of wetsern soceities you must pay attemtion to sooner or later. and the truth is that no western country would accept to have a major air strike on Iran every couple of years.

Iranian retaliation would not be limited to Iraq and Afghanistan, btw. We also talk about civil unrest9nside Israel sponsored by Iran, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Iranian activity in Gaza, terror sponsoring worldwide, and to be expected Iranian-sponsored terror strikes throughout the world. So, a conventional air war not only would not acchieve the military objective of destroying the bomb program (and I accept no other objective than destruction of it - delaying it is soemthing I am not willing to call to war for), but it possibly also would cause extremely costly fallout.

Either go for the destruction of the program - no matter the cost, no matter the means needed - or put the whoole idea of ,military punishement of iran away and prepare to accept a nuclear armed iran plus all the negative consequences this would be followed by. I can't say I am a fan of any of these two options, but as I said: I do not accept another Pakistan become reality, so air-strike Iran for the sake of the global interest and mini-nuke the critical installations of their research and construction facilities, additonally contaminating the places in any way so that they cannot be accessed and put back to use again.

With this opinion I will not become popular in Western politics, I'm sure. I'm violating a taboo.

[TLAM Strike]

If a boundary has no known location then it isn't established. Never heard of a undefined boundary?

Bull. Plus they specificly were not allowed to opearate in disputed territory. The law says otherwise. (See below.)


In what they were saying. Care to cite an example of incorrect radio procedure?

Deliberatly misleading clearly implies the malice element if you want to put it that way, and the claims made were deliberately misleading Deliberately releasing information reported in error not known at the time or partial information is not an act of malice. It maybe an act of stupidly or jumping the gun but not malice.

Ask them, thats what their own inquiry said, deliberatly misleading is the term. Considering that the IRGCN routinely operates in Iraqi waters and that both the Origional Iranian and British locations of the capture of the Zodiac were in Iraq waters its not hard to assume that the findings of whatever inquiry you are citing were political motivated.

Which I find strange because I have the MOD report on the 27 March 07 incident in front of me and it says:

At 0745hrs on 23 Mar 07 a boarding team consisting of 2 x RHIBs, 15 personnel and CRWL’s Lynx departed CRWL to board the [redacted]. En route to the [redacted] the Lynx over flew the MV HANIN and reported that they had identified a potentially illegal cargo of motor cars aboard the MV HANIN. A decision was made to re-direct the boarding to this vessel which was located outside the Buffer Zone 1.5nm from the Op Line.BTW the Op line is...


The 1975 Algiers Accord drew a line down the centre of the navigable channel and made provision for 10-yearly reviews to account for silting. To date, no review has been undertaken and beyond the mouth of the Shatt al Arab...



... the coalition tactical demarcation (the Op Line) is used as a notional TTW boundary. It is a US NAVCENT construct based on an extension of the Algiers Accord demarcation line beyond the mouth of the Shatt al Arab into the NAG.


So the Op line is an extension of the existing line. Does Iran claim waters beyond that line? They have not published any claim beyond it, routinely operating their boats in the waters does not make it theirs. Occupying an Iraqi crane barge they sunk near the Shatt doesn't make it theirs. I think they would they claim the whole gulf if we were not their to stop them.


it goes on to say...


The crew of the MV HANIN became agitated and the captain told the boarding party that he did not want them to leave as he was fearful of Iranian reprisals.Reprisals? Why would that be? Why would they fear IRGCN forces? Could it be that the IRGCN isn't out there handing out cupcakes but engaging in state sponsored Piracy?

I read an email published by a sailor who served in the NAG aboard USS Underwood. Here is probably the most important part of it:

I also DO mean TERROR CREWS because nightly we would hear fishermen begging for help over the civilian radio as they were attacked in what can only be viewed as state sponsored piracy, usually in Iraqi waters. Lots of stuff from that time still piss me off.I don't give a $h!t what waters you are in! Neither does Black's Law Dictionary. In combating piracy lines on a chart do not matter, Coalition forces have Universal Jurisdiction when it comes to combating piracy.


Wow I didn't know Gitmo was being used for convicted sex offenders, did they have to change its purpose as they were they having problems getting enough real terrorists to lock up? Hamas a known terrorist group routinely organizes mass child weddings. Considering that Saudi clerics also support Child Marriage I would not be surprised Whabbist groups also conducted such acts.

Terrorism supports Pedophilia

Where can I get that on a T Shirt? :hmmm:

If I made one would you buy one Skybird? :haha:

With this opinion I will not become popular in Western politics, I'm sure. I'm violating a taboo. Well I'm not a politician I'm a tactician and I agree with most of what you said. One thing to consider as part of an "Air War" against Iran is Airborne forces. Basically bombing a site, dropping in paras to clear out any bunkers then flying them out on helis or using a captured airstrip for Hercs. Against any counter attack by IRIA or IRGC forces use B-52s armed with GBUs or Spectre/Spooky Gunships to provide some area denial.

[Skybird]

One thing to consider as part of an "Air War" against Iran is Airborne forces. Basically bombing a site, dropping in paras to clear out any bunkers then flying them out on helis or using a captured airstrip for Hercs. Against any counter attack by IRIA or IRGC forces use B-52s armed with GBUs or Spectre/Spooky Gunships to provide some area denial.
I can imagine that only for sites very near the coastline or borders with a country that supports such a military operation. It would be high risk operations, and it would be better to avoid such operations whereever possible. On the border issue, I think you can forget about Turkey now. Russia also would anot allow that, I suppose. Leave you with Afghanistan only. However, many known prhibited areas where parts of their production program are located, are scattered around Teheran and the heart of the country. I think that rules out to go there with helicopters - going there from the Gulf anyway.

[Tribesman]

Never heard of a undefined boundary?


Yes, its a boundary that isn't established.

The law says otherwise.
What law?

Care to cite an example of incorrect radio procedure?

Who said anything about proceedure?
I mean the contradictory statements made by the radio Op.
Those same condtradictions were repeated in the post incident circus by the military and politicians.
Its to do with the legal status of the waters and the vessels.

Deliberately releasing information reported in error not known at the time or partial information is not an act of malice
But releasing information that you have just made up and presenting it as factual is.

Considering that the IRGCN routinely operates in Iraqi waters
Disputed waters.

both the Origional Iranian and British locations of the capture of the Zodiac were in Iraq waters
Disputed waters


Which I find strange because I have the MOD report on the 27 March 07 incident in front of me and it says:

So you are trying to say that it says the operation didn't take place in waters that are not internationally recognised as Iraqi:haha::haha::haha:
Would you say that it also doesn't say that the event was the result of a lack of an agreed boundary

BTW the Op line is...

A line made up by the US Navy that has no status.

So the Op line is an extension of the existing line.
So the Op line is a made up line of no legal standing that is claimed to be an extension of a line that isn't established.

A simple question to settle for once and all your attempt to make a non existant thing a real thing.
You cite the report which mentions the US invented line as a notional boundary......what does notional mean?

I don't give a $h!t what waters you are in!
Really, so laws don't matter?

Neither does Black's Law Dictionary. In combating piracy lines on a chart do not matter, Coalition forces have Universal Jurisdiction when it comes to combating piracy.

Errrrrr....combatting piracy is down to law, but you just said laws don't matter which means there is no piracy. besides which this incident was a matter of alledged smuggling of vehicles which is a police and customs mater an had bugger all to do with piracy.
But I understand your point, when the legal footing you are basing your stand on gets washed away you feel the need to say the laws don't matter.

[tater]

Nice to know we have someone here we can depend on to defend the territorial claims of a country that murders people for things like sexual orientation.

Nevermind all the violence in Iraq since 2003 stirred up (or actively aided) by Iran.

[Tribesman]

Nice to know we have someone here we can depend on to defend the territorial claims of a country that murders people for things like sexual orientation.

It has nothing to do with defending Irans claims, its just saying that Britains and Americas claims about the incident were pure bollox and their claims about international law were ludicrous.
If the British were in the right then there would be no problem, but the fact is they initially claimed they were in the right and were fully justified when they knew full well theat wasn't the case and their justification was bogus.
Its nice to know that you cannot address the actual issue tater and instead choose to build a strawman:yeah:

[tater]

From a legalistic standpoint, the US has been at war with Iran since they declared war on us by invading sovereign, US territory (our embassy) in November, 1979. Legalistically, what does that mean for a fellow NATO country, when one member is declared on by another country?

[Tribesman]

From a legalistic standpoint, the US has been at war with Iran since they declared war on us by invading sovereign, US territory (our embassy) in November, 1979.
Really? then where is this war?
I could have sworn that ships were reflagged during the Iran/Iraq war so they could claim neutral status. I wonder which sort of flags they chose as surely from a legal standpoint they wouldn't choose a neutral flag that was not a flag that was at war.

Legalistically, what does that mean for a fellow NATO country, when one member is declared on by another country?
Is Britain part of NATO?
Did NATO go to war against Argentina?

[tater]

Not sure we are required to reciprocate. Still, in the absence of peace treaty, a state of war still exists between us by virtue of the attack on us. I was fine with the Falklands, and supported the UK 100% back in the day. I'd say that we should have joined in, actually.

If they chose not to follow the nato guidelines, and nato was fine with it, I guess so be it. Doesn't change the de facto declaration of war (unresolved) by attacking our embassy. Not that an attack on an embassy is particularly egregious, since it telegraphs the notion that no negotiation is forthcoming (the negotiators having been removed/attacked).

[TLAM Strike]

Really? then where is this war?
I could have sworn that ships were reflagged during the Iran/Iraq war so they could claim neutral status. I wonder which sort of flags they chose as surely from a legal standpoint they wouldn't choose a neutral flag that was not a flag that was at war. Yet the vessels were still attacked by the IRGCN and the IRIN. Attacking ships is an act of war.


Is Britain part of NATO?
Did NATO go to war against Argentina? The US supplied missiles, tankers, logistical and SIGINT support.

Who said anything about proceedure?
I mean the contradictory statements made by the radio Op.
Those same condtradictions were repeated in the post incident circus by the military and politicians.

You mean the transmissions on TWO different channels? One which they are REQUIRED to monitor and is used by ships approaching one another of which five were approaching the US TF each one possibly equipped with radios.

Its to do with the legal status of the waters and the vessels. Ah are you you are talking about the US forces in INTERNATIONAL waters engaged in transit passage or about the unflagging boats operated by a known terrorist origination?


But releasing information that you have just made up and presenting it as factual is. Who says they made it up?


Disputed waters.


Disputed waters Iran has published no claim over the waters. Nether had Iraq. Both sides agree WHERE the line is but nether side will conduct the survey as to where the line currently is. Vessels in the waters were heading to Iraq and running aground indicated the shipping channel have moved NE in to what was Iranian waters.

Not disputed just not known.



So you are trying to say that it says the operation didn't take place in waters that are not internationally recognised as Iraqi:haha::haha::haha:
Would you say that it also doesn't say that the event was the result of a lack of an agreed boundary The boundary is agreed on. Coalition forces operated according to the current known boundary.


A line made up by the US Navy that has no status. Neither does the Iranian boundary.


So the Op line is a made up line of no legal standing that is claimed to be an extension of a line that isn't established. The line is established. It down the center of the Shatt's shipping channel.

A simple question to settle for once and all your attempt to make a non existant thing a real thing.
You cite the report which mentions the US invented line as a notional boundary......what does notional mean? You are splitting up the term, Notational Boundary is a boundary assumed to exist.


Really, so laws don't matter? No borders don't matter. Pirates and Tortures are considerd "Hostis humani generis" that is enemies of all mankind. Jurisdiction does not matter all nations have an obligation to stop such activity regardless of jurisdiction.

Errrrrr....combatting piracy is down to law, but you just said laws don't matter which means there is no piracy. besides which this incident was a matter of alledged smuggling of vehicles which is a police and customs mater an had bugger all to do with piracy. The captain and crew were worried of Iranian interference with their ship or cargo incl. theft of said cargo (Something that commonalty occurs among Iraqi fisherman). Theft of cargo, inhibiting of trade or disrupting maritime communication are considered Piracy.

So in a routine check for contraband a threat of piracy was discovered changing the legal standing of an operation already in Iraqi waters. Subsequently small craft operated by a group known to engage in piracy forcefully captured the a vessel and crew of the Royal Navy.

Is there a reason you support nations engaged in state sponsored piracy Tribesman?

[tater]

Tribesman supports anyone or any organization he sees as being against the US as far as I can tell. That's the litmus test. The worse it is for the US, the better for him.

Pick a topic, and check it out... defending against violent criminals illegally entering the US? Pro-criminal.

etc

[Tribesman]

Not sure we are required to reciprocate. Still, in the absence of peace treaty, a state of war still exists between us by virtue of the attack on us.
Does it ? Where?
If it existed the US vessels in that video cannot have hasd a right to inniocent passage through Iranian territorial waters which they use every time they enter or leave the Gulf(though the radio operator did get confused and claimed contradictory rights)

Who says they made it up?

The British government and the British military.
You said you had the report??????
It was a notional line made up by people who had no legal standing to make the descision which is why it is notional. It was presented to Paliament as beyond dispute and unquestionable when they knew full well it was very disputed and so questionable it was a joke.

Iran has published no claim over the waters. Nether had Iraq.
The absence of a published claim or validated agreement by the relevant people means it is an unresolved issue and as such is disputed.

Not disputed just not known.

Errrrrr.....if a boundary is not known and agreed then it is disputed:doh:

The boundary is agreed on. Coalition forces operated according to the current known boundary.

Make your mind up, you just said again that it is not known.
Besides which the coilition had no authority to make up a pretend boundary of its own as the boundary is an issue between the two states.

Neither does the Iranian boundary.

That is a matter between Iraq and Iran.

The line is established. It down the center of the Shatt's shipping channel.

Once again, make your mind up:doh:

You are splitting up the term, Notational Boundary is a boundary assumed to exist.

??????????
Since this is a matter of legal jurisdiction and soveriegnty then imaginary lines with no legal standing made up by states who have no right to do so cannot assume anything as they havn't the faintest notion of being valid.

No borders don't matter. Pirates and Tortures are considerd "Hostis humani generis" that is enemies of all mankind. Jurisdiction does not matter all nations have an obligation to stop such activity regardless of jurisdiction.

But it wasn't an issue of piracy was it.

So in a routine check for contraband a threat of piracy was discovered changing the legal standing of an operation already in Iraqi waters.
Once again your whole arguement comes from the false assumption which even those involved no longer claim is true.

Is there a reason you support nations engaged in state sponsored piracy Tribesman?
If someone writes supporting piracy and claiming it was all nice and legal they will get the same treatment as you are getting.


Tribesman supports anyone or any organization he sees as being against the US as far as I can tell. That's the litmus test. The worse it is for the US, the better for him.

Pick a topic, and check it out... defending against violent criminals illegally entering the US? Pro-criminal.


:har::har::har::har::har::har::har:
Once again you fail badly, if you look at the topic you refer to my arguement all along has been that the legislation in question is bad for the US and very bad for Arizona.
The reason the US gets more crticism is simply because of the amount of people who will try to justify things from a national view when they cannot really be justified.
If there was more Iranians posting here with the "my country right or wrong" attitude then Iran would get more of a slating on those issues raised.

oh .....
Is Britain part of NATO?
Did NATO go to war against Argentina? The US supplied missiles, tankers, logistical and SIGINT support.

....did Nato go to war with Argentina?
That was the question after all and it was directly in response to your claim.

[TLAM Strike]

Does it ? Where?
If it existed the US vessels in that video cannot have hasd a right to inniocent passage through Iranian territorial waters which they use every time they enter or leave the Gulf(though the radio operator did get confused and claimed contradictory rights) Prove they were in Iranian waters.

Oh right Iran claims the whole Gulf... :roll:

And if we are still at war we can enter their waters at will, do whatever we want and we can say anything about why we are there.


The British government and the British military.
You said you had the report??????I have the Unclassified MoD report nowhere do they say the HMS Cornwall boarding team entered Iranian waters. The MoD personnel have stated the classified Fulton report stated they were in Iraqi waters.

It was a notional line made up by people who had no legal standing to make the descision which is why it is notional. It was presented to Paliament as beyond dispute and unquestionable when they knew full well it was very disputed and so questionable it was a joke. At the request of the democratically elected government of Iraq Coalition naval forces defend ABOT and KAAOT (The source of 93% of Iraq's GDP) and search Iraqi bound shipping in the NAG AO.

Coalition naval forces operated in an AO defined by an extension of the existing border defined by treaty as it was last known to be located.


....did Nato go to war with Argentina?
That was the question after all and it was directly in response to your claim. War no, belligerence perhaps by providing support to the UK and cutting off arms supplies to Argentina.

[Tribesman]

Prove they were in Iranian waters.
Look at a map, and look at what was written.
Ships cannot pass the straight without using territorial waters.

And if we are still at war we can enter their waters at will, do whatever we want and we can say anything about why we are there.

If????????
If you are at war like tater says you are where is the declaration of the state of war and where is the notification you have to give to all neutrals warning them of the conflict?
Besides which the "do whatever you want" bit is wrong as if you were at a state of war you would be bound by the laws of war.


have the Unclassified MoD report nowhere do they say the HMS Cornwall boarding team entered Iranian waters.
Thats because its disputed waters. The false claim was that they were definately in Iraqi waters wasn't it which they cannot have been as the boundary which seperates them from Iranian waters is not settled by the two relevant parties.

At the request of the democratically elected government of Iraq
Provide that request if it exists.
Besides which at that time the forces were operting under the UN mandate not under the later sofa agreed with the Iraqi government and of course a unilateral declaration by one party does not amount to an agreement between two parties.

Coalition naval forces operated in an AO defined by an extension of the existing border defined by treaty as it was last known to be located.


So they just made up a line because there wasn't one:up:

War no, belligerence perhaps by providing support to the UK and cutting off arms supplies to Argentina.

You mean your country abandond one of its friends and failed to honour its treaty with another.....though of course it gets more complicated since the Falklands happen to be disputed territory don't they:yeah:
OK thats an idea, we have already established that you have difficulty telling the difference between what is a boundary and a notional boundary, can you explain what disputed territory means?

[TLAM Strike]

Look at a map, and look at what was written.
Ships cannot pass the straight without using territorial waters. So? Lets look at a map...
http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/8958/hormuz2.png
Wait a second half the Strait dosn't belong to Iran it belongs to Oman! Iran has no jurisdiction in those waters! Oman is a US Ally, and the shipping channel in the strait goes though Omani waters.

Of course the IRGCN doesn't recognize those waters as they utilize their small craft to smuggle contraband in and out of Oman and the UAE crossing the STOH.




If????????
If you are at war like tater says you are where is the declaration of the state of war and where is the notification you have to give to all neutrals warning them of the conflict?
Besides which the "do whatever you want" bit is wrong as if you were at a state of war you would be bound by the laws of war. Ah yes Iran did fail to warn the world that they were mining waters south of the Iran-Iraq conflict zone so you are right they did break international law. Oh and they also broke international law when they attacked the MV Sea Isle City (A vessel under US Flag) in Kuwaiti waters (Kuwait a neutral party). Ooops almost forgot they did not warn neutral parties of attacks near the STOH when the IRGCN began attacking a Pakistani ship transiting those waters and the US warships that responded to its distress call.

http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/2103/iranmap.th.jpg (http://img835.imageshack.us/i/iranmap.jpg/)


Is anything they US TF did that was against the laws of war?

Provide that request if it exists.
Besides which at that time the forces were operting under the UN mandate not under the later sofa agreed with the Iraqi government and of course a unilateral declaration by one party does not amount to an agreement between two parties. Oh so they were operating under the mandate of the UN of which Iran is a member and obligated to recognize its mandates and the authority of agents operating on its behalf.

Is the UN one party? I mean the people there are usually at a party or something rather than working. But if they are one party they have multiple personally disorder or something.


So they just made up a line because there wasn't one:up: Lets see there is a line that divides all territorial waters. Iran and Iraq have a treaty that splits the near by waters leading in to this region. Because someone needed to clarify where the line continues the US did it... while as you pointed out operating under the mandate of the United Nations.



You mean your country abandond one of its friends and failed to honour its treaty with another.....though of course it gets more complicated since the Falklands happen to be disputed territory don't they:yeah:
OK thats an idea, we have already established that you have difficulty telling the difference between what is a boundary and a notional boundary, can you explain what disputed territory means? Ah yes the Falklands "Dispute". A Dispute where one country tries to oversize sovereignty over another countries citizens. Then engages in an undeclared war against them.

[Tribesman]

Wait a second half the Strait dosn't belong to Iran it belongs to Oman! Iran has no jurisdiction in those waters! Oman is a US Ally, and the shipping channel in the strait goes though Omani waters.

The inbound shipping lane passes through Iranian territorial waters.

Ah yes Iran did fail to warn the world that they were mining waters south of the Iran-Iraq conflict
Is America at warwith Iran ? that was the claim that was made.
If you want to go off on tangents about how terrible Iran is then you should consider that America also happens to be a terrorist sponsoring and sheltering government so it puts the nations on the same field.
Consider it an extension of the Negroponte doctrine:yep:


Is anything they US TF did that was against the laws of war?

What war???????

Oh so they were operating under the mandate of the UN of which Iran is a member and obligated to recognize its mandates and the authority of agents operating on its behalf.

Yes, and the mandate has Iraq as the soveriegn power so its up to them to reach a territorial agreement with Iran, not for the coilition to simply make up a line by themselves.
So since they lacked the authority and wasn't operatinfg within the mandate the coilition screwed up.
It doesn't matter how crazy the Iranians are or how they break laws, the fact remains that the coilition screwed up badly and lied to try and justify their actions.

Lets see there is a line that divides all territorial waters.
Yes, a line that has to be agreed upon by the people either side of the line, there isn't one in this case is there as they havn't agreed on its location.

Because someone needed to clarify where the line continues the US did it... while as you pointed out operating under the mandate of the United Nations.

Thats where your problem starts as the new Iraqis got full soveriegnty and responsibilty from June 30 2004 so america couldn't draw lines as they don't count as that is a soveriegn issue which has to be done by Iran and Iraq. America could have drawn a line before that as the de facto occupying power but it would have to be done in agreement with the people the other side of the line....there was no such agreement was there which makes the coilitions invented line totally null and void.

Ah yes the Falklands "Dispute". A Dispute where one country tries to oversize sovereignty over another countries citizens. Then engages in an undeclared war against them.
"Citizens" that was also a matter of dispute wasn't it.
Luckily for the falklanders the invasion resulted in Britain changing its laws on citizenship again.
The Islands status still remains disputed doesn't it.

[TLAM Strike]

The inbound shipping lane passes through Iranian territorial waters. In the strait it does not:

Here is a slice of my chart of the STOH annotated by me.
http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/1614/annotatednatchat.jpg
Here is the full chart (its very nice looking, wish I had ones of the whole Gulf):
http://img541.imageshack.us/img541/5935/ir655chart28881580px.th.jpg (http://img541.imageshack.us/i/ir655chart28881580px.jpg/)

As for the other stuff I have better things to do with my time than type dozens of two line replies.

[Tribesman]

In the strait it does not:

Look left.:rotfl2:
Besides which, look at what was written.

As for the other stuff I have bett.er things to do with my time than type dozens of two line replies.
Yes its really that hard for you to acknowledge that the coilition screwed up and that a notional border drawn unilateraly by people with no authority to do so has no legal standing in a territorial dispute between two other nations.
I was actually amazed that you were willing to maintain that the claims they made were correct when the British have already said their claims were wrong.

[Gerald]

http://www.aolnews.com/story/iran-says-it-has-100-vessels-for-each-us/310131?cid=13

[Jimbuna]

http://www.aolnews.com/story/iran-says-it-has-100-vessels-for-each-us/310131?cid=13

I wonder what their definition of vessel is?

Missile armed FAC, DDG's, FFG's, or something more akin to those small speed boats armed with RPG's and anti ship missiles.

I somehow think they are overestimating their number strength.

No doubt someone will have an alternative interpretation/description.

Looks like a carrier battle group and attendant air wing will need to work a little to rid themselves of 1200+ ish bees.

[Tribesman]

I wonder what their definition of vessel is?

CNN did an Iranian fleet review

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/07/22/cardboard.boat.regatta/index.html?hpt=C2#fbid=JfDwZoH4qDl

[TLAM Strike]

I wonder what their definition of vessel is?

Missile armed FAC, DDG's, FFG's, or something more akin to those small speed boats armed with RPG's and anti ship missiles.

I somehow think they are overestimating their number strength.

No doubt someone will have an alternative interpretation/description.

Looks like a carrier battle group and attendant air wing will need to work a little to rid themselves of 1200+ ish bees.

My rough count is:
3 SSKs
~10 SSMs
4 Frigates (Missile)
1 Corvette (Missile)
1 Corvette (Gun)
33 Missile Boats
20 Light Missile Boats
31 Torpedo Boats
185+ Patrol Craft (Gunboats, Boghammars, Boston Whalers, Buzzi Boats etc)
7 Hovercraft
17 Anphibs
38 Support Ships
~5 Wet Subs

[Jimbuna]

CNN did an Iranian fleet review

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/07/22/cardboard.boat.regatta/index.html?hpt=C2#fbid=JfDwZoH4qDl

ROFLMAO :har:

My rough count is:
3 SSKs
~10 SSMs
4 Frigates (Missile)
1 Corvette (Missile)
1 Corvette (Gun)
33 Missile Boats
20 Light Missile Boats
31 Torpedo Boats
185+ Patrol Craft (Gunboats, Boghammars, Boston Whalers, Buzzi Boats etc)
7 Hovercraft
17 Anphibs
38 Support Ships
~5 Wet Subs

They obviously have some serious fighting capability but the numbers (as I already suspected) hardly stack up :hmmm:

[Gerald]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/ships.htm

[Jimbuna]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/ships.htm

:up:

[Gerald]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMZxgAJE0L0

[Jimbuna]

Well it didn't look all that 'stealthy' to me :hmmm:

[Gerald]

Well it didn't look all that 'stealthy' to me :hmmm:

maybe,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pytYua_t-Ww

[Jimbuna]

Huh? :hmmm:

[Gerald]

Huh? :hmmm: I believe that the crew had a hangover, and that they could not see what could be done, there is a possibility even if it is a bit, but the video wrapped also other pages...:yep:

Note: The video is a bit from subject!

[TLAM Strike]

Well it didn't look all that 'stealthy' to me :hmmm:

And it didn't look like an Iranian warship to me... a NATO or Japanese boat for sure. :03:

[Oberon]

Splicing video footage together....you're doing it wrong. :hmmm:

[Jimbuna]

And it didn't look like an Iranian warship to me... a NATO or Japanese boat for sure. :03:

I can't imagine the Iranians stooping that low....even for propaganda purposes :O:

[TLAM Strike]

I can't imagine the Iranians stooping that low....even for propaganda purposes :O:

Hahaha yea like that Iranian Hoot torpedo footage that was really from some lake in Russia? :haha:

These guys are a never ending source of amusement... :D

[Jimbuna]

I can't imagine the Iranians stooping that low....even for propaganda purposes :O:

Hahaha yea like that Iranian Hoot torpedo footage that was really from some lake in Russia? :haha:

These guys are a never ending source of amusement... :D

Ayr rgr that http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/Party.gif