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

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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...

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.

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

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
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]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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...

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.




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

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
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.

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

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]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

Here is the full chart (its very nice looking, wish I had ones of the whole Gulf):


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

In the strait it does not:

Look left.
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-sa.../310131?cid=13

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Vendor

http://www.aolnews.com/story/iran-sa.../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.

I wonder what their definition of vessel is?

CNN did an Iranian fleet review

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/am...id=JfDwZoH4qDl

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

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]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

CNN did an Iranian fleet review

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/am...id=JfDwZoH4qDl

ROFLMAO

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

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

[Gerald]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...iran/ships.htm

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Vendor

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...iran/ships.htm

[Gerald]

[Jimbuna]

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