Gunboat Diplomacy?

[skye]

The USA may have been testing the waters as regards freedom of navigation and when the boats strayed into Iranian territory, Iran had no choice but to temporarily seized them.

Neither side gained from the incident.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Basic malaprop: 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.

jwoodie, the international neo-con lawyer

 

[skye]

Basic malaprop: 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.

jwoodie, the international neo-con lawyer

Problem is that Iran has an established history of hostility towards US...so - even though both parties have some guilt -if you included that history ...in this recent incident...well....it doesn't help the situation....

 

[BluesLegend]

Iran is getting on my last nerve, we should ship 250,000 progressives over there to teach them a lesson.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Dems will play it like a diplomatic nuanced success and the Pubs will play it as 'Obama makes America weak, weak.'

Declare war on them, Blue, personally.

 

[deltex1]

Obabble snubbed the King of Jordan today...shows what side he's on.

 

[skye]

Obabble snubbed the King of Jordan today...shows what side he's on.

He did??

 

[deltex1]

Obabble snubbed the King of Jordan today...shows what side he's on.

He did??

White House denies...sure sign he did.


Obama, Jordan's king hold brief meeting amid talk of snub

 

[JakeStarkey]

Caught deltex in a fib again.

Nothing new. Move along.

 

[daws101]

Obabble snubbed the King of Jordan today...shows what side he's on.

mo

He did??

White House denies...sure sign he did.


Obama, Jordan's king hold brief meeting amid talk of snub

misrepresentation a hobby of yours?

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

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.

Did I hurt your feelings so terribly to the point you're putting me on IGNORE simply for pointing out your errors and ignorance of general knowledge of things nautical, et al? What a brave soul!

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

Repeating your post will not your errors erase. Nor will rationalizations of its content cancel, delete or in any wise nullify those same errors.

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?

Your first error was identifying the two vessels and crews seized was a US Navy ship. That was a point I addressed directly. If you were so uninformed when your posted originally, why didn't you perform due diligence FIRST and become informed before you posted declaring your ignorance...a point I also addressed directly. This was the authoritative source which placed both US Navy vessels and their five man crews within the territorial waters of Iran, which I posted yesterday elsewhere. The updated article is here to help you become informed; US Navy Sailors Held by Iran Are Released With Their Boats | Military.com

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.

Well, since you put it THAT WAY...Asked and Answered! That action by the two US Navy vessels violated Iranian territorial waters as recognized and as a signatory to the UN Law of the Sea Convention by the vast majority of Nations INCLUDING the United States by Ronald Reagan except for Section XI in March 1983 in Proclamation 5030 as customary international law and also extending our territorial waters to the 12 nm limit agreed to in UNCLOS in December 1988.

You should have once again performed due diligence and done some reading of the sources and references I posted. The US VIOLATED Iran's territorial waters, plain and simple, by entering and loitering in Iranian territorial waters. IF you had read and understood the Treaty provisions and looked at the list of signatories you would see that the Islamic Republic of Iran signed the Convention in December 1982, so your assumption of a unilateral revision is WRONG...you're in error yet again.

You were wrong earlier and now you are wrong again trying to save some face rather than man up to your errors.

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.

My glasses won't see into your special universe. It is not relevant to your errors I have pointed to!!!!

 

[JakeStarkey]

ThoughtCrimes forces jwoodie to self censor.

Crimes is correct, woodie is not.

 

[daws101]

ThoughtCrimes forces jwoodie to self censor.

Crimes is correct, woodie is not.

Can't get a woodie is never correct.