Iran seizes two US Navy boats with crew - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Turtler;49526716]Maybe. But I don't think that should excuse them. Our relations with the Soviets and Cubans were Much, Much worse in 1961 and '62 than ours have been with Iran (which is saying something, given the unrevoked declaration of war bit). But we didn't do this kind of stuff. If the USN had done this to Russian patrol craft in the Bering Strait, there would be an uproar and people would call for the heads of those responsible. And rightfully so. So why should we believe the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps should have an exemption? If the best we can expect from Iranian maritime craft is a kinder, gentler breaking of the rules of the nautical road then there's something deeply wrong already.[/QUOTE] Okay plan B. We deploy a carrier assault group and level all of their naval assets and tell them to suck our dick. Operation Praying Mantis Two: Electric Boogaloo. Happy?

[QUOTE=GunFox;49526907]Okay plan B. We deploy a carrier assault group and level all of their naval assets and tell them to suck our dick. Operation Praying Mantis Two: Electric Boogaloo. Happy?[/QUOTE] That's a pretty weak response, US should have nuked Tehran without a second thought and then invited them to negotiate

[QUOTE=GunFox;49526907]Okay plan B. We deploy a carrier assault group and level all of their naval assets and tell them to suck our dick. Operation Praying Mantis Two: Electric Boogaloo. Happy?[/QUOTE] You say that as if it is something bad. It is not. It is certainly better than allowing a rogue state to kidnap military and merchant vessels on the flimsiest provocation. But frankly I'd be fine if we cared enough about shipping protection in the Gulf as we did against the miscellaneous pirates hanging around the Horn of Africa. Naval convoys to protect Allied military and commercial shipping (so that a group of patrol boats can't jump some ships illegally). Strict monitoring of where the territorial waters end. And retaliation against any hostile force- Iranian or otherwise- that tries to seize a ship without due reason. If the Iranian naval branches want to play pirate (or at best privateer), then they can enjoy their fate. If not, no need to progress further. Or is basic protection of people and shipping such an offense? [QUOTE=smurfy;49526967]That's a pretty weak response, US should have nuked Tehran without a second thought and then invited them to negotiate[/QUOTE] To state the obvious, nuking Tehran would be too much. I would rather nuke them than be nuked by them, but it is not necessary. And besides, if the Green Revolution shows anything we would probably be killing more of our friends than not. But it's better to negotiate from a position of strength than of weakness. And there is Nothing strong and Nothing Moral about letting this slide.

[QUOTE=Turtler;49527351]You say that as if it is something bad. It is not. It is certainly better than allowing a rogue state to kidnap military and merchant vessels on the flimsiest provocation. But frankly I'd be fine if we cared enough about shipping protection in the Gulf as we did against the miscellaneous pirates hanging around the Horn of Africa. Naval convoys to protect Allied military and commercial shipping (so that a group of patrol boats can't jump some ships illegally). Strict monitoring of where the territorial waters end. And retaliation against any hostile force- Iranian or otherwise- that tries to seize a ship without due reason. If the Iranian naval branches want to play pirate (or at best privateer), then they can enjoy their fate. If not, no need to progress further. Or is basic protection of people and shipping such an offense? [/QUOTE] Okay, reverse the roles. Let's say a couple of Iranian patrol boats wander in 11.9 nautical miles off of our coast. Are we in the right to detain them, or would that be "playing pirate"?

[QUOTE=Apache249;49527710]Okay, reverse the roles. Let's say a couple of Iranian patrol boats wander in 11.9 nautical miles off of our coast. Are we in the right to detain them, or would that be "playing pirate"?[/QUOTE] Assuming that the famously mendacious IRGC is telling the truth (for once) and thus this would be comparable (and it probably isn't)... The only thing that would justify seizing those ships- besides the standing state of war from the late Khomenei that we have tried very hard to ignore- is if they decided to act up in some way. Otherwise they should get a strict military escort back to international waters. Simple. (Also, I note that even if we did seize said ships, the chances we would force the crews to make propaganda videos apologizing is nil; even the hard nosed Nelsonian Royal Navy didn't do the equivalent).

[QUOTE=Turtler;49527351]You say that as if it is something bad. It is not. It is certainly better than allowing a rogue state to kidnap military and merchant vessels on the flimsiest provocation. But frankly I'd be fine if we cared enough about shipping protection in the Gulf as we did against the miscellaneous pirates hanging around the Horn of Africa. Naval convoys to protect Allied military and commercial shipping (so that a group of patrol boats can't jump some ships illegally). Strict monitoring of where the territorial waters end. And retaliation against any hostile force- Iranian or otherwise- that tries to seize a ship without due reason. If the Iranian naval branches want to play pirate (or at best privateer), then they can enjoy their fate. If not, no need to progress further. Or is basic protection of people and shipping such an offense? To state the obvious, nuking Tehran would be too much. I would rather nuke them than be nuked by them, but it is not necessary. And besides, if the Green Revolution shows anything we would probably be killing more of our friends than not. But it's better to negotiate from a position of strength than of weakness. And there is Nothing strong and Nothing Moral about letting this slide.[/QUOTE] Conflict is expensive. They likely simply aren't costing enough money to validate escalation. Piracy, and the combating of piracy, has always adhered to coin. Coin is the only law of the ocean. Which sounds needlessly melodramatic, but the reality is that there are no real rules once you get far enough out. Only treaties that may or may not be enforced depending on how financially damaging or lucrative the results may be.

[QUOTE=GunFox;49527767]Conflict is expensive. They likely simply aren't costing enough money to validate escalation. [/QUOTE] I would argue that escalation would already be validated (in the same sense that the Confederate seizure of Federal property validated retaliation); legally and morally. The question is whether - aside from the moral reasons- it would warrant escalation pragmatically. Which I agree for now is not the case. Though you also know what they say about prevention and cure... by not reacting we are rolling the dice and assuming this will be the extent of the problem; and that they are not building up to some kind of nightmarish Tanker War II. It's a reasonable gamble, and I can understand why we would take it given IS. But that doesn't mean the fundamentals are changed. [QUOTE=GunFox;49527767]Piracy, and the combating of piracy, has always adhered to coin. [/QUOTE] Certainly, but it has never relied Purely on it. People did not stop shooting piratical targets of opportunity just because the economy improved and their threats died down. That's a major reason why the Med and Carib are as peaceful as they are today. It's an action that brands those doing it Enemies of Humanity; not Enemies of Humanity during Economic Downturns. [QUOTE=GunFox;49527767]Coin is the only law of the ocean.[/QUOTE] Well then, that certainly raises the question of what all those thousands of people spent all that time, paper, and ink doing with things like the Law of the Sea, no? [QUOTE=GunFox;49527767]Which sounds needlessly melodramatic, but the reality is that there are no real rules once you get far enough out.[/QUOTE] Eh, I'd argue more "Yes and No." This was certainly a lot more true in-say- the age of Sail between the 1500's and early 1800's, where if you went smack out into the middle of the Atlantic or Pacific there was essentially nobody on Earth who could find or contact you except through happenstance. But even then what left shore had to return to shore or be destroyed. Which meant it could (and was) applied then. Here in the age of dot-on-grid accurate radar and communication it's Much, MUCH easier to enforce laws away from terra firma and determine who is in the right or wrong in disputes. That doesn't mean there aren't problems or that once you leave shore you don't have to go off on your own. But this isn't exactly a time where it's easy to sail to the rear end of St. Kitts and hope nobody notices you. [QUOTE=GunFox;49527767]Only treaties that may or may not be enforced depending on how financially damaging or lucrative the results may be.[/QUOTE] There's more to matters than just financial; Privateers remain solidly banned internationally in spite of how very lucrative it was to hire out commissions to private citizens compared to paying for a regular navy. At some point prestige, legitimacy, ideology, and the value of the "King's Word" (to quote Louis XIV about credible promises) come in. And people do realize that if you fail to enforce those after a certain point in spite of the costs, it will cost more than you save. But besides that, I agree. However, one of the key things- beyond whether or not they Will be enforced in the immediate future- is that these treaties Can be enforced; groups may simply chose not to, but they remain hanging over the head. So if the evaluation changes..... Well, pirating happy times would probably fade quickly.

[QUOTE=Cocacoladude;49526568]US Sailor here, ur dumb.[/QUOTE] Another US Sailor concurs. But we need to watch out! Arm Chair Admiral Turtler might send us to mast for article 89 of the UCMJ. [IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CYl4s3hUMAAX9kt.jpg[/IMG] LOL that guy picked the wrong day to wear white socks, probably why they were captured. [QUOTE=GunFox;49526696]They seized the ship and then released it. For how terrible our national relations are with Iran, it is generally about the best that can be expected.[/QUOTE] Don't forget after accusing us they finished their investigation they publicly announced on TV broadcast across the Middle East that "The Americans were in our territorial waters by ACCIDENT, we were wrong" and then let them go with their equitment. The worst they did was make the female cover her head. Had this been 10 years ago they would have tortured them and likely publically executed them.

According to Turtler, United States shall nuke their enemies and conquer them all. Because 'merica. And every nation not allied with US is evil.

[QUOTE=Ta16;49528742]Another US Sailor concurs. [/QUOTE] Funny that, because another person on the internet claiming to be a US Sailor (and someone specifically educated in matters like this) saying the otherwise. And unlike you and Cocaoladude he laid out a claim rather than just claiming Argument to Authority . See: the user name MattBracken. [url]http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/01/10_us_sailors_held_by_iran_confirmed_freed_comments.html[/url] For all I know he's false, but then for all I know you two are as well. But as far as anonymous claimed US Sailors on the web go, someone who tries laying out an argument is more bang for your buck than both of your posts put together.. So what do you have to him? [QUOTE=Ta16;49528742]Don't forget after accusing us they finished their investigation they publicly announced on TV broadcast across the Middle East that "The Americans were in our territorial waters by ACCIDENT, we were wrong" and then let them go with their equitment.[/QUOTE] Which still presupposes they were being honest about that much. Which given the behavior of the Iranian Navy and Naval IRGC for the past decades says otherwise. And it also ignores this. [url]http://news.yahoo.com/iran-says-seizure-u-boats-lesson-troublemakers-congress-091406767.html[/url] [QUOTE=Ta16;49528742]The worst they did was make the female cover her head.[/QUOTE] Actually no, that is not true. The worst they did- far more than imposing your religious norms on someone in your custody without consent (as if that was not bad enough)- is parading the entire crew in front of a video camera and making them produce a propaganda video. Whereas there is some precedent for captors having control of how people in their custody dress (though notably not the hijab) there isn't for this. As much as people try and torture logic to the contrary, there is no justification for doing that. [QUOTE=Ta16;49528742]Had this been 10 years ago they would have tortured them and likely publically executed them.[/QUOTE] So instead they were used as a propaganda stump tool and publicly humiliated. And we're supposed to be ecstatic that they didn't break every rule of international law? And for the record, they would not have done it ten years ago. We know because they basically did; to the British in 2004 and 2007. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Iranian_seizure_of_Royal_Navy_personnel[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Iranian_seizure_of_Royal_Navy_personnel[/url] The Iranians did not torture and publicly execute them. They were used as a propaganda tool and publicly humiliated. Just like what happened now. So your claim is objectively, provably wrong. (and yet you concur that *I'm* dumb...) So no, if it had been 10 years ago they would not have done it. They would however, have done it if it had been forty years ago. But the reason they would have done it forty years ago but not today is because the LAST time they did that, they got their naval presence in the Gulf set back half a century. The moral of the story is that enforcing the rules of the road on local bullies works. Especially in coastal navigation. So now you're going to ignore that? PS: It's "publicly" two ls and no "cally". But I suppose you were too busy concurring about how dumb I was to notice? @Deimantassk Way to not read any of my posts (especially why I am not in favor of nuking Tehran over something like this, or even the savage tanker war). And no, not every nation not aligned with the US is evil. Argentina is not a dangerous terrorist state. But totalitarian theocracies like the "Islamic Republic" of Iran are. Or do you like to imagine that Assad's biggest ally and people who hang dissidents (and apostates, and previously homosexuals) from cranes aren't? In fact, even though Argentina isn't a US ally, they have their own reasons to have issues with Iran.

Should they have captured our men and equipment temporarily? No. However they did this professionally, even though the on air apology did seem to be scripted. They weren't tortured, they weren't beaten, and they were released quickly. Had Ahmadinejad still been in power, they probably would've been publicly tried and executed. Iran, while still having random outbursts, is getting better.

[QUOTE=Pilot1215;49530889]Should they have captured our men and equipment temporarily? No. However they did this professionally, even though the on air apology did seem to be scripted. They weren't tortured, they weren't beaten, and they were released quickly.[/QUOTE] Finally; someone defending this that I can agree with. Yes, on this much I agree. At least as far as the IRGC goes, this could have gone a lot worse. But as you said, it should not have happened. That said, I disagree with the latter part. [QUOTE=Pilot1215;49530889]Had Ahmadinejad still been in power, they probably would've been publicly tried and executed. Iran, while still having random outbursts, is getting better.[/QUOTE] The problem with this is that we know how the Iranian government's mooks behaved with Ahmadinejad in power (which is something I will get to later....). They did it under his watch in 2007 and before he rose in 2004 to the Royal Navy, and the general conduct was broadly similar to this. it has remained markedly consistent. It isn't torture and execution (which I can imagine some regimes would do), but it also isn't getting better unless we're grading the turnover in terms of time. Which indicates the same general problem is here. Part of the way to understand this is that Ahmadinejad and Rouhani are largely the PR heads. The President of Iran is subordinate to the Guardian Council and Khamanei. And unlike the people under him, Khamanei Has been in power throughout all of these cases.