Iranian aggressors act aggressive to USN

[Sirotnikov]

Who said anything about that assclown?

you said the RG are out of control
i think they are under control of the president and are backed by him.

which is why they get the nerve to pull silly tricks.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
Yeah, because we know if the Iranians had a huge fleet sailing up and down the coast of California forever, you ***** wouldn't be whining and howling at all.

No, I don't think we'd care.

[germanos]

Originally posted by Patroklos
in league with nearly every western country in the world under a UN resolution

Under which UN resolution is the US navy operating in the straits?

Did we shoot down Ahmejinwhogivesa****'s plane on the way to NYC? That was even our actual airspace.

Why would you want to do such a thing?

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by germanos


Under which UN resolution is the US navy operating in the straits?

I think you'll find that the coast of Iraq is rather close to the coast of Iran... so any patrolling the region near Iraq will necessitate being near Iranian coastal waters.

[germanos]

Originally posted by snoopy369


I think you'll find that the coast of Iraq is rather close to the coast of Iran... so any patrolling the region near Iraq will necessitate being near Iranian coastal waters.

Which still begs the question: what resolution is involved?

From what I understood though, the incident took place near the straits of Hormuz, which is pretty far from Iraq.

[lord of the mark]

I dont know any UNSC resolution numbers, but here are why we have naval forces there.

The US has forces stationed in Bahrain, under agreements decades old. No UN auth, but an agreement among sovereign states. This serves the strategic interest of protecting the gulf oil routes, which the US has done pretty much since UK withdrew from the Gulf in 1971.

The US has agreements to provide support to Kuwait, since 1991. Maybe in line with UN resolutions, I dont know.

We are protecting the supply route to Iraq, in support of a presense which is NOW supported by UN resolutions.

US and coalition naval forces patrol the Arabian sea and adjoinging waters in defense against al qaeeda, related extremists, and, IIUC, pirates. I beleive all per various UN resolutions.

[DinoDoc]

I'm unaware we actually need a UN resolution to deploy US military assets, germanos.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Patroklos


If they were doing so on the behalf of Canada, and were in league with nearly every western country in the world under a UN resolution (note they said "This is COALITION warship," and they aren't talking about Iraq) on an energy conduit we were threatening to cut the whole world off from, No.

Since none of those things are even remotely plausible, you fail.

UN Resolution?

You fascists smoke some serious weed....

[germanos]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I'm unaware we actually need a UN resolution to deploy US military assets, germanos.

Neither do I. Which is why I'm so curious which one those would be.

[dannubis]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I'm unaware we actually need a UN resolution to deploy US military assets, germanos.

You don't.

However, looking back on your little unilateral adventure in Iraq I would say it would be best (even for your own sake) that you did.

[Saras]

I'd rather have USN patrolling straits of Hormuz, Malacca and other chokepoints, with or without UN resolutions (which are not necessary in any case for sailing about in international waters. Let's not allow Iranians and other assorted goons around the world get any funny ideas.

And Aggie, keeping major international maritime trade routes open is fascist?...

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Asher

Or study philosophy, or move to Korea to teach philosophy...?

He's in Korea? The poor poor boy...

[Patroklos]

Under which UN resolution is the US navy operating in the straits?

We don't need UN resolutions to operate in the straights. Any naval/maritime entity on the planet can operate there legally as long as they are following the COLREGS (international maritime traffic rules).

Why would you want to do such a thing?

Aggie asked if we would care if Iranian vessels were operating in international waters off our coast. Not only would we not really care (I am sure we would monitor them from safe, ie several miles away), but even when Iranians enter our airspace, under UN jursidiction, we don't care.

[quote]From what I understood though, the incident took place near the straits of Hormuz, which is pretty far from Iraq.

US and coalition naval forces patrol the Arabian sea and adjoining waters in defense against al qaeeda, related extremists, and, IIUC, pirates. I believe all per various UN resolutions.

Bingo. Not only are we totally within our rights to use the straights regardless due to them being international waters, but there are multiple UN resoultions covering piracy (for which the IRCGN are the main culprit in the gulf), human trafficking, drug trafficking, and arms trafficking.

The Persian Gulf, Gulf of Oman, Arabian Sea and Gulf of Aden are divided up into CTF 50, 51,52, and 53, each administered by a separate coalition staff. That coalition includes Britain, Germany, France, Italy, the US, Spain, Canada, Australia, Pakistan, Japan, and a few others. The commands rotate. I served under Italian, Australian, Pakistani, and German flag officers while operating in various areas last time I was over there.

You fascists smoke some serious weed....

You called me a fascist, OH NOES

[Patroklos]

I should point out that there is a concern now that the threat by the Iranians might have actually come from a third party, probably a fishing dhow but maybe a tanker, in the are with a rather morbid sense of humor.

This is ENTIRELY possible.

[LordShiva]

If so,