Iranian aggressors act aggressive to USN

[Patroklos]

I would imagine the USN shooting at little speed boats would cause far more trouble than they really want right now.

All it would do is make us not have to worry about those particular speed boats anymore. It was on video, all fault is on the Iranians.

I'm sure a repeat of something like Iran Air Flight 655

You realize that happened after most of the major fighting of Praying Mantis was over right? It is not analogous.

Note that in that instance after sinking their biggest warship, reducing their oil platforms, taking out a few small boats and shooting down that airliner a few weeks later there was not wider war sparked with Iran.

[germanos]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Note that in that instance after sinking their biggest warship, reducing their oil platforms, taking out a few small boats and shooting down that airliner a few weeks later there was not wider war sparked with Iran.

To be honest they allready were in a full fledged war, started by good ol' Saddam. You know, Don Rumsfeld buddy.
No let me rephrase that:
They were invaded by Saddam.
Who started shooting tankers when he found himself in a stalemate.
To which the Iranians responded in kind.

Evil, evil Iranians

Good thing the US navy was around to woop their arses, militairy, commercial and civilian alike.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by germanos
To be honest they allready were in a full fledged war, started by good ol' Saddam.

History disagrees with your assessment.

[germanos]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
History disagrees with your assessment.

No it doesn't.

[Qilue]

Originally posted by germanos

No it doesn't.

Technically it does, and technically it doesn't.

Back in 1971, there was a disagreement about the border (Shatt El Arab) and at this time Iran occupied some islands at the outlet.

http://lexicorient.com/e.o/shatt_ar.htm

1971-75: Iranian- Iraqi disagreements on the border, where Iran occupies a small group of Iraqi islands just at the outlet of Shatt El Arab.

Then in 1980, Iraq invaded Iran.

EDIT - I was reading this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War and it seems the origin of the dispute was somewhat older.

[Patroklos]

No it doesn't.

The Iran Iraq war was largely over (and won by Iran) by April 1988 when Praying Mantis went down. The official end is August 1988.

Who started shooting tankers when he found himself in a stalemate.
To which the Iranians responded in kind.

Evil, evil Iranians

Hey! The Iraqis are shooting at the tankers flagged by nuetral countries, lets do it to!

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by germanos
No it doesn't.

Well who am I to disagree with such a well reasoned arguement:

Iran was the most powerful state in the Persian Gulf during the 1970s. Its strength was partly due to its large population (roughly three times that of Iraq) and its oil reserves, but it also stemmed from the strong support the shah of Iran received from the United States. Relations between Iraq and Iran were quite hostile throughout this period, but Iraq was in no position to defy Iran's regional dominance. Iran put constant pressure on Saddam's regime during the early 1970s, mostly by fomenting unrest among Iraq's sizable Kurdish minority. Iraq finally persuaded the shah to stop meddling with the Kurds in 1975, but only by agreeing to cede half of the Shatt al-Arab waterway to Iran, a concession that underscored Iraq's weakness.

It is thus not surprising that Saddam welcomed the shah's ouster in 1979. Iraq went to considerable lengths to foster good relations with Iran's revolutionary leadership. Saddam did not exploit the turmoil in Iran to gain strategic advantage over his neighbor and made no attempt to reverse his earlier concessions, even though Iran did not fully comply with the terms of the 1975 agreement. Ruhollah Khomeini, on the other hand, was determined to extend his revolution across the Islamic world, starting with Iraq. By late 1979, Tehran was pushing the Kurdish and Shiite populations in Iraq to revolt and topple Saddam, and Iranian operatives were trying to assassinate senior Iraqi officials. Border clashes became increasingly frequent by April 1980, largely at Iran's instigation.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/walt.htm

[germanos]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Well who am I to disagree with such a well reasoned arguement:


http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/walt.htm

On page one of your source:
(bolding mine)

The facts, however, tell a different story. Saddam has dominated Iraqi politics for more than 30 years. During that period, he started two wars against his neighbors - Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990. Saddam's record in this regard is no worse than that of neighboring states such as Egypt or Israel, each of which played a role in starting several wars since 1948. Furthermore, a careful look at Saddam's two wars shows his behavior was far from reckless. Both times, he attacked because Iraq was vulnerable and because he believed his targets were weak and isolated. In each case, his goal was to rectify Iraq's strategic dilemma with a limited military victory. Such reasoning does not excuse Saddam's aggression, but his willingness to use force on these occasions hardly demonstrates that he cannot be deterred.

I must confess I've canceled further reading the article after this paragraph.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Patroklos
We really couldn't have lost politics wise seeing as Iran denied the incident and THEN we showed video

I still don't think this was an authorzed action.

I was almost going to post that video evidence is going to be less and less valuable as the notion that video evidence is easily falsified becomes more and more common. But then I thought, naw that sounds way too paranoid and tinfoil hatted to be a factor.

I needn't have been so optimistic.

[Patroklos]

Yeah, but as stated ealier that is the Revolutionary Guard saying that, not the Iranian government.

Thats how screwed up it is over there, that a military entity supposedly subordinate to a civilian government feels there is no proble releasing a press statement that contradicts the press statement of their superiors.

They are out of control.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by germanos
I must confess I've canceled further reading the article after this paragraph.

Couldn't understand it? I thought it was written in simple enough language.

[Docfeelgood]

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this... but it sounds like a recon/probe team.

[Qilue]

With Iran's response, there are 4 possibilities about each side's version of events.

A) U.S. is lying, Iran is telling truth.
B) U.S. is telling truth, Iran is lying.
C) Both are telling the truth.
D) Both are lying.

Based on observed behaviour of both parties over the years, 'D' is the most plausable explaination.

[Patroklos]

Seeing as both sides have videos that support the US version of events (not to mention common sence), I go with A.

[Julian Delphiki]

D seems like a good pick