Ah well.... ( Archived) (10)

Standard procedure.

""The USNS Rappahannock fired on a vessel after it ignored warnings and rapidly approached the ship, the US Navy says.

In a statement, the US Navy in Bahrain said that a security team on board the refuelling ship fired on a small motor boat after it disregarded warnings and "rapidly approached" the US ship off the coast of Jebel Ali, near Dubai, UAE.

"In accordance with navy force protection procedures, the sailors... used a series of non-lethal, preplanned responses to warn the vessel before resorting to lethal force," the statement said.""

This is what happens when you don't do that;

""On the morning of Thursday, October 12, 2000, USS Cole, under the command of Commander Kirk Lippold, docked in Aden harbor for a routine fuel stop. Refueling started at 10:30. Around 11:18 local time (08:18 UTC), a small craft approached the port side of the destroyer, and an explosion occurred, creating a 40-by-40-foot gash in the ship's port side, according to the memorial plate to those who lost their lives. According to former CIA intelligence officer Robert Finke, the blast appeared to be caused by explosives molded into a shaped charge against the hull of the boat. Around 400 to 700 pounds (200–300 kg) of explosive were used.

17 sailors were killed and 39 were injured in the blast. ""

No it's not. The problem the world has with Iranian power is their ability to mine the Strait and that is what everything is in support of. They have minesweeper, submarine mine sweepers, aircraft mine detection systems etc. Al of them need protection as do the tankers that would move in and out of the Straits hence, they need a lot of navy power there to ensure that Iran does not have a credible threat.

Maybe as you and other Euros know it anyhow. On the other hand, if Iran could be successful with any certainty their threat would be a credible one and they could have the bomb at will.



I don't recall them having nuclear capability before.



He advocates "open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations" and is not for war with Iran. In other words, he would be for this anti mine operation as it allows for "open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations" and does not require the US to be at war with Iran but rather stave's off war which would be the next step should the move to keep the Straits open fail.

And this is where it boils down to not paying attention to facts. Saddam was in violation of over a dozen ceasefire agreements, only a couple of them had anything to do with WMDs and all of them were grounds to resume hostilities as by it's very definition a ceasefire is a temporary cessation of hostilities dependent on the agreement made, one which he never even began to adhere to.

On the other hand, Iran is bound by the UN and the UNSC to allow for inspection to verify the peaceful intentions of it's nuclear program. Nobody wants to attack them, they simply wish to verify that they are telling the truth.

Where we are now is attempting to avoid a military confrontation at all costs by using lower tier pressure such as sanctions and blockades. The response is Iran's and, it is this build up in the Gulf that ensures their response will be a peaceful one. Nobody I'm sure is against that.