OMG! The Iranians are Coming!

Way back in the 1980s, legendary comedian Barry Crimmins joked about Reagan sending an aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf, saying, “The Iranians are beefing up their navy, they’re getting inboard-outboard engines now.” That’s pretty much how I feel about the Iranians sending “warships” to the Atlantic Ocean.

Iranian warships dispatched to the Atlantic Ocean will travel close to U.S. maritime borders for the first time, a senior Iranian naval commander said Saturday.

The commander of Iran’s Northern Navy Fleet, Admiral Afshin Rezayee Haddad, said the vessels have already entered the Atlantic Ocean via waters near South Africa, the official IRNA news agency reported.

The fleet, consisting of a destroyer and a helicopter-carrying supply ship, began its voyage last month from the southern Iranian port city of Bandar Abbas. The ships, carrying some 30 navy academy cadets for training along with their regular crews, are on a three-month mission.

Yeah. On the list of things I worry about, an attack on the United States by the Iranian navy ranks just below my fear of a distant cousin getting a hangnail.

146 comments on this post.
  1. Brett McCoy:

    “The fleet, consisting of a destroyer and a helicopter-carrying supply ship,”

    2 ships is a fleet?

  2. Reginald Selkirk:

    have already entered the Atlantic Ocean via waters near South Africa

    So they’re not allowed access to the Suez Canal?

  3. birgerjohansson:

    Yawn. Wake me up when they get a ballistic missile submarine.

  4. theschwa:

    ZOMG! Red Dawn is happening!!!!!1111111!!!1 (How will we survive without Patrick Swayze??!?!??)

  5. Chiroptera:

    Sure, scoff now, but what if they ally with the Duchy of Grand Fenwick?

  6. eric:

    So they’re not allowed access to the Suez Canal?

    The Sabalan‘s old captain from the late ’80s had a history of firing on merchant ships. I’m guessing its not the same guy but I imagine Egypt’s answer to that might still be an emphatic “no.”

    Or maybe its something far less sinister. The cruise is also being used to train cadets. For that, I could see how taking a long voyage in empty waters is better than a short voyage in crowded ones.

  7. alanb:

    From Wikipedia:

    Under international treaty, [the canal] may be used “in time of war as in time of peace, by every vessel of commerce or of war, without distinction of flag.”

  8. petemoulton:

    Good on you, Chiroptera. I can’t believe it took five comments before someone raised the direful specter of the Duchy of Grand Fenwick. Be afraid! Be very afraid!

  9. dingojack:

    I hate to sound like Stevo here but – are you still laughing?
    :( Dingo

  10. richardelguru:

    Don’t be so dismissive, hangnails can be nasty!

  11. shouldbeworking:

    For a moment, I thought it was going to be a remake of the classic”The Russians are Coming”. That was a funny movie too.

  12. noastronomer:

    @richard

    But not as nasty as moose bites.

    IIRC the last time the Iranians sent a ship through the canal, to Syria, Israel pitched a fit so maybe they’re just trying to avoid any potential delaying tactics.

    Otherwise, meh. We should totally invite them for a visit.

    Mike.

  13. colnago80:

    The answer here is very simple. If an Iranian warship intrudes even 1 foot into US waters, it should be sunk on sight with no warning.

  14. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return!:

    On the list of things I worry about, an attack on the United States by the Iranian navy ranks just below my fear of a distant cousin getting a hangnail.

    Well, I think you are joking and if so your priorities and sense of perspective is incredibly messed up, Ed, Sorry.

    Your cousins hypothetical hangnail would hurt xhiem to a small degree.

    An international war caused by Iran invading or attacking US forces (or even their allies) anywhere would cost lots of people their lives.

    Seriously, that last line was really stupid and you are and know better than that.

  15. Modusoperandi:

    I think it’s great. Iranian ships have Klingon names. I wonder if the helo-capable supply ship is the Delvar or the Kharg.

  16. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return!:

    @13. colnago80 : Well , I’m not that tough – I’d give them a warning or two and a warning shot just tomake sutre its no innocent mistake.

    If there’s an alternative that avoids deaths and war it should be taken – if reasonably possible.

    But yeah. Iran can’t be allowed to invade US waters or attack US or allied shipping. If Iran wants a war and won’t back down or deal reasonably. Then

    1) they’re idiots (which we know they are) -and

    2) we need to take them out before they hurt us or others.

    3) If they’re testing our resolve to stop them, if they think we’re too weak and gutless to stand for what we believe in, we shouldn’t lack the strength and determination to pass tahtets and prove them wrong.

  17. Dave, ex-Kwisatz Haderach:

    Why am I not surprised that colnago’s response would be to murder the brown people over a foot of useless water? They could sail up into Lake Erie for all I care. Its a training cruise, calm the hell down.

    And of course, while I’m writing this StevoR has to throw his irrational hatred of those terrible Iranians into the ring. If anything, Ed’s last line was a drastic overestimation of the fear about an Iranian attack.

  18. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return!:

    @15. Modusoperandi : If the Iranians have Klingon named ships then they need to remember that the USA has the *Enterprise*!

  19. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return!:

    @17. Dave, ex-Kwisatz Haderach :

    Exactly how am I supposedly being irrational here?

    Or even expressing hatred the Iranians?

    My response would be the same and equally logical if were North Korea or any other totalitarian hostile nation.

  20. matty1:

    Colnago80 “If an Iranian warship intrudes even 1 foot into US waters, it should be sunk on sight with no warning.”

    Just so long as they use a nuclear warhead to do so.

    You do know you’ve become a parody of yourself on this issue?

  21. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return!:

    @ again 17.Dave, ex-Kwisatz Haderach

    If anything, Ed’s last line was a drastic overestimation of the fear about an Iranian attack.

    Citation and extraordinary evidence for that extraordinary assertion is required.

    I guess you forget or are somehow ignorant of the threat posed by Iran’s quest for WMDs, its sponsership of Jihadist terrorism globally, its history of trying to export its ideology of Shiite Islam, the attacks by Iranians on the US embassy at the start of the Ayatollah’s revolution and, oh, about a hundred other things?

    Iran are not the good guys. Islamofascism isn’t just a word but a reality they seek to impose on our planet.

  22. colnago80:

    Re matty1 @ #20

    Nuke not required. Conventional missiles which our war ships have will be more then sufficient. Iran won’t be sending the Yamato.

  23. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return!:

    #17. Dave, ex-Kwisatz Haderach :

    Why am I not surprised that colnago’s response would be to murder the brown people over a foot of useless water?

    FYI. The Iranians are generally considered to be white not brown. In fact there’s a connection with the word “Aryan” if memory serves.

    (Who is it here or onFTB more generally that regularly tries to point out the difference betwen persioan =Iranians versus Arabs?)

    Accusations or implications of racism this laughable just make the word lose further meaning and devolve more into a ever less meaningful insult.

    Also water, even seawater, is far from useless and maritime territory is significant in many ways.

  24. matty1:

    Maybe, just maybe, they are sending the two ships close to but not into US territorial waters in response to US patrols near their shore as the international equivalent of sneering “I know you are but what am I” rather than as part of an actual military attack.

    Just throwing it out there as a possibility.

  25. Dave, ex-Kwisatz Haderach:

    Iran America is not the good guys. Islamofascism American Imperialism isn’t just a word but a reality they seek to impose on our planet.

    Fixed that for you. Stop doing that, and maybe all those nasty people will stop hating you.

  26. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return!:

    @22. colnago80 : Torpedos or airstrikes should suffice nicely too.

    I know this, Iran must know this. I wonder what the flippin’ blazes they’re thinking to even try it. Are they deliberately trying to spark a war and get themselves “martyred?”

    Really can’t understand how else to understand this or what they expect to logically accomplish.

    But then logic isn’t the Iranian regimes forte is it?

  27. Dave, ex-Kwisatz Haderach:

    No, of course you aren’t racist. You just show up in every single thread about the Middle East raving about how terrible they are. Without once acknowledging the massive attempts by America to destabilize the region for their own gain. How could anyone possibly think you are racist?

  28. Larry:

    We should totally invite them for a visit.

    I absolutely agree. Pair up each of the cadets with a Midshipman from Annapolis. Give them a couple hundred each and send them off to a stripper bar.

  29. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return!:

    @25. Dave, ex-Kwisatz Haderach :

    Actually America or the (Americanised and allied) West *are* the good guys.

    You seem under a very unfortunate and grievously mistaken impression somehow.

    We in the West believe in Freedom, Democracy, Justice and Human Rights for all. These are good values pretty much by definition. You believe those principles right?

    Well, Iran and suchlike Islamofascist theocratic extremist dictatorships and theocracies do NOT. They believe in Sharia law, Jihads and Fatwahs and that dreadful sort of shit . They believe in Islam which is intrinsically a really nasty ideology full of messed up crap. That’s why they’re the bad guys.

    (Yeah your so-called “fix” made it worse and the opposite of right, sorry dude.)

    Also American “Imperialism”* is NOT being forced on the planet – people see the ads, see the lifestyle and decide that’s what they want which is why they westernise (aka modernise , americanise) of their own free unforced wills – or they emigrate in large numbers from hellholes like Iran and other Islamic nations to the USA and Australia. Because what we offer humanity, our values are ethically, economically, quality of life~wise and in so many other ways better.

    How the flippin’ Hades is it you don’t see this basic well-known reality?

    * “Imperialism” the USA has a President not an emperor, it doesn’t even have “puppet states or client kingdoms like the Soviets and ancient Romans. Instead, it has , y’know, allies (international friends – not slaves) like Oz and Britain and NZ. using the word Empire or Imperialist or similar to apply to the USA and West is just plain factually inaccurate as well as generally prejudicial.

    @24. matty1 : Your thrown out possibility could be right and makes a level of sense. Hope you’re right. If so, still a silly thing for Iran to do considering the respective capabilities and pointlessness of that posturing on their part.

  30. dingojack:

    Why is it that there seems to be only two settings for Americans when it comes to diplomacy*:

    A) ‘Arrrrrrgggg!!! [X] are coming. Quick you hide under the bed while I unloose all the nukes on anything that moves, and everything that doesn’t just to be sure!!’
    AND
    B) ‘Pfft, no biggy. They’re mere [insert racist epithet here] we’ll lick ‘em in ten minutes flat’

    The former lead America into Iraq (with a little from column B), the latter pervaded the foray into Vietnam (with a little from column A), .
    How’d those work out for ya?

    Dingo
    ——–
    * Well in non-white, non-Christian, non-English-speaking places anyway

  31. Area Man:

    Islamofascism isn’t just a word but a reality they seek to impose on our planet.

    No, it really is just a word.

    Islamism is a real thing. Islamofascism is a nonsense word made up by right-wing dolts to conflate two totally unrelated things.

  32. Area Man:

    Maybe, just maybe, they are sending the two ships close to but not into US territorial waters in response to US patrols near their shore as the international equivalent of sneering “I know you are but what am I” rather than as part of an actual military attack.

    The US keeps two (maybe it’s now just one) full carrier groups on patrol in the Persian Gulf, with the omnipresent threat of wiping out all Iranian naval assets, oil platforms, and port facilities within minutes. The Iranians have one destroyer and a supply ship tooling around South Africa. Anyone who thinks that this is some kind of credible threat on their part is truly an idiot.

  33. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return!:

    @27. Dave, ex-Kwisatz Haderach :

    Actually I was referring to your earlier slander against colnago80. You keep accusing him (& now me) of stuff that just isn’t true.

    Racism is a word with an actual meaning. That word does not mean what you think it means. You are using it wrongly and as such robbing it of its meaning.

    You just show up in every single thread about the Middle East raving about how terrible they are.

    Truth is a defense you know. You saying Iran isn’t terrible? That Islam is really a religion of peace? That Jihads and fathwahs and so on are great and nice ideas that make the world better?

    If so, you’re making some extraordinary claims indeed and arguing against every obvious reality all normal people see.

    (Isn’t this meant to be an atheist pro-secular blog not an Islamic prosetlysing one? Can never figure why there’s this suicidal left-wing love of radical Islam from so many so-called progressive, feminist atheists here. Care to explain? is it really as simple as shared anti-Westernism, anti-Amercianism?)

    Without once acknowledging the massive attempts by America to destabilize the region for their own gain.

    Guess that explains why Iraq was handed back to the Iraqis, why we left Kuwait once we’d liberate it fromIraq in the earlier Saddam war, why we buy their oil instead of occupying their lands and just taking it – oh wait. No it doesn’t.

    US and Western nations may not have a perfect history in the Middle East, we’ve done a few odd things wrong over the centuries especially with hindsight’s benefit sure, but to make Western so-called “Imperialism” (see asterisked section #29) the permanent scapegoat for everything that’s now wrong there? To blame everything on colonialism that finished long ago?

    Nah, I don’t buy it or think others should be so guillible either.

  34. Kevin, 友好火猫 (Friendly Fire Cat):

    Shouldn’t be surprised Stevo is here calling an entire religion evil while trumpeting the amazing perfection that is White Christian America. (AMERICA! FUCK YEAH!)

    Iran is a country trying to be an economic powerhouse. By attacking the USA, they will be signing their death warrant at the hands of China, Russia, Israel, probably India, and numerous European countries because if you attack the USA, you destabilize the central currency and guess what, the world economy suffers.

    Stevo and the warmongers want to attack Iran cause they’re brown.

  35. sinned34:

    SteveoR:

    As soon as I hear somebody hear say the extremist Muslims are correct about beheading infidels and homosexuals, I think you might have a point. So far, about the only thing I’ve seen are people who are displeased with your efforts to demonize all of the Islamic world.

    Islam sucks. Christianity sucks. Western interference in other countries for political or financial gain sucks. Eastern interference for the same sucks. Is that little clearer for you now?

    We’re the “good” guys? Try telling that to any of the family members that survived Obama murdering of entire wedding parties with drone strikes. We might be arguably “better”, but by no means are we the “good” guys.

    Finally, if you think colonialism ended long ago, you really are gullible.

  36. colnago80:

    Re StevoR

    We should not forget that it’s Iran and their wholly owned subsidiary, Hizbollah, that are propping up the Assad regime in Syria. Without their support, Assad’s murderous kleptocracy would have collapsed long ago before the opposition was co-opted by Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist organizations. The toll thus far: 130000 dead, 2 million refugees in neighboring countries, another 2 million displaced.

  37. sinned34:

    I mean’t “somebody here”, not “somebody hear”.
    This is what I get for not getting home from hockey until 1AM, then having to get up for work at 5AM.

  38. Modusoperandi:

    sinned34 “We’re the ‘good’ guys? Try telling that to any of the family members that survived Obama murdering of entire wedding parties with drone strikes.”
    To be fair, the drones did RSVP.

  39. colnago80:

    Re Kevin @ #34

    Iran is a country trying to be an economic powerhouse.

    Yeah, and Frankenberger was only trying to alleviate German’s perceived overpopulation problem by attacking his neighbors in Czechoslovakia and Poland. It was called Lebensraum.

    Sadly, folks like Kevin fail to learn the lessons of history, that appeasement doesn’t pay. Chamberlain learned that lesson the hard way.

  40. Kevin, 友好火猫 (Friendly Fire Cat):

    @sinned34:

    You’re not going to get much sympathy out of Stevo about the drone slayings of wedding parties. We’ve used that on him before and his response is typically “well they shouldn’t have been in the way”

  41. busterggi:

    Now these heliocopters the Iranians have – are they regular one or black ones? Because if they have black heliocopters they are allied w/ the Grays & Reptoids.

  42. dingojack:

    Stevo – “Guess that explains why Iraq was handed back to the Iraqis, why we left Kuwait once we’d liberate it from[ ]Iraq in the earlier Saddam war,…” [insertion mine]

    Firstly, ‘we’ left Iraq a basket case, a kleptocracy with barely functioning infrastructure, shaky security and a very uncertain future. Mainly because ‘we’ weren’t really interested in them, ‘we’ just wanted to hit something, anything, hard. “We’ ended up looking like a bunch of petulant child-bullies
    Secondly, ‘we’ invaded Kuwait to look like a hero. The Kuwaitis didn’t want ‘us’ there. They had been ‘stealing’ oil from Iraq*, and Iraq needed money after their long (unsuccessful and misjudged) war with it’s neighbour Iran. So they invaded in order to blackmail their neighbours to cough up a tiny fraction of their petrodollars for their ‘defence of Shia’ (as they called it). Had Norman Schwarzkopf not gone all ‘John Wayne’ it’d would have been over in weeks. And despite Kuwaiti pleas not to ‘kill their brothers’ in the Iraqi army he initiated a bloody bath called ‘the road of death’ killing the fleeing, unarmed Iraqi soldiers, then absentmindedly gave permission for Saddam to attack ‘insurgent’ Sunnis in the delta.

    In both case ‘we’ did not do ‘good’…

    Dingo
    ——–
    * It’s complicated because the oil field lies across the disputed Iraqi/Kuwaiti border. But the Kuwaiti minister claimed that the oil on was taken out – and that he had exact figures how much. Very Arabian.

  43. eric:

    I wonder what the flippin’ blazes they’re thinking to even try it. Are they deliberately trying to spark a war and get themselves “martyred?”

    I’m sure they are thinking that folk like you and SLC are fringies and that the US, as a nation, can be counted on not to listen to the folks who want to murder them for sailing in circles.

    In some respect, we already made this call. Their two ships sailed past our carrier group on the way out. We chose not to fire on them.

  44. bmiller:

    My question is; do the Iranians wear Blue Helmets? Because this may be the first salvo in implementing Agenda 21 on good God-Fearing Wal Mart Shopping Hoveround-Americans!

  45. dingojack:

    Oh and SLC – as opposed to 250,000+ dead, ???,??? displaced and a fully functional klepocracy* ‘we’ installed in Iraq. ‘We’ are just so much better than Assad. @@
    Dingo
    ——–
    * Now preparing to get fully theofascist ready! Yay ‘democracy’!!

  46. timpayne:

    Area Man @ 32 What makes this even more laughable is that the Iranian “destroyer” isn’t really a destroyer. It’s a 40 year old frigate that wouldn’t survive a fight with US Coast Guard cutter.

  47. colnago80:

    Re eric @ #43

    In some respect, we already made this call. Their two ships sailed past our carrier group on the way out. We chose not to fire on them.

    Hey, they were in International waters when they sailed past our carriers. I said that they should be sunk if they intruded so much as a foot into US waters. As long as they stay in International waters, they should not be attacked but closely observed.

  48. colnago80:

    Re Dachshund @ #45

    Who’s we kemosabe? I wasn’t aware that there were any Australian troops in Iraq.

  49. freehand:

    StevoR: Also American “Imperialism”* is NOT being forced on the planet – people see the ads, see the lifestyle and decide that’s what they want which is why they westernise (aka modernise , americanise) of their own free unforced wills – or they emigrate in large numbers from hellholes like Iran and other Islamic nations to the USA and Australia. Because what we offer humanity, our values are ethically, economically, quality of life~wise and in so many other ways better.
    .
    Is that what happened in Iraq? I was wondering…

  50. matty1:

    @48 Well think of this as a learning opportunity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_contribution_to_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq

  51. Modusoperandi:

    dingojack “Firstly, ‘we’ left Iraq a basket case, a kleptocracy with barely functioning infrastructure, shaky security and a very uncertain future.”
    Well, we didn’t want to change it too much.

  52. Area Man:

    Guess that explains why Iraq was handed back to the Iraqis,

    How generous of us. Do you not realize that before you can “hand back” something you must have taken it from them in the first place? This may shock you, but people in other countries find unprovoked invasion of their land to be objectionable.

    why we left Kuwait once we’d liberate it fromIraq in the earlier Saddam war,

    Uh, we didn’t. We kept thousands of troops stationed there and in Saudi Arabia. I seem to recall that Bin Laden specifically cited this as a reason for the 9/11 attacks.

    why we buy their oil instead of occupying their lands and just taking it.

    Again, how magnanimous. In case you really are this naive about American oil policy, the goal isn’t to “take” the oil and give it to American citizens (that would be socialism!), it’s to control the oil so that western oil companies can profit from it and Middle Easterners can’t embargo us again. And that’s exactly what we accomplished in Iraq, or at least will have until the whole place falls to shit.

  53. colnago80:

    Re matty1 @ #50

    I stand corrected. However, I thought that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was a mistake of epic proportions. As a matter of fact, then Israeli Prime Minister Sharon told Colin Powell and his deputy Lawrence Wilkerson that the proposed invasion was a mistake and would only end up removing a counterpoint to Iran, this when they arrived in Israel to brief him. Altogether typical of the incompetence of the Bush Administration. One can only admire the reluctance of the current administration to get militarily involved in the Syrian mess, despite the pressure exerted by the neocons.

  54. mobius:

    Two ships. Isn’t that about the minimum a fleet can have?

    And one of those isn’t even a warship.

    Be afraid. Be very afraid.

  55. colnago80:

    Re Dachshund @ #45

    The Syrian war isn’t over yet. Let’s see what the final tally is when it finally peters out.

  56. dingojack:

    250,000 was in the first few weeks – then they stopped counting, apparently one dead ‘raghead’ is the same as another. (some of column B).
    Real numbers/ names: ‘Known only to god’.

    :( Dingo

  57. doublereed:

    Ed, hangnails can be really bad!

  58. Ed Brayton:

    Oh for crying out loud. There are people here who really think Iran is going to attack the United States? Yes, Iran is a terrible theocracy. It represents pretty much everything I despise (and no, I don’t think “Islamofascism” is too strong a term). But they aren’t suicidal, for crying out loud. I’m more worried about a Backstreet Boys reunion than I am about Iran attacking us with their fearsome warships. They’d be sunk in a matter of minutes and their country would be a smooth glass parking lot within a week. And they damn well know it. The chances that they’re going to attack this country are so small you’d need an electron microscope to see them.

  59. typecaster:

    I said that they should be sunk if they intruded so much as a foot into US waters.

    Absolutely. Because, as Captain Bucher of the USS Pueblo noted in his confession, “Any penetration, no matter how slight, is sufficient to complete the act.”
    .
    By the way, that confession is a hoot.

  60. Modusoperandi:

    Ed Brayton “Yes, Iran is a terrible theocracy. “
    Hey! No spoilers! I’m only halfway through Harry Potter and the Terrible Theocracy.

  61. jnorris:

    I guess they will resupply in Cuba and Venezuela.

  62. colnago80:

    Re De Brayton @ #58

    The Iranian military thinks otherwise.

    http://goo.gl/znsiob

  63. colnago80:

    Re 62

    Sorry, Ed Brayton @ #58

  64. colnago80:

    Re Dachshund @ #56

    Would the Dachshund care to supply a reputable source for this number. My information that the official number is around 100,000.

  65. eric:

    @47:

    I said that they should be sunk if they intruded so much as a foot into US waters.

    You want us to violate the Geneva convention on the Law of the Sea over one 1950′s era frigate? Because the treaty we signed allows foreign warships to pass through our territorial waters.

    And you think this is perfectly reasonable policy, and it’s the rest of us who are fools.

    Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

  66. democommie:

    “* “Imperialism” the USA has a President not an emperor, it doesn’t even have “puppet states or client kingdoms like the Soviets and ancient Romans.”

    You have to be fucking kidding. We did everything in our power to hobble the governments in both Iraq and Afghanistan by rigging the game. That the new assholes we helped install don’t like us any better than the old assholes who we (and the USSR) helped to install notwithstanding”

    America most certainly was an imperialist power, your quibbling over semantics is noted. The Philippines, Cuba, Hawaai, Panama, Guam and numerous non-contiguous states were taken over by in the period between 1890 and 1945, we still hold Hawaii and some other islands in the South Pacific as well as Puerto Rico and Gitmo. The U.S. has a sordid history of invading and subjugating people that were in the way of our navies or sitting on our stuff.

    ” Instead, it has , y’know, allies (international friends – not slaves) like Oz and Britain and NZ. using the word Empire or Imperialist or similar to apply to the USA and West is just plain factually inaccurate as well as generally prejudicial.”

    Grow the fuck up.

  67. colnago80:

    Re eric @ #65

    You want us to violate the Geneva convention on the Law of the Sea over one 1950′s era frigate? Because the treaty we signed allows foreign warships to pass through our territorial waters.

    The treaty doesn’t apply to enemy warships and Iran is an enemy. Try to keep up.

  68. Modusoperandi:

    colnago80 “The treaty doesn’t apply to enemy warships and Iran is an enemy. Try to keep up.”
    Wait. What? I’ve been reading your comments for quite a while and, well, I don’t know how to phrase this diplomatically, but DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW FUCKING INSANE YOU SOUND?

  69. colnago80:

    Re Modusoperandi @ #68

    As far as I and the US Government are concerned, Iran is an enemy nation.

  70. zenlike:

    Strange, to be an enemy you generally need to be in a war with someone. So far as I know, no war exists between the USA and Iran. Or maybe congress signed something in the last half hour which I missed.

  71. colnago80:

    Re zenlike @ #70

    The former Soviet Union, with which we were not at war with at any time during it’s existence, was certainly considered an enemy nation and its warships were not permitted to pass through US waters.l

  72. some bastard on the net:

    colnago80 #69

    As far as I and the US Government are concerned, Iran is an enemy nation.

    Oh, I get it now.

    You’re actually Dick Cheney, aren’t you?

  73. Modusoperandi:

    some bastard on the net “You’re actually Dick Cheney, aren’t you?”
    You’re half right.

  74. Al Dente:

    colnago80 @69

    As far as I and the US Government are concerned, Iran is an enemy nation.

    Fixed it for you. The US is not at war with Iraq.

    Jayzus but you’re a stupid ignoranus. You’re just as ignorant about international relations as you are about Hitler’s name, which is pretty fucking ignorant.

  75. colnago80:

    Re Al Dente

    Excuse me, Dente apparently has a reading comprehension problem. I never said we are officially at war with Iran, although their embassy takeover in 1980 was an acti of war. They are an enemy nation, just as North Korea is an enemy nation with which we are not actively at war.

  76. dogmeat:

    The idiocy of SLC and StevoR is really getting rather old. Iran isn’t doing anything that any other world power hasn’t done at other times. We sent warships to cruise along their coast, they have every right to do the same. The idea that we should sink their ship if it crosses “one foot” into our waters is ridiculous sabre rattling. This isn’t any reason to ratchet up the Islamophobia, though we all know you two don’t need any reason to do that, this is a rather amusing tit-for-tat. The Sabalan is so out of date it is truly pathetic. To see it as a threat to anything but a fishing boat is laughable. To call for its destruction over a perceived violation of water is sheer idiocy.

    By the way, SLC, Soviet Union sent ships to the US a number of times. Crossed over into our coastal waters at times as well.

  77. jimatkins:

    Just wondering, but when USN ships do long distance cruises, they have to be resupplied with (non-nuclear) fuel, food and whatnot. Just what kind of logistic tail does the Iranian navy have? I’m seeing refueling on the captain’s credit card. They can’t eat spam, so are rats halal?

  78. Modusoperandi:

    jimatkins “Just what kind of logistic tail does the Iranian navy have? I’m seeing refueling on the captain’s credit card.”
    The destroyer protects the supply ship. The supply ship supplies the destroyer. I don’t know what supplies the supply ship. Dolphins, I assume.

  79. dogmeat:

    Just wondering, but when USN ships do long distance cruises, they have to be resupplied with (non-nuclear) fuel, food and whatnot. Just what kind of logistic tail does the Iranian navy have?

    The Sabalan will be sailing with the Kharg, a good sized resupply ship (33,000 tons). She fits in between the US Kilauea class and the Lewis and Clark class. With something as small as a 1500 ton frigate, she should be able to resupply them for a few months at least.

  80. Michael Heath:

    dogmeat writes:

    By the way, SLC, Soviet Union sent ships to the US a number of times. Crossed over into our coastal waters at times as well.

    And we know how that turned out, we badly los. . ., wait! We won?!!? Amazing, without bombing the hell out of the USSR. That’s not supposed to be a viable alternative, well at least according the nuts and idiots . . . and nutsy idiots.

  81. eric:

    SLC:

    As far as I and the US Government are concerned, Iran is an enemy nation.

    The convention is quite clear. We aren’t at war, then they aren’t enemies, and your position breaks the treaty.

    Let’s make this really simple. I will bet you$50 towards a charity of Ed’s choice that neither the Iranian “fleet” (composed of these two ships) nor the US navy vessels tracking them will fire on each other in the next month. If you think they are going to attack us, this is an easy bet for you, because it will only take them a few days to reach our shores. So put your money where your mouth is. Put up $50 towards your belief that this will end in violence in the next month. Well, what say you?

  82. lancifer:

    From the article,

    The Islamic Republic considers the move as a response to U.S. naval deployments near its own coastlines.

    Only if by response they mean totally ineffectual and laughable gesture.

  83. paulburnett:

    StevoR (#23) asked “(Who is it here or onFTB more generally that regularly tries to point out the difference betwen persioan =Iranians versus Arabs?)”

    A Persian is an Iranian who doesn’t want you to think of him/her as an Iranian.

  84. paulburnett:

    Democommie (#66) wrote “The U.S. has a sordid history of invading and subjugating people that were in the way of our navies or sitting on our stuff.”

    …like our bananas – the United Fruit Company’s police force was the US Marines. See the Wikipedia article “Banana Wars”.

  85. dingojack:

    So our resident Hitler wannabe wants isomething to jerk-off over, does he?
    : try here. (More jerkin’ means less typing).
    ;/ Dingo

  86. colnago80:

    I’m sure that the Chamberlainists who are making fun of me will laugh this off. It would be well to consider that the mad mullahs are not just blowing smoke.

    http://goo.gl/sXLq5Q

  87. colnago80:

    Re Pekinese @ #85

    And our resident Chamberlain wannabe blathers on. Meanwhile, the mad mullahs continue their blustering. Unfortunately, assuming that they are just posturing is a recipe for disaster, just as assuming that Osama bin Laden was just blowing smoke prior to 9/11 was not a wise move on the part of the Dubya administration.

    When the acquire nuclear weapons and use one of them to sink one of our carriers don’t say you weren’t warned.

    http://goo.gl/AUjJwc

  88. eric:

    I’m sure that the Chamberlainists who are making fun of me will laugh this off. It would be well to consider that the mad mullahs are not just blowing smoke.

    So bet me.

    What’s wrong, you’re not even sure enough in your “the sky is falling” diatribe to put $50 on it? Charles Pierce would say that your unwillingness to make such a minor commitment to your claim is evidence that even you don’t believe what you’re saying.

  89. dingojack:

    “I’ve outlawed Russia forever. We start bombing in 5 minutes”.

    What’s it like living in a nuclear wasteland* for the past 30 years?

    Dingo
    ——–
    * of your own fetid imagining

  90. dingojack:

    Shorter SLC :-
    “You stupid poopy-heads!! When you’re dead, burned up horribly, in terrible pain then you’ll know I’m right and then you’ll be sorry! Boo hoo hoo”
    What a terribly, terribly convincing argument.
    Dingo

  91. dogmeat:

    The idea that Iran, and the “threat” posed by Iran is in any way similar to that posed by Nazi Germany in the 30s is one of the more laughable arguments you trot out periodically. Much like Iraq, Iran is a nasty country. Their leadership espouses positions I despise, their treatment of their people is horrible, but the idea that they are a major threat, on a par with Hitler and World War Two is so bloody’ nuts you really need to have your head examined.

    Countries do make ridiculous sabre rattling noises when they feel threatened or sometimes just for the hell of it (see Obama & Syria, Cheney and anyone who pissed him off, etc.). We did it just as ineffectively back when our military was a joke, we do it now when threats aren’t necessary because we could destroy the planet itself if our leaders were as insanely blood thirsty as you appear to be. It doesn’t mean war is imminent, never did. During the Cold War we had incursions into other country’s waters, we had fly-overs, we had collisions between warships. In each of those cases reason overcame the idiotic bluster you seem to have adopted as a default position.

    Your argument that Iran will opt to nuke a US carrier battle group isn’t supported by anything approaching reality. The Iranians have had chemical and biological weapons capabilities for thirty years yet, despite your inane arguments that “as soon as they get it they’ll use it,” we have no evidence that they have utilized those weapons at any time. Despite the claims at the time, the evidence suggests that it was the Iraqis who used these types of weapons against the Iranians and Iran developed their programs in response. There have been no attacks on Israel (which you claim would occur in the event Iran developed nuclear weapons), no sale or transfer of these weapons to terrorist organizations (which you also claim would happen), and no attempt to use those weapons against the US (ditto). Overall you are as bad as the Bush administration and their fixation on Iraq. Yours is a stupid, bigoted, hateful position based upon your apparent hatred of Muslims and the people of Iran. You really should get some help.

  92. Dave, ex-Kwisatz Haderach:

    Oh yes, I’m sure the Times of Israel is a totally non-biased source. And yet, the worst thing they can come up with is that Iran is “escalating their rhetoric”. Oh noes! I’m quivering with fear, not the rhetoric! Beware Iran’s low-quality CGI weaponry!

  93. colnago80:

    I have a flash for dogmeat. An Iran with nukes is far more dangerous then Nazi Germany who fortunately never developed them. Not because they weren’t interested but because of an erroneous calculation by Werner Heisenberg about the quantity of pure U235 that would be required to sustain a chain reaction. Had Heisenberg done his calculations correctly, Germany might well have beat us to the bomb as they had a head start

  94. Dunc:

    I’m quivering with fear, not the rhetoric!

    “Everyone was terrified of Doug. I’ve seen grown men pull their own heads off rather than see Doug. Even Dinsdale was frightened of Doug. ”

    “What did he do?”

    “He used sarcasm. He knew all the tricks: dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos, puns, parody, litotes and satire. “

  95. dogmeat:

    I’m well aware of the history you arrogant twat. My majors for both my BA and first MA were in history and I teach European history to college bound students. That you seem to believe that you are some sort of expert on these matters and have to “teach” the ignorant masses is truly laughable. At this point I believe that my 16 year old students could better argue a point than you seem to be equipped to do.

    Again, your comparison to Germany is unfounded and idiotic. You fail to address any of the other points presented here and simply restate your idiocy as if it is proven fact. You have no evidence that Iran has any plans to utilize a hypothetical weapon in any way different than any other nuclear power in the world (other than the US; we actually used them). The Iranian’s actual track record suggests the opposite of what you claim is a foregone conclusion. They have other “WMDs” and haven’t utilized them, haven’t attacked Israel with them, haven’t given or sold them to terrorists, the list goes on and on. Your reply is always the same, utterly idiotic, counter-factual nonsense. I’m not thrilled with the idea that Iran develop nuclear weapons, but your desire to incinerate millions of people to “save lives” is madness. Much like an unholy merger of Patton in ’45 and MacArthur in Korea you’ve created a threat that doesn’t exist and a method to “save us” that amounts to a crime against humanity itself. To adapt the old Vietnam comment, you call to destroy humanity to save it.

  96. Dunc:

    Shorter colnago80: “Anybody I don’t like is Hitler Frankenburger, and anybody who point outs that that’s ridiculous is Chamberlain”.

    Analogies, how the fuck do they work?

  97. colnago80:

    Re dogmeat @ #91

    The reason that Iran hasn’t attacked Israel with chemical weapons is that the mad mullahs are well aware that Israel has an arsenal of, perhaps, as many as 500 nuclear weapons. The amount of damage that Iran could inflict with chemical weapons pales into insignificance compared with the amount of damage that Israel could inflict with their nuclear arsenal. However, an Iran with nukes changes that equation considerably in that setting off 2 or 3 nukes on Israel effectively removes that nation from the map of the world. Of course, that would not bother dogmeat or his asshole buddies Nick Gotts and Dave, ex-Kwisatz Haderach in the least.

  98. Dunc:

    So your argument is that deterrence currently works, but only as long as Iran isn’t able to completely obliterate Israel, and that as soon as they can, they’ll decide that committing national suicide is worth it? Do you really think that the Iranians would regard annihilation as acceptable as long as they get to take Israel with them? Or is it that you think that the rest of the world will simply stand idly by while Iran nukes Israel, as long as they do a really thorough job of it? Neither of those positions seems especially realistic, to say the least…

  99. Michael Heath:

    Dogmeat writes:

    During the Cold War we had incursions into other country’s waters, we had fly-overs, we had collisions between warships. In each of those cases reason overcame the idiotic bluster you seem to have adopted as a default position.

    This is exactly why I fear neo-cons and Christianists with political power, because they’re authoritarian true-believers. The odds they’d have pushed the button are far higher relative to the leaders we had. These wingnuts continually demonstrate an inability to back-off their crazy rhetoric and act reasonably, instead they idiotically and delusionally believe in their crazy rhetoric. They’re committed; they’re all-in.

    I think was one of the biggest marginal benefits humanity’s realized from the Internet was reasonable people exposing Sarah Palin for what she is and what’s she’s capable of doing. All prior to her having the resources necessary to do what she’s capable of doing. It’s this capability that will prevent a John Bolton from obtaining power to act in a manner consistent with Ms. Palin’s fantasies regarding her playing a “heroic” role in Armageddon.

  100. dogmeat:

    Ahhh yes, now we have the “they wont do it now, but give them nukes and they’ll be happy to immolate themselves” argument. If they were so irrational and utterly full of hatred (much like you) they would attack despite the fact their attack wouldn’t accomplish as much damage (much like you). The fact that they don’t provides ample evidence, in addition to, you know, history, their actual behavior, and other wild eyed crazy things like that, that they wont do what you predict. Much like your predecessors claimed we needed to destroy the Soviet Union and China before they destroyed us, your argument has no merits, only flaws.

    In the end, your argument is, as always, idiotic, bigoted, and hate filled. Projecting your bigotry onto others doesn’t make you any less the vile, slimy piece of garbage you have become. I don’t want to see Israel or Iran harmed, your unfounded accusations of antisemitism are nothing more than an attempt to portray reasonable opposition to your unreasonable hatred of Muslims and Iran as precisely what it is, bigotry.

  101. colnago80:

    Re Dunc

    The second alternative as the rest of the world would be more then happy to see the State of Israel disappear,

  102. colnago80:

    Re dogmeat @ #100

    I don’t want to see Israel or Iran harmed, your unfounded accusations of antisemitism are nothing more than an attempt to portray reasonable opposition to your unreasonable hatred of Muslims and Iran as precisely what it is, bigotry.

    Hey, as my Syrian friend Ammar Kanaan says, Dr. Colnago80 doesn’t discriminate, he’s prejudiced against everybody.

  103. dingojack:

    SLC – anti-semite!
    :) Dingo

  104. colnago80:

    Re dachshund @ #103

    Absolutely, I was the subject of an official complaint accusing me of antisemitism.

  105. Dunc:

    The second alternative as the rest of the world would be more then happy to see the State of Israel disappear,

    Which is why the USA supplies them with approximately $3 billion worth of military aid every year, and has vetoed every UN resolution censuring their conduct. Right. And even if it were true that “the rest of the world would be more then happy to see the State of Israel disappear” (which it obviously isn’t), I very much doubt that they’d be happy with anybody (particularly Iran) throwing nukes around in such a strategically important location. Then, of course, there’s the minor fact that Israel would probably still manage to launch in time anyway…

    If “the rest of the world” really did want to see the State of Israel disappear, they could make that happen. The fact that it hasn’t happened leads me to suspect that it’s not really what “the rest of the world” wants.

  106. Raging Bee:

    An Iran with nukes is far more dangerous then Nazi Germany who fortunately never developed them.

    Oh grow the fuck up, chickenhawk. We survived STALIN and MAO getting nukes, so what the fuck makes you think Iran would be more dangerous than either of those insane tyrannical regimes?

    SLColnago’s sick, stupid, bloodthirsty bigotry has no place in a grownup blog. It’s high time to consider sending this drooling wanker out the same door his fellow loon Don Williams exited.

  107. colnago80:

    Re Fairfax fumbler @ #106

    Well, Brayton puts up with the Fairfax foney’s unhinged diatribes against libertarians.

  108. colnago80:

    New Iranian submarines.

    http://goo.gl/uwkxOs

  109. dogmeat:

    Seriously?

    An unsubstantiated complaint against you that claims you are antisemitic is “proof” that you aren’t Islamophobic? Did you use your Islamophobia to prove that you aren’t antisemitic? See the problem with your argument is that you regularly talk about killing millions of innocent people to defend others who aren’t under attack on the off chance that they might be attacked at some unknown time in the future because of the “nature” of the victims of your hatred. I don’t really give a damn if you “hate everyone equally,” you only talk about a “final solution” for one group of people, that elevates your idiocy to a much higher level.

    Your post @108 is truly laughable. A 500 ton, near midget submarine, actually smaller than a WWI German submarine, is a major upgrade and a threat? Seriously? The best submarines they have in their entire navy are old Kilo class boats, those things are based on a thirty year old design and while good boats in their day, aren’t exactly a threat today. They also had (and have) no strategic capability. The rest of their navy is a coastal defense force. A single Nimitz class carrier battle group could take them out without breaking a sweat. Hell, they wouldn’t even have to use the aircraft, just the surface combatants have the technology and firepower to erase the Iranian navy in a matter of minutes. Your arguments are as idiotic as the Bush/co. arguments in favor of invading Iraq in ’03.

    You remain, as always, delusional.

  110. Dave, ex-Kwisatz Haderach:

    Taking a trip to the far distant past of 2012, with the help of the Pfffft! of all knowledge…

    America spent nearly $683 Billion on military expenditure. Iran managed about $6.2 Billion.
    As in, Iran spent less than 1% (0.92) of America’s military budget. America spent 38.9% of the GLOBAL total military expenditure, Iran spent 0.36%.

    But, what the hell, lets all be scared that they used a significant portion of their budget on one sub that is ludicrously outclassed by just about every other sub out there.

    Lets assume, for a sec, Iran could get access to the kind of sub that the US is currently building. For the low low cost of their entire annual military budget, they could get 2 whole subs (2.7 Bil apiece for the Virginia-class). The US has 10 in action, 5 in construction and plans for 30 more. And that’s not including the US’s 40+ other class attack subs, and 18 missile subs.

    But hey, Iran has one new sub. Everyone soil yourselves in terror.

    Someone has too many ships, but it sure as hell isn’t Iran.
    (Kinda assuming that the Wiki has reliable info on the US fleet, I have no outside sources for those numbers)

  111. colnago80:

    Re Dave @ #110

    Well, I guess they’re pretty small beer compared to the Dolphin class submarines in the Israeli navy which are capable of firing nuclear tipped cruise missiles, despite German claims that they are not so capable.

  112. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return!:

    @34. Kevin, 友好火猫 (Friendly Fire Cat) :

    Shouldn’t be surprised Stevo is here calling an entire religion evil while trumpeting the amazing perfection that is White Christian America. (AMERICA! FUCK YEAH!)

    Fuck yeah indeed! :-)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOEIruwzf54

    Can’t tell me that ain’t rousing!

    Also, um, NO. Not what I said. Read for comprehension next time please.

    Iran is a country trying to be an economic powerhouse.

    Really? How do *you* know what Iran is trying to do? Citation needed.

    If they want to be an economic powerhouse how does stirring up trouble by sending ships into US waters help that aim?

    By attacking the USA, they will be signing their death warrant at the hands of China, Russia, Israel, probably India, and numerous European countries because if you attack the USA, you destabilize the central currency and guess what, the world economy suffers.

    Thus refuting your first point right there. If Iran wanted economic power they’d go about things very differently. What do they want?

    Well Islamists do believe in martyrdom and getting their 72 virgins or raisins; whichever translation works. When we’re talking Iran – or more specifically its leadership the Ayatollah’s – we have to remember they don’t think like we do. They aren’t rational and they are extremist religious nuts even worse than the farthest extreme rightwing Christians that get (correctly) mocked so often here.

    I’m not going to claims i know what Iran wants, i might be mad but i ain’t that mad. I do have my suspicions however. I also have an inkling based on what i do know of heir record, their history and their overgrown death cult.

    Stevo and the warmongers want to attack Iran cause they’re brown.

    Bzzzzt! Wrong.

    I do NOT want war.

    But if we (or ratherr *when*) are forced to fight a war because of others decisions we have no say in – I do want us to win and survive.

    That such a terrible thing to you? You’d rather we didn’t win and didn’t survive?

    Also skin colour = total irrelevance.

    I understand the Iranians are as white as me, perhaps more so. Doesn’t matter. Its not the pigmentation of their skin or otherwise; its the fact they want to impose extremist Shiite ideology on the rest of the planet. Incl. me.

    If Iran left the rest of us alone I’d happily recommend returning the favour but y’know, biggest sponsor of Jihadist terrorism, responsible for Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc.. and all so -no.

    By their choice not mine.

    Memo to Iran : DO NOT FUCK WITH US!

    That’s all. Don’t.

    Stop causing trouble. Stop your terrorism, stop trying to whip up hate and calling for death to us and Israel and the non -Shiite Muslims generally. leave us the fuck alone. learn to get along in peace. Israel exists and will keep existing the US too and the wider western world neither of us are “Satans” of any sort so just .. fucken quit it. While you are at it, how about you let your people go free and modernise and think and not nbe kept vback in the flippin’ bronze age you fucken scumbags.

    That really so hard to do? Ya can’t manage that?

    Well then, we have a problem. A problem you are causing – but we will fix if we are forced to.

    Don’t force us to. We’d rather not shoot to kill. But if we (the rest of the world) have to. We will. Count on that. Got it? No?

    You stupid Iranian assholes.

    PS. Technical note for the willfully ignorant : Iran has been at war with us de facto ever since they started sponsoring international terrorism – which began about two seconds after their Islamic revolution was completed. Wish that wasn’t reality but it is. Iran’s choice as to whether they keep doing that or not but the reality is what is is whatever any of us think or wish otherwise.

  113. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return!:

    @356. colnago80 :

    Re StevoR – We should not forget that it’s Iran and their wholly owned subsidiary, Hizbollah, that are propping up the Assad regime in Syria. Without their support, Assad’s murderous kleptocracy would have collapsed long ago before the opposition was co-opted by Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist organizations. The toll thus far: 130000 dead, 2 million refugees in neighboring countries, another 2 million displaced.

    Very good point.

    You would think those who claim to be concerned about Arab lives would be aware of and consider this inconvenient factual point wouldn’t you?

  114. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return!:

    @40.Kevin, 友好火猫 (Friendly Fire Cat)

    @sinned34 : You’re not going to get much sympathy out of Stevo about the drone slayings of wedding parties. We’ve used that on him before and his response is typically “well they shouldn’t have been in the way”

    Again, a grotesque misinterpretion of my actual words. You really suck at reading comprehension Kevin.

    @58. Ed Brayton :

    Oh for crying out loud. There are people here who really think Iran is going to attack the United States?

    Yes. The US embassy incident immediately after their revolution did set somewhat of a precedent for their violating international laws and common sense after all didn’t it? Don’t you think Iran’s regular calls and rhetoric about “Death to America” are sincere?” Jewish people have learnt a lot over history about taking seemingly hyperbolic rhetorical threats against them seriously. Jewish people made the mistake once about thinking talk was just talk. Then we got the Shoah. Never again.

    Yes, Iran is a terrible theocracy. It represents pretty much everything I despise (and no, I don’t think “Islamofascism” is too strong a term).

    Thankyou. Yes. 100% spot on there.

    But they aren’t suicidal, for crying out loud.

    Oh dear. I really wish you were right about that but evidence says otherwise.

    I’m more worried about a Backstreet Boys reunion than I am about Iran attacking us with their fearsome warships. They’d be sunk in a matter of minutes and their country would be a smooth glass parking lot within a week. And they damn well know it. The chances that they’re going to attack this country are so small you’d need an electron microscope to see them.

    They’ll be destroyed and they know it – yes I agree.

    But do they care? Might their own annhiliation even be what they seek in terms of bringing on their version of the Rapture, the Apocalypse? Remember the Iranians are religious – not sane or rational but extremist true believing Islamist death cultists. Many here think Bush II was mad for starting wars based they think on his religion, well, supersize that by about five thousand times and apply it to Iran’s leadership and I don’t think you’ll be exaggerating much. Hope I’m wrong but doubt it.

    @66. democommie

    “* “Imperialism” the USA has a President not an emperor, it doesn’t even have “puppet states or client kingdoms like the Soviets and ancient Romans.”

    You have to be fucking kidding. We did everything in our power to hobble the governments in both Iraq and Afghanistan by rigging the game. That the new assholes we helped install don’t like us any better than the old assholes who we (and the USSR) helped to install notwithstanding”

    Citations needed.

    If the new assholes are free to disagree with and oppose us as you imply then that refutes your own point right there. No, we weren’t taking charge and forcing them to obey us so, no, not imperialism.

    America most certainly was an imperialist power, your quibbling over semantics is noted. The Philippines, Cuba, Hawaai, Panama, Guam and numerous non-contiguous states were taken over by in the period between 1890 and 1945, we still hold Hawaii and some other islands in the South Pacific as well as Puerto Rico and Gitmo.

    You think Hawaii shouldn;t be a US state then?

    The U.S. has a sordid history of invading and subjugating people that were in the way of our navies or sitting on our stuff.

    Which is why Japan, Kuwait and Iraq are now in the hands of their own people? Hang on, that doesn’t add up does it?

    ” Instead, it has , y’know, allies (international friends – not slaves) like Oz and Britain and NZ. using the word Empire or Imperialist or similar to apply to the USA and West is just plain factually inaccurate as well as generally prejudicial.”

    Grow the fuck up.

    I’m as tall now as I’m gunna get democommie and that’s an irrelevant insult not an actual logical argument.

    If you think I’m wrong well, extraordinary evidence required to prove extraordinary claims.

  115. dingojack:

    Stevo – RE: ‘The Great Game’. (yours #114, responding to Demo’s #66):
    You are responsible for your own education. We are not in any way responsible for your appalling lack of historical knowledge. Read a (creditable) history book. Then get back to us…

    “Which is why Japan, Kuwait and Iraq are now in the hands of their own people? Hang on, that doesn’t add up does it?”

    Re-read mine #42. Your ignorance of history is truly astounding…

    Dingo

  116. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return!:

    @70. zenlike :

    Strange, to be an enemy you generally need to be in a war with someone. So far as I know, no war exists between the USA and Iran. Or maybe congress signed something in the last half hour which I missed.

    Maybe you missed all those “Death to America!” chanting rallies that Iran has been holding since the Islamic revolution? Plus, y’know, the fact they sponsor Jihadist terrorism which the USA and wider Western World has been at war with since 2001?

    Crikey, ya must have! Only explanation really. Where have you been since the late 1970′s dude? And to think I thought I’ve slept in late a few times!

    Iran has been our de facto enemy since the Shah’s rule ended. Denying this is like denying the value of Pi or Global overheating or evolution. That basic.

    @83. paulburnett :

    StevoR (#23) asked “(Who is it here or on FTB more generally that regularly tries to point out the difference between Persian = Iranians versus Arabs?)”

    A Persian is an Iranian who doesn’t want you to think of him/her as an Iranian.

    Yup. I know. You can understand the embarrassment about being Iranian can’t you? Exactly. Iran =Persia, Persia= Iran, agreed and just my point. Not Arab, but too often acting just as badly in the general sense of the terms.

    Some on FTB in the past have tried making a big point of Persians / Iranians not being Arab.

    Meh, ok. If they act the same horrible way and ally themselves with them and are equally exceedingly Islamic fundamentalists, the distinction is trivial and pedantic. I’ve tried to specify what I mean, clearly some here aren’t keen enough intellects to follow my thinking – and yet they still strawmonster me and claim I’m dumb.

    To them and you I’ll just say, try to read what I’ve actually said and not be fooled by what you wrongly think I’ve said. Reread and rethink and you’ll understand. Hopefully.

    @dogmeat :

    The idiocy of SLC and StevoR is really getting rather old. Iran isn’t doing anything that any other world power hasn’t done at other times. We sent warships to cruise along their coast, they have every right to do the same. The idea that we should sink their ship if it crosses “one foot” into our waters is ridiculous sabre rattling. This isn’t any reason to ratchet up the Islamophobia, though we all know you two don’t need any reason to do that, this is a rather amusing tit-for-tat. The Sabalan is so out of date it is truly pathetic. To see it as a threat to anything but a fishing boat is laughable. To call for its destruction over a perceived violation of water is sheer idiocy.

    Oh, I’;m not saying we should destroy them over percieved breeches of US waters.

    Actual ones is another matter entirely.

    It suppose it hasn’t occurred to you that maybe Iran has succeeded in developing nukes secretly and these seemingly outdated ships are actually carrying them? Or that Iran’s thinking is long way removed and less reasonable than the old Soviet empire used to be?

    I hope we don’t have to sink these Iranian navy ships. I hope they the sense not to push us and make that necessary. I hope they’re not planning to violate US waters and start attacks or cause trouble.

    But if they are, well, I’m glad you guys aren’t responsible for making the decision on what to do next. I’m happy to trust those who are in charge, who *do* have the knowledge and expertise and experience to know how and when to do their jobs. I support the US military and the Generals / Admirals and accept that they have the right background to make the call when and if it needs to be made. They know what they’re talking about and doing. People blogging and commenting online, not so much.

  117. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return!:

    @115. dingojack :

    We are not in any way responsible for your appalling lack of historical knowledge. Read a (creditable) history book. Then get back to us…

    Mate, I’ve been a bookworm all my life and love reading history books.

    So, take that as done already many times over.

    Of course, we may have differing ideas on what constitutes “creditable” history books .. (Shrug) How often have you read and seriously considered the ideas of ones disagreeing with your POV?

    Your ignorance of history is truly astounding…

    Funnily enough I keep thinking the same thing about you and may others who reflexively take the anti-Western side here.

    When you use the word”ignorant” do you merely mean “disagreeing with / seeing the other side to” yours? Seems so to me.

    Bet I could beat you in a fair, objective test of historical knowledge any day. Not sure how we could arrange that to happen.

  118. dogmeat:

    Stop causing trouble. Stop your terrorism, stop trying to whip up hate and calling for death to us and Israel and the non -Shiite Muslims generally. leave us the fuck alone.

    StevoR,

    You arguments and “logic” are as bad as SLC’s. They should leave us alone? Really? We’re the ones who manipulated their political system and leadership for decades after WWII. Yes, their revolution involved an attack on our embassy, but that was in response to our propping up a truly nasty regime, again, for decades. They’ve sponsored terrorists, we sponsored Iraq in their war against Iran. Who did more damage to whom? We’ve had two carrier battle groups off their coast, at times upping that to three. They send a single frigate to our coast and they’re causing trouble? Again, seriously?

    We actually have nuclear weapons (and have used them), their attempt to develop similar weapons is a threat? We have chemical and biological weapons (and have used the former), they didn’t start developing these weapons systems until after Iraq used them against Iran and we have no credible evidence that they’ve used them. But they’re the irrational ones who you know will use those weapons systems because… well… because… MUSLIMS! We actively supported the country that attacked them and used chemical weapons against them, and you talk about them being a threat to us?!?!?! Has it occurred to you that their shitty government is so shitty because of us? Your arguments border on those of an abusive husband explaining why his wife “needs” to be killed because she is a threat to him for not allowing him to beat the shit out of her every weekend.

    Hezbollah supports the Assad regime, Hamas and Al Qaeda support the rebels (funny you didn’t mention that). Tell me again who the “good guys” are in that situation? The conflict and death toll have been horrible, but really, who can you honestly say is going to make that country better for their people, civil rights, and civil liberties if they win? As horrible as the situation there is, you could argue that Hamas and Egypt should be condemned and should allow the Assad regime to stabilize the country. It would be just as valid, and just as terrible an argument as you’ve made that Hezbollah and Iran should do the same from their side. In addition, you’re conveniently ignoring the fact that our invasion of Iraq played a major role in destabilizing the region, facilitating the Syrian civil war. Say what you want about Iran, but I don’t see them providing Canada with chemical weapons to attack us. I don’t see them invading Canada andMexico and staging a Marine amphibious brigade in Jamaica while cruising up and down our coast with enough firepower to destroy all of our major cities and wipe our our naval capability many times over.

    Lastly, I do see them making statements against the US and Israel. Of course I also see our leaders making similar statements against them. Why is it their leaders are out of line, but ours are justified?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxV9oCUPeSc

    Their leaders use rhetoric, ours have actually invaded their neighbors and bombed people in countries without declarations of war. You attack them for supporting Hezbollah, but what about our bombings in Yemen? Pakistan? What about the civilian casualties of our invasion of Iraq? If you go back through our thirty-five year conflict with Iran, who has actually killed more innocent people? Who has actually been more aggressive? Who has actually shown themselves to be more irrational, unpredictable, and a greater threat to the peace?

  119. dingojack:

    Nope, when I use the word ‘ignorant’ I mean completely (and wilfully?) unfamiliar with the facts, as demonstrated in most of your ramblings.
    Dingo
    ====

    As an example: chanting stuff does not constitute a declaration of war. One is chanting, the other is a legal declaration of a state of war. @@

  120. colnago80:

    Re dogmeat @ #118

    Hamas and Al Qaeda support the rebels

    Hamas supports the rebels? Where the fuck did that come from? It is quite true that elements in the Gaza Strip support both the Islamic extremist element in the anti-Assad rebellion and the Islamic extremists currently operating in the Sinai Desert, busily attacking Egyptian troops and firing rockets on Eliat in Israel. However, these folks have also attempted to overthrow the Hamas Government in the Gaza Strip in the past because they consider it to be soft on Israel. Currently, relations between Hamas and Iran are quite strained based on the differences between Sunni and Shiite Muslims.

  121. colnago80:

    Re dogmeat @ #118

    As horrible as the situation there is, you could argue that Hamas and Egypt should be condemned and should allow the Assad regime to stabilize the country. It would be just as valid, and just as terrible an argument as you’ve made that Hezbollah and Iran should do the same from their side.

    Wait a minute here, the support of Hizbollah and Iran for the Assad kleptocracy began long before the rebellion in Syria was partially hijacked by Al Qaeda and other extremist Islamic elements. Without that support, Assad and his criminal regime would have collapsed long before the hijacking took place.

    And by the way, the US and Israel are not be absolved from some responsibility for the situation in Syria. They tacitly supported the Assad regime for 40 years because Assad pere and Assad fils kept things quiet on the Golan Highths front. Even as we sit here today, there are elements in the US and Israeli militaries that believe that an Assad victory is the best outcome for their respective nations.

  122. Dave, ex-Kwisatz Haderach:

    Well this has been… something. But enough frothing idiocy. Much to do. Its a tonne of paperwork helping my Iranian friend move his family into our country. But its gotta be done before the chickenhawks decide to flatten his home.

  123. colnago80:

    Re Pekinese @ #119

    Excuse me, Iran declared war on the US in 1980 when they invaded our embassy in Tehran and held our diplomats hostage, in violation of international law. Not even Frankenberger and his henchmen did that to the US embassy in Berlin, not did Tojo do that to the US embassy in Tokyo after the declaration of war by the US against Germany and Japan after Pearl Harbor. We would have been well justified in bombing Iran off the map for that atrocity.

  124. democommie:

    “If you think I’m wrong well, extraordinary evidence required to prove extraordinary claims.”

    Where to start, asshole.

    Hawaii. Taken at gunpoint from the Hawaiians by U.S. colonizers. Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines taken from Spain in order to “free them from the Spanish yoke.”. Oddly enough, Puerto Rico is STILL not free.

    Both Hawaii and Puerto Rico are now filled with enough reliably U.S.ian residents (including those people otherwise known as corporations) that they would not succeed in a plebiscite for independence from the U.S. It did take a lot of years for the U.S. to completely retrain the Filipinos and Hawaiians into the “good” sortabrowns that they are today. Often that training was helped along, in HIS name, by some pretty wild’n’KKKrazzeepants zealots.

    “StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return!”

    So, not all U.S., Chinese or Indonesian government initiatives to lift benighted islanders (or mainlanders dwelling on a 3M+ square mile area of THEIR land) out of their primitive, superstitious, economically unsophisticated ways is progress? Oh, ok, I get it. The only ones that matter to you or those with whom you, for whatever reason, chosen to stand with in solidarity. Yeah, ok, fine. So, you’re completely full of shit AND a hypocrite.

    As for my providing extraordinary evidence. Go to the fucking library or mine the intertoobz, all of the information is readily available, it’s not confidential (although much of what occurred in South and Central America, the American West, Hawaii, and the forever grateful residents of the former Spanish colonies which were freed from Spain and made American protectorates in the period from 1890 to 1950, WAS) and it’s not hard to locate.

  125. Michael Heath:

    Yeoman work dogmeat.

  126. Raging Bee:

    If they want to be an economic powerhouse how does stirring up trouble by sending ships into US waters help that aim?

    How does sending ships into US waters “stir up trouble?” Do you even understand what international law says about territorial waters? (Also, are they really sending ships into US waters, or just close to the limit?)

    When we’re talking Iran – or more specifically its leadership the Ayatollah’s – we have to remember they don’t think like we do. They aren’t rational and they are extremist religious nuts even worse than the farthest extreme rightwing Christians that get (correctly) mocked so often here.

    Ah yes…they’re not fully human, they’re savages who can’t be trusted to “think like we do.” That’s the same thing white racists have said about every nonwhite group that gets in their way. It was bullshit when they said it about the Africans, Hispanics, Asians, and Muslims during the Crusades; and it’s bullshit when chickenhawks like SLColnago and Stevo say it about Iranians today.

    It also doesn’t really help us in dealing with the Iranians — if you don’t understand your enemy, you can’t defeat him, or see your way to any other solution to your disputes. Fuck you both, chickenhawks, you’re not helping, so you should just shut the fuck up and let the grownups talk about grownup stuff you’re not ready to deal with yourselves.

  127. dingojack:

    SLC – Nope, not even close to declaration of war (or even a state of war).
    Dingo
    ——–
    PS: Were you aware that the UK has been ‘at war’ with everyone else (specifically Cambodia) since 1987? @@
    [and 'at war' with Libya since 1984].

  128. Dunc:

    Yeah, the irony in Stevo’s username is wonderful… Who exactly is it that’s preventing the Chagossians from returning, and why? Oh yeah, it’s the USA, so that they can maintain a major military base in a strategically important location on the other side of the world. Nothing imperialist about that.

  129. Modusoperandi:

    StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return! “It suppose it hasn’t occurred to you that maybe Iran has succeeded in developing nukes secretly and these seemingly outdated ships are actually carrying them?”
    “Moowaahaha! Moo-ooo-waahaha! Moo-ooo-waahahah!” ~ Dr Evil

  130. Dunc:

    And how did the Iranians test those secret nukes without anybody finding out? On the far side of the Moon, thanks to their secret space program, of course!

  131. dogmeat:

    SLC@ 120:

    Hamas supports the rebels? Where the fuck did that come from?

    You act like you’re an expert on the region, but you don’t know this?

    http://fpif.org/hamas-hezbollah-agree-disagree-syria/

    Both organizations originally started out tacitly neutral, both then decided to side with their respective “allies.” You’re so fixated on your hatred of all things Iran that you blind yourself to the reality that it takes two sides to create a conflict.

    And by the way, the US and Israel are not be absolved from some responsibility for the situation in Syria.

    ROFL, your position is that the US and Israel should be sent to bed without supper and Iran should be nuked into oblivion. Pardon me if I laugh out loud at your idea of shared culpability when it pales in comparison to your desire to commit mass murder. That you constantly channel the very ideas that led to the holocaust, and seem utterly oblivious/unconcerned to/about that fact, makes you a very disturbing individual.

    Continued babbling @123:

    Excuse me, Iran declared war on the US in 1980 when they invaded our embassy in Tehran and held our diplomats hostage, in violation of international law.

    Your fixation on the embassy attack is really getting old. We manipulated their government for decades, violating their rights as a nation (an act we would consider war) you continuously ignore that fact. Our embassy played a role in those activities. Simply because they didn’t follow the niceties of foreign affairs in response to our activities doesn’t make theirs an act of war. Much like China didn’t go to war when we bombed their embassy, we didn’t go to war when Iran took ours. We were embarrassed by the fact that we were caught propping up a truly horrible regime and manipulating the Iranian peoples’ right to self-determination. You’d be screaming bloody murder if someone did the same to us, but again, double standard when it comes to Iran … all in the name of a good genocide.

    On top of that, and facts you continue to try to conveniently dismiss without any legitimate justification for doing so; you ignore the fact that we supported a country that invaded them and attacked them with chemical weapons. You ignore the fact that we have stationed major military forces along their coast and within easy striking range of their major population centers for decades. You ignore that some of those forces have actually fired at their forces and their civilian population over the years. Over and over again it comes back to you ignoring our actions and not just condemning, but demanding mass murder of innocent women and children to respond to their “actions.”

    We manipulate their government … no big deal. They take our embassy … NUKE THEM!!!
    We help their neighbor invade them… no big deal. They support Hezbollah … NUKE THEM!!!
    We help their neighbor use chemical weapons against them … no big deal … they develop a response… NUKE!
    The list goes on and on.

    You really are a true to form chicken-hawk on this issue. Much like those idiots who claimed that Iraq was a “major threat” and Hussein was “just like Hitler,” you’ve brushed off the totally bullshit script and, like every other Godwin-hawk have a new target for us to fear and lash out against. Much like those cowardly bastards, you’re perfectly happy to send people to kill and die to support an unnecessary war against a non-threat, which is easy because you don’t have to do any of it. You’re not at risk, you don’t face any personal threat, you aren’t going to be asked to put people you care about, trained and trained with in harm’s way. You wont be asked to kill people, you wont be asked to do any of the hard things that would have to be done if you got your way. Utterly cowardly to the end.

    By the way, every time you bring up Frankenfurter you make yourself look like a bigger idiot (admittedly an increasingly impressive accomplishment).

  132. dingojack:

    (For a case in involving the Egyptian Embassy in England see here.)

    Despite the fiction of extra-territoriality of Embassies, it is not supported in international law as you claim.

    Dingo.

  133. Raging Bee:

    Your fixation on the embassy attack is really getting old. We manipulated their government for decades…

    That manipulation is EVEN OLDER. Yes, the US did bad things to Iran back in the day, but that was so long ago that most Iranians are long over bashing the US over them. The only Iranians who still blame the US for all of Iran’s troubles are the mullahs, and even they are giving it a rest, because they know their people aren’t buying it anymore. They know it’s nothing but a lame attempt to dodge responsibility for their own government’s failures.

    If the Iranian people aren’t blaming the US for all of their current problems, there’s no reason for Western liberals to do it on their behalf.

  134. dingojack:

    “Yes, the US did bad things to Iran back in the day, but that was so long ago that most Iranians are long over bashing the US over them.”

    I’m interested, do you have some kind of survey that shows this trend?

    Dingo

  135. dogmeat:

    ‘Bee, I’m not certain what you’re trying to say here. I wasn’t excusing the Iranian conflict with us or justifying it based on those events, I’m pointing out how SLC constantly brings up the “act of war” of taking our embassy while ignoring the fact that it was in response to those activities and our refusal to turn the Shah over to their revolutionary government. I listed a whole slew of other conflicts we’ve had with them that have generally been a tit-for-tat series of incidents that SLC and Stevo strategically “quote mine” to try to argue in favor of a genocidal campaign against Iran.

    To ignore those incidents as part of the conflict between the US and Iran is foolish, to claim that I was blaming the US for their current problems equally so. Iran has a long, rather nasty history; much like Iraq. And, while that is true, much like Iraq, claiming that they’re the next Nazis unjustified fear mongering.

  136. democommie:

    “Yes, the US did bad things to Iran back in the day, but that was so long ago that most Iranians are long over bashing the US over them.”

    That’s true. Of course the fact that the U.S. and several other major powers are dictating to the Iranians and other countries what they can and CAN’T do with nuclear materials is nothing for them to be upset about.

  137. colnago80:

    Re dogmeat @ #131

    According to your own link, the Hamas government in the Gaza Strip is no longer supporting the Assad kleptocracy in Syria, which is just what I said. The reason is very simple, it’s because the Hamas folks are Sunnis and the Assad folks are a branch of Shiite Islam. Of course, they both consider Israel the common enemy, nothing to do with Syria where Israel isn’t supporting either side currently.

    As for dogmeat’s brushing off the invasion of our embassy in Tehran, if the Iranian embassy in Washington had been similarly invaded by Christian terrorists in retaliation, dogmeat would have been front and center in denouncing them. But of course, to America haters like dogmeat, Noam Chomsky, Philip Weiss, etc, the US is always wrong.

    By the way, the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade was an accident, the takeover of the US embassy in Tehran was done with malice aforethought.

    We help their neighbor invade them… no big deal. They support Hezbollah … NUKE THEM!!!
    We help their neighbor use chemical weapons against them … no big deal … they develop a response… NUKE!

    Excuse me, we didn’t “help” Iraq invade Iran. In fact, recalling Iran/Contra, we actually sold arms to Iran, something that dogmeat the Arizona asshole forgot about.

  138. dogmeat:

    According to your own link, the Hamas government in the Gaza Strip is no longer supporting the Assad kleptocracy in Syria, which is just what I said.

    Bullshit, that is not what you said.

    @118 I said:

    Hezbollah supports the Assad regime, Hamas and Al Qaeda support the rebels (funny you didn’t mention that). Tell me again who the “good guys” are in that situation?

    Your reply @120 was:

    Hamas supports the rebels? Where the fuck did that come from?

    I then submitted the link. It clearly talks about both organizations initially trying to remain neutral, but then shifting to support opposite sides in the conflict. That was what I said at 118 and you disputed. The fact that they both oppose Israel was never presented as false by any statement I made. I pointed out that Hamas and Egypt support the rebel, Iran and Hezbollah support the Asad regime. None of your arguments have refuted that point nor refuted the fact that you consider Iran culpable in this to the point of genocidal destruction while being mildly annoyed with the other players in the fiasco that is Syria.

    As for dogmeat’s brushing off the invasion of our embassy in Tehran, if the Iranian embassy in Washington had been similarly invaded by Christian terrorists in retaliation, dogmeat would have been front and center in denouncing them. But of course, to America haters like dogmeat, Noam Chomsky, Philip Weiss, etc, the US is always wrong.

    You have no evidence to support any of these assertions, so fuck you very much. I didn’t excuse their actions, I explained them. You seem to be the one “brushing off” factors that facilitate the conflict between our country and Iran. If Iran had been manipulating our system of government, was protecting our former leader who was part of that police state, and continued to use that embassy as a staging ground for illegal, covert activities within our country, I would actually support an effort to halt those activities up to, and including “invading” the embassy. Your argument is more idiotic than usual because you establish a false hypocrisy that makes no sense. If I argue that a country has the right to neutralize an internal threat masking under the guise of international diplomacy, why would I shift to argue the opposite? Simply because you’re a bigoted hypocrite doesn’t mean everyone stoops to your level of dishonesty and hatred.

    As for the US “always being wrong.” Nope, but I also don’t advocate we adopt SS tactics and genocidal campaigns against “sub-human animals,” which we already you, you do mein heir.

    Excuse me, we didn’t “help” Iraq invade Iran. In fact, recalling Iran/Contra, we actually sold arms to Iran, something that dogmeat the Arizona asshole forgot about.

    Awwww, how cute, doctor death has come up with a cute little nickname for me. Genuinely a sign you’re running out of bullshit obfuscations and are running out of ways to ignore legitimate points. We didn’t support Iraq? Seriously? You’re going to try to claim that?

    http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/index.htm

    Simple summary from Wikipedia is available (link not included to avoid limit): The title is quite simply US support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. One of the sub-link issues is, of course, the impact of that support during the war had upon US troops because of our direct transfer and facilitation of transfer of chemical and biological weapons to Iraq and their impact on US troops in the first Gulf War:

    http://moneydick.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/the_riegle_report.pdf

    Within the wiki article you’ll find we had the “Bear Spares” program, billions in aid, removal of Iraq from the list of States Sponsoring Terrorism, official normalization of relations, violation of UN agreements not to supply the combatants. The list goes on and on. On your side you have Iran-Contra… again, seriously?

  139. dingojack:

    “As for do’How sad,gmeat’s brushing off the invasion of our embassy in Tehran, if the Iranian embassy in Washington had been similarly invaded by Christian terrorists in retaliation, dogmeat would have been front and center in denouncing them. But of course, to America haters like dogmeat, Noam Chomsky, Philip Weiss, etc, the US is always wrong.”

    Sadly for you, International law disagrees.:
    ‘Oh dear, how sad, never mind’

    Dingo

  140. belzerbru:

    Iran has made their own Stealth Fighter Qaher-313 .. I’ll let people judge how much they fear technology like that..
    http://youtu.be/B80YXYslsW4

    It can kill you, if someone drops it on you from a crane or something

  141. Raging Bee:

    …I’m pointing out how SLC constantly brings up the “act of war” of taking our embassy while ignoring the fact that it was in response to those activities and our refusal to turn the Shah over to their revolutionary government.

    First, attacking our embassy was a gross violation of a basic principle of international law, and was not justified or excused by any international dispute. In fact, the whole purpose of diplomatic immunity is to ensure that diplomatic personnel do NOT become collateral damage in the disputes they’re paid to deal with. The taking of our embassy was a spontaneous mob action, not an actual policy decision; and Khomeini’s support of it (the ultimate “wag the dog” scenario) caused the hostage-takers to become a virtual state-within-a-state — which did no good to Iran in any way. Whichever side you’re on, there’s no justification for it, legal or practical.

    And second, the US had ZERO legal obligation to turn the ex-Shah over to Iran. They overthrew him, they got rid of him, and they got another government in his place, and our government accepted that, without sending US troops to prop up the old regime. That’s all we owed the Iranian people. Sending the Shah back would have done no one any good, nor would it have made anything better for the Iranian people. The hateful mob who demanded his extradition were only throwing a collective temper-tantrum, and their “leaders” used that tantrum as a means to avoid dealing responsibly with their own problems.

    I’m interested, do you have some kind of survey that shows this trend?

    It’s called reading the news over a period of years. You should try it sometime. The feelings of the Iranian people toward the US and its governing principles are far more complex than either the reich-wing chickenhawks or the blame-America-first crowd understand.

  142. democommie:

    ” The feelings of the Iranian people toward the US and its governing principles are far more complex than either the reich-wing chickenhawks or the blame-America-first crowd understand.

    I’d say, based on the reports I’ve seen/heard and the very few Iranians I’ve ever actually talked to, that they pretty much hate the U.S. AND the Iranian gummints. Not an unreasonable feeling on their part, imo.

  143. dingojack:

    “First, attacking our embassy was a gross violation of a basic principle of international law, and was not justified or excused by any international dispute. In fact, the whole purpose of diplomatic immunity is to ensure that diplomatic personnel do NOT become collateral damage in the disputes they’re paid to deal with”.

    Ah, no. While extra-territoriality is customary, it isn’t in International Law (unless the states involved have a specific treaty to that effect). There is a rather vague mention of the ‘inviolate nature’ of embassies in the Geneva Convention, but it only applies to officers of the state having to ask permission to enter the embassy (a courtesy really), and in this case the Iranian state didn’t invade the embassy, students did (as you pointed out).
    Diplomatic Immunity doesn’t give one complete freedom from the laws of the host state, I’ll get you out of a parking ticket, but not murder, rape, espionage or other serious crimes. (I believe the students suspected, probably correctly, that the embassy was being used to carry out espionage actives, amongst other things).

    “It’s called reading the news over a period of years. You should try it sometime. ”

    So that’s a ‘no’ then. You’ve got no data to back up that claim. Shame, I would have like to seen it.

    Dingo

  144. Raging Bee:

    Reading the news from multiple sources over a period of several years is “no data?” Seriously? Fuck off to bed, dingo, you have no credibility.

  145. Raging Bee:

    While extra-territoriality is customary, it isn’t in International Law…

    International law is, in large measure, based on custom. So yes, extra-territoriality is part of international law.

  146. colnago80:

    Re pekinese @ #143

    The fact is that the US Government didn’t invade the Japanese embassy in Washington in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor and arrest the diplomats. According to the chihuahua, it would have been kosher to do so.

    If the Government of Iran thought that spying activities were being conducted from the US embassy in Tehran, which was probably a fair inference, the correct procedure is to break off diplomatic relations and order the embassy personnel to leave the country forthwith.

Leave a comment

You must be