Iranian war ships in the suezFollow

http://realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/02/16/wh_press_secretary_carney_has_no_answer_for_iranian_warships_in_suez.html


I bet Carney was a straight A govn student; it shows.

The link in the OP doesn't say what you say it says. Whether it was changed or expanded, I don't know.


For most of the last century, Iran was under the control of Britain, Russia or CIA puppet governments. You make a good point though, they've been nothing but a headache since the Shah left.

Why not? You've got the 5th fleet parked in their backyard.

And no one is stupid enough to argue that said parking doesn't have any political/military significance.


What is with the whole tactic of ignoring the issue at hand by just pointing out other things done by other people? Do you try to get out of tickets by telling the officer that someone else was also speeding somewhere else? How does that logic work in your head?

Pretty much if the U.N. Sanctions prohibit the ships from the canal then we as a nation can san no to it's use.

Er? The key event which started a cascade of events ultimately leading to war with Iraq was Iran's attempt to expand its control over the gulf by seizing some islands held by Iraq. While that event occurred before the revolution of 1979, it absolutely was an aggressive act by Iran, attacking territory owned by another nation, and was the first overt military acts in what was to become a string of back and forth actions leading to the 1980 war.

And, it definitely happened within the last hundred years. You said that they had never invaded another country or engaged in a war of aggression during that time period. A claim which is clearly false.

I know it isn't going to be easy for you, but if you look in your history book under the heading 'When Sadaam Was Our Bestest Buddy', subheadin, 'How the US Encouraged Sadaam Hussein to Start a War with Iran by Supplying Him With Everything He Needed from Equipment to Battlefield Intelligence and Said Nothing at all When He Spent Months Shelling Iranian villages and Industry Across Their Border 'cos they Wanted Revenge on The Nasty Mullahs for Ousting The Puppet Shah', Sub-Sub Herading 'Even if it Meeant That Sadaam was Allowed to Get Away With Shooting Up the USS Stark and Killing 37 Crewmen'.


Handy Hint : History doesn't start when you say it does.

You're not looking far enough back. The event I speak of occurred in November (I think) of 1971. It was the first significant military conflict between Iran and Iraq (post Ottoman Empire) and led to several years of back and forth border skirmishes. Their border dispute goes back a few years earlier in fact. Go look up the Shatt al-Arab if you're unsure what I'm talking about. This was the waterway that they fought over in the early 70s and was the same waterway which was one of the major reasons for the follow-up war in 1980. The point is that they most definitely *did* invade the territory of another country in the last 100 years, despite what Paulsol said.

That waterway and the border it represents has been in dispute for a long time. Iran today *still* occasionally attacks or seizes vessels traveling along it. They did the same thing back in the 70s. The event I speak of was an attempt by Iran to control the whole thing, and they seized a couple islands at the mouth of the waterway as part of that plan. The 1980 conflict was the same thing in reverse. Iraq sought to control the waterway and used military force to secure it.

To say that Iran is some incredibly peaceful country that has *never* attacked its neighbors requires some pretty amazingly selective history study.

Edited, Feb 16th 2011 6:05pm by gbaji

Yes. Nice regurgitation. Research more. So Iraq claimed the whole waterway up to the Iranian shoreline, and then we skip right to the Algiers Accord which sets the border along the deepest part of the waterway instead, but you don't think anything happened in between? Seriously? It was just magic or something?

They argued back and forth. Then Iran in November of 1971 invaded and held a couple islands at the mouth of the waterway in order to up the ante. At the time, Iran had the larger military. This lead to more tension and conflict Then in 1975, the Algiers Accord was signed, setting the border where it presumably should have been all along.

Of course Iraq didn't like sharing, so 5 years after that, whilst Iran was occupied with the whole "just had a revolution and we're not sure how to run the country" bit, decided to take the waterway, and push Iran back so far that it would have to sue for peace with beneficial terms for Iraq (as Iran had done the last time if you stop and think about it).

I'm not saying that Iraq wasn't being bad as well. But I didn't notice that Paul's list of military acts by the US made any distinction based on whether said acts were justified or not. Iran most definitely did launch an attack into a foreign powers territory. That said foreign power was being mean to them first doesn't change that fact.



I have. Iraq was the instigator, but that does not change what Iran did in response. I'll point out (again) that Paul's assertion didn't come with a disclaimer saying "... that wasn't justified based on the situation".



Oh. And for those playing the home version of "What would Neville Chamberlain have done?", it could be argued that had Iran accepted the border that Iraq insisted on back in the late 60s rather than fighting over it and ultimately winning the issue with the Algiers Accords, Iraq most likely would not have attacked them in 1980. So, by the same bizarre logic used by many to argue against numerous military actions by the US, it's actually the Iranians fault that all those people died between 1980 and 1988. You know. If we're being consistent with the whole apologist approach to global politics that is.

Edited, Feb 16th 2011 7:39pm by gbaji

Remind us all again who was in power in Iran in 1971,how and when he came to power, and why Irans actions in regards to Iraq at that time are irrelevant to the war that came later.....

I see what you did there.

Well that depends, I have seen the sky a dim shade of green before, but that was because of cloud cover not the sky itself, and because clouds are relevant to the weather then it seems like a pretty solid discussion.


(the events following involved high winds and a tornado touching down about 1 hour from where I live, was pretty exciting.)