Two oil tankers struck in suspected attacks in Gulf of Oman

I do now and I've responded accordingly.

 

1. Straits not 'straight'.

2. Not long at all, minutes in fact

3. These are not terrorists these are agents of the Iranian government and to attack them would be an act of war

4. These guys would not be covered by the rules of engagement, they do not pose an immediate threat to life.

 

Striking targets in Iran would certainly start a war. So you do not think we are shy about going to war.

If a drone took the video of the clandestine operators in the act and could strike them - why not? Assuming you are right and we want to strike Irans nuclear program - why hesitate to attack these idiots in their little boat?

 

No you haven't - you've ignored it - 9 hours between explosion and so called undetonated mine being taken away. US aircraft were within 10 nautical miles from M/T Kokuka Courageous at time of explosion, USS Bainbridge was within 50nm from M/T Kokuka Courageous. The crew of the M/T Kokuka Courageous reported the undetonated mine to USS Bainbridge 5 hours before it was supposedly removed

 

No, what would the Iranians do in response? It would be like strikes against Gaddafi or Syria again. The IRG in the boat do not fall under the rules of engagement and no one would make such a decision on their own.

 

Yep and so what? You think the US navy could have got an EOD team out there that fast? Again, you could not have engaged the boast under ROE, if they'd been seen planting the mine it would be different.

 

Is that how its done, the President buys a little extra growth by adding $500 billion to the budget deficit?

 

IOW, you think the rules of engagement would prevent the US from striking terrorists actively involved in a mining operation against civilian oil tankers in a strategic strait. Clearly an immediate threat to life.

I think you are probably right. IOW, the USG is very shy about using reasonable military force. So, why is our military deployed where it can only sit as a target and not act?

 

1. Not terrorists. These are soldiers of the Iranian state, to fire on them would bring the US and Iran into conflict.
2. The boat was removing the mine, if it had been planting it different story.
3. The US navy is in the Gulf to act as a deterrent, to escort ships and give the US the ability to strike at Iran if needs be,

 

There is nothing to shiver and shake about 2 tankers being immobilized. There is something to shiver and shake about, starting yet an other war in that region, on fake claims. The entire war against the Taliban too was totally bogus. And in the end: many Afghanistan civilians got massacred over nothing, and US and other soldiers died for even less.

 

What on EARTH are you talking about? What fake claims? The war against the Taliban was because they harboured AQ. Who could doubt its' validity?

 

Do you think oil tankers have crew trained to seize and secure undetonated mines attached to their hulls?

 

Again: If no one can make a decision to strike clandestine operators/terrorists involved in mine attacks on oil tankers why are we watching? Why are we even there/

 

Because they weren't planting it, that would have been different, it would not be permissible to fire on them (you can imagine what Tehran's propaganda would make of that, "Brave Iranian patriots massacred by Yankee imperialists whilst removing terrorist bombs"). The navy is there to deter such attacks, to respond to them, to strike back and intercept Iranian arm shipments to the Houthi rebels.

 

I did not mention anything about the oil tanker crews seizing or securing anything. US navy and airforce were within minutes of that ship yet there was 9 hours between the explosion and removal of mine.

And why is footage from military drones so crap yet a $100 drone can produce crystal clear HD images. Footage from WW2 gives clearer images

 

You make up things as you go along. The navy is there precisely to protect the oil transport

 

Yep sure were. So what am I making up?

 

Iran did not need to launch a clandestine operation to remove a mine - unless they placed it on the tanker. Attacking that team or preferable capturing it would have been a enormous coup for the US.

Which is why the incident is so puzzling and suspicious.

 

No country buys that WMD story of Saddam Hussein. That claim the US made that they were attacked, and so starting the Vietnam war: not even the US buys that these days. And the Taliban was willing to hand over Bin Laden, so your claim they were harboring AQ is fake.

 

Not sure what fully aware that Hussein’s military would attack with chemical weapons means in your world, but to anyone that has any degree of reading comprehension, it's crystal clear.

Carry on. I've got better things to do than argue with a brick.

 

Agree with the first assertion but not the second, I think you judge with the benefit of hindsight and think things happen instantly rather than the real world. It's not puzzling or suspicious, it is pretty damn obvious and it's incredible how people are tying themselves in knots trying to say black is white.

 

They don't have to buy it, the facts speak for themselves. The Mattox was attacked by NV gunboats as it was supporting an ARVN commando raid on the North. The Taliban were not willing to hand over USL, GW gave them the choice and they told him to stuff it and dug their own graves.

 

Carry on in your tiny delusion. Oh, you've better things to do? You mean you're running away?

The US helped Iraq with intel, the Iraqis used some of it for chemical weapon strikes, no one doubts that. That doesn't mean the US is complicit in Iraq's WMD programme.

 

Trump should have tried to improve on Obama's deal rather than walk away. I think Trump came into the job believing he could lever up on other countries a lot more than he can.

I didn't support either Obama or Hillary.

We've got problems with other WMD--biotech and nanotech weapons--that could be far worse than nukes. Entry into those weapons clubs are potentially a lot easier than entry into the nukes club.

Well, we just saw the EU tell Iran that the EU is setting up a replacement to the dollar for settling international payments. If Trump is going to pressure Iran without starting a war, he has to stop them from selling their oil.

We don't need help on stopping attacks on tankers, but we do need help stopping them from selling their oil.

 

My proof vs your . Whoever is paying you is getting ripped off because you're not very good at this.