Posted on 06/20/2019 1:35:54 AM PDT by Drago
A U.S. high-altitude drone was shot down Thursday by an Iranian surface-to-air missile over the Strait of Hormuz amid heightened tensions in the region after last week’s attacks on two oil tankers, a source told Fox News.
A commander for Iran's Revolutionary Guard said the shooting sends `a clear message' to the U.S. He said while Iran has no intention of war with anyone, it's "ready for war."... (MQ-4C drone).
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I did, however, go back and do some research on some of the other items you listed. I would disregard anything related to U.S. military policy in a matter like this. It may have governed your work in the past, but it is not relevant to an international dispute between two countries because only one country recognizes it as a legitimate authoritative policy in the matter.
Remarkably, I learned that the 1982 UNCLOS itself (which I had cited previously) isn't even relevant here -- because the United States hasn't even ratified it. Even more interesting is that the U.S. Senate hasn't ratified it because many of these same Republican Senators who are calling for U.S. military action against Iran to enforce an "open seas" principle that they themselves refuse to ratify under international law (and I'm sure their refusal to ratify it is well justified).
So you're suggesting President Trump should conduct a military campaign against Iran to enforce an international agreement that Bill Clinton decided to sign on his own in 1994?
No wonder the people of this country -- from all points along the political spectrum -- so readily accept "executive action" that has no basis in law. This is how you end up with an invasion from Latin America and the U.S. considering itself (at one time) a party to a Paris Accord that nobody ratified.
This is not the conduct of a sovereign, law-abiding nation. It's the conduct of an abusive empire.
Having been involved in FONOPS and other military flights near coastal countries in the med and ME during the 80’s and early 90’s, I can tell you that we go to great lengths to not cross boundaries so as to be at fault if someone tries to pop you with a missile. The equivalent of GPS and moving maps of the day had lines of demarcation clearly drawn so you could see where you were and where others were so as to not cross into (pick one - Libyan, Syrian, Iraqi, Iranian, etc) enemy territory.
The American people are just NOT going to be lied into another war that has nothing to do with us.
Just...not...happening.
Never again.
It wouldn't matter in any case, since I'm pretty sure Iran is NOT a signatory to that international agreement.
"Knowledge makes a man unfit to be a slave." -- Frederick Douglass
I suspect a proper, proportionate response to Iran would be to arrest John Kerry, freeze his assets (or ass, I don’t care which), and throw him into solitary confinement in Guantanamo.
So you would not cite the constitution? Its an old document.
I applaud you doing some reading up. I don’t think you yet get the big picture. I am old enough to remember when the 12 mile limit was a 3 mile limit. Are you? The 12 mile limit was a UN construct, changing what had been the norm for a few hundred years. The US opposed the 12 mile limit for the exact reasons we are debating. We (reluctantly) agreed to abide by it with exceptions that guaranteed freedom of navigation through bodies of water exactly like the Straits of Hormuz. We actually didn’t adopt our own 12 mile limit until Reagan decided we needed to keep Russian spy ships farther off our coasts.
International law is a difficult construct, hard to enforce, and as is the case today, easy to be twisted against us. Its also up to nations to voluntarily abide by it as there is little to enforce it, beyond the worlds police (oh, yeah, that’s us). So US policy, in US interest, does not necessarily kneel to every UN proposal or restriction out there. You want the UN to tell us how to manage gun control? Probably not, I hope. But you have accepted that they can deny freedom of movement across the seas.
That is not US policy. And disregarding that would be ignoring reality.
I wont address your comment equating US actions to an abusive empire. We have been the best force for good this world has known. I will agree the law of the seas is a complicated topic certainly worthy of discussion or debate.
Iran sponsors terrorists throughout the middle east against our allies, particularly Israel but others as well. They kill lots of people, with malice, not accidently. Occasionally, they attack us. They have mined the strait before, and they continue to do so trying to test the response. They are not an innocent party by any means. So I am not suggesting our response has anything to do with something Bill Clintoon signed in the 90’s. I am suggesting that we are fully justified to send the Iranian navy to Davy Jones locker based on what it has already done, and it is with restraint that Trump does not.
Age doesn't matter. Relevance does. The U.S. Constitution has been amended 27 times. Citing provisions of the original constitution is pointless if they have since been amended.
Everything else you've posted actually supports my contention that the U.S. should stay the hell out of these international disputes that don't directly affect us. Here's why:
I will agree the law of the seas is a complicated topic certainly worthy of discussion or debate.
If the law of the seas is "a complicated topic certainly worthy of discussion or debate," then you don't use military action to enforce it -- especially in cases where we have no compelling interest.
Our own death toll probably exceeds 65 million since Roe v. Wade. That doesn't sound much like a "force for good" at all.
One of the most humbling moments of my life was the day the U.S. Supreme Court declared that sodomite marriage was the law of the land. In retrospect, I'm surprised it took me so long to see that the Ayatollah Khomenei had it right all along when he called the United State of America "The Great Satan." Imagine that.
If someone threatens you with force (mines waterways or ships, shoots down aircraft, takes hostages) you respond with greater force.
Your interpretation that we should stay out is not my interpretation. I am not an isolationist. The economies of the world are interconnected. Regardless of how much oil we actually get from the ME, the straits see 30% of world oil transit them, and there are US interests as well as foreign interests in that commerce. Stability in economics is stability in govt. Instability leads to war. We have compelling interest in world stability, and we have compelling interest to prevent evil governments from causing harm.
The old sea law is relevant, as it provides the perspective to understand why we are where we are today. So you agree with every amendment to the constitution? You agree with UN law regardless of how it affects US rights? Being complicated doesn’t mean you don’t engage. Being complicated just means you better cross your t’s and dot your i’s.
OMG, stay on topic please.
I am all for overturning Roe v Wade. I am against sodomite marriage. Can we put that to rest?
“Our own death toll probably exceeds 65 million since Roe v. Wade. That doesn’t sound much like a “force for good” at all.”
I call FOUL.
THAT particular topic is predominately domestic in nature, and has nothing to do with the projection of U.S. power into international affairs. Acknowledged, we’ve our own internal debacle to address, but on the international stage, the prior point stands: we HAVE BEEN, and CONTINUE to be, the best force for good the world has known.
There is nothing left for them to fight for. No people, no country, no future that resembles ANYTHING like what you or I had the absolute beautiful luxury of growing up and raising our families in.
And they know it.
Who is poking them? Trump needs to put a stop to that.
The military-industrial complex wants war. They must not get their way.
When I see this talking point, I think to myself, "that's so 60's man".
During the Iranian uprising of 1979, the revolutionaries sacked the Tehran headquarters of Planned Parenthood at the same time they took over the U.S. embassy. They knew damn well what they were doing.
It's funny how you never hear about that angle to the 1979 events.
Well, your correct. I never heard that. And you are wrong. Abortion is way off topic.
I was more concerned about the pathetic response of Jimmy Carter, and Desert1 by our neglected military, at the time.
If they were America hostages, then the Ayatollahs should have paid for it. Abortion was a battle, and remains a battle, to be fought here at home.
Have you tired of law of sea debate? I don’t mind if you are. We clearly are not going to see eye to eye on it. Doesn’t mean we cant remain civil (unlike certain other posters on this thread).
The MQ-4 is an unarmed surveillance drone, and if operating over the strait observing military and civilian traffic, was very likely operating within international law. This shoot down pretty much forces a response. I really hope this crap doesn’t escalate beyond control, but Iran is really pushing us.
It was an act of war (the latest in a long line). Glad to see some others here recognize that.
Carter did try a rescue attempt but it crashed in the desert. After that, the element of surprise was hampered. Granted he might have tried other avenues at the start, like backing the Shah but America was war torn by Vietnam and not many people even knew what Islam was.
I was in college, we learned fast but I don’t know what could have been done different. The 444 days and the terrible economy, gas lines of 70 pretty much sealed Reagan’s presidency. Old news but that’s how I remember those days.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.