'USS Cole a war declaration on region'

reply to post by BlueRaja

---

Yes, and I have the right to sit outside your house, on the public road, with my shotgun in hand, just looking you down.

Doesn't make it illegal, but it would piss you off...no?

We don't threaten WWIII or Jihad, if a Russian/Chinese Destroyer is in international waters off our coast. Even if they were in territorial waters, they'd be escorted back to international waters, with some diplomatic complaints sent.

So long as they do not act in a threatening manner and do not enter our waters without permission, we could care less.

We let the Chinese pull into Pearl Harbor without an uproar several times already.

reply to post by BlueRaja

---

I must have missed the part where the cleric threatened WW3 or jihad.

Oh that's right, it wasn't in there.

tut, resorting to lies now are we?

reply to post by budski

---

"We don't threaten WWIII or Jihad" with the operative word being WE. The cleric as you said, said that it was a declaration of war for the US Navy to be in international waters. He didn't make a distinction between territorial waters and international- just that we had no right to be anywhere near them.

reply to post by Double Eights

---

Sitting outside my house would be akin to being in my territorial waters. Being in international waters would be like sitting in your county with a shotgun. A slightly different threatening posture.

reply to post by BlueRaja

---

Oh my - wriggling again?

You clearly implied that the cleric had threatened WW3 or jihad - backtracking now, trying to cover yourself?

Nothing new there....

I did no such thing. I said if the Russian/Chinese had a Destroyer in international waters, that WE wouldn't declare WWIII or Jihad. I never said anywhere that the cleric was threatening WWIII or Jihad. He did say declaration of war for being in international waters though, which is an extreme position.

reply to post by BlueRaja

---

I wouldn't say it was an extreme position - I would say it's a perfectly natural concern when a country more powerfull is trying to bully a whole region by parking warships off the coasts in order to send a message - the message appears to be "do what we say or we'll bomb the crap out of you"

Bullying on an international level - pure and simple.

Well that doesn't sound bad at all. There are guys in my county right now with shotguns. I must have misunderstood this whole event because I thought it was heavily armed naval vessels and marine contingents, with precision guided missiles and satellite surveillance that had rapidly deployed just 12 miles off the coast of Lebanon ahead of their election. If it's just a guy with a shotgun that's all good then.

In your opinion, what do you think the role of a Navy is, or when it's appropriate for them to operate on the high seas, in international waters?
If we were violating their territorial waters, then he'd have a legitimate gripe. If we're in international waters, then his opinion is inconsequential.

reply to post by BlueRaja

---

So the fact that there is an admission that they are sending a message means nothing?

mmm 'kay

This is bullying.
This is intimidation.
This is why there are more terrorists every year.
This is why so many people in the world have the perception of the US as a bully.
Self appointed world police - rubbish, it's bullying another sovereign nation, knowing that they are unable to retaliate.

How is this bullying? Have we made any demands of them? Have we threatened them in any way? Please, don't tell me our presence alone is threatening.

They could retaliate if they wanted to, just ask the Israelies.

reply to post by COOL HAND

---

Like I said - the commander said they were there to send a message.

This is bullying when the country doesn't have the means to respond in kind.

And the israeli example is laughable - you're comparing a fleet of warships with a civilian population.
There is NO comparison.

Yeah, that the rest of the world is sick of dealing with their crap. If other nations could support it, I am sure they would have sent ships of their own.



Tell that to the guys on the Sa'ar V that got hit by an advanced anti-ship missile.

Trust me, they could respond to the US ships there if they wanted to.

reply to post by COOL HAND

---

Exactly what crap is lebanon handing out?
Have they invaded a foreign country under false pretences?

Have they ignored their own intel documents in order to bomb a country they don't like?

Have they manipulated a whole region for personal gain and to go one better than daddy?

Nope - bush is guilty of this - lebanon is not.

Sooner or later a US leader in the form of bush is going to bite off more than they can chew and cost millions of lives - there always comes a time when someone stands up to a bully.
It's only a pity that it'll be ordinary servicemen who suffer, and not the REAL bullies sitting at home, safe in the whitehouse.

reply to post by budski

---

So you feel that governments and militaries should utilize the Star Trek Prime Directive, where they merely observe events going on? Perhaps the message being sent was not to the government of Lebanon, but to indivuals with agendas that happen to be in Lebanon(i.e. don't assasinate elected officials because they're pro-democracy and not anti western enough).

If the US were to intervene in Darfur, would that be bullying?

reply to post by BlueRaja

---

What gives ANYONE the right to intervene ANYWHERE unless it is sanctioned and approved by international law.

It's time washington got a grip and realised that they are NOT the arbiter of justice in the world - if they were, they'd have to take a long, long look at themselves first.

You can try and wriggle all you want, but the fact remains that the US has warships parked off the coast of another sovereign nation in order to "send a message"

They'll be stealing lunch money next.

Oh wait, they already did...



[edit on 5/3/2008 by budski]

Off the top of my head, how about their proposed elections? How long have they been saying that they will have it only to delay it for bogus reasons?


Can you please stay on the topic and keep your anti-Bush crap out of it?



How can you be so sure that in this day and age, it is only the servicepeople that will get hit first? Are you clued into the enemy targeting plans better than the rest of us?

reply to post by COOL HAND

---

I am on topic - if the US wants to be seen as a force for good, then they should stop doing bad things - and bush just happens to be in charge whilst a lot of bad things have happened.
Who the hell are you to tell me what I can say about bush - it's not rhetoric, it's TRUTH - a concept he doesn't seem to be familiar with.

Until then, they should keep their noses out of other peoples business and stop bullying people.

I notice they haven't been so keen to posture against china, russia or pakistan about elections.
Why?
Because they have the means to fight back, and bullies only pick on those weaker than themselves.

Send a fleet of warships to sit off the coast of china or russia - see what happens

If you think I'm off topic, tell a mod.



[edit on 5/3/2008 by budski]