The War Party Never Rests
As I warned during last year’s incident with the British sailors and the Iranians in the Gulf, an indeterminate border between Iraq and Iran in that area is eventually bound to lead to more incidents, and now it’s happening:
“Iranian Revolutionary Guard gunboats harassed three U.S. Navy warships in the Strait of Hormuz Sunday, in what the U.S. military considers a ‘significant provocative act.’ Military officials told NBC News that two U.S. Navy destroyers and one frigate were heading into the Persian Gulf through the international waters of the Strait of Hormuz when five armed ‘fast boats’ of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard approached a high speed, darting in and out of the formation. At one point a radio message from one of the Iranian boats warned, ‘You are going to blow up within minutes.’”
The hopes of many that the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program — i.e. there is no such program– may have averted war, are, as I predicted, a bit too optimistic. The War Party’s slogan, when it comes to Iran, is “Where there’s a will, there’s a way.” As long as we’re in the Middle East, and specifically in Iraq, the prospects for war with Tehran proliferae by the day.
Â
Â
jack
January 7th, 2008 at 8:15 am
Amen, Justin the warmongers never rest.
Kirk Hayes
January 7th, 2008 at 8:29 am
The mere presence of the U. S. in the region is provocative and serves quite well as a trip wire that can be activated by any regime at any time for any reason to get us into war. Sooner or later, there will be an “incident” that “forces” the U. S. to “act in its own best interests” and what the warmongers want they will get. It is only a matter of time.
Personally, I will be very glad to see the U. S. empire dimantled, however such happens and regardless of the mechanism.
Carol Watson
January 7th, 2008 at 9:05 am
The Strait of Hormuz is 28 nautical miles across. As far as I can determine, Oman claims 12 nautical miles of that as its territorial waters, and Iran claims 12 nautical miles of that as its territorial waters. That leaves 4 nautical miles in the middle that are considered international waters.
Kind of leaves a question as to whether the Navy’s fleet was carefully staying within the 4 nautical mile corridor (or on the Omani side with permission), or whether they had strayed into Iran’s territorial waters. Surely, if Iranian warships had strayed into US territorial waters there would have been a confrontation as well, although probably nowhere near as peaceful as this one.
I find very difficult to believe anything the military claims anymore.
GM
January 7th, 2008 at 9:18 am
A few initial questions I have about this incident: How accurate is the government’s account? Are there any independent sources that confirm the government’s story? Was the US really in international waters when this incident occurred? Was the US conducting any intelligence operations against the Iranians that might have provoked this incident? What possible motive would the Iranians have for such an act at a time when relations between the US and Iran seem to be thawing and when international sanctions against Iran are coming undone? Is there a link to Bush’s upcoming trip to the Middle East?
lester
January 7th, 2008 at 9:23 am
oh we absolutely have to go to war now otherwise the shame these 3 boats faced will be …there
Sam W
January 7th, 2008 at 9:42 am
Lester makes a funny comment, but it is also profound in its meaning. It does appear that the neocon warmongers are filled with some sense of “shame” that gives them the “urge” to “strike.” With this pyschosis, their “shame” must be cleansed regardless of how many human beings lose their lives as “collateral damage.”
John Lowell
January 7th, 2008 at 9:45 am
As a kind of guide in circumstances like this, given the nature of the present Regime, I’m always reminded of the comment Hitler is reported to have made at the Berghof when meeting with his generals just before the outbreak of hostilities in 1939. With the experience of the Czech crisis of the previous year obviously in mind, he said, “The only thing I fear is that at the last moment some swine will come to me with an offer of mediation”. Sound about right? I’d rather think so.
Eugene Costa
January 7th, 2008 at 10:11 am
Predictable.
PLAN A was the putative Iranian nuclear threat.
PLAN B was the Iranians’ supposedly “killing US troops in Iraq.”
The are down to PLAN C, the ground for which was laid years ago, indeed before the Second Gulf War.
As I keep saying, never underestimate lunatics.
And they are lunatics.
By way, brilliant analysis in “Nukes, Spooks, And The Specter of 9/11″.
Eugene Costa
January 7th, 2008 at 10:13 am
corr: “They are down to”
bruce
January 7th, 2008 at 10:28 am
And the american public still doesn’t get it; I first got this from the business channel (CNBC?) this morning and the usually straight (worldly, joking-uncle type) Marc Haines asked “Why don’t they just blow ‘em out of the water?(chortle)”. Meanwhile the oil ticker over his head shows $96.00.
Ass-hats in all sizes. “In this style – 10/6″
Carol Watson
January 7th, 2008 at 10:29 am
As for whether or not the three American warships were actually in international waters or not is basically irrelevant. The Iranian gunboats (‘warships’ also) had as much right as the Navy to to be there too. The fact that no one fired at each other means this is a non-incident which is being exploited and exaggerrated by the neocons to create fear.
Paul D. Alexander
January 7th, 2008 at 10:35 am
I’d like to see the Empire dismantled, too, Kirk; but I fear that a lot of good Americans will die and others will suffer economic ruin before that halcyon day arrives. As I see it, it’s even messier to dismantle an empire than to build it.
Ah, well; que sera, sera.
Chris Baker
January 7th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Where were the ships? That is the question.
Chris Baker
January 7th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Nobody seems to be answering the question as to the exact location of the ships, but it’s the most important thing here.
Eugene Costa
January 7th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Below a ling to a summary of Iran’s territorial claims as of 1994:
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:uca3enrsNeMJ:www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/20051m_062305/Iran.doc+Straight+of+Hormuz+territorial+claims&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us&client=firefox-a
Eugene Costa
January 7th, 2008 at 11:43 am
The exact location is incidental.
The Iranians have been elegant in their responses to US and British provocations.
It is interesting that Putin asserted a kind of Russian Federation “Monroe Doctrine” over the Caspian at the same time he visited Tehran.
The game was over for the US long ago.
The Right Wing lunatics have not figured it out yet.
Eugene Costa
January 7th, 2008 at 11:44 am
corr: “link”.
One of those days.
peace
January 7th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Thank you so much for all this information, all. As he promised, Waxman should be forced to hold hearings on sheroe Edmonds gathered evidence. I wonder, does Waxman think of himself as holding dual citizenships.
Dan Stewart
January 7th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
The NIE on Iran? Forget about it. Get ready for the “Persian Gulf Incident” (a la Tonkin).
paulite
January 7th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Wouldn’t surprise me if our ships went into Iranian waters just to provoke them to try and get us out.
Anything to help John McCain’s run for the presidency.
Bill Federkiel
January 7th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Here’s comes Gulf of Tonkin II…The Lusitania packed with gun powder and war materials, the “surprise” attack on Pearl Harbor after FDR moved the fleet out there fm San Diego ( after all his provocations including pop-up cruises in Japanese waters )…After Acheson said Korea was of no vital interest and then…..After Tonkin, After ” we have no interest in arab-to-arab border disputes, in fact we wish to further and deepen relations with you”-Ambassador April Glasbie to Saddam Hussein just before Saddam invaded Kuwait ( a country once governed out of Basra until it was broken off by the British and which was slant-drilling into Iraqi oil fields )……
And now Bush’s WMD nonsense which he made sport of at the National Press Club dinner…Don’t you get it? This is a criminal govt that will do whatever it takes to achieve it’s objectives…Even 9-11…In the year before 9-11 NORAD was 67 for 67, plane goes off flight path, within 6-8 mins. there they are..But on 9-11 they’re 0 for 4…Thermite blew into the apts surrounding WTC…High-tech explosive residue..WTC7 was hit by no plane and yet it imploded the same way…The debris was shipped off to China as scrap metal ASAP…The pilots have firemen type axes in the cockpits but they were taken down by boxcutters…
Everything you’ve been told about 9-11 is a lie..The hijackers were able to train at US military bases? They were barely proficient and yet on 9-11 they flew like Blue Angels?
The Taliban had to be taken down because they brought opium production down to zero and w/o being able to filter drug money through Wall St. our system would go through withdrawals…That’s the truth and you won’t hear it from Lou Dobbs….
peace
January 8th, 2008 at 12:27 am
Whoa, Bill Federkiel. Your commentary above should at the mere least be a letter to the editor in a major newspaper. Way to TEACH! New Hampshire, wake up. It’s your turn to help turn the tide, and take the reins from the psychopaths that are fighting not to have to let go.
Richard Steven Hack
January 8th, 2008 at 1:06 am
It’s not clear whether any of this is to be taken seriously, given that it comes from the US military, but reportedly the Iranian vessels allegedly issued a message on radio to the effect of “I’m coming at you. You will explode in three minutes” – in English, and also dropped some sort of cargo in the path of the US Navy ships, which suspected some sort of mines and took evasive action.
Again, I don’t know how much credence to put in any of this, since it would seem suicidal for Iranian ships to do that, given that it was five small boats against three Navy vessel including a corvette and a destroyer.
However, if true, that was seriously provocative maneuvers.
On the other hand, if like the Brits, the Navy was in Iranian waters – or somebody in Iran thought they were – the whole thing takes on a different slant, doesn’t it?
Again on the other hand, it is possible that somebody on the Iranian side wouldn’t mind starting trouble, as well as those on our side. Reportedly there are factions in the IRGC that aren’t concerned about starting a war with the US and look forward to it.
Either way, of course, the presence of the US Navy within a few miles of Iran is clearly a risk we shouldn’t be taking.
Carol Watson
January 8th, 2008 at 6:02 am
As a point of reference, there are two bodies of water in this area, the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea, with the Strait of Hormuz joining them. Out of Bush-proponded hatred of Iran (Persia), there has been a bit of a movement by the govt and media to start calling the Persian Gulf the 'Arabian Gulf,' hoping that it will piss off Iran. But there is no such body of water no matter who calls it that.
Gregg Gordon
January 8th, 2008 at 7:07 am
Make that “Arabian Gulf.”
http://icga.blogspot.com/2008/01/irans-unduly-provocative-act-against-us.html
Gregg Gordon
January 8th, 2008 at 7:09 am
If these motorboats were going to try to sink US warships, why the hell would they broadcast a warning in English?
andy
January 8th, 2008 at 8:41 am
anyone who’s been aware of the presence of the US in that region has known that this type of incident was inevitable, i bet cheney got a boner when he heard this news.
Eugene Costa
January 8th, 2008 at 8:51 am
Note carefully the subtext in the Independent story linked on Antiwar’s home page coloring the incident as a confrontation not with, say, mere Iranian patrol boats, but with Iranian Revolutionary Guards.
There is even an mention of the Quds force:
“The US and Iran have engaged in their most serious military confrontation in recent times, with American warships on the verge of opening fire on gunboats of the Revolutionary Guards which had threatened to blow them up….”
“The three US ships and five Iranian vessels clashed in the early hours of Sunday in the Strait of Hormuz, the stretch of water where a 15-strong British naval party was taken hostage by the Revolutionary Guards last year….”
“In October, the US accused the Revolutionary Guards of trying to obtain chemical and biological weapons and its Quds force of supporting terrorism. The following month, the US military claimed that the Revolutionary Guards have taken over operations in the Gulf from the Iranian navy….”
[Kim Sengupta , "US almost opened fire on Iranian boats, Pentagon says" Independent 08 January 2008]
Stanley Laham
January 8th, 2008 at 9:52 am
A month ago when everybody was heralding the NIE report as the a stick in the wheels of the warmongers, I warned all on this post to expect a Gulf of Tonkin type fabrication. For those not familiar with that, let me refresh your memories. A passage from a little book I authored:
“A fateful deception came in 1964 in the form of imaginary attacks on American navy ships operating in the Gulf of Tonkin off the coast of North Vietnam. These ‘attacks’, by what turned out to be ghost returns on an American destroyer’s radar screen, were used by Lyndon Johnson to obtain a near unanimous Gulf of Tonkin Resolution from Congress, giving him a free hand to escalate into war.
He declared Vietnam to be the battlefield where freedom would stop the advance of communist ideology. We had to fight them over there so we would not have to fight them here (sounds familiar?). We would fight a war for the noble ideal of democracy, conveniently omitting the fact that we had thwarted the plans for free elections agreed upon in Genrva. He solemnly pledged to save the Vietnamese people from communism. A bombing campaign that was to eventually drop four times more tons of explosives on that poor wretched country than were dropped by all sides during the six years of WW2, including the two atomic bombs on Japan, was about to be unleashed. Operation ‘Rolling Thunder’ began to save the Vietnamese people from communism, mostly by killing them.”
Eugene Costa
January 8th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
ABC News:
“US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has warned Iran after Revolutionary Guard speedboats allegedly threatened American ships in the Persian Gulf at the weekend.
The US says armed Iranian speedboats aggressively approached three US warships in the Strait of Hormuz at the head of the Persian Gulf, and radioed a threat to blow them up….”
(abc.net)
Not Iranian Coast Guard, mind you–”Revolutionary Guard speedboats”–armed, aggressive, and radioing threats.
Alas, only the Quds Corps of the Revolutionary Guard have been officially declared a “terrorist organization” by a resolution of the US Senate.
Luckily, or the US Navy would have been under attack by a “terrorist organization” in speedboats, am I correct?
Was something along these lines perhaps the purpose of the resolution all along?
The lunatics never rest–indeed.
Stanley Laham
January 8th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Quite correct Carol. It was the Persian Gulf two milleniums before the ‘discovery’ of America.
But more on the present situation. The navy claims a radio message with the ominous threat: “WE ARE COMING AT YOU, YOU WILL EXPLODE IN A COUPLE OF MINUTES”. If true why not release its recording?
Don T.
January 8th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Interesting mis-statement in the quote above:
“The three US ships and five Iranian vessels clashed in the early hours of Sunday in the Strait of Hormuz, the stretch of water where a 15-strong British naval party was taken hostage by the Revolutionary Guards last year….â€
That incident was NOT in the straits…but in the waters just below Basra. Intentional disinformation?
Oh yes…and guided missile frigates are defensive, aren’t they…?
What would the US do if an Iranian (or other ill-defined enemy) similarly-equipped cruiser were to appear 12 miles off Nantucket?
Odds are the Iranians were practicing Silkworm targeting using their fast patrol boats to get coordinates…just like the Argentinians took out the Sheffield in the Falklands war.
Stanley Laham
January 8th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
The Agentines struck the Sheffield with a French made Exocet air to ship guided missile. The Silkworm is surface to surface but is fired from more vulnerable stationary positions. The most spectacular success of a Silkworm was the sinking of an Israeli destroyer (I blieve it was the Eilat) by Egyptian coastal defenses during the late 60s ‘war of attrition’ between the two.
Don T.
January 8th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Details. Suffice it to say that the iranians have numerous surface-skimming supersonic anti-ship missiles. These missiles move very fast at an altitude of about ten feet…depending on the sea state…and use inertial guidance into a terminal acquisition box. The better the initial guidance, the less time the terminal seeker needs to spend radiating. Defense against these is difficult, and the only effective defense is the millimeter-wave radar-directed Phalanx gatling gun…which requires that they be detected…a very difficult job it they do not radiate. At mach 2, the time of flight of one of this class of missile would be in the order of 30 seconds. Nice trade…a Boston Whaler-class boat for a guided missile cruiser…
Stanley Laham
January 9th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Click here: RIA Novosti – World – Iran says U.S. video recording of Gulf ship incident a fake
I think I give more credibility to this than the incorrigible lyers at the pentagon.
Eugene Costa
January 9th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
The game was over when Putin went to Tehran.
A good chess player would have resigned.
The only remaining question is how many lives and how much treasure the Bush Administration–Cheney and the Neo-Cons, the Born Again Zionists, the Liduniks, and so forth–will manage to throw away or get cooperative and moronic Democrats to throw away, in their catastrophic and losing endgame.
Andy
January 9th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
How would the United States feel if Iran had invaded Mexico without any just cause, was operating it’s aircraft carriers just off the gulf coast of Texas where the oil refineries are and the Iranian mullah had called America an ‘axis of evil’? Then to add insult to injury imagine the Iranians having the gall to say American actions are “provocative”. Talk about Chutzpah!
Andy
January 9th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
You don’t consider having foreign naval ships just off your coast a hostile gesture Don? The ships shouldn’t be there in the first place.
Eugene Costa
January 9th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
It is not a question of feeling.
It is a chess game to the Iranians, and they have been playing chess for a long time–indeed, much longer than they have been supposedly Muslim, which some are, and some are only on the surface.
Eugene Costa
January 9th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Incidentally, I keep emphasizing Putin’s declaration on the Caspian, which he unveiled at the same time as he visited Tehran.
Mutatis mutandis, it has the ring of Mexico and the Caribbean and Latin America, and Monroe too, to me.
Stanley Laham
January 9th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
At least the Caspian Sea is in Russia’s back yard. The US declared the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea ‘mare nostrum’ a long time ago. The Carter Doctrine of 1978 made clear that any attempt by Russia to challenge American hegemony in the area would be considered ‘casus belli’.
Incidentally, the confrontation will most likely come soon over Kosovo. The new Russian naval presence(including an aircraft carrier) at this moment is no coincidence.
Eugene Costa
January 9th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Yep–fully agree.
Incidentally and pardon–I just pushed a button above and I have no idea what it was. I was reaching for the reply to this comment button rather lazily and the wrong one, and I trust it was not “Report abuse” button I see in that area now. At any rate it took me to some other site.
Tim R.
January 11th, 2008 at 12:36 am
The United States Navy, the greatest and most powerful navy in the world.
The British Royal Navy, the second greatest and most powerful Navy in the world.
The Iranian Navy, a bunch of radical Jihadists running around in high speed rubbers rafts.
And the US and the British are supposed to be afraid of these guys? In times past those Iranian swift boats would have been swiftly blown out of the water. We need to stop acting like a bunch of wimps and chumps.
Eugene Costa
January 11th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Ah yes, but as the latest reports show the American Imperialists still have no trouble fabricating provocations.
The Iranian tape of the incident has been established as genuine, the American version as fabricated, and even the Pentagon agrees that it is so.
Presumably, like Slim Pickens, you will be riding the first nuclear bomb dropped on the Iranian dual use pistachio groves.
Bill K.
January 13th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
A sea skimming land based anti-ship missile is much harder to shoot down than an air launched missile. Consider that the Ticonderoga class Cruiser in this flotilla has an Aegis Air Defense Radar that can track targets out to about 200km(about 120 miles or over 100 nautical miles). The US ships would know they would be under attack almost immediately minutes before the hostile missile reaches them. The Aegis system is much more modern than the Air Defense systems of the British Type 21 and 22 Frigates and Type 42 Destroyers that fought in the Falklands War and took massive losses(6 British ships sunk and others damaged, the Sheffield was only 1 of these ships) from Argentinian A-4 aircraft with bombs and Exocet anti-ship missiles from Super Etendard aircraft. Those used relatively primitive Sea Dart and Sea Wolf surface to air missiles that were connected to their ships guidance systems and any signal loss would result in failure of the missiles, their operational range was relatively short with the missiles of that time lacking interception capability beyond 20 nautical miles or about 40km.
Now trying the same near suicidal Air raids that the Argentinians used against an Aegis Cruiser would really be suicide. The SM-2/-3 Standard surface to air missiles on-board US Navy Destroyers and Cruisers connected to the Aegis system can destroy an aerial target up to the 90 miles (150km) and beyond. This is the missile type that shot down the Iranian Airbus Airliner in 1988. Even if a fighter comes in below radar it will eventually be detected by a Phalanx Close in weapons system or Sea Sparrow missile launcher. An attack of this kind would be short lived since many anti-ship missiles in poor countries of the aircraft launch size don’t have a range greater than 140km.
But modernized “Silkworm” missiles of the HY-4 type have 20+ years of innovations that have improved its range and guidance systems and it is not the same relics that were used between 1960-91. The attack pattern has been improved and it does have sea skimming characteristics. If it was exported to Iran and has been placed into service with Iranian mobile coastal defenses it would prove to be quite lethal to the US Navy. In the Strait of Hormuz range is not as important when the strait is so small and it is the perfect spot to attack a Naval flotilla with a high rate of success.
Bill K.
January 13th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
The Royal Navy has not been in the top 3 since the 1960′s. Half of their former Frigates and Destroyers are in service with Pakistan.
And Tim, read a bit of Herodotus, way back in the 6th Century BC it was the PERSIAN(Iranian) NAVY that was the most powerful and had the biggest ships. But the much smaller Greek Navy of “swift-boat” Triremes lured them into a small waterway called the Salamis Strait(similar to the the Strait of Hormuz) and slowly picked them off one by one. Today there are no Triremes, but there are Iranian Missile boats with C-802 missiles and land based C-201/401(HY-2/4) “Silkworm” missiles on the Iranian coast just waiting to replay that scenario. The Persians thought they were invincible, they lost over 40,000 men in the battle of Salamis strait.
Bill K.
January 13th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
correction. I meant 5th Century BC earlier.
Eugene Costa
January 13th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
The fighting arm was essentially the Phoenician fleet, operating under Persian overlords.
Herodotus is pertinent in many other ways, including understanding logistics.
After the defeat at Salamis the Persians were forced to withdraw most of their forces because they could no longer protect their supply lines.
Themistocles knew exactly what he was about.
No small part of the American vulnerabiity in Iraq is supply.
Eugene Costa
January 13th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
There were also Greek ships from Ionia fighting in the Persian fleet, not altogether happily, and another weak link.
Eugene Costa
January 13th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Until comparatively recently, there had been great scepticism about the size of the Persian land forces. A million may be a bit on the high end, but the key item, never stated but universally known at the time, was that the army was too huge to live off the land, and needed naval supremacy to protect its supply lines.
The Athenians also practiced the Scyhtian scorched earth tactic, abandoning the city and surrounding country to the Persian land forces.
Eugene Costa
January 13th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
After Salamis, Xerxes left Mardonius behind with about 100,000 Persian troops, later defeated by the Greeks at Platea.
Eugene Costa
January 13th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Much nonsense has been written about Thermopylae, and the recent film is wholly twisted in its picture of the Spartans, as, one supposes, is only to be expected from what started out as a comic book.
The stand at Thermopylae was designed to delay, and was also important in a supply context. The large Persian Army was moving close to the coast to keep contact with the supply fleet and had to go through Thermopylae.
It was also a great psychological victory for the Greeks, and showed their tactical sophistication in fighting where large forces had no advantage.
Eugene Costa
January 13th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
corr: “Scythian”
Eugene Costa
January 13th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
“Une armée marche sur son estomac.”
Napoleon genially formulated the rule, as perhaps Frederick the Great before him, but it was well known in the ancient world as well, and especially among the Greeks.
It is interestng to read Xenophon’s Anabasis in the same light, and in regard to a much smaller force.
Tim R.
January 14th, 2008 at 12:25 am
Bill K, I think you are mistaken about the Royal Navy. The fact of the matter is that just one vanguard class submarine can carry up to 16 nuclear missliles, with up to 12 warheads each. One British sub could cause Iran to cease to exist within minutes. They also have several air craft carriers, etc. The jihadists come at the Americans and the British in rubber boats and we act like sheep. A nation has a right to defend itself. Why should we allow another USS Cole? Why should the British allow their sailors to be kidnapped and made fools of? British or American ships in interntional waters should not be harassed or endangerd by bellicose Iranians. If the Iranian Jihadists want 72 virgins, we should move them closer to them.
Eugene Costa
January 14th, 2008 at 1:58 am
At Thermopylae, Leonidas ordered all the allies to retreat, and stayed with 300 full Spartiates, some Helots, and some Thespians that refused to leave.
The epitaph by Simonides on his tomb still chills:
Πξειν’, ἀγγÎλειν Λακεδαιμονίοις ότι τήδε κείμεθα, τοις κείνων Ïήμασι πειθόμενοι
“Oh, stranger, go tell the Lacedaimonians–
we lie here obeying their orders.”
[my translation]
These two lines are, in my judgment, some of the greatest lines of poetry ever composed in ancient Greek, or any other language.
Some subtilties that are seldom mentioned: the stranger, or passerby, is distanced from who lies there, and whom he is told to herald, and “obeying” in the present participle those who lie there still live, though dead.
In lying (keimetha) the Spartiates still hold their ground.
Bill K.
January 14th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Tim, you do understand the moment you fire off a single Trident II ICBM the whole World will turn into a glowing nuclear wasteland within 30 minutes?
They only have 4 of those precious subs. And likely each Trident missile only has 1 warhead because they have fewer than 200 nuclear weapons total! They can’t put their whole arsenal on 1 sub, think about it. They also have air dropped bombs which have “bicycle lock” keys which were a recent joke on British media. Besides, they are not very bright when it comes to their Arsenal. Much of the Nuclear delivery system revolves around an American made missile that has compatibility issues as recently reported.
The French have the SAME amount of SSBN subs. And they also have a more capable Aircraft Carrier design, which puts them ahead of the UK. Not to mention Russia has 3 times more SSBN subs than the UK. My point still stands, they are not in the top 3.
Because like I said before, their Surface fleet is greatly lacking in firepower. A British Type 42 Guided Missile Destroyer is not compatible with a US Arleigh Burke class Guided Missile Destroyer, not even close. And numbers wise and firepower, the Chinese are getting a more modern fleet.
Bill K.
January 14th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Otherwise the Persians(Iranians) can do what the Persians want in the Persian Gulf, it is not US property, the US border is 5,000 miles away.
Bill K.
January 14th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
I don’t disagree, the Persians made heavy use of Mercenaries in their Military, just like the US today.
I was just pointing out to Tim that 2500 years ago it was the Persian Empire who were the Superpower and the Europeans were the “backward religious fundamentalists” who believed deities on Mount Olympus controlled their lives. A role reversal of sorts. And who won, the Superpower or the Greek city states. Tim needs to know some history to answer this.
But a repeat of Salamis in the Hormuz is possible. The Persian commanders made many tactical errors assuming they were superior and foolishly divided their forces and fell into a trap. In the Hormuz there is an island called Qeshm that serves no major purpose other than a good place to attack a fleet from.
As far as “300″, I took that movie with several packages of salt.
Bill K.
January 14th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
The Iraqis are today’s Ionians. They are in open rebellion against invaders of their lands and they are a weak link in the US strategy. They have far more in common with Iranians than they do with the US. Their actions, especially the Shiite Militias within the “Army”, can not be predicted in case of war with Iran.
Eugene Costa
January 14th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
An apt analogy, Bill K.
Most westerners, including Americans, are tempted to identify themselves with the Greeks in the war with the Persians, at least partly because they trace, or have been trained to trace, their supposed democratic institutions to Athens.
There is an irony in this only those learned about the ancient Greeks and Persians will follow.
As the United States, for example, becomes more of a centralized bureaucratic state, with an autocratic executive, there is less likeness to any ancient Greek polis, small and ferociously idiosyncratic, than to the Persian Empire, centralized, autocratic, and hierarchical.
Bill K.
January 14th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
Or Athens during the Peloponnesian War. The Expedition to Syracuse has some similarities to the current situation in Iraq.
Eugene Costa
January 14th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
Nicias as Bush–hehe.
But no, Nicias looks brilliant compared to Bush.
Where is our Alcibiades? I’ll even take Cleon, hehe.
I see what you mean though.
Eugene Costa
January 14th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
The expedition to Syracuse was a last desperate ploy, and a fantasy.
Pyrrhus in Italy has echos.
Eugene Costa
January 14th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
Cleon as Clinton may ring a bell.
Eugene Costa
January 14th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
Even had the expedition been successful, it would not have accomplished much.
Gjerstad supposed Cimon, even as he was in effect a Persian admiral, later to have attempted a marriage alliance toward securing Syracuse as a counterweight to Persia.
But I think that is Gjerstad’s fantasy.
Pyrrhus, however, was clearly trying to win a western empire, the resources of which he would then use in the East.
83969e566b6f
May 9th, 2008 at 9:48 am
83969e566b6f…
83969e566b6fbd6ca979…