Monday, January 07, 2008

Who's threatening whom?

Iran today alleged that US vessels threatened three of its warships that were patrolling in international waters off the coast of Florida. Well, it didn't actually, for the simple reason that the above event didn't happen. But what did happen was that Pentagon officials alleged that Iranian warships 'threatened' three US Navy vessels in the Strait of Hormuz, between Iraq and Iran.
As always, all we need to do to understand the arrogance of empire is to reverse the situation: can anyone imagine what the US response would be if Iranian warships were patrolling in international waters off the coast of Florida? The reaction of the Pentagon to today's events is almost as hypocritical- and laughable- as the oft repeated accusation that Iran is 'interfering' in internal Iraqi affairs. Goodness me, no one could ever accuse the US and Britain of doing that, could they?


Anonymous said...

Excellent point Neil! Hypocrisy is the order of the day. As another example I imagine if the Belarusian ambassador to the USA met with those seeking the overthrow of the US government he may well have been expelled a long time ago.
One rule for the powerfull, quit another for evryone else.

Anonymous said...

Neil Clark said...

Belaruski: quite. And can you imagine if the Belarus authorities set up an office in Minsk to work for 'regime change' in Poland and Hungary? But while Belarus interferes in the internal affairs of no other state, other states think its perfectly acceptable for them to interfere in the internal affairs of Belaurs.

Neil Clark said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Roland Hulme said...

If Iranian ships could make it Florida, I'd be impressed.

Anonymous said...

Why do you think Iranian ships can't sail that far? They sailed there from the US in the first place.. (and the UK!)

Graham Day said...

Another point. Can you imagine if Cuban representatives in the USA:

a) Continually met individuals who sought the overthrow of the existing system of government.

b) Provided large sums of cash to those same people to further their aims.

c) Funded and directed terrorist atrocities in the USA.

d) Funded, supplied and directed a direct military invasion of the USA.

e) Enforced an economic blockade against the USA, to the extent that even "non-Cuban" entities have to sever economic ties with that country.

Yet, any Cuban reaction to the actually existing reverse situation is generally referred to as "tyranny", or a synonym of the same.

Roland Hulme said...

Belaruski, if you're going to ask me to hold up my snotty opinions with actual facts, this whole blog will be no fun at all.

(Okay, you win, I admit it.) :-)