The americans knew the ship was coming for a military exercise without ammunition, they couldn’t just seize it and captured everyone and got the ship? I’m missing something?

First principles: Even assuming they somehow magically knew there really were no smallarms on the ship, why take the risk of getting stabbed or beaten with a pipe or trapping you and starting a fire or whatever. It would be another thing if the ship surrendered, but no reason to put yourself and your fellow soldiers at risk to go easy on your enemy.

Deeper reason: With long range missiles and drones being the primary threat to a ship, the biggest limitations are actually locating the enemy ship, tracking it and guiding the missile/drones towards it. Even a ship with no ammo can do that by relaying your position to another ship or shore based missiles/drones. So pulling your ship right next to an enemy one and having to stay there while your marines go board it is not a safe thing to do.

Capturing a vessel is very different than performing a boarding action. If the U.S. captured the Iranian vessel then there wouldn’t be any risk of “getting beaten with a pipe” because the Iranian vessel surrendered.

Deeper Dumber reason: Given the state of technology today and with all of the jamming, electronic warfare tech, and counter drone and missile stuff that the U.S. Navy has, it wouldn’t make a lick of difference whether the Iranian vessel was right next to a U.S. warship or not.

Edit: lol at getting beaten with a pipe. Jesus fucking Christ. Get off of LLMs, they’re clearly ruining your ability to reason

Putting aside your other bullshit, you answered the question yourself then. They did not capture it because it did not surrender.

In a warfighting context, to capture an enemy vessel or position means you coerced them to surrender with overwhelming firepower or threat of force. Also is semantics the only counterargument you have?

Normally I wouldn’t care this much, but the whole reason for this conversation was that you were defending the murders of unarmed sailors who were not at war. So fuck you, you fucking shitwhistle.

who were not at war

And you accuse me of semantics? Is Russia also not at war in your mind, because they did not make some war declaration ritual?

Normally I wouldn’t care this much, but the whole reason for this conversation was that you were defending the murders of unarmed sailors who were not at war. So fuck you, you fucking shitwhistle.

WTF is this argument? Oh no, they did not have ammo in their gun at the particular moment they were killed. I guess any sniper who kills a general or an assassin trying to kill Hitler should go straight to hell, because their target was not holding a gun at that particular moment.

I find it mind boggling that the part that troubles you is the death of soldiers supporting brutal theocratic dictator most well known for killing his own people and supporting terrorist groups throughout the region. However many issues I have with the US military, the US as a whole, and it’s pedophile president, this really isn’t one of them.

brutal theocratic dictator most well known for killing his own people and supporting terrorist groups

Heheh.

“theocratic dictator” -> “democratic party” idk maybe sth else
“supporting” -> “creating, funding and nationalising”

The rest are pretty much common.
The parts that matter are common.

What do we do? Doesn’t matter who wins, we all lose.