NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: As several have pointed out previously on here, the possibility of escalation in the ongoing clashes between Isreal and the various clients of Iran/Syria is growing. I hope America has the good sense to stay the hell out of it insofar as possible.


Hezbollah a bump on 'escalation road'? (http://www.washtimes.com/world/20060718-121325-9183r.htm)



By David R. Sands
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
July 18, 2006

Israel's clash with Hezbollah in Lebanon may just be the undercard bout.

With the rhetoric rising and positions hardening, many in the region fear that the current fighting could easily spiral out of control, pitting Israel and the United States in the main bout against the two countries they accuse of arming and inciting Hezbollah fighters: Syria and, especially, Iran.

"We are clearly on an escalation road," said Shibley Telhami, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy.

Analysts said the chances of a larger clash have grown because of the new, untested leadership now in charge in many of the key capitals, and because both sides appear to think they have the upper hand.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad both face domestic pressure to hang tough.

Since Hezbollah's seizure of two Israeli soldiers Wednesday, Tel Aviv and Washington repeatedly have pointed to Syria and Iran as the main outside sponsors of the Islamist movement.

"The reason we now see this [violence] is because of a premeditated attack or strategy that unfortunately is being concocted in Damascus and Tehran," said Daniel Ayalon, the Israeli ambassador to the United States, Friday.

Israel repeatedly has linked Iran to the Lebanon crisis, saying at one point that it feared the captured Israeli soldiers would be sent to Iran. Israeli military sources said over the weekend it was an Iranian-supplied C802 shore-to-ship missile fired by an Iranian team that hit an Israeli ship off the Lebanese coast late Friday.

Iranian Foreign Ministry officials quickly denied that Iranian missiles were used or that any Iranian soldiers were fighting in Lebanon.

But State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said yesterday, "Very clearly, there are ties" linking Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas group.

"So the cries pleading ignorance from Syria and Iran about what is going on in the region or that they don't have any influence with either of these two groups frankly ring hollow," he said.

The Bush administration also has been harshly critical of the role played by Damascus and Tehran in Iraq. U.S. officials said Syrian President Bashar Assad has not done enough to curb the flow of fighters and material support to insurgents fighting the U.S.-led military coalition in Iraq.

The U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, accused Iran last week of playing a "double game" in Iraq, cultivating good official relations with Baghdad while covertly backing rogue Shi'ite militias and other "surrogates" that are undermining the Iraq government's effort to establish control.

"Unless Iran abandons the second prong of its policy that is unhelpful to Iraq and the coalition, together we and the Iraqis will have to take additional steps to deal with the challenge," Mr. Khalilzad told a Senate hearing.

But Martin Indyk, former U.S. ambassador to Israel and now director of the Brookings' Saban Center, said the problems the U.S. military has encountered dealing with the Iraq insurgency have only emboldened Iran.

"Iran does not take us seriously these days, and why should they?" he said. Tehran has, to date, defied the international community on the nuclear issue, and the problems it can pose for the United States in Iraq and Lebanon only increase its clout, he said.

"It is hard to see how Iran right now can be made to curb its top proxy in the region," Mr. Indyk said.

Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council and author of a new book on Israel and Iran, said it was unlikely that Hezbollah or its allies in Syria and Iran expected the massive Israeli military response to the seizure of its soldiers.

With an ailing economy and weak military, Syria is seen as more vulnerable to U.S. and Israeli pressure. It has been seeking closer ties with Iran at a time when other leading Arab states -- notably Egypt and Saudi Arabia -- have expressed concern about Iran's growing regional ambitions.

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki flew to Damascus yesterday to pledge Tehran's support to Syria in the face of "any threat of aggression."

Can't say this is all too unexpected. But yes, America, and all Western nations, would do best to keep from being drawn in. Needless to say, things could get really nasty.

I hope America has the good sense to stay the hell out of it insofar as possible.

Considering who is in charge of American foreign policy at the moment, not to mention current habits, that's probably a futile hope.

Considering who is in charge of American foreign policy at the moment, not to mention current habits, that's probably a futile hope.
I don't think so. Not in this case, anyway.

Nothing new there. After all, the word "analyst" is pretty much overrated.

Almost like a political version of "Guru"

Israel is assaulting the country of Lebanon under the guise of going after Hezbollah, they just blow up a terrorist headquarter or two to make it look legit, it's really bullshit. They are attacking Lebanese infrastructure and military bases. They want Lebanon to help repel Hezbollah? Bullshit, they want to prevent Lebanon from fighting back from their heavyhanded crap. I honestly hope Syria and Iran get involved - if only to show them they can't do whatever they want without consequences because the US is their lapdog. And since it is only the US who supports Israel without question or consideration, they will end up in the fight. Idiots.

Israel is assaulting the country of Lebanon under the guise of going after Hezbollah, they just blow up a terrorist headquarter or two to make it look legit, it's really bullshit. They are attacking Lebanese infrastructure and military bases. They want Lebanon to help repel Hezbollah? Bullshit, they want to prevent Lebanon from fighting back from their heavyhanded crap. I honestly hope Syria and Iran get involved - if only to show them they can't do whatever they want without consequences because the US is their lapdog. And since it is only the US who supports Israel without question or consideration, they will end up in the fight. Idiots.
Why on earth would Israel be worried about Lebanon's military capabilities? That doesn't even make good NONsense! Lebanon was still recovering from the many years of civil war and Syrian domination. Their military is virtually impotent. :confused:

Maybe everyone should ask themselves why Iran, two weeks before this began, imposed mandatory gasoline rationing in Iran. Iran has to import gasoline because they don't have enough refining capacity, and they suddenly didn't want to be dependent on foreign imports of gasoline.

Consider that it also takes time to dig an 800 meter long tunnel from Gaza into Israel, and from Lebanon into Israel. Funny how we had two long tunnels built at essentially the same time, and the Iranians somehow knew in advance that they might have to be prepared for a shortage of gasoline.

Yeah, conspiracy theory my ass.

Why on earth would Israel be worried about Lebanon's military capabilities? That doesn't even make good NONsense! Lebanon was still recovering from the many years of civil war and Syrian domination. Their military is virtually impotent. :confused:
Then ask Israel why they are bombing Lebanon military instillations.

COMMENTARY: As several have pointed out previously on here, the possibility of escalation in the ongoing clashes between Isreal and the various clients of Iran/Syria is growing. I hope America has the good sense to stay the hell out of it insofar as possible.
I agree. However, if Israel and Iran lock horns, the Middle East is going to explode.

Israel doesn't really have what it takes to mount an invasion of Iran. They can bomb them, but I doubt that they'd be able to develop the logistics necessary to ship around Arabia or pass through Iraq and/or Syria and Turkey.

Why on earth would Israel be worried about Lebanon's military capabilities? That doesn't even make good NONsense! Lebanon was still recovering from the many years of civil war and Syrian domination. Their military is virtually impotent. :confused:
Why on earth then would Israel be bombing the Lebanese Military?

They can bomb them...
But since they don't really have stealth planes, they'd lose jets and pilots. The Iranians have quite decent AA-Missiles.

I just don't think the Israeli public is ready to pay the price in lives and hard currency to fight Syria and especially Iran.

But since they don't really have stealth planes, they'd lose jets and pilots. The Iranians have quite decent AA-Missiles.

I just don't think the Israeli public is ready to pay the price in lives and hard currency to fight Syria and especially Iran.


What makes you say those AA-missiles are worth much? SAMs don't really live up to specs as history shows repeatedly.

I don't disagree on fighting a war with Iran - too far away and therefore too costly.

But since they don't really have stealth planes, they'd lose jets and pilots. The Iranians have quite decent AA-Missiles.

I just don't think the Israeli public is ready to pay the price in lives and hard currency to fight Syria and especially Iran.

Iran doesn't have decent AA-missiles. More importantly, Iran doesn't have an integrated air defense system (IADS) that is modern enough to identify and track modern aircraft that are using ECM, let alone stealth.

The late model F-15 Strike Eagle aircraft that we sold to Israel would be quite capable of flying with impunity into Iran, bombing a target, and getting home. The primary threat would be from anti-aircraft cannon, which would have to rely on a lucky shot.

Of course, the US controls the airspace over Iraq, over which the Israelis would have to fly.

Oh, and in light of the failures involved in occupying a country full of Islamic fanatics (or local nationalists, take your pick), we have the stated policy of the US (a new plan for dealing with rogue states, etc).

http://www.fas.org/ssp/docs/GlobalStrikeReport.pdf

It involves the use of nuclear weapons.

What makes you say those AA-missiles are worth much?
Iran doesn't have decent AA-missiles.
http://www.defense-update.com/products/t/tor.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA-15_Gauntlet
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/sa-15.htm

Combine that with the sort of lucky breaks that the Iranians are bound to get when fighting planes that have to fly across the entire Middle East to get there, and all the sort of things a bit of creative tactics can do (ie the Serbs shooting down an F-117), plus any nasty surprises (like the missile that struck the Israeli warship), and you're starting to get the picture.

http://www.defense-update.com/products/t/tor.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA-15_Gauntlet
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/sa-15.htm

Combine that with the sort of lucky breaks that the Iranians are bound to get when fighting planes that have to fly across the entire Middle East to get there, and all the sort of things a bit of creative tactics can do (ie the Serbs shooting down an F-117), plus any nasty surprises (like the missile that struck the Israeli warship), and you're starting to get the picture.


Anti-aircraft missiles have to be part of an IADS, or they are essentially useless.

BTW, although the Iraqis also had SA-15s, none of them were able to achieve hits, even on non-stealth US aircraft. So there must be an effective countermeasure.

The reason for the shootdown in Serbia of a stealth aircraft is in the book The Transformation of American Air Power. It had nothing to do with luck, and everything to do with observers watching and timing stealth aircraft takeoffs from the base in Italy, and UN restrictions on flight corridors - making the plane pass the same points at the same times.

Not to mention the restrictions on what could be shot at. For instance, most SAM sites were labeled as off limits, and while you could bomb a runway, you couldn't bomb the fighters sitting at the end of the runway.

Without such restrictions, it's a lot easier to attack, and a lot harder to defend.

Then ask Israel why they are bombing Lebanon military instillations.
[ calls Israel ] "Hello? This is a player of an online game called 'NationStates,' and I was wondering if you would tell me why Isreal is bombing Lebanese military installations. Hello? Hello! Hello!"

I agree. However, if Israel and Iran lock horns, the Middle East is going to explode.
My point exactly. :(

Some other problems for the SA-15

Max. Range (m) 12,000
Min. Range (m) 100
Max. Altitude 6,000 (m)
Min. Altitude 10 (m)

Fly above 6000 meters, and you're completely safe.

No one in a modern Western air force does low level attacks anymore, due to the risk from ground fire. And at altitude, most SAMs of Russian manufacture (indeed of French manufacture as well, as proven in the last Iraqi invasion) are useless against US aircraft.

Attacking ground targets is, as a matter of new doctrine, done from medium altitude with precision weapons in all weather.

*sigh*

Just what the world needed ... another excuse to hate Jews ...

If, and only if, Iran were to come to the aid of Syria against Israel with actual troops, (regadless of what the intiating incident was) the Iranians not be able to go directly to Syria, as per the fact that they do not share a border with Syria. Under those circumstances, and if the Iranians felt that the Syrians were in sufficiently desperate straits, they might march across Northern Iraq or Southern Turkey. Both situations would result in an American response. Iraq because it is currently under American occupation, and Turkey because they are a NATO ally.

At the moment I'm counting on the conflict not expanding to Syria, because if it does, it's Europe 1914 all over again, only in the Middle East.

Without such restrictions, it's a lot easier to attack, and a lot harder to defend.
I may pick this up later, but I'm going to bed now.

Suffice to say that Iran is more of a threat to Israel than any of the Arab nations were during any of the wars (except maybe Yom Kippur). Israel would be incredibly stupid to attack them. The IDF, as great as it is equipment and training-wise, does not have the size to do this properly. A few Israeli jets aren't going to worry a nation of Iran's size.

And I don't agree with you about the missiles either. Iran doesn't need a fully integrated system when there are only a few targets actually worth hitting, you can do that very localised, very flexible. The SA-15s are not designed to hit high-flying targets, but for that there's other models available.

And all this is still not even counting the fact that Israel's jets can only reach a part of Iran, and that the Iranian response wouldn't sit too well with the Americans in Iraq.

Of course, the US controls the airspace over Iraq, over which the Israelis would have to fly.
However, it is Iraqi air space none-the-less or did the recent elections in Iraq really mean nothing?

I would imagine that Iraq would object to use of Iraqi air space for an attack against Iran?

I may pick this up later, but I'm going to bed now.

Suffice to say that Iran is more of a threat to Israel than any of the Arab nations were during any of the wars (except maybe Yom Kippur). Israel would be incredibly stupid to attack them. The IDF, as great as it is equipment and training-wise, does not have the size to do this properly. A few Israeli jets aren't going to worry a nation of Iran's size.

And I don't agree with you about the missiles either. Iran doesn't need a fully integrated system when there are only a few targets actually worth hitting, you can do that very localised, very flexible. The SA-15s are not designed to hit high-flying targets, but for that there's other models available.

And all this is still not even counting the fact that Israel's jets can only reach a part of Iran, and that the Iranian response wouldn't sit too well with the Americans in Iraq.

The US may let Israel bomb the Iranian nuclear reactors and centrifuges (and scatter radioactive plutonium all over the Iranian landscape), and while the US might approve it, the Israelis will get the bad PR.

The F-15 that Israel has can, if refueled as it leaves Israel, reach any location in Iran.

I'm not saying that Iran can be conquered by Israel, but Iran has no ability to strike at Israel other than through Hezbollah (or by missile, if they get those going). Israel, on the other hand, has the option of precision attack on 20 to 40 targets of their choosing once a day.

From Global Security:

By the mid-1990s Iran reportedly had small numbers of Chinese SA-2s, along with SA-5 and SA-6 SAMs. Total holdings seem to include 30 Improved Hawk fire units (12 battalions/150+ launchers), 45-60 SA-2 and HQ-2J/23 (CSA-1 Chinese equivalents of the SA-2) launchers. Some sources claim that Iran might have 25 SA-6 launchers, but other sources are doubtful. There are reports of the transfer of eight SA-6 launchers to Iran from Russia in 1995/1996. In January 1996 US Navy Vice Admiral Scott Redd said had recently added Russian-built SA/6 missile defense systems.

In 1997 the Iranian Air Defense forces declared the Almaz S-200 Angara (SA-5 'Gammon') low-to high-altitude surface-to-air missile (SAM) operational. The missile has a comparatively modest acceleration rate, and relies on its small wings for maneuverability. Furthermore, the mechanically steered radars used by the SA-5 are vulnerable to saturation by decoys. Sources disagree on the number deployed, with some claiming four batteries, while others claim ten. Another source reports that the Air Force had three Soviet-made long-range SA-5 units, with a total of 10-15 launchers -- enough for six sites.

There were reports that Iran was considering purchases of the highly capable SA-10 [S-300] missile system. The SA-10 is a highly capable long-range all-altitude SAM. As early as 1994 it was reported that Iran had six SA-10 batteries [96 missiles] on order from Russia [but as of early 2006 no deliveries had taken place]. In February 1997 a $90 million sale of 36 missiles to Iran and three older SA-10 SAM systems, made up of components from Russia, Croatia, and Kazakhstan, fell through. On 30 December 2000 an announcement was made in Russia that Iran had informed Russian Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev about Iran's desire to purchase the S-300 anti-missile system. In March 2001 there were reports tha the Russians are close to cutting a deal with Iran on advanced missiles. Itar-Tass reported that Iran would soon close the deal on the Russian Tor-M1, Tor-M1T, and the S-300 surface-to-air missiles. After this report, there were no subsequent reports of Iranian interest in the SA-10.

In December 2005 Iran entered into a contract to purchase 29 TOR M1 [SA-15 GAUNTLET] mobile surface-to-air missile defence systems from Russia worth more than USD 700 million (EUR 600 million). The TOR-M1 is a mobile system designed for operation at medium- and low-altitude levels against aircraft and guided missiles. Each unit consists of a vehicle armed with eight missiles and a radar that can track 48 targets and engage two simultaneously. The TOR-M1 systems have medium-range capabilities for intercepting planes and missiles and are not designed for ground operations.

There is no dispositive source of information on Iranian air defense deployment. Key SAM-defended areas include Tehran and centers involved in nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs. Iran appears to have deployed the SA-5 batteries to defend Tehran, major ports, and oil facilities, providing long-range medium-to-high altitude coverage of vital coastal installations. The I-Hawk and SA-2 batteries are reportedly located around Tehran, Isfahan, Shiraz, Bandar Abbas, Kharg Island, Bushehr, Bandar Khomeini, Ahwaz, Dezful, Kermanshah, Hamadan, and Tabriz, providing point defense for key bases and facilities. Some of these sites lack sufficient missile launchers to be fully effective.

Iran imported surveillance radars from the China National Electronics Import-Export Corporation. The radar can detect targets up to 300 km away and is now part of Iran's air defense system. But even with China's help, Iran's air defenses remained porous, perhaps on par with Iraqi capabilities demonstrated in the 1991 Gulf war. The launchers are scattered too widely prevent relatively rapid suppression. Iran lacks the low altitude radar coverage, overlapping radar network, command and control integration, sensors, and resistance to jamming and electronic countermeasures needed for an effective air defense net. The defenses operate a point defense mode.

Oh, and in light of the failures involved in occupying a country full of Islamic fanatics (or local nationalists, take your pick), we have the stated policy of the US (a new plan for dealing with rogue states, etc).

http://www.fas.org/ssp/docs/GlobalStrikeReport.pdf

It involves the use of nuclear weapons.
Fascinating...

Fascinating...
Well, the last time we occupied a country, there were a lot of complaints, followed by a lot of "I told you there would be an insurgency..."

Next time, there won't be an insurgency.

The US may let Israel bomb the Iranian nuclear reactors and centrifuges (and scatter radioactive plutonium all over the Iranian landscape), and while the US might approve it, the Israelis will get the bad PR.
The US will get just as bad PR because everyone and their mom knows the US and Israel are in each other's pockets.

Next time, there won't be an insurgency.
Because national genocide is of course the right solution.

The US will get just as bad PR because everyone and their mom knows the US and Israel are in each other's pockets.

Israel probably won't wait. The US will wait this time, until the Security Council says that Iran is officially bad, and that the UN is very, very angry with Iran, and sends Iran a letter saying just how angry they are.

Not our fault they were making nuclear weapons all over the place.

israel has no interest to bomb iran alone, and probably we can't.
if anything will happen we may give quite help, but that it.

Well, the last time we occupied a country, there were a lot of complaints, followed by a lot of "I told you there would be an insurgency..."

Next time, there won't be an insurgency.
And you wonder why the race for nuclear arms has heated up?

I don't think so. Not in this case, anyway.

I would agree as well. The US has never really actively gotten into Israeli wars except to supply them with arms. I would think that this instance would just be another of that. Even Bush knows how foolish it is to be drawn into an Israeli War. Secondly, why would they need us? They beat everyone they go against anyway :).

And you wonder why the race for nuclear arms has heated up?
If you read the links, this policy change started over 10 years ago. It's nothing new for the US - it's just being refined.

I think we all knew the US couldn't fight two wars at once. This is only an admission.

Technically, it's possible for the US to conquer countries conventionally, and even to battle insurgencies. The problem is a political one - we don't have the stomach for long wars.

We do, however, given our experience with Japan, have no trouble nuking someone and calling it a day.

Technically, it's possible for the US to conquer countries conventionally, and even to battle insurgencies. The problem is a political one - we don't have the stomach for long wars.
No, we have plenty of experience and "stomach" to fight long wars. We have neither the experience or cultural upbringing to exist as an occupying force for any period of time.

No, we have plenty of experience and "stomach" to fight long wars. We have neither the experience or cultural upbringing to exist as an occupying force for any period of time.

Wow. Actually a good point.

*claps for the pantless one*

( But you do have allies who excel at occupation - some things CAN be outsourced. )

If you read the links, this policy change started over 10 years ago. It's nothing new for the US - it's just being refined.

I think we all knew the US couldn't fight two wars at once. This is only an admission.

Technically, it's possible for the US to conquer countries conventionally, and even to battle insurgencies. The problem is a political one - we don't have the stomach for long wars.

We do, however, given our experience with Japan, have no trouble nuking someone and calling it a day.
So, I guess it would be fair to say that this is out the window:

Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) (http://disarmament2.un.org/wmd/npt/)

The NPT is a landmark international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament. The Treaty represents the only binding commitment in a multilateral treaty to the goal of disarmament by the nuclear-weapon States. Opened for signature in 1968, the Treaty entered into force in 1970. On 11 May 1995, the Treaty was extended indefinitely. A total of 189 parties have joined the Treaty, including the five nuclear-weapon States. More countries have ratified the NPT than any other arms limitation and disarmament agreement, a testament to the Treaty's significance.
It would only be a matter of time before the above US policy would cause a nuclear halocaust of some sort. Is the US prepared for nuclear fallout?

We do, however, given our experience with Japan, have no trouble nuking someone and calling it a day.
Quite different given no one else on the planet had them at the time.

Today on the other hand....

Israel is one hell of a fine country to be allies with

Iran's SAMs are not that great. They don't have the SA-10. The SA-5 is easily fooled, and the SA-6 is something Israel has been encountering since the 1973 Yom Kippur War. They know how to deal with it. The SA-2 is from before Vietnam so that won't be much of a threat. The SA-15 won't have a shot at the Israeli aircraft due to altitude.

No one in a modern Western air force does low level attacks anymore, due to the risk from ground fire.


Apart from the British. They do it well. They consider precision targeting to be important.


We do, however, given our experience with Japan, have no trouble nuking someone and calling it a day.

Really? What about Operation Vautour? Cuba? Cairo?
Or, for times when the Bomb didn't even make it onto the table... Korea? the second Indo-chinese war? the first Gulf War?

Bearing in mind the sheer ignorance over the use of atomics at the time, in 1945, I seriously doubt that an informed American Government has any wish to see a repeat of the actions at Nagasaki and Hiroshima

I wouldn't put it above Israel to try and backstab Uncle Sam into doing the dirty work for it. It's not like they renounced trying ever since they got caught bombing the shit out of the USS Liberty.

Apart from the British. They do it well. They consider precision targeting to be important.


Precision targeting in all weather is now the province of the US Air Force since 1997 - even from altitudes as high as 36,000 feet.

The British lost a substantial number of Tornado aircraft in the first Gulf War due to the fact that their aircraft were not fitted with weapons that could be dropped above 500 feet.

These were MBB cluster munitions dispensers - a wide area, random hit weapon that also leaves antipersonnel mines everywhere.

So much for precision targeting.

Eut, the whole point of this from the beginning was to drag the US into a war with Iran. If Iran becomes involved the only way they have of attacking Israel is through US occupied Iraq. We will become involved if it spreads to Syria, and will be used by Israel to cripple Iran long before the Israelis have to worry about another nuclear power in the region.

Actually, GR-1s can drop ordanance with a less than 5m variation on a consistent basis. This makes them pretty damn accurate and they can carry a varied payload, not just the anti-personnel or airfield suppression munition you so misleadingly quoted.

Post action reports show that the GR-1s weakness was a combination of factors, not least the its increasing age and the heavy short-ranged AA-defences around the targets they were sent in to bomb. The RAF's training remains the best in the world at high speed, low-level precision bombing and its future investment in that technology shows its committment to maintaining the position and in safe guarding the lives of civilians near the target area.

The MLU GR-4 combined with the next generation of 'smart' ordanance will see those problem areas looked at and solved.

The US have, however, nailed the mid and high altitude bombing. Their accuracy is quite stunning most of the time.

To quote a Group commander who was speaking at a lecture I attend a few years ago. "The US can bomb from 30,000 feet. We bomb from the rooftops and have fun doing it."

Actually, I saw a Tornado on maneuvres from Leuchars, it was so low I swear I could feel the afterburner as it passed over (it also scared the life out of me, to this day I swear it flew out of a barn about thirty yards to my left :rolleyes: )