NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/01/07/iran.us.navy/index.html

I'm guessing they wanted the U.S. Ships to shoot first so as to cause an 'international incident'. They love to bitch. *nod*

Still, there are safer ways to make a nuisance of yourself than coming within 200 yards of a U.S. warship.

That wasn't very smart.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/01/07/iran.us.navy/index.html

I'm guessing they wanted the U.S. Ships to shoot first so as to cause an 'international incident'. They love to bitch. *nod*

Still, there are safer ways to make a nuisance of yourself than coming within 200 yards of a U.S. warship.

Indeed, however one must admire their rowing prowess.

Am I the only one that sees the Iranian government as schizophrenic? Iraq seems to be cooling down, the nuke scare's over, Iran isn't on anybody's particular shitlist - and they pull stuff like this. I'd be a lot more believing of their occasional protests about being peaceful if they stopped harrassing their neighbours.

I wonder if they were taking bets. Which boat can get the closest without getting asploded or chickening out.

Given what happened to the Cole, I am surprised they did not fire. There is a reason they armed the ships with M2s and modified the Phalanx for surface capabilities.

Because of the bad press. It's just another example of the media affecting the decisions of troops in the field.

Given what happened to the Cole, I am surprised they did not fire. There is a reason they armed the ships with M2s and modified the Phalanx for surface capabilities.


One got within 200 ft. Why wasn't it blown out of the water is beyond me. Especially after hearing the Iranian communications toward the ships. After hearing that they were coming and going to blow up a ship they should have sunk every Iranian boat around them.

lol @ US navy getting bullied.

Because of the bad press. It's just another example of the media affecting the decisions of troops in the field.How so?

How so?

If the decisions of our captains and commanders are being second guessed and dissected by the media, they're going to be aware of it. If those dissections can kill your career (and it's happened), then those commanders are going to hesitate to do anything politically questionable - maybe hesitate a second or so too long.

Our military is answerable to our government, as it should be. It should not be answerable to the press.

If the decisions of our captains and commanders are being second guessed and dissected by the media, they're going to be aware of it. If those dissections can kill your career (and it's happened), then those commanders are going to hesitate to do anything politically questionable - maybe hesitate a second or so too long.

Our military is answerable to our government, as it should be. It should not be answerable to the press.

It's not. And the decisions of your captains and commanders should be subject to scrutiny. In fact, I'd be rather surprised if their superiors didn't dissect their decisions. Why is it different when the media do it?

Sounds like fear mongering to me.

If the decisions of our captains and commanders are being second guessed and dissected by the media, they're going to be aware of it. If those dissections can kill your career (and it's happened), then those commanders are going to hesitate to do anything politically questionable - maybe hesitate a second or so too long.

Our military is answerable to our government, as it should be. It should not be answerable to the press.That doesn't answer my question. Why is this case a case of actions of military personnel being influenced by the media?

How so?

Shouldn't that be obvious? They threatened them and got real close and they weren't destroyed because obviously the military commander didn't want an international incident to deal with. He didn't want the New York Times calling him a reckless warmonger and all the fallout.

When in fact, now he should be punished for endangering his people when he didn't respond to clear and present danger. The second they got that transmission, they should have destroyed all of those ships.

That doesn't answer my question. Why is this case a case of actions of military personnel being influenced by the media?

Because the military is questionable to the government and the government care to much about there public appearance. And the media can basically kill a persons career.

That doesn't answer my question. Why is this case a case of actions of military personnel being influenced by the media?

Because it never looks good to the media for big, nasty, armed-to-the-teeth destroyers and cruisers to turn iddy widdle cheapass gunboats into good approximations of shredded wheat.

The media is, by and large, totally ignorant of the military. They have no idea that a gunboat at 200 yards could conceivably sink a destroyer with PGMs, mines or just lucky hits with a big gun. Those Gunboats should have been sunk the moment they started acting in a hostile manner, but the Captain didn't do that because it would look bad to the media.

lol @ US navy getting bullied.

:D

they should of made some "yo momma" jokes or possibly called France and bitched like we did

It's not. And the decisions of your captains and commanders should be subject to scrutiny. In fact, I'd be rather surprised if their superiors didn't dissect their decisions. Why is it different when the media do it?

Because the media is totally ignorant of military realities. They rarely, if ever, get any detail of the military right when they report on it, don't care enough to remedy their ignorance, but are perfectly willing to scream out their pointless points of view regarding any military action - invariably portraying anything they think is a mistake as "Officer incompetence" and any review that doesn't agree with their already made up minds as a "whitewash".

It's like giving a six-year-old veto powers over where you drive.

Shouldn't that be obvious? They threatened them and got real close and they weren't destroyed because obviously the military commander didn't want an international incident to deal with. He didn't want the New York Times calling him a reckless warmonger and all the fallout.

When in fact, now he should be punished for endangering his people when he didn't respond to clear and present danger. The second they got that transmission, they should have destroyed all of those ships.I've read the article. Apparently, as soon as they responded as one would to a threat, by preparing to shoot, the boats turned off and were no longer a threat, hence there was no longer a need to tear them to pieces to protect the crew.

Because the military is questionable to the government and the government care to much about there public appearance. And the media can basically kill a persons career.Again, this fails to answer the question as to why this situation is an example of that.

Because it never looks good to the media for big, nasty, armed-to-the-teeth destroyers and cruisers to turn iddy widdle cheapass gunboats into good approximations of shredded wheat.

The media is, by and large, totally ignorant of the military. They have no idea that a gunboat at 200 yards could conceivably sink a destroyer with PGMs, mines or just lucky hits with a big gun. Those Gunboats should have been sunk the moment they started acting in a hostile manner, but the Captain didn't do that because it would look bad to the media.Really? The captain didn't do that because it would look bad in the media, and not because needlessly killing people might be bad or because he didn't want to go for the Iranian harassment unless it was a clear threat and not typical sabre-rattling behavior?

"Are we building to a Gulf of Tonkin style false-flag event in order that Cheyney gets his war with Iran before the Democrats take office?"

"The NEOCONs are itching for a war with Iran; even an UnConstitutional one. A war for which none of them will bleed and die. This "incident" does make one think of the Tonkin Gulf and another failed Texan president. An "incident" that has since been proven to be false."

"As if a suicide bomber will send a radio message out prior to powering his boat close to American warships... Makes me believe the Iranian version more than the American.

As for the Iranians wanting oil at $200 a barrel, its actually the American oil companies as they run the show. Better get your head out of the sand and believe it !'

That's the European perspective on every incident like this. Doesn't matter if it's kidnapping British sailors, openly funding terrorism and supplying insurgents with weapons, it's always someone else's fault. If they had destroyed those ships as they should have done, it would be bloody murder and all part of a big plan.

And Laerod, an Iranian gunboat acting in a hostile manner and still being allowed to get within 200 years of a U.S. Navy ship in international waters is completely unacceptable. This was a perfect time to send a message to Iran about this and instead it will only encourage these kinds of things int he future.

"Are we building to a Gulf of Tonkin style false-flag event in order that Cheyney gets his war with Iran before the Democrats take office?"

"The NEOCONs are itching for a war with Iran; even an UnConstitutional one. A war for which none of them will bleed and die. This "incident" does make one think of the Tonkin Gulf and another failed Texan president. An "incident" that has since been proven to be false."

"As if a suicide bomber will send a radio message out prior to powering his boat close to American warships... Makes me believe the Iranian version more than the American.

As for the Iranians wanting oil at $200 a barrel, its actually the American oil companies as they run the show. Better get your head out of the sand and believe it !'

That's the European perspective on every incident like this. Doesn't matter if it's kidnapping British sailors, openly funding terrorism and supplying insurgents with weapons, it's always someone else's fault. If they had destroyed those ships as they should have done, it would be bloody murder and all part of a big plan.Sources please.
And Laerod, an Iranian gunboat acting in a hostile manner and still being allowed to get within 200 years of a U.S. Navy ship in international waters. is completely unacceptable. This was a perfect time to send a message to Iran about this and instead it will only encourage these kinds of things int he future.Completely unacceptable is not equal to punishable by death.

Really? The captain didn't do that because it would look bad in the media, and not because needlessly killing people might be bad or because he didn't want to go for the Iranian harassment unless it was a clear threat and not typical sabre-rattling behavior?

Simply getting that close to a military formation of a nation you're in dispute with is an act of sabre-rattling. Seriously, in the modern age that's practically point-blank; if the Iranians had launched a missile the destroyer would have had no chance to react before impact. 1 Mile exclusion zones are the usual limit.

I've no doubt the Captain didn't want to kill anybody. But if it's a question of killing somebody over there and risking the destruction of your ship, the captain's duty is clear. He should've sunk those gunboats.

That was the comments on a Times Online article and you know damn well that is general attitude towards every incident like that.

So what police should wait for a criminal to start shooting at them before they fire, even if he's waving around a gun? Doesn't happen. You openly threaten a U.S. Navy vessel and still exist a minute later, the military commander is not doing his job.

Simply getting that close to a military formation of a nation you're in dispute with is an act of sabre-rattling. Seriously, in the modern age that's practically point-blank; if the Iranians had launched a missile the destroyer would have had no chance to react before impact. 1 Mile exclusion zones are the usual limit.

I've no doubt the Captain didn't want to kill anybody. But if it's a question of killing somebody over there and risking the destruction of your ship, the captain's duty is clear. He should've sunk those gunboats.
Where does the "international waters" part of this scenario kick in? or does that not apply to US warships?

I'm not specifically picking on the US military here - I'd be asking the same thing if it had been a British destroyer involved - I'm just curious. At that point the Strait of Hormuz is, what, about 30-40km wide? Are you suggesting that the US should be able to effectively blockade it with a handful of ships?

Simply getting that close to a military formation of a nation you're in dispute with is an act of sabre-rattling. Seriously, in the modern age that's practically point-blank; if the Iranians had launched a missile the destroyer would have had no chance to react before impact. 1 Mile exclusion zones are the usual limit.

I've no doubt the Captain didn't want to kill anybody. But if it's a question of killing somebody over there and risking the destruction of your ship, the captain's duty is clear. He should've sunk those gunboats.He should have sunk the boats after they turned away? Why? They were leaving and no longer a threat.

That was the comments on a Times Online article and you know damn well that is general attitude towards every incident like that.Not taking your word for it. Source it or its bullshit.

So what police should wait for a criminal to start shooting at them before they fire, even if he's waving around a gun? Doesn't happen. You openly threaten a U.S. Navy vessel and still exist a minute later, the military commander is not doing his job.If the criminal puts their hands up when the cop pulls out his gun, then there is no need to shoot him anymore.

So what police should wait for a criminal to start shooting at them before they fire, even if he's waving around a gun? Doesn't happen. You openly threaten a U.S. Navy vessel and still exist a minute later, the military commander is not doing his job.

Or maybe he doesn't want to start a war with Iran. I don't think firing on a criminal waving a gun around is the same as firing on the armed forces of another nation, even if they are acting as (or more) dangerously than an individual citizen.

Plus the details provided on the incident might not be entirely correct, and of course we have no information from an Iranians as to what happened on their end.

Where does the "international waters" part of this scenario kick in? or does that not apply to US warships?

I'm not specifically picking on the US military here - I'd be asking the same thing if it had been a British destroyer involved - I'm just curious. At that point the Gulf Of Tonkin is, what, about 30-40km wide? Are you suggesting that the US should be able to effectively blockade it with a handful of ships?

No, because a blockade is an act of war in itself. Both sides do have an obligation to attempt to avoid each other, or at least leave plenty of sea-room for the other to pass.

In this case, the Iranians deliberately sailed staright into a hostile military's exclusion zone. That really can't be interpreted as anything but a deliberate threat.

In this case, the Iranians deliberately sailed staright into a hostile military's exclusion zone. That really can't be interpreted as anything but a deliberate threat.Bullshit. Given Iran's track record it can easily be interpreted as a provocation.

He should have sunk the boats after they turned away? Why? They were leaving and no longer a threat.


Should have been clearer: He should've sunk them before they got to 200 yards. Send a warning to them at 1 mile, fire a warning shot if they don't turn away, blow them out of the water if they continue.

Obviously, a retreating vessel is not a major threat.

No, because a blockade is an act of war in itself. Both sides do have an obligation to attempt to avoid each other, or at least leave plenty of sea-room for the other to pass.
Fair enough, and thanks - I was just interested to see where you thought the line should be drawn.

lol @ US navy getting bullied.
There's nothing funny about punk ass, weak Iranians trying to provoke an already unstable situation. I'm proud of the Ship's crews for their discipline. I'm of the opinion that they would've been in the right for opening fire.

Bullshit. Given Iran's track record it can easily be interpreted as a provocation.

Yep. And they should have been sunk rather than be allowed to get that close.

The problem with provocation is that either you allow the incident to occur, or you look weak. Now that Iran's gotten away with this once, I'm betting they try it again. And again. Until somebody starts shooting.

He should have sunk the boats after they turned away? Why? They were leaving and no longer a threat.

Not taking your word for it. Source it or its bullshit.

If the criminal puts their hands up when the cop pulls out his gun, then there is no need to shoot him anymore.

It's a bit earlier to be campaigning for idiot of the year.

It should never have gotten to the point where they were able to leave. The second that transmission came, they should have destroyed the ships and not put all of the crews at risk. That simple.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3147217.ece?token=null&offset=12

There's your useless source.

Should have been clearer: He should've sunk them before they got to 200 yards. Send a warning to them at 1 mile, fire a warning shot if they don't turn away, blow them out of the water if they continue.

Obviously, a retreating vessel is not a major threat.They started retreating as soon as they saw the US vessels preparing to shoot them. Based on that, I'll wager they would have acted similarly if the guns had been readied earlier.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3147217.ece?token=null&offset=12

There's your useless source.
Now now. There's nothing useless about a source being provided. If it was good enough for you to quote, it should be good enough for you to cite. Honestly.. why do people get their panties in such a twist about requests for sources when they make sweeping claims?

The second they got that transmission...the transmission tape given to the media -by the pentagon- says "we are going to wipe you of the map"

.. or was that the wrong tape? ... damn they mixed tapes from the "translated" statement from president AhmedJihad :D

They started retreating as soon as they saw the US vessels preparing to shoot them. Based on that, I'll wager they would have acted similarly if the guns had been readied earlier.

Maybe. And if the Captain had fired his warning shot, and they'd turned back, I wouldn't have a problem.

I definitely do have a problem with him not even manning the guns until they reached 200 yards!

Yep. And they should have been sunk rather than be allowed to get that close.

The problem with provocation is that either you allow the incident to occur, or you look weak. Now that Iran's gotten away with this once, I'm betting they try it again. And again. Until somebody starts shooting.Get real. Only someone with low self-esteem needs to react to every provocation. The US Navy isn't looking weak because they let a bunch of speedboats zoom around and refrained from shooting them.

I'm betting they try it again. And again. Until somebody starts shooting.Agreed.

Dod, do you want the United States to go to war with Iran. Do you get some thrill when you think of brown people being bombed?

Maybe. And if the Captain had fired his warning shot, and they'd turned back, I wouldn't have a problem.

I definitely do have a problem with him not even manning the guns until they reached 200 yards!Yeah!! I am having a problem with the USS Hopper not starting a War with Iran when we had the chance.. Lets bomb Iran so US can all have a collective orgasm.

Dod, do you want the United States to go to war with Iran. Do you get some thrill when you think of brown people being bombed?this particular thrill is called collective masturbation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-eyuFBrWHs

Dod, do you want the United States to go to war with Iran. Do you get some thrill when you think of brown people being bombed?Wow, so why do people try to make everything a matter of race?

Get real. Only someone with low self-esteem needs to react to every provocation. The US Navy isn't looking weak because they let a bunch of speedboats zoom around and refrained from shooting them.

They don't look weak to me. Or presumably to you. Probably not to most people in the West, all up.

But they look weak to a bunch of Iranian gunboat drivers, their commanders, and maybe their government. They'll figure, they got away with it this time, they'll get away with it next time.

Only thing is, next time we might wind up with a PGM blowing a hole in the side of our cruiser. Or our Captain opens fire and destroys the Gunboats - complete with civilian press aboard, thinking they were safe.

This sort of thing needs to be nipped in the bud. Otherwise, it's all too easy to wind up with even more casualties than you would have if your were decisive the first time.

Get real. Only someone with low self-esteem needs to react to every provocation. The US Navy isn't looking weak because they let a bunch of speedboats zoom around and refrained from shooting them.

Yeah Laerod, and they had fired a missile and killed U.S. Navy crew, it would be an entirely different story and they threatened to do so and obviously could have done it. The commander did not do his job and make protecting his people his top priority. There's no excuse for a threatening vessel to get that close to any of our ships. They should have sent a clear message back.

And there would not have been a war. There will not be a ground war in Iran. They would simply be utterly butchered by our air and sea forces and they know it. There's no excuse for our ships to have not responded to this kind of threat. It's just a testament to the politically correct doctrine. Media impact.

Of course, if the US were to do something like this with the Iranian Navy, it would inevitably be condemned as warmongering, with the usual crowd spouting their shit that this is a sign of coming EB1L AM3RiKKKaN A66ReSSION against poor, harmless, innocent Iran.

"Are we building to a Gulf of Tonkin style false-flag event in order that Cheyney gets his war with Iran before the Democrats take office?"Originally by Rolf Hansen, Edinburgh, Scotland.
"The NEOCONs are itching for a war with Iran; even an UnConstitutional one. A war for which none of them will bleed and die. This "incident" does make one think of the Tonkin Gulf and another failed Texan president. An "incident" that has since been proven to be false."Originally by FRD, Belle Mead, NJ

"As if a suicide bomber will send a radio message out prior to powering his boat close to American warships... Makes me believe the Iranian version more than the American.

As for the Iranians wanting oil at $200 a barrel, its actually the American oil companies as they run the show. Better get your head out of the sand and believe it !'
Originally by John Taylor, London,

That's the European perspective on every incident like this. Doesn't matter if it's kidnapping British sailors, openly funding terrorism and supplying insurgents with weapons, it's always someone else's fault. If they had destroyed those ships as they should have done, it would be bloody murder and all part of a big plan.Yeah, European perspective indeed. One of the three opinions you put up isn't even European, and the other are British, which, depending on whom you ask, isn't European either.

That said, three quotes are hardly representative of Europe as a whole. There will always be a few idiots leaving comments. They hardly speak for all of Europe.

It's a bit earlier to be campaigning for idiot of the year.

It should never have gotten to the point where they were able to leave. The second that transmission came, they should have destroyed the ships and not put all of the crews at risk. That simple.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3147217.ece?token=null&offset=12

There's your useless source.Quit behaving like a child.

Dod, do you want the United States to go to war with Iran. Do you get some thrill when you think of brown people being bombed?

I don't give a shit what colour anybody is. And I don't want a war.

The best way for there NOT to be a war is for our military to respond decisively and promptly when threatened. The best way to avoid war is to be prepared for it.

lol @ US navy getting bullied.

Bullying is when someone actually does something to another person. This is more like the US navy responding to the Iranians by ignoring them. (and therefore not validating their actions).

That wasn't very smart.

au contraire, it was damned brilliant

Yeah Laerod, and they had fired a missile and killed U.S. Navy crew, it would be an entirely different story and they threatened to do so and obviously could have done it. The commander did not do his job and make protecting his people his top priority. There's no excuse for a threatening vessel to get that close to any of our ships. They should have sent a clear message back.

And there would not have been a war. There will not be a ground war in Iran. They would simply be utterly butchered by our air and sea forces and they know it. There's no excuse for our ships to have not responded to this kind of threat. It's just a testament to the politically correct doctrine. Media impact.

It's more a testament to global opinion than political correctness. The US has far more to lose than simply a ship by returning fire, and Iran knows it.

One got within 200 ft. Why wasn't it blown out of the water is beyond me. Especially after hearing the Iranian communications toward the ships. After hearing that they were coming and going to blow up a ship they should have sunk every Iranian boat around them.

The boat within 200' should simply not have been allowed that close, period.

Now now. There's nothing useless about a source being provided. If it was good enough for you to quote, it should be good enough for you to cite. Honestly.. why do people get their panties in such a twist about requests for sources when they make sweeping claims?

Indeed, indeed.

Wow, so why do people try to make everything a matter of race?

Again, indeed. As one lecturer at my university put it, in a lecture on the Soviets in Afghanistan, "they aren't killing Afghanis because they're brown - they're killing Afghanis because they want them dead."

Laerod, that doesn't work with me.

I'm with Trump. When you are dealing with scum, you have to treat them like scum. There's no gentleman manners necessary when dealing with apologists.

I don't give a shit what colour anybody is. And I don't want a war.

The best way for there NOT to be a war is for our military to respond decisively and promptly when threatened. The best way to avoid war is to be prepared for it.

So you think sinking an Iranian ship is the best way to prevent a war with Iran? Admit it, you just want to see brown people getting bombed. :rolleyes:

So you think sinking an Iranian ship is the best way to prevent a war with Iran? Admit it, you just want to see brown people getting bombed. :rolleyes:

I think the best way to avoid a war with Iran is to make it very clear to them that we have the capability and the will to go to war if it is necessary to do so. If they see us as unwilling or unable to oppose them, they will push, and push, until war is inevitable.

I've seen the aftermaths of war. I don't want to see them again. But I understand that sometimes the price of peace is too high to pay.

Of course, if the US were to do something like this with the Iranian Navy, it would inevitably be condemned as warmongering,...## on the record:

If the Iranians ever begin to parade Warship close to our Coast lines.. I would defend any government actions to discourage them (short of shooting first, because of the International waters code)

They don't look weak to me. Or presumably to you. Probably not to most people in the West, all up.

But they look weak to a bunch of Iranian gunboat drivers, their commanders, and maybe their government. They'll figure, they got away with it this time, they'll get away with it next time."We mustn't look weak to them" is never about how they actually see you, but how you want to be seen by them. Apparently, the Iranians know how tough the US is, since they turned back the moment they saw the Americans would retaliate.

Only thing is, next time we might wind up with a PGM blowing a hole in the side of our cruiser. Or our Captain opens fire and destroys the Gunboats - complete with civilian press aboard, thinking they were safe.:rolleyes:
Civilian press, on an Iranian gunboat?

This sort of thing needs to be nipped in the bud. Otherwise, it's all too easy to wind up with even more casualties than you would have if your were decisive the first time.They were being decisive. Just not in the manner you would have preferred.

Laerod, that doesn't work with me.

I'm with Trump. When you are dealing with scum, you have to treat them like scum. There's no gentleman manners necessary when dealing with apologists.Sucks to be you then.

"We mustn't look weak to them" is never about how they actually see you, but how you want to be seen by them. Apparently, the Iranians know how tough the US is, since they turned back the moment they saw the Americans would retaliate.

AFTER they reached well within firing range.

:rolleyes:
Civilian press, on an Iranian gunboat?

That was just an example, but the Iranians do have a civilian press. Putting one on a gunboat to show the results of a "pass" is no weirder than the British or US militaries have done with embedded reporters.

They were being decisive. Just not in the manner you would have preferred.

No, he wasn't decisive at all. He failed to do anything for far too long. Even a wrong decision is better than no decision.

AFTER they reached well within firing range.



That was just an example, but the Iranians do have a civilian press. Putting one on a gunboat to show the results of a "pass" is no weirder than the British or US militaries have done with embedded reporters.



No, he wasn't decisive at all. He failed to do anything for far too long. Even a wrong decision is better than no decision.Overall, the Captain treated the Iranians more like a nuissance than a threat until the radio transmission. That's more humiliating for the Iranians than the Americans.

## on the record:

If the Iranians ever begin to parade Warship close to our Coast lines.. I would defend any government actions to discourage them (short of shooting first, because of the International waters code)

Except these are international waters, and American ships have just as much right to be there as do Iranian ships.

Overall, the Captain treated the Iranians more like a nuissance than a threat until the radio transmission. That's more humiliating for the Iranians than the Americans.

It would seem that way, but I bet their thrilled that they "chased" a US warship and got a way with it.

Except these are international waters, and American ships have just as much right to be there as do Iranian ships.Exactamente.

that is why: If the Iranians ever begin to parade Warship close to our Coast lines.. I would support any government actions to "discourage" them, short of shooting first.

Overall, the Captain treated the Iranians more like a nuissance than a threat until the radio transmission. That's more humiliating for the Iranians than the Americans.

Sure. And this time around things turned out well.

But the Captain couldn't have known that would be the result. He risked his command on the chance of the Iranian gunboats not firing when they got the chance.

10/10 for cool headedness. 0/10 for the safety of his ship - and crew.

More than that, this is increasingly characteristic of the aggressive naval behaviors that the Iranians have undertaken. Incidents such as the illegal seizure of 15 Royal Marines who were involved in a perfectly legal and legitimate maritime action early last year are becoming increasingly common. Iran is trying to goad the west into war with such aggressive behaviors in international waters.

says who?

Says the international agreements on war and blockades. The RM had every right to be where they were and doing what they were doing.

.. the illegal seizure of 15 Royal Marines who were involved in a perfectly legal and legitimate maritime action..says who? ... What is the original source?

Exactamente.

that is why: If the Iranians ever begin to parade Warship close to our Coast lines.. I would support any government actions to "discourage" them, short of shooting first.

If they entered internationally recognized American territorial waters, so would I. But, in this case the American vessels were in international waters, carrying out a legitimate task.

says who? ... What is the original source?International law?

I thing you do not understand my question.
and its a extremely clear+simple question.

Well, If he didn't, neither did I. Please restate the question.

If they entered internationally recognized American territorial waters....If Iranian Warships, parading close to our coasts, ever enter US Waters "by GPS miscalculation" for half a second.. I say we send the Carrier/Subs/the-full-enchilada.. and tell them they are going to be sized or sunk.. and give them 100 second to comply.

I just want to know what was in the white boxes.

says who?

I dunno, maybe the United Nations, and hundreds of years of pre-existing maritime law?

If Iranian Warships, parading close to our coasts, ever enter US Waters "by GPS miscalculation" for half a second.. I say we send the Carrier/Subs/the-full-enchilada.. and tell them they are going to be sized or sunk.. and give them 100 second to comply.

Fine and dandy, but the US Navy did not enter Iranian waters, thus, there is no reason for the Iranians to be harassing American boats, telling them over the radio that they're going to be blown up and whatnot.

International law?I thing you do not understand my question.
and its a extremely clear+simple question.

It's not. And the decisions of your captains and commanders should be subject to scrutiny. In fact, I'd be rather surprised if their superiors didn't dissect their decisions. Why is it different when the media do it?

Because the dumb fucks in the press know jack about military matters.

If this ship got attacked, the CO would have been court-martialed even if he followed ROE to the letter. He would certainly lose his command.

Fine and dandy, but the US Navy did not enter Iranian waters.I am not suggesting they did.

I am waiting for the media to replay the tape -given by the Pentagon-.. and I am waiting for FOXnews to post the GPS coordinates of USS Hopper. I will comment when the media -any media- posts the data.

If Iranian Warships, parading close to our coasts, ever enter US Waters "by GPS miscalculation" for half a second.. I say we send the Carrier/Subs/the-full-enchilada.. and tell them they are going to be sized or sunk.. and give them 100 second to comply.

siezed or sunk. And that wouldn't go over very well with the International community

Because it never looks good to the media for big, nasty, armed-to-the-teeth destroyers and cruisers to turn iddy widdle cheapass gunboats into good approximations of shredded wheat.

The media is, by and large, totally ignorant of the military. They have no idea that a gunboat at 200 yards could conceivably sink a destroyer with PGMs, mines or just lucky hits with a big gun. Those Gunboats should have been sunk the moment they started acting in a hostile manner, but the Captain didn't do that because it would look bad to the media.

Seriously, that ship could have feasibly sank a Burke class can. The Cole probably should have gone down with the damage she suffered. Her crew was lucky that fires did not break out. Had they had to combat fires in addition to flooding, the vessel would have floundered. That being said, her crew did a great job saving the vessel.

I thing you do not understand my question.
and its a extremely clear+simple question.Indeed. However, when I clicked it, it was still only "says who" on my screen and I didn't notice that you'd edited before I clicked it.

Who says it wasn't perfectly legitimate and legal?

I am not saying they did.

Then I don't see the relevance of this line of discussion. This one is pretty cut-and-dried.

I thing you do not understand my question.
and its a extremely clear+simple question.

And you received a fairly clear, albeit not simple, answer.

There's hundreds of years of traditional and codified maritime law that governs behavior of vessels on the seas, and the actions of the Hopper, Port Royal and Ingraham were violating none of the rules, and were acting within the codified bounds of behavior.

But here's a wiki link, because you insist on being obtuse. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiralty_law#International_conventions)

The Iranians would never be parading Warships close to our Coast lines.. So It would never happen. And if it did.. and -on top of that- the Iranian Warships entered US territory "by mistake" then I dont see why the International would condemn US for reacting to a violation of our sovereignty.

I agree that they shouldn't. But being the most powerful country brings certain baggage - like never being given the benefit of the doubt.

I definitely do have a problem with him not even manning the guns until they reached 200 yards!

That is just dereliction of duty and neglect. I hope the CO's Commodore slaps him down for that.

siezed or sunk. And that wouldn't go over very well with the International communityThe Iranians would never be parading Warships close to our Coast lines.. So It would never happen. And if it did.. and the Iranian Warships entered US territory "by mistake" then I dont see why the International would condemn US for reacting to a violation of our sovereignty.

Of course, if the US were to do something like this with the Iranian Navy, it would inevitably be condemned as warmongering, with the usual crowd spouting their shit that this is a sign of coming EB1L AM3RiKKKaN A66ReSSION against poor, harmless, innocent Iran.

I know what you mean.

...the Hopper, Port Royal and Ingraham ..I you dont want to eat crow: read the post, follow the green line.

Its a sure way not to look like an idiot, when I prove you dont have a clue what we were talking about.

Wait, your talking about US territorial waters? Why is that even a senario? Can the Iranian fleet even make it that far??

If they had some good fuel tanker support, then their Kilos and tin cans could make it.

The Iranians would never be parading Warships close to our Coast lines.. So It would never happen. And if it did.. and -on top of that- the Iranian Warships entered US territory "by mistake" then I dont see why the International would condemn US for reacting to a violation of our sovereignty.

Wait, your talking about US territorial waters? Why is that even a senario? Can the Iranian fleet even make it that far??

Hopper, Port Royal and Ingraham

Funny thing is I didn't even have to look it up. Without doing a search I can tell you this:

USS Hopper is a Flight IIA Arleigh Burke class DDG

USS Port Royal was the final Tico class CG commissioned.

USS Ingraham was the final OHP class FFG commissioned.

I'm good huh!

The Iranians would never be parading Warships close to our Coast lines.. So It would never happen.

Then why are we talking about it?

It's pretty straightforward that the Iranian economy isn't robust enough to sustain even a meager blue-water navy, let alone one that could parade off of the coast of the US without breaking down in the middle of the Atlantic, stranded and alone.

.
they can, but they wouldt.

No they can't. Iran's best ships probably have a max range of about 3,500 nm. Iran lacks tanker support so they can not make it. You fail.

Wait, your talking about US territorial waters? Yes, thats what is on the table right now.
.
Why is that even a senario?because I posted it.
.
Can the Iranian fleet even make it that far??they can, but they wouldt.

Then why are we talking about it?free speech.

With no resupply stops? Even if the Egyptians allowed them to bypass most of Africa, I really doubt they could make it.
They can not make it. It is as simple as that. Even if they refueled in a place like Libya, they would run out of fuel in the middle of the Atlantic. Once the ships are immobile, the waves would bash them to hell and the ship would sink inside of a week.

Yes, thats what is on the table right now.
.
because I posted it.
.
they can, but they wouldt.

With no resupply stops? Even if the Egyptians allowed them to bypass most of Africa, I really doubt they could make it.

Because the dumb fucks in the press know jack about military matters.

If this ship got attacked, the CO would have been court-martialed even if he followed ROE to the letter. He would certainly lose his command.

I wasn't aware that the media had the authority to court martial military officers.

If the military cares too much about how they appear in the media for your liking then I think you'll find that it's their own damn fault.

Who says it wasn't perfectly legitimate and legal?Bush+Blair said it was perfectly legitimate and legal.
The Iranians said it wanst.

Their words (viceversa) are not proof of the truth.

NSGCrusader: It is true because Bush says so.
OD2: Not on my book.

NSGIranian: It is true because the Iranians says so.
OD2: Not on my book.

I wasn't aware that the media had the authority to court martial military officers.

If the military cares too much about how they appear in the media for your liking then I think you'll find that it's their own damn fault.

I was saying that the military would have court-martialed the CO if the vessel was damaged in any way.

I you dont want to eat crow: read the post, follow the green line.

Its a sure way not to look like an idiot, when I prove you dont have a clue what we were talking about.

Ah, I see now, you were linking back to my comments about their brinksmanship when they illegally kidnapped British sailors.

Fine then.

It is the legal duty and obligation of the nations that use the sea lanes to keep them open and protect them from piracy and smuggling. In this, the Royal Marines were operating in an interdiction capacity to counteract a growing smuggling problem in the region. They are backed by convention and treaty, the most recent of which is the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, which dates back to 2005, and was concluded at the International Maritime Organization.

like for Iran and US...

I would condemn the Egypt Gov if they shoot/sink another country vessels in International waters.

Funny cause you didn't condemn Hezbollah when they sank an Egyptian ship in international waters.

Bush+Blair said it was perfectly legitimate and legal.
The Iranians said it wanst.

Their words (viceversa) are not proof of the truth.

NSGCrusader: It is true because Bush says so.
OD2: Not on my book.

NSGIranian: It is true because the Iranians says so.
OD2: Not on my book.On a trustable scale, Blair is still a lot higher than the Iranians. The British version is probably true, particularly because of how hell-bent the Iranians were at proving that they were right.

Even if the Egyptians allowed them to bypass most of Africa...like for Iran and US...

I would condemn the Egypt Gov if they shoot/sink another country vessels in International waters.

like for Iran and US...

I would condemn the Egypt Gov if they shoot/sink another country vessels in International waters.Not an issue. Egypt owns the Suez Canal, so the sinking or preventing of passing would be in Egyptian waters.

illegallysays who? .... What is the original source?

Bush+Blair said it was perfectly legitimate and legal.
The Iranians said it wanst.

I am not going to take either version for granted.

Fine, then how about the international response, in which nations such as Norway and Sweden condemned Iran, and the Swedish PM actually called the incident what it was: Kidnapping.

More than that, there is an amount of evidence presented by the pan-Arabic paper Asharq Alawsat that indicates that this incident was actually premeditated, as part of an attempt by the Iranians to force a "prisoner swap."

says who? .... What is the original source?

The Royal Navy.

Why on Earth would they want to get fifteen of their men captured, run the risk of a war in the region, only for a smuggling interdiction mission?

Meanwhile, why would the Iranians kidnap Royal Marines? Oh, I know! To try to force a prisoner swap!

your post is reasonable and honest.

even if my opinion of Blair is not that high.

In another words: I understand you would feel that way.. I agree with you logic.. even if my scales are not that much tipped in favor of Blair.My scales are less tipped in favor of Blair than they are tipped against an oligarchical regime that has a track record of trying to provoke Western powers.

On a trustable scale, Blair is still a lot higher than the Iranians. The British version is probably true, particularly because of how hell-bent the Iranians were at proving that they were right.your post is reasonable and honest.

even if my opinion of Blair is not that high.

In another words: I understand you would feel that way.. I agree with you logic.. even if my scales are not that much tipped in favor of Blair.

Bush+Blair said it was perfectly legitimate and legal.
The Iranians said it wanst.

Their words (viceversa) are not proof of the truth.

NSGCrusader: It is true because Bush says so.
OD2: Not on my book.

NSGIranian: It is true because the Iranians says so.
OD2: Not on my book.

Except there are reasons to believe that the UK version is the more truthful, given that the UK is a transparent, democratic state, with a government that is accountable to it's people, not to a small clique of religious elites.

The Royal Navy.Bingo.
.
Why on Earth would they want to get fifteen of their men captured, run the risk of a war in the region, only for a smuggling interdiction mission?wait a minute, are you telling me that.. you dont think there has not been any US/UK special ops inside Iranian territory these years. ???

is that what you believe?

Except there are reasons to believe that the UK version is the more truthful, given that the UK is a transparent, democratic state, with a government that is accountable to it's people.Interesting :D

Except there are reasons to believe that the UK version is the more truthful, given that the UK is a transparent, democratic state, with a government that is accountable to it's people, not to a small clique of religious elites.
Well, I wouldn't give our govenment quite that amount of leeway, myself.;)

Bingo.

A historically accurate and responsive servant of the parliament of the United Kingdom, a transparent and responsive democratic governing body.

wait a minute, are you telling me that.. you dont think there has not been any US/UK special ops inside Iranian territory these years. ???

is that what you believe?

I do not believe that at all, and the only "evidence" that exists that such special operations have occurred is a bunch of "unnamed sources" that Sy Hersh trotted out a couple of years ago.

Interesting :D

More like obvious.

the UK is a transparent, democratic state, with a government that is accountable to it's people, not to a small clique.
I lol'd!

But yeah, poor effort there, the Persians.

More like obvious.about the Blair Gov being quite truthful?

hmmm.. lets say I am not going to qualify him, because I have not spent enough time at the UK.

A historically accurate and responsive servant of the parliament of the United Kingdom, a transparent and responsive democratic governing body.silliness.

unless.. you are comparing with the Bush Gov.. but almost everyone looks good compared to Bush.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/01/07/iran.us.navy/index.html

I'm guessing they wanted the U.S. Ships to shoot first so as to cause an 'international incident'. They love to bitch. *nod*

Still, there are safer ways to make a nuisance of yourself than coming within 200 yards of a U.S. warship.

Bombard them with pork chops!

More than that, there is an amount of evidence presented by the pan-Arabic paper Asharq Alawsat that indicates that this incident was actually premeditated, as part of an attempt by the Iranians to force a "prisoner swap."Asharq Allaswat? never heard of them.
And since I am not familiar with them.. I cant say I trust them.

The only known source I am aware of -from that side of the planet- is AlJazeera.

about the Blair Gov being quite truthful?

hmmm.. lets say I am not going to qualify him, because I have not spent enough time at the UK.

You don't need to spend time in a country to understand the quality of governance. First hand experience is not a qualifier for expertise.

about the Blair Gov being quite truthful?

hmmm.. lets say I am not going to qualify him, because I have not spent enough time at the UK.
It's not the Blair government any more...

silliness.

unless.. you are comparing with the Bush Gov.. but almost everyone looks good compared to Bush.

Almost every western leader looks good compared to Bush. Compared to people like the Superfriends of Ahmadinejad, Chavez and Lukashenko he's practically a saint.

It's not the Blair government any more...

It's that nice Mr Broon! He who ransacked the pension funds! :mp5:

about the Blair Gov being quite truthful?

hmmm.. lets say I am not going to qualify him, because I have not spent enough time at the UK.
Blair isn't in charge any more. The forces of Change have begun.

Asharq Allaswat? never heard of them.
And since I am not familiar with them.. I cant say I trust them.

The only known source I am aware of -from that side of the planet- is AlJazeera.

That's an awful lot of the world for you to be ignorant of, then, dearie.

It's not the Blair government any more...I know..

hopefully its an improvement.

Blair isn't in charge any more. The forces of Change have begun.good for you mates. (no I am not Aussie, I just picked up this at NSG.. yes NSG is changing me)

That's an awful lot of the world for you to be ignorant of, then, dearie.known trustable sources.. they dont grow on trees. ;)

good for you mates. (no I am not Aussie, I just picked up this at NSG.. yes NSG is changing me)
Alas, I was being ironic. The new government is the old one by a different name.

Get real. Only someone with low self-esteem needs to react to every provocation. The US Navy isn't looking weak because they let a bunch of speedboats zoom around and refrained from shooting them.

You do realize that even a destroyer holds a compliment of approximately three hundred and fifty personnel? And that said "speedboats" could have destroyed it from a range of two hundred yards without the crew having a chance to respond?

Now, I agree with you that saving lives from being needlessly killed should always be the policy of a military in peacetime, but it would have been a question of three hundred fifty against twenty or so. That's not a question. Had I been in command of that destroyer I'd have fired a warning shot from one mile and sunk them if they came any closer after the warning shot. I wouldn't have taken the risk.

known trustable sources.. they dont grow on trees. ;)

So, Al-Jazeera is trustworthy, but CNN isn't?

So, Al-Jazeera is trustworthy, but CNN isn't?Al-Jazeera? I would say... ~90% trustable

Alas, I was being ironic. The new government is the old one by a different name.not so good for you then..

I cant be too sympathetic, because my situation is probably much worse: I am still stuck-ed with Bush.
-for the last year- the Democratic Front runner + Congress Democratic majority are staying-the-course in Iraq.

Most Republican Candidates are defending his Foreign Policy, Patriot Act and The War on Iraq.
Ron Paul does not have a snowball shot in hell.

I know..

hopefully its an improvement.
Hahaha, no.
Al-Jazeera? I would say... ~90% trustable
Al-Jazeera is muchos bullshit.

Hahaha, no.

Al-Jazeera is muchos bullshit.

That actually depends upon the station and where it is located. I would be willing to trust to an extent the Al-Jazeera networks in Britain and France, but would distrust the networks in the various Arabian nations to a much lesser degree depending upon how authoritarian the government is.

Isn't it a little obvious what is going here? Iran is trying to jack up oil prices.

That actually depends upon the station and where it is located. I would be willing to trust to an extent the Al-Jazeera networks in Britain and France, but would distrust the networks in the various Arabian nations to a much lesser degree depending upon how authoritarian the government is.
As someone who gets it here, it's really not that good a news source. Most of it is just "HURRAY FOR AFGHANISTAN!" and then a bit of biased news, and then some other 30-minute feature on, ooh, Syrian cooking or whatever, and so on and so forth.

As someone who gets it here, it's really not that good a news source. Most of it is just "HURRAY FOR AFGHANISTAN!" and then a bit of biased news, and then some other 30-minute feature on, ooh, Syrian cooking or whatever, and so on and so forth.

At the very least it's an informative source on the culture and history of the Middle East. I'd say if more people watched Al-Jazeera news on occasions, we'd be much more well-informed about Middle Eastern nations and cultures.

It's certainly not Al-Qaeda's personal news service, as some morons seem to believe.

Al-Jazeera? I would say... ~90% trustableIMHO, I think all new stations are biased one way or the other. It's not even really news anymore, just entertainment.

At the very least it's an informative source on the culture and history of the Middle East. I'd say if more people watched Al-Jazeera news on occasions, we'd be much more well-informed about Middle Eastern nations and cultures.

It's certainly not Al-Qaeda's personal news service, as some morons seem to believe.
Quite.

sorry if anyone has already said this, but do we know if this was condoned by the government or just the independent actions of the ship captains? Thanks.

sorry if anyone has already said this, but do we know if this was condoned by the government or just the independent actions of the ship captains? Thanks.we know nothing..
The pentagon is giving their version of the incident to the "World,s free Media"..

..its is -for sure- different from the version given by the Republican Guard to the Alternative media.

so we will still know nothing.. and will have to use our own personal scales of trust for approximative probability (like Laerod call it)

sorry if anyone has already said this, but do we know if this was condoned by the government or just the independent actions of the ship captains? Thanks.

I doubt we'll get a solid answer concerning whether this was sanctioned by the government. The Iranian's like to keep these sort of actions ambiguous. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard in particular is very subversive and autonomous, and would be in a position to influence these kinds of events with or without government approval.

It's speculated that the original British hostage crisis incident was commited by forces loyal to the Revolutionary Guard, without official government sanction, and subsequent Iranian government action was to attempt to save face.

we know nothing.. and when the the pentagon gives their version to the "World,s free Media"..

AND

its is going to be different from the version given by the Republican Guard to the Alternative media.

so we will still have to use our own personal scales of trustiness (like Laerod call it)

In other words, about the only way you're going to find out for sure is if you get that particular captain really drunk and hope he spills it.

Hope you speak Farsi. ;)

we know nothing.. and when the the pentagon gives their version to the "World,s free Media"..

AND

its is going to be different from the version given by the Republican Guard to the Alternative media.
*sighs*

You speak such bullshit, OD.

Slythros - Since the Revolutionary Guard aren't exactly selected due to their amazing initiative and quick-thinking nature, but more how much they're prepared to look after the interests of Iran, I'd say that they were probably told to do this.

In other words, about the only way you're going to find out for sure is if ...Sometimes we never findout.

Sometimes we do, we did get to know how did the Vietnam War started.. but if the military could have kept it secret forever, we would have never known.

In other words, about the only way you're going to find out for sure is if ..or if both sides did nothing wrong, have nothing to lose, and dont need to lie.

In this case you get the same version -of the incident- from both sides.

after the threats were made and the boats came in really close they should have destroyed it. it is obvious from this incident and others in the past that Iran has no respect for international waters and next time an event such as this happens the ships it is happening to should go ahead and open fire.

As someone who gets it here, it's really not that good a news source. Most of it is just "HURRAY FOR AFGHANISTAN!" and then a bit of biased news, and then some other 30-minute feature on, ooh, Syrian cooking or whatever, and so on and so forth.
True. It's not perfect. However...

At the very least it's an informative source on the culture and history of the Middle East. I'd say if more people watched Al-Jazeera news on occasions, we'd be much more well-informed about Middle Eastern nations and cultures.

It's certainly not Al-Qaeda's personal news service, as some morons seem to believe.

...UN Protectorates gets what I mean. What makes it reliable in a sense is more the window it opens onto Middle Eastern nations and cultures. That sort of knowledge is ridiculously valuable to anyone who wants to formulate a semi-decent foreign policy for the Middle East.

this particular thrill is called collective masturbation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-eyuFBrWHs

Oh by the way a mod told me off for posting things off utube, just thought i'd give you prior warning, a bit unfair isn't it?

Oh by the way a mod told me off for posting things off utube, just thought i'd give you prior warning, a bit unfair isn't it?once in a while we get new members complaining about our Mod team..

Whenever I see that, -I cant help to wonder- Why dont these new guys just try to figure their new environment a bit before jumping the gun?

I am glad you are not whining ("a bit unfair isn't it?" is NOT whining).

But to answer your question, No it is not unfair. They dont want this this excellent Political forum to become "America's funniest YouTubes collection".. and they probably have a point.

(## fair posting policy: When I say America here.. I should be saying World.)

once in a while we get new members complaining about our Mod team..

Whenever I see that, -I cant help to wonder- Why dont these new guys just try to figure their new environment a bit before jumping the gun?

I am glad you are not whining ("a bit unfair isn't it?" is not whining).. good for you.

But to answer your question, No it is not unfair. They dont want this this excellent Political forum to become "America's funniest YouTubes collection".. and they have a point.

(## fair posting policy: When I say America here.. I should be saying World.)

..................................................................................:(

..................................................................................:(

Dont be sad, I was trying to be nice with you.

So Iran threatened us with simple Motor Boats? That's just retarded.
They need to find a better way to IRL Troll the US.

Dont be sad, I was trying to be nice with you.

:)

Official US Navy video of the speedboat incident. Seems they turned away when general quarters was called.


http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2008/01/08/sot.iran.us.defense.dept.DOD

Communications tape.

You will have to manually click on the other video to see the longer video of the incident.

That was no spotty tape either. This only confirms that the person in charge should be called on to explain why he put his ship at risk instead of destroying it after that transmission.

Official US Navy video of the speedboat incident. Seems they turned away when general quarters was called.


http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2008/01/08/sot.iran.us.defense.dept.DOD

Communications tape.

You will have to manually click on the other video to see the longer video of the incident.

She got too close to Port Royal. Had the CG opened fire, she would have been in the right. As soon as the transmission was made, I would have commenced firing of the M2s, and I would have been in the right.

She got too close to Port Royal. Had the CG opened fire, she would have been in the right. As soon as the transmission was made, I would have commenced firing of the M2s, and I would have been in the right.

I would have given the order to sink all of them too after that transmission. If they were trying to provoke an incident then I would have gave it to them on this occasion.

That was no spotty tape either. This only confirms that the person in charge should be called on to explain why he put his ship at risk instead of destroying it after that transmission.

I would convene and Admiral's Mast of the CO (can't do a Captain's Mast as he is the Captain). It would be NJP, but would still send the message that he made an error. It would not be fore his failure to fire, but his failure to call GQ earlier.

I would have given the order to sink all of them too after that transmission. If they were trying to provoke an incident then I would have gave it to them on this occasion.

The thing is that sinking that speedboat would not escalate into anything more. Most people here don't understand that. If we could sink half the Iranian Navy and not have a war (See: Operation Preying Mantis) then sinking a speedboat making a direct threat sure as hell will not start a war. Iran is just testing us to see how far they can go. Opening fire would have given them a nice lesson.

The thing is that sinking that speedboat would not escalate into anything more. Most people here don't understand that. If we could sink half the Iranian Navy and not have a war (See: Operation Preying Mantis) then sinking a speedboat making a direct threat sure as hell will not start a war. Iran is just testing us to see how far they can go. Opening fire would have given them a nice lesson.


Without a doubt. That is why they should have not hesitated in sinking them after the threat was made. I can't think of why they were not sunk. They had every right to do it and probably should have.

So first the Chinese Subs, now Iranian speedboats. Anyone sense a worldwide plot to destroy America :p?

The thing is that sinking that speedboat would not escalate into anything more. Most people here don't understand that. If we could sink half the Iranian Navy and not have a war (See: Operation Preying Mantis) then sinking a speedboat making a direct threat sure as hell will not start a war. Iran is just testing us to see how far they can go. Opening fire would have given them a nice lesson.
Nice warmongering, but I guess being a Zionist it comes naturally.

Nice warmongering, but I guess being a Zionist it comes naturally.

You are really funny.

Nice warmongering, but I guess being a Zionist it comes naturally.

I happen to agree with IDF on this point so does that make me an ebil Muslim?

I must say, that the situation is one impossible for the commander. On one hand, he could fire, within his right to do so seeing as they warned them enough and were given shit in return. (By fire, I mean warning shot) He would get ripped apart by the media, however.

Or, as he did, he couldn't do much but let them go about. As he could either tell them to beat it, which they did, or start warning them with shells. Since the first failed and the other would cause an international incident, he could do nothing really.

Official US Navy video of the speedboat incident.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2008/01/08/sot.iran.us.defense.dept.DOD

Communications tape.LOL.. I cant wait for Jon Stewart to use his own voice to try to imitate the voice on that DOD Audio clip.

You will have to manually click on the other video to see the longer video of the incident.your link is only Audio, DOD says they have a video but I dont know if they want to show it.

and the voice is so "Halloween" :D

LOL.. I cant wait for Jon Stewart to use his own voice to try to imitate the voice on that DOD Audio clip.

I could see him doing that. Should be funny. ;)

so far I only hear an audio, No video.

and the voice is so "Halloween" :D

Hmm maybe something is wrong with your puter. The video is very good and shows the Iranians fairly well. You can even hear one of the officers saying that they are warning them with lights and such right before the warning bell rings.

I must say, that the situation is one impossible for the commander. IMO Its much the same as with the Chinese sub.. + a funny voice :D

Hmm maybe something is wrong with your puter. The video is very good ...do you have a link for the unedited Video?



Pentagon has video, audio of Strait of Hormuz incident
Tue Jan 8, 2:56 PM ETWASHINGTON (AFP) - The Pentagon has video and audio tape of an incident in the Strait of Hormuz Sunday in which armed Iranian speedboats swarmed three US warships and radioed a threat to blow them up, officials said Tuesday.

"There was video of the incident and it is in the process of being reviewed, There is some audio on the videotape also," said Colonel Gary Keck, a Pentagon spokesman.

Keck said he did not know whether the video would be released.

A Pentagon official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said he understood that the audio portion of the tape includes the threat radioed by one of the Iranian vessels to blow up the US ships.

can you post your link to the Video?

his link (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2008/01/08/sot.iran.us.defense.dept.DOD) is for the DOD audio.

That is the link I posted. It is the video but it appears you don't have the right plug in for it. Here is a link for a 28mb dowload from the DoD itself.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/briefingslide.aspx?briefingslideid=320

That is the link I posted. It is the video but it appears you don't have the right plug in for it. Here is a link for a 28mb dowload from the DoD itself.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/briefingslide.aspx?briefingslideid=320

Thanks. Who said NSG is not a great source of information?

http://www.defenselink.mil/dodcmsshare/briefingslide%5C320%5C080107-D-6570C-001.wmv

I would have given the order to sink all of them too after that transmission. If they were trying to provoke an incident then I would have gave it to them on this occasion.

When in fact, now he should be punished for endangering his people when he didn't respond to clear and present danger. The second they got that transmission, they should have destroyed all of those ships.

...the captain's duty is clear. He should've sunk those gunboats.

I'm of the opinion that they would've been in the right for opening fire.

The boat within 200' should simply not have been allowed that close, period.

As soon as the transmission was made, I would have commenced firing of the M2s, and I would have been in the right.

Had I been in command of that destroyer I'd have fired a warning shot from one mile and sunk them if they came any closer after the warning shot. I wouldn't have taken the risk.

...next time an event such as this happens the ships it is happening to should go ahead and open fire.

ALL of these statements assume that the CO did NOT have direct orders to avoid any provacative action (including a warning shot), unless the ships witnessed an overt aggressive act.

Since we do not know one way or another whether such orders have been issued, it is rather short-sighted to start heaping blame on the CO when he may well have been following orders from his superiors.

It's more a testament to global opinion than political correctness. The US has far more to lose than simply a ship by returning fire, and Iran knows it.

Very true, and that is the principle reason that I suspect the CO did not fire...because he was under orders not to do so. We'd much rather the Iranians fire the first shot, even if we lose a ship as a result...it gives us more diplomatic and political leverage.

I would convene and Admiral's Mast of the CO (can't do a Captain's Mast as he is the Captain). It would be NJP, but would still send the message that he made an error. It would not be fore his failure to fire, but his failure to call GQ earlier.

Now THAT actually makes some sense.

ALL of these statements assume that the CO did NOT have direct orders to avoid any provacative action (including a warning shot), unless the ships witnessed an overt aggressive act.

Since we do not know one way or another whether such orders have been issued, it is rather short-sighted to start heaping blame on the CO when he may well have been following orders from his superiors.


You are absolutely right, and I feel somewhat ashamed I did not even consider that possibility. I was presenting what I would do in the situation presuming I did not have such orders.

Had I such orders, then I think I probably would have done exactly what the CO did.
[/QUOTE]

You are absolutely right, and I feel somewhat ashamed I did not even consider that possibility. I was presenting what I would do in the situation presuming I did not have such orders.

Had I such orders, then I think I probably would have done exactly what the CO did.
[/QUOTE]

I would have gone to GQ earlier, but otherwise, yeah.

So first the Chinese Subs, now Iranian speedboats. Anyone sense a worldwide plot to destroy America :p?
It's a pretty weak one, to be honest.

we know nothing..

The pentagon is giving their version of the incident to the "World,s free Media"..

..its is -for sure- different from the version given by the Republican Guard to the Alternative media.

so we will still know nothing *sighs*

You speak such bullshit, OD.why is that? you really expect -both- the Iranian and the US govs to have the same versions?

If thats what you expect, your brain is simple-minded beyond repair. My condolences.

USA is the agressor because if this happened and Im saying if cause its probably a lie but even if this happened Usa is the agressor because the USA shouldnt have ships in the persian gulf as they dont have any claims on land close to the persian gulf.

USA is the agressor ...I cant agree, because I dont know exactly what happened..

The only thing i can say about all of this is: Yes the US gov lied about the incident used to start the Vietnam war.. and if there is a war on Iran, it is going to be a similar Lie.

I cant agree, because I dont know exactly what happened..

The only thing i can say about all of this is: Yes the US gov lied about the incident used to start the Vietnam war.. and if there is a war on Iran, it is going to be a similar Lie.



You forgot Iraq there m8

You forgot Iraq there m8Iraq is different because no "incident" was used to Jumpstart the war.

Was there "Lies"? ... Yes plenty.

Iraq is different because no "incident" was used the Jumpstart the war.

Was there "Lies"? ... Yes plenty.


Oh yeah you are right I didnt see that you wrote incident.

why is that? you really expect -both- the Iranian and the US govs to have the same versions?

If thats what you expect, your brain is simple-minded beyond repair. My condolences.
Jesus Christ, OD. Obviously not.

More just the whole "World's Free Media" comment.
USA is the agressor because if this happened and Im saying if cause its probably a lie but even if this happened Usa is the agressor because the USA shouldnt have ships in the persian gulf as they dont have any claims on land close to the persian gulf.
Err...

The USA doesn't have ships in Persian waters. The Persian Gulf and the bit that the Persians control are not one and the same, after all.

I reckon it was probably Iran trying to keep the price of oil high, so that the currently weak economy gets a chance to grow a bit, enough so that the Persians can get a couple of refineries up, so that they become more self-dependant.

Jesus Christ, OD. Obviously not.

More just the whole "World's Free Media" comment.

Err...

The USA doesn't have ships in Persian waters. The Persian Gulf and the bit that the Persians control are not one and the same, after all.

I reckon it was probably Iran trying to keep the price of oil high, so that the currently weak economy gets a chance to grow a bit, enough so that the Persians can get a couple of refineries up, so that they become more self-dependant.



Did I say that they had ships in persian waters? NO is the answer to that questions so stop lying

And Im sorry but you reckoning that it was Iran just doesnt convince me.

Jesus Christ, OD. Obviously not.

More just the whole "World's Free Media" comment.my mistake.
I retract my reply.

My comment to mock the "World free Media" is because they will publish the "bad guys" version.. 2-20 hours after they published the "Good guys" version.

One side effects -of the delay- is that some simple-minded people get all upset, and take positions against the "bad Guys" before they hear the other side of the story.

These simple-minded people will say things like "Oh my God !!!, I would have bombed them out of the water :mp5::mp5::sniper::mp5: "

USA is the agressor because if this happened and Im saying if cause its probably a lie but even if this happened Usa is the agressor because the USA shouldnt have ships in the persian gulf as they dont have any claims on land close to the persian gulf.

International Waters means exactly that: International. No one has any greater claim to be there than anyone else.

I cant agree, because I dont know exactly what happened..

The only thing i can say about all of this is: Yes the US gov lied about the incident used to start the Vietnam war.. and if there is a war on Iran, it is going to be a similar Lie.

Several things:

First, the Gulf of Tonkin incident was an event that happened nearly a half century ago, in 1964, and most everyone who was involved in government around that time is either an antique loon like Kiss-Kiss or Mac-Daddy or buried in some cold, hard winter ground. I can hardly see how an event that happend 44 years ago can be successfully used as evidence against a government today.

Second, the Gulf of Tonkin was not a manufactured incident, and that there was indeed an NVA attack on the Maddox of some sort. What is questionable is the fact that the Johnson administration hyped up the event to get the legislation it wanted, and exaggerated the incident so as to include a fictitious attack on the Turner Joy.

International Waters means exactly that: International. No one has any greater claim to be there than anyone else.True.















... and that is why we cant bomb the Iranian boats or the Chinese sub.. -apparently- unless we can tape some ridicule things they (or someone) say over the radio.

True.

... and that is why we cant bomb the Iranian boats or the Chinese sub.. -apparently- unless we can tape some ridicule things they (or someone) say over the radio.

Unless there's significant evidence of provocation and/or, which there might have been here.

But that's not particularly relevant, in this instance, the US Navy did not fire on the Revolutionary Guard speedboats, and in thus showing restraint, paints the Iranians as the aggressors and provocators.

As it stands, In these circumstances, I have not advocated taking that course of action, rather, I am relieved that our sailors acted with restraint and tact.

Unless there's significant evidence of provocation and/or, which there might have been here.might have.. is the same word I would use.

‘Filipino Monkey’ behind threats?

The threatening radio transmission heard at the end of a video showing harassing maneuvers by Iranian patrol boats in the Strait of Hormuz may have come from a locally famous heckler known among ship drivers as the “Filipino Monkey.”

Since the Jan. 6 incident was announced to the public a day later, the U.S. Navy has said it’s unclear where the voice came from. In the videotape released by the Pentagon on Jan. 8, the screen goes black at the very end and the voice can be heard, distancing it from the scenes on the water.

“We don’t know for sure where they came from,” said Cmdr. Lydia Robertson, spokeswoman for 5th Fleet in Bahrain. “It could have been a shore station.”

While the threat — “I am coming to you. You will explode in a few minutes” — was picked up during the incident, further jacking up the tension, there’s no proof yet of its origin. And several Navy officials have said it’s difficult to figure out who’s talking.

Indeed, the voice in the audio sounds different from the one belonging to an Iranian officer shown speaking to the cruiser Port Royal over a radio from a small open boat in the video released by Iranian authorities. He is shown in a radio exchange at one point asking the U.S. warship to change from the common bridge-to-bridge channel 16 to another channel, perhaps to speak to the Navy without being interrupted.

Further, there’s none of the background noise in the audio released by the U.S. that would have been picked up by a radio handset in an open boat.

“For 25 years there’s been this mythical guy out there who, hour after hour, shouts obscenities and threats,” he said. “He could be tied up pierside somewhere or he could be on the bridge of a merchant ship.”

And the Monkey has stamina.

“He used to go all night long. The guy is crazy,” he said. “But who knows how many Filipino Monkeys there are? Could it have been a spurious transmission? Absolutely.”
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/01/navy_hormuz_iran_radio_080111/

So it could have been an old-fashioned radio troll behind this? Hmm...

USA is the agressor because if this happened and Im saying if cause its probably a lie but even if this happened Usa is the agressor because the USA shouldnt have ships in the persian gulf as they dont have any claims on land close to the persian gulf.

The Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf is international waters, which means anyone can have ships there if they want.

Thus, the aggressor was in fact the Iranian speedboats, because they were the ones that approached within the exclusion zone of the destroyers and they were the ones who made the threatening message.

Had the destroyers been in Iranian waters, then yes they would have been the aggressors, but as they were in international waters, the Iranians were the aggressors.

Because of the bad press. It's just another example of the media affecting the decisions of troops in the field.I agree.



in times of War - The national media is just another weapon.

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/01/navy_hormuz_iran_radio_080111/

So it could have been an old-fashioned radio troll behind this? Hmm...

You mean there are trolls outside of NSG that can actually do real harm?
I wonder when we are going to see this troll "Filipino Monkey" show up on NSG.

One got within 200 ft. Why wasn't it blown out of the water is beyond me. as long as they dont touch you they have not broken any international waters rules..

In international waters - whoever shoots first is to blame.

You mean there are trolls outside of NSG that can actually do real harm?
I wonder when we are going to see this troll "Filipino Monkey" show up on NSG.

Hi.

:D

they should of made some "yo momma" jokes or possibly called France and bitched like we did

Like, "Yo momma's so ugly, she wears a suit to cover it up"? jks

I agree.



in times of War - The national media is just another weapon.

For or against the enemy, as it were.

Hi.

:fluffle:

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/01/navy_hormuz_iran_radio_080111/

So it could have been an old-fashioned radio troll behind this? Hmm...

That's like 99 Luftballoons, only without everyone dying.

For or against the enemy, as it were.in times of war - National media is extremely Nationalistic, just take a look at the German media during WW2..











same goes for US media, Japanese media, British media , etc.

Hi. I am coming at you. You will blow up in two minutes.

Whaa? Who are you coming at? Blow who up???

That's like 99 Luftballoons, only without everyone dying.had the sinking of the Iranian boat resulted in a big War.. It would be the fault of what side? US or them?

That was the comments on a Times Online article and you know damn well that is general attitude towards every incident like that.apparently the Times online is not as stupid/Nationalist/blind as FOX/CNN.. props to this UK media

"As if a suicide bomber will send a radio message out prior to powering his boat close to American warships... Makes me believe the Iranian version more than the American.Logic 101
.
"Are we building to a Gulf of Tonkin style false-flag event in order that Cheyney gets his war with Iran before the Democrats take office?"Are we?
.
"The NEOCONs are itching for a war with Iran;yep.

I would have thought a real terrorist wouldn't have said something so ridiculous, i honestly laughed after i watched that, "in a few minutes you will blow up, No in a few minutes you will blow up", silly.

in times of war - National media is extremely Nationalistic, just take a look at the German media during WW2..

same goes for US media, Japanese media, British media , etc.:rolleyes:

You can't make the argument that what counts for a government regulated press also counts for a free press. Whether or not there are similarities can't be based on the cause "it's war-time".

had the sinking of the Iranian boat resulted in a big War.. It would be the fault of what side? US or them?

Both, to varying degrees, or even more disturbingly, neither, especially if the circumstances militated correctly. In theory, small actors such as the helmsman on the speedboat, or the jumpy trigger finger of a sailor onboard a cruiser could have made the difference between war and peace, an unplanned mistake could have caused it.

You can't make the argument that what counts for a government regulated press also counts for a free press. what is "the free press" you are talking about? Give me some examples CNN? AP?

lets see if they pass my test for being bias Free

Let's see if your qualifications for "Free" are anywhere near in line with everyone else's qualifications for being "Free", especially those of the experts.sure.


I am waiting for you best example of "free press" organization.
obviously it has to be a known institution.. your local college gazette does not need to apply.
give me your best shot ;)

BTW my opinion is that the words "free press" .. have become a tag word used by the politicians.. its just like the word "terrorist"

what is "the free press" you are talking about? Give me some examples CNN? AP?

lets see if they pass my test for being bias Free

Let's see if your qualifications for "Free" are anywhere near in line with everyone else's qualifications for being "Free", especially those of the experts.

sure.

I am waiting for you best example of "free press" organization.
obviously it has to be a known institution.. your local college gazette does not need to apply.
give me your best shot ;)Timewarp !!! FTW :D

:fluffle:

What can I say? I had to do it.