Iranian ships provoke American Warships

[hossam]

My stance has been if there is need to fire, fire away. This was the case here, but the Iranians turned around before the order was executed. Had they fired, I would not fault them, nor should anyone. Fortunately, as I said earlier a couple of times, they turned around and there was no need to fire. I already said I have no problem with them not fireing once the Iranians retreated.

My issue and participation in this thread is with your cowardly and unAmerican post:



In the context of this story, I took this to mean you would ignore obvious threats to avoid upsetting Iran, and rightfully called you out. I don't want war with Iran either, but your attitude is pathetic. (not to mention fireing on these boats would not have started a war like you imagine)

Later in the discussion, you downplayed the seriousness of the threat the Iranians posed, expressed distrust in our servicemen, and generally argued against the sailors defending themselves. Save your pacifist, wussy, world-peace, arguments for the ladies at the College Democrat meetings, they will work well for you. But never buy your own bull . .. .. .. ., that is rule number one.

it doesnt seem to me like he was a pacifist preaching world peace, more like a guy who thinks its better not to go to war when the consequences outwiegh the benefits.

 

[Godwynn]

My issue and participation in this thread is with your cowardly and unAmerican post:

Ofcourse, unAmerican...

In the context of this story, I took this to mean you would ignore obvious threats to avoid upsetting Iran, and rightfully called you out. I don't want war with Iran either, but your attitude is pathetic. (not to mention fireing on these boats would not have started a war like you imagine)

What the hell do you think I meant? If Iran attacks us we just sit back?! That is not provocation.

Later in the discussion, you downplayed the seriousness of the threat the Iranians posed, expressed distrust in our servicemen, and generally argued against the sailors defending themselves. Save your pacifist, wussy, world-peace, arguments for the ladies at the College Democrat meetings, they will work well for you. But never buy your own bull . .. .. .. ., that is rule number one.

The seriousness of the threat? They are damn PT boats. PT boats. PT boats. PT boats.

I am not a pacifist, or a wuss. This conversation shows more about you than me. I am starting to think that your only defense is acting out like a child in a playground.

 

[cubsfan6506]

My issue and participation in this thread is with your cowardly and unAmerican post:

Assuming you think the same about me I am perfectly willing to justify my un patriotic action. I am not a patriot. I do not feel any loyalty to any nations and feel that nationalism of any kind is bad for this planet.

 

[Godwynn]

Godwynn, look up the USS Cole. Thats why. I believe we are well within our right to blow the living crap out of an Iranian craft that ignores warnings to stay away from a proscribed distance.

I know about the USS. I do not advocate letting PT Boats zoom next to our ships and let them plant explosives on them.

What I know is that the PT Boat sent out a threat, dropped two white boxes into the water, then turned tail and ran.

Hardly convincing evidence to start another war.

 

[MobBoss]

I know about the USS. I do not advocate letting PT Boats zoom next to our ships and let them plant explosives on them.

Uh...your understanding of this is a little off. They dont need to plant explosives on the hull. The fear is that the ships will simply detonate close enough to damage our ships. How close they need to be to damage our ships depends on much much explosive they are carrying. Patrol craft like this can be from 35' to 100' feet in length and can also carry AS capable weaponry. They are also fast.

The point being if these ships are allowed to get within 200 yards, there is a absolute risk that they could get close enough, fast enough, that they could detonate explosives in their hold to damage our ships before our shipboard weapons destroyed the incoming craft.

Hardly convincing evidence to start another war.

Blowing the living hell out of an Iranian craft too agressive for its own good that ignored calls to stay away wouldnt start another war. Some people, Rosie O'Donnel maybe, would say how evil the americans are for protecting their own ships, and the Iranians would whine and cry about it; but it wouldnt necessarily be the start of another war. If anything, it would show the Iranians to stay the hell away from our ships - which is precisely what we want them to do.

 

[Godwynn]

Uh...your understanding of this is a little off. They dont need to plant explosives on the hull. The fear is that the ships will simply detonate close enough to damage our ships. How close they need to be to damage our ships depends on much much explosive they are carrying. Patrol craft like this can be from 35' to 100' feet in length and can also carry AS capable weaponry. They are also fast.

The point being if these ships are allowed to get within 200 yards, there is a absolute risk that they could get close enough, fast enough, that they could detonate explosives in their hold to damage our ships before our shipboard weapons destroyed the incoming craft.

Okay, taking your word at face value. Would you have fired at the patrol boats today had you been in charge?

Would you have fired then?

 

[cubsfan6506]

Just thought of this now. Does this remin anyone else of other incidents that happened in Gulfs.

 

[Godwynn]

Just thought of this now. Does this remin anyone else of other incidents that happened in Gulfs.

The Gulf of Tonkin, which apparently the second attack did not occur then. I take everything I hear from the government with a grain of salt.

Including "You are going to explode."

 

[cubsfan6506]

Yup. I in fact don't even believe this. "We are going to blow you up." Sounds like a line from a bad guy out of G.I joe.

 

[MobBoss]

Okay, taking your word at face value. Would you have fired at the patrol boats today had you been in charge?

Would you have fired then?

The world has changed a bit since your little picture hasnt it?

We have been attacked in the past by a small explosive laden ship by Iranian backed terrorists. I dont hesitate to think that they would endeavor to do so again if we permitted them to.

Just like I would fire on a vehicle that ignores a check point warning and continues to speed ahead, I sure as hell would fire on a patrol boat that did the same....and for the same reasons.

If beligerants refuse to comply with such warnings and continue approach, any altercation that occurs is upon their head....not ours.

 

[Captain2]

Oh no someone used their brain for two seconds and didn't mindlessly follow authority.

actually I'd imagine on this forum it would be far easier to take the left side of things, I respect his guts if not his ideas

and America is in no danger from Iran, they can hurt the US more if occupied then they can in their current state

quite frankly I tend to believe that bombing the crap out of a nation because they sailed towards a warship in a threatening manner is a little less than a Casus Beli

 

[sonorakitch]

Thank you, now you get it. I am against the Iraq War, who knew?

Well, really, you'd have to be against any deployment of any servicemember anywhere in the world if you didn't expect commanders and other military personell from weighing the importance of diplomatic crisis with personal, unit, or in this case, vessel security.

We have to understand that any servicemember serving worldwide has been trained relentlessely in dealing with situations like this one. The commanders of these vessels did the right thing in this incident, but any closer and the diplomatic trauma would have been worth saving the lives of these naval personell in international waters.

~Chris

 

[Bronx Warlord]

No but Iran certainly isn't the bad guys. Who knows who the worse guys are.

They have been responsible, knowingly and indirectly as well as some cases directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans. Are you dense? They are killing your fellow Americans.

That does not make them the bad guys?!?!?!?!?!

What kind of dicked up, ******** glue sniffing logic is that? I'm tempted to ask what is wrong with you but I doubt you even know. That has to be without a doubt the most ******** thing I have read on CFC ever. Yes, forget Zulu, George or that braindead 420 kid. You my friend are simply not in reality.

Ironicly, chances are you will take offense to my words. Yet you don't take offense to the killing of your fellow citizens. Amazing.

 

[Captain2]

They have been responsible, knowingly and indirectly as well as some cases directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans. Are you dense? They are killing your fellow Americans.

That does not make them the bad guys?!?!?!?!?!

What kind of dicked up, ******** glue sniffing logic is that? I'm tempted to ask what is wrong with you but I doubt you even know. That has to be without a doubt the most ******** thing I have read on CFC ever. Yes, forget Zulu, George or that braindead 420 kid. You my friend are simply not in reality.

Ironicly, chances are you will take offense to my words. Yet you don't take offense to the killing of your fellow citizens. Amazing.

I think you forgot to call him a Doo-Doo head

 

[LesCanadiens]

They have been responsible, knowingly and indirectly as well as some cases directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans. Are you dense? They are killing your fellow Americans.

For all the aggressive rhetoric, however, the Bush administration has provided scant evidence to support these claims. Nor have reporters traveling with U.S. troops seen extensive signs of Iranian involvement. During a recent sweep through a stronghold of Sunni insurgents here, a single Iranian machine gun turned up among dozens of arms caches U.S. troops uncovered. British officials have similarly accused Iran of meddling in Iraqi affairs, but say they have not found Iranian-made weapons in areas they patrol.

The lack of publicly disclosed evidence has led to questions about whether the administration is overstating its case. Some suggest Bush and his aides are pointing to Iran to deflect blame for U.S. setbacks in Iraq. Others suggest they are laying the foundation for a military strike against Iran.

http://globalpolicy.org/empire//intervention/iran/general/2007/0123iraniraqarms.htm

Remember, USA is the one who has been attacking Iranian consulates, not the other way around. Legally, that's an attack on sovereign Iranian soil.

 

[Taliesin]

Actually, I'm surprised it took this long for somebody to mention Tonkin. Or the Maine, for that matter. Apparently, unconfirmed military accounts of happenings on boats are not to be trusted.

 

[Bronx Warlord]

Actually, I'm surprised it took this long for somebody to mention Tonkin. Or the Maine, for that matter. Apparently, unconfirmed military accounts of happenings on boats are not to be trusted.

Or that little incident that brought us into world war one. So I guess it can go both ways.

 

[Taliesin]

Or that little incident that brought us into world war one. So I guess it can go both ways.

That too.

 

[Bronx Warlord]

http://globalpolicy.org/empire//intervention/iran/general/2007/0123iraniraqarms.htm

Remember, USA is the one who has been attacking Iranian consulates, not the other way around. Legally, that's an attack on sovereign Iranian soil.

Oh so the whole takeover of our embassy must not count? I guess these EFP's that are being used as well as weapons and funding are just our imagination.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/29/AR2006122901510.html

This is pretty intresting.

One of the commanders, identified by officials simply as Chizari, was the third-highest-ranking official of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards' al-Quds Brigade, the unit most active in aiding, arming and training groups outside Iran, including Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad, U.S. officials said.

Here is some more

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124835,00.html

And another

http://cristyli.blogspot.com/2007/10/iranian-intelligence-agent-arrested-in.html

And suprise here is some more

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/041122/22iran.htm

Little something about the EFP, an Iranian favorite

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htweap/articles/20070413.aspx

Some more

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/11/iraq/main2458318.shtml

From the new york times, that bastion of conservative journalism

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/18/world/middleeast/18military.html

I'd say, considering you have usa news, nyt, fox and cbs all taking note... chances are it's pretty true. Oh wait. That and I've seen some of it with my own eyes

 

[Julian Delphiki]

i just saw on the news that 2 f-18s went down over the gulf, not sure if its related or not.

it sounds to me that the Iranians are trying to get killed to make the US look bad, but that doesn't make any sense

Two U.S. Navy F/A-18 Super Hornets -- flying off the aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman -- crashed Monday night in the Persian Gulf, U.S. Navy officials said.

The aircrafts' three aviators were recovered safely after they ejected from the jets -- a single-seat F/A-18E and two-seat F/A-18F.

The U.S. Navy did not immediately know the cause of the F/A-18 crash.

There is no indication of hostile fire action, the officials said.

The incident is not related to Sunday's confrontation between three U.S. Navy warships and five Iranian boats, Navy officials said

Link

Apparently they crashed to each other (reported by Finnish newspaper Helsingin Sanomat, didn't find that from google news yet), or Iranians threw stones at them