News – The incident, which President Bush denounced Tuesday as a "provocative act," was videotaped by a crew member on the bridge of the destroyer USS Hopper, 1 of 3 ships that faced down five Iranian boats in a flare-up early Sunday.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
Alexiss
TvTop
yarrkz24
iarthritis
jorgepratt19711962
iteen
inursing
inutrition
iwellness
ialzheimers
11zmzyz
hypergate
inatural
imarathon
elliotthicks1965
complicious
Muraha
Kaileena
redbarin
daducha
BJTJ
DiffeeOnline
Raiderwall
mickoleon
Will1313
dissent
NelsonR
jewelryadviser
injest
cannond700
allasam
Anti.trust
flicktrick
endtyranny
Redneck
gamahuche
Eagle Eye
aaronherman
bcoynejr
bluetexasvalley
baddad59
BoBo in Texas
avpd85
JamesMarcus
vdmpr
thomazsm
Helixbuilder
tonks21
Klarissa
4cprocess
315)
Wow.
playing with fire, but Ahmanutjob will get some good press out of it. taking on the great satan and all that bull, just another stunt by a suicidal madman.
and great restraint on the part of the US Navy, them idiots should be in the brig or the morgue, and their pretty little speedboats should be in Davy Jones Locker.
http://patdollard.com/2008/01/08/video-20-years...
here's a vid from 1988, the US Navy reacting to fire in the straights from the Iranians
Link does not work.
sorry, propeller censores a word in the link.
go here: http://patdollard.com/ and op praying mantis
or to: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=555_1199823946
I am surprised we went in close with the copters and then landing marines. I would have just launched a few tomahawks. Too bad we don't still have the Iowa class battleships around. I would have loved to what a 16 inch broadside would have done. Great video.
Thanks!
Back than, tomahawks were toooooo expensive.
Now they are "just" in the couple hundred thousand range, IIRC.
But nothing shows "resolve" like putting your men's lives on the line.
"Too bad we don't still have the Iowa class battleships"
Nothing says hello quit like a 16 in. blast across the bow!
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/6747...
And nothing says goodbye like five little boxes in the water, LOL. I love it. A US Naval Group bamboozled by a handful of desert nomads in speedboats no bigger than my ski boat. Just come on home where you belong boys, and maybe the fearsome Persian Armada will stay at home too.
they are known as puddle pirates,
and they are very well armed, and were executing a mission
probe and response,
And what do these "puddle" pirates have to gain from attacking a warship?
Who gained from the attack on the USS Cole?
The Cole was done by Al Qaeda who we seem to have a little trouble finding these past few years. Iran is pretty easily found, it's that big puddle of oil between Iraq and Pakistan. So getting back to the question, what would Iran gain from attacking a US warship?
"The Cole was done by Al Qaeda who we seem to have a little trouble finding these past few years."
al-queda has been found around the world as evidenced by their numerous mass-murder attacks. If you mean finding the titular head of al-queda most experts agree he is hiding in northwest Pakistan in the barbaric, lawless region that exists there.
"So getting back to the question, what would Iran gain from attacking a US warship?" I will try to explain in simple words.
1. Iran pulls the tiger's tail and the tiger only growls. Iran dances with glee and leaves the assumption that the tiger is afraid of it.
2. Iran's boats are sunk and Iran dances with glee saying that the ships were only "identifying" plainly marked US warships.
3. A US warship is harmed or sunk and Iran dances with glee leaving the assumption that US forces are vulnerable and weak.
4. A US warship is harmed or sunk and Iran is blockaded. Iran cries "I'm a victim".
5. A US warship is harmed or sunk and Iran is hit with a crippling air assault. Iran stops pulling the tiger's tail.
Discuss and feel free to ask questions.
We have exactly 2 valid reasons to be anywhere in the Middle East: PEACEFUL commerce, and PEACEFUL diplomacy. Conducting military operations there is expensive and counterproductive. The Iranians have no reason to fear us because even if we kill them they will go to heaven, so the very best we will ever come off there is the same level of barbarity we claim to be fighting. There is no reason for them NOT to taunt us, and I for one think it is funny. Watching our pres on his indignant high horse is hysterical.
A lot of people do not understand that basic difference in our would views (our being US and Iran), and the effect it has on how perceive and react to different things.
Iran did not care about what happened to the guys who got scared and cold at Abu Ghraib, but it was a spectacular opportunity to tweak us, at no cost.
The IRG has the martyr complex thing to a T, but not the same way we in the west see it.
lol...their gambit is so much more sophisticated that what you've described. Go read Clauzewitz' treatise on objectives of limited objective offensive actions.
yes, absolutely correct. they were there to provoke reactions and study responses, a sound military tactic executed well. I don't have to hate my enemy to kill them and I can admire work well done. I'll still kill them if I have to but this is routine stuff. Hopefully, we're doing the same thing with our enemies.
Hmmm...a couple of little speed boats "harassing" several big, bad US military ships. The Iranians are stupid if they did that, but seems to me we have over-reacted, too. Comparable to anyone trying to swat a few flies buzzing around their heads. Take it all in stride, America...be on guard, but don't do anything so stupid you'll regret it later.
"The Iranians are stupid if they did that, but seems to me we have over-reacted, too." How did we over-react? Did you forget the USS Cole?
A "little speedboat" that killed several sailors and almost sank the ship.
A better comparison would be when the Egyptian navy sunk Israel's flagship in 1967, They did it with little more than a speed boat armed with missiles. 47 sailors were lost.
And it almost seemed like the Israeli's learned, until the ship this last bit of fighting. If you look, the details are very similar.
17 were killed, and 39 injured, to be accurate. The USS Cole was attacked in harbor, not on the high seas, which makes a big difference. Also, there were 3 US ships present, making any attack on them highly improbable. Not impossible, mind you, just unlikey. I just think it's a good thing the captain had the smarts to keep his/her cool and not fire upon them, making the situation possibly worse. I can imagine a captain like our fearless leader, Bush, being there, firing first and asking questions later. Then we'd be in another mess.
"17 were killed, and 39 injured, to be accurate. The USS Cole was attacked in harbor, not on the high seas, which makes a big difference."
Nonsense, we know from past experience what damage small, high speed boats filled with explosives can do. In international waters or at port, the danger is the same.
"Also, there were 3 US ships present, making any attack on them highly improbable."
More nonsense. Suicide attacks are not "highly improbable". 1,3 or 10 targets. Makes no difference.
"I just think it's a good thing the captain had the smarts to keep his/her cool and not fire upon them, making the situation possibly worse."
Not nonsense. Showed a great deal of restraint.
"I can imagine a captain like our fearless leader, Bush, being there, firing first and asking questions later."
I can imagine that under Bush's leadership, orders were given to use maximum restraint. The outcome is clear on that point.
"I can imagine a captain like our fearless leader, Bush, being there, firing first and asking questions later"
You can " imagine" all you want. But why? Bush is in charge we did not firing first and asking questions later.
Seems what you "imagine" contradicts reality.
Can you " imagine" this? One of our ships is entering the port of Yemen, a small boat heads for our ship loaded with explosives, but fortunately it sinks cause they over loaded it.
Now 5 months later "imagine" another ship entering the port of Yemen, a small boat heads for our ship loaded with explosives. The Captain of the ship has no knowledge of the attempt 5 months earlier and takes no extra precautions, bummer cause this time the small boat hit its target.
So what does that tell us about the commander in chief who with held knowledge of the attempt 5 months earlier?
Reality check none of this has to be "imagined" it all really happened.
By having battleships in the Gulf of Hormuz, maybe? By having troops in Iraq and Afganistan, maybe? By all the current sabre-rattling at Iran, maybe? By torturing captives, maybe? How long a list would you like of how we have over-reacted, and how far back would you like to go? I think this is hysterical! They wave a red flag at the bull and the bull RUNS AWAY!
If you read the latest article, we're not even sure if the speedboats were from Iran!! One Lt. Cmdr says she saw an Iranian flag, but no flags are visible in the video!! And the threatening message received over the radio "You will explode"...we're not sure it even came from one of the five speedboats...it could have come from another ship, or from a land-based site. This is what I mean by over-reacting...making big assumptions when we don't even have the facts. Just like the bad intel that got us into Iraq.
Right, could have been anyone threatening the warships. The fact that the boats were swerving in the path of the warships and dropping devices that required evasive manuevers was coincidental.
Devices? As in explosive devices? How do you know they were? There were no explosions. Not then, nor since then. Show me the proof that whatever was drooped into the water was dangerous to the ships.
As far as the swerving goes, the 5 speedboats were not in the direct path of the ships. Read the article! They were port (to the left, in case you're not nautically knowledgeable). Dropping whatever they dropped into the waters was not in the direct path of the US ships. If you're going to write here, at least try to get the facts straight!
"The boats split into two formations, zoomed around the ships and radioed a threat that U.S. ships would explode. Crew on two of the boats dropped two boxes in the path of the Ingraham."
How about _you_ do some reading before writing here?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-01...
dropped boxes...lol....the IRG has 200 mph Soviet designed torpedos. They showed film of one they got to work several months ago. Iran has one of the best capabilities in the world for taking equipment they've bought and reverse engineering it to make a better version. The idea of IRG dropping boxes in the path of a US warship to attack it is comical. Go look at their order of battle. If you're going to provoke a war with the world's 'sole' superpower with a trigger happy President...you don't 'drop boxes'...lol. If you are studying US doctrine, reaction times, practicing certain tactics, etc....you mess with us. That's the game, all the services of every country do it with all the services of every other country....
Except the Iranians have a track record of actually engaging U.S. warships. Iranian equipment isn't that great in actual performance, although they pride themselves on their attempts to produce weaponry.
"UnusualSuspect
As far as the swerving goes, the 5 speedboats were not in the direct path of the ships. Read the article!"
Read and research, excellent advice you should try it some time.
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05....
Iran's Asymmetric Naval Warfare
By Fariborz Haghshenass
December 21, 2006
"naval battles with the U.S. Navy in April 1988.
The experience taught Iran that large naval vessels are vulnerable to air and missile attacks, confirmed the efficacy of small boat operations, and spurred interest in missile-armed fast-attack craft".
Like speed boats! If not missiles the boat its self can be a human torpedo, a suicide weapon. Like the attempt to sink USS "The Sullivans" in Yemen
"It also allowed Iran to expand the use of swarming tactics that form the foundation of its current approach to asymmetric naval warfare."
Tactics, swarming, along with area, 12 miles off the Iran coast, and range, how far can speed boats travel with a fule tank of gas, kinda cuts down the list of "UnusualSuspect" to 1 Iran.
Inaccurate information. Once again.
"Show me the proof that whatever was drooped into the water was dangerous to the ships."
Sure, just as soon as you show me the proof it was not provocative.
Who would know that during the actual incident? All they saw were objects going over the side. Could have been mines.
Roger that!
Unusual said: "f you read the latest article, we're not even sure if the speedboats were from Iran!!"
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-01...
"Iran downplayed the incident. It was settled "after identification of the two parties," foreign ministry spokesman Mohammad-Ali Hosseini told the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency."
Unusual: "And the threatening message received over the radio "You will explode"...we're not sure it even came from one of the five speedboats...it could have come from another ship, or from a land-based site."
Yeah, it could have come from anywhere. The facts are that it came over an international comms channel at the exact same time as the fast-boats were swarming.
I can tell one thing for certain. The radio broadcast never came from those speed boats. It would have been very garbled if it had come from the boats.
What makes you say that? Radios work quite well on boats.
Why do you think they are used?
Not with that quality, on a boat of that size. The motor noise alone would come through. Trust me on this... I know my boats , I have had many years of boats and boat radios under my belt.
An example of a call.
http://paddlingtravelers.blogspot.com/2007/05/m...
I could have sworn that was on the other side, last time...
I flipped the negative
I use the radio all the time. A base station can put out a fairly clear signal .... for me this came from a land based station. one with power and a good antenna.
they could even have been communicating to each other...
The signal would be even worse. I did not see a VHF antenna on any of the boats shown. If they were using a hand held unit (much lower power) the signal would even worse.