# Iranians Provoke USN



## tomahawk6 (7 Jan 2008)

Close call for the Iranians. The USN warships were about to open fire.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080107/ts_nm/usa_iran_ship_dc



> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Five Iranian Revolutionary Guard boats harassed and provoked three U.S. Navy ships in the Strait of Hormuz, a major oil shipping route off the Iranian coast, over the weekend, CNN reported on Monday.


----------



## geo (7 Jan 2008)

Well, it isn't the 1st time AND it certainly won't be the last.

Ohhh to be back in the days of sail when the order to fire "grape shot" to get their attention.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (7 Jan 2008)

Clearly an attempt to get a reaction from the US ships to gauge their ROE's and possible tactics. In this case sitting tight worked, I hope the next time they react swiftly so the Iranians can not deduce a pattern.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (7 Jan 2008)

These guys are going to get a quick Martyrdom if they're not careful.

Iranian boats harass U.S. navy ships: Pentagon
Last Updated: Monday, January 7, 2008 | 2:23 PM ET 
CBC News 
Three United States navy ships on their way to the Persian Gulf were harassed and provoked by Iranian boats, a Pentagon official said Monday.

The U.S. cruiser, destroyer and frigate encountered five boats believed to be from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard's navy at 8 a.m. local time Sunday while traversing the Strait of Hormuz, a Persian Gulf shipping channel, a navy statement said.

"Five small boats were acting in a very aggressive way, charging the ships, dropping boxes in the water in front of the ships and causing our ships to take evasive manoeuvres," a Pentagon official said on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the record. "It is the most serious provocation of this sort that we've seen yet."

A CNN report said the ships came within 180 metres of a U.S. vessel.

Defence Department spokesman Bryan Whitman said the Iranian boats were operating at "distances and speeds that showed reckless and dangerous intent — reckless, dangerous and potentially hostile intent."

He said the incident lasted 10 to 15 minutes.


----------



## tomahawk6 (7 Jan 2008)

Its clear that ships that are operating alone are at risk. Nor do I think you can let the IRGN get closer than 200m before firing at least warning shots.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (7 Jan 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> Well, it isn't the 1st time AND it certainly won't be the last.
> 
> Ohhh to be back in the days of sail when the order to fire "grape shot" to get their attention.



Firing your CIWS into them constitutes the same effect methinks.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (8 Jan 2008)

I think this is intentional provocation. Or is it just that they got away with kidnapping those Brits and now feel emboldened to try on the USN?


----------



## geo (8 Jan 2008)

Methinks that they figured they had little to lose by acting in this manner.
What is the worst case scenario..... they'd be shot at & destroyed?  In sha Allah, if god wills it.


----------



## tomahawk6 (8 Jan 2008)

Pentagon video.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=79f_1199833701


----------



## SeaKingTacco (8 Jan 2008)

Ahhh, good times.  Brings back memories of a few Straits of Hormuz transits of my own...


----------



## Cheshire (8 Jan 2008)

T6....

"Danger Close" comes to mind. Videos clearly show them close enough to cause serious concern. Next time, I should think shots be fired. If the IRG think they can get that close again, I don't see why they would not try to get closer.


----------



## tomahawk6 (8 Jan 2008)

I think the consensus is that while the skippers of the vessels showed restraint it is important to open fire in the future.The Iranians were clearly practicing attacking USN vessels. A clear message needs to be sent to get these incidents stopped.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Jan 2008)

Iran could be searching for a _Causis Belli _ for internal political reasons, or attempting to influence US internal politics (a series of provocations or even a clash at sea will affect the behaviour of the outgoing administration and perhaps the outcome of the US elections.

This could also be a signal to the Arab nations of the region, announcing that Iran now believes itself capable of assuming the mantle of "Regional Hegemon".

As we have learned to our cost, it is never safe to assume that other people share our motivations or "rational" weighing of potential outcomes. A serious analysis needs to start from the Iranian point of view and see what the Iranians believe they can gain by this behaviour.


----------



## geo (8 Jan 2008)

Was watching the news - looking at Navy footage of the Iranians zipping around in their little boats.... challenging the USN to a game of "chicken"!


----------



## Flip (8 Jan 2008)

> attempting to influence US internal politics (a series of provocations or even a clash at sea will affect the behaviour of the outgoing administration and perhaps the outcome of the US elections.



No doubt about it.  One or two little boats would be a small price to pay for the excellent political fallout.
Now, what if the crews of these boats were arrested?  ;D


----------



## geo (8 Jan 2008)

Revolutionary Guardsmen captured by the great Satan?

In sha Allah!  If god wills it, it will happen.... in the world of public opinion of the Persian Gulf, the US will always be wrong.... Period!


----------



## 1feral1 (8 Jan 2008)

Seen the videos, adn its obvious that the iranians were up to some type of provication. I am sure if they came any closer, they would have been destroyed.

The Iranian radio messages too were direct and threatening. They demonstrated clear and present aggression towards US Forces routinely patrolling in international waters.

Just another reason Iran should not be allowed to gain nuclear energy.

The clock ticks down towards a dirty great big clash, thats guaranteed, and with an administration change in the US this year, it will be a challenge for whoever gets in.

My opinion.


Wes


----------



## geo (9 Jan 2008)

No win situation Wes...

Darned if you do
Darned if you don't


----------



## Bo (10 Jan 2008)

lol, the CIA did a pretty piss poor job at fabricating this video. "I am coming to you....you will blow up"??!!!  :

Just another propaganda stunt to help try to justify an illegal war. I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that Iran is no longer selling oil in US dollars...hmmm.


----------



## geo (10 Jan 2008)

Ummm.....

And you back up your claim by.............. ???


----------



## GAP (10 Jan 2008)

Bo said:
			
		

> lol, the CIA did a pretty piss poor job at fabricating this video. "I am coming to you....you will blow up"??!!!  :
> 
> Just another propaganda stunt to help try to justify an illegal war. I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that Iran is no longer selling oil in US dollars...hmmm.



long night listening to "Coast to Coast" with Bill Norrey?


----------



## tomahawk6 (10 Jan 2008)

;D


----------



## Bullets (10 Jan 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> Ummm.....
> 
> And you back up your claim by.............. ???



I guess CNN is a good enough source. Good job. Let's believe everything we see on TV. How do we know the US ships didn't start poking at the other ships and then start recording afterwards?

I agree Bo


----------



## tomahawk6 (10 Jan 2008)

:


----------



## geo (10 Jan 2008)

From a personal perspective, the Iranian Revolutionary guard and their little boats have proven what they were capable of when they did their little act with the Royal Navy... this latest episode with the US Navy in an area that Iran would consider part of their teritorial waters but that international shipping would beg to differ is well withing the realm of the believable.


----------



## aesop081 (10 Jan 2008)

Bo said:
			
		

> lol, the CIA did a pretty piss poor job at fabricating this video. "I am coming to you....you will blow up"??!!!  :
> 
> Just another propaganda stunt to help try to justify an illegal war. I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that Iran is no longer selling oil in US dollars...hmmm.



Ah, a conspiracy theorist i see.

We all know what a peace-loving, non-beligerant country Iran is. This is just, like you said, another attempt by the US to start a war.

 :


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 Jan 2008)

Seems Bo and bullets are ignoring about 28 years of history regarding Iranian actions and claims to this water. Everything they did is well within their own tactical doctrine as expressed by themselves, if you are going to troll at least try to be good at it.


----------



## aesop081 (10 Jan 2008)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Seems Bo and bullets are ignoring about 28 years of history regarding Iranian actions and claims to this water. Everything they did is well within their own tactical doctrine as expressed by themselves, if you are going to troll at least try to be good at it.



Oh please, how dare you bring facts into this ?

Don't you know that US bashing does not require facts ?

Geezz.......


----------



## geo (10 Jan 2008)

... considering how quickly newbie "bullets" has piped in his comments,  it is entirely within the realm of possibilities that bo and bullets are one and the same.....  

That's a believable conspiracy - isn't it?


----------



## Bo (10 Jan 2008)

dammit bullets, you're killing me with your 1 post total 




			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> Seems Bo and bullets are ignoring about 28 years of history regarding Iranian actions and claims to this water. Everything they did is well within their own tactical doctrine as expressed by themselves, if you are going to troll at least try to be good at it.



Seems like you're ignoring about 50 years of US meddling in Iran's affairs, including overthrowing their first democratically elected prime minister, providing chemical and biological weapons to Iraq for use against Iran duing the Iran-Iraq war, shooting down an Iranian airliner which killed over 300 civilians....the list goes on.

The US is no stranger to fabricating evidence and/or omitting important facts when it serves their agenda. 

Check the Tonkin Gulf incident  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident

Iraq war...


----------



## Bo (10 Jan 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> ... considering how quickly newbie "bullets" has piped in his comments,  it is entirely within the realm of possibilities that bo and bullets are one and the same.....
> 
> That's a believable conspiracy - isn't it?



I'm sure the mods can see our IP to prove otherwise. Though I was laughing when I saw the one guy who backed me up had just 1 post.


----------



## Roy Harding (10 Jan 2008)

Bo said:
			
		

> My parents aren't so much stuck on the pay as they are on the whole "military thing". They are both very liberal. My dad's a Professor and my mom's a retail store manager. Here's the kicker....they are Iranian  ;D. ...



Bo - there's no familial bias being expressed here - right?

And yes - Bo and Bullets are posting from different IPs.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 Jan 2008)

Since we are going down history lane.

How about 1620 England is asked to help in a dispute between the Ottomans(empire holding Iraq) and the Persian empire over border issues, the same issues fought over in in the 1980's

Lots of Iranian miss the days of the Shah, despite some of his stupidity. It pales to what the current regime has done.

The biological "weapons" Iraq bought were dual use technologies openly for sale on the market, as were the components for chemical weapons, basically if you can make fertilizer you can make WM D's 

If you read a bit more about the gulf of Tonkin incident, you find that it was not as clearcut as seems, more of a muddle than a calculated plan. Lets not forget how the NVA also broke the 1975 peace treaty and invaded South Vietnam.

Regardless, Iran has made no secret of it's plans to use high speed boats to attack enemy shipping, in fact they brag about doing so quite frequently. This was a poke and prod of the US navy and it's ROE's , plus a little grandstanding on the Iranians part as a message for Bush during his visit.


----------



## Bo (10 Jan 2008)

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> Bo - there's no familial bias being expressed here - right?



None whatsoever.


----------



## Bo (10 Jan 2008)

ColinP

Neither the Shah nor the post-revolution leaders were any good. The Shah was a puppet, while the mullah's are religious nuts. Unforunately, it was the people of Iran who suffered execution/torture for ever questioning these leaders.

Anyways, that's another topic.


----------



## 1feral1 (10 Jan 2008)

Bo said:
			
		

> lol, the CIA did a pretty piss poor job at fabricating this video. "I am coming to you....you will blow up"??!!!  :
> 
> Just another propaganda stunt to help try to justify an illegal war. I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that Iran is no longer selling oil in US dollars...hmmm.



That almost sounds like stereotypical arab paronia. EDIT: Hummmmm....I too detected a bit of bias here "My parents aren't so much stuck on the pay as they are on the whole "military thing". They are both very liberal. My dad's a Professor and my mom's a retail store manager. Here's the kicker....they are Iranian  . ..."


Just where are your loyalties? We are fighting a global war against radical islam, our brothers are being killed in Afghanistan and Iraq, and you have the intelligence to post such insulting words. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I have seen some stupid posts in my time, and you're supposed to be an officer? A leader of men? A role model?

I used to think the most dangerous thing in the world was a Subbie with a map and compass, but Bo, you and your attitude take the cake.

You go ahead and keep believing what you want, and how you can call this an illegal war when nothing has happened (shy of the obvious) is beyond me. If you think Iran is a happy tranquil place, go there, support their cause, and become a human shield, sign in hand, as Mr JDAM comes for a visit at the reactor site!! I am sure we can get enough supporters on here to buy you a one way ticket!

I suppose the outright denial of the Holocaust by the Iranian regime, and the threats of wiping Israel off the face of the earth too is just CIA propaganda. Oh can't forget that Iran also denies there is no gay people in the country also. Ya, and the ongoing supply of rockets, arms, ammo, EFPs, etc into Iraq is also not true with the CIA doing that also.

Now Iran is seeking nuclear power. Do you support that? Come on, answer the question. No waffling. YES or NO.

How unpatriotic, Bo. 

Go watch another Michael Moore movie, and turn in your kit!


Shakes head (in true disgust),


Wes


----------



## Roy Harding (10 Jan 2008)

Bo said:
			
		

> None whatsoever.



I'll take you at your word - there's no reason not to.

I served in Iran in 1988/1989 - it wasn't a great place to be.  The IRG scared the hell out of me and still do.

I doubt that the CIA or any other US government agency cooked up this incident - the IRG are quite capable and willing to indulge in such acts without prompting by anyone else.


----------



## GAP (10 Jan 2008)

At first I just thought you were just some immature jerk scratching your jock, now I know it.  :


----------



## 1feral1 (10 Jan 2008)

Bullets said:
			
		

> I guess CNN is a good enough source. Good job. Let's believe everything we see on TV. How do we know the US ships didn't start poking at the other ships and then start recording afterwards?
> 
> I agree Bo



Should change his name to Blanks  ;D


----------



## cameron (10 Jan 2008)

Those IRG boatcrews don't know how lucky they are to be alive, that was extreme provocation.  Somehow I suspect that if there is a next time the IRG won't be so lucky, but then again maybe that's what they're hoping for, provoke an incident and then cry bloody murder.


----------



## SupersonicMax (10 Jan 2008)

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> That almost sounds like *stereotypical arab paronia*. EDIT: Hummmmm....I too detected a bit of bias here "My parents aren't so much stuck on the pay as they are on the whole "military thing". They are both very liberal. My dad's a Professor and my mom's a retail store manager. Here's the kicker....they are Iranian  . ..."
> 
> Just where are your loyalties? We are fighting a* global war against radical islam*, our brothers are being killed in Afghanistan and Iraq, and you have the intelligence to post such insulting words. You should be ashamed of yourself.



Those 2 comments are quite racists/discriminatory


Wes, I think you are biaised the american way...  You gotta look around.  I believe the US with nuclear power is as dangerous as Iran with nuclear power

Max


----------



## tomahawk6 (10 Jan 2008)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Those 2 comments are quite racists/discriminatory
> 
> 
> Wes, I think you are biaised the american way...  You gotta look around.  I believe the US with nuclear power is as dangerous as Iran with nuclear power
> ...



Let me get this straight Wes' commnets are racist ? You been flying without oxygen Max ? The enemy ARE islamists. The war on terror is against the global jihadist movement which has decided that western culture is corrupt and needs to be suppressed by the one true faith. Those are the facts. In WW2 not all Germans were nazi's but we still waged war against Germany without making a distinction.I dont see any need to make distinctions now.


----------



## cavalryman (10 Jan 2008)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Wes, I think you are biaised the american way...  You gotta look around.  I believe the US with nuclear power is as dangerous as Iran with nuclear power



Please, give your head a shake.  :  And drop the knee-jerk anti-americanism.  It's unbecoming of an officer.

To equate a democracy with a long pedigree (longer than most European nations and Canada) with a lunatic theocracy like Iran is, to put it bluntly, stupid.  There are enough checks and balances in the US that a) a lunatic won't be elected president (unlike Iran) b) a nuclear launch won't occur short of a clear and present danger, unlike Iran whose President has visions of a nuclear holocaust to hasten the coming of the 12th Iman, i.e. messianic cult.  If you believe that the US and Iran are equally dangerous, you need to educate yourself, sunshine.


----------



## SupersonicMax (10 Jan 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Let me get this straight Wes' commnets are racist ? You been flying without oxygen Max ? The enemy ARE islamists. The war on terror is against the global jihadist movement which has decided that western culture is corrupt and needs to be suppressed by the one true faith. Those are the facts. In WW2 not all Germans were nazi's but we still waged war against Germany without making a distinction.I dont see any need to make distinctions now.



T6, I agree that during WWII, we were fighting the Germans in general(because of the Nazi regime).  However, we did not have Germans embeded in our populations (or not nearly as many as we have Arabs in our population).  We have Arabs in our military, we have Arabs in our population and the "war" is not as clear cut as it was back then.  The ennemy isn't as visible as it was...



			
				cavalryman said:
			
		

> Please, give your head a shake.  :  And drop the knee-jerk anti-americanism.  It's unbecoming of an officer.
> 
> To equate a democracy with a long pedigree (longer than most European nations and Canada) with a lunatic theocracy like Iran is, to put it bluntly, stupid.  There are enough checks and balances in the US that a) a lunatic won't be elected president (unlike Iran) b) a nuclear launch won't occur short of a clear and present danger, unlike Iran whose President has visions of a nuclear holocaust to hasten the coming of the 12th Iman, i.e. messianic cult.  If you believe that the US and Iran are equally dangerous, you need to educate yourself, sunshine.



Cavalryman:  I'm not anti-american, I'm just not pro-american.  There IS a middle.

Max


----------



## Flip (10 Jan 2008)

> However, we did not have Germans embeded in our populations (or not nearly as many as we have Arabs in our population).  We have Arabs in our military, we have Arabs in our population and the "war" is not as clear cut as it was back then.


Ummm OK - I gotta call you on this one.
In Alberta a large percentage of the population was German - I have some relatives who were here and some were in uniform!
We also have Ukrainians and some Japanese. No, there's nothing special about the circumstances of Arabs in Canada today except
that they probably have it better than other minorities had it in the past.



> I believe the US with nuclear power is as dangerous as Iran with nuclear power


The US has had nuclear power for sixty odd years now. For the most part we
can say there is a proven safety record of sorts.  I can't imagine Iran being so responsible
as the US has been, to say they will be is either naive or biased - feel free to choose which.

Here's something.
I used to spout off some pretty anti American noise from time to time.
World circumstances have changed, to the extent where we need to consider 
carefully who our friends are.  We indeed have to choose sides.
I like to think world circumstances have matured my thinking a bit.


----------



## SupersonicMax (10 Jan 2008)

Flip, you will agree that the populations are much more mixed than they were back then and that the war back then was against a nation.  We knew that a country was trouble maker.  Now, it's much more complex.  No clear enemy.

I guess Hiroshima and Nagasaki were very safe and responsible...  The world cannot fold to every request from the United States (and any Country for that matter)  Everytime in History a country tried to rule the world, it didn't work....

Max


----------



## aesop081 (10 Jan 2008)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I guess Hiroshima and Nagasaki were very safe and responsible...




Now i know that you are right out of 'er....... :


----------



## Roy Harding (10 Jan 2008)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> ...
> I guess Hiroshima and Nagasaki were very safe and responsible...



For that time, and under those circumstances - yes, those were very responsible decisions.  Keep it in context.


----------



## SupersonicMax (10 Jan 2008)

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> For that time, and under those circumstances - yes, those were very responsible decisions.  Keep it in context.



Even in that context, I sure don't believe that it was very responsible to drop 2 nuclear weapons on a country.  

Max


----------



## Flip (10 Jan 2008)

> For that time, and under those circumstances - yes, those were very responsible decisions.



Damn! Roy stole my thunder!

I would also point out that there was no way that those decisions were taken as lightly as some might suppose.

Freedom and democracy are hardly afflictions the evil American empire will be cursed for.
I would also like to point out that the kind of influence in the world the US has would take us down a very different path
were it wielded by anyone else. That is, better to have a powerful and slightly overbearing America as an ally 
than some other country as powerful as an enemy.  As far as Iran is concerned - There is no possible upside to Iran gaining 
influence and /or military and/or nuclear power.


----------



## aesop081 (10 Jan 2008)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Even in that context, I sure don't believe that it was very responsible to drop 2 nuclear weapons on a country.
> 
> Max



Funny thing is, after bomb #2 the war was over.

Cant argue with results


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (10 Jan 2008)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Even in that context, I sure don't believe that it was very responsible to drop 2 nuclear weapons on a country.
> 
> Max



Tell that to the families who would have had loved ones sent over to invade Japan and who potentially would have died had the bombs not been dropped. :


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (10 Jan 2008)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Even in that context, I sure don't believe that it was very responsible to drop 2 nuclear weapons on a country.
> 
> Max



This is most likely the stupidest line I have ever read anywhere, anytime..................I'd like to comment furthur but I would wind up banning myself.


----------



## Flip (10 Jan 2008)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Even in that context, I sure don't believe that it was very responsible to drop 2 nuclear weapons on a country.
> 
> Max



Funny you should say that. I have a friend who's mother was interned in a Japanese prison camp during the war.
The way he sees it, were it not for the bomb, he would never have been born as his mother would surely have died.

The Japanese Empire before and during WW2 was barberic and had to be disposed of.
In doing so the Americans also imposed democracy and a constitution on the Japanese 
people. The Japanese have not gone back since.

Max - I'm sure that you misunderstand America just as I once did.


----------



## SupersonicMax (10 Jan 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Funny thing is, after bomb #2 the war was over.
> 
> Cant argue with results



The end doesn't always justify the means.  I certainly don't think it did in that case.



			
				Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Tell that to the families who would have had loved ones sent over to invade Japan and who potentially would have died had the bombs not been dropped. :



Tell the same thing to the Japanese families of the deceased during the bombing, and to the people that endured pain and suffering for years after the bombing because of radiation effects. 

I'm not saying that at war, nobody should die.  That's the cost of war, on both sides.  But to me, moraly, it doesn't make sense to kill tens of thousands and inflict pain for year to other thousands (civilians none the less) to get to our objective.  I'm all about conventional warfare...

Max


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (10 Jan 2008)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I'm all about conventional warfare...


..and since those days are gone have you thought of a career change?

I'm just asking.........


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (10 Jan 2008)

> Max - I'm sure that you misunderstand America just as I once did.



Some people no matter what will just hate the US because all the_ other cool kids _seem to, there is no rhyme or reason to their stance. All we can do is pity them and talk more slowly to them so they might understand.


----------



## SupersonicMax (10 Jan 2008)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> ..and since those days are gone have you thought of a career change?
> 
> I'm just asking.........



I might have expressed myself in a wrong way.  What I meant was non-nuclear weapons.  My mistake.


----------



## Roy Harding (10 Jan 2008)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I might have expressed myself in a wrong way.  What I meant was non-nuclear weapons.  My mistake.



So killing with conventional weapons is OK, but with nuclear weapons isn't?

Just checking.


----------



## SupersonicMax (10 Jan 2008)

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> So killing with conventional weapons is OK, but with nuclear weapons isn't?
> 
> Just checking.



As far as I know, dropping a 500 lbs Mk82 won't affect the population of an area for years with nuclear radiation.


----------



## George Wallace (10 Jan 2008)

You know Max, looking at History with all this Hindsight is really not a true picture of what those times were like.  The same can be said about your posts.  Some day you too will have hindsight and look at them differently, as will generations even later.  Perhaps some fifty years from now, your statements will not be "politically correct" and you will be labelled with a label that you totally disagree with today.  Times change.  Life moves on.  Attitudes and Stereotypes are constantly changing.

When I grew up, Louis Riel was a rebel and a renegade.  Today, he is a national hero.


----------



## Blakey (10 Jan 2008)

The Iranians release _their version_ of the, incident. (Click On Video Camera by cutline)
http://www.presstv.com:80/detail.aspx?id=38190&sectionid=351020101


> Iran releases footage of PG naval check
> Thu, 10 Jan 2008 11:15:18
> Iran releases the video of Sunday's maritime identification check in the Persian Gulf waters involving Iranian boats and US warships.
> 
> ...



EDIT: They look to be pretty freaking close.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (10 Jan 2008)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> As far as I know, dropping a 500 lbs Mk82 won't affect the population of an area for years with nuclear radiation.



Nor would it likely end a long and costly war....


----------



## cameron (10 Jan 2008)

While I certainly find much U.S. foreign policy objectionable and i've been outspoken in expressing it on army.ca (such as my opposition to the decision to invade Iraq, because as I and others have always argued Iran is the real threat), to say that the USA constitutes as much of a nuclear threat as Iran is just plain unrealistic.

I don't recall any US president, not even one as dumb as Bush saying that any country should be wiped off the face of the earth like Ahmadinejad (hope I spelled it right, but then who cares) said should be done to Israel.  The United States, like all great military powers throughout history that allow their power to make them arrogant, makes mistakes, sometimes disasterous ones like its invasion of Iraq, but that's different from the pathologically irrational behaviour of the Iranian president and some of his followers, like those IRG boat crews.  The commanders and crews of those American warships showed spectacular restraint, and so far Israel has shown spectacular restraint in response to Iran's provocative rhetoric and even more provocative assistance to the terrorist group Hezbollah during the recent war in Lebanon.


----------



## SupersonicMax (10 Jan 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> You know Max, looking at History with all this Hindsight is really not a true picture of what those times were like.  The same can be said about your posts.  Some day you too will have hindsight and look at them differently, as will generations even later.  Perhaps some fifty years from now, your statements will not be "politically correct" and you will be labelled with a label that you totally disagree with today.  Times change.  Life moves on.  Attitudes and Stereotypes are constantly changing.
> 
> When I grew up, Louis Riel was a rebel and a renegade.  Today, he is a national hero.



George, for once (I think it's actually the first time!) I agree with you!

Max


----------



## George Wallace (10 Jan 2008)

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> So killing with conventional weapons is OK, but with nuclear weapons isn't?
> 
> Just checking.





			
				SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> As far as I know, dropping a 500 lbs Mk82 won't affect the population of an area for years with nuclear radiation.



"Dead" is "Dead".  Does it really matter in the end?


----------



## Roy Harding (10 Jan 2008)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> As far as I know, dropping a 500 lbs Mk82 won't affect the population of an area for years with nuclear radiation.



And of course, the dead are less dead with conventional weapons.

Read some history, SupersonicMax - the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were soul wrenching decisions - made to end the war with the least possible effect on friendly soldiers.  You're also assuming that the science available in 1945 predicted the lasting effects - it didn't.

I don't believe the Iranians, should they ever gain the capability, would be as concerned with their own friendlies - nor would they search their souls before using a nuclear weapon.


----------



## aesop081 (10 Jan 2008)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> What I meant was non-nuclear weapons.  My mistake.



Quite the hypocrite arent you !

The "conventional" bombing of German cities by allied heavy bombers or the "conventional" bombing of Tokyo killed more people and caused more deaths than both atomic bombs combined.

The "conventional" bombing of Europe laid waste to the entire continent, not just 2 cities.

Unexploded bombs from "conventional" bombings in Europe contunue to kill to this day......


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (10 Jan 2008)

Here is a question because I have been unlucky in finding the answer. Did the US drop the atomics on her own accord or did she consult with the rest of the Allies beforehand?


----------



## George Wallace (10 Jan 2008)

Cataract Kid said:
			
		

> The Iranians release _their version_ of the, incident. (Click On Video Camera by cutline)
> http://www.presstv.com:80/detail.aspx?id=38190&sectionid=351020101
> 
> 
> ...



Makes you wonder if he went to the same Public Affairs School as the Iraqi " Col Bagdad Bob" (or whatever his name was) who was filmed stating that there were no Americans in Bagdad as an American M1 entered the background.


----------



## tomahawk6 (10 Jan 2008)

Here is an interesting article about the use of the bomb.

http://www.history.army.mil/books/70-7_23.htm


----------



## Roy Harding (10 Jan 2008)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Here is a question because I have been unlucky in finding the answer. Did the US drop the atomics on her own accord or did she consult with the rest of the Allies beforehand?



Interesting texts available here (I can't speak to their veracity - but they can be cross checked):  http://www.dannen.com/decision/

As I understand it, Truman made the decision unilaterally - although he did tell Stalin, at least, that the US had a new "super weapon".


Edit:  typo (voracity changed to veracity)


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (10 Jan 2008)

If he did, then he rightfully assumed the mantle of responsibility. Now thats leadership!


----------



## tomahawk6 (10 Jan 2008)

The decision that Truman made to drop the bomb on Japan saved tens of thousands of American and Japanese lives. I might not be here today if the invasion of the home islands had been necessary. My dad's division was part of the invasion force.After Japan surrendered he performed occupation duty instead of having to fight the Japanese.


----------



## Dog Walker (13 Jan 2008)

I saw a report on CNN this evening that seems to indicate that the US Navy is backing down from their original claims. The “threatening voice” appears to have come from a third party, and not the Iranians. They believe that it was a local heckler known to the US Navy as the “Filipino Monkey”. The report said that the Navy will continue to examine their tapes to determine the exact source. 

I found this on the web.

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


----------

