# Bush Castigates Iran, Calling Naval Confrontation Provocative Act



## Gunny

> By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG and THOM SHANKER
> Published: January 9, 2008
> 
> WASHINGTON  President Bush chastised Iran on Tuesday for committing a provocative act by confronting United States Navy warships in the Persian Gulf over the weekend. The Pentagon released video showing Iranian speedboats maneuvering around the American convoy.
> 
> We viewed it as a provocative act, Mr. Bush told reporters in the Rose Garden, just hours before he left for a weeklong trip to the Middle East. It is a dangerous situation, and they should not have done it, pure and simple.
> 
> more ... http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/09/w...60c08650e561a5&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss



At least it didn't go without comment.


----------



## onedomino

GunnyL said:


> At least it didn't go without comment.


Obviously the iranian action was calculated. To what end? From what I have read, had they come an an inch closer, the Navy would have blown them away. How would that have served their purposes? Maybe the media, which would convict the Navy as trigger happy gunslingers, is something that the Iranians would find useful.


----------



## jillian

onedomino said:


> Obviously the iranian action was calculated. To what end? From what I have read, had they come an an inch closer, the Navy would have blown them away. How would that have served their purposes? Maybe the media, which would convict the Navy as trigger happy gunslingers, is something that the Iranians would find useful.



I suspect more goading Bush into stretching our resources prior to the next president coming into office.


----------



## Gunny

onedomino said:


> Obviously the iranian action was calculated. To what end? From what I have read, had they come an an inch closer, the Navy would have blown them away. How would that have served their purposes? Maybe the media, which would convict the Navy as trigger happy gunslingers, is something that the Iranians would find useful.



Actually, I have to wonder why myself since it was common practice for them to run parallel to us, shaking their fists and acting all tough whenever we would go through the Strait.  

They did not charge us however, and if they had engaged a cruiser, destroyer and frigate there wouldn't have been enough left to make matchsticks out of.


----------



## actsnoblemartin

how about bombing those fucking boats



GunnyL said:


> At least it didn't go without comment.


----------



## Gunny

actsnoblemartin said:


> how about bombing those fucking boats



Unless they had actually attacked, it would have served no purpose.  The Iranians wouldn't have stood a chance against 3 US Navy warships.


----------



## Gunny

jillian said:


> I suspect more goading Bush into stretching our resources prior to the next president coming into office.



The Captain in charge of that group of ships was the one to make the decision, not Bush.  If the Iranians had continued their course, teh Captain would have been completely by the ROEs to take them out, and those ROEs have been in place for decades.

A ship's captain doesn't care WHO you vote for.


----------



## eots

GunnyL said:


> Unless they had actually attacked, it would have served no purpose.  The Iranians wouldn't have stood a chance against 3 US Navy warships.



 Few Know About the Tonkin Bay Incidents

On August 4, 1964, President Lyndon Johnson spoke on national television, asking Congress for authorization to use force in Vietnam in response to a claimed "unprovoked attack" against a U.S. destroyer on "routine patrol: in the Tonkin Gulf on August 2, followed by a "deliberate attack" by North Vietnamese PT boats on a pair of U.S. ships two days later. Three days later, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was passed by Congress, unanimously by the House (4160), and by the Senate 882, with Senators Wayne Morse of Oregon and Ernest Gruening of Alaska casting the only dissenting votes. That resolution was the slender reed on which the subsequent vast escalation of the war was built. Here I. F. Stone offers one of the first investigative reports into the omissions and deceptions in mainstream reporting of the Tonkin Gulf incidents.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5769537


----------



## CSM

GunnyL said:


> The Captain in charge of that group of ships was the one to make the decision, not Bush.  If the Iranians had continued their course, teh Captain would have been completely by the ROEs to take them out, and those ROEs have been in place for decades.
> 
> A ship's captain doesn't care WHO you vote for.



Obviously, if the Iranians had attacked, the US ships should have surrendered without firing a shot.


----------



## Gunny

CSM said:


> Obviously, if the Iranians had attacked, the US ships should have surrendered without firing a shot.



Seems like that's the mentality, doesn't it?


----------



## Shogun

*Report reveals Vietnam War hoaxes, faked attacks*
http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Report_reveals_Vietnam_War_hoaxes_f_01082008.html



Raw: Pentagon Releases Video of Iranian Boats Confronting US Warships
http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=26424


----------



## Warner

Well clearly our ships have to have a policy:  Come within X distance and get blown up.  This would have to vary with the type of enemy craft.  For these "boats" I'd say X = 1000 feet.  Clearly they were not torpedo carrying craft so the only real threat they posed was a ramming attack.

From the video, it's not clear if the boat going around the back side came closer than this or not.  The rest of the boats appear to have stayed beyond this distance.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Ignoring the loons and their "we lied" claims. Ther are several reasons I can think of why the Iranians would charge. The first and most obvious would be to see how close they can get before any real action is taken. Since they did not press to a shooting incident I suspect they had a pretty good idea of how close they could come and were testing to see if still true.

As far as I am concerned they got much to close.


----------



## Paulie

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ignoring the loons and their "we lied" claims. Ther are several reasons I can think of why the Iranians would charge. The first and most obvious would be to see how close they can get before any real action is taken. Since they did not press to a shooting incident I suspect they had a pretty good idea of how close they could come and were testing to see if still true.
> 
> As far as I am concerned they got much to close.



Yeah, they're muslims, so naturally they don't care if they get killed.  They figured that it's all for Allah anyway, so they risked being blown to bits just to test the waters.

Makes perfect sense dude.


----------



## Gunny

Paulitics said:


> Yeah, they're muslims, so naturally they don't care if they get killed.  They figured that it's all for Allah anyway, so they risked being blown to bits just to test the waters.
> 
> Makes perfect sense dude.



The USS Cole attack was carried out how, exactly?


----------



## eots

it needs to be taken with skepticism ..hey gunny tell us the Jessica lynch story


----------



## onedomino

erots adds nothing but nonsense.


----------



## Gunny

eots said:


> it needs to be taken with skepticism ..hey gunny tell us the Jessica lynch story



This has WHAT to do with the topic?  Knock of the pointless trolling, huh?


----------



## mattskramer

My perspective:  People are making a big deal about nothing.  So Iran wanted to do a little saber rattling. Luckily cool heads prevailed and cowboy diplomat Bush didnt get trigger happy and tell our ship to blast them out of the water.


----------



## CSM

mattskramer said:


> My perspective:  People are making a big deal about nothing.  So Iran wanted to do a little saber rattling. Luckily cool heads prevailed and cowboy diplomat Bush didnt get trigger happy and tell our ship to blast them out of the water.



Holy Crap ... do you really think the Captain of any US warship has to clear fires with the Commander in Chief before firing when under attack?????

Does every soldier have to get permission to fire from the CiC when in imminent danger????

If you truly believe that then you are ensuring that every US military person that comes under fire will die without any defense....


----------



## eots

GunnyL said:


> This has WHAT to do with the topic?  Knock of the pointless trolling, huh?



no it is not pointless trolling ,it is questioning the blind trust given to those that have used false news story's so often in the past


----------



## Gunny

mattskramer said:


> My perspective:  People are making a big deal about nothing.  So Iran wanted to do a little saber rattling. Luckily cool heads prevailed and cowboy diplomat Bush didnt get trigger happy and tell our ship to blast them out of the water.



Again, Bush had no say.  It was an immediate tactical situation.  The Captain made the decision and it was over before Bush even knew.


----------



## mattskramer

GunnyL said:


> Again, Bush had no say.  It was an immediate tactical situation.  The Captain made the decision and it was over before Bush even knew.



Had it become a standoff and had Bush been notified, he could have very well told our ship to shoot.  Luckily, it did not happen like that. Aside from that the captain of our ship could have had an itchy trigger finger too.  Luckily, he didnt.


----------



## CSM

mattskramer said:


> Had it become a standoff and had Bush been notified, he could have very well told our ship to shoot.  Luckily, it did not happen like that. Aside from that the captain of our ship could have had an itchy trigger finger too.  Luckily, he didnt.



Under what conditions should that Captain been authorized to fire?


----------



## Annie

CSM said:


> Under what conditions should that Captain been authorized to fire?



Here's video of the encounter, this site will not support video it seems, so you can go to the link. Figure out if it was 'close enough', 'too close.' 

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2008/01/video-and-photo.html


----------



## CSM

Kathianne said:


> Here's video of the encounter, this site will not support video it seems, so you can go to the link. Figure out if it was 'close enough', 'too close.'
> 
> http://www.blackfive.net/main/2008/01/video-and-photo.html



I've seen the videos. What I do not know for certain is what the rules of engagement are for US ships in that area.... I also have never had to serve aboard a US warship (Army guys seldom do that) so I have nothing to base a judgement on whether or not the boats in question posed a danger to the US ships. Having said all that, based on what we know from the attack on the Cole it would seem to me that those Iranian boats could very well have been an imminent threat.


----------



## Annie

CSM said:


> I've seen the videos. What I do not know for certain is what the rules of engagement are for US ships in that area.... I also have never had to serve aboard a US warship (Army guys seldom do that) so I have nothing to base a judgement on whether or not the boats in question posed a danger to the US ships. Having said all that, based on what we know from the attack on the Cole it would seem to me that those Iranian boats could very well have been an imminent threat.



I agree. With that said, reading through the comments at Blackfive, where many if not most are military, the fact the folks in the boats were wearing life jackets, argues against their being suicide bound. Just an aside.


----------



## CSM

Kathianne said:


> I agree. With that said, reading through the comments at Blackfive, where many if not most are military, the fact the folks in the boats were wearing life jackets, argues against their being suicide bound. Just an aside.



Just speculation here but those life jackets could just as easily be packed with explosives as flotation material...


----------



## Annie

CSM said:


> Just speculation here but those life jackets could just as easily be packed with explosives as flotation material...



Very true, at the same time, likelihood of explosives I would think would be the boats, ala USS Cole.


----------



## mattskramer

CSM said:


> Under what conditions should that Captain been authorized to fire?



As far as I know, he can fire on his own.  Luckily, he didnt.


----------



## CSM

mattskramer said:


> As far as I know, he can fire on his own.  Luckily, he didnt.



That was not the question....I am asking you your opinion on exactly what circumstances it would be acceptable for the captain of the ship to fire on those boats...what are your limits? It is obvious that you do not believe the film shows those boats to have been enough of a threat to engage them...so at what point, in your opinion, would it be acceptable to you for the captain of the US vessel to engage the Iranian boats?


----------



## Dr Grump

CSM said:


> That was not the question....I am asking you your opinion on exactly what circumstances it would be acceptable for the captain of the ship to fire on those boats...what are your limits? It is obvious that you do not believe the film shows those boats to have been enough of a threat to engage them...so at what point, in your opinion, would it be acceptable to you for the captain of the US vessel to engage the Iranian boats?



How would you feel if Iranian frigates or destroyers were patrolling 30km off the coast of South Carolina or Florida or Texas?


----------



## Gunny

mattskramer said:


> Had it become a standoff and had Bush been notified, he could have very well told our ship to shoot.  Luckily, it did not happen like that. Aside from that the captain of our ship could have had an itchy trigger finger too.  Luckily, he didnt.



Speculation on your part.  Just what kind og "standoff" do you see between a cruiser, destroyer and frigate, and some small torpedo boats?  

If that was my battle group and I felt it was threatened in any way, I wouldn't hesitate to put those boats on the bottom.

All this bs on political boards and politicians calling names don't mean shit when you're on that ship.  They're playing for blood, not oneupsmanship in a thread on a messageboard.


----------



## onedomino

Dr Grump said:


> How would you feel if Iranian frigates or destroyers were patrolling 30km off the coast of South Carolina or Florida or Texas?


No different that I do about Russian Bear nuclear weapon equipped bombers flying just outside US airspace, and we do not shoot or charge at them. You know very well Doctor that US ships are in the Straits not to provoke Iran, but to ensure the safe passage of oil, almost none of which from the Gulf does the US import. Perhaps the New Zealand Navy would like to share in the work?


----------



## Dr Grump

onedomino said:


> Perhaps the New Zealand Navy would like to share in the work?



They have done.


----------



## onedomino

Dr Grump said:


> They have done.


I am pleased to learn that. Those Straits must be kept open, or the world price of oil will go even more berzerk than it already has.


----------



## Dr Grump

Didn't know they'd ever closed...


----------



## mattskramer

GunnyL said:


> Speculation on your part.  Just what kind og "standoff" do you see between a cruiser, destroyer and frigate, and some small torpedo boats?



The Iranians kept their distance.  There was no attack.  At most, they were just taunting and rattling their sabers.  Shooting at them would not be warranted. 



> If that was my battle group and I felt it was threatened in any way, I wouldn't hesitate to put those boats on the bottom.



Your reaction would have probably resulted in many moderate Muslim groups putting their differences aside to unite against the America bully. It would have brought more enemies to compete against the USA in its war on terrorism.  I am so glad that you were not at the helm.  

Lets not have another incident like:

Iran Air Flight 655

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

or the Ehime Maru and USS Greeneville collision

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehime_Maru_and_USS_Greeneville_collision


----------



## onedomino

Dr Grump said:


> Didn't know they'd ever closed...


I assume you directed that at my post and not the delusional spam from erots. I did not say that the Straits had ever closed, I said they must be kept open. And I do not think it would be wise to leave the Straits to the good will of the Iranians.


----------



## onedomino

eots said:


> this has nothing to do with the topic spammer! why don't you discuss other incidents of foreign patrol boats having incidents with u.s war ships like tonkin for example wouldn't that be more in keeping with the  topic ?


No, it would not, nitwit. We are discussing an incident from the Persian Gulf that happened two days ago, not an incident from 45 years ago.


----------



## Gunny

mattskramer said:


> The Iranians kept their distance.  There was no attack.  At most, they were just taunting and rattling their sabers.  Shooting at them would not be warranted.
> 
> 
> 
> Your reaction would have probably resulted in many moderate Muslim groups putting their differences aside to unite against the America bully. It would have brought more enemies to compete against the USA in its war on terrorism.  I am so glad that you were not at the helm.
> 
> Lets not have another incident like:
> 
> Iran Air Flight 655
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
> 
> or the Ehime Maru and USS Greeneville collision
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehime_Maru_and_USS_Greeneville_collision



You're jumping to conclusions.

One, we don't know what their motives were.

And two, my statement was caveated with "if I felt threatened."  That would be in the same position the Captain was in, not the same situation.  Obviously, he made the right decision in this instance.


----------



## mattskramer

GunnyL said:


> You're jumping to conclusions.
> 
> One, we don't know what their motives were.
> 
> And two, my statement was caveated with "if I felt threatened."  That would be in the same position the Captain was in, not the same situation.  Obviously, he made the right decision in this instance.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

_According to the US government, an inexperienced crew mistakenly identified the Iranian airbus as an attacking F-14 Tomcat fighter._

Oh.  Okay.  I guess that this justifies blowing the plane out of the sky. I found a mosquito in my house.  I felt threatened by it.  Mosquitoes carry diseases.  I better fumigate the entire house for a week.  

There is a condition of being over-reactive, being a loose cannon, having an itchy trigger finger.


----------



## Gunny

mattskramer said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
> 
> _According to the US government, an inexperienced crew mistakenly identified the Iranian airbus as an attacking F-14 Tomcat fighter._
> 
> Oh.  Okay.  I guess that this justifies blowing the plane out of the sky. I found a mosquito in my house.  I felt threatened by it.  Mosquitoes carry diseases.  I better fumigate the entire house for a week.
> 
> There is a condition of being over-reactive, being a loose cannon, having an itchy trigger finger.



You're missing the point.  That Captain is trained to make those decisions.  I was trained to make those decisions.  Every vet on this board has been trained to whatever level they have achieved, to make those decisions.

A Navy Captain in charge of a battle group, the equivalent of a Colonel in the other branches, is rarely going to be inexperienced.  

It's really easy to sit back here and Monday morning quarterback something from the comfort of your living room.  Try wearing those combat boots awhile and being the guy making the decisions.  It's rarely as cut and dried as you would like for it to be.


----------



## CSM

Dr Grump said:


> How would you feel if Iranian frigates or destroyers were patrolling 30km off the coast of South Carolina or Florida or Texas?



Nice try...but at the moment no such thing is happening. 

I sure as hell would not tempt fate by appearing to attack a fully armed frigate in a small boat such as we see in the video. Such an act would be provocation ... or stupidity.

However, when the day comes that Iran sends a few warships to patrol the coast of Florida I will most certainly advocate sinking the things with the biggest, baddest weapon available to the task...which, if we listen to those who would disarm and emasculate our military, just may well be a rowboat armed with two sailors carrying a single hand grenade. Then a gain, I'm sure the UN would most certainly prevent such a thing from happening....right?


----------



## Shogun

I showed the video to an ex-Navy buddy last night and the first words out of his mouth was something to the effect of, "Those dudes don't know how close they came to becoming fishfood.  The Navy doesn't fuck around since the bombing of the Cole."


I am glad that confrontation was not escalated.  There was nothing to prove and Im glad that we didn't play like a good marionette when someone teases our strings.  That said, I would have liked to see warning shots fired to indicate an perimeter.  Remember the Cole, indeed.


----------



## Warner

Paulitics said:


> Yeah, they're muslims, so naturally they don't care if they get killed.  They figured that it's all for Allah anyway, so they risked being blown to bits just to test the waters.
> 
> Makes perfect sense dude.



Paul,

I'm am sick of the obfuscationist on this board.  Your post is trash.

Probing the perimeter and testing boundaries is standard military practice by all sides.  They do it, we do it, everyone does it.

Why post such antagonistic drivel?  All you're trying to do is derail this discussion into an argument.  Please think about this before you post.


----------



## Gunny

Warner said:


> Paul,
> 
> I'm am sick of the obfuscationist on this board.  Your post is trash.
> 
> Probing the perimeter and testing boundaries is standard military practice by all sides.  They do it, we do it, everyone does it.
> 
> Why post such antagonistic drivel?  All you're trying to do is derail this discussion into an argument.  Please think about this before you post.



I concur with your statement about probing, that's why I was a bit surprised this made the news, as I previously posted.  Iranian gunboats always made sure we knoew they were skittering around whenever we went through the Strait.  The difference being that in this case they faked a charge.

Whether or not they were Muslim is irrelevant to the incident, as you so "eloquently" pointed out.  However, everyone is entitled to their opinion, agree with it or not.


----------



## Gunny

Paulitics said:


> Yeah, they're muslims, so naturally they don't care if they get killed.  They figured that it's all for Allah anyway, so they risked being blown to bits just to test the waters.
> 
> Makes perfect sense dude.



Warner has a point.  Whether or not they are Muslims is irrelevant to this situation.  At it's best, it's one military probing another.  At worst, it's taunting; which, IMO, is the case here.  

The skipper of the battle group is not thinking religion in such an incident, he's thinking threat to the vessels under his command.


----------



## mattskramer

CSM said:


> That was not the question....I am asking you your opinion on exactly what circumstances it would be acceptable for the captain of the ship to fire on those boats...what are your limits? It is obvious that you do not believe the film shows those boats to have been enough of a threat to engage them...so at what point, in your opinion, would it be acceptable to you for the captain of the US vessel to engage the Iranian boats?



Okay.  First, before I ever go out into the waters, Id be sure to have someone who spoke the common Iranian languages.  As the boats approached, Id have the spokesman warn the boat drivers to stay away.  If the drivers ignored the warning, and came within 50 feet, Id shoot a warning shot (being sure to miss them) and tell them again to stay away.  Only then, if they ignored the second warning and approached within 20 feet would I blow them out of the water.


----------



## CSM

mattskramer said:


> Okay.  First, before I ever go out into the waters, Id be sure to have someone who spoke the common Iranian languages.  As the boats approached, Id have the spokesman warn the boat drivers to stay away.  If the drivers ignored the warning, and came within 50 feet, Id shoot a warning shot (being sure to miss them) and tell them again to stay away.  Only then, if they ignored the second warning and approached within 20 feet would I blow them out of the water.



If they get within 20 feet, then you are a dead man. At 50 feet, a hell of a lot of your crew are going to be killed or wounded. That being said, how long do you think it takes one of those little boats to travel 30 feet? Also, at 50 feet, that little boat is likely below the minimum suppression level of your ship's guns.


----------



## Warner

mattskramer said:


> Okay.  First, before I ever go out into the waters, Id be sure to have someone who spoke the common Iranian languages.  As the boats approached, Id have the spokesman warn the boat drivers to stay away.  If the drivers ignored the warning, and came within 50 feet, Id shoot a warning shot (being sure to miss them) and tell them again to stay away.  Only then, if they ignored the second warning and approached within 20 feet would I blow them out of the water.



And if they were indeed attacking you'd likely have dead sailors and a court martial to deal with.

I don't think you understand the range of modern weapons, even rather primitive ones, nor have a grasp of relative speeds and rates of closure.  By the time the boat gets 50' away if it is going to attack it is going to succeed.  At even 25 knots the boat is traveling over 40' per second.  If it is going in the opposite direction of the Destroyer which is also making 25 knots, that means it would close those 50' in about 1/2 second.  And that assumes the attack is a ramming attack - what if there is a one time launch (destroying the boat) very short range rocket or torpedo of some kind built into the boat?

Not only that, but when those boats get to within less than 100' or so you'd only be able to use small arms against them.  Destroyers are not generally made to fire on targets that close, the weapons cannot aim down that steeply.

Realistically, 1000 feet is a reasonable limit for boats of this nature.  If they come within 1000 feet warning shots would be fired.  If those shots are not immediately heeded the boats should be destroyed.


----------



## Shogun

Degrees of Confidence on U.S.-Iran Naval Incident
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/20...5fafeb6410b481&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss


----------



## mattskramer

Warner said:


> And if they were indeed attacking you'd likely have dead sailors and a court martial to deal with.
> 
> I don't think you understand the range of modern weapons, even rather primitive ones, nor have a grasp of relative speeds and rates of closure.  By the time the boat gets 50' away if it is going to attack it is going to succeed.  At even 25 knots the boat is traveling over 40' per second.  If it is going in the opposite direction of the Destroyer which is also making 25 knots, that means it would close those 50' in about 1/2 second.  And that assumes the attack is a ramming attack - what if there is a one time launch (destroying the boat) very short range rocket or torpedo of some kind built into the boat?
> 
> Not only that, but when those boats get to within less than 100' or so you'd only be able to use small arms against them.  Destroyers are not generally made to fire on targets that close, the weapons cannot aim down that steeply.
> 
> Realistically, 1000 feet is a reasonable limit for boats of this nature.  If they come within 1000 feet warning shots would be fired.  If those shots are not immediately heeded the boats should be destroyed.



Okay. I dont know ship hull thickness and weapon power.  My principle still applies but Ill change the numbers.  Wow! 1000 feet seem to be very far away.  Id give the first warning at 600 feet, the second warning at 500 feet, and shoot them at 400 feet.


----------



## CSM

mattskramer said:


> Okay. I dont know ship hull thickness and weapon power.  My principle still applies but Ill change the numbers.  Wow! 1000 feet seem to be very far away.  Id give the first warning at 600 feet, the second warning at 500 feet, and shoot them at 400 feet.



And again, you would be too late. Depending on what that little boat is carrying, the lethal blast radius could be quite significant (accompanied by an even larger damage radius).  Of course, the captain of the ship has no way of knowing what that boat is carrying either, so would have to take that into consideration. Worst case, 1000 feet could even be too late.


----------



## CSM

I am admittedly no explosives expert but I seem to remember that for 50 pounds of C-4 or SEMTEX, the "safe" distance is around 1100 feet. For a charge over 500 pounds, the safe distance is something like 300 feet times the cubed root of the number of pounds of explosives. 

In any case, the captain of that ship is charged with safeguarding his vessel and all aboard. It is not about the ship's hull thickness or weapons capability; it is about how much damage is that attacking boat capable of inflicting. By the way, 500 pounds of C-4 or other explosive is not as large a quantity as you may think it is. I suspect such quantities are easily obtainable in some countries (like Iran) in the Middle East.


----------



## DeadCanDance

_"Bush Castigates Iran, Calling Naval Confrontation Provocative Act_


More fear-mongering, war mongering, assumptions, and exaggerated threats, evidently




> *NAVY TIMES:  Filipino Monkey may be behind radio threats, ship drivers say*
> 
> By Andrew Scutro and David Brown
> Posted : Friday Jan 11, 2008 17:24:25 EST
> 
> 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.
> 
> http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/01/navy_hormuz_iran_radio_080111/






> *Doubts grow over Iranian boat threats*
> 
> _Pentagon climbs down over 'you will explode' video--Mystery remains over where voice came from_
> 
> Ed Pilkington New York
> Friday January 11, 2008
> The Guardian
> 
> Doubts intensified last night over the nature of an alleged aggressive confrontation by Iranian patrol boats and American warships in the Persian Gulf on Sunday, after Pentagon officials admitted that they could not confirm that a threat to blow up the US ships had been made directly by the Iranian crews involved in the incident.
> 
> Several news sources reported that senior navy officials had conceded that the voice threatening to blow up the US warships in a matter of minutes could have come from another ship in the region, or even from shore...........snip
> 
> On Tuesday, the US administration released video footage that it said showed the Iranian speedboats harassing the American vessels. A voice in English with a strong accent was heard to say: "I am coming at you - you will explode in a couple of minutes."
> 
> The voice of the Iranian sailor in Tehran's footage was different to the deeper and more menacing voice, threatening to blow up the warships in the US version. Nor was there any sign of aggressive behaviour by the Iranian patrol boats.
> 
> snip
> 
> But the mystery remains of where the voice that apparently threatened to bomb the US ships came from. The Pentagon has said that it recorded the film and the sound separately, and then stitched them together - a dubious piece of editing even before it became known that the source of the voice could not, with certainty, be linked to the Iranian patrol boats.
> 
> A post on the New York Times news blog yesterday from a former naval officer with experience of these waters said that the radio frequency used in the Strait of Hormuz was regularly polluted with interfering chatter, somewhat like CB radio. "My first thought was that the 'explode' comment might not have come from one of the Iranian craft, but some loser monitoring the events at a shore facility."
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2239119,00.html


----------



## maineman

none of us know the rules of engagement that are presently in place in the operating area.  knowledge of previous rules of engagement is pretty much irrelevant.  I am sure that the skippers of the ships in question were well aware of the ROE's in place and acted accordingly.  the navy has been dealing effectively and appropriately with agressive and confrontational acts on the part of other country's naval vessels for a long time.  the fact that no shots were fired is a testament to the training of our units and a testament to the relatively non-eventful nature of this confrontation.


----------



## Taomon

Just another fabrication of intelligence to go to war with Iran: http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/2008/01/bush-promises-to-nuke-iran.html


----------



## Psychoblues

Please allow me to repeat the link and the truth about all this.




Taomon said:


> Just another fabrication of intelligence to go to war with Iran: http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/2008/01/bush-promises-to-nuke-iran.html




Check the quote, cowgirls.


----------



## CSM

Taomon said:


> Just another fabrication of intelligence to go to war with Iran: http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/2008/01/bush-promises-to-nuke-iran.html



There is fabrication on that web page but it sure isn't intelligence!


----------



## Gunny

mattskramer said:


> Okay. I dont know ship hull thickness and weapon power.  My principle still applies but Ill change the numbers.  Wow! 1000 feet seem to be very far away.  Id give the first warning at 600 feet, the second warning at 500 feet, and shoot them at 400 feet.



Damn matts ... he just explained where you cannot do that.  Their attack would succeed if you wait until that boat is at 400 feet.  I don't know of ANY Naval officer I ever met that would let a possible antagonist approach that close.  

I really think you aren't appreciating the situation fully.


----------



## Gunny

DeadCanDance said:


> _"Bush Castigates Iran, Calling Naval Confrontation Provocative Act_
> 
> 
> More fear-mongering, war mongering, assumptions, and exaggerated threats, evidently



More obfuscation from DeadCanDance, evidently.


----------



## CSM

GunnyL said:


> Damn matts ... he just explained where you cannot do that.  Their attack would succeed if you wait until that boat is at 400 feet.  I don't know of ANY Naval officer I ever met that would let a possible antagonist approach that close.
> 
> I really think you aren't appreciating the situation fully.



Truly, MK is what I believe representative of much of the population of this country. I do not believe that in this case MK is trying to be decietful; he just does not truly understand the situation or the realities involved. Yet he is more than willing to pass judgement and criticize others based on conjecture which is just plain wrong.  I fully realize that we all engage in this at one time or another but in this particular case (setting rules of engagement) lives are at stake.

I also find it ironic that had the current administration set the rules of engagement as some have outlined in this thread (the US ship could not fire until the attackers approached within less than 40 feet), some posters on this board would be calling Bush an idiot/moron etc. Along those same lines, it is easy to make judgement calls after the fact and from the safety of your own little world. Further, it is apparent that some who make these judgement calls have never held the responsibility for other's lives. That alone most certainly has (or should have!) a huge impact on determining a coursee of action when under attack.


----------



## Warner

CSM said:


> I am admittedly no explosives expert but I seem to remember that for 50 pounds of C-4 or SEMTEX, the "safe" distance is around 1100 feet. For a charge over 500 pounds, the safe distance is something like 300 feet times the cubed root of the number of pounds of explosives.



Well yes, but that is for someone totally exposed on the ground.  To damage a destroyer class ship would require even a 500 lbs charge to detonate very close to the ship.  If a warning is given at 1000 feet and is heeded the enemy boat would probably still come within less than 800 feet, it takes time to reverse course.  If it was not heeded, then it would probably come within about 500 feet before the destroyer actually destroyed it.

The reason why I selected 1000 feet is it gives enough decision response time to have 100&#37; confidence in destroying the boat before it gets within 250 feet or so, which is close enough to launch a special weapon.  In this case a "special weapon" would be something like a giant RPG built into the structure a boat intended as a suicide.  If the boats road in the water in such a way to make the commander believe they might house a torpedo the minimum distances would be greater.

Distances also depend somewhat on the speed of the boat and its heading.  I'm talking about the boat being at high speed and headed toward the destroyer.  Also there have to be realistic considerations.  Yes a boat that is carrying a significant amount of high explosive (probably RDX) and appropriate casing might kill a sailor two even given the above distances, but that is a risk you kind of have to take.  Otherwise, you'd have to blow up the boats out past 2000 feet which is sniper range.


----------



## Annie

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but in a general sense, the captain would not want to wait until the last meter is crossed before deciding to take action? Not saying they should be trigger happy, but IMO 'erring on the side of caution' should be regarding the ship, not the potential threat?


----------



## eots

can you say.... "tonkin"


----------



## onedomino

eots said:


> can you say.... "tonkin"


No, but we can say "idiot."


----------



## Annie

onedomino said:


> No, but we can say "idiot."



or tinfoil or ewwww, a shower is needed!


----------



## eots

Can You Say Baaa ! Baaaa !


----------



## Lookout

Warner said:


> Well yes, but that is for someone totally exposed on the ground.  To damage a destroyer class ship would require even a 500 lbs charge to detonate very close to the ship.  If a warning is given at 1000 feet and is heeded the enemy boat would probably still come within less than 800 feet, it takes time to reverse course.  If it was not heeded, then it would probably come within about 500 feet before the destroyer actually destroyed it.
> 
> The reason why I selected 1000 feet is it gives enough decision response time to have 100% confidence in destroying the boat before it gets within 250 feet or so, which is close enough to launch a special weapon.  In this case a "special weapon" would be something like a giant RPG built into the structure a boat intended as a suicide.  If the boats road in the water in such a way to make the commander believe they might house a torpedo the minimum distances would be greater.
> 
> Distances also depend somewhat on the speed of the boat and its heading.  I'm talking about the boat being at high speed and headed toward the destroyer.  Also there have to be realistic considerations.  Yes a boat that is carrying a significant amount of high explosive (probably RDX) and appropriate casing might kill a sailor two even given the above distances, but that is a risk you kind of have to take.  Otherwise, you'd have to blow up the boats out past 2000 feet which is sniper range.



The Iranians knew exactly what they were doing. Given the light of past events and how close they were...This is what should have happened.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY6nm-6eCzM&NR=1[/ame]


----------



## CSM

Warner said:


> Well yes, but that is for someone totally exposed on the ground.  To damage a destroyer class ship would require even a 500 lbs charge to detonate very close to the ship.  If a warning is given at 1000 feet and is heeded the enemy boat would probably still come within less than 800 feet, it takes time to reverse course.  If it was not heeded, then it would probably come within about 500 feet before the destroyer actually destroyed it.
> 
> The reason why I selected 1000 feet is it gives enough decision response time to have 100% confidence in destroying the boat before it gets within 250 feet or so, which is close enough to launch a special weapon.  In this case a "special weapon" would be something like a giant RPG built into the structure a boat intended as a suicide.  If the boats road in the water in such a way to make the commander believe they might house a torpedo the minimum distances would be greater.
> 
> Distances also depend somewhat on the speed of the boat and its heading.  I'm talking about the boat being at high speed and headed toward the destroyer.  Also there have to be realistic considerations.  Yes a boat that is carrying a significant amount of high explosive (probably RDX) and appropriate casing might kill a sailor two even given the above distances, but that is a risk you kind of have to take.  Otherwise, you'd have to blow up the boats out past 2000 feet which is sniper range.



Again, you have no idea of what you are talking about. Have you ever seen any type of explosives in action? 

I also find it interesting that you are willing to risk a "sailor or two"  (US sailors) for the sake of a boatload of terrorists.


----------



## Taomon

Lookout said:


> The Iranians knew exactly what they were doing. Given the light of past events and how close they were...This is what should have happened.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY6nm-6eCzM&NR=1



So you have faith that our military will always make the correct moral and ethical choice? Those boats were not a threat to our Naval ships. The whole thing is a farce and was created to garnish support for a third war theater.

I remember Rumsfeld bragging back in early 2001 that our military could be involved in three simultaneous war theaters and still protect the nation. I guess this will be put to the test, whether it is right or wrong.

And by the way, it is wrong. Our actions in Afghanistan have allowed al Qaeda to escape while we kill/bomb civilians...and allow the poppy trade to flourish again. 

But that is part of the plan; without a shadowy enemy like al Qaeda the state cannot clamp down on dissent here, eliminate liberty, and create a closed society. 

The CIA needs that extra money that drug trafficking provided so the poppy fields must stay - according to them. Never mind that America suffers from those powerful addictive derivatives of the poppy plant.


----------



## Lookout

Taomon said:


> So you have faith that our military will always make the correct moral and ethical choice? Those boats were not a threat to our Naval ships. The whole thing is a farce and was created to garnish support for a third war theater.
> 
> I remember Rumsfeld bragging back in early 2001 that our military could be involved in three simultaneous war theaters and still protect the nation. I guess this will be put to the test, whether it is right or wrong.
> 
> And by the way, it is wrong. Our actions in Afghanistan have allowed al Qaeda to escape while we kill/bomb civilians...and allow the poppy trade to flourish again.
> 
> But that is part of the plan; without a shadowy enemy like al Qaeda the state cannot clamp down on dissent here, eliminate liberty, and create a closed society.
> 
> The CIA needs that extra money that drug trafficking provided so the poppy fields must stay - according to them. Never mind that America suffers from those powerful addictive derivatives of the poppy plant.



I don't have faith in anyone doing anything for the right reason. There is no morality when it comes to defending our ships in international waters against terrorists. We are at war. Taunting our ships was an act of aggression. It isn't like we would be killing some innocent children if we took em out. In San Francisco, a tiger just killed a teen because he was drunk and taunting it...He got what he deserved. O K for a tiger but not O K for our war ships defending our assets? As far as the poppies, our government has been using drug trafficing for a long time to fund wars. Why do you think W. just recently opened up the trade routs to Peru? In a month or two the U.S. will be inundated with Cocaine...AGAIN! Same thing his daddy did. Vietnam was no different.  WWII had its influence of sugar and alcohol. I love the U.S.A. This is a great country. The people running it are what needs to change. We could end the fighting in afg. iraq and everywhere else we are real quick, but we don't. Why, because its big money. An all out offensive starting with a draft like WWII and in a year or two its all over. I really have no rabbit in this race. I believe mankind is a stupid animal that will eventually exterminate itself. I'm just sitting back watching it happen. Its comming soon. WWIII is going to happen...YAHOOOOO!!!! What a show that will be!!!! An hour after it starts, I'm not here to care, and I get to go see my maker...Win Win for me...C-mon ICBM'S...YEEE-EE_HAAAW!!!!! THe best thing mankind has managed to accomplish in its very short time of its existance is figure out every conceivable way to kill its own species. Wow, aren't we R E A L bright?


----------



## Taomon

Lookout said:


> I don't have faith in anyone doing anything for the right reason. There is no morality when it comes to defending our ships in international waters against terrorists. We are at war. Taunting our ships was an act of aggression. It isn't like we would be killing some innocent children if we took em out. In San Francisco, a tiger just killed a teen because he was drunk and taunting it...He got what he deserved. O K for a tiger but not O K for our war ships defending our assets? As far as the poppies, our government has been using drug trafficing for a long time to fund wars. Why do you think W. just recently opened up the trade routs to Peru? In a month or two the U.S. will be inundated with Cocaine...AGAIN! Same thing his daddy did. Vietnam was no different.  WWII had its influence of sugar and alcohol. I love the U.S.A. This is a great country. The people running it are what needs to change. We could end the fighting in afg. iraq and everywhere else we are real quick, but we don't. Why, because its big money. An all out offensive starting with a draft like WWII and in a year or two its all over. I really have no rabbit in this race. I believe mankind is a stupid animal that will eventually exterminate itself. I'm just sitting back watching it happen. Its comming soon. WWIII is going to happen...YAHOOOOO!!!! What a show that will be!!!! An hour after it starts, I'm not here to care, and I get to go see my maker...Win Win for me...C-mon ICBM'S...YEEE-EE_HAAAW!!!!! THe best thing mankind has managed to accomplish in its very short time of its existance is figure out every conceivable way to kill its own species. Wow, aren't we R E A L bright?


And you cannot prove that Iran actually taunted our ships and *that *is the fucking point.


----------



## doniston

Lookout said:


> I don't have faith in anyone doing anything for the right reason. There is no morality when it comes to defending our ships in international waters against terrorists. We are at war. Taunting our ships was an act of aggression. It isn't like we would be killing some innocent children if we took em out. In San Francisco, a tiger just killed a teen because he was drunk and taunting it...He got what he deserved. O K for a tiger but not O K for our war ships defending our assets? As far as the poppies, our government has been using drug trafficing for a long time to fund wars. Why do you think W. just recently opened up the trade routs to Peru? In a month or two the U.S. will be inundated with Cocaine...AGAIN! Same thing his daddy did. Vietnam was no different.  WWII had its influence of sugar and alcohol. I love the U.S.A. This is a great country. The people running it are what needs to change. We could end the fighting in afg. iraq and everywhere else we are real quick, but we don't. Why, because its big money. An all out offensive starting with a draft like WWII and in a year or two its all over. I really have no rabbit in this race. I believe mankind is a stupid animal that will eventually exterminate itself. I'm just sitting back watching it happen. Its comming soon. WWIII is going to happen...YAHOOOOO!!!! What a show that will be!!!! An hour after it starts, I'm not here to care, and I get to go see my maker...Win Win for me...C-mon ICBM'S...YEEE-EE_HAAAW!!!!! THe best thing mankind has managed to accomplish in its very short time of its existance is figure out every conceivable way to kill its own species. Wow, aren't we R E A L bright?



And this whole thread has been propogated by the actions of persons who quite likely were nao a part of the Iranian Government nor were their actions approved by said government. 

If I am wrong,  PROVE IT.


----------



## Gunny

Taomon said:


> And you cannot prove that Iran actually taunted our ships and *that *is the fucking point.



The Iranian gunboats ALWAYS have taunted our ships, and I have seen it firsthand.  I would say any other Marine of Sailor on this board who has gone through the Strait of Hormuz will tell you the same.

I am curious as to why you are so willing to give the Iranians such a benefit of doubt but with no evidence whatsoever make this statement:



> So you have faith that our military will always make the correct moral and ethical choice? Those boats were not a threat to our Naval ships. The whole thing is a farce and was created to garnish support for a third war theater.



Presumed guilt for the assumed motives of US forces.

There is NO moral and ethical choice under the conditions presented.  It is purely tactical between to armed vessels of war.

The boats ARE indeed a threat to US warships.  The are ships of war manned by military personnel of a nation hostile to the US.

Since the entire event is documented fact, it is hardly a farce.


----------



## Gunny

doniston said:


> And this whole thread has been propogated by the actions of persons who quite likely were nao a part of the Iranian Government nor were their actions approved by said government.
> 
> If I am wrong,  PROVE IT.



They were vessels of the Iranian Navy.  The Iranian Navy is the maritime force projection of the Iranian government.  What more proof do you need?  An I Iranian squid with a sign that says "the Iranian Navy is part of the Iranian Government"?


----------



## Taomon

GunnyL said:


> The Iranian gunboats ALWAYS have taunted our ships, and I have seen it firsthand.  I would say any other Marine of Sailor on this board who has gone through the Strait of Hormuz will tell you the same.
> 
> I am curious as to why you are so willing to give the Iranians such a benefit of doubt but with no evidence whatsoever make this statement:
> 
> 
> 
> Presumed guilt for the assumed motives of US forces.
> 
> There is NO moral and ethical choice under the conditions presented.  It is purely tactical between to armed vessels of war.
> 
> The boats ARE indeed a threat to US warships.  The are ships of war manned by military personnel of a nation hostile to the US.
> 
> Since the entire event is documented fact, it is hardly a farce.


So when we use that as evidence to invade Iran, I should not qusetion it? Especially since the military and the Bush administration both have no reputation for lying in order to commit acts of aggression?


----------



## Gunny

Taomon said:


> So when we use that as evidence to invade Iran, I should not qusetion it? Especially since the military and the Bush administration both have no reputation for lying in order to commit acts of aggression?



If this is used as evidence to invade Iran, *I* will question it.

There is no proof that Bush lied or he'd have been impeached for it.  The military as an organization does not lie in order to commit acts of aggression.  The military carries out the policies of the government.

Individual military persons who commit individual acts of aggression and lie about it are punished by law for doing so BY the military and are not representative of the military as a whole.


----------



## Taomon

GunnyL said:


> If this is used as evidence to invade Iran, *I* will question it.
> 
> There is no proof that Bush lied or he'd have been impeached for it.  The military as an organization does not lie in order to commit acts of aggression.  The military carries out the policies of the government.
> 
> Individual military persons who commit individual acts of aggression and lie about it are punished by law for doing so BY the military and are not representative of the military as a whole.



Fair enough


----------



## mattskramer

GunnyL said:


> If this is used as evidence to invade Iran, *I* will question it.
> 
> There is no proof that Bush lied or he'd have been impeached for it.  The military as an organization does not lie in order to commit acts of aggression.  The military carries out the policies of the government.
> 
> Individual military persons who commit individual acts of aggression and lie about it are punished by law for doing so BY the military and are not representative of the military as a whole.



Im not big into bizarre conspiracies.  Yet, Ive learned to not take everything that our government or our military says as absolute truth.  I take it with a grain of salt.  Check out the U-2 incident and I think that you will understand what I mean.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U-2_Crisis_of_1960


----------



## Lookout

Taomon said:


> And you cannot prove that Iran actually taunted our ships and *that *is the fucking point.



NOOO!!!! The "FUCKING POINT" is, I don't give a damn about some stupid terrorists being within 5000 yards of our ships for any reason. The end is comming so lets quit pussyfooting around with it. Fuck political correctness and the evil black horse that drug it to this planet! Kill em all, let GOD sort em out!!! watch my avatar.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Fals...itchcraft/origin_of_the_satanic_hand_sign.htm

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False Religions/Wicca & Witchcraft/signs_of_satan.htm


----------



## Gunny

mattskramer said:


> Im not big into bizarre conspiracies.  Yet, Ive learned to not take everything that our government or our military says as absolute truth.  I take it with a grain of salt.  Check out the U-2 incident and I think that you will understand what I mean.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U-2_Crisis_of_1960



I am not suggesting taking everything our government says as truth.  After all, it is comprised of politicians.  The military in and of itself has no public voice as far as policy goes.  The government is the voice of the military and makes policy and the military carries it out.

I just can't go for far-fetched assumptive conclusions that are supported neither by fact nor logic.


----------



## Taomon

Lookout said:


> NOOO!!!! The "FUCKING POINT" is, I don't give a damn about some stupid terrorists being within 5000 yards of our ships for any reason. The end is comming so lets quit pussyfooting around with it. Fuck political correctness and the evil black horse that drug it to this planet! Kill em all, let GOD sort em out!!! watch my avatar.
> 
> http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Fals...itchcraft/origin_of_the_satanic_hand_sign.htm
> 
> http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False Religions/Wicca & Witchcraft/signs_of_satan.htm



Ummm, those boats were not terrorists. If they were, then the Navay would have opened fire and there would have been a very large explosion giving weight to that contention.


----------



## Gunny

Lookout said:


> NOOO!!!! The "FUCKING POINT" is, I don't give a damn about some stupid terrorists being within 5000 yards of our ships for any reason. The end is comming so lets quit pussyfooting around with it. Fuck political correctness and the evil black horse that drug it to this planet! Kill em all, let GOD sort em out!!! watch my avatar.
> 
> http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Fals...itchcraft/origin_of_the_satanic_hand_sign.htm
> 
> http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False Religions/Wicca & Witchcraft/signs_of_satan.htm



On this one I'll have to disagree with you.  The vessels were Iranian Navy gunboats.  While the Islamic Republic of Iran may support suicidal terrorist groups, it is easy to assume that for credibility alone it is not going to use suicidal terror attacks as a means of official Iranian military force.

An attack such as that would not be worth the repercussions of being labelled a terrorist state by the UN and/or the sanctions resulting from it.


----------



## DeadCanDance

CSM said:


> Again, you have no idea of what you are talking about. Have you ever seen any type of explosives in action?
> 
> I also find it interesting that you are willing to risk a "sailor or two"  (US sailors) for the sake of a boatload of terrorists.



As far as I know, and as far as the fact show, they were sailors of the iranian navy...not terrorists. 

We don't know exactly what happend, but the facts suggest the boats weren't armed, and the mysterious voice on the radio was possibly not even coming from the boats, but from somebody on shore. Navy Times has a good article which says that for decades there's been kooks and cranks on the radio frequencies in the gulf that say all kinds of crazy crap.


----------



## mattskramer

GunnyL said:


> I am not suggesting taking everything our government says as truth.  After all, it is comprised of politicians.  The military in and of itself has no public voice as far as policy goes.  The government is the voice of the military and makes policy and the military carries it out.



Doesn&#8217;t the military, along with other organizations, give information (correct information or incorrect information) to the president?  Then, doesn&#8217;t the president act based, in some degree, on what information he is given?   

Isn&#8217;t that the very point made by the pro-Bush as they explain that Bush did not lie about Iraq and WMD.  He was simply given incorrect or incomplete information.  Well,  the military provides information to the president too and the president makes decision based on what information he receives.  Therefore, to some degree and indirectly, the military does have a voice, as small as it may be.

Wasn&#8217;t there a general who made statements before Congress.  I think that it was televised.  His name sounded like &#8220;Betray us&#8221;.  Many people in the private and public sector heard him.


----------



## Gunny

mattskramer said:


> Doesnt the military, along with other organizations, give information (correct information or incorrect information) to the president?  Then, doesnt the president act based, in some degree, on what information he is given?
> 
> Isnt that the very point made by the pro-Bush as they explain that Bush did not lie about Iraq and WMD.  He was simply given incorrect or incomplete information.  Well,  the military provides information to the president too and the president makes decision based on what information he receives.  Therefore, to some degree and indirectly, the military does have a voice, as small as it may be.



Military intelligence provides intel along with every other intelligence agency.  If you wish to call that "a voice," then so be it.  IMO, one would be a fool to act on the info/advice of a single intelligence gathering agency.

My response was in the context that the implication is that the military has a separate, individual voice with the public on matters of policy.  It does not.  

I also differentiate between literally lying, and providing intelligence based on the best of the military's or any other intelligence agency's ability that later proves to be erroneous.


----------



## JimH52

Bush is determined to start another war.


----------



## Gunny

JimH52 said:


> Bush is determined to start another war.



I hope you didn't spend too much time on your response, it being so well-thought-out and all ....


----------



## eots

CSM said:


> Again, you have no idea of what you are talking about. Have you ever seen any type of explosives in action?
> 
> I also find it interesting that you are willing to risk a "sailor or two"  (US sailors) for the sake of a boatload of terrorists.



terrorist ? it was a Iraq military patrol boat ..there where no  TERRORIST


----------



## maineman

GunnyL said:


> The Iranian gunboats ALWAYS have taunted our ships, and I have seen it firsthand.  I would say any other Marine of Sailor on this board who has gone through the Strait of Hormuz will tell you the same.



I second that.


----------



## Lookout

DeadCanDance said:


> As far as I know, and as far as the fact show, they were sailors of the iranian navy...not terrorists.
> 
> We don't know exactly what happend, but the facts suggest the boats weren't armed, and the mysterious voice on the radio was possibly not even coming from the boats, but from somebody on shore. Navy Times has a good article which says that for decades there's been kooks and cranks on the radio frequencies in the gulf that say all kinds of crazy crap.



Iranian military=Terrorist


----------



## JimH52

GunnyL said:


> I hope you didn't spend too much time on your response, it being so well-thought-out and all ....



Why can't the idiot just shut up and go away quietly.  I am beginning to think he forgot to make some of his friends rich.


----------



## Gunny

JimH52 said:


> Why can't the idiot just shut up and go away quietly.  I am beginning to think he forgot to make some of his friends rich.



To the contrary.  Would be nice if "the idiot" would engage in the conversation rather than play the troll quoting the Left-wing handbook.


----------



## Warner

CSM said:


> Again, you have no idea of what you are talking about. Have you ever seen any type of explosives in action?



Have you?  I experienced a road side bomb attack about 2 and a half years ago.



CSM said:


> I also find it interesting that you are willing to risk a "sailor or two"  (US sailors) for the sake of a boatload of terrorists.



We opt to take risk any time we go into hostile territory.  I don't like such a risk, but where are you going to draw the line?  If you insist on 100&#37; safety for our sailors that means they pretty much cannot operate in the strait at all.  

Whatever minimum distance we require we have to live with as well, so to me 1000 feet seems suitable.  The sailors should be wearing body armor and helmets, so the chances of being killed by a suicide boat with an HE load (couldn't be all that much given the way the boats road in the water) at 800 feet or so are reasonably small.


----------



## CSM

Warner said:


> Have you?  I experienced a road side bomb attack about 2 and a half years ago.
> 
> 30 years Army ...retired 4 years ago....left a few body parts in SE Asia.
> 
> We opt to take risk any time we go into hostile territory.  I don't like such a risk, but where are you going to draw the line?  If you insist on 100% safety for our sailors that means they pretty much cannot operate in the strait at all.
> 
> No one is asking for or insisting on 100% safety for anyone.
> 
> Whatever minimum distance we require we have to live with as well, so to me 1000 feet seems suitable.  The sailors should be wearing body armor and helmets, so the chances of being killed by a suicide boat with an HE load (couldn't be all that much given the way the boats road in the water) at 800 feet or so are reasonably small.




The whole point is that the captain of that vessel has should be abiding by the ROE as well as his own personal judgement. He is responsible for the safety of his command and has to determine what is acceptable risk. It is his call....

I have agreed that ~1000 feet is reasonable....60 feet is not. Especially that inside a certain radius, that vessel could not depress its guns to defend itself. That too has to be a consideration in the commander's decision making process. 

By the way, the boats could just as easily have been carrying a load of HE equivalent to the weight of two men (lets say 300 lbs.) and rode as you saw in the videos. 

Again, the point is such decisions are up to the commander on the scene and not some armchair wannabe who has never had the responsibility or training to make such judgements.


----------



## Warner

CSM said:


> The whole point is that the captain of that vessel has should be abiding by the ROE as well as his own personal judgement. He is responsible for the safety of his command and has to determine what is acceptable risk. It is his call....
> 
> I have agreed that ~1000 feet is reasonable....60 feet is not. Especially that inside a certain radius, that vessel could not depress its guns to defend itself. That too has to be a consideration in the commander's decision making process.
> 
> By the way, the boats could just as easily have been carrying a load of HE equivalent to the weight of two men (lets say 300 lbs.) and rode as you saw in the videos.
> 
> Again, the point is such decisions are up to the commander on the scene and not some armchair wannabe who has never had the responsibility or training to make such judgements.



I agree.  However, if he makes the wrong call and shoots the boats when they are too far out, or fails to shoot them until they are too close, his ass is grass.  That's the way things work for CO's in the military.

I agree 300 lbs of HE might be onboard such a boat.  But I don't think 300 lbs of HE detonating on the water at, say, 500' from the DD would pose much of a risk.  In order for it to pose a substantial risk to sailors on the rails of the DD it would require some kind of casing, such as 1/4" steel/iron, and that would be quite heavy.  

HE in and of itself is devastating within its expansion radius (~1000 x HE volume), nasty for about another 2x-3x that radius due to the ss shock wave, and from there on out the damage potential drops off at the cube of the distance.  To get any significant increase in the radius of effect you must include some kind of mass (or be able to recruit such from the blast point), such as a steel casing, to provide shrapnel.  Also, HE effects detonated just above the water tend to be significantly attenuated because the downward half of the detonation simply displaces water, it does not shunt out sideways nor does it recruit damaging mass.  You'd have to almost double the amount of HE to get the same effect as detonating it on land.

To do significant damage to a DD from 500' would take a hell of a lot of HE, probably several tons.


----------



## CSM

Warner said:


> I agree.  However, if he makes the wrong call and shoots the boats when they are too far out, or fails to shoot them until they are too close, his ass is grass.  That's the way things work for CO's in the military.
> 
> I agree 300 lbs of HE might be onboard such a boat.  But I don't think 300 lbs of HE detonating on the water at, say, 500' from the DD would pose much of a risk.  In order for it to pose a substantial risk to sailors on the rails of the DD it would require some kind of casing, such as 1/4" steel/iron, and that would be quite heavy.
> 
> HE in and of itself is devastating within its expansion radius (~1000 x HE volume), nasty for about another 2x-3x that radius due to the ss shock wave, and from there on out the damage potential drops off at the cube of the distance.  To get any significant increase in the radius of effect you must include some kind of mass (or be able to recruit such from the blast point), such as a steel casing, to provide shrapnel.  Also, HE effects detonated just above the water tend to be significantly attenuated because the downward half of the detonation simply displaces water, it does not shunt out sideways nor does it recruit damaging mass.  You'd have to almost double the amount of HE to get the same effect as detonating it on land.
> 
> To do significant damage to a DD from 500' would take a hell of a lot of HE, probably several tons.



No argument from me on this but I would point out that the USS Cole was rendered combat ineffective by a small boat carrying a lot less than "several tons" of HE. Again, the poster was advocating that in his opinion the first warnig should be given at 60', the second at 40' and engagement at 20'. I submit that is beyond a reasonable expectation...and thus my comment regarding that poster.


----------



## Warner

CSM said:


> No argument from me on this but I would point out that the USS Cole was rendered combat ineffective by a small boat carrying a lot less than "several tons" of HE. Again, the poster was advocating that in his opinion the first warnig should be given at 60', the second at 40' and engagement at 20'. I submit that is beyond a reasonable expectation...and thus my comment regarding that poster.



Well we can agree that those distances (60'/40'/20') are ridiculous.

As for the USS Cole, that happened because the boat was able to get right next to the ship, bringing the hull of the ship within the fundamental blast radius of the HE.  Also, if the terrorists knew what they were doing, they located the charge beneath the waterline, thus using the water to direct more of the charge energy into the hull - water is not compressible so it acts to focus such a blast.


----------



## mattskramer

Warner said:


> Well we can agree that those distances (60'/40'/20') are ridiculous.



Okay.  Okay.  I was way off.  I guess this all comes down to a subjective judgment call.   One simply hopes that the one responsible for making the judgment does not have too much of an itchy trigger finger and let it all loose at the first sign of discomfort.  At the same time, one hopes that the one responsible for making the judgment isnt too apathetic and lethargic.  Is there a set rule about when to warn and when to shoot?  If not, then I suppose that each knowledgeable captain may have his own opinion.


----------



## Annie

mattskramer said:


> Okay.  Okay.  I was way off.  I guess this all comes down to a subjective judgment call.   One *simply hopes that the one responsible for making the judgment does not have too much of an itchy trigger finger and let it all loose at the first sign of discomfort.*  At the same time, one hopes that the one responsible for making the judgment isnt too apathetic and lethargic.  Is there a set rule about when to warn and when to shoot?  If not, then I suppose that each knowledgeable captain may have his own opinion.



Yeah, there's been lots of examples of the bolded. Face it Matts, your heart is not with those serving.


----------



## maineman

mattskramer said:


> Is there a set rule about when to warn and when to shoot?  If not, then I suppose that each knowledgeable captain may have his own opinion.



The ROEs are pretty comprehensive.


----------



## Gunny

mattskramer said:


> Okay.  Okay.  I was way off.  I guess this all comes down to a subjective judgment call.   One simply hopes that the one responsible for making the judgment does not have too much of an itchy trigger finger and let it all loose at the first sign of discomfort.  At the same time, one hopes that the one responsible for making the judgment isnt too apathetic and lethargic.  Is there a set rule about when to warn and when to shoot?  If not, then I suppose that each knowledgeable captain may have his own opinion.



There are rules for the rules, but it ALWAYS comes down to the person in command making the decision.  Contrary to how you would like for it to be, not everything is cut and dried and there are not supposedly error-free computers making decisions.


----------



## mattskramer

mattskramer said:


> Okay.  Okay.  I was way off.  I guess this all comes down to a subjective judgment call.   One simply hopes that the one responsible for making the judgment does not have too much of an itchy trigger finger and let it all loose at the first sign of discomfort.  *At the same time, one hopes that the one responsible for making the judgment isnt too apathetic and lethargic.*  Is there a set rule about when to warn and when to shoot?  If not, then I suppose that each knowledgeable captain may have his own opinion.



My heart is with those who serve.  It is also with those who were carelessly and needlessly murdered by loose cannons with itchy trigger fingers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai


----------



## Gunny

mattskramer said:


> My heart is with those who serve.  It is also with those who were carelessly and needlessly murdered by loose cannons with itchy trigger fingers.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai



While it DOES happen, it doesn't happen all that often.  There will always be people who make a bad judgement call, and there will always be criminals, and both always will slip through the cracks.

I condone neither, but the fact is, it happens.  We're ALL trained to make the right decisions as determined by circumstance, and it is literally DRILLED into our heads.  You really can't ask for much more and consider it a realistic request.


----------



## mattskramer

GunnyL said:


> While it DOES happen, it doesn't happen all that often.  There will always be people who make a bad judgement call, and there will always be criminals, and both always will slip through the cracks.
> 
> I condone neither, but the fact is, it happens.  We're ALL trained to make the right decisions as determined by circumstance, and it is literally DRILLED into our heads.  You really can't ask for much more and consider it a realistic request.



People can err on either side of reasonable caution - agreed?


----------



## Gunny

mattskramer said:


> People can err on either side of reasonable caution - agreed?



Sure they can.  Erring on one side of caution gets your ship blown up.  Erring on the other side of caution might get Iranian gunboats blown up for no reason.

In this case, the right decision was made and neither happened, as it should be.


----------



## maineman

GunnyL said:


> Sure they can.  Erring on one side of caution gets your ship blown up.  Erring on the other side of caution might get Iranian gunboats blown up for no reason.
> 
> In this case, the right decision was made and neither happened, as it should be.




exactly


----------



## Alpha1

My Bro received this...
----------------------------------------

Received this from a WO 2 that I was stationed with in VC-6 Norfolk, VA.



----- Original Message -----
From: Hank Porter
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 11:39 PM
Subject: Strait of Hormuz

I see the Iranian ragheads appear to be intensifying their 'chicken games' with go fast boats in the Strait of Homuz.

I know we did this with the Soviet Navy and Soviet block ships for many years in the Med. I was there for some of the near hits and they scared the hell out of me a couple of times. I give credit to the US Navy captains. None of them yielded their right of way, but man, some of them were close calls.

Now I really don't believe any of us, including the Soviets, were trying to kill each other or start an international incedent. But these ragheads, in my opinion, are another story. I am convinced they want us to shoot first and I think we may have to do so.

I don't know what our rules of engagement are but they say the fast boats are getting within 200 yards of our ships. That's too damn close. If the ragheads decide to run in on our ships with either torpedo or suicide attacks I don't think we can take them out with any weapon other than Phalanx and then they must be up and armed at the time.

I ran drone target boats at many of our ships and none of them hit my boats with three or five inch stuff. I only lost three Firefish; one to an air attack with a Bullpup missile, one to either 50 cal or 20 mm shore fire at Dam Neck and one as a result of me ramming the destroyer I was operating from. It was an out of control runaway but it did ram the ship. They could not hit it with five inch coming in from the port beam at 30 knots. Had that been a loaded suicide run we would probably have lost the ship. In close, the boats run too fast for the 'heavy' guns to train. In addition, I got so close to the Randolph she could not depress her guns low enough to even shoot hit my boat. Of course, there was no Phalanx at the time.

I would like to think our experience with the Firefish had something to do with the development and deployment of the Phalanx system. I just don't know if that is the case. I hope Phalanx is on all our combat ships. I don't know that either.

Having Phalanx is only half the resolution. We have to use the damn thing at the right time. Case in point .... USS Cole. We must establish realistic rules of engagement and shoot first if necessary. Screw world political opinion and the Democrats.

And if /when we do, we must use air power to take out the 'mother ships' and shore bases from which the ragheads' fast boats operate.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Hank


----------



## Zoomie1980

mattskramer said:


> People can err on either side of reasonable caution - agreed?



Well, again, as has been stated here numerous times, the decisions to shoot or not to shoot are based on Rules of Engagement.  If those boats had move inside the radius called for to shoot, they would have been blown to bits.  Commanders do have final discretion concerning the safety of their crews but if they violate those rules one way to the other, they will have a lot of explaining to do.  Which is why they almost NEVER do that.


----------



## Gunny

Zoomie1980 said:


> Well, again, as has been stated here numerous times, the decisions to shoot or not to shoot are based on Rules of Engagement.  If those boats had move inside the radius called for to shoot, they would have been blown to bits.  Commanders do have final discretion concerning the safety of their crews but if they violate those rules one way to the other, they will have a lot of explaining to do.  Which is why they almost NEVER do that.



Same deal with pilots, right?


----------



## Zoomie1980

GunnyL said:


> Same deal with pilots, right?



Yea, got a lot of those.  The only problem we used to have was some the ROE's were contradictory at times.


----------



## PpleLOSINGpower

Obviously, with growing support from China and Russia, the Iranians are feeling more backed and possibly being pressured by C & R to  sort of stir the hornets nest. With Russia, China, and Iran forming the Shanghai Cooperation Oraganization to equal the power the U.S. holds with their allies, Iran may simply feel more secure in their actions of puffing up their chests. We're surely coming into some tense times, and our actions are under strict scruteny from these countries.


----------

