Ah yes, those pesky prank-calling Iranian speedboats.

International waters right? Aren't they allowed to drive their boats? What are the rules on that?

The hawks will probably get their war.

Douchebags.

The rule of common-sense doesn't seem to apply, so how about the actual rules?

albo: Aren't they allowed to drive their boats? What are the rules on that?

the rule of common-sense that says it's pretty stupid to zip around 200 yards away from a warship from a navy that had a ship taken out by a similarly-sized boat in that same region and is no doubt on guard for a repeat of that.

This is nothing new, this has been going on for a long time. If they had been within a certain range, they would have been blown out of the water. They know where the cutoff is, they are just trying to provoke us.

albo: i don't hear the other candidates calling for war. calling for the US to be prepared against an enemy, sure. but ron paul doesn't even want US warships in the gulf, let along out of US waters.

I heard all the candidates, except for Paul, throw caution and reason to the wind and describe what all they would have ordered someone else's kid to do.

The only rational voice on that stage was Ron Paul.

The audience was probably still there from the pro-wrestling match that preceded the debate. When Paul spoke, you could hear their confusion, but I didn't hear any outright boos.

Also, for the morons that think it's dandy to keep two US carrier groups off the coast of Iran, imagine if Putin positioned his (considerably larger) naval forces off the US East and West coasts.....not for any specific reason. Just in-case. Is it still OK, dumbass? Why not?

Giblet: Also, for the morons that think it's dandy to keep two US carrier groups off the coast of Iran, imagine if Putin positioned his (considerably larger) naval forces off the US East and West coasts.....not for any specific reason. Just in-case. Is it still OK, dumbass? Why not?

Slightly different circumstances. The Straight of Hormuz is a strategically significant straight that needs to be open to international commerce, not just commerce and trade coming from/to Iran. It would be easily to seal off and would completely cause havoc on international economic markets. The East/West coast of the United States are not nearly of the same economic strategic value as the Straight of Hormuz. Now is it likely that our ships are there both to protect the straight for trade and to send Iran a little message? Probably. But if Putin parked Russian ships off the coast of the USA, he wouldn't have the justification that he was just making sure they were open for "international commerce" like we do.

albo: Bowen: so how about the actual rules?

what are you looking to apply? international law of the sea treaty? the Navy's rules of engagment? Iran's rules? Allah's rules?

I'm guessing he's referring to the Naval ROE in these situations.

albo: what are you looking to apply? international law of the sea treaty? the Navy's rules of engagment? Iran's rules? Allah's rules?

Internet wise-ass rules, you seem to know a lot about the subject.

Obviously I don't know much about this so I'm asking if anybody (other than you, now) knows what's customarily done in these kinds of situations - it can't be the first time it's come up.

albo: Giblet: The only rational voice on that stage was Ron Paul.

i don't think this sentence has ever before been uttered and i suspect it never will again.

The only rational voice on that stage was Ron Paul. Wanna try for another?

Paul is in the same boat McCain was in back in 2000. He's being reasonable and not showboating for the Ricky Bobby minded 'constitchency'.

McCain, before he sold his soul to Cheney and Rove, was a lot like Ron Paul (not quite as radical). I backed McCain 100% then. McCain's just another coward who's afraid to stand up for what they believe.

Bowen: albo: what are you looking to apply? international law of the sea treaty? the Navy's rules of engagment? Iran's rules? Allah's rules?

Internet wise-ass rules, you seem to know a lot about the subject.

Obviously I don't know much about this so I'm asking if anybody (other than you, now) knows what's customarily done in these kinds of situations - it can't be the first time it's come up.

Ships have to maintain a "reasonable" distance from one another.

US Navy ships, when approached in open waters (international or otherwise) will warn the other vessel(s) on the standard distress channels. At the same time, they announce the warning over loudspeakers. If the warning is ignored, they will put one round in the water in front of the other vessel. If that warning is ignored, they will fire again, probably sinking the other vessel.

So, the fact that the US captain did NOT fire a warning round tells me that he didn't perceive a real threat at all.

Huckabee, Giuliani, Romney...all of them great armchair quarterbacks...would have started a war, that we can't afford, over nothing.

And a lot of people who call themselves "Republicans" cheer these armchair generals on. Such people are fools and cowards. They are many things, but being a true Republican is not one of them.

Retard: HAY GUYS LETS ALL PUT OUR HANDZ IN THIS BLENDER YEY!

Room Full of Retards: YAYYY LETS ALL DO IT LOLZ

Some Guy: I don't think that's a very good idea.

Internet: YAYYYY ELECT SOME GUY!

Giblet: Bowen: albo: what are you looking to apply? international law of the sea treaty? the Navy's rules of engagment? Iran's rules? Allah's rules?Unl

Obviously I don't know much about this so I'm asking if anybody (other than you, now) knows what's customarily done in these kinds of situations - it can't be the first time it's come up.

Ships have to maintain a "reasonable" distance from one another.

US Navy ships, when approached in open waters (international or otherwise) will warn the other vessel(s) on the standard distress channels. At the same time, they announce the warning over loudspeakers. If the warning is ignored, they will put one round in the water in front of the other vessel. If that warning is ignored, they will fire again, probably sinking the other vessel.

So, the fact that the US captain did NOT fire a warning round tells me that he didn't perceive a real threat at all.

Huckabee, Giuliani, Romney...all of them great armchair quarterbacks...would have started a war, that we can't afford, over nothing.

And a lot of people who call themselves "Republicans" cheer these armchair generals on. Such people are fools and cowards. They are many things, but being a true Republican is not one of them.

Unless things have changed since I was in the Navy (05), what you said about warning shots is not true. They eliminated warning shots sometime during the early to mid 2000s. I just wrote a long email about this, I'll go find it and copy and paste.

They completely mocked him in the debate - he started bantering about not attacking Iran, and warmongering, and blahblahblah...

And the host says "Not one person on that stage says we should have attacked Iran. Who are you responding to, hmmmm?"

The crowd erupts in laughter at Ron Paul, as do the other candidates and the moderators. It was kind of sad, actually, to see a hero for so many made to look a complete fool.

Let me get this straight, a positive Ron Paul article?

Ok, end rant.

I wish the rest of the country saw this. He really is valuable.

wasn't the USS Cole hit by a speedboat loaded with explosives?

i'm as skeptical as anyone when it comes to this shiat, but when i saw that video it made wonder why they didn't at least fire warning shots if not blow those people out of the water.

I watched the video of the incident linked here:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3157055.ece


For those of you that don't know, I served in the Navy for 6 years, and I was on two deployments to the Gulf (Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom). I've been the through Straights of Hormuz several times. In addition to standing watch on my normal station, the CIWS anti-ship missile defense system, I was the Weapons Control Officer (in charge of co-ordinating our small arms stations (.50 cal and 25mm guns.) and I reported directly to the TAO (Tactical Action Officer) who is designated by the Captain to co-ordinate all tactical situations. So suffice it to say, I have first hand knowledge and experience in situations like this.

I'll write my opinion of what happened based on my knowledge, and I'll try my best to leave my personal opinion out of it.

As I said the other day, this is nothing new. This has been going on for years, I've seen it first hand in the early 2000s and I'm sure it's been going on for longer. Our battle group was overflown by an Iranian Helicopter one time through the Straights.

In the video you see the sailors following the protocols. For both inbound unidentified air contacts and surface contacts there are different ranges at which there are specific responses. You can hear the sailor on the bridge give these responses: "Unidentified surface craft, this is a US warship operating in international waters, you are standing into danger, identify yourself and your intentions immediately and change course", and so on. That's probably not word for word, but it's pretty close.

You hear in the video that they are at Level 1, there are different levels depending on how far the boat(s) is/are from the ship. From my experiences being on ships, the boats are not as close as they appear to be. They are certainly close enough to worry about, and I guarantee that the ship's guns were trained on them.

It seems to me from the video (which has been edited from the original 20 minutes) that the ship handled this incident correctly. The small boats were not close enough to fire upon without other provocation. As I said the other day, if they had any kind of weapon other than small arms, the ship would have picked it up as soon as it was turned on and they would have been neutralized. I know this because I worked with the people whose job it is to detect radar signatures and the like and I know how that stuff works.

As I said before, this happens all the time, but you never hear about it. The Iranians are trying to provoke an incident. As for why you hear about it now, as I said before I'm going to leave my personal opinion out of it, draw your own conclusions.

As for the threat at the end. That would certainly make their intentions known and would likely be considered justification for firing, but according to the article, as soon as the threat was made, they turned away.

The distances at which each level of response are chosen to give the ship time to protect itself. Once the boat crossed the last line, they would have been fired upon. The fact that they weren't fired upon tells me that they did not get that close. Every officer that I've ever served under in that position would have given the order to fire. Every person I've ever known to stand watch on those guns would have fired anyway once they got to a certain distance under the "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6" mentality.

Like I said, draw your own conclusions, but based on my experience, that's how I see it.

Also, for the morons that think it's dandy to keep two US carrier groups off the coast of Iran, imagine if Putin positioned his (considerably larger) naval forces off the US East and West coasts.....not for any specific reason. Just in-case. Is it still OK, dumbass? Why not?


Ok, First the only Naval Asset the Russians have of signiicance is their Boomers. Boomer are only useful for threatening nuclear strikes. Russia has no significant Naval Aviation. Aircraft Carriers are perfect for the role of intimidation without actual action. Boomers only purpose is to not be seen. So Putin puts his (in)significant Naval assets of our cost and we send in a Virginia class or two and the problem is solved.

/strategic and tactical reality
//Bush is a douche

albo: Bowen: so how about the actual rules?

what are you looking to apply? international law of the sea treaty? the Navy's rules of engagment? Iran's rules? Allah's rules?

Allahs rules on naval engagement please.

It's pretty terrifying that Ron Paul is considered a crackpot for his foreign policy views. I can sort of understand the resistance to his economic ideas, but non-interventionism is a wonderful idea.

Ron Paul is equivalent to anti-colonist British politicians in the 19th and 20th century. And when the American empire collapses, I think a lot of people are going to pay us back in spades for all the harm we've done.

Shaggy_C They completely mocked him in the debate - he started bantering about not attacking Iran, and warmongering, and blahblahblah...

And the host says "Not one person on that stage says we should have attacked Iran. Who are you responding to, hmmmm?"

The crowd erupts in laughter at Ron Paul, as do the other candidates and the moderators. It was kind of sad, actually, to see a hero for so many made to look a complete fool.

I enjoyed the cut screen they had whenever Ron Paul talked. McCain and Romney's facial expressions were priceless.

Not the first time that the Republican candidates came out sounding immature.

If we go to war with Iran how will Ron Paul be able to afford his massive war on the poor and downtrodden?

The actual real story may be that the real story was even more bogus than we were lead to fear. Slowly climbing up the charts from the dustbin of Friday backpages comes the story that the indecnt radio chatter may not have been from the Iranians. Soure: Pentagon. See this article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/10/AR2008011000692. html?hpid=topnews

Ron Paul twats: Plz shaddup. I believe we have enough racist quotes around from him to pwn you for all eternity.

Ron Paul is the only Republican presidential candidate not ready to go to war with Iran over a few speed boats zipping around in circles

That's because he's a racist.

Shaggy_C: They completely mocked him in the debate - he started bantering about not attacking Iran, and warmongering, and blahblahblah...

And the host says "Not one person on that stage says we should have attacked Iran. Who are you responding to, hmmmm?"

The crowd erupts in laughter at Ron Paul, as do the other candidates and the moderators. It was kind of sad, actually, to see a hero for so many made to look a complete fool.

The moderator must not have been paying attention then. Paul was responding to the hawkish responses that the other candidates gave. If you'd like, I can give examples.

Giblet: Paul is in the same boat McCain was in back in 2000. He's being reasonable and not showboating for the Ricky Bobby minded 'constitchency'.

McCain, before he sold his soul to Cheney and Rove, was a lot like Ron Paul (not quite as radical). I backed McCain 100% then. McCain's just another coward who's afraid to stand up for what they believe. politician.

I appreciate your point. But consider this: McCain lost the nomination in 2000.

I've seen a few guys like you biatching about how McCain "sold his soul", when really he made a distasteful political compromise. McCain learned his lesson in 2000, and he's not going to repeat it. He needs to pander to the Republican party a bit. Hell, one of the biggest criticisms from the Republicans is that he's too centrist. Now he's won one primary and is polling like he's going to win another.

In politics, the ends justify the means sometimes. You're looking for some kind of ideal that doesn't exist. Well, it does in Ron Paul. Who has no chance of winning. That's the lesson McCain learned in '00.

d'art: If we go to war with Iran how will Ron Paul be able to afford his massive war on the poor and downtrodden?

Uh... you're right! All that inflation is certainly helping the poor!

/Please
//RON PAUL!

Which is exactly why the following people, who control almost ALL of the news America sees on TV, are doing everything in their power to marginalize and discredit him.

Jeffrey Zucker, CEO NBC TV
Robert Iger, CEO ABC
Leslie Moonves, CEO CBS, grandnephew of David Ben Gurion
Jonathon Klein, CEO CNN
Peter F. Chernin, President and COO FOX

Yeah, the media sure missed the boat on Iraq and WMDs. Or did they?

Israeli agents out!

d'art: If we go to war with Iran how will Ron Paul be able to afford his massive war on the poor and downtrodden?

Please elaborate.

Oh and BTW, you're wrong

"But I know what I am and I'm glad I'm a man
And so is Lola"

whconner4

Pro-war twats: please, shut up. I believe we've seen enough of your misguided imperialism to pwn you for all eternity.

whconner4: Ron Paul twats: Plz shaddup. I believe we have enough racist quotes around from him to pwn you for all eternity.

Right... because words are more harmful than farked up policy.
You just won the "Douchebag Award".

albo: Giblet: Also, for the morons that think it's dandy to keep two US carrier groups off the coast of Iran, imagine if Putin positioned his (considerably larger) naval forces off the US East and West coasts.....not for any specific reason. Just in-case. Is it still OK, dumbass? Why not?

iran is right beside iraq. the carriers are there to support the troops in Iraq

No they aren't. Those two carrier groups are in addition to the Iraq support vessels. Those carrier groups are there to intimidate Iran into making a mistake, or to facilitate a false-flag attack as an excuse to go to war.

And submarines can't support Iraq ops. Why were two nuke subs moved to the gulf?

*Other* than to instigate a war, I mean.

Don't get me wrong. I understand why we're doing this; we needed to secure guaranteed access to oil so that when the dollar is no longer accepted, F18s can still take off. That's Iraq. Now, we need to eliminate the only serious military threat in the region, Iran. See, Iran wouldn't hesitate to attack US troops in Iraq if the Iranians felt it was our only way to obtain oil, so we have to eliminate or cripple Iran. Iran has a significant army and navy, much of which is led by US-trained officers.

This plan is over 10 years old, and we have followed that plan, step for step. The administration didn't count on their own military incompetence though. Letting Rumsfeld have any say in this has been a total disaster.

We can't afford to attack Iran. We can't afford to correct the mistakes in Iraq. We. Are. Broke.

It's time to withdraw and try something else, like make cool stuff and get everyone else in the world to buy it. What, you don't like "rich"?

Just to make sure I understand this correctly, we send war ships in their area, they send out boats.. and we get upset and want war? The fact that we push and have gotten sanctions on Iran is an act of war, even worse so because it directly involves Iranian civilians. Secondly, we provoke them by sending war ships their way, with absolutely no proof what so ever of the claims Bush has made. This country is ruled by warmongers, and the very few candidates who want us out immediately are doing poorly.

This is not going to end well, for anybody.

whconner4: Ron Paul twats: Plz shaddup. I believe we have enough racist quotes around from him to pwn you for all eternity.

Are you suggesting he doesn't want to kill Iranian sailors because of racism?

/I'll be damned if I give them 72 virgins.

Giblet:
The only rational voice on that stage was Ron Paul.


Not so much reasonable as anachronistic. If you get all of your politics from the 1870s of course you're going to be an isolationist. Oh, wait, we're supposed to add 'neo' to any concept that's been around in politics longer than six months.

Neoisolationist.

whconner4: Ron Paul twats: Plz shaddup. I believe we have enough racist quotes around from him to pwn you for all eternity.



Oh really

whconner4: Ron Paul twats: Plz shaddup. I believe we have enough racist quotes around from him to pwn you for all eternity.

Nope, you don't. In fact, you have 0 quotes. Old news, fodder for the faithful haters. That's it for attempted smears though, they are going to have to fight him on policy issues. And well, we all know none of them are smart enough to do that.

Jim_Callahan:

Neoisolationist.Non-Interventionist
FTFY.

hockeyfarker: Giblet: Paul is in the same boat McCain was in back in 2000. He's being reasonable and not showboating for the Ricky Bobby minded 'constitchency'.

McCain, before he sold his soul to Cheney and Rove, was a lot like Ron Paul (not quite as radical). I backed McCain 100% then. McCain's just another coward who's afraid to stand up for what they believe. politician.

I appreciate your point. But consider this: McCain lost the nomination in 2000.

I've seen a few guys like you biatching about how McCain "sold his soul", when really he made a distasteful political compromise. McCain learned his lesson in 2000, and he's not going to repeat it. He needs to pander to the Republican party a bit. Hell, one of the biggest criticisms from the Republicans is that he's too centrist. Now he's won one primary and is polling like he's going to win another.

In politics, the ends justify the means sometimes. You're looking for some kind of ideal that doesn't exist. Well, it does in Ron Paul. Who has no chance of winning. That's the lesson McCain learned in '00.

You're right, of course. But I'm still voting for the honest guy that still knows what the Republican party's values are.

The market will decide if we have a war with Iran.

Giblet, very interesting. Is there a site, or book I can read through to learn more about this "plan".

Hendrix: Just to make sure I understand this correctly, we send war ships in their area, they send out boats.. and we get upset and want war? The fact that we push and have gotten sanctions on Iran is an act of war, even worse so because it directly involves Iranian civilians. Secondly, we provoke them by sending war ships their way, with absolutely no proof what so ever of the claims Bush has made. This country is ruled by warmongers, and the very few candidates who want us out immediately are doing poorly.

This is not going to end well, for anybody.

You're not understanding correctly. We're patrolling in the 'international waters' bit of the gulf, if you get that close to any navy vessel on alert you're getting shot and have no one to blame but yourself (french navy, chinese navy, doesn't matter, it's fairly universal) and UN sanctions are specifically designed to be a diplomatic alternative to the immediate execution of combat activities.

And... Bush hasn't made any claims about Iran that sound like a war to anyone but the paranoid, unless I've missed something recent. He's made it clear that he doesn't like them and their nuclear research makes him nervous, but that's not so much a claim as an expresison of some basic truths regarding the mutual distrust between our governments.

Jim_Callahan: Giblet:
The only rational voice on that stage was Ron Paul.


Not so much reasonable as anachronistic. If you get all of your politics from the 1870s of course you're going to be an isolationist. Oh, wait, we're supposed to add 'neo' to any concept that's been around in politics longer than six months.

Neoisolationist.


Non-interventionism is not the same thing as isolationism. You can read Paul's position in his own words (new window). Do you think Switzerland is hurting dUE to their non-interventionism?

Just because a position may be anachronistic doesn't mean it isn't best. Capitalism was anachronistic during communisms reign.

Noninterventionism is not isolationism. Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations. It does not we that we isolate ourselves; on the contrary, our founders advocated open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.

Thomas Jefferson summed up the noninterventionist foreign policy position perfectly in his 1801 inaugural address: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations- entangling alliances with none." Washington similarly urged that we must, "Act for ourselves and not for others," by forming an "American character wholly free of foreign attachments."

Drant: The moderator must not have been paying attention then. Paul was responding to the hawkish responses that the other candidates gave. If you'd like, I can give examples.

No, it's ok, I watched it happen.

whconner4

why do people like this guy still believe this shiat? it's obvious whconner4 believes anything he hears, but it's sad he not only believes that about Ron Paul, but he goes about telling other people, who just might be stupid enough also to believe it without researching on his own, or at the very least take the oppositions point of view.

Jim_Callahan: Giblet:
The only rational voice on that stage was Ron Paul.


Not so much reasonable as anachronistic. If you get all of your politics from the 1870s of course you're going to be an isolationist. Oh, wait, we're supposed to add 'neo' to any concept that's been around in politics longer than six months.

Neoisolationist.

Really?

If the captain of that destroyer had been one of the Non-Paul candidates, the odds are quite good that every US military person in th gulf would be dead or cut off from rescue by now. The Iranians are quite powerful in their own rite, and they have the sympathies of Moscow and Beijing.

The only candidate whose opinion matched EXACTLY with the actual naval captain of the destroyer in the gulf, was Ron Paul.

Are you going to call for the Navy captain's courts martial next?

You sir, are precisely the sort of dumbass coward I described above.