[BartSimpson]

Donny_Brasco Donny_Brasco:

I'm going to buy a second home in the US somewhere.

I wish you'd move down here permanently and improve Canada with your absence.

[SilentSAM]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

SilentSAM SilentSAM:

Thank you for those enlightening words. But I think it would better for everyones sake if the US just left it alone and concentrated on current quagmires.

And transiting the Strait of Hormuz is one way we get to one of those 'quagmires'. Iran needs to respect international law and leave us alone when we peacefully use that waterway.

Iran is the bad boy on this one.

Iran or The Revolutionary Guards? Sometimes they are not one in the same. Anyways, I am not pointing fingers at who is wrong or right. Iran's Revolutionary Guards are known to pull crap like this all the time. My statement was simply not to fall for obvious provocation.

[stemmer]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

SilentSAM SilentSAM:

Thank you for those enlightening words. But I think it would better for everyones sake if the US just left it alone and concentrated on current quagmires.

And transiting the Strait of Hormuz is one way we get to one of those 'quagmires'. Iran needs to respect international law and leave us alone when we peacefully use that waterway.

Iran is the bad boy on this one.

Bingo...!!!!

Iran is itching for a fight and like the nation of punks & cowards they are, they only attack when their victim is injured or weakened. Now all we need is for those zannies in North Korea to act up... Thanks God Bush is at the helm an not Hillary or hubby Bill...

[BartSimpson]

SilentSAM SilentSAM:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

SilentSAM SilentSAM:

Thank you for those enlightening words. But I think it would better for everyones sake if the US just left it alone and concentrated on current quagmires.

And transiting the Strait of Hormuz is one way we get to one of those 'quagmires'. Iran needs to respect international law and leave us alone when we peacefully use that waterway.

Iran is the bad boy on this one.

Iran or The Revolutionary Guards? Sometimes they are not one in the same. Anyways, I am not pointing fingers at who is wrong or right. Iran's Revolutionary Guards are known to pull crap like this all the time. My statement was simply not to fall for obvious provocation.

"Obvious provocation" is precisely when you're SUPPOSED to open fire! The Iranians in this case only backed off when they saw the guns on those ships being trained on them.

Keep your stupid, suicidal advice to yourself. We don't need any more repeats of the USS Cole attack to make people like you happy that we're not responding to obvious provocations.

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

$1:

The destroyer's rules of engagement, as approved by the Pentagon, kept its guards from firing upon the small boat loaded with explosives as it neared them without first obtaining permission from the Cole's captain or another officer.[8]

Petty Officer John Washak said that right after the blast, a senior chief petty officer ordered him to turn an M-60 machine gun on the Cole's fantail away from a second small boat approaching. "With blood still on my face," he said, he was told: "That's the rules of engagement: no shooting unless we're shot at." He added, "In the military, it's like we're trained to hesitate now. If somebody had seen something wrong and shot, he probably would have been court-martialed." Petty Officer Jennifer Kudrick said that if the sentries had fired on the suicide craft "we would have gotten in more trouble for shooting two foreigners than losing seventeen American sailors."[9]

President Bush put an end to this idiocy. If the Iranians want to make obvious provocations they will die. Better them than any more American sailors.

[Streaker]

stemmer stemmer:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

SilentSAM SilentSAM:

Thank you for those enlightening words. But I think it would better for everyones sake if the US just left it alone and concentrated on current quagmires.

And transiting the Strait of Hormuz is one way we get to one of those 'quagmires'. Iran needs to respect international law and leave us alone when we peacefully use that waterway.

Iran is the bad boy on this one.

Bingo...!!!!

Iran is itching for a fight and like the nation of punks & cowards they are, they only attack when their victim is injured or weakened. Now all we need is for those zannies in North Korea to act up... Thanks God Bush is at the helm an not Hillary or hubby Bill...

Yes. The Americans are the poor, vulnerable, aggrieved victims in this.

[Streaker]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

$1:

The Pentagon isn't a very credible source.

When it comes to twisting the truth, they're amateurs compared to the Iranians.

I seriously doubt that.

But I agree that the Iranians are no saints, either.

[SilentSAM]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

"Obvious provocation" is precisely when you're SUPPOSED to open fire! The Iranians in this case only backed off when they saw the guns on those ships being trained on them.

Keep your stupid, suicidal advice to yourself. We don't need any more repeats of the USS Cole attack to make people like you happy that we're not responding to obvious provocations.


President Bush put an end to this idiocy. If the Iranians want to make obvious provocations they will die. Better them than any more American sailors.

You can not compare this to USS Cole. Iranians have more to lose by attacking a US Naval ship then a group of rag tag terrorists with no soveren soil to protect. You fire on those boats and you are in a war. More troops and naval officers will die in a war. The Navy made the right move. If you were in charge, you would be at war with Iran right now.

[ridenrain]

far off topic, but I wonder what the likes of Sam here and Streaker will say when Iran or their buddies finally use one of their peaceful nukes for a less than peaceful purpose.

[Streaker]

ridenrain ridenrain:

far off topic, but I wonder what the likes of Sam here and Streaker will say when Iran or their buddies finally use one of their peaceful nukes for a less than peaceful purpose.

Why would Iran do that? The moment it dropped a nuke on Israel it would be wiped off the map.

[TheQuietKidd]

ridenrain ridenrain:

far off topic, but I wonder what the likes of Sam here and Streaker will say when Iran or their buddies finally use one of their peaceful nukes for a less than peaceful purpose.

I doubt Israel would like it, depending on how much of it is left... But of course, Israel would have provoked it? Right? Isn't that what they say every time Israel's neighbours attempt a gang shanking and get their asses handed to them?
I wonder if Iran realizes that if it were to use a nuke on Israel, or a Western nation, that it would be turned to glass within the hour?


Oh, and a question about the navy ships, is it possible for a Phalanx to target them little boats? Or would it all be manned MGs mounted on the side of the ships?

[SilentSAM]

ridenrain ridenrain:

far off topic, but I wonder what the likes of Sam here and Streaker will say when Iran or their buddies finally use one of their peaceful nukes for a less than peaceful purpose.

Who are you referring to as Iran's buddies? Syria?

Anyways, as for your rather pointless off topic query, I don't know about you, but I grew up with the cold war fear that a nuclear war was imminent for most of my childhood. Fear leads to irrational thinking and irrational conclusions. The threat of nuclear attack from Iran is unlikely because they know they doom themselves to death if they ever attempted it. But cause I am sports man I will amuse you. IF they ever use nuclear options, then they should be prepared to suffer the same fate.

However, since I can not predict the future I will use common sense and concentrate on actual threats.

[BartSimpson]

SilentSAM SilentSAM:

If you were in charge, you would be at war with Iran right now.

No, we would not be at war with Iran. We'd be filing a diplomatic protest over an unprovoked attack in which sadly, none of the Iranian attackers survived. And then it would be back to business as usual.

[BartSimpson]

TheQuietKidd TheQuietKidd:

Oh, and a question about the navy ships, is it possible for a Phalanx to target them little boats? Or would it all be manned MGs mounted on the side of the ships?

Phalanx can be targeted on surface targets but it requires a manual tasking order so it will recognize a target outside of designated threat parameters.

[ShepherdsDog]

besides it would be so much more satisfying to do it manually.

[Wullu]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

TheQuietKidd TheQuietKidd:

Oh, and a question about the navy ships, is it possible for a Phalanx to target them little boats? Or would it all be manned MGs mounted on the side of the ships?

Phalanx can be targeted on surface targets but it requires a manual tasking order so it will recognize a target outside of designated threat parameters.

That's the point of the new Block 1B CIWS with its new optical system.