To fire or not to fire?

[scottwww]

To fire or not to fire?

US footage of confrontation in the Gulf - 09 Jan 08

Choose one:

The U.S. Navy should have fired on the boats.
The U.S. Navy should have fired warning shots.
The U.S. Navy should follow the rules of engagement.
The U.S. Navy should fire only with Presidential authorization.
The U.S. Navy should have discussed the situation more fully with the men in the boats.
The U.S. Navy should have consulted the U.N.
The U.S. Navy should never fire on boats.
The U.S. Navy faked the incident.

[drF80]

What is the US Navy doing 9000 miles from the USA?
I haven't heard of Russian Navy or Chinese Navy buzzing around Hawaii or California...

We need the world peace, not world policing!

[///Matt]

Working on the assumption that this video is legitimate, and not on a conspiracy theory, yes.

They should have vaporized those little bastards. We were in international waters, and they were provoking us. You can downplay their tiny boats, but more than enough explosives to sink a warship could be on any of those 5 boats.

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by ///Matt

Working on the assumption that this video is legitimate, and not on a conspiracy theory, yes.

They should have vaporized those little bastards. We were in international waters, and they were provoking us. You can downplay their tiny boats, but more than enough explosives to sink a warship could be on any of those 5 boats.

When I selected "follow the rules of engagement" I assumed that there are existing rules that the Navy will operate under. They may have rules updated from time to time by their commanders and the President. (I may be assuming too much as I am not a sailor.) If these assumptions are true, then I would expect them to operate on the rules of the day.

If they are expected in those rules to fire on boats that are exhibiting such aggressive behavior at that distance, and they are not operating on the rule of needing other verification before action (such as call the President), then I would expect they would blow them out of the water. If the rule is that it is at the discretion of the ship's commanding officer, then his call is good enough for me.

I wonder if the rules may have been updated while President Bush is in the region. I wonder if this provocative act by the Iranians was due to their trying to draw fire from the U.S. so that they could whip up anti-American sentiment among the people in the region. Al Qaeda recently threatened the life of President Bush. Maybe they thought this would further motivate the terrorists and lead up to the assassination attempt.

This could have been the action they hoped to use as a means of derailing the work of peace building between Israel and Palestine.

[DPritchett]

"The right of self-defense is never denied either in peace or war." Now, if you're threatened but not actually fired upon and you shoot - is that self-defense?

[///Matt]

Refer to the Gulf of Tonkin incident, where a speedboat packed with explosives sank the USS Cole (mid 60's.)...

By the time they "fired", it was too late for the Cole. So I certainly would not have waited this time.

Granted, the Gulf on Tonkin incident has very recently been admitted to be faked, but regardless it is still a viable plan of attack.

[drF80]

There are quite a few FAKE incidents that were a direct cause for the attack and wars... If this one was indeed fake, someone should loose his/her head as it could have been a disaster...
Luckily, the US did not act prematurely this time, and luckily it was not too late to act...

[jaiman]

Originally Posted by ///Matt

Refer to the Gulf of Tonkin incident, where a speedboat packed with explosives sank the USS Cole (mid 60's.)...

By the time they "fired", it was too late for the Cole. So I certainly would not have waited this time.

Granted, the Gulf on Tonkin incident has very recently been admitted to be faked, but regardless it is still a viable plan of attack.

what??? the Cole was attacked in 2000 in Yemen, the Gulf of Tonkin incident took place in Vietnam in 1964.

[scottwww]

US Navy Says It Fired Warning Shots

Jan 11 03:53 PM US/Eastern
By SEBASTIAN ABBOT
Associated Press Writer 7 Comments


CAIRO, Egypt (AP) - The U.S. Navy said Friday that one of its ships fired warning shots at a small Iranian boat in the Strait of Hormuz in December during one of two serious encounters that month.
The USS Whidbey Island fired the warning shots on Dec. 19 in response to a small Iranian boat that was rapidly approaching it, said a U.S. Navy official.

"One small (Iranian) craft was coming toward it, and it stopped after the Whidbey Island fired warning shots," said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

It was the first official confirmation that the United States had fired warning shots in any recent confrontation with Iran in the Gulf.

[///Matt]

Originally Posted by jaiman

what??? the Cole was attacked in 2000 in Yemen, the Gulf of Tonkin incident took place in Vietnam in 1964.

My mistake. Mixing sources perhaps? dunno.

But the point is still valid, though admitedly the names are mixed up.

[shipill]

FAKEEE

[phantom330]

I don't think they should fire unless fired upon. Maybe a warning shot or something, but firing on those boats could have started an international incident with poor outcomes for both sides.

[shipill]

my question is what are these warships doing in persian gulf ? have you seen any iranian warship around US?

[drF80]

Originally Posted by shipill

my question is what are these warships doing in persian gulf ? have you seen any iranian warship near US?

Exactly, see my post #2. But for us it seems so normal to be in everyone's ass. THat is why I suggested many times to get out and see what is out there...

[///Matt]

Originally Posted by shipill

my question is what are these warships doing in persian gulf ? have you seen any iranian warship around US?

The United States Navy provides support for trade embargos, support to allied countries, and protection for merchant ships in sometimes hostile water ways. They are there both to provide a service to those less able to defend themselves and to keep pressure on hostile nations to think before they act.

[phantom330]

Originally Posted by shipill

my question is what are these warships doing in persian gulf ? have you seen any iranian warship around US?

there really isn't a need for their ships here as there isn't mass terrorism going on in the US, only reason they would be here is to cause trouble.

[drF80]

Originally Posted by phantom330

there really isn't a need for their ships here as there isn't mass terrorism going on in the US, only reason they would be here is to cause trouble.

great propaganda with that "mass terrorism" line
We need to leave the hell people alone and mind our own business and the world will be fine...

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by dr325i

great propaganda with that "mass terrorism" line
We need to leave the hell people alone and mind our own business and the world will be fine...

The Iranian Navy is rather small. I doubt they could spare any of it to sail near American waters. Would we be concerned if they were in international waters in this hemisphere? You ignore the fact that the American ships were in international waters, not in water under Iranian control.

You might be interested in this information about Al-Qaeda as well.

[phantom330]

Originally Posted by dr325i

great propaganda with that "mass terrorism" line
We need to leave the hell people alone and mind our own business and the world will be fine...

I'm not going to debate this, but you know what I meant.

[shipill]

have you guys seen this :

[E82tt6]

I would have fired warning shots, as the rules of engagement suggest. The speed boats easily could have been loaded with explosives to go on a suicide run. If they don't respond, it's obvious that they intend to kill, and at that point they're toast.