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]

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]

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]

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

At least it didn't go without comment.

 

[Gunny]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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....