What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

DON'T GIVE UP THE SHIP

Kareval

Rookie
Joined
Nov 25, 2015
Messages
16
Reaction score
8
Points
1
Location
Florida
Subject: FW: Don't give up the ship
Bob Lonsberry's analysis is right on and this is exactly what I said when I saw the T.V. pictures.
Something here smells and I believe one of those sailors on board should be able to answer what really was the situation and the orders received.
When I saw the US Navy Boats with its mounted 50 Cal. guns on deck, those three small Iranians fishing boats would have been no match. I am sure they were told to stand down and make no waves.
Don't believe the White House story. This looks like a set-up to guarantee the agreement with Iran would be pushed through and to make Iran and the US look like they have a good working relations. Remember what John Kerry said on T.V........he and the Obama 'treaty' are the saviors???
This is Bull
DON'T GIVE UP THE SHIP
by Bob Lonsberry © 2016
The account of two U. S. Navy vessels being seized by the Iranian navy earlier this week seems completely implausible.
No part of it makes any sense.
The story is that two river patrol boats – bristling modern-day incarnations of the Vietnam swift boats – were navigating south from Kuwait to Bahrain. At some point, via some means, the two boats, with their contingent of five sailors each, surrendered to the Iranians.
Two accounts have been offered as to how that happened. The first was that one of the vessels lost its engine and that they both then drifted into Iranian waters. The other was that the two boats had been operating fine, but inadvertently navigated into Iranian territory.
Simply put, they got lost.
Neither account seems possible.
First off, if one of the boats broke down, and the sailor aboard trained to tend the engine couldn't fix it, the other boat would merely take it in tow and they would proceed on their way. That is not a novel maritime undertaking.
The second scenario – oops, we got lost – is even less likely. It turns out that navigation and navigation equipment are kind of a high priority for the Navy. Boats don’t get lost. Highly technical navigation equipment on both boats would have told crew members exactly where they were.
And in the unlikely event that both boats lost all electronic navigational equipment, and the compasses lost track of magnetic north, there is the simple fact that sailing from Kuwait to Bahrain pretty much involves nothing more complex than keeping the shore on your starboard side. And should you lose sight of shore, and can remember that the map has safety to the west and danger to the east, you’d think that the position of the sun in the sky or the fact that prevailing winds in the Persian Gulf in the winter are northwesterly, would somehow have allowed our sailors to find the Saudi shoreline instead of Iranian waters.
And all of that presumes that these two boats were operating alone in the open seas, which they presumably were not. There is, in fact, a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier battle group operating in the Persian Gulf.
The USS Harry S Truman owns the Persian Gulf these days, and the significant American military presence in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait – lands immediately proximate to the waters where our sailors were operating – makes us the biggest dog on the block.
And we’ve got radar and helicopters and airplanes and stuff like that.
And if an American vessel breaks down at sea, or strays from course, under those operational conditions, there are a lot of American assets that would both notice the problem and be able to offer relief.
Yet no one did.
We’re supposed to believe nobody radioed a couple of inexplicably lost boats to ask where they were going? When one of them supposedly broke down, a carrier battle group had no means to come to their assistance?
That makes no sense.
It’s completely unbelievable.
So is the apparent conduct of the sailors in the face of a supposed challenge by the Iranian military.
If one of the vessels was disabled, as is claimed, and hostile craft are approaching, bringing with them the prospect of capture and captivity, don’t you put all 10 sailors on the able boat, sink the disabled boat, and race the bad guys back to international waters?
From the Iranian video, it looks like two or three bass boats and four guys in mismatched uniforms, with a couple of AK's, captured two far-larger and better-armed American boats, both of which were bristling with mounted machine guns.
Here’s a fact: When you're kneeling on the deck of your own boat, with your hands clasped behind your head, and some guy’s shouting at you in terrorist language, things didn't go right.
And yet, that’s exactly what supposedly happened here. Ten American sailors, successors to Captain James Lawrence, are on their knees next to their unfired guns, in the face of a smaller and less well-armed opponent – with little American flags snapping in the breeze.
This is not the stuff of Commodore Perry and Admiral Farragut.
And you wonder whose call it was.
How far up the chain of command did they have to go to find the cowardly lion who ordered this genuflection before a bunch of savages? Did this get bounced all the way to the Pentagon, or the Situation Room? Which secretary of what made the decision not to put a squadron of naval aviators above those two boats to keep the camel jockeys at bay?
It is shameful, a worldwide embarrassment for the nation and the Navy.
And it is topped off by an obsequious videotaped apology, and pictures of our sailors, captive in hostile hands, the female with a towel over her head.
The President can ignore this.
But we can’t.
We got pantsed. We got humiliated. We showed either weakness or incompetence. And unfortunately either one only invites aggression against us.
It is inconceivable that you could find 10 Americans willing to surrender themselves and their equipment without a fight. It is not plausible that any young man or woman entering into the naval service would willingly kneel on the deck of a combat-capable ship.
Somebody told them to give up.
And that somebody, and the philosophy he represents, will be the death of us.
- by Bob Lonsberry © 2016
 

Jackson

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2010
Messages
27,506
Reaction score
7,905
Points
290
Location
Nashville
Well done, Kareval! The entire scenario did not make sense as some of our posters agree. So, what was the purpose of that encounter? Were our sailors on some mission and when the were discovered, our leaders told them to disarm and allow the soldiers to be arrested? Was the whole thing staged?

Ineptness is the middle name of the CiC. Add Kerry to the mix and we're right up there acting with the finesse of a cartoon. I do hope we elect a strong leader who can make decisions that don't weaken us in the eyes of the world.
 

iamwhatiseem

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
27,897
Reaction score
10,420
Points
900
Location
On a hill
Well done, Kareval! The entire scenario did not make sense as some of our posters agree. So, what was the purpose of that encounter? Were our sailors on some mission and when the were discovered, our leaders told them to disarm and allow the soldiers to be arrested? Was the whole thing staged?

Ineptness is the middle name of the CiC. Add Kerry to the mix and we're right up there acting with the finesse of a cartoon. I do hope we elect a strong leader who can make decisions that don't weaken us in the eyes of the world.

I believe this is more apt to be true than anything.
As Kareval states there are at least 20 reasons why the story cannot possibly be true.
I believe they were on a mission, got caught and were told to allow themselves to to be captured to avoid confrontation.
But even with that....why these boats and not a submarine? Why on earth would you send two boast almost surely to be seen and not navy seals with a number of ways to enter/exit enemy waters???
Nothing makes sense here.
 

peach174

Gold Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2010
Messages
26,438
Reaction score
6,986
Points
290
Location
S.E. AZ
Well done, Kareval! The entire scenario did not make sense as some of our posters agree. So, what was the purpose of that encounter? Were our sailors on some mission and when the were discovered, our leaders told them to disarm and allow the soldiers to be arrested? Was the whole thing staged?

Ineptness is the middle name of the CiC. Add Kerry to the mix and we're right up there acting with the finesse of a cartoon. I do hope we elect a strong leader who can make decisions that don't weaken us in the eyes of the world.

I believe this is more apt to be true than anything.
As Kareval states there are at least 20 reasons why the story cannot possibly be true.
I believe they were on a mission, got caught and were told to allow themselves to to be captured to avoid confrontation.
But even with that....why these boats and not a submarine? Why on earth would you send two boast almost surely to be seen and not navy seals with a number of ways to enter/exit enemy waters???
Nothing makes sense here.


It was a political move to help Iran with their propaganda on this deal.
 

TheOldSchool

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2012
Messages
62,631
Reaction score
10,070
Points
2,070
Location
last stop for sanity before reaching the south
There is nothing republicans can't turn into a massive Obama conspiracy

There is nothing Obamabots cannot close their minds to if there is any possibility their dear leader did something wrong.
Obama was probably INSIDE Iran and gave the order to attack the ships! With nukes! But the Mullahs talked him out of it because it's too soon!

Come on let's get really crazy with this! Where was Hillary when this happened? What did she know and when did she know it?!
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$260.01
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top