(07-17-2012 01:05 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(07-17-2012 12:38 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(07-17-2012 10:13 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(07-17-2012 09:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-17-2012 09:34 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  The surviving fishermen say there were no warnings.

What would you expect them to say?

Do you think their self-serving statements establish the truth?

What do you expect the Pentagon to say?

Do you think its self-serving statements establish the truth?

I'm sure our ships encounter a fair amount of boats all the time, if we were trigger happy then how come this doesn't happen more often? It's a hostile area over there and Iran is shooting off its mouth; what do you expect us to do, get hit first?

So you think these fishermen had a death wish? They are experienced and said they know warnings when they see them, so if they received all these warnings, why do you think they proceeded? I'm not saying their version is the unadulterated truth, I'm just amazed at how some on here (who usually have a healthy skepticism of what the gov't says) just take whatever the Pentagon says as the unadulterated truth.

(07-17-2012 12:47 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  You're talking to someone on the left... yes he expects us to take the first punch.

Who's on the left?

I certainly hope he wasn't saying you are on the left.

(07-17-2012 01:05 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(07-17-2012 12:38 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(07-17-2012 10:13 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(07-17-2012 09:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-17-2012 09:34 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  The surviving fishermen say there were no warnings.

What would you expect them to say?

Do you think their self-serving statements establish the truth?

What do you expect the Pentagon to say?

Do you think its self-serving statements establish the truth?

I'm sure our ships encounter a fair amount of boats all the time, if we were trigger happy then how come this doesn't happen more often? It's a hostile area over there and Iran is shooting off its mouth; what do you expect us to do, get hit first?

So you think these fishermen had a death wish? They are experienced and said they know warnings when they see them, so if they received all these warnings, why do you think they proceeded? I'm not saying their version is the unadulterated truth, I'm just amazed at how some on here (who usually have a healthy skepticism of what the gov't says) just take whatever the Pentagon says as the unadulterated truth.

I think it's likely the fishmen did not hear the signal, or did not understand it. Or they were drunk jerks... I don't know but I don't think a navy ship opens up with a 50 cal *without* warning or provocation.

(07-17-2012 01:05 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  So you think these fishermen had a death wish?

Pick an answer:

1. No death wish, they thought they could capture that US Navy ship with nothing more than a water pistol.
2. Suicide bombers tend to not live long.
3. I can't believe anyone would even begin to think that the Navy is wrong on this without conclusive proof to the contrary.
4. Possible terrorists tell a story and you want to believe it. Zman tells a story and you call it all lies. Whose side are you on?

Threatening to block a port used by several countries is an act of war. What we choose to do about it ranges from nothing to all out blitzkrieg. Either way, any act of war against Iran will be justified now.

(07-17-2012 01:13 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  I think it's likely the fishmen did not hear the signal, or did not understand it. Or they were drunk jerks... I don't know but I don't think a navy ship opens up with a 50 cal *without* warning or provocation.

Can you give me the basis for your assertion that they may have been intoxicated?

(07-17-2012 01:21 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Pick an answer:

1. No death wish, they thought they could capture that US Navy ship with nothing more than a water pistol.
2. Suicide bombers tend to not live long.
3. I can't believe anyone would even begin to think that the Navy is wrong on this without conclusive proof to the contrary.
4. Possible terrorists tell a story and you want to believe it. Zman tells a story and you call it all lies. Whose side are you on?

Can you show me the evidence for your belief that they may have been terrorists? Also, please link to where I said Zimmerman's story was a lie.

It's amazing how some people will conjure up things to try to rationalize their beliefs.

(07-17-2012 01:25 PM)homefry20 Wrote:  Threatening to block a port used by several countries is an act of war. What we choose to do about it ranges from nothing to all out blitzkrieg. Either way, any act of war against Iran will be justified now.

That's convenient, because we've already committed acts of war against them.

(07-17-2012 01:32 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  Can you show me the evidence for your belief that they may have been terrorists?

We shot at them.

(07-17-2012 01:32 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  Also, please link to where I said Zimmerman's story was a lie.

Maybe it's not your story, but it's what the left is sticking to.

(07-17-2012 01:32 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  It's amazing how some people will conjure up things to try to rationalize their beliefs.

I know, I say that every time I hear a liberal say that conservatives are violent racists who want dirty air and water.

(07-17-2012 01:32 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(07-17-2012 01:13 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  I think it's likely the fishmen did not hear the signal, or did not understand it. Or they were drunk jerks... I don't know but I don't think a navy ship opens up with a 50 cal *without* warning or provocation.

Can you give me the basis for your assertion that they may have been intoxicated?

Can you give me the basis for your belief that the navy would open fire without warning?

It all depends on the Rules of Engagement. If you follow the ROE and fire, even on an "innocent" boat, your US Navy Career is secure.

If the ROE allows use of lethal force, fire away and let the State Department apologize afterward, even if a "mistake" was made.

Remember what happened to the Captain of the USS Stark that was recommended for Court-Martial because he failed to defend his Command from an incoming Iraqi warplane. He violated the ROE because he didn't take any evasive or defensive action.

Shooting down the Iran Air flight in 1988 did not jeopardize Capt. William Rogers of the USS Vincennes career because he followed the ROE. In fact he received the Legion of Merit for it.

(07-17-2012 01:49 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(07-17-2012 01:32 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(07-17-2012 01:13 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  I think it's likely the fishmen did not hear the signal, or did not understand it. Or they were drunk jerks... I don't know but I don't think a navy ship opens up with a 50 cal *without* warning or provocation.

Can you give me the basis for your assertion that they may have been intoxicated?

Can you give me the basis for your belief that the navy would open fire without warning?

There is supposedly a Bridge Video. Lets see what that shows.

If Mr. Haji ignored the warnings, well... "stuff happens" and I'm sure his family will get an apology from the State Department and probably around $2500.00 (which is the going rate for civilians killed by US Airstrikes in Afghanistan)

Yeah, I find it harder to believe that a naval ship of that size simply fired onto that boat without following a somewhat reasonable RoE to cover their own asses. I'm not going to say that's absolutely the case, but right now I have no reasonable right to question the Navy's statements.

But holy sh*t, the guy got shot by a .50 cal and is still living? I know it was a leg shot, but he's lucky he didn't die from blood-loss alone.

(07-17-2012 01:49 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(07-17-2012 01:32 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(07-17-2012 01:13 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  I think it's likely the fishmen did not hear the signal, or did not understand it. Or they were drunk jerks... I don't know but I don't think a navy ship opens up with a 50 cal *without* warning or provocation.

Can you give me the basis for your assertion that they may have been intoxicated?

Can you give me the basis for your belief that the navy would open fire without warning?

There is at least one side claiming that is what happened, making it at least plausible in the absence of indisputable proof. No one has said anything about alcohol being involved. Now please share how you came up with that hypothesis.

(07-17-2012 01:54 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  It all depends on the Rules of Engagement. If you follow the ROE and fire, even on an "innocent" boat, your US Navy Career is secure.
If the ROE allows use of lethal force, fire away and let the State Department apologize afterward, even if a "mistake" was made.
Remember what happened to the Captain of the USS Stark that was recommended for Court-Martial because he failed to defend his Command from an incoming Iraqi warplane. He violated the ROE because he didn't take any evasive or defensive action.
Shooting down the Iran Air flight in 1988 did not jeopardize Capt. William Rogers of the USS Vincennes career because he followed the ROE. In fact he received the Legion of Merit for it.

Will Rogers is a friend, we served together many years ago. He is the last person in the world who would shoot before exhausting every other option. Based on personal conversations with someone who was on watch in the MIDEASTFOR command center during the incident, he showed incredible restraint before firing.

(07-17-2012 01:33 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(07-17-2012 01:25 PM)homefry20 Wrote:  Threatening to block a port used by several countries is an act of war. What we choose to do about it ranges from nothing to all out blitzkrieg. Either way, any act of war against Iran will be justified now.

That's convenient, because we've already committed acts of war against them.

Such as?

• Taking over their Embassy?
• Bombing living quarters in a third country?
• Bombing army barracks in a third country?
• Abrogating international nuclear proliferation treaty obligations?
  

I could see them being entirely justified if we had perpetrated any of those aggressive acts against their nation.

(07-17-2012 03:39 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(07-17-2012 01:33 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(07-17-2012 01:25 PM)homefry20 Wrote:  Threatening to block a port used by several countries is an act of war. What we choose to do about it ranges from nothing to all out blitzkrieg. Either way, any act of war against Iran will be justified now.

That's convenient, because we've already committed acts of war against them.

Such as?

• Taking over their Embassy?
• Bombing living quarters in a third country?
• Bombing army barracks in a third country?
• Abrogating international nuclear proliferation treaty obligations?
  

I could see them being entirely justified if we had perpetrated any of those aggressive acts against their nation.

Stuxnet, by our own standards, was an act of war.

Quote:States have an inherent right to self-defense that may be triggered by certain aggressive acts in cyberspace,” says the policy. Indeed, such aggressive acts might compel a country like the US to act even when the hacking is targeted at an allied country.

“Certain hostile acts conducted through cyberspace could compel actions under the commitments we have with our military treaty partners,” says the document. “When warranted, the United States will respond to hostile acts in cyberspace as we would any other threat to our country.”

Military force will only be used as a last resort after other diplomatic and economic remedies are attempted, but the US government has certainly realized the value of the Internet and has no intention of sitting quietly while corporate and governmental computer systems are attacked with impunity.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/...erattacks/
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/...rspace.pdf

Then there are the sanctions levied against them, intended to harm their economy. That one is at least somewhat debatable though.

(07-17-2012 04:19 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(07-17-2012 03:39 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(07-17-2012 01:33 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(07-17-2012 01:25 PM)homefry20 Wrote:  Threatening to block a port used by several countries is an act of war. What we choose to do about it ranges from nothing to all out blitzkrieg. Either way, any act of war against Iran will be justified now.

That's convenient, because we've already committed acts of war against them.

Such as?

• Taking over their Embassy?
• Bombing living quarters in a third country?
• Bombing army barracks in a third country?
• Abrogating international nuclear proliferation treaty obligations?
  

I could see them being entirely justified if we had perpetrated any of those aggressive acts against their nation.

Stuxnet, by our own standards, was an act of war.

Quote:States have an inherent right to self-defense that may be triggered by certain aggressive acts in cyberspace,” says the policy. Indeed, such aggressive acts might compel a country like the US to act even when the hacking is targeted at an allied country.

“Certain hostile acts conducted through cyberspace could compel actions under the commitments we have with our military treaty partners,” says the document. “When warranted, the United States will respond to hostile acts in cyberspace as we would any other threat to our country.”

Military force will only be used as a last resort after other diplomatic and economic remedies are attempted, but the US government has certainly realized the value of the Internet and has no intention of sitting quietly while corporate and governmental computer systems are attacked with impunity.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/...erattacks/
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/...rspace.pdf

Then there are the sanctions levied against them, intended to harm their economy. That one is at least somewhat debatable though.

You apparently completely missed the point...

(07-17-2012 01:33 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(07-17-2012 01:25 PM)homefry20 Wrote:  Threatening to block a port used by several countries is an act of war. What we choose to do about it ranges from nothing to all out blitzkrieg. Either way, any act of war against Iran will be justified now.

That's convenient, because we've already committed acts of war against them.

You make a good point. I understand it fully. We have been committing acts of war for decades. Unlike some here...I fully support sitting down with them and discussing the folly of their actions and even discussing our past meddling in their affairs. I could care less about how it looks. Avoiding the conflict should be our top priority. They have to know that doing THIS will be a disaster for them. It will not just be the US involved.

(07-17-2012 04:52 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-17-2012 01:33 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(07-17-2012 01:25 PM)homefry20 Wrote:  Threatening to block a port used by several countries is an act of war. What we choose to do about it ranges from nothing to all out blitzkrieg. Either way, any act of war against Iran will be justified now.

That's convenient, because we've already committed acts of war against them.

You make a good point. I understand it fully. We have been committing acts of war for decades. Unlike some here...I fully support sitting down with them and discussing the folly of their actions and even discussing our past meddling in their affairs. I could care less about how it looks. Avoiding the conflict should be our top priority. They have to know that doing THIS will be a disaster for them. It will not just be the US involved.

You can't "sit down" with the Guardian Council, the IRGC, or the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic and "deal."

They don't "deal."

The only times the Islamic Republic "negotiates" is when they don't have a choice:

1980: They needed frozen assets to fight Iraq
1988: They believed the West would intervene on the side of Iraq in the Tanker War. The Iran Air shoot down spooked them.

In the meantime the US has held numerous "olive branches" out to the Iranians. And we ave been ignored.

The US gave the Iranians a pass on their slaughter of the Green Movement in 2009 and the Iranians blew Obama off.

(07-17-2012 07:52 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(07-17-2012 04:52 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-17-2012 01:33 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(07-17-2012 01:25 PM)homefry20 Wrote:  Threatening to block a port used by several countries is an act of war. What we choose to do about it ranges from nothing to all out blitzkrieg. Either way, any act of war against Iran will be justified now.

That's convenient, because we've already committed acts of war against them.

You make a good point. I understand it fully. We have been committing acts of war for decades. Unlike some here...I fully support sitting down with them and discussing the folly of their actions and even discussing our past meddling in their affairs. I could care less about how it looks. Avoiding the conflict should be our top priority. They have to know that doing THIS will be a disaster for them. It will not just be the US involved.

You can't "sit down" with the Guardian Council, the IRGC, or the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic and "deal."

They don't "deal."

The only times the Islamic Republic "negotiates" is when they don't have a choice:

1980: They needed frozen assets to fight Iraq
1988: They believed the West would intervene on the side of Iraq in the Tanker War. The Iran Air shoot down spooked them.

In the meantime the US has held numerous "olive branches" out to the Iranians. And we ave been ignored.

The US gave the Iranians a pass on their slaughter of the Green Movement in 2009 and the Iranians blew Obama off.

You have to treat the Iranians as rational actors because, in general, they are (even if individuals may be nuts). But, any results of negotiations can't really be trusted because the Iranian regime doesn't have a good history of being trustworthy.