SUBSIM Radio Room Forums

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)
-   General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)
-   -   US attack on Iran? (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=109610)

Tchocky 03-28-07 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waste gate
I'm sure the ROE were in play. But if I'm an Iranian in a small boat, and If I see a warship bearing down on my position at a high rate of speed I would be seriously thinking about getting my behind the hell out. Perhaps the British ROE had been compromised and the Iranians knew that they were safe in their action.

The boats were in too shallow water for the Cornwall to come to them, check my post from the BBC.

Quote:

Originally Posted by melnibonian
What I'm trying to say here is that the Royal Navy kept their cool and did not allow themselves to be drown into a gun fight. In my opinion the way the Royal Navy and the British Government handled the issue was (and so far still is) correct.

Definitely. Don't start a war unless you absolutely have to
http://www.petersellersappreciations...elMandrake.jpg

Penelope_Grey 03-28-07 03:49 PM

I can't understand why though the government is allowing 15 men to be held hostage. I hope to god some dialogue has been opened.

03-28-07 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enigma
If the report Tchocky posted is accurate, it makes alot more sense. What doesnt make sense to me so far is why I havent seen Blair on TV telling the Iranians to release his people today, or be prepared for the consequences. Its ultimatum time. Give them 72 hours to release the sailors.

Having said that, it's probably good that Blair isnt as hot tempered as I am when it comes to such situations. I think if we were talking about 15 sailors being held by some other country, I wouldnt be as impatient with it. But given Irans history, and our recent repeated bashing of heads with them, im not liking this one bit.

From November 4, 1979, through January 20, 1981. The Islamic regime, held 63 diplomats and three additional U.S. citizens hostage inside the American diplomatic mission in Tehran, Iran.

This is what these people do.

melnibonian 03-28-07 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enigma
If the report Tchocky posted is accurate, it makes alot more sense. What doesnt make sense to me so far is why I havent seen Blair on TV telling the Iranians to release his people today, or be prepared for the consequences. Its ultimatum time. Give them 72 hours to release the sailors.

And then what? Send in the SAS to release them? Cause more trouble in the relations with Iran?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enigma
Having said that, it's probably good that Blair isnt as hot tempered as I am when it comes to such situations. I think if we were talking about 15 sailors being held by some other country, I wouldnt be as impatient with it. But given Irans history, and our recent repeated bashing of heads with them, im not liking this one bit.

I agree with you on this one. It will probably take some time. There will be some kind of deal under the table and the sailors will go home eventually. It's the unfortunate world of politics I'm affraid.

melnibonian 03-28-07 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Penelope_Grey
I can't understand why though the government is allowing 15 men to be held hostage. I hope to god some dialogue has been opened.

The British Government is not allowing anything. They are in no position to allow or not to allow stuff to happen. They just need to sit down with Iran and see how they can sort this thing out. There will be deals in the end, but angry talk and shows of force will not bring the solution closer in my opinion.

Oberon 03-28-07 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike
This will no doubt be postponed due to my April 2 invason of Earth followed by my April 3 victory celibration. :yep:

No, no, no, your timing is all out....

Should be July 4th, then you can have the victory celebration and Independence Day in one party.

These guys got it right.

http://www.bibleetnombres.online.fr/image2/inde4jul.jpg

Wim Libaers 03-28-07 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapitan_Phillips
Is that a legit story on the front page, or a hoax? I want to believe the latter :dead:

Well, if one looks at the front page of that site ( http://www.rense.com/ ), one can't help but notice there's something special about it.

STEED 03-28-07 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wim Libaers

Not rense again, AL will make a sarcastic remark or a clever one. :roll:

fatty 03-28-07 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wim Libaers
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapitan_Phillips
Is that a legit story on the front page, or a hoax? I want to believe the latter :dead:

Well, if one looks at the front page of that site ( http://www.rense.com/ ), one can't help but notice there's something special about it.

Special in the way its front page has hands-down the funniest picture of Dick Cheney I've ever seen. He's really up to no good in that one. It must be the red tint.

http://jmgillis.com/cheney.jpg
"Why make trillions when we could make... billions?"

gnirtS 03-28-07 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Penelope_Grey
What puzzles me is why the warship allowed those 15 men to be taken in the first place without doing something!

What could it do? It was 8 miles away at the time, the soldiers themselves were armed only with SA80s so fighting back would have been suicide.

There was helicopter top cover for the first part but it returned to cornwall to refuel.

Theres nothing cornwall could do from 8 miles away to assist. If it opens first then lots of people are dead on both sides.

So many inconsistencies in the MoDs account today anyway there maybe other reasons for not trying anything. How both iranian boats allegedly sneaked up and ambushed is an interesting claim given the radar coverage of the entire area by land and sea.

As the USA continues to provoke iran at every oppertunity hoping to get a reaction and therefore excuse to bomb it these incidents are just going to get more and more common.

Yahoshua 03-28-07 09:02 PM

Iran is defying the world with their drive for nuclear power while refusing oversight to ensure that Iran doesn't build nuclear weapons.

I'm intrigued how this became the fault of the U.S. Please explain.

Tchocky 03-28-07 09:03 PM

Provocations? Ask anyone on the USSJohn C. Stennis

gnirtS 03-28-07 09:09 PM

Given americas incredible hypocrisy on the nuclear issue it really has no right to dictate to others what they can and cant do. They cant mention things like geneva convention either. The laughable "nuclear ambiguity" clause with israel makes it even more of a farce. Another country "not allowed" nukes but is allowed to have 200+ warheads as long as it doesn't really admit it.

If actions and words had agreed with each other then fine but double standards are in force.

Iran has had its neighbour invaded by a hostile state which is now being used as a staging ground. Having been threatened and bullied now for years its backed into a corner.
As North Korea proved, the only language bush understands is conflict so the only way to make sure you wont be attacked is to get a nuclear weapon. Then he'll wander off and bomb somewhere else he cant spell or find on a map. Its bought new state of the art missiles off russia specifically designed to target UAVs - due mainly to the UAVs that have been and still are invading its airspace.

gnirtS 03-28-07 09:11 PM

[quote=melnibonian]
Quote:

Originally Posted by Penelope_Grey
IThey just need to sit down with Iran and see how they can sort this thing out. There will be deals in the end, but angry talk and shows of force will not bring the solution closer in my opinion.

ANY attempt to use force or threats will simply back Iran further into the corner. The situation at the moment isnt serious. It'll be over in a few weeks at most, neither side is going to want to provoke the other into anything. If tensions aren't raised its a non issue, they'll be quietly released and that'll be the end of it. If threats are made Iran wont want to be seen as weak and give in so theres far less chance of a release.

Enigma 03-28-07 09:18 PM

Gnirts, after reading some of your posts in the last 5 minutes, I just have to ask out of my own curiosity....

Where, exactly, are you from?

gnirtS 03-28-07 09:20 PM

The UK.

moose1am 03-28-07 09:39 PM

8 mile away? What's the range on those rubber inflatable boats? And were these small boats not searching an ocean going vessel? What's the draft of that vessel and how deep was the water this ship was located in? Can't the British ship sail in the same waters?

Were these small British Boats not attached to this larger British War Ship?

I wish that the news media would get more details about this story.




Quote:

Originally Posted by gnirtS
Quote:

Originally Posted by Penelope_Grey
What puzzles me is why the warship allowed those 15 men to be taken in the first place without doing something!

What could it do? It was 8 miles away at the time, the soldiers themselves were armed only with SA80s so fighting back would have been suicide.

There was helicopter top cover for the first part but it returned to cornwall to refuel.

Theres nothing cornwall could do from 8 miles away to assist. If it opens first then lots of people are dead on both sides.

So many inconsistencies in the MoDs account today anyway there maybe other reasons for not trying anything. How both iranian boats allegedly sneaked up and ambushed is an interesting claim given the radar coverage of the entire area by land and sea.

As the USA continues to provoke iran at every oppertunity hoping to get a reaction and therefore excuse to bomb it these incidents are just going to get more and more common.


RedMenace 03-28-07 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnirtS
Given americas incredible hypocrisy on the nuclear issue it really has no right to dictate to others what they can and cant do. They cant mention things like geneva convention either. The laughable "nuclear ambiguity" clause with israel makes it even more of a farce. Another country "not allowed" nukes but is allowed to have 200+ warheads as long as it doesn't really admit it.

If actions and words had agreed with each other then fine but double standards are in force.

Bingo! You hit the nail on the damn head. No country respects, or even FEARS, a nation that shows SUCH a display of hypocrisy. "You can't have those. What do you mean "how come you can?" Because we're the godamm United States of America, that's why!"

Not only that, what you mentioned about Israel is TOO true. You can build all the warheads you want as long as you never admit you have them, apparently.

In my opinnion, everyone (or no-one at all works too should have nuclear weapons. MAD is the only deterrent there is.

The Avon Lady 03-28-07 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnirtS
Given americas incredible hypocrisy on the nuclear issue it really has no right to dictate to others what they can and cant do. They cant mention things like geneva convention either. The laughable "nuclear ambiguity" clause with israel makes it even more of a farce. Another country "not allowed" nukes but is allowed to have 200+ warheads as long as it doesn't really admit it.

If actions and words had agreed with each other then fine but double standards are in force.

Iran has had its neighbour invaded by a hostile state which is now being used as a staging ground. Having been threatened and bullied now for years its backed into a corner.
As North Korea proved, the only language bush understands is conflict so the only way to make sure you wont be attacked is to get a nuclear weapon. Then he'll wander off and bomb somewhere else he cant spell or find on a map. Its bought new state of the art missiles off russia specifically designed to target UAVs - due mainly to the UAVs that have been and still are invading its airspace.

Wah! Wah! Boo hoo! Mommy, Joey's got a nuke. I want one, too!! :oops:

Why No Nukes for Iran? The rules of the game.

Pathetic this has to be spelled out.

Ark 03-28-07 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnirtS
Given americas incredible hypocrisy on the nuclear issue it really has no right to dictate to others what they can and cant do. They cant mention things like geneva convention either. The laughable "nuclear ambiguity" clause with israel makes it even more of a farce. Another country "not allowed" nukes but is allowed to have 200+ warheads as long as it doesn't really admit it.

Given the fact that America is hardly a country known for it's support of terrorists......


Oh forget it.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:06 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2025 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.