[Rhodes22-list] The following post is Political, Religious, Educational, point of discussions, Big Al delete!

[Brad Haslett]

Herb,

As more information trickles in I'm gaining more respect for the Admiral at
the helm.  Think about it - you've got speed boats coming at you, ala Cole,
dumping boxes in the water (old catering or mines?), transmissions coming in
on the radio threatening to destroy you (is that a Farsi accent or Arabic?
Did I hear that on channel 16 or another frequency?)  Now mix in a little
personal fear and some career issues (am I going to be the next Vincennes
commander or will I lose my ship?)  Cooler heads prevailed.

The last thing we need is another shooting war.  However, comma, I hope
Amadopehead has been put on notice that the ROE has changed.  The new policy
that should be communicated is that we will  shoot first and let Allah
figure it out! Is this guy (Dopehead) just spouting off steam about "wiping
Israel off the map" or is he like Hitler and is serious about his big talk?
It could be the question of the century.

Brad

On Jan 12, 2008 12:21 AM, Herb Parsons <hparsons at parsonsys.com> wrote:

> Hmm, first you imply that our ship was in Iranian waters, then you say
> you didn't "blame" anyone, then that my "faith in human nature" was
> misplaced. How so. Are you now actually blaming someone (BTW, I've
> acknowledged all along that that those at the scene didn't know where
> the broadcast came from. I think maybe it's YOUR  cycnicsm  of the US is
> what's misplaced.
>
> john Belanger wrote:
> > one more thing, herb, i didn't blame anybody for anything. our forces in
> the area are on high alert. ready for anything, especially in confined
> areas, post u.s.s. cole, and here comes a flotilla of speed boats. did you
> hear who they blamed the radio transmission on? some a-h';e aboard a navy
> ship. your confidence level in human nature is admirable but misplaced.
> goodnight and good luck.
> >
> > Herb Parsons <hparsons at parsonsys.com> wrote:   Yes, we might send
> someone out to investigate. Now, we would not send
> > out speedboats with no radio contact. And maybe (but I doubt it) you
> > "wanted to point out the danger", instead, you claimed that "we would
> > have done the same thing". I say wrong. You keep saying it, but offer no
> > proof.
> >
> > And even now, you "blame America first". Even the Iranians acknowledge
> > that the US ship was not in their territorial waters. Maybe you'd like
> > to go help them out next time?
> >
> > john Belanger wrote:
> >
> >> herb,
> >> well then, we do react the a same way. if a chinese destroyer popped up
> 12.5 miles off port aransas, (remember china now has economic interests in
> sa) would we not send out someone to investigate? i know satellite imagery
> and helicopters would know who they were, but without them, your coastal
> patrol boat would be the first one on the scene. the old way was a shot
> across the bow. all i wanted to point out was the danger involved in that
> encounter. we did keep our cool, but, who knows next time. high level
> communication with cool heads is needed. a red phone would be nice. it
> doesn't matter who fires the first shot, the result is the same. john
> >>
> >> incidentally i looked at a map of the straight on wiki. map #4
> (bathymitry) the line for the territorial border line for iran cuts slightly
> into the westward shipping lane at the top of the straight and all shipping
> lanes in the western part are in irans claimed territory.
> >>
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Strait_of_hormuz_full.jpg
> >>
> >> and an explanation of the rules of navigation here.
> >>
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Hormuz
> >>
> >> Herb Parsons wrote:
> >> They don't? Are you sure? Sure seems like I saw 3 speed boats with 50
> >> caliber automatic guns mounted on them when I passed the US Naval
> >> shipyard in Port Aransas.
> >>
> >> Regardless, the point remains the same. We have not "reacted the same"
> >> when the "shoe was on the other foot". What we were doing was normal.
> >> It's what we've done for years, having a ship pass through
> international
> >> waters. What they were doing was not. We would not react the same. I
> >> again challenge you to show differently.
> >>
> >> john Belanger wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> we don't use speedboats for coastal patrol. our navy doesn't patrol
> our shores with swift boats either. the other foot (implies) (infers) (;-))
> to the roles being reversed and what we would do if we were in their shoes.
> ;-)
> >>>
> >>> Herb Parsons wrote: Yes, we would react. However, you're now
> contridicting yourself.
> >>>
> >>> Previously, you said "when you put the shoe on the other foot, we
> would
> >>> do the same thing". Now you say "we would react quickly. and NOT with
> >>> speedboats" - so which is it, we'd do the same thing, or we'd do
> >>> something different?
> >>>
> >>> As far as "near our shore" we were there because it's the only way in.
> >>> We were in recognized international shipping lanes. We were doing
> >>> nothing out of the ordianary.
> >>>
> >>> john Belanger wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> herb
> >>>> i seem to recall a little skirmish with n korean boats off their
> coast, there's gulf of tonkin, shooting down 707 off kimchatka, reaction by
> soiets to u2's, and that recon plane the chinese forced down. what i'm
> getting at is if a russian plane or ship showed up near our shores, we would
> react quickly. and not with speedboats. if the iranians had sent out a
> warship or any unknown vessel at night, we would not be debating it now.
> very dangerous.
> >>>>
> >>>> Herb Parsons wrote:
> >>>> Absolute BULL. We would not "do the same thing." I challenge you to
> back
> >>>> it up. Show me one instance where we have ever rushed a Chinese,
> Korean,
> >>>> Russian, etc. ship with high speed boats and ignored radio hailing.
> >>>>
> >>>> No, we don't know where the radio transmissions came from. However,
> were
> >>>> it me on one of those high-speed boats, and the ship was hailing me,
> you
> >>>> can be there'd be transmission from ME.
> >>>>
> >>>> Unless of course, I WASN'T just "checking things out".
> >>>>
> >>>> And I agree, we'd be better off as allies. They don't want us as
> allies.
> >>>>
> >>>> john Belanger wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> herb,
> >>>>> when you put the shoe on the other foot, we would do the same thing,
> as have the chinese, koreans, russians, etc. when our ships or planes show
> up near their shores. complicated by narrowness of the straits of hormuz.
> its very dangerous in those waters but i have to emphasize one thing. we
> don't know where the transmission came from, as far as i have heard so far.
> i'm not excusing their actions. i think we were very restrained. i still say
> they and we would be better off as allies. if you think about it the whole
> situations results could have been very different if those boats had showed
> up at night. close call.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Herb Parsons wrote:
> >>>>> What a bunch of bunk. We weren't in their waters. They didn't "send
> >>>>> someone out", they sent five high speed powerboats with full crews,
> and
> >>>>> there were radio transmissions that the naval ship was going to be
> >>>>> "blown up".
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But then, I forget; there are some people that are bound and
> determined
> >>>>> that no matter what this country does to defend itself, it's the
> wrong
> >>>>> thing.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> john Belanger wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> the solution we seem to be going for seems to be control. i will
> ask the obvious question: if ships of a foriegn nation were passing close to
> our shores, would we not send someone out to see whats going on? would we
> have any shortage of volunteers? think about this: make iran an ally. its
> much cheaper. if iran is on our side, many problems go away. no, really,
> think about it. even israel would be happy. better yet, who would be
> unhappy? bolton?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>
> >
> >
>
> --
> Herb Parsons
> S/V O'Jure - O'Day 25
> S/V Reve de Pappa - Coronado 35
>
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>