What is Digg?Sponsored by Activision
Band Hero view!
guitarhero.com - The biggest event music event of the year is now in your living room.
531 Comments
- protofear, on 01/07/2008, -54/+204GULF OF TONKIN! GULF OF TONKIN! GULF OF TONKIN!
- Groovemaster, on 01/07/2008, -25/+143This is a very difficult situation for the US military-industrial complex. One false move and they could have another highly profitable war on their hands.
- Emused, on 01/07/2008, -40/+129I realize I will get supremely buried for this ...We all know how Americans love to kill things, but lets look at this from a real world perspective.How would the US feel if Iran had a large battle group, including 2 carriers, off the coast of NY.Who is threatening who.The Iranians have no problem getting a bloody nose as long as it makes the US look like bullies.The Iranians look like asses trying to provoke the issue, but what else can they really do.Classic case of Abdul versus Goliath.
- lutefisk, on 01/07/2008, -24/+94I was on a US merchant vessel in 1991 when we were engaged by an Iranian Naval vessel. The Iranian ship was directly in front of our ship about 2 or 3 miles ans coming right at us. Our course changes were matched by theirs. Radio contact was made. The Iranian vessel demanded to speak to our captain. Our captain did not acknowledged or registry and immediately demanded they change course. They did not. We were not in Iranian waters. The Iranian captain demanded what is the name of your ship, country of origin and manifest. Our Capt came across the radio with his demands.. the last being we are a military contract vessel with highly explosive cargo. The Iranian ship(a smaller ship) turned hard to their port side as did we. The captain was cool and collected and said he has heard of this tactic. It made me pucker that's for sure
- moghua, on 01/07/2008, -16/+71This is a transcript of a radio conversation between a US Naval ship and Canadian authorities off the coast of Newfoundland. I understand that there's actually a full transcript of this conversation lurking about somewhere. If anyone has is, send it to me!
US SHIP: Please divert your course 0.5 degrees to the South to avoid a collision.
CANADIAN REPLY: Recommend you divert YOUR course 15 degrees to the South to avoid a collision.
US SHIP: This is the Captain of the US Navy Ship. I say again, divert YOUR course.
CANADIAN REPLY: No, I say again, divert YOUR course!
US SHIP: THIS IS THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER USS MISSOURI. WE ARE A LARGE WARSHIP OF THE US NAVY. DIVERT YOUR COURSE NOW OR WE WILL TAKE APPROPRIATE AND DRASTIC MEASURES!!!!
CANADIAN REPLY: This is a lighthouse. Your call. - lordmarcus, on 01/07/2008, -37/+80These tactics are normal for the Iranian Navy/Revolutionary Guard/Pirates. They've been doing this exact thing for decades. Lest we forget the sailors of the Royal Navy that were captured by the Iranian Navy/Pirates not too long ago?
- nazcreative, on 01/07/2008, -0/+36Been there done that. I was on an Ageis Class Cruiser back in 1996 and our ship was "bumped" by an Iranian gun boat. The reality is, these things happen all the time. Don't read too much into this. Just the machine at work.
- blindhammer, on 01/07/2008, -19/+50Wow. A nutter. Like Robert McNamara, who stated that the Gulf of Tonkin resolution was manufactured. You know. Robert McNamara. Or maybe you don't.
- inactive, on 01/07/2008, -2/+33I'm adopting a wait and see attitude on this until more details come out. Hell, it could be as simple as a jerk Iranian captain with too much testoterone seeing how much he could rattle the navy. Not very bright...and potentially a Darwin Award moment, but I really hope the U.S. doesn't use this minor incident as an excuse.
- Kythas, on 01/07/2008, -3/+33Urban legend. Check out http://www.snopes.com/military/lighthouse.asp
- blindhammer, on 01/07/2008, -13/+43Yes, I am sure that the Iranian government admitted that the boat captains radioed "You are about to explode." Link please.
- inactive, on 01/07/2008, -9/+37There were no women or children for them to hide behind. Running was their only option.
- solistus, on 01/07/2008, -5/+32Wow, lots of stupid here.
Since you're obviously not in the military (speaking of pussy), I guess you're not familiar with the concept of protocol. Believe it or not, we don't just send thousands of people off with expensive and deadly toys to figure ***** out themselves. We have well-defined procedures for dealing with incidents like this. The American ships evaded the supposed depth charges and sent warnings to the Iranian vessels. This procedure worked perfectly, preventing an unnecessary confrontation that could have ended disastrously. The last thing the US or anyone else wants is for Iran to become openly hostile in the Strait of Hormuz. If they mined the straits, the world economy would be screwed. - mwrl, on 01/07/2008, -17/+43Note that they turned tail once the NAVY trained their weapons on them.
- bossm4n, on 01/07/2008, -10/+35And if the US and their allies were not patrolling the Straits of Hormuz in international waters, Iran would have blockaded/hijacked shipments coming out of the countries on that coast years ago. This has been going on for as long as I can remember. As long as that massive supply of oil is coming out of the Middle East, someone will have to protect those shipments. unfortunately that someone is typically the US. I look forward to the day when we can tell the Middle East to find another customer for their oil, because we're either producing enough ofour own or have alternative fuels sources.
- MacintoshSauce, on 01/07/2008, -3/+28If the US Navy was in international waters then Iran has absolutely nothing to say.
- vault, on 01/07/2008, -16/+39You prissy drama queens really need to calm down. Iran confirmed this http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gBPUEzZtlz8Cjt ... so no, it wasn't a fabrication. It isn't healthy to go around believing everything is the beginning of World War III, or a vast conspiracy, or a false flag operation, or whatever other absurd label you want to put on it.
- Terr01, on 01/07/2008, -7/+29Uhm, while I think it was tounge-in-cheek, it's not an irrelevant point.
The Gulf of Tonkin incident is certainly murky enough that using it as a justification for war qualifies as "hair trigger". - lordmarcus, on 01/07/2008, -13/+33You're a real scumbag ya know that?
- tschau, on 01/07/2008, -2/+201991
- lordmarcus, on 01/07/2008, -4/+22I'd being asking that about the Iranians, truth be told. This did occur in international waters and the US ships were responding to the Iranian threat, not vice versa, despite your delusions to the contrary
- lordmarcus, on 01/07/2008, -48/+65Ya, Ultra, the US was in international waters, looking for trouble, while the Iranian attack boats strafed ours ships, all while not causing trouble. The US has had its Navy in the Gulf since 1979 when you attacked our embassy (Sovereign US soil) and held our citizens hostage for 444 days in the first of decades worth of unprovoked attacks. Why don't you go shove your nose up Madman Ahmadinejad's backside some more while he blathers about wiping out Isreal or the 100th time....All while not causing any trouble at all....
- lordmarcus, on 01/07/2008, -19/+36The Iranians admitted the incident occured. The moonbats may now fly back to their caves to roost.........
- lordmarcus, on 01/07/2008, -10/+24A small dingy packed with explosives, near sunk the USS Cole.
- blindhammer, on 01/07/2008, -4/+18If I wanted to attack your character, there are a host of other ways other than simply pointing out that one of the more important Secretaries of Defense in the 20th century has admitted that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a false-flag operation.
- Terr01, on 01/07/2008, -8/+22Do *YOU* remember the USS Cole, Bluto36?
The attack which was attributed to the government of SUDAN?
(Hint: Sudan is not Iran, even if you do think of them as generic "ay-rab islamofascist fellahs".) - inactive, on 01/07/2008, -8/+22in fairness, it sounds like the Iranians were being belligerent, not vice-versa.
- masterm1nd, on 01/07/2008, -7/+21Terr01, you don't think an experience like that would provoke someone to join to comment after seeing this on digg? Anyways his age and the date he gave look pretty legitimate alsp.
- norman619, on 01/07/2008, -3/+16How about ignoring it and go on about their business? The US ships are not in their waters and as far as we know they aren't a blockade. If Iran wants to start a fight they are free to do so. It's like you picking a fight with someone who's parked across the street from your house. You may be scared of them but they have every right to park their car on a public street. International waters are international waters.
- solistus, on 01/07/2008, -2/+15If you actually RTFA or were at all educated about the issue, you'd know that the Iranian Navy is not the same as the Revolutionary Guard. The Iranian Navy operates much like any other professional military force, as US officials pointed out in TFA. The Revolutionary Guard acts like a bunch of thugs.
- yodaj007, on 01/07/2008, -2/+14Why sink a ship and waste it (and its crew) when you can simply say that Iran is threatening us?
- redmonkey, on 01/07/2008, -2/+14It is confirmed by Iranian foreign minister
- MurphyWatson, on 01/07/2008, -8/+20Do the Iranians seriously think their arsenal of used weapons(mostly from us) stand a chance?
- inactive, on 01/07/2008, -2/+14They were in international waters, no one has a claim.
- inactive, on 01/07/2008, -1/+13"You want to have $7/gallon gas? It's coming."
Dwindling reserves, increasing demand and lack of capital investment into non fossil fuels are going to guarantee skyrocketing fuel prices. A war with Iran would be just a "bonus". - noahhoward, on 01/07/2008, -2/+13They would be observed from US waters and nothing would be done to them until they crossed into US waters at which point they would be escorted out or if they pressed, destroyed.
- archiesteel, on 01/07/2008, -1/+12Bluto, you *do* realize that the CIA-supported coup that put the Shah in power is not a matter of dispute, right? The documents all came out in 2003 following a FOIA request. If the US had minded its business in 1953, Iran would likely still be a democracy today. Instead, the actions of Washington are responsible for the theocracy we now have in the Persian land.
- PolarBearFire, on 01/07/2008, -4/+15Very funny joke, but never happened in real life. Go to Snopes.com.
- solistus, on 01/07/2008, -5/+16If Iran decides to mine the strait with depth charges, something like 70% of the world's oil supply will be in jeopardy. All oil from the region has to pass through the Strait of Hormuz. An actual war with Iran would be so disastrous for the world economy that it would make the Great Depression seem like a walk in the park.
- JScore, on 01/07/2008, -7/+18Question everything.
- lhbaker, on 01/07/2008, -17/+28Why would Iran provoke a peace loving people like the U.S.? I'm sure it was just an innocent fishing expedition. It just doesn't make sense.
- noahhoward, on 01/07/2008, -3/+13Yeah just like the last time when the US kidnapped those British sailors and made it look like Iran then used the incident to invade... oh wait.
- flink405, on 01/07/2008, -5/+15Iranian economy in collapse mode. Iran citizens very upset with Iranian government.
Iran govt. wants to divert attention away from terrible living conditions in Iran so they try to start an incident like this.
Is Iran govt. trying to create its own "Gulf of Tonkin" situation? - lhbaker, on 01/07/2008, -16/+26Dude, I doubt that Ultra attacked anybody. On the other hand, we've been threatening to attack Iran for how long now, and on what grounds? Should Iranians just STFU about this? Conservatives seem to want everybody to STFU.
- solistus, on 01/07/2008, -2/+12I'm not gonna bother with most of LadyK's craziness, but it's true that Mamoud never threatened to wipe Israel off the map. That has been acknowledged by Farsi experts for some time as a mistranslation. What he actually said was more like, "Israel should be effaced from the sands of time." The context and Farsi language figure of speech he used carries a historical connotation. He was railing against Israel's creation in 1945, not discussing strikes on Israeli territory today.
- lordmarcus, on 01/07/2008, -15/+25Ah! So even though Military vessels are hijacked in international waters, it's all OK if the crews aren't tortured and executed.....You work for the US State Dept I bet....
- niczar, on 01/07/2008, -3/+13You are quite confused about the meaning of "ad hominem."
An ad hominem attack would be to say that your opinion is wrong because you're a douche.
It is not an ad hominem to state the obvious: that you are a douche BECAUSE you are obviously wrong, by being conspicuously ignorant of the most basic facts about the Gulf of Tonkin incident and the identity of M. McNamara. - pcpimpster, on 01/07/2008, -3/+13international waters...
- lordmarcus, on 01/07/2008, -7/+17Russkies tried that in the 60s, if you recall. Near sparked a nuclear war....Wanna wish for that soe more.....
And for some facts for you. The USSR had ships in and out of Cuba for decades. they were, however smart enough not to challenge US warships in international waters.
Chicom warships dock in the US with some frequency as well. - lordmarcus, on 01/07/2008, -9/+18Man you're facts are just ass backwards...not sure where to even begin....First off the Brits admitted to being in Iranian waters while being held captive....Next, The Iranian madman has threatened Isreal with exctintion repeatedly. There are transcripts. Pick one up sometime. Dont be a jooooooooooooooooooo hater, please.....
CIA said it MAY HAVE stopped and if it had it IS LIKELY it MAY have begun again. If, if, if...I'd rather not take my chances, thanks....
Only the moonbats like yourself have said thing one about war. This is a regular occurance with the Iranians and any ship that is in international waters. It's called piracy.
lastly, wow you ended your line of nonsense with a little bit of a rant. I don't suppose your fine little corner of the world has any problems does it? -
Show 51 - 100 of 532 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is