• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US Ship Fires on Boat off Dubai, 1 Dead

Lokiate said:
It's always political. If we so much as sneeze the wrong way, it makes the 6 o'clock news. I'm sure the Arabs are having a field day with this right about now.
Click to expand...

But that is not your job. That is the job of the politicians. The military are there to follow orders not make policy.
 
Last edited:
Mya said:
Political implications or not.... they had to take action. What the US ship did was right.
Click to expand...

I know I been saying that since post number 3.
 
Connery said:
The action of the military has not effected the political universe one way or another. Moreover, to waste a moment on such and delay what should have been done would be to place the crew and the ship in jeopardy. Politics are left to the politicians who dictate what protocols would be in place thuggish this matter not the military. As you can see SOP dictates: "Navy vessels are on special alert for small craft, which Iran has used to shadow and sometimes harass ships in the gulf, and have permission to use lethal force to halt boats that draw too close." There is no political thinking necessary or warranted.
Click to expand...

I never said it was incumbent upon the ship's skipper or personnel to take politics into account. I said that the outcome of this incident can potentially have political ramifications. Those are two different things.
 
StillBallin75 said:
I never said it was incumbent upon the ship's skipper or personnel to take politics into account. I said that the outcome of this incident can potentially have political ramifications. Those are two different things.
Click to expand...

No you supported his position where he stated, "not worth risking just for the sake of political bull****". You got my rebuttal politics are not a consideration orders, established protocol and procedures are considered.
 
Connery said:
The action of the military has not effected the political universe one way or another. Moreover, to waste a moment on such and delay what should have been done would be to place the crew and the ship in jeopardy. Politics are left to the politicians who dictate what protocols would be in place thuggish this matter not the military. As you can see SOP dictates: "Navy vessels are on special alert for small craft, which Iran has used to shadow and sometimes harass ships in the gulf, and have permission to use lethal force to halt boats that draw too close." There is no political thinking necessary or warranted.
Click to expand...

I don't think you really believe that. Guantanamo is a perfect example of how US Military action has caused a lasting stir in the political arena. People still debate whether or not torture is still acceptable, and whether or not EPW's have a right to trial. When I was in Korea, every rule enforced was to prevent international incidents. After tensions grew, and we had to do a stupid "show of force" exercise a stones throw from the DMZ, I remember being told we can't have blanks because we don't want to start WWIII. Sure, we don't make policies, but we have eyes on us at all times, just waiting for that one moment they can use to justify policy.
 
Connery said:
But that is not your job. That is the job of the politicians. The military are there to follow orders not make policy.
Click to expand...


You're a Soldier, you know the score. A Soldier can walk tall with his 249, but light up the wrong guy at the wrong time, politics come into play in an instant. We might not care, I sure as **** don't, but the suits do, and they'll use every round fired to make their talking points come true.
 
Connery said:
No you supported his position where he stated, "not worth risking just for the sake of political bull****". You got my rebuttal politics are not a consideration orders, established protocol and procedures are considered.
Click to expand...

Whether you like it or not, politics enters into the equation - that's simply a fact of life. The question is what the skipper should value more - potentially creating an international incident or eliminating a potential threat to his men and his ship. I think the vast majority of folks in this thread have stated that they agree it should be the latter and not the former. That's all I'm saying.
 
Last edited:
Lokiate said:
You're a Soldier, you know the score. A Soldier can walk tall with his 249, but light up the wrong guy at the wrong time, politics come into play in an instant. We might not care, I sure as **** don't, but the suits do, and they'll use every round fired to make their talking points come true.
Click to expand...


That is why there are measures in place. No political judgement calls, but the following: "The U.S. crew repeatedly attempted to warn the vessel's operators to turn away from their deliberate approach," the Navy statement said. U.S. officials said the fishermen ignored warnings by radio, loudspeakers and flashing lights before the Navy security team opened fire. They had the right to do so because policy had already been in place, created by the politicians, which stated: "Navy vessels are on special alert for small craft, which Iran has used to shadow and sometimes harass ships in the gulf, and have permission to use lethal force to halt boats that draw too close."
 
Lokiate said:
I don't think you really believe that. Guantanamo is a perfect example of how US Military action has caused a lasting stir in the political arena. People still debate whether or not torture is still acceptable, and whether or not EPW's have a right to trial. When I was in Korea, every rule enforced was to prevent international incidents. After tensions grew, and we had to do a stupid "show of force" exercise a stones throw from the DMZ, I remember being told we can't have blanks because we don't want to start WWIII. Sure, we don't make policies, but we have eyes on us at all times, just waiting for that one moment they can use to justify policy.
Click to expand...

The military has no right to stay there unless they are allowed to by politicians, nor can they leave should they feel it runs against their collective conscience. MacArthur tried that a look where that got him.
 
If I'm not mistaken, the person that was killed was a poor Indian fisherman. I guess no one will miss him, but his family who depended on him to put food on the table.:shrug:
 
24107 said:
If I'm not mistaken, the person that was killed was a poor Indian fisherman. I guess no one will miss him, but his family who depended on him to put food on the table.:shrug:
Click to expand...


He was on the wrong place at the wrong time doing the wrong thing.

Sadly, that is life these unfortunate events happen.
 
Last edited:
It's clear to me that this was a manufactured "incident." The common tactic these days is to deliberately place civilians in peril and then draw fire directly on to the civilians, hoping that some will be killed. It's a game of negative PR against the US using people's lives like poker chips. It's a heinous approach and it's intent is quite obvious, but apparently not nearly enough people see through the ruse. They knew the tactic had to work. The ship would have to fire eventually. If it didn't, it would only prove the USN was ripe for another small boat attack. And that would be good intel for US enemies.

The entire purpose of the Indians on board was to be shot or killed. Now they can say, "why would Americans 'mercilessly' kill a simple fisherman?" Enemies of the US and the soft-headed will soon become enraged, just as their puppet masters demand.

EDIT: And oh yeah, since when do "poor" Indian fisherman have the money to rent out a pleasure craft? C'mon, man!
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
The trigger happy skipper jumped the gun.

(Reuters) - Iran on Tuesday criticized the actions of a U.S. navy ship that shot at an approaching fishing boat off the United Arab Emirates, saying the incident showed foreign forces threatened regional security.
Click to expand...

U.S. ambassador to India Nancy Powell telephoned Indian Foreign Secretary Ranjan Mathai to convey her regret for the loss of life, the Indian foreign ministry said. A statement by the U.S. embassy in New Delhi conveyed condolences to the families of the crew of the vessel.
Click to expand...

U.S. Navy attack threatens regional security: Iran foreign ministry | Digg Topnews
 
One question I have which will come out in the Investigation. Which is if the Sunni Arabs know the Difference between Pakis' and Hindu Indians?

Also Reuters out of India says it was a fishing boat. Reuters in the West and the BBC reported it as a Luxury Craft. ABC said it was a small motorized boat. Anyone questioning the 3 out board motors on the back of this so-called Fishing vessel?

Also there is Politics. As one the Iranians can be testing those waters as most Felt that this Port in the UAE was a safe Harbor. As the Iranians usually are not in this area.

Also Our Ship is a Supply Fueling Ship. Hence the Seals on Board.
 
2012-07-16T180641Z_2057240364_TM3E87G11CN01_RTRMADP_3_USA-UAE-SHIP.JPG


ht_usns_rappahannock_ll_120716_wg.jpg


Here is pic of the Ship and one when it was with the Washington Battle-Carrier group!
 
Here lets take a look at why the Iranians may be probing.....or even some others.

The 236-mile Abu Dhabi Crude Oil Pipeline snakes across western desert dunes and over the craggy Hajar mountains to the city of Fujairah on the UAE's Indian Ocean coast, south of the strait.

Until now, all Emirati exports were loaded in the Gulf and then sailed out through Hormuz. Once it is running at full capacity, the pipeline could allow the country, OPEC's third biggest exporter, to ship as much as two-thirds of its peak production through the eastern port city.....snip~


UAE opens pipeline to bypass Strait of Hormuz


Goes online this Coming Early August. Think this plays into that strategy of getting into it with Iran? What do you think of the Political ramifications of this move by the Saud and the Sunni? With the help of the Western World.
 
hormuz.jpg


Here is a Map of what things are looking like with the Strait of Hormuz. Around the UAE. Getting that Pipeline Up outside the Strait will now cause the Iranians to become what? Anyone seeing the Bigger part of the Strategy here?
 
MMC said:
hormuz.jpg


Here is a Map of what things are looking like with the Strait of Hormuz. Around the UAE. Getting that Pipeline Up outside the Strait will now cause the Iranians to become what?
Click to expand...

Irrelevant?
 
RDS said:
The trigger happy skipper jumped the gun.
Click to expand...

Yep, this is the kind of response this "manufactured incident" was calculated to produce. Works every bloody time.
 
That and Isolated.....check this out.

pipelines_to_hormuz.jpg
 
StillBallin75 said:
Whether you like it or not, politics enters into the equation - that's simply a fact of life. The question is what the skipper should value more - potentially creating an international incident or eliminating a potential threat to his men and his ship. I think the vast majority of folks in this thread have stated that they agree it should be the latter and not the former. That's all I'm saying.
Click to expand...

I never said politics was not part of the equation. However, it is not within the Skipper's purview to decide political policy.
 
Last edited:
The Geo-Political Nature of the Strait of Hormuz

strait_of_hormuz-937x1024.jpg


The maritime traffic that goes through the Strait of Hormuz has always been in contact with Iranian naval forces, which are predominantly composed of the Iranian Regular Force Navy and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Navy. In fact, Iranian naval forces monitor and police the Strait of Hormuz along with the Sultanate of Oman via the Omani enclave of Musandam. More importantly, to transit through the Strait of Hormuz all maritime traffic, including the U.S. Navy, must sail through Iranian territorial waters. Almost all entrances into the Persian Gulf are made through Iranian waters and most exits are through Omani waters.....snip~
 
As to Iran. Its like the assessment that has been given over and over.
In order to decapitate Iran and finish it’s strike capacity at least 11,000 targets have to be immediately struck. This will be a major war. In particular, the Shahab missile sites have to destroyed immediately because it is a near certainty that at least some of these 2, 000 kilometre range missiles have been programmed to destroy the oil refining capacity of Saudi Arabia.

strait_of_hormuz_map.jpg


U.S. naval strength, which includes the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Coast Guard, has primacy over all the other navies and maritime forces in the world. Its deep sea or oceanic capabilities are unparalleled and unmatched by any other naval power. Primacy does not mean invincibility. U.S. naval forces in the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf are nonetheless vulnerable.

Even in 2008 the Washington Institute for Near East Policy acknowledged the threat from Iran’s mobile coastal missile batteries, anti-ship missiles, and missile-armed small ships. Other Iranian naval assets like aerial drones, hovercraft, mines, diver teams, and mini-submarines could also be used in asymmetrical naval warfare against the U.S. Fifth Fleet.....snip~
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom