2002 wargame: Small Iranian speedboats sink U.S. fleet
posted at 1:09 pm on January 12, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Amphibious vessels, cruisers, even a carrier were easy pickings. The military was shocked, which is itself shocking in light of recent lessons about what an asymmetrical, suicidal enemy can accomplish. If Paul Yingling’s looking for a new topic to write about, he’s found it.
In the simulation, General Van Riper sent wave after wave of relatively inexpensive speedboats to charge at the costlier, more advanced fleet approaching the Persian Gulf. His force of small boats attacked with machine guns and rockets, reinforced with missiles launched from land and air. Some of the small boats were loaded with explosives to detonate alongside American warships in suicide attacks. That core tactic of swarming played out in real life last weekend, though on a much more limited scale and without any shots fired…
In the war game, scores of adversary speedboats and larger naval vessels had been shadowing and hectoring the Blue Team fleet for days. The Blue Team defenses also faced cruise missiles fired simultaneously from land and from warplanes, as well as the swarm of speedboats firing heavy machine guns and rockets — and pulling alongside to detonate explosives on board.
In fact there was a shot fired last weekend, although only as a warning. Here’s the Only Man Who Can Save America From Martin Luther King offering his own thoughts at the debate this week about why the U.S. Navy has nothing to fear from small, suspicious craft.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
That “Gulf of Tonkin” line Paul trotted out was calculated to play to the anti-Bush crowd. This guy’s a complete moron, and it amazes me that he has as many fandroids as he does.
flipflop on January 12, 2008 at 1:14 PM
I think the fallen heros and survivors of the Cole might have an issue with that viewpoint.
djtnt on January 12, 2008 at 1:17 PM
My guess would be that it was land based cruise missiles that damaged the fleet, not the small boats. The small boats can be taken out with helicopters, pretty much one shot, one kill. Once the first one fires a shot, the rest are toast. We aren’t going to wait for the rest of them to engage before we shoot them. Once the first one engages, they are all going to die.
The moment the first shot is fired, we will be flying sorties from all over the Gulf region and probably Afghanistan too. I would imagine we would lay waste to the entire coastline of Iran.
crosspatch on January 12, 2008 at 1:20 PM
Oh, and I found out who makes up Ron Paul’s base.
flipflop on January 12, 2008 at 1:20 PM
Navy’s come a long ways since then, though. Especially since we’ve been active in the Gulf post-OIF. Iran’s swarming tactics freaked us out to the point where we modified our totally awesome CIWS to shred terrorist faces instead of incoming missiles.
John from OPFOR on January 12, 2008 at 1:21 PM
Without a doubt. The coastline would look like the moon.
flipflop on January 12, 2008 at 1:22 PM
I’m not anymore. I would have been 6 years or so ago, but I never realized the amount of suicidal stupidity present among a significant portion of the population. Somehow, we’ve been so successful in this country to this point that we’ve made it safe to live a full and healthy life as a complete idiot. Behold the future and tremble.
AUINSC on January 12, 2008 at 1:23 PM
I hope we’ve had our smugness about our military and naval superiority knocked down a notch or two. All this probing Iran has been doing is for a reason. I also hope we aren’t overestimating our ability to bypass their air defenses, based on the sussessful Israeli run on the Syrian nuke factory. They know they can’t match us head on, but all it would take to score a tremendous propaganda coup would be one major blip. Take out an aircraft carrier, for example.
a capella on January 12, 2008 at 1:25 PM
I’m just glad that when we bomb Iran, the shiite muslim world will champion the United States as heroes and just like in Iraq there will be little retaliation, resentment, or escalation in conflict.
I say this to the speedboat wielding jihadists with the emphasis of our glorious and mighty leader, President George W. Bush: Bring it on!
…
BlackCapitalist on January 12, 2008 at 1:27 PM
That’s good to hear. I always worry about the big ships being able to depress their firepower far enough down to hit fast surface ships close in.
a capella on January 12, 2008 at 1:29 PM
As it is we could flatten ALL iranian opposition (land, air and sea)in about 72 hours. I spoke to an iranian taht escaped to live here and he told me the 75-90% of the military would turn on their own govt. If we came in fast and strong enough.
HotAirExpert on January 12, 2008 at 1:31 PM
I assume you’re in favor of mad mullahs with nukes, then? Another Pakistan? BTW, didn’t that happen under Clinton?
a capella on January 12, 2008 at 1:32 PM
The Blue Team defenses also faced cruise missiles fired simultaneously from land and from warplanes, as well as the swarm of speedboats firing heavy machine guns and rockets — and pulling alongside to detonate explosives on board.
Here’s the real point – it wasn’t the swarming small boats that sunk the ships in the wargame, but cruise missiles.
why the U.S. Navy has nothing to fear from small, suspicious craft.
An attack on a ship in port, like the Cole, is fundamentally different from an attack on a ship under way. The latter is a lot harder to pull off.
Lehuster on January 12, 2008 at 1:32 PM
True, assuming said warship actually shoots at you.
AUINSC on January 12, 2008 at 1:34 PM
Sigh… threat in the war game was caused by our own Politics and ROE… not capability.
Key here is that they shadowed them for days, then went active, and Commanders I’m sure were hesitant to fire on them BECAUSE of our ROEs.
Crap… we’ve been playing this type of game for years… used to do it with the Soviet Union too… basicly a giant game of Sea Chicken.
Now, let the sailors have permission to kick A$$? There would not be a small boat within MILES of any US Navy Ship.
Romeo13 on January 12, 2008 at 1:34 PM
Weren’t the small boats just used as a diversionary threat? I assume they were considered suicide threats by the blue team.
a capella on January 12, 2008 at 1:36 PM
Apparently Iran DOES have a navy Mr. Paul. They spend most of their time making Iranian fishing shows, but they can kill when ordered.
ThePrez on January 12, 2008 at 1:36 PM
Read the article, it was both, plus small boats coming along side the larger craft.
For those interested, the BBC has a full 36 minute video of what happened the other day, you can just imagine what it would be like if it was a deliberate attack and coordinated with on-shore missile attacks.
bnelson44 on January 12, 2008 at 1:37 PM
Nah nah nah! I can’t hear that Ron Paul is an incompetent idiot! Nah nan nah!
See:
amerpundit on January 12, 2008 at 1:42 PM
I’m sorry, I linked the wrong video.
This is the full 36 minute video of what happened the other day, you can just imagine what it would be like if it was a deliberate attack and coordinated with on-shore missile attacks.
bnelson44 on January 12, 2008 at 1:43 PM
Oh, yeah. I forgot about that. I thought Iran doesn’t have a Navy.
amerpundit on January 12, 2008 at 1:43 PM
Shorter Ron Paul: I can’t keep track of my own newsletter, let me run your country!
Seixon on January 12, 2008 at 1:44 PM
The liberal, er progressive foreign policy approach can be summarized thusly:
When Iraq or Pakistan or any other country friendly to or allied with us does something we don’t like, we must be forceful and threatening in return. Tell them, damnit, we’re not going to put up with this. Cut off aid, demand elections, demand changes.
All stick, no carrot.
But when Iran or North Korea or an adversary of the US does something provocative, the response is we must sit down and negotiate with them, understand the conditions that fuel their hostility. Assuage them, explain to them that we mean no harm.
All carrot cake.
As the saying goes, it may be unwise to be an enemy of the United States, but it’s positiviely deadly to be our friend.
SteveMG on January 12, 2008 at 1:46 PM
Info on Iranian Navy is here.
bnelson44 on January 12, 2008 at 1:48 PM
The shot that was fired actually happened during a different confrontation last month, not last weekend. It happened on December 19th.
After what happened to the USS Cole, and in light of the war games outcome, I think the US Navy should sink any enemy ship (and Iranians are the enemy right now) if they come within a mile of a Navy ship.
rmgraha on January 12, 2008 at 1:49 PM
Just to clarify, the warning shot referenced was fired during an incident back in December.
JammieWearingFool on January 12, 2008 at 1:50 PM
In favor comrade? Why no. I utterly oppose nuclear weapons in the hands of our barbarian enemies. The thought of having their countries annihilated by hundreds or thousands of Israeli and American nukes would never deter our enemies. I do no think they give thought to existing any further as a civilization since they have been around since 2000 BC and haven’t started a war with another country in over 200 years.
I am only in favor of using the force of our bombs to gain honor and favor with the Iranian people. Diplomacy and trade are impossible, dangerous, and backward ways of old.
Let us never forget the preemptive doctrine of courageous and glorious leader, Dick Cheney.
BlackCapitalist on January 12, 2008 at 1:50 PM
In their dreams.
They are messing with the wrong folks and the right Commander in Chief who’s gonna put them in their place when its time.
johnnyU on January 12, 2008 at 1:51 PM
Nancy,..is that you? Tell us the truth. Did Assad really let you sit on his lap when you made your fact finding, diplomatic visit? I thought the scarf was cute.
a capella on January 12, 2008 at 1:58 PM
Ah, it’s time to crack out the irrelevant Communist references, while unable to defend your candidate’s stupidity.
amerpundit on January 12, 2008 at 1:58 PM
Comrade, I don’t think you remember 9/11. Remember when the Iranians flew speedboats into the towers? Do not forget. The Iranians will appreciate us again if we install a new Shah within their government.
BlackCapitalist on January 12, 2008 at 2:02 PM
A false flag candidate, you mean? Like Lew Rockwell as a ghost writer?
a capella on January 12, 2008 at 2:04 PM
Well then by all means Nuke Iran for Jesus and The Children as only good conservative family values Republicans could. And don’t forget: Pray for the peace of Jerusalem. Amen and pass the f*cking eggnog.
Pathetic.
Drum on January 12, 2008 at 2:05 PM
Ah, a truther. Could it be Rosie? How about a poem?
a capella on January 12, 2008 at 2:06 PM
My candidate, Rudy Giulliani, has no stupidity in his record. He is the champion of 9/11, and an international hero.
BlackCapitalist on January 12, 2008 at 2:07 PM
Watch your language
bnelson44 on January 12, 2008 at 2:07 PM
You’ve crossed into the territory of irrational and hysterical. See, if you’re being serious, you’d know Rudy favors a tough stance on Iran, with advisers like Norman Podhoretz. If you’re just being stupid, then you’re further ignoring Paul’s ignorance.
amerpundit on January 12, 2008 at 2:10 PM
So, you also think another Pakistan is a good thing?
a capella on January 12, 2008 at 2:10 PM
There is nothing rosy about the truth. The truth is the Iranians could attack our homeland at any moment. Hunting Al Qaeda is old news and should be ignored.
BlackCapitalist on January 12, 2008 at 2:10 PM
Are you wigging out on us man?
AUINSC on January 12, 2008 at 2:10 PM
What was really said by the warmonger’s as Ron Paul correctly pointed out prior to falsue accusations by biased Brit Hume:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4009627465007108743&q=debate+south+carolina&total=886&start=0&num=10&so=1&type=search&plindex=3
Go ahead…deny it.
Fed Up on January 12, 2008 at 2:10 PM
falsuefalseFed Up on January 12, 2008 at 2:11 PM
From what I can tell, this event the other day was a probe to see what we would, in fact, do.
I agree with you the CIWS is quite remarkable, but, and I guess in war there is always a but, there are only 2 or so on each ship and can 10 to 30 small craft swarming in upon a cruiser, along with incoming missiles overwhelm the system?
bnelson44 on January 12, 2008 at 2:12 PM
They’re trying to hijack the thread.
a capella on January 12, 2008 at 2:15 PM
I will. Their remarks were based on if Iran had attacked the fleet. “If they cross the line”, for example. “There would be a severe price to pay”, as another said. The candidates support the decision to be pacifist on the event Iran conducted the other day, not actually getting into attacking. We’re not ready to go to war over what Iran did the other day. But what if our fleet is attacked by Iran?
amerpundit on January 12, 2008 at 2:16 PM
By the way, any attack on a US fleet would probably also involve Iranian subs. They have large subs, and very small subs. The larger boats have launced missiles.
bnelson44 on January 12, 2008 at 2:17 PM
I do not associate with people like Ron Paul. Libertarianism is inherently evil. Small government, non-preemptive foreign policy, and increased civil liberties for the people are dangerous.
I am well aware of neoconservatives like Norman Podhoretz. Our next successor in Presidential leadership, Rudy Giulliani, is wise to have such sound counsel.
BlackCapitalist on January 12, 2008 at 2:17 PM
Yeah, I know. I’m just having a little fun with ‘em.
AUINSC on January 12, 2008 at 2:18 PM
Don’t be silly, BNelson. We all know Iran has no Navy.
amerpundit on January 12, 2008 at 2:19 PM
The thing everyone should realize is if they tried to do with on land with a US convoy, they would no longer be with us.
bnelson44 on January 12, 2008 at 2:20 PM
Small boats can not blow up big ships. Vehicle bombs do not blow up Marine barracks. Planes do not fly into buildings.
Very sad when Americans blame us for the actions of our enemies. Ron Paul and his supporters blame America. It is all our fault and we should just ignore our enemies and we will be safe. Everything is our fault since the revolution.
When a tactical nuke is detonated or a crop duster filled with neurotoxins deployed, Paul will deny it as if it never happened.
infidel on January 12, 2008 at 2:21 PM
Meanwhile, a senior Iranian military official accused the Americans of being warmongers, following the incident in which Washington claimed that Iranian patrol boats swarmed around their warships in the Gulf.
bnelson44 on January 12, 2008 at 2:22 PM
you forgot the fact that fire can’t melt steel.
AUINSC on January 12, 2008 at 2:23 PM
In 1995-6 our people at the Naval War College were asked to wargame a naval conflict between the US and China. How would the smaller and coastal Chinese forces drive the Bluewater US Navy out of the Straits of Formosa? or contest the Straits of Molucca? The disturbing results of the gaming were published in Parameters magazine later on. Up until that point it was thought that a smaller coastal force would cede control of the seas to the larger force but the gaming discovered that such forces when employed with asymmetric tactics (suicide runs, use of mines, swarming, use of diesel electric subs, etc) and combined with a massive propaganda campaign could derail an American naval effort.
the point is that our Navy has known about the threat posed by these asymmetric tactics for at least 10 years and they have developed tactics around them BUT It is the insanely unfair ROEs and the nonexistant political will it takes to change them that may prove most hazardous to out people out there.
elduende on January 12, 2008 at 2:26 PM
I heartily agree. The Paulbots have forgotten that America is completely without consequence in our peaceful efforts to revamp the face of the Middle East. The War On Terror should not be about Al Qaeda, who committed the attacks on 9/11. The War On Terror should be all about installing democracy in each and every one of these backward countries, whether they attack our homeland or not.
BlackCapitalist on January 12, 2008 at 2:32 PM
We used “small boats” to help defeat the Japanese during WWII. They’re called PT boats and they were extremely effective against the larger more powerful Japanese warships. Our future war with Iran (don’t kid yourself) will be asymmetrical and unpredictable.
Little speedboats can sink large warships if used correctly, in the right choke point, and in swarms. Any 10 year old boy who plays video games knows the advantages of swarming techniques. Our navy isn’t stupid and they will enact ROE that can meet this challenge. The Iranians used this as a probing attack to see how we, and the Dhimmicrats, would respond. They were stupid, though, as they have given our navy a chance to develop defensive strategies to counter it.
Mojave Mark on January 12, 2008 at 2:33 PM
haven’t started a war with another country in over 200 years.
BlackCapitalist on January 12, 2008 at 1:50 PM
So I guess their declaration of War against the USA when they invaded our embassy which is still in effect on the USA is a figment of our imagination.
unseen on January 12, 2008 at 2:33 PM
I call BS, next people will try to tell me that small airplanes can sink ships by crashing into them
Sincerely
Ron Paul
F15Mech on January 12, 2008 at 2:41 PM
I would think everyone’s first thought about the situation would have been the USS Cole. What kind of person would think “Gulf of Tonkin?”
Capitalist Infidel on January 12, 2008 at 2:46 PM
This is exactly the mantra of the Republican party. “What if?” “What if Iran has nuclear weapons?” “What if Al Qaeda attacks us again?”
A nations foreign policy can’t be preemptively acted upon under “what if” scenarios.
“What if” someone walks across our own border? Oh, wait…that happens every day. But we must first protect the borders of 130 other nations. We have our priorities!
Fed Up on January 12, 2008 at 2:50 PM
The Iranians never kidnapped British sailors using the same tactics last year.
infidel on January 12, 2008 at 2:53 PM
Fed, I don’t like this anti-American talk of yours. If you truly remembered 9/11, you would know that Iraq and Iran come before the United States. It is our duty to make sure the Iraqis have secure borders and Iran follows suit.
BlackCapitalist on January 12, 2008 at 2:53 PM
Why not?
AUINSC on January 12, 2008 at 2:54 PM
The left calls it “patriotism”.
infidel on January 12, 2008 at 2:55 PM
Wrong, it is the Department of Defense’s duty to protect our own borders first.
How is that “anti-American?”
Fed Up on January 12, 2008 at 2:59 PM
Because what if Canada harnesses the power of penguins and polar bears? What if France learns how to win a war? They could destroy us, so the United States needs to threaten Canada and France with nuclear weapons.
BlackCapitalist on January 12, 2008 at 3:00 PM
ok, thanks.
AUINSC on January 12, 2008 at 3:01 PM
Fed, it is anti-American to be pro-American. Freedom is slavery afterall.
BlackCapitalist on January 12, 2008 at 3:02 PM
Isn’t that what Hitler did to Poland? But to take your side for a moment, Iraq did have WMD’s, so we attacked them (without a declaration by congress I might add).
So in this case I’ll change the “what if” question to “what if we’re wrong?”
The result of being wrong is exactly the scenario we find ourselves in. 70% of Americans are not with you as proved to be the case when they voted in 2006 and this “New,” not my father’s, Republican party lost both the House and the Senate.
What makes anyone think this November will be any different? Explain to me how this new version of the Republican party is going to win people over to their line of thinking. Who really are the sheep being led over the cliff?
Fed Up on January 12, 2008 at 3:08 PM
BC, thanks for clearing that up…I think. Unless you’re an expert at neuro linguistic persuasion…then I understand.
Fed Up on January 12, 2008 at 3:11 PM
We have treaties, coalitions, and allies. An attack on them is an attack on us. If we do not come to defense of others, we will truley be alone.
infidel on January 12, 2008 at 3:13 PM
Not in any of the history books I’ve read on the subject. Hitler wasn’t wasn’t analyzing strategic defensive scenarios to anticipate and head off threats (what you call ‘what-ifs’), he was actively trying to conquer and subjugate the continent. The failure of the rest of the world to act on ‘what-ifs’ with regards to Hitler’s obvious aggression I why we had 5 of the bloodiest years in human history.
AUINSC on January 12, 2008 at 3:13 PM
Fed, you do not understand the power of fear. Everyone knows the only candidate capable of protecting America is Rudolph Giulliani, who will block any attack with his big red
Christmas sweater vest.
True Americans would not want the Iranians to commit 9/11 twice.
BlackCapitalist on January 12, 2008 at 3:15 PM
Isn’t this current false assertion that small boats can’t sink warships a reprise of the false assertion in the 1920s that aircraft couldn’t sink warships? Does the Left need a Pearl Harbor to catch up to reality?
Tantor on January 12, 2008 at 3:17 PM
That’s actually a very good point infidel. Now, who exactly attacked us? Which country did we come to the defense of per treaty?
Fed Up on January 12, 2008 at 3:19 PM
What if terrorists get nuclear weapons?
Why, we should just sit on our asses until they nuke Seattle from Russia, of course!
No intervention anywhere! No action until it’s too late! That’s the smart stance!
And lets make Chamberlain Secretary of State while we’re add it! Nothing helps global peace like blanket appeasement!
BKennedy on January 12, 2008 at 3:26 PM
Two days after Poland was attacked by Germany, the British and French declared war on Germany. The U.S. didn’t.
Interesting point is that the British and French didn’t declare war on Russia who invaded Poland 16 days after Germany.
Remember, we took Stalin’s side in WWII. Don’t read much about that in our history books.
Fed Up on January 12, 2008 at 3:27 PM
whats going on is like a bully in a bar or a school yard bully. the bad guy keeps poking at someone until he gets six teeth kicked out and then screams to all who will listen that he was attacked.
krazie kahadifi tried this small boats against a fleet of actual naval vessels about 40 years ago in the gulph of sidra (south side of the mediterainian (sp) sea) and lost most of them quite quickly, the rest came home to scream bloody murder.
this stuff happens all of the time and yes the ROE has to be adjusted so that our guys can defend themselves. however all that needs is a message from the admiral which can only take 30 seconds.
as far as six boats and two ciws systems. the guns shoot so fast and retarget so fast that one of the guns could sink all six boats in thirty seconds.
we give our sailors really good stuff, its just that the public doesn’t know about it and the ones that say it is junk are doing so either to sell their gadget to the navy or are political operatives who have a nefarious reason for cutting down the navy.
C
pk on January 12, 2008 at 3:27 PM
Being as we could have cluster munitions over every Iranian installation in 48-72 hours. Any direct attack on a US fleet would be suicide.
The US also has these things called “submarines”.
Techie on January 12, 2008 at 3:29 PM
BC, I very much do understand the power of fear. I just don’t fall for it as a means to get me to vote one way or the other. I see through the propoganda.
And wait a second…the way you wrote your last sentence makes it seem as if the Iranians were responsible for the first 9/11…I don’t think that’s what you meant.
Fed Up on January 12, 2008 at 3:31 PM
Everything you said there is true, but I don’t see how any of it supports your assertion about not acting on what-if’s. The points about the Soviet Union don’t have anything to do with it. The reason the US could not get involved sooner was because FDR was dealing with a very powerful anti-war lobby in the US…hrmmmmm.
AUINSC on January 12, 2008 at 3:31 PM
That’s the spirit comrade! It is better to live in constant fear of the real terrorists like Ahmedinejad, whom we know for certain is harboring osama bin laden in his basement while osama sits on a bean bag chair reading Iranian nuclear manuals and eating pop tarts.
BlackCapitalist on January 12, 2008 at 3:33 PM
Dude, everyone knows the Iranians are directly responsible for 9/11. Why do you think we are threatening to bomb them? Saddam Hussein himself was one of the hijackers, look what happened to him.
BlackCapitalist on January 12, 2008 at 3:36 PM
Sigh, don’t feed the trolljacking…
Techie on January 12, 2008 at 3:37 PM
No, but see, Bush and Cheney are commies, get it?
Jim Treacher on January 12, 2008 at 3:39 PM
yeah, sorry, just bored…talking to crazy people is fun for a few minutes, but it get’s tedious fast.
AUINSC on January 12, 2008 at 3:42 PM
Liberal rational:
Global Warming will kill us! (no precedent)
The war on terror is fear mongering! (jihadi’s want to be your friend)
I choose reality.
infidel on January 12, 2008 at 3:56 PM
Pakistan has nuclear weapons (there’s a book out from a former CIA employee who said the U.S. gave the technology to them). Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in the world is building nuclear reactors. Should we attack them too?
What happened to Jefferson’s principal of “Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none”….?
Fed Up on January 12, 2008 at 4:01 PM
Dude, everyone knows the Iranians are directly responsible for 9/11. Why do you think we are threatening to bomb them? Saddam Hussein himself was one of the hijackers, look what happened to him.
BlackCapitalist on January 12, 2008 at 3:36 PM
Good one!
Fed Up on January 12, 2008 at 4:03 PM
On the contrary, I think Russia had everything to do with it. “What if” Britain and France also declared war on Russia for invading Poland?
You’re right…FDR wanted the U.S. involved in the war. He was an ally of Stalin. Perhaps that is why his friend Churchill didn’t decare war on Russia.
What FDR did do is enter a secret alliance whereby if Japan attacked Britain, the U.S. would enter the war. This was unconstitutional and an impeachable act. (source: “And I Was There” by Edwin T. Layton
So personally, I just don’t see how our current foreign policy can be enacted upon to preemptively strike another country. If attacked by a country, not an idealogy, that’s a different story.
“What if” China decides they don’t like the fact that some country has WMD’s? What would our reaction be if they went in and decided to impose their version of government upon that countries citizens?
I want concrete reasoning and “declarations” by congress before going to war. Is this too much to ask?
I hope I’m clear here…if not, let me know.
Fed Up on January 12, 2008 at 4:22 PM
Off to watch football…
thanks for the discourse…
Here’s something to ponder:
POLITICS-US: Official Version of Naval Incident Starts to Unravel
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=40747
Fed Up on January 12, 2008 at 4:24 PM
Fed Up on January 12, 2008 at 4:22 PM
forgive the spelling mistakes…was in a hurry..
Fed Up on January 12, 2008 at 4:26 PM
Grenada, Panama, Balkins, Korea, Vietnam, Somalia etc. There are many justified times where the US took action without a “declaration”.
infidel on January 12, 2008 at 4:28 PM
Yeah, it’s amazing. This is the first time I’ve seen a journalist intervene against one candidate on behalf of the others (all warmongerers) so blatantly. Brit is no journalist. He’s an ideological War Party advocate.
That’s what this is all about. It’s not Ron Paul’s lying, his racism, his bigotry, his whatever. It’s that he’s anti war in Iraq. Anti-imperialist. He’s anti giant intrusive government. And he’s anti industry/war state.
That’s what this is alllll about.
Drum on January 12, 2008 at 4:30 PM
Ron Paul is racist because he has forgotten 9/11 and how the Iranians need to pay for it.
BlackCapitalist on January 12, 2008 at 4:44 PM
No. Findings were completely wrong, the mentality of Vietnam and political implications far too prominent. Study should have looked at Falklands War more than Okinawa Campaign. Red Force advantages, from homeplay to greater quantities, actually become disadvantages to a greater mobile force. They overplay importance of “strategic sectors” and capabilities that go with these points. Problem is that Blue Force has to play into the scenario to be true.
Sadly, the only way “true” wargames are performed today are by having limits on what and what-not may happen.
TheEJS on January 12, 2008 at 4:48 PM
The Japanese calculated they had us beaten at Pearl. All they did was awake the sleeping giant.
The Iranians would be better off to understand that they have not yet witnessed what the US military can bring down upon them.
We’re not awake yet.
The US military is at war. America is at the Mall.
bloviator on January 12, 2008 at 5:06 PM
You’re right. Next time I’ll just use “bomb” instead of “nuke.” Much more moral and pleasing to Jesus.
Drum on January 12, 2008 at 5:26 PM
dude.
John from OPFOR on January 12, 2008 at 5:32 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »