It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US Gulf units may not fire on Iranian military without White House say-so: CRAZY!!!

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 03:28 PM
link   
USS Eisenhower

DEBKA-Net-Weekly's military sources report that the US Persian Gulf command went public on the incident on April 28, a whole week later, only after Gulf military circles, amazed at the American naval and air units' passivity in the face of hostile surveillance, threatened to break the story to local media.

The US Fifth Fleet and US aircraft carrier USS Eisenhower in the Gulf of Oman were not allowed to shoot at an Iranian Fokker F27 aircraft which on April 21 hovered for 20 minutes 900 meters over the carrier and no more than 250 meters away, even though they saw its flight crew gathering intelligence on the Eisenhower and its warship escorts.

This striking restraint indicates that the US Gulf and Arabian fleets are under orders to take no action - certainly not to open fire - against Iranian naval or air units, with first obtaining permission directly from Washington. Military, naval and aviation sources told DEBKA-Net-Weekly that the Iranian spy plane was 10 second away from flying directly over the Eisenhower and could easily have been shot down.

Admiral Gary Roughead, Chief of Naval Operations, tried to play down the importance of the incident by saying: "The Iranians (pilots) were not provocative or threatening. As long as they are professional and not threatening or reckless, it's international space."
Source: debka.com...

I sense we (the USA) is going to suffer a terrible attack in that region and it will because to the man-child Obama and his immature buddies trying to cripple the military as they have NO IDEA what they are doing or realize the real threat Iran poses-in that region. There are 1000's of US lives at risk but not protecting them and letting this activity go un-checked. May God watch over the military there and us back here.


Iranian Fokker F27 aircraft




posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 03:32 PM
link   
I don't think this would be an issue for an American president. He is after all the commander in chief.

I'm sure he could respond pretty quickly and has plenty of people around him who can keep him informed of anything at a moments notice.

The plane buzzed the carrier it's no big deal. This story tries to make it sound like it was hovering about the carrier deck for 20 minutes while everyone sat there dumbfounded.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by anon72
 


If the Iranians sunk or damaged a US battle group and Obama did not give the order to fire the he would win a Nobel Peace Prize but he'd be tarred and feathered before he ever received it.

[edit on 30-4-2010 by ararisq]



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Remember the last time they opened fire on an Iranian plane? Didn't turn out too well...perhaps that is part of the context you need to keep in mind here.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 03:39 PM
link   
WOW! THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT!
Wait, no it's just typical stuff for the military.
Only an completely uniformed fool would see this as a big deal, been going on with friendly and non friendly nations for decades.
GEE! Maybe the Northeatern Intelligence Whatever can investigate for us!


[edit on 30-4-2010 by OldDragger]



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by OldDragger
 


Easy to say sitting in your chair here.

Iran possesses anti-ship missiles that would destroy anything that close.

I smell trolling....

Corrected Irag to Iran. Been a long day-



[edit on 4/30/2010 by anon72]



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by anon72
reply to post by OldDragger
 


Easy to say sitting in your chair here.

Irag possesses anti-ship missiles that would destroy anything that close.

I smell trolling....


__________________________________________________________

Yes, I confess, I'm sitting in a chair! You got me there!

Irag? Not familiar with that nation. Clarify?

Anti ship missles. Uh, most navies have 'em nowdays.

HERE'S AN IDEA! Why don't you Google this type of cat and mouse game, and, just for laughs, learn something!

And, while you are on Google, try learning something about that whole whacky "Commander in Chief" thing!



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Anon72, take a deep breath and relax. All navies do this kind of stuff - in fact the US is probably the most prolific at it.

If they opened fire in international waters then they would be setting a bad precedent for themselves. The US constantly has ships and planes off any number of coastlines or shadowing foreign ships as they move about international waters. It would be sending a signal that could escalate tensions with China, India and Russia, let alone Iran.

Do you remember the plane that crashed landed on Hainan Island a few years back? US spy plane skirting Chinese airspace? Did you read the article a few days ago about the Chinese and Japanese having a chest thumping exercise over the very same thing?

It happens all the time.

I am sure the US commanders in the Persian Gulf have the authority to shoot at the Iranians if they actually attack them.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   
The Fleet will be fine,i mean it's not as
though there is a history of any sort of
attack on the U.S. navy is there.....er
pearl harbour......gulf of tomkin i'd
watch out for your israeli buddies if
i were you.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by OldDragger
 


Yes SIR!

Right away, SIR!



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Actually, this sets up a perfect scenario for Iran carrying out a 1st strike. The US will prod and prod and prod through sanctions, inspections, statements etc. until Iran says enough is enough.

If the US allows the Iranians to take out a BIG enough target, they will have sympathy from everyone else. Despicable if true, but possible none-the-less.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by anon72
Easy to say sitting in your chair here.

Irag possesses anti-ship missiles that would destroy anything that close.


You mean Iran? What about the missile shields and airborne lasers? This is a US Carrier we're talking about here. One does not just fly up to a US carrier without it being known about it the second you take off.



[edit on 30-4-2010 by belial259]



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by anon72
 


trolling? would that mean trying o derail a thread without evidence to support a counter claim?
That trolling?

As for your thread, i see what your talking about.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by anon72
 


Seriously man, this isn't that big a deal. There's already been a thread started about it... the USN's very clear on the Rules Of Engagement regarding hostile forces... as it is on flybys with surveillance craft. The Navy's been buzzed by skywatchers in int'l waters for decades. Nothing new.

Yes, Iran does have anti-ship missiles that could concievably wreak havoc on a battle group - but first, they're not going to be carried and/ or fired from a Fokkr F27 - second, there are countermeasures in place to deal with those sorts of things. Could someone re-post the footage of the CIWS? As destructive as it is, it's a last line of defense, in case the destroyers, the AEGIS cruisers or the frigates that typically accompany a carrier fail to do their jobs - which isn't very likely.

Iran may be a hornets' nest, but it's not an insanely stupid hornets' nest. If the Mullahs doubt that an entire carrier battle group wouldn't get permission to engage if fired upon, they're in for a world of hurt.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by anon72
reply to post by OldDragger
 


Yes SIR!

Right away, SIR!


___________________________________________________________
Well now it looks like were getting somewhere!

Interesting that you probably won't learn anything, and certainly never admit you were mistaken.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Not only will they get the order to shot back. Even if they get the order 4 hours to late, I doubt any admiral captain or even lowly crewman would not take up arms to defend themselves in the case of an attack. It doesn't mean shooting down unarmed spy planes in international waters. However if they attack I'm sure the admiral will take the blame for ordering his boats to toast the enemy within seconds. I also highly doubt anyone would give that admiral anything other then a small reprimand for saving his crew and all the other boats out there from the attack (even if he does receive an order to not shoot back).

At that point its all about survival of the men under his command and no to mention himself. No matter how much you hate the military or the CiC or anything American, It isn't about that if they get shot at. It's about survival and revenge for any lost lives.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   
I don't see how this is news.
The second that Iranian ship targeted or armed, it would have been dropped, without the need to first contact the White House.

I must say, I believe that this speaks volumes about the professionalism of our soldiers.

It also shows that we (The U.S.) are not as "itchin'" for a fight with Iran as some on here would believe.

This incident, had we fired on the Iranian ship, could have easily been used as the event to get us involved with Iran.
That it wasn't speaks volumes.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 04:36 PM
link   
If the Iranian jet flew over U.S. territory I could see your point, but as its a U.S. vessel in someonelses waters, i dont see how you can make your war mongering statement. As the U.S. is currently bogged down in two wars already do you really think it wise to get involved with yet another.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by anon72
 




I sense we (the USA) is going to suffer a terrible attack in that region and it will because to the man-child Obama and his immature buddies trying to cripple the military as they have NO IDEA what they are doing or realize the real threat Iran poses-in that region. There are 1000's of US lives at risk but not protecting them and letting this activity go un-checked. May God watch over the military there and us back here.


Let me second the opinions already expressed about your weak attempt at incendiary rhetoric.

Do you get satisfaction parroting this type of tripe from chicken-hawks like 'avoided the draft due to anal fissure' Limbaugh? At least Limbaugh gets tens of millions of dollars for what he does, yet for you, trolling for stars and flags is apparently enough of a commodity to monger war? Yippeee, maybe you can put the letters G,O,L,D, in you signature line some day if you do your best! Surely, that is sufficient compensation for your immense time and effort, eh?

I hope you realize how utterly clear it is that while you are pontificating saccharine about god watching over the poor troops that are in danger because of Obama, you actually could care less about them. What could be worse for our soldiers than being a war monger itching for a bloody conflict w/ Iran? Disgusting. Bush wrapped himself in the flag, as are you, yet he sent tens upon tens of thousands of young people to death and severe injury for two multi-trillion dollar illegal and unnecessary wars. Mission accomplished indeed!



Dude. What are you talking about? First of all, Obama has expanded the military budget, why do you insist on spreading lies? Do you understand the US has a military budget that is orders of magnitude bigger than all the other countries combined?

Aren't you one of the choir members always singing from the peanut gallery about the budget and tyranny? Yet now you seem to want even more resources for the military-industrial complex? WTF?

All of the above is valid w/o even mentioning that you seem to be upset that Obama isn't enough of a war monger. What are your credentials to be so outspoken and militaristic? If I had to guess, you are another chicken-hawk conservative like Rove, Bush, Cheney and the tough guy brigade on the radio and fox news.

While your doing that research, you can discover that Obama is using strategy recommended by the generals in the know much more than his predecessor. In fact, Obama's Sec Def is a republican, as well as Petraeus, showing that Obama is being pragmatic and using the best people based on expertise, not party. This has angered the far-left, yet you haters just can't stop your dogmatic slander for even issues of war and peace.

Obama has taken care to be thoughtful, and demanded various strategies from the experts when choosing his Afghan policy. Do you remember how he was slammed for taking an extra week to get more info? I respect that, it is nice to have a commander in chief that actually cares about details.

Do you miss the days of having a president who formulated his war strategy based on what he thought god was saying into his ear? Look it up, that is literally what Bush said. You prefer that approach, a commander in chief committing our country to war because god supposedly told him it was time for a modern day crusade into the middle east?

Stop being a shill for the military-industrial complex. Thank god we aren't rushing into another war, that one fact should be enough, in and of itself, to be damn glad that 'Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran Pull the trigger' McCain and idiot Palin didn't win.



Don't you agree w/ this guy:



Best,
SN


[edit on 4/30/2010 by skunknuts]



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by splitlevel
 


Since when do those Iranian jets have propellers? The last I heard
the airplane was a Iranian Fokker F27, clearly with props and not jet
engines. How do these stories get so twisted out of shape. Do some
people EVER bother to read what is posted and clearly shown in pictures.

This post is off topic, but I wanted to clear up the big bad jet flying over
the aircraft carrier. If this carrier wanted to get rid of this plane flying
over, all they would really need is a chopter in the air, and it's done.
No need to scramble any jets on deck.



[edit on 30-4-2010 by endtimer]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join