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: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by endtimer
 



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.


Exactly, and as usual debka will whine about nothing.


This type of plane is for passengers or surveillance, and unless the Iranian's were looking to seek asylum then it's purpose was intelligence gathering. I'm sure they would have been in awe of the size of the carrier fleet.




posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 06:14 PM
link   
And how it is crazy for the military to seek permission before engaging an enemy. Self-defence as a last resort is obviously not going to require permission, that would just be stupid!

And this fokker plane was harmless, even CNN stated that the trajectory of the fly-over wasn't aggressive.

No navy should fire at approaching planes unless they can determine it's hostile first. There's been enough mistakes already that have almost started wars or worse.

[edit on 30-4-2010 by john124]



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by anon72

There are 1000's of US lives at risk but not protecting them and letting this activity go un-checked.


What makes a US life worth more than an iranian?



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Fair enough...I assumed wrongly that it was a jet. However I think the jist of the thread was about an aircraft flying too close to a american ship...so Im guessing it hardly matters if it was a prop or a jet..but i stand corrected anyhow.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 06:59 PM
link   
So let me get this straight...

You are criticizing the president because he won't take an action that could cause another war, against a country with a nutjob for a president? Just because an Iranian vehicle looked at the battleship?

All they would have to do is take google earth to look at the battleship.

And if a massive American ship is hanging out in unusual waters,which is why they are
Probably making sure the American ship wasn't on a spy mission.

sorry, but the cowboy days of shoot first and ask questions later are over. And thank God for that.

[edit on 30-4-2010 by nixie_nox]



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by anon72
 


Oh no, the COMMANDER IN CHIEF is in command...wait...WHAT?

The situation in the middle east is very fragile, it makes sense that they limit actions that could cause an international incident or even war.

Funny how the haters are grasping to straws instead of discussing real issues...

Also, great source...a PRO-ISRAEL website...of course


[edit on 30-4-2010 by MrXYZ]


CX

posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 07:27 PM
link   
OMG how old is that plane?


I'm no plane expert but could that thing buzz anything?

More of a dribble i'm guessing.


CX.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by CX
 


The F-27 made it's first flight in 1955, though it has been modernized many, many times. An armed version is out there, but it's not exactly the aircraft I would use to attack a US carrier group.
I kind of think the USN knows all about this kind of thing.
I also think the OP was just yet another cheezy attempt to smear Obama by a guy who is making his ATS career out of cheezy attempts to smear Obama.


[edit on 30-4-2010 by OldDragger]



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by CX
OMG how old is that plane?


I'm no plane expert but could that thing buzz anything?

More of a dribble i'm guessing.


CX.


LOL, that's what I thought once I got over the anger of the blatant war mongering combined with the usual Obama hating insanity. Seriously, I know it was added as a scary effect, but I think it really helps to prove that Iran is not all that.

Best,
SN

[edit on 4/30/2010 by skunknuts]



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by skunknuts
 


You are so wrong. Clearly we should invade Iran (and then some other random neighboring country that has nothing to do with all of it) because of this obvious spying attempt. We better do it as long as they're still using planes based on designs from the 1950s...just imagine what could happen if they advanced to 1980s technology. We'd be toast!!

In fact, let's shoot at all countries that spy on us:

1) Russia
2) China
3) Israel
4) North Korea
5) EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!

I'm happy the war mongers aren't in power anymore.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by skunknuts
 


You are so wrong. Clearly we should invade Iran (and then some other random neighboring country that has nothing to do with all of it) because of this obvious spying attempt. We better do it as long as they're still using planes based on designs from the 1950s...just imagine what could happen if they advanced to 1980s technology. We'd be toast!!

In fact, let's shoot at all countries that spy on us:

1) Russia
2) China
3) Israel
4) North Korea
5) EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!

I'm happy the war mongers aren't in power anymore.


How can you leave Mexico out of the top five! Not to mention Cuba and Venezuela. Didn't the nation's forefather's say we need to conquer the nations in our own hemisphere first, or something? Well, it's not important...the bombing begins in 10 minutes.

Best,
SN

[edit on 4/30/2010 by skunknuts]



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 08:04 PM
link   
This is fantastic and I am quite sure it is normal, not an Obama thing. Pretty sad that people will use anything they can think of to attack him.

Why should the plane be fired upon for conducting surveillance? US planes conduct surveillance all the time; would it be right for them to be fired upon?



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join