Iran Fires Rockets Close To US Carrier

[BFritz21]

I think I posted this, and maybe it was on the old board, but a friend that I grew up less than three blocks away has a brother who used to be a Blue Angels pilot, and now he's flying from an air craft carrier in the Middle East.

We were all in a group text and he starts sounding nervous and it's because Iran started firing rockets near the carrier, which apparently they warned ships in the area that they'd do it, but it just seems unnecessary:

Quote:The U.S. aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman came about 1,500 yards from an Iranian rocket in the Strait of Hormuz last week, two U.S. military officials told NBC News on Tuesday.

As the Truman was transiting the strait, which connects the Arabian Sea and the Persian Gulf, Iranian Revolutionary Guards conducted a live-fire exercise right near the U.S. carrier Saturday, officials said.

A U.S. military official said an Iranian navy fast and short attack craft began conducting a live-fire exercise at the same time the carrier was nearing the end of the strait, firing off several unguided rockets. A French frigate, the U.S. destroyer USS Buckley and other commercial traffic were also in the area.

The official said the U.S. ships were in the "internationally recognized maritime traffic lane" at the time, not in any territorial waters, when the Iranian navy announced over maritime radio that it was about to conduct a live-fire exercise and asked other vessels to remain clear.

After the warning, the rockets were fired from a position about 1,500 yards off the carrier's starboard side and in a direction away from passing coalition and commercial ships and the traffic lane, the official said. The rockets were not fired at the Truman and other ships, only near them.

While the official said the Iranians were "clearly not" targeting ships, the action was "unnecessarily provocative and unsafe."

There were no direct communications between U.S. and Iranian navies.

Coalition forces continued transiting without any further incident, the official said, adding that the Truman is now in the Gulf and launching aircraft in support of Operation Inherent Resolve.

I really don't care if they weren't targeting our carriers, the fact that they had the audacity to fire them that close should be seen as a hostile act, which I'm not saying we should go to war over it, but we at least need to take a stand.

My friend was freaking out, and one of my other friends responded with "let's give them more power by lifting sanctions," which he's 100% right, but I told him not to worry because they're just trying to look strong but they're not actually stupid enough to mess with us because we'd bomb that whole country into a wasteland.

The thing is, though, that I don't think Obama has the balls to take a stand and other countries or terrorists might see that as just showing our weakness.

It kind of worries me.

[Benton]

two things.

one, if we're in the wrong territory, that's going to happen.

the balls statement is silly. Obama has authorized strikes for Osama, drone bombings of Isis and ground attacks in multiple countries. He's the exact opposite of seeking peace.

[BFritz21]

(12-30-2015, 08:01 AM)Benton Wrote: two things.

one, if we're in the wrong territory, that's going to happen.

the balls statement is silly. Obama has authorized strikes for Osama, drone bombings of Isis and ground attacks in multiple countries. He's the exact opposite of seeking peace.

It said we weren't in any territorial waters.

Saying that Obama authorized the strike on Osama is what's silly because they waited for almost a year until they were pretty much positive that Osama was there and it would have been horrible of him not to move.  I don't even think that he made the final call so much as he just allowed it.

We were searching for Osama long before Obama (I think all the way back to Clinton) and the only thing he did was not cancel them.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-30-2015, 08:45 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: It said we weren't in any territorial waters.

Saying that Obama authorized the strike on Osama is what's silly because they waited for almost a year until they were pretty much positive that Osama was there and it would have been horrible of him not to move.  I don't even think that he made the final call so much as he just allowed it.

We were searching for Osama long before Obama (I think all the way back to Clinton) and the only thing he did was not cancel them.

This point is rather disingenuous.  If the Osama raid had gone badly, as the attempted Iran hostage rescue, it would have been an enormous disaster for Obama.  The GOP would have been all over him and the fallout would have been substantial.  Additionally, you focused solely on the Osama raid example and completely ignored the other, pertinent, examples that Benton provided.  Cherry picking points to dissect really only exposes the fact that you realize your argument isn't that strong.

Obama is not a dove and he's not quite a hawk but he's certainly more the latter.

[JustWinBaby]

I wouldn't have expected Iran's rockets to be accurate enough to risk going near the carrier without accidentally hitting it.

[BFritz21]

(12-30-2015, 12:20 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This point is rather disingenuous.  If the Osama raid had gone badly, as the attempted Iran hostage rescue, it would have been an enormous disaster for Obama.  The GOP would have been all over him and the fallout would have been substantial.  Additionally, you focused solely on the Osama raid example and completely ignored the other, pertinent, examples that Benton provided.  Cherry picking points to dissect really only exposes the fact that you realize your argument isn't that strong.

Obama is not a dove and he's not quite a hawk but he's certainly more the latter.

Incorrect.  

The Osama raid really had no chance of going bad once it was all planned because, for Christ's sake, a helicopter crashed and it still was successful.  

It's not fair to entirely blame Obama for how messed up things got in most of the places he sent ground troops to because he didn't start the entire conflicts, but a lot of what's going on now and how bad things have gotten are because of his failed policies and his handling of how things were going, so it is fair to blame him for a lot of how things are right now.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-30-2015, 08:08 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Incorrect.  

The Osama raid really had no chance of going bad once it was all planned because, for Christ's sake, a helicopter crashed and it still was successful.

Seriously?  There are a thousand ways something like that could go badly.  Unconsciously you're denigrating the accomplishments of the men who planned and pulled off this mission.  
 

Quote:It's not fair to entirely blame Obama for how messed up things got in most of the places he sent ground troops to because he didn't start the entire conflicts, but a lot of what's going on now and how bad things have gotten are because of his failed policies and his handling of how things were going, so it is fair to blame him for a lot of how things are right now.

Perhaps you'd care to elaborate because generalities don't really go far towards proving your point.

[BFritz21]

(12-30-2015, 08:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Seriously?  There are a thousand ways something like that could go badly.  Unconsciously you're denigrating the accomplishments of the men who planned and pulled off this mission.  
 

Such as...........?

They flew in at night, and it was just a quick in and out job.

Wasn't like there was time for them to alert an entire army that we were there and then deploy people to stop us.

There was the military academy a mile or so away, but there was no phones or access to the outside world from the compound to make contact with them.  The compound was isolated.

Quote:Perhaps you'd care to elaborate because generalities don't really go far towards proving your point.

He set red lines a few different times, such as telling Syria not to move or use chemical weapons, but then acting slowly or not at all on the threat, which makes them believe that they can do whatever.  

He let Iran into Syria and didn't even check them from backing Assad and has been indecisive in everything, so the world thinks we're cowards and they know Obama won't do anything.

Last year or so, he called ISIS a "JV team" and basically said that they wouldn't be any trouble.  We saw how that worked out.

He started to pull out of Iraq and it started collapsing.

There's a few.

[Vlad]

(12-30-2015, 08:01 AM)Benton Wrote: two things.

one, if we're in the wrong territory, that's going to happen.

the balls statement is silly. Obama has authorized strikes for Osama, drone bombings of Isis and ground attacks in multiple countries. He's the exact opposite of seeking peace.

Impressive. Did the drone strikes kill more terrorists or civilians?

I don't know why you guys have to lie to yourself, your guy is not worth protecting anymore. Obamas MO has always been to try doing the very least he can when it comes to engaging the enemy. Its a bad look for there to be US boots on the ground in his eyes.  The less US presence in that region the better.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-30-2015, 09:50 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Such as...........?

They flew in at night, and it was just a quick in and out job.

Wasn't like there was time for them to alert an entire army that we were there and then deploy people to stop us.

There was the military academy a mile or so away, but there was no phones or access to the outside world from the compound to make contact with them.  The compound was isolated.

Dear god, do I really have to elaborate?  There could have been way more resistance in the compound than expected.  They could have run into resistance from Pakistani military.  Osama could not have been there.  Intelligence could have been faulty resulting in mass causalities.  They could have killed Osama and still lost the majority of the team, or all of them.  

Quote:He set red lines a few different times, such as telling Syria not to move or use chemical weapons, but then acting slowly or not at all on the threat, which makes them believe that they can do whatever.

 
Interesting.  What you have had him do regarding the tenuous information of chemical weapon use?  I'll remind you, the situation there is very fluid, proving who exactly did what would not be easy.

Quote:He let Iran into Syria and didn't even check them from backing Assad and has been indecisive in everything, so the world thinks we're cowards and they know Obama won't do anything.

Dude, Iran has been a major backer of Syria for decades.  Please try again.

Quote:Last year or so, he called ISIS a "JV team" and basically said that they wouldn't be any trouble.  We saw how that worked out.

Wow, this is an example you chose?  He downplayed the threat of ISIS... weak foreign policy!!!!!!!!!!  

Quote:He started to pull out of Iraq and it started collapsing.

Correct, we should have stayed in Iraq for how many more years in your opinion?  Please enlighten us as to how many more years were necessary to make withdrawal feasible. 

Quote:There's a few.

Sorry, I'm going to need a few that make a bit more sense.

[BmorePat87]

(12-31-2015, 02:18 AM)Vlad Wrote: Impressive. Did the drone strikes kill more terrorists or civilians?

I don't know why you guys have to lie to yourself, your guy is not worth protecting anymore. Obamas MO has always been to try doing the very least he can when it comes to engaging the enemy. Its a bad look for there to be US boots on the ground in his eyes.  The less US presence in that region the better.

I don't think he was "protecting" Obama as much as he was trying to illustrate the fact that he has indeed engaged in acts of war hence "not seeking peace". His defenders would actually be trying to downplay all of that.

Whether or not the drone strikes have killed more civilians than "enemy combatants" is a moot point when discussing the fact that Obama has been quite liberal in his use of bombing campaigns since entering office. Their effectiveness is a whole other matter.

[JustWinBaby]

(12-31-2015, 11:43 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I don't think he was "protecting" Obama as much as he was trying to illustrate the fact that he has indeed engaged in acts of war hence "not seeking peace". His defenders would actually be trying to downplay all of that.

These debates are actually quite humorous and pointless.  Both President Obama and President Bush were quite different from candidate Obama and candidate Bush.

I maintain that foreign policy is largely dictated by the career staffers.  Like Obama said, it's different when you're actually sitting in the chair [and career policy experts begin educating and advising you].  And 9/11 dramatically changed Bush's outlook and approach, understandably.

And it makes sense if you actually think about it.  We cannot have effective foreign policy [OK, maybe effective is a poor choice] if you are changing positions every 4-8 years.  The "bad actors" are playing the long game, and a POTUS in their 4-8 years can only move the needle a little one way or the other, which is why it's the career staffers really shaping the long-term trends.

We still live in fear of the belief being isolationist allowed WWII to happen.  But the world is a very different place now - radicals and nuclear proliferation are threats, Russia and China are not (other than economically, for the latter).

[XenoMorph]

(12-30-2015, 01:09 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: I think I posted this, and maybe it was on the old board, but a friend that I grew up less than three blocks away has a brother who used to be a Blue Angels pilot, and now he's flying from an air craft carrier in the Middle East.

We were all in a group text and he starts sounding nervous and it's because Iran started firing rockets near the carrier, which apparently they warned ships in the area that they'd do it, but it just seems unnecessary:


I really don't care if they weren't targeting our carriers, the fact that they had the audacity to fire them that close should be seen as a hostile act, which I'm not saying we should go to war over it, but we at least need to take a stand.

My friend was freaking out, and one of my other friends responded with "let's give them more power by lifting sanctions," which he's 100% right, but I told him not to worry because they're just trying to look strong but they're not actually stupid enough to mess with us because we'd bomb that whole country into a wasteland.

The thing is, though, that I don't think Obama has the balls to take a stand and other countries or terrorists might see that as just showing our weakness.

It kind of worries me.

This is what they call a warning shot.

[BFritz21]

(12-31-2015, 03:00 AM) pid=\142851' Wrote:

Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:Dear god, do I really have to elaborate?  There could have been way more resistance in the compound than expected.  They could have run into resistance from Pakistani military.  Osama could not have been there.  Intelligence could have been faulty resulting in mass causalities.  They could have killed Osama and still lost the majority of the team, or all of them.  

lol!  

More resistance than expected?!  They never made phone calls, had no internet access, it was under constant surveillance, and burned all the trash and everything.  There is literally no way they could have supported more people to put up a resistance.

Everything about that compound pointed to Osama being there and there was no reason that everything would have happened in that house the way it did if Obama wasn't there.

Quote: 
Interesting.  What you have had him do regarding the tenuous information of chemical weapon use?  I'll remind you, the situation there is very fluid, proving who exactly did what would not be easy.

He knew they crossed the line and didn't take his threats seriously!  I would have had him grow a pair!

Quote:Dude, Iran has been a major backer of Syria for decades.  Please try again.

But they weren't in the actual country and backing Assad that hard until everything started going down.

Quote:Wow, this is an example you chose?  He downplayed the threat of ISIS... weak foreign policy!!!!!!!!!!  

Point is that his downplaying it didn't take them seriously and let them grow stronger and become bolder in their actions with attacks.

Quote:Correct, we should have stayed in Iraq for how many more years in your opinion?  Please enlighten us as to how many more years were necessary to make withdrawal feasible. 

Until everything was more stable and Iraq had control of its own people and government.

Quote:[quote pid='142851' dateline='1451541658']
Sorry, I'm going to need a few that make a bit more sense.

[/quote]

Those all made perfect sense.

[StLucieBengal]

No way can you say Obama is not a big time hawk. He is just a hawk who wants to shrink the military but still use the heck out it.

He is as much a hawk as W.

[BmorePat87]

(12-31-2015, 01:49 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: These debates are actually quite humorous and pointless.  Both President Obama and President Bush were quite different from candidate Obama and candidate Bush.

I maintain that foreign policy is largely dictated by the career staffers.  Like Obama said, it's different when you're actually sitting in the chair [and career policy experts begin educating and advising you].  And 9/11 dramatically changed Bush's outlook and approach, understandably.

And it makes sense if you actually think about it.  We cannot have effective foreign policy [OK, maybe effective is a poor choice] if you are changing positions every 4-8 years.  The "bad actors" are playing the long game, and a POTUS in their 4-8 years can only move the needle a little one way or the other, which is why it's the career staffers really shaping the long-term trends.

We still live in fear of the belief being isolationist allowed WWII to happen.  But the world is a very different place now - radicals and nuclear proliferation are threats, Russia and China are not (other than economically, for the latter).

Absolutely. Bush said no nation building and Obama said no war. Bush built nations and Obama fought to keep troops in past the Bush time table and increased the use of drone strikes.