The Shotgun Blog
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Iran's Aggression at Sea
These Iranian ships approached and provoked the U.S. Navy in an extremely bold and aggressive fashion and were allowed to get away with it.
The only proper response to this sort of provocation would have been to open fire on these ships and blow them - and all of their occupants - straight to hell. That the Americans failed to do so is a worrying sign, and doubtlessly a result of the caution bred by the slowly metastasizing treason cancer which, because of how aggressive and widespread it is, forces retreat and restraint when the opposite is called for
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Iran's Aggression at Sea:
This provocation was manufactured by Iran in an attempt to provoke the US into a major international incident prior to Bush's visit to the Middle-East. In this instance, the US was wise not to follow-up with retaliation.
Posted by: atric | 2008-01-08 3:30:52 PM
. . . but don't count on it again, the next time these Islamofascists try something similar.
Posted by: obc | 2008-01-08 3:40:40 PM
Agreed OBC. The wise choose their time and place.
This time it was neither.
Posted by: atric | 2008-01-08 3:46:54 PM
For one thing, I m unhappy they were not sunk but on the other hand it is wise for the US Navy not to engage these morons. However, am sure that the next time these ragheads show up, they'll be blown into pieces.
Posted by: winston | 2008-01-08 3:56:25 PM
Frankly, I am not surprised that you would be so willing to advocate the use of force, Adam.
Posted by: Juan | 2008-01-08 6:42:05 PM
I think the first shot fired by Iran against American Naval forces will trigger total anihilation of the Iranian military and nuclear enterprise.
It is always sad when a lot of people (Iranians) get killed but that military action will solve a lot of problems and it will create zero new ones.
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2008-01-08 6:54:27 PM
Attack Iran immediately.
Posted by: epsilon | 2008-01-08 7:35:43 PM
Adam and Al Qaeda want the same thing-- war between the U.S. and the entire Islamic world. The only real difference is that Al Qaeda knows that the more civilian Muslims the U.S. kills, the more recruits Al Qaeda gets.
Posted by: Voice of Reason | 2008-01-08 7:46:34 PM
Posted by: obc | 2008-01-08 7:46:40 PM
"Al Qaeda knows that the more civilian Muslims the U.S. kills, the more recruits Al Qaeda gets."
Leftoid hogwash! The surge is working. The proof is that the media is no longer covering Iraq.
Posted by: obc | 2008-01-08 7:48:23 PM
They were bloody speed boats... we all know if the US Navy wanted to start a war, it would do better than a speed boat.
"The Surge is working". Yes... it is. Too bad it took 6 years for the US CinC to realize that in order to win anything you have to have overwhelming numbers.
Of course, when the US leaves, which they inevitably, completely, will have to do. Al Quaeda will have a brand new place to setup shop. One that never existed before... no matter how much you guys want to believe your little alternate realities about Saddam.
The only place within 1000km of Kabul that doesn't host a massive number of Al Quaeda operatives is Iran. That situation will of course change if and when you guys get their wish and the US Navy loses their cool.
God help our troops if they're still stuck in Kandahar when bombs fly over Tehran.
Posted by: Chris Alemany | 2008-01-08 9:05:12 PM
One Ale too Many, methinks.
Posted by: obc | 2008-01-08 9:08:42 PM
Chris you silly boy!
When Israel and the US attack Iran, there will be fewer nutbars and munitions crossing the Iranian border into Afghanistan. Same with the whackos in Pakistan.
We will be able to mop up what remains expeditiously.
Posted by: epsilon | 2008-01-08 11:33:23 PM
It is quite obvious that our objective is to help the people of Iraq (and Afghanistan) to establish and operate self sustaining freely elected and minority rights respecting governments.
Musharraf is doing this on his own in Pakistan even though surrounded by enemies and infiltrated within, and with our blithering quixotic half-assed "support." Bhutto was-is a phony Leftist-thug-thuggette with a stupid Harvard "education" in "elite specialness" like her fawning pandering wannabe creeps in the Atheist homosexual Leftist "press."
The stupid notion that "nobody knew" that sufficient military forces were needed (i.e. the surge) to accomplish our objective, ignores the basic PLAN that the Iraqis and the Afghans should run their OWN governments-nations.
How much of Germany and how much of Japan does America OWN or control? How quickly have American troops "left" Japan and Germany and Korea "as they MUST do" according to Chris.
Minimalism, or "police actions" or "nation building" is almost the opposite of war or "military actions." America is investing horrificly more young soldiers' lives and limbs in this type of effort than if we just blew the bastards away.
It would be an absolute Christmas present for the American population if those creeps in Iran would shoot a bullet or a missle at any American military force.
EVERYBODY down here would love to turn Iran or any other one of these awful places into a molten glass lined abyss, to repay them for even the first and the slightest injury to any one of our military.
I'll bet big tough guy blowhard Ameridijad doesn't even allow his "gun boats" to have real weapons or ammunition when they go buzzing around on the water pretending to mean something other than that they are the demonic garbage stench of Totalitarian evil "religion of peace" and Communist-Leftists.
P.S. Please be sure to have Neil Flagg delete this comment because I called the "press" exactly what and who they (and he?) are; and then issue another apology to that stupid Muslim creep, or just go find him and kiss his ass.
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2008-01-09 9:02:58 AM
I'm afraid you're the one who needs to sober up and face reality obc.
The Americans will have to leave Iraq because the citizens don't want them there.. it's that simple. This isn't WWII there is no Allied army, no defeated regime and submissive population. Both Iraq and Afghanistan are now insurgencies, and unwinnable. They will pull out, just like the Soviets did, as well as the Israelis from Lebanon.
"there will be fewer nutbars and munitions crossing the Iranian border into Afghanistan"
Yes because that was so true of Iraqs neighbours, Syria, Jordan, Saudi, Turkey.
What reality do you guys live in??? I especially love Conrads opinion that we should just nuke'em. Cuz you know, India and China won't have any opinion at all on American nuclear fallout falling over their country.
Posted by: Chris Alemany | 2008-01-09 10:54:04 AM
Well, you are not in my reality and I don't know what planet you are circling cuz it sure ain't earth.
By your post, you obviously support Islamofascist regimes and want Islamofascist governments to gain in power over freedom loving democratic countries.
You also fail to understand that we are now winning in both Iraq and Afghanistan. You hate that don't you? And the more we win here, the greater the resources we will have to free the people of Iran as well from their barbaric regime and bring some certainty to the supply of vital global energy resources.
Posted by: epsilon | 2008-01-09 4:19:48 PM
I suspect the Iranians feel they need an external enemy to take the population's mind off how poorly Ahmadinnerjacket and co are running Iran.
The US was wise not to take that bait.
When the time comes I wonder if they will simply smash every Iran military installation, go in and secure and destroy whatever nuke stuff they can find, and then leave and let the Iranians sort it out.
There is a lot of discontent with the Iranian leadership.
Posted by: Stan | 2008-01-10 8:15:13 PM
Right Epsi... global energy is indeed what it's all about, on that we agree.
We're not "winning" in Iraq or Afghanistan because we simply can never win. You can't win a fight you should never have been in in the first place... especially when we all knew it as well. I wish the best for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan and Iran... I know that the best for them would be 1 million Canadians guarding their borders. That's not going to happen. What we're doing now is just inflaming the situation. That is why it is best that we get out. Especially before chimpy down South decides to "liberate" Iran
Posted by: Chris Alemany | 2008-01-12 7:49:43 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.