Dangerous incident in gulf. Or comedy gold?

Posty · 7 Jan 2008 at 17:00

@if ®afiq said:
The US navy may be welcome by some of the governments in that area, but not the people. Regardless, the people of Iran and the Iranian government no doubt feel threatened by a large naval force of a country that is on the other side of the World.

That's just speculation

@if ®afiq · 7 Jan 2008 at 17:01

Posty said:
That's just speculation

Which bit? About the US not being welcome by the majority of the people in the Gulf regions or the bit about the people of Iran feeling threatened by the US army/navy?

Muffin` · 7 Jan 2008 at 17:03

@if ®afiq said:
No need to chuck insults.

Who exactly were they protecting with all those boats? And from whom?

They are there to protect their 130 Billion barrels-a-day investment.

Posty · 7 Jan 2008 at 17:04

@if ®afiq said:
Which bit? About the US not being welcome by the majority of the people in the Gulf regions or the bit about the people of Iran feeling threatened by the US army/navy?

I don't see what angle you are coming from but arguing about why the US navy is there is pointless

@if ®afiq · 7 Jan 2008 at 17:05

[DW]Muffin;10835751 said:
They are there to protect their 130 Billion barrels-a-day investment.

No doubt and quite possibley gearing up to double that investment. As long as people are under no illusion that they are there for the benfit of other people.

@if ®afiq · 7 Jan 2008 at 17:07

Posty said:
I don't see what angle you are coming from but arguing about why the US navy is there is pointless

My point being, a bunch of war ships from group A, thousands of miles away from their country and within 50 miles of group B are more of a threat to group B than the speedboats of group B within 50 miles of their own land.

Who is threatening who? I think it is and has been quite clear for a very long time.

Muffin` · 7 Jan 2008 at 17:09

@if ®afiq said:
No doubt and quite possibley gearing up to double that investment. As long as people are under no illusion that they are there for the benfit of other people.

Well they're not gearing up for an invasion (although it's not off the table, but in the here & now) other wise they'd be forming up with a few Nimitz class. Those 3 ships will just be patrolling the International waters, they don't need to show force after a major campaign next door.

@if ®afiq · 7 Jan 2008 at 17:22

[DW]Muffin;10835809 said:
Well they're not gearing up for an invasion (although it's not off the table, but in the here & now) other wise they'd be forming up with a few Nimitz class. Those 3 ships will just be patrolling the International waters, they don't need to show force after a major campaign next door.

I am unsure what exactly they have near the Gulf. There was a whole flurry of activity with aircraft carriers and whole fleets being sent to that region during the secod half of last year.

Combat squirrel · 7 Jan 2008 at 17:22

They did the right thing imo, you wouldnt want this to happen to your multi million $$ boat:

HAHA random thought, can you imagine if ocuk started selling destroyers

:

*got woken up by the posty this morning* ,lol

Tax Evader · 7 Jan 2008 at 17:26

Iran... US... "Serious provocation" ... sounds like the film 'Threads' :eek:

Booner! · 7 Jan 2008 at 17:29

Combat squirrel said:
They did the right thing imo, you wouldnt want this to happen to your multi million $$ boat:

*got woken up by the posty this morning* ,lol

That's insane.... how did they get that boat up on that carrier!?! :eek:

@if ®afiq · 7 Jan 2008 at 17:29

Moses99p said:
lol, yeah, because Iran's gonna be invaded, there will be enough troops to do that.

Have you heard of aircraft and missiles?

Booner! · 7 Jan 2008 at 17:29

@if ®afiq said:
Have you heard of aircraft and missiles?

That would be attacking, he is talking about invading.

Zefan · 7 Jan 2008 at 17:29

Combat squirrel said:
HAHA random thought, can you imagine if ocuk started selling destroyers :

"You weren't in when we attempted delivery of a parcel - it's round the back"

@if ®afiq · 7 Jan 2008 at 17:32

Booner! said:
That would be attacking, he is talking about invading.

They won't invade, just obliterate - but that's if they decide to do anything.

Azagoth · 7 Jan 2008 at 17:33

Booner! said:
That's insane.... how did they get that boat up on that carrier!?!

It submerges it's deck under the stricken ship and then raises the ship out of the water by pumping out the ballast that lowered it.

@if ®afiq · 7 Jan 2008 at 17:33

Azagoth said:
It submerges it's deck under the USS Cole and then raises the ship out of the water.

Like Thunderbirds!

Booner! · 7 Jan 2008 at 17:36

Azagoth said:
It submerges it's deck under the stricken ship and then raises the ship out of the water by pumping out the ballast that lowered it.

That, is very clever.... i never thought of that (obviously! or I would be a £millionaire!)

Azagoth · 7 Jan 2008 at 17:39

Booner! said:
That, is very clever.... i never thought of that (obviously! or I would be a £millionaire!)

Here you are, the Wiki page about the MV Blue Marlin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Blue_Marlin

Very impressive bit of kit to be honest. :cool:

Indy500 · 7 Jan 2008 at 17:41

Which is probably why airstrikes haven't gone ahead. Those SA-15s could pose a serious risk to aircraft.