yay!! WWIII Avoided.........barely

2008-01-07 06:30:26

#1

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|6923

"The captain of one U.S. vessel was in the process of giving the order to shoot when the Iranian ships began turning away, CNN said.

A radio transmission from one of the Iranian ships said, "I am coming at you. You will explode in a couple of minutes," CNN reported, citing a U.S. official.

After the threatening radio communication, U.S. sailors manned their ships' guns and were very close to opening fire, it said."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080107/ts_ … an_ship_dc

----------------------

I am sure this is just a preview of more to come.

2008-01-07 06:35:33

#2

Ben0: The Last Gunslinger; +38|6536|Southampton

Really.... not surprised. Its gonna happen eventually.

2008-01-07 06:38:20

#3

sergeriver: Cowboy from Hell; +1,928|6919|Argentina

WW3? Aren't you exaggerating a little bit? Nevertheless, it must have been a tense situation there.

2008-01-07 06:39:42

#4

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6691|Global Command

How'd you like to be Iranian Navy right now;

" Hey Sahib, get on the radio and threaten that U.S. navy ship and to really piss them off act like you're going to ram them..."

Stupid fuckers.

2008-01-07 06:42:55

#5

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|6923

sergeriver wrote:
WW3? Aren't you exaggerating a little bit?

Did you miss history class in school?

2008-01-07 06:49:28

#6

sergeriver: Cowboy from Hell; +1,928|6919|Argentina

usmarine2005 wrote:
sergeriver wrote:
WW3? Aren't you exaggerating a little bit?
Did you miss history class in school?

WW1 ok, but invading Poland isn't a minor episode.

2008-01-07 06:50:01

#7

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|6923

sergeriver wrote:
WW1 ok, but invading Poland isn't a minor episode.

Well, I see it as the snowball effect.

2008-01-07 06:51:18

#8

(T)eflon(S)hadow: R.I.P. Neda; +456|6991|Grapevine, TX

As they say Shit rolls down hill... From their crazy President to the Commanders of those boats. Glad to hear this was avoided, but this will obviously put all US Forces on a higher alert when facing Iranian Forces.

2008-01-07 06:52:41

#9

suomalainen_äijä: Member; +64|6327

WWIII is close

2008-01-07 06:52:43

#10

sergeriver: Cowboy from Hell; +1,928|6919|Argentina

usmarine2005 wrote:
sergeriver wrote:
WW1 ok, but invading Poland isn't a minor episode.
Well, I see it as the snowball effect.

Seeing it that way, everything's possible. Anyway, these are the same guys who kidnapped 15 Brits last year, so I'm not surprised.

2008-01-07 06:55:03

#11

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6314|what

The Brits were kidnapped.
The Aussies swore abuse.
The Americans manned their guns.

Next step...

2008-01-07 06:56:54

#12

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|6717

Enjoy the queues at the petrol pump.

2008-01-07 07:38:10

#13

AnaalDuck: Lfc Are Crap; +14|6639|Liverpool, England

Well they need somthing to start a war.

There WILL be a war with iran/china in the next decade.

RAWR!

2008-01-07 07:40:34

#14

Hakei: Banned; +295|6157

AnaalDuck wrote:
Well they need somthing to start a war.

There WILL be a war with iran/china in the next decade.

RAWR!

Fuck yes MEC Vs. China.

That will be a great map, AK - xxx's all round.

Oshi, I got two wrong ends of the stick.

Last edited by Hakei (2008-01-07 07:41:18)

2008-01-07 07:40:53

#15

Varegg: Support fanatic :-); +2,206|6971|Nårvei

usmarine2005 wrote:
sergeriver wrote:
WW1 ok, but invading Poland isn't a minor episode.
Well, I see it as the snowball effect.

Not much snow in the middle east USM ... duh !!

Wait behind the line ..............................................................

2008-01-07 08:06:15

#16

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6691|Global Command

Hakei wrote:
AnaalDuck wrote:
Well they need somthing to start a war.

There WILL be a war with iran/china in the next decade.

RAWR!
Fuck yes MEC Vs. China.

That will be a great map, AK - xxx's all round.

Oshi, I got two wrong ends of the stick.

He means Chine and MEC vrs. the USA, rawr.

2008-01-07 08:54:20

#17

<BoTM>J_Aero: Qualified Expert; +62|6627|Melbourne - Home of Football

I guess this is the only kind of brinkmanship a state like Iran can afford.

The Strait of Hormuz, being only about 33km's wide (21 miles) and carrying a significant percentage of the world's petroleum supply, is obviously a vital waterway, and one that being so close to Iran, they would want to secure. With the US Navy there, that's an impossibility. There's been Iranian - US conflict on the Strait before, and I'd predict it'll happen again, I don't think anyone would bet the Iranians will come off better if fighting does break out. But crucially, how would that be seen by the eyes of the world, and Iran's arab neighbours?

2008-01-07 08:56:45

#18

SEREVENT: MASSIVE G STAR; +605|6269|Birmingham, UK

usmarine2005 wrote:
sergeriver wrote:
WW3? Aren't you exaggerating a little bit?
Did you miss history class in school?

History is my favorite and best subject...

2008-01-07 09:26:47

#19

Skorpy-chan: Member; +127|6507|Twyford, UK

Americans were perfectly justified, but shoulda just turned the CIWS guns on them. I wanna see what 20mm APDS rounds do to a speedboat.

2008-01-07 09:34:28

#20

Shocking: sorry you feel that way; +333|6161|...

sergeriver wrote:
WW3? Aren't you exaggerating a little bit? Nevertheless, it must have been a tense situation there.

exxagarating, hah?

russia & iran have a mutual defense pact, if iran gets shit, russia gets shit, if russia gets shit, america gets more shit. if russians shit on america, europe will have to shit on russia, etc.

lots of shit, resulting in a cycle which will end in a nuclear holocaust.

No exxagaration.

It will happen eventually anyway.

inane little opines

2008-01-07 09:38:23

#21

RDMC: Enemy Wheelbarrow Spotted..!!; +736|6726|Area 51

dayarath wrote:
sergeriver wrote:
WW3? Aren't you exaggerating a little bit? Nevertheless, it must have been a tense situation there.
exxagarating, hah?

russia & iran have a mutual defense pact, if iran gets shit, russia gets shit, if russia gets shit, america gets more shit. if russians shit on america, europe will have to shit on russia, etc.

lots of shit, resulting in a cycle which will end in a nuclear holocaust.

No exxagaration.

It will happen eventually anyway.

Isn't that ''mutual defence pack'' known as the Warschau Pact? If not ignore the following, but I heard on the news a couple of days ago that Moscow is wanting to break off the Warschau Pact. Thus meaning, if Iran gets shit, only Iran gets shit.

2008-01-07 09:39:48

#22

GunSlinger OIF II: Banned.; +1,860|6805

The army has already engaged the quds, and won. Border skirmishes

2008-01-07 09:55:37

#23

IRONCHEF: Member; +385|6652|Northern California

Oh boy! Bill 'the bloody' Kristol and Dick Cheney will be frothing at the mouth on their Fox interviews today!!

2008-01-07 10:07:34

#24

Shocking: sorry you feel that way; +333|6161|...

RDMC wrote:
dayarath wrote:
sergeriver wrote:
WW3? Aren't you exaggerating a little bit? Nevertheless, it must have been a tense situation there.
exxagarating, hah?

russia & iran have a mutual defense pact, if iran gets shit, russia gets shit, if russia gets shit, america gets more shit. if russians shit on america, europe will have to shit on russia, etc.

lots of shit, resulting in a cycle which will end in a nuclear holocaust.

No exxagaration.

It will happen eventually anyway.
Isn't that ''mutual defence pack'' known as the Warschau Pact? If not ignore the following, but I heard on the news a couple of days ago that Moscow is wanting to break off the Warschau Pact. Thus meaning, if Iran gets shit, only Iran gets shit.

This defense pact was a Russia/Iran/Syria pact originally intended to balance the power in the middle east or so, I'm not sure wether this was still part of the warschau pact whilst the data was uncovered not too long ago.

inane little opines

2008-01-07 10:14:40

#25

PureFodder: Member; +225|6447

Erm, the Iranian vessels were in international waters, they have just as much right to be there as the US vessels. Iranians were bad because they were allegedly dropping white boxes which is agressive, the US vessels were good and defensive by aiming guns at the Iranians?

The Radio message stuff comes direct from unnamed officials, making it as credible as alien abduction stories. The US are claiming Iran are being agressive, yet it is US vessels sitting off the Iranian coast not the other way around. The US are clearly the aggressors by default, anything the Iranian navy does just brings them up the US level.

Just for fun, here's some quotes from the article:
"...the Pentagon said.." "The Pentagon said..." "White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said" "Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said" "Whitman said" "Whitman said" "Whitman told reporters." "Other Pentagon officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said" "the officials said" "According to the officials" "The officials said" "The officials said" "One official said" "the officials said".

So we know exactly what the Pentagon has decided to say about the matter. What actually happened is another matter. If you listen the the Iranian version this stuff happens all the time. If that's true then the real question is why is the US government deciding to throw a hissy fit over a regular occurance?

BF2S Forums yay!! WWIII Avoided.........barely

sergeriver wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

AnaalDuck wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Hakei wrote:

AnaalDuck wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

dayarath wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

RDMC wrote:

dayarath wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Board footer