Not Like The Old Boss

80 Replies to “Not Like The Old Boss”

  1. And that will probably be the last you will see of said boats. Prove me wrong, Ayatollah!!

    1. “Shoot down” is not a misstatement in my opinion. It’s a hint of what will happen if any Iranian aircraft approach US Navy vessels. Trump’s in a very bad mood over this virus. The Ayatollah better be VERY careful.

      1. Agree. No objections. Just like sinking an Iranian fighter in a dogfight. All good with me.

  2. “No objections other than questioning how one shoots down a gunboat.”

    Hey, you have to give the champagne socialists lots to tut-tut about.

  3. This is certainly a different approach than the previous Obama administration, who decided to fund an acceleration of Iran’s nuclear program by dropping billions in cash on pallets.

    Like Trump’s approach much more.

    1. Obama would have instructed the US Navy to apologize to Iran for being too close to Iranian ships that approached them.

      Trump gave a public warning after provocative attempts to change the domestic channel by beleaguered Iranian leaders.

      It’s called deterrence, the beauty of which, since US has credibility with recent military action, of a shot need not fired.

      Trump has confidence in his navy commanders to deal with these miscreants, and so do I.

      If a few Iranian gunboats gets splashed in the process, well fine. That what Destroyers are designed to do, protect the fleet.

      50 yards is too close and risks contact. 10 yards is imminent collision; both are unacceptable. Turn them into target practice.

      1. 50 yards is handgun range, isn’t it?

        2025 yards…one nautical mile…from any vessel in the group should be the minimum distance for a verbal warning. More than 200 yards closer (or 30 seconds, whichever is less) of not changing course should generate the first warning shot from the 5″ gun. The second verbal warning should be the last one, with free-fire no later than 1000 yards distant, depending on the incoming vessel type. Any weapons activity outside of these parameters should be met with overwhelming force. Open to other suggestions, though.

        I wish we had a navy that could do that, and commanders with the balls to do it.

        1. “The Last Ship” had a scene where the boat fires what my better half guessed was an 8″ 55 caliber shell which made a really gratifying clang bouncing off the gun deck. That’s how I like my tax dollars spent.

    2. Yeah … I sure miss the good ol’ days when Obama’s Rules of Engagement included surrender and humiliation…

      If I need a sarc. tag … you’re on the WRONG blogsite

      1. would this be the same Iran…allowed to get too close….and blew holes in 4 ships

        ..why yes, yes it would

        If that had been the other way around…they would have said it was an act of war

  4. Honestly, if any armed vessel is stupid enough to sail within the gun range of a military vessel in international waters with whom it’s not allied and from whom it has not received either acknowledgement or permission, it deserves to be shot up with impunity, which should be codified under the “official” laws of the sea. Patience with stupidity and aggression has to have a limit at some point, and don’t get me started on piracy.

    1. I remember the late 90’s, early 2000’s, when there were many reports of piracy by Somalis on the Red Sea. I think it was reported here (I could be wrong) but that the Russians started to send ships through with rich Russians who had paid good money to shoot at the pirates. A few engagements which did not go well for the pirates and the world very rarely hears about Somali pirates anymore.
      I have had to stand up to a few bullies in my life. They always crumple.

    2. You’re quite wrong there. Military vessels in International waters don’t require any special considerations save those that are outlined in the established protocols for collision avoidance at sea. On other words, the warships of two neutral and unaligned powers ought to be able to pass one another without any shots being fired. Usually they will even render honours to one another.

      That being said it is perfectly acceptable to deal harshly with the tinpot gunboats of a belligerent rogue state.

      1. It’s the same in airspace. That’s why my eyeballs do the Las Vegas slot machine roll when “Russia encroaches on NA airspace!”. Ya Ya whatever. It’s not the encroachment, its the crossing the line that counts. It’s just theatre.

    3. Just let them know close in defenses are on automatic; come too close, get shredded by Phalanx. OK just musing.

  5. Cheer, cheer, warmongers! How is this different from Trudoes’ knee-jerk gun ban? Politicians are always in a distraction from reality mode. If Iranians were shooting up American ships in the US territorial waters off the coast of California or Florida, he would be totally justified. US is essentially standing on Iran’s lawn, yelling at them through a bullhorn, in the middle of the night.
    Thank you, asshole! Canadian gas at 80 cents a litre, thanks to Trudoe’s carbon tax. Without it, it should be at 50 cents. When the real price of gas will return to the normal $1.20, it will be $1.50 or more, for Canadians. Trudoe and Trump, together making everything more expensive in North America, hard, while we are locked out of work.
    A working person is always on the receiving end of a stick, no matter who is in the office. For the politicians, with guaranteed income no matter what, everyone is a pawn.

    1. Dimtronella, the gun boats buzzing USN sets up a pattern , and if left alone, the next one may just ram, and blow up, ever hear of USS Cole?????

    2. The Iranian actions are a hazard to navigation, and a threat to human life. The US is operating in international waters.

    3. “Cheer, cheer, warmongers! How is this different from Trudoes’ knee-jerk gun ban?”

      If we have to explain the difference between an act of war and a socialist policy to you, you’re probably not bright enough to understand the explanation.

      But hey, enjoy your day in your Mom’s basement.

    4. Yea but, If one small drone on a Saudi tank farm can boost the DOW, imagine what sinking a few Iranian boats will do!

    5. “US is essentially standing on Iran’s lawn, yelling at them through a bullhorn, in the middle of the night.”

      The Iranian Mullahs have been pushing people around in that neck of the world since – well the Persian Empire and the Safavid dynasty circa 1500’s.

      The US is there by invite, of the peoples that the Iranians would crush given the chance.

      1. US Forces are in international water, so that analogy should say they’re yelling at Iran from a public road.

    6. “US is essentially standing on Iran’s lawn, yelling at them through a bullhorn, in the middle of the night.”

      You’re saying it like it was a bad thing?

  6. “Hello USN, I’d like to report that an Iranian gunboat has been spotted in Ottawa very close to the front steps of Rideau Cottage…”

    1. … open a new “investigation” into the Commander-in-Chief’s “incapacitated” behavior invoking the 25th Amendment.

      You asked

  7. That tweet is all it will take to stop the Iranian boats from harassing US navy ships. They won’t have to fire one shot.

  8. I doubt Iranian admirals are yukking it up parsing Trump’s statement today.
    Pretty clear what he means for those who think they may be on the receiving end.
    Besides, I think the comment was a not so thinly veiled warning to the Chinese as well, who seem to be up to no good in Asian waters.
    So, double goodness.

  9. Any evidence that Trump has actually done anything more than issue a tweet? Right from the start, I have to believe any such instructions would be more in the way of allowing the Navy to open fire rather than commanding them to do so – there’s some discretion involved in deciding when exactly a naval vessel is being “harrassed” and that determination would have to be made by the vessel’s commander so I doubt any such order would be quite the way Trump has phrased it. And more than that, Trump has the unfortunate habit of, um, “confusing” a tweet with an actual formal, legal proclamation. (Some people might say he’s lying about what he’s done and I guess it’s debatable whether it’s worse that he’s lying or that he doesn’t know you can’t just announce a policy on Twitter and, poof!, it’s a policy.) In any case, I’d have to see the actual order before I’d trust that the US Navy is now going to start blowing Iranian boats out of the water. Trump talks so much shit that you just can’t believe anything he says.

  10. I was bringing a tray of prune nectar out to friends social distancing on the deck around the hot tub with the great view of Northumberland County (which is not far from the center of the universe, Toronto) when one of my guests screamed in fear over this. Earth Day, ruined by Bad Orange man. Now I have to go down to the basement to get one of the servants to clean the mess up. Will this outrage ever end?

  11. This is a very bad precedent to be setting during a global pandemic. If drumpf shoots down an Iranian gunboat it will lead to world war. If he keeps this up Biden might have to give them a trillion to sign another nuclear deal. Very irresponsible.

  12. There is an historical parallel to when Jefferson sent the US Navy into the Mediterranean Sea to address the North African slavers harassing sea traffic, specifically US flagged ships.

    Think the event even gets a mention in the marine hymn.

    Point being that after that the corsairs cooled their jets

  13. Let’s be perfectly clear.
    If there is any, then all get shot down.
    THAT is sound foreign policy.

  14. Actually he’s very much like the old boss. Iran knew that they wouldn’t face any retaliation after they launched the explosives at US bases in Iraq. Not only did Trump turn the other cheek, he lied about US soldiers being perfectly fine (many had injuries as reported). This is more talk.

    1. Many had injuries? Why did this not appear in the mainstream media? You have access to classified info?

        1. “Concussions”

          From the al-Reuters article you linked:

          “The Pentagon, in a statement, confirmed that so far 109 U.S. service members had been diagnosed with mild traumatic brain injury. It added that 76 of them had returned to duty.”

          Things went boom and people close to boom have a mild concussion? Oh the horror. Shocking. Rumor has it, one marine running for cover twisted his ankle and a female army private developed a particularly nasty hangnail.

          How many times do you need to be reminded that you’re not good at having opinions?

    2. I can understand your point of view since the idea of context and measured responses is beyond your self-limited intellect.

      1. I can comprehend it perfectly fine. I can also comprehend that it’s all too similar to the inadequate responses to AQ terror attacks prior to 9/11. Like any other serious individual, I can also comprehend how ridiculous it is for the Turmp admin to legally justify the otherwise admirable Soleimini killing on the basis of the original Iraq AUMF.

        1. You say you can comprehend, then you show you don’t. Otherwise admirable Soleimini?
          You missed your calling, comedy is clearly your forte, where facts and intelligence don’t matter; just funny faces.

          Reminds me of a quote from a book “Contempt of Court” that speaks how bleeding hearts pushing lenience and understanding for youth offenders would change their attitude if one of those creeps came a calling on them.

          1. Perhaps I should phrase it differently as the ‘otherwise admirable killing of Soleimini’.

  15. The real danger from the Iranians is their subs, which could be used to close the strait of Hormuz. Trump should just start sinking those boats on the QT. It’s not like the Iranians can prove it.

    1. “It’s not like the Iranians can prove it.”

      After the missile downing of Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752, Trump could just say that the Iranians sank their own boats.

    2. That’s not how it works. Presidents do not have the right to just start blowing stuff up.

      1. Agreed and there are decades of precedence and standing directives on rules of engagement that seek to prevent commanders from rashly starting wars.

      2. You mean like Obama?
        Oh wait. He just blew up Americans. Without trials. In other countries. With missiles. On his signature alone.

    3. actually the real danger is surface to ship missiles, not much warning in the strait if the Iranians let fly with them.

      1. Just ask the survivors of the USS Stark. In their case, it was the Iraqis who fired on it, killing a lot of their shipmates.

  16. Refreshing to see a sensible response to Iranian aggressiveness, finally. Too many politicians were brought up in such genteel society they can’t conceive of any solution to any problem other than negotiation, always and endlessly.

    But now THREE countries know how to deal with aggressive barbarians, China,Russia,and the U.S.A. We all cheered when the Russian Navy blew the hell out of the Somali pirates, we might soon have reason to cheer when Iran acts up.

    Sometimes “gunboat diplomacy” works a lot better than Milquetoast diplomacy, which is the type preferred by our PM.

  17. Given the political divide in the US, this order was necessary because Iran is only considered a belligerent nation to Republicans and an “aggrieved ally” to the Democrats. The manner in which the Iranian gunboats were “allowed” to humiliate the US Navy under Obamugabe was equivalent to Liberal attitudes regarding native Indian reconciliation, more recently, their (non) response to blockades.

  18. one has to wonder how long the likes of unDork will live on the wrong side of reality, as liberals like to do!

  19. In one 11 comment Cyclist demonstrates what the anti-Trumpers see as a problem. In their mind “HE LIED” when he said this.

  20. I just read up on the original incident that gave rise to that line in the Marine Hymn.
    It was quite a story on how young America first flexed its muscles in the old world.
    Even though the states of Tripoli (now Libya), Tunis ( now Tunisia) and Algiers (now Algeria), apparently they were known by the names of their capitals then, demanded ransom from the U.S., we paid it and therefore it was in a state of peace.
    In short, a squadron of eight marines and 300 Mediterranean mercenaries, supported by three ships, invaded and captured the Tripoli town of Derna. It eventually led to a secession of the piracy.
    OMG, can you imagine if Nancy Pelosi et al. were in control of the House then? Of course, there was no room for someone such as Pelosi then. Where would she have fitted in? I suppose if she wanted more federal power (when her party held it) she would have been a Federalist, but philosophically she has nothing in common with Adams, either John or Samuel. And it was not the first time that the then President acted to increase the power of the Federal government, this incident being preceded by the Louisiana Purchase. The President? Why none other than Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence and the framer of the Bill of Rights, and the standard bearer of the Democratic Republican party.
    It remains to be seen what Pelosi will do to the current President. Most likely she will draft another article of impeachment. She threatened to do that for President Trump’s handling of the Wuhan virus pandemic.

  21. Finally. I have more thoughts on the matter but don’t want anyone here to get the vapors.