Like Tree0Likes

New Navy Ship 52 mph 378' designed to run down PIRATES

Reply
Old 05-09-2009, 01:31 PM
  #31
Registered
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,656
Default I Did Not Make This Up. It Was A Real Email. For What It's Worth.

Subject: The Truth Be Known
Having spoken to some SEAL pals in Virginia Beach yesterday and asking why this thing dragged out for 4 days, I got the following:


The real story of Obama's “Decision Making” with the hostages.


1. BHO wouldn't authorize the DEVGRU/NSWC SEAL teams to the scene for 36 hours going against OSC (on scene commander) recommendation.
2. Once they arrived, BHO imposed restrictions on their ROE (Rules of Engagement) that they couldn't do anything unless the hostage's life was in "imminent" danger
3. The first time the hostage jumped, the SEALS had the raggies all sighted in, but could not fire due to ROE restriction
4. When the navy RIB came under fire as it approached with supplies, no fire was returned due to ROE restrictions. As the raggies were shooting at the RIB, they were exposed and the SEALS had them all dialed in.
5. BHO specifically denied two rescue plans developed by the Bainbridge CPN and SEAL teams
6. Bainbridge CPN and SEAL team CDR finally decide they have the OpArea and OSC authority to solely determine risk to hostage. 4 hours later, 3 dead raggies
7. BHO immediately claims credit for his "daring and decisive" behaviour. As usual with him, it's BS.

So per our last email thread, I'm downgrading Oohbaby's performace to D-. Only reason it's not an F is that the hostage survived.

Read the following accurate account.


Cpt. Philips’ first leap into the warm, dark water of the Indian Ocean hadn’t worked out as well. With the
Bainbridge in range and a rescue by his country’s Navy possible, Philips threw himself off of his
lifeboat prison, enabling Navy shooters onboard the destroyer a clear shot at his captors — and none
was taken.

The guidance from National Command Authority — the president of the United States,
Barack Obama — had been clear: a peaceful solution was the only acceptable outcome to this standoff
unless the hostage’s life was in clear, extreme danger.

The next day, a small Navy boat approaching the floating raft was fired on by the Somali pirates — and
again no fire was returned and no pirates killed. This was again due to the cautious stance assumed by
Navy personnel thanks to the combination of a lack of clear guidance from Washington and a mandate
from the commander in chief’s staff not to act until Obama, a man with no background of dealing with
such issues and no track record of decisiveness, decided that any outcome other than a “peaceful
solution” would be acceptable.

After taking fire from the Somali kidnappers again Saturday night, the on scene commander decided
he’d had enough.

Keeping his authority to act in the case of a clear and present danger to the hostage’s
life and having heard nothing from Washington since yet another request to mount a rescue operation
had been denied the day before, the Navy officer — unnamed in all media reports to date — decided
the AK47 one captor had leveled at Philips’ back was a threat to the hostage’s life and ordered the
NSWC team to take their shots.

Three rounds downrange later, all three brigands became enemy KIA and Philips was safe.

There is upside, downside, and spinside to the series of events over the last week that culminated in
yesterday’s dramatic rescue of an American hostage.

Almost immediately following word of the rescue, the Obama administration and its supporters claimed victory against pirates in the Indian Ocean and [1] declared that the dramatic end to the standoff put paid to questions of the inexperienced president’s toughness and decisiveness.

Despite the Obama administration’s (and its sycophants’) attempt to spin yesterday’s success as a result
of bold, decisive leadership by the inexperienced president, the reality is nothing of the sort.

What should have been a standoff lasting only hours — as long as it took the USS Bainbridge and its
team of NSWC operators to steam to the location — became an embarrassing four day and counting
standoff between a ragtag handful of criminals with rifles and a U.S. Navy warship.
SDFever is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2009, 03:32 PM
  #32
Registered
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: MD
Posts: 247
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDFever View Post
Subject: The Truth Be Known
Having spoken to some SEAL pals in Virginia Beach yesterday and asking why this thing dragged out for 4 days, I got the following:


The real story of Obama's “Decision Making” with the hostages.


1. BHO wouldn't authorize the DEVGRU/NSWC SEAL teams to the scene for 36 hours going against OSC (on scene commander) recommendation.
2. Once they arrived, BHO imposed restrictions on their ROE (Rules of Engagement) that they couldn't do anything unless the hostage's life was in "imminent" danger
3. The first time the hostage jumped, the SEALS had the raggies all sighted in, but could not fire due to ROE restriction
4. When the navy RIB came under fire as it approached with supplies, no fire was returned due to ROE restrictions. As the raggies were shooting at the RIB, they were exposed and the SEALS had them all dialed in.
5. BHO specifically denied two rescue plans developed by the Bainbridge CPN and SEAL teams
6. Bainbridge CPN and SEAL team CDR finally decide they have the OpArea and OSC authority to solely determine risk to hostage. 4 hours later, 3 dead raggies
7. BHO immediately claims credit for his "daring and decisive" behaviour. As usual with him, it's BS.

So per our last email thread, I'm downgrading Oohbaby's performace to D-. Only reason it's not an F is that the hostage survived.

Read the following accurate account.


Cpt. Philips’ first leap into the warm, dark water of the Indian Ocean hadn’t worked out as well. With the
Bainbridge in range and a rescue by his country’s Navy possible, Philips threw himself off of his
lifeboat prison, enabling Navy shooters onboard the destroyer a clear shot at his captors — and none
was taken.

The guidance from National Command Authority — the president of the United States,
Barack Obama — had been clear: a peaceful solution was the only acceptable outcome to this standoff
unless the hostage’s life was in clear, extreme danger.

The next day, a small Navy boat approaching the floating raft was fired on by the Somali pirates — and
again no fire was returned and no pirates killed. This was again due to the cautious stance assumed by
Navy personnel thanks to the combination of a lack of clear guidance from Washington and a mandate
from the commander in chief’s staff not to act until Obama, a man with no background of dealing with
such issues and no track record of decisiveness, decided that any outcome other than a “peaceful
solution” would be acceptable.

After taking fire from the Somali kidnappers again Saturday night, the on scene commander decided
he’d had enough.

Keeping his authority to act in the case of a clear and present danger to the hostage’s
life and having heard nothing from Washington since yet another request to mount a rescue operation
had been denied the day before, the Navy officer — unnamed in all media reports to date — decided
the AK47 one captor had leveled at Philips’ back was a threat to the hostage’s life and ordered the
NSWC team to take their shots.

Three rounds downrange later, all three brigands became enemy KIA and Philips was safe.

There is upside, downside, and spinside to the series of events over the last week that culminated in
yesterday’s dramatic rescue of an American hostage.

Almost immediately following word of the rescue, the Obama administration and its supporters claimed victory against pirates in the Indian Ocean and [1] declared that the dramatic end to the standoff put paid to questions of the inexperienced president’s toughness and decisiveness.

Despite the Obama administration’s (and its sycophants’) attempt to spin yesterday’s success as a result
of bold, decisive leadership by the inexperienced president, the reality is nothing of the sort.

What should have been a standoff lasting only hours — as long as it took the USS Bainbridge and its
team of NSWC operators to steam to the location — became an embarrassing four day and counting
standoff between a ragtag handful of criminals with rifles and a U.S. Navy warship.
You forgot to mention that the navy had to wait 17hrs for the FBI to arive since the new administration is classifying these type of operations "a police action" not military.
Also it was 4 shots down range, 1 was to break the glass to make sure the kill shots were not deflected
C5Steve is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2009, 06:34 PM
  #33
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Arlington Tx
Posts: 9,373
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDFever View Post
Subject: The Truth Be Known
Having spoken to some SEAL pals in Virginia Beach yesterday and asking why this thing dragged out for 4 days, I got the following:


The real story of Obama's “Decision Making” with the hostages.


1. BHO wouldn't authorize the DEVGRU/NSWC SEAL teams to the scene for 36 hours going against OSC (on scene commander) recommendation.
2. Once they arrived, BHO imposed restrictions on their ROE (Rules of Engagement) that they couldn't do anything unless the hostage's life was in "imminent" danger
3. The first time the hostage jumped, the SEALS had the raggies all sighted in, but could not fire due to ROE restriction
4. When the navy RIB came under fire as it approached with supplies, no fire was returned due to ROE restrictions. As the raggies were shooting at the RIB, they were exposed and the SEALS had them all dialed in.
5. BHO specifically denied two rescue plans developed by the Bainbridge CPN and SEAL teams
6. Bainbridge CPN and SEAL team CDR finally decide they have the OpArea and OSC authority to solely determine risk to hostage. 4 hours later, 3 dead raggies
7. BHO immediately claims credit for his "daring and decisive" behaviour. As usual with him, it's BS.

So per our last email thread, I'm downgrading Oohbaby's performace to D-. Only reason it's not an F is that the hostage survived.

Read the following accurate account.


Cpt. Philips’ first leap into the warm, dark water of the Indian Ocean hadn’t worked out as well. With the
Bainbridge in range and a rescue by his country’s Navy possible, Philips threw himself off of his
lifeboat prison, enabling Navy shooters onboard the destroyer a clear shot at his captors — and none
was taken.

The guidance from National Command Authority — the president of the United States,
Barack Obama — had been clear: a peaceful solution was the only acceptable outcome to this standoff
unless the hostage’s life was in clear, extreme danger.

The next day, a small Navy boat approaching the floating raft was fired on by the Somali pirates — and
again no fire was returned and no pirates killed. This was again due to the cautious stance assumed by
Navy personnel thanks to the combination of a lack of clear guidance from Washington and a mandate
from the commander in chief’s staff not to act until Obama, a man with no background of dealing with
such issues and no track record of decisiveness, decided that any outcome other than a “peaceful
solution” would be acceptable.

After taking fire from the Somali kidnappers again Saturday night, the on scene commander decided
he’d had enough.

Keeping his authority to act in the case of a clear and present danger to the hostage’s
life and having heard nothing from Washington since yet another request to mount a rescue operation
had been denied the day before, the Navy officer — unnamed in all media reports to date — decided
the AK47 one captor had leveled at Philips’ back was a threat to the hostage’s life and ordered the
NSWC team to take their shots.

Three rounds downrange later, all three brigands became enemy KIA and Philips was safe.

There is upside, downside, and spinside to the series of events over the last week that culminated in
yesterday’s dramatic rescue of an American hostage.

Almost immediately following word of the rescue, the Obama administration and its supporters claimed victory against pirates in the Indian Ocean and [1] declared that the dramatic end to the standoff put paid to questions of the inexperienced president’s toughness and decisiveness.

Despite the Obama administration’s (and its sycophants’) attempt to spin yesterday’s success as a result
of bold, decisive leadership by the inexperienced president, the reality is nothing of the sort.

What should have been a standoff lasting only hours — as long as it took the USS Bainbridge and its
team of NSWC operators to steam to the location — became an embarrassing four day and counting
standoff between a ragtag handful of criminals with rifles and a U.S. Navy warship.
I don't remember the President taking any credit whatsoever for the operation. If you have evidence to the contrary please post it.

As to the "accurate account", do you have a link to a REPUTABLE article about it? If so please post it.
Catmando is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2009, 11:07 PM
  #34
Registered
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,656
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Catmando View Post
I don't remember the President taking any credit whatsoever for the operation. If you have evidence to the contrary please post it.

As to the "accurate account", do you have a link to a REPUTABLE article about it? If so please post it.
Sorry. You won't find your article on CNN or the like. They make sure those articles don't get written.
SDFever is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2009, 11:14 PM
  #35
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Arlington Tx
Posts: 9,373
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDFever View Post
Sorry. You won't find your article on CNN or the like. They make sure those articles don't get written.
Is that what you call answering my questions?? I'll ask again; do you have any sources to back up your post? If you do, post them. If not, delete this thread for lack of proof.
Catmando is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2009, 11:22 PM
  #36
Registered
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,656
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Catmando View Post
Is that what you call answering my questions?? I'll ask again; do you have any sources to back up your post? If you do, post them. If not, delete this thread for lack of proof.
I won't throw anyone under the bus.

For you personally, just discount what I said and let it go if you need your proof mailed to you.

I owe you nothing. I'll not delete anything I said because of you.

Don't forget about freedom of speech even if it's wrong.
SDFever is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2009, 01:54 AM
  #37
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Arlington Tx
Posts: 9,373
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDFever View Post
I won't throw anyone under the bus.

For you personally, just discount what I said and let it go if you need your proof mailed to you.

I owe you nothing. I'll not delete anything I said because of you.

Don't forget about freedom of speech even if it's wrong.
I already discounted it. I didn't think you'd have any backup.

On a lighter note, how do you like the Raylar upgrades you put on your motor? I have no personal experience with the company but I've heard their stuff is first-rate.
Catmando is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2009, 12:36 AM
  #38
Registered
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,656
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Catmando View Post
I already discounted it. I didn't think you'd have any backup.

On a lighter note, how do you like the Raylar upgrades you put on your motor? I have no personal experience with the company but I've heard their stuff is first-rate.
Has nothing to do with lack of backup.
SDFever is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2009, 02:27 AM
  #39
Registered
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: San Diego
My Boats: Advantage 28ft Sport Cat w/ pair of 8's
Posts: 989
Default

[QUOTE=Von Bongo;2862250]
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMOORE View Post

Well there we go then. Use the right tool for the job! Those look like bad news. Always makes me wonder why no forward armaments.
They are great boats for the job at hand, that's for sure. As far as the forward armament, They simply take too much pounding up there. It can actually snap a .50 mount in half.


Darrell.
DMOORE is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2009, 05:18 PM
  #40
Ginger or Mary Ann?
Charter Member
Trade Score: (1)
 
US1 Fountain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Lafayette. IN
Posts: 10,866
Default

Run 'down' the pirates.

Hell with that. I say run OVER the pirates.
__________________
Some people are like Slinkies - Not really good for anything, but they
bring a smile to your face when pushed down the stairs.
US1 Fountain is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:28 PM.


Copyright 2011 OffShoreOnly. All rights reserved.