To: RobFromGa
I believe so...had they been active. Still, at such close ranges and with little warning time, it would have been dicey.
It is really inexcusable, IMHO, that they were not active in such a combat zone.
13 posted on
07/16/2006 7:47:10 AM PDT by
Jeff Head
(God, family, country)
To: Jeff Head
It is really inexcusable, IMHO, that they were not active in such a combat zone. Just as inexcusable that the machinegunner on the roof of the Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983 did not have a round in the chamber.
The captain was more worried about being held responsible for a friendly-fire incident, than in the safety of his command
23 posted on
07/16/2006 7:55:38 AM PDT by
SauronOfMordor
(A planned society is most appealing to those with the arrogance to think they will be the planners)
To: Jeff Head
It is really inexcusable, IMHO, that they were not active in such a combat zone.Yeah, that's a big snafu.
I wonder if the ship was operating at what the US Navy calls General Quarters ?
30 posted on
07/16/2006 8:13:53 AM PDT by
csvset
("It was like the hand of G_d slapping down and smashing everything." ~ JDAM strikes Taliban)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson