How should the US respond to Iran detaining 10 US Sailors?

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 13 Jan 2016 08:44:21 -0500

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 13 at 2016 8:57 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 13 Jan 2016 08:57:28 -0500

There is so much about this that strikes me as "odd". It's impossible to imagine both craft having the same malfunction, at the same time...so if it truly was a failure of their navigation equipment, I'm pretty certain these Sailors could use other methods of getting into International Waters safely. If one craft became DIW, then yes, the other would've provided cover; Even then, it's pretty hard to imagine two such craft being painted into such a corner they would be forced out of any option but allowing themselves to be towed in and taken into custody. Yes, I'm sure the political and tactical realities would've precluded a hell for leather showdown...but there's definitely more to this than meets the eye.

Response by SCPO Jason McLaughlin made Jan 13 at 2016 9:19 AM

SCPO Jason McLaughlin — Wed, 13 Jan 2016 09:19:22 -0500

Yeah, one of the Sailors was wearing white socks in uniform. Got my Senior Chief up.....

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 13 at 2016 9:34 AM

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 13 Jan 2016 09:34:18 -0500

From The New Yorker this morning.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/01/short-history-of-obamas-iran-hostage-crisis.html

Yesterday Iran detained two small ships of American sailors in the Persian Gulf in what appears to have been a routine dispute over alleged territorial violations. (In 2007, Iran detained 30 Royal Navy sailors and held them for two weeks.) Conservatives immediately moved onto war footing. “Iran is testing the boundaries of this administration’s resolve. And they know the boundaries are pretty wide,” pronounced Marco Rubio. Ted Cruz added, “The fact that Iran feels emboldened enough to capture two U.S. Navy ships and to take ten sailors into custody is really a demonstration of the unbelievable weakness of the Obama-Clinton foreign policy.” The jingoistic fervor swept up even such a relatively mild figure as Joe Scarborough. “Hey, Iran, you have exactly 300 days left to push a U.S. president around,” warned the normally affable cable-television host, “Enjoy it while you can. After that, there will be hell to pay.”

And now our very short national nightmare is over. Iran has released the sailors. One outstanding question remains: Does this episode tell us anything about the right-wing analysis of the administration’s foreign policy? If Iran was “testing” the administration, did the administration pass the test? Or perhaps was the right's explanation for Iran's actions analytically flawed?

Obama’s Iran Hostage Crisis: A Very Short, Yet Comprehensive, Intellectual History

This proves that the administration is pathetically feckless and weak — wait, it's over?

Response by Capt Tom Brown made Jan 13 at 2016 9:35 AM

Capt Tom Brown — Wed, 13 Jan 2016 09:35:58 -0500

Can't help but believe that info provided by our own gvt was total BS such as you see on TV when gvt wants to conceal what actually happened, probably for good military reasons, but the story is so phoney as to make one shake their head. They could have come up with something more believable. At the same time the crews and higher-ups exercised excellent judgement in not putting up any resistance to the Iranian Coast Guard, keeping the incident at a simple law-enforcement level and not a military provocation on our part.

Response by LTC Jason Mackay made Jan 13 at 2016 10:21 AM

LTC Jason Mackay — Wed, 13 Jan 2016 10:21:28 -0500

So did the Iranians keep the boats, COMSEC, navigation equipment, radios and weapons?

Response by SSgt David Tedrow made Jan 13 at 2016 10:46 AM

SSgt David Tedrow — Wed, 13 Jan 2016 10:46:36 -0500

In this case it appears it was handled as it should have been, diplomatically.

Response by TSgt Kenneth Ellis made Jan 13 at 2016 10:49 AM

TSgt Kenneth Ellis — Wed, 13 Jan 2016 10:49:10 -0500

I wish Obama would have taken action. And demanded our sailors back. When Kerry negotiating the non treaty. He did not ask for the release of Americans being held in an Iraniin jail. Why should this be any different.

Response by Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth made Jan 13 at 2016 11:27 AM

Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth — Wed, 13 Jan 2016 11:27:59 -0500

Timing is everything...right before the State of the Union and then released...HMMMMM. Especially to say that both boats had mechanical difficulties. That is like the odds of two of our aircraft launching the same time and both having flameouts on takeoff. International political move trying to make a statement on the worlds stage knowing it would make headlines yesterday. I am sure our folks have been operating out there for some time and they just happened to get caught yesterday?

For once I believe our leadership did the right things and let law enforcement of territorial waters and diplomacy work. I guarantee the folks at Dept of State ran with this one. I also tend to believe the Iranians probably didn't do anything we wouldn't have if they crossed the lines of Intl waters into our territorial waters...just my two cents.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Jan 13 at 2016 11:52 AM

MCPO Roger Collins — Wed, 13 Jan 2016 11:52:14 -0500

This has happened many times before with the same results, D or R. What we would like to see happen will not. Perhaps this is the best given that we have them back.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Jan 13 at 2016 11:58 AM

LTC Paul Labrador — Wed, 13 Jan 2016 11:58:33 -0500

Response really comes down to how our guys were detained. If they had strayed into Iranian waters by accident (as is claimed), Iran had every right to detain them. As long as the sailors were not abused, and all of our equipment is returned as well, I see it as no-harm, no foul. Now if our guys were in International waters, regardless of how close they were to the border, and snatched at the point of a gun, that is a different issue altogether.

Response by SGT Dave Tracy made Jan 13 at 2016 12:02 PM

SGT Dave Tracy — Wed, 13 Jan 2016 12:02:04 -0500

Sounds like the situation resolved itself (helps that the questionable nuclear "deal" has some near-term goal dates), but Step 1 in determining how to respond--given the situation as it was yesterday--is: DON'T GO OFF HALF-COCKED, AND TAKE A MOMENT TO FIGURE OUT WHAT'S HAPPENING. Do that, and you can figure out what Step 2 should be. Immediate, knee-jerk over-reactions tend to make situations worse.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 13 at 2016 12:29 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 13 Jan 2016 12:29:09 -0500

Sending a very Stern letter, and creating a hashtag, both very effectively used by the current administration...

Response by SN Greg Wright made Jan 13 at 2016 2:26 PM

SN Greg Wright — Wed, 13 Jan 2016 14:26:36 -0500

1LT Private RallyPoint Member How? Thank the Iranians for a fast and safe ending. They did no wrong. Those Sailors strayed into their waters. Any response on our part more than that would be inappropriate.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jan 13 at 2016 2:47 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Wed, 13 Jan 2016 14:47:41 -0500

Bomb Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Response by PO2 Kevin Morris made Jan 13 at 2016 3:03 PM

PO2 Kevin Morris — Wed, 13 Jan 2016 15:03:58 -0500

I have been out of the Navy for almost 20 years now, but I was watching the pictures of these sailors on the news today and couldn't help but wonder, "When did woodland cammies and OD Green sweaters become a Navy uniform?"

Response by MSgt Michael Smith made Jan 13 at 2016 3:34 PM

MSgt Michael Smith — Wed, 13 Jan 2016 15:34:17 -0500

Ask yourself what the U.S. would do if an Iranian military vessel strayed into our waters? Think we wouldn't detain those Iranian soldiers?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 13 at 2016 3:46 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 13 Jan 2016 15:46:49 -0500

I would really like to know what type of ship were these sailors using, and who they confronted (specifics). Were these 2 crews, which I am assuming from 2 different ships totally defenseless against a piss poor sportsman recreational ships? I think there is more to the story, and I could bet they were given the order to stand down.

Response by MCPO Tom Miller made Jan 13 at 2016 4:25 PM

MCPO Tom Miller — Wed, 13 Jan 2016 16:25:16 -0500

I strongly feel if our imagine of pre Obama this event would have never happens. We have not stood our ground for a long time and shown to be timid and never resolute in facing any adversarial. The president has set the trend of never confronting anyone, but to negotiate and surrender.

Response by Capt Tom Brown made Jan 13 at 2016 5:46 PM

Capt Tom Brown — Wed, 13 Jan 2016 17:46:24 -0500

After the fact it looks like both sides were able to save face on this near-miss. Why and how the boats ever got in Iranian waters (if they actually did) we will probably never know the details, but they did exercise exceptional judgement under a very difficult situation, in not resisting. It was an 'unintentional accident' as far as the record goes.

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Jan 13 at 2016 5:55 PM

MSG Brad Sand — Wed, 13 Jan 2016 17:55:22 -0500

I think the President might be on the right path by ignoring it and kicking sand on anything that does not fit his failed narrative? It is not like he is actually in charge of all our troops?

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 13 at 2016 6:07 PM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 13 Jan 2016 18:07:40 -0500

I don't know what happened exactly, only those that were there do. But, I think that the Sailor who has been shown on the news was speaking well and not being confrontational, opposite as to what many nations perceive Americans to be. He handled himself well. Iran did what the US would do if another country's military entered their waters, from everything I've seen and heard today both nations' representatives behave professionally and much better than we would have seen a few years back. I'm just glad no violence occurred, yes they got propaganda to skew, but we have our Sailors back.

Response by PO2 Peter Klein made Jan 13 at 2016 10:14 PM

PO2 Peter Klein — Wed, 13 Jan 2016 22:14:51 -0500

Exactly as it happened.

Response by CSM Charles Hayden made Jan 13 at 2016 10:38 PM

CSM Charles Hayden — Wed, 13 Jan 2016 22:38:11 -0500

1LT Private RallyPoint Member Why did the sister boat not have the capability of towing the 'broken' boat?

Response by Sgt Joe LaBranche made Jan 13 at 2016 10:50 PM

Sgt Joe LaBranche — Wed, 13 Jan 2016 22:50:43 -0500

This event is so strange! Why were these two boats left unprotected and with no support? First it was drone and now boats and again we do nothing. Another example of weak leadership!

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 13 at 2016 10:58 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 13 Jan 2016 22:58:25 -0500

My thoughts on this with my limited knowledge on boat ops;

They had a plan before they left.

The boats were pre mission checked and the route was discussed prior to departure.

Weapons were mounted and all that but probably just clear and safe as far as ammunition who knows how much they had. But knowing the navy it was probably just one belt per CSW. The body armor looks like it's full of magazines but they probably were not all full.

ROE was discussed during the pre mission checks and briefing.

My guess and this is a wild ass stab they were transiting and were over taken by the Iranians who had more ammo and big ass guns. The OIC made the call that they couldn't outrun them and a gunfight was a losing proposition since they probably had limited ammunition. As far as comms they were probably out of range, had bad fill (if that's the case it should of been caught on pre mission check) or being jammed. I bet the Iranians know our TTPs, transit routes and security posture in that area better than we realize.

As far as the SERE angle maybe some have been and some haven't, but operating in those waters like they are they are at a high risk ( now proven) for capture and should of gone to the course. I bet the most any of those sailors got was NKO.

Response by PO1 Andrew Cabral made Jan 14 at 2016 6:25 AM

PO1 Andrew Cabral — Thu, 14 Jan 2016 06:25:29 -0500

Its over.

Response by PO2 Mark Saffell made Jan 14 at 2016 9:47 AM

PO2 Mark Saffell — Thu, 14 Jan 2016 09:47:17 -0500

That's a very good question. I understand if one had engine trouble and the other was there to aid. But if one was able to move why did they allow themselves to get into troubled waters is my question.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jan 14 at 2016 9:55 AM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Thu, 14 Jan 2016 09:55:23 -0500

I wont google it but I think they were caught near an Iranian Naval Speedboat yard. Also air power is faster than boats.

Response by Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin made Jan 14 at 2016 9:56 AM

Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin — Thu, 14 Jan 2016 09:56:09 -0500

Not a Navy guy by any means but this stills sounds very weird to me. I really cannot understand how this can happen to two boats at the same time and that they could not avoid drifting into Iranian waters.

Response by LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow made Jan 14 at 2016 10:11 AM

LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow — Thu, 14 Jan 2016 10:11:29 -0500

Definitely a lot of questions around this. Also, will these 10 get POW medals, or the Green Table? Or Both?

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 14 at 2016 10:19 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 14 Jan 2016 10:19:01 -0500

SGM David W. Carr LOM, DMSM MP SGT Here's a thought. The service members are currently in reintegration, so the Navy can learn about what happened. After the Navy gets all the facts straight they will release a statement about what they want us to know.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Jan 14 at 2016 10:23 AM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Thu, 14 Jan 2016 10:23:25 -0500

They were tiny little 5 crew PT boats, not Battleships.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Jan 14 at 2016 10:36 AM

LTC Paul Labrador — Thu, 14 Jan 2016 10:36:40 -0500

SGM, my guess is that a) they were outmanned and outgunned and b) were following ROE. If they were caught in Iranian waters, particularly if it truly was unintentional, they had no legal justification for resisting detainment without exacerbating an already tense situation. By resisting, they could have escalated what amounts to a law enforcement detainment into a shooting war.

Now, if they were in international waters and the same thing happened, it's a very different situation. Attempt at detainment in international waters could be considered an act of war.

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Jan 14 at 2016 10:51 AM

SSG Warren Swan — Thu, 14 Jan 2016 10:51:01 -0500

SGM this is a good question. I would like to have the retired LTC Fox News "expert" answer it with a one word response, being on my FB feed, it was Obama's fault all the way around. We'll never get a straight answer on this, and I doubt the President will either. But I do wonder how many new civilians will be made out of this?

Response by CDR Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 14 at 2016 11:03 AM

CDR Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 14 Jan 2016 11:03:29 -0500

When you are outgunned and severely restricted by the ROE thus is what happens.

Response by SGT Rick Ash made Jan 14 at 2016 11:45 AM

SGT Rick Ash — Thu, 14 Jan 2016 11:45:53 -0500

I think it is possible that Iran was jamming their GPS units or, they were not IN Iranian waters. But my question is, Why didn't Boat 2 just pull Boat 1 out into International Waters? Even with non-functioning GPS units they had to know they were close.
Regardless, Iran went against The Geneva Convention. Something does not add up here, IMHO....
Thanks,
Rick

Response by PO2 Arthur Delsing made Jan 14 at 2016 11:47 AM

PO2 Arthur Delsing — Thu, 14 Jan 2016 11:47:01 -0500

As we all know, there are facts that will never be revealed to us. The explanations provided are questionable at best, an out and out lie in the worst case. There are times that the Government must lie to the people for national security. I believe this was a situation where Iran could show they still have "teeth" in the face of the new treaty and wanted to see how other countries would respond. As far as our service member apologizing, it is not unheard of that Iran demanded that and threatened the others under his command and he did what he felt he had to keep his people safe and get them home, even at the possible loss of his future in the service.

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Jan 14 at 2016 12:04 PM

CAPT Kevin B. — Thu, 14 Jan 2016 12:04:06 -0500

300 miles of open water for a small craft unescorted tells me there was a major FUBAR. Add to that a rogue nation that won't necessarily honor international conventions that we're operating near makes this a Powerball FUBAR.

Response by SSG Carlos Madden made Jan 14 at 2016 12:12 PM

SSG Carlos Madden — Thu, 14 Jan 2016 12:12:37 -0500

The US had a disabled boat and the Iranians did not.

Response by CWO2 Eric Peterson made Jan 14 at 2016 12:15 PM

CWO2 Eric Peterson — Thu, 14 Jan 2016 12:15:45 -0500

Simple; the Rule of Engagement (ROE) along with some other "standing" orders made it very clear to the crew not to engage the Iranians nor offer any resistance. We've been down this channel before back in the 1980's in Beirut with the "Don't shoot back" club. Marines standing guard posts without ammo for their weapons and strict orders that when fired upon, don't shoot back (not that they could, etc.) And of course we all know what happened to the Marine Barracks.

Response by SN Greg Wright made Jan 14 at 2016 12:16 PM

SN Greg Wright — Thu, 14 Jan 2016 12:16:07 -0500

SGM David W. Carr LOM, DMSM MP SGT For whatever reason, they drifted into Iranian waters. Therefore, by international law, Iran had the right to detain them, and any resistance would have been an act of war. The young LT in charge of those boats got at least that much right...though I suspect he got everything that got them there, wrong.

Just my opinion.

Response by SFC Maury Gonzalez made Jan 14 at 2016 12:41 PM

SFC Maury Gonzalez — Thu, 14 Jan 2016 12:41:04 -0500

Because the didn't have John "swift boat" Kerry driving?

Response by MSgt James Mullis made Jan 14 at 2016 12:42 PM

MSgt James Mullis — Thu, 14 Jan 2016 12:42:27 -0500

Look at the video's the Iranians released. Unless their was a large Iranian patrol boat somewhere out of frame, it appears that we outgunned the Iranians. I'm also sure that the Navy and Air Force would have been able to provide air cover as well. This means our folks were told not to engage and to surrender rather than put up a fight. I just hope they successfully completed their mission before being intercepted by the Iranians.

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made Jan 14 at 2016 1:35 PM

LTC Bink Romanick — Thu, 14 Jan 2016 13:35:03 -0500

1LT Private RallyPoint Member Exactly the way we did!

Response by Sgt Tammy Wallace made Jan 14 at 2016 1:41 PM

Sgt Tammy Wallace — Thu, 14 Jan 2016 13:41:12 -0500

...um, i don't know, because they ran outta gas?... :-/

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 14 at 2016 1:57 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 14 Jan 2016 13:57:10 -0500

I agree with CPT Private RallyPoint Member that we should not speculate until the facts come out. However, several elements of this incident beg some questions:
1. BOTH vessels has a navigation system malfunction? What this means to me is one of the following is true:
a) It is a cover story
b) Murphy's Law was in full force and really bad luck set in.
c) Maintenance in that boat squadron is not close to par.
or d) The Iranians employed a EW system deliberately that was capable of disabling the GPS navigation systems of these vessels, then seizing the vessels and crews when they were successful. That means it is purposeful and planned... otherwise known as an act of war.

2. Vessels on the high seas do not "sneak up" on you. You have visibility for several miles. If the crews had mechanical issues, pulling up alongside and towing the disabled craft from territorial waters should not take very long. One would think that they'd have a sense of urgency with an Iranian gunboat bearing down on them.

3. They were 50 miles off course. Even the most inexperienced seaman had best be able to navigate to the point where they became aware sometime before then. I don't buy the drifting off course theory. There isn't THAT much current in the Persian Gulf. Not in that part, anyway.

4. The skipper surrendered his command when they had the means to resist. Shooting back may have been forbidden by the ROE, but one operational boat could certainly take the crew aboard, and they should have been able to secure any sensitive gear (it should be removable in a vessel like this) and bug out. They didn't do that nor did they seem to attempt that.

5. The skipper makes a statement about being wrong on a recording and apologizing for their "mistake". No Go. Code of Conduct, LT. Check it out.

6. It is very fortunate that our leaders were able to secure their release so quickly. This could have gone on for a while. I don't agree at all with the apologies and pandering, but we got our guys back and that is a good thing.

7. The Pasdaran is a different force than the regular Iranian Navy. They take their orders from the Ayatollah through the Mullah Chain-of-Command, not a military one. That makes this political, and the timing is suspect as well. That video was clearly for domestic consumption.

Lots of questions to answer.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 14 at 2016 2:03 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 14 Jan 2016 14:03:56 -0500

Guess what was done before hashtags were available?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis

Operation Praying Mantis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Operation Praying Mantis was an attack on 18 April 1988, by U.S. forces within Iranian territorial waters in retaliation for the Iranian mining of the Persian Gulf during the Iran–Iraq war and the subsequent damage to an American warship.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 14 at 2016 2:10 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 14 Jan 2016 14:10:02 -0500

1SG Private RallyPoint Member Just FYI, the navy personnel hates hearing them boats, they prefer ships.

Now, to answer your question, they were easily captured because apparently the media and the administration are so transparent and objective, that we can believe they simply got lost. I am sure that this answer will satisfy any curious mind...

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 14 at 2016 2:15 PM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 14 Jan 2016 14:15:40 -0500

As much as I hate to admit it, the Skippers involved didn't have much of a choice. As I've looked into the details (what few there are) more, it seems less likely they slowly drifted into Iranian waters after mechanical failure...than it is they made a navigational error and found themselves inside Iranian (real Iranian) waters AND surrounded by small craft. Even if the earlier assertion is true, towing may have been impossible; I'm not an expert on the CB-90 RCBs, but out on the open water, there's no telling what effect currents and available horsepower would've had on their speed of advance-Perhaps they tried, and that's why they got caught. At any rate, any red-blooded Sailor would like to claim the answer would've been to make a run for safe water ,or if truly DIW...go weapons red and free, and dare them to , "Molon labe!"

Reality however, which is always a "downer",is that these guys had orders they probably hated as much as any of us would-and the Iranians knew it. If there had been even the slightest question in the Republican Guards minds that our folks would've resisted, you'd have seen them quickly "permit" the US to come haul these craft back-and it's unlikely the current COC has that kind of nerve. More to the point, if he truly couldn't maneuver, then engaging even inferior craft, with no guarantee of back-up, could've been a suicide mission. Skip brought his crew home safe, and my hat's off to him for it.

Now, what I would like to know, is whether or not someone from above also ordered our Sailors to surrender their vessels without an attempt to scuttle them, or destroy their comms/navigation equipment. Perhaps there are capabilities for "software" corruption on board we don't know about? If not, then a possible option would've been to transfer crew from the "down" craft to the "up" craft and put a hole in the bilges, before putting up a rooster tail heading back to the line...but that's just me being optimistic.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 14 at 2016 2:50 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 14 Jan 2016 14:50:35 -0500

They were small patrol boats. They probably made a few mistakes that placed them in that area and a much larger Iranian gun boat made them capitulate. My hypothesis only.

Response by Capt Jeff S. made Jan 14 at 2016 6:24 PM

Capt Jeff S. — Thu, 14 Jan 2016 18:24:10 -0500

If I was a betting man, I would bet that our Administration went in with Iran on this. This happened right before the SOTU. Perfect timing - eh? And why would we call Iran and ask them for help when we could have called other assets in for assistance? Something smells really bad here.

http://www.theamericanmirror.com/congressman-u-s-called-iran-for-help-when-navy-boats-broke-down/

Congressman: U.S. called IRAN for help, not American military

U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert is raising issues with the recent detention of 10 U.S. Navy soldiers in Iran after the Obama administration called on the country’s leaders to take in two boats lost along the coast. “I understand that John Kerry has indicated that, look, when he got word, he and (Defense…

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 14 at 2016 10:10 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 14 Jan 2016 22:10:37 -0500

The Navy crews were well armed. I saw many crew served weapons in the video that could have made quick work of the Iranian boats I saw. There was either other Iranian assets not visible, or the Navy was following some Rules Of Engagement (ROE) practice unique to their situation. If I was on board and was in International waters, and justified, we would NOT be boarded.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 14 at 2016 11:15 PM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 14 Jan 2016 23:15:58 -0500

By opening a can of whoop ass

Response by PO3 Rod Arnold made Jan 16 at 2016 6:10 PM

PO3 Rod Arnold — Sat, 16 Jan 2016 18:10:38 -0500

Does the old statement "something is rotten in Denmark" amply here? You bet it does, just delete Denmark, and add Washington!!!