Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Iran Has Seized Three "British" Vessels  
User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8693 posts, RR: 43
Posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1880 times:

Here's a link to what seems to be a typical tit-for-tat reaction on Iran's part:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5471983

"This morning we got news that a number of foreign vessels entered Iranian waters without permission. Three boats were guided to Iranian shores and more than five crew were arrested," Revolutionary Guards spokesman Massoud Jazaeri said.

"As far as we know they are British and we are negotiating to know why they entered the waters," he added.

[...]

Britain's Ministry of Defense said it was checking the report.

Britain has small naval ships in the area helping to train Iraqi police, the British spokesman said. "We do have smaller craft which frequently go up and down the Shatt al-Arab around the area of Basra."

The spokesman described as "rubbish" a report that the vessels seized were warships. "We haven't got any large vessels in that area," he said.


"Tit for tat" mainly because Britain recently joined other UN member nations in complaining about Iran's failure to cooperate fully with IAEA inspectors. I hope, and expect, that this will be solved in a civilised way.


Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
52 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13968 posts, RR: 63
Reply 1, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1855 times:

Probably a few inflatable assault craft with a handfull of Royal Marines...

Jan


User currently offlineJAL777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1848 times:

Reminds me of the Chinese seizing of a US military aircraft not too long ago.

User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 52
Reply 3, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1812 times:

"Reminds me of the Chinese seizing of a US military aircraft not too long ago..."

You mean the one that was hit by the Chinese aircraft damaging it enough to force it to land? Hardly what I would call "seizing".


User currently offlineRussophile From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1794 times:

Tit-for-tat? Not necessarily.

Remember, one of the last times a foreign ship illegally entered Iranian waters it resulted in the deaths of over 200 people when an Iran Air Airbus A300 was shot out of the sky.

They may not have been 'warships', but they could very well have been spy vessels or could have had a host of other uses.

These British ships are military vessels, and therefore, should be even more mindful about crossing into territorial waters of another nation. That nation then has the right, and the duty, to impound the vessels and investigate why they were in waters they weren't supposed to.


User currently offlineDl021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11446 posts, RR: 76
Reply 5, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1739 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Russophile The Iran Air A-300 was over international waters with a load of Hajj pilgrims overflying a combat zone without IFF when the Vincennes shot it down in 1988. The Vincennes was not in Iranian waters (unless you count the eez, which places Oman in their territorial waters). It was leading a chase of Iranian gunboats that had been raiding civilian ships and causing serious damage, which is why we were there in the first place. The genuine possibilty of a repeat of the previous years missile attack on the Stark by one of the two combatants in the war going on there was real. Iranians had and have the air capability to launch an attack on ships at sea, and one has to wonder why the Iranians would send an aircraft over the US ships engaged in a running battle without IFF, and why this aircraft did not communicate with the fleet nor turn away when warned, as it was several times on guard frequency...
Incidently, the US accepted responsibility for the tragedy and compensated the families of each of the 291 victims, even though we are terrible people and have no diplomatic relations with Iran, nor was there any force on earth capable of making us do so. I guess we just wanted to do the right thing. I wonder when the SOviets made restitution for the shootdown of KAL007?
Try reading up on ALL of the facts the next time, so your points will be valid instead of simply inflammatory.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13168 posts, RR: 78
Reply 6, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1716 times:

They are 'Rigid Raider' fast boats, used for patrolling and insertion, used here on anti-terrorist/anti-smuggling patrols.
The actual border in this area is the middle of the waterway, however it is being seen as sending a signal, not to the UK or US, but to Iraq as June 30th nears.
Remember the long war between Iran and Iraq over this area, with WW1 style casualty figures.


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1708 times:

DIO21
About the shooting down of the A300. It was not diving, it was not an F14 & not making aggresive manouvres but just following a normal & predictable climbing flight path as later followed from investigation. It was simply a stupid mistake. As you said the US has made public excuses for it & paid damages to the family involved. No need defending it.

About the vessels, they obviously were in the wrong place at the wrong moment the rest is politics.





User currently offlineRussophile From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1689 times:

DI021, what I wrote was NOT inflammatory, and what you have written could not be further from the truth (parts of it are true, but it is very much skewed information).

I suggest that you read the results of a Newsweek investigation from some years ago

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5260/vince.html

And was the Vincennes in Iranian territorial waters? Who to believe? You? Or Admiral William Crowe?

http://www.fas.org/news/iran/1992/920721-236044.htm

"He stressed that the fact that the Vincennes was in Iranian waters was disclosed in the official classified report to the Congress"

Also, the American PBS TV network also did a very informative doco with interviews of crew on the Vincennes and the Montgomery, which showed Rogers to be an outright lier. And how did Washington punish him? By giving him a promotion.

Also, this happen in 1988. The US government at no time took full responsibility for the shooting down -- this requires the truth to be told you see. In addition, GWB Sr. made the following statement in regards to the Vincennes incident:

“I will never apologize for the United States of America — I don’t care what the facts are.”

The US did eventually compensate non-Iranian passengers on the aircraft to the tune of around US$3 million. Iranian passengers did not receive a cent from Washington until some 8 years later. This was because the Iranians took Washington to the International Court. When compensation was made in 1996 to the Iranians, it was only $60 million -- approximately $300,000 per wage earner and $150,000 per non-wage earner -- which is a far cry from the $2 billion Libya agreed to pay for Lockerbie -- on a sidenote, I still firmly believe that Iran had a hand in Lockerbie as a "payback's a bitch" action.

Compensation for the actual aircraft was never, and never has been, paid.

Anyway, everything you have written has been debunked in what I have written, and what thorough investigations have uncovered.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29791 posts, RR: 58
Reply 9, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1666 times:

Russiophile, you want to back up that comment that the US payed out to the Iranians.

Because last time I checked the US governement did not recognize anything that Kangaroo court known as the ICC did, and if Clinton (He was in office in 1996) did pay out, then I have another reason to hate that particular administration.


Edit:not saying you are incorrect, but I really do hope that my taxmoney didn't go to pay off the Iranians, who I don't believe have ever offered any compensation to the Americans they held hostage for a year and a half. The Iranians simply don't deserve it, nor an appology from the US. It was a war zone, and that is that.

Edit: back to the original topic, Yeah, I suspect this mostly has to do with Iran's nuclear weapons program (Yes it has one) and the worlds comdemnation of it.

[Edited 2004-06-21 22:55:11]


OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13968 posts, RR: 63
Reply 10, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1644 times:

I´ve never heard of a CIVILIAN aircraft of ANY nation using IFF transponders, and I´ve been in the industry now for quite a few years (including avionics work). All they would have would be a normal ATC Mode A, C and maybe mode S transponder.

Jan


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29791 posts, RR: 58
Reply 11, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1642 times:

Correct, I don't know of any either.

But the aircraft T-sponder should have had no problems being interrogated by the ships systems.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1636 times:

Russophile The Iran Air A-300 was over international waters with a load of Hajj pilgrims overflying a combat zone without IFF when the Vincennes shot it down in 1988. The Vincennes was not in Iranian waters (unless you count the eez, which places Oman in their territorial waters). It was leading a chase of Iranian gunboats that had been raiding civilian ships and causing serious damage, which is why we were there in the first place. The genuine possibilty of a repeat of the previous years missile attack on the Stark by one of the two combatants in the war going on there was real. Iranians had and have the air capability to launch an attack on ships at sea, and one has to wonder why the Iranians would send an aircraft over the US ships engaged in a running battle without IFF, and why this aircraft did not communicate with the fleet nor turn away when warned, as it was several times on guard frequency...
Incidently, the US accepted responsibility for the tragedy and compensated the families of each of the 291 victims, even though we are terrible people and have no diplomatic relations with Iran, nor was there any force on earth capable of making us do so.


Wrong.

The Vincennes was inside Iranian territorial waters at the time of the shooting, according to NEWSWEEK and ABC's Nightline. On the day of the shooting the ship hadn't responded to an Omani order to leave Omani waters - not exactly indicative of a good, non-arrogant crew is it?

The ship was fighting a running battle with Iranian boats throughout the whole event.

The Vincennes got a mode 3 IFF response - that is it identified the A300 as a commercial aircraft. The Petty Officer missed the flight number on the flight schedule for that day and so assumed it hostile.

Aboard the near-by carrier, airborne F-14s were told not to engage the aircraft, as the Captain of the carrier thought it was a friendly aircraft. He didn't bother to tell the Vincennes.

The Vincennes broadcast "Unidentified aircraft...You are approaching a United States naval warship in international waters" on 121.5. Now, due to the war the A300 was meant to be monitoring 121.5. But would the A300 have assumed the message was aimed at them? After all, they're a commercial flight with a mode 3 transponder. They didn't even know the Vincennes was there.

Someone suggested the aircraft was an F-14 - no one ever discovered who. This was based on guesswork - it had nothing to do with the ship's $400m systems.

The ship once against sent an IFF to the aircraft. They got a mode 2 (military) - but the Vincennes hadn't reset the range of the IFF device - the mode 2 IFF response belonged to an Iranian military transport still on the ground - not the A300.

At 32 miles there was now some confusion. Someone suggested the aircraft was a possible commercial aircraft, as it was travelling slowly and only at 7000ft.

Another warning went out, "Iranian fighter...you are steering into danger and are subject to United States naval defensive measures" - why would the A300 think this message was directed at them?

At 30 miles the Petty Officer said the aircraft was at 7,800ft and descending at 455kts when the ship's own records said the computers said the aircraft was at 12,000ft and climbing at 380kts!

The F-14s Iran had didn't even have air-ground capabilities, let alone air-ship capabilities. This didn't bother the Vincennes.

At 9:54am the aircraft was 11 miles away and the ship's defences were armed.

At this time the Captain of the Iran Air A300 was talking to ATC, calming reporting his location on the standard route, Dl021.

When the A300 was hit, audio on the Vincennes included "Oh, dead!" "Coming down!" "We had him dead on!"



This comes from an old article I have from Newsweek in my bookshelf.

As for this incident? Given the tensions between Iran and Iraq, and Iran and the UK recently, if I were an Iranian soldier and I saw boats full of soldiers with guns, I'd want to stop them too.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29791 posts, RR: 58
Reply 13, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1631 times:

So 777236ER, you are willing to sacrifice your troops to the Iranians.

That's pretty damm cold.

As far as the Vincinnes, The US was justifed in shooting that aircraft down, and no revisionist B/S from the left is going to change that fact.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1624 times:

So 777236ER, you are willing to sacrifice your troops to the Iranians.

That's pretty damm cold.


God no. But I understand why the Iranians did what they did.

Hell, if I saw a bunch of armed Iranians in boats cruising up the Thames Estury, I'd be pretty worried too.

The US was justifed in shooting that aircraft down, and no revisionist B/S from the left is going to change that fact.

No systems in the Vincennes identified that aircraft as hostile. NONE.


User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8693 posts, RR: 43
Reply 15, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1624 times:

So 777236ER, you are willing to sacrifice your troops to the Iranians.

That's pretty damm cold.


Where did he ever say that? He only considered thinking about why the Iranians reacted (over-reacted, in my opinion) the way they did, and said he can understand it.

As far as the Vincinnes, The US was justifed in shooting that aircraft down, and no revisionist B/S from the left is going to change that fact.

If it were a fact, Sir. If it were one, it couldn't be changed.



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29791 posts, RR: 58
Reply 16, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1619 times:

No systems in the Vincennes identified that aircraft as hostile. NONE.

Correction, no system on that ship identified it as friendly/not a threat. So in absence of contravening info, the target was a threat. Otherwise, you might end up with an exocet up the side, see HMS Sheffield.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlinePPGMD From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2453 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1617 times:

777236ER,

I don't know about any other pilots here, but when you are in a war zone it's best to check and make sure that they aren't talking to you, not ignoring the message.

Mistakes were made by both sides, the Petty Officer for not resetting his equipment and not reading the display correctly, the CO of the Vincennes for not contacting the CBG you would have better control of the airspace. Now the Iranian Capitan should have responded to the call on guard.



At worst, you screw up and die.
User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1613 times:

777236ER,

I don't know about any other pilots here, but when you are in a war zone it's best to check and make sure that they aren't talking to you, not ignoring the message.

ALL aircraft in the region were meant to monitor 121.5. Whether it was done or not is another matter...

Anyway, assuming the Iran Air A300 was listening, numerous references to 'Iranian Fighter' was bound to put them off - especially given they didn't know where the ship was. For all they knew it was two hundred miles away. Meanwhile they were having normal communications with ATC.

Correction, no system on that ship identified it as friendly/not a threat. So in absence of contravening info, the target was a threat. Otherwise, you might end up with an exocet up the side, see HMS Sheffield

Impossible, given that the F-14s that the US sold to the Shah didn't have the capability for air-ship missiles. The most the (lone) F-14 could have done is straffed the ship.

And a correction to YOU: the ship IDENTIFIED the A300 as mode 3, commercial aircraft. This was DISREGARDED, and when the IFF range wasn't reset, the mode 2 (military) wasn't from the aircraft. Two huge errors.



User currently offlinePPGMD From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2453 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1598 times:

Impossible, given that the F-14s that the US sold to the Shah didn't have the capability for air-ship missiles. The most the (lone) F-14 could have done is straffed the ship.

Nor were the Argentinians supposed to be able to launch the Exocet, the Royal Navy found out the hard way, it's better to assume that your enemy could hit you than to assume otherwise.

For all they knew it was two hundred miles away. Meanwhile they were having normal communications with ATC.

I would have responded to this broadcast, just in case:
The Vincennes broadcast "Unidentified aircraft...You are approaching a United States naval warship in international waters" on 121.5.

With "American Warship Iranian Air Flight XXX was that for us? Turning 90 North for verification." But that's just me.



At worst, you screw up and die.
User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1586 times:

Nor were the Argentinians supposed to be able to launch the Exocet, the Royal Navy found out the hard way, it's better to assume that your enemy could hit you than to assume otherwise.

The Royal Navy knew there was an Exorcet threat. The US Navy knew there was no air-ship threat from an Iranian F-14.

With "American Warship Iranian Air Flight XXX was that for us? Turning 90 North for verification." But that's just me.

Your condescending tone notwithstanding, don't you think the burden was on the Vincennes to make sure it knew what it was shooting, not on all the aircraft on 121.5 to make sure the Americans weren't going to shoot them?


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1578 times:


Some here are so patriotic they loose it

If under the same circumstances an AA 300 out of MIA was shot down by Cubans, would you still be so understanding ? I doubt this ..


User currently offlineGc From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2003, 356 posts, RR: 6
Reply 22, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1561 times:

"As far as the Vincinnes, The US was justifed in shooting that aircraft down, and no revisionist B/S from the left is going to change that fact."

Hey, come on now, it's not as if the US military makes a habit of hitting the wrong target......oh, hang on a minute, yes they do. I forgot we lost more troops to friendly fire than to Iraqi forces in Gulf War I


With regard to them marines, they should be fine, at least Jack Straw, for all his faults has some dialouge with Iran, so we should be able to reach a political solution, without the SAS having to go in.


User currently offlinePPGMD From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2453 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1559 times:

Your condescending tone notwithstanding, don't you think the burden was on the Vincennes to make sure it knew what it was shooting, not on all the aircraft on 121.5 to make sure the Americans weren't going to shoot them?

I was always taught, better to err on the side of caution, the Petty Officer, and the CO (though they made the wrong decisions) of the ship did that on their end.

The Iranian air should have also, erred on the side of caution, even if it wasn't them, it's likely that the Vincennes would have held out on firing until they were sure, if they knew it was possible that it was an airliner.

Now there were some faults in the weapon system, the panel also recommended changes to make it easier to read the system and settings.



At worst, you screw up and die.
User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1552 times:

better to err on the side of caution, the Petty Officer, and the CO (though they made the wrong decisions) of the ship did that on their end.

Given that a. the Airbus was identified as a commercial aircraft b. the IFF range wasn't reset c. commercial traffic was known to be in the area d. F-14s can't attack ships e. it wasn't even known to be an F-14 f. the captain's brash behaviour g. the fact that the Iran Air A300 was NEVER identified by any systems as being a military aircraft and h. the petty officer gave completly false information about the height and speed of the A300, I don't think they erred on the side of caution.

it's likely that the Vincennes would have held out on firing until they were sure, if they knew it was possible that it was an airliner

Clearly this is not the case. 290 died.

Now there were some faults in the weapon system, the panel also recommended changes to make it easier to read the system and settings.

There were indeed changes, but no problems were present to explain the gross negligence that lead to the deaths of those 290 people.


25 PPGMD : it's likely that the Vincennes would have held out on firing until they were sure, if they knew it was possible that it was an airliner Clearly this i
26 Galaxy5 : Its amazing how what happens to British troops automatically becomes an anit-American thread, but its always the same wackjobs that find a way to turn
27 777236ER : You're tripping yourself up here, so if they didn't know it was an F-14, for all they knew the Iranians could have acquired aircraft that could attack
28 PPGMD : Let me ask you this, do you think this accident that resulted in the death of 290 people was as a result of negligence? Yes, but on the Petty Officer'
29 777236ER : Yes, but on the Petty Officer's part. Though the CO has the ultimate responsibility, he was in no way negligent. If the CO is responsible then he is t
30 PPGMD : 777236ER, You know most foreigners say that we Americans lack prospective, so you should be able to get into the eyes to the CO better than I can. Pic
31 777236ER : You know most foreigners say that we Americans lack prospective, so you should be able to get into the eyes to the CO better than I can. Picture you a
32 EA CO AS : The US Navy knew there was no air-ship threat from an Iranian F-14. Did the CO have time to get out his latest copy of Jane's to verify this? An inbou
33 777236ER : Did the CO have time to get out his latest copy of Jane's to verify this? An inbound enemy fighter is an inbound enemy fighter - their armament is irr
34 EA CO AS : The guy was a COMMANDING OFFICER OF A WARSHIP IN THE REGION! Surely it's his job to know what type of weapons the enemy has? Not to the degree you're
35 Dl021 : Wow, you miss an afternoon and you miss alot. OK 1. The boats evidently were on patrol, and it is not proven anywhere that the Iranians with their lon
36 MD-90 : I just read an article that mentioned that the Europeans were the ones who invented Gunboat Diplomacy. The Royal Navy was particularly good at it. How
37 GDB : I would not call 3 small craft being delivered to the Iraqi Police in Basra 'gunboats'. Most seem to think the Iranian's are trying to make a point, a
38 Post contains links Gman94 : Wow, it's amazing how quickly a thread can go off topic. Sounds like the Iranians are trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill. Time for the SAS m
39 777236ER : Yes. If the enemy aircraft has not acknowledged repeated warnings and is still on an intercept course, the most prudent course of action is to take de
40 PPGMD : But the A300 was never on an intercept course. It was climbing and maintaining 380kts. The data reported to the CO, who makes the firing decision, sai
41 Dl021 : GDB, normally not disagreeing with you, but have to make counterpoints here. 1. The difference between the two shootdowns was that the Iran Air incide
42 Post contains images L-188 : So how come those that are complaing about the way the US is handling it's terrorist prisoners, are silent about the way inhumane way the Iranians are
43 Post contains images Russophile : Russophile The Iran Air A-300 was over international waters with a load of Hajj pilgrims overflying a combat zone without IFF when the Vincennes shot
44 Gman94 : Latest reports are that the Brits will likely be released after an investigation which will tell the Iranians exactly what they were doing in Iranian
45 Russophile : They are Royal Marine Commandos which if you have seen the pictures were equiped with standard Royal Marine gear. All this is the Iranians flexing the
46 MD11Engineer : I onnly saw the standard personal weapons of British infantry soldiers in the TV pictures shown by Iranian TV (assault rifles, pistols, one or two lig
47 GDB : If they had been special forces, they'd have been operating at night, would not have a white boat with Iraqi Police markings all over it, and I guess
48 PPGMD : GDB, Along with air support, nothings better than have a 1,000 lbs hand grenade at your disposal.
49 L-188 : The thousand pound hand grenade eh? How about an atomic one. The US was working on developing one in the 1950's until somebody finally realized that t
50 GDB : That was the Jeep mounted Davy Crockett wasn't it? Sort of a bigger, ballistic RPG with a nuclear warhead, still within the blast radius at it's maxim
51 PPGMD : GDB, That was the shell mounted nuke, the hand grenade nuke was an idea to give trooper literally a nuke, that they could throw. It was one of those w
52 L-188 : ballistic RPG with a nuclear warhead Now there is a weapon the Marines could have used in Fallujah. Sorry getting off a tangent. But it does illistrat
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Anyone Has Seen The Movie "Jackass"? posted Wed Sep 29 2004 15:05:11 by LO231
"Help, My S55 AMG Has Not Enough Power" posted Thu Aug 28 2003 14:57:00 by Racko
Bar In The Movie "the Right Stuff", "Armageddon"? posted Sat Nov 11 2006 21:34:21 by Aerosol
Kid's Costume Teaches The "F" Word posted Fri Oct 27 2006 19:10:46 by AsstChiefMark
Motorola "Q" Anyone Have It? posted Sat Sep 2 2006 20:50:40 by Cadet57
The "F" Word On Channel 4 posted Wed Aug 2 2006 22:37:03 by Cosec59
"Droplifting" - A "Subversive" Marketing Technique posted Tue Jun 20 2006 09:54:20 by AerospaceFan
Abolish The "N" Word. Should It Happen? posted Wed May 24 2006 19:23:48 by Jetjack74
"South Park": "The Dog Whisperer" posted Fri May 5 2006 06:11:59 by Bobster2
Silent "N" In Spanish? posted Sat Apr 22 2006 16:41:35 by RNOcommctr