Nice headline.
+1
will read it again.

I wonder how they 'taunted' the US navy ship. "You're in the middle of a trillion dollar war so you can't attack us, even though your cowboy president really, really wants to"?

I'm glad to see Rosy O'Donnell still submits links on fark.

And that she still likens every event in the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Tonkin.

And by 'glad' I mean 'bored'.

I wonder how they 'taunted' the US navy ship.




Now go away or I will taunt you a second time!

Yeah, nice headline.

Because Iran would NEVER do anything like that. It has to be the bad ol' USA making it up.

El_Dan: I wonder how they 'taunted' the US navy ship. "You're in the middle of a trillion dollar war so you can't attack us, even though your cowboy president really, really wants to"?

Thank Gawd they didn't fart in our general direction. We would have had to retaliate by launching a wooden rabbit.

Tell zem we already got one




/your mother=Hamster
//your father=elderberry odor

We should have turned it to driftwood and then planted a gun on it.

FishingWithFredo: Yeah, nice headline.

Because Iran would NEVER do anything like that. It has to be the bad ol' USA making it up.

That's irrelevant. The issue is that the Bush administration is beating the war drums, and stories likes this are meant to confuse the fact that Iran has done absolutely nothing that would justify a war with it.

El_Dan: FishingWithFredo: Yeah, nice headline.

Because Iran would NEVER do anything like that. It has to be the bad ol' USA making it up.

That's irrelevant. The issue is that the Bush administration is beating the war drums, and stories likes this are meant to confuse the fact that Iran has done absolutely nothing that would justify a war with it.

So CNN = Bush Administration?

IRAN: "We're like totally dumb...yeah, we taunted you in the gulf and you all cried about it like a bunch of pussies!"

They aren't dumb, people. Everyone is in denial at times like this. For example:
Claiming the existence of a huge cache of WMD, chemical weapons and a nuclear development program
Denying the use of torture
Legitimizing the removal of Habeus Corpus
Denying the use of rendition
Legitimizing Illegal surveillance methods on one's own citizenry
Tolerating American companies moving their headquarters abroad for tax purposes and as a work around to labor regulations.

None of this has happened in our country.

+1

Really, who gives a fark?

Is our navy now complaining that the Iranians made fun of them? I could understand it might piss you off, but unless they do something to let you bomb the fark out of them, suck it up and take it.

-1

The Islamic Republic is many things, but dumb is not one of them. From Chalabi to the nuclear stand-off, every step they've taken has been calculated and well orchestrated.

Hagbardr: Thank Gawd they didn't fart in our general direction. We would have had to retaliate by launching a wooden rabbit.

Bio terrorism is no laughing matter!!

Submitter I see what you did there. +1

I know, why don't we send them all those photos of the torture Rmsfeld and Bushie and Cheney authorized, you know, the child rape, murder, sodomy....that will show them what true monsters we are, and you know what happens when you taunt monsters....

memories

(Jan 07, 2008) Iranian boats 'harass' U.S. Navy, officials say (CNN)
Iranian ships provoke U.S. warships in Gulf of Tonkin... err... Strait of Hormuz (420)
---------

(Jan 15, 2008) 'Monkey' Blamed in U.S./Iran Boat Conflict (NPR)

(Jan 17, 2008) 'Filipino Monkey' behind threats? (Navy Times
The guy doing the taunting on the radio during the Iran gulf warship encounter was probably a well-known local prankster who has been doing it for years. Baba Booey (161)

Is Judith Miller going to do a front page piece on this incident in the NYT?

Remembering the Cole and Liberty stuff happens.

Apik0r0s: Is Judith Miller going to do a front page piece on this incident in the NYT?

Only if Dick Cheney passes her the info...

You know, in the old days we would have have mooned those Iranians. Nowadays if you did that they would send you to sensitivity training before discharging your ass.

I was just wondering yesterday why al-Qaeda wasn't playing to the conspiracy theorist crowd more. All Alex Jones needs to convince those nutters to abandon all reason is for a terrorist group or rogue state to corroborate his stories.

FishingWithFredo: Because Iran would NEVER do anything like that. It has to be the bad ol' USA making it up.

Look, going on America's past track record with truth and wars...fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again.

klymen: The Islamic Republic is many things, but dumb is not one of them. From Chalabi to the nuclear stand-off, every step they've taken has been calculated and well orchestrated.

Whoa whoa whoa. John Stewart's assessment of the situation is wrong I think. Make no mistake, Chalabi would have been no one if he wasn't saying what Douglas Feith and the rest WANTED him to say. And to think that Iran calculated this outcome would be saying that they were willing to take an extraordinary risk. I mean, unfortunately, this administration is still chomping at the bit to bomb the hell out of Iran and that's something I presume Iran doesn't want them to do. I think the assessment that Iran is the primary benefactor from the Iraq war ignores Exxon Mobile's profits and assumes that Iran has received something material so far from the War, which I don't think they have. They might be in good standing to benefit from the eventual outcome of the war, but to suggest that this was all orchestrated by Iran intentionally is giving extraordinary credit where credit is not due.

That's how the war in Vietnam started.

/The more you know!

Dialectic: That's how the war in Vietnam started.

/The more you know!

It would be more accurate to say that that was the final straw in a long sequence of events at a point when war in Vietnam was pretty much inevitable.

FishingWithFredo: Yeah, nice headline.

Because Iran would NEVER do anything like that. It has to be the bad ol' USA making it up.

Well they've done it before. See:Vietnam

Is Judith Miller going to do a front page piece on this incident in the NYT?

I guess that would be next.

In that last few days we have had these headlines:

Iran Fighting Proxy War in Iraq, U.S. Envoy Says

Iran Top Threat To Iraq, U.S. Says, Focus on Al-Qaeda Now Diminishing

All the talk is about Iraq, but concern about Iran is mounting

ADL: Switzerland financing terrorism (IRAN)

British fear US commander is beating the drum for Iran strikes

From tomorrow's NYT

"Judith Miller (NY Times Naval Warfare/ WMD Expert)says she is 100% sure that Iran will attack the US and kick over all of our baby incubators and rewrite all US text books to exclude mention of the Holocaust"

Old_Chief_Scott: El_Dan: FishingWithFredo: Yeah, nice headline.

Because Iran would NEVER do anything like that. It has to be the bad ol' USA making it up.

That's irrelevant. The issue is that the Bush administration is beating the war drums, and stories likes this are meant to confuse the fact that Iran has done absolutely nothing that would justify a war with it.

So CNN = Bush Administration?

CNN reported on this story because someone gave them a press release on it.

I sure hope we hit Iran. Think about it...

It would open us up for a swift invasion by China, and we all love Chinese food right?

/Brushing up on my mandarin and stocking up on MSG baby!

RawData: It would open us up for a swift invasion by China, and we all love Chinese food right?

According to a relative that traveled to China, real Chinese food sucks.

Great headline.

Sad part is, We the People keep falling for the same stupid shiat every time.

Dialectic: That's how the war in Vietnam started.

Incorrect; it was what LBJ used as a reason to escalate it.

Any way you cut it, the US looks bad in this situation. If the US shows restraint by not blowing the aggressive ships out of the water, the Iranian hardliners claim victory over the soft american infidels too cowardly to defend themselves. As a side effect, it lulls the US navy into tolerating behavior that may lead to an attack in the future (if you let them get close over and over again, you could be looking at a USS Cole situation in the future). If the US blows up these aggressive ships, the Iranian's scream about the evil imperialist US destroying the peaceloving vessels of the Iranian fishing fleet and trying to provoke a war (which some members of the US administration may want anyway).

FTFA: A U.S. military official told CNN Friday that the USS Typhoon, a small patrol craft, was approached by three small Iranian boats in a "taunting manner."

maybe they just wanted a shrubbery

Like a mosquito to a fire, here comes HowlingFrog to a thread referencing a conspiracy theory.

HowlingFrog: Dialectic: That's how the war in Vietnam started.

Incorrect; it was what LBJ used as a reason pretext to escalate it.

FTFY

SemperLieSuckah: Like a mosquito to a fire, here comes HowlingFrog to a thread referencing a conspiracy theory.

And like a retarded kid running to the short bus, here comes SemperLieSuckah calling the Gulf of Tonkin incident a "conspiracy theory".

HowlingFrog: SemperLieSuckah: Like a mosquito to a fire, here comes HowlingFrog to a thread referencing a conspiracy theory.

And like a retarded kid running to the short bus, here comes SemperLieSuckah calling the Gulf of Tonkin incident a "conspiracy theory".

All we need is HotWingConspiracy, well because I feel like eating hot wings tonight but i'm currently not in the mood. MMmmm Nuclear sauce.

/Can't we all get along?

Didn't something like this happen a few months ago, and people questioned the authenticity of the radio tapes?

guilt by association: Didn't something like this happen a few months ago, and people questioned the authenticity of the radio tapes?

Yes.

Bombing Iran just might settle one question that's been bugging me for a while:

Can modern navy ships protect themselves against a swarm of anti-ship missiles?



I'm thinking... maybe not. Even if the missile defense systems turn out to be pretty damn good, I doubt they will be able to take out 100% of incoming missiles, especially if they're coming in swarms.

Lets not forget the British episode where Iran kidnapped 15 of the sailors a little over a year ago, Wikipedia on Iranian taking British sailors hostage (new window). Iran can be highly aggressive and are far from the peace loving innocent party some like to paint them. That is not to say the US hasn't made its share of mistakes, Wikipedia on US shoot down of Iranian airliner (new window), but that incident does not excuse present Iranian aggressive behavior that could lead to further incidents and escalation.

SemperLieSuckah: Dialectic: That's how the war in Vietnam started.

/The more you know!

It would be more accurate to say that that was the final straw in a long sequence of events at a point when war in Vietnam was pretty much inevitable.

Heehehehehee heee hehehee. Funny. Good one!

SemperLieSuckah:

It boggles the mind the amount of subtle brainwashing it took to make you what you are. I understand the organic offshoot of democracy is the attempt to control thought, but jesus it's so profoundly expressed in people like you.

Riche: Bombing Iran just might settle one question that's been bugging me for a while:

Can modern navy ships protect themselves against a swarm of anti-ship missiles?



I'm thinking... maybe not. Even if the missile defense systems turn out to be pretty damn good, I doubt they will be able to take out 100% of incoming missiles, especially if they're coming in swarms.

why on earth would they need to buy those expensive things? guys in motorboats packed with HE

Riche: Bombing Iran just might settle one question that's been bugging me for a while: Can modern navy ships protect themselves against a swarm of anti-ship missiles?

I'm thinking... maybe not. Even if the missile defense systems turn out to be pretty damn good, I doubt they will be able to take out 100% of incoming missiles, especially if they're coming in swarms.

Well we saw a little of that in the Falklands war where Argentina caused some losses to the British expeditionary force but Argentina simply didn't have the numbers of missiles to truly threaten. The Iran/Iraq "Tanker War" apparently used primarily conventional bombs and rockets rather than anti-ship missiles (besides hitting a large slow moving undefended tanker isn't much of a challenge) although some silkworm missiles were used by both sides (new window).

It would be interesting to see whether anti-missile systems have become sufficiently reliable to neutralize high-speed low altitude anti-ship missiles. I would tend to side with modern missiles having the edge. Iran doesn't appear to have many and is perceived to rely on 1960s-70s era missiles that would seemingly be easier to intercept with modern systems. That's not to say the arms embargo has been wholly effective and perhaps they have been able to import more modern missiles from China or elsewhere. In any event the confined waters of the Persian Gulf would give little time to intercept especially in the Straights of Hormuz where Iran has many shore based anti-ship installations. A large number of older missiles fired at close range could probably get through defenses, but outside of the opening shots of a conflict, it is doubtful that such operations could be sustained since US airpower would quickly destroy fixed launchers and docks for the speedboats making any subsequent engagement with only a few missiles that would be far easier to intercept.