If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reuters)   Iran to U.S. Navy: Keep your fleet out of the Persian Gulf, or we'll publish pictures of us sinking your ships. U.S. Navy: That'd be one hell of a Photoshop job   (reuters.com) divider line 512
    More: Amusing, Persian Gulf, U.S. Navy, Iran, french foreign minister, Catherine Ashton, oil exports, Arabian Sea, shipping lanes  
•       •       •

20784 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Jan 2012 at 10:50 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



512 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-01-03 07:08:03 PM  

brerrabbit:

Former submarine sailor here. Not as clueless as you seem to be. While your ass was back aft pushing the boat, many of us were manning the control room. Oops, standing consecutive water watches makes you experienced with tactics, I forgot.Diesel boats were still in service when I was still driving subs....



Wow. Did you fight for the north or the south ?
 
2012-01-03 07:11:43 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: Speaking of things the US military trained for against the Soviets...

One of the things the US feared was a Soviet sub detonating a nuclear device in NYC harbor. The tidal wave would be incredibly damaging.

I wonder if littoral combat training takes into consideration a nuclear device creating a tsunami.



You fail oceanography forever. Besides that sounding like some laughable comic book villain plot tsunamis have to begin in deep water. A nuke set off under a harbor would actually do less damage than on the surface.
 
2012-01-03 07:15:18 PM  
Party Boy

now that i have some idea of how dishonest you are, i might start paying a bit more attention to your posts. regarding this, why are you so fired-up by the fact that aipac was consulted in developing the sanctions? your links and quotes simply state that aipac was consulted - yet here you are spamming us and reddit with this idea that the sanctions are "aipac created sanctions"

you're a totally dishonest nutbag, aren't you?
 
2012-01-03 07:19:23 PM  
"monstrous omission"

what a sham
 
2012-01-03 07:26:38 PM  

One Bad Apple: TheShavingofOccam123: Speaking of things the US military trained for against the Soviets...

One of the things the US feared was a Soviet sub detonating a nuclear device in NYC harbor. The tidal wave would be incredibly damaging.

I wonder if littoral combat training takes into consideration a nuclear device creating a tsunami.


You fail oceanography forever. Besides that sounding like some laughable comic book villain plot tsunamis have to begin in deep water. A nuke set off under a harbor would actually do less damage than on the surface.


You might want to read up on Test Baker of Operation Crossroads. 23 kiloton blast. First test after Trinity.

At least now I know what ever happened to the Prinz Eugen. Darn shame.
 
2012-01-03 07:29:15 PM  

prickle27: Why doesn't everybody just calm the fark down? We don't need another farken war.


You and I might not need another war but since the Iraq war has ended and our troops have left, Haliburtion shareholders might suffer in the next quarterly dividends. We've got to get this next war started and quick.
 
2012-01-03 07:31:19 PM  

The First Four Black Sabbath Albums: Clearly, the US Government does not know the first rule of dealing with trolls.


Are you saying the US government should buy Iran a month of TotalFark?
 
2012-01-03 07:31:20 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: One Bad Apple: TheShavingofOccam123: Speaking of things the US military trained for against the Soviets...

One of the things the US feared was a Soviet sub detonating a nuclear device in NYC harbor. The tidal wave would be incredibly damaging.

I wonder if littoral combat training takes into consideration a nuclear device creating a tsunami.


You fail oceanography forever. Besides that sounding like some laughable comic book villain plot tsunamis have to begin in deep water. A nuke set off under a harbor would actually do less damage than on the surface.

You might want to read up on Test Baker of Operation Crossroads. 23 kiloton blast. First test after Trinity.

At least now I know what ever happened to the Prinz Eugen. Darn shame.


After he got his ass kicked by Marco Antonio Barerra he was never the same.
 
2012-01-03 07:34:33 PM  
TheShavingofOccam123

You and I might not need another war but since the Iraq war has ended and our troops have left, Haliburtion shareholders might suffer in the next quarterly dividends. We've got to get this next war started and quick.

actually ...

very real concerns that the gop will attempt to develop a course of action that will allow individuals to line their pockets through halliburton et al (again) are a major reason why, imo, there needs to be support for any revolution this spring (as per libya)

wouldn't you say?

/libya 1billion total. iraq what, about 3 or 4 billion a week for 8 years. i mean really
 
2012-01-03 07:36:18 PM  
that's on top of normal military running costs. from the party of small government, apparently
 
2012-01-03 07:39:39 PM  

prickle27: TheShavingofOccam123: One Bad Apple: TheShavingofOccam123: Speaking of things the US military trained for against the Soviets...

One of the things the US feared was a Soviet sub detonating a nuclear device in NYC harbor. The tidal wave would be incredibly damaging.

I wonder if littoral combat training takes into consideration a nuclear device creating a tsunami.


You fail oceanography forever. Besides that sounding like some laughable comic book villain plot tsunamis have to begin in deep water. A nuke set off under a harbor would actually do less damage than on the surface.

You might want to read up on Test Baker of Operation Crossroads. 23 kiloton blast. First test after Trinity.

At least now I know what ever happened to the Prinz Eugen. Darn shame.

After he got his ass kicked by Marco Antonio Barerra he was never the same.


Congratulations! You made a cultural reference so obscure I had no clue!
 
2012-01-03 07:42:53 PM  

21-7-b: TheShavingofOccam123

You and I might not need another war but since the Iraq war has ended and our troops have left, Haliburtion shareholders might suffer in the next quarterly dividends. We've got to get this next war started and quick.

actually ...

very real concerns that the gop will attempt to develop a course of action that will allow individuals to line their pockets through halliburton et al (again) are a major reason why, imo, there needs to be support for any revolution this spring (as per libya)

wouldn't you say?

/libya 1billion total. iraq what, about 3 or 4 billion a week for 8 years. i mean really


I swear to God I heard Mitt Romney say in a debate that if he was elected he would go to war with Iran. I either need to stop watching those things or record them because finding these comments are impossible.

Much like Bush's "a vote for terrorism" comment. It wasn't an official part of his speech so it's impossible to find transcripts. I swear I heard him say it on the last day of his campaign during his last speech.

I have to stop drinking I guess.
 
2012-01-03 07:49:58 PM  
Question for the Navy guys (resisting the urge to call you squids, it's genetic so you should be impressed!): is the Strait narrow and shallow enough to be brown water or is it considered blue?

Just curious. Should Iran attempt to close the Strait the USN is probably the least of their worries. Their neighbors don't have the show of restraint we have.
 
2012-01-03 07:54:07 PM  
oh and another scenario...

a super super tank full of oil. oil and water don't mix you know. that would be some lake of burning fire.
 
2012-01-03 07:55:43 PM  
tanker...super tanker...super super tanker....sorry
 
2012-01-03 08:07:36 PM  
TheShavingofOccam123

i think it's pretty obvious that the gop all-stars are all in it for the money and the power. none of them have anything like the kind of integrity of obama. we're so used to seeing gop inanity day after day that i think we forget just how little integrity these people have. i have absolutely not even the slightest doubt that every gop contender is looking at making an obscene amount of money by creaming a tiny percentage of cash off of the top of military spending - a tiny percentage, but enough to generate them hundreds of millions. not even the slightest doubt. war with iran will probably make that even easier for them to do. cost to american economy, american lives, iranian people - yeah, i don't think they even think any of that shiat is relevant
 
2012-01-03 08:14:05 PM  

peterthx: Amos Quito:
There are three reasons that the US is imposing these sanctions - sanctions that will almost certainly escalate into all-out war: I am posting in this thread: It's because I am...

1. anti-Israel
2. anti-Israel, and
3. anti-Israel

Fixed for reality.



I am critical of Israel?

Wow, what a stunningly brilliant observation.

As you may have noticed, a lot of Farkers are getting all Viagraized over the idea that Iran should have the chutzpah to threaten to retaliate over the crippling and provocative sanctions "Obey" and the Congress just unleashed on Iran.

I have not forgotten that Israel and her sleazy international lobbyists are the reason we are dong this shiat in the first place, and I'll do my best to help others keep that in perspective.

/You're welcome
 
2012-01-03 08:23:56 PM  

VictorOfBorge: The USN shouldn't get too cocky...
U.S.S. Samuel B. Roberts story:

Ah. Another story of a frigate (our smallest capital ship) that gets holed, but not sunk.
Seriously, if we overlaid this on land warfare, that would be like saying "Army shouldn't get so cocky with their tanks, our enemy can blow up Humvees so CLEARLY the tanks are just as vulnerable!"
 
2012-01-03 08:26:13 PM  
Amos Quito

the iranian threats of retaliation are bravado, you dimwit. the iranian regime is desperately searching for a way to hang on to power over the next six months. the regime is as good as dead and will be brought down internally by the forces of freedom and democracy - and they know it is coming. now take your lunatic ravings elsewhere
 
2012-01-03 08:28:25 PM  

Well, again, i see no substantiation on your part. I see a pattern.

21-7-b: i've already provided at least one specific example in this thread.


Nope. Specify it.

21-7-b: that the issues regarding kurdistan exist entirely outside of your preoccupation with western nation building.


At the minimum, the US is involved with every neighbor, very directly. Western nation building is central here -even more so when it comes out of your demands. Thats just the minimum.

21-7-b: and you attempted to frame the core issue as relating to the number of borders. the number of borders is irrelevant compared to the nature of the borders.


Both are related. Both are also related to The 'west,' nation-building, and border imposition.

21-7-b: do you think that the people of the middle east have achieved just societies, or do you think that that fight continues today?


I've gone on, extensively middle eastern efforts to try to achieve justice. Mubarak is probably the mot controversial one i brought up before the Arab Spring.

21-7-b: you posted it deliberately to attempt to negate the discussion regarding the kurdish issue by attempting to establish that their was criticism of a particular plan to "redraw the middle east."


its the most recent one in a long string of bad ones. Where is a good plan? Thats all you have to add. Where is one good plan? I've been asking this for a long time, and you can't do it.



21-7-b: no you aren't.


Then just produce something. Give me something..

21-7-b: as i have stated numerous times the issues regarding kurdistan exist totally independently of the west. your continual failure to recognize this


So, Iraq and Kurdistan is independent of the West?
So, Iran and Kurdistan is independent of the West?
So, Turkey and Kurdistan is independent of the West?
So, Turkey and Armenia is independent of the West?

You might have an argument with Syria. The problem is, you have to deal with all of these. Turkey and Iraq are biggies.

21-7-b: that aipac was consulted in developing the sanctions? your links and quotes simply state that aipac was consulted



which he developed in consultation with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

Reading comprehension problems?

Also
The powerful AIPAC has put considerable pressure on lawmakers, especially those facing re-election next year, according to officials on Capitol Hill.

Also
J Street has a dependable cadre of 40-50 members of the U.S. House of Representatives ready to heed its voting recommendations. Congressional insiders say J Street's green light in December for Iran sanctions nudged the bill from the super majority that traditional lobbying by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee usually turns out to officially "overwhelming": 412-12. That sent the Obama administration a clear message to hurry it on up, the insiders say.


Now, substantiate your argument. I bet you don't. How do you expect me to see your POV?

Would you expect me to ask you to see my POV without making an argument? Clearly you wouldn't. I wouldn't throw around half-assed insults over it.

21-7-b: dishonest


The insult du-jour?
 
2012-01-03 08:30:22 PM  

Party Boy: Turkey and Armenia


Armenia and Kurdistan

Just give me a good plan without the hysteria.
 
2012-01-03 08:37:45 PM  
for the love of god, you can't complain breathlessly about accusing me of silencing you and me asking for you to substantiate yourself.

Just give me a good plan.
 
2012-01-03 08:42:10 PM  
Party Boy

i'm beginning to think you don't even know what "substantiate" means. you are a dishonest little prick. fark off
 
2012-01-03 08:47:48 PM  

Party Boy: Just give me a good plan.


21-7-b: i'm beginning to think you don't even know what "substantiate" means. you are a dishonest little prick. fark off


And thats how this conversation ends. With no content and an insult.
 
2012-01-03 09:01:07 PM  
you're a dishonest little prick. fark off
 
2012-01-03 09:01:39 PM  

Party Boy: Party Boy: Just give me a good plan.

21-7-b: i'm beginning to think you don't even know what "substantiate" means. you are a dishonest little prick. fark off

And thats how this conversation ends. With no content and an insult.



www.helpful.com

What?

You were expecting some wine and soft music by the fire? Maybe a little cuddling on the love seat?
 
2012-01-03 09:16:32 PM  

21-7-b: Amos Quito

the iranian threats of retaliation are bravado, you dimwit. the iranian regime is desperately searching for a way to hang on to power over the next six months. the regime is as good as dead and will be brought down internally by the forces of freedom and democracy - and they know it is coming.



You really think so?

Because if you do, you should spare no expense to notify "Obey", Congress, AIPAC and Bibi of this wonderful news!

As it is, they're about to make colossal fools of themselves (yet again) by provoking hostilities that may well escalate into WWIII, which would kill untold millions of human beings and destroy the world economy, not to mention being a MAJOR embarrassment for Obama.

Might even cost him the election.

Ride, Paul Revere! Ride!
 
2012-01-03 09:18:40 PM  
I don't see what the story is.
To surmmise, Iran is trying to either goad the US into acting, or trying to scare someone.
The navy won't be spooked and the president probably won't waver or even answer these threats.

If Iran so much as scuffs someone's hull, they'll be taken out.
If not by the US then by order of the UN or other allied force.

It doesn't matter if they can strike back or damage a ship. They won't have a navy left when this is over.

So it's a dangerous game of threats but nothing they will dare act on.
But, By publishing the story and pretending it's got weight, the media helps Iran score points with its home crowd and any foreign backers it has left.

If you want to hurt Iran, isolate and ignore them.
 
2012-01-03 09:19:12 PM  

Rent Party: Tenders aren't needed to support the fleet any more. We've got bases all over the planet, and TLAM doctrine in particular doesn't make use of them as part of sustained combat operations.


Who's going to reload all those TLAMs in Bahrain?

The Acadia reloaded a couple hundred TLAMs pier side in Bahrain during Desert Storm, provided emergent repairs and ordnance unload to the USS Princeton after her mine damage, and one of the first repair jobs I took part in after arriving from C school was the steam valve replacement for the USS Iwo Jima. Our 1992 deployment we completed a DD's entire post-deployment work package (scheduled for 2-3 months at a civvie shipyard) in two weeks, and saved millions of dollars in the process. Not including sundry CASREPs, voyage repairs, collision damage repairs, fly away teams, etc.

My last deployment (2001/Enduring Freedom) the 963 I was on finished the deployment with one down GTM, one GTM yellow tagged, a switchboard that was jurry rigged after a Class C fire because we weren't alloted the needed spares, (EMs had to string the emergency lights through half the ship) and had to manhandle a GTM cooling fan from the down engine in MER2 to a good engine in MER1 (cutting out equipment in the passageways, etc.)

All jobs that could have been handled in a couple of days at a low cost alongside the Gulf deployed tender, but today requires flying a shipyard team thousands of miles on Per Diem. Bases != routine or battle damage repair capability.

The DD also had to fly personnel out to Rota or Sig from the Gulf to get medical and dental work that could have been done by a deployed tender with a quicker turnaround.

Yes smaller fleet, etc. but the fewer ships are being run more ragged. Haven't heard about all the maintenance issues currently being faced by the fleet? More to it than the missing Navy IMAs, but that is a contribution IMHO. Also a smaller fleet means that each ship on station counts more.

And what about the LCS, their crew can't even perform any PMS higher than monthly due to low manning. Who's going to maintain them on deployment? Shipyard fly away teams being paid per Diem. Sound familiar? The tender navy doesn't have as many highly paid lobbyists as the civilian yards I guess...

Any opinion on why the Land's homeport was changed from Italy to Diego Garcia? The little base in Bahrain had everything handled, right?
 
2012-01-03 09:20:00 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123:
You might want to read up on Test Baker of Operation Crossroads. 23 kiloton blast. First test after Trinity.

At least now I know what ever happened to the Prinz Eugen. Darn shame.


Er, first test was Test Able, the air drop. And while Baker was much more devastating than Able, it still didn't create a Tsunami. A giant upsurge of extremely hot and radioactive water, perhaps, but not a tsunami. It is a shame what happened to the Prinz Eugen, though. It survived everything that the old era threw at it, only to die to the dawn of the new era.

Amos Quito:
As you may have noticed, a lot of Farkers are getting all Viagraized over the idea that Iran should have the chutzpah to threaten to retaliate over the crippling and provocative sanctions "Obey" and the Congress just unleashed on Iran.


Here's the thing. Iran is threatening to retaliate to an US action by attacking many, many countries that are completely neutral in the situation. Closing the Straits will require attacks on neutral civilian shipping, shipping that isn't even US-flagged.

Just because an action gives the US a bloody nose in addition to the ruptured spleen it gives another country doesn't make it acceptable.
 
2012-01-03 09:23:36 PM  

Party Boy: 21-7-b: why would i be?

Well, you went from21-7-b: 2011-12-06 08:12:57 AM
paging Party Boy back

you and I have been fighting side-by-side for years.


It is funny, you two both got the green Farky at the same time as you conversed with each other. It was an odd sensation. I got over it but I thought I'd mention it.
 
2012-01-03 09:27:24 PM  

One Bad Apple: VictorOfBorge: The USN shouldn't get too cocky...

[upload.wikimedia.org image 640x432]

Actually I don't see why not ....



U.S.S. Samuel B. Roberts story:

The frigate deployed from its home port in Newport, Rhode Island in January 1988, heading for the Persian Gulf to participate in Operation Earnest Will, the escort of reflagged Kuwaiti tankers during the Iran-Iraq War. The Roberts had arrived in the Persian Gulf and was heading for a refueling rendezvous on 14 April when the ship struck an M-08 naval mine in the central Persian Gulf, an area it had safely transited a few days previously. The mine blew a 15-foot (5 m) hole in the hull, flooded the engine room, and knocked the two gas turbines from their mounts. The blast also broke the keel of the ship; such structural damage is almost always fatal to most vessels. The crew fought fire and flooding for five hours and saved the ship. Her crew ran cables to stitch the two ends of the ship together. She used her auxiliary thrusters to get out of the mine field at 5kts. She never lost combat capability with her radars and Mk13 missile launcher. Ten sailors were medevaced for injuries sustained in the blast, six returned to the Roberts in a day or so. Four burn victims were sent for treatment to a military hospital in Germany, and eventually to medical facilities in the United States.[1]



When U.S. divers recovered several unexploded mines, they found that their serial numbers matched the sequence on mines seized the previous September aboard an Iranian mine-layer named Iran Ajr.

Nothing fancy here, folks. Just be careful of low-tech weapons as well as the high-tech ones. If the Stennis blunders into a mine field, it won't be pretty. Putting deep ocean ships into constrained waterways isn't smart.

The bolded stuff is plenty brag worthy. It isn't the gear itself that makes us the best it is our familiarity with it. The US military trains like nobody else on the planet. Damage control tech and doctrine is what bea ...


I believe the article I quoted from wiki is inaccurate regarding losing radar and fire control. I watched interviews with the crew and c/o and according to them, they did. It was the actions of a sailor putting himself at great risk to get a generator started restoring power that got those systems on line. The back-ups that were supposed to keep those things alive even without ships power failed. Still, a great feat of damage control on the part of the crew of the Sammy B.

Sadly, all Iran needs to do is to fart at a tanker and gas prices in the U.S. could be over $5/gallon.
 
2012-01-03 09:35:07 PM  

UnspokenVoice: It is funny, you two both got the green Farky at the same time as you conversed with each other. It was an odd sensation. I got over it but I thought I'd mention it.


Frankly, I have no idea whats going on with 21-7-b.

Its invasion of the body snatchers weird. I'm accused of silencing him, but he won't tell me his POV? I'm supposedly off topic while covering sanctions (the TFA), but I need to mention the Kurds..

Considering the ringer I can go through on these threads on sources and every nuanced part of my argument, I'm a jerk if I need him to flesh out his?

???
 
2012-01-03 09:38:27 PM  

Party Boy: tell me his POV?


substantiate is a better word.

Theres a long history around the problems of westerners demanding new borders in the Middle East. Some westerners are/were just actively in Kurdistan performing military training.

Stating this isn't a problem with the west and borders??

Man, sometimes the hysteria that happens here is twilight zone strange.
 
2012-01-03 09:56:07 PM  

way south: I don't see what the story is.
To surmmise, Iran is trying to either goad the US into acting, or trying to scare someone.



Wait. "We" just launched horrific economic sanctions against Iran, and you're saying that it is THEY who are doing the "goading"?

media.screened.com

We're awake, but we're VERY puzzled.


way south: So it's a dangerous game of threats but nothing they will dare act on.
But, By publishing the story and pretending it's got weight, the media helps Iran score points with its home crowd and any foreign backers it has left.



Well, obviously the goal of this propaganda is to help Americans "forget" that it is WE, the USA, that are the aggressors here. To get our blood pumping for war.

The idea is to stimulate the flow of testosterone in the masses - to get 'Mericuns in the mood to KICK SOME IRANIAN ASS!

Is it working? Read the thread.


/People are basically stupid
 
2012-01-03 10:19:26 PM  

NEDM: Amos Quito:
As you may have noticed, a lot of Farkers are getting all Viagraized over the idea that Iran should have the chutzpah to threaten to retaliate over the crippling and provocative sanctions "Obey" and the Congress just unleashed on Iran.


Here's the thing. Iran is threatening to retaliate to an US action by attacking many, many countries that are completely neutral in the situation



What are they supposed to do? Threaten to take out our satellites with their space lasers?

People/nations that are cornered and desperate tend to defend themselves any way they can.

Were it not for the naked aggression of the US (acting as Israel's thug), there would be nothing to retaliate against, would there? Regardless of what happens here, the ultimate cause will have been US/Israeli aggression.

Bear that in mind.

NEDM: Just because an action gives the US a bloody nose in addition to the ruptured spleen it gives another country doesn't make it acceptable.



Then why is the US/Israeli aggression acceptable? It is we, not they. that will bear the ultimate responsibility for any and all repercussions.

We should mind our own business. We don't need any more enemies, and we should shour as HELL reconsider the nature of our relationship with some of our "friends".

Don't you think?
 
2012-01-03 10:44:28 PM  

doglover: DarnoKonrad: doglover: DarnoKonrad: There's a pretty good reason we only attack nations with military technology we sold in the 60s.

Not really.

It's just worked out that way. We took on Germany TWICE in the world wars. The were THE premiere military when we did that, both times.


But, since the world wars, pretty much none of the countries involved have come to blows against each other. We ALMOST did with Russia, but shiat's cooled down a bit. And that's a good thing. Peace is always more profitable.



Germany didn't give us a choice, they declared war. I'm talking about wars of convenience.

Yeah, um they didn't really declare war on us. They kinda did a number in Europe and we got pulled in.

In world war I happened by accident when the Germans sunk passenger ships and hit one with Americans on.

In world war two, they did indeed declare on us. But only because we declared war on Japan and by then the treaties had been flying thick and heavy. We woulda been drawn into Europe somehow, though.

And let's not forget the Japanese. They might not have had the resources for a long campaign, but at the outset their Zeros weren't exactly something to laugh at and the Yamato might have gone down to Davy Jones, but she took just as much sending as any ship in our ports.

I'm tellin' you Americans are just the new Romans. We crush people in the field when we can, and say "Now wasn't that nice." but when things get ugly, we get uglier. All the high tech in the world doesn't change our national character. Look at the sports we like.


Nonsense. Hitler was angry that he couldn't hinder our trade with England and Russia. The Axis Pact ONLY covered aggressive actions against it's members, not aggressive acts against outside countries. Had we attacked Japan first, then Hitler would have been obligated. Pearl Harbor was obviously out of the scope of the treaty, but Hitler thought Japan had us covered so he took the risk.
 
2012-01-03 10:50:20 PM  

dittybopper: DarnoKonrad: Germany didn't give us a choice, they declared war. I'm talking about wars of convenience.

Technically, no they didn't: In WWI, we declared war on Germany, and in WWII, we were in a shooting war with Germany by our own discretion months before Hitler declared war on us. Just ask the crew of the USS Reuben James, sunk in October of 1941 while escorting convoy HX-156. Or you can ask the crew of USS Niblack, which attacked a (probably phantom) German u-boat in April of 1941.


We started war with Germany by having them sink our ship.

Oh, oh you mean protecting our trade was our big act of war.

Yea right, keep chasing "phantoms", you don't know dick about history.
 
2012-01-03 10:53:38 PM  

DarnoKonrad: Really all depends on how good their guided missile systems are. There's a pretty good reason we only attack nations with military technology we sold in the 60s.


This statement is easily one of the dumbest things I've read in a long time. Truly moronic.
 
2012-01-03 11:13:19 PM  
I thought you said you were from Iran!
 
2012-01-03 11:25:47 PM  
This is a situation all of Iran's making. While I am doubtful the US would have used Iraq as a launching pad for an invasion of Iran, George W. Bush and later President Obama opted for the European approach of negotiations and sanctions. Unfortunately, negotiations and sanctions have not stopped Iran's nuclear ambissions, despite being given options from Russia that would have de-escalted this situation and still would have allowed Iran to keep its nuclear program.

Unfortunately, Iran has boxed itself into a corner and if this does come to a shooting conflict, I would be willing to bet it will be Iran who fires the first shot. While I do not worry about how long we can go without firing a shot, it is Iran I worry about. Already I have read today about how China is still buying oil from Iran, but at a steep discount... How long will this continue????
 
2012-01-03 11:37:08 PM  

jpo2269: Already I have read today about how China is still buying oil from Iran, but at a steep discount...



China continues to buy oil from Iran in SPITE of the US sanctions? What does this mean?

Is China effectively siding with Iran in thumbing its nose at these tough US sanctions?

Does China see these sanctions as the unjust and unfounded bullshiat that they are?

Where does it go from here?

Are we ready to do battle with the ChIranians?
 
2012-01-04 12:03:04 AM  
Amos Quito SmartestFunniest 2012-01-03 11:37:08 PM


jpo2269: Already I have read today about how China is still buying oil from Iran, but at a steep discount...


China continues to buy oil from Iran in SPITE of the US sanctions? What does this mean?

Is China effectively siding with Iran in thumbing its nose at these tough US sanctions?

Does China see these sanctions as the unjust and unfounded bullshiat that they are?

Where does it go from here?

Are we ready to do battle with the ChIranians?


Well, I would just say it is the Chinese doing what the Chinese do... look out for themselves. Obviously if we really want to place blame on countries OTHER than IRAN, you could add China, Russia and Germany, but none of the named countries are bragging about wanting to eliminate another country and shoot, lets be honest, taking on China and/or Russia would require nuclear arms and that is something thankfully no one wants to deal with at this point. (IMO, not sure Iran would feel the same way).
 
2012-01-04 12:24:53 AM  

jpo2269: Amos Quito SmartestFunniest 2012-01-03 11:37:08 PM


jpo2269: Already I have read today about how China is still buying oil from Iran, but at a steep discount...


China continues to buy oil from Iran in SPITE of the US sanctions? What does this mean?

Is China effectively siding with Iran in thumbing its nose at these tough US sanctions?

Does China see these sanctions as the unjust and unfounded bullshiat that they are?

Where does it go from here?

Are we ready to do battle with the ChIranians?

Well, I would just say it is the Chinese doing what the Chinese do... look out for themselves.



Well, isn't that what Iran is trying to do?

jpo2269: Obviously if we really want to place blame on countries OTHER than IRAN, you could add China, Russia and Germany


Interesting quartet. Shall we call them the new "Axis Powers"?


jpo2269: but none of the named countries are bragging about wanting to eliminate another country



Yeah, but you didn't name Israel, who has been bragging about how they're going to take Iran out for a long, long time.

jpo2269: lets be honest, taking on China and/or Russia would require nuclear arms and that is something thankfully no one wants to deal with at this point. (IMO, not sure Iran would feel the same way).


So you see how easily this could escalate.

People do stupid shiat all the time. Governments do even STOOPIDER shiat, because stupidity is collective and cumulative.

Have a beer.
 
2012-01-04 03:34:58 AM  
The scope of the situation in Iran is a bit more complicated than what has been discussed in this thread.

Party Boyand Amos Quito have both talked extensively about major influences to US policy from a special interest group. The citations (not accusations) provided may seem as shocking to a numb finger on the pulse of global politics (an unfortunate majority) but otherwise it's business as usual. Israel's presence in the region has been a point of tension since it's inception; that's just a fact. Unfortunately how we got to this point is fast becoming a moot detail of the situation.

We are not concerned that Iran may obtain the ability to produce nuclear weapons. It is not a question of technological hurdles they've left to overcome; Iran is perfectly capable of producing a weapon. Though material production development (for peaceful and military purposes) has been impeded in recent years, it is due to constant assassinations and espionage (not sanctions imposed). The overall state of their technology is a capable one with support. There's no use pretending this is about Iran's 'potential' to acquire the technology they already have.

Contrary to popular belief Iran has exhibited considerable patience. The current regime has voluntarily become unpopular; not many citizens are happy to tolerate economic hardship and terrorism as a consequence of political disagreements. This is only further escalated by hostile factions of political dissidents organized by foreign intelligence agencies (terrorist extremist cells by American definition). One might argue that if America were in Iran's position they'd have glassed the nation(s) responsible, indefinitely 'detained' and/or neutralized local militant terrorist factions. Whether or not you want to acknowledge this the situation still begs the question: Why?

In 1999 Boris Yeltsin resigned as president of Russia; Vladimir Putin took office following the subsequent election and promptly took it upon himself to crush the Russian oligarchy Putin's reform efforts stabilized Russia's economy and subsequently made him an enemy to some of the most powerful persons on the planet. What followed was nothing short of political warfare that ended only when Russia took Europe's gas supply hostage and was evicted from the G8. Following this was a major investment into Rosatom Nuclear Energy State Corporation which built nuclear reactors in Iran, China, Vietnam and Belarus. Putin followed this by endorsing Tehran as having the right to pursue nuclear energy as a sign of non-compliance.

Iran's unwillingness to recognize Israel is a trifling matter in the grand scheme of things that serves to incite conflict. The ability to shutdown the Strait of Hormuz for three weeks is sufficient time to induce anarchy into the markets. The conflict which emerges sway neutral nations to take sides. With appropriate weapons support or aggressive market exploitation of the Rosneft agreement with ExxonMobile, price gouging of natural gas supplies to Europe (already financially strained) and economic sanctions by China the result in a rapid destabilization of European and US currencies.

Securing the Strait of Hormuz may seem an entirely valid objective on the surface in that context. Strategically it is a bear trap baited with Iran's disdain for Israel.
 
2012-01-04 03:59:40 AM  
Peeps who think that Iran would win this "war" are insane.
 
2012-01-04 04:10:07 AM  

mr lawson: Peeps who think that Iran would win this "war" are insane.


Iran doesn't need to win the war; they just need to start it.

/The pen is mightier
//etc
 
2012-01-04 04:32:56 AM  

shijjiri: mr lawson: Peeps who think that Iran would win this "war" are insane.

Iran doesn't need to win the war; they just need to start it.

/The pen is mightier
//etc


I'm sure Saddam was overjoyed when public opinion turned against the Iraq War. That really worked out well for him.
 
2012-01-04 06:48:34 AM  
it's good to see that the idiots who don't understand the iranian people or the israeli people also don't understand the chinese people. look at the old eastern bloc - contrast with china. old eastern bloc - people couldn't try to leave their countries without their regimes trying to kill them. china - huge numbers (increasing) of people leave the country en masse to complete their education as young adults - arguably the most formative years of their lives. how profound this contrast is will obviously be lost on idiots like party boy and amos quito, of course, because they are effectively conspiracy nuts. it's just funny to me, though, and i record it here simply for posterity as an example that we are not all as stupid
 
2012-01-04 09:18:09 AM  

21-7-b: it's good to see that the idiots who don't understand the iranian people or the israeli people also don't understand the chinese people. look at the old eastern bloc - contrast with china. old eastern bloc - people couldn't try to leave their countries without their regimes trying to kill them. china - huge numbers (increasing) of people leave the country en masse to complete their education as young adults - arguably the most formative years of their lives. how profound this contrast is will obviously be lost on idiots like party boy and amos quito, of course, because they are effectively conspiracy nuts. it's just funny to me, though, and i record it here simply for posterity as an example that we are not all as stupid


21-7-b, you seem to believe that derogatory commentary followed by self promotion is somehow a valid form of argument and/or effectively represents your capabilities as a critical thinker. This misconception leads to statements like the one above which are tantamount to self deprecation to anyone actually following along.

Regarding China, the largest consumer of Iranian oil, a militant blockade by the Iranian government may not drive them to military action. It is highly probable they will take political and economic actions to pressure the US and Europe. The relationship between Iran, China and Israel of any meaningful consequence is the economic impact on the sweet crude market. The parallels or lack their of between modern China and the old Eastern bloc are utterly irrelevant.
 
Displayed 50 of 512 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report