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.

(Yahoo)   Iran: We can destroy Israel and US Middle Eastern bases in minutes. Charles Darwin: Challenge Accepted   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 206
    More: Dumbass, Charles Darwin, Iran, United States, challenge accepted, Fars News Agency, countries by oil exports, ballistic missiles, Strait of Hormuz  
•       •       •

20715 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Jul 2012 at 9:35 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-05 09:37:05 AM
No!
 
2012-07-05 09:37:26 AM
encrypted-tbn2.google.com
 
2012-07-05 09:37:41 AM
A military commander boasting during a weapons test?

Say it ain't so!
 
2012-07-05 09:38:26 AM
- Iran has threatened to destroy U.S. military bases across the Middle East and target Israel within minutes of being attacked

WTF else is he going to say?
 
2012-07-05 09:42:11 AM
 
2012-07-05 09:42:21 AM
They have the world's most powerful photoshop.
 
2012-07-05 09:43:25 AM
www.theblaze.com
 
2012-07-05 09:43:26 AM
If there's ever a time to let the FREEDOMS ring across America and drum up another war, it's when a military man says something martial about fighting the US. The fact he mentioned Israel also, only means we have to go to war even faster without any long term goal or plans!
 
2012-07-05 09:44:20 AM
I'a a Nut Job has been saying this for years, and I am calling his bluff.
 
2012-07-05 09:44:38 AM
I really don't doubt that they can hit bases with cruise missiles.

What I seriously doubt is that if hitting a few bases with cruise missiles would constitute a decisive blow, and if Iran has any ability to widstand a counterattack by Israel and NATO.
 
2012-07-05 09:45:50 AM

Voiceofreason01: lol, good luck with that guys


But isn't it their Constitutional right to take the 5th?
 
2012-07-05 09:46:14 AM
Iran Threatens to Photoshop Israel Off The Map

Interview: Link
 
2012-07-05 09:47:00 AM
why yes, our "defence" systems will have no problems dealing with your pesky fences!

our DEFENSE isnt too shabby either
 
2012-07-05 09:47:57 AM
Iran has threatened to destroy U.S. military bases across the Middle East and target Israel within minutes of being attacked

Dumbass? More like obvious since the obvious reaction of being attack is to launch a counter strike, it's war 101. Does subby really think that Iran would just sit on their hands if Israel (and by proxy the US) bombed them first? That kind of GOP logic is what mired us in Iraq for the last 9 years.
 
2012-07-05 09:48:30 AM

Voiceofreason01: lol, good luck with that guys


The concept of a carrier battle group is all fine and dandy until the moment anti-ship missiles are thrown at it. It only takes a single missile to hit a inconvenient target to turn the entire battlegroup into an irrelevant waste of money.
 
2012-07-05 09:48:45 AM
imgc.allpostersimages.com
 
2012-07-05 09:49:02 AM
www.blogcdn.com
 
2012-07-05 09:49:51 AM

maggoo: I really don't doubt that they can hit bases with cruise missiles.

What I seriously doubt is that if hitting a few bases with cruise missiles would constitute a decisive blow, and if Iran has any ability to widstand a counterattack by Israel and NATO.


(Glossing over the death, destruction and general mayhem their first strike would cause,) what's Iran's plan after that? Can they afford to reload? If they sink the whole 5th Fleet, will they have enough in the tank to take out the 3rd, 4th, 6th, 7th and 10th as well?

Good luck with that. 2000km east or west won't get you off the continent, and we've got more hardware on that half of the world than anyone else.

// 'sides which, it's only other countries with citizens at risk
// MERKA FARK YEAH
 
2012-07-05 09:51:31 AM
www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com
"We can destroy your bases minutes after attack."
 
2012-07-05 09:52:20 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: A military commander boasting during a weapons test?

Say it ain't so!


This. I was going to ask if they hired Baghdad Bob.

Are they going to make the rivers run red with the blood of the infidels?

*snore*
 
2012-07-05 09:53:03 AM
Why is it that news headlines are rarely comprised of even elementary-level sentence structure?
 
2012-07-05 09:55:30 AM

dennysgod: Iran has threatened to destroy U.S. military bases across the Middle East and target Israel within minutes of being attacked

Dumbass? More like obvious since the obvious reaction of being attack is to launch a counter strike, it's war 101. Does subby really think that Iran would just sit on their hands if Israel (and by proxy the US) bombed them first? That kind of GOP logic is what mired us in Iraq for the last 9 years.


Counter strike is one thing. Suggesting they will result in the 'destruction' of our bases 'within minutes' is quite another.
 
2012-07-05 09:55:37 AM

Dr Dreidel: (Glossing over the death, destruction and general mayhem their first strike would cause,) what's Iran's plan after that? Can they afford to reload? If they sink the whole 5th Fleet, will they have enough in the tank to take out the 3rd, 4th, 6th, 7th and 10th as well?

Good luck with that. 2000km east or west won't get you off the continent, and we've got more hardware on that half of the world than anyone else.


This. This news report is the equivalent of a whimpy kid boasting that he may land a slap or a sucker punch at the start of a fight. Yeah, no one doubts that. In fact, he is expected to.

Yet, what he really needs to worry is how he can end the fight, not start it. That's the hard part.

If there is any doubt in that, look at how Japan managed to hit the US in Pearl Harbour, and then let's see how that war developed.
 
2012-07-05 09:56:22 AM

ciberido: [BaghdadBob.jpg]
"We can destroy your bases minutes after attack."


*shakes tiny fist*
 
2012-07-05 09:56:25 AM
Dear Iran,

Something being in range of the fuel load of your missles and you actually being able to hit your intended target are 2 completely different things.

Signed,

Everyone
 
2012-07-05 09:57:12 AM
He is a military commander overseeing an exercise. His message was not for your consumption.
 
2012-07-05 09:57:42 AM
Why anybody is even paying attention to these clowns is beyond me. Just go about your business and ignore them. It's like North Korea, paying attention to them only encourages bad behavior.
 
2012-07-05 09:58:37 AM

theknuckler_33: Counter strike is one thing. Suggesting they will result in the 'destruction' of our bases 'within minutes' is quite another.


That's quite possible. It only takes a single bomb in a runway to disable an airfield.

The real problem is that that hitting a base, or even completely destroying it, isn't enough to win a war.
 
2012-07-05 09:59:52 AM
Then, when Iran is attacked, the rest of the world chuckles as the so-called "first strike response" ends up being nothing more than a bunch of confused, jabbering, histrionic bearded men scrambling around in white nightshirts trying to find their latest copy of Photoshop and a picture of a U.S. base.
 
2012-07-05 10:03:14 AM

maggoo: Voiceofreason01: lol, good luck with that guys

The concept of a carrier battle group is all fine and dandy until the moment anti-ship missiles are thrown at it. It only takes a single missile to hit a inconvenient target to turn the entire battlegroup into an irrelevant waste of money.


Wow, you[re assuming the USN hasn't thought about that scenario, and failed to develop tactics and countermeasures to defend against just that kind of attack. Quick, let someone know before it's too late!

First, the Iranians would need to locate the CVBG. It doesn't get within eyeball range of shore, so that means a drone or plane has to get within range. Bad news there. How about a sub, you're thinking. Right, that's why CVBG's all carry ASW planes, and every escort has ASW helicopters and sonar.

Assuming the Iranians somehow locate the CVBG, now they've got to launch SSM's at it. Even the Soviets, with the best SSM's the USN would face, realized they'd need to overwhelm a CVBG's defenses to get a hit on a carrier. Do the Iranians have that capability? Can they launch 50 or more SSM's simultaneously? Because if they launch one or two, the multilayered air defenses and countermeasures of a CVBG should take care of them (unless someone's criminally negligent on a ship).

Ok, let's assume the Iranians somehow accurately locate the CVBG, somehow manage to fire all the SSM's they have at the CVBG, and somehow they aren't all shot down or disabled by the air defenses. Unless the SSM knows what ship to look for, and not "whichever one happens to be in my terminal radar vision", it hits a random ship. If that's an escort then that ship has a big problem. If it's the CVN itself, it will be damaged and perhaps disabled, but it won't sink unless we get a Lexington-type situation on board, and USN damage control practices are top notch.

Yeah, the CVBG has to guard against an Iranian SSM attack, but only because blind luck could still happen.
 
2012-07-05 10:03:21 AM

maggoo: theknuckler_33: Counter strike is one thing. Suggesting they will result in the 'destruction' of our bases 'within minutes' is quite another.

That's quite possible. It only takes a single bomb in a runway to disable an airfield.

The real problem is that that hitting a base, or even completely destroying it, isn't enough to win a war.


I'm sure our bases have only a single runway. Yes, I suppose it is possible they could temporarily slow down flight operations (until repairs are made). That's a far cry from "destroyed".
 
2012-07-05 10:03:22 AM

airsupport: Then, when Iran is attacked, the rest of the world chuckles as the so-called "first strike response" ends up being nothing more than a bunch of confused, jabbering, histrionic bearded men scrambling around in white nightshirts trying to find their latest copy of Photoshop and a picture of a U.S. base.



Even if you assume that they have the hardware for a significant response, what reason do we have to think that it would survive the strike it is retaliating against? Don't we destroy the crap that can hurt us in the first strike?
 
2012-07-05 10:04:37 AM
why is this news? dont the israelis and iranians threaten to kill eachother pretty much everyday? And its not like either of their impotent and flaccid militaries could even hurt each other. lets imagine that the israelis and iranians actually did grow some farking balls and goto war. How does that effect me 14000 miles away. Finally, i hope the iranians get nukes soon so that all the different flavors of sand people will be pretty much be forced to get along or kill eachother. either way is fine with me. this dick waving contest is getting old.
 
2012-07-05 10:07:11 AM

fracto73: airsupport: Then, when Iran is attacked, the rest of the world chuckles as the so-called "first strike response" ends up being nothing more than a bunch of confused, jabbering, histrionic bearded men scrambling around in white nightshirts trying to find their latest copy of Photoshop and a picture of a U.S. base.


Even if you assume that they have the hardware for a significant response, what reason do we have to think that it would survive the strike it is retaliating against? Don't we destroy the crap that can hurt us in the first strike?


Well, I'm no expert, but if we were doing a bombing run, presumably to take out sites that enrich uranium (since that's the whole point of threatening attacks), we'd probably concentrate on anti-aircraft installments first to protect the bombers, then of course go after the nuclear facilities.

I'm sure they could include long range missile installations in the attack plan too, but I would imagine that they try pretty hard to keep them hidden and/or mobile (same with the AA stuff too). I would also imagine that we have a pretty good handle on how dangerous those long term missiles really are compared to their bombastic claims.
 
2012-07-05 10:07:45 AM

maggoo: Voiceofreason01: lol, good luck with that guys

The concept of a carrier battle group is all fine and dandy until the moment anti-ship missiles are thrown at it. It only takes a single missile to hit a inconvenient target to turn the entire battlegroup into an irrelevant waste of money.


Ya, not like there is any anti-missile defense systems around or anything.
 
2012-07-05 10:08:01 AM
airsupport: Then, when Iran is attacked, the rest of the world chuckles as the so-called "first strike response" ends up being nothing more than a bunch of confused, jabbering, histrionic bearded men scrambling around in white nightshirts trying to find their latest copy of Photoshop and a picture of a U.S. base.

mb, until russia and/or china come to their defense anyway. I don;t think people really understand where an attack on iran will lead. do we really want global thermonuclear war?
 
2012-07-05 10:09:55 AM

maggoo: Dr Dreidel: (Glossing over the death, destruction and general mayhem their first strike would cause,) what's Iran's plan after that? Can they afford to reload? If they sink the whole 5th Fleet, will they have enough in the tank to take out the 3rd, 4th, 6th, 7th and 10th as well?

Good luck with that. 2000km east or west won't get you off the continent, and we've got more hardware on that half of the world than anyone else.

This. This news report is the equivalent of a whimpy kid boasting that he may land a slap or a sucker punch at the start of a fight. Yeah, no one doubts that. In fact, he is expected to.

Yet, what he really needs to worry is how he can end the fight, not start it. That's the hard part.

If there is any doubt in that, look at how Japan managed to hit the US in Pearl Harbour, and then let's see how that war developed.


Germans bombed Pearl Harbor.
 
2012-07-05 10:10:27 AM
Iran, from TFA:
"We have thought of measures to set up bases and deploy missiles to destroy all these bases in the early minutes after an attack,"

US, Israel:
"Whatever. We have thought about you thinking about that"
 
2012-07-05 10:10:29 AM

lazyguineapig33: why is this news? dont the israelis and iranians threaten to kill eachother pretty much everyday? And its not like either of their impotent and flaccid militaries could even hurt each other. lets imagine that the israelis and iranians actually did grow some farking balls and goto war. How does that effect me 14000 miles away. Finally, i hope the iranians get nukes soon so that all the different flavors of sand people will be pretty much be forced to get along or kill eachother. either way is fine with me. this dick waving contest is getting old.


1. Israel has a pretty good military.

2. If you had read the article and had the ability to understand it, you would have realized that Iran also threatened to attack US bases in the area. US bases, in case you did not know it, also means US military personnel.

3. Any attack by Iran on a US military base would be an act of war that we could not ignore.

4. Why do ignorance and racism always march side by side?
 
2012-07-05 10:14:58 AM

Thunderpipes: maggoo: Voiceofreason01: lol, good luck with that guys

The concept of a carrier battle group is all fine and dandy until the moment anti-ship missiles are thrown at it. It only takes a single missile to hit a inconvenient target to turn the entire battlegroup into an irrelevant waste of money.

Ya, not like there is any anti-missile defense systems around or anything.


Indeed. Phalanx CIWS.
 
2012-07-05 10:16:31 AM

wantingout: airsupport: Then, when Iran is attacked, the rest of the world chuckles as the so-called "first strike response" ends up being nothing more than a bunch of confused, jabbering, histrionic bearded men scrambling around in white nightshirts trying to find their latest copy of Photoshop and a picture of a U.S. base.

mb, until russia and/or china come to their defense anyway. I don;t think people really understand where an attack on iran will lead. do we really want global thermonuclear war?


I think this thread is more an exercise in ridiculing the statement made in TFA rather than a 'war game' type of thing.
 
2012-07-05 10:22:00 AM

carrion_luggage: Iran Threatens to Photoshop Israel Off The Map

Interview: Link


Wow, edgy.
 
2012-07-05 10:22:30 AM
ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US.
 
2012-07-05 10:23:08 AM
Iran does inflate it's claims. But their missiles are getting better. During this exercise, using their shorter range missiles they have pictures of the target area being impacted. The target area was an outline of a 'military base'.

CV's have little to worry about.

One or two bombs on runways would not even slow down F/A ops. Heavy bombers that need alot of runway, come from bases mucho grande away.

We do have to be dilligent. That is why more resources are heading to the region. (USS PONCE has arrived).

Like it was mentioned. We can't let our guard down.....like when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor.
 
2012-07-05 10:24:05 AM

maggoo: It only takes a single bomb in a runway to disable an airfield.


For maybe 24 hours. And many airbases have a parallel taxiway that could be used.
 
2012-07-05 10:24:25 AM

maggoo: Dr Dreidel: (Glossing over the death, destruction and general mayhem their first strike would cause,) what's Iran's plan after that? Can they afford to reload? If they sink the whole 5th Fleet, will they have enough in the tank to take out the 3rd, 4th, 6th, 7th and 10th as well?

Good luck with that. 2000km east or west won't get you off the continent, and we've got more hardware on that half of the world than anyone else.

This. This news report is the equivalent of a whimpy kid boasting that he may land a slap or a sucker punch at the start of a fight. Yeah, no one doubts that. In fact, he is expected to.

Yet, what he really needs to worry is how he can end the fight, not start it. That's the hard part.

If there is any doubt in that, look at how Japan managed to hit the US in Pearl Harbour, and then let's see how that war developed.


That was before Vietnam, Lebanon, Mogadishu, and Operation Iraqi Freedom.

They literally only need to kill one US soldier to win now. The only military actions the media will consider a success are literally the ones with no US casualties whatsoever (Bosnia, bin Laden's capture).

/and it will get even worse when the media begins demanding that there be no enemy fatalities either
 
2012-07-05 10:24:47 AM
In 93 while transiting the straights into the gulf one of our battle group was painted with Iraqi radar ..... we left the gulf 4 days later to go get more bombs.


A carrier battle group has the capability to defend itself against anything they have to throw at it
 
2012-07-05 10:25:20 AM
It really doesn't matter to me one way or the other, but I'd love to see the look on the faces of Americans if they really did blitz and cause a lot of damage. That's a pay-per-view I'd definitely take 5 minutes to find a free stream for.
 
2012-07-05 10:26:06 AM

Thunderpipes: maggoo: Dr Dreidel: (Glossing over the death, destruction and general mayhem their first strike would cause,) what's Iran's plan after that? Can they afford to reload? If they sink the whole 5th Fleet, will they have enough in the tank to take out the 3rd, 4th, 6th, 7th and 10th as well?

Good luck with that. 2000km east or west won't get you off the continent, and we've got more hardware on that half of the world than anyone else.

This. This news report is the equivalent of a whimpy kid boasting that he may land a slap or a sucker punch at the start of a fight. Yeah, no one doubts that. In fact, he is expected to.

Yet, what he really needs to worry is how he can end the fight, not start it. That's the hard part.

If there is any doubt in that, look at how Japan managed to hit the US in Pearl Harbour, and then let's see how that war developed.

Germans bombed Pearl Harbor.


Please tell me you are not farking serious right now.
 
2012-07-05 10:27:42 AM

beta_plus: They have the world's most powerful photoshop.


Yes,but they don't have RugbyJock to really enhance the
potency of their missles.
 
Displayed 50 of 206 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report