Iranian Navy in Running for Darwin Award

[M.Dancer]

I'll reword this for you: "I've never been in "THE" barn".

Meaning the BS manufacturing site that so many others get their daily propaganda from.

Baaaabaaabaaaaa

edited to add: Is this the best you can do Dancer? I think you need to learn a few new steps!!

Actually Buffy I was trying to help you. I was worried someone would read your post and assume you were calling the Americans Neo Nazis. I wouldn't want someone to think you were ignorant or immature or possibly so stupid as to not know what neo nazism is so I thought some misdirection would help. Afterall, aside from the Iranians not being to socialist, they are pretty close to fascism...and that could be seen as an honest mistake which is better than being seen as deliberately nuts.

Edited January 11, 2008 by M.Dancer

[M.Dancer]

6200+ posts and seemingly 9/10 of them seem to consist of terse sniping and sarcastic drivel.

Far better than 960 odd that seem to consist of someone making themselves out to be a braggart and a fool..

[Oleg Bach]

Actually Buffy I was trying to help you. I was worried someone would read your post and assume you were calling the Americans Neo Nazis. I wouldn't want someone to think you were ignorant or immature or possibly so stupid as to not know what neo nazism is so I thought some misdirection would help. Afterall, aside from the Iranians not being to socialist, they are pretty close to fascism...and that could be seen as an honest mistake which is better than being seen as deliberately nuts.

Give the guy some credit. New nationalist socialist or as you put it Neo-Nazi..do exist. Usually they are comprised of a small ruling group that control the left the right- say the republicans and the democrats. This group themselves are not socialist - but like socialism for everyone - of course not for themselves or their own families. So what's wrong with good old fashioned facism, the rule by one party pretending to be two different entities...it's wonderful to watch. Iran has a front man that represents their facist committee - and ironically Bush his counter part, nemisis and clone, represents his Facist comittee. Uually when two people hate each other or two nations hate each other is because they are exactly the same- Iran is America and America is Iran...just a different colouring - both leaders are exactly of the same mentality and intelligence level - how did that happen? - why facism of course.

[White Doors]

Well, speaking of reading comprehension... the reference to taunting refers back to your taunts about my supposed "envy" and "jealousy" about supposedly not being able to become what members of the CF are... I made mention of the fact that they were taunts in a previous post, and you evidently read that remark because you responded with, well, more of the same kind of taunts. Needless to say, given your fine demonstration of immaturity among other unadmirable traits, why would I ever want to aspire to become something like you, to associate with a group of people who collectively function on a sub-intellectual level? I've known members of the CF, I know what drives them, how they conduct themselves, and what they lack in terms of intellect and morality. You're not fooling me by trying to suggest otherwise, although I'll admit that there is the odd exception. But by the looks of it, you're not one of them.

Well isn't that just peachy.

I KNEW you were a member of that same church.

You get walked ALL OVER in EVERY thread you are in.

it's ironic you know, you strut around thinking you know more than anyone in any given topic and you consistenly get your ass handed to you day in and day out. I admire your stubbornness and consistency is all that I can say.

You even get man-handled when talking about your recious bible.

hahaha

[Tawasakm]

I don't doubt for a second that the US navy (and military in general) would pwn the Iranians.

This thread appears to be an argument over whether or not that is the case so I will weigh in with it from that point of view to start with.

I would like to throw out a few questions though

If the radio message originated from the Iranians then what was their objective and what could they possibly have hoped to achieve from this? (apart from a Darwin award - prestigious though it may be)

Is this incident (even if genuinely actioned by the Iranians) worthy of escalation to war? If so then why? If not then why not?

Has the media been too quick to respond and leaped to too many facts?

If war were to erupt and the US were to annihilate Iranian infrastructure (seems certain to me they could) can we predict the outcomes of such an action on both the middle east and the wider world?

Will a change of US government alter the public perception of such incidents and probable (or desired) responses in the future?

I am curious to garner the thoughts of all of you on this subject.

[moderateamericain]

I don't doubt for a second that the US navy (and military in general) would pwn the Iranians.

This thread appears to be an argument over whether or not that is the case so I will weigh in with it from that point of view to start with.

I would like to throw out a few questions though

1.If the radio message originated from the Iranians then what was their objective and what could they possibly have hoped to achieve from this? (apart from a Darwin award - prestigious though it may be)

2.Is this incident (even if genuinely actioned by the Iranians) worthy of escalation to war? If so then why? If not then why not?

3.Has the media been too quick to respond and leaped to too many facts?

4.If war were to erupt and the US were to annihilate Iranian infrastructure (seems certain to me they could) can we predict the outcomes of such an action on both the middle east and the wider world?

5.Will a change of US government alter the public perception of such incidents and probable (or desired) responses in the future?

I am curious to garner the thoughts of all of you on this subject.

Tawa nice to have you back.

I will attempt to answer your questions to the best of my knowledge or if i dont have a clear understanding myself offer an opinion.

1. I think that when looking for a logical answer to a question such as that you have to look at the motive. What do the Iranians have to gain. I think if you look at the revolutionary guard there is a common theme of martyrdom. I believe that there goal was two fold, to test and see what are response would be to threatening behavior and to provoke an incident. If Iran can force us to into war by the US own action then it would serve two purposes. Turn world opinion against such an action. and Unite there country into opposition.

2. to be clear I believe you are saying is it worth it to the Iranians? If thats what you mean I would say absolutely not. And to me more clear on that to the average Iranian this could only go bad. However, to its tin pot dictator I believe thats exactly what he wants. Which, again i believe to goes back to the holiest of Islamic beliefs, martyrdom.

3. When has the media ever NOT skewed things to there angle. No surprise that they could have jumped the gun.

4. I would hope that we would limit are involvement in Iran to knocking out there ability to wage effective country to country war. In other wards eliminate there military assets and taking out there president. I don't wanna see another full fledged clean up effort like Iraq and Afghanistan.

5. Thats a really great question and I think that in order for that to happen we would need to see a large de-escalation of hostile intent in the region. such as US troops pulled back or out of Iraq. Americans as a whole don't fear war but we are glad to see are sons and daughters come home if you follow.

Edited January 11, 2008 by moderateamericain

[Topaz]

The ONLY country to want and need a war with Iran is the good ole USA. For their military plans in the Middle-East they need control over Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran for military power and for the OIL. Just look at the US embassy in Iraq, a small city, that no US citizen wants to go and work. I hope and pray that Bush doesn't get his way and that the next US government will bring more peace to the world.

[kengs333]

Well isn't that just peachy.

I KNEW you were a member of that same church.

You get walked ALL OVER in EVERY thread you are in.

it's ironic you know, you strut around thinking you know more than anyone in any given topic and you consistenly get your ass handed to you day in and day out. I admire your stubbornness and consistency is all that I can say.

You even get man-handled when talking about your recious bible.

hahaha

I don't recall ever getting my "ass handed to [me]". I think one of the things that I enjoy most about having an intellect is the ability to appreciate things on a level that most others do not. The sad thing about it is that when one has to interact with "others" one has to make certain concessions, just as, for example, a pro hockey player would have to when playing shiney with his kids on the backyard rink. Things are not always what they appear to be, and it would be foolish if those kids would think otherwise.

[kengs333]

Far better than 960 odd that seem to consist of someone making themselves out to be a braggart and a fool..

I'm neither a "braggart and a fool" so I guess we can add one more to your "sarcastic drivel" list...

[kengs333]

Discussion on this subject has wandered back and forth and now has come down to "where did the radio transmissions come from".

In essence it can be boiled down to one indisputable fact. If these boats had pressed an attack it would have been a joke. Three ships, Cruiser, Destroyer and a Frigate. All on high alert. The boats would have lasted approximately 30 seconds or so before becoming seabed litter. As such whoever thought it was a good idea to send them out is positively worthy of a Darwin award.

Which is why this is such a ridiculously inane non-issue which can only seem to be of significance to certain middling types and unpopular presidents who will use any excuse to seem tough.

[M.Dancer]

I'm neither a "braggart and a fool" so I guess we can add one more to your "sarcastic drivel" list...

apparently poor memory and an inability to know when you've lost.

[kengs333]

apparently poor memory and an inability to know when you've lost.

and another...

[buffycat]

This whole story has no more truth to it than the Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman fiascos.

There is BS coming from all sides on this one.

I think the question which really needs to asked is 'who benefits'?

Is this another attempt at a 'Gulf of Tonkin' excuse to wage war on Iran? All nicely timed for Bush's visit to his handlers in Israel? (BTW he has promised Netanyahu to be onside with Israel to launch a nuclear strike against Iran (how nice).

This is all just more lies - and the damage it has done to America is going to take a very long time to rectify - if it can be at all. With the US economy in the trashbin, the housing market in freefall, the debt climbing higher and higher - the only ones to benefit from more war is the MIC and the Bankers - period.

But all you war groupies keep biting on your bits - I'm sure with mr. End of Days Bush your armageddon will be here shortly. Too bad for the rest of us.

[AngusThermopyle]

But all you war groupies keep biting on your bits - I'm sure with mr. End of Days Bush your armageddon will be here shortly. Too bad for the rest of us.

Sorry Buffy, perhaps I'm just missing it but I haven't noticed anyone going rah rah and salivating over the prospect of more war. I also haven't noticed anyone eagerly anticipating Armageddon either. Could you clarify just who does desire these things for me, from what I've read it appears you believe this to be the case with some MLW posters.

[kuzadd]

Discussion on this subject has wandered back and forth and now has come down to "where did the radio transmissions come from".

In essence it can be boiled down to one indisputable fact. If these boats had pressed an attack it would have been a joke. Three ships, Cruiser, Destroyer and a Frigate. All on high alert. The boats would have lasted approximately 30 seconds or so before becoming seabed litter. As such whoever thought it was a good idea to send them out is positively worthy of a Darwin award.

it can't even be boiled down to that. "If these boats had pressed an attack"

Is there any indication at all they were going to?

let's look at what was said....

The speedboats, believed to belong to Iran's Revolutionary Guards, came within about 200m of the US vessels, Pentagon officials said.

believed to belong to, that is BELIEVED to belong

So that means really, well we think that, but we don't really know, but it is what we believe so it's what we are saying , why?

"I am coming at you. You will explode in a couple of minutes," the Iranians said in a radio transmission, according to US officials.

well the US has already backpedalled on that,they don't know where the voices came from, and they do not REALLY KNOW if the boats actually belonged to Iran's , they just "believe" it.

The Iranian boats were operating at "distances and speeds that showed reckless, dangerous and potentially hostile intent," said Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman.

well it seems they "drove around recklessly at a distance (200 metres away) and the "hostile intent" is another assumption, like most of the assumptions made in this thread.

All in all, from what I can read, we got much ado about nothing.

voices, that are unknown inc. who and where they came from?

boats, that maybe or maybe not belong to the Iranian guard?

assumptions of hostile intent?

alot of assumptions and beliefs, rather like religion, really.

[buffycat]

Sorry Buffy, perhaps I'm just missing it but I haven't noticed anyone going rah rah and salivating over the prospect of more war. I also haven't noticed anyone eagerly anticipating Armageddon either. Could you clarify just who does desire these things for me, from what I've read it appears you believe this to be the case with some MLW posters.

Angus I am not going to name names on here, but there are quite a few posters who would support an attack on Iran, even a nuclear one. I suggest to read a few more of their posts where they talk about a nuclear scenario and how it actually could be won. Granted some are not posting as much as they used to, but any looksy through some of the older threads wrt Iran will out them quite well.

I do not want to see the people of Iran being bombed back into the stoneage - while I certainly do not have good feelings for their governmental theocracy I see no reason for the poor folks in Iran to pay the price.

Also, last I checked it is NOT the Iranians screaming for war or for a pre-emptive attack on a soveriegn nation. Those screaming for blood are the US and Israel - period. Even the EU and other Arab nations do NOT want to see a full pfledged attack, perhaps involving limited nuclear strikes.

[M.Dancer]

? (BTW he has promised Netanyahu to be onside with Israel to launch a nuclear strike against Iran (how nice).

lnkplskthxsbye

[DogOnPorch]

b_cat: Angus I am not going to name names on here, but there are quite a few posters who would support an attack on Iran, even a nuclear one. I suggest to read a few more of their posts where they talk about a nuclear scenario and how it actually could be won. Granted some are not posting as much as they used to, but any looksy through some of the older threads wrt Iran will out them quite well.

As the ol' saying goes...'sh*t or get off the pot'. Post a link or stop with the mass strawman attack. 'Cause dats all it is. Some posters...that could be everybody...or nobody.

I think nobody...strawman...

---------------------------------

Some of my best friends are Alien Death Spores from Vega 8.

[Higgly]

Why do people let political ideology blind them to the obvious? No, I don't think the US is going into Iran, but there is no doubt whatsoever the US military is the best equipped in the world, and it's people have the most experience in warfare of any modern military.

So who's political ideology are we talking about really? Why are you giving the US the home team advantage? This is a bloody long way from Iowa is it not?

I'm not sure what metric brings you to that conclusion. Dedicated insurgencies as past history has shown us have been resilent and resourceful. Given the almost 5 years of fighting the US has suffered relatively few casualties in proportion to the losses inflicted on the insurgents and terrorists. So much so it seems that the will to fight seems to be waning on both fronts, against the coalition and against each other (shia-sunni).

I'm wondering why you are looking at Iran as an insurgency. Isn't the shoe on the other foot? Might it be the US who is the insurgency here?

In staight up combat americans rule the battlefield.

Yes, and a teenager can beat up an old lady. What does that prove?

The US isn't restricting anyones access to the Strait of Hormuz except Al Queda and other terrorist organizations. On the contrary, they are guaranteeing access to ships of all countries.

So if a Russian or Chinese battle fleet group happens to wander into the straits of Hormuz, then the US will stand down? Get a clue, Pilgrim.

What i see is some one prevaricating to avoid admitting they are wrong. There are no sovereignty dispute over the strait

Ha ha. I love it. WTF do you think the Iranians are doing?

We fought both Viet Nam and Korea with two hands tied behind our back. It would be a mistake to regard the US as "bluff".

What? Didn't you have enough napalm? Did the 'Masters of War' did not give you something better than your enemy?. Did you watch "Apocolypse Now", JBG? What did you feel when you heard a cavalry officer say, "I love the smell of napalm in the Morning."? What did you feel when you saw a picture on your front page of a crying child naked and scared, running away from a napalm attack? Did you really think that your hands were tied?

The generals were severely restricted in both wars as to where they could bomb, whether they could invade the aggressors' territories, etc. This resulted in at least the Viet Nam war being fought in South Viet Nam, thus ensuring the maximum casualties for friendlies and allowing the North Vietnamese forces to fight without fear of counterattack. Basically, a coin toss of heads the Communists win, tails South Vietnam loses.

O brother.

Vietnam and the iraqi invasion are as comparable as a well thought out post and one of yours.

Vietnam wasn't a conventional war. It was a jungle insurgency. Care to look at the tally of killed?

56,000 US vs over 1 million vietnamese fighters.

So the technolgy got better. What has happened? Thousands of Yanks dead and hundreds of thousands of countrymen dead. The US has technology that makes them better at killing. "Yas boss. Three barrels full boss." Is that what you want to hear, boss?

Sorry Buffy, perhaps I'm just missing it but I haven't noticed anyone going rah rah and salivating over the prospect of more war. I also haven't noticed anyone eagerly anticipating Armageddon either. Could you clarify just who does desire these things for me, from what I've read it appears you believe this to be the case with some MLW posters.

You must have missed John McCain's victory speach in New Hampshire. "I know how to handle Iran." Sound familiar? I am reminded of a song by Simon and Garfunkel. "7 o'Clock News Silent Night" - '... the US can look forward to four more years of war..."

"Oh yee masters of war...."; Bob Dylan; Masters of War; Columbia Records.

[Wilber]

So if a Russian or Chinese battle fleet group happens to wander into the straits of Hormuz, then the US will stand down? Get a clue, Pilgrim.

No one happens to wander in with a battle group. Why would the Chinese or Russians send a battle group? No one is restricting their access to the strait. If their plan was to control which nations had access, you bet the US wouldn't stand down. On the other hand, if their plan was to help keep the Strait open to shipping of all nations, why wouldn't the Americans welcome it?

[Higgly]

No one happens to wander in with a battle group. Why would the Chinese or Russians send a battle group? No one is restricting their access to the strait. If their plan was to control which nations had access, you bet the US wouldn't stand down. On the other hand, if their plan was to help keep the Strait open to shipping of all nations, why wouldn't the Americans welcome it?

So your view is that the US should be the one to guarantee that the starit is open to shipping? Which part of the US borders on the Strait of Hormuz?

[bush_cheney2004]

So your view is that the US should be the one to guarantee that the starit is open to shipping? Which part of the US borders on the Strait of Hormuz?

The part that President Carter defined back in the '70's. Something to do with oil, most of which goes to Europe and Japan, not the USA.

[Higgly]

The part that President Carter defined back in the '70's. Something to do with oil, most of which goes to Europe and Japan, not the USA.

I love it. Reminds me of Israel's attitude towards the Geneva Conventions. "They do not apply to us because we have decided that they do not apply to us."

LOL.

[DogOnPorch]

So your view is that the US should be the one to guarantee that the starit is open to shipping? Which part of the US borders on the Strait of Hormuz?

None of course...but there's a wee thing known as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea which apparently both Iran and the USA signed...but haven't ratified...which provides for such free passage. Exact shipping lanes to help avoid collisions are already well established for years.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast for I intend to go in harm's way.

---Capt John Paul Jones

Edited January 12, 2008 by DogOnPorch

[bush_cheney2004]

I love it. Reminds me of Israel's attitude towards the Geneva Conventions. "They do not apply to us because we have decided that they do not apply to us."

Similar accusations have been made against Canada in Afghanistan, and they didn't even "decide".

Edited January 12, 2008 by bush_cheney2004