Breaking news on CNN, on their front page right now without a link. I'm so jaded about this administrations credibility that the first thing I thought was, "Tonkin Gulf".

1/7/2008 9:13:38 AM

Quote :

"sounds like twwers whining"

1/7/2008 9:20:53 AM

i like how it happened saturday and it's breaking news today

1/7/2008 9:21:25 AM

there was football on yesterday

1/7/2008 9:22:11 AM

I'm that jaded about every administration, but I'm almost willing to bet my house this is not just overblown, but almost entirely fictional.

Even if true, my goodness, what would you be doing if you were Iran's military, and looked around to see this:



And yet they're harassing us?

[Edited on January 7, 2008 at 9:29 AM. Reason : a]

1/7/2008 9:25:34 AM

Well, in regard to that map, Iran's west would be VERY difficult to invade on account of the mountains, the primary thrust of the invasion would have to come from the air and from the east, and a sudden movement of troops to Afghanistan would be noticed.

Still . . . whats the difference between, monitiored and harassed?

Ok, now there is some meat to the story:

Quote :

"The U.S. military reported Monday on a "significant" confrontation involving five Iranian Revolutionary Guard boats that "harrassed and provoked" three U.S. naval ships in international waters over the weekend. U.S. military officials said the incident occurred Saturday night in the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow shipping channel leading in and out of the Persian Gulf. The five Iranian ships made "threatening" moves -- in one case coming within 200 yards of a U.S. ship, the U.S. officials said. In one radio transmission, the Iranians told the U.S. Navy: "I am coming at you. You will explode in a couple of minutes," the U.S. military officials told CNN. When the U.S. ships heard that radio transmission, they manned their gun positions and officers were "in the process" of giving the order to fire when the Iranians abruptly turned away, the U.S. officials said. No shots were fired and no one was injured in the confrontation. One of the Iranian ships had been dropping white boxes into the water in front of the U.S. ships, the officials told CNN."

It could be entirely legit, and I'm not closing my mind on that possibility, but . . .

[Edited on January 7, 2008 at 9:53 AM. Reason : News updated]

1/7/2008 9:30:40 AM

we needed to fucking torpedo that son of a bitch.

which is probably what they wanted because they knew the left in this country would cry TONKIN GULF

and OMFG AMERICAN IMPERIALISTS

IMPEACH BUSH



and they would've been right.

[Edited on January 7, 2008 at 9:58 AM. Reason : .]

1/7/2008 9:58:21 AM

Quote :

"we needed to fucking torpedo that son of a bitch."

1/7/2008 10:51:41 AM

Because we should totally wait around for the next USS Cole.

1/7/2008 10:58:43 AM

^ oh, well i guess i used the wrong 'face'..... i was actually agreeing with you. this is more appropriate

1/7/2008 11:06:46 AM

there is backwardation again in crude price - every time that happens, and we approach a near term top, something mysteriously seems to come up in the Strait of Hormuz - shit's pissing me

1/7/2008 11:08:46 AM

^^^

yeah b.c the Iranian gov't = terrorists much like Sadaam right??? you are fucking idiot i hope when WW3 starts your house is ground zero for the nuclear missile so that we'll have one less idiot to worry about. Lets just go around and invade every country we do not like maybe Hitler was onto something during WW2.

If I was Iran I would be pretty upset too if the US who was my enemy had a million soldiers on my front door step and had its navy cruising around near my national waters. Look how big of a stink we made when the USSR tried to put missiles in Cuba.

I think this situation has been blown out of proportion is an attempt by Bush & Co to rally the war drums by motivating the avg ignorant American into a "DEM TOWEL HEADS TRYING TO MESS WITH OUR BOATS LETS GET EM!!!" . Yellow journalism at its finest.




maybe if we don't want Iran harassing our navy then we should do something about above picture.

[Edited on January 7, 2008 at 11:13 AM. Reason : aa]

1/7/2008 11:11:10 AM

Well silly confrontations like these happen *ALL THE TIME* and many seem extremely serious but end up causing no problems. I know we constantly have issues with China, Russia, and N.Korea, especially with flyby planes and such.

1/7/2008 11:13:36 AM

Quote :

"Yellow journalism at its finest."

How in the holy hell is that yellow journalism?

1/7/2008 11:14:13 AM

^^ Yeah lets just tolerate agressive iranian ships! Good idea!

Continue to appease the madmen (much like we did Hitler).


^He's just making shit up. He has no idea what it even means.

Quote :

"^ oh, well i guess i used the wrong 'face'..... i was actually agreeing with you. this is more appropriate "

np

[Edited on January 7, 2008 at 11:15 AM. Reason : .]

1/7/2008 11:15:31 AM

Quote :

" Continue to appease the madmen (much like we did Hitler)."

if by appeasement you mean the rest of the world toward the US then your post is relevant. Last time I checked AJ wasn't rolling the Iranian Panzer force through the rest of the middle east.

Oeuvre what is your solution. should we turn our forces east and march into Iran now.

[Edited on January 7, 2008 at 11:27 AM. Reason : l]

1/7/2008 11:25:14 AM

even the CIA is realizing messing with Iran is not worth it. it is also not worth getting into the Caspian sea arguments and getting on Russia's bad side. the DOE proposed natural gas pipelines are not worth the trouble.

of the trillions we spend attempting to secure cheap energy - take half and invest it into commoditizing solar panels - we'll be living in a different world.

enough lollygagging, enough tinkering with ethanol - ethanol is causing inflation. also, even at optimal plant-growing levels (and even with non-corn general cellulosic ethanol), you'd never make enough ethanol to sustain the world economy - you'd have to build massive scale desalination plants and irrigate enough water from the oceans to turn all the deserts into farmland - and even then, you'd need petroleum based fertilizers.

we need to stop being retards and get with solar. i pray to the sun god - he told me all this ok!

1/7/2008 11:30:39 AM

I seriously believe Ahmadinejad wants us to shoot at him and wants a war. Maybe so that everyone in Iran will rally around him and the flag.

The guy's a war-mongering nut. Hopefully all remains peaceful and Iranians will vote him out in favor of the mayor of Tehran next year (which right now looks like it will happen).

[Edited on January 7, 2008 at 11:35 AM. Reason : .]

1/7/2008 11:34:17 AM

Quote :

"Look how big of a stink we made when the USSR tried to put missiles in Cuba. "

Perfect comparison.

I can just imagine confused Soviet military officials wondering, "Why are US ships being so aggressive and harassing us like this? We're only going to Cuba."

Yes, that sounds ridiculous and stupid. But it's exactly what we're confused about now with Iran.

1/7/2008 11:37:49 AM

i was really hoping your italics meant that you were mocking, and not agreeing.



YOU KNOW, IT'S SUCH A PERFECT EXAMPLE BECAUSE WE, LIKE THE SOVIETS, ARE POINTING A NUCLEAR WARHEAD TOWARDS IRAN



Are you people really that fucking stupid? Or are you grasping at straws to help rationalize your insanely anti-American sentiment?

1/7/2008 11:43:05 AM

^ i think you're getting carried away here.

even the CIA is anti-hawk when it comes to Iran. they realise that come November 2008, no matter which party wins, Haliburton won't be dictating foreign policy.

furthermore, it seems all viable the candidates up there right now, are smart enough to know the difference between ideas and agenda. i think Bush's biggest flaw was not knowing that difference.

1/7/2008 11:49:16 AM

Quote :

"YOU KNOW, IT'S SUCH A PERFECT EXAMPLE BECAUSE WE, LIKE THE SOVIETS, ARE POINTING A NUCLEAR WARHEAD TOWARDS IRAN"

Are you seriously questioning whether we have nukes aimed at Iran, and not just here, but currently in the region?

If you don't think so, then I just don't know what to tell you.

1/7/2008 11:53:10 AM

^^ LOL, had to throw halliburton in.



Guess what, the CIA was anti-hawk in 1938 too...

Those who fail to remember the past....


^ Show me motherfucker. Since you're so sure, show me. SHOW ME THE FUCKING EVIDENCE OR SHUT THE FUCK UP. ALL YOU ARE DOING IS TALKING ON PURE CONJECTURE. YOU DON'T KNOW SHIT.

[Edited on January 7, 2008 at 11:54 AM. Reason : .]

1/7/2008 11:53:12 AM

Quote :

"I seriously believe Ahmadinejad wants us to shoot at him and wants a war. Maybe so that everyone in Iran will rally around him and the flag."

Chavez and Ahmadinejad have been using the same trick since the invasion of Iraq - playing up the possibility of a US invasion and then portraying themselves as the only thing keeping Bush at bay in order to consolidate support. Saber rattling is essential to such a policy.

1/7/2008 11:54:05 AM

Quote :

"^ Show me motherfucker. Since you're so sure, show me. SHOW ME THE FUCKING EVIDENCE OR SHUT THE FUCK UP. ALL YOU ARE DOING IS TALKING ON PURE CONJECTURE. YOU DON'T KNOW SHIT."

I'm sorry that the picture is wrong.

You are in fact face-first and ass-deep in the sand if you don't believe "All options are on the table" doesn't mean "We have nukes pointed at you."

[Edited on January 7, 2008 at 12:04 PM. Reason : a]

1/7/2008 12:01:09 PM

Quote :

"Guess what, the CIA was anti-hawk in 1938 too..."

you mean the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) of World War II, which was dissolved in October 1945?

i think a little more reading, and a little less fox news would be good for you

1/7/2008 12:01:39 PM

burden of proof is on you. Until you can prove it, don't go around saying shit and posting pictures to back yourself up.

You claimed that we have nukes pointed at them.




Waiting........





^ I was drawing the analogy in saying that everyone was anti-hawk in 38 as well.

[Edited on January 7, 2008 at 12:02 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on January 7, 2008 at 12:02 PM. Reason : .]

1/7/2008 12:01:59 PM

Look. When asked about pre-emptive nuclear strikes on Iran, President Bush affirmed that the option was on the table.

When an option is on the table, the pentagon is prepared for it - especially when it is as easy as pointing a weapon.

So, since neither you nor I have any evidence, will you then believe that we don't have nukes pointed at anyone? After all, there's no evidence for it.

[Edited on January 7, 2008 at 12:08 PM. Reason : a]

1/7/2008 12:05:55 PM

Quote :

"AP: Iran's Foreign Ministry says incident between Iranian boats and U.S. Navy ships was "normal" and was resolved."

1/7/2008 12:13:58 PM

Does it really matter if nukes are pointed at Iran? The net result is that we've threatened them, effectively, with annihilation. Evidence is irrelevant anyway, since Bush has threatened the Iranians with "all options." From their perspective, they have to take that threat seriously. I can't remember which president it was, but a recent one kept arguing that evidence wasn't necessary, the mere threat of the posession of WMD, even on cooked evidence, is enough to invade a country. *cough*

That is the same thing that the USSR was threatening us with. The more I think about it, the more I like the comparison.

1/7/2008 12:22:25 PM

Quote :

"The guy's a war-mongering nut."

Kinda like Bush and Cheney.

Quote :

"YOU KNOW, IT'S SUCH A PERFECT EXAMPLE BECAUSE WE, LIKE THE SOVIETS, ARE POINTING A NUCLEAR WARHEAD TOWARDS IRAN"

I know you are just being sarcastic but realistically that statement is probably true.

Quote :

"Guess what, the CIA was anti-hawk in 1938 too"

everyone is rationalized Iraq or future action in Iran b.c of pre-WW2 Germany is a fucking idiot. Last time I checked we are the ones doing
invading.

Oeuvre why don't you go join the Marines since you are all about war and shooting some people. hoo rahh and GTFO of TWW.

[user]Show me motherfucker. Since you're so sure, show me. SHOW ME THE FUCKING EVIDENCE OR SHUT THE FUCK UP. ALL YOU ARE DOING IS TALKING ON PURE CONJECTURE. YOU DON'T KNOW SHIT.[/user]

I am certain the US has its nuclear missiles locations and target trajectories available for any numbnutts to check out on http://www.usnukes.gov

Quote :

"burden of proof is on you."

WRONG. I think the burden is on you to illustrate a legit reason why we should intervene in Iran. Unless a mishapped report citing yellow cake
and other WMD's in Iraq released by Cheney's office sold you in 2003.

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

We threaten Iran on a weekly basis while maintaining a large contingent of troops in their neighboring country. Then we wonder why that act like hardasses instead of getting on their knees to suck Bush's dick and beg for forgiveness.

I think we need to adopt a more non-interventionalist policy. We need take care of the many problems we are having at home before going around and trying to play empire around the world.

[Edited on January 7, 2008 at 12:32 PM. Reason : aa]

1/7/2008 12:29:56 PM

^^Yeah, I know that small point is largely irrelevant - but when somebody is that stupid, it is good to let that stupidity simmer and stink up the whole thread, so that hopefully next time folks will just ignore anything he says. It's a public service.

[Edited on January 7, 2008 at 12:31 PM. Reason : a]

1/7/2008 12:30:50 PM

Quote :

"When the U.S. ships heard that radio transmission, they manned their gun positions and officers were "in the process" of giving the order to fire when the Iranians abruptly turned away, the U.S. officials said."

haha nuff said...dont fuck with the USA

1/7/2008 12:36:45 PM

Quote :

"Because we should totally wait around for the next USS Cole."

Iran != terrorists

USS Cole = terrorist attack

1/7/2008 12:43:24 PM

USA #1

1/7/2008 12:45:48 PM

Obama wouldn't let this happen.

1/7/2008 12:49:27 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/14/AR2007081401662_pf.html

^^^Evidently, you forgot that we have officially labeled the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization.

So officially, yes, Iran=terrorists.

[Edited on January 7, 2008 at 12:52 PM. Reason : a]

1/7/2008 12:52:11 PM

Somehow - and this is just a wild guess here, so bear with me - but somehow I think if Iranian military ships were hanging out and conducting military exercises just outside of U.S. territorial waters (or, even worse, inside them), we'd be doing a little more than just "provoking" and "harassing" them.

Mind you, this is just rampant speculation, here.

1/7/2008 1:21:48 PM

I really do not see how we can label a legitimate gov't as a terrorist orgainzation. They may support or harbor terrorist groups. Also, they could be conducting undercover espionage. However, realistically it makes no sense to label actions by Iran the same as asymmetrical warfare that is often described as terrorist acts.

1/7/2008 1:49:19 PM

Why not?

1/7/2008 1:59:38 PM

Are we a terrorist organization b.c we funded and trained Cubans prior to the Bay of Pigs fiasco.

1/7/2008 2:09:05 PM

To be fair, we've funded much more successful groups in recent years.

1/7/2008 2:14:22 PM

Bad example, BoP wasn't a terrorist act. It was a covertly planned and poorly executed invasion, but it was a conventional insurgency, not terrorism.* So answer my question; why can't a state, such as Libya in the 1980s, be labeled a terrorist organization if it actively supports terrorism as a strategy for power manipulation?


* for that matter, the majority of Iraqis conducting the insurgency against US troops aren't terrorists in the strict sense of the word if they're attacking military convoys. Those actors who attack the civilian population would correctly be defined as terrorists.

1/7/2008 2:15:14 PM

Quote :

"^^^Evidently, you forgot that we have officially labeled the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. So officially, yes, Iran=terrorists."

cool. So USA and Israel are terrorists too...because some nations of labeled them as such.

the formula for labeling people terrorists is this:

Is _______ in the USA pocket?

[] yes
[] no

if no then mark as terrorist.

[Edited on January 7, 2008 at 2:16 PM. Reason : .]

1/7/2008 2:15:30 PM

Quote :

"Evidently, you forgot that we have officially labeled the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization."

Iran has two militaries. The regular army/navy/air force is under control of the president and civil government. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Army/Navy/Air Force is under control of the Ayatollah.

So the IRG is terroristic, but the regular military is not. So Iran != terrorist, but parts of Iran (the minority group I hear) certainly hate us in a manner consistent with terrorists.

1/7/2008 2:15:48 PM

Quote :

"I was communicating....you know, giving him the bird"

1/7/2008 2:25:48 PM

hmmm....

replace the Name Iran with Florida and Persian gulf with gulf of mexico and i am sure the Iranian people would be scratching their heads as to why their warships chilling with their buddies in Cuba were being "harassed" by US ships.

The ships were so close i think Omar Towel head could practically swim out to greet the US ships.

1/7/2008 2:38:38 PM

I think its about time to lay the Eisenhower doctrine to rest

1/7/2008 3:23:41 PM

fuck eisenhower...that fucker is the fag that put in the shah

1/7/2008 4:48:43 PM

Iran: Too much Shah

not enough la la la la la la la la la tee dah

1/7/2008 5:17:53 PM