NationStates Jolt Archive

So let me get this straight Nuclear Bombers close to striking distance of US and NATO territories are not a threat but Iranian blue speed boats thousands of miles away from US territory and 20 miles away from Iranian shores are a big threat and cause for war could you please explain this to me?
simple.

prioritized threat.

who poses a bigger threat to you.

A soldier, who is trained to kill, hates your guts (for some personal reason) and he's stationed two cities away.

a kid who is playing with a loaded gun 10 feet from you.

which of the two would you prioritize as the immediate threat?
which of the two threats would you neutralize first?

A rowboat was deemed harmless, yet it blew a hole and almost sank the USS Cole.

so yes, a speed boat threatening to aggesively approach a vessell after being warned away is more of a threat to that ship and crew than a nuclear missile or bomber miles away.

Sadly, with the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq as it is, the US could not even think of invading Iran. Even if the army was freed up of it's duties in Iraq and Afghanistan they would still get their butts kicked by guerillas. If they are going to take millitary action against Iran it will more likely be air strikey

On the other hand, one could argue that Iran had every bit the right to be in international waters as the US fleet did, no?

To be there, yes. To mimic hostile acts, no.

Bear in mind, thanks to the terrorists who attacked the Cole, approaching at high speed in a very small boat mimics a hostile act. To a radical Muslim, a Human Being IS a weapon- you fire him, he seeks out the target, he explodes. For Iran, sending small boats into the path of US warships is as provocative as US warships launching weapons at the Iranians- then aborting the attacks. Iran was clearly, clearly the provocative one here. The US ships were moving in a "we are going from Point A to Point B" manner, the Iranians were certainly not.

simple.

prioritized threat.

who poses a bigger threat to you.

A soldier, who is trained to kill, hates your guts (for some personal reason) and he's stationed two cities away.

a kid who is playing with a loaded gun 10 feet from you.

which of the two would you prioritize as the immediate threat?
which of the two threats would you neutralize first?

A rowboat was deemed harmless, yet it blew a hole and almost sank the USS Cole.

so yes, a speed boat threatening to aggesively approach a vessell after being warned away is more of a threat to that ship and crew than a nuclear missile or bomber miles away.

If the soldier trained to kill that hates my guts was within firing distance. The soldier. However, your analogy fails, because there is no evidence other than some rather odd speculation, that there was a loaded gun of any kind. This is more like a child playing with a toy weapon.

To be there, yes. To mimic hostile acts, no.

Bear in mind, thanks to the terrorists who attacked the Cole, approaching at high speed in a very small boat mimics a hostile act. To a radical Muslim, a Human Being IS a weapon- you fire him, he seeks out the target, he explodes. For Iran, sending small boats into the path of US warships is as provocative as US warships launching weapons at the Iranians- then aborting the attacks. Iran was clearly, clearly the provocative one here. The US ships were moving in a "we are going from Point A to Point B" manner, the Iranians were certainly not.

I don't see how people don't get this. The hostile acts by Americans are by the government of the US. The hostile acts by "Iran" are by people, who may be Iranian, who are not flying the Iranian flag (according to the video) and have not been identified as being endorsed or responsible to the Iranian government. It seems that some people really need to make this a mistake by "Iran" and not just some fools out on the ocean.

simple.
A rowboat was deemed harmless, yet it blew a hole and almost sank the USS Cole.Iranians blew up the USS Cole?

so yes, a speed boat threatening to aggesively approach a vessell after being warned away is more of a threat to that ship and crew than a nuclear missile or bomber miles away.
You do not think the Russian bombers were warned when they came close to US and Nato Airspace? Why is it ok to come close to Guam and Nato airspace with nuclear bombers carrying Nuclear missiles capable of striking civilians but it is not ok for Iranians who have no history of firing on US ships to come close to US warships? Why is the warship more important than the hundreds of thousands of civilians that could of been vaporized by a nuclear strike?

Shat

Iranians blew up the USS Cole?
"Persians" sounds nicer, and no. But such things get people a wee bit nervy when boats start swooshing about in the nearby vicinity and radioing the ship that they'll be blown up.

"Persians" sounds nicer, and no. But such things get people a wee bit nervy when boats start swooshing about in the nearby vicinity and radioing the ship that they'll be blown up.I totally understand but this is an overreaction by the media posturing for war. I consider the Russians flying Nuclear bombers close to our airspace much more threatening. The US will not start shit with the Russians because the Russians have the ability to fuck us up.

And to those wishy-washy ambis. :DThe Ambis are the worst coward, chameleons shifting their dexterity.

If the soldier trained to kill that hates my guts was within firing distance. The soldier. However, your analogy fails, because there is no evidence other than some rather odd speculation, that there was a loaded gun of any kind. This is more like a child playing with a toy weapon.
do you know for certain that those boats were NOT loaded with explosives?

Iranians blew up the USS Cole?
where DID I say Iranians blew up the USS Cole. I believe I said A rowboat.

You do not think the Russian bombers were warned when they came close to US and Nato Airspace? Why is it ok to come close to Guam and Nato airspace with nuclear bombers carrying Nuclear missiles capable of striking civilians but it is not ok for Iranians who have no history of firing on US ships to come close to US warships? Why is the warship more important than the hundreds of thousands of civilians that could of been vaporized by a nuclear strike?

let's see... hmm... "they exchanged smilies" a totally different response than "charging and threatening them."

I totally understand but this is an overreaction by the media posturing for war. I consider the Russians flying Nuclear bombers close to our airspace much more threatening. The US will not start shit with the Russians because the Russians have the ability to fuck us up.
The US isn't going to do anything to Iran, either, because it'd be a PR nightmare, and because it's not a threat to US interests in any meaningful way.

The Israelis are going to be the ones who actually do the dirty work when the Persians get their nuclear reactors nearly ready, because it'll be an Osirak rerun. Fly in, bomb the site, fly home for tea and pittas.

let's see... hmm... "they exchanged smilies" a totally different response than "charging and threatening them."I don't give a fuck what your facial expression is when you are carrying an arsenal of nuclear missiles. So if the blue speed boat drivers would of been smiling it would of been ok for them to drive their boats close to US warships?

The US isn't going to do anything to Iran, either, because it'd be a PR nightmare, and because it's not a threat to US interests in any meaningful way.

The Israelis are going to be the ones who actually do the dirty work when the Persians get their nuclear reactors nearly ready, because it'll be an Osirak rerun. Fly in, bomb the site, fly home for tea and pittas.I don't think the US would be able to invade Iran we just do not have the ability right now but I would not rule out airstrikes against Iran. I hope it does not happen because I do not want to pay $8.00 a gallon for gas and that would be a nightmare for an economy that is slowing down as it is.

I don't think the US would be able to invade Iran we just do not have the ability right now but I would not rule out airstrikes against Iran.
The USAF isn't going to bomb Iran, the Israeli Air Force will, mark my words.
I hope it does not happen because I do not want to pay $8.00 a gallon for gas
We pay about that, and people can still drive about...
and that would be a nightmare for an economy that is slowing down as it is.
It'll be reet.

The USAF isn't going to bomb Iran, the Israeli Air Force will, mark my words.Let Israel do it, its their backyard not ours.

We pay about that, and people can still drive about...Fuck that I will get out my bicycle, I would use it now if it was not -12 below zero

It'll be reet.reet?

Let Israel do it, its their backyard not ours.
Quite.
Fuck that I will get out my bicycle, I would use it now if it was not -12 below zero
Aye, you might say that, but when the price hike comes slightly more gradually than $3 a gallon than straight to $8, it'll be one of those things which is just going to be "laaame".

Incidentally, but the time you're going to pay $8, we'll be paying about twice that. Bleddy duties :(
reet?
Fine.

Fine.
Reet.

Grand.

"Persians" sounds nicer, and no. But such things get people a wee bit nervy when boats start swooshing about in the nearby vicinity and radioing the ship that they'll be blown up.

Actually, there is a distinction. My Persian friends prefer to be identified as such because they do not support, nor are they citizens of the current state of Iran. Iranians are people who are from Iran since the coup.

do you know for certain that those boats were NOT loaded with explosives?

Do you know for certain that they were? I guess it's guilty till proven innocent if you're from the Middle East, huh? Since you're suggesting they were. The comparison to the child who you KNOW has a loaded weapon is inappropriate. You've repeatedly implied the violated some law. They didn't. The fear of the soldiers on the ship is immaterial. You've repeatedly claimed this was an act of Iran. Again, you have no evidence. Perhaps you'd like to stick to the facts, hmmm?

Kyr, I have to disagree. While it might be legal, it would be impossible to claim that if Russia had moved its fleet to within even 100 miles of our coastline in the same way during the Cold War, that there wouldn't have been an international incident. We freaked out over less.

Putting a fleet like our navy to well within attacking distance is aggressive and it's really not possible to make it not. Whether you agree with the actions of Bush in regards to Iran, there really is no getting around our aggression towards them.

True. My simple point was that under maritime law, the Iranians were the aggressors, regardless of whether the American Navy was or was not actually being aggressive in how close it strayed to Iranian waters.

And as far as I'm aware, we're not positioning our entire fleet off the Iranian coast, or even close to that. But I might be wrong.

A bunch of guys in a couple of speedboats got the US Navy all scared? What a bunch of pussies! :p

If the soldier trained to kill that hates my guts was within firing distance. The soldier. However, your analogy fails, because there is no evidence other than some rather odd speculation, that there was a loaded gun of any kind. This is more like a child playing with a toy weapon.

Not the point. You were in the Army, so you should understand at least some of the U.S. military's MO when it comes to threats. That speedboat was acting in a threatening manner and even radioed the ship saying they would explode.

...

Unless I somehow missed something somewhere and we're discussing something else, in which case I will shut up.

Actually, there is a distinction. My Persian friends prefer to be identified as such because they do not support, nor are they citizens of the current state of Iran. Iranians are people who are from Iran since the coup.
Je m'en fous, it sounds nicer.

People, please note: the fact that someone disagrees with you does not automatically mean that they are intellectually impaired.

Cut out the personal attacks.

Cornelieu 2 (when you get back from the basketball game): this particularly applies to you. You flamebaited, got the predictable response, kept doing it. Unless you're already looking at the blueprints for Cornelieu 3, stop it now.

Don't be stupid. Not going to happen.

Total War? No.

Strategic Military Strikes? Yes.

To use examples, the probable Iran-US "War" will NOT be like the Iraq-US War of 2003. It will be more like when the United States bombed places in Somalia back in 2007.

Total War? No.

Strategic Military Strikes? Yes.

To use examples, the probable Iran-US "War" will NOT be like the Iraq-US War of 2003. It will be more like when the United States bombed places in Somalia back in 2007.
Nah. Israel will bomb the reactors. Not the US.

Nah. Israel will bomb the reactors. Not the US.

Now that you mention it, I think that this will be the case. The US will support Israel like it did with Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War.

These examples are reminding me more and more of the striking similarities of United States Foreign Policy over the past 20 years. Hopefully our (the United States') next President will wise up.

Yes I know I think you need to reread my post.

Whats wrong with my name it is a fact left handed people are superior in all ways to to the inferior dexterity of right handers.

Son...my dad is left handed and my mother is right handed but in the end, my mother is right more times than my dad so that pretty much debunks everything.

Iranians blew up the USS Cole?

So much for superior intellect.

You do not think the Russian bombers were warned when they came close to US and Nato Airspace? Why is it ok to come close to Guam and Nato airspace with nuclear bombers carrying Nuclear missiles capable of striking civilians but it is not ok for Iranians who have no history of firing on US ships to come close to US warships? Why is the warship more important than the hundreds of thousands of civilians that could of been vaporized by a nuclear strike?

Um...yea! Ok!

The US isn't going to do anything to Iran, either, because it'd be a PR nightmare, and because it's not a threat to US interests in any meaningful way.

The Israelis are going to be the ones who actually do the dirty work when the Persians get their nuclear reactors nearly ready, because it'll be an Osirak rerun. Fly in, bomb the site, fly home for tea and pittas.

Not just that but what they did in Syria to. But yea! Nothing is going to happen at all so this thread is pretty much pointless.

I flamebaited? :confused:

Apparently you did, or else a mod would not have said you did.

I can tell you how, though. It's generally in the way you've been posting throughout this thread, by giving the impression you're just angrily tossing out every word you say. In other words, whether you realize it or not, you come off as angry and not that bright, which I suggest in a friendly manner you work upon. It'll benefit all of us. :)

People, please note: the fact that someone disagrees with you does not automatically mean that they are intellectually impaired.

Cut out the personal attacks.

Cornelieu 2 (when you get back from the basketball game): this particularly applies to you. You flamebaited, got the predictable response, kept doing it. Unless you're already looking at the blueprints for Cornelieu 3, stop it now.

I flamebaited? :confused:

Well, if they bomb the U.S. with a suitcase bomb of sorts then we will go to war.

Then Christian radicals will make something like this happen.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=S467b00UYtU

You do not think the Russian bombers were warned when they came close to US and Nato Airspace? Why is it ok to come close to Guam and Nato airspace with nuclear bombers carrying Nuclear missiles capable of striking civilians but it is not ok for Iranians who have no history of firing on US ships to come close to US warships? Why is the warship more important than the hundreds of thousands of civilians that could of been vaporized by a nuclear strike?
Double-standards.

I flamebaited? :confused:

No, it was your alter ego, Cornelieu 2. Sorry about mangling your name, but nonetheless, check out here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13372448&postcount=152) and here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13372749&postcount=161).

If you want to tell me that you and LEFTHANDEDSUPREMACIST are buddies from way back and you were just joshing each other in a friendly manner, well, go ahead, but it doesn't look like it.

Son...my dad is left handed and my mother is right handed but in the end, my mother is right more times than my dad so that pretty much debunks everything.Dexterity mixing makes me sick!

So much for superior intellect.You guys keep bringing up the USS Cole as if Iran had something to do with it.



Um...yea! Ok! nuclear missiles is more bad dan blue speed boat Y cant u underrstand dat?

You guys keep bringing up the USS Cole as if Iran had something to do with it.

As has been explained to you, the USS Cole was nearly sunked by an explosive laden rowboat from Yemen while they were in port.

As has been explained to you, the USS Cole was nearly sunked by an explosive laden rowboat from Yemen while they were in port.

And this has to do with Iranians, how?

And this has to do with Iranians, how?

We were talking about boats Jocabia and the incident that occured. As such, it is natural to bring up past history when it comes to such topics.

We were talking about boats Jocabia and the incident that occured. As such, it is natural to bring up past history when it comes to such topics.

Not unless you're trying to imply that the methodology used by extremists and the methodology used by the Iranian government are identical in nature. Which is a pretty stupid implication to make.

We were talking about boats Jocabia and the incident that occured. As such, it is natural to bring up past history when it comes to such topics.

Timothy McVeigh used a rental truck to blow up a building. Perhaps we should start threatening to kill Iranians who are moving. It's a lazy point. I expect better from you. I know all those brown-skinned people look alike, but unless you can show evidence that these people committed some crime or were an actual threat the invalid comparisons between them and various other threats do not stand. If a military fleet running around 30 miles offshort of Iran isn't a threat, then a speedboat certainly isn't.

Not unless you're trying to imply that the methodology used by extremists and the methodology used by the Iranian government are identical in nature. Which is a pretty stupid implication to make.

Not to mention that no Iranian flag appears in the video. These boats did not belong to the government. So it's a comparison between extremists and any Iranians.

no where in the near future

Not to mention that no Iranian flag appears in the video. These boats did not belong to the government. So it's a comparison between extremists and any Iranians.

Which comes back to the absurdity of claiming some sort of massive extremist hivemind.

With Iran pulling more bullshit by the year, then I'd say 2 years.

However they might stop or the US might get a pussy president like Obama or Hillary that wouldn't stand up for shit against the #1 supporter of terrorism.



#1 supporter or terrorism? Care to back that claim up? Or are you just one of those flag waving neocons who thinks that our military action in Iraq actually had to do with Terrorism too?

A draft will not happen. Military commanders dont want one, bad for morale. Enlisted men dont want it, bad for morale and the guy watching your back might desert first chance he gets. Politicians dont want it because its political suicide.

You mean those blue speed boats do not send a streak of terror running down your spine? How is the most advanced and powerful navy that has ever existed going to deal with blue speed boats?

By having the USS Vincennes shooting down more airliners filled with civilians? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655) Just makes sure the crew "mistakenly identified" an airbus as an attacking F-14 Tomcat fighter.

Why is it the duty of every citizen to die in a war against a country that is no threat to America? Why should every citizen have a responsibility to give up their life to die in a war started by an imbecile who has a proven record of going to war for the wrong reasons? Do you believe American citizens are nothing but chattel to be used at the whims of their leaders? Does anyone else find statements like these frightening?

That was the best wording ever used to express my feelings on the matter!

Now as for Iran's nuclear program, let the Israeli's hit it like it's 1981 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osiraq)!

/I can't believe I'm old enough to remember watching both these events on the nightly news with my parents.
//Get off my lawn

Not unless you're trying to imply that the methodology used by extremists and the methodology used by the Iranian government are identical in nature. Which is a pretty stupid implication to make.
Err...

Crap boat with baddies on it speeds towards US naval vessel. Basically the same.

Err...

Crap boat with baddies on it speeds towards US naval vessel. Basically the same.

Next you'll tell me a rental truck driven by a white guy near a large commercial building is "basically" the same as Timothy McVeigh.

Can we please stop the generalities?

Next you'll tell me a rental truck driven by a white guy near a large commercial building is "basically" the same as Timothy McVeigh.

Can we please stop the generalities?

It is the same thing. I got shot twice while I was moving from Champaign to the Chicago area. I kept saying, "I'm a good guy. I used to be in the military." And they kept saying, "So did that bastard, McVeigh." I apologized to them for looking like Timothy McVeigh and gave them $25 each for the bullets I made the waste. I was so embarrassed. It still bleeds when I play the banjo.

By having the USS Vincennes shooting down more airliners filled with civilians? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655) Just makes sure the crew "mistakenly identified" an airbus as an attacking F-14 Tomcat fighter.



Because clearly the crew of the U.S.S. Vincennes intentionally shot down that aircraft. It's not possible for it to truly have been a mistake due to either a misinterpreted radar reading or a radar glitch. :rolleyes:

Notice when it happened. It happened during the Iran-Iraq war. That alone would have raised tensions, and during such a time, it was highly possible for American ships to be attacked by Iranian aircraft due to our blatant support for Iraq during that war. In other words, we had reason to be suspicious and shoot first rather than check as we might have in other, less tense situations.

That said, it was inexcusable nonetheless and should never have happened.

True. My simple point was that under maritime law, the Iranians were the aggressors, regardless of whether the American Navy was or was not actually being aggressive in how close it strayed to Iranian waters.
I'm not sure you're correct about that.

I'm not sure you're correct about that.

In fact, I'm pretty sure he's not. If they were both in international waters, there is likely an accepted right of way, and none of us could reasonably say what the right of way is. I can say it's pretty stupid to approach a military vessel with a speedboat, but that's not the same as it being a natural reaction to shoot them.

Didn't it turn out that the US did provoke the Gulf of Tonkin Incident - in order to justify a war?

According to people i personally know who were there ... AND somewhat recent information coming to light, yes.

You realize there are more ways to threaten someone than with a gun, right?

http://www.newsmax.com/international/Iran_Sanctions_iran/2008/01/16/65041.html?CFID=149716&CFTOKEN=70835063

...to Iran, unless Obama, Edwards, Kucinich, Gravel, Paul, or maybe McCain are elected. Hell, it might even start before Bush leaves. I'm watching this crap escalate and escalate as Bush builds the case for a war bit by bit. Congress better be strong against this. I don't care if Iran has nukes aimed at my backyard, they can have them for all I care.

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080113/ts_nm/usa_iran_dc)So what are you going to do? Leave America Alec Baldwin?

We should have a draft. It'll clean the gene pool of dumbasses and liberal scum.

Doesn't matter to me if we have one or not, I'm already bound for USMC as soon as I get out of High School. I'd just love for something to wipe out the idiocy in the gene pool, no matter how "illegal" or "sick" it is.

We should have a draft. It'll clean the gene pool of dumbasses and liberal scum.

Doesn't matter to me if we have one or not, I'm already bound for USMC as soon as I get out of High School. I'd just love for something to wipe out the idiocy in the gene pool, no matter how "illegal" or "sick" it is.Where do you find such compassion in life?

We should have a draft. It'll clean the gene pool of dumbasses and liberal scum.

Doesn't matter to me if we have one or not, I'm already bound for USMC as soon as I get out of High School. I'd just love for something to wipe out the idiocy in the gene pool, no matter how "illegal" or "sick" it is.

Hopefully, the Marine Corps will cure of that particular bile. They aren't particularly tolerant of the kind of behavior you're displaying now. Or they weren't when I was running around the place.

History lesson for you, son - last time there was a draft who was more likely to go? The people who thought the draft was a bad idea or people who thought it was a good idea? Hint: There's a reason why people were having their daddies hid them away from Viet Nam and running away to Canada. There's a reason why hippies where protesting and burning draft cards. Generally, the people who think the draft is a good thing (actually think so, not just think it's a good thing for other people) go, while people who enitrely disagree protest their indentured servitude called the draft.

Wow its a good thing we don't listen to the Chickenhawks or we would be at war over the Philipinomonkey (http://youtube.com/watch?v=nZmb3fa22Ek).

Where do you find such compassion in life?

After certain people have their innards scraped.
http://thegate.nationaljournal.com/2007/07/bush_has_five_polyps_removed_s.php
There's even YouTube of it, but it's a whole press conference, and i need to review it for Diane Keaton-esque slips. :)