Iran's war ships are coming ........
Posted by: pilotwingz on Feb-11-14 1:10 AM (EST)
-- Last Updated: Feb-11-14 1:11 AM EST --
..... for a US coastal boundry visit .
Not sure why this makes me laugh :-) ... it's a good exercise for them if they can actually make it .
I mean ol Chris Columbus , even the Vikings before him did it with a whole lot less boat than Iran's got .
Kayak Motor Kit
Paddler's Truck Rack
|Table of Contents|
|Messages in this Topic|
Thanks For The Warning|
Posted by: SupremelyArrogant on Feb-11-14 9:06 AM (EST)
are sub building|
Posted by: daggermat on Feb-11-14 9:11 AM (EST)
if we didnt have armed forces|
Posted by: radiomix on Feb-11-14 12:23 PM (EST)
They could lay siege to our cities with their shrimp boats.
SA, you planning on surrendering? |
Posted by: raddog1 on Feb-11-14 1:06 PM (EST)
Posted by: slushpaddler on Feb-11-14 9:30 AM (EST)
LMFAO was Alan Arkin great in that movie|
Posted by: tktoo on Feb-11-14 9:53 AM (EST)
I'll have to add that one to my list of movies to force on my kids.
if nothing else|
Posted by: slushpaddler on Feb-11-14 10:17 AM (EST)
They'll get to see the comedy genius Jonathan Winters.
Funny thing about that headline|
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-11-14 12:25 PM (EST)
one small thing|
Posted by: slushpaddler on Feb-11-14 1:40 PM (EST)
"It was described as" by a senior Iranian navy official.
And MSM took the bait|
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-11-14 2:31 PM (EST)
Why is Bolton even quoted anymore?
Posted by: slushpaddler on Feb-11-14 2:42 PM (EST)
I guess Fox used up Ollie North.
All three of the Axis countries on|
Posted by: FishinYak on Feb-11-14 7:24 PM (EST)
that list and one Arab Country, and yet, Israel is called the aggressor, and they aren't even on the list?
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-11-14 12:57 PM (EST)
Go John Bolton Go! OMFG they're in the Atlantic Ocean!!
i dont see|
Posted by: radiomix on Feb-11-14 7:51 PM (EST)
What you are disagreeing with.
anyone could do this|
Posted by: slushpaddler on Feb-11-14 9:01 PM (EST)
We're talking about a frigate and a smaller boat.
Posted by: radiomix on Feb-11-14 9:04 PM (EST)
And both could be removed from the planet. But they could have a nuke on deck attached to surface to surface missile.
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-11-14 9:23 PM (EST)
Could you use modifiers narrowing down some degree of probability?
Posted by: radiomix on Feb-11-14 9:45 PM (EST)
The mission shows the danger Iran would pose if it possessed nuclear weapons, says John Bolton, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations under President George W. Bush and an arms negotiator during the Cold War.
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-11-14 9:56 PM (EST)
so you are|
Posted by: radiomix on Feb-11-14 10:04 PM (EST)
Objecting to the intent, not the possibility? That's what I was asking. On the surface, nothing Bolden said was out of line. But yes, I'm not sure we are really in Iran's nuclear cross hairs.
I think that's what he was saying|
Posted by: slushpaddler on Feb-12-14 10:22 AM (EST)
Bolton was stating the obvious, even if the iranian navy wasn't headed in our direction. And WTF is Bolton anyway? He's an "EX" defense official if anything.
I am objecting|
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-12-14 10:28 AM (EST)
To stating undefined possibilities, I am objecting to elevating hypotheticals to probabilities.
Posted by: radiomix on Feb-12-14 1:01 PM (EST)
To you put agw on that list? That was my must impersonation for he day.
There is no list|
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-12-14 2:39 PM (EST)
Posted by: radiomix on Feb-12-14 4:04 PM (EST)
But there is a continuum and everybody has there thing.
Mine is chili|
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-12-14 4:21 PM (EST)
It's on the chili continuum. I don't see how conditional statements about Iran's capabilities and AGW share any continuum.
what about white bean chili?|
Posted by: slushpaddler on Feb-12-14 4:47 PM (EST)
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-12-14 5:04 PM (EST)
The spice continuum and bean continuum occupy a three dimensional matrix outside of Texas.
I always knew|
Posted by: slushpaddler on Feb-12-14 8:07 PM (EST)
white bean chili was an illusion
you dont recognize|
Posted by: radiomix on Feb-12-14 7:09 PM (EST)
A continuum of plausible and likely? Or hypothetical and proven? Cuz there is one.
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-12-14 8:37 PM (EST)
There can be multiple pieces of information with varying degrees of certainty. Saying that an Iranian ship represents some kind of threat is laughable. We are a greater threat to ourselves than Iran is to us.
Take out MD! Take out MD!|
Posted by: Ayornamut on Feb-11-14 11:35 PM (EST)
Do us all on the east coast a favor.
Posted by: raddog1 on Feb-12-14 1:33 PM (EST)
Iran may have a civilization far older than ours but modern Islamic extremism, which the Iranian government fosters, is very suicidal. If you don't grasp this then you have not been paying attention.
There's a lot more at play here than....|
Posted by: davbart on Feb-12-14 2:03 PM (EST)
just ideology. If you think the Supreme Ayatollah wants to simply bring about the "end of the world" with no consideration for his own skin and position you haven't been paying attention. After 74 years you would think he had plenty of time to commit suicide if that was his desire.
Your welcome to your opinion|
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-12-14 2:45 PM (EST)
But you aren't supporting it well. Please investigate the outgrowth suicidal terrorism and where it's coming from.
MAD worked in hindsight|
Posted by: slushpaddler on Feb-12-14 3:05 PM (EST)
...just as our current actions have done in the present.
AIPAC got his tongue|
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-12-14 3:24 PM (EST)
The average American is so indoctrinated to believe any fantasy in order to rationalize our investment in the MIC and support of Israel.
Indoctrinated, Pot meet Kettle!|
Posted by: dogmatycus on Feb-12-14 3:28 PM (EST)
Dog got a bone|
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-12-14 4:00 PM (EST)
it's so silly|
Posted by: slushpaddler on Feb-12-14 3:46 PM (EST)
It's time for a remake of "The Russians are Coming, The Russians are Coming", only this time with bumbling iranians and cape cod residents. Jack Black can play Jonathan Winters' role, Jim Carrey cxan play alan arkin's role.
Just because we didn't get nuked|
Posted by: pirateoverforty on Feb-12-14 4:04 PM (EST)
Is not the same thing as saying MAD worked. The latter presupposes the Russians would have nuked us had we not had the ability to retaliate. One of the tenets of my younger years, I find I now have some doubts.
i would certainly|
Posted by: radiomix on Feb-12-14 4:16 PM (EST)
Keep the sanctions turned on and up.
I agree, but let's not....|
Posted by: davbart on Feb-12-14 4:33 PM (EST)
overstate the threat posed by the Iranians.
Posted by: slushpaddler on Feb-12-14 4:37 PM (EST)
Yea, and ...|
Posted by: davbart on Feb-12-14 4:44 PM (EST)
prove to their people that they're standing up to the "bad guys" aka US.
Send photos back to the ayatullah|
Posted by: dogmatycus on Feb-12-14 4:49 PM (EST)
when they reach the Devil's Triangle.
i dont think you have to.|
Posted by: radiomix on Feb-12-14 7:13 PM (EST)
You just have to stop pretending like negotiations are going well. Also stop acting like its a natural right to have nukes.
Good with me|
Posted by: davbart on Feb-12-14 7:37 PM (EST)
A realistic outlook about the threat and the negotiations. Anyone thinking that these negotiations between two sides that have no trust between them, and very different goals being easy is fooling himself.
who said that?|
Posted by: slushpaddler on Feb-12-14 8:10 PM (EST)
The OP was posting that the iranians are coming, the iranians are coming. Bolton was made available to state the obvious. Beyond that it's just a chess move.
How is that relevant?|
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-12-14 8:30 PM (EST)
how is that relevant|
Posted by: radiomix on Feb-12-14 10:19 PM (EST)
To a discussion about Iran? Especially one that has turned to what to do and the threat they pose. I'd say it is pretty central.
Whose perceptions are you|
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-12-14 10:23 PM (EST)
Referring to and how are they relevant?
Posted by: radiomix on Feb-12-14 10:27 PM (EST)
Who has confidence in this administration's negotiations and anybody how has ever said its no big deal if Iran gets a nuke.
This is nonsense|
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-12-14 10:29 PM (EST)
are you following|
Posted by: radiomix on Feb-12-14 10:43 PM (EST)
Slush asked what we should do, I answered. Dav said we shouldn't overreact, I basically said we shouldn't underreact or compromise our basic position.
a few things|
Posted by: slushpaddler on Feb-13-14 10:12 AM (EST)
I did ask. This was your answer:
Posted by: radiomix on Feb-13-14 11:26 AM (EST)
Was keep sanctions on and turn them up, not negotiate them away for little gain.
that didn't answer a single thing ryan|
Posted by: slushpaddler on Feb-13-14 11:31 AM (EST)
i was just speaking generally|
Posted by: radiomix on Feb-13-14 11:39 AM (EST)
We asked what we should do. I answered and said what we shouldn't do. I never said anyone in this thread said it. I have seen similar stances voiced on this board in general however.
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-13-14 2:33 PM (EST)
In other words an irrelevant construction. We have surrounded Iran, rebuffed their efforts before the invasion to provide assistance getting Al Qaeda, invaded Iraq without finding the dreaded WMD while providing the means for the Al Qaeda franchise to grow there. From Iran's perspective we were one step from attacking them and not a rational actor looking out for our security but simply a hegemonic power working on Israel's and Saudi Arabia's interests.
Perhaps I misunderstand you, but...|
Posted by: davbart on Feb-13-14 3:02 PM (EST)
are you saying that Iran's interest in nuke development is simply a response to our imperialistic actions? If so, I disagree. Certainly, Iran has no trust in the US, and part of that is in response to our activities, but their own biases also contribute. Additionally, their desire for nukes goes beyond a negotiating position and relationship with the US. There are internal and regional forces at play beyond the US.
Simply? No, partially? Yes|
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-13-14 4:34 PM (EST)
As you say there are internal motivations to develop the capability like many other nations have done.
The longer sanctions go on|
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-12-14 8:28 PM (EST)
The less effective they become.
I disagree, IME...|
Posted by: davbart on Feb-12-14 8:56 PM (EST)
internal pressures is what will eventually force reformation and a change in the Iranian government. The economic hardships and continued isolation that the Iranian people face due to sanctions will increase that pressure.
They drive Iran and China closer|
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-12-14 9:22 PM (EST)
together. Sanctions didn't reform Saddam.
Nope, because our allies, France and|
Posted by: FishinYak on Feb-12-14 9:38 PM (EST)
Germany were too busy circumnavigating them, and making them ineffective.
Life is unfair|
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-12-14 10:20 PM (EST)
which is a great argument|
Posted by: radiomix on Feb-12-14 10:23 PM (EST)
For forcing ones will on others.
No it isn't |
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-12-14 10:26 PM (EST)
I'm simply recognizing that our allies have their own interests and they don't always align with ours.
which is a great argument|
Posted by: radiomix on Feb-12-14 10:40 PM (EST)
For forcing ones will on others.
How'd that work out?|
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-13-14 9:31 AM (EST)
you must know|
Posted by: radiomix on Feb-13-14 9:45 AM (EST)
By now, I'm not defending that position exclusively. I just don't apply the same rules for personal relationships to geopolitics.
Good for you|
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-13-14 2:35 PM (EST)
Let me clarify|
Posted by: davbart on Feb-13-14 7:38 AM (EST)
There is no guarantee that maintenance of sanctions will cause Iran to change and bring about cooperation from Iran. However, it is the best option.
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-13-14 4:41 PM (EST)
Always appreciate your perspective. My understanding is that a portion of the sanctions are being suspended, not all. The issue with China is that they are locking in future oil through investments in drilling projects in Iran, they pick and chose what sanctions they'll follow with little consequence when the spirit of the sanctions are violated.
Posted by: davbart on Feb-13-14 7:37 PM (EST)
I always enjoy a civil discussion even if there is disagreement.
Posted by: slushpaddler on Feb-11-14 1:45 PM (EST)
Boy are you lucky that |
Posted by: Ayornamut on Feb-11-14 11:38 PM (EST)
79% of the great lakes are ice locked this year.
could be a record year|
Posted by: slushpaddler on Feb-12-14 10:23 AM (EST)
Posted by: Harry0244 on Feb-11-14 11:31 PM (EST)
Perhaps a mission to scuttle the ships off our coast then try to claim we (the US) sank them?
More likely a training mission|
Posted by: pirateoverforty on Feb-12-14 2:30 PM (EST)
as they stated.
it should be a reality show|
Posted by: slushpaddler on Feb-12-14 3:17 PM (EST)
Muhammed meets the Deadliest Catch crew.
In the 80's we built destroyers for Iran|
Posted by: pirateoverforty on Feb-12-14 4:13 PM (EST)
After the revolution we kept them. Officially called the Kidd class, any Sailor from the time called them the Khomeni class. Among the differences from the American hull they were designed from, all the officers quarters were much much larger and lavish as Iranian Naval officers under the shah were all princes. The extra room for the princes' cabins came from the enlisted area. American hulls had half a dozen 40-70 man berthings, the Iranian hull had one huge crowded stinking enlisted berthing.
Posted by: slushpaddler on Feb-12-14 4:46 PM (EST)
I was just looking at the new iranian fighter juet - which looks somewhat like an F-16. They say it's made domestically. I'm not sure I'd want to be an iranian fighter pilot.
US Navy U-Boats |
Posted by: yakfisher on Feb-12-14 7:10 PM (EST)
Posted by: pirateoverforty on Feb-12-14 8:17 PM (EST)
The book is better than the movie, written by a German WWII war correspondent the book is taken from actual experiences of the Author.
Posted by: yakfisher on Feb-13-14 12:18 PM (EST)
is on display in Chicago. I believe it is the only enemy vessel captured by the US Navy since the War of 1812.
"Death to America"|
Posted by: dogmatycus on Feb-12-14 12:05 PM (EST)
They have had weekly rallies chanting this subject line since 1980. ""Israel will be extinguished from the map."
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-12-14 12:08 PM (EST)
Yr hurting yr brain Dog
who is "they"?|
Posted by: slushpaddler on Feb-12-14 12:12 PM (EST)
Some of "them" were protesting against ahmedinejad and waiting for our support about three years ago.
Leave them alone|
Posted by: dogmatycus on Feb-12-14 12:20 PM (EST)
A movie was already made about this...|
Posted by: dave54 on Feb-13-14 9:48 AM (EST)
A 1959 Peter Sellers movie?
so let me summarize|
Posted by: slushpaddler on Feb-13-14 10:37 AM (EST)
We should all be afraid, we should all fear a nuclear iran, and we should all distrust the president's diplomatic abilities.
we shouldnt be afraid|
Posted by: radiomix on Feb-13-14 11:33 AM (EST)
These boats don't change anything. So far our negotiations are laughable. The biggest reason we should fear a nuclear Iran, is that they will then have a larger bargaining chip in the region. How long before we end up with N. Korea's little annoying brother.
I wonder if these ships have UAVs|
Posted by: dietz on Feb-13-14 2:07 PM (EST)
and if they will deploy them.
Posted by: pirateoverforty on Feb-13-14 2:19 PM (EST)
If I seen any UAVs|
Posted by: yakfisher on Feb-13-14 3:55 PM (EST)
Posted by: Ayornamut on Feb-13-14 4:20 PM (EST)
OK, I wanna take down one of those suckers and mount it over the fireplace!
Why Don't We Apologise|
Posted by: SupremelyArrogant on Feb-13-14 4:51 PM (EST)
For that Shah thing? For that matter admit that putting those aholes in Saudi Arabia in charge was a big mistake.
What asylum did you get your|
Posted by: dogmatycus on Feb-13-14 5:34 PM (EST)
Posted by: Ayornamut on Feb-13-14 5:38 PM (EST)
The WASP power structure was against|
Posted by: yakfisher on Feb-13-14 7:05 PM (EST)
recognizing Israel, but Harry Truman was in a tight race against George Dewey and he desperately needed Jewish votes, so he recognized Israel over the objections of his own Secretary of State, George C. Marshall, who knew that the recognition of Israel would start a war in the Middle East. He was right, and they have been fighting over there ever since.
Senator Truman must have been ...|
Posted by: davbart on Feb-13-14 8:02 PM (EST)
clairvoyant since he expressed his support for the Balfour Declaration in 1939.
Wasn't this good enough?|
Posted by: davbart on Feb-13-14 7:55 PM (EST)
In a speech before the American-Iranian Council in March 2000, then Secretary of State Madeline Albright admitted, “In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular Prime Minister, Mohammed Mossadegh. The Eisenhower Administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons; but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs.”