Going to war with Iran.

macgyver06macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
edited May 2007 in A Moving Train
Anyone think Kim Jong Crazy is gonna get in on the action?

definitely WWIII talks going on now.. all this anti-iran stuff being fed to us through the media.

this blows.

P.S. brought to you by our administration which also told us to not like the French for some odd fucking reason?? our allies forever...
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • macgyver06macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    i forgot to mention..unlike the soverign nation of Iraq... Iran has an Army that isnt depleted through ongoing war..they also have a Navy which can rival ours and An Air-Force...which of course their air force is no where near ours..but ya..
  • ledveddermanledvedderman Posts: 7,761
    sooooo.....we're going to war w/ Iran?
  • puremagicpuremagic Posts: 1,907
    Sure, as soon as they find a way to link the kidnapping of the U.S. soldiers on Iran, I think they'll do something to see what kind of reaction they get. I wouldn't be surprised if they go for a blockade for search and seizure, Cheney don't do surprises and the British weren't lost.
    SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
  • NCfanNCfan Posts: 945
    macgyver06 wrote:
    i forgot to mention..unlike the soverign nation of Iraq... Iran has an Army that isnt depleted through ongoing war..they also have a Navy which can rival ours and An Air-Force...which of course their air force is no where near ours..but ya..

    What are you talking about??? We have been using all kinds of dipolomacy to deal with the Iranians. Nobody wants a war, okay? Not even Bush and the neo-cons.
  • NCfanNCfan Posts: 945
    puremagic wrote:
    Sure, as soon as they find a way to link the kidnapping of the U.S. soldiers on Iran, I think they'll do something to see what kind of reaction they get. I wouldn't be surprised if they go for a blockade for search and seizure, Cheney don't do surprises and the British weren't lost.

    Yep, I bet that's exactly what they'll do! Great thinking!!!
  • macgyver06macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    NCfan wrote:
    What are you talking about??? We have been using all kinds of dipolomacy to deal with the Iranians. Nobody wants a war, okay? Not even Bush and the neo-cons.

    it would be interesting if Bush didnt have a say.
  • gue_bariumgue_barium Posts: 5,515
    NCfan wrote:
    What are you talking about??? We have been using all kinds of dipolomacy to deal with the Iranians. Nobody wants a war, okay? Not even Bush and the neo-cons.

    They thrive in war, that's their chosen profession (not as soldiers, mind you), why wouldn't they want war?

    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • NCfanNCfan Posts: 945
    macgyver06 wrote:
    i forgot to mention..unlike the soverign nation of Iraq... Iran has an Army that isnt depleted through ongoing war..they also have a Navy which can rival ours and An Air-Force...which of course their air force is no where near ours..but ya..

    Check out this excerpt from Jane's Intelligence Review about Iran's naval capabilities. You were right on the money! Our fucking Coast Gaurd could take out their so called navy. The only weapons they have that threaten our ships are mines and anti-ship missles. Do you enjoy sounding like an idiot?


    Jane's stated that the regular Iranian navy currently is in
    a state of "overall obsolescence," and has not
    been equipped with modern ships and weapons. Iran's three
    destroyers are over 50 years old and are not operational.
    The readiness of the three 25-year-old frigates is "almost
    non-existent," "Jane's" said And the two 30-year-old
    corvettes do not have sophisticated weapons. Ten of 20
    missile-equipped fast attack craft have "limited
    operational readiness," and four of them are not seaworthy.
    Only 10 Chinese-made Thodor-class craft are operationally
    reliable. The four 30-year-old minesweepers are obsolete,
    lack seaworthiness, and do not have a mine-sweeping
    capability. Iran has many amphibious and auxiliary ships,
    but these are "superfluous to requirements" and are used
    purely for training personnel. Iran's ten hovercraft are
    "old and used sparingly."
    Nor does Iran have the airlift capability required for
    offensive operations across the Persian Gulf. Also, its F-4
    and Sukhoi SU-24MK Fencer aircraft are rendered less
    effective due to weaknesses in maritime reconnaissance
    capabilities. The Iranian navies do not have fixed-wing
    combat aircraft, and the P-3 and C-130 reconnaissance
    aircraft were purchased 25 years ago. All the naval air
    assets suffer from parts shortages, worn avionics, and
    ineffective maintenance.
    There also are personnel problems. Iran's navy has
    20,000 men, but according to "Jane's," they are young and
    inexperienced, and most of them are riflemen and marines
    based on Persian Gulf islands. And at higher levels, there
    is fierce rivalry between the IRGC and regular navies for
    scarce resources.
    Due to these shortcomings, Iran's three Kilo-class
    submarines would be vulnerable, according to "Jane's," and
    they are limited to laying mines in undefended waters.
    Mines, however, are one area in which Iran has made
    advances. It can produce non-magnetic, free-floating, and
    remote-controlled mines. It may have taken delivery of
    pressure, acoustic, and magnetic mines from Russia. Also,
    Iran is negotiating with China for rocket-propelled rising
    mines.
  • pjfanatic4pjfanatic4 Posts: 127
    NCfan wrote:
    Check out this excerpt from Jane's Intelligence Review about Iran's naval capabilities. You were right on the money! Our fucking Coast Gaurd could take out their so called navy. The only weapons they have that threaten our ships are mines and anti-ship missles. Do you enjoy sounding like an idiot?


    Jane's stated that the regular Iranian navy currently is in
    a state of "overall obsolescence," and has not
    been equipped with modern ships and weapons. Iran's three
    destroyers are over 50 years old and are not operational.
    The readiness of the three 25-year-old frigates is "almost
    non-existent," "Jane's" said And the two 30-year-old
    corvettes do not have sophisticated weapons. Ten of 20
    missile-equipped fast attack craft have "limited
    operational readiness," and four of them are not seaworthy.
    Only 10 Chinese-made Thodor-class craft are operationally
    reliable. The four 30-year-old minesweepers are obsolete,
    lack seaworthiness, and do not have a mine-sweeping
    capability. Iran has many amphibious and auxiliary ships,
    but these are "superfluous to requirements" and are used
    purely for training personnel. Iran's ten hovercraft are
    "old and used sparingly."
    Nor does Iran have the airlift capability required for
    offensive operations across the Persian Gulf. Also, its F-4
    and Sukhoi SU-24MK Fencer aircraft are rendered less
    effective due to weaknesses in maritime reconnaissance
    capabilities. The Iranian navies do not have fixed-wing
    combat aircraft, and the P-3 and C-130 reconnaissance
    aircraft were purchased 25 years ago. All the naval air
    assets suffer from parts shortages, worn avionics, and
    ineffective maintenance.
    There also are personnel problems. Iran's navy has
    20,000 men, but according to "Jane's," they are young and
    inexperienced, and most of them are riflemen and marines
    based on Persian Gulf islands. And at higher levels, there
    is fierce rivalry between the IRGC and regular navies for
    scarce resources.
    Due to these shortcomings, Iran's three Kilo-class
    submarines would be vulnerable, according to "Jane's," and
    they are limited to laying mines in undefended waters.
    Mines, however, are one area in which Iran has made
    advances. It can produce non-magnetic, free-floating, and
    remote-controlled mines. It may have taken delivery of
    pressure, acoustic, and magnetic mines from Russia. Also,
    Iran is negotiating with China for rocket-propelled rising
    mines.

    Shhhhh.... be quiet. Remember, they really ARE a threat! Just like Saddam's Iraq was... ;)
  • josevolutionjosevolution Posts: 30,250
    why not spread our selves a little thinner on the army front hell we could probably take on IRAN ,NORTH KOREA and throw RUSSIA in there as well i bet CHENNEY believes we can ..........
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • El_KabongEl_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    NCfan wrote:
    Check out this excerpt from Jane's Intelligence Review about Iran's naval capabilities. You were right on the money! Our fucking Coast Gaurd could take out their so called navy. The only weapons they have that threaten our ships are mines and anti-ship missles.


    i wonder if any of those anti-ship missiles were part of the thousands of missiles we sold to iran in the 80's, ya know after they kidnapped all those americans?
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    Thanx to Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld... Iraq = Iran.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • puremagicpuremagic Posts: 1,907
    NCfan wrote:
    Check out this excerpt from Jane's Intelligence Review about Iran's naval capabilities. ...

    Mines, however, are one area in which Iran has made
    advances. It can produce non-magnetic, free-floating, and
    remote-controlled mines. ....


    Was Cheney there to say goodbye to the men and women of the aircraft carrier? Did he make sure that Bush's nephew was on the carrier so that he could identify with the sacrifices of America. Are they willing to sacrifice more lives and a navy carrier just to ensure an all out first strike assualt on Iran?
    SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    The bottom line...
    The message the Bush Administration has sent out...
    "If you don't have Nuclear Weapons... we will attack you. So, the best way for us to negotiate with you is for you to acquire Nuclear Weapons."
    ...
    Ummmm... is it just me... or does that make no sense at all?
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • Drew263Drew263 Birmingham, AL Posts: 602
    EK..

    Been meaning to ask you..I saw an article recently where the head of PNAC is throwing his support behind Obama..found that interesting. Have you seen that?
  • CJMST3KCJMST3K Posts: 9,722
    macgyver06 wrote:
    i forgot to mention..unlike the soverign nation of Iraq... Iran has an Army that isnt depleted through ongoing war..they also have a Navy which can rival ours and An Air-Force...which of course their air force is no where near ours..but ya..


    ...and they're soon gonna have nuclear weapons. :)
    ADD 5,200 to the post count you see, thank you. :)
    *NYC 9/28/96 *NYC 9/29/96 *NJ 9/8/98 (front row "may i play drums with you")
    *MSG 9/10/98 (backstage) *MSG 9/11/98 (backstage)
    *Jones Beach 8/23/00 *Jones Beach 8/24/00 *Jones Beach 8/25/00
    *Mansfield 8/29/00 *Mansfield 8/30/00 *Nassau 4/30/03 *Nissan VA 7/1/03
    *Borgata 10/1/05 *Camden 5/27/06 *Camden 5/28/06 *DC 5/30/06
    *VA Beach 6/17/08 *DC 6/22/08 *MSG 6/24/08 (backstage) *MSG 6/25/08
    *EV DC 8/17/08 *EV Baltimore 6/15/09 *Philly 10/31/09
    *Bristow VA 5/13/10 *MSG 5/20/10 *MSG 5/21/10
  • CJMST3KCJMST3K Posts: 9,722
    Cosmo wrote:
    So, the best way for us to negotiate with you is for you to acquire Nuclear Weapons."


    With N. Korea they tried to do the "we're not negotiating with you" thing, since they had developed nuclear weapons - but the democrats thought Bush administration was being to inflexible.

    ...so, at least under the Bush admin, the least accessible they are is after a country acquires (or attempts to acquire) nuclear weapons.
    ADD 5,200 to the post count you see, thank you. :)
    *NYC 9/28/96 *NYC 9/29/96 *NJ 9/8/98 (front row "may i play drums with you")
    *MSG 9/10/98 (backstage) *MSG 9/11/98 (backstage)
    *Jones Beach 8/23/00 *Jones Beach 8/24/00 *Jones Beach 8/25/00
    *Mansfield 8/29/00 *Mansfield 8/30/00 *Nassau 4/30/03 *Nissan VA 7/1/03
    *Borgata 10/1/05 *Camden 5/27/06 *Camden 5/28/06 *DC 5/30/06
    *VA Beach 6/17/08 *DC 6/22/08 *MSG 6/24/08 (backstage) *MSG 6/25/08
    *EV DC 8/17/08 *EV Baltimore 6/15/09 *Philly 10/31/09
    *Bristow VA 5/13/10 *MSG 5/20/10 *MSG 5/21/10
  • macgyver06macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    NCfan wrote:
    Check out this excerpt from Jane's Intelligence Review about Iran's naval capabilities. You were right on the money! Our fucking Coast Gaurd could take out their so called navy. The only weapons they have that threaten our ships are mines and anti-ship missles. Do you enjoy sounding like an idiot?


    Jane's stated that the regular Iranian navy currently is in
    a state of "overall obsolescence," and has not
    been equipped with modern ships and weapons. Iran's three
    destroyers are over 50 years old and are not operational.
    The readiness of the three 25-year-old frigates is "almost
    non-existent," "Jane's" said And the two 30-year-old
    corvettes do not have sophisticated weapons. Ten of 20
    missile-equipped fast attack craft have "limited
    operational readiness," and four of them are not seaworthy.
    Only 10 Chinese-made Thodor-class craft are operationally
    reliable. The four 30-year-old minesweepers are obsolete,
    lack seaworthiness, and do not have a mine-sweeping
    capability. Iran has many amphibious and auxiliary ships,
    but these are "superfluous to requirements" and are used
    purely for training personnel. Iran's ten hovercraft are
    "old and used sparingly."
    Nor does Iran have the airlift capability required for
    offensive operations across the Persian Gulf. Also, its F-4
    and Sukhoi SU-24MK Fencer aircraft are rendered less
    effective due to weaknesses in maritime reconnaissance
    capabilities. The Iranian navies do not have fixed-wing
    combat aircraft, and the P-3 and C-130 reconnaissance
    aircraft were purchased 25 years ago. All the naval air
    assets suffer from parts shortages, worn avionics, and
    ineffective maintenance.
    There also are personnel problems. Iran's navy has
    20,000 men, but according to "Jane's," they are young and
    inexperienced, and most of them are riflemen and marines
    based on Persian Gulf islands. And at higher levels, there
    is fierce rivalry between the IRGC and regular navies for
    scarce resources.
    Due to these shortcomings, Iran's three Kilo-class
    submarines would be vulnerable, according to "Jane's," and
    they are limited to laying mines in undefended waters.
    Mines, however, are one area in which Iran has made
    advances. It can produce non-magnetic, free-floating, and
    remote-controlled mines. It may have taken delivery of
    pressure, acoustic, and magnetic mines from Russia. Also,
    Iran is negotiating with China for rocket-propelled rising
    mines.

    whats your motivation psycho path....i never said our navy would lose...but it would be war..unlike iraq was entering. YOU FOOL. IRAN IS MORE POWERFUL THAN THE INSURGENCY IN IRAQ...which no one can still answer me who the fuck the insurgency is...
  • PaperPlatesPaperPlates Posts: 1,745
    El_Kabong wrote:
    i wonder if any of those anti-ship missiles were part of the thousands of missiles we sold to iran in the 80's, ya know after they kidnapped all those americans?


    If so, then sweet, we should know how to counter/destroy/disable them. Good thinking 80's leaders. :)
    Cosmo wrote:
    The bottom line...
    The message the Bush Administration has sent out...
    "If you don't have Nuclear Weapons... we will attack you. So, the best way for us to negotiate with you is for you to acquire Nuclear Weapons."
    ...
    Ummmm... is it just me... or does that make no sense at all?


    I kinda took the message to be..................

    "if you don't currently have nuclear capability, but you plan to attempt to attain it, we will ask you nicely 80 times to not do so, then, if pushed, and threatening you another 80 times doesnt work, and you ignore all pleas and attempts by the UN and other useless organizations, we will pre-emptively strike. " Just my interpretation of it, of course.
    Why go home

    www.myspace.com/jensvad
  • El_Kabong wrote:
    i wonder if any of those anti-ship missiles were part of the thousands of missiles we sold to iran in the 80's, ya know after they kidnapped all those americans?

    American terrorism is ok for some reason... Lot's here subscribe to it...

    dumb and blind they are...
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • puremagicpuremagic Posts: 1,907
    macgyver06 wrote:
    ...which no one can still answer me who the fuck the insurgency is...

    and why, we thought these insurgents were no match for a real military and, yet, here we are 4 years later still over there fighting those so-called backwards, rock throwing, third world, desert camel jockeys - and dying. While high price mercenaries draw the girlie duty of protecting buildings and visitors. Kind of reminds you of high price athletes, worthless after the first injury and always blaming others.
    SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
  • spiral outspiral out Posts: 1,052
    NCfan wrote:
    What are you talking about??? We have been using all kinds of dipolomacy to deal with the Iranians. Nobody wants a war, okay? Not even Bush and the neo-cons.

    Yea, if you say so mate.

    Of course bush and his dumb croonies want war or they wouldn't keep starting them.
    Keep on rockin in the free world!!!!

    The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
  • spiral outspiral out Posts: 1,052
    Cosmo wrote:
    The bottom line...
    The message the Bush Administration has sent out...
    "If you don't have Nuclear Weapons... we will attack you. So, the best way for us to negotiate with you is for you to acquire Nuclear Weapons."
    ...
    Ummmm... is it just me... or does that make no sense at all?


    Does anything the bush administration do make sense?
    Keep on rockin in the free world!!!!

    The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
  • NCfanNCfan Posts: 945
    macgyver06 wrote:
    whats your motivation psycho path....i never said our navy would lose...but it would be war..unlike iraq was entering. YOU FOOL. IRAN IS MORE POWERFUL THAN THE INSURGENCY IN IRAQ...which no one can still answer me who the fuck the insurgency is...

    You said the Iranians had a navy that would rival ours. Only on this message board would I be the "psycho path" for calling you out on that. I'm sorry if that is not what you meant, but it is what you said.
  • NCfanNCfan Posts: 945
    puremagic wrote:
    and why, we thought these insurgents were no match for a real military and, yet, here we are 4 years later still over there fighting those so-called backwards, rock throwing, third world, desert camel jockeys - and dying. While high price mercenaries draw the girlie duty of protecting buildings and visitors. Kind of reminds you of high price athletes, worthless after the first injury and always blaming others.

    The insurgents are no match for a real military. We just aren't allowed to use the weapons we have because the insurgents hide among the civillians and America is a civilized country that tries to limit civilian casualties.

    If this were 1945, half of Iraq would be leveled on on fire but nobody would be resisting us either.
  • NCfanNCfan Posts: 945
    Cosmo wrote:
    The bottom line...
    The message the Bush Administration has sent out...
    "If you don't have Nuclear Weapons... we will attack you. So, the best way for us to negotiate with you is for you to acquire Nuclear Weapons."
    ...
    Ummmm... is it just me... or does that make no sense at all?

    How do you get that message??? Seems to me Bush has been saying "don't try to get nukes, becuase if you do we will attack you. Let's try to work out an alternate solution where you can have nuclear technology - even your own reactor but the spent fuel rods must be sent to Russia for disposal and inspectors are allowed to monitor your nuclear programs."

    And Iran's response has been "Fuck you, we'll do what we want becuase we know after Iraq the West has no stomach to stop us."
  • NCfanNCfan Posts: 945
    spiral out wrote:
    Yea, if you say so mate.

    Of course bush and his dumb croonies want war or they wouldn't keep starting them.

    Sure, we just love war... that's why we have started all of 2 in the last 15 years.
  • spiral outspiral out Posts: 1,052
    NCfan wrote:
    Sure, we just love war... that's why we have started all of 2 in the last 15 years.

    America only goes to war to make money. You've started plenty over a longer period of time.
    Keep on rockin in the free world!!!!

    The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
  • spiral outspiral out Posts: 1,052
    NCfan wrote:
    The insurgents are no match for a real military. We just aren't allowed to use the weapons we have because the insurgents hide among the civillians and America is a civilized country that tries to limit civilian casualties.

    If this were 1945, half of Iraq would be leveled on on fire but nobody would be resisting us either.

    America is very civallised, keep telling yourself that.

    Can you even tell what the war is for?
    Keep on rockin in the free world!!!!

    The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    NCfan wrote:
    How do you get that message??? Seems to me Bush has been saying "don't try to get nukes, becuase if you do we will attack you. Let's try to work out an alternate solution where you can have nuclear technology - even your own reactor but the spent fuel rods must be sent to Russia for disposal and inspectors are allowed to monitor your nuclear programs."

    And Iran's response has been "Fuck you, we'll do what we want becuase we know after Iraq the West has no stomach to stop us."
    ...
    No... It's been all bullshit Lip Service.
    Example:
    It is UNACCEPTABLE for Iran to continue its desire to enrich uranium..
    Iran enriches uranium... we do nothing. Isn't that called 'acceptable'?
    It is UNACCEPTABLE for North Korea to test fire their missiles...
    North Korea test fires their missiles... we do nothing. Isn't that called 'acceptable'?
    ...
    The message Bush has sent out is... America will attack you is you do not have Nuclear Weapons... get Nuclear Weapons so America will not attack you.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
Sign In or Register to comment.