Showdown With Iran Imminent

Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Showdown With Iran Imminent

These idiots won't be happy until they start another war.

Quote:

TEHRAN, Dec. 27, 2011 (Reuters) — Iran's first vice-president warned on Tuesday that the flow of crude will be stopped from the crucial Strait of Hormuz in the Gulf if foreign sanctions are imposed on its oil exports, the country's official news agency reported.

Quote"If they (the West) impose sanctions on Iran's oil exports, then even one drop of oil cannot flow from the Strait of Hormuz," IRNA quoted Mohammad Reza Rahimi as saying.

About a third of all sea-borne oil was shipped through the Strait in 2009, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), and U.S. warships patrol the area to ensure safe passage.

Tensions over Iran's nuclear program have increased since the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported on November 8 that Tehran appears to have worked on designing a nuclear bomb and may still be pursuing research to that end. Iran strongly denies this and says it is developing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

Iran has warned it will respond to any attack by hitting Israel and U.S. interests in the Gulf, and analysts say one way to retaliate would be to close the Strait of Hormuz.

Most of the crude exported from Saudi Arabia, Iran, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Iraq - together with nearly all the liquefied natural gas from lead exporter Qatar - must slip through a 4-mile wide shipping channel between Oman and Iran.

I've passed through the straits of Hormuz many times.  If Iran tries to block it they will be sitting ducks for the American forces.  Then Iran will launch missiles at Israel.  Gah.

I wonder if we can convince Israel not to retaliate like we managed to do when Iraq was launching missiles at them.  Regardless we'd have to attack Iran to stop the missiles or Israel will do it themselves.

These guys have to back down or they are going to get seriously messed up.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:These guys

Watcher wrote:
These guys have to back down or they are going to get seriously messed up.

They =want= to get seriously messed up -- that's when Imam Mehdi shows up and brings up the End Of The World.

There are reasons to study religion.  Understanding why one set of crazies wants to start the next World War is a very important one of them.  The best reason NOT to vote Republican is they have the same whacked set of beliefs about getting Jesus to come back and pay us a visit -- start a war in which BILLIONS of people die, then we get Jesus all over again.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13547
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
This really sucks for

This really sucks for humanity if it comes to that. I only hope whatever happens that this does not become WW3. Being here in the states I cannot tell you how many Evangelicals masturbate over the "end times" and the rapture.

And damn, we've already wasted tons of money on two wars we didn't win and China is loving us spinning our wheels while they rob us economically.

I'd say no ground troops and just knock em out with missiles ourselves if it comes to that. I'd also feel really bad for the Iranians who got squashed in their protests of their own government. I'd hate to think about any westernized sympathizer stuck there by virtue of simply being the citizen of the wrong country, would get caught up in our rightful counter attack to theocracy.

But Israel doesn't get a pass in this either. Since WW2 their leaders have done nothing but add to the war mongering tribal bullshit that both sides are guilty of.

I really don't want to see another war, but if Iran tries something, whatever we do has to be swift and decisive with consideration as to minimal chance of the conflict going global. It cannot get to that point because none of humanity will win at that point. We'd all be knocked back to the stone age.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13547
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Watcher

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Watcher wrote:
These guys have to back down or they are going to get seriously messed up.

They =want= to get seriously messed up -- that's when Imam Mehdi shows up and brings up the End Of The World.

There are reasons to study religion.  Understanding why one set of crazies wants to start the next World War is a very important one of them.  The best reason NOT to vote Republican is they have the same whacked set of beliefs about getting Jesus to come back and pay us a visit -- start a war in which BILLIONS of people die, then we get Jesus all over again.

Yea I agree, so why is Israel accepting the status of Limo driver who cant get past the velvet ropes "Christian heaven". You do realize that many of these republicans view the NT and revelations as fact and that the "end times" will only come when Israel gets it's own nation.

How does it feel to be second fiddle and a mere pawn?

Christians, "Thanks for the ride Limo driver, stay here, and wait in the car"

Now, don't get me wrong. I support Israel strictly for secular reasons although it's idea of having a "Jewish state" scares the shit out of me because it plays right into the bloodthirsty god you rightfully accuse both Christians and Muslims of.

You are a pawn to boot on top of having a fictional God. How does it feel to be used in a game of tug of war being the rope itself?

All of it is self fulfilling prophecy and to claim that religion is not playing a role in this is a deadly mistake all sides make.

I don't care if Israel is a state and I do support it's western pluralism and economy. But I will NEVER support a Jewish state just like I don't support a Muslim state. There should simply be governments that support and protect pluralism in the concept of neutrality and the protection of dissent.

If this happens YOU will be as much to blame as Iran and the Christians here who believe the horrible story that a Jewish state is a sign of the end times.

That region is nutty in all camps for one simple reason, they all think a god gave them divine rights.

And thanks to god belief, you'll be giving the Christians here and the Muslims there the war they want. And the secular world will be scrambling to try to not have go global.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3614
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Watcher

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Watcher wrote:
These guys have to back down or they are going to get seriously messed up.

They =want= to get seriously messed up -- that's when Imam Mehdi shows up and brings up the End Of The World.

There are reasons to study religion.  Understanding why one set of crazies wants to start the next World War is a very important one of them.  The best reason NOT to vote Republican is they have the same whacked set of beliefs about getting Jesus to come back and pay us a visit -- start a war in which BILLIONS of people die, then we get Jesus all over again.

 

                              

              All this could have been avoided if that idiot Creator wasn't so keen on handing out major helpings of "Free Will™"  to emotionally unstable beings.  Well, too late now.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination." Voltaire ( 1694-1778 )


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13547
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Watcher wrote:
These guys have to back down or they are going to get seriously messed up.

They =want= to get seriously messed up -- that's when Imam Mehdi shows up and brings up the End Of The World.

There are reasons to study religion.  Understanding why one set of crazies wants to start the next World War is a very important one of them.  The best reason NOT to vote Republican is they have the same whacked set of beliefs about getting Jesus to come back and pay us a visit -- start a war in which BILLIONS of people die, then we get Jesus all over again.

                           


              All this could have been avoided if that idiot Creator wasn't so keen on handing out major helpings of "Free Will™"  to emotionally unstable beings.  Well, too late now.

Which one is the idiot creator? You got three to pick from. Yea it would have been nice if any one of these gods if real would clear things up before the shit hits the fan for all of us, but that would spoil the glory for the 'Chosen people" who will get the cosmic cookie for kissing his ass. Oh and what is even better is whomever beats the shit out of all the others who wins the prize will win the prize of kissing this god's ass forever. Sounds peachy doesn't it/

Furry's got the keys to the clubhouse.

No no no wait,

IRC has the keys to the clubhouse.

No no no no

The Imam's who run Iran have the keys to the clubhouse.

DAMN,

It couldn't be that there is no clubhouse and no deity to fawn after. It could be that the real clubs that are putting in this mess are merely comic book fan clubs people invent.

NAW, one of them is real, has to be. I just cant wait until we all shout for glee over the destruction of our planet.

I will say this though, if anyone could put shame into such a prick of a being to allow all this crap, Hitchins would be able to shame this prick. We all know what he was really doing to people was "will you wake up and smell the stinky arguments you make".

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10550
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
The US never learns. Iran

The US never learns.

Iran is bold and cocky because the US just finished wasting a decade and trillions of dollars and thousands of lives obliterating one of the only two local powers that was keeping them in check, and practically gave them control of that power to boot: Iraq. Now that the sunni's have lost power, the shia reign supreme.

The US consolidated moslem power in the region. Of course it will flex its new muscles.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:The US never

Vastet wrote:
The US never learns. Iran is bold and cocky because the US just finished wasting a decade and trillions of dollars and thousands of lives obliterating one of the only two local powers that was keeping them in check, and practically gave them control of that power to boot: Iraq. Now that the sunni's have lost power, the shia reign supreme. The US consolidated moslem power in the region. Of course it will flex its new muscles.

Muscles?  heh

You watch them just try to block those straits.  It will take the US about 2 hours to sink their entire navy and set half their coastline into a conflagaration.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3614
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:Vastet

Watcher wrote:

Vastet wrote:
The US never learns. Iran is bold and cocky because the US just finished wasting a decade and trillions of dollars and thousands of lives obliterating one of the only two local powers that was keeping them in check, and practically gave them control of that power to boot: Iraq. Now that the sunni's have lost power, the shia reign supreme. The US consolidated moslem power in the region. Of course it will flex its new muscles.

Muscles?  heh

You watch them just try to block those straits.  It will take the US about 2 hours to sink their entire navy and set half their coastline into a conflagaration.

 

 

I have no doubt that the US could accomplish that just as you say, but we aren't the only military power out there who can make things "disappear" via modern weaponry.   The former Soviet Union peddles its weapon systems to virtually anyone who can afford them and many of their weapons systems are sufficient for the task, to say the least.  

  To wit, the Russian Moskit anti ship missile ( rocket powered booster followed by ram jet powered cruise phase ) is a devastating ship killer whose high altitude speed is Mach 2.6 and whose low altitude speed is Mach 1.5.   At 10 km from it's target the time until impact is less than 20 seconds which provides precious little time for defensive countermeasures  ( ie, too fast even for fully automated Phalanx and Goal Keeper especially if the Moskits are fired in salvo)  Also, the Moskit's passive radar mode enables the missile to detect active jamming sources and use them for homing.  That and other features make it's radar seeker very ECM resistant.  Syria is already in possession of this weapon system.  Such highly refined weapons as this most certainly put our navy at serious risk, as well.

 

So yes, the US can still inflict serious damage but in oil rich countries all it takes is for them to write a seriously large check to any of the world's leading arms makers and the odds of the US making short work of it's opponents decreases significantly.  And after fighting so many wars in the Middle East I doubt the American public has much of a stomach for further enduring massive American casualties.

 

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination." Voltaire ( 1694-1778 )


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:I have

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

I have no doubt that the US could accomplish that just as you say, but we aren't the only military power out there who can make things "disappear" via modern weaponry.   The former Soviet Union peddles its weapon systems to virtually anyone who can afford them and many of their weapons systems are sufficient for the task, to say the least.  

  To wit, the Russian Moskit anti ship missile ( rocket powered booster followed by ram jet powered cruise phase ) is a devastating ship killer whose high altitude speed is Mach 2.6 and whose low altitude speed is Mach 1.5.   At 10 km from it's target the time until impact is less than 20 seconds which provides precious little time for defensive countermeasures  ( ie, too fast even for fully automated Phalanx and Goal Keeper especially if the Moskits are fire in salvo)  Also, the Moskit's passive radar mode enables the missile to detect active jamming sources and use them for homing.  That and other features make it's radar seeker very ECM resistant.  Syria is already in possession of this weapon system.  Such highly refined weapons as this most certainly put our navy at serious risk, as well.

 

So yes, the US can still inflict serious damage but in oil rich countries all it takes is for them to write a seriously large check to any of the world's leading arms makers and the odds of the US making short work of it's opponents decreases significantly.  And after fighting so many wars in the Middle East I doubt the American public has much of a stomach for further enduring massive American casualties.

Oh yeah.  The Moskit was causing the Pentagon to sweat bullets...back in 2000.  If you think they have been sitting around doing nothing to find a way to protect against that threat over the past 11 years you'd be wrong.

No one knew crap about the Tomahawk Cruise missile until we unleashed them on Iraq back in 1991.  We tend to save our best toys for when the crap hits the fan.

Let me tell you something about missiles, and for that matter planes as well.  You don't have to have a direct hit on them to take them out.  Missiles are usually set to explode in three different ways.

After impact for bunker busters.

On impact for conventional strikes.

Proximity.  All you have to do is get your missile within a certain range of an incoming missile, then have your defensive missile explode to completely destroy the aerodynamics of the incoming missile.

We realized a long time ago that Phalanx or CIWS (Jokingly referred to stand for in the Navy "Captain It Won't Shoot" ) was not adequate to counter this threat.  That's why we were augmenting the defensive capabilities of our ships waaaay back when I was in the Navy with small missile batteries that would fire salvos of defensive missiles to do this exact thing.  It is damn faster than the CIWS.  We actually have quite a large number of ways of countering incoming missiles.  Not all of them involve shooting objects at them.

And so what if a couple of our ships get taken out?  Last I heard all of us that signed up for the Navy did it of our own free will.  We understood the consequences.  Our economy is too fragile to handle the price of gas doubling.  It would tank us.  We're just going to suck it up if some of our squids die in defense of our national interests.

I'm more concerned about nuclear submarines than the Moskit.  Surface squids don't like subs.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3614
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Watcher

Watcher wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

I have no doubt that the US could accomplish that just as you say, but we aren't the only military power out there who can make things "disappear" via modern weaponry.   The former Soviet Union peddles its weapon systems to virtually anyone who can afford them and many of their weapons systems are sufficient for the task, to say the least.  

  To wit, the Russian Moskit anti ship missile ( rocket powered booster followed by ram jet powered cruise phase ) is a devastating ship killer whose high altitude speed is Mach 2.6 and whose low altitude speed is Mach 1.5.   At 10 km from it's target the time until impact is less than 20 seconds which provides precious little time for defensive countermeasures  ( ie, too fast even for fully automated Phalanx and Goal Keeper especially if the Moskits are fire in salvo)  Also, the Moskit's passive radar mode enables the missile to detect active jamming sources and use them for homing.  That and other features make it's radar seeker very ECM resistant.  Syria is already in possession of this weapon system.  Such highly refined weapons as this most certainly put our navy at serious risk, as well.

 

So yes, the US can still inflict serious damage but in oil rich countries all it takes is for them to write a seriously large check to any of the world's leading arms makers and the odds of the US making short work of it's opponents decreases significantly.  And after fighting so many wars in the Middle East I doubt the American public has much of a stomach for further enduring massive American casualties.

Oh yeah.  The Moskit was causing the Pentagon to sweat bullets...back in 2000.  If you think they have been sitting around doing nothing to find a way to protect against that threat over the past 11 years you'd be wrong.

No one knew crap about the Tomahawk Cruise missile until we unleashed them on Iraq back in 1991.  We tend to save our best toys for when the crap hits the fan.

Let me tell you something about missiles, and for that matter planes as well.  You don't have to have a direct hit on them to take them out.  Missiles are usually set to explode in three different ways.

After impact for bunker busters.

On impact for conventional strikes.

Proximity.  All you have to do is get your missile within a certain range of an incoming missile, then have your defensive missile explode to completely destroy the aerodynamics of the incoming missile.

We realized a long time ago that Phalanx or CIWS (Jokingly referred to stand for in the Navy "Captain It Won't Shoot" ) was not adequate to counter this threat.  That's why we were augmenting the defensive capabilities of our ships waaaay back when I was in the Navy with small missile batteries that would fire salvos of defensive missiles to do this exact thing.  It is damn faster than the CIWS.  We actually have quite a large number of ways of countering incoming missiles.  Not all of them involve shooting objects at them.

And so what if a couple of our ships get taken out?  Last I heard all of us that signed up for the Navy did it of our own free will.  We understood the consequences.  Our economy is too fragile to handle the price of gas doubling.  It would tank us.  We're just going to suck it up if some of our squids die in defense of our national interests.

I'm more concerned about nuclear submarines than the Moskit.  Surface squids don't like subs.

 

 I don't have any reason to doubt any of your observations but as far as asserting that the US has upgraded their own systems to counter enemy threats, well, don't our enemies employ the same approach to counter our upgrades ?  Hence the term "arms race' ?  Make no mistake, my loyalties are to the country of my birth but I have talked to many US veterans who are shockingly dismissive of our enemies abilities to keep abreast, and even surpass, our level of technology.

 

Lastly, the US in Viet Nam was technically overwhelmingly superior to anything the Vietnamese communists could throw at our military and now all we have to show for it is a black granite wall with the names of 58,000 dead American soldiers and the communists now possess all of Viet Nam.  The Soviets left Afghanistan where ( despite Stinger missiles ) they clearly held the upper hand in terms of technology.  In both cases the communists and the mujahideen found ways to counter conventional military might.  They both fought to their enemies weaknesses ( the national will to fight has its limits and they knew it ) and they prevailed over their superior enemies.

 

That's all I'm saying really.

 

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination." Voltaire ( 1694-1778 )


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Vietnam was fought as a war

Vietnam was fought as a war that we would likely never fight ever again -- I'd like to think that we learned our lesson and won't be engaged in super-power proxy wars.

Vietnam was also the kind of war where the people we were fighting =for= weren't the people we needed to be fighting for.  If we had been on the "right" side, Vietnam wouldn't have crumbled so fast after we left.  Consider this -- we were fighting =inside= a country where the people around us weren't exactly on our side.

Iran is a completely different situation -- we have no vested interest, including keeping the oil flowing, to fight =inside= of Iran.  Any military actions will be aimed at removing Iran's ability to wage war, or making it so that Iran sees that waging war against us is a really bad idea.  This is an area where the United States excels -- we held the Soviet Union at bay for several decades because they understood that direct armed conflict was not going to go well.

Any conflict with Iran is likely to be undertaken as a NATO effort, because Iran poses a greater threat to NATO, given the indications that it would attack our allies, which include NATO members, if they don't get to keep on working towards nuclear weapons.  Given Russia's need to maintain cordial relations with NATO members, the likelihood that Russia would side with Iran against NATO strikes me as extremely low.

This doesn't mean that Iran won't make a complete mess of things in the process.  They are backed up against a wall and need a war to make their political and religious leaders look good.  Combined with the End Of The World aspects of Shia Islam, there is a very real possibility that they would start some sort of conflict either to divert attention from domestic problems, or to try to bring about their End Of The World prophecies.  In my experience, military leaders tend to be less "devout", when it comes to true fanaticism, than secular leaders because they have a much better grasp on how much their own particular deity is or isn't fighting on their side.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Sage_Override
atheistBlogger
Sage_Override's picture
Posts: 582
Joined: 2008-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Vietnam was fought as

Quote:
Vietnam was fought as a war that we would likely never fight ever again -- I'd like to think that we learned our lesson and won't be engaged in super-power proxy wars.

 

America?  Learned OUR lesson?  I'd love to believe that, but it just wouldn't be true. 

 

Quote:
Vietnam was also the kind of war where the people we were fighting =for= weren't the people we needed to be fighting for.  If we had been on the "right" side, Vietnam wouldn't have crumbled so fast after we left.  Consider this -- we were fighting =inside= a country where the people around us weren't exactly on our side.

 

Umm, we just nudged our way into their business.  If Lyndon wasn't a complete asshat, and McNamara not being so easily led by every little thing, then we would have never increased soldiers from 16,000 to around 400,000 by 1967.  We were there to support the French and train the Vietcong army, but when the French withdraw in 1954, we kept our occupation to a strict financial and military advisory stance only that is until the false-flag of The Gulf of Tonkin Incident where it was thought two of our destroyers were fired on by Vietnamese naval vessels.  There was no "right" side in Vietnam at all; it was a giant cluster fuck from the get-go and we had no business there in ANY sense.

 

Quote:
Iran is a completely different situation -- we have no vested interest, including keeping the oil flowing, to fight =inside= of Iran.  Any military actions will be aimed at removing Iran's ability to wage war, or making it so that Iran sees that waging war against us is a really bad idea.  This is an area where the United States excels -- we held the Soviet Union at bay for several decades because they understood that direct armed conflict was not going to go well.

 

The Soviet Union collapsed on it's own because they had a lot more to deal with than our bullshit.  The Cold War was just a dick waving contest and they probably would have posed a threat further down the road and been around today if it wasn't for some detrimental factors.  For example, they had their own "Vietnam" to deal with at the time, but for them, it was in Afghanistan.  Gorbachev got the Soviet Union into some deep shit really quick that the Communist party got really pissed with.  The final straw was Chernobyl where Gorbachev's perestroika and glasnost reforms gained more momentum and the disaster was just more motive to push them forward which ultimately led to the collapse.  It wasn't that America scared them to not attack; it's that they couldn't.  Their leaders, party confusions and existing skirmishes left them with little means to do anything about the U.S.  Iran isn't without means and they don't care how strong America is; you just have to look at Desert Storm or Operation: Iraqi Freedom to get a good idea on how much small countries give a shit about our "power." 

"When the majority believes in what is false, the truth becomes a quest." - Me


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Sage_Override

Sage_Override wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:
Vietnam was also the kind of war where the people we were fighting =for= weren't the people we needed to be fighting for.  If we had been on the "right" side, Vietnam wouldn't have crumbled so fast after we left.  Consider this -- we were fighting =inside= a country where the people around us weren't exactly on our side.

Umm, we just nudged our way into their business.  If Lyndon wasn't a complete asshat, and McNamara not being so easily led by every little thing, then we would have never increased soldiers from 16,000 to around 400,000 by 1967.  We were there to support the French and train the Vietcong army, but when the French withdraw in 1954, we kept our occupation to a strict financial and military advisory stance only that is until the false-flag of The Gulf of Tonkin Incident where it was thought two of our destroyers were fired on by Vietnamese naval vessels.  There was no "right" side in Vietnam at all; it was a giant cluster fuck from the get-go and we had no business there in ANY sense.

The =correct= side to have been on in Vietnam was Ho Chi Minh's.

He didn't start off as a hard-core commie -- he only became a hard-core commie after the French were allowed to keep treating Vietnam as their own personal playground post-WWI.  This is what we keep failing to learn as a lesson -- people love the American ideal of Freedom and Democracy, but they really get a hate on when we seem to want to keep it for ourselves.

What =should= have happened when Ho was on our side in WWII is we should have told the French to bugger off, apologized for what happened at Versailles, and recognized Ho's government in 1945.  Ho worked with the OSS to defeat both Germany (Vichy French, who were German proxies) and Japan, then we dumped him, put the people who'd been oppressive the Vietnamese back into power and tried our best to bomb them into oblivion, hoping the South Vietnamese had the stomach to take over the fun on their own.  The problem wasn't that the South Vietnamese didn't want to, but that the majority of them hated French Imperialism -- what the war really was all about -- as much as the godless-commies in the north.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Sage_Override
atheistBlogger
Sage_Override's picture
Posts: 582
Joined: 2008-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:The =correct= side to

Quote:
The =correct= side to have been on in Vietnam was Ho Chi Minh's.

 

Haven't you heard?  I thought everyone heard.

 

"Ho Chi Minh is a son of a bitch.  Got the blue balls, crabs and the seven-year-itch."

 

 

 

If that didn't grab you, take a page out of Animal Mother's book on his take of Vietnam: 

 

"Freedom?  Pfft.  You'd better flush out your head, new guy. This isn't about freedom; this is a slaughter. If I'm gonna get my balls blown off for a word, my word is "poontang".

 

Then again, he also said that they were shooting the "wrong gooks," but let's not split hairs here...

"When the majority believes in what is false, the truth becomes a quest." - Me


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Full Metal Jacket and

Full Metal Jacket and Apocalypse Now are my all time favorite Nam movies.

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10550
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:It will take

Watcher wrote:
It will take the US about 2 hours to sink their entire navy and set half their coastline into a conflagaration.

Funny, since you've lost every war since Iraq 1. Including Iraq 2 and Afghanistan, both of which the US has now retreated from, and have not been made havens for democracy and peace. Maybe in 20 years when 9/11 has repeated itself 3 or 4 times the US will actually have learned its lesson.

Watcher wrote:
No one knew crap about the Tomahawk Cruise missile until we unleashed them on Iraq back in 1991.  We tend to save our best toys for when the crap hits the fan.

Like the patriot? Complete write off. More missiles failed than were hit by patriots.
As is the missile shield you can't convince the Russians to buy into. Not everything that comes from the US military works.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Funny, since

Vastet wrote:
Funny, since you've lost every war since Iraq 1. Including Iraq 2 and Afghanistan, both of which the US has now retreated from, and have not been made havens for democracy and peace. Maybe in 20 years when 9/11 has repeated itself 3 or 4 times the US will actually have learned its lesson.

*grins*  Lost?  How do you mean? 

Lost any battles?  Nope.  Suffered more casualties than the enemy?  Nope.  Unable to completely topple the government and put another one of our choosing in charge?  Nope.  Unable to kill the principle character that caused us to invade Afghanistan, Osama?  Nope.  Unable to capture and turn over Saddam to be executed by his own people.  Nope.

Oh wow, yeah, you're right.  They're totally kicking our asses.  I mean they've killed 1 US soldier for every 50 of them we kill.

Please.

We gave the Afghanistan and Iraqi people a chance to have a decent, orderly country of their own.  If they are too primitive and backwards to not continue killing each other and continuing to live in a chaotic, bloody land, that's their own damn fault.  You can't fix stupid.

Clearing out a narrow strait of water is a lot different than permanently occupying a land full of people.  We see a ship in our way, we sink it.  We see anything along the shore line that could threaten oil tankers, we blow it the fuck up.  That's simple.  Trying to make an entire nation act civilized?  That's about a hundred times more difficult.  We can secure any chunk of the ocean we want.

We have a saying in the US Navy.  The sea is ours.  And you can be damn sure about the factual nature of that saying.  There isn't another Navy on this planet that can stand against the USN.

Vastet wrote:
Like the patriot? Complete write off. More missiles failed than were hit by patriots. As is the missile shield you can't convince the Russians to buy into. Not everything that comes from the US military works.

globalsecurity wrote:
Combat effectiveness of newer systems against 1950s tactical ballistic missiles seems very high, as the Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) had a 100% success rate in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/ops/oif-patriot.htm

The Russians won't "buy into" the US putting up missile shields because they don't want us to use it against them.  Russia would ONLY agree to it if we signed a legally binding agreement that the missile shield would not be used against Russia.

 

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3614
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
              

                                                    

 

 

                                                                                      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNZpkimAZSI

 

                                           ( music vid "God Is A Bullet" from Concrete Blonde.        Sorry, I couldn't resist the irony )

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination." Voltaire ( 1694-1778 )


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
 The sea belongs to the USN

 The sea belongs to the USN but Russian subs make you wet yourselves?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: The sea

jcgadfly wrote:

 The sea belongs to the USN but Russian subs make you wet yourselves?

Any submarines make surface sailors of any navy nervous.  They are very hard to detect even with modern sonar.  Usually the first indication of a hostile sub in your area is the sound of a torpedo heading toward your ship.  On top of this is the location of the damage.  Torpedoes hit below the water line, where if a missile hit the ship from a ground or air based source usually it does not.  Also we have several defense mechanisms to stop an above the water line incoming missile.  None of the defense mechanisms work against torpedoes.  You just take it.  And then you hope your damage control team can control the flooding while you try to destroy the sub that will continue firing more torpedoes at you.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:jcgadfly

Watcher wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

 The sea belongs to the USN but Russian subs make you wet yourselves?

Any submarines make surface sailors of any navy nervous.  They are very hard to detect even with modern sonar.  Usually the first indication of a hostile sub in your area is the sound of a torpedo heading toward your ship.  On top of this is the location of the damage.  Torpedoes hit below the water line, where if a missile hit the ship from a ground or air based source usually it does not.  Also we have several defense mechanisms to stop an above the water line incoming missile.  None of the defense mechanisms work against torpedoes.  You just take it.  And then you hope your damage control team can control the flooding while you try to destroy the sub that will continue firing more torpedoes at you.

Then the seas are not yours, sailor.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Then the seas

jcgadfly wrote:

Then the seas are not yours, sailor.

By that logic either the seas belong to no one, or the seas belong to the Navy with the most submarines.

Guess which navy that is?

Russia!

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
In all seriousness though. 

In all seriousness though.  The Russian fleet is a mess.  Even those ships and submarines that are still in commission and supposedly operational many of them are unable to deploy due to lack of trained crews, lack of funds to buy fuel and stores, etc.  Their maintenance, where it exists, is very poor and their Navy isn't given enough money to conduct much-needed overhauls.

Their Navy is, since the fall of the USSR, widely regarded as a small, weak fleet of decaying ships.  It's getting so bad they are even considering buying new ships from France.  Their fleet has become more of a liability to them than an asset.  America has pledged money to the Russian Navy just to help them dispose of some of their junkers they call a fleet.

The US Navy, on the other hand, while technically has fewer subs, has a LOT more submarines out there doing their thing.  Our Navy is full of ships and subs that are beautifully maintained, generously supplied, and regularly overhauled.

The seas belong to the US Navy.  Without a doubt.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:jcgadfly

Watcher wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Then the seas are not yours, sailor.

By that logic either the seas belong to no one, or the seas belong to the Navy with the most submarines.

Guess which navy that is?

Russia!

1. I personally think the seas belong to no one. It holds no allegiance.

2. Don't like your logic now, huh?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:In all

Watcher wrote:

In all seriousness though.  The Russian fleet is a mess.  Even those ships and submarines that are still in commission and supposedly operational many of them are unable to deploy due to lack of trained crews, lack of funds to buy fuel and stores, etc.  Their maintenance, where it exists, is very poor and their Navy isn't given enough money to conduct much-needed overhauls.

Their Navy is, since the fall of the USSR, widely regarded as a small, weak fleet of decaying ships.  It's getting so bad they are even considering buying new ships from France.  Their fleet has become more of a liability to them than an asset.  America has pledged money to the Russian Navy just to help them dispose of some of their junkers they call a fleet.

The US Navy, on the other hand, while technically has fewer subs, has a LOT more submarines out there doing their thing.  Our Navy is full of ships and subs that are beautifully maintained, generously supplied, and regularly overhauled.

The seas belong to the US Navy.  Without a doubt.

Except for the subs that make you nervous. Your logic is strange.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:We gave the

Watcher wrote:

We gave the Afghanistan and Iraqi people a chance to have a decent, orderly country of their own.  If they are too primitive and backwards to not continue killing each other and continuing to live in a chaotic, bloody land, that's their own damn fault.  You can't fix stupid.

Yup.  Either they want to live in a country where different sects can get along, and they can have peaceful relations wit their neighbors, or they don't.

Watcher wrote:
We have a saying in the US Navy.  The sea is ours.  And you can be damn sure about the factual nature of that saying.  There isn't another Navy on this planet that can stand against the USN.

What many civilians don't understand is that our enemies often throw everything they have into a conflict, and we still have many more toys in the toy box.  A problem with that strategy in Middle Eastern conflicts is that they view this as a sign of weakness -- that we can't or won't escalate beyond whatever level of force we're currently projecting.  Let's just say that they are sadly mistaken.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
 Someday people will figure

 Someday people will figure out that conflicts won't get resolved as long as they keep waving their dicks at each other...

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Watcher

jcgadfly wrote:

Except for the subs that make you nervous. Your logic is strange.

*sighs*  Why are you being so obtuse?  Is it deliberate?

The US Navy phrase, "The seas belong to us." means that the United States Navy can control any part of any sea it wants against any other naval force on the planet.

That's not so hard to understand is it?

Of course submarines make surface sailors nervous.  That's a universal.  But it doesn't mean a couple subs can take out one of our fleets.  We have subs too, and every one of our fleets deploy with several of them paroling around and beneath them.  Modern navies have developed several methods to detect and destroy submarines but they're sneaky little buggers.

Unless you are expecting it to appear at a certain time it will very likely catch you with your pants down.  And then people start dieing before they even know what happened.  Once one ship got hit though, the rest of the fleet would be on high alert and the submarine would have a much harder job to take out anyone else or survive if they try.

And the reason is simple.  Most of the time sonar operates in a passive mode.  It just listens for noises.  For the old diesel powered subs this works pretty well.  For nuclear subs though, it doesn't work so well.  They are too quiet.  However, if you are expecting a submarine in the area the sonar switches to active mode and starts sending out powerful pulses of sound.  It bounces this pulse off their hull and lights them up like a lightbulb to our sensors.

If you were in that sub you would hear that ping hit you.  It would sound like a giant with a sledgehammer just hit your hull.  That's when the submariners start pissing their pants.  Because our surface ships have torpedoes too.  Just for those little bastards.  We also have mines. 

The only problem is that the first ship that realizes a hostile sub is around is very likely to not make it with a lot of it's crew dead.  No one wants to be on that first ship.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:jcgadfly

Watcher wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Except for the subs that make you nervous. Your logic is strange.

*sighs*  Why are you being so obtuse?  Is it deliberate?

The US Navy phrase, "The seas belong to us." means that the United States Navy can control any part of any sea it wants against any other naval force on the planet.

That's not so hard to understand is it?

Of course submarines make surface sailors nervous.  That's a universal.  But it doesn't mean a couple subs can take out one of our fleets.  We have subs too, and every one of our fleets deploy with several of them paroling around and beneath them.  Modern navies have developed several methods to detect and destroy submarines but they're sneaky little buggers.

Unless you are expecting it to appear at a certain time it will very likely catch you with your pants down.  And then people start dieing before they even know what happened.  Once one ship got hit though, the rest of the fleet would be on high alert and the submarine would have a much harder job to take out anyone else or survive if they try.

And the reason is simple.  Most of the time sonar operates in a passive mode.  It just listens for noises.  For the old diesel powered subs this works pretty well.  For nuclear subs though, it doesn't work so well.  They are too quiet.  However, if you are expecting a submarine in the area the sonar switches to active mode and starts sending out powerful pulses of sound.  It bounces this pulse off their hull and lights them up like a lightbulb to our sensors.

If you were in that sub you would hear that ping hit you.  It would sound like a giant with a sledgehammer just hit your hull.  That's when the submariners start pissing their pants.  Because our surface ships have torpedoes too.  Just for those little bastards.  We also have mines. 

The only problem is that the first ship that realizes a hostile sub is around is very likely to not make it with a lot of it's crew dead.  No one wants to be on that first ship.

 Why do you contradict yourself? 

You say you control the seas but you acknowledge a part of the seas you can't control. Make up your damn mind.

I guess it's just part of the prick waving that comes with being attached to the military. Is self-contradiction and hyperbole really all we have in the military?

And back to the OP - don't kid yourself. Our brass want a conflict as badly as they do.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10550
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:*grins* 

Watcher wrote:
*grins*  Lost?  How do you mean?

As in failing to complete the objectives laid out, such as bringing peace, democracy, and stability to the region. As in removing the taliban and ending the threat of terrorism. Should I go on?

Also, your source is bs. I've read the reports that proved most patriot missiles couldn't hit anything but the ground, and the only reason Kuwait wasn't reduced to rubble was because Iraq was sold substandard equipment that didn't live up to expectations.
But history revision and promotion of failed military supplies was always an American past time. Like forgetting that you had almost nothing to do with the world wars, that Britain and the colony of Canada kicked your ass and burned down your white house, or that the taliban made a reasonable demand for proof that was never satisfied and that for decades the US government has promoted a missile shield that dozens of studies have shown would be as effective, or less, as shooting at missiles with guns.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10550
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:The US Navy

Watcher wrote:
The US Navy phrase, "The seas belong to us." means that the United States Navy can control any part of any sea it wants against any other naval force on the planet.

Only with the consent of the other global powers. If you tried parking a fleet off England, China, Russia, or other powerhouses, you'd quickly learn how little control you actually have. Firing lasers at cave dwellers has made you full of yourselves if you think for a second that you can control any part of the seas you like at will.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:You say you

jcgadfly wrote:

You say you control the seas but you acknowledge a part of the seas you can't control. Make up your damn mind.

I guess it's just part of the prick waving that comes with being attached to the military. Is self-contradiction and hyperbole really all we have in the military?

He's just saying that the USN is, by far, the most powerful Navy. No other force could effectively compete with it. When he says the seas "belong" to some party, he just means that they are the strongest group and try to police it. Don't see anything to argue about there.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:jcgadfly

butterbattle wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

You say you control the seas but you acknowledge a part of the seas you can't control. Make up your damn mind.

I guess it's just part of the prick waving that comes with being attached to the military. Is self-contradiction and hyperbole really all we have in the military?

He's just saying that the USN is, by far, the most powerful Navy. No other force could effectively compete with it. When he says the seas "belong" to some party, he just means that they are the strongest group and try to police it. Don't see anything to argue about there.

I know what he's saying. It's the same kind of prick waving that Iran is doing now. It's the same priok waving that miltaries have done for as long as there have been wars.

I have a low tolerance for prick waving.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:If you tried

Vastet wrote:
If you tried parking a fleet off England, China, Russia, or other powerhouses, you'd quickly learn how little control you actually have. Firing lasers at cave dwellers has made you full of yourselves if you think for a second that you can control any part of the seas you like at will.

Eh, don't know how close is "off," but I'm pretty sure the USN already parks its fleets near the coasts of most if not all other "superpowers."  

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:I know what

jcgadfly wrote:

I know what he's saying. It's the same kind of prick waving that Iran is doing now. It's the same priok waving that miltaries have done for as long as there have been wars.

I have a low tolerance for prick waving.

Heh.

Well, the US is very good at prick waving. They like waving their military prick.

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Why do you

jcgadfly wrote:

Why do you contradict yourself? 

You say you control the seas but you acknowledge a part of the seas you can't control. Make up your damn mind.

I guess it's just part of the prick waving that comes with being attached to the military. Is self-contradiction and hyperbole really all we have in the military?

And back to the OP - don't kid yourself. Our brass want a conflict as badly as they do.

If we move into a territory of water we can control it.  That means the sea belongs to us.  One or two ships being lost to enemy subs does not mean the United States Navy can not control a sea.

We would easily be victorious against anyone that tried to challenge us.

And take your pussy ass pacifist whining and park it at your nearest gynecologist office.  I don't really care what little girls like you think of your country's military that gives you your freedoms.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:jcgadfly

Watcher wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Why do you contradict yourself? 

You say you control the seas but you acknowledge a part of the seas you can't control. Make up your damn mind.

I guess it's just part of the prick waving that comes with being attached to the military. Is self-contradiction and hyperbole really all we have in the military?

And back to the OP - don't kid yourself. Our brass want a conflict as badly as they do.

If we move into a territory of water we can control it.  That means the sea belongs to us.  One or two ships being lost to enemy subs does not mean the United States Navy can not control a sea.

We would easily be victorious against anyone that tried to challenge us.

And take your pussy ass pacifist whining and park it at your nearest gynecologist office.  I don't really care what little girls like you think of your country's military that gives you your freedoms.

Pussy ass pacifist whining? Because I like to know why we're going into a war before we do it? Because I'd like to have well supported reasons for killing? Because I'd rather not kill soldiers and gain no objectives?

Lump me in with them then you macho, macho man. I'm sure you'll find an indian chief, a construction worker, a cowboy, a construction worker and a cop to play with.

Have fun with your toys, General Pyrrhus. It seems it's not just the brass who wants the showdown. I hope you can calm your erection down before you see action again.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:As in failing

Vastet wrote:

As in failing to complete the objectives laid out, such as bringing peace, democracy, and stability to the region. As in removing the taliban and ending the threat of terrorism. Should I go on?

Peace and democracy to those desert dwelling troglodytes?  Yes, it seems we did overestimate the arabs.  They only know how to be blood thirsty tribes.

We did remove the Taliban.  They are no longer in control of Afghanistan.  Oh, sure some raghead are running around living in caves calling themselves by that name.  Big whoop.

And ending the threat of terrorism is ridiculous.  The world will never be free of terrorism.

Vastet wrote:

Also, your source is bs. I've read the reports that proved most patriot missiles couldn't hit anything but the ground, and the only reason Kuwait wasn't reduced to rubble was because Iraq was sold substandard equipment that didn't live up to expectations.

Did the report also mention that Iraq was firing those SCUDs at Saudi Arabia and Israel, not Kuwait?  Apparently not.  Anyway, yes I know that the controversy of their effectiveness is still in contention even today.  So what?  America is much better at blowing somebody up rather than protecting somebody from getting blown up.

We have specialized in the former.

Maybe Canada can specialize in defense since it's full of hippies.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:Vastet

Watcher wrote:

Vastet wrote:

As in failing to complete the objectives laid out, such as bringing peace, democracy, and stability to the region. As in removing the taliban and ending the threat of terrorism. Should I go on?

Peace and democracy to those desert dwelling troglodytes?  Yes, it seems we did overestimate the arabs.  They only know how to be blood thirsty tribes.

We did remove the Taliban.  They are no longer in control of Afghanistan.  Oh, sure some raghead are running around living in caves calling themselves by that name.  Big whoop.

And ending the threat of terrorism is ridiculous.  The world will never be free of terrorism.

Vastet wrote:

Also, your source is bs. I've read the reports that proved most patriot missiles couldn't hit anything but the ground, and the only reason Kuwait wasn't reduced to rubble was because Iraq was sold substandard equipment that didn't live up to expectations.

Did the report also mention that Iraq was firing those SCUDs at Saudi Arabia and Israel, not Kuwait?  Apparently not.  Anyway, yes I know that the controversy of their effectiveness is still in contention even today.  So what?  America is much better at blowing somebody up rather than protecting somebody from getting blown up.

We have specialized in the former.

Maybe Canada can specialize in defense since it's full of hippies.

They're bloodthirsty tribes because they want to oust the invaders of their country? Would we be bloodthisrty tribes is the situation was reversed? Or would we be freedom fighters?

Why did we have "the end of terrorism" as a stated objective then?

Yep maybe the hippies can think with their big heads so we don't have to lose any more of you guys who think with the little one.

 

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Pussy ass

jcgadfly wrote:

Pussy ass pacifist whining? Because I like to know why we're going into a war before we do it? Because I'd like to have well supported reasons for killing? Because I'd rather not kill soldiers and gain no objectives?

Lump me in with them then you macho, macho man. I'm sure you'll find an indian chief, a construction worker, a cowboy, a construction worker and a cop to play with.

Have fun with your toys, General Pyrrhus. It seems it's not just the brass who wants the showdown. I hope you can calm your erection down before you see action again.

You're the one that started with the insults.  So roll with it.

You are making a big logical mistake here, lad.  Don't insult the military because politicians order them to do things in defense of their country's interests.

The US Military did not decide to invade Afghanistan or Iraq.  We were ordered to do it.  When you're in the military you obey every lawful order you are given.

I don't want to see us have to attack Iran.  I hope they are reasonable for once.

But if they are not reasonable our military is going to fuck them up.  And no one is going to stop us.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:jcgadfly

Watcher wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Pussy ass pacifist whining? Because I like to know why we're going into a war before we do it? Because I'd like to have well supported reasons for killing? Because I'd rather not kill soldiers and gain no objectives?

Lump me in with them then you macho, macho man. I'm sure you'll find an indian chief, a construction worker, a cowboy, a construction worker and a cop to play with.

Have fun with your toys, General Pyrrhus. It seems it's not just the brass who wants the showdown. I hope you can calm your erection down before you see action again.

You're the one that started with the insults.  So roll with it.

You are making a big logical mistake here, lad.  Don't insult the military because politicians order them to do things in defense of their country's interests. 

The US Military did not decide to invade Afghanistan or Iraq.  We were ordered to do it.  When you're in the military you obey every lawful order you are given.

I don't want to see us have to attack Iran.  I hope they are reasonable for once.

But if they are not reasonable our military is going to fuck them up.  And no one is going to stop us.

Please name the insult I started with. Was it calling you "sailor"? Was it saying that subs make sailors wet themselves after you admitted they made sailors nervous?

Or was i insulting you by saying that the brass (military and civilian) want another war to jump-start the economy? Maybe it was me calling you on the prick-waving you were doing?

Which insult was it or are you pulling it out of your ass? Fess up Junior. Do you have enough body armor to protect that very thin skin of yours?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Please name

jcgadfly wrote:

Please name the insult I started with. Was it calling you "sailor"? Was it saying that subs make sailors wet themselves after you admitted they made sailors nervous?

Or was i insulting you by saying that the brass (military and civilian) want another war to jump-start the economy? Maybe it was me calling you on the prick-waving you were doing?

Which insult was it or are you pulling it out of your ass? Fess up Junior. Do you have enough body armor to protect that very thin skin of yours?

This is the exact insult that you started with.

jcgadfly wrote:

I guess it's just part of the prick waving that comes with being attached to the military. Is self-contradiction and hyperbole really all we have in the military?

There you go.  Apparently, according to you, by stating the facts of American military might I am a prick waving, self-contradicting, hyperbole spewing veteran.

The fact is you're living in a fantasy land.  Everyone bemoaning all this bloodshed going on over there.

We didn't just throw a dart and decide to attack whatever country it landed on.

We wouldn't have invaded Afghanistan if over 3000 of our civilians didn't die screaming being burned to death, crushed to death, or jumping out of high rise buildings.  Even after that we wouldn't have invaded if Afghanistan had handed over the culprits.  They allowed this to happen.  They decided to be obstinate.  So we invaded.

Was Iraq a mistake?   Apparently it was.  We should have left good ol' Saddam in power to continue to slaughter Iraqi citizen men, women, and chilren for several more decades.  Then all the peace loving people the world over would be perfectly content.  Wouldn't they?

A peaceful planet with no war is a nice dream.  But that's all it is.

It's a dream.  We're never going to stop killing each other.  But compared to a hell of a lot of places the West is remarkably orderly and civilized.  Not like the Muslim countries where sectarian violence kills people of all ages and genders on a frequent basis.  Where people are executed because they are born being homosexuals.  Where you can be killed or imprisoned for life for blasphemy.

We can't remain as a sovereign, orderly, relatively peaceful society without a strong military to defend our society.

We can't.  So when some old fart on Capitol Hill tells our young men and women in uniform that their country needs them and orders them out to kill and die for their country don't belittle or insult those people.

Fucking write your congressman.  Vote.  But back off the people following orders and doing what their country asks of them.

 

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Do you have

jcgadfly wrote:

Do you have enough body armor to protect that very thin skin of yours?

And since I've been shrugging off your continued insults that you continue to direct at me with every post after I only insulted you one time, I think it's pretty self evident who has the thicker skin.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:jcgadfly

Watcher wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Do you have enough body armor to protect that very thin skin of yours?

And since I've been shrugging off your continued insults that you continue to direct at me with ever post after I only insulted you one time, I think it's pretty self evident who has the thicker skin.

You don't want to be accused of prick-waving? Stop waving your prick.

I do believe you were the one who started that by "These guys have to back down or they are going to get seriously messed up." and "It will take the US about 2 hours to sink their entire navy and set half their coastline into a conflagration."

If you don't want war - don't sound like such a bad ass about it. It sends the wrong message.

And if you recall, I told you to count me in with the "pussy pacifists". Oh horrors! I was so insulted I agreed to join them.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3614
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
              

 

        I know this is a forum that focuses mainly on theological / skeptic subject matter but this thread is waaaay more entertaining than talking about all that god bullshit.,,,

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination." Voltaire ( 1694-1778 )


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
My personal opinion is that the

 

 

complexity of involvement in Iraq/Vietnam is entirely mitigated in this sort of zero sum confrontation. Here, there is no need to create civil alliances. In such cases it's much more cut and dried and Iran's ability to wage war and its industrial engine would be utterly plastered in the first week.

This said, I think the grandstanding we see in Iran relates more to domestic politics and seems to be a game of oneupmanship the government plays against the all-powerful clergy. Nor can I imagine the 'West' (read stable nations that are no longer restricted to an arbitrary geographic location) would want to torment Iran's civvies and unit them behind such a fucked government. 

The nations of the middle east should be allowed to shake themselves apart without interference, without dilution. They have to go through what Europeans went through in the 16th and 17th centuries. They have to want moderation, civil rights and a separation of church and state so badly that a majority of ordinary people are prepared to personally die for it. 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Conor Wilson
Posts: 451
Joined: 2008-01-07
User is offlineOffline
I just wanted to say...

...that I'm basically with Watcher, here.   The Navy *does* pretty much own the oceans, even if, on an individual ship level, subs are pretty scary.  That said, I *do* have one small criticism for you, Watcher, from waaaaay back in post #17.  You wrote, "Trying to make an entire nation act civilized? That's about a hundred times more difficult."  My comment: I would have upped that number by *at* *least* a factor of ten.

 

Watcher...you're such an optimist.

 

Conor

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

"Faith does not fear reason."--Pope Pius XII

"But it should!"--Me

 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10550
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Eh, don't

butterbattle wrote:

Eh, don't know how close is "off," but I'm pretty sure the USN already parks its fleets near the coasts of most if not all other "superpowers."  

And every one of them that do have forces in their territory either agreed to or even asked for such.
There's no denying America is the leader in armed forces globally. But a significant amount of the power the US wields comes from allies, and their sharing of resources and ALLOWANCE of US military presence in their territory. The US doesn't own the world, and could be ejected from many territories they have forces in simply by the host nation deciding they weren't wanted anymore.

Quote:
We did remove the Taliban. 

No, you didn't. They've reclaimed a significant portion of Afghanistan.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:No, you didn't.

Vastet wrote:
No, you didn't. They've reclaimed a significant portion of Afghanistan.

That is, thankfully, not the least bit true.

The Taliban have been relegated to fighting very limited guerrilla attacks and are pretty much smooshed whenever try to pull that off in anything close to brigade or other large unit strength.

There =are= large parts of Afghanistan that are sympathetic to the Taliban, but that's the same problem that was discussed earlier -- it's impossible to make a people =want= to have a free and democratic society.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Sage_Override
atheistBlogger
Sage_Override's picture
Posts: 582
Joined: 2008-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Vastet wrote:No, you

Quote:

Vastet wrote:
No, you didn't. They've reclaimed a significant portion of Afghanistan.

Quote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:

That is, thankfully, not the least bit true.

The Taliban have been relegated to fighting very limited guerrilla attacks and are pretty much smooshed whenever try to pull that off in anything close to brigade or other large unit strength.

There =are= large parts of Afghanistan that are sympathetic to the Taliban, but that's the same problem that was discussed earlier -- it's impossible to make a people =want= to have a free and democratic society.

 

You're misinformed.  economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/ten-years-on-who-are-the-taliban-today/articleshow/10313980.cms

 

So, yeah, Afghanistan is still occupied heavily by various Al-Qaeda militant cells and possesses huge pockets of Taliban groups.  Whatever you heard is just the news trying to fuck with you saying they're not a threat or that they're gone. 

"When the majority believes in what is false, the truth becomes a quest." - Me