Users who Dugg This
Standing My Ground
4848 Followers
Jeremyorlando
30 Followers
bestenemyJan 24, 2012
Iran...until 1953 was a secular democracy. 1951: Mohammed Mossadegh elected prime minister by a landslide majority on a mandate of nationalizing the Anglo-Persian oil company now known as record-profit posting BP. What happens next? The Foreign office recommend a coup d'état. Churchill puts up a million and a half dollars to finance the coup. Eisenhower agrees to match this with a million dollars on the sole proviso that Theodore Roosevelt's grandson and CIA Middle East Station Chief in Tehran, Kermit Roosevelt, will be point man for the coup. This is agreed, the money is transferred, and Kermit Roosevelt's first action is to spring General Fazlollah Zahedi from jail where he is languishing on account of being a Nazi collaborator. And this is the man that Kermit Roosevelt has chosen to lead the military part of the coup…
Kermit Roosevelt installed Shah Reza Pahlavi as absolute dictator of Iran, head of the notorious SAVAK secret police, which in 1976, he is still there, AMNESTY described as responsible for the worst human rights atrocities on planet earth. This was Britain and America bringing democracy to the Middle East, 1953-style.
- Robert Newman
ummagummaJan 23, 2012
"Each of these Nimitz class vessels carries a complement of fighter aircraft with more striking power than the entire Iranian air force."
'nuff said.
barackalypseJan 23, 2012
What is your plan to keep over a hundred miles of Iranian shoreline with highways running along side it free from anti-ship missiles fired from truck towed mobile launchers?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
4Herp2Derp0Jan 23, 2012
Our ships are not sitting ducks by any means. They can defend themselves from multiple types of attacks. Their artillery would be sitting ducks to our drones, bombers, and fighters(of course Iran's radar and communications would be severely crippled at this point) America can watch Iran's shorelines in real time, Iran does not have this capability. This is a major factor as is having the ability to wreak all kinds of havoc in that country in only a few hours time and them knowing it.
Not all things are equal.
If America was allowed to cultivate hemp than we would be able to take a huge chunk out of our oil usage so these types of things don't need to happen in the first place.
adml_shakeJan 23, 2012
Spy sat's and cruise missiles. .
spongya77Jan 24, 2012
Yeah. Because military might was so effective in Iraq and Afghanistan... Bit more brain and a bit less testosterone.
drpostmanJan 24, 2012
Land and sea are two very different warfare environments. They won't be able to keep the straights closed. If the military action is restricted to just that or even just the Gulf then Iran doesn't stand a chance and could end up losing a lot of assets. Look up what happened in the late 80s to the Iranian navy after a tangle with the USN. Operation Praying Mantis is a term that strikes shivers in the hearts of the Iranian military. We won't be invading a country, just keeping Iranian assets from closing the straights, which shouldn't be much of a problem.
spongya77Jan 24, 2012
Yeah right. It's so nice to hear armchair generals dishing out the smarts. Why don't you, and the rest of the jingoist crowd look up 2002 and Millennium Challenge on Google? That scared the s**t out of the ACTUAL soldiers.
Sometimes I really, really wish the US went ahead with this crap; losing a carrier would probably teach some humility. But then again; some people cannot be taught. Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam showed this already. It would just fired up some more of the same s**t and send the jingoist "patriotic" buttplugs into overdrive.
The real f**ked up thing in this is that in this conflict Iran has the moral high ground. Iran. A country that's f**king hangs and stones people.
drpostmanJan 25, 2012
First of all, I'm a disabled vet, far from an armchair general. Second of all, drawing ANY conclusions from a wargame is silly. Thirdly, how does a nation have a moral high ground when it closes an international shipping channel? Lastly, your tautology, "jingoist patriotic" shows that you need a thesaurus.
But you just go right ahead and keep comparing a naval confrontation to a ground conflict.
angrycat70Jan 23, 2012
This is getting old. Put up or shut up.
platypusrexJan 24, 2012
With the collapse of the oil embargo to force Iran into a confrontation over the Straight of Hormuz, the US and Israel are looking for another way to get the long-sought war with Iran started, and more to the point, need to make it look like Iran is starting hostilities in order to make it politically more difficult for Russia and China to support Iran.
Now, recall that Israel has a past history of attacking US warships and framing others to trick the US into attacks on Israel's enemies, with the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty (initially blamed on Egypt) as the most well-known example.
So here we have the USS Enterprise, the oldest carrier in the fleet, on her last legs, scheduled to be decommissioned next year. Her name is well known, in part because of the Star Trek TV series. Decommissioning a nuclear aircraft carrier is a very expensive process. USS Enterprise is powered by 8 nuclear reactors, all of which must be disposed of as nuclear waste material along with all the associated machinery. The US Navy would save a great deal of money, more than the scrap worth of the steel, if USS Enterprise were to be sunk in the Persian Gulf, where the radioactive mess is someone else's problem to deal with.
So, why send an ancient ship at the end of her useful life into harms way? The same reason Franklin Roosevelt moved a bunch of obsolete warships from San Diego to Pearl Harbor, while the newer carriers and warships were well away from Hawaii on December 7th, 1941.
Israel has 3 Dolphin submarines, given to her by Germany. They have been seen transiting the Suez Canal in the past, and could well be operating in the Gulf of Oman, even the Persian Gulf by now, lying in wait for a used-up and obsolete warship, more useful as a sacrificial lamb than an actual weapon, a ship with American sailors, to be attacked as Israel attacked the USS Liberty, then to be blamed on the designated target, Iran, by a compliant media.
vitriolandangstJan 25, 2012
platypusrex -- you are so reading my mind.
I figured that some ready to be mothballed ship would act as a sitting duck in harms way -- provoking the Iranians to attack it.
Those SOBs in the Navy or Pentagon -- SOMEONE let the USS Liberty get attacked, and did nothing to defend it.
>> Anyone with a family member onboard a destroyer or air craft carrier in the straight that is on a vessel past it's due date, needs to have a conversation with them. It isn't about relative military might -- if a war is in the planning, some ship or US asset has to be sacrificed so the Media can play us as the victim. If Iran doesn't attack, either the Arabs or Israelis will do us the favor.
... that is, if we are ever going to war -- which I still doubt. We've had this "almost war" with Iran for almost 30 years -- and the Bush family sent the anti-american extremists a bunch of weapons. I think that warmongers and Iranian Mullahs are "frenemies" now.
Closed AccountJan 23, 2012
yeah right...jusy blabbering or else they'd have told the uss lincoln they can't pass. yet they were meek as mice....once again the mouse squeaks....
vitriolandangstJan 24, 2012
BEFORE we chastise Iran about closing the strait of Hormuz -- we have to understand that the Sanctions are in retaliation for Iran's Nuclear Program.
Before we accept the notion that this is about weapons -- we need to realize that the private nuclear industry is lobbying for these sanctions and they are actually upset about competition in nuclear fuel rods.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/01/17/iran-signs-own-death-warrant/
Both the international nuclear inspectors and the CIA have said that Iran does not have the capabilities for a nuclear program.
... this is about billions of dollars in nuclear fuel that would go on the market and compete with US nuclear exports.
>> One of these days, the Pentagon is going to cry wolf about a nation that is a WMD threat, and they will actually be a WMD threat -- until then, our Pentagon and Bankers remain the greatest threat to freedom in this planet.
This is about the MONEY. And the sanctions are based on a bogus premise. The military and governments are mouthpieces for private industry.
cantstopwontstopJan 24, 2012
don't be a fool. this isn't about nuclear fuel rod competition or oil. iran used to cooperate with the nuclear inspections, but then it did odd stuff like not allow inspectors in certain parts of facilities for seemingly no reason, or ban them from visiting facilities all together, there was a lot of suspicious things going on. there's more going on behind the scenes than you realize. there can be no downsides to allowing inspectors to inspect. in fact, they may be helpful since they can recognize if an issue will crop up such as inadequate containment.
on top of that it is already public knowledge that iran has been enriching uranium at higher purities than medical and energy generation purposes.
they may have even already tested small bombs underground, as there have been some very suspicious deaths of iranian scientists at work that aren't linked to any assassinations along with out of place seismic events. we also know they've been getting their hands on neutron initiators which is a trigger for a nuclear explosion. this has no other purpose in nuclear usage than to create explosives.
if iran had nothing to hide, then submitting to inspectors shouldn't be an issue at all. in fact, it would benefit everyone else if iran had a peaceful nuclear program since they would depend less on their own oil, which would mean their oil would be cheaper.
". this is about billions of dollars in nuclear fuel that would go on the market and compete with US nuclear exports."
you think people are going to go to war over a billion dollars? s**t, we give more than that in aid to afghanistan and pakistan. the iraq war cost well over a trillion dollars which dwarfs that by a thousand times.
in fact, iran may be the one behind the intel that lead the US to think iraq could have had nuclear weapons. iran hates iraq. and it would have served as a good distraction for iran.
"Both the international nuclear inspectors and the CIA have said that Iran does not have the capabilities for a nuclear program."
if they have the capability to use nuclear fuel for energy generation and medical purposes, then they can 'easily' work their way towards weapons. after all, we had nuclear bombs before nuclear reactors.
you know what sounds less likely; that the iraq war was about oil and that the iran problem is all about money. we can look back and honestly say that the iraq war wasn't about oil, otherwise we'd be seeing 1.50 a gallon like it was a decade ago. now granted military and construction contractors did benefit from war and some bad things happened, but honestly the middle east will be better off than if they had been left alone, once they gather themselves and move into the modern world. the implications are farther reaching than you might think, going decades into the future.
you're defending iran here, the country that executes gays and rape victims and arrests loads of foreigners for being spies to the point of unreasonable paranoia, and that doesn't even come close to scratching the surface. iran has an extensively bad past. no one can or would defend iran knowing all of it.
vitriolandangstJan 25, 2012
The Iraq war wasn't about Oil because it costs more now? Is that really your reasoning here?
Who do you think Benefits from the price of gas getting higher? The Oil companies and the future's contracts now used to manipulate the price.
Iran is a sovereign country and doesn't have to abide by nuclear non-proliferation treaties it didn't sign. You seem pretty ill informed and convinced about a lot of things where you and I would not have the information.
If top level CIA officials say that Iran doesn't have nukes, and the Nuclear inspectors say it as well -- it should at least cause us to ask questions. Whether Iran has nukes or not, however, it is not the RIGHT of other nations to start a war with them.
These sanctions are just more provocation and hostility from the US and it's allies when we aren't standing on high moral ground.
>> The allegation that this is about Fuel Rods seems to ring truer than the nuclear issue, because it almost always turns out to be about the money.
FPSmotoJan 23, 2012
Why are sanctions even being put on Iran? So what if they want a nuclear warhead? We have thousands of em and they know this. They are completely aware that we could turn their country into a glass parking lot with the press of a button. If I had a bunch of foreign terrorists in my country, I'd want to build a defense too. These sanctions are not warranted and will only disrupt further peace in the middle east.
trivialanomalyJan 24, 2012
"Mr Hague said an oil embargo was designed to persuade the Iranian government to launch "meaningful" talks with the international community on its nuclear intentions."
They want to be part of the "nuclear-bomb club", but they don't want to play by the rules - that's why.
FPSmotoJan 24, 2012
Because we're in their country, raping their resources for our own. It's retaliation and Iran has every right to defend their land and resources.
trivialanomalyJan 24, 2012
This is not an America vs Iran issue. This is a rogue nuclear state vs the world issue. Of course Iran is entitled to defend its land and resources, with a conventional military. But nukes are a whole different ball game, history has shown us this. That is why the world has moved towards disarmament and why we have treaties like the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. If Iran wants nukes then they have to be open about their intentions to the worldwide community, and must abide by the rules.
vitriolandangstJan 25, 2012
Which Rogue nation invaded two countries that had nothing to do with 9/11?
trivialanomalyJan 25, 2012
I see that you are American. If you see your country that way, then, if I were you, I would be vehemently opposed to Iran having nukes as they might be headed your way.
vitriolandangstJan 25, 2012
Nuclear Bomb Club membership means you no longer play by the rules. ARE you new here on this planet?
trivialanomalyJan 25, 2012
No, I have been here since the Cold War was at it's peak, and have seen a more sensible and controlled attitude towards nuclear weapons develop among nations. I would like to see it stay that way.
bluenose2Jan 24, 2012
US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta Admits Iran Not Making Nuclear Weapons
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJvEYtT330M
mksmothersJan 23, 2012
Iran can talk as tough as they want, however they can't compete with an American aircraft carrier group.
breadfredJan 23, 2012
You forget America plays by the rules. Iran does not have to.
Ouzel7Jan 23, 2012
Kudos ... this point is lost on some.
adml_shakeJan 23, 2012
We play by the rules when it's convenient for us to do so.
vitriolandangstJan 25, 2012
LOL -- or when the cameras are rolling.
We haven't played by the rules it seems since the Korean War.
If We had lasers we'd be condemning white phosphorous and carpet bombs. The WMD accusation is just nonsense when we are able to wipe out whole cities with the "expensive stuff."
Depleted Uranium, torture, illegal invasion of sovereign nations, war for resources -- makes the Nuremburg trials look like a farce.
Whatever Iran does or doesn't do -- we can jabber on about "how dare they" -- but it's just necessity. They face a nation with $800 Billion a year in war budget, spanning the globe with real-time satellites, drone aircraft and enough nukes to kill human life on this planet about a hundred times over.
>> If they do manage to sink an air craft carrier group -- there will be the usual shills and pundits howling like made and demanding a total invasion in retaliation.
I could think of a few ways they could take out a boat in the straight of Hormuz -- even with our superior tech. Of course, winning the battle against a country that has no remorse or restraint merely invites more shock and awe.
I'm still not sure these threats aren't some way to keep the mullahs in power -- it sure is a great way to foment anti-American sentiment in Iran when it is completely unnecessary.
Hasn't America shown what happens to nations WITHOUT Nukes?
thespookJan 24, 2012
Was taking out OBL in Pakistan playing by the rules? I suppose it depends who you ask. Of course, if they did break rules, I'm sure as hell glad they did.
adalseyJan 26, 2012
good luck with that...
adalseyJan 26, 2012
good luck with that...
afRetOneJan 24, 2012
Dear Crazy s**t in charge of Iran,
SHUT THE f**k UP!
That is all,
The Rest of the World
daiichiJan 24, 2012
I read the headline and visualized the resulting boon for the environment as all those sunken Iranian ships would make wonderful artificial coral reefs.
wolfingJan 23, 2012
Iran is like North Korea... threat threat threat threat. Just do it if you're going to do it or shut up
barackalypseJan 23, 2012
Lets see, at its narrowest its the Strait is 34 miles wide and in 2011 an average of 14 oil tankers a day went through it. The iranian navy and air force are non-issues for a US Carrier group to negate, which leaves only ground based artillery and anti-ship missiles to deal with.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
spongya77Jan 24, 2012
only... right. One sunburn missile can take out your precious carriers. And they have more than one.
tsc51Jan 23, 2012
It's kinda like Iraqs, threat of The Mother of all Wars.
angrycat70Jan 23, 2012
I miss Baghdad Bob. When you are delusional, you might as well go completely bat-s**t.
munionhunterJan 23, 2012
That's fine for us here in the US we have that new oil pipeline coming in from Canada....oops no we don't, thanks Obama.
bluenose2Jan 23, 2012
All Iran has to do is release a few hundred mines into the Hormuz. And well they should. Amerika threatens them on Israels behalf and also in the hope of eventually restoring a puppet government a la the Shah.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
breadfredJan 23, 2012
uhh. you DO know that there is puppet government in Iran right now, don't you? With the local populous NOTHING to say about their own lives.
Besides that, promoting mines that destroy the lives of anyone who passes them - you promote that???? I am too sensible to put pictures up of kids been injured by those mines.
You are f**king sick.
Ouzel7Jan 23, 2012
Wow... that comment was pretty telling. Mines? Really?
dsmxJan 23, 2012
If only the US had some kind of ship or an aircraft that can detect mines....
angrycat70Jan 23, 2012
we do have some small capability in that regard.
adalseyJan 23, 2012
IRAN is all TALK. Trying to use Saddam's old tactics.
yvipoJan 23, 2012
Close it. i wasn't using it anyway. i don't need your crappy little strait.
bultannewsdailyJan 23, 2012
u.s. can not play with a nuclear country...
angrycat70Jan 23, 2012
US can play with nuclear countries. We've been doing it for decades and decades. We're just accustomed to having sane people on the other side of the table.
bultannewsdailyJan 24, 2012
Time and Future is best document, just look...