digg

Join DiggAbout

Call for questions
Submit and vote up questions you'd like to see answered by Kevin & Jay at the next Digg Townhall on 11/18.

Navy-Contracted Vessel Fires Warning Shots on Iranian Boats

foxnews.com — A vessel contracted by the Navy in the Persian Gulf fired warning shots on two Iranian fast boats, FOX News has learned.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • mejaredme, on 04/26/2008, -35/+28About time....
    • diggrnumber1, on 04/26/2008, -21/+8since we have no justification for even being in iraq, why should we care whether iran is funding the insurgency?
      • kooft, on 04/26/2008, -8/+4Iran's not funding the insurgency, at most they're funding some Shia groups in the South of Iran (coincidentally, the same ones the US is funding). The insurgency is mostly Sunni and the only one that's been linked to funding and arming Sunni groups is the US. In fact the US openly admitted doing so.
      • BECoole, on 04/26/2008, -2/+5Maybe because they are killing our boys?
    • unreg, on 04/26/2008, -2/+4The market found more justification for jacking the price of crude oil. How many "incidents" have we had in the Persian Gulf over the years. It's just good old clean military fun, keeps the crews on their toes.

      Iran has no desire to take on the US military, they just like to rattle the cage once in awhile to show they're not afraid.

      Can't wait til Bush is de-elected come November. I want to see the price of oil plummet.
      • keymanjim2, on 04/26/2008, -7/+3What makes you think that bush and the price of oil are related? Prices didn't start going up until congress went left.
    • Warom, on 04/26/2008, -8/+8Obviously it is about time. I mean it is clear that the lives of Iranians is worth far less than Americans. If a message needs to be sent to North Korea bomb Syria, they aren't going to mind.
      It is OK to kill people in the middle east because they don't really have emotions. They should not be allowed to have boats, how dare they build a Nuclear reactor.
      The country that has already used a bomb and has started a needless war should be the ones who control which country should be allowed to have nuclear weapons and who should not.
      Am I right?
      • WikiEasy, on 04/26/2008, -2/+4It's called a "warning" shot for a reason.
    • bjornski, on 04/26/2008, -4/+4I hope you've enlisted.
  • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 04/26/2008, -4/+18Pic of USS Westward Venture
    (not a rickroll or a goatse)
    http://www.daylife.com/photo/0faodx6fXo4cw
    • exgop, on 04/26/2008, -3/+19Its not even a war ship
      • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 04/26/2008, -3/+14That's what the Iranians think.

        It's a cargo ship that is granted Navy powers or something like that. I'm sure a Navy guy here on digg can explain better.
        • ssn697, on 04/26/2008, -2/+20Navy contracted vessels are allowed the same rules of engagement as "real" naval vessels.

          Another navy contracted vessel shot and killed someone on an Egyptian boat a few weeks back.
          • unreg, on 04/26/2008, -0/+7It's a ship providing service for the US Navy under contract. It is carrying a contingent of armed naval personell. They're the ones who fired the shots, although I don't think they could have really done much damage with M16 and 50 caliber.
          • Klainmeister, on 04/26/2008, -0/+4It seems like 50 cal would do the trick...
          • fuhlavaflave, on 04/26/2008, -3/+2...says the kid who uses the golden deagle on all of his Call of Duty custom classes. I wonder if the Iranians feebly shot back in Last Stand.
          • ZenMojo, on 04/26/2008, -3/+1So...it's a naval version of Blackwater. Yay?
          • JohnReb, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1It is a cargo ship contracted to carry supplies for the USN. Nothing like Blackwater. The naval version of Blackwater wuold be a privateer with a Letter of Marque from the US Congress. A privateer would have no USN personnel aboard..
        • mancat, on 04/26/2008, -0/+6This ship was docked in Port of Tacoma several months ago, in the same slip as the civilian cargo ships that I work on. It was loaded up with hundreds of Bradleys. It was sort of a shock to see that I recognized this ship from work.

          That being said, I've done work on Military Sealift Command vessels, and they typically aren't armed with anything beyond aging M14s, and whatever the military detachment brings onboard.
        • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 04/27/2008, -0/+4Its a civilian ship, contracted by the US to carry military equipment. Even though its a civilian ship, because its carrying military cargo it will also have a US Navy security detachment for defense. There will be about 10-15 sailors with .50 caliber machine guns and assorted small arms.
  • exgop, on 04/26/2008, -38/+27Move along nothing to see here. Liberals will keep their heads in the sand as the Iranian threat grows day by day.
    • Kizilbash, on 04/26/2008, -19/+22Yeah, there are Iranian ships just outside the US coast shooting at US vessels...
      • sodade, on 04/26/2008, -6/+2How can you ***** digg this down? This is the ***** point - they are not a credible threat to America at all. US interests in the Middle East, maybe, but not here. ***** US interests in the Middle East.
    • diggrnumber1, on 04/26/2008, -16/+12we shouldn't care whether iran is funding the iraqi insurgency because we shouldn't be in iraq in the first place. we provoked the insurgency - now we must get rid of it by leaving the country.
    • lhbaker, on 04/26/2008, -12/+18How are they threatening to us, other than that they happen to live next door to ANOTHER country that wasn't threatening to us.
      • noahhoward, on 04/26/2008, -4/+11You mean other than the ongoing harrasment of shipping in an internationally recognized open passage? We didn't just decide one day that the straits had to be policed, the Iranians were threatening shipping in the area. The US Navy is part of the international force tasked with keeping the strait open and also has Navy bases in the region. They were there before the Iraq war and will be there until the threat to shipping goes away.
        • exgop, on 04/26/2008, -6/+7DONT USE LOGIC IT SCARES THE COWARDLY LIBS
        • lhbaker, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2So it's okay for the U.S. to have armed vessels in the region, but not Iran?
          • noahhoward, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1Both nations have bases in the region, both have every right to be there, Iran does not have any right at all to harrass anyones shipping. Even here in the US you don't go within 500 yards of a naval vessel and expect a warm welcome.
      • exgop, on 04/26/2008, -2/+2Do suitcase nukes or ICBMs mean anything. Iran is a real threat. For that matter most people who practice the cult of Islam are a threat. You either believe like they do or get murdered
        • 2oonhed, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2Exactly....those run ups to navy ships in fast boats are just dry runs for bomb attacks similar to car bomb attacks on land. 100 yards is nothing if the bomb on board the fast boat happens to be a small nuke.
    • ElAssoWipo, on 04/26/2008, -8/+7What threat?

      What the ***** was a US boat doing there anyway? Who shot who?

      If threatening people warrants an attack, the entire world should nuke your ass.
      • noahhoward, on 04/26/2008, -2/+7Policing an international waterway? Transiting through an international waterway on the way to a US base in the region? Transiting through an international waterway to protect shipping in the gulf? All things we were doing before the Iraq war. We seem to have o tell you this a lot, are you having memory problems, EAW?
        • sodade, on 04/26/2008, -4/+2Yep, we've had it out for Iran since 53 Mr. history major. In fact we've been doing all kinds of ***** up ***** in the Middle East since then. We no longer have the international do-gooder cred to be policing those waters.
        • unreg, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2And what has Iran done? Buzzed our ships a couple times, played chicken. Kind of like during the cold war with the Russians. Much ado about nothing.
          • lhbaker, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2The Cold War was far from 'much ado about nothing'. Read a little history. On the other hand, I agree completely that Iran is flexing its muscles, and nothing more.
      • fuhlavaflave, on 04/26/2008, -3/+7I'm convinced you didn't read the article. I'm also convinced you have no idea what you're talking about.
        This is an overblown story about a group of 12 Navy officers that fired WARNING SHOTS at a boat that probably got too close for comfort. Getting within 100 yards of an obviously Western-owned vessel during war time in the Persian Gulf is not the smartest of moves. Iran, if it was Iran, was provoking it. No one was hurt.
        This is like the Russians re-instituting their air patrols over the arctic and Alaska. They flexin' nuts, is all. We gots ta flex back.
    • unreg, on 04/26/2008, -4/+4Going to have to ditto the prior comments, What threat?

      Do we have any fake intelligence to back up the outlandish claims?
    • Bodhinature, on 04/26/2008, -1/+5Threat? How many US WARSHIPS are off the very coast of Iran? Okay. Now, compare that to the number of Iranian warships are off the coast of the US. Good. Now, how many neighbors of Iran do the US militarily occupy? Okay. Now, count how many US neighbors Iran is militarily occupying. Great. Right. Now, how many times has the US helped overthrow a government in Iran? Now, count how many times the US government has been overthrown by Iranian agents.
      Terrific. Based on this assessment, I think we can definitely agree, the United States is definitely in danger of being...
      Wait a second...
      • youareretarded, on 04/26/2008, -1/+3You forgot one, how many times has the president of the united states called Iran a part of the axis of evil or "our greatest threat" versus Iran saying the same thing about us.
  • maz2331, on 04/26/2008, -25/+25These ships need 5" cannons. Now THERE is a warning shot that gets the point across really fast.

    And put the warning shot through the bridge.
    • cppwizard, on 04/26/2008, -10/+11...follow that up with one or two right at (or preferably, just below) the waterline.
    • dsmx, on 04/26/2008, -7/+4The ships need 12 18 inch cannons now that puts the fear of god into people when there fired.
    • Marijuana, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2It's a disgrace you actually have +20 diggs.
  • Kizilbash, on 04/26/2008, -29/+12You have mercenary ships out there that can start a ***** war? You people are even crazier than I thought.
    • davharrington, on 04/26/2008, -8/+10The area in question is the chokepoint of the entire world economy dude, they can compete with boats just like the rest of the world.
    • JohnReb, on 04/26/2008, -6/+11Cargo ships defending themselves in international waters hardly counts as "mercenary ships". Mercenary ships would be privateers operating under "letters of marque" and attacking enemy shipping.
      • Bodhinature, on 04/26/2008, -3/+1You mean they were pirates?
      • JohnReb, on 04/27/2008, -1/+2Privateer does not equal pirate. And this vessel was neither.
  • pigfister, on 04/26/2008, -26/+13the courporate news rhetoric to justify war continues, its the gulf of tonkin all over again. or is it like the last US lies about iran?

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/71819 ...
    An alleged threat to blow up US warships "may not have come" from Iranian speedboats involved in a recent stand-off, the BBC has learned.

    https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/04/397228.htm ...
    British government lied about 2007 Persian Gulf naval incident
    Secret Ministry of Defence documents released to the Times newspaper reveal that the British government lied about the circumstances surrounding the capture of 15 sailors and marines from HMS Cornwall in the Persian Gulf by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards (IRG) in March 2007.


    • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 04/26/2008, -6/+12indymedia. HA! If you think your "news" isn't biased, you're an idiot.
      • Bodhinature, on 04/26/2008, -4/+1Commercial media is definitely not biased. What about the BBC article you twit? You give space monkeys a bad name.
  • hilikus34, on 04/26/2008, -25/+22I hope that, if we end up at war with Iran, we get it over with quickly. Send some spooks, or better yet the Mossad, in to assassinate Iranian leadership. Stand back and watch the regime crumble.
    • Coven, on 04/26/2008, -9/+21and then occupy the country for an untold number of years, draining our economy further? Isn't one quagmire enough for you chickenhawks?
      • hilikus34, on 04/26/2008, -11/+6*rolls eyes* Quagmire...Anyway, the people of Iran don't really like the fundamentalist regime in place now, as the riots have shown. They would be able to self-govern quickly, and if all else fails, let the Isrealis have 'em :-)
        • dartmanx, on 04/26/2008, -3/+13I don't like the Iranian government one damn bit either, but remember: the people of Iraq didn't like Saddam, and we're still there. We figured they'd self-govern too.
          That said, without Iran, the insurgents in Iraq would wither and die quickly.
          • dkapuchino, on 04/26/2008, -4/+2Iran has been major cause of instability in the middle east for the past few decades.
            Supporting millitants and terrorist organizations, while secretly developing nuclear weapons, and extra long range missles capable of reaching europe to deliver those.
            The evidence is there, it's just a shame everyones too traumatized by Iraq to actually have the balls to do something about it.
        • sodade, on 04/26/2008, -2/+2"They would be able to self-govern quickly" - not with the US there sparking the flames of 55 years of JUSTIFIED Iranian hatred of the American government.
      • theviceroy, on 04/26/2008, -0/+3Its true - most Iranians feel foolish and angry that they rallied around religion during their revolution, because now they have a fundamentalist theocracy -- which is certainly not what they planned on when they overthrew the shah. We don't need a war with them we just need to kill the Ayatollah for them.
    • kooft, on 04/26/2008, -4/+26"Send some spooks, or better yet the Mossad, in to assassinate Iranian leadership. Stand back and watch the regime crumble."

      Yeah, because that worked so well for us the first time didn't it? I'm sorry, I'm making the assumption that you've actually read a history book and understand that the US already toppled the (democratically elected) Prime Minister of Iran in the 50's. You do realize that the term 'blowback' was coined when describing the consequences of that coup don't you?

      What the heck, let's make 70 million civilians suffer because someone on a ship got scared of a small boat that they couldn't identify. What a brilliant foreign policy you've outlined.
      • marx2k, on 04/26/2008, -1/+6His foreign policy skills might be +1 above the current administration's unfortunately.
    • youareretarded, on 04/26/2008, -2/+2Lol, yes occupy Iran!!

      That will stop the terrorist!
      • hilikus34, on 04/27/2008, -1/+1Who said anything about occupation? I just suggested killing their leaders. Big difference.
        • youareretarded, on 04/27/2008, -1/+1Oh like we did in Iraq?

          If it was that easy then why are we still there?
  • kevinsmail23, on 04/26/2008, -24/+19"There's been a "Bad Moon Rising" over the entire middle east since the Iran revolution thirty years ago. It's time to let our military take the gloves off and take care of business. Our girlyman politicians (i.e Jimmy Carter, etc) have allowed hundreds of terrorist acts and thousands die for the thirty years prior to 9/11 and Iraq liberation with little or no response. Reagan was great but he allowed this to continue and gain momentum. Anyone remember October 23, 1983??? Maybe it will take something like Osama's "American Hiroshima" for America to get serious or surrender."
    • kooft, on 04/26/2008, -3/+4Does anyone remember July 3, 1988?
      • dkapuchino, on 04/26/2008, -5/+5I'd like to believe you can tell the difference between accidently killing civilians, and intenional slaughter performed by terrorists.
    • sodade, on 04/26/2008, -1/+8That "Bad Moon Rising" in the Middle East started in '53 - and our insane foreign policy is to blame...
    • jessehadden, on 04/26/2008, -2/+3You realize you sound exactly like Osama bin Laden right now, right? He, too, tells the rational majority of Muslims to behave like killers, because he, too, is tired of being on the receiving end of senseless acts of terrorist violence. Guess who the perpetrator of the violence in his region is, and has been for the past 50 years...
      • twistaspliff, on 04/26/2008, -2/+1"You realize you sound exactly like Osama bin Laden right now, right?"
        That's impossible. He's been dead for years. Just because the media keeps playing the same videos over and over and telling you idiots that they are new does not mean he is alive. How the ***** could a 6+ foot tall Muslim who requires regular kidney dialysis live for the last 7 years in a cave? Wake up and think for yourself already!
      • youareretarded, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1But there is a difference....we aren't terrorists!


        /sarcasm

        Terrorism is all a matter of perspective.
    • ZenMojo, on 04/26/2008, -1/+3...We started the Iranian Revolution 20 years earlier when we destroyed their Democracy.... It's called BLOWBACK.
  • diggrnumber1, on 04/26/2008, -16/+12to fight a war with iran, we have to have a draft. there's just no way around it. if that isn't enough to convince you that we shouldn't be fighting iran, then you're a douchebag. and if you've never fought in the military before and are no longer of draft age, then you're just a selfish, evil *****.
    • dkapuchino, on 04/26/2008, -6/+6I wonder how much of an excuse that'll be when an Iranian backed terrorist group, uses an Iranian engineered A-bomb, to blow up an american city.
      "Well, at least I wasn't drafted."
      • fuhlavaflave, on 04/26/2008, -7/+1Reported to the FBI.
      • pu-z, on 04/26/2008, -5/+2Why would the Iranians sign their own death-by-nukes-warrant by doing that?It would be like a man kicking a lion in the balls. It's just self destructive and the Iranian authorities know that. But, the rules have changed the last ten years. As Saddam, a right bastard in his own right, got to know.
        • dkapuchino, on 04/26/2008, -2/+3Easy. Once you bury your head in the sand, let the whole word have nukes, condemn your government for "faking pictures of syrian reactors", and "wanting to indvade Iran for oil", and let the non functioning, lead by an arab, IAEA be the one to "prevent" them from getting nukes, you no longer can keep track of who has nukes around the world.
          Then, being that all these governments are highly unstable, they back terrorist orginazations, and show very little regard to human life, it's just a matter of time till these nukes are in the hands of terrorists.
          Then, when you finally do get blown up by someone, how do you know who it really was?
          Or do you just go nuking any muslim country that might have been involved?
        • WildTang3nt, on 04/26/2008, -3/+1Clearly you don't get it. It'll be staged BY THE US GOVERNMENT, just like 9/11 probably was. And then the draft begins. Actually, that won't be necessary since we'd just end up nuking most of the country... won't be anyone left to fight.
    • sodade, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1Doubt that the neo-cons would be so foolish to send in ground forces. We will probably bomb the ***** out of them (like we did to Iraq in between the two wars). And then we will act all indignant when a group of pissed off bees stings the US.
  • republicker, on 04/26/2008, -3/+14I hear they would draft fat dudes now.........*****
  • lhbaker, on 04/26/2008, -12/+22More tards buying into the lie that Iran is a threat to the United States. Iran wants to create a fourth major oil market which doesn't trade in U.S. currency and which could further devalue the U.S. Dollar. If we attack Iran, we will start with the island of Kish, from which Iran ultimately wants to sell crude. This has nothing to do with Iran being a military threat, and everything to do with the value of the dollar. It appears that our capitalist nation really hates competition.
    • flip2trip, on 04/26/2008, -9/+5If the morons from the left would let us develop our own oil reserves then maybe you wouldn't have to imagine we went to war for oil.
      • bjornski, on 04/26/2008, -3/+6Really? From where? ANWAR?

        You do realize that the oil from there would go ON THE MARKET, don't you? It wouldn't bring prices down, nor would it guarantee our own supply. It would be sold on the market as any other commodity is.

        You morons that buy into that "drilling in ANWAR will save us!" are truly deluded if you think it'd help the US *AT ALL*.
        • flip2trip, on 04/27/2008, -1/+1How does NOT developing our own sources of oil help us?
          • bjornski, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1Who is "us"?

            It won't help consumers in the least. It won't bring down prices. You won't see a single benefit from drilling there.

            We should be developing alternative fuels, not drilling every single place we can find (and trashing it in the process) in order to keep feeding our current addiction.

            ANWAR is NOT the answer. Nuke plants and electric cars are. (at this point).
    • Mootabolife, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2The cost for a barrel of light, sweet crude oil for June delivery rose $3.08 to $119.14 on the New York Mercantile Exchange after earlier rising as high as $119.50.

      Light n Sweet, just how we like to take our oil.
      • bjornski, on 04/26/2008, -2/+2Mission accomplished!

        What the ***** did people expect when they elected two oil-men to the office and let them write the energy policy behind closed doors? That OPEC would be "convinced" to "open the spigots"?

        HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
        • youareretarded, on 04/26/2008, -2/+2Apparently they dugg you down because they, indeed, didn't know what to expect!
          • bjornski, on 04/26/2008, -2/+1Too bad most of them can't afford to "have a beer with him", because they put that gas in their tanks.

            /as if George and Dick would have anything to do with peons anyway.
    • ZenMojo, on 04/26/2008, -1/+21. Head of CENTCOM declares the US military is stretched too thin in the Middle East.
      2. Head of the Iraq War is replaced several times until a yes man, Petraeus, is installed.
      3. US blames all of our problems on Iran.
      4. Head of CENTCOM says he will resign if we declare war on Iran.
      5. Pentagon pushes fake story about an Iranian threat.
      6. Head of CENTCOM resigns.
      7. Head Yes Man in Iraq is promoted to Head of CENTCOM.
      8. Pentagon pushes an unverified story about an Iranian threat.
      9. War for Profit!
  • hilikus34, on 04/26/2008, -16/+9I see a couple of Obama fanboys have infiltrated the comment section here...What's the matter, you guys run out of lube in the circle-jerk lib articles?
    • kooft, on 04/26/2008, -3/+10This article is about an incident in the Persian Gulf. Your fantasies of groups of men masturbating adds nothing to the discussion.
    • twomeyw23334, on 04/26/2008, -7/+1Don't your realize Obama can go talk to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and make everything all better. He can mention hope, change, and peace a few times and suddenly the Iranians will embrace the Zionist with open arms and everyone will dance to The Mamas and the Papas.
      • flip2trip, on 04/26/2008, -5/+1Actually, I heard he can fart fairy dust and make unicorns fly from his butt.
  • Jovensdesciple, on 04/26/2008, -12/+3We should have sunk those derka-e bastards. "Derka derka derka deraka. Derka?" No you liberal, all things white hating bastards. No Alaahhh loving derka lover.
    • notoneofus, on 04/26/2008, -3/+5Huh?
      • bjornski, on 04/26/2008, -3/+3Just another flag-draped retard. Don't bother trying to figure out the bablbing.
    • buhbyebot, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1You're a jerka-jerka
  • notoneofus, on 04/26/2008, -7/+14There's no proof these were Iranian vessels. Reuters says they were unidentified boats, and that the Navy doesn't know if they were Iranian boats.

    I'd like verification, but I certainly don't believe Fox and its "sources" over Reuters.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSWAT0093 ...
    • dartmanx, on 04/26/2008, -3/+7Who do you THINK would be harassing U.S. shipping in the gulf? Bangladesh? Sweden? Mexico?
      • marx2k, on 04/26/2008, -3/+1It's this new game I invented. You take a paper and a pen and you DRAW your own conclusions!
      • MSBassSinger, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2Obviously not the French. Their glass-bottom boat navy is still used to look at the last French navy we sunk.
        Does it matter whether they were Iranian or not? They were threatening, and should have been destroyed.
      • PueSi, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1Perdonen, eran mis barcos.
      • ZenMojo, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2Maybe a Filipino...Monkey?
  • KnightMareInc, on 04/26/2008, -4/+7The story about iranian boats radioing saying they were going to attack turned out to be complete *****, wonder if this will too.
  • seanieb, on 04/26/2008, -4/+7Can some people please go back and have a look at the internet chatter pre Iraq....It would look very similar to the uneducated, testosterone filled idiocy that's been written here.
  • fuhlavaflave, on 04/26/2008, -7/+2Fox got this all wrong. The shots were to kick off the 9th annual Persian Gulf Regatta for the Benefit of Middle Eastern Relations. A boat race!
  • averagejoesgym, on 04/26/2008, -4/+10This sounds like more US war-mongering. I think it's funny how all this stuff happens near other countries distant from the US. How would we (the US) like a bunch of foreign military and military-related vessels hanging out in international waters around our country. I've seen more and more Iran stuff lately. I think some of this drumbeat for war comes from Neoconseraties and the Israel lobby. To put the sugar on top, this also seems to aid the Republicans' fear-mongering politics and, what a coincidence, it's a presidential election year.
  • Jan33, on 04/26/2008, -6/+4Ah - another fox news exclusive - as credible as a bunch of raggedy neonazi skinheads on an alabama front porch.
  • Jan33, on 04/26/2008, -2/+1umm.. meaning.. I wouldnt believe whatever a bunch of skinheads have to say.. umm.. why they'd further be on a front porch in alabama doesnt make much sense to me at the moment.. let me have a coffee and think about that one again..
  • nastronomical, on 04/26/2008, -10/+5So what should we have done liberals?
    Play cowards like you?
    • texnofobix, on 04/26/2008, -2/+2First, I'm a Libertarian. Second, why are we off the coast of Iran?
    • yosserhughes, on 04/26/2008, -2/+2'So what should we have done liberals?"

      So what would you like to do? Start another war? kill even more people? More of our troops killed? So, you get your jollies off watching the nightly Faux news, seeing other people die while you cum in your pants before switching back to ' Dancing with the Stars"
      Truly, it is worthless pieces of ***** like you that have *****-up our world so bad.
    • truthhurts28, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2just like a liberal, no solutions, only pointing fingers.
      • yosserhughes, on 04/26/2008, -2/+0Liberals have a solution, its called negotiation and containment, whereas you rightwing warmongers only want more killing.

        But there again, if the only tool you've got is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
        • exgop, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2Yeah it worked so well against Communism and Fascism lets try it against Islam
          • yosserhughes, on 04/26/2008, -1/+0Worked with N. Korea and Libya. How many dead GIs do we have fighting NK and Libya?
            Not enough for you apparently.
          • MSBassSinger, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1Actually, Libya stopped being such a threat after Ronaldus Magnus bombed Libya and made it personal for Muammar al-Gaddafi. North Korea was contained by military force, and were it not for Truman's shortsightedness in ignoring MacArthur, there would be no divided Korea today. Negotiation and containment doesn't work with aggressive enemies. Never has.
          • yosserhughes, on 04/26/2008, -1/+0So Singer, how many wars did we have with the commies?

            "North Korea was contained by military force' Exactly, they were contained, not a single GI was killed, (much to your chagrin, of course),

            Never mind, keep your spirits up, if the warmongers have their way you'll get all the death and destruction your heart could wish for.
          • JohnReb, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1"So Singer, how many wars did we have with the commies?"

            At least two, Vietnam and Korea.

            "'North Korea was contained by military force' Exactly, they were contained, not a single GI was killed, (much to your chagrin, of course), "

            Korean War casualties (approx)
            South Korea 58,127
            USA 36,516
            United Kingdon 1,109
            Turkey 721
            Canada 516
            Australia 339
            France 300
            Philiipines 112
  • hakz, on 04/26/2008, -5/+4any actual news company reporting this?
  • Infidelcastr0, on 04/26/2008, -9/+3Why are the righttards being allowed to speak freely here? Come on people...
    • exgop, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2Let me get this straight only liberal fascist can talk freely?
      • Infidelcastr0, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1Yup. And if you disagree with us we'll put you on a no-fly list and do sneak-and-peek searches of your house.
  • MSBassSinger, on 04/26/2008, -3/+6Why do we play footsie with these barbarians?
    After the attempts to contact by radio, and sending up a warning flare, fire one warning shot, and if they don't scurry away like the cowards they are, blow them out of the water.
    Video the episode, and put it on YouTube.
    Our enemies do not respect restraint or diplomacy. They respect strength. Sink one or two of these attack boats, and they'll go back to hiding like roaches.
    • yosserhughes, on 04/26/2008, -2/+0What a pathetic excuse for a human being you are.
      • MSBassSinger, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1Do you have a substantive reply to what I said, some factual, reasoned argument, or do you just revert to infantile ad hominem when you know you are wrong?
        • yosserhughes, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1You defined yourself in your first sentence when you described the Iranians as Barbarians, then cowards and finally roaches.
          There is no factual, reasoned argument with people like you.
          When Bush and his thugs have whipped enough people like you into a war frenzy, you can sit in your armchair watching TV with a smug, self-satisfied smirk on your face, seeing 'cowardly, barbarian roaches' being killed and maimed without a single qualm.
          See its easy to kill labels, like *****, rag-heads, jew-boys, camel-jockeys, queers, slope-heads, etc, etc, etc.
          Makes it easy for you to live with your hate and blood lust, so when you see pictures of Iranian children burned and maimed you can go back to your inane life with a clear conscience..
    • Metalteeth9, on 04/26/2008, -2/+1You do know that, if these boats really were from Iran, they WANT us to attack them? We attack those boats, they can twist it to mean we fired the first shoots, we started the war. They know we are already not that high in the international stage, we start another war, we fall further, plus they get the excuse to start a war with us. Congratulations, you just did what Iran wanted.
      • yosserhughes, on 04/26/2008, -1/+0If Iran wanted to start a war with the US it could do it in a second, not sending motor boats out to attack warships.

        Think about it, why would Iran want a war with the US, when it knows full well it would be decimated?
        • kevinsmail23, on 04/29/2008, -0/+0Maybe trying to figure out the mindset of a suicide bomber will shed some light on your question?
      • MSBassSinger, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1What the world thinks of us is not that important. The anti-American world is usually wrong. They were wrong in WWI, WWII, and with the Soviet Union. Blaming the US is an easy way to avoid recognizing their problems are of their own doing. Just video the incident, and it will be clear we followed international law and sank the barbarians.

        The anti-American world is jealous of our success. In less than 200 years, we succeeded in advancing more than any other civilization has in a far longer time. The US is the oldest continuous government in the world. We must have done something right.
  • hangtown2004, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1I clear my noise in there direction!!!!
  • usgovterrorists, on 04/26/2008, -8/+3The terrorist United States Government are the world's greatest terrorists, and liars.

    United States Government are terrorists, war criminals, and horrific liars.

    9-11 was an inside job! 9-11 official story was a lie! What happened to building 7?

    Depleted uranium is a weapon of mass destruction!

    Play Wall Street like a PONZI SCHEME!

    The elections are rigged, unsecure voting machines & ballots!

    Terrorist United States Government mandated a fivefold increase in the use of biofuels.
  • yosserhughes, on 04/26/2008, -3/+5The level of ignorance is absolutely astounding. Can anyone wonder why the Iranians hate America? Google 'Operation Ajax" see what you come up with.

    In 1953 the Brits and Americans got together and arranged a coup d'etat to remove a democratically elected prime minister, Mohammed Mosaddeq, and installed the Shah as their puppet all for the sake of the Anglo Iranian Oil Company, better known to you as BP. This was the first of many governments overthrown by the American CIA. Just do a little research, its not hard.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'% ...
    • MSBassSinger, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2So the innocent and wonderful Mohammed Mosaddeq, who only ruled for 2 years and was unpopular in much of the country, gets a pass for nationalizing British property - that is, the stealing of foreign assets by Mohammed Mosaddeq and his socialist cronies? He also had little support among Shi'a and the middle class, created in large part by British investment that grew their economy. Both parts of the native citizenry knew he was quite sympathetic to the Soviet Union, and knew that threatened both the Shi'as religion and the existence of a middle class who would be thrown back into poverty by the Soviet-style socialism Mosaddeq would have brought.

      The Tudeh party, which was the Communist party in Iran, also backed nationalization and supported Mosaddeq, and was integral in the assination of Mosaddeq's predecessor, Haj-Ali Razmara. The Shah had originally appointed Mosaddeq, keep in mind.

      So much for "bad US", "good Iran" as an argument.
      • Metalteeth9, on 04/26/2008, -2/+1He was a bad leader? Boohoo. Maybe Iran would have, I don't know, elected someone else in office next time? I'll take a guess you are republican. Did you want to lead a revolt when Clinton was in office? Or did you think that America would elect someone "better" for you next time?

        And also, I did not know that a leader of a country can not do what he wants for the country. If you are saying it requires a mandate and a popular president, tell me why Bush is still leading with 30% approval?
      • yosserhughes, on 04/26/2008, -2/+0So, "the innocent and wonderful Mohammed Mosaddeq" was not democratically elected, there was no "operation Ajax". The oil under the Iranian sand was a "foreign asset', the Shah was not re-installed, and it was all the commies fault, oh, and the US only did it to help the Iranians out of the goodness of their hearts.

        Gotcha
      • skanton, on 04/26/2008, -2/+0Why was the US involved in overthrowing Iranian leadership anyhow? And dont tell me it has something to do with the russians, US imperialism/interventions was happening BEFORE the cold war, DURING the cold war, and AFTER the cold war. The Red scare was just an excuse, the same way terrorism is now.

        Why do all these countries hate the US specifically, why not Denmark, or Switzerland, why dont they talk about attacking Luxemburg? Theres a reason the US is the most hated country in the world, now its up to you to ask why.
  • ScienceDoc, on 04/26/2008, -4/+3BURIED. Please do not post anything from FOX!
    • exgop, on 04/26/2008, -2/+1Fascist
    • MSBassSinger, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1The truth hurts. When the facts challenge a liberal's worldview, the childish fascist really comes out.
  • 2oonhed, on 04/26/2008, -2/+2Those run ups to navy ships in fast boats are just dry runs for bomb attacks similar to car bomb attacks on land. 100 yards is nothing if the bomb on board the fast boat happens to be a small nuke.
    • hempydave, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1the short bus is leaving soon , don't forget your helmet.
  • hempydave, on 04/26/2008, -2/+1Faux News
    HA ha~
  • yosserhughes, on 04/26/2008, -1/+0On June 8, 1957 the USS Liberty was deliberately attacked by Israeli war planes, 34 American sailors were killed. The attack lasted several hours and despite the Liberty identifying itself by radio and displaying US flags the Israelis continued the attack, later claiming they mistook the Liberty for a Palestinian rowboat.

    So question to Pug warmongers; they killed 34 Americans, they didn't run around in rubber dinghy's, so why didn't we nuke Israel like you want to nuke Iran?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident
    • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1"they mistook the Liberty for a Palestinian rowboat." Alrighty then. Thanks for playing.
      • yosserhughes, on 04/27/2008, -0/+0Sorry Bo, kinda hard to decipher without a tag isn't it?
        I'll post it in CAPS next time so the punctuation won't confuse you.
  • CHANNELOCK, on 04/27/2008, -1/+1Why not get some archive 25 year old Iraq Iraq Tanker war video and post them as todays news.... thats what I would do
  • row1, on 04/27/2008, -1/+0"Oil prices rose sharply Friday on news of the confrontation, on concerns that a conflict between U.S. and Iranian forces could cut oil supplies from the Persian Gulf region. The cost for a barrel of light, sweet crude oil for June delivery rose $3.08 to $119.14 on the New York Mercantile Exchange after earlier rising as high as $119.50."

    Someones getting rich with these 'encounters'....
  • m1cobra, on 04/27/2008, -3/+1 What the blazes , we are now contracting out war ships, who from, who owns these boats, I suppose the whole crew will now get USA citizenship.After one year of contract.
    Nothing like training , giving security clearance, and paying , our next invasionf orce , against the USA. What brainless moron would even consider , that the USA taxpayer would approve of our tax dollars going to train foreign invasion forces, who will be give na free ride to citizenship of the USA. Then another free ride into all areas of security. And a special invite to destroy and kill all american.s
    Most of your third world citizens have about zero loyalty to anything but the dollar. And they have no scruples t oanything , but the dollar. And I guarantee, that if we are training muslims or any other foreign country they will gladly play the cat and mouse game , Until they are in the position that has been well conceived , to slit our throats.
    What fool wouldeven consider hiring any foreigner to be in our military or any other civil service job, we have thousands of chinese who are spying on us in every aspect of our goverment, and private industry. ANd have for decades, and the Stae department knows about it, And still issues 8 or more thousand visas every year, Those here just disappear or go to Canada, which has more chinese than Muslims ,but the populist of foreigners who are dangerous to the US, is exploding , in Canada , the Canadiens have also lost the fight for soveirnity, the same as the UK. If our paid help don't quit kissing the rears of these sons of satan, They will also be the first to have their throats slit , they would become a liability , and liabilities go first. They will not outlive their usefulness
  • theskyisblue, on 04/27/2008, -1/+1i need to move out of the USA soon
    • exgop, on 04/27/2008, -0/+2Good we do need pansy ass punks here. Go and suck on your moms' teet
  • jab9990, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1Corporations starting wars now? Nice job people.
  • kevinsmail23, on 04/29/2008, -0/+0Why can't liberals stay focused on a subject without getting there panties in a bunch and emotional? They portray themselves as intellectual and everyone that sees things from another prospective is a redneck, etc. That might work in the college campus vacumm where the professor uses his age, experience and grading of the opposition as leverage. Don't be afraid to question them, it's entertaining to see what there conclusions are based in. Remember he teaches because he is unable to make it in the real world with successful adults so he picks on children. All this speculation and fixation about our government being evil....looks pathetic! the conclusions that come from liberals are the same as fearful kids in need of anger management that think they know all and have a fit when they don't get what they want (everyone to agree with them). Libs- The world has alot of evil people, some american, some foreign. Honestly the foreign people I meet are more trustworthy, love america and tend to understand the need to stand against evil. Will you defend yourself or pretend it doesn't exist? Hide in your room or on this side of the Atlantic? Your dreamy theories of what should be don't work in todays world. Appeasing the bullies american or foreign never works. So suck it up and try to get some backbone beyond the paranoia and name calling. Unless you lack the minimal testosterone that would require.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.