View Full Version : Iranian Blockade of
saysmydoctor
07/01/08, 09:26 PM
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2038882/posts
Attn: Dom
You were right. The military does perpetuate conflicts. Why is a Vice Admiral make policy calls? What the hell is going on here?
I demand some JCS intervention and I want CENTCOM to remove this guy immediately.
megajon
07/02/08, 11:45 AM
Wtf!? What gives this guy the right to say anything about attacking Iran. I mean fair enough coming from alot higher up. Ohh well.. USA will be at war with Iran in the next 5 years. In all honesty I think we should just bomb all the nuke facilities one night and have it over and done with and not wait till they actually have a bomb and then try and deal with the problem.
GiggsOho
07/02/08, 06:04 PM
If McCain is elected, War with Iran will happen, 1000% sure of this. Reading "Blackwater" by Jeffrey Scahill right now, and it only took 40 pages to scare the shit out of me.
Wtf!? What gives this guy the right to say anything about attacking Iran. I mean fair enough coming from alot higher up. Ohh well.. USA will be at war with Iran in the next 5 years. In all honesty I think we should just bomb all the nuke facilities one night and have it over and done with and not wait till they actually have a bomb and then try and deal with the problem.
Yes, lets bomb power facilities...
awakenarogue
07/02/08, 07:24 PM
He was responding to Iranian Revolutionary Guard commander General Mohammed Ali Jafari's warning on Saturday that Iran would choke off the strait if the country was attacked.
So the point of considering this an act of war would be?
And no, America will not go to war with Iran if anyone with half a brain is left in the military/administration. I can see no way it is even possible
GiggsOho
07/02/08, 08:37 PM
So the point of considering this an act of war would be?
And no, America will not go to war with Iran if anyone with half a brain is left in the military/administration. I can see no way it is even possible
Government contracts to privatized security companies, ala Blackwater, CACI, L3, Titan Corp.... War is business. And business (right now) is good. McCain in office = more of this happening.
saysmydoctor
07/02/08, 08:40 PM
Wtf!? What gives this guy the right to say anything about attacking Iran. I mean fair enough coming from alot higher up. Ohh well.. USA will be at war with Iran in the next 5 years. In all honesty I think we should just bomb all the nuke facilities one night and have it over and done with and not wait till they actually have a bomb and then try and deal with the problem.
What a dumb remark. The US is all for nuclear proliferation yet we still have the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons and are still the only nation to ever use them. Think about what the fuck you are saying.
awakenarogue
07/03/08, 10:37 PM
Government contracts to privatized security companies, ala Blackwater, CACI, L3, Titan Corp.... War is business. And business (right now) is good. McCain in office = more of this happening.
There is no feasible way for the United States military to carry out an extended campaign in Iran, at all, in its current capacity. I also hope there is truly not enough support for another preemptive strike against a sovereign nation for reasons similar to those used for Iraq. But either way, it is simply not possible, nor a good idea in any respect.
GiggsOho
07/03/08, 10:41 PM
There is no feasible way for the United States military to carry out an extended campaign in Iran, at all, in its current capacity. I also hope there is truly not enough support for another preemptive strike against a sovereign nation for reasons similar to those used for Iraq. But either way, it is simply not possible, nor a good idea in any respect.
Nothing in what I said in the previous post hinted at the U.S. military. Google Blackwater for crying out loud. Learn something.
Machu505
07/05/08, 02:35 PM
If the United States even dares to attack Iran, I'll be living in Canada by the end of the week.
anamericangod
07/05/08, 02:37 PM
I can't wait to send my family postcards from Iran.
sdbrown
07/05/08, 03:33 PM
If the United States even dares to attack Iran, I'll be living in Canada by the end of the week.
Haha, it's not that easy! I'd start to apply now unless you have a stockpile of cash.
Machu505
07/05/08, 03:44 PM
Haha, it's not that easy! I'd start to apply now unless you have a stockpile of cash.
I'll find a way!
Hmmm ... I'd try just burning draft cards, but I doubt they'll use those this time around.
RememberFminus2
07/05/08, 04:48 PM
i will give up hope in the world if we take military action against iran, that would just be absurd
Machu505
07/05/08, 04:50 PM
There is no way that we can fight three wars at one time. There would be no more United States.
anamericangod
07/05/08, 04:52 PM
I have no problem with Iranian nuclear targets being bombed.
I have a major problem with any sort of ground operations.
x togepi x
07/05/08, 04:53 PM
wouldn't bombing iranian nuclear sites make them blockade the strait basically forcing military confrontation since blocking the strait messes with the US economy?
I have no problem with Iranian nuclear targets being bombed.
I have a major problem with any sort of ground operations.
Why do you want Iran to not have electricity?
Besides, Iran is more democratic than the US. .
RememberFminus2
07/05/08, 04:57 PM
I have no problem with Iranian nuclear targets being bombed.
I have a major problem with any sort of ground operations.
this kind of comment represents a typical american view (which essentially means lack of knowledge) regarding what military action results in for a country, such as the sheer damage done even if it is given the tag of ''only bombing nuclear targets"
anamericangod
07/05/08, 04:58 PM
wouldn't bombing iranian nuclear sites make them blockade the strait basically forcing military confrontation since blocking the strait messes with the US economy?
No way in hell they blockade the straight.
Why do you want Iran to not have electricity?
Besides, Iran is more democratic than the US. .
I have a problem with a radical Islamic country having access to nuclear technology.
How is Iran more democratic than the US?
this kind of comment represents a typical american view (which essentially means lack of knowledge) regarding what military action results in for a country, such as the sheer damage done even if it is given the tag of ''only bombing nuclear targets"
Lol, you're right, it's not like I'm majoring I spent all last semester talking about International Law in an upper level college class or anything.
Are you going out of your way today to sound like a complete fucking moron?
x togepi x
07/05/08, 05:00 PM
No way in hell they blockade the straight.
I have a problem with a radical Islamic country having access to nuclear technology.
How is Iran more democratic than the US?
You seriously don't think they blockade the strait if we bomb them, which seems like an act of war? I'm not saying they'd blockade it out of harsh rhetoric, but if they think their backs are against the wall, it seems like a good desperation move for them. I mean, if you put yourself in their shows, regime change in Iraq started with pinpoint bombings.
I mean the last time i read about this was back in '03 so i could be completely out of date.
RememberFminus2
07/05/08, 05:07 PM
Lol, you're right, it's not like I'm majoring I spent all last semester talking about International Law in an upper level college class or anything.
Are you going out of your way today to sound like a complete fucking moron?
Because spending your time learning international law from a United States/western education really means that you are well prepared to understand everything in a fair light. Doubtful. Not every upper middle class kid in america whose parents have enough money to send them to college is smart so your theory that you know what your talking about, doesnt work out
anamericangod
07/05/08, 05:08 PM
You seriously don't think they blockade the strait if we bomb them, which seems like an act of war? I'm not saying they'd blockade it out of harsh rhetoric, but if they think their backs are against the wall, it seems like a good desperation move for them. I mean, if you put yourself in their shows, regime change in Iraq started with pinpoint bombings.
I mean the last time i read about this was back in '03 so i could be completely out of date.
They won't blockade it. In the unlikely situation that they do, it will be crushed.
I'm not too concerned with what the USA is going to do here, I think is Israel the country that has the balls to actually do something.
Iran would be dumb to go against the international community on this.
Because spending your time learning international law from a United States/western education really means that you are well prepared to understand everything in a fair light. Doubtful. Not every upper middle class kid in america whose parents have enough money to send them to college is smart so your theory that you know what your talking about, doesnt work out
You are seriously fucking stupid.
International law is INTERNATIONAL LAW. Not United States law.
Shut the fuck up.
RememberFminus2
07/05/08, 05:13 PM
You are seriously fucking stupid.
International law is INTERNATIONAL LAW. Not United States law.
Shut the fuck up.
I can't believe you can be so stupid that you can't even argue properly. Internation Law, of course is not the study of united states law, I never said that. The point you fail to realize is learning about international law from the united states puts the study of law under the lens of what the west holds up to be universal truths and what the west views as what or what not constitutes law and morality, thus disregarding the view of millions of people. seriously you are making me laugh right now, theres no way you are really this big a moron I think you just play one on the internet.
anamericangod
07/05/08, 05:21 PM
I can't believe you can be so stupid that you can't even argue properly. Internation Law, of course is not the study of united states law, I never said that. The point you fail to realize is learning about international law from the united states puts the study of law under the lens of what the west holds up to be universal truths and what the west views as what or what not constitutes law and morality, thus disregarding the view of millions of people. seriously you are making me laugh right now, theres no way you are really this big a moron I think you just play one on the internet.
I really think you are the dumbest person I have ever encountered on here.
Were you in the class? Do you know who the teacher was? Do you know who wrote the book? Do you know what we talked about? Have you ever been in college?
You have no clue what you are talking about, so please stop trying to save face and just shut the hell up.
RememberFminus2
07/05/08, 05:22 PM
I really think you are the dumbest person I have ever encountered on here.
Were you in the class? Do you know who the teacher was? Do you know who wrote the book? Do you know what we talked about? Have you ever been in college?
You have no clue what you are talking about, so please stop trying to save face and just shut the hell up.
way to not have any actual rebuttal about how your comment "its international law not UNITED states law'' made absolutely no sense and was incredibly stupid.
anamericangod
07/05/08, 05:24 PM
way to not have any actual rebuttal about how your comment "its international law not UNITED states law'' made absolutely no sense and was incredibly stupid.
I am pretty sure that your comments made no sense. I am having a hard time breaking down "It's international law, not united states law" into a simpler form than originally typed.
I think most grade school students would be capable of understanding what is being said. Not sure why you are having such a hard time with it.
RememberFminus2
07/05/08, 05:33 PM
I am pretty sure that your comments made no sense. I am having a hard time breaking down "It's international law, not united states law" into a simpler form than originally typed.
I think most grade school students would be capable of understanding what is being said. Not sure why you are having such a hard time with it.
firstly, "i am pretty sure your comments made no sense'' shows that you are the one having trouble with whats being said. Let me clear it up for you. You made the ridiculous statement that your knowledge base is valid because you are studying in an upper class college course. I responded by saying, your class doesnt have all that much credibility because your class is taught with a western world view lens. You being a moron, said your studying INTERNATIONAL law not united states law. That statement makes no sense and has nothing to do with what i was talking about. Yes we are aware you are studying international law, it still doesnt change the fact that everything you learn regarding things such as consequences of military deployment to international law is unfair because you are learning from an instituation that is inherently designed to reinforce western beliefs.
saysmydoctor
07/05/08, 08:45 PM
International law isn't US law and seeing as the US finds ways to get around ("enemy combatants" rather than "prisoners of war") said international law. The point I'm trying to make is the US puts its sovereignty first only when it benefits its policies.
Furthermore, they would block the strait. They've already harassed US warships in the area, they would. They would be crushed but that proves the Iranian's point even further and enters the US into a three front war--all over power plants they have every right to operate.
No way in hell they blockade the straight.
I have a problem with a radical Islamic country having access to nuclear technology.
How is Iran more democratic than the US?
Lol, you're right, it's not like I'm majoring I spent all last semester talking about International Law in an upper level college class or anything.
Are you going out of your way today to sound like a complete fucking moron?
Any better than a radical christian nation having access to it? Or radical anything? (As you pointed out yourself, Israel is the big question here)
x togepi x
07/05/08, 10:24 PM
They won't blockade it. In the unlikely situation that they do, it will be crushed.
I'm not too concerned with what the USA is going to do here, I think is Israel the country that has the balls to actually do something.
Iran would be dumb to go against the international community on this.
.
I'm not saying that a blockade would last or is a good strategic decision, but you don't think that Iran would say "fuck it" to the international community, which in their eyes is basically turning their back on them, and try a blockade anyway?
obviously Israel is the go to country for any bombing of Iran, i'm assuming that the US gets pulled into some sort of conflict based on some Iranian response to Israel which we've obviously sworn to protect.
awakenarogue
07/06/08, 12:15 PM
Please leave the personal attacks and attitude, I'm not trying to start shit, but some thoughts:
No way in hell they blockade the straight.
If military action is going to be taken against them--especially action that is going to destroy their power grid and possibly escalate to foreign invasion and displacement of the government--why wouldn't they blockade the straight? It provides them a strategic leverage, especially with the rest of the international world which wouldn't support military action against Iran.
Lol, you're right, it's not like I'm majoring I spent all last semester talking about International Law in an upper level college class or anything.
How does studying international law give you insight into the damage that would be done to Iran through various military strategies or into the strategic value of an Iranian blockade for that matter. Maybe I'm simply missing a connection here?
They won't blockade it. In the unlikely situation that they do, it will be crushed.
I'm not too concerned with what the USA is going to do here, I think is Israel the country that has the balls to actually do something.
Iran would be dumb to go against the international community on this.
If Israel did something it would be American-backed?
And if a blockade was begun, it would be mainly US forces that would crush it?
Israel is going to be at the forefront of objections to Iranian nuclear power, and they are going to push for action, but it seems to me that the US is going to be the one mainly taking action if any is taken.
awakenarogue
07/06/08, 12:23 PM
Nothing in what I said in the previous post hinted at the U.S. military. Google Blackwater for crying out loud. Learn something.
I bow before your superior education :worship:
Blackwater Worldwide, private military and security contractor. Yes, contracted for work in Iraq. No, perhaps I do not know statistics and specific facts about the company. But please, tell me how private military contractors have the resources and personnel to carry out an extended campaign in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran. I do not believe it would be an intelligent decision for the US to attempt an invasion of Iran, let alone bombing nuclear sites, nor would the military and/or private contractors be able to carry out such an operation.
GiggsOho
07/06/08, 03:12 PM
I bow before your superior education :worship:
Blackwater Worldwide, private military and security contractor. Yes, contracted for work in Iraq. No, perhaps I do not know statistics and specific facts about the company. But please, tell me how private military contractors have the resources and personnel to carry out an extended campaign in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran. I do not believe it would be an intelligent decision for the US to attempt an invasion of Iran, let alone bombing nuclear sites, nor would the military and/or private contractors be able to carry out such an operation.
Because these companies have contracts (see: $$$) from the U.S. government, and do what the U.S. military would do for cheaper. And those who work for these companies are retired U.S. military, who would rather make $125,000 playing army than doing whatever they do in their civilian lives.
Furthermore, and I don't think I'm wrong when I say this, I think this war proves that the U.S. government will carry out directives despite of how "intelligent" they really are.
Again, I am with you on moving on Iran being a cataclysmic display of stupidity, but I'm sorry, the seeds of that crop were sewn before we ever knew they were planted.
awakenarogue
07/06/08, 05:20 PM
Because these companies have contracts (see: $$$) from the U.S. government, and do what the U.S. military would do for cheaper. And those who work for these companies are retired U.S. military, who would rather make $125,000 playing army than doing whatever they do in their civilian lives.
Furthermore, and I don't think I'm wrong when I say this, I think this war proves that the U.S. government will carry out directives despite of how "intelligent" they really are.
Again, I am with you on moving on Iran being a cataclysmic display of stupidity, but I'm sorry, the seeds of that crop were sewn before we ever knew they were planted.
I guess I just don't see how it's possible for the US and these contractors to carry out another invasion and occupation. These private security forces like Blackwater are support for ground operations. They may in fact carry a decent amount of the load, but the simple fact is that the US military is first and foremost the power behind operations. Both the military and these contractors are currently engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq. Their resources and personnel are spread thin (the US military has to also maintain the presence to be able to defend the US if/when needed) and Iran has a larger geographic area and population than the other two countries combined. Maybe the military could pull it off, but from what I know I doubt it.
The military is supposed to be able to carry out two full scale wars plus a smaller engagement all simultaneously? Something along those lines, I wish I could remember this for certain, but in its current state could only two of those engagements? I don't remember this one for certain, but I heard something along those lines before.
Haha, well we're agreed that it wouldn't be the most intelligent thing to do then.
saysmydoctor
07/06/08, 08:31 PM
Awakenrogue doesn't know the US history of war by proxy and therefore needs to shut the fuck up.
boykosaurus
07/07/08, 02:48 PM
Interesting article on the matter.
http://www.niacouncil.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1159&Itemid=29
Roboman
07/07/08, 03:03 PM
Ugh...if this country does go to war with Iran, I will have completely lost all faith in it.
awakenarogue
07/08/08, 02:43 PM
Awakenrogue doesn't know the US history of war by proxy and therefore needs to shut the fuck up.
come again?
awakenarogue
07/08/08, 02:51 PM
If the US can get the forces needed to carry out an invasion/overthrow of the government and then provide the forces for Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran--plus keep the US military in enough standing strength to defend America in case of need--then more power to them. Yes, America does much of its fighting by proxy. But American troops are going to be needed if an invasion of Iran will be carried out, and American troops will need to be deployed in the country for the long term. The US would need to ensure that a pro-American government was put into place through American intervention and that the government would stay in power.
But w/e, I'll "shut the fuck up"
saysmydoctor
07/08/08, 02:57 PM
Why does the US need a pro-US government? I saw that first and ignored the rest.
awakenarogue
07/08/08, 03:12 PM
Why else would they waste the time invading the country? I don't think they need one, I'm saying if America is going to make the effort to invade Iran, they're going to want to rebuild it...If they don't it accomplishes nothing
GiggsOho
07/08/08, 03:16 PM
Why else would they waste the time invading the country? I don't think they need one, I'm saying if America is going to make the effort to invade Iran, they're going to want to rebuild it...If they don't it accomplishes nothing
Kinda like what they are doing (nothing) in Iraq?
awakenarogue
07/08/08, 03:17 PM
Yes, they're accomplishing little, but the "point" of the invasion was to displace the government and help build a new one. They wouldn't invade and leave the country immediately.
I'm really hoping people aren't confusing what I say I think the military/America can do or what they are doing with what I believe in or think they should do.
AnarchyintheUS
07/08/08, 06:23 PM
This has been planned for YEARS.
It won't matter if McCain is elected or not (he's the quicker option), they are gonna find a way into Iran.
http://www.mimico-by-the-lake.com/us%20military%20bases%20surround%20 iran.jpg
saysmydoctor
07/08/08, 06:25 PM
Come on, us nutters have been saying for years that they are going into Iran.
It won't matter if McCain is elected or not, they are gonna find a way in.
http://www.mimico-by-the-lake.com/us%20military%20bases%20surround%20 iran.jpg
You may--finally--be onto something.
AnarchyintheUS
07/08/08, 06:32 PM
You may--finally--be onto something.
:-p
Machu505
07/08/08, 06:34 PM
You may--finally--be onto something.
Don't turn to the Dark Side!
This has been planned for YEARS.
It won't matter if McCain is elected or not (he's the quicker option), they are gonna find a way into Iran.
http://www.mimico-by-the-lake.com/us%20military%20bases%20surround%20 iran.jpg
The United States of the Middle East.
The United States of the Middle East.
Amusing
vBulletin v3.6.0, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.