Obama: "I'm ready to negotiate with you, Iran." Iran: "Fuck you." - Page 29

TheMercenary · 01-12-2012, 09:01 AM

The U.S. military said on Wednesday that a new aircraft carrier strike group had arrived in the Arabian Sea and that another was on its way to the region, but denied any link to recent tensions with Iran and portrayed the movements as routine.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...80A29L20120111

piercehawkeye45 · 01-16-2012, 12:50 PM

Quote:

A series of CIA memos describes how Israeli Mossad agents posed as American spies to recruit members of the terrorist organization Jundallah to fight their covert war against Iran.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article..._flag?page=0,0

WTF. This needs to stop.

Lamplighter · 01-22-2012, 10:11 AM

Beyond this current headline about sending a msg to Iran, the rest of this article has some interesting discussion of the history and politics of the upcoming military budget.

Military.com
January 22, 2012
Associated Press
|by Lolita C. Baldor

US to Keep 11 Aircraft Carriers to Show Sea Power

Quote:

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told sailors aboard the country's oldest aircraft carrier
that the U.S. is committed to maintaining a fleet of 11 of the formidable warships despite budget pressures,
in part to project sea power against Iran.

Panetta also told the crowd of 1,700 gathered in the hangar bay of the USS Enterprise that the ship is heading
to the Persian Gulf region and will steam through the Strait of Hormuz in a direct message to Tehran.

Iran has warned it will block the Strait, a major transit point for global oil supplies, and
bluntly told the U.S. not to send carriers into the Gulf.

The U.S. has said it would continue to deploy ships there.

tw · 01-23-2012, 01:03 AM

The US will probably deploy a carrier to the Gulf when ready to draw a clear red line. America did that during Clinton's reign when China needed to learn of America's support of Taiwan. The message probably caused the Communist Party to finally demand their military explain what they were doing. And put a stop to it. Those two carriers were a necessary political message. Since wars happen when politics and politicians fail to understand what is really happening.

Carriers actually have little military significance especially compared to their political purpose.

classicman · 01-23-2012, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw

Carriers actually have little military significance especially compared to their political purpose.

hmm

Undertoad · 01-23-2012, 11:28 AM

Good news today as the EU began sanctions and will not import Iranian oil. Credit may go to Clinton's State Dept, I imagine. Soft power applied...

...backed up with hard power, the carrier USS Abraham Lincoln passed through the Strait of Hormuz and entered the Gulf. (Without incident. And with Brit and French vessels tagging along.)

Russia is lining up stridently with Iran, and says they will veto future UNSC resolutions.

classicman · 01-23-2012, 11:35 AM

ZenGum · 01-23-2012, 08:41 PM

Really? The Iranians didn't have the nerve to attak a US carrier group? Bah, pansies, especially when Allah is clearly on their side.

I guess this just means China can buy Iranian oil cheaper.

piercehawkeye45 · 01-26-2012, 12:27 PM

This is the second article I've read that gives a completely different perspective on Iran's regional intentions....and how they failed. Very interesting.

Basically, the perspective states Iran's goal is to become a regional power and in order to be a regional power, one must have influence in the surrounding countries (Arab countries in this situation). Iran felt there was two options at hand: side with the US and unpopular Arab dictators or side with the unhappy but powerless Arab population. Iran felt, in time, that other Arab countries would revolt and start their own 'Islamic Revolution' and naturally look to Iran for leadership. So that explains why, along with many other historical and political reasons, Iran would seem irrational in dealing with the west and US.

Now that their prediction somewhat came true, they are finding out that the Arab population in fact does not want to follow Iran but distrusting at their own hypocritical actions. This puts Iran in a very bad spot.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...evant?page=0,0

regular.joe · 02-22-2012, 06:43 AM

I've been thinking lately. Has anyone thought of telling the Iranians, "ok, no problem we believe you when you tell us that you are not developing nukes." Let them go on their merry way. Then if they develop nukes we can cut their balls off? I mean cut off their supply of everything else. And Israel can do what ever they feel they need to do.

piercehawkeye45 · 02-22-2012, 12:20 PM

If they get nukes then it would be extremely difficult to cut their balls off. The rule of thumb is that you don't attack a nuclear armed country.

regular.joe · 02-22-2012, 03:56 PM

I'm just making the point that in the open court of public and world opinion even China and Russia would be hard pressed to go against any sanctions and military intervention if Iran someday possessed a nuclear bomb after all of their honest and sincere foot stomping about developing nuclear technology only for their energy grid. They won't crank them out in a quick fashion I'm sure and a couple of JDAMs and cruise missile strikes would surely even the score, and be welcome by most at that point in time.

Undertoad · 02-22-2012, 04:20 PM

They know.

At one point an offer was made to Iran: just send your uranium to Turkey, and France and Russia will exchange it for ready-made fuel rods in the same quantity, for free. In return we will end the sanctions.

Iran turned this offer down. So, it was game on at that point. So now China and Russia are playing chess. Maybe they want a different balance of power. Maybe they figure Iran is rational, and will test their first weapon in a bunker in their mountains, and not in Tel Aviv.

TheMercenary · 02-23-2012, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad

They know.

At one point an offer was made to Iran: just send your uranium to Turkey, and France and Russia will exchange it for ready-made fuel rods in the same quantity, for free. In return we will end the sanctions.

Iran turned this offer down. So, it was game on at that point. So now China and Russia are playing chess. Maybe they want a different balance of power. Maybe they figure Iran is rational, and will test their first weapon in a bunker in their mountains, and not in Tel Aviv.

China wants one thing from this, to corner the worlds market on natural resources, including Iran's oil, and they want first shot at it. Their ability to consume all of the natural resources is unlimited. I would guess that Russia is more interested in the power issue since this is a close neighbor.

Happy Monkey · 02-22-2012, 05:03 PM

They're probably rational enough to do that, but not rational enough to avoid having their second or third weapon fall off a truck in the neighborhood of a non-state actor.

01-12-2012, 09:01 AM	#1
TheMercenary “Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo” Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Savannah, Georgia Posts: 21,393	The U.S. military said on Wednesday that a new aircraft carrier strike group had arrived in the Arabian Sea and that another was on its way to the region, but denied any link to recent tensions with Iran and portrayed the movements as routine. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...80A29L20120111 __________________ Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!

01-23-2012, 11:35 AM	#7
classicman barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy. Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 23,401	__________________ "like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt

01-23-2012, 08:41 PM	#8
ZenGum Doctor Wtf Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Badelaide, Baustralia Posts: 12,861	Really? The Iranians didn't have the nerve to attak a US carrier group? Bah, pansies, especially when Allah is clearly on their side. I guess this just means China can buy Iranian oil cheaper. __________________ Shut up and hug. MoreThanPretty, Nov 5, 2008. Just because I'm nominally polite, does not make me a pussy. Sundae Girl.

01-26-2012, 12:27 PM	#9
piercehawkeye45 Franklin Pierce Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Minnesota Posts: 3,695	This is the second article I've read that gives a completely different perspective on Iran's regional intentions....and how they failed. Very interesting. Basically, the perspective states Iran's goal is to become a regional power and in order to be a regional power, one must have influence in the surrounding countries (Arab countries in this situation). Iran felt there was two options at hand: side with the US and unpopular Arab dictators or side with the unhappy but powerless Arab population. Iran felt, in time, that other Arab countries would revolt and start their own 'Islamic Revolution' and naturally look to Iran for leadership. So that explains why, along with many other historical and political reasons, Iran would seem irrational in dealing with the west and US. Now that their prediction somewhat came true, they are finding out that the Arab population in fact does not want to follow Iran but distrusting at their own hypocritical actions. This puts Iran in a very bad spot. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...evant?page=0,0 __________________ I like my perspectives like I like my baseball caps: one size fits all.

02-22-2012, 06:43 AM	#10
regular.joe Старый сержант Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: NC, dreaming of large Russian women. Posts: 1,464	I've been thinking lately. Has anyone thought of telling the Iranians, "ok, no problem we believe you when you tell us that you are not developing nukes." Let them go on their merry way. Then if they develop nukes we can cut their balls off? I mean cut off their supply of everything else. And Israel can do what ever they feel they need to do. __________________ Birth, wealth, and position are valueless during wartime. Man is only judged by his character --Soldier's Testament. Death, like birth, is a secret of Nature. - Marcus Aurelius.

01-23-2012, 01:03 AM	#4
tw Read? I only know how to write. Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 11,933	The US will probably deploy a carrier to the Gulf when ready to draw a clear red line. America did that during Clinton's reign when China needed to learn of America's support of Taiwan. The message probably caused the Communist Party to finally demand their military explain what they were doing. And put a stop to it. Those two carriers were a necessary political message. Since wars happen when politics and politicians fail to understand what is really happening. Carriers actually have little military significance especially compared to their political purpose.

01-23-2012, 11:28 AM	#6
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	Good news today as the EU began sanctions and will not import Iranian oil. Credit may go to Clinton's State Dept, I imagine. Soft power applied... ...backed up with hard power, the carrier USS Abraham Lincoln passed through the Strait of Hormuz and entered the Gulf. (Without incident. And with Brit and French vessels tagging along.) Russia is lining up stridently with Iran, and says they will veto future UNSC resolutions.

02-22-2012, 12:20 PM	#11
piercehawkeye45 Franklin Pierce Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Minnesota Posts: 3,695	If they get nukes then it would be extremely difficult to cut their balls off. The rule of thumb is that you don't attack a nuclear armed country. __________________ I like my perspectives like I like my baseball caps: one size fits all.

02-22-2012, 03:56 PM	#12
regular.joe Старый сержант Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: NC, dreaming of large Russian women. Posts: 1,464	I'm just making the point that in the open court of public and world opinion even China and Russia would be hard pressed to go against any sanctions and military intervention if Iran someday possessed a nuclear bomb after all of their honest and sincere foot stomping about developing nuclear technology only for their energy grid. They won't crank them out in a quick fashion I'm sure and a couple of JDAMs and cruise missile strikes would surely even the score, and be welcome by most at that point in time. __________________ Birth, wealth, and position are valueless during wartime. Man is only judged by his character --Soldier's Testament. Death, like birth, is a secret of Nature. - Marcus Aurelius.

02-22-2012, 04:20 PM	#13
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	They know. At one point an offer was made to Iran: just send your uranium to Turkey, and France and Russia will exchange it for ready-made fuel rods in the same quantity, for free. In return we will end the sanctions. Iran turned this offer down. So, it was game on at that point. So now China and Russia are playing chess. Maybe they want a different balance of power. Maybe they figure Iran is rational, and will test their first weapon in a bunker in their mountains, and not in Tel Aviv.

02-22-2012, 05:03 PM	#15
Happy Monkey I think this line's mostly filler. Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: DC Posts: 13,575	They're probably rational enough to do that, but not rational enough to avoid having their second or third weapon fall off a truck in the neighborhood of a non-state actor. __________________ _________________ \|...............\| We live in the nick of times. \| Len 17, Wid 3 \| \|_______________\| [pics]

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)