Home » News » Around the Globe » Iranian Navy to Patrol off U.S. Coast, What!?

Iranian Navy to Patrol off U.S. Coast, What!?

by John Reed on September 28, 2011

Well, this is interesting. After recently sending its ships through the Suez Canal for the first time in decades, the Iranian Navy will apparently send ships to establish a “powerful presence” off the East Coast of the United States.

Here’s CNN quoting Iran’s state-run Islamic Republic News Agency:

“Commander of the Navy of the Army of the Islamic Republic of Iran broke the news about the plans for the presence of this force in the Atlantic Ocean and said that the same way that the world arrogant power is present near our marine borders, we, with the help of our sailors who follow the concept of the supreme jurisprudence, shall also establish a powerful presence near the marine borders of the United States,” the story said. The reference to the “world arrogant power” was presumably intended to refer to the United States.

No word on what type of ships Iran will send to establish this “powerful force.” Keep in mind, that this light frigate known as the Jamaran, is one of Iran’s most modern and powerful ships. It carries four Noor class anti-ship missiles with a range of about 125-miles along with four SM-1 anti-aircraft missiles, light torpedoes and a 76 mm gun. Not exactly an Aegis destroyer.

Share |

{ 397 comments… read them below or add one }

Yep September 28, 2011 at 11:03 am

Man they are trying to start some shit.


justsaying September 28, 2011 at 3:51 pm

Doesn't the U.S. do this on a daily basis to other countries? I can hear some Iranian saying the same thing about America.


STemplar September 28, 2011 at 4:47 pm

Yes, we do, with enemies. That's how geo politics work.


Frivolac September 28, 2011 at 9:53 pm

So if Iran is our enemy, it makes perfect sense for them to patrol U.S. coastal areas, by your logic. Is it trying to start **** or just geopolitics? Plus you get upvotes for agreeing with a sentiment that got downvoted. Land of the free is the home of partisan hivemind


PMI September 29, 2011 at 12:40 am

Explaining that the US Navy does in fact show the flag around the world has nothing to do with agreeing with the sentiment given in the first post.

STemplar September 29, 2011 at 3:15 pm

I wouldn't say it makes perfect sense for them to overtly send forces to US shores. They clearly have no logistic capability to support the effort properly and are just engaging in some kind of PR stunt non sense. You are engaging in the same simple minded moral relativistic non sense some of the other Iranian apologists here are doing. This isn't about right and wrong or justification for actions or any of that simple mindedness. This is about how we counter a nation that has cast itself in an adversarial threatening role to the US and our interests and allies.

elmondohummus October 3, 2011 at 6:13 pm

Yes, the US does. It's called protecting the shipping lanes that supply America, Europe, etc… basically the entire world. Remember when Iran mined the Gulf back in 1988? And also when they lined the straights with Silkworm missiles?

If you can come up with a US analogue for those actions in the Atlantic, please tell. Last I saw, the US didn't mine the Atlantic, and they sure as hell haven't deployed antiship missiles all along the shipping lanes. Unless you count carriers in transit to areas of operation as such.

Anyway, the point is that if the US were threatening Iranian shipping in the Atlantic, I could see the purpose of deploying Iranian forces there. In the absense of that, this is nothing more than an attempt by Iran to thumb their nose at the world.


warnsppl October 11, 2011 at 6:45 pm

Dont be so quick to point the finger at some other country, this aint iran thumbing their nose at the world. Its about iran trying to show the u.s. that they are not afraid of the big bad bully, thats been pushing around the whole world far too long. The U.S. is provoking this 100%. Especially by obama shipping subterranean bunker bombs to israel recently just like bush did, then they threaten iran to cooperate or else. Why dont you call/write obama and tell him to stop giving other countries bombs to provoke war on our behalf?


Master&Commander September 28, 2011 at 5:26 pm

It's really simple, let them go on port in NYC or Boston and have fun. The "Supreme Jurisprudence" like Russia in the Cold War is actually more scared of American Culture than they are our Military. I'm sure you'll get a bunch of Iranians who want to be Americans. We've already won this fight, merely with a couple of port calls.


Delia September 28, 2011 at 5:30 pm

We get one Iranian ship for FREE. Operation Red October and all we have to do is show them a good time on port. We have a bunch of young female case officers from the CIA just milling about at home, why don't we use them for honey trap operations and really mess Iran up!.


SJE September 28, 2011 at 6:01 pm

Yep, and be sure to keep the cameras rolling just in case.


RealDeal September 29, 2011 at 12:29 pm

Iran isn't UBL and Al-Qaeda, it's a country trying to make something of itself–it's a rational entity with very real interests we can leverage. So the above are very good ideas.

Steven R. September 28, 2011 at 10:39 pm

Lock and Load
Fire for Effect :)


Roland October 3, 2011 at 6:34 pm

This could probably one of the ships they are going to send us.
See: http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/jamaranm


Faz November 9, 2011 at 3:29 pm

Like the states never start anything?


Black Owl September 28, 2011 at 11:55 am

Right now I cannot hear, but I can sense a few hundred USN attack submarine officers laughing their faces off as they polish their MK48's ADCAPs.


Nick. T September 29, 2011 at 9:02 am

That was my first thought. Probably the most interesting thing the seawolves will be raking their teeth on in a while.


orly? September 29, 2011 at 9:43 am

I hope they all decide to all pop up simutaneously around them, preferably with Old Glory flying with the wind.

That would be a seriously good photo op!


GreensboroVet September 29, 2011 at 3:54 pm

Black Owl. One MK48 ADCAP costs more than the target. Just send a prediator, drop one or two SDBs and call it a day of live training.


Black Owl September 30, 2011 at 12:46 pm

I'd prefer the MK48 ADCAP be used. It would terrify the hell out of them much more than a predator.


Edward Zhou October 2, 2011 at 1:22 pm



barney February 5, 2012 at 4:14 pm

Amen!When the first shot is fired in the Gulf of Oman, US Divers will be gien another artificial reef on which to dive!


Sev September 28, 2011 at 12:13 pm

I hope they cross the defense line and we sink their toy boats


TLAM Strike September 28, 2011 at 12:28 pm

What defense line? Unless they commit some kind of hostile act or break US laws in US territory they could sail in to Boston Harbor and we can't do much about it except charge them port fees.


STemplar September 28, 2011 at 12:55 pm

Ummm, no. "Innocent passage" is allowed through territorial waters. We most certainly could order an armed naval vessel of a hostile foreign power to exit our territorial waters and we certainly can prohibit any ship we like of docking at one of our ports. We would be well within maritime law if the Iranians made a bee line towards Boston Harbor to tell them to turn around and barring all other reasonable efforts if they refused, sink them.


TLAM Strike September 28, 2011 at 1:23 pm

Article 14 of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone. Makes no distinction on Innocent Passage between Warships and Merchantmen.


STemplar September 28, 2011 at 1:53 pm

I already said that actually if you read what I wrote. I said they are allowed innocent passage. An armed naval vessel moving towards a friendly port is not innocent passage. Further a harbor master can bar any ship they like from docking. So again, your statement above is incorrect.

Black Owl September 28, 2011 at 12:56 pm

Then we'll charge the shit out of them.


jhm September 28, 2011 at 9:29 pm

what a waste of a good harpoon missile, betcha the ship will sink in the atlantic :)


vince October 4, 2011 at 7:45 pm

me too


Faz November 9, 2011 at 3:32 pm

No soldiers no wars. Think about it. Send the politians & the banks to fight.


@omgitsarpg January 13, 2012 at 9:42 pm

lol. just imagine a bunch of old farts having wrestling matches to solve problems.


Russ Mcgarry January 30, 2014 at 2:32 pm

arrogance yep this is the only country never to have dropped bombs on another country you arrogant cock


Mark Pyruz September 28, 2011 at 12:20 pm

This is at least the second time IRIN has been voicing intent to venture into Atlantic waters. With this latest clue, the voyage appears planned to transit the Suez and Gibrater, with the likely destination of Cuba.

My guess it would involve IRINS Kharg (AORH 431) and an Alvand class (or Mowj class) frigate.

Mark Pyruz


TLAM Strike September 28, 2011 at 12:26 pm

Could send a Kilo as well. The Kilo has greater range than the Alvand/Mowj class, although its slower.


Mick September 28, 2011 at 6:21 pm

I was thinking Venezuela, but Cuba is also an option as a destination.


scrain September 28, 2011 at 12:21 pm

We just need to let the iranian Captain and crew that any defectors from them will be welcomed with open arms, similar to what we did to the Iraqi Army OIF 1 and Desert Storm. Hey, we would even get a free boat out of it


RunningBear September 28, 2011 at 5:50 pm

Donate the free boat to Iraq!


blight2 September 28, 2011 at 8:02 pm

Do we want the boat? Honestly, I'd be more curious to see what they've been doing with our old TOW (the Toophan), and perhaps their newer AShMs and AAMs more than their hulls. Though looking at their radar systems could be interesting. Oh well, you can't exactly pick your nabbable tech.


kim September 29, 2011 at 6:45 pm

Nah, the crew we can take in, but the ship still belongs to Iran.


blight September 30, 2011 at 11:35 am

It's collateral for the embassy. We want it back someday.


Ron October 3, 2011 at 1:32 pm

Bad idea, since Iran would just do what the Soviets did: throw their families in prison.


David September 28, 2011 at 1:02 pm

I'll believe it when I see it. Until then, I see this as clearly just a message intended for their own internal audience and maybe for some of their minor-player cheerleaders such as Syria and Venezuela.


SJE September 28, 2011 at 1:20 pm

The Iranians are just trying to get a rise out of us: its all theatre meant to boost the power of the regime back in Iran. They want us to over-react. If we say nothing, and do nothing, they loose their power.

What would be interesting, and very ballsy, is to INVITE them to visit a US port to show that we have nothing to fear from Iran. We would get all the intel we need on their latest ship, totally mess with the leadership's narrative, and hang all sorts of placards near by. Yes, they could launch a weapon…but do you really think that they would?


SJE September 28, 2011 at 2:56 pm

Wow, I thought I'd get slammed for my idea! Just for grins, we should invite Iran to New Orleans during Mardi Gras and see the great satan having a good time.


Nadnerbus September 28, 2011 at 3:08 pm

I actually thought more or less along the same lines. This is a propaganda/PR move, not a military move, so meet it with our own PR. Some low level Pentagon type (no need to give them more prestige by getting senior politicians involved) should issue a statement that the freedom of the seas is a right that the US and all nations work towards, and that they welcome the Iranian Navy to join that community. The right does require responsibilities, and the US Navy would love to help the Iranian Navy develop those responsibilities and skills. There is a small pirate problem off the horn of Africa if they would like to contribute.

A freak out or talk of retaliation would just play into the Mullahs hands.


BigRick September 29, 2011 at 12:42 pm

that's a great idea :-)


rick james September 29, 2011 at 5:10 am

what if you let the ship dock and thats the plan of the Iranians to detonate a dirty bomb??? let the American spies on board and then booom there east coast is uninhabitable. i see lots of idiots whit out the glimpse of security posting here.


Thomas L. Nielsen September 29, 2011 at 8:22 am

"what if you let the ship dock and thats the plan of the Iranians to detonate a dirty bomb???"

For the Iranians to do that wouldn't even make crazy sense. Such an attack would lack any deniability, and would result in Iran being turned into radioactive slag poste haste.

If Iran really wanted to attack the US with a radiological weapon (or a nuke, or a biochemical weapon), they'd smuggle it across the border, detonate it, and then sit back and let everyone blame Al Qaeda.

So much for the "idiots whit out the glimpse of security"….

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen


Robert Fritts June 20, 2012 at 1:12 am

Actually with our current President do you believe we would nuke anyone? No way it would happen. He would go on TV, address the nation, telling the public not to over react be cause we are all Islamo-phobic rednecks.


Thomas L. Nielsen June 20, 2012 at 7:29 am

If that "anyone" had just detonated a radiological device (which, by the way, would have to be the size of the entire ship to render the entire East Coast uninhabitable) then yes, I consider a nuclear response to be at the very least probable enough to be a deterrent.

Also, even if Iran was convinced that the US would never in fact launch a nuclear strike, attacking continental US with a lone Iranian ship still makes no sense. The current president or not, a severe US military response would certainly follow.

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen

RealDeal September 29, 2011 at 12:28 pm

Iran isn't UBL and Al-Qaeda, it's a country trying to make something of itself–it's a rational entity with very real interests we can leverage.


RDF October 3, 2011 at 6:26 pm

Would it be "over-reacting" if we just laughed our butts off at them? I have to wonder how these mill-pond sailors would handle the North Atlantic in winter. Ought to be fun to see.

Retired Atlantic Fleet destroyer sailor here.


jamesb September 28, 2011 at 1:25 pm

SJE is right……

I'm sure that tagging along underneath the Iran's is a Los Angles with targeting solution regularly upgraded….

Operating thousand of miles from your home port makes you VERY exposed…..


jrltjh September 28, 2011 at 1:36 pm

we'll "disappear" it in the bermuda triangle.


Musson1 September 28, 2011 at 1:45 pm

How do you sink an Iranian Naval Vessel?

Put it in water.


crackedlenses September 28, 2011 at 4:15 pm



UCJN September 28, 2011 at 8:33 pm

how to sink it faster?
put it in US waters


John Demell October 12, 2011 at 11:31 pm

Now thats a good one!!!! Lol ha haha


political_observer September 29, 2011 at 11:51 am

With termites


JE McKellar September 28, 2011 at 1:53 pm

Can anyone explain the SM-1 missiles on the Iranian frigate?


blight September 28, 2011 at 2:07 pm

Iran Contra? Or Shah-era?

For the latter, it was brave patriots giving arms to Muslim radicals under orders from Ronald Reagan, Republican superhero. For the Shah, it was a decision made in the '50s to impose the Shah over a nationalist like Mossadegh who threatened BP's oil position in Iran…something about natural resources "for the people", which although present in our founding documents became associated with Bolshevism.


major.rod September 28, 2011 at 2:47 pm

Mossadegh – The guy that was allied with the party that murdered the previous PM (who he pardoned), was allied with the Tudeh (Iranian communists) and outlawed anonymous voting when he felt he would lose the next election (after ruling for two years under emergency decrees)?

The facts are always inconvenient.

BTW, Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro were also "nationalists".


blight2 September 28, 2011 at 8:08 pm

Mossadegh is guilty of inconvenient truths (allying with the Tudeh), but who doesn't ally with murderers every once in a while?

My greater concern is when he solidified his power base and then pushed for emergency powers (Hugo before Hugo?).

Now that I look more closely, I'm not sure if he allied with Tudeh out of convenience or ideological synergy. Maybe he was just a generic strongman who would latch onto any ally available. Just like Saddam's Baath party was secular, and after GW1 he went all religiousy (adding Allahu Ackbar to the Iraqi flag).


crackedlenses September 28, 2011 at 4:16 pm

Considering who replaced the Shah, I'm kinda wish he had stayed in power…..


blight2 September 28, 2011 at 8:03 pm

The Shah deployed SAVAK, and I bet SAVAK didn't just grow out of the ground: it came from somewhere.


PMI September 28, 2011 at 5:29 pm

Iran acquired them in the early 70's with the USS Zellars (Babr) & USS Stormes (Palang), Allen M. Sumner class destroyers.


TLAM Strike September 28, 2011 at 8:49 pm

Iran operated two ex-USN Allen M. Sumner class destroyers the Zellars and Stormes as the Babr and Palang. They were equipped with six ABL type launchers for the SM-1/MR Missile.


ranks September 28, 2011 at 1:57 pm

America has become a paper tiger, by stretching ourselves too thin and by having a generation of fat, video game playing kids that are not fit enough for combat. They dont have to do push ups anymore, because they cannot, yes too FAT. Make fun of Iran, but it is us with our government devided, and a nation that is flat broke, that is vulnarable. Maybe Apple Corp, will defend us.


Kool September 28, 2011 at 2:52 pm

you dont sound american, you totally sound like a chinese lmao, "paper tiger",


joe September 29, 2011 at 10:58 am

Actually, the chinese version is "straw dogs", I think.


crackedlenses September 28, 2011 at 4:17 pm

I dare you to insult some of our troops and see how fat and vulnerable they are….


political_observer September 29, 2011 at 11:58 am

Do not be so hard on the children you might give them complex, after all everyone is a star or a legend in their own mind. This is the millinilum generation you are talking about now with the helicopter parents. They deserve to walk right into job that has a corner office, free coffee every day, free breakfast once a week, special event once a month and a Christmas Party and on and on…………………….


blight September 28, 2011 at 2:08 pm

Maybe we should escort them to Jersey. Show them a good time in Atlantic City. Hah!


STemplar September 28, 2011 at 3:00 pm

I bet half the crew would go AWOL……


m167a1 September 28, 2011 at 6:08 pm

Actually thats the best post so far.


Brian September 28, 2011 at 2:10 pm

Where are they planning on buying fuel?


morris wise September 28, 2011 at 2:37 pm

Wind driven yachts with a cruise missle in their hold are causing modern naval ships to become obsolete.


@Earlydawn September 28, 2011 at 2:43 pm

Simple answer. Welcome them to camp outside our territorial waters and waste money. Replace the term "ship" with "future reef" in any official communications.


STemplar September 28, 2011 at 2:51 pm

Not to mention kids that can't spell…..I'm not sure how push ups do you much good in a naval battle. I'd rather have an Arleigh Burke filled with 150 tubby computer nerds that have vetted themselves on Xbox than 150 jocks with 4% body fat who like to look in the mirror a lot.


STemplar September 28, 2011 at 3:01 pm

How about as soon as they clear the Gulf we shadow them with a sub and randomly ping them once a day for the whole voyage? That would be one edgy ship of nutters by the time that trip was over.


Disgusted Guest September 28, 2011 at 4:08 pm

STemplar, would you be ok if Iran did that to our ships while in the Gulf? Or are we approaching "double standard"…?


STemplar September 28, 2011 at 4:47 pm

Now you are engaging in moral relativism. You're attempting to attain some level of righteousness that is non sense. If Iran doesn't like being treated like an adversary, stop acting like one. If it wants to keep funding extremists and smuggling arms and thumbing its nose at international law, then boo hoo. This isn't some issue of right or wrong or whatever. Iran is picking a fight, we are obliging them. They don't like it, stop being idiots.


STemplar September 29, 2011 at 3:36 am

You really need to look up moral relativism. It's considered a non thinking mans debating method. You are seeking to gain some high ground in some kind of moral superiority contest which only highlights the fact you are a troll and not terribly astute. This isn't about what is "ok" this is about how the US treats a nation that seeks to cast itself in the role of a hostile power, antagonist nation, enemy, use whatever adjectives or nouns you like, it's all pointless semantics. The Iranians are being treated exactly how I would expect any nation that are enemies of the US to be treated. There is no double standard. It the Iranians would like to try and ping US warships they can go right ahead. They may not like the response they get. If they don't like how the US treats them, they could try not provoking essentially the entire international community.


rick james September 29, 2011 at 5:30 am

Iran is only hostile towards America because Israel constantly threatens them with war. get your head out of your ass… ohh and don't come with the bull shit that Iran said they will wipe Israel of the map. Iran said that this regime has to be dealt with once and for all. This was an answer to Netenyahu stating that he will bomb Iran 2 weeks prior. The media added the wipe Israel of the map crap.


Nathan Alan Speegle September 29, 2011 at 8:45 am

Israel threatens them with war..god you are an idiot. when someone's leader comes out and says they want to nuke your country, would you sit there and twiddle your thumbs. probably, because you are an idiot. i have read all of yours and disgusted guests comments and i have to say you both are the most misinformed people on the face of this earth.

STemplar September 29, 2011 at 3:00 pm

Non sense. Israel hasn't armed a terrorist NGO on their border that lobs mortars and rockets randomly into their civilian population centers. You're also engaging in nonsensical semantics. The intent of a statement like they need to be dealt with once and for all is clear enough. In regards to the translation bruhaha, quite frankly I've read arguments back and forth. I don't speak Persian so I have no idea, but based on the previous hate and venom that has flowed out of that pig Ahmadinejad I have no doubt about the intent behind it regardless of the exact quote.

Disgusted Guest September 29, 2011 at 1:31 pm

"You are seeking to gain some high ground in some kind of moral superiority contest which only highlights the fact you are a troll"

No, the definition of a troll is not mearly someone who disagrees with you. I am after no moral high ground, or superiority … i'm just trying to avoid more pointless wars, that are seemingly supported by the posters on this site.

"This isn't about what is "ok" this is about how the US treats a nation that seeks to cast itself in the role of a hostile power, antagonist nation, enemy. . . . ."

Iran casts itself as a hostile power?! How so? By building defense, and saying they have no plans of using their military for offensive purposes, only defensive? By saying "if Americans will patrol our waters, we will patrol theirs"? Iran is not a violent imperialistic, world policing nation … I think you got your countries crossed!


STemplar September 29, 2011 at 3:06 pm

You aren't trying to avoid wars, you are defending a bunch of sociopathic tyrants that engage in crimes against humanity, are racists, and arm radical Islamic terrorist groups that murder thousands of innocent civilians annually on purpose. You could post about the folly of engaging in another war without defending the likes of Iran so don't try and deflect your intent here primarily is to defend the indefensible of regimes like the Iranians.

You are seeking some kind of moral high ground because you are trying to justify behavior in some tit for tat fashion. You aren't discussing specifics you are just spouting unsupported non sense. "Iran isn't hostile" "Iran hasn't attacked the US". That's all garbage. Many here have posted specifics acts and behaviors they Iranian regime has engaged in continually and you can't refute any of it. I'm not goign to re-post it all. You're clearly simply trying to hide your defense of a totalitarian group of racist thugs in some cloak of peace loving which is just baloney.

Disgusted Guest September 29, 2011 at 1:31 pm

"It the Iranians would like to try and ping US warships they can go right ahead. They may not like the response they get."

Ok, so if Iranians ping our ships, and our response is firing back … then who started it? Now, take the opposite … if we ping Iranian ships, and they fire at us … who would have started that? If you're answers are consistant (i.e. one of the answers is Iran and the other is the U.S. … no matter which one), then there is no double standard on your part.


STemplar September 29, 2011 at 3:10 pm

There is no double standard, you are absolutely one of the densest human beings I've ever tried to explain a simple concept to. Iran is an enemy of the United States. We counter enemy activity. We harass potential threats and let potential enemies know what sort of capability we have as a means of deterrence. I don't care if they ping us, and I think we should ping them. If they wish to elevate it to firing at one another go right ahead. This isn't about double standards or right and wrong, this is about what steps and actions to take to deter an enemy military force. That's all. Get it? I don't care what the Iranians do, I only care about how we counter them. Is that simple enough, I mean there is no crayon button on these forums.

orly? September 29, 2011 at 10:12 am

They put their patrol boats on collision courses with GIGANTIC US warships all the time, "lose" radio communication, and then at the last second say "Hey didn't see you there."

Its been documented for along time now.


lol September 28, 2011 at 8:06 pm

Throw in some random low level passes by a bunch of ANG units. Probably breaks up some of the old routine.

It's just a shame that some P-3 crew is going to have to slowly track them the entire time.


NeilAKANeil September 28, 2011 at 3:02 pm

I mean, is there anyone who doesn't already know how this will end?


SJE September 28, 2011 at 4:23 pm

Do you really? tell us. I have no idea.

If the Iranian ship tries to attack the USA, it will be sunk within minutes. In fact, if we thought it was a credible threat, it would have been sunk already.

But that is not what it is there for. It is there to piss us off. So, it will be a cat and mouse of what they do, and how we respond.


Lance September 28, 2011 at 3:02 pm

Good it'll give Navy F-18 pilots target practice near home. sink those Iranian trash of the sea.


fester September 28, 2011 at 10:42 pm

You do know that is an act of war, and more importantly an act of profound stupidity. One of the long standing tenets of US foreign policy if free navigation of the world's oceans excluding narrowly defined territorial waters. Sinking ships of nations that we are at peace with in international waters blows that position out of the water….


Lance September 29, 2011 at 3:11 pm

Sorry Iran dose not need to harass US ships off US shores and its about time to take out the Islamic government of Iran.


bubba birner September 28, 2011 at 3:12 pm

Is the U.S. president stupid or just ignorant. They are nuclear islamic people. Their religion tells them to kill the non believers. America is know as a christian nation. So if they shoot where is it going. Its great they have a navy but i say we sink it before they can hit the U.S. As it is obama has given all of our wheat reserves to other countries. Hopefully we dont have an epidemic or they dont send over a dirty bomb. If so were screwed.


Disgusted Guest September 28, 2011 at 4:11 pm

Yeah Bubba! Why not bomb the entire Middle East and Africa!

OR, we could do something unprecidented, like PROMOTE PEACE!



Non Hippie September 28, 2011 at 4:51 pm



Disgusted Guest September 28, 2011 at 5:58 pm

Right … he who wants peace is a hippy. Suppose i'll go find a tree to hug.


crackedlenses September 28, 2011 at 6:21 pm

Peace through killing people who want to kill you before they get the chance…..

Catamount September 29, 2011 at 3:51 am

Sounds like a good idea to me….And let Bomb them back to the stone age..oh wait they are already there…


blight2 October 6, 2011 at 9:06 am

It reminds me of this entity often referred to as the Prince of Peace. Any guy with a job title like that is certainly some sort of hippy.


SJE September 28, 2011 at 4:19 pm

Terrorists can already cause havoc in the USA. Part of the reason they don't is (a) US intel, but part of it is (b) that their state sponsors don't want to piss off the USA and international community. Take away (b), and you have a lot more problems

For example, North Korea is restrained by China. Iran is restrained by wanting to be seen as the center of Persian and Shia culture, which spreads a long way, and by fear that over-reacting will play into the hands of the Sunni monarchies who want a reason to attack.


Riceball September 30, 2011 at 2:37 pm

Why bother, the best they can possibly send is a small frigate with only a few AA missiles, not much of a threat. If, and that's a big if, they actually manage to sail to our side of the pond you can guarantee that they will have a silent & unseen escort below them as soon as they enter the Atlantic. On top of that you can be damned sure that our satellites will be watching them long before that and after a while we'll probably have ISR aircraft up in the watching & listening an they minute they fire up their fire control radars at any nearby aircraft, civilian or military, they're risking a Mk. 48 ADCAP up their rears.


roland October 4, 2011 at 3:07 am

I am more scared of the Iranian presidents mental health than its navy. He is blazing MAD!!!


Brian Black September 28, 2011 at 4:13 pm

I expect that when exhausted tubby finds himself trying to hammer plugs into into the holes of his locked and quickly flooding compartment, he might begin to wish he’d done a few push ups once in a while.

And when an anti ship missile hits, will that fat nerd be able to drag his own fat ass up through two or three decks to save his own life, let alone bring his wounded ship mate out with him?


STemplar September 28, 2011 at 4:44 pm

Things have gone pretty poorly in your navy. I'd rather be in the one winning.


traindodger September 28, 2011 at 5:35 pm

I'm fat, and I'm nerdy. That doesn't stop me from doing a hundred-meter dash in less than fifteen seconds, or going up ten flights of stairs without breaking a sweat. It's the muscle underneath the fat that counts.


john moore September 29, 2011 at 9:50 am

? is how many 100 meter dashes could you do b4 your heart gives out 1-2 maybe 3? Fat is gross


SJE September 28, 2011 at 5:59 pm

I agree that we should have a fit force. Stuff happens, and fitness and strength counts. At the same time, one fat guy launching an advanced weapon can sink a ship staffed entirely by Olympic athletes.


jake September 28, 2011 at 5:28 pm

One in 4 Americans are "fat"…. I havent seen a fat marine before nor have i seen a fat seaman. I honestly think people dont think before they say, but hey if it makes you feel better to diss on the navy go for it. I mean when " tubby" blows those towel heads out of the water we'll see who's dishin out the insults. :p


SJE September 28, 2011 at 5:56 pm

Yep. The Iranian navy could have the entire thing manned by Olympic level athletes, but it won't protect them against advanced technology.


blight September 28, 2011 at 5:58 pm

Tech is what kept primordial humans from being overmatched by animals with scales, carapaces and claws. Even if primordial man was as strong as chimpanzees (which can tear modern men limb from limb), tech allowed humans to fight from a better-than-fair position.

Kind of like HG Well's Landship story, now that I think about it.


nielsenkc September 29, 2011 at 9:57 am

Some chiefs in the navy are fat… lol navy humor


RunningBear September 28, 2011 at 5:48 pm

In a "Pigs Eye"!!


Kski September 28, 2011 at 6:09 pm

Live fire exercise!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! An we don't have to pay for the targets, double awsome!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


randy September 28, 2011 at 6:41 pm

"Kids, this is your brain on drugs"!


blight2 September 28, 2011 at 8:12 pm

What'll probably happen is that some frigate due to return home will be sent home early to tail this ship back from the Persian Gulf to the United States. There may be support from submarines. This ship may go through the Suez and through the Med and to Europe, and then be shadowed by various navies on the way to the Atlantic. Or it'll take the long way around South Africa and risk stormier seas. Hmm…


blight2 September 28, 2011 at 8:15 pm

They may simply stay around Spain, the Canaries and Bermuda and claim they are patrolling "off our shores" or "in the Atlantic"?


George Gauthier September 28, 2011 at 8:21 pm

It may not be an Aegis destroyer, but the Iranian frigate would make short work of our puny Littoral Combat Ships or one of those LPDs of the misbegotten San Antonio class.


PMI September 28, 2011 at 8:50 pm

So a frigate is a stronger surface combatant than an LPD? Brilliant analysis.


Tim September 28, 2011 at 10:33 pm

Yeah right. The LCS will dance around this thing and then smoke it for dinner.


TMB September 28, 2011 at 11:11 pm

George, you are aware that the San Antonio isn't even meant to fight other ships, right? You'd be just as justified complaining that the C-17 is no match for the MiG-29.


Bill C. September 28, 2011 at 8:26 pm

Iran is probably blowing smoke but if they do make the trip I hope our subs tail them. If Iran moves one inch into our waters sink them, they have a history of suicide missions.


rick September 29, 2011 at 5:38 am

based on your statement iran has the right to fire at the entire us and Canadian fleet in the persian gulf since they have to cross the straight of Hormuz to get there and the straight is all Iranian waters.


STemplar September 29, 2011 at 3:22 pm

Incorrect, the Strait is over 20 miles wide at it's narrowest point so it is all not in Iranian waters. You are incorrect. -1 for geography failure.


Harry J. Hoover September 28, 2011 at 9:41 pm

The only time to kill something is when you're afraid of it,no fear,no threat,no problem! Of course there is always the sport aspect.


Steven R. September 28, 2011 at 10:39 pm

Lock and Load Boys
Fire for Effect :)


paperpushermj September 28, 2011 at 10:57 pm

I not overly confident they could find the United States.


nielsenkc September 29, 2011 at 9:59 am

that just made my day..


Mastro September 28, 2011 at 11:39 pm

Hilarious if they try in November and hit a nice North Atlantic Perfect Storm.

The don't like to be buried at sea, do they?


Ronnie September 28, 2011 at 11:41 pm

They plan to lob a nuke into the East Coat if they are attacked in Iran. These nuts deny the holocaust and want to kill another six million Israelis. So be prepared for a nuke or biological weapons, on the US main land…they have the Scuds.
Have these ships been fitted out with them?


Thomas L. Nielsen September 29, 2011 at 8:36 am

"…they have the Scuds. Have these ships been fitted out with them?"

Just checking here, you understand: What do you actually know about
a) The size and mass of a Scud missile?
b) The amount of infrastructure needed to launch one?
c) The work needed to integrate a) and b) on a ship?

Oh, and please also provide a source for your statement that "They plan to lob a nuke into the East Coat if they are attacked in Iran". Or, for that matter, that Iran even has a nuke to lob in the first place.

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen


Ronnie September 29, 2011 at 5:15 pm

They fire um off the back of trucks. They flew planes into the twin towers ..aimed for three mile island . Youall have a happy day now in lala land


Thomas L. Nielsen September 30, 2011 at 6:24 am

Sorry, but you lost me there.

How does firing a SCUD off of a (LARGE) truck, one that was designed for the purpose, and the SEP11 attacks have anything to do with the technological challenges inherent in integrating a SCUD on a naval vessel. I'm genuinely curious….

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen


blight September 30, 2011 at 11:33 am

Ronnie's definitely lost his marbles.

You don't need a Scud to fire a nuke. Soviets made some perfectly good ship-launchable cruise missiles with nuclear payloads…and if you have a BM to fire them, then you need serious engineering modifications to your ships to deploy them, which would be done in a shipyard that the NRO would probably catch. Hard to hide the TEL transporting a giant Shahab to an Iranian Navy port and loading it aboard a ship for launch. Even harder would be a magical ship with sliding parts capable of hiding a gigantic Scud from being seen.

And this still assumes that Iran has nukes. They don't. Even if they success in enriching weapons grade materials, it's still a stretch to design a proper nuclear weapon. I'm not sure if the Iranian people are on board with the idea of becoming a nuclear weapons power, since they are still raised on the Big Brother ideal that Iran has no interest in being a bloodthirsty killmachine like Crusader America, and only interests in peaceful nuclear power. When you go beyond your mandate and suddenly announce a crash nuclear missile program, it's bound to make people (even highly-ranked ones) concerned.

We've always assumed that the ayatollahs who run the country were in uniform agreement with Ahmadinejad, but more than once they've clashed. We don't know for sure just what Ahmadinejad wants seprately from the Guardian Council, or what they want independent of Ahmadinejad. And even then, the Guardian Council might not necessarily be in full ideological agreement: we just don't know.

KenP September 28, 2011 at 11:44 pm

Even better, engine trouble or the desalination plant fails east of the Keys. Then imagine it being towed home via the US Navy. Best PR ever.


orly? September 29, 2011 at 10:18 am

I would want full radio and visual documentation of the event for all the world to see!


amauyong September 29, 2011 at 1:24 am

hmmm…..i wonder if these iranian ships selected for the patrol can handle the deep atlantic..

.i am also wondering how their logistics train would be like….

Sea conditions in the atlantic isn’t exactly benign.

This is not some kind of holiday kind of row boat trip in the middle of a pond during summer either.

Well…wish the iranians the best with their version / idea of a uniliateral self pawned version of **** waving/sizing “competition”.

You have to wonder for their followers is it really truely worth it to sacrifice ones lives and lose contact with loved ones for “leaders” who lead from behind rather than from the front and yelling at the followers “You must die and make the necessary sacrifices for your country” [For the rest of us behind you, we get all the spoils and joys].



Bowmanave September 29, 2011 at 3:13 am

I mean, they have every right to put their ships anywhere they want in international water, I guess. I just don't see what they hope to accomplish with this move.


STemplar September 29, 2011 at 3:41 am

Bravado. PR. Bragging rights. Pretty much nothing practically.


shawn1999 September 29, 2011 at 7:52 am

Cool!! How kind of Iran to send us some target practice!
Difference between Iran patrolling US waters and US patrolling Iranian waters: US fights terrorism. Iran encourages it. This should be more than enough prove who is evil and deserves to stay locked in their cage, and who doesn't.


WPoS September 29, 2011 at 8:15 am

that's because we burn the fat in Mpls during winter!


Rob September 29, 2011 at 8:41 am

What are the odds that these Iranian warships will be carrying nuclear weapons technology to Venezuela?


Tim September 29, 2011 at 9:37 am

Now, that's a great idea. We can always claim that they carry "hum-ha" cargo and since they refused boarding for inspection, we had to… sink the darn thing.


Rob September 29, 2011 at 10:29 am

Our attempting to stop and inspect an Iranian warship (if they even allowed it without a fight) in international waters would be (correctly) considered by the Iranians to be an act of war. If we knew for certain that the ship carried nuclear material we could blockade Venezuela (as in the Cuban Missile crisis) but that could also considered by Venezuela to be an act of war. Which is why transporting nuclear weapons material by warship is the safest way for the Iranians to proliferate.


SJE September 29, 2011 at 11:18 am

Close to zero. They need all the technology they can get back in Iran.


Rob September 29, 2011 at 11:28 am

Just because Iran may not have the last piece of a 100 piece puzzle (yet) doesn't mean they won't be willing to give or sell some of the first 99 pieces (such as centrifuges) to other nations. Iran would love to be able to strike the United States with a nuclear weapon and helping Venezuela establish that capability is a win-win from both their perspectives.


blight2 September 29, 2011 at 11:56 am

Giving centrifuges to Venezuela doesn't make them a nuclear power. Just as giving the Soviets nuke schematics didn't make them a nuclear power overnight, and they presumably used their German scientists (along with their own Soviet ones), and still required four years to build up their own nuclear infrastructure to detonate a weapon.

The Iranians haven't physically tested one yet, and the Norks (presumed source of nuclear tech to Iran?) haven't either, asides from their fizzle. The Soviets didn't arm the PRC or the DPRK (and never armed Iran, as they were under the Pahlavis). The Russians have been good with not exporting nuclear weapons.


SJE September 30, 2011 at 10:18 am

Iran is focussed on getting the bomb. Once it has, it will have a lot more freedom of action. Until then, giving stuff to Venezuela makes no sense
(1) it dilutes the Iranian program
(2) Venzeuala is no where near getting a nuclear program, so why start
(3) Iran wants to keep alive the fiction that it is only interested in domestic nuclear power for peaceful purposes. Any evidence of this transfer weakens that narrative.


blight September 30, 2011 at 11:20 am

Correct. And Hugo hasn't mentioned any interest in peaceful nuclear power, but that might be because I am woefully out of date on what goes on in Venezuela.

blight2 September 29, 2011 at 11:54 am

Iraq is spreading WMD to Venezuela.

Whoops, I meant Iran. In all seriousness, there are more clandestine ways to spread tech, and Iran is better served bulking up its SSM stockpiles and aiming them at Qatar, KSA, etc for deterrence.

A strike package to Venezuela would require transporting TELs, missile crews and the like (which is why the Soviets used multiple cargo ships for transport, and not a tiny frigate). A technology transfer would mean Venezuela (with no rocketry experience) would need at least five to ten years developing the capability, along with test-launches and the like.


Rob September 29, 2011 at 1:13 pm

Blight2, I agree it would take at least ten years, but they have to start somewhere and this could just be the first step.


SJE September 30, 2011 at 1:43 pm

Iran wants nukes to ensure survival of the regime from external threats and to strengthen pride in the state, i.e. protection from internal threats.

Venezuela has huge internal political problems and the regime is no where near as stable and entrenched as Iran. Chavez needs to focus on his own survival, and nukes is too long term to help.


TLAM Strike September 29, 2011 at 5:02 pm

I imagine they are trying to get stuff from Venezuela back to Iran. Say an F-16 Airframe, Parts for a Type 209 Submarine and maybe a working Su-30MK2 Flanker.


blight September 30, 2011 at 11:21 am

I never thought of it that way. But couldn't Venezuela charter a ship and send it on to Iran? Just pretend its carrying some peaceful cargo, like…what does Venezuela produce asides from petroleum products?


SJE October 1, 2011 at 3:27 pm

Hats made of fruit


RobertNorwood September 29, 2011 at 9:56 am

Welcome to the North Atlantic boys!


RobertNorwood September 29, 2011 at 10:01 am

Anyway, this will give our subs some really good practice. The Iranians, like the their buddies in Venezuela are just out to rattle our cage. I think some times they forget – the cage door isn't locked.


Matrix3692 September 29, 2011 at 10:22 am

well, maybe the USN can send a frigate to bait them to chase and just wait until the Iranian warships' propeller shaft broke, like what happened to the RMN gunboat last week while chasing a Chinese frigate:
the news article: http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v5/newsgeneral.php
some pictures(although in chinese): http://roll.sohu.com/20110922/n320211839.shtml


Gaffer September 29, 2011 at 10:26 am

A bunch of Arabian Gulf (I called it that on purpose) sailors bouncing around in alight frigate in the Atlantic during the winter. I hope they bring their seasick pills and winter woolies!


P. D. Quick September 29, 2011 at 10:41 am

Someone tell the Iranians about al those old WW II mines that are still floating around out there. They might hit one or five by acident.


joe September 29, 2011 at 10:56 am

Yes. Not to put too fine a point on it, commercial GPS is something you can buy off the shelf in a souk on the somali coast if you really want to, let alone a country with sufficient engineering nous to sustain an oil industry. It is, sadly, no longer high tech.

Is it good enough to target weapons or avoid mines? No. Will it allow you to say "Venezuala is thataway"? Yes.

On general principles (i.e. the latter is famous for (A) communism and (B) alcohol and wild parties) I'd guess they're more likely to head for Venezuala than Cuba for basing. More interesting is where they'd stop en route – I doubt they have the range to make the trip non-stop. Maybe they could ask to refuel at Jaffa or Arsuf? :-)


Bart Berger September 29, 2011 at 11:13 am

Hey how about getting one of the battlewagons out of mothballs just to greet them with 16 inch guns? That might change their mind about wanting a sea battle or intimidating us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111


Christian September 29, 2011 at 3:39 pm

While not being even close to feasible, this would be quite amusing. Them in their little 310 foot frigate running into a 890 foot Iowa class battleship. They would probably not be back.


STemplar September 29, 2011 at 4:08 pm

How about just bump into them? No need to buy ammo for the guns, just hit em.


roland October 3, 2011 at 6:11 pm

Just send a flottila of LC1, Manta, group of sea fighters and unmaned sea drones equipt with missiles and machine guns to block their way when entering our borders.


political_observer September 29, 2011 at 11:46 am

What will they send a large row boat with a Mulla in charge. We could send a couple boat loads of drunken weekend boat partyers to sin it then ther would be plausable denial I for one volunteer, sound likefun and I would even pay for the beer and stuff.


itfunk September 29, 2011 at 12:12 pm

Iran sends a corvette off the coast and just look at the orgy of hate and fear.
Perhaps they are right – just a nation of scared little girls.


STemplar September 29, 2011 at 3:17 pm

Perhaps they are? I mean after all on any given day of the week the POTUS could pick up the phone and turn Iran to ash, and we haven't. So you're same logic can be turned on you. If there is a lion next to you and it has never really bitten you, why are you afraid of the lion?


blight September 30, 2011 at 11:36 am

Didn't Reagan talk about The Bear in his re-election commercials?


TLAM Strike September 29, 2011 at 4:48 pm

Hate and fear? Mostly I'm hearing laughter!


Roland October 4, 2011 at 12:53 am

I am more worried of their (Iran) Presidents mind health than their navy. After reading his speech on the news, I taught to believe the man is crazy mad.


Tony C September 29, 2011 at 1:05 pm

Send the Iranian sailors Ham sandwiches and rum for their efforts!!!!
They probably aren't nearly as hard-lined as their government.


Robert A. Fritts September 29, 2011 at 1:56 pm

Wow have they been studying our doctrine. Now they can waste $millions patroling shores that are realisticly no threat to their country. They will have to work hard because we waste $Billions doing the same thing. Soon they may ask for permission to inspect American Power Plants. They are a soveriegn nation, they can waste their money how they want. Before you laugh think about the reverse perspective.


don6696 September 29, 2011 at 2:16 pm



Michael September 29, 2011 at 3:33 pm

Last I heard, a destroyer doesn't constitute a “powerful force”….at least not in the western hemisphere….


joe September 30, 2011 at 3:05 am

Technically it's not even a destroyer, anyway, it's a frigate-weight vessel.


John Moore September 29, 2011 at 4:32 pm

Now that you opened this up can of worms, how about some more information on this little puppy? Like how far can it travel with out refueling, how are they going to stay on station for a long period of time? Where is their logistical support going to come from?
I guess we will let them come into some port along the coast to refuel and re-supply right? It stated in one article I read where it carried one Bell helo for ASW work. Did we sell it to them?
This should be fun to watch if it happens.


NKonaya September 29, 2011 at 9:35 pm

They do have logistical ships:

And probably would be allowed port access in Havana, Cuba.


blight September 29, 2011 at 9:44 pm

Long way from Iran to Havana. I wonder if they are welcome in Egypt or Lebanon, which would give them one stop in the Med. Maybe Morocco before entering the Atlantic.

To that end, is there any evidence that they're in active collaboration with Cuba, or is it our American habit of stringing together "enemies" over the last half century and assuming that they are all colluding together? Technically Cubans would be godless infidels too…


Lightndattic September 30, 2011 at 10:00 am

I seriously doubt Israel would allow an Iranian warship anywhere near Lebanon. Morocco is probably out since they are an ally of ours and would probably take in the welcome mat (for another 12 or so F-16′s)

Seriously, though…. They’re taking a page out of our book, so let’s take a page out of theirs- Let’s get a volunteer force of offshore powerboat racers and practice swarm tactics against their ship. Let them know how annoying and potentially dangerous it can be. We can keep an armed SH-60 over the horizon in case something happens.


TLAM Strike September 29, 2011 at 7:11 pm

BEWARE INFIDEL BLOGGERS!! Iran is building an aircraft carrier:



Prodozul September 29, 2011 at 8:15 pm

The comments are hilarious XD


Briareous September 30, 2011 at 6:58 am


Thats some paranoid ranting going down at that link.
Maybe Disgruntled Guest should cast his "informed eye" at that site.

Cheers for the link.


Tim September 29, 2011 at 8:31 pm

The news just gets better each day….

Press 1 for Hezbolla… Press 2 for…


Rajarata September 29, 2011 at 8:47 pm

Easy Easy folks…Iran hmmm….one hurricane or one Atlantic storm those saliors will want their mamma ! Take 'em to walpart then they all defect ! No worries even though they'll refuel in Cuba.


Naijaie September 30, 2011 at 2:30 am

Hahahahaha, I am laughing my but off


J Weich September 30, 2011 at 3:46 am

Interesting how everyone completely misses the point. Why does the US have the right to do this to Iran, but not them to us. Might is right? Well that’s obviously been proven wrong over the last decade. Perhaps some deeper thought as opposed to macho-military idiocy might prove to be enlightening. We are all human beings, with the same emotions, desires and ambitions. Most of the population of any country wants peace and to just get on with life. It’s the ruling class that cause wars, and none more so than ours (by several orders of magnitude), and we are their pawns. If you get a kick out of the killing technology, then frankly you are sick, or profiting, or both.

To be honest, The US has become the second Roman Empire, and is obviously headed for the same fate.



STemplar September 30, 2011 at 4:07 am

No one here has ever said anything about the "right" to do anything. You're engaging in the same relativistic babble these other apologists for Iran are. The difference is quite simple, we get a say in our government and they do not. We think it's ok for non Muslims to exist and prosper and they do not. We think it is ok for woman to be treated as equals and they do not. We think its wrong to discriminate against people for gender preference and they execute homosexuals. We think all religions should be practiced freely and they do not. We think a free press is a good thing and they do not. We allow people to gather publicly and air their grievances about the government and they truncheon and imprison people for doing so. If you need these things pointed out and explained to you, then you are blind sir.


Lightndattic September 30, 2011 at 10:14 am

We have the right to protect our interests in international waters where threatened. If Iran did not occasionally drop mines in the gulf, threaten our commercial interests (oil tankers) in the region with shore bases ASMs, and threaten to close the Straight of Hormuz then we would not need to be over there. We patrol the Red Sea/Western Indian Ocean because of the threat of piracy to our interests (commercial shipping). If Chavez started buzzing or attacked cruise ships in the south Caribbean, then we’d have patrols down there as well.

See the difference? No threat (real or perceived), no presence. There are no interests of Iran off the east coast of North America, so this is just a tantrum to make themselves appear the victim.


blight September 30, 2011 at 11:27 am

You're right in that both nations are committed in a death-spiral of tit-for-tat. But Obama has been castigated for "resetting" relations with Russia, even though it makes geopolitical sense instead of domestic approval points sense. The present POTUS is more open to talk than the previous one. Iran will lose an opportunity to make things "right" with the West if it is in their interest.

Israel has pretty good proof that the nations of the Middle East (and the peoples of the Middle East) don't really like them all that much (six wars later…); and as long as Palestinians are sidelined in land they owned before 1949 and were displaced by diplomats in San Francisco (and eventually NYC) without much recourse by Palestinians.

It's not like Palestinians as a people are intrinsically detrimental to Israel: Israel has had a sizeable Arab population of Palestinian descent, plus Druze and Bedouins. Everyone wants the most compromise-free solution, and that means nothing will ever get done because someone always loses.


skyhawk October 1, 2011 at 12:00 pm

Problem is We are civil They are not. the following scares me we should deal with them now.


Danceman September 30, 2011 at 5:23 am

The situation re the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and its main aim of imposing by force its flavour of Islam world wide has got to a point that is threatening all the civilised world. Iran and Venezuela need cleansing of them now. They have been been left too long and have leap frogged ahead in terror by getting Russian and European help. Belarus also needs cleansing of all its vast stocks of weapons and total isolation of the county until safe.

This bizarre idea that all countries are equal needs throwing out. Non democratic countries like North Korea, specially those that sponsor terrorism should have no rights and the ” civilised” countries should manage them. If they allow terrorists on their soil! Any resources in these countries should be taken to pay for this!

This firm policy showing there is no future for bulling terrorist countries will lead to all quickly stamping out terrorist and becoming full members of the world community.


Thomas L. Nielsen September 30, 2011 at 6:33 am

You mean like Afghanistan?

I'm also curious who, in your Master Plan, gets to decide who is a "non democratic country" and who is "civilized"?

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen


blight September 30, 2011 at 11:28 am

You've just opened a scary can of worms.

Your pseudo-Manifest Destiny post concerns me…


Chimp October 3, 2011 at 2:58 am

As I understand it, the founding fathers specifically rejected the notion of the new United States as a democracy. The republican model was considered less likely to be hijacked by narrow interests.

I have always liked the Westminster model used in the UK. It has both long and short term interests. The UK isn't the best governed country on earth, but it has done alright.


blight October 3, 2011 at 12:37 pm

It's certainly quicker than waiting four years for an election. Vote of no confidence, change of PM and Cabinet.


SJE October 1, 2011 at 3:31 pm

The Iranians are Shia. The republican guard has to worry about the Sunni more than they have to worry about other sorts of infidels. Most Islamic proselytization comes from the Sunnis, especially the Saudis


Elijah October 2, 2011 at 9:43 pm

The motive is not understood. Are they ready to help other nations get out of the control of dictators and allow them to seek the truth about GOD or is it same old believe my lies or die.


roland October 3, 2011 at 5:48 pm

I'd say sink em if they enter our borders or become a threat to the life's of our people and country.


roland October 3, 2011 at 5:55 pm

This could be the part of what Nostradamus was telling us.


Roland October 3, 2011 at 8:50 pm

We should prepare for any evenualities. Physically, spiritually and defensively. If conflict erupts a war could possibly start. A bigger conflict could soon to follow.We should prepare for these things.


Dan M October 3, 2011 at 10:22 pm

Heck, the Coast Guard could whip 'em without much trouble.


James October 4, 2011 at 7:54 pm

Give the Iranian a 21 gun salute right to their port side amidships


Roland October 7, 2011 at 4:05 am

Start placing mines if they are going to harm us.


Joe October 10, 2011 at 9:46 pm

Seriously we should invite them into port, offer them a stay at the finest hotel in the port, steak dinner, entertainment, for the day or two and then send them on their way with a hardy "yall come back now, ya hear" . That really would mess with whats his face in IRAN. Oh and take plenty of news footage showing them having a great time here and splash it all over the international news!!! and of course if they were to launch some sort of weapon, well we know what would become of their navy here and in their own ports in about a span of 15 minutes.


TASMANIAN DEVIL October 12, 2011 at 5:13 am

Wow. So much bile, ignorance, hatred, and spelling errors!


K Nelson October 12, 2011 at 4:20 pm

We are worried about Iran? Lets not forget who our real enemy are? That wouldn't be China would it? Our so-called politicians are know communist sympathizers selling out the good Ole USA!.


Wayne October 13, 2011 at 8:35 am

So how come it's alright for the Americans to patrol other countries waters, and have bases situated in other countries, but yet all the Americans here seem to be bent out of shape when the tables are turned? Seems like you Americans think you run the world when in fact you are slowly becoming a 3rd world country with the state of your economy and finances, maybe it's time to stop worrying about everyones elses issues and start worrying about your own. Clean up your own house before you venture out to clean someone elses.


crackedlenses October 13, 2011 at 6:41 pm

When other people are building weapons in their houses intended for use on mine, suddenly their business becomes mine. Islamic terrorists are out to get us. That's why we're out there…..


Roland November 3, 2011 at 7:55 am

They (Iran) maybe acting as a kid, probably nothing to worry about. But I think it's best for us to prepare for any attack from them. They made this things not for display.


dan November 9, 2011 at 5:40 pm

well u dont put your best ship at first.common knowlage


GWC November 10, 2011 at 9:42 pm

Handheld GPS. Maybe.


Dennis Kolensky December 14, 2011 at 1:51 pm

I'm sure the officers on board will have a standing invitation for dinner at the White House with Obama. After all someone has to play nice and kiss their backside ?
Obama just endangered our security policy further by doing nothing when Iran has one of our Drone planes. The next thing you know Iran , or Iran sponsored Terrorist could be flying "armed" Drone Copies over Israel and the U.S – partly due to how current U.S. Leadership is performing. This wasn't Bush's fault ! I never hear Obama mention Bush, about the death of Bin Laden, or even the Seals, Obama communicates,implies that he was responsible for this ?


richie January 14, 2012 at 7:16 pm

Obviously Iran wont win in a confrontation, I can not understand the double standards, so its ok for Israel to have nuclear weapons and not allow UN inspectors however its not ok for Iran to develop them, as for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq well nil found, perhaps America should have never invaded Iraq, as for the middle east no nukes would be better for everyone, perhaps 2012 is a bad year


Harry January 14, 2012 at 9:56 pm

Hey, for crying out loud, let them dock in one of our ports, and let their crews have shoreleave. Nothing changes the perspective of those trapped under the rule of a tyrant, than allowing them to actually experience a free country. Can you imagine these guys visiting a port city in Brazil? LOL! They'll never go back. Hehe…


dino January 15, 2012 at 4:05 am

YOU Americans talk too much your days in power is numbered with your economy about to crumble i cant wait to recieve you guys as refugees in my country.


MUSA USMAN January 15, 2012 at 9:15 am

Iranian Navy is not comparable with USA Navy, no matter the amount of technology they have achieved.The USA Navy will clear that bunch of rubbish called carrier (Iranian Naval ship patrol-off-USA- coast).They dare not try anything funny,because they will be destroy in twinkle of an eye!


Thifiagma January 16, 2012 at 12:47 pm
Robert Fritts June 20, 2012 at 1:07 am

Its about time that other countries spent alot of their hard earned treasure to sail around the Globe. Maybe we can get the Chinese to make more port calls in San Diego too, the Bodyshop needs the traffic. If the Iranians visit South Carolina, there is great golf & fishing to be had. With our unemployment so bad we should be encouraging ALL foriegners to come and visit. Buy some Tshirts and Beer. Pretty soon there can be Persian fathered babies abandoned around the world just like so many Amer-Asian, Amer-German, Amer-CentAms, etc….With the Secret Service on a short leash Hookers & Discos in Columbia are hurting. Maybe then they will lose that inferiority complex.


IknowIT September 28, 2011 at 3:07 pm



STemplar September 28, 2011 at 3:12 pm

Relativism anyone? There is no double standard, your argument is nonsensical. We do treat others like we want to be treated. We have stated we believe in freedom of the sea. We said they are entitled to do as they like in international waters.

I would point out we allow these exchanges to occur publicly. Iran will throw you in prison and beat you for expressing dissent to the government. We follow all rules of navigation of the sea when we are in the Gulf.

There is no double standard, so your opinion is unsupported.


db3737 September 28, 2011 at 3:30 pm

We can stop patrolling Iranian waters as soon as Iran and their whacko mullahs stop funding, supporting and directing militant islamic radicals to committ "Jihad" (i.e., terrorist acts against civilians) across the globe. Oh, and just wait until the same crazies get nukes….


M167A1 September 28, 2011 at 6:16 pm

I disagree.

Furthermore we have interests in the gulf (oil) and need to be there. Iran has few if any interests in the North Atlantic and their presence can only be seen as bluster.

I realize you might actually sereous, if so I urge you to read more history such actions usually result in someone getting taken for a ride. We are not dealing with reasonable people and reasonable treatment will not gain results.

One day when the Islamic Rebublic is just a bad memory, we will send our ships to the gulf for port calls. But until then they are the ones who need to show reasonable behavior.


political_observer September 29, 2011 at 12:09 pm

Disgusted Guest –
You re so insighful, "treat others as you want to be treated"; let's see then maybe we should cut of their hands, cut off their noses, through them in jail or execute them becuase of their religion. What do you think about if we will reverse treat them does that sound nice to you, hmmm you bleeding heart Liberal moron?

Maybe we should stand by the next time someone knocks down another one of our buildings wring our hands and ask ourselves what would that moron Disgusted Guest have to say about our response, oh my! You do not belong on this website get off logon to Chris Matthews site.


GreensboroVet September 29, 2011 at 4:01 pm

Disgusted Guest shut. You don't even know what the hell your talking about.


shawn1999 September 30, 2011 at 11:06 am

Your absolutely right! We should follow the philosophy of "treat others as you want to be treated". Since Iran is actively encouraging and training people to kill US citizens, then we should do likewise since this is how they wish to be treated!


RangerAl September 30, 2011 at 9:38 pm

Nuke 'em.


Daedalus October 3, 2011 at 1:12 pm

No one really cares about them patrolling our waters. It's not an issue.


Real American October 21, 2011 at 3:42 pm

If we treated the Iranians as they intend to treat us we'd have already bombed them to kingdom come. When are you whimpy left wing pigs ever gonna get the message they are the enemy? They intend us harm they are terrorists. If you don't remember the take over of the US Embassy in Tehran you should look it up.
If you don't know about them funding Hamas, Hezbollah, and a host of other terrorist thugs that killed many of our men in Iraq and Afghanistan you need to educate yourself.
If you don't know that they plan to use the nuclear weapons they are now acquiring on their guided missiles think again.
Finally, if you can't stand the heat then get off this website, because we need people that will defend this country when it is attacked by those mad men.
You need to follow the old adage where Muslims are concerned "Pray for the best and prepare for the worst."


DB3737 September 28, 2011 at 3:23 pm

Precisley. How in the world is that thing supposed to make it across the Atlantic, much less do any "patrolling" once it get here?!? Hilarious…


John Demell October 12, 2011 at 11:32 pm

You that might be funny.. but i don't doubt that could happen!!! lol For real!!


Disgusted Guest September 28, 2011 at 4:04 pm

If what you want is war with Iran, then feel free to continue being a mouth piece for the news media … because that's where we're headed. Just read thru the comments; people think it's ok for us to partol the gulf, but then think we should get increasingly aggressive, to the point of violence in some instances, when Iran does the same. That's the double standard i'm referring to.


rick james September 29, 2011 at 5:20 am

america pepper sprays you for chanting out against zionists on wall street. Puts a terrorism charge on you and sends you to Guantanamo. double standard again. unsupported opinion jokes on you… America just protects its interest and its interest is oil. thats why they are spread out across irans coast line. disgusted guest was right. your just too much of a blind patriot to see it. how about iran trains MS-13 and los Zetas and sends them to america to assassinate scientists?


Disgusted Guest September 28, 2011 at 4:07 pm

When has Iran attacked the U.S.? In fact, what are all these wars Iran has been involved in that leads us to believe they are a radical violent nation that will attack if ever given the chance?

If you're implying that Iran is behind terrorist attacks across the globe, then I would like to see the source of this information.


STemplar September 28, 2011 at 4:25 pm

It is ok for us to patrol the gulf. International law says we can. So that means it is ok. It is ok for Iran to sail across the Atlantic if they want. That's all I have said, so I'm not sure where you get calling me a mouth piece. Your argument is relativistic non sense. There is no double standard. The release from the Pentagon was that Iran can do as it likes and we aren't worried about it, there is no double standard except the one you are fabricating.


PMI September 28, 2011 at 5:20 pm

US Embassy take over '79. MV Bridgeton, MV Sea Isle City '87. USS Stark '87. USS Samuel B. Roberts '88.

The ongoing proxy war against the US (as well as other western powers) with financial & training support for Hamas, Hezbollah and other groups that have taken up arms against American citizens and allies.


crackedlenses September 28, 2011 at 6:25 pm

Iran was the one who said they wanted to nuke our ally Israel. Iran is the one trying to thumb it's military nose in our face. If Iran would stay out of trouble like Saudi Arabia or Quatar or UAE we wouldn't be having this discussion….


jumper September 29, 2011 at 8:18 am

Love it… he basically blew the bottom out of your "argument" and you double down on your diatribe. It's ok… I was a freshman in college once too, when you get to grad school and your indoctrination is a little more comprehensive you can come back and actually do a point-counter point argument.


Uncle Gene September 29, 2011 at 9:32 am

Get off the website if you're a "disgusted guest"! This website is for people who want discuss the topics involved with this site. Get over the comments that were made, you should expect those to come. Oh and get over yourself!


STemplar September 28, 2011 at 4:30 pm

Pretty much every EFP detonated by Shia insurgents in Iraq. Containers filled with weapons confiscated in Stan. Their recent trip was to drop off smuggled weapons that were eventually confiscated by the Israelis on a ship bound for Gaza after being transferred in Syria.

If you think Iran is a peace loving law abiding nation then why do they beat people for protesting rigged elections? Why do they throw trio of brain dead hikers from Berkley in prison for 2 years? Why did they seize our embassy and hold our staff in violation of international law? Why did they create and fund Hezbollah and Hamas who were responsible for the bombing of marines on a UN sanctioned peace keeping mission in Lebanon?

You post some proof to highlight what a swell regime they are.


crackedlenses September 28, 2011 at 6:23 pm

Uh, they are planning to use their nukes on Israel, the surrounding countries are afraid of them, they hate our guts…. What more do they have to do to be put on our enemies list? Nuke us?…..


Dumb Grunt September 28, 2011 at 7:43 pm

They attacked us in 1979. This is when members of the Revolutionary Guard along with "students" invaded the American Embassy in Tehran. According to International Law; Embassy grounds are the sovereign territory of the nation of which it represents. When an Embassy is invaded by hostiles; it is an act of war. This invasion of the American embassy was sanctioned by the revolutionary leaders. So therefore, the U.S. is still technically at war with the islamic republic of Iran. This issue has has yet to be resolved.

The problem is not the Iranian people, but it is the government and those who are in control, that we, Americans have "issues" with.


TLAM Strike September 28, 2011 at 8:59 pm

When has Iran attacked the US?

Iran placed mines in international waters without informing all parties as to the location of the minefield (illegal *1), with the intention of destroying merchant shipping (illegal *2). One of these mines struck a USN warship escorting US flagged merchantman. That is an attack upon the United States.

*1 See: Hague Convention VIII Article 3
*2 See: Hague Convention VIII Article 2


Briareous September 30, 2011 at 6:48 am


The covert activities of the QUDs forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Palestine.
Terrorism by proxy.


PMI September 28, 2011 at 5:43 pm

BTW this was supposed to be in reply to 'guest''s question "When has Iran attacked the US"…no idea how it ended up here. Couldn't possibly have been MY mistake. ;)


TLAM Strike September 28, 2011 at 8:50 pm

The Stark was hit by the Iraqis not the Iranians.


Disgusted Guest September 28, 2011 at 5:52 pm

The double standard i'm referring to has nothing to do with international law, or what the pentagon says … it has to do with the comments I see here made by *people*, not a the govt. You mentioned in a comment below:

"How about as soon as they clear the Gulf we shadow them with a sub and randomly ping them once a day for the whole voyage?"

Would you be ok with Iran doing this to our ships in the Gulf?

About the mouthpiece comment … you're right, you are being no such mouthpiece. However, there are plenty people I see here that are being such a mouthpiece (just look around at the comments), and when we have war in Iran, we will have the war mongering supporters to thank for it.


Disgusted Guest September 28, 2011 at 5:57 pm

"Uh, they are planning to use their nukes on Israel"

Uh, you have any proof of that?


blight September 28, 2011 at 6:08 pm

I've always wondered about that "Iran wanted to nuke Israel" comment, since nobody would want to join the United States as the second nation to nuke another. Except the Norks, who are run by a madman.

Iran probably has little to do with the "trouble" in KSA, Qatar and UAE. Considering the heavy American presence in all three countries, I wouldn't doubt that all three are plugging into the CIA, up to a point. There's a reason those uprisings are already suppressed: the use of CIA and intelligence agencies to penetrate dissident networks, the purchase of western equipment to penetrate security and do surveillance, and the presence of western-trained paramilitary forces to suppress them in the open. Nope, Iran is unlikely to pull such things off in the Middle East, especially with such low odds of success, and at the risk of offending Arab nations who are Iran's neighbors, and whose consent is needed to keep the United States from attacking.

All it would honestly take is a fatwa from a sufficiently holy body in Mecca or Medina to declare a holy war against Iran. It would be very…interesting.


Disgusted Guest September 28, 2011 at 6:39 pm

Really?! Iran has said they want to nuke Israel? According to who? According to a bogus interperetatoin of a speech he gave condeming the leadership of Israel? Iran is not a violent country, nor are they going to be. America is far more violent then Iran has ever been.

Also, on a side not; have you ever looked at what Israel does? Do you realize that the international comunity has accused Israel of breaking international law, on several occasions?! Why do we ally with international criminals?


M167A1 September 28, 2011 at 6:17 pm

Their President has promised it. Eliminating Israel seems to be one of their stragegic goals..


PMI September 28, 2011 at 6:20 pm

"Would you be ok with Iran doing this to our ships in the Gulf? "

–They already do.

The US has tried to implement open lines of communication with Iran in the past to help prevent any misunderstandings that could lead to an unintentional conflict. Those outreaches have been universally rejected.

If the US & Iran go to war it won't be because of bombastic blog comments (speaking of which the comments you see here are far milder than what you'll find on Farsi equivalents).


John Demell October 12, 2011 at 11:44 pm

Mouth pieces???? What about them and half of the Middle east burn our flags and all their terrorism groups that kill American u don't see Americans over here burn their flags do u!! I can only imagine what they say about us!! Now either ur not an American or u are antagonizing and trying to fabricate things to start some unnecessary conflict!! Now me personally dont mind them being here and also have no hatred towards them whatsoever i belive they just want some of the sanctions lifted the the u.n has put on their trading, and other things but im not anyone to judge as i have no idea what is really going on between the two of us!! I believe that the problem lies with our goverments and politics!! If we were to meet each other just as people im sure we would like each other no one here in America should hate them as far as i know!!


@omgitsarpg January 13, 2012 at 9:59 pm

they have. today or yesterday they harassed one of our ships. in the past they sunk one of our ships with a mine. have we sunk one of theirs? am i for war? only if they attack first or attack an ally. also they mine waterways that are used by merchants. do we mine the atlantic? do we mine the pacific? if a war does take place, will their be war mongers? there always are on both sides


Disgusted Guest September 28, 2011 at 6:37 pm

No he has not "promissed [to nuke Israel]". Please. He's shows discontent with the Israeli govt, and he has said he would like to see the regime removed from power. Many countries in that area are not fond of what Israel is doing, including many countries not in that area … have they all promised to nuke Israel as well (or are you stretching a little)?


Disgusted Guest September 28, 2011 at 6:46 pm

"Furthermore we have interests in the gulf (oil) "

I love to see it readily admitted that we "have interest" in the Gulf because of oil … does this make our presence in the middle esat right, or justified? We have no business being in the middle east, we've picked winners and losers far too long.

One day, during WWIII, we will all look back on this moment and think "boy, perhaps we shouldn't have started this mess …" – then again, people will most likely have their brains hooked up to the propaganda machine, and continue to feel that our involvement in the middle east was just, and it was those crazy muslims that are the problem … man, people have a lot to learn about "peace".


M167A1 September 28, 2011 at 7:24 pm

On October 26, 2005,
Ahmadinejad's speech to the "World Without Zionism" conference in Asia,

"Israel must be wiped off the map."

Later this was passed off as a "translation error"

But our own Irainian born 97L translated it as a call for genocide. Just his presence at such a gathering is interolorable.


RobertNorwood September 29, 2011 at 10:19 am

Discontent? Well scratch my butt I've been getting it all wrong. "Discontent", okay, like I was discontented with my fishburger at a restaurant. Tartar sauce was not home made, could taste preservatives or something.


guest September 28, 2011 at 7:27 pm

you sir, are an idiot!


STemplar September 29, 2011 at 3:32 am

We have business there because of the oil. The other nations there besides Iran agree the world has business there also. It's why the Kuwaitis agreed to re-flag their oil tankers as US vessels in the 80s. It's why Bahrain invited the US to base the 5th fleet HQ there. It's why the Saudis, UAE, and essentially every nation in the region trains their fighter pilots in America. They think we have business in the middle east as well. So I would say all the other Gulf nations in fact disagree with both you and the Iranians.


orly? September 29, 2011 at 10:08 am

You are saying people on the Middle East would not have killed people in the Middle East over stupid shit had anyone in the West not have stepped foot on Middle Eastern ground?

You really believe this, then please bet your soul on your statement.


John-Michael Davis September 29, 2011 at 5:02 pm

Foreign policy is by nature and necessity amoral. It is, for every nation on Earth, the pusuit and protection of that nations's interests. Fortunately we live under a world order where pursuing policies that seem "right and just" to many people are in a nation's ineterest. The US was the dominant force in creating that world order and we are the dominant force in maintaining that world order. Without the US "soft power" would carry negligible currency.


Tim September 28, 2011 at 8:04 pm

Not sure if the U.S. Senate actually ratified that sea convention either, so in any cases and as you mentioned, no armed naval vessel of any countries without the authorization of the U.S. Navy and Coast Guard could be allowed to freely move through our waters.


PMI September 28, 2011 at 8:54 pm

Doh! Brain fart on my part.


saberhagen September 28, 2011 at 9:34 pm

well, and I 'accuse' you of being stup1d. So? What is "international community"? You meant the antisemitic 'community'?


STemplar September 29, 2011 at 3:39 am

Please elaborate on "one sided, failed, foreign policy many years ago."

That's far too vague, because in fact US foreign policy towards the Iranian revolution was to not interfere at all. Which I agree, was a horrible idea and in retrospect for the amount of grief the Jihadists caused we should have supported the Shah, so our policy was a failure at the time for sure.


crackedlenses October 4, 2011 at 5:37 pm

And how do you propose we stop the resentful people who want us dead? Give them tea?…..


rick September 29, 2011 at 5:22 am

America over threw a democratically elected president mozzadeg in 1953 an act of war on iran IMO. didn't all of those hostages make it home alive???


rick james September 29, 2011 at 5:25 am

you only have business there because the Arabs are to much of a coward to fight their own battles. If anything happens Arabs will run to Saudi while America has to defend these Camel jockeys who killed 4k Americans on 9/11. in trade America has been pumping their oil with out a balance sheet for years.


rick james September 29, 2011 at 5:33 am

bush that's all that their needs to be said. ohh yeah and America was bankrupt in 2001. 6 months prior to sept 11. American media was getting the drum roll of propaganda ready for war. Saddam has WMD, Iraq is going to attack America. bla bla bla


TLAM Strike September 29, 2011 at 8:30 am

Its either from stocks or black market, I don't know. But they did recently acquire some harpoons for one of their Kaman class PTGs (which were originally fitted with harpoon but then C-802) Interestingly the there is one Kaman with a pair of SM-1 ABLs aboard in place of her ASMs and has a FCR in place of her aft gun..

Yes the SM-1 needs a FCR. on the Mowj its located on above the bridge.


Nathan Alan Speegle September 29, 2011 at 8:47 am

saddam had chemical weapons..saddam chem'd his own people..saddam killed anyone who disagreed with him..so according to rick james he was a fine leader who should still be there to this day


STemplar September 29, 2011 at 3:20 pm

Huh? What are you talking about? Some grammar and a point would be helpful.


orly? September 29, 2011 at 10:04 am

You definitely get your news wrong.

That Wall Street protest is protesting against Wall Street dumbass.

Come over to NYC yourself coward.


STemplar September 29, 2011 at 2:49 pm

There's oil in Israel??


RobertNorwood September 29, 2011 at 10:12 am

1953? I'll do you one better. The Cro-magnon invaded land settled by the Neanderthals and, so we suspect, rubbed them out. No hostages as far as we can tell.


RobertNorwood September 29, 2011 at 10:13 am

Actually, we did really fck up in that country but it's time they got over it.


Disgusted Guest September 29, 2011 at 6:24 pm

Yes, and the '79 attack was part of the Iranian Revolution. All hostages were released after the conflict was over. It was a retaliation to our meddling … the same as all our conflicts in the middle east.


Disgusted Guest September 29, 2011 at 12:55 pm

Excuse me, but if you're saying that anyone who doesn't support Israel illegally occupying outside of their borders is anti-Semetic … then there is no reason for me to accuse "you of being stup1d" … you made that blatently obvious on your own.

The UN has found Israel in violation of international law, over and over again.


Disgusted Guest September 29, 2011 at 1:03 pm

What I see in these comments, along with many news articles, is a call for war with Iran. It's hard to stand by and watch as the U.S. brainwashes people like you into supporting a war with Iran. Someone has to say something. However, it's becoming obvious that all the posters on this site want is more war so … "Nuke the middle east!" … there, is that better?


Disgusted Guest September 29, 2011 at 1:07 pm

It's funny how this one translation is considered a "call for genocide" … when the Iranian leader has done countless interviews, and released countless statements, saying how it's the Israeli leaders that are the problem, and that he has no problem with Jewish people, nor does he have any intention of acting offensively with his military. Yet, ony bad interpertation, and he's "threatened to nuke Israel" … rediculious.


Disgusted Guest September 29, 2011 at 1:11 pm

The people in the middle east have been killing one another since the begining of the Torah. But, that killing would not have taken place iin NYC, had we never got involved; Osama himself has said this. If we leave the middle east, and stop our failed foreign policy, then and only then, will we be on our way to "peace".


Disgusted Guest September 29, 2011 at 1:18 pm

"Oh sure, maybe we shouldn't patrol one of the worst regimes going whose stated aim is our downfall along with our Judeo-Christian belief systems."

No, they want us to leave the middle east alone. There has been war in the middle east since the beginning of the Torah. There is no need for the U.S. to get involved … we have gotten involved, and it resulted in the attack in NYC.

Regarding "taking a hike" … well, I find it dificult to watch my fellow Americans support war in Iran. It's hard to sit by and watch, as innocent American kids, are convinced that we should be in the middle east "liberating", when in fact all they are doing is killing or being killed. Not sure if you like the idea of American troops dying for no reason … but im' not, and will continue to try and knock some sense into people.


orly? September 29, 2011 at 2:44 pm

And yet Hamas can use indiscriminate artillery on cities and use ATGMs on CLEARLY marked school buses.


STemplar September 29, 2011 at 2:47 pm

International law and the Palestinians and Arabs whining over violations by Israel is the height of hypocrisy. All those silly ol Arabs and Palestinians had to do was accept UN res 181 like the Jews grudgingly did and we wouldn't be talking about any of this. In addition the UN has also cited the numerous violations on the other side of the conflict so there is no moral high ground. You're dismissed.


orly? September 29, 2011 at 2:47 pm

"If we leave the middle east, and stop our failed foreign policy, then and only then, will we be on our way to "peace"."

Then bet your soul on your statement.

History has proven you wrong with MANY examples.


STemplar September 29, 2011 at 2:53 pm

Non sense. UBL killed more Muslims than Americans. These are nothing more than a bunch of tyrannical sociopaths that wrap their bullshit in a pseudo religious cloak. They oft cite the Crusades which is pretty accurate because they are all collectively a bunch of barbaric throwbacks.


orly? September 29, 2011 at 2:49 pm

Here's an idea, put your money where your mouth is, and introduce your family to these "saints" in the middle east.

I'm sure you want your kids to grow around those people instead of being in the USA.


STemplar September 29, 2011 at 2:54 pm

Who are you kidding? If you stand there and defend the likes of the Iranian regime you couldn't care less about American kids. Since when is it American to let a bunch of despots tell us what to do and where to do it?


RobertNorwood September 29, 2011 at 3:23 pm

It's pretty hard to stay isolated and it is naive to think they wouldn't have dropped their sights onto us any way for one reason or another. The "West" and its democratic systems, freedoms, are anathema to these people. They live in the middle ages grinding the axe over the crusades. The Islamist goal is get rid of us no matter what we do.
You're entitled to your opinion and I myself would also rather stay out of that impossible shee-it hole. As you have observed, we've got little to show for it.
The same was tried in the 30's with Adolph Hitler; remember him? It could be my basic "street" education kicking in but hitting first was always a safe policy. After that, it didn't matter how "bad" you were or were not, you just had to be not worth some a-holes trouble to be left alone.


STemplar September 29, 2011 at 2:51 pm

Ahh, so you're an Iranian are you? I see, who's the mouthpiece now?


TLAM Strike September 29, 2011 at 4:59 pm

The Jamaran's ASW fit is quite rudimentary. It had two triple SVTTs and a Bell helicopter with dunking sonar. No towed array, no ASROCs and I doubt the bow sonar is any more advanced than the ones the Alvands (the Alvands had a Type 170B system that worked in the 15 kHz range while for example the SQS-53 works way down in the 2.6-3.3 kHz range)


Disgusted Guest September 29, 2011 at 5:03 pm

No one in Iran wants to tell the U.S. what to do in America … they just want us out of the middle east; something I tend to agree with. I think pulling Americans out of the wars in the middle east, and not starting any new ones is essential to their safety, and the safety of the American people in general. Do you disagree?


Disgusted Guest September 29, 2011 at 5:09 pm

"It's pretty hard to stay isolated and it is naive to think they wouldn't have dropped their sights onto us any way for one reason or another."

Osama himself said he attacked us because of our foreign policy. Of course nothing can make what he did ok, or justified … but the point is, if we hadn't had a policy of picking winners and losers in the middle east … 9/11 wouldn't have happened. That's not naive, that's fact, from the mouth of the attacker himself.


Disgusted Guest September 29, 2011 at 5:13 pm

Yes, there has been religious war in the middle east since the beginning of time … why are you so convinced it would have found it's way to U.S. soil, iif we hadn't decided to intervine? History does not support your theory … the aggression against the U.S. started after we started meddling. Why is there not huge amounts of aggression towards Switzerland, from the middle eastern countries? Hmmm …


Disgusted Guest September 29, 2011 at 5:22 pm

Oh, there's hypocrisy alright … on both sides. This is why it's none of our business to get involved. As an American Jew, I do not support what Israeli's or Palestinians have done to one another. Nor do I support the human rights violations in Iran, and all the other human rights violating countries (many of which are "allies"). All i'm saying is, it's none of our business. If we had a foreign policy of "stay the heck out of it" … then we wouldn't be cought in the crossfire between middle eastern countries.


crackedlenses September 29, 2011 at 5:34 pm

There is now actually; what do you think Turkey is all arming about…..


crackedlenses September 29, 2011 at 5:37 pm

Why do they want us out? So they can nuke Israel to kingdom come then nuke us. They do not call us the Great Satan for nothing. When will you get it in your head that these guys hate our guts and aren't just irritated that we happen to be within eyeshot of them????


STemplar September 30, 2011 at 3:31 am

The middle east doesn't belong to Iran and a great many countries freely and openly invite us there. In addition the Iranians are well known bad actors smuggling arms to pretty much every POS dictator they can in Africa. So no, I do not agree that staying out and leaving Iran to it's own devices makes anyone safer. I also think the Iranian regime are a bunch of racist/sexist/homicidal pigs that repress their own people and seek to put everyone under Sharia as they see fit. They are tyrants and scum and I think not only should they be countered but the regime in Tehran should be cast on to the heap with the rest of the tyrants in history.


crackedlenses September 29, 2011 at 5:39 pm

What version of the Koran have you been reading?…..


RobertNorwood September 29, 2011 at 6:03 pm

And of course you believe him.
Neville Chamberlain believed Hitler. I mean how far back do we want to go for reasons the Neander Valley? The whys and wheres are all well and good, in the end want to or not, we did get involved in a European war and Hitler was no less evil and the numbers of murdered no less staggering. For a lot reasons I thought the whole thing a bad idea and knew what the outcome would be. Why lift Saddam's boot off the necks of a bunch of crazy Arabs? But when I heard about his rape rooms and children's prisons I guess I felt, somewhat, like our GI's must have felt when they entered Dachau. What are we to do with all this but try and make something good come of it. Don't wait for the Islamic world to do any good or solve any problems. Finally, some truths, etc. like you've brought up don't make the whole picture. We all have our truths and then, there is truth.


crackedlenses September 29, 2011 at 6:04 pm

Exactly. The Torahic commands are aimed at specific people groups. The Islamic commands are open-endedly aimed at "infidels" and "unbelievers". Sorry, but the Muslims are told by the Koran to kill unbelievers and ensure that everyone is ruled by Muslims. Christians do not……


Disgusted Guest September 29, 2011 at 6:14 pm

So a bunch of posters have proven that the Iranians have attacked the U.S.? Israeli's blew up one of our ships … does this mean Israel is also "hostile" and that they have "attacked the US"? No, obviously it does not. Show me where Iran has invaded another country? In the 80's Iran was defending against Iraq (who we armed for the conflict, BTW) … Iran was defending it's borders. Iran has never once invaded another country … however the U.S. has invaded SEVERAL. By your definition, the U.S. is "hostile". Seriously man, I know you keep trying to push off my comments as being an attempt to gain "moral high ground", but get real … if you want to refute my claims … why not show me what country the Iranians have invaded?


Disgusted Guest September 29, 2011 at 6:26 pm

Show me one … I mean just ONE country that Iran has invaded. Please do, i'd love to become "informed".


Disgusted Guest September 29, 2011 at 6:30 pm

Show me the verses … please do. Because you can say it until you're blue in the face, but if it's in there, show me (please also include where in the Quran you found it).

You've proven my point by agreeing that context is everything … are you sure you're reading verses from the Quran *IN* context (in which, you would have to read before and after the verse to know what the context is)?


crackedlenses September 29, 2011 at 6:53 pm

And now Iran is run by mullahs who sanction their own people being butchered in the streets for protesting their government. Why are the alternatives to what we install in other countries always worse than our plans?…..


Dumb Grunt September 30, 2011 at 1:03 am

That conflict as I stated still has yet to be resolved. After the hostages were released, nothing was resolved other than our refusal to return. In truth, the actual fault lies with the British/Europeans, not us. They were the one who decided on how things were set up when they left control to the locals. So our fight is with the religious theocracy, that controls the country. Remember, an attack on a embassy is the equivalent of a attack on native soil.


crackedlenses September 29, 2011 at 6:54 pm

Switzerland is not the beacon of hope and freedom to the world and is not a big ally of Israel. Being a world superpower tends to get you more attention from the bad guys of the world…..


STemplar September 30, 2011 at 3:26 am

Probably because the Swiss are cowards that hid behind false neutrality while buying off the Nazis in WW2, ya know, the guys that butchered Jews.


Hollowpoint September 30, 2011 at 9:50 am

muslims should be eradicated


orly? September 30, 2011 at 10:35 am

The Nazis made plans to nuke the US before we even started meddling.

The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor even as we were so close from signing a peace treaty. With the same fighting fanaticism that the Muslims have, somehow the Japanese has proven themselves MORE HONORABLE than the Muslims we've fought, and EVEN AFTER BEING OCCUPIED by the US, become one of the world's best countries.

The USSR did the Berlin Blockade to choke off an entire city just so they can expand.

And one of the best examples yet: Pol Pot massacred possibly over a million of his own people, convinced that they were CIA/KGB spies(yes, apparently one person can spy for both agencies at once according to the Khmer Rouge) and destroying his country from ascension.

Hell, I'm sure Africa still blames everyone for not doing enough even if they kick us out.

As long as someone blames someone, no matter how INSANE the accusation is, the world will always have a scapegoat and act violently towards it. The US is definitely one, you know the other one. CORRECT MR. "AMERICAN JEW?"


John-Michael Davis September 30, 2011 at 12:13 pm

Assigning rational justifications or policy goals to the murderous bastards that attacked us on 9/11 is tantamount to a complete forfeit of moral judgement. These people at the top want fundamentalist Islamic rule over the Muslim world. Our "meddling": troops is Suadi Arabia, the conflict with the Palestinians etc.. were just recruiting bullet points for ignorant peasants. As they were really rebelling against the current order of things they could have found or made up any number of recruitment issues.


crackedlenses September 29, 2011 at 6:56 pm

They haven't, they… oh never mind; I'm sure they don't mean a thing when they say how they hate us and want to destroy us the "Great Satan"…..


Dumb Grunt September 30, 2011 at 1:14 am

They have invaded the Sovereign Territory of the United States. When you attack an Embassy, that is the equivalent of invading a country's native soil.


shawn1999 September 30, 2011 at 11:09 am

Hezbollah is trained by the Iranian Republican Guard. They are all over the middle east and have invaded/attacked Isreal countless times, as well as other democratic nations. Now you have your one.


Disgusted Guest September 30, 2011 at 1:03 pm

While I apreciate that "all caps" urgency of your statement … that war started by Iraq invading Iran (with help from America I might add) … Iran was mearly defending themselves. TRY AGAIN.


Dumb Grunt October 1, 2011 at 4:03 am

In 1979, The American Embassy, which sovereign American soil.


Sparky1987 September 29, 2011 at 10:53 pm

Hey hey chill with that liberal moron mess, im a liberal, but "disgusted guest" is certainly a moron. Clearly you need to take a look at your history, Geography, and american foreign policy. Yes WE HAVE INTERESTS and Assets in the region and yes most of it is OIL that is the one resource they have to trade with us and secondly IRAN is NOT the only power in the middle east IE it is NOT THEIR MIDDLE EAST they are one country in the region. We are currently involved in iraq we do support our merchant ships in the region also and that being said WE DO HAVE A LIGITAMATE REASON TO DO SO. (not saying we havent made mistakes but you bitch and moan everyone else has the right to shoot you down).


STemplar September 30, 2011 at 3:23 am

American Jew, do you really think anyone believes that or that it lends any validity to your non sense at all? The events of WW1 and WW2 and the intervening time in between eliminated "just stay out of it" as any kind of option. That's clear as day to anyone who knows the history.


@omgitsarpg January 13, 2012 at 10:03 pm

first thing to disappear in war is the truth. most if not all war is hypocritical


STemplar September 30, 2011 at 3:24 am

We actually aren't arguing with you, we are mocking you because arguing with you would imply that anyone here thinks you have a valid point or a clue.


STemplar September 30, 2011 at 3:33 am

Not having a credible ability to project power does not make them nominees for the Nobel laureate.


STemplar September 30, 2011 at 4:16 am

You're twisting statements to support your relativistic BS. I don't need to show anyone invaded someone to establish hostile intent. Mining the Straits of Hormuz shows hostile intent. Firing on American warships shows hostile intent. Firing on US flagged vessels shows hostile intent. Funding terror groups that have bombed US personnel shows hostile intent. Seeking to build atomic weapons and ballistic delivery systems that currently range parts of Europe shows hostile intent. The USSR never invaded the US, they were an enemy. Nazi Germany never invaded the US, they were an enemy. Other than your unsupported statements you have provided zero proof of Iran's benevolent nature, not one shred of any sort of tangible measurable demonstrative evidence of this peace loving attitude the Iranian regime has that you claim. I've paraphrased some of the numerous facts people have pointed out that tear your position and attitude to pieces, how about you try proving something.


Disgusted Guest September 30, 2011 at 2:36 pm

That war started with Iraq invading Iran. Learn you're history. Who was the agressor in that conflict? Do you really think it was started by Iran invading Iraq? TRY AGAIN!


STemplar September 30, 2011 at 3:40 am

The Iranian revolution was about putting in place a Islamic Caliph to spread the word of Allah across the world. The dear Iranian revolution, you know some of why they were angry at that mean ol Shah? Because he did awful things like expand literacy and allow women to have equality and allow dirty non Muslims to hold public office. You don't have a clue what a bunch of despotic pigs the Iranian regime represent.


Chimp September 30, 2011 at 4:16 am

I don't have figures to say that US service people are fitter now, but anecdotally, that seems to be true.

In the early '80's, US army personnel in Europe (on exercises) seemed to me to be clearly not training the way they were meant to fight. There were some exceptions.

That obviously isn't the case now. Amazing what ten years of war do to undermine peacetime 'standards'… in a good way.


blight September 30, 2011 at 11:18 am

"A (declaration) of immunity from Allah and His Apostle, to those of the Pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances:-
Go ye, then, for four months, backwards and forwards, (as ye will), throughout the land, but know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah (by your falsehood) but that Allah will cover with shame those who reject Him.
And an announcement from Allah and His Apostle, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage,- that Allah and His Apostle dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans. If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith.
(But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the righteous.
But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge."

From: http://www.muslimaccess.com/quraan/arabic/009.asp

And a piece on the whole "kill unbelievers" comes from:

Where "infidel" actually has Latin roots, not Arabic ones (fidelis=faith, as marines would know). But that's language semantics.

The translation in question uses Pagan, and pagan specifically refers to the tribes that Muhammad had to subjugate to spread Islam across the Arabian Penninsula. It doesn't mention People of the Book, which are treated separately, but regardless did not receive fully equal treatment.


blight September 30, 2011 at 11:35 am

That's an interesting statement to make about Cold War training,especially when they might expect to be fighting the Soviets tomorrow.


Disgusted Guest September 30, 2011 at 12:29 pm

Sir, it was decades of people not leaving each other alone that lead to WWI … and the outcome of WWI, lead to WWII years later. If every country had made a point to mind their own business, then the wars wouldn't have happened. The same is true today.


Disgusted Guest September 30, 2011 at 12:39 pm

Are you really naive enough to think that our meddling in middles eastern affairs has nothing to do with their hatred towards us?

"The Nazis made plans to nuke the US before we even started meddling."

I would love to see your proof of this.


Disgusted Guest September 30, 2011 at 12:42 pm

Nobody is "assigning rational justifications" to 9/11. It's like this … when bullies pick on someone at school, for years and years … and then they kid comes in with a gun and starts shooting people. Is that justified? Absolutely not, but we can all understand why, even if we don't agree. People are blinded by their patriotism, and think that America has done no wrong, and it's the evil Muslims … this is a sad reality.


Disgusted Guest September 30, 2011 at 12:48 pm

Point is they haven't. Actions speak louder then words. I have extreme dislike for Obama … I think his policies, along with the FED (and majority of congress) are downright treasonous, and that these poeple should be removed from power … heck, I have even referred to them in derogatory statements before … does this mean i'm threatening violence? Absoultely not. If you read/listen to what the Iranian leader has said, you will see that what he wants is peace, and has no intentions of using military force offensively. But don't bother listening to what he *actually* says (unless it supports your theory of course, then it's the gospel!), instead just listen to fox news – "The sooner we destroy these guys the better" "Hit them before they hit you" – rediculious …


Riceball September 30, 2011 at 12:57 pm

Isolationism doesn't work plain and simple. We were isolationist prior to WW I and back again after and look how well that worked. The world has gotten even smaller since then which makes isolationism even more impractical and stupid. The best way to prevent wars like WW I & WW II is to get involved in other people's business and make the world even smaller and interconnected so that we cannot afford to go to war with anybody because of economic & social as well as political ties.


Disgusted Guest September 30, 2011 at 1:08 pm

If you call a group of young student Islamist invading an embassy and taking hostages during a revolution – in which the goal was to get freedom from their American placed Shah – an "invasion by Iran" … then we definitely differ on what constitutes an invasion of one country by another country.


Disgusted Guest September 30, 2011 at 1:10 pm

This is highly circumstancial, and not an official attack/invasion by the Iranian govt. That's what i'm looking for. A formal invasion, by Iran, of another country.

(HINT: you wont find it … it hasn't happened in recent history)


orly? September 30, 2011 at 1:39 pm

Real easy, Amerika Bomber program.

Surely you, who knows everything, knows that.

I'm also sure you'd start asking for proof on the holocaust next.


STemplar September 30, 2011 at 2:14 pm

Given that those who hate us are a bunch of racist genocide preaching mass murder peddling scum, I actually couldn't care less if they hate us.


orly? September 30, 2011 at 1:42 pm

And yet, by definition, Iran DID invade Iraq.


Disgusted Guest September 30, 2011 at 1:59 pm

Your theory of preventing war, would have some merrit if it actually worked. Getting involved in peoples business has only led to more wars … so why would you think that getting further involved, will deliver different results? That's the definition of insanity.


Disgusted Guest September 30, 2011 at 2:02 pm

"Switzerland is not the beacon of hope and freedom to the world "

Neither is America … only in the minds of Americans.

"Being a world superpower tends to get you more attention from the bad guys of the world….. "

No being a world police force tends to get you more attention … and "bad guys" is all about perspective. Who was the "bad guys" in vietnam?


STemplar September 30, 2011 at 2:08 pm

I think Chamberlain tried real hard to not get involved, didn't do him much good. I also don't think Iran is doing much of following your words of wisdom since they love funding the likes of Hezbollah and Hamas.


blight2 September 30, 2011 at 2:10 pm

From a game theory standpoint, it depends on how sane your players are. If Iran can be classified as a sane player, then they should dealt with appropriately as a sane player (like in the case of the Soviets, who despite being superpowers were sane players). If they are not, then things get interesting. Alternatively, a less-than-binary approach may be required.


@omgitsarpg January 13, 2012 at 10:05 pm

i thumbed up for insanity remark (not that i agree/disagree with our foreign policy). just i like that quote


blight2 September 30, 2011 at 2:12 pm

Amerika Bomber never got far enough to be useful, and by the time it did their production capabillity was severely disrupted to the point that even Volksgrenadiers couldn't be uniformly equipped.

Of course if you believe in the Black Sun stuff, then they sent a bomber to New York, deployed the mysterious Bell and tested a nuke before we did.


Disgusted Guest September 30, 2011 at 2:21 pm

I was not aware of this.

However, a desire to have capabilities, and the threat to act are two different things. This was not a threat, or a promise that an attack on America was imminent (WWII had nothing to do with America, it had to do with land that was lost by Germany in WWI).


STemplar September 30, 2011 at 2:19 pm

You're the one saying any of us have called all Muslims anything. No one here has also said anything about America doing no wrong either. You continually you say you aren't engaging in moral relativism, but you are, you just did with this post as you have with others. You seek to assign blame and try to get to some fantasy scale of truth or something.


STemplar September 30, 2011 at 2:20 pm

I do when they are held for 444 days and moved to different locations by the host government.


Dumb Grunt October 1, 2011 at 4:14 am

Whether they were "students" or not is still in question, but for them to sanction the attack as well as support them afterwards. That makes the "government" of Iran, not only accessories to the crime; it makes them guilty as co-conspirators.


STemplar September 30, 2011 at 2:22 pm

You're full of it, you flip flop back and forth you want an invasion, but before you want people to mind their own business. You've been provided with both that the racist pigs you stand with are everything we are telling you they are.


Disgusted Guest September 30, 2011 at 2:26 pm

The fact that you have to twist logic, to call this "an invasion by Iran" … proves that there is no such history of violence, invasion, interventialism, ect. by the Iranian govt. This conflict was started by Iraq backed by the U.S. … you're actually proving my point as to which countries are more violent. Iran defending it's borders from an invading nation, hardly counts as "an invasion by Iran" IMO.


STemplar September 30, 2011 at 2:27 pm

Iran is not a democracy. Their political process is a shame. Only candidates cleared to run by the mullahs are allowed and then all have to be Muslims. That's not democracy, its' the same sort of fallacy that existed in the USSR. If you think people should mind their own business then that includes Iran. So in addition to supporting a bunch of dogs like the thugs that run Iran, not having a shred of proof to support your false claims, you are also a blue ribbon hypocrite.


Disgusted Guest September 30, 2011 at 2:34 pm

By your definition of "hostile intent". America has "hostile intent". Do you at least admit that? Or is it just Iran that has hostile intent, and America is innocent?

Also, for proof feel free to read/listen to the Iranian leaders speeches, and interviews. He has no intent of attacking anyone. Nor is there any evidence that he does.

I think the fact that Iran has never invaded another country is proof that they are not violent in nature. It's amazing that you don't see this as proof. The USSR invaded other countries; so did Germany … Iran HAS NOT! (the only wars they've fought in were completely defensive in nature … defending their own country is hardly "hostile intent")


STemplar September 30, 2011 at 2:35 pm

Build a big enough device, keep it in the hold, and detonate it at the 12 mile line and you'd do plenty enough damage without ever entering US territorial waters.


STemplar September 30, 2011 at 2:38 pm

I actually don't have to prove anything, you do, you haven't provided any.


blight September 30, 2011 at 3:17 pm

At some point, the Iranians would need to maximize fission bombs or devise thermonuclear weapons if they wanted to set off bombs twelve miles from their targets and hope to demolish something of value.


Disgusted Guest September 30, 2011 at 4:03 pm

What?! I want an invasion; then I want people to mind their own business? Where are you getting this!? I have asked for proof that the Iranian govt has formally invaded a country – as proof of their "hostile nature". My stance has always, and will always be "people/countries should mind their own business".


Disgusted Guest September 30, 2011 at 4:09 pm

It's not that I don't have a clue … it's that it's not our place to govern Iran. In Saudi Arabia, women can't even drive … yet they are still an ally. This has nothign to do with humanitarian issues … and if you think it does, you're sadly mistaken.


crackedlenses September 30, 2011 at 4:10 pm

The Vietcong; ask the people who got themselves killed trying to escape after the Communists took over. Sorry, but if you want to watch the world burn around us while we sit back, then don't be surprised if you wake up one morning and the Islamists own the rest of the world and are offering us death or submission….


Dumb Grunt October 1, 2011 at 3:46 am

If America is so bad, then why do so many people try to come here; that is legally or illegally ??

The "bad" guys operated on both sides, but the real question is who was willing to go father to the extreme. Who per capita; committed more crimes against the local civilians??? The answer is it was NOT the Americans.


Dumb Grunt October 1, 2011 at 3:56 am

Then what happened on 7 December 1941 at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii ?

Answer: the Imperial Japanese Navy attacked without a declaration of war, which was finally submitted after the Japanese Navy had finished the attack.


Disgusted Guest October 3, 2011 at 12:12 pm

Don't get me wrong. It's not that "America is bad". It's that our foreign policy is bad. America is the greatest country … but why not research what the founding fathers thought of 'standing armies'.

I'm sure the Founders would be absolutely disgusted with the direction our country is heading … not only the butchering of the constitution … but our foreign policy as well.


Disgusted Guest October 3, 2011 at 12:13 pm

With ideas like these … it's no wonder "peace" is such a long shot.


Disgusted Guest October 3, 2011 at 12:21 pm

"the Muslims"? You mean the population of over a billion people. Only a small percentage of Muslims are fight against us; the majority are very peaceful.

As far as blindness goes … no, i'm not blind, I just don't believe it's any of our business. The Arab spring will bring about democracy in that area, there will be revoutions, killing, ect. That's up to them to solve.


Disgusted Guest October 3, 2011 at 3:46 pm

Iran has elections. I have a news flash for you … it's a MUSLIM country; the majority like it just the way it is. It's fundamentally different then our country … but they still have elections. Their leader is an elected official. And most importantly, if the Iranian people really want "freedom", they can have a revolution.

"you are also a blue ribbon hypocrite."

How so?


crackedlenses October 3, 2011 at 5:47 pm

Why should we be trying to gain the favor of savages who hate our guts? This is not a popularity contest, this is us protecting ourselves…..


Dumb Grunt October 3, 2011 at 6:48 pm

In truth, they are the aggressors who began this. They drew first blood of civilians, not us.


crackedlenses October 3, 2011 at 5:49 pm

Yes, and there are terrorists who will take advantage of the uprisings and lo and behold, those countries will suddenly be our enemies. And the silent Muslim majority have made themselves irrelevant with their silence. I won't give a fig about them until they make a serious effort to stop the terrorists….


crackedlenses October 3, 2011 at 5:52 pm

They tried to revolt, and they got beaten and trashed by their own government. STemplar's still right…..


Dumb Grunt October 3, 2011 at 6:42 pm

The Founders would be proud of a lot of our accomplishments. The real problem is with the politicians/diplomats it is their fault when they fail in foreign affairs, it leaves the military to clean up after them. The isolationist attitude to foreign affairs you are taking is self destructive, because to ignore the problems of our world, will only leave us eventually alone against those who wish to destroy us.

The war we currently fight against these radicals, who hide behind Islam is to the death, for they will not quit for as long as they see us Americans as the Great Satan. To "leave" them alone will only embolden them to pursue us anywhere they can. That means here on our own soil, to the point of either we fight to the death, convert to their version of Islam, become their slaves or die. Those are the only choices. That is truth of what is happening now. Accept it or not is your choice, but don't ever say you have not been warned.


Disgusted Guest October 4, 2011 at 10:52 am

Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion … but what you just said has virtually guaranteed a perpetual state of war for the remainder of our grandchildrens lifetime. If you think that America can (a) continue to afford this war indefinitely; (b) continue to have even a small amount of international support in this war; (c) that the people of America will be willing to continue to fight this war … then I think you're sadly mistaken.

What you are saying is analegous to me saying "why not print 14 trillion dollars and pay off our debts?" … well it's simple, because every dollar we print adds another dollar to our national debt; so you see, we can't print our way out of debt. The same is true of this war. The more we fight it, the more people are recruited to fight against us. It's a war we cannot win.


Disgusted Guest October 4, 2011 at 10:52 am

As for the founders. They would be proud of our human rights acomplishments, and technological acomplishments … not much else. They wouldn't like our forieng policy, or domestic policy. Wars started, and fought without oficial declarations … spending out of control … the endless butchering of the constitution s (commerce clause, general welfare clause, ect.). We have come a long way since the founding … in the wrong direction.


Disgusted Guest October 4, 2011 at 11:23 am

Do you see any outcome to what you're saying, other than perpetual war? I don't see how the wars will ever be over, if we continue to think this way. I'm not sure how you plan to win a war like this … when is it over?


Disgusted Guest October 4, 2011 at 11:33 am

Do you really think a "revolution" will be peaceful? Was our "revolution" peaceful?


crackedlenses October 4, 2011 at 5:32 pm

No, it all began when Muslim Barbary pirates began attacking our ships; and yes, they fired the first shots. We've been skirmishing with them since the time of President Thomas Jefferson….


Dumb Grunt October 5, 2011 at 1:45 am

We do not target civilians intentionally. Actually this is spill over from the crusades,all courtesy of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, from which our opponents continue to push; even though America did not exist then. Its because we are primarily a christian nation.

What you still refuse to see is that this is a war of total destruction. They will not be satisfied until Sharia Law is the law of the land here, and it becomes the Islamic Republic of America. That is what they want, despite any propaganda they may spew about what they want.

The real question is " Why do I(and others here) see and understand this and you do not ???"


crackedlenses October 4, 2011 at 5:34 pm

So be it. If we had responded this way to the Soviets they would rule the world. You don't get rid of your enemies by ignoring them or trying to make them like you (irrational from a civil standpoint anyhow), you get rid of them by killing them until they decide it's not worth fighting you or until there are no more……


crackedlenses October 4, 2011 at 5:36 pm

Does the Glorious Revolution ring a bell? The Iranians mullahs have no excuse for approving the beating of peaceful protestors….


blight2 October 6, 2011 at 9:04 am

Considering what happened to the opposition candidate in Iran's last election, calling it a democracy would be a joke. I mean, if the Republican party sent people out to beat up voters and kept Obama under house arrest until Bush was elected for another term, would we call it a democracy? Unlikely.

Even the replacement of the Shah was comparatively bloodless. The Army simply refused to kill protestors. The Shah realized it was game over and left. The killing began after the revolution.


Dumb Grunt October 5, 2011 at 1:27 am

I do not agree with all that has happened either, but we are human and we must learn from our mistakes. The problem is that many of those who are in control have not learned the lessons history has taught us. With all of our problems, can you name a better country on this planet ???


Disgusted Guest October 5, 2011 at 4:54 pm

Just curious, what does a "WIN" look like? Are muslim countries still allowed to practice Sharia Law after this "WIN"? What's to guarantee that forces wont build up again (odds are in favor that they will)? Just curious what you mean when you say "we will WIN"?


Disgusted Guest October 5, 2011 at 4:57 pm

"I do not agree with all that has happened either, but we are human and we must learn from our mistakes."

Agreed. However, this is not the disagreement in the first place … the disagreement is whether or not getting involved in middle east politics, and policing was/wasn't a "mistake". And if it was, then what lesson is to be learned.

"With all of our problems, can you name a better country on this planet ??? "

No, I cannot.


Dumb Grunt October 6, 2011 at 2:28 am

Before I answer your questions, you need to explain your military background, if you have one. Tell me what makes you think you are qualified to discuss Military Strategy here.


blight2 October 6, 2011 at 8:59 am

Then America would be a commonwealth country, pulled into every single one of Britains wars. There would be Americans buried in the battlefields of at least World War One and Two. Americans would've participated in Gallipoli; duelled with the Kaiser's Navy in Jutland; and would have been forced to comply with the British anti-slavery laws of the 1820's. Many things would have been different.

Israel would probably have been destroyed, since the British had no love for them in '49 and most of their life-preservers were thrown by the United States, not England or the Commonwealth.

The Shah would've deposed Mossadegh, as MI-6 participated in Ajax. The Iranian Revolution, as a response to the shah's overly secular moves will still go on. However, the Shah without American support might not have lasted to '79. The Canadian embassy wasn't molested-and likely the American one would not be either in any Iranian Revolution.

So yes, Distorted Guest wouldn't be here to complain. We'd be loyal subjects to the Queen; though maybe Britain would be the Great Satan and Iran would be sending the ship to patrol off of Ireland.


Disgusted Guest October 6, 2011 at 12:58 pm

I have no military experience. I am looking for a more general answer. People talk about "winning the war on terror" … i'm just curious, when that day comes, what that "win" will look like.; and why people are convinced this is a war we can win.


Disgusted Guest October 6, 2011 at 1:04 pm

I agree that we are involved … so the question is "what do we do now". However, regarding past mistakes, it's a perfectly relevent talking point. I have known many people who consider it a mistake to get involved, but now that we are, we must finish it … not that I agree with this thinking, but it's a valid position to have. I do disagree that whether or not we should have been involved "is no longer relevent". I think it's very relevent when deciding (a) whether or not a mistake was made – and – (b) what should be learned from this mistake. Also beer in mind, that i'm talking involvement in the middle east in general, not specifically the current wars – tho they are also on that list.


Dumb Grunt October 7, 2011 at 12:56 am

They have to surrender, with the honest intent to end the hostilities.


Dumb Grunt October 7, 2011 at 1:07 am

The point is since we are involved, we can not turn the clock back and have a "do over". The decision was made, right or wrong depending on one's opinion was made. We as a nation made a commitment.
And yes, I do have "beer" in mind once in a while.


Dumb Grunt October 7, 2011 at 1:14 am

God save the Queen!!
Yes, alternative history has some interesting implications, but those are for very different discussion.


Dumb Grunt October 8, 2011 at 3:54 am

Time tables for leaving should never be published, it should be based on the stability and competency of the local forces as well as, local leadership. It should be done quietly and without fanfare.
You are welcome.


warnsppl October 11, 2011 at 6:39 pm

you have some blindness, its not your fault though, for the most part anyways. DO NOT BELIEVE FOR A SECOND, that iran doesnt have the capabilities or "logistics" to send their navy here. What you are doing is buying a ticket to the governments bullshit show without knowing any of the actual going ons backstage. I promise you one thing, soon as we rap up the iraq/afghanistan conflicts (maybe even before) we are headed straight into merciless war with both iran and venezuela, probably more but its impossible to tell for sure who else will join them againts us at this time. We'll know soon enough though.


@omgitsarpg January 13, 2012 at 9:35 pm

yeah and guess who will join us? about half the damn world. everyone hates iran. did you know numerous arabic countries gave us permission to use their runways if we were on a raid to bomb iran? the people i see joning iran are pakistan, china (only real threat IMO)/ N korea. who i see joining america, UK, Germany, most arabic countries (as stated before), austrailia (help us in most wars), Ireland, Israel (most iran sympathizers are anti Semites), Canada, France, Japan, S korea, New zealand, maybe russia but they might join iran. so dont act as if we go to war (keyword if) the world will be against us because we are americans. not everyone hates us, only a few and those few also complain that we dont help them or someone else fast enough. but hey, lets hope we avoid war.


FC1KILLAKING October 9, 2012 at 1:25 am

Actually, we should just jam their GPS the entire trip; see how far they get. Navigation of the stars is still a trade only the US train for.


Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: