From CNN -- Iran plans to send ships near the Atlantic coast of the United States, state-run Islamic Republic News Agency reported Tuesday, quoting a commander.
"The Navy of the Iranian Army will have a powerful presence near the United States borders," read the headline of the story, in Farsi.
A couple of well-placed guided smart bombs should cure them of the desire to do this again. Wonder if Obama has the balls to show Iran who is still the boss of the world?
This would be the Iranian navy if our President were anything but an empty-suited, arugula-munching apologist.
27 comments:
I completely understand your sentiments.
But, to be boringly literal, freedom of the seas is something the USN goes to great pains to protect. You may know we send ships into the Black Sea from time to time, into the Yellow Sea west of Korea, other congested international waterways just to make the point that we have the right. So, unless we declare war on Iran - which we would be justified in doing due to their support of folks killing our soldiers; and their kidnapping Americans going back to 1979 - we have to let them sail where they will. With any luck they will break down and have to beg Hugo Chaves or Fidel Castro for a tow - or better yet the USCG.
Nations have gotten out of the habit of declaring war - even when they should.
Yeah, I get that, but it would be very satisfying to see one of their "war ships" sink and then we can thank them for creating an artificial reef for our recreational divers to enjoy.
I realize they have as much right to the high seas as we do, but couldn't we park a much larger destroyer or battle ship directly at their bow, just to make the point that we could squash them like a bug if we wanted to? That would be enough for me.
That would be highly confrontational for the worms over at the UN, but Obama's approval numbers would increase by 20 if he did that.
The U.S. is the boss of the world?
Tongue in cheek, Isaac, tongue in cheek.
But certainly if Iran wants to have a provocative show of force right off our coast, they have the right to do so, but we should respond with a demonstration of our own.
What, in your view, Ed, should Iran's response be to the U.S. show of force (land, sea and air) presently in their part of the world?
Let me be more specific, Ed. What should Iran's response be to the concentrated presence of the CVN 77 G.H.W. Bush, the LHD 5 Bataan, the CVN 76 Ronald Reagan (and possibly the CVN 73 George Washington) in and around the Persian Gulf, Gulf of Oman and Arabian Sea?
Isaac, Iran is an immediate, radical, and unpredictable threat to the security of her neighbors and the region. We are not.
Irans response to the presence of the USN units mentioned in the region should be as follows:
Remember "Operation Praying Mantis" and behave yourselves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PrayingMantis.gif
Since the downfall of the US Puppet in 1979, Ed, Iran has not invaded anyone.
As you know, the same cannot be said of the U.S.
In light of that, who would you say represents the greater threat to peace, order and security in the eyes of the world, Iran or America?
Isaac, I disagree with the 50 year US policy of assuming the role of policeman of the world. Should we have invaded Grenada, Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, or Libya? Yes, no, no, no, and no.
That said, Iran poses an existential threat to Israel specifically and a regional threat in general.
Are you making the argument that our dethroning Saddam is morally equal to Iran threatening to destroy Israel? That kind of moral relativism is beneath you. You can do better.
I don't know if you skirted my question on purpose or by accident, Ed. Let me repeat it.
"...who would you say represents the greater threat to peace, order and security IN THE EYES OF THE WORLD, Iran or America?"
Who gives a shit about how we're viewed in the eyes of the world? Are you seriously asking me that?
I didn't skirt your question, I ignored it as too ridiculous to address.
Whether I agree with a particular campaign or not, at least the US is trying to stop killing and destruction while these other states are doing the killing and destroying. Though sometimes misguided and misplaced, at least our goals are noble. Iran's are not.
Iran's (goals) are not (noble).
I'm sorry, Ed, that statement just doesn't compute. Since 1979 Iran has neither attacked anyone nor threatened to do so.
Are you kidding? What about the regular-as-clockwork threats to wipe Israel off the map? What about the obvious nuclear weapons program? What about Dinnerjacket's constant threats to attack the Zionists?
When our "puppet" was in charge of Iran, it was the cultural, educational, artistic, and literal breadbasket of the middle east. Now with fundamentalists you libs adore in charge, it's the place where creativity and productivity go to die. Without us it's a backwards, God-forsaken shit hole.
First of all, no Iranian has EVER threatened to wipe Israel off the map.
Second, every Iranian knows that if they were to attack Israel, Iran would be reduced to a glass parking lot and not even Kim Jong Il is that crazy.
Third, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has never threatened to "attack the Zionists."
And while you may admire the Shah, I assure you the victims of his cruelty did not. Hence the revolution (unanticipated but well deserved blowback from the CIA's 1953 coup against Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh.)
Finally, please don't mistake me for a liberal. I find liberals as repugnant as I do neocons.
This is what Ahmadinejad really said, class. "Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."
Does anyone know what that means in English? Anyone?
Correctly translated it says, "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".
And this is what the Iran's official news agency, IRNA said on the same subject, class. "As the Soviet Union disappeared, the Zionist regime will also vanish and humanity will be liberated".
Was the Soviet Union "wiped off the map", children?
No, teacher.
That's right.
So did Iran threaten to wipe Israel off the map?
No, teacher.
Very good, class. You are smarter than most grown-ups I know.
(http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article16218.htm)
The translation of idiomatic expressions notwithstanding, do you seriously think Iran poses no threat to her neighbors and the security of the region? Israel poses no such threat unless attacked first.
It should be noted here that the Obama administration, seemingly thinking they were dealing with rational people who can be appeased, offered a "hot line" between military HQ's to avoid accidental hostilities in the Persian Gulf. They got the back of the Iranians' hand.
Amazingly, this is seen as a rebuff to Ahmadinejad by the harder-line clerics.
What do I think, Ed? I think that the U.S. is exponentially a greater threat to world peace and security than Iran is or ever could be (with or without nuclear weapons).
@Isaac.....WHAT? Are you mad? What peace-loving nation not threatening its own citizens or neighbors have we invaded?
Ah, it appears that you were not being truthful with me, Ed, when you wrote, "I disagree with the 50 year US policy of assuming the role of policeman of the world."
It seems that you not only approve, you are proud of our homicidal, obscene, self-serving, corporate-pocket-lining, banker-enriching, dark-skinned-people-oppressing world-policeman policy.
Isaac, it would seem you are confused about the reactive role of the police in our society. We do not take action just for fun, whether I agree with it or not, it's always to stop some human-right atrocity(Saddam Hussein), or ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, or to depose a ruthless, murdering dictator. If we invaded and occupied countries just for shits and giggles, we'd be in Canada right now.
U.S. motives are not noble and good, as you would have us believe, Ed.
The U.S. is a bloodthirsty, warmongering nation that won't quit until it has ignited WWIII. Unfortunately, those who live by the sword, die by the sword.
(Oh, and the U.S. most certainly DOES kill wedding parties, soccer-playing kids and nursing mothers for shits and giggles, to the soothing strains of Metallica.)
Assume for a second that your fantastic imaginings have even a grain of truth, who would kill us by a sword? We have all the swords.
Ed, don't you see we should just mind our own business and look how much better off the world would be.
The poor souls in South Korea would be living united under the benevolent Dear Leader; all of Central America could be like the paradise of Cuba; Putin could preside over an intact Soviet Union that stretched from the Atlanta to the Pacific; Kuwait would be the "19th Province" under the benign Saddam who would control ALL the oil in the Arabian penensula; the Kosovars and Bosnians (those left alive) would be reunited with the kindly Serbs; the only bothersome Jews would be in a "Holocaust Museum" where they belong.
The Chinese could preside over the Pacific - I'm sure the Japanese wouldn't mind. They might let us keep Hawaii - kind of like Hong Kong.
Kum-ba-ya.
"But if ye will not hearken unto me ... I will scatter you among the heathen, and will draw out a SWORD after you: and your land shall be desolate, and your cities waste."
We have all the swords except the one that counts, Ed.
OMG, the thread has gone religious. Come on Isaac, we're talking about reality, not America being smitten for being bad by the wrath of God.
Ever consider that maybe God smites others through the US? Just as he "heals" patients through surgeons' skills. Maybe we ARE the sword of God.
Bill's right, all these really evil men would have slaughtered or bound into servitude, much as Islam would do with us infidels today, all free peoples in the world if it weren't for countries like the US to stop them.
You'd be speaking German or Japanese if it weren't for the US and Russia stopping them in the respective theaters.
Post a Comment