U.S. aircraft carrier sails through strategic Strait of Hormuz

[Jeeta]

Iranian Navy:

vs.

US Carrier Group:

Gotta say, glad I'm a white guy today.

It's not a competition who can build the biggest target. The way I look at it Iran have the upper hand. They clearly have more versals going off the pictures you've posted. They're close to their own resources.

Simplicity always wins, you only have to look at things like the IED and a couple of terrorists bringing down two of the biggest buildings in NYC to realize that.

 

[Netphase]

It's not a competition who can build the biggest target. The way I look at it Iran have the upper hand. They clearly have more versals going off the pictures you've posted. They're close to their own resources.

Simplicity always wins, you only have to look at things like the IED and a couple of terrorists bringing down two of the biggest buildings in NYC to realize that.

Three U.S. Navy Carrier Strike Groups are in the area carrying more fighter jets than Iran's entire Air Force. Every carrier strike group has 4 destroyers, each with 96 tomahawk missiles ready to fire.

 

[Kiopa_Matt]

The way I look at it Iran have the upper hand.

Why would you ever think that? If the US does actually go into Iran, it won't be a civil, "ok guys, let's be really careful and keep the civilian death toll at a minimum" type of war like Iraq and Afghanistan were. It'll be more of a "fuck you, you're the enemy, you're dieing" type of war, and if the US military is allowed to go in unrestricted like that, I think I'll have to bet on them.

They're close to their own resources.

The US probably has more resources (and definitely more fire power) in the Middle East than Iran does.

Oh well, if the US does go into Iran, at least we'll get to see the newest in tested military technology. Haven't really seen anything major in ages, since the stealth was brought out in 1991 Gulf War. Wonder what they'll come out with... my bet is on weaponized lasers. Blast those little Iranian speed boats right out of the water.

 

[wezcountry]

In a lot of ways a theocracy is superior to a democracy, we just haven't seen the endgame for democracy play out yet.

How so G? As far as I can see it would be a Fascist state but with divine backing, making all opposition 'evil'.

 

[wezcountry]

It's not a competition who can build the biggest target. The way I look at it Iran have the upper hand. They clearly have more versals going off the pictures you've posted. They're close to their own resources.

Simplicity always wins, you only have to look at things like the IED and a couple of terrorists bringing down two of the biggest buildings in NYC to realize that.

They have no naval upper-hand at all. As far as I am aware they bought the ships second hand from the British navy. In a sea battle they would be sitting ducks - I think the estimate is one week to destroy the lot. The Iranians might have excellent coastal defences though I would imagine there's a spy in the sky that has many if not all of them marked.

 

[wezcountry]

Then it is up to Iranians to have a revolution. It's not our fucking business to decide what type of government they should have.

We weren't discussing regime change although they could end-up bringing that on themselves. Also no-one is telling them what type of government they should have, although I imagine it would suck to be an educated secular Iranian. Governments are quite rightly very nervous about Iran having atomic weapons because their national ideology has apocalyptic overtones as well as wanting Israel wiped off the map. They also have no right to fuck with economies of the world by blockading international shipping lanes.

 

[Yuckystuff]

Governments are quite rightly very nervous about Iran having atomic weapons because their national ideology has apocalyptic overtones as well as wanting Israel wiped off the map.

First, of all, wiping Israel off the map is not part of their foreign policy. That lie has been repeated so many times that I'd bet 80% of Americans believe it. The original quote from Ahmadinejad was actually him quoting Khomeini who was referring to the political Zionist ideology that was behind so many of the wars. Iran does not have a policy of wiping Israel off the face of the earth - repeating that shit just makes it easier to convince Americans that they should support our desire to exert our influence over there.

Do you seriously believe Iran would use a nuclear weapon if they had them? It would be suicide and everyone knows it including them. There is a zero percent chance of them using a nuke on Israel or anyone else because they know that they would be wiped off the face of the earth in retaliation. And for everyone that is so paranoid about Muslims having a nuclear weapon, Pakistan has had them for years and they've never used them either.

Iran wants nuclear weapons to protect themselves from invasion, nothing more.

They also have no right to fuck with economies of the world by blockading international shipping lanes.

When did they do that? Oh that's right - they didn't.

You guys need to check your sources on your news. Remember that we get some seriously manipulated news here in the US so it's a good idea to check international sources when you hear something that doesn't sound right.

 

[JakeStratham]

And for everyone that is so paranoid about Muslims having a nuclear weapon, Pakistan has had them for years and they've never used them either.

Of course, we're trying to secure those nukes, too. lol

Good article: The Ally From Hell - Magazine - The Atlantic

 

[Yuckystuff]

As much as we like to pretend to be worried about the dangers of other countries having nuclear weapons the fact remains that WE are the only nation that has ever used nuclear weapons on anyone. We can't pretend to be the "responsible" ones when WE are the only ones that have actually used them on civilians, and WE are the only nation that goes around the world invading other countries. Once you realize that WE are the ones that they want to protect themselves from, things will make a lot more sense.

Patriotism is a blinding force.

 

[wezcountry]

First, of all, wiping Israel off the map is not part of their foreign policy. That lie has been repeated so many times that I'd bet 80% of Americans believe it. The original quote from Ahmadinejad was actually him quoting Khomeini who was referring to the political Zionist ideology that was behind so many of the wars. Iran does not have a policy of wiping Israel off the face of the earth - repeating that shit just makes it easier to convince Americans that they should support our desire to exert our influence over there.

Do you seriously believe Iran would use a nuclear weapon if they had them? It would be suicide and everyone knows it including them. There is a zero percent chance of them using a nuke on Israel or anyone else because they know that they would be wiped off the face of the earth in retaliation. And for everyone that is so paranoid about Muslims having a nuclear weapon, Pakistan has had them for years and they've never used them either.

Iran wants nuclear weapons to protect themselves from invasion, nothing more.



When did they do that? Oh that's right - they didn't.

You guys need to check your sources on your news. Remember that we get some seriously manipulated news here in the US so it's a good idea to check international sources when you hear something that doesn't sound right.

I live in Italy and check-out the news from different sources. Obviously no-one anticipates that Iran would launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike against another country but their ideology definitely does contain 'end times' thought (just as the Christians in the USA government do btw) and there are apocalyptic nut-cases in higher levels of government.

Regarding Israel (and for the record I am neither for nor against Israel, although I do think the Palestinians get a rough ride, but they make it worse for themselves, but they do have a point ... and so on (and yes I have met and spoken with Palestinians and Israelis)), it is definitely true that Iran is shit-stirring in that region and would love nothing more than to see Israel gone. The quote might be a mis-quote but I don't think it's too far removed from the general feeling of the a lot of Iranian ruling classes re Israel.

Do I think Iran is, in general, a threat. Yes I do. It has the potential to cause a lot of tension in the world. The country could never win a war with the USA and I truly hope they don't push things to far, but I think it's right to show the country that they can go so far and no further, because otherwise there will be implications. In the main they are left to mangle and cripple their own country as they please, which is a pity because the Iranians I've met are very civilised people.

>Iran wants nuclear weapons to protect themselves from invasion, nothing more.

I don't believe it's as simple as that. There are bigger issues, such as Sunni / Shia problems. Also, have you read anything about the Iraq / Iran war? It's an eye-opener.

 

[Jeeta]

Why would you ever think that? If the US does actually go into Iran, it won't be a civil, "ok guys, let's be really careful and keep the civilian death toll at a minimum" type of war like Iraq and Afghanistan were. It'll be more of a "fuck you, you're the enemy, you're dieing" type of war, and if the US military is allowed to go in unrestricted like that, I think I'll have to bet on them.



The US probably has more resources (and definitely more fire power) in the Middle East than Iran does.

Oh well, if the US does go into Iran, at least we'll get to see the newest in tested military technology. Haven't really seen anything major in ages, since the stealth was brought out in 1991 Gulf War. Wonder what they'll come out with... my bet is on weaponized lasers. Blast those little Iranian speed boats right out of the water.

Maybe they do and maybe I'm wrong, I just have this strange feeling it's a bad idea and it's Vietnam all over again.

 

[Yuckystuff]

I don't believe it's as simple as that. There are bigger issues, such as Sunni / Shia problems.

Iran is overwhelmingly Shia (90%+), so I'm not sure that is as much of an issues as it was in Iraq. Perhaps regionally, but Iran has never gone to war unprovoked so I don't see why it would be an issue.

Also, have you read anything about the Iraq / Iran war? It's an eye-opener.

I have, but Iraq invaded them. Aided by the US I might add...

 

[jetto]

Maybe they do and maybe I'm wrong, I just have this strange feeling it's a bad idea and it's Vietnam all over again.

I should sue you for TM infringement. Your nick is too close to mine and causes confusion in the consumer's mind. Plus you dare disagree with me!

 

[Jeeta]

I should sue you for TM infringement. Your nick is too close to mine and causes confusion in the consumer's mind. Plus you dare disagree with me!

Lol wut?

Cool story bro.

 

[Fatbat]

It's not a competition who can build the biggest target. The way I look at it Iran have the upper hand. They clearly have more versals going off the pictures you've posted. They're close to their own resources.

Simplicity always wins, you only have to look at things like the IED and a couple of terrorists bringing down two of the biggest buildings in NYC to realize that.

Haha, one of those US cruisers or destroyers could destroy every Iranian ship in that picture from beyond the horizon. There are five of them in that picture and a carrier to top it all off. There's a second carrier group somewhere nearby.

Let's not kid ourselves.

 

[guerilla]

How so G? As far as I can see it would be a Fascist state but with divine backing, making all opposition 'evil'.

All opposition to the state as a state is always evil. The state never tolerates anarchists or effective reformers.

Fascism is a specific system of political economy. It gets used to mean "bad government" but it is actually something well defined which does not necessarily have anything to do with theocracy in particular. Note, Hitler and Mussolini came to power as fascists via democracy. America has a very fascistic economy and it is a constitutional republic.

I think a theocracy, depending on the religion, and how strictly the religion is enforced, could be much better than secular democracy, which is essentially amoral.

In a secular democracy, there are no morals, except that the state is always right. In a theocracy, there is rule by moral right, which might be at times barbaric and backwards, but the laws are consistent with that moral ethic. Politicians are confined to acting within the moral rules, not the whims of the voters or the money of special interests. Right and wrong are defined absolutely.

As an aside, just as the Muslims have no right to impose Sharia law on you, you have no right to impose western secular ethics on them. If you insist your morals are superior, they can also make the same claim. These are value judgments, subjective and individual.

You gotta remember, when the Danes were burning women at the stake as witches, Muslims already had 900 years of women having a right to inheritance, initiate divorce and to conduct business as private property owners.

I am not defending Islam or attacking any other religious ideal. My ethics are such that all aggression is wrong, whether it is attacking Iran to prevent them from building a bomb (or really, to protect oil interests) or attacking them to overthrow their government and way of life (apparently nothing was learned from the Islamic Revolution against the Shah and western values).

Live and let live. The Persians by and large are quite charming people.

 

[guerilla]

They also have no right to fuck with economies of the world by blockading international shipping lanes.

But the economies of the world have a right to limit their trade through sanctions?

Bit of a double standard isn't it?

 

[mimoza3]

As an aside, just as the Muslims have no right to impose Sharia law on you, you have no right to impose western secular ethics on them. If you insist your morals are superior, they can also make the same claim. These are value judgments, subjective and individual.

problem starts with an event that includes a non Muslim an a Sharia case, the implementation of the law does not stop at Muslims, so they will ultimately force it on a non Muslim.
You also need to remember that Islam is based on expansion and rapid growth, it did not do it by being nice to people, the most common phrase used is "Islam or the sword" - that is this religions interpretation of "live and let live"
And I do agree that many Iranians are charming people, those who are not religious fanatics.

 

[wezcountry]

But the economies of the world have a right to limit their trade through sanctions?

Bit of a double standard isn't it?

Not really. They just need to stand-down their nuclear weapons programme and they'll be welcomed back into the club.

 

[tom29944]

Haha, one of those US cruisers or destroyers could destroy every Iranian ship in that picture from beyond the horizon. There are five of them in that picture and a carrier to top it all off. There's a second carrier group somewhere nearby.

Let's not kid ourselves.

Its not WWII idiot... Iranian will fire hundreds of those missiles from mountains and desserts to US ships...

Grow up