# Iran to put warships off US Atlantic coast...



## Liberty (Sep 27, 2011)

Iran says could deploy navy near U.S. coast: report - The West Australian

heh. Bring it, bitches.


----------



## VaYank5150 (Sep 27, 2011)

Liberty said:


> Iran says could deploy navy near U.S. coast: report - The West Australian
> 
> heh. Bring it, bitches.



As long as they are in International waters, they have every right to be there.


----------



## Photonic (Sep 27, 2011)

Liberty said:


> Iran says could deploy navy near U.S. coast: report - The West Australian
> 
> heh. Bring it, bitches.



LOL, that's beautiful. The one thing that the US needs to have a reason to crush their country through military action and they are handing it to us on a Silver Platter.


----------



## Sallow (Sep 27, 2011)

Better watch out for these babies!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsLkBJzpCyo]IR. Iran mass produces ekranoplans - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Sep 27, 2011)

Liberty said:


> Iran says could deploy navy near U.S. coast: report - The West Australian
> 
> heh. Bring it, bitches.



Hey, let the target practice begin!


----------



## Vanquish (Sep 27, 2011)

Yeah. That's what the founding fathers want...citizens who cheer "bring it on, bitches!" and who smile at the prospect of war.


----------



## Conservative (Sep 27, 2011)

List of current ships of the Iranian Navy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Geez... Canada has a bigger navy than these ass-hats


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 27, 2011)

Photonic said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> > Iran says could deploy navy near U.S. coast: report - The West Australian
> ...



That's how you talk about a hypothetical war that would result in even more dead americans than the War in Iraq did?


----------



## Si modo (Sep 27, 2011)

Somehow this story reminds me of a male pigeon when he encounters another male pigeon.

Puff.


----------



## Liberty (Sep 27, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Photonic said:
> 
> 
> > Liberty said:
> ...



relax. if their fleet was on their way here we would know it and sink em before they get even close to our shore.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 27, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> Yeah. That's what the founding fathers want...citizens who cheer "bring it on, bitches!" and who smile at the prospect of war.




No kidding, the fact that our scum gov't has us numb to war is one tragedy, cheering on a hypothetical one?



Yikes


----------



## Photonic (Sep 27, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Photonic said:
> 
> 
> > Liberty said:
> ...



Against an organized military? Probably significantly less loss of life. 

Libya is a good example. No loss of American life and their Air Force was wiped out overnight.

This is a country that has repeatedly stated it wants to kill all Americans and force them under Sharia Law.

I think it's warranted to not want their government to exist.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Sep 27, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Photonic said:
> 
> 
> > Liberty said:
> ...



You retards INSISTED Bush was going to invade Iran for 4 years. What now Obama will?

By the way? If Iran puts warships off our coast as long as they dong nothing hostile and stay in international waters no biggy. IF they chose to do otherwise we won't be starting a war, now will we?


----------



## Conservative (Sep 27, 2011)

VaYank5150 said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> > Iran says could deploy navy near U.S. coast: report - The West Australian
> ...



true. But the question is, how likely are they 'really' to send ships 7800 miles, with no place to call home?


----------



## Moonglow (Sep 27, 2011)

And the ones shiting their britches the most would be the poor Iranian sailors


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 27, 2011)

Liberty said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Photonic said:
> ...



Then we'd attack them, warmonger for 10+ years, nationbuild, and end up with thousands and thousands of graves filled with americans.

Not to mention we'd probably kill hundreds of thousands of Iranians pile a few more trillion dollars onto a debt we'll never be able to pay off.


----------



## Moonglow (Sep 27, 2011)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Photonic said:
> ...



He will show his social security number to confuse them.


----------



## VaYank5150 (Sep 27, 2011)

Conservative said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> > Liberty said:
> ...



The US Navy does this all the time.  While the Iranian Navy has no nulcear powered ships, and cannot sustain themselves as long, why wouldn't they?


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 27, 2011)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Photonic said:
> ...



I don't live in your fantasy partisan world, I don't vote for either status quo party so you can unknot your panties.  I don't think Obama is going to bomb Iran, just like I didn't Bush was, that's why we propped up an ally to Iran to be Iraq's prime minister.  

We'll learn to put up with them and prolly pal around with them, see China as a good example.


----------



## francoHFW (Sep 27, 2011)

Just the kind of fear mongering, devisive BS you'd expect from a Murdoch newspaper-PFFFFFT!


----------



## JWBooth (Sep 27, 2011)

This assumes they have the means to refuel and resupply.
List of current ships of the Iranian Navy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Doesn't qualify as a decent Coast Guard

More scare em with a new boogerman bullshit.


"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the  populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing  it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
H. L. Mencken


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 27, 2011)

JWBooth said:


> This assumes they have the means to refuel and resupply.
> List of current ships of the Iranian Navy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Doesn't qualify as a decent Coast Guard
> 
> ...



What a perfectly accurate quote, thanks for posting it.


----------



## High_Gravity (Sep 27, 2011)

Fuck em.


----------



## VaYank5150 (Sep 27, 2011)

JWBooth said:


> This assumes they have the means to refuel and resupply.
> List of current ships of the Iranian Navy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Doesn't qualify as a decent Coast Guard
> 
> ...



Sounds like a "strategery" to me....


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Sep 27, 2011)

This is one of the most militarily stupid decisions I've heard of.  Without a resupply point the Iranian Navy won't be able to stay in International Waters for long at all, and they're a navigational error from never going home again.

There's a reason the USN maintains bases all over the world, and should.  I guess Iran is about to learn why.


----------



## JWBooth (Sep 27, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Fuck em.



Agreed, but even more, fuck the infantile retarded asswipe who cheers for an opportunity for the unnecessary expenditure of blood and treasure.


----------



## Warrior102 (Sep 27, 2011)

Hell, we had Russians off our coast all through the Cold War. When I was aboard the battleship in the Med, the Russian Bears would fly over us all the time. They were so close we'd wave at em - and they'd wave back. I tell ya - it was one sight to see one of these bad boys fly over you...


----------



## Warrior102 (Sep 27, 2011)

Dr.Traveler said:


> This is one of the most militarily stupid decisions I've heard of.  Without a resupply point the Iranian Navy won't be able to stay in International Waters for long at all, and they're a navigational error from never going home again.
> 
> There's a reason the USN maintains bases all over the world, and should.  I guess Iran is about to learn why.



My guess would be Cuba/Venequela. You know - those two Liberal paradises down south. They'll take care of the filthy Arabs.


----------



## JWBooth (Sep 27, 2011)

Dr.Traveler said:


> This is one of the most militarily stupid decisions I've heard of.  Without a resupply point the Iranian Navy won't be able to stay in International Waters for long at all, and they're a navigational error from never going home again.
> 
> There's a reason the USN maintains bases all over the world, and should.  I guess Iran is about to learn why.



They'll never venture past the Pillars of Hercules. Its unlikely they'd even travel that far. Its not a true blue water navy.


----------



## Warrior102 (Sep 27, 2011)

JWBooth said:


> Dr.Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > This is one of the most militarily stupid decisions I've heard of.  Without a resupply point the Iranian Navy won't be able to stay in International Waters for long at all, and they're a navigational error from never going home again.
> ...



They won't make it half way across the Med before breaking down.


----------



## JWBooth (Sep 27, 2011)

Warrior102 said:


> Hell, we had Russians off our coast all through the Cold War. When I was aboard the battleship in the Med, the Russian Bears would fly over us all the time. They were so close we'd wave at em - and they'd wave back. I tell ya - it was one sight to see one of these bad boys fly over you...



I've looked into the belly of one of those in the north Pacific.


----------



## Conservative (Sep 27, 2011)

francoHFW said:


> Just the kind of fear mongering, devisive BS you'd expect from a Murdoch newspaper-PFFFFFT!



He doesn't own it anymore, dipshit.

The West Australian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> The West Australian was owned by the publicly-listed company West Australian Newspapers Ltd from the 1920s. In 1969, the Melbourne based *The Herald and Weekly Times Ltd bought WAN and published the paper until 1987 when it was sold to Robert Holmes à Court's Bell Group in 1987 when the remainder of H&WT was bought by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation.[5] The following year Alan Bond, through Bond Corporation, gained control of Bell Group and hence the paper.* This ownership structure only survived for a few years until the collapse of Bond Corporation. A newly formed company, West Australian Newspapers Holdings, then purchased the paper from the receivers before being floated in an oversubscribed $185 million public offering.[6] Chairman Trevor Eastwood announced in the annual report that the company was listed on the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX: SWM) on 9 January 1992. A management fee of $217,000 and underwriting/brokers handling fee of $1,981,136 were paid to companies associated with former short-term directors John Poynton and J. H. Nickson.[7] February 2011: After acquired Seven Media Group, West Australian Newspapers Holding Ltd. became Seven West Media Limited, Australia's largest diversified media business.[8]


----------



## Conservative (Sep 27, 2011)

francoHFW said:


> Just the kind of fear mongering, devisive BS you'd expect from a Murdoch newspaper-PFFFFFT!



Iran says could deploy navy near U.S. coast: report - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - Iran - msnbc.com

Does Murdoch own MSNBC too, dip-shit?


----------



## jgarden (Sep 27, 2011)

*heh. Bring it, bitches. 

Hey, let the target practice begin! 

They won't make it half way across the Med before breaking down. 
****************************************************************************************************
Has it dawned on our conservative friends that Iran may have an ulterior motive for placing warships along America's coast and their "Rambo" response may be playing right into it.  

With the Palestinian request for statehood resting with the United Nations, the last thing the US needs is to further inflame antiAmerica feelings in the MidEast!*


----------



## JWBooth (Sep 27, 2011)

jgarden said:


> *Has it dawned on our conservative friends that Iran may have an ulterior motive for placing warships along America's coast and their "Rambo" response may be playing right into it.
> 
> With the Palestinian request for statehood resting with the United Nations, the last thing the US needs is to inflame antiAmerica feels in the MidEast!*



If they had a navy that could actually make it to US waters, you might have a point.


----------



## VaYank5150 (Sep 27, 2011)

jgarden said:


> *Has it dawned on our conservative friends that Iran may have an ulterior motive for placing warships along America's coast and their "Rambo" response may be playing right into it.
> 
> With the Palestinian request for statehood resting with the United Nations, the last thing the US needs is to inflame antiAmerica feels in the MidEast!*



Once again, as long as their ships remain in International waters, they have every right to be there.  Cowboy Bush is no longer in charge.


----------



## Warrior102 (Sep 27, 2011)

VaYank5150 said:


> jgarden said:
> 
> 
> > *Has it dawned on our conservative friends that Iran may have an ulterior motive for placing warships along America's coast and their "Rambo" response may be playing right into it.
> ...



Cowboy Bush? LOL! That's a fucking laugh-riot. 

How many illegal, immoral wars does Chickenhawk Cowboy Obama have going on? Seven or Eight? I can't keep up with the warmongering little tool.


----------



## VaYank5150 (Sep 27, 2011)

Warrior102 said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> > jgarden said:
> ...



Let's see....he inherited Iraq.  He doubled down on Afghanistan.  He threw missiles into Libya.  I blame him for two.  Please help me out with the additional 5 or 6 you mentioned.


----------



## Firehorse (Sep 27, 2011)

Hmmm. Many posters are right. Very tough trip across Atlantic, looks like they only have 5 frigates with support craft. Can't imagine sending a two ship flotilla all the way to America.

I can see them announce the trip and then "loose" a frigate during the trip and claim a US sub sank it without provocation .... That's the Iranian style


----------



## Jos (Sep 27, 2011)

Liberty said:


> Iran says could deploy navy near U.S. coast: report - The West Australian
> 
> heh. Bring it, bitches.




Iran says *could* deploy navy near U.S. coast
I *could* win the Lotto too, right?


----------



## Photonic (Sep 27, 2011)

Firehorse said:


> Hmmm. Many posters are right. Very tough trip across Atlantic, looks like they only have 5 frigates with support craft. Can't imagine sending a two ship flotilla all the way to America.
> 
> I can see them announce the trip and then "loose" a frigate during the trip and claim a US sub sank it without provocation .... That's the Iranian style



They seem pretty good at claiming things that the "Imperial West" does that haven't happened.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 27, 2011)

VaYank5150 said:


> Warrior102 said:
> 
> 
> > VaYank5150 said:
> ...



Pakistan/Somalia/Yemen, I think Syria came at the end of Bush's term.  

If you live in the middle east, you may as well live in constant fear for your life as you never know which random spot the US is going to attack.

Kudos for condemning 2 of his instances of warmongering though, honestly.


----------



## martybegan (Sep 27, 2011)

Firehorse said:


> Hmmm. Many posters are right. Very tough trip across Atlantic, looks like they only have 5 frigates with support craft. Can't imagine sending a two ship flotilla all the way to America.
> 
> I can see them announce the trip and then "loose" a frigate during the trip and claim a US sub sank it without provocation .... That's the Iranian style



The US would probably have a Sub right on the flotilla's ass. For more fun it would probably let itself be detected for 10-20 seconds, before dissapearing away again.

Atlantic fleet sub commanders are probably drooling at the prospect of fucking around with a few Iranian ships.


----------



## High_Gravity (Sep 27, 2011)

Warrior102 said:


> Dr.Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > This is one of the most militarily stupid decisions I've heard of.  Without a resupply point the Iranian Navy won't be able to stay in International Waters for long at all, and they're a navigational error from never going home again.
> ...



I bet those Iranians are all throwing their names in the hat to be stationed at Venezuela or Cuba so they can drink tequila and sleep with some hot Hispanic bitches.


----------



## JWBooth (Sep 27, 2011)

martybegan said:


> Firehorse said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmm. Many posters are right. Very tough trip across Atlantic, looks like they only have 5 frigates with support craft. Can't imagine sending a two ship flotilla all the way to America.
> ...



Then they'll have to do it in the Med or the Arabian Gulf/Indian Ocean, because that's as far as this little coastal fleet will go.


----------



## JWBooth (Sep 27, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Warrior102 said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Traveler said:
> ...



If they pooled all of their resources, they might get one of those old Korean war era destroyers there for a show the flag port visit. Unrep is an art, not a given.


----------



## Xchel (Sep 27, 2011)

VaYank5150 said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> > Iran says could deploy navy near U.S. coast: report - The West Australian
> ...



Yes, they do, but so do we..I say we send 10 for every one of their ships and let our ships sit right next to them all cozy like and see how quickly they leave.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Sep 27, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Warrior102 said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Traveler said:
> ...



Tell ya what, those Latinas won't put up with any of their misogynistic bullshit either... they'll wake to her standing over him with a knife in one hand and his fun stick in the other!


----------



## Intense (Sep 27, 2011)

The Iranian Threat won't be Surface Ships. It will be Sub's.


----------



## Photonic (Sep 27, 2011)

Xchel said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> > Liberty said:
> ...



Yea, and they can be the best of friends forever and ever! <3


----------



## Warrior102 (Sep 27, 2011)

VaYank5150 said:


> Warrior102 said:
> 
> 
> > VaYank5150 said:
> ...



He didn't inherit Iraq, shitforbrains. He ran for POTUS and was elected. He wanted the fucking job - so get over it. Second, he "dithered" in A-Stan, and several thousand lives were lost becuase of it. 

Our men and women are currently deployed in the following conflicts - 

1. Global War on Terror - Oct. 7, 2001 - present
2. Operation Enduring Freedon - Oct. 7, 2001 - present
3. Was in Afghanistan - Oct. 7, 2001 - present
4. Operation Freedom Eagle - Jan. 15, 2002 - present
5. Operation Enduring Freedon (Horn of Africa) Oct. 7. 2002 - present
6. Operation Enduring Freedon (Trans Sahara) - Feb 6, 2007 - present
7. Operation Iraqi Freedom - March 20, 3003 - present
8. Operation Freedom Eagle (Pakistan) - March 16, 2004 - present
9. Yemeni al-Queda Crackdown - March 16, 2004 - present
10. Libyan Civil War (Operation Odyssey Down) - March 19, 2011 - present


----------



## Intense (Sep 27, 2011)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Warrior102 said:
> ...



Cuba, Venezuela, may very well embrace them.


----------



## JWBooth (Sep 27, 2011)

Intense said:


> The Iranian Threat won't be Surface Ships. It will be Sub's.




Kilos?

I used to hear them coming from well beyond their effective attack range.






Used to be a sonar tech.


----------



## Warrior102 (Sep 27, 2011)

Intense said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Great minds think alike - I posted those two places earlier.


----------



## High_Gravity (Sep 27, 2011)

Intense said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Those Iranians just want to take some shore leave I'm tellin you, everytime theres a TDY here in the States for the Gulf Arab countries those guys are tripping over themselves to volunteer just to get away for a while and drink in peace and visit a strip club.


----------



## Firehorse (Sep 27, 2011)

Intense said:


> The Iranian Threat won't be Surface Ships. It will be Sub's.



Our technological edge in the sonar and detection game is so overwhelming, their subs may as well stay on the surface


----------



## martybegan (Sep 27, 2011)

Intense said:


> The Iranian Threat won't be Surface Ships. It will be Sub's.



The kilo class subs they have are awsome for shallow water work, but only really for interdiction work. diesel electrics are quieter than nukes when going at steerage, but once they have to move, the russian technology for lessening flow noise and caviatation is far behind the US's and more imporantly, noisy enough that our detection gear would have no issue locating the sub.

The subs would only be a serious threat if they got them off the coast, and then declared that they are blockading the seaboard, or at least the ports in range of the 5 kilos they have. Even then thier duration would only be a few weeks, at that point they would have to move, and then KABOOM.


----------



## Intense (Sep 27, 2011)

JWBooth said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > The Iranian Threat won't be Surface Ships. It will be Sub's.
> ...



I think the threat if not already goes beyond that.


----------



## Intense (Sep 27, 2011)

Firehorse said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > The Iranian Threat won't be Surface Ships. It will be Sub's.
> ...



China has already compromised us in that regard.


----------



## JWBooth (Sep 27, 2011)

Intense said:


> Firehorse said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...


Against an advanced naval force, maybe, but against badly used up leftovers from the cold war? I really doubt it.


----------



## High_Gravity (Sep 27, 2011)

If the Iranians open up a few Persian dining restaurants on their ships that will be cool I guess.


----------



## Photonic (Sep 27, 2011)

Intense said:


> Firehorse said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...



China doesn't have us compromised on anything at a military level. I would like to know where you are drawing up such information.


----------



## Douger (Sep 27, 2011)

Liberty said:


> Iran says could deploy navy near U.S. coast: report - The West Australian
> 
> heh. Bring it, bitches.


I think they should build bases in Toronto ! Or Deeeeetroyt ! Why not ? You assholes do it.


----------



## Intense (Sep 27, 2011)

martybegan said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > The Iranian Threat won't be Surface Ships. It will be Sub's.
> ...



That boils down to strategy and training. With Stealth, it is allot easier on the offensive, on defense, there are no time outs. Allot of commercial traffic out there to confuse matters. My point is not what an Enemy would do, but what what they could do, in the wrong circumstances. The Sub's will be the greater threat. Of course in strained times, under stress, there are always unaccounted accidents.


----------



## JWBooth (Sep 27, 2011)

Douger said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> > Iran says could deploy navy near U.S. coast: report - The West Australian
> ...


Tijuana and Matamoros


----------



## Firehorse (Sep 27, 2011)

Even if China shared info with Iran. Knowing that we can find them and stopping or developing something to keep us from finding them are two different subjects


----------



## Sallow (Sep 27, 2011)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Warrior102 said:
> ...



What are you crazy? Both those places have a thriving prostitution sector.


----------



## Xchel (Sep 27, 2011)

JWBooth said:


> Douger said:
> 
> 
> > Liberty said:
> ...



Tijuana and Matamoros? The Zetas would eat the Iranians for desert and be smiling the entire time.


----------



## Sallow (Sep 27, 2011)

Intense said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...



Subs a threat?


----------



## Firehorse (Sep 27, 2011)

A sub is more of a danger, but not to one of our warships. Now say an Iranian sub gets a hair up is ass and decides to sink a cruise ship (on accedent of course) ... That's a problem


----------



## Xchel (Sep 27, 2011)

Firehorse, that would be a really stupid move on their part because then in retaliation NATO would sink every ship they had in international waters....article 5 and such you know..


----------



## thereisnospoon (Sep 27, 2011)

VaYank5150 said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> > Iran says could deploy navy near U.S. coast: report - The West Australian
> ...


Fans of the Ayatollah are we?
Actually, you're wrong. As with any sovereign nation, a perceived threat to that sovereignty is a legitimate military target regardless of location.
What you stupidly claim is the same as a host country placing armed military personnel outside the fence of a US Embassy. International law provides for that as well. 
Suppose IRAN stops it's vessels 200 miles plus one yard off the coast of Washington DC or New York City....This is ok with you?
It is you fucking chicken footed pacifists that invite rogue nations such as Iran to act with aggression toward the US with impunity.
Nevertheless, people like you have no say in the matter. 
Put bluntly....If Iran pulls this nonsense, our military will run them off or Iran's navy will be short a few pieces of equipment.


----------



## Conservative (Sep 27, 2011)

Intense said:


> The Iranian Threat won't be Surface Ships. It will be Sub's.



they have squat for 'real' subs.

List of current ships of the Iranian Navy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
3 KILO class, with a range of 7,500 nautical miles
1 Nahang class, a mini with external torpedo tubes.
11 Ghadir class, another mini with a top speed of 11 knots and 2 to 4 torpedoes or mines.
and 
4 Yugo class, midget subs that carry 4 men and a top range of 550 nautical miles.

A good yacht club could take them.


----------



## Firehorse (Sep 27, 2011)

They could claim the cruise ship tried to ram them late at night while they were on the surface .... No one ever said the Iranians were smart


----------



## Sallow (Sep 27, 2011)

Firehorse said:


> A sub is more of a danger, but not to one of our warships. Now say an Iranian sub gets a hair up is ass and decides to sink a cruise ship (on accedent of course) ... That's a problem



Well they might still be pissed about the commercial Iranian airliner an American military vessel shot down because of a computer glitch.


----------



## Photonic (Sep 27, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Firehorse said:
> 
> 
> > A sub is more of a danger, but not to one of our warships. Now say an Iranian sub gets a hair up is ass and decides to sink a cruise ship (on accedent of course) ... That's a problem
> ...



Shame.


----------



## Sallow (Sep 27, 2011)

Firehorse said:


> They could claim the cruise ship tried to ram them late at night while they were on the surface .... No one ever said the Iranians were smart



Yeah. They could use the same excuse that American Sub Commander used when they plowed into a boat full of school kids during a power dive off the coast of Japan.

Of course..little hard to explain why a Texas Oil Man was driving..


----------



## JWBooth (Sep 27, 2011)

thereisnospoon said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> > Liberty said:
> ...



Oh horseshit. Nobody has to be fans of the assholes to recognise international waters. What a completely stupid assertion. Iran isn't sending shit. They haven't the capability.
This goddam fearmongering to keep the sheeple compliant is wrong on its face, its a disgrace, and just plain dishonorable.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Sep 27, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> Yeah. That's what the founding fathers want...citizens who cheer "bring it on, bitches!" and who smile at the prospect of war.


No..Not war...Iran cannot fight a war vs the US. That country is under manned and outgunned.
Any naval conflict between us and Iran would be over in one boom and a flash of very bright light. That followed by a gurgle.
Whether you lefty's want to acknowledge this fact or not, it is well known that human beings are creatures of repressed aggression. Based on that fact, we maintain peace by the show of force. The ability to blow up stuff, kill people keeps us free .


----------



## Douger (Sep 27, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...


Great pussy too. Don't fuck with the Latins with this brainwashing bullshit.
Fuck Wally, Geeziss, Bootsa and all the rest.
We have fucking to do.


----------



## Firehorse (Sep 27, 2011)

It is a scare tactic and placing warships off the coast of America, though it would be a huge attaboy from their fellow jihadist, is very likely outside of the realm of possibility. 

If they took all their combat ships and tenders, I wouldn't bet half of them would make the trip back home to be appluaded


----------



## Photonic (Sep 27, 2011)

Firehorse said:


> It is a scare tactic and placing warships off the coast of America, though it would be a huge attaboy from their fellow jihadist, is very likely outside of the realm of possibility.
> 
> If they took all their combat ships and tenders, I wouldn't bet half of them would make the trip back home to be appluaded




None of them would make it back home without our assistance. Good ol America would probably tow them back while they claim we hijacked their boats and drive them back to Iran.


----------



## Firehorse (Sep 27, 2011)

And if they tried it during hurricane season ... Iran wouldn't have a navy at all


----------



## High_Gravity (Sep 27, 2011)

Douger said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Soggy in NOLA said:
> ...



I actually agree with you.


----------



## High_Gravity (Sep 27, 2011)

If I were Iranian I would beg for an assignment to one of these Latin American countries and than desert.


----------



## The Rabbi (Sep 27, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> Yeah. That's what the founding fathers want...citizens who cheer "bring it on, bitches!" and who smile at the prospect of war.



"Millions for defense but not one cent for welfare!"
I'm sure you know the history of that statement, "counselor" <snort>.


----------



## Photonic (Sep 27, 2011)

The Rabbi said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah. That's what the founding fathers want...citizens who cheer "bring it on, bitches!" and who smile at the prospect of war.
> ...



Honestly I would consider defense spending a kind of welfare of security.


----------



## The Rabbi (Sep 27, 2011)

Photonic said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Vanquish said:
> ...



Surely you know the origin of the phrase


----------



## Harry Dresden (Sep 27, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> Yeah. That's what the founding fathers want...citizens who cheer "bring it on, bitches!" and who smile at the prospect of war.


 im pretty sure if back in those days a Country that was considered hostile moved a war ship off our shores.....they would have reacted in some manner....


----------



## High_Gravity (Sep 27, 2011)

Let the Iranians come as long as they cook for us.


----------



## Photonic (Sep 27, 2011)

The Rabbi said:


> Photonic said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



It's a replacement for the word charity originally.

Language evolves over time though.


----------



## The Rabbi (Sep 27, 2011)

Photonic said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Photonic said:
> ...



My bad.  It was:
Millions for defense, but not cent for tribute.


----------



## Photonic (Sep 27, 2011)

The Rabbi said:


> Photonic said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Tribute to what exactly?


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 27, 2011)

Harry Dresden said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah. That's what the founding fathers want...citizens who cheer "bring it on, bitches!" and who smile at the prospect of war.
> ...



Like all the Brits in Canada?  We got rid of all them, right?


----------



## Xchel (Sep 27, 2011)

> "Like the arrogant powers that are present near our marine borders, we will also have a powerful presence close to American marine borders," the head of the Navy, Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari said, according to the official IRNA news agency.



A powerful presence? That is what they call a powerful presence? They must still live in the dark ages and not realize what the US fleet actually looks like?


> Speaking at a ceremony marking the 31st anniversary of the start of the 1980-1988 war with Iraq, Sayyari gave no details of when such a deployment could happen or the number or type of vessels to be used.



If they used every ship and sub in their fleet what would the total be? They have just over 200 total including their subs...they only have 13 submarines total, they mostly have patrol boats meant for coastal duties, they have about 100 of them....and about 100 missle boats...they have 5 frigates, 3 Corvettes, and 24 FAC's...they have nothing basically...we have on the other hand...286 ships, 11 Aircraft carriers, 9 amphibeous assault ships, 8 amphibious landing ships, 22 Cruisers, 60 destroyers, 27 frigates, and 75 subs, if they want to show a threatening presence they need to spend a hell of a lot of money to do so....our ship crews would laugh their tails off.


> The declaration comes just weeks after Turkey said it would host a NATO early warning radar system which will help spot missile threats from outside Europe, including potentially from Iran. The decision has angered Tehran which had enjoyed close relations with Ankara.


NATO would blow them out of the water if they tried to sink a cruise ship.....looks like Turkey would call an Article 5 before they US had a chance....NATO's fleet is likely bigger than ours is.


----------



## Sallow (Sep 27, 2011)

The Rabbi said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah. That's what the founding fathers want...citizens who cheer "bring it on, bitches!" and who smile at the prospect of war.
> ...



Seems you don't.

Millions for defense. But not one cent for tribute. This was the American reaction to whom



> American delegate Charles Pinckney actually responded, "No, no, not a sixpence, sir!" The quote, "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute," was actually made by Robert Goodloe Harper as a toast at a dinner shortly after the American delegation returned home. The next day a newspaper printed the toast from the night before and soon people began using it as a rallying cry.


----------



## Photonic (Sep 27, 2011)

Xchel said:


> > "Like the arrogant powers that are present near our marine borders, we will also have a powerful presence close to American marine borders," the head of the Navy, Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari said, according to the official IRNA news agency.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



We are part of NATO, so technically ours is included.

We also have Super Carriers. I don't think Iran even knows what those ARE.


----------



## Sallow (Sep 27, 2011)

Photonic said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Photonic said:
> ...



Da stinky cheese eatin' French!


----------



## Warrior102 (Sep 27, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > Soggy in NOLA said:
> ...



Ft. Liquordale, Fla. was always a fun one


----------



## The Rabbi (Sep 27, 2011)

Sallow said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Vanquish said:
> ...



Actually you seem not to be able to access Google, even though you ought to know this from school.  Oh yeah, you didnt finish school after 4th grade.  that explains a lot.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Sep 27, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> If the Iranians open up a few Persian dining restaurants on their ships that will be cool I guess.



yea there aint nothing like Poached eyeballs and succulent Goat innards....


----------



## High_Gravity (Sep 27, 2011)

Harry Dresden said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > If the Iranians open up a few Persian dining restaurants on their ships that will be cool I guess.
> ...



Iranian food is actually pretty good. I love their kababs and saffron rice.


----------



## Sallow (Sep 27, 2011)

The Rabbi said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Well to be honest..I initially thought it had something to do with the Barbary Wars. You know, when the conservatives back then didn't want to buy warships to fight pirates? You know, when the conservatives back then wanted to do the cheap thing..and pay tribute?

But alas, I was wrong too.


----------



## Xchel (Sep 27, 2011)

Photonic said:


> Xchel said:
> 
> 
> > > "Like the arrogant powers that are present near our marine borders, we will also have a powerful presence close to American marine borders," the head of the Navy, Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari said, according to the official IRNA news agency.
> ...



true, but I don't think they were actually considering that NATO might get puffy about it..


----------



## Harry Dresden (Sep 27, 2011)

Douger said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> > Iran says could deploy navy near U.S. coast: report - The West Australian
> ...



we are talking military stuff here Hairball.....remember you ran to your 3rd world hole in the wall because of your fear of this stuff......are you secure in some cave in the Jungle?.....you sure no one knows your typing this stuff?.....maybe you should go pick up some shit, rents due for your shack in about 4 days.....


----------



## bitterlyclingin (Sep 27, 2011)

The sharks are gonna have a field day. The ocean biologists will be happy. The highest shark concentrations , worldwide, 1942-1945, were to be found in the South Pacific. Hmmm? wonder why? The highest shark concentrations in the Atlantic Ocean during the Irish Potato Famine were to be found alongside the shipping routes from Dublin and Belfast to Boston and New York.
How does learning to ride a camel help teach you to swim?


----------



## Warrior102 (Sep 27, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Firehorse said:
> 
> 
> > They could claim the cruise ship tried to ram them late at night while they were on the surface .... No one ever said the Iranians were smart
> ...



You're a fucking idiot. 

Scott was a career Naval officer and well respected and admired by his crew. You're not fit to wash his skivvies nor massage his balls with a warm washcloth, asswipe. 

Waddle Scott | Bio of Waddle Scott | AEI Speakers Bureau


----------



## Photonic (Sep 27, 2011)

Warrior102 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Firehorse said:
> ...



Scott is an incredible man who ended up in a bad circumstance and took responsibility like a real man. He deserves respect.


----------



## Mr. Peepers (Sep 27, 2011)

> I bet those Iranians are all throwing their names in the hat to be stationed at Venezuela or Cuba so they can drink tequila and sleep with some hot Hispanic bitches.



Um, Tequila is only produced in Mexico.


----------



## signelect (Sep 27, 2011)

That is quite a long supply line for a bunch of camel drivers.  Accidents happen in the dark you have to be real careful.  One minute your here and the next gone.


----------



## High_Gravity (Sep 27, 2011)

Mr. Peepers said:


> > I bet those Iranians are all throwing their names in the hat to be stationed at Venezuela or Cuba so they can drink tequila and sleep with some hot Hispanic bitches.
> 
> 
> 
> Um, Tequila is only produced in Mexico.



What do they drink in the other countries than? rum?


----------



## Harry Dresden (Sep 27, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Vanquish said:
> ...



they ran to another Country did they not?.....talk to Douger,he can tell you about running to another country when your scared.....


----------



## signelect (Sep 27, 2011)

You know we paid a million dollar bribe to get the two hikers back and they get here and start acting tough.  They didn't have enough sense to stay away in the first place.  Maybe the nave could have brought them back and saved us a plane trip.


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Sep 27, 2011)

Can they send ships through Suez?    I think that is against the rules.  They would have to go around Africa to get here, and the last place they could refuel, refurbish would be..... Where?

If they can go through Suez, that means the last refueling/watering stop would be Algeria. 

They would loose all the ships to mutiny long before they got close to the US shores.


----------



## High_Gravity (Sep 27, 2011)

Baruch Menachem said:


> Can they send ships through Suez?    I think that is against the rules.  They would have to go around Africa to get here, and the last place they could refuel, refurbish would be..... Where?
> 
> If they can go through Suez, that means the last refueling/watering stop would be Algeria.
> 
> They would loose all the ships to mutiny long before they got close to the US shores.



Let them do it than.


----------



## JWBooth (Sep 27, 2011)

signelect said:


> That is quite a long supply line for a bunch of camel drivers.  Accidents happen in the dark you have to be real careful.  One minute your here and the next gone.



Unrep is a bitch when you know what you are doing. They dont have the capability. 
Much ado about nothing.
Just stirring up the easily upset.


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Sep 27, 2011)

Another small issue is that their boats are all Diesels.  On the plus for the Iranians, they can go far more quiet than nukes.   On the minus, they have to to surface every 18 hours or so to recharge batteries.   And they are going to do this in the North Atlantic.

The Germans were very effective with Wolf packs, but I believe they lost like 95% of their boats by 1944.   Not a few of them due to the fact they had to come up for air during weather.

As for the surface ships.... we know where they are and the Iranians would be better off just sending a PT boat towing targets than an actual navel vessel.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Sep 27, 2011)

If they try something I will fully support President Obama if he takes them out.


----------



## francoHFW (Sep 27, 2011)

The West Australian is STILL a Murdoch rag and thus assumed by people with a clue to be totally FULL OF SHYTTE until proven otherwise.


----------



## Sallow (Sep 27, 2011)

Warrior102 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Firehorse said:
> ...



Fuck off you gay asshole.

Oil tycoons on the submarine - Campaign Finance - Salon.com

It seriously sucks don't it..to debate people who know what the fuck they are talking about..



> Oil tycoons on the submarine
> The list of civilians aboard the USS Greeneville doesn't reveal a fundraising scandal, but it does underscore the link between money and access to power.
> By Daryl Lindsey  WASHINGTON -- Texas oil money will buy you access to more than just Washington environmental policy. Apparently, it will also get you a seat on the USS Greeneville. If you're lucky, the sub's captain might even let you have a go at the controls.
> 
> Following its initial investigation of the sinking of Japanese fishing vessel Ehime Maru, the Navy finally released Saturday a list of civilians who were aboard the USS Greeneville the day it rammed into the Ehime Maru, killing nine passengers, including four Japanese students.



You fucking shitstain pansy ass motherfucker..


----------



## Conservative (Sep 27, 2011)

francoHFW said:


> The West Australian is STILL a Murdoch rag and thus assumed by people with a clue to be totally FULL OF SHYTTE until proven otherwise.



yeah... who am I to throw facts in the face of your stupidity...


He doesn't own it anymore, dipshit.

The West Australian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> The West Australian was owned by the publicly-listed company West Australian Newspapers Ltd from the 1920s. In 1969, the Melbourne based *The Herald and Weekly Times Ltd bought WAN and published the paper until 1987 when it was sold to Robert Holmes à Court's Bell Group in 1987 when the remainder of H&WT was bought by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation.[5] The following year Alan Bond, through Bond Corporation, gained control of Bell Group and hence the paper.* This ownership structure only survived for a few years until the collapse of Bond Corporation. A newly formed company, West Australian Newspapers Holdings, then purchased the paper from the receivers before being floated in an oversubscribed $185 million public offering.[6] Chairman Trevor Eastwood announced in the annual report that the company was listed on the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX: SWM) on 9 January 1992. A management fee of $217,000 and underwriting/brokers handling fee of $1,981,136 were paid to companies associated with former short-term directors John Poynton and J. H. Nickson.[7] February 2011: After acquired Seven Media Group, West Australian Newspapers Holding Ltd. became Seven West Media Limited, Australia's largest diversified media business.[8]



Learn to read, dip-shit. He doesn't own it anymore.


----------



## freedombecki (Sep 27, 2011)

Liberty said:


> Iran says could deploy navy near U.S. coast: report - The West Australian
> heh. Bring it, bitches.


Well, at least their craven jihad won't be by proxy this time.


----------



## bitterlyclingin (Sep 27, 2011)

jgarden said:


> *heh. Bring it, bitches.
> 
> Hey, let the target practice begin!
> 
> ...



I dunno about that. I sorta liked the way the Third, Fourth, and Fifth Marines inflamed the anti american feelings prevalent in Japan. February 19th, 1945- March 30th, 1945.
21,000 out, 200 back. Talk about sending a message.
Sorry, plumb forgot myself. This is no longer a nation of people arriving on these shores to answer Liberty's siren call "Give me your tired, huddled masses yearning to breathe free.." This is instead a nation of huddled masses yearning for a benevolent master.
They voted for, and got what they wanted. Barack Obama. 'I do think at a certain point, you've made enough money"


----------



## AmericanFirst (Sep 27, 2011)

VaYank5150 said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> > Iran says could deploy navy near U.S. coast: report - The West Australian
> ...


Bring it on satan worshipers.


----------



## AmericanFirst (Sep 27, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> Yeah. That's what the founding fathers want...citizens who cheer "bring it on, bitches!" and who smile at the prospect of war.


No, they wanted weanies like you who are too scared to defend their own country.


----------



## AmericanFirst (Sep 27, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Photonic said:
> 
> 
> > Liberty said:
> ...


Idiots like you don't see a problem with the Iranian navy off our coast where they have no interest. Bring it on!!


----------



## Warrior102 (Sep 27, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Warrior102 said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Another meltdown ?

Why don't you put the bottle away for the evening and cancel another night of partying.

Don't you have a job interview tomorrow?

You don't want to show up looking like shit with cock and booze on your breath.


----------



## Sallow (Sep 27, 2011)

You doing another jig over my unemployment, are ya?

That your way of supporting America? Dancing happily around in your undies with your boyfriend because someone with a solid work record is unemployed?

Here's another fucking news flash for you dumb fuck. You don't make fun of family around here.

Asshole.


----------



## Warrior102 (Sep 27, 2011)

Sallow said:


> You doing another jig over my unemployment, are ya?
> 
> That your way of supporting America? Dancing happily around in your undies with your boyfriend because someone with a solid work record is unemployed?
> 
> ...



Speaking of families - 

what's with your "Motherfucker" reference to me in your previous post in this thread ?

My Mother isn't family ?

You exempt  from the rules ?

Everyone else must comply - but you get a pass ?

I don't think so, asswipe. 

Enjoy your meltdown. It's really entertaining.

You're a fucking lunatic. I wouldn't hire you to shovel shit.


----------



## Warrior102 (Sep 27, 2011)

Familes (Motherfucker?) / Meltdown.....

Grab the popcorn - 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/4198189-post121.html


----------



## Sallow (Sep 27, 2011)

Warrior102 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > You doing another jig over my unemployment, are ya?
> ...



No..it wasn't referring to *your *mother.

If you weren't so gay you'd realize that.

I've had girlfriends with kids.

That would make me a motherfucker too.


----------



## Sallow (Sep 27, 2011)

Warrior102 said:


> Familes (Motherfucker?) / Meltdown.....
> 
> Grab the popcorn -
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/4198189-post121.html



Oh..and go wipe the balls of your fucking hero..jerkoff. 

He violated military protocols and killed nine people. Including school kids.

Shoveling shit? That's your business?

Figures. You do so much of it here.


----------



## LordBrownTrout (Sep 27, 2011)

This is the stupidity of Mamu.


----------



## Warrior102 (Sep 27, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Warrior102 said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Of course you weren't - you back-peddling pussy. Everyone has more than one Mother. 

God - there's stupid, and there's "Swallow" stupid.

Have another deep swig of whatever the fuck it is you're bombed on/Foodstamps scammed for you today, i.e. Boone's Farm.


----------



## Warrior102 (Sep 27, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Warrior102 said:
> 
> 
> > Familes (Motherfucker?) / Meltdown.....
> ...



Tissue?


----------



## CMike (Sep 27, 2011)

VaYank5150 said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> > Iran says could deploy navy near U.S. coast: report - The West Australian
> ...


So do tomahawk missiles.


----------



## Sallow (Sep 27, 2011)

Warrior102 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Warrior102 said:
> ...



Yeah..you're going to need one.

After jacking off your hero.

Asswipe.


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Sep 27, 2011)

This would just be bluster  to impress the home folks.   The Iranian navy is very familiar with the US navy.   Wh have had several air craft carriers off their coast on a regular basis, in  addition to missile cruisers and other craft.

And the Iranian spy network has been in Iraq forever.   Reports go back to Tehran on a regular basis just what a US military vehicle can do.

During the Kuwait conflict, the whole Iraqi air force fled after the first day.  Dring GWII, they buried the air force hoping to keep it after the war was over.

Remember the Iraqis and the Iranians tied in their war.  And both times we dealt with Iraq the army was taken totally apart in five weeks.

The Iranians really aren't that interested in actual dealing with the US.  Especially close to the US.


----------



## Sallow (Sep 27, 2011)

Warrior102 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Warrior102 said:
> ...



Why would I need foodstamps? Got a six month severance. 

And you're calling "me" stupid?



And no "backpeddling". 

And no swallow either, WarriorTakesItUpTheAss102. Not into the gay shit. No matter how much you beg..you ain't gonna gargle my jiz, stupid.

Got it?


----------



## Wiseacre (Sep 27, 2011)

The Iranian Navy is coming here?   I'm guessing they beach themselves by accident on Bermuda.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Sep 27, 2011)

jgarden said:


> *heh. Bring it, bitches.
> 
> Hey, let the target practice begin!
> 
> ...



Wait, let me get this straight.

Iran is going to park their bunch of tugboats off of our shore and we don't need to do anything to hurt their feewings?


----------



## Richard-H (Sep 27, 2011)

The pan-Arabic nationalist movement wants one thing - to destroy the U.S. financially and they're willing to make incredible sacrifices to that end.

Can we AFFORD a long war - an occupation - of Iran?


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 27, 2011)

VaYank5150 said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> > Iran says could deploy navy near U.S. coast: report - The West Australian
> ...



As do we. 

this is nothing but Posturing. Iran's Navy can not compete with US Naval and Air forces, Especially not just off our Atlantic Coast. We have no Intel that Iran Possess any Nuclear Capable Subs, which would be the only real thing to worry about. 

I Promise you this, if Iran does put Boats off our coast. The US navy will know exactly where they are at all times, and will be right on their asses, Just waiting for one of them to get cocky, so we can remind the world just how Potent our Air and Naval Forces really are.

Can you say no contest.


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 27, 2011)

Richard-H said:


> The pan-Arabic nationalist movement wants one thing - to destroy the U.S. financially and they're willing to make incredible sacrifices to that end.
> 
> Can we AFFORD a long war - an occupation - of Iran?



Could we do it? Of course. We could easily dismantle Iran's conventional Forces. With about 200,000 Troops. However to occupy a country like Iran? Hell man don't even try with out 750,000 Plus Troops.

I don't think we need to do that anyways. I think we could use air strikes, and some special forces to Decapitate the Iranian government, and perhaps make some contacts in the Democrat Opposition groups in Iran, to work out how to help them take over the country.

Much like Libya.

Really though All I think we really should do, is determine if it is possible for us to Destroy or Seriously set back, their Nuclear program. 

Iran is not a conventional Threat to us or it's Neighbors.

Oh sure they could invade Iraq, or Afghanistan yep. However US Air and Naval Forces excel at one thing. Decimating Conventional Military's in the Field. There really are not to many places in the world, where a country could move large numbers of troops, and tanks and trucks. That we could not easily destroy. Iran's Air force would not be any more effective than Iraq's and would likely not even try to fight us.

A lot of people seem to be under the false impression, that just because we struggle with Occupations, that we are some how weak now. Nothing has changed pertaining to our Abilities to Control air space, and Systematically Dismantle Anti-air systems, and Utterly Destroy Armies in the field. 

We are still light years ahead of anyone else, when it comes to that.


----------



## Shogun (Sep 27, 2011)

This thread must be how the red assed baboon feels shortly after females go into heat.


----------



## whitehall (Sep 27, 2011)

Get out. Iran has a navy?


----------



## ekrem (Sep 27, 2011)

Xchel said:


> > The declaration comes just weeks after Turkey said it would host a NATO early warning radar system which will help spot missile threats from outside Europe, including potentially from Iran. The decision has angered Tehran which had enjoyed close relations with Ankara.
> 
> 
> NATO would blow them out of the water if they tried to sink a cruise ship.....looks like Turkey would call an Article 5 before they US had a chance....NATO's fleet is likely bigger than ours is.



Iran has ships from 1960's and 1970's. The only "modern" and serious thing about Iranian Navy are its submarines. But not serious enough for a real Navy.


----------



## Intense (Sep 27, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> The Iranian Navy is coming here?   I'm guessing they beach themselves by accident on Bermuda.



Or Key West where they will have other things to deal with that they won't want to write home about.


----------



## Intense (Sep 27, 2011)

Shogun said:


> This thread must be how the red assed baboon feels shortly after females go into heat.



That's something that can only be told from personal experience, right?

Do you still keep in touch?


----------



## Intense (Sep 27, 2011)

Richard-H said:


> The pan-Arabic nationalist movement wants one thing - to destroy the U.S. financially and they're willing to make incredible sacrifices to that end.
> 
> Can we AFFORD a long war - an occupation - of Iran?



It would hurt, and easily escalate.


----------



## Shogun (Sep 27, 2011)

Intense said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > This thread must be how the red assed baboon feels shortly after females go into heat.
> ...



Educated people are aware of the reference, billy.  Don't feel bad because you needed to spit some chaw juice on the floor before thinking of what to post.


----------



## Meister (Sep 27, 2011)

Liberty said:


> Iran says could deploy navy near U.S. coast: report - The West Australian
> 
> heh. Bring it, bitches.



"Saying and doing" are like "apples and oranges"


----------



## oreo (Sep 27, 2011)

Liberty said:


> Iran says could deploy navy near U.S. coast: report - The West Australian
> 
> heh. Bring it, bitches.




So how many of those Iranian navy--row-boats do they need to put together to make a war ship?----


----------



## Intense (Sep 27, 2011)

Shogun said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > Shogun said:
> ...


----------



## freedombecki (Sep 27, 2011)

VaYank5150 said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> > Iran says could deploy navy near U.S. coast: report - The West Australian
> ...


Not with long-ranged missiles aimed at Wall Street like their brethren al Qaeda.

Also, since they bragged about long-ranged missiles and wiping the USA and Israel off the face of the map, they shouldn't be surprised if the US Navy frisks 'em now and then.


----------



## CMike (Sep 27, 2011)

I really don't think Iran will actually do it.


----------



## Intense (Sep 27, 2011)

CMike said:


> I really don't think Iran will actually do it.



They might just be establishing a presence for now. The concept of being a Sleeper, for something ahead does make sense.


----------



## Si modo (Sep 27, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Warrior102 said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...


Let's see, you say some civilian was driving the sub, another tells you who the captian is, and you post an article about civilians being on board thinking that proves that a civilian was driving the sub.






You are fucking stupid.  Really.















Moron.


----------



## Liability (Sep 27, 2011)

VaYank5150 said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> > Iran says could deploy navy near U.S. coast: report - The West Australian
> ...



But as soon as they come into our waters, we sink them.

Square deal.


----------



## Si modo (Sep 27, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Warrior102 said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...


Boy, you get testy when shown to be wrong.

Most of marginal character do, though.


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 27, 2011)

Photonic said:


> This is a country that has repeatedly stated it wants to kill all Americans and force them under Sharia Law.


Please provide a link showing that Pres. Ahmedinejad or anyone in their government has stated "it wants to kill all Americans and force them under Sharia Law"

Thank You


----------



## Photonic (Sep 28, 2011)

Sunni Man said:


> Photonic said:
> 
> 
> > This is a country that has repeatedly stated it wants to kill all Americans and force them under Sharia Law.
> ...



Iran&#39;s Ahmadinejad issues new threats against Israel, U.S.

Go ahead and explain that away. Also the various solid evidence linking him to arming terrorist factions that target and kill American troops. Not to mention his consistent comments about destroying Israel and the US. His denial of the holocaust and various other lies and propaganda he has perpetuated through his presidency.


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 28, 2011)

Photonic said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Photonic said:
> ...


This article that you linked to is 5 years old.

Ahmadinejad in the article just says he will retaliate if Iran is attacked. And is talking about the defense of his country if attacked.

Even the article you linked to says that Iran allegedly supports terrorist activity. And says nothing about "solid evidence" of Iran supporting terrorists.

The writer of the article seems most concerned that Ahmadinejad denies the so called Holocaust myth. Which is nothing but a guilt trip perpetuated by the Zionist Jews to extort money from gullible Western nations.   

 Also, the articles says ZERO about wanting to force Americans to accept sharia law.

 Question: do you just dream this nonsense up when you sleep or does it just come naturally?


----------



## Xchel (Sep 28, 2011)

exactly what is he going to do though if we take his action as an attack against the US and sink his ships? After all the fool doesn't have even a single destroyer in his fleet.


----------



## Conservative (Sep 28, 2011)

Sallow said:


> You doing another jig over my unemployment, are ya?
> 
> That your way of supporting America? Dancing happily around in your undies with your boyfriend because someone with a solid work record is unemployed?
> 
> ...



you seem to be fixated on gay sex. Something you want to tell the rest of the class?


----------



## Douger (Sep 28, 2011)

Liberty said:


> Iran says could deploy navy near U.S. coast: report - The West Australian
> 
> heh. Bring it, bitches.


Dubya said that almost a decade ago. How'd that work out ?


----------



## Sallow (Sep 28, 2011)

Conservative said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > You doing another jig over my unemployment, are ya?
> ...



Yeah.

I don't get why so many conservative guys are fruits.

Fill me in. Why do you guys like to do the "wide stance" in bathrooms to pick up other guys?


----------



## G.T. (Sep 28, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Fill me in


----------



## Si modo (Sep 28, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...


Who knew you were also a homophobe?


----------



## Sallow (Sep 28, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Warrior102 said:
> ...



Interesting. Your nose keeps winding up in other people's business.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVLJVydy8b8]Samantha Goes Swimming - Without a pool! - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Warrior102 (Sep 28, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative said:
> ...



Naming one's self "Swallow" should be a giveaway


----------



## Si modo (Sep 28, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...


Oh?  Since when is a story about Iran warships off our coast not my business?


----------



## Douger (Sep 28, 2011)

OK. Scenario.
China or Russia hooked up the Iranians with some carrier sinkers and a few nukes.
Amastinkinbad gives the order to nuke capital hill and Jew Yawk shitty and take out as many carriers as possible in Norfolk.
What happens next ?


----------



## Sallow (Sep 28, 2011)

Warrior102 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Keep asking.

And I keep telling you no.

And why did you name yourself WarriorTakesItUpTheAss102?


----------



## Warrior102 (Sep 28, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Warrior102 said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Hey asswipe - what's time's your job interview? Make sure you come across as fucking dumb as you do on this forum. You'll be back in the unemployment line where lazy, dumbfucks like you belong. Also, make sure you're sober. Have fun and let us know how it goes, like anyone really gives a fuck. 

Have a nice day asswipe! 

LOL!!!!


----------



## G.T. (Sep 28, 2011)

Douger said:


> OK. Scenario.
> China or Russia hooked up the Iranians with some carrier sinkers and a few nukes.
> Amastinkinbad gives the order to nuke capital hill and Jew Yawk shitty and take out as many carriers as possible in Norfolk.
> What happens next ?



pussies like you leave the country because they have no back bone


----------



## Douger (Sep 28, 2011)

G.T. said:


> Douger said:
> 
> 
> > OK. Scenario.
> ...


I have an avatar for you.


----------



## G.T. (Sep 28, 2011)

Douger said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Douger said:
> ...



i have one for you


(0)


----------



## Si modo (Sep 28, 2011)

G.T. said:


> Douger said:
> 
> 
> > OK. Scenario.
> ...


True.  It's hard to imagine any action being more indicative of complete pussification than his.


----------



## Sallow (Sep 28, 2011)

Warrior102 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Warrior102 said:
> ...





Don't ever change...


----------



## Conservative (Sep 28, 2011)

We should rename this the 'Sallow comes out of the closet' thread.


----------



## freedombecki (Sep 28, 2011)

Xchel said:


> exactly what is he going to do though if we take his action as an attack against the US and sink his ships? After all the fool doesn't have even a single destroyer in his fleet.


My guess is Iran is ripe for someone to scare the drip off that snotty little third world A.Mad.Din.of.Jihad's nose, the the U.S. Navy can do it like nobody else I know.

*GO US NAVY!*

Yeah.​


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 28, 2011)

AmericanFirst said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Photonic said:
> ...



No I'm on your side, I think it's worth flushing the lives of american soldiers down the toilet to make sure ships that are of no threat to us move a couple hundred miles.



That's the america-loving, pro-soldier stance..............................


----------



## freedombecki (Sep 28, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Don't ever change...



That's more like it after a good night's sleep, Mr. Sallow.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 28, 2011)

RadiomanATL said:


> jgarden said:
> 
> 
> > *heh. Bring it, bitches.
> ...



Well you're half right, they have tugboats about 8,000 miles away, aka zero threat whatsoever.

And what we were supposed to learn from Iraq, is that you don't warmonger with countries that aren't a threat, we saw what that got us.

Defense should be used for.......well...............defense.


----------



## freedombecki (Sep 28, 2011)

Liberty said:


> Iran says could deploy navy near U.S. coast: report - The West Australian
> 
> heh. Bring it, bitches.


We may have something their beneath-the-surface rocket launchers ain't counting on.







*
That's not all we got, either. Just think of our United States Navy as the Three Dogs of Night. bin Laden failed to do that. The Seals didn't.
Use that for your Wallpaper, me hearties.* ​


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 28, 2011)

Photonic said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Photonic said:
> ...



I remember hearing these lies before the War in Iraq about how minimal the loss of the life would be, how easy it'd be, etc.  

Iran's military is nothing compared to ours, but their military is superior to what Iraq's was, so yes more americans dead if we fight the same kind of wars we have in Iraq and Afghanistan and it's fair to assume we would.


----------



## G.T. (Sep 28, 2011)

Let's all be real though, Iran will do no such thing.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 28, 2011)

Harry Dresden said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



The Iranian warships aren't in US waters now, so they're not in this country.

My point is we had a country that was considered hostile, far more hostile than present day Iran, that were everywhere right to our north, right across the border.  

So you can still approve of hypothetical warmongering with Iran, but not for the reason that we had an issue with a similar situation happening during revolutionary times.


----------



## freedombecki (Sep 28, 2011)

G.T. said:


> Let's all be real though, Iran will do no such thing.


You got that right. Our Navy will discourage them to turning back before they get outta the blissful Mediterranean Sea.


----------



## freedombecki (Sep 28, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...


Dr. Drock.

This nation was blindsided by militant Muslim terrorists on 9/11/01, and I don't care how you crack it, spin it, hypothesize it, try to erase it, ignore it, or forget it, begosh and begorra, it happened, and we lost some of the finest men and women in blue any police force or fire fighting force ever had. Their families were reduced to shards because

_*We could not wrap our minds around anything so ridiculous as people using airliners as military weapons.

*_We're now smarter than that. Why let the doofusses think they can pull this off a second time? A lot of cat fights end when the big cat shows his claws. I'm here to claw the eyes out of any tinhorn wannabe cowboy out there in the theoretical world of Allah-hates-my-enemies-paradigm of today's Khomeini-domineered Iran, which once was a prosperous democracy but now locks into mass and serial murder deals with powers competitive to the US.

I reserve the right to show our claws and avert this dilly-dalliance of A.Mad.Dinning.Jihad morons wherever they be. ​


----------



## freedombecki (Sep 28, 2011)

Oh, yeah. And I forgot to say this. Ahmadinejad's first encounter on the world's stage was to be pictured holding an AK-47 to a frightened group of American civilians taken hostage by their collaborating terroristic hijacker back when Jimmy Carter was the President. What would stop these assholes from bringing a little anthrax pack with 'em?

Those people see a weak president, and they go for the neck. They forget just one thing. The American people can turn it right around on them just as soon as the next election rolls around.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 28, 2011)

freedombecki said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



Our reaction to 9/11 was worse than 9/11.  More americans were killed by our reaction, more money lost, 100,000 Iraqis dead, and now our military is stretched all over the ME.

Sentencing thousands more americans and probably hundreds of thousands of Iranians to death because a few tugboats are in a different section of international waters would be disgustingly immoral and downright stupid.


----------



## Full-Auto (Sep 28, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



????  you really expect they will send tug boats?


----------



## Si modo (Sep 28, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...


Really?

Who knew the US specifically targeted non-combatants?

I better let the DoD know.


----------



## Intense (Sep 28, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > freedombecki said:
> ...



Hey, accidents happen.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 28, 2011)

Full-Auto said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > freedombecki said:
> ...



Compared to our navy, calling their naval ships tug boats is probably too flattering.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 28, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > freedombecki said:
> ...



I never said a word about targeting non-combatants, but common sense will tell you bombing the hell out of cities and just war in general will result in the deaths of many non-combatants.


----------



## Si modo (Sep 28, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...


Still, I better let the DoD know that they are just like the 19 - they specifically target non-combatants.

I bet they don't know that and they should know.

Of course, I'll not use my own name when I let them know.  It's not a good idea if the DoD thinks I'm a nutbar.


----------



## Intense (Sep 28, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



You mean like Bosnia and Serbia?


----------



## Intense (Sep 28, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Yes Dear, They, nor the NSA, can never find you.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 28, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



I never said our DoD was just like the terrorists, please stop using straw men arguments.

I'm saying our politicians are scum, and they make immoral decisions.


----------



## Si modo (Sep 28, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...


Hey, I'm not using strawmen.

You said our reaction was worse than what the 19 did.  I don't think what we did was worse than targeting non-combatants.  I never will.

I can't equivocate at that level.


----------



## Si modo (Sep 28, 2011)

Intense said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...


  It was just said for effect, nothing serious.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 28, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



They didn't intentionally do things worse.  A drunk driver running a stop sign and hitting someone kiling them is bad, if I unintentinally run a stop sign and it kills a van full of ppl, that's worse.  Here's how I look at it. 

More americans dead is worse than less americans dead

The U.S. being responsible for 100,000 dead Iraqis is worse than the U.S. being responsible for zero dead Iraqis.

The U.S. being trillions more in debt is worse than being trillions less in debt.


----------



## Intense (Sep 28, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



Yet you don't account for what Iraq was costing us everyday before the Invasion, nor the potential for disruption, had we not acted. True much could have been handled differently Pre and Post Invasion,yet time does not stand still. Neither would have Saddam.


----------



## Si modo (Sep 28, 2011)

Intense said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...


Exactly.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 28, 2011)

Intense said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



What were they costing us that wasn't a result of our own choice to meddle?

Expand on that, "potential for disruption" please.

Saddam did stand still in terms of negative interaction with the U.S., he never did anything against us.  Yes he was scum, but not scum we needed to worry about.  Whether it was Clinton's embargo that resulted in the starvation of hundreds of thousands, or the War in Iraq that resulted in the death of another hundred throusand innocent Iraqi civilians.


----------



## Intense (Sep 28, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...






> What were they costing us that wasn't a result of our own choice to meddle?



By who's definition of meddling, Iraq's? North Korea's? China's, Russia's, or our own? 
World Affair's is part of Life on Earth, no? Otherwise, why are you trying to tell me how to live? 



> Expand on that, "potential for disruption" please.



The "Peace Loving Iraq" you try to Portray was a figment of your imagination. Saddam was a Predator. Saddam was a destabilizing influence around the World. Many times more reckless than Gaddafi, for one.



> Saddam did stand still in terms of negative interaction with the U.S., he never did anything against us.  Yes he was scum, but not scum we needed to worry about.  Whether it was Clinton's embargo that resulted in the starvation of hundreds of thousands, or the War in Iraq that resulted in the death of another hundred throusand innocent Iraqi civilians.



The Embargo sure did not stop Saddam from exporting Oil through Syria, huh. Too bad he did not pass that value on to his starving People, huh... Why was that? Funny you put me into a position to defend Clinton...  I owe you for that. 

I thought We were defending Society and the Rule of Law after the Successful Invasion. I thought it was Insurgent's targeting Civilians? 

What is your Source? Al Jezeera? Puffn'Stuff, Michael Moore? MSNBC? CNN?


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 28, 2011)

Intense said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...



1.) meddling being us choosing (not being forced to) to overstep our bounds and mess around in gov'ts that aren't ours, and that aren't a threat to us.
2.) Saddam was a murderous dictator and human scum, I can't be held responsible for what the voices in your head are pretending I'm saying.  We've ignored most murderous dictators, including the current ones, sometimes we buddy up with brutal dictators and brutal regimes (China, Saudi Arabia, etc).
3.) What Saddam does to his own people isn't the concern of the U.S. gov't and isn't the responsibility of the U.S. taxpayer.  Our isolationist economic policies hurt our businesses.
4.) Defending Iraqi society isn't the job of the U.S. gov't, or the U.S. taxpayer.  I repeat, and I'll probably have to repeat it a half dozen times, we weren't targeting civilians but common sense tells you civilians will die in a war.  
5.) You can go by whatever source you choose, however many Iraqi civilians died in the war were too many.  Whether it's 200k, 100k, 50k, or 1.


----------



## Intense (Sep 28, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



These are State Department Matters. In truth, concerning Foreign Domestic Issues, I might even agree with you more than you think. However, for example, the hatred and misinformation about the West, taught in Mosques in both proclaimed friendly and unfriendly Nations does effect us. Genocide does also concern us. Nation States do project Their Interests, we are no different. 

What I personally liked to see in Iraq and Afghanistan was a Declaration of Human Rights, in both Their Constitutions. Problem was that that was not Sharia Compliant. Imagine that.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 28, 2011)

Intense said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...



Genocide concerns us in certain instances, certainly not in all of them.  We pick and choose when it does, often times "coincidentally" we get involved with countries doing bad things to their civilians when these countries have oil (Libya, Iraq).

We can't control the verbage said by leaders in mosques.

Yeah the apartheid gov't in Iraq has dealt a crippling blow to christians in Iraq, they were far safer in a Saddam-run Iraq.  They're fleeing to places like Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia, hardcore governments based on Islam either run by a brutal dictator or brutal theocracies.


----------



## Intense (Sep 28, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



Yep. They are Aggressive and Predatory too.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 28, 2011)

Intense said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...



I'm sorry I worded that wrong, they ARE fleeing to those places, that gives you an idea of how bad it is in Iraq for them.


----------



## Intense (Sep 28, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



Yep. It is a Battleground, anywhere Islam dominates, it shows little regard for those of different beliefs.


----------



## High_Gravity (Sep 28, 2011)

Intense said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...



Never going to happen, the very best we can hope are for are stable governments in those countries who don't support terrorism.


----------



## Intense (Sep 28, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



Agreed, as things stand now.


----------



## High_Gravity (Sep 28, 2011)

If the Iranians come they better come baring gifts of Kababs, saffron rice, khubbuz and hummus, otherwise they can fuck off.


----------



## Intense (Sep 28, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> If the Iranians come they better come baring gifts of Kababs, saffron rice, khubbuz and hummus, otherwise they can fuck off.



As long as they play by the rules, there really is no problem. I bet the Coastguard will even give them a tow when and if they need one.


----------



## Sunshine (Sep 28, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > Soggy in NOLA said:
> ...



Can  you blame them?


----------



## High_Gravity (Sep 28, 2011)

Sunshine said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...



Not at all.


----------



## Ropey (Sep 28, 2011)

Intense said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...



So far I don't see any examples otherwise. The ideology of Islam is all encompassing. 

Submit to Allah and win the battle to get all to submit to you.

Libya is not about a country.Yemen is not. Iraq is not.  It is about tribes fighting to dominate each other. Kadaffi 's tribe has just  lost out and they are going to be be  slaughtered like they were previously slaughtering the other tribes.

Democracy?  We shall see...


----------



## ekrem (Oct 1, 2011)

Douger said:


> OK. Scenario.
> China or Russia hooked up the Iranians with some carrier sinkers and a few nukes.
> Amastinkinbad gives the order to nuke capital hill and Jew Yawk shitty and take out as many carriers as possible in Norfolk.
> What happens next ?



These are only "propaganda scenarios". There's much propaganda floating around when it comes to Iran.
But, in mid-term you'll have to live with an Iran, which also shows presence on the seas although a presence in Pacific or Atlantic is not within Iran's economical capabilities and will never be.


----------

