Navies Massing in Persian Gulf
Thread Rating:
September 15th, 2012 at 7:49:44 PM
permalink
Forces from 25 countries are massing in the Persian Gulf.
Just consider what we have there. 3 Nimitz class
carrier groups. Three! Just one has more fire power
than most countries have altogether, including Iran.
The carriers "are supported by at least 12 battleships,
including ballistic missile cruisers, frigates, destroyers
and assault ships carrying thousands of US Marines
and special forces." And this doesn't include what
everybody else is sending.
And 25 nations are represented? This is frighening
stuff, the biggest military force ever seen in the Gulf.
Just consider what we have there. 3 Nimitz class
carrier groups. Three! Just one has more fire power
than most countries have altogether, including Iran.
The carriers "are supported by at least 12 battleships,
including ballistic missile cruisers, frigates, destroyers
and assault ships carrying thousands of US Marines
and special forces." And this doesn't include what
everybody else is sending.
And 25 nations are represented? This is frighening
stuff, the biggest military force ever seen in the Gulf.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
September 15th, 2012 at 8:15:47 PM
permalink
Obama's October surprise?
Maybe Mitt could counter with some golden plates given to him by an angel....
Maybe Mitt could counter with some golden plates given to him by an angel....
In a bet, there is a fool and a thief.
- Proverb.
September 15th, 2012 at 8:32:01 PM
permalink
Quote: WongBoObama's October surprise?
.
Its not Oct and the suprise is on Obama.
Why do you think he's been avoiding
Netanyahu. I think he finally met with
him today. You think Obama wants
conflict before the election? No president
does, especially a Dem.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
September 15th, 2012 at 9:05:50 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobYou think Obama wants
conflict before the election? No president
does, especially a Dem.
are you kidding? Of course he does. New and continuing military action is a very strong reason to avoid changing the commander in chief. Just ask that Dem FDR about that one...
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
September 15th, 2012 at 9:17:38 PM
permalink
Quote: rdw4potusare you kidding? Of course he does. New and continuing military action is a very strong reason to avoid changing the commander in chief. Just ask that Dem FDR about that one...
I have to admit, seriously, I was laughing so
hard reading this I almost couldn't finish.
Then I got to the FDR part and woke up the
dog I guffawed so loudly.
Even freaking FDR had to let the Japs bomb
Pearl before he could do anything militarily.
The public does NOT like conflict, it makes
them very nervous. You never know how
its going to play in the voting booth. The
public may say 'I hate this' and vote for
the new guy. This is well known, thats why
modern presidents always try and avoid this
kind of crap in an election season. Bush started
the Iraq war, but it sure wasn't in Sept of 04.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
September 15th, 2012 at 9:29:41 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobBush started
the Iraq war, but it sure wasn't in Sept of 04.
Mmhmm. And he started the war in Afghanistan, too. I'm sure neither of those things had the side-effect of bolstering his case for reelection at all.
Of course, somebody else did just MFing bomb an American embassy this week. So its only sort of our choice when we kick their asses.
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
September 15th, 2012 at 10:40:44 PM
permalink
Quote: rdw4potusMmhmm. And he started the war in Afghanistan, too. I'm sure neither of those things had the side-effect of bolstering his case for reelection at all.
The war was old news, thats the point. And Bush
didn't win that election, Kerry lost it when he came
home from Viet Nam and sold out his men. You
don't elect somebody like that president, the arrogant
jackass. People hated the war in Iraq, but they hated
Kerry more.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
September 15th, 2012 at 10:52:33 PM
permalink
Its the Arabian Gulf.
Arabian Gulf in their world.
Arabian Gulf in the oil world.
Arabian Gulf in their world.
Arabian Gulf in the oil world.
September 15th, 2012 at 11:02:06 PM
permalink
Quote: FleaStiffIts the Arabian Gulf.
Arabian Gulf in their world.
Arabian Gulf in the oil world.
We say potato and they say potatoe.
Persian Gulf from space.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
September 16th, 2012 at 5:05:06 AM
permalink
Quote: FleaStiffIts the Arabian Gulf.
Arabian Gulf in their world.
Arabian Gulf in the oil world.
The CIA maps just call it "The Gulf". Fortunately we don't have any xenophobic reaction to the name "Gulf of Mexico".
Has anyone else been through the Straits of Hormuz? I've been through twice.
It's funny, because there are speedboats crossing the water. The water is very calm, and there is quite a bit of smuggling going on between the nations. Iranian consumers need electronics, and they have to smuggle out carpets. The Iranian navy sends spies out in little speedboats. They come up to you with binoculars and take notes.
September 16th, 2012 at 3:12:26 PM
permalink
Quote: rdw4potusNew and continuing military action is a very strong reason to avoid changing the commander in chief. .
You should tell CNN and MSNBC about you're
theory. I've been watching them off and on
all weekend and have seen almost nothing
about whats happening in the mid east.
Maybe they haven't found out yet..
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
September 16th, 2012 at 3:42:27 PM
permalink
I highly doubt Obama will do ANYTHING before the election, he doesn't even want to have a fucking budget or deal with anything of substance. The convention was all about shoring up the base, military conflict initiated by the US would just undue all of that.
If top secret campaign polls say differently though, I wouldn't put it past him to start a war for the sole purpose of winning an election.
If top secret campaign polls say differently though, I wouldn't put it past him to start a war for the sole purpose of winning an election.
Its - Possessive; It's - "It is" / "It has"; There - Location; Their - Possessive; They're - "They are"
September 16th, 2012 at 3:51:14 PM
permalink
Quote: ahiromuI wouldn't put it past him to start a war for the sole purpose of winning an election.
If that worked, all incumbants would do it,
and none of them do. We are not a war loving
country, we want presidents to stop conflicts,
not start them. Johnson would have lost
if he ran in 68 because of Viet Nam. Carter
lost in part because he couldn't end the
hostage situation. Reagan almost lost because
he was perceived as a war starter. We don't
like conflict, we hate it.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
September 16th, 2012 at 4:17:07 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobIf that worked, all incumbants would do it,
and none of them do. We are not a war loving
country, we want presidents to stop conflicts,
not start them. Johnson would have lost
if he ran in 68 because of Viet Nam. Carter
lost in part because he couldn't end the
hostage situation. Reagan almost lost because
he was perceived as a war starter. We don't
like conflict, we hate it.
Reagan almost lost??
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
September 16th, 2012 at 4:36:35 PM
permalink
Quote: AZDuffmanReagan almost lost??
Yeah! that '84 election was a real squeaker. Dude, where were YOU?? :-)
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
September 16th, 2012 at 4:54:01 PM
permalink
Quote: rdw4potusYeah! that '84 election was a real squeaker. Dude, where were YOU?? :-)
I think he means the 1980 election. Although that election didn't end up close, for a while before Anderson started getting a lot of attention, Reagan was perceived as too hawkish.
Reagan 50.7%
Carter 41.0%
Anderson 6.6%
September 16th, 2012 at 5:15:10 PM
permalink
Quote: AZDuffmanReagan almost lost??
I put it badly. Reagan was looked at as a
war monger in 1980, his finger poised on
the nuke button. Carter's camp pounded
on this for months. People were afraid
of Reagan, but more afraid of 4 more
years of Carter.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
September 16th, 2012 at 5:25:21 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobReagan was looked at as a
war monger in 1980, his finger poised on
the nuke button.
The Iranians certainly thought that Reagan was ready to go to war. He won the election, and they released the hostages on the very eve of the inauguration. The new president had the good graces to give Carter the credit for that and let him handle all of the publicity of the hostages returning home.
September 16th, 2012 at 5:28:49 PM
permalink
Quote: WongBoObama's October surprise?
Maybe Mitt could counter with some golden plates given to him by an angel....
I'm sure Mitt's eleven wives would all be witnesses.
"What, me worry?"
September 16th, 2012 at 5:40:29 PM
permalink
Just what I expect after some f'in KNUCKLEHEAD puts up a derogatory movie about Mohammed. Gas prices will go up at least another dime, on top of the dime already..
Feel free to shoot yourself in the foot both feet, too.
Feel free to shoot yourself in the foot both feet, too.
Some people need to reimagine their thinking.
September 16th, 2012 at 5:43:58 PM
permalink
Regan: self-effacing high-stakes poker player. Bluffed the Russians well, and pointed to Afghanistan.
Some people need to reimagine their thinking.
September 16th, 2012 at 5:44:10 PM
permalink
Quote: 98Clubs
Feel free to shoot yourself in the foot both feet, too.
Feel free to shoot yourself in the foot both feet the head, too.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
September 16th, 2012 at 5:46:33 PM
permalink
He'll still need two bullets, he won't feel the first one.
Some people need to reimagine their thinking.
September 16th, 2012 at 6:24:34 PM
permalink
Quote: 98ClubsJust what I expect after some f'in KNUCKLEHEAD puts up a derogatory movie about Mohammed. Gas prices will go up at least another dime, on top of the dime already..
Feel free to shoot yourself in the foot both feet, too.
Don't be fooled by the administration and the media left. Those embassy attacks were not related to any "derogatory movie about Mohammed". They didn't need a new reason to attack us. They already had several. The recent attacks were part of 911 terrorist activities.
September 16th, 2012 at 7:37:21 PM
permalink
Quote: 98ClubsRegan: self-effacing high-stakes poker player. Bluffed the Russians well, and pointed to Afghanistan.
Thing is, like a good poker player his bluffs were semi-bluffs and he was not afraid to be called. PATCO called him, but his QQ was good enough to beat their JJ. A lot of people thought he was nuts. But he had a plan and lets just say that 1981 would have been a good time to be in air traffic control school. You would have jumped up the ladder.
By the time he proposed SDI, the USSR thought he had suited As.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
September 16th, 2012 at 7:53:25 PM
permalink
Quote: KeyserDon't be fooled by the administration and the media left. Those embassy attacks were not related to any "derogatory movie about Mohammed". They didn't need a new reason to attack us. They already had several. The recent attacks were part of 911 terrorist activities.
Some intelligence is reporting that the attacks were orchestrated months ago. They have somebody on media patrol to look for some stupid item to use for blame.
Poor Catholics. The attacks on Catholicism are much worse than this amateurish video. I wonder if they are going to rise up like in the middle ages. Offensive Anti-Catholic images in spoilers. But you can find dozens of these images.
[spoiler][/spoiler]
September 17th, 2012 at 5:04:51 AM
permalink
What? No "piss christ"....?
That's the one that really gets 'em
That's the one that really gets 'em
In a bet, there is a fool and a thief.
- Proverb.
