Johpa Posted August 27, 2016 Share Posted August 27, 2016 13 hours ago, Pakboong said: I just can't help but think that the word Arabian, in the North Arabian Gulf actually hold some territorial meaning. Given that Iranians do not see themselves as Arabs, and often look down upon "Arabs", clearly the names have more meaning to some than to others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tifino Posted August 27, 2016 Share Posted August 27, 2016 the Iranian are trying to display they are smart enough to realise the US weapons' range exceeds that of the expanse of the Iranians Exclusion Zone of Territorial Waters Oh what the heck - just fire a few dead Sows over their bows Big boar weapons must be plentiful in board Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
55Jay Posted August 27, 2016 Share Posted August 27, 2016 15 minutes ago, Johpa said: Given that Iranians do not see themselves as Arabs, and often look down upon "Arabs", clearly the names have more meaning to some than to others. They don't see themselves as Arabs, because they aren't. "They" do consider themselves culturally superior to Arabs. You can see it on blogs and chat rooms where they trade insults. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawker9000 Posted August 27, 2016 Share Posted August 27, 2016 20 hours ago, johna said: I could understand America firing warning shots at gun boats in the Gulf of Mexico, but its the Persian Gulf, not the American Gulf. America, with constant saber rattling towards Iran is a provoking a confrontation. Get a grip. This is happening in INTERNATIONAL WATERS! Look it up. Iran has no right harassing anybody there! And U.S. naval vessels have as much right to transit those waters as anyone else. But I can understand the usual America-hating preference for the thug states, and disdain for freedom of navigation. Can you just imagine the shrill outcry from the same America-hating know-nothings if American naval vessels ever tried crap like this in the Gulf of Mexico, as you so ignorantly suggest they might? One set of rules for the U.S. A whole different set of rules for everybody else. Riiiiiiight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surangw Posted August 27, 2016 Share Posted August 27, 2016 sounds like someone needs to pay attention to their charts and gps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metisdead Posted August 29, 2016 Share Posted August 29, 2016 Off topic posts and replies have been removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naam Posted August 29, 2016 Share Posted August 29, 2016 On 8/28/2016 at 2:22 AM, hawker9000 said: Get a grip. This is happening in INTERNATIONAL WATERS! Look it up. Iran has no right harassing anybody there! And U.S. naval vessels have as much right to transit those waters as anyone else. correct! but what about october 1962 when soviet ships in international waters were trying to reach an independent state? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted August 29, 2016 Share Posted August 29, 2016 11 minutes ago, Naam said: correct! but what about october 1962 when soviet ships in international waters were trying to reach an independent state? They were carrying nukes. Screw them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawker9000 Posted August 29, 2016 Share Posted August 29, 2016 1 hour ago, Naam said: correct! but what about october 1962 when soviet ships in international waters were trying to reach an independent state? LOL. So you're under the impression that these U.S. destroyers were carrying ICBMs for installation somewhere in the Persian Gulf or N. Arabian Sea? Wow. The absolute garbage America-haters/Iranian thug-lovers conjure up. If it's something Russia or China or N. Korea or Iran or <fill in your favorite international lawbreaker here>, reach back 10 or 15 years and you get accused of digging up ancient history. But if it's the U.S. they're trying to indict, stretching back more than half a century ... Noooo problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigt3365 Posted August 29, 2016 Share Posted August 29, 2016 Sorry...we better stick to the topic. US, warships, Iran... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redline Posted August 29, 2016 Share Posted August 29, 2016 On 8/26/2016 at 4:41 PM, GeorgesAbitbol said: Please can you remind us how many countries Iran invaded ? It depends what century you are speaking about. In recent times, they have not been allowed to attack anyone. Nor has China, but things always change.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigt3365 Posted August 30, 2016 Share Posted August 30, 2016 7 hours ago, Redline said: It depends what century you are speaking about. In recent times, they have not been allowed to attack anyone. Nor has China, but things always change.... Iran is up to their neck in state sponsored terrorism. Read up on their involvement inside Lebanon...and now Syria. They are a destabilizing force in the ME. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naam Posted August 30, 2016 Share Posted August 30, 2016 48 minutes ago, craigt3365 said: Iran is up to their neck in state sponsored terrorism. Read up on their involvement inside Lebanon...and now Syria. They are a destabilizing force in the ME. true! if the U.S. and the "coalition of the willing" had not interfered in Iraq the former cradle of civilisation would have been destabilised too instead of being the shining example of democraZy and lasting peace in the Middle East. the Mullahs would have caused havoc without being stopped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigt3365 Posted August 30, 2016 Share Posted August 30, 2016 44 minutes ago, Naam said: true! if the U.S. and the "coalition of the willing" had not interfered in Iraq the former cradle of civilisation would have been destabilised too instead of being the shining example of democraZy and lasting peace in the Middle East. the Mullahs would have caused havoc without being stopped. Too much foreign involvement...for many, many years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naam Posted August 30, 2016 Share Posted August 30, 2016 1 hour ago, craigt3365 said: Too much foreign involvement...for many, many years. starting with Alexander the Great 2300 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fasteddie Posted August 30, 2016 Share Posted August 30, 2016 8 hours ago, craigt3365 said: Iran is up to their neck in state sponsored terrorism. Read up on their involvement inside Lebanon...and now Syria. They are a destabilizing force in the ME. Iran aids Hezbollah (a legitimate political party) in Lebanon in kicking the Israelis out and is in Syria aiding the legitimate government in it's fight against ISIS. The US is the destabilising influence in the ME. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naam Posted August 30, 2016 Share Posted August 30, 2016 20 minutes ago, craigt3365 said: You can't blame all the problems in the ME on the US. i agree! the Brits were the root of all problems in the Middle East. and now they even strive for BRexit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Publicus Posted August 30, 2016 Share Posted August 30, 2016 On 8/29/2016 at 10:42 AM, Naam said: correct! but what about october 1962 when soviet ships in international waters were trying to reach an independent state? In the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis President Kennedy put the US Navy to a naval blockade of Cuba where US discovered Moscow was underway placing offensive missiles. The blockade was of Cuba (on the Atlantic Ocean side of Cuba). During the crisis it happened that Soviet transport ships were carrying more missiles and equipment from Russian ports. The Soviet ships in the mid-Atlantic were turned around in the on the orders of Moscow to the ship captains, rather than to continue ahead to try to enter Cuban waters. The particular Soviet transport ships were always in international waters. USN would have confronted the Soviet cargo ships only if they had tried to enter Cuban waters, not international waters. No shots were fired btw. (War does have a habit of occurring in international waters btw.) The point to this thread is that the US Navy fired lethal weapons in the direction of the Iranian boats, which turned 'em around. USN gunfire did not attempt to hit the Iranian boats. Let no confused people miss the point, i.e., the world wants to know what the USN Rules of Engagement are. Where is the line that causes Potus to sign off on USN pulling the trigger. Tehran needs to know and so does Beijing need to know. And which triggers and in which settings, circumstances, situations and sequences of events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Publicus Posted August 30, 2016 Share Posted August 30, 2016 On 8/26/2016 at 11:24 PM, fasteddie said: " President Obama and former SecState Clinton don't have wild and crazy supporters either." Oh my! I do hope that's sarcasm. Given it is not then you're both busted and sunk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naam Posted August 30, 2016 Share Posted August 30, 2016 10 minutes ago, Publicus said: Good that you finally got that figured out. there are losers, bad losers and sorry losers without any shame Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naam Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 i quite liked it when my redneck mates in the 101st Airborne called me "Kraut" but there were some "Tchermans" which resented it very much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carib Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 Firing warning shots is all about arrogance.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naam Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 On 8/30/2016 at 0:20 AM, Redline said: It depends what century you are speaking about. In recent times, they have not been allowed to attack anyone. Nor has China, but things always change.... today dear children, we get a lecture from a worldwide renowned historian, the Right Honourable R. Edline, Esq. explaining in details during which time periods Iran and China were allowed and not allowed to invade other countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naam Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 7 hours ago, craigt3365 said: One of the failings of democracy. But that's another topic!!! no it's not another topic Craig, be fair please. Iraq is in my [not so] humble view the most sensitive integral part of the Middle East. Sunni/Shia problem center and south, each of the two parties supported by opposing powers. the Kurds in the north and their ethnic brothers across the border in Turkey (huge problems for the Turkish state and the PKK) and last not least the cradle out of which the "Islamic State" monster crawled causing problems by followers and sympathetic supporters in half a dozen other states and involving opposing "western" powers in Syria. killing the monster created other monsters and monstrous situations of yet unknown dimensions. the al-Qaeda boys were and are choir boys in comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rijb Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 1 hour ago, Carib said: Firing warning shots is all about arrogance.. Trying to make a point by reusing a tired urban legend video (that happens to be a variation on a joke that dates back to the 1930’s) is all about ignorance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Publicus Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 Here's an illustration of the geostrategic setting and a brief account.... William Urban, a spokesman for the 5th Fleet, said four vessels from Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) conducted a "high-speed intercept" in the first incident Tuesday, passing close to the USS Nitze, an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, as it transited international waters. The Nitze was accompanied by the USS Mason, a guided-missile destroyer, as it made what Urban described as a "routine transit" through an area that is an important international maritime thoroughfare. "The Iranian high rate of closure on a United States ship operating in accordance with international law while transiting in international waters along with the disregard of multiple warning attempts created a dangerous, harassing situation that could have led to further escalation including additional defensive measures by Nitze," Urban said in a statement. http://www.adn.com/nation-world/2016/08/25/u-s-navy-calls-high-speed-approach-by-iranian-ships-dangerous-harassment/ The ayatollahs like small speedboats while the CCP Dynasty of Dictators in Beijing prefer slow militia fishing boats. Either way or regardless, the international sea lanes will remain open to commerce and for reasons of national and long term global security. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonbridgebrit Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 On 26/08/2016 at 1:53 AM, Alive said: Just like white cops going through a black neighborhood. The white cops support the beheading regime of Saudi Arabia which so many members heartfully love here. The US should pack up and return to the other side of the world, their home. Actually, I don't think it's the white cops supporting the Saudi regime. Saudi regime is actually a puppet of the white cops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carib Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 1 hour ago, rijb said: Trying to make a point by reusing a tired urban legend video (that happens to be a variation on a joke that dates back to the 1930’s) is all about ignorance. Don't worry, the arrogance is still very much alive even if "the joke" is that old already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonbridgebrit Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 Washington, decide whether you want to attack Iran OR China first. You want to pick a war with China even though Walmart is importing a mountain of Chinese goods ? And why do you want to start a fight with Iran ? Washington, what's your problem with Iran ? Oh, I think I know. Back in the early 1950s, you carried out a coup in Iran. The coup actually removed a democratically elected Iranian government, the CIA practically admits to doing it. It was done to control Iran's oil, and the puppet Shah was made Iran's ruler. The puppet Shah was then ousted by a popular uprising, and the Ayatollah took over his country. This was round about 1980. Oh, and the Ayatollah had something against you, Washington. Well, that's not surprising, he weren't too pleased that your puppet controlled his country for almost three decades. And ever since the CIA coup that was done back in the 1950s, well, Iran has not trusted Washington. Hardly surprising is it ?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonbridgebrit Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 On 30/08/2016 at 0:41 PM, craigt3365 said: Hezbollah may be a legitimate political party, but they are a terrorist organization with a paramilitary wing. You can't blame all the problems in the ME on the US. Though some would like to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah How about we accept that the US military presence in the Middle East, it's actually part of the problem, and not the solution to the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
.thumb.png.76be522b3b43e7458166b9dac9e422ed.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now