It can get VERY hot, VERY quickly. Ah...the games nations play.

Yup. Lets hope it doesn't, not that those hopes are very high. Iran has a very "ready to take on the world blindly" kind of attitude.

Except, MOSinEUR, that Iran is not the USSR, and can never be so. If this "Cold War" should ever turn hot, it will be one of the shortest heat waves in military history.

l242 - Iran knows very well what it can and cannot get away with. It intends to be just as big a pain in the ass as it can manage without provoking a shooting response.

Remember that old joke: Why does the new Italian Navy have glass bottom boats? So they can look at the old Italian Navy."

Maybe it is time to dust off that old (WWII-vintage?) joke.

Iran does love to be the pain in the ass country of the planet for sure.

This has nothing to do with Iran's navy. Iran is 'maybe' three times as well armed as Iraq was under Saddam.

This has all to do with Russia and China, which have guaranteed Iranian sovereignty.

Should they start World War 3? I don't know. Is any disagreement worth the end of the world?

All I do know for sure is the United States alone has 8,500 nuclear weapons...which is easily enough by itself to kill every human being on the planet. We aren't afraid to use them either, since we are the only country to have used them so far.

So if it's World War 3, don't forget to bend over and kiss your a$$ goodbye.

If we were somehow able to identify people who actually want world war 3, round them up, and send them up to the moon to live in Newt Gingrich's moonbase, it may be a great thing for the survival of the human race.

Jungleboogie

Go ahead and start by rounding up all the Muslims who want Jihad.

That should keep you busy for a couple of lifetimes.

lawdog, you are concerned about Muslims, so you go ahead.

personally, I couldn't give a rat's a$$ about Muslims, but you obviously care about them greatly, so be my guest.

We have less than 1500 nuclear weapons.. aren't you paying attention to these disbarment treaties?

I am wondering if the administration is pushing for war so that it sways the American public away from changing Presidents in the middle of a war.

Hmmm... Iranian patrol boats that get a little too frisky, might find out about the Phalanx system. At about 6,000 round per minute, this is a lot of lead in the air, to defeat missiles, planes, boats, etc.

Google Phalanx and take a look.

Phalanx system usually two per vessel but only one target radar...

Multible targets, very high speed, and high angles of attack, will defeat this system...

Or one old & slow bloat filled with explosives. IE - USS Cole...

Iran has the DF-21D supplied by China...

I stand corrected Dante - your number is correct. I had 8500 on my mind because I read that silly Onion article the other day.

@A Messenger

I heard about that Cheney plan. Hard to believe Dick Cheney would want to attack his own country to try to start a war. But I guess it's on the record.

Stop being a Dumb American. Research PNAC.

AC Robertson

Phalanx system usually two per vessel but only one target radar...

Multible targets, very high speed, and high angles of attack, will defeat this system...

Or one old & slow bloat filled with explosives. IE - USS Cole...

Iran has the DF-21D supplied by China..

Perhaps you should google the phalanx? EACH system has a built in tracking system for its own target. As to how many installed per sihp.... bigger ships have more, smaller ones have less. FFG one, Abe at least 4. If more than two inbound boats were sent it would be rather obvious and not tolerated, even in such close quarters as the strait, especially since the Cole.

As to China providing their carrier killers... I highly doubt they would allow something with their fingerprints so clearly visible to be used at this stage of things. China is NOT stupid and knows that would draw world condemnation and potentially lead to economic war if not a real shooting match.

US aircraft carrier has close encounter with Iranian patrol boat

More like: "Sailors on Iranian patrol boat have close encounter with the hereafter" !!

I am wondering if the administration is pushing for war so that it sways the American public away from changing Presidents in the middle of a war.

John - At this moment the GOP's most likely candidate is in Michigan, his "other" home state, trying to explain to people who depend on the auto industry why they should vote for somebody who wanted to let the auto industry go bust. He would be better off going to a Mexican Christmas party dressed as a Pinatta.

Behind Romney is Newt Gingrich, the critic of the mortgage industry who was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars per year by Freddie Mac, for his services as an "historian", not as a lobbyist (sort of the way some massage therapists are not prostitutes.).

Rick Santorum is the "Romney alternative of the month".

Ron Paul's ideas are too radical for most Americans and not even he thinks he can win.

Come November, unless the economy tanks, Obama wins a walk. He doesn't need a war; in fact another war can only hurt him.

This has nothing to do with Iran's navy. Iran is 'maybe' three times as well armed as Iraq was under Saddam.

This has all to do with Russia and China, which have guaranteed Iranian sovereignty.

Should they start World War 3? I don't know. Is any disagreement worth the end of the world?

jungle boogie - What planet are you living on?

First off, Iran's army and its armaments are of no consequence unless we put our troops on the ground, in Iran. Second, the issue here is access to the Gulf Hormuz, not Iranian sovereignty, something the industrialized world, including China and Russia need and want. If there is a conflict, it will involve Iranian ships getting too close to a U.S. ship, and then being transformed into a flaming oil slick. Third, neither China nor Russia are going to go to war to support Iran in the Gulf of Hormuz.

The world is not going to end because of this stand off;at worst it has the potential to send world oil markets into a frenzy of speculation. But it won't last because neither will Iranian Navy. It will be removed from the equation faster than you can say "America is the great satan!"

The scenario you hint at is just fear-mongering.

Iran knows very well what it can and cannot get away with. It intends to be just as big a pain in the ass as it can manage without provoking a shooting response.

Of course not. One swipe at the Fifth Fleet and Iran is toast. But they'll start it anyway because the Iranians are insane.

Hotticket - This song by Sting was written a generation ago, when the Soviets were still perceived here in the west as a immanent and irrational threat to our continued existence. Its words could apply too to the Iranians and the insensate ferocity some ascribe to them:

"Russians"

In Europe and America, there's a growing feeling of hysteria
Conditioned to respond to all the threats
In the rhetorical speeches of the Soviets
Mr. Krushchev said we will bury you
I don't subscribe to this point of view
It would be such an ignorant thing to do
If the Russians love their children too

How can I save my little boy from Oppenheimer's deadly toy
There is no monopoly in common sense
On either side of the political fence
We share the same biology
Regardless of ideology
Believe me when I say to you
I hope the Russians love their children too

There is no historical precedent
To put the words in the mouth of the President
There's no such thing as a winnable war
It's a lie we don't believe anymore
Mr. Reagan says we will protect you
I don't subscribe to this point of view
Believe me when I say to you
I hope the Russians love their children too

We share the same biology
Regardless of ideology
What might save us, me, and you
Is if the Russians love their children too

As history has proven, the Russians did, indeed, love their children. So too, I suspect, do the Iranians.

";at worst it has the potential to send world oil markets into a frenzy of speculation." It has started already and will get worse if this escalates. I agree with you dman-353357. And high energy prices will kill the US economy. If the US Navy ends up taking out the Iranian Navy,while there at it, please take out the speculators too! I'll thank you in advance.

...a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable. The contingency we have not considered looks strange; what looks strange is therefore improbable; what seems improbable need not be considered seriously.
—Thomas C. Schelling A preamble written for a book about the unimagined attack on Pearl Harbor by Roberta Wohlstetter. Mr. Schelling is a Nobel Prize winner and has written extensively on strategic and conflict behavior.

The Iranians have updated much of their conventional warfare armament. They actually have two navies! The traditional navy, the Islamic Republic of Iran Navy ( IRIN ) comprised of much older ships and frigates patrolling its borders and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp Navy ( IRGCN ). The latter was initiated by Iran's former leader Ayatollah Kohmeini after the Iranian Revolution because he didn't trust the IRIN naval commanders. The jokers we see with the speed boats are IRGCN and those lads will sink shipping. They are the wild card in all of this. A study by American Naval strategists was run using just the threat of an attack by the IRGNC and the outcome wasn't good for U.S. Naval forces. The IRGNC "Tests" our naval commanders in the region every time they approach our ships with their speed boats. I am wondering just how close we will allow them to approach without firing warning shots?

Threads like this are always funny and tragic when viewed threw the eyes of history. Every conflict starts with the 2 or more combatants wildly overestimating their own strength, while foolishly underestimating the enemy's intelligence, capability, adaptability, and resolve.

We are about the worst at making this mistake, every single time. Every conflict in this country, all the way back to the Revolution started with these misconceptions. Sure, eventually, we figure out that the enemy is not stupid, will not run away, is just as ready to die for their country (sometimes more ready) as we are, and have strategies that play to their strengths, and against our weaknesses. We usually come around. But the last half century has not been a good one for the U.S., militarily speaking.

Afghanistan is going to fail, because you can't win a war in a country where the good guys are as bad as the bad guys without a genocide. That won't happen, so we'll slink away, as we have to, and call it a draw, like we have in the past. Why we though we could be more successful then the brutal Soviets, when they threw in everything but the Vodka factory, and were right next door to boot, I'll never know.

In Iraq, after 10 years, we traded a dictator for a civil war, and again, since the only way for a third party to, "win," a civil war is to kill everyone on each side, we just had to leave the problem we started to them.

Let's don't even go into the debacle in Somalia.

H.W. Bush wasn't the idiot the neocons are, who think, "American exceptionalism," (neocon code for fight a war somewhere all the time to show how great democracy is). He knew, and said, if we let mission creep take us into Iraq, we would be there forever. Score one for a small scale encounter, and Collen Powell's doctrine of overwhelming force and a clear objective. 1991 was the end of a short series of bright spots, but against small or outdated forces, using an actual plan.

Skip the little incursions between Desert Storm and Vietnam, because they were very limited. Also, note, I'm not talking about NATO operations, where our involvement was not unilateral. It seems that, usually, when we go in with foreign troops, caution is higher, and we do better.

Vietnam. The reason for the Powell Doctrine, which we arrogantly tossed aside with Bush. We underestimate the enemy at every turn, never had a coherent plan, no exit strategy, and in fact, no actual goal. If Kennedy had not been killed, he might have pulled us out of their before our involvement went past, "military advisers." Again, you can't win a civil war without wiping out one or both sides, and in Vietnam, the first blunder of it's kind, you couldn't tell the two apart. This is the mistake we've repeated in Iraq and Afghanistan. We should all know how that one ended... While Nixon was being roasted, Congress de-funded Vietnam, and under Ford, we got the hell out as fast as we could. The North quickly overran the country. Complete defeat there.

In Korea, MacArthur had such little regard for the enemy, that he put in the greenest, worst equipped troops he had on hand. They got decimated. When he quit pouting, and finally put real troops in, he had such little regard for China, he thought he could whip them too. Although he told everyone in hearing distance that China wouldn't enter the war, history shows that his command(s) (he actually split the 5th army in 2 and had 2 commanders competing to get to the Chinese boarder first- an incredible mistake) knew that about 1/2 million Chinese where massed on the boarder, and scouts were already in country well before they intervened. Then, after laying off any responsibility for the mistake on everyone else in his chain of command, he dithered, still thinking U.S. air power would win the day. Truman replaced him with someone good, and we managed a truce in that one.

WWII was a little different, but we still underestimated everyone on first contact. The ferocity of the enemy created a very short learning curve for us, and we turned the nation into a true socialist force, with the government either directly or indirectly employing virtually everyone. We produced our enemies to death, in the end, but not before the Soviets had taken half of Europe. All credit to our fighting men in that war, though, because it was a massacre, and they stood and took it until we finally wiped everyone out. We had a goal, and a plan, and it worked.

WWI is hardly worth mentioning. We played such a small part in it, and it's been so inflated in our national ego, that it doesn't really count. The Spanish Flu was the real concern here at home. The other allies, primarily the French and British (Russia gracelessly bowed out, with a note from the Bolsheviks, saying, "our country is excused from further fighting, as we are down with a bad case of coup de tate,") ground Germany down, predictably, by cutting their supplies. We came in at the end, untrained, and in small numbers, to watch the final fall. A victory I guess.

The Civil War was another good one. Both sides thought the other inferior, by 10 to 1 odds, and a one battle thrashing turned into 600,000 dead Americans, so some rich white southerners could keep sipping sweet tea on the porches of their plantations while sub-human actual humans did all the work for them. The republicans are trying to bring that system back to us as quickly as they can.

The Mexican war was no better then the Civil War when it came to giving the enemy their proper respect. Texicans were driven back quite a distance before they realized the Mexican army was a professional force to be reckoned with. The Texican's first real victory came punctuated by killing the Mexicans as they surrendered.

Finally, the Revolution. We knew the odds there, but tactically, lost almost every fight. If England had not had more important problems, like the French on their doorstep, they would have overwhelmed us, in good time, and our founding father's might have been drawn and quartered.

We have a long history of saber rattling, especially by old men with nothing to lose, sending young men with everything to lose. If we could ever start a fight understanding that the enemy is probably our equal, we would save a lot of catching up, after we discover that they actually are.

Hello dman, As history has proven, there has only been one country to nuke innocent men, women, and children and they did it twice. Using your logic, apparently we don't love our children.

Why is it other countries feel like they have to defend their territory? Could it be that they know we have no problem invading their sovereignty just as we have done to countless other countries. Since World War II, 90% of the casualties of war are unarmed civilians. 1/3 of them children. Our victims have done nothing to us. From Palestine to Afghanistan to Iraq to Somalia to wherever our next target may be, their murders are not collateral damage, they are the nature of modern warfare. They don't hate us because of our freedoms. They hate us because every day we are funding and committing crimes against humanity. The so-called "war on terror" is a cover for our military aggression to gain control of the resources of western Asia.

This is sending the poor of this country to kill the poor of those Muslim countries. This is trading blood for oil. This is genocide, and to most of the world, we are the terrorists. In these times, remaining silent on our responsibility to the world and its future is criminal. And in light of our complicity in the supreme crimes against humanity in Iraq and Afghanistan, and ongoing violations of the U.N. Charter in International Law, how dare any American criticize the actions of legitimate resistance to illegal occupation.

Wake up people we are being herded down the Military Industrial Complex gauntlet again to another false war to enrich the greedy Corporations and distract the American people. Did we not learn anything from the Iraq war where we have killed well over 1 million Iraqi people, lost thousands of American lives and God knows how many hundreds of billions of dollars?

Who do you support, humanity or the greedy elite?

Many of our soldiers don't fight for America, they fight for their lives and their buddies beside them, because we put them in a war zone. They're not defending our freedoms, they're laying the foundation for permanent military bases to defend the freedoms of Exxon Mobil and British Petroleum.

again to another false war to enrich the greedy Corporations and distract the American people. Did we not learn anything from the Iraq war where we have killed well over 1 million Iraqi people, lost thousands of American lives and God knows how many hundreds of billions of dollars?

Who do you support, humanity or the greedy elite?

Many of our soldiers don't fight for America, they fight for their lives and their buddies beside them, because we put them in a war zone. They're not defending our freedoms, they're laying the foundation for permanent military bases to defend the freedoms of Exxon Mobil and British Petroleum.

Let's leave other countries alone!

@thecavalier,

Exactly what is the point of your rambling historical diatribe? Also, what do you think we should do? Rather than trying to rationalize history (i.e. hindsight is 20/20) what is you suggestion? The problem with your logic is this, either you go out and deal with conflict on someone else's shore, or conflict will find it's way to YOUR shore whether you like it or not. What you've failed to mention is the fact that no modern war (in the past 150+ years) has taken place on American soil. I, for one, do not want to have to resort to gueriila warfare with the Iranians, Cubans, North Koreans, or anybody else whom we've "left alone", in my backyard. Sticking one's head in the sand and hoping for the problem t o go away has never worked. I am not advocating going out and stirring up trouble or provoking someone into a fight, I am saying that sometimes armed conflicts are inevitable and unavoidable. The way globalization has gone, the spillover effect is a way of life.

Good post TrustVerify. Here we have Iran in their own territorial waters with a patrol boat 2 miles away from our carrier and the media tries to portray it as a provocation by Iran.

When I was in the US Navy in the early 60s, the Russian would sail in and around our formations with trawlers laden with antenas. Occasionally, they would sail destroyers through the formations. We were close enough to wave at the Russian sailors.

The Zionist media is trying mightily to help build a case for war, with these stories.

@a messenger,

Whoa there guy. The USS Liberty sinking a "false flag" incident???? Not in your wildest and most paranoid dreams. The Liberty was a newly outfitted electronic intelligence ship which was on its way to its first posting in its primary duty station, the Black Sea when the Six-Day War erupted. I was an intelligence analyst with an area of specialty of SW USSR air defenses. I and others had actually briefed the intercept operators on the Liberty on intelligence requirements (what sorts of things they were looking for and the relative priorities of differend intelligence targets.) Mostly fresh-faced 19-year-olds just out of RIO school.

The Liberty was diverted to an orbit off the coast of Egypt in international waters. I have actually listened to the voice intercept tapes of the IDF pilots and patrol boat commanders as they attempted to sink the Liberty. They knew it was American, made note that there was an American flag displayed on the stern, noted the pennant number, the ship's name on the stern and identified it as an intelligence ship. (The number of arrays and "golf balls" makes an intelligence ship very easy to identify.) I listened as the IDF pilots strafed and bombed, not to cripple the ship, which would have involved an attack on the stern, but amidships where the intelligence workstations. I listened as pilots asked IDF Hq if they were sure. I listened as PT boat crews laughed as they shot up the damage control parties and the hoses they were using. In fact, the IDF was taking their time and only dee-dee'ed when notified that American fighters were enroute from US carriers. 34 crewmen were killed and 171 injured and the Liberty was totaled and never returned to service.

You have to be pretty demented and hate-filled to claim that these young men died as a part of some sort of hair-brained "false flag" incident. This was just a case of Israel's paranoia getting waaaay out of hand a bunch of IDF higher-ups deciding that the US was feeding intelligence on Israel to the Egyptians. In face, because there were no Arabic linguists on board, they were just recording broad spectrum voice and morse and DF'ing radars and C&C sites. The Liberty crewmen had no idea what was even being said. This would have been left until translators transcribed the tapes.

The crewmen of the Liberty died because Israel is not a country that can be trusted.

As for the Lusitania, it was even further from a false flag incident. The ship was sunk in a declared war zone after the Germans had taken ads warning passengers not to sail from the US into the European war zone. While the ship was indeed carrying small arms ammunition, it was far below the level that would be considered contraband by the Germans and the allegations of aluminum dust disguised as cheese and barrels of guncotton have never been substantiated. There were numerous very wealthy and well-known Americans and Brits on board the Lusitania. Far too many influential people, for example one of the Vanderbilts, for it to be set up by either the British or American governments. This is simply not how a false flag incident would have been managed.

But as for the Gulf of Tonkin incident, I do agree that it was a false flag incident.

The USS Maddox was also an intelligence ship. Its function in the Gulf of Tonkin was to "maneuver aggressively" in an attempt to cause the North Vietnamese to activate radars and C&C links. But of two alleged attacks, the first met a false flag criteria only because the Maddox fired first (and often) while LBJ stated that the NVN PT boats fired first. Given the speeds of the boats (from the radar tapes) the "PT" boats were much more likely to be North Vietnamese fishing boats. I have seen the tapes and the boats were not moving at any significant speed and cut and ran as soon as the Maddox fired warning shts. Two days later there was another incident, but the tapes (which I have also seen) show no boats at all. LBJ biographers have long stated that the first incident was manufactured by Johnson he became afraid that the case was not strong enough, especially since the North Vietnamese were showing pictures of damaged fishing boats and claiming that the Maddox had fired first on unarmed fishing boats in international waters. So a more carefully crafted scenario was devised in which the North Vietnamese could make no such claims --- since there were no ships at all.

Your observation about Presidents and a correlation between re-elections and wars is pretty bogus. This is because Amnerican politicians have done so much sabre rattling and military adventurism that EVERY modern President has been involved in at least one military action for every two years in office. Even Gerald Ford, in his brief Presidency, took on Combodia over the Mayaguez hijacking. For modern Presidents, wars have been less rewarding politically that one would suppose. This is because the US tends to prefer isolationism when things heat up. People forget, for example, that the American public was solidly against the US entering either WWI and WWII.

I appreciate what you are trying to say --- that governments will stage phoney incidents to justify their actions. Not just ours, but virtually all governments. The public always needs to question such possibilities when something does happen. But both the Lusitania and the Liberty were not false flag operations.

Hello folks, our country is broke and weary of war. If Israel wants to start a war, let them finish it alone. The elite are ratcheting up the rhetoric and the warmonger sheeple are getting sucked in to the propaganda. Let’s take an objective look at the Iran situation. Ask yourself, what would happen if Iran attacked an oil refinery in the US? Of course we would go into Iran and bomb their country. Well, we recently bombed an Iranian oil refinery and they didn’t retaliate. We issued sanctions on their oil and export industries and they didn’t retaliate. Israel is killing their scientists and they didn’t retaliate. Why is that?

While appearing vulnerable they took control of the most sophisticated drone on the planet downloaded and deciphered the encrypted information and have our Military intelligence (I know it’s an oxymoron) people worried that top secret information has been compromised.

Do you believe that the Iranian’s have the capability to bring down a state of the art drone and have it land where they want it to and down load and decipher complex encrypted code? It appears that Iran has been getting help and lots of it from a very sophisticated source or sources. The US already declared war on Iran by issuing sanctions and covertly bombing them but they don’t dare overtly go in because it would jeopardize China’s oil flow, piss off Russia, Turkey and the local Arab countries. This would also force Iraq to support Iran. We got kicked out of Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan is trying to get us to leave their country. The Middle East is kicking us out which means we are running out of staging areas and NATO support for an attack on Iran. The US tried to concoct fraudulent excuses to stir up public support to go into Iran. There was the laughable assassination ruse of the Mexican drug cartel and the more unbelievable law suit stating Iran was part of 9/11. There were also claims that Iran attacked Iraq, etc. The elite are running out of false flags. Iran is out foxing the US because they have the world divided and we can’t command an organized response. The UN Security Council voted against the US a few weeks ago. China and Russia have gone on record that if Iran is attacked they would support Iran. The world is getting fed up and bored with our Imperialism and the elite who orchestrate war.

We have been fighting urban wars of attrition for over 10 years now and we are broke, our allies are broke. We have spent close to 3 Trillion dollars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We can’t afford another expensive protracted war a half a world away and the US citizens are sick of war. There is 85% support for Ron Paul amongst our troops because they are sick of war and he’s promised to end the wars. The lengthy wars have depleted our manpower, equipment, and our political capital.

Last week the Census Department of the Federal Government reported that “50% of the nation’s population were living below the poverty line”. Our nation’s wealth has been exhausted by war so that we could secure profits for the banking, oil, and Military/Industrial cartels. We never saw a dime of it and never will because the 1% elite feel they have a Divine Right at our expense. You know their motto, privatize profits and socialize losses. They truly can’t squeeze much more from the peasantry but they will try.

Our government has been trying to get Iran to do something stupid so that we can attack them but they won’t do it. Iran isn’t Iraq or Afghanistan. They haven’t done anything, aren’t weak and they aren’t bluffing. They are asserting their right as a sovereign nation and have the support of some very powerful countries. If we attack Iran, the war will be at our doorstep and then we will see how brave you who espouse war respond. When you live by the sword, you die by the sword.

In n the words of Ronald Reagan, "Well.....there you go again!" MSNBC doing their part as the propaganda voice of the military industrial complex. Embedded Reporting = Military Psychological Operations.

Trust-Verify: You make many good points BUT, if all that is true why doesn't Iran simply the UN permission to thoroughly inspect its nuclear facilities and put an end to all this superstition. In retrospect we found that Saddam Hussein, with all his weapons of mass destruction rhetoric, was bluffing all the time so as to keep Iran off of his doorstep --- what's Iran's justification? No one is threatening it and reentry into the financial world can only be a big plus for it.

Dman, still drinking that government koolaid, aren't you? Romney is the same as Obama, so it doesn't matter who wins. Santorum and Gingrich? yup, still the same, any of them gets you the same neocon in office.

Ron Paul is the only one that promises "change" and will actually deliver it. Too radical, you quote the MSM as they love to claim, following the Constitution is radical, telling us, the citizens of our country, the TRUTH, instead of the same old lies and rhetoric that the neocons use to fool the sheeples into voting for them, is radical? Well then radical is what America needs, because our current policies ARE FAILING!!!

Chris - I agree with each and every thing you wrote up above with the exception of one statement. An American Navy ship at sea flys the flag from the highest point of the mainmast. The only time a flag is flown from the stern is while inport. The Liberty raised the holiday colors when the Israelis commenced their attack, this is the largest flag onboard any ship. The Israelis ignored it and continued their attack. I agree with your assessment of the Gulf of Tonkin incident having been stationed in Vietnam with communicators onboard the Maddox at the time of the incident. Keep up the informative posting on the vines I enjoy reading yours. Mike RICE RMCS U.S. Navy (Retired)

Jungleboogie-

I heard about that Cheney plan. Hard to believe Dick Cheney would want to attack his own country to try to start a war. But I guess it's on the record

Have you ever heard of operation Northwoods? Now thats some scary stuff, it went all the way up the chain to JFK before he vetoed it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

It's certainly enough to make one think...

dman-353357

I don't think Ron Paul's ideas are too radical for most Americans. I think some either believe the media or don't understand his ideas.

Hello dman, As history has proven, there has only been one country to nuke innocent men, women, and children and they did it twice. Using your logic, apparently we don't love our children.

TrustVerify - You raise two points in you openning message, that the U.S. is the only nation to have used nuclear weapons against actual targets, military or otherwise, and that somehow this means that we do not (or did not) love our children.

First off, this civilain deaths resulting from the bombing of Heroshima and Nagasaki, while regretable and tragic, are dwarfed by civilian deaths from other causes, and, most particulary the death of civilians at the hands of Axis forces. We all know about the slaughter of Jewish civilians in Nazi concentration camps. But there were also massive deaths, from starvation and actual violence , resulting from the German invasion of the USSR. Japan too committed intentional numerous attrocities against civilian populations, including the slaughter of perhaps 200,000 men women and children in the Chinese city of Nanking.

A death is a death and a person killed in a nuclear explosion dead than one killed with a knife or a gun, or by literally gang-raped to death, as happened in Nanking.

Moreover, many military analysts at that time predicted upwards of one million casualties resulting from a land invasion of Japan in 1945. Whether they were right or wrong, their analysis would certainly justify the use of these two nuclear bombs as a means of saving lives.

Lastly, regarding your "apparently we don't love our children." rhetorical observance: the point of Sting's song, and the parallel I draw from it, is that neither the Russians of 1975, nor the Iranians of 2012 are willing to see their own children die in a nuclear war they cannot win. How that relates to the bombing of Heroshima and Nagasaki at a time when the U.S. possessed the only nuclear weapons on the planet, I'll leave you to explain.

All wars are evil. But not all wars are avoidable. WWII certainly was not. I would say the same of our decision to invade Afghanistan in 2001. Does that mean that all of our actions in either conflict are justiable? No. But viewed in the agregate, I see no reason for this nation to hang its head in shame regarding either conflict.

The USS Liberty incident as well as the one involving its' sister ship which is on permanent display in North Korea, highlighted the stupidity of putting UNARMED vessels in a hostile fire zone or near an unfriendly nation. If the Liberty had been properly escorted, there never would have been a Liberty incident

Wow. Its either running from a fight or running to a fight with you guys. Bush killed and wounded tens of thousands of Americans in a no win war in Iraq and you cant stand the fact that we have a much more balanced and smarter person in the WH now.

Are you suggesting we listen to Iran and keep our ships out of the Straight.

Nope just what us to leave the rest of the world to fight their own battles.

Lets keep our money and troops home. one bully pushs anouther, second bully pushs back we have a war.

Whats....So you agree with Iran that we need to keep our navy out of the straight. You cant have it both ways.

As I've said before it doesn't matter what Obama does the Republicans will disagree with it. No sane person wants another war but everyone wants to be able to fill their gas tank to go places they feel they need to be. This is all about Iran wanting to build a nuclear bomb...at least that's what the media is feeding us.

Actually, under your hero, Barack Hussein Obama, Iran will get the bomb. Each any every action BHO has taken against Iran is because his hand was forced. Even now, BHO continues to stall on any and every action that involves Iran. BHO wants Israel to have to do the dirty work. That way BHO and the world can then come down on Israel while at the same time BHO can continue appeasing his buddies (the Muslim world).

From another point of view one could say BHO has been Iran's best friend since Jimmy (hide-in-the-Rose-Garden) Carter.

1. Remember Iran's Green Revolution? You know the precursor to today's Arab Spring. BHO said and did absolutely nothing when the people or Iran were up fighting their government. BHO finally did pay lip service to it after the other leaders of the free world criticized him for leading from behind.

2. Remember BHO saying "that he is not convinced Iran is after the nuclear bomb." Just after BHO came into office.

3. Remember BHO's reaction to Iran sending M-300 Grad missiles to Hezbollah? - nada, zip, ... just more lip service.

4. Remember the Iraqi War that we won and BHO "inherited". FYI - Under BHO Iran is now the winner in Iraq. In short, BHO allowed Iran to become the dominate foreign political power in Iraq by doing nothing.

5. Remember the new SOFA agreement BHO failed to get signed after 3 years in office? Remember BHO wanting to leave 3,000 sitting targets in Iraq? By his failure (and Hillary as Sec of State) the 4,500 who lost their lives were for nothing.

5. Remember BHO sanctions against Iran, the weakest set of sanctions yet and he took 16 months of dithering before BHO finally got them in place. FYI - Everyone knows it takes years for sanctions (sometimes decades) to work, if ever.

6. Remember Iran just two months ago trying to blow up Saudi, Israeli in America? BHO said this was unacceptable. Only to completely back of on all actions, even sanctions for this. Then BHO said he would have to check with the internatioanl community. Finally, BHO said he would not take any action since it might hurt the world's recovering economy.

7. Remember Afghanistan? Under BHO, Afghanistan will fall the very same way Vietnam did. The winners Pakistan and you got it! - Iran.

8. BHO, just two months ago BHO also had a known Terrorist, paid by Iran, and a leader in the Kobar Towers bombing at the White House. The BHO Admin claims they did not know it. B.S. - No one gets to see the president without the Secrety Service at least checking a visitors back ground out.

As for the comment about Republicans - Under BHO's policy toward Iran, which will be his "greatest failing, from a foreign policy standpoint. Surpassing his helping all those countries he helped "free" in North Africa to become extremist states.

One also needs to remember that to BHO, the "issue" is never the "issue". It's all about grabbing power and control. (See Saul Alinsky).

@Time4apurge

We had enough of the dumba$$ wars. Time to bring the troops home and put AMERICA first.

If you are so hot about Iran, go attack them. Have fun, and make sure you buy the ticket one-way.

@time4

Will you PLEASE do some research so that you dont embarass yourself again by posting such nonsense! Very little of what you posted is fact!

Nope just what us to leave the rest of the world to fight their own battles.

Lets keep our money and troops home. one bully pushs anouther, second bully pushs back we have a war.

Whats enough - International access to the Straights of Hormuz is vital to our interests, and will be so long as we, or the nations with which we trade, depend on middle east oil.

So we are going put our ships there, not because we, or our President, wish to start a war, but because we have no choice.

The only people that seem to want to start a war are wasting good breathing air, and blabbering on stages trying to, "out-right," the other guy.

In this case, there will be no war that Iran doesn't start (as long as Barack Obama is President), unless Israel jumps the gun and causes a middle east conflagration. I love Israel, but sometimes I wish they would tone it down just a bit.

How ridiculous to use tensions between nations to throw out political nit picking! If war starts, will you still blame the other side? Or will you stand with other Americans in unity against a common foe? In WWII, hundreds of thousands killed, and still hundreds of thousands wounded. (Guy, be careful with your use of conjunctions) Perhaps if there was an internet then, we would’ve heard republicans blaming Roosevelt for killing so many. I doubt it though. That generation was above our privileged whining. They could set aside differences and get the job done. Take a clue from our Presidents; Bush never bashed Clinton for Somalia or the Balkans, because he knew he'd end up with that political specter over him. Obama hasn't bashed Bush for Iraq and Afghanistan for the same reason. In fact they’ve all said they do the same things with the given intelligence and political will of the time. Commanders must make decisions, and yes sometimes people die. If you think you can do a better job than those who've held the office get off your end quarters and get your name on a ballot! Otherwise keep your mouth shut, and get in line with the rest of Americans to do what's best for this country.

mrk - For you're information, war is not what is best for our country. If a war is started, it will because of Israel and the Zionists who control the media and much of our ME policies.

They were behind the Iraq war fiasco and they are making up lies about the current situation. Iran's nuclear enrichment is being monitored by the IAEA and until they throw out the inspectors, Iran is well within it's rights to enrich uranium for energy and medical isotopes.

As for the assassination attempts, the government of Iran has not been proved to be behind any of them. Far more likely, the MEK terrorist group, which has been working with Israel is behind all the assassination attempts. The latest attempts are more than likely false flag attacks, meant to implicate Iran. Notice no Israelis died in any of those attacks. By Way of Deception.

Ralph-I agree that war is never a good thing. Even the Spanish-American war. I am also hoping for a peaceful resolution. As for the Israeli's being behind the Iraq war and the recent assassination attempts, where is the proof? I don't dismiss your accusations, but I find simpler explanations like Iran really being behind them in retalliation for the murder of their nuclear scientists to be more believable. Again there is the need for proof. Unfortunately, with much of the current actions being performed by intelligence agencies, the real facts may never surface.

China couldnt survive a war with their best customer. The economy is more important than ideology in China today. They mess with their best customer and their economy goes into the toilet and 1.3 billion people become even more annoyed with their leaders.

China only has to close the checkbook and America will be on it's knees in a week...They don't even need to raise their voices...screw with their energy suppliers and watch what happens, think about interest rates in the triple digits...Not even our President is that bent on the actual destruction of America

America only has to threaten to not pay the bastards and they'll chill out.

Hey steve we do have the best navy, nothing against them but if the iranians sent 50 fast boats at one ship one or two would get thru and blow up next to the ship. Not to mention iran has numerous anti ship missles. Our fleet could take on their fleet any time any place any where. but suicide boats could get thru and do havoc. Not to mention iran is backed by russia and china. Do we really want to get that close to nuclear war. Not to mention just as a side note. how many nukes does russia really have? who knows. So they could have given 10 small older nukes the size of fat man to iran and the iranians could be just waiting for their chance to use em. Our army, navy, marines, and air force are no match for nuke missles. i know, i worked on a nike herc back in the 70's. One 5 kiloton nuke takes out a squadron (100) of russian bombers. And we have progressed far in the last 30 years. does iran have nukes, donno, but if they do it could get stupid quick.

Attacking the US fleet would be easy. Surviving 1 day after, not so much. I did anyone other than me see the size of the new subs they are bragging about? Two man diesel mini subs. Christ the South American drug cartels have better boats. One of their larger ships is a WW2 era US destroyer.

Total air superiority makes "fast boats" stupid, slow target practice. If we're on the offensive, they wouldn't get within 100 miles of a US ship. Hell they wouldn't exist after about three hours. How long did it take a tiny, carrierless fleet of American ships to disarm Libya's air and sea defenses? 30 minutes? Iraq? 45 minutes? God forbid Iran keep us occupied for and entire episode of Law and Order.

Thomas - The assymetrical war that Iran will wage as you described can be quickly responded to by assymetrically responding with targetted bombings of the seats of government and military installations throughout Iran. Several well placed bombs raining down on the mullahs and brother Ahmedinejad will stop their zeal for suicide boats. As far as Russia and China, they will not move aa muscle as they have too much to lose.

The US Navy actually did a war game pitting the Iranian navy against the US forces in the gulf.

The Iranian side ended up destroying several ships including an aircraft carrier before it was destroyed.

This was a US NAVY wargame with US NAVY personnel acting as both sides.

Just food for thought.

real,

that was our exercise with our thinking and that was a worse case scenario.... since then we have used that information to combat the situations... we will not lose a carrier

Thomas,

You are either delusional or just a fool.

SingBiker... you were being nice but I think you insulted the delusional and fools. Thanks for commenting before I did as I was going to be less polite.

Thomas... Here's your sign.

Thomas, A 40 hour work week equates to 2080 hours per year. Also, Congress has no control over the price of gas.

Do something charitable, stay off the web.

Just to point out the obvious: if you are suggesting we wipe out all oil and gas revenue and force them to sell gas below the price they buy it for, you'd not only bankrupt the entire industry, just mathematically, if it were possible, it would lead to at least an equal number of jobs shed in that industry. Of course it doesn't work that way. Just can't set prices and just watch people go bankrupt in capitalism. The only way that countries set oil prices is through subsidies.

Subsidizing half the price of gasoline or more for each and every American would cost 457 billion dollars per year if we use your "shucks no college" assumptions. That is, we would be spending 1.83 trillion over 4 years in taxpayer dollars to lower the price of gasoline artificially.

If we spent 168 billion dollars on our energy infrastructure, we could replace the use of natural gas and coal with renewable energy. If we spent 100 billion, we could have a national high speed rail network.

As it stands, if we continue invest only 5 billion a year into R&D and raise the CAFE standards to double fuel economies by 2021, then we could save the average consumer more than you are proposing.

Please, stay out of politics.

Yep, we came within a hair of Vietnam hitting the mainland, but we struck first. Else, we'd all be speaking Vietnamese. Afghanistan, poorest nation on earth, mostly illiterate, land locked, no army, no navy, no infrastructure. No Afghans involved with 9/11. The Taliban are Afghans. They did nothing to us nor could you expect them to cough up Bin Laden. Puleeze.

No, the military just likes being the military. Corporations love it! War-- been a great business for the .01% for the last 50 years. They just need ignorant tools to do their 'business'. Glad it cracks you up but I'm not laughing.

I find a lot of problems don't want to be solved. It would take money and resources away from a few who have no desire to benefit their childlike tools. Else a $100 per acre of Agent Orange on the poppy crop would have ended this a week after 9/11.

No, our freedom was never in danger. The danger is in ignorant tools that murder for profit, then piss on the victims.

Our freedom is in danger due to our over-response to Al Quaida.

You realize you just wrote all that without writing a single period or other method of ending a sentence? Even at the end?

But America will always remain #1! (Apparently, just not in grammar or readability...)

C McCoy,

They have MANY more than 50, they have hundreds of these fast boats. The U.S. Navy ran an exercise back in 2008 that showed the Iranian tactics are not only capable of taking out a carrier. In the numbers they have, and their swarming tactics, that are capable of taking out an entire Carrier Battle Group.

We would eventually win, but what a hell of a price to pay in the beginning.

You didn't read the entire article....when revised and ran again the exercise showed no issue with handling Iran's "navy" or bath tub armada.

Be careful for what you wish for. Iran is not Iraq or Afghanistan. It's a vastly larger country with more resources and more allies. If we planned to do anything other than a bombing campaign, we'd almost certainly need a draft. Would America even accept that? Plus, even a bombing campaign could do more damage to us internationally than could be possibly imagined. We already have our fair share of troubles with Russia and China... imagine if things with Russia and China got worse, and imagine if Russia and China started working more closely together?

A lot of us like to think the interconnected-ness of the world economy would protect us from things deteriorating too far, but crazy things happen. It's not altogether impossible that things could break down, and the thing about having a military that's everywhere is that we're exposed everywhere and would feel the need to react to everything.... even though we can't.

No... we're much better trying to cool things down. Iran may eventually get a nuclear weapon, but let's not forget that the mullahs can only be in power for so long. Their population is rapidly changing and Iran is due for its own version of the Arab Spring soon enough. Better that we don't stoke their population and create a reason for their people to rally around their government.

She got the information from a journalist who is actually there, on the ship. They were smugglers.

Maddow does what most conservatives don't do. She verifies her information, and if further evidence comes to light that makes her wrong, she reports that too, and apologies--something the RNC's propaganda network doesn't do.

Good book. What was the name of the sequel where they got into the space race? The Mouse on the Moon?

Unfortunately I think Amadiniwhatsis has a more sinister agenda.