Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Whenever you hear a claim about how we need to attack Iran, try this interesting trick - take the name of the person, institution, or source making the claim, and do a quick internet search on that name + "Iraq" and "2002" or "2003."
If the source had previously made claims about Iraq around that time, the search will often show what claims were made, and when.
You can find some fascinating information this way. And when you see that a particular source made a bunch of alarmist or outright wrong claims about Iraq a decade ago, you can put their claims about Iran in the proper context.
OMG! Fast boats with explosives, it's a completely novel risk. Wait - no, it's been something naval commanders have worried about since, oh, 1900 or so.
The most effective countermeasure against nuclear-tipped torpedoes is ICBMs, now. Got it. (The 300 nuke figure you're listing are strategic, mmkay?) That must hold true in the same world where a navy sophisticated enough to field "the world's fastest torpedoes" with nuclear warheads is - at the same time - using just about the most primitive weapon there is, small boats with explosives, in suicide attacks.
I see that you fail to see that Iran doesn't have the naval force to do much in case of an attempt to block their blockade of the Straits. Oh, maybe you could do some reading on the subject and easily find out that Iran has developed the fastest torpedoes the world knows. I can see how this may not set well with a prog but sometimes the truth doesn't set too well with anybody not willing to believe it.
Location: Democratic Peoples Republic of Redneckistan
11,078 posts, read 15,087,778 times
Reputation: 3937
Quote:
Originally Posted by tablemtn
Whenever you hear a claim about how we need to attack Iran, try this interesting trick - take the name of the person, institution, or source making the claim, and do a quick internet search on that name + "Iraq" and "2002" or "2003."
If the source had previously made claims about Iraq around that time, the search will often show what claims were made, and when.
You can find some fascinating information this way. And when you see that a particular source made a bunch of alarmist or outright wrong claims about Iraq a decade ago, you can put their claims about Iran in the proper context.
Yep...just like you can track everything now days...take the new fear "fad" of the week..."Cyber terror"...ohhh,sounds bad doesn't it...want to guess who now owns giant anti cyber terror businesses with big Govt contracts? Chertoff and a slew of other deadbeats like him.
Track it backwards and the truth always emerges...FAUX should try that once in awhile
The Admiral is correct you need a big warhead to blow the **** out of a US Super Carrier. If they can't torpedo it or ram it, they have hundreds of Chinese made anti-ship missiles that could turn one of our multibillion dollar babies into a flaming hulk.
Not one to throw out jingoistic statements, but methinks that any Iranian warship that would attack an American naval vessel would be by definition a suicide boat.
I have said nothing about an Iranian naval vessel attacking a US warship. It is the progs here who have started that part. Of course, I think I know a bit more about Iranian torpedoes that they say go 230 mph under water. Maybe they have a submarine capable of something like that. If they don't they are lying about their capabilities. That would be kind of like the lies they told all those years about their nuclear desires, wouldn't it?
Yep...just like you can track everything now days...take the new fear "fad" of the week..."Cyber terror"...ohhh,sounds bad doesn't it...want to guess who now owns giant anti cyber terror businesses with big Govt contracts? Chertoff and a slew of other deadbeats like him.
Track it backwards and the truth always emerges...FAUX should try that once in awhile
Location: Democratic Peoples Republic of Redneckistan
11,078 posts, read 15,087,778 times
Reputation: 3937
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy
I think that hope instead of doubt would fit your exclamation.
Roy,in case you forget,you are in KANSAS!!! What terrorist would be dumb enough to wander around in that windswept nothingness and find something other than cows to attack???... and IF a terrorist actually did show up in the middle of a Kansas wheat field looking for trouble,he would be so dumb you could probably talk him into helping you fix fences...you are SAFE my brother,just relax on your fears...the whole reason to being for you seems to be conspiracy and fear...relax.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yep...just like you can track everything now days...take the new fear "fad" of the week..."Cyber terror"...ohhh,sounds bad doesn't it...want to guess who now owns giant anti cyber terror businesses with big Govt contracts? Chertoff and a slew of other deadbeats like him.
