Tensions Over Hormuz Raise Ugly Possibilities For War

Hugh Pickens writes "The high stakes standoff between Iran and the U.S. over the Strait of Hormuz, the passageway for one-fifth of the world's oil, escalated this week as Iran's navy claimed to have recorded video of a U.S. aircraft carrier entering the Port of Oman and the deputy chief of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Hossein Salami rejected U.S. claims that it could prevent Iran from closing the strait. To drive the point home, Iran has started a 10-day naval exercise in the Persian Gulf to show off how it could use small speedboats and a barrage of missiles to combat America's naval armada while in a report for the Naval War College, U.S. Navy Commander Daniel Dolan wrote that Iran has acquired 'thousands of sea mines, wake homing torpedoes, hundreds of advanced cruise missiles (PDF) and possibly more than one thousand small Fast Attack Craft and Fast Inshore Attack Craft.'" (Read more, below.) Hugh Pickens continues: "The heart of the Iran's arsenal is its 200 small potential-suicide boats — fiberglass motorboats with a heavy machine gun, a multiple rocket-launcher, or a mine — and may also carry heavy explosives, rigged to ram and blow a hole in the hull of a larger ship. These boats will likely employ a strategy of 'swarming' — coming out of nowhere to ambush merchant convoys and American warships in narrow shipping lanes. But the U.S. Navy is not defenseless against kamikaze warfare. The U.S. has put more machine guns and 25-millimeter gyro-stabilized guns on the decks of warships, modified the 5-inch gun to make it more capable of dealing with high-speed boats, and improved the sensor suite of the Aegis computer-integrated combat system aboard destroyers and cruisers. 'We have been preparing for it for a number of years with changes in training and equipment,' says Vice Admiral (ret.) Kevin Cosgriff, former commander of U.S. Naval Forces Central Command."

Comments

Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[InterestingFella]

If you just would leave rest of the alone and not steal resources belonging to other countries then maybe, MAYBE everyone wouldn't hate U.S. so much?

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[idji]

The US should have spent the 500 Billion or so it wasted on lies about Iraq on researching renewable energy, and the Middle East would have returned to its peaceful irrelevance as oil would no longer have been strategically so important.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[drolli]

Even if the US whould have invested 500Billion in a meaninful way in the Region, the world would be better off.....

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Anonymous Coward]

For 500 Billion they could have bought the Strait of Hormuz of built a pipeline.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Anonymous Coward]

I tend to hear this accusation a lot but still have no idea what exactly where it comes from. Could someone please tell me whose oil the US has stolen?

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Anonymous Coward]

For a start, read about how our CIA led a coup to overthrow an elected leader who wanted more profits from the oil companies to go to the people. It was called Operation Ajax. We have a history of meddling in nations when leaders nationalize resources we want (Vietnam and Nicaragua, too). In Saudi Arabia we support an oppressive *monarchy* (i.e., NOT a democracy), apparently because we like their oil. Our presence there was a stated motive of Al Qaeda. So it's not so much stealing the oil as it is trying to control the government which gives us a good deal on the oil.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[errandum]

Gee, I dunno, maybe because there are dozens of dictators, generally dangerous countries and places that really needed some help getting their revolution groove on...

But the US only seem to find a reason to get into armed conflict when there is oil involved. They don't literally steal, they just help you "conquer" your country back and then "request" "payment".

I know I'm going to get the flamebait mod, but this is actually the general opinion of the rest of the world about most of US wars.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[lucidlyTwisted]

I agree, although the USA is not alone in misguided attempts at nation building (USA's biggest failures: Supporting Saddam, training Osama, supporting the Taliban etc). Britain (to pick one) has a fairly glorious history of screw-up in this department, who do you think carved up the Middle East to cause many of the preblem we now face? Basically when any nation for a very different culture tries to "help" (for relatives values of "Doing whatever Big Money wants") it seems to blow-up in their face about 15 years down the line.
Maybe there's a lesson here?

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Anonymous Coward]

Why did US enter into conflict in Libya but not Syria?

How telling.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[sita]

Yep, the American hegemony in the latter half of the last century really needed all that German oil.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if the scenereo you describe is true. The leap from that to 'steal' is utter nonsense.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Anonymous Coward]

Telling someone to stop protesting Yemenis getting sniped (96 IN ONE DAY!) might be like telling someone how the USS Cole was a clipper round the ears for the US occupation of foreign seas.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[rainmouse]

"Tensions Over Hormuz Raise Ugly Possibilities For War"

It's no wonder the Iranians are deeply upset by the sanctions. Surely some people do realise that economic sanctions will likely kill an awful lot of the poorest people in Iran and the sanctions are in themselves, a declaration of war. Theses sanctions worked so very well in Iraq with estimations of up to 1.7 million civilian deaths as a direct result of these sanctions by 1995. http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq17.html.
Like with Iraq, there is no direct evidence of a reason for war and we have already seen the political posturing and powers that be, who already have Iraqi blood on their hands are still lying to us with articles such as this http://www.adl.org/main_International_Affairs/ahmadinejad_words.htm.

For people who don't see how sanctions can kill so many people (taken from UNICEF report 1995 (sorry original link to the report is no longer working ) “Sanctions are inhibiting the importation of spare parts, chemicals, reagents, and the means of transportation required to provide water and sanitation services to the civilian population of Iraq... What has become increasingly clear is that no significant movement towards food security can be achieved so long as the embargo remains in place. All vital contributors to food availability - agricultural production, importation of foodstuffs, economic stability and income generation, are dependent on Iraq’s ability to purchase and import those items vital to the survival of the civilian population.”

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[trout007]

You really can't be that stupid can you?
Did you ever here of the North African Campaign.
Why did you think the Germans were in Africa? Looking for the Lost Ark?

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[bfandreas]

That war was neither good nor evil even if the reasons stated were dishonest and later recanted.
What made it irrelevant was the stupid, demented and criminally negligent notion that earts and minds would be instantly won. That was beyond moronic. If you want to change how people think and feel then you need to invest a whole generation into that. Europe after WW2 was a full success financially and culturally due to how freaking long US troops were stationed there(amongst other things like the US are a culturally descendant of Europe).
Imagine two persons. Their ultimate aspiration is to live a happy life but how they plan on doing that is different. Owning land and breathing free air for one, convenience for the other. Now imagine a whole room full of people. For each and every one of them their plan for their puruit of happyness is different. Now imagine a town square of peole. The mind starts to boggle. Now imagine millions and millions of them. Each from a cultural background so diverse it would take a lifetime to understand it all. Each has a different plan for life. Ranging from owning enough goats to feed the family to designing the ultimate iDevice. Each and every one of them is entitled to pursue their goals if it is not to the detriment of others.
If you elect people who claim to have easy answers and paint the world in black and white, this is what you don't get.
Those 500 billion could have been well spent for exactly the goal stated. Ineptitude did away with that.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a growing sense isolationist in my country at the moment, on in both parties. Obama got skewered here at home for entering Libya. There were comparisons to GW (some valid, some not) and while it became a political headache for a little while until it turned out alright in the tend. With elections in 2012, entering another conflict is political...well not suicide, but not healthy either.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Anonymous Coward]

Support of those dictators were in the context of the Cold War in jockeying for influence versus the Soviet Union. And, rather than "request payment" in oil as the accusation commonly goes, the US has bought oil from those nations at market price, even thought with its military presence in the region it could have just taken it without paying. The US could have easily gone to war in the Middle East during the 70's embargo to force the flow of oil, yet it did not. With its military presence, the US could also have demanded free oil from the weak interim Iraqi government as recompense, yet it chose again to buy that oil at market price, even relinquishing opportunities when outbid by China.

The evidence that the US uses its military to "steal" oil is not there, however the evidence the US uses its military to expand geopolitical influence and opportunity for American business is, but that's an entirely different set of arguments. We should all welcome legitimate debate on that front, but saying "the US steals oil" is a claim with no support.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[arkenian]

They don't literally steal, they just help you "conquer" your country back and then "request" "payment".

But we don't. If only we did, to some extent -- the treasury could use the funds. I might go so far as to grant that we've helped some nasty people stay in power for various reasons over the years, but we still, always, pay MARKET PRICE for oil. About the only thing we insist on is that people sell it to SOMEONE (which admittedly, does help keep market prices down SOMEWHAT, but its still ridiculously high compared to the cost in most of the countries in the middle east)

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[trout007]

Unfortunately you have to learn history for anything to make sense. I'll get you started.

Remember the British Empire? It was kind of like the US Empire today they had lots of troops and puppet leaders all over the world. Especially in the Middle East, Africa, and South Asia. Their oil company had lots of wells and equipment in Iran. Well the Iranians felt they should get more money from the oil so they elected a guy that nationalized the industry. Kind of like Chavez in Venezuela or Qaddafi in Libya. The British weren't happy about it so with the CIA's help they overthrew this guy (1953) and installed our own brutal dictator to keep the oil flowing and the oil dollars flowing.

So he was pretty brutal and eventually the people got pissed and overthrew him in 1979 and took some Americans hostage for a year. So they took their oil back. So sometimes when another country overthrows your government and installs their own that gives them great deals on your countries natural resources you tend to get pissed off.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Anonymous Coward]

We entered Europe's Oil War in Libya because the Europeans were losing. Such a loss would have destabilized the Eurotrash PIIGS economies to the point of collapse.

Quite frankly we honored treaty obligations (which Europe routinely ignores) in this case because the subsequent European collapse would destabilize our economy.

We haven't bombed Syria because the PIIGS aren't (yet) in need of rescue there.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Corbets]

They don't literally steal, they just help you "conquer" your country back and then "request" "payment".

But we don't. If only we did, to some extent -- the treasury could use the funds. I might go so far as to grant that we've helped some nasty people stay in power for various reasons over the years, but we still, always, pay MARKET PRICE for oil. About the only thing we insist on is that people sell it to SOMEONE (which admittedly, does help keep market prices down SOMEWHAT, but its still ridiculously high compared to the cost in most of the countries in the middle east)

This, thank you. So many people like to talk about the US stealing oil, but no one can point me to a single incident of such. I'd almost support it if they did - at least the war would be paid for then!

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean why did France and the UK. You also mean, why does one country hesitate in attacking a country that is a military corridor to Iran, at the same time negatively impact its tenuous relations with Turkey by halting its maritime economy with the proximity of war, and foment hostility in Lebanon with no guarantee of safety for neighboring allies from reprisals by Hezbollah. Perhaps had you thought about the nuances of geopolitics and war, you'd find that the US is more cautious than you assume.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Zamphatta]

Unfortunately the U.S. politicians see money from oil industry as more important than renewable energy. It's a totally different "economy" in Washington -- pay for the campaign funds received from companies, with human lives. It's supply and demand. It's quite cheap for congress to get money that way really, since they're spending other people's lives and not their own. I often wonder just how patriotic congressmen & senators would be, if they had to be on the front line when they declare wars. Of course, that'll never be a law, 'cause they'd have to pass it.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Noughmad]

The many people don't talk about the US stealing oil, they talk about Americans stealing it. Oil from middle-eastern countries doesn't magically end up as a government property, it's always in the hands of private corporations.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[chrb]

"Stolen" is a confrontational term, but put it this way: if China backed an armed revolution inside the US which successfully overthrew the government and installed a military dictatorship, and then contracts were signed that gave Chinese corporations access and control over the natural resources of the US, would you consider this to be okay? Or would you consider that, somehow, the natural resources were being "stolen"?

There are many references claiming that this has happened, see war is a racket, the war on democracy etc. There was even an honest politician from one country who was vilified because he stated straight up that they were part of the Iraq coalition in exchange for corporate access to oil.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Charliemopps]

OR... The US could just stay the hell out of it and cut taxes by $500billion. Why does everyone always forget that option?

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[LastGunslinger]

Where was the oil in Bosnia and Kosovo?

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Anonymous Coward]

You sure about the $500B figure? According to this, it's slightly higher:

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

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Haeleth]

If the US cared about stealing oil, it would annex its main supplier ... which is, IIRC, Canada.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[InterestingFella]

What would you think if your kids died and someone told you it was because of overpopulation? Would that make their dead ok? That their dead supported world not getting overpopulated? Just think a little bit before writing stupid shit.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[chrb]

Large Potential Albanian Oil and Gas Discovery Underscores Kosovo's Importance

On January 10, Swiss-based Manas Petroleum Corporation broke the news. Gustavson Associates LLC's Resource Evaluation identified large prospects of oil and gas reserves in Albania, close to Kosovo. They are in areas called blocks A, B, C, D and E, encompassing about 780,000 acres along the northwest to southeast "trending (geological) fold belt of northwestern Albania."

A Discreet Deal in the Pipeline

In November 1998, Bill Richardson, then US energy secretary, spelt out his policy on the extraction and transport of Caspian oil. "This is about America's energy security," he explained. "It's also about preventing strategic inroads by those who don't share our values. We're trying to move these newly independent countries toward the west. "We would like to see them reliant on western commercial and political interests rather than going another way. We've made a substantial political investment in the Caspian, and it's very important to us that both the pipeline map and the politics come out right."

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[publiclurker]

I seem to remember people like you bitching about that one quite a bit. Since there was no oil, why care about the lives ov others.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[InterestingFella]

As far as I understand it (and I'm European), Canada is already US' bitch.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Coward Anonymous]

Yup Iranian democracy in the same way Egyptian democracy is unfolding in Egypt. The same kind of democracy that exists in venezuela and in Russia too. Iran's democracy in the 50's is a figment of the modern left's sordid imagination.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Rosalynd Doneghy]

The US should have spent the 500 Billion or so it wasted on lies about Iraq on researching renewable energy, and the Middle East would have returned to its peaceful irrelevance as oil would no longer have been strategically so important.

Great comment!

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[datavirtue]

Sanctions don't kill people, people kill people. Really though, sanctions end up starving people who would have otherwise provided for themselves. Additionally, I don't like the government telling me who I can do business with, especially now that the economy is increasingly dependent on global trade.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh it's the sanctions that kill people. Sorry but it was the leaders of Iraq who refused to play nice with the world even after they invaded Kuwait and were subsequently forced back onto their own soil. It was the leaders of Iraq who murdered millions of their own people throughout the 80s and 90s. It was the leaders of Iraq who refused to deliver the UNICEF and other aid to those in need in their own country. It was the leaders of Iraq who plundered the revenues from the "oil for food" program instead of feeding their own population.

Your socialist revision of history is appalling. You are the type of person who believes guns kill people. Sorry people kill people as illustrated above.

It's easy, quit threatening people and play nice with the world, quit having a childlike temper tantrum and the sanctions will be lifted.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[trout007]

It's hear not here. Retard.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[wjsteele]

If by stealing you mean us paying $100 per barrel from the OPEC oil barons, then yes, maybe we should stop!

Bill

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[datavirtue]

All the stuff you mentioned played out exactly how it was supposed to. There are no accidents in politics.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[datavirtue]

Patriotism is a tool used by politicians. They are NOT patriotic, they are practical, like Romans.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Dachannien]

If the Iranian government were so concerned over the deaths of their poor due to economic sanctions, then they would accede to their international obligations of forsaking Hezbollah and abandoning their nuclear weapon aspirations.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[khipu]

It's no wonder the Iranians are deeply upset by the sanctions. Surely some people do realise that economic sanctions will likely kill an awful lot of the poorest people in Iran

It is Iran's responsibility to care for its "poorest people". The rest of the world is under no legal or moral obligation to trade with Iran, in particular since Iran unquestionably is working on atomic bombs and has started several wars.

All vital contributors to food availability - agricultural production, importation of foodstuffs, economic stability and income generation, are dependent on Iraq’s ability to purchase and import those items vital to the survival of the civilian population.”

The welfare of their people is primarily the responsibility of their leaders. The leaders of Iraq and Iran could/can restore free trade by changing their behavior. The cause of the sanctions, and hence the cause of the suffering of their people, is their leaders, not the sanctions.

the sanctions are in themselves, a declaration of war. ... Like with Iraq, there is no direct evidence of a reason for war

So, you construct a specious argument that "sanctions are war" and then claim that there is "no direct evidence of a reason for war". Well, you are wrong on both counts. Sanctions are not "war"; a war is when there are clashing troops and weapons fire. Furthermore, we have reasons and justification for going to war with Iran.

The reason we shouldn't go to war with Iran isn't your pseudo-humanitarian handwaving, but simply that it isn't in our financial and political interest; it doesn't survive a cost-benefit analysis: Iran isn't enough of a threat to the US, a lot of innocent Iranians would get killed, the US wouldn't recover its costs, and that the chances that it would improve the situation are small.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Anonymous Coward]

Like Saddam and Gaddafi did?

See how successful that turned out for them.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[IICV]

Like with Iraq, there is no direct evidence of a reason for war and we have already seen the political posturing and powers that be, who already have Iraqi blood on their hands are still lying to us...

At the very beginning of the current Iraq war, there was a pretty scary time when politicians would be talking about the war in Iraq in one breath, and then move on to Iran as if, clearly, the next thing we were going to do was be at war with Iran.

I think some circles have been planning a war with Iran for quite a while.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[InterestingFella]

I know you're a parent, and a grandparent, and hence why I used such example. It just seems like you're more easy at putting Iranians/Iraqis at that position and forgetting that they're people just like you. All with their family, history, loved ones and children.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[khipu]

For a start, read about how our CIA led a coup to overthrow an elected leader who wanted more profits from the oil companies to go to the people. It was called Operation Ajax

Indeed. And where did those profits go? Great Britain. The CIA acted on behalf of Great Britain, because Great Britain asserted that this was necessary to keep communism out of Europe. Great Britain at the time was, of course, busy oppressing other nations and colonies.

In Saudi Arabia we support an oppressive *monarchy* (i.e., NOT a democracy), apparently because we like their oil.

That's almost right: we support an oppressive monarchy in Saudi Arabia because we like their oil to be available to the world economy; 80% of Saudi Arabia's oil exports go to Europe and Asia, after all.

Now, what do you suggest we do instead? Embargo Saudi Arabia? Invade Saudi Arabia? Subvert the Saudi government? It's not like the US has a choice between a democracy and a monarchy in Saudi Arabia, it has a choice between a monarchy and something even worse.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe Iraqi oil goes to China.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[khipu]

But the US only seem to find a reason to get into armed conflict when there is oil involved.

You say that as if it's a bad thing.

They don't literally steal, they just help you "conquer" your country back and then "request" "payment".

Unfortunately, the direct "payment" never covers the cost of the military operations. Most of the benefits of these actions to the US are indirect: they ensure a continued steady flow of oil to Europe and Asia, and the health of those economies is essential to the US. That's also why the US often demands payment from Europe and Asian nations.

Personally, I think the US should stop those operations and let Europe and Asia deal with problems in their own backyard themselves.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[danbert8]

If oil money is so important to politicians, then why can't we drill in Alaska, or in the Gulf, or build a pipeline to bring in oil from Canada? Oh right, because politicians are assholes and incompetent. Maybe they like war for war's sake and the oil is just an excuse?

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Runaway1956]

I understand what you're saying, very well. And, decades ago, I would have had to plead "guilty".

I haven't been guilty since I walked out in the streets of an African town, and looked real poverty in the face. Real poverty, that few Americans understand. I outgrew a lot of ignorance on Africa's east coast.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[danbert8]

Annex Canada? Obama just told them to sell their oil to China. We don't want to pipe it through our country! Maybe politicians like war, and the oil just gets in the way?

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[datapharmer]

Because that isn't how how deficit spending works. If they stop spending money they don't have they don't magically have money to give us as 'tax breaks', they just have less debt to pay back with our future taxes. Trust me, I'd love a tax break, but sound economics is important too.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[michael_cain]

Or, closer to what actually happened, we could invade Iraq AND cut taxes by $500 billion.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[andy1307]

training Osama, supporting the Taliban

The US didn't train OSama. He was a rich saudi who went to Afghanistan for adventure and jihad. The taliban were created by Pakistan years after the US left the region.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Forty Two Tenfold]

Iran unquestionably,/b> is working on atomic bombs and has started several wars.

Bullshit. That's where everyone should stop reading this drivel. Oh, FYI Jews have nukes. Pakistan has nukes. For the sake of MAD balance Iran should as well, but the nukes aren't the problem here. This is.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[um... Lucas]

Wow. Talk about uneducated.

First off if you're going to spout off about over population, realize that WE (us citizens) use FAR MORE resources per capita than any 2nd ofr 3rd worlder could dream of. So if you're going to spout off about lack of resources for the people of the world, understand that reducing our population in half would conserve more resources than reducing developing populations by a billion or more. Not that I advocate for that, I'm just sick of seeing how wasteful we are (including me) but seeing the finger pointed at all the people in the world who have only a sliver of what we have.

If you're saying that Iran is overpopulated because their land can't support the number of people there, I'd agree with that. I'd also suggest that the same is true for us. But the answer is already there: trade. We have arable land. But we couldn't cultivate it to feed all of us if not for fertilizers, which oil is a key ingredient. We couldn't get it from the "breadbasket" region to the population centers on the coasts, which means oil. And once it's on the coasts, supermarket or fridge, it needs to be kept from spoiling. Via electricity, so much of which is supplied by oil.

So we have one thing. Land to grow on. Absent oil it would be useless to us. Iran and so much else of the middle east lacks that. But they have the oil that WE need in order to not suffer mass starvation. And trade is the solution. It could be direct (food for oil) or it could be indirect (food for dollars, dollars to euros, euros for food). But the point is that we're mutually dependent.

So when we talk about sanctions, realize that depriving the population of resources directly. Less dollars so less to be ent on imports. So us doing that to them is essentially the same as them blocking all the highways leading away from our agricultural areas

World resources aren't spread evenly. But trade fixes that problem.

So before you spout off about over population point your finger at yourself ,me, and The rest of us, as we are the resource hogs of the world. And realize that all of our own stuff would be useless if not for what we can import from overseas.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[demachina]

Actually there is a pipeline being built through the United Arab Emirates which is on the south side of the straight, with something like 2 million barrells/day capacity, which would lessen dependence on the straight.

Though I think Iran is threatening to attack the pipeline too if their oil is embargoed and they decide to close the straight.

Most people don't remember but the U.S., Britain and the Dutch embargoing oil going to Japan was the reason Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, it was neither a a surprise nor a sneak attack. FDR wanted Japan to attack the U.S. so he could overcome resistence from isolationists and enter World War II against Germany.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[The Snowman]

Furthermore, we have reasons and justification for going to war with Iran.

Justification for obliterating a country on the opposite side of the planet? The Constitution doesn't say anything authorizing that. Part of the reason the United States exists is because our leaders at the time were fed up with the British government for several reasons. This includes imperialism and the fact that the British empire had its nose in too many places, including the colonies.

I think unless we have a country invading or attacking U.S. soil, we need to avoid war at all costs. Japan bombing Pearl Harbor? By all means, fight back, and take the fight to their allies (Germany, Italy) once we wrap up the Pacific theater. Specious arguments about a madman in Iraq allegedly having WMDs? Who cares? Not our problem. In that case, we didn't even declare war, but we should have. Congress alone has that authority, but ever since WW2, has been too eager to pass resolutions saying "the President can attack this other country, but we don't want to declare war and look like douchebags."

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Zumbs]

Bullshit. Europe, Japan and USA are some of the most heavily populated areas on the planet, and yet they manage to feed their populations. As far as I remember, both the EU and the US export foodstuffs. The reason is a highly industrialized agricultural sector. The same countries have some of the longest life expectancies. This is due to access to clean water, ample food, warm homes and medicine. Exactly the things that the sanctions on Iraq removed from the Iraqi population. Saddam Hussein was rich, so he could pay to get whatever he needed smuggled into the country. The Iraqi masses could not, so they were dependent on the Iraqi state for whatever little they could get.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[The Snowman]

Even if the US whould have invested 500Billion in a meaninful way in the Region, the world would be better off.....

How about investing that money in a meaningful way in the United States, not the middle east? Is the responsibility of our government not the voters and taxpayers of the United States?

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[icebraining]

Maybe you should try to see which countries have actually very low natality rates. Hint: China isn't one of them.

Quality of life and wealth are extremely important to reduce natality, and economic embargos work against that.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Anonymous Coward]

"I know I'm going to get the flamebait mod, but this is actually the general opinion of the rest of the world about most of US wars."
You seem unusually well informed......

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[um... Lucas]

Name a war that Iran started. Yeah. Didn't think so. Why don't you read something rather than watching fox news?

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Anonymous Coward]

Furthermore, we have reasons and justification for going to war with Iran.

Name them. And when you do, be sure to exclude any reasons that would appear hypocritical - those which could as easily apply to the US or its allies.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[rainmouse]

If the Iranian government were so concerned over the deaths of their poor due to economic sanctions, then they would accede to their international obligations of forsaking Hezbollah and abandoning their nuclear weapon aspirations.

Perhaps if you could provide some direct evidence of their nuclear weapons aspiration. Perhaps I'm being a cynic but we heard the whole WMD line with Iraq and it was (at least in the UK) proven to be a complete fabrication. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/02/uk_dossier_on_iraq/html/full_dossier.stm) So when that line failed they tried to focus on the human rights abuses. Unfortunately we replaced one set of human rights abuses with another. We did no good there, just killed an awful lot of people.

Considering our constant threats of violent action for political and ecenomic purposes.
(Cambridge online dictionary) terrorism noun /ter..r.zm//-.-/ [U] Definition (threats of) violent action for political purposes

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[InterestingFella]

Then you probably also understand that it is the US and Europe that uses most of the resources on our planet. If you want to save as much lives as you can while preventing overpopulation, we westerners should be first ones to go. People from other places on Earth use far fewer resources per one person than we do.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[TheCarp]

Yah,.... I don't get it. If business owners want their shops to not burn down, then they should just pay their protection money. I don't see what their problem is, just take a knee already and bow down before your masters.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[InterestingFella]

This is one of the most intelligent posts I've read on Slashdot in a while. Mod parent up.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[interval1066]

Yeah! Like Britain is France's bitch!!

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[HornWumpus]

And the Japanese were being perfectly polite gentlemen in China and Mongolia at the time.

Take your revisionist BS elsewhere. War being inevitable and everybody knowing it is very different then war being a conspiracy.

Nobody has pointed out the for Iran to close the straits of Hormuz they would by definition _have_ to attack the UAE. Our Allie.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[HornWumpus]

Semantic game. What's the difference between the Mujahadine and the Taliban.

The CIA did screw up. We did what we had to do r.e. the Ruskys. We should have slipped a few AIDS infested dancing boys into Osamas camp after the defeat of the Russians. Not ruthless enough was the problem.

Then again maybe we did. Arafat died of AIDS.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Vinegar Joe]

You're right! It's George Bush's fault!

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[jythie]

Ahm... actually part of the strategic reasoning behind sanctions is that they hurt the population. The idea is that if you make the lower population suffer enough that they will pressure their government to change behavior OR overthrow it. So when people rant about sanctions killing people, they are not just bleeding hearts.. the result is by design.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[khipu]

That's where everyone should stop reading this drivel. Oh, FYI Jews have nukes. Pakistan has nukes.

So? Because little Johnny has nuclear weapons, little Jack has a right to have them too? This isn't about rights, it's about threats.

The fact that Israel has nuclear weapons isn't a threat to the US or US allies. Hence, it doesn't concern us much. Given Iran's stated policies, Iranian nuclear weapons are a threat to the US and US allies.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[iamhassi]

Yes, we're overpopulated, and the fact that you and at least 6 billion other people on the planet would deny it has no bearing on the fact.

When you say "we" you should specify, because the world is not overpopulated, only portions of it. Out of 7 billion people on earth, 2 billion are in China, yet China is smaller than the US and our 300 million people. So china has 7 times more people and less land than the US. The US isn't growing very fast either, with 100,000 in 1915 and 200,000 in 1968. "We" have a long way to go before we are overpopulated.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[HangingChad]

MAYBE everyone wouldn't hate U.S. so much?

It's not right this is moderated troll. The idea that if the U.S. were less confrontational on the world stage we might be more highly regarded is only controversial among the Fox News crowd.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[demachina]

The U.S. equipped Afghanistan's mujahideen in their war against the Soviet Union which occupied Afghanistan for most of the 80's. It was called Operation Cyclone

Al Qaeda was formed by Bin Laden and others in a mujahideen camp in 1988 shortly before the Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan. Both Al Qaeda and the Taliban were and probably still are extensively supported by Pakistan's intelligence agency, the ISI, which was America's primary partner in Operation Cyclone.

The U.S. didn't exactly "train" Osama, but is pretty much a fact the U.S. did help equip, develop and nurture the mujahideen movement, a splinter of which would morph in to Al Qaeda. The ISI almost certainly aided Bin Laden throughout his career, which is probably why he was found in the middle of a Pakistani garrison city when he was killed, a few miles from the Pakistani equivalent of West Point.

Al Qaeda turned on the U.S. during the first Persian Gulf War against Iraq, when the U.S. established bases in Saudi Arabia, and started two decades of extensive military intervention in the Middle East. Al Qaeda was especially incensed at an infidel army camping in the middle of the Muslim holy land, Saudia Arabia.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[pclminion]

Poverty is not due to lack of food or resources in the world.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[gary_7vn]

Because there is not much oil in Alaska and don't worry, the pipeline will be built. War is about resources, always has been.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[AC-x]

Iraq was heavily supported by the US in its war against Iran, including arming Iraq with chemical weapons and turning a blind eye to atrocities against Iran and its own people. When Iraq consulted the US about invading Kuwait they were told that "[The US] took no position on these Arab affairs", basically telling them it was ok to go ahead and invade.

Your conservative revision of history is appalling. You are the type of person who believes that the USA has never supported tyrants and has never taken part in unjustified aggression.

It's easy, quit threatening people and play nice with the world, quit having a childlike temper tantrum and pretending that you have only ever been a force for good in the world.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Anonymous Coward]

So in other words, the Slashdot crowd is happy to claim "controlling the government for a good deal on oil" == stealing, but "downloading music and movies without permission for financial gain" != stealing.
Makes perfect sense.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[khipu]

Technically, I suppose you are right. In practice, Iran's policies and threats have contributed to wars in the region. Don't get me wrong: I think we should stay out of Iran, but we should continue sanctions.

(As for your Fox comment, stop being such a jerk.)

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[budgenator]

Boy that's what I was thinking, where's the "change we can believe in"? We were literally targeting Gadaffi even after we decided we were out of the assassination business decades ago. We basically told Gadaffi give up your nuclear and WMD ambitions, and pay the Lockerbie Settlement and we'll leave you alone, now since Obama and the EU went all cowboy on Gadaffi, what do you think the chance of anyone else ever listening? "Remember the Alamo" really meant since the Mexicans weren't taking prisoners, every fight with them would be a win or die situation and we saw how that turned out for Mexico, now Obama has made the same mistake.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[khipu]

Justification for obliterating a country on the opposite side of the planet?

There is no justification for "obliterating countries", but there can be for military action on the opposite side of the planet. Among other things, the US has allies and international commitments.

This includes imperialism and the fact that the British empire had its nose in too many places, including the colonies.

US military action isn't driven by "imperialism"; imperialism doesn't work, as Britain and France showed. The US is trying to convert other nations into trading partners with compatible economies and governments. That may or may not be a reasonable thing to do, but it is not "imperialism".

ever since WW2, has been too eager to pass

Unfortunately, you're still seeing the aftermath of WWII, with Europe politely refraining from military action and the US taking over Europe's protection and security needs. That should end.

I think unless we have a country invading or attacking U.S. soil, we need to avoid war at all costs.

And I tend to agree. But while you seem to think that we should refrain for moral and legal reasons, I just view it as a matter of utility: the low probability of democratizing and liberalizing Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan and the limited economic benefit to us doesn't justify the high human and financial cost. Furthermore, the Middle East should be Europe's financial and military responsibilitiy, not ours.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Anonymous Coward]

Same as how the so-called democracy in USA is a figment of the right's phony imagination?

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Anonymous Coward]

> I think some circles have been planning a war with Iran for quite a while.

So what? This conflict is about nuclear proliferation involving a regime that has tentacles into a lot of other countries and terrorist forces around the region. Venezuela will have a nuke if Iran gets nukes. Hezbollah and Hamas will likely gain nukes. Syria will gain nukes. UAE and Saudi Arabia will have to quickly develop nukes to maintain parity in the region. Nuclear proliferation is a really bad scene for the world, especially in places where the regimes aren't necessarily stable. On the face of it, it always sounds reasonable when the people talk how the USA should leave this or that region alone and not meddle in foreign affairs. In the real world, things are a tad more complicated. The liberal foreign policy worldview seems to be based on the naivety that if left alone, other people will behave and get along in peace and harmony. I believe that this worldview comes from liberals by and large being peaceful decent people. They expect that means that everyone else is fundamentally the same. I think reality is that some people and cultures are very violent, and they cannot be left unchecked. These aren't nice peaceful folk we're talking about here. So while the USA has plenty of blood on their hands, things aren't so black and white.
    It's not as though if we leave the middle east alone and get our own oil they will somehow snap back into peace and harmony. That ignores thousands of years of reality in that part of the world.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Anonymous Coward]

The Germans were in Africa to try and salvage Mussolini's utterly botched and amateurish campaigns and colonial efforts.
Now if you want to talk about why the Germans were tear-assing towards the Caucasus in Summer 1942...

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[demachina]

There is no disputing that the oil embargo was imposed in an attempt to slow the Japanese occupation and war in China, which was certainly brutal.

But, it would have been incredibly naive for the U.S. to think that Japan wouldn't retaliate for the oil embargo. Without the oil supply from the U.S., Dutch and British East Indies(no Indonesia) Japan's economy and military was crippled. It was inevitable Japan would seize the Dutch and British East Indies to restore their oil supply. That would inevitably lead to war with the British and U.S. So to protect their oil supply they had to completely remove the British and U.S. from a large buffer around their oil fields and shipping lanes which is exactly what they did in the opening weaks of the war. The U.S. Pacific fleet was the one obstacle to Japan's seizing and holding the East Indies oil fields and shipping the oil to Japan. Everyone knew it so its no surprise the U.S. attacked it first thing. It was also no accident the U.S. carriers weren't at Pearl Harbor because they were priceless, while the battleships were expendable since they were nearly useless with the advent of aircraft carriers.

So FDR and the U.S. military knew war was inevitable with Japan the day the embargo was imposed. Claiming the attack on Pearl Harbor was a "surprise" was pure propaganda for the consumption of the American people. It was designed to whip American's in to frenzy of support for war against both Germany and Japan. It worked really well.

I'm not even really being critical of it, Pearl Harbor was a propaganda masterpiece by the Roosevelt administration, in fact I am almost admiring its genius.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Anonymous Coward]

If it is stealing when certain companies are given favorable status in developing resource extraction, then Chinese are stealing minerals from Africa, Dutch are stealing gas from Latin America, Indians are stealing metals from South Asia, Britons are stealing resources from South America, and Canadians are stealing all kinds of resources from Caribbean nations.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Artifakt]

I have to agree with you, particularly right now when domestic problem solving has to be our first priority if the system itself is to survive, but if we can get the economy back on a stable course, here's why I'd argue investing in other places can be worth it.
          The sane argument for spending money on other people's nations is never that they deserve it more than your own citizens. It's that it saves larger costs elsewhere. We make that sort of argument all the time even in domestic politics, because where someone such as you tries to draw the line as citizen/non-citizen, many other people try to draw the lines other places. If you're going to frame things as American citizen/Foreign national, please note a huge part of making what you want happen for America is to get hundreds of millions of people not to redraw that us vrs. them line somewhere else, like "producers vs. consumers", or "The state that elected me" vs. "The other 49, the district, and Puerto Rico, too".
            Why spend on educating your own poor, when education for just those who can afford it themselves may be fairer (by some people)? The answer is fairer or less fair, sometimes you can spend X on education or 6X on prisons. Why spend money finding a cure for AIDS, when we could spend it on diseases where the person's 'immoral lifestyle' didn't contribute? One answer might be, those other diseases don't have the same potential to become epidemics and don't tend to kill otherwise healthy young productive people in great numbers. For the international theatre, the argument is that wars cost a lot, and foreign aid actually saves money.
        Can it, really? There's been cases that make good arguments for it, but often, foreign aid seems to get us nothing. Contrary to the people on the right who think foreign aid is a Liberal scheme, a lot of foreign aid gets earmarked for buying weapons, in which case, we aren't buying peace, we're simply buying delaying a war while giving both sides more nastiness for when that war can't be delayed any more (Counting the Israeli side of US foreign aid certainly includes a large portion that goes for military resources, well over 50% of total aid to the region.). What would happen if we specifically made all foreign aid targeted at actual peace, at building hospitals and clinics and paving roads and building bridges and feeding people? Less than 50% of foreign aid actually stays targeted at making things kinder and gentler, so how would we determine if taking that percentage up would actually win peace, or if various regional madmen would just use what we were saving their governments to prepare for more war?
        But, if we were aggressively waging peace, I suspect there are ways to make sure the US got full credit from the populations we helped. There was a consulting firm during the Vietnam war, that said to the US government, in effect "It's cheaper just to buy their hearts and minds. We can make boxes full of seed grain, more boxes full of basic medical supplies, more boxes full of basic tools, and print manuals in Vietnamese for everything. Mark all the types so everyone knows what's in each kind. Then airdrop those boxes with parachutes all over both parts of Vietnam ... with little red, white and blue pop-up flags, just to make them easier to find. Six months after you start, tell Hanoi they get a Pepsi plant and Saigon gets a Coca-Cola plant. By the projections, building those boxes to actually play the star spangled banner and filling those manuals with color pictures of smiling Americans saying (in Vietnamese): "We don't care if you're flirting with communism, we just want you to stop fighting, fix up your infrastructure, and feed all your people", and it was still expected to cost a lot less than making the same number of bombs as we actually dropped (raw estimates only, but the price per box was less than 10% of the price per unit bomb).

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Anonymous Coward]

China has a population of 1.35 billion?

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[White Flame]

And it goes to show that the enemy of your enemy is NOT automatically your friend.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Anonymous Coward]

"[T]he sanctions are in themselves, a declaration of war[.]"

Ah, but the war of the many (the international community, acting through the U.N.) against the one (or few) is considered ultimately virtuous. (As though virtue is determined by ballot, but still, that's the whole "the U.N. didn't authorize the 'coalition of the willing' to rewrite Iraq's story" gist. In theory, at least, a lot of the antiwar sentiment would've been neutered by such an explicit authorization.

The U.N Charter talks an awful lot about, um, "kinetic military action" to use the current euphemism, for the founding document of the world's (supposed) last, best hope for eternal, global peace.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[NeutronCowboy]

You realize all those finds game after the Balkan War? The UN's and NATO's involvement in Kosovo and Yugoslavia were about preventing a European conflict spilling into the rest of Europe. WW1 was essentially started over the locals being stupid, and WW2 was just WW1 being properly finished. Europe has tried like hell since then to stop any local war.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Anonymous Coward]

How the fuck is this marked "Troll" when this is dead on fucking correct?

Oh right...slashdot's groupthink "moderation" system. Go USA.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Anonymous Coward]

The US should have spent the 500 Billion or so it wasted on lies about Iraq on researching renewable energy, and the Middle East would have returned to its peaceful irrelevance as oil would no longer have been strategically so important.

Yes, because if oil loses it's value, they would have NOTHING left to fight over. Violent confrontations between different flavors of Islam, civil unrest over corrupt governments pissing away funds for no reason, deep-seated ethnic hatred, and the desire to immolate anyone who doesn't share your belief system are all ENTIRELY based on how much people like liquid dinosaurs... *rolls eyes*

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[tqk]

Furthermore, we have reasons and justification for going to war with Iran.

Name them. And when you do, be sure to exclude any reasons that would appear hypocritical - those which could as easily apply to the US or its allies.

Israel. You know, that puppet Zionist state ostensibly made up of refugees from the Holocaust? The (believed) long overdue answer to all the centuries of pogroms visited on Jews by Xtians?

If the US fixed its campaign finance laws, its politicos would no longer be able to pander to the Jewish lobby and its money. Consequently, if Israel was no longer able to get away with bitch-slapping the Palestinians, maybe the Middle East would finally be able to get along with each other again. They did in the distant past, you know?

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[gtall]

Bosnia, Kosovo, Vietnam, Korea, Panama, Guatamala (sp?), Lebanon. Yep, there's oil in them thar hills, Jed load up the truck and move to Beverly, Hills that is, swimming pools, movie stars...

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[The Snowman]

US military action isn't driven by "imperialism"; imperialism doesn't work, as Britain and France showed. The US is trying to convert other nations into trading partners with compatible economies and governments. That may or may not be a reasonable thing to do, but it is not "imperialism".

I never said the United States is engaging in imperialism: I was comparing what our government does to the old British imperialism, where they made everyone else's business their own. Regardless of the reason for the U.S. doing what it does, I believe it is wrong. Not only does our government install puppets around the globe (generally with spectacular failures), they do so at great cost to the taxpayers (of which I am one).

Furthermore, the Middle East should be Europe's financial and military responsibilitiy, not ours.

Correct, given the fact that the Middle East are not our neighbors. I think the case for intervening in Mexico is much stronger given the proximity, and the fact that the violence there does affect our shared border.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[mesterha]

Actually, I heard about the Caspian oil during the war. Just because those finds came after the war doesn't mean people didn't realize there was oil there.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Forty Two Tenfold]

The fact that Israel has nuclear weapons isn't a threat to the US or US allies. Hence, it doesn't concern us much. Given Iran's stated policies, Iranian nuclear weapons are a threat to the US and US allies.

Given Israel's stated policies, Israel having nukes is a threat to Iran, most of Islamic world and Europe AND indirectly — the US. Iran's possession of nukes is a warranty of a zero sum game, otherwise known as M.A.D.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[tqk]

And the Japanese were being perfectly polite gentlemen in China and Mongolia at the time.

What does that have to do with anything?!? The US was infuriated about Yellow People being oppressed by Japan?!? Chyaa, right.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Charliemopps]

Taxes now, or taxes 10 years from now, it's really irrelevant. It gets paid for, by me, eventually.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[budgenator]

Right people but wrong answer;

If just 0.3% of the Saharan Desert was used for a concentrating solar plant, it would produce enough power to provide all of Europe with clean renewable energy. That is why 20 blue chip German companies are gathering together next month to discuss plans and investments to create such a massive project. Both the meeting and project are being promoted by the Desertec Foundation , which is proposing to erect 100 GW of concentrating solar power plants throughout Northern Africa. World’s Largest Solar Project Planned for Saharan Desert

,
considering that Libya exports about 1.8 million barrels per day verses Every year, each square kilometre of desert receives solar energy equivalent to 1.5 million barrels of oil. I'd say Libyan open desert is worth much more than it's oil.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[dryeo]

There's a couple of reasons. The EPA wouldn't allow the oil sands to be harvested due to the massive pollution and how it would change the political landscape in the States, 10 more States of which probably 9 would never vote Republican.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[FoolishOwl]

Indeed. We found the technical solution to hunger when we invented agriculture. Before that, poverty wasn't even a concept. Poverty has always been artificial.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Toonol]

Yes, we're overpopulated, and the fact that you and at least 6 billion other people on the planet would deny it has no bearing on the fact.

Nor do your assertions have any bearing on the fact.

We are not overpopulated. The Earth could easily support seven billion people for many thousands of years. The problem of limited resources is purely social and political.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Alaska Jack]

"$500 billion or so," invested according to political calculations (by which I mean, not market-based analyses that invest according to promising lines of research) = 1,000 Solyndras.

- aj

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Toonol]

Most people don't remember but the U.S., Britain and the Dutch embargoing oil going to Japan was the reason Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, it was neither a a surprise nor a sneak attack. FDR wanted Japan to attack the U.S. so he could overcome resistence from isolationists and enter World War II against Germany.

An embargo in place because Japan attacked China. If I stop selling things to you because you attacked my friend, am I at fault when you then attack me?

Besides, the attack was a surprise, in the most fundamental sense: We didn't know it was coming. Whether it was intended to be a sneak attack or not is up for debate, but there is no doubt that Japan was relying on surprise in their strategy. Even the people claiming Japan let us know about the attack beforehand admit they only intended at most a few hours of warning.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Alaska Jack]

It is far from clear to me how this is "insightful." The Middle East is one long crescent of theocratic oppression, from Morocco to Malaysia. It's easy to glibly say, "Oh, well, we should just invest half a trillion dollars to make it a better place." How exactly would investing in Saddam's Iraq have made it "a better place?" How would investing in wealthy Saudi Arabia make it "a better place?" How would investing in the Taliban's 6th-Century religious dictatorship have made Afghanistan "a better place"? For that matter, why would the Taliban would have accepted, or allowed their countrymen to accept, your dirty western money?

It's part of the line of thinking that says, "Oh, there's a problem? We can just solve it by shoveling money at it!" In real life, things rarely work that way.

-aj

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[khipu]

I never said the United States is engaging in imperialism: I was comparing what our government does to the old British imperialism, where they made everyone else's business their own

But the analogy is a bad one. British imperialism just didn't work in the long run for anybody. But US military intervention has worked in the past and benefited both the US and the foreign nation.

Regardless of the reason for the U.S. doing what it does, I believe it is wrong.

"Wrong" is a moral judgment. I don't see anything "wrong" with intervening against undemocratic regimes.

Not only does our government install puppets around the globe (generally with spectacular failures), they do so at great cost to the taxpayers (of which I am one).

But that's just not true. US intervention has often succeeded in liberating nations and turning them into prosperous trading partners, often liberating them in the process. US and European prosperity and security has depended on this system, in particular during the Cold War. If we had pulled back after WWII, the rest of the world would largely be communist and fascist, and both we and the rest of the world would be much poorer and less developed.

We should pull back and bring a lot of our military home. We should also get Europe to do more of its own dirty work. But isolationism isn't the answer because we know it doesn't work.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[khipu]

Given Israel's stated policies, Israel having nukes is a threat to Iran, most of Islamic world and Europe AND indirectly — the US. Iran's possession of nukes is a warranty of a zero sum game, otherwise known as M.A.D.

Well, given that analysis, you seem to agree then that it comes down to a cost/benefit analysis, not a question of rights. And while you may disagree with the cost/benefit calculation the US government makes vis-a-vis Israel and Iran, I think they are probably better at it than you or I. FWIW, I think US policies towards these nations is mostly right (pressure Iran, befriend Israel), but we should probably gradually reduce our level of involvement overall.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Xtifr]

All the stuff you mentioned played out exactly how it was supposed to. There are no accidents in politics.

Wow, you have amazing faith in the intelligence of politicians! In my experience, most politicians are short-sighted imbeciles with little or no ability to engage in long-term planning, and pretty much everything that happens in politics, good or bad, seems to be mostly by accident. Maybe in your part of the world, politicians are superhuman creatures who can carefully plan out elaborate schemes that play out flawlessly, but somehow, I find this hard to believe. As far as I know, aliens have not actually taken over any countries in the world, which means that politicians the world over are human, and thus, not very smart.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Anonymous Coward]

Without the oil supply from the U.S., Dutch and British East Indies(no Indonesia) Japan's economy and military was crippled.

NOTE: the economy of Japan was crippled because Japan chose to place its military at a higher priority. If Japan had halted its war and invasion of mainland Asia, there would have been plenty of oil for its domestic and economic use. But then, warmongers care little for civilians - foreign OR domestic...

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[jamstar7]

We are not overpopulated. The Earth could easily support seven billion people for many thousands of years. The problem of limited resources is purely social and political.

Actually, we are overpopulated, once you take away all our technology. Most of the tech involved to feed 7 billion people requires cheap energy and chemicals for fertilizer. Most of those chemicals come from petroleum and other fossil fuels, the cheap energy also from fossil fuels. I've heard varying figures for the 'carrying capacity' of humans on Earth without technology that range from half a million to half a billion, depending on who's doing the figuring and how much tech they claim needs to 'go away'.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[mbkennel]

"Via electricity, so much of which is supplied by oil."

Actually oil is too expensive to produce electricity everywhere in the world, except in subsidized petro-states.

There is little substitutions available for trucking, and none for shipping and aircraft.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[mbkennel]

Actually the evidence against Iran today is far more comprehensive than against Iraq in 2003.

In 2003 virtually all the international groups saw nothing significant in Iraq. By constrast even the open facts regarding Iran is far more suggestive of a breakout nuclear weapons capability. Read recent IAEA reports.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[mbkennel]

Iran has stated on the record that even if the Palestinians agree 100% to a peace agreement, they will still pursue the violent extermination of Israel.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that Israel has nuclear weapons isn't a threat to the US or US allies. Hence, it doesn't concern us much.

I know it sounds crazy, but maybe there's more of a threat from Israel than one might realize:

"One alleged radiation hot spot on Manhattan's east side has the potential for becoming a political hot spot: A strong radiation spike from the area of the Israeli Embassy. Officials would not comment on why they thought that particular area allegedly showed such a stunning peak in radiation."

This was brought to my attention by a childhood friend that works for an agency in NY. No tin foil hats needed as I'm not trying to speculate as to what causes the spike, just that it exists, and it's much, much higher in intensity than the background radiation (from granite, etc.). I'm not particularly anti-anyone, but I would not trust the Israeli government any more than I would trust my own.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[mbkennel]

"Why did US enter into conflict in Libya but not Syria?"

Because there was a viable military option with a good chance of success. Libya was geographically dispersed, with substantially armed and organized rebels with maneuver capability who could win with close air support.

The Syrian army is much stronger than the Libyan army and the conflict is internal urban warfare.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[meerling]

Peaceful? The Middle East? Since when?
Historically that entire area has always been a hotbed of hotheads wanting to slaughter someone. Whether it was a nearby nation, or several of their own 'tribes'.

And although there have been a great number of wonderful people who came from, or are unfortunately still trapped in Iran, those in charge really are a bunch of hateful rejects with medieval mindsets.

As much as I'd love for everyone in the world to just shun and ignore people like that, it's not feasible. You see, they really do have the ability to disrupt the entire worlds economy, which is rather fragile right now. If you want to imagine this will only hurt the USA, then you are severely deluded. As we are currently so dependent on oil (I wish we weren't, but that's an entirely different rant) an increase in the cost of that will increase the costs of virtually everything. All the shipping is reliant on that, a clear chunk of the power used by manufacturing is generated by oil, and the cost of farming is decidedly increased by fuel costs as well. If all luxury goods were ignored, and you just looked at food and nothing else, increasing oil prices jacks up the price of food. Sure other countries produce food, but they are just as reliant on oil, except for the non-mechanized farming which tends to be significantly more expensive for far lower yields. A very LARGE number of countries have to import food. If you increase the cost of that food, since those countries don't have more money to spend on it, they get less food. Less food than required means people go hungry, possibly even die of starvation. The USA is one of the worlds largest producers of food, and if it came to famine in the USA vs selling food to the rest of the world, the USA wouldn't be the ones starving. That may sound self centered, but do you know any country that would starve it's own population just to feed another countries people? (Yes, there are inequities in all nations, and there are starving everywhere, but what I'm talking about is mass famine due to food shortages.)
Ok, so an increase in oil costs increases costs for virtually everything else down the line, but with food, let's see... Maybe you have a measly 1% increase in world wide food prices. Any idea how many thousands of people will starve to death in that year, that probably wouldn't have if the price had remained stable? There are organizations and people that run those numbers every day, and yes, it's in the thousands.

So you say the USA taking action to prevent another country from drastically destabilizing and increasing the costs of oil is self serving and should be stopped. You seem to be conveniently ignoring that what they are stopping is something that will hurt everyone in the world, so even if it is for personal reasons, it has an indirect but decidedly observable, altruistic, and beneficial effect for the world in general.

I think it would be interesting to see what would happen if the USA were to find a means to fill all its energy needs domestically, and also withdrew all forces, military, political, charitable, etc, from the rest of the world. It would be a very illuminating experiment, but even if current politics allowed it, the morals of any sane rational person wouldn't, as it would undoubtably be the root cause of significant upheaval and death around the world. You may hate some of the current power structures, but there are no suitable replacements that would not be geosadistic.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Mr Bubble]

I agree with this sentiment and the response saying that any meaningful investment in the region would also have generated more returns.

I think the number is waay above 500 billion. I don't have time to google the citations, but various credible parties have pegged the number well above a trillion and that doesn't even take into account the long term costs associated with disabilities, missed opportunities, ill will towards the US, interest on the trillion we borrowed to conduct the war, bad karma, etc.

And, no, I am not a delusional hippy or a communist, I am just smart - something we have not been as a country lately.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[jamstar7]

Iraq invaded Kuwait for the oil and the access to the Gulf. After fighting the Iranians, their economy was a mess. Sanctions didn't help them a bit. Neither did the Israeli bombing of a light water power reactor the Israelis claimed was going to be used for a breeder reactor. As for the oil smuggling that went on in Iraq until the invasion, most of the money went for bribes to keep the Ba'ath Party in power.

Ya know, they never did find 'WMDs' in Iraq, and they never will. If the Iraqis had had any left over from the US-supplied weapons, they'dve used them on the US in '03. They had nothing to lose, the US had repeatedly claimed they were invading to force a regime change. And I for one find it interesting that those aluminum tubes reputedly scheduled for use in a seperator for enriching plutonium to weapons grade were pronounced perfect for the fusilages of the latest generation of SCUD missiles by US rocket scientists, said SCUDs which, if fired from just inside the western border of Iraq, could, with a minimal tailwind, drop their warheads inside the borders of Israel.

Makes you think, eh?

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Anonymous Coward]

1.7 million? This souns like assigning all deaths due to poverty directly to sanctions. Let me just state that in communist Poland (which was pretty tame by dictatorial standards) among some bare necessities there was a shortage of toilet paper. There was no embargo and Poland has a sufficient amount of trees to make production of toilet paper just a question of arranging some primitive machinery.

Anyway, since when does Iraq have a ban on having an economy that produces something other than oil? Actually, embargos go a long way toward making local production capacity worthwhile. If a country has trouble with local production, it is NOT a problem of embargo. Look to the authorities in that country for the problem - they are responsible for what ultimately happens. And no, you do not need latest generation drugs, medical equipment, and computers to have a healthy society.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[tokul]

Iran's possession of nukes is a warranty of WMD in hands of theocracy which threatened to destroy other country. MAD implies that both sides are reasonable and have something to lose. Religious freak dreaming about 72 virgins in paradise or authoritarian regime on brink of collapse is not something reasonable.

If we go into stated policy things, then Iran is not developing any nuclear weapons. Right....

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

It isn't just the Jewish lobby, apocalyptic Christians support the Jews running the middle east to harken the return of JC, which some cynical Jews support at their peril, since phase 2 is conversion of said Jews to Christianity.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Alaska Jack]

Hey, Mr. chrb, sir.

I know your post was modded insightful and all, but can you point me toward the original source of the Richardson quote? I can't seem to find it. Your link points toward an unsourced citation.

Thanks,

- aj

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

Al Qaeda turned on the U.S. during the first Persian Gulf War against Iraq, when the U.S. established bases in Saudi Arabia, and started two decades of extensive military intervention in the Middle East. Al Qaeda was especially incensed at an infidel army camping in the middle of the Muslim holy land, Saudia Arabia.
Actually, Osama was pissed b/c the US c blocked his grand scheme to use his mujahadeen to remake the Mid East and overthrow the house of Saud.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Runaway1956]

Carrying capacity. Wow. I thought maybe I was the only guy outside of the game commissions to understand that term.

I'll give you my guess:

This planet could probably sustain about two billion people, comfortably, without pumping tons of oil out of the ground to support our appetite for energy. As I say, that's only a guess. Maybe a half educated guess, but still a guess.

Of course, without the petroleum, a much larger percentage of that population would have to actually work to produce the food necessary to sustain the population. No welfare for baby making do-nothings, for starters. It would be much more of a "no work, no eat" society.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[phantomfive]

Given Israel's stated policies, Israel having nukes is a threat to Iran, most of Islamic world and Europe

Which Israeli policy makes nukes a threat to Iran? Or for that matter, Europe? Has Israel stated that they are going to try to get revenge for Auschwitz?

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[jamstar7]

The Pipeline was constructed with the promise that Alaskan oil wouldn't be diverted to Japan. So, the partners in the project ended up getting bought out by British Petroleum, which wasn't a signatory to that agreement, and a good portion of the oil was then shipped off to Japan.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[sycodon]

People spout this bullshit all the time. But they never go on to say that the U.S. and Europe produce most of the world's "resources" also.

America is a net food exporter and has been for a long time. Those ships filled with grain in all the third world ports? They came from the West. Those starving children you see on T.V.? They are the result of tin pot dictators, communist leftovers and various socialist utopian visionaries.

Just look at Zimbabwe. once, an exporter of food to the rest of the region, known as the breadbasket of Africa. Then Robert Mugabe came to power, lauded by all the leftists in the West as a man of the people. Now look at it. Inflation in the 1000%+, they can't feed themselves, oppression, and those children you see on late night TV.

Did America cause that? Did my having a second Big Mac cause that? My big screen TV? Nope.

Look at Venezuela. Same story, they just haven't reached the end game yet. Chavez is still the darling of the Hollywood left even as he slowly and relentlessly takes away their freedoms one bit at a time and destroys their economy. If an American President shut down CBS because of their editorial policies, people like you would be shitting bricks 24/7. Chavez does it and the response is, "well, they were fomenting rebellion."

Is the West "stealing" from Iran? not at $105 a barrel we're not.

We don't have a problem of not enough resources. We have a problem of uneven distribution. And that's not caused by Americans raising our own food and feeding ourselves, it's caused by authoritarian governments oppressing their citizens.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Forty Two Tenfold]

http://www.suntimes.com/news/world/8565077-418/israel-could-nuke-iran-with-newly-tested-missile.html http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x304864

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[sycodon]

"Exactly the things that Saddam Hussein removed from the Iraqi population."

TFIFY

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[chrb]

I don't know who originally reported it (it was over a decade ago), but if you check Google books or scholar you'll find references. books link scholar link

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Skuld-Chan]

But the analogy is a bad one. British imperialism just didn't work in the long run for anybody. But US military intervention has worked in the past and benefited both the US and the foreign nation.

Other than Japan and Germany - name one.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Forty Two Tenfold]

Religious freak dreaming about 72 virgins in paradise or authoritarian regime on brink of collapse is not something reasonable.

And genocidal fundamentalist regime of Israel declaring Palestinians are less than animals, dropping Mtons of bombs on Lebanon and threatening Europe with nuclear strike lest they decline to support Israel in a potential conflict is reasonable, right?

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Forty Two Tenfold]

I think

Certainly not.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Anonymous Coward]

but we still, always, pay MARKET PRICE for oil

But only in a currency you can print as much of as you like. Try charging in Euros like Iraq, or gold, like Libya.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[chrb]

Not all, just some. Caspian Sea oil dates back centuries but recent interest emerged in the 90s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caspian_Sea#Hydrocarbon_resources

oil in the Caspian basin is estimated to be worth over US $12 trillion. The sudden collapse of the USSR and subsequent opening of the region has led to an intense investment and development scramble by international oil companies. In 1998 Dick Cheney commented that "I can't think of a time when we've had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian."[29]

I'm not saying that the stability of Eastern Europe is not strategically important, just suggesting that $12 trillion of oil reserves is also pretty important, and a pretty big motivator for a government concerned with that kind of thing.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Peristaltic]

US intervention has often succeeded in liberating nations...

Yes- Ask the people of Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, Haiti and El Salvador how those interventions went for them. Here's a reference to US interventions in the 20th and 21st centuries. Turns out we've had a very busy 100 years. Hell- I had no idea that we actually stationed troops for years in China well before WWII. Some of the interventions in the list above were likely justified, but I think Marine Major General Smedley Butler had a pretty good handle on reality when he said:

"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."

Extending these examples into modern times, I think that Iraq and the 'stans (Caspian oil pipeline) are now relatively safer places for American / Global Oil and Bank Interests. Don't worry; there's more to come- I'm sure there will be several more wars in the near future to get our minds off of the pain of dismantling / rebuilding Europe's and America's economic systems.... ahem...excuse me: "making the world safe for Democracy and Prosperity".

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[jamstar7]

Nobody knew for sure at the time there was oil there.


Besides, there were no brown people there to bomb, and the former Soviets haddn't had their big nuclear weapons garage sale yet, which is why we didn't do the big 'Invade for regime change' on the area.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Anonymous Coward]

TFIFY

Twisted That For You?

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Cassander]

Oh it's the sanctions that kill people. Sorry but it was the leaders of Iraq who refused to play nice with the world even after they invaded Kuwait and were subsequently forced back onto their own soil. It was the leaders of Iraq who murdered millions of their own people throughout the 80s and 90s. It was the leaders of Iraq who refused to deliver the UNICEF and other aid to those in need in their own country. It was the leaders of Iraq who plundered the revenues from the "oil for food" program instead of feeding their own population.

Your socialist revision of history is appalling. You are the type of person who believes guns kill people. Sorry people kill people as illustrated above.

It's easy, quit threatening people and play nice with the world, quit having a childlike temper tantrum and the sanctions will be lifted.

So you're ok with punishing innocent people for the crimes of their tyrants? It's not like the people who are suffering from the sanctions have any influence over the actions of their government. Their leaders aren't even democratically elected. Additionally, the people at the top who are actually responsible for the evil that the sanctions are in response to are incredibly well-insulated from the effects of those sanctions. In fact, the crazy dictators who run these countries actually use these foreign sanctions to their advantage, as a rallying cry to motivate their people to hate the "evil" western powers that are making them suffer.

Your incredibly short-sighted revision of history is appalling. You are the type of person who believes that corrupt dictators represent the will of their subjects, and that punishing their subjects somehow punishes them. I hope you're just a troll.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[elem]

And yet, as many of the comments attached to that article pointed out, the paragraph you quoted didn't appear in any of the original reporting but only in versions published on IndyMedia. No sourcing for it, no evidence for it, most likely to be nothing other than the usual Jew Hating you'll find all over IndyMedia.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[flyingsquid]

Perhaps if you could provide some direct evidence of their nuclear weapons aspiration. Perhaps I'm being a cynic but we heard the whole WMD line with Iraq and it was (at least in the UK) proven to be a complete fabrication.

And perhaps if you could try actually reading the news? Here's a report from the New York Times from November 8th:

United Nations weapons inspectors have amassed a trove of new evidence that they say makes a “credible” case that “Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear device,” and that the project may still be under way. The long-awaited report, released by the International Atomic Energy Agency on Tuesday, represents the strongest judgment the agency has issued in its decade-long struggle to pierce the secrecy surrounding the Iranian program. Knowing that their findings would be compared with the flawed Iraq intelligence that preceded the 2003 invasion — and has complicated American moves on Iran — the inspectors devoted a section of the report to “credibility of information.” The information was from more than 10 countries and from independent sources, they said; some was backed up by interviews with foreigners who had helped Iran.

Keep in mind, the U.N. weapons inspectors are the same guys who- under Hans Blix- said that there was no evidence that Iraq had any WMD. They made the right call on Iraq despite tremendous outside pressure, and now these same guys who were cautious on Iraq are saying that Iran has started a nuclear bomb program.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Alaska Jack]

I mean no disrespect, but those sources all seem to cite... each other. To be more specific, they all ultimately seem to rely on that George Monbiot article, which in turn -- provides no source.

I remain open to the possibility that Richardson actually said this, but at this point it's looking unlikely.

- aj

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason we shouldn't go to war with Iran isn't your pseudo-humanitarian handwaving, but simply that it isn't in our financial and political interest; it doesn't survive a cost-benefit analysis: Iran isn't enough of a threat to the US, a lot of innocent Iranians would get killed, the US wouldn't recover its costs, and that the chances that it would improve the situation are small.

That that the GeeDub and the brains that went into Afghanistan and Iraq.

While it may not benefit the country, it sure as shit benefited all the guys who get rich on oil or weapons. You know, the ones in the White House at the time?

America has become Israel's dog. The US-Iran war will happen, you can be sure of it. The ones with money and power care not for the rest of the pissants walking around in it. Your children will continue to fight their wars for profit and gain.

We have no jobs for all the people leaving Iraq. If they made it back in one piece, I hope they didn't unpack and get comfortable. Another tour is right around the corner.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[evil_aaronm]

I don't disagree with your point, but we -don't- pay "market price" for the oil. Since Goldman Sachs took advantage of the repeal of Glass-Steagal, we've been paying speculator prices. Look here: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_09/b4217086779050.htm. Good read, even if not very tightly woven.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[0ld_d0g]

I think this is just the US helping Saudi Arabia with their Iran problem. The US is attempting to mess up Irans oil commerce via sanctions. Its hard to tell if it will work because Iran has elected insane people that would rather fuck up their population than acquiesce to US demands.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[tokul]

imperialism doesn't work, as Britain and France showed.

Banana republics don't work either as last century politics of some countries showed. For some reason USA don't have lots of friends in own continent.

Aftermath of WW2 is cold war and harassment of other countries by US. Cold war ended. Remnants of it still existing in Korean peninsula. Aggressive US politics continue.

Since when Middle East is only Europe's problem. Your country started two wars against independent countries and now you expect others to foot your overextended military budget. Persians hate Americans and not Europeans.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Anonymous Coward]

> which is on the south side of the straight

At the risk of being pedantic and off-topic... what can I say, I'm into etymology... the word for a narrow channel of water is "strait" not "straight". A marine strait may actually be curved (the Strait of Hormuz is, I believe)... the word "strait" is related to "constrained" as in limited, choked, narrowed.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't you pull your head out of your ass? You're obviously a moron that does nothing but wank off to Fox News, so his comment was perfectly appropriate.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[myowntrueself]

And yet, as many of the comments attached to that article pointed out, the paragraph you quoted didn't appear in any of the original reporting but only in versions published on IndyMedia. No sourcing for it, no evidence for it, most likely to be nothing other than the usual Jew Hating you'll find all over IndyMedia.

I'd just like to say this;

You don't have to hate Jews to hate Israel.

Unfortunately most of the Israeli Jews I have known have been raving xenophobic racists. The Israeli government and military policies seem horrific, they maintain a kill ratio of about 100-1 against Palestinians. They don't accept that the Palestinian people even exist; the way it was explained to me was this "They are Arabs, they should be happy to live anywhere in the Arab world. Israel is not part of the Arab world and they should leave."

Most of the NON-Israeli Jews I have known have been peaceful tolerant people and I'd count all that I've known among my friends.

Yes I hate Israel. No I don't hate JEWS.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Anonymous Coward]

There's never any lack of whacko conspiracy theories, and you're promulgating one of them.

If battleships were "nearly useless," why did the Japanese fleet use them extensively -- and sometimes quite effectively -- during the war which followed Pearl Harbor?

The idea that Roosevelt purposely threw away our battleships -- and other ships destroyed at Pearl -- while preparing for an unpredictable large-scale naval war, is laughable. Our carriers survived through happenstance -- the sheer luck of being out on maneuvers when the Japanese attacked. America's being surprised at Pearl was simple incompetence, not some complicated whacko conspiracy.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[tokul]

Do you have something to foot your words? When Israelis threatened somebody with nuclear strike? Europeans withdraw support in the middle of last century. Now Israel is supported only by US. Israelis never admit that they are nuclear. When did they do something genocidal or acted as fundamentalist regime. Last time I checked, Israelis was democracy. Palestinians can't establish own state without going into civil war. They live in region which formed multiple cultures and yet insist that they own whole region. If you exchange 1 Israelis of 1000 of Palestinians, people might start calculating values based on exchange rate. Before bombs went off in Lebanon, rockets exploded in Israel. Can you stop rockets without crossing the border?

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Anonymous Coward]

Until Gas egine dicovered, Middle East is very peaceful area. Last 200 years muslims killed because of that oil.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Anonymous Coward]

Learn yer history, dimwit. Post-wwii political developments in Europe, which made financial growth and the cultural unification possible were mostly a result of European policies.

The sophomoric attempts of Truman at "nation building" at the time failed and were largely scrapped by the beginning of the 50s and forgotten when he got gone. It wasn't an accident, either - the same happened in Japan as well.

As to the US economic assistance, you should balance that against the gains of US. Most European countries, allies and foes, continued to repay wartime loans or reparations to the US until the 80s. In very creative ways, too.

And in the Pacific, there was no Marshall plan. Instead, they got the Korean war.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Anonymous Coward]

The US is trying to convert other nations into trading partners with compatible economies and governments. That may or may not be a reasonable thing to do, but it is not "imperialism".

Ah, so the US is just doing the same thing the USSR did in their proxy wars and territorial expansions. That's not very reassuring -- the soviets claimed they weren't imperialist, either.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[demachina]

Japan's battleships were nearly useless too. The Yamato, the most powerful battleship every built came to its end with a suicide mission to try to stop the invasion of Okinawa, where it was promptly sunk by carrier borne aircraft. Read the link above. The role the Yamato and its sister ship Musashi played in World War II was weak at best. They were mostly used at transports because they were big and well armored, and otherwise were anti aircraft batteries.

Countries built battle ships because they were the signature of powerful navies, and a source of national pride, BEFORE aircraft and aircraft carriers completely changed the dynamics. After the disruption occurred they were staggeringly expensive, and not very useful relics.

The Bismark likewise succumbed to a single torpedo from an ancient British biplane torpedo bomber. Germany's battleships and battlecruisers were an equally ineffective squandering of vast resources.

Billy Mitchell had started to prove how worthless battleships were in the face of aircraft as early as 1921 and 1923 when he sank three battleships from the air, though the tests were a bit rigged. The only only people who didn't know battleships were uselss by 1941 were backward thinking relic admirals.

Battleships were only of value in their original roles in ship to ship battles where there were no air forces in the vacinity, which was increasingly rare in World War II. Otherwise they were used for shore bombardment, armored transport and anti aircraft batteries because they tended to carry a lot of guns. None of those roles really justifed the huge expenditure of resources required to build or fuel them.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Xest]

"Your socialist revision of history is appalling. "

Sorry, I think you must've completely missed out an entire paragraph of your post explaining the connection between being anti-sanctions and being a socialist. Do you think you could kindly post this for us so we can all understand the link between being socialist and being anti-sanctions?

I don't really disagree with the point that sanctions can be effective, though I think they're important because people will only rise up against their leadership when their living standards become poor enough to justify the risk, and sanctions most certainly speed that up. They're an effective way of pursuing destabilisation without the inherent risks of backlash that boots on the ground cause.

But by implying anyone you disagree with is somehow socialist when no demonstration of their actual overall political leaning is demonstrated you simply show yourself up as even more ignorant and bigoted than the GP.

There are countless socialist countries in the world, many succesful nations in Europe like Norway and France make great examples. The idea that anyone who you believe is wrong is a lesser person because they must be socialist is intellectually bankrupt and is demonstrative of the type of anti-intellectualism that is rife within political leanings that truly have been historically problematic, like nationalism.

Oh, did I forget to mention that socialist countries like France have been some of the biggest drivers of sanctions against Iran?

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[demachina]

For those of you who haven't figured out the allusion by now, I mentioned the role of the Japanese oil embargo in bringing the U.S. in to World War II, because the current situation with Iran is kind of an analog.

The U.S. is seeking to completely embargo Iran, not to peacefully starve Iran in to relenting on its nuclear ambitions, but to drive Iran in to a desperate corner and provoke them in to initiating the hostilites that the U.S., Israel and Sunni Arab's (i.e. Saudi Arabia) so desperately want. Tampering with oil, in this case Iran's oil revenues which are an enormous percentage of their economy, is certain to make them desperate.

The U.S. wants to be able to say that Iran started the war, because after the U.S. fabrications used to justify the Iraq invasion, it would be much more convenient if the Iranians would close the Strait of Hormuz and shoot first. Then the U.S. can bomb them in to the stone age without looking like the aggresor, as much, and without having to spend so much time ginning up a case against them like Iraq, a tactic to which the world is now completely jaded.

Overthrowing Saddam was such a great idea because it made Iran, and Shia muslims, vastly more powerful and they are now starting to threaten Sunni regimes across the Middle East from the now consolidated Shia bloc of Iran, Iraq and Lebanon. So much so that the Sunni's in Saudi Arabia are on the same side as Israel in wanting to wipe Iran off the map. When both Israel and Suadi Arabia are telling the U.S. to do something, the U.S. will inevitably do it, no matter what it costs the U.S. in the end.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[tqk]

Iran has stated on the record that even if the Palestinians agree 100% to a peace agreement, they will still pursue the violent extermination of Israel.

Arafat once said the same, yet he shook hands with an Israeli PM. I don't think anything I wrote implied that I thought the leadership of Iran was in any way sane. Ahmadinejad is a nutbar. Ayatollah Khomeini was a nutbar. Their future leadership *may* turn out to be sane (Allah Akbar!).

All parties in the Middle East appear to have learned to enjoy hating each other; it's their favourite game. Sunni vs. Shiite, PLO vs. Hezbollah, Muslims vs. Jews, Orthodox Jews vs. mere Israelis, Saudis vs. Iran, Muslim Brotherhood vs. infidels, ...

None of them need us to be poking our sticks into their hornets nest.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[tqk]

It isn't just the Jewish lobby, apocalyptic Christians support the Jews running the middle east to harken the return of JC ...

ACK. Good point.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[clay_buster]

It could be because the political structure of the country's rebels was different, because there was allied support and because Libya is on the edge of a powder-keg while Syria is in the middle of one next to a place that the US had already thrown into turmoil.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[DigiShaman]

You just made a fatal mistake!!! You assume MAD will prevent the usage of nuclear weapons. When religious leaders speak of the 12th imam, there's an equal possibily of the desire to start global thermonuclear war, not prevent it.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Xest]

"Bullshit."

No really, it's almost certainly not.

Whilst I agree his use of the term "unquestionably" was probably a poor choice of words, because it is still questionable, the evidence is pretty strong and Iran's lack of will to allow international inspectors to prove that it isn't working on nuclear weapons is always going to be a cause for concern when many other countries routinely allow inspectors to demonstrate their nuclear programme is not designed for nuclear arms development. Iran isn't some super high-tech nation, so their allegation that the IAEA inspectors are spies and Iran has some nuclear technology to steal that no one else in the world has is laughably weak.

It's also completely false to suggest Iran hasn't started wars, whilst you may well be accurate in saying Iran hasn't sent tanks rolling across it's borders into it's neighbours backyard, there's no real question that wars between Israel and Lebanon are the result of Iranian stirring of tensions and arming, training, and inciting Hezbollah and in fact the destabilisation of Lebanon in general is Iran's fault, by creating a second military within it's borders it's allowed the Islamist militia in question to leave the secular military and civilian governmental administration powerless, despite the fact that the secular administration and military had the legitimate backing of the people. Iran has very much caused wars, but it does so by proxy.

Also, whilst I'm quite anti-Israel nowadays, particularly so since they elected their current overly right wing administration that has absolutely no interest in peace, and since they continue to prevent any hope of peace in the middle east by the continuation of settlement building your comments are a little disturbing, I mean, "Oh, FYI Jews have nukes." - really? they do? which ones? the ones living in Russia? the ones in New York? the Jewish lobby in California? Oh, you mean Israel the nation has nukes? You mean, the nation of which a quarter is not actually even Jewish?

"For the sake of MAD balance Iran should as well"

MAD only works when all people in control of the nukes are sensible enough to not want a nuclear war. Thus far, Iran's leadership has shown little evidence they're that smart. Specifically, there's a very real concern that Iran would continue it's tactics of proxy war and pass nuclear weaponry to the likes of Hezbollah and hope that plausible deniability is enough to prevent them from a retaliatory strike.

The Iranian oil bourse? it's a great conspiracy theory, but erm, the latest round of sanctions are threatening to specifically target Iran's oil, precisely because the West has figured out that it can actually get by without Iranian oil thanks to the likes of Saudi Arabia offering to increase production.

No, the situation in this part of the world is precisely what it says on the tin, it's concern of a nation running a covert nuclear weapons operation without having been able to demonstrate itself as a trustworthy citizen of the world capable of adhering to MAD principles even if it does acquire nuclear weapons. The lack of trust largely stemming from it's destabilisation of the middle east through proxy war including previously proven subversive actions in Lebanon, Israel, Palestinian territories, Iraq, and Afghanistan, as well as possible but as yet unproven subversive actions in Yemen, Egypt, and other parts of the Middle East and Africa. Finally yes, I realise you'll probably tell me that countries like America are guilty of this too - and yes, you're right. But that doesn't excuse Iran, and countries like America, Israel and so forth do at least have a 40+ year track record of demonstrating that they're not actually willing to use nukes unless their very existence is threatened, and even then possibly not.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[theArtificial]

If you want to save as much lives as you can while preventing overpopulation, we westerners should be first ones to go

Why do you ask others to do something you do not? Nothing is stopping you from killing yourself for the greater good. BTW Is Japan, China, or India in the West now? Population in the West isn't growing at alarming rates. We have enough food in the world for everyone, it's a distribution issue. Africa has lots of natural resources... what is the problem there? Oh it's the fucking people who live there like it's a giant crab bucket!

Then you probably also understand that it is the US and Europe that uses most of the resources on our planet.

How many people does Europe and the US feed? Why aren't these countries supporting themselves if they're such great places to live? Do you know what the US has done for wheat production? Norman Borlaug. Please don't mistake this for patriotism.

People from other places on Earth use far fewer resources per one person than we do.

Yeah because they're stuck in the dark ages? Let's rewind western civilization to the point where these other countries are at and see what the usage is like! So far every country which advances seems to do the same thing (minus the R&D expenditures) .

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[demachina]

"but saying "the US steals oil" is a claim with no support."

Actually it is totally supported, as has been said elsewhere here, by the case of Mossadegh and Iran. Mossadegh nationalized British operated oil fields in Iran because he felt Iran was being exploited and not being compensated sufficiently. The British teamed with the U.S. to topple Mossadegh soon after and replaced him with a ruthless despot, the Shah of Iran. Iran's oil fields were promptly handed over to the control of U.S. oil companies, so the U.S. stole those fields from either the Iranians or the British depending on how you look at it :)

The perception that the U.S. steals oil has been around ever since. It was also the turning point in history which drove Iran to be where it is today, and is their rationale for their rabid hatred of the U.S.

In fairness though, the U.S. doesn't start wars, overthrow governments, and support ruthless dictators just for oil. The U.S. does those things for bananas in Central America, sweat shops in Haiti and mob run casinos in Cuba. Its done because its good for business.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Xest]

If America armed a bunch of Americans to go over the border into Iran, or armed anti-government protesters in Iran with all the kit they need to create their own military which they then used to force their will onto the country, would you say America had started a war?

If your answer is no, then you're absolutely right, Iran has started no wars, if your answer is yes, then Iran is implicated in every war caused by Hezbollah's agression, both internal civil wars within Lebanon, and external wars with the likes of Israel.

Whatever your previous answer, if you think that to perform this type of action is wrong, then it's irrelevant as to whether Iran has technically started any direct wars, committing proxy wars is just as problematic, so saying Iran hasn't started any wars is irrelevant when the fundamental point is that it's still an aggressive destabilising force in the region. If you don't think this sort of action is wrong (whoever is doing it, whether it's Mossad, the CIA, or the Republican Guard) then, well, there's really no helping you as it would mean your understanding of the cause of serious international disputes is so dire you shouldn't even really be discussing the topic.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Xest]

I do generally agree with you and sympathise with your point, but I think it's utterly naive to believe that solving the Palestinian/Israeli problem would somehow bring peace to the middle east. Syria and Iran absolutely hate the likes of Jordan, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, and you'd still have the Turks invading Northern Iraq to kill Kurds, and vice versa if the hard line right wing AKP stay in power there.

Solving the Israel problem would sort a big chunk of the problems, but there'd still be a long way to go, and frankly the toppling of the Syrian and Iranian regimes is still part of what is required to stabilise the middle east, as is the toppling of the Saudi regime, and a return to secular moderate political leaning in Turkey. Yemen too needs to be pulled back from the brink of civil war and it's anyone's guess as to how to solve the Yemen problem as it's got too many warring factions, and is a borderline failed state - at that point you need to likely split it up and build a number of much smaller nations from scratch representing the separate factions whilst somehow eliminating the heightened level of zealous militancy there, and ensuring each new state was willing to work in a progressive manner with the other new states despite their population not seeing eye to eye. That's a pretty tall order.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Toonol]

They would still fight, but they would be safely ignored by the rest of the world, much like Africa.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Toonol]

Who is president?

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Anonymous Coward]

>with Europe politely refraining from military action and the US taking over Europe's protection and security needs. That should end.

We just dont want to build up a huge military sucking up all the money we have for the odd chance we might need it once every blue moon. It's better to just hire one when we need one.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Warwick Allison]

You are easily fooled. Even the stupidest politician knows to do what their corporate backers tell them to do.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[tqk]

I too sympathize with your point. I don't mean to belittle the magnitude of the problem.

However, they all did get along once, and I firmly believe they (in time) can again, if others would just stop sticking their noses into it. For me, it's like Cold War politics ("our puppet state" vs. "their puppet state") is still going on, long after the Soviets ceased to be a problem for anybody.

*ALL* of the Middle East's problems ought to be considered "an internal problem." It should be left up to all of them to work it out. Sunni vs. Shiite, Muslim vs. $blah, Palestinian vs. Zionism, ... We can't fix that !@#$

It shouldn't be any of $our business. They ought to be left alone to sort out their affairs, as that's the only way their affairs can be sorted. Unseating Mosadegh and installing the Shah was none of our business. Supporting Iraq against Iran was none of our business. Unseating Saddam Hussein was none of our business.

Okay, I think Afghanistan is our business, because I hate seeing women executed for wearing the wrong clothing or just offending some guy. That !@#$ sucks. I think we do have an obligation to at least attempt to export civilization to those who desperately need it.

The US should just stop fiddling with geopolitics, and get back to its own knitting. There are no Hitlers out there we need them to save us from today. Their own democracy is far more in need of their help than any of the rest of the world's peoples.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Q-Hack!]

So you're ok with punishing innocent people for the crimes of their tyrants? It's not like the people who are suffering from the sanctions have any influence over the actions of their government. Their leaders aren't even democratically elected.

Did you miss the recent events in Libya? If the majority population thinks things are bad enough, they will overthrow their leadership... it has happened many times throughout history.

In fact, the crazy dictators who run these countries actually use these foreign sanctions to their advantage, as a rallying cry to motivate their people to hate the "evil" western powers that are making them suffer.

Unfortunately, this is a possible outcome. Sanctions alone are not the answer. It also requires a massive propaganda war. That is where we usually fail.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[jedidiah]

It's easy to be xenophobic when all of your neighbors have been trying to destroy you for 50 years and the rest of the planet has been trying since last rebellion was crushed.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[jamstar7]

I'm not sure of that 2 billion figure. I do know that the Renaisance happened when people were able to grow enough food to free up other people to become educated and/or ask pointed questions about Life, the Universe, and Everything. That fueled the cycle to create the Industrial Revolution, industrialising food production in the First World enough to free even more people from the farm to develop even more technology. Take away enough technology to force enough people back to farming for a living and technology and its development will come to a complete stall.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[jedidiah]

People that think that offering Israel up as a sacrificial lamb simply don't know history. Forgetting the internal struggles between real nations that exist in the Arab world (like Egyptians and Persians), there's also this long standing conflict between Islam and everyone else.

There's a lot of history that people gloss over when the engage in "religion of peace" rhetoric.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[eheldreth]

In the case of the British Empire it wasn't a "screw up". They purposely divided nations to create hostility. This served to keep locals busy fighting each other and allowed the British to come in as peace makers. Your right thought in that a lot of our current issues in the middle east can be traced to tis policy.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[jamstar7]

It was the leaders of Iraq who murdered millions of their own people throughout the 80s and 90s.

No 'self-respecting' Persian would ever consider a Kurd as being a member of 'their people'. It's like telling a Japanese that the Koreans living in Japan are Japanese as well. It just don't happen.

Bush Sr promised the Kurds in Iraq that he'd support them after the Coalition got through pushing the Iraqi army back to Bagdad in exchange for their help in doing just that, and conveniently forgot that promise as soon as it was convenient. Saddam of course found out about it and went batshit, turning 'Chemical Ali' loose on them as a national security measure.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[jamstar7]

Last time I checked, Israelis was democracy.

So was Iraq. They even had elections and everything. Course, the only party on the ticket was the Ba'ath Party, just like the Soviet Union had elections as well, with only the Communist Party on the ballot. It even reminds me of the US, where we have two wings of the Party on the ballots here, the Kleptocrats and the Decepticons.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[r00t]

There is no justification for "obliterating countries"

I can think of more than a few justifications.

• We are God's chosen people, and the land is ours.
• We need to make a bypass, and that country is in our way.
• Those people have been a pain in the butt for centuries.
• Our people need more room.
• Something is needed to distract our population from problems at home.
• They refuse to stop diverting water upstream from us.
• ...
• Those assholes believe one of the above with respect to us, and so preemptive strike is needed.

A few of those are batshit insane, while others are pretty darn reasonable though certainly cold and calculating. Nice leaders don't always win.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[couchslug]

"Surely some people do realise that economic sanctions will likely kill an awful lot of the poorest people in Iran and the sanctions are in themselves, a declaration of war. "

Sanctions don't kill people, the spending decisions by the SANCTIONED GOVERNMENTS kill people.

That's quite a difference. Note that even un-sanctioned governments can make the same decisions. Pakistan preferred nukes to reducing poverty.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[couchslug]

"Really though, sanctions end up starving people who would have otherwise provided for themselves."

Citation needed. Spending CHOICES by sanctioned GOVERNMENTS holding their own people hostage starve those people.

Not giving in to kidnappers is not abetting kidnappers.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[couchslug]

[quote]
But they have the oil that WE need in order to not suffer mass starvation.
[/quote]
NO.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/02/u-s-dependent-on-middle-east-oil-think-again/

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Elldallan]

Yes the events in Libya is most likely largely due to the fact that Libya had general conscription and a very large part of the male population had atleast some limited experience handling weapons. But in the end a conscription based military means that the military is directly tied to the local population and as such the limit for what atrocities the military is willing to commit/allow comes fairly soon because it could just aswell be their mothers, sisters, sons and daughters etc.

When the situation is like in most of the countries ruled by a tyrant the military is closely tied to the tyrant, they and their families have much higher living standards than the average population and they generally live apart from the average population.
And since they derive all their wealth and security from the tyrant the military is more closely tied to the tyrant than the population and thus as long as the tyrant keep the military happy the atrocities will continue.

Another important thing is that without international support the rebellion in Libya would have been brutally crushed, the rebels and most able bodied males in the rebelling areas slaughtered and their wives, sisters and daughters brutally raped. Look instead at the situation in Syria, the population is trying to rebel and the result is that the tyrant sends in the military to mop up and the rebels are powerless to do anything about it because they lack enough weapons, training or international support to resist effectively.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[currently_awake]

True. The USA has huge deposits of tar sands.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[cavreader]

The US government should not give a damn about the middle east, Mexico, or frankly any other country when it involves anything except trade. And even trade should be reduced to bilateral agreements instead of multi-country blocks. Pragmatism and amoral behavior should dictate the US government actions.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Anonymous Coward]

The United States is still the ONLY nation to have EVER used nukes, and against a predominantly civilian target at that. The US instigated the Cuban missile crisis(which is the closest the world has ever been to global thermonuclear war) by putting more than 100 nuclear armed missiles within striking distance of Moscow.

I would say that the US track record is definitely rather spotty.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[um... Lucas]

oils just a commodity. once its pumped you can't tell where it came from. so take away middle eastern oil and that reduces OUR supplies as well.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[nospam007]

"The government said China’s population was 1.34 billion, an increase of 73.9 million, or 5.8 percent, from the last tally in 2000. "

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/29/world/asia/29census.html?_r=1

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Elldallan]

Israel refuses to verify whether it has nuclear capabilities or not
Israel refuses to sign the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty.
Israel refuses to allow IAEA to determine whether it has nuclear capabilities or not
While Israel refuses to divulge any nuclear capabilities their military doctrine maintains the right to use a preemptive strike with any and all weapon systems.

Since Israel refuses to allow IAEA insight into it's nuclear capabilities any and all embargoes employed against Iran is by the same logic also reasonable against Israel and what do you think Israels response would be against an embargo that essentially amounts to prohibiting any trade either to or from Israel?

Sure Iran is not someone I would like to have nukes but I don't think they are any more likely to use them than Pakistan, North Korea or Israel are.
I doubt that the US is any more afraid that Iran would use any nukes than say North Korea, on the other hand if Iran gets nuclear capabilities it would force Israel to play a lot nicer and Israel would most likely have to stop occupying the Palestinian territories and it would change the entire balance of power in the middle east and Israel is pretty much an ally of the United States...

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Elldallan]

Furthermore, the Middle East should be Europe's financial and military responsibilitiy, not ours.

Correct, given the fact that the Middle East are not our neighbors. I think the case for intervening in Mexico is much stronger given the proximity, and the fact that the violence there does affect our shared border.

You choose to make the Middle East your problem by invading Iraq and having such close ties with Israel. You could of course at any time easily choose to not make it your problem but don't expect Europe to do things the same way as you would.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[murdocj]

You do know that the current issue isn't the USA stealing resources, it's Iran trying to develop nuclear weapons, right?

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[murdocj]

Or, in this particular case, nuclear bombs kill people. Remember, the only reason there are sanctions is that Iran is defying the United Nations (NOT the USA) and refusing to halt it's nuclear weapons program. Iran is determined to become a nuclear power, regardless of the cost to its own people.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[one cup of coffee]

"Your socialist revision of history is appalling."

You guys can mod me down all you want, but people who throw the word "Socialism" around as a slur come off sounding like they're confessing (crying out for help?) that their mind is dungeon where Rush Limbaugh and various Fox "news" hosts have taken turns torturing the intellectual and logical centers of their fettered consciousness. That, and that they have no idea what actual socialism is or means. It invokes feelings of pity and revulsion.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[SplashMyBandit]

No, the money would have been stolen. The corrupt elites of the region would have been better off. The people, not so much. Iraq is unquestionably better after the US invasion. Not perfect for sure, but much better and a better global citizen. You might disagree with premise for the Second Iraq War, and the war itself, but the facts are the strategic outcome has been better than most predicted.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[SplashMyBandit]

> Your conservative revision of history is appalling. You are the type of person who believes that the USA has never supported tyrants and has never taken part in unjustified aggression.

and it is just as clear that your unreasoned position is that there is no place for realpolitik. Where nasty dictators are supported if they are engaged in a fight with an even worse regime, and that aggression to remove the same bad dictator should never happen. In short, the world is a nasty brutal place. While countries should strive to uphold the highest morals, and sway the path of other countries with reasoned debate there are actually times when it makes sense to pick up the sword and sort things out in a way that asking to hold hands and sing kumbaya together doesn't. Basically, if you are not a democracy then expect to feel heat. If you are democracy and still to killing your own people and not anyone else's, then you have the right to 'self-determination' and get left alone (more or less). It's not a perfect world but this is how it is. Criticizing the realists makes you look like a dreamer - which is why you have had these rebuttals.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[imikem]

Stating that carriers had eclipsed battleships is really 20/20 hindsight. The reduced role of battleships was not generally recognized at the time. Certainly some data points had begun stacking up in the early part of WW2, e.g., the torpedo attack on the Bismarck, and the raid on the Italian fleet at Taranto. However, in the first case one could make the argument that the British had simply been extremely lucky to have made a crippling hit on the Bismarck. In the second case it could be argued that that the Italians had been idiots and failed at the most basic of defensive measures, allowing themselves to be surprised when they were ALREADY AT WAR for months.

I do not subscribe to the theory that FDR orchestrated Pearl Harbor. I believe Roosevelt and the senior brass expected the Philippines to be the primary target, and were surprised by the breadth and competence of the initial Japanese operations. The carriers being absent from Pearl at the time was a happy accident for the US. If the attack had gone in a couple of days either side of December 7, it would likely have found at least one carrier in port.

Finally, Hitler did the US a big favor by declaring war himself, relieving Roosevelt of the burden of convincing the public to go to war with all of the Axis powers at once.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[infinitelink]

Darn it if my mod points hadn't expired. This is underrated, and hilarious. : )

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[SplashMyBandit]

This is a mis-informed lie. You should be ashamed for propagating untruths. Israeli policy is to use all means in self-defence (since they never acknowledge whether they have nukes or not) if WMD have been used against them. In short they have stated a posture of strategic deterrence in the hope that enemies are smart enough never to try.

Contrast that with Iran's position where it has *repeatedly* stated that Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth - even without any direct provocation by Israel. Even worse, Iran would probably try and use 'plausible deniability' by arming Hezbollah instead, so they could say "it wasn't us". Then there is the fact that Iran has threatened Europe as well. If you can't see evil just because it is more subtle and not in a Hollywood movie then I suggest you go an have a think - and please stop spreading your mis-informed lies about the Iraesli deterrent (how about you actually do some reading and check the facts and statements from the Israeli Defence Ministry and IDF, instead of reading bollox from anti-semetic sites).

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[ks*nut]

And that highly industrialised agricultural sector is the tip of another iceberg - it is literally killing U.S. citizens, wrecking the economy with health care costs and showing the rest of the world exactly how it shouldn't be done. Such a good example...

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[SplashMyBandit]

Don't you think that Iran could be made a democratic country? Don't you think a significant number of Iranians want to be a democracy? Do you think the Persians would be unable to govern themselves if they were given the opportunity to have a democratic government? Your statements show you seem to be well-meaning but you actually have a cultural bias where you think that the Iranians couldn't effectively govern themselves if given a chance. I personally know a few Iranians and know that they are more than capable and willing if given the chance. They would have a government with problems and different from one the way most Western governments work, but I would say they would do a better job than the Iraqi government (which, despite its flaws, seems to be functioning well enough to prevent reversion to a dictatorship, for now). So, I would say that US isolationism has failed in the future just has it has failed miserably in the past. The World is now too interconnected and too 'small' to hide in Island America as was possible a century ago. No one else has the power to help the Iranians throw off their theocracy and transition to democracy except for America. If the time and opportunity came I would hope the Americans would make the selfless sacrifice (yes, it costs money and soldiers) to help drag Iran into this century. The rest of the World (eg. me, I'm not in the US) is too poor and weak to lead, but we help whenever we can. It sounds like you don't agree with this - but I have admired the energy that America has had (not a fan of GW Bush at all, but at least he had the balls to finish what was started - despite the naysayers - and it has worked out much better than if nothing had been done).

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[ks*nut]

Israel has nuclear weapons and the got the fissile material from the good old U.S. of A. And in spite of their obstinate stand vis a vis monitoring and the non-proliferation treaty the U.S. still provides billions of dollars of military aid to Israel. If Israel was ever going to "play nicer" it would quit building those damned "settlements" and recognise Palestinian statehood. Isn't it interesting when the jackboot is on the other foot?

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[SplashMyBandit]

Actually, having visited the region, including Israel and Palestinian Territory I have this to say to you (since you seem terribly misinformed and tragically biased). The Israelis live in a rough neighbourhood. They do what any reasonable person would do in a rough area. They are not perfect, for sure. They want to trade land for peace, which is why they *unilaterally* gave Gaza back. Basically the Israelis just want to have a good life and are trying to deal with a troublesome neighbour (although the settlers are bad asses - but the Israeli government is fighting them as they see their action as illegal)

The Palestians also want to have nice life. However, their political parties are obsessed with destroying Israel and moving all Israelis (even if born there) into the sea. In English they will say they want peace, to get money from the sucker Europeans. Meanwhile in Arabic they will never ever say this, they want to destroy Israel. Basically you are being played and are too misinformed to understand - hence you spread lies about the Israelis. Disappointing bro, don't get played. How about you check these out to get a better picture:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Gzyeo1Z1I4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUXTPH5-IPQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ca48ocpFBiE

The Israelis and Israeli Government are not perfect, but they are not the bad guys in the story - not by a long way from what I have seen from going there as a neutral observer. The terrorists (and utlra-othodox settlers) are the bad dudes.

Don't fall for the same propaganda tactics the Nazis used! and stop with the lies!

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[giorgist]

Israel having nukes is a threat to the US because that pushes Iran to get nukes.
In fact the whole conflict in the middle east is a threat to the US and the west, but we may be sacrificing our security for the sake of Israels security.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Anonymous Coward]

And maybe you're clueless? Yes, you are. Oops, I answered your question.

When was the last time the Middle East got along with each other?
Was it when the Turks invaded?
Nope.
Maybe we should go back further? How about when the Arab hordes invaded?
Nope! Further!
Ah, I know, in Egyptian times.
Nope! Further.
Shit, I give up. Tell me.
Before mankind!

You believe your antisemitic lies.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

And if people like you ever get in charge the first war that comes to call, maybe a small border skirmish, would immediately develop into WWIII.

I hope you have the intelligence to see why this would happen. But the very, very short, extremely simplified, version goes like this : people attack because they believe they can win (for some definition of win), and obviously have decided to use force. If they do indeed win, they will not stop, they will switch to their secondary objectives. That's why if Iraq and Iran are fighting, the correct tactical action is to support the losing side, to the point that the balance between them is maintained (preferably while weakening both of them extremely). Had Iraq seriously advanced, the US would have supported Iran.

There is the faint hope in the back of my mind that maybe, just maybe, you'll see that this is indeed the right thing to do. It's not just a military decision.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Ok, but one condition.

From now on I get to pound your house with ill-aimed rockets aimed at you, your kids, your wife, your girlfriend. You do not get to initiate any kind of violence in response to this, not calling the police, not running out of that house, nothing. After a few months of that we can "talk" (by that I mean I'll shoot you the moment you enter the room).

Any action on your part will obviously make you a war criminal, by your own standards, agreed ? Since you clearly consider this reasonable conditions, let's get started.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

democratic underground ? The batman comics are a more reliable news source ...

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Anonymous Coward]

imperialism
noun
1. the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.

dependency
noun
4. a subject territory that is not an integral part of the ruling country.

subject
adjective
17. being under domination, control, or influence (often followed by to ).
18. being under dominion, rule, or authority, as of a sovereign, state, or some governing power; owing allegiance or obedience (often followed by to ).

So imperialism: Bringing a seperate territory under its influence and control. Or you know, creating "compatible economies and governments". Oops.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[lonecrow]

Some of what you say is true however we also have a trade strategy that punishes the developing world.

At world trade meetings the US and Europe constantly harp on about the importance of free trade. BUT then they claim that food is a strategic resource as a justification of their $40b subsidy of farms in the EU and $20b in the US.

So you see free trade means that I can buy your banks and phone companies but it does not mean that you can sell us your food.

What are small developing nations supposed to export? Fire engines and ice breakers? Let the poor bastards sell us food on a level playing field then talk to me about how it is their lack of character that is holding them back.

The West, like the rest, are hypocrites.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Anonymous Coward]

It's easy to be xenophobic when all of your neighbors have been trying to destroy you for 50 years and the rest of the planet has been trying since last rebellion was crushed.

IMO Israel shouldn't exist in the modern world. The Jewish people broke their covenant with God and left the promised land. Other people moved into that land. Only the mass human sacrifice to YHVH persuaded Him to allow you back there.

And now the Israelis are set upon the same genocidal path as their forbears who exterminated the original Philistines (descendants of the Phonecians) and are bent on exterminating the Palestinians (who bear a name derived from 'Philistine' though not actually being their descendants). The genocide against the Palestinians is oh so much more subtle than that visited upon the Jews by the Nazis though. The Israelis want to deny that there was ever any such thing as a 'Palestinian' and how can one commit genocide against a race that never existed?

Its almost as if the Nazis and the Israelis are cut from the same cloth. Perhaps some Nazis managed to escape persecution at the end of the war by taking on identities of those they hated so much, the Jews, and became part of the Jewish State in its formative years, setting it upon a similar path of brutalization and genocide?

FYI I am not a Muslim. I am a Christian. But I believe that Jesus came to save the world from the evil God of Israel. Jesus showed us a face of compassion and love characteristics which are not shown by the God of the Old Testament who is ruthless, hostile, jealous and hateful. Jesus may be His Son but the Son may rebel against the Father. IMO the Jews should give up the worship of their hateful God and turn to Jesus for Salvation.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[myowntrueself]

It's easy to be xenophobic when all of your neighbors have been trying to destroy you for 50 years and the rest of the planet has been trying since last rebellion was crushed.

I'm sure that if they carry on being xenophobic their neighbors will soon come to see how wrong they were. Maybe they need to be a bit more xenophobic though, so far it hasn't worked but more of the same has got to help.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[drolli]

I did not exclude that option. I just said: if you are interested in a peaceful region, then please have a plan like the Marshall Plan.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[cjsm]

We don't have a problem of not enough resources. We have a problem of uneven distribution. And that's not caused by Americans raising our own food and feeding ourselves, it's caused by authoritarian governments oppressing their citizens.

Sure, and many of the authoritarian governments which protect the rich and keep people in poverty have been backed by the U.S. See Pakistan or Mubarak in Egypt before he was overthrown, or the capitalist governments installed by the U.S. in Central America. You were modded a five? Slashdot really has a lot of ignorant right-wingers. Read up on the history of Columbia, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras, or El Salvador. The U.S.enforces an economic system where the farm workers earn slave wages growing coffee and bananas, while the bulk of the profits going to multinational corporations and rich landlords. According to Wikipedia

Colombia has the fourth largest economy in Latin America, but income and wealth are unevenly distributed.[37][38] In 1990, the income ratio between the richest and poorest 10% was 40-to-one, climbing to 80-to-one in 2000.[39] In 2009, Colombia had a Gini coefficient of 0.587, one of the highest in Latin America,[40] with 46% of Colombians living below the poverty line and 17% in "extreme poverty".[41][42][43]

That's the economic system the U.S. have given Columbia billions in military aid to protect. In short, your comment is bullshit. The U.S. is responsible as anyone for the poverty in the world.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[bakes]

This might be true with your government and many others, but is much less likely when said government is a military-backed dictatorship.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[bakes]

Oil provides the excuse. Once that problem is solved (or reduced) by other energy sources, fresh water will be the next.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Hognoxious]

maybe the Middle East would finally be able to get along with each other again. They did in the distant past, you know?

I'm sure even when it was full of dinosaurs they fought among themselves. The longest periods of peace in the region are when it's all ruled over by somebody else - Romans, Ottomans, British...

They're all fucking loonies.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Rakarra]

Economic sanctions kill poor people? I don't think so. Just like most of the rest of the world, Iran is overpopulated. Overpopulation kills more poor people, than economic sanctions can.

It is the unstated mission of Unicef and organizations like them, to force the world to support as large a human population as possible. I can't get behind that mission.

Now, if Unicef's mission were to educate people, and to convince them to control the population, I could support them.

The entire world needs to team up with China, and their once child per couple thing for about 50 to 100 years.

There is an enormous, enormous difference between using birth control to curb population growth and the massacring of civilians to lower population (or lower the rise). That's where I, and almost any civilized person draw the line about what is acceptable.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Forty Two Tenfold]

Palestinians can't establish own state without going into civil war.

Well, they had elections, but the genocidal maniacs from Israel didn't like the result.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Rakarra]

Chavez is still the darling of the Hollywood left

Who? Who is he the darling of? I know quite a few people in the "Hollywood left," and he's no friend to them.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Rakarra]

So you see free trade means that I can buy your banks and phone companies but it does not mean that you can sell us your food.

What are small developing nations supposed to export? Fire engines and ice breakers?

As many in the US could tell you now, free trade has worked fairly poorly for the US as a whole. Our entertainment industry is now the only healthy export industry. It's worked out great for the multi-national corporations, and worked for the US in the short term only, not so much for any individual Western country in the long run.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Forty Two Tenfold]

Last time I checked, Israelis was democracy.

So was Iraq.

Well, last time Iran had a legitimate democracy, the UK and the US said, "HELL NO!" and 1953 happened.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Rakarra]

This might be true with your government and many others, but is much less likely when said government is a military-backed dictatorship.

Then there is little point to the sanctions, isn't it?

The sanctions will always hit those who are lowest in power. Military-backed dictatorships would crumble under pressure from the poor? Then why pressure the poor?

The reason for sanctions is to convince the people that their leaders are too much trouble, but it's very easy for said leaders to use propaganda to convince people that outsiders are suppressing them. So much easier to get people to do what you want when they have an external enemy to band together against.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Ex-MislTech]

The US doesn't need to research alternative energy, it already knows how.

The welfare-warfare state makes certain plutocrats rich, and it has more
to do with lining the pockets of the ppl Eisenhower warned us about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY

We can use non-arable land to grow algae oil at a rate of 100,000 gallons
per acre per year in the desert.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hioZ7C6HLs

We can use biological processes to grow hydrogen.

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

1% of the jet streams on earth would replace all forms of power one earth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_stream#Future_power_generation

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090615102038.htm

Just the flow of the Antarctic Circumpolar current has 125 times the flow
of all rivers on earth and we have know for years how to tap it.

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

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

Solar thermal of the world's deserts could power 100 earths.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy#Energy_from_the_Sun

We know how to power the earth many times over not even
mentioning Geo thermal, but the ppl who make billions off war
are merely using oil security as an excuse to keep making billions
just as Eisenhower warned decades ago.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Anonymous Coward]

Dont get all jiggy now buddy. This war cost a lot and next to nothing was accomplished. The religious extremist Muslims haven't changed their minds, the rest of the Muslims won't do anything to stop them, because they're Muslims. This isn't just Iran , Iraq or Afghanistan, it's around the world. The world is damn tired of being bombed, terrorized, occupied and being re-legislated to suit and support Muslims.
          I recognize Islam can be a beautiful ,peaceful religion., BUT IT ISN'T! If they aren't killing each other over religious micro-differences, they are killing each other for religious laws if not for that they are killing us because we aren't Muslim. If they aren't tearing down someone elses houses of worship , they are castrating young girls, tired of that, they commence demanding that we treat them as equals, we make treaty, they shake on it with the hand they just wiped their butt with and the first thing they do is break the agreement.
Just lying damn animals. No humanity there man, who really gives a shit what these cromagnon throwbacks think or want?
          I recognize there are Muslims worldwide and we can't just line em all up and turn them to lampshades and fertilizer. We can however nuke the worst of them. Just start droppin nukes till the mideast fuses into a sea of glass. Bomb Mecca till it's a crater.
Later on when the radiation dies down, we can re-tap the oil and open the sea of glass as a tourist destination. We could even hand it over to China to repay the nat'l debt.
          I bet anyone who's been near a suicide bomber or had friends or loved ones killed by one anywhere in the world agrees.
Muslims, they just aren't worth the effort. Push the button.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Xest]

Yes but the point is in 40 years, despite the nation's very existence being threatened by 5 of it's neighbours launching a combined (but rapidly failed) assault against it, Israel has still never used nukes and that seems to be pretty promising.

The difference between Israel and Iran is that Israel prefers to go head on with things, if Israel is going to have a nuclear programme it'll just out and out refuse to sign up to the NPT, if Israel is going to go to war it'll just roll tanks and planes across the border.

In contrast, Iran plays things subversively, if Iran is going to have a nuclear programme it pretends it's an innocent member of the NPT and does it in secret, breaking the rules as an NPT signatory when inspectors catch it out. If Iran is going to go to war, it funds militias and insurgents to do the dirty work for it.

But the real shame is that Iran's tactic works - people like you see the nation that's at least forthright about it's actions as the bad guy, and actually remain oblivious to the nation that's arguably the real biggest destabilising force in the region.

Like I say, I really don't like Israel nowadays, it's become everything it claims to hate, but people's anti-Western hate has become so rediculous that they're actually willing to back up Iran's propaganda, when ironically most conflict in the middle east has actually been caused by Iran over the last 10 - 20 years. Israel only invaded Lebanon after an Iranian funded Hezbollah incursion. The US war in Iraq, and now Afghanistan only became such a bloodbath because Iran has tried to destabilise these nations funding multiple insurgent groups to ensure Iran isn't threatened by a neighbour as powerful as Iraq was. This doesn't make the US or Israeli actions right, but let's not pretend Iran is the innocent puppy people with an anti-Israeli/anti-US attitude like to play along that it is.

Fundamentally the point is this, Israel sticks to actions which are relevant to it's own state security, however right or wrong these actions might be. Iran, in contrast, is constantly playing games with other nations, be it funding insurgents in Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and so on. Therein lies the reason Iran can't be trusted with nuclear weapons - whilst we know Israel would only use them defensively, we can't say the same for Iran, Iran has proven time and time again it's willing to carry out subversive actions in foreign nations to further it's own influence on the region, or to put it more simply, Israel only gives a fuck about making sure Israel is okay, Iran gives a fuck about trying to turn as much of the middle east as possible into puppet states, as in Lebanon, and as it's been trying with Iraq - if you want to see further what I'm talking about here, I suggest you read into the Mahdi army in Iraq, where it's save haven is, who it's biggest financial backers are, and it's role in the Iraqi violence. For Lebanon, it is of course Hezbollah. It's the fundamental difference between aggression and defence, Israel is a defensive nation (incursions into foreign territory have all been reactive), Iran is an aggressive nation - that's why Iran can't be trusted with nukes.

Whilst Mossad has assassinated people responsible for attacks on it's people in foreign states, can you really name any countries where Israel has installed a puppet militia stronger than the elected military and government to try and make it pro-Israel like Iran has? No? Didn't think so.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[flyneye]

I think since the Repubmocrat coup last century, the constitution is an inconvenience to "getting in step with the rest of the world" or to Repubmocrat power, whichever side of it you see. Either way it is being re-interpreted by the corrupt group of hirelings that replaced our Supreme court last century, so don't give it a second thought.
        Like a peekey? http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/browse2002.html#2002 Knock yourself out brother.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[lsatenstein]

I am certain that Iran and Iraq are two different situations. Iran has good agriculture, and is able to feed its population. Sanctions will not work as China and Russia, will say they are observing them, but will continue to provide (business is business) what Iran needs to wait out the sanctions. Sadly, in my view, there is only one way to stop Iran from getting the bomb. That way is obvious to me.

Happy New Year and hope for the best outcome.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[lsatenstein]

America did do it, with the tacit approval of the government. Instead of dealing with a parliment or house of government in these countries, you set up a deal with a strongman, who can pay armies. Shortly thereafter the strong man becomes a president for life. It is so much easier to deal with one man who lines his pockets than it is to deal with a government.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Forty Two Tenfold]

Israeli policy is to use all means in self-defence (since they never acknowledge whether they have nukes or not) if WMD have been used against them. In short they have stated a posture of strategic deterrence in the hope that enemies are smart enough never to try.

Who the fuck are you? Netanyahu?

First of all, since they don't make it clear that they in fact do have nukes, which they got from the US, why isn't the IAEA all over their backs investigating dilligently?

Second of all, what do you think they want to move with this, leaflets?

To help you out: they feel the should attack Iran first and let someone else ask questions later.

Idiot.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Forty Two Tenfold]

Ok, but one condition.

From now on I get to pound your house with ill-aimed rockets aimed at you, your kids, your wife, your girlfriend.

Let me first take your house away from you and move in, OK? Then the conditions would start looking somewhat similar.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Zumbs]

As an alternative to large scale starvation, I expect that the effects of environmental damage to have negligible negative effect on human health care, but I do not know enough about the specifics. However, I do know that the industrialized agriculture could be run in a manner significantly more friendly to the environment. Pumping cattle with antibiotics, using too much herbicide, terminator genes etc. are significant problems that need to be addressed.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[LittlePud]

As far as I can recall, the US dropped support for the Kurds after Turkey complained about the "risks" of having an independent Kurdish state. Turkey has a Kurd province bordering Iraq ands did not want to see its own internal Kurdish independence movement.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Forty Two Tenfold]

I have some videos too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3DIrXd33SI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWfwK3Xc_Y4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfQu5HFZQPY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmLB77-dwsc

Etcaetera... you zionist shill

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[phoenix321]

Poverty almost certainly IS due to lack of food or resources in the world.

Poverty may be reduced if some "optimal" resource allocation model would be obtained, with "optimal" allocation meaning totally different things for different people and even the same people during the course of their lifetimes.

In any case, the absolute number of mouths to feed, bodies to clothe, rest and shelter puts absolute requirements on finite physical resources. So no mode of allocation is possible to give every human on this planet more than 20 grams of gold. Even if these requirements may not be cleanly extrapolated from current resource use per capita by a Club of Rome and probably also aren't fix over time, they are certainly larger than zero. Even with perfect recycling and optimum use, there is a maximum of people to serve from any given amount of any resource. While it is tolerable to not have golden necklaces for everyone, there are other resources that cannot be left out so easily.

Unless poverty is defined only as "relative" poverty, i.e. "not poorer than 40% of the average", resources and mouths depend on each other, but not for infinity.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Anonymous Coward]

Make that 3-4 Trillion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[SplashMyBandit]

First of all. No need to call me an idiot. It makes you look totally unreasonable. Plus, I have a PhD in Astrophysics so on relative terms I could call you the same thing, but I'm not the asshole throwing insults like "idiot" around - and no need to curse if you are confused.

Second. One of the things you are wrong about is that the Israelis did not get their purported nukes from the US. They have a research facilty at Dimona and Merdechai Vanunu spilt the beans on. So, you are clearly misinformed and making stuff up in your own head to suit your preconception.

Third. If the Israelis really wanted to attack Iran it would have already happened. Years ago. They are trying not to attack Iran but folks like you don't get it all all. You always blame the Israelis because it fits your preconceived world view - and no matter what facts I come up with (or a recollection of my travels as a neutral throughout the Middle East - I've been on the ground there and seen what's going on for myself). For myself I try and collect facts and then assign blame where the facts take me. Sure, the Israelis do a lot of dumb and bad things (settlers, ugh!) but it is pretty clear that Iran possessing nuclear weapons is a very, very dangerous thing for everyone. Once you understand how the Iranian government factions work (do you?) then you'll understand that once they get nukes there will be a lot more trouble in the Middle East than now. Do you want that? Is your preconcieved notion of Israel as the Bad Guy so strong that you'll overlook all the worse things that Iran is doing?

Fourth. Regarding the missile firing. Any country has the right to build weapons for self-defence. What matters is how the weapons are intended to be used. Please tell me since when it has been official Israeli government policy to declare that "Iran should be wiped off the face of the Earth"? Yet it is official Iranian policy. It is not the building and testing of weapons that matters, it is what they are *intended* to be used for. Again, your preconceived notion that Israel is the Bad Guy is stopping you from collecting facts from all sides and only then taking an objective view.

Fifth. The article you posted has a legal opinion by a professor that it would be legal for Israel to conduct a disarming first strike on Iran. Big deal. How is this legal opinion of an independent academic become official government policy? Of that's right, you have a preconcived notion that Israel are always the Bad Guy (and by implication that whatever Iran does must be blameless).

What I'm trying to say is how about you take a step back. Do some more research and read it properly (exceeedingly bad form to mistake some academic's legal opinion as government policy). Whatever you do try and remind yourself that you have an existing bias, accept that you do (as I have to do) and look for evidence that *contradicts* your existing opinion. Looking for, and selectively remembering stuff that reinforces your existing view is not really helpful. As a scientist we're trained to try and find ways to falsify our existing view, and receive the counter-evidence with an *open mind*. That way we can make progress and rid ourselves of any incorrect views we have formed.

So, I'm prepared to hear with an open mind any valid reason why it would be good for the World that Iran should possess nuclear weapons? Please drop the anti-Israeli obsession (not strictly relevant to a discussion on why Iran should get WMD), cursing, and personal insults for the discussion and I'll be very interested to hear what you have to say.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Anonymous Coward]

"It is Iran's responsibility to care for its "poorest people". The rest of the world is under no legal or moral obligation to trade with Iran, in particular since Iran unquestionably is working on atomic bombs and has started several wars."

Proof?

ps: And don't say "we can't afford, because the proof will come in the form of a nuclear cloud".
We used that excuse already with another country, that 'unquestionably' had atomic weapons.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[coredog64]

As I understand it, the sanctions are used to punish violations of international law. Yes, Iran is allowed to pursue civilian nuclear power under the NPT. At the same time, the NPT places obligations on them that they have been shirking.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Anonymous Coward]

ahh yes of course, the old, if Israel would just place nice, all the Arabs would magically get along with each other. its the jews fault that arabs don't play nice with anyone, including themselves.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[tqk]

ahh yes of course, the old, if Israel would just [play] nice, all the Arabs would magically get along with each other.

Nobody really believes that crap, do they? Why's there such animosity between Shiites and Sunnis, Saudis and Iran? Well, why's there such animosity between Irish Protestants and Catholics? I sense a pattern building here ...

When I was growing up, Arab nations were repeatedly attacking Israel, and Israel was only barely hanging on by the skin of their teeth. Israel wasn't attacking anyone, were they?

Since then, the Israelis appear to have had enough of that and now think nothing of obliterating suspected nuke weapons sites in Arab countries, exporting malware (Stuxnet) to fsck up same, yada, yada. I can't say I blame them one bit.

Frankly, I wish the Jews in Germany/Europe had learned this lesson prior to WWII. I doubt the Holocaust would have happened if they had. I also wish they'd consign Zionism to the dustbin of history, and take Sharia along with it. Unfortunately, wishing don't make it so.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[khipu]

Turns out we've had a very busy 100 years.

Yes, mostly because Europe destroyed itself, its militaries and governments, and its colonies in an orgy of religious and ethnic hatred and violence, followed by half a century of an equally destructive cold war based on yet more twisted European ideologies. And the US was pretty much the only nation trying to stand up to that. And since the fall of the Iron Curtain, the US has mostly been concerned with radical Islam and terrorism.

Extending these examples into modern times, I think that Iraq and the 'stans (Caspian oil pipeline) are now relatively safer places for American / Global Oil and Bank Interests.

Yes, that is clearly the point of most of these wars: to ensure that energy companies and banks have access to these countries. Why do you think that's a bad thing? Europe needs the gas and oil, and those countries need political stability, technologies, investment, and credit. What alternatives do you suggest?

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Anonymous Coward]

When arguments fail you, you resort to ad hominems. Thanks for your implicit admission that your arguments have been defeated.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[khipu]

Banana republics don't work either as last century politics of some countries showed. For some reason USA don't have lots of friends in own continent.

The US didn't create banana republics, they were already there. But if it has to choose, it will choose banana republics that are friendly to its own interests.

And if you think that Europe is such a happy place where everybody loves each other, you haven't been paying attention to Europe's history since WWII or its current state.

Since when Middle East is only Europe's problem.

Much of of the trade of the Middle East is with Europe and Asia, and Europe is within reach of Middle Eastern missiles.

Your country started two wars against independent countries and now you expect others to foot your overextended military budget.

Yes, we do. And European politicians are paying because they know that it's in their own interest to have the US take care of these dirty jobs. Personally, I think it's a bad deal for the US. I want the US to cut its military budget and let Europeans fight these wars themselves.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[euroq]

Justification for obliterating a country on the opposite side of the planet? The Constitution doesn't say anything authorizing that.

I'm certainly not arguing for war, but for this point: Just because the constitution doesn't say anything authorizing it, doesn't mean it isn't legal. The U.S. constitution is a "liberal constitution", defining things that the government can't do. It doesn't have to explicitly list everything that the government can do.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Although I disagree with your assessment, even assuming it's true.

Clearly in your mind theft justifies genocide of you and your children. And we all know you've stolen from someone at some point, so ... Yes if you want to move into my apartment and I get to blow you, your family, wife, girlfriend, children and generally anyone you know up for fun after that (don't worry I'll claim there's some religion involved).

But let's not even go there. You're one of the "moral equivalence" lefties. You've clearly done something wrong in your life, like lying for example. And you claim every crime justifies any kind of revenge. You've lied to me, is that not enough for me to massacre your family ? I mean why draw the line for justified massacring at theft, why not at mere lying. Or better yet, at mere irritation.

Oh wait, let's use the excuses the paedophile prophet used :
allah told me to massacre you
one of your children stole from me (from a village 25km away, kid had not a single mean of transport)
I no longer feel like respecting the peace treaty
allah forbade me from respecting the peace treaty
women (even without explicitly defining what exactly was done)
Because I can, you cannot defend yourself, and clearly by winning we're superior (says the guy who at one point ordered 4 women to carry him, unwounded just very fat, up a hill to escape a force defending a city he was attacking)

Oh and muslims were massacring Jews 1400 years before modern Israel existed. And they have not wasted the years in between either. In fact I seriously doubt there is any people on this planet that has not yet been on the receiving end of a muslim massacre.

I mean in order to give rationale to muslim massacres you'd not just have to explain what Jews or Americans have done, but
don't forget Black people living in the Sahara (Sudan and elsewhere)
Somalians
Buddhist Taiwanese
Christian Filipinos
Chinese Malaysians, I'm betting the large majority was communist
Chinese Indonesians, same
Hindu Pakistani
Hindu Bangladeshi
Hindu Indians

Tell me, have they all ... *shudder* ... stolen something ? Oh sure that justifies wiping them out then !

How about a simpler solution : let's wipe out islam, and end 95% of wars on this planet. I'm sure people will find a new excuse, but it'll be quiet for 200 years or so at least.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[khipu]

As far as I can tell, Muslim and Jewish claims are equally nutty. According to the Bible, Israel took that land because God told them so and exterminated the people who were living there before.

The flaw isn't with Islam, it's with the Abrahamic religions in genera. If you want to ennoble people and help them restrain their violent urges, you need religions and philosophies that are not based on the premise that whatever a powerful God tells you (told by his priesthood or dreamed up during prayer) is just, right, and moral.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Anonymous Coward]

They'll just read O'Reilly's book or something. Doesn't help.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[khipu]

Name them. And when you do, be sure to exclude any reasons that would appear hypocritical - those which could as easily apply to the US or its allies.

Iran is a repressive theocracy that has made the destruction of other nations and religions their declared goal. I'd likely be killed by the regime if I lived there. There is no comparison or analogy between what Iran can do and what the US can do. Of course, I want the US to have nuclear weapons, I want the CIA to be able to hunt down people like bin Laden, and I want the US military to have spy drones and satellites watching the rest of the world. And I decidedly do not want Iran to be able to do any of those things, and if they try, I want the US to intervene. I am pretty sure the majority of American voters feel the same way (even if we think the US should use these tools more judiciously). If you think that's "hypocritical"... well, you'll just have to live with that.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Great idea. There is of course a tiny little difference here. islam claims the whole world as it's territory (split up in "already conquered" (dar al islam) and "to conquer" (dar al harb)). There's the tiny little issue of course that ideologies need territorial control to exist. Or at the very least, I hope you can see why ideologies don't share ground with islam and it's constant genocides. Communists ran extermination campaigns in some parts of the middle east just for this reason.

As for your idea of non-deistic ideologies ... they've not exactly provided us with peace either. Communism comes to mind as an obvious example. All sorts of dictatorial idelogies, of course. What else do we have ? Socialism has not exactly been peaceful, insofar it's even different from communism of course. Buddhism, insofar as it's a non-deistic religion (it's not imho, but you hear the argument often), has not exactly been peaceful. I mean when it comes to being peaceful ... euhm ... pure capitalism (if this exists) ? While I can't seem to come up with any specific wars caused by this, well maybe Iraq, anyway regardless of the cause of the Iraq war, consensus seems to be it's not exactly peaceful ... Is nazism non-deistic ? Hmmm.

So do tell, which ideology, preferably one that has actually run a state (ie. isn't totally in the realm of fantasy), would you suggest ?

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[dwpro]

Unfortunately we replaced one set of human rights abuses with another. We did no good there, just killed an awful lot of people.

A newly voting citizen of a democratic iraq might disagree. A disenfranchised kurdish population might actually enjoy having a say in what goes on in their country as opposed to violent repression and being gassed. An oppressed majority of Shias might not prefer the impressively evil regime it endured before. Many errors have been made in the invasion and transition of power to iraq, and it may yet implode in a mess of sectiarian violence, but if it does not undoubtedly good has been done. Iraq may yet come out on the other side a better nation than it was before the US invasion.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[khipu]

here is of course a tiny little difference here. islam claims the whole world as it's territory

So does Christianity.

As for your idea of non-deistic ideologies ... they've not exactly provided us with peace either.

That's a false dichotomy. Theism is the cause of the violence of Christianity; non-theism is simply all the other ideologies, which have nothing in common other than not being theistic (and deism is something else entirely; look it up). Furthermore, peace without liberty is insufficient. Catholicism and socialism both managed to deliver peace at times, but at a staggering cost in liberty and human development.

Communism comes to mind as an obvious example. All sorts of dictatorial idelogies, of course. What else do we have ? Socialism has not exactly been peaceful,

Communism, fascism, and socialism are very similar to Christianity (so similar, in fact, that American conservatives keep accusing European nations run by conservative Christians as being "socialist").

So do tell, which ideology, preferably one that has actually run a state (ie. isn't totally in the realm of fantasy), would you suggest ?

The US seems to have been doing pretty well with classical liberalism, and we should stick to that. That means keeping church and state separate, minimizing government services and the welfare state, keeping taxes low, promoting free trade and free markets, protecting free speech, and letting people do what they want with their lives as long as they aren't demonstrably harming others. It means rejecting the theocratic tendencies of the Republicans and the socialist tendencies of the Democrats.

Within such a liberal state, if you want to spend your time talking to an evil, genocidal sky-god like YHWE, that's your own business, as long as you don't put your theories into practice and start harming others.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[khipu]

Or maybe Israel is just a convenient proxy that lets us threaten Iran with nuclear weapons without having to stick our own necks out, because this conflict isn't over Israel, it is over oil, combined with Arab resentment over the collapse of their empire.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[khipu]

Your statements show you seem to be well-meaning but you actually have a cultural bias where you think that the Iranians couldn't effectively govern themselves if given a chance

Quite to the contrary, I think the Iranian people are probably more ready than the rest of the Islamic world for democracy. The US made a big mistake in toppling the democratically elected government of Iran in the 50's. I'm just saying that it was a stupid mistake, not imperialism, and that Europe had a big hand in it too. Furthermore, much as I think the people of Iran are capable of democracy, I don't want the current government of Iran to have nuclear weapons.

No one else has the power to help the Iranians throw off their theocracy and transition to democracy except for America.

If the US is forced to act, it will try to democratize a nation in the process, as it did in Germany, Japan, and is trying to do in Iraq. But despite some gung-ho right wing politicians, US governments, diplomats, and the US military are aware that trying that is costly, lengthy, and risky. Heck, in world history, this is really new territory.

The US is doing what it knows how to do: it talks to the democratic opposition and it imposes sanctions. But "democratic oppositions" often turn out to be the next dictator, and sanctions are slow and risky. In fact, I think there is a good chance that over the next few decades, Iran may reform and liberalize gradually all by itself.

So, I would say that US isolationism has failed in the future just has it has failed miserably in the past.

Well, as an American, I don't want isolationism, but I sure would like other nations to bear more of the military burden.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[SplashMyBandit]

Quite to the contrary, I think the Iranian people are probably more ready than the rest of the Islamic world for democracy. The US made a big mistake in toppling the democratically elected government of Iran in the 50's. I'm just saying that it was a stupid mistake, not imperialism, and that Europe had a big hand in it too. Furthermore, much as I think the people of Iran are capable of democracy, I don't want the current government of Iran to have nuclear weapons.

Thanks for clarifying. We are in agreement here.

If the US is forced to act, it will try to democratize a nation in the process, as it did in Germany, Japan, and is trying to do in Iraq. But despite some gung-ho right wing politicians, US governments, diplomats, and the US military are aware that trying that is costly, lengthy, and risky. Heck, in world history, this is really new territory.

The US is doing what it knows how to do: it talks to the democratic opposition and it imposes sanctions. But "democratic oppositions" often turn out to be the next dictator, and sanctions are slow and risky. In fact, I think there is a good chance that over the next few decades, Iran may reform and liberalize gradually all by itself.

Agreed. Although I'd say the democratic opposition is sometimes ineffectual and usurped by a dictator. Unfortunately given the current path of the Iranian government I don't think the World could wait on the timescale of organic reform in Iran - not with the current weapons program (which, unlike Iraq, appears to be real given the much more concrete evidence the IAEA is finding [and has been a lot more conservative this time, trying not to get egg on its face again]).

Well, as an American, I don't want isolationism, but I sure would like other nations to bear more of the military burden.

Totally with you on this one too (I'm not from the US, and think it is crap that the rest of the World sponges off you for defence - both morally [tut-tutting when only the US has the guts to act when it is clearly necessary] and financially). Thanks for clarifying, it looks like we're pretty much aligned on this.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

So does Christianity.

No it doesn't. Well, only if you interpret it's goal of eventually converting every human, and "claim" the land they live on as a world-conquest goal. I suppose in some ways that's reasonable. But compare it to the islamic goal of militarily killing or converting every piece of land on the planet (yes, land, they have little interest in people. In fact there is discussion whether slaves, or conquered people, even when they claim to be part of the faith are muslims even today amongst institutions. E.g. the taliban, say "no", so do the salafists (which are still > 60% of all muslims worldwide). muslim ideology is all about conquering states) ... it's clearly not on the same level. Similarly, compare it to the communist goal of violent revolutions in every state structure across the globe, resulting in everything being controlled by a single communist party ... not quite on par, don't you agree ?

Communism, fascism, and socialism are very similar to Christianity (so similar, in fact, that American conservatives keep accusing European nations run by conservative Christians as being "socialist").

If you go by the names of the parties, perhaps (even there it'd be a stretch). But these were at best a tiny socialist veneer over a capitalist core. I doubt you could say the same about the Soviet Union, Southern America, or Eastern Europe. And it wouldn't apply to quite a few of even those European nations. Yes the core of Western Europe ... it probably applies there. Outside of that geographically small part of Europe ... not so much.

Besides I've been there. While it's true that there is some measure of conservative Christians there, the prevailing conservative political ideology is ex-communists who changed their minds when they saw what huge damage was done. They mostly were openly communist in their youth, and then saw what the Soviet union pulled. Needless to say, they didn't want that to happen there. They still like the idea of communism, but they ... well they don't want to live in a communist state. So they try to be as communist as possible without actually touching the basic operation of the economy, e.g. their pension systems, sick leave, etc really are an application of "from each according to ability, to each according to need". And these people are utterly disgusted by how young people sabotage these systems en-masse, and even more so by how "political refugees" do it. They really want to have this quiet life where you work, and are provided for, and they're abhorred because they understand perfectly well that it won't work with the way the new generation is using these systems, and they're desperately looking for solutions. Just read the history of the French government, like Bertrand Couchner, who is a really good example. At which point Christianity has any role in this, well ... you tell me.

These guys are opposed by the "progressive" parties, whose main role seems to be to maximally exploit the laws these conservatives made. They're all about making sure that people who just arrived from brazil or morocco as "political refugees" get their "right" to free health care, "living wages" and so on, despite them obviously moving to europe for free cancer care. The argument that this will obviously destroy the system that they depend on does not seem to even scare these people. They have "rights" you see, and the state must provide, getting money from whoever has it*, like their parents did before.

* the scary part of these parties, which they will deny screaming, is of course that this is exactly one step removed from "get it from our neighbors". Some of these parties actually advocate militarily attacking e.g. american corporations and raid them for money. Tell me, how far would that be removed from open war ? And the only thing those corporations (not exclusively American ones btw, Dutch Petr

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[khipu]

Well, only if you interpret it's goal of eventually converting every human, and "claim" the land they live on as a world-conquest goal.

Historically, Christianity has done it the other way around: first conquer, then conversions. That's how Christianity became the largest religion on the planet. Christianity and Islam are different by degrees, but both are too much focused on conquest and conversion.

Besides I've been there. While it's true that there is some measure of conservative Christians there, the prevailing conservative political ideology is ex-communists who changed their minds when they saw what huge damage was done

That's what a Christian is: a communist who uses God to justify their policies. Merkel is an excellent example of that; she grew up in a religious family, made it big in the communist party, joined the Christian party, and became chancellor. Now she is pounding her shoe on the table saying that Germany should become more Christian, and further increasing state power and redistribution of wealth.

(Mind you, I'm not opposed to some social safety net and a reasonable degree of taxes; but when such policies become an ideological stance rather than a utilitarian decision, they become the source of corruption and abuse of power.)

"The US seems to have been doing pretty well with classical liberalism" While running wars across the globe you mean ?

What I meant is that Americans are wealthy and fairly secure. And a lot of other nations are wealthy and secure as a consequence.

And if Europe got its act together, liberalized, and started defending itself instead of relying on the US, the US would be fighting fewer wars. US politicians should push for that more.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Historically, Christianity has done it the other way around: first conquer, then conversions.

Cute thought. Read up on history. Not even the most rabid anti-christian historians claim any hint of violence during the first 4 centuries of Christianity. 4 centuries. In case you're confused, that would be between 10 and 12 generations. And this was under constant violence against Christians. Even after that, Christianity has always been spread by absurdly small numbers of people. It's all good and well to claim e.g. South America was converted by soldiers, but what I find sorely lacking in that explanation is how exactly ~ 2000 soldiers defeat tens of millions of people ? Well, let's just say either they had some serious divine help, or most of those conversions were at the very least not at the point of a gun. The same can be said about most (granted, not all) other "forced" conversions to Christianity. You can claim 200 soldiers defeated most of Northern Europe until the cows come home, but ...

Contrast this with how pakistan became muslim : the most modest death tolls are talking about 200 million corpses. How Xinjang became muslim : probably around 20 million corpses. How northern africa became muslim : ~ 30 million corpses (out of a population of less than 50 million). Iran : ~1 million corpses according to babylonian and persian sources (which again was a hell of a percentage of the local population) (they didn't even believe these numbers themselves. Neither nation even had a word denoting a million, so they had to use weird multiplication to describe it. Were they lying ? Perhaps about the number, not about how it spread). And let's not forget the constant massacres muslims committed in Spain, which are very well documented (starting with the granada, toledo and various massacres, starting immediately after the invasion). And the massacres today ...

Somehow where muslims go, genocide always follows. Whether we're talking Europe, South Africa, China, South Asia, Northern Asia, Russia, ... none of it matters.

Can we at the very least agree that there is a VERY clear difference here ? Sure it's not Christianity 100% innocent - islam 0%. It's more like Christianity 99.9% innocent - islam 0.1% (a few isolated lucky breaks). Moral equivalence is a dumb theory.

That's what a Christian is: a communist who uses God to justify their policies.

And the other choice is what, exactly ? An atheist socialist who acts like the Soviets, sees no reason to not kill a few hundred million people because he has some pseudo-scientific excuse (or military, or he just hates them, or doesn't like their ideology, or ... does anyone have an exhaustive list of reasons the Soviets committed genocide ? It's gonna be a long list).

In short I daresay that if this is the difference between a Christian communist and the atheist kind, then I'll take my chances with the Christian kind, thank you very much.

And if Europe got its act together, liberalized, and started defending itself instead of relying on the US, the US would be fighting fewer wars.

In reference to your above comment : make Europe a 90% Christian nation again, and this will happen in a matter of months. As long as atheist "progressives" run amok : not a chance in hell. After all, wars are caused by guns, aren't they ? And by Jews, of course ... (just parrotting the general progressive excuse for defunding militaries and explaining the immediate followup violence) (oh and if you accuse a european liberal of racism, then he scratches "Jews", replaces it by Israeli, and proceeds to say that he doesn't quite like the local brand of recognizable (also known as orthodox) "Israelis" either)

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Anonymous Coward]

Why, that's fascinating, Mr. Persona !

Tell us more!

The logs don't lie.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Anonymous Coward]

> The US is trying to convert other nations into trading partners with compatible economies and governments. That may or may not be a reasonable thing to do, but it is not "imperialism".

Economic imperialism is what the US does.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[DarthVain]

Show me a solar powered tank, ship, or plane. No? Well then it will still be strategically important. Convert every US car to solar tomorrow, and so long as you employ a war machine you need to feed it oil. Also global trade depends on massive container ships, which also depend on oil, no amount of sail, solar, wind is going to budge them. Commercial tourism is dependent on passenger plans, again not flying on solar beams and rainbows. We also make just about everything from it. Simply removing it from our grid, and personal transportation is a step, but we are far from independent.

Would it be less important? Sure only because you move the horizon back slightly. Anyway anyone that messes with the flow will be subject to trouble.

Oil is our Spice. Shaddam will not tolerate any disruption of the Spice!

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[idji]

says the warmonger, and your spice will be your downfall, but you can't see it.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Anonymous Coward]

Israelis never admit that they are nuclear

no, they just reacted to a former Israeli nuclear technician giving photos of the nuclear weapons facilities to the Sunday Times by kidnapping him and holding a show trial.

When did they do something genocidal or acted as fundamentalist regime.

Any time there is development in occupied territory

Last time I checked, Israelis was democracy

Your point?

Palestinians can't establish own state without going into civil war

That would be because Israel repeatedly pulls the rug out from under Fatah

Can you stop rockets without crossing the border?

Yes, it's called a close-in weapons system, and the entire Israeli border could be protected by a chain of them for a not unreasonable sum.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Anonymous Coward]

you're aware that a uranium nuke is a jolly long way from a thermonuclear device, right? Anyone can build a uranium nuke given enough raw uranium and centrifuge time.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[khipu]

Not even the most rabid anti-christian historians claim any hint of violence during the first 4 centuries of Christianity. 4 centuries.

That's because Christianity lacked the power, not the desire. As soon as it could, it used every means at it disposal to punish those that disagreed with the church, even on minor points. Arius and others were exiled in 325 over a disagreement on the nature of Christ's divinity. Priscillan was executed for doctrinal disagreement in 385, as soon as the Christian church was given the legal power to do so, the starting point for a long and extremely bloody history.

Even after that, Christianity has always been spread by absurdly small numbers of people.

That's the fairy tale of lonely missionaries spreading the light to remote corners of the world, surrounded by admiring natives gazing up at them. It's historically false. Christianity was largely spread in two ways: conquest by already Christian empires and conversions of rulers (often related to marriage or alliances, sometimes by promises of power and rewards), whose subjects were then required to adopt the faith of their rulers. The initial spread of Christianity was piggy-backed on the Roman empire, and later the Spanish and British empires.

It's all good and well to claim e.g. South America was converted by soldiers, but what I find sorely lacking in that explanation is how exactly ~ 2000 soldiers defeat tens of millions of people ?

There are plenty of books on that. But I don't even understand the question. Fact is that the Americas were conquered, a large percentage of its population exterminated, and the rest forced to convert to Christianity.

Contrast this with how pakistan became muslim : the most modest death tolls are talking about 200 million corpses.

The fact that modern Islam is even worse than modern Christianity doesn't make Christianity a benign or moral ideology. The lesser of two evils is still evil.

And the other choice is what, exactly ? An atheist socialist who acts like the Soviets, sees no reason to not kill a few hundred million people because he has some pseudo-scientific excuse (or military, or he just hates them, or doesn't like their ideology, or ... does anyone have an exhaustive list of reasons the Soviets committed genocide ? It's gonna be a long list). In short I daresay that if this is the difference between a Christian communist and the atheist kind, then I'll take my chances with the Christian kind, thank you very much.

Do you really know so little about history that you think that the only two choices in the world are Christian theocracy or Stalinism?

And did you read anything I wrote? The problem is not with what kinds of beliefs you have in the privacy of your own home--no matter how stupid they may be--the problem is if you try to impose those beliefs through government, by turning nations into "Christian nations" or "communist nations". Christian government and Stalinist government both make that mistake, and the solution is not to make that mistake. Government should be secular and liberal (in the classical sense); it should neither promote theism nor oppose it, it should simply not meddle in religion at all.

As long as atheist "progressives" run amok

The great majority of progressives are Christians in the US and Europe. Large parts of Europe are governed by Christian parties who justify what you would call "progressive" politics with Christian theology, and their government panels are stuffed to the gills with "experts" on ethics sent out by Christian churches. The problem with progressives isn't whether they are atheist or theist (they are some of each), it's that they are unified in their belief that the government should engage in social engineering.
Europe is an object

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

That's because Christianity lacked the power, not the desire.

Sure, after all, what power does e.g. the Roman Emperor have ?

It's all good and well to claim e.g. South America was converted by soldiers, but what I find sorely lacking in that explanation is how exactly ~ 2000 soldiers defeat tens of millions of people ?

There are plenty of books on that. But I don't even understand the question. Fact is that the Americas were conquered, a large percentage of its population exterminated, and the rest forced to convert to Christianity.

True, but you won't like what the primary historical sources tell of that event. If I were to tell that story you'd immediately point out that it was written by monks which were part of the invading army, with a few details coming from the ship's logs of the conquerors. There are no other sources. The primary sources tell that the "invasion army" was in fact joined by natives and only had to fight it's first fight with the inca "god". At that point their army was so large that it was >90% natives, and it actually had the numerical advantage. The causes for this were apparently related to the inca method of tax collection, which involved kidnapping people (for not paying enough tax perhaps ? It is not known why exactly), torturing them for months and then finally the famous procedure where they cut out their hearts. So now you can go ahead and scream about this being a description of infidels by Christian monks ... but ... there are no other sources. With their "god" dead, and no clear way to name a successor due to the sacking of the capital, the religion collapsed in a matter of years. Primary sources state that nobody was sorry to see it go.

Needless to say, these sources don't mesh very well with progressive ideology. The sad part is that these sorts of explanations mesh pretty well with the experience of pretty much any civilization that was more advanced than it's surroundings. Persians found their neighbours ... barbarians (and they would have had to walk the other way and 3x further to find the first group of humans with comparable technology and ethics to their own). Greeks did. Romans did. The Chinese did. All such primary sources describe finding primitive villages, ruled by direct violence. The people in those villages like nothing more than to join the advanced civilization, after they find that it isn't so easy to sack a technologically superior enemy. And in the cases where they do succeed in sacking them, due to logistical problems for example, like the muslims did to the romans and the jews, the experience is one of constant rabid and unpredictable violence on a massive scale. Despite what you may think, the myth of the noble savage is just that, a myth.

As for the "exterminated" part, I think that's massively unfair. First of all, it took quite a while for that to happen, and it actually largely happened after the conquest. As to the manner in which happened, how can you possibly give the impression that this was the intent ? This happened because European feet were washed in the same river as native feet. Blaming the "invaders" makes about as much sense as claiming meteorites are weapons of mass destruction. Sometimes things go horribly wrong, and a meteor can make millions of victims. But it is a mere phenomenon, and until at least the 20th century it was no more under the control of humans as hurricanes.

The phenomenon itself, those diseases, has a name. It's called "island species" and was described by Darwin himself. I've got more bad news for you : we're still doing that. Give it another 400-500 years and there will be no more black people, anywhere in the world. Are we massacring them ? Because this process will complete first in America. (island species is a ridiculous name for this btw, "island races" would be more accurate). African Americans will be about as different from the aver

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Forty Two Tenfold]

First of all. No need to call me an idiot. It makes you look totally unreasonable.

Indeed, "raving lunatic" would be much closer. And no, it doesn't.

Plus, I have a PhD in Astrophysics so on relative terms I could call you the same thing

No, really, you've just proven my point. You could have 3 PhDs, Fields Medal and a Nobel and still be deficient. It's not unheard of and you're playing dirty tricks Schopenhauer wrote about.

Second. One of the things you are wrong about is that the Israelis did not get their purported nukes from the US. They have a research facilty at Dimona and Merdechai Vanunu spilt the beans on.

Yes they did just after 1948, when they got their new "state" up there. The US furbished them with all kinds of military equipment INCLUDING nukes in case Russians required some quick heating. That they have that facility is another issue that should mandate an IAEA investigation and some international sanctions, but the Israelis are sacred cows so what the hell. Let them.

So, you are clearly misinformed and making stuff up in your own head to suit your preconception.

No, I just remember some history and you're accusing me of lying/confabulation here, asshole. Also, I've talked to Jews, Arabs (i.e. from the Saudi Arabia and the UAE), Syrians, Persians (i.e. Iranians), Hindus, Pakistanis, Palestinians, Egyptians, Americans and (puke) US citizens - both religious and atheistic. See, I'm from where all these folks [can] come to study and I do have an open, inquisitive mind.

Third. If the Israelis really wanted to attack Iran it would have already happened. Years ago. They are trying not to attack Iran but folks like you don't get it all all.

No, they wouldn't, because they would lose their immunity forever. What folks like you don't get is that aside from the US's cold war agenda there was "religulous" extremism that placed Israel on the map at that spot in 1948. The initial place was further South near Sudan IIRC and should have been in either America (Argentina or the US). But hey, thet was their "promised land" which they had lost 2000 years before and they wanted that back.

You always blame the Israelis because it fits your preconceived world view - and no matter what facts I come up with (or a recollection of my travels as a neutral throughout the Middle East - I've been on the ground there and seen what's going on for myself). For myself I try and collect facts and then assign blame where the facts take me.

"Facts." You keep using that word... I don't think it means what you think it means. Let me give you some facts. The Israelis are waiting for the Messiah. Yes. They seem to have a "secular democracy" over there, but so does the US. That doesn't mean they don't have xenophobes and chauvinists in the government who won't blink before calling eradication of Islam[ic regimes] a mission from YHWH. Their history says so. The first time Israel was established it was by way of genocide. Hebrews were barbarians when Egyptians and Babylonians were developed beyond what Jews could even start to imagine - because of their religion. And even that very foundation of their "tradition" is plagiarized from Egyptians. Then they lost their state and all autonomy because they wouldn't appreciate their autonomy under the Imperial guidance.

Sure, the Israelis do a lot of dumb and bad things (settlers, ugh!) but it is pretty clear that Iran possessing nuclear weapons is a very, very dangerous thing for everyone. Once you understand how the Iranian government factions work (do you?) then you'll understand that once they get nukes there will be a lot more trouble in the Middle East than now. Do you want that? Is your preconcieved notion of Israel as the Bad Guy so strong that you'

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[SplashMyBandit]

Wow! That is the biggest mis-informed rant I've seen on Slashdot in a long time. I would call "Troll" if it wasn't for the fact you probably actually believe some of the crap you are espousing. Very, very sad in this day and age when a trvial investigation from trusted sources of the Web would reveal most of your rant to be incorrect - of course, you will selectively cherry-pick from the fringe to reinforce your pre-concieved (and incorrect) notions. Like I said, I've been there on the ground for real - have you? didn't think so? I've seen what is going on and doesn't make the news reports. I cross-check my facts rather than rely only on my recollection. I am sympathetic to both the natives (that is Jordanians/trans-Jordanians) and the imported Arab immigrant workers (who came from elsewhere: ask yourself, where was Yasser Arafat born? how many generations can you go back of the 'Palestinians' that were born in the Trans-Jordan region [of course, in the Ottoman Empire]).

Most of all, I would like you to ask yourself why you are full of so much hate? to the Israelis (not all of whom are either Jews or Zionists, although you treat them all identically), and also why you have so much unreasoning venom for other Web users? Let go of the hate amigo, seriously - it'll ruin your life (I just hope it hasn't messed it up already - k :) ).

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Forty Two Tenfold]

Wow! That is the biggest mis-informed rant I've seen on Slashdot in a long time.

Self-conceited verbiage.

I would call "Troll" if it wasn't for the fact you probably actually believe some of the crap you are espousing. Very, very sad in this day and age when a trvial investigation from trusted sources of the Web would reveal most of your rant to be incorrect

Right back at you.

- of course, you will selectively cherry-pick from the fringe to reinforce your pre-concieved (and incorrect) notions

Baseless and ad personam. Hypocrite.

Like I said, I've been there on the ground for real - have you?

Irrelevant - I have info from those who live there.

I cross-check my facts rather than rely only on my recollection.

Doesn't show, really.

to the Israelis (not all of whom are either Jews or Zionists, although you treat them all identically)

To unquestioning apologists and the chauvinistic genocidal sacred-cows.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[SplashMyBandit]

Your reponses are exactly what I expected - given the other posts of yours I could find. Pretty lame and lacking in reasoned substance - very lazy and almost childish responses wrapped in the obfuscative tones of a haughty academic. It seems you think you are a lot smarter than you actualy are (smart takes work).

This is something I saw a lot while in University - a common flaw mostly among future lawyers and liberal arts types. Meanwhile, the true mega-minds that I encountered (world-class physicists and chemists) were amazingly open to new ideas, asked open questions far more than they took immovable positions, and didn't try to force their opinions solely by berating their opponent. I learned some good lessons as use it as a yardstick for posts I see online. I hoped to get some interesting points of view from you (and other posters) and reasons why I might be wrong. Facts I could cross-check are especially valuable. Lazy "I read once somewhere and it must be right" recollections don't cut for me. Unfortunately here all I got was insults and some statements that I know are actually libellously false (if you actually care to do the research about them) mixed in with some interesting points. It was disappointing that someone who has as wide a vocabulary as yourself can't frame or participate in reasoned debate. Next time perhaps.

Re:Gee, maybe U.S. shouldn't try to steal oil

[Forty Two Tenfold]

Listen, you hypocrite, accusing me of dishonesty and claiming your open-mindedness, critical thinking and pursuit of evidence contradicting your hypotheses:

As a scientist we're trained to try and find ways to falsify our existing view, and receive the counter-evidence with an *open mind*.

Start here and proceed through this.

And after you explain to yourself and admit that "wiping Israel from the face of the Earth" is a fabrication by right-wing nuts and Fox-grade sources (finding the correct sources for that I leave to you as an exercise in honesty) and properly apologizing to me for what you've accused me of, you may hope I'll reconsider who to regard you as. So far, you've presented no evidence to support your claims, which are based on nothing more than hearsay, or to contradict what I've said and shown. To add to injury, you also insulted me with accusations of lying and dilettantism, so it's you who spews unfounded crap and uses fallacious nonsense and dishonest tactics (ad hominem, ad personam, ad verecundiam, ad ignorantiam, ad auditorem).

Oh, and finally, YOUR MOTHER!

Owwww

[rotorbudd]

Yea, a 5 inch with flechette rounds.
Wonder how that fiberglass speedboat will hold up?

Re:Owwww

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the point is that it doesn't have to. It just needs to survive long enough to launch a missile.

Also, I guess if fifty of these things are attacking a ship, only a few of them have to launch their missiles or come up alongside and detonate their explosives for the tactic to be effective.

Re:Owwww

[PPH]

Odds are that they'll be attacking oil tankers, not so much the US military assets.

US naval self defense systems may be pretty good at keeping themselves from getting hit, but can they fire at a swarm of speedboats hugging the side of a supertanker?

Re:Owwww

[datavirtue]

That better be one hell of an explosive. These ships, hell any significant military hardware, can track multiple targets automatically and fire upon them accurately. I'm sure more than a couple people are dying to let an Aegis system cut loose on a bevy of targets. It would not be pretty.

Re:Owwww

[Ihmhi]

Actually, this has the American military very worried. In the Millenium Challenge 2002, Red used exactly this tactic and wiped the floor with us in a wargame - 20,000 (virtual) service personnel dead. The military basically said "NUH UH! DO OVER DO OVER!" and restarted the exercise with new rules that would have made such tactics impossible. The leader of OPFOR (retired Marine Corps. Lt. General Paul K. Von Riper) resigned his position as commander of OPFOR in protest.

Then, of course, there was the Trillion Credit Challenge (start at the bolded "I"):

In 1981, a computer scientist from Stanford University named Doug Lenat entered the Traveller Trillion Credit Squadron tournament, in San Mateo, California. It was a war game. The contestants had been given several volumes of rules, well beforehand, and had been asked to design their own fleet of warships with a mythical budget of a trillion dollars. The fleets then squared off against one another in the course of a weekend. “Imagine this enormous auditorium area with tables, and at each table people are paired off,” Lenat said. “The winners go on and advance. The losers get eliminated, and the field gets smaller and smaller, and the audience gets larger and larger.”

Lenat had developed an artificial-intelligence program that he called Eurisko, and he decided to feed his program the rules of the tournament. Lenat did not give Eurisko any advice or steer the program in any particular strategic direction. He was not a war-gamer. He simply let Eurisko figure things out for itself. For about a month, for ten hours every night on a hundred computers at Xerox PARC, in Palo Alto, Eurisko ground away at the problem, until it came out with an answer. Most teams fielded some version of a traditional naval fleet—an array of ships of various sizes, each well defended against enemy attack. Eurisko thought differently. “The program came up with a strategy of spending the trillion on an astronomical number of small ships like P.T. boats, with powerful weapons but absolutely no defense and no mobility,” Lenat said. “They just sat there. Basically, if they were hit once they would sink. And what happened is that the enemy would take its shots, and every one of those shots would sink our ships. But it didn’t matter, because we had so many.” Lenat won the tournament in a runaway.

The next year, Lenat entered once more, only this time the rules had changed. Fleets could no longer just sit there. Now one of the criteria of success in battle was fleet “agility.” Eurisko went back to work. “What Eurisko did was say that if any of our ships got damaged it would sink itself—and that would raise fleet agility back up again,” Lenat said. Eurisko won again.

Eurisko was an underdog. The other gamers were people steeped in military strategy and history. They were the sort who could tell you how Wellington had outfoxed Napoleon at Waterloo, or what exactly happened at Antietam. They had been raised on Dungeons and Dragons. They were insiders. Eurisko, on the other hand, knew nothing but the rule book. It had no common sense. As Lenat points out, a human being understands the meaning of the sentences “Johnny robbed a bank. He is now serving twenty years in prison,” but Eurisko could not, because as a computer it was perfectly literal; it could not fill in the missing step—“Johnny was caught, tried, and convicted.” Eurisko was an outsider. But it was precisely that outsiderness that led to Eurisko’s victory: not knowing the conventions of the game turned out to be an advantage.

“Eurisko was exposing the fact that any finite set of rules is going to be a very incomplete approximation o

Re:Owwww

[capnkr]

I think our US Navy has been practicing for just this kind of warfare for several years because I've seen the boats they use as "enemies" - they sometimes stay at the marina where I live. The "enemy" boats are likely a step above what Iran would be able to field in large numbers; they are 25-35' LOA rigid inflatable craft powered by twin or triple 200+hp outboards, or glass-hulled fast sportfishers like Fountain or Donzi. The kind of boat where the crew is strapped in with 5-point harnesses because they *need* to be when a boat that size runs in excess of 50kts on open water. I would hope that crews trained against these extremely fast 'aggressors' would find it fairly easy to take out targets using slower, older, less capable craft. HITRON may well have a role in such a conflict scenario as well.

Re:Owwww

[TargetBoy]

Alternatively, these stories are publicized and spread because we have developed an effective strategy against this approach and WANT someone to think we can't win against them.

Re:Owwww

[gary_7vn]

Two Sunburn hyper-sonic ship killer missiles, right into the reactor. I wonder how that steel and aluminum structure will hold up?

Re:Owwww

[Max_W]

The problem are not Iranian military ships, but box-cutters.

Re:Owwww

[binarylarry]

LOL! This should be marked funny.

I guess we should sell all those nuclear powered supercarriers and buy speed boats!

ROFL

Re:Owwww

[Kagura]

Sounds to me like he took advantage of the technicalities of the rules, which they (rightfully and realistically) patched the next yet, and he took advantage of another technicality the next year. It was only coincidental that the way he took advantage of the rules coincided with a real-life tactic of using small ships in great numbers.

Re:Owwww

[rotorbudd]

Exactly, this exercise was 10 years ago.
Anybody think that it wasn't studied and countermeasures developed?

Re:Owwww

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, yes. I've been in the military. You obviously haven't.

Re:Owwww

[WindBourne]

You really need to get out of your parent's basement. Subburn is supersonic at Mach 3. The US is closest to having hypersonic cruise missiles at this time is the X51 which will do Mach 5 to 10.

Re:Owwww

[gary_7vn]

Okay, supersonic. It will still take out a carrier. America has good weapons, no argument there. My point was about Iranian capability. Parent's basement. Fuck off.

Re:Owwww

[rotorbudd]

If that's directed to me, I was.

Re:Owwww

[Ihmhi]

I forgot who said it first (and I'm paraphrasing), but one of the most insightful military quotes I've ever heard is, "The military is always preparing for the previous war."

Re:Owwww

[jamstar7]

Of course it's been studied. The results and recommendations should be out around 2020 by the earliest.

Re:Owwww

[Anonymous Coward]

No command of the English language though you grew up in an English speaking nation. No knowledge of Iranian capabilities. No knowledge of American capabilities. And yet, you think that you are going to argue it here. For example, the sunburn does less than 200 miles. So, you simply wipe out all crafts that are within 300 miles and stay about 400 miles off shore. Not hard to do. OTH, tomahawk will hit over 1300 miles away. That makes it easy enough for us to put a carrier off their shore and hit ANYWHERE within Iran via aircraft.

No doubt about it. Parent's basement. And since you like Star Trek, you should look up the TNG episode in which Data saves humans from destruction from space. And note his argument. It is the same one here.

Re:Owwww

[tsotha]

I think the point is that it doesn't have to. It just needs to survive long enough to launch a missile.

Missile-armed boats are relatively expensive. Iran has only about 20 of them, 10 of which date back to the 1970s. And probably a handful are out of service for repairs or maintenance at any given time.

Also, I guess if fifty of these things are attacking a ship, only a few of them have to launch their missiles or come up alongside and detonate their explosives for the tactic to be effective.

Boats like that are so fragile a .50 cal will tear them apart in a few seconds. After the USS Cole incident American warships were issued heavy machine guns that clip onto the rails and sailors were trained in their use. The only way the "pull up alongside and detonate" tactic will work is if the ROE won't allow the crew to fire until it's too late.

Also, frigates are fast - almost certainly faster than a speedboat packed with enough explosives to do actual damage. Attacking an alert (and they're surely alert at this point) crew in a ship underway is a whole different kettle of fish than attacking a ship in port.

Re:Owwww

[Amouth]

i would be surprised if Iran was dumb enough to attack and oil tanker.. sure it would be a great photo op.. but for the surrounding countries it would be an environmental disaster - and completely Iran's fault.. if nothing it would pit the other countries against them..

Re:Owwww

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up:

There is a saying that the problem with armed forces is that they are always preparing for the last war. When a new war starts, with new tactics and technologies, the old approaches are often found to be deficient. Take mounted (as opposed to motorized) cavalry which until the start of WW1 were still considered to be a tactically valuable unit. By the end of the war they had all but disappeared.

As for the tactic of using a large number of technically or tactically inferior units to overcome a smaller number of superior units that is a trick almost as old as warfare itself. One example is the zulus against british forces - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Isandlwana. Another more recent example with more closely matched opponents would be the Russians tactics against German troops in WWII. It can work well provided the inferior force has sufficient mobility to bring on the battle on its terms before it runs out of troops/units, and/or can hold the superior force in engagement and prevent resupply.

A couple of other comments - there have been talks about improvements in missle countermeasure systems etc. This reflects a long term technological battle between the sword and shield - ie weapons that inflict damage, and systems that try to prevent that damage. While the shield sometimes has had the upper hand, for the most part it is usually the sword that is on top. This reflects a universal truth (backed up by thermodynamics) that it is easier to cause matter to become disorganised, than to prevent it becoming disorganised. Patton put it more succinctly - "the best defence is a good offence".

Re:Owwww

[jon3k]

No, it won't. The U.S. Navy is more than capable of defending itself against supersonic cruise missiles. The only time a ship has been hit with a missile was when the Stark was in port refueling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-162_ESSM

ESSM is designed to counter supersonic maneuvering anti-ship missiles.

That's just one of several layers of defense, which also include the RIM-161 and Phalanx CIWS (including the Block 1A and later which is designed to intercept supersonic missiles).

Re:Owwww

[GPierce]

This is a military high command that not only re-floated their sunken fleet, but which told Von Rippers subordinates to ignore his orders and to do it "their way" - and those subordinates did just that. Von Ripper quit for that reason.

If anyone studied the results, I'm very sure they got the lesson and kept their mouths shut.

Re:Owwww

[dbIII]

So far the contact between the US Navy and Iran has been incredibly embarrassing - most likely since it was previously a highly political exercise of "showing the flag" instead of being treated like a military one.
The results were a large naval vessel getting badly damaged by reconditioned Tsar era mines that Iran had bought from the USSR (I'm not joking), and an airliner mistakenly shot down which led to payback on a Pan Am jet later.

Re:Owwww

[Anonymous Coward]

No. The real world doesn't operate like a war game. A war game takes place with a set of "rules" which, as your article states, are finite. The real world does not have a finite set of rules. Anything can happen and no set of rules can approximate that.

Also, there is the small fact that Iran has not implemented the strategy recommended by that computer. Yes, they have some small boats, but not a vast armada.

And of course, the Iranian Navy already tried to go against the American Navy in the 1980's. Result: a bunch of Iranian ships sunk and sailors killed, while one US ship was damaged by a mine (we also shot down an Iranian civlian airliner by mistake).

It will be no different this time around: Iran will be able to close the straight for a few weeks until the US Navy's preponderance of force reopens it. The result will be a lot of Iranian boats (and sailors) getting blown to bits.

Re:Owwww

[coredog64]

This assumes that all new tactics are 100% effective. You can cherrypick examples where new tactics triumphed over old, but there's also a shitload of dead people out there who died because people tried new tactics that didn't work. Bringing the parent back to the real world, this means that Iran has crunched the rules of war and come up with a working strategy. What would have happened if the rules had changed in the middle of the game? In the Eurisko case, that doesn't make sense. But what if, in a USN vs. Iran tangle, the USN decides they've had enough and change the rules to target a refinery or shipping port or two and then withdraw.

Gee, all I am doing is kicking this honets nest

[trout007]

Why does my face keep hurting?

Re:Gee, all I am doing is kicking this honets nest

[russotto]

Why does my face keep hurting?

Not sure which side you mean. The US govt has been itching for an excuse to crush Iran for a long while now, and closing the Straits of Hormuz is a casus belli that pretty much the entire international community would recognize.

Re:Gee, all I am doing is kicking this honets nest

[rahvin112]

Closing an international waterway is an official act of war. The UN, Russians and Chinese couldn't say a thing if Iran closes the straight because Iran will have committed an official act of war against any nation that uses that straight. Not to mention Oman, Saudi and a dozen all the other nations that have territorial waters or rights that overlap the straight would have a legitimate claim to retaliation.

Closing the straight would be akin to using a nuclear weapon as it something that's going to be dealt with very harshly. It would give the US and the US Navy a free hand to take Iran down. The US navy already has a operation manual for reopening the straight including an attack strategy that should keep them out of harms way for the majority of the fighting (keep the big ships in the Arabian sea and clear the Iranian coast along the straight of all military emplacements using subs, missiles and attack aircraft, then work up the coast systematically destroying every hostile force, this happens at the same time the US bases in the gulf begin offensive action against the nuclear sites and major military bases). I'm sure at this point the US has mapped the location of every sea worthy vessel in Iran. I wonder if Iran even knows how many attack vessels the US has in the Arabian Sea and Persian Gulf. I'd bet there could be as many as a dozen Los Angeles class attack subs sitting on the bottom of the gulf (they can stay submerged for a year) waiting for Iran to do something stupid.

Re:Gee, all I am doing is kicking this honets nest

[gtall]

Yeah, from that known neo-con sympathizer, President Obama. Also, why would closing the strait be in the U.S. interest considering where most of the world gets a big chunk of their oil.

Re:Gee, all I am doing is kicking this honets nest

[jamstar7]

Why do I get this feeling that a Gulf of Tonkin incident is being manufactured?

Re:Gee, all I am doing is kicking this honets nest

[KingAlanI]

I'm not sure whether your analogy refers to "US meddling in the middle east" or "Iran provoking the US".

Re:Gee, all I am doing is kicking this honets nest

[Anonymous Coward]

Half of the strait belongs to Iran, as in it's their waters.. They have some territorial disputes with UAE over some island, which are controlled by Iran ATM. If they just close their side of the shipping lane it could probably create traffic problems. I'm no lawyer but I would guess that since neither Iran or the USA ratified the UNs Convention on the Law of the Sea they would not be able to hold that against them..

[disregardable ironic, sarcastic part]
Of course there is the case when US shot down an Iranian passenger aircraft in Iranian airspace, so I doubt rights and laws would be taken into account if the topic is getting or not getting oil ;) It doesn't matter there is the card that tops all cards, the WMD card.
I would bet a great sum that if Iran would block their territorial waters, but let inspectors in, to check for WMDs, and comply with every request of the inspecting authority, they would still get attacked... on wmd charges, or exporting democracy.. (which seems to be a dwindling resource btw..)

Re:Gee, all I am doing is kicking this honets nest

[Anonymous Coward]

(First off, I'm an Iranian and I live in Iran, so you might call me biased towards keeping and improving my life.)

Some comments, specifically those that laud and cheer the war that might happen, those that talk about the amount of damage that the US military can unleash, or that it can raze my country to the ground in a flash and kill me and my family and friends, sickens me and saddens me like you wouldn't believe.

I'm not here to defend my government or slander the US'. I'm not here to talk about "guilt" (whatever that means in global politics) and/or try to blame one side or the other. All the gods that I don't believe in know that absolutely no one in the world hates Iranian government more than many (most?) Iranians themselves, but you already know that. These people who are ruling Iran are like parasites, leeching off the people and the country. And they don't care about the organism that they are living off of. If they don't have Iran, they'd rather no one else has. And generally they are willing to see the whole country burnt to the ground along with its people than to give it up to democracy or any other government or foreign body.

And it's not a single parasite either. There are so many factions and parties and alliances and currents among those that you might call the ruling power inside Iran, and they collectively wreak so much havoc and bring so much malice and boast so much stupidity and do so much damage that would have been basically impossible for even the most malevolent and vicious single adversary of Iran to match.

The state of most people in Iran is that of apathy and living out their lives. Many of those who would show dissension and opposition have been jailed or killed or intimidated or made to flea. I would guess that most of us don't see any solution that doesn't involve another bloody revolution or a foreign invasion, and we have had both in a span not much more than my lifetime and both worked out so unbelievably badly that no one even sees either of those as a potential solution. Besides those two "solutions", there should have been hope of peaceful reform and more sane paths towards democracy and improvement, but after the last non-election the rulers of Iran showed us (the people) that the are actually willing to take a flamethrower to the whole country than pull back their hegemonic claws of power even one bit. With the hope of a peaceful reform gone, we find ourselves in the current state of despair and apathy that I mentioned.

It's hard for me to stay away from clichés... And I know it's hard for most of you to care about human suffering when it occurs waaaaaay over here, but I expected the Slashdot crowd to be more rational humanists and less gun-toting rednecks. I know you have about the same influence on the actual acts of your government(s) as I have on mine (or more, as one would like to believe) but the least you can do if you care is voice your objections. Or even less that that, at the very least try not to sound like you think this is a video game. I have objected to decisions and actions that my government has made and done or were about to make and do, and that can land me in prison or take my life over here. What have you done?

The saddest part is that I know that this war is very probable. Somewhere along the line, maybe in the confrontation over the Hormoz Strait or the next one or the one after that, some idiot low- or high-level commander (one thing that never runs out is the supply of idiots) in Iran's armed forces is going to do something very stupid - as most idiots tend to do - and one side or the other will be too stubborn and/or stupid to back down and this will become a war which will again devastate my home and make my life even more miserable. I have no real expectation for any other outcome or any help for prevention. The thing you - who are not in my situation - can do is have a little sympathy or show that at least you understand that you are talking about my death, and thousands to hundreds of thousands more besides.

Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Yvanhoe]

Their primary naval weapon is a missile that can get into ballistic mode before a ship's countermeasure can intercept it. From what I read, the strategy behing "suicide boats" is not the kamikaze strategy of crashing a boat inside an aircraft carrier but rather to be used as the launchpoint of a single anti-ship missile. The launching boat will be easy to sink, but very cheap to replace. If two or three of these boats can sink one large US ship, that is a net win for Iran.

You can't escape a missile with a ship, and no 100% efficient counter-measure exist yet. If Iran strikes first, no big US ship should expect to survive the first wave.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

You underestimate the survivability of US naval ships. They may incur losses but I guarantee you every ship in the Iranian navy bigger than a speedboat is going to be sunk too. And remember we have subs in the region as well.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[SuricouRaven]

You assume this is symmetric. It isn't. To win, Iran doesn't need to destroy the entire US navy, or even it's ability to fight. They just need to make the war sufficiently expensive either financially or politically to continue.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Their primary naval weapon is . . .

Iran: "Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Ayatollah .... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise...."

Actually, if Iran has an unlimited supply of boats and suicide-minded crews, the only way to stop them will be to bomb their bases of operation. In other words, carpet bombing Iran's coast: naval bases, fishing villages, women and children . . .

This was not an option on the table, when dealing with the Somali pirates.

This would be ugly, but war is an ugly business . . . and oil is thicker than blood.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

By closing off the strait that is the route to their biggest oil customer. (China) When pretty much their only income is oil exports. It appears the US could win is THEY closed the strait.

But you're right it isn't symmetric. The US can challenge the Iranians in the strait with smaller ships while the carrier battle groups stand off and put hundreds of strike aircraft into the air to take out the fast speedboats.

You forget how large the US navy is. Its currently building 2 brand new aircraft carriers at somewhere around $9 billion a piece. So I doubt they could rack up enough financial damage to win.

Politically maybe, but with Kim Jong Il's passing Iran has taken the top slot on the list of countries with crazy leaders so it would be real doubtful.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Karmashock]

The worst thing that could happen to Iran is that they could sink a few US ships.

The US would lose face internationally then and would be required to grind Iran into the dust.

What is so frustrating about the Iranians is how bad they are at dealing with ANYONE else. They're the worst diplomats. No one likes them.

If they go toe to toe with the US over the straight they'll have no backers. The chinese need that straight open. They have a strong interest in free trade. Europeans are finally on board. The Russians are not going to be the outsider if the US, China, and EU are largely in agreement. And there's the Arabs that are also scared that Iran is going to start threatening them with nukes.

So... no friends.

The US almost WANTS iran to attack it just for the justification. But the absolute worst thing Iran could do is sink some US ships. Because they're only going to be able to do that ONCE. The US would never get close enough to let that happen again. And because the US is going to keep going through that straight it would mean Iran either demilitarizes the straight or the US demilitarizes it for them at range.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

Defense is the phalanx gun and small rockets launched to intercept incoming missiles. However if they launch enough of these, or from a close proximity, it could defeat ship's systems, and then if it hits navigation and/or radar, the ship could even become defensless for further attacks.

However this kind of conflict is probably not going to happen unless USA or Israel plan to strike first on nuclear facilities. Iran just wants to show what they could do in retaliation if they are attacked and the threat is certainly genuine even for mighty US warships in area that small - however I believe that US would just fly/bomb around and keep their ships at distance, but it could take weeks or months untils the passage is safe for either oil and military passage.

For Iran, however, it would be very stupid to attack first, while US, Israel are probably preying for that to happen so they could bomb what they want in Iran.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, so, you mean it's not like Battleship?

We're going to have to re-write some of our training manuals...

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[chrb]

There are no warships that can survive a missile striking the hull. Also, your argument does not refute the parent argument. To summarise your post: "they can fire missiles from speedboats" "But if they do that, the US would sink every ship bigger than a speedboat". Yes... Also, subs are not that useful against hundreds of speedboats. Regular ships have enough trouble with them as it is (eg Somali pirates, drug dealers etc.) Speed boats are fast and can be used to cover a large area, the Somalis have extended the normal operating range to thousands of kilometers by converting some into what are effectively mobile fuel dumps.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[ericloewe]

If they did as much a firing at a US warship, the next day they'd be visited by their friends, the B2s, followed by carrier aircraft, maybe F-22s for air superiority (if not, then F-15s), which all pave the way for B-52s. In short, their armed forces would be gone in a few days.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[ericloewe]

Carpets bombs are old-fashioned. They'd keep predators over the area, waiting for any speedboats to leave shore. Then, it's a matter of launching ordnance.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[chill]

That's funny. After demonstrating that we have no qualms about paying for 10+ years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, regardless of cost, you think Iran is going to win on a financial attrition basis.

How will Iran feel after a few months of ruinous bombardment?

You're right it isn't symmetrical. The U.S. will -- regardless of U.N. convention -- use overwhelming and disproportionate force. Iran will be lucky to have anything bigger than a reed fishing raft capable of floating if they try that.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[darjen]

The US doesn't need Iran to attack it. The US can make something up and claim it was an attacked, which has happened many times before. Like in Iraq, Vietnam, Korea, etc.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Splab]

The Phalanx doesn't agree with your statement - that thing can take out incoming mortar fire - yes, swarming it from close range would be probably be a problem, but I seriously doubt the Iranians would be capable of doing that.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[ianare]

Then we find out if Iran's claims are true.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Noughmad]

And the US would spend more on fuel in one day that the Iranians spent on building their navy.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[poity]

Wait, isn't a ballistic trajectory easier to predict and therefore intercept? I mean, the US has anti-mortar guns that shoot shells out of their final free fall. Maybe you meant something other than ballistic? (maybe I'm not reading things correctly this morning?)

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[SuricouRaven]

And there is the problem: Ruinous bombardment isn't an option. It used to be, back in the wars of the past. If countries were at war, it was accepted practice to bomb the hell out of the enemy. Blow up thieir factories so they couldn't resupply, bomb their commercial districts to stall their economy, bomb the housing to demoralise their public. Simpler wars: There was a nice clear enemy country, and you tried to destroy it. Today, though, not so simple. Civilian casualties are unacceptable. Even if the US responded with the overwhelming force it it capable of and utterly obliterated the entire Iranian military... in ten years, they'll have built it up again.

The only way to perminantly end the problem of Iran is to go in there with ground forces, invate and occupy until a more friendly regime can be arranged. After seeing what a disaster occupying Iraq was, the US would have to be unbelieveably stupid to try that again on Iran - a country with a more than twice the population. Since that isn't feasable right now, this is going nowhere.

In short, Iran doesn't have the strength to win, but the US (And it's allies) don't have the willingness to fight to a complete smoking-ruins victory with all the massive civilian casualties and long-term difficulties that implies. Neither side can win.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[SuricouRaven]

The armed forces they are deploying for thir conflict are speedboats and RPGs. Even if they are all gone in a few days, they can be replaced in a month. Wonder how much speedboats cost if you are buying them by the thousand? I would guess a lot less than the value of that oil trade.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Karmashock]

True... and if needed the US will do that. But only if it feels it needs to deal with Iran.

Iran doesn't need to make itself a problem.

1. stop making threatening statements all the time. The US has been much more polite to Iran then Iran has been to it despite the US being radically more powerful. It's like some tiny little dog yapping at a giant wolf. It's very annoying. No one needs to bow or scrape. Just be civil.

2. Stop supporting international terrorism. If you want to brutalize your own people that will probably be tolerated indefinitely. But if you spread chaos throughout the region then it forces the US to respond. Don't do that.

3. Consider other options for the nuclear program. The system as it stands looks like they're getting ready to make nuclear bombs. Maybe they're not... but that's what it looks like and everyone in the region believes that is what they are after. The US believes it. The Israelis believe it. The Saudis believe it. They basically brag about that being their end. And really... that will probably force a reaction by the US. They can't dig bunkers deep enough to keep US munitions out. The military contractors have been designing special bombs JUST for those bunkers and the US has been buying them. If the presidents says "pop the bunkers"... they will get popped.

This is serious business. This is beyond your notions of morality or petty political hypocrisy. This is strategic security. This is not a game. The Iranians are doing something very stupid and there's no good thing that will come from this...

If they attack the US the US will destroy everything that looks like a military target within a hundred miles of the coast. That's minimum.

If they attack and destroy a few US ships, then the US will destroy Iran's whole military and possibly try to start a civil war within the country which might be followed by a ground invasion. However, they might just suppress Iran's military and wait for another student uprising or riot or something. If Iran can't bring in it's military to suppress the population then who knows what will happen. The US could also just be happy with keeping Iran poor and demilitarized. No need to invade. Just destroy any machine from the sky. Send them back in time. No electricity.

If Iran doesn't attack then Iran has increased tensions in the region for no reason at all. What exactly does this accomplish? It just forces the US to send resources to the area and focuses additional resources on their country. None of that is good for Iran.

On and on... Iran is run by idiots.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

"That's funny. After demonstrating that we have no qualms about paying for 10+ years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, regardless of cost, you think Iran is going to win on a financial attrition basis."

Good point. 10+ years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan has already softened the US up financially. Oh, wait, that's not what you meant.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[publiclurker]

Not to mention the fact that there are a lot of legitimate fishing-boats out there. The war mongers attitude of shooting everything that moves would not go over all that well.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

You clearly havent see the footage of the Phalanx testing that showed a unit preparing to open fire on an inbound test missile when a flock of birds came into range behind it. It spun around and destroyed the entire flock, then whipped around again and caught the incoming missile before it reached the ship. Those things are fast and the see in all directions.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if this is true if we actually declare war on Iran itself. Remember: we haven't been at war against an actual country for a long time. I wonder what the downside would be of bombing the shit out of them and not bothering to go in and fix anything afterwards.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[1u3hr]

You underestimate the survivability of US naval ships

It's not about navy vs. navy. Iran is threatening to "close the straits". To do this they just have to make a credible threat to the oil tankers, and trade will stop. US naval ships aren't going to be delivering any oil.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

You have obviously never seen a CIWS (Close in Weapon System) fire (they are those little R2D2 lookalikes with a gun sticking out of them).
We use them in the Army to intercept inbound Indirect Fire. Ours uses explosive ammo, the navy uses DU..

Interesting fact, they have modified the program to target small motorcraft as well...

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Paradigma11]

The armed forces they are deploying for thir conflict are speedboats and RPGs. Even if they are all gone in a few days, they can be replaced in a month. Wonder how much speedboats cost if you are buying them by the thousand? I would guess a lot less than the value of that oil trade.

and what country should replace those speedboats, since iran will long have seized to exist as a functioning state at that point?

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[zippthorne]

RPGs are good against tanks, if you hit the right spot. I doubt they're going to be good against capital ship hulls....

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[chrb]

Given the size of Iran versus its powerful adversary, Iran seems to be doing okay geopolitically.. In the last decade, two of their biggest regional enemies have been eliminated (Saddam and the Taleban) and replaced with friendly regimes. The myth of Israeli invincibility was destroyed in the Lebanon war, making Israel more reluctant to use their military in the future.

Sure, in an all-out war between the US and Iran, then Iran would be destroyed. But in order to avoid this, the Iranian government only need convince the US that it would it turn suffer unacceptable military and economic losses. It's a game of brinksmanship - the aim (for both sides) is to get as much as you can get without actually going to war.

2. Stop supporting international terrorism. If you want to brutalize your own people that will probably be tolerated indefinitely. But if you spread chaos throughout the region then it forces the US to respond. Don't do that.

Both US and Iran are guilty of playing games of geopolitics and interference in the affairs of other nations. It's a bit rich to accuse Iran of being the one to destabilise the region after the US has invaded and overthrown two major regional governments, leading to a decade long civil war in both countries...

It just forces the US to send resources to the area and focuses additional resources on their country. None of that is good for Iran.

Forcing your enemy to squander resources is a kind of win. Posturing is also a kind of win, like the teenager showing off his muscles and martial skills in the school yard, it sends a particular message to be wary of messing with this kid.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

Google USS Stark. She got hit by an exocet missile. Last I checked she was repaired, put back into service (I remember seeing her in either Norfolk or Mayport) and is probably retired now...

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

... the US would have to be unbelieveably stupid to try that again...

Have you met us?

....lol, my captcha was "probable"...

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

Where are the Iranians buying 1,000's of boats? eBay?

Their coast line may be long, but I bet it's still gonna take a bunch of guys 20 minutes to launch a missile-capable boat. That's long enough for us to find and destroy them, and then destroy the villages and roads nearby.

The "many boat" theory is fucking stupid. It's the equivalent of the 911 troofers bullshit about steel buildings not melting. A whole goddamn library of scientific and political facts stack the fuck out of the "it ain't gonna happen" side and yet you droolers still think the Iranians are going to pull some speed-boat feat like a video game with cheat codes activated.

If they do anything, the people that try will be dead.

The people that ordered the attack will be dead.

The people that ordered the attack families, will be dead.

The people that ordered the attack pet camels will be dead.

In the space of a couple of hours.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the Japanese bought into that argument once. It never works. Not even in Jr high.. when the punches start flying the two contestants will generally fight until one has been completely dominated or they are both completely exhausted.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[datavirtue]

What missile do you speak of? There are many types of missiles, several of which will only do cosmetic damage to our destroyers.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[shutdown -p now]

Iran is not Iraq. Sure, U.S. can crush it militarily, but do expect losses - even with F-22s.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of the USA allies in the region are Arabs with jets that would be happy to bomb the fuck out of the civilians in any country that tries to cut off the life blood of oil. You'll find the Saudis and Israelis both, quite capable of dishing out WWII type punishment on civilians. Likewise, the US killed (if you believe the numbers) well over 100,000 civilians in Iraq during or shortly after Desert Storm. We are just good at hiding it now.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit.

You, my friend, have very little faith in our Hull Techs (HTs). These guys (and gals!) can float a slab of slate with nothing more than a few sticks of driftwood and some chewing gum. Next to the SeaBees, they are, perhaps, one of the most innovative and creative bunch of folks in the USN.

You're also forgetting about how we used to build ships (newer ones are a bit better, as we learn our lessons over time). Ever hear of a destroyer (a "tin can" by Navy standards) named USS Laffey (DD-724)? Allow me to paste the relevant section from the Wiki entry:

{Laffey survived despite being badly damaged by four bombs, six kamikaze crashes, and strafing fire that killed 32 and wounded 71.}

Or, how about a carrier? Maybe the USS Franklin (CV-13)?

{Franklin had suffered the most severe damage experienced by any U.S. fleet carrier that survived World War II.}

So, if you really think some Iranian asshole with a jet ski and an RPG is going to do more than make an HT's life more interesting, you need a serious reality check.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[DerekLyons]

Their primary naval weapon is a missile that can get into ballistic mode before a ship's countermeasure can intercept it.

[[Citation Needed]] A real one, not some tinfoil hat website.
 
OTOH, a ballistic target can be handled by either CIWS, RAM, or ESSM systems.
 

From what I read, the strategy behing "suicide boats" is not the kamikaze strategy of crashing a boat inside an aircraft carrier but rather to be used as the launchpoint of a single anti-ship missile. The launching boat will be easy to sink, but very cheap to replace. If two or three of these boats can sink one large US ship, that is a net win for Iran.

Again, [[Citation Needed]]. a real one, not some tinfoil hat website.
 
This strategy is not so easy as you might think. Lacking offboard sensors (which can be jammed, and the platforms carrying them destroyed), such boats will have to come over the horizon and either launch optically or use radar. If they're visible during the day time, or if they radiate, there's a a near certainty that they'll be spotted - and destroyed. (After their radar is jammed.) It's damm near a suicide mission with a low probability of success no matter what the label says.
 
What you and the other armchair admirals don't seem to realize is that the defenses of a US battlegroup are layered. From aircraft out on the edges, through electronic warfare and countermeasures systems, naval guns and missiles, anti-aircraft guns and missiles, and decoys and chaff. No, no one layer is perfect, but there's a lot of overlapping layers. I'm not saying it's impossible, but that you and the other armchair admirals don't realize the difficulties involved.
 
Most slashdotters are probably too young to remember - but Iran tried this back in the 1980's, and got soundly spanked.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[ckaminski]

I think you forgot the lessons of Gulf War I. Going up against and entrenched force with no significant anti-air and AWACS type assets and you're an albatross against the might of the USAF.

In the cities, sure, different story. But in the air, against carrier based or ground based air wings equipped with AWACs, and you're dead.

Saddams air force, one of the 10 best in the world in 1991, fell nearly overnight. I'm not even talking about weapons like the Tomahawk either which can hit your SAM sites from 1000 miles away.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[interval1066]

They just need to make the war sufficiently expensive either financially or politically to continue.

Perhaps, but Iran isn't in a vacuum. They would need to carry on that fight in the face of serious opposition from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel, Russia, & China, all of whom don't particularly care for the kind of conflict such action would bring. As much as Russia may hate the US, neither China nor Russia particularly care for a belligerent Iran attempting to close the Strait or flinging missiles at people trying to use it. There would be nothing simple at all about Iran making war sufficiently expensive for anyone.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[um... Lucas]

Each predator carries 2 missiles. I don't think we've got an extra 1000 predators lying around, or if we could keep that many aloft at one time without having a we midair collisions....

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Temkin]

Cluster munitions are remarkably effective against small wooden and fiberglass boats, as are 20mm CWIS / F-18 gun rounds. But as someone mentioned... the USS Stark provides a pretty good look at the survivability of the US Navy's smaller ships. The bigger ones are even more formidable. You're not going to put a hole in a cruiser or capital ship with something carried by a Donzi. You need a 500lb shaped warhead just to scratch the paint, and then all you're going to do is make the crew really really mad.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Courageous]

That is not part of the calculus of war, I'm afraid.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[khallow]

Given the size of Iran versus its powerful adversary, Iran seems to be doing okay geopolitically.. In the last decade, two of their biggest regional enemies have been eliminated (Saddam and the Taleban) and replaced with friendly regimes. The myth of Israeli invincibility was destroyed in the Lebanon war, making Israel more reluctant to use their military in the future.

Taliban was never a "big" enemy. The myth of Israeli invincibility may have been "destroyed", but so what? The myth was really a problem for Israel not the rest of the world. The problem for Iran is the Israeli military, the fact not the myth, and that is still there and still quite effective under the right circumstances.

The only real win for Iran has been the disposal of the Saddam regime.

Sure, in an all-out war between the US and Iran, then Iran would be destroyed. But in order to avoid this, the Iranian government only need convince the US that it would it turn suffer unacceptable military and economic losses. It's a game of brinksmanship - the aim (for both sides) is to get as much as you can get without actually going to war.

A good point here. It's well known how to fight a superpower. You don't directly fight their strengths. The US's carriers are a notable weakness of US strategy once you have a cheap counter to them.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Courageous]

But in order to avoid this, the Iranian government only need convince the US that it would it turn suffer unacceptable military and economic losses.

The Iranians must be ignorant, then, of modern US war practices, and how precision guided munitions are used in conjunction with policies "to deny the ability of the enemy to make war." I understand these practices and policies all too well, and feel deeply for the Iranian people should their government provoke a war. To wit:

With a war provoked, the US will use air power to "deny the ability of the Iranian government to make war". What this means in more guttural terms is that the US will take out every high value civil-military infrastructural item that it can reach and does not need for its own purposes: radio towers, any radar source that is so much as "on", bridges, overpasses, underpasses, freeway interchanges, runways, various port infrastructure items, and so forth. The upshot (or is that "downshot"?) of all of this precision-guided civilian-casualty-free surgical striking will indeed be millions and millions and millions of civilian deaths. They'll die from starvation and other bits of nastiness, as the very same infrastructure the military needs in order to mobilize is the same infrastructure needed to move necessities such as food. And all that happens if the US doesn't actually get *mean*, and try to do that kind of thing on purpose.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[khallow]

and what country should replace those speedboats, since iran will long have seized to exist as a functioning state at that point?

How did Iran cease to exist as a functioning state? You're missing a step. Merely getting bombed isn't going to be enough.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, in short we would eliminate the entire coast of Iran. Since this would be the first, justifiable attack on the USA since the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen IIRC.

We would finally have the justification to go off the chain and fight the war we are designed for. No more of this police state crap.

We could then drop leaflets in Tehran telling them that we are going to bomb and level the city in 5 days. That would give the people enough time to either evacuate or rise up and kill the president and the old muslim leaders.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[khallow]

That's funny. After demonstrating that we have no qualms about paying for 10+ years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, regardless of cost, you think Iran is going to win on a financial attrition basis.

How will Iran feel after a few months of ruinous bombardment?

It may well feel like a winner. A few months of "ruinous bombardment" will leave the current US in a very precarious situation financially.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

Who cares about RPGs. Seriously Iran has only to mine the entire ormuz strait and the game is over for the US. Not considering that diesel electric subs are much deadlier in those shallow waters than a nuclear sub will ever be. The US has a blue navy designed since the dawn of time to operate you guessed it in the open sea.
In the persian gulf and the strait of ormuz not so much. Have you seen just how shallow the persian gulf is ? Mines and wake homing torpedos are going to wreck havoc to any US ship that just stays there. Even missiles are more or less irrelevant. To deny US manouvers you use mines. Those are fucking efficient. A fleet that can't manouver is a dead fleet.
The US Navy shoud be very preoccupied if Iran does what it says it will do.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

It takes a LOT longer to rebuild a naval force than to refuel, even so.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[tsotha]

Iran doesn't have ballistic missiles with the right seeker to attack ships. The most advanced anti-ship missile the Iranians have have is the Chinese C-802 "Silkworm" cruise missile. It's not fast or stealthy, and can be shot down pretty easily.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[gary_7vn]

Yes, and China and Russia won't mind at all. Dream on war boy.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[gary_7vn]

You like the thought of killing a million people don't you?

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[gary_7vn]

How did this comment get rated as "insightful"? Is the "insight" that the hegemon, who spends more on weapons than the rest of the world combined, can destroy a small country? Or is the "insight" that Americans think they can keep spending money they don't have forever? What are you going to do if China says, "Fuck you"? Sorry, "When" China says "fuck you".

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[gary_7vn]

You make it sound like Iran is the aggressor here. Are you fucking drunk?

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[tsotha]

There are no warships that can survive a missile striking the hull.

Nonsense. There are a whole lot of warships that can survive a missile striking the hull. In 1987 the USS Stark was struck by an Exocet missile and survived. The Stark was a frigate about 4% the size of a US carrier. Nobody knows how many missiles it would take to sink a carrier, which is armored, but most experts believe it would take two or three missiles of the type the Iranians can bring to the party.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Max_W]

The proud beautiful New York City was destroyed with box-cutters. One should think twice before starting a war.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[gary_7vn]

Sunburn. This weapon has a top speed of Mach 3,[1][2] and is considered one of the most lethal anti-ship missiles in the world.[3] The high speed of the missile means a typical response time for the target of only 25 to 30 seconds, giving a target little time to react. Moskit can be armed with a warhead of 320 kg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS-N-22 A Sunburn can destroy a carrier. See also, Mosqit and Silkworm. Hypersonic missile threat 'Carrier killers' could destroy U.S. Navy's supremacy at sea' "...there is presently no reliable defence against the much faster next generation of anti-ship missiles. These weapons are designed to travel at hypersonic speeds -- greater than Mach 5, or 6,100 km/h -- and therefore present a much more lethal threat." http://bit.ly/sUAeVi "Cosmetic damage", fuck off.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet even the commercial (nominally civilian) vessels of an enemy are legitimate targets of war. The "America has squandered its good reputation by going to war in Iraq" crowd refuses to recognize that pre-2003, America wasn't all that popular in certain places (Pyongyang, Teheran, Gaza). In fact, some crazies were actually so upset with America BEFORE BUSH that they actually planned to fly jetliners into office buildings in the U.S. Can you imagine?

Would someone (with or without rose-colored glasses) please tell me when America was so popular that we were secure not only in our borders (no country will settle for that, but it is universally sought nevertheless, whether in might as in China or Russia or wile as in Switzerland), but our economic interests were not threatened, all without massive military power on our side? Upon that showing, I will concede that the biggest, strongest kid on the block has to play by different rules (greater self-restraint, "absorbing [hostile] blows"--I actually read that on www.DemocraticUnderground.com) than the smaller, weaker kids.

Under the laws of war, honed by millenia of self-slaughter, preventing significant economic turmoil within your borders caused by another sovereign is a casus belli (self-defense--you are not obliged to suffer to allow your enemy latitude of action).

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Max_W]

All those super-shmuper ships could not protect even a Pentagon building from a bunch of desert shepherds. War is a dangerous enterprise. A talented military genius could be born anywhere. If there is a way to avoid a war it should be avoided. Perhaps some compromise?

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

That isn't the biggest issue here when it comes to policy. The big issue is what will China do if both of its allies (US and Iran) go to war. If China backs someone, they would be forced to support the US will likely jump on the chance to ignore its debts to China while trying to find new places to setup manufacturing facilities. Why support a debt to a country you are at war with and will not make you toys either?

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[gary_7vn]

Why are you denigrating "Armchair Admirals"? Which fleet do you run Admiral?

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[koan]

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

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[pjabardo]

Yep, just like Iraq.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[interval1066]

I'm not going to dignify such a stupid remark with a reply.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[SuricouRaven]

And there is a problem. This isn't a fair fight.

Iran launches speedboats. US ships pick them up on radar. Missiles are launched, and two minutes later their base is gone.

Their base, which also happened to be a civilian scuba training company, and they were doing an under-twelves half-price special. Congratulations, you just murdered a party of children.

Iran doesn't have to win militarily. That is impossible, and they know it. All they really need to do is make the US look like the villain here. Just view the whole confrontation as a very expensive propaganda stunt. Provoke the US into a war, make sure some civilians get caught in the middle, frame the US for their death.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

What if neither side cares about wining, because the leadership of both bears no cost of loosing and gains either way?

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[corbettw]

The Navy doesn't use F-15s, those are Air Force jets. The Naval equivalent is the F-18.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[corbettw]

There are no warships that can survive a missile striking the hull.

Bzzt! Wrong, try again.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[gary_7vn]

No of course not, that would destroy your mind. You are good and they are bad. So simple.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[gtall]

Ships yes, but I hear it is difficult to hit a plane with a torpedo or anti-ship missile. Do you really think the U.S. military would be stupid enough to start a war with all those sitting ducks in the Gulf? You mean, they wouldn't think to move them out of the Gulf? The non-carriers are only there as policemen.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

If Iran actually engaged in true offensive action the US public wouldn't give two bleeps about civilian casualties.

Iraq had no provocation and Afghanistan was just a few terrorists that worked out of that country. We would bomb Iran back to the stone age.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[gtall]

Just to play devil's advocate, Iran wouldn't limit the war to the U.S., they lob a few nasties at Israel and the other Sunni dictatorships in the hopes of starting a regional war.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[gtall]

Two buildings when we weren't looking, blow it out of your ass. In a mideast war, the U.S. military will fight to win. That is why the generals and admirals tell the politicians do not start a war because of the total consequences. The politicians, being almost, but not quite entirely unintelligent, sometimes fail to listen. The U.S. military would much rather be in a peaceful world, but they are realistic enough to know that doesn't happen because a bunch of peaceniks sing Kum-By-Ya a lot and complain all the world's troubles are the U.S.'s fault.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when are civilian casualties off the table? If the past 10 years have shown us anything, it's that collateral damage is considered to be a psychological warfare expense which can be justified by conventional warfare rewards.

Demonstration of this willingness to get our hands dirty with the blood of civilians has been the single greatest diplomatic outcome of the conflicts in the middle east as it has dispensed with the most expensive illusions about our rules of engagement. The very myth you are propagating in your post has been, up until recently, the single most valuable tool in the asymmetrical war-chest of our adversaries.

By denying this tool to belligerent dictators, we save civilian lives because we flip the tables of psychological/conventional ROI to the point where human shield operations end up doing more damage to their political support than they do to our already soiled name. If you shoot the hostages yourself, the hostage takers have much less cooperation from the hostages.

If you can afford the bad PR(we've pretty much bottomed-out our good will), there are significant strategic advantages to being the "bad guys". Operation Iraqi Freedom cashed out our International Relations accounts, so at this point we really have nothing to lose.

My concern is China & Russia, so maybe it's time we sent our own Zimmermann note?

The technology certainly exists to use acoustic transponders with Naval Mines to collect Panama Canal style "economic rent" from the oil trade, and bargaining leverage over OPEC. A strategic alliance with our fellow oil addicted World Powers, may be an easy & prudent means of securing a monopoly on world trade.

If only it were that easy. If we were willing to share the wealth, this action would have already been executed as a joint operation under the pretense of "global security and world economic prosperity". The reason there is a debate is because the 1% of Chinese, Russian, & American political elites are jockeying for "most favoured nation" oil price status->economic growth relative to each-other.

They could share between borders and have that many more millionaires dividing up the GDP pie, or they can make the bare minimum number of alliances necessary to achieve indisputable "force overmatch". What is sufficient? Seemingly, enough to discourage any attempts to re-organize the balance of power.

The technology behind this show of force would be much more cost effective in the form of "promt global strike" delivery vehicles, which is a shame because it's the same technology required to improve the payload fractions in space exploration.

The one thing thsat is certain is that the families of the soldiers drafted to fight this World War III will not be sharing in the profits regardless of the outcome. Their wages will fail to keep pace with inflation, & civil liberties will continue to erode as the political class is driven by their jealous guard of power & shortage of friends to become increasingly paranoid.

http://m.current.com/groups/us-politics/90473411_russia-china-warn-us-that-israeli-attack-on-iran-means-world-war.htm

I encourage the Democrats among you to register Republican so you have an opportunity to decide in their primary which evil will be running against Obama in 2012.

Happy New Years,
Your Anonymous Coward

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[AlienIntelligence]

They just need to make the war sufficiently expensive either financially or politically to continue.

Perhaps, but Iran isn't in a vacuum. They would need to carry on that fight in the face of serious opposition from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel, Russia, & China, all of whom don't particularly care for the kind of conflict such action would bring. As much as Russia may hate the US, neither China nor Russia particularly care for a belligerent Iran attempting to close the Strait or flinging missiles at people trying to use it. There would be nothing simple at all about Iran making war sufficiently expensive for anyone.

Not sure, beyond war, why Russia would care if the strait is closed?

And China is an ally of Iran.

So, as much as I'm sure we could pound them into the ground... uh,
pound them into Davy Jones' Locker... I think the ramifications are
going to be disproportionate if China gets involved.

Plus expenditures in time, people, money, will leave us soft for
another leader that wants to cause conflict with us. ie, Kim Jong Un.

I vote for... let's NOT see what our armadas can do. And try some
diplomacy, like we're adults.

-AI

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

The worst thing that could happen to Iran is that they could sink a few US ships.

The US would lose face internationally then and would be required to grind Iran into the dust.

What is so frustrating about the Iranians is how bad they are at dealing with ANYONE else. They're the worst diplomats. No one likes them.

If they go toe to toe with the US over the straight they'll have no backers. The chinese need that straight open. They have a strong interest in free trade. Europeans are finally on board. The Russians are not going to be the outsider if the US, China, and EU are largely in agreement. And there's the Arabs that are also scared that Iran is going to start threatening them with nukes.

So... no friends.

The US almost WANTS iran to attack it just for the justification. But the absolute worst thing Iran could do is sink some US ships. Because they're only going to be able to do that ONCE. The US would never get close enough to let that happen again. And because the US is going to keep going through that straight it would mean Iran either demilitarizes the straight or the US demilitarizes it for them at range.

The chinese have been working with Pakistan and created a deap-sea port in the town of Gawadar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwadar ) to bypass the Hormuz straight & indian Ocean, Bay of bengal all being patrolled by U.S warships. They even built super highways from Gawadar port connecting all the way up north to Khyber pass (near afghanistan border) and chinese border. China has been working over 2 decades to find a solution that allows them to bypass U.S warships.

Its more like a WIN/WIN for china if U.S strikes on Iran. It will save Pakistan another 5 - 10 years (knowing U.S financial position) from inevetible war with the U.S, seeing their double agent/double politics over the past years (see: secret pakistan bbc @ google). China needs Pakistan, it does not need Iran.

Heck after reading the "Dipolomatic Cables" leaked earlier this year and knowing that the Iranians must have gone trough them aswell, I can tell you for sure that they don't have many friends in the region....

Heck U.S needs to fix the shit they created the past 10 years in Irak & Afghanistan first... Going to war in Iran, with insurgents making life miserable in Iraq and Afghanistan, a war with Iran could lead to another 10 painfull years of stationing in Iraq and Afghanistan, knowing all the insurgents will get Iranian support.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[AlienIntelligence]

Not to mention the fact that there are a lot of legitimate fishing-boats out there. The war mongers attitude of shooting everything that moves would not go over all that well.

If you're too fucking dumb to stay out of the middle
of a war-power nation pissing match... you deserve
to get your puny fishing boat obliterated.

Don't read this as saying it's right, or justified, I'm
just saying, there is rioting and looting going on or
a gangland battle, are you really stupid enough to
try to go to work, if you have to cross the middle?

Fuckin take a sick day. You OBVIOUSLY need it.

-AI

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

Therein lies the problem: People think we shouldn't blow countries the fuck up.

Not that Iran is really a threat... but if there is a country threatening us so much that it actually justifies (not Bush-justifies) a war, eliminate its economy and its military. None of this farting around.

We did it to Japan, and look how they've bounced back! The middle east might even become civilized if we rebuild it from the ashes.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[ubrgeek]

Oh, I don't know. You ever have to fill up a damn Suburban in the winter in upstate New York? Seems to take for-frickin'ever :)

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[binarylarry]

Crazy middle eastern people trying to bomb/hijack our aircraft don't have a great track record after 9/11.

They already used that trick up.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Kagura]

After seeing what a disaster occupying Iraq was, the US would have to be unbelieveably stupid to try that again on Iran - a country with a more than twice the population. Since that isn't feasable right now, this is going nowhere.

Iraq was a study into how best to fuck up what should have been a straight-forward occupation. If the President who chooses to invade Iran doesn't again throw away years of pre-war study specifically covering occupation strategies relevant to the regional cultures, then we should have something far more successful the next time. If only they hadn't fucked it up in Iraq.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Kagura]

Israel won't be involved in any Gulf coalition even if they wanted to, because the other Arab Gulf states would leave the coalition if Israel joined. The US will prevent Israel from joining in, just like the US prevented it in Desert Storm, despite Israeli protests.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[binarylarry]

Who is showing up in a major international shipping lane talking about how easy it is to close it and that if the UN adds an oil embargo they'll bomb area oil sites and mine the straight?

You fucking retards are really getting out of hand with your Anti US shit.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

Nuke them early, and repeat as needed.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

Talk to any FC3 and you'll hear a more realistic assessment of the CWIS system.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[AlienIntelligence]

Sunburn. This weapon has a top speed of Mach 3,[1][2] and is considered one of the most lethal anti-ship missiles in the world.[3] The high speed of the missile means a typical response time for the target of only 25 to 30 seconds, giving a target little time to react. Moskit can be armed with a warhead of 320 kg.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS-N-22

A Sunburn can destroy a carrier. See also, Mosqit and Silkworm.

Hypersonic missile threat
'Carrier killers' could destroy U.S. Navy's supremacy at sea'

"...there is presently no reliable defence against the much faster next generation of anti-ship missiles. These weapons are designed to travel at hypersonic speeds -- greater than Mach 5, or 6,100 km/h -- and therefore present a much more lethal threat."
http://bit.ly/sUAeVi

"Cosmetic damage", fuck off.

I see your Sunburn and raise you a Phalanx CIWS.

Upgrades
Due to the continuing evolution of both threats and computer technology, the Phalanx system has, like most military systems, been developed through a number of different configurations. The basic (original) style is the Block 0, equipped with first generation solid state electronics and with marginal capability against surface targets. The Block 1 (1988) upgrade offered various improvements in radar, ammunition, rate of fire, increasing engagement elevation to +70 degrees, and computing. These improvements were intended to increase the system's capability against emerging Russian supersonic anti-ship missiles. Block 1A introduced a new computer system to counter more maneuverable targets. The Block 1B PSuM (Phalanx Surface Mode, 1999) adds a forward looking infrared (FLIR) sensor to allow the weapon to be used against surface targets.[11] This addition was developed to provide ship defense against small vessel threats and other "floaters" in littoral waters and to improve the weapon's performance against slower low-flying aircraft. The FLIR's capability is also of use against low-observability missiles and can be linked with the RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) system to increase RAM engagement range and accuracy. The Block 1B also allows for an operator to visually identify and target threats.

If you ever get a 'rare' opportunity to be around one of those during a test fire,
lol... do it. FU-UH-KIN IM-PRESSIVE. Feels like someone is doing the Taiko Drums
on your chest. But then, I do have a crush on the Vulcan Gatling gun.

And on the same note... "Suicide boat" it is... since they can target waterborne
craft now as well.

-AI

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Kagura]

of all of this precision-guided civilian-casualty-free surgical striking will indeed be millions and millions and millions of civilian deaths

You really don't understand the scale of "millions and millions". You are waaaaaaaaay off. For a shock-and-awe extreme bombardment campaign in the heart of Baghdad and other major cities, and 9 years of occupation, the ridiculous and inaccurate "high-end" estimates are a million people being killed, with most studies settling around the 100,000-150,000 killed range.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[HornWumpus]

Protecting you assets with human shields is a war crime.

Destroying something hidden behind human shields is NOT a war crime.

That's just Hezbollah's trick. Only fools buy it. They all have their minds made up anyhow, so fuck them.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Stradivarius]

Except that the US could just wait the Iranians out - time is on the US side, which is why the Iranians are the ones saber-rattling.

New oilfields are starting to be developed on the huge reserves of "tight oil" in the Americas, which we only recently developed the technology to extract. Once those fields are running, Iranian influence is greatly diluted.

In a decade the Iranian regime may well topple due to civil strife, as some of its neighbors in the region have.

Iranian threats so far have only served to unite the Middle East against the Iranians. It used to be Israel that was isolated in the region, now it is Iran.

The best outcome for Iran would be a North-Korea-style deal in which the US supplies economic aid in return for a stop to Iran's nuclear program. The problem for the Iranians is that the US got played by Kim Jong-Il, and is thus unlikely to try that approach again.

The threats to close the Strait are nothing more than a frustrated Iranian regime trying to gain leverage it simply doesn't have.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[RobertLTux]

easy you find out where the Government types are most likely to be and make sure those places get bombed into 300 meter craters (along with the hard Military targets of course).

No more government types no more government

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Kagura]

The difference is everything he said was correct to a T.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[AlienIntelligence]

Each predator carries 2 missiles. I don't think we've got an extra 1000 predators lying around, or if we could keep that many aloft at one time without having a we midair collisions....

Lol, trust me, I believe in the power of "nuts" in large numbers...
but how many boat launches do you think there will be once they
start deciding it might not be worth playing russian roulette
with a Predator?

Oh wait, I see another one... I wonder if that one still has any...
{carrier lost} [lol]

-AI

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

Carriers haven't been armoured since WWII.

Except for the danger of fire, no amount of cruise missiles is ever going to sink a U.S. aircraft carrier. But you can render it combat ineffective with one, and essentially ruin it with a few.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[AlienIntelligence]

No one likes them.

If they go toe to toe with the US over the straight they'll have no backers. The chinese need that straight open. They have a strong interest in free trade. Europeans are finally on board. The Russians are not going to be the outsider if the US, China, and EU are largely in agreement. And there's the Arabs that are also scared that Iran is going to start threatening them with nukes.

So... no friends.

The US almost WANTS iran to attack it just for the justification.

China is an ally of Iran. They have strong trade across the borders.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/ML13Ak01.html

Russia doesn't need the strait.

North Korea is a wild-card that should be avoided finding where it lies.

-AI

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[RobertLTux]

"US naval ships aren't going to be delivering any oil."

1 there are these ships called OILERS that can and do deliver Oil (to other navy ships but...)

2 all Navy ships would have to do is create Convoys with Oil Tankers

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[gary_7vn]

Yeah, and why are they doing that? I know, I know! It's cause they are "crazy" and "evil". Embargoes are an act of war. If Iran embargoed the USA you'd go out of your mind, what little there is of it.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[capnkr]

It takes a certain minimum size of boat to be able to carry a machine gun in the bow, a crew of 2+, and a larger payload of explosives or missile launcher at any good rate of speed through any sizable seas. Iran is not going to be able to effectively use a 16' SeaRay or Bayliner ski boat that is only $20k, unless as a decoy. The costs of a truly capable fast attack "speedboat" would come in two major chunks: the hull cost, and the engine costs. The 'speedboats' hulls our Navy is training with cost (& I'm somewhat-knowledgeably lowball estimating here) $40k+ on the low end, and each hull has 2-3 outboard motors hanging off the rear end, at a cost of well over $15k each. Those 'speedboats' are ex$pen$ive, $100k+ each, and losing several every raid (along with weapons and personnel) would rack up a huge cost even for a nation state. Most if not all of these boats are produced by companies who would not be very friendly to Iran, and so I doubt they would ramp up production in order to provide Iran with more 'weapons' once the original stock has been decimated.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[binarylarry]

You know that carriers don't lead the battle right?

You really think the Iranians are going to make it miles into US controlled water to hit them in the first place? In speed boats? LOL

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[gary_7vn]

I see you didn't read the article.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[HornWumpus]

No worries, it will start as a regional war. Closing the straights is an act of war on the U.A.E. at the very least.

The Saudis won't pass up a chance to kick the Iranians while they are down. Arabs and Persians don't like each other much. The Saudi air force will be readily available to bomb any civilian areas we don't want to catch flack over.

And don't forget the Iraqis. They have a border dispute with the Iranians that will be nicely resolved in Iraq's favor as soon as Iran is otherwise busy.

American air bases in the 'stans will also help tighten up the Iranians situation.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[gary_7vn]

To your mind.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[HornWumpus]

We're already in a very precarious situation financially. Same as Europe and China.

But as long as suckers keep buying our debt, we'll be fine. What are they going to do? Start buying Italian bonds?

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[interval1066]

Not sure, beyond war, why Russia would care if the strait is closed?

The Crimea is a very important port for Russia.

And China is an ally of Iran.

And Iran is China's largest trading partner? If shit went down China would forget all else and side with Iran? Give us all a reality break.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[interval1066]

Nevertheless, Israel is a factor that can't be ignored. Israel has kicked ass militarily in 85% of the region's engagements, and is a huge economic factor for the entire region. Ignoring them would be a mistake, and for Israel to ignore problems in the region is not possible.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[HornWumpus]

Watch the Chinese banking system collapse?

US treasuries are the GOOD part of Chinese bank holdings.

Besides where are bond buyers going to go? Italian bonds?

The American dollar will see a nice boost when the Euro finishes it's slow motion implosion. Capital flight. Our fundamentals suck. The just don't suck as bad as Europe's.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[HornWumpus]

Sure, we've had enemies for some time.

Doesn't make them right or us wrong.

You really shouldn't base your opinions on what you hear in some commie echo chamber (DU). They are so far left they are irrelevant.

You are just like a fox news watcher.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[khallow]

Nuclear weapons are the only means for doing that. And they haven't been used in 65 years for reasons that probably would still apply to such a war.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[ericloewe]

I never said it was a navy-only op. If you want to go down that route, the same goes for the F-22.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[khallow]

You know that carriers don't lead the battle right?

You really think the Iranians are going to make it miles into US controlled water to hit them in the first place? In speed boats? LOL

Yes. The part you miss is that the claim "US controlled water" is in error. In open water, well away from land, the aircraft carrier can outrun anything that could reach and sink it, aside from missiles and a few aircraft, and there's a big gantlet of support ships that any attacker has to cross. In a constrained space like the Persian Gulf, the carrier lose most of that advantage.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[khallow]

We're already in a very precarious situation financially. Same as Europe and China.

But as long as suckers keep buying our debt, we'll be fine. What are they going to do? Start buying Italian bonds?

There are a hundred countries to choose from. If the US becomes shakier than Italy, then yes, those sorts of traders will start buying Italian bonds instead of US bonds.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[phantomfive]

What are they going to do? Start buying Italian bonds?

+1 win

America has a lot of problems, but China has more.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait I remember this one. Then the escorts magically keep all the missiles and torpedoes and such from striking the oil tankers. It worked great in WW2. Of course the US capital ships will sacrifice themselves to protect some random nations oil tanker.

I look forward to the day that people can come up with a realistic answer to a complex problem.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[phantomfive]

This is the most rational post about foreign affairs I've EVER seen on Slashdot. We need more of this stuff.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[ericloewe]

Let's not forget the USAF's many strike aircraft for big targets - B2s for highly sensitive stuff, F-15Es or F-16s to take out a small base, B-52s and A-10s to completely mindfuck armored divisions. The predators are there to patrol. If needed, sorties can be dispatched from a carrier or strike aircraft loitering over the area can be dispatched.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[ericloewe]

It's not like North Korea invaded South Korea or anything. Vietnam was ugly, I agree with you, and so was Iraq. But Korea was different.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[mbkennel]

How would the Iranians accurately target the missiles well beyond visual range?

The countermeasure against small launch boats is of course attack helicopters.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[ericloewe]

It wouldn't be anything extraordinary... The Tomahawks would probably be more expensive than the extra fuel

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[mbkennel]

"Seriously Iran has only to mine the entire ormuz strait and the game is over for the US."

Two thirds of Iran's budget comes from oil exports. They just self-blockaded. The mines in the strait will be cleaned and moved to Iranian ports.

The Saudis will build an overland oil pipeline in overtime.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[currently_awake]

Precision bombing only works if you can find the target, and USA is running short on accurate intelligence. You can't conquer a country with only bombing you need ground troops, and the USA just got out of Iraq so they won't invade Iran if there is any other option. Being nice to the USA gets you nothing, they walk all over you (see England). The trick is to bark loud enough to keep then away without getting stomped. The USA has given far more support to terrorists than Iran, and most of their support is to weaken countries that have attacked them. We don't know if Iran is building nukes, but it's the only known protection against the USA (see N Korea). If China wanted Iran to have nukes they'd have given them some, so likely China will support efforts to contain Iran. You don't need nuclear missiles to hurt the USA, nuclear shipping containers are much cheaper and more accurate. Both Iran and the USA want a confrontation, it builds support for the government and justifies military spending (later used to suppress dissent).

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[klingens]

You cannot hide genocide. That's what the "smoking-ruins victory" actually means. Even the Israelis aren't capable of that as seen with the palestinians and Lebanon cause that would deprive them of their "We are persecuted by you evil Nazis who don't agree with our politics against Lebanon/Palestine! Holocaust! Shoa! Hater!" defense.
While the US killed tens or hundreds of enemies/civilians for every dead GI in each of their last wars (Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq), they still lost every one of these wars in reality: lots of money and people spent but being lot worse off afterwards. Classical pyrrhic victory.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[currently_awake]

Floating contact mines are really cheap, and really good at scaring oil tanker captains. The Iranians don't want a shooting war they want a kaboom war.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[ericloewe]

Mining the place is illegal. Attacking any ship going through the strait is an act of war. There's nothing that can be said against defending yourself if attacked. Sure, they may try some strong words, but do you seriously think they'd be unhappy with the situation?

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[russotto]

An embargo is not an act of war. A blockade is an act of war, but the only country threatening anything like a blockade is Iran.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[mbkennel]

In an actual war the fishermen scoot to ports quickly. Fishing boats don't look like small attack boats, especially to the swarm of helicopters & jets sinking them.
They are all in range of Saudi and UAE's and Kuwait's jets & helicopters.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[chrb]

Taliban was never a "big" enemy.

Sure, it depends on how you define "big" - they may have never actually gone to war, but certain events suggest that there was a lot of bad blood and covert ops between them, and war was never far off:

1) The Taliban's harsh treatment of Afghanistan's Shi'a minority outraged Iran

2) Iran materially and financially supported the Northern Alliance fighting against the Taliban in the Afghan civil war. It is alleged that, as well as supplying them with millions of dollars of weapons and ammunition, plus training, Iran also allowed friendly militias to cross the border and shelter in Iran.

3) The Taliban seized the Iranian consulate and executed Iranian diplomats and intelligence officers. This brought Iran and the Taliban very close to all out war (it was reported that something like a quarter million Iranian troops were massed on the border ready for war, though later reports revise that figure down). 1998_Iranian_diplomats_assassination_in_Afghanistan

4) The ongoing drugs war between Taliban smugglers and Iranian security forces, a war in which thousands of Iranians have been killed (this article claims 3 Iranians are killed every day). The Iranian government is firmly opposed to drugs, and the Taliban gets the majority of its funding from drugs, of which the transit route to Europe through Iran is of particular importance. There has been little space for compromise here.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[binarylarry]

Last time I checked it wasn't a lake.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[gary_7vn]

You are correct. My bad. It is still a provocation, one of a series, all designed to provoke Iran into doing something that will give America and Israel a "casus belli".

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[klingens]

The US wouldn't survive it. Socially internally lots more division and strife than Vietnam, lots more. Being a pariah internationally mainly economically and politically.

The US is a lot less capable economically and needs a lot more support from others to actually survive than they did 40 years ago when Vietnam happened where there still was a Cold War going on. The US is already in a economic and social mess with no way out in sight, but right now this is a slow decline. With a war like this it would be a unmitigated disaster economically and socially with the decline being a falling from a cliff. In short: the US doesn't have the money or will to fight even another Iraq or Afghanistan, forget about Iran. Iran precisely can pursue its nuclear program so easily cause the US fucked up their last two wars and can't afford to wage a third. Israel can and does snub the US everytime they need or want cause the US desperately doesn't want them to bomb the iranian nuclear program.

Lastly, effective campaign from the air costs a lot less lives than an occupation, but its comparatively much more expensive. Smart Bombs are expensive compared to .50 cal bullets and jet maintenance is pricier than an oil change on a HMMV.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[russotto]

The Sunburn is a Cold War era Soviet missile. Do you really think the US Navy has no countermeasures against them by now?

Hypersonic missiles haven't been (openly) deployed by major nations yet; Iran certainly doesn't have any.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[binarylarry]

Fucking retard.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[SuricouRaven]

The leadership in China know that open war with the US would just be MAD. That is why the latent hostility between the countries is fought in diplomacy and economics. China would just keep out of things... and assist Iran in a covert, entirely deniable manner.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

DerekLyons wrote:
This strategy is not so easy as you might think. Lacking offboard sensors (which can be jammed, and the platforms carrying them destroyed), such boats will have to come over the horizon and either launch optically or use radar.

I think you are missing the point here. The Strait of Hormuz is a choke point. I don't think there is a horizon.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Thing 1]

The military contractors have been designing special bombs JUST for those bunkers and the US has been buying them. If the presidents says "pop the bunkers"... they will get popped.

Has the military designed a bunker buster that could get under the White House? I ask this seriously. One scenario is the White House goes rogue, and needs to be put down; another scenario is the enemy obtains these munitions, and uses them against the US.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[khallow]

Last time I checked, that didn't matter.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[khallow]

Sure, it depends on how you define "big"

Let's see. Saddam Hussein started a war that led to the deaths of up to a million Iranian soldiers. That's what happens when you have a "big" enemy. And the best you can come up with for the Taliban is some diplomatic incidents and a few thousand deaths? Israel and Saudi Arabia are much bigger enemies in the sense of "big" and "enemy".

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[currently_awake]

That would likely double the cost. I suspect Iran would be satisfied with that.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

The only reason Iraq and Afghanistan cost so much is due to the ongoing occupation of the countries. The initial bombings and invasions were quite affordable. What we have learned in the last 10 years is that containment is preferable to occupation. We could rather cheaply destroy Iran's capabilities beyond its own borders. We could even pay for it by seizing any and all overseas Iranian assets we could find. After that we could work covertly to support an uprising in Iran then give it air-power like we did in Libya. Regime change doesn't require boots on the ground when there is a significant opposition force within the country itself. Using those adversarial elements would also spare our image in Iran and avoid the risk of the Iranian public uniting against the US.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[gary_7vn]

At least you spelled "retard" correctly.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

And the US would wipe out 90% of the Iranian people capable of participating in an armed conflict. Good luck on round #2.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Overzeetop]

The U.S. will -- regardless of U.N. convention -- use overwhelming and disproportionate force.

No we won't. If we did, it would be over in hours, and we'd have a 51st state called "New Iowa" and it would consist of mile upon mile of radioactive glass. The US has forgotten that one way to make sure people don't fuck with you is to show a little crazy now and then. Following "rules of war" is the way you lose. Batshit crazy and fighting with your entire arsenal (I'm talking nukes) is how you win decisively. And lest you fear reprisals from the "world court," you need to be reminded that the winners make the rules and choose any judgment. What? Economic sanctions? Have you seen our trade deficit? We already run the fucking world economy, and as of 2012 we even export a huge amount of fuel. The world can't afford to cut us off.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not aberrations. Horrible, yes. And yet fewer civilians were harmed than in the most recent Iraq conflict.

And, yes, this is probably one of the many reasons why I'm unlikely to be elected president of the US. ;-)

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[jon3k]

Not literally "300m crater" but close enough:

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

The MOAB is 30 feet, 1¾ inches (9.17 m) long, has a diameter of 40½ inches (102.9 cm) and weighs 22,600 lb (10.25 metric tons), of which 18,700 lb (8.5 metric tons) is high explosive. Its blast radius is 450 feet (137 m, 150 yd), though the massive shock wave created by the air burst is said to be able to destroy an area as large as nine city blocks.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[jon3k]

Larger Destroyer class ships are protected by Frigate class ships which have very advanced missle defense systems like the Phalanx CIWS. Anything too small to be taken out by CIWS will not do sufficient damage or have sufficient range to be a concern. The US can also deploy aircraft carriers and put jets in the air that would wipe out any small attack craft before they could get within a couple miles of the Navy.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[jamstar7]

An American air craft carrier has a price tag of about $9 billion, per figures tossed about in this thread. 9 billion worth of those 100K speedboats is 90,000 speedboats. I doubt any aircraft carrier would survive being attacked by those 90,000 speedboats.

More likely, they'd launch 'only' a couple thousand at a time. Say, around 50 million worth. Sure, a carrier group has sophisticated multiple targetting capability, but shooting up 5000 incoming boats and their previously launched missiles? 10,000 targets would put a serious strain on their defensive fire. Likely, they'd miss a few. When the carrier takes enough hits, it'll sink. 50 million to whack a 9 BILLION carrier? Cheap!

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[tokul]

but Iran tried this back in the 1980's, and got soundly spanked.

I would not call shooting of civilian airliner a spanking

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[tsotha]

Carriers haven't been armoured since WWII.

This is wrong. The hull isn't armored, but the critical areas are.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[jon3k]

The Saudis, Israel and even Iraq would love to get a piece of the Iranians. The US won't become a pariah because they won't do anything unless it's sanctioned by the UN, so they'll have the support of the most powerful nations on earth. Russia and China will pretend to care so they can keep doing business with Iran but wouldn't get involved, it's not worth it.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[jamstar7]

As long as Arabs are shooting Arabs and Persians, they're not shooting Israelis. That's what makes a destabilised Middle East a win-win for Israel.

And to think Lebanon was once a beautiful country...

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[darkmeridian]

You know, a bunch of real admirals thought the same thing you did: that the US Navy has sufficient defense in depth to defend against an attack by dozens of small, fast ships with Sunburn, Exocet, or Silkworm missiles. They were proven dead wrong. The Millennium Challenge '02 was one of the largest war games in history. In that war game, the mad general in charge of the mock enemy force sunk sixteen US ships, including a carrier and two helicopter carriers filled with Marines.

How did this happen? The enemy force was composed of small ships and light aircraft. They went around the US fleet for hours until the US fleet had a hard time tracking them. Eventually, US fleet was surrounded by the bad guys. Then suddenly, they all attacked at once. Some speed boats made mad suicide dashes at the fleet while attacking with guns and rockets. Prop planes began making suicide dives. Other speed boats opened fire with a whole bunch of Silkworms. All the while, the enemy forces closed with the US fleet, which was busy engaging ships, aircraft, and missiles. An enemy boat got close enough to loose a Silkworm at a carrier, which was sunk when its over-burdened defenses failed to stop the missile.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/12/washington/12navy.html

Lesson: it pays to be paranoid.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Grishnakh]

Yeah, no kidding. Just go to peopleofwalmart.com and see what normal, everyday Americans look like.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Grishnakh]

And what makes you think they'd do it any better this time? Face it, our government is bumbling and incompetent; we haven't pulled off a successful military project since Korea (and that's pretty arguable too; WWII was the last clearly successful military project). Ever since then, it's been one big fuck-up after another. The only things that even looked successful were places where our involvement was extremely limited and we let our allies do much of the work: Libya and Kosovo/Serbia.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[jon3k]

No, I think you didn't read it.

The high speeds of supersonic missiles leave little time for ships to deploy defensive countermeasures. This increases the likelihood of a missile slipping past a vessel's screen of defences -- but supersonic weapons can be stopped.

Oh so current generation can be stopped? Ok well then we don't need to worry about those because destroyers are equipped with Phalanx CIWS.

India and Russia are working on the hypersonic Brahmos II, which is expected to be in service by 2013. Cruising at about Mach 6 (7,300 km/h), this scramjet-powered missile will carry six times more kinetic energy than a similar weapon at Mach 1.

India and Russia won't even have them until 2013, who knows how long until Iran has them. But suffice to say, by the time the Iranians have them, we'll have a defense system and this whole conflict will already be over.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[jon3k]

That's called "cutting off your nose to spite your face". Iran only exists because of their oil exports. If they cut off the the strait, they're going to have a little trouble getting it past the entire US Navy so they can deliver it to China.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Grishnakh]

Compromise isn't good for corporate profits.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not just the U.S. Iran seriously risks pissing off by suggesting that they'll do this. The countries on the other side of the gulf like having open shipping. It's been very profitable for them.

Thus it might not just be the U.S. that they'll be dealing with. (Read that third paragraph from that referenced section. That's about the equivalent offensive power of an aircraft carrier right there.)

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[capnkr]

There are likely not many more than 9,000 of those types of boats in the world, much less in the Middle East. And Iran is not a rich nation. Figures mentioned put Iran as having only 1,000 small attack boats. Say 900 of that number (doubtful, to me) are the high-speed, hi-tech attack craft used by our US Navy for training...

By my own admission the numbers quoted for the boats I wrote about above were very low. Per your post we are now playing with hyperbole, so lets go ahead and put the cost per boat at a much more likely $250,000 for bare hull + engines + mechanical systems for running it. Add in a minimum of 2 trained, specialist crewmembers, ancillary objects like radios and GPS nav systems, the weapons (what's a .50 cal machine gun + ammo cost? A shoulder-fired rocket and spares?) and you are getting closer to $1,000,000 per boat, if not over that amount. Still a lot cheaper than the carrier, but at that rate, with the losses they are likely to sustain, it is going to put a strain on their naval warfare coffers very quickly. Boat and weapons on the bottom of the Straits ain't helping Iran at all, and are a cost that cannot be recouped...

Additionally, I'll say that the Iranian "swarms" would probably number far less than 100 boats per (as that would give them a potential of only 10 'swarm shots'), so 50 is more likely (and probably still on the high side). A carrier + carrier group (destroyers, escorts, fixed- and rotating-wing aircraft) would have no trouble making it so that only a very small number of that 50 attackers would be able to get through to a point where they could actually threaten a carrier to the point of sinking, even with a missile at stand-off range. Barring some extremely good circumstances happening on their part, I don't see this Iranian small-boat navy having much of a chance at sinking one of our carriers.

Keep in mind that Iran is not using these boats because they are the optimal solution for attacking a modern day carrier group; they are doing so because *it is the only way that they can*. Full stop.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[jon3k]

So your plan is to launch 2,000 boats, each large enough to be armed with a missile that is powerful enough to sink a Destroyer, and to do it all simultaneously?

.......

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!! oh man you need to stop watching movies. so mid-air colisions are a concern, when the predators can fly at different altittudes, but no concerns over your 2,000 boats running into each other? hashdahaha jesus I can only hope you're 12 years old.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[swb]

Ruinous bombardment would be an option if we would quit with the "hearts and minds" nation building philosophy and get back to the basics of total warfare that has worked since the Roman era. Do what we say or we will destroy your cities, kill your people, sow your fields with salt and bring an end to your civilization as you know it. It worked in Carthage, it worked in Gaul, it worked in Germany and Japan.

And it would be effective. In a few short days the US could make electricity, clean water and sewage treatment a distant memory for the majority of urban Iranians. What little fuel refining capacity they have could be destroyed and exposed stockpiles destroyed. Ports and harbors wrecked, airfields unusable. And that's just getting warmed up and fairly tightly targeted.

At that point we could get into the kind of spirit-crushing air power that makes the Blitz look like a mild thunderstorm, like indiscriminate carpet bombing of civilian areas. Did someone say firebombing? Hit a couple of second-tier cities early so that word gets around -- nothing makes the evening news more riveting for residents of Tehran than watching a firestorm consume Shiraz and wondering when it can be their turn to roast.

After six months of this, the Iranian people will have totally lost their will to fight and instead will be completely absorbed with wondering who will be next to die of cholera in whatever bombed-out ruin they and the other survivors have managed to huddle in.

This is how you defeat your enemy and make him surrender.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Grishnakh]

OTOH, a ballistic target can be handled by either CIWS [wikipedia.org], RAM [wikipedia.org], or ESSM [wikipedia.org] systems.

If Iran gets their hands on any of those new hypersonic anti-ship missiles, it's questionable how effective these countermeasures will be.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

As a radical idea how about stop embargoing Iran? Then stop threatening them with sanctions?

All the American threats of violence are going to do is make things worse. The US can't even pay for their past wars never mind another one.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[jon3k]

Good luck getting a ship, large enough to carry a weapon that can destroy a carrier, past the US Navy's assortment of Destroyers and Frigates.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

You underestimate the stupidity of Uncle Sam.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[jon3k]

Precision bombing only works if you can find the target, and USA is running short on accurate intelligence.

Source please.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[1s44c]

That's funny. After demonstrating that we have no qualms about paying for 10+ years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, regardless of cost, you think Iran is going to win on a financial attrition basis.

Maybe China will. The US is running up more and more debt with every war, sooner or later people will stop lending the US money and its well funded war machine will no longer function.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[1s44c]

You make it sound like Iran is the aggressor here. Are you fucking drunk?

Who embargoed who?

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[tsotha]

The US would lose face internationally then and would be required to grind Iran into the dust.

This. The Iranians are in the same predicament in which Zulu king Cetshwayo found himself at the outset of the Anglo-Zulu war. He couldn't beat the British in an all-out war, but he thought he could bloody them enough that they'd leave the Zulus alone. So the plan was to bleed the British invasion forces without actually threatening British colonies. Unfortunately (for Cetshwayo, anyway) the Zulus achieved a crushing victory at Isandlwana, which required the British to commit major resources to a massive second invasion, in which the Zulu nation was ground, as you say, into the dust.

The Iranian government would be walking a tightrope. If it fared too poorly the Iranian people, who aren't exactly thrilled with them to start with, would hang them all from lampposts. But if they fared too well the US would reduce their infrastructure to rubble, or even invade. So the best outcome they could hope for is to sink a few US frigates (preventing a complete loss of face) at the cost of their navy, their air force (such as it is), and their petroleum infrastructure. Not a good position to be in.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Courageous]

Killed? I'm not talking about war casualties at all, and I'm referring to the first and not second gulf war. What I am referring to is starvation, disease, early medical death, child mortality and the like. Taking out a civil infrastructure is superficially appealing, due to the clean nature of modern precision guided munitions, but the long term reality is far darker: abject misery. This isn't to be construed as a political remark about either war. But to be fair, my remark about the civilian death from secondary effects of war with the united states was exaggerated grandstanding. Regardless, the consequences will be simply awful for the Iranian people.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Courageous]

There is no source. We are overflowing in intelligence; what we lack are adequate interpreters of the data. As for a source, you'll have to take it on faith. :-P

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[jon3k]

And when they mine the straight, how do the ship their oil to their customers?

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

You assume this is symmetric. It isn't. To win, Iran doesn't need to destroy the entire US navy, or even it's ability to fight. They just need to make the war sufficiently expensive either financially or politically to continue.

nonsense.. here in america we love our wars & gladly drop billions to watch them on CNN.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

What we did to the Iraqi military in 1991 will look small and restrained compared to what we would do to Iran's military, infrastructure, navy, seaports, major cities, and road system if they sank a U.S. naval vessel. Iran knows this. They have no intention of instigating an actual war, because their economy is too fragile to survive it. It would be doubly-bad for them because the resulting war economy in the US would revitalize this country, which they certainly don't want.

They are playing a game with us, and we will ultimately back down. It's an election year. Obama doesn't want a war, the American people don't want a war. Iran doesn't want a war. Europe doesn't want a war. But you can rest assured that if they push it they will certainly regret it. Everyone will.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[GbrDead]

An example
And that attack has been accidental.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[DigiShaman]

In such an event, I would go further. I would be demanding from Iran a formal declaration of surrender. We can hash out the details at the UN later.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

> The myth of Israeli invincibility was destroyed in the Lebanon war

No, the myth that a country can engage with an asymmetrical enemy with rules of engagement that say they have to bend over backwards to avoid collateral damage is what died in that war. Hizbollah wrapped themselves in civilians and the Israelis were careful to avoid the inevitable deaths that would result in just decimating Hizbollah. They could have easily "won" if they'd just bombed Lebanon back to the stone age, but then the world would have been outraged, of course.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Warwick Allison]

So quick to turn to war crimes again.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Toonol]

That's just Hezbollah's trick. Only fools buy it.

Unfortunately, there's a lot of fools out there, making it an effective trick.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Toonol]

You can't make that comment while simultaneously understanding the situation. You probably shouldn't be discussing the issue until you read more.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Bensam123]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PJ-10_BrahMos

Worlds fastest cruise missile, that is also made and sold by Russia.

If you read up a bit on close in weapon systems, such as the ones you linked, they've only been used and work a handful of times and that's against older weaponry. The CIWS doesn't work because it's accurate, it attempts to work by spamming the general vicinity of the missile with bullets.

See part of the problem with all of this is all our scenarios are built on fluff. A lot of the systems and gadgets we have as the US haven't actually been tested in real combat. I'm not talking about tests, I'm talking about real fire scenarios. The navy is more prone to this then any other branch since they haven't actually fought against real boats since WW2. The navy isn't all that wieldy... we cruise around in yachts for the most part and could easily suffer against small boats that aren't designed to survive. If they automate those boats... well then that makes things a lot harder for us. We're just so stupidly huge and powerful that we can win by default.

All they have to do is hit a carrier and that's a win for them

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Rich0]

While killing the leaders of Iran would be difficult, turning it into a non-functional state is pretty easy.

Within a few days of a real conflict any kind of long-distance communication system within the country would be destroyed. The leadership might be safe in their bunker, but nobody will be following their orders. Organizing even a fiberglass ship-building program under such conditions would be difficult. Couriers would be the only way of getting out messages.

Within a week or two you'd have ground troops occupying land between the capital and the coast, which means that even couriers aren't going to get through. At that point any loyalists in the ports will have a lot more to worry about than launching boat attacks.

The only thing the Iranians could really hope to do is kill enough sailors to make a war unpopular. However, killing a few thousand people in a day won't really accomplish that - it is like hitting a hornet's nest. What makes a war unpopular is sustained casualties over a long time. That will certainly happen if there is an occupation, but I doubt the boats will have much to do with it.

In any case, the strait is too important to give up attempts to secure it. If occupation is too difficult chances are they'd just draw a line in the sand 100 miles from the coast and just force everybody south of it to relocate.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Megane]

And if it gets as far as the A-10s, they're really screwed.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

Ruinous bombardment isn't an option. It used to be, back in the wars of the past. If countries were at war, it was accepted practice to bomb the hell out of the enemy. Blow up thieir factories so they couldn't resupply, bomb their commercial districts to stall their economy, bomb the housing to demoralise their public. Simpler wars: There was a nice clear enemy country, and you tried to destroy it. Today, though, not so simple. Civilian casualties are unacceptable

That's exactly correct. What will happen is that
OMFG THEY GOT NUKEZ!!! MADMAN WITH NUKEZZ!!!

(Insert Shock and Awe Bombardment Campaign here)

Now, what was I saying?
Oh, yea. Funny how what is "acceptable" can change in a matter of TV soundbites.

in ten years, they'll have built it up again.

A lot can change in a decade. Even if it doesn't, you can ship a lot of oil in 10 years.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

You will be very surprised.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[AlienIntelligence]

And China is an ally of Iran.

And Iran is China's largest trading partner? If shit went down China would forget all else and side with Iran? Give us all a reality break.

I'd say like most industrialized nations, being without
oil would put a damper on their ability to make products
for the capitalistic west.

-AI

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

If they go toe to toe with the US over the straight they'll have no backers. The chinese need that straight open. They have a strong interest in free trade. Europeans are finally on board. The Russians are not going to be the outsider if the US, China, and EU are largely in agreement. And there's the Arabs that are also scared that Iran is going to start threatening them with nukes.

They don't need to close the strait for everybody. They can sink some US ships and let chinese/russian ships through. This way, making friends with anyone who want the US punished, but don't want to try that themselves.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Martin Blank]

I think the losses would not be much more significant than in Desert Storm, where about two dozen US aircraft were lost with all but one shot down by ground fire. Iran's defenses are better, but so are the USAF's tactics, especially with the deployment of the B-2 and the Small Diameter Bomb. A handful of B-2s can launch more than a thousand of these, each individually targeted (with some overlap for critical targets), and wipe out a significant portion of the air defenses and air force. Unless Iran has figured out how to see the B-2, a possibility I won't rule out given their recent detection and capture of the drone, they will be blinded in minutes. Similar strikes would probably be used on the ports, backed up by Tomahawk missiles and possibly closer fire from F-22s. Once the air defenses are neutralized, the B-52, F-15, and F-16 fleets would be used for most strikes with support from the Navy's F-18s.

Iran knows this, which is why it's not so eager to force the issue.

Should it happen, though, there's an additional advantage to the US: Iran, unlike Iraq, has no neighbors itching to take over. It may be advisable to simply destroy the armories and depots and let the populace handle it, much as happened in Libya. We'll have our hands full helping out Israel, Lebanon, and Turkey in any case when the terrorist groups are allowed to run free in response.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[interval1066]

I'd say like most industrialized nations, being without oil would put a damper on their ability to make products for the capitalistic west.

I would say that without the ability to create those products for the capitalistic west the capitalistic east would be up shit creek.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[gary_7vn]

So, if I disagree with you, it's because I don't know enough? Right.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[gary_7vn]

I just love Americans. Every enemy is weak, every war is easy and over by Christmas. The Japanese are rice eaters and weak and they can't see in the dark, the VC are skinny little guys in pajamas, no problem. We can defend against their puny weapons! Maybe. Or maybe you could work on alternative energy and stop killing people for their oil.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Martin Blank]

There was an attempt to substantially halt trade in the 1980s. By the time it significantly affected world oil trade, the US started escorting reflagged tankers, now flying the Stars and Stripes, in what was essentially a dare to Iran and Iraq, though neither seriously took the bait (Saddam's apology after the Stark Incident and Iraq providing a bulwark against Iran probably saved Iraq).

There are plenty who are itching to take out Iran's forces and leadership. Iran knows this. They will make the point that they can close the Strait, but doing so is essentially suicide, if only economically because that's how most of their oil gets out. The world won't stand for it, though, and a united force composed of European, US, and Arab forces would take action to force the Strait back open.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[jon3k]

And I love ... uh ... whatever you are. You see, the US is crazy. In 2012 the US will spend between 1 and 1.4 trillion on Defense. That's 3-4 times the GDP of Iran. It's not a fair fight, at all. The US Navy would crush Iran literally overnight. Just think "Shock and Awe". Iraq had one of the most powerful air forces on the planet and it was destroyed in a matter of hours. Then we would inevitably spend the next 10 years wasting trillions of dollars trying to rebuild it and failing miserably. I'm certainly not advocating for that situation, but if you think for a second that Iran has any chance to defense against the US military you are delusional .

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[SplashMyBandit]

A couple of points:

* only a someone who hasn't been paying any attention thinks that the Israelis were 'beaten' by Hezbollah. The Israelis certainly had an initial surprise, but that has happened before. What did happen is that Hezbollah's means to make war was *smashed* by the Israelis (after some weeks) and the only reason the Israelis stopped at the Litani river was that the Europeans were screaming at them to do so - best not to get your mates offside (the Israelis may be pig-headed sometimes, but they do reluctantly listen to the US and limp-wristed Europeans who don't really understand the rough neighbourhood). Hezbollah was so roundly defeated by the end of a couple of weeks (having lost the best of its fighters that had been trained in Iran) that they have been careful for the last several years not to provoke Israel again (apart from a few isolated incidents by other crazies - which Hezbollah has always been careful to disclaim). In fact, if it wasn't for Syrian and Iranian support and re-arming of Hezbollah (since both have an interest in stirring trouble with Israel, in an attempt to divert the attention of their own public from their government actions) then Hezbollah would still be weak today. I know, I have been to both sides of the border and met with Hezbollah guys and Israelis (disclaimer: although that was before hostilities - but still on the ground there, not just armchair speculation). I consider the outcome of that war a hard-won victory by the Israelis, who withdrew for political reasons despite the military situation becoming increasingly favorable for them - the fact is the Israelis have had enough with occupying the Lebanon and don't appear to want to do it anymore. Especially since the actual Lebanese government of the time was far less inclined to make trouble on the border.

* "The US's carriers are a notable weakness of US strategy once you have a cheap counter to them.".
What most people miss is the fact that the US doesn't have one carrier strike group, it has 13. When it feels like it the US can easily put three carrier battle groups in the Gulf, and could put more there with a little time to prepare. Iran simply can't win this fight. Despite its braggadocio, getting one warship down and then losing sovereignty is still a massive fail (although it would make the Middle East a much more peaceful place in the long term if it were to happen).

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[SplashMyBandit]

Actually that would screw the Iranians more than the US. While Iran exports crude oil it has very little refining capacity. I it an importer of petrochemical products like gasoline. Raising the price of gas would ruin their own economy while the US would seek cheaper supplies from Canada, the North Sea, or even their own backyard. It's a shame that people swallow the Iranian bullshit and see the weak Iranians as strong and the superpower as weak (and economically broke, when in fact it is still very very rich, just not quite as stinkingly wealthy as it used to be).

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

You stupid twat, Iran does this every 2-3 years to drive up oil prices. This has nothing to do with "American Provocation" it's just conveniently timed like it always is. Read a little history sometime. Do you honestly think Iran wants to escalate this to an armed conflict with the fucking USA? LOL

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[SplashMyBandit]

Yes, but the Regional War you talk about is Iran vs "superpower and Euro allies (obliged by NATO commitments) and pissed off rich Arab states". Wanna take a bet on who would win that? Only in Iranian fantasies would they do any damage before they succumbed. Plus, the Iranian government has a lot of factions. Most likely outcome of US involvement is a messy civil war in Iran with the US and mates tipping the scales in favor of reformers (with the same result as in Iraq where that the US favored faction gets enough support to grind any opposition down).

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[SplashMyBandit]

The US spends approx 2/3 trillion annually on defense whether fighting or not. Fighting is more expensive that not fighting, but not by as much as most folks think. If the US economy recovers the cost will become less of an issue (historical tidbit: wars have been becoming more expensive in absolute terms but actually decreasing very significantly as a percentage of the overall US economy - in short, the US has more than enough resources to beat Iran even if a protracted war ensued, which it wouldn't since the Iranians have no support, whereas the Iranians supported Iraqi insurgents and protracted the war in Iraq so that experience would not be repeated).

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[SplashMyBandit]

Dontcha get it? the US is treating Iran humanely instead of just smashing it. They are giving the Iranians a chance to comply with the International Will (*no one* wants a nuclear armed Iran - which you would know if you have been paying attention; not the US, nor Arabs, nor Europeans; nor Chinese nor Russians and certainly not the Israelis [the only ones who aren't being ostriches about it]). If the situation were reverse (Iran a nuclear armed superpower) then the US would have been squashed like a bug in 1979. The US is not the bad guy here. The US is not about to wait until Iran supplies Hezbollah with a nuke and a US or Israeli city gets smashed either. The Iranians are smart, but have overplayed their hand here.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[smpoole7]

> CIWS [wikipedia.org], RAM [wikipedia.org], or ESSM [wikipedia.org] systems.

Thanks for posting that. You beat me to it.

Anyone here who thinks it's a good idea to take a speedboat -- heck, I'll even let you use one of those million-dollar "cigarette" racing boats -- and attack the United States Navy, well ... you will VERY briefly enjoy a great deal of excitement. You may or may not even get your missile clear of the boat before you are smashed, crushed, exploded, blown away, and your constituent atoms whisked up to protect the environment.

(Actually, from talking years ago to a friend who had been in the Submarine service, the only serious concern when going up against a navy like Iran's is that they might have a half-decent diesel-electric boat and know how to use it. If they're running at very slow speed on batteries, those things can be quite difficult to detect.)

(Disclaimer: that was in the 1980's and I know things have changed since.)

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[SplashMyBandit]

The missiles the Iranians possess aren't smart enough to defeat US countermeasures: chaff, strong ECM, decoys, RAM, and Phalanx. That's not even looking at possible EW/EMP from the AESA SPY-1 (an ace they have been holding up their sleeve).

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[SplashMyBandit]

Why not. The US forces in Iraq did this to all traffic near them. The Iraqis learned very quickly to get out of the way. The US pissed a lot of Iraqis off with this, and inflamed the insurgency as a result, but it did work for them in the long run (as barbaric as it was). Don't let your pussy view of the world and what is right and wrong get in the way of how soldiers actually fight wars when the leash is off - and no one will care how many dhows are sunk, only that the coalition prevailed.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[SplashMyBandit]

So tell me. How many of these missiles does Iran have? No enough to stop the three carrier task forces (assuming the ten other US carrier task forces elsewhere in the world haven't already joined the party - oh yeah, and then there are the Marine Expeditionary Units as well). You also haven't factored in just how unreliable Russian-built missiles are, a fair chunk of them fail at launch. I would suspect some ships would get hit, some even sunk, but all you'd do is enrage the Bull. Iran's defenses are not nearly enough (assuming any missiles survived the USAF's attack from Kuwait). In short, you're fantasizing if you think the pitiful number of SS-N-22 that Iran has could stop a Coalition juggernaut. It is logistics that wins wars and the Coalition would have a lot more stuff (although the real problem for Iran is preventing implosion as there are a lot of factions within Iran that are barely held together).

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[SplashMyBandit]

I see you don't understand modern naval warfare. You need a lot of simultaneous Sunburn launches to "roll back" the defensive layers of a carrier battle group. A few Sunburns are not enough to defeat SM-2, RAM and Phalanx. A lot of Sunburns all at once are very dangerous (like the Soviet Navy planned to do), but the few the Iranians have (assuming any Iranian naval batteries aren't first destroyed by the USAF) are much less of a problem and can be defended against. Note: the RAM was deployed to defeat these fast missiles further out than the Phalanx could and a task force can deal with a few at once. Also, if detected early enough the SS-N-22 is easy to defeat at long range with the SM-2ER. It is when they go undetected close in that the missile becomes very dangerous. All told, the SS-N-22 is not a superweapon, it just makes it possible to get through a task forces defences and hit carrier (if not decoyed already) if fired in numbers all at once. Slower missiles would have no chance, which is why the SS-N-22 gets some (sensationalist) press.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

No, fuck you. Terrorists nearby or not, bombing civilians is a war crime. Terrorists do not follow the Geneva Convention and almost everyone will agree they're bad guys. If an army does not care about civilian deaths one can't help but question if these guys are really much better than the other side.

This is derailing from the topic that the USA military should get the fuck out of Hormuz, though.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[publiclurker]

I'm not the sick fuck who thinks he can blame the victims in order to excuse their own war mongering attitude.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

No, we're MEANT to think Iran has no friends, through the M.E.M.R.I. disinformation service that provides all western news services with their 'translations' of Iranian media - run by ex Israeli military. They're the clowns that provided the 'Wipe Israel off the map' translation that was nothing even close to what was said - turning a fair spoken comment on the likelihood that Israel's corrupt nature would cause it to self destruct to a call to wipe Israel off the map.

Iran has attacked nobody, even when we overthrew a democratic government to Install a dictator - the 'Shah' that western media pretends was the rightful ruler of Iran, even when they talked Saddam into invading Iran on our behalf, even when we've been performing terrorist actions in their country, murdering their scientists, bombing their civilians, sabotaging their aircraft, shooting down civilian airliners and general putting our fingers where they have no right to be.

Iran has plenty of friends amongst those who have turned off cable tv and the zionist propaganda called 'news' and have switched to the internet as their news source.

Iran's a threat because they won't 'bow down' to the corrupt and evil morons running our country,

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

Except WHICH country has the large Navy, and said nukes pointed at WHO here? The USA and Israel? Certainly not Iran. You can blame Iran for asymetric political warfare... But it was Israel that launched an attack with their military without authorization.... And the USA that prevented Iran from rightfully responding.

Iran sees themselves rightfully backed into a corner. If Israel and the USA want war, they should have the balls to just declare it without provocation and show their true colors. Iran has lived with a foreign army in their terrirorial waters for two decades now... They are correct that the Us-Israel are after a "religious" war on the pretense of economics. EVEN IF the current president of Iran stepped down, the US and Israel wouldn't stop trying to subvert Iran's choosen Islamic form of government, or their distain of western corporations. Citizens on both sides don't realize that "right and wrong" have nothing to do with the situation. People with money and power WANT a fight in the region because it provides a way to keep governments out of their business, and might get them first in line to shake the region's resources down.

This is very much "war with Eurasia" so Iran might as well play its part... Besides, every time you poke the Bear and don't get eaten is a win!

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[gottabeme]

The SOH is 21 miles wide at its narrowest point.

Their skidoos would be sitting ducks before they got within firing range. Aircraft would detect and engage them from a long ways out. Then surface ships would tear up stragglers with deck guns and missiles. A half-second burst from a 25mm gun or one shot from a 5-inch gun and poof, no more Jihadski. If any Iranian missiles were launched, there'd be very few for shipboard defenses to deal with.

Kamikaze prop planes have got to be a joke. Those would be the easiest threats to handle. Hawkeyes and ships would detect them on radar from a hundred miles away. Hornets would wipe them out of the sky with ease, like shooting fish in a barrel.

Of course, the bottom line is, an act of war by Iran would result in the utter destruction of Iran's entire military, and likely it's government too. And the rest of the world would support U.S. action. It would be suicide for Iran. Their government may be evil and stupid, but they are all about self-preservation.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[rtb61]

The United States continually makes threatening statements against other countries, have you no listened to US politicians. No country has funded more terrorists than the United States. And it was the Bush that altered US nuclear policy to first strike.

So Iran makes a bunch of empty noises and the US chomping at the bit to murder more innocent civilians because it hasn't done enough of that in that last decade promptly shuffles around it attack forces.

The last Iraq war apparently that was all about shuffling billions to Halliburton at the behest of Darth Cheney a US vice president blatantly on the payroll of US corporation. Afghanistan is turning into an empty exercise to keep the military industrial complex coffers flowing.

US politicians especially right wing ones have told every lie possible in trying to get a war going with Iran. North Korea has demonstrated the only way to be safe from US invasion is to have nuclear weapons. How many wars has the US been in over the last century and how many wars has Iran been in over the last century and oh yes the US meddled in and kept going Iran's one and only war and then turned around and attacked the instigator of that war.

Let's be realistic here, in the last fifty years the United States has been responsible for more civilian murders than any other country. They have kept more despots in power than any other country. They have spread more violence and terror than the rest of the world combined.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[hawkingradiation]

But according to this map of pakistan and surrounding area, it looks as though the only way for the oil to get from China without going through the Strait of Hormuz would be to come directly from Iran. I guess that is why they are building a port. It also raises the scary question that if Iran "expanded" its influence then China would still get its oil but the US would not. I am not sure if it is possible for land shipments of oil on the border between Iraq and Iran given the mountainous terrain.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[khallow]

Good luck getting a ship, large enough to carry a weapon that can destroy a carrier

The thing about the "lots of little boats" strategy, is that it doesn't take much luck to get them past the big stuff, especially when those ships are also susceptible to the same anti-ship weapons.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[khallow]

* "The US's carriers are a notable weakness of US strategy once you have a cheap counter to them.". What most people miss is the fact that the US doesn't have one carrier strike group, it has 13. When it feels like it the US can easily put three carrier battle groups in the Gulf, and could put more there with a little time to prepare. Iran simply can't win this fight. Despite its braggadocio, getting one warship down and then losing sovereignty is still a massive fail (although it would make the Middle East a much more peaceful place in the long term if it were to happen).

That might be overkill for replacing Iran's current government or it might mean that the US loses three carriers (and perhaps three carrier groups) instead of one. The huge vulnerability here is that kill enough carriers and you've neutered the US navy.

Keep in mind that there have been naval battles where the underdog wins. These often involve the superior side making a variety of bad moves or giving advantages to the enemy, such as fighting in a restricted area or using only a portion of their force available. To be blunt, I think carrier advocates are greatly discounting the problem of fighting in the Persian Gulf.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

On and on... Iran is run by idiots.

It's a theocracy, so... duh.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Karmashock]

Sure, in an all-out war between the US and Iran, then Iran would be destroyed. But in order to avoid this, the Iranian government only need convince the US that it would it turn suffer unacceptable military and economic losses. It's a game of brinksmanship - the aim (for both sides) is to get as much as you can get without actually going to war.

Why do people keep making this mistake? The US doesn't work that way. The Japanese made the same calculation when they attacked Pearl Harbor and Osama Bin Ladin made that calculation when he attacked the twin towers, pentagon, and white house. US culture is more complex then it is given credit for and different things will cause radically different behavior based on radically different mathematics.

The simplest way to think about it is like a small group of people with very different ideas about how to deal with problems. In different conditions different people are in charge. When the US is at peace and things are civil the calculations you're using are valid. However, if the US is attacked strongly enough to move the US to war conditions those people lose all power and are replaced by people best described as Jacksonians. The mentality of that faction is that threats must be crushed indifferent to cost. This aspect of american society is buried most of the time and only surfaces when provoked. But when it comes out it will not be suppressed until it is done. Again, think of a small group of people with some rough and tumble fellows that rarely say anything and are rarely involved in policy decisions. But when the tribe is attacked that group immediately becomes in charge.

In my first post in this thread, I said the worst thing the Iranians could do is sink a couple US ships. It would probably trigger this response. The US would instantly go through a personality shift and change from the peace at any price/carefully weighing costs to an absolutely indifferent meat grinder that would not stop until the enemy were ground, packaged, and stored.

I am not bragging or insulting or making patriotic motions. I'm telling it how it is in so far as I see it. Americans are very simple on their surface but there are implicit layers to our behavior that are only revealed under certain contexts.

If the Iranians sink some ships then everyone in government that thinks the way you do for example will either suddenly change their mind or be quietly sidelined as others take over until it's over. This response is dynamic, automatic, and unavoidable if the US suffers a major attack.

Elements that make it more likely to come out are if the attack was a sneak attack, an attack made while under truce, or some other kind of underhanded subterfuge. I am not judging those actions or justifying them. It doesn't matter. Either way... if that happens the US will automatically shift policy and damn the cost. The primary reason the underhandedness of the matter is relevant is that it relates to the people that say peace can be obtained through some sort of good faith negotiation. The deceit undermines that faction fatally and they're unable to win any debate on the matter until the conflict is settled.

It is this quality that the Russians of all our rivals actually understood. It was what made MAD an effective deterrent against soviet expansion. After all, why would the US risk nuclear war for an ally country? The cost would exceed any gain. If the US thought the way you suggest then the Russians could move their main military force throughout the world unhindered so long as they avoided the United States itself.

Stalin for all his faults understood this about Americans. Perhaps he saw it in our reaction to the Japanese. Perhaps he picked it up from our diplomatic envoys. But it was a major reason why the US frightened him. Because he understood that if he took us to the edge we wouldn't blink before pushing the "button."

You can say that a sign of American insanity or evil or whatever. But it makes almost instinctual sense to us. We will not submit and we will answer grievous wounds to our nation in kind. Judge that how you will but it's how we operate. Thus... the Iranians would be courting total ruin if they provoked us in that matter.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

Most slashdotters are probably too young to remember - but Iran tried this back in the 1980's, and got soundly spanked.

Your Welcome..... The Persian Gulf is where I spent my youth in the 80s....

I think we would be better served supplying the local smugglers with Satellite Dishes, cheep booze, cigarettes and porn.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[SplashMyBandit]

> To be blunt, I think carrier advocates are greatly discounting the problem of fighting in the Persian Gulf.
I take your point but I think you fail to understand how the US Navy has been training for this for decades - and with a particular sharpening of focus in the last decade. I remember the First Gulf War when folks predicted a bloodbath where the fourth largest army in the world would tear the Coalition a new one. While the war was hard fight (most people don't understand/appreciate how dangerous it was), but the reality is Iran would be an easier fight - especially after years of sanctions.

> The huge vulnerability here is that kill enough carriers and you've neutered the US navy.

Three carriers would sting. It would hardly neuter the USN. Perhaps you would receive a smug satisfaction if the US stumbled. I don't believe they will, and I think it is Iran who are currently making the mis-steps in the World's eyes with their crazy proclamations.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[ericloewe]

If it gets that far, you can bet there are friendly tanks in the area

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[dbIII]

Yes an airliner got shot down and hundreds of civilians killed, but Iran sent some money and Libya delivered the payback on a Pan Am 747, so I don't really see that as a spanking more of a stupid and tragic mistake. A large US warship got taken out of commission by a Tsar era Russian mine repacked with more modern explosives without engaging any Iranian vessels. Another ship was sunk with the loss of many US sailors by Iraqi jets in a tragic "friendly fire" incident. I blame politics resulting in a stupid under-resourced "show the flag" exercise instead of any failure of the Navy (eg. WTF didn't they have anything to get mines?).
It appears that you were watching an action movie instead of the news if you got the "soundly spanked" impression. It was a disaster and a textbook argument for a clear chain of command instead of direct political interference.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[DerekLyons]

If you read up a bit on close in weapon systems, such as the ones you linked, they've only been used and work a handful of times

If you read up a bit on cruise missiles, such as the one you linked, they've only been used and worked a handful of times.
 

See part of the problem with all of this is all our scenarios are built on fluff. A lot of the systems and gadgets we have as the US haven't actually been tested in real combat.

As above, this from someone who links to a missile that never been tested in combat?

Like many armchair admirals, you've got nothing but bias, ignorance, and handwaving.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[DerekLyons]

The Millennium Challenge '02 was one of the largest war games in history. In that war game, the mad general in charge of the mock enemy force sunk sixteen US ships, including a carrier and two helicopter carriers filled with Marines.

Well, that's the ignorant armchair admiral version.
 
But the real version is the 'mad general' cheated - because according to his order of battle he didn't have those weapons in the first place, so he wasn't facing a force prepared for that threat. So the exercise 'proved' pretty much nothing.
 
Lesson: Know what the fuck you're talking about rather than spouting bullshit.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[DerekLyons]

I'm denigrating armchair admirals because I have ten years of Navy service and twenty plus years of studying naval warfare. I'm denigrating armchair admirals because I know what I'm talking about - and they don't.

It may come as a surprise to you, but there are Slashdotters with actual experience and education other than computers.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[DerekLyons]

Yeah, one attack against an unalerted target proves... that you're clueless.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[DerekLyons]

Thanks for posting that. You beat me to it.

Yeah, there are a lot of people on Slashdot whose only actual naval experience is the panic and nonsense in the popular media and tinfoil hat websites. It's actually quite annoying because they'd never trust those when it comes to computer/techie/geek topics - but they lap it up like mother's milk fortified with sugar, cocaine, and crystal meth when it comes to practically every other topic.
 

Actually, from talking years ago to a friend who had been in the Submarine service, the only serious concern when going up against a navy like Iran's is that they might have a half-decent diesel-electric boat and know how to use it. If they're running at very slow speed on batteries, those things can be quite difficult to detect.

On the flip side, when running at slow speed on batteries, they're pretty much nothing more than a 'smart' mine/minefield. Yeah, they're a danger - but they're also not without severe limitations.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[jon3k]

You realize it takes a fairly large boat to carry a cruise missile right? We're not talking about inflatable rafts with outboards. Ships that size show up on radar. Air craft carriers are protected not only by other smaller boats, but also by helicopters and jets. And Tomahawks have a range of about 1,500 miles while Iran's cruise missiles have a range of about 100-200 miles, so the fleet will stand off the coast relatively far. Then, let's imagine by some miracle, this Iranian boat launches, isn't detected by AWAC or visually by a drone, then goes 1,000 miles at about 15 knots straight towards a U.S. Navy fleet and fires it's lone missile, it will have to get past several small countermeasures first. And let's not forget that the USS Stark got hit with TWO Exocet Missiles (while it was in port and thought it was safe) and wasn't sunk.

Anything is possible, but it is EXTREMELY unlikely that this sort of attack would work. If they even attempted this we would immediately retaliate with Tomahawk missiles and completely cripple Iran. Their best case scenario might be to sink one Destroyer (incredibly unlikely) while the U.S. launches a couple dozen Tomahawks and destroys every power plant, major intersection, water treatment plant, etc and anything that broadcasts anything resembling a radio signal.

The last thing in the world Iran wants is to engage in an actual armed conflict with the U.S. Navy. They threaten to block the straights every few years to drive up oil prices. They did it in June of 2008 and June of 2006. Probably more often than that honestly. This was just a convenient time to do it.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

FFS - "Strait" not "Straight"

Two different words, two different meanings.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[russotto]

Why do people keep making this mistake? The US doesn't work that way. The Japanese made the same calculation when they attacked Pearl Harbor and Osama Bin Ladin made that calculation when he attacked the twin towers, pentagon, and white house.

Evidently they think we're Europe.

However, if the US is attacked strongly enough to move the US to war conditions those people lose all power and are replaced by people best described as Jacksonians.

Tom Kratman, is that you?

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[tqk]

Iran is threatening to "close the straits". To do this they just have to make a credible threat to the oil tankers, and trade will stop.

Wasn't that what the U-Boats in WWII tried and failed to do? Once convoys were supplied with enough protection, the wolfpacks didn't have a chance.

Yet another lesson we Canucks had to teach the Yanquis.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[khallow]

I take your point but I think you fail to understand how the US Navy has been training for this for decades - and with a particular sharpening of focus in the last decade. I remember the First Gulf War when folks predicted a bloodbath where the fourth largest army in the world would tear the Coalition a new one. While the war was hard fight (most people don't understand/appreciate how dangerous it was), but the reality is Iran would be an easier fight - especially after years of sanctions.

I do as well. It's also pretty obvious that the fourth largest army chose to fight on terms that were very advantageous for the largest army in the world. Twice.

Now Iran doesn't seem competent as an enemy and if the US ever got into a fight with them, they might well make the same sort of mistakes that Iraq did. But it seems very foolish to me to ignore the vulnerability of a weapon system such as the supercarriers the US currently deploys, just because the US currently faces incompetent enemies.

Three carriers would sting. It would hardly neuter the USN.

That depends what those carriers were doing and how long it takes to replace them. If they were supporting an ongoing land war with Iran, then the US probably will face more than a "sting". An enemy isn't going to sink carriers for the hell of it. They're going to be taking out important components of a major military operation, probably at a time when that operation is particularly vulnerable.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[khallow]

And let's not forget that the USS Stark got hit with TWO Exocet Missiles (while it was in port and thought it was safe) and wasn't sunk.

The USS Stark is not a supercarrier but a missile frigate. I think a carrier is more vulnerable to missile strikes, due to the quantities of fuel and ammunition aboard (plus the fact these are often partly exposed such as when fueling aircraft on the deck), than a missile frigate (which also has the role of taking hits so that higher value ships don't have to).

The last thing in the world Iran wants is to engage in an actual armed conflict with the U.S. Navy. They threaten to block the straights every few years to drive up oil prices. They did it in June of 2008 and June of 2006. Probably more often than that honestly. This was just a convenient time to do it.

Wars aren't always about what people want. And even when they are, it's usually because one or more sides turned out greatly in error about what they thought they'd get out of the war.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

Your friends in Israel are the ones creating the tension. It's Israel looking for an excuse to violate a sovreign country's right to have electric power, just as they did to Iraq.

Your friends in Israel have a nuke program that is not under International inspection - Iran is. All inspectors state Iran is NOT building weapons.

"CAN" and "IS" are two different words in english, apparently not in Hebrew.

Until the Jews censor the internet, all your Zionist bullshit gets called.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[binarylarry]

Just shut up, you fucking retard.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[coredog64]

Their primary naval weapon is a missile that can get into ballistic mode before a ship's countermeasure can intercept it. I'm not sure what you're after there. A ballistic missile is one that follows a suborbital path (shitloads of power in the boost phase, and gravity and minor steering after). Even leaving that aside, AFAIK, the only serious countermeasure that the USN has for unguided missiles is Phalanx. I would think that relatively slow, small, unguided missiles* would be meat for the Phalanx. You could probably overwhelm the system, but that assumes the USN has no way to deal with said speedboats *cough* artillery *cough* Hell, you don't even have to hit the boats -- just throw up enough of a barrage that they don't get a stable platform long enough to take a shot. *The kind of MLRS that fits on a single engine fiberglass boat doesn't lend itself to having large munitions.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[coredog64]

Nuclear weapons are good for Iran in that they give the regime the power you're suggesting WRT brinksmanship. However, they're bad for Iran in that actually possessing them will touch off a nuclear arms race in the region as other powers will want the same guarantees in dealing with Iran. That would be a massive blow to stability not just in the region, but world-wide.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it worked until about 1945. Wonder what happened then which changed the game so thoroughly.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[shadow_slicer]

But the real version is the 'mad general' cheated - because according to his order of battle he didn't have those weapons in the first place, so he wasn't facing a force prepared for that threat.

So in other words, the 'enemy' cheated because they did not give the 'US' an accurate estimate of their capabilities. This is obviously cheating because we all know that the first act of war is to provide your opponent with a detailed inventory of your forces (down to the number of rubber rafts and 9mm bullets). =P

Back in the real world people have to actually work to determine the capabilities of other nations. The fact is that large numbers of small boats, cruise missiles, and other arms consistent with that used in that war game are extremely easy to conceal. Whether or not the general in charge of the mock enemy force 'cheated' in that situation, his results speak for themselves: he demonstrated exactly what it took to defeat the US navy. Particularly if that navy thinks it 'knows' what its enemy is capable of.

In summary, the exercise proved exactly what it proved. No more, no less. You can not dismiss the facts because they were not the facts you were expecting or were hoping for.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Karmashock]

I don't know how Tom Kratman is... I'll look him up. Hmmm... no clue who that is... Anyway, the comment about Jacksonians is not unusual. It's a well understood phenomenon of US culture.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

There are no warships that can survive a missile striking the hull.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Samuel_B._Roberts_(FFG-58)

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[corbettw]

You said something about carrier-based aircraft in the same sentence as F-15s; it gave me the impression you were calling F-15s carrier-based.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Taco Cowboy]

If they go toe to toe with the US over the straight [sic] they'll have no backers.

Yep, they sure will end up having the bend

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

"the Iranian people will have totally lost their will to fight" - hahaha you don't know much about the middle east do you. try that tactic and you'll have a lot of pissed off people in a lot a different countries. and the US will find europe not looking kindly on their actions

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

Your patriotic jingoism is sickening to me, as an American.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

Your observation of how the US could help is pure brillance.

Since Iran wishes to close the strait, it is only right that we should help them. It would be about time that we agreed on something. Less oil revenues for them, more reasons to give up on nuclear weapons and intermediate and long range missles as vehicles to deliver them.

We can simply blockade the exit from the strait selectively, and let them hit randomly selected oil tankers within the strait. That will endear them to all their neighbors, as if they need help in that department. Don't underestimate the likelyhood of losing a carrier in the strait, what you would consider an acceptable probability of risk, and stay out of there. Let Iran do themselves in.

While we are nearby, helping them with the strait, we can keep watch over the new pipelines which will replace the dangerous shipping route.

It is a win - win - win situation in that we will help Iran achieve one of its short term goals, keep our ships out of harms way, and develop safer alternative routes for other countries to ship their oil.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

"stop making threatening statements all the time. The US has been much more polite to Iran then Iran has been to it despite the US being radically more powerful."

That's insightful? =8-/

The us has a couple aircraft carrier battle fleets next to iran, talks all the time about using "any way" to stop iran's nuclear program, and IIRC has put iran into the axis of evil. Also the us tries to cripple iran by economic embargo.

Also, the us has a nice history of putting dictators all over the globe, assassinations, and invasions. /. is going downhill very fast, if your drivel is modded as "insightful".

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

And this is why Iran feels it needs nuclear weapons.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Christian Smith]

...snip war crimes...

This is how you defeat your enemy and make him surrender.

Would the world have the balls to hold the US to account on that, I wonder?

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Carnildo]

The USS Stark is not a supercarrier but a missile frigate. I think a carrier is more vulnerable to missile strikes, due to the quantities of fuel and ammunition aboard (plus the fact these are often partly exposed such as when fueling aircraft on the deck), than a missile frigate (which also has the role of taking hits so that higher value ships don't have to).

For anybody else's carriers, you might have a point, but the United States has almost a century of experience in operating carriers. Experience from the carrier battles of World War II (three out of the four Japanese carriers sunk at Midway were destroyed by bomb hits on ready ammunition), and most importantly from a number of accidental fires in the 1960s (see the USS Forrestal fire), have resulted in people figuring out how to handle those vulnerabilities.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[khallow]

For anybody else's carriers, you might have a point, but the United States has almost a century of experience in operating carriers. Experience from the carrier battles of World War II (three out of the four Japanese carriers sunk at Midway were destroyed by bomb hits on ready ammunition), and most importantly from a number of accidental fires in the 1960s (see the USS Forrestal fire), have resulted in people figuring out how to handle those vulnerabilities.

I have to say that may be true, but my look at this same history merely tells me that the US military has been very good at making sure its carriers aren't in the path of a missile. My whole point about having carriers in the Persian Gulf is that this is the sort of scenario where carriers have the most difficulty staying out of harms way, namely, they don't have the space to maneuver that they have in open sea.

I'd be more impressed by this experience, if it included real-life carriers actually being hit by missiles fired in anger.

Re:Suicide boats is not Iran's primary weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats how you make your enemy hate you so much that they don't care if they die, they will attack, kill and maim your people with whatever means necessary. Have you learnt nothing from history? You are a fool.

It's probably the best time to rattle sabers...

[GrpA]

Given the US withdrawal in Iraq, engaging in a war with Iran won't be easy or popular. Lately they've managed to capture drones and threatening the shipping will let them achieve their own goals with the least risk of provoking a US response.

I guess the real question is, what will the US do if it is attacked? In all likelyhood, they will be buzzed by Iranian boats without actually being attacked. But how close will they let such boats approach?

GrpA

Re:It's probably the best time to rattle sabers...

[SuricouRaven]

I imagine that is the plan. Iran couldn't win an actual war, and their leadership are smart enough to know that. But they also know that the US doesn't *want* a war right now. The public are already sick war. So they have a good chance at intimidating the US into backing down to avoid a politically-embarassing conflict.

Re:It's probably the best time to rattle sabers...

[Man On Pink Corner]

But they also know that the US doesn't *want* a war right now. The public are already sick war

But do they know that no one in the US government gives a shit what the public thinks?

Re:It's probably the best time to rattle sabers...

[ericloewe]

If the US backs down, which is extremely unlikely, someone else would take matters into their own hands. Besides, it wouldn't be politically embarassing if they're attacked while escorting a tanker. It'd be an act of war from Iran.

Re:It's probably the best time to rattle sabers...

[SuricouRaven]

And then what? This isn't WW2 any more. If country A attacks country B, B can't respond by carpet-bombing A's cities back into the stone age. Killing civilians is no longer an option, even if they happen to be citizens of A. The US really has only two options: Back down (After a show of partiotic force of some type, perhaps by bombing a few military targets) or invade Iran... and after discovering in first Afganistan and then Iraq how difficult it can be to maintain the peace in an occupied country, that isn't going to happen.

Re:It's probably the best time to rattle sabers...

[m.ducharme]

The US people don't want a war, but the current US president would benefit greatly from a new war with Iran. I the Iranian gov provoked war by sinking a US warship, public opinion in the States would swing toward aggression in a minute, and Obama would be a lock for a second term.

Re:It's probably the best time to rattle sabers...

[SuricouRaven]

Quite possible. Obama could benefit in the same way that Bush benefited from the 9/11 attacks - people rallied behind the president in a show of partiotism and national unity, and shortly after in a national call for vengence. For that to work though, Iran needs to strike first, and strike hard. Sinking a US warship would do the job, but will Iran be willing to risk the potential counterattack?

Re:It's probably the best time to rattle sabers...

[WindBourne]

No. We would destroy their military operations. Quickly. That is why the RQ-170 was there: mapping. If Iran attacks, they will lose what they have of their military in under a month. And then we will walk away.

I would also guess that if they decide to test a nuke during that time, that it would be suicidal.

Re:It's probably the best time to rattle sabers...

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell that to the survivors in Fallujah. The United States can and will kill civilians when its necessary. Close to a million Iraqis died and we just deny it. The same thing in Libya. We leveled Sirte, killing lots of civilians, in "defense of civilians" according to the media reports. Our drones are regularly killing civilians in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The notion that you can fight a war without killing a lot of civilians is a creation of military propaganda, aided and abetted by a fawning media.

The real question is not whether the United States would win a war with Iran. The question is what would it take to make the straight of Hormuz safe for oil tankers. I don't think the US Navy has that capacity. It would require putting troops on the ground in Iran.

As for Iran's lack of friends, Iran does have allies in Iraq, Syria, Hezzbollah and Hamas. And, apparently, North Korea. And that doesn't include any countries who might see giving the US a black eye a useful exercise, or might take advantage of the situation elsewhere in the world.

What I think should be obvious to everyone is that once Iran has a bomb, this all becomes moot. At that point, they join the club with North Korea as a nuclear armed country made immune to attack regardless of the provocation. If Saddam Hussein actually had "weapons of mass destruction", Iraq would have been immune. If Gaddaffi had been able to get a bomb, NATO wouldn't have been providing air support to a bunch of rebels. Gaddaffi and Hussein complied with international demands to end their nuclear programs, willingly or not, and they are both dead with their countries in chaos. North Korea ignored those demands and its leader died in his own bed, with leadership passing to his son. I think the lesson there for Iran is not hard to see.

You could add Israel and Pakistan to that list as well. None of its neighbors are going to take on Israel any more. And the United States is forced to persuade Pakistan to help fight terrorists, rather than demand compliance, because it is nuclear armed.

In short, the last couple decades have demonstrated that nuclear weapons are an essential element for defense. Its only a matter of time until every independent country has them or is part of an alliance with those that do.

Re:It's probably the best time to rattle sabers...

[Anonymous Coward]

Plus we have a decent population of professional soldiers now, many of which have no job opportunities. If our government overlords see fit to start a war they will do it. We move closer to war with Iran as things get worse economically. Certainly some element of our government wanted an Iranian war during Bush's term, but it wasn't time yet. This is not a golden age for sure. For some reason the Israelis have a powerful influence over our government but we also have those in power that do not appreciate their concerns as much. It is the Israeli element that is pushing us towards war. They did so with the Iraq war but we had interests there as well. If someone can create an interest for us to attack Iran then we are at the cusp. The Israelis seek to gain land unbridled by outside influence; they are VERY militant and dangerous for humanity as a whole right now. Judging from their past actions they wouldn't mind a global war.

Re:It's probably the best time to rattle sabers...

[HornWumpus]

In Iraq the USA avoided destroying much of the infrastructure (power stations, transmission lines, dams, roads, canals etc) because we intended to invade and knew we would be rebuilding them.

In Iran, I'm betting not so much. We don't need to take over, just knock the nation back to 1900 technology.

You don't need to kill civilians to wipe out a countries ability to make war. Leaving the civilians without food/water/power/police will give the local government something to worry about.

Re:It's probably the best time to rattle sabers...

[SuricouRaven]

And then they build it up again. Long term, nothing changes.

Re:It's probably the best time to rattle sabers...

[WindBourne]

It will take a long time for them to rebuild. And once that ability is destroyed, then perhaps Israel can FINALLY make some peace. As it is, Iran is to the middle east what Cantor is to America.

Re:It's probably the best time to rattle sabers...

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize that we killed 3,000 in Afghanistan just after 9/11, and our overall impact in Iraq (bombing, destroyed infrastructure and resulting disease -- simple stuff like kids having diarrhea and no good water, babies in incubators dying because of no power, and violence from the reignition of Sunni-Shiite conflicts) has left a documented 100,000+ civilians dead, and a statistical estimate of over five times that, right? Then we have the civilians deaths in Pakistan from our chivalrous drone bombings. I wish that you were correct, but to me it seems that most Americans don't give a shit about our wars' civilian casualties if they aren't Americans.

Re:It's probably the best time to rattle sabers...

[phantomfive]

The US public doesn't like war, but we like losing war even less. If Iran actually does start attacking the US, it will not be hard to convince the public to start a war.

Re:It's probably the best time to rattle sabers...

[thomst]

SuricouRaven opined

I imagine that is the plan. Iran couldn't win an actual war, and their leadership are smart enough to know that. But they also know that the US doesn't *want* a war right now. The public are already sick war. So they have a good chance at intimidating the US into backing down to avoid a politically-embarassing conflict.

You don't understand Americans very well.

Americans hate Iran. We've never forgiven them for the 1979-1981 hostage crisis, and Ahmadinejad is utterly despised here. If they're stupid enough to actually attack an American naval vessel, especially if that causes the price of gasoline to spike, Americans will overwhelmingly back military action against Iran. The GOP will be howling for Ahmadinejad's head on a plate, Middle America will break out in a fresh new wave of "Support Our Troops" stickers and flag pins, and Obama will be assured of re-election merely by pushing the "schock and awe" button.

The Cheney administration had to spend months propagandizing the American people against Saddam Hussein, because he purposely did not present a clear and present threat to Americans or American assets. If Iran is foolish enough to attack an American naval vessel, while threatening (or even actually sinking) civilian oil tankers in the process, the American people won't give a damn how much it costs to retaliate. We're terrible at math, anyway, and the opportunity to put our collective boot up the ass of an almost-comically exaggerated, self-made villain would be just the thing to make us feel good as a nation, and to take our minds off how abysmal our economy is doing, and how generally unpleasant the forthcoming election season is undoubtedly going to be.

As for Iran presenting any meaningful threat to American naval assets - it can't. It might get lucky enough to sink one or two smaller boats, but then our capital ships will simply stand off, out of range of Iran's Silkworms, and use our own cruise missiles to destroy every harbor facility along the coast of Southern Iran. After that, we send in minesweepers to clear the shipping lanes, and it's back to business as usual, except that Iran no longer has a functioning navy.

Iran cannot win such a confrontation - and the reality of that fact explains why Gen. Masoud Jazayeri, a Revolutionary Guard commander, was just quoted (on the Revolutionary Guard's own website, sepahnews.com - which is currently down) as saying "Discourse about closing the Strait of Hormuz belongs to five years ago," and Iran's navy chief Adm. Habibollah Sayyari yesterday stated that Iran has no intention of closing the Strait (even though he insisted that they could do so, if they wished).

Sorry, but the reality is that we have already intimidated Iran into backing down on their threat, not the other way around.

Re:It's probably the best time to rattle sabers...

[Thing 1]

Sinking a US warship would do the job, but will Iran be willing to risk the potential counterattack?

Does Iran need to? MIC sinks one warship; MIC gets contracts for another 30 years.

Re:It's probably the best time to rattle sabers...

[mosb1000]

Even Ron Paul would go to war with Iran over this. No pollitical leader in th US would consider backing down. And most of the people here would not consider it either.

Re:It's probably the best time to rattle sabers...

[Anonymous Coward]

Who says carpet bombing isn't an option? Who's going to stop the US from doing so?

Re:It's probably the best time to rattle sabers...

[Anonymous Coward]

Drink my cum you piece of shit anti-Semite

Re:It's probably the best time to rattle sabers...

[RocketRabbit]

Six hundred thousand dead Iraqis say that civilian casualties are just fine. Fallujah does too.

Re:It's probably the best time to rattle sabers...

[Grishnakh]

Or do they know just how dumb the American voters are? All you have to do is run a campaign promising Hope and Change, then when you get elected just do everything exactly like the last guy, and most of the voters will buy your bullshit about how this is the change they were asking for. It's almost like a nationwide Jedi mind trick: "this is the change you're looking for..."

Re:It's probably the best time to rattle sabers...

[Anonymous Coward]

The U.S. is currently working towards regime change in Iran. What do you think the "green" revolution was about? They are preparing them like they prepared people in Libya. The U.S. will start bombarding to hit military targets while the "revolutionary" forces will be armed and fighting to kick out the regime. The issue for the U.S. will be how it will handle the oil shortages if its a long campaign. Iran has been prepping as well. Don't be surprised if oil resources are hit in other countries by people sympathetic to Iran. Countries that are Iranian allies may cut off the U.S. as well. Economically this may drive the U.S. into a deeper depression.

The U.S. has been trying to buy time with Iran but its hard because if the Iranians get nuclear weapons then they will have to deal with them like any other nation and the power balance in the middle east will shift greatly in their favor. They have been trying to delay this, at least until the U.S. is in an economic position to strike and their "revolution" forces are prepared. Sanctions are designed to hurt and delay any Iranian development that will extend any war. Remember Iraq? All the sanctions Saddam was hit with, hurt the ability of the Iraqi army to wage any prolonged campaign.

The objective of U.S. sanctions, is basically to lay a country under siege while it prepares its armies for attacks.

Re:It's probably the best time to rattle sabers...

[Warwick Allison]

Anti-Israel (ie. against the actions of the current Israeli government) is not anti-Semite. Plenty of Israelis are against these actions of their government also.

Re:It's probably the best time to rattle sabers...

[phayes]

Only if the US decides to limit itself to purely military targets (which is unlikely if Iran sinks a single US warship)

The Serbs were laughing at the US for playing their shell game & blowing up thier fake tanks for a month or two. The Serbs were good at playing the shell game, kudos to them but once the US got wind of being played they changed the game & started targeting the serbian industrial infrastructure that they used to build their military. The Dayton accords were signed shortly after yet even now the serbian economy has still not recovered...

If the US decides to go after Iran's industrial infrastructure they're in for a world of hurt.

Re:It's probably the best time to rattle sabers...

[SplashMyBandit]

They said the US would lose in Iraq, but it won. It now has a US-friendly government installed. They said the US would lose in Afghanistan but it is in the process of winning (only the Afghani governmental corruption, the drug lords and Pakistani meddling are keeping the weak Taliban going). If the US went into Iran for real it would install a US friendly government. The average joe in the US might not be so bright, but their military is smart and second to none. That is why they haven't been defeated on the battlefield for a long time (oh, and if you look at Vietnam, the US military destroyed the Vietcong and left; it was several years later that North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam after the US left; only the historically ignorant count Vietnam as the US military losing [disclaimer: I don't come from the US, but do call out fallacies when I see them]).

Re:It's probably the best time to rattle sabers...

[SuricouRaven]

No-one ever doubted the ability of the US to crush Iraq militarily. When it comes to blowing stuff up, the US is the best there is. The questions were always over the ability of the US ability to win the peace, and not end up just creating a nation full of people filled with a deep hate for the invaders, and a new leadership worse than the old one.

Re:It's probably the best time to rattle sabers...

[SplashMyBandit]

As bad as the government of Iraq is, you simply cannot compare it to the government of Saddam. Ever. Not if you understand what it was like: army designed to cow the people, now the army understands it there to help the people. The US made pretty bad decisions at the beginning of the occupation. It didn't help that everyone was just itching for them to fail, but they succeeded against all odds (and the constant interference of Iran).

Re:It's probably the best time to rattle sabers...

[SuricouRaven]

Better than Saddam, but after how many years? Eight now, and yet it still sees a terrorist attack of one sort or another there every week. The peace is not yet being fully kept. The US pulled it off this time, but it took billions of dollars, eight years, as many dead troops as the public morale can stand, and still it isn't complete. Iran has more than double the population: If the US was barely able to manage Iraq, will they want to even attempt something like that with twice the population?

Re:It's probably the best time to rattle sabers...

[SplashMyBandit]

A totally relevant question. I agree with you that it is unknown as to what would happen.

There are several factors in favor of US direct intervention:

The first is the fact the Iranians see that if the US invades they wouldn't be there forever (case study is Iraq).

The second factor is that the Iranian people are not a monolith behind their government. All the Iranians I have met (who I really like, especially going to Nowruz [New Year] parties) have been at great pains to point out how great Iran is but the people are not the government (reworded, "Don't judge the people by the government" [means may hate the government]).

The third factor is that the Iranian country, and especially the miliary, is actually in quite a mess thanks to decades of sanctions. Without arms coming from Russia or China the Iranian military would crumble pretty quickly. The only reason that Iraqi insurgents lasted so long is the Iranians were supplying them. Same with the Afghan Taliban where the Pakistan ISI equips them. In the case of friendless Iran (because they have pissed off all their neighbours) their only real source would be China - and I don't think China would risk the ire of the World just for the money.

That said, I think that direct intervention in Iran is unlikely at this time. What is far more likely IMHO are extensive strikes coupled with covert assistence to any rebel groups the US can find. This is a much cheaper way of doing things. If the Iranians react badly only then would a Coalition be formed to sort it out (particularly if WMD were actually found - since Iran is getting reasonably close now, although the recent wave of 'terrorist' (that is, likely Mossad, CIA) explosions may slow things down again).

One way to look at it

[stoolpigeon]

Iran unlikely to block oil shipments through Strait of Hormuz, analysts say.
 
From the linked article: And Iran — which has enjoyed record oil profits over the past five years but is faced with a dwindling number of oil customers — relies on the Hormuz Strait as the departure gate for its biggest client: China.

“We would be committing economical suicide by closing off the Hormuz Strait,” said an Iranian Oil Ministry official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject. “Oil money is our only income, so we would be spectacularly shooting ourselves in the foot by doing that.”

Ahmad Bakhshayesh Ardestani, a political scientist running for parliament from the camp of hard-line clerics and commanders opposing Ahmadinejad, said it is “good politics” for Iran to respond to U.S. threats with threats of its own.

“But our threat will not be realized,” Ardestani said. “We are just responding to the U.S., nothing more.”

Re:One way to look at it

[TheGoodNamesWereGone]

I think you're giving Iran too much credit for being rational. The fact that their religious leaders are so crazy is the very reason Iran is so mistrusted. It's also dismaying to see how many people on SD who're rooting for them (Not you, Stoolpigeon). Okay you folks, very well. When the Strait of Hormuz gets closed and fuel prices quadruple, will you then be marching in the streets for Western governments to "do something"? Will you also oppose a Chinese military action?

Re:One way to look at it

[stoolpigeon]

I don't think all the Iranian leaders are as crazy as they make out. I think they portray that face to ensure they maintain their power and affluence. I could be wrong.

That said, if they are really well and truly nuts, I'm still not worried about a fleet of speed boats- it's the nukes that will be a problem.

As for the pro-Iran sentiment on the board - I'd rack 90% of that up to trolls and another 10% to anti-US sentiment that is rather in vogue in quite a number of circles. I'm rather cynical when it comes to international politics and I don't really see the US government as any worse or any better than another. So I don't hate them and want to see them go down but I'm not blindly supporting whatever they do either.

I was in the US Navy though - and the people who think that this would be a huge problem for them are very ill informed and/or naive.

Re:One way to look at it

[Martin Blank]

The main problem seems to be Ahmadinejad. His own superiors seem to be eternally irritated at him. The people know that their economic lives have been ruined by him (though he maintains his power base by kowtowing to the poorest through price controls). The only reason he hasn't been removed is that it would invalidate his "election" and make Iran look even less democratic than it does already.

Khamenei is not Khomeini; the latter never would have stood for the antics of Ahmadinejad, even if their goal of a nuclear-armed Iran was the same. He would have put in a better-behaved puppet. Iranian politics are more complex than we sometimes like to think, and that makes Iran less predictable and therefore more dangerous.

Re:One way to look at it

[Anonymous Coward]

If I had a nickel for every "I was in the Army and Iraq won't be a problem" comment from 2002...

SMH people never learn.

Re:One way to look at it

[timeOday]

I hope and think you are right. And yet, brinksmanship is a dangerous game. You get both sides thinking, "they couldn't possibly be crazy enough to call my bluff, it would be a disaster!" Look at WWI. What a pointless, disastrous war that was.

Re:One way to look at it

[DerekLyons]

âoeWe would be committing economical suicide by closing off the Hormuz Strait,â said an Iranian Oil Ministry official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject. âoeOil money is our only income, so we would be spectacularly shooting ourselves in the foot by doing that.â

Is this official high enough up that's a reliable source on Iranian government policy? Or is he like the 'peace faction' in Japan at the end of WWII - actually powerless to effect events? Or is he a stalking horse?

Re:One way to look at it

[Courageous]

Actually, such Iranian grandstanding in the past has raised the price of oil, and resulted in quite excellent additional profit for Iran. Very clever of them, and yes, I think they are well aware of such things and do it on purpose.

Re:One way to look at it

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the Israeli influence moving its invisible hand during a politically expedient time by which they can pressure Obama who doesn't normally see things their way or appreciate their input. All our arguments here on slashdot are probably fueled by lies pumped through our media who's job is to demonize Iran on cue despite any facts.

Re:One way to look at it

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, like all totalitarian, or near totalitarian regimes, Iran has shown willingness to impose economic hardship on the populous in order to achieve political goals. One can not assume that just because a course of action would be economically ruinous that it would not be pursued. It is not that they are a bunch of crazies, they are just doing a different set of calculation than the leaders of a more democratic country. In short, they are not worried about an economic downturn causing them to get voted out of office. It's NOT the economy, stupid.

Re:One way to look at it

[tsotha]

That said, if they are really well and truly nuts, I'm still not worried about a fleet of speed boats- it's the nukes that will be a problem.

That's not going to be a problem for a few years yet, though, and it's going to be at least a decade or so before they have something they can deliver with a missile.

Re:One way to look at it

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahmadinejad is kind of an Iranian teabagger: their flavor is left-wing economics, yes, but otherwise he's a populist who rose to power on popular anger. He otherwise isn't really inclined to do anything hard like actually lead and build political coalitions instead of making fiery speeches. It's Khamenei that's the true hard-liner, but he's just a lot better at playing the political game than even Khomeni -- he has whittled down Rafsanjani's base of support, and the popular reaction against a US strike would let him sweep up the rest of it.

Just to show you what Ahmadinejad's true power is, one of the leaked cables, there's an account where the revolutionary guard chief of staff shouted Ahmadinejad during a meeting to sit down andshut up, and to underscore the point, reached out and slapped him across the face. Ahmadinejad is the puppet here.

Re:One way to look at it

[stoolpigeon]

And from a certain standpoint it wasn't a problem. But to my statement - I'm talking about one very specific thing - the primary mission of the Navy, to keep sea lanes open. Iran will not be able to block the straits for any considerable length of time and the US military (and possibly others) will make sure that traffic continues to move out of the gulf.
 
I spent a considerable amount of time there in the late 80's, early 90's. We would often spend the day in the Indian Ocean, then sail up into the gulf at night and escort tankers down. There were times we would have planned events based on Iranian activity that was known before it took place. The idea that tactics openly discussed here will take the USN by surprise and render them helpless is ridiculous.
 
I have no idea about long term political implications, or what nation will take which side. That stuff gets rather muddy quite quickly. My point is that should Iran try to stop anything from entering/leaving the gulf, whatever means they employ to deny that access will be destroyed.

Re:One way to look at it

[msi]

If I had a nickel for every "I was in the Army and Iraq won't be a problem" comment from 2002...

SMH people never learn.

Iraq was not a problem for the Army in 2002. Iraq was a massive fuck up after the war but the Army rolled over all resistance in under 200 hours, the problems where after the war.

Re:One way to look at it

[stoolpigeon]

I hope you are right - every time I hear time lines they seem to be revised down, not further out. Of course I don't have access to any information that I find to be especially trustworthy. They may not be remotely close for a long, long time. Then again if I wake up tomorrow to news that they've had a successful test it wouldn't shock me either. I don't trust my sources.

Re:One way to look at it

[TFAFalcon]

You have to ask yourself about the situation in which closing the Strait would not harm Iran.

What happens if the US manages to convince the UN to impose new sanctions? What good is a way to export oil if you're prohibited from doing it.

Re:One way to look at it

[AlienIntelligence]

I hope and think you are right. And yet, brinksmanship is a dangerous game. You get both sides thinking, "they couldn't possibly be crazy enough to call my bluff, it would be a disaster!" Look at WWI. What a pointless, disastrous war that was.

Not to be picky, but are there any wars that were not pointless? Disastrous?
All war can be prevented with diplomacy and détente. Before you argue the
point, consider the words.

-AI

Re:One way to look at it

[budgenator]

Iranians can be very intelligent people, with the emotional maturity of a 13 year old. this wouldn't be the first time they've insanely self-destructive.

Re:One way to look at it

[Anonymous Coward]

For the record, I know firsthand that plenty of Persians despise Ahmadinejad and want him gone. They want freer, more peaceful lives without all this crazy oppression rationalized with religion.

Re:One way to look at it

[currently_awake]

Iraq has 2 governments. The elected one and the religious one. Be sure you know which one is calling the shots on this.

Re:One way to look at it

[currently_awake]

China gets to veto those sanctions, and they buy the oil.

Re:One way to look at it

[Anonymous Coward]

Talk about naive -- from the Guardian re: operation Millennium Challenge:

"In fact, this war game was won by Saddam Hussein, or at least by the retired marine playing the Iraqi dictator's part, Lieutenant General Paul Van Riper.

In the first few days of the exercise, using surprise and unorthodox tactics, the wily 64-year-old Vietnam veteran sank most of the US expeditionary fleet in the Persian Gulf, bringing the US assault to a halt.

What happened next will be familiar to anyone who ever played soldiers in the playground. Faced with an abrupt and embarrassing end to the most expensive and sophisticated military exercise in US history, the Pentagon top brass simply pretended the whole thing had not happened. They ordered their dead troops back to life and "refloated" the sunken fleet. Then they instructed the enemy forces to look the other way as their marines performed amphibious landings. Eventually, Van Riper got so fed up with all this cheating that he refused to play any more. Instead, he sat on the sidelines making abrasive remarks until the three-week war game - grandiosely entitled Millennium Challenge - staggered to a star-spangled conclusion on August 15, with a US "victory". "

In theory, we might have learned something from Millennium Challenge. I suspect that we didn't learn a damn thing, but the Iranians did.

Re:One way to look at it

[Arker]

And the lesson that so many seem to continue resisting is that you have to have a real plan for what happens after those 200 hours. Something realistic. We didnt have that, we had nothing but dreams of cakewalks and flower-throwing, and that has been par for the course repeatedly over our history when we get involved where we shouldnt.

Re:One way to look at it

[Grishnakh]

I'm not sure how WWII could have been prevented. Neville Chamberlain tried diplomacy (actually it was really appeasement), and it didn't work; Hitler wanted more and more. Actually, I can think of one way WWII could have been prevented: if the USA hadn't gotten involved in WWI, and just let the dumb British and French lose their attempt at stealing land and gaining power, then WWII would never have happened. But it was a different generation that was involved in WWI than that which was involved in WWII, so once they were down that road, I don't see how it could have been avoided by any diplomacy. Disastrous? Of course, but the leaders of Germany and Japan were bent on domination and didn't care about that.

Diplomacy and detente only work when you have reasonable people in charge. That's rarely the case, unfortunately. It's the unreasonable ("power mad") people who most seek positions of power.

Re:One way to look at it

[Grishnakh]

Iranian politics are more complex than we sometimes like to think, and that makes Iran less predictable and therefore more dangerous.

The exact same can be said for American politics.

Re:One way to look at it

[SplashMyBandit]

The Iranians are not stupid, but are very balkanized at the moment. They are also very proud of their country and history (isn't everyone?). That said, by allowing some crazies to make threats the Iranians are not being smart at all. While the US is used to being a targets as threats the Europeans are not. Such statements are making the Iranians look to be very unreasonable by countries that are usually receptive to them (eg. Europe). This episode is a fail for the Iranians on the world stage. It will make it easier for the enemies of Iran to sway other countries now (perhaps because it serves those enemies, that it why it gets so much press, but that is how the game is played).

Re:One way to look at it

[Martin Blank]

Do you think a bigger risk for Iran is a Libya-style intervention where the European and Arab forces play a bigger role with the US primarily in support (plus a few Delta teams)?

Re:One way to look at it

[SplashMyBandit]

Thanks for asking. I don't believe the Europeans have the strength nor will to sort this out (the Eurozone has bigger problems at the moment, plus the Europeans will always defer problems until they are completely unavoidable - no "a stitch in time saves nine" for pre-emptive action for them). The Arabs have the will but are paper tigers, they have always been soundly beaten by the Persians. They are useful for political cover only. That only leaves the US as the sole agent with the will and capability to permanently solve the problem. It is good the US is giving the Iranians time to try and become a responsible global citizen. The reality is that the Iranian leadership does not want this. The Iranians are biding their time until they have their nuclear arsenal. Then they will feel they are untouchable and will spread trouble throughout the region (at the moment they do it, but are still constrained by the fear of retaliation). The time is running out for the opportunity to dismantle the Iranian threat, and it is a real threat if you have been following what they have been doing. A few Delta teams will not cut it. The Iranian people hate their government, but dislike the US even more (no-one likes foreign occupation). However, if push came to shove and the US intervened then I think the Iranians would eventually see the US as a force for good - just as it took several years for the Iraqis to work this out, but eventually they did. The recent withdrawal of the US from Iraq also helps US credibility enormously in this area. While you and I would have taken this as a given, many in the Middle East have been raised on a steady diet of bizarre propaganda, which means they have what we would consider unreasonable resistance to things that are for their own good (and why they do what we consider crazy stuff - but is is because their governments regularly spread lies about the West and Israel). So, if the US doesn't do something soon I expect the world to get a lot worse, with the threat of a rogue nuke turning up *anywhere* on the planet.

Re:One way to look at it

[stoolpigeon]

"In theory, we might have learned something from Millennium Challenge. I suspect that we didn't learn a damn thing, but the Iranians did."

This is completely wrong. The US Navy has an incredible history of learning and adapting from failure. It's the reason they excel at so many activities that no one else in the world can do to the same level, or often not at all. See the Top Gun school as a great example of USN leadership looking at a weak area and compensating.

When I was a lowly enlisted sailor, I made recommendations for changes in equipment and procedures via the Navy's maintenance improvement program. I did some time in the reserves following my activity duty. I was pleased to see that a number of years later when I was doing some training on another ship of the same class that many of those suggestions had been put into place. It may not have been from my work center's suggestion specifically - others probably saw the same issues and suggested those changes as well.

The point is though, the Navy is very accustomed to continually taking criticism and suggestions and feeding those into actual steps that lead to improvements. To assume that entire levels of leadership just got angry and ignored the outcome of an exercise because it didn't match their predefined view requires ignoring history, reality and clinging to a misconception that you have about USN leadership.

Already done, and the US lost

[adamchou]

Malcolm Gladwell touches about a similar situation in his book Blink. He talks about the largest ever war exercise called the Millennium Challenge. In short, the US hired a badass ex-Marine named Paul Van Riper to command the OPFOR. This guy wrecked havoc on the US Navy by using speed boats and cruise missiles. It was so bad, the US had to stop the exercise, refloat their boats, changed the rules of engagement, then did the exercise ever again. Of course, the blue force won the second time and they claimed a huge success.

Re:Already done, and the US lost

[bazbt3]

Signed up just to say thanks for the above common sense post. It and the links make for very informative if uncomfortable reading. My apologies for wasting your time with this.

Re:Already done, and the US lost

[oakgrove]

Does the Iranian military have a Paul Van Riper?

Re:Already done, and the US lost

[Nemyst]

So what you're saying is that the US shouldn't use boats?

When the rules are stacked against you, change the rules.

Re:Already done, and the US lost

[shutdown -p now]

There's only one way to find out.

Re:Already done, and the US lost

[bazbt3]

The element of surprise would work very nicely as a substitute for one (seemingly very talented) man.

Re:Already done, and the US lost

[bazbt3]

I'd like to see where this goes. The Wikipedia 'Millennium Challenge' article refers to an armada of small boats which now-9-year-old tech couldn't defeat. How could a similar attack be defeated by technology now at the USA's disposal? My strategic choice: Forget IFF (or whatever's supplanted it,) why not try a competing armada? Painted, let's say, blue.

Re:Already done, and the US lost

[artor3]

That was ten years ago. What makes you so sure that the Navy didn't update their tactics in the interim? Sure, they sort of cheated to win the war game, but that's just for PR. Afterwards, I have no doubt they put a lot of thought into how to do better next time, and you can scarcely expect them to make their new strategies public.

Re:Already done, and the US lost

[Anonymous Coward]

No, he wreaked havoc.

Know your words and love them.

Re:Already done, and the US lost

[khallow]

Because the US navy still relies on large aircraft carriers. The counter isn't different tactics, but different weapons.

Re:Already done, and the US lost

[gary_7vn]

Yeah, today they have upgraded to the Mark 12 "Magic Pony". What makes you think that they did, other than wishful thinking, I mean?

Re:Already done, and the US lost

[Isaac-Lew]

A bit of pedantism - there's no such thing as an ex-Marine. They are "retired" or "former" Marines, never ex.

Re:Already done, and the US lost

[hexadecimate]

The real question is, has Blink been translated into Persian? If so, I'm afraid we're sunk!

Re:Already done, and the US lost

[Anonymous Coward]

It was a computer simulation.

It reminds me of that time I beat a large terran army with a bunch of zerg banelings! Yes, that proves that the US cannot win a war against Iran!

The computer simulation proves it!

Re:Already done, and the US lost

[AlienIntelligence]

Signed up just to say thanks for the above common sense post. It and the links make for very informative if uncomfortable reading. My apologies for wasting your time with this.

Oh wow, you openly announced your newness?

You must be new here.

-AI

Re:Already done, and the US lost

[AlienIntelligence]

Malcolm Gladwell touches about a similar situation in his book Blink. He talks about the largest ever war exercise called the Millennium Challenge.

Thanks from the read... but don't you think they learned and adapted
in the past decade?

-AI

Re:Already done, and the US lost

[HornWumpus]

Aircraft carriers are standoff weapons.

You still rely on them, but move them back 100 miles.

You attack during high seas when the small craft can't operate.

You add a good number of attack helicopters to each carrier battle group.

The counter is definitely different tactics.

Re:Already done, and the US lost

[JimCanuck]

Just that one?

In 1981 a Canadian diesel submarine managed to sink the USS America (a American aircraft carrier), and another one sunk the U.S.S. Forrestal also a aircraft carrier in NATO's Ocean Venture exercise.

In 1989 The Royal Netherlands Navy in NATO's Northern Star exercise was also credited with sinking another American aircraft carrier using a submarine.

In 1996 during RIMPAC 1996, Chile managed to sink the American aircraft carrier the U.S.S. Independence.

In 1999 again the RN Navy sunk the USS Theodore Roosevelt in JTFEX/TMDI99, as well a Swedish submarine is credited with the sinking of the USS Ronald Reagan in the same exercise.

In 2000 a couple of Russian fighters decided to test the response time of the USS Kitty Hawk, got the the carrier without being detected and managed to do a few fly overs before the Americans decided to do anything about it. Gen. Anatoly M. Kornukov, the Russian air force's commander in chief. ‘In the pictures, you can clearly see the panic on deck.’

In 2002 Australian Navy submarine H.M.A.S. Sheehan, took on and defeated the U.S.S. Olympia in another war game.

In 2003, the Australians in another exercise also got credit for sinking another American aircraft carrier, and they successfully took on 2 Los Angeles class nuclear attack submarines in the exercise as well.

And well the US Air Force did well against Iraq, regretfully, most of the Western world has time and time again made a mockery of the American Air Force, just as the mockery of the American's battle fleets.

For the sake of the rest of the world, I hope the American's can learn something from their past before they end up fighting a enemy who wants to fight.

Re:Already done, and the US lost

[bazbt3]

Signed up just to say thanks for the above common sense post. It and the links make for very informative if uncomfortable reading. My apologies for wasting your time with this.

Oh wow, you openly announced your newness?

You must be new here.

-AI

I *am* new here. Well spotted. I've lurked on enough like forums long enough to know not to engage in pointless off-topic, er ... ah. Thanks.

Re:Already done, and the US lost

[mbkennel]

"How could a similar attack be defeated by technology now at the USA's disposal?"

Attack helicopters and F-15E's and F-16's and F18's being targeted by real-time surveillance drones.

Re:Already done, and the US lost

[khallow]

You still rely on them, but move them back 100 miles.

Persian Gulf is at best 200 miles wide. The original war game was lost precisely because the carriers couldn't stand off. Iran is particularly tough because it runs along the entire eastern side of the Gulf.

You attack during high seas when the small craft can't operate.

Conversely, the small craft that can operate in high seas will be well protected from most of the carrier's defenses including those attack helicopters.

You add a good number of attack helicopters to each carrier battle group.

The small craft doesn't need to survive an encounter with an attack helicopter, it just needs to damage a carrier. In addition, they can put a few anti-air missiles or RPGs on the boat and provide anti-air support from the shore.

Also, it's worth noting that small boats are pretty darn cheap, about the cost of a good anti-ship or anti-air missile. While Iran is currently boasting of having a force of a couple hundred boats, they could easily scale that up to several thousand without serious drain on their military budget.

Re:Already done, and the US lost

[bazbt3]

"How could a similar attack be defeated by technology now at the USA's disposal?"

Attack helicopters and F-15E's and F-16's and F18's being targeted by real-time surveillance drones.

Fair enough. I know when I'm beaten.

Re:Already done, and the US lost

[adamchou]

I don't believe so. If they were interested in learning and adapting, they would have reran the exercise with the same parameters to see how they can defeat the opfor.

Re:Already done, and the US lost

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a reason they are called "war games."

Re:Already done, and the US lost

[jon3k]

Because the US navy still relies on large aircraft carriers

That's correct. Along with cruisers, destroyers, frigates, submarines and an assortment of aircraft. Do you think we just float 1 aircraft carrier 300 yards off the coast of Iran?

Re:Already done, and the US lost

[jon3k]

Really? Even if they kick you out?

Re:Already done, and the US lost

[jon3k]

Sounds interesting, can you please post your sources?

Re:Already done, and the US lost

[Anonymous Coward]

Any way we could get some citations on those? And perhaps some context?

Re:Already done, and the US lost

[Rich0]

The official story was that they didn't cheat for PR, but to give the troops more practice. It does make sense - if you plan an 8 hour RPG session with your friends and for whatever reason your party gets wiped out in 15 minutes, chances are you'll start over so that you can have another 7.5 hours of RPG fun rather than just talking about how lousy a day it was.

Hopefully the people in charge learned their lessons, but there was no harm after spending millions of dollars to set up an exercise to go ahead and let the troops have an exercise instead of all sailing home early because they're "dead."

Re:Already done, and the US lost

[MarcQuadra]

I have a friend who works at a facility that runs those very exercises. You make it sound like that was the end of the story. In reality, we re-ran the exercises again because you don't just walk away from expensive simulations like that; after a loss, you create a team to re-tool for a few years in the future that prevents that kind of loss again.

Today, that same strategy wouldn't work. We upgraded the anti-boat and anti-missile technologies. We have been running simulations against massive numbers of speedboats for a decade now, successfully.

I'm not saying we wouldn't take losses or that they wouldn't be significant, but I don't think the US Military would stand by and allow us to fall into utter complacency, there are a LOT of checks and balances preventing that. 'Safety' seems to be the one thing our government can do correctly, probably because we've established that it has an unlimited price ceiling.

Re:Already done, and the US lost

[AlienIntelligence]

I don't believe so. If they were interested in learning and adapting, they would have reran the exercise with the same parameters to see how they can defeat the opfor.

I am willing to agree with everyone about how bad it looks
like they stopped the exercise, reset boats and made a
set of parameters that made the blue win.

However... it would have been MUCH MUCH worse to
KEEP AT IT, IN FRONT OF THE WORLD... and lose
a dozen times.

Instead, learn from your VERY OBVIOUS mistake, do
some misdirection, run and hide in the nearest alleyway
and reevaluate your position.

And hopefully, learn, in private, away from the eyes of the world.

-AI

Re:Already done, and the US lost

[Martin Blank]

Much of that was due to the idiot, Rumsfeld. He thought he could overturn millennia of wartime history in weeks and centuries of culture in a few months. He lasted far too long, and is much to blame for Osama getting away and Iraq turning into a quagmire.

The focus has changed in the last few years toward engaging small, unconventional units. It had to. New vehicles, weapons, and training got deployed in a hurry to deal with the rapidly evolving battlefield, and I doubt the Navy was left out of it. Some of that might be just keeping away from the docks until we have a better littoral force built up, and some may be changing how certain weapons are used. Others here have confidence in the CIWS; I don't have so much, but they may know more.

Van Riper seems to have handed the military its ass, and rightly so. I understand why he left early, too. But those lessons can slowly percolate through the military in peace, and I'm sure worked their way through even faster after Iraq went sour.

Re:Already done, and the US lost

[qwerty shrdlu]

I _really_ want to see the scenario that sent a modern submarine after the USS Olympia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Olympia_(C-6)

Re:Already done, and the US lost

[SplashMyBandit]

Sensationalist history. Don't you realise that such things make it out to the public as a way of scaring money for the Department of Navy out of the US Congress (so that the money doesn't fall into the budgetary maw of the Navy's true enemy, the USAF). A similar shock revelation was made about the F-22 in an unrealistic scenario (6 F-22 took on 72 Chinese Su-27 after flying from Alaska; killed 20, lost no F-22 but the scare 'loss' was that the F-22's tanker was hit so the F-22s wouldn't make it to Anderson on Guam). The brilliant thing about the wargame scenario you heard is that the USN learned from it (it is now an 'old' story) and has been putting light weaponry all over their vessels and drilling crews to counter such an event. I remember reading that wargaming was done extensively by the USN before WWII and those wargames prepared the navy quite well. There was nothing that happened in WWII that surprised the USN except for kamikaze attacks (which were basically ineffective in a strategic sense). So, please read past the sensationalist reports and dig deeper.

Re:Already done, and the US lost

[adamchou]

perhaps he was talking about this one... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Olympia_(SSN-717)

Re:Already done, and the US lost

[Anonymous Coward]

And well the US Air Force did well against Iraq, regretfully, most of the Western world has time and time again made a mockery of the American Air Force, just as the mockery of the American's battle fleets.

For the sake of the rest of the world, I hope the American's can learn something from their past before they end up fighting a enemy who wants to fight.

I suppose taking pride in winning scrimmages is what people do in countries that don't take the lead in fighting hot wars.

Re:Already done, and the US lost

[dbIII]

There was nothing that happened in WWII that surprised the USN except for kamikaze attacks

I'm just guessing here, but it's possible that the guys that designed the armoured flight decks thought about it and thus rendered the tactic almost completely ineffective.

Re:Already done, and the US lost

[Anonymous Coward]

If your claims are true then why does http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_America_%28CV-66%29 not mention the Canadian sinking of this vessel in the year you mentioned?

Re:Already done, and the US lost

[Anonymous Coward]

Many citations needed.

The American Naval/Air force is the best in the world period. (I am Canadian). Are there some better pilots in other air forces, or well trained seaman outside of the US, of course.

Yes, Canada and other Allies sometimes win top gun, but they dont dominate the Americans all the time everytime.

Re:Already done, and the US lost

[SplashMyBandit]

Actually, there are a lot of reasons. Having just been on the USS Missouri at Pearl Harbor three weeks ago and looked at the dents from kamikazi I can see that luck had a factor, in addition to a huge amount of AAA (making both kamikazi and regular attacks, well, suicidal :) ). I don't think the US carrier armored decks were designed to stop kamikaze (since they weren't thought about at design time pre-war), but were intended to limit shell damage and self-damage from aircraft mishaps.

Re:Already done, and the US lost

[JimCanuck]

Since you asked, nevermind the fact it was actually printed in newspapers here in Canada back in 1981 when it happened.

Is the US Navy Overrated?, 2005

Professor Roger Thompson,

Professor of Military Studies, Knightsbridge University,

Re:Already done, and the US lost

[Starmac]

For the sake of the rest of the world, I hope the American's can learn something from their past before they end up fighting a enemy who wants to fight.

Have you ever read the ROE for an "exercise"? Or understood the way "PK" is computed? A successful "solution" is credited as a kill. Countermeasures aren't considered effective. A radar or IR lock on an aircraft is considered a kill, even with missiles known for their lack of success. (i.e. the early "Sparrow") Weapons with very high PK are derated - i.e. the AIM-54C, the AIM-9. Aircraft aren't loaded out with full weapons - no one would have gotten anywhere near a battle group with Aegis destroyers and F14s hauling 4 Phoenix, 2 Sparrow, and 2 Sidewinders. AWACS and full tanker support aren't always included. The main point: it is an exercise to spot weaknesses, and practice co-ordination with friendly forces. You should sit in on a ready room prior to the event. Engagements don't go as well as exercises for many reasons: it just isn't real - and - what good would it do if we consistently crushed our allies? They'd leave every military problem to the US (You do it, why should we risk it, you're so damn good at it") and eye us with nervous contempt - what stops the US from turning on them? For discussions' sake, how do you think Americans would react if Iran actually managed to sink a carrier? As nasty as it seems, I believe the gloves would come off before the evening news reported the sinking. What would the response be? Overwhelming destruction of Iran's military, their nuclear facilities, and ability to affect world events. Would the US use weapons of mass destruction? No one's saying out loud, but after 30+ years of sh*t from the Iranian gov't., I expect most Americans would support the use of nukes - tactical OR strategic. If you whack a dozing giant with a 2X4, expect to get ground into dust.

Re:Already done, and the US lost

[JimCanuck]

Aircraft aren't loaded out with full weapons - no one would have gotten anywhere near a battle group with Aegis destroyers and F14s hauling 4 Phoenix, 2 Sparrow, and 2 Sidewinders.

Are you listening to yourself? The F14 has been out of service for a while, since July 2006 in fact.

The irony is, the only country in the world to still operate the F14 is the Iranians.

wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

The sequence mentioned in the opening summary is wrong.

Iran announced their intention to block the strait if attacked. Then they announced a 10 day wargame in the straight. Then the US warship moved closer to the vicinity.

Who wants to go to war with Iran?

[Walter White]

Do the Iranians realize that there are those in the US who think a war with Iran would be a good thing? Is it wise for the Iranians to give them an excuse to proceed?

Only one of the candidates hoping to run against Obama is happy that we're pulling out of Iraq. (And considering the size if the Iraqi embassy and the size of the staff there, "pulling out" is really a euphemism for withdrawing to the embassy.)

Re:Who wants to go to war with Iran?

[trout007]

Well it's the same as we pulled out of Germany (and left behind 40,000 troops), and Japan (Left behind 30,000 troops), and Korea (Left behind 30,000 troops). That's how we withdraw baby.

Re:Who wants to go to war with Iran?

[LastGunslinger]

Yes, and look at the failure of nation-building the US did there. Oh, wait.

Re:Who wants to go to war with Iran?

[quacking duck]

In the case of Germany and Japan, the Americans and allies were dealing with nationalist sentiment, plus none of Germany/Japan's neighbours were sympathetic to their occupation after the atrocities inflicted by them.

(South) Korea is entirely different, the two Koreas are still technically at war.

With Iran (and Iraq and Afghanistan), you're not dealing with just nationalist elements, you're dealing with religious fundamentalists (sometimes foreign-controlled with local elements) who know how to play up the stir up victim mentality in the local populations and turn many toward their holy war against the Great Satan.

Re:Who wants to go to war with Iran?

[gary_7vn]

Yeah, you did it all by yourselves!

In other news

[Anonymous Coward]

USA bad.
$my_country good.

Re:In other news

[AlienIntelligence]

USA bad.
$my_country good.

No,

$your_country bad,
$my_country good.

Oh yeah... NOW I get it! /s

-AI

Iran Encounter Grimly Echoes ’02 War Game

[taxman_10m]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/12/washington/12navy.html

In the days since the encounter with five Iranian patrol boats in the Strait of Hormuz, American officers have acknowledged that they have been studying anew the lessons from a startling simulation conducted in August 2002. In that war game, the Blue Team navy, representing the United States, lost 16 major warships — an aircraft carrier, cruisers and amphibious vessels — when they were sunk to the bottom of the Persian Gulf in an attack that included swarming tactics by enemy speedboats.

“The sheer numbers involved overloaded their ability, both mentally and electronically, to handle the attack,” said Lt. Gen. Paul K. Van Riper, a retired Marine Corps officer who served in the war game as commander of a Red Team force representing an unnamed Persian Gulf military. “The whole thing was over in 5, maybe 10 minutes.”

Re:Iran Encounter Grimly Echoes ’02 War Game

[BrynM]

Unfortunately, the US Military didn't listen to him. The first round was over quick, but instead of trying to defeat the scenario, the Millennium Challenge (as the wargame was known) was reset and a predetermined plan of attack was ordered. Gen. Van Riper resigned in disgust.

After the reset, both sides were ordered to follow predetermined plans of action, leading to allegations that the exercise was scripted and "$250 million was wasted".[3] Due to his concerns about the scripted nature of the new exercise, Van Riper resigned his position in the midst of the war game. Van Riper later expressed concern that the wargame's purpose had shifted to reinforce existing doctrine and notions of infallibility within the U.S. military rather than serve as a learning experience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

Re:Iran Encounter Grimly Echoes ’02 War Game

[BrynM]

I also find it quite interesting that the NYT article you (GP) mention describes the reset thusly:

After the Blue force was sunk, the game was ordered to begin again, with the Blue Team eventually declared the victor.

Interesting way to spin avoiding the issue of such an attack altogether.

Re:Iran Encounter Grimly Echoes ’02 War Game

[ianare]

Well they've had a little under 10 years to change some of their tactics. Especially since

When the Red Team sank much of the Blue navy despite the Blue navy’s firing of guns and missiles, it illustrated a cheap way to beat a very expensive fleet. After the Blue force was sunk, the game was ordered to begin again, with the Blue Team eventually declared the victor.

Re:Iran Encounter Grimly Echoes ’02 War Game

[marcosdumay]

Yeah, if you don't remember the specifics, the blue team won because the boats were prohibited to use the most efficient strategies.

But yeah, 10 years passed, and if you didn't adjust for that problem, it will confirm that US military is run by a bunch of morons.

Re:Iran Encounter Grimly Echoes ’02 War Game

[Anonymous Coward]

Gen. Van Riper retired from the Marine Corp after 41 years. What are you talking about "resigned in disgust"? An unreferenced wikipedia entry? hahahaha A Marine general resigning during a battle.... that's a good one!!!!

Re:Iran Encounter Grimly Echoes ’02 War Game

[khallow]

Van Riper had retired several years before the war games in question. So yes, he could indeed "resign in disgust".

Re:Iran Encounter Grimly Echoes ’02 War Game

[Anonymous Coward]

This shit again.

The purpose of the exercises is not to test out strategic and tactical theories. Yes, they are contrived. They are unimaginative. That's because their purpose is to TRAIN the sailors. This asswipe cost the US taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars just to make a name for himself.

Strategy and tactics is the job of a tiny fraction of the people in the fleet. They can (and do) war game day and night without blowing billions of dollars, using the same systems and process used to determine the "winners" in the exercises. There is no need to deprive thousands of sailors important hands on training in all their roles.

Re:Iran Encounter Grimly Echoes ’02 War Game

[BrynM]

Thank you sir.

Re:Iran Encounter Grimly Echoes ’02 War Game

[Rich0]

I doubt they could have retrained the entire fleet to defeat the scenario in the span of a few days. So, instead they gave them something productive to do, and then went back to the drawing boards to figure out how to handle the situation in the long-term.

What would you recommend? That the fleet just declare it a loss for the blue force after a few hours and send everybody home early, after spending millions of dollars to arrange the event?

Re:Iran Encounter Grimly Echoes ’02 War Game

[SplashMyBandit]

> Unfortunately, the US Military didn't listen to him.
Bullshit! the US Navy has been putting on a lot more light weaponry on it vessels and doing more crew training to use them. The scenario you described was effective because it was unexpected. It is now completely expected, and hence, much less effective a decade later.

I'm going to roll my eyes at this

[NotSoHeavyD3]

I mean when Bush was president didn't we hear the scare story from Seymour Hersh for like 4 years how we're going to war with Iran and we never actually did.(I mean hell, even Jon Stewart mentioned that to his face.) So now when anybody claims we're going to war with them I just roll my eyes.(Since I've heard that one before and it didn't happen.)

Re:I'm going to roll my eyes at this

[Anonymous Coward]

Well then you're an uninformed buffoon. Probably the only reason we didn't go to war with Iran back then was that Iraq was suck a clusterfuck and the military chiefs basically mutinied when asked. Bush was a fucking idiot and would have done it if he had the means.

Re:I'm going to roll my eyes at this

[Anonymous Coward]

Judging from your sig youve been modded troll quite a few times.

no win war

[Anonymous Coward]

you don't get that this war unlike iraq will cost a lot , A LOT MORE lives in American losses as well as its allies in region and it just gives them an excuse to do that regardless of THERE losses....

and great chance it becomes a nuclear war....

Re:no win war

[gatkinso]

I doubt it. US would not use ground troops, simply knock Iran's military back to 1700 from the air.

Re:no win war

[benjamindees]

And you don't get that Americans are fucking crazy retards who include war costs as a plus in their measure of economic prosperity and the economy is doing poorly right now and it's an election year so *welp*

Re:no win war

[Forty Two Tenfold]

regardless of THERE losses

For fuck's sake. LEARN THE FUCKING PRONOUNS!

Re:no win war

[TheGoodNamesWereGone]

You're very brave, posting as AC. You have me so scared.

Re:no win war

[oakgrove]

Bring it

Re:no win war

[CapOblivious2010]

The day America goes Nuclear, is the day EVERY AMERICAN on the PLANET will be attacked. ON SIGHT.

I for one would welcome that and participate in that myself.

Really? You would attack me for something my government (who I didn't even vote for) did?

That's a very sophisticated attitude you've got there.... if only more people were like you (instead of being like us xenophobic war-mongering Americans), the world would be a better place...

Re:no win war

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not, American's who have no idea where even the Middle East IS and why they are there, would attack any Muslim on sight.

Just like American's did to Japaneese people in the WW2, internment. Just like British people did to Irish people, Internment and persecution.

Same thing, just right back at ya and that is when YOU don't like it. When you have to reap what you sew.

Re:no win war

[CapOblivious2010]

I'm an american, and I know where the middle east is. I've seen lots of muslims, and I've never attacked any.

The WW2/Japanese situation was complicated, and while I think what the US did was wrong, I understand that the people doing it thought it was the best way to ensure that the US won the war.

But the point you're missing is that I (me, personally) didn't do ANY of these things! Nor did 99% of other americans! Yet still you'd attack us just because of the area in which we live. Gosh, if only there were a word for pre-judging people based on superficial attributes... oh, yeah - PREJUDICE.

P.S. And what's with the british? I'm not british! I've never persecuted an irishman! Are all americans now guilty of that too by virtue of, what, LANGUAGE? Your "logic" just keeps getting better and better.

Re:no win war

[chrb]

Really? You would attack me for something my government (who I didn't even vote for) did?

Not saying that I agree with this, but that is the logic used by Osama bin Laden to justify attacking US citizens - if you have democracy, then all citizens are responsible for the actions of the government. Similarly, there appear to be many Americans who would be happy to nuke various cities in the Middle East, killing millions of innocent civilians, because of the behaviour of governments which the citizens of these non-democratic states didn't even get the chance to vote for. People are instinctively tribal, and nationalism is an easy mental justification for war, particularly when it is believed that there won't be any personal repercussions. (If we actually let the troops vote on whether they go to war, or if the middle classes were conscripted, then the picture might be quite different).

Re:no win war

[Anonymous Coward]

Interestingly, plenty of Americans were calling for nuclear that a strikes as a retaliation for 9/11.
I've also heard many Americans argue that citizens are responsible for what their leadership is doing (usually in circumstances where the US military is doing the 1 thing it is good at: blowing things up).

I've even heard American politicians utter the same arguments.
So it's no surprise that people throw those arguments back at you.

Only in the case of the US, it is worse. People living under a dictator don't get to choose. YOU (the Americans otoh) chose the people making those decisions for you. In that regard, what they do is on your head.

Re:no win war

[WindBourne]

Wow. your ignorance is just astounding. Majorit of the Americans know where the middle east is. And the fact that we have large populations of muslims here belies your statement. And yes, we DID lock up ppl in WW2, and apologized. We did not do it again. And as far as using a nuke, the only way that will happen is if Iran attacks with a nuke. IFF they do that, then you can expect that we WILL in fact send in a number of nukes into Iran.

Re:no win war

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think what the US did to Japan was wrong you need to read some more history books. The Japanese made Germany look cuddly by comparison, and most don't realize what they did because it happened in a third world country ( china, at the time). The mainstream news papers would print the results of decapitation events by the military in china, or watching Japanese troops carve and eat the buttocks of your wife and daughters before they killed you. Japan was a brutal country that wanted to dominate the world and we saved American lives by dropping the bomb, which came with numerous warnings and attempts to avoid by the US government. I have zero remorse for what America did to Japan.

Re:no win war

[datavirtue]

Get this man some coffee. Stat!

Re:no win war

[ColdWetDog]

God dammit. QUIT CURSING!

Re:no win war

[gary_7vn]

No they don't. And they can't even PRONOUNCE the names of the countries they attack. Hint, it's not fucking EYERACK OR EYERAN. "Young adults in the United States fail to understand the world and their place in it, according to a survey-based report on geographic literacy released today. Take Iraq, for example. Despite nearly constant news coverage since the war there began in 2003, 63 percent of Americans aged 18 to 24 failed to correctly locate the country on a map of the Middle East. Seventy percent could not find Iran or Israel." http://bit.ly/uPqQoX Your ignorance is just astounding.

Re:no win war

[WindBourne]

....

Why not, American's who have no idea where even the Middle East IS

... (the) Majorit(y) of the Americans know where the middle east is

(fixed an error due to dealing with a 5 y.o.)

So, the conversation was about the middle east, and yet, you switch it to specific nations there and use a 5 y.o. survey. Likewise, you hammer up about LOCAL pronunciations of nations. Hell, most ppl around here do not call iran. They call it Persia. But it is whatever YOU want to call it.
Likewise, is it Nippon to you? After all, that is the CORRECT name for that nation and that is what THEY call it. Or do you call it Japan thereby inflicting YOUR idea of what a nation should be called?

The ignorance is your own. When you get our of your parent's basement, then come back here.

Re:no win war

[Anonymous Coward]

No they don't.

That's a survey of children, aged 18-24.

The U.S. produces some of the most advance technology in the world. The only reason we can even debate this is because the U.S. invented the Internet. Remind me again about the great education that women get in Iran.

I'll just leave this here for you to browse: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_american_inventions

Now remind me about Iran's contributions to the world. If Americans are ignorant, I can't even imagine how dumb Iranians must be.

Re:no win war

[CapOblivious2010]

I have no problem with what the US did to Japan - but that's not what I was referring to. I meant what the US did to tens of thousands of US citizens who happened to be of Japanese descent.

Re:no win war

[Warwick Allison]

And 18-24 yo children can't vote, can they Mr Perry?

Re:no win war

[Anonymous Coward]

Excuse me, which post are you replying to?

Re:no win war

[Anonymous Coward]

"Majorit of the Americans know where the middle east is"?
"We did not do it again"?
"the only way that will happen is if Iran attacks with a nuke"?

Wow, your lies are just astounding. I suggest you get off your couch and stop watching Faux News.

Pay UAE or Omar to build a sea level canal.

[trout007]

Take a look at a map. The UAE or Omar could build a sea level canal right through the peninsula . Heck the UAE is pretty good at earth moving. They could use the extra dirt to build even more islands.

Re:Pay UAE or Omar to build a sea level canal.

[plutoXL]

Perhaps you should take a closer look at the map. That area is not flat terrain, it is full of huge mountain ranges.
Digging a canal through that terrain would be almost impossible, and for sure prohibitively expensive.

And BTW, it's Oman, not Omar.

Re:Pay UAE or Omar to build a sea level canal.

[trout007]

Good call. You couldn't do a sea level canal. But...

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Resources/2008/09/09/UAE-eyes-canal-to-bypass-Strait-of-Hormuz/UPI-43471220996795/

Re:Pay UAE or Omar to build a sea level canal.

[CapOblivious2010]

Lots of mountains on the eastern side of the peninsula... might not be so easy...

Re:Pay UAE or Omar to build a sea level canal.

[corbettw]

Why would Omar get involved? Is Iran working with the Barksdales now?

Re:Pay UAE or Omar to build a sea level canal.

[tokul]

Take a look at a map.

Take a look at geographical map and not at political one. The one that shows elevation above sea level. Hint - Al Hajar Mountains.

The USN would just stand off...

[gatkinso]

...and destroy every scrap of military infrastructure in Iran from 1000 miles out. USAF strikes from Diego Garcia.

Then clean the straits of mines.

This would take two weeks maximum.

Let us all hope this doesn't happen.

Re:The USN would just stand off...

[Sollord]

If they manged to sink a carrier by some stroke of luck and Iran seems to think they could it would be far more likely to be flash and broil from 1000miles out...

Is this war really going to happen?

[spamdog]

Is there really going to be a war between the USA and Iran?

I know there's a lot of saber rattling, but both sides seem to be smart enough to have avoided any conflict so far.

What's going to happen in the future? If a big terrorist attack should occur in the USA, will the government try to implicate Iran?

Re:Is this war really going to happen?

[decora]

"I know there's a lot of saber rattling, but both sides seem to be smart enough to have avoided any conflict so far."

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Re:Is this war really going to happen?

[mkro]

You tell me.
December 8: Iran responsible for 1998 U.S. embassy bombings
December 22: Judge: Iran, Taliban, al Qaeda liable for 9/11

I can't tell if they have decided yet, but I wouldn't rule out that this is the preparation of a narrative.

Re:Is this war really going to happen?

[shutdown -p now]

It depends. Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons... yet. Right now is the decision point - either US (and Israel) let them have them, which precludes direct military action in the future; or they go in to ensure that Iran is not ever going to get nukes.

What happens if.....

[Anonymous Coward]

The US runs convoys throught the Straits under "no retaliation" rules of engagement* and one (or more) US warships get blown out of the water?

Given that any tanker losses would just be collateral casualties, I can see the US using this as a "causus belli" because of a serious (many US citizens and those of other nations on the tankers dead) provocative attack. I don't think there would be an appeal to the UN, there'd be a cruise missile attack on command and control sites then a couple of carrier fleets would pop up over the horizon and plaster some important Iranian Navy facilities.

Things will go downhill from then on in. Whats the betting on border incursions with Iraq and Kuwait?

And what if Israel decides to make a strike on Iranian "nuclear" facilities.

The interesting question apart from the above is "Whats going on in Iran that requires the manufacturing of a foreign war to distract the masses?".

* Yeah, ok, as if the US Navy wouldn't have a pop back.

Re:What happens if.....

[HornWumpus]

You realize the shipping lanes are in UAE territorial waters.

Any attack on shipping is an act of war on our ally. Who do you thinks wins when you bring a speedboat to a helicopter fight?

Re:What happens if.....

[AlienIntelligence]

You realize the shipping lanes are in UAE territorial waters.

Any attack on shipping is an act of war on our ally. Who do you thinks wins when you bring a speedboat to a helicopter fight?

Actually, I'd consider that a draw... with sufficient heat dissipation,
a speedboat could avoid most dangerous missile fire and then only
come under rocket fire or machine gun... which would be matched
by an RPG or shoulder fired missile from a speedboat, or 50 cal fire.

Plus, the people in the helicopter have a lot longer ways to fall. If
you're in the boat and things don't look good... grab ur shit and bail.

Worst case scenario, a comrade picks you up and you have to fight
again. Best case, US picks you up and you get treated to 3 squares
until the fight is over. Then you get to decide if you want to go back
or ask to stay in the US. Of course by then, you'll be hooked on the
US TV and have to have your Kardashians, so.., you'll stay.

-AI

Re:What happens if.....

[HornWumpus]

Have you ever ridden in a booking speedboat?

You can't even keep your head from hitting the dash if you are not strapped in. No chance of effectively aiming. Zero.

Which craft do you think is more affected by weather? Again: Have you ever been over 40mph in a boat? How about if the water is other then glass?

Finally: Worst case scenario. Your buddies boat is also sunk when it slows down to pick you up and you all drown or are eaten by sharks.

Re:What happens if.....

[mbkennel]

"Actually, I'd consider that a draw... with sufficient heat dissipation,
a speedboat could avoid most dangerous missile fire and then only
come under rocket fire or machine gun."

Come on. A speedboat on water is an obvious visual and IR target to any modern missile seeker. Attack helicopters are designed to eliminate tanks---contrast on sea is higher than on land. If it's daytime, look for the wake. If they're not moving fast enough to make a wake, they're a target.

If they have MANPADS, then the jets will attack those first. You can even use a bomber with laser-guided ordnance.

Really, air superiority prevents some pretty big barriers to Iran's operations except for submarines.

Re:What happens if.....

[jamstar7]

Of course by then, you'll be hooked on the US TV and have to have your Kardashians, so.., you'll stay.

Isn't that a violation of the Geneva Accords????

Re:What happens if.....

[gottabeme]

Man, you really don't have a clue what you're talking about. An aircraft could wipe out the boat from so far away the boat could hardly see it. What makes you think a cheap speedboat will have passive IR countermeasures? It's a stinking suicide speedboat. And what makes you think IR-guided missiles are the only or even best way to take one out? Ever heard of Hellfire missiles? Or one or two rounds from a 20 or 30 mm gun and it and its drivers are toast. FCSes on helicopters make aiming like a video game. It's like point-and-click-and-kill.

Re:Typical reaction from Eurotrash.

[Anonymous Coward]

u so mad

Re:America is the Axis Of Evil

[spamdog]

You must be part of the Axis of Retarded.

US / Iran and the rest of blowback.

[roman_mir]

Learn something about blowback and US involvement in destroying democracies around the world to install dictators starting all the way back in 1953

Imagine if it were Texas.

Re:US / Iran and the rest of blowback.

[Anonymous Coward]

read All The Shah's Men

Re:US / Iran and the rest of blowback.

[SplashMyBandit]

Selective reading of history - which makes your argument lame. Who cares what the US did in 1953 when they would install anyone who would resist Soviet communism? At the moment their policy is removing dictators and installing (US-friendly) democracies (eg. Iraq, Afghanistan). The governments installed don't have to be clean (asking the Afghans to have clean government is not realpolitk, so lets not be prissy and naiive) they just have to match US interests in key areas.

Re:US / Iran and the rest of blowback.

[roman_mir]

1. What is lame is your argument that destruction of democracy in Iran had anything to do with communism rather than with Anglo Persian Oil Company (now BP) asking governments of UK an US for help with their oil drilling contracts.

2. Destroying a democratic system to install a dictatorial one and expecting no blowback, no consequences is stupid.

3. Who cares about 1953? Well then, who cares about 1979?

lastly: you are an apologist for the obviously corrupt government system.

Re:US / Iran and the rest of blowback.

[SplashMyBandit]

1. Ever heard of the Tudeh? Regardless, nationalisation of oil (a strategic asset that even *you* depend on) was never going to be popular when wresting from incumbent rights holders.

2. Bullshit. The problem became the corruption and repression of the Shah's government. Not directly as a consequence as the Mosaddegh coup. But you are reading history as you wish.

3. Meh. It is of historical interest and affects the present. What matters is the present. In case you haven't noticed, the World (especially the Middle East) can change radically in the course of a single month.

"lastly: you are an apologist for the obviously corrupt government system.". Actually no - the system is bad and needs changing - an a planned and rational way. However, that doesn't mean I accept your recipe for inaction without question - hence I challenged it.

Re:US / Iran and the rest of blowback.

[Anonymous Coward]

Destroying a democratic system to install a dictatorial one and expecting no blowback, no consequences is stupid.

so then why is it that you and your fellow cult members are advocating the installation of a dictatorship in the us to replace the existing democracy, and yet expecting no blowback? look in the mirror much?

Re:Worse comes to worst

[Anonymous Coward]

By all means, enlist immediately. :)

Re:Typical reaction from Eurotrash.

[Forty Two Tenfold]

You should have been getting out more... from your meth lab. The fumes are toxic and now the damage is done.

Gee, Maybe You Should Listen to the Citizens There

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if the US whould have invested 500Billion in a meaninful way in the Region, the world would be better off.....

The "in a meaningful way" part is a bit tricky, wouldn't you agree?

Let me ask you something. Why do you think that Pakistanis blame Americans for the deaths of their civilians by Al-Queda suicide bombers? TTP screws up any attempts to help Pakistanis and they have increased their suicide bombings from one to hundreds of attacks inside Pakistan's borders since Pakistan began accepting USAID. And the Pakistanis blame us for these suicide bombings.

How exactly do you propose "$500 billion in a meaningful way" when that shit happens and the United States takes the blame for it?

Interesting stuff...

[Anonymous Coward]

I read articles like this and often wonder how those who respond with factual claims justify their own authority. I've also grown bored of the constant "I hate the United States" reaction constantly seen on things like this. I'm sorry, but with everything being the way it is, I find it next to impossible to assume that the world would be any better (especially in the Middle East) had the United States stayed out of it. In fact, I think it would be just as bad if not worse.

It would be nice to see the Middle East countries have 1 single day devoid of bombings or human rights atrocities, but unfortunately, this has yet to happen nor do we ever see this kind of mess not spill over into other countries somehow, hence why the United States has intervened so frequently (nobody wants another 911, for example).

I wouldn't be honest with myself if I avoided admitting that the U.S. probably takes advantage of whatever opportunities it gets along the way (i.e. - oil incentives, foreign interests, diplomatic quid pro quos, etc.) but any country in the United States' position during these situations would do the same thing whether they admit it or not. And for whatever it's worth, if this whole big campaign in the Middle East was for nothing but oil, well, I have yet to see any fruit of that labor. Gas prices are still just as high as they ever have been...

All things being equal, that sandy area over there is nothing but a religious cluster fuck full of closed-minded buffoons that do nothing but constantly dig their damn holes deeper and deeper... You can't pin that on the cowboys.

So...

[Anonymous Coward]

...USA cannot afford another war. Really.

Just get out of the fucking region and fix this country, already.

correction.

[decora]

forced labor from Indian immigrants are good at earth moving.

the only thing the Emiraties are good at is whoring out eastern european prostitutes to hedge fund managers in exchange for massive bribes.

Flogging a dead horse much?

[mangu]

Puhleeeze, let go of that fucking Mossadegh!

It was the Cold War, both the US and the USSR conducted thousands of secret operations all over the world. The simple fact that operation Ajax was a viable proposition means Iran wasn't a stable democracy.

Countries like those of Eastern Europe got fucked much harder than Iran, they were invaded militarily and kept in submission for fifty years, yet they are recovering. Why cannot Iran forget Mossadegh? Or, rather, why cannot the childish American leftists forget him?

Re:Flogging a dead horse much?

[deanklear]

Perhaps they're remembering the near three decades of the Shah's rule in Iran, marked by murders, torture, SAVAK secret police -- all supported by the United States and Britain? That ended in 1979. Or maybe they're remembering the war we helped create that killed a million Iraqis and Iranians in the 1980s once the Shah fell from power, and we decided to crown Saddam Hussein as our new friend on the block. That ended around 1988.

But answer this question for me: how many decades would pass before you would forget having your government overthrown, controlled by an outside party, and then being subjected to three decades of a police state followed by an eight year war that wrecked your whole nation? I guess real men can watch their families and society get destroyed and just "get over it."

Re:Flogging a dead horse much?

[Anonymous Coward]

And how does that justifies toppling democratic regimes and replacing them with oppressive ones ? And your argument is that since other people got it harder the iranians must shut the hell up and take it up the ass ? What kind of a moron are you ?

Re:Flogging a dead horse much?

[jhoegl]

to forget ones mistakes is to repeat them

Re:Flogging a dead horse much?

[shutdown -p now]

Countries like those of Eastern Europe got fucked much harder than Iran, they were invaded militarily and kept in submission for fifty years,

By USSR. If your argument boils down to "we were no worse than the Soviets", you should really look for a better one - especially for a country that posits itself as a leader of the free world.

Re:Flogging a dead horse much?

[um... Lucas]

Why can't Jews forget the holocaust? Why will we never forget 9/11? Each impacted someone and vastly changed the tract of their history. Just like over throwing iran's democracy and replacing it with decades of dictatorship did to them. And then when they finally overthrew their tyrant , we unleashed our lapdog on them who showered them with chemical weapons, no less. With our lapdog being none other than saddam.

Do you really not read history? It's all right there in black and white.

Re:Flogging a dead horse much?

[InterestingFella]

Puhleeeze, let go of that fucking Mossadegh!

It was the Cold War, both the US and the USSR conducted thousands of secret operations all over the world. The simple fact that operation Ajax was a viable proposition means Iran wasn't a stable democracy.

Countries like those of Eastern Europe got fucked much harder than Iran, they were invaded militarily and kept in submission for fifty years, yet they are recovering. Why cannot Iran forget Mossadegh? Or, rather, why cannot the childish American leftists forget him?

Seems like your mother never taught you that other persons bad actions does not justify you doing bad things.

Re:Flogging a dead horse much?

[HornWumpus]

Your unspoken assumption is that is _was_ a mistake.

Pawns being butt hurt 60 years later doesn't change the fact their was a cold war on. It was serious as a heart attack. Stalin was a big a threat as Hitler ever was.

Re:Flogging a dead horse much?

[Anonymous Coward]

And having your country trashed *wasn't* as serious as a heart attack? Given our behavior in "domino" states, to your average citizen whose rights (and, often, life) just went down the drain, we were as much of a threat as Stalin.

Sorry, but no. We've demonstrated, repeatedly, that we're willing to fuck everyone over for our own ideological interests. That's probably realistic if we're going to make the world safe for democ^H^H^H^H^Hcommerce, but don't be surprised if the rest of the world isn't willing to believe we've suddenly found our principles.

Re:Flogging a dead horse much?

[tqk]

And then when they finally overthrew their tyrant , we unleashed our lapdog on them who showered them with chemical weapons, no less. With our lapdog being none other than saddam.

I wish some rich US-ian would take what you wrote (the whole post, not just what I quoted) and plaster it on every billboard he could buy in the USA. This is the lesson US-ians should be learning today. Better late than never.

Thanks for saying it.

Re:Flogging a dead horse much?

[Alaska Jack]

Reading this, it's hard to escape the impression that you are just grimly set on interpreting the entire scope of history in a way that simplistically blames the American bogeyman as much as possible.

To do this,you have to ignore all kinds of inconvenient facts -- like the fact that the alternative to the right-wing Shah came not from the democratic left, but from the even FARTHER right: Khomeini and his ilk.

Or this part, which is funny: "The war we helped create." "Helped create?" Huh? Newsflash: Saddam Hussein and the Ayatollahs were perfectly capable of doing this on their own. These were two aggressive, militaristic regimes, each bent on regional supremacy. Oh, but of course, it was the big, bad US that made them fight. Sure, ok.

- aj

Re:Flogging a dead horse much?

[HornWumpus]

Stalin was a threat to the world. We should make no apologies for saving the planet (again).

Re:Flogging a dead horse much?

[mangu]

If you studied a little bit of history you'd know that calling Mossadegh "democratic" is a bit of a stretch. At the risk of invoking Godwin, let me remind you that Hitler was elected as well.

Re:Flogging a dead horse much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we downmod people using the insulting "US-ian", instead of the correct "American"? You don't denigrate other groups by not using the name that they use for themselves, do you?

Re:Flogging a dead horse much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, Eastern Europe went to USSR as a result of several deals between Stalin and Roosevelt. It got real bad for Eastern Europe when Truman took over, reneged on the deals, and began threatening Stalin with nukes in 1945.

Re:Flogging a dead horse much?

[tqk]

Can we downmod people using the insulting "US-ian", instead of the correct "American"? You don't denigrate other groups by not using the name that they use for themselves, do you?

Wow, you find that insulting?!? I just consider it descriptive. I've found that the only people offended by the use of "US-ian" is US-ians who ignore the fact that not all "Americans" are in the USA.

Cf. North America, Central America, South America.

No fucking sympathy for your point of view whatsoever from here, a North American in Canada!

Re:Flogging a dead horse much?

[Toonol]

Seems like your mother never taught you that other persons bad actions does not justify you doing bad things.

Study military history. Sometimes it does. If USSR tossed nuclear/chemical/biological our way, we'd not only be justified in doing the same back, we'd be remiss not to do so overwhelmingly.

Re:Flogging a dead horse much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, good thing you got rid of a tyrannical government that killed and tortured its own people and replaced it with a... fanatically religious tyrannical government that kills and tortures its own people.

Good job!

another scare story

[decora]

"Bush is taking us to war with Iraq". those libs and protestors were always going on and on about this.

Well, we never did. We had a short, brief kinetic contingency operation.

Cheney said we would be greeted as liberators - we were.

Rumsfeld said it wouldn't be a big deal - it wasn't.

John McCain said it wouldn't take very long or cost very much - it didn't.

Re:another scare story

[NotSoHeavyD3]

Flying Spaghetti Monster I should have expected this. You know, you mention Bush and left side of the spectrum lose their minds and miss the point. Ok, so I'll make this VERY VERY clear. The US didn't go to war with Iran when Bush was president. You know, the warmonger who was simultaneously the stupid person possible and the most clever and cunning possible. If it didn't happen then given that why would anybody think it'd happen now given that Obama is now president. I would think that most of us would expect that a war with Iran would actually be less likely given that. (Since last I checked Barry did kind of campaign against sending new ground troops anywhere.)

Re:America is the Axis Of Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.

Deal?!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

In Saudi Arabia we support an oppressive *monarchy* (i.e., NOT a democracy), apparently because we like their oil. Our presence there was a stated motive of Al Qaeda. So it's not so much stealing the oil as it is trying to control the government which gives us a good deal on the oil.

If we're supporting the Saudi's for a "good deal on oil", we are being horribly screwed.

The Saudis base their production on maximizing their revenue - NOT making sure the US is getting a "good deal". Oil too low - they don't make enough. Too high - economies go into the shitter and they don't make enough. Yachts, Jets, Harems, and gold toilets are expensive you know!.

We were there to make sure no other country could control the region and screw us out of our supply of cheap oil - a result of the Cold War and trying to keep another country from doing what we did to the Japanese before WWII which resulted in their Pearl Harbor attack (WWII was about oil, after all). Now, I'm not sure why we're there. What other super power would want to control the area? China? I don't see it - they need a strong World economy to keep their mercantile economy going so that their people keep working and not overthrowing the leadership.

Russia? Pfft. They're doing quite fine with their situation.

My only guess is that the Saudis have accumulated enough political clout of the years that we the US will be their servants for many more years. And add in their "friendliness" towards Israel and Israel's lobbying power, I'm afraid we the people of the US will be drained of money and resources for many more decades for that region.

Re:Deal?!?!

[um... Lucas]

Saudi Arabia doesn't give us a good deal on oil. But what they do do is insure that most of the profits are turned around and invested back in the US, rather than "wasted" on their own people...

...and so it begins...?

[erroneus]

You just never know how these things will unfold. Lots of posturing and a bit of "chicken." Iran, I believe, has more of a Navy than the article is letting on. But as a former US sailor myself, I can say it would not take much doing to coordinate some drones and install some extra CIWZ mounted around their ships and you will have a pretty fair defense against suicide speed boats. They wouldn't be able to get within 1000 yards... (2000 yard range)

I worked in OPS in a carrier group. We had the radar and sonar systems linked as a net to create a very large picture of everything in the area above, below and at sea level with every form of projectile defense capable of using that data to hit any target at any speed with pants-pissing accuracy.

"What about the Cole?" you ask? Well, at the time, people were worried about whether or not it was another green peace boat trying to spray paint on the hull again and they likely had a fire hose ready to spray them off at the time not expecting what really happened. You can bet that mistake will not happen again. The world has been warned that the US will not allow unknown, unannounced small craft anywhere near a US navy military vessel.

What's more, with today's level of target tracking, incidents like the Stark are unimaginable. That's not to say that some US targets won't take damage... they might... mines are still a threat... a minor threat really. The US ships don't have to be close to be deadly and putting mines into international waters? I don't think so. And we don't need to send landing craft in to invade.

Iran would be foolish to play too much chicken with the trigger-happy US military... a fight with the US would just "create more jobs" in the US bringing support for a war pretty quickly.

Re:...and so it begins...?

[codepunk]

The cole incident would not have happened if we where not sucking up to yemen (refueling) that is the only reason it was in port.

Re:...and so it begins...?

[tokul]

They wouldn't be able to get within 1000 yards...

Red received an ultimatum from Blue, essentially a surrender document, demanding a response within 24 hours. Thus warned of Blue's approach, Red used a fleet of small boats to determine the position of Blue's fleet by the second day of the exercise. In a preemptive strike, Red launched a massive salvo of cruise missiles that overwhelmed the Blue forces' electronic sensors and destroyed sixteen warships. This included one aircraft carrier, ten cruisers and five of six amphibious ships. ... Soon after the cruise missile offensive, another significant portion of Blue's navy was "sunk" by an armada of small Red boats, which carried out both conventional and suicide attacks that capitalized on Blue's inability to detect them as well as expected.

Link to Millennium Challenge 2002 is already in discussions on this article. Highlighting part is mine.

Re:...and so it begins...?

[binarylarry]

It was a computer simulation you dumb fuck.

Re:...and so it begins...?

[AlienIntelligence]

capitalized on Blue's inability to detect them as well as expected.

Link to Millennium Challenge 2002 is already in discussions on this article. Highlighting part is mine.

Yeah, I read about that on my iPad... no wait, I mean my iPhone, oh? no...?
Hmmm, I guess I didn't since they weren't around then.

Wait! You mean... we have progressed technologically in the past 10 years?

-AI

Re:...and so it begins...?

[couchslug]

The Cole was deliberately risked because it was allowed into harbor. The only places US vessels should visit are military bases and US ports.

Underway replenishment means the US can and should stay at sea in enemy regions.

Re:...and so it begins...?

[Martin Blank]

They have a few Kilo-class subs, a few effectively midget-subs, eight capital ships, and anywhere from a couple of hundred to several hundred corvette- or smaller class vessels. The tiny patrol boats in TFS are a potential problem, but I suspect that our subs would have a few notches within a couple of days and the F/A-18s from the carriers would have a lot of surface kills to their credit. Then the US surface ships show up and take out the rest--if they don't succumb to the swarms.

Re:...and so it begins...?

[dbIII]

and putting mines into international waters? I don't think so.

Weren't the ones in 1988 that holed the USS Samuel B. Roberts in international waters?

Re:...and so it begins...?

[Anonymous Coward]

The USS Stark didn't have its defense system turned on. I don't know why. Gross incompetence?

The Cole was not expecting a suicide attack by small boat (lack of imagination). Ships are now better-protected in port.

Re:...and so it begins...?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm. These systems are impressive, but honestly, the smaller the projectile (and more numerous) the harder it is for them to manage. I see them as being developed to primarily defend against larger "one-shot-ship-killer" munitions than small- to mid-sized munitions that would take multiple strikes to do major damage to a ship.

Also, if I was Iran, I would be planning on overwhelming the ships' defenses. Spray IR and RF and shoot a lot of dummy missiles at the ships, screwing with their target acquisition and making them play Guess Who with high explosives.

Or are you going to tell me that these systems still function just fine when the enemy is actively attacking their vulnerabilities? I would have trouble believing that they can handle projectiles from multiple angles as well as they would from a single direction; the simple need to acquire, pivot, fire, verify destruction and so on ends up creating unacceptable lag when you're dealing with a wide angle of attack instead of a narrow one.

Re:Worse comes to worst

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, please send me pictures when they kick your butt. I don't like the U.S., but in this case I support them

Obama is making a mistake

[Anonymous Coward]

He should not be uttering a single threat. Just move 1 or 2 new aircraft carriers and Ticonderoga's over there. Likewise, we should be building a set of pipelines through UAE. Finally, we should invest faster into electric and natural gas cars in the west.

Re: blowback

[Safety Cap]

Imagine if it were Texas.

I really liked that video until I got to the end and realized it was an ad for Insane Clown Posse's developmentally-challenged racist cousin.

Yes, if the US were occupied by a foreign army, you better believe I'd be fighting them in any way possible. Roadside bombs are highly effective, as are boobie-trapped home entrances.

I just hope I don't have to use whatever skills the Army gave me against American troops, even though Capos are just as bad—if not worse—than the "blackshirts" they take their orders from.

Oh, No! Everyone Hates Us! What Ever Shall We Do??

[RobotRunAmok]

It's funny when the nerds and geeks chastise the US for not being popular enough.

So, where is the other perspective in all this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does it really matter about only the oil or is there a 2nd reasons behind it too? So, where is the uncanny perspective in all this? It is not all Bad Boy US. There are two reasons why the US have not started an attack sooner. 1st. The landscape does not equal Iraq, at all. Iraq was a tank drivers dream. 1000 of kilometers of hard sand. Iran on the other hand is full of high mountains, deep valleys and deep rivers. You cannot equal them. In my world Afghanistan was the preparatory warm-up; and with those troops soon freed up... 2nd. There are far too many white Christians in the US, who are willing to listen to the whiners, Wieners, and the Weiners. Who will be the beneficiary here, except those in the US who gets the contracts to rebuild the rubble? Well, call me a cynic. Some do believe in a higher might than the US Army, and they abuse that excellent army for motherfucking shit and piss arguments.

Really?

[it5complicated]

The US's been preparing for this kind of war? Van Riper says it bosh. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/aug/21/usa.julianborger

Hormuz not necessary

[stomv]

It's the cheapest route, but it really isn't as necessary as Iran would have you believe. There's enough surplus pipeline capacity through Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, Turkey, even Israel to offset about half of the closure [although admittedly not all of that capacity is ready to go immediately, as some of it has been mothballed]. That means world oil supply is reduced by 10% in the near term. A supply shock? Sure. However, the combination of fuel switching for electricity generation and oil already being stored elsewhere, plus the potential increase in production elsewhere (OPEC and otherwise) to grab extra profits suggests this isn't going to be terribly disruptive, and certainly not something worth going to war over.

In the mean time, it's worth noting that a sudden increase in petrol-energy-efficiency could shave off that last 10% in just a few years. Help avoid war: ride a bicycle | ride a bus | ride a subway | walk | telecommute | carpool.

Re:Hormuz not necessary

[Anonymous Coward]

First off, I think an instantaneous loss of 10% of world oil exports might be worth going to war over... Secondly, that has little to do with why the US would fight Iran - Iran would, by definition, be forced to attack the UAE (a US Ally) to seal off the strait.

Re:Hormuz not necessary

[SplashMyBandit]

> In the mean time, it's worth noting that a sudden increase in petrol-energy-efficiency could shave off that last 10% in just a few years. Help avoid war: ride a bicycle | ride a bus | ride a subway | walk | telecommute | carpool.

Excellent point! too bad most people around the world are just too damned lazy to even think properly, let alone move their carcasses about. They'd much rather have a remote war they can drink beer and eat popcorn too than actually expend effort themselves - all the while tut-tutting the 'aggression' of the US as it seeks to restore Freedom of Navigation.

Disclaimer: not from the US, so don't ever accuse me of that!

Re:Hormuz not necessary

[giorgist]

You conflict, wouldn't you help avoid war if you waste as much petrol as possible ?
If I stop using petrol, I will create make Iran's oil redundant and hence make the war more likely.

Re:Hormuz not necessary

[Ramin_HAL9001]

THIS IS THE BEST COMMENT HERE

The Iranian economy is hurting way more than the US economy is right now. If they cut off oil supply at the strait, they will loose all of that revenue from not just the US, but the rest of the world. The US could handle a slight increase in oil prices, and we can just sit and wait for the toll to be taken on the Iranian economy. They will definitely flinch before we do.

Furthermore, it will be doing a favor to all the other OPEC nations, especially Iran's long-time rival, Saudi Arabia. If the religious-conservative Iranian government were stupid enough to cut-off their oil exports, this will only increase oil prices and increase demand for Saudi oil. I doubt the fundy-idiots in power in Iran could handle such a massive blow to their pride.

The best move for the US is so obvious: don't do a damn thing about it, just ignore them. This problem will solve itself.

Re:Hormuz not necessary

[Anonymous Coward]

If Hormuz was closed, there is no way Kuwait, Bahrein, Emirates & Qatar could get their oil out to the Arabian Sea & beyond. For Saudi Arabia, it would probably take some work re-routing their pipelines to the Arabian Sea. But these other 4 countries would now have to run pipelines through Saudi Arabia to Oman, or to the Red Sea, and let it off from there.

At the moment, the alternatives you mention are unworkable. Iraq, Syria & Lebanon are all client states of Iran, while Jordan is essentially landlocked - not much one can do out of Aqaba. Piping oil to Israel is a political non-starter for any Arab country, but particularly one like Saudi Arabia, since it would violate the Arab League boycott of Israel. So essentially, Saudi Arabia is key to any alternate supply routes.

But Iran's trump card is the Shia populations in some of these Arab countries - Shias are I believe a majority in Saudi Arabia's eastern al Hasa province, which is their oil province, as well as a majority in Bahrein & Yemen. Plus the bulk of foreign investment in the Emirates is Iranian, so that country is a de facto Iranian economic colony. If Iran can cause an uprising in Saudi Arabia similar to the one in Libya, they've effectively won, since Saudi Arabia's supply would be out of circulation. Right now, Bahrein is calm due to the presense of Saudi troops, but those troops can't be available if they are needed back home. As for the strait of Hormuz, it is something Iran can block, but then, if they do, the US can block Iran's marintime oil ships from their ports as well - all they have to do is blocade all ships out of ports east of Hormuz, while keeping the navy opposite the Iranian blocade ships.

As far as the energy alternatives go, time to first minimize oil consumption for all but transportational needs, and then look into alternatives such as Thorium powered as well as solar powered cars. If done successfully so that the demand for oil is over, the Middle East will cease to be of any more 'strategic' importance to the global economy than, say, Burundi, and we can leave them to their executing raped women for adultery, and all the other similar blessed gifts from Islam.

Re:Typical reaction from Eurotrash.

[Anonymous Coward]

They mod you down in silent frustrated rage but they know what you say is true.

Pipeline

[arthurpaliden]

Just build a pipeline that avoids the choke point. I hear there is lots of brand new pipe not going to be used for the Keystone project that could easily be shipped the mid-east and used to build a new lines to ports on the Arabian Sea..

Re:Pipeline

[budgenator]

They'll just lay the pipe toward the pacific and sell the oil-sand oil to China.

Re: blowback

[roman_mir]

I really liked that video until I got to the end and realized it was an ad for Insane Clown Posse's developmentally-challenged racist cousin.

- I don't know who you are talking about.

However if your bigoted statement is about Ron Paul , then you are a real ignoramus.

More than ever...

[Tasha26]

We should put more money into renewable sources of energy and building efficient electric cars! Do we really want another Iraq? i.e. the US govt flies planes into its own buildings to have an excuse to figth 'terror' in the middle-eastern (oil rich) countries.

Gulf war III

[Anonymous Coward]

Americans keep thinking they're the king of the world when it comes to military, yet, they get involved with conflicts that they never really win.

The last war the US actually "won" was WWII Japan, but after that it's been nothing but stalemates and messes left behind.
Korean war - This war hasn't ended yet.
Vietnam war - Lost the war
Gulf War I(Kuwait) - See Gulf War II, technically won, but only pushed back to status quo (see Korean war)
Afganistan - Still ongoing. The place is a mess, Got Osama, pissed off Pakistan
Gulf War II (Iraq) - Got Saddam, then left the place a mess. Was not a UN Sanctioned war, so by all accounts this was seen by the rest of the world as the US being imperialistic.

Basically, the world is in a holding pattern waiting for Iran to shoot first (see Gulf war I) for it to be a legal war.

Yes Sanctions do diddly except make the target countries poor starve to death (See Iraq and North Korea), I'm not sure how this could really be fixed except by getting the country to volunteer to throw out it's leaders (see the Arab Spring) This unfortunately doesn't happen if the people can't communicate. Do you really think SOPA is a good idea now?

The end result is that the Arab countries need to basically reinvent themselves in the next 20 years otherwise they're never getting out of the hell they've been supporting.
- Democratic elections
- Separation of Church and State
- And no more state sponsored terrorism. Deal with your disappointment with other countries by expelling the diplomats and taxing their exports to you instead of blowing each other up.

Re:Gulf war III

[HornWumpus]

Forgot the cold war. We clearly won that. The USSR collapsed from internal pressure. Just like the right wingers predicted.

Re:Gulf war III

[Anonymous Coward]

Grenada, baby! We showed them! USA! Fuck yeah!

Re:Gulf war III

[gyakusetsu1215]

If you read just a little bit deeper into these wars you listed, you will realize they were all fought with one hand behind our backs. Politicians and/or the American people did not have the stomach to do what it takes to really win.

Two things.

[orphiuchus]

First: This wouldn't be a war like Afghanistan or Iraq, because the US would most likely only be concerned with destroying the Iranian military and forcing them out of the strait of Hormuz. This would be largely an air war, and the US would likely suffer very few casualties as a result. We could destroy their navy, inflict massive military casualties, and cripple their ability to project force into the strait without more than a few boots on the ground, and most likely this is how it would go.

Second: None of that matters, because Iran does not gain from a war with the US. It would be an absolute disaster for their people and it would likely force their government out of power. The reason that they're doing this is because Ahmadinejad needs a scapegoat in order to keep his popularity up, and calling out the US and Israel at every opportunity is a lot easier than dealing with real issues. Hes been doing it for years, the only reason hes making more noise now is because his popularity is dwindling.

Re:Two things.

[Anonymous Coward]

Iran's "toy" navy would be non-existent is no time at all.
It would be like smashing a bug.

Re:Two things.

[TubeSteak]

This wouldn't be a war like Afghanistan or Iraq, because the US would most likely only be concerned with destroying the Iranian military and forcing them out of the strait of Hormuz. This would be largely an air war, and the US would likely suffer very few casualties as a result.

So the problem with your theory is that Iran actually has some decent air defenses along the Straight of Hormuz.
These air defenses give them enough cover to lay mines in the Straight.
Once those mines are down, Iran has effectively 'won' even if their military is incinerated.
Why? Because it takes a really long fucking time to de-mine the more advanced stuff.

I'm not saying it's a good idea for Iran to do this, but here's the threat:
Months of spiked oil prices, enough to drive Western economies into another recession or tip this recession into a depression.
And short of a regime change, there isn't much anyone can do to prevent this from happening.

Second: None of that matters, because Iran does not gain from a war with the US.

Iran would gain the favor of the Arab world if it was attacked by the USA.
Further, they'd gain regional support for their nuclear program.
The geopolitics of it are tricky, but the only thing Arabs like less than Iran, is Western aggression.

Re:Two things.

[tokul]

US would most likely only be concerned with destroying the Iranian military and forcing them out of the strait of Hormuz

Get some map and find Persian gulf there. Iran controls ~50% of gulf coastline and you are concerned only about one strait.

Re:Two things.

[mbkennel]

"Iran would gain the favor of the Arab world if it was attacked by the USA."

After blockading a few Arab countries' (and Iran's) principal source of income?

Re:Two things.

[Anonymous Coward]

The so called air defenses you mention would be smoldering craters in about 6 hours.

Re:Two things.

[SplashMyBandit]

> So the problem with your theory is that Iran actually has some decent air defenses along the Straight of Hormuz.
No they don't. The Russians have been withholding the S-300 from them, and eventually cancelled. As the attack by Israel on Syria showed, it is easy for modern Western forces to defeat (or in the case of the engagement, to actually control) Russian built air defences. Russian missiles can be dangerous if you are not prepared for them, but if you have planned an attack for them then they are not that hard to defeat (in an aircraft vs SAM engagement the aircraft always "has the initiative" and can engage and extend at will - which always results in the SAM getting downed *unless* the SAM is somehow not known about [which would not be the case in the Gulf]).

Because Bush

[publiclurker]

never put his failed excuse of a war onto the budget, so taxes were not raised for it. I personally think we should add an amendment to the constitution that every military excursion outside of the USA must be paid for with an immediate tax surcharge of all people and businesses, based on gross income. That would definitely clip the wings of most of the chickenhawks out there.

Re:Because Bush

[Stan92057]

Ida like to see all our weapons of war made at cost. And i dont mean they work for free or get free materials. No one should profit from wars of any kind. And bombs that are made to kill shouldn't bring profit to anyone.

Re:Because Bush

[Anonymous Coward]

Its called "income tax", up until WW2 (IIRCC) the only time non property owning citizens had to pay any kind of tax to the Federal Government was during a war. After WW2 the Feds just kept the income tax in place and now everyone thinks Its always been there.
 
I leave it to others more knowledgeable than myself to make corrections and fill in the details. I'm already running late.
 
Happy new year.

Re:Because Bush

[Monkey-Man2000]

Ida like to see all our weapons of war made at cost. And i dont mean they work for free or get free materials. No one should profit from wars of any kind. And bombs that are made to kill shouldn't bring profit to anyone.

But you're talking..wait for it...SOCIALISM! Neocons would go nuts; how would Cheney's Haliburton buddies ever make money off our wars like that? However, I strongly agree with you.

Re:Because Bush

[proverbialcow]

Without profit motive, you get no capital investment. Without capital investment, you get no R&D or factories to produce these weapons. The system you propose would immediately halt technological development, which in the long run, would put us on par with the rest of the world. For the sake of argument, let's say that's fine. Owing to the second law of thermodynamics, the existing manufacturing structure will break, and without capital investment, it won't get repaired or replaced. And without profit motive, there's no reason to continue in business, so production immediately stops. That's not okay. That gives us maybe six weeks' ability to fight wars - even purely defensive ones - at all? Not feasible.

Now - if you leave profit motive alone, but demand that defense contractors do all of their research on spec, assuming all of the risk for a product that may be totally unworkable, hell yes. Let the market work.

Diplomacy will happen

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think the US is going to get their panties in a bunch about Iran. My opinion is that the US will engage with the Arab world more diplomatically to get them to work on their retarded siblings (as is happening in a small way with Syria).

Re:Diplomacy will happen

[WindBourne]

Iran and Arabs hate each other.

Perhaps you should have somone help you

[publiclurker]

read the above posts to you then. Do you actually think that anyone as insignificant as you would ever see the payments made after we "arrange" for a more profitable agreement. those profits go to the corporations that pay the bribes to the politicians. We just get to pay the costs.

Re:Perhaps you should have somone help you

[ScentCone]

Thank you for providing such specific details in your exposé of this practice.

Oh, right, you're making it up. Sorry, didn't mean to confuse your post with reality.

Those large, publicly traded companies about which you're having these feverish fantasies? Their books are subject to intense scrutiny by everyone from the SEC to the State Department when it comes to dealings with foreign governments. Of course you know that, but that doesn't stop you from trolling along with this disingenuous bit of toxic memery. What's it like having no intellectual integrity? Seems painful.

Re:Perhaps you should have somone help you

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank goodness then that you're a significant person, and can provide evidence of these payments to support your wild conspiracy theories.
Oh, wait...

Gee, maybe Europe should clean up its own messes

[khipu]

If you just would leave rest of the alone and not steal resources belonging to other countries then maybe, MAYBE everyone wouldn't hate U.S. so much?

Iran is what it is today because Britain tried to steal its oil. Furthermore, Iran's primary trading partners are China, India, Germany, Russia, Italy, Japan, South Korea. Iran is a mess created by European and primarily of interest to Europeans.

You are, of course, absolutely right that the US should stay out of Iran. Iran is a mess created by Europe, and if Iran goes nuclear, starts a war, or fails to deliver oil, it's primarily a problem for Europe and Asia. The US economy is only affected to the degree that if the European economy goes bust, it's bad for the US as well.

Iran

[Anonymous Coward]

is run by douchebags. We know. And it's not the first time they've tried to close the strait, and certainly not the first time they've used mines. US special forces have and will continue to rout the Iranians as they are not well trained in actual battle and fold in every fight.

Yes they can block it but won't.

[gestalt_n_pepper]

Iran, I suspect, can block the strait, just as it says. Asymmetric power works. Ask the Vietnamese. Ask those upstart American colonists. Ask the Afghans. As another writer pointed out, Iran doesn't have to win, they just have to make the conflict too expensive to sustain. And we can't just nuke Iran. The Chinese and Russians might give us some trouble on that, you see, and they have real power, not bluster. We'd have to cut an expensive deal with them.

No good solution here.

Re:Yes they can block it but won't.

[Anonymous Coward]

And we can't just nuke Iran. The Chinese and Russians might give us some trouble on that, you see, and they have real power, not bluster. We'd have to cut an expensive deal with them.

You've got to be kidding! What's to cut? 20 minutes after launch there wouldn't be anything to deal about - it would be a "done deal". You don't ask permission to nuke a nation - you just do it.

Nuking Iran would be by far the wisest, easiest, cheapest, longest-lasting solution to many of our problems. It would cost only a few million (for the nukes & ICBMs), would literally eliminate Iran as an enemy and would be a huge windfall for our economy. We could march in and take the oil, establishing a dominance that would last at least 500 years (more than long enough to drain all the oil out of that otherwise-worthless sandpit). It would establish a precedent for dealing with North Korea or any other petty-fogging banana republic that gives the U.S. trouble. China and Russia would acquiesce, since they have no choice and also because they also have BSDs (Big Swinging D***s = nukes).

Sure Iranian culture would be incinerated but history does that anyway, we'd be merely speeding the progress. And I haven't noticed a lot of scientific contribution from radical muslim nations in the last 50 years. Most of their good scientists have left Iran.

This is how the Romans would have handled it if they had nukes.

Re:Yes they can block it but won't.

[Anonymous Coward]

.. The Chinese and Russians might give us some trouble on that, you see, and they have real power, not bluster. We'd have to cut an expensive deal with them...

America, China and Russia are already working hand-in-hand. No country would make any significant move without first consulting their partners. One of their common goals is to completely destabilize the Middle East, because of its capacity to feed a mobile military, and therefore influence the outcome of a large-scale war. Plus, the capacity to trade oil using an unsanctioned currency (Euro) undermines the three nation's scope of influence, allows a competing medium for global trade to gain relevance. It is in their common interest to create the Muddle East.
The only thing that will stop this juggernaut would be a new type of cheap energy capable of powering a mobile war machine. Until that happens, oil is supreme and will be dealt with as such.

Re:Yes they can block it but won't.

[Anonymous Coward]

And once that happens the US would be (worst case scenario) put down like a mad dog...20 mins flight time and you're just a memory..or, best case, treated as a Pariah state by the rest of the world and instantly bankrupted. You can enjoy the food riots and looting at home.

You fucking idiot fucks think you can honestly sling nukes around wherever you feel like it ? You need to be slapped down, and hard.

China, Russia, the UK, France et al aren't some backwards Middle Eastern dictatorships, you fuck with them and they'll bury you, fancy carriers or not.

Re:Yes they can block it but won't.

[Anonymous Coward]

But you've forgotten - we have all the money from the rest of the world (they've already loaded it to us), and we buy all of their shit (have you seen our trade deficit?).

Batshit crazy is a legitimate strategy. And the rest of the world would be - at most - as inconvenienced as we are due to the loss of oil. If we proved we were crazy enough to go nuke (again), we'd likely have less problems. None of the 1st world has any desire to get into a nuke or economic tussle with the US - and visa versa (look how weak the US is on China MFN trading status).

We could get away with dropping a few (hundred) megatons on Iran. But we won't. We'd rather spend more money and time and kill the civilians in a more internationally accepted way. Just ask Iraq.

Re:Yes they can block it but won't.

[TFAFalcon]

They don't even have to 'block' it. All they have to do is sink a tanker or two. No company is going to risk such a high value ship if there is a real chance of it getting sunk. And if you think that the US can easily defend them, just look at how well that worked against the Somali pirates. And those guys have to board a ship to achieve their goal.

Re:Yes they can block it but won't.

[jon3k]

Too expensive for whom? If the strait is blocked how does Iran ship their oil to their customers (read: China)?

Re:Yes they can block it but won't.

[gestalt_n_pepper]

That's the "won't" part in the title. Really, "can't" would be a better word. Their economy is totally dependent on oil money. Perhaps they're assuming they can bet their own oil out in some other way.

Re:Yes they can block it but won't.

[jon3k]

You fucking idiot fucks think you can honestly sling nukes around wherever you feel like it ? You need to be slapped down, and hard.

And if they decided to all attack the US, the US would launch thousands of nukes and essentially destroy the planet. Do you really think they would go down without a fight? Don't be stupid.

Re:Yes they can block it but won't.

[Martin Blank]

And the prevailing winds would take the fallout into Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India. Great plan there.

You mention "20 minutes after launch"... of what? ICBMs? Unless it were coordinated with Russia, Russia would potentially launch as well because the ballistic arc would go over Russian territory, and they're not about to let that happen. Maybe an attack by aircraft-dropped bomb would work (but would be a bad idea), but not ICBM.

Re:Yes they can block it but won't.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, Iran can block the strait, since they control some of the entry islands, such as Qeshm, Tunb Islands & Abu Musa, but there ain't any major ports on the Gulf of Oman, so it's not difficult to block Iran as well. And Iran would be out of luck, since they don't have refining capacity for their own usage of oil, and are actually an importer when it comes to refined oil. They had a pipeline deal w/ Pakistan & India, which India later backed out of, since they were more interested in the US supporting their nuclear power projects, so I don't know whether Iran still has their pipeline deal w/ Pakistan still active. That could make Pakistan another transit point for Iranian oil.

In the meantime, Iraq could continue shipping its oil through Turkey & Syria, so they may not be impacted by such a blocade.

NUKE THE MOTHERCUKERS !! NUKE EM NOW !!

[Anonymous Coward]

Then give what's left to Iraq and nuke it the fuck again !!

Those fucking arabs aren't even arabs so no one around there will give a fuck either !!

NUKE EM NOW !!

I'll be at the Holiday Inn in Pokipse the first week of January - tuned to CNNI to watch the NUKES STARY FLYING !!

A Target-Rich Environment

[Analog Guru]

          | The heart of the Iran's arsenal is its 200 small potential-suicide boats ...

Back when I was in the Army, that is what we would have referred to as a target-rich environment. Swarming is possible, but I doubt that the U. S. Navy would allow itself to be blindsided by the Iranians. Considering the threats that have been made, I expect that Iranian ports and sea traffic are under surveillance, and any potential threats are being tracked.

The more significant threat comes from Iran's 23 submarines, but they aren't particularly quiet, and the Navy is petty good at Anti-Submarine Warfare.

Other posters have commented on the ability of the U. S. to retaliate via air power. The Iranian Air Force would not last long going toe-to-toe with the USAF/Navy/Marine air power that could be brought to bear. Iran's naval and nuclear infrastructure would be eradicated. Iran could respond asymmetrically through terrorist attacks, but they would be fighting outside their weight class. And remembering the U. S. response to 9/11, one should expect such attacks to result in an even more devastating blow on Iran.

The Iranians know all this. Why are they some bellicose?

One possibility is that the regime is under enough pressure that it is trying to look powerful for internal reasons. Another possibility is that they are trying to create the world crisis that would lead to the return of the 12th Imam. If it's the first, all is bluster, and we will have no war. If it's something like the second, ouch!

Re:A Target-Rich Environment

[Analog Guru]

Typo

It should read "Why are they so bellicose?"

Re:A Target-Rich Environment

[codepunk]

Iran has old russian diesel subs noisy and easy to target. I assure you the US Navy knows exactly where every single one of them are 24/7. In the event of a conflict those tin cans will be the first to the bottom.

Re:A Target-Rich Environment

[Anonymous Coward]

Iran has old russian diesel subs noisy and easy to target. I assure you the US Navy knows exactly where every single one of them are 24/7. In the event of a conflict those tin cans will be the first to the bottom.

Diesel electric submarines are silent (much more so than a nuclear sub) when operating on batteries. And guess what, the Iranians will put out to sea the Kilos and then go to electric power, cruising at 1-2 knots.
Good luck finding them in an environment as sucky as the persian gulf where sonar performance is bad.
Even modern Italian-German designed Type 212s are deadly. The US has no experience dealing with brown water navies. Big nuclear subs as the 688s aren't going to do much good in shallow waters. And how many Virginia class subs do you have ? The few that you have are already stationed in the south china sea to keep eyes on the chinese. 1 or even 2 viriginia subs aren't going to be able to control the entire persian gulf.
Didn't the chinese sneek up to an american aircarft carrier undetected with a diesel electric sub some years ago ? Diesel eletrics are DEADLY, and thats why the US navy from time to time asks to borrow one from one of its allies to test it.

Re:A Target-Rich Environment

[codepunk]

Of course then again you are totally ignoring the fact that they will be hunted and destroyed from the air. MAD gear, active and passive sono buoys, helo dippers, passive and active installed arrays. Once found the last thing they will hear is a P3 marking on top dropping a half dozen MK 50 torpedoes.

people in glass houses

[Anonymous Coward]

So who helps the Americans when their protests are getting beaten down by thugs in uniforms and undercover spies. Countries in glass houses, honestly. I guess i forgot Libyan protesters are good and american protesters are evil.

Cue the 2012 End of the World Scenario

[lexsird]

It's almost here. 2012 and I feel this year, sans any end of the world scenario playing out, it's going to be one of the most exciting years in recent history. Strap in folks, it's going to be a wild ride.

Isn't one aircraft carrier group the equivalent to any 3rd world country in military power?

Oh well, it's not Iran that concerns me, it's China. Iran and China are classic bed buddies. Didn't China load up Iran on Silkworm missiles that can smoke our jets out of the air? Interesting enough though, China has switched into a Capitalistic mode and both us and them are locked in some grim fandango of economics. Will they back our play or Iran's is the question of the day.

China should, if they were smart, disarm all of their little buddies around them, leaving the US with no excuse to continue it's military spending. Then it all goes to Wal-Mart and then into their pockets, thus defeating the US at Capitalism. Oh the irony!

If we follow this hypothesis, we will not hear China say a peep when we decide to obliterate the Iranian military. Yes, we can do it. People forget how quickly we rolled in on Iraq. We were completely awesome about it. We are like that, we win wars, but lose the peace. The 10 years that followed overshadowed that stunning victory.

What we are looking at here from Iran I think is just more of their ballsy sabre rattling. Their people have discovered they can posture, bluster and sabre rattle thus putting up quite a show for the "rube Westerners." When this happens, we tend to just throw money at them and tell them to shut up. It's the classic "the mouse that roared" situation.

Iran is proving to be a bit retarded though it seems. The American war machine is facing being geared down. The war machine hates this and wants to keep munching on someone's ass. It gets fed well, gets to sleep in a warm bed at night and on the weekends it goes out partying. It really wants Iran to give it an excuse to chew them up into little bitty bits. If Iran doesn't think it's capable, then Iran is smoking some really good weed, and should share it with the rest of the world instead of just its oil.

Can't you imagine them dancing around with each other in glee, like the merry wee people in some film, down at the Pentagon? "Wooohoo!" They all cried in chorus. "The Iranians are going to give us a war!" There is a band with lutes and flutes in the corner, a bag pipe as well. From somewhere a big wooden keg of ale appears, and serving wenches carrying frothing mugs, bustle about. They end it all with a crescendo, singing like a choir "Oh Happy Day."

Then they all run off to their offices to pour over their list of war toys they want to play with. They have had a decade of a big trough of money to buy oodles of war toys, but nobody to play with. Fist fights break out at the water coolers as arguments over who gets to blow up the Iranians with what toy happen.

Hey Iran, posturing around the US during one of their crazy election years is seriously jumping the shark. Hilary will be on the phone soon to tell you what a collective bunch of retards you are, and you are going to have to take it. She's a woman. How do you like dealing with our female Secretary of State? Don't you love having a WOMAN come spell it out for you what you are going to do or else get crushed? Yeah, we did that on purpose. Think about it.

But then again, they might be a bit turned on by it.

Re:Cue the 2012 End of the World Scenario

[domatic]

Iran is proving to be a bit retarded though it seems. The American war machine is facing being geared down. The war machine hates this and wants to keep munching on someone's ass. It gets fed well, gets to sleep in a warm bed at night and on the weekends it goes out partying. It really wants Iran to give it an excuse to chew them up into little bitty bits. If Iran doesn't think it's capable, then Iran is smoking some really good weed, and should share it with the rest of the world instead of just its oil.

They may be at that. Like many Islamic countries, Alcohol is a big no-no. But they aren't nearly as hung up on weed.

http://www.e-stoned.com/rec/89-Cannabis-in-Iran

Still, they don't seem to be big exporters so they are indeed smoking good weed and not sharing it. Inconsiderate bastards.

Re:Cue the 2012 End of the World Scenario

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to be a nit-picker, but the Silkworm is an anti-ship missile.

Re:Cue the 2012 End of the World Scenario

[Anonymous Coward]

The only way the USA will attack Iran before the November election is if they do something stupid first. After the election, all bets are off.

Re:Cue the 2012 End of the World Scenario

[SplashMyBandit]

lol, Silkworms vs aircraft. Silkworms are very old anti-ship missiles. I stopped reading your post there (which might have actually been a good post). Suggest you get some more homework in before posting for people that actually know this stuff.

Re:Cue the 2012 End of the World Scenario

[giorgist]

You sound great, but the US will be considered m ore and more of an ass hole by more and more of the world. You guys where "awesome" at Iraq for killing hundreds of thousands on a lie and we "the rest of the world" did not forget. Please stay in your America or wear a Canadian flag on your backpack when you travel.

we need another world war to save the economy

[Anonymous Coward]

Capitalism is in crisis and we need a big war to get us out of it. Hate to be so honest but that's just how it is. The sooner we get started the sooner we can get it over so let's just do it.

Please...

[Anonymous Coward]

USA (Also NATO, China, Russia, etc) go back home.

Leave the third world in peace.

democracy working as intended

[khipu]

There are many references claiming that this has happened

In the case of Iran, it clearly did: the Iranian government was toppled by the CIA because Great Britain's BP didn't want to lose oil revenue. In the case of Iraq, it probably also contributed. But that's not the whole story.

US and European governments don't engage in those shenanigans just because of corporate cronyism (although that does play a role), but primarily because their economies really do depend on cheap oil. If the oil supply gets threatened and prices skyrocket, the economy will tank and they will get kicked out at the next election. This isn't a "war on democracy", instead it is politicians delivering what voters actually want. It is just that voters also don't want to know about the negative consequences of their choices.

Re:Gee, maybe Europe should clean up its own messe

[Anonymous Coward]

arent you forgeting the cia putting the shah in power?

futility

[Anonymous Coward]

for practical purposes, 'closing the straight' means preventing oil tankers from going through. something like 70% of the worlds oil goes through the straits of hormuz. tankers aren't known for speed or maneuverability. the iranians really only need to hit 1 or 2 before the rest stay in port.

between fast attack torpedo boats, planes, and land based anti ship missles the iranians can't hit 1 or 2 tankers? a few attacks with 0 successes might even do the trick. the owners of the tankers, the owner of the cargo (oil), or the insurance companies might refuse to leave port.

the US can inflict nasty tactical casualties on the iranian forces but the US forces can't achieve the strategic objective of protecting all oil tankers all the time.

Re:America is the Axis Of Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey one-liner, he is referring to this particular situation. I read some of Ben Fulford's writing some time ago and couldn't find a reason for him to lie no matter how crazy all this shit sounds. Unbelievable? Yes. Untrue? It is certainly easier to just say "yes" and bury your head back in the sand.

Iran Does Not Threaten Us

[Anonymous Coward]

Iran is not a threat to the United States. They're not really a threat to Israel either, because Israel already has nuclear weapons and will use them. But it is Israel that feels threatened by them, and they've been pushing us to take on Iran for a decade. After taking on Iraq for them, this American is tired of ruining our economy and military fighting proxy wars for Tel Aviv. Let them fight each other directly and may the best man win. If Israel takes out Iran, super. If Iran gets lucky and takes out Israel, that'll suck for them but I won't feel too sad after the decades they've spent beating on the Palestinians who made the mistake of being the only ones who would give the Jews shelter from the Nazis in WWII. If Israel and Iran take each other out, well, two less antagonists in the Middle East powder keg. Then maybe we can focus our attention on standoffs between really important countries like Pakistan and India.

Re:Iran Does Not Threaten Us

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no credible evidence that Israel possesses nuclear strike capability.

Re:Worse comes to worst

[WindBourne]

Take a camera. Please, take pix and post them here for all to see.

Look, I am not a fan of what my past presidents have done. reagan and W are some of the worst presidents going. And I do not have a clue what O is up to. HOWEVER, Iranian gov. is NOT what you want in place. The fact is, that even the vast majority of Iranians do not want them. Of course, they will not like us telling them that they can build a bomb. Can not say that I blame them. W/neo-cons showed the world that if you have a nuke that powerful nations do not do anything (that includes his actions with North Korea and Pakistan).

But if you oppose America's policy, you would be better off building up web sites objecting to it. Or come over here and protest (that is freedom speaking). BUT, if you think that by going over there and enlisting that you will help to stop America, well, you are sadly without a bit of reason.

Rattling dipsticks...

[mevets]

I don't think the desires of the USA bare much significance here. The oil industry will give the order; the government and military will fall into line.

It is distressing to see the prognostications of these ass wipes on how this will unfold. How did we get here, and why can't anyone without an itchy trigger finger do something about it?

Re: blowback

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the scary part about fucking with americans is that we use violence as entertainment... It's intrinsic in our culture to enjoy thinking about all the different ways we could bring violence on others... always in a righteous and justified manner of course... but way more than any other culture out there. I mean the entire world perceives us as a county full of people with itchy trigger fingers... "Imagining it were Texas" is a bit of a false dichotomy, no other place has a population more well known for it's tendency to shoot first and ask questions later "cowboy style".

Fuck the USA

[Anonymous Coward]

Iran is not a very big threat really. Even if they got nuclear weapons they wouldn't be as much of a risk because unlike what the Western press makes it sound like, they're not crazy. The president is just a puppet, the real people who govern are a small group of religious leaders. Their president is indeed an idiot but his masters are not. They won't launch a nuclear attack when they know they could be eradicated.

And then there's the people or Iran. The young generation want change, so making them the victims of a war is absolutely stupid. It will be like Iraq all over again, the civilians who dislike their own government will pay the price of the war that the USA forces on them when they could have been leading the fight for their own rights instead. You don't want Iraq, you want an Arab Spring.

Unfortunately, the USA only knows how to do war. Diplomacy is not something they handle well, except when it comes to spying on other countries and forcing foreign governments to do what the US want. So if anything is done about Iran, it will be war. And not to mention the fact that if it weren't for the US, there wouldn't be any problems with Iran right now.

The USA think they are the world's police force. They have their navy fleets with an aircraft carrier patrolling the world's seas at all times. They build bases all around the world so they can dominate anybody they want at any time. And all they bring is destruction and death. These wars are not even profitable for them, Iraq made them go bankrupt. They're that fucking stupid. And dangerous.
So you know what? If the USA want to start a conflict, I hope they get their ass kicked. I hope their fleet gets wiped. Sick and tired of these assholes pretending to be the good guys when in fact they are the world's greatest liability. They need a lesson, a good kick where it hurts.

And now a message to all US military personnel:
You took part in Iraq where over 100,000 civilians died. Now another war is coming. Quit. Leave the military. Following orders is no excuse. A lot of innocent people will be hurt if the war happens. Without you, it can't happen. So quit now while you can. Seriously, the US military looks the same as the SS to the world. Look at what you have become. So quit now.
If you don't, I won't give you any excuses. There won't be any "I was just following orders" or "I didn't realize the war was a lie". You are informed. If you go and fight, if you help a war that harms innocent people, I will hate you. I will despise you. And so will many other people. Our opinion of you may not be worth much, but every time you hear somebody calling you scum and murderers you will know where it comes from. Every time somebody won't give a fuck when they hear the news that another US soldiers was killed, you'll know where this apathy comes from. That's the strength of our opinion. You'll be heroes to half of your country, and monsters to 99% of the world.
So think about it. I won't give a fuck whether you lost a leg or got PTSD. I won't care that your girlfriend left you while you were on combat tour or that you couldn't see your son's first birthday. I'll hate you, despise you, criticize you. Foreign media will be filled with hate. The Internet will be filled with hate. It may not sound like much right now, but I remember how offended soldiers were during the war in Iraq when they heard such things.
Your decision. You can take part in another slaughter of 100,000 civilians for money, or you can actually act like human beings. Just know that there won't be any forgiveness this time.

The whole debate...

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole debate is about us crippling the Iranian oil economy, and when the Iranians say they will fight back,
we present it as if *they* are the aggressors.

We just sold over $30billion worth of fighter planes to Saudi Arabia over this, so the real mission was accomplished.

Iran

[codepunk]

Hey Iran, you know where the US Navy goes? Anywhere it wants to.

CVN 74

[Anonymous Coward]

The single aircraft carrier making its routine rounds in the area CVN 74 could take out the entire Iranian navy as well as the majority of Iran's airforce so this is all bluster on Iran's part that drives up oil prices.
The second factor is the NeoCons ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism remember them? ) holding hands with Israel are once again trying to move this country into another illegal war as they did when Dubya was in office.

I'm sure some of the more extreme factions in Israel are praying for a Gulf of Tonkin moment, lets not give it to them.

Now I have to go check Haliburton's stock price.

Disproportionate

[Anonymous Coward]

Serious question - Once war is declared, is any amount of (conventional) force considered 'disproportionate' in terms of being unacceptable? Seems to me that it is only a concern when trying to limit either escalation or the long-term suffering of an ill-defined mission.

the terrifying thing here

[nimbius]

is that america has been toeing the line with war against iran for decades, just itching for a reason to inexplicably bombard a nation of 75 million peaceful civillians and arguably the largest jewish minority in the middle east.
that america, despite the fact that iran has captured our most sophisticated reconnosance robotics, still considers iran a soft and easy target is to awaken the memory of the cold war when we assumed the tupolev was nothing more than a biplane. . Iran has enjoyed american diplomacy first hand at the overthrow of their democratically elected government through sponsored terrorism; it understands america to be a fairweather friend at best. despite numerous invasive and exhaustive probes by the IAEA there is no evidence of a thermonuclear weapons program and given the size of the state, a nuclear energy program seems completely reasonable, justified and expected. Iran has roughly 1/4th the population of the united states.
but thanks to the carter doctrine of international diplomacy in the middle east, despite the fact that a minority of american oil is actually produced in the region we must still charge dick-first into the any arabian country in the region to appear even remotely modern, self sufficient, and untameable by antiquated american colonialist policy.

lets all agree the easiest thing to do to keep the straight clear is to admit the fact that we screwed up the spy game just as we had numerous times during the cold war, apologise and consider formal talks or a prisoner exchange if we want the drone, and move on to bigger problems like the utter financial collapse that keeps plaguing the country, or alternative energy sources to keep us from having to engage in this trite pedantic pissing contest we call a foreign policy.

Re:the terrifying thing here

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like an Iranian.... or a European. :)

Re:Gee, maybe Europe should clean up its own messe

[gary_7vn]

Yeah right, it was just Britain, all on their own. Kermit Roosevelt was just there on vacation or something. Stop watching FOX.

Harpoon Scenarios?

[afabbro]

Politics, foreign policy, sanctions, blah blah...the real question is, are we going to get some new scenarios for Harpoon from this?

Re:Harpoon Scenarios?

[Anonymous Coward]

I checked the Harpoon sites for any such new scenarios about a week ago - only found one. Gonna check again now... ;)

Forget the boats. It's the 98% kill-prob missile

[rbrander]

All the warnings you need about attacking Iran can be had from geopolitical analyst Dr. Gwynne Dyer, who has to tiredly write another article warning about it being a Bad Idea every couple of years. From the most recent one:

"The Noor anti-ship missile is a locally built version of the Chinese YJ-82. It has a 200-km. (140-mile) range, enough to cover all the major choke points in the Gulf. It flies at twice the speed of sound just meters above the sea’s surface, and it has a tiny radar profile. Its single-shot kill probability has been put as high as 98 percent.

Iran’s mountainous coastline extends along the whole northern side of the Gulf, and these missiles have easily concealed mobile launchers. They would sink tankers with ease, and in a few days insurance rates for tankers planning to enter the Gulf would become prohibitive, effectively shutting down the region’s oil exports completely."

Do they sound a little less "asymmetric" now? Yes, you could bombard the coastline heavily, but some caves can go pretty deep, particularly if the cavers bring mining equipment - 25 years ago. And do you really want to get into a shootin' match with 98% kill probability when they lose a 5-man missile crew and you lose a carrier?

  I also like the point about the "insurance costs". You don't think of wars being one by accountants, but that's the way it goes. The Iranians have absolutely zero need to engage with the mighty US Navy at all; they just have to sink a couple of very fat, very slow oil tankers, just a few, then wait for Lloyd's to react, while the probably-unharmed crew are being fished from the lifeboats. And Lloyd's says to itself, "Can even the US Navy check out every goddamn cave the size of a 2-car garage in 200km of coastline? When the 90% that do not contain actual missiles do contain dummies? No, they cannot. Not this week, month, or, probably, year." And so the price of oil sits there at $250/bbl until everybody calms down.

War

[Anonymous Coward]

War, because of war. It sounds like a parrot, it looks like a parrot, therefore it is an internet meme parrot.

Re:America is the Axis Of Evil

[ColdWetDog]

You think this is even remotely sane (from the AC's link)?

A Chinese secret society with 6 million members, including 1.8 million Asian gangsters and 100,000 professional assassins, have targeted Illuminati members if they proceed with world depopulation plans, according to Tokyo-based journalist Benjamin Fulford, 46.

They contacted Fulford, a Canadian ex pat, after he warned that the Illuminati plan to reduce the Asian population to just 500 million by means of race-specific biological weapons.

"The Illuminati, with the exception of Japan, is very much a white man's game," Fulford says.
   

More power to you. Great drugs you've got there...

The oil price is Iran's primary weapon

[Colin Smith]

They don't actually have to close the straights. They can ratchet tension up to $150 oil again.

The US almost WANTS?

[Anonymous Coward]

Almost?!!! I don't think you have been paying attention. The US has been actively seeking another war, this one in Iran, for years.

The new IAEA chief that the US bribed into the post is going along with the plan. The "new evidence" of Iran's nuclear ambitions was entirely OLD information (some over a decade old), that was all discounted by the IAEA before the new US installed chief as showing Iran NOT working for a bomb.

That said, If Iran got a nuke and a delivery vehicle, you can bet there will be greater peace in the middle east, since there will be a counterweight to the aggression of Israel and the US.

Re:The US almost WANTS?

[Anonymous Coward]

the aggression of Israel

Eat my shit, Jew hater.

Implement drone boats

[Anonymous Coward]

The tactic of a million unarmored boats becomes socially horrifying in a different way once you take the people off of them. Instead of being ludicrously expensive in human life, they become fearfully expensive in resources. Imagine ten thousand boat or even airborne drones against a fleet of ships. At the end of the day, who has more money dead in the water?

Re:Implement drone boats

[Ihmhi]

Okay, let's put it this way.

Let's say the only America naval power in the area is a carrier, a destroyer, a crusier, and a couple of patrol boats.

Meanwhile, the enemy sends 500 unarmored patrol boats at this fleet, loaded for bear with anti-armor weaponry and explosives.

The Americans sink 300 of the patrol boats but their entire battle group is lost with all hands. The enemy has a naval power of 200 boats. The Americans have a naval power of 0 boats.

Money matters in things like this, but cost efficiency won't count for shit if you don't have any boots on the ground or keels in the water.

Re:Implement drone boats

[Anonymous Coward]

The carrier group has... shockingly, a carrier. How many speed boats get into range after being harried by aircraft?

Re:Implement drone boats

[Ihmhi]

All it takes is one or two to get through to sink a billion dollar ship.

Re:Implement drone boats

[Carnildo]

Let's say the only America naval power in the area is a carrier, a destroyer, a crusier, and a couple of patrol boats.

Except it won't be. Assuming the significant element in your list is the carrier, it'll be supported by an entire carrier battle group: one to two cruisers, two to four destroyers, and assorted auxiliaries. It'll also be parked several hundred miles offshore.

If this is after the start of hostilities, the battle group commander will have the authority to initiate action against the attacking boats as soon as they're spotted (probably around 200-300 miles out), and in the four to six hours it takes the boats to close to within firing range (over-the-horizon attacks only work if you've got something - a submarine or an airplane - to act as a spotter), he'll be able to launch multiple fifty-aircraft sorties against them, as well as a couple hundred anti-ship or cruise missiles.

Of course, if all the ships in your list are significant, the US will have even more ships: a cruiser battle group and a destroyer squadron to support the carrier battle group. It's something most people don't realize: large ships never deploy alone. They're always part of a formation.

Meh - Internal Iranian political theater

[Sollord]

This is all a bunch of showmanship from Iran to help internal politics and nothing else. For them to close the straight they have to attack a US carrier group which in and of itself is insane and if by some freak miracle they mange to sink a ship let alone a carrier it would bring the entire US 5th fleet down on top of them immediately followed up shortly by every air asset in the Air Forces inventory. Iran's entire military would be all but wiped out in days if not weeks and on top of that all there nuclear production would be wiped out. The US has the abilities to win any war with Iran we just can't get caught up holding land to win the peace like in Iraq where we won the war and pissed the peace away with an inept civilian controlled follow up. Besides closing the straight would piss off China just as much as the US leaving Russia the only Super power offering token support

Also

[Sycraft-fu]

They'll be completely in the wrong.

So half of the strait is not in their territorial waters. The other half is Oman's waters. So to close it, they'd have to invade another country's waters, without provocation or justification. After all, they haven't said Oman has wronged them in any way.

Then there's the whole UNCLOS thing. Basically it establishes, among other things, the freedom of the sea meaning countries have the right to transit the oceans and that applies to places like the Strait of Hormuz too. Just because something is in your territorial waters doesn't mean you automatically get to make the rules. The ocean has international treaties governing it.

As such other than people who just want to see the US get it in the face, and who don't need the oil, everyone would be against Iran. Not only is it diplomatically stupid, it is legally stupid. They don't have any justification. The US would be the "good guys" in this situation.

Sinking ships would also be problematic for them because the more damage they do, the less the American public would care about the retaliation. They kill a few thousand serviceman in an illegal, unprovoked, attack (which is how it would get sold by the US government), the gloves are off. People will ignore a lot of shit.

I just can't see how it would be a win at all in any form for them. Hopefully they realize that and this is nothing but bluster to piss the US off. More war is never a good thing :P.

Re:Also

[Phoghat]

Can you say ""2012 Election?", I knew you could.

Sure it is

[Sycraft-fu]

Here's something you forget: What the American public will tolerate is based on how angry/scared they are. If Iran starts sinking American ships, and gas jumps up to $10, the American public won't care what it takes to fix that. Massive destruction will be just fine.

Also you confuse what was trying to be done in Iraq with what would need to be done in Iran. In Iraq the misguided goal was nation building. Go in, kill dictator, drive out terrorists, help people establish wonderful democratic society. That is a tall order (an impossible order I'd say) and requires long time occupation. The US military is bad at that. It has never been well designed as an army of conquest. For that you need lots of infantry troops and a willingness to spend them.

The goal with Iran would be to make them fuck off and leave the strait alone. Much easier. Just blow up enough shit until they pack it in. The US military is the best history has ever seen at that. The amount of destruction they can unleash is amazing, and it is precise too, they can hit the targets they need to take out.

The lesson to take away from Iraq with regards to this potential conflict is how fast and completely their military was crushed.

Re:Sure it is

[currently_awake]

No, the goal in Iraq was to destroy the country. The Saudi's pay good money for American influence, they don't want to live in fear of the republic of Iraq invading and holding free and fair elections.

Re:Sure it is

[TeddyR]

$10? The Amercan public will start panicing if gas reaches $6.00/gallon. At $7.00 they will say "well, were no longer in Iraq, just send them over to Iran...."

Forever warring America

[sgt_doom]

The USA has been violating Iranian airspace for quite a number of years now, and illegally threatening war (under international law, yet laws and treaties America continues to routinely break) any number of times, and let's not forget that Stuxnet virus unleashed with American cooperation, etc. Iran began developing its nuclear industry from the illegal consulting advice form CEO Dick Cheney-led Halliburton (Iran was under saction and illegal for Halliburton to involve themselves with both studies and materiel to Iran) because radium is the second resource after oil. America will continue their forever wars to continue to enrich the plutocracy, all excuses to the contrary.

Re:Forever warring America

[codepunk]

Do you mean internationally observed airspace and or iranian observed airspace?.

Re:Forever warring America

[Anonymous Coward]

There have been numerous instances of illegal American intrusion, by both carrier-based jets, and other types of airborne vehicles, in Iranian airspace. Let me know when they begin invading American airspace, OK?

Re:Gee, maybe Europe should clean up its own messe

[khipu]

Yeah right, it was just Britain, all on their own.

Iran was about British oil--specificaly, a company called "BP", as in "British Petroleum"--not US oil, period. To claim that US oil interests were the cause of US intervention in Iran is just ridiculous.

Kermit Roosevelt was just there on vacation or something.

Well, I'm glad you are familiar with at least a little bit of ME history. Now read a bit more: the US intervened on behalf of, and on request of, Great Britain because Britain claimed that Iran was being taken over by the Soviets and because Britain was busy trying to keep its failing colonial empire together.

And "intervention" amounted to little more than organizing a protest; the Iranian government was on its last leg anyway.

Stop watching FOX.

I don't watch Fox. But you obviously should stop listening to European neo-Marxist propaganda.

Fact is, most of the trouble spots in the world are the result of European fascism, European colonialism and European socialism. The US is trying its best to keep things running, but Americans and American tax payers are running out of patience. If Europe doesn't like the way it's going, Europe should pay for its own damned military.

Key factor overlooked in this discussion

[Alaska Jack]

This will never happen, but not for the reasons you say.

There is a key factor that this entire comment thread seems to miss: The fact that Iran's economic infrastructure is incredibly vulnerable. Their entire economy relies on a fixed set of oil refineries and production platforms that, unlike the missiles, can't be moved or hidden. Iran can bluster all it wants, but attacking one US ship would lead to the destruction of their entire economy. They know this, and so does the U.S.

- aj

Re:Key factor overlooked in this discussion

[rbrander]

Yeah, Dyer is all over that, too. Not so much the "we can blow up your oil industry" threat, as Iran's problem that they can't even stop selling the oil voluntarily for very long. This is true of the whole Arab world by this point as well; since the 70's oil embargo, their populations have doubled and they can no longer *afford* to stop selling oil. For the Gulf states, we're talking food money, they can't support their own populations. For Iran, it's more like the difference between their current economy and impoverished subsistence.

This is kind of missing from the whole argument about "we have to stop using oil altogether" in energy strategy: we do - but when we finally do, what happens to the middle east? No country is more than a few meals away from revolution, and all that...

Oooh! Just In Time for the Election!

[Greyfox]

Riddle me this! What is the longest amount of time the USA has gone without being at war? Sure the proles were tired of those dirty old wars, but offer them a shiny new war just in time for election season? A lot of guys on the R side have had a hard-on for Iran for years. If shrub hadn't jumped into Iraq when he did, I bet he'd have found some reason to invade Iran. I always thought that was part of his strategy in the middle east, but Iraq turned out to be a wee bit harder than he thought it would be so he never got around to it.

I can't wait to see WHAT will happen!

Re:Oooh! Just In Time for the Election!

[couchslug]

"a shiny new war just in time for election season?"

Obama would never risk that. Change we can believe in!

Re:Forget the boats. It's the 98% kill-prob missil

[Anonymous Coward]

This just makes me realize that I don't know WTF is going on, and who wants what.

You just described a loss for the "stay open for business in defiance" strategy and a victory for the "blockade to force submission" strategy. But you're suggesting it as a win for Iran and a loss for US? I thought this straight was near Iranian waters, not US waters. How is Iran deploying lots of missile speedboats right outside Los Angeles? ;-)

USAF and USN have been preparing for for decades

[perpenso]

The Navy doesn't use F-15s, those are Air Force jets. The Naval equivalent is the F-18.

Last I heard the USAF has fully fueled and stocked (ammo, spare parts) air bases in Saudi Arabia ready for the arrival of USAF F-15s in the event of regional conflict. The preceding was setup because of similar Iranian threats in the 1980s. This scenario is something the USAF and USN have been preparing for for decades.

As has also been said multiple times...

[sgtrock]

...that was Ten. YEARS. Ago. You honestly think that the US Navy has been sitting around with their thumbs up their butts ever since? Especially since the attack of the USS Cole inside a 'friendly' harbor made it abundantly clear what can happen if the Navy didn't? Heck, the article even mentions specific changes in weaponry and defensive doctrine that would greatly blunt such an attack.

Finally, why is everyone assuming that the US Navy would even need to put a carrier at risk? A task force of a couple of cruisers and/or 2 or 3 destroyers would act as tempting bait, after all. If they weren't attacked, Iran's bluff would be called.

If Iran was stupid enough to attack such a force, air cover from carriers standing a couple of hundred miles offshore would simply start retaliating against every valid military target in reach. The southern half of the Gulf /and/ Iran would be neutralized before the carriers had to get anywhere near the Straits. Add a landing force of Marines to capture Bandar-e-Abbas, then start driving north to Tehran.

You don't think this EXACT scenario hasn't been gamed a thousand times since MC 2002 demonstrated the problem??? I can guarantee that Dick Cheney & Co. (Halliburton, for sure!) are salivating at the mere thought of Iran being stupid enough to attack the US Navy.

Re:As has also been said multiple times...

[tokul]

You honestly think that the US Navy has been sitting around with their thumbs up their butts ever since?

Do you think other side was sitting around ever since? Plus my point was not about exercise. My point was that attack's scope was wider than Blues expected and they could not handle it.

There will be no occupation ...

[drnb]

There will be no occupation. It will be more like Libya in the 1980s. Libya threatens navigation. US bombs Libya military bases, sinks Libyan ships, shoots down Libyan aircraft, etc. Although I expect the Iranian militias used to put down rioters will get a few bombs in their barracks as well.

The only boots on the ground will be there temporarily. There will probably be air assaults on the nuclear research processing facilities. Take the ground, blow stuff up, leave.

This happened in the 1980s

[drnb]

You underestimate the survivability of US naval ships

It's not about navy vs. navy. Iran is threatening to "close the straits". To do this they just have to make a credible threat to the oil tankers, and trade will stop. US naval ships aren't going to be delivering any oil.

This all happened in the 1980s. When the credible threats were made the US Navy began to escort convoys of oil tankers through the straits. Firing on an escorted convoy is equivalent to attacking the escorting warship.

Invasions are popular with the public ...

[drnb]

Given the US withdrawal in Iraq, engaging in a war with Iran won't be easy or popular. Lately they've managed to capture drones and threatening the shipping will let them achieve their own goals with the least risk of provoking a US response. I guess the real question is, what will the US do if it is attacked? In all likelyhood, they will be buzzed by Iranian boats without actually being attacked. But how close will they let such boats approach?

In a post-Cole world the "buzzing" of a warship will be considered a hostile act and get you sunk. The US public will not be terribly upset over military action against Iran given that (1) it will seem somewhat justified and (2) there will not be boots on the ground except those air assault units who go in temporarily to destroy nuclear research and processing facilities and then leave. There will be no occupation. Invading countries and blowing the hell out of stuff is actually pretty popular with the American public. Its only the occupation that gets unpopular. You can have the former with the later.

An Iranian blockade would last...

[EmagGeek]

... about this long...

*holding fingers really close together*

How long, you ask? Well, how long does it take a cruise missile to get from one of our destroyers to one of their ships? About that long.

Re:Forget the boats. It's the 98% kill-prob missil

[russotto]

The Iranians have absolutely zero need to engage with the mighty US Navy at all; they just have to sink a couple of very fat, very slow oil tankers, just a few, then wait for Lloyd's to react, while the probably-unharmed crew are being fished from the lifeboats. And Lloyd's says to itself, "Can even the US Navy check out every goddamn cave the size of a 2-car garage in 200km of coastline? When the 90% that do not contain actual missiles do contain dummies? No, they cannot. Not this week, month, or, probably, year." And so the price of oil sits there at $250/bbl until everybody calms down.

And the US reacts by destroying Iran's navy, Iran's air force, and likely by taking Iran's ports and anything else within a 200km range of the coastline, then painstakingly DOES search every goddamn cave in the area. Who benefits from this, besides Saudi Arabia?

Ruinous bombing

[currently_awake]

Yes they destroyed Iraq in days, but only because they followed up with ground forces. If you don't follow up it will be like Vietnam. After the bombing the Iranian's will rebuild underground and fight on. Even from ruins you can support terrorism and send out floating mines. Any US attack that doesn't follow up with an invasion will fail (long term).

Iron curtain?

[mangu]

Perhaps they're remembering the near three decades of the Shah's rule in Iran, marked by murders, torture, SAVAK secret police

You didn't even try to read what I posted. If East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania underwent four decades of dictatorship much worse than anything the Shah did, how come Iran has so much trouble moving forward?

AFAIK, there was no wall surrounding Iran. People were free to move away if they wanted. Different from East Europe. Dictatorship was what they had in East Europe, the Shah was a more or less authoritarian regime, but not nearly as bad as the Communist regimes.

+5, Informative, really? That should be -5, Blind Fanatic, mods.

Re:Iron curtain?

[deanklear]

You didn't even try to read what I posted. If East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania underwent four decades of dictatorship much worse than anything the Shah did, how come Iran has so much trouble moving forward?

Because the United States refuses to allow them to move forward. Iran does not do as they are told, so our goal in the region is to strangle them through economic, political, and military policy. Consider our allies Saudi Arabia: women are treated as property, people are regularly beheaded for spiritual crimes, and there's not a single synagogue or church in the whole country. But since they sell us oil and play along with our plans -- they like being friends with a military power with the same regional interests -- last year we agreed to sell them 80 billion dollars worth of military equipment. Saudi Arabia makes Iran look like a democratic paradise, but we don't care. Iran could start holding legitimate elections and dismantle their religious police tomorrow, but if they were still critics of American policies, they'd be under constant threat of economic strangulation and warfare.

The United States has the world's largest economy, and the world's largest military, and we use that leverage to punish nations that don't serve our interests. We aren't exceptionally bad; we just behave exactly as you would expect any other empire to behave. We demand loyalty and trade -- fair or not -- from countries that have resources we want, or we strangle them. That's been an open secret since the end of WWII.

The only nations that get better deals are powerful nations like China. Remember Tiananmen Square? US investment increased after they ran over students with tanks, because Beijing proved they were in control and could provide a stable place for investment. Morality has almost nothing to do with our foreign policy. Turks are free to slaughter Kurds because they play ball.

Re:Where have I heard this before?

[jamstar7]

Great idea. The problem is, any country, or even group of people, can be considered a potential enemy. This grouping includes the citizenry of the United States, by the way.

So it looks like we'll have to invade the entire damned planet to make the world safe for American democracy^Wbusiness...

More winning American strategy...

[qeveren]

Yes, America, with the world economy teetering on a knife-edge, this is the perfect time to provoke a nation you've been fucking with for decades to shut down one of the most economically important shipping routes on the planet.

And yeah, sanctions. Great idea. Starve the very people in Iran who don't hate you.

What could possibly go wrong with this plan!?

fear mongering

[Anonymous Coward]

even slashdot I see has to spread it around.

Remember The Falkland Islands?

[assertation]

Anyone remember the battles in the Falkland Islands in the 80s?

I grew up watching old WWII documentaries with destroyers pounding each other in epic battles for days.

Then on the news, I saw huge and expensive high tech ships last all of seconds going up against modern missiles and torpedos.

I think the age of epic navel battles with ever bigger and more powerful ships is over.

I remember that both sides in the Falkland Islands battle were shocked how quickly they were going through ships and quickly pulled their bigger, more expensive ones to the rear out of harms way.

Re:Gee, maybe Europe should clean up its own messe

[halivar]

Aren't you forgetting that it was on behalf of Britain's Anglo-Iranian Oil Company? And we did it even though we had no strategic interests in Iran?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat

This was a British crisis.

Not intended to be a factual statement?

[Anonymous Coward]

From your previous post:

[Iran] has started several wars.

Is that you, Senator Kyl? If you you think that, technically, Iran has not started any wars, then please in the future do us all a favor and tag comments such as that one with #NotIntendedToBeAFactualStatement

Re: blowback

[Anonymous Coward]

'tard

N-way MAD is beyond mad

[clay_buster]

MAD was Mutually Assured Destruction between two basically equal parties that almost failed several time. You propose that strategy in an N way relationship between inequal parties many of which have no internal checks and balances. Could we agree that nukes in the hands of those with a martyrdom complex would be a bad idea?

Re:N-way MAD is beyond mad

[fyngyrz]

No, we can't agree. We have no more legitimacy telling Iran -- or Israel -- that they can't have nukes than they have telling us the same thing. Trying to tell them -- either of them -- that is just daring them to do it.

Either they can settle their problems amicably, or not. Either way, it shouldn't be our problem.

Re:N-way MAD is beyond mad

[Hognoxious]

If they start lobbing the instant sunshine around it'll be everybody's problem. Or do you think the TSA & coastguard are able to make clouds of fallout obey them?

The US is the last remaining superpower

[arcite]

on the Earth. They are the right hand of vengeance, and the left hand of justice. Bow down before your capitalist democratic overlords and be free from the tyranny of ignorance and extremist dogma! Prepare for freedom arsenal!

Republican presidential candidates

[KingAlanI]

during the Republican presidential candidate I watched, Ron Paul was the only one not saber-rattling about Iran...

Re:Republican presidential candidates

[KingAlanI]

there's supposed to be a 'debate' after 'candidate'.

high-tech warships

[KingAlanI]

defenses on high-tech warships might get overwhelmed with a swarm of cheap missiles. that's probably what the US Navy is concerned about.

asymmetrical warfare, naval style

[KingAlanI]

The US Navy is probably concerned about how defenses on high-tech warships might get overwhelmed with a swarm of cheap missiles.

Channel

[32771]

Maybe a channel through the UAE could help, would be around 50-100km long.

Re:Forget the boats. It's the 98% kill-prob missil

[jon3k]

Do they sound a little less "asymmetric" now? Yes, you could bombard the coastline heavily, but some caves can go pretty deep, particularly if the cavers bring mining equipment - 25 years ago.

Good luck hiding the missile and launchers in a cave. And as soon as it's fired one of the drones circling over head will immediately identify the source and either launch it's own missile to destroy it or call in for help. Let's also not forget the destroyers will be continually shelling several miles of coastline and drones will be identifying any target that even gets CLOSE to the coast where jets and ship based artillery will hammer it.

As for a 98% "kill chance" - it has a 0% kill chance against the US Navy protected by lots of neat toys. The YJ-82 hasn't been "high-tech" for at least 20 years and only has a range of a little over 100km, far below the range of a Navy Aircraft Carrier. The only thing they'll be able to sink are unarmed tankers. And if they do, they're cutting off their own nose to spite their face. Most of their revenue is from oil and we'd be cutting off their delivery lanes.

IAEA reports are not worth reading

[Anonymous Coward]

The recent IAEA reports have nothing new on Iran, except speculations based on "intelligence" that was allegedly shown to them by "a single member state". The "single member state" is, of course, the same state that thinks sending its secretaries of state to lie in the UN about WMD development is sound policy.

All issues regarding the Iran nuclear program, for which some intelligence is available and about which IAEA is bitching, predate 2003 by at least a year or two. I assume you can easily recall the flow of events prior to 2003 that lead to Iran's reduced cooperation with IAEA. The rest is just bedtime stories without a shred of evidence available for inspection.

Since everyone who is in position of influence at the IAEA has a major financial or other (education, employment, cooperation that involves funding of some activity, etc.) connection to the said "single member" (you can easily verify this for yourself here: http://iaea.org/About/leadership.html), it is very hard to be convinced that these are not doctored.

Re:IAEA reports are not worth reading

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

You know pretty well what the evidence is. Iran has been confirmed as having a large scale tritium production facility.

So here's the deal :
either Iran knows more about the nuclear physics than we do, and has some weird use for large amounts of tritium
or they're making a bomb

The same argument is true for their reactor design. It's a horrible power producer, and a reasonably efficient enrichment facility.

The same is true about the site : it's electricity connection is pathetic, barely an afterthought. Why do they need a nuclear power plant that is not connected to the grid (not well enough to supply real amounts of power to the grid, obviously it is somewhat connected).

The same is true about the amount of centrifuges they need. For operation of this power plant, you need, say, a hundred. For making a bomb you'd need at least 5000. How much do they have ? Somewhere around 9000.

There are dozens more considerations like this. Sure all of these are like 99%-1% dividers. There is a small chance of "innocence" in all cases, looked at individually. Nobody believes the whole picture is anywhere near coincidental.

Why do you ?

Re:IAEA reports are not worth reading

[themusicgod1]

How many of those are available purely in case Israel or the US blows half their centrifuges up/damages them?

I would expect a *lot* of overengineering in Iranian reactor & supply chain design, they could easily just start with the ones that are dual use and go from there.

War is Brewing

[catchblue22]

I have observed that over the past several months the number of stories about Iran in the media has been on the increase. The tone and frequency of what I have seen make me suspect the US is preparing the citizenry for a military conflict with Iran. Specifically, I refer to the number of media pieces covering Iran's nuclear capabilities. It is subtle but I don't think it is my imagination. Having watched the run-up to other wars, most especially the wars in Iraq, my intuition is that what I have seen in the media recently is similar to what I saw during the months preceding the other wars. These conflicts don't happen by accident. They require significant logistical planning, and the US would be crazy to jump into a conflict with Iran without devoting significant effort to detailed contingency planning. Part of that planning would very likely include preparing the minds of citizens for war with Iran.

I believe that the narrative of this war will be that we are acting to prevent Iran from developing a strong nuclear weapons program. It will be argued that Iran will become untouchable once it builds an arsenal of nuclear weapons. If it does happen, I don't think it will be easy. Iran is a mountainous territory, unlike western Iraq, which is flat desert. We will not be able to push columns of tanks clear across the country like we did in Iraq. Iran is also more technologically advanced than Iraq, as demonstrated by the possibility that they used GPS spoofing to force a US drone to land in their territory.

I am not sure of what I am saying, but I have found in the past, my instincts have often been correct in matters such as this. The nature of the narrative in TFA really makes me suspect that something will happen within the next few months. There is just too much probability that something will happen in the Strait of Hormuz that will precipitate a shooting war. The posturing. The ultimatums. The movement of military assets into the strait. I could be wrong. Check back in one year. I just don't think the US will let Iran become a nuclear armed state.

BTW, I think I made a post about Libya and Gaddafi a few months ago (June 2011 I think) that was quite correct, if you check my post history.

Re:War is Brewing

[catchblue22]

Here is a link to a comment I made on June 1, 2011 predicting Gaddafi's decline.

Thank The Bush Family & The Republicans

[assertation]

Iran used to be silent and contained. Their border hostilities with Iraq and Sadam Husein kept it that way. Then Bush 1 pissed on that because he had a recession and a lack luster presidency. Bush 2 further dismantled Iraq as Iranian cork because his family honour was offended.

US = terrorists

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope Iran's trolling is successful and baits the US into another war which will hopefully cripple them for good, financially. When they start naming coral reefs after derelict american ships, we can all look back and laugh.

Re:a word of caution...

[Toonol]

'ronpaulisanidiot'

Those sorts of user IDs are only used by frenzied and overzealous obsessives. No one will be swayed by anything you ever say.

US Navy 1, Iranian Navy 0

[nsaspook]

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

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ab/Bild-Prayingmantis5sahand.jpg/800px-Bild-Prayingmantis5sahand.jpg

Second round, bring it on!

Re:US Navy 1, Iranian Navy 0

[Anonymous Coward]

Fighting against stationary targets is the same how?

national soverignity

[fyngyrz]

Okay, I think Afghanistan is our business, because I hate seeing women executed for wearing the wrong clothing or just offending some guy. That !@#$ sucks. I think we do have an obligation to at least attempt to export civilization to those who desperately need it.

No. It is the business of a Afghans -- both the women and their male sympathizers -- to decide to do something about this. It is NOT our business. If you think it is, you are ALSO saying that is the Afghans business to export their ideas into OUR way of life by force. This is what national borders are for -- to allow different ideas to operate without interference. The people within, subject to the experiment, as it were, are the arbitrators of what to do, or not, about something, or even if something needs to be done. For our part, we have the legitimate option of deciding to trade with them, or not. Nothing else.

Re:national soverignity

[tqk]

Okay, I think Afghanistan is our business, because I hate seeing women executed for wearing the wrong clothing or just offending some guy. That !@#$ sucks. I think we do have an obligation to at least attempt to export civilization to those who desperately need it.

No. It is the business of a Afghans -- both the women and their male sympathizers -- to decide to do something about this.

Okay, I'll admit I'm not that perfect a guy. It may be none of my business, and perhaps it's best if I step out, but I can't. There are some absolutes which can't be ignored. A woman on her knees in a chador/burka, awaiting a bullet to the back of her head? This isn't negotiable. Good men step in. It's not a question of respecting "local sensibilities" or "local customs." That !@#$ shouldn't happen anywhere. That's an absolute.

I'd prefer it if Afghani women rose up and slashed the throats of their abusive opressors, but failing that, I'll be happy to step in and do it for them if they can't.

Re:national soverignity

[fyngyrz]

ok, but if you won't step out, don't expect them to step out. Prepare yourself for more 9/11 attacks, etc.

,,,and don't complain about it when it happens. These people have NOT consented to let you run their lives, substituting your ideas for theirs.

Re:national soverignity

[fyngyrz]

also...

There are some absolutes which can't be ignored.

The thing is, your absolutes are not their absolutes. Look. Suppose you eat a burger, which is ok in your circle of friends. And some PETA person comes along, chanting, "There are some absolutes which can't be ignored" and puts a bullet in your head. Imposing their absolutes on you. Or, some socialist comes along, decides you are oppressing the masses with your capitalist craziness, and *they* put a bullet in your head.

If your absolutes are so overwhelming to you that you insist on stepping into other societies to make the attempt to convert them to your behavioral norms by force, then I suggest that you are the one out of line. Two main reasons. First, they're not even going to pay attention to the point you were trying to make; no social change will come about as a consequence. Instead, they'll be just as offended as you would be if they stepped into your house and put a gun to YOUR wife's head for not covering her face or body or whatever the religotard freaky idea of the day is. And that's what they'll act on. That's what I mean by expect another 9/11.

If you want another society to change, then (a) make sure yours looks better to them, and (b) let THEM work it out internally. Don't use force. Force just makes people dig in their heels and in the end causes more harm than good. In YOUR house, you are the boss. In their house, you are a guest, at most.

Re:national soverignity

[gottabeme]

Your hypothetical examples are silly because, unlike his example, yours are not murder.

Re:national soverignity

[Xest]

Borders are arbitrary and one cannot help where they are born. We're all humans and personally I believe that's fundamentally more important than an arbitrary man made definition like borders.

But even if you accept the existence of borders, then it's still more grey than you make out. Was stepping in to prevent further persecution of the Jews in World War II really such a bad thing? I suppose you can argue that it was because Hitler stepped out of his borders than the allies were able to step in, but then how is this different to Afghanistan? The Taliban are an ISI funded export rather than something native to Afghanistan, prior to the soviet invasion Afghanistan wasn't too unstable, it was a fairly decent country, but on the soviet exit the Pakistani (and to an extent, US) backed Taliban were well enough funded and equipped to fill the void.

It seems a bit unreasonable to allow external forces to fuck up a country, then when it comes to sorting that country out because things got too bad to have an anti-interventionlist attitude.

Re:national soverignity

[russotto]

No. It is the business of a Afghans -- both the women and their male sympathizers -- to decide to do something about this. It is NOT our business. If you think it is, you are ALSO saying that is the Afghans business to export their ideas into OUR way of life by force.

The situations are only symmetric if you are a cultural relativist.

Re:national soverignity

[fyngyrz]

It doesn't matter if YOU think it's murder; these things are relevant only to the opinion of the actors. If you elect to step in and impose your view of what is ok, and what is not, then don't be surprised if they do the same to you, that's all. Likewise, doesn't matter if YOU think something is silly here; my point stands, because your opinion is irrelevant to the actual issue - only the people involved have effective opinions. You step across a national border and interfere with those, you'll likely experience blowback. It's obvious, really -- and your personal view of "right" or "wrong" doesn't change things even a little bit. What causes the blowback is you imposing your opinion on someone else without a socially relevant context to stand on.

Re:national soverignity

[fyngyrz]

Borders are arbitrary and one cannot help where they are born. We're all humans and personally I believe that's fundamentally more important than an arbitrary man made definition like borders.

Agreed, but it's irrelevant. You screw with them; they'll screw with you, because they maintain an expectation that they will be able to pursue their cultural behaviors within their borders. As soon as you interfere with that expectation, you can expect blowback. Which you *caused* because you didn't understand, or thought you could avoid, the obvious consequences of your actions.

Understand that I'm not arguing this is right or proper: I'm just saying it's the way things are. It's not about philosophy: it's about anger, pride and ego. And, in the case of this particular fuckaroo, religion.

Was stepping in to prevent further persecution of the Jews in World War II really such a bad thing? I suppose you can argue that it was because Hitler stepped out of his borders than the allies were able to step in

We didn't step in to prevent the persecution of the Jews. We stepped in because Hitler was clueless enough to declare war on us four days after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. Once in, we made it our business to fuck up everything in sight with a swastika on it, whether we liked it or not, or whether in involved bombing (relatively) innocent civilians or burning out entire cities full of them, or saving other citizens from the death camps. If the Germans thought it was good, we got in the way, bombed, stole, etc. If the Germans thought it was bad, we encouraged it. That's war. We had exactly one goal, and it wasn't to be friendly.

But that's the same thing I've been saying all along, just the other way around -- Hitler announced that he would interfere with a bunch of US citizens that we believed he had no right to interfere with, so in return, we commenced to skull fuck him and all his compatriots, Tojo, etc. Blowback.

Saving the Jews was an incidental event (as compared to initiation of our participation in the war... we just did it because we were there) and it happened quite a bit later (we weren't really aware of his Jewish "solution" at the time Hitler declared war, in fact.) Not saying it wasn't worth doing, or entirely appropriate, given the other events of the time, just that it can't be held up as the cause of our entry into the war.

Let's say for a minute that we were not in a war, and he hadn't attacked anyone outside his borders, and we learned about those ovens and showers and the number of people involved, perhaps through the German news organs. I think this is what you're trying to pry out of me: I don't think we should have stepped in. I think the German people needed to address that mess; what we should do in that kind of situation is stop doing business with them, period. Just cut off trade completely, and I mean every last thing in either direction, until they start acting like people we would like to say hello to. I think the Jews should have risen up, as well as the non Jews, and taken matters into their own hands, instead of marching meekly off, as far too many of them did. Just as we did with good old King George.

but then how is this different to Afghanistan?

Afghanistan did not declare war on us. No one did. On September 11th, 2001, 19 criminals, consisting of 15 Saudi Arabians, two from the United Arab Emirates, one Egyptian, and one Lebanese person, all following the most extreme tenets of a whacko religion (but I repeat myself) based out of Mecca, Saudi Arabia, and funded entirely by Saudi Arabian religious interests, committed an extreme act of violence within the borders of the USA that broke the laws of the USA and Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan and Iraq.

Then, in a fit of national stupidity unmatched since the implementation of the "war on drugs", the US attacked Iraq and then A

Re:national soverignity

[fyngyrz]

Doesn't matter if they are symmetric, or what philosophical hoops you jump through in your head: These factors are *real*. You screw with someone else -- they will turn around and screw with you. Plan on it. Expect it. Be assured of it. This isn't abstract philosophy: it is most concrete and reality-based ego, hate, pride, etc. It's not about thoughts: It's about bullets.

Re:national soverignity

[russotto]

Doesn't matter if they are symmetric, or what philosophical hoops you jump through in your head: These factors are *real*. You screw with someone else -- they will turn around and screw with you.

Often they'll screw with you even if you don't screw with them. And sometimes if you screw with them enough they'll submit, though I wouldn't bet on it with the Afghans.

But you keep using the language of morals while denying you're referring to right and wrong. You're implying that if the US attempts to prevent domestic atrocities, it not only will get another 9/11, but will deserve it. If it's not about philosophy or morals or anything like that, then it's merely about force, and the stronger party can do what it wants as long as it can absorb whatever the weaker party can give out. If it is about morals, then you are claiming it is wrong for someone outside the culture to intervene in the execution of a woman accused of being raped, but that the execution itself is not wrong, because it falls within cultural norms. Which is not a point of view I happen to subscribe to.

And...

[Anonymous Coward]

...if they were to launch these fast naval speedboats, all that would happen is all of the naval ports Iran has would be blown into smithereens from a distance and there would be no more Iran navy....without the ability to refuel and rearm, they become useless.

Re:a word of caution...

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a government run robot, aren't you....

Why does no one mention this(?), when it was PUBLICLY ANNOUNCED that the US gov purchased this VERY ability??? i.e. Multiple bots(read:automated accounts) with which to spew propaganda over multiple social websites. OF COURSE they said it was to be used against foreign peoples....but really now, USE YOUR FUCKING HEADS!

Oh brother

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember "the 5th largest army in the world" comments? How Iraq was going to be a formidable foe and we'd just better watch out? Yeah, with the exception of a proliferation of sea mines, a fight with the Iranian Navy will essentially be suicide by ship for Iran.

Broader picture

[Anonymous Coward]

The US can level Iran easily, but I don't think that's the real problem here. The real problem in an US-Iran conflict would be what China and/or Russia will do. Will they allow the US to bomb Iran to the stone age? Or nutter it economically/militarily? If yes, then the US's position of sole super-power will be strengthened considerably. Is that what Russia and China want?

I think Iran is just playing the nuclear/threatening war game because China wants to be a super power and Russia wants its former influence back so they will try to counteract the US influence. Iran is just like a dog eating the breadcrumbs fallen from the table where the USA, China and Russia split their influence.

The problem for the Pentagon is China's rise (see the troops sent to Australia) and Russia's attempt to return to power (see the threats Medvedev made to target the US missle shield, the Georgia-Osetia war, etc). Iran is just a disposable pawn, the king and queen on the chessboard are Russia and China. They are who the Pentagon is concerned with, not Iran. Russia does not feel threatened for no reason by the missile shield and threaten in turn to go ballistic.

Making the conflict a showdown solely between Iran and the US, I believe, is an oversimplification of the matter at hand. The real showdown is between the US, Russia and China. It's a fight for global influence where the US applies a containment strategy towards the two. How do Russia/China counter the containment strategy in the Middle East?

I believe what is happening now in Iran is just like Afghanistan in the '80: The powers are having a regional influence showdown, putting it on Iran (a smaller country). Iran is guilty for being extremist, but that extremism is being played upon. The USA does not care about Iran because it can counteract Iran easily - the USA cares about Russia and China.

The leaders of Iran are not stupid and they know they are caught in the middle of this influence battle. But what easy way is there out for them? They have to choose between getting killed/arrested in the Arab Spring, getting invaded by USA/Israel or going ahead trying to play the influence game and collect breadcrumbs while keeping the population under control by having an external big threat.

The USA just has one big problem: It has to understand that the world is not going to be monopolar in the future. It has to share it's influence with China and very likely Russia.

Another war for oil

[luk3Z]

Tensions Over Oil again...

time to bomb bomb bomb. lets bomb iran

[Anonymous Coward]

with nukes

Nuke the b*stards and be done with it...

[Anonymous Coward]

The US should start a Nuclear distribution program - anyone that wants a nuke can get them in the form of a MIRV, targeted in an over-lapping grid across their country. We should start with Iran and see who else would like to participate.

False Metric

[dbIII]

Land area is not a sensible constraint at all. Availability of the resources needed to support a population is.

That's populist bullshit and to get Syria onside

[dbIII]

Guys, have you ever considered that people in politics lie to get what they want?
The people running Iran don't give a shit about the Palestinians just as the Kuwaitis and Saudi Arabians showed that they were all talk and didn't mind killing a few Palestinians themselves.
It's almost 1984 stuff, rattle sabres over a country you can't reach and have no intention of doing anything about other than giving a 40 year old rockets to some guys that might end up running Lebanon some day and owe you a favour. If Iran attacks Israel and by some magic succeed beyond their wildest dreams then Syria etc get to carve it up and Iran gets nothing. It's just populist bullshit from guys that want to stir up popular support and keep their cushy jobs of being a bunch of advisors to the unelected Theocrats that really run the place. Remember that it is NOT the USA. When the President of Iran announces something it's like the Mayor of New York making some announcement on Federal policies that he cannot actually control and can not even directly influence.

Yes I read that book too

[dbIII]

I'm sure at this point the US has mapped the location of every sea worthy vessel in Iran

The world is not scripted by Tom Clancy.

Didn't you see the movie "300"?

[master_p]

Come on now, Persians attacked Greece 3000 years ago. They could do it again, you know.

[/sarcasm]

A very narrow view distorts reality

[dbIII]

If you consider the entire gulf operation and not just that day then sadly it all evens out (due to the mine and Iraqi "friendly fire" attack) apart from the oil rigs and speedboats. Even the airliner was matched with a Pan Am flight with a Libyan bomb. The entire stupid political "show the flag" operation was a massive fuckup run out of Washington instead of by the Navy.

OPEC

[Sasha-Whitefur]

Far East OPEC, will not be happy with that, that takes money out of their pockets.

Re:Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

To the top left of your post editor is a little checkbox labeled Post Anonymously.
Your karma will thank you and the clueless will still get to read your worlds till they are voted below their squeamish pansy ass setting. They feel they have a right not to think about uncomfortable truths and not to offend themselves with others unpopular opinions. We fully support the unworthy self-righteous' need to feel somehow superior while they skirt the issues in the name of political correctness or whatever they call cowardice these days.

their primary weapon is a briefcase nuke in nyc

[Anonymous Coward]

and we don't have the money to fight another war

Re:America is the Axis Of Evil

[tqk]

Hey one-liner, he is referring to this Green & Red Gangs particular situation.

Wow. Just wow. Especially when you look at its parent.

Some of us are *really* out there. /. can be quite oddly entertaining at times. Not putting you down or dissing you in any way, nor attempting to question or dispute anything here, just ... wow.

Re:Gee, maybe Europe should clean up its own messe

[Super_Z]

Iran was about British oil--specificaly, a company called "BP", as in "British Petroleum"--not US oil, period. To claim that US oil interests were the cause of US intervention in Iran is just ridiculous.

Really? You do seem to ignore the fact that Anglo-Iranian lost it's oil monopoly and was forced into a joint venture with amongst others Gulf Oil, Socony-Mobil, Esso, Standard Oil of California, and Texaco after the coup?

And "intervention" amounted to little more than organizing a protest; the Iranian government was on its last leg anyway.

Hardly. Mosaddegh was apparently viewed as a hero at the time. He would have easily won any new election.

Stop watching FOX.

I don't watch Fox. But you obviously should stop listening to European neo-Marxist propaganda.

Fact is, most of the trouble spots in the world are the result of European fascism, European colonialism and European socialism.

Really? You sure sound like someone that watches Fox a lot. Please explain which trouble spots are caused by European Socialism.

The US is trying its best to keep things running, but Americans and American tax payers are running out of patience. If Europe doesn't like the way it's going, Europe should pay for its own damned military

The EU has a combined military budget of appx. 300 billion USD. That is about the same amount as the combined budgets of China, Russia, Japan, Saudi Arabia, India and Brazil together. Europe can defend itself just fine. It takes a whiny and ignorant American to pretend otherwise.

Iran's oil

[Anonymous Coward]

Since 20% of Iran's oil also passes through the Straits of Hormuz they would be inflicting a 20% cut in their own oil exports too.

Perhaps they are so irrational that they'd self inflict such an economic blow to themselves, but more likely their apparent madness may be something of a bluff.

Re:Gee, maybe Europe should clean up its own messe

[khipu]

Really? You do seem to ignore the fact that Anglo-Iranian lost it's oil monopoly and was forced into a joint venture with amongst others Gulf Oil, Socony-Mobil, Esso, Standard Oil of California, and Texaco after the coup?

I'm not ignoring that at all. I'm merely saying that this wasn't the initial motivation or cause. The US motivation was to answer a call for help, and the cause was UK foreign ownership of Iranian oil.

Please explain which trouble spots are caused by European Socialism.

Just about every place in the world that's run by socialist or communist governments, since they all are based on socialism, an ideology that originated in Europe.

The EU has a combined military budget of appx. 300 billion USD. That is about the same amount as the combined budgets of China, Russia, Japan, Saudi Arabia, India and Brazil together. Europe can defend itself just fine.

You obviously haven't been paying much attention to what happened in Libya or Afghanistan.

It takes a whiny and ignorant American to pretend otherwise.

Europe is more than welcome to leave NATO and ask US troops to leave any time.

Really? You sure sound like someone that watches Fox a lot.

No, I don't. I probably have about the same reaction to Fox news as you do. But that doesn't mean that I have any more respect for your position. I think you and European intellectuals like you are the perfect counterpart to Fox and their ilk: you are just as ignorant of history and just as elitist and distrustful of democracy and liberty.

Iran has acquired 'thousands of sea mines, wake ho

[Anonymous Coward]

all of which will be useless in the face of ....drones....that quietly monitor the situation from high altitudes? hey, where are the Terminators?

Nse bse mcx ncdex tradinf tips

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are trading in NSE, BSE, MCX and in NCDEX then let sharegyan give you all stock trading gyan