Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, January 21, 2014

Iran's state TV says the navy has sent warships on a mission to the Atlantic Ocean for the first time in the Islamic Republic's history. The Tuesday report said that Sabalan destroyer and Khark logistic helicopter carrier will be dispatched on a three-month voyage. In 2012, Iran said it aims to put warships in international waters off the U.S. coast within the next few years.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

sames1

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

Hummm, they are getting nukes and puttins warships off our coast. Their stated goal in the past was: 'Death to America! Death to Israel!

Anyone concerned?

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

The 45 year old Iranian frigate being sent out does not have the capability to launch any nuclear missiles, and is armed with 4 anti-ship missiles that are small enough to be aircraft launched.

The US 5th Fleet, carrying many nuclear weapons and many delivery systems, with more striking power than the entire Iranian navy, lives off of Iran's coast year-round.

Am I supposed to be concerned? or are the Iranians?

#1 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-01-21 11:07 AM | Reply | Flag:

Anyone concerned?

I am more concerned about the International Space Station falling out of orbit and landing on my head.

Please don't let me stop your hysterics.

#2 | Posted by 726 at 2014-01-21 11:10 AM | Reply | Flag:

Iran's Navy resembles the same level of threat as Kamikazes in WWII. It is possible for them to inflict damage to our ships but it would be suicidal to do so.

#3 | Posted by danni at 2014-01-21 11:59 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Hummm, they are getting nukes and puttins warships off our coast. Their stated goal in the past was: 'Death to America! Death to Israel!

Anyone concerned?


If someone tells you who they are, believe them.

#4 | Posted by Daniel at 2014-01-21 12:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

I am more concerned about the International Space Station falling out of orbit and landing on my head.

#2 | Posted by 726

Like that would have an affect on you.

#5 | Posted by wisgod at 2014-01-21 12:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

If I may make a prediction, Iran will be instrumental in starting WWIII.

#6 | Posted by Daniel at 2014-01-21 12:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

Hummm, they are getting nukes and puttins warships off our coast. Their stated goal in the past was: 'Death to America! Death to Israel!

Anyone concerned?

No. Especially since they're not getting nukes.

Who's "their"?

#7 | Posted by Derek_Wildstar at 2014-01-21 02:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

Is the notion of assured mutual destruction completely devoid within the Right's cone of understanding these days?

#8 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-01-21 02:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

Is the notion of assured mutual destruction completely devoid within the Right's cone of understanding these days?

#8 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-01-21 02:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

Rsty the thinking is that Iran hands off a small weapon to Hezbollah and there is no way to prove who did what. No one is really concerned about them launching a missile.

#9 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-01-21 02:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

Wow, even iran has politicians wasting their peoples money, just like this country.

#10 | Posted by moneywar at 2014-01-21 02:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

LoL!!

Now Iran isn't allowed to sail into the Atlantic?

Iran has a "warship". What is it? A tugboat with a rifle on it??

You righties are afraid of your own damn shadows.

LOL!!

#11 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-01-21 02:26 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Rsty the thinking is that Iran hands off a small weapon to Hezbollah and there is no way to prove who did what. No one is really concerned about them launching a missile.

LoL!

Stupid conspiracy theorist. There is no substance to your post.

You might as well be worried the Iranians are going to unplug the Atlantic Ocean and drain all the oceans' water.

#12 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-01-21 02:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

Rsty the thinking is that Iran hands off a small weapon to Hezbollah and there is no way to prove who did what.

Not according to Fox News and John Bolton: video.foxnews.com

#13 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-01-21 02:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

#12
I'm only saying what I have heard others say their reasoning is. Why don't you write a letter to Obama who has said that a nuclear Iran is not acceptable.

#14 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-01-21 02:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

Should be #12 & #13 I don't know what happened.

#15 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-01-21 02:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

#15 | POSTED BY DALTON

There is a chance that Iran provides nuclear armaments to terrorists. But the problem with that is the fact that no other nation is as supportive of terrorists against Israel than that of Iran. So if something like that should happen, who do you think we are going to blame?

Pakistan? India? HA! At any rate, a nuclear Iran would have a direct interest in ensuring no terrorists attack Israel at the risk of retaliation right back at them. Keep in mind, the U.S. has PROVEN we don't need a smoking gun to start a war. All we need is a "Pearl Harbor" event. Iran is aware of this and they are aware there aren't any other countries that support terrorists as they do - especially those that are anti-Israel. Any country can provide small armaments to terrorists. Those are hard to track - yes. But nuclear weapons?

It's a plot line for a new Ironman 3 movie: North Korea supplies nukes to terrorists to blow up Israel so that the U.S. would then blame and invade Iran, creating a nuclear holocaust that only North Korea can survive. At least I could see Kim Jung Un viewing it that way. He just as crazy as his pappy.

#16 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-01-21 02:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

*...a nuclear Iran would have a direct interest in ensuring no terrorists attack Israel using nukes...

FTFM!

#17 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-01-21 02:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

#14

Funny thing is. Iran isn't nuclear. Other than conspiracy theorists, no on has any factual information on Iran actually building a nuke.

In my lifetime I have yet to see Iran undertake any action that warrants our current reaction to them.

America killed their democratically elected leader and installed a puppet government in order to control the oil supply. The people Iran hated the puppet dictator and over threw him. Religious zealots, much like our own tea Partiers, took control of the government. American fueled a war between Iran and Iraq. And somehow Iran is culpable.

Leave them alone.

#18 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-01-21 02:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

#18 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

Both America and Israel made their Iranian bed in 1953. A nuclear Iran with a religious zealot in control is what we get. America must learn it cannot control the world and should stop trying.

#19 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-01-21 02:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

Maybe I'm not being clear enough? I'm not making a argument one way or the other regarding Iran. Maybe you two should take it up with Obama b/c he is the current president saying a nuclear Iran is not acceptable.

#20 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-01-21 02:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's a plot line for a new Ironman 3 movie: North Korea supplies nukes to terrorists to blow up Israel so that the U.S. would then blame and invade Iran, creating a nuclear holocaust that only North Korea can survive. At least I could see Kim Jung Un viewing it that way. He just as crazy as his pappy.

#16 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11 AT 2014-01-21 02:46 PM | FLAG:

I'm pretty sure that was the plot of "Team America! ---- Yeah!!"

#21 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-01-21 02:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

#20

Obama say a nuclear Iran isn't acceptable. I'm pretty sure he means Iran cannot have nuclear weapons (which I don't agree with). Iran currently doesn't have nuclear weapons. Therefore. No problem.

As far as Iran having a nuke, we have no right to prevent them from getting one. All their neighbors and enemies have them. And if Iran were to use a nuke they would be annihilated. And I'm pretty sure they are aware of that.

#22 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-01-21 03:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

Maybe you two should take it up with Obama b/c he is the current president saying a nuclear Iran is not acceptable.
#20 | POSTED BY DALTON

Been there, tried that in 2012 with a vote for Bill Johnson. Although, the vote was against B. Hussein Obama's War on Drugs more than anything dealing with Iran.

One vote = one issue.

:-)

#24 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-01-21 03:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

That movie has some amazing parts in it and it always makes me laugh.

Great F••king movie!

#25 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-01-21 03:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

*Gary Johnson

Damn it! Would be good if I could remember who it is I voted for in 2012.

:-/

Is it Friday yet?

#26 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-01-21 03:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Would be good if I could remember who it is I voted for in 2012."

LOL. I guess that explains the importance of the war on drugs Rsty.

#27 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-01-21 03:12 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Personally, I think we will have to get used to the idea of Iran with nuclear weapons. Bombing them is a bad option b/c once you start that we won't know where the stopping point is and the next thing you know someone says "while we are at it we might as well install a friendly government" and bam we are stuck in another Islamic country.

#28 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-01-21 03:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

#27 | POSTED BY DALTON

If I were a Dem, I'd say 'Touché!'

But my Libertarianism just won't let me do it! I should be allowed to be so forgetful!

Good catch nonetheless ;-)

#29 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-01-21 03:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

#28 | POSTED BY DALTON

Entirely agree. Israel needs to recognize this. A more prosperous, self-sustaining Iran could very well lead to a more tolerant Iran, IMO.

But what do I know. I can't even remember what I had for breakfast.

#30 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-01-21 03:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

The real problem is evangelicals and north east democratic congress people. The evangelicals want to do whatever Israel wants w/out question. The north east democrats get money from Israel supporters and they want to do whatever Israel wants w/out question.

PS. #27 was a light hearted jab. No offense meant.

#31 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-01-21 03:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

Bottom line: Who gives a crap if Iran sends a couple of dinky, pitiful ships "into the Atlantic"? Where can they go and be assured of being able to purchase fuel? Africa? Venezuela? This is a total non-story.

#32 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-01-21 03:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

PS. #27 was a light hearted jab. No offense meant.
#31 | POSTED BY DALTON

I figured. LOL

#33 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-01-21 03:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Rsty the thinking is that Iran hands off a small weapon to Hezbollah and there is no way to prove who did what. No one is really concerned about them launching a missile."

In such a case, as we have demonstrated before, we don't wait for "proof" before we react. Iran is well aware of that.

#34 | Posted by danni at 2014-01-21 04:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

The Coast Guard, by itself, could probably kick the tar out of the Iranian navy .

#35 | Posted by Sully at 2014-01-21 04:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

The Coast Guard, by itself, could probably kick the tar out of the Iranian navy .

#35 | POSTED BY SULLY AT 2014-01-21 04:04 PM | FLAG:

The US Coast Guard would last about 5 minutes. They have no means to stop the anti-ship missile barrages Iran is capable of launching.

#36 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-01-21 04:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Iran has a "warship". What is it? A tugboat with a rifle on it??

You righties are afraid of your own damn shadows."

Do I really need to explain it? I guess so.. you clowns would disarm this Country with your nonsense.

How soon we forget. In 2000 some camel jockys with a dingy killed sailors and damned near sank the USS Cole an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer bristling with missiles and guns.

In 2001 a group armed with only cutters crashed aircraft into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and tried for the Capitol or White House.

The point is they don't go head to head anymore. It's more like the Colonists fighting the British in the revolutionary war. The British expected them to line up head to head and fire. They didn't. They used Indian tactics and hide behind trees and structures and defeated the most powerful army in the world.

There must be a hundred ways Iran could damage the US with a "tugboat" as you call it. They can't defeat us, but they could draw us into a war and kill untold thousand before we respond. At first they will be testing us, watching, and listening to our communications.

Do you want to be on a Carnival cruise ship when that Iranian tugboat sinks it and takes hostages? Do you want to be in port when our Navy is distracted by the "tugboat" and terrorists set off a nuke from a shipping container? Do you want to be on-board with the Iranian tugboat calls for help because it's "sinking" and another Arleigh Burke-class destroyer approaches and is blown up with a suicide nuke?

We are not dealing with people that play by the rules of engagement here. We must think out of the box and be ready. They have warned us.

So you liberals want to watch the Oscars, eat Cheetos, and whine about Global Warming and to hell with little Iran? Johnson called Vietnam a "little Country". Look what that little Country cost us.

#37 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-01-21 06:08 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

How soon we forget. In 2000 some camel jockys with a dingy killed sailors and damned near sank the USS Cole an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer bristling with missiles and guns.
In 2001 a group armed with only cutters crashed aircraft into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and tried for the Capitol or White House.

Earth to SAMES1. None of them were Iranian.

So you liberals want to watch the Oscars, eat Cheetos, and whine about Global Warming and to hell with little Iran? Johnson called Vietnam a "little Country". Look what that little Country cost us.
#37 | POSTED BY SAMES1

What kind of crap is that? You think Republicans don't eat cheetoes and whine about global warming (or lack there of)?

Hollywood raked in BILLIONS last year. You think only liberals shelled out for the "grand distraction"?

You're either truly naive or an incredibly pathetic hack or a troll.

Which is it?

#38 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-01-21 06:38 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"America killed their democratically elected leader and installed a puppet government in order to control the oil supply."

Errr....

"After a trial, he served three years in prison and ended up under house arrest at his estate. In March 1967, in his mid-80's and weakened by radium treatments for throat cancer, he died."

www.iranchamber.com

#39 | Posted by Harry_Powell at 2014-01-21 06:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm more worried Somali pirates are going to capture this ship than I am about it threatening any country.

Fact is Any major American cities police department could sink this ship.

#40 | Posted by Tor at 2014-01-21 07:01 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 2

#40 | POSTED BY TOR

HAHAHA! FF

#41 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-01-21 07:03 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

The biggest nuclear threat to the USA would be an EMP blast about 200 miles high over the mid US, so once they develop an ICBM they become a threat to us.

#42 | Posted by MSgt at 2014-01-21 07:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

MSGT Iran won't develop ICBM they'll buy some from another country only to suffer a nuclear accident soon as it's deep within their borders.

#43 | Posted by Tor at 2014-01-21 07:13 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

"We are not dealing with people that play by the rules of engagement here."

I suspect they say the exact same thing about us. Was napalming villages playing by the rules of engagement. I firing on civilians from drones playing by those rules? How about using depleted uranium shells? How about cruise missiles? Are the war mongers who want us to just go ahead and bomb Iran playing by those rules?

#44 | Posted by danni at 2014-01-21 07:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Earth to SAMES1. None of them were Iranian. "

You people are too dumb to hold a conversation. Good grief.

#45 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-01-21 07:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The biggest nuclear threat to the USA would be an EMP blast about 200 miles high over the mid US, so once they develop an ICBM they become a threat to us."

That is your "expert" opinion? 9-11 couldn't have happened either right?

#46 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-01-21 07:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I suspect they say the exact same thing about us. Was napalming villages playing by the rules of engagement. I firing on civilians from drones playing by those rules? How about using depleted uranium shells? How about cruise missiles? Are the war mongers who want us to just go ahead and bomb Iran playing by those rules?"

What? So you are saying we should just ignore Iran. Ignore the threat. Ignore what they can do? Good God this is why liberals should not be in charge of anything.

#47 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-01-21 07:37 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

In 2000 some camel jockys with a dingy killed sailors and damned near sank the USS Cole an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer bristling with missiles and guns.

Are you talking about Somalians? how many times a day do you change your diapers? So no other country has the right to sail a boat because theres always someone that will mess it up for everyone else? I would hate to be your kid.

In 2001 a group armed with only cutters crashed aircraft into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and tried for the Capitol or White House.

What group are you talking about? US Military personnel? Could you be any more stupid?

They can't defeat us, but they could draw us into a war and kill untold thousand before we respond.

Why would we have to wait for Iran to do anything? Iraq didn't do anything and thousands of Americans died. But I guess you don't hold BushJr accountable for anything.

Do you want to be on a Carnival cruise ship when that Iranian tugboat sinks it and takes hostages?

Again, why wait for Iranians? Those things have been sinking left and right. Plus I hear the Cholera outbreaks are ridiculous! No thanks!

We are not dealing with people that play by the rules of engagement here. We must think out of the box and be ready. They have warned us.

Look at this idiot, he's ready for another preemptive war. He must have been hiding under a rock on the moon for the past 14 years.

So you liberals want to watch the Oscars, eat Cheetos, and whine about Global Warming and to hell with little Iran?

Compared to starting an unfound war again? absolutely! Tell me, how do you leave your house every morning? didn't you hear that the sky was falling?

#37 | POSTED BY SAMES1 AT 2014-01-21 06:08 PM

People like you belong in insane asylums.

#48 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-01-21 08:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

You people are too dumb to hold a conversation. Good grief.
#45 | POSTED BY SAMES1

What's that supposed to mean? YOU PEOPLE?!

You some kind of BIGOT?!

#49 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-01-21 08:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Do you want to be on a Carnival cruise ship when that Iranian tugboat sinks it and takes hostages?"

CArnival doesn't have a single American flagged vessel, they should expect the nation that is represented by the flag they fly to protect them, not the United STates.
BTW, the CArnival Cruise Ship that broke down in the Gulf of Mexico and had to be towed to shore, at great expense,.....Mickey ARinson, owner of Carnival refused to pay the bill to the Coast Guard for the tow even though his ship line does not even pay taxes to support that Coast Guard.

#50 | Posted by danni at 2014-01-21 08:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Earth to SAMES1. None of them were Iranian. "

You people are too dumb to hold a conversation. Good grief.
#45 | POSTED BY SAMES1 AT 2014-01-21 07:34 PM | REPLY

Yea! Don't you get it. It's us (white, christian Americans) vs them (everyone else).

It doesn't matter that they weren't Iranians, anyone not White and American is against America!

Somalians, Iranians, orcs of mordor... they're all the same.

#51 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-01-21 08:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

The biggest nuclear threat to the USA would be an EMP blast about 200 miles high over the mid US, so once they develop an ICBM they become a threat to us.
#42 | POSTED BY MSGT AT 2014-01-21 07:04 PM |

How do we know that they haven't already?

I mean, maybe the warship, is actually carrying the EMP into the middle of the atlantic in order to detonate it!!!

OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lets all hold hands and sing kumbaya.

#52 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-01-21 08:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

9-11 couldn't have happened either right?
#46 | POSTED BY SAMES1

Not without help from within the BushJr Administration.

But Cheney made sure to do all he could.

God Bless Robo-Cheney. May his mechanical heart never fail.

#53 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-01-21 08:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

So you are saying we should just ignore Iran. Ignore the threat. Ignore what they can do?

You must have high blood pressure and anxiety from all this overreacting to nothing.

WTF are you talking about?? Whats the threat? what can they do, better yet, what is your psychotic mind telling you they are planning on doing?

Good God this is why liberals should not be in charge of anything.
#47 | POSTED BY SAMES1 AT 2014-01-21 07:37 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

No, this is a really really good example of why a hypochondriac, delusional, schizophrenic warmongering neocon should never be in charge of anything.

#54 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-01-21 08:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

#54 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

The Circus Tent does not revolve around you. There are other clowns in the house other than you.

#55 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-01-21 08:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

#55 I think you may have posted in the wrong thread?

are you referring to www.drudge.com ?

#56 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-01-21 09:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

Like that would have an affect on you.

#5 | POSTED BY WISGOD AT 2014-01-21 12:48 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

It would mess up the part in my hair.

#57 | Posted by 726 at 2014-01-22 10:51 AM | Reply | Flag:

We are not dealing with people that play by the rules of engagement here. We must think out of the box and be ready. They have warned us.
So you liberals want to watch the Oscars, eat Cheetos, and whine about Global Warming and to hell with little Iran? Johnson called Vietnam a "little Country". Look what that little Country cost us.
#37 | POSTED BY SAMES1 AT 2014-01-21 06:08 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

It's bed wetters like this that cause the defense budget to be the biggest bloated load of crap that it is.

#58 | Posted by 726 at 2014-01-22 10:55 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

This reminds me of Condy Rice claiming Iran was a threat to Poland. It is utterly ridiculous for seemingly intelligent people to engage in such rhetoric. The only purpose is to increase defense spending. It has this effect, but it shouldn't, if intelligent fair minded people were in charge.

#59 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-01-22 11:42 AM | Reply | Flag:

Stupid liberals. Just go back to your fantasy world where talking in hushed tones will solve any threat. You idiots would strip the defense department and give the money to illegal aliens.

You don't think Iran is a threat to your mighty Starbucks lifestyle? You fools should be happy that we have people out there worried about threats that you so blindly can not see.

F-35 Program Compromised By Discovery Of Iranian Spy?
Read more at
www.inquisitr.com

#60 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-01-22 01:05 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Do I really need to explain it? I guess so.. you clowns would disarm this Country with your nonsense.
How soon we forget. In 2000 some camel jockys with a dingy killed sailors and damned near sank the USS Cole an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer bristling with missiles and guns.
In 2001 a group armed with only cutters crashed aircraft into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and tried for the Capitol or White House.
The point is they don't go head to head anymore.
#37 | POSTED BY SAMES1 AT 2014-01-21 06:08 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

I'm confused on who the hell "they" are. Are you john mccain's lost mind gone wild on the Internet? You know from your own examples, those weren't Iranians, right? Not a single one in either attack. They weren't even Persian. They came from countries that hate Iran.

#61 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-01-22 02:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I'm confused on who the hell "they" are. Are you john mccain's lost mind gone wild on the Internet? You know from your own examples, those weren't Iranians, right? Not a single one in either attack. They weren't even Persian. They came from countries that hate Iran"

In your case it is better to remain silent at the risk of being thought a fool, than to talk and remove all doubt.

#62 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-01-22 02:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

"How soon we forget. In 2000 some camel jockys with a dingy killed sailors and damned near sank the USS Cole an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer bristling with missiles and guns.
In 2001 a group armed with only cutters crashed aircraft into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and tried for the Capitol or White House.
The point is they don't go head to head anymore. "

And then in 2003 an even worst disaster occurred, we let a lying idiot invade Iraq which also had nothing to do with either of those attacks.
It finally comes down to who really did the most harm to the U.S., the terrorists or the neocons we let take over our government? If you measure it by dollars, lives or any other measure the neocons win.

#63 | Posted by danni at 2014-01-22 02:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

Stupid liberals. Just go back to your fantasy world where talking in hushed tones will solve any threat. You idiots would strip the defense department and give the money to illegal aliens.
You don't think Iran is a threat to your mighty Starbucks lifestyle? You fools should be happy that we have people out there worried about threats that you so blindly can not see.
#60 | POSTED BY SAMES1 AT 2014-01-22 01:05 PM | REPLY

I'm more worried that you worship Starbucks so much. Its amazing that you write so much and have absolutely nothing to say.

You should go see a doctor before you have a heart attack.

In your case it is better to remain silent at the risk of being thought a fool, than to talk and remove all doubt.
#62 | POSTED BY SAMES1 AT 2014-01-22 02:28 PM |

In other words, you concede that you have no clue what you are talking about.

Cool.

#64 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-01-22 02:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

"In other words, you concede that you have no clue what you are talking about."

In other words, you Clownshack are a fool.

#65 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-01-22 02:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

#63

Danni. Sames1 is a NeoCon. his postings reek of it.

#66 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-01-22 02:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

In other words, you Clownshack are a fool.
#65 | POSTED BY SAMES1 AT 2014-01-22 02:38 PM | FLAG:

All evidence points to you having no clue what you are talking about.

Why not provide us a post with substance, your last few posts have been nothing but empty threats to anyone calling you out.

And trying to tie Somalian pirates and 9/11 to Iran is pretty pointless.

but hell, you got nothing, so, why not be desperate.

#67 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-01-22 02:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

"And trying to tie Somalian pirates and 9/11 to Iran is pretty pointless. "

You are the desperate one. Trying to dismiss Iran as no threat at all. Go live in Israel for a while and see if you feel safe.

#68 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-01-22 02:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

In your case it is better to remain silent at the risk of being thought a fool, than to talk and remove all doubt.

#62 | POSTED BY SAMES1 AT 2014-01-22 02:28 PM | FLAG:

You are one of the reasons people are fleeing the Republican party.

#69 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-01-22 02:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

You are the desperate one. Trying to dismiss Iran as no threat at all. Go live in Israel for a while and see if you feel safe.

#68 | POSTED BY SAMES1 AT 2014-01-22 02:44 PM | REPLY

Another empty post.

I live in America. Why don't you go live in Columbia and see if you feel safe. Hell, why don't you go live in Mexico and see if you feel safe.

Your meaningless posts make you seem desperate. Especially since you can't figure out that Somalian pirates, Arab terrorists, and Iranians aren't the same people. Nor have you attempted to draw a correlation between them in any of your posts.

You're a scared little warmongering chicken hawk. Why don't you take a break to empty out your depends.

#70 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-01-22 02:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Go live in Israel for a while and see if you feel safe."

Come back and ask us for more help for Israel AFTER they stop building settlements. Till then, Iran is their problem.

#71 | Posted by danni at 2014-01-22 02:57 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

I can categorically state: Iran is no threat to the United States.

#72 | Posted by danni at 2014-01-22 02:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

Iran has never ever been a threat to America.

The only thing they did which pissed our government off was trying to nationalize their oil.

Iran, and other middle eastern nations, may be a threat to Israel. MAY BE. But honestly, I don't care.

There are dozens of countries around the planet that are threats to one another. It's their problem, no ours.

#73 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-01-22 03:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

We need to remember how to win a war first, from the beginning to the end.

To do that, we need to get rid of liberals..

#74 | Posted by boaz at 2014-01-22 03:20 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

"To do that, we need to get rid of liberals.."

The last General to actually win a war was Eisenhower and he would definitely be considered a liberal today. He warned us about right wingers who would try to take away social security, want to build ridiculous levels of military hardware, who would start unnecessary foreign wars, etc. He would be ashamed of the Republican party of today.

#75 | Posted by danni at 2014-01-22 03:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

"He would be ashamed of the Republican party of today." I'm sure the good General would be fully ashamed of the Obama Administration.

#76 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-01-22 03:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Iran has never ever been a threat to America. "
"I can categorically state: Iran is no threat to the United States."

You keep missing the point, of course. Could I expect less from liberals?

#77 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-01-22 03:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

We need to remember how to win a war first, from the beginning to the end.
To do that, we need to get rid of liberals..
#74 | POSTED BY BOAZ AT 2014-01-22 03:20 PM | REPLY

Hey Boaz, tell me of that war you won in Iraq and Afghanistan. oh wait, didn't win those.

Hey Boaz, tell me of that war that was won in Korea and Vietnam. Oh wait, didn't win those either.

Hey Boaz, who was president during WW2, the war we actually won. Oh thats right, liberal democrats were.

Don't you hate it when facts get in the way of your partisanship.

I know I love it.

#78 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-01-22 03:43 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

You keep missing the point, of course. Could I expect less from liberals?
#77 | POSTED BY SAMES1 AT 2014-01-22 03:32 PM

You mean the point that you don't have?

Yea, its easy to miss the point when you don't have one.

Just post, "Iran bad! Must Smash!" from here on out.

#79 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-01-22 03:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I'm sure the good General would be fully ashamed of the Obama Administration."

I could easily pull up Eisenhowers letters and speeches where he clearly states what he believed about many topics, I can't think of much of anything he would have disagreed with Obama about but I can think of plenty he would disagree with the neocons and the Republican Party itself about. I'll guarantee you he would have been ashamed of a former military officer who was running for President and making a joking song about bombing Iran.

#80 | Posted by danni at 2014-01-22 04:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

" I can't think of much of anything he would have disagreed with Obama"

Active words being "I can't think "

#81 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-01-22 06:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

"You mean the point that you don't have? "

Haha.. What a clown. You do however have a point, but it's at the top of your head.

#82 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-01-22 06:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

#82 | POSTED BY SAMES1 AT 2014-01-22 06:09 PM | REPLY |

I told you, just respond with: "Iran bad! Must Smash!"

It makes more sense that anything you've posted in this entire thread.

#83 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-01-22 06:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

Anyone concerned?

Posted by sames1

Somebody sure has their panties in a bunch over a couple of ships that might not ever make it to America. I am curious as to what ports they would use for repairs and such. It's a long way to America. And I wonder how many would rather stay if they managed to get near here.

I am sure Hollywood can make a great movie out of it anyway.

enjoy!

#84 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-01-22 06:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I told you, just respond with: "Iran bad! Must Smash!""

Obviously you don't know how to read or comprehend anything.

I never said Iran bad! Must Smash! , but go ahead and live in your fantasy world.

#85 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-01-23 12:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

"a couple of ships that might not ever make it to America"

Again, you idiots focus on the wrong thing. Go ahead, put your head in the sand. Do do so, simply sit down on a sand pile.

#86 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-01-23 12:16 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Iran said it aims to put warships in international waters off the U.S. coast within the next few years."

Cool. That means the Navy can pay attention to important things while the Coast Guard waxes these pretenders.

#87 | Posted by Diablo at 2014-01-23 02:25 AM | Reply | Flag:

"That means the Navy can pay attention to important things"

like their bunkmate's attractive backsides!

in the navy! they're looking for fresh seamen!!!! (apologies to the village people)

#88 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2014-01-23 02:40 AM | Reply | Flag:

"I told you, just respond with: "Iran bad! Must Smash!""

Obviously you don't know how to read or comprehend anything.
I never said Iran bad! Must Smash! , but go ahead and live in your fantasy world.
#85 | POSTED BY SAMES1 AT 2014-01-23 12:14 AM | FLAG:

You obviously fail at comprehending what you read.

Not a surprise at all.

Hey. Do you have a point?

85 posts in and you've yet to make one.

I'm not going to hold my breath.

#89 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-01-23 03:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

Iran with nukes, non issue. My gun with a clip that holds more than 10 rounds- single greatest threat we face-

#90 | Posted by kersh at 2014-01-23 08:08 AM | Reply | Flag:

Iran Tests Suggest Possible EMP Trials

Jane's Information Group
Posted on April 27, 2005 by editor
The May edition of Jane's Missiles and Rockets reports that recent missile tests by Iran may have been part of the development of an Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) warhead. Jane's cites testimony from the Senate Committee on the Judiciary's Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology, and Homeland Security from March 8, 2005, by Peter Pry and Lowell Wood. Wood is a member of the Congressional EMP Commission, which released its important report on the EMP threat in July 2004.

Some of Iran's tests of its Shahab-3 had been terminated before the completion of their ballistic trajectories, that is, exploding in mid-flight by what appeared to be a self-destruct mechanism. Iran has nevertheless described the tests as fully "successful." Pry noted that the apparent contradiction would make sense "if Iran were practicing the execution of an EMP attack." Lowell Wood is quoted as having testified to the subcommittee that such an attack upon the United States could keep off most electrical functions for a time period of a few hours or decades, depending on how it was executed. Wood also warned the subcommittee that such an EMP warhead could be delivered against the United States by "a Scud missile launched from a freighter off the Atlantic coast."

#91 | Posted by Daniel at 2014-01-23 08:48 AM | Reply | Flag:

Oops, link for above article.

missilethreat.com

#92 | Posted by Daniel at 2014-01-23 08:49 AM | Reply | Flag:

God there's a lot of hand-wringing over this insignificant tidbit of news. I'll make you all a deal - I will never again inject myself into threads about topics about which I am completely ignorant (musical theater, for instance), if those of you who learned everything you know about maritime warfare from TV will quit pretending to be experts on it. I'm including anyone who may have served in the Navy as a snipe, bosun, or some other non-tactical job. Just shut the hell up...you're embarrassing yourselves.

Let me try to put this to rest:
1. They're sortieing into "the Atlantic",not "Long Island Sound", but they have the right to steam around in international waters, as we do.
2. They do not have the ability to refuel underway, which means they need to find ports willing to refuel them. Depending on who is sitting in the White House, that may not be anywhere in North America.
3. We could sink both vessels hundreds of miles from the US coast without the use of a single ship or submarine...but at any given time we have about a dozen naval vessels off the US east coast maintaining their readiness or conducting exercises....armed.
4. We will know where the Iranian vessels are from the day they sortie until they day they get home. Technology is a wonderful thing, and they don't share that advantage.
5. If the IRIN and IRGCN (Iran has 2 Navies) both sortied every vessel they own with the intent of harming the US mainland, the US Navy would make the 6-day war seem like a protracted engagement. We would, due to our sense of fair play, give them the first shot....and then we would rescue any survivors from the debris field that used to be their fleet. Global Force for Good and all that jazz.

#93 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-01-23 09:16 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

The USA DoF (Department of Fear)is at it again attempting to convince the sheep that guns are more important than butter (and a healthy economy and Social Security).

Do you remember the claim by Bush that Saddam could send drones to America? It was intended to scare us into that trillion dollar war so as to keep our best apartheid friend in the ME safe regardless of their own reckless actions.

www.thespectrum.com

#94 | Posted by Robson at 2014-01-23 09:19 AM | Reply | Flag:

I remember Reagan yammering about MiGs in Nicaragua.

So the Iranians want to send some ships into the Atlantic. So what? Mustang above at #93 pretty well summed up the situation.

#95 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2014-01-23 09:30 AM | Reply | Flag:

to the universally despised and wanted criminal, the murderer and rapist, the habitual thief and conman, the common bully, EVERYTHING is considered a threat.

expect america to have many many more self-proclaimed threats, for many many more years to come.

#96 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2014-01-23 01:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

"… that guns are more important than butter…"

Without guns someone can take away your butter.

#97 | Posted by MSgt at 2014-01-23 01:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

#96 Your Che Guevara panties are showing.

#98 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-01-23 02:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

Without guns someone can take away your butter.

#97 | POSTED BY MSGT AT 2014-01-23 01:30 PM

Not if you use the butter to blind them first.

#99 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-01-23 02:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

BTW, Mustang, #93 is NW.

I wish hysterical people like Sames1 would learn to relax.

#100 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-01-23 02:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Without guns someone can take away your butter."

Ever try to eat a gun?

#101 | Posted by danni at 2014-01-23 02:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

#101 if you have one, you don't have to eat it...you get to eat what the guy who doesn't have one is eating...at least in theory.

#102 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-01-23 03:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

you get to eat what the guy who doesn't have one is eating

Pssh, he probably has a car antenna. then you're screwed.

#103 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-01-23 03:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

List of countries by military expenditures

"en.wikipedia.org"

I would never argue that we don't need a strong military with all of the equipment they really do need but, the same token, we all know that profiteers are building equipment the military doesn't even want (Abrams Tanks for instance) and taxpayers dollars are being wasted. This country needs a serious reevaluation of the amount of money we spend on the military, not that I am talking about personnel salaries or benefits, those are well earned but the unnecessary outposts around the world, the unnecessary equipment, etc. Thing is if we don't fix our balance of trade we won't be able to spend as much as we do now for very many more years anyway.

#104 | Posted by danni at 2014-01-23 06:56 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#93 | Posted by MUSTANG

Mustang: Damn fine post.

#105 | Posted by TheTom at 2014-01-23 07:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

"… that guns are more important than butter…"

Without guns someone can take away your butter.

#97 | Posted by MSgt

But without butter and food we all die too and less comfortably. I'm not naive enough to ask "why can't we all get along?"

We all know why, and it is because greedsters that control propaganda, government, and always profit from the great cultural, religious, political divide and insatiable greed will keep the masses churned up and fighting amongst each other over irrelevant political BS.

We see exactly how it all works in the USA MSM every fXXXXXX day in the cable media and they call it punditry and politics. Examine it in detail.

#106 | Posted by Robson at 2014-01-23 07:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

Trying to get liberals to understand is like getting a monkey to sing Hail to the Chief.

You are all focused on what our Navy can do.. how big the Atlantic is, how little Iran is, yada yada.

Doh... any fool can see that 1 tiny ship can not do much damage. That's not the freaking point. Slowly but surely they are building. Slowly they are looking for a way to strike. If we are not careful, they will. It is their stated goal.

So go ahead and quote stats, tell everyone that we need not worry. Frankly I don't worry. I leave it to those who are supposed to be defending this Country. Of course you all would cut the military budget to the point that we may not be ready. Clinton did that and Reagan had to build it back up.

I would give more examples, but like horses with blinders, you cannot see anything.

#107 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-01-23 07:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Of course you all would cut the military budget to the point that we may not be ready. Clinton did that and Reagan had to build it back up."

Er Sames....you do realize that Clinton was President after Reagan and Bush 1? Carter came before Reagan and we suffered no serious attacks under either Carter or Reagan's time in office. Until 9-11-2001 we hadn't suffered a major attack on the US since 1941.

#108 | Posted by danni at 2014-01-23 07:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

Clinton did that and Reagan had to build it back up.
I would give more examples, but like horses with blinders, you cannot see anything.
#107 | POSTED BY SAMES1 AT 2014-01-23 07:18 PM

More examples of Reagan having to undo what Clinton did?

Er Sames....you do realize that Clinton was President after Reagan and Bush 1?

Sames doesn't even realize what point he's trying to make.

He's just looking at the shadows on the walls and imagining an incoming apocalypse.

Twelve years of war with Iraq and Afghanistan haven't taught him anything.

#109 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-01-23 07:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

You all know very well I meant Carter but typed Clinton. So be it.

Just shows how petty you liberals are when you have no case.

#110 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-01-24 12:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

"hey, do you have a point to make yet?"

The point was made several times. You are too lazy to look, too stupid to understand, or just a pain in the a**

#112 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-01-24 07:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort