"Major Military Buildup" Underway in Persian Gulf...

[eyer]

WASHINGTON — The Navy is rushing dozens of unmanned underwater craft to the Persian Gulf to help detect and destroy mines in a major military buildup aimed at preventing Iran from closing the strategic Strait of Hormuz in the event of a crisis, U.S. officials said.

The tiny SeaFox submersibles each carry an underwater television camera, homing sonar and an explosive charge. The Navy bought them in May after an urgent request by Marine Gen. James Mattis, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East.

The rest of the story @

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/07/submersibles-persian-gulf-to-oppose-iran.html

Keep in mind:

America-led economic sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran are beginning to seriously effect the economic situation within Iran...

 

[busybody..]

The CHICKEN HAWK in the "White" House wants to make sure the anti Obama voter will NOT be in the US

 

[koalabear]

Luckily I sold all my minesweepers last year.

 

[busybody..]

me too

now my kitchen is dirty

bring back my sweepers

 

[koalabear]

Call INS.

 

[thør]

http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/E98366CB-D498-4D15-A568-6EA40BD09103/0/Bangor3.JPG

 

[koalabear]

http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/E98366CB-D498-4D15-A568-6EA40BD09103/0/Bangor3.JPG

Wow! Fish must be big up there, that's some lure!

 

[thør]

Wow! Fish must be big up there, that's some lure!

Trolling for mines with a SeaFox.

 

[eyer]

Sorry, Charlie - I mean, Mahmoud...

...Drone of the Sea.

 

[KingOrfeo]

America-led economic sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran are beginning to seriously effect the economic situation within Iran...

That sounds like a really bad idea, doesn't it? An economically-distressed Iran is an unstable Iran; and that is not good for Iran, nor for Israel, nor for the U.S., nor for the world.

 

[kbate]

That sounds like a really bad idea, doesn't it? An economically-distressed Iran is an unstable Iran; and that is not good for Iran, nor for Israel, nor for the U.S., nor for the world.

But an economically stable Iran has been good for the world? A nuclear armed Iran will be good for the world? The choices are bad and worse as long as the revolutionary junta is in command of the nation (America, not Iran).

 

[busybody..]

But an economically stable Iran has been good for the world? A nuclear armed Iran will be good for the world? The choices are bad and worse as long as the revolutionary junta is in command of the nation (America, not Iran).

DUMMY

BIG

BIG

DUMMY

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

That sounds like a really bad idea, doesn't it? An economically-distressed Iran is an unstable Iran; and that is not good for Iran, nor for Israel, nor for the U.S., nor for the world.

Oreo's dad was there to warn us about the hazards of confronting Hitler, too.

 

[coachdb18]

Oreo's dad was there to warn us about the hazards of confronting Hitler, too.

I'm glad our military only sends combat troops into resorts and on pleasure cruises now, imagine we want to avoid imposing ourselves or sanity into those places where we might have to open a can of whuppass. I know all those places I went were always cushy, with silk pillows and room service!

http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/crying.gif

 

[unregistered]

 

[akatrex]

http://www.davidduke.com/images/Nuke-Iran-ww.jpg

Problem Solved!

 

[KingOrfeo]

But an economically stable Iran has been good for the world? A nuclear armed Iran will be good for the world?

Yes, indeed, compared to any alternative that involves things in Iran falling part.

Oreo's dad was there to warn us about the hazards of confronting Hitler, too.

I'm glad our military only sends combat troops into resorts and on pleasure cruises now, imagine we want to avoid imposing ourselves or sanity into those places where we might have to open a can of whuppass. I know all those places I went were always cushy, with silk pillows and room service!

http://www.davidduke.com/images/Nuke-Iran-ww.jpg

Problem Solved!

Seriously, dudes, you don't want the U.S. involved in yet another war in the MENA, do you?! In Iran, yet?! A country every bit as volatile as Iraq and four times as big?! Did the Iraq fiasco teach you nothing?!

Jeez, we don't even have a handle on the situation in Syria yet! And I can't see any way that's gonna end well, whatever America does or does not do about it!

Experts have wargamed the scenario of even a limited airstrike on Iran several times in recent years, and they can never find a way to keep it from spinning out of control into a general regional war. And those wargame-analyses were all done before the Arab Spring lit a fire under everything, it would be even more dangerous now!

 

[kbate]

Yes, indeed, compared to any alternative that involves things in Iran falling part.

Frankly, I cannot imagine a scenario where Iran being in possession of nuclear arms is better than regional chaos and/or general war.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

Frankly, I cannot imagine a scenario where Iran being in possession of nuclear arms is better than regional chaos and/or general war.

Imagining to be dumb is difficult to some. To some it comes natural......

 

[KingOrfeo]

Frankly, I cannot imagine a scenario where Iran being in possession of nuclear arms is better than regional chaos and/or general war.

You might as well say that you cannot imagine a scenario where Israel being in possession of nuclear arms is better than regional chaos and/or general war. We're pretty sure they are in such possession and have been for many years, though they'll never come out and admit it; but if I lived in a neighboring country, I would not live in daily fear of Israeli nukes. I would be more in fear of Israeli conventional rockets and such.

Both the U.S. and the USSR were in possession of nuclear arms for decades without using them, however hostile their relations got. For a country simply to possess nuclear arms will not necessarily get anybody killed; but war will, by definition.

 

[unregistered]

 

[kbate]

You might as well say that you cannot imagine a scenario where Israel being in possession of nuclear arms is better than regional chaos and/or general war. We're pretty sure they are in such possession and have been for many years, though they'll never come out and admit it; but if I lived in a neighboring country, I would not live in daily fear of Israeli nukes. I would be more in fear of Israeli conventional rockets and such.

Both the U.S. and the USSR were in possession of nuclear arms for decades without using them, however hostile their relations got. For a country simply to possess nuclear arms will not necessarily get anybody killed; but war will, by definition.

No, you may as well state that. I would not make the same statement.

 

[KingOrfeo]

You are naive.

You are quite incredibly naive if, after the Iraq fiasco, you still believe the U.S. can take any military action against Iran that will not make things far worse for all concerned including ourselves.

 

[unregistered]

 

[bra_man69]

That has nothing to do with you being naive in regard to Iran possessing nuclear weapons.

And just so you know. The U.S., even in its diminished economic condition, could if it wanted to, destroy in detail most if not all of Iran's war making potential without putting any boots on the ground, except for special ops air/ground liaison personnel. When it was over in a few weeks, most in the region would breathe a sigh of relief in private.

Calling bullshit on what you just said.
When not if we go to war with Iran boots well be on the ground there and here this isn't some shit country we can bomb and it well be done. They have the very best military hardware from China and Russia and don't think the last ten years they haven't ben doing r/d on are military.
I'm not trying to troll you are anything but the facts are are military not in good shape ten years of war's has took it's toll on everything we have. That f/16 that crashed in Virginia remember that the air frame was wore out.