Iran to bring warships near U.S. Atlantic - Page 2 - Politics and War Forum

Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.
Re: Iran to bring warships near U.S. Atlantic
Friday, September 30, 2011 12:58 PM
Quote:

Before we go to war with ANOTHER country, we really have to get our noses out of the other two we keep lingering in for some reason...
[/quote

I agree. Secure the pipeline first.


Religion is like a penis...It's OK to have one. It's OK to be proud of it. But please don't whip it out in public and start waving it around. And PLEASE don,t try to shove it down my childrens throats.

Re: Iran to bring warships near U.S. Atlantic
Friday, September 30, 2011 1:50 PM
Im not sure you guys can afford another war lol


"Straight roads are for fast cars, turns are for fast drivers"-Colin McRae
Re: Iran to bring warships near U.S. Atlantic
Friday, September 30, 2011 1:51 PM
onecleancavy wrote:

Im not sure you guys can afford another war lol


we can't afford the multiple wars we already have.





Re: Iran to bring warships near U.S. Atlantic
Friday, September 30, 2011 1:56 PM
we can afford anything.

wer'e the USA damnit! lol



Re: Iran to bring warships near U.S. Atlantic
Friday, September 30, 2011 2:08 PM
blucavvy wrote:

we can afford anything.

wer'e the USA damnit! lol


Realistically this is a true statement it would just screw us even more so in the end though.




Re: Iran to bring warships near U.S. Atlantic
Friday, September 30, 2011 2:17 PM
with who? china?

@!#$ em



Re: Iran to bring warships near U.S. Atlantic
Friday, September 30, 2011 3:12 PM
J03Y wrote:

onecleancavy wrote:

Im not sure you guys can afford another war lol


we can't afford the multiple wars we already have.


No doubt. Protecting yourself is one thing but I dont think starting another war would be in your best interests right now.


"Straight roads are for fast cars, turns are for fast drivers"-Colin McRae
Re: Iran to bring warships near U.S. Atlantic
Friday, September 30, 2011 3:21 PM
war is good business.



Re: Iran to bring warships near U.S. Atlantic
Friday, September 30, 2011 3:31 PM
-Z Yaaaa- wrote:

war is good business.


http://economics.about.com/od/warandtheeconomy/a/warsandeconomy.htm




"Straight roads are for fast cars, turns are for fast drivers"-Colin McRae
Re: Iran to bring warships near U.S. Atlantic
Friday, September 30, 2011 3:40 PM
Quote:

war is good business.


When fighter jets and helicopters are emptying all their ammo in your neighborhood I'm not so sure about that. It's funny only when it's your country who is always invading others.


Religion is like a penis...It's OK to have one. It's OK to be proud of it. But please don't whip it out in public and start waving it around. And PLEASE don,t try to shove it down my childrens throats.
Re: Iran to bring warships near U.S. Atlantic
Friday, September 30, 2011 4:34 PM
MyKoup_owns_theZ wrote:

Quote:

war is good business.


When fighter jets and helicopters are emptying all their ammo in your neighborhood I'm not so sure about that. It's funny only when it's your country who is always invading others.


Would you shut the @!#$ up?? Seriously, you're going THERE of all places to bitch about us? Who the hell invaded Canada???


(tabs) wrote:

z yaaaa wrote:

its not much fun trying to argue with a wall.
oh, trust us, we know


Re: Iran to bring warships near U.S. Atlantic
Friday, September 30, 2011 5:05 PM
Copter wrote:

They make their issues the worlds issues.

Yep, because Israel said so.


THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Re: Iran to bring warships near U.S. Atlantic
Saturday, October 01, 2011 2:54 AM
Quote:

Would you shut the @!#$ up?? Seriously, you're going THERE of all places to bitch about us? Who the hell invaded Canada???


In fact I wasn't really bitching ONLY about the United States. Our canadian troops are almost always with you guys or near your troops in the last wars or crisis.

I just failed at responding to Z-Yaaa that a war may be good business but must not be that fun when it's over your head.


Religion is like a penis...It's OK to have one. It's OK to be proud of it. But please don't whip it out in public and start waving it around. And PLEASE don,t try to shove it down my childrens throats.
Re: Iran to bring warships near U.S. Atlantic
Saturday, October 01, 2011 11:22 AM
I don't know how many of the American civilians sit here and go "Man it's a good thing our military is in this country or that country". I honestly want to give our government the benefit of the doubt that they are there with good intentions and not JUST "well there's oil or other resources that we want" kind of mindset. We aren't over there invading. We don't go without warrant. And if someone says "they have weapons pointed at us", or "they attacked us", or "they potentially have major weapons that need to be stopped as their leader is a psycho", damn right we'll be there. And we aren't the only ones there, as you just said.


At any rate, if "because we can" is Iran's only excuse, damn right they will be under a close watchful eye and any little @!#$ up will get them blown out of the water.


(tabs) wrote:

z yaaaa wrote:

its not much fun trying to argue with a wall.
oh, trust us, we know

Re: Iran to bring warships near U.S. Atlantic
Saturday, October 22, 2011 11:49 PM
Copter wrote:

He was basically trying to start a bunch of @!#$ by saying it was an inside job meaning america was responsible for the collapse of the towers. His attempt at being a Deutsche and have mis trust internally with the U.S.
Some comedy is too good to just make up.

Quote:

Al Qaeda has a message for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran: enough with the conspiracy theories about Sept. 11.

The latest issue of the terror group’s English-language magazine, Inspire, lashed out at the Iranian president for indulging in the claim that the American government — and not Al Qaeda — was responsible for the attack. It was a claim Mr. Ahmadinejad repeated during his address to the United Nations General Assembly last week, when he suggested that the killing of Osama bin Laden was part of a dark conspiracy to conceal the real perpetrators of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

“The Iranian government has professed on the tongue of its president Ahmadinejad that it does not believe Al Qaeda was behind 9/11 but rather, the U.S. government,” read an article in the magazine published under the byline Abu Suhail. “So we may ask the question: why would Iran ascribe to such a ridiculous belief that stands in the face of all logic and evidence?”

The article, which reminded some of a satirical video from The Onion on a similar subject, continues, sardonically adopting a name for America often repeated by Iranian leaders:

Quote:

If Iran was genuine in its animosity towards the U.S., it would be pleased to see another entity striking a blow at the Great Satan but that’s not the case. For Iran, anti-Americanism is merely a game of politics.


The author accuses Iran, a majority Shiite country, of a lack of support for the Sunni terror group because of both long-standing religious animosities and simple geopolitical jealousy:

Quote:

For them, Al Qaeda was a competitor for the hearts and minds of the disenfranchised Muslims around the world. Al Qaeda, an organization under fire, with no state, succeeded in what Iran couldn’t. Therefore it was necessary for the Iranians to discredit 9/11 and what better way to do so? Conspiracy theories.

Iran and the Shi’a in general do not want to give Al Qaeda credit for the greatest and biggest operation ever committed against America because this would expose their lip-service jihad against the Great Satan.


The article, labeled “Opinion,” appeared on Page 4 of the magazine’s fall 2011 issue [PDF], which is dedicated to commemorating the 10th anniversary of the attacks. Needless to say, the historical view of the Sept. 11 attacks provided by Al Qaeda differs greatly from that offered by the other commemorative magazine issues dedicated to the subject.

The cover superimposes a graphical image of the World Trade Center’s twin towers — one made from dollar signs, the other from digital ones and zeros — against a cloud-filled sky. The headline reads: “The Greatest Special Operation of All Time.”

There is an article said to be written by Bin Laden before his death that urges readers “do not let America’s front and its troops seem hard and become great in your eyes.”

Most of the rest of the issue is taken up with a photo essay of Sept. 11 and the decade since, with a focus on terror attacks carried out by the group, like the deadly transit strikes in Madrid and London, as well as those thwarted at the last minute by international authorities, including the parcel bombs intercepted from Yemen and the failed Times Square bombing.

The group also includes the November 2009 attack on at Fort Hood among the major events of the decade, offering praise for Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the military psychiatrist accused of killing 13 people in a shooting rampage. “How can there be any dispute about the virtue of what he has done?” reads a large quote attributed to the Yemeni cleric Anwar Al-Awlaki and placed over a close-up photo of a black handgun.

Inspire magazine, a graphics-heavy production aimed at English-speaking Muslims, is believed to be the work primarily of Samir Khan, a Saudi-born American who moved to Yemen in 2009. His byline appears over an essay of media criticism in the latest issue.

The “special issue” about Sept. 11 is the seventh for the magazine and includes one house ad — for a forthcoming interview with Adam Yahiye Gadahn, an American convert and Qaeda supporter — and one apparent advertisement featuring mourners yelling over the body of young boy and said to be from “Come to Jihad ad productions.”




Re: Iran to bring warships near U.S. Atlantic
Monday, October 24, 2011 7:32 AM
That's priceless.




Re: Iran to bring warships near U.S. Atlantic
Wednesday, October 26, 2011 1:20 AM
Architect or not.. the one problem I do have is that gasoline burns hotter then jet fuel. Burning jet fuel cannot weaken steel. you can run jet fuel in a diesel engine with an aluminum head and it doesn't phase it. The heat coming off that could not have been over 200 degrees F. That little fact has caused so many arguments let alone conspiracy theories over the years.. but an inside job? screw that guy.

I do hope they send there navy over here... it will give our boys on our ships something to shoot at.. it will be like a 30.06 shooting a whiskey bottle lol.





Re: Iran to bring warships near U.S. Atlantic
Wednesday, October 26, 2011 7:28 AM
Burning jet fuel won't get hot enough to cook a pizza in less then 20 min? Yea that is very wrong.




Re: Iran to bring warships near U.S. Atlantic
Wednesday, October 26, 2011 10:09 AM
Scorpio1 bishes... wrote:

I say good, we've needed an excuse to go kick them off the potential nuclear world threat grid. We'll show them why Hitler lost, modern warfare style.


US had absolutely NOTHING to do with the downfall of Hitler. HE had everything to do with the downfall of himself. The biggest mistake he made was the attempted backstabbing of the Russian Empire.


History quiz, which troops were successful in their D-Day campaign?


I need a new sig.
Re: Iran to bring warships near U.S. Atlantic
Wednesday, October 26, 2011 11:09 AM
Weebel wrote:

Architect or not.. the one problem I do have is that gasoline burns hotter then jet fuel. Burning jet fuel cannot weaken steel. you can run jet fuel in a diesel engine with an aluminum head and it doesn't phase it. The heat coming off that could not have been over 200 degrees F.


Please stop posting immediately. You sound like an idiot. Read a book on office fires, watch some other videos on them, learn something about truss support and then comeback and make a comeback that doesn't make you look like an idiot.
Re: Iran to bring warships near U.S. Atlantic
Wednesday, October 26, 2011 11:14 AM
Brad (ceyenne red beast) wrote:

Scorpio1 bishes... wrote:

I say good, we've needed an excuse to go kick them off the potential nuclear world threat grid. We'll show them why Hitler lost, modern warfare style.


US had absolutely NOTHING to do with the downfall of Hitler. HE had everything to do with the downfall of himself. The biggest mistake he made was the attempted backstabbing of the Russian Empire.


History quiz, which troops were successful in their D-Day campaign?


Ultimately every allied troop involved with D-Day was successful as the goal was to lead to the Liberation of Germany and it's European counterparts.





Re: Iran to bring warships near U.S. Atlantic
Wednesday, October 26, 2011 10:09 PM
Copter wrote:

Brad (ceyenne red beast) wrote:

Scorpio1 bishes... wrote:

I say good, we've needed an excuse to go kick them off the potential nuclear world threat grid. We'll show them why Hitler lost, modern warfare style.


US had absolutely NOTHING to do with the downfall of Hitler. HE had everything to do with the downfall of himself. The biggest mistake he made was the attempted backstabbing of the Russian Empire.


History quiz, which troops were successful in their D-Day campaign?


Ultimately every allied troop involved with D-Day was successful as the goal was to lead to the Liberation of Germany and it's European counterparts.


though this is correct, as for a combined effort, it was successful, though, with each individual section of the battle, only one troop completed their goals and took the section.


I need a new sig.
Re: Iran to bring warships near U.S. Atlantic
Wednesday, October 26, 2011 11:11 PM
Whats D-day have to do with this. I get a kick out of how threads get thrown off topic by the 3rd post on this site.

Exodus, im just screwing around, this place isnt as fun as it used to be. Trust me.. I know how hot jet fuel burns.. slightly warmer then diesel fuel, but slightly cooler then gasoline. If a school bus drove into an office building and started on fire.. the temperatures created would be about the same as the airliners in the towers. Office fires usually burn around 6 to 700 degrees F.. and ques what.. so does jet fuel in a situation like that. Thats not enough to melt steel, just weaken it to close of half its load strength, but at even 40% rigidity, the beams still had enough strength to hold the weight of the plane. The stuff that looked like it was burnt with termite wich still hasnt been explained is what caused the conspiracy theories. So to be completely fair.. the heat from the fuel, nor the weight of the plane made the building collapse. What caused the collapse was the weight of the intact floors above the impact site being applied to what was left to the damaged floors where the plane hit. If the planes would have hit within the top 2 or 3 floors of the towers, they probably would have held.

So ya.. I'm an idiot... cause if there is one thing idiots do, its site proven math applied proportionality to the specific variables pertaining to the argument.

But FFS how did we get on WW2 let alone the WTC crap in the first place.

I thought we where playing battleship with Iran.











Re: Iran to bring warships near U.S. Atlantic
Thursday, October 27, 2011 3:15 AM
More crawfishing by the retard for getting called out on his stupidity and the diarrhea he types





Re: Iran to bring warships near U.S. Atlantic
Thursday, October 27, 2011 5:42 AM
Weebel wrote:

Whats D-day have to do with this. I get a kick out of how threads get thrown off topic by the 3rd post on this site.

Exodus, im just screwing around, this place isnt as fun as it used to be. Trust me.. I know how hot jet fuel burns.. slightly warmer then diesel fuel, but slightly cooler then gasoline. If a school bus drove into an office building and started on fire.. the temperatures created would be about the same as the airliners in the towers. Office fires usually burn around 6 to 700 degrees F.. and ques what.. so does jet fuel in a situation like that. Thats not enough to melt steel, just weaken it to close of half its load strength, but at even 40% rigidity, the beams still had enough strength to hold the weight of the plane. The stuff that looked like it was burnt with termite wich still hasnt been explained is what caused the conspiracy theories. So to be completely fair.. the heat from the fuel, nor the weight of the plane made the building collapse. What caused the collapse was the weight of the intact floors above the impact site being applied to what was left to the damaged floors where the plane hit. If the planes would have hit within the top 2 or 3 floors of the towers, they probably would have held.

So ya.. I'm an idiot... cause if there is one thing idiots do, its site proven math applied proportionality to the specific variables pertaining to the argument.

But FFS how did we get on WW2 let alone the WTC crap in the first place.

I thought we where playing battleship with Iran.



flashover in something like an office fire is going to be around the 1100 deg. fahrenheit range or more give or take. getting up in the 1600degree range not even accounting for jet fuel.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.

 

Start New Topic Advanced Search