QuoteIran warns US carrier against Gulf return
Updated January 03, 2012 19:58:14
Iran's army chief says the Islamic republic will take action if the US aircraft carrier that recently left the Persian Gulf returned.
The carrier USS John C Stennis, one of the US navy's biggest vessels, left the area because of 10 days of Iranian naval exercises in which they fired a number a new missiles.
"We advise and insist that this warship not return to its former base in the Persian Gulf," Brigadier General Ataollah Salehi told reporters, according to the armed forces website.
"We don't have the intention of repeating our warning, and we warn only once," he was quoted as saying.
The US vessel last week passed through the Strait heading east across the Gulf of Oman and through a zone where the Iranian navy was holding its manoeuvres.
The US Defence Department said the passage was "routine."
The United States keeps at least one aircraft carrier in or near the Gulf at all times, on rotations of weeks or months. It maintains the base of its Fifth Fleet in the Gulf state of Bahrain.
Tensions have risen in recent days after Iran, which insists its nuclear program is purely for peaceful purposes, test-fired a series of missiles near the key Gulf oil supply route of the Strait of Hormuz.
The display of military muscle was designed to show Iran's ability to close the strait, through which 20 per cent of the world's oil flows, if it chooses.
Iranian political and military officials insist they could take that drastic step if the West imposes more sanctions on top of others that have already taken their toll on Iran's oil-dependent economy.
The US and its allies have imposed their sanctions to punish Iran for maintaining a nuclear program they believe masks military objectives.
French foreign minister Alain Juppe said on Tuesday that Iran was continuing to develop nuclear weapons and called for stronger sanctions against Tehran.
"Iran is pursuing the development of its nuclear arms, I have no doubt about it," he told French television I-Tele.
"The last report by the International Atomic Energy Agency is quite explicit on this point.
"This is why France, without closing the path of negotiation and dialogue with Iran, wants stricter sanctions."
He said French president Nicolas Sarkozy had proposed a freezing of assets of Iran's central bank and an embargo on exports of Iranian oil, a move also being considered by the European Union.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-03/iran-tells-departed-us-carrier-not-to-return/3757200
Will there be a war? :hmm:
"And stay out!"
I like how they talk like big strong man.
I thought we already had a Tim thread on this.
We do? Oh sorry then, I didn't see it.
Let's get it on!!
:lol: They talk pretty big, that carrier should turn right around and see whether they want to back up what they say.
Anyway, Marty, to answer your original question: I think the US and Iran are already on a collision course that will end in military action. I don't know if anyone will classify it as a war, it might just be airstrikes. Relations have gone downhill since Obama has been elected (which is impressive considering the US doesn't even have official relations with Iran). The popular uprising in Iran was brutally put down and I think that dashed any hopes of fruitful negotiations. I don't know what form a conflict with Iran will take. The US can probably hit Iranian targets with impunity, I don't know how Iran will respond. I suspect they have some tricks up their sleeves. The situation in Pakistan is also threatening to boil over, and God knows what'll happen then.
Even more strutting :hmm:
The regime is weak and probably wants to have the US as a scapegoat for it's own failings, hard to know what the best action is in these circumstances :hmm:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 03, 2012, 04:27:08 AM
Even more strutting :hmm:
The regime is weak and probably wants to have the US as a scapegoat for it's own failings, hard to know what the best action is in these circumstances :hmm:
I am afraid the US should return to it's time-tested method of "let them strike first". It will be tragic to the servicemen lost in it, but a clear Iranian act of agression should be provoked.
Quote from: Tamas on January 03, 2012, 04:38:44 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 03, 2012, 04:27:08 AM
Even more strutting :hmm:
The regime is weak and probably wants to have the US as a scapegoat for it's own failings, hard to know what the best action is in these circumstances :hmm:
I am afraid the US should return to it's time-tested method of "let them strike first". It will be tragic to the servicemen lost in it, but a clear Iranian act of agression should be provoked.
If it works as well as the Saudi one we're lucky that Iraq is available for invasion again.
Quote from: The Brain on January 03, 2012, 04:43:43 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 03, 2012, 04:38:44 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 03, 2012, 04:27:08 AM
Even more strutting :hmm:
The regime is weak and probably wants to have the US as a scapegoat for it's own failings, hard to know what the best action is in these circumstances :hmm:
I am afraid the US should return to it's time-tested method of "let them strike first". It will be tragic to the servicemen lost in it, but a clear Iranian act of agression should be provoked.
If it works as well as the Saudi one we're lucky that Iraq is available for invasion again.
Hey, for all we know, Iraq could be hiding the Iranian WMDs that the UN inspectors couldn't find. :secret:
I've never liked the concept of carriers operating inside the Gulf. Up until 1991, to support airstrikes in Gulf War I (also known as The Great Gulf War) it was always considered operationally verboten. That is one of the reasons why the battleships were brought back into service under Reagan: because the Gulf is a better arena for a surface action group than a carrier battle group.
Considering how narrow the straight is, if Iran tried isnt it rather likely that they would sink or seriously damage a transiting carrier? If so, its a pretty big bet to call when you send the carrier in there again. On the other hand you cant really not send to carrier in since it would signal that Iran can dictate what passes through the strait...
Quote from: besuchov on January 03, 2012, 06:35:59 AM
Considering how narrow the straight is, if Iran tried isnt it rather likely that they would sink or seriously damage a transiting carrier? If so, its a pretty big bet to call when you send the carrier in there again. On the other hand you cant really not send to carrier in since it would signal that Iran can dictate what passes through the strait...
In a wargame as Iran a US general managed to sink a carrier and some escorts using kamikaze speed boats and a fuckton of missiles. However the Navy said he broke the rules of the game and it didn't count. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Quote from: besuchov on January 03, 2012, 06:35:59 AM
Considering how narrow the straight is, if Iran tried isnt it rather likely that they would sink or seriously damage a transiting carrier? If so, its a pretty big bet to call when you send the carrier in there again. On the other hand you cant really not send to carrier in since it would signal that Iran can dictate what passes through the strait...
I'm not sure the Iranians have enough shitty Silkworm platforms in the area to properly coordinate and effectively saturate a carrier battle group escorted by two Aegis cruisers. But the political damage of even one getting through to ding a picket ship, let alone an aircraft carrier, would be horrendous.
What do you guys think would be the US response if Iran somehow managed to inflict casualties on the carrier crew or even sink it?
Quote from: Martinus on January 03, 2012, 07:26:20 AM
What do you guys think would be the US response if Iran somehow managed to inflict casualties on the carrier crew or even sink it?
Disproportionate
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 03, 2012, 07:51:49 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 03, 2012, 07:26:20 AM
What do you guys think would be the US response if Iran somehow managed to inflict casualties on the carrier crew or even sink it?
Disproportionate
Are we talking about glassing of Tehran? I'd like to see it. :cool:
Quote from: Martinus on January 03, 2012, 08:04:41 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 03, 2012, 07:51:49 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 03, 2012, 07:26:20 AM
What do you guys think would be the US response if Iran somehow managed to inflict casualties on the carrier crew or even sink it?
Disproportionate
Are we talking about glassing of Tehran? I'd like to see it. :cool:
No, but we'd smash every power plant and destroy every bridge and dam. Hello Afghanistan East.
They are west of Afghanistan.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphilosophistry.com%2Fscans%2F2010%2Flol-face.jpg&hash=c673b8ba140beb5774f1074d7e82db9d4189f5b5)
Quote from: PDH on January 03, 2012, 08:44:28 AM
They are west of Afghanistan.
No smile can properly display my shame. :Embarrass: :Embarrass: :Embarrass: :Embarrass: :Embarrass: :Embarrass:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 03, 2012, 06:37:38 AM
Quote from: besuchov on January 03, 2012, 06:35:59 AM
Considering how narrow the straight is, if Iran tried isnt it rather likely that they would sink or seriously damage a transiting carrier? If so, its a pretty big bet to call when you send the carrier in there again. On the other hand you cant really not send to carrier in since it would signal that Iran can dictate what passes through the strait...
In a wargame as Iran a US general managed to sink a carrier and some escorts using kamikaze speed boats and a fuckton of missiles. However the Navy said he broke the rules of the game and it didn't count. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
I believe that was a wargame for the invasion of Iraq.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on January 03, 2012, 08:57:36 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 03, 2012, 06:37:38 AM
Quote from: besuchov on January 03, 2012, 06:35:59 AM
Considering how narrow the straight is, if Iran tried isnt it rather likely that they would sink or seriously damage a transiting carrier? If so, its a pretty big bet to call when you send the carrier in there again. On the other hand you cant really not send to carrier in since it would signal that Iran can dictate what passes through the strait...
In a wargame as Iran a US general managed to sink a carrier and some escorts using kamikaze speed boats and a fuckton of missiles. However the Navy said he broke the rules of the game and it didn't count. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
I believe that was a wargame for the invasion of Iraq.
No, Von Ripper was war gaming as an expy of Iran
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 03, 2012, 08:43:16 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 03, 2012, 08:04:41 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 03, 2012, 07:51:49 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 03, 2012, 07:26:20 AM
What do you guys think would be the US response if Iran somehow managed to inflict casualties on the carrier crew or even sink it?
Disproportionate
Are we talking about glassing of Tehran? I'd like to see it. :cool:
No, but we'd smash every power plant and destroy every bridge and dam. Hello Afghanistan East.
Back in the real world, away from the cheap bluster, this won't happen because the US would want to be seen waging economic warfare against the Iranian people.
Diplomatically it would be an own goal following on from an Iranian aggression, I'd trust the state department and govt. to have a bit more sense and response in a more measured, effective way.
Quote from: mongers on January 03, 2012, 09:04:47 AM
Back in the real world, away from the cheap bluster, this won't happen because the US would want to be seen waging economic warfare against the Iranian people.
Diplomatically it would be an own goal following on from an Iranian aggression, I'd trust the state department and govt. to have a bit more sense and response in a more measured, effective way.
We've been waging economic war against the Iranian people for years.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 03, 2012, 09:06:17 AM
Quote from: mongers on January 03, 2012, 09:04:47 AM
Back in the real world, away from the cheap bluster, this won't happen because the US would want to be seen waging economic warfare against the Iranian people.
Diplomatically it would be an own goal following on from an Iranian aggression, I'd trust the state department and govt. to have a bit more sense and response in a more measured, effective way.
We've been waging economic war against the Iranian people for years.
You doing what you'd criticise the left wing for doing, taking a well understood term about warfare and applying it to something entirely different and saying oh look the US is at war with Iran already etc.
FYI:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/where.htm
A couple of months out of date.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 03, 2012, 08:58:59 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on January 03, 2012, 08:57:36 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 03, 2012, 06:37:38 AM
Quote from: besuchov on January 03, 2012, 06:35:59 AM
Considering how narrow the straight is, if Iran tried isnt it rather likely that they would sink or seriously damage a transiting carrier? If so, its a pretty big bet to call when you send the carrier in there again. On the other hand you cant really not send to carrier in since it would signal that Iran can dictate what passes through the strait...
In a wargame as Iran a US general managed to sink a carrier and some escorts using kamikaze speed boats and a fuckton of missiles. However the Navy said he broke the rules of the game and it didn't count. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
I believe that was a wargame for the invasion of Iraq.
No, Von Ripper was war gaming as an expy of Iran
Van Riper played as Unnamed Middle Eastern Nation and actually sank the whole battle group. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002)
Quote from: mongers on January 03, 2012, 09:12:42 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 03, 2012, 09:06:17 AM
Quote from: mongers on January 03, 2012, 09:04:47 AM
Back in the real world, away from the cheap bluster, this won't happen because the US would want to be seen waging economic warfare against the Iranian people.
Diplomatically it would be an own goal following on from an Iranian aggression, I'd trust the state department and govt. to have a bit more sense and response in a more measured, effective way.
We've been waging economic war against the Iranian people for years.
You doing what you'd criticise the left wing for doing, taking a well understood term about warfare and applying it to something entirely different and saying oh look the US is at war with Iran already etc.
I think the main point is that it is abundantly clear by now that the US government doesn't give a shit about the civilian/humanitarian repercussions of its sanctions.
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on January 03, 2012, 11:05:32 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 03, 2012, 08:58:59 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on January 03, 2012, 08:57:36 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 03, 2012, 06:37:38 AM
Quote from: besuchov on January 03, 2012, 06:35:59 AM
Considering how narrow the straight is, if Iran tried isnt it rather likely that they would sink or seriously damage a transiting carrier? If so, its a pretty big bet to call when you send the carrier in there again. On the other hand you cant really not send to carrier in since it would signal that Iran can dictate what passes through the strait...
In a wargame as Iran a US general managed to sink a carrier and some escorts using kamikaze speed boats and a fuckton of missiles. However the Navy said he broke the rules of the game and it didn't count. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
I believe that was a wargame for the invasion of Iraq.
No, Von Ripper was war gaming as an expy of Iran
Van Riper played as Unnamed Middle Eastern Nation and actually sank the whole battle group. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002)
Very interesting article. Any military types wish to comment?
I like the name "Van Riper" for a general. :D
I remember having a debate - I think it was over the Liberty incident - in which I brought up this possibility, only to have it laughed to scorn:
QuoteRed, commanded by retired Marine Corps Lt. General Paul K. Van Riper, used old methods to evade Blue's sophisticated electronic surveillance network. Van Riper used motorcycle messengers to transmit orders to front-line troops and World War II light signals to launch airplanes without radio communications.
IIRC, Van Riper apparently used that at the....I think it was all the way up to the theater level. As in: motorcycle couriers were relaying ALL communication from Lieutenants (or whatever) in the field to the big man up top. All of it. That's a lot of fucking motorcycles. Also IIRC, he also turned all of his supply trucks into missile launchers (heh), used fishing boats that were ignored by the "game" as suicide ships (he knew they were ignored by the "game" rules, but not in real life), etc.
:hmm:
Maybe g knows more. I'm going off of shit I heard a long time ago, and every time it comes up, I seem to remember less and less. Ugh. My second year in the Navy was "a long time ago" now. My ship has been scrapped, and the places I worked before that don't exist anymore. Ugh.
Edit: Oh my ship might still exist. As of 2010, according to Wiki, the status was still "awaiting scrapping."
You guys worry too much, Obama will sit down to have some tea with them and talk it out.
Quote from: lustindarkness on January 03, 2012, 11:25:11 AM
You guys worry too much, Obama will sit down to have some tea with them and talk it out.
Well, how could thet resist a genuine Nobel Peace-Prize winner?
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on January 03, 2012, 11:23:36 AM
IIRC, Van Riper apparently used that at the....I think it was all the way up to the theater level. As in: motorcycle couriers were relaying ALL communication from Lieutenants (or whatever) in the field to the big man up top. All of it. That's a lot of fucking motorcycles. Also IIRC, he also turned all of his supply trucks into missile launchers (heh), used fishing boats that were ignored by the "game" as suicide ships (he knew they were ignored by the "game" rules, but not in real life), etc.
:hmm:
Heh, so he gamed the game?
Quote from: lustindarkness on January 03, 2012, 11:25:11 AM
You guys worry too much, Obama will sit down to have some tea with them and talk it out.
So long as he doesn't bow to the Ayatollah.
Quote from: mongers on January 03, 2012, 09:04:47 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 03, 2012, 08:43:16 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 03, 2012, 08:04:41 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 03, 2012, 07:51:49 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 03, 2012, 07:26:20 AM
What do you guys think would be the US response if Iran somehow managed to inflict casualties on the carrier crew or even sink it?
Disproportionate
Are we talking about glassing of Tehran? I'd like to see it. :cool:
No, but we'd smash every power plant and destroy every bridge and dam. Hello Afghanistan East.
Back in the real world, away from the cheap bluster, this won't happen because the US would want to be seen waging economic warfare against the Iranian people.
Diplomatically it would be an own goal following on from an Iranian aggression, I'd trust the state department and govt. to have a bit more sense and response in a more measured, effective way.
My guess would announces launching significant strikes to degrade the military capabilities of Iran, which would involve destroying strategic power and transportation links. The effect would be what Tim said. The gloves would have to come off.
Quote from: Malthus on January 03, 2012, 11:34:46 AM
Heh, so he gamed the game?
From what I recall, pretty much. I think the people in charge viewed it more as "Stop cheating or GTFO." There was a lot of money and time and such involved that they probably didn't want to waste on shenanigans.
QuoteAs in: motorcycle couriers were relaying ALL communication from Lieutenants (or whatever) in the field to the big man up top.
Ah, the reverse Gamelin.
Van Riper = Down Periscope?
I was poking around the internet to see about the war game you are talking about, and it seems it was the Millennium Challenge 2002 that cost $250 million (!). The wikipedia article seems to leave the reader on van ripers side regarding fair play.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002
Quote from: alfred russel on January 03, 2012, 12:03:21 PM
I was poking around the internet to see about the war game you are talking about, and it seems it was the Millennium Challenge 2002 that cost $250 million (!). The wikipedia article seems to leave the reader on van ripers side regarding fair play.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002
The wiki article is cited upthread. And yes, the article is clearly in Van Ripper's corner, so to speak.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 03, 2012, 06:37:38 AM
In a wargame as Iran a US general managed to sink a carrier and some escorts using kamikaze speed boats and a fuckton of missiles. However the Navy said he broke the rules of the game and it didn't count. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
I love how the ignorant Timmays of the world make the general (who didn't understand the first thing about the realities of naval engagements) the "good guy" since he basically simply assumed that he won, announced that he won, and couldn't explain how he could have won.
Any exercise in which Red Forces assume that they have 100% operability/reliability, 100% situation awareness in 100% of their forces, and 100% communications reliability probably shouldn't count, even if that makes Timmays roll their eyes. Maybe even especially when Timmays do that.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 03, 2012, 11:12:10 AM
I think the main point is that it is abundantly clear by now that the US government doesn't give a shit about the civilian/humanitarian repercussions of its sanctions.
Is this a serious statement?
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 03, 2012, 11:12:10 AM
I think the main point is that it is abundantly clear by now that the US government doesn't give a shit about the civilian/humanitarian repercussions of its sanctions.
Hey if Iran doesn't give a shit about the civilian/humanitarian repercussions of its actions how exactly are we supposed to for them? They are the government of Iran not us.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on January 03, 2012, 11:23:36 AM
IIRC, Van Riper apparently used that at the....I think it was all the way up to the theater level. As in: motorcycle couriers were relaying ALL communication from Lieutenants (or whatever) in the field to the big man up top. All of it. That's a lot of fucking motorcycles. Also IIRC, he also turned all of his supply trucks into missile launchers (heh), used fishing boats that were ignored by the "game" as suicide ships (he knew they were ignored by the "game" rules, but not in real life), etc.
:hmm:
Maybe g knows more. I'm going off of shit I heard a long time ago, and every time it comes up, I seem to remember less and less. Ugh. My second year in the Navy was "a long time ago" now. My ship has been scrapped, and the places I worked before that don't exist anymore. Ugh.
Edit: Oh my ship might still exist. As of 2010, according to Wiki, the status was still "awaiting scrapping."
Scrapping by oxidation.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 03, 2012, 12:37:49 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 03, 2012, 11:12:10 AM
I think the main point is that it is abundantly clear by now that the US government doesn't give a shit about the civilian/humanitarian repercussions of its sanctions.
Is this a serious statement?
Mainly thinking of the Iraq sanctions, but yes.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 03, 2012, 01:13:39 PM
Mainly thinking of the Iraq sanctions, but yes.
Yeah those really bugged me. To the point I was pretty eager to invade them so at least we could stop with the sanctions.
But again the primary factor was Iraq's government. It was fine with their people starving and that made it pretty difficult for the US government. I mean what are they supposed to do? Say if you ruthless we will not sanction you and only sanction goverments who are not?
Quote from: grumbler on January 03, 2012, 12:15:14 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 03, 2012, 06:37:38 AM
In a wargame as Iran a US general managed to sink a carrier and some escorts using kamikaze speed boats and a fuckton of missiles. However the Navy said he broke the rules of the game and it didn't count. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
I love how the ignorant Timmays of the world make the general (who didn't understand the first thing about the realities of naval engagements) the "good guy" since he basically simply assumed that he won, announced that he won, and couldn't explain how he could have won.
Any exercise in which Red Forces assume that they have 100% operability/reliability, 100% situation awareness in 100% of their forces, and 100% communications reliability probably shouldn't count, even if that makes Timmays roll their eyes. Maybe even especially when Timmays do that.
I remember when this was first reported and it sounded like the guy was told to pretend he was screwed and to just roll over for the Blue FOrce, but it was never clear on just how much he was gaming the system, or how much the Pentagon was to justify its own policies.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 03, 2012, 11:12:10 AM
I think the main point is that it is abundantly clear by now that the US government doesn't give a shit about the civilian/humanitarian repercussions of its sanctions.
Yes, that is certainly the main point.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 03, 2012, 01:13:39 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 03, 2012, 12:37:49 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 03, 2012, 11:12:10 AM
I think the main point is that it is abundantly clear by now that the US government doesn't give a shit about the civilian/humanitarian repercussions of its sanctions.
Is this a serious statement?
Mainly thinking of the Iraq sanctions, but yes.
Right, didn't the US kill more Iraqi children than had been born in the last two centuries with that one?
Quote from: Berkut on January 03, 2012, 01:25:05 PM
Right, didn't the US kill more Iraqi children than had been born in the last two centuries with that one?
The numbers were pretty staggering.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on January 03, 2012, 01:23:21 PM
I remember when this was first reported and it sounded like the guy was told to pretend he was screwed and to just roll over for the Blue FOrce, but it was never clear on just how much he was gaming the system, or how much the Pentagon was to justify its own policies.
Von Ripper's problem was that he was a specops type who didn't understand anything about the problems of localizing and identifying ships at sea, as well as overcoming deception efforts and communicating effectively with widely-dispersed forces. What he claimed he could do with fishing vessels couldn't be done, nor could they communicate the resulots of their efforts back to the shore HQ without using radios, nor could the HQ disseminate its firing orders by motorcycle to widely-dispersed launchers (whose locations were not even known to the HQ sending the orders nor the couriers carrying the orders) and carrying out a simultaneous pinpoint-accurate mass launch (based on tageting magically provided by the fishing boats and somehow not obsolete). The whole von Ripper scenario was laughable, and would only have been proposed by someone so ignorant of the facts that he wasn't even aware how ignorant he was.
That doesn't mean the exercise was not valuable. The Blue-Red freeplay CPX was a tiny portion of the overall exercise.
Quote from: Berkut on January 03, 2012, 01:24:12 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 03, 2012, 11:12:10 AM
I think the main point is that it is abundantly clear by now that the US government doesn't give a shit about the civilian/humanitarian repercussions of its sanctions.
Yes, that is certainly the main point.
Well, if CM says so, then we must certainly believe it.....
is completely and laughably false. :P
Quote from: Valmy on January 03, 2012, 01:32:17 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 03, 2012, 01:25:05 PM
Right, didn't the US kill more Iraqi children than had been born in the last two centuries with that one?
The numbers were pretty staggering.
Yep. I don't think they will be able to have a single live birth until 2014, to make up for the numbers killed by the US but not yet born.
Quote from: grumbler on January 03, 2012, 01:39:20 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 03, 2012, 01:32:17 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 03, 2012, 01:25:05 PM
Right, didn't the US kill more Iraqi children than had been born in the last two centuries with that one?
The numbers were pretty staggering.
Yep. I don't think they will be able to have a single live birth until 2014, to make up for the numbers killed by the US but not yet born.
Oh you and your strawmen.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 03, 2012, 12:37:49 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 03, 2012, 11:12:10 AM
I think the main point is that it is abundantly clear by now that the US government doesn't give a shit about the civilian/humanitarian repercussions of its sanctions.
Is this a serious statement?
Don't answer that, yi lacks moral authority.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 03, 2012, 01:13:39 PM
Mainly thinking of the Iraq sanctions, but yes.
The reason I ask is I could see it as hyperbole (there have been times when the US has not been as concerned about the humanitarian effects of sanctions as I would wish) but it doesn't work at all as a literal statement of fact. The US responded to the claims of civilian suffering caused by the Iraqi sanction regime to approve the food for oil program. A country that is utterly indifferent to human suffering doesn't do that.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 03, 2012, 06:53:03 AM
Quote from: besuchov on January 03, 2012, 06:35:59 AM
Considering how narrow the straight is, if Iran tried isnt it rather likely that they would sink or seriously damage a transiting carrier? If so, its a pretty big bet to call when you send the carrier in there again. On the other hand you cant really not send to carrier in since it would signal that Iran can dictate what passes through the strait...
I'm not sure the Iranians have enough shitty Silkworm platforms in the area to properly coordinate and effectively saturate a carrier battle group escorted by two Aegis cruisers. But the political damage of even one getting through to ding a picket ship, let alone an aircraft carrier, would be horrendous.
The problem with the Gulf is definitively a "sucker punch" scenario for a fleet. Once hostilities were under way the Navy could probably destroy all the radar stations and command and control locations to prevent any more of that shit. There are some other problems though. The Iranians probably have some medium range ballistic missiles and they might be hit the naval base in Bahrain (and the Air force base in Qatar). The army (or whatever para-military force they have), could possibly infiltrate into Afghanistan NVA style. I don't know how well that would work, but it's not impossible. The area is pretty rugged, and it might be possible to move forces without the US finding out. God only knows what they could do in Iraq.
Quote from: grumbler on January 03, 2012, 01:36:34 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on January 03, 2012, 01:23:21 PM
I remember when this was first reported and it sounded like the guy was told to pretend he was screwed and to just roll over for the Blue FOrce, but it was never clear on just how much he was gaming the system, or how much the Pentagon was to justify its own policies.
Von Ripper's problem was that he was a specops type who didn't understand anything about the problems of localizing and identifying ships at sea, as well as overcoming deception efforts and communicating effectively with widely-dispersed forces. What he claimed he could do with fishing vessels couldn't be done, nor could they communicate the resulots of their efforts back to the shore HQ without using radios, nor could the HQ disseminate its firing orders by motorcycle to widely-dispersed launchers (whose locations were not even known to the HQ sending the orders nor the couriers carrying the orders) and carrying out a simultaneous pinpoint-accurate mass launch (based on tageting magically provided by the fishing boats and somehow not obsolete). The whole von Ripper scenario was laughable, and would only have been proposed by someone so ignorant of the facts that he wasn't even aware how ignorant he was.
That doesn't mean the exercise was not valuable. The Blue-Red freeplay CPX was a tiny portion of the overall exercise.
If you claim to do something that cannot be done, wouldn't the umpires or whoever sets the game mechanics simply rule that whatever you attempted to do didn't work?
I am totally ignorant of the way these wargames work - from the article (of dubious veracity) it would appear that Ripper managed a win. Was this exploiting bugs in the mechanics?
Quote from: PDH on January 03, 2012, 08:44:28 AM
They are west of Afghanistan.
they wouldn't be after the US is done with them :p
Quote from: Malthus on January 03, 2012, 11:33:07 AM
Quote from: lustindarkness on January 03, 2012, 11:25:11 AM
You guys worry too much, Obama will sit down to have some tea with them and talk it out.
Well, how could thet resist a genuine Nobel Peace-Prize winner?
You know what would be fantastic? A bomb with Obama's medal welded to it. The best part is that because it changed the aerodynamics of the device, it might land off course and hit a Chinese embassy.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 03, 2012, 02:02:11 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 03, 2012, 01:13:39 PM
Mainly thinking of the Iraq sanctions, but yes.
The reason I ask is I could see it as hyperbole (there have been times when the US has not been as concerned about the humanitarian effects of sanctions as I would wish) but it doesn't work at all as a literal statement of fact. The US responded to the claims of civilian suffering caused by the Iraqi sanction regime to approve the food for oil program. A country that is utterly indifferent to human suffering doesn't do that.
No kidding. The U.S. has
always displayed
some measure of humanitarian concern in its military operations, outside of WWII. Hell, perhaps to some extent even
during WWII, given the quasi-lies about "precision bombing" promulgated by the USAAF in regards to Germany.
Quote from: Malthus on January 03, 2012, 02:25:18 PM
If you claim to do something that cannot be done, wouldn't the umpires or whoever sets the game mechanics simply rule that whatever you attempted to do didn't work?
Yes, and when they did that, General Van Riper claimed he was being unduly constrained, and quit.
QuoteI am totally ignorant of the way these wargames work - from the article (of dubious veracity) it would appear that Ripper managed a win. Was this exploiting bugs in the mechanics?
The "sinkings" were the sinking he claimed when he complained to the press that he had been "unduly constrained" by the structure of the exercise. He claimed that Red was launching Silkworm missiles from fishing boats, for example. He completely glossed over the fact that there were serious problems with trying to emplace a Silkworm on a fishing vessel, let alone give it targeting data and fire control. What he was trying was a bold measure, but he couldn't think things through because he didn't have the data he needed to think those things through. IMO, he was trying to be too clever, and was trying too hard just to win, without testing his idea against what was really possible.
It was a command post exercise (CPX). No matter how successful he would have been in a more well-thought-out operation, the landings and whatnot (the real-world stuff) would have been carried out. They simply were not going to send a carrier battle group and amphibious task force home without exercising them because the CPX said they were "sunk." Van Riper knew damned well that "sunk" ships in an exercise
always "regenerate," so that element of his complaint is simply a result of pique over the fact that the umpires had ruled that he was not successful, IMO.
I have been Blue forces, Red forces, and an umpire in these kinds of exercises. Their purpose is to generate the best possible "Lessons Learned" document, not give any player some sense of ego-gratification because they "won." There can be some ego-gratification (especially as Red, because you are not constrained by doctrine and your equipment, being constructive, cannot break down), but that isn't the object.
I would agree with the assertion that "Blue always wins" in these exercises, even if they only do so because they have to - the exercise is carried to its conclusion no matter how many times any Blue forces have to be "regenerated" - to do otherwise means that training opportunities are lost. Red's objective isn't to "win," but to get as many items into the "Lessons Learned" log as possible. It sounds to me like General Van Riper lost sight of that objective.
The Lessons Learned document is classified, btw, so I don't know how much his efforts got translated into entries into that document. If his efforts got totally blown off in the Lessons Learned, he has cause for complaint. Just not the complaint he actually made.
Interesting, grumbler. It does seem a little silly for the general to complain he was robbed of his victory. Or is there actually some career advantage to being the victorious hero of one of these exercises?
Yeah, interesting stuff. Sounds like the good general is grandstanding.
I guess that goes with having an awesomely appropriate name. :D
Quote from: Jacob on January 03, 2012, 06:29:38 PM
Interesting, grumbler. It does seem a little silly for the general to complain he was robbed of his victory. Or is there actually some career advantage to being the victorious hero of one of these exercises?
I thought this was a really cool story, and was reading some things on the internet, all of which took the general's side. He was retired, so it wasn't so much a career advantage, but he is a harsh critic of Rumsfeld and the military doctrine under him. It sounded as though he thought his victory was proof that current military doctrine is fubar, and while refloating the fleet made sense, the changing of the rules was done to make sure current doctrine was vindicated.
It makes sense that all the articles I saw supported the general; Rumsfeld and the military ignoring evidence their policies are deeply flawed is a story, an old retired general cheating at a game and then quitting when made to stop isn't so interesting. Grumbler, do you have anything to read from the military point of view?
Whatever the case, this game sounded like a $250 million boondoggle.
Sadly, grumbler is just giving the company line on Van Riper.
QuoteYes, and when they did that, General Van Riper claimed he was being unduly constrained, and quit.
Nonsense, he couldn't quit, he was already retired. :contract:
QuoteHe claimed that Red was launching Silkworm missiles from fishing boats, for example. He completely glossed over the fact that there were serious problems with trying to emplace a Silkworm on a fishing vessel, let alone give it targeting data and fire control.
The computers they have on fishing boats these days are really impressive. They can tell you the depth, type and approximate numbers of fish - all with color displays and USB connections! Fire control for a Chinese-made Iranian missile is simple in comparison.
QuoteWhat he was trying was a bold measure, but he couldn't think things through because he didn't have the data he needed to think those things through.
Typical Pentagon bean counting thinking.
QuoteIt was a command post exercise (CPX).
The oldest trick in the Pentagon book - when you are out-foxed, fall back on acronyms.
QuoteThey simply were not going to send a carrier battle group and amphibious task force home without exercising them because the CPX said they were "sunk." Van Riper knew damned well that "sunk" ships in an exercise always "regenerate," so that element of his complaint is simply a result of pique over the fact that the umpires had ruled that he was not successful, IMO.
I've heard these kinds of rules before - in Paradox naval AI.
QuoteI've been Blue forces, Red forces, and an umpire in these kinds of exercises. Their purpose is to generate the best possible "Lessons Learned" document, not give any player some sense of ego-gratification because they "won."
So says every sore loser. Why not sing a chorus of kumbaya at the end while they are at it.
QuoteI would agree with the assertion that "Blue always wins" in these exercises, even if they only do so because they have to - the exercise is carried to its conclusion no matter how many times any Blue forces have to be "regenerated" - to do otherwise means that training opportunities are lost. Red's objective isn't to "win," but to get as many items into the "Lessons Learned" log as possible. It sounds to me like General Van Riper lost sight of that objective.
Perhaps he thought the objective was to teach sailors how to kick ass, not learn to maximize paperwork.
So who hacked Minsky's account ?
I'd think one of Grumbler's objections to fishing boats lauching anti-ship missiles is that those silkworms are quite big, approaching the size of a small 2seater 200hp light aircraft and they need a bit of a ramp to lauch off of.
Unless it's the size of a substantial fishing vessel like a North Sea trawler or bigger, I don't see how you'd adapt such a vessel to carry these weapons.
I've always been Hansmeister's sock puppet. Then I accidentally fired myself and I was stuck with this identity.
Now I'm intrigued.
Was Van Riper a grandstander gaming the game for yuks and glory, or a brave pioneer exposing the weaknesses of the US naval system?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 03, 2012, 08:21:54 PM
Nonsense, he couldn't quit, he was already retired. :contract:
Nonsense; he was a consultant hired to play a Middle Eastern dictator. He wasn't a real dictator, he just played one on TV. He can quit that job.
QuoteThe computers they have on fishing boats these days are really impressive. They can tell you the depth, type and approximate numbers of fish - all with color displays and USB connections! Fire control for a Chinese-made Iranian missile is simple in comparison.
While true, you are describing the situation now, and the exercise was set in 2002. Silkworm connections through USB 1.1 were crap.
Quote from: Jacob on January 03, 2012, 06:29:38 PM
Interesting, grumbler. It does seem a little silly for the general to complain he was robbed of his victory. Or is there actually some career advantage to being the victorious hero of one of these exercises?
Didn't Zhukov kick ass in a pre-WWII Red Army wargame when playing as the Germans? He wasn't shot, so it must have helped his career.
I think Vinegar Joe got points for playing the bad guys well too.
Quote from: Malthus on January 03, 2012, 06:34:49 PM
Yeah, interesting stuff. Sounds like the good general is grandstanding.
I guess that goes with having an awesomely appropriate name. :D
Somebody who played the game well was Admiral Bobby Inman. Back in the early and mid-1980s, he was with the CIA and then the defense Science Board, and had a particular interest in the US Navy's assumptions about Soviet strategies in the event of a protracted conventional war. He was particularly concerned that the USN assumed that the Soviets would employ the bulk of their front-line SSNs escorting and protecting their boomers, and proposed as an alternate scenario that the Soviets be assumed to withdraw their SSBns into the Kara Sea, use a fraction of their SSNs to keep the USN out of the Kara Sea, and release the rest of the SSN force against the allied sea lines of communication and any carriers that tried to enter the Norwegian Sea.
No one was interested in testing the potential significance his "wacky idea" on US strategy. The annual ASW command post exercises (in which I participated as a support analyst) never had his scenario.
Inman, though, was smart. He talked with Tom Clancy, then writing a follow-up to
The Hunt for the Red October, and, in passing, noted how neat it would be if the book included an innovative Soviet strategy, like the "Bastion Strategy" of moving their SSBNs into a Kara Sea "bastion" and sending their SSNs after the allied SLOC and carriers. Clancy included this concept in his 1986 novel
Red Storm Rising (I never heard definitively whether the Iceland Takeover part of the scenario was Inman's idea, or Clancy's, but it never made it into the scenario list).
From the time that book came out, the audience for the annual ASW strategy conferences/wargames assumed that the scenario Clancy outlines was the default strategy for the Soviets, and tended to reject strategies that didn't agree with what Clancy had proposed in his novel. It wasn't that the audience thought that Clancy's book was "real," it was just that they carried with them, after reading the book (and
everyone in the budiness read that book), a feeling that they "knew' what a real strategy looked like. Inman's scenario became the baseline.
And he was right. The US got its clock cleaned in that scenario. Inman was a genius and his tactic here changed US ASW procurement and strategy profoundly.
And now you know the rest of the story.
Quote from: grumbler on January 04, 2012, 10:45:11 AM
Quote from: Malthus on January 03, 2012, 06:34:49 PM
Yeah, interesting stuff. Sounds like the good general is grandstanding.
I guess that goes with having an awesomely appropriate name. :D
Somebody who played the game well was Admiral Bobby Inman. Back in the early and mid-1980s, he was with the CIA and then the defense Science Board, and had a particular interest in the US Navy's assumptions about Soviet strategies in the event of a protracted conventional war. He was particularly concerned that the USN assumed that the Soviets would employ the bulk of their front-line SSNs escorting and protecting their boomers, and proposed as an alternate scenario that the Soviets be assumed to withdraw their SSBns into the Kara Sea, use a fraction of their SSNs to keep the USN out of the Kara Sea, and release the rest of the SSN force against the allied sea lines of communication and any carriers that tried to enter the Norwegian Sea.
No one was interested in testing the potential significance his "wacky idea" on US strategy. The annual ASW command post exercises (in which I participated as a support analyst) never had his scenario.
Inman, though, was smart. He talked with Tom Clancy, then writing a follow-up to The Hunt for the Red October, and, in passing, noted how neat it would be if the book included an innovative Soviet strategy, like the "Bastion Strategy" of moving their SSBNs into a Kara Sea "bastion" and sending their SSNs after the allied SLOC and carriers. Clancy included this concept in his 1986 novel Red Storm Rising (I never heard definitively whether the Iceland Takeover part of the scenario was Inman's idea, or Clancy's, but it never made it into the scenario list).
From the time that book came out, the audience for the annual ASW strategy conferences/wargames assumed that the scenario Clancy outlines was the default strategy for the Soviets, and tended to reject strategies that didn't agree with what Clancy had proposed in his novel. It wasn't that the audience thought that Clancy's book was "real," it was just that they carried with them, after reading the book (and everyone in the budiness read that book), a feeling that they "knew' what a real strategy looked like. Inman's scenario became the baseline.
And he was right. The US got its clock cleaned in that scenario. Inman was a genius and his tactic here changed US ASW procurement and strategy profoundly.
I find this more interesting than the Gen Van Riper story.
Here's a totally different question:
Why hasn't Oman upgraded its port facilities and pipeline connections to allow for the export of more oil bypassing the Straits of Hormuz? Or alternatively why haven't the other Gulf states come together to facilitate something like that?
Quote from: grumbler on January 04, 2012, 10:45:11 AM
Quote from: Malthus on January 03, 2012, 06:34:49 PM
Yeah, interesting stuff. Sounds like the good general is grandstanding.
I guess that goes with having an awesomely appropriate name. :D
Somebody who played the game well was Admiral Bobby Inman. Back in the early and mid-1980s, he was with the CIA and then the defense Science Board, and had a particular interest in the US Navy's assumptions about Soviet strategies in the event of a protracted conventional war. He was particularly concerned that the USN assumed that the Soviets would employ the bulk of their front-line SSNs escorting and protecting their boomers, and proposed as an alternate scenario that the Soviets be assumed to withdraw their SSBns into the Kara Sea, use a fraction of their SSNs to keep the USN out of the Kara Sea, and release the rest of the SSN force against the allied sea lines of communication and any carriers that tried to enter the Norwegian Sea.
No one was interested in testing the potential significance his "wacky idea" on US strategy. The annual ASW command post exercises (in which I participated as a support analyst) never had his scenario.
Inman, though, was smart. He talked with Tom Clancy, then writing a follow-up to The Hunt for the Red October, and, in passing, noted how neat it would be if the book included an innovative Soviet strategy, like the "Bastion Strategy" of moving their SSBNs into a Kara Sea "bastion" and sending their SSNs after the allied SLOC and carriers. Clancy included this concept in his 1986 novel Red Storm Rising (I never heard definitively whether the Iceland Takeover part of the scenario was Inman's idea, or Clancy's, but it never made it into the scenario list).
From the time that book came out, the audience for the annual ASW strategy conferences/wargames assumed that the scenario Clancy outlines was the default strategy for the Soviets, and tended to reject strategies that didn't agree with what Clancy had proposed in his novel. It wasn't that the audience thought that Clancy's book was "real," it was just that they carried with them, after reading the book (and everyone in the budiness read that book), a feeling that they "knew' what a real strategy looked like. Inman's scenario became the baseline.
And he was right. The US got its clock cleaned in that scenario. Inman was a genius and his tactic here changed US ASW procurement and strategy profoundly.
What would be interesting is the story of what the Soviet tactics actually were, and whether anyone was right in thier predictions.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 04, 2012, 12:44:48 PM
Here's a totally different question:
Why hasn't Oman upgraded its port facilities and pipeline connections to allow for the export of more oil bypassing the Straits of Hormuz? Or alternatively why haven't the other Gulf states come together to facilitate something like that?
Never mind, figured out the answer.
There is a big project to do just this with a pipeline outletting in the UAE emirate of Fujairah, which fronts out on the Sea of Oman.
Quote from: Kleves on January 04, 2012, 10:42:54 AM
Quote from: Jacob on January 03, 2012, 06:29:38 PM
Interesting, grumbler. It does seem a little silly for the general to complain he was robbed of his victory. Or is there actually some career advantage to being the victorious hero of one of these exercises?
Didn't Zhukov kick ass in a pre-WWII Red Army wargame when playing as the Germans? He wasn't shot, so it must have helped his career.
Actually, as I understand it, the Red Army did 2 separate wargames on the subject of countering a German attack with the players changing sides after the 1st game. Contrary to what has generally been reported, the Soviet side eventually won both times, but the Germans were able to initially gain far more territory and cause a lot more casualties than the Soviets had expected. The boost the games provided to Zhukov's career apparantly had more to do with his recommendations about how to remedy the problems with Soviet forces that had been revealed by the wargames than his actual performance in the games.
Stalin devalued his games by punching the counters out.
But did he clip them???
I bet not...
He sent them to Counter Clipping Gulag #3.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 04, 2012, 12:47:25 PM
What would be interesting is the story of what the Soviet tactics actually were, and whether anyone was right in thier predictions.
Interesting in a different way, yes. Inman outflanked his opposition by planting his preferred Red strategy in a work of popular fiction, changing the question from "why
should we suppose a bastion strategy?" to "why
shouldn't we suppose a bastion strategy?" in a Top Secret military CPX. That was frickin' genius, IMO. It didn't matter what strategy the Soviets were actually contemplating, in that sense. A good strategy has to account for the worst that an enemy could do, not what you think he is going to do.
I briefed Inman and the Defense Science Board several times. He always was the smartest guy on the board, and asked the best questions. He was hell on lazy or hazy assumptions.
Looks like Iran's economy will take a big hit. Will this make them desperate enough to lash out? Stay tuned...
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/world/europe/europe-moves-toward-ban-on-iran-oil.html
QuoteE.U. Countries Take Step Toward Oil Embargo on Iran
By STEVEN ERLANGER
Published: January 4, 2012
PARIS — The countries of the European Union have taken their boldest step so far in the increasingly tense standoff with Iran over its nuclear program, agreeing in principle to impose an embargo on Iranian oil, French and European diplomats said on Wednesday.
A final decision by the European Union will not come before the end of January and would be implemented in stages to avoid major disruptions in global oil supplies. But the move by some of Iran's most important oil customers appears to underscore the resolve of Western allies to impose toughest round of sanctions on Iran to date, increasing pressure on Tehran to stop enriching uranium and negotiate an end to what Western leaders argue is an accelerating program to build a nuclear bomb.
Tehran denies any military intent and refuses to stop enrichment of uranium for what it describes as civilian purposes. But it has responded to the threat of new American and European sanctions by a series of military and diplomatic threats. It has test-fired new missiles, threatened to shut the Strait of Hormuz to shipping, held naval war games, announced the production of its first nuclear-fuel rod and, on Tuesday, warned an American aircraft carrier not to return to the Persian Gulf. It also said that it wanted to reopen talks with the West on the nuclear issue, which was interpreted in Paris as an effort to buy time.
The threats from Tehran, aimed both at the West and at Israel, combined with a recent assessment by the International Atomic Energy Agency that Tehran's nuclear program has a military objective, is becoming an important issue in the American presidential campaign. Republican presidential candidates are urging stronger measures against Tehran, including some urging the use of military force, to stop the Islamic government from getting nuclear weaponry and to better protect Israel.
Israel itself has warned that time was running out to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, given that Tehran has been moving its enrichment facilities deep into mountains, making it much harder to attack them militarily. Israel has called on Washington and the West to enhance sanctions to a more punishing level in order to get Iran to negotiate seriously and make the development of a nuclear weapon more costly for an economy already suffering from an array of financial and trade sanctions.
Last weekend, President Obama signed legislation aimed at sanctioning foreign companies that do business with Iran, which could reduce Iran's ability to sell its oil and other exports. Iran's first vice president, Mohammad-Reza Rahimi, then declared that if sanctions are imposed on Iranian oil exports, Iran would block shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.
While American officials discounted the threat as self-defeating for Iran, at the same time they said they had plans to keep the Strait open.
Iran has its own domestic politics, with parliamentary elections in March, and the government wants to show that it will protect Iran's interests, both economic and military.
The increasingly shrill tone from Tehran seemed a direct response, diplomats suggested, to economic sanctions that are finally biting hard and threaten to damage Iran's ability to export oil. Oil represents some 60 percent of Iran's economy, and oil exports are a vital source of foreign currency. In 2010, European countries bought some 18 percent of Iranian oil exports, with most of the rest going to Asia. So a European oil embargo would have a limited but significant effect on Iran, which depends heavily on its oil exports for cash to buy needed imports.
The United States and France has been pushing hard for an embargo and sanctions targeting Iran's central bank. But some European nations depend heavily on Iranian oil and have been reluctant to cut off their imports during a severe economic slump.
At the end of December, lower-ranking diplomats agreed in Brussels to the shape of a European oil embargo on Iran, vowing to meet objections by some states that have significant oil imports from Iran, including Italy, Spain and Greece.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 04, 2012, 07:24:30 PM
Looks like Iran's economy will take a big hit. Will this make them desperate enough to lash out? Stay tuned...
Tim Taint.
Thank God, nothing will happen this year, hopefully that'll the Syrians enough of a window of opportunity to throw out the Al-Assads.
Quote from: grumbler on January 04, 2012, 06:09:06 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 04, 2012, 12:47:25 PM
What would be interesting is the story of what the Soviet tactics actually were, and whether anyone was right in thier predictions.
Interesting in a different way, yes. Inman outflanked his opposition by planting his preferred Red strategy in a work of popular fiction, changing the question from "why should we suppose a bastion strategy?" to "why shouldn't we suppose a bastion strategy?" in a Top Secret military CPX. That was frickin' genius, IMO. It didn't matter what strategy the Soviets were actually contemplating, in that sense. A good strategy has to account for the worst that an enemy could do, not what you think he is going to do.
I briefed Inman and the Defense Science Board several times. He always was the smartest guy on the board, and asked the best questions. He was hell on lazy or hazy assumptions.
That is a cool story. I know Clancy had a lot of chatter in the Pentagon back in the day, but this is a nice bit of info on how and why.
If only the Iranians were telling the truth.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/219346.html
QuoteUS deploys troops in Israel for Iran war
An unnamed source said the military deployment of US anti-missile ships and accompanying support personnel will occur in January and later this spring, Global Research reported.
Commander of the US Third Air Force based in Germany Lt.-Gen Frank Gorenc said it is not just an "exercise," but a "deployment," The Jerusalem Post said.
Washington and Tel Aviv have planned to hold what they call the largest-ever joint military exercise this spring.
The US commander visited Israel two weeks ago to confirm details for "the deployment of several thousand American soldiers to Israel."
The US General also visited one of Israel's three Iron Dome anti-missile outposts. The Israeli Air Force has announced plans to deploy a fourth Iron Dome system in coming months.
While US troops will be stationed in Israel for an unspecified amount of time, Israeli military personnel will be added to United States European Command (EUCOM) in Germany.
This is while the US is reportedly bringing its Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) and ship-based Aegis ballistic missile systems to Israel.
The White House has resumed its anti-Iran war rhetoric after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released a report in November, in which Tehran was accused of conducting activities related to developing nuclear weapons. Iran strongly dismissed the allegations.
US analyst Robert Parry said the documentary evidence showed that IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano was installed with the support of the US and that he privately indicated to US and Israeli officials that he would help advance their goals regarding Iran.
In December, Iran's Navy launched massive 10-day military drills in the strategic Strait of Hormuz to show that the country is ready to defend itself against any attack.
"We wanted to send this message to certain powers that Iran is always prepared to defend itself against foreign aggression," Iran's Navy Deputy Commander Admiral Amir Rastegari told Press TV.
Meanwhile, US President Barack Obama on Saturday signed into law fresh economic sanctions, targeting Iran's Central Bank and financial sector.
Anti-Iran measures provoked by the US and Israel are aimed to deny Iran's right of having peaceful nuclear program.
Tehran, as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and a member of the IAEA, has repeatedly stated that its nuclear activities are solely for civilian purposes.
Looked around, the only other ones that are reporting this so far is Pravada-on-the-Potomac, but that didn't stop American Conservatives from picking it up.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2829205/posts
Ah, Republicans. I love the comments.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 06, 2012, 01:59:59 AM
Looked around, the only other ones that are reporting this so far is Pravada-on-the-Potomac, but that didn't stop American Conservatives from picking it up.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2829205/posts
Ah, Republicans. I love the comments.
I didn't even bother looking around, I just assumed they were lying.
MSNBC was reporting it yesterday, genius.
QuoteWhile US troops will be stationed in Israel for an unspecified amount of time, Israeli military personnel will be added to United States European Command (EUCOM) in Germany.
Oh, I bet that'll go over swimmingly.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 06, 2012, 07:11:34 AM
MSNBC was reporting it yesterday, genius.
QuoteWhile US troops will be stationed in Israel for an unspecified amount of time, Israeli military personnel will be added to United States European Command (EUCOM) in Germany.
Oh, I bet that'll go over swimmingly.
:huh:
Quote from: Tamas on January 06, 2012, 07:29:38 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 06, 2012, 07:11:34 AM
MSNBC was reporting it yesterday, genius.
QuoteWhile US troops will be stationed in Israel for an unspecified amount of time, Israeli military personnel will be added to United States European Command (EUCOM) in Germany.
Oh, I bet that'll go over swimmingly.
:huh:
"Vas ist dat?"
"A Jew."
"Jew? Ach! Und himmel!"
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 06, 2012, 07:11:34 AM
MSNBC was reporting it yesterday, genius.
QuoteWhile US troops will be stationed in Israel for an unspecified amount of time, Israeli military personnel will be added to United States European Command (EUCOM) in Germany.
Oh, I bet that'll go over swimmingly.
Could be worse - they could be teamed up with NATO units from Eastern Europe.
The carrier the Iranians were bitching about has rescued a group of Iranians from pirates.
QuoteCasting aside current tensions between the U.S. and Iran, the U.S. Navy on Friday rescued 13 Iranian seamen who were being held captive by Somali pirates in the Gulf of Oman.
A Navy helicopter from the aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis, responding to a distress call from a merchant ship under attack by pirates, chased the pirates to their "mother ship," an Iranian-flagged dhow that had earlier been hijacked.
A heavily-armed counter-piracy team from the Navy destroyer USS Kidd met little resistance when they boarded the dhow where they found 15 armed pirates and the 13 Iranians who were being held hostage. The pirates were taken into custody. The Iranians were set free in their dhow.
The rescue occurred about 175 miles southeast of Muscat, Oman.
It came less than two days after Iran threatened never to allow the USS John C. Stennis back to the Persian gulf following its departure last week for the Gulf of Oman and North Arabian Sea.
An Iranian surveillance plane last week video-recorded and photographed the vessel near the Strait of Hormuz, in a bid to cast its navy as having a powerful role in the region's waters.
Iran has threatened to close the route in possible retaliation to new U.S. and European economic sanctions, a tactic the U.S. already has said it would not tolerate.
About one-sixth of the world's oil passes on tankers through the Strait of Hormuz, and analysts have warned the price of Brent crude could temporarily jump to as high as $210 if the strait is closed.
U.S. officials have said the Navy's Fifth Fleet, based in nearby Bahrain, is prepared to defend the shipping route.
White House officials said Iran's threat showed Tehran was increasingly isolated internationally, faced economic problems from to sanctions and wants to divert attention from its deepening problems.
"It reflects the fact that Iran is in a position of weakness," White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters Tuesday.
State news agency IRNA quoted Iranian army chief Ataollah Salehi as saying: "Iran will not repeat its warning ... the enemy's carrier has been moved to the Sea of Oman because of our drill. I recommend and emphasize to the American carrier not to return to the Persian Gulf.
"I advise, recommend and warn them (the Americans) over the return of this carrier to the Persian Gulf because we are not in the habit of warning more than once," he said.
Britain's defense secretary warned Iran Thursday that any attempt to block the key global oil passageway the Strait of Hormuz would be illegal and unsuccessful — hinting at a robust international response.
During his first visit to the Pentagon for talks with U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Philip Hammond told the Atlantic Council in Washington that the presence of British and American naval ships in the Persian Gulf would ensure the route is kept open for trade.
On Tuesday: "I advise, recommend and warn them (the Americans) over the return of this carrier to the Persian Gulf because we are not in the habit of warning more than once" (Salehi)
The next day: "Iran will do anything to preserve the security of the Strait of Hormuz" at the entrance to the Gulf, Defence Minister Ahmad Vahidi said, according to the website of Iran's state television. "The presence of forces from beyond the (Gulf) region has no result but turbulence. We have said the presence of forces from beyond the region in the Persian Gulf is not needed and is harmful," he was quoted as saying.
Sorry, Iran, but could you just repeat that one more time?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 06, 2012, 04:34:55 PM
On Tuesday: "I advise, recommend and warn them (the Americans) over the return of this carrier to the Persian Gulf because we are not in the habit of warning more than once" (Salehi)
The next day: "Iran will do anything to preserve the security of the Strait of Hormuz" at the entrance to the Gulf, Defence Minister Ahmad Vahidi said, according to the website of Iran's state television. "The presence of forces from beyond the (Gulf) region has no result but turbulence. We have said the presence of forces from beyond the region in the Persian Gulf is not needed and is harmful," he was quoted as saying.
Sorry, Iran, but could you just repeat that one more time?
They broke their habit just to give us another chance to avoid any ugliness. They're so generous, they might just do it again.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on January 04, 2012, 08:43:56 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 04, 2012, 06:09:06 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 04, 2012, 12:47:25 PM
What would be interesting is the story of what the Soviet tactics actually were, and whether anyone was right in thier predictions.
Interesting in a different way, yes. Inman outflanked his opposition by planting his preferred Red strategy in a work of popular fiction, changing the question from "why should we suppose a bastion strategy?" to "why shouldn't we suppose a bastion strategy?" in a Top Secret military CPX. That was frickin' genius, IMO. It didn't matter what strategy the Soviets were actually contemplating, in that sense. A good strategy has to account for the worst that an enemy could do, not what you think he is going to do.
I briefed Inman and the Defense Science Board several times. He always was the smartest guy on the board, and asked the best questions. He was hell on lazy or hazy assumptions.
That is a cool story. I know Clancy had a lot of chatter in the Pentagon back in the day, but this is a nice bit of info on how and why.
Ditto. Now I feel a compulsion to go read Red Storm Rising again.
I am long like 40 barrels of February oil, so I am ready to receive my pocket money from this conflict. Let the bombs fly!
Speaking of oil investments, I took a position in Statoil last year; if oil hits $145 a barrel I'll be tempted to sell it and buy some toys. :lol:
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/01/07/iran-hails-us-rescue-sailors-as-humanitarian-and-positive-act/
:)
QuoteTEHRAN – Iran's foreign ministry on Saturday labeled the U.S. Navy's rescue of 13 Iranians from pirates who had hijacked a fishing vessel a "humanitarian and positive" act.
"We consider the actions of the U.S. forces in saving the lives of Iranian seamen to be a humanitarian and positive act and we welcome such behavior. We think all nations should display such behavior," Iran's foreign ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast told broadcaster al Alam.
U.S. forces rescued the Iranian sailors Thursday after a Navy helicopter spotted a suspicious skiff alongside an Iranian-flagged boat and picked up a distress signal from its captain.
Ironically, the forces that came to assist the sailors were assigned to the USS John C. Stennis strike group -- the same aircraft carrier that was subject to an Iranian threat just days earlier amid heightened tensions between Washington and Tehran over the Islamic Republic's pledge to close the Strait of Hormuz.
A counter-piracy team from the Navy destroyer USS Kidd boarded and detained 15 pirates who had been holding the boat's crew hostage for more than a month, using their ship, the Al Molai, as a launch pad to mount raids on other vessels.
The captured pirates were put on board the Stennis while authorities considered prosecuting them.
The rescue came just days after Iran's army chief warned the Stennis against returning to the Strait of Hormuz, a key shipping route for up to 20 percent of the world's oil.
The aircraft carrier, one of the largest in the U.S. fleet, had vacated the area while Iran's navy conducted war games in the Persian Gulf for ten days.
U.S. officials have dismissed the threat of closing the waterway as an increasingly isolated Iran lashing out at the international community.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/01/07/iran-hails-us-rescue-sailors-as-humanitarian-and-positive-act/#ixzz1ioCXfCie
Now dump the rescued Iranians into the ocean.
But give them new suits first.
QuoteA Navy helicopter from the aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis, responding to a distress call from a merchant ship under attack by pirates, chased the pirates to their "mother ship," an Iranian-flagged dhow that had earlier been hijacked.
Wait a second, a Dhow? Like one of those little wooden sail boats they had in the 9th century?
Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2012, 05:20:13 PM
QuoteA Navy helicopter from the aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis, responding to a distress call from a merchant ship under attack by pirates, chased the pirates to their "mother ship," an Iranian-flagged dhow that had earlier been hijacked.
Wait a second, a Dhow? Like one of those little wooden sail boats they had in the 9th century?
The actual "dhow" in question...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.latimes.com%2Fmedia%2Fphoto%2F2012-01%2F67211177.jpg&hash=ff843936750fa6af795e5e293bb878dd51d988db)
Hopefully, a Sea Hawk put a torpedo into it, just for kicks.
Nah, we're trying to play the "holier than thou" card, and all that.
I want us to play our asshole cards.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 07, 2012, 05:30:43 PM
I want us to play our asshole cards.
I think Bush Jr. used them all up. :(
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 07, 2012, 05:28:30 PM
Hopefully, a Sea Hawk put a torpedo into it, just for kicks.
A Sea Hawk might capsize it if it just flew over it.
Apparently, the Iranian court just sentenced some super-hot Iranian American to death for spying. Bastards.
That being said, if the guy actually is innocent, being a former US marine stationed in Afghanistan who subsequently goes to Iran to visit his grandmother must be worthy of the Darwin Award.
The guy's picture:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbi.gazeta.pl%2Fim%2F2%2F10931%2Fz10931362AA%2CAmir-Mirzai-Hekmati.jpg&hash=841f95524235cace3ee0d3f3323a8246ccb9122f)
:mmm:
Fuck, Persians can be so hot.
Poor Iran.
http://news.yahoo.com/irans-game-threats-backfire-195000862.html
QuoteIran's threat to close the narrow Strait of Hormuz has drawn the attention of military forces around the world and ignited a buildup that could endanger the region. While the U.S. and her major allies regularly maintain a naval presence in the Persian Gulf, other countries have dispatched warships to send a clear message to Tehran.
UPI reported the Russian, French, British and Canadian forces are already on station in the Gulf, with additional forces in route. The U.S. Fifth Fleet is based in Bahrain and the USS John C. Stennis CVN-74 is currently patrolling the Gulf of Oman just outside the Strait.
The Stennis carrier group is quite capable of handling anything Iran might choose to muster in a show of force. With more than 70 attack aircraft, plus a screening vessels of various capabilities, the U.S. Navy would easily dominate any encounter. But it's nice to know that other countries care enough to ensure the waterway stays open for commerce.
The Russians have deployed the aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov, which is anchored at Syria's Tartus port on the Mediterranean. That action caused France to assign an air defense destroyer to the region as well. The Canadian Royal Navy announced Sunday the HMCS Charlottetown also departed for the Gulf.
Not to be left out, British Prime Minister David Cameron ordered a guided missile destroyer into the Persian Gulf, which will join the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle. That's a lot of naval power to deal with in the event Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gets a wild hair to try to close the Strait of Hormuz.
Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey has said Iran could close the Strait for a "brief time," but he also reiterated U.S. determination and capability to insure that the seaway will remain open for international navigation. I seriously doubt Iran would want to engage the western powers in a naval confrontation that cannot win. But if they do, the Stennis will give them a moment of pause.
Wasn't that Russian trip planed 2 years ago?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.over-blog.com%2F419x600%2F4%2F06%2F17%2F09%2F1900_Colliers-Boxer_Rebellion.jpg&hash=b713e1d9b83b7a9456ea2109c7a039636369b673)
Quote from: Martinus on January 09, 2012, 11:36:36 AM
Apparently, the Iranian court just sentenced some super-hot Iranian American to death for spying. Bastards.
That being said, if the guy actually is innocent, being a former US marine stationed in Afghanistan who subsequently goes to Iran to visit his grandmother must be worthy of the Darwin Award.
RockPaperShotgun have more details on the case:
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/01/10/kumawar-dev-faces-execution-in-iran/
But yeah, going to Iran given his background is stupid. Though I agree witht he article that he'll mostly be a bargaining chip for the Tehran government.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 11, 2012, 12:33:37 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.over-blog.com%2F419x600%2F4%2F06%2F17%2F09%2F1900_Colliers-Boxer_Rebellion.jpg&hash=b713e1d9b83b7a9456ea2109c7a039636369b673)
I thought Japan was on our side in that fight. There's actually a monument in my town to the soldiers who fought in Boxer Rebellion.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 11, 2012, 02:19:15 AM
I thought Japan was on our side in that fight.
I'd love to see the Japanese deploy some of the Imperi...Naval Self-Defense Forces to the gulf.
Quote from: Martinus on January 09, 2012, 11:36:36 AM
Apparently, the Iranian court just sentenced some super-hot Iranian American to death for spying. Bastards.
That being said, if the guy actually is innocent, being a former US marine stationed in Afghanistan who subsequently goes to Iran to visit his grandmother must be worthy of the Darwin Award.
The report I read said he worked for the US military in Afghanistan as a translator.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 11, 2012, 06:11:33 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 11, 2012, 02:19:15 AM
I thought Japan was on our side in that fight.
I'd love to see the Japanese deploy some of the Imperi...Naval Self-Defense Forces to the gulf.
I don't know if they'd be as effective as they once were. The Japanese were much cooler when they came screaming out of caves trying to jab people with sharp bits of metal.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 11, 2012, 08:59:59 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 09, 2012, 11:36:36 AM
Apparently, the Iranian court just sentenced some super-hot Iranian American to death for spying. Bastards.
That being said, if the guy actually is innocent, being a former US marine stationed in Afghanistan who subsequently goes to Iran to visit his grandmother must be worthy of the Darwin Award.
The report I read said he worked for the US military in Afghanistan as a translator.
Read another one that said he's an ex-Marine. Good work Marty. :)
Quote from: garbon on January 10, 2012, 11:45:01 PM
Poor Iran.
http://news.yahoo.com/irans-game-threats-backfire-195000862.html
QuoteIran's threat to close the narrow Strait of Hormuz has drawn the attention of military forces around the world and ignited a buildup that could endanger the region. While the U.S. and her major allies regularly maintain a naval presence in the Persian Gulf, other countries have dispatched warships to send a clear message to Tehran.
UPI reported the Russian, French, British and Canadian forces are already on station in the Gulf, with additional forces in route. The U.S. Fifth Fleet is based in Bahrain and the USS John C. Stennis CVN-74 is currently patrolling the Gulf of Oman just outside the Strait.
The Stennis carrier group is quite capable of handling anything Iran might choose to muster in a show of force. With more than 70 attack aircraft, plus a screening vessels of various capabilities, the U.S. Navy would easily dominate any encounter. But it's nice to know that other countries care enough to ensure the waterway stays open for commerce.
The Russians have deployed the aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov, which is anchored at Syria's Tartus port on the Mediterranean. That action caused France to assign an air defense destroyer to the region as well. The Canadian Royal Navy announced Sunday the HMCS Charlottetown also departed for the Gulf.
Not to be left out, British Prime Minister David Cameron ordered a guided missile destroyer into the Persian Gulf, which will join the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle. That's a lot of naval power to deal with in the event Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gets a wild hair to try to close the Strait of Hormuz.
Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey has said Iran could close the Strait for a "brief time," but he also reiterated U.S. determination and capability to insure that the seaway will remain open for international navigation. I seriously doubt Iran would want to engage the western powers in a naval confrontation that cannot win. But if they do, the Stennis will give them a moment of pause.
Wait, which side are the Russians on?
Quote from: DGuller on January 11, 2012, 03:33:32 PM
Wait, which side are the Russians on?
:huh:
The side that pays better, as always.
Iranian patrol ships have balls
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/nightly-news/46389466/
I admit, I'd actually like to see the US kick the Iranian's teeth in. They've had it coming for 30 years now.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 14, 2012, 09:55:57 PM
Iranian patrol ships have balls
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/nightly-news/46389466/
Not really, it's international waters, I'd imagine ships can get quite close to each other without shots been fired.
I love the voice over, apparently the Iranians have submarines With TORPEDOES, omg.
What was the point of bigging up the Iranians naval forces ie talking about Iranian anti-ship cruise missiles, I though they just had a bunch of antiquated Styx missiles together with some non-specular home produced stuff. Is the US Navy really bothered by some 20-30ft boats mounting HMGs and RPGs ?
Quote from: mongers on February 14, 2012, 10:12:19 PM
I love the voice over, apparently the Iranians have submarines With TORPEDOES, omg.
What was the point of bigging up the Iranians naval forces ie talking about Iranian anti-ship cruise missiles, I though they just had a bunch of antiquated Styx missiles together with some non-specular home produced stuff. Is the US Navy really bothered by some 20-30ft boats mounting HMGs and RPGs ?
You're such a whiny douchebag sometimes.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 14, 2012, 10:11:15 PM
I admit, I'd actually like to see the US kick the Iranian's teeth in. They've had it coming for 30 years now.
I'm not sure school yard vendettas are the best guide to running a foreign policy in the interest of one's own state.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 14, 2012, 10:14:00 PM
Quote from: mongers on February 14, 2012, 10:12:19 PM
I love the voice over, apparently the Iranians have submarines With TORPEDOES, omg.
What was the point of bigging up the Iranians naval forces ie talking about Iranian anti-ship cruise missiles, I though they just had a bunch of antiquated Styx missiles together with some non-specular home produced stuff. Is the US Navy really bothered by some 20-30ft boats mounting HMGs and RPGs ?
You're such a whiny douchebag sometimes.
Come on it's a complete mis-match, if there was a conflict do you even think it would be worth naming a USCG patrol boat after the engagement ?
We aren't in the business of fair fights, Mongers.
Is it common to have submarines armed with torpedoes? :unsure:
Quote from: DGuller on February 14, 2012, 11:27:46 PM
Is it common to have submarines armed with torpedoes? :unsure:
More common then having torpedoes armed with submarines.
Quote from: mongers on February 14, 2012, 10:14:18 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 14, 2012, 10:11:15 PM
I admit, I'd actually like to see the US kick the Iranian's teeth in. They've had it coming for 30 years now.
I'm not sure school yard vendettas are the best guide to running a foreign policy in the interest of one's own state.
The basis of most of human history's great wars have been: "those motherfuckers disrespected us and we're gonna go get 'em."
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on February 15, 2012, 12:04:00 PM
Quote from: mongers on February 14, 2012, 10:14:18 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 14, 2012, 10:11:15 PM
I admit, I'd actually like to see the US kick the Iranian's teeth in. They've had it coming for 30 years now.
I'm not sure school yard vendettas are the best guide to running a foreign policy in the interest of one's own state.
The basis of most of human history's great wars have been: "those motherfuckers disrespected us and we're gonna go get 'em."
Well I'll give you that regarding Iraq 2003 and look how well that's turning out.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on February 15, 2012, 12:04:00 PM
The basis of most of human history's great wars have been: "those motherfuckers disrespected us and we're gonna go get 'em."
World war 2 for sure, also every flame war on languish.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on February 15, 2012, 12:04:00 PM
The basis of most of human history's great wars have been: "those motherfuckers disrespected us and we're gonna go get 'em."
So many wars in history...started by so many hip-hop gangsters.