At 2/11/14 12:54 AM, Ranger2 wrote:

At 2/11/14 12:05 AM, TheMason wrote: 2) It is showing that their capabilities are improving (a transatlantic trip is good training, and does require some skill).

I'm sure any navy, given enough oil, could pilot their ship anywhere in the world. ... It's really a waste of money and if anything shows how weak they are.

Oil is not the only issue here.

* How sea worthy is the vessel? How old is it? How well has it been maintained (anti-corrosion, mechanically, structurally)? You can have enough gas to get it there...but will the ship itself make the voyage?

* What is the experience of the crew? There is a difference operating in a Gulf, especially a narrow and small one like the Persian Gulf, and the open seas/ocean. It is far more involved than it would seem.

Is it a waste of money? From an American perspective it does. We could easily sink them at the first provocation. On the other hand, it will show that they have the reach to put the US mainland within range of Tactical Ballistic Missiles (TBMs). This is a selling point for them in any campaign for military aid from Russia, China, and even N. Korea. All of those countries have a vested interest (and history of doing business with Iran) in pestering the US.

The Iranians can now ask for either free or reduced weapons systems (TBMs, defensive weapons for their ships) that increase their standing in their region. In exchange, Russia, China, and N. Korea get a US military that still has to address the Middle East which takes away from the 'Asian Pivot'.

From an Iranian perspective this is an investment and makes perfect strategic sense.

At 2/11/14 11:56 AM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: If you're counting on this guy to lead you, what's that saying about deer leading lions?

deers? lions? if you are going to bring up animals the there is no point talking to you. Its clear you are not serious at all.

At 2/11/14 11:56 AM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: But pursue the enemy? Probably not. We are talking about a man who believes we can all sing Kumbaya with people who would no sooner see us than find the nearest log to remove our body from our head.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, we get you're point. And to an extent, you are right. Obama is definitely not a hawk. He would rather pursue diplomatic avenues than military ones, and has a penchant for overdoing this just a bit. However, you go WAY too far. Do remember, that this is the President who pushed hard to not only go to Libya but to attack Syria as well. He has also dramatically ramped up drone operations amidst the cries of him going to far (fom the hawks, ironically.)

Yes, Banghazi is a black eye. However, it is a very different scenario. Benghazi amounted to a defensive target on foreign soil where there was already a presence in a country we were looking to limit our presence in, and was the result of a spike in chatter that, regarding that region, is already high on a low day. Should it have been prevented? Yes. Are there legitimate reasons to not have taken it as seriously? Yes.

Now, an attack by Iran, and the ensuing response would be a VERY different matter. The legitimate reasons for not attacking Iran would only com ein the form of provoking China and/or Russia into full on armed conflict. That's it.

So, we all get that you have ulterior political motives here. But seriously, try to at least land them eithin the range of reality.

At 2/11/14 12:24 PM, TheMason wrote: Is it a waste of money? From an American perspective it does. We could easily sink them at the first provocation. On the other hand, it will show that they have the reach to put the US mainland within range of Tactical Ballistic Missiles (TBMs). This is a selling point for them in any campaign for military aid from Russia, China, and even N. Korea. All of those countries have a vested interest (and history of doing business with Iran) in pestering the US.

Not to mention it puts Iran at the top of the pack of non-super power nations beligerent to the US. Not other small nation hostile to the US has had the capability or will to make such a move. This move gives Iran clout among the smaller nations hostile to th US, such as other Arab League members, South Amrian nations, and some African states.

By doing this Iran can get Bolivia, Jordan, and other smaller nations to look at Iran the way Iran looks at China.

Iran may never become a Don of the hostile to the West mafia, but by this move, they have definitely solidified themselves as the highest of the captains.

LOL, does that Country really want to fuck with US? I dare them to shoot at our Ships or try to attack us. It's a battle they'd lose easily.

Our ships are better than theirs, I don't think they have anything to show off and thus whatever message they're trying to send falls flat.

At 2/11/14 09:11 PM, Korriken wrote: I wonder if we could deploy magnetized objects to latch onto their ships, increasing drag and causing them to burn a lot more fuel? Barnacles used to play hell on ships back in the middle ages due to this same effect.

Just a thought.

Route them through the Bermuda Triangle and then dissapear them.

At 2/11/14 02:09 AM, leanlifter1 wrote: The Petro Dollar is a very well know concept. Bread and Milk do not cause oppression/subjugation and wars.

You obviously don't know the reason why wars are fought. They are fought for two things: security and/or material gain.

At 2/11/14 12:24 PM, TheMason wrote: Is it a waste of money? From an American perspective it does. We could easily sink them at the first provocation. On the other hand, it will show that they have the reach to put the US mainland within range of Tactical Ballistic Missiles (TBMs).

That is a very good point. I did not think about that. But, selling things like RPGs and guns are one thing, I don't think countries are as willing to part with advanced missile technology.

I don't think Iran would ever publicly admit to working with the states, if they were, just because of the region they're in, if nothing else.

Since pearl harbor, I don't think the US Navy ever docks all their ships and carriers anymore, from what I understand it just makes them sitting ducks, so to speak. I don't believe they ever move the carriers in a straight line from point A to point B anymore either. So it's hard to tell where they're going..I'd assume other nations learned from that too.

From what I understand, what made the russian sub's dangerous is that though they were noisy, they were capable of going deeper.

As far as modern naval warfare, I would assume it boils down to whoever gets spotted first is basically going to be destroyed.

Just curious if anyone caught that show that was on for a minute called Last Resort? I thought it was strange that the Dorner manifesto had the same title, around the same time the series started, weird, eh?

They're just trying to flex for the world~ there's obviously nothing that's going to come of it- at least between the warship and the U.S. Although, it will probably draw a few tense stares between the U.S. and Iran and be a fun topic to talk about amongst their locals.

At 2/12/14 01:19 AM, Ranger2 wrote:

At 2/11/14 02:09 AM, leanlifter1 wrote: The Petro Dollar is a very well know concept. Bread and Milk do not cause oppression/subjugation and wars.

You obviously don't know the reason why wars are fought. They are fought for two things: security and/or material gain.

The US has never be attacked except for Perl Harbor. So what you think is security is actually acts of aggression and oppression/subjugation. Wars are started by the US for material gain for example Oil and to try and get countries like Iran back on the Petro Dollar.

At 2/12/14 02:17 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

The US has never be attacked except for Perl Harbor. So what you think is security is actually acts of aggression and oppression/subjugation.

-Attacks on Concorde and Lexington by the British
-Washington DC bombed by the British in 1812
-Sinking of the Lusitania before WWI
-Sinking of the Maine 1898
-Attacks on US soldiers in Lebanon
-US Embassy bombing in Tanzania
-Japanese balloon bombs during WWII
-Anthrax attacks, 2001

Oh, and in case you forgot, September fucking 11th! 3,000 people dead in New York City. How can you forget that ever happened?

Wars are started by the US for material gain for example Oil and to try and get countries like Iran back on the Petro Dollar.

*facepalm* We want to get Iran on the petrodollar? Hello, we have sanctions against them. If we want to buy Iran's oil so much, why would we go to war when we could just nix the sanctions? Boom, you get Iranian oil, they're "on the petrodollar" and no lives are lost.

At 2/12/14 02:17 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: The US has never be attacked except for Pearl Harbor.

So the British burning down Washington D.C. In the War of 1812 doesn't count then? Or, when the Confederates attacked Fort Sumter in 1860, kick starting the U.S. Civil War? (Yes, I know that the Confederate States were part of America when that happen, but it still counts.) Let's not get started on 9/11 or the bombing of U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

So what you think is security is actually acts of aggression and oppression/subjugation. Wars are started by the US for material gain for example Oil and to try and get countries like Iran back on the Petro Dollar.

All wars are either for resources, or as a byproduct of war. For example, why in the hell Japan and China are each other's throats over a bunch of rocks, or going back to the days of imperialism with Britain, France and so on? We aren't the only ones who fight for resources, but we don't primarily use that as a casus belli, (act of war) if at all.

This is fucking ballsy of them and I hope they are just coasting by to say hello; if not, we might be in for a shit show in the future.

At 2/10/14 06:25 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 2/10/14 05:35 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Ok pull out the money you have in your pocket right now and you are in fact looking at a petro dollar.

The money in my wallet hasn't been spent on oil. Chances are it'll be spent on food. So my dollar aren't petrodollars. They're "cheapmealataplacethatdoesn'ttakecards" dollars.

;;;;
actually if you have American money in your pocket it isn't a dollar, or 5 ,10, 20 dollars etc...it is actually a Federal reserve note.
If you don't know that you don't know SFA !

The American dollar &as well as your banking system was hijacked by a privately owned company many years ago ...its actually illegal to even exist in your country & as for currency of the Ciuntry ,that according to your Constitution cannot even be issued by anyone BUT the USA government !

At 2/12/14 03:45 PM, morefngdbs wrote: The American dollar &as well as your banking system was hijacked by a privately owned company many years ago ...its actually illegal to even exist in your country & as for currency of the Ciuntry ,that according to your Constitution cannot even be issued by anyone BUT the USA government !

This again? Ugh. Sorry, but Congress authorizing the Fed fits perfectly under the enumerated right for Congress to mint coins.

That is, unless you believe that the text is so literal that the member of Congress must actually mint the coins themselves.

At 2/11/14 09:11 PM, Korriken wrote: I wonder if we could deploy magnetized objects to latch onto their ships, increasing drag and causing them to burn a lot more fuel? Barnacles used to play hell on ships back in the middle ages due to this same effect.

Just a thought.

At 2/11/14 06:37 PM, TheKlown wrote: LOL, does that Country really want to fuck with US? I dare them to shoot at our Ships or try to attack us. It's a battle they'd lose easily.

Okay...the worst thing we could do is attack the 'Great Green Fleet'. There are two reasons:
1) It would look like we really perceived them as a threat.
2) It would look like we're bullies...Mike Tyson taking on Bill Gates.

What would be the best thing to happen for the US? The Iranian ships get into a jam and the US Navy or Coast Guard rescues them.

Awesome PR coupe for the US!

At 2/12/14 02:44 AM, Ranger2 wrote:

That is a very good point. I did not think about that. But, selling things like RPGs and guns are one thing, I don't think countries are as willing to part with advanced missile technology.

Not.
At.
All.

Following the collapse of the USSR, many Soviet scientists left the country. Not all of them fled to the West to escape poverty at home. Some ended up working for Baghdad, Pyongyang, and Tehran. Others went to work for Beijing. This included individuals engaged in Chem/Bio war...and rocket scientists.

Even before the collapse of the USSR...the Soviets would 'sell' advanced military tech to client states. Why do you think just about every country aligned against the US and the West have SCUD missiles?

Right now the Chinese and Russians ARE selling weapons systems countries like Iran to gain leverage against the US. Even N. Korea has a lucrative ballistic missile program that they sell...and they really do not care who they sell it too.

At 2/12/14 04:34 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

This again? Ugh. Sorry, but Congress authorizing the Fed fits perfectly under the enumerated right for Congress to mint coins.

That is, unless you believe that the text is so literal that the member of Congress must actually mint the coins themselves.

The Government is not allowed to sub contract the minit of currency.

At 2/12/14 07:17 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: The Government is not allowed to sub contract the minit of currency.

Where exactly is that line in the Constitution?

At 2/12/14 08:24 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 2/12/14 07:17 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: The Government is not allowed to sub contract the mint of currency.

Where exactly is that line in the Constitution?

Section 8: Powers of Congress
Enumerated powers

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_6:_Compensation.2C_privileges.2C_and_restrictions_on_holding_civil_office

At 2/12/14 08:57 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures

What about this doesn't allow Congress to use its authority to authorize a private (or semi private) entity to mint the money for the country?

At 2/12/14 09:24 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 2/12/14 08:57 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures

What about this doesn't allow Congress to use its authority to authorize a private (or semi private) entity to mint the money for the country?

Because it states that Government is the only institution that is allowed to mint currency. If the Constitution was up to a matter of opinion then there is no use for it. Show me where in the constitution that is say's the Government can delegate or semi delegate the creation and issuance of currency using the Fed. Please don't try to play word games this time.

At 2/12/14 11:26 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Please don't try to play word games this time.

He's not playing word games. He's just stating facts and you think it's word games.

At 2/12/14 11:26 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Because it states that Government is the only institution that is allowed to mint currency. If the Constitution was up to a matter of opinion then there is no use for it. Show me where in the constitution that is say's the Government can delegate or semi delegate the creation and issuance of currency using the Fed. Please don't try to play word games this time.

I think I'm going to keep track now of how many times I say this to you because it seems like I have to be at least in the 20s.

The government DOES print it's own money. That's what the Treasury does, and that's under the Executive branch. (Thanks, Geitner!) The Fed controls the amount of liquidity in the economy by issuing and buying bonds to set market interest rates and by doing so hopefully address both issues of inflation and unemployment. (Hi, Yellen!)

To put it methaphorically: imagine money (cash) is like a river. The Treasury is the waterfall where all the water comes from. The Fed is a dam: it can control how much water is being released below into the markets and how fast it can be released. In some cases (and sadly this is where my metaphor breaks down) the Fed actually takes back water, but in no way does the Fed control the creation of money.

No where in the Consitution does it say you can't charter a national bank by the way.............

At 2/12/14 11:37 PM, Ranger2 wrote:

At 2/12/14 11:26 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Please don't try to play word games this time.

He's not playing word games. He's just stating facts and you think it's word games.

The facts state that the Government cannot subcontract or relegate the responsibility of creating money to any other institution. Prove me wrong. You are trying to bend the meaning of the Constitution if you think that the Fed is according to said Constitutional Law. The Federal mint in NOT congress.

Section 8: Powers of Congress
Enumerated powers

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures

At 2/13/14 12:44 AM, BrianEtrius wrote:

The government DOES print it's own money.

The Federal Mint in not Congress

Section 8:Powers of Congress
Enumerated powers

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures

At 2/13/14 12:54 AM, leanlifter1 wrote: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures

Where in this does it say the government cannot let the Federal Reserve do this? Keep in mind it says what the government can do, not what it can't.

At 2/13/14 02:33 AM, Ranger2 wrote:

At 2/13/14 12:54 AM, leanlifter1 wrote: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures

Where in this does it say the government cannot let the Federal Reserve do this? Keep in mind it says what the government can do, not what it can't.

The Federal Reserve is not Congress is it.

At 2/13/14 03:51 AM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 2/13/14 02:33 AM, Ranger2 wrote:

At 2/13/14 12:54 AM, leanlifter1 wrote: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures

Where in this does it say the government cannot let the Federal Reserve do this? Keep in mind it says what the government can do, not what it can't.

The Federal Reserve is not Congress is it.

Wouldn't the elastic clause allow the U.S. Congress authorize anyone do it? They created the department of the treasury to handle it, right?

Congress allowed them to create paper money, and in order to do that they officially created The Bureau of Engraving and Printing (and the Mint?), which is also funded by the govt.

At 2/13/14 09:46 AM, Little-Kinky wrote: Wouldn't the elastic clause allow the U.S. Congress authorize anyone do it? They created the department of the treasury to handle it, right?

to* authorize anyone to* do it?

Yes, I had to correct it.