Honda CRX Forum banner
1 - 20 of 28 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,384 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Today, Dutch, Russian and Brittish newspapers reoprt, that Brittish and US forces have mobilized along the Iranian border.
Reported is also, the mobilization of a little boat
BTW, Stennis, translates to "Trouble, chaos, upheaval, etc" in Dutch. Nice detail.

So....when was the last time you fueled up? Might wanna top it off before WW3 breaks out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
541 Posts
I am glad someone here has brought this up.
Things are really falling in place for another war. US military build up, UK troop capture, Israelis banning travel in many countries, Russians pulling scientist out of Iran facilities....
I've been expecting this scince early fall. I really think its coming.
When it does, oil will go to $100 / barrel quickly. Gas will follow to $5 at least. Close to 30% of world's oil goes through the Persian Gulf. If shiping is haulted, things will turn really ugly. (On Tuesday, oil went up $5 per barrel on a false rumor of Iran strike on US ship)

As far as gasing up, I've been trying to make preparations for a while. For one, as you can see in my sig, I don't rely on my car anymore. Second, I've got a fair supply of food and water. A gun and some ammo is also good to have.

Another thing to look at is the bigger economic picture. Expensive gas WILL hit the economy hard. I've mentioned this before here, but stocks will be hit hard, inflation will be high (so the safe investments will not keep up). Look into precious metals and oil related stocks/funds.

I can go on and on about this. If anyone is interested, I can post links and provide advice.

(My last post in Fall '06, I recommended buying gold and silver. At that time, gold was probably in the low 600s or high 500s and silver around 11 to 12. Today, gold costs $660/ounce and silver $13.3/ounce)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,384 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
I think you're over reacting a bit. Prices after the 1st Guld war weren't THAT bad either. There are a fair amount of reserves, and other countries have been re-directing oil flow, or making preperations for it for years.
My Brother works for a company with Shell logistics. You should see the parts going to other countries. It's insane.

I am more worried with the prospect of war itself.
As a non-american I'd like to think I have a bit more of an objective outside view other than "support our troops".

US forces are spread thin. Real thin. Due to the continuous attempt to meddle in other people's business. Now the time is coming where those forces really count, you have lost support. Troops are sick and tired of sand by now. Logistics have been failing for a time. (Have you adopted a sniper yet?) And the hasted troop training has been lacking quality. Can't speak of much of a reserve either anymore.
Count Holland, Germany, France...basically all of Europe out. We're cowards.

This might get ugly. But who's left?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
779 Posts
So Iran took a little british boat that was in it's disputed water, and all of a sudden major countries are gearing to take it over? What has this world come too. (I'm sure they claim other reasons, but we all know the democrats want full control of oil).

Whatever. There is a reason I stopped reading such political stuff. Only gets the blood boiling when you can clearly see that all the governments care about is the all mighty dollar.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,384 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Well, there's a bit more to it.

"The world" has been trying to get Iran to discontinue it's nuclear program. Which is clearly to produce warheards. Since the plant isn't putting out any power whatsoever.

Now when the pressure is increasing, all of a sudden several British troops go "missing", and turn up as Iranian prisoners. (Read: hostages)
Mind you, it's been established the troops were NOT in Iranian waters.

There's a political term for this. Act of war.
That's what the "fuss" is about.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
779 Posts
SETI20 said:
Well, there's a bit more to it.

"The world" has been trying to get Iran to discontinue it's nuclear program. Which is clearly to produce warheards. Since the plant isn't putting out any power whatsoever.

Now when the pressure is increasing, all of a sudden several British troops go "missing", and turn up as Iranian prisoners. (Read: hostages)
Mind you, it's been established the troops were NOT in Iranian waters.

There's a political term for this. Act of war.
That's what the "fuss" is about.
So other countries are allowed to have nukes, but not an oil bearing one? I see how it is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
529 Posts
ludesrv said:
So other countries are allowed to have nukes, but not an oil bearing one? I see how it is.
Not hostile retarded ones full of idiot Muslims, who want us to cease to exist. I say we nuke them, pull our troops out, and turn the entire ashtray they call the middle east into glass. While we are at it, nuke North Korea, and China as well. I gotta get my lungs in shape, I just oiled my chain, and the bike is ridding great. I think I might quit my job, and start strength training so I can join the army, and go kill some Iranian douche bags. Anybody want to join me? I know the moral of this country is kinda down, but I don't care. We live here, and if things go down the way they could, we could have warheads coming through our roofs. Screw that, I would rather die, after taking a few hundred of the douche bags out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
529 Posts
SETI20 said:
There's a reason convicted sociopathic felons aren't allowed to carry guns.

Get real, or don't get into these topics.
I am 100% real. The worst thing I have been convicted of was speeding. I also own several guns, and I have several hundred rounds for each of them. Who are you to tell me not to get into topics, and call names?

I see no point in sitting here if things go bad. Chances are a draft will start, and people will end up going anyway. If I join, then someone else who doesn't feel the same way, and would rather have whatever happens happen, can stay at home. They can sit at home, and I will go fight for my life, and the life of many others. Chances are if WW3 breaks out there isn't gonna be much left anyway. Kill or be killed thats the way it will be. Besides we could use a good bloodbath anyway. If a couple billion people died, we wouldn't have all the global warming problems, that in the end will probably kill us as well. War is necessary, and if you chose to ignore that fact than you are a fool.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
541 Posts
Seti, the location of the UK troops is questionable. I agree with ludesrv's way of naming it, "disputed" Iraq/Iran waters. Right after this happened, there was many sources saying that they were in Iranian waters. I actually caught a glimpse on BBC of this, "UK apologizes to Iran for being in Iranian waters." Do you really think Iran would go and do something stupid like that when they are surrounded by armies on the verge of attacking them? The people that will be hurt most during this war are the Iranians.

Regarding the oil numbers,
"In 2003, Persian Gulf countries had estimated net oil exports of 17.2 million bbl/d of oil (see pie chart). Saudi Arabia exported the most oil of any Persian Gulf country in 2003, with an estimated 8.40 million bbl/d (49% of the total). Also, Iran had estimated net exports of about 2.6 million bbl/d (15%), followed by the United Arab Emirates (2.4 million bbl/d -- 14%), Kuwait (2.0 million bbl/d -- 12%), Iraq (0.9 million bbl/d -- 9%), Qatar (0.9 million bbl/d -- 5%), and Bahrain (0.01 million bbl/d -- 0.1%)"
From - http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/pgulf.html

You are correct that during the first gulf war, the price did not explode. The danger this time, is that exports from the gulf will cease. With Iraq and Kuwait not exporting at all, that's -3 million barrels. With the Persian Gulf closed, that's over -10 million barrels. Even with plentiful reserves prices will skyrocket.

I will ignore crxbart here, maybe we can have a lasting political thread....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
541 Posts
The Bush administration continues moving closer to a nuclear attack on Iran, and we ignore the obvious buildup at our peril.

Russian media is sounding alarms. In February, ultra-nationalist leader Vladimir Shirinovsky warned that the US would launch a strike against Tehran at the end of this month. Then last week, the Russian News and Information Agency Novosti (RIA-Novosti) quoted military experts predicting the US will attack Iran on April 6th, Good Friday. According to RIA-Novosti, the imminent assault will target Iranian air and naval defense capabilities, armed forces headquarters as well as key economic assets and administration headquarters. Massive air strikes will be deployed, possibly tactical nuclear weapons as well, and the Bush administration will attempt to exploit the resulting chaos and political unrest by installing a pro-US government.

Sound familiar? It's Iraq Déjà vu all over again, and we know how well that war has gone.

Seymour Hersh has published numerous articles in The New Yorker detailing the Bush administration's plans to invade Iran. His latest, "The Redirection," discusses US participation in Iran-based clandestine operations, the kidnapping of hundreds of Iranians (including many "humanitarian and aid workers") by US forces and the shocking revelation that an Iran-Contra-type scandal has been run out of Vice President Dick Cheney's office with some of the illicit funds going to groups "sympathetic to al-Qaeda."

"The Redirection" also reports that the Pentagon has been planning to bomb Iran for a year and that a recently-established group connected to the Joint Chiefs of Staff is formulating a assault strategy to be implemented "upon orders from the President, within twenty-four hours."

Hersh notes that current capabilities "allow for an attack order this spring," possibly when four US aircraft-carrier battle groups are scheduled to be in the Persian Gulf simultaneously.

Meanwhile, the Democratic Congress busies itself with non-binding, timid resolutions on Iraq and recently altered a military-funding bill to make it easier for Bush to invade Iran. As Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-NV) explained, language demanding that Bush seek congressional approval before attacking Iran "would take away perhaps the most important negotiating tool that the U.S. has when it comes to Iran."

Such sheer ignorance and blind denial would be laughable if it weren't marching us into Armageddon.

But with this Administration (and this Congress, apparently) diplomacy be damned.

It's now widely known that Iran had broached peace talks with the US in 2003 - Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice admitted as much in 2006 when she said, "what the Iranians wanted earlier was to be one-on-one with the United States." Yet the White House rejected Tehran's overture outright and Rice has since developed selective amnesia, later saying of the Iranian proposal, I don't remember seeing any such thing. "

For its part, the UN Security Council recently tightened sanctions aimed at pressuring Iran to cease uranium enrichment, and in response, Iran announced it would cooperate less with the International Atomic Energy Agency.

It's worth noting that Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and says that its program falls under the legally permitted right to "peacefully use nuclear technology." In contrast, Israel has neither signed nor ratified the NPT and the US would breach the Treaty by conducting a nuclear attack against Iran.

Besides, the Bush administration's message to its enemies has been very clear: if you possess WMD you're safe, and if you don't, you're fair game. Iraq had no nuclear weapons and was invaded, Iran doesn't as well and risks attack, yet that other "Axis of Evil" country, North Korea, reportedly does have nuclear weapons and is left alone. When considering that India and Pakistan (and presumably Israel) developed secret nuclear weapons programs yet remain on good terms with Washington, the case for war becomes even more tenuous.

What consequences would arise from a US attack on Iran? Retaliation, for one. Tehran promised a "crushing response" to any US or Israeli assault, and while the country - ironically - doesn't possess nuclear weapons to scare off attackers, it does have other options. Iran boasts a standing army estimated at 450,000 personnel, as well as long-range missiles that could hit Israel and possibly even Europe. In addition, much of the world's oil supply is transported through the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow stretch of water which Iran borders to the north. In 1997, Iran's deputy foreign minister warned that the country might close off that shipping route if ever threatened, and it wouldn't be difficult. Just a few missiles or gunboats could bring down vessels and block the Strait, thereby threatening the global oil supply and shooting the price of crude oil to over $100 a barrel, with untold negative consequences for the world economy.

An attack on Iran would also inflame tensions in the Middle East, and could tip the scales towards a new geopolitical balance, one in which the US finds itself shut out by Russia, China, Iran, Muslim countries and the many others Bush has managed to alienate during his period in office.
The most horrific impact of a US assault on Iran, of course, would be the potentially catastrophic number of casualties. The Oxford Research Group predicted that up to 10,000 people would die if the US bombed Iran's nuclear sites, and that an attack on the Bushehr nuclear reactor could send a radioactive cloud over the Gulf. If the US uses nuclear weapons, such as earth-penetrating "bunker buster" bombs, radioactive fallout would become even more disastrous.

The devastating implications of a US strike on Iran are clear. And that begs the question: how could the US public be convinced to enter another potentially ugly and protracted war?

Former CIA Officer Philip Giraldi chillingly noted that the Pentagon's plans to attack Iran were drawn up "to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States." Writing in The American Conservative in August 2005, Giraldi added, "The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites ... As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States."

Chew on that one a minute. The Pentagon's plan would be in response to a terrorist attack on the US, but not contingent upon Iran actually having been responsible. How outlandish is this scenario: another 9/11 hits the US, the administration says it has secret information implicating Iran, the US population demands retribution and bombs start dropping on Tehran.
While even contemplating another 9/11 brings shudders, it's worth noting that last year, Congress quietly approved provisions making it easier for the President to declare federal martial law after a domestic terrorist incident. And recall that in late 2003, General Tommy Franks openly speculated on how a new 9/11 could lead to a military form of government: "a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world - it may be in the United States of America - that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution."

Meanwhile, Iran conducted war games in the Persian Gulf last week and just yesterday, the US Navy began its largest maneuvers in the region since the 2003 Iraq invasion, complete with over 100 US warplanes and 10,000 personnel.

The clock is ticking, and there's far too much at stake.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,384 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
CRXBart said:
I am 100% real. The worst thing I have been convicted of was speeding. I also own several guns, and I have several hundred rounds for each of them. Who are you to tell me not to get into topics, and call names?
I wasn't. I was referring to Iranians waving nukes around. You need to check that temper.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
541 Posts
Exclusive: Iranians Had Showdown With U.S. Forces
By Anna Mulrine
Posted 3/23/07
As the British government demanded the immediate release of 15 of its sailors whose boats were seized by Iranian naval vessels in the Persian Gulf on Friday, U.S. News has learned that this is not the first showdown that coalition forces have had with the Iranian military.
According to a U.S. Army report out of Iraq obtained by U.S. News, American troops, acting as advisers for Iraqi border guards, were recently surrounded and attacked by a larger unit of Iranian soldiers, well within the border of Iraq.
The report highlights the details: A platoon of Iranian soldiers on the Iraqi side of the border fired rocket-propelled grenades and used small arms against a joint patrol of U.S. and Iraqi soldiers east of Balad Ruz. Four Iraqi Army soldiers, one interpreter, and one Iraqi border policeman remain unaccounted for after the September incident in eastern Diyala, 75 miles east of Baghdad.
During a joint border patrol, both American and Iraqi soldiers saw two Iranian soldiers run from Iraq back across the Iranian border as they approached. The patrol then came upon a single Iranian soldier, on the Iraqi side of the border, who did not flee.
While the joint U.S.-Iraqi patrol was speaking with the soldier, according to the report, the patrol was "approached by a platoon-size element of Iranian soldiers." An Iranian border captain then told the U.S. and Iraqi soldiers that "if they tried to leave their location, the Iranians would fire upon them." During this conversation with the Iranian captain, Iranian forces began firing and continued when U.S. troops tried to withdraw.
Iraqi and American forces returned fire "to break contact and left the area to report the incident," the report noted. "The Iranian forces continued to fire indirect fire well into Iraq as Coalition Force soldiers withdrew; for reasons unknown at this time, the Iraqi Army forces remained behind."
No American soldiers were wounded in the incident.
It is possible that Iranians thought they were in Iranian territory, according to U.S. military officials. Such border confusions and disputes happen routinely.
In the British naval incident on Friday, Iran claimed it seized the vessels because they were in its territorial waters. U.S. military officials tell U.S. News that the Iranian forces very likely belong to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, which tend to be far more aggressive than regular Iranian naval forces, which U.S. military officials routinely describe as "extremely professional."
Iranian and Iraqi forces continue to clash in Iraq. U.S. special operations forces have been tasked with nabbing Iranian members of the Revolutionary Guards' al-Quds Brigade, the foreign operations arm of the Iranian military, which also supports Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian territories.
U.S. forces grabbed six Iranians with alleged ties to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards in the northern Iraqi city of Arbil in January, reportedly using stun bombs, seizing computers, and taking down an Iranian flag from the raided building's roof. Iran said the building was a consulate and the men were diplomats-and continues to demand their release. One of Iraq's most powerful Shiite politicians condemned the raid, calling it an attack on Iraq's sovereignty.
American forces may soon be getting further insight into recent Iranian attacks. Earlier this month, a former Iranian deputy defense minister who once commanded the Revolutionary Guards-and is thought to have considerable knowledge of Iran's national security network-left the country and is said to be cooperating with western intelligence agencies, sharing information on links between Iran and Hezbollah in south Lebanon, for example. Iranian officials said the official, Ali Rez Asgari, was kidnapped by western agents.
Shortly afterward, Iran threatened to retaliate in Europe for the supposed kidnapping, what it claims to be the most recent in a series of abductions in the past three months. According to the British Sunday Times, in the Revolutionary Guards' weekly newspaper this week, a columnist believed to have close ties to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wrote: "We've got the ability to capture a nice bunch of blue-eyed, blond-haired officers and feed them to our fighting cocks. Iran has enough people who can reach the heart of Europe and kidnap Americans and Israelis."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
529 Posts
SETI20 said:
CRXBart said:
I am 100% real. The worst thing I have been convicted of was speeding. I also own several guns, and I have several hundred rounds for each of them. Who are you to tell me not to get into topics, and call names?
I wasn't. I was referring to Iranians waving nukes around. You need to check that temper.
Ah I see. I am sorry. This stuff sounds really bad, especially that article Andrey just posted.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,384 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
War is always bad. And do I think the Iranian government would risk it all, just to posture? Yes I do. That president is out of his mind.

Unfortunately, he falls in the "evil genius" category. And even the worst plans and speculations probably bleak in perspective of what that man dreams about.

I think armageddon is far fetched.
I think a new short-term conflict like the Iranian war is likely.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,423 Posts
Realization of our demise is not funny.

That is unless it's coming from Beavis and Butthead. :wink:
Had to put a little humor into this...

The U.S. just needs to wake up and realize we don't have the kind of 'power' we used to. The world is flat...our government needs to realize that and put more focus on our future instead of getting into another damn conflict.

I retract though, because I would hate to see the world right now if all U.S. troops were behind our borders. Wonder if anything would be different?

Audrey, got a question...if the economy were to go to ship and stocks, bonds, etc. would be worth next to nothing...who's going to have money to buy the silver or gold? It seems like the price is only what someone would pay for it, right? Not asking sarcastically or anything...just really wonder how that works.
 
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top