T1B

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2008 6:27 pm**

what it is.. ain't exactly clear.

Iranian boats 'harass' U.S. Navy, officials say
Five Iranian Revolutionary Guard boats "harassed and provoked" three U.S. Navy ships early Sunday in international waters, the U.S. military said Monday, calling the encounter a "significant" confrontation.

*******
"President Johnson has ordered retaliatory action against gunboats and 'certain supporting facilities in North Vietnam' after renewed attacks against American destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin."

Is history repeating itself???

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2008 7:08 pm**

There's a man with a gun over there
Telling me I got to beware.

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2008 7:10 pm**

Some skipper over there probably needs to be fired. 200 yds is wayyy too fukking close to let those fukks get. Should have blown them the fukk outta the water at half a mile or so.

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2008 7:15 pm**

mvscal wrote:What's your story? Mental retardation? Recent head injury? Exposure to environmental toxins?

For what it's worth… Jack is a colossal dumbfuck. Why else would he quote a song inspired by the Sunset Strip riots?

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2008 7:17 pm**

Doesn't this just make our Navy look like a bunch of pussies? Whaaaaaaaaa, those Iranian pontoon boats are harassing us. What kind of freakin artillery do our Navy cruisers have on board? Enough to blow the fuck out of an Iranian floating rickshaw.

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2008 7:30 pm**

I didn't claim it wasn't a threat. My claim was that they should have destroyed the thing if it was harassing them.

There's this fly that's buzzing around my head and its harassing me. Do I complain to the mosquito abatement district? No. I fucking destroy it the first chance I get.

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2008 7:42 pm**

Dog wrote:I didn't claim it wasn't a threat. My claim was that they should have destroyed the thing if it was harassing them.

And from reading the article, they were getting ready to do just that when the "threat" turned around.

There's this fly that's buzzing around my head and its harassing me. Do I complain to the mosquito abatement district? No. I fucking destroy it the first chance I get.

Sure thing, Captain Dog.

As soon as you get made commander of a U.S. naval destroyer, maybe you'd think twice before needlessly starting an ugly international incident. You'd have just caused oil prices to skyrocket even further just for the fuck of it.

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2008 7:44 pm**

Dog wrote:There's this fly that's buzzing around my head and its harassing me. Do I complain to the mosquito abatement district?

Might make more sense to call the fly abatement district.

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2008 7:55 pm**

mvscal wrote: You just killed 17 sailors, wounded 40 more and cost the country 250 million dollars in repairs because you were thinking twice about an international incident and failed to think once about the security of your ship and your crew.

uh, no... that's not what happened.

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2008 7:56 pm**

Yeah. don't wanna blow the fukk outta no iranian boats. Why, they might start disliking us or something.

How would the price go up? Would that fuggin' juggernaut, The iranian navy shut down the straits?

Those fukkin patrol boats pretty much are the iranian navy. I doubt there is anything in their inventory that one of our destroyers couldn't smoke with a 5 inch gun. (Insert tasteless irie rest here)

Yes, they do have some shore based antiship missle capability, but, I would think that the chairforce/carrier based aircraft could handle that.

Too bad AP was runned (by poptart, ofcourse). He might have something interesting to say about it. Maybe he's got a new troll online by now.

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2008 7:57 pm**

mvscal wrote:Good job, idiot. You just killed 17 sailors, wounded 40 more and cost the country 250 million dollars in repairs because you were thinking twice about an international incident and failed to think once about the security of your ship and your crew.

Rack it.

I'm glad Whitey has his priorities in line. Yes, our military commanders should always choose economics over the livelihood of his soldiers.

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2008 8:00 pm**

...

The Gulf of Tonkin Incident is a pair of supposed attacks allegedly carried out by naval forces of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (commonly referred to as North Vietnam) against two American destroyers, the USS Maddox and the USS Turner Joy. The incident occurred on August 2 and 4, 1964 in the Gulf of Tonkin.

Although it is possible that the first attack, on the destroyer Maddox, was in fact carried out after the Maddox fired first, some altercation did occur. The second supposed attack almost certainly did not occur.

Review of action makes many reported contacts and torpedoes fired appear doubtful. Freak weather effects and overeager sonarman may have accounted for many reports. No actual visual sightings by Maddox.

—Captain John Herrick, TIME Magazine 1968
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident
***
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Five Iranian boats made aggressive maneuvers and showed hostile intent towards three U.S. Navy ships at the weekend in the Strait of Hormuz, a major oil shipping route in the Gulf, the Pentagon said on Monday.

The Pentagon said the incident was serious. It described the Iranian actions as "careless, reckless and potentially hostile" and said Tehran should provide an explanation.
REUTERS

****
No, Iran (nor the US) has not officially attacked "yet" but if you were awake in history class or alive when this happened, the similarities and possibilities must be considered.

"History repeats itself because noone listens the first time."

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2008 8:02 pm**

smackaholic wrote: How would the price go up?

It went up this morning just at the mere speculation of an incident in the Straight of Hormuz. Had there actually been shots fired, we'd be looking at $110 a barrel right now.

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2008 8:07 pm**

Jack wrote:"History repeats itself because noone listens the first time."

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2008 8:14 pm**

mvscal wrote:There are no similarities or possibilities. This incident is not being used as a justification for military action against Iran nor was there any attack in this incident either real or alleged ergo there is no similarity.

No, I can see it being used as an example to illustrate a pattern of hostility on the part of the Iranians when the time does come for an invasion. Not that such a pattern is overly difficult to sell to the American public.

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2008 8:16 pm**

mvscal wrote:Posting that same stupid quote over and over again isn't going to change the facts, dipshit.

"Jack repeats himself because noone listens the first time."

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2008 8:18 pm**

Goober McTuber wrote:
Dog wrote:There's this fly that's buzzing around my head and its harassing me. Do I complain to the mosquito abatement district?
Might make more sense to call the fly abatement district.

Sure....but we don't have a fly abatement district. Only mosquitos. Damn bureaucrats are discriminating against flies these days.

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2008 8:27 pm**

mvscal wrote:There are no similarities or possibilities. This incident is not being used as a justification for military action against Iran nor was there any attack in this incident either real or alleged ergo there is no similarity.

I know that I should just continue to ignore you but I will reply.

mvscal wrote:There are no similarities.

1) Both incidents are in Gulfs! Gulf of Tonkin.. Persian Gulf
2) Both incidents involved US Ships versus a hostile enemies' boats.
US Navy Ships - Iranian boats. US Navy Ships- North Viet Nam boats.
3) The Pentagon in both incidents allege hostile actions by the enemies' boats.
4) The Pentagon considered both incidents "serious".
5) Both Incidents can be considered justification for war. The Gulf of Tonkin incident is considered to be the justification for war against North Viet Nam. If there is any stated hostile actions from Iranian boats upon US Navy Ships... that would be our justification for going to war with IRAQ.

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2008 8:32 pm**

I'm really surprised we didn't blast them if this is true ...

Five small boats began charging the U.S. ships, dropping boxes in the water in front of the ships and forcing the U.S. ships to take evasive maneuvers, said the Pentagon official. The boxes floated by, and officials said they didn’t know what was in them because U.S. sailors didn’t pick them up.

or maybe it was a routine, normal garbage dump for them.

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2008 8:40 pm**

mvscal wrote: The only people claiming any similarity between the two events are the pathetically stupid and the politically desperate.

Yeah, sorta' like the people comparing this incident to the Cole.

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2008 8:43 pm**

mvscal,

reply to each line.

1) Both incidents are in Gulfs! Gulf of Tonkin.. Persian Gulf
Do you believe that the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Tonkin are both Gulfs?
Yes or No

2) Both incidents involved US Ships versus a hostile enemies' boats.
Do you believe that both incidents involved US Ships and enemy boats?
Yes or No

3) The Pentagon in both incidents allege hostile actions by the enemies' boats.
Do you believe that in both incidents that the Pentagon is alleging hostile actions by the enemies boats?
Yes or No

4) The Pentagon considered both incidents "serious".
Do you believe that in both incidents that the Pentagon considered the incidents as "serious"?
Yes or No

5) Both Incidents can be considered justification for war. The Gulf of Tonkin incident is considered to be the justification for war against North Viet Nam. If there is any stated hostile actions from Iranian boats upon US Navy Ships... that would be our justification for going to war with IRAQ.
Do you believe that the Gulf of Tonkin is considered the justification for the Viet Nam war?
Yes or No

Do you believe that if Iran's boats attacked US Ships it would be considered justification for war with Iran?
Yes or No

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2008 8:45 pm**

RumpleForeskin wrote:Yes, our military commanders should always choose economics over the livelihood of his soldiers.

RACK!!!!!!

Sin,
W

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2008 8:50 pm**

Jack wrote:1) Both incidents are in Gulfs! Gulf of Tonkin.. Persian Gulf
Do you believe that the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Tonkin are both Gulfs?
Yes or No

Watch out, mv -- he makes a solid point here.

Matter of fact, I've now seen the light...

The Battle of Fullujah and the Mexican American War are pretty much the same thing, historically speaking.

I mean, they were both fought on dry land, right?

Matter of fact, the Battle of Marathon and the Battle of the Bulge?

Obviously one and the same, since they were both fought in Europe.

Then again, I'm still trying to figure out what "noone" means -- maybe a canadian variant of "midday"?

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2008 8:52 pm**

just answer the questions!

Answer all 5!

If you can answer no to the 5 questions and justify, you may have a point.

otherwise, a lack of answer to all questions, will show what you are.

All other doubters, Answer all 5.

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2008 8:54 pm**

mv,
Jack left out some other convincing similarities (I don't know why).

1) In both Gulfs, the water is not only wet, but deep enough for the vessals to travel in.

2) 1st incident - The President was Johnson, where Johnson is another name for a "penis." 2nd incident - The President was Bush, where Bush is another name for a "vagina." Obviously a penis and a vagina go together.

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2008 8:55 pm**

I wouldn't dismiss Jack's analysis, clearly he's on something.

The pattern is much more far reaching than he indicates though.

The "Pentagon" thought the sinking of the Maine in the water, was serious.
The sinking of the Luisitania in the water was thought to be serious.
The collateral damage done to boats at in the water Pearl Harbor was thought to be serious.
The cornering of American troops in Pusan, a peninsula with three sides surrounded by water, was thought to be serious.
Gulf of Tonkin, in the water.
Panama, Grenada, all surrounded by water
Kuwait, near the water
Saddam's Lies, as flowing as water

And now this.

It's clear now.....

"Stay away from the water and don't eat the Brown Acid, the Brown Acid is bad"

OH AND RACK TWIS

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2008 8:59 pm**

War Wagon wrote:
smackaholic wrote: How would the price go up?
It went up this morning just at the mere speculation of an incident in the Straight of Hormuz. Had there actually been shots fired, we'd be looking at $110 a barrel right now.

Yet:

Crude oil for February delivery fell $2.82, or 2.9 percent, to settle at $95.09 a barrel at 2:51 p.m. on the New York Mercantile Exchange, the lowest close since Dec. 24. It was the biggest drop since Nov. 28. Futures reached a record $100.09 a barrel on Jan. 3. Prices are up 69 percent from a year ago.

Nothing to see here folks. Move along.

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2008 9:01 pm**

Jack,

you're a fat faggot, and your wife smokes black cock.

I sure fucking showed him...

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2008 9:01 pm**

Hi Tom!

I wish you posted before me, I just ate the brown acid.

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2008 9:06 pm**

The Whistle Is Screaming wrote:I just ate the brown acid.

<INSERT VIDEO OF Dan Ackroyd playing Jimmy Carter talking down a guy having a bad acid trip here>

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2008 9:14 pm**

How about Korea?

Inchon starts with an "I."

Iran starts with an "I."

Coincedence? I think not.

Add to that, that both Inchon and Iran both are next to water...

It boggles the mind.

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2008 9:35 pm**

Dinsdale wrote:How about Korea?

Inchon starts with an "I."

Iran starts with an "I."

Coincedence? I think not.

Add to that, that both Inchon and Iran both are next to water...

It boggles the mind.

And there are seven letters in 'Kennedy' and seven letters in 'Lincoln'

Awwwwscrewit.........

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2008 9:54 pm**

Tom In VA wrote:I wouldn't dismiss Jack's analysis, clearly he's on something.

You bet. All of the other threads started by Jack are worthless pieces of shit.

Nothing mind boggling here.

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2008 9:56 pm**

I gave you the opportunity to have an intelligent conversation.

You disappointed me.

Using multiple trolls and not answering the question is what I expect of you.. Nothings changed.

However, if your purpose is to be funny like a clown... at least you could amuse me!

The Whistle wins so far for most amusing reply..

whistle wrote: 1st incident - The President was Johnson, where Johnson is another name for a "penis." 2nd incident - The President was Bush, where Bush is another name for a "vagina." Obviously a penis and a vagina go together.

Terry gets a prize for following the theme.

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2008 9:59 pm**

Jack wrote:I gave you the opportunity to have an intelligent conversation.

What, with each other?

We don't need you to facilitate that, Jack.

And if you meant a conversation with you...

you're about 50IQ points short of being able to do anything "intelligent," tard.

"They're both gulfs"... fucking brilliant.

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2008 10:01 pm**

Dins,

Answer all 5 questions. Not just 1.

How can anyone say that there is NO SIMILARITY with our present situation in the GULF and our Viet Nam Gulf incident?

Do you think there is NO SIMILARITY??

******
btw...The Highest IQ ever recorded belongs to Marilyn vos Savant according to Guinness. Her IQ is 228; however, the test that resulted in this score was taken b Marilyn at the age of 10. Eight months later she took another IQ test and this time scored 167+. Guinness retested Marilyn in the mid-1980s and on that test she scored about 186, which is still very good. A score of 186 is in the 99.999997 percentile, or about 1 in 30,000,000.

just sayin'

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2008 10:21 pm**

Answer the questions that I posted, idiot!

You have to be an idiot not to think there are any similarities. I am not saying it is the same! But you have to learn from history.

Tell me which candidate you respect? What news station do you respect?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/01/ ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
When the U.S. ships heard that radio transmission, they took up their gun positions and officers were "in the process" of giving the order to fire when the Iranians abruptly turned away, the U.S. officials said.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,320587,00.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
U.S. ships blew whistles, issued radio warnings and took evasive maneuvers to avoid striking the Iranian boats, which motored as close as 200 yards from the American ships by one account. The naval ships armed their weapons, and the five unmarked Iranian boats — believed to belong to the Iran Revolutionary Guard — sped away.

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2008 10:23 pm**

Jack wrote: How can anyone say that there is NO SIMILARITY with our present situation in the GULF and our Viet Nam Gulf incident?

Of course there are similarities -- for instance, we still have no assurance either one actually happened.

But taking a leap of faith that both incidents are as adverstised (extremely doubtful on both accounts) -- North Vietnam was attempting to gain a military victory. Iran was playing silly-buggers trying to provoke gunfire, and trying to vault the Americans into the bad-guy role through "you started it!"

So, other than the word "gulf" and other than both involving boats...

Not particularly similiar... to a non-tard, anyway.

Uhm... newsflash, Jack -- Iran has been doing this shit for years. They provoked the USA into shooting down an airliner, too... but maybe you should crack a history book sometime.

And you offering up commentary on intelligence quotients is like SEC Fan commenting on modern dentistry -- hilariously inappropriate.

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2008 10:27 pm**

So, Dins disagrees with mvscal who says there are NO SIMILARITIES between the current incidents in the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Tonkin incident..

anyone else?

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2008 10:29 pm**

Jack wrote:So, Dins ...says there are NO SIMILARITIES between the current incidents in the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Tonkin incident

Dinsdale wrote: Of course there are similarities

Let me know when you think this is going well for you, Jack.

T1B

There's something happening here..

There's something happening here..

Re: There's something happening here..

Re: There's something happening here..

Re: There's something happening here..

Re: There's something happening here..

Re: There's something happening here..

Re: There's something happening here..

Re: There's something happening here..

Re: There's something happening here..

Re: There's something happening here..

Re: There's something happening here..

Re: There's something happening here..

Re: There's something happening here..

Re: There's something happening here..

Re: There's something happening here..

Re: There's something happening here..

Re: There's something happening here..

Re: There's something happening here..

Re: There's something happening here..

Re: There's something happening here..

Re: There's something happening here..

Re: There's something happening here..

Re: There's something happening here..

Re: There's something happening here..

Re: There's something happening here..

Re: There's something happening here..

Re: There's something happening here..

Re: There's something happening here..

Re: There's something happening here..

Re: There's something happening here..

Re: There's something happening here..

Re: There's something happening here..

Re: There's something happening here..

Re: There's something happening here..

Re: There's something happening here..

Re: There's something happening here..

Re: There's something happening here..

Re: There's something happening here..

Re: There's something happening here..

Re: There's something happening here..