It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why the US Navy will be destroyed in Hormuz

page: 32
58
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by tpg65
 


USA is not depleted.The zionist lobby in our nation is mad thats the problem.They need to be overthrown before they start a war with Russia.




posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 12:17 AM
link   
Iran is a voracious consumer of imported gasoline, of the which 40 percent of refined petro passes through the Straight of Hormuz, this is needed to run their automobiles, but also to power its factories and extract oil. To close the Strait of Hormuz even for a day would do far more damage to the Iranian economy than it would to the West.

Should Tehran really want to strike a blow at the West, their target would not be the Strait. It would be what sits at the far end of the Persian Gulf, Iraq..

Source

The Iranian leadership knows that if they want to threaten international markets, the vulnerability is not by sea but rather on land. On Dec. 22, Iraq’s deputy prime minister claimed that Iraq’s oil exports had surpassed 3 million barrels per day. If Iranian-backed militias or saboteurs destroyed pipelines or Iraq’s single Persian Gulf oil terminal, oil prices would skyrocket. Iraq’s South Oil Company has taken no obvious contingencies to ward off the threat, and with the American withdrawal, Iraq’s vulnerability has only increased.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by ludwigvonmises003
reply to post by tpg65
 


I would suggest you not make such provocative statements.Yes,the ground forces are not the best.But the Navy and the airforce.Missile corps and artillery ,Russia hands down.


The US are the proverbial "Pacman" . You consume everything and give nothing back . You are such a hateful race .



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by tpg65
 


where are you from? UK?



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by ludwigvonmises003
 


Yeah, he's from the UK and thinks they're any better.

Too bad we're allies.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by tpg65
The american armed forces are so poor , they are the laughing stock of the whole planet . If it wasn't for the fact that the U.S have first strike capability, America would have been invaded and defeated decades ago


Right that's why we are strutting our stuff all over the world and no one is doing a damn thing about it


The unites states military has the largest arsenal of guns and ammo of any other military in the world. You know who has 4 times that? The United States' citizens.

COME GET SOME


-Alien



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 12:24 AM
link   
Hmmm. So a modern CSG, with its multi layered defences, stands in grave danger of suffering total destruction at the hands of a coastal naval force with no experience of going toe to toe with an adversary touting state of the art weapons systems?

What methods would be employed to counter the screen of SH60s and F/A 18s on CAP, both of which have a formidable ASV capability, that extends some miles from the group itself? Assuming they get through unmolested, the element of surprise has now gone which would be vital in an asymmetric engagement such as this. I seem to remember the Royal Navy's ageing Lynx helicopters having little trouble despatching Iraqi patrol boats using creaky old Sea Skua ASMs twenty years ago.

The survivors of that little brawl then have to run the escort screen. No mean task. Missiles wouldn't have a particularly easy passage either. AEGIS systems can engage an undisclosed number of targets simultaneously. Their SPY systems can also reputedly be used as a weapon in their own right against certain types of target. Fighters on CAP also have a look down/ shoot down capability and are able to engage missiles.

No commander joins battle without expecting to take some hits, but to imply that a modern naval force would be destroyed in such an engagement is frankly a perversion of reality. Bloodied, quite possibly, but combat ineffective? Highly unlikely. Destroyed? Um, no.

"Why the Iranian Navy will be destroyed in Hormuz". There, fixed that for you. I hope it never comes to that, we have seen enough broken bodies of fighting men and women of all nations to last us for quite some time.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by apodictic
 


UK murdered 1.8 billion indians in 200 years and yet they have the balls to call us genocidal.

sites.google.com...




It is estimated that 1.8 billion Indians died avoidably from dire deprivation under the British, notable atrocities including 10 million Indians butchered in reprisals for the 1857 uprising (see Amaresh Misra's book “ “War of Civilizations: India AD 1857” –(Volume I -The Road to Delhi; & Volume II- The Long Revolution) ” : warofcivilisations.blogspot.com... ), the Great Bengal Famine of 1769-1779 (that killed 10 million Bengalis, 1/3 of the population), 2 centuries of British-imposed famines that killed scores of millions, most notably in the latter half of the 19th century and culminating in the 1943-1945 Bengali Holocaust, the man-made atrocity in which 6-7 million Indians in Bihar, Bengal, Assam and Orissa were deliberately starved to death by the British in the World War 2 Bengal Famine (see the transcript of the BBC broadcast “Bengal Famine” involving me, Nobel Laureate Professor Amartya Sen and other scholars: www.open2.net... ; see also Gideon Polya's book “Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History”: globalavoidablemortality.blogspot.com... ).
www.countercurrents.org...

newbritishempire.site11.com...



This is more evidence (if more evidence were wanted) of India “moving forward” (to quote the horrible contemporary Newspeak) after suffering 2 centuries of genocidal British rule in which avoidable deaths in India from British-imposed deprivation in the period 1757-1947 totaled 1.8 billion, an Indian Holocaust and an Indian Genocide as defined by Article 2 of the UN Genocide Convention. Using census and other estimates of Indian population in these periods, post-invasion excess deaths totaled 0.6 billion, 1757-1837; 0.5 billion, 1837-1901 under Queen Victoria; and 0.4 billion in 1901-1947; this being 1.5 billion in total and 1.8 billion victims if the carnage in the various royalty-ruled Indian British Protectorate States are included.
mwcnews.net...


You are the biggest mass murderers on the entire planet.



Madhusree Mukerjee systematically successively analyzes the background to the Bengali Holocaust in a prologue that deals with British India and the massive recurrent man-made famines, commencing with the 1769-1770 Bengal Famine in which 10 million people died due to British greed. Not quoted is Amaresh Misra’s book “War of Civilizations: India AD 1857” that estimates that 10 million people died in British reprisals for the 1857 Indian rebellion. While the appalling famine history of British India is outlined the genocidal aspect is downplayed. Thus it can be estimated from British census and comparative mortality data that 1.8 billion Indians died prematurely less than 2 centuries of British rule. While Mukerjee makes clear the British economic exploitation of India, she downplays the reality that endemic poverty and hunger in India made it possible for a distant island of scores of millions to rule hundreds of millions of disempowered Indian subjects with the help of well-fed sepoys and other collaborators...
mwcnews.net...



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Alien Abduct
 


UK is hypocrit nation.They call us genocidal while they were the biggest mass murderers of History.Look at the balls of these people.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ludwigvonmises003
reply to post by tpg65
 


where are you from? UK?



The whole world hates what the US stands for . You murder your own people and then invade others under the guise of being the police of the planet . Wake up



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by tpg65
 


You have some cogent points to make to me? You're sincerity is so legitimate and pure? You want to help this hapless American cure himself of his country's propaganda and war mongering? You want to save lives and souls? The please make a thread relevant to your points. Or U2U me your enlightened wisdom. I am serious please start another thread or U2U me. I will read both. You seem to be very level headed and caring and not at all filled with immense hatred towards anything and everyone from America... (last sentence was sarcasm, fyi. I know that your kind needs a little nudge along the humor line sometimes) I look forward to your U2Us and impending thread detailing your worldly wisdom to me and other brain washed American pea brains like me.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 12:31 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Threadfall
 


yes and another point,they mass murdered 1.8 billion people in india.We are a choirboy compared to the genocides of the british empire.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by BRAVO949
Alien - for the love of God - do me a favor.

Will you please for the respect of the millions of people including the 58,000 Americans who died - give up on this?

Take Yankee Stadium and fill every seat. Now add 8,000 more people on the playing field.

Imagine that all of them are men aged betwen 17 and 30.

Now kill all of them by shooting, burning and blowing them up.

Picture that!

What part of that sounds like winning to you.

Go to a veteran center and help some vets then come back and you can tell me anything and I will listen to you.


Originally posted by Alien Abduct

Originally posted by BRAVO949
It just amazes me that any American can say that the United States won the war in Vietnam.

We lost the war in every way.




Technically America never declared war on anyone in Vietnam, it was a "police action", so America technically never fought a war in the first place.
De jure though, it was a defeat as, despite not losing a single battle and inflicting far greater casualties than suffered, the US failed in its political objectives, namely the defense of South Vietnam.

South Vietnam lost the Vietnam War not the US. The Vietnam War was a civil war in which the US was a third party. North and South Vietnam had been at war with each other before the US entered the conflict and were at war with each other after the US left the conflict.

To say the US lost the Vietnam War would be like saying the Soviet Union won the Vietnam War instead of saying North Vietnam won the Vietnam War. It was not our war to win or lose. The US should not be blamed for South Vietnam's shortcomings and lack of will. The US can give all the money and weapons to the South as it wants to, but the South has to have the will and desire to win and they did not have that. Therefore the loss is theirs, not ours.

--- It is widely considered that "America lost the Vietnam war." But (as previously explained) saying that America lost the war is a misstatement. It was misunderstood at the time of the war.

North Vietnam had indeed signed a peace agreement with the United States to leave South Vietnam and maintain a demilitarized zone, much as had been done in Korea. The North signed this agreement, waited until the United States had pulled almost all troops out of South Vietnam, and then attacked, and easily overtook the South.

Did we win? We won on honesty and integrity, both of which the North Vietnamese failed to display once the power of the United States had left. Although the US committed enormous resources and defeated the communists in tactical engagements time and again, there was a lack of will to do the things that have to be done to win a war: Go on the offensive, advance into enemy territory, seize the military initiative, and so forth.

In Korea, the US advanced all the way through North Korea to China at one point, although it was later forced back. The communists worried that the US might do this again, so they had an incentive to keep the truce. In Vietnam, treaties were signed, but the fighting went on.

Eventually, US public opinion tired of an endless, defensive war. Congress ordered an end to direct US military involvement in August 1973. US financial aid to South Vietnam was cut off in August 1974 and Saigon fell to the communists in April 1975.

Source


-Alien


I am a vet........

-Alien



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by tpg65
 


Once again, we're allies. Where we are, so are you. You are self loathing and ill informed. You're telling people to "wake up." Didn't you let your government take away your right to bear arms?

www.youtube.com...

You're on the American hate bandwagon for no reason. It isn't the American people, or the US armed forces. I think you'd be surprised to spend a day in the life of a Marine and see how many oppose our government along with the president. People join the military for all different reasons and from all walks of life. A lot do it because they're desperate for money, or to gain an education that they're unable to afford any other way. You're categorizing us based on stereotypes. Some of the least educated people on the planet? What about Africa? South America? We're less educated than them? Please, the country with the best education is China.

I could sit here and say you guys have the worst teeth on the planet, that you're all smug, and drunkards. Those would be stereotypical because I know that isn't true. So just because you see videos of idiot Americans who can't find Texas on a map of their own country, doesn't mean every American is that way. Our government no longer represents us as a people, so stop confusing our citizens with power hungry fatasses in suits who are running the show.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by tpg65

Originally posted by Alien Abduct

Originally posted by tpg65
The american armed forces are so poor , they are the laughing stock of the whole planet . If it wasn't for the fact that the U.S have first strike capability, America would have been invaded and defeated decades ago


Right that's why we are strutting our stuff all over the world and no one is doing a damn thing about it


The unites states military has the largest arsenal of guns and ammo of any other military in the world. You know who has 4 times that? The United States' citizens.

COME GET SOME


-Alien


Your armed forces are made up of junkies , sted heads and brain dead moranic patriots


You could just as easily make that statement about our armed forces in the UK or any other country for that matter. Verifiable statistics, or it didn't happen.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 12:36 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 12:40 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


Do you really think that Russia cares that much about Iran? Like we couldn't sway them with a few promises? They aren't going to jump into a world war to back Iran. They will talk, but they don't benefit THAT much from Iran.

Neither Russia nor China care that much about Iran to go to a war over Iran. But, no, you can't lure them with promises, because by now everyone understands you don't care about keeping the promises you make.

Should either Russia or China intervene, it will be not for Iran's sake, but for the sake of their own future and it doesn't mean their trade with Iran. Unless they are willing to be dictated to by the US in every aspect the US sees fit for all conceivable future, which I don't think they are, they have to stop the expansion of US influence in the very near future. Because if they don't, their own very survival as sovereign states is in threat. At the moment US cannot coerce either China or Russia by threatening to attack them militarily for non-compliance of their dictates because of MAD. However, should the US acquire capabilities to protect itself, without fail, from incoming missiles, both Russia and China will be sitting ducks just like Iran is today. Unless something radical happens soon, that situation is not an if, but a when. I don't think either Russia or China is willing to find out.

So what is the radical change that will prevent such an eventuality? There are only two realistic possibilities (1) a complete economic collapse of the US rendering any such research too costly to think of and (2) a political disintegration of the US into many independent states none of which can sustain the hegemony. The latter without the former happening is so unlikely as to be ignored.

The former is what can be expected from a prolonged conflict with a reasonably equipped and determined country with whom the US engages in a direct military confrontation, which is what can be expected when the US engages Iran.

However should the US resort to the use of unacceptable weapons to reduce the duration of the conflict, the response from Russia or China or both acting in tandem will be extremely swift. There will be no warnings or threats. The US mainland will be showered with enough nuclear missiles to make the survivors lose the will to retaliate. It will be quick and decisive war whether the US retaliates or not.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 12:44 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



new topics

top topics



 
58
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join