Third Carrier Group to Iran, Iran builds Base in Venezuela - Cuban Missile Crisis #2?

[fskimospy]

We're a super power. We're charged with policing the entire world, and the world expects us to live up to that obligation.

That's ridiculous. US foreign policy is based around protecting US interests, not policing the world. In addition, the other countries of the world have pretty consistently stated that they want less US involvement, not more.

 

[Nebor]

That's ridiculous. US foreign policy is based around protecting US interests, not policing the world. In addition, the other countries of the world have pretty consistently stated that they want less US involvement, not more.

What happened with Libya then? Nothing was possible until we got involved.

 

[Craig234]

We're a super power. We're charged with policing the entire world, and the world expects us to live up to that obligation.

Our placement of missiles on the border of the USSR was no less an aggressive act than the USSR's placement of missiles in Cuba later.

In fact, it was more aggressive, because 'we started the practice', they just copied what we did.

When I made my post, I started to edit it to say I hadn't looked who I was responding to before posting, and that I was wasting my time, because you justify anything we do, however wrong or immoral, as 'it's ok because we can do anything we want, and others can't'.

I didn't edit the post, but you sure responded just how I was going to describe.

There's no point in discussing double standards with someone whose position is "so?"

Your views are muddled nonsense, about Turkish missiles being 'the world expectation'.

 

[Craig234]

What happened with Libya then? Nothing was possible until we got involved.

We have a much larger than all our allies combined - we are 'uniquely qualified' to take some actions. That isn't, as you think, a justification to DO SO in every case.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

This is a great idea for Iran until a Navy Seal puts a bullet in Chaves' brain from a mile out.

 

[Craig234]

This is a great idea for Iran until a Navy Seal puts a bullet in Chaves' brain from a mile out.

What a worm you are.

Advocating murder, advocating assassination of elected leaders, anti-democracy.

I get the feeling that as accurate as a Navy Seal sniper may be, a talent you worship excessively like a sick puppy, he would find it hard to hit your brain from not far.

 

[Nebor]

What a worm you are.

Advocating murder, advocating assassination of elected leaders, anti-democracy.

I get the feeling that as accurate as a Navy Seal sniper may be, a talent you worship excessively like a sick puppy, he would find it hard to hit your brain from not far.

Assassinating liberal dictators isn't murder, it's social justice.

 

[Darwin333]

Like Venezuela has any interest in attacking the US.

They're not the ones who plotted in a coup that removed OUR elected President.

While that may be true, my point is even if they did we would WTFPWN their military in days. Its like a 6 year old threatening to beat you up, who cares?

 

[fskimospy]

What happened with Libya then? Nothing was possible until we got involved.

I don't know what you're asking? Are you claiming action against Libya is not consistent with US interests?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

The Enterprise should be nearing the end of its deployment and heading home.

The Bush is probably its replacement.

aka I wouldn't read too much into this.

^ This

Happens every time a battle group is due to compete a tour of duty

 

[Nebor]

I don't know what you're asking? Are you claiming action against Libya is not consistent with US interests?

No, I'm saying the rest of the world (NATO and the Libyans) begged for our involvement because they literally couldn't have done it without us. Or at least, that's what everyone thought at the time. Here it is a couple months later and what exactly did we accomplish?

Also I'm saying that action against Libya is not consistent with US interests. It was pointless.

 

[fskimospy]

No, I'm saying the rest of the world (NATO and the Libyans) begged for our involvement because they literally couldn't have done it without us. Or at least, that's what everyone thought at the time. Here it is a couple months later and what exactly did we accomplish?

Also I'm saying that action against Libya is not consistent with US interests. It was pointless.

I think you misunderstand, of course it isn't the case that the US and the rest of the world NEVER share interests, but in general the world would like less US military involvement, not more.

If you believe that the removal of a hostile regime in the most important strategic region on earth isn't consistent with US interests, I'm not sure what to tell you. There's a reason why the US intervened in Libya to prevent possible 'genocide' against the Libyan people while having conveniently ignored actual and ongoing genocide in less important places for years.

 

[Nebor]

I think you misunderstand, of course it isn't the case that the US and the rest of the world NEVER share interests, but in general the world would like less US military involvement, not more.

If you believe that the removal of a hostile regime in the most important strategic region on earth isn't consistent with US interests, I'm not sure what to tell you. There's a reason why the US intervened in Libya to prevent possible 'genocide' against the Libyan people while having conveniently ignored actual and ongoing genocide in less important places for years.

The regime wasn't "hostile" towards the US, and hadn't been for years. If we would have intervened on Ghadaffi's behalf, or at least kept our nose out of it, we would now have a strong ally, or at least something better than the mess Libya is right now.

We intervened because the media was flipping out and the Europeans were applying a lot of diplomatic pressure for us to get involved. Libya was the UK and France's Iraq. They need that oil to keep flowing.

 

[fskimospy]

The regime wasn't "hostile" towards the US, and hadn't been for years. If we would have intervened on Ghadaffi's behalf, or at least kept our nose out of it, we would now have a strong ally, or at least something better than the mess Libya is right now.

We intervened because the media was flipping out and the Europeans were applying a lot of diplomatic pressure for us to get involved. Libya was the UK and France's Iraq. They need that oil to keep flowing.

You can't honestly think that the US could intervene in SUPPORT of Gaddhafi? That's ridiculous. We would cause huge damage to our existing alliances, and for what? Gaddhafi is most certainly an antagonistic government to the US, and there's no way we could sit idly by and watch him crush the eastern parts of his country. Yes, the reasons were domestic and international alliance based, but what's your point? Those are US interests as much as anything else. This is like international relations 101.

 

[K1052]

Our placement of missiles on the border of the USSR was no less an aggressive act than the USSR's placement of missiles in Cuba later.

In fact, it was more aggressive, because 'we started the practice', they just copied what we did.

When I made my post, I started to edit it to say I hadn't looked who I was responding to before posting, and that I was wasting my time, because you justify anything we do, however wrong or immoral, as 'it's ok because we can do anything we want, and others can't'.

I didn't edit the post, but you sure responded just how I was going to describe.

There's no point in discussing double standards with someone whose position is "so?"

Your views are muddled nonsense, about Turkish missiles being 'the world expectation'.

Khrushchev scared the crap out of everyone by claiming they were building a shit ton of nuclear missiles at every opportunity (exacerbating the perception of a "missile gap" that actually was the other way around) . The Jupiters in Turkey were one issue of many including the real prospect that the US was moving to get rid of Castro by any means necessary and that would have been a huge setback in this hemisphere for the Soviets. Khrushchev also didn't think Kennedy had the stones for a real confrontation.

 

[piasabird]

We should just have a missle strike against Iran Now. Maybe we should just attack the Venezuela base. Just take it out now and ask questions later. We could easily do both. We need to make an example out of Venezuela right now to show countries in South America that we are not going to allow them to threaten us. Just send some ships down there and start bombing them right now. Just start taking out all their bridges and power stations and oil facilites. Let them feel some real pain for making deal with Muslim Terrorists.

 

[Craig234]

Khrushchev scared the crap out of everyone by claiming they were building a shit ton of nuclear missiles at every opportunity (exacerbating the perception of a "missile gap" that actually was the other way around) . The Jupiters in Turkey were one issue of many including the real prospect that the US was moving to get rid of Castro by any means necessary and that would have been a huge setback in this hemisphere for the Soviets. Khrushchev also didn't think Kennedy had the stones for a real confrontation.

That's all true, though as I understand it, it was less that Kruschev didn't think Kennedy 'had the stones' but more that he thought that it was greatly to his advantage for the world to learn of the missiles once already installed and operational, rather than when it would be easier to take action - like a military strike the US military advocated, whether air or land - to prevent their becoming operational. This ended up being to his great disadvantage when they were discovered, and it looked like he 'got caught'.

For what it's worth, after this, relations between Kruschev and Kennedy greatly improved.

 

[fskimospy]

We should just have a missle strike against Iran Now. Maybe we should just attack the Venezuela base. Just take it out now and ask questions later. We could easily do both. We need to make an example out of Venezuela right now to show countries in South America that we are not going to allow them to threaten us. Just send some ships down there and start bombing them right now. Just start taking out all their bridges and power stations and oil facilites. Let them feel some real pain for making deal with Muslim Terrorists.

This sounds like a horrible/insane idea.

 

[Fern]

There are already problems among some nations in SA. I think this has the potential to destabilize the region to an extent.

Personally I would not to see this base completed and will be interested to the Obama admin's reaction to this.

Fern

 

[Icepick]

The Enterprise should be nearing the end of its deployment and heading home.

The Bush is probably its replacement.

aka I wouldn't read too much into this.

Exactly. Nothing to see here. Business as usual. Move along.

 

[Karl Agathon]

Like we don't. There are 18 OHIOs out there somewhere silently just waiting for this eventuality. One can kill 3/4 of Iran.

Good, does my heart good! :thumbsup: (as a purely defensive measure of course)

 

[fskimospy]

The ICBMs we have in land silos within the continental US have a range of more than 8,000 miles. That's good enough to hit Tehran without needing a single sub. We might have one there, but we certainly don't need one.

 

[Zebo]

Takes a hell of a lot longer to fly 8000 miles than 80-800. Minimizes second strikes is why we have subs.

 

[Nebor]

Takes a hell of a lot longer to fly 8000 miles than 80-800. Minimizes second strikes is why we have subs.

Yup. Subs everywhere.

 

[fskimospy]

Takes a hell of a lot longer to fly 8000 miles than 80-800. Minimizes second strikes is why we have subs.

That's not actually why we have subs, we have them for ultimate survivability reasons, not to minimize second strikes. It's one of the three legs of the nuclear stool.