• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iran sending warships close to US borders[W:623]

Re: Iran sending warships close to US borders

In military terms, do you have a clue what "probe" means?

To her, to "probe" is an investigation to find out where all those evil rich people got their money from-mostly likely by scamming orphans ya know.
 
Re: Iran sending warships close to US borders

so...just for fun...what justification do you offer for sinking vessels sailing in international waters? And based on your logic, should we be subject to having out vessels attacked when they are in say the Persian Gulf?

Iran regularly takes small arms pot shots at US merchant and military ships in the straights of hormuz.
 
Re: Iran sending warships close to US borders

I noticed the same thing.

Well the Canadian Navy at least picked a good weapon to arm their fleet with.

I remember some years ago when "Guns and Ammo" ran an article, what was the best infantry rifle ever produced ?

It wasn't the AK-47 or M-16 and not even the M-1 Garand. :thinking

It came down to the finish line all three nose to nose, the 8 MM Kar M-98 Mauser, 303 Enfield and the 30-06 03 Springfield.

The final decision was, the M-98 Mauser was a damn good hunting rifle.

The 03 Springfield was probably the best target rifle ever produced.

But the 303 Enfield was a true combat infantry rifle and won.

I really want one of the Indian models converted to .308, they are true war pigs.
 
Re: Iran sending warships close to US borders

Iran regularly takes small arms pot shots at US merchant and military ships in the straights of hormuz.
Then the time to respond would be then, correct?
 
Re: Iran sending warships close to US borders

Acts of war have already been committed by The Islamic Republic.

U.S. military leader says Iranian weapons killing Americans in Iraq - CNN.com

I hear ya, but......

The U.S. has had battle groups, in the Persian Gulf, with warship guns pointed at Iran, for at least 30 years that I know of. I've stood watch on those ships. And we have some kind of moral high ground to get all worked up about when Iran send two of their ducky boats on our side of the hemisphere? The same with weaponry. American weapons have been killing people all around the world. Remember, it's the shooter, not the gun. Unless, of course, you support more gun control.

I'm with you. Don't get me wrong. I'd just as soon turn the whole region in to a glass parking lot. But let's not pretend that the U.S. isn't a hundred times worse when it comes to dealing death and encroachment of sovereign spaces.
 
Re: Iran sending warships close to US borders

I really want one of the Indian models converted to .308, they are true war pigs.

It could be done but it wouldn't be cheap. You would have to shorten the chamber like the way the U.S. Navy did during the 60's when they converted many M-1 Garands from 30-06 to 7.62 NATO (Winchester .308) < I wonder what ever happened to all of those Navy M-1 Garands that were rechamberd for the .308 ? >

All the Winchester .308 is, a 30-06 in which the shell is 1/2" shorter than the 30-06 shell.

The Winchester .308 is my favorite rifle cartridge. But when I had the money and had to decide on an all around hunting rifle, I wanted a rifle with a Mauser action and chambered for the .308. I wanted the best or close to the best. The Winchester Pre-64 Mod. 70 was my pick. I heard of a gun shop in Van Nuys (back when there were still gun shops in L.A.) The Pony Express and heard they had a collection of Pre-64 Winchester Mod 70's.

Went to the Pony Express gun shop with a wad of greenbacks. I learned that the Pre-64 Mod. 70's were only chambered for the full size rifle cartridges, 30-06, Winch. .270 and 7 MM Mag.

So I settled for the Winch .270 because it has just a little less recoil than the 30-06.

There are still a lot of surplus 303 Enfields out there.

The 303 just like the 30-06 and 8 MM Mauser all kick like a Missouri mule. The .308 only kicks like wild desert burro :lol:

The Winchester .308 is almost as accurate as a 30-06.
 
Re: Iran sending warships close to US borders

I hear ya, but......

The U.S. has had battle groups, in the Persian Gulf, with warship guns pointed at Iran, for at least 30 years that I know of. I've stood watch on those ships. And we have some kind of moral high ground to get all worked up about when Iran send two of their ducky boats on our side of the hemisphere? The same with weaponry. American weapons have been killing people all around the world. Remember, it's the shooter, not the gun. Unless, of course, you support more gun control.

I'm with you. Don't get me wrong. I'd just as soon turn the whole region in to a glass parking lot. But let's not pretend that the U.S. isn't a hundred times worse when it comes to dealing death and encroachment of sovereign spaces.

Iran has been anti-american, and actively supported terrorism against the US for 30 years, what the hell do you think we should do, send them a cake?
 
Re: Iran sending warships close to US borders

Iran has been anti-american, and actively supported terrorism against the US for 30 years, what the hell do you think we should do, send them a cake?

Not at all. Like I said, I'd just as soon melt them in to oblivion. They screw with us. We screw with them. They hate us. We hate them. I am simply pointing out that we have a, "don't do what we do, do what we tell you to do," big stick approach.

If somebody has to be whacking somebody with a big stick, I'm glad we have the stick. But let's not pretend that it's acceptable for us to do one thing and unacceptable for another to do the same.

That would be rather arrogant and bully-ish.
 
Re: Iran sending warships close to US borders

And yet we dont.

Heres an example of Iran's latest propaganda, the Naval portion comes after the bombing of cities and civilian airports, at around 7 minutes in. Watch the video, get an idea of how these people think.



Iranian TV airs simulated bombing of Tel Aviv, US aircraft carrier | The Times of Israel


I watched that video last night.

And the libs can't figure out why conservatives are so concerned with Iran while the left believes in appeasing Iran.
 
Re: Iran sending warships close to US borders

I hear ya, but......

The U.S. has had battle groups, in the Persian Gulf, with warship guns pointed at Iran, for at least 30 years that I know of. I've stood watch on those ships. And we have some kind of moral high ground to get all worked up about when Iran send two of their ducky boats on our side of the hemisphere? The same with weaponry. American weapons have been killing people all around the world. Remember, it's the shooter, not the gun. Unless, of course, you support more gun control.

I'm with you. Don't get me wrong. I'd just as soon turn the whole region in to a glass parking lot. But let's not pretend that the U.S. isn't a hundred times worse when it comes to dealing death and encroachment of sovereign spaces.

Batlle groups in the Persian Gulf, eh?

Iran hostage crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Re: Iran sending warships close to US borders

It could be done but it wouldn't be cheap. You would have to shorten the chamber like the way the U.S. Navy did during the 60's when they converted many M-1 Garands from 30-06 to 7.62 NATO (Winchester .308) < I wonder what ever happened to all of those Navy M-1 Garands that were rechamberd for the .308 ? >

All the Winchester .308 is, a 30-06 in which the shell is 1/2" shorter than the 30-06 shell.

The Winchester .308 is my favorite rifle cartridge. But when I had the money and had to decide on an all around hunting rifle, I wanted a rifle with a Mauser action and chambered for the .308. I wanted the best or close to the best. The Winchester Pre-64 Mod. 70 was my pick. I heard of a gun shop in Van Nuys (back when there were still gun shops in L.A.) The Pony Express and heard they had a collection of Pre-64 Winchester Mod 70's.

Went to the Pony Express gun shop with a wad of greenbacks. I learned that the Pre-64 Mod. 70's were only chambered for the full size rifle cartridges, 30-06, Winch. .270 and 7 MM Mag.

So I settled for the Winch .270 because it has just a little less recoil than the 30-06.

There are still a lot of surplus 303 Enfields out there.

The 303 just like the 30-06 and 8 MM Mauser all kick like a Missouri mule. The .308 only kicks like wild desert burro :lol:

The Winchester .308 is almost as accurate as a 30-06.

I love the model 70, im sure there are short actions being made these days. The .303 is a bit shorter than the 06, so probably easier to convert (though short rounds through a long action works well enough. Probably more difficult was the conversion from a rimmed case. The .308 is more accurate than the 06, owed mostly to its shorter case allowing a more uniform powder burn-I hear when target shooter made the switch from the garand to the m1a/m14 that groups immediately went down, dont know if thats true or not. But its my favorite round as well (tied with the .260 rem, which is just the .308 necked down to 6.5mm, allowing similar ballistics to the .300 win mag with less recoil than even a .308). They got quite a workout in Asia in the 60's, from what ive read.
Ishapore 2A1 rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
wm_2412850.jpg
 
Re: Iran sending warships close to US borders

Then declare war and be done with it. But to ignore everything and think sink naval vessels in International waters (because...why again?) is criminal.

Iran has murded Americans and now they're coming to us. It doesn't take a military genius to figure this out.
 
Re: Iran sending warships close to US borders

I watched that video last night.

And the libs can't figure out why conservatives are so concerned with Iran while the left believes in appeasing Iran.

I always wondered why they seemed to not care about these types of things-but its because they DONT care, in their ****ed up mindset-there is no absolute right or wrong-to make that statement means one is discriminating-and we cant have that. :roll:
 
Re: Iran sending warships close to US borders

That was three years ago and wasn't an act of war. In any case the Iranian government supports the current Iraqi government.

Murdering American servicemen isnt an act of war?
 
Re: Iran sending warships close to US borders

Iran has murded Americans and now they're coming to us. It doesn't take a military genius to figure this out.
if it is true that Iran is responsible for nursing Americans then there should be a declaration of war. It is your assertion that Iran is sending three small poorly functioning naval vessels to attack America?
 
Re: Iran sending warships close to US borders

Not at all. Like I said, I'd just as soon melt them in to oblivion. They screw with us. We screw with them. They hate us. We hate them. I am simply pointing out that we have a, "don't do what we do, do what we tell you to do," big stick approach.

If somebody has to be whacking somebody with a big stick, I'm glad we have the stick. But let's not pretend that it's acceptable for us to do one thing and unacceptable for another to do the same.

That would be rather arrogant and bully-ish.

They are the worlds largest state sponsor of terrorism, we dont need to set an example for those guys, we need to expose their leadership to large amounts of kinetic energy and let that do the talking.
 
Re: Iran sending warships close to US borders

I always wondered why they seemed to not care about these types of things-but its because they DONT care, in their ****ed up mindset-there is no absolute right or wrong-to make that statement means one is discriminating-and we cant have that. :roll:

Inside every liberal, there's a Neville Chamberlain wanting to get out.
 
Re: Iran sending warships close to US borders

They are the worlds largest state sponsor of terrorism, we dont need to set an example for those guys, we need to expose their leadership to large amounts of kinetic energy and let that do the talking.

The irony is, if we take a death toll tally, I do believe the U.S. would be at the top of the leader board. I firmly believe those on the receiving end of the US stick view us every bit as much of a terrorist as we view them. And they have a lot more bodies to make their case with than we do. It's all a matter of perspective, I suppose. By definition, terrorism being not state sponsored or actions of a recognized military, we have the argument won by definition. But if we were to describe terrorist as "one who inflicts terror," the U.S. definitely scares the hell out of them more than they scare us.
 
Re: Iran sending warships close to US borders

if it is true that Iran is responsible for nursing Americans then there should be a declaration of war. It is your assertion that Iran is sending three small poorly functioning naval vessels to attack America?

An American court determined that Iran is responsible for the Khobar Towers Bombing.

I never said Iran is sending ships to attack us, but it's definitely a probe to test our response.
 
Re: Iran sending warships close to US borders

An American court determined that Iran is responsible for the Khobar Towers Bombing.

I never said Iran is sending ships to attack us, but it's definitely a probe to test our response.
If Iran bombing the Khobar towers (a complex I was in 2 weeks prior to the attack) is your rationale for war, then go to war. It is simply not an option to sink ships in international water without a declaration of an intent to attack. I find it kind of hard to believe you are seriously suggesting that would be appropriate.
 
Re: Iran sending warships close to US borders

The irony is, if we take a death toll tally, I do believe the U.S. would be at the top of the leader board. I firmly believe those on the receiving end of the US stick view us every bit as much of a terrorist as we view them. And they have a lot more bodies to make their case with than we do. It's all a matter of perspective, I suppose. By definition, terrorism being not state sponsored or actions of a recognized military, we have the argument won by definition. But if we were to describe terrorist as "one who inflicts terror," the U.S. definitely scares the hell out of them more than they scare us.

Some of us.
 
Back
Top Bottom