Register

Peak Oil is You


Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)


Page added on April 26, 2017

Bookmark and Share

US Destroyer Has Close Encounter With Iranian Vessel in Straits of Hormuz

Public Policy

The USS Mahan had to take evasive actions in the Straits of Hormuz today, in order to avoid an Iranian ‘fast attack’ vessel. The Mahan sounded the danger alarm, fired flares and manned their weapons, but the Iranian cowards tucked tail and scattered before reaching within 1,000 yards of the U.S. destroyer.

“Coming inbound at a high rate of speed like that and manning weapons, despite clear warnings from the ship, is obviously provocative behavior,” said one American official in describing the Iranian actions.

This is the second time in recent months that the Mahan was put on high alert due to pesky Iranian vessels. Back in January, the Mahan fired three warning shots from a .50 caliber machine gun in order to stop small Iranian vessels from harassing them.

The U.S. military said Iranian vessels harassed US warships a total of 35 times in 2016 — a 50% spike from the year prior.

During the Presidential campaign, Trump was livid over the treatment of US sailors, after a swarm of Iranian vessels seized an American riverine, blindfolded the crew, struck the US flag in exchange for an Iranian, and interrogated 10 crew members, while humiliating them on Iranian tv.

Trump said of the ordeal, “When I see pictures of them with arms up in the air and guns pointed at them, I wouldn’t exactly say that’s friendly.”

Trump added at a campaign rally, “And by the way, with Iran, when they circle our beautiful destroyers with their little boats and they make gestures that our people — that they shouldn’t be allowed to make, they will be shot out of the water.”

Zerohedge



96 Comments on "US Destroyer Has Close Encounter With Iranian Vessel in Straits of Hormuz"

  1. Anonymouse on Thu, 27th Apr 2017 10:11 pm 

    Hey exceptionalist, retard here thinks you should pack up your most….attractive sheep and hide in a hole in the ground in the Kansas. Maybe after the dust settles retard-oclypse, you can help repopulate the
    amerikan species.

    I know, it will be a mutant man-goat hybrid that does little else but write long boring diatribes about how China and Venezuela ruined everything. And while you are doing that, retard boy can water your garden using plastic pails that he scavenged that used to hold pool cleaning chemicals.

  2. makati1 on Thu, 27th Apr 2017 11:28 pm 

    Boat, in the 30s, the Great Plains turned into a dust bowl for over 10 years. That will happen again and maybe next year. Nothing is certain.

    BAU is over. Change is the future. ‘Bigly’ change and not the good kind. I hope you are preparing for it because it is coming and not in decades but maybe a few years or even months.

  3. Cloggie on Fri, 28th Apr 2017 2:12 am 

    I don’t see BAU as something to be cheered, in fact some of us cheer advances in tech that result in less dirty energy being used and efficiency cutting the need for energy that would have been used. We cheer countries like Japan that are actually dropping population. I blame my own country and Europe for allowing immigration who would otherwise drop populations. What I don’t here [hear] is blame for countries who are letting populations explode. Most of them Muslim. They have very high fertility rates. I don’t hate Muslims but the world would be better off if they got their shyt together. Why don’t you complain about them?

    And slowly and quietly Boat is dropping the “racism”-meme and is moving towards the green-right variety of the white-nationalist position.

  4. DerHundistlos on Fri, 28th Apr 2017 2:43 am 

    @ Ape

    “Boat, the northern hemisphere (large land mass) will heat up more than the southern hemisphere. That’s why all them rich cunts are buying bugouts down there.”

    The rich cunts are indeed buying-up huge areas (as in hundreds of thousands of hectares) of paramo/cloud rainforest in Colombia. Now it makes sense why the US has given billions of dollars in military equipment and logistical support to eliminate the guerrillas; however, when the guerrillas are eliminated and replaced by capitalism the result is disaster for conservation.

    ENDANGERED SPECIES PROTECTED BY GUERRILLAS

    By Frank Bajak, Associated Press, Colombia

    “Three yellow-eared parrotsThree yellow-eared parrots swoop down into a glade of wax palms, switching from wide arcs to tightly synchronized barrel rolls, screaming raucously.

    A sight to behold in a breathtaking alpine setting. But a vision that may be fleeting.

    This parrot, Ognorhynchus icterotis, thrived in the cloud forests of the northern Andes a century ago. Now it is among the world’s most critically endangered species. Fewer than 75 are known to exist.

    Ironically, this bird was a beneficiary of Colombia’s civil conflict. Its habitat is deep in rebel-dominated territory, and the guerrillas have banned hunting wildlife to preserve Colombia’s rich biological diversity.

    As the US backed military takes back ever larger areas from the FARC, many species are being re-listed as endangered.

    On a waning Sunday afternoon, the bright green-and-yellow parrots alight on the conical rim of a dead palm and clamber down to a nest, where the female regurgitates lunch to two loudly chattering chicks.

    the mating couple, their young helper and the chicks are among 61 yellow-eared parrots whose discovery in mid-April was ecstasy for bird conservationists.

    “Its wonderful that they have survived. Now there’s a real chance of saving the species,” said Niels Krabbe, a Danish Ornithologist. His sighting of 17 yellow-eared parrots in neighbouring Ecuador five years ago was the first scientifically recorded observation in nearly 80 years.

    Among nations, Colombia is the second richest after Brazil in biological diversity. It has the world’s greatest variety of birds, with 1,850 species, as well as 358 kinds of mammals and more than 45,000 types of plants.

    Yet the varied ecosystems of its Andean ridges and valleys are in grave danger due mainly to deforestation. Scientists say the risk of mass extinction has never been greater.

    “Parrots need fruit, canopy trees and hardwoods,” said Paul Salaman, an Oxford University Ornithologist directing efforts to keep Ognorhynchus icterotis alive. They’re a sensitive barometer of threats to the environment because they often suffer first.”

    Over the past century and half, 80 per cent of woodlands on the slopes and valleys of the three-spined Colombian Andes disappeared as settlers cleared land for farming and cattle ranching, said Luis Miguel Renjifo, Conservation Director for the government-affiliated, Alexander Von Humboldt Institute.

    Now the elites are acquiring tremendous tracts of land as private sanctuaries in the event of global catastrophe……”

  5. Davy on Fri, 28th Apr 2017 5:32 am 

    “Boat, in the 30s, the Great Plains turned into a dust bowl for over 10 years. That will happen again and maybe next year. Nothing is certain.”

    I agree makati but check out the drought monitor. According to you we should be tumble weed by now. Maybe the reality of climate change is going to be different then your agenda of instant American collapse.

    http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/

  6. Davy on Fri, 28th Apr 2017 5:34 am 

    “Hey exceptionalist”
    I always know when I had a good solid point because any-mouse shits his pants with blather. LOL

  7. Cloggie on Fri, 28th Apr 2017 7:02 am 

    The stamina guy is tired and misses his old life:

    http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/donald-trump-vermisst-sein-frueheres-leben-a-1145270.html

    Trump has to admit how surprised he is how little maneuvering space he has in politics as a president.

    Sounds like an excuse to his supporters.

    This doesn’t sound as a president who is burning of ambition to get his goals accomplished. Trump just drowned in the swamp. The system will even sabotage attempts to build the stupid wall, something dirt poor Eastern European countries could accomplish in a matter of weeks.

    The difference of course is that these countries weren’t corrupted by Washington and its deep state for decades.

    Ah well, perhaps the presidency can be used to prevent the worst, giving Russia and China a few years time to prepare for the inevitable WW3 and gain in strength, especially China.

  8. TheNationalist on Fri, 28th Apr 2017 7:16 am 

    Isn’t the yank navy the biggest single oil burner/polluter on Earth?, not sure what they actually do for anyone mind you.
    Maybe they should tow some nets behind the vessels and collect some of the plastic filth from our happy capitalism.
    At least it would be something useful.

  9. Davy on Fri, 28th Apr 2017 7:29 am 

    An Australian is the last one that should be commenting on polluters. Talk about hipocrisy listen to anti-American Australian try to criticize the US. If a poor black person from Congo bitches I am all ears but dumbass angloshper-ic nut cases go JO mate.

  10. joe on Fri, 28th Apr 2017 7:39 am 

    A brief reading of the history of the Persian Gulf shows that Iran has always defended its coast, and it will do so forever. Just be greatful they are too patriotic to invite Russia or China to base itself in one of their ports. Still China is laying the keel of its second domestic built aircraft carrier, in a few years theyll have one to spare…

  11. Davy on Fri, 28th Apr 2017 7:45 am 

    I though carriers where obsolete. That’s what the asiaphiles tell me here on this board.

  12. makati1 on Fri, 28th Apr 2017 7:48 am 

    Davy, the center of ALL large landmasses are going to be desert. It is just a matter of time. The farmers of the dust bowl were caught by surprise when it occurred in less than a year and lasted for 10 years. All it takes is a change in the wind pattern. And with the Arctic now warming up, the wind patterns are already changing.

  13. joe on Fri, 28th Apr 2017 7:51 am 

    Hey Cloggie, the guy got schooled in my enemy of my enemy is my enemy. Even before the election the Bush crew had the goods on him, the Bush/Saudi love lasts right down to the heart of every CIA/NSA agent. Tak on some neo-cons and sprinkle a little liberal femanazi Islamofasciphilla and you get the perfect inter-racial wall of hate against whitey and everything he stands for. Trump shoulda never bitch slapped poor Jeb around or led the most crass and insulting campaign he could have. Dont get me wrong, it was fun to watch, but it didnt win him friends. The elites always fight populism with the weapons that count, the media and their own votes in congress, the rest is easy. Trump learned that the powerful have lots of shit on you, you never thought anyone knew about. Now on day 101 hes learned hes a lame duck. Allot of stuff will pass with his name on it, but it wont he his really, hell sign it and go eat some more chocolate cake with China.

  14. joe on Fri, 28th Apr 2017 8:01 am 

    Dont get wrong carriers can be nuked, sunk etc, but thats a whole other level of war than Iran, Saudi, Syria etc.

  15. Davy on Fri, 28th Apr 2017 8:17 am 

    Sure Makat but my point is your failure. You are more worried about your emotional agenda than hard science. IMA, preaching praise on your Philippines that are in the top 3 to be negatively impacted by climate change and to put some icing on that 100MIL population in the space of an American state. Why not talk about that too?

  16. Davy on Fri, 28th Apr 2017 8:43 am 

    Check this out boy scouts. Here is my immediate forecast. Ape Man will love this rain bomb action:
    http://tinyurl.com/ky5d9wf

    A warm front will lift north toward the region during the day
    today, and will push north to around I-44 late tonight before
    stalling out. Numerous thunderstorms are expected to develop
    along this front during the mid to late evening hours coincident
    with an increasing low level jet. With plenty of instability and
    shear in place, there will be a risk for severe weather with these
    thunderstorms. The bulk of the severe weather threat tonight
    should be in the form of large hail, as much of the convection
    will be elevated in nature. That said, should a few storms develop
    far enough into the warm sector to become surface based, there
    will be an attendant wind and tornado threat given very favorable
    instability and shear profiles. With the zone of isentropic ascent
    expected to continue through the night across the area, multiple
    waves of thunderstorms are likely into Saturday morning.

    Along with the severe weather threat mentioned above, very heavy
    rain remains an obvious concern going into the overnight hours
    tonight. PWAT values are expected to approach record levels for
    April (~1.70″) along and just south of the frontal boundary.
    Multiple waves of deep convection have the potential to bring
    several inches of rain in a very short period of time to some
    areas, posing a potentially significant flash flood risk. The
    latest model guidance does suggest a slight northwestward shift to
    the axis of heaviest rain, moving the area of greatest concern to
    along the I-44 corridor, as opposed to south of. Ultimately, with
    soils almost completely saturated already, flood issues will
    likely be rather widespread regardless of where exactly the
    heaviest rain falls.

    On Saturday, the frontal boundary may lift just a bit further
    north during the day, but widespread thunderstorm activity should
    still affect most, if not all of the forecast area during the day
    Saturday into Saturday night. There will also be an ongoing risk
    for severe weather along and south of the front, where instability
    will be highest. Severe convection will likely take the form of
    embedded line segments, though a few supercells are also possible.
    Large hail, gusty winds, and perhaps a tornado or two are all
    possible.

    Much of the forecast area should see between 4 and 6 inches of
    rain by the time things start to taper off on Sunday. Where
    convection trains the most (just along the frontal zone), amounts
    in excess of 8″ are a decent bet. It is important to note as well
    that deep convection will have the potential of bringing several
    inches of rain to localized areas in a very short period of time,
    which would result in enhanced flash flood risks where this
    occurs

  17. Cloggie on Fri, 28th Apr 2017 9:45 am 

    I though carriers where obsolete. That’s what the asiaphiles tell me here on this board.

    This Europhile always maintained that carriers are useless in combat against a real enemy. If someday, God forbid, China and the US would clash, they would both ensure to keep their carriers far away from the opponents coastline. As an illustration, the first thing the US did when Putin launched his cruise missiles against IS, was retreating its carrier southwards in the Indian Ocean.

    http://thesaker.is/u-s-carrier-strike-groups-locations-map-oct-16-2015/

    But I also always maintained that carriers can very well be used to rape small countries like Iraq… or Taiwan or the Philippines… or most likely and lucrative: Australia.

    http://nationalinterest.org/feature/america-australias-dangerous-ally-11858

  18. TheNationalist on Fri, 28th Apr 2017 10:07 am 

    Davy, sorry for the offence. I am not ‘anti American’, I admire NASA and other U.S. Institutions. Don’t confuse critisism of your overcooked and fed military or government with anything else please? I get the same when I tell people being anti EU government is ‘hating europe’?
    I agree the emissions per capita in Oz are very high (luckily we use a quarter of the average in my home).
    On a different subject, this week our great leader Turnbull has decided to put some gas to one side before Australia is crippled by blackouts and high natural gas prices. We were selling all the gas to Asia at higher prices than we can afford. Only problem is we had none here at affordable prices.
    Oh well thats multinationals for you perhaps?

  19. Davy on Fri, 28th Apr 2017 11:08 am 

    “This Europhile always maintained that carriers are useless in combat against a real enemy.”

    BS, clog, once war gets to the stage of carrier killing it is about a C-hair away from MAD NUK war. So in the meantime between Armageddon and the status quo smaller military actions carriers are highly effective. You Europhiles poohoo them because you have so few and the ones you have are insignificant.

  20. Davy on Fri, 28th Apr 2017 11:14 am 

    No offense taken, just playing around. You are wrong though, the US air force that consumes the most fuel not the Navy. IMA pretty sad too.

    The United States Department of Defense is one of the largest single consumers of energy in the world, responsible for 93% of all US government fuel consumption in 2007 (Air Force: 52%; Navy: 33%; Army: 7%. Other DoD: 1%).[1] In FY 2006, the DoD used almost 30,000 gigawatt hours (GWH) of electricity, at a cost of almost $2.2 billion. The DoD’s electricity use would supply enough electricity to power more than 2.6 million average American homes. In electricity consumption, if it were a country, the DoD would rank 58th in the world, using slightly less than Denmark and slightly more than Syria (CIA World Factbook, 2006).[1] The Department of Defense uses 4,600,000,000 US gallons (1.7×1010 L) of fuel annually, an average of 12,600,000 US gallons (48,000,000 L) of fuel per day. A large Army division may use about 6,000 US gallons (23,000 L) per day. According to the 2005 CIA World Factbook, if it were a country, the DoD would rank 34th in the world in average daily oil use, coming in just behind Iraq and just ahead of Sweden.[1]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_usage_of_the_United_States_military

  21. Cloggie on Fri, 28th Apr 2017 11:27 am 

    You Europhiles poohoo them because you have so few and the ones you have are insignificant.

    You US imperialists really underestimate what modern technology can do against obsolete 20th century sitting duck technology. It makes much more sense to invest in relatively cheap missile technology than spending 40% of the largest war budget in the world (50%) on giant sarcophagus:

    http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carriers-will-die/all/1/

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/russia-builds-unstoppable-4600mph-missile-10098362

    http://www.naturalnews.com/052801_missile_defenses_hypersonic_weapons_arms_race.html

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3986994/Russia-China-s-hypersonic-missiles-endanger-continental-United-States-Air-Force-chiefs-warn.html

    http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/chinas-carrier-killer-really-threat-the-us-navy-13765?page=show

  22. Davy on Fri, 28th Apr 2017 11:39 am 

    BS, clog, best to have both. You don’t project physical power with missiles. Missiles are a threat not a projection. Many types of wars are won with physical presence. Many wars can’t be won or fought effectively from a distance. There may have to be boots on the ground. A carrier strike force has all of the above. They are highly effective and a reason why China is investing in them. If any country kills a carrier you can be sure a likely devastating response will occur. The US has missiles too and with global reach. You dismiss carriers because they don’t fit into your nationalistic agenda.

  23. Cloggie on Fri, 28th Apr 2017 12:22 pm 

    BS, clog, best to have both.

    That’s always true, but carriers are a hefty drain on fiscal resources, in a country where infrastructure is crumbling. You can’t have it all. You must choose and 10 carriers are a malinvestment.

    You don’t project physical power with missiles.

    You don’t project power with carriers on the bottom of the sea either.

    They are highly effective and a reason why China is investing in them.

    Carriers can be useful to “project power” in your own sphere of influence and to threaten far-away small countries. But even the latter is questionable, because small countries can be supplied with hyper-sonic missiles by the big ones. If for instance Iran will become a fully fledged member of SCO…

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/russia-pushes-for-iranian-membership-in-nato-counterweight-group/article/2620925

    …Russia and China will support Iran with these critical missiles and the Gulf will become a no-go area for the US Navy.

    Remember what happened during the Falkland War: an Exocet missile implied all most guaranteed a sunken ship. And that was “merely” MACH 0.92 Exocet. Today we are talking about MACH 5-10 missiles.

    But US carriers are useless in the South China Sea and Chinese carriers are useless in the Gulf of Mexico. You cannot use them to directly attack the enemy.

    The US has missiles too and with global reach.

    Yes, but in a real war you have to leave your expensive carriers at home.

    You dismiss carriers because they don’t fit into your nationalistic agenda.

    (Dutch) Nationalist agenda? Really?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVkrGJxdhuI

    I have bigger fish to fry.lol and have a global European civilizationist agenda…

    https://s17.postimg.org/6wwnomfpb/worldmap.jpg

    …smelling the opportunity of snatching away a large number of European Americans from under the nose of the US 1% (including you?), because Washington choose to neglect the “Tuck Buckford’s”. Washington better keeps looking over its shoulder for Tuck’s-with-an-attitude. You can’t despise them for ever.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fI1JgQedVkc

  24. DerHundistlos on Fri, 28th Apr 2017 7:09 pm 

    Clog has a good point {It makes much more sense to invest in relatively cheap missile technology than spending 40% of the largest war budget in the world (50%) on giant sarcophagus:}, case in point the Falklands War. If Argentina had waited a few more months in time to receive the complete order of French Exocet missiles, the outcome would have been very different.

  25. energy investor on Fri, 28th Apr 2017 8:45 pm 

    After participating here, I am having trouble with my sexual identity (but not my sexual orientation) lol

    But seriously….

    The issue for me is that as a species we face a predicament that is never going to be lesser. No-one here is contributing to a solution to any great degree. I enjoyed Richard Heinberg’s first four chapters in his resilience series. He at least is doing something with his knowledge of our collective problems.

    But few here are doing so. Sure, to bug out is a personal survival plan. But even in countries as isolated as New Zealand, no man is an island. Others will ultimately determine our individual bug out success or failure, no matter how well we plan or how hard we work.

    We face the inevitability that as financial collapse comes, governments will increase their demands on the productive sector to meet the increasing cost of complexity. So the smart guys who have bugged out and taken a drop in living standards to become serfs in their own vege garden may be no better off. They will get taxed too – even as they get more bitter about the injustice of things.

    Anyone who thinks that an alternative global hegemon/s will behave better than the current elite are simply deluding themselves. Absolute power will always corrupt absolutely and to have folk who dominate while imposing sharia law would be an extra layer of pain for everyone.

    Perhaps we can console ourselves that the “equal opportunity rioters” will take down the elites during the process. Throughout history, the collapse of societies has shown us that the destruction of wealth has not changed the course of history…just made things worse.

    I am uncomfortable with US domination, but they are the “bird in the hand”.

    Beware those two birds (or bastards) in the bush. They will do us no favours.

    And meantime let’s see what we can do to support initiatives to empower the initiatives to improve electrical energy storage to the point where intermittent renewables (wind and solar) are able to replace fossil fuels for a larger proportion of our energy requirements.

    We could also do with more low tech inventions to replace high tech stuff.

    There are folks who are working on these and they are my personal heroes.

    Fortunately we don’t see them on “peak oil” sniping and directing ad homs at anyone who disagrees with them.

  26. energy investor on Fri, 28th Apr 2017 9:21 pm 

    @ Derhun…

    Given the need for planes to deliver the Exocets, the words “would have” should more correctly read as ” perhaps could have”.

    Strangely, I had a number of fascinating discussions during 2001/2 in London with a guy called Air Vice Marshall Clive Evans. He was the chief planner for the Falklands campaign for Britain. He and his people were very aware of the risks they ran. Which is the only reason they sank the Admiral Belgrano.

    A couple of Exocets into the troop carrier and the outcome could have been different. But the key factor wasn’t the number of missiles, it was the fact the Argentine aircraft were operating at the extreme end of their range and simply never found the Canberra (at least I think it was the Canberra??). They had no fuel to cast about looking. Straight there, drop missile, straight home (if they were lucky).

    Logistics is so often critical.

  27. makati1 on Fri, 28th Apr 2017 10:38 pm 

    Ground wars with conventional weapons are obsolete. They only work in countries without a real military. The U$ navy knows it cannot get withing 1,000 miles of China with a carrier. Ditto for Russia. Missiles will be the weapon of choice if the U$ is stupid enough to start a real war and it will lose, even if it tries nuclear.

  28. DerHundistlos on Fri, 28th Apr 2017 11:06 pm 

    @ Energy

    The fact of the matter is that the Argentinian Air Force sunk six warships of the Royal Navy and damaged many others. The number sunk would have been much higher except for the fact that Argentinian bombs, after hitting their target, were duds due to obsolescence.
    With just five Exocet missiles, two British naval vessels were sunk, including Britan’s most advanced Missile Destroyer.

  29. Truth Has a Liberal Bias on Sat, 29th Apr 2017 12:23 am 

    Hey Davy it’s called ground water irrigation you stupid fuck and it’s not gonna last forever. Drought monitor measures precipitation and for now the lack of it is being compensated for with fossil aquifers. As soon as that dries up you’re pathetic little nation full of fat lazy white dudes is gonna gets its fucking face kicked in. The line of nations waiting to kick America while its down is long. Paybacks a bitch you fat little fuck.

  30. TheNationalist on Sat, 29th Apr 2017 5:03 am 

    It appears Truth has a liberal bias and a anger management problem? The whole world has a ground water problem, many places are in a worse state than North America.
    The multi-generation white real Americans (of their united country they built), are the least obese in their country apart from the older asians. The beaners and africans have much higher obesity levels.

  31. makati1 on Sat, 29th Apr 2017 5:31 am 

    Davy, you are full of bullshit as usual. You believe all of those U$ generated stats and think they are real. Give refs if you want to defend your assertions. And NOT a US sponsored source.

    Perhaps YOU should seek psychiatric help? I don’t need it. I see reality in Asia. I live here. You see propaganda. Like most Americans, you are being prepared for slaughter. It is not too far in the your future. Be patient.

  32. makati1 on Sat, 29th Apr 2017 5:34 am 

    Nationalist, the Philippines does not have a ground water problem. You paint with a typical America wide brush when you claim that “the whole world” has one. Some areas do, many do not. Narrow that brush or be considered uneducated.

  33. makati1 on Sat, 29th Apr 2017 5:35 am 

    Truth… that is a whole lot of truth! LOL

  34. Davy on Sat, 29th Apr 2017 6:26 am 

    “Hey Davy it’s called ground water irrigation you stupid fuck”. Where have you been asshole? Funny how you disappear than reappear like a stinky fart. I am a farmer and I am sure I know leaps and bounds more about hydrology than your stupid(ness). The comment was referred to makati who has, like you, a personal failed agenda that is emotion based and lacks scientific balance. You dumbasses only use science if it supports your twisted agenda. The drought is over for most of the country boohoo for you anti-Americans. Times have changed with climate change. We may have a worse drought this summer in places that never had it but we are not going to have a drought based on you and makati’s emotional temperament. Talk about two board losers, you guys take the cake.

  35. Davy on Sat, 29th Apr 2017 6:42 am 

    Emotional attachment is ripe here. Look military wannabees, carriers are effective. Missiles can take them out but missiles are only a threat. You can’t sail a missile around and influence behavior or conduct an operation. Carriers are practical especially for support for ground invasions or military actions. This is one of the reason China can’t project power now and the reason they are building carriers. If they need to go somewhere with troops they are severely limited. No missiles are going to be used on a carrier unless it is WWIII. If China sinks a carrier I am pretty sure escalation will be significant maybe even NUK. This means carriers are a gamble and are really more intended for wars smaller than world wars. They are NUK capable so this also makes them a mobile NUK strike force. If a world war is started all may be lost anyway. The US has too many carriers at too great an expense but the alternative of no carriers is not the answer.

    Clog can complain about budgets but look at the EU and their budget and men under arms and then consider their power projection. Europe has no power projections except to go and pick on an ex colony in Africa. In fact Europe needs to be protected so that maybe shows why clog is so down on the US military. His ass is safe because of the US and his big EU army is just another one of his elaborate fantasies.

    As for makati:
    “The U$ navy knows it cannot get withing 1,000 miles of China with a carrier”

    The US is right next door to China with a carrier. What about that makati?

    “Ground wars with conventional weapons are obsolete.”

    What’s going on in Syria now makati? Looks to me like a ground war but you wouldn’t understand that because all you think about is missiles. Missiles do not win wars all they do is pose a threat. Conventional weapons, troops on the ground, and logistics win wars makati.

  36. Davy on Sat, 29th Apr 2017 6:48 am 

    LIAR OR IS IT DEMENTIA
    “the Philippines does not have a ground water problem.”

    “Water Pollution in the Philippines: Causes and Solutions”
    http://www.borgenmagazine.com/water-pollution-in-the-philippines/

    “Saltwater Intrusion Threatening Potable Water Supplies in Philippines”
    http://tinyurl.com/m96qpgn

  37. Cloggie on Sat, 29th Apr 2017 6:59 am 

    Look military wannabees, carriers are effective. Missiles can take them out but missiles are only a threat. You can’t sail a missile around and influence behavior or conduct an operation.

    Think again. Reality now:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3965440/China-successfully-fires-radical-hypersonic-long-range-air-air-missile-hit-targets-300-miles-away.html

    You can launch hyper-sonic missiles with a range of 300 km or more from an airplane with a range of thousands of km.

    This 1940-ish sitting duck technology is nowhere safe. In case of war, China can easily say to the US: do not come West of Hawaii with your carriers or else.

    Planned for 2020:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3689325/Russia-reveals-hypersonic-stealth-bomber-launch-nuclear-attacks-space-Radical-plane-begin-testing-2020.html

    In the 21st century, navies are a 19th-20th century anachronism, the very power base of Britain, c.q. US in the 19th c.q. 20th century. This is the century of the missile, even more so than the airplane. Navies are a joke in a real war. You don’t attack your enemy from a bath tube (or a carrier).

  38. makati1 on Sat, 29th Apr 2017 7:02 am 

    Davy, WHO authors those? Who writes the author’s paycheck? There is little water problems here other than the major river that flows thru the city is polluted as are ALL rivers that flow thru major cities. What does that have to do with groundwater levels? Sure, salt water is infiltrating some areas along the coast, but, funny I have not seen that in any of the farm news or mags here, and I do read all of them.

    With an average annual rainfall of 5-6′ on the S.C.Sea/Manila side and 10-12′ on the Pacific side, I doubt water will be a problem for a very long time, if ever. Water management is the most important project on the farm. We are in the 10-12′ side, BTW. Too much water.

    Dementia is your problem, not mine. Lying is a trait of brainwashed Americans in denial, not free Americans outside the U$MSM Iron Curtain hell hole.

  39. makati1 on Sat, 29th Apr 2017 7:11 am 

    Cloggie, you got it right. Davy is still in the WW2 age when tanks and carriers were powerful weapons. Both are mobile coffins now. Te U$ navy knows it cannot get close to China if China says no. Ditto for Russia.
    They proved that a while ago when they fired missiles from the Caspian into Syria and hit their targets.

    The U$ fired 60 missiles and less than 60% actually got close to their target and they were only a hundred or so miles from their targets. The U$ has high priced junk, not reliable systems. That goes for the so called ‘missile defense system for the lower 48. Russia fires 100 multi-warhead ICBMS and if the U$ manages to shoot down half (being generous) that still leaves 500 nukes for U$ cities. About 10 per state. Game over.

    As I said, the Neocons are setting up the American sheeple for slaughter. Bahhhaaaaaaa!

  40. Davy on Sat, 29th Apr 2017 7:27 am 

    Clog, read the comment again you are stuck in your repetitive thinking.

    “Think again. Reality now: China-successfully-fires-radical-hypersonic-long-range-air-air-missile-hit-targets-300-miles-away.”
    Clog how is that power projection? You fire a missile at someone to say something? A carrier can sail into the vicinity and say something a missile cannot. You don’t fire missiles at a country and try to land offshore to say something. How are missiles going to support a ground operation? What kind of logistical support do missiles have? These are the things that win wars. Missiles are limited period and you guys that place all your hope in them do this because you have an emotional anti-American attitude. Americans have carriers so carriers bad. China and Russia have missiles so missiles good. What kind of thinking is that? LOL

    Clog, like I said if China sinks a carrier the US will sink China’s navy. It is that simple so these missiles you are so hot and bothered about are little more than an unusable asset except in WWIII and or NUK war. They do give China leverage with Taiwan and something the US will now think twice about defending since that is a “One” China issue.

    You are so wrong on the military and the 21st century. In fact going less sophisticated and more boots on the ground is the trend. Carriers are the trend and the reason China is building them. That should be a big indicator of their usefulness. Missiles have their place like other military assets but they are limited. First they can’t take ground and second they can’t sink carriers unless they want to provoke WWIII and or NUK war.

  41. Davy on Sat, 29th Apr 2017 7:32 am 

    Ha ha ha, when makati is presented with facts he folds and accuses someone of propaganda and brainwashing. LOL. The P’s has 100MIL people in the space of Arizona and it is a developing country that is industrializing. You can google all day long and see the facts. The country is being destroyed by over development.

    NUFF SAID TO THE DUMBASS.

  42. Cloggie on Sat, 29th Apr 2017 10:19 am 

    @Davy

    A carrier can sail into the vicinity and say something a missile cannot. You don’t fire missiles at a country and try to land offshore to say something.

    The whole discussion is about the military value of a carrier (US, Chinese, European, whatever). This is NOT about your favorite “anti-American” meme (borrowed from the Jews and their antisemitism meme); for the long term btw I worry more about China than the US.

    The point is that if a US carrier comes too close near the Chinese coast, it is at the mercy of Chinese missiles. Period. These Chinese missiles are NOT at the mercy of the US carrier. Try to let this sink in (pun intended).

    Clog, like I said if China sinks a carrier the US will sink China’s navy.

    Exactly! This basically means that you admit that navies are completely useless in US-Chinese warfare. Sitting ducks, all of them.

    This also means that both the US and China have become more or less fortresses that are impossible to take in, because you can’t bring your troops ashore near the enemy. Missiles will prevent that.

    Carriers are the trend and the reason China is building them.

    I think the Chinese are building them out of prestige reasons. Notorious copy cats. Me too motivation.

  43. Davy on Sat, 29th Apr 2017 11:26 am 

    Clog, why are carriers going to go by China’s coast. Sounds like stupid to me. Carriers have significant military value. I agree with you partially that the US has too many so in that point of view their value is diminished.

  44. Boat on Sat, 29th Apr 2017 1:57 pm 

    XI the leader of China is a different kettle of fish. He is more of a globalist than the so called American empire builders. China is just late to the game but growing fast. If the N Koreans blow off another nuke China itself will impose very strict sanctions in one last bid to keep S Korea and the free world from taking over N Korea. The N Korean provocations may end up brining China into the NWO in a productive way. There is no way XI will blow up global trade and to great financial damage to it’s own country over a tiny N Korean country.
    Why would China fear a United Korea which only promises better trade and sane policies. N Korea like East Germany will see better days ahead if world powers work together.

  45. makati1 on Sat, 29th Apr 2017 5:49 pm 

    Cloggie, Davy has no clue. China is building permanent ‘carriers’ in the South China Sea. The floating ones will be good as a way to control even more of the western Pacific. The U$ has zero ‘carrier killer’ missiles and few others that would be effective. The U$ is a paper tiger, but Davy will never admit it. That bloody flag gets in the way of his thinking.

  46. Davy on Sat, 29th Apr 2017 9:01 pm 

    “The U$ has zero ‘carrier killer’ missiles”

    It has better makati, It has land, sea, and air assets. Do the research and quit your emotional attachments you’re looking like a fool as usual.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *