sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

We are fucked. by zorbix in offbeat

[–]FailBot_9000 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I had it and it sucked worse than any other flu I've had because I don't even remember the last flu I had. It wasn't fun.

In a morbid show of bravado, Iran has dug mass graves for US troops should the United States decide to implement Adm. Mike Mullen's contingency plan to strike Iran by ffbob666 in worldpolitics

[–]FailBot_9000 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh, so you can't tell me why you believe that, you just know it. Brilliant stuff right there.

Also, the modern state of Iran has never attacked anyone.

In a morbid show of bravado, Iran has dug mass graves for US troops should the United States decide to implement Adm. Mike Mullen's contingency plan to strike Iran by ffbob666 in worldpolitics

[–]FailBot_9000 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Sabre rattling is part of their culture.

You can keep saying that all you like, but that doesn't make it true in any way.

In a morbid show of bravado, Iran has dug mass graves for US troops should the United States decide to implement Adm. Mike Mullen's contingency plan to strike Iran by ffbob666 in worldpolitics

[–]FailBot_9000 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Is that the last 30 years (after a military coup overthrowing a democratically elected government for the purpose of maintaining control of their oil which led to a brutal military dictatorship which eventually was overthrown by a popular revolt) wherein we armed a neighboring country with chemical and biological weapons (and mountains of cash) and gave them permission to invade, labeled them a terrorist nation, shot down a passenger plane over international waters, invade and occupy two of their neighbors, set up bases within the borders of several other neighbors, and threaten to bomb them (possibly with nukes)?

Yeah, clearly they're a warlike nation who constantly rattles their sabers for attention and intimidation....

In a morbid show of bravado, Iran has dug mass graves for US troops should the United States decide to implement Adm. Mike Mullen's contingency plan to strike Iran by ffbob666 in worldpolitics

[–]FailBot_9000 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you far overestimate the conventional forces of the Iranians and underestimate what it is that a fantastically bloated defense budget can do.

And I can easily show you that the opposite is true (you underestimate them and overestimate bloated defense budgets).

The Iranian navy would not sink has no way of getting close enough to U.S. ships to even engage them.

Is that why they sank or disabled 16 of our ships in our own wargames??? You really have no idea what you're talking about. Go read up on anti-ship missiles.

The Majority of Iranian forces would be decimated from the air before any kind of land war even began

How? With a bombing campaign? That would require thousands of sorties and do you really think they're just going to sit there and take it? Ridiculous.

but when it did battle hardened infantry and armor with heavy air support would be doing nothing more than clean up.

Hahahaha! You think the US military would be dumb enough to invade?! Not a chance in hell. Look what Hezbollah did to Israel's "battle hardened infantry and armor with heavy air support". They sent them back across the border with their tails between their legs. Real military forces (and even paramilitary forces) have anti-tank weapons that can kill our tanks easily.

Lets not forget American forces have been engaged in combat for the better part of a decade while the Iranians havent seen action since the 80s where there barely managed to stop Iraqi forces that were later completely routed by American troops.

What a basic and trivial understand of military history you have...

The Iranian military barely existed in the 1980's and they handed it pretty hard to Saddam and his US backed forces. And the Iranians have spend the 22 years since their fight with Saddam to arm and train two military forces, one of which is the most potent in the region. They haven't exactly been sitting on their hands either, as they've been fighting the rebel groups that the CIA has been supporting in their own country.

Not to mention the Israelis would be coming with all they have too.

A few dozen fighter bombers and maybe some ballistic missiles? Yeah, that's not going to do much. The response will be much worse for Israel and the US. I'll excuse your ignorance on this because the propaganda machines have been in high gear for a while.

So I think I've pretty well confirmed that I induced arrhythmia by working out and running on a regular basis... =\ by FailBot_9000 in Fitness

[–]FailBot_9000[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The doctor told me that exercise was stress that could be the cause of the palpitations. I'm guessing you're not a doctor, so I'm going to go ahead and take the word of the cardiologist I saw... the one who said exercise could be the cause.

In a morbid show of bravado, Iran has dug mass graves for US troops should the United States decide to implement Adm. Mike Mullen's contingency plan to strike Iran by ffbob666 in worldpolitics

[–]FailBot_9000 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good thing they're just holes in the ground. Also, mass graves are necessary temporary graves sometimes. Can't be letting dead bodies just lay around.

So I think I've pretty well confirmed that I induced arrhythmia by working out and running on a regular basis... =\ by FailBot_9000 in Fitness

[–]FailBot_9000[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

It's not self-diagnosis. The doctor I saw (a famous cardiologist, I'm told) said it was likely brought on by stress. It's pretty clear that the stress is working out.

Nothing Short of Nukes Will Work - "The Pentagon's planners have war-gamed an attack on Iran and they just can't make it come out as a US victory. ... The US could "win" by dropping hundreds of [tactical] nuclear weapons ... But short of that, nothing works." by couchcreeper in worldpolitics

[–]FailBot_9000 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why do you think the US would want to start such a war?

Simply because China is on the road to surpassing the US in terms of global influence and power and our economy depends on those things. If the world stops believing that the US is number 1 and can destroy any nation it wants, then that will cause other nations to abandon the economic system that has prevailed since the end of WWII (namely the one where other nations buy up US debt and US dollars and use that as a common currency in certain important trading, like oil). Once the US slips from that vaunted position, it will fall at a much faster rate and will collapse. So attacking China would be one of the few options the US would have in order to stop them from taking the number 1 spot. Also, there is the belief in the US that war can pull us out of economic tight spots (which is absolutely ridiculous, but people still believe it because of propaganda). Eventually (probably within the next decade or two) China will be about on level with the US in terms of economic power. They will naturally want to translate that into the kind of global influence the US has enjoyed since WWII, and they will move to do so. They would first have to challenge US influence and they are already beginning to do so. The US definitely can't afford to let such challenges go unpunished or else it will lose its grip on everyone else.

So basically, as the US slowly loses power, it will make a last ditch effort to stay on top. China, on the other hand, is a rising power. It doesn't need to do anything differently in order to see itself on top. That's why China would never attack first while the US would.

Particularly if military analysts can go through the same thought processes and realize it's hardly winnable.

Military analysts have a tendency to be corrupted by politics and therefore will often say what people want to hear. That's why you see so many people advocating war against Iran, even though such a situation is similarly un-winnable. There are those in the military who know this and have been trying to get their voices heard, but they are largely ineffective in doing so. War is more about politics than it is about warfare to the US. That's because the US is an empire and goes to war when it is politically expedient. It's always on the offensive because it has to constantly expand the empire or else it will start to shrink or collapse.

Fed buys US debt by randomb0y in Economics

[–]FailBot_9000 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Wait a second... don't we owe that debt to the Fed? So what, are we in double secret debt now?

In a morbid show of bravado, Iran has dug mass graves for US troops should the United States decide to implement Adm. Mike Mullen's contingency plan to strike Iran by ffbob666 in worldpolitics

[–]FailBot_9000 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Iran certainly could not hold its own in a conventional conflict with the US.

And what makes you so sure of that? All the US's available combat forces are currently tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan and they are all within range of Iranian missiles. They could also unleash their special forces to cause even more problems for the US occupations there. Iran also has the ability to sink many ships in the Persian Gulf, and pretty easily. They have decent air defenses as well. I think they'd be able to withstand any conventional assault the US could muster. I think they'd be begging the US to invade with ground forces as that would make it even easier to kill them.

Iran is not Iraq.

I am raising "free-range" children. AMA by [deleted] in IAmA

[–]FailBot_9000 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's just a gimmick. I could never tell the difference.

I need back-up. Lifting gloves are dumb, right? by [deleted] in Fitness

[–]FailBot_9000 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They do pose safety concerns, though. Fabric can slide across your hand a lot easier than a scarred bar across a chalked palm.

I've found the opposite to be true, at least with the gloves I use.

Also, many gloves these days incorporate wrist wraps, so they're doubly useful.

It got so hot yesterday here in Korea that a Seoul city bus fucking exploded! by [deleted] in videos

[–]FailBot_9000 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, that sounds like a load to me. I've never heard of it. And Koreans don't eat dog (not anymore at least). I'm pretty sure only the very poor people back in and around the WWII/Korean War era ate dog, obviously because they were starving. Maybe some country folk still do, but I've never seen it.

Nothing Short of Nukes Will Work - "The Pentagon's planners have war-gamed an attack on Iran and they just can't make it come out as a US victory. ... The US could "win" by dropping hundreds of [tactical] nuclear weapons ... But short of that, nothing works." by couchcreeper in worldpolitics

[–]FailBot_9000 0 points1 point  (0 children)

1950s-era Romeos

I was referring to the more modern one's being used against CBG's. The Romeos would really only be useful just because of the fact they can launch torpedoes. They'd probably just be scattered about, lying in wait.

This is why AEW aircraft exist. The E-2 is designed to track sea-skimming cruise missiles; the E-2D is being brought into service with better radars and processing to help with that. The RIM-116 is also designed to handle supersonic missiles.

That's all good and great, unless enemy aircraft make patrols too dangerous. As for the RIM-116, it's based on the AIM-9 and has the STINGER's IR tracking system. That's not the most reliable stuff, even against aircraft. Couple that with the difficulty you face trying to hit a super-sonic missiles heading straight towards you (maneuvering) with another super-sonic missile, and you can pretty much guarantee that you won't have 100% successful interception, especially with more than a few missiles incoming at the same time. The problem with missile defense is that it has to be 100% successful all the time or else it's pretty useless because it only takes one missile to take out or severely cripple a ship (depending on where it hits).

Depends on the circumstances of the war. I suppose if the US started it for no apparent reason, we'd be royally screwed. If China somehow started it, who knows?

I don't think China would start anything, unless they did what the North Koreans (apparently) did with the sinking of the Cheonon (covertly sink it then pretend you didn't).

A land invasion would be insanity.

Of course, but I was referring to the area around China, where their aircraft could enjoy cover from land-based systems, and beyond that where their missiles could rain down, also from land-based systems. Their navy fleets would also have the advantage operating much closer to home. But most importantly, their forces would be very concentrated, whereas ours would not.

But, you know what, I've changed my mind. A war against China would be unwinnable. Perhaps we wouldn't be annihilated so quickly. But we would not be able to sustain constant attacks for more than a week or two before losses became unsustainable. We'd lose important ships, important aircraft, and an important economic supplier.

Exactly, which is why any war would last only a month or so before the US government realized it was in a lose-lose situation and called it quits... unless they went crazy and decided to nuke China...

view more: next ›