Home | News | Forums | Turf Map | Screenshots | Play Turf Wars Now!

Iran warns US carrier to stay out of Persian Gulf

• Damien Dayne Jan 4, 2012

  Clone9786 wrote:

  Damien Dayne wrote:

  Clone we volunteer for this. Since we also were the only force holding peace in Iraq is why we stayed there. Now we have spread our forces thin and people have sentiments about war now. War isn't pretty don't think about I and be happy someone is doing it. This is why Iraq took so long and that's because we couldn't be merciless and win effectively. Instead we had to fight with rules of engagement and win it painfully. We could just have sent a large army with kill on sight and it would have ended or we could have bombed them for a couple days.
  

  Once again, your solution is to blow shit up. This is not the only solution, nor the one people should jump to. There IS this thing called peaceful negotiation you know

  Peaceful negotiation is only delaying the inevitable.
• MickTheMole Jan 4, 2012

  He was talking about Iraq. He is right, if anything our rules of engagement put our troops at risk. In War in Iraq, we were fighting to remove a man from power who was killing his own citizens.
• Add ZINGG Jan 4, 2012

  Look, if the US goes to war, we have many allies. Canada, Mexico, and pretty much all of Europe (Mainly England and France). Go to war with America, go to war with all of those areas too. And China probably wouldn't get involved unless absolutely necessary. Calm down guys, you are blowing things out of proportion over Iran telling the US to go away.
• V. An. Scaletta Jan 4, 2012

  We should just nuke the shut out of Tehran, Estafahn, Baghdad, and any other Middle Eastern son of a bitch that dares to mess with us.
• ☣ 🎸ӈɪƖƖßıƖƖγ🎸☣ Jan 4, 2012

  🇺🇸👊👳
• Ʈℍㅌ ʘㄕㅌℝ₳₮ミℝ Jan 4, 2012

  Tony10Thumbs wrote:

  MickTheMole wrote:

  Tony10Thumbs wrote:

  Ʈℍㅌ ʘㄕㅌℝ₳₮ミℝ wrote:

  originalbones wrote:

  Brown🎵Note wrote:

  The sense of fear here is kind of annoying.

  What are we afraid of here?
  

  .

  2nd world war did the world of good to the US economy

  Yeah... Plenty of jobs for those not killed...

  You want to trade thousands of young American lives to help the Economy?
  

  It helped because is got the US to boost our manufacturing rate. It m the USful. All he was saying is that WW2 helped the US in some ways.

  and my point was the economy should not even t be a consideration when determining to send young men into war

  Agree it's not a good trade, but it did happen that way
• __Don_Line__ Jan 4, 2012

  UnknownAssassin wrote:

  Ultimately war is bad abd no one really wins and death is bad and horrible abd war turns men into greater horrors than they can be sometimes.

  However China would ultimately lose tge war as long as nuclear weapons are not used. We might be stupid sonetimes but the public abd the world is by far smarter than we realize. They know the power of nuclear weapons and keep them as a LAST resort.

  China in a war at the moment with its current military would be dominated in the oceans quickly in mere weeks, the sky would be ours and air power dominates. However do to their huge population their infantry forces could be a problem since even a small fraction of the population of China put into their military would be huge.
  
• __Don_Line__ Jan 4, 2012

  You know nothing about China's military forces... you probably obtained your knowledge of of pro-American websites on the internet(where else?). If you're saying China's only advantage is our huge population, you are wrong.

  China owns MANY, MANY assets, and along with large economy it would have high military power as well...
  (put into 2 posts due to character limit)
• Warhero0014 Jan 4, 2012

  V. An. Scaletta wrote:

  We should just nuke the shut out of Tehran, Estafahn, Baghdad, and any other Middle Eastern son of a bitch that dares to mess with us.
  

  U.S.A.!!
• __Don_Line__ Jan 4, 2012

  mango12 wrote:

  Hahaha the iranians will come at us in like row boats and shrimp catching ships and they will yell fear us for we are the iranian navy
  

  I'm assuming that the 12 in Mango12 is your age due to the immaturity in your comment. This game is age 13+.
• __Don_Line__ Jan 4, 2012

  nadarrah wrote:

  If china wanted to declare war one is the could just ask for all the Americans debt to be paid and America would be focus to declare bankruptcy.
  

  Yes...
• __Don_Line__ Jan 4, 2012

  MickTheMole wrote:

  Damien Dayne wrote:

  The problem is the ramifications. It could lead to a much larger war. China and Russia are on friendly terms with Iran and could help them out. Now this coupled with the forces of NATO and possibly the UN getting involved. This could quickly escalate into full blown war in the middle east. It is reminiscent of world war one. With all the tension and conflict in the middle east is similar to Europe prior to world war one. All it takes is one event and full blown world war three, or it could end up being saber rattling. Only time will tell.
  

  China wouldn't declare war on the US. We are a huge part in feeding their economy.

  China doesn't actually NEED the US. We have our own economy. Your country is just some extra money.
• Golddigga Jan 4, 2012

  __Don_Line__ wrote:

  mango12 wrote:

  Hahaha the iranians will come at us in like row boats and shrimp catching ships and they will yell fear us for we are the iranian navy
  

  I'm assuming that the 12 in Mango12 is your age due to the immaturity in your comment. This game is age 13+.

  You can YouTube their military, navy a few old British ww2 ships and some motor boats. Aircraft f5 with extra Vertical stabilizers. Army is only a half step from terrorists with russian AK47 from 1947
• I see YOU soon Jan 4, 2012

  Damien Dayne wrote:

  The one thing stopping this is te elections coming up in a couple of months. The politicians up for reelection will do nothing controversial until they are safely reelected. These countries can do whatever they please until election day an the votes have been counted.
  

  The onw thing distracting you all is the elections. If u could speak arabic or similar and it was on fox, it would be the americans who terrorise
• Brown🎵Note Jan 4, 2012

  the border fox wrote:

  Damien Dayne wrote:

  The one thing stopping this is te elections coming up in a couple of months. The politicians up for reelection will do nothing controversial until they are safely reelected. These countries can do whatever they please until election day an the votes have been counted.
  

  The onw thing distracting you all is the elections. If u could speak arabic or similar and it was on fox, it would be the americans who terrorise

  Partisan alert!
• Brown🎵Note Jan 4, 2012

  If for some reason China, Iran, Syria, North Korea, etc... Went all out war on the western allies...

  Meh. It wouldn't be as bad as WWII. It certainly couldn't be what the cold war defined as WWIII.

  We've got subs out there with up to 192 (or more) 500KT warheads each. Several.

  Plus stockpiles of ship launched, air dropped, and missile delivered weapons.

  Just one sub could wipe out any hypothetical Eastern alliance.

  You really think they would put us in a position to use that kind of power?

  We'd have to pull serious punches just to make it a challenging fight. (militarily, at least.)

  Iran is struggling to get just one. Oooooo. Scary.
• Brown🎵Note Jan 4, 2012

  China is a minor concern. They can reach the western US only recently with missiles.

  But why would they?

  What's left of us (almost all of us) would burn China down in an hour.

  They know this.

  There will be no WWIII.
• Ieatlittleboys Jan 4, 2012

  Damien Dayne wrote:

  I personally believe that if we are to take action against them we should do so now. Right now china and Russia are distancing themselves from them and there is a lower chance of them getting involved. Right now a perfect opportunity is arising even though it was caused by our own hand. Iraq is beginning to collapse and Iran coul invade them. Now we could intervene as we did for Kuwait and lead an offensive against them. But in order for this to work we must strike and not hesitate to do what must be done. That is why we have lost wars in the past due to people's consciousness' getting in the way and not allowing America to do what must be done.
  

  Are you in the military? If not stfu
• MalAdOsteo Jan 4, 2012

  noobspwn1 wrote:

  True, but it is the idea that scares us. >
  Who is "us"?

  Don't confuse oil with fuel. Last I checked, CVN, CGN, ANS SSN boats don't need it anyway.

  Seems to me that they would be more dependent on their own oil reserves than we would be. Hmmm... Targets of opportunity for the AF boys and their pretty stealth bombers?

  What Allies are you suggesting would stand up with Iran?

  The threat of Nukes is laughable, but enough of a threat to change ROE for this one. We would own their air and sea forces in a matter of hours or days. Once that happens, carpet bomb the shit out of the region. Maybe drop a couple of low yeald heaters downtown since they want to play with the big boys on that level.

  Personally, I would love to see Obama staring deeply into Kim Il Suck Jr's eyes when the first one dets and throw up the finger gun and a wink. But that's me.
• Brown🎵Note Jan 4, 2012

  Actually, aircraft carriers use more fossil fuel than conventional ships.

  Aircraft are thirsty.

  But otherwise, I agree. The nuclear threat is not enough to worry me at all.
• Brown🎵Note Jan 4, 2012

  dr. seuss wrote:

  Damien Dayne wrote:

  I personally believe that if we are to take action against them we should do so now. Right now china and Russia are distancing themselves from them and there is a lower chance of them getting involved. Right now a perfect opportunity is arising even though it was caused by our own hand. Iraq is beginning to collapse and Iran coul invade them. Now we could intervene as we did for Kuwait and lead an offensive against them. But in order for this to work we must strike and not hesitate to do what must be done. That is why we have lost wars in the past due to people's consciousness' getting in the way and not allowing America to do what must be done.
  

  Are you in the military? If not stfu

  I understand the emotion here, but it's not the military that starts wars. Military must obey civilian authority. So I guess, if you are in the military, STFU.
• [Add:Baz]Boffer Jan 4, 2012

  Africa next. First the LRA, then secure that oil. That would more likely bring the us and china to loggerheads.
• Damien Dayne Jan 4, 2012

  dr. seuss wrote:

  Damien Dayne wrote:

  I personally believe that if we are to take action against them we should do so now. Right now china and Russia are distancing themselves from them and there is a lower chance of them getting involved. Right now a perfect opportunity is arising even though it was caused by our own hand. Iraq is beginning to collapse and Iran coul invade them. Now we could intervene as we did for Kuwait and lead an offensive against them. But in order for this to work we must strike and not hesitate to do what must be done. That is why we have lost wars in the past due to people's consciousness' getting in the way and not allowing America to do what must be done.
  

  Are you in the military? If not stfu

  Are you in the military?
• Aloo Jan 4, 2012

  The ignorance in this topic makes me LAUGH OUT LOUD, but some of you have good points.
• ᏟᏞᏫNᎬ Jan 5, 2012

  @Damien Dayne
  Name one time when it did.
  Actually, I'm not gonna act like it hasn't failed before. But then what if it would've worked, but we were all too ignorant to try and just blew them up. Now say that we had a peaceful negotiation, and they attacked us, I would agree with attacking them back. Amurica!
• Damien Dayne Jan 5, 2012

  Clone9786 wrote:

  @Damien Dayne
  Name one time when it did.
  Actually, I'm not gonna act like it hasn't failed before. But then what if it would've worked, but we were all too ignorant to try and just blew them up. Now say that we had a peaceful negotiation, and they attacked us, I would agree with attacking them back. Amurica!
  

  We discuss peace before we enter war. Sometimes it works but oftentimes it doesn't. I'm not saying just bomb them off the earth. For all we know they are telling the truth. But right now the dogs of war are being prepared for war and if they are then peace negotiations is simply buying time. We must be prepared for the possibility of them actually developing a nuke and using it and being ready to do what must be done.
• ᏟᏞᏫNᎬ Jan 5, 2012

  Damien Dayne wrote:

  Clone9786 wrote:

  @Damien Dayne
  Name one time when it did.
  

  We discuss peace before we enter war. Sometimes it works but oftentimes it doesn't. I'm not saying just bomb them off the earth. For all we know they are telling the truth. But right now the dogs of war are being prepared for war and if they are then peace negotiations is simply buying time. We must be prepared for the possibility of them actually developing a nuke and using it and being ready to do what must be done.

  Iran has actually followed all the rules about building their nuclear reactors. And it won't just buy us time, it could save lives if they work
• Brown🎵Note Jan 5, 2012

  Aloo wrote:

  The ignorance in this topic makes me LAUGH OUT LOUD, but some of you have good points.
  

  Explain.
• Carl 💔 Johnson Jan 5, 2012

  It can be a good thing if we go to war with china. On the peace treaty one of the agreements could be for ZERO U.S debt to china.
• MickTheMole Jan 5, 2012

  Yeah but it wouldn't be fun fighting China.

Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC