HSV 2 sunk by Iranian supplied ASCM

[Flash]

Don't fret.............as long as we keep shipping them pallets of cash, all will be well.

Better than letting than skip the middleman and shipping them arms!

How are we funding the Houthis?

He is talking about the Iranians.

 

[Beans]

Better than letting than skip the middleman and shipping them arms!
He is talking about the Iranians.

Ok, someone educate me how we're funding the Iranians. If you find yourself re-enacting one of Glenn Beck's chalkboard sessions, just let me get popcorn first.

 

[Uncle Fester]

Ok, someone educate me how we're funding the Iranians. If you find yourself re-enacting one of Glenn Beck's chalkboard sessions, just let me get popcorn first.

I'm assuming this is about the "ransom" payments.

 

[zippy]

Ok, someone educate me how we're funding the Iranians. If you find yourself re-enacting one of Glenn Beck's chalkboard sessions, just let me get popcorn first.

Lots of open source material out there to allow one to draw their own conclusions.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/21/politics/john-kerry-money-iran-sanctions-terrorism/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...8de5d4-6a17-11e6-91cb-ecb5418830e9_story.html

How are we funding the Houthis?

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-yemen-security-houthis-iran-idUSKBN0MN2MI20150327

http://www.criticalthreats.org/yeme...ian-support-to-yemen-al-houthis-april-15-2016

 

[Pags]

Lots of open source material out there to allow one to draw their own conclusions.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/21/politics/john-kerry-money-iran-sanctions-terrorism/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...8de5d4-6a17-11e6-91cb-ecb5418830e9_story.html



http://www.reuters.com/article/us-yemen-security-houthis-iran-idUSKBN0MN2MI20150327

http://www.criticalthreats.org/yeme...ian-support-to-yemen-al-houthis-april-15-2016

So when you say "we're funding the Iranians" what you mean is "we're giving them back their money," right?

 

[jmcquate]

"we're giving them back their money,"

That's one way of interpreting it. We could go down the rabbit hole with the Iran deal. All I know is I don't understand why we we lets these fucks keep screwing with us (well I kinda do, but I'm still not a fan.)

 

[zippy]

So when you say "we're funding the Iranians" what you mean is "we're giving them back their money," right?

I believe I actually said:

Unfortunately we do seem to have found ourself funding both sides of a proxy war...

I'm not going into the politics of the funding, just the end result.

 

[Pags]

I believe I said "funding both sides of a proxy war". I'm not going into the politics of the funding, just the end result.

Your use of "funding" is a bit disengenuous. Funding via tax payer money and giving the Iranians back their frozen $ are two VERY different things. By giving back their funds we may be enabling Iran to further fund the houthis but it's not like the fund freeze had prevented that in the first place.

 

[wink]

Your use of "funding" is a bit disengenuous. Funding via tax payer money and giving the Iranians back their frozen $ are two VERY different things. By giving back their funds we may be enabling Iran to further fund the houthis but it's not like the fund freeze had prevented that in the first place.

"Funding" does not imply the use of tax payer money. I think it is obvious what was meant by the post you reference. It is becoming a little tiring to have every post parsed just to make a useless rhetorical counter point. No wait...internet. How about this? If you can't imagine yourself saying something in person to the guy in a conversation over lunch then maybe it is pointless.

 

[Pags]

"Funding" does not imply the use of tax payer money. I think it is obvious what was meant by the post you reference. It is becoming a little tiring to have every post parsed just to make a useless rhetorical counter point. No wait...internet. How about this? If you can't imagine yourself saying something in person to the guy in a conversation over lunch then maybe it is pointless.

I know you understand the need for accurate language that everyone in the conversation agrees with the definition. If either person thinks a word means something different then we're not communicating effectively.

"US funding Iranian backed terrorists" and "Previsouly frozen Iranian funds released back to Iran are used to fund terrorists" have a lot of the same words but say two very different things (to me at least).

 

[HAL Pilot]

I know you understand the need for accurate language that everyone in the conversation agrees with the definition. If either person thinks a word means something different then we're not communicating effectively.

"US funding Iranian backed terrorists" and "Previsouly frozen Iranian funds released back to Iran are used to fund terrorists" have a lot of the same words but say two very different things (to me at least).

Sarcasm is obviously a lost cause with your politically correct mind...

 

[Pags]

Sarcasm is obviously a lost cause with your politically correct mind...

Trying to be accurate is PC? I thought PC was trying to obscure meaning. Or is that what you say when your preconceived notions are challenged?

Maybe I'm just tired of BS tin foil hat notions being bought in to by folks who, as naval officers, should know how to think critically.

 

[Catmando]

Regarding the USS Mason. I found this to be quite interesting, over at Col. Lang's Blog:

"OK. I wonder why the USS Mason did not sink attacking small boats with the 20mm, 4500 rds/minute radar trained gatling guns on board. there usually are two, one in the bow and another at the stern. These things have a range of over 2 miles and will chew a speed boat to bits in an instant. The Mason would also have had one or two 5 inch radar trained naval guns. If you are attacked at sea you sink the opponent. That is basic stuff, especially when you consider the unforgiving nature of the US Navy when dealing with a commanding officer who lets one of their precious ships be damaged. I was on the JCS investigating board for the Iraqi attack on USS Stark. The circumstances of the damage on the ship were quite ambiguous but the captain and his officers knew well from the beginning that their careers were at an end in spite of the fact that they managed to save the burned out ship. So, why did the CO of USS Mason not react more forcefully DURING the attack?" http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2016/10/who-done-what.html​

Offered as FYI and without comment.

[Later edit and update -- Apparently there were no "small boats in the vicinity." Sorry for that, but I was only the messenger unknowingly carrying bad info.]

 

[nittany03]

Regarding the USS Mason. I found this to be quite interesting, over at Col. Lang's Blog:

"OK. I wonder why the USS Mason did not sink attacking small boats with the 20mm, 4500 rds/minute radar trained gatling guns on board. there usually are two, one in the bow and another at the stern. These things have a range of over 2 miles and will chew a speed boat to bits in an instant. The Mason would also have had one or two 5 inch radar trained naval guns. If you are attacked at sea you sink the opponent. That is basic stuff, especially when you consider the unforgiving nature of the US Navy when dealing with a commanding officer who lets one of their precious ships be damaged. I was on the JCS investigating board for the Iraqi attack on USS Stark. The circumstances of the damage on the ship were quite ambiguous but the captain and his officers knew well from the beginning that their careers were at an end in spite of the fact that they managed to save the burned out ship. So, why did the CO of USS Mason not react more forcefully DURING the attack?" http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2016/10/who-done-what.html​

Offered as FYI and without comment.

The ship was not hit. The CDCM batteries were hit in retaliation, per open source reporting. What are we arguing about again? Millennial TAOs?

 

[Pags]

Regarding the USS Mason. I found this to be quite interesting, over at Col. Lang's Blog:

"OK. I wonder why the USS Mason did not sink attacking small boats with the 20mm, 4500 rds/minute radar trained gatling guns on board. there usually are two, one in the bow and another at the stern. These things have a range of over 2 miles and will chew a speed boat to bits in an instant. The Mason would also have had one or two 5 inch radar trained naval guns. If you are attacked at sea you sink the opponent. That is basic stuff, especially when you consider the unforgiving nature of the US Navy when dealing with a commanding officer who lets one of their precious ships be damaged. I was on the JCS investigating board for the Iraqi attack on USS Stark. The circumstances of the damage on the ship were quite ambiguous but the captain and his officers knew well from the beginning that their careers were at an end in spite of the fact that they managed to save the burned out ship. So, why did the CO of USS Mason not react more forcefully DURING the attack?" http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2016/10/who-done-what.html​

Offered as FYI and without comment.

Attacking small boats? I'm pretty sure the missiles were launched from shore.