This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

US Navy Says Any Disruption To Straits Of Hormuz "Will Not Be Tolerated"

Tyler Durden's picture


Just out from Reuters:


Compare this statement with what an Iranian navy chief said earlier:

Closing off the Gulf to oil tankers will be "easier than drinking a glass of water" for Iran if the Islamic state deems it necessary, state television reported on Wednesday, ratcheting up fears over the world's most important oil chokepoint.


"Closing the Strait of Hormuz for Iran's armed forces is really easy ... or as Iranians say it will be easier than drinking a glass of water," Iran's navy chief Habibollah Sayyari told Iran's English language Press TV.


"But right now, we don't need to shut it as we have the Sea of Oman under control and we can control the transit," said Sayyari, who is leading 10 days of exercises in the Strait.

It appears that just like in the case of the ECB, where all the powers involved need a crash of some sort to proceed with "next steps" so the same mentality has now gripped the US Fifth Fleet.

And more on the original story:

The U.S. Fifth Fleet said on Wednesday it will
threatened to stop ships moving through the strategic oil route.


vital to regional and global prosperity," a spokesperson for the
about the possibility of Iran trying to close the waterway.


"Anyone who threatens to disrupt freedom of navigation in an
international strait is clearly outside the community of nations; any
disruption will not be tolerated."


Asked whether it was taking
fleet said it "maintains a robust presence in the region to deter or
counter destabilizing activities", without providing further detail.


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 11:04 | 2015898 ZeroPower
ZeroPower's picture

Ya don't fuck with the US navy, i hope this is clear.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 11:07 | 2015912 Gully Foyle
Gully Foyle's picture


None of those Gay sailors are fucking?

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 11:16 | 2015957 spiral_eyes
spiral_eyes's picture

great news for aggregate demand, bitchez! 

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 11:32 | 2015988 Pladizow
Pladizow's picture

If there was ever a time when America needed a president like Ron Paul - this is it!

Why the fuck does America feel the need to stick its nose EVERY WHERE?

And what if Iran had thoughts on how transportation should occur in the Gulf of Mexico?


Wed, 12/28/2011 - 11:34 | 2016042 PulauHantu29
PulauHantu29's picture

Guess they got tired of looking for WMDs in Iraq?

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 12:37 | 2016336 FreeSlave
FreeSlave's picture

This war is to establish a zionist central bank in Iran (only few countries that dont have that. One of them was Libya and Iraq). At the same time to get their oil of course. If you support this war, means you support the establishment of FED like bank in Iran. Most of us here agree that the FED must be abolished, so we must not approve the war with Iran. The nuclear threat from Iran is a BS, like we had BS with Iraq weapons of mass destruction. Also, stop supporting israel completely, and NEVER elect officials who support israel! Officials who blindly support israel are zionists! PERIOD. For them israel is more important then USA. We will will be screwed as long as we have zionist controlling our government. It is that simple.


Wed, 12/28/2011 - 13:36 | 2016578 strannick
strannick's picture

I guess its becoming apparent to Iran that its pisspot navy of aluminium outboards loaded with gangs of ak-47 wielding crazies wont be sufficient to shut down world trade.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 14:35 | 2016764 caconhma
caconhma's picture

There is another thing to consider:

Washington Post reports that the White House is negotiating with the Taliban. And not with some anonymous guys, but with Mullah Omar who is in charge of the organization supreme consul - "Quetta shura."

If so, it means big problems for Pakistan, which can lose their important client. "All that was acquired by hard labor ...." As a matter of fact, Pakistan is left with just one last argument - nuclear weapons. This is the subject of a great concern for Americans.  The USA has offered to Pakistan to place their nuclear warheads under the U.S. Army control.  Naturally, Pakistan refused to do so.

Let's see - if so, the events will move much more rapidly than would be expected. Now, the Taliban may well be the strike force of the United States in the Middle East and Central Asia - and this is a very serious force. Even more serious than NATO contingent in Afghanistan. For Pakistan and China, this is bad news, but for Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Russia the news could be catastrophic.

The idea is to revive the Caliphate - now under the benevolent patronage of the United States. No wonder the U.S. is so diligently helped develop the drug trafficking and fed them to the Taliban - the Taliban is already quite capable of large-scale military action - as long as the local scale, but it just will change very quickly if the U.S. dramatically change its policy towards them. And there is given a link to confirm this is news, however: The U.S. and the extremist movement "Taliban" have held several rounds of direct negotiations to achieve a peaceful settlement in Afghanistan.

According to Iranian television channel Press TV, with reference to the U.S. media, plan on an agreement between the parties was developed several months ago. Recall that the military operation of NATO under U.S. leadership in Afghanistan continues to 2001. All this time, it was emphasized that the Alliance has been fighting against this "Taliban".

To make this strategy work, the USA will also need some Iran cooperation.

There is another variable: to get in bed with Taliban, the USA will have to sell out their present allies. This must be the main topic of US/Taliban negotiations.

Finally, religious fanatics could be very difficult to manage. Muslim fanatics are not much easy to managed than Jewish socialist thugs trained, paid, and sent to Russia by the world Zionist banking oligarchy almost exactly 100 years ago.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 15:18 | 2016900 Lord Koos
Lord Koos's picture

The US has been negotiating with the Taliban since the 1990s, when Taliban leaders were flown to Texas so that Bush the elder could try to talk them into an oil pipeline.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 16:00 | 2017007 IBelieveInMagic
IBelieveInMagic's picture

Time to spread some democracy and show them the kinds of freedoms that we have come to expect and enjoy!

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 16:10 | 2017037 Helicon
Helicon's picture

I still can't really understand the system behind the soviet central bank. Any help would be greatly apreciated.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 21:11 | 2017802 DosZap
DosZap's picture


Washington Post reports that the White House is negotiating with the Taliban

You believe that?, hell their relatives on vacation,staying at Unca's house.

Sat, 12/31/2011 - 22:11 | 2018263 13thWarrior
13thWarrior's picture

Some myths I like to dispel.


1. Taliban contrary to popular propaganda doesn't operate outside Afghanistan.

2. Taliban are anti-Banks also.

3. Taliban are anti-drugs as well.

4. Taliban just beat the shit out of US Army in recent attacks to curb their expansion.

5. Taliban don't come to negotiation because they know USG has no honest intention.

6. Taliban never have and never will attack Pakistan or any other muslim state.

7. Taliban is not TTP (A counter gang created by Western intelligence agencies to defame Taliban, Read Kitson book on counter gangs)

8. Taliban want US out and implment Shariah also means intrest free economy, a nightmare for NWO.

9. Taliban is not ALQaeda either.

10. Using Taliban against Pakistan is Zbigniew Brzezinski policy and he is failing cos Taliban will never attack Pakistan and have told TTP to make peace with US Pakistan army.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 14:36 | 2016769 Dave Thomas
Dave Thomas's picture

No they won't go toe to toe with the US Navy, that would mean instadeath. What they'll do is scuttle a few junk tankers at key areas and dump a few mines overboard just to make removal dicey.

That would definitely put a crimp in any kind of shipping traffic that had to go "toot toot" through the straight.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 15:23 | 2016913 msamour
msamour's picture

I remember when we crossed the Straits in the 90's we could see the missile sites. I remember the OOW say, those were only the decoys, the real ones we couldn't see. Iran has an history of putting their old gear in plain sight, and to keep their good gear hidden. During my watch, I counted about 60 different missile sites. I have a feeling, many armchair admirals and generals would be very surprised of the result should a war begin. I have been there in the Gulf, things there are not what they seem...

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 06:19 | 2018489 jeff montanye
jeff montanye's picture

and the u.s.'s own war game showed either mutual destruction or an iranian victory.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 14:36 | 2016770's picture

If Iranians are so lightly armed then that proves that they are not a threat to Israel or the US. Glad to hear that you agree that we have no need to sanction or bomb Iran.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 15:16 | 2016896 strannick
strannick's picture

Just because they are relatively lightly armed doesnt mean Iran wont cause shit, and the US wont step in and stop it. Its the way the world turns.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 15:29 | 2016931's picture

Well there's your casus belli right there. Iran is lightly armed and they might "cause shit." Colin Powell could not make a better presentation at the UN.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 16:08 | 2017024 strannick
strannick's picture

Dont quite follow your logic or pretentious language, but if your looking for King Arthur and Dragon roles in these farces, you probably should go back to the nursery rhymes, or the university protest- pep rallies.

The US will do what it does, for all its shitty little reasons, likewise Iran will do what it will do, for all its shitty little reasons. That sound reasonable?

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 16:19 | 2017061's picture


Wed, 12/28/2011 - 16:26 | 2017083 strannick
strannick's picture

A weasel?

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 16:32 | 2017102's picture



No, a Bickle.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 16:39 | 2017118 strannick
strannick's picture

Non sequiters and insider entendres. Thought I smelt teen spirit.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 17:50 | 2017296's picture

Wrong again, I'm 48. But thanks for playing. You will receive a copy of the ZeroHedge home edition and a glorious 365 day / 365 night vacation in a war zone of Obama's choice.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 22:18 | 2017976 See in the pink
See in the pink's picture

You don't have to have taken Latin or studied law to look up WTF "casus belli" means, here (that was hard):

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 16:14 | 2017050 Dave Thomas
Dave Thomas's picture

OMG That had me rollin bro.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 22:10 | 2017950 Bringin It
Bringin It's picture

Nice work Crockett.  Genuine applause.

On the foreign policy slope of the great mountain of corruption, you could be the Sherpa guide.  But what about the other thing?

Have you encountered any epiphanies(sp?) re. Ol' #7?  Or still going with the party line?

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 14:39 | 2016781 sof_hannibal
sof_hannibal's picture

Good point. Other than mines and closing the starits with a mined suken ship, it is not apparent to me how Iran could have any control over the straits. Also, they only have one border of the straits.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 15:22 | 2016909 Lord Koos
Lord Koos's picture

They don't have to actually close the straights, all they have to do is to start sinking oil tankers, which is very easy, and it's difficult to protect them.  Aall they have to do is sink one or two, and all oil traffic through the straights will stop.  Instant $8.00 gas.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 16:55 | 2017152 boattrash
boattrash's picture

Make that $10 gas, since our Cocksucker-In-Chief shut down our Gulf drilling for the last year.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 19:51 | 2017527 sof_hannibal
sof_hannibal's picture

I don't or am not agreeing with any war action; but the US Navy -- submarines are incomparable and basically unsinkable. If Iran did sink a tanker; its navy would not exist within a week. The Iranian Navy knows this; the ICRG is a little more fanatical; but they have speed boats as noted

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 20:10 | 2017642 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Iran needs neither navy nor air force to close the strait and keep it closed indefinitely.


Wed, 12/28/2011 - 21:17 | 2017817 DosZap
DosZap's picture



Iran could cease to exist,they used to be Persia,they could become Sand Dunia,w/out one bullet being fired.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 00:00 | 2018177 New World Chaos
New World Chaos's picture

At the end of WWI, the Germans built a gun with a range of 80 miles.  They used it to shell Paris from behind their own lines.   The Straits of Hormuz is 34 miles wide and makes an indentation into hilly Iranian territory.  Iran doesn't need ships or missiles to shut down the strait, just a bunch of mobile artillery.  Each gun could be a mile away before the shell even hits the tanker.  Not getting rid of those guns without an air war at the very least.  Plus, if I was Iran I would have run a tunnel under the straits so I could release mines into the shipping lanes without having to dodge the US Navy/Air Force.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 14:51 | 2016816 Eally Ucked
Eally Ucked's picture

Maybe they will hack into J.Stennis navigation system and moor it at one of their ports? Then naval power of Iran would increase significantly. 

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 18:39 | 2017397 delbutler
delbutler's picture

When are most Americans gonna wake up and realise just because Iran has 3 letters in it's name in common with Iraq, that it is not anything like the latter ? Iran is a far far more advanced country in terms of economy, military and technology.

Anyone that thinks that Iran will be another "48 hours and it's all over" job is so sadly mistaken, it ain't even funny. The American governemt would do well to stop trying to be the playground bully, punching kids in the face and taking their money (oil) and stick to getting it's own rather wrecked and near collapsing house in order.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 14:53 | 2016818 strannick
strannick's picture


You make Libya and Iraq sound like stalwart bastions of totalitarian thwarting democracies, instead of modernday Muslim shiekdoms. Im sure that wasnt your intention.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 11:38 | 2016050 kill switch
kill switch's picture


Because, when your a world empire everything is in your national interest...unsustainable.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 12:22 | 2016279 Jack Burton
Jack Burton's picture

"Unsustainable?" You bet! We reached that point with the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.  The Iran war will be even more expensive.

I ask all the armchair warriors: "Will YOU pay higher taxes to fund these wars".  I seem never to get an answer, just silence, their keyboards don't work when confronted with reality based questions.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 12:34 | 2016324 wisefool
wisefool's picture

They would answer yes. The real question you have to pose to them is "would you implement a tax code where a simple majority of citizens contribute to the war effort for your great democracy"

Thats where they clam up like little girls.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 12:56 | 2016396 wisefool
wisefool's picture

Not sure why I got a junk. My point is, if 51% of americans are too poor to pay federal taxes, then maybe we should not have the federal government play super cop to the world. Not to mention the 13 Trillion dollar debt that 51% of children not born yet will not be able to afford to pay for either.

This is exactly the tyrrany that George Washington predicted for the USA.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 12:57 | 2016397 kralizec
kralizec's picture

And higher taxes in the form of extortion level oil & gas prices resulting from unchecked Persian meddling in the striats is going to be subsidized here at home by...President Ron Paul?


Wed, 12/28/2011 - 13:10 | 2016457 El Viejo
El Viejo's picture

Yup, the Saudis are mad at us for not dealing with Iran sooner and Ron Paul is no different from Cain. He's gotta another quick pill to swallow for the dumbass american voters.  Look at the data: everytime we balanced the budget or even tried throughout the entire history of this country it caused a deep recession. Remember the Clinton balanced budget? Check out Eisenhower: three attempts to balance the budget = three recessions.



Wed, 12/28/2011 - 13:40 | 2016604 strannick
strannick's picture

Clinton didnt balance the budget, Greenspan did it for him by freefalling interest rates on his behalf.

Clinton deregulated derivatives, and repealed Glass-Steagal, setting the stage for our current quagmire.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 14:40 | 2016786 Dave Thomas
Dave Thomas's picture

Oh yeah, don't forget about all that flight of capital from countries with dieing currencies in the mid to late 90s either, Thailand, Russia, etc.

A nice bald dutch guy named Paul clued me into that a while back.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 14:43 | 2016795's picture



That simply isn't true. From the 1830s to 1912 the US had no central bank and did not run excessive debts except during the Civil War. This period is known as the Industrial Revolution and was the single greatest leap in the standard of living for rich and poor alike in the entire history of the world. Why lie about that unless you want people to be poor and hungry?

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 17:10 | 2017188 outofhere
outofhere's picture

With  -1% rate of inflation no less

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 17:05 | 2017170 boattrash
boattrash's picture

El V, They still live in the fucking desert! You can't grow food in the desert. Like Pops said 30yrs ago, trade 'em a loaf of bread for a barrel of oil.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 15:17 | 2016872 outofhere
outofhere's picture

 no,no and no


Wed, 12/28/2011 - 17:15 | 2016889 outofhere
outofhere's picture

I haven't paid an income tax since the Vietnam War I was inducted to participate in ended.

Sure ain't gonna start now.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 15:49 | 2016980 daveeemc2
daveeemc2's picture

No - the senior class wont.  The ruling class wont. But lower class and future lower class? u bet.  Why pay now what u can make the midclass kids pay for tomorrow.

Understand the republican agenda: no env protections, lower taxes for rich, wars and debt.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 16:02 | 2017016 IBelieveInMagic
IBelieveInMagic's picture

No problemo -- Bernanke got magic machine...

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 12:37 | 2016332 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

our democracy is getting cruder

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 13:13 | 2016473 CPL
CPL's picture

That would require democracy to be put in place first.  A Federal republic doesn't necessarily have to be a democracy.


Wed, 12/28/2011 - 13:36 | 2016595 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

perfect, it's not a pure democracy nor is it pure crude

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 12:40 | 2016344 upWising
upWising's picture

"WILL NOT BE TOLERATED."  Nicaragua said the same thing in 1985 when the United States mined the HARBORS of the tiny nation (with a population smaller than Los Angeles County). That's right: the U.S. got within sight of the ports of Nicaragua and filled the waters with mines....clearly within Nicaragua's territorial waters.  World Court unanimously condemned U.S. action...but the "jurisdiction" of the World Court and world opinion was not recognized by ray-gun and his ilk because it was not in "the U.S. national and security interests" to do so.  

But this is different, I guess.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 13:28 | 2016553 El Viejo
El Viejo's picture

Yes this is different: Nicaragua did not have the ability to shut off the world's oil supply forcing Europe to buy oil and gas from Russia at inflated prices of course. I can hear Europe whining like a baby: why didn't we do something. I can hear you also everytime you fill up your car at $10.00 a gallon.

"The only thing required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing."


Wed, 12/28/2011 - 14:47 | 2016800's picture

Peace will not shut down the Straits of Hormuz. Only war will do that. And you seem to want war.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 15:05 | 2016864 cornedmutton
cornedmutton's picture

Peace is not the absence of war, it is the establishment of justice.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 15:25 | 2016920 Lord Koos
Lord Koos's picture

"To ravage, to slaughter, to usurp under false titles, they call empire; and where they make a desertthey call it peace."


- Tacitus

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 18:55 | 2017292 rwe2late
rwe2late's picture

Iran has no intention of provoking war by closing the straits. It would only do so if attacked for its alleged and non-existent "nuclear threat".


Wed, 12/28/2011 - 11:37 | 2016053 fonzanoon
fonzanoon's picture

Ron Paul possibly had some affiliation with a rascist comment in 1992 didn't you hear? He has no shot now because of this. Yup CNN told me so.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 11:46 | 2016095 trav7777
trav7777's picture

you bitches are going to soon have to make a choice between your affiliations.  Ron Paul has SAID from his own mouth "hate facts."

These just haven't come out yet, these are the big DATS RAYCISS guns and they are awaiting deployment when the time is right.  So at that point you are going to have to choose between your mental 3rd rail and RP.

I believe that your conditioning is so deep in this particular issue that your heads may explode

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 11:51 | 2016126 GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

Whatever, HateBot.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 14:49 | 2016809's picture
Ron Paul Makes Woman Cry!

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 15:20 | 2016907 john39
john39's picture

guess the truth is just too much for some to handle.  

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 11:53 | 2016127 Pladizow
Pladizow's picture

To: Trany666

Where can I listen to Ron Pauls words of hate?

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 12:10 | 2016217 CrazyCooter
CrazyCooter's picture

For those that didn't catch it when this story broke, there are three you tubes you should watch:

This was CNN's official coverage:

This was the whole interview in question:

And this is Ron Paul going full racist in a previous debate (hosted by PBS no less):



Wed, 12/28/2011 - 12:32 | 2016320 YHC-FTSE
YHC-FTSE's picture

I'll never tire of repeating the fact that Dr.Paul is an amazing individual. Superlatives have yet to be invented to describe the character of this gentleman. 

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 13:00 | 2016406 SheepHerder
SheepHerder's picture

"Dr.Paul is an amazing individual..."  Millions of people said the same thing about Obama in 2008.  I'm very leery of "superheroes" when it comes to American politics.  I studied mind control and brainwashing for about two years and there's systematic techniques for giving the people a "savior" to save them from ruin. 

There will be no savior for America.  Not even Ron Paul if he were to get elected.  To think otherwise is delusional.  The global economic system is ran by capitalistic oligarchs who use a debt based monetary system to extract resources and labor from different parts of the world.  Ron Paul has no where near enough clout and power to defeat this global system.  America is a corporate totalitarian government.  To run for office you need the blessing of the finance and corporate institutions (in dollars and corporate owned media attention) to get in front of the people.  If you don't believe me then who's Kent Mesplay?  If you don't think Paul has the corporate blessing, well...junk me.

Lastly why is Don Black in a picture with Paul and why is his site endorsing Paul?  Why didn't Paul refuse contributions from his site in 2008?  As much as I don't care for Trav777's views at times, if you dig (versus buy the hype), you'll see there's something to his claim. 

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 13:21 | 2016516 Pladizow
Pladizow's picture

Soooooo, You'll vote for Obama again?

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 13:35 | 2016587 SheepHerder
SheepHerder's picture

Did you read the whole comment?  If you did, I gave a hint on who I'm looking to vote for.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 13:38 | 2016599 Pladizow
Pladizow's picture

Sorry, I dont have an Obama decoder ring!

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 14:23 | 2016712 SheepHerder
SheepHerder's picture

I hope you have a good day and a good New Year!  I hope you find a candidate that has morals you can get behind and support!  And though we've never met, I hope 2012 blesses you!  Take care Pladizow!

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 15:59 | 2017004 Pladizow
Pladizow's picture

Are you sure we have never met?

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 14:53 | 2016826's picture

Sorry, I dont have an Obama decoder ring!


Ralphie's got one. He excitedly decoded his first message which read, "Be sure to drink your kool-aid." Ralphie was disappointed. "A crummy commercial!" was his observation.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 14:05 | 2016597 YHC-FTSE
YHC-FTSE's picture

I don't doubt the earnestness of your skepticism, and of course we should all be wary of politicians in general. 


I agree with most of your views, but I have yet to be convinced of anything untoward during Dr.Paul's entire career to change my view that as a libertarian, constitutionalist, and decent, intelligent human being, he is amazing. But of course you are correct in deriding anyone putting too much faith in one person to change anything. It's a mammoth and dangerous task to dismantle the MIC. I remember that even after reading about Obama's corporate/Israeli sponsors in the Summer of 2006 (In the Newstatesman June issue I think), I still supported his presidential candidacy, then bitterly regretted my stupidity over the years. So, yes, I understand what you say.


Forget Don Black, I saw an article by fucking Ann Coulter when I visited his site to make a contribution! But as I posted previously elsewhere, I think Dr.Paul is one of those rare individuals who can bring different people together despite their differences, rather than the other cheap-trick politicians who constantly divide, incite, and emphasise our differences in religion, sex, race, politics, and social strata for dubious popularity. In short, I like and admire the gentleman, and every word I hear from him confirms my current assessment.


There may be no escape from America's destiny with economic disaster, but I think with Dr.Paul at the helm, it could mean the difference between the burning of Rome at the end of her empire, or a graceful British exit in the last century to thrive once more in other ways on the world's stage.


Edit: The article in the Newstatesman I referred to was published on May 29th 2008 (Not 2006). :

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 14:06 | 2016671 SheepHerder
SheepHerder's picture

I appreciate your intelligence and the fact you use that to make your decisions.  I'm still a skeptic, but I hope you are right. 

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 17:17 | 2017211 boattrash
boattrash's picture

Simply put, I think Paul would base his leadership on the U.S. Constitution, not his personal emotions etc... Wouldn't that be refreshing?

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 19:42 | 2017549 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

except when he's basing his leadership on his religious beliefs, which are kinda like "personal emotions" really. . .

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 23:03 | 2018063 Bringin It
Bringin It's picture

Come on CA, he said 'based on the Constitution', aka, the rule of law. 

We can avoid the thesis-antithesis-->Synergy trap that's laid before us. 

Dr. Paul wants to end the "endless" wars.  That alone ought to be enough for any right minded person.  Is there a better way for most Americans who are sick of these wars to make a statement?  On top of that he will end the Fed.

Up thread the point is made that his foes are too omnipotent.  People said similar things about foes of the original revolution.  Let's see.  There is no better option at this point.

Final point - Wide spread vote rigging was easy to do in 2004 on mostly Diebold voting machines.  As Dr. Paul gains strength, we need to be vigilant.

Stay well.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 12:48 | 2016367 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

great clips, especially the last one.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 14:06 | 2016668 UGrev
UGrev's picture

Yep.. total racist..

/End Sarc

RON PAUL 2012!!! 

If you vote for Gingrich or Romneytron, YOU'RE throwing YOUR vote away and it will be YOUR fault if Obama gets elected again, not the other way around. 

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 11:57 | 2016145 fonzanoon
fonzanoon's picture

dude get out and go for a bike ride or something. Get some fresh air.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 12:49 | 2016191 Floordawg
Floordawg's picture

I have not voted for well over a decade for the simple reason that Rep or Dem has made no difference... they are both just two factions of the business party.

I definitely see merit in your post, [Edit] but only from the point of the ability of bullshit spin to be slung (and stuck) to non-thinking, mouth-breathing, voting Americans in the election process. That does concern me...

but I'm making it to the polls this coming election year regardless to cast my vote for the best presidential candidate I have witnessed in my life...

Ron Paul, racist or not.

[Edit] BTW: He's not a racist.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 12:16 | 2016243 TuesdayBen
TuesdayBen's picture

A rapist got elected and re-elected POTUS in the 1990s

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 14:56 | 2016836's picture

A papist got elected in 1960.

Just kidding. I was raised Catholic so I can say things like that and get away with it.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 21:23 | 2017830 CrazyCooter
CrazyCooter's picture

Should I one-up the thread and suggest ... that we had an ape-ist in the aughts!



Wed, 12/28/2011 - 12:47 | 2016364 morty_schatzberg
morty_schatzberg's picture

Sure is funny when a multicultural society based on absolutely nothing but shared currency implodes; everybody wants to blame the "haters". Human nature and racial differences were understood by primitives from before the 1960s.

Now that everybody's been head-raped by Marxists for 40-50 years suddenly the dynamics of reality are supposed to change.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 13:11 | 2016462 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

I get it.  The egalitarian dream ended because cultural ingroups prevaded society to the betterment of members of the group.  We were taught that everyone is equal, but in reality, members of the ingroup(s) are more equal.  Nationalism is saught and required to forge a majority out of the melting pot, generally around one of the subgroups (using false flags etc.)  We all see part of it, I guess if I held a primative "us and them" or "with us or against us" mentality like you do, I would be susseptable to their fear mongering.  However, I'm immune to it.  Unfortunatly, that doen't change the reality that such groups exist and have an enormous influence on reality.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 14:34 | 2016649 morty_schatzberg
morty_schatzberg's picture

Sure glad we are not back in the late 1700's with people like you. You wouldn't be able to see "us" Americans and "them" redcoats.

I guess George Washington was a primitive. Pity that reality doesn't conform to your pipe dream.

Different ethno-religious groups have different imperatives; many of which are incompatible.

Can you honestly believe Somalis who yearn to live under Shariah law, will get along with the descendants of libertarians from Western Europe? What if through demographic processes they become a social majority?

This is kindergarten logic you're failing here.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 14:57 | 2016840's picture

The redcoats attacked us. Somalia not so much.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 15:12 | 2016869 morty_schatzberg
morty_schatzberg's picture

That woosh noise you heard was the point grazing your ear.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 15:55 | 2016938's picture



I thought that woosh noise was the flatulence which substitutes for rational discourse on your part.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 16:35 | 2017108 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

I'm not denying that primatives like you exist and have an effect on reality- I'm agreeing with you.  It's an unfortunate truth that we share this world with animals such as yourself.  There is no pipe dream, my reality is differnt than yours.  I'm sorry to hear that you have a primative perception of reality that triggers a black and white/us and them mentality.  Perhaps if you could see beyond your own difficulties you wouldn't think like a slave.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 16:28 | 2017091 pupton
pupton's picture

You incorrectly assume we wouldn't vote for an accused (or admitted) "racist" to save our country and liberty.  It's no 3rd rail to me anyway.  Healthcare mandates are is cap and trade...and the NDAA, fiat currency, fat lying assholes with two ex-wives...shall I continue?

Not that I believe for one second that Ron Paul is a "racist", I just don't think it's as relevant as the MSM wants it to be.  (Far less relevant than being a three-timing, double-talking, neo-con who doesn't know the Constitution, only which way the wind is blowing this week.)

Especially when you look at the shit that is going on right now -I really don't care about any of the distractions and MSM/GOP generated BS.  I want results! I want Constitutional government again. RON PAUL 2012!!!

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 13:41 | 2016608 JPM Hater001
JPM Hater001's picture

"Yup, CNN told me so over and over and over until Ron Paul walked off."

The best part is now they are hitting his legislative accomplishments.  200 some bills introduced and 1 enacted.

As Ron Paul said, just being consistent with the constitution.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 12:04 | 2016055 Kaiser Sousa
Kaiser Sousa's picture

"Why the fuck does America feel the need to stick its nose EVERY WHERE?"....

SOCIOPATHS homie....the ruling elite/plutocracy are sociopaths.....

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 12:28 | 2016301 SheepHerder
SheepHerder's picture

I just went to Teharan Times news site and Iran Daily there's not a single mention of Iran closing the Straits of Hormuz.  Perhaps they said it, but I find it a bit odd that they said it as they practice their war games. 

Also in looking at the articles on the news site, it sounds like Iran is about to start test firing missles and torpedoes.  A part of me wonders if this whole close the Strait story is cover to attack Iran in the next few days.  I'm watching for headlines along the lines of "Iran firing on oil tankers" in the next few days.

I've said this before, but I'll say it again:  There's two United States.  There's the taxpayer citizens and the corporate regime and the puppet politicians they bankroll.  The taxpayer works 40 plus hours a week supporting the whole system while risking their lives and the lives of their families to other countries that would love to see nothing more than the US taken off the map.  To the everyday American citizen the biggest threat and terrorist is its own government. 

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 14:29 | 2016743 morty_schatzberg
morty_schatzberg's picture

You sir are absolutely right. Now if only Fox News and system shills like Hannity and O'Reilly could be seen for what they are: stooges for Israel and wall street/globalism posing as conservatives and patriotic Americans.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 16:40 | 2017121 robobbob
robobbob's picture

do you think anything CNNMSMBCABCNBCCBS says hasn't passed through the same propaganda clearinghouse first?

all of them work for the same elites, pushing the same agenda, just from different directions.

today MSM, you take the pro side and Fox, you play the con side

hegalian dialectic. learn it.

You see how much difference there was between them all when the US went into Iraq and Libya?

And you won't see daylight between them when Iran's turn finally comes.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 11:44 | 2016083 trav7777
trav7777's picture

Iran did OJ's wife too

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 11:45 | 2016093 WonderDawg
WonderDawg's picture

It's all about the oil. Period.

If the US was interested in civil rights, humanitarian shit, we have to look no further than Mexico to see human tragedy. The war on drugs is bullshit, and there's your proof.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 11:50 | 2016113 Cultural Capital
Cultural Capital's picture

The time has come for China to build a military base in Tijuana, Mexico in order to bring stability to the region..

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 11:57 | 2016146 Pladizow
Pladizow's picture

and to bring democracy to America!

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 12:33 | 2016321 Taint Boil
Taint Boil's picture

WonderDawg, Cult Cap and Plad

Very well put, spot on

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 14:48 | 2016801 Dave Thomas
Dave Thomas's picture

And don't forget low, LOW prices!

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 11:58 | 2016148 Rumpelstiltskin
Rumpelstiltskin's picture

Get real, man. The US has the world's largest economy. We haven't let shenanigans by big banks take down the economy, rightly or wrongly. Do you really think we should just let Iran close the Straits and send the world into a frenzy?

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 15:04 | 2016859's picture

Sanctions constitute a blockade and a blockade is now and always has been an act of war. We should stop committing acts of war against Iran which is prompting them to threaten to close the straits in retaliation.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 16:39 | 2017119 wandstrasse
wandstrasse's picture

The USA are the world's largest manufacturer of $-denominated debt = money. When you measure the economy by that you are right.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 17:31 | 2017251 boattrash
boattrash's picture

Rumple, Ever see my old post about how Obama should be standing on deck of a carrier, saying "Mission accomplished"? He wanted all this instability, now we have it.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 12:12 | 2016178 Taint Boil
Taint Boil's picture



“And what if Iran had thoughts on how transportation should occur in the Gulf of Mexico?”


Ron Paul says things like that and it is so true......


What if Russia was flying drones over the USA?


What if Russia and China had their carriers in the Gulf of Mexico?


What if China / Russia had their missile “defense” wall at the Mexico / Canadian border?


What if The Michigan National Guard (Freedom Fighters) decided to over throw Obama and drove their tanks into the capital? Would the US government fire on its own people? Of course it would and of course it would be OK for China or Russia to impose a no fly zone and send in cruise missiles to take out the evils murdering their own people? Right?


Am I fucked in the head or does anyone else see it this way too?


Wed, 12/28/2011 - 12:19 | 2016267 MsCreant
MsCreant's picture

You are fucked in the head AND I see it that way too. ;-)

Caveat. I don't know the history of how the Straits became "international waters." If by brute force, I REALLY see it your way, if by agreement, well, then Iran is being a bit bully about it, but how do you respond to sanctions? Just fold and obey? I wish the dinner jacket guy wasn't so nutty, Iran would look more clearly like a victim.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 13:09 | 2016450 MrBoompi
MrBoompi's picture

Being the world's superpower means "do as I fucking say, not as I fucking do" and "you're welcome to try and stop us".

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 13:45 | 2016617 docmac324
docmac324's picture

That is the attitude that got us here yes.  Eventually the world will say fuck the U.S. and we'll do what we want to do, without you.  The U.S. was strained to cover Iraq, what happens when China/Russia/Iran et. al decide not to play?

That posture will not last long.  Unfortunately I believe it is closer than most think.


Wed, 12/28/2011 - 12:55 | 2016392 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

you will soon be fucked in the head as well as other places when the regime evolves

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 12:05 | 2016182 tradebot
tradebot's picture

Because if they didn't, your gas would cost 8 dollars a gallon...the tree huggers won't let us drill at home, remember?

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 12:51 | 2016377 Taint Boil
Taint Boil's picture



I think gas is $8 a gallon in Germany (+/-). Last time I was there I asked a local in the bar how much did they pay for gas here in Germany He Said: “I don’t know, I never buy it” I say let it go to $12.00 a gallon and watch how the “Oil Powers” take care of their own “problems”.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 15:06 | 2016867's picture

Gasoline is heavily taxed in Europe. It's the cost of government which is exploding not necessarily the price of gas.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 13:17 | 2016407 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

do you really think our true cost for gas is what you see at the pump?

on that note, do you really think a war is easier than drilling at home and if not, do you really think the "domestic" sources solve the problem? IF they did, do you think they would listen to the locals?

perhaps peak oil is a serious global problem.

perhaps the US empire thinks it deserves first take  

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 14:50 | 2016810 Dave Thomas
Dave Thomas's picture

8 dollar a gallon gasoline would sure get a lot of momos off the road. And quite possibly fix our obesity problem in America. We could be onto something here.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 12:51 | 2016375 Excursionist
Excursionist's picture

One way or another, the U.S. taxpayer pays:

  • "stick[ing] its nose everywhere" like the Strait of Hormuz = military presence funded by taxes and debt
  • not sticking its nose everywhere = higher oil prices funded directly and indirectly by everyone

The U.S. has opted for the former option.  I haven't seen any research to suggest Option #1 is a greater evil than Option #2, but I'm open to the possibility.  People pay a lot of lip service to a limited global footprint but bitch to no end when they pull up in their gas-guzzling pickup trucks to refuel at their local Gulp-n-Sip and pay half a week's salary just so they can keep commuting 60 miles to their jobs.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 13:22 | 2016517 maximin thrax
maximin thrax's picture

And people will find a way to blame the usual suspects whether military force is used to maintain the flow of oil or military force is restrained that the flow of oil is restricted. Just imagine suddenly saying and doing nothing about an explicit threat to oil supply, after all the other counties we've seen fit to engage. There'd have to be some sort of conspiracy behind a sudden, deafening inaction, no?

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 13:26 | 2016541 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

How much fuel and infrastructure does 10 trillion (the cost of the Iraq war) buy?  With that amount of money we could develop technologies to heat/cool our homes with a candle - and implement it.

These wars are about maintaining the status quo, period.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 14:00 | 2016654 maximin thrax
maximin thrax's picture

What fringe group came up with a $10 Trillion cost of the Iraq war? One looking to explain Obama's Trillion-plus deficits year-after-year on W's wars, I suppose. Debora White, a person not friendly to Bush, puts it at $1 Trillion from her sources. We likely spend as much on military actions over oil as we do on oil, which is probably sustainable - outside of every other callamity befalling the Planet. It certainly doesn't help us dig out of our $53 Trillion of debt - but niether would the price of oil doubling due to restricted flow.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 15:09 | 2016875's picture



I agree so long as that money is left in the hands of the people who earned it rather than being taxed away by government to finance ethanol and Solyndra. The market regulates the development of technology, government impedes development.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 12:54 | 2016390 iwanttoholdu
iwanttoholdu's picture

Volunteer for the campaign by being a Preciect Captain. Call in to New Hampshire. Give money. Throw a party among friends on Jan 3rd to celebrate the Iowa victory. Put a yard sign up or bumper sticker. Ron Paul 2012!

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 13:47 | 2016620 ryanseventyfive
ryanseventyfive's picture

because OIL

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 18:22 | 2017362 A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

I understand that predominant libertarian leanings on this site, but 12:1 up to down, on this comment, and MSM would have us believe that Ron Paul is unelectable, too old, and polling neck n' neck with the GrinchRombominator?

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 11:07 | 2015913 jesusonline
jesusonline's picture

Rather - "Ya don't fuck with Bernanke, play nice and keep selling your oil for the stuff he's printing" 

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 11:09 | 2015923 sushi
sushi's picture

As clear as a Moskit

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 11:11 | 2015928 Kaiser Sousa
Kaiser Sousa's picture

u ever heard of the expression "selling wolf tickets"????

the broke ass United States of Kleptocracy aint gonna do a mother fuckin thang...

u want cafe's n the states blowing up on sunny days...then keep fucking around...

keep cheerleading and c what that brings u...........

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 11:11 | 2015933 Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

ohhhh yes, don't mess with them. Big force projection white elephants should not be messed with.

They can blow up due to excessive hot air and spoil the living room.

the US is only strong in the Air. ONLY. And the higher they can send their Bombers, the better they feel.

It si the most ineficient fighting force in the world. Luxury bound (aircon and gold in Chilled vending machines and star-bucks in Iraq).

Goliath, meet david, say good-bye and yes, that is the floor rushing up to meet your face.



Wed, 12/28/2011 - 11:14 | 2015950 Vergeltung
Vergeltung's picture

by crikey you are stupid and uninformed.....


Wed, 12/28/2011 - 11:18 | 2015965 Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

Really? Have you served? Where and how? I'm an ex Navy guy, so I do know what I'm talking about. My coursemates did war-gaming with the Yanks, came away laughing.

But then again, you are just a pea-shooter with a nasty tung.


Wed, 12/28/2011 - 11:31 | 2016025 Bugman82
Bugman82's picture

Very uninformed.......the critique of you being uninformed was a very valid statement.  You don't understand the logistical beauty that is the US force of arms.  Hampered by rules of engagement at times is the only nightmare they face.  Also, when did "coursemates" become a valid argument? 

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 11:44 | 2016088 john39
john39's picture

working out great in afghanistan isn't it...  btw, the U.S. is broke.  how much longer do you think the "logistical beauty" is going to hold out?

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 11:50 | 2016119 Bugman82
Bugman82's picture

They have done very well in Afghanistan.  Death to kill ratios, removing Al-Quaeda from the country, killing Bin-Laden.  Like I said above rules of engagement hamper the ability of the USA to project their forces.  Also, Afghanistan isn't really a war.  It is a battle against an evergrowing ideology that only grows because we are there.  The United States is the fertilizer for extremism and until the USA gets out it will not end.

However, when a battle is force on force and carrier battlegroup vs. piddly Iranian naval tech then yes, the true power of the US military would be realized.  Your comparison is apple to oranges.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 12:35 | 2016325 JOYFUL
JOYFUL's picture

apples to oranges huh? 

You're peddling used fruit here bud.  Only folks who have the power to recall your AL-CIADA from Ghanistan are the spooks in Langley what are paying for your misuse of bandwidth.... Once you lose this gig, what's next, a career position with TSA?


'Death to Kill ratios'..... fuck man, when's the last time you renewed your subscription to Soldier of Fortune?!?!?  Before that internet thing?


Wed, 12/28/2011 - 13:07 | 2016440 bigerny
bigerny's picture

'Death to Kill ratios'


Does that include civilans?

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 15:20 | 2016905 karzai_luver
karzai_luver's picture

Everyman KNOWS we don't KILL or count civilians!



Wed, 12/28/2011 - 23:22 | 2018108 Bringin It
Bringin It's picture

" Anyone who runs is a VC anyone that stands still is a well disciplined VC"

"How can you kill women and children?"
"Easy.  You just don't lead them so much."

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 14:54 | 2016829 Dave Thomas
Dave Thomas's picture

Not to destroy the righteous tone of your argument or nothing, but the US Navy is pretty good at blowing shit up. Not saying it's right, which is where I think the line is being greyed here.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 12:35 | 2016326 john39
john39's picture

The U.S. doesn't just fertilize extremism...  they are on the CIA/Mossad payroll...      the world that you think exists is fictional, but, i know, you can't see it.....  yet.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 12:38 | 2016340 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Kill ratios were over-the-top in 'Nam.... how did that one turn out? Please remind me....

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 13:43 | 2016612 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

good to see you Flak, I like Gregor's latest 

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 12:57 | 2016381 ucsbcanuck
ucsbcanuck's picture


Moderating voice here guys:

The US cannot be beaten at sea or in the air - agreed. One carrier fleet should take out the Iranian Navy.

On land, not so obvious:

Desert/open terrain like steppe or plains etc - air support is important, hard to beat the US here

Mountain/jungle - air support is negated. Have to rely on individual soldiers and other weapons (psyops, "hearts and minds" etc.) The US sucks at this as was demonstrated in Vietnam. In a situation like Afghanistan - Bugman talks about logistics being a thing of beauty. Podunk Pakistan is blocking the US military supply chain buddy. The dog don't hunt if there's no gas.

The US military is the strongest conventional military force, agreed. Other militaries may have smarter people joining etc, but the militaries are smaller and don't present the same numerical threat. Which is why smart countries don't want direct conflict with the US. Think of it this way - the US is an above average intelligence fighter with lots of power. Takes a bit of time for him to catch on, but once he does, good luck to you buddy, you're going to need it. Other countries might be smarter etc, but there's nowhere to hide once you're in that cage. Plus he can take the punishment much more than you can.

Think WW2 - the Germans had superior armaments, but their quantity was limited compared to the USSR and USA. I mean, they had Ferdinand Porsche designing tanks, von Braun designing rockets, jet fighters etc. Once their productive capacity got shut down, it was game over for the Germans. 

This is why Russia and China are dealing with the US through other means - cyber-spying, economic means, diplomacy. It's all warfare by other means as Clausewitz would have put it. But it's where the US is weakest. 



Wed, 12/28/2011 - 13:32 | 2016573 maximin thrax
maximin thrax's picture

That leads to the question of proper use of millitary force.

Delivering pizza?  No.

Nation building? No.

Mediating civil wars?  No.

Mired in Asian land wars? No.

Taking everyone and everything away from a tyrrant that he loves, for which the whole nation has been enslaved to provide him, in a matter of weeks or months? Yes.

Negotiate with the next tyrrant having educated him on what you did to the last one? Pending.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 13:49 | 2016623 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

Russia and China are definitely fighting the smarter war but they both know (from experience we don't have) that an empire's tyrant gets desperate in the end. They have each drawn their own line in the sand and probably discussed each other's etchings
