Wanna See How Iran or China Will Kick Our Butts?

stuart.grey@comcast.net wrote:

> Lawrence Glickman wrote:
>
>> On 23 Mar 2007 15:17:45 -0700, "Too_Many_Tools"
>> <too_many_tools@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Anybody want to lose a carrier or two?
>>>
>>> If you can read, you will see that the US Navy has NO defense against
>>> this.
>>
>>
>>
>> you need to develop some critical thinking skills. start with regular
>> thinking skills first.
>> anybody who hits one of our carrier groups is dead. so the carrier is
>> dead, all aboard are dead, and then whomever did this is dead. It is
>> called MAD, i.e. mutually assured destruction.
>
>
> Sure, striking against a carrier group is an act of war. However,
> striking against a civilian target in an undeclared sneak attack is a
> far worse act, and we didn't wipe Afghanistan off the map... far from
> it!

Afghanistan didn't attack us.
 
NeverExpectPowerAlways wrote:
> Yeah, but...
>
> The US has the greatest nuclear arsenal and the greatest delivery system
> of all the rest of the world combined. A deadly missile strike against
> a US carrier would be fatal to the country that launched it.

Seriously, do you really think it works that way?

Perhaps you've ignore the warning from Putkin, who could afford to take
more hits that the USA because the area of the USA is soo much greater.

Then there isthe issue of what the rest of the world would do.
 
On Mar 23, 4:17?pm, "Too_Many_Tools" <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Anybody want to lose a carrier or two?
>
> GEE

"TOO MANY FOOLS", wonder where the Chinese got most of the
electronics and upgrades to most of thier weaponry? I know you LOVE TO
IGNORE all the DEALS that Billy Clintoon and AL "OUT OF HIS MIND
GLOBAL WARMING" Gore did while they were infesting the white house?
News to you asshole, they have had and upgrade all the time, would
they and will they use them? Thats all a matter of how hard the push
for Taiwan goes? I know that you'd love to blame everything from a
Rainstorm to herpies on the Bush administration, but in the end, we
see you for that which you are, a partasian Dickhead with a Mook Lib
Leftist Agenda! Tell us all more of what your wonderful Dems have done
while they have had control of the House and Senate? Other than show
Trials, Cut and Cut Policy, Whining about how they want to raise taxes
and obstruction of anything real? LOL Yea, we sure are glad those
Fools are in there, think your side will win in 08? With Who? Queen
Hillery? Osama Obama? Gore? Stop it, your making us all laugh too
hard! As for the House and Senate, next elections on those have a good
chance of flying right out of your hands again? LOL YUP< live it Up
foolish one, your days are numbered!



RON
 
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 18:55:19 -0700, "stuart.grey@comcast.net"
<stuart.grey@comcast.net> wrote:

>NeverExpectPowerAlways wrote:
>> Yeah, but...
>>
>> The US has the greatest nuclear arsenal and the greatest delivery system
>> of all the rest of the world combined. A deadly missile strike against
>> a US carrier would be fatal to the country that launched it.
>
> We can't even win against a bunch of filthy Iraqi ragheads, because
>the Democrats won't let us.

The war was lost long before the Democrats took congress. You're
re-writing history.
 
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 18:50:45 -0500, Lawrence Glickman
<Lawrence_Glickman@comcast.net> wrote:

>On 23 Mar 2007 15:17:45 -0700, "Too_Many_Tools"
><too_many_tools@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Anybody want to lose a carrier or two?
>>
>>If you can read, you will see that the US Navy has NO defense against
>>this.
>
>you need to develop some critical thinking skills. start with regular
>thinking skills first.
>
>anybody who hits one of our carrier groups is dead. so the carrier is
>dead, all aboard are dead, and then whomever did this is dead. It is
>called MAD, i.e. mutually assured destruction.
>
>Unless China can move Beijing out of the way in 20 minutes and hide it
>somewhere so it can't be found...and unless Iran can move Tehran out
>of the way, off the map/surface of the globe in 20 minutes and hide it
>somewhere so it can't be found, attacking a carrier is the equivalent
>of committing suicide.
>
>So, they can do it if they want to. What do you think is holding them
>back? Why haven't they done it YET? could it have something to do
>with what I just mentioned?


The best thing to do would be not to put the U.S carrier in danger by
NOT attacking Iran in the first place. It's a bad idea.
 
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 19:00:22 -0700, "stuart.grey@comcast.net"
<stuart.grey@comcast.net> wrote:

>Lawrence Glickman wrote:
>> On 23 Mar 2007 15:17:45 -0700, "Too_Many_Tools"
>> <too_many_tools@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Anybody want to lose a carrier or two?
>>>
>>>If you can read, you will see that the US Navy has NO defense against
>>>this.
>>
>>
>> you need to develop some critical thinking skills. start with regular
>> thinking skills first.
>>
>> anybody who hits one of our carrier groups is dead. so the carrier is
>> dead, all aboard are dead, and then whomever did this is dead. It is
>> called MAD, i.e. mutually assured destruction.
>
>Sure, striking against a carrier group is an act of war. However,
>striking against a civilian target in an undeclared sneak attack is a
>far worse act, and we didn't wipe Afghanistan off the map... far from
>it! We are giving the murdering 7th century bastards tribute to bring
>their backwards civilization out of the stone age; we're propping up
>their regime to keep the moderate wackos in power and keep the
>primitives from taking back over... Far from the "MAD" that you think
>would apply. If we won't go all out over New York, then we're not going
>to go all out over a carrier group. We're simply too sick as a nation,
>too many American hating Democrats to ever win a war again.

This is a lie, a complete lie. Bush started the Iraq war. You can't
blame someone else for losing it.
 
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 17:24:43 -0800, "J. Carroll" <nohow@haha.cam>
wrote:


>Should the US ever really go to war with Iran, the first sign will be the
>withdrawal of US naval forces from the Persian Gulf.
>They'd be sitting ducks.

Another advantage Iran would have in the event of war is a massive
coast line from which to launch missile and rockets attacks against
U.S forces. Is there any way the U.S could negate Iran's ability - for
24/7- to fire off the coast at the U.S boats?
 
RONSERESURPLUS wrote:
> On Mar 23, 4:17?pm, "Too_Many_Tools" <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Anybody want to lose a carrier or two?
>>
>> GEE
>
> "TOO MANY FOOLS", wonder where the Chinese got most of the
> electronics and upgrades to most of thier weaponry? I know you LOVE TO
> IGNORE all the DEALS that Billy Clintoon and AL "OUT OF HIS MIND
> GLOBAL WARMING" Gore did while they were infesting the white house?
> News to you asshole, they have had and upgrade all the time, would
> they and will they use them? Thats all a matter of how hard the push
> for Taiwan goes? I know that you'd love to blame everything from a
> Rainstorm to herpies on the Bush administration, but in the end, we
> see you for that which you are, a partasian Dickhead with a Mook Lib
> Leftist Agenda! Tell us all more of what your wonderful Dems have done
> while they have had control of the House and Senate? Other than show
> Trials, Cut and Cut Policy, Whining about how they want to raise taxes
> and obstruction of anything real? LOL Yea, we sure are glad those
> Fools are in there, think your side will win in 08? With Who? Queen
> Hillery? Osama Obama? Gore? Stop it, your making us all laugh too
> hard! As for the House and Senate, next elections on those have a good
> chance of flying right out of your hands again? LOL YUP< live it Up
> foolish one, your days are numbered!

Want a little cheese with that whine RON?
LOL


--

John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com
 
In article <1174705628.739170.242680@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
"Too_Many_Tools" <too_many_tools@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > The US has the greatest nuclear arsenal and the greatest delivery system
> > of all the rest of the world combined.
>
> LOL...and this greatest nuclear arsenal and the greatest delivery
> system of all the rest of the world combined did WHAT for the US when
> 9/11 occurred?

9/11 had fewer casualties than 3 months worth of traffic accidents. We
could have ignored it completely. Maybe we should have. ;)
Committees of Correspondence Web page:- tinyurl.com/y7th2c
 
In article <aZ_Mh.130631$_73.76031@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Jeff McCann" <nospam@nothanks.com> wrote:

> I'm very sceptical of that claim about the Iranians' new toy. The Russians
> had a very high speed torpedo, the "Schkal" or something like that, based on
> supercavitation technology. But it had a range of less than 5 nm, due to
> the huge fuel consumption required. I doubt the Iranians could do much
> better, even with expert Russian help. What are the odds a launching
> platform could get that close?

If it were pre-positioned on the bottom it would only have to wait for a
CVN to get within 5 miles. A dozen pre-positioned units would make the
persian gulf too hazardous to enter ;)
Committees of Correspondence Web page:- tinyurl.com/y7th2c
 
On Mar 24, 7:02 am, "RONSERESURPLUS" <RONSERESURP...@YAHOO.COM> wrote:
> On Mar 23, 4:17?pm, "Too_Many_Tools" <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Anybody want to lose a carrier or two?
>
> > GEE
>
> "TOO MANY FOOLS", wonder where the Chinese got most of the
> electronics and upgrades to most of thier weaponry? I know you LOVE TO
> IGNORE all the DEALS that Billy Clintoon and AL "OUT OF HIS MIND
> GLOBAL WARMING" Gore did while they were infesting the white house?
> News to you asshole, they have had and upgrade all the time, would
> they and will they use them? Thats all a matter of how hard the push
> for Taiwan goes? I know that you'd love to blame everything from a
> Rainstorm to herpies on the Bush administration, but in the end, we
> see you for that which you are, a partasian Dickhead with a Mook Lib
> Leftist Agenda! Tell us all more of what your wonderful Dems have done
> while they have had control of the House and Senate? Other than show
> Trials, Cut and Cut Policy, Whining about how they want to raise taxes
> and obstruction of anything real? LOL Yea, we sure are glad those
> Fools are in there, think your side will win in 08? With Who? Queen
> Hillery? Osama Obama? Gore? Stop it, your making us all laugh too
> hard! As for the House and Senate, next elections on those have a good
> chance of flying right out of your hands again? LOL YUP< live it Up
> foolish one, your days are numbered!
>
> RON

I wondering when the Clinton card would be played...try answering why
more technology has been transferred to China UNDER BUSH than all that
occurred under the Clinton Administration. And you might want to look
at the trade deficit too...the Chinese are using our money to buy
weapons that will be used against the United States.

So much for the Republicans and a strong America...they just want
money to line their coffins.....

TMT
 
On Mar 24, 7:02 am, "RONSERESURPLUS" <RONSERESURP...@YAHOO.COM> wrote:
> On Mar 23, 4:17?pm, "Too_Many_Tools" <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Anybody want to lose a carrier or two?
>
> > GEE
>
> "TOO MANY FOOLS", wonder where the Chinese got most of the
> electronics and upgrades to most of thier weaponry? I know you LOVE TO
> IGNORE all the DEALS that Billy Clintoon and AL "OUT OF HIS MIND
> GLOBAL WARMING" Gore did while they were infesting the white house?
> News to you asshole, they have had and upgrade all the time, would
> they and will they use them? Thats all a matter of how hard the push
> for Taiwan goes? I know that you'd love to blame everything from a
> Rainstorm to herpies on the Bush administration, but in the end, we
> see you for that which you are, a partasian Dickhead with a Mook Lib
> Leftist Agenda! Tell us all more of what your wonderful Dems have done
> while they have had control of the House and Senate? Other than show
> Trials, Cut and Cut Policy, Whining about how they want to raise taxes
> and obstruction of anything real? LOL Yea, we sure are glad those
> Fools are in there, think your side will win in 08? With Who? Queen
> Hillery? Osama Obama? Gore? Stop it, your making us all laugh too
> hard! As for the House and Senate, next elections on those have a good
> chance of flying right out of your hands again? LOL YUP< live it Up
> foolish one, your days are numbered!
>
> RON

Yea, we sure are glad those
> Fools are in there, think your side will win in 08? With Who? Queen
> Hillery? Osama Obama? Gore? Stop it, your making us all laugh too
> hard! As for the House and Senate, next elections on those have a good
> chance of flying right out of your hands again? LOL YUP< live it Up
> foolish one, your days are numbered!
>
> RON

Laugh...laugh...laugh...

Still hurting from that beating you took in November 2006?

Well all indications are that the Republicans will be looking back on
that as the good old days on December 2008 when they lose more
Congressional seats AND the White House.

Meanwhile Ron I suggest you start practicing the phase "Yes Ms.
President".

Laugh...laugh...laugh...

TMT
 
In article <deZMh.1144$YL5.142@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
NeverExpectPowerAlways <huh?@noway.com> wrote:

> Yeah, but...
>
> The US has the greatest nuclear arsenal and the greatest delivery system
> of all the rest of the world combined. A deadly missile strike against
> a US carrier would be fatal to the country that launched it.


So where will you get oil after that?

--
~~~
 
In article <Ec6dnWEii_LSG5nbnZ2dnUVZ_syunZ2d@comcast.com>,
<"stuart.grey@comcast.net"> wrote:

> Lawrence Glickman wrote:
> > On 23 Mar 2007 15:17:45 -0700, "Too_Many_Tools"
> > <too_many_tools@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Anybody want to lose a carrier or two?
> >>
> >>If you can read, you will see that the US Navy has NO defense against
> >>this.
> >
> >
> > you need to develop some critical thinking skills. start with regular
> > thinking skills first.
> >
> > anybody who hits one of our carrier groups is dead. so the carrier is
> > dead, all aboard are dead, and then whomever did this is dead. It is
> > called MAD, i.e. mutually assured destruction.
>
> Sure, striking against a carrier group is an act of war. However,
> striking against a civilian target in an undeclared sneak attack is a
> far worse act, and we didn't wipe Afghanistan off the map... far from
> it! We are giving the murdering 7th century bastards tribute to bring
> their backwards civilization out of the stone age; we're propping up
> their regime to keep the moderate wackos in power and keep the
> primitives from taking back over... Far from the "MAD" that you think
> would apply. If we won't go all out over New York, then we're not going
> to go all out over a carrier group. We're simply too sick as a nation,
> too many American hating Democrats to ever win a war again.


What did the republicans do to the perpetrators of the attacks on NY
and DC? It kind of looks like they let them go. You blame the
democrats for this - why?

--
~~~
 
Vandar wrote:
> stuart.grey@comcast.net wrote:
>
>> Lawrence Glickman wrote:
>>
>>> On 23 Mar 2007 15:17:45 -0700, "Too_Many_Tools"
>>> <too_many_tools@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Anybody want to lose a carrier or two?
>>>>
>>>> If you can read, you will see that the US Navy has NO defense against
>>>> this.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> you need to develop some critical thinking skills. start with regular
>>> thinking skills first. anybody who hits one of our carrier groups is
>>> dead. so the carrier is
>>> dead, all aboard are dead, and then whomever did this is dead. It is
>>> called MAD, i.e. mutually assured destruction.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sure, striking against a carrier group is an act of war. However,
>> striking against a civilian target in an undeclared sneak attack is a
>> far worse act, and we didn't wipe Afghanistan off the map... far from it!
>
>
> Afghanistan didn't attack us.

You're an idiot.

Al Qaeda was the military arm of the Afghanistan government; Afghanistan
being the first state to become part of Al Qaeda's new Caliphate; Al
Qaeda was a multi-national but all Wahabi muslem terrorist/military
organization.

Afghanistan gave safe harbor to Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda put the Afghan
government in power.

Your ignorance snd/or support for the enemy is noted.
 
Nick Hull wrote:
> In article <1174705628.739170.242680@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> "Too_Many_Tools" <too_many_tools@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>The US has the greatest nuclear arsenal and the greatest delivery system
>>> of all the rest of the world combined.
>>
>>LOL...and this greatest nuclear arsenal and the greatest delivery
>>system of all the rest of the world combined did WHAT for the US when
>>9/11 occurred?
>
>
> 9/11 had fewer casualties than 3 months worth of traffic accidents. We
> could have ignored it completely. Maybe we should have. ;)

If we had ignored pearl harbor, you'd be a lampshade by now. The only
reason why you're not a lampshade, is that few people listened to
gibbering apes in 1941 who claimed we could ignore pearl harbor. If the
decision was left up to you, you'd win a Darwin award.

9=11 killed more Americans than Pearl Harbor. I guess you lake the
mental capacity to understand the difference between an act of war, and
a traffic accident.

> Committees of Correspondence Web page:- tinyurl.com/y7th2c
 
EFill4Zaggin wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 18:55:19 -0700, "stuart.grey@comcast.net"
> <stuart.grey@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>NeverExpectPowerAlways wrote:
>>
>>>Yeah, but...
>>>
>>>The US has the greatest nuclear arsenal and the greatest delivery system
>>> of all the rest of the world combined. A deadly missile strike against
>>>a US carrier would be fatal to the country that launched it.
>>
>> We can't even win against a bunch of filthy Iraqi ragheads, because
>>the Democrats won't let us.
>
>
> The war was lost long before the Democrats took congress. You're
> re-writing history.

The Democrats took congress because of Bush's refusal to win the war. He
refused to win the war to please the Democrats.

Had he destroyed the enemy instead of asking them to vote, the war would
have been over before his first term was out.

Bush didn't do that. Bush is an idiot and a fool; a self proclaimed
"uniter" who said he could "work with the Democrats". Any bargain made
with the devil is no bargain at all.

Wars are horrible. You fight them to win. To win, you have to let the
enemy realize that his cause is hopeless, that his choices are being
pointlessly slaughtered, and living well but without power. Bush has no
concept of war. He's infantile and naive.
 
EFill4Zaggin wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 19:00:22 -0700, "stuart.grey@comcast.net"
> <stuart.grey@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Lawrence Glickman wrote:
>>
>>>On 23 Mar 2007 15:17:45 -0700, "Too_Many_Tools"
>>><too_many_tools@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Anybody want to lose a carrier or two?
>>>>
>>>>If you can read, you will see that the US Navy has NO defense against
>>>>this.
>>>
>>>
>>>you need to develop some critical thinking skills. start with regular
>>>thinking skills first.
>>>
>>>anybody who hits one of our carrier groups is dead. so the carrier is
>>>dead, all aboard are dead, and then whomever did this is dead. It is
>>>called MAD, i.e. mutually assured destruction.
>>
>>Sure, striking against a carrier group is an act of war. However,
>>striking against a civilian target in an undeclared sneak attack is a
>>far worse act, and we didn't wipe Afghanistan off the map... far from
>>it! We are giving the murdering 7th century bastards tribute to bring
>>their backwards civilization out of the stone age; we're propping up
>>their regime to keep the moderate wackos in power and keep the
>>primitives from taking back over... Far from the "MAD" that you think
>>would apply. If we won't go all out over New York, then we're not going
>>to go all out over a carrier group. We're simply too sick as a nation,
>>too many American hating Democrats to ever win a war again.
>
>
> This is a lie, a complete lie. Bush started the Iraq war. You can't
> blame someone else for losing it.

Bush started it, and indeed, Bush refused to win it. The Democrats are
out to lose it.

Starting a war and winning or losing a war are two different things.
 
EFill4Zaggin wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 17:24:43 -0800, "J. Carroll" <nohow@haha.cam>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Should the US ever really go to war with Iran, the first sign will be the
>>withdrawal of US naval forces from the Persian Gulf.
>>They'd be sitting ducks.
>
>
> Another advantage Iran would have in the event of war is a massive
> coast line from which to launch missile and rockets attacks against
> U.S forces. Is there any way the U.S could negate Iran's ability - for
> 24/7- to fire off the coast at the U.S boats?

Yes. We could bomb them back to the mud hut age. Too bad about
exterminating the Persians, but there it is. The Persians have chosen
once again to go down the suicidal path of pestering Western Civilization.

We have to do to them what they will do to us, or accept our own death.

I can see that people like me are going to have to ride this out, until
your lot is all dead. Then we can take care of business without
interference from deluded idiot who think they're smarter than the rest
of us.
 
fiend999 wrote:
> In article <deZMh.1144$YL5.142@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
> NeverExpectPowerAlways <huh?@noway.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Yeah, but...
>>
>>The US has the greatest nuclear arsenal and the greatest delivery system
>> of all the rest of the world combined. A deadly missile strike against
>>a US carrier would be fatal to the country that launched it.
>
>
>
> So where will you get oil after that?

(1) We get very little oil from the Middle East. Most US imported oil
comes from Canada. Yes, that prissy little nation of cat murderers...

(2) We have over 500 years (at our present consumption) of Coal. We also
have 500 years worth of uranium. With breeder reactors, we can go an
even longer period. All we need to do is get rid of the lying, idiot
greenies. We have no need for foreign oil.
 

Similar threads

WorldNews
Clinton says US could 'ring China with missile defense'
Replies
0
Views
22
WorldNews
WorldNews
WorldNews
Top Asian News 8:46 p.m. GMT
Replies
0
Views
24
WorldNews
WorldNews
WorldNews
Japan protests as Chinese navy sails near disputed isles
Replies
0
Views
38
WorldNews
WorldNews
WorldNews
U.S. warships make landmark visit to strategic Vietnam port
Replies
0
Views
24
WorldNews
WorldNews
S
Fore! South Korea golf course may get anti-missile battery
Replies
0
Views
27
Sports News
S
Back
Top