Wanna See How Iran or China Will Kick Our Butts?

[EFill4Zaggin]

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 10:12:46 -0700, "stuart.grey@comcast.net"
<stuart.grey@comcast.net> wrote:

>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.

The Bush gov planned it and implemented a failed war - what's wrong
with blaming them for that?

 

[stuart.grey@comcast.net]

fiend999 wrote:
> 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?

It looks like they let them go?! WE sent troops to Afghanistan and we
killed all we could find. "Find" seemed to involve letting them shoot at
us and then killing them - and idiot's tactic that was developed under
the Democrats during the Viet Nam war.

So, it is not true we let them go. We killed them as best as the
Democrats would allow. Or are you saying that you would approve of MY
tactics, which would be to bomb Afghanistan until the people believe
that I really don't care if they surrender or are exterminated, so they
surrender? Such tactics worked against the Bushido ethic of the
Japanese, it worked against the Prussian military ethic of the Germans,
and it sure as hell will work against the weenie, conniving cowardly
tactics of the Moslems. I know it will work because the Koran tells them
EXACTLY that: surrender and make nice with the Infidel until the moslems
can again get the upper hand.

Quite frankly, You don't have the balls to support a win the war policy.

 

[EFill4Zaggin]

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 10:15:57 -0700, "stuart.grey@comcast.net"
<stuart.grey@comcast.net> wrote:

>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.

Imagine what they could do to your troops in Iraq? Imagine what Iran
could do to Israel i.e. fire cruise missiles at Tel Aviv all day long?
Imagine what affect all this would have on your relations with Russia
and China? I don't think you actually understand the consequences of
your "bomb Iran to the stone age" recommendation.

 

[stuart.grey@comcast.net]

EFill4Zaggin wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 10:12:46 -0700, "stuart.grey@comcast.net"
> <stuart.grey@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> The Bush gov planned it and implemented a failed war - what's wrong
> with blaming them for that?

Nothing. I blame the Democrats for Bush, as they didn't run anything
other than out and out communist against Bush.

Bush is no conservative. He is simply the liberal that was to the right
of the two radical communist he ran against.

 

[John R. Carroll]

<stuart.grey@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:TMudnZr3B_ZHxpjbnZ2dnUVZ_vKunZ2d@comcast.com...
> 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.

So the Bush administrattion has been working hrd to pleae the democrats?
LMFAO
You sure are a dumb ass Stuart.

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

Enemy? What enemy?

>
> 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.

Liar.

>
> 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.

Neither do you Mr. coward. You and Bush could be twins.
Tell me Stuart. Why on earth do you tell such whoppers? Your lies are so
easily proved to be lies.
Save yourself some typing in the future and just type "LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE"
and leave it at that.
Your crap will read quicker.

J

 

[stuart.grey@comcast.net]

EFill4Zaggin wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 10:15:57 -0700, "stuart.grey@comcast.net"
> <stuart.grey@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> Imagine what they could do to your troops in Iraq?

The couldn't do anything if the war was fought properly.

For each enemy held area, I'd drop leaflets in Arabic telling all the
women and children to get the hell out. Then I'd bomb the enemy held
villages to mud clods. Afterwards, I'd send in the infantry, and if
there is any AT ALL resistance, pull them out and napalm the place.

To win a war, the enemy must be convinced that his choices are to die
stupidly and helplessly or to live well under your rule.

> Imagine what Iran
> could do to Israel i.e. fire cruise missiles at Tel Aviv all day long?
> Imagine what affect all this would have on your relations with Russia
> and China? I don't think you actually understand the consequences of
> your "bomb Iran to the stone age" recommendation.

What do you think the Russians, bless their savage souls, have been
doing in Chetchnia? What the hell do you think the Chinese have been
doing in their western provinces to their own muslem terrorist? Do you
think the Russians or Chinese give a damn what WE think when they do this?

I don't CARE what they do to their moslems, and neither do YOU (if you
even KNOW about what they are doing...). YOU only care what we do to
Iraqi terrorist because you don't want us to win. You don't mind if the
Russians or Chinese win, you only care that we LOSE.

And quite frankly, without Democrats like you, no one in the US would
give a damn if we defeated the enemy. Only people like YOU care about
the hypocritical propaganda put out by the Chinese or the Russians.

 

[stuart.grey@comcast.net]

John R. Carroll wrote:
> <stuart.grey@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:TMudnZr3B_ZHxpjbnZ2dnUVZ_vKunZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>>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.
>
>
> So the Bush administrattion has been working hrd to pleae the democrats?
> LMFAO
> You sure are a dumb ass Stuart.

You'll have to do better than laughing mindlessly to make an argument.
You come off like a lunitic.

yes, as a matter of fact, Bush has been trying to please the Democrats.
He said he would do so before he was elected. His big "uniter" speech
and his claims that he worked with the Democrats in the Texas
legislature were his evidence he would work with the Democrats. Sadly,
he did not break his promise to do so.


While he has been pro-tax cuts, he's also not cut the Democrats pet
socialist programs. Thus, massive overspending.

He abanded his promise to fix socialist security when the Democrats
objected.

His "No child left behind" act was an outright appeal to the Democrats.
No true conservative would violate the constitution so boldly with an
act that the constitution forbids.

Only when the Republican base was in open revolt did he make a gesture
of the unfunded boarder fence to stop the Mexican colonization of the
United States. Democrats love the illegal alien flood because the little
brown bastards are almost all communist.

Hell, the man's own father is calling Bill Clinton one of his sons!
They're all Skull and Bonesmen.

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

Only a useful idiot of the commies would think that we are at war with
no enemy.

>>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.
>
>
> Liar.

Make your case that I lied, or was even wrong, or stop gibbering on the
usenet.

>>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.
>
>
> Neither do you Mr. coward. You and Bush could be twins.

State how we are the same. I've listed many policies where I disagree
very strongly with Bush. See above for a few. You are clearly a liar.

< snip ape gibberish >

 

[lorad474@cs.com]

On Mar 24, 7:42 am, fiend999 <dontspamfiend...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <deZMh.1144$YL5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
>
> NeverExpectPowerAlways <h...@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?

To whatever MORE EXPENSIVE ALTERNATIVES are left.. of course.
Control is control.

 

[lorad474@cs.com]

On Mar 24, 9:04 am, "stuart.g...@comcast.net"
<stuart.g...@comcast.net> wrote:

> Al Qaeda was the military arm of the Afghanistan government;

That's a falsehood.

> Afghanistan
> being the first state to become part of Al Qaeda's new Caliphate;

Fantasy.

> Al
> Qaeda was a multi-national but all Wahabi muslem terrorist/military
> organization.

More truthful, finally. And the seat of Wahhabiism is .. tad-dah!..
Saudi Arabia.
(Bush's buds)

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

No, wrong again. Pakistan put the Talibans in power in Afghanistan.
(Pakistan is Bush's ally also)

> Your ignorance snd/or support for the enemy is noted

Your disinformation is noted.

 

[J. Carroll]

stuart.grey@comcast.net wrote:
> John R. Carroll wrote:
>> <stuart.grey@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:TMudnZr3B_ZHxpjbnZ2dnUVZ_vKunZ2d@comcast.com...
>>
>>> 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
>>
> State how we are the same.

You both think you have an answer without making any effort to discern the
question.
Ergo, you are both ignorant in your pronouncements and oblivious to the
obvious result.

I seem to remember you posting that you had a web page up that laid out the
relationship between the CPUSA and the Democrats. Was that a lie as well or
can you post a URL?
I never know, what with you being such a bull shitter and all.
I'm considering that it might be worth while to see if your drooling is
persuasive and sensible or as retarded and paranoid as your posts.

--

John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com

 

[Lawrence Glickman]

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 13:21:57 +0000, EFill4Zaggin
<EFill4Zaggin@hotmail.com> wrote:

>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.

Everything that's been going on has been a bad idea. I didn't send
any carrier groups to the Persian Gulf. Maybe you should talk to the
nitwit that did.

Lg
m.s.

 

[stuart.grey@comcast.net]

lorad474@cs.com wrote:
> On Mar 24, 9:04 am, "stuart.g...@comcast.net"
> <stuart.g...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Al Qaeda was the military arm of the Afghanistan government;
>
>
> That's a falsehood.

Al Qaeda has it's orgins in the Carter Administration's efforts to
support resistance movements against the Soviet occupation of
Afghanistan. Many of the members were foreigners, like bin Laden.

They are, indeed, a military arm of the Afghan government, and have a
long history in Afghanistan.

>>Afghanistan
>>being the first state to become part of Al Qaeda's new Caliphate;
>
>
> Fantasy.

A fantasy of Bin Ladens.

BTW, you need to stop making unsupported (and obviously wrong)
statements. Support what you say or shut the **** up.

I say STFU because if you cannot explain your position, you're not
adding to the discussion and there is nothing to learn from you. Only
your fellow ignorant idiot is going to agree with you unless you have
reasons for what you say. Without reasons, you gibber.

>>Al
>>Qaeda was a multi-national but all Wahabi muslem terrorist/military
>>organization.
>
>
> More truthful, finally. And the seat of Wahhabiism is .. tad-dah!..
> Saudi Arabia.
> (Bush's buds)

Yes. The Saudi's own many Republicans and all the Democrats.

>>Afghanistan gave safe harbor to Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda put the Afghan
>>government in power.
>
>
> No, wrong again. Pakistan put the Talibans in power in Afghanistan.
> (Pakistan is Bush's ally also)

Prove it. Once again, support what you say.

>>Your ignorance snd/or support for the enemy is noted
>
>
> Your disinformation is noted.

Like I said, you gibber.

 

[EFill4Zaggin]

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 11:30:45 -0700, "stuart.grey@comcast.net"
<stuart.grey@comcast.net> wrote:

>EFill4Zaggin wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 10:15:57 -0700, "stuart.grey@comcast.net"
>> <stuart.grey@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>
>> Imagine what they could do to your troops in Iraq?
>
>The couldn't do anything if the war was fought properly.
>
>For each enemy held area, I'd drop leaflets in Arabic

Might not be much use given the Iranians don't speak Arabic.

 

[J. Carroll]

EFill4Zaggin wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 11:30:45 -0700, "stuart.grey@comcast.net"
> <stuart.grey@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> EFill4Zaggin wrote:
>>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 10:15:57 -0700, "stuart.grey@comcast.net"
>>> <stuart.grey@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>> Imagine what they could do to your troops in Iraq?
>>
>> The couldn't do anything if the war was fought properly.
>>
>> For each enemy held area, I'd drop leaflets in Arabic
>
> Might not be much use given the Iranians don't speak Arabic.

I doubt that Stuarts idea of "leafletting them to death" would fly anyway.


--

John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com

 

[Jerry Kraus]

On Mar 24, 9:18 am, "Too_Many_Tools" <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

That "they just want money to line their coffins" line is quite good.
Nicely summarizes the neocon philosophy.

 

[Jack A. Lopes]

In article <TMudnZr3B_ZHxpjbnZ2dnUVZ_vKunZ2d@comcast.com>,
<"stuart.grey@comcast.net"> wrote:

> 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.


Good lord - do you really believe Bush ever did ANYTHING in order to
please the democrats? You are seriously delusional.

--
1+1+1+1...

 

[fiend999]

In article <6q-dnVHdPrHhwJjbnZ2dnUVZ_qfinZ2d@comcast.com>,
<"stuart.grey@comcast.net"> wrote:

> 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...

Got a cite for that? If we got enough oil from Canada, we wouldn't be
messing around in the middle east now would we?

> (2) We have over 500 years (at our present consumption) of Coal. We also
> have 500 years worth of uranium.

Last time I checked cars don't run on those fuels and plastic can't be
made fro them.
> 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.

No need for foreign oil eh? You should probably inform our government
of this.

--
~~~

 

[fiend999]

In article <x-ydncu5jrNUw5jbnZ2dnUVZ_h6vnZ2d@comcast.com>,
<"stuart.grey@comcast.net"> wrote:

> fiend999 wrote:
> > 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?
>
> It looks like they let them go?! WE sent troops to Afghanistan and we
> killed all we could find. "Find" seemed to involve letting them shoot at
> us and then killing them - and idiot's tactic that was developed under
> the Democrats during the Viet Nam war.

So Bush is a democrat? That's a new one to me.
Why did he decide to stop going after bin Laden and al Qaeda in
Afghanistan?
>
> So, it is not true we let them go. We killed them as best as the
> Democrats would allow.

So it was the democrats' idea to bail out of Afghanistan and go to
Iraq? You are a very strange person.

--
~~~

 

[Neolibertarian]

In article <1174688265.380348.24810@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
"Too_Many_Tools" <too_many_tools@yahoo.com> wrote:


>
> ``Time is of the essence here,'' the board said.

Plea for funding is of the essence here.

Having impregnable carrier fleets is worth it, of course.

United States aircraft carries have been preventing wars for half a
century. Mostly because they're impregnable.

--
NeoLibertarian

"Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people,
and therefore deprive them of their arms."
---Aristotle

 

[Vandar]

stuart.grey@comcast.net wrote:

> 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.

Allow me to demonstrate that the idiot is you...

> Al Qaeda was the military arm of the Afghanistan government;

The military arm of the Taliban government was the Taliban.
Ever heard of the 055 Brigade? Didn't think so.

> Afghanistan
> being the first state to become part of Al Qaeda's new Caliphate;

al Qaeda has never had a state.
al Qaeda has no 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.

The Taliban put themselves in power.

> Your ignorance snd/or support for the enemy is noted.

Your ignorance is astounding.