Wanna See How Iran or China Will Kick Our Butts?

[stuart.grey@comcast.net]

EFill4Zaggin wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 11:30:45 -0700, "stuart.grey@comcast.net"
> <stuart.grey@comcast.net> wrote:


>>>>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.

True enough. However, Iranians don't live in Iraq, where the Arabs do
speak Arabic. The idea is to get the Arab women and children out of the
areas in Iraq, and then bomb the **** out of the enemy that remains. If
the Iranians are there and don't speak arabic, so much the better.

 

[stuart.grey@comcast.net]

Jack A. Lopes wrote:
> 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.

Of course, you chose not to refute any of the examples I gave, and
instead went off on an unsupported rant.

Come back when you can explain your thoughts and don't foam at the mouth
with rabid hate.

 

[Vandar]

stuart.grey@comcast.net wrote:

> 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.

al Qaeda was formed in 1988.
It changed it's name in 2002. Let's see if you can figure out what they
changed it to.

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

They are not now and have never been an arm of the Afghan government.

>>> 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.

Practice what you preach, asshole.

 

[Vandar]

fiend999 wrote:

> 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?

He never started.

 

[Vandar]

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. 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.

My dog is smarter than you.

 

[stuart.grey@comcast.net]

fiend999 wrote:
> 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?

Questions state nothing, of course; but then, your second question is a
loaded question, isn't it?

I've never been lax in trying to educate Democrats:

From https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/ca.html

Canada is the US' largest foreign supplier of energy, including oil,
gas, uranium, and electric power.

End Quote.

Now, for your loaded question about "messing around in the Middle East";
your logic is clearly flawed, given that what I said is true. Perhaps
you should re-visit whatever thought process you used to reach that
conclusion.

>>(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.

My frustration with the rampant ignorance of chemistry and science would
lead me to insult you, but it is the fault of public schools that you
know neither logic nor science.

Coal can be made into Gasoline. The Nazis did it during WW II, so it's
technology over a half century old. One such process for doing this is
called the "Fischer-Tropsch". Look it up in Wikipedia.

Cars can also be made to run on electricity. This, too, is very old
technology. You should research electric cars yourself.

>>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.

The government knows full well about our not needing foreign oil. Your
pathetic gibbering in sarcasm is worthy of a clown, like the Marx
brothers. The scary part is, you intend it to be your argument - at
least the Marx brothers didn't take their jokes seriously as you do.

 

[stuart.grey@comcast.net]

fiend999 wrote:
> 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?

No, he is a Republican. You don't read for comprehension, do you?

> That's a new one to me.

Your delusion is caused from either your inability to read, or your
delusion insanity, I care not which.

> Why did he decide to stop going after bin Laden and al Qaeda in
> Afghanistan?

He didn't stop looking for bin Laden in Afghanistan. The problem, of
course, is that bin Laden fled to Pakistan. There never was a decision
to stop looking for him. Again, your delusion.

But lets be honest: you are not delusion, you're just a very bad liar
trying to be both funny and irritating. That's because you've never been
taught how to form a rational argument.

>>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.

Your silly straw dogs are noted. You don't need me, you seem to have
your own little argument going on with yourself.

 

[stuart.grey@comcast.net]

Vandar wrote:
> 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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/055_Brigade

The 055 Brigade was an elite guerrilla organization sponsored and
trained by Al Qaeda that was integrated into the Taliban army between
1997 and 2001.

End Quote.

Your demonstration is noted, and your proof that you're an idiot
accepted. Thank you for proving my point.


>> 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.

Yes, yes. You start with a straw dog, and then go on to show you are as
ignorant about Al Qaeda as you are about Afghanistan. You've already
proven that.

>> 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.

Irony.

 

[stuart.grey@comcast.net]

Vandar wrote:
> stuart.grey@comcast.net wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>
> al Qaeda was formed in 1988.
> It changed it's name in 2002. Let's see if you can figure out what they
> changed it to.

You're gibbering irrelevancies. You've already proven yourself to be an
idiot, by your own standards.

>> They are, indeed, a military arm of the Afghan government, and have a
>> long history in Afghanistan.
>
>
> They are not now and have never been an arm of the Afghan government.

Yes, You've proven you didn't know this in a post to which I've already
replied.



>>>> 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.
>
>
> Practice what you preach, asshole.

 

[stuart.grey@comcast.net]

Vandar wrote:
> 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. 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.
>
>
> My dog is smarter than you.

It is a waste of time to reply to you, because you're so stupid. A smart
person would be able to back up what he said and wouldn't make childish
remarks.

< PLONK >

 

[Tankfixer]

In article <1174701818.377896.15130@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
M0bius_N_Pretzel@yahoo.com mumbled
> On Mar 23, 10:00 pm, "stuart.g...@comcast.net"
> <stuart.g...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > We're simply too sick as a nation,
> > too many American hating Democrats to ever win a war again.
>
>
> You're one of the sick ****s, asshole.
>
> Real Americans don't hate America.
> They hate the Bush Regime.

Is that why you try your hardest to spew hate towards anyone who dares
disagree with you ?


--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."

 

[Tankfixer]

In article <1174706241.307282.46840@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
too_many_tools@yahoo.com mumbled
> On Mar 23, 5:50 pm, Lawrence Glickman <Lawrence_Glick...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
> > On 23 Mar 2007 15:17:45 -0700, "Too_Many_Tools"
> >
> > <too_many_to...@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?
> >
> > Lg
>
> >
> > 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?
> >
>
> Well why doesn't some conservative tell me why after being in office
> for over six years why the Navy is STILL wide open to this threat?
> Hasn't Bush and the Republican Congress been given a blank check to
> improve the military? As the article notes...nothing has been done.

There is no defense against Klingon disrupters either


--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."

 

[Tankfixer]

In article <tg_Mh.6297$tv6.4961@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net>,
nohow@haha.cam mumbled
>
> At any rate, Iran can't use what it doesn't have. They do, however, have the
> Exocet deployed and these things scare the **** out of any surface fleet,
> ours included. There truly isn't a defense against a land based Exocet if is
> less than 50 miles from a ship. They cruise along at mach 3+ and they are
> evaders. Unless you detect the launch from a fair distance, you're toast.
> Even an AWACS doesn't see a Persian Gulf launch early enough to matter
> 'cause you'd have to see the order being given to fire the thing to knopw in
> enough time to do anything much.

You need to double check your info on the Exocet and Iran's actually
having any.
They don't


--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."

 

[Tankfixer]

In article <Fk%Mh.1163$YL5.1153@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
nohow@haha.cam mumbled
> Jeff McCann wrote:
> > "J. Carroll" <nohow@haha.cam> wrote in message
> > news:tg_Mh.6297$tv6.4961@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
> >> Scotius 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.
> >>>
> >>> I strongly doubt that the USN has no defense against a sea
> >>> skimming missile just because it's a newer, faster one.
> >>
> >> Good point. The reason defending against this is tough is that the
> >> targets are in the Persian Gulf and that the missiles are land, not
> >> sea, based.
> >>
> >> At any rate, Iran can't use what it doesn't have. They do, however,
> >> have the
> >> Exocet deployed and these things scare the **** out of any surface
> >> fleet, ours included. There truly isn't a defense against a land
> >> based Exocet if is
> >> less than 50 miles from a ship. They cruise along at mach 3+
> >
> > My understanding was that the MM40s (and all Exocet variants) were
> > subsonic.
> >
> >> and they are evaders.
> >
> > My understanding was that the Exocet has no evasive capacity at
> > present, other than it's preprogrammed flight path, but that the
> > Block 3 variant would have some reactive evasion capacity.
>
> Jeff you're right. Iran deployed Silkworms in 1999.
> There are indeed supersonic Exocet's however. They just aren't sea launched.

Silkworms are not Exocets



--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."

 

[Tankfixer]

In article <g_%Mh.1170$YL5.200@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
nohow@haha.cam mumbled
> Jeff McCann wrote:
> > "J. Carroll" <nohow@haha.cam> wrote in message
> > news:Fk%Mh.1163$YL5.1153@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> >> Jeff McCann wrote:
> >>> "J. Carroll" <nohow@haha.cam> wrote in message
> >>> news:tg_Mh.6297$tv6.4961@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
> >>>> Scotius wrote:
> >>>>> On 23 Mar 2007 15:17:45 -0700, "Too_Many_Tools"
> >>>>> <too_many_tools@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >> I'm sure that's in a plan somewhere but land based air assets are a
> >> better choice if we have it out with the Iranians.
> >
> > Perhaps. But the Navy has the advantages of location, secrecy, and
> > weight. The USN can simply get closer to targets in and around Iran
> > than land based assets can.
>
> Not secretly. You can see a long way out into the Gulf even with binoculars
> Jeff.
> Ever stood on a hill outside of Beirut?

You can see the Persian Gulf from Beirut ?
Or do you need a geograph lesson


>
> >Also, any activity at American land
> > based facilities in the Mid-East suggestive of a pending attack is
> > probably being monitored rather closely by Iranian intelligence, but
> > attack preparations at sea would be much harder for the Iranians to
> > detect. Lastly, any such attack would rely heavily on cruise
> > missiles, which the USN has in plentiful supply, as well as tactical
> > strike A/C, which the Navy also has available much closer to likely
> > targets.
>
> Hard to defend against a couple hunded cruise missiles all at once.
> I just don't see a slam dunk, however, and I think mutual pulverization
> would be a real possibility.

Iran doesn't have the capability to mass an attack with that many cruise
missles


--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."

 

[Tankfixer]

In article <1174707230.110557.9940@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
too_many_tools@yahoo.com mumbled
> On Mar 23, 8:41 pm, "Jeff McCann" <nos...@nothanks.com> wrote:
> > "J. Carroll" <n...@haha.cam> wrote in message
> >
> > news:g_%Mh.1170$YL5.200@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Jeff McCann wrote:
> > >> "J. Carroll" <n...@haha.cam> wrote in message
> > >>news:Fk%Mh.1163$YL5.1153@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> > >>> Jeff McCann wrote:
> > >>>> "J. Carroll" <n...@haha.cam> wrote in message
> > >>>>news:tg_Mh.6297$tv6.4961@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
> > >>>>> Scotius wrote:
> > >>>>>> On 23 Mar 2007 15:17:45 -0700, "Too_Many_Tools"
> > >>>>>> <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >>> I'm sure that's in a plan somewhere but land based air assets are a
> > >>> better choice if we have it out with the Iranians.
> >
> > >> Perhaps. But the Navy has the advantages of location, secrecy, and
> > >> weight. The USN can simply get closer to targets in and around Iran
> > >> than land based assets can.
> >
> > > Not secretly. You can see a long way out into the Gulf even with
> > > binoculars
> > > Jeff.
> >
> > True, but being able to figure out what's actually going on is an altogether
> > different kettle of fish.
> >
> > > Ever stood on a hill outside of Beirut?
> >
> > >>Also, any activity at American land
> > >> based facilities in the Mid-East suggestive of a pending attack is
> > >> probably being monitored rather closely by Iranian intelligence, but
> > >> attack preparations at sea would be much harder for the Iranians to
> > >> detect. Lastly, any such attack would rely heavily on cruise
> > >> missiles, which the USN has in plentiful supply, as well as tactical
> > >> strike A/C, which the Navy also has available much closer to likely
> > >> targets.
> >
> > > Hard to defend against a couple hunded cruise missiles all at once.
> > > I just don't see a slam dunk, however, and I think mutual pulverization
> > > would be a real possibility.
> >
> > Me neither. Lots of idiots spew about "nuking Iran" without being able to
> > grasp even the tactical, let alone the strategic, economic and political
> > ramifications. Were we to attack Iran, I'd expect to lose some ships and
> > A/C, and the relative loss of ships to be far greater than A/C. I'm not
> > certain that we would even prevail tactically, but I am even less confident
> > that it would turn out to anything other than a fiasco dwarfing the Iraq
> > occupation in the long run.
> >
> > Jeff- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> > I'm not
> > certain that we would even prevail tactically, but I am even less confident
> > that it would turn out to anything other than a fiasco dwarfing the Iraq
> > occupation in the long run.
> >
>
> The first would be the total termination of Mideast oil..

How is that so ?
Since we the Iranian oil is going to Asia.
You think the Arabs care one bit about the Persian heritics across the
gulf ?

> the second would be the sound of the US economy grinding to a halt...

Don't you mean the economies of China and India ?
They are the ones using Iranian oil


> the third would be our Chinese creditors wanting their money.

I'm sure they might.
They would need the cash to keep the masses from revolting.

> Yep...life would really get interesting.

Sure would.
Be careful what you wish for..

--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."

 

[Tankfixer]

In article <6q-dnVbdPrF-wZjbnZ2dnUVZ_qemnZ2d@comcast.com>,
stuart.grey@comcast.net mumbled

> We could bomb them back to the mud hut age.

Don't you mean bomb them up to the mud hut age ?


--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."

 

[Tankfixer]

In article <ys_Mh.6299$tv6.2653@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net>,
nohow@haha.cam mumbled
> Jeff McCann wrote:
> > "Too_Many_Tools" <too_many_tools@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1174688265.380348.24810@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> >> Anybody want to lose a carrier or two?
> >>
> >> If you can read, you will see that the US Navy has NO defense against
> >> this.
> >
> > Actually, we have several. First, there is deterrence. Were the PLAN
> > (People's Liberation Army's Navy) actually to succeed in taking out a
> > U.S. Carrier, it most certainly would provoke a response about
> > equivalent to nuking the U.S. mainland. That is to say, they'd
> > better have a very deep hole to hide in and no assets or interests
> > that we can find, reach and destroy. China would be made to suffer
> > and bleed rather badly for such hubris.
> >
> The PRC has no interest in an attack on US forces or US interests.\
> They just don't.
> Iran is another story.


Iran has a total of three Kilo's of uncertain availibility...

The Persian Gulf is a hard place to operate submarines.
Being so shallow...


--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."

 

[Tankfixer]

In article <9deb8$46048492$d8442e0a$30658@FUSE.NET>,
eugenefkent@fuse.net mumbled
> Iran isn't going to strike first. America has threatend that, Should America
> do so Iran will destroy the Saudi and Iraqi oil intra-structures.

A bad move on Iran's part. As she gets most of her refined gasoline
product from across the Gulf.


> Then there is the invasion of Iran. That is nearly imposible. Any troop ship
> intering the Persian gulf would quickly be sunk,

There is no need for any ships to enter the Persian Gulf for a landing
to be made.

> Also Iran could quickly launch a Army into Iraq and also make the Green Zone
> a turkey shoot.

Iran's "army" has no significant manuver capabilitites.

> Also outside of Israel what other county would allow Bush to burn them
> again.
> Also Iran has already stated what would happen to Israel.

Do they truely understand what Israel would do in return ?

> So be carefull what you wish for.

Wise advice, you should heed it


--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."

 

[Tankfixer]

In article <1174745884.273386.310440@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
too_many_tools@yahoo.com mumbled
>
> So much for the Republicans and a strong America...they just want
> money to line their coffins.....

And what party had to line the Iraq bill with pork projects to get
people to vote for it ?

--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."