Wanna See How Iran or China Will Kick Our Butts?

On Mar 24, 8:56 pm, Tankfixer <paul.carr...@us.army.m> wrote:
> In article <1174745884.273386.310...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> too_many_to...@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."

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

The Republicans of course....and the public records show it as so.

TMT
 
On Mar 24, 8:55 pm, Tankfixer <paul.carr...@us.army.m> wrote:
> In article <1174707230.110557.9...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> too_many_to...@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."- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Anyone who thinks the Middle East oil would continue to flow is a
fool...

The American economy would grind to a halt.

And the American dollar would be worth nothing.

TMT
 
Tankfixer wrote:
> 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 ?

I was shocked to see some of the Iraq War rubble on television. The
buildings literally were nothing more than mud huts. Even a famous
historical mosque was nothing more than a hovel of painted mud.

I'm sure that not all of Iraq is like that. On the other hand, mud huts
are not very common in the United States.

Yes, the mud hut age may be a step up for them. Seems modern Arabs
regard their mud hut age as their days of glory.
 
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 11:43:23 -0700, "stuart.grey@comcast.net"
<stuart.grey@comcast.net> wrote:

>
>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.

You also left out the Perscription Drug bill..which is another socialist
enterprise. And an utter cluster****.

Gunner

Political Correctness

A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical liberal minority and
rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media,
which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible
to pick up a turd by the clean end.
 
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 17:29:59 +0000, EFill4Zaggin
<EFill4Zaggin@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>
>>Yes. We could bomb them back to the mud hut age.
>
>Imagine what they could do to your troops in Iraq?

Hit and run mechanical ambushes is hardly a battle. The proper way would
be to level the area. Note that the tangos are killing fellow muslims at
a far far larger rate then Collalition troops.

Imagine what Iran
>could do to Israel i.e. fire cruise missiles at Tel Aviv all day long?

I would suspect that 2 cruise missiles fired at Tel Aviv would result in
the weather in Tehran becoming 20,000 degrees F for a few milliseconds.

Gunner


Political Correctness

A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical liberal minority and
rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media,
which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible
to pick up a turd by the clean end.
 
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 00:39:44 GMT, Vandar <vandar69@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>
>> 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.


bin Laden died in Tora Bora and is simply a DNA rich smear in a
collapsed cave.

Gunner

Political Correctness

A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical liberal minority and
rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media,
which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible
to pick up a turd by the clean end.
 
Gunner wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 11:43:23 -0700, "stuart.grey@comcast.net"
> <stuart.grey@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> You also left out the Perscription Drug bill..which is another socialist
> enterprise. And an utter cluster****.
>
> Gunner

I am negligent.
 
Gunner wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 00:39:44 GMT, Vandar <vandar69@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>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.
>
>
>
> bin Laden died in Tora Bora and is simply a DNA rich smear in a
> collapsed cave.
>
> Gunner

We've not seen much of bin Laden. I don't know if he is dead or alive,
but there are a lot more who need to be killed.
 
Gunner wrote:

> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 00:39:44 GMT, Vandar <vandar69@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>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.
>
>
>
> bin Laden died in Tora Bora and is simply a DNA rich smear in a
> collapsed cave.

He's alive and well in NW Pakistan. He was never the target of the
American invasion.
They may have said he was the target, but I think most people have
figured out by now that you can't really believe anything out of the
White House, ever, no matter who lives there.
 
stuart.grey@comcast.net wrote:

> 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.

As I said: Practice what you preach, asshole.

Where's your evidence that al Qaeda is rooted in the Carter years? (I
can't prove the negative)
Where's your evidence that al Qaeda was or is an arm of the Afghan
government? (I can't prove the negative)
Where's your evidence that al Qaeda is based on Wahhabism? (I can prove
it's based on Qutbism)

> < PLONK >

"Plonk" is the sound you hear when a usenet poster sticks their head in
the binary sand.
 
On Mar 24, 10:56 pm, Gunner <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 00:39:44 GMT, Vandar <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> 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.
>
> bin Laden died in Tora Bora and is simply a DNA rich smear in a
> collapsed cave.
>
> Gunner
>
> Political Correctness
>
> A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical liberal minority and
> rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media,
> which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible
> to pick up a turd by the clean end.

>
> bin Laden died in Tora Bora and is simply a DNA rich smear in a
> collapsed cave.
>
> Gunner
>

Then bring us a DNA swab proving it....

TMT
 
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 22:25:40 -0700, "stuart.grey@comcast.net"
<stuart.grey@comcast.net> wrote:

>Gunner wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 00:39:44 GMT, Vandar <vandar69@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>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.
>>
>>
>>
>> bin Laden died in Tora Bora and is simply a DNA rich smear in a
>> collapsed cave.
>>
>> Gunner
>
>We've not seen much of bin Laden. I don't know if he is dead or alive,
>but there are a lot more who need to be killed.

We are working on it. Though if the Dems ever get out of Surrender like
the French mode..we could be making faster headway.

Gunner

Political Correctness

A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical liberal minority and
rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media,
which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible
to pick up a turd by the clean end.
 
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 05:34:12 GMT, Vandar <vandar69@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>He's alive and well in NW Pakistan. He was never the target of the
>American invasion.


So where is his videos and whatnot? He seems to be rather camera shy
since we bombed the **** out of Tora Bora.

American invasion of what country? Of course he wasnt the target of ANY
invasion. Who claimed he was?

Gunner

Political Correctness

A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical liberal minority and
rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media,
which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible
to pick up a turd by the clean end.
 
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 07:25:23 GMT, Gunner <gunner@lightspeed.net>
wrote:

>On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 05:34:12 GMT, Vandar <vandar69@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>He's alive and well in NW Pakistan. He was never the target of the
>>American invasion.
>
>
>So where is his videos and whatnot? He seems to be rather camera shy
>since we bombed the **** out of Tora Bora.

The process with which OBL releases a video tape is not risk-free from
his perspective. He must use a kind of supply chain to get the video
from his place to the TV station, and were one of the carriers
arrested, they could trace the chain back to OBL.

I agree there is substantial doubt as to whether he is still alive.
The only video tape we've seen of him since December 2001 is the one
he did just before the 2004 election - and the OBL in that tape looked
slightly different to the one we'd seen before. His nose, for example,
seemed quite a lot thinner.

On balance though I'd think I'd say he's probably still alive.

>American invasion of what country? Of course he wasnt the target of ANY
>invasion. Who claimed he was?

Well, there is a heap of evidence to say that the U.S didn't try their
hardest to catch OBL e.g. very few U.S troops at the battle of Tora
Bora; they outsourced the job to local warlords who botched it.
 
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 02:55:50 GMT, Tankfixer <paul.carrier@us.army.m>
wrote:

>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 ?

Agree that his point about the "total termination of mideast oil"
would likely be incorrect, but in the event of a war with Iran, the
price of a barrel of crude is likely to be $100 or more - that's not
healthy for the global economy.
 
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 04:52:43 GMT, Gunner <gunner@lightspeed.net>
wrote:

>On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 17:29:59 +0000, EFill4Zaggin
><EFill4Zaggin@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>Yes. We could bomb them back to the mud hut age.
>>
>>Imagine what they could do to your troops in Iraq?
>
>Hit and run mechanical ambushes is hardly a battle. The proper way would
>be to level the area. Note that the tangos are killing fellow muslims at
>a far far larger rate then Collalition troops.

Iran could send in proxy forces to Iraq and start killing them there.
Whatever Iran is doing now in Iraq will be nothing compared to what
they will do when the U.S attacks them. The British troops in the
south will in particular be very vulnerable. I don't know what on
earth makes you think that the U.S troops in Iraq would be
invulnerable to Iranian retaliation.

>Imagine what Iran
>>could do to Israel i.e. fire cruise missiles at Tel Aviv all day long?
>
>I would suspect that 2 cruise missiles fired at Tel Aviv would result in
>the weather in Tehran becoming 20,000 degrees F for a few milliseconds.

Yet another person mentioning the nuking of Iran (yet another silly
comment). Iran would fire cruise missiles at Tel Aviv - and No, I
don't think nuking Iran in response would happen or would be
justified. In fact, if it is Israel that eventually attacks Iran, then
explain to me how Iran firing cruise missiles at Tel Aviv in response
would not be justified? Seeing as it's obvious that all this would get
out of hand, maybe the best idea would be to avoid a war with Iran in
the first place?
 
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 21:12:16 -0700, "stuart.grey@comcast.net"
<stuart.grey@comcast.net> wrote:

>Tankfixer wrote:
>> 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 ?
>
>I was shocked to see some of the Iraq War rubble on television. The
>buildings literally were nothing more than mud huts. Even a famous
>historical mosque was nothing more than a hovel of painted mud.
>
>I'm sure that not all of Iraq is like that. On the other hand, mud huts
>are not very common in the United States.
>
>Yes, the mud hut age may be a step up for them. Seems modern Arabs
>regard their mud hut age as their days of glory.

The UN sanctions meant that Iraq hadn't managed to rebuild much of its
infrastructure since being battered in the first Gulf War.
 
In article <1174793512.886509.220620@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
too_many_tools@yahoo.com mumbled
> On Mar 24, 8:55 pm, Tankfixer <paul.carr...@us.army.m> wrote:
> > In article <1174707230.110557.9...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> > too_many_to...@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..
> >
>
> Anyone who thinks the Middle East oil would continue to flow is a
> fool...

You base that on what ?

The Saudi's and the rest of the producers like thier Mercede's
They also like to stay in power.
If they can't buy off thier own masses with food and circuses they get
deposed.
I doubt those who would replace the current leaders will be bothered to
hold a trial before the exicution


> The American economy would grind to a halt.

So would the worlds economy.

>
> And the American dollar would be worth nothing.

Along with the Yen and the Euro

Why is I think you actually want a world wide crash ?


--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."
 
In article <9tnc03d2005peidoe193h4b3pbvjkqo1qu@4ax.com>,
EFill4Zaggin@hotmail.com mumbled
> On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 21:12:16 -0700, "stuart.grey@comcast.net"
> <stuart.grey@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >Tankfixer wrote:
> >> 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 ?
> >
> >I was shocked to see some of the Iraq War rubble on television. The
> >buildings literally were nothing more than mud huts. Even a famous
> >historical mosque was nothing more than a hovel of painted mud.
> >
> >I'm sure that not all of Iraq is like that. On the other hand, mud huts
> >are not very common in the United States.
> >
> >Yes, the mud hut age may be a step up for them. Seems modern Arabs
> >regard their mud hut age as their days of glory.
>
> The UN sanctions meant that Iraq hadn't managed to rebuild much of its
> infrastructure since being battered in the first Gulf War.

Then what was Saddam spending some $30 billion on ?
Oh wait, more palaces.

Prior to the UN sanctions Iraq wasn't being bothered to renew its
infrastructure.
They spent the 1980's trying to kill Iranians instead. Who's fault was
that ?



--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."
 
In article <1174793290.921832.212360@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
too_many_tools@yahoo.com mumbled
> On Mar 24, 8:56 pm, Tankfixer <paul.carr...@us.army.m> wrote:
> > In article <1174745884.273386.310...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> > too_many_to...@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."
>
> >
> > And what party had to line the Iraq bill with pork projects to get
> > people to vote for it ?
> >
>
> The Republicans of course....and the public records show it as so.

Bald faced lie.
And you know it.
The DNC had to line this bill with pork to bribe congressmen to vote for
it.

But I know you will deney that fact, your handlers will hand you a new
script and off you will totter.


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

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