If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
has the USS Nimitz Battle Group arrived in or near the Persian Gulf yet ?
On May 14, 10:47 am, "Arved Sandstrom"
wrote: fudog50 wrote in message ... On 4 May 2007 12:49:56 -0700, "DavidE.Powell" wrote: On May 3, 7:54 pm, shrubkiller wrote: On May 3, 11:35 am, AirRaid wrote: The USS Nimitz and her Battle Group / Strike Group left California around the beginning of April. generally it takes about a month or to reach the Persian Gulf. So if the Nimitz group is not already there yet, it should be shortly. within maybe, 1 more week or so, yeah? Then the United States has 3 supercarriers (assuming the Eisenhower group doesn't leave) within striking distance of Iran, not to mention at least two smaller "carriers" the Marine assault ships; USS Boxer, USS Bataan and their escorts. If the Pentagon needs even more naval power, I've heard they could easily deploy 2 or 3 additional carrier groups to the region. enough for... ahem.... Gulf War III: Operation Devastate Iran. Yep....and once they're all there, one big nuke will take out the entire navy. LOL!!! No, an Iranian Hiroshima/Nagasaki/Bikini - level Nuke might take out some of the ships, before the remaining ones (Including nuclear missile subs) destroyed their entire country in retaliation. Damn Stupidest thing I ever heard. ANY country would be a parking lot if even one carrier was attacked, especially with a Nuke. Even USSR during the cold war knew this and they had 11,000 times the capability of any middle east country. They quit. China doesn't even dare. Why would the US launch an all-out attack with all strategic nuclear forces just because one of its carriers got taken out with a nuclear weapon? That would be stupid and counterproductive. At most you'd see a limited counterforce attack that bloodies the nose of the country that launched the first weapon. You guys don't know what you're talking about. Although in real life things may have not worked out nicely, at least in theory people on both sides thought about graduated response for most of the Cold War. That's why they had tactical nuclear weapons, so that (in theory) a war could be fought between military units without going all out with SLBMs and ICBMs. How could you be so ignorant to even suggest anyone would threaten a carrier? You obviously watch too much CNN or don't understand our Navy's capabilities or doctrine. The Soviets always did threaten our carriers. So did the Japanese in WW2. If WW3 had happened the Soviet Navy and Soviet Naval Aviation would have been swarming on the CVBGs like bees on honey, and if tactical nuclear weapons had been necessary I'm pretty sure the Russians would have used them. Not to mention the other forces that would quickly retaliate. Only sensible response you made. To put your thinking into context, imagine this - North Korea in the year 2021 launches a nuclear-tipped cruise missile that obliterates a US carrier off Japan. Well, not totally obliterates...but the hulk has to be scuttled. At the time North Korea and the US are in a state of declared war, and planes off that carrier are bombing targets in North Korea. The US in response delivers approximately 50 MT worth of nuclear ordnance that reduces every NK city over 50,000 in size to desert, wipes out most of the NK military, and irradiates a third of the country and much of Japan. Well, that's just a brilliant solution. But that's what you're advocating. Here's a clue. Aircraft carriers are fair game for weapons - they don't have diplomatic immunity. And nuclear weapons are just weapons. You sound like a medieval knight who was shocked - shocked!!! - that rabble shot at him with crossbows. Nuclear weapons are political as well as military. Also, ti would not be just a question of replying to Iran here, it would be a precedent, because if the US did not reply in kind to one nuclear attack, what would it tell anyone else? I am pretty sure that the response doctrine has been pretty solid for at least the past 50 years. As for whether that is stupid, it is intended to make the idea of anyone using a nuclear wepon on the US a stupid idea. AHS- |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
has the USS Nimitz Battle Group arrived in or near the Persian Gulf yet ?
"David E. Powell" wrote in message
s.com... On May 14, 10:47 am, "Arved Sandstrom" wrote: fudog50 wrote in message [ SNIP ] Here's a clue. Aircraft carriers are fair game for weapons - they don't have diplomatic immunity. And nuclear weapons are just weapons. You sound like a medieval knight who was shocked - shocked!!! - that rabble shot at him with crossbows. Nuclear weapons are political as well as military. Also, ti would not be just a question of replying to Iran here, it would be a precedent, because if the US did not reply in kind to one nuclear attack, what would it tell anyone else? I am pretty sure that the response doctrine has been pretty solid for at least the past 50 years. As for whether that is stupid, it is intended to make the idea of anyone using a nuclear wepon on the US a stupid idea. Response with nuclear weapons to the use of nuclear weapons, yes, that's always on the table. But what hasn't usually been on the table is to obliterate every city, town and village, every grassy field (read "ersatz airfield"), every factory, every military base, etc etc, just because one or two nuclear weapons took out some major combat units of yours. Let's be clear. If some Second-World country with nuclear capability wiped out a carrier or Tico or LCS or LHD with a single atomic bomb, and a couple of USN ships and 2000-5000 sailors and Marines got killed, do you seriously think that POTUS would consult the SIOP and select "let's launch every f**king thing we have?" Which is what those jokers were suggesting. It's entirely possible that the US would not respond with any nuclear weapons of its own in that situation, or if it did, they would be restricted to limited counterforce ... "tit for tat", with a somewhat heavier "tit". ;-) It might be counterproductive for the US to use any nuclear weapons in response, because by this day and age nobody out there thinks the US wouldn't use the damned things if it really wanted to...it would be more effective to capitalize on the strike by the enemy to put in a truly massive conventional assault. The latter would actually be much more damaging to the enemy...imagine half a dozen US CSGs off your coast, a bunch of ESGs, Army units teady to move in after the Marines. One to two months of incessant bombing and missile strikes, and then the world's most powerful military lands on your coast and starts dissecting you. You have to remember, once the lines are drawn by using a nuclear weapon, this is not Iraq - this is Germany 1945. The US wouldn't have to use a nuclear weapon at all. They'd be much more frightening by doing a colossal conventional invasion, and leaving people to guess how bad it would be if the US decided to fire off a couple of hundred SLBMs or ICBMs. AHS |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
has the USS Nimitz Battle Group arrived in or near the Persian Gulf yet ?
On Mon, 14 May 2007 14:47:16 GMT, "Arved Sandstrom"
wrote: fudog50 wrote in message .. . On 4 May 2007 12:49:56 -0700, "David E. Powell" wrote: On May 3, 7:54 pm, shrubkiller wrote: On May 3, 11:35 am, AirRaid wrote: The USS Nimitz and her Battle Group / Strike Group left California around the beginning of April. generally it takes about a month or to reach the Persian Gulf. So if the Nimitz group is not already there yet, it should be shortly. within maybe, 1 more week or so, yeah? Then the United States has 3 supercarriers (assuming the Eisenhower group doesn't leave) within striking distance of Iran, not to mention at least two smaller "carriers" the Marine assault ships; USS Boxer, USS Bataan and their escorts. If the Pentagon needs even more naval power, I've heard they could easily deploy 2 or 3 additional carrier groups to the region. enough for... ahem.... Gulf War III: Operation Devastate Iran. Yep....and once they're all there, one big nuke will take out the entire navy. LOL!!! No, an Iranian Hiroshima/Nagasaki/Bikini - level Nuke might take out some of the ships, before the remaining ones (Including nuclear missile subs) destroyed their entire country in retaliation. Damn Stupidest thing I ever heard. ANY country would be a parking lot if even one carrier was attacked, especially with a Nuke. Even USSR during the cold war knew this and they had 11,000 times the capability of any middle east country. They quit. China doesn't even dare. Why would the US launch an all-out attack with all strategic nuclear forces just because one of its carriers got taken out with a nuclear weapon? That would be stupid and counterproductive. At most you'd see a limited counterforce attack that bloodies the nose of the country that launched the first weapon. You guys don't know what you're talking about. Although in real life things may have not worked out nicely, at least in theory people on both sides thought about graduated response for most of the Cold War. That's why they had tactical nuclear weapons, so that (in theory) a war could be fought between military units without going all out with SLBMs and ICBMs. How could you be so ignorant to even suggest anyone would threaten a carrier? You obviously watch too much CNN or don't understand our Navy's capabilities or doctrine. The Soviets always did threaten our carriers. So did the Japanese in WW2. If WW3 had happened the Soviet Navy and Soviet Naval Aviation would have been swarming on the CVBGs like bees on honey, and if tactical nuclear weapons had been necessary I'm pretty sure the Russians would have used them. Not to mention the other forces that would quickly retaliate. Only sensible response you made. To put your thinking into context, imagine this - North Korea in the year 2021 launches a nuclear-tipped cruise missile that obliterates a US carrier off Japan. Well, not totally obliterates...but the hulk has to be scuttled. At the time North Korea and the US are in a state of declared war, and planes off that carrier are bombing targets in North Korea. The US in response delivers approximately 50 MT worth of nuclear ordnance that reduces every NK city over 50,000 in size to desert, wipes out most of the NK military, and irradiates a third of the country and much of Japan. Well, that's just a brilliant solution. But that's what you're advocating. Here's a clue. Aircraft carriers are fair game for weapons - they don't have diplomatic immunity. And nuclear weapons are just weapons. You sound like a medieval knight who was shocked - shocked!!! - that rabble shot at him with crossbows. AHS Nice response Arv , I obviously have no clue what I am talking about, having served on 5 nuke carriers and am currently serving on one, absolutely no clue. Thanks for ripping on me and attempting to set me straight. Now go back to sleep. Noted. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
has the USS Nimitz Battle Group arrived in or near the Persian Gulf yet ?
fudog50 wrote in message
... On Mon, 14 May 2007 14:47:16 GMT, "Arved Sandstrom" wrote: fudog50 wrote in message . .. On 4 May 2007 12:49:56 -0700, "David E. Powell" wrote: On May 3, 7:54 pm, shrubkiller wrote: On May 3, 11:35 am, AirRaid wrote: The USS Nimitz and her Battle Group / Strike Group left California around the beginning of April. generally it takes about a month or to reach the Persian Gulf. So if the Nimitz group is not already there yet, it should be shortly. within maybe, 1 more week or so, yeah? Then the United States has 3 supercarriers (assuming the Eisenhower group doesn't leave) within striking distance of Iran, not to mention at least two smaller "carriers" the Marine assault ships; USS Boxer, USS Bataan and their escorts. If the Pentagon needs even more naval power, I've heard they could easily deploy 2 or 3 additional carrier groups to the region. enough for... ahem.... Gulf War III: Operation Devastate Iran. Yep....and once they're all there, one big nuke will take out the entire navy. LOL!!! No, an Iranian Hiroshima/Nagasaki/Bikini - level Nuke might take out some of the ships, before the remaining ones (Including nuclear missile subs) destroyed their entire country in retaliation. Damn Stupidest thing I ever heard. ANY country would be a parking lot if even one carrier was attacked, especially with a Nuke. Even USSR during the cold war knew this and they had 11,000 times the capability of any middle east country. They quit. China doesn't even dare. Why would the US launch an all-out attack with all strategic nuclear forces just because one of its carriers got taken out with a nuclear weapon? That would be stupid and counterproductive. At most you'd see a limited counterforce attack that bloodies the nose of the country that launched the first weapon. You guys don't know what you're talking about. Although in real life things may have not worked out nicely, at least in theory people on both sides thought about graduated response for most of the Cold War. That's why they had tactical nuclear weapons, so that (in theory) a war could be fought between military units without going all out with SLBMs and ICBMs. How could you be so ignorant to even suggest anyone would threaten a carrier? You obviously watch too much CNN or don't understand our Navy's capabilities or doctrine. The Soviets always did threaten our carriers. So did the Japanese in WW2. If WW3 had happened the Soviet Navy and Soviet Naval Aviation would have been swarming on the CVBGs like bees on honey, and if tactical nuclear weapons had been necessary I'm pretty sure the Russians would have used them. Not to mention the other forces that would quickly retaliate. Only sensible response you made. To put your thinking into context, imagine this - North Korea in the year 2021 launches a nuclear-tipped cruise missile that obliterates a US carrier off Japan. Well, not totally obliterates...but the hulk has to be scuttled. At the time North Korea and the US are in a state of declared war, and planes off that carrier are bombing targets in North Korea. The US in response delivers approximately 50 MT worth of nuclear ordnance that reduces every NK city over 50,000 in size to desert, wipes out most of the NK military, and irradiates a third of the country and much of Japan. Well, that's just a brilliant solution. But that's what you're advocating. Here's a clue. Aircraft carriers are fair game for weapons - they don't have diplomatic immunity. And nuclear weapons are just weapons. You sound like a medieval knight who was shocked - shocked!!! - that rabble shot at him with crossbows. AHS Nice response Arv , I obviously have no clue what I am talking about, having served on 5 nuke carriers and am currently serving on one, absolutely no clue. Thanks for ripping on me and attempting to set me straight. Now go back to sleep. Noted. The fact that a US carrier is nuclear *powered* is irrelevant to this discussion - I think even you would agree on that point. I'm also hard-pressed to see why serving *on* carriers, in any capacity whatsoever, gives you extra information about what the US response would be if a carrier was taken out by a nuclear weapon...it's like the city manager of a US metropolis saying that he'd know what the US response would be after a city is destroyed by a nuclear weapon, just because of the fact that he's a city manager. I'm not busting on your carrier experience and knowledge at all. I just don't see that it's any more relevant here than me having served in artillery. Unless carrier personnel get a routine briefing entitled "Here's the part of the SIOP that we'll execute if a carrier gets nuked". And let's face it, it's all speculation. In the case of one or more carrier sinkings due to nuclear weapons, the US response is going to vary...that's about the only firm statement that can be made. You're speculating that the response will be to turn the offending country into a parking lot. I'm speculating that the response will be a lot more limited, and may not even involve US nuclear weapons. AHS |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
has the USS Nimitz Battle Group arrived in or near the Persian Gulf yet ?
AHS,
Thanks for the reply, and for better clarifying your position. Still, I stand firm any country would be foolish at best to attack a carrier and the resonse would be swift. You are right about one thing, it may not be a Nuke retaliation but rest assured any entity would be sorry and regret the day they attacked a US carrier. One reason I don't post here too often is that most tend to attack others opinions they have, based on thier own knowledge. Rather than just sticking to the post. /R, CWO4 S. (ps maybe we do get a little more briefing on what we'll do if a carrier gets nuked you will never know!) On Tue, 15 May 2007 11:34:26 GMT, "Arved Sandstrom" wrote: fudog50 wrote in message .. . On Mon, 14 May 2007 14:47:16 GMT, "Arved Sandstrom" wrote: fudog50 wrote in message ... On 4 May 2007 12:49:56 -0700, "David E. Powell" wrote: On May 3, 7:54 pm, shrubkiller wrote: On May 3, 11:35 am, AirRaid wrote: The USS Nimitz and her Battle Group / Strike Group left California around the beginning of April. generally it takes about a month or to reach the Persian Gulf. So if the Nimitz group is not already there yet, it should be shortly. within maybe, 1 more week or so, yeah? Then the United States has 3 supercarriers (assuming the Eisenhower group doesn't leave) within striking distance of Iran, not to mention at least two smaller "carriers" the Marine assault ships; USS Boxer, USS Bataan and their escorts. If the Pentagon needs even more naval power, I've heard they could easily deploy 2 or 3 additional carrier groups to the region. enough for... ahem.... Gulf War III: Operation Devastate Iran. Yep....and once they're all there, one big nuke will take out the entire navy. LOL!!! No, an IranianHiroshima/Nagasaki/Bikini - level Nuke might take out some of the ships, before the remaining ones (Including nuclear missile subs) destroyed their entire country in retaliation. Damn Stupidest thing I ever heard. ANY country would be a parking lot if even one carrier was attacked, especially with a Nuke. Even USSR during the cold war knew this and they had 11,000 times the capability of any middle east country. They quit. China doesn't even dare. Why would the US launch an all-out attack with all strategic nuclear forces just because one of its carriers got taken out with a nuclear weapon? That would be stupid and counterproductive. At most you'd see a limited counterforce attack that bloodies the nose of the country that launched the first weapon. You guys don't know what you're talking about. Although in real life things may have not worked out nicely, at least in theory people on both sides thought about graduated response for most of the Cold War. That's why they had tactical nuclear weapons, so that (in theory) a war could be fought between military units without going all out with SLBMs and ICBMs. How could you be so ignorant to even suggest anyone would threaten a carrier? You obviously watch too much CNN or don't understand our Navy's capabilities or doctrine. The Soviets always did threaten our carriers. So did the Japanese in WW2. If WW3 had happened the Soviet Navy and Soviet Naval Aviation would have been swarming on the CVBGs like bees on honey, and if tactical nuclear weapons had been necessary I'm pretty sure the Russians would have used them. Not to mention the other forces that would quickly retaliate. Only sensible response you made. To put your thinking into context, imagine this - North Korea in the year 2021 launches a nuclear-tipped cruise missile that obliterates a US carrier off Japan. Well, not totally obliterates...but the hulk has to be scuttled. At the time North Korea and the US are in a state of declared war, and planes off that carrier are bombing targets in North Korea. The US in response delivers approximately 50 MT worth of nuclear ordnance that reduces every NK city over 50,000 in size to desert, wipes out most of the NK military, and irradiates a third of the country and much of Japan. Well, that's just a brilliant solution. But that's what you're advocating. Here's a clue. Aircraft carriers are fair game for weapons - they don't have diplomatic immunity. And nuclear weapons are just weapons. You sound like a medieval knight who was shocked - shocked!!! - that rabble shot at him with crossbows. AHS Nice response Arv , I obviously have no clue what I am talking about, having served on 5 nuke carriers and am currently serving on one, absolutely no clue. Thanks for ripping on me and attempting to set me straight. Now go back to sleep. Noted. The fact that a US carrier is nuclear *powered* is irrelevant to this discussion - I think even you would agree on that point. I'm also hard-pressed to see why serving *on* carriers, in any capacity whatsoever, gives you extra information about what the US response would be if a carrier was taken out by a nuclear weapon...it's like the city manager of a US metropolis saying that he'd know what the US response would be after a city is destroyed by a nuclear weapon, just because of the fact that he's a city manager. I'm not busting on your carrier experience and knowledge at all. I just don't see that it's any more relevant here than me having served in artillery. Unless carrier personnel get a routine briefing entitled "Here's the part of the SIOP that we'll execute if a carrier gets nuked". And let's face it, it's all speculation. In the case of one or more carrier sinkings due to nuclear weapons, the US response is going to vary...that's about the only firm statement that can be made. You're speculating that the response will be to turn the offending country into a parking lot. I'm speculating that the response will be a lot more limited, and may not even involve US nuclear weapons. AHS |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
has the USS Nimitz Battle Group arrived in or near the Persian Gulf yet ?
In article , fudog50
mumbled AHS, Thanks for the reply, and for better clarifying your position. Still, I stand firm any country would be foolish at best to attack a carrier and the resonse would be swift. You are right about one thing, it may not be a Nuke retaliation but rest assured any entity would be sorry and regret the day they attacked a US carrier. One reason I don't post here too often is that most tend to attack others opinions they have, based on thier own knowledge. Rather than just sticking to the post. /R, CWO4 S. (ps maybe we do get a little more briefing on what we'll do if a carrier gets nuked you will never know!) Perhaps you do. I do know that IF you do you know better than to spout it here. Right ? On Tue, 15 May 2007 11:34:26 GMT, "Arved Sandstrom" wrote: fudog50 wrote in message .. . On Mon, 14 May 2007 14:47:16 GMT, "Arved Sandstrom" wrote: fudog50 wrote in message ... On 4 May 2007 12:49:56 -0700, "David E. Powell" wrote: On May 3, 7:54 pm, shrubkiller wrote: On May 3, 11:35 am, AirRaid wrote: The USS Nimitz and her Battle Group / Strike Group left California around the beginning of April. generally it takes about a month or to reach the Persian Gulf. So if the Nimitz group is not already there yet, it should be shortly. within maybe, 1 more week or so, yeah? Then the United States has 3 supercarriers (assuming the Eisenhower group doesn't leave) within striking distance of Iran, not to mention at least two smaller "carriers" the Marine assault ships; USS Boxer, USS Bataan and their escorts. If the Pentagon needs even more naval power, I've heard they could easily deploy 2 or 3 additional carrier groups to the region. enough for... ahem.... Gulf War III: Operation Devastate Iran. Yep....and once they're all there, one big nuke will take out the entire navy. LOL!!! No, an IranianHiroshima/Nagasaki/Bikini - level Nuke might take out some of the ships, before the remaining ones (Including nuclear missile subs) destroyed their entire country in retaliation. Damn Stupidest thing I ever heard. ANY country would be a parking lot if even one carrier was attacked, especially with a Nuke. Even USSR during the cold war knew this and they had 11,000 times the capability of any middle east country. They quit. China doesn't even dare. Why would the US launch an all-out attack with all strategic nuclear forces just because one of its carriers got taken out with a nuclear weapon? That would be stupid and counterproductive. At most you'd see a limited counterforce attack that bloodies the nose of the country that launched the first weapon. You guys don't know what you're talking about. Although in real life things may have not worked out nicely, at least in theory people on both sides thought about graduated response for most of the Cold War. That's why they had tactical nuclear weapons, so that (in theory) a war could be fought between military units without going all out with SLBMs and ICBMs. How could you be so ignorant to even suggest anyone would threaten a carrier? You obviously watch too much CNN or don't understand our Navy's capabilities or doctrine. The Soviets always did threaten our carriers. So did the Japanese in WW2. If WW3 had happened the Soviet Navy and Soviet Naval Aviation would have been swarming on the CVBGs like bees on honey, and if tactical nuclear weapons had been necessary I'm pretty sure the Russians would have used them. Not to mention the other forces that would quickly retaliate. Only sensible response you made. To put your thinking into context, imagine this - North Korea in the year 2021 launches a nuclear-tipped cruise missile that obliterates a US carrier off Japan. Well, not totally obliterates...but the hulk has to be scuttled. At the time North Korea and the US are in a state of declared war, and planes off that carrier are bombing targets in North Korea. The US in response delivers approximately 50 MT worth of nuclear ordnance that reduces every NK city over 50,000 in size to desert, wipes out most of the NK military, and irradiates a third of the country and much of Japan. Well, that's just a brilliant solution. But that's what you're advocating. Here's a clue. Aircraft carriers are fair game for weapons - they don't have diplomatic immunity. And nuclear weapons are just weapons. You sound like a medieval knight who was shocked - shocked!!! - that rabble shot at him with crossbows. AHS Nice response Arv , I obviously have no clue what I am talking about, having served on 5 nuke carriers and am currently serving on one, absolutely no clue. Thanks for ripping on me and attempting to set me straight. Now go back to sleep. Noted. The fact that a US carrier is nuclear *powered* is irrelevant to this discussion - I think even you would agree on that point. I'm also hard-pressed to see why serving *on* carriers, in any capacity whatsoever, gives you extra information about what the US response would be if a carrier was taken out by a nuclear weapon...it's like the city manager of a US metropolis saying that he'd know what the US response would be after a city is destroyed by a nuclear weapon, just because of the fact that he's a city manager. I'm not busting on your carrier experience and knowledge at all. I just don't see that it's any more relevant here than me having served in artillery. Unless carrier personnel get a routine briefing entitled "Here's the part of the SIOP that we'll execute if a carrier gets nuked". And let's face it, it's all speculation. In the case of one or more carrier sinkings due to nuclear weapons, the US response is going to vary...that's about the only firm statement that can be made. You're speculating that the response will be to turn the offending country into a parking lot. I'm speculating that the response will be a lot more limited, and may not even involve US nuclear weapons. AHS -- -- Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a diet of static text and cascading "threads." |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Perfect Storm Brewing in the Persian Gulf | [email protected] | Naval Aviation | 2 | November 19th 06 02:48 AM |
Bush Iran War Plans - 4 Strike Groups in the Persian Gulf | Airyx | Naval Aviation | 13 | November 1st 06 01:08 AM |
Top Military Officer, Celebrities Visit Nimitz in Persian Gulf | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | August 22nd 05 10:12 PM |
USS Nimitz in the Persian Gulf ! Update Airshow Action Photo Gallery | Peter Steehouwer | Military Aviation | 0 | July 6th 03 11:07 PM |
USS Nimitz in the Persian Gulf ! Update Airshow Action Photo Gallery | Peter Steehouwer | Naval Aviation | 0 | July 6th 03 11:07 PM |