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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
.
wrote in message
oups.com... [Rense_December 20, 2006] "Ahmadinejad Is Right" By Karin Friedemann Ahmadinejad is doing the right thing to point out the Jewish issues. Uh, last time I checked Syria has occupied Lebanon, not Israel. And Iran is in Syria and Lebanon as well.... The Jews want to bomb Iran. Cite? Just one Jewish statement of them wanting to "wipe Iran from the map". Threatened with an Iraq-style war by the U.S. Jews, Ahmadinejad has nothing to lose. I doubt a conflict with the US and Iran would look anything like Iraq. He saw from Saddam's example that if you comply with weapons inspectors and act submissive and politically correct, your country will be irradiated. LMAO!, Saddam did not comply with the UN. Mark -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Pentagon planning Navy buildup as 'warning to Iran'
were we not talking about battleships a few months back
like pulling out the Wisconsin again and home porting it in the Gulf with a local crew funded by locals - hummm - why would any carriers in the Gulf be needed and of course there is the point about throwing grenades without their pins pulled but the BB's just sit there and look at you and look at you and look at you and look at you .... "eatfastnoodle" wrote in message ups.com... Warning is not a Warning when nobody believes that you will indeed carry out the threat, there have been so many "warnings" (don't do this, don't do that, otherwise there will be consequences, don't test the bomb/US will never tolerate a nuclear NK/Iran) sent to Iran and North Korea so far that US credibility has become a joke, because they did exactly what the US warned them not to do, and what they got? ANOTHER WARNING. When you don't have the military resources, diplomatic support and political capital to back it up, warning is just an invitation for the world to see how powerless and stupid you are, better to admit your weakness and try other routes. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
,
Slow and huge U.S. warships are very vulnerable in a tiny operating
area like the Persian Gulf. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
,
hat is why we need to take out the carrier battle groups and bring back a
battle ship that would be left there forever "Arash" wrote in message oups.com... Slow and huge U.S. warships are very vulnerable in a tiny operating area like the Persian Gulf. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Pentagon planning Navy buildup as 'warning to Iran'
Tankfixer wrote:
In article . net, mumbled "AirRaid" wrote in message ups.com... http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N18217613.htm US to warn Iran with naval buildup in Gulf- CBS 19 Dec 2006 03:28:31 GMT Source: Reuters WASHINGTON, Dec 18 (Reuters) - The Pentagon is planning a major buildup of U.S. naval forces in and around the Gulf as a warning to Iran, CBS News reported on Monday. [snip] Naval buildup, hell. ONE Trident submarine can turn all of Iran into the world's largest ashtray --- Iran IS the worlds largest asstray lol!!! If that doesn't say it all, nothing does! Gary the mighty Yaako warrior. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
,
Ski wrote:
hat is why we need to take out the carrier battle groups and bring back a battle ship that would be left there forever "Arash" wrote in message oups.com... Slow and huge U.S. warships are very vulnerable in a tiny operating area like the Persian Gulf. you mean it would be sunk? Vince |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
,
sink them in shallow water and still use the guns and superstructure
think of it this way - we would want the Iranians to shoot at the battle ship and possibly sink it for a proper start of a war we would not like to loose a carrier group for the same start pass - think strategic man besides the battle ship would be paid for by the locals and could benefit them with the joint command center they do not have "Vince" wrote in message . .. Ski wrote: hat is why we need to take out the carrier battle groups and bring back a battle ship that would be left there forever "Arash" wrote in message oups.com... Slow and huge U.S. warships are very vulnerable in a tiny operating area like the Persian Gulf. you mean it would be sunk? Vince |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
,
Ski wrote:
sink them in shallow water and still use the guns and superstructure this is just silly If that is your point, no problem Vince |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
IRAQ DISASTER WARNING - An Attack on Iran by Christmas? | [email protected] | Naval Aviation | 0 | November 12th 06 05:24 AM |
Bush Orders Nuclear Aircraft Carrier Eisenhower and Additional Navy Ships To Iran's Western Coast | [email protected] | Naval Aviation | 0 | October 15th 06 06:39 AM |
VQ-1's P4M-1Q crash off China - 1956 | Mike | Naval Aviation | 0 | May 6th 06 11:13 PM |
Bush administration finalizes military attack on Iran | [email protected] | Naval Aviation | 11 | January 5th 06 09:38 AM |
Showstoppers (long, but interesting questions raised) | Anonymous Spamless | Military Aviation | 0 | April 21st 04 05:09 AM |