From: Adam <""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the field.near
the bridge">

Robert G Lewis wrote:
> "Adam" <""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the
field.near the bridge"> wrote in
> message news:45562897$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>> Robert G Lewis wrote:
>>> "Phil Payne"
 wrote in message
>>> news:4555b289{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>> "Robert Comer" 
wrote in message
>>>> news:455542cf$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>> With only 10 ships, that's a single carrier battle
group, sounds like
>>>>> it's
>>>>> for intimidation to me. (and it wont do any good only
strengthen the
>>>>> Iranians resolve -- the current administration can be
so stupid...)
>>>> Let us hope that it can be parcelled out as a dumbfuck idea of
>>>> Rumsfled's,
>>>> and only command inertia has so far resulted in no cancellation.
>>>>
>>>> Iranians react quite forcefully to attempted intimidation.
 Maybe the
>>>> USA
>>>> needs to lose a carrier or two to learn that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> If  we lose a carrier  or two to Iran you can expect Iran to lose a city
>>> or
>>> two at least. We react quite strongly to attacks.
>>>
>>>
>> Interesting that you should suggest responding to the destruction of a
>> military asset with the destruction of a civie target.
>>
>> Nevertheless I suspect the attack would be the other way around with the
>> Iranian action a response esp given that it ain't the Iranians sending
>> ships to sit with missiles etc off the coast of the US.
>>
>> Adam
>
> Not suggesting, merely commenting. I'm sure there are no Iranian military
> facilities in any of their cities.
>


Blimey that's a dangerous argument. Were there any US gov offices/personnel
in the Twin towers?

It'd be one thing to take out a building in Tehran & another to take out Tehran.

> Even a 'response' to a ship 'sitting' that sank a carrier would inflame the
> American public. The American public wouldn't care who fired the first shot,
> or even that we may have provoked it .
>

Nah I'm talking about a response to an actual US attack (cruise missile,
attack jets etc). The real danger is the "purposefully bad
navigation"/Gulf of Tonkin scenario. i.e. the American Public has no
way of knowing where it's ships are thus it has to trust it's mil & pol
types & this can be......manipulated...remember the maine, Tonkin
etc.etc.

> Personally I think trying to intimidate might work but only for the very
> short term. Over the longer term the Iranians would be more likely to
> support those opposed to us. Seems to me we should be working to decrease
> those opposed to the US , not increase them.
>

Your gov has made a rod for it's own back. Both Syria & Iran "got
on board" following 9-11 but apparently you didn't need em as friendly
so you told em "thanks for your help & now sod off coz we want to
invade Iraq".

Now you have a real fight from the North West Frontier to the Med.

Congratulations.

Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5