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

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

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