From: "Robert G Lewis" 


"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.

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 .

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.

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