On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 02:03:31 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 00:41:53 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

How does a sub attack a nuclear plant built inside a mountain?

what weapons do you think a sub can carry?

Nothing that will penetrate a mountain without starting WWIII

?? iran doesn't have the capabilty to start WWIII.

No but the Russians and the Chinese do and they would have the fallout
from that mountain landing on them.

In real life WWI started over a whole lot less.

and we would as well. and no one would start a world war over
fallout. do you think the chinese would risk beijing for teheran?

In article ,
says...

"TopBassDog" wrote in message
...
On Aug 24, 2:20 am, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
wrote in message

...



On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 20:38:12 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 14:42:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

The Russians and Chinese are not much of a military threat, I doubt
they ever were. The problem with China is the economic threat. They
hold enough of our money to crush us.

True, but they would crush themselves even worse.

It would certainly be less damaging to them than a war and we seem to
be spending $790 billion on defending from that.

I don't think we're spending $790B defending against China. It's a bit
more
complicated than that.

It is still far too much money. We are spending 100 billion dollars a
year in a country with a GDP of $27 billion trying to kill 40 guys.
How does that make any sense?
Bob likes to complain about Iraq but at least we toppled a dictator
who threatened Israel. I am not sure we have done anything in
Afghanistan but create more terrorists and destabilize Pakistan.

There's no way to equate the two situations. We spent $1+ trillion and
counting in Iraq. One is a war, the other is just a waste of money.

Indeed, D'Plume. A waste of money, just like the stimulus package.

Indeed, you are a moron.


There we go! Do you know any other words besides "moron"? One thing,
like me, anybody that disagrees with you gets called names and insulted.

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 01:04:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

The cold war is over. The new (global) war is economic. It's been that way
for quite a while. China and Russia have no interest in fighting us.


I agree and we are in a whole lot worse shape in the economic war than
we ever were in the cold war.
A problem would come up if someone popped a nuke on their front porch
tho.

All wars are based upon economics.

"Secular Humanist" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"TopBassDog" wrote in message
...
On Aug 24, 2:20 am, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
wrote in message

...



On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 20:38:12 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 14:42:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

The Russians and Chinese are not much of a military threat, I
doubt
they ever were. The problem with China is the economic threat.
They
hold enough of our money to crush us.

True, but they would crush themselves even worse.

It would certainly be less damaging to them than a war and we seem
to
be spending $790 billion on defending from that.

I don't think we're spending $790B defending against China. It's a
bit
more
complicated than that.

It is still far too much money. We are spending 100 billion dollars
a
year in a country with a GDP of $27 billion trying to kill 40 guys.
How does that make any sense?
Bob likes to complain about Iraq but at least we toppled a dictator
who threatened Israel. I am not sure we have done anything in
Afghanistan but create more terrorists and destabilize Pakistan.

There's no way to equate the two situations. We spent $1+ trillion and
counting in Iraq. One is a war, the other is just a waste of money.

Indeed, D'Plume. A waste of money, just like the stimulus package.

Indeed, you are a moron.


There we go! Do you know any other words besides "moron"? One thing,
like me, anybody that disagrees with you gets called names and insulted.

Nope. There's no other accurate word for someone like you. You're a moron.

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 01:03:27 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I'd say that we need to give diplomacy a chance to work. We're in no
position to attack Iran (unless you're channeling McCain).

I hope you are right. So far we have not seen a lot of cooperation
from Ahmadinejad tho. He thinks we are too busy in our other crusades
to screw with him. He may be right.

He's not the real power in Iran. It's the religious leaders in the high
council or whatever they call themselves.

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 01:04:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

The cold war is over. The new (global) war is economic. It's been that way
for quite a while. China and Russia have no interest in fighting us.


I agree and we are in a whole lot worse shape in the economic war than
we ever were in the cold war.
A problem would come up if someone popped a nuke on their front porch
tho.

I disagree that we're in a lot worse shape than China or Russia, unless you
mean we're in a lot worse shape lately.

The greatest threat is from a terrorist acquiring something like a nuke or
biological weapons and being able to deploy it.

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
says...

On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 01:04:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

The cold war is over. The new (global) war is economic. It's been that
way
for quite a while. China and Russia have no interest in fighting us.


I agree and we are in a whole lot worse shape in the economic war than
we ever were in the cold war.
A problem would come up if someone popped a nuke on their front porch
tho.

All wars are based upon economics.



Sure, but that's not saying much. So what?

On 8/25/10 1:29 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
says...

On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 01:04:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

The cold war is over. The new (global) war is economic. It's been
that way
for quite a while. China and Russia have no interest in fighting us.


I agree and we are in a whole lot worse shape in the economic war than
we ever were in the cold war.
A problem would come up if someone popped a nuke on their front porch
tho.

All wars are based upon economics.



Sure, but that's not saying much. So what?




When you are simple-minded, like Bert (BAR), all your thoughts are
simple, too. Remember, Bert's higher education was supplied by the
marines, so you can't really expect much in the way of abstract
thinking. "Me man...you woman...grunt, grunt, grunt."

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
I disagree that we're in a lot worse shape than China or Russia, unless
you mean we're in a lot worse shape lately.

The greatest threat is from a terrorist acquiring something like a nuke or
biological weapons and being able to deploy it.




Now there's a keeper. snerk

--
I'm the real Harry, and I post from a Mac, as virtually everyone knows.
If a post is attributed to me, and it isn't from a Mac, it's from an ID
spoofer who hasn't the balls to post with his own ID.

"Secular Humanist" wrote in message
...
On 8/25/10 1:29 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
says...

On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 01:04:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

The cold war is over. The new (global) war is economic. It's been
that way
for quite a while. China and Russia have no interest in fighting us.


I agree and we are in a whole lot worse shape in the economic war than
we ever were in the cold war.
A problem would come up if someone popped a nuke on their front porch
tho.

All wars are based upon economics.



Sure, but that's not saying much. So what?




When you are simple-minded, like Bert (BAR), all your thoughts are simple,
too. Remember, Bert's higher education was supplied by the marines, so you
can't really expect much in the way of abstract thinking. "Me man...you
woman...grunt, grunt, grunt."


I don't know about his formal or informal educational qualifications, but do
you really think he deserves so many grunts?