On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 19:39:42 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 14:19:59 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


Which would have been avoided if we had concentrated on Afg. to begin with
and stuck with it.


We would just have more body bags from Afghanistan.

didnt have many body bags after 9/11

most bodies got vaporized by your pals, the islamist nazis.


At least we killed Saddam. Bin Laden is still walking around.
Iraq was all about Israel anyway. The next war we will fight for them
will be Iran if Hillary fails to accomplish anything with diplomacy.
I hope she is successful but I am not optimistic.

Iraq was all about oil (for us).

If this was just about oil, Saddam would have sold us all we wanted at
a bargain price.

I'm not optimistic either, as it's a tough problem. But, I think we won't be
doing the Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran that McCain joked about.

These guys are getting better about putting things they want to keep
so far underground that bombs don't work.

there are ways to handle that. ever hear of a dolphin submarine?

On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 23:44:31 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 21:28:09 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 19:39:42 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 14:19:59 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


Which would have been avoided if we had concentrated on Afg. to begin with
and stuck with it.


We would just have more body bags from Afghanistan.

didnt have many body bags after 9/11

Invading Afghanistan had little to do with that. The covert forces had
cut off Bin Laden and made him totally ineffective within a month.
Once we pushed him into Kandahar and cut him off from his money and
his contacts he stopped being a threat.

which is irrelevant to the fact the taliban were complicit in an act
of fascist imperialist aggression against the US

more goalpost moving.

These guys are getting better about putting things they want to keep
so far underground that bombs don't work.

there are ways to handle that. ever hear of a dolphin submarine?
The SSKs?

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

what weapons do you think a sub can carry?

On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 00:24:47 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 00:01:30 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

which is irrelevant to the fact the taliban were complicit in an act
of fascist imperialist aggression against the US

more goalpost moving.


The taliban did not attack the US

yep. it's called a 'conspiracy'. sorry. you're wrong

..Nop member of the Taliban has ever
even been alleged to know about that plan.

they gave shelter to osama, and harbored him after his murderous nazi
thugs attacked us. they were complicit...and our attack was authorized
by international law, and by the UN.

oh. you dont support the UN if it authorizes the US to defend itself

They didn't provide any
money or any support beyond allowing Bin Laden to be there.

aw, poor babies.

By your
logic we should be bombing Hamburg Germany because that is where the
plan was put together and the team assembled in Spain.

gee. got any proof the spanish or germans refused to arrest or turn
over any al qaida nazis?

you're hopelessly confused.


These guys are getting better about putting things they want to keep
so far underground that bombs don't work.

there are ways to handle that. ever hear of a dolphin submarine?
The SSKs?

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.


If the Israelis nuke Iran in a preemptory strike, we won't even
support them when the rest of the world wants to wipe them off the
face of the earth.

no one can wipe israel off the map without become a parking lot.

wrote in message
...
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.




If the Israelis nuke Iran in a preemptory strike, we won't even
support them when the rest of the world wants to wipe them off the
face of the earth.

no one can wipe israel off the map without become a parking lot.

Like I said WWIII

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.

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.

"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."

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.

"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.

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 10:29:10 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


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.

Yes and I don't see it getting better any time soon. Russia is a train
wreck but China is projected to pass us as the biggest economy in a
decade.

Honestly, I don't either. It's going to take another 3-4 years to turn
around the current train wreck that has been visited upon us from the last
10 years. If the Republicans get back into power, their stated goal is to
return to the Bush-era style of laissez-faire governance, ref. Pete Sessions
I believe.

I don't think bigger is necessarily better, as far as economies go. China
has a huge number of systemic problems. Everyone keeps saying just wait, in
another X-number of years, they'll whatever (rule the world, you pick), but
it hasn't happened so far.

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

Certainly that is the most likely scenario and it will be hard to pick
the country we would want to strike back at but I am sure we will pick
one, right or wrong

Yeah, that's possibly true.