Article: Iran on the brink of economic collapse

[jonathan]

Iran on the brink of economic collapse

Big News Network.com
Monday 1st October, 2012

"Iran is teetering on the brink of collapse as biting sanctions strangle the
country's economy, while talk of an imminent attack on its nuclear
facilities is causing people to fear Iran will become another Iraq.

Iran's currency, the rial, has plunged nearly 60% in the past few months,
six percent of that in the last two days as Iranians and foreign investors
cash out in a classic flight to safety situation. Inflation is escalating
with the market rate of the rial considerably more than double that set by
the Iranian Central Bank of 12,260 rials to the dollar. Despite being less
than 100 rials to the dollar prior to the 1979 revolution, it now takes
nearly 30,000 rials to buy a dollar. Manufacturing exports, particularly in
the auto industry, have dived by around 50% resulting in tens of thousands
of workers being laid off. Elsewhere, oil workers recently lodged a letter
with the oil ministry claiming they haven't been paid in months. Until last
year Iran was the world's fourth largest oil exporter.

Iran has been cut off from accessing the global banking system SWIFT,
stranding huge numbers of banks, companies and private individuals from
doing business and managing their assets.

Israel, the driving force behind international sanctions, and a potential
invader, concedes the sanctions are working but wants to tighten the screws
even further.

An internal Israeli foreign ministry report which was leaked last week and
published in Haaretz newspaper says Iran's oil exports have been cut in
half by the sanctions. The report says the sanctions have had a far greater
effect than previously understood.

The puncturing of oil exports has already cost Iran $45 billion to $50
billion, according to Israeli finance minister Yuval Steinitz, who said on
the weekend Iran's economy "is not collapsing, but it is on the verge of
collapse,"

"The Iranians are in great economic difficulties as a result of the
sanctions," he told Israel radio.

Despite the internal foreign ministry report disclosing the effect the
sanctions are having, Haaretz newspaper has quoted an Israeli official as
saying his country has stepped up its efforts for more sanctions, including
an appeal to the European Union to impose a fresh round of sanctions.

"The situation in Iran and the feelings of the man on the street is one of
economic catastrophe. There's a shortage of basic goods, a rise in crime,
and people are trying to flee the country, sending money abroad," Avigdor
Lieberman, Israel's foreign minister told Haaretz.

The events unfolding in Iran are a stark reminder of what happened to
Germany after the first World War when its economy was driven to ruin by
demands for reparations which caused hyper inflation, and many say brought
Adolph Hitler to power.

Certainly what is happening is the sort of stuff that leads to world wars,
particularly as there is no clear cut evidence Iran is seeking, let alone
has nuclear weapons. The United States, Israel, and the European Union
insist the Islamic Republic is on the way to developing a nuclear bomb, or
to having the capacity to do so, while Iranian leaders are equally
insistent their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.

Iran has a population of around 75 million people, most of whom have
nothing to do with the current state of play. What is occurring right now
is what the United Nations often criticizes as "collective punishment," and
as such is a breach of "international law." The only difference with Iran
is the UN is one of the bodies through which the sanctions have been
imposed.

Canada, Japan, India, Australia, Switzerland, and South Korea, along with
the United States, the European Union, and Israel have imposed sanctions
directly."

http://www.bignewsnetwork.com/index.php/sid/209650402/scat/b8de8e630faf3631
/ht/Iran-on-the-brink-of-economic-collapse

[David E. Powell]

Not getting much press but Iran's gov't could fall from within, there was a strong push for that a couple years ago after the seriously contested election.

http://www.bushcenter.com/blog/2012/10/04/icymi-inside-iran-with-mohsen-sazegara-tehran-in-turmoil/

<http://www.bushcenter.com/blog/2012/10/04/icymi-inside-iran-with-mohsen-sazegara-tehran-in-turmoil/>

David

[Bill]

On Thu, 4 Oct 2012 19:13:00 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:


>Israel, the driving force behind international sanctions, and a potential
>invader

That'd be a good trick.

How do they get there?

Through that US Army in Iraq or through the Lebanon and Turkey?

>The puncturing of oil exports has already cost Iran $45 billion to $50
>billion, according to Israeli finance minister Yuval Steinitz, who said on
>the weekend Iran's economy "is not collapsing, but it is on the verge of
>collapse,"
>
>"The Iranians are in great economic difficulties as a result of the
>sanctions," he told Israel radio.
>
>Despite the internal foreign ministry report disclosing the effect the
>sanctions are having, Haaretz newspaper has quoted an Israeli official as
>saying his country has stepped up its efforts for more sanctions, including
>an appeal to the European Union to impose a fresh round of sanctions.
>
>"The situation in Iran and the feelings of the man on the street is one of
>economic catastrophe. There's a shortage of basic goods, a rise in crime,
>and people are trying to flee the country, sending money abroad," Avigdor
>Lieberman, Israel's foreign minister told Haaretz.
>
>The events unfolding in Iran are a stark reminder of what happened to
>Germany after the first World War when its economy was driven to ruin by
>demands for reparations which caused hyper inflation, and many say brought
>Adolph Hitler to power.

Now you get to tell us how the government in Iran could possibly be
more rabid where Israel is concerned?

>Certainly what is happening is the sort of stuff that leads to world wars,
>particularly as there is no clear cut evidence Iran is seeking, let alone
>has nuclear weapons.

Iran is a signatory to the nuclear test ban treaty and so should open
all establishments to inspection.

This they refuse to do.

That means guilt can be reasonably assumed.

The United States, Israel, and the European Union
>insist the Islamic Republic is on the way to developing a nuclear bomb, or
>to having the capacity to do so, while Iranian leaders are equally
>insistent their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.

Let them prove it.

[Keith W]

Bill wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Oct 2012 19:13:00 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Certainly what is happening is the sort of stuff that leads to world
>> wars, particularly as there is no clear cut evidence Iran is
>> seeking, let alone has nuclear weapons.
>
> Iran is a signatory to the nuclear test ban treaty and so should open
> all establishments to inspection.
>
> This they refuse to do.
>
> That means guilt can be reasonably assumed.
>

Minor nit pick , the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is
the one they signed that requires them to submit to
inspections

>
> The United States, Israel, and the European Union
>> insist the Islamic Republic is on the way to developing a nuclear
>> bomb, or to having the capacity to do so, while Iranian leaders are
>> equally insistent their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.
>
> Let them prove it.

As they agreed to do !

Keith

[Dean Markley]

When did Iran sign the NPT? Is it possible the pre-1979 gov't signed and the current religious zealots do not recognize that signing? Do such treaties have clauses that bind nations to them regardless of changes in governments?

[peter skelton]

"Dean Markley" wrote in message
news:29820fe3-9979-46bf...@googlegroups.com...

Signed 1 July '68, ratified early 1970. A clause in the
treaty could not bind a successor government past the
generally accepted commitment to use the treaty's provisions
for withdrawal. Iran has not acted on them and is still
bound by the treaty.

Here are the clauses (from the UN website):

Article X

1. Each Party shall in exercising its national sovereignty
have the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides
that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of
this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its
country. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all
other Parties to the Treaty and to the United Nations
Security Council three months in advance. Such notice shall
include a statement of the extraordinary events it regards
as having jeopardized its supreme interests.

2. Twenty-five years after the entry into force of the
Treaty, a conference shall be convened to decide whether the
Treaty shall continue in force indefinitely, or shall be
extended for an additional fixed period or periods. This
decision shall be taken by a majority of the Parties to the
Treaty.1

[Keith W]

Iran like any other signatory can withdraw from the NPT by giving
90 days notice

They have reaffirmed their membership and intent to comply
several times and have NOT repudiated the terms of the treaty.

There are very good reasons for this as nuclear powers are
not permitted to transfer nuclear technologies or materials
to non signatories.

Keith

[Bill]

On Fri, 5 Oct 2012 18:39:44 +0100, "Keith W"
<keithnosp...@demon.co.uk> wrote:

>Iran like any other signatory can withdraw from the NPT by giving
>90 days notice
>
>They have reaffirmed their membership and intent to comply
>several times and have NOT repudiated the terms of the treaty.
>
>There are very good reasons for this as nuclear powers are
>not permitted to transfer nuclear technologies or materials
>to non signatories.

But they do not permit inspections...

Much as Saddam did not.

They want to have their cake and to eat it.

[Dean Markley]

Thanks Peter!

[Dean Markley]

I suspect it is unlikely they will realize that wish. While I think they are aware of what happened with Saddam, I also wonder if they think they are smarter than Saddam. They will realize their mistake when the first bombs go off at their nuclear facilities.

[David E. Powell]

I worry sometimes that the Iranian government feels that Saddam's mistake was in not completing his program. They have made their program a lot more survivable than Iraq's was by burying a lot of it under rock.

A big danger of that is it makes it harder for conventional munitions to do the trick of knocking their program out. That can actually be a danger to them as well.

There is the other angle, too, doing this sort of thing gins up a lot of tension, after which they can point to the rest of the world and tell their people (Many of whom really, really don't like their government) "See, see, it is us against all of them!" They haven't embraced the idea of using their nuclear program for negotiations *cough, bribery* like North Korea, so it is probably some combination of their Ayatollahs really wanting a bomb and wanting to keep tensions up with everyone else in the region.

The best case scenario for everyone would be Iran's people reforming or removing their government from within but the last time they tried they took a lot of casualties and there wasn't much support given to them from the rest of the world. It may yet happen, if so the US needs to be ready to help, at least with moral support.

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

Bill wrote:
>
> Now you get to tell us how the government in Iran could possibly be
> more rabid where Israel is concerned?

Son, Iran is not rabid wrt to Israel, but they are, reasonably, anti-Jewish-Israel.
Your opinion is that anti-Israel is anti-semitic and rabid, and Jewish Israel
can do no wrong...i.e. you are a rabid and blind supporter of Jewish Israel war.

> Iran is a signatory to the nuclear test ban treaty and so should open
> all establishments to inspection.

Son, it is not the test ban treaty, but Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

When the U.S. puppet dictator Shah of Iran was overthrown the new government
agreed to continue honoring the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which
they did at least up until the war threating rhetoric sharply increased
after 9/11, and the war rhetoric has been non-stop ever since (a clamor
for revenge for daring to overthrow our dictator (they have oil), and
because Iran is anti-Jewish-Israel). Under that treaty, *every* country is
allowed to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes (e.g. medicine or
nuclear ship power) which Iran should, and has every right to, pursue. Iranian
resistance arose when *unreasonable* inspection demands were made, amounting
to spying (on military and internal political fronts), and when the U.S.
bullying war rhetoric escalated.

The U.S. has *proven* that the only defense against it is nuclear weapons, and
until the U.S. gives up its bullying war rhetoric or its own presumed right
to preemptive war, IMHO, *every* nation *should* pursue nuclear war technology.

>> there is no clear cut evidence Iran is seeking, let alone has nuclear weapons.

Correct...other than that *we* are clamoring for war and they must consider self defense.

>>insistent their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.
>
> Let them prove it.

Better yet, let the U.S. stop building nuclear weapons and stop all
nuclear weapons research...and throw open it's doors so that the Iranians
can *fully* see U.S. compliance...mutually "trust but verify".

> This they refuse to do. That means guilt can be reasonably assumed.

No, son, it means you are dim-witted, thick brained, and certainly not reasonable.
;-)

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

Keith W wrote:
>
> Iran like any other signatory can withdraw from the NPT by giving
> 90 days notice
>
> They have reaffirmed their membership and intent to comply
> several times and have NOT repudiated the terms of the treaty.
>
> There are very good reasons for this as nuclear powers are
> not permitted to transfer nuclear technologies or materials
> to non signatories.

Iran does not need the other signers...they are all free to simply
consider Iran as no longer a signer (and stop using the treaty itself
as a phony excuse for war).
;-)

[Bill]

On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 15:52:35 -0700, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D."
<dr...@coldine.edu> wrote:

>Bill wrote:
>>
>> Now you get to tell us how the government in Iran could possibly be
>> more rabid where Israel is concerned?
>
>Son, Iran is not rabid wrt to Israel, but they are, reasonably, anti-Jewish-Israel.

'Reasonably' as in saying they wish Israel be wiped from the map.

That's not reasonable.

>Your opinion is that anti-Israel is anti-semitic and rabid,

Wrong, but never mind.

> and Jewish Israel
>can do no wrong...i.e. you are a rabid and blind supporter of Jewish Israel war.

Nope, but unlike you I try to apply the same level of moral judgment
for both sides.

>> Iran is a signatory to the nuclear test ban treaty and so should open
>> all establishments to inspection.
>
>Son, it is not the test ban treaty, but Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

I know, I was corrected earlier.

>When the U.S. puppet dictator Shah of Iran was overthrown the new government
>agreed to continue honoring the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which
>they did at least up until the war threating rhetoric sharply increased
>after 9/11, and the war rhetoric has been non-stop ever since (a clamor
>for revenge for daring to overthrow our dictator (they have oil), and
>because Iran is anti-Jewish-Israel). Under that treaty, *every* country is
>allowed to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes (e.g. medicine or
>nuclear ship power) which Iran should, and has every right to, pursue. Iranian
>resistance arose when *unreasonable* inspection demands were made, amounting
>to spying (on military and internal political fronts), and when the U.S.
>bullying war rhetoric escalated.

There is no such thing as 'unreasonable inspection demands' in this
case. The US and USA even allow the inspection of very sensitive
intelligence facilities

>The U.S. has *proven* that the only defense against it is nuclear weapons, and
>until the U.S. gives up its bullying war rhetoric or its own presumed right
>to preemptive war, IMHO, *every* nation *should* pursue nuclear war technology.

And those nations that do so will therefore have to suffer the fate of
people who defy the only superpower on the planet.

[Bill]

And the other nations are then allowed to draw some reasonable
conclusions and so take the appropriate action.

[red...@lava.net]

Very effective point by point on this issue Doc. What I find a mystery
is where you find the energy...redvet

[jonathan]

"Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote in message
news:i_adnTiAAtXW-fLN...@supernews.com...

> The U.S. has *proven* that the only defense against it is nuclear weapons,

No, America has decided that only mass weapons are a threat to us.

There's no reason we should have to wait for them to attack, they've
made their intentions clear with their words and actions. Between
the long running Iranian Hate campaigns, and their massive support of
international terrorism, we have every right to assume they'll use
a nuke the minute they get one, or give it to someone that will.

And it's their fault the west believes that, they've gone out of
their way to make us believe that.

> IMHO, *every* nation *should* pursue nuclear war technology.

That's an unbelievable statement.

>
>
>>> there is no clear cut evidence Iran is seeking, let alone has nuclear
>>> weapons.
>
> Correct...other than that *we* are clamoring for war and they must
> consider self defense.

So I guess the Iranians are building deep underground facilities for what?
Baby-milk?

The Iranians are making the same mistakes Saddam made.
A closed society will always cause the west to assume the worst case.
It would be irresponsible not to. And they think mass weapons will keep
us at bay, when i n f a c t it does exactly the opposite.

They think the N Korean example will work for them too.
But that example only makes sure the west acts ...before
another N Korea is created.

Let me just remind you that ...in the end, America will always win.
It's simple math, the nation that's closest to freedom and democracy
will rise to the top. And the ones farthest away, like Iran, are destined
to go out in a horrific blaze of glory. And soon!

For the next generation or two, America will remain
more dominant militarily than ever before, and its going
to be America's ...Golden Age!




s

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

Bill wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 15:52:35 -0700, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D."
> <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>Bill wrote:
>>
>>>Now you get to tell us how the government in Iran could possibly be
>>>more rabid where Israel is concerned?
>>
>>Son, Iran is not rabid wrt to Israel, but they are, reasonably, anti-Jewish-Israel.
>
>
> 'Reasonably' as in saying they wish Israel be wiped from the map.

No, son, their response is *always* to a loaded question...Amadenijad (sp?)
has *never* indicated that he desires war with Israel but he does
respond that he would like to see, as do I, Jewish Israel off the maps (as
in no longer exist as either a nation that was foisted on their region by
Europeans or as a religion government nation)...but the war mongers *always*
report it as "Iran calls for wiping Israel off the map!"...and you pick
your language interpreters to ensure you get your desired result.


> That's not reasonable.

Correct, son, what you describe is not reasonable and it is in fact you lying.

>>When the U.S. puppet dictator Shah of Iran was overthrown the new government
>>agreed to continue honoring the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which
>>they did at least up until the war threating rhetoric sharply increased
>>after 9/11, and the war rhetoric has been non-stop ever since (a clamor
>>for revenge for daring to overthrow our dictator (they have oil), and
>>because Iran is anti-Jewish-Israel). Under that treaty, *every* country is
>>allowed to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes (e.g. medicine or
>>nuclear ship power) which Iran should, and has every right to, pursue. Iranian
>>resistance arose when *unreasonable* inspection demands were made, amounting
>>to spying (on military and internal political fronts), and when the U.S.
>>bullying war rhetoric escalated.
>
>
> There is no such thing as 'unreasonable inspection demands' in this case.

Oh bullshit...you yourself just posted Iran "should open all establishments
to inspection"...and you warmongers would *never* be satisfied until Iran
was completely subdued in *every* respect, including such things as having
the ability to snoop into any university program, even those not remotely
related to nuclear, or to snoop into any government entity...look son, I've
posted elsewhere that Iran can be "kicked out" of this treaty and you are
merely using it as a phony excuse for war.
;-)

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

Mahalo, sir.
;-)

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

he he he...sorry I can't respond to you today, son. Today is "Respond
to Liars" day...but tomorrow is "Respond to 10th Grader Mentality" day.

sometimes i crack myself up
;-)

[Matt Wiser]

"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2vuu68112j02jig4i...@4ax.com...

Which they will....

[Matt Wiser]

"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:p58u689tltk43uh4n...@4ax.com...

Their yellowcake, you mean?

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 06/10/2012 02:31, Bill ha scritto:

>> The U.S. has *proven* that the only defense against it is nuclear weapons, and
>> until the U.S. gives up its bullying war rhetoric or its own presumed right
>> to preemptive war, IMHO, *every* nation *should* pursue nuclear war technology.
>
> And those nations that do so will therefore have to suffer the fate of
> people who defy the only superpower on the planet.

.. or the United states suddenly finds some key element of their
non-nuclear power seriously obsoleted (for example, at least two major
Navies are working on & developing potential anti-CVN tools and TTPs)

Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.

[Bill]

On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 18:49:48 -0700, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D."

<dr...@coldine.edu> wrote:

>Bill wrote:
>> On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 15:52:35 -0700, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D."
>> <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Bill wrote:
>>>
>>>>Now you get to tell us how the government in Iran could possibly be
>>>>more rabid where Israel is concerned?
>>>
>>>Son, Iran is not rabid wrt to Israel, but they are, reasonably, anti-Jewish-Israel.
>>
>>
>> 'Reasonably' as in saying they wish Israel be wiped from the map.
>
>No, son, their response is *always* to a loaded question...

No.

Their head of government makes speeches.

>>>When the U.S. puppet dictator Shah of Iran was overthrown the new government
>>>agreed to continue honoring the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which
>>>they did at least up until the war threating rhetoric sharply increased
>>>after 9/11, and the war rhetoric has been non-stop ever since (a clamor
>>>for revenge for daring to overthrow our dictator (they have oil), and
>>>because Iran is anti-Jewish-Israel). Under that treaty, *every* country is
>>>allowed to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes (e.g. medicine or
>>>nuclear ship power) which Iran should, and has every right to, pursue. Iranian
>>>resistance arose when *unreasonable* inspection demands were made, amounting
>>>to spying (on military and internal political fronts), and when the U.S.
>>>bullying war rhetoric escalated.
>>
>>
>> There is no such thing as 'unreasonable inspection demands' in this case.
>
>Oh bullshit...you yourself just posted Iran "should open all establishments
>to inspection"...and you warmongers would *never* be satisfied until Iran
>was completely subdued in *every* respect, including such things as having
>the ability to snoop into any university program, even those not remotely
>related to nuclear, or to snoop into any government entity...look son, I've
>posted elsewhere that Iran can be "kicked out" of this treaty and you are
>merely using it as a phony excuse for war.
>;-)

There is no proof that nuclear inspections are ever over intrusive.

[Bill]

If people start sinking the big US carriers they'd better be ready to
be attacked with nuclear weapons.

[peter skelton]

"Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." wrote in message
news:8omdnecPs42nDfLN...@supernews.com...

>he he he...sorry I can't respond to you today, son. Today
>is "Respond
to Liars" day...but tomorrow is "Respond to 10th Grader
Mentality" day.

So today & tomorrow you can answer yourself

[Jeffrey Hamilton]

Jeepers, Peter, now that's what you call a "vicious circle".

cheers....Jeff

[Paul J. Adam]

On 06/10/2012 10:10, dott.Piergiorgio wrote:
> Navies are working on & developing potential anti-CVN tools and TTPs)

And have been for, what, seventy-plus years?

Carriers aren't invincible but they're tough targets, and the quest for
some "magic bullet" against them seems to mostly produce hyperbole and
snake oil.


--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Depend on who fired the first shot and on the previous
coalition-building phase....

If US CVN is sunk in a counterattack (that is, US of A start the
shootout) and other, esp. major, allies and neutrals perceive the US
initiative as really questionable, (as *will* be in the case of a
republican administration....) I'm sure that the nuclear release isn't
so automatic...

[Uncle Steve]

Of course there is proof. You're just making it up as you go along.
Again.


Regards,

Uncle Steve

--
My people and I have come to an agreement that satisfies us both.
They are to say what they please, and I am to do what I please.
- Frederick the Great, c. 1770

[Bill]

On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 16:41:38 -0400, Uncle Steve <stev...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Cite please.

[smharding]

Paul J. Adam wrote:
> On 06/10/2012 10:10, dott.Piergiorgio wrote:
>
>> Navies are working on & developing potential anti-CVN tools and TTPs)
>
>
> And have been for, what, seventy-plus years?
>
> Carriers aren't invincible but they're tough targets, and the quest for
> some "magic bullet" against them seems to mostly produce hyperbole and
> snake oil.

Wonder if the age of electronics, computer software, and autonomous
weaponry will change that history?

Battleships became obsolete when aircraft and aircraft carriers came
to the fleet. Might it not be the same for the aircraft carrier with
missles (large numbers of them; and longer ranged and plentiful) and
capable UAVs are part of everyone's aresenal?


SMH

[Bill]

On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 18:53:28 -0400, smharding <smha...@verizon.net>
wrote:

>Paul J. Adam wrote:
>> On 06/10/2012 10:10, dott.Piergiorgio wrote:
>>
>>> Navies are working on & developing potential anti-CVN tools and TTPs)
>>
>>
>> And have been for, what, seventy-plus years?
>>
>> Carriers aren't invincible but they're tough targets, and the quest for
>> some "magic bullet" against them seems to mostly produce hyperbole and
>> snake oil.
>
>Wonder if the age of electronics, computer software, and autonomous
>weaponry will change that history?

Almost certainly not.

In the end every weapon system has been superceded.

>Battleships became obsolete when aircraft and aircraft carriers came
>to the fleet. Might it not be the same for the aircraft carrier with
>missles (large numbers of them; and longer ranged and plentiful) and
>capable UAVs are part of everyone's aresenal?

Ah, well if we knew what it was we wouldn't be here, we'd be out
getting paid a fortune...

[Jim Wilkins]

"smharding" <smha...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:k4qcpg$4st$1...@dont-email.me...

>
> Battleships became obsolete when aircraft and aircraft carriers came
> to the fleet. Might it not be the same for the aircraft carrier
> with
> missles (large numbers of them; and longer ranged and plentiful) and
> capable UAVs are part of everyone's aresenal?
>
> SMH

The flip side is to ask if nuclear subs, RORSATs and IRBMs made
carriers obsolete long ago, but we never had the opportunity to find
out. They have been a fine tool to keep small conflicts from becoming
big ones.

[jonathan]

"dott.Piergiorgio" <chied...@ask.me> wrote in message
news:if_bs.214405$GZ3.1...@tornado.fastwebnet.it...

Fortunately we don't rely on nuclear weapons. Besides, since 9/11 the
entire posture of the US military is turned away from mass weapons and
towards long range precision strike. And soon solid state lasers
will be small enough to be in everything. From planes, ships, UAV's
and finally from orbit.

I just don't think most people appreciate just how one-sided
things will become ten or twenty years from now.
The US is charging ahead while the rest of the world's military
is barely able to afford what it has.

There's really only Iran and China left. Once they go, the rest
will fall soon enough. And China is going to be conquered
by ...our capitalism, Iran too by the looks of things.


Like that old song,.....

..."our future's so bright, we gotta wear shades!"


DARPA Unveils Drone-Slaying War Laser

"A weapon that used to be the size of a passenger jet now fits
on the back of a flatbed truck. (Shark mounting apparatus sold
separately.)
http://www.fastcompany.com/1823017/darpa-unveils-drone-slaying-war-laser


Northrop Grumman tests new laser weapon

"The Firestrike laser, announced in 2008, forms the backbone
near-term laser weapon systems from Northrop Grumman.
Combined with advanced electro optical and/or infrared sensors,
Firestrike line replaceable units and their subsystems can provide
military services with active defense, offensive precision strike
and enhanced situational awareness capabilities, all in the
same weapon system."
http://www.gizmag.com/northrop-grumman-laser/22472/


U.S. Army Pushing Laser-Based Defenses
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120513/DEFREG02/305130001/U-S-Army-Pushing-Laser-Based-Defenses





s

[Bill]

On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 11:14:46 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I just don't think most people appreciate just how one-sided
>things will become ten or twenty years from now.
>The US is charging ahead while the rest of the world's military
>is barely able to afford what it has.

And their high tech, well equipped and highly trained and motivated
army is being slaughtered on the ground in Afghanistan by a bunch of
mountain men armed with AKMs and a few donkeys and who own a tea pot,
a kettle and a handful of rice per section...

Killing someone to order is easy, killing the right person requires
good intelligence as well as precise targeting.

The main problem at the moment in Pakistan is that the US drones are
slaughtering elderly ladies and their grandchildren who happen to be
next door to the Taliban 'O Group' in the next house...

Now the death of poor old Aunt Fatima is a tragedy that affects me not
one jot. I rather like the idea of the USA bombing the NWF to make
the local Pathans keep their collective heads down, and I don't pay US
taxes anyway.

But it isn't a strategy that'll lead to victory, nor will it lead to
peace...

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

oh sure, son...Jewish Israel will not let anyone inspect to determine
what nuclear programs they have. Jewish Israel is not in any treaty
limiting nuclear arms because they don't want any inspections at
all...none...as either intrusive or "over intrusive".

you thick brained twat
;-)

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

Of course he is...he is a liar...habitually...on *most* of his posts.
I'd bet that *every* country that has inspections by outsiders has
denied access to facilities that inspectors wanted to inspect. Bill wants
war with Iran, and "truth is the first casualty", so he lies at every
opportunity to demonize his enemy.
;-)


>
>
> Regards,
>
> Uncle Steve
>

[Bill]

On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 11:26:19 -0700, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D."

And they pay the appropriate penalty.

Much the same as India...

Iran has signed the treaty and refuse to abide by the terms of it.

[Bill]

Give us a cite boy.

Because, boy, everyone who has signed lets the inspectors in.

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

Bill wrote:
>
>>>'Reasonably' as in saying they wish Israel be wiped from the map.
>>
>>No, son, their response is *always* to a loaded question...
>
>
> No. Their head of government makes speeches.

Nice snips you lying little twat...Son, I've listened to 2 of
Amidinijad's (sp?) speeches (one at the U.N.) and he has *never*
said what you say he says or ever indicated he wants war
with Jewish Israel...you are simply lying again.
;-)

[�Jones]

On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 15:52:35 -0700, in alt.war.vietnam "Dr. Vincent
Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote:

>Son, Iran is not rabid wrt to Israel, but they are, reasonably, anti-Jewish-Israel.

>Your opinion is that anti-Israel is anti-semitic and rabid, and Jewish Israel
>can do no wrong...i.e. you are a rabid and blind supporter of Jewish Israel war.

>Son, it is not the test ban treaty, but Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
>

>When the U.S. puppet dictator Shah of Iran was overthrown the new government
>agreed to continue honoring the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which
>they did at least up until the war threating rhetoric sharply increased
>after 9/11, and the war rhetoric has been non-stop ever since (a clamor
>for revenge for daring to overthrow our dictator (they have oil), and
>because Iran is anti-Jewish-Israel). Under that treaty, *every* country is
>allowed to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes (e.g. medicine or
>nuclear ship power) which Iran should, and has every right to, pursue. Iranian
>resistance arose when *unreasonable* inspection demands were made, amounting
>to spying (on military and internal political fronts), and when the U.S.
>bullying war rhetoric escalated.
>

>The U.S. has *proven* that the only defense against it is nuclear weapons, and
>until the U.S. gives up its bullying war rhetoric or its own presumed right
>to preemptive war, IMHO, *every* nation *should* pursue nuclear war technology.

>Correct...other than that *we* are clamoring for war and they must consider self defense.

>Better yet, let the U.S. stop building nuclear weapons and stop all
>nuclear weapons research...and throw open it's doors so that the Iranians
>can *fully* see U.S. compliance...mutually "trust but verify".

>No, son, it means you are dim-witted, thick brained, and certainly not reasonable.
>;-)

Actually, I tend to agree with you. Drop the patronization and I
wouldn't have any issue.

If the US wants peace, then we should act like we do.

Jones

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

Bill wrote:

> On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 11:26:19 -0700, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D."
> <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>Bill wrote:
>
>
>>oh sure, son...Jewish Israel will not let anyone inspect to determine
>>what nuclear programs they have. Jewish Israel is not in any treaty
>>limiting nuclear arms because they don't want any inspections at
>>all...none...as either intrusive or "over intrusive".
>
>
> And they pay the appropriate penalty.
>
> Much the same as India...

oh that's another lie, son...no one is advocating bombing India as you are
with Iran...and you sure as hell won't advocate *anything* against Jewish Israel.

btw, son, rather than snip, sidestep, and lie, why don't you just admit you
are wrong when you said "There is no proof that nuclear inspections are
ever over intrusive."

you lying little twat
;-)

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

damn son, now you're so excited you can't even read straight
;-)

[Bill]

On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 12:37:31 -0700, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D."
<dr...@coldine.edu> wrote:

>Bill wrote:
>>
>>>>'Reasonably' as in saying they wish Israel be wiped from the map.
>>>
>>>No, son, their response is *always* to a loaded question...
>>
>>
>> No. Their head of government makes speeches.
>
>Nice snips you lying little twat..

One good turn deserves another, boy.

[Bill]

On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 12:48:21 -0700, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D."

<dr...@coldine.edu> wrote:

>Bill wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 11:26:19 -0700, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D."
>> <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Bill wrote:
>>
>>
>>>oh sure, son...Jewish Israel will not let anyone inspect to determine
>>>what nuclear programs they have. Jewish Israel is not in any treaty
>>>limiting nuclear arms because they don't want any inspections at
>>>all...none...as either intrusive or "over intrusive".
>>
>>
>> And they pay the appropriate penalty.
>>
>> Much the same as India...
>
>oh that's another lie, son...no one is advocating bombing India as you are
>with Iran...

Ah, so you didn't understand...

Why am I not surprised...

You're a pig ignorant shit who needs stabbing.

Both Israel and India did not sign the treaty.

Iran did...

> "There is no proof that nuclear inspections are
>ever over intrusive."
>
>you lying little twat
>

So give me an example of one that was.

Preferably in the USA or a major European country.

[Andrew Swallow]

On 07/10/2012 17:32, Bill wrote:
>
> And their high tech, well equipped and highly trained and motivated
> army is being slaughtered on the ground in Afghanistan by a bunch of
> mountain men armed with AKMs and a few donkeys and who own a tea pot,
> a kettle and a handful of rice per section...
>
> Killing someone to order is easy, killing the right person requires
> good intelligence as well as precise targeting.
>

Or a willingness to kill an entire village just to get one man.

> The main problem at the moment in Pakistan is that the US drones are
> slaughtering elderly ladies and their grandchildren who happen to be
> next door to the Taliban 'O Group' in the next house...
>

Surprisingly the elderly ladies are the one group who can do something.
Options:
a. move to a village without the Taliban, if they can find one.
b. tell their husbands to band together and drive the evil Taliban 'O
Group' out of the village.
c. also if their nephew want is tempted to join the Taliban tell his
mother to send him to bed early without tea.

> Now the death of poor old Aunt Fatima is a tragedy that affects me not
> one jot. I rather like the idea of the USA bombing the NWF to make
> the local Pathans keep their collective heads down, and I don't pay US
> taxes anyway.
>
> But it isn't a strategy that'll lead to victory, nor will it lead to
> peace...
>

The little old ladies need to know that the Taliban are naughty boys who
kick men (the USA) and cannot understand why their bad manners gets the
village killed.

Andrew Swallow

[Bill]

On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 00:14:42 +0100, Andrew Swallow
<am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:

>On 07/10/2012 17:32, Bill wrote:
>>
>> And their high tech, well equipped and highly trained and motivated
>> army is being slaughtered on the ground in Afghanistan by a bunch of
>> mountain men armed with AKMs and a few donkeys and who own a tea pot,
>> a kettle and a handful of rice per section...
>>
>> Killing someone to order is easy, killing the right person requires
>> good intelligence as well as precise targeting.
>>
>
>Or a willingness to kill an entire village just to get one man.

That was the British technique when fighting 'Pink's War' and when
hunting the Faqir of Ipi who was a forerunner of Osama bin Ladin.

It kept the border reasonably quiet but what are known today as 'Green
on Blue attacks' continued as normal...

>> The main problem at the moment in Pakistan is that the US drones are
>> slaughtering elderly ladies and their grandchildren who happen to be
>> next door to the Taliban 'O Group' in the next house...
>>
>
>Surprisingly the elderly ladies are the one group who can do something.
> Options:
>a. move to a village without the Taliban, if they can find one.
>b. tell their husbands to band together and drive the evil Taliban 'O
>Group' out of the village.
>c. also if their nephew want is tempted to join the Taliban tell his
>mother to send him to bed early without tea.

I know.

But once more we're back at my original solution to Afghanistan...

'Educate the women...

>> Now the death of poor old Aunt Fatima is a tragedy that affects me not
>> one jot. I rather like the idea of the USA bombing the NWF to make
>> the local Pathans keep their collective heads down, and I don't pay US
>> taxes anyway.
>>
>> But it isn't a strategy that'll lead to victory, nor will it lead to
>> peace...
>>
>
>The little old ladies need to know that the Taliban are naughty boys who
>kick men (the USA) and cannot understand why their bad manners gets the
>village killed.

So you must educate the women.

Which means opening girl's schools...

Which the British are currently busy closing...

[DGVREIMAN]

"ĄJones" <jdf...@x.com> wrote in message
news:umm3781h84306gdja...@4ax.com...

Doug Says: Expecting peace from radical Islam is akin to trying to
pet a rabid dog.

Doug Grant (Tm)

[Bill]

On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 22:36:42 -0700, "DGVREIMAN" <dgvr...@comcast.net>
wrote:

As far as I am aware no country with a land border with Israel has a
radical Islamic government.

The single possible exception is the new government in Egypt, but
they have serious problems with their, own more radical, Islamic
nutters...

[Dean Markley]

On Friday, October 5, 2012 6:50:52 PM UTC-4, Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D. wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Now you get to tell us how the government in Iran could possibly be
>
> > more rabid where Israel is concerned?
>
>
>

> Son, Iran is not rabid wrt to Israel, but they are, reasonably, anti-Jewish-Israel.
>

Snipped to save electrons...

"Reasonably anti-Jewish"? Really Vinnie? You are letting your racism show again.

[dott.Piergiorgio]

This is why I always warn. Hubris is the worst enemy of Empires, and US
military's reliance of ranged attack is much more older that you surmise.

Another aspect of anti-CVN tactics is that a CVN alone isn't
self-sufficient (can actually be, but sacrificing a sizable chunk the
attack power) and aiming to the escorts (CGs, DDGs &c.) is effective as
mission-kill method, whose also is outside your quoted US nuclear
retaliation doctrine.

Also, losses of escorts w/o losses of CVNs effectively reduces the
number of CVBG (granted, with double or even treble the airpower, but
NOT the same global capabilities) whose are more important that the CVN
itself (the proverbial US prez quote, "where is the nearest carrier",
and less, albeit more powerful CVBGs raise the risk that the nearest
carrier is dangerously not so nearer...)

and the escort ships must cover also the role proper of cruising ships
that they actually are (flag-showing, ocean patrolling, diplomatic
support NGF and the classical AsuW role &c.), so USN actually need
*much* more CGs and DDGs...

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 07/10/2012 18:32, Bill ha scritto:

> And their high tech, well equipped and highly trained and motivated
> army is being slaughtered on the ground in Afghanistan by a bunch of
> mountain men armed with AKMs and a few donkeys and who own a tea pot,
> a kettle and a handful of rice per section...

Here we fully agree: Kipling's principle RULES.

> Killing someone to order is easy, killing the right person requires
> good intelligence as well as precise targeting.

whose is surprisingly one of the weak spot of US military; aside the
too-well-known excessive fragmentation and lack of cooperation between
intel services there's an overflow of data-gathering whose led to the
proverbial "needle in haystack" (and finding the needle *IS* the
starting point for effective intelligence effort)

> The main problem at the moment in Pakistan is that the US drones are
> slaughtering elderly ladies and their grandchildren who happen to be
> next door to the Taliban 'O Group' in the next house...
>
> Now the death of poor old Aunt Fatima is a tragedy that affects me not
> one jot. I rather like the idea of the USA bombing the NWF to make
> the local Pathans keep their collective heads down, and I don't pay US
> taxes anyway.

the most underestimated effect is the local consequences; whose isn't
only breeding terrorists, but also losing goodwill toward America.

[Jim Wilkins]

"dott.Piergiorgio" <chied...@ask.me> wrote in message

news:I9zcs.214748$GZ3....@tornado.fastwebnet.it...

>
> Also, losses of escorts w/o losses of CVNs effectively reduces the
> number of CVBG (granted, with double or even treble the airpower,
> but NOT the same global capabilities) whose are more important that
> the CVN itself (the proverbial US prez quote, "where is the nearest
> carrier", and less, albeit more powerful CVBGs raise the risk that
> the nearest carrier is dangerously not so nearer...)
>
> and the escort ships must cover also the role proper of cruising
> ships that they actually are (flag-showing, ocean patrolling,
> diplomatic support NGF and the classical AsuW role &c.), so USN
> actually need *much* more CGs and DDGs...
>
> Best regards from Italy,
> dott. Piergiorgio.

In case you missed it, we learned that lesson VERY well around
Okinawa, where the Kamikazes were manned cruise missiles trying to
break through the escorts' radar screen to reach the carriers. Speeds
are higher now, but no third world nation approaches their capacity
for sustained volume of attacks.

[Bill]

On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 14:04:16 +0200, "dott.Piergiorgio"
<chied...@ask.me> wrote:


>the most underestimated effect is the local consequences; whose isn't
>only breeding terrorists, but also losing goodwill toward America.

There is little or no good will to lose.

The Islamic world has been telling their children for generations now
that the US is the great Satan and Israel is its puppet (or vice versa
depending on your point of view, anyway, it's certainly blamed on
the Jews at some point) and they intend to kill all Muslims...

[Vaughn]

On 10/5/2012 8:31 PM, Bill wrote:

> On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 15:52:35 -0700, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D."
> <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote:
>
>> >Bill wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>Now you get to tell us how the government in Iran could possibly be
>>> >>more rabid where Israel is concerned?
>> >
>> >Son, Iran is not rabid wrt to Israel, but they are, reasonably, anti-Jewish-Israel.

> 'Reasonably' as in saying they wish Israel be wiped from the map.
>

> That's not reasonable.
>
As with masturbation, arguing with a troll like our fake dr may bring a
certain transient pleasure, but ultimately it gets one nowhere.

[Bert]

In news:k4uolb$9a3$2...@speranza.aioe.org Vaughn <vaugh...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> As with masturbation, arguing with a troll like our fake dr may bring
> a certain transient pleasure, but ultimately it gets one nowhere.

THE BASIC LAWS OF HUMAN STUPIDITY
by Carlo M. Cipolla

THE FOURTH BASIC LAW

Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of
stupid individuals. In particular non-stupid people constantly
forget that at all times and places and under any circumstances
to deal and/or associate with stupid people always turns out to
be a costly mistake.

http://cantrip.org/stupidity.html

--
be...@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 08/10/2012 14:21, Jim Wilkins ha scritto:

> In case you missed it, we learned that lesson VERY well around
> Okinawa, where the Kamikazes were manned cruise missiles trying to
> break through the escorts' radar screen to reach the carriers. Speeds
> are higher now, but no third world nation approaches their capacity
> for sustained volume of attacks.

......

If there's someone I don't miss, is that 1944-5 USN was truly Master of
all Seas, with *scores* of crusers and *hundreds* of destroyers, and if
one of those around Okinawa gets sunk or crippled by Kamikazes, three or
four was ready to close the hole in the screen, but today, what happens
if a CG or DDG was put out of combat ?

[cman...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, October 6, 2012 6:53:37 PM UTC-4, smharding wrote:
> Battleships became obsolete when aircraft and aircraft carriers came
> to the fleet. Might it not be the same for the aircraft carrier with
> missles (large numbers of them; and longer ranged and plentiful) and
> capable UAVs are part of everyone's aresenal?

What made the battleship obsolete was that the carrier could control such an enormous volume of space around it that the battleship could never hope to get within range. The greater speed and altitude of air recon (versus the limited LOS of a ship) combined with the heavy hitting power of a carrier strike while the battleship was unable to effectively answer back was what doomed the battleship, not any vulnerability of the battleship. (A carrier, purely as a ship and ignoring air group, was more vulnerable in every way than a battleship, after all.)

Missiles simply can't *control space* in the same way that a battleship or carrier can. Like submarines, missiles can be effective at anti-access/area denial, they can deny command of the sea to others, but you can't escort a merchant convoy with them. Missiles and submarines might be able to hit a CVBG, but they can't replace them.

Chris Manteuffel

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article <XnsA0E6644FD32...@216.250.188.140>,

A friend has the following missive on his wall:

"Never underestimate the power of stupid people working together."

[Jim Wilkins]

"dott.Piergiorgio" <chied...@ask.me> wrote in message

news:_YBcs.214823$GZ3.1...@tornado.fastwebnet.it...

> If there's someone I don't miss, is that 1944-5 USN was truly Master
> of all Seas, with *scores* of crusers and *hundreds* of destroyers,
> and if one of those around Okinawa gets sunk or crippled by
> Kamikazes, three or four was ready to close the hole in the screen,
> but today, what happens if a CG or DDG was put out of combat ?
>
> Best regards from Italy,
> dott. Piergiorgio.

We acheved that mastery the hard way against one of the most capable
navies of all time.

Until the Battle of the Philippine Sea in June of 1944 both sides were
roughly equal, on paper at least, and Japan felt confident enough to
attack the Leyte landing with surface forces in October 1944.

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

Bill wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 12:48:21 -0700, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D."
> <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>Bill wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 11:26:19 -0700, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D."
>>><dr...@coldine.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Bill wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>oh sure, son...Jewish Israel will not let anyone inspect to determine
>>>>what nuclear programs they have. Jewish Israel is not in any treaty
>>>>limiting nuclear arms because they don't want any inspections at
>>>>all...none...as either intrusive or "over intrusive".
>>>
>>>
>>>And they pay the appropriate penalty. Much the same as India...
>>
>>oh that's another lie, son...no one is advocating bombing India as you are
>>with Iran...
>
> Ah, so you didn't understand...

son, you are thick...even when it's spelled out for you...

> You're a pig ignorant shit who needs stabbing.

"stabbing"?

> Both Israel and India did not sign the treaty. Iran did...

Correct, son, and yet you are silent about Jewish Israel having no
nuclear warmaking curbs, to allow them to develop whatever nuclear
weapon technology they desire WITHOUT ANY CONCERN OR COMPLAINT (and
we know Jewish Israel possesses nuclear weapons and has nuclear weapons
development programs ongoing right now).

In summary, you think the "appropriate penalty" for Jewish Israel is to do nothing.

Got it, you thick brained twat?

>>"There is no proof that nuclear inspections are
>>ever over intrusive."
>

> So give me an example of one that was.

I already did, son...to summarize for your thick brain...Jewish Israel will
not allow any such inspections since they were/was considered intrusive.
(wanna try another verb tense, son?)
;-)

[Bill]

On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 17:31:00 -0700, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D."
<dr...@coldine.edu> wrote:

>> Both Israel and India did not sign the treaty. Iran did...
>
>Correct, son, and yet you are silent about Jewish Israel having no
>nuclear warmaking curbs, to allow them to develop whatever nuclear
>weapon technology they desire WITHOUT ANY CONCERN OR COMPLAINT (and
>we know Jewish Israel possesses nuclear weapons and has nuclear weapons
>development programs ongoing right now).

The same as India.

>In summary, you think the "appropriate penalty" for Jewish Israel is to do nothing.

Exactly the same as India.

>I already did, son...to summarize for your thick brain...Jewish Israel will
>not allow any such inspections since they were/was considered intrusive.
>(wanna try another verb tense, son?)

Exactly the same as India.

Why do you hold Jews to a higher standard than you hold Hindus?

[jonathan]

"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:87b378llcvs8lf9fe...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 11:14:46 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I just don't think most people appreciate just how one-sided
>>things will become ten or twenty years from now.
>>The US is charging ahead while the rest of the world's military
>>is barely able to afford what it has.
>

> And their high tech, well equipped and highly trained and motivated
> army is being slaughtered on the ground in Afghanistan

An average of 1 (one) US military death per day isn't exactly a slaughter.
Let's hope that all future wars have daily causality rates you can count on
o n e h a n d.

But maybe you should ask the Soviets what slaughter means, they
had 15,000 soldiers killed in Afghan in less time.

> by a bunch of
> mountain men armed with AKMs and a few donkeys and who own a tea pot,
> a kettle and a handful of rice per section...

You mean the same kind of Afghans that finished off the Soviet empire?
Oh wait, those Afghans that destroyed the Soviet Union are on our side.

>
> Killing someone to order is easy, killing the right person requires
> good intelligence as well as precise targeting.
>

> The main problem at the moment in Pakistan is that the US drones are
> slaughtering elderly ladies and their grandchildren who happen to be
> next door to the Taliban 'O Group' in the next house...

What a load, everything we do is approved by Pakistan.

>
> Now the death of poor old Aunt Fatima is a tragedy that affects me not
> one jot. I rather like the idea of the USA bombing the NWF to make
> the local Pathans keep their collective heads down, and I don't pay US
> taxes anyway.
>

> But it isn't a strategy that'll lead to victory, nor will it lead to
> peace...

We've already been in Afghanistan for ten years, and we're
planning on keeping 25,000 troops there for another ten years.
We're not going to leave until we have victory and peace.

Come to think of it, I think Iran is the only country in
the Middle East where US troops don't have a base.

Looking at the map of our forces in the region below, I think
we can handle whatever is needed for the foreseeable future.

US Military Bases in the Middle East Around Iran - Another Look
http://war-in-middle-east.blogspot.com/2012/08/us-military-bases-in-middle-east-around.html


s








s

[Bill]

On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 21:24:56 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:87b378llcvs8lf9fe...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 11:14:46 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I just don't think most people appreciate just how one-sided
>>>things will become ten or twenty years from now.
>>>The US is charging ahead while the rest of the world's military
>>>is barely able to afford what it has.
>>
>
>> And their high tech, well equipped and highly trained and motivated
>> army is being slaughtered on the ground in Afghanistan
>
>
>An average of 1 (one) US military death per day isn't exactly a slaughter.

It is more than is currently politically tolerable.

>But maybe you should ask the Soviets what slaughter means, they
>had 15,000 soldiers killed in Afghan in less time.

They lost, their country disintegrated and their armed forces no
longer bother anyone outside of their own borders.

>> by a bunch of
>> mountain men armed with AKMs and a few donkeys and who own a tea pot,
>> a kettle and a handful of rice per section...
>
>
>You mean the same kind of Afghans that finished off the Soviet empire?
>Oh wait, those Afghans that destroyed the Soviet Union are on our side.

Same Afghans...

>> Killing someone to order is easy, killing the right person requires
>> good intelligence as well as precise targeting.
>>
>> The main problem at the moment in Pakistan is that the US drones are
>> slaughtering elderly ladies and their grandchildren who happen to be
>> next door to the Taliban 'O Group' in the next house...
>
>
>What a load, everything we do is approved by Pakistan.

There's no such thing as a single 'Pakistan' to give authority to
anyone.

Pakistan is run by small interest groups who all want different
things.

Which bit of Pakistan approves?

Certainly not the government.

Certainly not the intelligence apparatus that is well known to work
against US interests.

So which bit?

>> Now the death of poor old Aunt Fatima is a tragedy that affects me not
>> one jot. I rather like the idea of the USA bombing the NWF to make
>> the local Pathans keep their collective heads down, and I don't pay US
>> taxes anyway.
>>
>> But it isn't a strategy that'll lead to victory, nor will it lead to
>> peace...
>
>
>We've already been in Afghanistan for ten years, and we're
>planning on keeping 25,000 troops there for another ten years.
>We're not going to leave until we have victory and peace.

And you're guaranteeing that are you?

Stupid boy...

>
>Come to think of it, I think Iran is the only country in
>the Middle East where US troops don't have a base.

Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan, Egypt...

Well, Egypt is actually in North Africa, but I realise I'm speaking
to someone in the USA and I know your education system doesn't
discriminate between brown people in those floppy robes known to your
security authorities as 'Islamic dress' ...

Most of you think Afghanistan is in the Middle East as well...

>Looking at the map of our forces in the region below, I think
>we can handle whatever is needed for the foreseeable future.
>
>US Military Bases in the Middle East Around Iran - Another Look
>http://war-in-middle-east.blogspot.com/2012/08/us-military-bases-in-middle-east-around.html

Iran isn't in the Middle East either.

It's in South Asia...

Now child, here's a free tip.

Learn to read a map...

[jonathan]

"dott.Piergiorgio" <chied...@ask.me> wrote in message

news:I9zcs.214748$GZ3....@tornado.fastwebnet.it...

I know, my dad flew 12 and 15 hour long missions over the Pacific
to bomb the Japanese.

'Empire'? The US doesn't keep what it conquers. We're not an empire, but
the US is trying to honor our new navy motto.
"A Global Force for Good."

There's no shortage of Americans that believe in those words
and that goal.
http://www.navy.com/


And Hubris is ...unjustified...confidence~

>
> Another aspect of anti-CVN tactics is that a CVN alone isn't
> self-sufficient (can actually be, but sacrificing a sizable chunk the
> attack power) and aiming to the escorts (CGs, DDGs &c.) is effective as
> mission-kill method, whose also is outside your quoted US nuclear
> retaliation doctrine.

But a carrier strike group usually consists of a cruiser, 6 to 10
destoyers and a couple of attack submarines. All supported
by the carrier air wing. Who is going to defeat that?
Even if someone managed to heavily damage one of them
we have e l e v e n more carrier strike groups.
http://www.eisenhower.navy.mil/

Not to mention 8 of these, which are larger than
most other navies carriers.
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=400&ct=4

>
> Also, losses of escorts w/o losses of CVNs effectively reduces the number
> of CVBG (granted, with double or even treble the airpower, but NOT the
> same global capabilities) whose are more important that the CVN itself
> (the proverbial US prez quote, "where is the nearest carrier", and less,
> albeit more powerful CVBGs raise the risk that the nearest carrier is
> dangerously not so nearer...)

>
> and the escort ships must cover also the role proper of cruising ships
> that they actually are (flag-showing, ocean patrolling, diplomatic support
> NGF and the classical AsuW role &c.), so USN actually need *much* more CGs
> and DDGs...

I think our Arleigh Burkes are the backbone and can handle
most any threat. The goal is to increase from our current over 60
Arleigh Burkes to around 94 of them by 2025. There are 4 in
construction and another 3 ordered according to Wiki.

So where's the threat? The Iranian navy wouldn't last a week
in a war with the US navy. Everyone else are our friends
or allies.

Add NATO to the US navy, and who is going to rival that
for the next 20 years?

[Alex Potter]

On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 21:24:56 -0400, jonathan wrote:

> You mean the same kind of Afghans that finished off the Soviet empire?
> Oh wait, those Afghans that destroyed the Soviet Union are on our side.
>

They've been doing very similar for centuries:

"The type of guerilla-style fighting that Alexander faced during the
Afghan campaign was described centuries later by the chronicler Plutarch,
who compared Afghan tribesmen to a hydra-headed monster: as soon as
Alexander cut off one head, three more would grow back in its place."

<http://www.cemml.colostate.edu/cultural/09476/afgh02-04enl.html>

Despite the differences in weaponry, the men are the same as they've
always been...

--
Alex

[jonathan]

"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:rrv678tkbv0ld4kcu...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 21:24:56 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:87b378llcvs8lf9fe...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 11:14:46 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I just don't think most people appreciate just how one-sided
>>>>things will become ten or twenty years from now.
>>>>The US is charging ahead while the rest of the world's military
>>>>is barely able to afford what it has.
>>>
>>
>>> And their high tech, well equipped and highly trained and motivated
>>> army is being slaughtered on the ground in Afghanistan
>>
>>
>>An average of 1 (one) US military death per day isn't exactly a slaughter.
>

> It is more than is currently politically tolerable.

We've already been in Afghan for ten years and Iraq
for nine years. And our withdrawals are slow and
orderly, with large numbers of troops remaining behind
for the long term. Doesn't sound like the American
public is all that riled up to me.

>
>>But maybe you should ask the Soviets what slaughter means, they
>>had 15,000 soldiers killed in Afghan in less time.
>
> They lost, their country disintegrated and their armed forces no
> longer bother anyone outside of their own borders.
>
>>> by a bunch of
>>> mountain men armed with AKMs and a few donkeys and who own a tea pot,
>>> a kettle and a handful of rice per section...
>>
>>
>>You mean the same kind of Afghans that finished off the Soviet empire?
>>Oh wait, those Afghans that destroyed the Soviet Union are on our side.
>
> Same Afghans...
>
>>> Killing someone to order is easy, killing the right person requires
>>> good intelligence as well as precise targeting.
>>>
>>> The main problem at the moment in Pakistan is that the US drones are
>>> slaughtering elderly ladies and their grandchildren who happen to be
>>> next door to the Taliban 'O Group' in the next house...
>>
>>
>>What a load, everything we do is approved by Pakistan.
>
> There's no such thing as a single 'Pakistan' to give authority to
> anyone.
>
> Pakistan is run by small interest groups who all want different
> things.

And that's probably due to the 200 years as a British colony
and the "Divide and Rule' colonization policy perfected by the
East India Tea Company.

>
> Which bit of Pakistan approves?

The part that owns their nukes. The current democracy
in Pakistan is in the process of restoring a more legitimate
parliamentary system. Try reading the daily news.

>
> Certainly not the government.
>
> Certainly not the intelligence apparatus that is well known to work
> against US interests.
>
> So which bit?
>
>>> Now the death of poor old Aunt Fatima is a tragedy that affects me not
>>> one jot. I rather like the idea of the USA bombing the NWF to make
>>> the local Pathans keep their collective heads down, and I don't pay US
>>> taxes anyway.
>>>
>>> But it isn't a strategy that'll lead to victory, nor will it lead to
>>> peace...
>>
>>
>>We've already been in Afghanistan for ten years, and we're
>>planning on keeping 25,000 troops there for another ten years.
>>We're not going to leave until we have victory and peace.
>
> And you're guaranteeing that are you?
>
> Stupid boy...
>
>>
>>Come to think of it, I think Iran is the only country in
>>the Middle East where US troops don't have a base.
>
> Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan, Egypt...

We have bases in Israel, about a dozen in Saudi Arabia
a base in Jordan, the CIA operates freely in Yemen with
the approval of the govt, and troops in Egypt.

>
> Well, Egypt is actually in North Africa, but I realise I'm speaking
> to someone in the USA and I know your education system doesn't
> discriminate between brown people in those floppy robes known to your
> security authorities as 'Islamic dress' ...
>
> Most of you think Afghanistan is in the Middle East as well...


>
>>Looking at the map of our forces in the region below, I think
>>we can handle whatever is needed for the foreseeable future.
>>
>>US Military Bases in the Middle East Around Iran - Another Look
>>http://war-in-middle-east.blogspot.com/2012/08/us-military-bases-in-middle-east-around.html
>
> Iran isn't in the Middle East either.

> It's in South Asia...
>
> Now child, here's a free tip.
>
> Learn to read a map...

What, no spelling flames?


s

[Bill]

On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 23:18:01 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:rrv678tkbv0ld4kcu...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 21:24:56 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> It is more than is currently politically tolerable.
>
>
>We've already been in Afghan for ten years and Iraq
>for nine years. And our withdrawals are slow and
>orderly, with large numbers of troops remaining behind
>for the long term. Doesn't sound like the American
>public is all that riled up to me.

It does to anyone who watches your media outlets...

>> Pakistan is run by small interest groups who all want different
>> things.
>
>
>And that's probably due to the 200 years as a British colony
>and the "Divide and Rule' colonization policy perfected by the
>East India Tea Company.

Oh dear, so few words, so many mistakes.


For a start it's the 'Honourable East India Company'.

Second, the colonisation programme was never the HEIC's. They were a
trading company and didn't really ever want to run the place.

Almost all of India was run by the locals, who even had their own
king in titular control, until after 'The Mutiny'.

'Divide and Rule' is a technique for running the country rather than
conquest although it could certainly be applied to the British
diplomatic tactics in the Anglo-Maratha Wars (That you've almost
certainly never heard of) .

And finally, to cut to the quick of it, why isn't the vast bulk of the
area that was run in this manner like Pakistan?

Oh yes, and tea was a latecomer to the HEIC's operations.

>> Which bit of Pakistan approves?
>
>
>The part that owns their nukes.

And which bit would that be?

The current democracy
>in Pakistan is in the process of restoring a more legitimate
>parliamentary system. Try reading the daily news.

Oh I do.

Are we taking about the news that the Pakistani government has just
stopped a major opposition figure entering a part of the country
because he looks like he's about to get a bit too popular there?

Read the news, boy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/imran-khan-and-codepink-blocked-from-tribal-area/2012/10/07/d9f6e58a-10ca-11e2-ba83-a7a396e6b2a7_story.html

>>>Come to think of it, I think Iran is the only country in
>>>the Middle East where US troops don't have a base.
>>
>> Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan, Egypt...
>
>
>
>We have bases in Israel,

Name them.

> about a dozen in Saudi Arabia

All now closed.

>a base in Jordan,

Name it.

>the CIA operates freely in Yemen

Nobody operates freely in Yemen, not even their own government...

with
>the approval of the govt, and troops in Egypt.

No base there either.

[Jim Wilkins]

"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:eir778h8nbrfqulcr...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 23:18:01 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>. Doesn't sound like the American
>>public is all that riled up to me.
>
> It does to anyone who watches your media outlets...

Does the Daily Mirror accurately reflect Britain?

[Bill]

It certainly reflects the opinion of a substantial proportion of the
population.

[peter skelton]

"Bill" wrote in message
news:b5u678hjt8m6gco95...@4ax.com...

<s>

>Why do you hold Jews to a higher standard than you hold
>Hindus?

Because nobody'd bite if he trolled anti-Hinduism

[peter skelton]

"Bill" wrote in message
news:d528789rvj5tvujb5...@4ax.com...

You misspelled 'substandard' above

[Bill]

Actually there are a couple of people here who possibly would.

[Bill]

When it comes to voting there's no intelligence requirement...

How else can you explain Tory governments getting elected...

[Jim Wilkins]

"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:rrv678tkbv0ld4kcu...@4ax.com...
> ...>>

>>US Military Bases in the Middle East Around Iran - Another Look
>>http://war-in-middle-east.blogspot.com/2012/08/us-military-bases-in-middle-east-around.html
>
> Iran isn't in the Middle East either.
>
> It's in South Asia...
>
> Now child, here's a free tip.
>
> Learn to read a map...

In 1902 American naval strategist Alfred Thayer Mahan defined the
Middle East as being between Arabia and India, centered on the Persian
Gulf. In British useage it extended to Burma.

At that time "Near East" meant the Ottoman Empire, after it fell
"Middle East" grew in popularity but there is no single official
definition of its boundaries.

[Alistair Gunn]

In sci.military.naval Bill twisted the electrons to say:

> The Islamic world has been telling their children for generations now
> that the US is the great Satan and Israel is its puppet (or vice versa
> depending on your point of view, anyway, it's certainly blamed on
> the Jews at some point) and they intend to kill all Muslims...

There was an article on the BBC News' website a few months back about how
in Iran the UK is still seen as a "big evil" and that we just get the USA
to do our dirty work for us ...
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

[Alistair Gunn]

In sci.military.naval Bill twisted the electrons to say:

> When it comes to voting there's no intelligence requirement...
> How else can you explain Tory governments getting elected...

Have you seen who the alternatives are at a national level? :-) Now i'm
not saying that Labour and the LibDems actually make the Tories look
*good* but they don't exactly make them look *bad* either!

[Bill]

On Tue, 9 Oct 2012 10:27:16 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
<murat...@gmail.com> wrote:

>"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:rrv678tkbv0ld4kcu...@4ax.com...
>> ...>>
>>>US Military Bases in the Middle East Around Iran - Another Look
>>>http://war-in-middle-east.blogspot.com/2012/08/us-military-bases-in-middle-east-around.html
>>
>> Iran isn't in the Middle East either.
>>
>> It's in South Asia...
>>
>> Now child, here's a free tip.
>>
>> Learn to read a map...
>
>In 1902 American naval strategist Alfred Thayer Mahan defined the
>Middle East as being between Arabia and India, centered on the Persian
>Gulf. In British useage it extended to Burma.

These days the terms usually used are 'South Asia', West Asia' and
North Africa.

The boundary between West Asia and South Asia is usually considered to
be the Persian Gulf.

Nobody in British service ever considered India to be in the Middle
East.

It is possible your confusion arises because of the military
responsibility the British imperial administration in India had for
some areas of West Asia, especially Yemen.

>At that time "Near East" meant the Ottoman Empire, after it fell
>"Middle East" grew in popularity but there is no single official
>definition of its boundaries.

See above, you're now out of date.

[Bill]

On Tue, 9 Oct 2012 14:54:25 +0000 (UTC), Alistair Gunn
<palmer...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>In sci.military.naval Bill twisted the electrons to say:
>> The Islamic world has been telling their children for generations now
>> that the US is the great Satan and Israel is its puppet (or vice versa
>> depending on your point of view, anyway, it's certainly blamed on
>> the Jews at some point) and they intend to kill all Muslims...
>
>There was an article on the BBC News' website a few months back about how
>in Iran the UK is still seen as a "big evil" and that we just get the USA
>to do our dirty work for us ...

Much the same in Pakistan, and probably Afghanistan.

[Bill]

On Tue, 9 Oct 2012 14:56:47 +0000 (UTC), Alistair Gunn
<palmer...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>In sci.military.naval Bill twisted the electrons to say:
>> When it comes to voting there's no intelligence requirement...
>> How else can you explain Tory governments getting elected...
>
>Have you seen who the alternatives are at a national level? :-) Now i'm
>not saying that Labour and the LibDems actually make the Tories look
>*good* but they don't exactly make them look *bad* either!

Actually the extant evidence says different.

Labour have proved remarkably flexible in their economic policy in
recent years, especially since they dumped 'Clause 4'.

The current Tory government is insisting on sticking to its policies
of austerity despite the world bank and many others saying they've
gone too far, small businesses are being strangled and the bankers
are still running things really badly but for their own personal
profit...

As Einstein said:

"Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again, but expecting
different results."

[Paul J. Adam]

On 09/10/2012 15:54, Alistair Gunn wrote:
> In sci.military.naval Bill twisted the electrons to say:
>> The Islamic world has been telling their children for generations now
>> that the US is the great Satan and Israel is its puppet (or vice versa
>> depending on your point of view, anyway, it's certainly blamed on
>> the Jews at some point) and they intend to kill all Muslims...
>
> There was an article on the BBC News' website a few months back about how
> in Iran the UK is still seen as a "big evil" and that we just get the USA
> to do our dirty work for us ...

It's a bit more nuanced than that. Compared to the Greater and Lesser
Satans (the US and Russia) who are supposedly directly opposed to Iran
and seek its destruction, the UK is "The Old Fox", conniving and
scheming and plotting for its own benefit (which is indifferent to, but
not automatically hostile to, Iranian interests).

One of the most popular Iranian TV comedies ever made, "My Uncle
Napoleon", centred on a young man among whose problems were a mad uncle
convinced that the British had spies, agents and assassins surrounding
him, closing in on him and acting to thwart his plans and ruin his life
(where of course his misfortunes were entirely down to his own folly),
for example.

--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.

[Jim Wilkins]

"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:odf8785n30umune83...@4ax.com...

> These days the terms usually used are 'South Asia', West Asia' and
>North Africa.

>The boundary between West Asia and South Asia is usually considered
>to
>be the Persian Gulf.

> See above, you're now out of date.

Right, that is why no one uses the term any more.

The official definition(s):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:South_Asia_(ed)update.PNG

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

my my you sure are thick

do you still beat your wife?
;-)

[Bill]

Take it from me, Wikipedia is never ever considered definitive by
anyone.

[Bill]

On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 09:15:08 -0700, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D."

Lack of content noted.

[Jim Wilkins]

"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:fhk878935gmqc960m...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 9 Oct 2012 12:01:59 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
>

>>The official definition(s):
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:South_Asia_(ed)update.PNG
>
> Take it from me, Wikipedia is never ever considered definitive by
> anyone.

Neither are you.

[Bill]

And you're just not bright enough for this game...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Asia

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

Bill wrote:

> On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 09:15:08 -0700, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D."
> <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>Bill wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 17:31:00 -0700, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D."
>>><dr...@coldine.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Both Israel and India did not sign the treaty. Iran did...
>>>>
>>>>Correct, son, and yet you are silent about Jewish Israel having no
>>>>nuclear warmaking curbs, to allow them to develop whatever nuclear
>>>>weapon technology they desire WITHOUT ANY CONCERN OR COMPLAINT (and
>>>>we know Jewish Israel possesses nuclear weapons and has nuclear weapons
>>>>development programs ongoing right now).
>>>
>>>The same as India.
>>>
>>>
>>>>In summary, you think the "appropriate penalty" for Jewish Israel is to do nothing.
>>>
>>>Exactly the same as India.
>>>
>>>
>>>>I already did, son...to summarize for your thick brain...Jewish Israel will
>>>>not allow any such inspections since they were/was considered intrusive.
>>>>(wanna try another verb tense, son?)
>>>
>>>Exactly the same as India.
>>>
>>

>>my my you sure are thick
>
>
> Lack of content noted.

Again, son, instead of snipping, side stepping, and lying why don't you simply admit you
were wrong to say Jewish Israel has never deemed inspections of their own nuclear war
making facilities and programs as intrusive.
;-)

[Jim Wilkins]

"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:jvk878lclnibq1d5o...@4ax.com...

"Different sources vary in their statements of which nations are part
of the region."

"South Asia" is as ambiguous as "Middle East" and Iran's inclusion in
south vs west Asia is debatable opinion, not established fact.
http://isna.ir/en/news/91070804763/Iran-wins-U16-West-Asian-Basketball-Championship
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-08-24/india/33365212_1_mahmoud-ahmedinejad-gcc-countries-west-asia
"After the second Gulf war, the power balance in West Asia shifted
decisively towards Shia Iran."

jsw

[Bill]

On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 10:01:57 -0700, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D."

They, like India, are not signatories of the appropriate treaty.

Iran is...

[Bill]

On Tue, 9 Oct 2012 13:12:41 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"

<murat...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:jvk878lclnibq1d5o...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 9 Oct 2012 12:38:10 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
>> <murat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:fhk878935gmqc960m...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 9 Oct 2012 12:01:59 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
>>>>
>>>>>The official definition(s):
>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:South_Asia_(ed)update.PNG
>>>>
>>>> Take it from me, Wikipedia is never ever considered definitive by
>>>> anyone.
>>>
>>>Neither are you.
>>>
>> And you're just not bright enough for this game...
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Asia
>
>"Different sources vary in their statements of which nations are part
>of the region."

Nowhere nearly as much as you claim.

[Andrew Swallow]

On 09/10/2012 12:42, Bill wrote:
{snip}

> How else can you explain Tory governments getting elected...
>

Sometimes you need tough decisions making. Also few people join the
Labour Party to administer the country, as distinct from having fun
spending money.

Andrew Swallow

[Andrew Chaplin]

"Paul J. Adam" <paul....@gmail.com> wrote in news:k51fvf$9v6$1@dont-
email.me:

> [The] UK is "The Old Fox", conniving and scheming and plotting for its

> own benefit (which is indifferent to, but not automatically hostile to,
> Iranian interests).

Isn't that the way of all states? It's not an unreasonable view of
international relations, so long as one has an understanding of how "the
other" views its interests.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[︰ones]

On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 22:36:42 -0700, in alt.war.vietnam "DGVREIMAN"
<dgvr...@comcast.net> wrote:

>Doug Says: Expecting peace from radical Islam is akin to trying to
>pet a rabid dog.

Well, they do seem to have their hot buttons. Too bad their God can't
take care of blasphemers with a simple lightning bolt, huh?

As to the number of times one side has attacked the other, I'd say
we're pretty close to being even across history.

Jones

[Dean Markley]

Why don't YOU remove that fake PhD from behind your name. Then, the rest of us can stop laughing every time you call someone a liar.

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

me my son you sure are thick...you claimed no country has ever deemed inspections "over
intrusive"...Jewish Israel has/does...you snip, side step, and lie...you are an habitual liar...qed.
;-)

[Bill]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 03:10:47 -0700, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D."

Sophistry.

[Keith W]

Paul J. Adam wrote:
> On 09/10/2012 15:54, Alistair Gunn wrote:
>> In sci.military.naval Bill twisted the electrons to say:
>>> The Islamic world has been telling their children for generations
>>> now that the US is the great Satan and Israel is its puppet (or
>>> vice versa depending on your point of view, anyway, it's
>>> certainly blamed on the Jews at some point) and they intend to kill
>>> all Muslims...
>>
>> There was an article on the BBC News' website a few months back
>> about how in Iran the UK is still seen as a "big evil" and that we
>> just get the USA to do our dirty work for us ...
>
> It's a bit more nuanced than that. Compared to the Greater and Lesser
> Satans (the US and Russia) who are supposedly directly opposed to Iran
> and seek its destruction, the UK is "The Old Fox", conniving and
> scheming and plotting for its own benefit (which is indifferent to,
> but not automatically hostile to, Iranian interests).
>

Sounds like the much the same view that the French have typically
held of 'Perfidious Albion'

Keith