2.3 million US Soldiers vs 11.7 million Iranian Soldiers = DRAFT

The Truth Will Set You Free | November 12, 2007

Some sobering advice from a fellow blogger at reigngame.com:

Alright, I know 90% of you guys follow politics so you've undoubtably
read and/or heard about the current Iran situation. I'd like to
briefly talk about the figurative war with Iran. For the sake of
discussion, let's begin with the questionably optimistic assumption
that no major country would forcefully oppose (economically or
militarily) full-scale US military operations in Iran. Nevermind
Iran's 12% imports with Germany and 10% imports with China - I'm sure
Germany and China's economies don't want Iran's money anyway, right?
Nevermind the fact that Iran exports 2,836,000 barrels of oil per day
to various nations that depend on that oil.

We can all just ride bikes until the 2 month war is over! As to the
Iranians themselves, I'm sure they're just dying (no pun intended) to
be invaded, er, `liberated` by Americans, considering the `horrid` 70%
approval rating of Ahmadinejad and the `devastating` $8,700 gross
domestic product per capita (8.6% better than China). I'm sure we'll
be "welcomed in the streets" after we "shock and awe" all important
looking buildings to Jahannum and back.

With a little help from the boys at GFP, I did some exploring into the
military systems of America and Iran and what I found was
alarming . . .

2,369,239 US Soldiers vs 11,770,000 Iranian Soldiers = DRAFT
The United States of America has 2.37 million soldiers capable of
combat and available for mobilization. Let's compare with little ol'
Iran! Iran has THE MOST military personnel available for combat in the
entire world. In fact, Iran has more combat-ready military personnel
than China and Russia combined. 11.7 million guerillas - Talk about
hell. The bottom line is, America can't even handle Iraq. At one
point, we thought we would rush in, smite some nubs with dirks and
bubble hearth back home in time for American Idol. Not quite. And with
Iran, reality is going to hurt a lot more.
America is War Stomping on Artificial Ice Above the Pit of Sparta

At the risk of loosing all my credibility, allow my concern to
manifest itself in a less than mature way: Our economy is &%$#ed. We
have a -862,300,000,000 dollar cash balance. That puts us LAST in the
world for cash balance of our own currency. This is what people are
talking about when they say deficit. But this is more than a deficit;
this is an abandonment of the dollar. The conclusion? Changes. And not
the type of changes 2Pac wanted. Big changes that will crash into the
hull of the United States.
Nerf Executive Branch

America is tipping back way too far in her easy chair - something is
about to happen. This upcoming 2008 election is extremely pivotal. I'm
not going to name any candidates because this isn't that type of
article. But let the point of this entire post clear: If you think
times are boring, think again. If you think the future is predictable,
think again. My advice to everyone who reads this is to be thoughtful,
be skeptical, be wise. Learn, test what you learn and share it. The
future of your family tree is in the balance.

http://infowars.com/articles/ww3/ira...sold iers.htm

Well bucko, you make it clear that America doesn't stand a chance against
the wealth and power or Iran. As you point out, America's 2.3 M soldiers
couldn't possibly defeat Iran's 11.7 M soldiers. Especially since we will
no doubt be fighting hand to hand, man to man, with out an air force, bombs,
missiles or armor. You should leave for Iran immediately, before they
destroy America's military forces and domestic economy. However, you might
want to steer clear of Israel on your way to Iran. They have only a tiny
fraction of Iran's number of soldiers but the Israelis will be fighting for
the survival of their country. The Israeli's will fight to the death and
use every weapon they have, including nuclear.

Irish Mike


127.0.0.1" wrote in message
oups.com...


2.3 million US Soldiers vs 11.7 million Iranian Soldiers = DRAFT

The Truth Will Set You Free | November 12, 2007

Some sobering advice from a fellow blogger at reigngame.com:

Alright, I know 90% of you guys follow politics so you've undoubtably
read and/or heard about the current Iran situation. I'd like to
briefly talk about the figurative war with Iran. For the sake of
discussion, let's begin with the questionably optimistic assumption
that no major country would forcefully oppose (economically or
militarily) full-scale US military operations in Iran. Nevermind
Iran's 12% imports with Germany and 10% imports with China - I'm sure
Germany and China's economies don't want Iran's money anyway, right?
Nevermind the fact that Iran exports 2,836,000 barrels of oil per day
to various nations that depend on that oil.

We can all just ride bikes until the 2 month war is over! As to the
Iranians themselves, I'm sure they're just dying (no pun intended) to
be invaded, er, `liberated` by Americans, considering the `horrid` 70%
approval rating of Ahmadinejad and the `devastating` $8,700 gross
domestic product per capita (8.6% better than China). I'm sure we'll
be "welcomed in the streets" after we "shock and awe" all important
looking buildings to Jahannum and back.

With a little help from the boys at GFP, I did some exploring into the
military systems of America and Iran and what I found was
alarming . . .

2,369,239 US Soldiers vs 11,770,000 Iranian Soldiers = DRAFT
The United States of America has 2.37 million soldiers capable of
combat and available for mobilization. Let's compare with little ol'
Iran! Iran has THE MOST military personnel available for combat in the
entire world. In fact, Iran has more combat-ready military personnel
than China and Russia combined. 11.7 million guerillas - Talk about
hell. The bottom line is, America can't even handle Iraq. At one
point, we thought we would rush in, smite some nubs with dirks and
bubble hearth back home in time for American Idol. Not quite. And with
Iran, reality is going to hurt a lot more.
America is War Stomping on Artificial Ice Above the Pit of Sparta

At the risk of loosing all my credibility, allow my concern to
manifest itself in a less than mature way: Our economy is &%$#ed. We
have a -862,300,000,000 dollar cash balance. That puts us LAST in the
world for cash balance of our own currency. This is what people are
talking about when they say deficit. But this is more than a deficit;
this is an abandonment of the dollar. The conclusion? Changes. And not
the type of changes 2Pac wanted. Big changes that will crash into the
hull of the United States.
Nerf Executive Branch

America is tipping back way too far in her easy chair - something is
about to happen. This upcoming 2008 election is extremely pivotal. I'm
not going to name any candidates because this isn't that type of
article. But let the point of this entire post clear: If you think
times are boring, think again. If you think the future is predictable,
think again. My advice to everyone who reads this is to be thoughtful,
be skeptical, be wise. Learn, test what you learn and share it. The
future of your family tree is in the balance.

http://infowars.com/articles/ww3/ira...sold iers.htm

I don't have the exact numbers, but I think that Iraq had somewhere
around 11M troops the first time around and that seemed to work out OK
for us. Not that I think invading Iran is a good idea - I think it's
terrible given the ROI (in $ and image terms) we are getting over
there right now, but don't think that manpower = military power.

Croupe



On Nov 13, 1:58 pm, "127.0.0.1"
wrote:
2.3 million US Soldiers vs 11.7 million Iranian Soldiers = DRAFT

The Truth Will Set You Free | November 12, 2007

Some sobering advice from a fellow blogger at reigngame.com:

Alright, I know 90% of you guys follow politics so you've undoubtably
read and/or heard about the current Iran situation. I'd like to
briefly talk about the figurative war with Iran. For the sake of
discussion, let's begin with the questionably optimistic assumption
that no major country would forcefully oppose (economically or
militarily) full-scale US military operations in Iran. Nevermind
Iran's 12% imports with Germany and 10% imports with China - I'm sure
Germany and China's economies don't want Iran's money anyway, right?
Nevermind the fact that Iran exports 2,836,000 barrels of oil per day
to various nations that depend on that oil.

We can all just ride bikes until the 2 month war is over! As to the
Iranians themselves, I'm sure they're just dying (no pun intended) to
be invaded, er, `liberated` by Americans, considering the `horrid` 70%
approval rating of Ahmadinejad and the `devastating` $8,700 gross
domestic product per capita (8.6% better than China). I'm sure we'll
be "welcomed in the streets" after we "shock and awe" all important
looking buildings to Jahannum and back.

With a little help from the boys at GFP, I did some exploring into the
military systems of America and Iran and what I found was
alarming . . .

2,369,239 US Soldiers vs 11,770,000 Iranian Soldiers = DRAFT
The United States of America has 2.37 million soldiers capable of
combat and available for mobilization. Let's compare with little ol'
Iran! Iran has THE MOST military personnel available for combat in the
entire world. In fact, Iran has more combat-ready military personnel
than China and Russia combined. 11.7 million guerillas - Talk about
hell. The bottom line is, America can't even handle Iraq. At one
point, we thought we would rush in, smite some nubs with dirks and
bubble hearth back home in time for American Idol. Not quite. And with
Iran, reality is going to hurt a lot more.
America is War Stomping on Artificial Ice Above the Pit of Sparta

At the risk of loosing all my credibility, allow my concern to
manifest itself in a less than mature way: Our economy is &%$#ed. We
have a -862,300,000,000 dollar cash balance. That puts us LAST in the
world for cash balance of our own currency. This is what people are
talking about when they say deficit. But this is more than a deficit;
this is an abandonment of the dollar. The conclusion? Changes. And not
the type of changes 2Pac wanted. Big changes that will crash into the
hull of the United States.
Nerf Executive Branch

America is tipping back way too far in her easy chair - something is
about to happen. This upcoming 2008 election is extremely pivotal. I'm
not going to name any candidates because this isn't that type of
article. But let the point of this entire post clear: If you think
times are boring, think again. If you think the future is predictable,
think again. My advice to everyone who reads this is to be thoughtful,
be skeptical, be wise. Learn, test what you learn and share it. The
future of your family tree is in the balance.

http://infowars.com/articles/ww3/ira...s_vs_11_millio...

Laughing Out Loud...morons...you should reread your ilk's commentary
before the First Gulf War....Iraq had a million man army, used to
fighting in the desert, armed by the mighty Soviet military, toughened
by years of war with Iran and internal rebellion. Our soldiers were
lazy, highly paid pampered kids too dumb to get into college. I remember
CBS doing a special on 60 minutes trying to stop the shooting war where
expert after expert warned that our outnumbered troops would be chewed
up and spit out including a Iraq ex-pat who warned that American would
have to buy more body bags for its helpless children if we were so
stupid as to challenge Iraq's mighty Soviet equipped Army....cough
cough...choke choke

11.7 million = 11.0 million guys looking for an excuse to throw down
their rifles and get away from the torturers and rich officers who steal
their food + 600000 committed torturers and corrupt officers who will
put on women's clothing and look for a Saddam hole as soon as the
shooting starts + 100000 brave committed idiots who will die badly at
long range

The only problem with Iran is the political will to lose in the West.
Thankfully, Isreal will deal with these jumped up ****s. And all that
soot and particulate matter in the atmosphere will reflect the sun's
rays and help solve global warming...a toofer.

127.0.0.1 wrote:


2.3 million US Soldiers vs 11.7 million Iranian Soldiers = DRAFT

The Truth Will Set You Free | November 12, 2007

Some sobering advice from a fellow blogger at reigngame.com:

Alright, I know 90% of you guys follow politics so you've undoubtably
read and/or heard about the current Iran situation. I'd like to
briefly talk about the figurative war with Iran. For the sake of
discussion, let's begin with the questionably optimistic assumption
that no major country would forcefully oppose (economically or
militarily) full-scale US military operations in Iran. Nevermind
Iran's 12% imports with Germany and 10% imports with China - I'm sure
Germany and China's economies don't want Iran's money anyway, right?
Nevermind the fact that Iran exports 2,836,000 barrels of oil per day
to various nations that depend on that oil.

We can all just ride bikes until the 2 month war is over! As to the
Iranians themselves, I'm sure they're just dying (no pun intended) to
be invaded, er, `liberated` by Americans, considering the `horrid` 70%
approval rating of Ahmadinejad and the `devastating` $8,700 gross
domestic product per capita (8.6% better than China). I'm sure we'll
be "welcomed in the streets" after we "shock and awe" all important
looking buildings to Jahannum and back.

With a little help from the boys at GFP, I did some exploring into the
military systems of America and Iran and what I found was
alarming . . .

2,369,239 US Soldiers vs 11,770,000 Iranian Soldiers = DRAFT
The United States of America has 2.37 million soldiers capable of
combat and available for mobilization. Let's compare with little ol'
Iran! Iran has THE MOST military personnel available for combat in the
entire world. In fact, Iran has more combat-ready military personnel
than China and Russia combined. 11.7 million guerillas - Talk about
hell. The bottom line is, America can't even handle Iraq. At one
point, we thought we would rush in, smite some nubs with dirks and
bubble hearth back home in time for American Idol. Not quite. And with
Iran, reality is going to hurt a lot more.
America is War Stomping on Artificial Ice Above the Pit of Sparta

At the risk of loosing all my credibility, allow my concern to
manifest itself in a less than mature way: Our economy is &%$#ed. We
have a -862,300,000,000 dollar cash balance. That puts us LAST in the
world for cash balance of our own currency. This is what people are
talking about when they say deficit. But this is more than a deficit;
this is an abandonment of the dollar. The conclusion? Changes. And not
the type of changes 2Pac wanted. Big changes that will crash into the
hull of the United States.
Nerf Executive Branch

America is tipping back way too far in her easy chair - something is
about to happen. This upcoming 2008 election is extremely pivotal. I'm
not going to name any candidates because this isn't that type of
article. But let the point of this entire post clear: If you think
times are boring, think again. If you think the future is predictable,
think again. My advice to everyone who reads this is to be thoughtful,
be skeptical, be wise. Learn, test what you learn and share it. The
future of your family tree is in the balance.

http://infowars.com/articles/ww3/ira...sold iers.htm

On Nov 13, 3:48 pm, croupe wrote:
I don't have the exact numbers, but I think that Iraq had somewhere
around 11M troops the first time around and that seemed to work out OK
for us.

Wikipedia states that there are only about 27M people in Iraq. 11M
troops sounds high.

On Nov 13, 1:58 pm, "127.0.0.1"
wrote:
2.3 million US Soldiers vs 11.7 million Iranian Soldiers = DRAFT

Forget Iran, the Iraq war should have equaled DRAFT.

Well, let's hope all of the Iranian soldiers are like Amir Vehedi. He
deserted from the Iranian army, during a shooting war, and blamed it on his
mama.

Irish Mike


"David Nicoson" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Nov 13, 3:48 pm, croupe wrote:
I don't have the exact numbers, but I think that Iraq had somewhere
around 11M troops the first time around and that seemed to work out OK
for us.

Wikipedia states that there are only about 27M people in Iraq. 11M
troops sounds high.

On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 12:48:59 -0800, croupe wrote:

I don't have the exact numbers, but I think that Iraq had somewhere
around 11M troops the first time around and that seemed to work out OK
for us.

By "I think" you mean "I just pulled this number out of my ass and I have
no ****ing clue what the real number is," right?

In article ,
A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:

On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 12:48:59 -0800, croupe wrote:

I don't have the exact numbers, but I think that Iraq had somewhere
around 11M troops the first time around and that seemed to work out OK
for us.

By "I think" you mean "I just pulled this number out of my ass and I have
no ****ing clue what the real number is," right?

He might have, but the number is the one bounced around a lot. For
instance:
http://www.iraqwatch.org/perspective...cap-120301.pdf

Iraq army was a mile wide but an inch deep, especially by the time
GWI started. While they had the elite units, most were conscript Shiite
and Kurds who weren't exactly strong supporters of SH even before they
were tossed out on the front lines with few provisions. Thus, they
folded like cheap lawn furniture at the first opportunity.
SH kept the good guys and those units made up people who might
actually support him nearby more to keep them around for after GWI and
help him squash any rabble rousers afterward because he knew the
politics were such that he was personally safe.
Now, whether or not Iran would have the same problems, I don't know.

Actually I thought the number was 8M. The more I look around, the
number 1M seems to be the most credible. Of course, no one really
knows the real number and I've been wrong before. Good thing it only
cost me a mild tongue lashing by AMBBJ and the three minutes it took
me to read and reply to the post. I promise I will check the atlas
the next time I post something on a poker group that requires
population data .

Croupe


On Nov 13, 4:04 pm, A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 12:48:59 -0800, croupe wrote:
I don't have the exact numbers, but I think that Iraq had somewhere
around 11M troops the first time around and that seemed to work out OK
for us.

By "I think" you mean "I just pulled this number out of my ass and I have
no ****ing clue what the real number is," right?

On Nov 13, 4:13 pm, KRJ wrote:
Laughing Out Loud...morons...you should reread your ilk's commentary
before the First Gulf War....Iraq had a million man army, used to
fighting in the desert, armed by the mighty Soviet military, toughened
by years of war with Iran and internal rebellion. Our soldiers were
lazy, highly paid pampered kids too dumb to get into college. ...


I just love (smack, smack) these big, brave he-men hiding behind
their
monitors 6,000 miles away from the hell holes they wish to send our
children to, so they can get off on the gore and mayhem that results.

11 million? That means most of the males in the country are
enlistable. Is this possible? Or have they got women involved too?
Imagine putting women in all the non-combat areas so they could free
up more men for the combat zones. Maybe 11mil is obtainable. Scary
thought.

"they wish to send our children to, so they can get off on the gore and
mayhem that results."

Well bucko, you've got us there. None of us have ever been in a war or care
any thing any thing about America or our kids. We just "get off" watching
all that blood and gore on the evening news. Not to mention the insightful
military strategy analysis by Geraldo Revera (sp?) who is one of my personal
heroes.

Irish Mike

"GoForward" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Nov 13, 4:13 pm, KRJ wrote:
Laughing Out Loud...morons...you should reread your ilk's commentary
before the First Gulf War....Iraq had a million man army, used to
fighting in the desert, armed by the mighty Soviet military, toughened
by years of war with Iran and internal rebellion. Our soldiers were
lazy, highly paid pampered kids too dumb to get into college. ...


I just love (smack, smack) these big, brave he-men hiding behind
their
monitors 6,000 miles away from the hell holes they wish to send our
children to, so they can get off on the gore and mayhem that results.

On Nov 13, 3:32 pm, "Irish Mike" wrote:
Well, let's hope all of the Iranian soldiers are like Amir Vehedi. He
deserted from the Iranian army, during a shooting war, and blamed it on his
mama.

Irish Mike

Look everyone, Irish Mike is repeating the tired old Republican "They
probably won't even fight" line forwarded by Bush neocons before the
Iraq War.

Thousands of dead and tens of thousands of wounded Americans later and
dumb****s like Irish Idiot are still spewing this absolute horse****.

David Nicoson wrote:

On Nov 13, 3:48 pm, croupe wrote:

I don't have the exact numbers, but I think that Iraq had somewhere
around 11M troops the first time around and that seemed to work out OK
for us.


Wikipedia states that there are only about 27M people in Iraq. 11M
troops sounds high.


From
https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...ir.html#People
Iran's Population: 65,397,521 (July 2007 est.)
Manpower fit for military service:
males age 18-49: 15,665,725
females age 18-49: 15,005,597 (2005 est.)
No numbers given on actual military strength.
I'd consider the CIA Fact Book more reliable than wikipedia.

From
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/

By 2004 the Iranian Army had some 350,000 men (200,000 conscripts).
Iran's navy has 20,000 men.
No numbers on the Iranian Air Force, but the site indicates they are down
considerably from a high of 100,000 just before the 1979 Revolution.


From
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGHUBERIV1.DTL
Iran's army includes 350,000 active-duty soldiers and 220,000 conscripts. Its
elite Revolutionary Guards number 120,000, many of them draftees. Its navy and
air force total 70,000 men.


Sounds like actual Iranian troop strength is somewhere well under a million.

These sites also indicate Iran's military technology (tanks, planes, etc.) is
mostly old, worn and in generally poor condition.

Wed, Nov 14, 2007, 1:12am (EST-3) snip of BS
post

Well, well, looks like Clinkerbell is back again. Meds run out?



JOAT
The whole of life is a learning process.
- John Keel

One US soldier = 100 Iranian soldiers
2,300,000 X 100 = 230,000,000
Oops I think the Iranians are out classed

--
Mike
Watch for the bounce.
If ya didn't see it, ya didn't feel it.
If ya see it, it didn't go off.
Old Air Force Munitions Saying
IYAAYAS
"127.0.0.1" wrote in message
oups.com...


2.3 million US Soldiers vs 11.7 million Iranian Soldiers = DRAFT

The Truth Will Set You Free | November 12, 2007

Some sobering advice from a fellow blogger at reigngame.com:

Alright, I know 90% of you guys follow politics so you've undoubtably
read and/or heard about the current Iran situation. I'd like to
briefly talk about the figurative war with Iran. For the sake of
discussion, let's begin with the questionably optimistic assumption
that no major country would forcefully oppose (economically or
militarily) full-scale US military operations in Iran. Nevermind
Iran's 12% imports with Germany and 10% imports with China - I'm sure
Germany and China's economies don't want Iran's money anyway, right?
Nevermind the fact that Iran exports 2,836,000 barrels of oil per day
to various nations that depend on that oil.

We can all just ride bikes until the 2 month war is over! As to the
Iranians themselves, I'm sure they're just dying (no pun intended) to
be invaded, er, `liberated` by Americans, considering the `horrid` 70%
approval rating of Ahmadinejad and the `devastating` $8,700 gross
domestic product per capita (8.6% better than China). I'm sure we'll
be "welcomed in the streets" after we "shock and awe" all important
looking buildings to Jahannum and back.

With a little help from the boys at GFP, I did some exploring into the
military systems of America and Iran and what I found was
alarming . . .

2,369,239 US Soldiers vs 11,770,000 Iranian Soldiers = DRAFT
The United States of America has 2.37 million soldiers capable of
combat and available for mobilization. Let's compare with little ol'
Iran! Iran has THE MOST military personnel available for combat in the
entire world. In fact, Iran has more combat-ready military personnel
than China and Russia combined. 11.7 million guerillas - Talk about
hell. The bottom line is, America can't even handle Iraq. At one
point, we thought we would rush in, smite some nubs with dirks and
bubble hearth back home in time for American Idol. Not quite. And with
Iran, reality is going to hurt a lot more.
America is War Stomping on Artificial Ice Above the Pit of Sparta

At the risk of loosing all my credibility, allow my concern to
manifest itself in a less than mature way: Our economy is &%$#ed. We
have a -862,300,000,000 dollar cash balance. That puts us LAST in the
world for cash balance of our own currency. This is what people are
talking about when they say deficit. But this is more than a deficit;
this is an abandonment of the dollar. The conclusion? Changes. And not
the type of changes 2Pac wanted. Big changes that will crash into the
hull of the United States.
Nerf Executive Branch

America is tipping back way too far in her easy chair - something is
about to happen. This upcoming 2008 election is extremely pivotal. I'm
not going to name any candidates because this isn't that type of
article. But let the point of this entire post clear: If you think
times are boring, think again. If you think the future is predictable,
think again. My advice to everyone who reads this is to be thoughtful,
be skeptical, be wise. Learn, test what you learn and share it. The
future of your family tree is in the balance.

http://infowars.com/articles/ww3/ira...sold iers.htm

GoForward wrote:

On Nov 13, 4:13 pm, KRJ wrote:

Laughing Out Loud...morons...you should reread your ilk's commentary
before the First Gulf War....Iraq had a million man army, used to
fighting in the desert, armed by the mighty Soviet military, toughened
by years of war with Iran and internal rebellion. Our soldiers were
lazy, highly paid pampered kids too dumb to get into college. ...



I just love (smack, smack) these big, brave he-men hiding behind
their
monitors 6,000 miles away from the hell holes they wish to send our
children to, so they can get off on the gore and mayhem that results.

idiot did I say anything about going to war...sorry but your ideological
bend apparently forces you to attribute views to people who don't parrot
your foolish statements...I was merely mocking the pathetic attempt to
argue against a war on the basis of a draft ...a false argument used to
scare the stay at home safe and sound crowd you accuse everyone of being
part of...I am opposed to any Iranian adventure simply because we won't
do it right...the Isrealies will...and I love how you happen to believe
you have a claim on free men and women who would volunteer to do a
job..."our children" give me a break...they are self-selected heroes and
heroines not likely to be the children of college professors, newsmen,
corporate bigwigs, lawyers, college kids or politicians but usually the
sons and daughters of middle and working class parents who often still
value their national identity...you and the Hillaries don't yet own them
so don't call them "ours"

Now don't you have some ribbons to wear to show how much you care

Actually if you remember they didn't fight...the war was over with
minimal of losses prolonged primarily by a sand storm...the problems
begin with nation building...breaking something is very easy...putting
it back together is hard...breaking Iran would be easy...fixing it would
be nearly impossible...that's why the Isrealies should do the job they
don't have a bunch of hand-wringing Hillaries sobbing on the sidelines
demanding that we do in another country what we can't do in ours...make
sure people don't self-destruct or commit crimes against one another




art_classmn wrote:

On Nov 13, 3:32 pm, "Irish Mike" wrote:

Well, let's hope all of the Iranian soldiers are like Amir Vehedi. He
deserted from the Iranian army, during a shooting war, and blamed it on his
mama.

Irish Mike


Look everyone, Irish Mike is repeating the tired old Republican "They
probably won't even fight" line forwarded by Bush neocons before the
Iraq War.

Thousands of dead and tens of thousands of wounded Americans later and
dumb****s like Irish Idiot are still spewing this absolute horse****.

"Isrealies should do the job they
don't have a bunch of hand-wringing Hillaries sobbing on the sidelines .."

I agree with your assessment of the difficulty in fixing problems in a post
war Iran. But you have totally mis-read Hillary, as do most people. She is
no hand-wringing sob sister. She is a cold gutted bitch who will do any
thing the political opinion polls tell her to do. If the polls shift toward
compassion, Hillary would be out there like Mother Theresa. If she thought
destroying Iran would get her elected and/or more political power, trust me
bucko, the Iranians would be in a world of ****.

Irish Mike

"KRJ" wrote in message
...
Actually if you remember they didn't fight...the war was over with minimal
of losses prolonged primarily by a sand storm...the problems begin with
nation building...breaking something is very easy...putting it back
together is hard...breaking Iran would be easy...fixing it would be nearly
impossible...that's why the Isrealies should do the job they don't have a
bunch of hand-wringing Hillaries sobbing on the sidelines demanding that
we do in another country what we can't do in ours...make sure people don't
self-destruct or commit crimes against one another




art_classmn wrote:

On Nov 13, 3:32 pm, "Irish Mike" wrote:

Well, let's hope all of the Iranian soldiers are like Amir Vehedi. He
deserted from the Iranian army, during a shooting war, and blamed it on
his
mama.

Irish Mike


Look everyone, Irish Mike is repeating the tired old Republican "They
probably won't even fight" line forwarded by Bush neocons before the
Iraq War.

Thousands of dead and tens of thousands of wounded Americans later and
dumb****s like Irish Idiot are still spewing this absolute horse****.

"Irish Mike" wrote in message
et...
Well bucko, you make it clear that America doesn't stand a chance against
the wealth and power or Iran. As you point out, America's 2.3 M soldiers
couldn't possibly defeat Iran's 11.7 M soldiers. Especially since we will
no doubt be fighting hand to hand, man to man, with out an air force,
bombs, missiles or armor. You should leave for Iran immediately, before
they destroy America's military forces and domestic economy. However, you
might want to steer clear of Israel on your way to Iran. They have only a
tiny fraction of Iran's number of soldiers but the Israelis will be
fighting for the survival of their country. The Israeli's will fight to
the death and use every weapon they have, including nuclear.

Thats why the Iranians are making nuclear weapons too.


Irish Mike


127.0.0.1" wrote in message
oups.com...


2.3 million US Soldiers vs 11.7 million Iranian Soldiers = DRAFT

The Truth Will Set You Free | November 12, 2007

Some sobering advice from a fellow blogger at reigngame.com:

Alright, I know 90% of you guys follow politics so you've undoubtably
read and/or heard about the current Iran situation. I'd like to
briefly talk about the figurative war with Iran. For the sake of
discussion, let's begin with the questionably optimistic assumption
that no major country would forcefully oppose (economically or
militarily) full-scale US military operations in Iran. Nevermind
Iran's 12% imports with Germany and 10% imports with China - I'm sure
Germany and China's economies don't want Iran's money anyway, right?
Nevermind the fact that Iran exports 2,836,000 barrels of oil per day
to various nations that depend on that oil.

We can all just ride bikes until the 2 month war is over! As to the
Iranians themselves, I'm sure they're just dying (no pun intended) to
be invaded, er, `liberated` by Americans, considering the `horrid` 70%
approval rating of Ahmadinejad and the `devastating` $8,700 gross
domestic product per capita (8.6% better than China). I'm sure we'll
be "welcomed in the streets" after we "shock and awe" all important
looking buildings to Jahannum and back.

With a little help from the boys at GFP, I did some exploring into the
military systems of America and Iran and what I found was
alarming . . .

2,369,239 US Soldiers vs 11,770,000 Iranian Soldiers = DRAFT
The United States of America has 2.37 million soldiers capable of
combat and available for mobilization. Let's compare with little ol'
Iran! Iran has THE MOST military personnel available for combat in the
entire world. In fact, Iran has more combat-ready military personnel
than China and Russia combined. 11.7 million guerillas - Talk about
hell. The bottom line is, America can't even handle Iraq. At one
point, we thought we would rush in, smite some nubs with dirks and
bubble hearth back home in time for American Idol. Not quite. And with
Iran, reality is going to hurt a lot more.
America is War Stomping on Artificial Ice Above the Pit of Sparta

At the risk of loosing all my credibility, allow my concern to
manifest itself in a less than mature way: Our economy is &%$#ed. We
have a -862,300,000,000 dollar cash balance. That puts us LAST in the
world for cash balance of our own currency. This is what people are
talking about when they say deficit. But this is more than a deficit;
this is an abandonment of the dollar. The conclusion? Changes. And not
the type of changes 2Pac wanted. Big changes that will crash into the
hull of the United States.
Nerf Executive Branch

America is tipping back way too far in her easy chair - something is
about to happen. This upcoming 2008 election is extremely pivotal. I'm
not going to name any candidates because this isn't that type of
article. But let the point of this entire post clear: If you think
times are boring, think again. If you think the future is predictable,
think again. My advice to everyone who reads this is to be thoughtful,
be skeptical, be wise. Learn, test what you learn and share it. The
future of your family tree is in the balance.

http://infowars.com/articles/ww3/ira...sold iers.htm

J T wrote:

Wed, Nov 14, 2007, 1:12am (EST-3) snip of BS
post

Well, well, looks like Clinkerbell is back again. Meds run out?


My news service is apparently filtering the idiot out. The only thing I'm
seeing is responses to the troll.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

"Thats why the Iranians are making nuclear weapons too."

That explains it all. The Iranians are building nuclear bombs because
they're afraid Israel will invade them and take over their country.

Irish Mike



"Lord Turkey Cough" wrote in message
...

"Irish Mike" wrote in message
et...
Well bucko, you make it clear that America doesn't stand a chance against
the wealth and power or Iran. As you point out, America's 2.3 M soldiers
couldn't possibly defeat Iran's 11.7 M soldiers. Especially since we
will no doubt be fighting hand to hand, man to man, with out an air
force, bombs, missiles or armor. You should leave for Iran immediately,
before they destroy America's military forces and domestic economy.
However, you might want to steer clear of Israel on your way to Iran.
They have only a tiny fraction of Iran's number of soldiers but the
Israelis will be fighting for the survival of their country. The
Israeli's will fight to the death and use every weapon they have,
including nuclear.

Thats why the Iranians are making nuclear weapons too.


Irish Mike


127.0.0.1" wrote in message
oups.com...


2.3 million US Soldiers vs 11.7 million Iranian Soldiers = DRAFT

The Truth Will Set You Free | November 12, 2007

Some sobering advice from a fellow blogger at reigngame.com:

Alright, I know 90% of you guys follow politics so you've undoubtably
read and/or heard about the current Iran situation. I'd like to
briefly talk about the figurative war with Iran. For the sake of
discussion, let's begin with the questionably optimistic assumption
that no major country would forcefully oppose (economically or
militarily) full-scale US military operations in Iran. Nevermind
Iran's 12% imports with Germany and 10% imports with China - I'm sure
Germany and China's economies don't want Iran's money anyway, right?
Nevermind the fact that Iran exports 2,836,000 barrels of oil per day
to various nations that depend on that oil.

We can all just ride bikes until the 2 month war is over! As to the
Iranians themselves, I'm sure they're just dying (no pun intended) to
be invaded, er, `liberated` by Americans, considering the `horrid` 70%
approval rating of Ahmadinejad and the `devastating` $8,700 gross
domestic product per capita (8.6% better than China). I'm sure we'll
be "welcomed in the streets" after we "shock and awe" all important
looking buildings to Jahannum and back.

With a little help from the boys at GFP, I did some exploring into the
military systems of America and Iran and what I found was
alarming . . .

2,369,239 US Soldiers vs 11,770,000 Iranian Soldiers = DRAFT
The United States of America has 2.37 million soldiers capable of
combat and available for mobilization. Let's compare with little ol'
Iran! Iran has THE MOST military personnel available for combat in the
entire world. In fact, Iran has more combat-ready military personnel
than China and Russia combined. 11.7 million guerillas - Talk about
hell. The bottom line is, America can't even handle Iraq. At one
point, we thought we would rush in, smite some nubs with dirks and
bubble hearth back home in time for American Idol. Not quite. And with
Iran, reality is going to hurt a lot more.
America is War Stomping on Artificial Ice Above the Pit of Sparta

At the risk of loosing all my credibility, allow my concern to
manifest itself in a less than mature way: Our economy is &%$#ed. We
have a -862,300,000,000 dollar cash balance. That puts us LAST in the
world for cash balance of our own currency. This is what people are
talking about when they say deficit. But this is more than a deficit;
this is an abandonment of the dollar. The conclusion? Changes. And not
the type of changes 2Pac wanted. Big changes that will crash into the
hull of the United States.
Nerf Executive Branch

America is tipping back way too far in her easy chair - something is
about to happen. This upcoming 2008 election is extremely pivotal. I'm
not going to name any candidates because this isn't that type of
article. But let the point of this entire post clear: If you think
times are boring, think again. If you think the future is predictable,
think again. My advice to everyone who reads this is to be thoughtful,
be skeptical, be wise. Learn, test what you learn and share it. The
future of your family tree is in the balance.

http://infowars.com/articles/ww3/ira...sold iers.htm

"Irish Mike" wrote in message
t...
"Thats why the Iranians are making nuclear weapons too."

That explains it all. The Iranians are building nuclear bombs because
they're afraid Israel will invade them and take over their country.

They will do when the price of oil hits $100 a barrel next year.


Irish Mike



"Lord Turkey Cough" wrote in message
...

"Irish Mike" wrote in message
et...
Well bucko, you make it clear that America doesn't stand a chance
against the wealth and power or Iran. As you point out, America's 2.3 M
soldiers couldn't possibly defeat Iran's 11.7 M soldiers. Especially
since we will no doubt be fighting hand to hand, man to man, with out an
air force, bombs, missiles or armor. You should leave for Iran
immediately, before they destroy America's military forces and domestic
economy. However, you might want to steer clear of Israel on your way to
Iran. They have only a tiny fraction of Iran's number of soldiers but
the Israelis will be fighting for the survival of their country. The
Israeli's will fight to the death and use every weapon they have,
including nuclear.

Thats why the Iranians are making nuclear weapons too.


Irish Mike


127.0.0.1" wrote in message
oups.com...


2.3 million US Soldiers vs 11.7 million Iranian Soldiers = DRAFT

The Truth Will Set You Free | November 12, 2007

Some sobering advice from a fellow blogger at reigngame.com:

Alright, I know 90% of you guys follow politics so you've undoubtably
read and/or heard about the current Iran situation. I'd like to
briefly talk about the figurative war with Iran. For the sake of
discussion, let's begin with the questionably optimistic assumption
that no major country would forcefully oppose (economically or
militarily) full-scale US military operations in Iran. Nevermind
Iran's 12% imports with Germany and 10% imports with China - I'm sure
Germany and China's economies don't want Iran's money anyway, right?
Nevermind the fact that Iran exports 2,836,000 barrels of oil per day
to various nations that depend on that oil.

We can all just ride bikes until the 2 month war is over! As to the
Iranians themselves, I'm sure they're just dying (no pun intended) to
be invaded, er, `liberated` by Americans, considering the `horrid` 70%
approval rating of Ahmadinejad and the `devastating` $8,700 gross
domestic product per capita (8.6% better than China). I'm sure we'll
be "welcomed in the streets" after we "shock and awe" all important
looking buildings to Jahannum and back.

With a little help from the boys at GFP, I did some exploring into the
military systems of America and Iran and what I found was
alarming . . .

2,369,239 US Soldiers vs 11,770,000 Iranian Soldiers = DRAFT
The United States of America has 2.37 million soldiers capable of
combat and available for mobilization. Let's compare with little ol'
Iran! Iran has THE MOST military personnel available for combat in the
entire world. In fact, Iran has more combat-ready military personnel
than China and Russia combined. 11.7 million guerillas - Talk about
hell. The bottom line is, America can't even handle Iraq. At one
point, we thought we would rush in, smite some nubs with dirks and
bubble hearth back home in time for American Idol. Not quite. And with
Iran, reality is going to hurt a lot more.
America is War Stomping on Artificial Ice Above the Pit of Sparta

At the risk of loosing all my credibility, allow my concern to
manifest itself in a less than mature way: Our economy is &%$#ed. We
have a -862,300,000,000 dollar cash balance. That puts us LAST in the
world for cash balance of our own currency. This is what people are
talking about when they say deficit. But this is more than a deficit;
this is an abandonment of the dollar. The conclusion? Changes. And not
the type of changes 2Pac wanted. Big changes that will crash into the
hull of the United States.
Nerf Executive Branch

America is tipping back way too far in her easy chair - something is
about to happen. This upcoming 2008 election is extremely pivotal. I'm
not going to name any candidates because this isn't that type of
article. But let the point of this entire post clear: If you think
times are boring, think again. If you think the future is predictable,
think again. My advice to everyone who reads this is to be thoughtful,
be skeptical, be wise. Learn, test what you learn and share it. The
future of your family tree is in the balance.

http://infowars.com/articles/ww3/ira...sold iers.htm

Lord Turkey Cough wrote:
"Irish Mike" wrote in message
t...
"Thats why the Iranians are making nuclear weapons too."

That explains it all. The Iranians are building nuclear bombs because
they're afraid Israel will invade them and take over their country.

They will do when the price of oil hits $100 a barrel next year.

The reason why OPEC is limiting production to only the domestic needs of
the USA is so there isn't enough fuel to do that anyway.

I guess they figure that faced with a choice between gas rationing and
NOT invading Iran, the US would choose the latter course.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Lord Turkey Cough wrote:
"Irish Mike" wrote in message
t...
"Thats why the Iranians are making nuclear weapons too."

That explains it all. The Iranians are building nuclear bombs
because they're afraid Israel will invade them and take over their
country.

They will do when the price of oil hits $100 a barrel next year.

The reason why OPEC is limiting production to only the domestic
needs
of the USA is so there isn't enough fuel to do that anyway.

You mean that OPEC has cut off Japan and the EU entirely?

I guess they figure that faced with a choice between gas rationing
and
NOT invading Iran, the US would choose the latter course.

Given the choice between gas rationing and some loon setting off a
nuke in NYC the US will take the gas rationing. Given the choice
between cooperating and some loon setting off a nuke in Riyadh, OPEC
will cooperate.

OPEC can't prevent the US from conducting military operations. There
is an oil reserve maintained specifically against that eventuality.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

In article ,
J. Clarke wrote:

Given the choice between gas rationing and some loon setting off a
nuke in NYC the US will take the gas rationing. Given the choice
between cooperating and some loon setting off a nuke in Riyadh, OPEC
will cooperate.

Given the choice between gas rationing and some loon setting off a
nuke in Riyadh, the US will choose the nuke.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
In article ,
J. Clarke wrote:

Given the choice between gas rationing and some loon setting off a
nuke in NYC the US will take the gas rationing. Given the choice
between cooperating and some loon setting off a nuke in Riyadh,
OPEC
will cooperate.

Given the choice between gas rationing and some loon setting off a
nuke in Riyadh, the US will choose the nuke.

Please explain the circumstances under which a nuke in Riyadh avoids
gas rationing.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

In article ,
J. Clarke wrote:
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
In article ,
J. Clarke wrote:

Given the choice between gas rationing and some loon setting off a
nuke in NYC the US will take the gas rationing. Given the choice
between cooperating and some loon setting off a nuke in Riyadh,
OPEC
will cooperate.

Given the choice between gas rationing and some loon setting off a
nuke in Riyadh, the US will choose the nuke.

Please explain the circumstances under which a nuke in Riyadh avoids
gas rationing.

Sorry, you pretty much have to be a professional politician to come up
with that scenario. Or maybe Tom Clancy.

But if the scenario occurred, I know which the US would chooce.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
In article ,
J. Clarke wrote:
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
In article ,
J. Clarke wrote:

Given the choice between gas rationing and some loon setting off
a
nuke in NYC the US will take the gas rationing. Given the choice
between cooperating and some loon setting off a nuke in Riyadh,
OPEC
will cooperate.

Given the choice between gas rationing and some loon setting off a
nuke in Riyadh, the US will choose the nuke.

Please explain the circumstances under which a nuke in Riyadh
avoids
gas rationing.

Sorry, you pretty much have to be a professional politician to come
up
with that scenario. Or maybe Tom Clancy.

But if the scenario occurred, I know which the US would chooce.

You haven't answered the question.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

In article ,
J. Clarke wrote:
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
In article ,
J. Clarke wrote:
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
In article ,
J. Clarke wrote:

Given the choice between gas rationing and some loon setting off
a
nuke in NYC the US will take the gas rationing. Given the choice
between cooperating and some loon setting off a nuke in Riyadh,
OPEC
will cooperate.

Given the choice between gas rationing and some loon setting off a
nuke in Riyadh, the US will choose the nuke.

Please explain the circumstances under which a nuke in Riyadh
avoids gas rationing.

Sorry, you pretty much have to be a professional politician to come
up
with that scenario. Or maybe Tom Clancy.

But if the scenario occurred, I know which the US would chooce.

You haven't answered the question.

I'm not Tom Clancy or a professional politician. I don't have an
answer.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
In article ,
J. Clarke wrote:
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
In article ,
J. Clarke wrote:
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
In article ,
J. Clarke wrote:

Given the choice between gas rationing and some loon setting
off
a
nuke in NYC the US will take the gas rationing. Given the
choice
between cooperating and some loon setting off a nuke in Riyadh,
OPEC
will cooperate.

Given the choice between gas rationing and some loon setting off
a
nuke in Riyadh, the US will choose the nuke.

Please explain the circumstances under which a nuke in Riyadh
avoids gas rationing.

Sorry, you pretty much have to be a professional politician to
come
up
with that scenario. Or maybe Tom Clancy.

But if the scenario occurred, I know which the US would chooce.

You haven't answered the question.

I'm not Tom Clancy or a professional politician. I don't have an
answer.

In other words you agree that a nuke in Riyadh equals gas rationing.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

In article ,
J. Clarke wrote:
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
In article ,
J. Clarke wrote:
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
In article ,
J. Clarke wrote:
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
In article ,
J. Clarke wrote:

Given the choice between gas rationing and some loon setting
off
a
nuke in NYC the US will take the gas rationing. Given the
choice
between cooperating and some loon setting off a nuke in Riyadh,
OPEC
will cooperate.

Given the choice between gas rationing and some loon setting off
a
nuke in Riyadh, the US will choose the nuke.

Please explain the circumstances under which a nuke in Riyadh
avoids gas rationing.

Sorry, you pretty much have to be a professional politician to
come
up
with that scenario. Or maybe Tom Clancy.

But if the scenario occurred, I know which the US would chooce.

You haven't answered the question.

I'm not Tom Clancy or a professional politician. I don't have an
answer.

In other words you agree that a nuke in Riyadh equals gas rationing.

No.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article ,
(Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:


You haven't answered the question.

I'm not Tom Clancy or a professional politician. I don't have an
answer.

In other words you agree that a nuke in Riyadh equals gas rationing.

No.

Since we seemed to have elected Tom Clancy arbiter of such things,
then we could nuke Riyadh and not impact on the oil fields to any great
extent. They are far enough away, according to TC's scenarios.

Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
In article ,
J. Clarke wrote:
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
In article ,
J. Clarke wrote:
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
In article ,
J. Clarke wrote:
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
In article ,
J. Clarke wrote:

Given the choice between gas rationing and some loon setting
off
a
nuke in NYC the US will take the gas rationing. Given the
choice
between cooperating and some loon setting off a nuke in
Riyadh,
OPEC
will cooperate.

Given the choice between gas rationing and some loon setting
off
a
nuke in Riyadh, the US will choose the nuke.

Please explain the circumstances under which a nuke in Riyadh
avoids gas rationing.

Sorry, you pretty much have to be a professional politician to
come
up
with that scenario. Or maybe Tom Clancy.

But if the scenario occurred, I know which the US would chooce.

You haven't answered the question.

I'm not Tom Clancy or a professional politician. I don't have an
answer.

In other words you agree that a nuke in Riyadh equals gas
rationing.

No.

So you claim that it takes Tom Clancy or a professional politician to
come up with a scenario in which it does _not_ result in gas rationing
but now you say that it doesn't regardless. So what is your
reasoning, or are you just being a pain in the ass?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
(Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:


You haven't answered the question.

I'm not Tom Clancy or a professional politician. I don't have an
answer.

In other words you agree that a nuke in Riyadh equals gas
rationing.

No.

Since we seemed to have elected Tom Clancy arbiter of such
things, then we could nuke Riyadh and not impact on the oil fields
to
any great extent. They are far enough away, according to TC's
scenarios.

Actually, they probably are--the area affected by a single nuclear
detonation is generally greatly exaggerated. But it isn't damage to
the oil fields that would be the problem, it would be the political
results within Saudi Arabia and the Middle East.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

In article ,
"J. Clarke" wrote:


Actually, they probably are--the area affected by a single nuclear
detonation is generally greatly exaggerated. But it isn't damage to
the oil fields that would be the problem, it would be the political
results within Saudi Arabia and the Middle East.

--

Middle East maybe, but I don't think there would be enough of Saudi
left over to be political. While the oilfields are probably going to be
safe, the big population centers would be toast. Of course I also doubt
we'd pull the lanyard on the nuclear side of things anyway so this is
just an interesting diversion.

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"J. Clarke" wrote:


Actually, they probably are--the area affected by a single nuclear
detonation is generally greatly exaggerated. But it isn't damage
to
the oil fields that would be the problem, it would be the political
results within Saudi Arabia and the Middle East.

--

Middle East maybe, but I don't think there would be enough of
Saudi left over to be political. While the oilfields are probably
going to be safe, the big population centers would be toast. Of
course I also doubt we'd pull the lanyard on the nuclear side of
things anyway so this is just an interesting diversion.

You're Iranian?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

In article ,
J. Clarke wrote:
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
In article ,
J. Clarke wrote:
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
In article ,
J. Clarke wrote:
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
In article ,
J. Clarke wrote:
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
In article ,
J. Clarke wrote:

Given the choice between gas rationing and some loon setting
off a nuke in NYC the US will take the gas rationing. Given the
choice between cooperating and some loon setting off a nuke in
Riyadh, OPEC will cooperate.

Given the choice between gas rationing and some loon setting
off a nuke in Riyadh, the US will choose the nuke.

Please explain the circumstances under which a nuke in Riyadh
avoids gas rationing.

Sorry, you pretty much have to be a professional politician to
come up with that scenario. Or maybe Tom Clancy.

But if the scenario occurred, I know which the US would chooce.

You haven't answered the question.

I'm not Tom Clancy or a professional politician. I don't have an
answer.

In other words you agree that a nuke in Riyadh equals gas
rationing.

No.

So you claim that it takes Tom Clancy or a professional politician to
come up with a scenario in which it does _not_ result in gas rationing
but now you say that it doesn't regardless. So what is your
reasoning, or are you just being a pain in the ass?

I claim it takes Tom Clancy or a professional politician to come up
with a scenario in which a nuke in Riyadh _prevents_ gas rationing.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
In article ,
J. Clarke wrote:
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
In article ,
J. Clarke wrote:
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
In article ,
J. Clarke wrote:
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
In article ,
J. Clarke wrote:
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
In article ,
J. Clarke wrote:

Given the choice between gas rationing and some loon
setting
off a nuke in NYC the US will take the gas rationing.
Given
the choice between cooperating and some loon setting off a
nuke in Riyadh, OPEC will cooperate.

Given the choice between gas rationing and some loon setting
off a nuke in Riyadh, the US will choose the nuke.

Please explain the circumstances under which a nuke in Riyadh
avoids gas rationing.

Sorry, you pretty much have to be a professional politician to
come up with that scenario. Or maybe Tom Clancy.

But if the scenario occurred, I know which the US would
chooce.

You haven't answered the question.

I'm not Tom Clancy or a professional politician. I don't have
an
answer.

In other words you agree that a nuke in Riyadh equals gas
rationing.

No.

So you claim that it takes Tom Clancy or a professional politician
to
come up with a scenario in which it does _not_ result in gas
rationing but now you say that it doesn't regardless. So what is
your reasoning, or are you just being a pain in the ass?

I claim it takes Tom Clancy or a professional politician to come up
with a scenario in which a nuke in Riyadh _prevents_ gas rationing.

But nobody proposed that it would.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)