posted
Yes, you read right. Our administration is speaking of having seven operational battle groups in the waters surrounding the Middle East. I think this is severly overhanded and I am thankful our enemies don't have the balls nor the brains to launch an attack against our ships. If they did, we would be in some serious shit.
In 1941, the American military placed the most powerful warships, the battleships, of our Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor. They were lined in two neat rows, nicknamed "Battleship Row". On Dec. 7, 1941, the Japanese inflicted terrible losses on the battleships.
In 2003, our president is openly thinking of sending 7 battlegroups to the Middle East. There are 11 battlegroups in our Navy. Translation-63% of the bulk of our main Navy is in the Middle East. This is fucked idiotic and that is why I am thankful as I stated earlier. If our enemies were stronger, we would have another Battleship Row in the making.
Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
No. Iraqi Yamamoto's are not in stock.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Yep, they have a navy all right. Admittedly it consists of about 10 torpedo boats but you should never underestimate the fighting spirit of the Iraqi.
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Where Is Bin Laden? Has anyone thought where this latest Iraqi thing originated from?? My first memories of Iraq being mentioned was about the time they were bombing Tora Bora - and the US generals were all smug. And then they couldn't find Bin Laden. Then there was the 'Iraq' word mentioned. I mean it all sorta crept up with no REAL 'trigger' - if the US were that worried about Iraq's weapons capabilty - why didn't they attack it or push for the inspectors back a few years ago? Where is Bin Laden? Does anyone think that George Dubya had Iraq on his mind the whole time and because of the 'war on terror' has only NOW gotten around to it? Where is Bin Laden? I know you have to be vigalent - but this Iraq thing sorta leeched itself out - AND I think the news channels have a lot to answer for TOO. "So after Afghanistan is Iraq next on the target?" was another 'oft heard' phrase on the News Channels. And I point my finger often at Fox News Channel. "We spew crap - you lap it up". CNN are just as bad.
ANYWAY - what is the REAL reason for the Iraq attack NOW - why not a few years ago?
AND after all of this - Where is Bin Laden? Where are his Al Qaeeda cronies? I thought that was the main objective for America. How soon we forget.
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
posted
Very good questions, Andrew. Don't expect our resident hawks to answer them any time soon.
Speaking of which, ooh, seven battle groups. . . Perhaps it might be wise to create a new symbol, in the vein of the Important Topic symbol, to denote and warn of an Omega Masturbatory Zone. 8)
posted
C'mon, you can't be the President of the United States of America without bombing Bagdhad at least once. Especially if you have to prove yourself to your father and put yourself above your idiot brother
Didn't George W. bomb Iraq in his early days as President too? Something to do with "violating the no-fly zone"?
On a sidenote, here's an interesting Flash movie on the possibly outcome of a second Gulf War.
posted
Yeah, only weeks after he was inaugurated, Dubya launched an increased bombing offensive against some Iraqi military installations. It was just a big drama show to make him look resolute.
And I'm one of those apparently few American citizens who hasn't forgotten about Bin Laden and the supposed ultimate priority of nailing him. I honestly wonder if the military commanders in Washington just aren't trying for that any more... I mean, even after Tora Bora, everything I heard suggested that Bin Laden was still in that general area. If our military geniuses had a clue, I don't see why they couldn't have done SOMETHING.
Of course, nailing Bin Laden won't solve the problem at all. Basically it'll just create a martyr. Not only that, but the War on Terrorism? is the kind of conflict that by its very nature can't produce many spectacular results -- especially by the hush-hush rules that this administration is playing by (i.e. to keep most of the juicy stuff secret for "security reasons"). Instead, Bush has decided that using Saddam as a scapegoat is a way to give the masses a really cool light show and produce solid "results" that they can point to later -- especially at the next general election.
*sigh*
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Ah, yes, the famous 'Bin Laden is dying of cancer/cyrossis of the liver/kidney failure/whatever the latest fashionable fatal disease is. based almost entirely on the fact that he looks a little off in the low quality videos Al-Jazeera broadcasts.
Oh, and apparently there was a pass out of Afganistan and into Pakistan (I think) that the Royal Marines pointed out to the US armed forces and recommended they patrol (there weren't enough Marines). The US commander refused because his troops might have gotten cold.
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
The Bush's didn't like the oil futures, having large amounts of stock in big oil, so he figured a war in the middle east would drive up oil prices, giving bigger (untaxed) dividends.... It is part of his economic stimulus plan for the poverty stricken people with vast big oil stocks....
-------------------- "You are a terrible human, Ritten." Magnus "Urgh, you are a sick sick person..." Austin Powers A leek too, pretty much a negi.....
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
