Search results

Gee, I wonder why.:rolleyes:

Could you tell me what was nonsensical in that post? Preferrably something substantial, rather than being abusive?

Her question was why Americans hate Iranians, not why Iranians hate Americans. For the latter, the CIA backed coup was the starting point.

Not really, a regular army unit cannot do an amphibious assault as well as a marine expeditionary group can. And as you know, amphibious and expeditionary capability is very important for the US, unlike most other countries.

It began with this: Iran hostage crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is very dubious. The article states that India was shopping for "nuclear, chemical and conventional weapons" from Israel. Israel is already one of our biggest arms suppliers (second, I believe). Why would we need to buy conventional weapons covertly from them? As for nuclear tech, what...

That's little @HongWu in a new avatar.

1214 percent, not times.

Licensing issues, for starters. We need their permission to weaponize them, if that wasn't allowed in the original contract.The Pilatus PC-7 contract (IIRC) explicitly said that we won't weaponize them. Selling a trainer and armed trainer have very different implications on export controls...

Unlikely, because they were craniopagus twins - ie, joined together at the heads. Their brains were yoked together, and seperating them was a lot riskier.

No dear, the 1965 war was started by Pakistan's 'Operation Gibraltar'. You need to bear in mind that it's Pakistani people who have a desire to change the status quo, ie to take Indian Kashmir. Indians are happy to let Pakistan keep the part of Kashmir it controls. Only the side that wants to...

Don't worry, nobody wants your wife.

Strategic targets are static, right? So why not use ICBMs to hit them? Why would you need to be near the target, when such long ranged missiles exist?

Umm..how many such countries are there?

Wouldn't it be simpler to launch a hundred surface to surface missiles?

The Indian military lives by "Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst". Currently the worst imaginable scenario is a two front war with China and Pak attacking us together. The chance for that happening is very close to zero, but preparing for that eventuality will make us feel secure. And...

From the article: He was there (and teaching in a school) only because he was working with that NGO. Similarly members of the American peace corps have stints as teachers, aid workers etc in underdeveloped countries. He was there because the Jesuit mission sent him there. From Wp, about...

That won't happen. American spec ops units act as self contained small units, and they only go for a mission they are prepared for. They are unlikely to find themselves alone in enemy territory like that hapless Jordanian pilot. A USAF or USN pilot could eject and find himself in the same...

They used that word in the international, global meaning - not in the Pakistani aid/charity worker sense.

How is this related to my post?