- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 10/12/23 at 9:45 am to Lynxrufus2012
NATO and Japan have a combined 19 aircraft carriers.
China and Russia have a combined 3
China and Russia have a combined 3
Posted on 10/12/23 at 9:48 am to Lynxrufus2012
The prevailing NeoCon mindset (and Evangelical mindset) that Israel might as well be a US state is going to continue to frick us.
Treating Israel like they're part of the US has only brought bad shite to the United States.
I wish y'all weren't so crazy and brainwashed. Israel does not care if they take us down with them. Not one little bit.
Treating Israel like they're part of the US has only brought bad shite to the United States.
I wish y'all weren't so crazy and brainwashed. Israel does not care if they take us down with them. Not one little bit.
Posted on 10/12/23 at 9:52 am to lsunatchamp
quote:
Their blue water fleet doesn't hold a candle to NATO and Japan combined.
Outside of the relationships existing between the countries as strategic allies, you do realize that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization doesn’t have a role in events in the west pacific.
China can overtly missile and sink a US carrier and it doesn’t evoke a treaty obligated response.
We’d prob get Australia to help. British I’m no longer so sure about. The Special Relationship seems eroded. It could go either way.
Posted on 10/12/23 at 10:01 am to Volvagia
quote:
Outside of the relationships existing between the countries as strategic allies, you do realize that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization doesn’t have a role in events in the west pacific.
It doesn't matter. Japan can take out China's navy by themselves.
Posted on 10/12/23 at 10:17 am to lsunatchamp
quote:
China and Russia have a combined 3
Russia's only aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetzov, is actually a heavy aircraft carrying cruiser (a necessary designation for Turkey to let it through the Bosphorus Strait) and it runs on mazut....when it's actually running. It's spent most of its service life being tugged from one dry dock to another for repairs. China has 2, one of which is the sister hull to the Kuznetsov and is a complete POS as well. They're allegedly working on a home-built nuclear carrier, but it will still be a Chinese ship with Chinese planes and a Chinese crew.
Posted on 10/12/23 at 10:58 am to mikeytig
Lovely.
Posted on 10/12/23 at 11:00 am to mikeytig
Saudi Arabia has one message for domestic consumption and another behind closed doors. They will do whatever they have to do to undermine Iran. But they will do it quietly.
Posted on 10/12/23 at 12:06 pm to lsunatchamp
If you count amphibious assault ships we have 20 by ourselves. They can carry 20 F-35 B aircraft.
Posted on 10/12/23 at 12:35 pm to lsunatchamp
quote:Not to mention Russia has its hands full in Ukraine. I can’t imagine they have a lot of resources to divert from there to fight elsewhere without leaving the motherland vulnerable
They still will lose horribly in a world war without China and Russia and I just don't see China getting into a world war over Palestine. China knows it is very vulnerable right now. They have no energy independence, they get most from the Saudis. If the Saudis are in all out war with US and Nato, none of their oil tankers would even get to China. China would be done for in less than a month.
Posted on 10/12/23 at 12:38 pm to Volvagia
quote:
Outside of the relationships existing between the countries as strategic allies, you do realize that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization doesn’t have a role in events in the west pacific.
China can overtly missile and sink a US carrier and it doesn’t evoke a treaty obligated response.
We invoked the mutual defense clause for the September 11 attacks. If China launches an unprovoked attack on the US, it 100% triggers article 5
ETA: I'm wrong...see post below mine
This post was edited on 10/12/23 at 2:14 pm
Posted on 10/12/23 at 1:37 pm to Tiger Prawn
Read it again. Article 5 explicitly states it only applies to attacks in the geographical areas of Europe and North America.
If that wasn’t the case, the Gulf of Tonkin would have been a triggering event bringing the herd in.
If that wasn’t the case, the Gulf of Tonkin would have been a triggering event bringing the herd in.
Posted on 10/12/23 at 1:41 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Hamas was upset about a potential peace deal between Israel and the Saudis.
Hamas doesn't think; they just respond to what Iran tells them. They would have never made this move without the support of Iran. That said, Iran does not want to get to shooting. Their people are ready to revolt as it is; a big shooting war might start the dominos to falling.
Posted on 10/12/23 at 1:41 pm to mikeytig
Please, they are just words. They didn't pledge to support them militarily (though Iran is doing that already).
Don't get too twisted up in this.
It's not a "good thing" but it's similar to a lot to previous expressions of hot air.
Don't get too twisted up in this.
quote:
"He also stressed - may God protect him - the Kingdom’s firm position towards supporting the Palestinian cause and supporting efforts aimed at achieving a comprehensive and just peace that guarantees the Palestinian people’s access to their legitimate rights," the Saudi Press Agency said in a statement.
The two sides also committed to supporting military de-escalation. Sentiment about the need to end the targeting of civilians appeared to be focused against Israel, while the two stressed the joint support for the Palestinians.
It's not a "good thing" but it's similar to a lot to previous expressions of hot air.
Posted on 10/12/23 at 1:50 pm to Volvagia
quote:
Read it again. Article 5 explicitly states it only applies to attacks in the geographical areas of Europe and North America. If that wasn’t the case, the Gulf of Tonkin would have been a triggering event bringing the herd in.
While technically true, we would probably still get token support from our NATO “allies.” They can’t risk pissing us off and having to actually pay for their own defense.
Posted on 10/12/23 at 1:54 pm to Timeoday
quote:
SA does not want Iran to have a nuke. This news is BS. Israel is going to remove the nuke capabilities of Iran during this war.
SA is the biggest snake in the ME. They play both sides to their advantage in everything
At least Palestinians, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan you know where they stand. SA will shake your hand one day stab you in the back the next if it means financial gain or weakening their enemies
Posted on 10/12/23 at 2:13 pm to Volvagia
quote:You're right
Read it again. Article 5 explicitly states it only applies to attacks in the geographical areas of Europe and North America.
Posted on 10/12/23 at 2:19 pm to Volvagia
quote:
Read it again. Article 5 explicitly states it only applies to attacks in the geographical areas of Europe and North America.
Sure, but if the United States falls, all of NATO goes along with it. UK is already sending some warships to Israel in a show of support.
If WW3 actually does happen, expect all NATO countries to be 100% in. Even Canada with their 2 hockey players and a moose. All available resources
Posted on 10/12/23 at 2:22 pm to tiggerthetooth
quote:
You really falling for left wing propaganda?
Saudi Arabia and Iran despise each other.
I'm pretty sure they are still at war with each other, via proxy, in Yemen
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News