Missy89:


Dude save the kitchen questions for the female members in your family & friends.

The Khanabad airfield you mentioned was used mainly for transportation of troops and supplies. I was talking about air crafts directly engaging in combat.

The coalition flew over 100k sorties during the gulf war, over 3500 alone were by harrier jets most of which launched fro AA ships in the gulf. They even flew over 1000 sorties from ships during the 2003 invasion from the coast.

Super carrier can carry around 80 jets each. Multiply that to get your answer.

You dont even seem to understand your own question. During the gulf, US cruise misses were flying over Iran 247. So the idea that if a country under attack is bordered by another country with better coastal defense means you can operate, that doesnt make any sense. tomahawk missiles were specifically configured to fly over Iran's Zagros mountain.

Even a six year old knows that heavy gun ships cannot take off from carries so you are only making yourself look stupid here. Those are long range aircraft that hardly even operate in conflict areas anyway which is the topic being discussed. So stick to it

Bottom line. You can still operate a lot of aircrafts even if you have two airfields if you have carriers and tankers. And you cant really prove that is false. All you did was cite wishy washy things that are not related to what i said.

You even mentioned Vietnam and got it all wrong again as usual. Now lets look at what i said, I mentioned the vietnam war, Your ran to Wikipedia and quoted one Operation in the whole war. Can i cite operation linebacker too to buttress my point? After all, The same Task force 77 of the US navy flew more sorties in that operation. Now can you see how silly you sound?

This is from the Naval Institute

During the five and one-half month period of Linebacker I, the Navy contributed more than 60 percent of the total sorties in North Vietnam, with 60 percent of this effort in the "panhandle", two large regions between Hanoi and the DMZ. Tactical air operations were most intense during the July-September quarter with 12,865 naval sorties

Ok Khanadab was primarily for transport and logistics.
Incirlik in Turkey nko?
Satan Arabia air bases nko?
Diego Garcia nko?
Those 4 airfields in Thailand during the vietnam nko?
That new airstrip in northern Syria nko?
Akrotiri in Cyprus nko?
Malta nko?

Impressive numbers by the Harriers by the way. But were all the flights off carriers? Were they? What was the ratio? How much payload did these Harriers carry? Any bunker busting bombs amongst them at all? Scratch that! Does the ratio even matter? Bottom line, were all sorties from carriers? You know the answer I believe.

In your own words, you said you were talking about aircraft that are directly engaging in combat and then went on say heavy gunships don't take off from carriers. True. But heavy gunships such as the AC-130 ARE NOT long range. Why do you suppose I mentioned this one in particular and not the B-52 or B-2 longe range bombers for instance? Don't AC-130 gunships take off from airfields? And isn't it a combat aircraft (your own words) Aha! You see who's stupid now? Aha? See? Abi you want me to break it down further?

And these aerial tankers that refuel these attack aircrafts so that they can remain airborne and engaged longer; from whence do they take off Missy?

Quoting a Vietnam campaign that involved a substantial amount of sorties off carriers doesn't discount the fact that a considerable amount also took off form ground air bases.

Every single Amerika bombing campaign has required an (several) airfield(s). If you are so certain airfields aren't needed, please present this ground breaking solution to your superiors and see how they react.

NairaMinted:


Ok Khanadab was primarily for transport and logistics.
Incirlik in Turkey nko?
Satan Arabia air bases nko?
Diego Garcia nko?
Those 4 airfields in Thailand during the vietnam nko?
That new airstrip in northern Syria nko?
Akrotiri in Cyprus nko?
Malta nko?

Impressive numbers by the Harriers by the way. But were all the flights off carriers? Were they? What was the ratio? How much payload did these Harriers carry? Any bunker busting bombs amongst them at all? Scratch that! Does the ratio even matter? Bottom line, were all sorties from carriers? You know the answer I believe.

In your own words, you said you were talking about aircraft that are directly engaging in combat and then went on say heavy gunships don't take off from carriers. True. But heavy gunships such as the AC-130 ARE NOT long range. Why do you suppose I mentioned this one in particular and not the B-52 or B-2 longe range bombers for instance? Don't AC-130 gunships take off from airfields? And isn't it a combat aircraft (your own words) Aha! You see who's stupid now? Aha? See? Abi you want me to break it down further?

And these aerial tankers that refuel these attack aircrafts so that they can remain airborne and engaged longer; from whence do they take off Missy?

Quoting a Vietnam campaign that involved a substantial amount of sorties off carriers doesn't discount the fact that a considerable amount also took off form ground air bases.

Every single Amerika bombing campaign has required an (several) airfield(s). If you are so certain airfields aren't needed, please present this ground breaking solution to your superiors and see how they react.

I cant remember saying airfields arent needed in combat. But the assumption that few airfields will reduce your ability to use your airplanes is the ridiculous part of the argument that i dealt with. I cited vietnam as and example and mention an operation that had a huge significant amount of sorties launched from carriers.

You mentioned Rolling thunder, now lets take a good look at your example. You said 4 airfields from Thailand were used in the air campaign. You are actually arguing against yourself because Thailand was not part of the conflict area to begin with.

All the Other bases you mentioned does not change the fact that you dont need a lot of airfields in the conflict area. Was Cyrpus, Diego Garcia and Malta war theaters during the gulf war? You dont need to sound stupid if you dont know what you are talking about.

You are all over the place with your ridiculous ignorance. I am beginning to think English is the problem here

NairaMinted:


Oga-It-Took-Russia-6-Months-To-Win-Back-Territory in Syria, I have already posed the question why Russia would want to engage in a silly, useless, counter-productive and self-defeating act of invading Europe to your "girlfriend" since I know you are incapable of answering.

Must you follow Missy89 upandan threads seconding Missy's views and liking Missy's posts like some love sick puppy? I recollect an instance Missy even ordered you not to reply on one particular thread but like the meddlesome interloper that he/she is, he/she came back and you also followed suit! Hilarious!
Are you incapable of any independent thought at all? Are you trying to score points? Trying to get ya Jewish paws in those pants eh? That's if Missy is actually a missy. Lol!

Hahahahaha, you got to be kidding muah! The funny thing with that thing valeriansteel is that it is yet to see the monkey face of the thing it is following upandan. I tell you if you see that things mis89 face you ain't gonna eat tonight. If you doubt me ask shymexx, remember he was at a time cozying up to the thing until the thing showed its face to him and he had to run for his dear life. Haven't you noticed that he has stopped to talking to the thing and he is even ridiculing the things posts.

I only pity valersteel, because he is in for a shocker.

missy89post=46027238:
[s]

Simple answer. Russia did not size Georgia because of the following reasons

1) Bush ordered US troops to start "humanitarian aid" mission in Georgia to warn Russia not to move into Tiblisi. Russia wanted Shakasvili gone. The proposal was flat out rejected by the US and the conservation was leaked by US officials in the UN. Go read about it

2) Russia could not bomb the Tbilisi airport because American Hercules planes were on the tarmac and US Fifth Fleet which entered the Black Sea monitored on its radars the airspace in the Tbilisi-Moscow-Volgograd triangle. That was according to Dmitri Shashkin former Georgian defense minister

3) Nicholas Sarkozy who was the EU president or whatever at that time was also instrumental in stopping Russia from going further. You can read this up easily.
.[/s]

You should be ashamed of yourself!!! getting fact from YouTube videos documentary on putin done by a nutter who used to work for the BBC and uploaded in Febuary this year. I used to think you are a stupid but now I know that you are not only stupid but you were also born dumb and foolish! Shame on you!

YTkester:
[/b]


You should be ashamed of yourself!!! getting fact from YouTube videos documentary on putin done by a nutter who used to work for the BBC and uploaded in Febuary this year. I used to think you are a stupid but now I know that you are not only stupid but you were also born dumb and foolish! Shame on you!

Well, well

What do we have here? Own goal?

Total confusion in the house of trolls. ValerianSteel,Lucasbalo. You need to see this

Just in case he tries to delete it, look at the attached screenshot below

They are now turning on each other. foundation built on lies dont last

[s]

Missy89:


Simple answer. Russia did not size Georgia because of the following reasons

1) Bush ordered US troops to start "humanitarian aid" mission in Georgia to warn Russia not to move into Tiblisi. Russia wanted Shakasvili gone. The proposal was flat out rejected by the US and the conservation was leaked by US officials in the UN. Go read about it

2) Russia could not bomb the Tbilisi airport because American Hercules planes were on the tarmac and US Fifth Fleet which entered the Black Sea monitored on its radars the airspace in the Tbilisi-Moscow-Volgograd triangle. That was according to Dmitri Shashkin former Georgian defense minister

3) Nicholas Sarkozy who was the EU president or whatever at that time was also instrumental in stopping Russia from going further. You can read this up easily.


Russia cannot and will NOT seize the whole of Ukraine not because it cannot do it militarily but because more sanctions will be imposed and western countries might decide to start arming the Ukrainians which will make the effort futile anyway.

If you think Russia's invasion into Eastern Europe is self defeating, apply that same logic to the deployment of troops to Russia's border. Why would the US want to Invade Russia? give me one reason. Just one

[/s]



You should be ashamed of yourself!!! getting fact from YouTube videos documentary on putin done by a nutter who used to work for the BBC and uploaded in Febuary this year. I used to think you are a silly but now I know that you are not only silly but you were also born dumb and foolish! Shame on you!

YTkester:




Hahahahaha, you got to be kidding muah! The funny thing with that thing valeriansteel is that it is yet to see the monkey face of the thing it is following upandan. I tell you if you see that things mis89 face you ain't gonna eat tonight. If you doubt me ask shymexx, remember he was at a time cozying up to the thing until the thing showed its face to him and he had to run for his dear life. Haven't you noticed that he has stopped to talking to the thing and he is even ridiculing the things posts.

I only pity valersteel, because he is in for a shocker.

Why do I care to see what Missy looks like?

You think am sex starved like you and Zohahariel who get rock hard whenever she makes a posts.Beats me why you are intent on knowing what she looks like

Oh I know,you guys wanna add her picture to your catalogue of faces when you get off.Goodluck with that.

Missy89:


Well, well

What do we have here? Own goal?

Total confusion in the house of trolls. ValerianSteel,Lucasbalo. You need to see this

Just in case he tries to delete it, look at the attached screenshot below

They are now turning on each other. foundation built on lies dont last

My goodness he typed that.I can't believe my eyes

ValerianSteel:
My goodness he typed that.I can't believe my eyes

Just like i thought. he deleted it but it is too late now. Thank God i took a screenshot yesterday.

I have always suspected that i have been talking to a dude that was born stupid and foolish

Missy89:


Just like i thought. he deleted it but it is too late now. Thank God i took a screenshot yesterday.

I have always suspected that i have been talking to a dude that was born stupid and foolish

I don't know why or how he has access to the internet,his foolishness is on the extreme

Nice right up. Its well known that the rise of Russia under Putin is scaring the hell out of some evil capitalist. Let it be known Obama is not in control in the white house, but he has been able to resist the controllers a little bit. I fear for what would happen to the u.s and the world at large if Hillary Clinton wins, as it stands now Sanders is the last hope for the u.s, even trump comes next after sanders. The u.s knows a united Europe with russia spells doom for its hegemony, that's why they are heating up the long peace Europeans have enjoyed. Just like the article stated NATO is as useless as sh*t without the u.s. the u.s is NATO and NATO is the u.s what I can't understand is why some dummy head European leaders would serve the interest of the u.s and not theirs. Its obvious all these anti Russia rhetorics is not at the interest of Europeans but the u.s.

The u.s knows that in an all out war in Europe or in the world the Russians would level Europe in hours, hence they are trying to prevent a situation where Russia would easily win in Europe and find it easy to attack the u.s, that's why they are installing all manner of weapons and defence system in Europe saying its to protect the Europeans from Russia, why in real sense its to protect the u.s, reducing Russia's capabilities to attack the u.s directly.

Let it be known Russia is prepared to defend its territory and attack aggressors any where they are. So all these weapons installation close to Russia's border would not save the u.s or Europe it would only worsen the situation.