View Single Post
  #6  
Old October 20th 06, 06:19 PM posted to us.military.navy,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval,alt.politics.bush,us.politics
Ricardo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 72
Default the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive'build-up for war with Iran

Diamond Jim wrote:
"Ricardo" wrote in message
.uk...

Darn Good Intelligence wrote:

Ricardo wrote:


Darn Good Intelligence wrote:


William Black wrote:



"Darn Good Intelligence" wrote in message
oglegroups.com...




If the US are so desperate to remove "despotic governments" why don't
they do something about China?

Because China isn't the world's biggest sponsor of terrorism, and
isn't
threatening to destroy Israel. Gosh this is simple stuff.


Pakistan is probably the former.


I already debunked this - Pakistan is not helping terrorists who will
attack the U.S or Israel. There were only very tentative links between
the men who did 7/7 and the groups you mentioned earlier.


So, just because China "isn't the world's biggest sponsor of terrorism"
it doesn't have a despotic government, despite the US sending a 43 ship
force, including an aircraft carrier just to "warn" the Chinese just a
month or so back?


This is just an absurd argument. We have to analyze these things in
terms of several factors including: the degree of threat a nation poses
to the U.S, the extent to which the regime is "despotic" or
undemocratic, and the viability of removing that regime from power.
Clearly Iran meets ALL of these criteria; China doesn't. Iran is a
severe threat and should and will be removed within the next 2 years.
Look, the U.S simply cannot remove every "bad" regime from power to
just to satisy a whining leftist like yourself who doesn't seem to
realise that it's not possible for a superpower to be entirely
consistent in its foreign policies in every different scenario.



Also, why should anyone support Israel and its genocidal activities
towards its neighbours - particularly the Palestinians who were forcibly
ejected from their land (much like the "Native Americans") to make room
for immigrants from elsewhere, and then, for the survivors of this
incursion to be rounded up and put in camps (or reservations - much like
the "Native Americans"). Is it any surprise, when hope is nearly gone,
that the downtrodden have nothing left but to hit back?


I'm not getting into the old Palestinian question, but I wouldn't
exactly care if Israel just expelled them all to Jordan. That's the
solution to the problem.



In terms of the "world's biggest sponsor of terrorism" however, the US
must rate pretty highly on the list - along with Pakistan, but they buy
US arms, don't they, and it wouldn't do to upset a good customer - much
like with Israel.


You sound like another Ahmadinejad sympathiser.


Thank you for sounding like a typical moronic American: anyone with a view
counter to your own is a "whining leftist", and then sticking your fingers
in your ears when confronted with some of the sources of today's
problems - not least America's involvement in other countries affairs and
supporting and sponsoring terrorism.

Your country doesn't have the "right" to remove ANY regime from power!
Hitler went down that road some years ago with his 1939 European Tour -
it's just lucky that Britain and France were the only ones prepared to
stop him.

Ricardo

--
"Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand ..."



Well if you are going to be the worlds only superpower, you have to act like
it.

As far as Britain and France being prepared for Hitler, I didn't know that.

I thought the French waited until after the Blitzkreg started befor they
printed all the menus in German, but I guess they must have started before
that as there wasn't enought time to do it before the Germans were in Paris.

Britain being prepared? For what? A stupid decision and caution because they
couldn't believe their own sucess stopped the Germans for enough time for
the British by heroic effort to evacuate and save their Army. Without the
core of their army to use for expansion, the massive aid from the US, and
the incredable stupid decision by Hitler to attack Russia, it would have
been over for them.

The US gave a lot of aid to the Russian, but if they had given them aid on
the same scale as they gave the British then most of Europe would have had
to learn to speak Russian


I think you may find that Britain and France declared war on Germany,
following Germany's invasion of Poland, at the same time - prepared or not!

The US "gave" Britain nothing - we are still paying for it - the debt is
due to be finally redeemed this December, furthermore, despite Britain's
parlous state, despite the Nazi/USSR pact, Britain was providing aid to
the Soviet Union, once they were attacked, long before the USA.

I accept that probably both America and Russia followed the correct
course in sitting it out on the sidelines to see just how far Hitler
would get - and both suffered the same fate of being drawn in by
unexpected attacks.

I was in Poland this week, and it is interesting to note that despite
post-war events with Poland being sold down the river along with most of
Eastern Europe to Stalin and his henchmen by the USA, following the
sidelining of Churchill, thus forcing a great part of Europe to speak
Russian anyway, there is still considerable warmth of feeling towards
Britain. After all, it was only Britain at that time that armed their
people in exile and allowed them to fight on - alongside the French, the
Dutch, the Greeks, the Norwegians, the Czechs, the Belgians and the
Yugoslavs.

In the Cracow airport snack bar there are some superb oil paintings of
WW2 aircraft - all in RAF colours, and all bearing the Polish insignia.
Poles and Czechs and others were fighting in their own RAF squadrons in
Britain well before America was involved in WW2.

Ricardo
--
"Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand ..."