the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive' build-up for war with Iran

Darn Good Intelligence wrote:
William Black wrote:

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


So you think that Russia and China would intervene on the behalf of the
Iranian lunatics? I don't think they'd dare.

Would you bet your life?


Yes. The Russians and Chinese would kick up a big fuss if the U.S
attacks Iran but they wouldn't use military means to stop the U.S. That
would be WW3.

So what would the US attacking Iran be? There has to be a time when the
bullying has to be stopped. The action advocated against Iran just means
that states that previously felt a degree of security suddenly feel more
threatened - and it's not by Iran, China or Russia!

Ricardo

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

Ricardo wrote:
Darn Good Intelligence wrote:
William Black wrote:

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


So you think that Russia and China would intervene on the behalf of the
Iranian lunatics? I don't think they'd dare.

Would you bet your life?


Yes. The Russians and Chinese would kick up a big fuss if the U.S
attacks Iran but they wouldn't use military means to stop the U.S. That
would be WW3.

So what would the US attacking Iran be?

Not WW3. How would it be WW3? All it would be is the U.S removing
another despotic government, just as they did in Iraq and Afghanistan -
what's the fuss?

There has to be a time when the
bullying has to be stopped.

First tell Iran to stop threatening Israel, stop funding terrorism, and
stop nuke program.

Darn Good Intelligence wrote:
Ricardo wrote:

Darn Good Intelligence wrote:

William Black wrote:


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



So you think that Russia and China would intervene on the behalf of the
Iranian lunatics? I don't think they'd dare.

Would you bet your life?


Yes. The Russians and Chinese would kick up a big fuss if the U.S
attacks Iran but they wouldn't use military means to stop the U.S. That
would be WW3.


So what would the US attacking Iran be?


Not WW3. How would it be WW3? All it would be is the U.S removing
another despotic government, just as they did in Iraq and Afghanistan -
what's the fuss?


There has to be a time when the
bullying has to be stopped.


First tell Iran to stop threatening Israel, stop funding terrorism, and
stop nuke program.

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

And as for removing such governments in Afghanistan and Iraq, what utter
nonsense. Things are even worse in both places than they've ever been -
particularly in Afghanistan which, I seem to recall, was an area where
the US was particularly active in funding and training insurgents (or
terrorists), who were then fighting the Soviet Union!

How about relieving Israel of its nuclear weapons - that would be a step
towards peace for the world, or even Pakistan, or North Korea? What
happens, after yet another nation is invaded and thousands of innocents
killed, if someone decides to do the world a favour and invade the US to
depose its "despotic government" with its well known record of funding
terrorism - or turning a blind eye to the actions of its citizens in
doing so, whilst entertaining the terrorist leaders at the highest
possible level.

Think about how America was made the laughing stock of the world with
its invasion of Grenada - with a population of 100,000 people and deemed
to be a "threat to America", after which illegal invasion the CIA
secretly spent $650,000 to aid a pro-American candidate in that
country's 1984 election. Are you sad people that insecure?

You're going to run out of countries to invade - or you'll invade one
that'll give you an even bigger shock than Iraq did (or Grenada, come to
that!)

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

Ricardo wrote:
Darn Good Intelligence wrote:
Ricardo wrote:

Darn Good Intelligence wrote:

William Black wrote:


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



So you think that Russia and China would intervene on the behalf of the
Iranian lunatics? I don't think they'd dare.

Would you bet your life?


Yes. The Russians and Chinese would kick up a big fuss if the U.S
attacks Iran but they wouldn't use military means to stop the U.S. That
would be WW3.


So what would the US attacking Iran be?


Not WW3. How would it be WW3? All it would be is the U.S removing
another despotic government, just as they did in Iraq and Afghanistan -
what's the fuss?


There has to be a time when the
bullying has to be stopped.


First tell Iran to stop threatening Israel, stop funding terrorism, and
stop nuke program.

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.

And as for removing such governments in Afghanistan and Iraq, what utter
nonsense. Things are even worse in both places than they've ever been -
particularly in Afghanistan which, I seem to recall, was an area where
the US was particularly active in funding and training insurgents (or
terrorists), who were then fighting the Soviet Union!

The Taleban gave Al-Qaeda free reign to plot terror vs the U.S - it's
good they're gone. In Iraq the problem is the ethnic groups determined
to kill each other. You can't blame Bush if a Sunni militant sets off a
car bomb.

How about relieving Israel of its nuclear weapons - that would be a step
towards peace for the world, or even Pakistan, or North Korea? What
happens, after yet another nation is invaded and thousands of innocents
killed, if someone decides to do the world a favour and invade the US to
depose its "despotic government" with its well known record of funding
terrorism - or turning a blind eye to the actions of its citizens in
doing so, whilst entertaining the terrorist leaders at the highest
possible level.

No-one would dare invade the U.S - God there's been a record number of
stupid comments made in this thread.

Think about how America was made the laughing stock of the world with
its invasion of Grenada - with a population of 100,000 people and deemed
to be a "threat to America", after which illegal invasion the CIA
secretly spent $650,000 to aid a pro-American candidate in that
country's 1984 election. Are you sad people that insecure?

You're going to run out of countries to invade - or you'll invade one
that'll give you an even bigger shock than Iraq did (or Grenada, come to
that!)

Nothing about the prospect of the Iran war should frighten America - it
will be no more difficult than getting rid of Saddam and winning the
Iraq war.

"Darn Good Intelligence" wrote in message
oups.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.

Why not them?

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

William Black wrote:
"Darn Good Intelligence" wrote in message
oups.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.

Darn Good Intelligence wrote:
William Black wrote:

"Darn Good Intelligence" wrote in message
groups.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?

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?

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.

Gosh, this is simple stuff.

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

William Black wrote:
"Darn Good Intelligence" wrote in message
oups.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.

Why not them?

Pakistan's President understands that the US Constitution grants
freedom of speech but not to foreign heads of state. Correct use
of that information is defending his country against one of the
world's most powerful countries.

Andrew Swallow

On 19 Oct 2006 05:13:26 -0700, "Darn Good Intelligence"
wrote:


Ricardo wrote:
Darn Good Intelligence wrote:
William Black wrote:

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


So you think that Russia and China would intervene on the behalf of the
Iranian lunatics? I don't think they'd dare.

Would you bet your life?


Yes. The Russians and Chinese would kick up a big fuss if the U.S
attacks Iran but they wouldn't use military means to stop the U.S. That
would be WW3.

So what would the US attacking Iran be?

Not WW3. How would it be WW3? All it would be is the U.S removing
another despotic government, just as they did in Iraq and Afghanistan -
what's the fuss?

WWI started because Austria had Balkan ambitions and Russia drew
the line. WWII started because Germany did three expansions and
the UK & France drew the line at the fourth.

Iran would be the US's third military adventure in a
resource-rich area. At least three of the interested powers
(India, Pakistan and Russia), have nuclear capability. (One could
add France, the UK, Isreal and the Ukraine to the list but I
think, perhaps mistakenly, that they won't rise to the surface
here).

How many US client governments will be tolerated in the area?

The US is well-intentioned, but it's ability to misread people
and governments, over-estimate its capability and under-estimate
costs is astonishing. (We'll be greeted as liberators, the cost
will be 3.9 billion etc.)

There has to be a time when the
bullying has to be stopped.

First tell Iran to stop threatening Israel, stop funding terrorism, and
stop nuke program.

Unfortunatelty, nobody's behaviour has been squeaky-clean,
similar negative accusations can be leveled against almost any
country active in the region, including us and our allies. ('us'
means Canada, incidentally).

Peter Skelton

Peter Skelton wrote:

Unfortunatelty, nobody's behaviour has been squeaky-clean,
similar negative accusations can be leveled against almost any
country active in the region, including us and our allies. ('us'
means Canada, incidentally).

Hey pal, I think you'll find that it is the U.S and its allies that are
on the right side of the law not Ahnmadinejad and Khamenei.