A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Naval Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 19th 06, 07:26 PM posted to us.military.navy,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval,alt.politics.bush,us.politics
Darn Good Intelligence
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22
Default the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive' build-up for war with Iran


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.

  #2  
Old October 19th 06, 07:28 PM posted to us.military.navy,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval,alt.politics.bush,us.politics
William Black
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive' build-up for war with Iran


"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.




  #3  
Old October 19th 06, 07:31 PM posted to us.military.navy,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval,alt.politics.bush,us.politics
Darn Good Intelligence
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22
Default the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive' build-up for war with Iran


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.

  #4  
Old October 19th 06, 09:23 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

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 ..."
  #5  
Old October 19th 06, 09:40 PM posted to us.military.navy,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval,alt.politics.bush,us.politics
Darn Good Intelligence
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22
Default the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive' build-up for war with Iran


Ricardo wrote:
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?


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.

  #6  
Old October 20th 06, 09:21 AM 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

Darn Good Intelligence wrote:
Ricardo wrote:

Darn Good Intelligence wrote:

William Black wrote:


"Darn Good Intelligence" wrote in message
legroups.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 ..."
  #7  
Old October 20th 06, 10:37 AM posted to us.military.navy,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval,alt.politics.bush,us.politics
Diamond Jim
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 23
Default the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive' build-up for war with Iran


"Ricardo" wrote in message
.uk...
Darn Good Intelligence wrote:
Ricardo wrote:

Darn Good Intelligence wrote:

William Black wrote:


"Darn Good Intelligence" wrote in message
glegroups.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


  #8  
Old October 20th 06, 01:47 PM posted to us.military.navy,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval,alt.politics.bush,us.politics
Darn Good Intelligence
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22
Default the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive' build-up for war with Iran


Ricardo wrote:

Thank you for sounding like a typical moronic American: anyone with a
view counter to your own is a "whining leftist",


This is not true - I am generally tolerant of the views of others, even
if they are Ahmadinejad sympathisers like you seem to be. I only label
people a "whining leftist" when they make stupid remarks like "well if
despotic regmies are so bad, why don't you overthrow every single
despotic regime in the world!?!??!". People you state these things
without taking into account the fact that some nations i.e. Iran, pose
more of a threat than other nations i.e. China.

Get it?

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.


Look, I never claimed that the U.S was perfect, but it is far more a
force for good than for evil - and your sixth-grade Michael Moore logic
isn't going to change my views.

Your country doesn't have the "right" to remove ANY regime from power!


We do if it poses a threat to the U.S, as Iran clearly doesn. Iran must
be removed and will be shortly.

  #9  
Old October 19th 06, 08:47 PM posted to us.military.navy,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval,alt.politics.bush,us.politics
Andrew Swallow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 32
Default the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive'build-up for war with Iran

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
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nations sending Iran to Security Council (for Israel via the US, of course!): NOMOREWARFORISRAEL Naval Aviation 1 July 13th 06 05:05 AM
Bush administration finalizes military attack on Iran [email protected] Naval Aviation 11 January 5th 06 09:38 AM
American nazi pond scum, version two bushite kills bushite Naval Aviation 0 December 21st 04 10:46 PM
Hey! What fun!! Let's let them kill ourselves!!! [email protected] Naval Aviation 2 December 17th 04 09:45 PM
millionaire on the Internet... in weeks! Malcolm Austin Soaring 0 November 5th 04 11:14 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.