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, 07:31 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.

  #2  
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 ..."
  #3  
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.

  #4  
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 ..."
  #5  
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


  #6  
Old October 20th 06, 12:58 PM posted to us.military.navy,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval,alt.politics.bush,us.politics
Jan Panteltje
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive' build-up for war with Iran

On a sunny day (Fri, 20 Oct 2006 09:37:30 GMT) it happened "Diamond Jim"
wrote in :


"Ricardo" wrote in message
o.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.


I have seen some documentaties where the German airforce was defeated
by the English.
The English had radar (an English invention, although the Germans had
something like that on ships), and in particular the magenetron tube
generatiing very high power microwaves (maybe you cook with one), made
better radar possible later in the war, this helped the US spot German
submarines! And without that, many more US ships would have gone down.
So it is not all that simple as you may think.
With the German airforce defeated Hitler called of the UK invasion.
But not the V1 V2 or whatever...
For that massive bombing of the German resouces and infrastructure
was done.
The German rocket technology is what makes our ara of satellites and
spacetravel and internet possible.
The English did not even belive at first a V1 or V32 could be build.
So, the good side of wars is massive invention because of a _need_.
Quite different from advertising agencies trying to convince you
you need something.... Better reality check, higher pressure, only
results count...
So, who knows what WW3 will bring us.... new weapons.. that Bush thinks he
can sell.... if he survives that is, if he wins... if anyone wins.

  #7  
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 ..."
  #8  
Old October 21st 06, 05:45 PM posted to us.military.navy,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval,alt.politics.bush,us.politics
Perro Blanco
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive' build-up for war with Iran




"Diamond Jim" wrote in message
...

"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...


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


The trouble is, with childish comments like this, you sound more like an
adolescent bully who has yet to grow into his spots, with a hobby of mugging
the old and infirm - and when they try to get an anti-mugging kit together,
you scream 'nuke the *******s, because they're threatening me'.

Sad, sad little man, from a paranoid nation of sad, sad little men!

--
When you discover that "they" really are out to get you, you may realise
that you're not quite as paranoid as you thought you were.


  #9  
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.

  #10  
Old October 20th 06, 02:34 PM posted to us.military.navy,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval,alt.politics.bush,us.politics
Jan Panteltje
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive' build-up for war with Iran

On a sunny day (20 Oct 2006 05:47:23 -0700) it happened "Darn Good
Intelligence" wrote in
. com:


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.


How does Iran pose a thread? No country poses a thread.
US could nuke and glassify any attacker, enough to make them think twice or even
trice.
But Iran is a danger to Israel....
Draw you own conclusions, and Iran is a much bigger danger to Saudi Arabia,
as its missiles can reach there.
And Saudi Arabia employs Bush to make US jump.
Make _you_ jump.
Now jump, jump to the gas station and pay...
US is no longer US, it is a toy for the Saudis who bought your presidency,
you land, you weapon facturies, and almost your ports.
Facing Mecca is not far in the future for the US..
Bush is Islam.




 




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 09:21 PM.


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