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...


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 ..."

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

There is so much political discussion here, full of hatred, but not
many guys, apart from the original poster, asked themselves a question
if a single aircraft carrier can make war (except in the movie like
"The Final Countdown").

I think at least 2 or 3 Carrier Strike Groups would be needed to
perform such a mission. The Navy's Fleet Response Plan calls for as
many as six CSG ready in 30 days, but for the moment being this doesn't
look to be the case...

Best regards,
Jacek


AirRaid wrote:
I don't understand... the deployment of the Eisenhower Carrier Battle
Group alone does not seem like we're ready or even getting ready for an
air-war against Iran. even assuming there are say, 2 other Carrier
Battle Groups in the Gulf and/or Med, that still does not seem like
the United States is ready to goto war against Iran.

in Gulf War I / Desert Storm, the U.S. had 6 Carrier Groups in the
region.

in Gulf War II / Iraqi Freedom, the U.S., I believe, had 5 Carrier
groups in the region.

Iran is far larger and undamaged from years of airstrikes. they capable
of taking out U.S. warships unlike Iraq. one would think the U.S.
would need at least
6 to 8 Carrier groups (with a lot of Aegis cruisers & destroys) in the
area to deal with Iran, unless the USAF is going to play a larger role.


I just don't see how the Eisenhower group arriving in late October, and
some minesweepers, is signaling war with Iran anytime soon. unless the
USN build-up is much larger than reported, and the U.S. already has a
massive amount naval firepower there, or in route.


then again, I suppose a single Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine
loaded with Trident II SLBMs with many *small* nuclear warheads each
could do the job

Mike?...the Greg Reight photo...when did Reight first make his
claims??? 1996?? 1997?

Where did you get your photo?

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.

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.

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.

wrote:
There is so much political discussion here, full of hatred,

Hatred for Ahmadinejad and Muslim savages is wholly justified.