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

Jack Linthicum wrote:

Eisenhower group arrives on station to relieve Abe Lincoln on October
21 or so. Election is November 7. Wabbit twacks.

Going to be one neat trick, since Lincoln is currently going thru an
overhaul at Bremerton:

end
NNS060831-12. USS Abraham Lincoln Arrives at NBK for Overhaul

By Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Bruce McVicar, Northwest
Region Fleet Public Affairs

BREMERTON, Wash. (NNS) -- USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) arrived at Naval
Base Kitsap (NBK) in Bremerton from Naval Station Everett for a
scheduled six-month maintenance period at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard,
Aug. 29.
....
end

Jack Linthicum wrote:

Would the Commander of the Eisenhower task force obey an order to use
nukes without a long diplomatic buildup?

When did the US put nukes back on carriers???

Geez ...

Darn Good Intelligence wrote:
Defendario wrote:
Darn Good Intelligence wrote:
Al Smith wrote:
"Diplomatic buildup"? **** that, it won't work. Just nuke their sites
now or pay the price for a nuclear-armed terrorist state in the future.
Are YOUR balls big enough to deal with the threat, or do you advocate
appeasement?

How quaint.

Someone who thinks any sort of conflict short of all out nuclear war is
'apeasement'.

How stupid will you look if Iran already has nukes and one goes off in a
shipping container in New York City AFTER the US drops nuclear weapons on
them?
For that matter, how stupid does he look advocating the senseless
murder of hundreds of thousands of human beings?
Well they'd want to do the same to us, it's dog eat dog as far as I'm
concerned.

You probably call yourself a Christian, too.

Look, I'm not calling for all muslims to be destroyed, just the ones
that want to destroy us and actively participate in plots to do just
that. Unfortunately it seems there are too many of these types of
brainwashed individuals in the M East.


They know who their enemies are. You are one.

And about Iran, I want to clarify that I am most definitely NOT calling
for Iran to be totally and utterly destroyed by nukes. What I am
calling for is the use of TACTICAL nukes on a number of sites where
Iran is working on nuke technology.


If you nuke a country, it will result in its destruction. It will
ignite a conflagration that will be impossible to contain, and one that
the US might well lose.

You ought to give this article a good read:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FL16Ak01.html

Anyone who knows anything about nukes knows there is a distinctiom
between *tactical* nukes that can destroy things within relatively
confined areas and big daddy nukes that take out entire cities.


Once the balloon goes up, there won't be much way to slow things down.

You don't really understand the nature of warfare or international
politics, I can see. If you think that Russia and China will sit idly
by while the UK/USreeL cabal gobbles up the resources of the Middle East
you are dreaming. If there is not one guy in a bar who can kick your
ass, I guarantee that there are two or three together who can, and will.

That's what were up against. Do the math.

On Iran we should use the tactical nukes on their facilities just to
shake them up a bit. That's all.


And there will soon be a whole lotta shakin' goin' on.

Mike wrote:
Jack Linthicum wrote:

Would the Commander of the Eisenhower task force obey an order to use
nukes without a long diplomatic buildup?

When did the US put nukes back on carriers???

Geez ...


Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, I see.

Task Force comprises many vessels, not only CVN

The question of whether the Commander will launch WW III without a
declaration is not sophomoric. If Herr Bushler gives such an illegal
order, he should be arrested. I put my faith in a military junta before
I would the NeoCon cabal.

Defendario wrote:
Darn Good Intelligence wrote:
Defendario wrote:
Darn Good Intelligence wrote:
Al Smith wrote:
"Diplomatic buildup"? **** that, it won't work. Just nuke their sites
now or pay the price for a nuclear-armed terrorist state in the future.
Are YOUR balls big enough to deal with the threat, or do you advocate
appeasement?

How quaint.

Someone who thinks any sort of conflict short of all out nuclear war is
'apeasement'.

How stupid will you look if Iran already has nukes and one goes off in a
shipping container in New York City AFTER the US drops nuclear weapons on
them?
For that matter, how stupid does he look advocating the senseless
murder of hundreds of thousands of human beings?
Well they'd want to do the same to us, it's dog eat dog as far as I'm
concerned.

You probably call yourself a Christian, too.

Look, I'm not calling for all muslims to be destroyed, just the ones
that want to destroy us and actively participate in plots to do just
that. Unfortunately it seems there are too many of these types of
brainwashed individuals in the M East.


They know who their enemies are. You are one.

And about Iran, I want to clarify that I am most definitely NOT calling
for Iran to be totally and utterly destroyed by nukes. What I am
calling for is the use of TACTICAL nukes on a number of sites where
Iran is working on nuke technology.


If you nuke a country, it will result in its destruction. It will
ignite a conflagration that will be impossible to contain, and one that
the US might well lose.

You ought to give this article a good read:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FL16Ak01.html

Anyone who knows anything about nukes knows there is a distinctiom
between *tactical* nukes that can destroy things within relatively
confined areas and big daddy nukes that take out entire cities.


Once the balloon goes up, there won't be much way to slow things down.

You don't really understand the nature of warfare or international
politics, I can see. If you think that Russia and China will sit idly
by while the UK/USreeL cabal gobbles up the resources of the Middle East
you are dreaming. If there is not one guy in a bar who can kick your
ass, I guarantee that there are two or three together who can, and will.

That's what were up against. Do the math.

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

On Iran we should use the tactical nukes on their facilities just to
shake them up a bit. That's all.


And there will soon be a whole lotta shakin' goin' on.

So you agree with me that it will happen then? What's your best guess
for when the Iranian nutcases will be attacked?

"Darn Good Intelligence" wrote in message
oups.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?

--
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...

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.

Darn Good Intelligence wrote:
Defendario wrote:
Darn Good Intelligence wrote:
Defendario wrote:
Darn Good Intelligence wrote:
Al Smith wrote:
"Diplomatic buildup"? **** that, it won't work. Just nuke their sites
now or pay the price for a nuclear-armed terrorist state in the future.
Are YOUR balls big enough to deal with the threat, or do you advocate
appeasement?

How quaint.

Someone who thinks any sort of conflict short of all out nuclear war is
'apeasement'.

How stupid will you look if Iran already has nukes and one goes off in a
shipping container in New York City AFTER the US drops nuclear weapons on
them?
For that matter, how stupid does he look advocating the senseless
murder of hundreds of thousands of human beings?
Well they'd want to do the same to us, it's dog eat dog as far as I'm
concerned.

You probably call yourself a Christian, too.
Look, I'm not calling for all muslims to be destroyed, just the ones
that want to destroy us and actively participate in plots to do just
that. Unfortunately it seems there are too many of these types of
brainwashed individuals in the M East.

They know who their enemies are. You are one.

And about Iran, I want to clarify that I am most definitely NOT calling
for Iran to be totally and utterly destroyed by nukes. What I am
calling for is the use of TACTICAL nukes on a number of sites where
Iran is working on nuke technology.

If you nuke a country, it will result in its destruction. It will
ignite a conflagration that will be impossible to contain, and one that
the US might well lose.

You ought to give this article a good read:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FL16Ak01.html

Anyone who knows anything about nukes knows there is a distinctiom
between *tactical* nukes that can destroy things within relatively
confined areas and big daddy nukes that take out entire cities.

Once the balloon goes up, there won't be much way to slow things down.

You don't really understand the nature of warfare or international
politics, I can see. If you think that Russia and China will sit idly
by while the UK/USreeL cabal gobbles up the resources of the Middle East
you are dreaming. If there is not one guy in a bar who can kick your
ass, I guarantee that there are two or three together who can, and will.

That's what were up against. Do the math.

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


Au contraire. I don't think they can afford not to.

Here is another article you would do well to read:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/HD20Ad03.html

On Iran we should use the tactical nukes on their facilities just to
shake them up a bit. That's all.

And there will soon be a whole lotta shakin' goin' on.

So you agree with me that it will happen then? What's your best guess
for when the Iranian nutcases will be attacked?


The shakin' goin' on will include the destruction of IsReeL (a good
thing, IMO) and the American forces in Iraq. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf
Emirates will also suffer heavily, and fuel prices will skyrocket,
leading to economic disaster and social unrest.

The possibility of direct nuclear attack on the US, via terrorism or
opportunistic attacks by other enemies is great.

Personally, I don't mind the idea of a nuclear Iran so much. What would
that actually change? If the world can tolerate a nuclear Pakistan,
India, and now DPRK, what would one more make?

And the most dangerous one of all is our sacred cow, IsReeL.

Hypocrisy, thy name is America.

Defendario wrote:
Darn Good Intelligence wrote:
Defendario wrote:
Darn Good Intelligence wrote:
Defendario wrote:
Darn Good Intelligence wrote:
Al Smith wrote:
"Diplomatic buildup"? **** that, it won't work. Just nuke their sites
now or pay the price for a nuclear-armed terrorist state in the future.
Are YOUR balls big enough to deal with the threat, or do you advocate
appeasement?

How quaint.

Someone who thinks any sort of conflict short of all out nuclear war is
'apeasement'.

How stupid will you look if Iran already has nukes and one goes off in a
shipping container in New York City AFTER the US drops nuclear weapons on
them?
For that matter, how stupid does he look advocating the senseless
murder of hundreds of thousands of human beings?
Well they'd want to do the same to us, it's dog eat dog as far as I'm
concerned.

You probably call yourself a Christian, too.
Look, I'm not calling for all muslims to be destroyed, just the ones
that want to destroy us and actively participate in plots to do just
that. Unfortunately it seems there are too many of these types of
brainwashed individuals in the M East.

They know who their enemies are. You are one.

And about Iran, I want to clarify that I am most definitely NOT calling
for Iran to be totally and utterly destroyed by nukes. What I am
calling for is the use of TACTICAL nukes on a number of sites where
Iran is working on nuke technology.

If you nuke a country, it will result in its destruction. It will
ignite a conflagration that will be impossible to contain, and one that
the US might well lose.

You ought to give this article a good read:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FL16Ak01.html

Anyone who knows anything about nukes knows there is a distinctiom
between *tactical* nukes that can destroy things within relatively
confined areas and big daddy nukes that take out entire cities.

Once the balloon goes up, there won't be much way to slow things down.

You don't really understand the nature of warfare or international
politics, I can see. If you think that Russia and China will sit idly
by while the UK/USreeL cabal gobbles up the resources of the Middle East
you are dreaming. If there is not one guy in a bar who can kick your
ass, I guarantee that there are two or three together who can, and will.

That's what were up against. Do the math.

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


Au contraire. I don't think they can afford not to.

Here is another article you would do well to read:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/HD20Ad03.html

On Iran we should use the tactical nukes on their facilities just to
shake them up a bit. That's all.

And there will soon be a whole lotta shakin' goin' on.

So you agree with me that it will happen then? What's your best guess
for when the Iranian nutcases will be attacked?


The shakin' goin' on will include the destruction of IsReeL (a good
thing, IMO)


How? Israel is supported by the U.S, the most powerful country in the
world. If any country tries to destroy Israel, the U.S would nuke the
aggressor. Why do you hate Israel so much?

and the American forces in Iraq. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf
Emirates will also suffer heavily, and fuel prices will skyrocket,
leading to economic disaster and social unrest.

The possibility of direct nuclear attack on the US, via terrorism or
opportunistic attacks by other enemies is great.

Personally, I don't mind the idea of a nuclear Iran so much. What would
that actually change? If the world can tolerate a nuclear Pakistan,
India, and now DPRK, what would one more make?

We can't tolerate the world's biggest state sponsor of terrorism with
nukes. End of story.

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

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

I wouldn't.

It's pretty obvious that the current US government isn't prepared to bet
yours.

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.

Exactly.

Saddam always was a menace, he invaded people and threw poison gas about.

Iran has never done anything more than the US has done in the past, indeed
they've been very careful never to excede what the US has done in the past.

After a nuclear attack on Iran Russia and China would almost certainly start
a campaign to marginalise the US internationally, and they'd get a lot of
support. I don't know if you noticed but the US isn't that popular at the
moment.

Ports all over the world would close to US shipping, attacks on US
embassies and tourists and US owned industrial plants. Along with
international boycots of US products plus China would dump all those
dollars.

World War III or a huge US depression...

Your choice...

--
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.