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

Defendario wrote:
Mike wrote:
Defendario wrote:
Mike wrote:
Defendario wrote:
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.
OK dimwit; when did the US put tactical nukes back on her ships???

That could be so now. The navy has missiles that are nuke capable, as
well as aircraft. I can't think of a safer place to keep the stuff for
transportation to the AO. Can you?

"could be" -- LOL. Care you show _anything_ not from some net-based
loon such as yourself which says something other than "could be"?
Nope ...


And you have proof to the contrary? Actually, if you think that there
are no nukes in the Task Force, that's your assertion to prove, isn't it?

Since it's public knowledge that the US removed nukes back in the early
1990's ...

Task Force comprises many vessels, not only CVN
But not SSBNs, dimwit.

Sure about that?

You _really_ think SSBNs are part of any carrier strike group?? LOL


No, but are you sure that SSBN's won't participate in an engagement with
Iran?

Laugh that off, loon.

W/ what nukes dimwit?

What about the LA class attack subs?

They aren't SSBNs, now are they.


Semantics is the last refuge of the loser, as well as ad homs.
I expect them any time now.

Your bread & butter ...

No Tomahawks
aboard those boats?

LOL; reading comprehension a problem? Tactical nuke warheads in the
first place, and second, any and all SSNs are under control of the
commander, carrier strike group??


Is it possible for a Tomahawk to be fitted with a nuke?

Answer that, net loon.

Feel free to show that it's been done, and not only done, that the
commander of the Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group (RADM Myers) has
control of them ...


So, where's the proof in the first place that the SSNs are carrying
today Tomahawks w/ nuclear warheads?


Circular reasoning, eh? Demand proof to confirm your own assertions.

You bore me, ****head.

No proof is noted.

The question of whether the Commander will launch WW III without a
declaration is not sophomoric.
It sure as hell is. It's simply another silly comment, one of many in
this thread.

And I think you have gravitas...why?
snicker

double yawn


As I said, and you also bore yourself.

Seems to work on you ...

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.
yawn

Go back to sleep, Kook. This convo is for adults only.

And you're no adult, dimwit.


Finally, the ad hom bomb.

Your surrender is accepted.

Your silly childish comments are duly noted.

Recall dimwit, the original post was "Would the Commander of the
Eisenhower task force obey an order to use nukes without a long
diplomatic buildup?"

What nukes does RADM Myers even control in the first place???

Take your time ...

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

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

William Black wrote:
"Darn Good Intelligence" wrote in message
ups.com...

William Black wrote:
"Darn Good Intelligence" wrote in message
ups.com...

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

Actually you do.

Pakistan is undoubtedly the biggest sponsor of state terrorism.

Citation?

Put the words "Pakistan" and "nuclear proliferation" into a search
engine
near you.

Who started the Taliban?

The Taliban started was a movement and a political party, not a
terrorist group. The ISI may have had some links with the Al-Qaida in
the past but now they're going to enable us to bring OBL to justice.
Pakistan is, therefore, a useful ally on the War on Terror.

You snipped the last bit.

Do LeT and JeM not count as terrorists?

We can rely on our great friend Musharaff to deal with them. It's in
safe hands.

You forgot the smiley face.

They're his boys. Paid for by him, trained by him and they have camps on
land in Pakistan provided by him.

That's before we get to Dawood Ibrahim, a senior terrorist figure wanted by
the USA and living almost openly in Pakistan in a government housing
compound.

--
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.

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

No.

At no time has any major Muslim figure in power in a nation state called
for
the destruction of all non Muslims.

There are plenty of recordings of thousands of Iranians showing
"Death to America" on the orders of their leaders.

There are plenty of recordings of Irish Americans shouting for the death of
the UK Royal Family on the orders of their leaders as well.

So?

--
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.

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

No.

At no time has any major Muslim figure in power in a nation state called for
the destruction of all non Muslims.

There are plenty of recordings of thousands of Iranians showing
"Death to America" on the orders of their leaders.

Andrew Swallow

Exactly. Some of the Iranian people must go for this **** otherwise
they wouldn't have elected Ahmadinejad. No-one outside of Iran will be
shedding a tear once the radioactive glow becomes apparent over Tehran.

Mike wrote:
Jack Linthicum wrote:
Mike wrote:
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

It's done with a paint brush. Bad memory but it is the Enterprise that
is on station to be releived by Eisenhower.

W/ Enterprise due back at Norfolk on or around 3 November (having
deployed 3 May) ...

So it's a quick transfer of information or personnel and return.

In article NAuYg.22645$H7.14216@edtnps82,
Al Smith wrote:
What make you think that the US WILL invade Iran? As far as I know,
nobody has made any such suggestion, unless you count certain people in
this group, even if the US decided to invade, don't you think that they
will at least wait until after the mid-term election?

A sensible general will wait for the dust storms rains to finish.
January is a better time to invade.

Andrew Swallow


They're not going to invade, they're going to launch a quick air
assault on what they believe to be the Iranian nuclear facilities,
and probably they will throw in a few other strategic targets just
because the are in the area. When I say "they" I mean Israel and
the United States.

This is nothing more than a couple of bored, stupid delinquents
who decide to thrust a stick into a hornet's nest to see what happens.


If we chuck so much as *one* missile at Iran their leadership will use
it as an excuse to round up all the opposition politicians, students
and intellectuals into prison as spies and collaborators. This will
set back liberalization by years.

Iran *is* a working democracy, at least by mid-eastern standards. The
problem is that their constitution gives a bunch of unelected mullahs
veto power over decisions that the President makes. Domestic
political process, not bombing, is the way to bring change to Iran.

--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Harrison for Congress in NY 13CD www.harrison06.com
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001

In article ,
Andrew Swallow wrote:
William Black wrote:
"Darn Good Intelligence" wrote in message
oups.com...
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.

No.

At no time has any major Muslim figure in power in a nation state called for
the destruction of all non Muslims.

There are plenty of recordings of thousands of Iranians showing
"Death to America" on the orders of their leaders.


And all reports say that Iranians, and the world in general, separate
the acts of our government from Americans as individuals. Iranians
are said to love American as individuals and respect American ideals.

To varying degrees, they want western culture and colonialism to leave
Persia and the Arabian peninsula alone. We (The US) has been screwing
up Iran since 1953.



--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Harrison for Congress in NY 13CD www.harrison06.com
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001

"Al Dykes" wrote in message
...


Iran *is* a working democracy, at least by mid-eastern standards.

Thats like describing someone as a vegetarian by the standards of a Hyena

The
problem is that their constitution gives a bunch of unelected mullahs
veto power over decisions that the President makes.

It also allows them to approve all candidates. The opposition has
lost hope of progress by elections.

Domestic
political process, not bombing, is the way to bring change to Iran.

See above

Keith

In article ,
Keith Willshaw wrote:

"Al Dykes" wrote in message
...


Iran *is* a working democracy, at least by mid-eastern standards.

Thats like describing someone as a vegetarian by the standards of a Hyena

The
problem is that their constitution gives a bunch of unelected mullahs
veto power over decisions that the President makes.

It also allows them to approve all candidates. The opposition has
lost hope of progress by elections.

Domestic
political process, not bombing, is the way to bring change to Iran.

See above

Keith




and bombing is going to change this how?

--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Harrison for Congress in NY 13CD www.harrison06.com
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001

"Al Dykes" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith Willshaw wrote:

"Al Dykes" wrote in message
...


Iran *is* a working democracy, at least by mid-eastern standards.

Thats like describing someone as a vegetarian by the standards of a Hyena

The
problem is that their constitution gives a bunch of unelected mullahs
veto power over decisions that the President makes.

It also allows them to approve all candidates. The opposition has
lost hope of progress by elections.

Domestic
political process, not bombing, is the way to bring change to Iran.

See above

Keith




and bombing is going to change this how?

When I advocate bombing feel free to ask that question. In the meantime
I suggest you avoid referring to Iran as a democracy.

Keith