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
  #11  
Old October 15th 06, 12:18 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


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


Yes, nuking Iran's nuclear facilities is the only way to solve the
problem of Ahmadinejad getting nukes as Iran's targets are too far
below the ground for conventional weapons to destroy. I hope Bush has
the balls to use nukes in Iran - I think he does.

BTW, does the Eisenhower have enough nukes to teach the Iranians a
lesson?

  #12  
Old October 15th 06, 12:23 PM posted to us.military.navy,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval,alt.politics.bush,us.politics
Jack Linthicum
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 301
Default the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive' build-up for war with Iran


Darn Good Intelligence wrote:
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


Yes, nuking Iran's nuclear facilities is the only way to solve the
problem of Ahmadinejad getting nukes as Iran's targets are too far
below the ground for conventional weapons to destroy. I hope Bush has
the balls to use nukes in Iran - I think he does.

BTW, does the Eisenhower have enough nukes to teach the Iranians a
lesson?


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

  #13  
Old October 15th 06, 01:32 PM posted to us.military.navy,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval,alt.politics.bush,us.politics
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive' build-up for war with Iran


Jack Linthicum wrote:
Darn Good Intelligence wrote:
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


Yes, nuking Iran's nuclear facilities is the only way to solve the
problem of Ahmadinejad getting nukes as Iran's targets are too far
below the ground for conventional weapons to destroy. I hope Bush has
the balls to use nukes in Iran - I think he does.

BTW, does the Eisenhower have enough nukes to teach the Iranians a
lesson?


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


"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?

  #14  
Old October 15th 06, 02:28 PM posted to us.military.navy,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval,alt.politics.bush,us.politics
William Black[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 176
Default the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive' build-up for war with Iran


wrote in message
s.com...

Jack Linthicum wrote:
Darn Good Intelligence wrote:
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

Yes, nuking Iran's nuclear facilities is the only way to solve the
problem of Ahmadinejad getting nukes as Iran's targets are too far
below the ground for conventional weapons to destroy. I hope Bush has
the balls to use nukes in Iran - I think he does.

BTW, does the Eisenhower have enough nukes to teach the Iranians a
lesson?


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


"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?

Because half the world will say 'serves you right' and the rest will say 'I
declare war on the USA...'

--
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.


  #15  
Old October 15th 06, 04:54 PM posted to us.military.navy,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval,alt.politics.bush,us.politics
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive' build-up for war with Iran


William Black wrote:
wrote in message
s.com...

Jack Linthicum wrote:
Darn Good Intelligence wrote:
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

Yes, nuking Iran's nuclear facilities is the only way to solve the
problem of Ahmadinejad getting nukes as Iran's targets are too far
below the ground for conventional weapons to destroy. I hope Bush has
the balls to use nukes in Iran - I think he does.

BTW, does the Eisenhower have enough nukes to teach the Iranians a
lesson?

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


"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?

Because half the world will say 'serves you right' and the rest will say 'I
declare war on the USA...'


In which case we'll just nuke the half of the world that declares war
on the U.S (especially if they're muslim fanatical states) - this would
be a scenario where no-one wins, but some will lose more than others
(and the ones losing the most won't include the U.S).

  #16  
Old October 15th 06, 04:59 PM posted to us.military.navy,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval,alt.politics.bush,us.politics
Defendario
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 36
Default the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive'build-up for war with Iran

wrote:
William Black wrote:
wrote in message
s.com...
Jack Linthicum wrote:
Darn Good Intelligence wrote:
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
Yes, nuking Iran's nuclear facilities is the only way to solve the
problem of Ahmadinejad getting nukes as Iran's targets are too far
below the ground for conventional weapons to destroy. I hope Bush has
the balls to use nukes in Iran - I think he does.

BTW, does the Eisenhower have enough nukes to teach the Iranians a
lesson?
Would the Commander of the Eisenhower task force obey an order to use
nukes without a long diplomatic buildup?
"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?

Because half the world will say 'serves you right' and the rest will say 'I
declare war on the USA...'


In which case we'll just nuke the half of the world that declares war
on the U.S (especially if they're muslim fanatical states) - this would
be a scenario where no-one wins, but some will lose more than others
(and the ones losing the most won't include the U.S).


You are a loon. If Armageddonists like you have their way, we're all
dead. Not much "winning" in that, is there?



  #17  
Old October 15th 06, 05:05 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


Defendario wrote:
wrote:
William Black wrote:
wrote in message
s.com...
Jack Linthicum wrote:
Darn Good Intelligence wrote:
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
Yes, nuking Iran's nuclear facilities is the only way to solve the
problem of Ahmadinejad getting nukes as Iran's targets are too far
below the ground for conventional weapons to destroy. I hope Bush has
the balls to use nukes in Iran - I think he does.

BTW, does the Eisenhower have enough nukes to teach the Iranians a
lesson?
Would the Commander of the Eisenhower task force obey an order to use
nukes without a long diplomatic buildup?
"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?

Because half the world will say 'serves you right' and the rest will say 'I
declare war on the USA...'


In which case we'll just nuke the half of the world that declares war
on the U.S (especially if they're muslim fanatical states) - this would
be a scenario where no-one wins, but some will lose more than others
(and the ones losing the most won't include the U.S).


You are a loon. If Armageddonists like you have their way, we're all
dead. Not much "winning" in that, is there?



No, but we'll just make sure that the muslim savages lose MORE than we
will e.g. by exterminating any Islamic states who support terrorism.

  #18  
Old October 15th 06, 05:32 PM posted to us.military.navy,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval,alt.politics.bush,us.politics
Defendario
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 36
Default the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive'build-up for war with Iran

Darn Good Intelligence wrote:
Defendario wrote:
wrote:
William Black wrote:
wrote in message
s.com...
Jack Linthicum wrote:
Darn Good Intelligence wrote:
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
Yes, nuking Iran's nuclear facilities is the only way to solve the
problem of Ahmadinejad getting nukes as Iran's targets are too far
below the ground for conventional weapons to destroy. I hope Bush has
the balls to use nukes in Iran - I think he does.

BTW, does the Eisenhower have enough nukes to teach the Iranians a
lesson?
Would the Commander of the Eisenhower task force obey an order to use
nukes without a long diplomatic buildup?
"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?

Because half the world will say 'serves you right' and the rest will say 'I
declare war on the USA...'
In which case we'll just nuke the half of the world that declares war
on the U.S (especially if they're muslim fanatical states) - this would
be a scenario where no-one wins, but some will lose more than others
(and the ones losing the most won't include the U.S).

You are a loon. If Armageddonists like you have their way, we're all
dead. Not much "winning" in that, is there?


No, but we'll just make sure that the muslim savages lose MORE than we
will e.g. by exterminating any Islamic states who support terrorism.


You are a genocidal bigot. The one who needs exterminated is *YOU*



  #19  
Old October 15th 06, 05:40 PM posted to us.military.navy,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval,alt.politics.bush,us.politics
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive' build-up for war with Iran


Defendario wrote:
Darn Good Intelligence wrote:
Defendario wrote:
wrote:
William Black wrote:
wrote in message
s.com...
Jack Linthicum wrote:
Darn Good Intelligence wrote:
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
Yes, nuking Iran's nuclear facilities is the only way to solve the
problem of Ahmadinejad getting nukes as Iran's targets are too far
below the ground for conventional weapons to destroy. I hope Bush has
the balls to use nukes in Iran - I think he does.

BTW, does the Eisenhower have enough nukes to teach the Iranians a
lesson?
Would the Commander of the Eisenhower task force obey an order to use
nukes without a long diplomatic buildup?
"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?

Because half the world will say 'serves you right' and the rest will say 'I
declare war on the USA...'
In which case we'll just nuke the half of the world that declares war
on the U.S (especially if they're muslim fanatical states) - this would
be a scenario where no-one wins, but some will lose more than others
(and the ones losing the most won't include the U.S).

You are a loon. If Armageddonists like you have their way, we're all
dead. Not much "winning" in that, is there?


No, but we'll just make sure that the muslim savages lose MORE than we
will e.g. by exterminating any Islamic states who support terrorism.


You are a genocidal bigot.


It should be pretty obvious to anyone that Muslims love killing - both
each other i.e different ethnic groups and also non-muslims. If they
continue to threaten our way of life, what's wrong with dealing with
them once and for all. I'm not advocating doing this for no reason at
all - I just want to preserve our way of life in the face of evil
muslim savages who want to destroy it.

The one who needs exterminated is *YOU*


Now that wouldn't be very fair would it? I haven't killed anyone.

  #20  
Old October 15th 06, 05:55 PM posted to us.military.navy,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval,alt.politics.bush,us.politics
William Black[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 176
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
ups.com...

No, but we'll just make sure that the muslim savages lose MORE than we
will e.g. by exterminating any Islamic states who support terrorism.


Wel that'll be it for Pakistan...

Erm...

They're on your side...

--
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.


 




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 10:38 AM
American nazi pond scum, version two bushite kills bushite Naval Aviation 0 December 21st 04 11:46 PM
Hey! What fun!! Let's let them kill ourselves!!! [email protected] Naval Aviation 2 December 17th 04 10:45 PM
millionaire on the Internet... in weeks! Malcolm Austin Soaring 0 November 6th 04 12:14 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.