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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
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... 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 ..." |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive' build-up for war with Iran
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 |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive' build-up for war with Iran
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 |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive' build-up for war with Iran
Mike?...the Greg Reight photo...when did Reight first make his
claims??? 1996?? 1997? Where did you get your photo? |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive' build-up for war with Iran
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. |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive' build-up for war with Iran
"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. |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive' build-up for war with Iran
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. |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive' build-up for war with Iran
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |