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

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???

Task Force comprises many vessels, not only CVN

But not SSBNs, dimwit.

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.

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

In article .com,
"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.

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.

For what purpose? The IAEA says there are currently nine nuclear states,
and another forty who have the technical expertise to become nuclear
states quickly. Do you expect that the US using tactical nukes in Iran
is going to *reduce* those numbers?

The world is dangerous enough now, man... let's leave something for the
kids, okay?

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.

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

"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.

They're also the people who gave Iran the technology to build a bomb.

They're a US ally
--
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.

Darn Good Intelligence wrote:
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?


Since you are already nuking Iran at this point, why would that stop them?

The IRI will destroy IsReeL within minutes after the first warhead that
impacts in Persia. I guarantee it.

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.

The greatest force of terrorism with nukes today is IsReeL, dip****.

End of story.


So it shall be -- for us all.
See the book of Revelations for details.

Just Another wrote:
In article .com,
"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.

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.

For what purpose?

Because we can't completely destroy Iran's nuke sites without using
tactical nukes as those sites are buried too deep below the ground.

It's a tough decision to make, but Bush knows that the stakes are and
he knows that there's only one thing more frightening than a nuclear
first strike on Iran;

And that's an Iran with nukes.

The IAEA says there are currently nine nuclear states,
and another forty who have the technical expertise to become nuclear
states quickly. Do you expect that the US using tactical nukes in Iran
is going to *reduce* those numbers?

Yes, because it would scare those countries into realizing that to try
and develop nukes is a very dangerous thing to do as the U.S is willing
to nuke you so stop you. We'd do the same to N Korea but they already
have the bomb unfortunately. A nuke first strike on Iran would
simultaneously gain victory for the U.S in the War on Terror as Islamic
terrorists around the world realize the absolute pointlessnes of trying
to resist the U.S hegemony.

And we *are* going to leave something to the kids - a world where
people like Ahmadinejad don't have the bomb. They'll be grateful.

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?

Darn Good Intelligence wrote:
... A nuke first strike on Iran would
simultaneously gain victory for the U.S in the War on Terror as Islamic
terrorists around the world realize the absolute pointlessnes of trying
to resist the U.S hegemony.


Spoken like a true Fascist. Doktor Goebbels would be so proud.

And we *are* going to leave something to the kids - a world where
people like Ahmadinejad don't have the bomb.

And 90% of the human population is dead, the rest dying.

They'll be grateful.


No they won't. They will cry and gnash their teeth, cursing fools like
you who destroyed their future.

"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?

Who sponsors LeT and JeM today?

--
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.

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?

Task Force comprises many vessels, not only CVN

But not SSBNs, dimwit.


Sure about that? What about the LA class attack subs? No Tomahawks
aboard those boats?

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

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.

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.