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
  #21  
Old October 15th 06, 06:16 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:
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 - smak


PKB, Bigot. Do they let you wear the White Sheet in England, you Eurotrash?

Google KKK for details. Google is your friend, even if I am not.


The one who needs exterminated is *YOU*


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


You advocate religious crusade and genocide in the "Clash of Civs"
theory. You are a genocidal bigot, and enjoy the notion of slaughter of
innocent persons. 1.5 Billion Muslims are not going to let your ****
happen to them. Freight cars are for zhids.

You just need a $.10 bullet for your brain to fix it.

I'll pay.

;D



  #22  
Old October 15th 06, 06:20 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

William Black wrote:
"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...


And Saudi Arabia, among a laundry-list of nations.

It could include IsReeL (sic) depending on ones definition of terrorism.

Erm...

They're on your side...


Indeed. But EuroBigot here doesn't want you to understand that.

He is a posting from Britain, and likely a white supremacist or zioNist
(sic)

81.152.150.139
Details he
http://www.ripe.net/perl/whois/?form..._search=Search


  #23  
Old October 15th 06, 06:53 PM posted to us.military.navy,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval,alt.politics.bush,us.politics
Al Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive'build-up for war with Iran

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.
  #24  
Old October 15th 06, 06:55 PM posted to us.military.navy,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval,alt.politics.bush,us.politics
Al Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive'build-up for war with Iran

"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?
  #25  
Old October 15th 06, 07:22 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


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.


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

  #26  
Old October 15th 06, 08:10 PM posted to us.military.navy,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval,alt.politics.bush,us.politics
Al Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive'build-up for war with Iran

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.



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



Yup. Looks like we will get something loud and showy for the
evening news. And the American voters will probably fall for it. I
mean, when have they ever shown any independent or clear-headed
thinking?
  #27  
Old October 15th 06, 08:20 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


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.

  #28  
Old October 15th 06, 08:27 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
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.

What they'd like is the West to go away. They'll settle for Coke and Levis
and computers (with no net connection) and all the technology but they'd
prefer us to keep things like democracy and free speech and female equality
to ourselves.

--
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.



  #29  
Old October 15th 06, 08:27 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:
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.

IOW, you are the enemy. Of all mankind.

Go to Hell, and take you kind with you.



  #30  
Old October 15th 06, 09:14 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:
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.

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.

 




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 03:10 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.