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

[AirRaid[_1_]]

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 ;)

[[email protected]]

Hmm..

I guess you don't remember when the USN nearly wiped out ALL Iranian's
Navy back in the 80s.



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 ;)

[Defendario]

wrote:
> Hmm..
>
> I guess you don't remember when the USN nearly wiped out ALL Iranian's
> Navy back in the 80s.
>

There have been a lot of changes since then. The USN is in grave
danger. The Persian Gulf may get the reputation earned by Ironbottom
Sound. They are not invulnerable.

<siren /on> VAMPIRE VAMPIRE VAMPIRE! NOT A DRILL! <siren /off>

>
>
> 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.
>>

Rummy is a NeoKlown, and thinks he can do more with less than any
military leader in the history of mankind. He is a dangerous idiot, and
is going to get boatloads of sailors killed.

>>
>> 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 ;)
>

Define "the job"

>

[[email protected][_1_]]

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.

SNIP

Yep, agreed.


> I just don't see how the Eisenhower group arriving in late October, and
> some minesweepers, is signaling war with Iran anytime soon.

SNIP

Which is the reason you shouldn't listen the Loonie Left when they make
their monthly prediction of "US >WILL< invade <insert name of country
here>" announcements.

After all they've successfullly predicted all the US inavsions ovre the
past two years....

[eatfastnoodle]

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 ;)

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?

[Ralph_S]

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.
>
>

I agree with you that three carrier groups doesn't seem enough, but
would advise you not to listen to the nutters here who claim that a US
attack is imminent. They don't have any solid info either and are just
speculating and putting out propaganda for whatever agenda they
support.

Cheers,
Ralph

[[email protected]]

Defendario wrote:


> There have been a lot of changes since then. The USN is in grave
> danger. The Persian Gulf may get the reputation earned by Ironbottom
> Sound. They are not invulnerable.
>
> <siren /on> VAMPIRE VAMPIRE VAMPIRE! NOT A DRILL! <siren /off>
>

Back then it did not take much to nearly annhilate Iran's Navy with
the 'small' USN force that was deployed. Has there been big purchases
for naval vessels after that?

Regardless, I don't think there Navy won't pose much threat. Where
their vast experiece lies is on the ground and perhaps air war due to
the encounters with Iraq

[Defendario]

wrote:
> Defendario wrote:
>
>
>> There have been a lot of changes since then. The USN is in grave
>> danger. The Persian Gulf may get the reputation earned by Ironbottom
>> Sound. They are not invulnerable.
>>
>> <siren /on> VAMPIRE VAMPIRE VAMPIRE! NOT A DRILL! <siren /off>
>>
>
> Back then it did not take much to nearly annhilate Iran's Navy with
> the 'small' USN force that was deployed. Has there been big purchases
> for naval vessels after that?
>

The Iranians aren't wasting much of their resources on ships. They
aren't obligated to fight the war the way /we/ want. The Iranians have
invested in weapons technologies that will meet their strategic
objectives, ie control of the Persian Gulf and the Straits of Hormuz.

In this objective they are likely to succeed, even by the Navy's own
predictions.

> Regardless, I don't think there Navy won't pose much threat. Where
> their vast experiece lies is on the ground and perhaps air war due to
> the encounters with Iraq
>

The technology that Iran got by way of China and North Korea was
recently tested against the IsReeLee forces, and found to be effective.

If a Skvall torp hits a carrier, it could be in serious trouble. A
lesser vessel will sink. Swarms of surface to surface guided missiles
will swamp and overwhelm the defenses of any fleet within the confined
spaces of the Gulf.

VAMPIRE means missile, fool. Between the mines, torps, missiles and
speedboat jihadists, our boiz will have their hands full. Only an idiot
would take the Iranian forces lightly, and the Pentagon seems fully
stocked with idiots nowadays.

>

[Andrew Swallow]

eatfastnoodle wrote:
[snip]

> 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

[Jack Linthicum]

Andrew Swallow wrote:
> eatfastnoodle wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > 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

IIRC that was one of the "justifications" for the March 2003 invasion
of Iraq, later we get heat and dust storms and we want to avoid those.
Three years later...

[Darn Good Intelligence]

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?

[Jack Linthicum]

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?

[[email protected]]

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?

[William Black[_1_]]

> 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.

[[email protected]]

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).

[Defendario]

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?

>

[Darn Good Intelligence]

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.

[Defendario]

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*

>

[[email protected]]

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.

[William Black[_1_]]

"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.

[Defendario]

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

>

[Defendario]

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 here:
http://www.ripe.net/perl/whois/?form_type=simple&full_query_string=&searchtext=81.152.150.139&do_search=Search

[Al Smith]

>> 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.

[Al Smith]

>>"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?

[Jack Linthicum]

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.

[Al Smith]

>>>>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?

[Darn Good Intelligence]

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.

[William Black[_1_]]

"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.

[Defendario]

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.

>

[Darn Good Intelligence]

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.

[Mike[_14_]]

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>

[Mike[_14_]]

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 ...

[Defendario]

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.

> 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.

>

[Defendario]

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.

Task Force comprises many vessels, not only CVN

The question of whether the Commander will launch WW III without a
declaration is not sophomoric. 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.

>

[Darn Good Intelligence]

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.

> > 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?

[William Black[_1_]]

"Darn Good Intelligence" > wrote in message
oups.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?

--
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]

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

[Defendario]

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) 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?

And the most dangerous one of all is our sacred cow, IsReeL.

Hypocrisy, thy name is America.

>

[Darn Good Intelligence]

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?

>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. End of story.

[William Black[_1_]]

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

I wouldn't.

It's pretty obvious that the current US government isn't prepared to bet
yours.

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.

Exactly.

Saddam always was a menace, he invaded people and threw poison gas about.

Iran has never done anything more than the US has done in the past, indeed
they've been very careful never to excede what the US has done in the past.

After a nuclear attack on Iran Russia and China would almost certainly start
a campaign to marginalise the US internationally, and they'd get a lot of
support. I don't know if you noticed but the US isn't that popular at the
moment.

Ports all over the world would close to US shipping, attacks on US
embassies and tourists and US owned industrial plants. Along with
international boycots of US products plus China would dump all those
dollars.

World War III or a huge US depression...

Your choice...

--
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[_14_]]

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>

[Just Another]

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.

[William Black[_1_]]

"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.

[Defendario]

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.

>

[Darn Good Intelligence]

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.

[Darn Good Intelligence]

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?

[Defendario]

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.

>

[William Black[_1_]]

"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.

[Defendario]

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.

>

[Darn Good Intelligence]

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.

[Jack Linthicum]

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.

[William Black[_1_]]

"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?

I mean, I know they haven't killed any US citizens yet but JeM were without
doubt implicated in the recent plot discovered in London.

--
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[_14_]]

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 ...

> >> 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

> What about the LA class attack subs?

They aren't SSBNs, now are they.

> 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??

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

> >> 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>

> >> 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.

[Mike[_14_]]

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) ...

[AirRaid[_1_]]

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.
>
> 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.

I agree overall - especially about the level of nukes the U.S. is
reportedly prepared to use against Iran. Actually, the nukes the U.S.
is said to be getting ready to use on Iran are small even for TACTICAL
nuclear weapons. so called 'mini' or 'micro' nukes. something that
has alot more punch than the largest conventional bunker busting GBUs,
but far less than what we dropped on Japan, and still smaller than the
tactical nukes we'd use on the surface to stop advancing armies, such
as a Soviet invasion of western europe during the cold war.

[Darn Good Intelligence]

AirRaid 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.
> >
> > 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.
>
> I agree overall - especially about the level of nukes the U.S. is
> reportedly prepared to use against Iran. Actually, the nukes the U.S.
> is said to be getting ready to use on Iran are small even for TACTICAL
> nuclear weapons. so called 'mini' or 'micro' nukes. something that
> has alot more punch than the largest conventional bunker busting GBUs,
> but far less than what we dropped on Japan, and still smaller than the
> tactical nukes we'd use on the surface to stop advancing armies, such
> as a Soviet invasion of western europe during the cold war.

Yes, sensible post. The first in this thread (other than my posts of
course).

[Darn Good Intelligence]

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.

[Andrew Swallow]

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

[Defendario]

Darn Good Intelligence wrote:

<SNIP>

> Yes, sensible post. The first in this thread (other than my posts of
> course).
>

LOL, what an arrogant assclown you are!

GFY, DCI

;D

>

[Defendario]

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?

>>>> 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.

>> 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.

>> 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.

> 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.

>>>> 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.

>>>> 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.

;D

>

[Mike[_14_]]

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 ...

[William Black[_1_]]

"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.

[William Black[_1_]]

"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.

[[email protected]]

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.

[Jack Linthicum]

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.

[Al Dykes]

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

[Al Dykes]

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

[Keith Willshaw]

"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

[Al Dykes]

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

[Keith Willshaw]

"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

[[email protected]]

Al Dykes wrote:
> 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.

Who gives a **** "about domestic progress"? WTF are you talking about?
We're talking about nuking their sites to stop a terrorist state
getting the bomb and causing a 9/11 with nukes! Iran as a democracy?
Yeah that's why the guardian council screens out half the candidates
because they don't fit whatever Islamic critera they deem appropriate.
Wake up!

[mimus]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 12:44:57 -0700, waynetv50 wrote:

>> 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.

They also vet candidates.

Which makes calling Iran a "democracy" something of a farce.

(No pun intended.)

--

Nothing so illuminates the end as the means.

And the means is frequently the real end.

[Mike[_14_]]

Jack Linthicum wrote:
> 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.

Past practice is for a number of announcements when one carrier strike
group relieves another -- one's VERY happy to be heading home ...

[[email protected][_1_]]

mikey...

1)stop the profanity;to wit, use of the word ,"****head"...you're
acting with less class than what the good lord originally intended.

2)is that Salvador Astucia really an "antisemite"?...

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> mikey...
>
> 1)stop the profanity;to wit, use of the word ,"****head"...you're
> acting with less class than what the good lord originally intended.
>
> 2)is that Salvador Astucia really an "antisemite"?...

what's wrong with ****head?

[Gernot Hassenpflug]

"Darn Good Intelligence" > writes:

> AirRaid 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?

My worthless opinion: it will happen sooner or later. Look at what
happened to the attempts to keep nuclear secrets in the West. It does
not work. And when a more potent or congruent weapon makes an
appearance, that will be used too. So it is more important to plan how
to deal with a situation, rather than to aim to destroy some
media-visible "site" in a foreign country. Any US attack is just a
chance for that many more people to hate it. And you might say, so
what? And in that case, you have no right to complain about suicide
bombers, assassinations, kidnappings, and the way people do business
in other parts of the world. I agree that force is a part of the whole
flow of human endeavour, but so are calls for reason - it is no doubt
quite a good thing for the current economic systems when war and
destruction flare up, but we could also try something else instead.

> Yes, sensible post. The first in this thread (other than my posts of
> course).

Naturally :-)

--
Gernot Hassenpflug ) Tel: +81 774 38-3866
JSPS Fellow (Rm.403, RISH, Kyoto Uni.) Fax: +81 774 31-8463
www.rish.kyoto-u.ac.jp/radar-group/members/gernot Mob: +81 90 39493924

[Al Smith]

> My worthless opinion: it will happen sooner or later. Look at what
> happened to the attempts to keep nuclear secrets in the West. It does
> not work. And when a more potent or congruent weapon makes an
> appearance, that will be used too. So it is more important to plan how
> to deal with a situation, rather than to aim to destroy some
> media-visible "site" in a foreign country. Any US attack is just a
> chance for that many more people to hate it. And you might say, so
> what? And in that case, you have no right to complain about suicide
> bombers, assassinations, kidnappings, and the way people do business
> in other parts of the world. I agree that force is a part of the whole
> flow of human endeavour, but so are calls for reason - it is no doubt
> quite a good thing for the current economic systems when war and
> destruction flare up, but we could also try something else instead.


Here's how the United States can try something new -- just stop
invading, attacking, and bombing other countries. Wait until they
invade the USA, or at least talk about invading the USA, before
you blow them to hell, kill a hundred thousand of their people,
and depose the government. A lot fewer people will hate Americans,
if you just stop killing their families.

[Defendario]

Al Smith wrote:
>> My worthless opinion: it will happen sooner or later. Look at what
>> happened to the attempts to keep nuclear secrets in the West. It does
>> not work. And when a more potent or congruent weapon makes an
>> appearance, that will be used too. So it is more important to plan how
>> to deal with a situation, rather than to aim to destroy some
>> media-visible "site" in a foreign country. Any US attack is just a
>> chance for that many more people to hate it. And you might say, so
>> what? And in that case, you have no right to complain about suicide
>> bombers, assassinations, kidnappings, and the way people do business
>> in other parts of the world. I agree that force is a part of the whole
>> flow of human endeavour, but so are calls for reason - it is no doubt
>> quite a good thing for the current economic systems when war and
>> destruction flare up, but we could also try something else instead.
>
>
> Here's how the United States can try something new -- just stop
> invading, attacking, and bombing other countries. Wait until they invade
> the USA, or at least talk about invading the USA, before you blow them
> to hell, kill a hundred thousand of their people, and depose the
> government. A lot fewer people will hate Americans, if you just stop
> killing their families.
>

Now that was the most sensible post in the thread, IMO.

[Defendario]

wrote:
> wrote:
>> mikey...
>>
>> 1)stop the profanity;to wit, use of the word ,"****head"...you're
>> acting with less class than what the good lord originally intended.
>>
>> 2)is that Salvador Astucia really an "antisemite"?...
>
> what's wrong with ****head?
>

Nothing. It suits you fine.

>

[[email protected][_1_]]

Mike Weeks has other questions to answer which he has previuosly dodged
on the USS Liberty murders....

Regrettably, matters more important than him now are taking up the
lion's share of my free time---trashing fraud filed in the war crimes
complaint by the wacko subset of the Liberty Survivors

His use of profanity, therefore, would better be applied to himself...


wrote:
> wrote:
> > mikey...
> >
> > 1)stop the profanity;to wit, use of the word ,"****head"...you're
> > acting with less class than what the good lord originally intended.
> >
> > 2)is that Salvador Astucia really an "antisemite"?...
>
> what's wrong with ****head?

[Defendario]

wrote:
> Mike Weeks has other questions to answer which he has previuosly dodged
> on the USS Liberty murders....
>

I wonder how much stipend he draws from MoSSaD.

> Regrettably, matters more important than him now are taking up the
> lion's share of my free time---trashing fraud filed in the war crimes
> complaint by the wacko subset of the Liberty Survivors
>

More paid shills? Will it ever end?
:-(

> His use of profanity, therefore, would better be applied to himself...
>

Amen.

>
> wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> mikey...
>>>
>>> 1)stop the profanity;to wit, use of the word ,"****head"...you're
>>> acting with less class than what the good lord originally intended.
>>>
>>> 2)is that Salvador Astucia really an "antisemite"?...
>> what's wrong with ****head?
>
>

[[email protected][_1_]]

Mike Weeks is an evil individual...

....yet he has taken an extremely bad poker hand and played it as best
he could(USS Liberty murders...GOI story stunk to high heaven right
from get-go...gets stinkier and stinkier when you even begin to scratch
the surface)

[Defendario]

wrote:
> Mike Weeks is an evil individual...
>

As well as being an UnAmerican asshole.

> ...yet he has taken an extremely bad poker hand and played it as best
> he could(USS Liberty murders...GOI story stunk to high heaven right
> from get-go...gets stinkier and stinkier when you even begin to scratch
> the surface)
>

IsReeL stinks. It needs wiped from the pages of history, like Mahmoud says.

>

[Darn Good Intelligence]

Defendario wrote:

> IsReeL stinks. It needs wiped from the pages of history, like Mahmoud says.

That;s another stupid and bigoted comment you've made about the Jews -
are you an anti-semite? It's amazing the amount of stupid comments made
in this thread so far.

[[email protected][_1_]]

Mike...

1)hyperlink me to where Ambassador Richard Parker completely
discredited Greg Reight in 1997


2)http://hometown.aol.com/libertyincident/JEJMpage4.html

Mike ....

a)is the bombed out Egyptian planes photo doctored like the IDF Gun
Camera Photo in the IDF History Report of 1982?

b)..is it like the doctored Thames/ Cristol gun camera photo provided
by the Government of Israel to Cristol on p.79 of "The Liberty
Incident"

This is a serious issue, Mike....

I'm looking at LIFE Magazine Vol62...June 16, 1967 page 38D....did LIFE
crop the photo also,Mike?

3)With Israel now being caught TWICE in doctoring Gun Camera
Photos...can we assume Reight is now telling the truth that Israel had
no photo recon aircraft units in 1967???

What reason would Reight have to lie at this late date?

[[email protected][_1_]]

Mike...

1)hyperlink me to where Ambassador Richard Parker completely
discredited Greg Reight in 1997


2)http://hometown.aol.com/libertyincident/JEJMpage4.html

Mike ....

a)is the bombed out Egyptian planes photo doctored like the IDF Gun
Camera Photo in the IDF History Report of 1982?

b)..is it like the doctored Thames/ Cristol gun camera photo provided
by the Government of Israel to Cristol on p.79 of "The Liberty
Incident"

This is a serious issue, Mike....

I'm looking at LIFE Magazine Vol62...June 16, 1967 page 38D....did LIFE
crop the photo also,Mike?

3)With Israel now being caught TWICE in doctoring Gun Camera
Photos...can we assume Reight is now telling the truth that Israel had
no photo recon aircraft units in 1967???

What reason would Reight have to lie at this late date?

[[email protected][_1_]]

Mike ...you stated the Reight phot had been cropped to eliminate the
shadow of the Delta-winged Mirage...where did Reight produce such a
cropped photo?

That is a serious charge....Where did Ambassador Parker completely
discredit Reight in 1967.

Is the Delta-Winged Mirage Photo at the same angle as the 6/16/1967
LIFE Magazine photo on page 38D????

Is this another example of doctoring?

Could the IDF have realized their mistake in giving LIFE Magazine photo
recon pictures and sent an overflight on a different date than
6/5/1967...

....Again, are those two photos at the same angle???....

This is where the West Bank land was grabbed, Mike...it would have
serious geo-politial implications in the UN Security Council if there
was photographic proof that the US and UK assisted in a land grab....

...as opposed to "defending a state surrounded by neighbors bent on its
destruction".

Mike...seize the opportunity to turn back from your wicked, wicked ways
and join me in turning the "senseless slaughter" of those 34 into some
kind of "meaningful sacrifice".


1)Is this another example of doctoring?

2)Are those two photos at the same angle???....

http://hometown.aol.com/libertyincident/JEJMpage4.html

versus

The photo in LIFE Magazine Vol62...June 16, 1967 page 38D....


3)and please,hyperlink me to where Ambassador Richard Parker completely
discredited Greg Reight in 1997...

4)Was "dead in the water" filmed in 1997?

Hyperlink me to the date/publication where Greg Reight first made his
claims and produced the supposedly cropped photo

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> Hmm..
>
> I guess you don't remember when the USN nearly wiped out ALL Iranian's
> Navy back in the 80s.

Just as the USN never remembers that
Egypt, rather than Olympic idiots like
Ronnie Reagan closed the Suez Canal.



>
> 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 ;)

[jJim McLaughlin]

William Black wrote:

As usual some thought provoking and interesing materal, which can best
be found by

SNIPS OF MUCH FOOLISH CHEST THUMPING BY BOTH "DEFENDARIO" AND "DARN GOOD
INTELLIGENCE"


>
> After a nuclear attack on Iran Russia and China would almost certainly start
> a campaign to marginalise the US internationally, and they'd get a lot of
> support. I don't know if you noticed but the US isn't that popular at the
> moment.
>
> Ports all over the world would close to US shipping, attacks on US
> embassies and tourists and US owned industrial plants. Along with
> international boycots of US products plus China would dump all those
> dollars.
>

Dump them where?

The only "victim" of a Russian or Chinese led "boycott" of the US or
attempt to marginalize would be the comlete implosion of the PRC's
economy, and the subsequent melt down of the domestic authority of the
PRC government.

How does the old line go, " If ypu owe the bank a mllion bucks ad ca't
pay ou are in trouble. If youowe the bak a illion bucks and can't pay,
the bank is in trouble."

The PC economy, and the PRC work force, can not risk edangering their
American markets.

> World War III or a huge US depression...
>
> Your choice...
>

[Ricardo]

Darn Good Intelligence wrote:
> William Black wrote:
>
>>"Darn Good Intelligence" > wrote in message
oups.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? There has to be a time when the
bullying has to be stopped. The action advocated against Iran just means
that states that previously felt a degree of security suddenly feel more
threatened - and it's not by Iran, China or Russia!

Ricardo

--
"Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand ..."

[Darn Good Intelligence]

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

[Ricardo]

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

[Peter Skelton]

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
>> oups.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

[[email protected]]

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 ;)

[[email protected][_1_]]

Mike?...the Greg Reight photo...when did Reight first make his
claims??? 1996?? 1997?

Where did you get your photo?

[Darn Good Intelligence]

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

[William Black]

"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.

[Darn Good Intelligence]

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.

[Darn Good Intelligence]

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.

[Darn Good Intelligence]

wrote:
> There is so much political discussion here, full of hatred,

Hatred for Ahmadinejad and Muslim savages is wholly justified.

[Mike[_14_]]

wrote:

> 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...

And when the Kitty Hawk Carrier Strike Group departed Yokosuka on the
17th for her annual Fall WestPac cruise, here's how the _Navy Times_
headlined it:

"Kitty Hawk CSG Deploys Amid North Korea Tensions"

Not Iranian tensions ... <g>

The Navy is of course simply going about its everyday business.

[Peter Skelton]

On 19 Oct 2006 11:29:24 -0700, "Darn Good Intelligence"
> wrote:

>
>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.

In Iraq? You think a Pakistani or Russian is going to believe
that? Don't be bloody stupid, I gave the truth of the matter
above - accusations can be leveled, the truth of them is
irrelevant to the potential for war.


Peter Skelton

[Andrew Swallow]

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.
>
> Why not them?
>
Pakistan's President understands that the US Constitution grants
freedom of speech but not to foreign heads of state. Correct use
of that information is defending his country against one of the
world's most powerful countries.

Andrew Swallow

[Ricardo]

Darn Good Intelligence wrote:
> 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.
>
This is one of the big problems - the US always like to include a few
"allies" to give legitimacy to their many illegal actions. Also, whose
law are we talking about? The invasion of Grenada was an illegal act
perpetrated against an ally of the US - the UK.

Ricardo

--
"Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand ..."

[Ricardo]

Darn Good Intelligence wrote:
> 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.
>
So, just because China "isn't the world's biggest sponsor of terrorism"
it doesn't have a despotic government, despite the US sending a 43 ship
force, including an aircraft carrier just to "warn" the Chinese just a
month or so back?

Also, why should anyone support Israel and its genocidal activities
towards its neighbours - particularly the Palestinians who were forcibly
ejected from their land (much like the "Native Americans") to make room
for immigrants from elsewhere, and then, for the survivors of this
incursion to be rounded up and put in camps (or reservations - much like
the "Native Americans"). Is it any surprise, when hope is nearly gone,
that the downtrodden have nothing left but to hit back?

In terms of the "world's biggest sponsor of terrorism" however, the US
must rate pretty highly on the list - along with Pakistan, but they buy
US arms, don't they, and it wouldn't do to upset a good customer - much
like with Israel.

Gosh, this is simple stuff.

Ricardo
--
"Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand ..."

[Joe Osman]

Al Smith wrote:
> > My worthless opinion: it will happen sooner or later. Look at what
> > happened to the attempts to keep nuclear secrets in the West. It does
> > not work. And when a more potent or congruent weapon makes an
> > appearance, that will be used too. So it is more important to plan how
> > to deal with a situation, rather than to aim to destroy some
> > media-visible "site" in a foreign country. Any US attack is just a
> > chance for that many more people to hate it. And you might say, so
> > what? And in that case, you have no right to complain about suicide
> > bombers, assassinations, kidnappings, and the way people do business
> > in other parts of the world. I agree that force is a part of the whole
> > flow of human endeavour, but so are calls for reason - it is no doubt
> > quite a good thing for the current economic systems when war and
> > destruction flare up, but we could also try something else instead.
>
>
> Here's how the United States can try something new -- just stop
> invading, attacking, and bombing other countries. Wait until they
> invade the USA, or at least talk about invading the USA, before
> you blow them to hell, kill a hundred thousand of their people,
> and depose the government. A lot fewer people will hate Americans,
> if you just stop killing their families.

Randy Newman put his 2 cents in about this in 1968 with his song
"Political Science":

No one likes us
I don't know why.
We may not be perfect
But heaven knows we try.
But all around even our old friends put us down.
Let's drop the big one and see what happens.

We give them money
But are they grateful?
No they're spiteful
And they're hateful.
They don't respect us so let's surprise them;
We'll drop the big one and pulverize them.

Now Asia's crowded
And Europe's too old.
Africa is far too hot,
And Canada's too cold.
South America stole our name.
Let's drop the big one; there'll be no one left to blame us.

Bridge:
We'll save Australia;
Don't wanna hurt no kangaroo.
We'll build an all-American amusement park there;
They've got surfing, too.

Well, boom goes London,
And boom Paree.
More room for you
And more room for me.
And every city the whole world round
Will just be another American town.
Oh, how peaceful it'll be;
We'll set everybody free;
You'll have Japanese kimonos, baby,
There'll be Italian shoes for me.
They all hate us anyhow,
So let's drop the big one now.
Let's drop the big one now.

Joe

[Darn Good Intelligence]

Ricardo wrote:
> Darn Good Intelligence wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> So, just because China "isn't the world's biggest sponsor of terrorism"
> it doesn't have a despotic government, despite the US sending a 43 ship
> force, including an aircraft carrier just to "warn" the Chinese just a
> month or so back?

This is just an absurd argument. We have to analyze these things in
terms of several factors including: the degree of threat a nation poses
to the U.S, the extent to which the regime is "despotic" or
undemocratic, and the viability of removing that regime from power.
Clearly Iran meets ALL of these criteria; China doesn't. Iran is a
severe threat and should and will be removed within the next 2 years.
Look, the U.S simply cannot remove every "bad" regime from power to
just to satisy a whining leftist like yourself who doesn't seem to
realise that it's not possible for a superpower to be entirely
consistent in its foreign policies in every different scenario.

> Also, why should anyone support Israel and its genocidal activities
> towards its neighbours - particularly the Palestinians who were forcibly
> ejected from their land (much like the "Native Americans") to make room
> for immigrants from elsewhere, and then, for the survivors of this
> incursion to be rounded up and put in camps (or reservations - much like
> the "Native Americans"). Is it any surprise, when hope is nearly gone,
> that the downtrodden have nothing left but to hit back?

I'm not getting into the old Palestinian question, but I wouldn't
exactly care if Israel just expelled them all to Jordan. That's the
solution to the problem.

> In terms of the "world's biggest sponsor of terrorism" however, the US
> must rate pretty highly on the list - along with Pakistan, but they buy
> US arms, don't they, and it wouldn't do to upset a good customer - much
> like with Israel.

You sound like another Ahmadinejad sympathiser.

[Defendario]

Darn Good Intelligence wrote:
> wrote:
>> There is so much political discussion here, full of hatred,
>
> Hatred for Ahmadinejad and Muslim savages is wholly justified.
>

Your agenda is thus exposed, zioShill.

>

[Ricardo]

Darn Good Intelligence wrote:
> Ricardo wrote:
>
>>Darn Good Intelligence wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>
>>So, just because China "isn't the world's biggest sponsor of terrorism"
>>it doesn't have a despotic government, despite the US sending a 43 ship
>>force, including an aircraft carrier just to "warn" the Chinese just a
>>month or so back?
>
>
> This is just an absurd argument. We have to analyze these things in
> terms of several factors including: the degree of threat a nation poses
> to the U.S, the extent to which the regime is "despotic" or
> undemocratic, and the viability of removing that regime from power.
> Clearly Iran meets ALL of these criteria; China doesn't. Iran is a
> severe threat and should and will be removed within the next 2 years.
> Look, the U.S simply cannot remove every "bad" regime from power to
> just to satisy a whining leftist like yourself who doesn't seem to
> realise that it's not possible for a superpower to be entirely
> consistent in its foreign policies in every different scenario.
>
>
>>Also, why should anyone support Israel and its genocidal activities
>>towards its neighbours - particularly the Palestinians who were forcibly
>>ejected from their land (much like the "Native Americans") to make room
>>for immigrants from elsewhere, and then, for the survivors of this
>>incursion to be rounded up and put in camps (or reservations - much like
>>the "Native Americans"). Is it any surprise, when hope is nearly gone,
>>that the downtrodden have nothing left but to hit back?
>
>
> I'm not getting into the old Palestinian question, but I wouldn't
> exactly care if Israel just expelled them all to Jordan. That's the
> solution to the problem.
>
>
>>In terms of the "world's biggest sponsor of terrorism" however, the US
>>must rate pretty highly on the list - along with Pakistan, but they buy
>>US arms, don't they, and it wouldn't do to upset a good customer - much
>>like with Israel.
>
>
> You sound like another Ahmadinejad sympathiser.
>
Thank you for sounding like a typical moronic American: anyone with a
view counter to your own is a "whining leftist", and then sticking your
fingers in your ears when confronted with some of the sources of today's
problems - not least America's involvement in other countries affairs
and supporting and sponsoring terrorism.

Your country doesn't have the "right" to remove ANY regime from power!
Hitler went down that road some years ago with his 1939 European Tour -
it's just lucky that Britain and France were the only ones prepared to
stop him.

Ricardo

--
"Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand ..."

[Diamond Jim]

"Ricardo" > wrote in message
.uk...
> Darn Good Intelligence wrote:
>> Ricardo wrote:
>>
>>>Darn Good Intelligence wrote:
>>>
>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>
>>>So, just because China "isn't the world's biggest sponsor of terrorism"
>>>it doesn't have a despotic government, despite the US sending a 43 ship
>>>force, including an aircraft carrier just to "warn" the Chinese just a
>>>month or so back?
>>
>>
>> This is just an absurd argument. We have to analyze these things in
>> terms of several factors including: the degree of threat a nation poses
>> to the U.S, the extent to which the regime is "despotic" or
>> undemocratic, and the viability of removing that regime from power.
>> Clearly Iran meets ALL of these criteria; China doesn't. Iran is a
>> severe threat and should and will be removed within the next 2 years.
>> Look, the U.S simply cannot remove every "bad" regime from power to
>> just to satisy a whining leftist like yourself who doesn't seem to
>> realise that it's not possible for a superpower to be entirely
>> consistent in its foreign policies in every different scenario.
>>
>>
>>>Also, why should anyone support Israel and its genocidal activities
>>>towards its neighbours - particularly the Palestinians who were forcibly
>>>ejected from their land (much like the "Native Americans") to make room
>>>for immigrants from elsewhere, and then, for the survivors of this
>>>incursion to be rounded up and put in camps (or reservations - much like
>>>the "Native Americans"). Is it any surprise, when hope is nearly gone,
>>>that the downtrodden have nothing left but to hit back?
>>
>>
>> I'm not getting into the old Palestinian question, but I wouldn't
>> exactly care if Israel just expelled them all to Jordan. That's the
>> solution to the problem.
>>
>>
>>>In terms of the "world's biggest sponsor of terrorism" however, the US
>>>must rate pretty highly on the list - along with Pakistan, but they buy
>>>US arms, don't they, and it wouldn't do to upset a good customer - much
>>>like with Israel.
>>
>>
>> You sound like another Ahmadinejad sympathiser.
>>
> Thank you for sounding like a typical moronic American: anyone with a view
> counter to your own is a "whining leftist", and then sticking your fingers
> in your ears when confronted with some of the sources of today's
> problems - not least America's involvement in other countries affairs and
> supporting and sponsoring terrorism.
>
> Your country doesn't have the "right" to remove ANY regime from power!
> Hitler went down that road some years ago with his 1939 European Tour -
> it's just lucky that Britain and France were the only ones prepared to
> stop him.
>
> Ricardo
>
> --
> "Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand
> Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand ..."

Well if you are going to be the worlds only superpower, you have to act like
it.

As far as Britain and France being prepared for Hitler, I didn't know that.

I thought the French waited until after the Blitzkreg started befor they
printed all the menus in German, but I guess they must have started before
that as there wasn't enought time to do it before the Germans were in Paris.

Britain being prepared? For what? A stupid decision and caution because they
couldn't believe their own sucess stopped the Germans for enough time for
the British by heroic effort to evacuate and save their Army. Without the
core of their army to use for expansion, the massive aid from the US, and
the incredable stupid decision by Hitler to attack Russia, it would have
been over for them.

The US gave a lot of aid to the Russian, but if they had given them aid on
the same scale as they gave the British then most of Europe would have had
to learn to speak Russian

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Fri, 20 Oct 2006 09:37:30 GMT) it happened "Diamond Jim"
> wrote in >:

>
>"Ricardo" > wrote in message
.uk...
>> Darn Good Intelligence wrote:
>>> Ricardo wrote:
>>>
>>>>Darn Good Intelligence wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>So, just because China "isn't the world's biggest sponsor of terrorism"
>>>>it doesn't have a despotic government, despite the US sending a 43 ship
>>>>force, including an aircraft carrier just to "warn" the Chinese just a
>>>>month or so back?
>>>
>>>
>>> This is just an absurd argument. We have to analyze these things in
>>> terms of several factors including: the degree of threat a nation poses
>>> to the U.S, the extent to which the regime is "despotic" or
>>> undemocratic, and the viability of removing that regime from power.
>>> Clearly Iran meets ALL of these criteria; China doesn't. Iran is a
>>> severe threat and should and will be removed within the next 2 years.
>>> Look, the U.S simply cannot remove every "bad" regime from power to
>>> just to satisy a whining leftist like yourself who doesn't seem to
>>> realise that it's not possible for a superpower to be entirely
>>> consistent in its foreign policies in every different scenario.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Also, why should anyone support Israel and its genocidal activities
>>>>towards its neighbours - particularly the Palestinians who were forcibly
>>>>ejected from their land (much like the "Native Americans") to make room
>>>>for immigrants from elsewhere, and then, for the survivors of this
>>>>incursion to be rounded up and put in camps (or reservations - much like
>>>>the "Native Americans"). Is it any surprise, when hope is nearly gone,
>>>>that the downtrodden have nothing left but to hit back?
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not getting into the old Palestinian question, but I wouldn't
>>> exactly care if Israel just expelled them all to Jordan. That's the
>>> solution to the problem.
>>>
>>>
>>>>In terms of the "world's biggest sponsor of terrorism" however, the US
>>>>must rate pretty highly on the list - along with Pakistan, but they buy
>>>>US arms, don't they, and it wouldn't do to upset a good customer - much
>>>>like with Israel.
>>>
>>>
>>> You sound like another Ahmadinejad sympathiser.
>>>
>> Thank you for sounding like a typical moronic American: anyone with a view
>> counter to your own is a "whining leftist", and then sticking your fingers
>> in your ears when confronted with some of the sources of today's
>> problems - not least America's involvement in other countries affairs and
>> supporting and sponsoring terrorism.
>>
>> Your country doesn't have the "right" to remove ANY regime from power!
>> Hitler went down that road some years ago with his 1939 European Tour -
>> it's just lucky that Britain and France were the only ones prepared to
>> stop him.
>>
>> Ricardo
>>
>> --
>> "Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand
>> Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand ..."
>
>Well if you are going to be the worlds only superpower, you have to act like
>it.
>
>As far as Britain and France being prepared for Hitler, I didn't know that.
>
>I thought the French waited until after the Blitzkreg started befor they
>printed all the menus in German, but I guess they must have started before
>that as there wasn't enought time to do it before the Germans were in Paris.
>
>Britain being prepared? For what? A stupid decision and caution because they
>couldn't believe their own sucess stopped the Germans for enough time for
>the British by heroic effort to evacuate and save their Army. Without the
>core of their army to use for expansion, the massive aid from the US, and
>the incredable stupid decision by Hitler to attack Russia, it would have
>been over for them.

I have seen some documentaties where the German airforce was defeated
by the English.
The English had radar (an English invention, although the Germans had
something like that on ships), and in particular the magenetron tube
generatiing very high power microwaves (maybe you cook with one), made
better radar possible later in the war, this helped the US spot German
submarines! And without that, many more US ships would have gone down.
So it is not all that simple as you may think.
With the German airforce defeated Hitler called of the UK invasion.
But not the V1 V2 or whatever...
For that massive bombing of the German resouces and infrastructure
was done.
The German rocket technology is what makes our ara of satellites and
spacetravel and internet possible.
The English did not even belive at first a V1 or V32 could be build.
So, the good side of wars is massive invention because of a _need_.
Quite different from advertising agencies trying to convince you
you need something.... Better reality check, higher pressure, only
results count...
So, who knows what WW3 will bring us.... new weapons.. that Bush thinks he
can sell.... if he survives that is, if he wins... if anyone wins.

[Darn Good Intelligence]

Ricardo wrote:

> Thank you for sounding like a typical moronic American: anyone with a
> view counter to your own is a "whining leftist",

This is not true - I am generally tolerant of the views of others, even
if they are Ahmadinejad sympathisers like you seem to be. I only label
people a "whining leftist" when they make stupid remarks like "well if
despotic regmies are so bad, why don't you overthrow every single
despotic regime in the world!?!??!". People you state these things
without taking into account the fact that some nations i.e. Iran, pose
more of a threat than other nations i.e. China.

Get it?

>and then sticking your
> fingers in your ears when confronted with some of the sources of today's
> problems - not least America's involvement in other countries affairs
> and supporting and sponsoring terrorism.

Look, I never claimed that the U.S was perfect, but it is far more a
force for good than for evil - and your sixth-grade Michael Moore logic
isn't going to change my views.

> Your country doesn't have the "right" to remove ANY regime from power!

We do if it poses a threat to the U.S, as Iran clearly doesn. Iran must
be removed and will be shortly.

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (20 Oct 2006 05:47:23 -0700) it happened "Darn Good
Intelligence" > wrote in
om>:

>
>Ricardo wrote:
>
>> Thank you for sounding like a typical moronic American: anyone with a
>> view counter to your own is a "whining leftist",
>
>This is not true - I am generally tolerant of the views of others, even
>if they are Ahmadinejad sympathisers like you seem to be. I only label
>people a "whining leftist" when they make stupid remarks like "well if
>despotic regmies are so bad, why don't you overthrow every single
>despotic regime in the world!?!??!". People you state these things
>without taking into account the fact that some nations i.e. Iran, pose
>more of a threat than other nations i.e. China.
>
>Get it?
>
>>and then sticking your
>> fingers in your ears when confronted with some of the sources of today's
>> problems - not least America's involvement in other countries affairs
>> and supporting and sponsoring terrorism.
>
>Look, I never claimed that the U.S was perfect, but it is far more a
>force for good than for evil - and your sixth-grade Michael Moore logic
>isn't going to change my views.
>
>> Your country doesn't have the "right" to remove ANY regime from power!
>
>We do if it poses a threat to the U.S, as Iran clearly doesn. Iran must
>be removed and will be shortly.

How does Iran pose a thread? No country poses a thread.
US could nuke and glassify any attacker, enough to make them think twice or even
trice.
But Iran is a danger to Israel....
Draw you own conclusions, and Iran is a much bigger danger to Saudi Arabia,
as its missiles can reach there.
And Saudi Arabia employs Bush to make US jump.
Make _you_ jump.
Now jump, jump to the gas station and pay...
US is no longer US, it is a toy for the Saudis who bought your presidency,
you land, you weapon facturies, and almost your ports.
Facing Mecca is not far in the future for the US..
Bush is Islam.



>

[Darn Good Intelligence]

Jan Panteltje wrote:

> How does Iran pose a thread? No country poses a thread.

Iran developing nukes.

> US could nuke and glassify any attacker, enough to make them think twice or even
> trice.

Maybe they will to Iran.

> But Iran is a danger to Israel....

Another reason to nuke Iran.

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (20 Oct 2006 06:55:36 -0700) it happened "Darn Good
Intelligence" > wrote in
. com>:

>
>Jan Panteltje wrote:
>
>> How does Iran pose a thread? No country poses a thread.
>
>Iran developing nukes.
>
>> US could nuke and glassify any attacker, enough to make them think twice or even
>> trice.
>
>Maybe they will to Iran.
>
>> But Iran is a danger to Israel....
>
>Another reason to nuke Iran.

What about Saudi Arabia? Don't you want cheap oil, Islam stopped, a sane
president, not a Bush Saudi mole, place to move if winter gets earlier and
earlier in NY due to climate change, holiday house there, and so easy to occupy,
Saddam could do it in a day?

[Ricardo]

Diamond Jim wrote:
> "Ricardo" > wrote in message
> .uk...
>
>>Darn Good Intelligence wrote:
>>
>>>Ricardo wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Darn Good Intelligence wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>So, just because China "isn't the world's biggest sponsor of terrorism"
>>>>it doesn't have a despotic government, despite the US sending a 43 ship
>>>>force, including an aircraft carrier just to "warn" the Chinese just a
>>>>month or so back?
>>>
>>>
>>>This is just an absurd argument. We have to analyze these things in
>>>terms of several factors including: the degree of threat a nation poses
>>>to the U.S, the extent to which the regime is "despotic" or
>>>undemocratic, and the viability of removing that regime from power.
>>>Clearly Iran meets ALL of these criteria; China doesn't. Iran is a
>>>severe threat and should and will be removed within the next 2 years.
>>>Look, the U.S simply cannot remove every "bad" regime from power to
>>>just to satisy a whining leftist like yourself who doesn't seem to
>>>realise that it's not possible for a superpower to be entirely
>>>consistent in its foreign policies in every different scenario.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Also, why should anyone support Israel and its genocidal activities
>>>>towards its neighbours - particularly the Palestinians who were forcibly
>>>>ejected from their land (much like the "Native Americans") to make room
>>>>for immigrants from elsewhere, and then, for the survivors of this
>>>>incursion to be rounded up and put in camps (or reservations - much like
>>>>the "Native Americans"). Is it any surprise, when hope is nearly gone,
>>>>that the downtrodden have nothing left but to hit back?
>>>
>>>
>>>I'm not getting into the old Palestinian question, but I wouldn't
>>>exactly care if Israel just expelled them all to Jordan. That's the
>>>solution to the problem.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>In terms of the "world's biggest sponsor of terrorism" however, the US
>>>>must rate pretty highly on the list - along with Pakistan, but they buy
>>>>US arms, don't they, and it wouldn't do to upset a good customer - much
>>>>like with Israel.
>>>
>>>
>>>You sound like another Ahmadinejad sympathiser.
>>>
>>
>>Thank you for sounding like a typical moronic American: anyone with a view
>>counter to your own is a "whining leftist", and then sticking your fingers
>>in your ears when confronted with some of the sources of today's
>>problems - not least America's involvement in other countries affairs and
>>supporting and sponsoring terrorism.
>>
>>Your country doesn't have the "right" to remove ANY regime from power!
>>Hitler went down that road some years ago with his 1939 European Tour -
>>it's just lucky that Britain and France were the only ones prepared to
>>stop him.
>>
>>Ricardo
>>
>>--
>>"Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand
>>Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand ..."
>
>
> Well if you are going to be the worlds only superpower, you have to act like
> it.
>
> As far as Britain and France being prepared for Hitler, I didn't know that.
>
> I thought the French waited until after the Blitzkreg started befor they
> printed all the menus in German, but I guess they must have started before
> that as there wasn't enought time to do it before the Germans were in Paris.
>
> Britain being prepared? For what? A stupid decision and caution because they
> couldn't believe their own sucess stopped the Germans for enough time for
> the British by heroic effort to evacuate and save their Army. Without the
> core of their army to use for expansion, the massive aid from the US, and
> the incredable stupid decision by Hitler to attack Russia, it would have
> been over for them.
>
> The US gave a lot of aid to the Russian, but if they had given them aid on
> the same scale as they gave the British then most of Europe would have had
> to learn to speak Russian
>
>
I think you may find that Britain and France declared war on Germany,
following Germany's invasion of Poland, at the same time - prepared or not!

The US "gave" Britain nothing - we are still paying for it - the debt is
due to be finally redeemed this December, furthermore, despite Britain's
parlous state, despite the Nazi/USSR pact, Britain was providing aid to
the Soviet Union, once they were attacked, long before the USA.

I accept that probably both America and Russia followed the correct
course in sitting it out on the sidelines to see just how far Hitler
would get - and both suffered the same fate of being drawn in by
unexpected attacks.

I was in Poland this week, and it is interesting to note that despite
post-war events with Poland being sold down the river along with most of
Eastern Europe to Stalin and his henchmen by the USA, following the
sidelining of Churchill, thus forcing a great part of Europe to speak
Russian anyway, there is still considerable warmth of feeling towards
Britain. After all, it was only Britain at that time that armed their
people in exile and allowed them to fight on - alongside the French, the
Dutch, the Greeks, the Norwegians, the Czechs, the Belgians and the
Yugoslavs.

In the Cracow airport snack bar there are some superb oil paintings of
WW2 aircraft - all in RAF colours, and all bearing the Polish insignia.
Poles and Czechs and others were fighting in their own RAF squadrons in
Britain well before America was involved in WW2.

Ricardo
--
"Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand ..."

[Ricardo]

Darn Good Intelligence wrote:
> Ricardo wrote:
>
>
>>Thank you for sounding like a typical moronic American: anyone with a
>>view counter to your own is a "whining leftist",
>
>
> This is not true - I am generally tolerant of the views of others, even
> if they are Ahmadinejad sympathisers like you seem to be. I only label
> people a "whining leftist" when they make stupid remarks like "well if
> despotic regmies are so bad, why don't you overthrow every single
> despotic regime in the world!?!??!". People you state these things
> without taking into account the fact that some nations i.e. Iran, pose
> more of a threat than other nations i.e. China.
>
> Get it?
>
>
>>and then sticking your
>>fingers in your ears when confronted with some of the sources of today's
>>problems - not least America's involvement in other countries affairs
>>and supporting and sponsoring terrorism.
>
>
> Look, I never claimed that the U.S was perfect, but it is far more a
> force for good than for evil - and your sixth-grade Michael Moore logic
> isn't going to change my views.
>
>
>>Your country doesn't have the "right" to remove ANY regime from power!
>
>
> We do if it poses a threat to the U.S, as Iran clearly doesn. Iran must
> be removed and will be shortly.
>
How do they pose a threat? In the same way that Iraq did, Panama did,
Grenada did, to name but a few? Come on, please.

Ricardo

--
"Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand ..."

[Defendario]

Ricardo wrote:
> Darn Good Intelligence wrote:
>> Ricardo wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Thank you for sounding like a typical moronic American: anyone with a
>>> view counter to your own is a "whining leftist",
>>
>>
>> This is not true - I am generally tolerant of the views of others, even
>> if they are Ahmadinejad sympathisers like you seem to be. I only label
>> people a "whining leftist" when they make stupid remarks like "well if
>> despotic regmies are so bad, why don't you overthrow every single
>> despotic regime in the world!?!??!". People you state these things
>> without taking into account the fact that some nations i.e. Iran, pose
>> more of a threat than other nations i.e. China.
>>
>> Get it?
>>
>>
>>> and then sticking your
>>> fingers in your ears when confronted with some of the sources of today's
>>> problems - not least America's involvement in other countries affairs
>>> and supporting and sponsoring terrorism.
>>
>>
>> Look, I never claimed that the U.S was perfect, but it is far more a
>> force for good than for evil - and your sixth-grade Michael Moore logic
>> isn't going to change my views.
>>
>>
>>> Your country doesn't have the "right" to remove ANY regime from power!
>>
>>
>> We do if it poses a threat to the U.S, as Iran clearly doesn. Iran must
>> be removed and will be shortly.
>>
> How do they pose a threat? In the same way that Iraq did, Panama did,
> Grenada did, to name but a few? Come on, please.
>

The zioNists like DCI here only care about IsReeL. American boiz are
cannon-fodder for his precious jooz.

> Ricardo
>

[Darn Good Intelligence]

Ricardo wrote:
> Darn Good Intelligence wrote:
> > Ricardo wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Thank you for sounding like a typical moronic American: anyone with a
> >>view counter to your own is a "whining leftist",
> >
> >
> > This is not true - I am generally tolerant of the views of others, even
> > if they are Ahmadinejad sympathisers like you seem to be. I only label
> > people a "whining leftist" when they make stupid remarks like "well if
> > despotic regmies are so bad, why don't you overthrow every single
> > despotic regime in the world!?!??!". People you state these things
> > without taking into account the fact that some nations i.e. Iran, pose
> > more of a threat than other nations i.e. China.
> >
> > Get it?
> >
> >
> >>and then sticking your
> >>fingers in your ears when confronted with some of the sources of today's
> >>problems - not least America's involvement in other countries affairs
> >>and supporting and sponsoring terrorism.
> >
> >
> > Look, I never claimed that the U.S was perfect, but it is far more a
> > force for good than for evil - and your sixth-grade Michael Moore logic
> > isn't going to change my views.
> >
> >
> >>Your country doesn't have the "right" to remove ANY regime from power!
> >
> >
> > We do if it poses a threat to the U.S, as Iran clearly doesn. Iran must
> > be removed and will be shortly.
> >
> How do they pose a threat?

Iran wants to destroy Israel, is developing nukes, supports terrorism
and has an anti-U.S government. What don't you understand?

>In the same way that Iraq did, Panama did,
> Grenada did, to name but a few? Come on, please.

It was a shame that WMD were never found, but I think, quite frankly,
that most of the world has now moved on from this issue. Basically, we
couldn't leave Saddam in power in the post 9/11 world - everyone
thought he had WMD, he'd invaded his neighbours in the past and he'd
used WMD against them too.

In the post 9/11 world Saddam's government was an intolerable security
threat and it's good that he's gone, regardless of no WMD being found.
Military involvement in Grenada and Panama occured for complex reasons
but don't be fooled into thinking that, because those wars might not
have been absolutely essential, that the Iran war is not essential
either. The Iran war is necessary as long as they continue developing
nukes.

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (20 Oct 2006 13:44:08 -0700) it happened "Darn Good
Intelligence" > wrote in
. com>:


>Basically, we
>couldn't leave Saddam in power in the post 9/11 world - everyone
>thought he had WMD,


Your definiton of 'everyone' must be really funny :-)
Not even the CIA! And that is why the White House reveiled
a CIA operative's name, no yellow cake from South Africa.
White house bloody well knew their were no WMDs.
As did everybody else, even the international atomic agency.

But _as I pointed out before_ Bushists will believe anything without proof.
Photos of fish and chips stands passing as 'mobile labs' ;-)
Anyway nothing photoshop and after effects will not create.
Next they will convince you the aliens are coming, read his lips.

Did you ever notice it was the oil producing countries who jumped on the
bandwagon?
UK (North Sea oil) Russia (own oil) Netherlands (natural gas coupled to
oil price), Saudi Arabia (own oil), and the one that had nuke power for 70%
or more did NOT (France).
And Germany was not very willing either.

It is all about killing Iraq oil export to get the price up, so the Saudi
masters of Islam converted mole Bush get richer.
All they want is $$$ (and Iraq wanted Euro, that would be the end for the US).

DRM Certified tamper free.

[Peter Skelton]

On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 21:05:18 GMT, Jan Panteltje
> wrote:

>On a sunny day (20 Oct 2006 13:44:08 -0700) it happened "Darn Good
>Intelligence" > wrote in
. com>:
>
>
>>Basically, we
>>couldn't leave Saddam in power in the post 9/11 world - everyone
>>thought he had WMD,
>
>
>Your definiton of 'everyone' must be really funny :-)
>Not even the CIA! And that is why the White House reveiled
>a CIA operative's name, no yellow cake from South Africa.
>White house bloody well knew their were no WMDs.
>As did everybody else, even the international atomic agency.
>
>But _as I pointed out before_ Bushists will believe anything without proof.
>Photos of fish and chips stands passing as 'mobile labs' ;-)
>Anyway nothing photoshop and after effects will not create.
>Next they will convince you the aliens are coming, read his lips.
>
>Did you ever notice it was the oil producing countries who jumped on the
>bandwagon?
>UK (North Sea oil) Russia (own oil) Netherlands (natural gas coupled to
>oil price), Saudi Arabia (own oil), and the one that had nuke power for 70%
>or more did NOT (France).
>And Germany was not very willing either.
>
>It is all about killing Iraq oil export to get the price up, so the Saudi
>masters of Islam converted mole Bush get richer.
>All they want is $$$ (and Iraq wanted Euro, that would be the end for the US).
>
This undoubtedly explains the enthusiasm of Canada, Mexico and
Venizuala, the countries the US buys most of it's oil from for
the idea. And the presence of all those Saudis, Norweigans and
Russians among the coalition batallions.

You're saying those nice ol' boys from Texas wanted to make us
rich so much they overode our objections to get the price up.

I've no patience for the had to get reid of Saddam crowd, their
logic is absurd and their evidence non-existant but there sure as
hell are conspirwakos on the other side too.


Peter Skelton

[Morton Davis]

"Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
...

> I've no patience for the had to get reid of Saddam crowd, their
> logic is absurd and their evidence non-existant but there sure as
> hell are conspirwakos on the other side too.
>
>
The fact that we stomped the living **** out of Saddam TWICE is a big factor
in keeping other assholes from trying anything and is why Lybia finally quit
the kill Americans for fun game.

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Fri, 20 Oct 2006 18:01:47 -0400) it happened Peter Skelton
> wrote in >:

>>It is all about killing Iraq oil export to get the price up, so the Saudi
>>masters of Islam converted mole Bush get richer.
>>All they want is $$$ (and Iraq wanted Euro, that would be the end for the US).
>>
>This undoubtedly explains the enthusiasm of Canada, Mexico and
>Venizuala, the countries the US buys most of it's oil from for
>the idea. And the presence of all those Saudis, Norweigans and
>Russians among the coalition batallions.
>
>You're saying those nice ol' boys from Texas wanted to make us
>rich so much they overode our objections to get the price up.
>
>I've no patience for the had to get reid of Saddam crowd, their
>logic is absurd and their evidence non-existant but there sure as
>hell are conspirwakos on the other side too.

OK, in detail thing are a bit more complicated, but getting $$ is the issue here.
It was for the Russians (Putin) a matter of what would bring in more:
the higher oil price, or spare parts for the 4000 taxies he sold in Iraq.
As for the Norwegians, I think they have pants full of Russian fear, so it is
important for them to stay close to the US (same for Poland).
The Saudis = the Bush so they were there alright.

I think 'politics' is in a big way to 'mend the people' and truth or no truth
is largely irrelevant.
With strong press control (why do you see no coffins? Fox TV etc..) you can
get the voters to vote for anything, even if they know it is bad for them.
So you give them a 100$ tax rebate, and have them pay 10$ extra each time they
fill up.
But voters are not normally presented that math.... I want the 100$ now:-)
There is also the issue of US image detoriating all over the world, you are no
longer safe.
These threats (created by threatening Iran, provoking N Korea, awakening the Islamic
fanatics, etc) lead to big business, security systems, arms race, all payed by the taxpayer,
and money from the tax payer spend on those things is NOT used on education, welfare,
increased wages, better life for Americans.
It is true that the guys who have jobs doing this will have more to spend, but the whole
operation is at the cost of the rest of the world, >100000 Iraqi civilians, 3000 US mil,
it would perhaps be better if they had all contributed their knowledge and lived in peace,,,
But that is not the way it is (and human nature).
So it is sort of hard to argue 'I have the better solution', but if you go that way and
sort of see that we really have no free will, and are a result of all forces in the universe
working on us, then you are also free to think on the other side, and then why not grab Saudi
oil and have nice cheap oil and stop Islam?
Leaving aside any 'civilised' thinking, you grabbed the land from the natives,
dunno how many injuns have been killed, Israel grabbed Palestine, China grabbed Tibet, wtf
are the US waiting for to grab the oil in Saudi Arabia?
Chavez does in... Putin does it.... those Bushist are simply not hawkish enough :-)
Saudis think it is smart having US protection... but if your protector is all powerful,
as the US is with H nukes, he does not really need you... so why keep you.

Anyways....power may shift, the Roman empire is no more, after Caesar it started to decline.
Alliances fell apart.....
China is very powerful atm, although now friendly with the US, already owns large parts
of the US!
If power is moving there, then US will have to play second fiddle, or attach and destroy the
rest of the world.
I agree that if you have to pay second fiddle you better have your own oil...... resources.
Other leaders (countries) know this....
It is funny how ever much Bush screamed, N Korea announced more nuke tests, ONE meeting
with China and no more nuke tests.... talk about influence :-)
There you go.

[[email protected]]

Defendario wrote:
> wrote:
> > Hmm..
> >
> > I guess you don't remember when the USN nearly wiped out ALL Iranian's
> > Navy back in the 80s.
> >
>
> There have been a lot of changes since then. The USN is in grave
> danger. The Persian Gulf may get the reputation earned by Ironbottom
> Sound. They are not invulnerable.
>
> <siren /on> VAMPIRE VAMPIRE VAMPIRE! NOT A DRILL! <siren /off>
>
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >>
>
> Rummy is a NeoKlown, and thinks he can do more with less than any
> military leader in the history of mankind. He is a dangerous idiot, and
> is going to get boatloads of sailors killed.
>
> >>
> >> 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 ;)
> >
>
> Define "the job"

The only thing Dumsfeld knows about jobs is

let "Boeing handle it",
since they're the only people understand Physics.

Ans the only thing Boeing know about Missles is:
Let "IBM" handle it", since they're
the only people who understand letterrs.



>
> >

[Perro Blanco]

"Diamond Jim" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ricardo" > wrote in message
> .uk...
>> Darn Good Intelligence wrote:
>>> Ricardo wrote:
>>>
>>>>Darn Good Intelligence wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>William Black wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Darn Good Intelligence" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Well if you are going to be the worlds only superpower, you have to act
> like it.

The trouble is, with childish comments like this, you sound more like an
adolescent bully who has yet to grow into his spots, with a hobby of mugging
the old and infirm - and when they try to get an anti-mugging kit together,
you scream 'nuke the *******s, because they're threatening me'.

Sad, sad little man, from a paranoid nation of sad, sad little men!

--
When you discover that "they" really are out to get you, you may realise
that you're not quite as paranoid as you thought you were.

[jJim McLaughlin]

Defendario wrote:
> wrote:
>
>> Mike Weeks is an evil individual...
>>
>
> As well as being an UnAmerican asshole.
>
>> ...yet he has taken an extremely bad poker hand and played it as best
>> he could(USS Liberty murders...GOI story stunk to high heaven right
>> from get-go...gets stinkier and stinkier when you even begin to scratch
>> the surface)
>>
>
> IsReeL stinks. It needs wiped from the pages of history, like Mahmoud
> says.
>
>>
>
Fortunately, you get wiped first.

<Plonk>

[[email protected][_1_]]

Mike Weeks is an evil individual who runs away from issues that he
himself has raised in the past...most currently the lies the GOI tried
to wiggle out of as to US and UK miltary involvement in the SixDayWar.

There is no reason to call him an "asshole" NOR ENGAGE in any profanity
whatsoever...profanity says more about the character of the individual
spewing it than it does about the individual it is being directed at.

Israel has an absolute right to exist under the UN second
partition...that same declaration ..signed onto by the US and UK also
calls for the "right of return" of the original Palestinian
inhabitants.

Stating predjudicial statements of "wiping Israel off the map" serve no
purpose other than to inflame....

I'd appreciate that you not use my postings in your replies to Mike
Weeks... I, of course, have no way of enforcing something like that...




....but I am having a tough enough time getting him to answer some
seminal points;to wit,

Mikey, m'wee bairn!!!

Hyperlink me to a post or a textbook or historical commentary from 1997
where US Ambassador to Egypt, Richard Parker thoroughly discredited
Greg Reight...

Did someone in the IDF realize their gaffe and send a Mirage Fighter
over that Egyptian airfield at a later date?

Is that IDF photo on your AOL Hometown site shot at the same angle as
you claimed the cropped picture was????....







IF YOU WANT TO HAVE FUN WITH MIKE...you don't need to use profanity...

Mikey ...as Wing Commander of the Data Entry Squadron, do you wear a
leather flight jacket? Can I play the role of Ensign Dvorak of the
Keyboard Squadron, m'wee bairn????

Mikey...do you OWN a leather flight jacket?

I'll dress up as Mr. Spock with Vulcan ears if you wear your leather
flight jacket!!!! Bwaaahaa! LOL!!! ROTFLMAO!!!

[Defendario]

wrote:
> Mike Weeks is an evil individual who runs away from issues that he
> himself has raised in the past...most currently the lies the GOI tried
> to wiggle out of as to US and UK miltary involvement in the SixDayWar.
>

Mike Weeks is an UnAmerican tool of zioNism -- IOW a traitorous asshole.

> There is no reason to call him an "asshole" NOR ENGAGE in any profanity
> whatsoever...profanity says more about the character of the individual
> spewing it than it does about the individual it is being directed at.
>

I calls 'em likes I sees 'em, no more no less.

> Israel has an absolute right to exist under the UN second
> partition...that same declaration ..signed onto by the US and UK also
> calls for the "right of return" of the original Palestinian
> inhabitants.
>

Apartheid terror entities have no right to exist. Period.

> Stating predjudicial statements of "wiping Israel off the map" serve no
> purpose other than to inflame....
>

The fUSSR has been wiped off the map, like the supremacist South African
state and Nazi Germany. IsReeL, the terror entity, deserves the same fate.

> I'd appreciate that you not use my postings in your replies to Mike
> Weeks... I, of course, have no way of enforcing something like that...
>

I do not reply to the tool of zioNism Mike Weeks.

<REMAINDER BINNED>

[[email protected][_1_]]

Well..I think I've been pretty even-handed in ensuring the GOI is not
held to any standard that the LVA is not willing to hold themselves
to...

....i think you would be hard-pressed to find any who would agree that I
am a shill for Mike Weeks---the fact that he runs away from my postings
DEMONSTRATIVELY ESTABLISHES just the opposite.

Neither South Africa NOR the Soviet Union have been wiped off the
map...thay have had changes in government...

...Israel also needs its anti-zionist elements to be lawfully elevated
to power. Indeed though...Israel is, by definition, an apartheid
state---you could have stated that without the profanity in your
postings.

I am in the middle of trashing the USS Liberty War Crimes Complaint's
prospects in US District Court at the moment due to the conduct of LVA
Legal Director, Ron Gotcher, , The Officers of the LVA, as well as ....

......usslibertyinquiry site administrator, Kenneth J Halliwell's
conduct involving an underage boy ,Andrew Nacin, in TWO felonies.

I then have to report the conduct of Gotcher, Halliwell and Nacin to
the respective law-enforcement authorities for their criminal conduct.

Subsequent to that, we can return to the discussion of Mike Weeks.

[Defendario]

wrote:
> Well..I think I've been pretty even-handed in ensuring the GOI is not
> held to any standard that the LVA is not willing to hold themselves
> to...
>

WTF are you on about?

> ...i think you would be hard-pressed to find any who would agree that I
> am a shill for Mike Weeks---the fact that he runs away from my postings
> DEMONSTRATIVELY ESTABLISHES just the opposite.
>

A strawman? Where did anyone say that you were a shill for Weeks?

Learn to post to UseNet without fukking the atributions, and then we can
talk.

> Neither South Africa NOR the Soviet Union have been wiped off the
> map...thay have had changes in government...
>

Wrong-o, fool. Both those nations ceased to exist. They were wiped
from the pages of history (that being the exact translation of Mr
Ahmedinejad's words)

> ..Israel also needs its anti-zionist elements to be lawfully elevated
> to power. Indeed though...Israel is, by definition, an apartheid
> state---you could have stated that without the profanity in your
> postings.
>

TY for your agreement. There is no right for an Apartheid state to
exist. Period.

> I am in the middle of trashing the USS Liberty War Crimes Complaint's
> prospects in US District Court at the moment due to the conduct of LVA
> Legal Director, Ron Gotcher, , The Officers of the LVA, as well as ....
>
> .....usslibertyinquiry site administrator, Kenneth J Halliwell's
> conduct involving an underage boy ,Andrew Nacin, in TWO felonies.
>
> I then have to report the conduct of Gotcher, Halliwell and Nacin to
> the respective law-enforcement authorities for their criminal conduct.
>
> Subsequent to that, we can return to the discussion of Mike Weeks.
>

Why bother? I have killfiled that fool, since he is a tool of zioNism.

>

[Scott Nudds]

"Darn Good Intelligence" > wrote
> Hatred for Ahmadinejad and Muslim savages is wholly justified.


Iraq was/is a largely christian nation.

[Scott Nudds]

> Defendario wrote:
> > IsReeL stinks. It needs wiped from the pages of history, like Mahmoud
says.

> "Darn Good Intelligence" > wrote
> That;s another stupid and bigoted comment you've made about the Jews -


He didn't say anything about Jews. And he's right. Israel needs to be
wiped off the map.

[Scott Nudds]

"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.

A nuke strike on Iran by the U.S. and I and tens of thousands like me
start to actively sabotage the U.S. We just won't ignore you to deat, or
take steps to destroy your economically, we will be out for blood.

[Scott Nudds]

"William Black" > wrote in message
...
> Pakistan is undoubtedly the biggest sponsor of state terrorism.

hardly.. AmeriKKKa is by a long shot. AmeriKKKa now has the blood of 3.5
million people on it's hands. All killed in AmeriKKKan terrorist campaigns
over the last 60 years.

[Scott Nudds]

"Darn Good Intelligence" > wrote
> 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?

Wow, the most powerful country on earth is having it's ass kicked in Iraq.

ahahahahahahah

[Scott Nudds]

"Darn Good Intelligence" > wrote
> 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.

Doubtful given the extent of the crimes commiteed by the Bush
Administration over the last 6 years.

[Scott Nudds]

"Darn Good Intelligence" > wrote
> Iran wants to destroy Israel, is developing nukes, supports terrorism
> and has an anti-U.S government. What don't you understand?

Sounds like my kind of state. I like honest, upfront people.

"Darn Good Intelligence" > wrote
> It was a shame that WMD were never found, but I think, quite frankly,
> that most of the world has now moved on from this issue.

Think again apologist.

Watching AmeriKKKans die in Iraq and Afghanistan is pure joy.

[Scott Nudds]

"Darn Good Intelligence" > wrote
> Look, I never claimed that the U.S was perfect, but it is far more a
> force for good than for evil - and your sixth-grade Michael Moore logic
> isn't going to change my views.

OOps. Sorry, you lose again. That has never been the case. The U.S. has
the blood of 11 million innocent civilians on it's hands, and there will be
retribution.

The campaign to eradicate the AmeriKKKan state will continue.