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

wrote:
Defendario wrote:
Darn Good Intelligence wrote:
Defendario wrote:
wrote:
William Black wrote:
wrote in message
s.com...
Jack Linthicum wrote:
Darn Good Intelligence wrote:
AirRaid wrote:
I don't understand... the deployment of the Eisenhower Carrier
Battle
Group alone does not seem like we're ready or even getting ready for
an
air-war against Iran. even assuming there are say, 2 other Carrier
Battle Groups in the Gulf and/or Med, that still does not seem like
the United States is ready to goto war against Iran.

in Gulf War I / Desert Storm, the U.S. had 6 Carrier Groups in the
region.

in Gulf War II / Iraqi Freedom, the U.S., I believe, had 5 Carrier
groups in the region.

Iran is far larger and undamaged from years of airstrikes. they
capable
of taking out U.S. warships unlike Iraq. one would think the U.S.
would need at least
6 to 8 Carrier groups (with a lot of Aegis cruisers & destroys) in
the
area to deal with Iran, unless the USAF is going to play a larger
role.
I just don't see how the Eisenhower group arriving in late October,
and
some minesweepers, is signaling war with Iran anytime soon. unless
the
USN build-up is much larger than reported, and the U.S. already has
a
massive amount naval firepower there, or in route.


then again, I suppose a single Ohio-class ballistic missile
submarine
loaded with Trident II SLBMs with many *small* nuclear warheads each
could do the job
Yes, nuking Iran's nuclear facilities is the only way to solve the
problem of Ahmadinejad getting nukes as Iran's targets are too far
below the ground for conventional weapons to destroy. I hope Bush has
the balls to use nukes in Iran - I think he does.

BTW, does the Eisenhower have enough nukes to teach the Iranians a
lesson?
Would the Commander of the Eisenhower task force obey an order to use
nukes without a long diplomatic buildup?
"Diplomatic buildup"? **** that, it won't work. Just nuke their sites
now or pay the price for a nuclear-armed terrorist state in the future.
Are YOUR balls big enough to deal with the threat, or do you advocate
appeasement?

How quaint.

Someone who thinks any sort of conflict short of all out nuclear war is
'apeasement'.

How stupid will you look if Iran already has nukes and one goes off in a
shipping container in New York City AFTER the US drops nuclear weapons on
them?

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

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

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

You are a genocidal bigot.

It should be pretty obvious to anyone that Muslims love killing - smak

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

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


The one who needs exterminated is *YOU*

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


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

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

I'll pay.

;D

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

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


Wel that'll be it for Pakistan...


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

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

Erm...

They're on your side...


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

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

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

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.

"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?

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.

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?

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.

"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.

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.

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.