If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive' build-up for war with Iran
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 |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive' build-up for war with Iran
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 ... |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive'build-up for war with Iran
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. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive'build-up for war with Iran
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. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive' build-up for war with Iran
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? |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive' build-up for war with Iran
"Darn Good Intelligence" wrote in message oups.com... 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. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive' build-up for war with Iran
William Black wrote: "Darn Good Intelligence" wrote in message oups.com... 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. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive'build-up for war with Iran
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. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive' build-up for war with Iran
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. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive' build-up for war with Iran
"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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Nations sending Iran to Security Council (for Israel via the US, of course!): | NOMOREWARFORISRAEL | Naval Aviation | 1 | July 13th 06 05:05 AM |
Bush administration finalizes military attack on Iran | [email protected] | Naval Aviation | 11 | January 5th 06 09:38 AM |
American nazi pond scum, version two | bushite kills bushite | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 21st 04 10:46 PM |
Hey! What fun!! Let's let them kill ourselves!!! | [email protected] | Naval Aviation | 2 | December 17th 04 09:45 PM |
millionaire on the Internet... in weeks! | Malcolm Austin | Soaring | 0 | November 5th 04 11:14 PM |