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 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive' build-up for war with Iran
Defendario wrote: Mike wrote: Jack Linthicum wrote: Would the Commander of the Eisenhower task force obey an order to use nukes without a long diplomatic buildup? When did the US put nukes back on carriers??? Geez ... Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, I see. OK dimwit; when did the US put tactical nukes back on her ships??? Task Force comprises many vessels, not only CVN But not SSBNs, dimwit. The question of whether the Commander will launch WW III without a declaration is not sophomoric. It sure as hell is. It's simply another silly comment, one of many in this thread. If Herr Bushler gives such an illegal order, he should be arrested. I put my faith in a military junta before I would the NeoCon cabal. yawn |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive' build-up for war with Iran
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. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
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... 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. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
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: 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. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive' build-up for war with Iran
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. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive' build-up for war with Iran
William Black wrote: "Darn Good Intelligence" wrote in message ups.com... 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? |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive'build-up for war with Iran
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. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
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 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. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive'build-up for war with Iran
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. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive' build-up for war with Iran
William Black wrote: "Darn Good Intelligence" wrote in message ups.com... 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. |
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 |