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

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.

"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.

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.

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) ...

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.

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).

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.

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

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

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