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

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!

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.

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 ...

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"?...

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?

"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
http://www.rish.kyoto-u.ac.jp/radar-...members/gernot Mob: +81 90 39493924

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.

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.

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.

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?