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

wrote:

I think at least 2 or 3 Carrier Strike Groups would be needed to
perform such a mission. The Navy's Fleet Response Plan calls for as
many as six CSG ready in 30 days, but for the moment being this doesn't
look to be the case...

And when the Kitty Hawk Carrier Strike Group departed Yokosuka on the
17th for her annual Fall WestPac cruise, here's how the _Navy Times_
headlined it:

"Kitty Hawk CSG Deploys Amid North Korea Tensions"

Not Iranian tensions ... g

The Navy is of course simply going about its everyday business.

On 19 Oct 2006 11:29:24 -0700, "Darn Good Intelligence"
wrote:


Peter Skelton wrote:

Unfortunatelty, nobody's behaviour has been squeaky-clean,
similar negative accusations can be leveled against almost any
country active in the region, including us and our allies. ('us'
means Canada, incidentally).

Hey pal, I think you'll find that it is the U.S and its allies that are
on the right side of the law not Ahnmadinejad and Khamenei.

In Iraq? You think a Pakistani or Russian is going to believe
that? Don't be bloody stupid, I gave the truth of the matter
above - accusations can be leveled, the truth of them is
irrelevant to the potential for war.


Peter Skelton

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

If the US are so desperate to remove "despotic governments" why don't
they do something about China?
Because China isn't the world's biggest sponsor of terrorism, and isn't
threatening to destroy Israel. Gosh this is simple stuff.


Pakistan is probably the former.

Why not them?

Pakistan's President understands that the US Constitution grants
freedom of speech but not to foreign heads of state. Correct use
of that information is defending his country against one of the
world's most powerful countries.

Andrew Swallow

Darn Good Intelligence wrote:
Peter Skelton wrote:


Unfortunatelty, nobody's behaviour has been squeaky-clean,
similar negative accusations can be leveled against almost any
country active in the region, including us and our allies. ('us'
means Canada, incidentally).


Hey pal, I think you'll find that it is the U.S and its allies that are
on the right side of the law not Ahnmadinejad and Khamenei.

This is one of the big problems - the US always like to include a few
"allies" to give legitimacy to their many illegal actions. Also, whose
law are we talking about? The invasion of Grenada was an illegal act
perpetrated against an ally of the US - the UK.

Ricardo

--
"Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand ..."

Darn Good Intelligence wrote:
William Black wrote:

"Darn Good Intelligence" wrote in message
groups.com...


If the US are so desperate to remove "despotic governments" why don't
they do something about China?

Because China isn't the world's biggest sponsor of terrorism, and isn't
threatening to destroy Israel. Gosh this is simple stuff.


Pakistan is probably the former.


I already debunked this - Pakistan is not helping terrorists who will
attack the U.S or Israel. There were only very tentative links between
the men who did 7/7 and the groups you mentioned earlier.

So, just because China "isn't the world's biggest sponsor of terrorism"
it doesn't have a despotic government, despite the US sending a 43 ship
force, including an aircraft carrier just to "warn" the Chinese just a
month or so back?

Also, why should anyone support Israel and its genocidal activities
towards its neighbours - particularly the Palestinians who were forcibly
ejected from their land (much like the "Native Americans") to make room
for immigrants from elsewhere, and then, for the survivors of this
incursion to be rounded up and put in camps (or reservations - much like
the "Native Americans"). Is it any surprise, when hope is nearly gone,
that the downtrodden have nothing left but to hit back?

In terms of the "world's biggest sponsor of terrorism" however, the US
must rate pretty highly on the list - along with Pakistan, but they buy
US arms, don't they, and it wouldn't do to upset a good customer - much
like with Israel.

Gosh, this is simple stuff.

Ricardo
--
"Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand ..."

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.

Randy Newman put his 2 cents in about this in 1968 with his song
"Political Science":

No one likes us
I don't know why.
We may not be perfect
But heaven knows we try.
But all around even our old friends put us down.
Let's drop the big one and see what happens.

We give them money
But are they grateful?
No they're spiteful
And they're hateful.
They don't respect us so let's surprise them;
We'll drop the big one and pulverize them.

Now Asia's crowded
And Europe's too old.
Africa is far too hot,
And Canada's too cold.
South America stole our name.
Let's drop the big one; there'll be no one left to blame us.

Bridge:
We'll save Australia;
Don't wanna hurt no kangaroo.
We'll build an all-American amusement park there;
They've got surfing, too.

Well, boom goes London,
And boom Paree.
More room for you
And more room for me.
And every city the whole world round
Will just be another American town.
Oh, how peaceful it'll be;
We'll set everybody free;
You'll have Japanese kimonos, baby,
There'll be Italian shoes for me.
They all hate us anyhow,
So let's drop the big one now.
Let's drop the big one now.

Joe

Ricardo wrote:
Darn Good Intelligence wrote:
William Black wrote:

"Darn Good Intelligence" wrote in message
groups.com...


If the US are so desperate to remove "despotic governments" why don't
they do something about China?

Because China isn't the world's biggest sponsor of terrorism, and isn't
threatening to destroy Israel. Gosh this is simple stuff.


Pakistan is probably the former.


I already debunked this - Pakistan is not helping terrorists who will
attack the U.S or Israel. There were only very tentative links between
the men who did 7/7 and the groups you mentioned earlier.

So, just because China "isn't the world's biggest sponsor of terrorism"
it doesn't have a despotic government, despite the US sending a 43 ship
force, including an aircraft carrier just to "warn" the Chinese just a
month or so back?

This is just an absurd argument. We have to analyze these things in
terms of several factors including: the degree of threat a nation poses
to the U.S, the extent to which the regime is "despotic" or
undemocratic, and the viability of removing that regime from power.
Clearly Iran meets ALL of these criteria; China doesn't. Iran is a
severe threat and should and will be removed within the next 2 years.
Look, the U.S simply cannot remove every "bad" regime from power to
just to satisy a whining leftist like yourself who doesn't seem to
realise that it's not possible for a superpower to be entirely
consistent in its foreign policies in every different scenario.

Also, why should anyone support Israel and its genocidal activities
towards its neighbours - particularly the Palestinians who were forcibly
ejected from their land (much like the "Native Americans") to make room
for immigrants from elsewhere, and then, for the survivors of this
incursion to be rounded up and put in camps (or reservations - much like
the "Native Americans"). Is it any surprise, when hope is nearly gone,
that the downtrodden have nothing left but to hit back?

I'm not getting into the old Palestinian question, but I wouldn't
exactly care if Israel just expelled them all to Jordan. That's the
solution to the problem.

In terms of the "world's biggest sponsor of terrorism" however, the US
must rate pretty highly on the list - along with Pakistan, but they buy
US arms, don't they, and it wouldn't do to upset a good customer - much
like with Israel.

You sound like another Ahmadinejad sympathiser.

Darn Good Intelligence wrote:
wrote:
There is so much political discussion here, full of hatred,

Hatred for Ahmadinejad and Muslim savages is wholly justified.


Your agenda is thus exposed, zioShill.

Darn Good Intelligence wrote:
Ricardo wrote:

Darn Good Intelligence wrote:

William Black wrote:


"Darn Good Intelligence" wrote in message
legroups.com...



If the US are so desperate to remove "despotic governments" why don't
they do something about China?

Because China isn't the world's biggest sponsor of terrorism, and isn't
threatening to destroy Israel. Gosh this is simple stuff.


Pakistan is probably the former.


I already debunked this - Pakistan is not helping terrorists who will
attack the U.S or Israel. There were only very tentative links between
the men who did 7/7 and the groups you mentioned earlier.


So, just because China "isn't the world's biggest sponsor of terrorism"
it doesn't have a despotic government, despite the US sending a 43 ship
force, including an aircraft carrier just to "warn" the Chinese just a
month or so back?


This is just an absurd argument. We have to analyze these things in
terms of several factors including: the degree of threat a nation poses
to the U.S, the extent to which the regime is "despotic" or
undemocratic, and the viability of removing that regime from power.
Clearly Iran meets ALL of these criteria; China doesn't. Iran is a
severe threat and should and will be removed within the next 2 years.
Look, the U.S simply cannot remove every "bad" regime from power to
just to satisy a whining leftist like yourself who doesn't seem to
realise that it's not possible for a superpower to be entirely
consistent in its foreign policies in every different scenario.


Also, why should anyone support Israel and its genocidal activities
towards its neighbours - particularly the Palestinians who were forcibly
ejected from their land (much like the "Native Americans") to make room
for immigrants from elsewhere, and then, for the survivors of this
incursion to be rounded up and put in camps (or reservations - much like
the "Native Americans"). Is it any surprise, when hope is nearly gone,
that the downtrodden have nothing left but to hit back?


I'm not getting into the old Palestinian question, but I wouldn't
exactly care if Israel just expelled them all to Jordan. That's the
solution to the problem.


In terms of the "world's biggest sponsor of terrorism" however, the US
must rate pretty highly on the list - along with Pakistan, but they buy
US arms, don't they, and it wouldn't do to upset a good customer - much
like with Israel.


You sound like another Ahmadinejad sympathiser.

Thank you for sounding like a typical moronic American: anyone with a
view counter to your own is a "whining leftist", and then sticking your
fingers in your ears when confronted with some of the sources of today's
problems - not least America's involvement in other countries affairs
and supporting and sponsoring terrorism.

Your country doesn't have the "right" to remove ANY regime from power!
Hitler went down that road some years ago with his 1939 European Tour -
it's just lucky that Britain and France were the only ones prepared to
stop him.

Ricardo

--
"Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand ..."

"Ricardo" wrote in message
.uk...
Darn Good Intelligence wrote:
Ricardo wrote:

Darn Good Intelligence wrote:

William Black wrote:


"Darn Good Intelligence" wrote in message
glegroups.com...



If the US are so desperate to remove "despotic governments" why don't
they do something about China?

Because China isn't the world's biggest sponsor of terrorism, and
isn't
threatening to destroy Israel. Gosh this is simple stuff.


Pakistan is probably the former.


I already debunked this - Pakistan is not helping terrorists who will
attack the U.S or Israel. There were only very tentative links between
the men who did 7/7 and the groups you mentioned earlier.


So, just because China "isn't the world's biggest sponsor of terrorism"
it doesn't have a despotic government, despite the US sending a 43 ship
force, including an aircraft carrier just to "warn" the Chinese just a
month or so back?


This is just an absurd argument. We have to analyze these things in
terms of several factors including: the degree of threat a nation poses
to the U.S, the extent to which the regime is "despotic" or
undemocratic, and the viability of removing that regime from power.
Clearly Iran meets ALL of these criteria; China doesn't. Iran is a
severe threat and should and will be removed within the next 2 years.
Look, the U.S simply cannot remove every "bad" regime from power to
just to satisy a whining leftist like yourself who doesn't seem to
realise that it's not possible for a superpower to be entirely
consistent in its foreign policies in every different scenario.


Also, why should anyone support Israel and its genocidal activities
towards its neighbours - particularly the Palestinians who were forcibly
ejected from their land (much like the "Native Americans") to make room
for immigrants from elsewhere, and then, for the survivors of this
incursion to be rounded up and put in camps (or reservations - much like
the "Native Americans"). Is it any surprise, when hope is nearly gone,
that the downtrodden have nothing left but to hit back?


I'm not getting into the old Palestinian question, but I wouldn't
exactly care if Israel just expelled them all to Jordan. That's the
solution to the problem.


In terms of the "world's biggest sponsor of terrorism" however, the US
must rate pretty highly on the list - along with Pakistan, but they buy
US arms, don't they, and it wouldn't do to upset a good customer - much
like with Israel.


You sound like another Ahmadinejad sympathiser.

Thank you for sounding like a typical moronic American: anyone with a view
counter to your own is a "whining leftist", and then sticking your fingers
in your ears when confronted with some of the sources of today's
problems - not least America's involvement in other countries affairs and
supporting and sponsoring terrorism.

Your country doesn't have the "right" to remove ANY regime from power!
Hitler went down that road some years ago with his 1939 European Tour -
it's just lucky that Britain and France were the only ones prepared to
stop him.

Ricardo

--
"Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand ..."

Well if you are going to be the worlds only superpower, you have to act like
it.

As far as Britain and France being prepared for Hitler, I didn't know that.

I thought the French waited until after the Blitzkreg started befor they
printed all the menus in German, but I guess they must have started before
that as there wasn't enought time to do it before the Germans were in Paris.

Britain being prepared? For what? A stupid decision and caution because they
couldn't believe their own sucess stopped the Germans for enough time for
the British by heroic effort to evacuate and save their Army. Without the
core of their army to use for expansion, the massive aid from the US, and
the incredable stupid decision by Hitler to attack Russia, it would have
been over for them.

The US gave a lot of aid to the Russian, but if they had given them aid on
the same scale as they gave the British then most of Europe would have had
to learn to speak Russian