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

wrote:
Defendario wrote:
Darn Good Intelligence wrote:
Defendario wrote:
wrote:
William Black wrote:
wrote in message
s.com...
Jack Linthicum wrote:
Darn Good Intelligence wrote:
AirRaid wrote:
I don't understand... the deployment of the Eisenhower Carrier
Battle
Group alone does not seem like we're ready or even getting ready for
an
air-war against Iran. even assuming there are say, 2 other Carrier
Battle Groups in the Gulf and/or Med, that still does not seem like
the United States is ready to goto war against Iran.

in Gulf War I / Desert Storm, the U.S. had 6 Carrier Groups in the
region.

in Gulf War II / Iraqi Freedom, the U.S., I believe, had 5 Carrier
groups in the region.

Iran is far larger and undamaged from years of airstrikes. they
capable
of taking out U.S. warships unlike Iraq. one would think the U.S.
would need at least
6 to 8 Carrier groups (with a lot of Aegis cruisers & destroys) in
the
area to deal with Iran, unless the USAF is going to play a larger
role.
I just don't see how the Eisenhower group arriving in late October,
and
some minesweepers, is signaling war with Iran anytime soon. unless
the
USN build-up is much larger than reported, and the U.S. already has
a
massive amount naval firepower there, or in route.


then again, I suppose a single Ohio-class ballistic missile
submarine
loaded with Trident II SLBMs with many *small* nuclear warheads each
could do the job
Yes, nuking Iran's nuclear facilities is the only way to solve the
problem of Ahmadinejad getting nukes as Iran's targets are too far
below the ground for conventional weapons to destroy. I hope Bush has
the balls to use nukes in Iran - I think he does.

BTW, does the Eisenhower have enough nukes to teach the Iranians a
lesson?
Would the Commander of the Eisenhower task force obey an order to use
nukes without a long diplomatic buildup?
"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?

Because half the world will say 'serves you right' and the rest will say 'I
declare war on the USA...'
In which case we'll just nuke the half of the world that declares war
on the U.S (especially if they're muslim fanatical states) - this would
be a scenario where no-one wins, but some will lose more than others
(and the ones losing the most won't include the U.S).

You are a loon. If Armageddonists like you have their way, we're all
dead. Not much "winning" in that, is there?

No, but we'll just make sure that the muslim savages lose MORE than we
will e.g. by exterminating any Islamic states who support terrorism.

You are a genocidal bigot.

It should be pretty obvious to anyone that Muslims love killing - smak

PKB, Bigot. Do they let you wear the White Sheet in England, you Eurotrash?

Google KKK for details. Google is your friend, even if I am not.


The one who needs exterminated is *YOU*

Now that wouldn't be very fair would it? I haven't killed anyone.


You advocate religious crusade and genocide in the "Clash of Civs"
theory. You are a genocidal bigot, and enjoy the notion of slaughter of
innocent persons. 1.5 Billion Muslims are not going to let your ****
happen to them. Freight cars are for zhids.

You just need a $.10 bullet for your brain to fix it.

I'll pay.

;D