|
12 Aug 08 - 05:56 PM (#2411972) Subject: BS: New War Maneuvers in the Middle East?? From: Amos I have no idea how correct these two posts are. I received them from a friend. But if they are accurate to any significant degree, we may have more blod on our hands. A 1.Thursday, August 7, 2008 Massive US Naval Armada Heads For Iran "Operation Brimstone ended only one week ago. This was the joint US/UK/French naval war games in the Atlantic Ocean preparing for a naval blockade of Iran and the likely resulting war in the Persian Gulf area. The massive war games included a US Navy supercarrier battle group, an US Navy expeditionary carrier battle group, a Royal Navy carrier battle group, a French nuclear hunter-killer submarine plus a large number of US Navy cruisers, destroyers and frigates playing the "enemy force". The lead American ship in these war games, the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN71) and its Carrier Strike Group Two (CCSG-2) are now headed towards Iran along with the USS Ronald Reagon (CVN76) and its Carrier Strike Group Seven (CCSG-7) coming from Japan. They are joining two existing USN battle groups in the Gulf area: the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN72) with its Carrier Strike Group Nine (CCSG-9); and the USS Peleliu (LHA-5) with its expeditionary strike group. Likely also under way towards the Persian Gulf is the USS Iwo Jima (LHD-7) and its expeditionary strike group, the UK Royal Navy HMS Ark Royal (R07) carrier battle group, assorted French naval assets including the nuclear hunter-killer submarine Amethyste and French Naval Rafale fighter jets on-board the USS Theodore Roosevelt. These ships took part in the just completed Operation Brimstone. The build up of naval forces in the Gulf will be one of the largest multi-national naval armadas since the First and Second Gulf Wars. The intent is to create a US/EU naval blockade (which is an Act of War under international law) around Iran (with supporting air and land elements) to prevent the shipment of benzene and certain other refined oil products headed to Iranian ports. Iran has limited domestic oil refining capacity and imports 40% of its benzene. Cutting off benzene and other key products would cripple the Iranian economy. The neo-cons are counting on such a blockade launching a war with Iran. The US Naval forces being assembled include the following: Carrier Strike Group Nine USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN72) nuclear powered supercarrier with its Carrier Air Wing Two Destroyer Squadron Nine: USS Mobile Bay (CG53) guided missile cruiser USS Russell (DDG59) guided missile destroyer USS Momsen (DDG92) guided missile destroyer USS Shoup (DDG86) guided missile destroyer USS Ford (FFG54) guided missile frigate USS Ingraham (FFG61) guided missile frigate USS Rodney M. Davis (FFG60) guided missile frigate USS Curts (FFG38) guided missile frigate Plus one or more nuclear hunter-killer submarines Peleliu Expeditionary Strike Group USS Peleliu (LHA-5) a Tarawa-class amphibious assault carrier USS Pearl Harbor (LSD52) assult ship USS Dubuque (LPD8) assult ship/landing dock USS Cape St. George (CG71) guided missile cruiser USS Halsey (DDG97) guided missile destroyer USS Benfold (DDG65) guided missile destroyer Carrier Strike Group Two USS Theodore Roosevelt (DVN71) nuclear powered supercarrier with its Carrier Air Wing Eight Destroyer Squadron 22 USS Monterey (CG61) guided missile cruiser USS Mason (DDG87) guided missile destroyer USS Nitze (DDG94) guided missile destroyer USS Sullivans (DDG68) guided missile destroyer USS Springfield (SSN761) nuclear powered hunter-killer submarine IWO ESG ~ Iwo Jima Expeditionary Strike Group USS Iwo Jima (LHD7) amphibious assault carrier with its Amphibious Squadron Four and with its 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit USS San Antonio (LPD17) assault ship USS Velia Gulf (CG72) guided missile cruiser USS Ramage (DDG61) guided missile destroyer USS Carter Hall (LSD50) assault ship USS Roosevelt (DDG80) guided missile destroyer USS Hartfore (SSN768) nuclear powered hunter-killer submarine Carrier Strike Group Seven USS Ronald Reagan (CVN76) nuclear powered supercarrier with its Carrier Air Wing 14 Destroyer Squadron 7 USS Chancellorsville (CG62) guided missile cruiser USS Howard (DDG83) guided missile destroyer USS Gridley (DDG101) guided missile destroyer USS Decatur (DDG73) guided missile destroyer USS Thach (FFG43) guided missile frigate USNS Rainier (T-AOE-7) fast combat support ship Also likely to join the battle armada: UK Royal Navy HMS Ark Royal Carrier Strike Group with assorted guided missile destroyers and frigates, nuclear hunter-killer submarines and support ships French Navy nuclear powered hunter-killer submarines (likely the Amethyste and perhaps others), plus French Naval Rafale fighter jets operating off of the USS Theodore Roosevelt as the French Carrier Charles de Gaulle is in dry dock, and assorted surface warships Various other US Navy warships and submarines and support ships. The following USN ships took part (as the "enemy" forces) in Operation Brimstone and several may join in: USS San Jacinto (CG56) guided missile cruiser USS Anzio (CG68) guided missile cruiser USS Normandy (CG60) guided missile cruiser USS Carney (DDG64) guided missile destroyer USS Oscar Austin (DDG79) guided missile destroyer USS Winston S. Churchill (DDG81) guided missile destroyer USS Carr (FFG52) guided missile frigate The USS Iwo Jima and USS Peleliu Expeditionary Strike Groups have USMC Harrier jump jets and an assortment of assault and attack helicopters. The Expeditionary Strike Groups have powerful USMC Expeditionary Units with amphibious armor and ground forces trained for operating in shallow waters and in seizures of land assets, such as Qeshm Island (a 50 mile long island off of Bandar Abbas in the Gulf of Hormuz and headquarters of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps). The large and very advanced nature of the US Naval warships is not only directed at Iran. There is a great fear that Russia and China may oppose the naval and air/land blockade of Iran. If Russian and perhaps Chinese naval warships escort commercial tankers to Iran in violation of the blockade it could be the most dangerous at-sea confrontation since the Cuban Missile Crisis. The US and allied Navies, by front loading a Naval blockade force with very powerful guided missile warships and strike carriers is attempting to have a force so powerful that Russia and China will not be tempted to mess with. This is a most serious game of military brinkmanship with major nuclear armed powers that have profound objections to the neo-con grand strategy and to western control of all of the Middle East's oil supply. The Russian Navy this spring sent a major battle fleet into the Mediterranean headed by the modern aircraft carrier the Admiral Kuznetsov and the flagship of its Black Sea Fleet, the Guided Missile Heavy Cruiser Moskva. This powerful fleet has at least 11 surface ships and unknown numbers of subs and can use the Russian naval facility at Syria's Tartous port for resupply. The Admiral Kuznetsov carries approximately 47 warplanes and 10 helicopters. The warplanes are mostly the powerful Su-33, a naval version (with mid-air refueling capability) of the Su-27 family. While the Su-33 is a very powerful warplane it lacks the power of the stealth USAF F-22. However, the Russians insist that they have developed a plasma based system that allows them to stealth any aircraft and a recent incident where Russian fighters were able to appear unannounced over a US Navy carrier battle group tends to confirm their claims. The Su-33 can be armed with the 3M82 Moskit sea-skimming missile (NATO code name SS-N-22 Sunburn) and the even more powerful P-800 Oniks (also named Yakhonts; NATO code name SS-N-26 Onyx). Both missiles are designed to kill US Navy supercarriers by getting past the cruiser/destroyer screen and the USN point-defense Phalanx system by using high supersonic speeds and violent end maneuvers. Russian subs currently use the underwater rocket VA-111 Shkval (Squall), which is fired from standard 533mm torpedo tubes and reaches a speed of 360kph (230mph) underwater. There is no effective countermeasures to this system and no western counterpart. A strategic diversion has been created for Russia. The Republic of Georgia, with US backing, is actively preparing for war on South Ossetia. The South Ossetia capital has been shelled and a large Georgian tank force has been heading towards the border. Russia has stated that it will not sit by and allow the Georgians to attack South Ossetia. The Russians are great chess players and this game may not turn out so well for the neo-cons. Kuwait has activated its "Emergency War Plan" as it and other Gulf nations prepare for the likelihood of a major regional war in the Middle East involving weapons of mass destruction. The two-ton elephant in the living room of the neo-con strategy is the advanced biowar (ABW) that Iran, and to a lessor extent Syria, has. This places the motherlands of the major neo-con nations (America, France, the United Kingdom), as well as Israel, in grave danger. When the Soviet Union fell the Iranians hired as many out-of-work former Soviet advanced biowar experts as possible. In the last 15 or so years they have helped to develop a truly world class ABW program utilizing recombination DNA genetic engineering technology to create a large number of man made killer viruses. This form of weapon system does not require high tech military delivery systems. The viruses are sub-microscopic and once seeded in a population use the population itself as vectors. Seeding can be done without notice in shopping malls, churches, and other public places. The only real defense to an advanced global strategic biowar attack is to lock down the population as rapidly as possible and let those infected die off. Unless the public gets it act together and forces the neo-cons to stop the march to yet another war in the Middle East we are apt to see a truly horrific nightmare unfold in OUR COUNTRIES." 2. 2 US aircraft carriers headed for Gulf' Aug. 7, 2008 Adam Gonn, The Media Line News Agency , THE JERUSALEM POST "Two additional United States naval aircraft carriers are heading to the Gulf and the Red Sea, according to the Kuwaiti newspaper Kuwait Times. Kuwait began finalizing its "emergency war plan" on being told the vessels were bound for the region. The US Navy would neither confirm nor deny that carriers were en route. US Fifth Fleet Combined Maritime Command located in Bahrain said it could not comment due to what a spokesman termed "force-protection policy." While the Kuwaiti daily did not name the ships it believed were heading for the Middle East, The Media Line's defense analyst said they could be the USS Theodore Roosevelt and the USS Ronald Reagan. Within the last month, the Roosevelt completed an exercise along the US east coast focusing on communication among navies of different countries. It has since been declared ready for operational duties. The Reagan, currently with the Seventh Fleet, had just set sail from Japan. The Seventh Fleet area of operation stretches from the East Coast of Africa to the International Date Line. Meanwhile, the Arabic news agency Moheet reported at the end of July that an unnamed American destroyer, accompanied by two Israeli naval vessels traveled through the Suez Canal from the Mediterranean. A week earlier, a US nuclear submarine accompanied by a destroyer and a supply ship moved into the Mediterranean, according to Moheet. Currently there are two US naval battle groups operating in the Gulf: one is an aircraft carrier group, led by the USS Abraham Lincoln, which carries some 65 fighter aircraft. The other group is headed by the USS Peleliu which maintains a variety of planes and strike helicopters. The ship movements coincide with the latest downturn in relations between Washington and Teheran. The US and Iran are at odds over Iran's nuclear program, which the Bush administration claims is aimed at producing material for nuclear weapons; however, Teheran argues it is only for power generation. Kuwait, like other Arab countries in the Gulf, fears it will be caught in the middle should the US decide to launch an air strike against Iran if negotiations fail. The Kuwaitis are finalizing details of their security, humanitarian and vital services, the newspaper reported. The six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) - Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE and Oman - lie just across the Gulf from Iran. Generals in the Iranian military have repeatedly warned that American interests in the region would be targeted if Iran is subjected to any military strike by the US or its Western allies. Bahrain hosts the US Fifth Fleet, while there is a sizeable American base in Qatar. It is assumed the US also has military personnel in the other Gulf states, The Media Line's defense analyst said. Iran is thought to have intelligence operatives working in the GCC states, according to Dubai-based military analysts. The standoff between the US and Iran has left the Arab nations' political leaders in something of a bind, as they were being used as pawns by Washington and Teheran, according to The Media Line analyst. Iran has offered them economic and industrial sweeteners, while the US is boosting their defense capabilities. US President George W. Bush and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have paid visits to the GCC states in a bid to win their support." |
|
12 Aug 08 - 06:22 PM (#2411994) Subject: RE: BS: New War Maneuvers in the Middle East?? From: Little Hawk Hmmm. Well, if there's anything to that, it would be George Bush's last insane throw of the dice, and quite possibly the start of a Third World War. The thing about Georgia's strike on South Ossetia being used as a strategic diversion to distract the Russians is an interesting possibility. It might well be part of a large plan. Perhaps Bush feels that a naval blockade of Iran would push the Iranians into launching a first strike in the Gulf. There's a sort of precendent for that...Japan was pushed by Roosevelt into launching a first strike on the USA in December '41...not by a blockade, but by a strategic trade embargo that denied the Japanese their overseas sources of oil and steel. An eventual Japanese attack was made virtually inevitable when Roosevelt embargoed them in early '41. Would a blockade of Iran (which is technically an act of war) push the Iranians into launching a first strike on American forces? If so, it would give Mr Bush all the excuse he needs for the war he so dearly wants...and he would probably get a majority of the American public in support of that, providing the Iranians were seen to attack first. But what would the Russians and Chinese do? That's the really dicey part. This is a profoundly dangerous game for all of us. As to the Iranian biowar capability...that's the first I've heard about it. I think the Iranians regard war with the USA as almost inevitable now, so they are probably preparing as best they can. They have already been effectively pretty much surrounded by American military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I don't think that was any accident. I think it was part of a longrange plan. |
|
12 Aug 08 - 06:34 PM (#2412008) Subject: RE: BS: New War Maneuvers in the Middle East?? From: bobad Not to worry, the fleet is doomed: "Iran vows "burning hell" for aggressors "America must fear the nation that does not fear death," or as a member of the mullahocracy's ideological twin, Al-Qaeda, put it, "The Americans love Pepsi-Cola, we love death." From Reuters, with thanks to Shiva: TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran, facing mounting U.S. pressure over its nuclear programme, has promised a "burning hell" for any aggressor as tens of thousands march to mark the 26th anniversary of its Islamic revolution. "The Iranian nation does not seek war, does not seek violence and dispute. But the world must know that this nation will not tolerate any invasion," President Mohammad Khatami said in a fiery speech to the crowd in central Tehran on Thursday. "The whole Iranian nation is united against any threat or attack. If the invaders reach Iran, the country will turn into a burning hell for them," he added, as the crowd, braving heavy snow blizzards, chanted "Death to America!".... "America must fear the nation that does not fear death," said Mojtaba Hamedani, 45, a veteran of Iran's 1980-1988 war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Posted by Robert at February 10, 2005 9:51 AM |
|
12 Aug 08 - 06:39 PM (#2412014) Subject: RE: BS: New War Maneuvers in the Middle East?? From: artbrooks This is out there in several places on the web. The ones I checked (not all, by any means) link to the blog of someone who describes himself as "the Right Honorable The Earl of Stirling, hereditary Governor & Lord Lieutenant of Canada, Lord High Admiral of Nova Scotia" (etc.). Sounds official to me. |
|
12 Aug 08 - 06:42 PM (#2412016) Subject: RE: BS: New War Maneuvers in the Middle East?? From: Little Hawk They tend to speak in dramatic terms in that country. It goes with the culture. But no nation tolerates any invasion, so what they are saying is merely grist for the mill of home consumption...they are saying what they think will excite and motivate the home audience and stir up patriotic fervour. So what? Churchill said dramatic things too. As did Hitler and Mussolini. All politicians deliver the oratory that they think will play best with the home audience. That's politics. |
|
12 Aug 08 - 07:02 PM (#2412033) Subject: RE: BS: New War Maneuvers in the Middle East?? From: Rapparee I don't have a problem with war maneuvers. I got a big problem with unprovoked invasions. |
|
12 Aug 08 - 07:04 PM (#2412035) Subject: RE: BS: New War Maneuvers in the Middle East?? From: Little Hawk Me too. Unprovoked invasions are 100% criminal acts of war. |
|
12 Aug 08 - 07:08 PM (#2412038) Subject: RE: BS: New War Maneuvers in the Middle East?? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor The 20.00 dollar per gallon gasoline that would result from such a war is what would interest me the most. If you think its going to happen, buy Exxon shares. |
|
12 Aug 08 - 08:25 PM (#2412101) Subject: RE: BS: New War Maneuvers in the Middle East?? From: John on the Sunset Coast I think I'm going with artbrooks on this one. I don't know how large the US fleet is, but Amos' post lists something over 40 major ships heading towards the Persian Gulf; sounds like there wouldn't be much room for them all to maneuver in that space. |
|
12 Aug 08 - 08:44 PM (#2412112) Subject: RE: BS: New War Maneuvers in the Middle East?? From: Beer More like a bunch of sitting ducks on a pond. Beer (adrien) |
|
12 Aug 08 - 09:59 PM (#2412148) Subject: RE: BS: New War Maneuvers in the Middle East?? From: The Fooles Troupe Reminds me of that famous painting - "Eat flaming death..." "Russian subs currently use the underwater rocket VA-111 Shkval (Squall), which is fired from standard 533mm torpedo tubes and reaches a speed of 360kph (230mph) underwater. There is no effective countermeasures to this system and no western counterpart." Don't worry, I seem to remember that Teribus and/or others here told us those high speed torpedoes whicj supposedly Iran bought are just a crock of shit and no problem to avoid. "More like a bunch of sitting ducks on a pond." ah, well if there's no room to manoeuvre... |
|
12 Aug 08 - 10:08 PM (#2412159) Subject: RE: BS: New War Maneuvers in the Middle East?? From: Amos Well, I am sorry to post something that has so little verification. It just struck me gobsmacked ofr a moment... A |
|
12 Aug 08 - 10:09 PM (#2412160) Subject: RE: BS: New War Maneuvers in the Middle East?? From: Rapparee To a flyboy, there's always room to maneuver. Shucks, if your ship can't maneuver on the surface just maneuver it under water. What? You say it's an aircraft carrier and they don't maneuver well under water? Who screwed THAT up?! Heads will roll! |
|
12 Aug 08 - 10:09 PM (#2412161) Subject: RE: BS: New War Maneuvers in the Middle East?? From: Amos Online article is here at globalresearch.ca. No data on their reliability. A |
|
12 Aug 08 - 10:23 PM (#2412166) Subject: RE: BS: New War Maneuvers in the Middle East?? From: GUEST,heric I googled this for a while this afternoon. Although the article is written in an overly dramatic fashion, I couldn't find any reason to disbelieve that two more carrier groups are heading there. The timing is about right in terms of the negotiations. |
|
12 Aug 08 - 10:31 PM (#2412170) Subject: RE: BS: New War Maneuvers in the Middle East?? From: GUEST,heric (The US threatened a two week deadline, not long after the disappointment in Geneva on July 19, where they went to listen to Amendiniejabad.) |
|
12 Aug 08 - 10:51 PM (#2412176) Subject: RE: BS: New War Maneuvers in the Middle East?? From: Rapparee I can find several things that require a "willing suspension of disbelief." First, the best genetically altered disease agent requires a way to get it to the target, the same as any other weapon. No mention is made of how Iran would get a mutated virus into another country. Secondly, biowarfare isn't reliable as it's just as likely to kill your own people as those of the enemy. Thirdly, an assault ship carries a limited number of fighting men and equipment -- they are are intended to be used in groups. None of the task forces mentioned include enough assault ships to do a good job of taking and holding ground, and that's something that missiles and bombs don't do well at all, and they sure as heck aren't going to use sailors to assault shore installations. Fourthly, the US is stretched so thin that it could not supply the the necessary manpower to hold what assault groups might take. I'm not saying that this isn't true or that nasty plans aren't afoot, but I've got my doubts about how it would be done. |
|
12 Aug 08 - 11:01 PM (#2412181) Subject: RE: BS: New War Maneuvers in the Middle East?? From: heric Might be a blockade. Sure as heck not an invasion. |
|
12 Aug 08 - 11:46 PM (#2412204) Subject: RE: BS: New War Maneuvers in the Middle East?? From: katlaughing I think so, too, heric. A blockade seems likely according to This Fellow, too. |
|
12 Aug 08 - 11:58 PM (#2412210) Subject: RE: BS: New War Maneuvers in the Middle East?? From: bankley Mr. Cheney has already mulled over the idea about another Gulf of Tonkin incident in the Persian Gulf....resulting in a staged 'shoot-up' leading to ....guess what??? to be watched closely |
|
13 Aug 08 - 12:39 AM (#2412226) Subject: RE: BS: New War Maneuvers in the Middle East?? From: Little Hawk Much more likely that there would be a blockade...and quite possibly some significant airstrikes...but not an invasion. You guys who say that there isn't room there for 40 major warships...! To the contrary, there is plenty of room in the Persian Gulf for such a fleet. You are greatly overestimating the amount of water necessary to hold 40 ships and allow them to do battle maneuvers. ;-) You'd be amazed how small the largest ship looks when it's floating on any reasonable sized body of water. The Persian Gulf could hold 500 such ships if it had to. The main reason for concentrating that many ships in the area would be: 1. to intimidate the Iranians, the Russians, and the Chinese. 2. to increase the amount of shipborne airpower and other firepower in case of launching massive attacks on Iran. I find the stuff about the Iranian biowarfare not too believable, but (shrug) what do I know about that? Not much. I think the US administration may be hoping to provoke or panic Iran into launching a first strike of some kind. Or if they can't provoke them into it, well, they can always just pretend it happened anyway. That approach worked fine for LBJ in Vietnam. If the "enemy" won't cooperate and attack you...just lie and say they did. Or...maybe they are just planning a blockade, period...but I sort of doubt that. Bush only has a few months left to realize his dream. That puts the pressure on. |
|
13 Aug 08 - 12:52 AM (#2412235) Subject: RE: BS: New War Maneuvers in the Middle East?? From: The Fooles Troupe "That approach worked fine for LBJ in Vietnam" ... and Poland - damn! Godwin's Law strikes again! |
|
13 Aug 08 - 12:59 AM (#2412241) Subject: RE: BS: New War Maneuvers in the Middle East?? From: CarolC I agree that it's probably a blockade and that what they are trying to do is provoke a response that will provide them with a pretext to start lobbing things (most likely nukes). |
|
13 Aug 08 - 01:13 AM (#2412244) Subject: RE: BS: New War Maneuvers in the Middle East?? From: Little Hawk Geez. I sure hope not, Carol. Yeah, Foolestroupe, Hitler had the German public easily convinced in September '39 (through a compliant media) that the Poles attacked Germany first (a hilariously unlikely notion). He also had them convinced that the Poles were committing atrocities against ethnic Germans in Poland, etc...the usual propaganda that is used to launch a war of choice. If it was now instead of then, he'd be telling his German citizenry that the Poles were building Weapons of Mass Destruction with the intention of bombing German cities...."and we have to stop them NOW before it is too late!!!" What does the average person do when his government and media tell him such things? He believes them. |
|
13 Aug 08 - 02:02 AM (#2412254) Subject: RE: BS: New War Maneuvers in the Middle East?? From: CarolC On the subject of the guy who wrote that blog, he explains how he thinks the bioweapons would be delivered in this entry... http://europebusines.blogspot.com/2008/07/war-on-iran-perfect-storm-from-hell.html He says these sources support what he is saying... http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=5499 Middle East Times http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article4276460.ece |
|
13 Aug 08 - 02:04 AM (#2412255) Subject: RE: BS: New War Maneuvers in the Middle East?? From: Teribus Foolestroupe as to the effectiveness of the super fast torpedo - take a look at it's range. Then work out how the sub, or whatever it's firing platform is, gets into position undetected after having first gathered the information to identify its target. The presence of assault ships for a blockade??? Not required All ships mentioned are warships. Where is there logistical support?? Any idea how many replenishment tankers would be needed to keep that number of ships on station?? Persian Gulf itself might be big enough, but it has a number of drawbacks: - It is shallow, not much too good for those Iranian submarines firing super-fast torpedoes. - It has a bottle-neck entrance, The Straits of Hormuz, where those torpedoes could be of some use. - It contains quite a few static obstructions, oil & gas production platforms, that hinder free movement - It already regularly hosts large numbers of extremely large vessels that would also hinder manoeuvres for carrier groups. The other explanation for their presence could be a practice for the mass evacuation of US troops from the area in 2009. |
|
13 Aug 08 - 02:06 PM (#2412686) Subject: RE: BS: New War Maneuvers in the Middle East?? From: Little Hawk "The other explanation for their presence could be a practice for the mass evacuation of US troops from the area in 2009." Yes, I suppose it could... (?) Well, I'd be quite surprised if that was the case, but we'll have to wait and see. I think the USA is more likely ramping up toward expanded military operations in the area rather than toward a strategic withdrawal. |
|
13 Aug 08 - 04:51 PM (#2412853) Subject: RE: BS: New War Maneuvers in the Middle East?? From: Teribus Another explanation could be simple rotation of forces in the area. One thing is for certain they are not aimed with any hostile intent at Iran. |
|
13 Aug 08 - 06:03 PM (#2412938) Subject: RE: BS: New War Maneuvers in the Middle East?? From: Donuel When the internet is re routed or shut down you will know the date that will live in infamy War will come to you whether you wait on pins and needles with excited expectation or the deepest soulful dread. |
|
13 Aug 08 - 07:40 PM (#2413008) Subject: RE: BS: New War Maneuvers in the Middle East?? From: Little Hawk I think there is a real risk that G.W. will spark a war with Iran before the next presidential election date. It will be his last chance to realize a foreign policy agenda he has cherished for years now, and the thing about wars is, they're easy to start...but much more difficult to end. He could even declare martial law if things go seriously out of hand, and then you won't see an election next November. I would be delighted to turn out to be completely wrong about that. |
|
13 Aug 08 - 08:23 PM (#2413033) Subject: RE: BS: New War Maneuvers in the Middle East?? From: artbrooks Won't happen, LH - the military's oath is to the Constitution, not to the President. |
|
13 Aug 08 - 09:07 PM (#2413056) Subject: RE: BS: New War Maneuvers in the Middle East?? From: CarolC The President's oath is to the Constitution, too, but he seems to have forgotten about that. As have most of the members of Congress. |
|
13 Aug 08 - 10:38 PM (#2413109) Subject: RE: BS: New War Maneuvers in the Middle East?? From: Little Hawk Yes, the military's oath is to the Constitution, artbrooks, but you know what military officers and soldiers usually do? They follow orders from a higher officer who talks to them, not from an old document that is mute. That's because: 1. they are trained to follow orders...without delay. 2. they usually aren't constitutional lawyers 3. they haven't usually got any time to work out in their heads if an order they just received is "constitutional" or not... And guess what? George Bush is the "commander-in-chief", and he can issue the orders. If he did issue such orders, then chances are almost certain that they would be obeyed by people who had neither the time nor the independence of mind to sit down and analyze whether or not any of it was constitutional. They would be obeyed by people who did not even understand the implications of those orders, and who had been given reason to believe those orders were absolutely necessary in some emergency situation. And it is naive to think otherwise. All it takes to betray a constitution is the will on the part of a commander-in-chief to do so. Nonetheless, there is, I think, some possibility that some loyal and intelligent top officers in the high command might oppose an attempt by Mr Bush to hijack the government in such a fashion. If so, you would probably see a rift within the military and the intelligence community and the beginnings of a civil war...and if THAT happened, well...BOTH sides would claim that the other side was violating and betraying the Constitution. BOTH sides would claim that the other was launching a coup with the intention of establishing a dictatorship. I guarantee it. Most individual Americans have very little idea what their Constitution really says in most respects, and that includes most military personnel. This is also true in other countries, so I am certainly not singling out Americans alone when I say this. The majority of people in the world don't really know what their legal and constitutional rights are except in a very vague sense, and this is one of the things that allows politicians everywhere to deny people's rights and trick them and betray their constitutional guarantees. The Bush administration has already done several things that are unconstitutional, but their supporters don't think so, do they? People believe what they want to believe, and soldiers follow orders. |
|
14 Aug 08 - 01:09 AM (#2413195) Subject: RE: BS: New War Maneuvers in the Middle East?? From: artbrooks LH, as a (retired) Army officer, and as a person who is in touch with both other retirees and currently serving soldiers, I am totally certain that you are wrong. You are entitled to your opinion, of course. |
|
14 Aug 08 - 01:27 AM (#2413204) Subject: RE: BS: New War Maneuvers in the Middle East?? From: Teribus Unsurprisingly, I would tend to agree with artbrooks. The following is incorrect LH: "1. they are trained to follow orders...without delay." During my time in the Royal Navy, I was trained to follow legitimate orders (i.e. ones that I felt were legitimate)......without delay. They spent quite a bit of time on that. I think that you also make no differentiation in the situation and circumstances in which orders are given in the military. |
|
14 Aug 08 - 03:17 AM (#2413251) Subject: RE: BS: New War Maneuvers in the Middle East?? From: Peace Right now, Bush as the front for BIG business has far too many people jumping when he snaps his fingers. Brinksmanship (see Georgia) is alive and well. However, what made it successful in the Cuban Missile Crisis was the accurate assessment of the USSR's cababilities and will to fight a war at that time. The US has NFI (no freakin' idea) about Iran's will--despite having what I think are Iran's capabilities within its ken. The show of force--if that's all it is--is a strategic ploy. Let's hope it doesn't get misunderstood for anything else. Because these bastards have killed too many people as it is. Enough already! |
|
14 Aug 08 - 04:46 AM (#2413283) Subject: RE: BS: New War Maneuvers in the Middle East?? From: Paul Burke Just don't fly in an Iranian airliner until the fleet has gone home. |
|
14 Aug 08 - 12:46 PM (#2413687) Subject: RE: BS: New War Maneuvers in the Middle East?? From: Teribus Let's see Amos's article said that on 7th August they'd been at sea enroute for the middle-east for about a week: "Thursday, August 7, 2008 Massive US Naval Armada Heads For Iran "Operation Brimstone ended only one week ago. This was the joint US/UK/French naval war games in the Atlantic Ocean preparing for a naval blockade of Iran and the likely resulting war in the Persian Gulf area." - Yep? Now if memory serves me correctly passage speed could be anything from 18 to 25 knots, that's 600 nautical miles per day. Or since beginning of the month, when Operation Brimstone ended, to now this force has steamed some where between 6,048 and 8400 nautical miles. The Med, from end to end is about 2,500 nautical miles so this Armada, if bound for the Persian Gulf, should have all passed through the Suez Canal days ago. Any idea where any of these ships are at present? After all their sailing will likely result in war in the Persian Gulf area - Scary or what??? - I'll settle for ridiculous. My guess is that they are still in the Med, where they were dispatched to for very good reason considering recent developments on the international scene. I was interested in this snippet from Amos's first source: "The Russian Navy this spring sent a major battle fleet into the Mediterranean headed by the modern aircraft carrier the Admiral Kuznetsov and the flagship of its Black Sea Fleet, the Guided Missile Heavy Cruiser Moskva. This powerful fleet has at least 11 surface ships and unknown numbers of subs and can use the Russian naval facility at Syria's Tartous port for resupply." The old Soviet Fleets held two exercises every year, they were known as the "Spring" and "Autumn" Wars, and NATO assiduously monitored both. The surface units were always accompanied by a number of submarines, who, submerged, acted as the "Main Body" of the force. NATO charter Merchant Ships for this purpose or use Assault Ships and RFA's. The Russians have now lost their former Fleet anchorages at Alboran and Alexandria so are now hemmed in to the eastern end of the Med and further shackled by restrictions relating to the passage of warships through the Dardanelles. Their base at Sevastopol can only be used defensively and requires Ukrainian permission for entry and exit. |
|
14 Aug 08 - 01:03 PM (#2413722) Subject: RE: BS: New War Maneuvers in the Middle East?? From: Little Hawk Okay, Art...and Teribus. I hope you're right, I really do. |
|
14 Aug 08 - 01:49 PM (#2413798) Subject: RE: BS: New War Maneuvers in the Middle East?? From: GUEST,dianavan There is a reason they call it the Persian Gulf. A blockade would be considered an act of aggression and since the boundaries of the gulf are questionable, the conflict is inevetible. Consider a similar action off your coastline. Defense is different than aggression. It certainly can be seen as hostile. Once again, the U.S. is demonstrating to the world that they are bullies. I saw a t-shirt the other day that said, "What are we going to do about the United States?" Quite frankly, I'm sick of the influence they exert over other countries, their foreign policies and their economy. |
|
14 Aug 08 - 04:05 PM (#2413943) Subject: RE: BS: New War Maneuvers in the Middle East?? From: artbrooks It perhaps should be noted that, except for the blog quoted the other day, there is no indication (let alone evidence) that this is even taking place. Even if one gives credence to the questionable opinion that the USian TV, radio and print media are all wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Bush Administration and the new-cons, there are lots of other potential news sources. |
|
14 Aug 08 - 04:22 PM (#2413961) Subject: RE: BS: New War Maneuvers in the Middle East?? From: Little Hawk That's true, art. There's no indication except for that blog that it's taking place, and I'm keeping that well in mind. None of us will know for sure about it until it either happens...or it doesn't. Me, I'm keeping my fingers crossed until at least January 2009. After that we'll see what happens next. |
|
14 Aug 08 - 04:53 PM (#2413986) Subject: RE: BS: New War Maneuvers in the Middle East?? From: CarolC That's not true. There was other documentation from other sources besides the blog. I provided them in my 13 Aug 08 - 02:02 AM post. |
|
14 Aug 08 - 04:54 PM (#2413990) Subject: RE: BS: New War Maneuvers in the Middle East?? From: Little Hawk Ah. Okay, then. |
|
14 Aug 08 - 04:58 PM (#2413996) Subject: RE: BS: New War Maneuvers in the Middle East?? From: Bobert I guess that no one sees Operation Brimstone and the Georgian situation as being related??? 300,000,000 blind mice... Cheney ain't out yet and he and his puppet, Bushm are out to cause alot more mischief... Georgia is just a distraction... They keep pokin' Putin head and his gonna do some dumbass stuff, folks... B~ |
|
14 Aug 08 - 04:59 PM (#2414002) Subject: RE: BS: New War Maneuvers in the Middle East?? From: CarolC I definitely think they're related. And I don't think it's an accident that it's all happening this close to the elections. |
|
14 Aug 08 - 04:59 PM (#2414003) Subject: RE: BS: New War Maneuvers in the Middle East?? From: Little Hawk Putin is no dumbass. At least so it would appear so far. Yeah, I think there may be a connection there, Bobert. There almost always is when it comes to these things. |
|
14 Aug 08 - 05:11 PM (#2414017) Subject: RE: BS: New War Maneuvers in the Middle East?? From: GUEST,mom My son is on the USS Theodore Roosevelt he will be home for two weeks, then he heads overseas |
|
14 Aug 08 - 05:28 PM (#2414029) Subject: RE: BS: New War Maneuvers in the Middle East?? From: CarolC I hope he remains safe and returns from overseas very soon. |
|
15 Aug 08 - 12:16 AM (#2414260) Subject: RE: BS: New War Maneuvers in the Middle East?? From: artbrooks CarolC, I did see those, but one has nothing at all I could find about this alleged "deployment", one is from the same blogger, one seems to be copying information (in abbreviated form, but otherwise word-for-word) from that blogger, and the fourth quotes unidentified "military sources". Perhaps I am unnecessarily picky, but these constitute neither indications nor evidence for me. Where are the satellite photographs? Where are the radio transcripts of blockading messages to shipping in the Gulf? Where are the bootlegged email messages from sailors on the ships? Where are the protests from blockaded ship owners (that would be the oil companies, of course) and from poor Iran, cut off from the outside world. |
|
15 Aug 08 - 12:00 PM (#2414662) Subject: RE: BS: New War Maneuvers in the Middle East?? From: CarolC The one from the blogger is not documentation. It's just more about what the blogger thinks is likely to happen. Of the three that he uses as supporting documentation, one is intended to support (I suppose) the idea that Iran has bioweapons. The other two are reports from other media (besides his blog) that he believes support what he has written in his blog. What this shows is that other media besides his blog are also saying essentially the same things he is. I don't think we ever see the kind of evidence in the media that is listed in the above post. The two supporting articles mention government sources. That's what all media do. They cite "government sources". I don't think any of this is proof of anything. But the fact that The Middle East Times is reporting on it from the perspective of the government of Kuwait, I think gives it a lot more credibility than it would have if it was just coming from that one blogger. |