BREAKING NEWS: EISENHOWER CARRIER GROUP SAILS FOR IRAN THEATER

[redacted]

BREAKING NEWS: Eisenhower Carrier Group Sails For Iran Theater
By David Lindorff
Monday, October 09, 2006

The nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Eisenhower and its accompanying strike force of cruiser, destroyer and attack submarine slipped their moorings and headed off for the Persian Gulf region on Oct. 2, as I had predicted in a piece in The Nation magazine a few weeks back.

The Eisenhower strike force, according to my sources, is scheduled to arrive in the vicinity of Iran around October 21, at the same time as a second flotilla of minesweepers and other ships.

* * *

What is deeply troubling here is the total silence on the part of the Democratic Party opposition. Not one Democrat in Congress, and as far as I know, not one Democratic candidate for Congress--not even anti-war insurgent Ned Lamont in Connecticut, has demanded an answer from Bush and the Pentagon for the obvious military buildup around Iran, or about published reports that the U.S. already has special forces in side Iran backing the terrorist organization MEK, and selecting targets for U.S. bombardment.

If and when the U.S. attacks Iran, leading to a predicable--if temporar--rallying around the flag by the American public, and to an upset win by incumbent Republican congressional candidates, Democrats will have only themselves to blame for the debacle.

But it will be the American people--and especially the people of Iran--who will be the victims of this treacherous deed and this treasonous failure of will.

http://www.thiscantbehappening.net /

[Ian David]

1. Now that North Korea has tested a nuke, we have to attack Iran

And then, if Castro dies and Cuba is de-stabilized, we'll attack Venezuela.

We're all fucking doomed.

[Redstone]

6. Yeah, and your problem with that logic is exactly what?

After all, when people from Saudi Arabia killed 3000 Americans, we attacked Iraq, and THAT worked out real well, didn't it? Freedom is on that march!

Remember, bushyboy and rumdum have been telling us all along that they know what they're doing. So why NOT invade Venezuela when Castro dies? They'll welcome us with flowers!

Redstone

[DireStrike]

20. Do they have flowers in venezuela?

I keep hearing it's a third world shithole with no free press or democracy.

[EFerrari]

24. Then you're listening to the wrong people, aka, liars. n/t

[DireStrike]

29. I keep forgetting we have a sarcasm tag

"do they have flowers?" should have given it away. =p

[EFerrari]

34. Ah! Sorry, this is my tone deaf Monday. Try me again on Tuesday.

[Zhade]

101. Yes, but they are dictatorial flowers!

(Despite the fact that they are in actuality democratically-elected flowers.)

[happydreams]

42. North Korea and Iran are a different situation...

North Korea isn't even close to Iran. At least Iraq was right next door to Saudi Arabia. Sure bushboy didn't attack the right country, but he got about as close as he could.

[Olney Blue]

48. They both start with "I"- close enough for him.

[Redstone]

53. Well, THAT's a comfort, isn't it?

Redstone

[Zhade]

102. It would have been wrong to attack either country.

By attacking, period, he attacked the wrong country - because there is no threat imminent enough EVEN IN NK'S CASE to justify attacking or invading.

[EVDebs]

114. But the "Decider" has made up his mind

I guess they're busy in Congress manipulating the Sept '01 AUMF and the Oct '02 AUMF, each having the "...as he (Bush) determines..." language in them.

The AUMFs also reference the War Powers Resolution of '73 that requires "clear" (truthful) "situations" and "circumstances" before committing troops to harm's way.

[Rex]

71. Just can't be done. With what army? Mercenaries?

We just don't have the people to take on mult-theater war. They don't exist and won't. No one will go along with a draft and you can send all the planes and airforce you want --- you have to have people on the ground to take the land. All bombing does is piss the enemy off more. You need millions of troops. Not gonna happen.

[Redstone]

2. You'd think the Dems would be watching any saber-rattling,

wouldn't you?

Redstone

[Zhade]

103. Why? They ignored it in the run-up to the IWR vote.

NT!

[EFerrari]

3. I hate these bastards. eom

[redacted]

5. "Have I told you yet today how much I hate these people?"

Wish we had Mike Malloy's commentary on this story.

[EFerrari]

23. Me, too. God, I miss Mike.

[jpak]

4. Gee - when's the next new moon gonna happen???

Around Oct 21st????

[redacted]

10. Exactly! Dark night skies Oct. 18-25 = maximum probability of attack

[HereSince1628]

15. Yep. The 22nd is the New Moon. Talk about propitious!!

I suppose every month has a new moon, so every arrival is somehow related to a new moon. But arriving the day before? Oh.Friggin.My.!

[zulchzulu]

7. Kerry back in April on Meet The Press on Bush & Iran policy

MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to Iran. Headlines in The Washington Post today:

“U.S. is studying military strike options on Iran.” And in this article it says the United States is contemplating the use of tactical nuclear devices against Iran. Would you support that?

SEN. KERRY: No. I think that it—that is, that is another example of the move-from-the-hip—shoot-from-the-hip, cowboy diplomacy of this administration. For the United States of America, at a time when we’re already trying to wrestle with Iran and the, the proliferation of nuclear weapons—and North Korea, that is not paying attention to the six-party talks, partly because of what’s happening in Iraq, and they don’t need to—for us to think about exploding tactical nuclear weapons in some way is the height of irresponsibility. It would be destructive to any nonproliferation efforts, and the military assessment is it won’t work. That even this bombing strategy itself would not work. Once again, the administration is not engaged in the real kind of diplomacy—now, when President Clinton had to deal with Bosnia, sat down with Yeltsin, persuaded him that it was in the interest of Russia even to be involved there, I think that—you know, you—we, we’ve got to have leadership that stops proceeding so unilaterally, and in, in such a, a, you know, sort of overtly militaristic way, and start putting people together to resolve this.

- John Kerry on Meet The Press

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12169680/

[BluePatriot]

8. "Normal rotation" suuuuure....

Didn't the Enterprise carrier group just get there in August? And now they have to "rotate" them out? Right...

[redacted]

12. If they hold them over, expect that an attack is on the way

[redacted]

18. Why deploy minesweepers and the U.S. Coast Guard along side them?

They don't need minesweepers in Afghanistan!

Our military expects that Iran will mine oil shipping channels in the Persian Gulf. Our Coast Guard is on the way there for search and rescue operations; that means DOD expects we're going to take casualties.

[FogerRox]

82. Are you suggesting we shouldn't deploy Minesweepers with a carrier group?

Ahhem, not for nutin, maybe you should jump on one of these ships, and sail into the Persian Gulf, w/o a minesweeper Try some real facts:



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Heres a sample from the above link

The Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group also includes
-guided-missile cruiser USS Anzio-CG-68 :
Armament: MK26 missile launcher (CG 47 thru CG 51) Standard Missile (MR) or MK41 vertical launching system (CG 52 thru CG 73) Standard Missile (MR); Vertical Launch ASROC (VLA) Missile; Tomahawk Cruise Missile; Six MK-46 torpedoes (from two triple mounts); Two MK 45 5-inch/54 caliber lightweight guns; Two Phalanx close-in-weapons systems.
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200& ...

-guided-missile destroyer USS Ramage-DDG-61
Armament: two MK 41 VLS for Standard missiles, Tomahawk; Harpoon missile launchers, one Mk 45 5-inch/54 caliber lightweight gun, two Phalanx CIWS, Mk 46 torpedoes (from two triple tube mounts)
http://www.navysite.de/dd/ddg61.htm

ARLEIGH BURKE - class Guided Missile Destroyer USS Mason-DDG-87
Armament 1 x 5"/62 RF, Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM), 90 VLS Cells,
2 SH-60B helicopters, 8 Harpoon Missiles, 6 x 12.75" TT.
http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/01087.htm


OR this :

http://www.ne.jp/asahi/gonavy/atsugi/gonavy604.html

[Shipwack]

90. Coast Guard has been there for a while already...

A few years, even before the Gulf War II, at first in order to enforce the sanctions, and now doing safety, anti-smuggling,and ant-piracy work.

[magellan]

61. The Ike is replacing the Abe Lincoln in the Persian Gulf

Or so it's said.

The Enterprise is on deployment in the Arabian Sea in support of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. Its normal 6-month deployment is up in very early November, by which time it should be back at its home port, but there's no indication the Enterprise has departed the Arabian Sea yet (which tends to mean it hasn't). This could be because Afghanistan is quickly going down the tubes...but it could also mean bad news for Iran.

For those who are as bad at imagining the distances/locales in question as I am:

[Leopolds Ghost]

117. Note the differences in terrain between Iraq and Iran.

Iraq is almost completely flat, except in the pro-US Kurdish north, and Iraq has wide, well-paved highways paid for by the US to facilitate the movement of troops -- which is what interstate highways technically are for.

Iran has 10,000 foot passes on its border with Iraq and all along the Persian Gulf coast, populated by tribes of mountaineers who make the Afghans look like Truman Capote.

Rent the movie "Grass" if you want to learn more about the Zagros Mountains and the people who dwell in them.

[flyingfysh]

9. Here comes the October Surprise

It looks like Bush goes to war just to try to win elections.

[LiberalUprising]

75. No matter who wins the 'elections'

we lose as well as the rest of the world's peoples.

The elections this time around will only be cover to justify the miracle of a strong surge of 'voters' that favor bush's fascist policies.

It's only a show

[lonestarnot]

11. There is nothing this fucker won't do to retain power, nothing.

[Swamp Rat]

13. Here comes the so-called "October surprise."

It's no surprise to me.

Hell, I expect the Dems to win in November anyway (if the elections aren't canceled), but Bushler will declare Martial Law and therefore neuter the Congress for good.

[wakeme2008]

14. Please this happens all the TIME

While the Nation is making a big deal over it, this is NORMAL for ship rotation. Battle groups meet up replace each other every 4-6 months...

NOT saying there is NOT more to this than take but take it with a grain of salt.

[redacted]

22. THIS happens all the time?

Let's see: TWO aircraft carrier battle groups in the gulf at the same time, with Canadian and British vessels on the way. Minesweepers deployed. Our Coast Guard deployed. And as soon as all these ships get there, there's no moon in the sky for about 5 nights.

THIS happens all the time? Not so sure about that!

[wakeme2008]

25. Yep it happens all the time and you just shot your self in the foot

"Canadian and British vessels"

Canada and Britain taking part of attacking Iran..



Did you forget Poland

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wakeme2008]

38. No but I can Google

They do this almost every year

http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=98...

Related Stories:
CART 1: Enterprise’s Self Assessment for the Future - 1/8/2004
Enterprise Strike Group Projects Naval Power Across 5th Fleet - 11/13/2003 High Interest Story This Story has a Photo
Enterprise CSG Patrols 5th Fleet Waters - 11/7/2003 High Interest Story This Story has a Photo
USS Enterprise, CVW-1 On Station in 5th Fleet - 10/26/2003 This Story has a Photo Watch Video
Enterprise Carrier Strike Group Begins COMPTUEX - 9/10/2003 This Story has a Photo
USS Enterprise Deploys From Norfolk - 9/8/2003 This Story has a Photo

[Dems Will Win]

39. This is serious wakeme, this is the first time Coast Guard ships

for search and rescue have been taken over there in such numbers. They are expecting naval action. Plus the Iranian talks just collapsed as they refused to stop enriching uranium. And the weak sanctions will be passed by Russia and China will just give Bush his usual ineffective UN excuse.

At the same time the Russians have given Iran new anti-ship missiles that are three times faster than the 20-year old Silkworms. Our navy has NO defense against these fast missiles. Plus Silkworms can only be stopped with Gatling guns!

It's called shooting ducks in a barrel, as the Iranians have been hiding missiles along the long Iranian coast for several years, especially lately with all their windfall oil profits.

It looks like Bush is going to attack Iran and he is putting the Navy in a very hazardous position, likely hoping for some to be hit and maybe sunk for the evening news. Then you would have a rally round the flag --perhaps for only a few days or weeks but it would be there.

LOOSE LIPS SAVE SHIPS.

The more we talk about this the better. In 1980, the Republicans complained that Carter would pull an October surprise and free the hostages just before the election. This discounted the event in the public's mind so that if it had happened it would have a smaller bounce.

[wakeme2008]

46. From a piece on BuzzFlash I posted on another thread

I hope I am wrong about all this, but the sailing of the Eisenhower, which had been pushed forward recently by about a month by the Pentagon for clearly political reasons, makes me think I'm right. A key will be what happens with the Enterprise carrier strike force, which has already been on station in the Arabian Sea for six months, where it has been launching air strikes against Afghanistan and Iraq targets. Ordinarily, such deployments last six months and then the carrier group returns to base for resupply and for R&R for the crew. If the Enterprise is held over for a longer deployment, after the arrival of the Eisenhower, we will know that something serious is planned.

Every 6 months there are TWO Battle Groups in the Gulf....

[Dems Will Win]

52. You may not have gotten the memo but this task force is going too

And I hear the Enterprise is NOT leaving and rotating out soon, as it usually does after they are relieved.

Another assault or strike group of U.S. warships, “Expeditionary Strike Group 5,” are setting off to sea too. This strike group is setting sail from Naval Station San Diego with the Persian Gulf in the Middle East as their final destination. Over 6,000 U.S. Marines and Navy personnel will be deployed to the Persian Gulf and Anglo-American occupied Iraq from San Diego.4 Approximately 4,000 U.S. sailors and 2,200 U.S. Marines from the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit at Camp Pendleton will make the bulk of the force. The warships and the servicemen they carry will reportedly have a tour of duty in the Persian Gulf and “possibly” Anglo-American occupied Iraq for half a year. They will also be joined by other ships including a Coast Guard vessel. A Marine air wing of 38 helicopters also is on board and travelling to the Persian Gulf.

The Marine contingent of the force is not destined for deployment in Iraq. It must be noted that the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit is, however, able to “rapidly deploy” on “order” using large landing craft stowed aboard the strike group’s warships. If ordered this rapid deployment unit has the strong potential of being used as part of an invasion force against Iran from the Persian Gulf. The Marine unit would be ideal in being part of an operation with the objective(s) of securing Iranian ports to create beachheads for an invasion.

Expeditionary Strike Group 5 (ESG 5) is being led by the assault ship the U.S.S. Boxer as the flagship. Expeditionary Strike Group 5 (ESG 5) will also consist of the U.S.S. Dubuque, a “dock landing vessel,” the naval transport ship the U.S.S. Comstock, the battle cruiser the U.S.S. Bunker Hill, the guided-missile hauling destroyer the U.S.S. Benfold, and the guided-missile hauling destroyer the U.S.S. Howard. Once again, these vessels will all be deployed in the Persian Gulf, in nearby proximity to the Iranian coast.

Now why do you need all those Marines if they are not going to Iraq?

[lebkuchen]

73. the Eisenhower just went through a 44 mo. overhaul

which is SOP as well. However, I can't help but wonder what new "toy" it might have been retrofitted to test.

[Dems Will Win]

55. Oh and these Marines are already there hitting beaches to get

ready...

Marines hit the beaches of Kuwait for training

By Jennifer H. Svan, Stars and Stripes
Mideast edition, Monday, October 2, 2006

Marines and sailors deployed with the Iwo Jima Expeditionary Strike Group came ashore on a Kuwait beach Sunday to begin about a month of training in the country. The group includes Marines from the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit at Camp Lejeune, N.C., and sailors from Beach Master Unit 2 at Naval Amphibious Base Little Creek, Little Creek, Va. The strike group is on a six-month deployment.

[FogerRox]

80. Not evean the whole 24th Exp. just part of 'em. maybe 3-4k troops

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[lala_rawraw]

69. is it also normal to use a terrorist organization

as an advance team? google MEK

[sofa king]

98. Don't forget the involuntary call-up of Marine reservists.

And the arrival of the 24th MEU in Kuwait for "training" at the beginning of October. ESG-5 and the 15th MEU is also within two week's sail of the Persian Gulf from the Western Pacific--a report from mid-September said that they were headed to the Persian Gulf via Hawaii, anyway. 26th MEU just completed major training and is only two months away from redeployment. As of last week they were supposedly practicing invading Petersburg, VA, but who knows--they might have hopped a ride with the Eisenhower group out of Norfolk. 31st MEU, in Okinawa, is also nearly ready to deploy, ostensibly to the Philippines. 11th MEU's post-deployment readiness stage supposedly ended just three weeks ago. I can't tell what 13th and 22nd MEUs are up to, but it seems like they're the only two groups which are certainly unavailable due to being in the middle of their work-up periods. None of the MEUs are actually deployed in Iraq.

Marine Expeditionary Units are particularly worth watching because any invasion of Iran will focus almost entirely upon the Persian Gulf coast and the oil and natural gas facilities which will be the real objective of any American invasion. The Marines are remarkably busy right now, and appear to be at the apex of a deployment and training rotation that must have been planned months or even years in advance, with five of the seven groups ready or nearly ready to go. That's something to remember down the line if events magically conspire to create an incident in the coming weeks. If I were an astrologer, I'd say the stars are lining up very nicely.

Edit: Oops, it looks like those above me know better than I do. I'm telling you, they're locked and loaded.

[sofa king]

119. One more thing.

I just did a little snoop to see what our LHDs are up to. It would appear as if at least six of them are at sea or ready to go. Iwo Jima is in the Arabian Sea with Enterprise. Boxer is on its way with ESG-5. Kearsarge was hanging around Norfolk just before Ike departed. Another is in the Med. Another two are "at sea."

So it seems as if there may be five out of seven MEUs nearly ready to go, at least six out of seven LHDs at sea or ready to go.

The CVN Teddy Roosevelt is also deployed to the same place that the Ike is supposedly deployed: "WestLant." We now know that Ike is going to the Gulf. Did it pick up TR on the way? Did it take Kearsarge and the 26th MEU? I guess we'll find out soon enough.

[EVDebs]

116. Under which AUMF will 'the Decider' commit US troops in Iran ?

The Sept '01 one or the Oct '02 one ? And what about the War Powers Resolution of '73 anyway ? Shitcanned ?

[leveymg]

88. Of course we want Iran to BELIEVE the U.S. is prepared to strike - BUT,

that's an entirely different matter from actually going to war. There's something called sabre-rattling -- it's been part of American policy against Iran for 4-5 years, now -- just in case you didn't notice before.

Early into the Bush-Cheney Administration the Joint Chiefs told the White House to forget it. There have been repeated waves of miinformation and disinformation about preparations for attacks. Nothing has changed.

[BluePatriot]

32. Anyone have the info

w/Enterprise carrier group's deploy date? I remember seeing it August somewhere, but lost the thread.

(If August true, why only 2 mos? And why push up the Eisenhower refit?)

Course, if the article says that group's been out a while, I'll be quiet

[magellan]

65. Enterprise left its home port on May 2

Its six-month tour is up in very early November. It really should be on the way home now, but isn't.

[BluePatriot]

66. I might be confusing them

..w/the Abe Lincoln, someone corrected me up-thread. Thanks for the info.

[magellan]

67. That's okay!

I keep muddling up the Enterprise and Eisenhower.

[DocSavage]

93. Battle groups

rotate when the replacement force is there. This is aboslutly nothing new. Standard rotation of carriers. Been going on for 70 years. Now it is the Gulf, used to be the Med. Ask someone that did tours in the Nav.

[Redstone]

54. Ah, a voice of reason. Nobody will listen to you, but thanks for posting

that anyway.

There is NOT going to be an attack on Iran. bushyboy and rumdum have alreay been told, in no uncertain terms, that it would cause a command-level mutiny.

Redstone

[lala_rawraw]

68. you might want to google

"branches and sequels"

[Zhade]

104. And your evidence of this mutiny?

Where can I read about them being told, in no uncertain terms, this?

First I've heard about it. Care to back up your assertion?

(And btw, I'm hoping you can, because then it would be good news and not, as I fear, wishful thinking on your part.)

[izzie]

16. It will be a hell if Bush goes to war with Iran

It will be the end of Israel, oil from the Middle East, maybe world depression but I am willing to bet Bush would do it to hold power. I hate to say such a thing. I am sure he must do it before the vote as he may not have the Congress he wants after Nov. It will make the battle fields of WW1 look like playing. My God he has acted like the Kaiser with all this crazy stuff and look what that man did to Europe. The Czar was as bad. Men over their heads acting like they know something is really make the world very un-safe right now. And I lived during the Cold War and WW2

[Greeby]

17. Dennis Kucinich on the Bush plan for war with Iran

http://www.kucinich.us/archive/report/display.php?r=46&...

Kucinich on the floor of the House, September 27th
http://www.kucinich.us/floor_speeches/intl_iran27sep.ph...

September 21st
http://www.kucinich.us/floor_speeches/intl_signs_of_war...

September 19th
http://www.kucinich.us/floor_speeches/intl_iran_constit...
http://www.kucinich.us/floor_speeches/intl_bahai_pretex...

April 26th
http://www.kucinich.us/floor_speeches/intl_iran_freedom...

February 16th
http://www.kucinich.us/floor_speeches/intl_condemn_iran...

[TahitiNut]

19. From the Tonkin Gulf to the Persian Gulf ...

... the more things change the more they stay the same. So, when will we hear of an attack on US Naval vessels by the Iranians?? Will it be before or after Israel bombs Iran?

[valerief]

21. I wish the generals would just say, "Enough is enough is enough

is enough" and tell the soldiers to go home.

[redacted]

26. Yes, and the generals need to do that right away!

Yes, I've heard that mass resignations are planned in the Pentagon. But resignations won't do a damm bit of good while the cruise missiles are in flight. Career officers who will resign to make a statement of protest need to resign NOW, while it will still do some good.

[BootinUp]

27. I think it would be underestimating the American people

this time. Very few would support an attack on Iran imho. And have Iran come over the border into Iraq right now. Which is exactly what would happen. Just give them all a gun and watch them come runnin.

[BlooInBloo]

49. Are you new to the country?

That's the only way what you say isn't asinine.

Underestimating the American people - lol!

Maybe you were telling a dry joke - my apologies if I missed it.

[BootinUp]

56. lol. no I guess you'll have to keep your

opinion.

I stand pat on that post.

[BlooInBloo]

58. (shrug) So be it - cheers!

[agincourt]

28. If Saddam Booosh attack Iran,

start a war, and then use chemical weapons on a blue state city, then finally he can sit at the table with Saddam Boooshit.

[slackmaster]

31. Simple answer why Democratic leaders aren't talking about it

It would be illegal for them to discuss the destination of the Eisenhower carrier group before the fact. Navy ship movements are generally classified until after the fact.

The Astute Reader(TM) will note that the only source mentioned by name in Dave Lindorff's 9/21 article in The Nation, the aptly named Lieut. Mike Kafka, said only that the group had received orders to depart. He did not say anything about a destination; that piece of information came from unnamed sources.

Lindorff's article makes some sense, but overall I have to question its veracity since he is not supposed to have access to the information.

[redacted]

35. His articles aren't the only ones

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[slackmaster]

36. Please note I'm not saying he's wrong about any of it

Just that the reason members of Congress aren't discussing it is simply that they can't. It's classified.

[FogerRox]

78. right

start here:

http://www.ne.jp/asahi/gonavy/atsugi/gonavy604.html

Then try this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[slackmaster]

92. Great links FogerRox, official information is very consistently presented

Named sources from within the Navy rarely tell you anything specific about where ships are going, only where they are or where they have been. Official sources will usually tell you little more than a particular ship or group is "on deployment"; you're lucky if they give you a general idea of the mission.

Leaked information about the present destination of a vessel or group underway, is inherently tainted. Either someone made it up, or made an educated guess by piecing together publicly known information, or it got leaked. In all cases the unauthorized publication may endanger the safety of crewmembers and the vessels.

My brother, a naval officer, will be assigned to one of the ships in the Eisenhower group next summer. I spoke with him last night. He probably knows where they are headed right now, but I guarantee he won't tell me or anyone else without authorization. That suits me just fine. My job as a citizen is to help determine who is in command of the US military forces.

Discussions of ship destinations are by nature speculative. The Navy or individuals may leak false or misleading information, and orders are always subject to change on short notice.

[Double T]

33. I see this more as the 'October Demise' of the bushco administration......

bushco is already in deep, deep trouble in Afghanistan and Iraq; why would THEY want to add Iran to THE LIST????? The military is already stretched very thin, the support from ANY other countries for another preemptive strike would be LESS than zero and the majority of the American people have HAD IT with bushco's feeble, lame and deceptive excuses for going to war. Could bushco be so out of touch with REALITY and SO DESPERATE to regain the 'perceived support' HE 'thought' HE had for attacking Iraq??? Attacking Iran would be the THIRD strike for bushco; the world and MOST Americans would say YOU ARE OUT!!!

[lovuian]

37. Heres the ? can we stop WWIII

from these madmen who hold control over nations

[AntiFascist]

59. If this were to escalate to WWIII, then it would most certainly require...

a draft. It's possible that a world war would stir up patriotic fervor so as to increase military recruitment, but probably not enough to meet the needs of all the required "regime change". The resulting clusterfuck might make Iraq look like a picnic.

[Auggie]

99. Even with a draft, does this country have the resources

for ANOTHER battle front? This is just madness.

[Little Star]

40. Bush already losing two wars

as someone on DU said the other day.

[The Backlash Cometh]

41. Sacrificing our kids for votes. You can almost set your clock to it.

[Bucky]

89. Bush always starts his wars right after elections or critical votes

Despite his advisors, this White House's pattern is the scare before the vote and act after a veneer of legitimacy is established. This is saber-rattling, and perhaps goading Iran into striking first. I'm pretty sure Iran won't strike at us first, however. Their leaders, however wicked they are, don't make stupid moves.

[ContraBass Black]

43. Is there a deeper source than this blog?

[FogerRox]

79. Thats light weight stuff

start here:

http://www.ne.jp/asahi/gonavy/atsugi/gonavy604.html

Then try this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com

[Gregorian]

44. Private interests have seized America!

This is neither for nor by the people. This is only for the good of Halliburton and BFEE.

This is not for the good of the country.

America has been taken over by private individuals masquerading as politicians. CEO Bush and Copresident Cheney.


That is, if this carrier is going over for purposes of war. Which it probably is.

[dansolo]

45. Do they really want $4/gallon gas prices right before the election?

Because that is exactly what will happen if we decide to attack Iran.

[Imagevision]

60. Bush has until 01/02/07 to do Iran, Dems would have to back him afterwards

that is if Capt. Whacko insisted on having a US. presence in the middle east. Bush stated that he was the only prez (repug or Dem) who had the balls to use nuklar weapons on Iran.

My question is, how does he get the vote to attack Iran????

[magellan]

83. He doesn't need a vote

He believes he already has the power to do anything he deems necessary in order to "defend the nation".

[Dover]

47. More here > Suggests this will be directed toward Iran AND Syria

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArti

The militarization of the Eastern Mediterranean is broadly under the jurisdiction of NATO in liaison with Israel. Directed against Syria, it is conducted under the façade of a UN peace-keeping mission pursuant to UN Security Council Resolution 1701. In this context, the war on Lebanon must be viewed as a stage of a the broader US sponsored military road-map.

[Gregorian]

50. OMG. On that same page- Threats to Iran unacceptable: Russia foreign minis

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia and China agree that using or threatening force against Iran is unacceptable and presenting Tehran with ultimatums is counter-productive, Interfax news agency quoted a Russian Deputy Foreign Minister as saying.

"The positions of our two countries coincides that the use of force or the threat to use force is absolutely unacceptable," the agency quoted Alexander Alexeyev as saying on Friday when asked about Russian and Chinese policy on Iran.

"Talking to them (Tehran) in the language of ultimatums and attempts to force them into a corner are counter-productive," Interfax quoted him as saying.

[Imagevision]

64. I don't get it? doesn't bush have to get a vote to attack Iran/Syria??

OR, is the fact so much artillery being deployed in advance make this a done deal already!??

[LionInWinter]

91. It's not an "attack" if they shoot first ...

it's a "response".

[Clark2008]

51. So, basically, the only nuclear powered anything in the region will

be OUR ship.

[Blackthorn]

62. Yes, an irony lost on most people.

[Zhade]

105. Well, that plus Israel's nukes (the ones they won't let inspectors see).

NT!

[Dover]

57. When so many politicians found their way to Colorado this summer

I wondered if something big was up.

[helderheid]

63. ONE has - Dennis Kucinich:

www.kucinich.us check the website. Front page.

Bush Administration Plans for a US War vs. Iran
Urgent Letter from Dennis Kucinich

Dear Friends,

The Bush Administration is preparing for war against Iran, using an almost identical drumbeat of weapons of mass destruction, imminent threat, alleged links to Al Qaeda, and even linking Iran with a future 911.

In the past few months, reports have been published in Newsweek, ABC News, and GQ Magazine that indicate the US is recruiting members of paramilitary groups to destabilize Iran through violence. The New Yorker magazine and the Guardian have written that the US has already deployed military inside Iran. The latest issue of Time writes of plans for a naval blockade of Iran at the Strait of Hormuz, through which 40% of the world's oil supply passes. Other news reports have claimed that an air strike, using a variety of bombs, including bunker busters, to be dropped on over 1,000 targets, including nuclear facilities. This could obviously result in a great long-term humanitarian and environmental disaster.

Earlier this year, I demanded congressional hearings on Iran and was able to secure the promise of a classified briefing from the Department of Defense, the State Department, and the CIA. When the briefing was held, the Department of Defense and the State Department refused to show and are continuing to block any congressional inquiry into plans to attack Iran.

Just this past week, the International Atomic Energy Agency called "erroneous, misleading, and unsubstantiated" statements relating to Iran's nuclear program which came from a staff report of the House Intelligence committee. Other intelligence officials have claimed over a dozen distortions in the report, which, among other things, said Iran is producing weapons grade uranium. The Washington Post wrote: "The IAEA called that 'incorrect,' noting that weapons grade uranium is enriched to a level of 90 percent or more. Iran has enriched uranium to 3.5% under IAEA monitoring."

I have demanded that the Government Oversight subcommittee on National Security and International Relations, of which I am the ranking Democrat, hold hearings to determine how in the world the Director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte, viewed the report without correcting the obvious inaccuracies before it was published. Once again, a case for war is being built on lies.

You will recall that four and a half years ago I warned this nation about the deception behind the buildup to war against Iraq. Everything I said then turned out to be 100% right. I led 125 Democrats in opposing the Iraq war resolution in March of 2003. The very same people who brought us Iraq in 2003 are getting ready to bring us a war against Iran.

With your help, I will lead the way to challenge the Bush Administration's march to war against Iran. Please support my campaign for re-election with a generous donation to help continue my work in the Congress. The plan to attack Iran, on its face, threatens the safety of every US soldier serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the countless Iranian lives at risk and the threat to world peace and environmental catastrophes.

With your support, I intend to continue to insist upon:

(1) Direct negotiations with Iran.

(2) The US must guarantee Iran and the world community that it will not attack Iran.

(3) Iran must open once again to international inspections of its nuclear program.

(4) Iran must agree not to build nuclear weapons.

Many of you joined me three years ago as I ran for President to challenge the deliberate lies about WMDs, Iraq and 911, Iraq and Al Qaeda, and the Niger "yellowcake" claims which put us onto the path of an unnecessary, illegal, costly war in Iraq. The Iraq war has caused greater instability and violence in the world community. In the meantime, our government has used the oxymoronic war on terror to trample our Constitution, rip up the Bill of Rights, and rule by fear.

Please join with me as we continue our efforts for the end of fear and the beginning of hope, for international dialogue, for cooperation, and for peace.

Thank you,

Dennis

Permalink to this report

Previous reports

What are they waiting for, the Apocalypse? 7/21/06

What Happened to the Soul of the Democratic Party? 4/6/06

Tax Windfall Profits of Oil Companies 8/17/05

REPORT ARCHIVES

[Amonester]

70. Kick

PNAC's tyranny dicktatoturers about to f-up again?

[Fovea]

72. There won't even be a dead turkey bounce.

There isn't enough willful ignorance left to exploit.
Katrina and Iraq have killed that off.

We will invade, and everyone will ask why NK has the bomb
and we did nothing.

Then, the number 6 military power will kick our asses.

[Clarkie1]

74. Hmm...questionable source. "This can't be happening?"

Can it?

[LiberalUprising]

77. Name one source that insn't questionable

the only chance of sorting things out are history and logic

[hsher]

76. Here we go, folks

Prepare for an extremely interesting 2007.



www.yourmorningleibowitz.blogspot.com
The Daily Show as a comic strip

[FogerRox]

81. Just a regular rotation, if we see 4 + carriers, then its time to shit.

http://www.thiscantbehappening.net /

A light weight fluff piece compared to this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

OR this :

http://www.ne.jp/asahi/gonavy/atsugi/gonavy604.html

[AntiFascist]

84. Well if the USS Enterprise is hit...

then we can say we read about the (MIHOP) plan at DU first.

[FogerRox]

85. yeah, gulp.

[PhilYerHead]

86. we are looking for a boat. I was told five years ago it was too late.

and then on top of that I was told we "americans" would be boat people, fleeing to South America. The person that said this to me did not want to tell me this.

It's coming folks. October Surprise, my ass.

[Kolesar]

87. What? Are Democrats supposed to hold a press conf in the basement...

...of the Hyatt over this?

[ellacott]

96. That's our problem, we don't know how to get our message out

This is why we are always struggled to redefine ourselves from the lies they tell on us.

There will be some liberal guests on news programs. Get on the same page regarding this issue. I'm sure some of these democratic guests have some connections to at some of these people in television. Call and ask to be on the show. Have their staff talk to these outlets urging them to talk about this. Have someone in the press corp ask snow; have them write letters to the editors.

I'm not understanding how our democratic spokespersons are so out of touch.

[StinkyMcPinknose]

94. Check out this BFEE propaganda

trying to explain this away.

http://www.examiner.com/a-319538~Overhauled_carrier_USS...

Anybody buying this horse crap?

[Jcrowley]

95. Pentagon Moves to Second-Stage Planning for Iran Strike Option

Pentagon Moves to Second-Stage Planning for Iran Strike Option

Submitted by davidswanson on Mon, 2006-10-09 18:50. Iran

By Larisa Alexandrovna, www.rawstory.com

The Pentagon's top brass has moved into second-stage contingency planning for a potential military strike on Iran, one senior intelligence official familiar with the plans tells RAW STORY.

The official, who is close to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the highest ranking officials of each branch of the US military, says the Chiefs have started what is called "branches and sequels" contingency planning.

"The JCS has accepted the inevitable," the intelligence official said, "and is engaged in serious contingency planning to deal with the worst case scenarios that the intelligence community has been painting."

A second military official, although unfamiliar with these latest scenarios, said there is a difference between contingency planning -- which he described as "what if, then what" planning -- and "branches and sequels," which takes place after an initial plan has been decided upon. ...

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/14574

[Blackhatjack]

97. Just a few of questions ....

1- Why the rush to get the Eisenhower Group deployed before their scheduled departure date, if this is just standard operating procedure? (Many of the family members are upset about this).

2- If I read correctly, there are minesweepers being deployed to the gulf area --why would there be a need for mine sweepers in the gulf area?

3- Is it possible for Iran, and anyone else with internet access, to locate and spot US ships using Google Earth, or other satellite technology?

4- Why has Congress not stated that Bush needs to come back to them for authorization to enter into any future conflict, and that the authorization they passed allowing force to be used on Iraq is not sufficient to justify an attack on any other Middle Eastern country?

These seem like rational and logical questions to ask given the circumstances we find ourselves in at the moment.

[chill_wind]

106. Regarding our useless Congress- bill laying around in committee

SINCE APRIL

Representative DeFazio of Oregon has introduced a resolution, H.C.R. 391, to express the sense of Congress that the President cannot initiate military action against Iran without congressional authorization. The resolution now has more than 30 co-sponsors, and he is seeking additional support among other House members as well.

Call to action:
Urge your Representative to co-sponsor Rep. DeFazio's "sense of Congress" resolution (H.C.R. 391) forbidding military action against Iran without Congressional authorization.


see whole thread for further details
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...


Light a fire under them!

http://www.workingforchange.com/activism/action.cfm?ite...

[FogerRox]

110. Right now there 4-5 carriers in the Western Pacific.

1- Why the rush to get the Eisenhower Group deployed before their scheduled departure date, if this is just standard operating procedure? (Many of the family members are upset about this).

IIRC the yard was very proud of their preformance in that regard. With 4- carriers in WEs Pac, gettting the Ike out early to rotae with Enterprise, makes sense. With no other CV group in the Atlantic, the NAvy would have to move a CV from maybe.. San Diego

2- If I read correctly, there are minesweepers being deployed to the gulf area --why would there be a need for mine sweepers in the gulf area?

After the Iraq Iraq War, there still maybe some mines floating around. WW2 mines were found for quite a while. And quite frankly, the Persian Gulf is considered a tight area to operate. Coastal frieght, small aircraft. SO to not take mine sweepers and defensive ships that are anti shipping & Anti air. might be considered foolish. Mine sweepers & Destroyers also do anti sub patrol, they have good sonar arrays and crews are trained for exactly this kind of work.

3- Is it possible for Iran, and anyone else with internet access, to locate and spot US ships using Google Earth, or other satellite technology?

Its easy to get general info on deployments that are normal. Google Earth is not real time, IT uses stock pix, some from 4,5, 6 yrs ago. IIRC no-one delivers real time info of this sort in a commercial sense. I would think Iran would need some-one to provide them with data from a sat. Think Russia.

4- Why has Congress not stated that Bush needs to come back to them for authorization to enter into any future conflict, and that the authorization they passed allowing force to be used on Iraq is not sufficient to justify an attack on any other Middle Eastern country?

Congress? NEO CON Congress ? And the Unitary Executive?

On EDIT----

I did a check on movements here. Marines & Navy:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Notice each CV has ships with Harpoon & Sparrow missles, and an Aegis class. They come with the Phalanx system, Re: close in air defense. Those Marine exp. forces are at most 6k troops, AN Expidetionary force is about the equivalent of Army Battalion =6k troops.

This will give you a good idea where our Carriers are:

http://www.ne.jp/asahi/gonavy/atsugi/gonavy604.html

[WilliamPitt]

111. Answer to #2

There has been a mine danger in the Gulf for years:

U.S. Navy ships operating in the Persian Gulf face an unseen threat from underwater mines. Iraq laid several thousand in the first Gulf War, and military officials are also concerned about mines set by terrorists. In the past, the United States has been criticized for avoiding the dull and dangerous job of hunting mines. But as NPR's Eric Niiler reports, the Navy is trying to catch up, using everything from underwater robots to dolphins.

Since World War II, 14 U.S. ships have been sunk or damaged by mines, while only two have been sunk by enemy fire. Sitting underwater until they're detonated by the sound of a passing ship, mines are cheap and effective. Robert Martinage, a senior defense analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington, says mines are used by more than 50 nations, and new technology is making them harder than ever to detect.

During the Gulf War, Iraq blocked U.S. Marines from landing by stringing the Kuwait shoreline with mines. In deeper water offshore, mines also severely damaged two U.S. warships. After the war, minesweepers removed 13,000 mines from the Persian Gulf. But military officials say some may still remain.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94...

...so deploying minesweepers in front of an aircraft carrier in these waters is just prudent.

[npincus]

100. kick

[npincus]

121. MSM ignoring thus far

[chill_wind]

107. "Why Iran attack may be imminent" (DU thread)

props to redacted, also fogerrox and others. Another good recent compilation of facts, links and reports.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[chill_wind]

108. "Meet the Whack Iran Lobby". The OSP is NOT defunct. *NOT.*

Thry are now operating as The Iran Directorate.

DU thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[chill_wind]

109. Thank you for your eternal vigilance, redacted, and the rest of you. nt

K&R.

[EVDebs]

115. Fletcher Prouty's 'secret team' and the secret government

are at it again

http://www.bilderberg.org/st/SecretTeamChapter01.htm

They've end-runned the Constitution and the will of the People. Col Sam Gardiner has already war-gamed this scenario and it comes out a loser for us, yet they're knee deep in the Big Muddy and the damn fool says 'press on'.

[LSK]

112. this is breaking??? It was plastered all over here last week

[chill_wind]

113. DU heads up (link) Kucinich Capitol Hill Briefing Tomorrow

Thank you to eridani.


"On Capitol Hill, Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich is leading a briefing on Wednesday on whether the Bush administration is ramping up for a war against Iran. Among the experts testifying are former UN nuclear weapons inspector David Kay and retired Air Force colonel Sam Gardiner."


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

If you haven't read Gardiner's very recent paper on this:


26 page pdf
http://www.tcf.org/publications/internationalaffairs/ga...

[Leopolds Ghost]

118. If we assume the Iran attack is plausible...why are we relying on nutcases

like David Lindorff, who can't comprehend that Eisenhower was scheduled to go to the Gulf to replace the Enterprise and Lincoln as early as last summer, when the same people were saying that the Enterprise deployment was totally unprecedented and definitely must means war? And oh yeah, the Pentagon says in June (when the war was supposed to begin) that it is a regular rotation and would be replaced by the Eisenhower in, you guessed it, October. Are these "investigative journalists" off their meds?

I have said all along how disastrous an attack on Iran would be.
But this is not evidence. Of anything. We knew the Eisenhower would deploy in October last June, when everybody was saying we'd attack in June. Eisenhower plans we knew about then were obviously not cited as evidence to the contrary. Capeche?

People like Lindorff said "sure, the Pentagon CLAIMS this is a regular rotation and CLAIMS the Eisenhower will in turn replace the Enterprise in October, but by then the war will be well underway, and more troops will be needed."

[bpeale]

120. this is a biggie

the october surprise may be to start another war, then cancel elections and attempt to set up marshall law. see the article at the link.

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/jonas/020

[npincus]

122. kick