Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

FOURTH STRIKE GROUP JOINS 3 OTHER ARMADAS OFF IRAN. GET YOUR WAR ON!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 10:51 AM
Original message
FOURTH STRIKE GROUP JOINS 3 OTHER ARMADAS OFF IRAN. GET YOUR WAR ON!
Edited on Tue Oct-24-06 11:16 AM by Dems Will Win
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/24/73123/443

"We have been through spring practice, now the game is on."
- Capt. David Angood, Composite Warfare Commander (CWC) for USS Boxer (LHD 4) Expeditionary Strike Group


This is it folks. As I have warned, history changes on October 31st. It is now apparent that Bush does intend to have our ships sunk in the GUlf by Iran in a last-ditch effort to save himself and the GOP with a short bounce in the polls caused by a New Pearl Harbor. THe USS Boxer Strike Group has now joined the Iwo Jima Expeditionary Strike Group and the Eisenhower and Enterprise Carrier Groups off the coast of Iran.

This will create a new neo-con reality as the last week before the election will only be news of World War III.

Warfare Commanders: Ensuring Strike Group Success

ESG 5 is comprised of Boxer, Bunker Hill, USS Dubuque (LPD 8), USS Comstock (LSD 45), USS Benfold (DDG 65), and USS Howard (DDG 83). ESG 5 also includes PHIBRON 5, the 15th MEU, Coast Guard Cutter Midgett (WHEC 726) and Canadian Frigate HMCS Ottawa (FFH 341).

The strike group's warfare command is comprised of PHIBRON 5 as Mine Warfare Commander, Maritime Interdiction Commander, Maritime Strike Operations Commander and Amphibious Warfare Commander. The warfare command also includes Howard as Air Defense Commander, Boxer as Information Warfare Commander, Bunker Hill as Sea Combat Commander and the Commanding Officer of the 15th MEU.

The strike group is currently conducting operations in support of the global war on terrorism while transiting to the Persian Gulf.

http://www.emilitary.org/article.php?aid=8125


They have been massing air power and built new air bases all around Iraq:

Despite the misgivings of the military professionals, Joseph Cirincione wrote in the March issue of Foreign Policy that conversations with senior officials in the Pentagon and the White House had convinced him that the decision for war had already been made.

The Washington Post has reported that at least since March, large teams have been working on invasion plans in the Pentagon and the intelligence agencies, while the Iran "desk" at the State Department has been augmented to task force size. It reports to Elizabeth Cheney, daughter of the vice president, who is assistant secretary of state for the Near East. In the Pentagon, a similar organization has been established under Neoconservative Abram Shulsky.
In addition a new outpost has been set up in Dubai to coordinate plans. On October 2, a powerful naval battle group around the giant aircraft carrier Eisenhower sailed for the Persian Gulf and is due to arrive a week before the November Congressional elections to join a similar battle group led by the aircraft carrier Enterprise. Meanwhile aircraft of the U.S. Air Force are being readied in bases surrounding Iran and in distant locations. These forces could deliver destructive power that would dwarf the aerial assaults on Iraq.

http://www.hnn.us/articles/31051.html


Don't forget how much gathering an Armada like this costs. They are not fooling around with exercises anymore. This is not going to be a drill.

The DailyKOS author points out that stocking up on potassium iodide is a good idea for the inevitable nuclear retaliation to the planned Bushco nuking of the Natanz research facility. The author also notes that World War III would knock any vote-stealing and the election itself off the airwaves...

Please RECOMMEND!! THis may be your last chance to try and stop this by getting the word out BEFORE it happens. Once the shooting starts, it will be too late.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bullimiami Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 10:54 AM
Response to Original message
1. if bush and the neocons are that stupid they will likely lose a substantial
portion of our fleet. not to mention the slaughter that is going to happen to the troops on the ground in iraq.

iran is no iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. That is the whole point
Ships sunk, CNN saying it's the New Pearl Harbor, thousands of sailors lost to the new Russian anti-ship missiles.

Then Bush goes on TV and announce he will make a speech to a joint session of Congress on November 8th, the day after the election. There he will pretend he is FDR and ask for a declaration of war and the re-instatement of the draft BEFORE the Dems take over--if they even get close in the new World War III atmosphere.

It's a simple, evil plan.

Then we continue to bomb and sabotage the Iranian oil fields to keep the oil in the ground.

I really don't see what other choice a Gangster President has...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bullimiami Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #5
31. advanced sunburn missles. iran is supposed to have plenty of them.
is bushco that stupid?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davekriss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 09:17 PM
Response to Reply #5
92. That's just too evil...
...with too destructive consequences to the capitalist war lords within the United States and friends outside. It won't happen.



(However, I did bookmark this thread just in case... ;) )
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 10:42 PM
Response to Reply #92
100. Too evil? What about 911? LIHOP at least.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-25-06 01:18 AM
Response to Reply #92
113. So they'll get our military personnel killed to advance a political agenda


THAT'S AN OUTRAGE!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sybylla Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-25-06 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #5
131. LOL - that is so Post 9/11
Seriously, I can't say I haven't thought the same thing myself. Some things have been happening in my neighborhood that haven't happened since just before we went into Afghanistan and Iraq. Definitely signs of military preparations for something. (Can't elaborate - in the past elaborations on military activites have been banned)

Your post truly would have been thought a joke before 9/11, before Iraq, before the administration began fucking up everything they could just to make a profit for themselves and their buddies.

Now, it is so close to the realm of possibility that I fear what our lame duck congress will do between the elections and the start of the new session under Democratic leadership. I expect pervasive unsportsmanlike behavior if even one house is turned over to Dem control. And I fear my draft-age sons will suffer from the pukes' need for revenge.

:toast: Here's to hoping our conspiracy theory remains a theory for a very long time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #1
11. Oh, come on. Ships are fungible. You can have them here or there.
Paraphrasing Rumsfeld.
"Oh, come on. People are fungible. You can have them here or there."

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0421-02.htm

Published on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 by the Boston Globe
Rumsfeld's 'Fungible' Facts
by Derrick Z. Jackson

DEFENSE Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was offensive enough when he intimated last week that US troops were as interchangeable as automotive factory parts. Irritated at a question from a reporter about why 20,000 American troops had to stay 90 days longer than expected in Iraq, he said: "Oh, come on. People are fungible. You can have them here or there."

The Bush administration has used the term "fungible" before. It withheld $34 million from the UN Population Fund. "Money is fungible," said State Department spokesman Richard Boucher as the administration hid behind reports of coerced Chinese abortions to deny funds to the rest of the world. Rumsfeld has said that any accusations that the United States invaded Iraq to control its oil supply are "utter nonsense. Oil is fungible. People that have it will want to sell it, and it doesn't matter who they sell it to."

Now soldiers are the latest commodity in a war where it did not matter who the United States sold it to. Rumsfeld says America needs to keep troop numbers up to quell the chaos in Iraq. The last three weeks have been the deadliest for the Americans in the 13-month invasion and occupation of Iraq. Since March 31, about 100 US soldiers have died -- as of yesterday, one-seventh of the war's 706 fatalities. "In the end, it will be successful," Rumsfeld said.

US soldiers are already successful at killing Iraqis. In the invasion itself, from mid-March to May 1, 2003, US and British forces killed Iraqis at a rate of 60-1, according to the Cambridge-based Project for Defense Alternatives. Rumsfeld boasted that Iraqi military personnel would become our loyal friends once "they are persuaded that the regime is history."

<snip>

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
survivor999 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #11
82. fungiform?
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheBaldyMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-25-06 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #82
139. fungibles: Scots Law term = perishable goods !
I am not kidding. Like stuff with a short shelf life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
133724 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-25-06 02:10 AM
Response to Reply #11
114. Plug & Play People....
It didn't work for Boeing; Lockheed or any of the other major defense contractors... G*D these people are stupid....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coalition_unwilling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #1
49. Can you say 140,000 U.S. POWs and 50,000+ U.S. mercenaries as
hostages?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
savemefromdumbya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #1
63. People will also feel a DRAFT
that's not going to win the GOP votes either!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 10:55 AM
Response to Original message
2. Get your caps lock off.
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 10:59 AM
Response to Original message
3. Wanna see a Dem win on Nov 7? Go ahead and attack Iran!
You damn idiots! The country will NOT rally around this war. They will be FURIOUS!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #3
15. Don't count on that. People tend to support efforts where troops deployed.
At least in the beginning of the operation. National identity kicks in. And we put the troops first in our thinking. Once they get committed, we are forced to support to some extent.

The junta knows this and is using troop deployment in contrived wars as a means of basically holding US military personnel hostage! They threatening Congress with: Support our war or you are not supporting the needs of our good men and women in battle. Once boots are on the ground, it is damned hard for Congress to vote no on $$ for them... and the heist of the US Treasury, the Rumpelbushkin trick of turning soldiers' blood into gold for his patrons, continues.

Once in the theater of war, the troops are hostage and the people pay and pay to keep them alive.

Catch 22 and Chaney knows it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #15
70. Not any more
For that kind of support you have to either shock the population like they did on 9-11, or you have to pave the way months in advance to get the country behind you like they did with Iraq. They no longer have that advantage or power.

If they want to attack anyone right now, they are on their own and I don't think they can pull it off without disasterous results including their own end.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 06:29 PM
Response to Reply #70
81. results = disaster
with everything they have done. I do agree with you, this time it will not fly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 11:54 PM
Response to Reply #15
105. Bull-fucking-bull-shit.
if this were to come to fruition, EVERY single repug outside of texas, florida, and oklahoma will go belly up on election day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-25-06 08:41 AM
Response to Reply #105
126. Hope you are right
Me, I just don't have that much faith in people responding with thought right off.

Logic seems to happen slowly for most people DUers are not the norm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #3
41. If this happens at all
it'll happen after the election, if Republicans keep the Congress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #41
74. Maybe--they have more to gain before...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raksha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 09:05 PM
Response to Reply #3
90. My sentiments exactly--this is NOT going to bail out the neocons.
It will sink them once and for all. But we still have to get the word out, and most important--someone in the press needs to confront them PUBLICLY about it. If necessary, force them to lie about their intentions and get the lie on record.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fierce Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 10:59 AM
Response to Original message
4. Look, don't we get one of these every month or so?
Something saying "THIS is it!" or "No, AUGUST 17 IS IT!" I'm willing to listen, but after awhile all I hear is "Wolf! WOLF!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. True, but what we have never had before is prep to use nukes
and the gathering of one of the largest Armadas since WWII off the coast of Iran.

You must admit that is a new "wrinkle".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
One_Life_To_Give Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #6
44. Thats only a third the "Armada" used in Iraq invasion.
Two fleet carriers, one at the end of it's scheduled deployment and two baby carriers of an amphib group do not an armada make. Particularly for a power that has a dozen fleet carriers plus another dozen escort/amphibious carriers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wiley50 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #44
76. But, Add It To The "Huge NATO Naval Armada In Eastern Med"

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NAZ20061001&articleId=3361


The Eastern Mediterranean, a Second Front guarded by NATO?

There has been a significant build-up of military force, including naval power, in Lebanon and the waters of the Eastern Mediterranean. This force is composed of troops and naval vessels from several NATO countries including Italy, Spain, France, Turkey, Germany, and the Netherlands.

NATO's Operation Active Endeavor, implemented in the wake of 9/11 is fully integrated into the U.S. sponsored War on Terrorism. The Operation is overseen by the Commander of NATO Allied Naval Forces, Southern Europe based in Naples.

In this context, a NATO naval task force of warships has been monitoring the Eastern Mediterranean since late 2001, years before the Israeli aerial siege of Lebanon (2006). This task force of NATO warships has been trained and prepared for a prolonged operation in the Eastern Mediterranean since 2001.45

According to one Israeli source, the NATO military presence in the Eastern Mediterranean is part of the war plans pertaining to Syria and Iran:

This expectation has brought together the greatest sea and air armada Europe has ever assembled at any point on earth since World War II: two carriers with 75 fighter-bombers, spy planes and helicopters on their decks; 15 warships of various types 7 French, 5 Italian, 2-3 Greek., 3-5 German, and 5 American; thousands of Marines French, Italian and German, as well as 1,800 U.S. Marines. It is improbably billed as support for a mere 7,000 European soldiers who are deployed in Lebanon to prevent the dwindling Israeli force of 4-5,000 soldiers and some 15-16,000 Hezbollah militiamen from coming to blows as well as for humanitarian odd jobs. () So, if not for Lebanon, what is this fine array of naval power really there for? First, according to our military sources , the European participants feel the need of a strong naval presence in the eastern Mediterranean to prevent a possible Iranian-U.S.-Israeli war igniting an Iranian long-range Shahab missile attack on Europe; second, as a deterrent to dissuade Syria and Hezbollah from opening a second front against America and Israel from their Eastern Mediterranean coasts. 46

In the case of a war with Syria and Iran, NATO forces in the Eastern Mediterranean would no doubt play a decisive role. The Eastern Mediterranean would become one of several fronts, which could include Iraq, Turkey, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the Persian Gulf.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-25-06 12:39 AM
Response to Reply #44
111. But in the OP it said these forces are more powerful. Hmmmm....
"These forces could deliver destructive power that would dwarf the aerial assaults on Iraq."
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 11:48 PM
Response to Reply #4
104. Here, I prepared a little visual aid for you:


AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lebkuchen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 11:02 AM
Response to Original message
7. Another Homeland Security terror alert would be more believeable
to the average American. The reason the GOP is losing so many Congressional seats is because Americans are sick of never-ending wars with no exit plans. Starting another war would be the knockout punch to the GOP's lame brain, and whoever takes over as Speaker WOULD have to being an impeachment inquiry. The US wouldn't be able to sustain itself with another two years of autocratic rule.

Checks and balances would have to be reinstated, with the FCC overhauled, and a new law created akin to the former Fairness Doctrine. The propaganda has to stop. The public needs to retake its airwaves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
savemefromdumbya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #7
66. Bush won't look good if there's another terror attack or fake one
maybe he'll stage a fake assassination attempt and go and live in Paraguay?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lebkuchen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 11:54 PM
Response to Reply #66
107. Paraguay....where Ken Lay is?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
savemefromdumbya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-25-06 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #107
146. one way ticket and plastic surgery
I wonder is Barbara Olsen there?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Norquist Nemesis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 11:03 AM
Response to Original message
8. If he does, he'll sink the GOP
Even the GOP will be calling for his head and Impeachment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 11:03 AM
Response to Original message
9. So Bush is going to start another war to go with the one he's already got?
A very UNPOPULAR WAR. How is this going to give the GOP a bounce? All it will do is emphasize the irresponsible administration we've suffered under since Bush moved into the White House.

Another war is going to be more unpopular than Iraq. Our troops are stretched too thin, and the casualties are adding up.

I just don't see it happening, but I never believed the idiot would ever be pResident, either.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #9
14. You are too addicted to reality to understand neo-con
fantasy Strategery.

THey know the upcoming war with Iran and Syria will be unpopular in the long-run. What Bushco wants is dead sailors and sunk ships just for a 4 or 5-day bounce to keep the House and Senate, especially the Senate.

After that, they really don't give a hoot what happens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raksha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #14
91. But this one will be unpopular in the short run,
and Bush is at 35% approval rating, mostly because of the Iraq war. This will sink the Republicans forever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
femrap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #9
20. This regime will institute a false flag operation.....
one of our carriers will be hit by the Iranians....then we MUST retaliate. The patriotism, Fox News, the revenge will start anew.

If we get to Nov. 8 w/o martial law declared, I will kiss Mother Earth!

These maniacs are meanest when pushed into a corner....and they are now in the corner. I wouldn't put anything past these evil murderers. These neo-cons are sadistic sociopaths....they enjoy inflicting pain on others. They love to destroy.

They are capable of doing this...please tell folks so they are forewarned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrDebug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #9
61. Two wars. Don't forget the failure in Afghanistan
That's why Iran can hide the forthcoming election fraud, because nobody mentions Afghanistan anymore since Iraq is even a bigger quagmire. The Bush moral of the story: if at first you don't succeed, make an even bigger mess to hide the first mistake.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenArrow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 06:39 PM
Response to Reply #61
83. one war: The War on Terra (TM)
All current and future wars fall under this rubric.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davekriss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #9
94. Wouldn't that be "the two he's already got"?
Edited on Tue Oct-24-06 09:34 PM by davekriss
That is, the two Bush Wars: Aren't 20,000 US troops (approximately) still in Afghanistan? Isn't the Taliban in control of much of the country outside Kabul? And does the client regime control anything beside the confines of their executive suites? Seems to me even there nothing is settled and victory has not been achieved.

On edit: Oops, missed posts 61 and 83. My bad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no_hypocrisy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 11:04 AM
Response to Original message
10. November Surprise n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneBlueSky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 11:05 AM
Response to Original message
12. they crazy . . . they crazy m-fers, no doubt about it . . .
and they have the largest military arsenal in the history of humankind at their disposal -- bunker-busting nukes, depleted uranium, cluster bombs -- AND the big nukes . . .

no wonder they're planning their escape to Paraguay . . . you would too if you were gettin' ready to start WWIII . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Megahurtz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #12
53. Kick.n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davekriss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #12
95. Wasn't Paraguay one of the destinations of...
...Nazi's at the end of WWII? Fitting, if true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Atman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 11:05 AM
Response to Original message
13. Cobblepot's daughter is Asst Secy of State for the Near East?
You've GOT to be fucking with me. Oh jesus. We're goin' in for sure. The bloodsuckers are running the show.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #13
16. I know, that little fact of Cheney's daughter now being in charge
sealed it for me.

They put her in because this is now operational and they need someone they can control when the anti-ship missiles start flying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 11:09 AM
Response to Original message
17. Naah
I do not believe Iran will launch an attack without appealing to the UN and their close allies (Russia, France) first if they feel threatened. I don't believe England or Germany would support overtly threatening moves by Bush either. In other words the counter pressure would force Bush to back off to a reasonable defensive position.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard Steele Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #17
55. Oh, I don't think that IRAN will attack us. But B*shcabal will SAY they did.
A single missile strikes our ships,
B*sh screams "Iran did it!", and all
the shameless media whores go into
parrot mode to catapault the propaganda.

Decades from now, the REAL truth comes out.

Sure it's a crude formula, but it works.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zodiak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 11:11 AM
Response to Original message
18. Iran cannot retaliate with nukes
Edited on Tue Oct-24-06 11:17 AM by Zodiak Ironfist
There will not be a nuclear retaliation if the Natanz facility is bombed.

One has to actually have nukes for such a retaliation to take place. The IAEA says that Iran has no nukes nor found any evidence of an active nuclear weapons program.

The most nuclear thing that could happen to these strike groups are blowback from their own tactical nukes (carried by wind) or a horrible, horrible, accident on one of our subs.




As far as all of the doubt about the US attacking Iran, I see no reason to bury one's head in the sand and unequivically say it is not going to happen. Such a position is as illogical as saying that an attack is definitely going to happen.

The truth is: we simply do not know what is planned for Iran and have no faith in our govenment being rational or telling us what is really on the table. Not a good place to be in, is it? Under those circumstances, speculation and evidence-gathering is welcomed.

We now have four strike groups there; we have special forces already conducting operations there; we have moved planning to a more operational phase; and we have begun a propaganda against Iran that is reminiscent of the pre-Iraq war propaganada. There is reason to be concerned.

Edit: typos abound
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #18
21. Iran could easily make a dirty bomb and set it off in DC or NYC
No Problemo.

Iran is not al-Queda. Iran is a state with the 6th largest military force in the world.

This is Bushco's ultimate ultimate goal. As Tommy Frnaks said, permanent martial law would soon follow. Oh and no election in '08 for Obamam then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #21
24. That's when those Potassium Iodide pills will come in handy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #24
86. Can you order them online?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kittykitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 11:57 PM
Response to Reply #86
109. Yep! http://www.nukepills.com/ n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zodiak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #21
28. A dirty bomb is not a nuclear bomb
Edited on Tue Oct-24-06 11:28 AM by Zodiak Ironfist
nor does it do much more damage than a regular bomb. It is really just a clean-up problem.

Surely a dirty bomb attack in a US city this is not what was meant from "nuclear retaliation" in the OP since it was the ships that were gathering the Iodine.

I do not buy the fear of the "dirty bomb" any more than I buy the fear that I am more likely to be killed by a terrorist than struck by lightning. Smoke and mirrors all designed to make one fear.

Fear is anathema to freedom-loving people.


Iranian capabilities rely on conventional weapons. They also have a considerable army of conventional weapons potentially strapped to people, but they are still conventional weapons. They can also sink a few of our ships, which are ill-equipped to deal with Russian-built missiles.

ON EDIT: whoops, not the ships collecting Iodine...I see, but a suggestion from a Kossack. Still, the last thing we need to be concerned with is a dirty bomb. What a waste of fissile material on Iran's part. Better to go with a bomb that can only be detected by one method rather than two.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mom cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #21
30. The CIA could also make a dirty bomb!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goforit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. bingo!!! Are they with us or against? The latter I'm sure
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoSheep Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-25-06 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #18
128. Is that photo real?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zodiak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-25-06 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #128
134. If you are referring to my sig line photo
heck no.

That is General Zod (from Superman II) behind the back of Bush as he waves to his supporters.

On another message board, I am known as Zod, and I often tell freepers that I will get them to "kneel before Zod". It is a running joke.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoSheep Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-25-06 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #134
144. I just crawled out from under a rock! lol
It was shrub's hand position that got me curious!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zodiak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-25-06 08:58 PM
Response to Reply #144
145. Oh, well, that is real n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoSheep Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-26-06 08:59 AM
Response to Reply #145
148. All too real.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 11:11 AM
Response to Original message
19. I agree with some of the posters on Kos that this will happen after the election
Edited on Tue Oct-24-06 11:15 AM by glitch
Election only I'd add "with extreme consequences that lead to continuation of (their) government", IF it happens at all.

I say IF despite knowing that they are shooting the moon and are quite capable of this level of blunder, but also in the hope that some tiny form of self-survival still exists somewhere in their atrophied reptilian brains to prevent their taking this course.

We'll see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lovuian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 11:14 AM
Response to Original message
22. I've said it all along that WWIII is coming and May God help us
Bush has destroyed the US army and now its the Navy turns to be destroyed

then AirForce is the only entity untouched but not for long...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coalition_unwilling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #22
50. Iran has a top-notch air defense capability, so they will make
short order of the USAF. Think North Vietnam (no slouch) on steroids and you've got a sense of Iranian air defense capabilities. Oh, well, time for the baby-killers from > 5,000 feet to earn their pay.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #50
78. That's not really true
They have some antiquated Soviet SAM systems (SA-2, SA-3, SA-5 and associated radars), some obsolete US HAWK SAMs and a few dozen operational (and generally antiquated) combat aircraft (MIG-29 excepted).

They have ordered the Russian TOR-M1 point defense missile system to the protect Bushehr reactor complex and the S-300PMU long range SAM system, but it is not clear if any of these systems have been delivered or are operational.

...and none of these systems are effective against US stealth aircraft...



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-25-06 01:02 AM
Response to Reply #22
112. I hope you're wrong.
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. - Albert Einstein
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Julius Civitatus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 11:15 AM
Response to Original message
23. It will happen after the election, as an IMPEACHMENT VACCINE
You don't want to impeach the president while we are attacked by the islamofascists, do you? Are you a traitor?

:sarcasm:

Well, wait and see. All bets are off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #23
25. I agree with your post more than my own. Of course this would work as
an impeachment vaccine, they really don't need to pull anything more extreme.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davekriss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #23
97. I think if they'd go to this extreme, impeachment vaccination,
then they're just as likely to launch false flag attacks pre-Nov 7 to formulate a media rationale for the stunning Republican comeback on election day. Think of the force presence off of Iran as a last-chance contingency, to be used if they need to manufacture "plausibility" for Republican theft of yet another election, and "use" will take the form of a Gulf of Tonkin-like "attack" on our ships with swift retaliation.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Windy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 11:21 AM
Response to Original message
26. someone said... that the sign of inevitable war would be
Edited on Tue Oct-24-06 11:21 AM by Windy
the Enterprise group staying out to sea when the Eisenhower group was deployed. Apparently that has happened. The enterprise group was due to return on a scheduled rotation. if they haven't, and more are joining them, we better start worrying...

Don't forget, these people are power hungry nuts. We have had leaders like this in the world in the past. Just because this is 2006, don't think that evil can't rear its ugly head again...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coalition_unwilling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #26
52. What if the meeting between Bush and the generals this weekend
was really to finalize plans for the attack on Iran, with the smoke and mirrors about re-calibrating Iraq strategy put out to appease the sullen masses?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
resist_vote on paper Donating Member (47 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-25-06 02:56 AM
Response to Reply #26
116. So why are you still sitting in front of your pc?
ITS TIME TO GO DEMO! DAMN!

Go out and say NO!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mrs. Overall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 11:21 AM
Response to Original message
27. Feb. 15, 1898--Repeat?
The USS Maine sunk in Havana Harbor due to an explosion, most likely an internal cause, and the US government and media blamed the Spanish, and public outrage soared, so we went to war with Spain, which benefited many US industries, including the railroad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 11:34 AM
Response to Original message
29. Nice of KOS to report something 6 weeks old.
Edited on Tue Oct-24-06 11:50 AM by FogerRox
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2301544

And quite frankly what is 2000 marines from the MEU? Thats 1/3rd of a battalion. Even with the 5th, 24th, & the 15th MEU in FULL STRENGTH.... thats 6000 marines.

What is being talked about is enough not for an attack, Please consider this from a military perspective. Put 2 more carrier groups (CVG)and another 6 Los Angeles attack subs i the Persian Gulf..... Now thats something to worry about.

Now if you want to talk about the Maine... you would have a much better point. But all this talk of an attack on Iran is so much much poo poo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #29
34. You miss the point.
Edited on Tue Oct-24-06 01:26 PM by Dems Will Win
The point is not to attack Iran and conquer it, take it over.

The strategery here is:

1) Get some ships damaged or even sunk for 24/7 News Cycles through an "incident" next week, saving the Senate, maybe even the House through a Rally Round The Flag 4-day or 5-day bounce. Or they could just start a sneak attack, without any media buildup. That is VERY likely now--and was done during Vietnam when the war was extended to Laos and Cambodia.

2) Use the incident as an excuse to bomb the nuclear research facilities, probably even use a single nuclear bunker buster on Natanz. Or Bushco just starts bombing. Marine raids and armed MEK forces distract the Iranian forces then in Khuzestan, while Special Ops sabotage as much Khuzestan oil production as possible during the bombings and distracting invasions. (just about all the 100 billion barrels of Iranian oil is in LITTLE Khuzestan, next to Iraq)

3) Go to the negotiating table with the Syrians and Iranians and talk truce AFTER destroying Khuzestan production for a decade? Keep the war hot, get a declaration of war from the Republican lame duck session, reinstate the draft--and try to conquer Iran proper with 600,000 troops?

I hope I'm wrong. I hope that October 31st IS just an exercise.

But Liz Cheney in charge of the Near East all of a sudden? Now a fourth Strike Group has joined the armada? Add that to--wait a minute--how many ships does that make now in this mighty armada? All to run a naval interdiction exercise? Why are there so many Marines and minesweepers and amphibious landing craft? You don't need 2 whole carrier groups to interdict little freighters and dhows.

You know, in 1980, the GOP screamed high and low Carter would resolve the Iranian hostage negotiation in October, just before the election. If he had, the GOP pre-effort woud have blunted the electoral impact.

Right now, we have what looks like, and Hersch himself reports this, as the final preparation for a 2 to 3 week war. To try and overthrow the regime will be the official story and set back the nuke progress. But in reality, the real goal is to set back oil production for the Saudis, et al.

I truly do hope I'm wrong.

Could someone count for me the number of ships there are in the Iranian Attack Armada? I believe we could use an accurate count here to beat the media over the head with and get them to finally take a look at this.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stand and Fight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #34
56. You are absolutely wrong.
I'm willing to eat crow if you're not... Rest assured. You are wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FighttheFuture Donating Member (748 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #56
85. why am I not "resting assured" with your statement?!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 11:54 PM
Response to Reply #34
108. How about I shorten your post to 2 words
Maine & Tonkin.

Will that do for ya.


"amphibious landing craft" really? cite them, and what MEU are they from and exactly where are those "amphibious landing craft" right now? And do that without citing any of my posts, if you can.

Yet you fail to mention DESCON 2. Look into DESCON 2.... ok? Check out the age of those destroyers and their planned date to be scrapped. I would offer to you that DESCON 2 is the perfect Gulf of Tonkin squadron. 2 old ships, ready to be scrapped. Then look into exactly where DESCON 2 is, currently and they are not in theater, not yet.

YOu see KOS puled a 2 week old post of mine and posts it up, without citing me, using exactly my set of data.

SO don't be telling anyone, they get the point about the Maine and the gulf of TOnkin. Not witout looking at DESCON 2.

Watch these movements carefully, but cry wolf.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sofa king Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #29
48. Surprise is to be expected.
The Kitty Hawk strike group, largest in the Navy, left Yokosuka on the 20th. If they pushed it up to 30 knots, that group could be off Dubai by the 29th. The Stennis strike group has also been underway in preparation for deployment for the past few weeks. Both are Pacific strike groups and aren't planned for deployment to the Gulf anytime soon... but they are close to operational and at sea.

No Los Angeles class sub is more than four weeks away from the Gulf and could have been sent underway at any time.

Last weekend was a new moon, a perfect time for infiltration. Infiltration units can't be expected to reliably stay in place undiscovered for more than a few weeks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 11:22 PM
Response to Reply #48
101. Oct 22 no moon. Next time with no moon Nov 20th.
I dont see an attack coming. But Maine & Tonkin action, I wouldn't put it past them. If they want to try the newer Tomahawk penatrator variant, the 12 vert launch tubes on the newer LA class subs, make it probably the prime TOmahawk platform, I would think.

Kitty is in the Phillipinnes as of Oct 23rd, that doesn't look like she is steaming to the Arabian Gulf... OK. Stennis is still SoCal as of Oct 18th. SO these 2 are out of it untill the next update.

SO that still leaves 2 CVG's, Ike & Enterprise, Ike still not exactly in theater, being she is still looking to be north of the Suez.

SO unless we get 2 more CVG's and 6+ LA class showing up, aint nutin getting attacked in Iran. Not yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goforit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 01:20 PM
Response to Original message
33. My god!!! Whose gonna stand up to these bastards!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ryanus Donating Member (511 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #33
51. It's supposed to be Congress
I'm not sure what good they are anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ouabache Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #33
93. Iran
&China & Russia and Britain will likely just stand aside, unless they decide to filter intelligence about our modus operandi to those first 3. I still say the reason Britain has gone along with us as is may be for the very reason to clollect intelligence on us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BelgianMadCow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 01:25 PM
Response to Original message
35. I think we need actual location of the groups before speculating
The main question was, are the two battle groups staying off the coast of Iran?

I see nothing in the Kos post about who is where.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smoogatz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 01:25 PM
Response to Original message
36. Oh, for Christ's sake.
No Navy admiral or ship's Captain is going to knowingly sacrifice his/her men/women just save Bush's sorry, incompetent ass. Ain't gonna happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #36
38. Yes, but the ducks are already in the barrel, in the Gulf
Your statement above I'm afraid is unfortunately now inoperative.

If a captain mutinies and steams his duck out of the barrel, then your prediction holds true--but until then George Dubai Bush has all his ducks in a row.

Unfortunately, the perpetraitor has them all lined up in a barrel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smoogatz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. And what event is going to precipitate Iranian attacks on those ships,
Edited on Tue Oct-24-06 01:34 PM by smoogatz
pray tell?

On edit: we always have warships in the Persian Gulf. Not to mention about half of the world's oil supply, passing through it in tankers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mister Ed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #39
64. Maybe a feint designed to trigger Iranian coastal missile defences?
Or, more likely, nothing at all happens, and no war ensues. Please understand that I respect your scruples against rumor-mongering. And I sure hope you're right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skidmore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #36
40. The military has covered is proverbial tush for the past 6 years.
Why should we expect them to suddenly disobey an order now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mister Ed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #36
59. No Commander Would Sabotage His Ship to Save the C-in-C's Ass...
...but every commander in the Navy would sail his ship into danger when ordered to do so. That's what a military man does: face dangers and follow orders.

None of which proves or disproves the notion that we're about to see ships sacrificed to bring about another Pearl Harbor/9-11/Gulf of Tonkin/Remember-the-Maine scenario. Guess we'll know within a few weeks, one way or the other. But if - IF - the Busheviks are really up to such diabolical treachery, then the only thing that could pre-empt it and prevent it would be...well, wide-spread rumors like these that would have the public half-expecting it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paparush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 07:39 PM
Response to Reply #36
87. They just have to be in the area...
Some CIA boys recruit some locals. Equip said locals w/ shoulder fired missile. Said locals venture out in a small craft/dhingy. Locals fire missile which inflicts little real damage.

<[INSERT INSANE MEDIA SPIN BLITZ 24HOURS A DAY>]

Captain Cukoo Bannanas goes before Congress and gives the speach of his life, firey, impassioned, quoting FDR, Churchill, and Jesus.

All hell breaks loose in the middle east, stemmed only when China and Russia announce that they are parking boomers off our coasts.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Stranger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 01:29 PM
Response to Original message
37. Iran is still 4-7 years from being nuclear, it cannot retaliate with nukes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ContraCommando Donating Member (96 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 02:00 PM
Response to Original message
42. Regarding an attack on Iran:
Isnt it true that there are other types of WMD other than nuclear weapons? Like ones of a biological nature, smallpox for example. The soviets made tons of this stuff; I assume that it would be even easier to manufacture these types of weapons and use them than to make nuclear ones. If we unilaterally attack Iran, and they are the religious fanatics that they have been made out to be, might they not use them if they have them?

Point: the same idiots who didnt predict the Iraqi insurgency seem keen to attack another country, according to some reports. What fools, the clock ticks closer to doomsday with every second that His Tyrannical Highness, King George W Gump stays in office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no_hypocrisy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #42
45. Welcome to DU! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ContraCommando Donating Member (96 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #45
46. Thanks, feels like home already.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newyawker99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #42
65. Hi ContraCommando!!
Welcome to DU!! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leesa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 10:12 PM
Response to Reply #42
98. If we unilaterally attack them, why are they "religious fanatics" for responding?
Who wouldn't respond? Of course they will respond...any country would respond if attacked, that's why you don't run around launching unprovoked invasions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
In Truth We Trust Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 02:01 PM
Response to Original message
43. Hand Counted Paper Ballots NOW! ...or Fascism Forever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Megahurtz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 02:28 PM
Response to Original message
47. Here's my take on it:
I know it seems that most Dems are thinking that this may be another "cry Wolf" situation,
and maybe it is, and maybe it's not. It's about 50/50 to me, in fact I'm leaning
a little more in the direction that this could certainly be real.
I think most Dems are making a big mistake not taking this more seriously.
The fact is, Bush&Corp., under Poppy, wanted Saddam bad,
because Poppy had a bone to pick with Saddam.
So they got him.
Poppy also has a hair up his ass for the Ayatollah.
I firmly believe that they want to try to get him in one way or another
before Bush Jr. gets out of office.
It's all in "Poppy's revenge", that's all that it's about.
Things are looking mighty suspicious to me, especially with Bush's purchase
of the 95 million acres in Paraguay next to a huge military base.
I think that we should all be diligent about this.
But the problem is, what do we all do if the NeoCons really do start this War?
What if this time it's the real thing?
I don't want to stay in this Hell Hole!
I want no part of this shit which to me is really nothing more than a glorified family feud!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 03:33 PM
Response to Original message
54. it will not work, people will see right throught it
And they know it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 03:49 PM
Response to Original message
57. Brain dead MSM will report big rally to republicans
Edited on Tue Oct-24-06 03:53 PM by HamdenRice
The most insidious part of this scenario is that if the war starts before the election, Rove will have cover to steal votes shamelessly and on a massive scale, and the media will have cover to report that all the polls are irrelevant and that there was a massive rally around the president swing to the Republicans -- even if there wasn't.

In other words, recently, even a lot of people concerned with election fraud have said the Democrats' lead is too big for the election to be stolen, and that to win, the republicans would have to steal such a truly massive number of votes that vote fraud would be obvious, because the outcome would be so different from polling predictions.

But if they attack Iran, all polling before the attack becomes irrelevant, which gives Rove cover to steal as big as he wants.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #57
67. Good point. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #67
75. A VERY good point
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stand and Fight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 03:49 PM
Response to Original message
58. This is fear-mongering nonsense with NO basis in fact.
I am surprised that it has received 28 recommendations to the Greatest Page. This is nothing more than speculation. Unlike in the lead-up to the Iraq debacle we do not have facts on our side. What we have here is fear-mongered speculation at its worst.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
civildisoBDence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #58
69. I agree with Stand and Fight
But it's easy to see why so many are expecting just this kind of theatre (pun intended.)

Newsprism
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stand and Fight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #69
72. I will concede that point...
We've got some real characters in power right now, but I don't believe that they are dumb enough to carry this out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
teryang Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #58
77. The build up in the order of battle is a fact
Edited on Tue Oct-24-06 06:35 PM by teryang
Yes it is speculation to predict war as a result but the threat of war is exactly what the * junta wants the Iranians to perceive.

The difficulty I have with this scenario, is that it presents an opportunity to go to war, if they wanted it. What is worse, is that an IDF attack at this point could be taken or mistaken for a US operation.

As a practical matter, I have a problem placing more than one carrier group in the Persian Gulf. It's a fish bowl. During the late cold war, John Lehman had this theory that you could operate aircraft carriers within tactical strike range of the Soviet naval bases in Murmansk and dominate the area! This, at the time, was a fantasy, but the Navy was to take it seriously.

There are similar problems, some worse, in the assumption that you can maintain air superiority in the Persian gulf. The anti-ship missiles can pierce the defenses. Assuming that AS missile defense technology has surpassed anything that I know about, could the defensive shield be maintained on a 24/7 basis for very long? I don't think there are enough carriers there to do that for more than a few days. I think one would need at least three CVs to protect one cargru in the gulf (two standoff), tankers airborne at all times, fighters airborne at all times, AWACs airborne at all times. Other than perhaps AWACS, and tankers, I don't think the AF does ASMD exercises with the USN.

Considering all that, I would be inclined to think that this is a bluff, as well, but I'm trying to be reasonable. I think that Cheney and Rumsfeld (like Lehman) completely overestimate the potential of naval power inside such a small body of water. The whole advantage of naval forces is their stand-off capability which is lost to a great extent in relatively small gulf. Of course, if they go with tactical nukes early, it's a different story. The statements they have made about tactical nuclear weapons in the event of a military "suprise" open up a wholly different ballgame, even more speculative.

But this is what the US wants the Iranian leadership to do, speculate. Especially their military. This is why they have the politically reliable irregular forces. The Iranians have built up a respectable conventional military organization and infrastructure for the resources available. I imagine that these generals would prefer not to go to war at this point as they are in an expansion phase which increases their power every month they go without one.

edited for spelling
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MikMouse Donating Member (10 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-25-06 02:50 AM
Response to Reply #77
115. Wave Goodbye to Israel
Relax. This thing will not happen for the simple reason than
hundreds, if not thousands, of modern, accurate, powerful
Iranian missiles are undoubtedly targeted on Israel's nuclear
power plants and other nuke sites. I understand that Israel
gets most of its electricity from Nuke power.

No mass bombing would get all the missles as Hezbolla showed.
Antimissile defenses (Patroit) are a joke. It would probably
turn most of Israel into a massive Chernobyl. The death toll
over time would dwarf the Holocaust.

Goodbye Israel, but then maybe that's what Bush, et al want.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
teryang Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-25-06 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #115
140. i doubt that iranian ballistic missiles are accurate
...considering their cost they have limited payloads. Also the resistancee to strike damage of most nuclear installations is off the charts.

incidentally the effectiveness of Hezbollah rockets into Israel was very limited. Rockets used to strike Israel were a low grade weapon system with poor accuracy. Those rockets' effects were mostly pscyhological as a "terror" weapon against civilians.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-25-06 07:27 AM
Response to Reply #58
124. Please list the other times Sy Hersh has reported incorrect fear mongering
If you are going to call bullshit on this story, then you are saying that Sy Hersh and the New Yorker are categorically wrong -- Sy Hersh, the best investigative reporter in the country and the New Yorker, with the most anal retentive fact checking system on earth.

Hersh reported about this months ago, saying that the Air Force has signed off and believes that this can be done without ground forces, but that at that time, the Army was a little balky. Special forces were back then already on the ground preparing for the attack.

So please explain to me why I should believe you and not Sy Hersh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-25-06 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #124
129. That was pre-Lebanon
That campaign showed pretty well how "sucessful" an air bombing-only campaign would be. It seems like the neocons backed off a little after that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
savemefromdumbya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 03:55 PM
Response to Original message
60. THAT"S WHY THE GOP LOOK SO SMUG!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grizmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 03:57 PM
Response to Original message
62. looks like it might be a damn spooky Halloween
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 04:03 PM
Response to Original message
68. Sink our ships? I doubt it. That's four independent strike groups
If I lived in the ME, I would be scared to death. That is a huge amount of navy hardware! Dam Bush!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HuffleClaw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 04:19 PM
Response to Original message
71. it is a very real possibility i'd say
though whether or not they will actually go through with it is another matter. i really think they'd need an 'excuse' to justify an attack. there WAS that story about a north korean ship, the one they claim has evil scary stuff aboard, which they could use as a 'justification', but i'm not clear how exactly. they could board the ship, 'find' bad stuff, but wouldn't that only be the end of that gambit? i'm not sure how stopping that ship would justify a war.
another possibility is they could pretend iran has attacked first, but there's no reason they would other than in respone to a move by BushCo. forces and then it wouldn't be iran being the instigator. they'd need something they could call a 'crisis', something that would let them act first AND more importantly FAST, before anyone had time to ask questions. a few scenarios come to mind, a 'foiled iranian terror plot or an actual 'iranian (or iranian-backed) terror attack on us soil'. this would have to happen NOW though, or very very soon. i'd read that for their plans of an air campaign moonlight conditions are optimal NOW and won't last more than a few nights so they'll need to act right away.
i'd call this a 50/50 chance of happening.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blackhatjack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 04:24 PM
Response to Original message
73. Suspect Israel Might Attack Iran w/US support in the region....
.... I still believe it will be up to the Pentagon Brass to confront the NeoCons and say "no."

I realize that would be insubordination, but there is no rationality among NeoCons and what this country is capable of doing in the world by force. We, the US, can punish any country more than they can punish us, but they still can inflict more damage on us than the American people are willing to accept to accomplish the NeoCon goal of "world empire."

It really is a question of who will operate the levers of power, and for what reason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IWantAChange Donating Member (974 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 06:24 PM
Response to Original message
79. If in fact this comes to fruition the Bush Administration
will have probably changed the lives of every American from this point forward to the end of time, possibly everyone on the planet. I for one hope it is simply conjecture.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stepnw1f Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 06:26 PM
Response to Original message
80. It Won't Happen.... (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GCP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 06:43 PM
Response to Original message
84. Does Paraguay extradite to the US?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #84
89. Not if you're a Nazi...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bigmack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 08:23 PM
Response to Original message
88. I think this is the roster....
Feel free to correct me. This is at least a provocation to Iran.

Note: I read somewhere in my research that guided missile cruisers carry 120 cruise missiles each.

The US has the following within easy striking distance of Iran (and in harm's way from Iran's defenses):
Two aircraft carriers... each with an entire air wing aboard.
Two helicopter aircraft carriers with 5500 Marines aboard total.
Three landing ships with 1000 Marines aboard each.
Five landing ships with 500 Marines aboard each.
Four guided missile cruisers. (cruise missiles)
Eight guided missile destroyers. (cruise missiles)
Three attack submarines. (cruise missiles)
Miscellaneous minesweepers and supply ships.
A total of about 25, 000 sailors and Marines

Here's the new roster:
Boxer Strike Group
LPD8 Dubuque
LSD 45 Comstock
DDG 65 Benfold
DDG83 Howard
CG52 Bunker Hill
PHIPRON 5
15th MEU
WHEC 726 Midgett
FFH 341 Ottawa

Eisenhower Strike Group
CVN 69 Dwight D. Eisenhower
Carrier Air Wing 7
DESRON Destroyer Squadron 28
CG 68 Anzio
DDG 61 Ramage
DDG 87 Mason
SSN 750 Newport News
T-AOE 8 Arctic (Supply & Tactical)

Enterprise Strike Group
CVN 65 Enterprise
Carrier Air Wing 1
Destroyer Squadron 2
CG 55 Leyte Gulf
DDG 74 McFaul
FFG 47 Nicholas
SSN 757 Alexandria
T-AOE 6 Supply (Tactical)

Iwo Jima Strike Group
Helicopter Aircraft Carrier Iwo Jima
LPD 13 Nashville
LSD 41 Whidbey Island
CG 58 Philippine Sea
DDG 84 Bulkeley
DDG 67 Cole
SSN 706 Albuquerque
24th Marine Expeditionary Unit



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #88
96. Thanks for this
27 Major Ships of the line...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 10:36 PM
Response to Original message
99. IRAN's ***RESPONSE*** to these Gulf "exercises" by the US (BBC):
Yep, they see it for what it is, all right.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6080204.stm

Last Updated: Tuesday, 24 October 2006, 11:04 GMT 12:04 UK

Iran condemns US Gulf exercises



(snip)

Reports say the US-led naval exercises based near Bahrain will practise intercepting and searching ships carrying weapons of mass destruction and missiles.

The Iranian foreign ministry official said the US-led exercises were not in line with the security and stability of the region. Instead, they are aimed at fomenting crises, he said.

He complained that it was the warmongering of neo-conservatives in America who want to win the mid-term US congressional elections in November.


The manoeuvres come as America is pushing for tough UN sanctions on Iran, prohibiting nuclear cooperation or sales of ballistic missiles.

(snip)


I don't doubt that if they thought it would give them what they want, the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld cabal would sink a US ship, maybe even with a nuclear explosion, and blame it on Iran. I am hoping very, very hard that this does not happen, but I fear it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sce56 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 11:23 PM
Response to Original message
102. I don't get it how would they start the war they need congressional
approval to attack Iran don't they?

October 17, 2006,Will be remembered as the Enabling day of the 21st Century!
"The government will make use of these powers only insofar as they are essential for carrying out vitally necessary measures..."
~Adolf Hitler, March 23, 1933, before the German Parliament (Reichstag) as he urged them to pass his "Enabling Act"

Got Fascism Yet?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 11:43 PM
Response to Original message
103. CALM DOWN PEOPLE, dont cry wolf, watch the troop & ships carefully
Scott Ritter says they dont have the material in place. I'm telling you the same thing for 2 weeks. Watch, don;t trust, & verify.

Dont get me wrong, I dont trust BushCo, and a Maine & Tonkin action, I wouldn't put it past them. If they want to try the newer Tomahawk penatrator variant, the 12 vert launch tubes on the newer LA class subs, make it probably the prime TOmahawk platform, I would think.

Kitty Hawk CVG is in the Phillipinnes as of Oct 23rd after sailing from Japan, that doesn't look like she is steaming to the Arabian Gulf... OK. Stennis is still SoCal as of Oct 18th. SO these 2 are out of it untill the next update.

SO that still leaves 2 CVG's, Ike & Enterprise, Ike still not exactly in theater, being she is still looking to be north of the Suez as of Oct 25th.

SO unless we get 2 more CVG's and 6+ LA class showing up, aint nutin getting attacked in Iran. Not yet.


SO please stop yelling wolf



Some of us have been folowing this for a while, There aint shit in theater right now. ANd without some major arrivals, nothing cam be done. The largest ordinance that can be delivered by the Navy is the Tomahawk, see below. The true Top of the line bunker buster is dropped froma c-130, the C-130 is a land based plane, not carrier based. This makes any conventional move extremely Limited. Here an old post of mine, where it is outlined exactly what these ships carry and what things are used for, read thru it and you might realize that we have next to nothing in theater, the God Damned IKE CVG just left Italy for criss sakes.......:

15th & 24th Marine Expeditionary Units on the move

Strike group sails from San Diego Sept. 13th for the Western Pacific. Includes 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit
ESG 5 is comprised of Howard, USS Boxer (LHD 4), USS Dubuque (LPD 8), USS Comstock (LSD 45), USS Benfold (DDG 65) and USS Bunker Hill (CG 52). The strike group also includes Amphibious Squadron 5, the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit, Coast Guard Cutter Midgett (WHEC 726) and Canadian Frigate HMCS Ottawa (FFH 341).
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,114365,00.html


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.
http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=40467



You see... another carrier group should be place by the 21st. WE are talking about more than a few Tomahawks.

USS Eisenhower to deploy to Mideast

The aircraft carrier battle group is scheduled to sail Tuesday from Norfolk to relieve the USS Enterprise. <snip> The Enterprise left Norfolk on May 2, along with the cruiser USS Leyte Gulf, the destroyer USS McFaul, the frigate USS Nicholas and the attack submarine USS Alexandria.

http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/dp-38837sy0sep28,0,6555714.story?coll=dp-news-local-final

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&tid=800&ct=4

-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

Los Angeles-class attack submarine USS Newport News-SSN-750
Carries Tomahawks:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/ssn-750.htm

The Enterprise carrier group has been in the area for a while:

Enterprise, the flagship of Commander, Carrier Strike Group (CSG) 12, and Commander, Destroyer Squadron (DESRON) 2, along with Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 1, will conduct maritime security operations and fly missions in support of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom as part of U.S. Fifth Fleet while in the region.

http://www.wtkr.com/Global/story.asp?S=5355276&nav=ZolHbyvj

The Enterprise Carrier Strike Group also includes:

-guided missile cruiser USS Leyte Gulf-CG-55
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&tid=800&ct=4

ARLEIGH BURKE - class Guided Missile Destroyer USS McFaul-DDG-74
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

the frigate USS Nicholas-FFG-47
Armament: one Mk 75 76mm/62 caliber rapid firing gun, MK 32 ASW torpedo tubes (two triple mounts), one Phalanx CIWS
http://navysite.de/ffg/FFG47.HTM

Los Angeles-class attack submarine USS Alexandria-SSN-757
Any boat of this class may launch a Tomahawk cruise missile from its horizontal torpedo tubes. The last 31 boats of this class also have 12 vertical launch tubes specifically for the purpose of launching Tomahawks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_class_submarine


The Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) is a short range missile intended to provide self-protection for surface ships.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/rim-162.htm

The Harpoon missile provides the Navy and the Air Force with a common missile for air, ship, and submarine launches. The weapon system uses mid-course guidance with a radar seeker to attack surface ships.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/agm-84.htm

Tactical Tomahawk Penetrator Variant missile
On 27 May 1999 Raytheon was awarded a $25,829,379 undefinitized cost-plus-incentive-fee/cost-plus-fixed-fee, ceiling amount contract for the modification of the Tactical Tomahawk missile to the Tactical Tomahawk Penetrator Variant configuration as part of the Second Counter-Proliferation Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration. The Tactical Tomahawk missile will be modified to incorporate the government-furnished penetrator warhead and the hard-target smart fuze. Four Tactical Tomahawk Penetrator Variant missiles will be assembled to conduct the advanced concept technology demonstration testing. Work will be performed in Tucson AZ and is expected to be completed by March 2003.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/bgm-109.htm

There is some info being copied all over the net, that the Eisenhower (CVN 69) is a
nuclear battleship, which I have never heard of, ever. As you can see from this picture
posted @ navy times, the Eisenhower is indeed a carrier.



Families and friends watch on the pier at Norfolk Naval Station, Va., as the aircraft carrier Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) gets underway on Tuesday. Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Joshua Glassburn / U.S. Navy

NORFOLK NAVAL SHIPYARD, Va. The Norfolk-based aircraft carrier George Washington entered the dry dock at Norfolk Naval Shipyard in Portsmouth, Va., on Sept. 29, the first step in a $300 million availability that will prepare the ship to replace the Yokosuka, Japan-based Kitty Hawk in 2008.

http://www.navytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2146364.php



USS George WashingtonCVN-73

Rear Adm. (lower half) Scott H. Swift has been assigned to the post at U.S. Naval Forces, U.S. Central Command, in Bahrain. Swift commanded Carrier Air Wing 14, which is assigned to the USS Abraham Lincoln.

http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=40502


.. as deputy commander, U.S. Naval Forces, U.S. Central Command, Bahrain. Swift is currently serving as deputy executive officer for Naval Aviation and Tactical Air Systems, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Washington, D.C.

http://www.defenselink.mil/Releases/Release.aspx?Releas...

SOooo.....Adm. Swift worked for Sec Def Rumsfeld.

I now feel a little stronger about the move to Swift @ CenT COm in Bahrain. In Essense it seems Rumsfeld has put one of his men into an important position, after a promotion earlier this year. And we all know the kind of officers that get promoted under SEC dEF Rummy.

On edit:

Adm. Swift is also President of the TAILHOOK officers ASsociation:


PRESIDENT CAPT SCOTT H. SWIFT,USN
Source: SDSU, AVROC 1979
Designation: Naval Aviator, 1980
Assignments: VA-94 (Nugget), VA-122 (Instructor), CVW-11 (CAG LSO), VA-97 (Department Head), Naval War College (Honors in Athletics), Strike Fighter Weapons School, Pacific (CO), VFA-97 (CO), OPNAV (Hornet Requirements), VFA-122 (CO), CVW-14 (CAG)
Hours/Traps: 4,000+/1,000+
Residence: Falls Church, Va.
Present Empl: Office of Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics/Air Warfare)
Other: 1989 U.S. Pacific Fleet Landing Signal Officer of the Year, 1992 Commander Michael G. Hoff, U.S. Pacific Fleet Attack Aviator of the Year, Participated in Operation Southern Watch, Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom



http://www.tailhook.org/Officers.html


What may be important about this promotion is that it puts an expert in carrier ops, on the ground @ COmCent. If I was about to ramp up carrier air ops, I would want an experienced air ops guy on the ground. That would be Admiral Swift.




Iranian Nuke sites from:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke-fac.htm


Bunker Busters





This is the the GBU-28 or the BLU-113, is 19 feet (5.8 meters). It weighs about 4,400 pounds. The GBU-27/GBU-24 (aka BLU-109) is nearly identical to the GBU-28, except that it weighs only 2,000 pounds (900 kg). It is less expensive to manufacture, and a bomber can carry more of them on each mission.



Air-to-air view of GBU-28 hard target bomb on an F-15E Eagle.




The MOAB weapon is based upon the same principle as the BLU-82 Daisy Cutter, except that it is larger and has a guidance system. The weapon is expected to produce a tremendous explosion that would be effective against hard-target entrances. From :

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/moab.htm



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
magellan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-25-06 03:31 AM
Response to Reply #103
117. Another piece of info re the Anzio (Ike Strike Group)
The Anzio (CG-68) is on a three-day stop in Montenegro as of Monday, Oct 23.

http://www.navytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2304557.php

The bottom of the article is interesting; says nothing about the Persian Gulf:

"The 567-foot-long guided missile cruiser named for the site of a beachhead World War II invasion of Italy by Allied troops left its home port of Norfolk, Virginia, earlier this month for joint drills and exercises in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea."

But an article in Stars & Stripes says of the Ike Group (while it was in Italy):

"They are slated to relieve the Norfolk-based aircraft carrier USS Enterprise and its strike group, now in the Arabian Sea supporting operations in Afghanistan."

I'm with you, FogerRox, this bears watching, but so far it all sounds like normal task group deployment to me. It could be that the only reason they hurried to get the Ike out of home port was because the Enterprise is due to be relieved early November. We should see if the Enterprise hangs around after the Ike gets there and what else shows up for these exercises at the end of the month before fretting too much.

The exercise concerns me more than anything. Iran is already reacting to it. There's no doubt it's calculated to be provocative.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
legin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-25-06 03:45 AM
Response to Reply #103
119. Do they still need 4 carrier groups when they are next door
in Iraq ?

just a thought.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-25-06 07:22 AM
Response to Reply #119
123. My thoughts, exactly
It seems a lot of speculation here about what is needed is based on prior wars, during which the US presence was much more limited, and therefore more carrier groups were needed.

With air bases in Iraq, why would they need carrier groups????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
magellan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-25-06 07:33 AM
Response to Reply #123
125. The only reason I can think of
...is that flying in and bombing sites is more dangerous in general than launching ICBMs from a ship. Iran has a better air defense net than Iraq did.

At the end of the day it may be a moot point, though. If hostilities start, Iran has the ability to attack our ships as well as take on any aircraft we might fly in. Either way it won't be a "cakewalk". I just hope we don't have to find out how wrong BushCo are on this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-25-06 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #123
138. What planes are deployed at the Land bases in Iraq?
Carrier planes, don't ya think? There are too few B-2's to risk in a high threat environment like Iraq, we've flown them from Germany, as well as the B-1's, F-117's & B-52's, for just that reason. Which leaves Bahrain, if we launch a major attack from Bahrian, that leaves Bahrian open to retalliation.

Again, ask your self what ordinance you plan to use, & how do you deliver said ordinance, then set up a logistics trail to make it happen.

Watch DESCON 2, which includes 2 old destroyers, scheduled to be scrapped in about a year, prime "TONKIN" candidates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-25-06 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #119
137. If Bush is going to attack Iran, consider what ordinance would you use?
And how do you deliver that ordinance.

Nuke?
Conventional?
If conventional, the MOAB is too heavy for any plane except for the C-130, a land based aircraft. SO it would have to use Bahrain as a base. That is polotically problematic. The next biggest bang is probably the Tomahawk. The best platform that launches Tomahawks is the LA class sub. Next is Carrier aircraft ordinance, 2200 to 4000 pnds. 20 to 40 ft crater in soft soil, really not effective for rock caves or Hardened underground bunkers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Count Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 11:54 PM
Response to Original message
106. Vote GOP - cuz losing only 2 wars is not enough.....Catchy!
Edited on Tue Oct-24-06 11:54 PM by The Count
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davekriss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 11:59 PM
Response to Original message
110. Imminent threat
Doesn't massing naval forces off one's shore meet the definition of "imminent threat", so by Article 51 of the UN Charter Iran would have a right to defend itself? Just askin' is all.

One of the most important principles from the days of Nitze/Kennan Deterrence and Containment was the notion of symmetry. What is right and good for one nation is right for all nations; what is wrong and criminal for one nation is criminal for all nations. Where does that put the moral high ground in this affair between nations?

(The U.S. always threw it's covert weight around, but overtly we appeared to maintain this civilized principle. Bush basically threw that away and it may take generations of havoc and insecurity before a new international equilibrium is reached.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-25-06 03:38 AM
Response to Original message
118. Will Bush really dispose of the troops now in Iraq that readily?
If Sistani doesn't declare jihad upon such an attack, his influence is at an end, as other Shi'ites certainly will.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anitar1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-25-06 05:47 AM
Response to Original message
120. I think the Ncons better be worried about China.
As i understand it, they are getting oil from Iran.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-25-06 06:39 AM
Response to Original message
121. Wag the Dog! Bag the Election! The October surprise is really
a November surprise!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robcon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-25-06 07:16 AM
Response to Original message
122. This is stupid.
Rove is NOT stupid. This is not happening. It's a conspiracy theory, IMO, with NO basis in fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-25-06 09:12 AM
Response to Reply #122
127. Then who's puting out those stories about carrier groups moving to Iran?
What's the factual basis for your theory that this is a conspiracy theory?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Retired AF Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-25-06 10:27 AM
Response to Original message
130. I'm not sure how I feel about this info being splashed all over
the internet espescially since my son Eric is on the Boxer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mnhtnbb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-25-06 11:00 AM
Response to Original message
132. Tin foil hats, anyone, for Halloween?
Edited on Wed Oct-25-06 11:01 AM by mnhtnbb
I know Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld are evil, but I have a hard time believing this one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheBaldyMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-25-06 11:06 AM
Response to Original message
133. With the greatest of respect, no one is that stupid.
Edited on Wed Oct-25-06 11:06 AM by TheBaldyMan
even the neo-cons know that they can't afford any widening of the conflict.

Any military action would be completely outside the UN mandate for sanctions against Iran. The carefully worded resolution on sanctions proscribed any military action without further authorisation from the security council. This is not a matter for conjecture, it is simple fact.

If the USA attacks Iran the sanctions will fail because the Bush administration will have ignored the UN (again) and will isolate America even more than it is now. This means that N. Korea will not be the only nation cocking a snook at the US. Everyone and their dog will start treating the US like a comedy superpower.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goforit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-25-06 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #133
135. Isolated America??? That has already long time happenned post Iraq!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheBaldyMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-25-06 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #135
136. not completely, some countries still take the US seriously but
any action on Iran would make it impossible for the US to negotiate with anybody or intercede on behalf of anyone. Even Israel would show them a cold shoulder. It would poison what little influence America has left.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-25-06 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #133
141. maybe the US will provoke/orchstrate an
attack on US interests. As per the Downing Street Memos, this is what the US was trying to accomplish prior to the invasion of Iraq.

If we're "attacked" then of course we'll have to fight back. No fancy UN crap-- self-defense. Much easier to sell to the public.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheBaldyMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-26-06 07:30 AM
Response to Reply #141
147. Thankfully the Iranians are far too smart to fall for that one.
The are a nation that has been on the receiving end of too much aggression in the past, they know that striking the first blow would be fatal, retaliation would be fatal and just standing there being pummeled would be fatal. Thousands of civilian casualties and perhaps billions of dollars in infrastructure damage.

In short, the Iranians have nothing to gain from a fight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Conan_The_Barbarian Donating Member (404 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-25-06 06:22 PM
Response to Original message
142. OH NOES!1!1!!1!one
yes, I'm sure that's exactly what is gonna go down... I really think some of us think the GOP is much more diabolical than it is. Quite honestly I think their just trying to do their best just to keep their heads above the shit storm they've already conjured up.

oh maybe... just maybe... WE'RE ON THE ROAD TO WORLD WAR 3!!

ALL ABOARD THE CRAZY TRAIN! NEXT STOP......... OBLIVION!!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeHereNow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-25-06 06:56 PM
Response to Original message
143. "Deep Background" Writer Giraldi on Cheney's plan for Iran
I've posted this article repeatedly on DU when
the topic of Iran has come up. I'm posting it again
for anyone who is interested.
http://www.amconmag.com/2005_08_01/article3.html


"August 1, 2005 Issue
Copyright 2005 The American Conservative

Deep Background

In Washington it is hardly a secret that the same people in and around the administration who brought you Iraq are preparing to do the same for Iran. The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheneys office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doingthat Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attackbut no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections."

Read this part again...
"As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran
actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against
the United States."

BHN

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Oct 18th 2021, 12:39 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC