It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"Prepare to Deploy" - US Naval forces on Iran

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 10:27 PM
link   
[edit on 19-9-2006 by Agit8dChop]




posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop


Then a request for fresh eyes ( someone help what does that mean? ) set for the plan of a naval blockade on Iranian interests.


your own source answers that question in the very same paragraph it's mentioned in originally:



The CNO had asked for a rundown on how a blockade of those strategic targets might work. When he didn't like the analysis he received, he ordered his troops to work the lash up once again.




So what exactly are we planning for the end of September to ensure a naval blockade would be ready by Oct 1?


that's not what your source says. it says be ready to move out of port by oct 1, not have the blockade up and running by oct 1.

being ex-navy and having many friends still in the service, i can tell you that to my knowledge, none of them who werent already scheduled for a normal deployment have gotten new orders. if this story were true, it would be very easy to verify....leaves would be cancelled, large scale resupply operations at all US naval ports would be ongoing right now in order to prepare for an oct1 deployment.....none of which i've been seeing. so sorry, but i dont buy it.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 11:12 PM
link   
I didnt say a blockade would be in place, i said it would be READY.
And thats what they are stating

' TO BE READY by OCT1 '

This was only released 2 days ago (18th) so give it a bit more time until you refuse to believe simply because ur mates havent updated you.

This was a story being run by time magazine, and stated in a critiue that the sources and timing sugget direct reporting from the whitehouse.

Maybe its just a power show from america to iran saying we are prepared to do what we have to do..

but i dont think this should be dismissed simply because you personally find it unlikely.

He stated a rundown on HOW THE BLOCKADE Would work..
now on how to construct a blockade.. so that means the plans have already been drawn up, he just didnt like certain aspects of them, and asked them to be re-revised.

Why would plans for a blockade be drawn up, given to naval forces, instructed to be ready bt oct 1.. if it isnt likely>?

[edit on 19-9-2006 by Agit8dChop]



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 11:26 PM
link   
I was so with you till the last 3 lines. WTF? Shouldn't a man of your smarts be anti-war?



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 11:30 PM
link   
Anti war all the way.
But when its enevitable, and everyones pushing in the direction, I beleive it is smart to be prepared.

Obviously, neither of thes two nations have any interest in ending this dispute peacefully.

So should we wait until the final throws to prepare?
But thanks for the honest criticism, ill down grade it a bit!


[edit on 19-9-2006 by Agit8dChop]



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 11:38 PM
link   
Has anyone actually read the Time article, rather than just read the excerpts that the somewhat non-neutral website picked and chose to publish? I haven't, but maybe reading it would provide some context. And from the Time website:



TIME

Cover Package: What War With Iran Would Look Like (And How To Avoid It)

Cover Story: The Plan for War Against Iran - A conflict is no longer quite so unthinkable. Here's how the U.S. would fight such a war--and the huge price it would have to pay to win it

A Date With a Dangerous Mind: Iran's President EXCLUSIVE: TIME's face-to-face meeting with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the man whose swagger is stirring fears of war with the U.S.


The way this sounds to me is the article is a fictional scenario leading to war, and how such a war would be fought, not discussion of current real world operations. Before we start posting emotive diatribes, I suggest reading the actual article to get some context first would be prudent. Just a thought.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 11:43 PM
link   
hMMMMMMMMMMMMM,

points noted, maybe i should look a little harder! ;(



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Yep, the speculative title gives it away. Nice catch.

God Bless the internet and rampant speculation. It's amazing we haven't blown ourselves up already, given how things get twisted



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 11:49 PM
link   
Ah, don't sweat it too much Agit8dChop, it happens to the best of us when we are passionate about something. I've been guilty of it a few times myself, which is why I'm very cautious with quoting someone who has quoted something I haven't seen. You just never know how the context can be skewed by those with there own agenda. Happens on both sides of the fence these days.

Thanks for the praise eaglewingz!



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 10:12 AM
link   
You know, Time did a similar piece on what a war with Iraq would look like just before Gulf II.

They're picking this topic because it's a likely scenario. Plus some other very reliable reporters are harking that the administration is set on a path to war with Iran: Seymore Hersch namely.

I wouldn't completely dismiss the idea that we could blockade and airstrike Iran soon. There's been enough buzz inside the Beltline about impending airstrikes and blockades now for some months -- and it's only getting stronger.

Any other D.C. folks wanna back me up on this?



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 05:05 PM
link   
Oh, I'm not dismissing it as a possibility. The US has a number of operational warfighting plans throughout the world, Iran just being one of them. I was simply pointing out that the original post made it sound like it was about to happen, and that the US Navy was sailing with a date in mind to commence a blockade. Maybe it is, but it is out of context with the prime reference material, being the Time article, and came about because the initial website linked by the OP (can't remember it's name, and the original post has been edited clean) misrepresented the content.

So, no problem with the fact that it might happen. My problem was with the secondary source, the quoting, and the context.



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 06:22 PM
link   
I get the sense that all these events that prior to 2k were very taboo are now being pushed on us in subtle sense, maybe to open us up to the possibility that they arent all that extreme.

We have TV Shows now showing nuclear bombs detonating in American cities.
We have TV Series depicting US Soilders in battle with middle eastern forces, DURING A period of war time.

We have documentaries about the curroptness of government, about deep seeded plots, scandals and deliberate acts..

Now we are being introduced to the idea of a naval blockade and major sign of impending war through a news peice that i regard as the most widely available mouthpiece for the govenrment.

A story like this, doesnt come out simply due to the creativity of normal citizens.
There's a government hand in producing this, and governemtn desire in releasing this and a government gain in ensuring citizens wake up to the idea.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join