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.

 

What if the USS Enterprise Sinks! & the U.S. Blames Iran!

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 10:09 AM
link   
an Iranian "attack" on the US navy/other US intrests being the flashpoint of a war that we all know is going to happen is not that likely.I believe it will be Isreal who will be "attacked" by Iran,and the US will then loose the rag,.Comeing soon to a TV near you!!!




posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 10:18 AM
link   
darksided,actually frigates do have missles.I have worked on the Brooke and O.H Perry class ships before (P.S.N.S) so I know from first hand exp that they do.

Wizard,good post though interesting read.

However I dont really think that the USN would sink a carrier (btw my grandfather served on the Enterprise back in the early 60's he may even be a plankowner) ala Gulf of Tonkin,I think too many people would think hmmmmm deja vu all over again?

'They' are many things,but 'they' are smart.I would expect something more twisted and original I think they wouldnt rehash old incidents,they will just create a new fiasco.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bootyac
darksided,actually frigates do have missles.I have worked on the Brooke and O.H Perry class ships before (P.S.N.S) so I know from first hand exp that they do./quote]

I understand they used to, but they don't anymore.

The SM-1 launchers were removed from OHP frigates a couple years ago. The US Navy no longer has frigates with missiles, unless you count point defense systems like the SEARAM which is replacing the Phalanx system.

Even the 8 OHP is reserve had their missile launchers removed. The SM-1 missiles were sold to Turkey, Spain, Australia, and Taiwan. Since the SM-1 also launched the Harpoons on the OHPs, the OHPs no longer have Harpoons either.

Look it up if I am not trustworthy enough of a source.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
I’m told oil is fungible. Although that is not exactly true, it must be true enough to make it irrelevant where Iraq’s oil is sold. I am under the impression that Iraq oil is pumped, piped and shipped by American firms in Iraq. There is only one market for oil - the world market. Oil prices are based on the price of Brent field oil. Different crudes have been assigned different ratios to the price of Brent. If there is any profit in oil, the US firms are making theirs. And then some!


The individual firms are, but not the US government. China (one example) has deals with Russia specifically that allows them to get oil under market value, at a bulk buy investment rate pro-rated over annual periods. The US should have done this with Iraqi oil, the US would have come out better for it. While the rest of the world was paying $75 a barrel of oil, China was getting their oil for the same rate as last years negotiated value of around $50 a barrel. I think the Chinese are better businessmen than the Bushys.



Well, D/S, just based at who is fighting where it looks as if the US might also qualify as a “bully?” The Middle East is a socio-econo-religio-politico area that we have never known or understood. In fact, in our own bellicose and condescending way, we feel we don’t have to understand them, but they better understand us! That ‘stiff’ attitude is what cost us 59,000 KIA in Vietnam and has cost us nearly 3,000 KIA in Iraq - so far.


While I agree the western tactics of war are 'bullyish' I'm not sure I totally agree with the argument that we need to understand them thus accept their value system. I think the west needs to make a stronger effort to export ideology to the Middle East in ways other than war or eventually the sparks will lead to greater fire. You can't stack a virtue system that is based on preserving life (west) and exercising liberty (west) against a value system that promotes suicide bombing in the name of Jihad and persecution of non-believers and expect co-existence between extremism in Islam and the western secular society. To believe otherwise is to believe you can put a fire out by shooting gasoline through the fire hoses.

BTW, that extremism is mainstream, look at how the pope had to back up and shut up, look at how neo liberal newspapers in Europe had to throw an artist over the bridge because of a cartoon, which was nothing more than an exercise of free speech, hell look at how the fiestas in Spain which celebrate the end of 800 years of Moorish rule have had their celebrations muted, because of the 'potential' to upset Muslims. There are blatant examples where freedom is being crushed in Europe in the wake of religious sensitivities, how far will traditional Europeans be silenced before the backlash?

I understand respecting religions, but shouldn't religion also respect the secular nature of democracy. I don't know about Jews in Israel in 2048, but I do often ponder if Europe will be forced to submit to Islam or die by 2050.


I’m not sure it is going to work out as you suggest, Mr. D/S. It looks more likely to me that we will vacate the premises and the area will fall under the control of Iran. Hegemony. The West will have its outpost of Israel, but even that is beginning to look in doubt, demographically speaking. I wouldn’t bet Israel will be Jewish in 2048.


I think there is a disconnect between our definitions of winning and losing. What are the objectives. I agree with those who say the US is winning the military, it is clear the terrorist groups are getting their tails kicked from one end of the planet to the other. I also agree with those who say the US is losing the economic battle, and I think the war is really a reflection of how badly mismanaged the military industrial establishment in America is managed from the government (Congress).

However I think the jury is still very much out on the political. There are sides of winning and losing, but there are still long term questions. Clearly Iraq has rejected the Sunni terrorist mentality. Al Qaeda is on the run in Iraq, and only the Baathists who think they will somehow get power again will even deal with Al Qaeda anymore. In many ways this transcends Iraq, as Al Qaeda is now seen as a loser in the greater middle east by the larger 'Arab street.'

However the question is whether Iraq will become some sort of proxy for Iran in the future, or whether the Iraqi government can hold off the challenges from popular Shia religious militia elements looking to take power. I don't know that answer, and I think that result is directly tied to whether the US stays in Iraq or not. I also think there was a lot of American political capital spent on behalf of Iraq, capital that only a free, peaceful Iraq could restore. That capital can only be considered loss for the foreseeable future, and it sure would come in handy right about now in dealing with Iranian and North Korean nuclear ambition. In that regard, Iraq may ultimately prove to be a loser, unless very prudent leadership is able to overcome the challenges despite Iraq.

The theory is that America is less popular, and is less respected, to the rest of the world because of Iraq and this popularity and respect somehow matters. I tend to disagree with this completely. Besides national pride, what has the US ever actually gained by popularity or respect in the world? There is no example of a successful negotiation taking place as a result of Americas popularity or respect, there is no example of a major advantage exploited militarily. What then does loss of American popularity or respect by the world really mean?

Nothing in my opinion.

Popularity and respect are fickle. European liberal elites may indeed see the American right as a terrible thing, and those right wing nuts might appear to Europeans as primordials with their guns, "fundamentalist" religion, and flag-waving chauvinism. But it is they, and increasingly their kind alone, who prove the bulwarks of the West. Ultimately what keeps even the pope safe and the continent confident in its vain dialogues with Iranian lunatics is the United States military and the very un-Europeans who fight in it.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 06:54 PM
link   
Wizard, I said in an earlier post that I had heard/seen this theory posted before on the internet. I have attached the link. I have seen it elsewhere and will continue to revisit and repost the links!

judicial-inc.biz...



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Dear deessell:

Thanks for the link. For some reason I'm having difficulty getting it to work.
I'll keep on trying. Perhaps I can locate it with a search engine.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Hmmmm, yes it doesn't seem to be working. However, copy and paste the link into your browser and it should work. Sorry I'm a bit of a luddite when it comes to anything other than type and enter



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Dear Deessell:

Eureka! Nice music too!

Seriously, it’s a VERY interesting site. I would have never found it “on my own”. It’s weird how search engines overlook/ignore URL’s which seem to perfectly match the entered search parameters. Thanks!

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Dear Deessell:

Eureka! Nice music too!

Seriously, it’s a VERY interesting site. I would have never found it “on my own”. It’s weird how search engines overlook/ignore URL’s which seem to perfectly match the entered search parameters. Thanks!

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods.


Wizard, I don't think "weird" is the right adjective to describe how search engines overlook things



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 08:58 AM
link   


posted by darksided

The individual firms are, but not the US government. China has deals with Russia specifically that allows them to get oil under market value, at a bulk buy investment rate pro-rated over annual periods. While the rest of the world was paying $75, China was getting their oil for the same rate as last years negotiated value of around $50. I think the Chinese are better businessmen than the Bushys. [Edited by Don W]



But, D/S, China is a communist country and America is a capitalist country. That is the difference. State ownership. Bush43 is a capitalist. He is most successful when ExxonMobil maximizes its profits. Capitalists assert that the country - America - benefits most when its corporations make the most money.



While I agree the western tactics of war are 'bullyish' I'm not sure I totally agree with the argument that we need to understand them thus accept their value system.



We are not accept their value system, but we should tolerate it, in their own country. Not to denigrate their women wearing full cover, and etc. Surely after Florida in 2000 and Ohio in2004 we can get over thinking we are the only country that knows how to hold an election? Then how do we get over rejecting the Hamas electoral victory in a supervised election? Our reaction revealed the hypocrisy of America. The we prevented UN action for 34 days while Israel rampaged through south Lebanon. Where are the 3 Israeli soldiers this was said to be all about? This is what happens when your foreign policy repertoire has only guns and bombs in it. Your options are distinctly limited. And we are shooting ourselves in the foot. See this link for some history about the Moors. www.fordham.edu...



I think the west needs to make a stronger effort to export ideology to the Middle East in ways other than war or eventually the sparks will lead to greater fire. You can't stack a virtue system that is based on preserving life (west) and exercising liberty (west) against a value system that promotes suicide bombing in the name of Jihad and persecution of non-believers and expect co-existence between extremism in Islam and the western secular society. To believe otherwise is to believe you can put a fire out by shooting gasoline through the fire hoses.



Let’s cut to the chase. Are you saying, albeit politely, that Christianity is superior to Islam which is inferior? Are you declaring the Great Commission is your Divine Grant to take this message to those people? Did you skip the Crusades in your history class? For 300 years the Christians - more united then, then now - waged total war on the Muslims. It all came to naught. Review the Thirty Years War and read the Peace of Westphalia. Let humanity never again become involved in spreading the Truth by Violence.



I understand respecting religions, but shouldn't religion also respect the secular nature of democracy. I don't know about Jews in Israel in 2048, but I do often ponder if Europe will be forced to submit to Islam or die by 2050.



What with Bush43 and his Clash of Civilizations, and his War on Terror to save Western humanity, I understand where you are coming from. Believe me, it is not nearly so cataclysmic as Bush43 would have you believe. He too will pass away.



I think there is a disconnect between our definitions of winning and losing. What are the objectives. I agree with those who say the US is winning the military, it is clear the terrorist groups are getting their tails kicked from one end of the planet to the other.



I thought Bush43 said the goal in Iraq was to establish a democratically chosen government favorable to the West. We did indeed accomplish the easy part, the overthrow of Saddam, between March 18 and May 1. But by the time Bush43 claimed victory on the Lincoln, the insurgency had already begun. Look how many men of ours were killed in the past 7 days.

The Taliban is back in Afghan. We have shuffled that theater of war off onto NATO, but there is enough backlash that I foresee NATO pulling out falling the November r7 election. It’s our mess, let us clean it up. Do you honestly think we are “winning?” 3 years into this thing and we lose more KIA now than ever and you call that “winning?” I’d hate to see what you call losing. Face it, D/S, you’re being lied to.



However the question is whether Iraq will become some sort of proxy for Iran in the future, or whether the Iraqi government can hold off the challenges from popular Shia religious militia elements looking to take power. I don't know that answer, and I think that result is directly tied to whether the US stays in Iraq or not.



So bottom line, you’re asking, who will have the honor to be the last American GI to die in Iraq? We cannot possibly think we can undo the intra religious strife that has permeated the Middle East since the 7th century. Where do we get those kind of ideas? Are we manic or are we just plainly stupid? We have made a mistake. Phooey on the intentions or reasons. We are now in a mess, a genuine quagmire. So how do you extract yourself from a situation you cannot control and you cannot end on your terms. The simple answer is you ask a third party to come into Iraq and negotiate your exit. The world is getting tired of having to fix the mess this Bush43 administration has brought on. Maybe they will have mercy on us and do it one more time.



The theory is that America is less popular, and is less respected, to the rest of the world because of Iraq and this popularity and respect somehow matters. I tend to disagree with this completely. Besides national pride, what has the US ever actually gained by popularity or respect in the world? There is no example of a successful negotiation taking place as a result of Americas popularity or respect, there is no example of a major advantage exploited militarily. What then does loss of American popularity or respect by the world really mean? Nothing in my opinion. Ultimately what keeps even the pope safe and the continent confident in its vain dialogues with Iranian lunatics is the United States military and the very un-Europeans who fight in it.



What will it take to show many Americans the error of that POV? We cannot “go it alone” in this globalized world despite what jingoistic crapola that comes from W-DC. America is in for some hard lessons. We can thank Bush43 for setting up the classroom. It will take a generation to clean up his L E G A C Y.



[edit on 10/5/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by steve99
It's amazing the ideas people come up with after watching a tv show.


Dear Steve99:

This may have been the TV show you were talking about — the “Hal Turner Show”. I came across these two links this afternoon describing nearly the exact scenario we've been debating here in this thread. These sites are somewhat “bare-bone” but I’ll list them nevertheless.

www.rumormillnews.com...
www.rumormillnews.com...

I don’t think it’s sheer coincidence that two separate parties generated the same set of ideas at nearly the same time — without having known about each others existence. Rather, it’s normal for separate sources to come up with similar conclusions IF they are plausible. It wouldn’t surprise me one bit if various other like-minded authors continue to pop up. Gosh I hope we’re all so wrong about this.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 02:31 PM
link   
It won't be the U.S.S. Enterprise. It'll be the U.S.S. Dwight D. Eisenhower.

www.navy.mil...

Recent Deployment -- I have an extended family member on the ship who say's It'll be deployed either to the Mediterranean or the Persian Gulf for assistance in Iraqi Freedom. Unfortunately, I'm thinking the Persian Gulf, making easy prey for "Iranian" anti-shipping missiles.

The ship has just been recently retrofitted in Newport News, Virginia as well.



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
Let’s cut to the chase. Are you saying, albeit politely, that Christianity is superior to Islam which is inferior? Are you declaring the Great Commission is your Divine Grant to take this message to those people? Did you skip the Crusades in your history class? For 300 years the Christians - more united then, then now - waged total war on the Muslims. It all came to naught. Review the Thirty Years War and read the Peace of Westphalia. Let humanity never again become involved in spreading the Truth by Violence.


No I am not advocating one religous philosophy over another, I am adovcating certain virtues over others, and I can do so because the virtues have been well established in International Law for centuries. Murder isn't a virtue, even if it carries a religous purpose or context, and that is a message that needs to be exported. This is an idealogical war with a military element, not a military war with an idealogical element. Right now we are fighting the ladder, we need to be focusing on the former.



I thought Bush43 said the goal in Iraq was to establish a democratically chosen government favorable to the West. We did indeed accomplish the easy part, the overthrow of Saddam, between March 18 and May 1. But by the time Bush43 claimed victory on the Lincoln, the insurgency had already begun. Look how many men of ours were killed in the past 7 days.

The Taliban is back in Afghan. We have shuffled that theater of war off onto NATO, but there is enough backlash that I foresee NATO pulling out falling the November r7 election. It’s our mess, let us clean it up. Do you honestly think we are “winning?” 3 years into this thing and we lose more KIA now than ever and you call that “winning?” I’d hate to see what you call losing. Face it, D/S, you’re being lied to.


Maybe you buy into what Bush43 says, but I don't. The past is past and he has done what he has done, I didn't support his policy for Iraq then and but I do support the current policy of finishing the job, although I disagree with Bush43 on the best way how. The problem isn't the plan per se, nor the implimentation of it, the problem is the leadership of it.

The model for Iraq is clear, but no one wants to discuss it because politically Bush's plan wouldn't be seen politically bad, which doesn't favor the current media cycle of all bad news is good news. Think about something, do you know why Northern Iraq is peaceful? Do you know why they are prospering? Kurds have just as violent a history as Sunni or Shia Arabs, so thier social and cultural propaganda of being better than Arabs seems like BS to me. Iraqi Arabs are in the north with the Kurds, it is a common vacation spot, so how then is it peaceful?

The reason is because they had a 10 year head start at working out the tribal and cultural divisions of their area. In 1993 Clinton actually implimented what I consider his best foreign policy, he told the Iraqi Army to stay away from the Kurds of the North or he would bomb them. In total, the USAF flew thousands of sorties and bombed Iraqi troop movements 387 different instances over the northern no-fly zone between 1992 - 2003, keeping his promise of the UK and US for the Kurds.

The Iraqi tribes in the south and west are getting it, but it is taking time. 3 years isn't the same as the 10 year head start the Kurds had, but the current policy is working. If Bush had leadership, Americans would be able to understand the plan, but he is too much of a bumbling fool to sell it, and has lied to often in the past to be taken seriously.

Not to mention his real problem, his larger policy with the Global War on Terror is just horrible, he treats it as a military policy, when in fact what we need is an idealogical policy that highlights Islamic moderates instead of highlighting Islamic radicals.



So bottom line, you’re asking, who will have the honor to be the last American GI to die in Iraq? We cannot possibly think we can undo the intra religious strife that has permeated the Middle East since the 7th century. Where do we get those kind of ideas? Are we manic or are we just plainly stupid? We have made a mistake. Phooey on the intentions or reasons. We are now in a mess, a genuine quagmire. So how do you extract yourself from a situation you cannot control and you cannot end on your terms. The simple answer is you ask a third party to come into Iraq and negotiate your exit. The world is getting tired of having to fix the mess this Bush43 administration has brought on. Maybe they will have mercy on us and do it one more time.


This isn't about honoring the dead, it is about following historical models that have worked, a model visable today in Iraq, a model you never hear about. There is no question the US has made mistakes, that isn't the question, the question is whether the US is willing to clean up the mess they made.

Prosperty in Iraq for Iraqi's is the ultimate victory, Americans really do want this, Iraqi's really do want this, American haters don't want this, but even they know it would make the region safer and be a good thing for the idealogical war. BTW, I think your plan for a 3rd party is foolish in my opinion, the fate of Iraq doesn't depend on anyone from the outside, it doesn't even depend on US troop numbers despite what both US political parties say, it depends on Iraqi's, specifically Iraqi Sunni and Shia tribal leaders who are feeling the pressure to get the police and security forces up to par within their country. I think the US could add or remove 100,000 troops and it wouldn't make a difference in the outcome, the only difference maker in Iraq is the training and development of Iraqi's to police and protect their own nation. It is the biggest problem with the current policy, only around 4,000 US troops are involved in training and observing Iraqi units, I think that number needs to be tripled.



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 03:30 AM
link   
Interesting thread. There's a lot of stuff coming up about mini-nukes that I didn't know. I thought they had to be detonated by a fission bomb... interesting data.

Wizard, one of the things that people tend to do with their posts is link to sources for their data and assertions. If you can find any links for these mini-nukes I'd be very interested.

I'd like to know whether thermite/thermate alone could be responsible for the pools of liquid metal. I actually disagree with the mini-nuke theory for the following reasons:

1) when you look at the demolition, the blasts start at the floors of the planes' impact and work downwards
2) if thermate is really as exothermic as its reputation suggests, then that explains the molten metal and
3) you can actually see the remnants of the core in one of the towers just after the collapse: the building explodes around it, there's a huge cloud of dust, and you can see, within that cloud, the steel structure of the core just for a second or two, and then the thing falls in on itself.

If they were used, they were used, imo, to clear the basement so that the wreckage had somewhere to fall into: demolition charges on each floor, or many floors, and thermite/thermate were needed to get rid of the core and pulverise the concrete parts of the building.

On to the meat of your thread... there's an interesting article here suggesting that the US is indeed imminently preparing for war, and I agree with you that some sort of pretext will be needed. I don't rule out another terror attack, personally, but I do lean towards some sort of Tonkin incident. It'll very likely already be planned and in the early stages of execution -


President Bush claims that the United States is “working toward a diplomatic solution to this crisis...” But U.S. military preparations belie this talk of peace. On September 17, speaking to a group of peace activists, former CIA official Ray McGovern offered a dire warning: “We have about seven weeks to try and stop this next war from happening.”



Originally posted by darksided
There are currently only 4 ships in the entire US Navy deployed on 'surge' deployment, and 2 have been deployed for almost their full tour. Those four ships are the USS Hue City, USS John E Williams,


I have to say this post made me smile, because if the USS John Williams were a person, they'd be running up against all sorts of problems trying to get on a plane, because
that name is on the no-fly list!

[edit on 6-10-2006 by rich23]



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by rich23

Originally posted by darksided
There are currently only 4 ships in the entire US Navy deployed on 'surge' deployment, and 2 have been deployed for almost their full tour. Those four ships are the USS Hue City, USS John E Williams,


I have to say this post made me smile, because if the USS John Williams were a person, they'd be running up against all sorts of problems trying to get on a plane, because
that name is on the no-fly list!

[edit on 6-10-2006 by rich23]


The USS John E Williams is one bad to the bone DDG. It is outfitted with a garage door on the side of the destroyer for deploying mine warfare UUVs, has the latest littoral AEGIS radar systems, and the very latest upgrades to all onboard systems. It is without question one of the most powerful surface vessels in the world with a variety of packages designed for anti-ship, anti-sub, anti-mine, anti-air, and deep strike capability.

BUT...

Shortly after I posted that, the USS John E Williams crossed the Suez Canal, and is on its way home. You see, while novice armchair war watchers are monitoring minesweepers (all of which are in port btw), Naval experts are watching DDG-91 through DDG-96, because when it comes to mine hunting the Persian Gulf, due to Iranian anti-ship missiles it will be these ships that have to clear commercial shipping lanes, not the minesweepers which have huge gaps in self defense systems. None of those 6 DDGs are currently deployed, which is why I am skeptical an attack is emminent as some believe.

Although to add credibility to those who say an attack is coming, the USS Eisenhower deployed with 2 submarines instead of the usual 1 submarine assigned to a carrier. Specifically, as has been reported the USS Newport News deployed, but despite not being widely reported, it turns out the USS Minneapolis-St. Paul deployed with the carrier group as well.

I still think if anything is going to happen, it will be in February 07. The Stennis CSG currently working up in the Pacific will be the most flexable, powerful carrier strike force in the history of Naval warfare. It can indepentently defeat virtually any weapon system Iran or North Korea has and deploy enough aircraft and missiles to destroy every plane in either airforce, and still hit well over 1000 strike targets a day.


2004 AEGIS BMD Test
The Missile Defense Agency and the U. S. Navy moved closer toward fielding a homeland missile defense capability by successfully completing a special event concurrent with the RIMPAC (Rim of the Pacific) 2004 exercise in the Hawaiian operating area. The event, called Pacific Explorer III, held last week at the Pacific Missile Range, Barking Sands, Kauai, was the latest, in an ongoing series of exercises, in which AEGIS ships conduct Long Range Surveillance and Tracking of ballistic missiles and successfully communicated that information in support of the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS).

The exercise was conducted under the operational guidance of Commander, Third Fleet, and included participants from U. S. Strategic Command, Northern Command, Commander, Pacific Command, and Seventh Fleet in Japan. THIRD Fleet participants included the USS Lake Erie (CG 70) and USS Paul Hamilton (DDG 60), both outfitted with special AEGIS Ballistic Missile Defense computer programs and equipment, plus F/A 18s from the aircraft carrier USS John C Stennis and a Navy Special Warfare Task Group. Other missile defense participants included the 100th MDE Brigade from Colorado Springs, CO, operating the Ground-Based Midcourse (GMD) Defense System.


The USS Paul Hamilton is the 3rd DDG in the Stennis Strike Group, usually Strike Groups only have 2 DDGs. It isn't an accident the Gotland has basically been integrated into the group for ASW training, and it can't be an accident the SSGN Ohio is rumored to be working on task force integration with the strike group. Like I posted on the weapons forums, the SSGNs are major minesweeping platforms, not just strike platforms. The Eisenhower may indeed see action, but I don't think it will be until early next year.

And by early next year, it will be time for some of those 6 DDGs I was talking about earlier to deploy. Predictions are all about knowing what to watch for.



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 01:47 PM
link   


posted by darksided

“ . . I am advocating certain virtues over others . . I do so because the virtues have been well established in International Law for centuries. Murder isn't a virtue, even if it carries a religious purpose or context, and that is a message that needs to be exported. [Edited by Don W]



I can sense where you are going, D/S, and I don’t want to go there. Your phrase “ . . Murder isn't a virtue, even if it carries a religious purpose or context . . “ indicates to me you have already made your decision and are now looking for ways to support it. Polemics that is called. It almost always adds heat but it almost never adds light.



This is an ideological war with a military element, not a military war with an ideological element. Right now we are fighting the latter, we need to be focusing on the former.” The model for Iraq is clear, but no one wants to discuss it the problem is the leadership of it . . the current media cycle of all bad news is good news . . do you know why Northern Iraq is peaceful? Do you know why they are prospering? . . it is a common vacation spot, so how then is it peaceful? . . The reason is because they had a 10 year head start at working out the tribal and cultural divisions of their area. In 1993 Clinton implemented his best foreign policy, he told the Iraqi Army to stay away from the Kurds of the North or he would bomb them.



It is we who made it an ideological war. People in Europe who have seen ideological wars first hand are very hesitant to declare a jihad no matter on which side they happen to fall. I admit it appears ideological to us but that is because we favor simplistic answers over complex solutons. We are almost totally unaware of the Middle Eastern cultures and know almost nothing of the unsavory role played there by the West, especially since 1920. I can’t teach world history here, but it is all intertwined. Who said if you don’t know history you are doomed to repeat it?



Not to mention Bush43's problem with the Global War on Terror he treats it as a military policy, when in fact what we need is an ideological policy that highlights Islamic moderates instead of highlighting Islamic radicals . .



Although I have different motives, I also think that - good propaganda - is essential over the long run if we are to get out of this mess without our lives. This did not start with the Nine Eleven Event.



it is about following models that have worked . . visible today in Iraq, a model you never hear about. Prosperity in Iraq for Iraqi's is the ultimate victory . . American haters don't want this . . BTW, I think your plan for a 3rd party is foolish, the fate of Iraq doesn't depend on anyone from the outside, it doesn't even depend on US troop numbers it depends on Iraqi's, specifically Iraqi Sunni and Shia tribal leaders who are feeling the pressure to get the police and security forces up to par within their country.



What do you mean when you say “ . pressure . ” to get police up to par? Assuming you are referring to the United States in some way, how is that going to overcome 40 years of Sunni minority running roughshod over the Shia majority? A few “hail thee and farewell” will not cure that. Are you aware of anything concrete we do aside from offering advice? You are talking about important things but I am not familiar with the “on the ground” things. Perhaps it will work out before Jan. 20, 2009, which is the date Bush43 said we would remain in Iraq as long as he is Commander in Chief which Bush43 and his toy, Gonzales, say means he does not have to consult with anyone. An Oliver Cromwell Lord Protector of England type position. I have a strong feeling the 2008 race will be won by whoever promises to get our GIS home first.




I think the US could add or remove 100,000 troops and it wouldn't make a difference in the outcome, the only difference maker in Iraq is the training and development of Iraqi's to police and protect their own nation. It is the biggest problem with the current policy, only around 4,000 US troops are involved in training and observing Iraqi units, I think that number needs to be tripled. [Edited by Don W]



I think you are right on all counts. Unfortunately, America is getting the Perfect Storm convergence scenario in that neither Bush43 nor Rumsfeld believe they ever made a mistake. And Condo Rice is living out her childhood dreams.


[edit on 10/6/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 10:21 PM
link   
According to the 'Iranian Freedom Support Act' which was passed in Senate on 30th Sept and about to be signed into law by the President, it would seem that the Carrier-Groups currently under way to the Persian Gulf are to be used as a naval blockade against Iran


..In remarks made before the House of Representatives passed the bill on
September 28, its sponsor, Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, noted that
the sanctions under Title II of the bill target Iran's energy sector.
"Knowledgable experts agree that for Iran, a fuel importer, sanctions could
be crippling," she said..
Iranian Freedom Support Act


As this is in regard to a possible attack on a US warship/carrier, one possible scenario would be the use of a fully-laden tanker carrying 70,000tons+ of oil/LPG as a fire-ship against the fleet.
Such an event has been attempted before by A.Q. in Yemen, 2002, when a speedboat loaded with explosives rammed the French oil tanker 'Limburg'
Such a scenario could be viable as it would be both spectacular and unique, and would provide the ideal opportunity for media-spin to squarely pin the blame on Iran for either directly carrying out such an attack, or sponsoring the group (ie: Al-Queda) responsible, citing the Yemeni incident as a precedent, and giving the green light for Bush to authorise military strikes on Iran.



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 10:53 PM
link   
I dont see us sinking our own ship nor do I agree with your other ideas about Al Qaida etc....Its just not something thats feasable. I think Iran will be dealt with in quite a different manner than Iraq. More clandistine, more special opps, isolation from the major economic powers, etc. Then once we truly isolate them work on overthrowing the government. Of course this is all JMHO and nothing more.



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 09:25 AM
link   
I personally find your scenario quite plausable. Jack McLamb, who publishes the Aid and Abet newsletter, and has many contacts in the military, was talking about it on his Oct. 7 radio show. He seems to think that it will be the Ike that goes down.

mp3.rbnlive.com...

The symbolism of the America being used as a practise ship is pretty scary. Russia and China are now allies of Iran and have to be looking for thier opportunity to stop Bush's aggression.

Just as Germany had to be brought down for a united Europe to exist, the USA has to be brought down for a world government to exist. I'm afraid that we're nearing this stage in the globalist plan.

[edit on 8-10-2006 by resistor]



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Augmenter
It won't be the U.S.S. Enterprise. It'll be the U.S.S. Dwight D. Eisenhower.

www.navy.mil...

Recent Deployment -- I have an extended family member on the ship who say's It'll be deployed either to the Mediterranean or the Persian Gulf for assistance in Iraqi Freedom. Unfortunately, I'm thinking the Persian Gulf, making easy prey for "Iranian" anti-shipping missiles.

The ship has just been recently retrofitted in Newport News, Virginia as well.




Dear Augmenter:

Precisely because it's just been overhauled — for 1.5 billion for six years — it wouldn’t be a reasonable candidate for a “false flag” sacrifice. But then again, what’s logical these days?
Anyways, here’s the link for “Overhauled Eisenhower prepares for deployment after six years off” home.hamptonroads.com...

The Ike left Norfolk, VA on 3 October 2006 to “relieve” the Enterprise carrier group in the Arabian Sea.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods.




top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join