It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Why are our Marines "training" on the shores of Kuwait — right now? It doesn’t seem cost effective to send soldiers half-way around the world simply to “practice”. Just wondering.
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
So the US is going to sink one of its, what, 12, operational carriers, along with its airwing and crew just to start a war with Iran? Um, thats one of the dumbest, least able to work ideas that I've ever heard of.
(PrisonPlanet)-US naval war games off the Iranian coastline: A provocation which could lead to War? www.prisonplanet.com...
There is a massive concentration of US naval power in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea. Three US naval strike groups off the Iranian coastline are deployed: USS Enterprise, USS Eisenhower and USS Iwo Jima Expeditionary Strike Group
The naval strike groups have been assigned to fighting the "global war on terrorism."
Tehran considers the US war games to be conducted in the Persian Gulf, off the Iranian coastline as a provocation, which is intended to trigger a potential crisis and a situation of direct confrontation between US and Iranian naval forces in the Persian Gulf:
"Reports say the US-led naval exercises based near Bahrain will practise intercepting and searching ships carrying weapons of mass destruction and missiles.
Iran's official news agency IRNA quoted an unnamed foreign ministry official as describing the military manoeuvres as dangerous and suspicious. www.prisonplanet.com...
Dangerous Crossroads: Tonkin II? "An incident" in the Persian Gulf could be used by the US as a pretext for war against Iran.
A war pretext incident, similar to "the Gulf of Tonkin Incident", which triggered the Vietnam war, could be used by US forces, with a view to justifying retaliatory military action against Iran.
In August 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson claimed that North Vietnamese forces had attacked US destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin. The Tonkin incident, which had been manipulated, contributed to unleashing a full-fledged war against Vietnam: www.prisonplanet.com...
"A phantom attack on two U.S. destroyers cruising the Gulf of Tonkin was staged by the Pentagon and the C.I.A. The bogus attack occurred early in August, 1964. That evening President Lyndon Johnson went on television giving the grim details of the non-attack. Later, however, it was revealed that navy commander James Stockdale flew cover over the Gulf of Tonkin that night. Stockdale disclosed that U.S. ships were firing at phantom targets—targets that didn’t exist. The Gulf of Tonkin Incident that drew the U.S. into the quagmire of Viet Nam simply didn’t happen. Johnson, as presidents so often do, lied to the American people. The result was the rapid passage of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which was the sole legal basis for the Viet Nam War. As a result of Johnson’s lie, three million Vietnamese people and fifty eight thousand U.S. soldiers died." (Charles Sullivan, Global Research, January 2006)
posted by The Vagabond
It won't take the sinking of a carrier to start a war with Iran. The recent announcement that Iran was supplying explosives to insurgents is paving the way for limited action against Iran. [Edited by Don W]
The easy way past the Democratic-controlled Congress is to handle Iran as part of Iraq instead of seeking authorization for a separate action under a new pretext.
The troop surge, in my opinion, is nothing but a reinforcement of defenses at the Tigris for the contingency that Iran attacks on the ground in retaliation for US air strikes.
“ . . being a conspiracy theorist I believe a bargain has been struck between the power brokers on the Democratic side and the White House - they won't stop the war but will save it as an issue to run on in 2008 . . they will allow limited action against Iran to be illegally carried out under that pretext. In return, Bush won't seek a separate action against Iran . . “
We'll take out Iraqis who flee to Iran and probably hit unrelated targets of opportunity through air strikes, special ops and covert arrangements with 3rd parties . . Congress won't actually take any action against Bush's usurpation of the power to make war.
posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
World opinion and domestic politics demand some sort of “pretext” to attack Iran. Since we are planning a big assault - and I mean really, really BIG with nukes and all - we need a dramatic pretext. [Edited by Don W]
Surely it has been planned to strike Iran in a massive way, with the “shock and awe” our arsenal has; the Iranians will surrender before they even can flip the safety switches. Since most humans aren’t that “ruthless” so as to assail their fellow mankind without a “moral” justification, we need a reason however fake it may be. That’s where the deliberate sinking of a carrier theory fits in.
Why attack Iran? There are three primary reasons. Our need for oil, dollar hegemony and Israel’s ambitions.
1. We need oil but are not permitted to purchase it from Iran directly because Israel won’t allow it.
2. The dominance of the U.S. dollar as a world currency (dollar hegemony) is vital to our current way of life.
3. Israel - and please note I said Israel and not “the Jews” - wants to continue its policies of ethnic cleansing in the occupied territories and to expand its borders to include water sources in southern Lebanon.
Before everyone protests - Pakistan has millions of inhabitants, 98 percent Muslim - plenty of which are radicalized ‘angry young men’ and they have nuclear weapons. Oddly enough, Israel doesn’t seem to be worried about them. Why not? Because they’re piss-poor, that’s why. Greetings, The Wizard In The Woods