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: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 09:16 AM
link   
Dear Everybody:

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.

www.estripes.com...

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods


[edit on 10/16/2006 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]




posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 07:59 PM
link   
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.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Dear Swampfox46_1999:

We are going to war with Iran. I have no doubts about that. Two powerful lobbying groups are insisting that we do this -- for sake of our national strategic interests.

However I’m not so sure that we need “a pretext”. As a country we may be powerful enough to simply ignore “world opinion”. And domestically, a majority of us might believe that the Iranians “had it coming” and need to have their wings clipped. So this idea of a false flag sinking of our proudest ship does sound outrageously silly…at first.

But upon closer investigation, there are other factors coming into play:

1. The USS Enterprise has been scheduled for decommission in 2013.
2. Dismantling its eight nuclear reactors will be very expensive — everyone hates spending on demolitions
3. World leaders might go along with our intentions to attack — but will their populaces? We have a negative savings rate and we need other people’s money to support our lifestyles.
4. We intend on using bunker-buster nukes to blow up hardened underground targets. The world will not take kindly to use of such weapons. Without a major “pretext” we might become the pariah of the world.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 10/18/2006 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Dear Everybody:

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.


This is very common, we are doing the same thing on the Philippine islands of Luzon and Palawan as I type this.

Marines aren't paid to sit aboard warships for their 6 month deployment, instead they are expected to continue training and conduct exercises with other nations during their deployment. It keeps them sharp, but more importantly, exercises like that build cooperation between allied nations.

Those pictures in your link, those are the Marines currently deployed on the Iwo Jima ESG, surely you don't expect them to stay in their cot for 6 months? The link I provided is for the Essex ARG, which is homeported in Japan.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 03:19 PM
link   

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.



Then i suppose you have never heard of the USS Liberty
(You should look into the facts).Or have you ever looked up the Tonkin event that lead to Vietnam?
The Enterprise is the oldest in the fleet.And it would serve "The Elite" well to sink it.They could use it as an excuse to go to war with Iran.

Either way,we shall see within the weeks,as they are due to arrive there in the next 2 days.



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 09:57 AM
link   
Yes they are due to arrive in a few days. It will be interesting to see how things pan out. Recently the Iran thing has been out of the limelight due to Korea, Muslims veil stuff etc, but now Iran is threatening Europe and engage in a war or words with Israel again. Watch this space.

[edit on 20-10-2006 by Peyres]



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 05:54 PM
link   
As the excersises are currently going on,thought this thread should stay active till its over,to keep it updated....


(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
www.prisonplanet.com...



The naval strike groups have been assigned to fighting the "global war on terrorism."
www.prisonplanet.com...



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:
www.prisonplanet.com...



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



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)

www.prisonplanet.com...



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 04:57 PM
link   
Well, now. Unless one has been living under a rock it should be quite obvious that we will indeed go to war with Iran. We simply HAVE to — (we think) we need the oil. Our entire financial system and world are based on people having confidence in the future, i. e. believing that things will stay the same.

So the question remains what type of pretext will be used, what will trigger our attack? Logic dictates that it will have to be something ‘big’, really big. Perhaps this is why Rumsfeld left. Being ex-navy he may not have been comfortable going along with all the possible scenarios. Anyways, (unfortunately) we will see soon enough.

Regards,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 05:03 PM
link   
Um, I know it's been said and I even believe it, that we are after the oil and all, but if that's true why don't we have Iraq's oil? Where is it all going? Not here cuz gas is still pretty expensive. How exactly, short of destroying the entire population of a country are we gonna get all the oil we're after? Maybe I'm just missing something but it really doesn't seem like we're getting it.



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Dear 27jd:

Good thing this is a ‘conspiracy’ website so a little ‘speculation’ is allowed. It’s very safe to assume that we’re pumping oil out of Iraq ‘like crazy’. That’s right. We running those oil wells wide open, full tilt boogie! What? And you mean we’re not reporting it? You mean we’re not telling anyone about this so that we can ‘properly’ pay for it?

Of course not. We’re already paying enough to keep our military over there. It would be ‘insane’ (and perhaps financially ruinous) to log the true extraction data.

Somehow, someway that oil is being ‘laundered’ through our commercial oil companies. They’re showing record profits not merely because the ‘price of gas’ is up. Perhaps they’re reporting it as Alaskan oil — being that that state has just about been pumped dry. Other suggestions are highly welcomed.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 07:00 PM
link   
People need to open their eyes there is very little information that can't be found on the net!

Iraqs oil:

Iraq total Exports $32.19 billion

84% of all Iraqi export comes from Oil

The US is the purchaser of 49% of all Iraqi exports! Hhmmmm how strange


Info from the stars and stripes own CIA



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 06:05 AM
link   
Hi Wizard, Great thread as usual, your spot on and one only has to read some of the comments posted on this thread to see how easy the patriotic ones would buy the same old crap. Its really hard to believe that so called intelligent people cannot realise to truth even when its staring them in the face.

For those who say the Goverment would not get away with it then read the above, the media machine has been working overtime to brainwash the masses into believing Iran is attacking America and will up the stakes so yes your thoery is not just feasible but will almost certainly happen in that way. And the ignorant ones will believe it hook, line and sinker, their obsessed with the Idea that everybody hates them when the reality is that people hate whate the US Goverment is doing to the world.

When are the American populace going to wake up and reralise that what is being done in their name is not for their benefit but for corporate greed and individual power seeking.



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 10:55 PM
link   
It won't take anything as spectacular as 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. The easy way past the democrat-controlled congress is to handle Iran as part of Iraq instead of seeking authorization for a separate action under a new pretext.

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 seems to forbid such a thing, but then again that resolution also seems to forbid the troop surge, except that the congress hasn't even tried to go that route.

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 airstrikes.

Forgive me for being a conspiracy theorist, but I believe a bargain has been struck between the power brokers on the Democrat side and the White House- they won't stop the war, but will save it as an issue to run on in 2008, and 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 (the unspoken implication there of course being that Bush won't use a major false flag operation to justify such an action).

We'll start taking out Iraqis who flee to Iran, striking at Iranian support for the insurgency, and probably hitting unrelated targets of opportunity through airstrike, special operations, and covert arangements with 3rd parties, and congress won't actually take any action against Bush's usurpation of the power to make war.

In related news, 11 Iranian Revolutionary guards bought it 3 days ago and 30+ others were wounded by a car bomb in Iranian Baluchistan. Al Qaida is being blamed. Good old Al-Qaida, the obliging adversary.



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 08:50 AM
link   


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]



Pres. Bush has declared publicly we will kill anyone who tries to kill our men. Without regard for borders. That has always been our policy - all nations also - but it was never considered good diplomacy to have the maximum leader make that statement. The leader ought to remain sufficiently aloof to preserve the ability to deny, as in Pres. Eisenhower and theU2 incident or to back down by firing an errant subordinate. B43 either has too much hubris or too little savvy.



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.



It will take an atom bomb at Camp David to get another War Resolution out of the Democrats.



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.



I would agree, on that rationale - to prevent a deeper Iranian involvement - that the enlargement of our force strength at this time would be wise. Problem is, that flies in the face of repeated miscalculations out of the White House. That raises doubts this was the goal. It seems more likely to me this is B43's last desperate stab at saving face in Iraq. Legacy. B43 is hoping conditions will get better and he can claim the surge made it so!



“ . . 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 . . “



If I agreed Vag, I’d call it an accommodation. OTOH, I do not see Congress having much influence in the here and now. With just 50 senators - the sick guy is still sick - and able to garner only 7 GOP senators on the Non-Binding Resolution last week, B43 need have no worries that Congress can do anything to interrupt him in the 696 days remaining in his presidency. All the advantage lies in the While House and none of it on The Hill. We have seen the maximum effort the Dems are capable of, indeed, any Congress is capable of. It’s our system. The executive branch runs foreign affairs and the conduct of war. Congress can carp, agitate, irritate, but it cannot dictate.



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.



As in the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, so also in the Pursue Terrorism vote by Congress in 2001, Congress evaded - nay, abrogated - its responsibility to DECLARE war by authorizing “all necessary force” to find and punish the perpetrators of the Nine Eleven Event. B43 has done everything wrong, but Congress did nothing right - so far.


[edit on 2/19/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 11:06 AM
link   
Dear “The Vagabond” and donwhite:

World opinion and our domestic political climate demand that we need some sort of pretext to attack Iran. Since we are planning a big assault — and I mean really, really BIG with nukes (bunker-buster) and all — we need a dramatic pretext.

Surely it has been planned to strike Iran in such a massive way, with all the “shock and awe” our arsenal has to offer, that the Iranians will surrender before they even can flip the safety switches on their weapons. Since most humans aren’t that “ruthless” so as to assail their fellow kind without “moral” justification, we need a reason however fake it may be. That’s where the deliberate sinking of a carrier theory fits in.

Why again will we attack Iran? There are three primary reasons, all interwoven and they are the same as the impetuses that triggered our invasion of Iraq. 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. Sure, we can still buy it (Iranian oil) on the world market, but this is an indirect purchase and undermines the dollar hegemony.

2. The dominance of the U.S. dollar as a world currency (dollar hegemony) is vital to our current way of life. We are critically dependent on the rest of the world giving us money to finance our lifestyle. We are living well beyond our means and are only able to do this as long as others continue to buy our dollar denominated debts. Other countries are only ‘forced’ to keep dollars because most of the oil purchases are still conducted in U.S. dollars. This is why it is so imperative that the United States control as many sources of petroleum as possible.

3. Israel — and please note I said Israel and not “the Jews” — wants to continue its policies of ethnic cleansing in its occupied territories and to expand its borders where it deems necessary (e. g. to include water sources in southern Lebanon). Countries such as Iran (and Iraq under Saddam Hussein) are a threat to Israel’s ambitions not militarily but financially because of their monetary support to rebellious militant groups and the Palestinians in general.

Before everyone protests — Pakistan has nearly 170 million inhabitants, 98 percent of which are Muslim, plenty of which are very radicalized ‘angry young men’, and they have nuclear weapons. Oddly enough, Israel doesn’t seem to be too worried about them. Why not? Because they’re piss-poor, that’s why.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 11:47 AM
link   


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]



I say, thank you God, for November 7! Herr B43 was definitely on that path as part of his own Neo Con scheme to re-configure the world. Let’s face it, B43 is THE Neo Con! How else can you explain his ticket out of the Iraq quagmire, the ISG Report, being rejected out of hand?



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.



OK! But it is very hard if not impossible to sink a Nimitz class carrier. Well, you could deliberately set off one of the 20-50 nukes carried onboard. But then there would be no evidence! Just a mushroom cloud. I think crashing one of our old F14s, saying it was Iranian, remotely controlled but with a captured Iran Intel Officer securely strapped in the pilots seat, and loaded with a half dozen 500 pounders, which would kill 100s if not 1000s, and still leave behind considerable “evidence” of the wicked, fanatical Iranians.



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.



Well said, Mr W-in-the-W. We differ only in nuances, not in substance



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



Are you an Illuminati? That is, you are so well illuminating this dark subject, it makes me wonder.



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Illuminati? Naw, no way. However I do believe in "illuminare mentem per veritatem". Albeit I hate quoting latin phrases. I only do it because it sounds ‘smart’. But the Romans were nothing but a bunch of Nazi-bastards.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods.



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Au Contraire, Mr W-in-the-W

I can see it now, Julius Caesar - first of the 12 Caesars - was really the precursor of the Godfather. Rome was a Mafia state, 2,500 years ago.



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 04:26 PM
link   
Ave “donwhite”!

Actually you’re getting ‘warm’ by calling Rome a Mafia state. However that’s still far too much of an understatement. The Romans made their wealth by raping, pillaging and plundering other countries and putting indigenous populaces — at least those they so generously allowed to live — into slavery.

Mister ‘veni, vidi, vici’ himself, Gaius Julius Caesar, was particularly good at this, committing genocides and terrorizing other peoples. I know, I know, he had lots of culture and what not. And he was a great leader and brilliant (i. e. ruthless) military tactician who preferred to lie with his fellow common soldiers (and he didn’t always just lie) rather than camp in his luxurious leader’s tent. He did whatever needed to be done. And if that meant killing off entire tribes to gain access to desired resources then so be it. He had those qualities we worship in a chieftain, decisiveness and loads and loads of self-confidence. The last person one would want to be in command is a ‘softie’ or as the Romans called it a ‘cunctator’ (hesitator). Am I right, or am I right?

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 04:30 PM
link   
On objectives, I agree, though I do believe there are other benefits at stake as well, specifically the means to be a credible low-level threat to Russia and China in the future without having to seem too beligerent at that point.
(If I may take an aside to explain that for a moment, consider Cuba, the boogeyman in our backyard, who we couldn't act too rashly against without being the badguys, just because the communists got there "firstest with the mostest". Same principle in reverse: We puppet Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, and Iraq, and in any dispute with China or Russia, we can use pawns to apply pressure that the average joe won't even see, and when if they act to stop us, it looks like they threw the first punch. So among the fringe benefits to pursuing the interests that Wizard has explained there is strategic advantage and manufactured consent for wars that we may or may not have to fight one day in the future.)
There are plenty of additional possibilities to explore, but that could get rather long and involved.

On means, I disagree. Ethics and justice are meaningless to this administration. They needed one big event to get the ball rolling, namely 9/11. After that, in the Philippines, Iraq, and Somalia, the mere accusation was enough. "There are affiliated groups there", "they have weapons that they might give to terrorists", "there are 3 embassy bombers there" (those 3 people, by the way, were enough to get a carrier strike group plus special operations assets from CJTF-HOA involved- the most inefficient contract killing in world history).

I don't see why Iran would need to be any different. The accusation is made and the course has been set- they are in Iraq, we are going to treat them as part of the war in Iraq. If indeed there is any plan to escalate to the point of a nuclear attack, that will simply follow an escalation of what is already happening.

I do not see the democrat-controlled congress as an obstacle because they have made such a show in recent months of feigning impotence. There are multiple violations of the war powers resolution both which could be the subject of SCOTUS decisions if they would bring a case. Pulling the purse strings wouldn't be nearly the disaster it has been spun out to be either; they could easily tell the president to cram the next request for a budget supplement and instead give him just enough money to get the troops out of harm's way, and then the decision to either use that money for the only thing that it can fully accomplish or to be the bad guy who screws our troops is on Bush's head... of course if Bush did screw them the dems would really have to cave and give the men the money they needed to keep fighting, but to have Bush demonstrate that kind of willingness to hang our troops out to dry would evaporate much of give the opposition the clout they need to twist a few Republican arms and attempt to override a veto for a proper pull-out; which Republicans are going to stand up and be counted with Bush after something like that? (And keep in mind that even with Tim Johnson still in physical therapy, 50 votes gives them a simple majority, so a veto is their only real problem; I say make Bush use the veto and keep making Republicans who will be facing close races vote on the issues).

The Democrat's problem isn't that they can't stop Bush from running rough-shod over the law. The Democrat's problem is that they aren't interested in wasting political capital on doing the right thing, because they stand to reap the benefits of Bush's folly yet again in 2008. I think their leadership will look the other way for anything, as long as they don't have to actually be counted in a vote as being for it.

On the troop surge, while obviously it does have meaning for Iraq, and would seem uncharacteristically prudent if it had anything to do with Iran, it just seems almost too stupid to be as it appears on the surface. How am I supposed to wrap my head around the idea that these people honestly didn't learn even a little bit from Vietnam?

A few extra troops can serve any of a number of purposes. It gives us an idea of our deployability for problems, it sends a subtle message to Iran, and if we wanted to get active with Iran they would be of some use for enhancing infrastructure to support a few limited incursions into Iran, or to keep an unlikely but potentially very embarrassing Iranian attack from making it across the Tigris if we screwed up really bad (not that Iran could overrun us in Iraq unless they did absolutely everything right and we did everything wrong, just that in the midst of tearing them to peices, we could concievably take casualties in the hundreds or even single thousands if they did get across the river and go street to street with us in one of the major cities).

On the other hand, the extra troops seem unlikely to do all that much for security in Baghdad, except for provide extra targets.

I could be wrong on that part, but if I am then I must simply stand in awe of the kind of pathetic tokenism that this administration has been reduced to in its attempts to justify keeping a straight face between now and the inevitable end that will come in 2008.




top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join