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: 5
3
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 05:34 PM
link   
Personally, I think that the U.S. will plan some sort of false flag strike on one of their carrier groups, similar to the Gulf of Tonkin incident, to goad us into war with Iran.

en.wikipedia.org...

I dont necessarily think that a carrier would be destroyed, but it will be damaged enough to thrust us into another endless conflict for monetary gain of the world banks and elite.




posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 08:26 PM
link   


posted by The Vagabond

On objectives I agree, though I believe there are other benefits at stake as well . . specifically the means to pose a low-level but credible threat to Russia and China without having to seem belligerent. If I may take an aside to explain that for a moment, consider Cuba, the boogeyman in our backyard . . we couldn't act too rashly against without being the bad guys, just because the Communists got there "firstest with the mostest" [Edited by Don W]



The Bay of Pigs was a precursor to B43's Iraq. Defective intelligence, poorly planned, under manned, ill equipped, and no follow-on Plan B. That was about as rash as you can get. But that’s off topic. You are right, Vag, about the advantages of having surrogates or “3rd parties” available to act on your behalf. Pressure points.



Among the fringe benefits to pursuing the interests that Wizard explained is a strategic advantage for wars that we may or may not have to fight one day in the future. There are plenty of additional possibilities to explore.



Absolutely. Just as our JCOS’s have contingency plans to invade Canada and Mexico, so also we need to know where we can put pressure in varying degrees on the RF - Russia - and the PRC - China. We do not expect to ever use any of those, but we must be ready.



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, the mere accusation was enough. "There are affiliated groups there." "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.



Well said Mr Vag.



I don't see why Iran would 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. I do not see the Democratic 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.



I differ with you on 2 points, Mr Vag. 1) Congress - Dem or GOP - is impotent against the President. The Senate is the best example. It must operate by consensus. It happens to take 60 members to shut off debate so that same number is needed to make any powerful statement. The Dems got 7 GOPs to agree last week. That is not enough. The President does not have to convince anyone. 2) I heard today the SCOTUS would decline the opportunity to intervene between the Legislative and Executive branch. Separation of powers. Three co-equal branches. They would say, it is “a political question” to be resolved at the polls.



Pulling the purse strings wouldn't be the disaster it has been spun to be either; The decision to use that money for the only thing that it can fully accomplish [bring our boys home] or to be the bad guy who screws our troops is on Bush's head. Keep in mind that even with Tim Johnson still in therapy, 50 votes gives the Dems 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.



A simple majority is not enough in the Senate. A leftover from America’s pro slavery days of compromise, around 1789. It takes 60 votes, not 51. That means there must be 10 reliable GOP defectors. Not likely.



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. 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?



Gen. Westmoreland came to W-DC and asked for 125,000 more troops and he “promised” to get the job done. 1965. He came back to W-Dc and asked for 100,000 more troops, to get the job done. 1968. When Nixon won the election and took office in 1969, on the promise to “end the war,” there were 550,000 troops in and around Vietnam. 22,000 more GIs went KIA before we finally pulled out in 1974. Died in vain. Oops, sorry about that!



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.



Let’s hope the Supreme Court does not ever again designate our president. I’m sure the House could have done better. And I know for a fact it would not have done worse.


[edit on 2/19/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 09:20 AM
link   
Dear Everybody:

It’s amazing how powerful we (as a country) have become — as expected the Russians are accommodating our war plans. Yesterday they declared they would suspend work on the Iranian Bushehr nuclear reactor claiming Iran was ‘late’ in making its monthly 25 million dollar payments. They’re babbling something about wanting their money in U.S. dollars instead of Euros! It goes without saying that that’s a ‘laugh-so-hard-makes-me-cry’ kind of excuse. Who believes this stuff? Sounds as if the Russkies know the site of this power plant is about to be blown to smithereens and that it’s highest time to put their engineers on the next Tupelov and get them ‘out of dodge city’!

Retired air force colonel Sam Gardiner www.informationclearinghouse.info... also suspects something “is up”. He insinuates we may be trying to provoke Iran into some sort of military response.

Looks like we’re barrel-assing toward a “They killed Fritz!” type moment (Ralph Bakshi, Wizards). Question is, are we really trying to agitate a military response from the Persians with this small stuff, i. e. these little provocations of ours, setting off small-scale explosives in covert operations within Iran. Or are we now creating a hostility-laden background for a ‘big event’ so that we can more realistically cry-baby those evil Iranians attacked us.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 2/20/2007 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 09:59 AM
link   

The USS John F. Kennedy will depart Mayport around high tide, leaving its home port Tuesday at 10:30 AM on one final voyage. The JFK is sailing to Boston for farewell ceremonies on Monday, Mar. 5. It will be decommissioned in a ceremony at Mayport on Mar. 23, after nearly 40 years of service.

Named in honor of the 35th President of the United States, the ship’s keel was laid in October 1964 at Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock Company in Newport News, Va. Launched in May 1967 “Big John,” as the ship would become known, was commissioned and entered naval service in September 1968.

Participating in 18 deployments to the Mediterranean Sea and Middle East, Big John performed more than 260,000 landings on her flight deck which included every tactical aircraft in the Navy’s arsenal. In 1989 two of the air wings F-14 Tomcats shot down two Libyan MiG-23s that were approaching the battle group in a hostile manner.

Home ported at Mayport Naval Station since 1995, Big John most recently served as training for naval aviators obtaining their carrier landing qualifications.

JFK is one of the two remaining fossil-fueled aircraft carriers still serving the Navy. Following the decommissioning, only USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63), ported in Yokosuka, Japan will remain as the Navy's last conventionally-powered aircraft carrier. Kitty Hawk is scheduled to be decommissioned in 2008.

Kennedy measures over 1,050 feet long, displaces 82,000 tons and can carry 70 combat aircraft, the full complement of today's carrier air wing. The crew consisted of more than 4,600 personnel when including the air wing.

After decommissioning the Kennedy will be placed in an inactive status and maintained in safe stowage at Inactive Ships Maintenance Facility in Philadelphia, Pa. From a story carried by the AP and edited by Don W.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 10:34 AM
link   


posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods

Dear Everybody: It’s amazing how powerful a country we have become. The Russians are accommodating to our war plans. Yesterday they declared they would suspend work on the Iranian Bushehr nuclear reactor claiming Iran was ‘late’ in making its monthly 25 million dollar payments. They’re babbling something about wanting their money in US dollars instead of Euros! That’s a ‘laugh-so-hard-it-makes-me-cry’ kind of excuse. Sounds as if the Russkies know the site of this power plant is about to be blown to smithereens and that it’s high time to put their engineers on the next Tupelov and get them safely ‘out of Dodge City’! [Edited by Don W]



I agree the slow pay claim is a poor excuse on which to stop work. On par with the ‘check is in the mail’ story. OTOH, could it not also be true?



Looks like we’re barrel-assing toward a “They killed Fritz!” type moment. [Referring I presume to the German’s rationale for invading Poland in 1939.] Question is, are we really trying to agitate a military response from the Persians with this small stuff, I. e. these little provocations of ours, setting off small-scale explosives in covert operations within Iran. Or are we now creating a hostility-laden background for a ‘big event’ so that we can more realistically cry-baby those evil Iranians attacked us. Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



1) Provoke Iran? Why would Iran, which is winning the struggle in Iraq, do anything more than it is doing now? Iran holds a much stronger hand than our own Bush43. Caught lying - Aesop’s Fables - B43 has run out of time. Everyone but George is dancing around the “leave Iraq” scenario. It’s a throwback to the old “After you, Alphonse” game. Or, “last man out, turn off the lights.” No matter when we leave Iraq, nor how, Iran will continue to share a common border with Iraq and the Shia in Iraq will continue to be the majority. Too bad George did not realize that 3,133 KIA ago. Oops. Sorry about that. Uh, “we thank you for your service.”

2) As dumb as I think our Maximum Leader is, I cannot believe the military would follow such an order. Not without a certificate of sanity along with it. But for November 7, I’d admit you are on the right track W-in-the-W, but this is AFTER November 7 and that path is blocked. Albeit poorly so.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Dear donwhite:

Of course Iran will NOT be provoked — no matter what we do — into really attacking us. But I do think we’re trying awfully hard to make it look that way so that when ‘something does happen’ we can blame it on them, those ‘rotten’ Iranians. And our public and the rest of the world will believe it — that they were the ones who initiated the upcoming conflict.

Yes, our military will march into a new war, it is after all a classic hierarchical organization. And it will do so enthusiastically if it feels it was attacked first.

I’m surprised to hear you are such a fan of Hillary Clinton. Being that she voted in favor of the Iraq war resolution. When it had been obvious from the get-go that we were planning to invade under false pretenses. Even if — and especially if — one believes the official 9-11 version of events.

E. g. NONE of the ‘highjackers’ were Iraqi. Or, lets remember how Vaclav Havel, then president of the Czech Republic, had traveled personally to the U.S. imploring our officials to understand that no meeting between Iraqis and Al-Qaeda had ever taken place in Prague. There are many other reasons why Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 and Hillary knew this full and well.

Therefore, I wouldn’t count on any domestic political party trying to prevent our next imminent military conquest — the Iranian oil fields in Mesopotamia. The current anti-Iraq war sentiment in Washington is very, very thin and will change at a whim.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 2/20/2007 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
I differ with you on 2 points, Mr Vag. 1) Congress - Dem or GOP - is impotent against the President. The Senate is the best example. It must operate by consensus. It happens to take 60 members to shut off debate so that same number is needed to make any powerful statement.


This is where I reap the benefits of having kept my mouth shut about the nuclear option; Constitutionally speaking, it does not take 60 members to do anything. Sometimes it pays to be moderate, sometimes you dig your heels in and do the right friggin thing. The dems can help themselves to the rules anytime they like and force Bush into a veto IF the republicans are willing to bear the spectacle of a fillibuster. You can get away with a nay vote on a non-binding resolution, but refusing cloture in defense of the most hated man in America?

Whats more, there is another body in which 7 votes would not only be sufficient, but a landmark smackdown, and it only takes 1 democrat to file a suit.

Constitutionally speaking, the congress is not impotent against the president, so shame on them if they allow themselves to be made so.

Whether or not the SCOTUS would hear the case, I believe, would depend on what was being contested. I'd be very interested in hearing from any authoritative source which states that under no circumstances will the SCOTUS review the constitutionality of the bills being passed in support of this war.



A simple majority is not enough in the Senate.

A simple majority is plenty to wield the purse strings because it is an act of omission. The Republicans can't spend a red cent on their own, period. So if the Dems refuse to spend money on anything but moving US troops out of harms way, Republicans can't afford to be the ones who say they'd rather give our troops no money at all.


Let’s hope the Supreme Court does not ever again designate our president.

I was going to mention that earlier, but I didn't want to preach to the choir. I'm pretty sure that this SCOTUS doesn't have the first idea of what constitutes "a political question to be decided by the voters".



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 09:27 PM
link   


posted by magicmushroom

6) Your mainstream media dose not accurately report what is going on in the world and what it does report is biased towards the US. 9) No one has attacked America and to say you are untouchable again smacks of gross ignorance; one does not have to fight wars to bring a country to it knees. 11) Sometime before Pearl Harbor the US sold its soul to the devil. 12) America's Foreign policy is about carpet bagging for the already rich and powerful. Money made from war goes in their pockets and the average American gets nothing other than the loss of loved ones. 13) America is in so much debt now that if the loans were called in the country would be bankrupt. 15) The American people are allowing a jackass to tear up their constitution, introduce draconian legislation which can remove their rights and freedom. 16) The American people have allowed their Government to wage wars of aggression on those who do not pose a threat. 20) A young nation and its people that showed so much promise is going down the pan and nobody seems to be concerned. [Edited by Don W]



6) This was always the case, except for the brief period from the early 20th century and continuing with CBS until its demise as a journalistic institution which I date to the succession of Dan Rather. He was the first 7 figure “journalist” and that event marked the end of the brief period epitomized by Britain’s Alastair Cooke who came here and died here. Such pay scales makes their persona more important than their talent. You cannot risk a 7 figure news-reader to a sniper’s bullet!

9) No one has wanted to attack America, until the Reagan era. Reagan was a sea change in America’s world outlook. All for the worse.

11) I’m not really sure what you have in mind here. December 7, 1941. Please elaborate.

12) That is just as Karl Marx described it. Capitalism is exploitation and death to the less well endowed. Social Darwinism, no insult to Charles Darwin intended, but the R&Fs love it! Protestantism (in America) has fostered that attitude, as if the rich are the blessed of God. Now it looks as if the Catholic Church is going the way of the world, seeking after what was described in the New Treatment as “filthy lucre!”

13) A banker’s nightmare? When your debtor owes so much you cannot afford to foreclose! Although I oppose the Republicans mad dash to incur debt since 2001, America once owed 100% of its GDP! In 1945. But, the top tax bracket rate was 91%, there was a 20% excess profits tax on business and the estate tax was 50% and American corporations actually paid taxes on income! Federal debt today is a Republican scheme made in Hell to transfer debt from today’s R&Fs to tomorrow’s poor and poorer. P and P-er. R&Fs. The Rich and Famous.

15) and 16) This reminds me of Germany, 1933-1945. A time when good people did bad things. This proves it can happen anywhere, given the right circumstances. The Nine Eleven Event was co-opted to advance a very dangerous political agenda. Say hello Neo Cons, and Bush43, the Chief Neo Con. Now you know what the Skull and Bones Club at Yale is about.

20) Isaiah said it best, “A nation whose leaders have no vision will perish.”


[edit on 2/20/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 10:29 PM
link   


posted by The Vagabond


posted by donwhite: It happens to take 60 [Senators] to shut off debate so that same number is needed to make any powerful [contentious] statement.


This is where I reap the benefits of having kept my mouth shut about the nuclear option; Constitutionally speaking, it does not take 60 members to do anything. [Edited by Don W]



You are right, Mr Vag. There is no such rule in the Constitution. OTOH the 1st Congress, elected in 1789, adopted the Rules of the Senate which have remained substantially unchanged through today. 2007. Because only one-third of the Senate is elected every two years, the Senate has ever since 1789 considered itself to be a “continuing” body and therefore, does not adopt new rules for each new Congress. When first adopted the Senate Rules required a 2/3rds majority vote to shut off debate. The Dems under LBJ changed that rule to 3/5ths majority vote in order to end the Southerner’s long time control of Congress they used most egregiously to block all anti segregation legislation.

The former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, of Tennessee, threatened to invoke the “nuclear option” in order to get Bush43 judicial nominations to the floor for a vote. He meant by that to change the Senate rules to require only a simple majority to shut off debate. For the Frist plan to be successful the Vice President would be called on to rule whether in the instance of adopting Rules, a simple majority vote could shut off debate. It was anticipated the Senate Parliamentarian would say “No” but that VP Cheney would disregard that advice and say ”Yes.” It is not likely any court would entertain a suit on that issue. To take jurisdiction would imply the Judiciary had the power to review the Legislature’s internal procedures. Unprecedented.

The House, OTOH, because all members are up for election every two years, does not consider itself to be a “continuing body” hence a newly elected House is not bound by any Rules of past Houses.



Constitutionally speaking, the Congress is not impotent against the president, so shame on them if they allow themselves to be made so.
Whether or not the SCOTUS would hear the case, I believe, would depend on what was being contested. I'd be very interested in hearing from any authoritative source which states that under no circumstances will the SCOTUS review the constitutionality of the bills being passed in support of this war.



When the US Con was adopted, 1789, the only sources of revenue for the Federal government were A) import duties, B) excise taxes and C) proceeds from the sale of lands. The Federal government was almost always broke or on the verge of being broke. It was a common urban legend in the 1870s that J P Morgan had more money than the US Treasury. Financiers Fisk and Gould nearly got control of the American gold supply. Except for Abraham Lincoln, most presidents were pretty much content to be more gatekeepers than road builders. There were very few conflicts between the Article 1 - Congress - and Article 2 - President - branches. In fact, once confirmed by the Senate, it was not sure the president could fire a cabinet officer. I am not sure when that situation changed to that of today where we all accept that cabinet officers serve at the president’s pleasure. Teddy Roosevelt was a great reformer. He was first to propose social security.

The Federal government did not become the pre-eminent government in America until 1913, with the passage of the 16th Amendment. The income tax amendment. Once endowed with almost a limitless supply of money, the Federal government has grown every year since. If not always in personnel it has grown in expenditures. I of course, who believes the Federal government is my good genie, love it, while others do not. But like it or not, there was a sea change in 1913. I could ramble on, but Jay Leno is about to come on, so I recommend you read Article 1 and Article 2 of the US Con. More later. Maybe.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 11:08 PM
link   

I of course, who believes the Federal government is my good genie, love it, while others do not.

You like big government? Just asking... because if you like big government, you'll love the coming years, and you probably would love China, Russia and North Korea.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 03:41 PM
link   


posted by Vitchilo

You like big government? Just asking . . because if you like big government, you'll love the coming years, and you probably would love China, Russia and North Korea. [Edited by Don W]



What does ‘snide’ mean? Unbecoming of you, Mr v.

Although I was not first to say this, my personal observations confirm that most people want personal security and to be treated fairly more than they want a superficial democracy. Which is why I think Vladimir Putin is so popular in the Russian Federation. I don’t know who “runs” China, I’m not sure anyone in America does, maybe it’s a committee thing, but whoever runs it, most Chinese are satisfied. If you obey the law, you have no contact with the authorities. If you don’t you will. That is the general rule in most of the Middle East and has been for a millennia. It worked for them. NK is the last of the “cult of personality” denounced both in the USSR by Kruschev and in the PRC at the end of the Cultural Revolution.

Any country with 3.6 million square miles of territory, 20,000 miles of border and 300 million people will of necessity have a large government. I want it to be a “good” government, made up mainly of career bureaucrats who do their duty regardless of who is in power in W-DC. We had that in the 1930s and 1940s and it helped make America the great place we live in today. OTOH, 50 years of incessant GOP bad-mouthing government in general and under Reagan, government in particular, takes its toll. We have now come to the point where far too many people are all too easily convinced we need to privatize everything. Wrong. Let’s hope we can reverse that unhealthy trend before it gets worse.


[edit on 2/21/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 04:40 PM
link   
I see where you're going with the senate rules (and you are correct that the SCOTUS cannot intervene in relation to senate rules unless it brings about an unconstitutional end), but a fillibuster can be broken to push through the nuclear option for the Democrats when the time is right. When it comes time for another budget suppliment you tell them that we're ending this war the easy way or the hard way- give us the power for a controlled pull out in accordance with the will of the people who elected this body, or you can let it all just crash to a halt for lack of funding because you were unwilling to acknowledge the will of the people.

Because the war in Iraq is an action and it only takes 51 votes (actually 41 votes when the fillibuster is used) to NOT take an action, the Democrats have the power to stop the war. They just refuse to play hardball with this runaway administration- they're taking a tip from Richard Daley, "back no losers, make no waves".

The growth of federal power early in the last century with its increased revenues, while it did change many things including giving the executive branch considerable unilateral power via executive order to a host of agencies, some of which oversee mandatory programs which the congress would be hard pressed to shut down, did not so empower the executive that he can steamroll a congressional majority that is actively opposing him.

And just for the sake of trivia, I'm already familiar with the constitution.

As for the ability of the president to remove cabinet officers, it could in inferred from a number of things. There is some hint in Marbury v. Madison if you read it a certain way that the president can punk the cabinet, the fact that Andrew Johnson survived impeachment after removing the secretary of war (and perhaps of equal importance that Lorenzo Thomas was aquitted on the charges that resulted from carrying out the order of removal) added to that, and then although I forget the name of the case, sometime early in the last century there was a decision that made it unconstitutional for congress to take any role in the removal process for appointees.

Of course that could change eventually. The role of independent counsels is completely contingent on a seemingly unjustified exception. Theoretically, if someone believes in the unitary executive theory, they have very little grounds to say that Nixon did anything wrong in the Saturday Night Massacre. (It really is a shame he didn't get impeached. A ruling on an article involving the Saturday Night Massacre might have set an important convention, if not legal precedent, regarding the unitary executive theory.



posted on Mar, 23 2007 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Dear Everybody:

Today’s article on yahoo about “Navy Lacks Plan to Defend Against `Carrier-Destroying' Missile” just reeks of phoniness. It’s so stupid I’m ashamed to post the link, but I’ll do so out of principle news.yahoo.com.... I wouldn’t waste my time clicking on it though.

Still, when ‘critical info’ of this sort is leaked to the main stream media, there’s a reason. There’s always a reason. In this case, with hostilities against Iran about to begin, it fits our leadership’s current dredging for a pretext environment quite nicely. Will ‘Iranian’ missiles now suddenly hit and sink one of our carriers? Also, where on this green earth is the USS Enterprise right now? Does anyone know?

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Mar, 27 2007 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Dear Everybody:

It gets better by the minute, our propaganda that is. Now, the timing couldn’t be better, we're showing a Hollywood blockbuster, “300”, to condition the populace into hating those evil Iranians, err, Persians. What a coincidence! And put together and produced in record time too!

“Good movie, bad history —
The movie was great lots of visual work and a heroic story, but the writer clearly had no idea about the Persian Empire. First of all, I don't understand why all Greek Spartans look like waxed models from a model show (not to mention they jump 2 meters high with a sword, spear and a shield) but Persian Immortals all look like Orcs from Lord of The Rings. Also movie didn't say anything about Greek slaves who fought with their masters to the very end (not that they had a choice), instead it shows Greeks hate slavery!!!!!. Moreover, I think the writer doesn't even know where Persia was!! Half of the Persian army is African, but Persians never invaded Africa so there shouldn't be any black individuals in the movie. Persians were the only Empire that never called their King a God (they did call them King of Kings because that's what they were). Movie however shows Persian King's camp is full of nudity and sexual relationship, and refers to Xerxes as a God. In addition I think the writer thought this movie is one of his comic books and therefore tried to make Persians look like Uruks just to show who’s the bad guy.....:/” quote by devil_tata (movies.yahoo.com) Mar 10, 2007

We'll see where this all goes.

Unbelievable,
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 3/27/2007 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]

mod edit, format link

[edit on 27-3-2007 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 09:09 PM
link   
One more thing. They will never get within 50 miles of the Enterprise. The closest they can ever get will be if the USS Enterprise docks. Ever hear of the the US Navy's snipers anyone???



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 01:46 PM
link   
It will be interesting to see how all this plays out.

As of 9 Jan 2008 obviously we will attack Iran. We “need” the oil. And all of our ‘allies’ in the Middle East — Israeli and Arabic alike — wanted us to assault those Persians yesterday.

The question remains what will our pretext be? I still postulate it will be a naval incident of sorts. And these latest U.S. claims of the Iranian navy harassing our ships suggest that this is exactly what public opinion is being primed for (by the Pentagon propaganda machine).

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Wizard_In_The_Woods
 


On January 6, 2008, five Iranian boats led by the Revolutionary Guard encountered three US Navy warships in the Strait of Hormuz. US officials said the Iranians "harassed and provoked" the US naval vessels.

Strait of Hormuz. The strait at its narrowest is 21 miles wide. It is the only sea passage to the open ocean for large areas of the petroleum-exporting Persian Gulf States. Some 20 percent of the world's oil supply passes through the strait, making it one of the world's strategically important choke points. Ships moving through the Strait follow a Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS), which separates inbound from outbound traffic to reduce the risk of collision. The traffic lane is six miles wide, including 2 two-mile-wide traffic lanes, one inbound and one outbound, separated by a two-mile wide separation median. From Wikipedia.

In 2007, total world oil production amounted to approximately 85 million barrels per day (bbl/d), and around one-half, or over 43 million bbl/d of oil was moved by tankers on fixed maritime routes. The international energy market is dependent upon reliable transport. The blockage of a choke point, even temporarily, can lead to substantial increases in total energy costs. Between 15 and 16.5 million barrels of oil transit the Strait of Hormuz each day, roughly 20 percent of the world's daily oil production, according to the US government's Energy Information Administration.

On July 3, 1988, 290 people were killed when an Iran Air Airbus A300 passenger jet was shot down over the strait by the United States Navy guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes. There is still lingering controversy about the event, considered among the most controversial tragedies in aviation history.

The Iranians have not forgotten nor forgiven us for this miscue. Add it to the still fresh in their minds, the 1953 intervention by the CIA into Iran’s internal affairs by overthrowing the democratically elected prime minister and replacing him with the young Shah. Two unpleasantries we tend to overlook.

[edit on 1/9/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by donwhite
 


Donwhite,

Everything you say is indeed correct. You know your history, there’s no doubt about that. However to say that the Iranians hate us (for things we did in the past), and so much so, that they are willing/eager to start a war with us is unreasonable. As a matter of fact, I’m not even sure how long ago it’s been since the Persians initiated a battle. Heck, I think it might be thousands of years.

Small, weak countries don’t instigate hostilities against strong, big, superpower nations (like the U.S.). It’s always, and I mean ALWAYS, the other way round. So we’ll just have to wait and see what happens (with Iran).

If we, the U.S. suddenly are able to ‘retaliate’ (a false flag aggression) with 10,000 plus air sorties, nuclear-tipped bunker buster munitions, and a full-fledged invasion of the Western Iranian oilfields — conveniently located in the same geological formation as the Iraqi ones — then it’s fair to say our military response was planned years in advance and therefore ‘premeditated’. Hence, any claims of us having been innocently ‘attacked’ will be utterly shameful.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Wizard_In_The_Woods
 


However to say that the Iranians hate us (for things we did in the past), and so much so, that they are willing/eager to start a war with us is unreasonable. As a matter of fact, I’m not even sure how long ago it’s been since the Persians initiated a battle. Heck, I think it might be thousands of years. Small, weak countries don’t instigate hostilities against strong, big, superpower nations (like the U.S.). It’s always, and I mean ALWAYS, the other way round. So we’ll just have to wait and see what happens (with Iran).


The keel of the USS Enterprise was laid in 1958 and the ship was commissioned into service on November 25, 1961. It was the first of our nuclear super carriers. This ship is 1100 feet long and displaces 80,000 tons. The ship’s company numbers 3,500 and the air wing personnel numbers 1,500. It is due to be taken out of service next year.

So are we looking for a second Tonkin Gulf Incident to go to war against Iran? Frankly, we have de-bunked Tonkin Gulf and this so-called incident looks even less threatening to me.

I mean, a Carrier Battle Group includes a guided missile cruiser, a couple destroyers or frigates and at least one submarine. Add to that the ever present satellites which must give real time pictures of the entire area to the skipper of the Enterprise. If we are going to use a couple Sea Ray speedboats as justification to wage war in Iran, then we’re at the same point in history when Bush43, VP Cheney and “hired gun” Scooter Liddy lied to the public about WMDs in Iraq. Even if we wanted to go to war there, we do not have enough Armed Forces to do it.

Iran is larger than Alaska, at 622,000 square miles. 2.5 times the size of Texas. There are 65,400,000 Iranians. Speaking Farsi (Persian) and mostly Shia, they are a highly sophisticated society with much pride in their ancient history. Aside: Comparative religion-wise Islam to Christianity, Islam Shia more nearly resembles Christian Catholicism and Islam Sunni more nearly resembles Christian Protestantism. Shia believe in saints, miracles and have a primary leader, the Ayatollah. Sunni have none of that but both call men learned in Islam mullahs.

I have many friends from Iran. My family took in a 14 year old Iranian boy when the Iran-Iraq War threatened to see him drafted. He attended his last 3 years of high school here, and matriculated from dental school. He lived in my house for 4 years. He now lives in southern California with a beautiful wife hand picked from Iran and 3 beautiful children. All of who are throughly Americanized. His parents now have Green cards, but cannot dispose of their property in Iran because there is a 90% exit tax.

We did Iran dead-wrong in 1953 for which they have never forgiven us. The secular Iranians attribute the 1979 Islamic Revolution to the American installation of the young Shah who turned into a cruel autocrat. Iranians suffered much under his despotic rule. Then their hopes were betrayed by the Ayatollah Khomeini who returned from exile to lead the Revolution. He turned out to be as bad as or worse than the Shah. Americans as people are not disliked but the CIA, State Department, Defense Department and White House are persona non grata in Iran. Is it any wonder?



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods

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


IMO, the fact that the Ike has been retrofitted makes it the perfect candidate for a false flag op. Carriers are notoriously difficult to sink, so you take your most obsolete AC, build in the necessary equipment to ensure it goes to the bottom, and you have a ready made incident to outrage the sheeple and guarantee that they support more war. Here's an interesting article about the buildup to war on Iran.

www.warwithoutend.co.uk...



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join