It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


U.S. plans naval buildup in Gulf to counter Iran bad idea?

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 11:55 AM
Hi this is my first post was just watching the news a heard this.


With troops already in iraq and iraq already on the brink of civil war is this really a good idea? putting are troops in danger by provoking iran? iran could easily launch a strike against our troops in iraq. or maybe all this talk and rumors about adding more troops to iraq because of the violence is just propaganda and we are actually building up for possible conflict with iran in the very near future

posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 12:04 PM
Yea man..its not a good idea..but how are we gonna stop it...we just sit back an watch as more troops die..and the leaders of the world get crazier and crazier..but dont be too alarmed..the end of the world is not yet...but soon.

on another you believe in et's?

[edit on 19-12-2006 by TheSonOfMan]

posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 12:23 PM
I don't honestly know if it's a good thing or not.

On one hand you have the idea that a large naval group in the
area could, perhaps discourage Iran, and could help morale in

On the other hand you have more troops being put into an area
that is really a powderkeg ready to explode, not to mention
that that may be a nuclear powderkeg.

posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 12:44 PM
The idea is almost certainly to ratchet up tensions, and hopefully provoke an incident that will give the US an excuse to go to war.

The neocons' influence may be waning outside the White House, but they've still got the President's ear. And they desperately want a war with Iran beore it's "too late" - IE before Bush gets his walking papers in 2008.

posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 01:01 PM
is it a coincidence that this comes during the announcement that iran is dropping the dollar???

posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 01:06 PM
This is suss...

They official says its been talked about for a long time, yet nothing has been decided... so why LEAK this now? whats the importance?

Why do you tell the world your building forces up as a show of force?

I tells ya, XMAS Is gunna be dicey.

posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 01:34 PM
There's also Ahmedinejad's faction's poor showing in the recent round of elections to consider. He makes a good boogeyman, if it appears his power is waning, it will be harder to justify a war.

posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 02:00 PM
do you really think them elections in iran really matter? they only make him look bad in american media what is Iran media saying about Ahmedinejad. just like our elections here, theres a shift in power but our president still does what he wants and still sits in power so i don't think the elections in Iran are gonna have much impact on what is going on and Ahmedinejad will still come out and give his ridiculous speeches and such and try to provoke us into something that we should avoid to save American lives.

posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 02:12 PM
I'd be pretty amazed if it's true, although I'm starting to be able to believe anything of the administration these days.

However, I think it's more likely tied into the 'Surge' option on the table at the moment, going against the ISG recommendations and putting up to 50,000 more troops into Iraq. That kind of operation and attempt at a (frankly doomed) 'quickfix' will need substantial offshore support.

posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 02:41 PM
Well, I guess that depends on who you are and what you are hoping the outcome to be... If you are attempting to provoke a war with Iran, then I suppose that this is a good idea. This is likely to increase tensions between the U.S. and Iran and is fertile ground for some type of "International Incident" which could trigger military action. The U.S. could provoke a missile launch against it's fleet or an air attack which would be a beautiful prelude to war.

Now if you are Joe Average American or a soldier assigned to duty on one of those vessels then I would suppose that this is a bad idea - as we are likely to draw the ire of the international community for fostering such provocations, spread our military impossibly thin, rachet up our deficit spending and see more of our brave young men and women sacrificed on the alter of political brinksmanship.

It all perspective folks and your desired outcome.

posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 02:49 PM
a war on iran is inevitable. we went to war against iraq because they were switching from dollars to euros for oil sales and iran just announced the same.

posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 02:51 PM

Originally posted by lardo5150
is it a coincidence that this comes during the announcement that iran is dropping the dollar???

oh, i didn't see you posted this. good point!

posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 02:52 PM
I think kickoutthejams has it right. Additional troop presence in regards to the move against the ISG recommendations. However, with this administration, you just never really know.

posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 02:52 PM

Originally posted by lardo5150
is it a coincidence that this comes during the announcement that iran is dropping the dollar???

My thoughts exactly. If Iraq and Syria follow suit, there will be hell to pay. Not to mention a monster recession in North America. Hunker down kids, the ride could get interesting very quiclkly. Perhaps Titor had a point or two after all.

posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 02:59 PM
Oh well, I'll play the devil's advocate

Instead of "putting more troops to risk" like someone said, might it be the opposite? a good naval cover and, If I remember, aircraft carrier, will also furnish more Aircover in the region,

all this should help to save soldiers' lives

Strategically, it is perfectly normal in my opinion

check a map of around Iran, you think USSR was surrounded? just check a map

Iraq is filled with US military
Afghanistan to the North also has an important military presence
to the South, the military build up ensures a blockade if necessary
to The East, the Pakistani allied of the United States (altough it is being a bit less these times I think)

In any ways, the US has just continued a politic of isolating potential threats, like they did for North Korea

posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 03:24 PM
Here's an interesting article from an Israeli Member of Knesset. These warmongers are still expecting America to do there dirty work for them.

Don't know if it's a coincidence but didn't lapdog Blair fly to Washington first before he went on his tour of the Middle East. What's the deluded fool upto now?

posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 03:32 PM
The link is not pulling up the article you are reffering to.....

posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 04:10 PM
A second carrier battle group, interesting, perhaps a sub or two here and there then I'll get excited but for now this gives more options to us and makes Iran think twice. One in the gulf one at the entrance...

posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 04:10 PM
Not good.

First of all, we have the majority of our troops on a land mass where no one likes us, tied up in a war that is a mess.

Second of all, Iran and Syria offered to help us get out of it.

Understandably, not an attractive option for Washington, but considering the mess that we are in, it's probably the best and only way out at this pooint

Bush says he's waiting for the first of the year to make a decision about what he's going to do and it will be a major strategy change.

Now they want to put a Naval Presence near Iraq for Iran's actions towards the US?

Iran's actions are motivated, just like 9/11 was, by Middle East agression against the US that was fostered during the time the Russians fought in Afghanistan.

9/11 was a long time coming. If you want to believe in a conspiracy, know this, that it could've been averted if we had

The Russians are long gone, and the Middle East countries are leaving Russia alone.

So we're putting gunboats because of Iran's actions against the US, which were actually started by the US actions against Iran.

Very bad.

If the Iraq war (either one) was not the beginning of the end, this surely will be.

posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 07:37 PM
Couldn't they just re-install Saddam and make him do it?

Like the old days.

What does a naval build-up mean. If it's only saber rattling isn't it some kind of Macchiavelian propaganda for the benefit of whom?

Are they hoping to cow Iran away from nuclear energy and provide moral support to Israel.

Or just incense outrage among the muslim nations while not really addressing the underlying issues.

Robert Baer felt they should have invaded Iran and not Iraq. The world sure doesn't have the same sympathy it did a couple of years ago. Most of the funding for terrorist activities comes from Saudi, are they going to threaten their 'allies'?

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in