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.

 

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

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 08:23 PM
link   
I'm not sure what to make of this, but every reason I come up with is not good. It seems that the US could also be preparing for a strike on nuclear facilities either from Israel or from us, which will undoubtedly cause a greater conflict in the ME. Of course the dropping of the dollar is a factor, but it has been well known that Iran intended to do that since 2003. On the other hand I don't think it is a coincidence. The fact that Iran is fueling the insurgency in Iraq is also something that should have been expected and defended against. It wasn't and now the administration acts like they couldn't have foreseen it.

Either this administration has been completely incompetent at war and has caused more problems that it solves, or a greater conflict is exactly what they want.

In any case everybody looses except for those that profit from war.




posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 09:10 PM
link   
What is that cold breeze on my neck!

Is it a draft?????



posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 09:21 PM
link   
Calm down, Why the Hell are you talking about a DRAFT?

They have simply relocated naval military asset to enforce their isolation policy on Iran

They haven't said their getting ready to wipe Iran's ass with all their military might

There is no credible US landtroop movement here to Simply SUGGEST an American offencive on Iran

Aicraft Carrier groups get moved all the time, it's one of the best asset in the United States Navy

Like Westpoint said, wait until they move a few submarines in



posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 09:29 PM
link   
I am calm, but a drafted Army is cheaper than a volunteered one and since they are annoucing an increase in troops into Iraq and the budget is bleeding I think the math points to that logical conclusion!

[edit on 19-12-2006 by mel1962]



posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 09:48 PM
link   
The US main battle doctrine is that a Volonteer army will do better than a conscript one

Recent combats have shown their combat doctrines work, don't know if they are the best, but they worked perfectly

They are many troop sources other than "Draft"

The US totalise 1.4 million troops if I remember well, not counting national guard and reserve forces and, to give a guest, not half of it is in Iraq

Instead of meaning a draft, it can also mean they will relocate Troops from their european and asian bases. European bases are more likely, since with North Korea they will want to keep a considerable force there.

EDIT: to give you an idea
In Germany, there are 69 395 US soldiers
Italy, 12 250
United Kingdom 11 090

on the continental US, there is actually 900 000 soldiers

Only 150 000 troops are currently deployed in the middle east

Before they draft, they will relocate their forces

[edit on 19-12-2006 by CanadianGlasnost]



posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 10:11 PM
link   
Not only that CanadianGhost, but they are also getting foreign people to go into the military by promising US citizenship if they fight for X amount of time.



posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 10:18 PM
link   
Unfortunatley of the 1.4 million armed forces only 680k are Army and Marines and half of those are in support roles not combat. We are at our limit if we had 1.4 million combat troops we would not keep rotating the same troops 2 or 3 times.



posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 10:28 PM
link   
In all honesty, I cannot understand how a President can make such unpopular decisions with the public and get away with it? Everyone is against this war, and potential war with Iran, yet the steamroller keeps pressing on.

I dont know about you but if I were in Irans shoes, after seeing some naval vessels starting to fill the gulf, and knowing more are on the way to "pressure" Iran, if you knew that you would be attacked in the future when the naval buildup was completed then you would be behind the eight ball wouldnt you?

But if you decided to strike straight away as soon as those first ships arrived, before the bulk of the extra naval strength has arrived and keep on attcking, keeping the US Navy outside the Straights of Hermez, then you would theoreticslly be at an advantage wouldn't you?

If Iran did adopt this route and flow with the initial momentum, knowing that either way, whatever they did sooner or later they would get bombed, Syria could take the battle to the US troops in Iraq, whilst possibly Egypt and Lebanon try and smother Israel to keep them out of the party.

Dont look good whatever happens, and we are all speculating here.

Now someone previously mentioned "The Draft", check this article out for size - titled "Bush Plans to expand the military"

www.prisonplanet.com...

quoted"The Army already has been authorized to boost the number of active-duty soldiers temporarily from 482,000 to a maximum of 512,000, although it has yet to reach that limit. The Army has more than half a million reserve soldiers in the National Guard and Army Reserve."

And from the New-York times which states Bush want upwards of 50,000 extra troops in Iraq soon-
www.nytimes.com...

With talk of Iran trying to change their trade from dollars to Euro's, Brazil and Argentina I think, aswell as Venezuela are thinking of trading in currency other than the dollar - will Bush seek to invade them too?

www.thenews.com.pk...
"Iran declares it wants to trade in Euro's for foreign deals"

This article is off interest(sorry if its been posted before)-
www.globalresearch.ca...
"Israeli Member of Knesset: US will attack Iran and Israel must dismantle Palestinian Authority"

And heres thebig daddy of them all, China, publicly clashing with the USA over financial interests and possibly dropping the dollar for trade aswell -
www.stevequayle.com...


So you see here, my friends, it is not only the middle east that will bring down firstly the US military and in turn the US economy but the rest of the world who for many years has sat back and watched the US imperialist ambitions spread from country to country and world sphere to sphere, and now the scales are starting to tip, thanks to the election of that clown Bush who hasnt got an idea on what a President is, what he's supposed to do and how to do it.. He shall go down in history as the one man who brought the mighty US of A down to it's knees.

I so feel sorry for the US citizens caught up in all this crap!



posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Melbourne_Militia


I so feel sorry for the US citizens caught up in all this crap!


I feel so sorry for people who are wrapped up in hopeful delusions.



posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 11:16 PM
link   
They're not hopeful delusions at all, but realistic possibilities which I HOPE do not eventuate. Under the current leadership of the US anything can happen - you must admit, W.Bush isn't the most intelligent US President you have ever had!



posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 11:35 PM
link   
The US is not at it's limit

I perfectly know that not all of the 1.4 million soldiers are for Combat Duties

but they could still relocate the part of combat forces that are in Europe in the middle east

Oh and of course, we should not forget the private security forces present in Iraq. While I doubt their quality and discipline, they are still a considerable force

Back on topic: I still don't get why most people think that moving a few ships are a bad move for the US? I don't see Iran managing to sink a single US carrier

While I have high regards with the Guerilla capabilities of the Iranian army, I have terrible doubts about their ability to do considerable damage to a US fleet

Militarily, I wouldnt say this is an incompetent move, since this will allow great force projection in the sector. More than that, it is safer being on the sea than in the mainland for now.

And I don't see why the international community will rage against Moving a Fleet near a Warzone... Is it not Perfectly Normal? I don't think they paint those big ships grey for fun



posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 11:54 PM
link   
Would you care to explain in great detail your theory of a civil war in Iraq?

I didn't think so.

Be quiet please.



posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 12:04 AM
link   
So we're provoking them in an effort to impress upon them how important it is that they not provoke us?




posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 12:18 AM
link   
Why would we go to war with Iran - that article you linked, and I read earlier had generals' saying the active army is "broken"

Indeed it is.

The extra carrier is to support the extra troops that will be there for 6-8 months. Increased military operations with an increased force require more shipments of supplies as well as more air support.

The carrier group is perform three duties.

1. Support Operations in Iraq.

2. Delivered increased supplies

3. Secure the waterways (Iran likes to use underwater mines as it did in the early 80's).

The U.S. is going to give one final heave-ho, in other words instead of standing by like we have been - we are going on the offensive in Baghdad.


[edit on 20-12-2006 by crisko]



posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 03:28 AM
link   
We are clearly a threat to Iran now.

We invaded and occuped IRAQ because we believed they were a threat, this is our ONLY justification for going.

Couldnt IRAN strike us? being we are a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER?

what a crock...

Again the US is dictating world affairs...

Imagine if Iraq had of put its naval forces of the coast of the continental USA, we'd of hit them in an instant, and called it a GREAT defensive move to save the USA.

but when WE are the ones putting offensive means on other nations coastlines... should they DEFEND themselves we will label them evil terrorists..

Hezbollah are training in Iran.
Civil war in Palestine.
Civil war in Iraq
Civil war building in Lebanon
Syria and IRAN playing chasey behind Israels back
Alqaeda have been quiet on the anti american rhetoric, i wonder what they are building up...

The stage is set for a strike, and the whole regions going to explode.

Why do we need to show force?

We are the WESTERN World.
America has the best nukes/military in the world.....
why do we need to send a carrier half war round hte wrold to 'remind' someone of that...

The chess pieces are falling into place ladies and gents...

bring on the new world..



posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 05:17 AM
link   
OK well I would like to review my previous statement after reading several different news stories today:

Bush to announce expansion of military...

Could that be a draft? Surely not you would say then it almost certainly looks like the 'Surge' plan of 50,000 more troops for Iraq is a reality.

Blair being accused for calling for a war against Shias...

Possibly misinterpreted but his rhetoric in the middle east at the moment is certainly shall we say 'not helpful'. I'd initially thought he'd fled the UK last week to avoid embarassment from the police interview he underwent, the diana report and the sudden collapse of the saudi investigation and BAE. However, now it's looking like he's doing his 'vanguard' bit again, heralding further action. Is this going to be his legacy?

UK cop killer accused of fleeing country in a veil...

Is this heralding a new law in the UK of no veils?

not looking good is it?



posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 05:24 AM
link   
Adding a second carrier in the region wont do any harm.
As for Iran there already fighting a proxy war against the USA in Iraq. If Iraq's borders were more secure I could air power being used against the insurgents supply lines.



posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by crisko
1. Support Operations in Iraq.

[snip]

The U.S. is going to give one final heave-ho, in other words instead of standing by like we have been - we are going on the offensive in Baghdad.

I did not see anything in that article about supporting operations in Iraq.

Maybe you missed the first paragraph?


WASHINGTON - The U.S. Central Command is aggressively planning a naval buildup in the Persian Gulf, including the addition of a second aircraft carrier, in response to a series of aggressive actions by Iran, U.S. military officials told NBC News on Tuesday.



posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 08:15 AM
link   
Someone mentioned looking at a map to see how surrounded Iran is...good advice! But ive been wondering about this for a while, it makes me wonder what will happen with Turkey. The Turkish border with Iran is where the Kurds are in Turkey, i wonder how long it will be before we see a push against the Kurds to destablise the area & effectively block off that border? Now if the US goes for the Kurds will Turkey protect them or will there be a civil war between Turks & Kurds? It wouldnt be hard for the US to target the Kurds after the amount of terrorist events they have instigated. Interesting timing with them currently not being allowed to join the EU.

I think Turkey is the one to watch with the Iran situation, seems to me that securing Kurdish Turkey will be vital to any western action against Iran (if it does come to it).



posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Hal9000

Since there are no US troops in Iran right now... I'd have to guess the agressive actions the officer is talking about are Iran backed guerilla strikes on Iraq soil

Which means the newly moved Carrier Group will also be able to support the operations in the Area

Cobra1982: Who were you talking to? It is not clear



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join