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.

 

Russia says US is Prepairing Missile Strike on Iran

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 03:22 PM
link   
U.S. Navy nuclear submarines maintaining vigil off the coast of Iran indicate that the Pentagon’s military plans include not only control over navigation in the Persian Gulf but also strikes against Iranian targets, a former commander of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, Admiral Eduard Baltin has told the Interfax news agency. “The presence of U.S. nuclear submarines in the Persian Gulf region means that the Pentagon has not abandoned plans for surprise strikes against nuclear targets in Iran. With this aim a group of multi-purpose submarines ready to accomplish the task is located in the area,” Admiral Baltin said. He made the comments after reports that a U.S. submarine collided with a Japanese tanker in the Strait of Hormuz. “American patience is not unlimited,” he said. “The submarine commanders go up to the periscope depth and forget about navigation rules and safety measures,” the admiral said. Currently there is a group of up to four submarines in the Persian Gulf area, he said. So far they only control navigation in the Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Oman, and in the Arabian Sea, he said. They might receive different orders in future: to block off the Gulf of Oman, that is the Iranian coast, and, if need be, launch missile strikes against ground targets in Iran, he said.




posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 03:49 PM
link   
welcome aboard guano....

you need to post a source for the article you are quoting. not doing so is plaigerism and frowned upon here.

as for the article itself, i am betting it's from pravda.....sensationalism, becuase the US has always maintained a nuclear sub presence in the region.



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Read this story "Israeli strike on Iran turned back over Iraq".. Not sure of the validity of it, again i just post info i run across and leave it to the reader to make a choice.
www.rense.com...



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 08:34 PM
link   
I hear today congress has told Bush to stay out of Iran.



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 01:45 PM
link   
Doesnt suprise me, the new democrac led congress wouldn't know what a threat was until it bit us in the ass. But I hear they do sing a nice version of Kumbaya.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by s8nlovesme
Doesnt suprise me, the new democrac led congress wouldn't know what a threat was until it bit us in the ass. But I hear they do sing a nice version of Kumbaya.


Ya, thank god bush and his cabnet can recgonize a threat before something terrible happens on American soil...



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 10:52 AM
link   
There was a collision between a US nucleur sub and a 300'000 tonne japanese oil tanker south of Iran in the Straits Of Homuz a few weeks back. I think they have so much stuff floating round down there they can't even stop it crashing.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by InSpiteOf

Originally posted by s8nlovesme
Doesnt suprise me, the new democrac led congress wouldn't know what a threat was until it bit us in the ass. But I hear they do sing a nice version of Kumbaya.


Ya, thank god bush and his cabnet can recgonize a threat before something terrible happens on American soil...




Yup, all those attacks that have happened lately, are a sure sign that misguided policies have been emplaced.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja

Yup, all those attacks that have happened lately, are a sure sign that misguided policies have been emplaced.


You think the policies are really misguided?

Ive heard a lot of appolgists say US foreign policy is misguided or confused. I personally believe it is constructed preciesly by the holders of US interests, and put into play by US interventionists.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
You think the policies are really misguided?

Ive heard a lot of appolgists say US foreign policy is misguided or confused. I personally believe it is constructed preciesly by the holders of US interests, and put into play by US interventionists.


It's not misguided in the sense that they policy makers do not understand rather well what will/might happen but in the sense that it does not serve the interest of 95% of American citizens and not all that many elsewhere either.

Stellar



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by InSpiteOf

Originally posted by s8nlovesme
Doesnt suprise me, the new democrac led congress wouldn't know what a threat was until it bit us in the ass. But I hear they do sing a nice version of Kumbaya.


Ya, thank god bush and his cabnet can recgonize a threat before something terrible happens on American soil...


I believe Gengis Khan had a similar policy of destroying anything he didn't understand.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX


It's not misguided in the sense that they policy makers do not understand rather well what will/might happen but in the sense that it does not serve the interest of 95% of American citizens and not all that many elsewhere either.

Stellar



Damn, nailed that right on the head. But i think the percentage is more like 98%



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by InSpiteOf

Originally posted by s8nlovesme
Doesnt suprise me, the new democrac led congress wouldn't know what a threat was until it bit us in the ass. But I hear they do sing a nice version of Kumbaya.


Ya, thank god bush and his cabnet can recgonize a threat before something terrible happens on American soil...


lol, yeh they do actually. They identify the threat and then let it continue so they can pass more laws and have more power.



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 03:34 AM
link   
3 SunBurn Missiles and the entire US Gulf Fleet is sitting on the bottom of the ocean, not to mention 1/4 of the US Carrier"s gone. These anti-carrier missiles are not to be taken lightly as they have the capability unseen against the Allies and I think could swing the War.



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 11:05 AM
link   
This whole post is way off topic from Russia says U.S. is planning war with Iran, but anyways this is my two sense.

I see everyones point on this page, however I do think that our best interests are in mind. If we let Iran develop more than no longer are there just a few superpowers, if everyone becomes a superpower then how do we stop bad things from happening? As for the last reply the missles that Iran has are of no concern to the U.S. Navy. If a war does escalate we have the Israel on our side, and as hated as Israel is on this site they are also I superpower to be reconed with. And getting even more off topic my buddy have been in the reserve for 3 3/4 years now and he is finally going active in March, if you ask me that seems kinda suspect just because he was told about it about 3 months ago.

Excuse any mispellings I do not have office installed on this computer yet



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoWarningShots
nd getting even more off topic my buddy have been in the reserve for 3 3/4 years now and he is finally going active in March, if you ask me that seems kinda suspect just because he was told about it about 3 months ago.


This is actually to be expected. Bush wants to send more troops into Iraq right now. The Army in particular is over extended. This doesn't seem odd to me at all.



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 10:28 PM
link   
The reason it seems odd to me is because why would they tell him they are keeping him after his 4 year commitment in advance, I guess I should have gone further on that.



posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 02:28 PM
link   
This is the back door to a draft.Under stop loss the Army can keep servicemen and women for a period of however long their specialty is required of them in a war zone.
The retirees and such can be kept on duty till they can be effectively replaced.
Most service people are proud to serve, but this is asking at times for them to give their lives because of lack of organization or forethought on the part of the army.
Stop Loss is agreed to by signing enlistment papers in the first place and
its part of the agreement for service enlistment.
however i do not think it is heavily mentioned to prospective troops at the rcruitment center.
The practice is rumoured to be wide spread by some and not by others.
If anyone has some figures ....................?




top topics



 
0

log in

join