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. Navy denies offensive build up in Gulf

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 03:32 PM
link   
The truth will set you free. Who does the U.S. think they are kidding? Everyone sees it clear as day what's happening. Only a few skeptics remain. The Iranians aren't stupid they know the U.S. is setting up shop for a strike to do the bidding of Saudi Arabia and Israel.


link:

rawstory.com...



Look to the light,people.


Manama The US Navy's top Persian Gulf commander on Monday denied reports of a US naval offensive military build-up in the region, affirming however that the coalition was keeping a close watch on increasing Iranian naval exercises in Gulf waters. Commander of the US Naval Forces Central Command and the Bahrain-based 5th Fleet, Vice Admiral Patrick Walsh, said that this was "an unprecedented time of instability and insecurity in the region," with tension in Somalia, Lebanon, Eastern Mediterranean, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran. He also said that Iranian military naval exercises in the past nine months showed the suggestion of the use of mines and the threat of the closure of the strait of Hormuz, the only sea access into and out of the region. Walsh, who was speaking to the media at the US Navy 5th Fleet Command in Manama before being replaced by Vice Admiral Kevin J Cosgriff in the coming days, described the Iranian exercises in the strait as provocative. "Mines are an offensive terrorist type of weapon," he said. "We are not giving up water to Iran. This is international waters, it therefore should have international access and we will safeguard that with our regional and coalition partners." Walsh added that concerns over Iranian intentions are augmented by the firing of ballistic missiles into the Gulf and some of the rhetoric coming out of the Iranian leadership. "The question is not what the Americans are planning but what the Iranians are planning," he said. "When they conduct their exercises and they fire their missiles we are watching very closely and we are sharing that information with our Gulf partners." Walsh emphasized that the US military presence in the region was of a defensive nature, dismissing rumours of an impending attack on Iran. The outgoing commander also said the US had no intentions of abandoning its allies in the region and dismissed reports that the US 5th Fleet command would be transferred out of Bahrain.




posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 04:14 PM
link   
Well that's certainly an objective source for policy information. Perhaps something will happen with Iran, but I hope if nothing happens there isn't too much disappointment.



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 04:26 PM
link   
Just another front for the U.S. propaganda machine. Of course, they will deny each and every comment that implicates them of pushing Irans buttons to force some sort of conflict. In the publics eyes, they want to make Iran out to be the agressor when it is obviously not.

In reading other articles similar to the one posted above on Rawstory, there are two carrier groups stationed in the gulf ready to bomb Iran back to the stone age at a moments notice. I have a bad feeling that this next debacle is going to be kicked off here shortly within the next 6 months or so.

Be prepared for the miliraty/media sleepover to start pumping the publics heads full of their garbage in order to prep our minds for the worst.

www.globalresearch.ca...



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 05:20 PM
link   
... whaaa?

How can you DENY that there's a build up of Naval forces?
what being the US government stated they were building up forces....


i get it...
the government is building up the navy for iraq
where the navy denies it is building it up for iran.



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 10:36 PM
link   
Nobody is denying that there is increased naval presence in the region due to Iran's saber rattling. It's what's known as a psyact or show of force, with the intent to encourage diplomatic solutions, by providing a credible reason to do so. Any other purpose is purely speculation at this point, as no one on this board knows with absolute certainty what plans are, or are not in the works.



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by GT100FV
Iran's saber rattling.


If by Iran you mean the U.S. then yes, Iran.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 07:57 AM
link   
Well there have been some rather inflammatory remarks come from Iran, so is it your opinion that they should just be ignored. Do you believe that short of sanctions or military pressure, that they'll tone down their rhetoric?



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 08:41 AM
link   
Calling someone names is a valid excuse for war now? Give me a break.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 08:50 AM
link   
Inflammatory remarks are to be expected with an armada of heavily armed warships cruising off your coast. Get the hell out of their backyard and maybe they'll stop calling people names.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 10:26 AM
link   


"Mines are an offensive terrorist type of weapon," he said.


Seem's this Admiral has attended his re-education course in "Defining Terrorism 101: How to talk BS"

Mine's are a legitimate naval weapon! It is also primarily defensive in nature by restricting or prohibiting enemy naval operations. The UK will instantly mine the Channel and other approaches if the threat of invasion ever comes about. Even the US Navy uses mines, such as the CAPTOR and others:


The United States Navy MK56 ASW mine (the oldest still in use by the US) was developed in 1966. More advanced mines include the MK60 CAPTOR (short for "encapsulated torpedo"), the MK62 and MK63 Quickstrike and the MK67 SLMM (Submarine Launched Mobile Mine). Today, most U.S. naval mines are delivered by aircraft.


Or is this another case of "We can have them and that's ok, but they can't because they are evil!!"

Utter BS.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by DisappearCompletely
Calling someone names is a valid excuse for war now? Give me a break.


No but threatening annihilation of other countries, and attacking US interests around the world is an excuse for a show of force, to convince them to join the other civil nations of the world.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja

Originally posted by DisappearCompletely
Calling someone names is a valid excuse for war now? Give me a break.


No but threatening annihilation of other countries, and attacking US interests around the world is an excuse for a show of force, to convince them to join the other civil nations of the world.


Ahh, another of the misquote fans. Iran never threatened Israel with Annihalation, but rather wanted to see it removed/dissolved.

And since when does Iran attack "US interest's around the world"?

[edit on 20/2/07 by stumason]



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 11:27 AM
link   
I agree that this is just a show of force. Like the US sending the 15 F-117's to Korea when Kim said he was gonna test another nuclear device. It worked didnt it. You can also draw parallels to how Iran is acting with how North Korea did before they pulled out of teh NPT in 1993 and during their earlier so called "nuclear tests." Diplomatic stalling tactics seemed to work for NK, so why wouldnt Iran try the same. You go close to the edge on diplomacy, tensions run high, then you back down. All the while you are going after what they are trying to stop you from achieving, then start over to buy more time.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by BlueRaja

Originally posted by DisappearCompletely
Calling someone names is a valid excuse for war now? Give me a break.


No but threatening annihilation of other countries, and attacking US interests around the world is an excuse for a show of force, to convince them to join the other civil nations of the world.


Ahh, another of the misquote fans. Iran never threatened Israel with Annihalation, but rather wanted to see it removed/dissolved.

And since when does Iran attack "US interest's around the world"?

[edit on 20/2/07 by stumason]


It's called the carrot and the stick method. Without the threat of the stick, the carrot might not be enough enticement for behavioral modification.
I didn't say Iran was attacking US interests, but that they threatened to attack US interests. We can argue semantics about what erasing from history or off the map means, but let's say hypothetically that someone left a note in your mailbox that said they were planning on erasing you from history, or from a map. How exactly would you interpret that? Would it cause you concern, or would you say, sheesh at least they don't plan on harming me.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja

It's called the carrot and the stick method. Without the threat of the stick, the carrot might not be enough enticement for behavioral modification.


I understand the concept......



Originally posted by BlueRaja

I didn't say Iran was attacking US interests, but that they threatened to attack US interests.


You did. In fact, your exact word's were "attacking US interests around the world is an excuse for a show of force".

Attacking is a present tense, ie; it is taking place now.

Had you meant "threatened to attack", you should have said so, as they mean totally different things.

Anyway, the US and Israel are making as much threatening noises as Iran, if not more.

Also, the BS coming out of the US with regards to iran is laughable.

Bush said the other day they had admitted pubclicly they wanted a bomb. They bloody well haven't!

Your Admiral above says mines "are for terrorists". Well, why does the USN use them then?


Originally posted by BlueRaja
We can argue semantics about what erasing from history or off the map means, but let's say hypothetically that someone left a note in your mailbox that said they were planning on erasing you from history, or from a map. How exactly would you interpret that? Would it cause you concern, or would you say, sheesh at least they don't plan on harming me.


Depends. If I had spent the past 40 years kicking the crap out of his friends and family after stealing one of their houses to live in, I would rather think I had it coming to me.

The existence of Israel is BS, but, that has been done to death on other threads where I have said my piece.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ludaChris
I agree that this is just a show of force. Like the US sending the 15 F-117's to Korea when Kim said he was gonna test another nuclear device. It worked didnt it. You can also draw parallels to how Iran is acting with how North Korea did before they pulled out of teh NPT in 1993 and during their earlier so called "nuclear tests." Diplomatic stalling tactics seemed to work for NK, so why wouldnt Iran try the same. You go close to the edge on diplomacy, tensions run high, then you back down. All the while you are going after what they are trying to stop you from achieving, then start over to buy more time.


Finally someone here gets it. The "rope a dope" tactic worked for NK, don't you think the Iranian's took notice. All they have to do is stall, then sign a "peace in our times" agreement to supposedly resolve the nuclear issue, then in 2-4 years, suddenly annouce "Hey, lookee what I've got, a nucear warhead".

Trust, but Verify.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join