Crew on board the aircraft carrier USS Eisenhower are on alert in the Arabian Sea

It is four and a half acres of American power in the middle of the Arabian Sea but the influence of USS Dwight D Eisenhower stretches for hundreds of miles.
Crew on board the aircraft carrier USS Eisenhower are on alert in the Arabian Sea. The aircraft carrier, backed by its sister vessel, a handful of destroyers and a shoal of support ships, has placed a maritime ring of steel around an increasingly unstable region.

As flagship of the Fifth Fleet, the Eisenhower welcomed the arrival of a second Nimitz class nuclear powered aircraft carrier, the USS John C. Stennis, and its accompanying destroyers on Tuesday 27/2.

www.iraq-war.ru...




We have a LOT of firepower entering the gulf.

They've all just arrived into position.

'' You cannot keep such a large quantity of men, and materials stowed onboard indefinately ''

How long are we going to sit there, with all that firepower.... waiting?

My bold prediction, in 2 weeks somethings going to happen.




[edit on 27-2-2007 by Agit8dChop]

Seen plenty of predictions, especially on these forums, that March or April will be do or die time once all the Carriers have arrived. All the finger pointing at Iran, Iran saying their nuclear program has no brakes, Iranian patrol boats probing defenses, discoveries of Iranian weapon caches in Iraq, etc.

The powder kegs are piling up - what will be the spark? False flag?

The F-22 has recently entered service, I believe. I think it'd be interesting to see what a squadron of those could do to the Iranian Air Force, even if they did have working F-14s and working AIM-54s. While we have the ability to completely wipe out their conventional military and installations, it stops there. We do not have anywhere near enough man power to occupy even half the country, and if we attack them, i'm sure the calls for Jihads in the Middle East will fall upon less and less deaf ears. Our troops, once inside their cities, would probably see an onslaught we have not yet seen in Iraq. The attacks in Iraq would also worsen, and who knows how Syria and Israel would react, or China/Russia should we tamper with the oil there.

I also wonder if it is a possibility that some form of national emergency, whether it be an attack on/from Iran, large scale terrorist attacks in this country, etc, could somehow give emergency powers to our already semi-dictating president and call for a draft.

Stennis arrived in the region a week ago, vice today the 27th.

Nimitz will eventually relieve the Eisenhower in the next couple months.

I really don't think anything will happen, i.e. invasion of Iran.

www.estripes.com...

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
[
We have a LOT of firepower entering the gulf.

They've all just arrived into position.

'' You cannot keep such a large quantity of men, and materials stowed onboard indefinately ''

How long are we going to sit there, with all that firepower.... waiting?

My bold prediction, in 2 weeks somethings going to happen.




[edit on 27-2-2007 by Agit8dChop]

Who are you quoting about being unable to have a Carrier battle group in an area, and not use it, and what is their basis for saying such a thing?

Originally posted by BlueRaja

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
[
We have a LOT of firepower entering the gulf.

They've all just arrived into position.

'' You cannot keep such a large quantity of men, and materials stowed onboard indefinately ''

How long are we going to sit there, with all that firepower.... waiting?

My bold prediction, in 2 weeks somethings going to happen.




[edit on 27-2-2007 by Agit8dChop]

Who are you quoting about being unable to have a Carrier battle group in an area, and not use it, and what is their basis for saying such a thing?

an old Worldwar movie in regards to the armada sitting in english docks waiting for the big send off.

Weve got a lot of hardware sitting out there doing nothing.
you think its going to be like that for 2 months ?

What bothers me is the talk coming from the VP and the Pres about "all options being on the table" again.At one point,Iran was not going to be attacked and now it looks like the possibility of that happening is very likely.There is never a straight answer from anybody in the Administration on what might happen.It will be interesting to see what happens after the new round of UN sanctions against Iran coming soon

Ok, so now the US has invited Iran and Syria to the table to discuss the situation in Iraq. Not sure what to think about this move.

Ms Rice yesterday said representatives from Iran and Syria would be invited to a "neighbours meeting" to discuss efforts to stabilise Iraq. "I am pleased to announce that we are also supporting the Iraqis in a new diplomatic offensive: to build greater support, both within the region and beyond, for peace and prosperity in Iraq," Ms Rice said. "We hope these governments seize this opportunity to improve their relations with Iraq and to work for peace and stability in the region."

And this comment was quite interesting as well:

However, administration officials cautioned that the diplomatic opening would be limited to questions of Iraqi security. Topics such as Iran's banned nuclear programme or Syrian involvement in Lebanon would remain off-limits.

Personally, it looks like there's a good bit of "look what's outside your door." We're interested in what your position is so we can finalize ours. Only time will tell.

[edit on 2/27/07 by surfinguru]

[edit on 2/27/07 by surfinguru]

Sorry, here's the Link:

www.guardian.co.uk...



[edit on 2/27/07 by surfinguru]

Originally posted by surfinguru
Ok, so now the US has invited Iran and Syria to the table to discuss the situation in Iraq. Not sure what to think about this move.


Personally, it looks like there's a good bit of "look what's outside your door." We're interested in what your position is so we can finalize ours. Only time will tell.

Agreed, it does look like a "look what's outside your door" and a "do what we say or else we'll knock your door down" lol

It's just to put that extra pressure on Iran for the talks. But if the US don't get what they want out of the talks, do you think that it could be the turning point where they start using force rather than words?

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
'' You cannot keep such a large quantity of men, and materials stowed onboard indefinately ''

Sure you can. No problem. Happens all the time all around the world.

How long are we going to sit there, with all that firepower.... waiting?

The military is always sitting with tons of firepower and waiting. It's what we do. Be ready. Sit and wait. This is no different.

My bold prediction, in 2 weeks somethings going to happen.

My bold prediction, in 2 weeks somethings going to happen ... that something is that most Americans are going to dress in green and they will all pretend to be Irish for a day.

Seriously .. when I was in the Army we went 'on alert' a bunch of times and only once did anything ever come of them. Being 'on alert' doesn't necessarily mean anything. Considering that they are in close proximity to known enemies of the USA .. it would be foolish NOT to be on alert.

And as far as moving ships into the area, we do that sort of thing all the time as well. We are always moving ships towards China when they get too involved with Tiawan. We always move ships to signal to other nations. Sometimes it really means something, but most of the time it's politicing and just life as usual.

Edited once to fix quote

[edit on 2/28/2007 by FlyersFan]

It's just like in the first Gulf War where we said "we will neither confirm nor deny that nuclear weapons are on board our carriers." If you're gonna get them to capitulate, they have to think that you might attack. If they know you won't, then your bargaining power is greatly diminished.

In all honesty, they DO have to sit somewhere.

Don't get me wrong, I as well as anyone with 2 brain cells knows they are there to intimidate/attack Iran.

"' You cannot keep such a large quantity of men, and materials stowed onboard indefinately '' .

I don't know who long men in expeditionary forces stay on there ships, but men on most navy ships are used to 3-18 months on board the ship-I believe.

I personally don't think the US fleet is there for an invasion of Iran, and I don't think Iran will be invaded by anyone. I DO however think that Israel is preparing to launch an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. When this happens, Iran may retaliate by attempting to block off the straight of Hormuz where most of the Middle Eastern oil comes through. The US fleet is there to prevent this from happening, and ensure that the oil keeps flowing.

Originally posted by freakyty
I personally don't think the US fleet is there for an invasion of Iran, and I don't think Iran will be invaded by anyone. I DO however think that Israel is preparing to launch an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. When this happens, Iran may retaliate by attempting to block off the straight of Hormuz where most of the Middle Eastern oil comes through. The US fleet is there to prevent this from happening, and ensure that the oil keeps flowing.

This is a good a guess as any.good jobfreakyty.we could be their as insurance in case iran gets theirs arses kicked by israeli bombs and decide to take out their frustrations out on the sea lanes.

So does the prospect of a nuke exchange and a widening of the conflict not bother anyone. Also do you think the Russians and Chinese will sit back while the US/Israel carve up the ME for themselves.

Remember how the US reacted with Nukes for Cuba, I'm sure the above two countries might have something to say about the same thing.

America doesn't have the support it needs to launch an offensive into Iran, nor does it have the military capability to sustain one. The most troubling aspect of the U.S's plan is not what will happen to the men and women in Iran, but what will happen to them in Iraq. The moment the Americans step foot into Iran/ enter its' airspace in an offence, non intelligence gathering way all Iran has to do is launch a few Nuclear/ Biological weapons into Baghdad and destroy a large number of american troops stationed there. The consequences of an incursion into Iran could cost the US military over 100,000 troops. Iran has the upper hand in situation, although militarily it's inferior to America, in terms of support by citizens and would be martyrs(?) to Irans cause, aswell as strategic positioning Iran is king of the Hill. I'm British and i can see no way of America getting any support from either the UK or NATO, and with the strong bonds between Serbia and Iran, if Israel took the first steps against Iran serbia would no doubt take full advantage of the situation. Eventually Russia and China will become involved with their apprentice states, and then this entire operation will be blown totally out of control.

Just some nice thoughts on the subject
Ross1879

The problem with Iran nuking Baghdad(or using bio/chem weapons), is that unlike a terrorist cell, there's specific location to retaliate against with our own nukes. I don't think Iran wants to go there.

Originally posted by ross1879
all Iran has to do is launch a few Nuclear/ Biological weapons into Baghdad and destroy a large number of american troops stationed there.

I'm British and i can see no way of America getting any support from either the UK or NATO

That's if they even have nukes to launch. If they used nukes or biological weapons that would just give Britain/NATO reason to support US and Israel.

I hope it doesn't get that far though. The situation reminds me of a playground where some kid is getting pushed around by a little punk but he can't retaliate because the little punk's big brother is standing there watching lol

im not going to worry about us invading iran until we suddenly 'surge' another 100k or more foot soldiers to the area. then ill worry.

until then i think its a case of 'hey look, mines bigger than yours'

Aircraft carriers are not limited to combat purpose. Sometimes, being present near a crisis point can make the enemy of the U.S. think twice.

Source

Aircraft carriers are sovereign U.S. territory that steam anywhere in international waters — and most of the surface of the globe is water. This characteristic is not lost on our political decision-makers, who use Navy aircraft carriers as a powerful instrument of diplomacy, strengthening alliances or answering the fire bell of crisis.

As former President Bill Clinton said during a visit to the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt, "When word of crisis breaks out in Washington, it's no accident the first question that comes to everyone's lips is; where is the nearest carrier?"

[edit on 28-2-2007 by searching_for_truth]

[edit on 28-2-2007 by searching_for_truth]