 |
|
Topic started on 3-3-2008 @ 05:33 AM by budski
|
'USS Cole a war declaration on region'
www.presstv.ir
 A senior Lebanese Shia cleric has said that the new US move to deploy a US warship off the Lebanese coast amounts to a declaration of war.
Seyyed Mohammed Hossein Fadlallah said, "The deployment of the USS Cole to the area is no less than a declaration of war and a new attempt to break
the resistance and anti-American groups in the region."
Meanwhile, UNIFIL Commander in Lebanon Major Gen. Alan Pellegrini said the new US military move is aimed at delivering certain messages.
(visit the link for the full news article)
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 3-3-2008 @ 05:33 AM by budski
|
Is Bush really so determined to start a war in the region?
It appears so.
The shia cleric who made this statement has a very valid point.
And these "messages" have all the subtlety of a schoolyard bully stealing lunch money.
www.presstv.ir
(visit the link for the full news article)
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 3-3-2008 @ 09:34 AM by ergoli
|
"in order to convey a message"
what a cynical war pig Allan Pellegrini is!
[edit on 3-3-2008 by ergoli]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 3-3-2008 @ 09:39 AM by budski
|
reply to post by ergoli
Well, it is one of the ways of conveying a message - it's what russia has been doing with all the fly past during exercises, and getting close to UK
planes on exercise.
BUT, I don't think that sending a message like this to lebanon and the mideast is going to do anything except raise already hightened tensions,
especially as russia and china are heavily involved in the area as well.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 3-3-2008 @ 09:43 AM by Naboo the Enigma
|
Pinch of salt required methinks. This is the equivalent of the Archbishop of Canterbury commenting on another nation's activities, I have yet to see
a formal announcement from the Lebanese government on the matter. I presume, of course, that the USS Cole is still in international waters and
hasn't entered Lebanese waters without asking the Lebanese governement first.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 3-3-2008 @ 09:58 AM by cbianchi513
|
There's been a bunch of speculation on this battle group at this thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
As you can see, there are many other considerations in the immediate region of the Med that also may require attention...
Stay vigilant!
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 3-3-2008 @ 10:03 AM by Zaphod58
|
Personally I find it amusing that he feels sending a guided missile cruiser designed to defend battle groups to the region is a blatant threat, and
completely ignores the Marine Expeditionary Unit that's on the LHA that's with her.  I'd be a bit more worried about the Marines coming
ashore than the cruiser.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 3-3-2008 @ 11:15 PM by wrathchild
|
I suppose if China or Russia parked a war ship off the coast of California albeit in international waters I think the U.S. would take this as an act
of some sort of aggression or threat.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 4-3-2008 @ 04:44 AM by deadjed
|
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 4-3-2008 @ 04:53 AM by dawnstar
|
 Originally posted by Zaphod58
Personally I find it amusing that he feels sending a guided missile cruiser designed to defend battle groups to the region is a blatant threat, and
completely ignores the Marine Expeditionary Unit that's on the LHA that's with her. I'd be a bit more worried about the Marines coming
ashore than the cruiser. 
what Marine Expeditionary Unit?
is there any rule that clearly states the an LHA HAS to have a hull full of marines?? Just wondering.......
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 4-3-2008 @ 05:22 AM by Zaphod58
|
The entire POINT of the LHA/LHD hull is to carry an MEU. There is no other real reason for them.
 The primary war-fighting mission of the LHA-1 Tarawa class is to land and sustain United States Marines on any shore during hostilities. The
ships serve as the centerpiece of a multi-ship Amphibious Readiness Group (ARG). Some 3,000 Sailors and Marines contribute to a forward-deployed ARG
composed of approximately 5,000 personnel.
The ships are designed to maintain what the Marine Corps calls "tactical integrity" - getting a balanced force to the same place at the same time.
One LHA can carry a complete Marine battalion, along with the supplies and equipment needed in an assault, and land them ashore by either helicopter
or amphibious craft. This two pronged capability, with emphasis on airborne landing of troops and equipment, enables the Navy and Marine Corps to
fulfill their present-day mission. Whether the landing force is involved in an armed conflict, acting as a deterrent force in an unfavorable political
situation or serving in a humanitarian mission, the class offers tactical versatility.
She was meeting her Marines once she got into the theater. They were already supporting Afghanistan operations. And btw, there are more than three
ships involved in the group.
There's:
USS Nassau LHA-4
USS Philippine Sea CG-58
USS Ashland LSD-48
USS Ross DDG-71
USS Bulkeley DDG-84
The USS Nashville LPD-13 was supposed to sail with her, but they had a minor engineering issue, so she didn't sail on time.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 4-3-2008 @ 05:40 AM by dawnstar
|
"She was meeting her Marines once she got into the theater."
how do you know this one?
ya know, I know about when the Nassau left port, and well, she definately didn't have time to run over to afghanistan, pick up the marines and be
near Italy when the media said she was.....
someone's lying....lol......of course, if could be my son, just to get me to worry less while he's out there sailing wherever he is....
or it could be the media....lol.....or both....
I just don't think the marines she was scheduled to take were on her when she left.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 4-3-2008 @ 05:48 AM by Zaphod58
|
No, I already said they weren't. But it would have been easy to put them onto a couple of C-17s or a couple of C-5s and fly them out of Afghanistan
to an area where they could have met up with her. She didn't have to go to Afghanistan and pick them up. We ARE capable of moving them without her,
just that she has all the LCACs and the rest of their equipment onboard for moving them to shore.
Edit to Add:
Also I don't know WHEN she's meeting up with them. She may sail without them, and do some training with other countries first, just that at some
point I've heard she's meeting up with them.
[edit on 3/4/2008 by Zaphod58]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 4-3-2008 @ 06:03 AM by budski
|
Whether they are meeting up or not, this has the potential to be VERY serious.
Coupled with news that shrub has been messing about in the area again, trying to de-stabilize and with rice also in the region, this could be the
start of something big.
I've been saying for a while that the US intends to take military action against iran, and this may be the start of it.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 4-3-2008 @ 12:34 PM by dawnstar
|
"But it would have been easy to put them onto a couple of C-17s or a couple of C-5s and fly them out of Afghanistan to an area where they could have
met up with her. "
-----------------------------
why not that's how they got there to begin with.....
maybe they're setting the stage of a big pick up, our troops will just march from afghanistan through iran, meet up with the ones in Iraq, and
well....make a big sweep through those other unfriendly countries and meet the boats in Isreal...who knows...
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 4-3-2008 @ 12:54 PM by xmotex
|
I'd be a bit more worried about the Marines coming ashore than the cruiser.
The chances of the US landing Marines in Lebanon are somewhat less than nil. Remember how well that worked out last time?
The Marines do 
More propaganda and posturing by both sides 
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 4-3-2008 @ 12:59 PM by Zaphod58
|
Yes, I remember last time, and at the time they weren't even allowed to carry bullets in their guns. I think this time would be slightly different
IF they went ashore, which I SERIOUSLY doubt is going to happen. The point I was making in my post is that a destroyer is much LESS of a threat than
the LHA that she is protecting.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 4-3-2008 @ 01:17 PM by BlueRaja
|
Unless we are in their territorial waters, they can go pound sand. The US Navy can cruise anywhere they want in international waters, without regard
for what some cleric thinks about it. Any other navy can do the same thing for that matter.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 4-3-2008 @ 01:26 PM by budski
|
Funny though that that doesn't stop pro-military people reacting with horror when russia or china does the same.
Oh yes, THEN it's a different story all of a sudden.
Seems shrubs hypocrisy has spread far and wide.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 4-3-2008 @ 02:02 PM by deltaboy
|
reply to post by wrathchild
China sent a ship to California. Were we mad? Don't think so.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
