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.

 

Obama starts massive US Air-Sea-Marine build-up opposite Iran

page: 1
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 21 2010 @ 06:11 PM
link   
The US is building a military strike force and is planing to have 4 or 5 carrier strike groups close to Iran.

What I thought to be the most concerning was this :

military sources disclose that the 6,000 Marines and sailors aboard the Truman Strike Group come from four months of extensive and thorough training to prepare them for anticipated missions in the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean.


The threat of a new war has been on peoples minds for a while now. Does this maneuver make it eminent ? Is it just bluff ?

Are they seriously starting yet another battle front ?
The must have new printers at the FED. Cause this new black hole is designed to suck only money in and American Teens and innocent civilians. All because of what ...?

Visit Here. to read a part of the article... This link failed. Look at the bottom of the OP please.



I'm sorry
It is an pay per view article )

Edit. to fix link. Link.



[edit on 5/21/2010 by Sinter Klaas]




posted on May, 21 2010 @ 06:47 PM
link   
You need 3 carriers to conduct 24 hour sorties.

I remember reading an interview with an admiral and he stated this.

So as soon as you have 3 carrier strike groups in the gulf, you could say 'its on'.

Having anymore than 3 is excessive by normal standards, even to conduct a continuous aerial campaign.

It is very costly to park up 4-5 carrier groups if your only intention is to scare your opponent.

So, if the rumour about the 4-5 carrier strike groups amassing in the gulf is true, then they have something very serious in mind.

The only thing I could imagine is a 'blitzkreig' or 'shock and awe' aerial campaign designed to eliminate Iran's anti-ship missiles, as if they don't eliminate those quickly, a carrier loss would be probable and then the gloves really would come off.

I still await the smoking gun though and this, in my opinion will come in the form of a scud missile hitting Tel Aviv or Haifa, real or false. That is all the justification Isreal would need to be let off the leash.

The justifcation is not in place yet, yet they are mobilising. Therefore something significant has to happen between now and when they plan this attack.


[edit on 21-5-2010 by Skellon]



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Why, that's impossible! Every other poster here talks about how soft Obama is! Not to mention his Muslim faith! Surely he wouldn't attack a Muslim country?



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Your link doesn't work?


Originally posted by Skellon
It is very costly to park up 4-5 carrier groups if your only intention is to scare your opponent.


Haha, well said


[edit on 21-5-2010 by CanadianDream420]



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 06:54 PM
link   
If America attacks Iran it will be the end of America as we know it. Didn't a Russian professor predict America will eventually spilt into 6 factions?

For them to attack an non aggressive country like Iran is wrong.

Are any of the warmongers bothering to see how Iranians actually live their lives?

America will not win this, just like they didn't, and won't, win in Iraq.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by star in a jar
If America attacks Iran it will be the end of America as we know it. Didn't a Russian professor predict America will eventually spilt into 6 factions?

For them to attack an non aggressive country like Iran is wrong.

Are any of the warmongers bothering to see how Iranians actually live their lives?

America will not win this, just like they didn't, and won't, win in Iraq.



I am not war mongering mate, war is a terrible thing. I do not wish death on anyone.

I am relaying relevant information about the number of carrier groups needed to conduct an attack 'round the clock'. I am also speculating as to what is needed in this theoretical time line for this to take place.

I have personally been of the same opinion to Webster Tarpley regarding Iran, the US is not interested in attacking her, it would rather control and influence Iran and use her against China/Russia.

That said, the 'colour revolution' 2 years back failed. Whether Washington wil continue to attempt to take control of Iran or move to attack is anyone's guess.

Isreal have conducted full scale exercises of their planned attack on Iran and continue to train for it. Maybe Isreal has agreed to allow the US time to control/influence Iran and failing to do so in the time frame agreed will allow 'plan B' to proceed.



[edit on 21-5-2010 by Skellon]

[edit on 21-5-2010 by Skellon]



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 07:04 PM
link   
I guess this is Mr Peace Prizes Hope and Change. He is going to Change the whole world as we know it by starting ww3 and the citizens of the Earth are going to Hope that they will survive it. UN-Fu**ing-believable!! I DIDNT VOTE FOR HIM!!



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Does this have anything to do with the Georgian troops being mobilized, and again some American reserve forces have been mobilized recently?



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by kennylee
 


Why are you surprised? Bush started this, Obama may finish it. They are 2 sides of the same damn coin.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
reply to post by kennylee
 


Why are you surprised? Bush started this, Obama may finish it. They are 2 sides of the same damn coin.


I didnt vote for Bush either. LOL. America and the leaders have always been Warmongerers, so it doesnt really surprise me. In todays age they should know that they could kick off WW3 pretty easily if they attack Iran. Thats what is unbelievable, that they could even think about opening such a can of worms....



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
reply to post by kennylee
 


Why are you surprised? Bush started this, Obama may finish it. They are 2 sides of the same damn coin.


Totally agree, the stage act that you witness between many main political parties is just that, a stage act. These same rivals and opponents dine together off camera.

It is very rare to get a US president that has his own moral compass and when you do, they get assassinated or scared back into the 'plan'.

Abraham Lincoln assassinated, John F Kennedy assassinated and last but not least, the assassination attempt on Ronald Raegan.

The few US presidents that dared to oppose their 'backers' either got killed or were scared back into playing the game.

If Obama doesn't skip to the same beat, he will be out on his ass in no time.

Then the prospect of Palin....... now that is the coming of the anti-christ, she won't just play ball, she will shine it for them.

[edit on 21-5-2010 by Skellon]



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by kennylee
 


My mistake, I am so used to people blaming Obama, but forgetting that Bush did the same thing.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Can anyone afford another war. I know Britain can't. If America choose to go to war then you can bet we (Britain) will follow.

[edit on 21-5-2010 by ALOSTSOUL]



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Like a house of cards, this is a delicate situation and I can only hope that cooler heads will prevail. You see, it is not just one of the countries that do not like the US that we should be worried about, but rather all of them, as they have banded together. If you consider, who the countries that are in alliance with Iran are, and who they are wooing, it is something to be very worried about. Something tells me that if one starts something, the others will strike and strike quick before the US or any of its allies have a chance to respond. So this is what I believe is going on. Iran and its allies are making trouble and beating the drums to keep us off balance. As they have learned, divided they do not stand a chance, however, working together they have a good chance of suceeding. Some things are starting to fall into place, Iran is blanently ignoring the US, North Korea is threatening War, Venezeula is gathering allies in South and Latin America, and in the Carribian to form a coalation against the US and its interests.
Here is something I feel that may happen. Some one is going to provoke a response and take an aggressive action, and when one starts, the others are going to jump, so if North Korea, strikes at South Korea, the Iran will have an opportunity to strike against US interestes in the region, and Argentina, along with a majority of South America will make a play for the Falklands, along with Venezula will march and take over some of its neighbors all in one fell swoop, catching everyone off guard, along with the Chinese and the Russians, providing military hardware and support to all of these nations, sitting back and laughing at the US and its allies. Nato will not be able to or willing to assist as they will be dealing with the issues in Greece, and something tells me that extremist islamic followers will cause problems in Europe to tie up their attentions there. If you look at it that way and how the weak the US government is appearing right now, and how the current adminstration is apologizing around the world for the countries actions while alienating its allies, then it kind of makes it look like we are going to be in for a rough haul. It would not surprise me if overatures have been make to the Mexican federal governments to take actions against the US to include military action over the AZ law.
Does that make sense?



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALOSTSOUL
Can anyone afford another war. I know Britain can't. If America choose to go to war then you can bet we (Britain) will follow.

[edit on 21-5-2010 by ALOSTSOUL]



I no longer think it comes down to financially affording a war. If you wish to go to war against another country, the money will be loaned to you, however the chances that your target country is getting a loan from the same source is fairly high.

Aslong as you have enough service personnel, the rest will fall in place.

If you don't have enough personnel then you can always turn countries against each other.

I think the only thing you require these days is motivation.




[edit on 21-5-2010 by Skellon]



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas


I'm sorry
It is an pay per view article )


I can't say, really, even what I think if your source is a ppv article. Your snippet just isn't doing anything, really to base an opinion on.

Can you paste more of the article here for those of us who might not want to buy it?



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skellon
You need 3 carriers to conduct 24 hour sorties.

I remember reading an interview with an admiral and he stated this.

So as soon as you have 3 carrier strike groups in the gulf, you could say 'its on'.

Having anymore than 3 is excessive by normal standards, even to conduct a continuous aerial campaign.

It is very costly to park up 4-5 carrier groups if your only intention is to scare your opponent.

So, if the rumour about the 4-5 carrier strike groups amassing in the gulf is true, then they have something very serious in mind.

The only thing I could imagine is a 'blitzkreig' or 'shock and awe' aerial campaign designed to eliminate Iran's anti-ship missiles, as if they don't eliminate those quickly, a carrier loss would be probable and then the gloves really would come off.

I still await the smoking gun though and this, in my opinion will come in the form of a scud missile hitting Tel Aviv or Haifa, real or false. That is all the justification Isreal would need to be let off the leash.

The justifcation is not in place yet, yet they are mobilising. Therefore something significant has to happen between now and when they plan this attack.


[edit on 21-5-2010 by Skellon]


Your are correct, for a bluff you don't move that many carrier groups into an area. It's expensive and it's stupid, for the simple fact that those carriers could be somewhere else and not grouped in an area that would make them a nice 4 to 5 carrier kill for some over ambitious country (Russia or China) and then blame it on Iran. You remember a few months ago that they shipped out a bunch of those new bunker buster bombs to Diego Garcia (which is the staging ground for the big bombers if you have war in that area of the world). They are going to do a massive blitz on their air and ship offensive systems (that will be the navy function) and also everyone of their suspected nuke sites (that will be Airforce). They will be hit again and again to make sure the areas aren't viable. They actually want to do a shock and awe aspect to this in order to force Iran to say uncle.

Another reason for this war is that our economy is in the tank, we need something to spike it and/or another bubble or bubbles. War is a good tool in alot of ways to hide or manipulate laws for the good of the war effort. If they wan't to cut Social Security, what better way than to do it during the war with Iran saying that this sacrifice will help our troops and make "promises" of bringing back the cuts. And they could do it for alot of things. People don't want to look unpatriotic and on top of that the older ones know that in WWII their was sacrifices on the homefront. I don't know when the attack will happen, but I'm saying it's going to happen during one of the russian holidays and I pick June 12th or November 4th.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Yeah, Bush will do anything to deflect attention from the economy. Oops I forgot he is out of office
. Hope and change hope and change, pretty soon all we will have is change.....pocket change!!



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 07:36 PM
link   
First, I am sure that links to the fact that there are from 3 to 5 carrier groups on the way to the Persian Gulf are posted somewhere here on ATS. If someone could provide a link to those threads that would be helpful.

That aside, assuming the information is correct, my guess would be that such an incredible force might be placed there to act as a major deterrent to the Iranians.

Say that the U.S. knows that Israel is going to strike the main Iranian nuclear facilities...and then scurry back home. The fact that there are 3 to 5 U.S. carrier groups in the Gulf would nearly ensure that the Iranians cannot mount any kind of meaningful (direct) response to the attack.

The Americans would swat any and all Iranian Air Force elements that tried...and would likely be able to knock down a large percentage of any ballistic missiles they snapped off in Israel's direction.

And...if the Iranians made the mistake of taking on the U.S. forces in any way, then it would be game over for them. These carrier groups would grind Iran's military down to nothing. No ground troops required.

Of course, Israel would have to deal with Iran's back door retaliation from Lebanon (Hezbollah), but I am sure this would have been taken into consideration in their calculations.

If this scenario is correct, and these carrier groups are on the way, then you can start the countdown to Israel's attack...because it would cost far too much to have these resources bobbing around in the Gulf if there is no clear timetable for attack.

All just speculation of course...



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 07:44 PM
link   
On the face of it, war is financially costly, it costs alot of money to initiate the huge logistic operation in getting your forces to the theatre of war. All ordanance fired has a cost. But most appreciate and understand that.

What alot of people do not realise is that war is also a source of income. It is a 'business', with a healthy bottom line.

Your overheads are already accounted for; the funding of the war.

Ouch!

The export of weapons and technology is big business and just like the public sector's dependance on a product being tested and reliable, potential export customers prefer weapons that have not only been tested, but have been shown to do their given task and do it well in proven combat.

Ka-Ching!

When you level a country through extensive aerial bombardment, there is the obvious consequence of the targeted area needing to be rebuilt. So, in come your construction contracters and your security contracters to protect them. It may cost a million dollar weapon to destroy a large commercial building, but to rebuild it costs a hell of alot more.

Ka-Ching!

Regime change... you now select a new leader in the country you abolished, showing that you do not intend to take over and this earns you some political merit and a little credit with the native populace. You select the leader so you can control the contracts that will be claimed by your corporations, these include that 'Black Gold' that just happens to be in the country you targeted for 'liberation'.

Ka-Ching!


So you see, even with this very crude example, you can see that this is a healthy business model with a respectable financial bottom line, and this is not even accounting for the geopolitical power you seized in the process.


A leading super power is like a hungry beast, it needs to feed to maintain its position in the world and the people who run the US are paranoid of losing this lead.


[edit on 21-5-2010 by Skellon]



new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join