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: 2
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 21 2010 @ 07:48 PM
link   
I must say this without going into great detail, in 2005 prior to deploying to Iraq I was trained specifically on an attack on Iran. Honestly I'm surprised we haven't started a campaign there yet.

But then again prior to be deploying to Iraq I was also trained specifically on fighting domestic terrorism too.




posted on May, 21 2010 @ 07:55 PM
link   
The link is fixed.


I understand that there are only 11 carriers in active duty.
Using 4 or 5 could just be for the macho look. Or they are planning to annihilate everything.

With half of their fleet and God knows how many military forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, does this not make them vulnerable ?



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
The link is fixed.


I understand that there are only 11 carriers in active duty.
Using 4 or 5 could just be for the macho look. Or they are planning to annihilate everything.

With half of their fleet and God knows how many military forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, does this not make them vulnerable ?




Not really, they still have thousands of ICBMs...

[edit on 21-5-2010 by Skellon]



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Oh lookie here, another war, I guess with things dying down in Iraq we need to kill some more arabs, and American soldiers.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by mobiusmale
 


You mean this one. Where are the carriers



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 08:05 PM
link   
To truth is, an all out war is more profitable (what may happen with Iran as many here speculate) than the simply occupying and fighting off insurgents in, say, Afghanistan. If we take a look at Fascist Germany in World War 2, Germany's debt was quite large from having been responsible to pay the damages from World War 1. Post WW1, Germany also had economical problems that weren't only debt, but also unemployment. If Hitler could go to war and conquer France and eventually other European states, he could use the gained resources to pay off debt, the war, and create prosperity, along with jobs during war time.

I, in no way, want to glorify war, but the truth is, going all out Imperial style will help pay off American debt and the cost of war more so than simply occupying those half puppet states Iraq and Afghanistan.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 08:11 PM
link   
Interesting this happening as a response to Iran's recent war games too.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is a massive show of force. Something could well be cooking.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Skellon
 


I'm sorry. I was not clear. I meant America itself, the carriers should be fine.
If I remember correct every carrier has a strike force for defensive and offensive capability.

However... The Tsar bomba in their midst and they are done for. I don't see Russia being that stupid.

I thought we were in an age of peace and mutual corporation. Here it looks like we are still in the cold war. I don't like it one bit.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 08:17 PM
link   
We will always be in a 'cold war' aslong as there is a struggle for power.

A one world government is actually the only solution to this in my mind. However, in theory it is a solution. In practice it could be the end of our limited freedom as we know it.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Skellon
 


The only people that suffer are civilians. I don't think an all out attack with nukes will happen because the one pushing the button gets a nuke on his face.

A terrorist attack however. People that are willing to blow their selves up don't mind using nukes.

A global government is not the only solution tho. As long as mankind does what it has always done, global government will is nothing more then a problem creating problem fix.



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



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
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?



Muslims attack Muslims all the time. They envy and back bite each other all the time. Saudi Arabia and Iran are perfect examples of this. Obama may be a Muslim, but he's more of a communist than that.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Fromabove
 


Marx wrote against religion.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 10:26 PM
link   
I for one do not want or need to hear Bush Jr. giving a speech saying that Iran is now the home of Bin Laden, hear that Iran has "WMD"s and all that crap, but it's pretty much an inevitability.

Iran agreed to the demands that the West wanted, in terms of uranium export. But now the U.S. is saying that is not enough. And of course, England will side with them again.

War is coming soon. But it's going to be different.

Israel is going to get involved. But so is every other Muslim country....and Russia...and China.

You target civilians, and all hell will break loose.

Russia and China have a lot of interests in Iran, and I can't see them bowing to the will of the U.S.

Plus, other than England and Israel, what other country is going to join them in an un-provoked attack on another country after the debacle of Iraq and Afghanistan?

Truth be told, the U.S. population won't stand for it, can't afford it, and don't care.

All this will do is spell doom for the U.S.

BTW, Obama is not directing this. The POTUS is simply a figurehead. He takes orders from others.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Massive US Naval Build-Up Off the Shores of Iran

www.rightsidenews.com...

So - what IS going on? Is the stage being set for the long expected attack on Iran's nuclear facilities? Well, nobody is going to admit that, even if it were true. Is the US stationing itself, strategically, between Iran and Israel - as a clear warning to Israel NOT TO ATTACK IRAN? With the Obama Regime clearly showing no favor for Israel, one must consider that possibility.

As one looks at the Iranian defense, especially the new Russian "Surface to Air Missiles," one must consider the option of boots on the ground, inside Iran, to take out those mobile missiles by either hands-on destruction or painting the targets with lasers for aircraft to take out. Of course, we are describing a task, which would be undertaken by Special Forces troops. Both Israel and the US have outstanding Special Forces who certainly have the capability to complete such a mission.

On the other hand, the US has the option of using its stealth aircraft to take out Iran's nuclear facilities. The Russian SAM's can't shoot 'em if they can't see "em!

If stealth aircraft are to be involved in this mission, whatever it is, there will likely be no reports on their movement for they fly out of US bases, here in the states, and return to those same bases after their mission is complete.

Whatever the mission, this is a very large and a very visible task force assembling off Iran. SOMETHING IS going on.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by marmitenews
 


I truly hope this is the option that stops Israel from attacking Iran.

There is a lot going on in the world and it could all be for the worst.
However, when you think about it... When you are continuously occupied with all kinds of conspiracies, eventually everything is going to look like one.

Thanks for posting.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 12:34 PM
link   
I just had a quick look and it appears there were 6 carriers in the Gulf during the 1990 Gulf War.

Just thought I would throw that in for a reference point



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Curio
 


That is a lot force.

If I remember correct the operation was successful.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Curio
I just had a quick look and it appears there were 6 carriers in the Gulf during the 1990 Gulf War.

Just thought I would throw that in for a reference point


Key point. I was trying to find similar information but if your findings aren't telling I don't know what is. As has been said you don't mobilize that much without a clear purpose. A summer war with Iran has been brewing on ATS discussions for a while, now there are serious advancements underway.

This is an interesting quote, from of all people, Bill Clinton which sums things up:


"When word of a crisis breaks out in Washington, it's no accident that the first question that comes to everyone's lips is:
'Where's the nearest carrier?'"

President Bill Clinton
March 12, 1993
aboard USS Theodore Roosevelt


brill

[edit on 24-5-2010 by brill]




top topics



 
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join