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.

 

Report: US warships stationed off Iranian coast **NEW**

page: 3
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ancient_Fury
reply to post by warpcrafter
 


Had you ever taken the time to look at an actual map, you would have noticed that Iraq and Afghanistan are located on either side or Iran. Thus, negating any concern one might have about forces being spread to thin, as they are in fact situated to pop Iran like a giant zit.


But then they would be leaving Iraq and Afghanistan to their own devices, which would be tantamount to abandoning them to the fundamentalist muslims. It would be as if we had never invaded them in the first place, but even worse because they would be right on the borders on Iran, a nation that will put up more of a fight than both of them together did, eager to help them in punishing the Great Satan. Iran is not a zit, it's like the world's biggest bugzapper, and the US military are the unfortunate mosquitos.




posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 04:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by LieBuster
The USA keeps starting these wars but is unable to finish them


Are you for real?

Did you ever consider that Iran was the target all along and we needed to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan because we have them surrounded?

For real, am I the only who sees what they did there? While we all watched about the oil spill and Michael Jackson's death and the economy crashing the real powers that be have been playing chess, lining up their pieces. Right now Iran has no queen and TPTB want to keep it that way.

I honestly dont see the Iranian military doing much directly after they get hit except maybe taking down the Israeli planes, but the Western world will probably see a new level of terror over the next generation unless some other event sparks WWIV in that time.

Edit to add: I read the rest of the thread after posting and it seems I was NOT the only one to connect the dots on this one.

[edit on 30-6-2010 by cavscout]



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 04:49 AM
link   
reply to post by cavscout
 


I'm not so sure about the Iranian reaction, I personally feel an attack on Iran will be a game changer, since it places Iranian forces in the position of being able claim they are liberators of the oppressed when their forces enter Afghanistan and Iraq..

As an ideology, being perceived as liberator of the oppressed Muslim peoples of the world could be quite a uniting factor.

While the US/Coalition forces are surrounding Iran, in that situation they would also be fighting on multiple fronts inside both Iraq (Iranian Border/Syrian Border) and Afghanistan (Pakistan Border/Iranian Border)

I'm sure Turkey, even if they remain neutral, will still use the opportunity to have a go at the Kurds as they did the last time around.

While this idea of liberation the oppressed Muslim people with embolden those in other areas of the ME, and in that vain I feel the IDF will be stuck with 2 fronts, Gaza and the West Bank/Lebanon.

Not to mention how the other nations in the region may/may not respond.. IMHO opinion it'll turn into a mess very quickly.

So my concern about an attack on Iran is that I see no way of avoiding this turning into more of a regional war, with multiple fronts opening up in multiple countries..

How do you defend Afghanistan if you are being attacked from within as well as on 2 fronts?

ATM Iran can not openly get involved with either conflicts in Iraq or Afghanistan without a very good reason, and I for one do not want to give them that reason.

But I do agree this has been setup from the start.. but I feel what has been set up is more a regional war..

I am a firm beleiver that TPTB feel, he who controls the ME, controls the world.. and that is the ultimate objective.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 04:52 AM
link   
The way I see this is as a really bad game of cards. Who’s going to call the bluff is the question. Put your self in Iran’s shoes, they know an attack is coming sooner or later it’s really just a matter of when.

If I was Iran, I would take out the carrier groups ASAP before more hardware and troops move into the area. Iran’s number one priority should be taking out as much US/Allied airpower in the region as possible in a pre emptive strike.

The USA is just buying time planning and building up troop numbers. (This is off topic to a degree but it’s a thought. Imagine the Gulf States are evacuated. Think about the amount of people without Jobs being moved into other areas that already have high unemployment rates. Enter conscription and the war effort. People will have no choice in the matter. It was just something that seemed plausible)



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 02:17 PM
link   
CHECK your SOURCES before posting such CONTRIVED "NEWS"...

1) Just like Debka, a DISINFORMATION ZIONIST Website well known for spewing similar GARBAGE all the time, Rawstory is a ridiculous source of information if one is really interested in relaying serious news...

2) Twice a year when the US carrier on duty with the 5th Fleet finishes its 6 months tour, the same FALSE "NEWS" appear of a naval build up in the Persian Gulf...

3) The US Navy reports its Status of force daily, which is easily checked to prove this Rawstory is another LIE...

Ships Underway as of June 30, 2010

Carriers:

USS Nimitz (CVN 68) - Pacific Ocean
USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) - 5th Fleet
USS George Washington (CVN 73) - Pacific Ocean
USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75) - 5th Fleet
USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) - visit Pearl Harbor

Amphibious Warfare Ships:

USS Nassau (LHA 4) - 5th Fleet
USSPeleliu (LHA 5) - visit Darwin
USS Wasp (LHD 1) - visit Halifax
USS Essex (LHD 2) - Sea of Japan
USS Boxer (LHD 4) - Pacific Ocean
USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD 6) - visit Pearl Harbor
USS Makin Island (LHD 8) - Pacific Ocean

www.navy.mil...

So, carrier Eisenhower is being replaced by carrier Truman, as per rotation schedule...

www.gonavy.jp...

4) All Amphibious Assault ships, LHA and LHD would be required if an attack on Iran were to take place, in order to secure the North coast of the Strait of Hormuz and prevent the firing of anti-ship missiles hidden in rocky caves there, which would close the Strait to all navigation...

Yet, except for the LHA Nassau, all the others are busy elsewhere...

5) LOGICAL CONCLUSION: you wasted our time posting LIES from DUBIOUS sources, as there is clearly nothing going on around Iran at present in spite of the Zionists best wishes...




Originally posted by ~Lucidity

Report: US warships stationed off Iranian coast **NEW**


rawstory.com

As unconfirmed reports of an imminent Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities pick up steam in the Middle Eastern media, a US-based strategic intelligence company has released a chart showing US naval carriers massing near Iranian waters.

The chart, published by Stratfor and obtained by the Zero Hedge financial blog, shows that over the last few weeks a naval carrier -- the USS Harry S Truman -- has been positioned in the north Indian Ocean, not far from the Strait of Hormuz, which leads into the Persian Gulf. The carrier joins the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, which was already located in
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by warpcrafter
 


Roflmao..... Wow... So in your words... bwhahahah I cant even say it without laughing... So you think Iran can stand up militarily to the US? Really .. Come on, stop it! First of all ... We wont be occupying Iran.. The plan will be to go in take out anti air and then sweep strategic targets.. We are not looking for regime change... Just to cripple their Nuclear capabilities. It will be a 100% different strategy! We might not set one foot in Iran.. other than special ops , that are already there...

Rooting against the US is like rooting against gravity!!



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Why do they always feel the need to publicize troop movements? Isnt that counter-productive to their war? Its like... they would rather be popular then alive or somethin



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Solace
 


When the USS Roosevelt heads to the gulf... Then is the time to get worried!!! Has been involved in every single gulf war to date since launch... It is one bad a$$ plane sling shot!



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by SPACEYstranger
 


I would have to assume that our military leaders are smart enough to leave out or change sensitive info from those sites.. I know its a big assumption... just hoping thats the case!



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Solace
CHECK your SOURCES before posting such CONTRIVED "NEWS"...

1) Just like Debka, a DISINFORMATION ZIONIST Website well known for spewing similar GARBAGE all the time, Rawstory is a ridiculous source of information if one is really interested in relaying serious news...




Aren't they all?

This is like the phony debate between GOP and DNC. It is a fallacious dichotomy.

Find me 1 single news agency that is truthful. Just 1. And before you come back with any news agency, you have to ask yourself about the whole concept of the Gatekeeper.

I would say if one is really interested in relaying serious news, one would have to first find a serious journalist. Good luck. I hear that there is a secret room in Antarctica that has a serious journalist holed up with Elvis. They like to drink from the Holy Grail when they eat dodo's for supper.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join