It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


U.S. warships gather in Persian Gulf: update

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 12:12 AM

Originally posted by dashar
Do these ships broadcast tv propaganda to the iranian people ,I was thinking they could be sending tv an radio seeding disent in the iranian people pure fear ,especially with the size of the force on the door step. thus hopeing for a overthrow of irans gov.
I still think iran dont deserve being attacked though unless she did sumit to israel or another country.
amadin-i -jad always seems logical the most part except for the dilly dallying and we are we are not ,but thats a culture thing in it, to change your mind a lot

[edit on 7/2/2010 by dashar]

It would be advantageous for the Iranian military for TV broadcasts coming from these ships as HARM missiles can home in on them and attack the ship...Your basically sending out a big signal to the missle: "here I am come get me"

posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 12:35 AM
What three carriers?

The Truman was scheduled to relieve the Ike last month...the Washington is in the Pacific.

Note: carriers travel in 'strike groups' not battle groups.


posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 12:57 AM
As was previously stated, this happens every two years or so. Inn fact I do believe that the propoganda has been stating since 2005 that Iran is 2-3 years from building nukes. 5 years laters, and they continue to use the same timeline, 2-3 years.

This is not even the largest buildup we have had in the gulf either. There was once, I believe back in '07 or '08 FOUR carrier groups in the gulf at once time, but only temporarily.

Iran does not want nukes, and the West knows this. It is the only reason they come so close to open warfare. Nuclear states do not directly attack other nuclear states. Just look at North Korea, are they surrounded by Carrier groups? Nope, too expensive to replace. NK has detonated nuclear weapons in tests and big-mouthed generals routinely threatens a nuclear holocaust to Japan, South or invading forces as retaliation for any hostile acts.

I do not see war with Iran anyways. Those of you who only see the technical side also fail to take into account terrain and climate as a factor in any war. Iraq is relatively flat or very low elevation with not many places to hide geographically speaking. It is why Iraq was easier to conquer than Afghanistan. More than half of Afghanistan is very rough terrain that is not friendly to even some of the most advanced electronics. Deep valleys easily interfere with commmunications and high rugged mountains can just as easily interfere with radar in Iran as well.

You guys have any idea how much easier it is to shoot at aircraft utilizing actual people and line of sight? Thats what brought a F-117 bomber down in 1999 If you read about the enemies tactics in keeping his missle batteries intact, that could be just as easily achievable in Iran.

Just saying destroying Iran is not as walk in the park as some people believe. American forces do not have invisible magic shields around every air unit you know.

posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 01:55 PM
If Iran has no nukes or weapons to fight back they will attack, if they do have nukes and a possibility to retaliate they will not attack, the reason we aren't in Iran is because there not sure, so they will try subterfuge first then war later. Same old same old. After all country only become friends when one could blow the other into the stone age.

posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 04:01 PM
YEAH BOYS...go on and bring democracy and freedom to iranians now...shock them and awe them...Look how democratic Iraq is right now..mission accomplished....way to go boys keep up the excellent work..we love you all...

top topics
<< 1  2   >>

log in