2nd Carrier Arrives Off Straits Of Hormuz

page: 7
28
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by casenately
I think it is important to note that an "enemy" still within his borders cannot be in an aggressive stance. If international waters are just that, international domain, they can send their entire armada and still be in their legal right to be there. It is a precarious situation but it is not illegal, much like it is not illegal for the US to send its forces. The question is whether it is indicative of war or not. The US leadership has already made it clear that it would not mind having a war with Iran. The American people on the other hand do not want it.

It is sad as Americans that our will is deaf to leadership and that our congress is there as a side note to history. The very notion of due process could prevent this war if congress would be asked, as it is supposed to be, what do the people want you to vote for. What do the American people think is best for the American people.

The military is there to serve as our defense, not as our moral guide. The president is there to see the needs and propose to congress means to solve those problems. Congress is in theory the representation of the people and listen to the will of the people. The whole system has been circumvented and is being exploited with a loophole.

It is like the Cuban missile crisis. Kennedy didn't want to send in spy planes because he knew they would be shot at, as did the military. That would have been the spark to light the flame. We are all better for those brave pilots lying about being shot at so as to prolong negotiations and keep the peace. Eventually Cuba disarmed and the Russians went home. The story would have been different if war had broken out. We all see that.


they DID send spy planes to cuba though, they sent the sr-71 blackbird




posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by princeofpeace
Where is the charles de gaulle? Now that thing is bad@ss too.....Is it coming to Iran?

Is this sarcasm? Anyway, yes it's not only coming to Iran, IT'S ALREADY THERE.


Originally posted by princeofpeace
The real question is will this carrier pass through the straight of Hormuz and call Iran's bluff?

Probably.

reply to post by wlord
 

I think you meant U-2s. The SR71 did it's first flight in 1964, 2 years and 2 months after the cuban missile crisis.
edit on 11-1-2012 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 09:28 PM
link   
How long has the De Gaulle been there?



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by princeofpeace
How long has the De Gaulle been there?

I think it arrived today. So who knows how long it'll be there.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 09:35 PM
link   
Now THIS is telling i think...not the fact that the US will briefly have 3 carriers there during a rotation but the De Gaulle is the only other nuclear powered carrier outside of the US fleet and is a biggie as well. This is like having 4 US Nimitz carriers in the region. I havent seen anything in the MSM about the the De Gaulle recently arriving but if this is the case then hmmmm.....


Originally posted by Vitchilo

Originally posted by princeofpeace
How long has the De Gaulle been there?

I think it arrived today. So who knows how long it'll be there.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Patriotsrevenge
reply to post by thelastlineofwhat
 


Our Carriers can take multiple hits from them. The only thing that can sink one is a nuclear weapon right on her deck or from under by torpedo. Iran simply has no chance of sinking one.


they don't need to sink one. a direct hit on the runway makes them useless since they can't launch planes.

which is the main function of an aircraft carrier and it's main offensive weaponry.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 10:10 PM
link   
Still trying to get confirmation on the De Gaulle. I know it was deployed back in 2010 but i havent seen anything recent. If it is indeed just arriving or about to, then this is big. Bigger IMO than the US carriers being there.
edit on 11-1-2012 by princeofpeace because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Patriotsrevenge
 


The first nation that uses nukes not for a response in kind will be so reviled by history that will make the Hiroshima and Nagasaki akin to the fire bombing of Dresden...

Nukes are weapons of dissuasion and retaliation only. After the horror perpetrated n Japan that became abundantly clear you should look at history and Korean war and why the USA did not fallow Macarthur's plans for a broader solution that would include the invasion of China...
edit on 11-1-2012 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Well said Dachende!

What I find ironic about some of these warmongers (and this is coming from an American that served on a carrier) is that they will piss and moan about our government, but have no problem supporting the military adventures, as if they are a separate part of the government. The military, you idiots, is the Big Stick, that is being used by the criminals in charge of our government. You know the criminal in chief Obama is the head master of it?

The criminals running our government do not represent the majority of the people in this country and are traitors to the constitution where the military should only be used for defensive purposes. Not off on offensive adventurers to grow the empire ever bigger for the fat cats at the top to reap the rewards. The same criminals stripping away our freedoms and tightening on the ever encroaching police state to keep a hold on their power.





Originally posted by Dachende
ahh the joy of reading ignorant patriotic americans blabber.

This won't be another "Iraq"

Even your own defence advisors are saying it will take alot more than a ground and pound campaign to take down iran.

I find it laughable when people say if iran took out a carrier, they'd be glass.

is that all it would take for you trigger happy war mongers to drop a nuke ? 10k people ?

Around the world, the amount of people that die directly as a result of your global agenda per couple of months and that's all it would take to drop a nuke ? .

YEEHAW !

This place always reminds me of that southpark episode where cartman is trying to get himself stupid and poor enough to drive nascar. Let's face it, you're all qualified.



edit on 11/1/2012 by Dachende because: (no reason given)
edit on 11-1-2012 by jacobe001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dachende
ahh the joy of reading ignorant patriotic americans blabber.

This won't be another "Iraq"

Even your own defence advisors are saying it will take alot more than a ground and pound campaign to take down iran.

I find it laughable when people say if iran took out a carrier, they'd be glass.

is that all it would take for you trigger happy war mongers to drop a nuke ? 10k people ?

Around the world, the amount of people that die directly as a result of your global agenda per couple of months and that's all it would take to drop a nuke ? .

YEEHAW !

This place always reminds me of that southpark episode where cartman is trying to get himself stupid and poor enough to drive nascar. Let's face it, you're all qualified.



Perhaps it would be easier if we followed Iran's examples. May be should use the women as shields and have the children walk through and clear the mine fields. We could be like those brave Iranians who hid behind women and children in battle.

Nobody wants to nuke Iran and it will not happen. There will be no need. The U.S. military is quite capable of using conventional weapons and taking out every military site in the country before any American or NATO boots hit the on the ground. However, if Iran uses any nuclear power against U.S. Forces I would think the global warming thing would be over with Iran reflecting all their sunlight back into space.

Americans do not hate Iranians. Americans hate Hamas and the other KKK type groups that want to kill their enemies while martying themselves for paradise by killing innocent civilians for Allah. I think every NATO round should be dipped in pig's blood like Blackjack Pershing did to end his crisis. Then every martyred Iranian would have 72 mother in laws in their paradise instead of 72 virgins.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Patriotsrevenge
reply to post by thelastlineofwhat
 


Our Carriers can take multiple hits from them. The only thing that can sink one is a nuclear weapon right on her deck or from under by torpedo. Iran simply has no chance of sinking one.

Tell that to the sunken carriers of WW2. (We really need a facepalm emoticon!)

ETA:


The only thing that can sink one is a nuclear weapon right on her deck

edit on 11-1-2012 by susp3kt because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Subjective Truth

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
They wont last long if WW3 breaks out. Iran has home base advantage. Shooting 500 missiles at one CBG is sure to take it out. This will only happen if they do war in the strait.

USA only has the advantage if they are out in the open, then Iran has no chance.
edit on 11-1-2012 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)






If they do manage to sink a carrier they would seal not only there fate but Syria's as well. And I would venture to say Pakistan also.





If the people have something to rally behind this will get really ugly and fast.


Then prepare for Russia and China to swoop in and then the death toll will go up faster than the US national debt. I hope that no one wants this to happen. Where the hell did they stash all their common sense?



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Nite_wing
 





Nobody wants to nuke Iran and it will not happen. There will be no need. The U.S. military is quite capable of using conventional weapons and taking out every military site in the country before any American or NATO boots hit the on the ground. However, if Iran uses any nuclear power against U.S. Forces I would think the global warming thing would be over with Iran reflecting all their sunlight back into space.


Yes, the US military is great at conventional weapons and warfare, however, they have not won one "war" when it wasn't two opponents on an open battlefield. What is it called? Asymmetrical warfare? Let's hope that Iran will not use a nuclear weapon (mainly because pretend nuclear weapons don't work well).



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by Nite_wing
 



Yes, the US military is great at conventional weapons and warfare, however, they have not won one "war" when it wasn't two opponents on an open battlefield.


What do you mean? In WW II, the US fought Germany, Japan and Italy simultaneously.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


USA will bomb ALL of Iran. They dont need to be "open" too roll in drop nukes and peace .. If Iran shoots at the ships, its not going to be WW3, but USA will definatly # em up for that lol



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by thelastlineofwhat
Iran only needs 1 per ship with these babies, Russian-made 3M-82 Moskit anti-ship cruise missiles (NATO designation: SS-N-22 Sunburn. Maybe lauch 2-3 / ship and its a sure hit.


Holy schmokes, not the Sunburn! *gasp*

Hmmm....how long have they been around. Think that maybe, just maybe, the US Navy figured out some TTPs to counter them by now?



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 


In response to your signature: violation of human rights is/was neither a necessity to secure freedom nor is it morally legitimized by occasion.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by princeofpeace
 


The CDg is about half the size of a Nimitz and about 2/3rds the size of the new QE class, of which France is to buy one.

That said, it is a capable carrier in it's own right, with 40 odd aircraft in it's wing.

As for all this chatter about the Sunburn being awesome and the dismissal of either the Aegis (USN) or Samson air defence radars (RN) ability to track and destroy incoming missiles (Aegis 100 targets, Samson 300), it's all a bit silly. Time and again, Russian made hardware has been found wanting when pitted against anything the West fields. I can only really speak with confidence when discussing the British systems, but they have been though a decade or more of development and the T45's themselves that are inservice have had almost 3 years of sea trials to make sure everything works.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by Nite_wing
 



Yes, the US military is great at conventional weapons and warfare, however, they have not won one "war" when it wasn't two opponents on an open battlefield.


What do you mean? In WW II, the US fought Germany, Japan and Italy simultaneously.


I mean one on one, not the way it was fought in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, I believe I stated asymmetric warfare.

I realize they fought multiple enemies, but, in the conventional sense of warfare.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65

Originally posted by thelastlineofwhat
Iran only needs 1 per ship with these babies, Russian-made 3M-82 Moskit anti-ship cruise missiles (NATO designation: SS-N-22 Sunburn. Maybe lauch 2-3 / ship and its a sure hit.


Holy schmokes, not the Sunburn! *gasp*

Hmmm....how long have they been around. Think that maybe, just maybe, the US Navy figured out some TTPs to counter them by now?


Bombs have been around longer but make them into IED's and they are very effective.





top topics
 
28
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join