Troops Deploying to Persian Gulf ahead of schedule

Tuesday, August 28th at the Seattle Airport, I met a woman headed back to Houston who had flown to Seattle to spend a week with her daughter who was suddenly deploying out to the Persian Gulf.. they were headed first to San Diego to meet up with the rest of the fleet.. and it looks like they have now left San Diego.. I am scared for Iran's reaction to yet another carrier over there.

SAN DIEGO -- The guided-missile cruiser USS Mobile Bay left San Diego early Saturday headed for the Persian Gulf with a battle group led by the Bremerton, Washington-based aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis.

But it’s heading out again four months earlier than first planned because of a growing sense that Israel may strike at Iran to disrupt its nuclear program.

The Norfolk, Virginia-based carriers Enterprise and Eisenhower are in the region now.

That is 3 carriers in the Gulf.. or possibly 4? It looks like the Abraham Lincoln is there as well.



www.10news.com...

right as Obama states they will not assist Israel.

Something is fishy....

reply to post by itsblownbackbaby

So who is it that thinks that we are not headed towards another little war in the Middle east? At least we hope it's a little one.

War, the game some people think they can play just a little bit.

reply to post by itsblownbackbaby


Or.... It could be something as simple as an early deployment of an additional guided missile cruiser to replace the one that collided with the oil tanker near the straits of Hormuz on August 12th.

On august 12th, the guided missile cruiser USS Porter collided with the oil tanker M/V Otowasan near the straits of Hormuz causing considerable damage to both vessels. I would just imagine that the speedy dispatch of a replacement cruiser would be in order. You can check out the whole story here, including photos;

www.huffingtonpost.com...

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — A U.S. Navy guided missile destroyer was left with a gaping hole on one side after it collided with an oil tanker early Sunday just outside the strategic Strait of Hormuz.

The collision left a breach about 10 feet by 10 feet (three by three meters) in the starboard side of USS Porter. No one was injured on either vessel, the U.S. Navy said in a statement.

The collision with the Panamanian-flagged and Japanese-owned bulk oil tanker M/V Otowasan happened about 1 a.m. local time. Photos released by the Navy showed workers standing amid twisted metal and other debris hanging down from the hole.

Just saying.

You talked to the mother of somebody who is leaving. That's the simplest version of your story. You don't know if it is a deployment. This is hearsay.

reply to post by wWizard


What are you talking about it being hearsay? There is the link to the local San Diego newspaper, the carrier left yesterday. Geez.

Watch how all eyes are on Syria/Iran and s will htf in Lebanon..
definitely something up with massive naval buildup
almost high noon for a false flag attack to kick it off

I don't think this is the time politically that anyone..Obama, his friends, would make the choice to go after Iran right now. It would be bbbaaaaddddd for them to make that decision when other Powerful Countires are standing behind Iran right now and have warned against it.

If anything...they need a false flag...a reason for everyone to say....charge. They don't have that right now. IMO

Didn't I see a news article that says Obama warns Iran that if it goes to war w/ Israel to stay away from American bases...could a base be in trouble of???????

In reading the various threads on here over the past 4 days or so, I am hearing the drums of war over there. It is making me nervous. It is like everyone else knows something and all the pieces are being put in place with Israel, Iran and the US. Also with Russia leaving Syria so as not to be involved, I don't know..........I hope I am wrong, last thing I want is war. Must say it isn't like Iran hasn't been warned. It is still not to late for everyone to come to the table and settle this in a civilized way.

If they're in the pacific do they go threw the panama canal? or something?

reply to post by r2d246


NO. They go straight across the Pacific, through the South China Sea, across the Indian Ocean and into the Persian Gulf.

this is normal. kind of.

I know for a fact that they will deploy troops and then say that they "are now deploying troops" 2 or three weeks later.
security reasons.

reply to post by Flatfish


Yes sir, that could explain the need for the one ship.. I am not sure if they would send a whole fleet with the carrier, or just a destroyer, or send it solo as a replacement.. doubt it would go alone but I also can't see them moving an entire battle fleet with it just to replace the one carrier. Pretty sure this is the buildup of impending war.

reply to post by itsblownbackbaby


not sure if this is being redundant, but the guided missle cruisers are also nuke capable.
I was one on n the late 80's.

(USS Jouette cg-29)

I mean honestly, 3 carriers in the gulf is a # ton of boats... It's going to make Iran so anxious...they will see the writing on the wall... it's way too likely that something is gonna happen here...

whats also interesting is the articles im reading keep saying the idea is to keep two carriers there.. but then why are they rattling off the name of 3 - Enterprise, Stennis and Eisenhower and here's an article saying that there are 4 carriers even, there:

The US has already sent three aircraft carriers to the waterways near Iran, namely the USS Enterprise, the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower and the USS Abraham Lincoln. Now the USS John C. Stennis will be joining this group in August, recent reports show.

rt.com...

WASHINGTON -- The United States has quietly moved significant military reinforcements into the Persian Gulf to deter the Iranian military from any possible attempt to shut the Strait of Hormuz and to increase the number of fighter jets capable of striking deep into Iran if the standoff over its nuclear program escalates

www.startribune.com...

the buildup carries significant risks, including that Iran's powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps could decide to lash out against the increased presence.

Originally posted by itsblownbackbaby
reply to post by Flatfish

 

Yes sir, that could explain the need for the one ship.. I am not sure if they would send a whole fleet with the carrier, or just a destroyer, or send it solo as a replacement.. doubt it would go alone but I also can't see them moving an entire battle fleet with it just to replace the one carrier. Pretty sure this is the buildup of impending war.

Could be. All I know is that my son is in the Navy, stationed in San Diego and about to go on deployment in about 3 wks., right on schedule. He's currently enjoying some leave time prior to deployment and has not been notified of any change in plans. Also, they seldom travel alone. Although at times in the past, my son's ship has sailed to Hawaii to meet up with the rest of the fleet headed for the middle east.

Im more worried about the carriers that are not protecting the US, Does anyone have a a clue just how much of our military is spread thinly? I do believe things are "Going Hot" soon