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.

 

US is planning buildup in Gulf after Iraq exit

page: 1
22
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 04:39 AM
link   

US is planning buildup in Gulf after Iraq exit


www.msnbc.msn.com

MacDILL AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. — The Obama administration plans to bolster the American military presence in the Persian Gulf after it withdraws the remaining troops from Iraq this year, according to officials and diplomats. That repositioning could include new combat forces in Kuwait able to respond to a collapse of security in Iraq or a military confrontation with Iran.
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 04:39 AM
link   
This is it!! The war we have been talking about on ATS for the past 5 years..This is about to really really begin. Every day I see more and more war propaganda geared towards Iran. With Obamas losing polling numbers he could easily stage and blame iran. I cannot believe that this is really about to come to fruition. I really did not think in my wildest dreams that the USA would even dream about attacking Iran. Im sure some people wanted it, but I was extremely skeptical about the situation. I really did not think that the propaganda machine would start rolling.

www.msnbc.msn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 04:54 AM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 



“We will have a robust continuing presence throughout the region, which is proof of our ongoing commitment to Iraq and to the future of that region, which holds such promise and should be freed from outside interference to continue on a pathway to democracy,” Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in Tajikistan after the president’s announcement.


Gotta love Clinton's hypocrisy.. Read the bold type...



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 04:58 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Indeed it is. I think clinton is either the antichrist or one of its minions. Remember how she was lauging when gadhaffi was murdered. Karma, what goes around comes around. This shifting troops around has me nervous. Looks like they are setting the board and then waiting for the moment that some hotdog vendor from Iran says that he was working on a nuke project and use it as an excuse to go in.



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 05:14 AM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 

And it's not just troops on the ground..


In addition to negotiations over maintaining a ground combat presence in Kuwait, the United States is considering sending more naval warships through international waters in the region.


Looks like they intend to surround them..



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 05:23 AM
link   
Yes, I love Iran War doom.

One of my favourite flavours of doom to be sure!



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 05:33 AM
link   
We all know Iran is next.... Let's not beat around the bush... US the only country that can get away with starting war because they want to.



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 06:36 AM
link   
Cover Iran & Syria as required!!



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 06:59 AM
link   
Well damn...Looks like I'm gonna be busy.

BTW we've been maintaining a contingency force in Kuwait since the first Gulf War.
edit on 30-10-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 07:32 AM
link   
Out of curiosity - If WWIII is about to kick off then why would the US withdraw all troops from Iraq while trying to negotiate a force to remain in Kuwait or one of the other 5 countries listed? Wouldnt it make more sense to just refuse to leave Iraq and go from there, especially if we are going to attack countries?

To draw down and negotiate doesnt really fit with the WWIII scenario especially If the "end" is that near.
edit on 30-10-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I think Obama is trying to look like a good guy before he has to declare war on Iran... It would be silly of us to think he has actually withdrawn the troops in all reality, they are probably still there, and with the build up in the gulf and no resistance in Iraq it would take them a day to position them selves back in Iraq... Maybe he doesnt want the media questions of we have our troops in iraq we cant stretch it any further in Iran. But he can. They can. They have probably built up forts and bases in prep for the real green light... It is very interesting Iraq and Afghanistan both flank Iran, considering the reasons they went into those countries, false WMD's vs false flag 9/11....

Maybe he is just faking Iran into a false sense of lull, it's quiet too quiet...



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL

US is planning buildup in Gulf after Iraq exit


www.msnbc.msn.com

MacDILL AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. — The Obama administration plans to bolster the American military presence in the Persian Gulf after it withdraws the remaining troops from Iraq this year, according to officials and diplomats. That repositioning could include new combat forces in Kuwait able to respond to a collapse of security in Iraq or a military confrontation with Iran.
(visit the link for the full news article)

[/quote This is true i know someone who is training right now for deployment to kuwait some have already left to kuwait,the rest are in training i think in ft benning.



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   
The U.S. had troops there in Kuwait because when we don't have military bases and troops in Kuwait prior to the First Persian Gulf War, Saddam went rogue and attacked Kuwait in August of 1990.

After the First Persian Gulf War, U.S. troops were still stationed in Kuwait during a ceasefire in the 1990s to keep on eye on Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein as part of Operation Southern Watch(no-fly zone over southern Iraq to protect the Shiites from Saddam Hussein's regime). The Kuwaiti military is no tough and small compare to bigger countries such as Iraq and Iran, and it had no military power to defend itself. I think that's why Kuwait does need some protection from the U.S. against some bigger countries such as Iraq and Iran.


edit on 30-10-2011 by Paulioetc15 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   
Hmm while i agree with the OP, i think Pakistan is the next target.

Turkey will likely invade Syria with some Israeli and US assistance...which will of course push Iran to counter by blocking the Straits of Hormuz...causing a reaction by Saudi Arabia and Gulf nations(Sunni) into an Islamic conflagration..Sunni V Shia......

.......meanwhile back in Afghanistan...several hundred ? thousand ? discreetly placed tanks will roll first to Pakistan..they have Nukes remember !, this move will be assisted by India moving up from the South to force the Pakistani's into splitting their forces onto two fronts.

Kharzai says he will oppose such a move and Afghans will fight for Pakistan...brave words,foolish and all hubris from the top drug dealer.

What the US will provide to the Syrian,Iranian arena's will be airpower, the boots will be Middle Eastern..Turks,Syrians,Iranians and Arabs...and Israel ? well she'll be pushing for a greater Israel as she has been all along..Palestine will cease to exist.

I don't think Iran will be directly attacked by the US...China and Russia will oppose that, as for Pakistan...well only the Chinese will oppose that and i'm not sure how far China is prepared to go when it comes to a conflict with the USA...too much to lose.

My 2 pence Stirling.

Cosmic...



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   
i personally think the troop movements will be to occupy/subdue the eastern part of North Africa
rather than Iran or Syria or Lebanon or Jordan...

Where is the current friction: the same places mentioned in verse; Egypt, Libya, Ethiopia



i look towards Daniel 11: as the roadmap for these times...where destiny says:


Dan 11:42 He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries: and the land of Egypt shall not escape.
Dan 11:43 But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt: and the Libyans and the Ethiopians [shall be] at his steps.



here we are speaking of the end-times Empire of "...a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries."

think USA NATO in both causing the Egyptian Arab Summer, then the overthrow of Libya, watch for drone warfare a'la Terminator for the east of Egypt countries next by the peacekeepers of Nato/USA/et al

 


just whom might this vile person be that is quietly seizing the empire....


...Obama prepares to make good on his threats to work around Congress in making law "administratively," forcing his policies down our throats regardless of our protests.
Meanwhile, his supporters cheer these dictatorial moves, for they abhor their fellow citizens' rude insistence on disagreeing with Glorious Leader Obama.
www.wnd.com...






edit on 30-10-2011 by St Udio because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


This build up of military presence is what the Afghanistan mission is all about, in case you did not know that.



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   
So, let me get this straight.

In 2005 we invaded Iraq in order to depose a Saddam Hussein, a Sunni, Bathist tyrant, in order to "liberate" it's various religiously, culturally, ideologically, and ethically fractious citizens. This was, in a very ill conceived attempt, to install a democracy in said country. What followed (predictably) was a bloody, medium-grade civil war, which inflamed secretarial hatred between Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, and Christians alike. A contention that still continues on (though at a lower intensity), even today. Furthermore, in installing a "democracy", in reality a loose coalition of the previously mentioned groups, whose sole aim is to prevent the other contending groups from having political and economic power (via oil export revenue to America and various allies and, contradictory enough, enemies, ) we have given the Shiite majority in Iraq huge political leverage. An issue most Americans would not care about, had it not been for the fact that Iran ( a majorly Shiite country), a supposed enemy of the United States, is using this Shiite majority in Iraq as a potential tool in a possible asymmetric war in the near future. An Sunni-Shia, asymmetric war that not only encompasses the nation of Iraq, but regional nations such as Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Oman, Yemen, Bahrain and a host of other Middle East states. Most importantly it includes American oil allies (who are themselves Sunni tyrants, of the monarchist kind, hypocritically enough) who have been using their own military and the American military as a shield against rising Shia influence in the region as well is within their own borders.

Meanwhile in early 2011 a grassroots revolution, known as the "Arab Spring", swept through the Middle East, deposing various tyrants, some friends (Mubarak, in Egypt) and others enemies (Qaddafi, in Libya) of America. This authentic and homegrown movement undermined the argument that military intervention by the United States was necessary for political change in the Middle East. Of course, Libya can be considered an exclusion to this fact, but is still up for debate. Even more contradictory, various revolutions calling for liberty and fair elections (Syria, Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt) were supported by tyrannical dictatorships, such as Saudi Arabia, while other revolutions (see Bahrain), which called for same rights, were brutally suppressed by, again, Saudi Arabia. A double-standard overlooked by the United States, because of it's close economic (see oil exports) ties with the Saudi Royal Monarchy.

And now, at the closing of 2011, we find ourselves supposedly withdrawing troops from Iraq at the requests (excuse me---barely heard pleas) of the United States citizen, only to see these same troops be re-stationed, in potentially larger numbers, in the previously mentioned countries monarchist tyrannies of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. This is in preparation for another potential conflict in the same region, only with Iran, instead of Iraq. And just as a historical side note, to heighten the idiocy that is this Middle East Absurdist/Surrealist drama, the United States gave weapons/money to Saddam Hussein (remember him?) in order to neutralize Iranian influence in the 80's. Furthermore, many of the revolutions, including the ones forced by the American military, (Iraq) have already (Tunisia), or are leading to (Egypt) governments whose Islamist tendencies (see Muslim Brotherhood) are antithetical to democratic ideals the United States foreign policy gurus had hoped would emerge.

So with all these realities in play, can someone please explain to me how U.S. foreign policy in the last 2 to 3 decades has made any rational sense? I would call this a conspiracy, but there is so little competence in how we have handled the events over in the Middle East, even that seems unlikely. Did I get any of this wrong? Heck, just to be nice, I've excluded the mess in Afganistan/Pakistan/India and Israel/Palestine/Lebanon. Please, tell me if I'm getting this wrong?



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   


We all know Iran is next.... Let's not beat around the bush... US the only country that can get away with starting war because they want to.
reply to post by OzTruth
 


Thinking the U.S. is alone in the decision making process for going to war is ludicrous. Many other countries are secretly cheering on the devastation. How many “allied” countries where deployed in Iraq? How many different NATO countries are currently on the ground in Afghanistan? There are many European and Arab Leaders hiding behind the curtain supporting every action. The United States is the world police taking the bad guy stance for the rest of the world’s interests. The Crown can count on the good ole’ USA to go in and kick some countries a**. This leaves the rest of the Western European countries out of the cross hairs for retaliation; or even worse getting some egg on their face. The system is designed that way. The United States is just a Patsy, someone to take the blame and wave your finger at.

Not to mention, we are the most strategically located to poke a stick at the rest of the world.

"If it don't make dollars, it don't make sense"
DJ Quik
edit on 30-10-2011 by smoke screen because: Added last sentence.



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   
The attack on Iran will have absolutely nothing to do with Iran. We need to cut China off from it's fuel sources or they'll surpass us technologically in a very short time.

The attack on Iran will only be to close the tap and stop energy from Iran.....from getting to China.


Nobody gives a rats about Iran.....they don't pose a threat to America and never would in 1,000 years.

But China does.



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   
with the current generation of wimps and spoiled lazy kids america is producing at break neck speeds, they'll lose any war against battle hardened men from russia, china and iran.

its sad but true. i picture kids in uniform downloading apple apps, while a wave of merciless chinese and fanatical iranian revolutionary guards are charging down their necks, with the aim of relieving their heads from their bodies.







 
22
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join