*** Massive Naval Blockade Heads For IRAN ***
DriftingByTheStorm
Posts: 8,684
Here we go folks.
hold your breath.
source one: "Massive US Naval Armada Heads For Iran"
source two: "Three major US naval strike forces due this week in Persian Gulf"
source three: "Kuwait Readying for War in Gulf?"
:( :( :(
hold your breath.
source one: "Massive US Naval Armada Heads For Iran"
source two: "Three major US naval strike forces due this week in Persian Gulf"
source three: "Kuwait Readying for War in Gulf?"
source one, in part wrote:The US Naval forces being assembled include the following:
Carrier Strike Group Nine
USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN72) nuclear powered supercarrier
with its Carrier Air Wing Two
Destroyer Squadron Nine:
USS Mobile Bay (CG53) guided missile cruiser
USS Russell (DDG59) guided missile destroyer
USS Momsen (DDG92) guided missile destroyer
USS Shoup (DDG86) guided missile destroyer
USS Ford (FFG54) guided missile frigate
USS Ingraham (FFG61) guided missile frigate
USS Rodney M. Davis (FFG60) guided missile frigate
USS Curts (FFG38) guided missile frigate
Plus one or more nuclear hunter-killer submarines
Peleliu Expeditionary Strike Group
USS Peleliu (LHA-5) a Tarawa-class amphibious assault carrier
USS Pearl Harbor (LSD52) assult ship
USS Dubuque (LPD8) assult ship/landing dock
USS Cape St. George (CG71) guided missile cruiser
USS Halsey (DDG97) guided missile destroyer
USS Benfold (DDG65) guided missile destroyer
Carrier Strike Group Two
USS Theodore Roosevelt (DVN71) nuclear powered supercarrier
with its Carrier Air Wing Eight
Destroyer Squadron 22
USS Monterey (CG61) guided missile cruiser
USS Mason (DDG87) guided missile destroyer
USS Nitze (DDG94) guided missile destroyer
USS Sullivans (DDG68) guided missile destroyer
USS Springfield (SSN761) nuclear powered hunter-killer submarine
IWO ESG ~ Iwo Jima Expeditionary Strike Group
USS Iwo Jima (LHD7) amphibious assault carrier
with its Amphibious Squadron Four
and with its 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit
USS San Antonio (LPD17) assault ship
USS Velia Gulf (CG72) guided missile cruiser
USS Ramage (DDG61) guided missile destroyer
USS Carter Hall (LSD50) assault ship
USS Roosevelt (DDG80) guided missile destroyer
USS Hartfore (SSN768) nuclear powered hunter-killer submarine
Carrier Strike Group Seven
USS Ronald Reagan (CVN76) nuclear powered supercarrier
with its Carrier Air Wing 14
Destroyer Squadron 7
USS Chancellorsville (CG62) guided missile cruiser
USS Howard (DDG83) guided missile destroyer
USS Gridley (DDG101) guided missile destroyer
USS Decatur (DDG73) guided missile destroyer
USS Thach (FFG43) guided missile frigate
USNS Rainier (T-AOE-7) fast combat support ship
Also likely to join the battle armada:
UK Royal Navy HMS Ark Royal Carrier Strike Group with assorted guided missile destroyers and frigates, nuclear hunter-killer submarines and support ships
French Navy nuclear powered hunter-killer submarines (likely the Amethyste and perhaps others), plus French Naval Rafale fighter jets operating off of the USS Theodore Roosevelt as the French Carrier Charles de Gaulle is in dry dock, and assorted surface warships
Various other US Navy warships and submarines and support ships. The following USN ships took part (as the "enemy" forces) in Operation Brimstone and several may join in:
USS San Jacinto (CG56) guided missile cruiser
USS Anzio (CG68) guided missile cruiser
USS Normandy (CG60) guided missile cruiser
USS Carney (DDG64) guided missile destroyer
USS Oscar Austin (DDG79) guided missile destroyer
USS Winston S. Churchill (DDG81) guided missile destroyer
USS Carr (FFG52) guided missile frigate
source two wrote:DEBKAfile’s military sources note that the arrival of the three new American flotillas will raise to five the number of US strike forces in Middle East waters – an unprecedented build-up since the crisis erupted over Iran’s nuclear program.
This vast naval and air strength consists of more than 40 carriers, warships and submarines, some of the last nuclear-armed, opposite the Islamic Republic, a concentration last seen just before the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Our military sources postulate five objects of this show of American muscle:
1. The US, aided also by France, Britain and Canada, is finalizing preparations for a partial naval blockade to deny Iran imports of benzene and other refined oil products. This action would indicate that the Bush administration had thrown in the towel on stiff United Nations sanctions and decided to take matters in its own hands.
2. Iran, which imports 40 percent of its refined fuel products from Gulf neighbors, will retaliate for the embargo by shutting the Strait of Hormuz oil route chokepoint, in which case the US naval and air force stand ready to reopen the Strait and fight back any Iranian attempt to break through the blockade.
3. Washington is deploying forces as back-up for a possible Israeli military attack on Iran’s nuclear installations.
4. A potential rush of events in which a US-led blockade, Israeli attack and Iranian reprisals pile up in a very short time and precipitate a major military crisis.
5. While a massive deployment of this nature calls for long planning, its occurrence at this time cannot be divorced from the flare-up of the Caucasian war between Russia and Georgia. While Russia has strengthened its stake in Caspian oil resources by its overwhelming military intervention against Georgia, the Americans are investing might in defending the primary Persian Gulf oil sources of the West and the Far East.
DEBKAfile’s military sources name the three US strike forces en route to the Gulf as the USS Theodore Roosevelt , the USS Ronald Reagan and the USS Iwo Jima . Already in place are the USS Abraham Lincoln in the Arabian Sea opposite Iranian shores and the USS Peleliu which is cruising in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden
:( :( :(
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
it's this type of shit that'll have McCain elected.
perhaps you see the vaule in an Obama vote then?
go figure :rolleyes:
All da sudden it's another gloves are off for Obama thread (especially the conspiracy crazies)....lol...classic..
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
What about the metal plate in his head?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
nothing wrong with making some personal progress and changing your mind... i noticed you took down your nader sig? didnt you have one? whats going on to change your mind?
its good you can continue to think things through and make your won decisions... it appears you are drifting in the right direction on this one, imo
I suppose it's only the right direction if that direction is towards the way you see things and in-line with your opinions and beliefs, right?
US Navy Deploys Around Latin America
Tuesday, May 6th, 2008
http://rinf.com/alt-news/war-terrorism/us-navy-deploys-around-latin-america/3375/
By Lamia Oualalou | It’s now official: The Pentagon is going to resuscitate its Fourth Fleet, with the mission of patrolling Latin American and Caribbean waters. Created during the Second World War to protect traffic in the South Atlantic, the structure was dissolved in 1950. “By reestablishing the Fourth Fleet, we acknowledge the immense importance of maritime security in this region,” declared Adm. Gary Roughead, head of the Pentagon’s naval operations. Based in Mayport, Florida, the fleet will operate under the double orders of the American Navy and the Army’s Southern Command, responsible for Latin America and the Caribbean. Vice Adm. Joseph Kernan will command the fleet, which should include a nuclear aircraft carrier. ...
While Washington assures that its sole interest in the region is combating “new threats” (terrorism, drug trafficking and the Maras gangs of Central America), Latin American people often see it as the pursuit of “imperialist” interests dictated by energy needs. The tensions between Washington and the radical presidents of the sub-continent’s main oil and gas producers (Venezuela, Equator and Bolivia) accentuate that perception.
As a sign of defiance, almost all Latin American countries have refused to sign the American Serviceman Protection Act, a treaty that prevents legal pursuit of American soldiers for crimes committed abroad.
The plan to install a military base in Paraguay, close to Bolivian gas fields, was denounced by Brazil and Argentina. Ecuador has made it known that the American military base installed in Manta until 2009 will not be allowed to renew its mandate. Worse still, Brazilian president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, has relaunched the idea of a South American Defense Council, explicitly excluding all United States intervention.
Washington’s sidelining comes at a time when new sources of conflict are arising in the region, as, for example, the one that pits Colombia on one side and Ecuador and Venezuela on the other, or that between Bolivia and Chile over sea access. An arms race is underway in the region, where governments have taken advantage of the economic revival to reequip their armies, neglected since the 1970s. ...
obviously i stand by my opinions and stances believing i am on the right side of the issues, just like anyone else. i dont claim to be definitely right though.
I happen to think a vote for Obama in this election is a very wise one. Just as you beleive a vote for your candidate is a wise one. But only history will judge the outcome of these decisions and opinions.
but of course i openly support everyone to develop their own thoughts and opinions and express them as they see fit. i am a big supporter of democracy and free will, and that is the cornerstone.
ROFL.
Uh ... yeah!
You know, one of Obama's now-in-the-shadows advisers, Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote a book about the global power struggle ...
... damn what was it called ... ?
The uh ...
... uh ... the ... what ...
the ...
oh yeah ...
THE GRAND CHESSBOARD ...
Fortunately for all the Obama lovers, they get to ramp up their "Obama is our savior because he is 'anti-war' as opposed to McCain" rhetoric because of this whole Russian dilemma.
I suspect one of the primary reasons for that is because Brzezinski is, despite some of his diabolical tendencies, an extremely astute global strategist who understands the precariousness of western interference in a Russian "sphere of influence". Some nests just aren't worth stirring up. I don't care if Georgia is a supposed "democratic Ally of the US" ... thats Russia, and that's Russia's concern. If we stick our finger in that business we are in for a world of trouble we haven't seen in decades. Brzezinski should know this by now, even if he was the one who said
But that quote should service to remind you that even the Obama camp isn't above these warmongering antics if they think they can get away with it "in the world view of history".
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I think the people would be a bit more accepting of a balding middle aged man with a white coat and stethoscope, and that would give us the foothold in these regions, create partnerships, etc? Shit, these countries would GIVE us their oil.
sure, we do that now, but not on the scale we do miliarty operations. lets try to flip it?
Naive? yup. but worth trying.
I just have had serious personal issues get in the way, and now I'm starting to change some of my previous ideals.
Continue to pull the fire alarm, and then if a fire breaks out, you can say that you called it all along.
it's more like trying to stop these acts of war against another country for no apparent reason...
on second thought, maybe I could play ignorant and just ignore these things... after all, no proof of nuclear weapons somehow means nuclear weapons... maybe we should have some naval blockades on Israel (who actually has weapons), and any other country who has a peaceful nuclear program... i mean, what's the big deal?
Yep.
All this sounds good to me. One wonders what would happen ...
i'm really wondering WTF is up with these troop movements and then the Russia\Georgia thing.
I'm actually curious as to if these are just coincidentally timed events ...
or if Russia is some how taking advantage of the US ship movement (and also maybe the Olympics???) to set up a sort of perfect storm.
We could be witnessing the setup for some WWIV type antics.
I would hope that Russia (assuming the timings here are more than coincidental) is simply POSTURING, with no deliberate intention of making a bigger concern out of this.
I'm waiting to see if the next few days\weeks bring any news of the US ship movements to surface on the national consciousness ... and also to see if any buzz erupts about Russia in relationship to Iran -- ie. does Russia (or Russian sources) make statements relating their own conflict to that in Iran, or make any overt threats against the US regarding Iran.
Part of me wonders if this move against Georgia is being used to counterbalance (and sort of twist the hand of the West) with regards to Israel's apparent intentions of starting a conflict with Iran (essentially on behalf of the United States) ...
If an Israeli (or Israeli\American) strike is imminent on Iran (and i believe that it could very well be), it is most certainly probable Russia knows this and she could possibly position herself to lay countervailing pressure against the West.
Its even possible that this was timed this was to PREEMPT and Israeli assault on Iran and essentially make a veiled reminder to TPTB that Russia is ready to show herself on the world stage if any further aggressions are made by the West itself.
Pressing on either the Iranians or the Russians at this point is simply begging them to unite and draw other like blocks of countries in to the fold.
Does no one else share these concerns?
I know i've read a few articles that say as much.
and this is for binfrog, who seems to think i never post sources or information (which is absolute bullshit):
one article
two article
and one to relate Russia to Iran in so much as showing that both are ready to fight back:
Iran warns against 'surprise attack'
So, uh yeah.
some SERIOUS concerns starting to develop for me.
Of course TPTB are probably half ecstatic over the possibilities of manipulation based upon this conflict.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I don't think that these concerns are totally off-the-mark ... I'd be a bit baffled as to why Russia would align itself with Iran, given the latter's Islamic bent. Russia has its own issues with Islamic extremists, and to me, a large secular power aligning itself with a major source of aid to Chechen rebels makes little to no sense to me, unless Russia really is stuck in a prehistoric Cold War mentality, like I suspect they might be. That, or its about oil. What does Russia have to gain by aligning itself against the Western world? Wouldn't there be more payoffs if it did the opposite? I don't know. You post does get a person thinking, though.