Pentagon planning Navy buildup as 'warning to Iran'

[AirRaid[_1_]]

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N18217613.htm


US to warn Iran with naval buildup in Gulf- CBS
19 Dec 2006 03:28:31 GMT
Source: Reuters


WASHINGTON, Dec 18 (Reuters) - The Pentagon is planning a major buildup
of U.S. naval forces in and around the Gulf as a warning to Iran, CBS
News reported on Monday.

A senior Defense Department official told Reuters the report was
"premature" and appeared to be drawing "conclusions from assumptions."
The official did not know of plans for a major change in naval
deployment.

Another Defense Department official called the report "speculative" and
a Pentagon spokeswomen declined to comment.

Citing unidentified military officers, CBS said the plan called for the
deployment of a second U.S. aircraft carrier to join the one already in
the region.

The network said the buildup, which would begin in January, wad not
aimed at an attack on Iran but to discourage what U.S. officials view
as increasingly provocative acts by Tehran.

The report said Iranian naval exercises in the Gulf, its support for
Shi'ite militias in Iraq and Iran's nuclear program were causes for
concern among U.S. officials.


______________


CBS video on the subject:
http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=2279916n

[eatfastnoodle]

Warning is not a Warning when nobody believes that you will indeed
carry out the threat, there have been so many "warnings" (don't do
this, don't do that, otherwise there will be consequences, don't test
the bomb/US will never tolerate a nuclear NK/Iran) sent to Iran and
North Korea so far that US credibility has become a joke, because they
did exactly what the US warned them not to do, and what they got?
ANOTHER WARNING. When you don't have the military resources, diplomatic
support and political capital to back it up, warning is just an
invitation for the world to see how powerless and stupid you are,
better to admit your weakness and try other routes.

[Zeno]

On 20 Dec 2006 07:30:45 -0800, "eatfastnoodle" >
wrote:

>Warning is not a Warning when nobody believes that you will indeed
>carry out the threat, there have been so many "warnings" (don't do
>this, don't do that, otherwise there will be consequences, don't test
>the bomb/US will never tolerate a nuclear NK/Iran) sent to Iran and
>North Korea so far that US credibility has become a joke, because they
>did exactly what the US warned them not to do, and what they got?
>ANOTHER WARNING. When you don't have the military resources, diplomatic
>support and political capital to back it up, warning is just an
>invitation for the world to see how powerless and stupid you are,

I'm sorry but your post doesn't make sense. Can you give further
explanation?

If the US does in fact have a naval buildup in the persian gulf, how
can that buildup express what you claim: no military resources,
diplomatic support and political capital for the warning.

>better to admit your weakness and try other routes.

[[email protected]]

"Zeno дµÀ£º
"
> On 20 Dec 2006 07:30:45 -0800, "eatfastnoodle" >
> wrote:
>
> >Warning is not a Warning when nobody believes that you will indeed
> >carry out the threat, there have been so many "warnings" (don't do
> >this, don't do that, otherwise there will be consequences, don't test
> >the bomb/US will never tolerate a nuclear NK/Iran) sent to Iran and
> >North Korea so far that US credibility has become a joke, because they
> >did exactly what the US warned them not to do, and what they got?
> >ANOTHER WARNING. When you don't have the military resources, diplomatic
> >support and political capital to back it up, warning is just an
> >invitation for the world to see how powerless and stupid you are,
>
> I'm sorry but your post doesn't make sense. Can you give further
> explanation?
>
> If the US does in fact have a naval buildup in the persian gulf, how
> can that buildup express what you claim: no military resources,
> diplomatic support and political capital for the warning.
>
> >better to admit your weakness and try other routes.

Because ships and planes can't and won't destroy Iran, and the US has
such a large chunk of its troops struck in Iraq, and even if navy and
air force can do the job, the US is in no position to use it, EU won't
support invasion, Russia and China are totally against it, so all the
major powers are against military strike, not to mention Bush's
credibility is a joke after the Iraqi fiasco and his party has just
lost both house and senate because of another oversea military
intervention, if GWB wants to announce to the world that he plans to
invade another, far bigger country to eliminate so called WMB threat
(sound familiar?), he will find it a little bit harder to convince the
congress to go along with it, not to mention no foreign ally at all,
I'm sure not even Britain and Australia will sign on to another big
foreign intervention supported by the same people inside the
administration who have shown to world how utterly incompetent they are
by bungling the Iraq operation, no ally at all, not even "coalition of
the willing", because nobody is going to follow Bush's stupid policy
any more.

[Zeno]

On 20 Dec 2006 19:11:20 -0800, wrote:

>
>"Zeno дµÀ£º
>"
>> On 20 Dec 2006 07:30:45 -0800, "eatfastnoodle" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Warning is not a Warning when nobody believes that you will indeed
>> >carry out the threat, there have been so many "warnings" (don't do
>> >this, don't do that, otherwise there will be consequences, don't test
>> >the bomb/US will never tolerate a nuclear NK/Iran) sent to Iran and
>> >North Korea so far that US credibility has become a joke, because they
>> >did exactly what the US warned them not to do, and what they got?
>> >ANOTHER WARNING. When you don't have the military resources, diplomatic
>> >support and political capital to back it up, warning is just an
>> >invitation for the world to see how powerless and stupid you are,
>>
>> I'm sorry but your post doesn't make sense. Can you give further
>> explanation?
>>
>> If the US does in fact have a naval buildup in the persian gulf, how
>> can that buildup express what you claim: no military resources,
>> diplomatic support and political capital for the warning.
>>
>> >better to admit your weakness and try other routes.
>
>Because ships and planes can't and won't destroy Iran, and the US has
>such a large chunk of its troops struck in Iraq, and even if navy and
>air force can do the job, the US is in no position to use it, EU won't
>support invasion, Russia and China are totally against it, so all the
>major powers are against military strike, not to mention Bush's
>credibility is a joke after the Iraqi fiasco and his party has just
>lost both house and senate because of another oversea military
>intervention, if GWB wants to announce to the world that he plans to
>invade another, far bigger country to eliminate so called WMB threat
>(sound familiar?), he will find it a little bit harder to convince the
>congress to go along with it, not to mention no foreign ally at all,
>I'm sure not even Britain and Australia will sign on to another big
>foreign intervention supported by the same people inside the
>administration who have shown to world how utterly incompetent they are
>by bungling the Iraq operation, no ally at all, not even "coalition of
>the willing", because nobody is going to follow Bush's stupid policy
>any more.


LOL, is it possible to make one long sentence so that I can't respond
to a piece of it (or clip away sections)? That has got to be a record
for sentence length - it's the whole paragraph.

Your response doesn't undo the fact.

A naval buildup in the Persian gulf suggests a possible defense
response to any overt action Iran may take - in Iraq or anywhere else
in the middle east.

By your arguments - Iran is a totally impotent nation as what you
proclaim of america applies doubly to Iran and it's president. That
is, they don't even have a naval buildup.

[Zeno]

On 20 Dec 2006 20:12:04 GMT, Juergen Nieveler
> wrote:

>"Mosquebuster" > wrote:
>
>> Naval buildup, hell. ONE Trident submarine can turn all of Iran into
>> the world's largest ashtray ---
>
>Care to look at a map for a change?
>
>First, Iran is a bit larger than you seem to think, seconds, large
>parts of it are mountains and valleys.
>
>Juergen Nieveler

You might want to brush up on conflagration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_explosion

A better question would be whether one Trident submarine could kill
everyone in Iran once or more than once.

[Zeno]

On 20 Dec 2006 20:12:04 GMT, Juergen Nieveler
> wrote:

>"Mosquebuster" > wrote:
>
>> Naval buildup, hell. ONE Trident submarine can turn all of Iran into
>> the world's largest ashtray ---
>
>Care to look at a map for a change?
>
>First, Iran is a bit larger than you seem to think, seconds, large
>parts of it are mountains and valleys.
>
>Juergen Nieveler

You might want to brush up on conflagration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_explosion

A better question would be whether one Trident submarine could kill
everyone in Iran once or more than once.

[[email protected]]

Mosquebuster wrote:
> "AirRaid" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N18217613.htm
> >
> >
> > US to warn Iran with naval buildup in Gulf- CBS
> > 19 Dec 2006 03:28:31 GMT
> > Source: Reuters
> >
> >
> > WASHINGTON, Dec 18 (Reuters) - The Pentagon is planning a major buildup
> > of U.S. naval forces in and around the Gulf as a warning to Iran, CBS
> > News reported on Monday. [snip]
>
> Naval buildup, hell. ONE Trident submarine can turn all of Iran into the
> world's largest ashtray ---

To have a show of force, it gotta be 'shown'...a Boomer sitting who
knows where isn't exactly a saber rattled. That Iranian knucklehead is
all about being seen as a great leader in the Islamo-facist campaign
and would sacrifice many of his own to make his point. He knows if he
seriously threatens Israel, Iran will cease to exist....

[[email protected]]

[Rense_December 20, 2006]

"Ahmadinejad Is Right"

By Karin Friedemann

Ahmadinejad is doing the right thing to point out the Jewish issues.
Any time you make an anti-Israel statement the Jews are going to be
told by all the Jewish organizations to "feel attacked" in order to use
this fear for fundraising. You can't let their little hissy fit stop
you from exposing them. They will always misquote and demonize anyone
who speaks against their domination.

The Jews want to bomb Iran. So there is no point in pretending that "if
only he had said the right thing about the Holocaust" that Jews would
have another attitude towards the Iranians. Whenever a Palestine
Solidarity Conference takes place in the U.S., the media is filled with
lies and distortions regarding what the conference is about, and
invariably a team of rabbis will fill the newspapers with op-eds
decrying the conference organizers for "hate".

Threatened with an Iraq-style war by the U.S. Jews, Ahmadinejad has
nothing to lose. He saw from Saddam's example that if you comply with
weapons inspectors and act submissive and politically correct, your
country will be irradiated. So therefore he is trying a different
tactic, that of being abrasive and by mirroring Jewish offensive
practices.

Do you realize how many Nakba Denial conferences and Anti-Muslim
genocide incitement conferences the Jewish organizations hold per year
in the United States? Iran did nothing but hold an academic conference.
The only tactic that has ever worked against slanderers is to point the
finger back at them.

Ahmadinejad is going on a media offensive - and this conference was
widely applauded throughout the Middle East - because he knows that
being defensive and cooperative with Jews results in getting bombed.
Since no one has tried this "be offensive as possible" media tactic
yet, Ahmadinejad is willing to give creativity a chance to stop a war.
I hope to God he succeeds.

http://www.rense.com/general74/ahm.htm

[God's Creator! (TEXT & HTML)]

wrote:
> Mosquebuster wrote:
>
>> "AirRaid" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>>
>>> http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N18217613.htm
>>>
>>>
>>> US to warn Iran with naval buildup in Gulf- CBS
>>> 19 Dec 2006 03:28:31 GMT
>>> Source: Reuters
>>>
>>>
>>> WASHINGTON, Dec 18 (Reuters) - The Pentagon is planning a major buildup
>>> of U.S. naval forces in and around the Gulf as a warning to Iran, CBS
>>> News reported on Monday. [snip]
>>>
>> Naval buildup, hell. ONE Trident submarine can turn all of Iran into the
>> world's largest ashtray ---
>>
>
> To have a show of force, it gotta be 'shown'...a Boomer sitting who
> knows where isn't exactly a saber rattled. That Iranian knucklehead is
> all about being seen as a great leader in the Islamo-facist campaign
> and would sacrifice many of his own to make his point. He knows if he
> seriously threatens Israel, Iran will cease to exist....
>
>

Thus Spake: *G* *O* *D* *S* *C* *R* *E* *A* *T* *O* *R*


I think the Islam/Muslim folks are _very_ serious,
so does the "U.S. of Israel" and Europe.

NO FREE ARAB $-OIL-$ LUNCH!

God's Creator!
(I am Life & Death) 8-)

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Todays U.S. Oil Wars News:
http://www.antiwar.com
http://icasualties.org/oif/

[Mark]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> [Rense_December 20, 2006]
>
> "Ahmadinejad Is Right"
>
> By Karin Friedemann
>
> Ahmadinejad is doing the right thing to point out the Jewish issues.

Uh, last time I checked Syria has occupied Lebanon, not Israel.
And Iran is in Syria and Lebanon as well....
>
> The Jews want to bomb Iran.

Cite? Just one Jewish statement of them wanting to "wipe Iran from the map".
>
> Threatened with an Iraq-style war by the U.S. Jews, Ahmadinejad has
> nothing to lose.

I doubt a conflict with the US and Iran would look anything like Iraq.

>He saw from Saddam's example that if you comply with
> weapons inspectors and act submissive and politically correct, your
> country will be irradiated.

LMAO!, Saddam did not comply with the UN.

Mark



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Ski]

were we not talking about battleships a few months back
like pulling out the Wisconsin again and home porting it in the Gulf with a
local crew
funded by locals - hummm - why would any carriers in the Gulf be needed
and of course there is the point about throwing grenades without their pins
pulled
but the BB's just sit there and look at you and look at you and look at you
and look at you ....



"eatfastnoodle" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Warning is not a Warning when nobody believes that you will indeed
> carry out the threat, there have been so many "warnings" (don't do
> this, don't do that, otherwise there will be consequences, don't test
> the bomb/US will never tolerate a nuclear NK/Iran) sent to Iran and
> North Korea so far that US credibility has become a joke, because they
> did exactly what the US warned them not to do, and what they got?
> ANOTHER WARNING. When you don't have the military resources, diplomatic
> support and political capital to back it up, warning is just an
> invitation for the world to see how powerless and stupid you are,
> better to admit your weakness and try other routes.
>

[Arash]

Slow and huge U.S. warships are very vulnerable in a tiny operating
area like the Persian Gulf.

[Ski]

hat is why we need to take out the carrier battle groups and bring back a
battle ship that would be left there forever





"Arash" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Slow and huge U.S. warships are very vulnerable in a tiny operating
> area like the Persian Gulf.
>

[A dirty muzzie pig's worst nightmare!]

Tankfixer wrote:
> In article et>,
> mumbled
> > "AirRaid" > wrote in message
> > ups.com...
> > > http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N18217613.htm
> > >
> > >
> > > US to warn Iran with naval buildup in Gulf- CBS
> > > 19 Dec 2006 03:28:31 GMT
> > > Source: Reuters
> > >
> > >
> > > WASHINGTON, Dec 18 (Reuters) - The Pentagon is planning a major buildup
> > > of U.S. naval forces in and around the Gulf as a warning to Iran, CBS
> > > News reported on Monday. [snip]
> >
> > Naval buildup, hell. ONE Trident submarine can turn all of Iran into the
> > world's largest ashtray ---
> >
>
> Iran IS the worlds largest asstray

lol!!! If that doesn't say it all, nothing does!

Gary the mighty Yaako warrior.

[Vince]

Ski wrote:
> hat is why we need to take out the carrier battle groups and bring back a
> battle ship that would be left there forever
>
>
>
>
>
> "Arash" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> Slow and huge U.S. warships are very vulnerable in a tiny operating
>> area like the Persian Gulf.
>>
>
>


you mean it would be sunk?

Vince

[Ski]

sink them in shallow water and still use the guns and superstructure
think of it this way - we would want the Iranians to shoot at the battle ship and possibly sink it for a proper start of a war
we would not like to loose a carrier group for the same start pass - think strategic man
besides the battle ship would be paid for by the locals and could benefit them with the joint command center they do not have


"Vince" > wrote in message . ..
> Ski wrote:
>> hat is why we need to take out the carrier battle groups and bring back a
>> battle ship that would be left there forever
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Arash" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>> Slow and huge U.S. warships are very vulnerable in a tiny operating
>>> area like the Persian Gulf.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> you mean it would be sunk?
>
> Vince

[Vince]

Ski wrote:
> sink them in shallow water and still use the guns and superstructure

this is just silly

If that is your point, no problem

Vince