Is the US Preparing for War with Iran?

[russ_watters]

Well for N Korea, its a bit late, they have nukes or at least seem to.

They have nukes and a psychopath for a leader. Seems like a good reason to go after him to me!
[/devil's advocate]

The whole reason why someone with nukes might be a real threat is if they have some decent likelihood of using them. We don't worry about countries like England having the bomb because they haven't recently threatened to turn anyone into a "river of fire".

 

[russ_watters]

We have a plenty of stand off weapons. Are we talking about Iran or Iraq? Are we going to invade Iraq again?

In case you hadn't noticed, there is still a lot of active fighting going on in Iraq. That's kinda the point of sending more troops. The battle yesterday had fixed-wing air support (though in the article I read, it didn't say whether it was navy/marine corps or air force or both).

Definitely not in the Gulf.

I think the point is that you wouldn't put them anywhere. Well that isn't one of the options on the table. We're not going to disband the military, we have an active conflict, and weapons platforms that can be used there. It wouldn't make any sense to send the carrier battle groups to drive around in circles in the middle of the atlantic - if you have three deployed, the Persian Gulf (or the med) is the logical place to put two of them.

There is a big difference between "carrier" and two carrier task forces plus extra destroyers.

I'm using the terms interchangeably. It doesn't change the math here. It still isn't a major concern. And given that based on your above statement, you do consider Iran to be a real threat to shipping, I don't understand how you can also believe we should leave it unguarded.

The strait is the part that has me worried. That is the strategic place for Iran to block shipping and the most likely place for an accident or incident.

It's happened before (Iran going after shipping) - all the more reason to have our forces in the area if Iran wants to try some funny stuff. Or are you suggesting we pull our forces out and allow Iran to start sinking oil tankers in the gulf again?

Oh sure Russ

Why don't you read the first sentence of the second link you quoted out loud to yourself, then wink at yourself in the mirror?!? Such accidents are relatively "rare".

 

[russ_watters]

In case you hadn't noticed, there is still a lot of active fighting going on in Iraq. That's kinda the point of sending more troops. The battle yesterday had fixed-wing air support (though in the article I read, it didn't say whether it was navy/marine corps or air force or both).

Here's some stats on that general point:

U.S. Navy forces in the Persian Gulf have been contributing to the war on terrorism by conducting maritime security operations and providing support to troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, a Navy strike group commander said Sept. 25.

During June and July [2006], Enterprise aircraft launched 781 aircraft sorties in direct support of troops participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom and 237 aircraft sorties in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, Spicer said. Since the end of August, Enterprise has launched nearly 300 aircraft sorties and expended about 90 precision weapons in support of NATO forces and other coalition troops in Afghanistan, he said. Enterprise aircraft also continue to support Operation Iraqi Freedom from an air base in Iraq, he said.

Over Iraq, the primary focus of Enterprise’s efforts has been on intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, Spicer said. The land-based aircraft contingent there focuses on ISR efforts, as well as counter-improvised explosive device efforts and close-air support, he said.

In Afghanistan, Enterprise aircraft have been more actively supporting troops on the ground because of the increased fighting there between NATO, coalition and Taliban forces, Spicer said. Spicer’s aircraft have been supporting operations in Afghanistan since September, he said, and their missions change each day, depending on what the situation on the ground is like.

http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=25748

Most of the strikes into Afghanistan, however, were launched from just outside the Gulf, in the Arabian sea.

 

[verty]

Bush told NPR he had no intention of going into Iran. "This is the kind of thing that happens in Washington," the president said. "People ascribe, you know, motives to me beyond a simple statement - 'Of course we'll protect our troops.' I don't know how anybody can then say, 'Well, protecting the troops means that we're going to invade Iran.'"

I hope they inscribe this on his tombstone.

 

[edward]

In case you hadn't noticed, there is still a lot of active fighting going on in Iraq. That's kinda the point of sending more troops. The battle yesterday had fixed-wing air support (though in the article I read, it didn't say whether it was navy/marine corps or air force or both). I think the point is that you wouldn't put them anywhere

The battle did have fixed wing air support, they have had it in Iraq all along. We have airbases on the ground now. Three carrier task forces, one in the Mediterranean and two in the gulf is overkill. And yes I would put them somewhere, But more than one would not go thru the strait unless absolutely needed. Who knows perhaps they won't, but we have made some very poor military judgements in recent years.

And given that based on your above statement, you do consider Iran to be a real threat to shipping, I don't understand how you can also believe we should leave it unguarded.

Not unguarded, just cautiously guarded. Ironically a build up of an offensive presence in the Gulf may be what triggers them. People in that part of the world tend to do some very irrational things in according to our way of thinking. What has been happening in Iraq should be a reminder of that.

Or are you suggesting we pull our forces out and allow Iran to start sinking oil tankers in the gulf again?

No of course not, but we should keep one of the task forces outside the portion of the Gulf within the strait. Iran isn't going to just randomly start sinking tankers as long as they must also use the Gulf for shipping. Unless of course it seems to them to be an only recourse to an overly aggressive U.S. presence.

Why don't you read the first sentence of the second link you quoted out loud to yourself, then wink at yourself in the mirror?!? Such accidents are relatively "rare".

The second link which called the incidents rare, was in 05, there recently was another one. Both had submarines involved. In the first, the submarine was running on the surface. If subs can hit tankers so can carriers. But more likely a tanker will hit a carrier. Tanker captains do not exactly have an unblemished record.

What happens when a hijacked tanker rams a carrier in the strait?? I doubt that we are even looking at that scenario? Yea I Know, I question every thing. I had a very long ,successful , and well paid career doing just that.

We should at least send along a number of tugs and salvage ships to clean up the mess. Come to think of it Haliburton probably has already been paid to have them there.

 

[denverdoc]

guys, with all due respect, this is an angels on a pin arg.
John

 

[edward]

guys, with all due respect, this is an angels on a pin arg.
John

We do this all the time doc, its therapeutic. BTW, welcome to the forum.

 

[denverdoc]

We do this all the time doc, its therapeutic. BTW, welcome to the forum.

Thanks for the welcome. And hey I know the therapuetic value in talk. Frankly, tho ut seems he thread has drifted a bit, as to how many carriers will fit into the gulf, even at the strait, versus good foreign policy.
John S

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Draw a line between 'before 9/11' and 'after 9/11'. How many examples can you come up with where Bush postured until the other side backed down? How has 'firm evidence' played into Bush's decisions?

I'm pretty sure we'll bomb Iran. I'm not very sure what happens after that.

Good God I hope not, there will be a world of pain if they're not 100% sure of Irans intentions.

 

[BobG]

Good God I hope not, there will be a world of pain if they're not 100% sure of Irans intentions.

Not only do you have more carriers in the area, but more Air Force, as well: Air Force's role in Iraq could grow

 

[edward]

Not only do you have more carriers in the area, but more Air Force, as well

Whitch adds to the concern of the OP " Another wider war looms". The only places we can put an expaned military force in the Middle East is in Iraq and in the Gulf. We apparently are doing just that.

There were only two carrier groups in the ME during the first Gulf war and later during the invasion of Iraq. We now have three plus additional Aegis cruisers, and a Marine amphibious assault force.

I can only assume from this that our leaders do in fact intend to expand military operations in the ME. Iran is evidently the intended recipient of a lot of high explosives.

Again I question whether or not we can do this without having an incident, either intentionally or accidently, block shipping in the Persian Gulf. Besides tankers and Carriers there is every other type of ship imaginable, everything from small merchant dows to container ships also pass thru the Gulf.

 

[turbo]

Again I question whether or not we can do this without having an incident, either intentionally or accidently, block shipping in the Persian Gulf. Besides tankers and Carriers there is every other type of ship imaginable, everything from small merchant dows to container ships also pass thru the Gulf.

There need not be any incident to shut down oil shipments. Just the attack on Iran will make all the insurers of tankers ban them from the Gulf. Bush's friends in the oil industry will reap a great windfall from the higher prices - they will immediately jack up prices on consumer fuel products. A nice fat tax directly out of our pockets into the pockets of the oil companies.

 

[verty]

Ah, but remember, the oil companies are probably somewhat hesitant to drive the price up too much, what with all the green consciousness going on.

 

[denverdoc]

right, that's why exxon-mobil had a record year, hesitant to price gouge ;-D
JS

 

[verty]

As far as I know, they weren't exactly price-gouging; oil was just in short supply; the global price was high. And anyhow, it wasn't that high, only $66 a barrel or whatever. Not as high as I thought it would go.

 

[denverdoc]

As far as I know, they weren't exactly price-gouging; oil was just in short supply; the global price was high. And anyhow, it wasn't that high, only $66 a barrel or whatever. Not as high as I thought it would go.

Let me see if I understand, oil was in short supply, demand is somewhat inelastic, so prices went up. But there not selling more, they are selling less, yet profits were record. No wonder I didn't major in economics.
J

 

[edward]

Let me see if I understand, oil was in short supply, demand is somewhat inelastic, so prices went up. But there not selling more, they are selling less, yet profits were record. No wonder I didn't major in economics.
J

They sold less for much more per gallon. Price gouging was built into the system when the FTC allowed so many oil companies to merge. It got even worse when they allowed the refineries to merge.

 

[denverdoc]

They sold less for much more per gallon. Price gouging was built into the system when the FTC allowed so many oil companies to merge. It got even worse when they allowed the refineries to merge.

Edward,

That was this dumb hick's take on it. Theres a mix of supplies at various costs and bought at different times, but with gasoline prices it's always built around worst cost. And let us not forget the annual summer gouge here in the US, whatever world costs are.
J

 

[verty]

Who is a dumb hick? (honest question)

 

[denverdoc]

yours truly.

 

[BobG]

Who is a dumb hick? (honest question)

yours truly.

If his name is any indication, denverdoc is one of them big city fellers compared to us folks down here in the land of James Dobson, Ted Haggard, and Doug Lamborn.

 

[denverdoc]

Hey aren't those those guys down residing within the last city fit for Beaver Cleaver, where fags are fags and run out of town for it, where one can feel close to God and Norad at the same time--I'm getting a spinal shiver just thinking bout it.
J

 

[Astronuc]

US ex-generals reject Iran strike

Three former high-ranking American military officers have warned against any military attack on Iran.

They said such action would have "disastrous consequences" for security in the Middle East and also for coalition forces in Iraq.

They said the crisis over Tehran's nuclear programme must be resolved through diplomacy, urging Washington to start direct talks with Iran.

The letter was published in Britain's Sunday Times newspaper.

It was signed by:

Lt Gen Robert Gard, a former military assistant to the US defence secretary

Gen Joseph Hoar, a former commander-in-chief, US Central Command

Vice Adm Jack Shanahan, a former director of the Center for Defense

"As former US military leaders, we strongly caution against the use of military force against Iran," the authors said.

Military action is not warranted.

 

[turbo]

US ex-generals reject Iran strike

Military action is not warranted.

No, it is not warranted, but it is probably coming. Bush and Cheney's friends will siphon off billions more if they start another war, and that is enough justification for them, I fear. They started the Iraq war with no justification but the money that Halliburton's subsidiaries and other contractors would get. Even today, Bush cannot come up a single reason why that war was necessary. Instead, he tells us how different the world is after 9-11, as if Iraq had anything to do with that. :grumpy: War is the biggest business in the US and the Bush family has been involved in financing and fomenting them for generations.