News Is the US Preparing for War with Iran?

[turbo]

The signs are very disturbing. Israeli PM Olmert urges action against Iran, but hints that there may be room for diplomacy. His words for action border on ultimatum, however, and he made no offer of diplomacy, insisting instead that the "International Community" needs to take action against Iran.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070124/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_olmert_1

In a parallel move, Bush hammered on Iran for being supportive of the Shiites and mentioned Iran a number of times in his State of the Union address. He didn't bother hammering the Saudis, who have said publicly that they will provide support to the Sunnis if Shiites retain the upper hand in Iraq. He also linked the Iraq war to 9-11 as he does at every opportunity, though the majority of the hijackers identified were Saudis. He made mention of "diplomacy" in the region, but has shown no willingness to negotiate with the Iranian government - so similar to the way he manipulated the US into attacking Iraq. His idea of diplomacy is to issue ultimatums, and pursue sanction against "enemies" instead of talking to them to see if we can establish any common ground. When the "enemy" fails to obey his orders, he declares that diplomacy has failed, and just like that we are at an "impasse" with no possible political solution.

The Stennis carrier group will soon be in the Persian Gulf, expanding our presence to two full carrier groups. The Stennis is presently in San Diego taking on supplies and additional weaponry and aircraft and will head for the Gulf soon. I fear that once the group is deployed in the Gulf, Israel will attack Iran's nuclear facilities and Bush will "interpret" Iran's response as an attack on the US, and launch an air war against Iran, thus plunging the region into a wider war, against the wishes of the US voters and our elected representatives. This set of circumstances - the speeches, the lack of diplomatic dialog with the "enemy" and the prepositioning of massive military force all point to another contrived and unnecessary war. If I am right, and I hope to be wrong, this will not be a war of a few "surgical" strikes against military/nuclear targets - those could be launched from distant land bases. It will be a war of non-stop and massive air strikes - the kind of attacks that are made-to-order for close-positioned carriers capable of many, many sorties/day.

 

[Manchot]

Luckily, Bush just doesn't have any political capital left. Anything that he had after 9/11 was spent on Iraq. If he tries to send troops into Iran, the Democrats (as well as the majority of Republicans) will vote to completely cut off funding, leaving him without any recourse. If he goes against the wishes of the Congress and spends money that he wasn't given, you can bet that the Dems will bring articles of impeachment.

 

[verty]

I don't think Bush can't do anything like that because it is the end of his term and next year it'll be all about the election, they will want the war to be in a somewhat stable situation like it probably will be with the extra troops there to quell Baghdad. It'll look nice and peachy (relatively speaking) going into a possibly democrat-led next term.

 

[BobG]

Luckily, Bush just doesn't have any political capital left. Anything that he had after 9/11 was spent on Iraq. If he tries to send troops into Iran, the Democrats (as well as the majority of Republicans) will vote to completely cut off funding, leaving him without any recourse. If he goes against the wishes of the Congress and spends money that he wasn't given, you can bet that the Dems will bring articles of impeachment.

I don't think Bush can't do anything like that because it is the end of his term and next year it'll be all about the election, they will want the war to be in a somewhat stable situation like it probably will be with the extra troops there to quell Baghdad. It'll look nice and peachy (relatively speaking) going into a possibly democrat-led next term.

Being near the end of his term also means he has little to lose personally. Neither does Cheney, who has absolutely no plans to run for President (i.e. - Congress can start the second impeachment right after Bush leaves office).

It depends on whether Bush really believes Iraq, Iran, and North Korea are part of an 'Axis of Evil' that need to be eliminated at any cost or whether bad advice trapped him into starting a bad war that he can't get out of. I think he could find a face-saving way to withdraw troops if he wanted to. That means there's a chance that he considers it very important to at least start a war against Iran, even if he won't be around long enough to finish it.

He can't invade Iran because we don't have enough troops to fight in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran at the same time, while still maintaining troops in Asia to protect against North Korea. He can bring Iran into the war with air strikes, though. Once the war is started, Congress will go along the way it has for virtually the entire history of the United States.

 

[turbo]

He can't invade Iran because we don't have enough troops to fight in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran at the same time, while still maintaining troops in Asia to protect against North Korea. He can bring Iran into the war with air strikes, though. Once the war is started, Congress will go along the way it has for virtually the entire history of the United States.

My biggest fear is that a "Gulf of Tonkin" incident will be fabricated and the US naval air forces will "retaliate" in such a way that the flag-wavers back home will rally around Bush. Make no mistake, many thoughtless people will support murder and destruction if Bush claims that Iran attacked us and the war is necessary.

The recent rhetoric and the deployment of a 2nd carrier group looks to me like Bush is engineering a broad-based expansion of the war. There is simply no need for a second carrier group in the gulf. Al qaida does not have a navy nor an air force, nor do the Sunni insurgents. The only reason I can think that 2 carrier groups are needed is if Bush intends to take out Iran's capability to harass shipping in the Gulf and destroy its aging air force. If Congress does not put a leash on Bush now, the next 5 or 10 presidents of the US are going to have a lot of trouble on their hands, and the Middle East will be even more of a mess than it is presently.

 

[Gokul43201]

My biggest fear is that a "Gulf of Tonkin" incident will be fabricated and the US naval air forces will "retaliate" in such a way that the flag-wavers back home will rally around Bush. Make no mistake, many thoughtless people will support murder and destruction if Bush claims that Iran attacked us and the war is necessary.

Gulf of Tonkin-like incidents have happened more than once, not always resulting in largescale war. Recall the Gulf of Sidra incidents - likely the same prescription, but much more limited in scope.

The recent rhetoric and the deployment of a 2nd carrier group looks to me like Bush is engineering a broad-based expansion of the war. There is simply no need for a second carrier group in the gulf. Al qaida does not have a navy nor an air force, nor do the Sunni insurgents. The only reason I can think that 2 carrier groups are needed is if Bush intends to take out Iran's capability to harass shipping in the Gulf and destroy its aging air force. If Congress does not put a leash on Bush now, the next 5 or 10 presidents of the US are going to have a lot of trouble on their hands, and the Middle East will be even more of a mess than it is presently.

Or, it's just a projection of force...something to back up the rhetoric.

 

[edward]

It seems to me that the gulf is a poor place to put our carriers. They will be easy targets for land based missiles. They will also be operating in a very tight area already full of supertankers. This is not a good place to be playing a game of, "who blinks first", or "dodge ball."

We could accidentally end up being the ones who curtail shipping in the Gulf.
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=19103

 

[turbo]

It seems to me that the gulf is a poor place to put our carriers. They will be easy targets for land based missiles. They will also be operating in a very tight area already full of supertankers. This is not a good place to be playing a game of, "who blinks first", or "dodge ball."

We could accidentally end up being the ones who curtail shipping in the Gulf.

That's a big part of what makes me nervous. Any little problem with the the Iranian defense to any attack can be portrayed as an "attack" on US forces and we are sucked into a wider war, with more people being murdered for no reason.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=1223773#post1223773

 

[Apost8]

Bush authorizes targeting Iranians in Iraq:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/01/26/us.iran.reut/index.html"

 

[Astronuc]

Interesting comments here regarding Bush's speech on Jan 10 -

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/10/bush-speech-iran/: ‘I Recently Ordered The Deployment Of An Additional Carrier Strike Group To The Region’

There was not one ounce of sincerity in his admission of guilt for the chaos that has become Iraq. He read it as one would read a pre-scripted speech about why carrots are orange, or how duck down is impervious to water. It was not delivered with the concession of someone with the ability to empathize or hold a regard for other human beings. And it no longer surprises me because sociopaths lack the capacity.

The only thing Bush’s speech convinced me of - is the fact that he will go down in history as a failed leader.

Comment 11.

 

[verty]

I wouldn't have thought so (about the situation) but it seems turbo is spot on. Deploying more carriers, authorising targets; sounds just about the right environment for an incident to occur.

Of course, it has been said that Iran was a target a long time ago.

 

[turbo]

I wouldn't have thought so (about the situation) but it seems turbo is spot on. Deploying more carriers, authorising targets; sounds just about the right environment for an incident to occur.

Of course, it has been said that Iran was a target a long time ago.

I have sent letters to my congressional representatives and to my local newspaper, but these will accomplish nothing, if the powers that be will not listen. I fear that soon, the Middle East will be a bombed-out mess (even more so than now!) and the US will be the pariah of the world, thanks to George Bush.

 

[Werg22]

He didn't manipulate the US government to attack Iraq, he was in fact the manipulated.

 

[Garth]

He didn't manipulate the US government to attack Iraq, he was in fact the manipulated.

By Al Qaeda?

Through the planting of false information tortured out of their operatives?
Al-Qaeda lured U.S. to Iraq
By Gwynne Dyer
(Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries.)

Garth

 

[verty]

I'm not blaming Bush per se, he's probably just a face.

 

[edward]

I'm not blaming Bush per se, he's probably just a face.

And the face behind that face is Dick Cheney.

In his book, Woodward describes Cheney as a "powerful, steamrolling force obsessed with Saddam and taking him out."

"Colin Powell, the secretary of state, saw this in Cheney to such an extent, he, Powell, told colleagues that ‘Cheney has a fever. It is an absolute fever. It’s almost as if nothing else exists,’” says Woodward, who adds that Cheney had plenty of opportunities to convince the president.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/15/60minutes/main612067.shtml

 

[edward]

Getting back to the topic.

Amphibious assault ships are also on their way to the persian Gulf.

http://www.deepjournal.com/p/7/a/en/389.html

 

[denverdoc]

Here I thought the guy was just wanting a job and lots of money, that it was the work of Al Qaeda, who could look a couple moves in advance is intriguing, well Chess has its origins in the ME, no?
JS

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Does anyone actually think they'll bomb Iran? Let alone send in ground troups? I think again this is just posturing in the same way as we saw off China, if the US bombs Iran and it turns out they had nothing, it will be extremelly embarrasing, IMO the only time the US would act is if it had good intelligence, frankly I have seen much sign of that if you'll pardon the double entendre.

 

[Astronuc]

Well, this will ratchet up the tension.

Iranian Reveals Plan to Expand Role in Iraq

BAGHDAD, Jan. 28 — Iran’s ambassador to Baghdad outlined an ambitious plan on Sunday to greatly expand its economic and military ties with Iraq — including an Iranian national bank branch in the heart of the capital — just as the Bush administration has been warning the Iranians to stop meddling in Iraqi affairs.

Iran’s plan, as outlined by the ambassador, carries the potential to bring Iran into further conflict here with the United States, which has detained a number of Iranian operatives in recent weeks and says it has proof of Iranian complicity in attacks on American and Iraqi forces.

The ambassador, Hassan Kazemi Qumi, said Iran was prepared to offer Iraq government forces training, equipment and advisers for what he called “the security fight.” In the economic area, Mr. Qumi said, Iran was ready to assume major responsibility for Iraq reconstruction, an area of failure on the part of the United States since American-led forces overthrew Saddam Hussein nearly four years ago.

I wonder what people will write and think 100 years or 1000 years from now. Probably something like - what the **** were these people thinking back then.

 

[edward]

Does anyone actually think they'll bomb Iran? Let alone send in ground troups? I think again this is just posturing in the same way as we saw off China, if the US bombs Iran and it turns out they had nothing, it will be extremelly embarrasing, IMO the only time the US would act is if it had good intelligence, frankly I have seen much sign of that if you'll pardon the double entendre.

I hope it is posturing, but that is one very expensive and dangerous way of doing it. It is not a bright manuever to put that much extra traffic in the persian Gulf. Carriers task forces and super tankers don't mix in a confined area.

 

[verty]

From here, August 2005:

A major U.S. intelligence review has projected that Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon, roughly doubling the previous estimate of five years, according to government sources with firsthand knowledge of the new analysis.

Now they're talking about striking suspected nuclear sites. Why is it so urgent, huh? I think it is because they want to start a war, before the next election.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I hope it is posturing, but that is one very expensive and dangerous way of doing it. It is not a bright manuever to put that much extra traffic in the persian Gulf. Carriers task forces and super tankers don't mix in a confined area.

I agree, it's worrying. But it's the usual tactics from the US no? Posture until the other side backs down, there's little they can do at the moment without firm evidence. And I personally happen to think that Iran is at least 5-10 years off nukes and this is supported by the IAEI, with it's current centrifugal technology you're looking at ten years, assuming it only uses it to build nukes, and it's missile tech won't get a lot further than Israel, even if it was planning on using it, which I somehow doubt, even if it is trying to gain them. And that was 30 years in the making and propogated by the US in the first place.

It needs nuclear energy that is without question, but it is playing a very provocative game, I would like to see the US enter into talks with Iran, diplomacy is the act to forestal war, refusing to talk to Ahmidinejhad despite his offers, is bad diplomacy.

Iran is surrounded by nuclear armed powers, but it's stated numerous times, that nuclear weapons are unIslamic? Who do we believe here? Not easy to pick out the truth from the posturing...

 

[russ_watters]

There is simply no need for a second carrier group in the gulf. Al qaida does not have a navy nor an air force, nor do the Sunni insurgents. The only reason I can think that 2 carrier groups are needed is if Bush intends to take out Iran's capability to harass shipping in the Gulf and destroy its aging air force..

You do know that naval forces (carriers, their planes, and other ships) have ground attack capabilities, right?

 

[russ_watters]

It seems to me that the gulf is a poor place to put our carriers. They will be easy targets for land based missiles. They will also be operating in a very tight area already full of supertankers. This is not a good place to be playing a game of, "who blinks first", or "dodge ball."

We could accidentally end up being the ones who curtail shipping in the Gulf.
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=19103

Since carrier-based planes have a range of only a few hundred miles, the only place you can put them where they will be of any use to our forces in Iraq is the Persian Gulf or the Med.

Where would you put them?

It is not a bright manuever to put that much extra traffic in the persian Gulf. Carriers task forces and super tankers don't mix in a confined area.

That's a load of crap, pure and simple. Carriers have been operating in the gulf for decades. When was the last time you heard of one colliding with anything? Once you get past the strait, the gulf is more than 100 miles wide at its narrowest.

Collisions at sea do happen from time to time, of course, but the risk is manageable and not a major consideration here.

 

[russ_watters]

Does anyone actually think they'll bomb Iran? Let alone send in ground troups? I think again this is just posturing in the same way as we saw off China, if the US bombs Iran and it turns out they had nothing, it will be extremelly embarrasing, IMO the only time the US would act is if it had good intelligence, frankly I have seen much sign of that if you'll pardon the double entendre.

Some people clearly do think it is more than just posturing, but I haven't seen any real indications of a move toward an actual strike.

 

[BobG]

I agree, it's worrying. But it's the usual tactics from the US no? Posture until the other side backs down, there's little they can do at the moment without firm evidence.

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.

 

[russ_watters]

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?

North Korea. N Korea hasn't "backed down", but we haven't attacked them either and the evidence (of their nuclear program) is as firm as firm gets. And the fact of the matter is we can still use Iran as its own counter example. And both countries are part of the "axis of evil" and 5 years after that speech, we haven't attacked either one.

 

[denverdoc]

Well for N Korea, its a bit late, they have nukes or at least seem to. Iran can be considered a preemptive target in accordance with the neo-cons preemptive war philosophy. BTW, I read Shroed Dog, where Iran has plans for a satellite launch with a mass of 30kg or so here soon. That was the Fox non-news channel, but the original source came from Space and Aviation Weekly:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,246958,00.html
This translates into ICBM potential in anyones book.
John S

 

[denverdoc]

Well for N Korea, its a bit late, they have nukes or at least seem to. Iran can be considered a preemptive target in accordance with the neo-cons preemptive war philosophy. BTW, Shrodinger's Dog, I see where Iran has plans for a satellite launch with a mass of 30kg or so here soon. That was the Fox non-news channel, but the original source came from Space and Aviation Weekly:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,246958,00.html

This translates into ICBM potential in anyones book.
John S

 

[BobG]

Here's an article about the prospects for war in Iran by Seymour Hersh.

http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/061127fa_fact

 

[denverdoc]

Nice link. Seymour is a class act. Wish more jounalists like him were still plying their trade, at least here in the states. Couple things leap out though: that we would be skeptical of Israeli intelligence--well maybe the guys who do it for a living would be, CIA and state dep't, but we had plenty of naysayers among them about the Iraq WMD issues, and Colin Powell was still sent to the UN to dispatch a pack of lies. Secondly, if the nukes are such a worry, put pressure on the only country close to Iran that has them to disarm. Right. Again white man knows best and can be trusted to possesses such weapons. Those crazy Muslims will do anything in a Jahad. Maybe, but if you really subscribe to the MAD theory, either all or none.

If I had a hostile neighbor packing serious firepower like a 44 mag, I might be inclined to buy one as well. Course we are the examplar in laying down weapons and beating swords into plowshares... Shameless hypocrisy.
John

 

[denverdoc]

Well maybe they have been sufficiently chastened:

http://enews.earthlink.net/article/pol?guid=20070129/45bd7f50_3ca6_15526200701291282582372

JS

 

[edward]

Since carrier-based planes have a range of only a few hundred miles, the only place you can put them where they will be of any use to our forces in Iraq is the Persian Gulf or the Med.

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

Where would you put them?

Definitely not in the Gulf.

That's a load of crap, pure and simple. Carriers have been operating in the gulf for decades. When was the last time you heard of one colliding with anything? Once you get past the strait, the gulf is more than 100 miles wide at its narrowest.

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

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.

MANAMA - A US Navy nuclear-powered submarine on anti-terrorism duties in the Arabian Sea collided with a Japanese oil tanker but no injuries were immediately reported, officials said Tuesday

http://middle-east-online.com/ENGLISH/bahrain/?id=19103

Another Collision in the Persian Gulf
September 6, 2005
In a rare incident, a U.S. nuclear submarine (SSN, the USS Philadelphia), bumped into with another vessel while both were traveling on the surface. The U.S. sub was on its way into Bahrain for a scheduled port visit

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsub/articles/20050906.aspx

Collisions at sea do happen from time to time, of course, but the risk is manageable and not a major consideration here.

Oh sure Russ

 

[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.