| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| Followup--Three carrier groups NOT heading to Gulf (AFAIK) |
| 2005-03-22 |
| Hat tip: Murdoc Online. In reference to this article I posted yesterday. Update: As submitted by Betty J: "My son serves on the USS Theodore Roosevelt, and I know for a fact he is at home. Just thought I'd pass that along. I also read a similar article at Indiadaily.com - somebody didn't verify their info. " Re: Three Carrier Groups En route To Middle East (Score: 0) by Anonymous on Wednesday, March 16 2005 @ 13:51:32 PST I agree with Betty J. I talked to my son on Monday as he was walking down the afterbrow of the TR. Who to believe? None of the articles have hard, verifiable sources... |
| Posted by:Dar |
| #24 Reportedly Iran has something Saddam didn't have access to: step-by-step instructions & detailed information obtained from AQ Kahn that are nearly the equivalent of a turnkey nuclear weapons program. That *greatly* reduces the required overhead, experimentation, and in turn infrastructure by guaranteeing success if one can but follow the directions. It's the propagation of this *information* we must stop in order to halt Islamist nuclear ambitions but that's an impossible task. A regional power like Iran could machine centrifuge parts in Indonesia, operate an enrichment program in North Africa, secure required high-tech components from China, train personnell throughout the Muslim world, and only at the last minute return the necessary materials to assemble the weapon(s) to locations within their own borders. If I were the MMs I'd have such a secondary nuclear program subcontracted throughout the Muslim world as a backstop to my own internal program. We or the Israelis might strike Iran's program but it's unlikely we'd strike all of the tentacles of a decentralized effort. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2005-03-22 11:10:31 PM |
| #23 Bobby: When did the Jooooos blast the Iraqi reactor? Like, 20 years ago? And in 2003, Saddam still didn't have a bomb? Or have we just been lucky, so far? The Iran-Iraq War was kind of like Hitler fighting Stalin. It was great - kept both countries down both during and after the war because it was so costly in terms of lives and money. It was also why both countries' nuclear programs proceeded so gradually - the money just wasn't there. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-03-22 10:29:13 PM |
| #22 When did the Jooooos blast the Iraqi reactor? Like, 20 years ago? And in 2003, Saddam still didn't have a bomb? Or have we just been lucky, so far? |
| Posted by: Bobby 2005-03-22 10:13:53 PM |
| #21 To continue...what will happen, is that the Israelis will come to a point where they will have to act, and the U.S. will step in to assist. Almost pointless. I seriously doubt we can indefinitely prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons by any state with the requisite knowledge, will, & money to pursue them. We can slow the MMs down a bit but actually stopping fanatical Islamist regimes from eventually acquiring nuclear weapons would take not only regular destruction of infrastructure but an eternal campaign to hunt down and assaninate thousands upon thousands of scientists and engineers who will routinely advance the ability of Islamist states in the relevant areas of science & technology. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2005-03-22 7:50:57 PM |
| #20 ZF - I'll respectfully (hopefully?) disagree with you about the Iranian pop's readiness for overthrow. Given that it is in question, however, Rumsfeld et al would be wise to have contingency plans should the Iranian street not arise ;-) |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-03-22 5:58:36 PM |
| #19 EG5118: Secondly, the U.S. will not go through the same bullshit again. Lessons were learned. I think a big part of the reason for going to the UN was to mollify the European countries sufficiently that we would have continued access to our European assets during Operation Iraqi Freedom. If we want to retain that access, we'll have to go to the UN again. Any European denial of access could lead to the fracturing of NATO. The question is whether we want to go there. My take is that we're not ready, psychologically or militarily, to take that step. (Militarily because our forces are configured so that they move out of Europe for any major operations - the alternative would be to base them in North America). |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-03-22 5:47:28 PM |
| #18 We already have a big carrier in the ME - it's called "Iraq"... Any mention - anywhere - of the three airbases in western Iraq since the reports of their capture at the start of the war? |
| Posted by: mojo 2005-03-22 5:40:10 PM |
| #17 To continue...what will happen, is that the Israelis will come to a point where they will have to act, and the U.S. will step in to assist. At least, I hope they will assist. |
| Posted by: Elmoting Granter5118 2005-03-22 5:24:07 PM |
| #16 ZF: Any action against Iran is going to follow the same pattern. [through the UN] I seriously doubt that. For one thing, the Euros will not allow another Iraq-style resolution calling for "serious consequences". That's how they got themselves into the UNSC mess in the first place. Secondly, the U.S. will not go through the same bullshit again. Lessons were learned. |
| Posted by: Elmoting Granter5118 2005-03-22 5:21:48 PM |
| #15 FG: ZF - external threats against a hated regime do not necessarily incite nationalism. If the regime were truly hated, hundreds of thousands of people would be out in the streets and troops would be joining in a revolution, just as they did in toppling the Shah. Nothing like that is happening - indications are that *some* Iranians are dissatisfied with their lot - a sentiment that is amplified by some conservatives who like to think that inside every foreigner, there is an American struggling to get out. The truth is that they really are different - and these differences have nothing to do with skin color and everything to do with accumulated cultural traditions piled up over millennia. This is why your average Iraqi was blase about dead Americans being mutilated but quite emotionally-involved about the possibility that the Abu Ghraib hazings occurred. Their view is that anything their people do to us is justified, whereas our tiniest misstep with respect to them is cause for them to hate us for eternity. That is what I mean by parochialism - different standards for us and them - because (they feel) they are superior beings and can demand more of infidel scum. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-03-22 5:13:03 PM |
| #14 "...then Kennedy and Pelosi are MODERATEs, Hillary and Bill are moderate conservatives, and Joe Lieberman is plain vanilla conservative." And the NYT is a middle-of-the-road paper. (Dan Rather said so.) And there are lots of people who actually believe that, too. I used to work with one. |
| Posted by: Jackal 2005-03-22 4:31:41 PM |
| #13 liberals were too busy trying to federalize airport security, G-d bless 'em. And we've seen how well that's gone, haven't we? whatever - point is, the rads were the ones who thought it was wrong to HAVE airport security, since that would stop the aggrieved third worlders from engaging in "acts of resistance". Not the libs. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2005-03-22 4:11:45 PM |
| #12 liberals were too busy trying to federalize airport security, G-d bless 'em. And we've seen how well that's gone, haven't we? |
| Posted by: Pappy 2005-03-22 3:46:23 PM |
| #11 If chomsky and Mckinney are liberals, then Kennedy and Pelosi are MODERATEs, Hillary and Bill are moderate conservatives, and Joe Lieberman is plain vanilla conservative. McCain, hes practically a far rightist, by those standards. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2005-03-22 2:55:02 PM |
| #10 Yup, too many. The intellectual leaders like Chomsky wont touch the Dem Party, and vote Green or further left, but lots of the radical masses get caught up in the MSM arguments and vote Dem anyway. The DU types. Plus we got the oddballs like McKinney. They still aint liberals though. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2005-03-22 2:52:14 PM |
| #9 In fact only RADICALS blamed US transgressions Lotsa "RADICALS" in the Democrat party, then. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-03-22 2:47:36 PM |
| #8 ZF - external threats against a hated regime do not necessarily incite nationalism. Broadcasts to the Iranian people invoking images of Iraqis voting, and American troops doing peacekeeping duties will help the image war. Fight externally and internally and allow the Iranian people to string up the turbans with our remote assistance - pledge outright: no invasion, no occupation, except in self-defense of our troops (think hot pursuit) |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-03-22 2:40:36 PM |
| #7 American liberals saw it as something Uncle Sam deserved for his trangressions If you think of Noam Chomsky and Susan Sontag as "liberals" In fact only RADICALS blamed US transgressions - liberals were too busy trying to federalize airport security, G-d bless 'em. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2005-03-22 12:53:20 PM |
| #6 FG: we should step up the lies and threats - winding MM and Assad panties in a bunch waiting for the clubbing to begin. You know they'll crack down, causing internal dissension The threat of foreign attack tends to be unifying. Foreigners and foreign countries tend to be much more nationalistic and parochial than Americans. After 9/11 happened, American liberals saw it as something Uncle Sam deserved for his trangressions. If this kind of attack happened to some other country (outside of Europe), and a group of people blamed that country for the attacks, that group would be denounced as traitors and either physically assaulted or even killed (if they weren't imprisoned by the government for sedition). The threat of military attack and humiliation may get the Iranian leaders to back down on nukes. But it won't cause dissension in the country. The Iranian government is being entirely rational - once it gets nukes, it is home free with respect to the threat of American invasion. In their place, I'd do the exact same thing. This is why we need to stop pussyfooting around and launch a 10,000-JDAM attack that pretty much flattens every potential nuclear installation in Iran. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-03-22 12:39:28 PM |
| #5 we should step up the lies.. Can't do that. Some people think that would be stepping over the line in defense of our way of life. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2005-03-22 12:20:01 PM |
| #4 we should step up the lies and threats - winding MM and Assad panties in a bunch waiting for the clubbing to begin. You know they'll crack down, causing internal dissension |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-03-22 11:13:15 AM |
| #3 Even if they were heading in that direction, what the heck would it mean? This is just an Indian journo getting all worked up about nothing. Remember the windup to Operation Iraqi Freedom - six months of patient maneuvering through the UN for various resolutions before anything materialized. Any action against Iran is going to follow the same pattern. The carriers aren't really needed for a bombing operation against Iran. I expect any bombing operation to involve air superiority fighters to keep the Iranian Air Force out of the picture, and that means F-15's, which aren't part of naval aviation. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-03-22 10:59:08 AM |
| #2 That site doesn't say anything about what time they are launching the strikes on Damascus and Tehran. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-03-22 10:55:41 AM |
| #1 Here's the official word: http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/news/.www/status.html |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-03-22 10:51:04 AM |