Well as most probably know by now, the US now has four nuclear powered carriers in the Persian Gulf, off the shore of Iran. This is making the Iranians a bit nervous, but the pentagon says there will only be “War games”, none of which is aimed directly at Iran. Although they are there to train other States in the region to intercept “WMDs”. Read on.>>>
Iran considers Washington- sponsored war games in the Persian Gulf, off the Iranian coastline as a provocation aimed at creating a situation of direct confrontation between the U.S. and Iranian naval forces in the Persian Gulf, although a senior U.S. official insisted that the exercise is not aimed specifically at Iran.
The Iranian government does not take the ships off the shore as a training mission, but as a possible hostile action.
Iran's official news agency IRNA quoted an unnamed foreign ministry official as describing the military maneuvers as dangerous and suspicious. The Iranian foreign ministry official said the U.S.-led exercises were not in line with the security and stability of the region. Instead, they are aimed at fomenting crises, he said."
On September 30,2006, I wrote on how the Eisenhower was pulled out of dry dock one month early, and sent to the Gulf region, along with, Mine Sweepers, and ships capable of laying down mines as well. The claim by the Pentagon at the time was that it was normal rotation of the fleets, and Ike was only going to replace the Abraham Lincoln.ABA
the Bush Administration and the Pentagon have moved up the deployment of a major "strike group" of ships, including the nuclear aircraft carrier Eisenhower as well as a cruiser, destroyer, frigate, submarine escort and supply ship, to head for the Persian Gulf, just off Iran's western coast.
On October 11, American officials announced that the U.S., Bahrain and other states will hold their first naval exercise in the Gulf to practice interdicting ships carrying weapons of mass destruction and missiles.
With all that is going on in Middle East at the present, the tension between the US, and Iran is not to be taken lightly. One slipup by either side could be cause for an altercation that will be horrendous. Because U.S. militarily is stretched thin, the Iranians might be thinking that now is the best time too hit the superpower. With Bush planning to send 20 thousand more troops to Iraq, is this the sign of a pullout coming? The reason I ask this question, the experts say that to send that number of troops could only be for a couple of months. That is all the military could sustain. The numbers are so low at the present time, that to do so for a longer period of time would leave the country weakened.
With the new buzzword in Washington being “Surge” where Iraq is concerned. Bush is about to regain his reputation as the “Blood Soaked Chimp”, a name readers ask me to quit using, in referring to George W. Bush. A “surge” of 20,000 troops mostly Marines is planed for Iraq. The administration feels that they can stabilize Iraq, (a task that they have yet been able to do in the last three and a half years.) I believe that out of this, the surge will come in the form of more civilian casualties, and American troop deaths. The only viable plan I see in to withdraw, and regroup. With an addition of more troops, no matter how many, nothing the United States dose, short of pulling out, will stop the civil war that they have created.
Bill Maher has been saying that the person to run Iraq is now on death row. Even George H.W. Bush knew better than go into Baghdad and occupy it. He saw what would eventually happen if Saddam were removed. During that period when I was ask why George H.W. Bush didn’t go in and finish Iraq, I explained, by leaving Saddam in place at least they new what they had, and with something new, all hell could break lose. Then I was just handing out a line of bullshit not knowing the real reason, and now I feel like a freaking genius.
While the White house plans for 20,000 more troops, other military leaders feel that at least 100,000 more troops are needed to stabilize the country. While I am not an expert in the filed of the military, when you don’t have enough ammo and supplies, for the troops already there, does it make sense to send more in to draw off those supplies?
This week they got Bush to do something that he would not do in the 60s and 70s, go to Vietnam. Now that the heat is on him in this country, he is hiding out in Vietnam. [Ah, the times they are a changing.] While in Vietnam one report said that Bush visited the spot where John McCain was held prisoner. [I wonder what went through that SOBs head, besides the warm Vietnam wind?]
ABA
No comments:
Post a Comment