Author
|
Topic: Stop Press: What is missing from your free press today? (Read 1182 times) |
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4288
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
 
|
 |
Stop Press: What is missing from your free press today?
« on: 2007-03-29 15:44:30 » |
 |
Russian intelligence sees U.S. military buildup on Iran border
[Hermit: As previously stated, Spring 2007. Here comes the next "jolly little war". Weather permitting, I predict a series of brutal attacks by the US on Iran, without a declaration of war, starting between the 11th and the 23rd of April, with the highest probability being between the 15th and 18th, peaking in the early hours before dawn on the morning of the 17th. Watch for a quick crescendo of propaganda, followed by a brief silence just before the actual attacks.]
Source: RIA Novosti
Authors: Not Credited (RIA Novosti)
Dated: 2007-03-27
Russian military intelligence services are reporting a flurry of activity by U.S. Armed Forces near Iran's borders, a high-ranking security source said Tuesday.
"The latest military intelligence data point to heightened U.S. military preparations for both an air and ground operation against Iran," the official said, adding that the Pentagon has probably not yet made a final decision as to when an attack will be launched.
He said the Pentagon is looking for a way to deliver a strike against Iran "that would enable the Americans to bring the country to its knees at minimal cost."
He also said the U.S. Naval presence in the Persian Gulf has for the first time in the past four years reached the level that existed shortly before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.
Col.-Gen. Leonid Ivashov, vice president of the Academy of Geopolitical Sciences, said last week that the Pentagon is planning to deliver a massive air strike on Iran's military infrastructure in the near future.
A new U.S. carrier battle group has been dispatched to the Gulf.
The USS John C. Stennis, with a crew of 3,200 and around 80 fixed-wing aircraft, including F/A-18 Hornet and Superhornet fighter-bombers, eight support ships and four nuclear submarines are heading for the Gulf, where a similar group led by the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower has been deployed since December 2006.
The U.S. is also sending Patriot anti-missile systems to the region.
Hermit: PS the withdrawal of the Aegis group usually deployed in Taiwan to provide support to the Gulf carrier groups, and forward deployments to Guam of national strategic assets, both strong indicators that an attack on Iran has now gone past the point of no return (as both deployments would require Presidential authorization), leaves the door wide open to PRC gambits at a time of heightened tension between the PRC and ROC, speaks volumes both to the desperation and the blindness of the current administration. Then again, that may simply be the price the Bush unregime has accepted to keep China out of the Iranian action.]
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4288
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
 |
Re:Stop Press: What is missing from your free press today?
« Reply #1 on: 2007-04-01 23:41:54 » |
|
Jerusalem Post is reporting Russian intelligence as having stated that the US forces will be ready for a planned attack on Iran "on Good Friday" (or Van Riebeek's Day), 0400 to 1600 April 6.
I read this as disinformation.
The use of repeated immediate warning alerts to tire opfor has a long and successful history, so leaks of planned attacks are not unusual. My thinking is that given Iran's well-acknowledged missile capabilities, the use of the IR window on the moonless night of the 17th would be the only sane attack profile, even if the element of surprise is somewhat forfeited to the need for deployment information and the suppression of visual tracking capability (remember that the only F-117 brought down (and its wing damaged sufficiently to require decommissioning) was due to a visibly guided SA-3). So the fact that the arrayed forces may be ready to strike does not imply that they actually will strike then.
However, and there is a however, the market closures over that weekend may prove more tempting to people who might make a fortune off it than the massive tactical and strategic advantages of having a dark night, the opportunity to build international opinion further (notice that surveys indicating those thinking that an attack to "prevent" (it cannot and will not succeed unless involves ground forces) the development of Iranian Nuclear Weapons have doubled to 40%), and the ability to 'prestress' opfor. My opinion is that if an attack occurs on the 6th under full moon conditions, that US market considerations - or the massive profits possible to those in the know - will have taken precedence over military requirements and thinking.
Whenever it occurs it will be another example of blatant aggression of the worst variety, and yet another war crime to add to the long annals of undistinguished conduct by the United States. The principle difference between this attack and previous ones is that the sheer scale of the "own goal" being scored here is very difficult to predict. Certainly the initial cost to Europe and China will be far higher than to the US as we buy very little oil from the Gulf, but a cut in supply just as summer demand begins to cut in will result in rapid escalation, while Iran's capacity for reprisal across the spectrum is vastly superior to those of our and Israel's earlier Islamic dominated targets.
Hermit
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4288
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Stop Press: What is missing from your free press today?
« Reply #2 on: 2007-04-05 14:48:13 » |
|
US to attack Iran by end of April: report
Source: Yahoo Top Stories(citing IANS Xinhua)
Authors: Not Credited (IANS)
Dated: 2007-04-05
The US is planning to attack Iran's nuclear reactors and other nuclear facilities by the end of this month, the Kuwait-based Arab Times newspaper reported Wednesday.
Citing anonymous sources in Washington, it said that various White House departments had started preparing the political speech to be delivered by the US president later this month, announcing the military attack on Iran.
The speech will provide the 'evidence' and the 'justification' for the US to resort to the military option after failing to persuade Tehran to give up its nuclear ambitions, said the report.
According to the Times, one of the justifications expected in the speech is Iran's alleged role in the killing of American soldiers in Iraq by supporting various militias with money and arms.
The US president's speech will also point to Iran's political interference in Iraq, obviously in cooperation with Syria.
The sources were quoted as saying that US will not resort to a ground attack in order to avoid human losses.
[Hermit: This matches my information and conclusions.]
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4288
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Stop Press: What is missing from your free press today?
« Reply #3 on: 2007-05-24 14:54:05 » |
|
Nine U.S. warships enter Gulf for "training"
The assembly off Iran’s coast is largest since the 2003 Iraq war
[Hermit] The line-up off the coast of Iran now includes:- USS Dwight D. Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group
- USS John C. Stennis Carrier Battle Group
- USS Dwight D. Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group
- Charles De Gaulle (French Aircraft Carrier Battle Group)
Note that each carrier is accompanied by a flotilla of cruisers, destroyers, submarines, support vessels, and for this example of naked aggression, supplemented with every mine sweeper that could be pressed into service. Most of the positioned vessels are equipped with Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles (TLAMs) giving an Imperial American slant to to the updated definition of "gunboat diplomacy"
This represents substantially more firepower than was present for the illegal 2003 invasion of Iraq. Simultaneously, the US acknowledges supporting terrorist groups currently engaged in anti-government activities in Iran. Presumably the next move will be for the group to encroach disputed waters and "defend itself" from Iranian defenses. Will the American public will watch from the sidelines as their rulers (Oil interests, Very Big Business (Military/Industrial), AIPAC?) decide what tyrannical acts their enthusiastic supporters will pay for next?
Notice that this is still not front page news in your paper or headlined on your TV. It is as if the fleets and their hundred thousand crewmembers have sailed off into some Twilight Zone's "lost patrol." Now imagine how this would be reported if Iran were to sail a few small patrol vessels off the Gulf Coast of Texas. And blink.
Source: Reuters
Authors: Not Credited (Reuters)
Dated: 2007-05-24
Dateline: ABOARD USS JOHN C. STENNIS
Nine U.S. military ships entered the Gulf on Wednesday for a rare daylight assembly off Iran’s coast in what naval officials said was the largest such move since the 2003 Iraq war.
U.S. Navy officials said Iran had not been notified of plans to sail the vessels, which include two aircraft carriers, through the Straits of Hormuz, a narrow channel in international waters off Iran’s coast and a major artery for global oil shipments.
Most U.S. ships pass through the straits at night so as not to attract attention, and rarely move in such large numbers.
Navy officials said the decision to send a second aircraft carrier was made at the last minute, without giving a reason.
Fears of military confrontation
Tension between the United States and Iran over Tehran’s nuclear ambitions and Iraq has raised regional fears of a possible military confrontation that could hit Gulf economies and threaten vital oil exports.
But Rear Admiral Kevin Quinn, leading the group, said the ships would start conducting exercises after passing through the straits as part of a long-planned effort to reassure nearby countries of U.S. commitment to regional security.
“There’s always the threat of any state or non-state actor that might decide to close one of the international straits, and the biggest one is the Straits of Hormuz,” he told reporters on the USS John C. Stennis aircraft carrier before the crossing.
On the way to the straits, a public announcement called on crew to witness “some of the most powerful ships in the world,” whose tight formation against a backdrop of the setting sun created a dramatic image of American naval might.
Ships carrying 17,000
The group of ships, carrying around 17,000 personnel, crossed at roughly 0355 GMT.
The maneuvers come less than two weeks after U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, speaking aboard the Stennis during a tour of the Gulf, said the United States would stand with others to prevent Iran gaining nuclear weapons and “dominating the region.”
On a visit to Abu Dhabi a few days later, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatened “severe” retaliation if the United States attacked his country, which is locked in a standoff with the United States over its nuclear program.
He also urged Gulf countries to “get rid of” foreign forces, blaming them for insecurity in the region.
The United States accuses Iran of trying to produce nuclear weapons, and has sought tougher U.N. sanctions against Iran. Iran says its nuclear ambitions are for energy purposes only.
U.S. and Iranian ambassadors are due to meet on Monday in Baghdad to discuss security in Iraq, where the United States has accused Iran of fomenting violence by backing Shiite militia there, and of providing weapons and the technology for roadside bombs. Iran has denied the accusations.
Last month, the U.S. Fifth Fleet base in Bahrain conducted its biggest crisis response drill and in March, the U.S. Navy conducted its biggest war drills in the Gulf since 2003.
Coming time of peak danger:
Jun 13, 2007 2:43 AM 5:48 PM 10:11 AM 78.3° 364,007 5.0%
Jun 14, 2007 3:31 AM 7:01 PM 11:13 AM 81.4° 365,575 1.1%
Jun 15, 2007 4:28 AM 8:07 PM 12:17 PM 82.5° 368,630 0.3% New at 6:43 AM
Jun 16, 2007 5:33 AM 9:02 PM 1:20 PM 81.4° 372,962 2.3%
Jun 17, 2007 6:42 AM 9:46 PM 2:19 PM 78.6° 378,200 7.0%
Source: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/astronomy.html?n=246&month=6&year=2007&obj=moon&afl=-11&day=1
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4288
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Stop Press: What is missing from your free press today?
« Reply #4 on: 2007-05-24 21:22:41 » |
|
Part I
Commander's veto sank Gulf buildup
[Hermit] Following on this mornings report of the buildup in the Gulf, we see the reason for the news blackouts on the "Lost Convey". Unfortunately the optimism expressed here is devastated by the facts on the ground. Part II which follows is even more fascinating.
Source: (Inter Press Service)
Authors: Gareth Porter
Dated: 2007-05-17
Dateline: Washington
Gareth Porter is a historian and national-security policy analyst. His latest book, Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam, was published in June 2005.
Admiral William Fallon, then US President George W Bush's nominee to head Central Command (CENTCOM), expressed strong opposition in February to an administration plan to increase the number of aircraft-carrier strike groups in the Persian Gulf from two to three and vowed privately that there would be no war against Iran as long as he was chief of CENTCOM, according to sources with access to his thinking.
Fallon's resistance to the proposed deployment of a third aircraft carrier was followed by a shift in the Bush administration's Iran policy in February and March away from increased military threats and toward diplomatic engagement with Iran. That shift, for which no credible explanation has been offered by administration officials, suggests that Fallon's resistance to a crucial deployment was a major factor in the intra-administration struggle over policy toward Iran.
The plan to add a third carrier strike group in the Gulf had been a key element in a broader strategy discussed at high levels to intimidate Iran by a series of military moves suggesting preparations for a military strike.
Fallon's resistance to a further buildup of naval striking power in the Gulf apparently took the Bush administration by surprise. Fallon, then commander of the US Pacific Command, had been associated with naval aviation throughout his career, and in January Secretary of Defense Robert Gates publicly encouraged the idea that the appointment presaged greater emphasis on the military option in regard to the US conflict with Iran.
Explaining why he recommended Fallon, Gates said, "As you look at the range of options available to the United States, the use of naval and air power, potentially, it made sense to me for all those reasons for Fallon to have the job."
Bush administration officials had just leaked to CBS (Columbia Broadcasting System) News and the New York Times in December that the USS John C Stennis and its associated warships would be sent to the Gulf in January, six weeks earlier than originally planned, to overlap with the USS Eisenhower and to "send a message to Tehran".
But that was not the end of the signaling to Iran by naval deployment planned by administration officials. The plan was for the USS Nimitz and its associated vessels, scheduled to sail into the Gulf in early April, to overlap with the other two carrier strike groups for a period of months, so that all three would be in the Gulf simultaneously.
Two well-informed sources said they heard about such a plan being pushed at high levels of the administration, and Newsweek's Michael Hirsh and Maziar Bahari reported on February 19 that the deployment of a third carrier group to the Gulf was "likely".
That would have brought the US naval presence up to the same level as during the US air campaign against the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, when the Lincoln, Constellation and Kitty Hawk carrier groups were all present. Two other carrier groups helped coordinate bombing sorties from the Mediterranean.
The deployment of three carrier groups simultaneously was not part of a plan for an actual attack on Iran, but was meant to convince Iran that the Bush administration was preparing for possible war if Tehran continued its uranium-enrichment program.
At a mid-February meeting of top civilian officials over which Gates presided, there was an extensive discussion of a strategy of intimidating Tehran's leaders, according to an account by a Pentagon official who attended the meeting given to a source outside the Pentagon. The plan involved a series of steps that would appear to Tehran to be preparations for war, in a manner similar to the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
But Fallon, who was scheduled to become the CENTCOM chief on March 16, responded to the proposed plan by sending a strongly worded message to the Defense Department in mid-February opposing any further US naval buildup in the Persian Gulf as unwarranted.
"He asked why another aircraft carrier was needed in the Gulf and insisted there was no military requirement for it," said the source, who obtained the gist of Fallon's message from a Pentagon official who had read it.
Fallon's refusal to support a further naval buildup in the Gulf reflected his firm opposition to an attack on Iran and an apparent readiness to put his career on the line to prevent it. A source who met privately with Fallon around the time of his confirmation hearing and who insists on anonymity quoted Fallon as saying that an attack on Iran "will not happen on my watch".
Asked how he could be sure, the source said, Fallon replied, "You know what choices I have. I'm a professional." Fallon said he was not alone, according to the source, adding, "There are several of us trying to put the crazies back in the box."
Fallon's opposition to adding a third carrier strike group to the two already in the Gulf represented a major obstacle to the plan. The decision to send a second carrier task group to the Gulf had been officially requested by Fallon's predecessor at CENTCOM, General John Abizaid, according to a December 20 report by the Washington Post's Peter Baker. But as Baker reported, the circumstances left little doubt that Abizaid was doing so because the White House wanted it as part of a strategy of sending "pointed messages" to Iran.
Fallon's refusal to request the deployment of a third carrier strike group meant that proceeding with that option would carry political risks. The administration chose not to go ahead with the plan. Two days before the Nimitz sailed out of San Diego for the Gulf on April 1, a navy spokesman confirmed that it would replace the Eisenhower, adding, "There is no plan to overlap them at all."
The defeat of the plan for a third carrier task group appears to have weakened the position of Vice President Dick Cheney and other hawks in the administration who had succeeded in selling Bush on the idea of a strategy of coercive threat against Iran.
Within two weeks, the administration's stance had already begun to shift dramatically. On January 12, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had dismissed direct talks with Iran in the absence of Tehran's suspension of its uranium-enrichment program as "extortion". But by the end of February, Rice had received authorization for high-level diplomatic contacts with Iran in the context of a regional meeting on Iraq in Baghdad.
The explanation for the shift offered by administration officials to the New York Times was that it now felt that it "had leverage" on Iran. But that now appears to have been a cover for a retreat from the more aggressive strategy previously planned.
Throughout March and April, the Bush administration avoided aggressive language and the State Department openly sought diplomatic engagement with Iran, culminating in the agreement confirmed by US officials last weekend that bilateral talks will begin with Iran on Iraq.
Despite Cheney's invocation of the military option from the deck of the USS John C Stennis in the Persian Gulf last week, the strategy of escalating a threat of war to influence Iran has been put on the shelf, at least for now.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4288
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Stop Press: What is missing from your free press today?
« Reply #5 on: 2007-05-24 21:48:28 » |
|
Part II
The Purge Continues
[Hermit] The US Navy is now losing Commanders at an unsurpassed rate. Fascinatingly, all of those being dispensed with are long term carreer offices who just happen to have spent too much time associated with Admiral William Fallon in Striking Fleet Atlantic and US Fleet Atlantic. Even more interestingly, the Military Times has noticed that something quite extraordinarily strange is going on. Observe the source.
Source: Military Times
Authors: Andrew Scutro (Staff Writer - Navy Times)
Dated: 2007-05-23
Dateline: Norfolk, Va
Cmdr. E.J. McClure, captain of the destroyer Arleigh Burke, was relieved of command Monday by Rear Adm. Dan Holloway, commander of Carrier Strike Group 12, according to a Navy official.
Holloway had a “loss of confidence in her ability to command” following the May 15 “soft grounding” of the Burke off Norfolk as the ship was heading back into port. No one was injured in the incident, but damage to the ship is still being assessed, according to the official.
McClure was temporarily reassigned to Naval Surface Force, Atlantic. Burke’s executive officer, Lt. Cmdr. Allen Hobbs, is the interim commander.
Destroyer Squadron 2 commodore Capt. Larry Tindal was aboard Burke at the time of the grounding. His status following the incident, “will come out in the investigation,” by CSG 12 officers, the official said.
McClure is the sixth CO to be relieved since April 16.
And Part III
5 COs fired in 5 weeks, and more may follow
Source: Military Times
Authors: Zachary M. Peterson, Patricia Kime and Gidget Fuentes (Staff Writer - Navy Times)
Dated: 2007-05-21
Dateline: Norfolk, Va
The Navy’s recent troubled waters got even more turbulent May 11-16 as news got out of a destroyer grounding, a frigate apparently going dead in the water and a sub skipper being fired. The commanding-officer sacking was the fifth in as many weeks.
What’s more, the Coast Guard “temporarily reassigned” the CO of a 270-foot cutter after he was arrested on charges of assaulting a bartender in Key West, Fla.
The troubles began May 11, when the frigate Samuel B. Roberts was coming into port in Argentina after completing the annual UNITAS Atlantic exercise with other Navy and foreign ships. The Roberts experienced “engineering difficulties” and had to be pulled into port by tugboats, said Lt. Cmdr. Jon Spiers, a Naval Forces South spokesman. The frigate is commanded by Cmdr. Marc Weeks.
It’s unclear exactly what caused the frigate to apparently go dead in the water. Spiers would not comment on the specifics of the “engineering difficulties.” He did note that tugboats pulled the ship into port at Puerto Belgrano. There were no injuries onboard, he added.
Navy investigators are in Argentina assessing the ship’s condition and reviewing the incident.
A few days later, the guided-missile destroyer Arleigh Burke ran aground off the coast of Norfolk, Va. Cmdr. Herman Phillips, a 2nd Fleet spokesman, described it as a “soft grounding,” noting the ship was able to arrive in port May 15 under its own power. There was no apparent damage to the vessel, Phillips added.
Cmdr. E.J. McClure commands the Burke. Capt. Ralph “Larry” Tindal, commodore of Destroyer Squadron 2, was also onboard at the time of the grounding, according to the Navy.
The Norfolk grounding is especially odd given the well-charted waters. The Navy declined to provide specifics and is investigating.
The service reported no injuries.
In the fifth skipper dismissal in five weeks, the Navy announced May 16 that Cmdr. William A. Schwalm was relieved of command of the fast-attack submarine Helena.
Capt. Paul N. Jaenichen, commodore of San Diego-based Submarine Squadron 11 and Schwalm’s boss, said he had lost confidence in the commander’s ability to “maintain the Helena crew’s proficiency and level of readiness.”
Jaenichen assigned Cmdr. Daryl L. Caudle, his deputy at the submarine squadron, as the temporary commander of Helena until a permanent skipper is named. Caudle most recently had command of the fast-attack boat Jefferson City.
The latest firing comes on the heels of four others in the past month:- The captain of an electronic warfare squadron, just nine days after he took command.
- The head of a major recruiting district.
- The commanding officer of a destroyer headed for the Persian Gulf.
- The commander of the historic ship USS Constitution, “Old Ironsides,” in Boston. [Hermit: LOL!]
None of the firings was related to mishaps or operational errors.
The Navy has not released much information on the dismissals, but sources have suggested causes range from incompetence to fraternization to an allegation that a captain struck an enlisted crew member.
The Coast Guard reassignment is more straightforward, however. Cmdr. Michael Sabellico, skipper of the 270-foot medium-endurance cutter Escanaba, was arrested in Key West on May 15 after an apparent bar brawl.
According to the police report, Sabellico and several crew members were drinking at bars along the island’s famed Duval Street when they argued with a bartender at an Irish pub.
Sabellico and the crew members allegedly were loitering in an alley when the bartender at Irish Kevin’s asked them to leave. They left as requested, but according to the report, Sabellico returned and scuffled with the man. He then left the scene. Sabellico was apprehended later and charged with simple assault.
Sabellico remains the Escanaba’s skipper, but he was temporarily reassigned to the Coast Guard’s 1st District. Cmdr. Chris Austin has assumed temporary command of the cutter.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Bass
Magister
Posts: 196
Reputation: 6.27
Rate Bass
I'm a llama!
|
|
Re:Stop Press: What is missing from your free press today?
« Reply #6 on: 2007-05-25 20:20:52 » |
|
I found this earlier while searching through current ship locations, and it was on CNN yesterday. It's obvious that a war with Iran is inevitable. The US has been at tentions with Iran since the shift of power from a neutrual to a radical. With all the clames and accusations of Iran, not to mention the denieing of selling weapons to insurgency forces with Iran serial numbers on them, it's pretty clear that Iran wants to stur up the bee nest.
Iraq gave the US and UN a better foot hold in the middle east, sort of a look out tower to see over boarders. Because of Iran's current kick of Nucular armlaments, it's keeping the rest of the world on edge, especially the US and Isrial. Iran also has several US F-14 Tomcats they purchased before the power shift, although they're unable to launch missiles, bomb can be rigged through make shift panals. Most likely they have at least one type of mass destructive weapon, probably purchased from blackmarket dealers and is being used as a prototype for their own, and an aircraft to deliver it.
From what I remember, the Iranian President was quoted with saying: "It would be better if Isrial was wiped off the map". I also seem to remember you providing evidence against this though Hermit; I don't suppose you could remind me where/what it was here?
Those words just bring even more tention between everyone.
With more ships in the Gulf, the US is easially abliging to their clames. I think this may lead to a major war between Iran and the US......
.... Unless the US becomes distracted with something more dire...
Regards,
Bass
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4288
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Stop Press: What is missing from your free press today?
« Reply #7 on: 2007-05-29 23:01:51 » |
|
[Hermit] Second time out :-( Then I got smart and wrote in a text editor.
[Bass] I found this earlier while searching through current ship locations, and it was on CNN yesterday. It's obvious that a war with Iran is inevitable.
[Hermit] Inevitable means, "cannot be avoided." This isn't true. We could impeach Cheney and dismantle all his carefully structured provocations and trip-falls for Iran intended to lead to a war on Israel's behalf.
[Bass] The US has been at tentions with Iran since the shift of power from a neutrual to a radical.
[Hermit] This is a complete mischaracterization. In 1953 the democratically elected government of Iran, under Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. A CIA operation then overthrew this democratic government, replacing it withj a monarchy headed by the charming but vicious Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. The US pumped funds and weapons into Iran at an unprecedented rate. Pahlavi certainly ruled on AMerica's behalf, brutally crushing incipient revolutions in Oman, Dhofar and repeatedly within Iran itself. 26 years later the brutality of his CIA, South African and Israeli backed secret police turned US supplied weapons on the population, killing an estimated 100,000 in the Khordad 15 Uprising and in the process losing International support leading to his overthrow. The Iranians accused the US of supporting this activity, and took the embassy staff hostage for a nerve wracking period. Shredded documents, painstakingly reconstructed over the course of the next 15 years prove that the Iranians were correct.
[Hermit] Throughout the Iran Iraq Gulf War the US (and Europe) supported Iraq against Iran. Nevertheless, Iran has repeatedly made overtures of friendship to the US, not least when they rounded up al Qaeda members after 9/11 and offered their cooperation in the illegal overthrow of the Taliban.
[Hermit] My own suspicion is that the fact that Iran knows, and possibly has documentary evidence proving that Republicans, lead by George H Bush, and featuring many of the faces of the current maladministration in Washington were complicit in treasonous arranging for the Iranians to hold the American Embassy staff until after the elections in which Carter was ousted, in exchange for weapons and aircraft spares delivery routed via Israel, is driving the Bush administration further insane than their basic nature, egged on by Israeli agitprop about mythical nuclear weapons programs.
[Hermit] As for Iran being radical, you clearly (like most Americans) have no clue about the complexity of Iran or the intensely democratic underlying processes which drive its political systems. My suggestion is to read a good book on it. There is only one, so it is a short list. The Iranian Labyrinth: Journeys Through Theocratic Iran and Its Furies, Dilip Hiro, July 2005, Nation Books, 1560257164 available from $2.74 used. The link is to the review page as some of the reading there might surprise you.
[Hermit] Desperately in trouble? Yes. Economic trouble (instigated by from the US)? Indubitably. An Islamic theocracy. Very much so. But radical? Hardly. Don't forget that Iran was, with Iraq where civilization started. In many ways, Iran, for all the primitive sights and smells that meet the visitor, is still more civilized than that other great theocracy, the USA.
[Bass] With all the clames and accusations of Iran, not to mention the denieing of selling weapons to insurgency forces with Iran serial numbers on them, it's pretty clear that Iran wants to stur up the bee nest.
[Hermit] Notice what you wrote. "Deny" is the key. Who is claiming what? Who validated the evidence? Why with the vast litany of lies that lead to the destruction of Iraq and surplus deaths now estimated as being in excess of a million Iraqi lying still stinking in full public view, why do you imagine that the evidence against Iran is any more substantial?
[Hermit] Also notice that the US put its dick into the hornets nest of Iraq and Afghanistan and is now dancing around like a demented dervish all over the region. As far as I am aware Iran is the one that is going to benefit most when America inevitably slinks home carrying only its wounds, its pride and an enormous war bill. Why on earth do you imagine that Iran wants to risk itself by messing with this steady demolition of their old enemy and simultaneously a country most Iranians once admired - to the great chagrin of the Imams who regard us as "the Great Satan".
[Bass] Iraq gave the US and UN a better foot hold in the middle east, sort of a look out tower to see over boarders.
[Hermit] Iraq gave America nothing. Not even a legitimate Causus Belli. Instead three American administrations have illegally attacked Iraqi civilian facilities, instigated bloody revolution, engaged in terrorism and supported terrorists against Iraq and imposed brutal and debilitating sanctions upon a country that had met the requirements that supposedly justified the sanctions by 1992. This makes the consequent death and pain, along with the deliberately caused massive surplus deaths in Iraq an long running American war crime no matter that it will likely never be prosecuted.
[Bass] Because of Iran's current kick of Nucular armlaments, it's keeping the rest of the world on edge, especially the US and Isrial.
[Hermit] I don't understand what you are trying to say. Iran is a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty. Iran has no devices and no capacity to manufacture them and no material to load them with. Iran also says that it has no intention of acquiring or producing nuclear devices. No regulatory body has suggested otherwise or provided any credible evidence that this is not the case. Iran has been extremely consistent. They assert (correctly) that America is in massive breach of the NPT, and that America's 500lb dog-wagging tail, Israel, a non signatory with a minimum of over 200 nuclear devices, along with massive biological and chemical warfare capabilities, the will to use them and the weapons delivery systems needed to attack anywhere on the planet is a massive destabilizing force. They would like to see a repeat of a non-aggression treaty (like the one the US signed with Iran - but appears to have forgotten - back in 1982). Iran would also like to see the entire Middle East declared a WMD free zone and enforcement put in place to ensure this is the case.
[Hermit] I've written cogent and competent analysis here before. So have many scientists and engineers competent in this field. All the evidence is that Iran is after nuclear energy and has not got the technology or demonstrated any desire to go beyond this. Their Imams have declared nuclear devices "unIslamic" and unlawful. Repeatedly. So find out the source of anything you hear to the contrary because it is propaganda and points directly to the thugs seeking nothing better than an excuse for yet another illegal war of aggression against chocolate colored people.
[Bass] Iran also has several US F-14 Tomcats they purchased before the power shift, although they're unable to launch missiles, bomb can be rigged through make shift panals.
[Hermit] This is more crap. A tomcat is a truck designed to deliver rather nasty car sized missiles. For any other purpose it is singularly useless other than as a target. And Iran has a highly competent engineering and industrial facility. They could manufacture hardpoints if they wanted to, or even more simply, order them from China, but they almost certainly realize that in modern warfare, a few relatively cheap missiles are worth a lot of expensive aircraft with horrendous maintenance loads and pilots of dubious reliability. They should recognize it, because Iran possesses a large number of highly effective supersonic and other anti air, ship and land missiles quite capable of breaching even the Aegis screens arrayed against them. They also have a lot of "smart mine" technology that would allow them to turn the straits into the dire straits in any conventional warfare scenario. Even their rubber-ducks could create havoc against conventional forces, particularly if other equipment had been hit. Iran also has the ability - and the demonstrated will - to lose men at a 5:1 ratio and still overrun the forces in Iraq, and still go on to take Kuwait and at least take on - and possibly defeat Saudi Arabia if the campaign did not turn nuclear. The US military is quite aware of all this. It is only stupid gung-hos who imagine that Iran can be defeated by - or would stand for - a short bombing campaign without being capable of a response for fear of additional consequences.
[Bass] Most likely they have at least one type of mass destructive weapon, probably purchased from black-market dealers and is being used as a prototype for their own, and an aircraft to deliver it.
[Hermit] More rubbish. Iran may have some aging stockpiles of chemical or even biochemical weapons left over from the Iran-Iraq Gulf War.I doubt that they are that stupid, but it is at least possible. As for anything else, well if attacked I would imagine that Iran has the scientists and engineers available to figure out how to produce dirty bombs, but unless an attack on them deployed illegal nuclear devices, I doubt they would go down this road. On the other hand any attack not using nuclear devices would probably not be effective either. So an attack is likely to turn nuclear very quickly - and possibly result in very nasty blowback.
[Bass] From what I remember, the Iranian President was quoted with saying: "It would be better if Isrial was wiped off the map". I also seem to remember you providing evidence against this though Hermit; I don't suppose you could remind me where/what it was here?
[Hermit] I can. Church of Virus BBS, Mailing List, Virus 2006, Target Tehran, Replies 7, 8 and 11, Hermit.
Quote:The remarks are not out of context. They are wrong, pure and simple. Ahmadinejad never said them. Farsi speakers have pointed out that he was mistranslated. The Iranian president was quoting an ancient statement by Iran's first Islamist leader, the late Ayatollah Khomeini, that "this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" just as the Shah's regime in Iran had vanished.
He was not making a military threat. He was calling for an end to the occupation of Jerusalem at some point in the future. The "page of time" phrase suggests he did not expect it to happen soon. There was no implication that either Khomeini, when he first made the statement, or Ahmadinejad, in repeating it, felt it was imminent, or that Iran would be involved in bringing it about.
But the propaganda damage was done, and western hawks bracket the Iranian president with Hitler as though he wants to exterminate Jews. At the recent annual convention of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a powerful lobby group, huge screens switched between pictures of Ahmadinejad making the false "wiping off the map" statement and a ranting Hitler. |
(From the Guardian)
[Bass] Those words just bring even more tention between everyone.
[Hermit] I agree. Now look at who keeps repeating them after being told by Iran, by language specialists and by their own intelligence that it is nonsense. Again, when you see who is telling lies, you also know who the aggressor is. And in this case, as in the case with Iraq, it is completely transparent that the want-to-be-the aggressors are in Washington and Israel.
[Bass] With more ships in the Gulf, the US is easially abliging to their clames.
[Hermit] I haven't a clue what you were trying to say? The US is engaging in illegal provocation? You bet. The US expects to lose a bunch of ships and other assets if the poop hits the prop. You can bet on it. Just as the deliberate sacrifice at Pearl Harbor and in North Korea, the loss of a few thousand Americans and a lot of obsolete aircraft will drive the populace into an orgasm of warlike fervor, with demands from the people who yesterday were demonstrating against the war to nuke Tehran. Hopefully more sensible minds reign in Tehran than in Washington. Certainly we know they are more literate and more intelligent. Perhaps they are also more forbearing. But I hate to be dependent on the discipline of one nervous missile operator - who probably still remembers the USS Vincentes shooting down an unarmed Iranian 747 full of pilgrims in Iranian waters without response from Iran - to keep us safe from a nuclear war. Which is effectively the game that America - not Iran - is playing now.
[Bass] I think this may lead to a major war between Iran and the US......
[Hermit] So does anyone sensible. Which is why we should be impeaching Cheney now, and putting the evil old sod in a straightjacket where he belongs, pump him, his staff and the congeress critters shouting for a war with Iran full of babble juice and ask them why. The results may be illuminating. Particularly when, once again, every military and intelligence asset outside of the Israelis - even many Republican think-tanks - are saying that the very idea is insane and that we are inviting a disaster bigger even than Iraq. And while googling on this, notice that the CIA says that terrorism has increased 26 times over post our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. THey don't hate us for what we are. They hate us for what we do. Meanwhile we still have only half of the population of the Middle East wanting to do us great harm slowly. What are the bets that Bush wants to go for a "full house"?
[Bass] .... Unless the US becomes distracted with something more dire...
[Hermit] What a cheerful thought.
Kind Regards
Hermit
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender: 
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
Re:Stop Press: What is missing from your free press today?
« Reply #8 on: 2007-05-30 00:47:42 » |
|
Quote from: Hermit on 2007-05-29 23:01:51
[Hermit] ...pump him, his staff and the congeress critters shouting for a war with Iran full of babble juice and ask them why... |
[Blunderov] A sodium pentathol assisted truth and reconciliation process? I'm strangely confortable with the idea.
Best regards.
|
|
|
|
|
Bass
Magister
Posts: 196
Reputation: 6.27
Rate Bass
I'm a llama!
|
|
Re:Stop Press: What is missing from your free press today?
« Reply #9 on: 2007-05-30 17:04:50 » |
|
Hermit,
“Never dwell on the past; reflect upon it in the present to make a better future.”
Things have happened, and never can be taken back, so learn from those mistakes, and better yourself for years to come I say.
I've been doing much research on those groups in the US, and it seems that they really are gearing up for a civil war against the government and other races. Their total members are around 10 million, and I’m sure that millions more would rather join them in hatred, then be killed. The Neo-Nazis hold a Hate Concert in Pennsylvania several times a year; the Southern Resistance and others with strong Confederate natures have a training camp in Texas, and other similar thing as well.
It seems inevitable.
This in turn would be like the babysitter looking the other way, while the kids begin to hit each other with bats.
If it all plays out, like I thought, then the entire Middle East would just jump down the hole to Hell.
Quote from: Hermit on 2007-05-29 23:01:51 [Bass] I found this earlier while searching through current ship locations, and it was on CNN yesterday. It's obvious that a war with Iran is inevitable.
[Hermit] Inevitable means, "cannot be avoided." This isn't true. We could impeach Cheney and dismantle all his carefully structured provocations and trip-falls for Iran intended to lead to a war on Israel's behalf. |
But is an impeachment going to happen, before a new war would brake out? We could, and it would probably be for the better, but, most likely no it won’t, as many US citizens still have some faith in Bush and Cheney. Even if they were to be tried for an impeachment, the jury, comprised of mostly higher ups, wouldn't vote against him, as that would put them out of the people's favor.
Quote from: Hermit on 2007-05-29 23:01:51 [Bass] The US has been at tentions with Iran since the shift of power from a neutrual to a radical.
[Hermit] This is a complete mischaracterization. In 1953 the democratically elected government of Iran, under Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. A CIA operation then overthrew this democratic government, replacing it withj a monarchy headed by the charming but vicious Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. The US pumped funds and weapons into Iran at an unprecedented rate. Pahlavi certainly ruled on AMerica's behalf, brutally crushing incipient revolutions in Oman, Dhofar and repeatedly within Iran itself. 26 years later the brutality of his CIA, South African and Israeli backed secret police turned US supplied weapons on the population, killing an estimated 100,000 in the Khordad 15 Uprising and in the process losing International support leading to his overthrow. The Iranians accused the US of supporting this activity, and took the embassy staff hostage for a nerve wracking period. Shredded documents, painstakingly reconstructed over the course of the next 15 years prove that the Iranians were correct.
[Hermit] Throughout the Iran Iraq Gulf War the US (and Europe) supported Iraq against Iran. Nevertheless, Iran has repeatedly made overtures of friendship to the US, not least when they rounded up al Qaeda members after 9/11 and offered their cooperation in the illegal overthrow of the Taliban.
[Hermit] My own suspicion is that the fact that Iran knows, and possibly has documentary evidence proving that Republicans, lead by George H Bush, and featuring many of the faces of the current maladministration in Washington were complicit in treasonous arranging for the Iranians to hold the American Embassy staff until after the elections in which Carter was ousted, in exchange for weapons and aircraft spares delivery routed via Israel, is driving the Bush administration further insane than their basic nature, egged on by Israeli agitprop about mythical nuclear weapons programs.
[Hermit] As for Iran being radical, you clearly (like most Americans) have no clue about the complexity of Iran or the intensely democratic underlying processes which drive its political systems. My suggestion is to read a good book on it. There is only one, so it is a short list. The Iranian Labyrinth: Journeys Through Theocratic Iran and Its Furies, Dilip Hiro, July 2005, Nation Books 1560257164, available from $2.74 used. The link is to the review page as some of the reading there might surprise you.
[Hermit] Desperately in trouble? Yes. Economic trouble (instigated by from the US)? Indubitably. An Islamic theocracy. Very much so. But radical? Hardly. Don't forget that Iran was, with Iraq where civilization started. In many ways, Iran, for all the primitive sights and smells that meet the visitor, is still more civilized than that other great theocracy, the USA. |
Yea, every country and every person has skeletons in the closet, and no one can be 100% completely trusted. If the public and the countries that supported him knew before hand of what Pahlavi was about to do, then most likely the countries they are apart of, would have stopped supporting them. If everyone knew what someone else's intentions are, then the world would be a lot safer. Back then, the US was concerned mostly with Communism and went ballistic out of control with fears of it, an error that will haunt the country for years to come. That let other, non-communistic countries thrive with support of the US. Yea, it's an error, one that can't be fixed now, and Israel probably doesn't make the best decisions, either, but the problem now is that Iran is controlled by a radical government that is threatening the progress for stability in other countries. Again, yea, the US put the country out of balance to start off with, also an error, which I said before, somewhere else, but now that point of no return has past too. What needs to be done now is to find a way to return stability, without others trying to keep it insecure.
The whole purpose of handing over the Taliban forces to the US, that was to tell them that it wasn’t their fault, that they had no part of 9/11. The US public wanted answers and justice done right away, basically someone to blame for what had happened. If they never did anything, then that would have put the US on edge with suspicion, creating more tension early on, something that at that time, Iran didn’t want.
As for the radical part, if I was to say to someone that they were better off dead, then I'd be under suspicion of plotting a murder or something similar. The country's leader is making claims of hatred and such, and using religion and potential war with other countries to control much of the people. Many are basically brainwashed with false hopes and claims, or most just don't say anything unless behind closed doors. Civilized isn’t people acting like puppets for their entire lives and living in fear of death if they oppose the view points of others.
"There is never a good war or a bad peace" - Benjamin Franklin
Quote from: Hermit on 2007-05-29 23:01:51 [Bass] With all the clames and accusations of Iran, not to mention the denieing of selling weapons to insurgency forces with Iran serial numbers on them, it's pretty clear that Iran wants to stur up the bee nest.
[Hermit] Notice what you wrote. "Deny" is the key. Who is claiming what? Who validated the evidence? Why with the vast litany of lies that lead to the destruction of Iraq and surplus deaths now estimated as being in excess of a million Iraqi lying still stinking in full public view, why do you imagine that the evidence against Iran is any more substantial?
[Hermit] Also notice that the US put its dick into the hornets nest of Iraq and Afghanistan and is now dancing around like a demented dervish all over the region. As far as I am aware Iran is the one that is going to benefit most when America inevitably slinks home carrying only its wounds, its pride and an enormous war bill. Why on earth do you imagine that Iran wants to risk itself by messing with this steady demolition of their old enemy and simultaneously a country most Iranians once admired - to the great chagrin of the Imams who regard us as "the Great Satan". |
Please do more research, before you question the claims of others. Several of the captured arms that the radical factions in Iraq are using, actually have the weapons with serial numbers from Iran, Iranian weapons company names, and several large sums of denomination from Iran. The claims came from Marines and soldiers of different countries as well as Iraqi forces, and in turn that info gets rerouted to the public or by the president. Most of that info came directly from soldiers of Australia, UK and US, while I was chatting on other forums with them online as well as in person. So to sum that part up, Coalition forces made the claims that Iran was providing weapons for Radical factions in Iraq, and Iran's leader denies those claims.
Quote from: Hermit on 2007-05-29 23:01:51 [Bass] Iraq gave the US and UN a better foothold in the Middle East, sort of a look out tower to see over boarders.
[Hermit] Iraq gave America nothing. Not even a legitimate Causus Belli. Instead three American administrations have illegally attacked Iraqi civilian facilities, instigated bloody revolution, engaged in terrorism and supported terrorists against Iraq and imposed brutal and debilitating sanctions upon a country that had met the requirements that supposedly justified the sanctions by 1992. This makes the consequent death and pain, along with the deliberately caused massive surplus deaths in Iraq an long running American war crime no matter that it will likely never be prosecuted. |
What I meant by foothold, was a reason to be in the Middle East, without one, the US would only be able to look onward from allied countries, and have no real control of anything. I never said invading Iraq was a good thing, or even sensible to say the least. Many higher ups never actually looked at what would have could have happened if they went through with it, and they ignored several things and went through with it. Again, being civil is not living in fear of death, without any hope for a better life. If a person was knowingly providing weapons to murderous criminals, then they’re also at fault for the victims deaths.
Quote from: Hermit on 2007-05-29 23:01:51 [Bass] Because of Iran's current kick of Nucular armlaments, it's keeping the rest of the world on edge, especially the US and Isrial.
[Hermit] I don't understand what you are trying to say. Iran is a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty. Iran has no devices and no capacity to manufacture them and no material to load them with. Iran also says that it has no intention of acquiring or producing nuclear devices. No regulatory body has suggested otherwise or provided any credible evidence that this is not the case. Iran has been extremely consistent. They assert (correctly) that America is in massive breach of the NPT, and that America's 500lb dog-wagging tail, Israel, a non signatory with a minimum of over 200 nuclear devices, along with massive biological and chemical warfare capabilities, the will to use them and the weapons delivery systems needed to attack anywhere on the planet is a massive destabilizing force. They would like to see a repeat of a non-aggression treaty (like the one the US signed with Iran - but appears to have forgotten - back in 1982). Iran would also like to see the entire Middle East declared a WMD free zone and enforcement put in place to ensure this is the case.
[Hermit] I've written cogent and competent analysis here before. So have many scientists and engineers competent in this field. All the evidence is that Iran is after nuclear energy and has not got the technology or demonstrated any desire to go beyond this. Their Imams have declared nuclear devices "unIslamic" and unlawful. Repeatedly. So find out the source of anything you hear to the contrary because it is propaganda and points directly to the thugs seeking nothing better than an excuse for yet another illegal war of aggression against chocolate colored people. |
First, Iran has weapons and vehicles that can deliver WMDs, and the Uranium to fill the bombs. Saying that you don’t have the capability to make such weapons, is out and out lying. Weapons like that are actually much easier to make then you think, again do more research yourself.
If Israel wanted to actually use those weapons on others, then they would have done so in past wars. The purpose of such weapons is to be used as a deterrent to prevent other countries from a full invasion of Israel. If they actually did use any of them, like Hussein did on the Kurdish people in northern Iraq, they to would have been sanctioned directly.
And if you were going to try to hit back with the Israel attack on Iraqi Nuclear power plants, they chose to do so on an off day, and have as little casualties as possible. It wasn’t the best or wisest plan at the time, but it did happen with better intentions. Fear and suspicions fuels wars and hatred.
Their Imams have also declared murder and such illegal and immoral too, but it still happens. If everyone abided by those rules, then millions of people would be alive today. Just because someone says they won’t do it, doesn’t mean they really won’t.
Yea, Iran and most other countries would like to see the whole Middle East devoid of WMDs, but only after countries like Israel and the US are eliminated first. The Iranian people blame countries like the US, Israel, and the UN for their country’s lack of great power and influence. They say that it’s the US’s direct fault for their recessions and smaller military power as well as their ability to influence the world directly. Maybe in the past it was, but current events have change situations and much of which has become null and void as of now, but Iran still blames them for everything.
Quote from: Hermit on 2007-05-29 23:01:51 [Bass] Iran also has several US F-14 Tomcats they purchased before the power shift, although they're unable to launch missiles, bomb can be rigged through make shift panals.
[Hermit] This is more crap. A tomcat is a truck designed to deliver rather nasty car sized missiles. For any other purpose it is singularly useless other than as a target. And Iran has a highly competent engineering and industrial facility. They could manufacture hardpoints if they wanted to, or even more simply, order them from China, but they almost certainly realize that in modern warfare, a few relatively cheap missiles are worth a lot of expensive aircraft with horrendous maintenance loads and pilots of dubious reliability. They should recognize it, because Iran possesses a large number of highly effective supersonic and other anti air, ship and land missiles quite capable of breaching even the Aegis screens arrayed against them. They also have a lot of "smart mine" technology that would allow them to turn the straits into the dire straits in any conventional warfare scenario. Even their rubber-ducks could create havoc against conventional forces, particularly if other equipment had been hit. Iran also has the ability - and the demonstrated will - to lose men at a 5:1 ratio and still overrun the forces in Iraq, and still go on to take Kuwait and at least take on - and possibly defeat Saudi Arabia if the campaign did not turn nuclear. The US military is quite aware of all this. It is only stupid gung-hos who imagine that Iran can be defeated by - or would stand for - a short bombing campaign without being capable of a response for fear of additional consequences. |
(Sigh)…,I wasn’t talking about the Tomcat ballistic missile launcher, the one I was talking about was the carrier-based, short takeoff and landing, US Navy Fighter Jet, F-14 Tomcat.
For those who don't know, the F-14 Tomcat is an aircraft just about on par with the F-15 Eagle, except it's a navy plane. A high speed Mach 2 aircraft, the Tomcat has variable wings which adjust in flight depending on the speed of the plane. When fully operable, it can fire, I think, 4-6 missiles at once and each on different targets. Very deadly in the wrong hands.
Iran’s F-14 Arsenal
As some may know, before Iran was controlled by radical factions, it was supported by the US. So before the country was taken over, the US sold several hundred F-14 Tomcats to Iran.
Now the aircraft are in the hands of the radical factions, but they're inoperable; they can't fire their weapons. This is believed to be because the original US mechanics of the F-14s for taking certain parts from the control console.
Just last year, the US retired their F-14s and most are being junked and melted down or scrapped. If a control console part was sold to someone working for Iran, they could copy the part and repair the F-14s, rebuilding their entire air force.
Here's the link to the article House backs ban on F-14 parts for Iran to support what I say: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070518/ap_on_go_co/military_surplus_tomcats
Quote from: Hermit on 2007-05-29 23:01:51 [Bass] Most likely they have at least one type of mass destructive weapon, probably purchased from black-market dealers and is being used as a prototype for their own, and an aircraft to deliver it.
[Hermit] More rubbish. Iran may have some aging stockpiles of chemical or even biochemical weapons left over from the Iran-Iraq Gulf War. I doubt that they are that stupid, but it is at least possible. As for anything else, well if attacked I would imagine that Iran has the scientists and engineers available to figure out how to produce dirty bombs, but unless an attack on them deployed illegal nuclear devices, I doubt they would go down this road. On the other hand any attack not using nuclear devices would probably not be effective either. So an attack is likely to turn nuclear very quickly - and possibly result in very nasty blowback. |
Saying that an over ambitious country like Iran would never research Nuclear weapons is just foolish. They probably have the engineers and the equipment to make those weapons; they just need the calculation, which can be obtained in a few years. Most likely they already have past war weapons, and they’re creating new ones at a rather quick pace. Saying they have none at all, the weapons or incentive to make them, is just ignorant.
“If you give someone any reason, legitimate or not, they will fight back with any means necessary.”
Quote from: Hermit on 2007-05-29 23:01:51 [Bass] Those words just bring even more tention between everyone.
[Hermit] I agree. Now look at who keeps repeating them after being told by Iran, by language specialists and by their own intelligence that it is nonsense. Again, when you see who is telling lies, you also know who the aggressor is. And in this case, as in the case with Iraq, it is completely transparent that the want-to-be-the aggressors are in Washington and Israel. |
What you said here is undoubtedly Flamebaiting. What I was referring to was Pahlavi speech, which is without a doubt, a threat against another nation. He’s not saying directly that they will do it, but what he was saying is that someone should. That makes him an aggressor as well. It is rather hard to decide on a side to take when both are aggressors in the dispute, that’s why I try to take the middle, although making an open claim like Pahlavi did was rather bold at this time.
Quote from: Hermit on 2007-05-29 23:01:51 [Bass] With more ships in the Gulf, the US is easially abliging to their clames.
[Hermit] I haven't a clue what you were trying to say? The US is engaging in illegal provocation? You bet. The US expects to lose a bunch of ships and other assets if the poop hits the prop. You can bet on it. Just as the deliberate sacrifice at Pearl Harbor and in North Korea, the loss of a few thousand Americans and a lot of obsolete aircraft will drive the populace into an orgasm of warlike fervor, with demands from the people who yesterday were demonstrating against the war to nuke Tehran. Hopefully more sensible minds reign in Tehran than in Washington. Certainly we know they are more literate and more intelligent. Perhaps they are also more forbearing. But I hate to be dependent on the discipline of one nervous missile operator - who probably still remembers the USS Vincentes shooting down an unarmed Iranian 747 full of pilgrims in Iranian waters without response from Iran - to keep us safe from a nuclear war. Which is effectively the game that America - not Iran - is playing now. |
The US and Iran’s only reason for prompting each other as they are, is hoping that one makes a slip up or makes a direct move first. Both sides are engaging in illegal provocation, and neither side is completely correct. Even if Iran is not directly providing weapons from their country, what they could do is at least keep a better hold on what comes in and goes out of their country, instead of watching from a window seal. Saying that the US is just going to sac those people and equipment is also rather foolish. If that was their goal, then why not just sink each ship themselves and blame someone else for it. Not a very smart move on any playing field. Their first purpose for sending the war ships to the Gulf is to tell Iran to back off with what they have, and second is to show what they could and will do if prompted to do so.
Quote from: Hermit on 2007-05-29 23:01:51 [Bass] I think this may lead to a major war between Iran and the US......
[Hermit] So does anyone sensible. Which is why we should be impeaching Cheney now, and putting the evil old sod in a straightjacket where he belongs, pump him, his staff and the congeress critters shouting for a war with Iran full of babble juice and ask them why. The results may be illuminating. Particularly when, once again, every military and intelligence asset outside of the Israelis - even many Republican think-tanks - are saying that the very idea is insane and that we are inviting a disaster bigger even than Iraq. And while googling on this, notice that the CIA says that terrorism has increased 26 times over post our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. THey don't hate us for what we are. They hate us for what we do. Meanwhile we still have only half of the population of the Middle East wanting to do us great harm slowly. What are the bets that Bush wants to go for a "full house"? |
Actually they do hate the US for how we live, and basically what we are. Because the US and UN support Israel’s choice to live and exist, several countries like Iran and radical groups like the Taliban, can’t stand either. It’s because of a view point and people that can’t accept as someone else’s thoughts that there is so much tention. The US and UN doesn’t support what Israel does, like warring with neiboring countries, they only wish that they would survive any attacks that are targeting them. If they actually did, then Israel wouldn’t be the only one fighting on their side.
Bush is betting a lot here, and is taking far too many chances, but everything that I’m researching and observing with certain groups in the US, it seems very unlikely that anything would be done to directly stop him from continuing.
Quote from: Hermit on 2007-05-29 23:01:51 [Bass] .... Unless the US becomes distracted with something more dire...
[Hermit] What a cheerful thought. |
To clarify here, read my following thesis on what may happen, and then you may understand better where I’m coming from:
"What I say are both a fact and a warning of what may come if the lies of the world overcoming truths.
Many of those people are just using radical and reactionary events as scapegoats for what the real problems are. They think that if they shout loud enough and keep their hands over their ears, that everyone will follow suit. That is not the case sometimes. The majority of the world will go with others just so they're not left out, while the true leaders and truth tellers stand out from crowd listening, but unmoving to the lies, trying to figure out what why the phonies are saying such things. The fallen shout loud with their lies, and the risen stay silent holding the truth. That is not how it should be, but it is how the world is.
This whole event is just a cover, a facade of what needs to be done. Over the past few years, almost ten in fact, I have seen a pattern, a deep and dark pattern. Those of the light began to become of the fallen during the Columbine incident... wait I take that back.
Far before then, at the aftermath of World War II. When the dark groups began to form in the US, their reactionary ideas began to spread, saying that they were the only ones that should be living on earth. This movement of the fallen constituted a major change in freedom of speech. It created a much darker form that allowed people to speak out and call for an overthrow of the government in several different nations. The group continued to grow and with current events linking several specific nationalities and races, they grow stronger everyday. Statistically, in the US, one in every 30 is part of the group, one of every 15 has strong similar view of the group, one of every 10 would join the group if others join, and one of every 3 has slightly similar view of the group.
I believe that the Columbine and other events are parts of a sign or omen. The Amish School Shooting and now the Virginia Tech Massacre are just parts of the beginning as well as the others. The radical and reactionary events are getting worse as time progresses. Each faction will be at each other’s throats and will be at the end of their braking points soon
There is an equation I calculated this many times over and over again, but I must disclose that information to protect my sources. It comes out with two sections of time for something major to happen. First is when "Two 'Friday the Thirteenths' are in a row" and the other is when the "’Friday the Thirteenth’ begins the year". I think this is a beginning and ending date for the absolute end.
What I believe is a war of lies might break out if left unabated. Control of this world is switching from a neutral group to a collection of the fallen. They will decide on striking back at people who have nothing or does not concern them with their goals or beliefs. They will destroy something that should be a symbol for peace and prosperity to the world, but isn't. It is a place that several tectonic plates reside as well as the "Cradle of the world". Something of immense magnitude there will create an upheaval of the ground, altering the world's surface.
When this happens, all of life, religion, purpose, anything and everything will become unnecessary and end. Until people can learn to tolerate others in a way that they can act civilized and respect each other, this world is doomed to nothingness.
It may seem farfetched, but it is the Truth of what may happen or of what will happen. I have no doubts.
There is nothing that I can do to stop it, but post this message and hope that the world hears it."
Kind regards,
Bass
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4288
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Stop Press: What is missing from your free press today?
« Reply #10 on: 2007-05-30 18:25:05 » |
|
Bass, I suggest you seek therapy before it is to late.
Good luck
Hermit
PS The F-14 is what I was referring to when I said a truck. It was handicapped from the start by the need to deliver the AIM-54 Phoenix missile and the associated AWG-9 radar system - along with an insane 16,000 lb internal fuel tank. Yes, it was a fast truck, built to catch MIG25s, but has a radar signature like a 747, has a heat signature like a steel smelter and a visual signature like a schoolbus. Also it can't maneuver for shit with a roll rate like trainer, although it is a really stable missile platform and easy to land. Then again, an oil tanker is only a little larger and heavier and I wouldn't want to sit in a combat zone on one of those either, while bricks are guaranteed to land if they lose rather more airspeed than it needs to keep a Tomcat up. Finally, I don't know where you got your story of sabotage, but the Iran Airforce was definitely capable of intercepts and launches in the 1980s and 1990s so if Washington is relying on this myth, then somebody has their wires seriously crossed.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Bass
Magister
Posts: 196
Reputation: 6.27
Rate Bass
I'm a llama!
|
|
Re:Stop Press: What is missing from your free press today?
« Reply #11 on: 2007-05-30 18:52:06 » |
|
Quote from: Hermit on 2007-05-30 18:25:05 Bass, I suggest you seek therapy before it is to late.
Good luck
Hermit |
Umm, I feel that I placed some perfectly considerable claims over most of what you said. What do I require therapy for exactly?
If you'd like to provide me with some sources to prove me otherwise here then I'd welcome it. I'm not saying that I'm right and that your wrong here, no, but as far as I'm concerned (as well as most Americans as you put it) what I say appears to be quite legitimate.
I'm aware that you seem to know more then most people, but I cannot seem to find what your saying, so to speak.
Regards,
Bass
|
|
|
|
|
Bass
Magister
Posts: 196
Reputation: 6.27
Rate Bass
I'm a llama!
|
|
Re:Stop Press: What is missing from your free press today?
« Reply #12 on: 2007-06-01 10:34:59 » |
|
For the record here, what I wrote was what I heard from word of mouth and written reports by pilots, other researchers, and filed shipping documents. I never really spent much time on it except combat scenarios involving different aircraft. Yea, it’s fast, add an ECM pod on it, and SAMs don’t become much of a problem. It's a high speed interceptor, a jouster aircraft like the MIG 25 Foxbat or MIG 31 Foxhound.
(Several hours later)
I just checked an Iranian site and it never reported anything. It may have been covered up, or who knows. Here's the site: http://www.iiaf.net/aircraft/jetfighters/F14/f14.html.
It says that the aircraft are still operational, but with some maintenance problems, so what ever happened is anyone's guess. It also says the AIM 9 Sidewinder and AIM 7 Sparrow Air to Air missiles can still fire with a radar system, and it's rumored the Tomcats may have Russian Air to Surface, Anti-Ship missiles available on them too. If things were turn for the worse, then it may turn the seas even bloodier then before.
Although, being blunt about the opinions of others without asking them where they got their info first, isn't wise either...
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4288
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Stop Press: What is missing from your free press today?
« Reply #13 on: 2008-03-11 20:29:54 » |
|
Top U.S. Commander in Middle East Resigns
Centcom Commander Adm. William Fallon Resigns, Citing Magazine Article on Iran Policy
[ Hermit : Another bulwark falls to the Whitehouse execution system. Disagreed with Bush, doesn't think the US can afford a war with Iran and knows the uncomfortable truth that Petraeus is an incompetent political toady. He had to go. ]
Source: ABC News
Authors: Jennifer Parker, Martha Raddatz, Jonathan Karl and Luis Matinez.Zach Wolf (ABC News Contrib Rep), Ann Compton (ABC News Contrib Rep), John Cochran (ABC News Contrib Rep) and Jennifer Duck (ABC News Contrib Rep)
Dated: 2008-03-11
Adm. William Fallon, the top U.S. military commander for the Middle East, has resigned, citing a magazine article which suggested he was at odds with President Bush's policy toward Iran.
In a statement released by U.S. Central Command, Fallon disputed a recent Esquire magazine article that suggested differences between his views and administration policies concerning Iran.
"Recent press reports suggesting a disconnect between my views and the president's policy objectives have become a distraction at a critical time, and hamper efforts in the Centcom region," Fallon said in a written statement released from his Tampa, Fla., office.
"And although I don't believe there have ever been any differences about the objectives of our policy in the Central Command area of responsibility, the simple perception that there is makes it difficult for me to effectively serve America's interests there," Fallon's statement read.
"I have, therefore, concluded that it would be best to step aside and allow the secretary and our military leaders to move beyond this distraction ... and focus on the achievement of our strategic objectives in the region. I have submitted my request to retire to the secretary of defense."
Magazine: Fallon Standing Between Bush and Iran
In the Esquire interview , Fallon is described as the only man standing between the Bush administration and war with Iran.
"If, in the dying light of the Bush administration, we go to war with Iran, it'll all come down to one man. If we do not go to war with Iran, it'll come down to the same man. He is that rarest of creatures in the Bush universe: the good cop on Iran, and a man of strategic brilliance. His name is William Fallon," reads the magazine article.
In announcing Fallon's resignation Tuesday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said it was "a cumulative kind of thing. It isn't the result of any one article or any one issue."
When asked if today's announcement might be interpreted as a move closer toward military action against Iran, Gates said, "that's ridiculous, just ridiculous. ... The notion that this portends anything in change of Iran policy is, to quote myself, ridiculous." [ Hermit : OK, they are denying it, given previous administration pronouncements that makes it practically certain. April 3-8, May 3-7 and June 1-6 are times of peak danger ]
Gates said Tuesday that Fallon had asked him for permission to retire and Gates agreed. Gates said it was "the right thing to do."
Administration Rhetoric 'Not Helpful'
Gates also said there was a "misperception" that Fallon disagreed with the administration's approach to Iran.
In the article, Fallon is quoted as saying Bush administration rhetoric against Iran is "not helpful."
The article reads: "So while Adm. Fallon's boss, President George W. Bush, regularly trash-talks his way to World War III and his administration casually casts Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as this century's Hitler (a crown it has awarded once before, to deadly effect), it's left to Fallon — and apparently Fallon alone — to argue that.
"As he told Al Jazeera last fall, 'This constant drumbeat of conflict … is not helpful and not useful. I expect that there will be no war, and that is what we ought to be working for. We ought to try to do our utmost to create different conditions,'" said the magazine article.
The president Tuesday issued a written statement wishing Fallon and his family the best. [ Hermit : THe traditional way of allowing a warrior to know that he shoulf fall upon his sword. ]
"During his tenure at Centcom, Fallon's job has been to help ensure that America's military forces are ready to meet the threats of an often troubled region of the world, and he deserves considerable credit for progress that has been made there, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan," Bush wrote.
Fallon is in Baghdad, making the rounds to speak to all of his commanders.
ABC News' Martha Raddatz spoke to Fallon Tuesday as he waited to go in and see Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq.
Fallon told ABC News that he sensed the Esquire article angered members of the Bush administration.
A senior administration official met with Gates as soon as the article came out and was very worried about the reaction from the White House at that time.
Fallon told Raddatz he is grateful for the way Gates handled his resignation.
Democrats on Capitol Hill seized on the resignation as more evidence that the Bush administration "silences opposing voices."
"Yet another example that independence and the frank, open airing of experts' views are not welcomed in this administration," read a statement from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
"It is also a sign that the administration is blind to the growing costs and consequences of the Iraq War, which has so damaged America's security interests in the Middle East and beyond," Reid said.
Fallon, who has had a 41-year career in the Navy, took the central command post March 16, 2007, succeeding Army Gen. John Abizaid, who retired. Fallon previously served as commander of U.S. Pacific Command.
His resignation was applauded by Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
"I support Secretary Gates' decision to accept Adm. Fallon's letter of resignation and request for retirement. I also respect the reasons for which Adm. Fallon submitted it and applaud his ability to recognize the responsibility before him," Mullen said in a written statement.
"He had an enormous impact not only on the way we operate and fight in this new century, but also on the way in which we stay engaged globally," Mullen's statement read.
Gates said that until a permanent replacement is nominated and confirmed by the Senate, Fallon's place will be taken by his top deputy, Army Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
|
Logged
