The world is rapidly becoming a more dangerous place and the orchestrated hoopla associated with our ponderous election process has all but hidden the significant events that are unfolding right now in the Middle East. Whether this is by design or coincidence remains to be seen, but the fact is that this has become yet another major development that the American media has neglected to adequately cover.
Fellow Gatherer Bernard Schaer has summarized the situation in his excellent article in The Daily Crock entitled Naval Blockade - an Act of War.
And, if you still don't think this is serious, consider the following.
-The Senate is processing a resolution (#580) which calls for a number of sanctions on Iran and urges the president to blockade Iran for the purpose of preventing that country from receiving any shipments of refined petroleum. Because of its limited refining capacity, Iran must import 40% of the oil it consumes. The situation echoes memories of the U.S. blockade of Japan over 67 years ago which prevented that country from receiving the oil it needed and which is now considered to have been a factor in Japan's decision to attack Pearl Harbor.
-49 Senators have signed on as co-sponsors of Resolution 580.
-The House of Representatives is processing a resolution (#362) similar to the Senate's, but one that also urges the president to set up a blockade to inspect all people and items entering or leaving Iran and prohibiting Iranian officials from traveling outside the country except for the purpose of nuclear negotiations. In a bulletin published last month, Ron Paul described it as a "virtual war resolution."
-261 Congressmen have signed on as co-sponsors of Resolution 362.
-Three weeks ago, major elements of the U.S. Navy and several other nations including the United Kingdom and France, concluded a naval exercise in the Atlantic, called Brimstone, and described as a dress rehearsal for a blockade of Iran.
-Since then, the following naval assets have been reported to be heading for the Persian Gulf and the other waters abutting Iran:
-the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt, with French Naval Rafale fighter jets on board, and her battle group,
-the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan and her battle group,
-the USS Iwo Jima, an amphibious assault ship,
-the United Kingdom's aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal and her battle group,
-and the French nuclear attack submarine Amethyste along with other French ships.
-This armada is joining up with the existing elements of the Fifth Fleet already in the Gulf and its vicinity, which include:
-the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln and her battle group,
-the USS Peleliu and her battle group,
-at least one nuclear attack submarine and a variety of other U.S. ships.
-It has been widely reported in the foreign press that this is the largest naval buildup in the Gulf area since the inception of the war in Iraq.
-Russia recently conducted a naval exercise in the Mediterranean involving at least 11 warships, an unknown number of submarines, the aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsoy and the heavy missile cruiser, Moskva, described as the flagship of its Black Sea Fleet. The exercise was conducted out of and supplied by the Russian facilities at the Syrian port of Tartous.
-The German online publication, ALLES SCHALL und RAUCH, reported that the Kuznetsoy carries about 47 combat jets and ten attack helicopters. The planes have stealth capabilities that are considered inferior to America‘s technology, according to the article, but Russian planes were allegedly able to approach U.S. vessels without being detected.
-Undoubtedly, the U.S. and its allies have developed an arsenal of cutting-edge weaponry that has been kept under wraps. Nevertheless, the German report goes on to say that Russian missile technology is of a particularly high order. It claims that there are no known effective counter measures at this time to protect against the high speed torpedoes and missiles Russia has developed that could be capable of sinking an aircraft carrier.
-It is also thought that this technology may have been shared with Tehran which recently conducted its own missile tests, following Israel‘s extensive dress rehearsal for an aerial attack on Iran.
-Israel, Kuwait and the other Gulf States have already made their "war contingency plans", according to news reports, in the face of the growing likelihood of a major regional war in the Middle East.
-The recent and somewhat ongoing crisis in Georgia is considered by some foreign analysts to have been an early move in the high stakes game of chess that seems to be rapidly developing. There is considerable disagreement in the world press over whether the Georgian conflict was actually initiated by the West or by Russia. However, given the fact that it occurred at a time when the movement against Iran was already well underway, it is considered likely that there is a connection.
It may already be too late, but if Iran does not soon take the necessary steps to ease the concern over its assumed nuclear weapons program, it appears that a major action will occur. This most likely would involve a blockade, at least initially, although the possibility of a direct aerial, naval and missile attack cannot be entirely ruled out.
Even a blockade would almost certainly disrupt the supply of oil, however, causing the price to surge and cascading another wave of woe across the already struggling global economies.
Furthermore, the unknown reactions of China and Russia, in this respect, represent the ultimate risk of a naval or aerial confrontation between major nuclear powers.
Dave McGill, News Correspondent
Dave's column, "The Contrarian," generally published every Friday, to Gather Essentials: News will sometimes present a contrary view to various aspects of the news, or an alternate take on the conventional wisdom of the day, and will occasionally appear on another day of the week
Dave has been a senior officer of an eastern insurance company, involved in economic projections and investment strategy, president of a Midwestern mortgage banking company, and a financial consultant in Southern California, serving clients in the field of commercial real estate development.
You can find all of Dave's "The Contrarian" columns at: http://gather.com/thecontrarian...... Keep up with Dave's other postings and Gather activity by joining his Gather network - just click here: http://atadaskew.gather.com........ You'll find Dave and other News Correspondents, plus celebrity content and plenty of other News experts at News.gather.com.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 74
It is well documented, although not well reported, that Georgian targeted aggressions against Russia started this conflict. I just heard a well-reported segment on the BBC on Tuesday outlining the fact that Georgia made the first move and knew exactly what the response would be.
I do not doubt that Bush and Company are planning a major move in order to create chaos and fear before the Nov election, trying to secure McCain's presidency, or even cancel the elections if things are not looking like he will win. They will do anything to stay in power.
Bush has been trying to start a major war since he was placed in office and he may get his wish and if he does he may not like it because it will come to America this time.
Read on:
Big Russian flotilla led by Admiral Kuznetsov carrier heads for Syrian port
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report
August 21, 2008, 5:07 PM (GMT+02:00)
Russia's Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier heads for Mediterranean
As the West awaits Moscow’s threatened reprisal for the treaty installing American missile interceptors at Redzikowo, on Poland’s Baltic coast – signed in Warsaw Wednesday - the Kremlin is striking back in the Middle East – hence Russian president Dimitry Medvedev’s honeyed words of reassurance to Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert in a call he made to Jerusalem Wednesday, Aug. 20.
DEBKAfile’s military sources disclose that a powerful Russian naval contingent, led by the aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov , left Murmansk on the Barents Sea Aug. 18 to dock at the Syrian Mediterranean port of Tartus Saturday, Aug. 23. It includes the Russian Navy’s biggest missile cruiser Moskva and at least four nuclear missile submarines.
At the Black Sea resort of Sochi, Syrian president Bashar Assad told reporters Thursday, Aug. 21, that he is considering a Russian request to deploy missiles in his country in view of Russian-Western tensions over the Georgian conflict, which he said had polarized East and West anew.
Assad signaled he would also be representing Tehran’s interests in his talks with Russian leaders. Jordan’s King Abdullah is on his way to join them later in the day.
Before the Russian flotilla departed Murmansk, Assad is reported by our sources as having given the nod for Tartus port’s conversion into a permanent Middle East base for Russia’s nuclear-armed warships.
Assad’s arrival coincided with a visit by a large Syrian military delegation Thursday at the Russian weapons manufacturing giant, the Kalinin Machines Plant, east of Moscow. DEBKAfile’s military sources report that this plant makes sophisticated anti-air missile systems, including the S-300 and the BUK M, for which Damascus is bidding.
The Syrian ruler has said he is seeking closer military cooperation with Russia. The deal emerging from his visit is expected to cover the Russian Navy’s use of Tartus in return for a mutual defense accord providing Syria with a Russian nuclear umbrella and generous terms for his arms purchases.
Aug. 17, DEBKAfile first revealed Russia’s planned nuclear military deployments in the Middle East and Baltic to punish America for its missile deal with Poland and Georgia's attack in South Ossetia. They would included the installation of Iskandar surface missiles in Syria and Kaliningrad.
http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=5526
Bush's successful attempt to get Poland to install missiles is a sure sign he wanted war and yes he will get it -a version of WWIII, which, whith current economic situations, will be a disaster for the world for years to come.
Just when we thought it was safe to back in the water. Into Russia....Jaws theme....here...
I've been receiving in the newsletters I get for months now, that the US does plan to "subjugate" IRAN-I KNOW they are, it's just how,..... that should make people a little nervous.
I really like Ron PAUL.
The last thing the US needs is a big mid-east war, OR WWIII. Or anyone for that matter OR to ignite it.
Rather than join the anti-anybody crowd, I'll just say that if these Middle East maneuvers result in conflict, it will come as a great surprise to the American people. That is wrong.
The media is chasing their tails over the "Veepstakes", and Congress is home campaigning about trivia (I haven't heard a word from our Congressman and Senators). The White House is silent, as usual, and mum's word from the presidential candidates.
If you are correct, you are a shoo-in for Gather's "Reporter of the Year" award!
Just look at how loud the US complained about the Russian peacekeepers that were attacked by the Georgia military and when Russia responded. Was that loud enough for you?
I would suggest one watch what is going on in Poland with the Interceptors missiles that the US is installing. As expected Russia says that they will nuke them. This shows the world that Russia doesn’t want them and thinks that those missiles will be used against them. This lets the world know that Russia doesn’t like that. But all the while knowing that the US put them there against any Iranian attack in Europe. How is it possible for the US to do something there that the Russians wouldn’t complain about, so they did as expected. However, the US wouldn’t do that without the Russians ok first.
However, one needs to remember that this was all agreed to first by the US and Russia.
The fear that everyone was sold caused us to fully support the actions of military buildup by the nations involved, in each case there was a military industrial complex that got ever more so extremely wealthy allowing them to further control ... same old story and we are all given "puppets" (government officials etc) to watch and praise or blame so that we never think to look above them as to who is really pulling their strings ...
Russia cannot be trusted to tell the truth, I can believe they did that since there are citizen speaking up. They also said they had russian dissident in ossetia so it woul be hard to find out who shot whom first. I am sure if Georgia military was shooting they may have been shot at first.But it was russia that destroyed homes etc by using weapons capable of doing that kind of damage and invading the country and are still there.
Again another failed foreign policy on the part of Bush.
If the military is making this decisions then we are worse off than I thought.
At this point I think it would be a great time to impeach both of them...the duo in charge.
I just wrote a post about the "October Surprise" awaiting us. We need to get a ground swell of folks to support Kuchinich in his efforts at impeachment. He is the ONLY guy who appears to still think that law, our constitution, and democracy still can work.
You ask some tough questions, Sy. Whether Iran is in fact developing a nuclear program and whether, if it does join the nuclear club it will become a threat to world peace, are questions I would be happy to leave to reliable leaders who would have much more information to base their judgement on than would the public at large. The operative word here is "reliable," which is something we do not have today and we may not even have next year.
What is conveniently beginning to happen now, precisely on cue, has the strong odor of an "October Surprise" to it, as Cynthia says in her article today, so I totally tend to distrust the motives of this move into a much riskier world environment. In '04, you may recall, it was a series of unnecessary terrorism alerts which were apparently baseless.
I believe this president should begin to act like what he is - a lame duck. He should cease his negotiations with Iraq and his concern over Iran and leave the problems for the next administration. Given his deplorable track record, I feel that anything he does will just complicate matters even more for his successor.
Incidentally, the nuclear question is an interesting one and one, I've written about in the past. The best example of the peaceful impact of a nuclear standoff - outside of Russia/U.S. in the Cold War - is the Pakistan/India situation. Pakistan is a much more worrisome member of the nuclear club that Iran would be, in my opinion. And yet the seemingly endless series of wars between Pakistan and India came to an abrupt halt once both countries became armed with nukes. In fact it became kniown in the seventies that Pakistan was beginning to actively develop its nuclear program and - even that knowledge and the subsequent uncertainties over the program's exact status - had a calming effect on the rivalry between the two countries.
If Iran had the bomb I don't believe for one minute that it would bring obout its own destruction by using it.
However, looking down the road, I can easily see the hazards of continuing nuclear proliferation, and I would like to see the spread of the technology contained and the existing nuclear arsenals steadily depleted.
That's probably not going to happen, so it all boils down to leaving the matter in the hands of leaders we can trust. Lets hope we get one.
I do agree with you, if Iran had nuclear, it would not be used to start attacking other nations. Primarily, it would be just what the Pakistani and Indian nukes are used for, to prevent war. To possess and have the capability to deliver such awesome force as a nuclear weapon delivers, is a tremendous responsibility.
The leader of Iran is a true dip stick but there are others in the country who would temper his extremes. They are looking for something to assure them that Israel won't attack. Israels past attacks have been quite devastating in the region. Particularly the seven day war!
However, the Iranian leader is sufficiently radical that most people outside of the Muslim world, fear him greatly and cannot abide the idea of nukes in Iran. Though I don't see it with the same fear, I certainly understand those who do fear such.
The USSR was unsuccessful in taking over the world as they intended so no it would appear that they are working on the same thing in a different way, trying to get voluntary alliances with enough countries to counter the force of the American war machine. They see the Mideast countries as vulnerable to change and inflammation and quite ripe for the Russians to fill the bill of friend under adverse times. The US has exacerbated the situation by trying to get all the countries possible into the NATO organization, thereby effectively isolating Russia.
The situation is complicated, dangerous and very prone to misunderstanding and misinterpretation. That makes it doubly dangerous and will require the best minds we have to keep a lid on things and contain the risks of the Mideast. That is one of the many reasons that the person we elect is a very important decision this year!
With McCain, there will be war for sure, not because he necessarily wants war but because his ideology creates the essential elements to produce war. With Obama, there could still be war if we are threatened seriously, but that result won't be an automatic and arrived at without considerable effort to find alternative solutions.
I do agree that the elections will take place as scheduled, regardless of the likely outcome. An alternative route would be so extraordinary as to almost be unthinkable. However, to persons who still think that Bush engineered the destruction of the WTC, to think he would circumvent the process to prevent the election from happening is a very logical conclusion!
> ... questions I would be happy to leave to reliable leaders who would
> have much more information to base their judgement on than would
> the public at large. The operative word here is "reliable," which is
> something we do not have today and we may not even have next year.
This is a fine distinction. You would be happy to leave it to the world leaders,
for what? So you can just write articles about it? I'd kind of like to know
what you really think about Iran, Dave.
Let's say no one knows what is in the mind of Ahmadinejad. I do not think
that is true, but speculate for bit. You are in charge the safety and security
of the US, and the Western world as President. Do you think you can take
a gamble that everything is going to be OK?
There is a new book out by Kasra Naji called "Ahmadinejad: The Secret
History of Iran's Radical Leader". This guy is very dangerous and unstable.
He is unpredictable, and a far right-wing leader with delusions of religious
grandeur of paving the way for the 12th Iman to return to the world.
Do you listen or are you swayed by the know-it-alls who say, they should
have nuclear weapons, it's none or our business. Or he did not say, and or
did not mean he was going to destroy Israel - that he did not mean and or
say he is going to help destroy the West. Can you afford to let what might
a positive feeling in your own soul guide you in feelings about human
nature.
The default position in my mind is that we all know that you cannot hope for
the best in such a position or responsibililty. And this is known on the other
side too, or they would not be saying outrageous things about the West or
Israel. Anyone knows that someone who says accidentally something that
can be misconstrued as calling for war is obligated to set the recored straight
clearly or be interpreted as calling for war, and being insulting on top of it.
Ahmadinejad has had many chances to explain himself if he feels he is
misunderstood.
Not only Ahmadinejad, but whoever is going to turn out to be the next
Ahmadinejad is also watching carefully what happens here.
They only thing that remains unknown is how many innocent people
are going to continue to be affected by the madness of leaders like
this man? I don't think I can be accused of supporting Bush by
any means, but Bush is not Ahmadinejad, and the US is not Iran.
But, I think if there was some mistaking, in order to be fair the
analogy should be pursued. I have thought on that, and the US
is not Iran is what I came up with. People who disagree, i cannot
change, I can only explain what and how I think.
So ... how about you Dave? ;-)
The leader of Iran is a true dip stick but there are others in the
country who would temper his extremes. They are looking for
something to assure them that Israel won't attack.
NOPE:
Israel has never attacked Iran. Iran has already attacked Israel by funding terrorist proxies.
And by trying to secure nuclear weapons Israel must attack Iran. One hit by Iran and Israel is gone. Israel cannot destroy Iran in a nuclear war if such was fought because the fallout would affect so many other countries.
If Iran has legitimate defensive concerns, why does it not make peace with Israel like Egypt and Jordan.
I usually agree with you, but your thinking here is very bad.
The sensible, sane and economical thing to do in terms of lives and wars is to make sure Iran never gets nuclear weapons.
to people for several years now, and not just about Ahmadinejad. The
same hedging waffling game has been played by some in Islam asking
if violence in the name of Jihad is justified, the same game played by
the Palestinians, Syrians, Iranians, etc when asked if Israel has a right
to security and to exist.
It's called fear and appeasement, and avoidance of responsibility I
suppose. The idea that one little runty toadfuck, sorry I couldn't
resist can hold the whole world hostage by playing games like this
is insane.
In a way it comes down to the subject we have talked about before
and you dealt with very well in your comments about radical Islamics
versus radical Christians. Somehow the truth is irrelevant anymore
if it is something someone does not like. Somehow the idea of
equalizing everything has taken hold and that idiotic argument
that Bush is the same as Ahmadinejad, or that the US is the same
as Russia and China, etc.
The irrational application of cultural relativism, and the idea that there
is not such things are right and wrong, good and evil, etc, because
no one entity can computer it correctly every time.
I think it comes down to mortality. We all have one life, and when we
look at the world, Americans are so happy not to have to be under the
horror that most people in this world live under that they just want to
ignore the whole idea that we have to defend civilization or it will go
away, and we want to leave it up for someone else to take care of.
As easy as we have it, almost nothing is asked of us, but to pay money,
and still we whine complain and act stupid. These are things that
everyone knows. We have all been bullied in our lives and been the
victims of crimes of abuse of authority. When it is not so bad, we just
want to forget it I guess ... that's the best i can do anyway.
OK, I am going to lecture for a sec hear. A few weeks of so after 911 Benjamin Netanyahu(sp?) then former President or PM of Israel testified on terrorism before Congress. I caught this on CSPANN ... and it was one of the most interesting and reasonable commentary I ever heard. The gist of it was that this world is getting to dangerous and unstable for the status quo to be allowed to continue. His criticism of the UN was that it did not work because it was full on non-Democracies. He said no Democracy had ever attacked another Democracy, and that what ought to happen is that either the UN should throw the non-Democracies out, or a new body, maybe NATO should take it place with just Democracies, and the Democratic Union needed to come up with program of ridding the world of tyrannies, one by one, using whatever means necessary, not just war or violence, but after a few successes when aim of the DU got to whoever was next it would become easier and easier until finally there were standardized rules of law and Democracy in a majority of the world, This way eventually Russia and China would also be coaxed to come around as well.
I have never been able to find this testimony on the Internet or You-Tube or anything, but it was very good, and very well thought out. The idea was that the US could learn about terrorism since the new reality of 911 had stuck.
Be honest, who actually made it all the way through Brucie's rants?
I agree with you both about Israel not attacking Iran with nuclear and the desire for Iran to never get nuclear. But realistically, Iran may well get nuclear sooner or later. Hell, Pakistan might supply them! But I come back to the fact that Iran has a fear of Israel, justified or not, and that no nation with nuclear arms has ever been invaded. It does offer protection. Iran knows that Israel has a ferocious military with excellent results at creaming whoever they choose to attack! But Iran has a long way to go before they can deliver a nuclear warhead anywhere so the experts claim. If the experts are wrong, they might have nukes now!
Respect your opinion very much, Bruce, just don't have total agreement on this one. Parts of it definitely, but not all.
Also, remember that if Iran were to use nukes on Israel, it would kick of a far broader war over the nuclear issue itself! Iran knows that. And only the kooks like Osama are willing to be destroyed to destroy their perceived enemy.
Pakistan is a frightening country because of its possession of nukes and it high concentration of radical Muslim nuts! They have the potential to be a major source of problem in the very near future.
But I come back to the fact that Iran has a fear of Israel, justified or not
Like a robber fears those that he robs or a burglar fears the people whose houses he breaks into. James, why are you unable to look clearly that that fear. You know white people in the South feared black people too, because of the horrible things they had done to them.
If I live to be a thousand I will never understand why so many people sympathie with Iran, who they do not know. I have my ideas as to why it is that people side against Israel, who in America we all know, and for a country like Iran that all we see is fairly negative.
Maybe it is a misperceived sense of fairness, trying to balance what they think is the unfairness of the media in talking Israel up and Iran down. They are still trapped in making decisions based on emotions.
The facts are that Iran is a very radical Islamic state with all that that implies. Iran is seeking to become the dominant power in the region. Towards that end they are at war with Israel, right now. They find Hamas and Hezbollah. They work against the US in Iraq.
We know what Israel believes militarily, socially, and religiously. Iran is shady, but it is run by the Mullahs, most of which back Ahmadinejad for decades, since before he ran for Mayor of Tehran. As Mayor of Tehran one of the thing Ahmadinejad wanted, and still pushes for, is to keep the Islamic revolution alive by burying fallen soldiers all over the city, to keep the martrys on the minds of the people.
Bringing in Pakistan on this really is unwarranted. Pakistan is its own issue. Whatever about Pakistan does not change a think about Iran.
You talk about Israel's military James, when surely you must be aware of the tactics used against them in Lebanon, where Hezbollah moves in and stores weapons and housed troops in the houses of radical Muslims bringing death and destruction on the country. The strategy developed and funded by Iran, who now claims to all Muslis that Israel is vulnerable and can be destroyed.
Without resolves there are 3 ways I see the big issue going. If we do nothing we will lose. Maybe it will take 100-1000 years but we just withdraw into an isolationist huddle that will disintegrate on its own. The other two alternatives are that we destroy radical Islam. We can wait until they make a movie big enough to country, like destroying Israel, and then do massive retaliation on them killing tens of millions, or we apply solid firm unyeilding pressure over a long period of time breaking into war if we need to. This will save lives and be easier, but it takes resolves and integrity.
Historically I see the Islamic movement parallels Nazism, it is in its congealing rising state right now, looking to consolidate and grow. Victories no matter how small will lead it to a stronger identity and more violent action. It needs to be unquestionably destroyed so there are no illusions left that an Islamic world is a possibility.
Lois, do you ever add up all the lines you write in a day that say nothing ... and has it ever occurred to you to apply first grade math and realize that no matter how many times you add zero to itself, you still have zero?
They have never used them, and they have never threatened to use them. They have never said they want to wipe out any other country. They needs to be militaristic in order to defend themselves from countries who have already atteacked them multiple times, some of whom still talk about destroying them.
The apply some kind of misplaced idea of equality or fairness in sympathy to Iran as the damaged partner is wrong. Wrong and insane. Yes, the British and the US, the colonial powers had many abuses in the past. If Iran was concerned about that they coudl just as well go to the UN and demand redress as they could talk about destroying Israel and the West and appealing to Nazis worldwide.
The very story of the darker side of the history of this earth world, hell, even religions have an ancient history of acting just like that ... a story as old as the bible itself ... and even prior to that, the world relationship between man and his god(s), even the O.T. God fits the bill ... History continually repeats itself because man has been too proud and ignorant to learn what it would take to improve his lot.
With a misinformed understanding of their God, and a complete misunderstanding of god(s), they completely ignore the real potential of a GOD ... a GOD that is truly fair and balanced, that is non-judgemental and would truly help those who would help themselves in that GOD's "image" ... one that relies more on love than fear, that always leans towards the love from a position nearer to a center where fear is a close option, one that tries to cooperate with natural and diverse differences for a common goal resulting in a win/win synergy ... rather than a win/lose competition with destruction ...
The "proper" understanding of what a real GOD is all about, that far transcending the current ideas of God and god(s), would go the distance to cure the world problems ... this is the truth that could and would set everyone free of fear and it's effects forever ...
But it takes some small amount of trust to find such truths, it must start somewhere ... the alternative is what has been talked about in this thread ... just more of the same ... there really are no such things as accidents and victims in the greater aspect of spiritual reality concerning GOD ... but with God and god(s) there there sure are.
IMnsHO based upon experience.
I must disagree with this statement.
Israel has been the focal point in the Middle East and the #1 reason (yes, over oil) for conflict over the last 100 years.
This will never be settled as long as Islam feels they have been denied the rights to land occupied and as long as the West continues to erratically support whatever country fits their need at the time due to a natural resource, strategic geographical location, allegiance to a similar philosophy, etc.
A dramatic change in leadership every 4 or 8 years signifies our unwillingness or our incompetence at resolving the issues in the Middle East.
The subjects that it does not cover adequately and - in many cases - areas where it even goes to the degree of shrouding the issues in a cloak of disinformation, are most notably the call for a better investigation of 9/11, the degree of the violations of our voting rights during - particularly - the last two presidential elections and the extent to which the same nefarious voting machines without paper trails are still in play, and the quality of this nation's foreign policy, including the media's total failure to question our involvement going into Iraq.
It seems that it has simply become a government mouthpiece.
Based on the research that I've done, it appears that the Natanz facility in Central Iran is, in fact, some 60 feet under ground and is capped by a thick concrete shield. I've not been able to find any information that would indicate whether one or more of the 2,000-pound, bunker-buster bombs we have could destroy a facility so protected. It might require a nuclear bomb to be certain of its destruction.
As far as I've been able to determine, the Chinese-supplied nuclear research facilities at Ishafan, the heavy water reactor at Arak, the nuclear fuel site at Ardakan and the joint Russian-Iranian muclear power facility at Bushehr are all above ground, but it is the Natanz facility where Iran is installing an additional 6,000 new uranium-enrichment centrifuges that is the heart and soul of its program, peaceful or otherwise.
In the current fiscal year's U.S. military budget there were funds allotted for the retrofitting of bombers to accomodate bunker-busters. This process was to be completed by April. I believe Israel would have to use this equipment to deliver that type of ordnance in an attack on Iran. Its route would also probably carry the bombers over Iraq and so it would need the permission of the Shiite government there, as well as the U.S. to use the air space to bomb another Shiite country.
So, as you suggest, there are numerous problems which would seem to make an attack unlikely, but not necessarily out of the question. In any event, the stage seems to be set for a blockade which also may or may not take place.
Iran is nothing but a problem, and the problem is getting bigger, and the bunkers are getting deeper. Realistically, we can destroy their facility, or render it useless. Who Iranian wants to live in a trembling bunker with radioactivity that is getting pounded with bombs every few days and from which there is no exit. It would be unconscionable to use nuclear bombs but there are cases where there is no choice.
The West is working on retrofitting some bigger bombs into cruise missiles, so every day or two we just fly some over the target. We know how to do this, we did it for 10 years with Iraq.
Iran's answer is that they will bomb innocents in Israel, and attack other Western interests. Does this sound like the thinking of a rational civilized country?
So then the calculation for the Iranian people would be, do they want a 10 year long blockade that ends up with their country in shambles and a ground invasion and an occupation for absolutely no gain at all except for Ahmadinejad's ego?
The point at which the miltiary actions begins we then lose any positivity on behalf of the Iranian people. What a mess, but it is just going to get worse.
What goes on in Egypt, Syria, Palestine, and other Islamic countries is shameless and should be intolerable by any view of human rights.
The word is coming down to the wire in so many ways, we just cannot have these rogue regimes thinking they can march forever into the future causing trouble ... imagine what happens in 100-200 or a thousand years with countries like this?
One reason the media does not cover this stuff is that it is complex and trying to explain what is going on meets with a million other representations and claims. It is slow for America to understand what we fight for. One very interesting recommendation I have is for people to look up on the Internet Archive or rent videos of the "Why We Fight" series, where the State Department hired Disney and some famous directors to produce documentaries on what was happening in Europe and why WWII was becoming necessary.
There is no more powerful of a motivating force on earth than that. Japanese Kamikaze pilots and Muslim terrorists, though having somewhat different motivations, and maybe not all that different, have given the west perfect examples of such motivations ... the Taliban are also a good example ... and it is commonly believed that the leaders in Iran may well be as "committed" to their own religious perceptions about their place associated with eternity ... especially those events predicted around the "second coming" which does not differ all that much in essence from the Christian beliefs associated with "End Times" ... (IE Armageddon etc)
Now some of this is "common knowledge" from an "outside" view of only words and shallower meanings ... nothing that one can really know the intensity and importance of without being an actual "experiencer", which most folks are far from being. Powerful stuff beyond imaginations even ... for good or ill ... and that is the real problem when so many are truly confused and misinformed about what the differences are between those two conditions ... good and ill (or evil) are really only a matter of perception for many folks, even those most inclined to believe religiously, maybe especially them.
But the real kicker here, is that there are far more Christians than most would suspect who are similarly inclined ... and the more powerfully positioned institutionally that they are as to having the real power to do something about it all, the quieter they are about it ... so we are not going to know much if anything about them, but they surely do exist, and many of them confer with each other secretly ... they are well aware of the public sentiment that would disqualify them of the positions they hold if such were to ever become known ... mum is the word ... but do not think that they do not exist.
So the point being here, that all of the ancient religious, spiritual, and even mythological, stories that sound so strange and unbelievable to the average person, even the average religious person, but surely to all secular types, those stories have great meaning and power to just enough people to cause a chain of events to get started that would be unstoppable ... IE just the things that are being spoken of around the world right now involving power struggles between those who think themselves good and against those who they think evil ... and the "other" side has exactly the same view which is valid to them from their perspective.
In other words, it is NOT ONLY the Muslim radicals that are involved in all of this ... beware !
> most would suspect who are similarly incline
Another unqualified dive into the puddle of ignorance in order to state nothing.
Grow up someday Bruce, you are acting like a child here ...
You are cherry picking words here to spin twist and distort for your own disingenuous slander ... just more personal attacks as you so often exhibit here ... your ego must really be hurting.
I stand by my words used, and especially the essence of the intended meanings ... of course they are too often far too esoteric for exoteric simpletons in denial such as yourself, so don't blame me for your inability to understand.
In every such conflict, and we go way back before Napoleon, neither the Bear nor the Dragon cared very much for what anyone outside its borders or interests thought in a conflict. Neither do chimpanzees or lions locked in a male alpha dispute over the group's resources, including who has the right to mate. It's often hard to see the forest for the trees of spin, in how very dangerous our world has become due to a recent group of old dinosaurs still hanging on desperately to the bits of neuronal firing in primitive regions of the brain, but now spun out of nature by hemispheres adept at spin.
I had no idea that Resolution 580 would include an actual blockade. If anything in our hair-trigger world could cause an ultimate Russia-Iran-China axis, this would be it.
This is an excellent article for everyone who cares about her or his children to read.
Your articles seems to force some thought even from where there is a historical lacking of thinking.
Among some extremist evangelical movements in America are those who seek an ever closer tie with Israel that actually frightens the average citizen in Israel, according to a good Jewish friend who lives there. This evangelical group actually hoped(s) that a Bush or McCain presidency will lead to the final straw that broke the regional camel's back, plunging the entire earth into the mythological final battleground of the Final Days, when only a handful of devout evangelicals eventually enter heaven.
What most who read old words meant for the science of their times is that the prophets of old might have been good psychologists/sociologists, and that the "writing on the wall" is merely a prediction of the shit that happens where stupid human nature prevails.
The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse are nothing other than what we as human beings are now capable of doing to ourselves.
That aside, this event was reported some weeks ago and gatherites theorized that this fleet was inbound for the Black Sea. Since naval exercises are wonders of logistic planning and often done years in advance the question first off should be, was this planned as a regular training exercise or was it suddenly thrown together? Next should be why would the French and British commit their only carriers to such a small manuever area like the Gulf with (according to your/German theory) 3 far more capable US carriers and their escort groups? If this is going to get hot, the British PM has no political leg room as he is barely able to hold his own seat...a shooting war with Iran is not going to improve that situation. France has just started cooperating the last year or two with US military forces and after over a decade of not doing so, will have many bugs to work out that can't be done in a single exercise. That is something UK forces who have trained regularly with us for decades do not have problems with. Naval doctrine demands lots of sea room for any possible fighting with submarine armed enemies (Iran has some newer German diesel boats). Next question should be do the assault carriers have their respective MEFs or are they simply armed hulls with minimal helicopter capability? If Marines suddenly start standing down in Iraq and getting plussed up with replacements/equipment while doing some battalion sized exercises you may have something. Attack subs in of themselves are often attached to carrier groups to hunt enemy subs which is their chief job. Missile boats or boomers are the ones who scorch cities with nukes and they spend their time hiding or playing games with possible enemies.
As for the Russians; even in their bad ol Soviet days they didn't count on taking a US fleet on head to head. If they leave the Med and head for the North Atlantic then it'll be interesting. Until then its a show the flag cruise.
Too many unanswered questions for non military experts like me want answered before assuming the worst like so many on here will do because of political leanings.
In other words, normal politics so far of showing the iron we hold behind our back while talk continues. This upgunning of Fleet elements in the Gulf has happened several times over the last few years and it just is a way of trying to apply pressure.
In the comment section, I really enjoyed Russell's reference to iminadinnerjacket. That made me smile. Thanks for keeping me up to date.
Please be sure and post all of your photos, posts and videos to the group and don't forget to stop by and comment on group content!