Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
susieice

Aircraft Carrier and Bombers Sent to ME

360 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

susieice

This is breaking news. The announcement was just made tonight. (Sunday)

The United States is deploying an aircraft carrier strike group and a bomber task force to the Middle East on short notice in response to clear indications that Iran and Iranian proxies were planning an attack on U.S. forces in the region, said a U.S. official.

Interested in Iran?

Add Iran as an interest to stay up to date on the latest Iran news, video, and analysis from ABC News.
Add Interest

Late Sunday night, the White House made a surprise announcement that the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln and a bomber task force were being deployed to the Middle East in response to unspecified “troubling and escalatory indications and warnings.”

https://abcnews.go.com/International/aircraft-carrier-middle-east-indications-iran-planned-attack/story?id=62843182

 

  • Like 3
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hawken

Iran has been a headache since the Shah was ousted from power in 79.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
susieice

Local news said it's believed the carrier group is heading to the Arabian Sea. Possibly the Persian Gulf. The US has no carriers in the Persian Gulf at this time.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
1 hour ago, susieice said:

Local news said it's believed the carrier group is heading to the Arabian Sea. Possibly the Persian Gulf. The US has no carriers in the Persian Gulf at this time.

I pray that this isn't the beginning of another bloodletting for our troops.  It would be extremely improbable for us to strike them and create a false flag but any action they committed that took U.S. lives would still be seen as a false flag by those that hate us and Israel.  I can't imagine the IRGC and the Ayatollah attacking U.S. forces in the region unless they've got some sort of a surprise in store for us that our intel has failed to detect.  

Open hostilities in that region could set off a global war and I don't believe Iran will risk that yet.  I believe that scripture is clear that "Persia" will come against Israel in the future in a coalition of many Muslim states and potentially Russia as well.  That coalition's attacks will be met with supernatural revenge that will end those nations as any future fighting force.  5/6 of the forces will be left dead on the heights of Israel.  I only mention that because it tells me that no nukes will be used by Iran or Russia if a war begins from this craziness today.  Iran being THRASHED by the IDF and or the U.S. at this point might well set the stage for such a coalition in the near future.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ouija ouija

I suspect the US just wants to be based closer to Israel. The Palestinians are the ones who are likely to get wiped off the face of the Earth not the Iranians.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77

D52E8z9UcAANVGP.jpg

 

The Untold Story of John Bolton’s Campaign for War With Iran

 

Quote

But the strong likelihood that Donald Trump will now choose John Bolton as his next national security advisor creates a prospect of war with Iran that is very real. Bolton is no ordinary neoconservative hawk. He has been obsessed for many years with going to war against the Islamic Republic, calling repeatedly for bombing Iran in his regular appearances on Fox News, without the slightest indication that he understands the consequences of such a policy.

His is not merely a rhetorical stance: Bolton actively conspired during his tenure as the Bush administration’s policymaker on Iran from 2002 through 2004 to establish the political conditions necessary for the administration to carry out military action.

Idiots, all of us.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ouija ouija

^ ^  "..... fully prepared to respond to any attack, whether by proxy ....". That's a wonderfully loose term, isn't it? Could apply to anyone. :hmm:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
12 minutes ago, ouija ouija said:

whether by proxy ....". That's a wonderfully loose term, isn't it? Could apply to anyone.

Hmmm.  Yes, it could apply to many.  Hamas, Hizballah, the 40,000 Shia mercenaries they have posted in Syria...  The Iranians are beginning to suffer the consequences of serious sanctions and may decide to launch attacks out of desperation.  Hamas has fired 600 missiles at Israel in the last 3 days.  If they become too adventurous then it is absolutely possible that we'd nail them for it.  Or WORSE, Israel might.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
57 minutes ago, ouija ouija said:

I suspect the US just wants to be based closer to Israel. The Palestinians are the ones who are likely to get wiped off the face of the Earth not the Iranians.

Perhaps if they stopped launching hundreds of rockets at Israeli civilians they'd have less to worry over.  As things are right now, they deserve what's coming.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil
1 hour ago, Farmer77 said:

I wonder if Bolton would be so enthusiastic about going to war with Iran if they told him you're in the front line when we attack?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
Just now, Black Red Devil said:

I wonder if Bolton would be so enthusiastic about going to war with Iran if they told him you're in the front line when we attack?

As someone who has two draft age kids (well 1 and 1 soon to be) I was just wondering much the same.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil

So this is Pompeo's excuse for an attack.

'It is absolutely the case that we have seen escalatory actions from the Iranians, and it is equally the case that we will hold the Iranians accountable for attacks on American interests.'

I suppose us plebs aren't privy to know what attacks on American interests he's talking about but it could be several things such as, selling oil with other currencies than the dollar, selling oil that harms Saudi (and US) interests, sending troops to their allies in Syria, guarding their territorial waters from US navy ships passing through a Gulf that's on the other side of the world from them and close to Iranian territory. 

Yep they're definitely attacking American interests (especially the interests of those wearing a Republican hat).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil
13 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

As someone who has two draft age kids (well 1 and 1 soon to be) I was just wondering much the same.

Sad that young kids have to fight wars old f..t hypocrites have created.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
43 minutes ago, Black Red Devil said:

So this is Pompeo's excuse for an attack.

'It is absolutely the case that we have seen escalatory actions from the Iranians, and it is equally the case that we will hold the Iranians accountable for attacks on American interests.'

I suppose us plebs aren't privy to know what attacks on American interests he's talking about but it could be several things such as, selling oil with other currencies than the dollar, selling oil that harms Saudi (and US) interests, sending troops to their allies in Syria, guarding their territorial waters from US navy ships passing through a Gulf that's on the other side of the world from them and close to Iranian territory. 

Yep they're definitely attacking American interests (especially the interests of those wearing a Republican hat).

I imagine it is the possible threat of them shutting off oil shipments going through the Suez in response to the escalating sanctions.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Minimalists

I say pull every US Unit and troops out of the ME and let them kill each other.....

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
2 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

sending troops to their allies in Syria

That action may have been their prerogative while Assad was in jeopardy but that war is ovah.  What's happening now is the buildup of about 40K Shia militia with IRGC trainers and combat equipment all destined to become another Hizballah type proxy army on Israel's Golan border.  I realize that doesn't matter to you but it probably should.  The Hamas is the least prepared for war with Israel and over the last 3 days, they've fired 700 projectiles and killed 4 Israelis while wounding dozens.  Iran's goal is obvious.  They are literally tightening a noose around Israeli territory so that they can rain thousands of rockets/missiles on civilian and military infrastructure.  The Hezzies have over 200K rockets today and they are converting thousands into precision-guided munitions.  Israel has been regularly attacking and destroying munitions dumps and taking out senior leaders to keep them off balance.  Should Iran decide to launch a combined attack by all their proxies, southern Lebanon, Southern Syria and most of Gaza is going to become a moonscape.  Israel will suffer hundreds of dead. If WMD is used that number could reach the thousands.  Anyone who actually believes that Israel won't go absolutely Roman on her enemies under such circumstances is just in denial.  The casualties in the region could reach hundreds of thousands depending on how long the war lasts.  Is it really worth that much death just to try to remove the Jews from Palestine?  A lot of people there seem to feel that it is.  

 

3 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

guarding their territorial waters from US navy ships passing through a Gulf that's on the other side of the world from them and close to Iranian territory. 

The Straits of Hormuz are international waterways that facilitate the movement of a vast fraction of the daily energy needs of the west.  Would you have a situation where an Ayatollah could simply decree a stop to that flow?  What about freedom of passage for all nations?  These are fundamental rights that the international community hashed out long ago.  America's navy goes anywhere on the planet's oceans and seas where our national interests reside.  WE decide what those interests are.  As for Iran "guarding" their territorial waters, the last time the U.S. Navy killed Iranian sailors or destroyed their vessels was during the Reagan administration IIRC.  It is Iran that is acting belligerently. 

 I sincerely hope that we don't get embroiled in a war with Iran but if it comes they will pay a FAR higher price than will we.  They will lose their Naval assets, airpower - such as it is - and they'll have their nuclear infrastructure degraded to the point of needing to start over from scratch.  I expect we will lose military personnel, possibly some ships and we'd have terror cells activated in some of our cities.  It would be ugly but it would serve to anger this country in ways that haven't happened for 70 years.  Those who support these "righteous" Holy men should stop kidding themselves that it's okay simply because it causes a headache for America.  Venting a petty spleen can cost other western nations more than they can afford to lose.  America is self-sufficient in energy.  If every drop of petroleum from the M.E. stopped flowing tomorrow we'd shift gears, increase production and overcome the liabilities that were created.  Japan, the UK, OZ, among many others, wouldn't fare so well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
2 hours ago, Alien Origins said:

I say pull every US Unit and troops out of the ME and let them kill each other.....

And when Israel has its back to the sea and multiple Muslim nations are forming a coalition to destroy them off the land?  Then what?  How do you think that scenario would play out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
4 hours ago, Alien Origins said:

I say pull every US Unit and troops out of the ME and let them kill each other.....

In many ways, I would be all for this but something like this has a habit of spilling over elsewhere.  With Israel's back to the sea, they would fight like a mother and lay waste to everything thrown at her.  Then Iran would have to launch what they had.  Israel would in turn remove Iran from the map but then that could trigger an exchange between Pakistan and India, then Russia and China would escalate it, then we would have to respond.  In the end, it might save lives if we have an overwhelming presence in the region so the dominoes don't fall.  As it turns out as being the world's superpower, we do have an obligation to maintain the peace.  We can't let China pull ahead.  If we do, the relative peace will begin to wane like we saw in the Cold War.  Do we want to go down that path again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

I'm confused. 

The US navy 6th fleet has a permanent presence in the Mediterranean, including a Carrier. (the USS Lincoln)

The US navy 5th fleet has a permanent presence in the Arabian Sea (and the Persian gulf), including a carrier. (the John C Stennis)

Umm.. what has actually changed ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Minimalists
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, and then said:

And when Israel has its back to the sea and multiple Muslim nations are forming a coalition to destroy them off the land?  Then what?  How do you think that scenario would play out?

I am all for supporting Israel and it has nothing to do with this Bible crap either.

Edited by Alien Origins
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Minimalists
45 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

In many ways, I would be all for this but something like this has a habit of spilling over elsewhere.  With Israel's back to the sea, they would fight like a mother and lay waste to everything thrown at her.  Then Iran would have to launch what they had.  Israel would in turn remove Iran from the map but then that could trigger an exchange between Pakistan and India, then Russia and China would escalate it, then we would have to respond.  In the end, it might save lives if we have an overwhelming presence in the region so the dominoes don't fall.  As it turns out as being the world's superpower, we do have an obligation to maintain the peace.  We can't let China pull ahead.  If we do, the relative peace will begin to wane like we saw in the Cold War.  Do we want to go down that path again?

Quote

As it turns out as being the world's superpower, we do have an obligation to maintain the peace.

Thats the problem with the US now...We are too busy nosing around in everyone's else's business instead of minding our own....And you speak of peace...There will never be peace in the ME. They do not know how to exist with one another except for slinging bullets. That has been going on for over 4000 years and nothing has changed and there is not any reason to believe it will change in the next 4000 years.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
3 minutes ago, Alien Origins said:

Thats the problem with the US now...We are too busy nosing around in everyone's else's business instead of minding our own....

I agree but because of the role we have, whether we like it or not, if we’re not meddling in someone else’s business, then we threaten another arms race of the late 18th, early 19th Century or worse.  If England and France were not so timid in 1938, WWII would not have occurred and then no Cold War.  If Carter had supported the Shah, we wouldn’t be dealing with Iraq and Iran today.  If you mind your own business, you could end up cutting your own throat.  It will definitely be more costly down the road.  mankind needs to be our business.

 

And you speak of peace...There will never be peace in the ME. They do not know how to exist with one another except for slinging bullets. That has been going on for over 4000 years and nothing has changed and there is not any reason to believe it will change in the next 4000 years.

I said relative peace.  We will never have a period completely void of conflict.  For all practical purposes, there hasn’t been a day somewhere on the planet that has been conflict free over that 4000 years.  And it’s just not “them”.  What is needed is periodic military excursions in overwhelming force exploding in great violence to release the pressure so that it doesn’t boil over.  We have the hardware, we have the technology, we have the manpower, we have the leadership, we have the training, and we have the logistics, but we lack the will.  And that is dangerous.  If we are not willing to take on that role, then we need to relinquish it to somebody else and literally stay out of it all.  But if we do that, then whoever takes over that position will be noising around in our business and we won’t be able to do a thing about it.  The two leading candidates are China and Islam.  You can choose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
acidhead
10 hours ago, and then said:

Perhaps if they stopped launching hundreds of rockets at Israeli civilians they'd have less to worry over.  As things are right now, they deserve what's coming.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil
7 hours ago, and then said:

That action may have been their prerogative while Assad was in jeopardy but that war is ovah.  What's happening now is the buildup of about 40K Shia militia with IRGC trainers and combat equipment all destined to become another Hizballah type proxy army on Israel's Golan border.  I realize that doesn't matter to you but it probably should.  The Hamas is the least prepared for war with Israel and over the last 3 days, they've fired 700 projectiles and killed 4 Israelis while wounding dozens.  Iran's goal is obvious.  They are literally tightening a noose around Israeli territory so that they can rain thousands of rockets/missiles on civilian and military infrastructure.  The Hezzies have over 200K rockets today and they are converting thousands into precision-guided munitions.  Israel has been regularly attacking and destroying munitions dumps and taking out senior leaders to keep them off balance.  Should Iran decide to launch a combined attack by all their proxies, southern Lebanon, Southern Syria and most of Gaza is going to become a moonscape.  Israel will suffer hundreds of dead. If WMD is used that number could reach the thousands.  Anyone who actually believes that Israel won't go absolutely Roman on her enemies under such circumstances is just in denial.  The casualties in the region could reach hundreds of thousands depending on how long the war lasts.  Is it really worth that much death just to try to remove the Jews from Palestine?  A lot of people there seem to feel that it is.  

 

 

So what if the war is (almost) over.  The US has military all over the world, is that a problem?   Accordingly Syria is Iran's ally and Assad is in charge of most of his country again and can have as allies who he wishes.  The problem with American foreign policy is they believe there is one rule for them and one rule for the rest.  The Roman had the power to militarily conquer most of the known world by force at the time because they were more modern and powerful.  The US is probably in a similar situation but, 2000 years of evolution has passed and we don't fight with swords anymore. 

The problem with American politics is there are too many right wing Republicans that inhabit Congress.  This species of politician is usually the warmongering type that has Conservative views such as American land is sacred (rightfully so) and the rest of the world is their background.

You complain about Hezbollah with their 220k rocket but the only ones doing the bombing are the Israeli's, (in foreign territory)! Oh that's right preemptive tactics which Israel is a specialist of.  Usually it helps them Zionists gain extra territory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, and then said:

The Straits of Hormuz are international waterways that facilitate the movement of a vast fraction of the daily energy needs of the west.  Would you have a situation where an Ayatollah could simply decree a stop to that flow?  What about freedom of passage for all nations?  These are fundamental rights that the international community hashed out long ago.  America's navy goes anywhere on the planet's oceans and seas where our national interests reside.  WE decide what those interests are.  As for Iran "guarding" their territorial waters, the last time the U.S. Navy killed Iranian sailors or destroyed their vessels was during the Reagan administration IIRC.  It is Iran that is acting belligerently. 

 I sincerely hope that we don't get embroiled in a war with Iran but if it comes they will pay a FAR higher price than will we.  They will lose their Naval assets, airpower - such as it is - and they'll have their nuclear infrastructure degraded to the point of needing to start over from scratch.  I expect we will lose military personnel, possibly some ships and we'd have terror cells activated in some of our cities.  It would be ugly but it would serve to anger this country in ways that haven't happened for 70 years.  Those who support these "righteous" Holy men should stop kidding themselves that it's okay simply because it causes a headache for America.  Venting a petty spleen can cost other western nations more than they can afford to lose.  America is self-sufficient in energy.  If every drop of petroleum from the M.E. stopped flowing tomorrow we'd shift gears, increase production and overcome the liabilities that were created.  Japan, the UK, OZ, among many others, wouldn't fare so well.

These are the straights and the top part is Iran.  That's how tight it is.  American ships with nuclear warheads pass by constantly while Iran is sanctioned because of suspicion they were building nukes, yet the US allowed Israel to build them and you can be sure they have them pointed at Iran.  But that's right, Iran are the belligerent ones for not bowing their heads to right wing American imperialism and their sidekick local resident Israel.

image.png.e7eda7534614ef8604a34bdeb5a168f6.png

American foreign policy is a plague to this world and your Congress still believes they're living the cold war. 

Edited by Black Red Devil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.