• Econophile
    09/08/2010 - 23:15
    The President's economic team doesn't seem to know how to fix the economy. Here are some immediate things he can do to turn it around, quickly. But he has to ignore his advisers.
  • Bruce Krasting
    09/08/2010 - 20:57
    This story won't quit.
  • asiablues
    09/08/2010 - 20:05
    Hewlett-Packard Co. slapped Mark Hurd, the CEO it ousted last month, with a law suit soon after rival Oracle Corp. named Hurd as Co-president and Director. HP claims that Hurd cannot perform his job at Oracle without violating a confidentiality agreement.

Parsing Recent Carrier Strike Group Movements

Marla Singer's picture




As with any Nimitz class carrier, the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) doesn't deploy alone.  Instead she sails with a number of other support vessels composing a "Carrier Strike Group."  Within the Eisenhower's traditional strike group (Carrier Strike Group Eight) are:

Command Destroyer Squadron Two Eight, composed of 8300 ton Arleigh Burke class guided missile destroyers focused on antiair, antisubmarine, antisurface, and strike operations using the AN/SPY-1D Phased Array Radar, an AEGIS upgrade, and the best-in-class AN/SQQ-89 integrated ASW Suite.  Originally designed to deal with former Soviet air threats (like Iran's Su-25, MiG-29A (Fulcrum) and MiG-29UB aircraft?):

The USS Bainbridge (DDG 96)
The USS Barry (DDG 52)
The USS Laboon (DDG 58)
The USS Mitscher (DDG 57)
The USS Ramage (DDG 61)

Along with:
Arleigh Burke class guided missile destroyers:

The USS Carney (DDG 64)
The USS McFaul (DDG 74)
The USS Farragut (DDG 99)

...and 9600 ton Ticonderoga class guided missile cruisers:

The USS Hue City (CG 66)
The USS Anzio (CG 68)
The USS Vicksburg (CG 69)

Generally, Carrier Strike Groups are also escorted by two or three attack submarines as well.  Those aren't talked about much.

Carrier Strike Group Ten, built around the USS Harry S. Truman, is composed of a substantially similar group.  It will, however, replace Command Destroyer Squadron Two Eight with Command Destroyer Squadron Two Six:

USS Hawes (FFG 53)
USS James E. Williams (DDG 95)
USS Kaufman (FFG 59)
USS Ross (DDG 71)
USS Oscar Austin (DDG 79)
USS Winston S. Churchill (DDG 81)
USS Elrod (FFG 55)

The presence of three Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates (FFG 53, FFG 59, FFG 55) is interesting.  Zero Hedge readers may remember the Oliver Hazard Perry class by its most famous member, the USS Stark (FFG 31) which was struck by not one but two Exocet anti-ship missiles launched from an Iraqi plane in 1987 and somehow managed to limp to Bahrain and was eventually repaired and returned to service.  Less famous, but more dramatic, the USS Samuel B. Roberts struck an Iranian mine, which blew a 6 meter hole in the vessel, flooded the engine room, and actually broke the keel.  For the unwashed, the end of the keel is typically the end of a warship.  Despite this, the Samuel B. Roberts was not only salvaged, but repaired and returned to action.

 

The USS Stark (FFG 31) lists to port after being
struck by Iraqi Exocet missiles in 1987

For comparison, the only real action the Arleigh Burke class has seen is via the USS Cole (DDG 67) which was attacked while in port by suicide bombers.

Though the Eisenhower and Carrier Strike Group Eight are due to rotate out of the area after a six month deployment in July, two things are interesting with respect to this rotation.

Firstly, the arrival of Carrier Strike Group Ten with the Harry S. Truman puts two anti-air and anti-cruise missile groups in the U.S. Fifth Fleet AOR ("Area of Responsibility," Persian Gulf, Red Sea, Arabian Sea and East African Coast) at the same time.  Also, this is the first time the Harry S. Truman has been in the Fifth Fleet AOR.  (The Eisenhower relieved the USS Nimitz, which is now sitting patiently in San Diego, back in January).

Sailors aboard the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) render honors
to the USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75) (Arabian Sea, June 26, 2010)

Second, the outgoing Carrier Strike Group Eight is commanded by Rear Admiral Phillip S. Davidson.  Of course, one does not manage to command a Carrier Strike Group without active and combat deployment, but Davidson's background is far more weighted to strategy and policy accomplishments.  To wit:

Adm. Davidson’s initial sea service assignments were in frigates and destroyers in both the Atlantic and Pacific Fleets and he has made deployments to the Persian Gulf, Western Pacific, Mediterranean, Indian Ocean, Red Sea, Eastern Pacific and Baltic Sea areas of operation.  He was also the Commanding Officer in two warships, commanding USS  Taylor (FFG 50) from August 1998 to June 2000 and USS  Gettysburg (CG 64) from October 2004 to June 2006. He deployed and earned Battle Efficiency “E” awards in both of those ships.

Ashore, he has served in a variety of operations, planning and policy billets on the U.S. Pacific Fleet staff, the Navy staff and the Joint Staff; as the Navy’s Military Aide to the Vice President of the United States; and as a Special Assistant to the Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet, the Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Pacific Command, and later, to the Chief of Naval Operations.  He was the Deputy Director for Strategy and Policy in the Joint Staff/J-5 in his first flag officer assignment.  
Rear Admiral Davidson is a distinguished graduate of the U.S. Naval War College. His decorations include the Defense Superior Service Medal, the Legion of Merit, the Meritorious Service Medal, the Navy Commendation Medal with Combat “V” and other personal, unit and campaign awards. He has a Master of Arts in National Security and Strategic Studies and is a Joint Specialty Officer.1

His replacement, Rear Admiral Patrick Driscoll, Commander of Carrier Strike Group Ten, has enjoyed a career with a decidedly different focus, specifically: A combat hardened strike fighter pilot and commander with significant experience in the Iraq-Iran theater. Notice:

Driscoll's initial fleet assignment was with the 1983 Battle "E" winning VS-32 “Maulers," where he completed two Indian Ocean deployments and was selected as the Atlantic Fleet Sea Strike Pilot of the Year. Following transition training in the A-7E CORSAIR II, Driscoll deployed with the VA-105 "Gunslingers" to the Mediterranean Sea and Indian Ocean, which included participation in tanker escort operations during Operation Earnest Will.

His next sea assignment was with the "Clansmen" of VA-46, where he deployed aboard the USS John F. Kennedy (CV 67) to the Red Sea in support of Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Driscoll then attended the Naval War College, with a follow-on joint assignment with the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency in July of 1993.

In 1996, Driscoll reported once again to the "Gunslingers" of VFA-105 deploying aboard USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71) and participated in Operation Deliberate Guard over Bosnia and Operation Southern Watch in Iraq. Driscoll's next assignment was the commanding officer and flight leader of the Navy Flight Demonstration Squadron (The Blue Angels) for the 1999 and 2000 show seasons.

In April of 2001, Driscoll reported to Carrier Air Wing 5 based in Atsugi, Japan. During Operation Enduring Freedom, he led the TACAIR strike element aboard the USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63), which served as an Afloat Forward Staging Base during combat operations in Afghanistan. He deployed again in 2003 and led his air wing in combat during Operation Iraqi Freedom.  In 2008 he served in Baghdad, Iraq as Director of Communication and spokesman for Multi-National Force-Iraq (MNF-I).  He is currently serving as Commander, Carrier Strike Group TEN.

 

Driscoll’s staff assignments include: Deputy Director, Deep Blue; EA to the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Information, Plans and Strategy; EA to the Vice Chief of Naval Operations and the Chairman’s Joint Strategic Working Group.

 

Personal awards include the Legion of Merit with two gold stars, the Distinguished Flying Cross with Combat V, three Bronze Stars, and the Defense Meritorious Service Medal. He is a distinguished graduate of the Naval War College and holds a Masters degree in National Security and Strategic Studies.2

Driscoll relieved Rear Admiral Mark Fox in May of last year.

Even in the event Carrier Strike Group Eight rotates out immediately, in Carrier Strike Group Ten the Arabian Sea has a group of vessels battle proven in this theater and against a similar foe commanded by an experienced air combat officer and filled with freshly deployed fighting men and women.

New moon on July 12th.

Hmmmmm.

  1. 1. U.S. Navy Biography of Rear Admiral Phillip S. Davidson.
  2. 2. U.S. Navy Biography of Rear Admiral Patrick Driscoll.
4.81818
Your rating: None Average: 4.8 (22 votes)



by Adam Neira
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 20:11
#437468

Prayers and blessings for all the good men and women serving in the US Navy !

by Cheeky Bastard
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 20:15
#437476

Isn't that just a coincidence of a great magnitude; Dreizn and Neira show up on the same day Israel comes back into international focus. Nice to see you boys today; I know you couldn't make it yesterday; I mean with all the chores at the Temple and that whole Sabbath thing. 

by desgust
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 20:40
#437536

Prayers and blessings killers get killed!  WorldTerrorists!

by barkingbill
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 01:12
#437876

we are the terrorists. 

by scratch_and_sniff
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 17:47
#437993

Prayers and blessings to the navy??????

Prayers and blessings to all the innocent Iranian men, women and children about to be slaughtered for nothing...you f**ing stupid halfwit troll.

 

Hmm, yes. You got me.

by RichardP
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 21:33
#440408

Why would women and children be at uranium enrichment plants?

 

by Pamela Anderson
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 20:51
#437552

Let's make love not war!

by jomama
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 00:05
#437807

isn't it past your bedtime

by Breaker
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 01:23
#437890

But, from the same era, "fighting for peace is like f**king for chastity."

by Breaker
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 01:25
#437892

Or two other chestnuts: "What if they gave a war and nobody came." Wow, that's deep. And, "War never solved anything."

by Missing_Link
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 22:48
#437700

I'll second that, Adam!  Thanks to all our servicemen and women of the US Navy.

by Careless Whisper
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 23:28
#437757

that's right. show respect. it's gay pride weekend dammit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InBXu-iY7cw

 

by Zina
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 06:47
#438071

Y-M-C-A !!

by quintago
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 00:37
#437842

this is pretty straight-forward. it becomes pretty difficult to attack a nuclear reactor once its up and running. Bushehr is slated - after many delays - to get up and going in August. The strike will happen before then.

Iran has cancelled its flotilla because it doesn't want it used as a declaration of war, and in-turn a reason for a strike.

 

by Rusty Shorts
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 00:51
#437854

@ Adam N.

 - what about our neighbors ??

>>>caution<<< 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Un7KRYq9bqw

by barkingbill
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 01:11
#437875

right. the good ones. and the iranians are the bad ones. just like cowboys and indians. god this country is screwed on intellect. 

by TwoShortPlanks
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 01:42
#437907

Cheap money = cheap minds

by AssFire
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 02:25
#437927

This is what is coming... McCrystal's removal was much more about giving Petreaus the total command (in much the same way as Patton was discredited, but very much involved in subsequent operations during WWII). Petreaus is positioned on both sides now; with Iran squarely in the cross hairs. We pulled our missels out of eastern Europe in ... See Moreexchange for the codes to the SAM batteries about a year ago (same thing occurred years ago in Syria years ago when the Israeils attacked their SAM's withot losing 1 plane) . The carrier group is in position, the Black Swan event can only be weeks away.
We must go to war to repay the financial groups and reduce the ownership of properties (bankruptcies and foreclosures) so that these financial owners have their buying spree of fire sale assets that become available in desperate times.
They produced this financial crisis just to ramp up the taxes, not for the Wall Street- but now soon for "America's battle against Evil"- all the while positioning themselves on both sides of Iran. The death tax will be re-instated and made retroactive to cover this past year and the taxes will go through the roof for all us "patriots" to pay in the midst of this "Life or Death" BS war. I have not connected all the dots, but I know it is coming soon. The black swan event will be as "believable" as the the 911 BS attacks, but sadly the general populace will be equally as motivated to sign up to fight the good fight (just as they did after the "surprise" attack on Pear Harbor). It makes me sick that without continued economic growth this is the only alternative, but this what is really going on and what will come to pass.
I am glad I only have daughters- this is pathetic.

by cossack55
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 03:24
#437949

Since I am not a patriot (see Dr. Samuel Johnson) does that mean I don't have to pay taxes like 40% of my fellow slaves?

by Cheeky Bastard
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 20:12
#437471

Welcome back Madame Singer.

by ISEEIT
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 20:23
#437499

Marla is beautiful. I've missed her. I understand I'm sounding like a suck-up, but I seriously adore the mind and spirit that she proffers. I need someone to admire and she works.

by Cheeky Bastard
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 20:25
#437506

AFAIK; she hates compliments; if you want to draw her attention; try insulting her/her article[s]. 

But yes; I wholeheartedly agree with you; Marla is awesome.

by critical tinkerer
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 23:13
#437737

Hi Cheeky, Croatian guy here.

Marla is paranoid with a touch of shizo. In short, just a GOP troll with assignment to induce fear and support to US hegemony and end of the world thoughts. End of the world thoughts radicalizes population into more radical actions.

 

P.S. Cheeky, this wasn't attempt to get her attention, just trying to be objective and coolheaded. Tvoj Joker je isto u sluzbi straha. 

by PeterB
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 23:47
#437782

Zivila Hrvatska

by Cheeky Bastard
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 00:14
#437815

Wait, wait wait. You are being speculative here on both counts [Marla being no.1, my avatar being no.2]. But speculation is the new "killin it" so go right ahead. She is just reporting the facts here; or do you want to tell me that she made up all the data in this article just to prolong anxiety in the people who read it; and to further the message of American supremacy. Nigga; PUH-LEEZE.

As for my avatar; I believe I might have been among the first 10 people on the planet who actually used it before Glenn Beck and The Tea Party attached meaning to this image and made it "mainstream". My avatar is meaningless, its interpretative; its sort of a Rorschach test which facilitates me in finding who believes in what [based on their reactions to it]. 

And what fear could my avatar possibly insert into anyone who has an IQ above 11 and a vague understanding of political pop-culture.

 

by Bolweevil
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 01:00
#437863

Bring back Chabal!

by Cheeky Bastard
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 01:08
#437872

Jesus Christ; I cant believe you remember that one. LOL; excellent memory Sir; outstanding.

 

by velobabe
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 12:41
#439171

Your a Joker (as in the card your holding)

is also a job in fear

live on Coratia

don't bring back Chabal†

my guy was the fast wing & cute.

by Marla Singer
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 05:12
#437987

What exactly makes you think I have any affinity at all for the GOP? Actually, I despise that party. The "touch of shizo" comment (I assume you meant "schizo" and not the marathon runner) is, however, right on the money.
by Gully Foyle
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 20:14
#437475

My fucking god, I hope they get on with ending the world. This slow cocktease is killing me.

by Psquared
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 21:01
#437574

Excuse me, but the world will end when God is ready and not by the hand of man.

by tip e. canoe
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 22:14
#437656

there's a difference?

by tip e. canoe
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 22:13
#437655

more like strokin with novocaine : keepin it hard with no pleasure

so boring

by TwoShortPlanks
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 01:45
#437909

LOL, very LOL

by GoldmanSux
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 20:15
#437477

Ha! A spirited discussion/screaming match to ensue. Gettin' the popcorn.

by cossack55
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 20:18
#437485

Marla,

Any information on the depolyment of USMC Heavy Cavalry or Hussars aboard any of the ships?  A dead giveaway of intent.

by Ragnarok
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 21:00
#437556

IF this were the prelude to a war with Iran what is the end game politically in Iran?  Would there even be a ground invasion, boots on the ground? Or, would you spend a decade surrounding the thing and hoping an aggressive air campaign directed at the Mullahs and the revolutionary guard would give any internal opposition to the theocracy (with lots of outside aid) an opportunity to strike?  Perhaps the west has already chosen a general with sympathetic views of the west to come to power and have a more organic (sorry for the word choice) transition.  You don't have to nation build if you don't blow up the nation and kill all the bureaucrats (Ba'ath Party in Iraq).

 

But what do I know...

by Budd Fox
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 22:19
#437660

Mate, Hussars are a British Regiment. Heavy Cavalry is not deployed with the Navy...Armor ( if it is what you mean...) goes around on Ro-Ro ships that need ports to disembark it. 

If you want to land on a beach, you have Marines deployed, and they go around in the Gator navy, all that flattop ships with an LHA or LHD in front. Each of them carries a MAU, Marine Amphibious Unit...that is barely enough to establish a beachhead.

Sleep serene...the big Ro-Ro ships need pre-deployment, you do not transport Armored Brigades anywhere fast...

 

by Wernerempire
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 03:15
#437947

Me thinks, "we" occupy countries to the West and East, and deploy from staging areas to the land of arians North, don't "we"? Why bother with amphibian assault, then?

by cossack55
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 04:02
#437956

Joe, Hussars date back in a military sense to Hungarian Light Cavalry in 1532.  Most if not all Euro nations used the term since then.  Now mainly ceremonial units except as you point out the tradition of keeping unit names and distinctions in the GB units.

Actually I was referring to Marla's quite correct asessment on Turkish cavalry being on one of the Gaza ships in post from a few weeks ago.  Just the presence of those grand beasts of war on board led to deaths.

by Eally Ucked
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 01:17
#437885

They all are equipped only with paint-ball guns, don't worry too much. OK?

by New_Meat
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 06:39
#438065

Cossack--no gators in the OB, just gray shooters. - Ned

by bugs_
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 20:18
#437486

The USS Barry.

7/11

by Mr pain
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 20:22
#437494

When 4 more carrier groups show up take notice.   Nothing to see here yet.

by Marla Singer
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 20:29
#437518

Not sure I agree. No need for 5 carrier groups if you are supporting an Israeli air attack, given that no land deployment is likely to follow.

by Mr pain
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 20:42
#437539

I seriously doubt that Israel can effectively hit these targets.   Israeli capabilities have been vastly overstated and they have lived off their reputation of the past.  The only multiple kills of the 1st gulf war was by a Saudi pilot in an F15.  The only thing that might lead me to think this could happen is that Israel had a falling out with Turkey.  This may have been planned to shield the Turks from the fallout of an Israeli attack. 

For the US the only attack which makes sense is a regime change.  Tweaking while we have troops in harm’s way in Iraq and Afghanistan doesn’t make much sense to me.  They would pay the price I fear.    There was a joke going around that the Iranians would use after the Iraq invasion.  They would go up to an American and ask why the US invaded Iraq.  The American would fumble around and give an answer then the Iranian would stop them and say, no, why didn’t you invade Iran. 

Iran would have been a much better target than Iraq.   They have a more or less homogeneous society which would lead more to a Japan/Germany occupation rather than a Yugoslavian type civil war we faced in Iraq.   I’m not advocating anything here; it’s just if you are going to take down a government you need to think of what comes next.  If you’re not going to take them down you need to think of what they can and will do to retaliate.

by Mitchman
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 20:57
#437561

I agree with the point that Israeli capabilities are overstated.  Their military used to have a great reputation but if you look at their last two serious turns at the plate, the war in Lebanon and the boarding of the "relief mission" ships, both missions were horribly botched.  If I were Netanyahu or even Obama with the whole ballgame riding on this mission, would I turn the ball over to the Israeli military this one time?  Why would I trust them to perform against a target thats a thousand times more difficult than anything they've ever been up against?

by Mr pain
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 20:59
#437568

Yea it’s not 1 target its multiple ones, some heavily defended, some buried deeply and some right next to civilian areas.  This is not the raid on the Iraqi reactor in 1981.  The US can pull this off, I seriously doubt Israel has a real chance at it.   

by Missing_Link
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 22:49
#437703

What makes you guys so sure you have any idea what Israeli capabilities actually are?

The Israeli military can keep its secrets.  This is poker.  You don't show your hand until you play it.

by pan-the-ist
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 23:03
#437720

Blah Blah Blah.  Are you trying to pump up the price of oil with your non-sense or are you trying to beat your chest?

by downwiththebanks
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 01:13
#437877

Hizbullah cracked their code in about 2 seconds.  The 'Whites Only' army of Apartheid Israel ain't as adept as you make it seem.

That's why they couldn't defeat Hamas, and organization THEY started!

by tetrahedron
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 03:39
#437951

Long live the glorious conqueors of Hezbollah! (now sitting amongst the ruins of Lebanon).

by downwiththebanks
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 06:54
#438079

Hey - when Apartheid Israel commits itself to killing a bunch of babies, few can stop them (especially when they receive so much welfare from Uncle Sam).

But when it comes to defeating another military force, they're impotent.

by dark pools of soros
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 07:27
#438124

Isreal the bully, sure..  Isreal in a real war?  no fucking chance

by WaterWings
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 11:16
#438860

You kidding? Israel has the largest military presence on the planet! They have 700+ bases of substantial size throughout the world. They have B-2 bombers, SEAL snipers, and aircraft carriers! All they had to do was get their people in top levels of the USA management. Done deal. 

"We have a right to exist!"

"Never again!"

by albion hamlin
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 21:46
#437624

Here is the US military option that works. http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/getting-serious-about-iran--a-military-option-10135

It does not require much of a land deployment - it's all Special Ops and Marines. It would cripple the Mullahs in days, and bring regime change in weeks. It would also upset the region and spike oil through the roof for a few months - but it would not lead to a regional conflict (other than Hamas and Hezbollah attacking Israel, which I am sure they are prepared for and would deal with if it meant the end of the Iranian regime, and therefore Hamas and Hezbollah within a year or so). The Strike Groups on station are easily enough to handle this scenario. The only issue is whether The One would order it - which I find impossible to believe. But he should....

by Mr pain
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 22:22
#437663

This reminds me of how sure the Bush Whitehouse was that they could take Iraq with only 50,000 troops.  The grudgingly tripled that after the Army said they needed 400 – 500k.  Yes Iran’s economic weakness is gas supplies but people vastly overestimate enthusiastic students vs. paid Hezbollah hit men in the Basij.   The Ayatollahs aren’t going down without boot on the ground.  My estimate is they would go down fast but it’s not happening without a US drive to Tehran.  

by taraxias
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 07:05
#438094

You left out the part where they welcome us with rose pedals.

 

by downwiththebanks
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 07:39
#438141

. . .  and sweets.

by spinone
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 20:26
#437507

Too bad we had to disturb the balance of power in the middle east by attacking Iraq. I guess Saddam Hussein had it coming, after knocking down the WTC.

And Afganistan had it coming after the CIA trained and equipped Mujahadin freedom fighters, I mean the Taliban Islam extremists, knocked down the WTC.

Now that Iran is bracketed by two countries that we invaded and occupy, how dare they try to develop 55 year old weapon technology to defend themselves, I mean wipe Israel off the map.

by knukles
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 21:31
#437612

"I guess Saddam Hussein had it coming, after knocking down the WTC."

What?  Nobody ever seriously claimed that Saddam was responsible for the WTC.  T'was supposedly Al-Queda and Osama (not Taliban, either) out of Afghanistan.    

by spinone
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 22:05
#437644

whoa - 7 junks?  IT'S SARCASM

by MurderNeverWasLove
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 23:24
#440607

You had me LMAO, I mean thinking about junking.

by Carl Marks
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 20:28
#437510

Annihilate them all.

by RockyRacoon
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 21:36
#437617

The carrier strike groups?  Why would we want to do that? </insipid humor>

by downwiththebanks
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 01:14
#437880

Isn't that Ron Paul's solution?

by RockyRacoon
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 11:22
#438880

Yep.  I think he would have the groups that we did not mothball just patrolling off the coasts of the U. S..   What a weird idea.

by Mercury
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 21:17
#437514

Well I guess this is a legit display of ready and able force. It's just hard to believe Obama would be willing to initiate the kinds of military hostilities (Congress stopped declaring wars a long time ago) that seem to be jumping to everyone's mind.

Is he hoping to stage a deck-of-the-Missouri type signing of some big deal treaty while holding a big stick? Is he planing on defending Iran (or Turkey) from Israel?  Maybe stage a pre-emptive, amphibious surrender live on TV?

Kabul is about as close to those boats as Tehran, maybe this is an Afghanistan operation.  Ending a war would probably do more for flagging approval ratings than starting another one right now. Those troops mostly flew in, they'll have to fly out (under protection) too.

Really though, for a commander-in-chief who just did away with the long standing American doctrine of nuclear strategic ambiguity this move is hard to fathom.

by RichardP
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 21:49
#440439

They are on "training exercise" right now.  If they stay, they are there to keep the gulf open to shipping should Iran try to close it.

 

by MountainHawk
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 20:30
#437516

Looks like it might be time to go long on USO

by Cheeky Bastard
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 20:30
#437519


World leaders "believe absolutely" that Israel may decide to take military action against Iran to prevent the latter from acquiring nuclear weapons, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi said Saturday.

“Iran is not guaranteeing a peaceful production of nuclear power [so] the members of the G-8 are worried and believe absolutely that Israel will probably react preemptively,” Berlusconi told reporters following talks with other Group of Eight leaders north of Toronto.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/g-8-fully-believes-israel-will-attack-iran-says-italy-pm-1.298597

by ozziindaus
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 20:49
#437548

"Our goal is to persuade Iran's leaders to engage in a transparent dialogue about its nuclear activities and to meet Iran's international obligations,"

Next time the anyone has their door kicked in at 3 in the morning and humiliated in front of their family, just take it that you were non transparent and compliant to state an federal law. God help you if they find any cigarette butts. 

by tip e. canoe
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 22:16
#437658

forza italia lost...get over it silvio...world champions no mas

by NotAlwaysSo
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 22:39
#437687

So maybe we'll see an Israeli commando directed airstrike package, with the U.S. there to keep things flowing through Hormuz should Iran do the missile/fast attack boat thing. Obama can say 'It's Israel's gig', and provide security without commitment to war. If Iran then bites, we have a 'justifiable' way to escalate. Better keep our eyes on the 'terrorism triangle' in S.America after that.

by Hephasteus
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 00:15
#437817

Bullcrap. Iran has the most awesome centrifuges the world has ever seen. They want the technology. They'll let a 100,000 soldiers die trying to secure their site without blinking. If this technology gets out there is no need for huge inventories of nuclear weapons becasue it's so fast and efficient. And pretty much ends the endless dicking around with does the bombs still work as well as making nuclear fuel production almost trivial which is huge business with our stupid nuclear sub addicted world.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/world/africa/29iht-nukes.1.12423082.ht...

by Biff Malibu
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 20:44
#437542

I don't believe B.O. could pull the trigger on a military strike on Iran of any kind.  I get the feeling it would be some sort of peace-keeping operation ala Bosnia and Somalia that get's horribly botched.  You could load 10 carrier groups over there as a "show of force", but it means nothing if he's not willing to deal with the responsibility of an attack.

btw, I donated 20 bucks today.  Not much I know, but hopefully I can make it a regular contribution.  I don't subscribe to any newspapers or magazines as ZH feeds my need for what's going on so it's well worth it to me. 

I feel like a turd for asking this, but perhaps you could look at making your blog available on Kindle.  Much lesser financial blogs are available on there and it's a shame I can't get you guys on there.  I think the response would be enormous.  Please look into it.  I want all of the founders of ZH to be uber-rich without having to sell their souls to the darkside.

Biff Malibu

 

by Marla Singer
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 20:48
#437546

Amazon takes 70% of the tiny blog subscription fee and Kindle reads circumvent our advertisers. We are unlikely to find that appealing any time soon.
by MayIMommaDogFac...
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 22:58
#437714

I want all of the founders of ZH to be uber-rich without having to sell their souls to the darkside.

I know what you're thinking. 

You're thinking, "Steve, how can *I* be UBER-RICH and NEVER sell my soul to the darkside?"

FIRST: become, uber-rich...

by Immanuel Cunt
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 07:15
#438112

SECOND: buy your soul back.

by lawton
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 20:48
#437545

If Israel doesnt bomb their nuke sites in the next year I would be surprised.

by Ragnarok
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 20:58
#437566

I was suprised 3 years ago when they had GB in the WH and didn't act. 

by RichardP
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 21:57
#440459

There was talk in the news at that time that we would not allow action on Iran until all troops were safely out of Iraq.  (Something about Iran attacking our troops in Iraq if we attacked Iran.)  Since they weren't out by the time of the elections, no Bush attack on Iran.  I think the Bush WH underestimated the length of time it would take to get out of Iraq.

 

by nmewn
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 20:51
#437551

So this is what Barry meant when saying he would meet with My-Mood-I'm-In-A-Jihad "without preconditions" during the campaign.

 

by Crummy
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 20:53
#437554

I believe the it's the USS Elrod, not the "USS Elron". Although, at this point, I wouldn't be surprised to see an Elron Electronic Industries sponsored frigate.

by Marla Singer
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 20:56
#437563

You are correct, of course. My apologies to Commander Christopher Engdahl and his gallant crew. Corrected.
by MayIMommaDogFac...
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 23:00
#437716

U.S.S. L. Ron

by nopat
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 20:54
#437559

Jesus Cristo marla, tell us what you really think!  Your timing is impeccable, though: erotic sweet musings from you, some heavy M&A reading, and Wall Street on heavy FMC rotation is proving a shock-and-awe campaign on my [self-depricatingly] feeble, heathen mind.  I really, really hope Obama's love affair with the Kennedy administration (frequent Marthas Vineyard outtings included) ends at an insatiable thirst for the poon.  The last thing we need is one guy convinced it's fate that he's meant to recreate one of the tensest moments in global diplomacy vis-a-vis the Cuban Missle Crisis wiggling his dick at a Napoleonic meat-puppet who has made it Iranian State agenda to summon Gozer the Gozerian, and with him, the end of the world as we know it.

But what do I know...nopat only pawn in game of life...

by Turd Ferguson
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 21:43
#437569

Marla: That is an amazing and first-rate analysis...the kind of thing that makes ZH so fantastic. Thanks and keep up the good work!

My initial reaction to these developments: I can't believe Obama would ever endorse/support Israeli action. But then I remember, once a president's approval rate slips under 42%, the only way back is through war. Hmmm...

by Wernerempire
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 03:28
#437950

I'm a little surprised here, dear Turd.

I thought you well understood, that "the game" is larger than individual politicians and approval ratings, no?

by Jim in MN
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 21:00
#437571

In order to make a serious attempt at this, there would need to be a number of plans and contingencies, and the logistics to support same, in place at the same time.

To wit:

1.  Hit what can be hit remotely, fast.  That part both the US and Israel are good at.  The carrier groups and the IAF are more than adequate.

2.  Get on the ground and shoot/blast/gas out the underground and hardened portions of the Iranian nuclear infrastructure.  This is very difficult and dangerous.  Again, it would need to be fast; more than 12-24 hours and the tactical advantage would begin to shift to the Iranians, units would get pinned down, prisoners taken etc.  This part is the ultimate gamble, for without it there really isn't any point in attacking Iran (never mind that it's immoral and illegal).  A desperate and daring element of the overall operation.

3. Prepare for blowback.  Again, a very serious and deep set of issues, plans and logistics.  Here it is probably good that Iran has been as aggressive as it has been for the past several years, 'showing their hand' and giving a good read on likely strategic and tactical moves in response to a US-Israeli attack.  But make no mistake, Iran is a large state with a very large sphere of influence.  Blowback will be very costly and even within the parameters established still quite unpredictable. 

New Moon?  Bring it on.  Frankly everyone deserves to be bombed given the past century's travesty of greed, ignorant hatred, and arrogance.  Let's see how it goes down.  Maybe a more just and loving society can emerge from the ashes, this time....

by VK
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 21:09
#437579

All the crap that's going on in the world is a result of one single f***ing dick; quite literally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam

By analyzing the Y chromosome DNA from males in all regions of the world, geneticist Spencer Wells has concluded that all humans alive today are patrilineally descended from a single man who lived in Africa around 60,000 years ago.

by chindit13
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 21:34
#437614

Too bad the drugstore was closed.

by Transor Z
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 22:44
#437697

You mean it wasn't the Battlestar Galactica crew?

by Iam_Silverman
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 22:50
#437705

"a single man who lived in Africa"

Now how could they have possibly known he was single?

 

They didn't find out his name was Adam,did they?

by Transor Z
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 23:06
#437726

Duh, because marriage wasn't invented yet. Marriage was invented after my man skipped out on child support on his 2000 kids.

by Virginian
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 00:10
#437811

EXPECT to see US B-2 stealth bombers deployed from Whiteman AFB (509th Bomb Wing).  They are one of the few weapons platforms that are both stealthy and have the payload capacity for the kind of bunker-busting munitions we'll have to use.  The Israeli ADF will simply provide air-to-air/air-to-ground support against the significantly weaker Iranian air defense assets.  Carrier group will run logistics and support for the ops, but probably won't be a central player in this type of mission.  Cruise missiles can't penetrate the thickness of ballistic-grade protection that presumably surrounds these targets (of which there are MANY).  This is a HELLUVA job they've got before them.  These dug-in positions may be, for all practical purposes, impenetrable.  But who knows, it's been a while since I've been on the flight line.

by Eally Ucked
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 01:32
#437898

For now you cannot deal with herdsmen on the donkeys in Afghanistan, when you deal with that problem first then we're gonna talk about stealthy platforms and payloads and other shit.

by TwoShortPlanks
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 03:08
#437944

"munitions we'll have to use"

LOL, the term "we'll" means 'WE WILL', who said anything about WE????

by taraxias
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 21:00
#437572

Are these vessels carrying weapons or paintball guns?

Just wondering........

by Jendrzejczyk
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 21:08
#437578

Paintball cannons.

by mcguire
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 21:05
#437576

we americans are broke.  we dont want war.  we will not go to war... unless, of course, we are duped by another 9/11-style false flag attack on us soil.  i would guess that it would be simultaneous false-flag attacks in multiple nations...

iran is not just another regional conflict... it is a gateway to ww3.  please watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxszB0myQA8

 

by Breaker
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 01:36
#437903

It would sort of shake things up before the November election. Such a shakeup might be just what the Dr. ordered for a bunch of congress critters who are going to lose otherwise.

I personally think the time to address this was years ago. Either Jimmy Carter should not have installed a radical islamist regime in Iran regime in the first place or W should have taken care of the problem while it was still tractable. They both failed. Now it's up to a guy whose only real interest in the problem is its domestic political impact. It's a double edge sword in that regard. Skyrocketing oil prices probably guarantee a big double dip recession--but that could be hidden until after November. OTOH, Americans do tend to rally around the flag in a crisis.

by GoldmanSux
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 21:06
#437577

I understand the Republican Guard monitors this site. It would be interesting if you would post the number of hits coming from Iran and whether it is a marked increase today.

by Mr pain
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 21:10
#437580

Republican guard was Iraq.  Revolutionary guard is Iran

by GoldmanSux
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 21:14
#437585

Correct. Thanks.

by SDRII
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 21:11
#437581

by Ahmeexnal
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 21:14
#437583

You fools. You think underground mineral reserves respect national boundaries?

What they found in Afghanistan is only the tip of the iceberg.

Now where do you think the rest of the treasure is? 

by Jim in MN
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 22:02
#437639

Iron Range, Minnesota. 

Surprise!

by Transor Z
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 22:49
#437702

All I can tell you is it's protected by a 900 year-old crusader who speaks remarkably good modern English despite living in a cave all that time.

Choose wisely, dude. That's the best advice I can give you.

by MGA_1
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 21:16
#437587

Here is comes...

by Stanley Lord
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 21:17
#437590

You are dreaming if you think Obama is attacking anybody.

by Reese Bobby
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 21:26
#437602

I agree.  Omama is attacking nobody.  But U.S. military forces are following a planned strategy of deploymnet to:

a) apply pressure; or show some nuts for Turkey,

2) invite attack,

3) protect our interests if Israel decides to attack.

I think this is checkers, not chess...

by Mr Lennon Hendrix
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 23:41
#437775

Yes, inviting attack.  Like...the US.....always....does.

by SDRII
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 21:17
#437591

FT: Total joins petrol embargo of Iran as sanctions loom

By Carola Hoyos and Javier Blas in London and Daniel,Dombey in Washington

Published: June 28 2010 03:00 | Last updated: June 28 2010 03:00

function floatContent(){var paraNum = "3"
paraNum = paraNum - 1;var tb = document.getElementById('floating-con');var nl = document.getElementById('floating-target');if(tb.getElementsByTagName("div").length> 0){if (nl.getElementsByTagName("p").length>= paraNum){nl.insertBefore(tb,nl.getElementsByTagName("p")[paraNum]);}else {if (nl.getElementsByTagName("p").length == 3){nl.insertBefore(tb,nl.getElementsByTagName("p")[2]);}else {nl.insertBefore(tb,nl.getElementsByTagName("p")[0]);}}}}

Total has become the latest big oil company to halt petrol sales to Iran, just days before Barack Obama, the US president, signs into law sanctions targeted at Tehran's reliance on imported petroleum.

The French energy group joined BP, Royal Dutch Shell and all the big oil traders in shunning Tehran before the unilateral US sanctions came into force.

The legislation, which won final approval last week by overwhelming margins in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, imposes penalties on international groups that help provide Iran with refined oil, and on banks that do business with blacklisted Iranian institutions.

by Rusty Shorts
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 21:19
#437595

My favorite war historian..The War Nerd - Gary Brecher

 

The War Nerd: This Is How the Carriers Will Die (Updated Version)

http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carriers-will-die/

 

"I’ve been saying for a long time that aircraft carriers are just history’s most expensive floating targets, and that they were doomed.

But now I can tell you exactly how they’re going to die. I’ve just read one of the most shocking stories in years. It comes from the US Naval Institute, not exactly an alarmist or anti-Navy source. And what it says is that the US carrier group is scrap metal."

 

 - other War Nerd reports here...

http://exiledonline.com/cat/war-nerd/

by Hephasteus
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 21:25
#437600

It's ok shark teeth don't hurt. They are so sharp there's very little trauma. Unless they have to double and triple bite at ligament locations.

by Rusty Shorts
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 21:56
#437636

 - "From here on, it’s just bad guys vs. worse guys, vs. even worse guys, vs. guys who would scare Charles Manson."

 - Gary Brecher

by Wernerempire
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 03:41
#437952

Indeed, aircraft carriers have limited military usage. 

But their destruction would be a card blanche for any size of thermo-nuclear response, n'est pas?

by tip e. canoe
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 22:22
#437662

me, i'll take one ship made out of plastic bottles flying the skull & crossbones equipped with one solid mid-range cannon and a crew of a dozen solid souls.

we'll see who floats when the electricity shorts out.

by DavidPierre
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 23:15
#437741

The SUNBURN !
Iran's awsome anti-ship missile.
http://www.rense.com/general59/theSunburniransawesome.htm
Let us pray that the US sailors who are unlucky enough to be on duty in the Persian Gulf when the shooting starts can escape the fate of the Roman army at Cannae. The odds will be heavily against them, however, because they will face the same type of danger, tantamount to envelopment. The US ships in the Gulf will already have come within range of the Sunburn missiles and the even more-advanced SS-NX-26 Yakhonts missiles, also Russian-made (speed: Mach 2.9; range: 180 miles) deployed by the Iranians along the Gulf's northern shore. Every US ship will be exposed and vulnerable. When the Iranians spring the trap, the entire lake will become a killing field.
 
Anti-ship cruise missiles are not new, as I've mentioned. Nor have they yet determined the outcome in a conflict. But this is probably only because these horrible weapons have never been deployed in sufficient numbers. At the time of the Falklands war the Argentine air force possessed only five Exocets, yet managed to sink two ships. With enough of them, the Argentineans might have sunk the entire British fleet, and won the war. Although we've never seen a massed attack of cruise missiles, this is exactly what the US Navy could face in the next war in the Gulf.
 
Try and imagine it if you can: barrage after barrage of Exocet-class missiles, which the Iranians are known to possess in the hundreds, as well as the unstoppable Sunburn and Yakhonts missiles. The questions that our purblind government leaders should be asking themselves, today, if they value what historians will one day write about them, are two: how many of the Russian anti-ship missiles has Putin already supplied to Iran? And: How many more are currently in the pipeline?
by Sir Vivore de A...
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 23:25
#437754

I'm sorry, Mach10? Last time I checked nobody has working scramjets yet. Baloney.

by DavidPierre
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 23:45
#437780

The Sunburn combines a ...

Mach 2.1 speed (two times the speed of sound)

with a flight pattern that hugs the deck and includes "violent end maneuvers" to elude enemy defenses.

The missile was specifically designed to defeat the US Aegis radar defense system. Should a US Navy Phalanx point defense somehow manage to detect an incoming Sunburn missile, the system has only seconds to calculate a fire solution not enough time to take out the intruding missile. The US Phalanx defense employs a six-barreled gun that fires 3,000 depleted-uranium rounds a minute, but the gun must have precise coordinates to destroy an intruder "just in time."

 
The Sunburn's combined supersonic speed and payload size produce tremendous kinetic energy on impact, with devastating consequences for ship and crew. A single one of these missiles can sink a large warship, yet costs considerably less than a fighter jet.
Although the Navy has been phasing out the older Phalanx defense system, its replacement, known as the Rolling Action Missile (RAM) has never been tested against the weapon it seems destined to one day face in combat.

 

"Mach10"...Baloney !!!

by Juggernaut Nihilism
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 00:20
#437821

This is mostly incorrect.  The Phalanx Close-In Weapon System (CIWS, or Sea-Whiz) struggled with weaving targets, yes, and that's why the US Navy developed CIWS Blk II, specifically to deal with the Sunburn.  As for Aegis, current Aegis mods have no problem with missiles like the Sunburn as long as proper doctrine is enabled.  The biggest bottleneck used to be the capabilities of the SM-2 missile itself, but those limitations have been corrected.  In any case, that close we would likely be talking about an Sea Sparrow (ESSM) shot, and that missile is more than capable of taking out the flying school bus that is the Sunburn.

 

See my post below for further elaboration.  Oh, and the RAM you refer to is Rolling Airframe Missile.  It would only be the last line of defense against an incoming missile, after it got through countermeasures and Aegis.  Which is possible, but I'm just telling you that the Sunburn (or any Iranian anti-ship missiles) is a ways down the list of things planners worry about in the Navy.

by old naughty
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 21:30
#437610

The race of men while sheep in credulity are wolves for conformity.

by StarvingLion
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 21:41
#437616

Go USA: The Land of the Fee and the Home of the Slave...err make that Free and Brave.  Ah, the CGU (Cash Generating Units aka Stupid Taxpayers) of the Zerohedge community have a stake in this...exactly $0 since their compaign and lobbying contributions amount to, well, $0.  This topic should be good for another 200 useless posts.

by Reese Bobby
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 21:49
#437629

I am sorry you are so stupid.  It must be uncomfortable for you.  And the internet has made things so much worse for you.  Darn it...

by RockyRacoon
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 21:52
#437633

Only 199 more to go....

by Reese Bobby
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 22:18
#437661

I wish I could beat you with a stupid stick; but not until you live life for 20 years and fail to apologize for your stupidity.  See you in 2020 you mama's boy...

 

by RockyRacoon
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 11:24
#438884

198?

by MayIMommaDogFac...
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 23:08
#437732

SWIPE == junk!

by chindit13
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 21:36
#437618

A couple things at play here.  First, this could be Afghanistan or Waziristan related, albeit with the added "benefit" that it might put Ahmadinejad on edge and prompt him to fire the first shot.

Second, I do not believe any side---Israelis or US---has both sufficient intelligence and the weaponry needed to go underground if, in fact, the Iranian facilities are as advertised.

Third, Israel has been rather incompetent as of late in all it actions, whether it is the UAE assassination or the aid ship debacle.  Even its last invasion of Lebanon has to be called poorly handled, even by its supporters.  This ain't Moshe Dayan's Israel.

What nobody seems to want to face is that the nuclear genie is out of the bag.  Today maybe it's just US, Israel, UK, France, Russia, China, South Africa, North Korea, India and Pakistan, but even the likes of Burma (with assistance from North Korea, Russia and the Ukraine) is attempting to go nuke.  It won't be long until even San Marino has one.  Heck, maybe I'll get me one.  Is the US going to bomb us all?

What makes me believe an attack might be in the cards is that it would be morally wrong, militarily wrong, economically wrong, and politically wrong, which is to say right up Obama's alley.  Maybe it will get him a repeat on that Peace Prize thing.

by crosey
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 21:47
#437626

Had lunch a few weeks ago with a friend who just came out of the mideast theater.  He's been in the spook business, and he is amazed about what we know, and what we can do.  His amazement is all I needed to see.

Game over, when TPTB decide they want to end the game.

by Cheeky Bastard
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 22:27
#437667

Do tell more; and details please [well as many as you can give without "outing" your friend]

by crosey
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 15:05
#439572

No can share details CB.  Apologies.  However, just remember Bobby Jones' expression that golf is played in a space 5 inches across...the space between your ears.

by tip e. canoe
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 22:27
#437668

good...time to lay the chips on the table and see who's got what.  i'll take my small sack of heirlooms seeds & an extra pair of boxers.  hopefully, it's skinny enough to squeeze through the eye of the needle.

if not, what are YOU willing to shed to get through?

by Hephasteus
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 00:08
#437810

The internet. It has you surrounded. No exceptions.

http://www.it-geek.eu/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/internet.jpg

by Dapper Dan
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 22:06
#437645

Hey guys and gals did you see how much someone paid for Michel Jackson's glove?

by Dapper Dan
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 22:09
#437648

Sorry wrong thread, this is the serious section, I'm looking for the sheeple zone,  directions anyone?

by QuantumCat
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 21:40
#437621

This is what is called in DoD parlance, a "show of force"... I think they are looking to see if the Iranians will blink, how regional actors will respond, and then go from there.

by crosey
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 21:43
#437622

My bet is that the carrier group(s) will stand as a hedge while Israel pops a cap in Iran's ass.

by Juggernaut Nihilism
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 21:47
#437625

I'm not trying to rain on the doom parade here - in fact, I agree that it is only a short matter of time before Israel attacks Iran - but two loaded out carrier strike groups in the Gulf is standard operating procedure, as is the array of destroyers, cruisers, and frigates (and unreported and unlisted subs) by which they are accompanied.  I'm a combat systems officer 9 years into the Navy, six of it onboard Arleigh Burke destroyers.

I doubt the US would telegraph an Israeli attack by beefing up presence in the Gulf.  It is normal for non-5th Fleet strike groups to operate in the 5th Fleet AOR, because there are no carriers stationed in Bahrain (5th Fleet HQ).  Strike groups steam in from Japan (7th Fleet), or Pearl Harbor/San Diego/Everett, WA (3rd Fleet), or occasionally from Norfolk, VA.

An interesting piece of information - though I must be vague due to classification - is that one or more of the ships deployed with the strike group may or may not be outfitted specifically for anti-ballistic missile missions.

by Budd Fox
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 23:33
#437764

It will all depend from the type of missiles loaded and if the Aegis equipped ships carry or not the specific software for that task....which is , of course, classified. :):)

by buzzsaw99
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 21:48
#437627

Someday maybe there'll be a war in which all the elites are killed. That would truly be the war to end all wars.

by Reese Bobby
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 21:56
#437635

If all the "elites" were killed would that be the end of the "elites"?

Or would young "retards" (Hangover pronunciation) like you make a run for the position?

Based on what? Your middling intelligence? Sub-par verility? Superior bitterness? Or do real men have chunks of guys like you in their stools?

by Jim in MN
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 22:04
#437641

His avatar is prettier than you, ergo....

by Reese Bobby
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 22:31
#437676

"prettier"?  I'm going to wear one more pair of unerwear...backwards.

I didn't mean to get in the middle of some steamy Barney Frank shit...

Sorry...

by buzzsaw99
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 22:33
#437678

Please elaborate, I thrive on abuse. ;)

by zen0
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 22:02
#437640

Hopefully the world cup will be over before the war starts. New Moon is July 11th. Tish B'Av (the ninth day of the jewish month of Av) is the usual day of jewish catastrophes, historically, like the destruction of the temples.

That is July 19th this year.

 

I have heard these rumours of attacking Iran, and carrier movements in the Gulf for years now. At least for 6 years anyway.

More of the same or the real deal?

 

Whatever.

 

 

.

by Rusty Shorts
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 22:25
#437665

by Oh regional Indian
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 03:08
#437943

Zen,

That is the point, don't you see? Saddam was a bad guy for 12 years (1991 till 2003) before he was attacked.

Iran has been relentlessly demonized for, 5-6 years now, give or take?

In this age of compressed time, now people are sub-consciously begging for it. Look at our friend Gully, get it over with!

Once they have enough sheeple baying for Iranian blood on whatever trumped up rationale, then it will happen.

When you control everything, illusion is easy.

 

All that said though, there is an inevitability to human folly that is and has been our un-doing, again and again and again.

 

No different this time.

 

When the out descends into chaos, the only peace is with-in.

 

Finding that peace is a whole other battle though. 

And time is short. Very short.

 

ORI

http://aadivaahan.wordpress.com

by AnAnonymous
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 03:53
#437954

The Iraqi scenario was slightly different.

Never forget the blockade destined to soften the Iraqi population and to sell the consequences of the blockade as self inflicted or inflicted by the madness of Saddam Hussein on his people.

Hard to see the stage of blockade being bypassed. Maybe some strikes here and there to justify a blockade. An Iranian answer to those strikes would come as a justification for a blockade.

In many  minds in the Western world, some have a legitimate right to attack, others dont have a legitimate right to defend.

by Privatus
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 22:20
#437643

These aircraft carriers are the hoary crustaceans of naval warfare. Magnificently irrelevant sitting ducks in a 4GW world. Moving them in a big way into the Persian Gulf whilst committing contemporaneous acts of war - fig-leafed as sanctions by the flaccid UN - against Iran is like presenting Pearl Harbour (again) to the similarly aggrieved Japanese. Oil was a tool then and it's a tool now. Isn't it ironic to think that the "evidence" of Iranian "aggression" has already been created and is waiting for its closeup (but not too close) on the international stage within hours if not minutes after the false flag is hoisted. But the 19-year olds who volunteered for this will be truly dead. And the devastation felt by their loved ones will be real. How can those who are benefiting from this evil be stopped? That is the question.

by trav7777
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 23:10
#437733

Carriers are obsolete now?  LOL

Yes, I'm sure they will sit still while a Chinese ballistic missile comes down from space onto their decks.

There are two ways naval engagements go, one where you have planes and the other where you get sunk by them.

In EVERY recent conflict, naval air power was decisive in engagements.

by Budd Fox
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 05:14
#437989

Sitting ducks??? ahahahahahaahah go tell it to the "aggrieved" Japanese to the bottom of the sea around Midway if American carriers are sitting ducks....

The Russians counted to lose at least 3 regiments of Backfires supersonic bombers BEFORE even being able to launch against a carrier, and they planned to launch nuclear tipped to be able to score...but this was BEFORE the Aegis escorts had anti-missile capabilities and BEFORE the Ticonderoga cruisers and the Burke destroyers had network data link capabilities.

Sitting duck a carrier Group.....ahahahaha of all the bullshits that I saw...this is one of the most disinformed...grossly delusional one.!!

by Fazzie
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 22:07
#437647

 ZH: Strong suit: Great for exposing the sordid underbelly of international finance.

 ZH: Weakness: All this Tom Clancy speculative crap.

 

     (Gee, if the US were gonna bunker bust bomb the Iranian reactor sites, they would be just a tad sneakier, IMO, lest the Iranians sneak the materials out or something.)

 

  Just sayin.....

 

by Alethiometer
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 22:39
#437686

I wonder if Tom Clancey has written any books exposing crooked international finance and the instigated unjust wars perpetrated by its MIC partners?  Kinda would put a damper on any new material after that book though...

by Lucky Guesst
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 22:46
#437699

Well, if we really don't know where they are hiding their stash wouldn't this be a good way to find out. Head in their direction and watch them scramble from an aerial view. Makes sense to me but I'm just a girl.

by TwoShortPlanks
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 03:24
#437948

"watch them scramble from an aerial view", be difficult with all the surface to air missiles going off. Iran has 636,000 square miles of country-side...where would you suggest you look first? And NO, they won't be scrambling, not one bit.

"Makes sense to me", what about now, still looking sensible?

"but I'm just a girl", don't let that stand in the way of getting in-touch with reality.

by Lucky Guesst
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 06:19
#438049

ummm, Google has a picture of the top of my house so I would think the DOD can handle it. We might actually have cased the place a little too, in advance. But if you have expertise and knowledge otherwise please excuse my unrealistic expectations of the U.S. Military.

by Lucky Guesst
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 06:29
#438055

Oh, and there is this that I found rather quickly......

Satellite Images Capture Construction of Iran's Hidden Nuclear Site September 2009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmADzFM-crs

BUT YOUR THE EXPERT

 

by Lucky Guesst
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 06:37
#438062

And this......

"Israel has launched a surveillance satellite that will be used to spy on Iran's nuclear programme, reports say."

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/10387608.stm

 

by lilimarlene1
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 08:07
#438208

Good points. You go, girl.

by lilimarlene1
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 08:08
#438210

Good points. You go, girl.

by lilimarlene1
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 08:12
#438223

Double posts, sorry. BTW, did he really think you meant the recon was going to happen during a shock and awe and not in advance as we are moving in?

Gee whiz.

by TwoShortPlanks
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 08:28
#438217

9 year experience in military reconaissance and a further 6 in battlefield aviation actually.

You were wrong the first time. Intel was/is/always an on-going activity; there is no flush-out and see which way everything runs. That's akin to a cartoon.

Don't think for one minute that one, or even a dozen satellites can determine the whereabouts of that which is intended to be hidden...dare I mention the the Iraqi WMDs? They didn't even exist and that led to the biggest "Rope-A-Dope" in history.

Using satellites to monitor stationary physical targets is one thing, monitoring nuclear material which is constantly being moved around is a totally different ball-game. Geo-stationary sats are too far away and orbiting sats are on-target for only a few minutes at best and then take 84 minutes to re-aquire targets...and history has shown that even terrorist cells with limited capacity know when they fly-over and adjust their behavior accordingly. Satellites can't simply hover overhead (They live in Geodesics).

For one of two countries which held the world under the threat of nuclear destruction, the US has no right to point the finger at another country. To do so would be, and is, the height of hypocrisy.

Ever since the end of the WWI, possibly WWII, it is the responsibility of the world's politicians to wage battles, not military forces. The moment military forces are engaged, there has already been failure.

Lastly, get used to terrorism. Afghanistan is not Iraq. Afghanistan is a Gorrilla War, and regular low level operations have never won against Gorrilla Warfare...ever!

If you don't believe me, then go and work in the environment yourself.

 

EDIT: Oh, forgot to add the 3 years working with IAI on recon drones...all managed by Mossad.

by Marla Singer
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 23:22
#437751

Sorry, which bit "Tom Clancy speculative crap" are you objecting to exactly? I've got about 97.5% fact in there.
by Sir Vivore de A...
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 23:31
#437762

Agreed. Marla is not responsible for the speculation, that's all in the comments. 

by Fazzie
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 05:11
#437986

 The article never explicity just comes out and says "We here at the ZH blog interpet these naval maneuvers as evidence of an imminent attack on Iran and we do so in order to grab traffic on a slow day with the markets closed."

 The article dosent say "You too can write just like Tom Clancey, all it takes is a "Janes warships" guide and a penchant for speculation that suggests that because a "super duper  class 14 extra nasty top secret weapon" system exists it will be used real soon. (and actually work)

  Nope, dosent say that at all.

 I didnt just come out and say the article speculated anything either. I could have been referencing the knee jerk wannabe Tom Clancyish scenarios espoused in the comments by otherwise intelligent perceptive ZH readers whose speculations in the field of finance are way more up their alley.

  Am I being a snarky ass because I too am bored on a slow day?

 Hey thats just speculation too!!

 

by Marla Singer
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 05:22
#437995

Actually, we did so because of the movement of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Moreover, we post rather prolifically on weekends. (Or haven't you noticed). Finally, we were quick to point out that the USS Eisenhower is due to rotate out in July.  Is there something obviously slanted that I'm missing that you object to?  (Finally, finally, I never read Jane's).

by lilimarlene1
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 08:21
#438257

Maybe Marla reads Stratfor, who knows, who cares. The article was well done.

by taraxias
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 07:31
#438130

It's the other 2.5% nonsense that spoils everything. Sort of like drinking curdled milk. 97.5% is still okay, it's the other 2.5% that's the bitch.

by Marla Singer
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 08:44
#438343

Which 2.5% is that, exactly?
by Robert J Moran
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 22:09
#437649

I posted this after the "Magical G20 thinking" piece but it bears repeating here:

"...Any 'Distraction' the US tries to initiate now (ie, an Israel/US Iran strike) will result in severe global blow back.  After the 'weapons of financial mass destruction' MBS, CDO debacle (sorry, my bad, 'financial engineering') I think we are reaching a global tipping point vis a vis the US.  The world, more interested in upgrading their respective economies than some neocon, offense as defense, global chess game (which by the way is tiresome, SO WW2 in thinking, and VERY dangerous).  The US will be perceived as a desperate 'wounded animal'.  Something that needs to be comforted AND avoided.  The blow back would not be quick, coordinated or smooth, but it would be inevitable..."

Personally, I'm thinking 'not here  and not yet'.  Obama doesn't run the "Military/Industrial/Complex though.  Quite the opposite, so, who knows...

by Things that go bump
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 00:31
#437836

Desperate wounded animals are not handled in that fashion.  They are quickly put out of their misery. 

by Wernerempire
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 04:03
#437957

Robert, that is an interesting opinion, which very well have merits, but, what are the supporting facts for your case??

by StarvingLion
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 22:11
#437651

Shouldn't we be trying to innovate something like isotope separation done in my basement rather than speculate over and over on some event that never happens?  What the fuck is the deal?  Are we hypcritical speculators or are we movers and shakers?

by tip e. canoe
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 22:12
#437653

dupe

by nabi
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 22:28
#437670

William Butler Yeats (1865-1939)

               THE SECOND COMING

    Turning and turning in the widening gyre
    The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
    Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
    Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
    The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
    The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
    The best lack all conviction, while the worst
    Are full of passionate intensity.

    Surely some revelation is at hand;
    Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
    The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
    When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
    Troubles my sight: a waste of desert sand;
    A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
    A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
    Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
    Wind shadows of the indignant desert birds.
    The darkness drops again but now I know
    That twenty centuries of stony sleep
    Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
    And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
    Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

 

by tip e. canoe
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 05:14
#437990

thank you...quite appropriate to this thread

by lilimarlene1
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 12:50
#439210

Truly the best verses of our time.

by Anarchist
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 22:31
#437674

Only the US has the resources to effectively attack Iran. The Israelis can only play a bit part and that would still require the US to provide airfields, tankers, logistics, fuel and weapons.

It would take hundreds of sorties over multiple weeks time just to make a dent in the Iranian infrastructure. At the same time the US would attempt one of it's guaranteed to fail decapitations of the Iranian "leadership". The stooges the US has on the ground would be slaughtered in the days following the first attack. The US would only attempt a ground thrust into areas the Iranians could not mount a sucessful counter attack. The southern Iranian oil fields would be the likely target.  

In the end the US would only piss off Iran and set them back a few years. Unless the Chinese and Russians are on-board, the blowback will be felt by US troops until we are finally driven out of Iraq and Afghanistan. We do not have enough troops to survive a full blown insurgency armed with modern anti-air and anti-armor weapons. In both Iraq and Afghanistan, we have crucial supply routes that could be shut down in a few days. We would have to mount a Berlin airlift to get supplies in. A few hundred guys equiped with ground to air missiles will put an end to that.

by Mr pain
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 22:42
#437692

No we have had decades to set targets.  We know where every Iranian asset is.  We have more spies there then anywhere.    The head of their atomic program defected a few months back during a trip to Mecca.  Knocking off Iran would take weeks with boots on the ground.  They will fold with boots on the ground.  An air attack or blockade will not do it as their Basij paramilitary force will keep brutal order just like the SS did.  They will fade away like the republican guard did in Iraq in 2003.

The problem with Iraq was not taking the country, it was what to do after that. 

 

by Anarchist
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 22:55
#437710

A mid level scientist does not rate as the head of their program. So you actually think bombing Iran with conventional weapons for a few weeks is going to "take out" Iran? That is laughable on its face. Have you any clue how big a country Iran is? How about it's population size? This is not like Iraq where the majority of the military, the Shia and Kurds, stand down. Iran has also not suffered the same sanction regime. At some point the Chinese are going to call our bluff and move to protect their investments.

by Crummy
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 00:19
#437723

They only need to drop enough ordinance to set back the construction of IPI pipeline a few years.

No one is invading anything

EDIT:What? Only one junk flag? That makes my feelings feel bad.

by Alethiometer
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 22:34
#437681

In my opinion, this is simply continued posturing.  Any serious inquest into Iran, be it a surprise Isreali (U.S.-backed) air campaign or a U.S. strike, would be precipitated by either another false-flag or a heavily manipulated international incident.  For all intensive purposes, we already "have" the Middle East; we've had the Saudi's almost since the beginning, the U.A.E is complicit and Iraq is ours (nevermind the civil war, we HAVE the oil).  All the oil is left in Saudi Arabia anyways.  This is a grand resource war, we don't need Iran yet.  And as far as continuing the military-industrial complex's profit stream, Iraq and Afghanistan are providing a steady income.  Iran won't happen till late 2011 at the earliest.  Sit back and watch the Great Oil Wars folks, it's going to be a loooong and bumpy ride.

by Sir Vivore de A...
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 23:40
#437774

More than just posturing, I think the Pentagon realizes that it's power is completely dependent on it's access to oil. No more oil access = no more planes, carriers or war games. Everyone here on ZH knows that the Pentagon owns the US and Obama knows better than to challenge them and stick out his neck. Perhaps the Pentagon is preparing for the possibility that the US Government might not always be able to pay 700B in annual child support payments to the Pentagon. Owning the middle east guarantees the security of the Pentagon to live on even after the USA dies.

by Sir Vivore de A...
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 23:52
#437789

And Petraeus will rule the world.

by downwiththebanks
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 01:16
#437884

Or destroy it.

by Audacity17
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 22:39
#437688

The point of these movements is clear.  Obama intends to surrender.

by Lucky Guesst
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 00:38
#437843

Or he will need something new to bow and apologize for on his farewell tour. (please God don't let him get a reunion tour)

by boeing747
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 22:43
#437696

Iran war is modern day Crusade, it has to happen to save Western, Israel and now US economy. I just bought a oil stock at low P/E, war may come sooner then we thought. Why do we suddenly need so many ships in a small pond.

by Instant Karma
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 23:21
#437747

This deployment is likely to deter Somali pirates. Why don't we just bring home all our overseas troops and let the chips fall where they may. No more Western Europe. No more South Korea. No more Taiwan. Just a growing Chinese sphere, a growing Russian sphere, and the American sphere. With any luck the Russians will swallow up the Mideast and we can get on airplanes without being strip searched.

by TwoShortPlanks
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 02:52
#437938

You might need to ask as to WHY you're being strip-searched in the first place. LOL

Unless of course you're living in the states where the act of simply asking that question attracts jail time and a rap for being a "Threat to National Security".

by Tree of Liberty
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 23:35
#437767

When goods don't cross borders armies will......

This applies to Navies as well :-)

 

by palmereldritch
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 23:37
#437770

I think it's apparent that this is simply the to and fro of the star-crossed lovers, Israel and Iran

A cloud appears above your head;
A beam of light comes shining down on you,
Shining down on you.
The cloud is moving nearer still.
Aurora borealis comes in view;
Aurora comes in view

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUjIA3Rt7gk

[CAUTION: This is what the post-apocalypse could look like]

by Mr Lennon Hendrix
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 23:37
#437771

New moon on the 11th I thought?  The Stealth Bomber will fly for Jauquin and Boaz?

by palmereldritch
on Sun, 06/27/2010 - 23:55
#437790

I've always wondered, is the '9' meant to represent the Eye of Horus ?

http://www.ancient-egypt-online.com/images/the-eye-of-horus.jpg

http://library.thinkquest.org/05aug/00158/images/allseeingeye.jpg

What's your estimation?

by palmereldritch
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 00:19
#437820

 

Addendum

Or perhaps 9/11 is also in honor of this nutter's birthday?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_von_Sebottendorf

In Germany, as in Europe and pretty much everywhere else other than the US, the date 9/11 would in fact be November 9, the same as Sebottendorf's birthday, he being the founder of The Thule Society...it being none other than the hot-house for Hitler's occultist obsessions.

9/11 in German history is significant for many tumultuous events

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_9_in_German_history

Perhaps some more WTF? moments to consider when trying to analyze these freaks

 

by Mr Lennon Hendrix
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 00:32
#437837

All I know is that 9/11 is the Egyption New Year.  As for the number 9, I have not considered if it is the eye of horus, but it would not surprise me if that is one of its assignments.  Numerically, 9 is a beautiful number.  Triple trinity and what not.

by Juggernaut Nihilism
on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 00:02
#437804

Sunburns are great missiles, but Aegis ships are built for them.  Every one of the destroyers trains to the Sunburn in simulation every day, and the Aegis program, as well as the SM-2 missile is more than capable of handling the Sunburn.  That is not to denigrate the missile, it is fantastic and dangerous.  A pre-emptive attack would be very destructive, because it would depend on US Navy sailors being alert enough to identify the threat and for the combat chain of command to react quickly enough to defeat it - an unlikely scenario.  Even then, however, the carrier would have Hornets monitoring every Iranian platform within 200 miles that has anti-surface capabilities.  If they launched, the Hornets would immediately destroy the offending Iranian ship, and the fleet would set doctrine to prepare for incoming low-fliers.  The Sunburn, although it is fast and destructive, has the radar cross-section of a bus, and Aegis will almost always destroy it as long as the system is properly prepared.

Far more dangerous and worrisome are the Iranians known tactic of swarming with various small-craft.  I wouldn't want to be the person manning the .50 with 40 Iranian small boats full of RPG toting Persians and/or suicide bombers.

Realistically, if the Iranians made the first move, they would have a shot at taking out a few US Navy ships and aircraft.  Their entire navy would be at the bottom of the ocean with 24 hours after that, though.  Since it is unlikely that the Iranians will pre-emptively attack the US, the more likely scenario is a pre-emptive attack by the US on the Iranian fleet.  We keep updated position information on all of their ships and aircraft at all times; the first strike against the Iranian navy would destroy their entire capability.  We would target their entire force at once, via submarines and airstrikes, maybe even mix in a few Harpoons.  The whole thing would be over in a matter hours (or less).

I'm not some American triumphalist.  I just know the score from the inside and I'm telling you how it is.  An invasion of Iran would be a terrible mistake and would make Iraq look like eating custard, but the destruction of their actual military capabilities by US forces would be a formality.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.