Why the US Naval Buildup in the Gulf?

[Osborn F Enready]

Bobby o said: As usual, the asumption seems to be that every country in the world (save the USA) minds its own business, has no interests and objectives elsewhere, and simply "reacts" when the USA blunders by. Such a view is poppycock. Iran has interests in the mid east which clash with that of the USA- and that of other mid-east states. Perhaps Iran's desire to spread Islamic fundamentalism ought to be of no concern to the USA or the West, and thus there is no need for a "clash." And we should let Saudi arabia, Kuwait or Turkey deal with the problem themselves. Just call it what it is-isolationism, and don't infanitilise other countries because you choose not to use that word.

I say:
What you seem to be missing is that BIG GOVERNMENT in all nations, is what is driving these wars, these "goals" of economic subversion, and abuse of natural resources.

By simply removing the power from ALL national governments, 90% of these problems would be handled differently, and with less military intervention and posturing.

Soverignty means something, and when people refuse to stop their OWN government from infringing on other nations soverignty, they tend to deserve what they get.

Lots of nations talk smack, and run little para-military operations. The superpowers overtake governments, re-establish economic systems, and sell property that is not theirs.

All people need to wake up to what their government are doing in THEIR NAME, and stop it. If that could happen, the world would be a better place, and we are seeing it start to happen in the U.S. at the grass roots level spreading like wild fire even against the media lack of support.

People are waking up..... not just here either.

[RickSp]

Quote by: BobbyO Sorry. Poorly worded on my part, and so not clear.. I should have said that the only options being presented by the critics is accept a nuclear Iran, or bomb. There are other options, such as supporting the unrest in that country, to support regime change.

Regime change? Now where have I heard that before? Don't you neocons ever learn? Do you wat to lurch from one fiasco to an even bigger more disasterous fiasco?

What is amusing is that the Bush Administration's invasion of Iraq empowered the Iranian radicals and crippled the moderates. Now suggesting that "supporting unrest" in Iran would result in regime change only demonstrates how completely out of touch the neocons continue to be.

Regime change should begin at home.

[Autolykos]

BobbyO, I would appreciate it if you would respond to my last post.

- Rob

[BobbyO]

Quote by: Autolykos No, I do not jest here. Why should only certain nations be allowed to have nuclear technology, including weapons? - Rob

becaue of what they might use it to do. I am not talking about using the weapon itself, but the concern of what the possession of the weapon means in attempting to deal with a country.

[RickSp]

Quote by: BobbyO becaue of what they might use it to do. I am not talking about using the weapon itself, but the concern of what the possession of the weapon means in attempting to deal with a country.

So you are saying that an Iran with nuclear weapons might be more difficult to bully, dominate or push around? They might not be as willing to take orders from the US? Do you wonder why so many Iranians support their nuclear program?

[Blackrain]

Quote by: PatrickHenry There's readiness...then there's provocation and pretext. US naval war games off the Iranian coastline: A provocation which could lead to War? And another Strike Group is transiting the Arabian Sea just now. Remember the Gulf of Tonkin pretext? I oppose US warmongering.

AL Queda and other groups have threatened to attack the US in the region before the elections. Given that Iran and Syria have vested interests in making Iraq chaotic and that both are largely responsible for fueling, funding, arming, training, the insurgents there...it seems reasonable. Further, the UNSC is supposed to take action on Iran (SOMEDAY!) re it's nuclear program, and it's good to have a naval force in the region to deter action from being too brazen/direct.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: BobbyO becaue of what they might use it to do. I am not talking about using the weapon itself, but the concern of what the possession of the weapon means in attempting to deal with a country.

"Attempting to deal with a country"? What exactly do you mean here?

- Rob

[drgilbert4]

I have my doubts about the accuracy of the reports of the Vincennes incident. The Vincennes and the Montgomery were both under attack by Iranian gun boats. They were very involved in defending themselves when the "civilian airbus" was engaged. The Airbus was not squawking any IFF (electronic Identifacation friend or foe) codes which are used by all commercial aircraft. It was not ascending nor was it in a commonly used air lane. It made an unusual turn toward the ship which was already engaged by the Iranian boats. The ship and helicopter were taking fire from Iranian gunboats. The aircraft was warned verbally and interrogated by IFF and received no response. After the incident, several bodies were found intact except for the fact that they were nude. It was suspected that the passengers were already dead before the aircraft ever left Iran. This information is available in the congressional record of the inquiry into the incident.

Quote by: RickSp It wasn't all that long ago that a US Navy warship shot down an Iraqi civilian Airbus killing all 290 aboard, including 66 children. The USS Vincennes, an AEGIS missle cruiser mistook a climbing commercial jet liner for a diving MIG. Then Vice-President George H.W. Bush went to the UN and made a statement that was lies from beginning to end to justify the attack. All personnel aboard the USS Vincennes were awarded medals for their heroic action. All of which is to say that the Navy is capable of can starting wars whether it intends to or not. Sending warships is itself a provocation. Navy Missile Downs Iranian Jetliner Iran Air Flight 655

[drgilbert4]

Quote by: RickSp So you are saying that an Iran with nuclear weapons might be more difficult to bully, dominate or push around? They might not be as willing to take orders from the US? Do you wonder why so many Iranians support their nuclear program?

Rick, do you really think we are bullying Iran? They repeatedly make moves to provoke us and we repeatedly show restraint. You are not being realistic if you think they are victims. I wish we could withdraw from the world and be isolated, but it would never work. Too many people in too many places want what we have. Many are willing to kill us to get it!

[Nono]

Quote by: drgEtc. The Airbus was not squawking any IFF (electronic Identifacation friend or foe) codes which are used by all commercial aircraft. It was not ascending nor was it in a commonly used air lane. It made an unusual turn toward the ship which was already engaged by the Iranian boats. (...) After the incident, several bodies were found intact except for the fact that they were nude. It was suspected that the passengers were already dead before the aircraft ever left Iran. This information is available in the congressional record of the inquiry into the incident.

Source for these extraordinary claims? US congressmen no doubt, who would be only too glad to "suspect" all sorts of things that would let the US navy off the hook.

Your sources are certainly not the links you posted, d. They would seem to flatly contradict your claims.

Tell me, what IFF codes are squawked "by all commercial aircraft"? The truth is that they squawk the transponder code assigned to them by the controller, which isn't the same thing as an IFF.

And by the way, a lot less than a plane crash can blow people out of their clothes.

So your tinfoil-hat theory is that the Airbus was remote-controlled, right? (Where have we heard that one before? LOL)

[RickSp]

Quote by: drgilbert4 I have my doubts about the accuracy of the reports of the Vincennes incident. The Vincennes and the Montgomery were both under attack by Iranian gun boats. They were very involved in defending themselves when the "civilian airbus" was engaged. The Airbus was not squawking any IFF (electronic Identifacation friend or foe) codes which are used by all commercial aircraft. It was not ascending nor was it in a commonly used air lane. It made an unusual turn toward the ship which was already engaged by the Iranian boats. The ship and helicopter were taking fire from Iranian gunboats. The aircraft was warned verbally and interrogated by IFF and received no response. After the incident, several bodies were found intact except for the fact that they were nude. It was suspected that the passengers were already dead before the aircraft ever left Iran. This information is available in the congressional record of the inquiry into the incident.

I concur with Nono. Where are your sources?

Most of your statements are contradicted by the published accounts. Iran Air Flight 655 was indeed broadcasting its commericial sqawk code and was in contact with air traffic control. The aircraft "warnings" issued by the Vicnennes were addressed to "Iranian Tomcat".

(From the previously cited link) Captain David Carlson, commander of the USS Sides, the warship stationed nearby the Vincennes at the time of the incident...identified IR655 as a civilian craft based on its radar signature, its 'squawk' (IFF) code, and the fact that it was ascending at low speed - a military aircraft attacking would be descending towards the Vincennes at high speed. At first Carlson thought the 'Iranian Tomcat' the Vincennes was warning away was another craft he couldn't identify as it was surprising to Carlson that the Vincennes crew would mistake a Tomcat (a US manufactured craft which one would expect the US Navy to be familiar with) with a civilian aircraft. The Vincennes' warnings were on a military channel, addressed to 'Iranian Tomcat'. When Carlson concluded that the Vincennes was referring to IR655 when making its warning to turn away or receive fire, he urgently warned IR655 on a civilian freqency that it was in danger, having been mistaken for a military craft and should turn away. IR655 immediately complied and changed course onto a trajectory away from the Vincennes. The Vincennes fired regardless. Carlson expressed the view that the incident was a mistake brought about by an overly aggressive approach by the captain of the Vincennes.

Your suggestion that the Iran Air Flight 655 shootdown was some sort of Iranian conspiracy is too absurd to warrant a response.

[RickSp]

Quote by: drgilbert4 Rick, do you really think we are bullying Iran? They repeatedly make moves to provoke us and we repeatedly show restraint. You are not being realistic if you think they are victims. I wish we could withdraw from the world and be isolated, but it would never work. Too many people in too many places want what we have. Many are willing to kill us to get it!

Let's see, we stage the overthrow of their democratically elected government and install a dictator who after several decades is finally overthrown by a popular revolution. We support Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran and then turn around and invade Iraq on flimsy pretext. And you suggest that Iran has been provocative?

Some people may want to kill us, but overall we seem to be the source of most of the blood being shed.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Blackrain AL Queda and other groups have threatened to attack the US in the region before the elections. Given that Iran and Syria have vested interests in making Iraq chaotic and that both are largely responsible for fueling, funding, arming, training, the insurgents there...it seems reasonable. Further, the UNSC is supposed to take action on Iran (SOMEDAY!) re it's nuclear program, and it's good to have a naval force in the region to deter action from being too brazen/direct.

Additionally, it would support and strenghten U.S. military personnel and its actions in southern parts of Iraq if necessary, as well.

[BobbyO]

Quote by: RickSp So you are saying that an Iran with nuclear weapons might be more difficult to bully, dominate or push around? They might not be as willing to take orders from the US? Do you wonder why so many Iranians support their nuclear program?

I'm suggesting a nuclear armed Iran might make it more difficult to DEFEND Iran's neighbors against bullying from tehran.

[RickSp]

Quote by: BobbyO I'm suggesting a nuclear armed Iran might make it more difficult to DEFEND Iran's neighbors against bullying from tehran.

As nuclear weapons are almost exclusively useful as weapons of retaliation, it is not clear to me how a nuclear Iran, if such should come to pass, would change things significantly in the region. A nuclear Israel has proven incapable of bullying Hezbollah. The real value of a nuke for Iran, aside from prestige, is that it could make an attack by Israel or the US too costly.

[BobbyO]

Quote by: RickSp As nuclear weapons are almost exclusively useful as weapons of retaliation, it is not clear to me how a nuclear Iran, if such should come to pass, would change things significantly in the region. A nuclear Israel has proven incapable of bullying Hezbollah. The real value of a nuke for Iran, aside from prestige, is that it could make an attack by Israel or the US too costly.

Yes. Iran would be free to continue destabilising Lebanon, continue working on destabilising turkey, and move on for more of the same with respects to saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. And you are right it would make counteracting such bullying difficult being that it could be too costly. Why though such a state of affairs is desirable remains mysterious, and why steps to avoid that problem is more dangerous is eqiually mysterious.

[Autolykos]

The question remains why anything happening in the Middle East is necessarily any of the US government's business.

- Rob

[RickSp]

Quote by: BobbyO Yes. Iran would be free to continue destabilising Lebanon, continue working on destabilising turkey, and move on for more of the same with respects to saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. And you are right it would make counteracting such bullying difficult being that it could be too costly. Why though such a state of affairs is desirable remains mysterious, and why steps to avoid that problem is more dangerous is eqiually mysterious.

All of which has nothing to do with Iranian nukes. You want regime change. You want to force the Iranians to bend to US will by whatever means.

Your answer appears to be more imperial forays, more bumbling invasions and/or coups that have failed so miserably in the past. The ultimate world policeman/nanny imposing our will on others, because we know better?

One question - will you admit that you neocons have nothing but contempt for democracy, as you claim the right to dictate events in other coutnries around the world regardless of the will of their citizens? Or is it that you simply do not understand the meaning of the word?

[jose]

Iran said on Wednesday that it will stage "extensive" military maneuvers in the Gulf waters starting from Thursday, the semi-official Fars News Agency reported.

Xinhua - English

[BobbyO]

Quote by: Autolykos The question remains why anything happening in the Middle East is necessarily any of the US government's business. - Rob

Hey, that's fine, too.

Maybe nothing that goes in Europe is our business.
Maybe nothing that goes on in the Pacific is our business.

Isolationism has a proud history in this country (sincerely stated). I just do not think it is best way to secure the USA.