Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Hugo Chavez on January 30, 2010, 04:42:29 PM
-
WASHINGTON (AFP) – The US administration is speeding up deployment of defenses against potential Iranian missile attacks in the Gulf to heed off any possible retaliation, The New York Times reported Saturday.
The move involves placing specialized ships off the Iranian coast and anti-missile systems in at least four Arab countries -- Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Kuwait -- the Times said, citing administration and military officials.
Oman has also been approached, although no Patriot missiles have been deployed there yet, US officials told the newspaper, adding that the willingness of other Arab states to accept the US defenses reflects growing unease in the region over Iran's ambitions and capabilities.
"Our first goal is to deter the Iranians," a senior administration official told the newspaper. "A second is to reassure the Arab states, so they don't feel they have to go nuclear themselves. But there is certainly an element of calming the Israelis as well."
The deployments could also forestall any Iranian retaliation in response to the sanctions, as well as discourage staunch US ally Israel from launching a military strike against Tehran's nuclear and military facilities.
Washington is seeking to win over its allies to slap a fourth set of UN sanctions on Iran that would target the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps believed to control the military aspect of Tehran's controversial nuclear program.
Friday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton upped the pressure on China to recognize the threat from Iran's nuclear program -- which Washington and its Western allies aims to produce nuclear weapons despite Tehran's insistence otherwise -- and join international calls for sanctions.
General David Petraeus, who heads the US Central Command that oversees US military operations stretching from the Gulf to Central Asia, said the sped-up deployment of missile systems included eight Patriot missile batteries, "two in each of four countries."
The unusually public comments about the accelerated deployments, which began under President Barack Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush, came during an address at the Institute for the Study of War in Washington on January 22.
"Iran is clearly seen as a very serious threat by those on the other side of the Gulf front, and indeed, it has been a catalyst for the implementation of the architecture that we envision and have now been trying to implement," he said at the time.
The United States was also keeping Aegis guided missile cruisers, equipped with advanced radar and anti-missile systems that can intercept medium-range missiles, on patrol in the Gulf at all times, according to Petraeus.
Though those systems are not designed to intercept Iran's long-range missile, the Times noted that intelligence agencies estimate it will take Tehran years before it can place a nuclear warhead atop the Shahab III.
A senior military official told the newspaper that Petraeus began speaking openly about the deployments about a month ago, as Tehran declined the Obama administration's offer of engagement and Washington faced growing challenges to impose sanctions against the Islamic Republic.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100130/pl_afp/usirangulfmissiledefense_20100130211234
-
I really should have just voted for McCain or not voted...
At least we would have had a hot VP! ;D ;D ;D
-
We all know Iran has to happen eventually and presidency isn't a factor.
-
We all know Iran has to happen eventually and presidency isn't a factor.
What a mess. Truly a sad time in history. We go from war to war to war.
-
What a mess. Truly a sad time in history. We go from war to war to war.
It's the military industrial complex Americans were warned about in 1951 or so.
-
It's the military industrial complex Americans were warned about in 1951 or so.
Not to boil this down to $ $, but we can't afford this crap anymore.
-
Not to boil this down to $ $, but we can't afford this crap anymore.
Affordability isn't an issue.
-
I really should have just voted for McCain or not voted...
Wouldn't matter who you would have voted for the AGENDA will remain the same. As a matter of fact as loose a screw as McCain was and is if there was a chance that this war would have or could have come sooner due to his decision...IT WOULD HAVE. Remember the government you see is NOT the government that is in control.
-
that's why I said that.....
Ooops I see..for a moment I thought you honestly thought things would be better under his leadership
-
You buy the Iran will destroy Israel cock and bull or what is the issue?
We're stuck in the "can't keep a part of the economy moving without war" rut.
Also, we were all better off with Saddam in power. Whatever ends up there if the US ever actually pulls all the troops out will be worse than what they had before, for us.
-
We'e not going anywhere...I'm 200 miles from the border.
-
I would be too busy to post so silence is consent. Brother...u need to come on over. The Muslims HATTTTTTTTE Israel...this shit is not overblown. Iran would love to make em glow...but they have to weight getting destroyed, destroying there economy etc with that hate...so they play games with terrorist groups until they have nukes and then can't be touched.
-
Is there a reason you deleted every post I made in this thread? The first one wasn't violating anything, you douche bag.
Time to grow the fuck up and stop deleting everything that you disagree with, you propaganda specialist. There should be some accountability for the fact that you're a lying shill whose guaranteed claims have not once come to fruition.
-
Hugo, remember this?
He would have done the same thing.
-
He would have done the same thing.
hense, why I said I might as well have or should have just voted for McCain. Yes I remember that clip. My point for this thread was, there is no difference. And that I say in anger of the moment at the prospect. In reality I know we probably would have already attacked Iran under McCain. If this is just posturing, I can somewhat understand it--and it probably is. What else can be happening on the sidlines to turn presumed posturing into more, well nobody but a few know. So we wait and see.... and I do predict one outcome will suck ass....
-
We're stuck in the "can't keep a part of the economy moving without war" rut.
Also, we were all better off with Saddam in power. Whatever ends up there if the US ever actually pulls all the troops out will be worse than what they had before, for us.
Removing Saddam all but guaranteed this scenario. Just more taxpayer money down the drain. Thank you George Bush. "Mission Accomplished"!
-
We're stuck in the "can't keep a part of the economy moving without war" rut.
Also, we were all better off with Saddam in power. Whatever ends up there if the US ever actually pulls all the troops out will be worse than what they had before, for us.
Really? Can you explain your reasoning?
-
Really? Can you explain your reasoning?
Reading Eisenhower's speech might help you get my point http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html
Saddam was an ass but no religious fanatic. His methods, though brutal, kept the tribal tiny tits in line. Aside from simply killing them all we'll never have the stomach to do what it would take to impose order on their culture. Even if we allowed northern Iraq to become Kurdistan it would still be unstable and unfriendly towards Israel. All of our troops go and Iran is within Scud missile range of Israel. Keeping him contained would have made more sense especially considering we put Saddam in power.
-
Really? Can you explain your reasoning?
I'll listen to his response too but I've even heard conservatives say the same thing. A few years ago, I think quite a few people started to realise the clusterfuck Saddam was actually holding in place.
-
I'll listen to his response too but I've even heard conservatives say the same thing. A few years ago, I think quite a few people started to realise the clusterfuck Saddam was actually holding in place.
There aren't any conservatives left, LOL!
-
There aren't any conservatives left, LOL!
sorry, forgot the quotes ""
-
hense, why I said I might as well have or should have just voted for McCain. Yes I remember that clip. My point for this thread was, there is no difference. And that I say in anger of the moment at the prospect. In reality I know we probably would have already attacked Iran under McCain. If this is just posturing, I can somewhat understand it--and it probably is. What else can be happening on the sidlines to turn presumed posturing into more, well nobody but a few know. So we wait and see.... and I do predict one outcome will suck ass....
My apologies! I thought it sounded a little off for you, but I said it anyway just in case. :)
-
Obama should give one week notice to Iran to evacuate, then after that week , nuke that shit fucking hole and be done with the fuckers. Then pak, afg, after, then our troops could come home, and we wouldn't be spending billions just pussy footing around with these pieces of shit.
-
Obama should give one week notice to Iran to evacuate, then after that week , nuke that shit fucking hole and be done with the fuckers. Then pak, afg, after, then our troops could come home, and we wouldn't be spending billions just pussy footing around with these pieces of shit.
No need to. That country is destroying itself from the inside-out. They're incapable of stopping their own populace from rising up against them. They sure as shit won't be fighting a war against anyone anytime soon. Just another paper tiger in a long line of them.
-
Reading Eisenhower's speech might help you get my point http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html
Saddam was an ass but no religious fanatic. His methods, though brutal, kept the tribal tiny tits in line. Aside from simply killing them all we'll never have the stomach to do what it would take to impose order on their culture. Even if we allowed northern Iraq to become Kurdistan it would still be unstable and unfriendly towards Israel. All of our troops go and Iran is within Scud missile range of Israel. Keeping him contained would have made more sense especially considering we put Saddam in power.
I've already read Ike's speech, thanks though. I get your point and do agree that he was the iron fist that kept things in line, more or less. But what happens after the U.S. totally leaves the country or pulls out and leaves nothing but a skeleton force and a large diplomatic contingent, is anyone's guess. I tend to be more optimistic in this regard. It won't be a paradise or even a largely tight and focused govt. for a long long time. Lots can go right and lots can go wrong.
In the end, what was the invasion for in the long term? Putting a vice grip on Iran? A blocking move on China? Oil? Bases? A friendly govt. that will buy our weapons and see things our way?
I believe it to be all of the above, but war with Iran right now would send an economic shock wave and cause mass instability in the region. Will it be an air campaign with special forces and CIA incursions? A ground offense reminiscent of OIF? What do we plan on doing afterwards?
Or do we just support the dissidents and let the cards fall where they may?
-
Obama should give one week notice to Iran to evacuate, then after that week , nuke that shit fucking hole and be done with the fuckers. Then pak, afg, after, then our troops could come home, and we wouldn't be spending billions just pussy footing around with these pieces of shit.
you don't nuke Oil rich countries...Oh yeah, just blow up refineries, Oil rigs, and just try capping those things...Milions, if not billions of gallons wasted. Blow up museums containing some of the oldest artifacts in the world. Right bright idea, huh?
-
I've already read Ike's speech, thanks though. I get your point and do agree that he was the iron fist that kept things in line, more or less. But what happens after the U.S. totally leaves the country or pulls out and leaves nothing but a skeleton force and a large diplomatic contingent, is anyone's guess. I tend to be more optimistic in this regard. It won't be a paradise or even a largely tight and focused govt. for a long long time. Lots can go right and lots can go wrong.
In the end, what was the invasion for in the long term? Putting a vice grip on Iran? A blocking move on China? Oil? Bases? A friendly govt. that will buy our weapons and see things our way?
I believe it to be all of the above, but war with Iran right now would send an economic shock wave and cause mass instability in the region. Will it be an air campaign with special forces and CIA incursions? A ground offense reminiscent of OIF? What do we plan on doing afterwards?
Or do we just support the dissidents and let the cards fall where they may?
Good post. Well written.
-
We aren't doing anything...the Gov wants to avoid an out of control arms race when and if Iran goes nuke. If we have missile ships and Patriots spred around, the other arab countries are less likely to build their own. Most of these places are one good car bomb away from nutbags rulership. We are better off letting the unrest spread and when it looks like a little help either economic or "whatever" will tip things, then we could get invloved. Our folks here spend alot of time shipping things to Afghanistan...our tanks have'nt rolled in months. Most of our MRAPs are headed to Gare's neck of the woods.