Bush Administration Agenda to Sacrifice the Fifth Fleet – The New Pearl Harbor

reply to post by Mirthful Me


Yeah this is a good point i mean ever supposed attack like this that happened before was capable of being prevented.

Pearl Harbour - the president ignored that japanese fleet
Gulf of Tonkin - was a provoked attack, although some say it never even happened
9/11 - all our planes were playing wargames

if something like this happened whose to say that some convenient similar circumstances would not render our Aegis enabled ships useless or something.

reply to post by yahn goodey


Then why are the Bushists "hiding their head in the sand" over the the very real threat to US Naval forces sitting in the "big lake" known as the Persian Gulf?

Or at least posturing themselves as such?

The Navy's anti-cruise missile defenses are only most effective when deployed "over the horizon," and there is no horizon to use to their advantage in the Gulf.

And -off topic- this US war-mongering isn't really over nuclear arms, "terrorism," oil fields, or fiat oil dollars for that matter, either, it's about the Iranian indifference to the international banker's attempts to bring them under their monetary control, i.e. compound interest.

See my other thread if you'd like discuss that issue: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Alphard
Translation: This extract is from the same source as the first extract. According to this, the simulated attacks in the Millenium Challenge were of even older design than the ones used by China (and very likely also Iran) now. and they STILL managed to sink most of the fleet. Consider that.

Ok...and how does all this lead to attacking Iran and sacrificing the 5th fleet to do it? I do not think we are debating that there are vulnerabilities with a massive attack that is designed to overrun our defensive systems. I would think even a few 1000 Cessna 172s could overrun just from the sheer numbers.

The key here is why would the US attack first? This is basically what the author is getting at with the idea that we would “sacrifice” the 5th fleet and the other part is Iran would totally lose Russia and China as allies if they did send 1000 or 10,000 missiles at anyone including the 5th fleet. This would be a death sentence to that country and they would be on their own.

So because of all this I think our 5th fleet is not going away anytime soon.

How far...

Is far?

Originally posted by goosdawg
The Navy's anti-cruise missile defenses are only most effective when deployed "over the horizon," and there is no horizon to use to their advantage in the Gulf.

What is "over the horizon?" In kilometers or miles? are you speaking from the escort positions within a carrier battlegroup, or the carrier itself?

In my experience, the "over the horizon" scenario can be obtained even in the Straights of Hormuz.

reply to post by Xtrozero

The key here is why would the US attack first?

Maybe because they now have 3000 centrifuges online and are well on their way to a bomb wihtin a year. At least thats the premise Israel was recently briefed on in the Knesset. When they go, we go.

So making sure our ships are out of the area until we clean up is crucial. To do otherwise would be highly questionable IMO. There simply is no defense against these Supersonic missiles, they just come in to fast and can be programmed for evasive manuevers on the way in. We've known this for years.

What do you think will happen NOW, when a few Israeli planes, painted in US colours, were attacking the Iranian nuclear factories with neutron bombs and bunker busters, then return, while radio-communicating fluent American English on their way out?

If my country were attacked, we would also defend ourself against the declared enemy and possible invader.

Why is it so difficult to grasp that concept for an American patriot?
Do you really believe there are no Iranian patriots?
Or Iraqi, or Afghani, or whichever nation's citizens.

And why are American deaths in a conflict so out of the question, but why are you patriots talking so bloodthirsty when it comes down to the "Others"?

These are the same kind of sons and daughters, serving as soldiers, who all leave behind grieving parents.
Americans and Iranians alike, when a war will break out.

Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar
Maybe because they now have 3000 centrifuges online and are well on their way to a bomb wihtin a year. At least thats the premise Israel was recently briefed on in the Knesset. When they go, we go.

So making sure our ships are out of the area until we clean up is crucial. To do otherwise would be highly questionable IMO. There simply is no defense against these Supersonic missiles, they just come in to fast and can be programmed for evasive manuevers on the way in. We've known this for years.

We still will not attack first and I find it hard to believe they went from 8 years of production to one year in less than 6 months. Let’s say they do get a nuke, or let’s say Israel does surgical strikes on their plants I do not see the US getting in a first strike type attack if those two countries go head to head. As stated our fleet will be moved and our posture in Iran will become very defensive before Israel does a first strike, and as I said if Iran ever did a first strike on the US it would be the end of the country from losing their allies.

reply to post by Xtrozero


Yes, but hasn't Iran said many times already that ANY strike by Israel would bring a full reponse against all targets in the ME, US and Israeli?

reply to post by LaBTop


Wrong, Bush said they were at close to 100% success rate, 20% at best was the real hit rate.

www.wsws.org...

It was also reported in the British press and probably had a total black out in the US.

reply to post by Flyer


No offense Flyer, but I think you meant your posted reply to reference this post:

reply to post by Xtrozero


In which Xtrozero posted:

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Actually the patriot missile was a huge sucess story. Here was a missile that was ONLY designed for anti-aircraft and in a very short peroid that would have taken years it was redesigned to fill a roll that we had nothing for that roll of shooting down missles from the a ground base launch site.

Not LaBTop's, right?

[edit on 11-11-2007 by goosdawg]

I might add that the Patriot system was so ineffective that the Uk decided NOT to purchase it after it's was god awful display in GW1.

Even in GW2, it suffered from such glaring operational and system drawbacks that it "automatically" targetted friendly aircraft, without oversight from operators, and shot them down.

Patriot's success rate at shooting down even the most basic scud is abysmal.

Originally posted by Flyer
Remember the patriot missiles, they didnt work well and the US completely lied about their effectiveness during the war.

Um-hm, and it is precisely due to their ineffectiveness I am here now to exchange keyboard diarrhea with you enlightened armchair patriots.

Or should I just say, "I see". :shk:

reply to post by Hal9000

I have no plans to wipe out anybody. I am an American. Bush and Cheney don't speak for me. I don't like or trust them. I didn't vote for them.

The only time in history AScM have been used against ships - 6 out of 7 have hit the target - with a variety of excuses used to why the `defences` didn`t work (not working properly , switched off , bird poo on the sensors)

also IF , Iran was the fire upon a crrier group then it would be multi threat approach and saturation - 1 attack with subs and hundreds of slow missiles - the arleigh burkes might be amazing but they a finite number of missiles - once there all shot off then what , you still would have sub sonic vampires (and lets not forget torpedos - ships maneuvering make lots of noise)

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 11/11/2007 by Mirthful Me]

Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar
Yes, but hasn't Iran said many times already that ANY strike by Israel would bring a full reponse against all targets in the ME, US and Israeli?

Yes, and I believe them if someone invades, but on a surgical strike I don’t see it, and I do not think that Israel will strike without the US knowing first. In the case that they do strike I would think our ships would be moved to a distance that makes the majority of Iran’s missiles no longer a threat. Anyway you look at it they have a big one punch hit as many countries do, but launching that many missiles will be viewed as equaling a WMD by most of the world.

reply to post by Mirthful Me


"Over the horizon" depends on the elevation of the missile batteries.

The US Navy's biggest problem operating in Gulf waters are the constraints that the region's confined spaces impose on US naval defenses, which were designed for the open sea. The Persian Gulf is nothing but a large lake, after all, and in such an environment the Navy's over-the-horizon defenses are seriously compromised.4 Nor can the Navy withdraw to a safe distance, so long as its close-in presence is required to support the US occupation forces in Iraq. The serious implications of this simple fact for a possible future conflict, for instance, involving Iran, have never, to my knowledge, been discussed in the US press.

Source | Rense.com | Myth Of US Invincibility Floats In The Persian Gulf

IMHO, I don't think the Iranians have their missiles sitting at sea level.

I submitted the story to Digg. Everyone Click Here and Digg it so it gets to the front, where everyone will see the lies of this corrupt government

reply to post by mentalempire


you might think this is off thread but it is not---this is the reality.attack iran and you can write off israel?scripture doesnt support your statement.the muslim world covets after jerusalem and the temple mount area----there is going to be an invasion of israel with the focal point of trying to gain control of jerusalem (zechariah 12.)-------2/3 of the jews will be murdered in the process but those that remain of the 1/3 left (zechariah 13:8) after a 3 1/2 year enslavement are going to fight along side the returning Messiah and annihilate the the former invaders(zechariah 14:12) that will be joined by 200 million more from russiah and china(revelation 9:16) it will be the mother of all wars.

My take is this:

If we wanted to start a war by taking some non-verifiable or seemingly low-threat action that provokes Iran into attacking US ships, there would be several tell-tale clues.

US forces in the gulf will be reduced to one CV and one LHA. This will achieve two goals: 1. Limiting casualties two only 2 of our oldest flat-tops (Kittyhawk, and preferably Tarawa or Nassau). 2. Taking away the argument that Iran's move was preemptive.
One or two more carriers will either be enroute to the area or on station outside of the gulf.

There will be news stories about air strikes on Iranian-backed insurgents in Iraq, thus making it look like the Iranian attack is an escalation of their meddling in Iraq. This will be an attempt to defend the failure of the Iraq war up till now in much the same way that Vietnam is defended with the argument that we were fighting with our hands tied (and making Bush the guy who finally untied our hands and 'fought to win').

There will probably be reports of Iran downing predator drones in their airspace shortly before the event.

There may be a significant change in our approach to Iraq before the event. Quite possibly the announcement of an up-coming large reduction in troop strength there, which may coincide with a rotation of forces which will be used as an opportunity to move extra equipment and supplies into the theater which can be manned on short notice if necessary.

And finally of course Iran will either be attacked by Israel or America, but this will be flatly denied, and anything that might prove or disprove the claims will be either classified or unavailable because of technical problems.

After Iran retaliates, the scene of the attack that provoked them will be hit again by America, thus allowing us to claim that any intelligence such as bomb fragments or blast patterns that tie us to the provokation was collected after the overt strikes began.

As for timeframe: Several opportune moments have already been allowed to pass. The last best shot is in January. It helps the kind of Republicans that Bush wants to be followed by in the primaries and it gives just enough time to gather forces for a spring attack if it comes to an invasion.

Then if it does go to an invasion, expect that invasion to be a brutal last hurrah for this administration. The gloves would come off in a way that they most certainly have not up to now, because we would be attempting to crush resistance in both Iraq and Iran before November '08 in an attempt to boost a hawk Republican for the general election and salvage the Bush legacy.

We'd be talking unprecedented lack of respect for international law, even by neoconservative standards. Clerics would be vanishing in the fog of war, burried in shallow graves, and then slapped on a deck of cards so that the US could claim they got away. Surrenders from certain units would probably not be honored. Communication and travel for civilians would have to be shut down. Basically the goal, if they wanted to win, would have to be to make a failed-state out of Iran and let a large percentage of Iran's population starve to death in the aftermath, thus making the world safe for a new semi-secular authoritarian Sunni regime in Iraq.

Will it actually happen? At this point, I'm inclined to say no. But if we grant that it could happen, then all of that is how I see it.

reply to post by goosdawg


my wife and i are have jewish/christian religious beliefs.we do not hope for or glory in war-----but when you look at what has happened in the middle east since the gulf wars and afghanistan and then look at the prophecy in daniel 11:40 concerning the present day king of the north-----what pres. bush has done so far seems to fulfill verse 40-----the next verses 41-45 are waiting fulfillment.now whether pres. bush or his german successor completes these remains to be seen----but he seems to have the temperment to do these things.iran could well be obliterated verse 44.when the term annhilate is used it means total destruction.