If true, this looks like the most credible preparations for a strike on Iran yet.
Holy #$%#$, if there's an attack on Iran, all bloody hell is going to break loose.
This article claims the carriers will be close enough to Iran to be "visible" from its shores.
Read this article if you want to learn about how U.S. aircraft carriers are obsolete floating tombs:
http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carriers-will-die/
Carrier Strike Group 10, headed by the USS Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier, sails out of the US Navy base at Norfolk, Virginia Friday, May 21. On arrival, it will raise the number of US carriers off Iranian shores to two. Up until now, President Barack Obama kept just one aircraft carrier stationed off the coast of Iran, the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower in the Arabian Sea, in pursuit of his policy of diplomatic engagement with Tehran. For the first time, too, the US force opposite Iran will be joined by a German warship, the frigate FGS Hessen, operating under American command. It is also the first time that Obama, since taking office 14 months ago, is sending military reinforcements to the Persian Gulf. Our military sources have learned that the USS Truman is just the first element of the new buildup of US resources around Iran. It will take place over the next three months, reaching peak level in late July and early August. By then, the Pentagon plans to have at least 4 or 5 US aircraft carriers visible from Iranian shores.
Awesome quote from the second article, "The lesson ... all of you suckers should have learned... : the people at the top are just as dumb as you are, just meaner and greedier."
Clayton -
US air carriers are not obsolete first of all. Second, you don't know why they're building up forces in the Persian Gulf. It could be because Iran is sending an 'aid' ship to Gaza to try and break the blockade there which they know Israel will have to stop. This could cause a giant conflict and the US could be sending extra military units there to protect interests in Iraq, protect Israel, Saudi Arabia, etc.
The DF…pffff, any sizzler would do. And it’s a strait we’re talking about, where you can fire missiles form both shores. The US navy is in for a surprise.
US air carriers are not obsolete first of all.
You know the phrase "hit the broad side of a barn?" Well, carriers are several times the size of a barn, as targets go. They can't hardly move, and *even if* their close-in anti-missile systems work, they can't stop a dozen missiles incoming simultaneously. Iran makes its own anti-ship missiles, they're rolling off assembly lines as we speak; Iran has more than enough missiles to overwhelm every enemy ship that's within firing range when the shooting starts, AEGIS or no AEGIS.
Face it, aircraft carriers are as obsolete today as battleships were in WWII.
Iran practically has Mutually Assured Destruction with the U.S. government - not physical destruction of the U.S. itself, but destruction of the U.S. economy through oil sabotage in the region and destruction of the U.S. military in the area too - they can do the latter just by cutting supply lines and keeping them cut - remember how the C.I.A. was able to do that to the Ruskies in Afghanistan in the 80s, just by handing out 'stinger' missiles to the local hicks? Well, Iran not only makes those, they also import the current state of the art versions from Russia (and probably even reverse engineer them).
A carrier group is much more than just an aircraft carrier, and there are many ways to defeat sub-standard anti-ship missiles, regardless of how many Iran produces.
Iran has very little influence over US oil supply.
Here's the current deployment of U.S. Aircraft Carriers. I believe the ships that transitioned the Suez Canal was the USS Harry S Truman carrier group sent to join the USS Dwight D Eisenhower carrier group (which replaced the USS Nimitz carrier group back in January-March of this year). Not at all uncommon to have two carrier groups in and active military theater, and this is no signal of any hostile action to launch an attack against Iran.
I'm interested in knowing which 3-4 non-existent U.S. Aircraft carriers transitioned the Suez Canal.
Not that I'm for increasing the U.S. military's presence in the region, but just thought the hyperbole of the referenced blogs was way over the top.
Don't worry, the USA will lose a war in Persia (Who sent waves of millions of young men into the semi-advanced weaponry of Saddam) just like it is going to lose the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Columbia and Mexico.
When you stick your finger in a light socket, expect to be shocked.
When you put a stick in a bee hive, expect to be stung.
And here is some more to spice up your suspicion of conspiracy even further.
Nope, Iran will most likely never be able to destroy one US aircraft carrier. You're implying that Iran has the technical capability of even doing that. They don't. Many military experts will tell you that Iran's military isn't very advanced. In a war there is no way Iran could defeat the US - they would just bomb them into oblivion. If you're talking about an occupation that's a totally different beast.
Have fun, yanks
Except, in a war, if Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz, that would stop all the oil exports of Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, U.A.E., and Bahrain; also, it would stop a good deal of Saudi crude.
If they wanted to be nasty, they could easily blow up oil refineries, pipelines, facilities etc all over Saudi and Iraq, which would be a permanent crimp on global oil supplies.
Our neighbor to the South, Mr. Chavez has also gone on record saying he'd stop selling oil to the U.S. if Iran is attacked.
In the event of a war, Iran could make the price of oil so high the U.S. economy would implode.
If it came to a long war, Iran would lose. The USA is bigger and stronger, period.
In the short term, Iran might be able to blow up some tankers and carriers if they use anti-ship missiles the way a state with inferior weaponry should use them (A thousand Scuds fired at a carrier, for example, would probably blow it up even if AEGIS had a 99.9% success rate), though the last time they tried something like this they were utterly trashed (Operation Grasshopper or something).
An occupation of Iran would fail utterly. Iraq and Afghanistan are hard enough, and they are far smaller than Iran is. Iran would break the proverbial camel's back.
By my count the USA has not won a war since the Revolution maybe the Cold War?. Here is my score:
1. War of 1812-tie.
2. Un-Civil War-South Lost, USA lost and got bigger government and paper money.
3. Wars with Mexico and Spain-These are still going on? I would say lost as the border is a war zone.
4. WW1-Lost, this put the world on a collision course for WW2.
5. WW2-Tie, really lost. More people were under the control of totalitarian regimes than before.
6. Korea-Tie.
7. Vietnam-Lost
8. Afghanistan/Pakistan-Will lose, Iraq-Will lose. Columbia-Tie right now. Bosnia-Tie right now.
So with this glorious record what do you expect from the occupation of Iran? I say it: Lost.
What is your criteria? I'd say to determine if a war ended in victory or a defeat you have to examine what were the war goals of those who launched it. Maybe the ACW brought on bigger government, but it was hardly fought to keep government small, etc.
I'd say to determine if a war ended in victory or a defeat you have to examine what were the war goals of those who launched it.
Exactly. America's wars have all been victories for the wealthy elite and power-hungry politicians who desire the expansion of socialist government and the spread of a corporate empire.
For the American people, they have been utter defeats.
Wars are political constructs of the State, and victory is more declared than actual unless you're talking about wiping an opposing state off the face of the earth.
0. Revolutionary War - Any war of attrition favors the defender. British occupation of the American Colonies along with a European War was unsustainable. I think it was more of a matter of a British defeat than an American victory.
1. War of 1812 was to repel a foreign invasion. The Americans got a bloody nose in the process. This was more of a continuation of the Revolutionary War, and the Brits pretty much decided that they had had enough. Last I checked the U.S.A. isn't part of the UK. Some might say in the long run the UK is within the sphere of influence of the U.S.A. (due to more recent conflicts rather than this war).
2. Civil War - wrong side won, but it was THE U.S.A. rather than these U.S.A. that won that one.
2b. Indian Wars - the U.S.A. pretty much annihilated most of the indigenous peoples, although a lot simply gave up the fight rather than face genocide.
3. Wars with Mexico and Spain were pure expansionism (versus Mexico) and anti-European occupation (versus Spain). The U.S.A. expanded, and thus won. Cuba is not part of Spain (not part of the U.S. either, but they didn't claim it). Neither Spain nor Mexico are at war with the U.S.A. Present day illegal immigration and border intrusions by drug cartels are criminal activities that could be immediately correct by eliminating state intervention. BTW, some contend that the Spanish-American War was a way for Spain to give up an unsustainable empire and gain $20 million in the process. The military conflict was very one-sided in favor of the U.S.A.
4. WWI - The U.S.A. Expeditionary Force was very successful, but came in rather late. The war itself was a complete waste of human lives and effort all for the sake of political intrigues of power-hungry states. Then to top it off, the punishment was about as bad as the initial aggression.
5. WWII - Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and Facist Italy were defeated. Somehow Russia ended up better off due to the Allies unwillingness to recognize one of their own was as bad, if not worse than Germany. Too many people died before, during and after this conflict - all for the State. Add to that the deals the Allies made to carve out the Middle East and Asia, and you have what will probably be a century worth of conflict. The U.S.A. won, but the people of the world lost a lot. Throw in the A-bomb and you got to wonder who were the "good guys".
6. Korean War - Not over; it's on hold and may be heating up again (although I think it's all for show).
7. Vietnam - Definite loss; less so militarily (if you count taking useless hills as success), but a loss is a loss. Again, a war of attrition favors the defender.
8. Operation Desert Storm - Win; probably too easy since it's fed the appetites of Monday morning generals and hawkish politicians who have sought to use military force as a first choice to resolve conflict. Iraq was expelled from Kuwait. That was all.
9. Serbia/Bosnia - WTF? Nuff said.
10. Somalia - WTF part 2.
11. Afghanistan - Occupation holds no strategic advantage (unless you want opium). The policy was screwed up from the start. This was a war for revenge, and has become the longest military engagement in U.S. history. Obama will pull out with his tail between his legs. This is an unwinnable war no matter how the state spins it.
12. Iraq - George W Bush campaigned against "nation building" and less than one year into his presidency decided on a policy of "pre-emptive strike" and "nation building" in order to create democracies in the Middle East. That's so screwed up. Time will tell whether Iraq holds together after the U.S. leaves.
13. War on Terror - tie at best.
14. War on Drugs - loss.
15. War on Poverty - loss; no thanks to the state.
16. War on Illegal Immigration - a joke; U.S. immigration policy, laws and enforcement are an embarassment. The Feds pass laws they don't enforce - why have the laws in the first place? Arizona passes a law to enforce the Fed laws - get rid of the Fed laws and problem is solved.
17. War on Obesity - take a look around; losing big time.
##. War on [insert political vice/opponent] pursued by the State is doomed to fail most of the time, and will typically harm the very people the State intends to help or protect.
*********
The U.S.A. is the best in the world at blowing things up, but comes up well short in other areas.
The Korean War should be counted as WWII. North Korea is just a continuation of Ché Roosevelté's handiwork.