This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0073_01C75965.2A9A6940
Content-Type: text/plain;
format=flowed;
charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
UK doubles naval presence in Persian Gulf
By Damien McElroy in Manama, Bahrain
Last Updated: 1:34am GMT 26/02/2007
a.. Iran launches first rocket into space
a.. Revolutionary firebrand joins calls to end Iran's nuclear
programme
a.. US funds terror groups to sow chaos in Iran
Britain's senior naval officer in the Persian Gulf has revealed that
Royal Navy deployments in the region have doubled since October in a
build-up that matches the rapid escalation of American maritime firepower.
Commodore Keith Winstanley, who serves as deputy commander of
coalition maritime operations for US Central Command, has told The Daily
Telegraph that British trade and strategic interests dictate the necessity
of a high and sustained commitment to patrol the seas around the Middle
East.
"If you look at the UK component we have almost doubled it," he said
in an interview aboard HMS Sutherland in Mina al-Salman port.
"Most of these ships are here on training missions but there is no
doubt that we could use the warfighting capabilities they possess."
Cdre Winstanley said there was a message for Iran in the expansion
of the coalition fleet in the waters of the Persian Gulf, Sea of Oman and
Arabian Sea.
More ships on patrol would have strategic effects that went beyond
the operational benefits of increased patrols.
Royal Navy commanders insist the build-up in the Gulf has not been
ordered by the Ministry of Defence in direct response to Teheran's pursuit
of an atomic weapons programme in defiance of a United Nations Security
Council resolution.
But there are hopes that additional vessels will intensify pressure
on the regime in Tehran to abandon its nuclear activities.
The additional Royal Navy vessels sent to the Gulf include HMS
Cornwall, a type 22 frigate, two mine sweepers, HMS Ramsey and HMS Blythe,
and a vessel from the Royal Fleet Auxiliary.
The British ships will work in an American-led coalition of naval
vessels, which has expanded rapidly in recent weeks with the arrival of a
second aircraft carrier battle group, led by USS Stennis.
While most of the coalition is engaged in routine patrols, Cdre
Winstanley refers to the area of operations as the "battle-space".
Commitments include protecting Iraq's southern oil terminals against
attack until the Iraqi navy can prove its competence to ensuring the six
miles of shipping lanes through the Strait of Hormuz remain open.
Up to 80 per cent of Europe's trade with the Far East and a
substantial proportion of the world's oil and gas is shipped through local
waters.
Cdre Winstanley said British strategic and economic self-interest
dictated a strong Royal Navy commitment to the region.
"We have a vested interest in the freedom of the high seas," he
said.
"We can't do that alone but we can make a contribution. There is a
threat of widespread economic attack that I don't see diminishing."
Nineteen countries belong to the coalition led by US Admiral Patrick
Walsh and his deputy, Cdre Winstanley.
Maps at the command centre show the position of 45 naval vessels
from the southern coast of Pakistan to the east coast of Africa.
Terrorist threats and piracy loom large in operational plans.
Al-Qa'eda has attacked and destroyed US vessels in Arabian ports and
its leaders repeatedly called for strikes against oil platforms and
loading docks.
British developed computer software, the Automatic Identification
System (AIS) tracks vessels bigger than 300 tonnes throughout 2.5 million
square miles.
Unlike traditional radar systems, the AIS gives naval planners a
three dimensional view of the seas that enables detection of any unusual
movements.
Commodore Bruce Williams who commands Task 150, the southern segment
of the coalition, said the concentration of naval firepower has steadily
reduced the risk to commercial shipping.
"There are no guarantees," he said.
"This is an area of economic vulnerabilities but we can cause the
environment to shift to make it harder for those who would attack us to do
their business."
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=35039
Uh huh...the Iraqi Navy (!!) must prove its competence in keeping the
shipping lanes open...sure, sure...and the terrible pirates...oh
sure...and its a coalition of 19 countries...gotta' be there to protect
the Gulf from Iran's evil designs.
Sheeesh...
Docrodile
------=_NextPart_000_0073_01C75965.2A9A6940
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
name="94913;0.7863112140827514?"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Location: http://ad.uk.tangozebra.com/a/at/v_nb/10679/2196/94913;0.7863112140827514?
R0lGODlhAgACAIAAAP///////yH5BAEKAAEALAAAAAACAAIAAAICjFMAOw==
------=_NextPart_000_0073_01C75965.2A9A6940
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
name="B2175046;sz=1x1;ord=0.7863112140827514?"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Location: http://ad.uk.doubleclick.net/ad/N339.telegraph.com/B2175046;sz=1x1;ord=0.7863112140827514?
R0lGODlhAQABAIAAAP///////yH5BAEAAAEALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw==
------=_NextPart_000_0073_01C75965.2A9A6940--
.
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: UK Doubles Naval Presence in Persian Gulf |
26 Feb 2007 08:45:17 PM |
|
|
"Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
UK doubles naval presence in Persian Gulf
Cool. Should have happened about a year ago.
As I pointed out, Iran threatened to close the
Strait of Hormuz if we placed sanctions on them,
and we (the U.S. and E.U.) got the U.N. to back
sanctions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Docrodile" |
|
| Title: Re: UK Doubles Naval Presence in Persian Gulf |
26 Feb 2007 09:41:17 PM |
|
|
"JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172544315.830731.92290@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
"Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
UK doubles naval presence in Persian Gulf
Cool. Should have happened about a year ago.
As I pointed out, Iran threatened to close the
Strait of Hormuz if we placed sanctions on them,
and we (the U.S. and E.U.) got the U.N. to back
sanctions.
And, so, where is the Resolution that authorizes a UK/US military buildup
to supposedly keep Iran from strangling itself economically? LOL!
Certainly, no resolution is there to legally permit a preemptive military
strike.
Jeez, Iran has said it would not close the Strait of Hormuz unless the US
attacks it or, to be more accurate, that it would not 'disrupt' oil
supplies coming out of the Gulf unless the US (or Israel) attacks it.
One important element you missed. The ball's in Bush's court. So, why is
the US acting like it may take military action against Iran? Well, sure,
to knock its nuke plant program out. To save the world from a crazy
Iranian nuclear attack that would ultimately result in its own
destruction.
But, does Iran have a nuke bomb? Every analyst says 'not yet.' So, any
attack now would be preemptive. If Iran has a nuke bomb, why would it not
use to as a deterrent to US aggression (or Israeli)?
The ball's in Bush' court, and, in Olmert's, too.
Don't attack Iran's nuclear energy program preemptively, or otherwise.
And, lo and behold, Iran won't try to close the Strait of Hormuz or
disrupt oil supplies!!! Seems a common sense deal to me.
Is there any common sense left? Or, does hysteria and paranoia rule now?
What would be the ramifications on US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, if
military force is used on Iran? Would not the oil flow be disrupted
anyway?
Almost certainly, scenarios of using force on Iran would be of no benefit
economically to the West. Terrorism would increase, and oil disruptions
would be likely.
None of the people advocating a third war in the Mideast have any real
rationality left in thier overcooked noodles.
Docrodile
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: UK Doubles Naval Presence in Persian Gulf |
26 Feb 2007 11:15:30 PM |
|
|
"Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
And, so, where is the Resolution that authorizes
a UK/US military buildup to supposedly keep Iran
from strangling itself economically?
Why on earth would you think that we'd need a U.N.
resolution to move assests to the gulf?
Certainly, no resolution is there to legally
permit a preemptive military strike.
What military strike would that be?
And you've got one heck of a strange idea for
"preemptive"...
Jeez, Iran has said it would not close the
Strait of Hormuz unless the US attacks it
or, to be more accurate, that it would not
'disrupt' oil supplies coming out of the
Gulf unless the US (or Israel) attacks it.
Um, honey, is we attack them they can't disrupt
oil supplies. We'd destroy all their weapons
in the area of the Straits.
What they originally threatened was to close
the Straits in we imposed sanctions. This story
is dated October of 2006...
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/10/22/news/iran.php
It doesn't mention the specific threat to the
Strait which Iran had made in June of last year...
and February too... but this one does:
http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_18800.shtml
Anyhow, I suggest you try Google for further cites.
One important element you missed. The ball's in Bush's
court.
Hardly. The Europeans have been working that nut since
long before Bush started talking business. It was even
an issue in the 2004 Presidential campaign, brought up
in one of the debates (Kerry said he'd join European
efforts, if you're wondering).
It started LONG before then. The United States had
sanctions against Iran -- unilateral sanctions --
since LONG before Bush first stole office. Ask Cheney.
After all, as CEO of Halliburton he violated those
sanctions.
Later, in June of 2001, Cheney came out against the
sanctions...
So, why is the US acting like it may take military
action against Iran?
Because, given Iran's stated threats, it would be
retarded not to.
But, does Iran have a nuke bomb?
Not yet, hopefully.
Every analyst says 'not yet.'
How many analysts told you about Israel's or
even South Africa's bomb BEFORE it was obvious?
So, any attack now would be preemptive.
Iranian missiles can reach Europe, but not the
United States.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Docrodile" |
|
| Title: Re: UK Doubles Naval Presence in Persian Gulf |
27 Feb 2007 12:18:27 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172553330.694432.321000@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
"Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
And, so, where is the Resolution that authorizes
a UK/US military buildup to supposedly keep Iran
from strangling itself economically?
Why on earth would you think that we'd need a U.N.
resolution to move assests to the gulf?
Precisely, Bush didn't need one to attack Iraq, did he? We plan to attack
on assumptions? Or do attack to defend against an attack? Where did the
assumption that Iraq would attack with WMD eventually get us? Can we be
sure the US isn't taking us down the same primrose path again? What are we
doing there in the Middle East but protecting oil and other heavy
corporate interests, investments?
Certainly, no resolution is there to legally
permit a preemptive military strike.
What military strike would that be?
I just explained all that. Weren't you paying attention? No military
strike is needed unless it's to defend ourselves from an attack. Iran has
claimed it will not attack oil lanes unless it is attacked. If it does, it
hurts its main source of revenue. Doesn't seem sane to destroy your chief
source of revenue, ruin your economic health, by hitting the US or anyone
else in the Gulf, or hitting the oil exportation, does it? Unless, of
course, the US/Israel first hits Iran. Now, why would it want to strike
Iran? To destroy its nuke-making capacity, right? That's what we're told
every day. But, what would that do, if we did that? Bring about an attack
on oil exportation, and destroy its own main source of revenue. Don't make
any sense, tiger lily! It's patently insane for Iran to strike unless the
US or Israel does, and THAT is patently insane. We're an oil-based economy
over here. It's not going to do anything but bring our economy down. If
Iran has a nuke bomb, it will use to for deterrence against possible
aggression, or destroy itself via a WMD counter-attack from the West.
Don't compute, blossom flower!
And you've got one heck of a strange idea for
"preemptive"...
No, I have a bit of rationality left. Where you're not finding any
rationality is at the top of our government, and the media, filtering down
into the populace which buys the propaganda of fear. Preemptive warfare
hasn't gotten us into the fucking mess we're in in Iraq now, hasn't it?
The intel was either wrong or it was falsified deliberately. Was the
threat of a nuke or chemical attack outside Iraq justified...no! What are
we doing with our leaders who got us into this *****? Leaving them be, and
what are they doing? Escalating the war and sending more naval forces to
intimidate Iran. Don't compute into any real sanity, dandelion!
Jeez, Iran has said it would not close the
Strait of Hormuz unless the US attacks it
or, to be more accurate, that it would not
'disrupt' oil supplies coming out of the
Gulf unless the US (or Israel) attacks it.
Um, honey, is we attack them they can't disrupt
oil supplies. We'd destroy all their weapons
in the area of the Straits.
Thatsa' righta', sugar beet, but at what cost in the aftermath for us, our
troops, terrorists' efforts, our economy, general stability in the oil
exportation lanes, etc.? Attacking them will disrupt oil exportation,
sunflower. They've repeatedly said they have no intention of attacking us
or disrupting oil unless we attack. And that attack would cripple their
main revenue source, oil. Don't make a lick of sense to attack them,
rosebud!
What they originally threatened was to close
the Straits in we imposed sanctions. This story
is dated October of 2006...
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/10/22/news/iran.php
What they threaten and what they do to cripple themselves, and provide a
pretext for a US attack, are two different animals, honey pot. Propaganda!
Unlesss the sanctions cripple them, there's no sane reason to risk
warfare, and serious disruptions to their own oil business. What they have
said, from their clerics which control foreign policy and the
Revolutionary Guard (not Ahmadinejad), is that an attack on them will
cause them to attack back, and use oil as a weapon. Because, as you can
see, the sanctions aren't causing them to hit the oil pipeline. Propaganda
to deter Western aggression. But you don't see them wanting to cut the oil
off, or reduce it, do ya? They're waiting for an actual military assault
to swing that plan into motion, cherry tart!
It doesn't mention the specific threat to the
Strait which Iran had made in June of last year...
and February too... but this one does:
http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_18800.shtml
Anyhow, I suggest you try Google for further cites.
No, I suggest you think more about historical propaganda, both from the
media and the government sources, on both sides. Look at Rice's comments
in the article I quoted. What did she say about Iran not wanting to hurt
its own oil revenue? There was a small bit of reality and truth coming
outta' an otherwise lying and manipulative administration...but those
tidbits of sanity, rationality, common sense are being drowned out by the
war drummers. Every sensational remark from Iran is being contexturally
altered or incompletely reported as to provide psychodrama, or when it is
not, simply nationalistic propaganda from Iran is being spewed out.
One important element you missed. The ball's in Bush's
court.
Hardly. The Europeans have been working that nut since
long before Bush started talking business. It was even
an issue in the 2004 Presidential campaign, brought up
in one of the debates (Kerry said he'd join European
efforts, if you're wondering).
No, it up to Bush to either attack Iran's interests or back off. Withdraw
from Iraq's civil war. And it is up to us and our representatives here to
support the removal of Bush from office, and the end of his disastrous
foreign policy...not to promote more warfare, or leave him or is cohorts
in power positions to promote more warfare. The Europeans wanted to work
with Iran and were working with it before the latest round of Bushistic
hysteria over Iran developed. No one denies Iran's right to have
electrical power via nuclear generation, but oppose the uranium enrichment
to produce weaponry. Europeans and Americans opposed Pakistan's and
India's nuclear bomb programs, too, but have since learned to live with
them. Pakistan and India nearly went to war again three years ago, but
India backed off from an all-out invasion. The nuke deterrent was in
Pakistan.
It started LONG before then. The United States had
sanctions against Iran -- unilateral sanctions --
since LONG before Bush first stole office. Ask Cheney.
After all, as CEO of Halliburton he violated those
sanctions.
Later, in June of 2001, Cheney came out against the
sanctions...
So, why is the US acting like it may take military
action against Iran?
Because, given Iran's stated threats, it would be
retarded not to.
Threats or actions? Do we use our military forces on politicians' threats
or use them to defend against their actions? I'm in support of using our
military force to defend against an attack or against a direct, proved
threat. And it had better be proven...as we sorrowfully found out with
Iraq's absence of a direct threat, didn't we? Iran is not Iraq, sweet
pea. Iran is the No. 2 Arab power in the region, and it's puny gunboats
back in a confrontation in the 80s has been hugely expanded with a large
varied array of missiles, underground control bunkers, etc. Any US or
Israeli preemptive attack based on Iran's leaders' "threats" would be
disastrous if we find that our intel is wrong...and considering the track
record of this administration, it is naive to trust it. They should be
removed from office, but here we are, making jokes about them, and passing
a toothless resolution of protest! LOL! Some good the voters did back in
November! If you think that a coalition of major powers like Russia and
China wouldn't not find the reasons to move against our oil interests in
the Mideast, you are being naive. It won't always be an easy little war
viewed on TV and played with by armchair generals here...it can develop
quickly into a hell on earth if our leaders make the wrong moves. And
that's exactly what they've been doing so far...!
But, does Iran have a nuke bomb?
Not yet, hopefully.
Every analyst says 'not yet.'
How many analysts told you about Israel's or
even South Africa's bomb BEFORE it was obvious?
If the nuke bomb is there in Iran now, would you think it would use it to
commit national suicide by mutually assured destruction? Hardly. It wants
to build an empire, as we do (and are). Leaders want to survive to lead
and control power, not be martyred. That's for the populace to be
sacrificed for, not them.
So, any attack now would be preemptive.
Iranian missiles can reach Europe, but not the
United States.
They don't have to. Missiles hitting oil ports, lanes, refineries, etc.,
would bring our economic house down upon us, and that weakened position
would cause you to not really care about an actual military attack on us.
We'd be sitting in Depression Land, candy *****. And who's to say Russia and
China wouldn't be aligning with their allies in the Mideast? No one can be
sure, but history shows coalitions form quickly when confronted with a
massive threat to their empire-building.
Docrodile ;)~
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: UK Doubles Naval Presence in Persian Gulf |
27 Feb 2007 12:49:33 AM |
|
|
"Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
No, I suggest you think more about historical
propaganda, both from the media and the
government sources, on both sides. Look at
Rice's comments in the article I quoted. What
did she say about Iran not wanting to hurt its
own oil revenue? There was a small bit of
reality and truth coming outta' an otherwise
lying and manipulative administration...
Speaking of a lying & manipulative adminstration...
It was a member of the Nixon administration who
said, speaking before committee, "Watch what we
do, not what we say."
A COMMON & everyday political tactic is to play
opposite. Think of it this way:
A widely unpopular tax is up for a vote. You
want to raise it. Problem is, like I said, it's
unpopular as is -- never mind raising it.
There's sure to be huge numbers of angry citizens
present for the vote. What do you do?
Leak that you're all going to vote down the tax.
The people who are against it have no reason to
show up now. They have nothing to protest. They
want the tax gone, you & the media are telling
them that it's going away.
There. Problem solved.
What anyone says in politics is meaningless. It
always was and always will be. It's what they
actually do that matters.
Iran is going to play it's biggest, most effective
card, and there's only two things on this planet
that can stop it. One is a military strike, the
other is Iran getting everything it wants.
This is reality. Iran IS NOT going to tie one
hand behind it's back. Get that silly idea out
of your head now. Iran gets what it wants, or Iran
plays it's best cards.
Bush knows this. Condi knows this. This is why our
Naval assests are in the Gulf. And they should be
there. Period.
So much for your ring of truth...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Docrodile" |
|
| Title: Re: UK Doubles Naval Presence in Persian Gulf |
27 Feb 2007 02:40:06 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172558973.526713.270990@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
"Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
No, I suggest you think more about historical
propaganda, both from the media and the
government sources, on both sides. Look at
Rice's comments in the article I quoted. What
did she say about Iran not wanting to hurt its
own oil revenue? There was a small bit of
reality and truth coming outta' an otherwise
lying and manipulative administration...
Speaking of a lying & manipulative adminstration...
It was a member of the Nixon administration who
said, speaking before committee, "Watch what we
do, not what we say."
A COMMON & everyday political tactic is to play
opposite. Think of it this way:
A widely unpopular tax is up for a vote. You
want to raise it. Problem is, like I said, it's
unpopular as is -- never mind raising it.
There's sure to be huge numbers of angry citizens
present for the vote. What do you do?
Leak that you're all going to vote down the tax.
The people who are against it have no reason to
show up now. They have nothing to protest. They
want the tax gone, you & the media are telling
them that it's going away.
There. Problem solved.
What anyone says in politics is meaningless. It
always was and always will be. It's what they
actually do that matters.
Thanks for helping me make the point I made. Acting against the words of
politicians is a foolhardy enterprise. Wait till they do something and
then act against them. What are we doing in the world today? Going out and
picking fights with other nations for hegemonic goals. Nazi Germany, USSR,
Napoleonic Europe, the European Crusaders, Imperial Japan, Rome, ad
nauseam. We can now count our nation in with that nefarious 'club.'
There's only two reasons to have a military: defend against attack, or
react to a direct proved threat. A lesser reason is for domestic police
assistance or emergency relief, of course, when necessary. Other than
that, the military isn't there to solve social and political crises, or
engage in other folks' civil wars, or be (mis)used as a self-righteous
bunch of 'liberators' of sovereign nationals' lousy tyrannical
governments. Bush has misused the military as an ideological crusade, and
claiming to be liberating people from tyranny. That's an internal problem,
tyranny. Let the folks who are tyrannized muster the force and guts to
throw off tyrants -- it's not the purpose of our military to do what
essentially is their mission. If they can't do it, then they'll have to
live with it...and us, too. As history has shown, tyrannical governments
that do not threaten beyond their borders are better left alone, and dealt
with by the locals.
Iran is going to play it's biggest, most effective
card, and there's only two things on this planet
that can stop it. One is a military strike, the
other is Iran getting everything it wants.
No, there's another viable option that hasn't been worked out well with
Iran by this administration...and that is high-level talks to acheive
common ground, and thereby defusing tensions and violence. Bush set
pre-conditions for those high-level negotiations, and the UN backed him
up. Both are wrong! When the stakes are as high as global oil and
international peace, Bush and the UN should be supporting cabinet-level
talks with Iran with no pre-conditions. It's like telling your backyard
neighbor that a dispute over a fence will only be settled if he meets your
pre-conditions for negotiations by cutting out an overhanging tree that's
on his property. Ain't gonna work too well to get him to sit down with
you. And it's not just what Iran wants, it's also what the US and its
allies want. That's why two empires, one dominating the planet, and the
other emerging, need to get into serious long negotiations. Ahmadinejad,
for all his blustery rhetoric, has made repeated offers in various ways to
Bush to sit down and talk. He has sent long letters and discussion offers,
but has been rejected. If war breaks out and great damage is suffered by
both sides, we will be looking back on those offers and wishing they'd
been tried. No harm will come from talking. Harm will come when opposing
sides don't. We all know how we have to settle our own disputes. We either
kill or hurt each other, or threaten or harass, or we talk it out or take
it to a neutral third party for a solution (the courts). If the ordinary
man or woman settled their differences like the Bush-Cheney bunch, we'd
have an extremely chaotic, violent, scary mess to live in every day (much
more than we already have, that is!). There'd be an awfully large pile-up
of corpses.
This is reality. Iran IS NOT going to tie one
hand behind it's back. Get that silly idea out
of your head now. Iran gets what it wants, or Iran
plays it's best cards.
Well, it's not a silly idea, IMO. I think accommodation with Iran, who has
repeatedly offered to talk, is very possible, even likely. But, both sides
will have to compromise to reach a peaceful solution. Egypt and Israel did
this many years ago and it has saved many lives. Northern Ireland has
mostly been peaceful for some years after Catholics, Protestants, and the
IRA began to make friendly overtures toward each other at higher levels.
There are other examples of long-time foes working out their friction
through negotiations, but these two stand out. The people, for the most
part, followed their leaders. While nothing about peace between former
enemies is really assured forever, it is better to have some level of
tranquility for awhile than a tit-for-tat escalation and more dead and
injured, with people living in fear.
Bush knows this. Condi knows this. This is why our
Naval assests are in the Gulf. And they should be
there. Period.
So much for your ring of truth...
Yes, the naval forces are going to be there, but for what reason? Is the
reason to intimidate or escalate, or is it truly to protect against any
threats, whether from Iran, pirates, terrorists, or whoever? Look at the
timing, and look at the political mess here...what does experience and
intuition tell you? It tells me that we're seeing desperate politicians
and corporate investors trying their damndest to get the public to support
another regime change in another Muslim oil-rich nation. And it tells me
that the 'sacrifice' won't be for democracy or freedom, as we are usually
told, but for their power and profit at the top of the hierarchy.
As I said, it is highly unlikely that Iran will instigate a fight with the
the US forces there. It is really against their economic interests, and
the military consequences would be severe for them. Bush is looking for a
pretext to launch against them, and that's clear to me. It serves three
purposes: distract from a failed policy in Iraq, bolster support for a
failing administration and his partisan supporters (if the war pretext
works), and protect Western corporate investment and/or expand it in the
Mideast region.
The oft-given reason is to knock out their 'nuke bomb' making capacity,
but, as I said, Pakistan and India were worries for the West not long ago,
but have since used the A-bomb as a deterrent against each other...and it
has worked, saving many lives just a few years ago in a confrontation. The
USA-USSR Cold War could've gone hot at any time, of course, but it was MAD
that kept both sides away from launching an exchange. China and North
Korea have nukes, too, but have not used them, and it is unlikely they
ever will, unless provoked to a high degree, or invaded. It does keep any
Western power from conventionally attacking them, though, and so the nuke
deterrent has helped assure their sovereignty. I know it is crazy for
humans to use such destructive force to keep others off their backs, but
history shows this particular insanity gets the job done.
And that's my...'ring of truth'...
Docrodile ;)~
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: UK Doubles Naval Presence in Persian Gulf |
27 Feb 2007 01:59:58 PM |
|
|
"Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
What anyone says in politics is meaningless. It
always was and always will be. It's what they
actually do that matters.
Thanks for helping me make the point I made. Acting
against the words of politicians is a foolhardy
enterprise. Wait till they do something and then
act against them.
You're not paying attention to yourself. Check it out.
First you agree with me, then you go on and say....
What are we doing in the world today? Going out and
picking fights with other nations for hegemonic goals.
Where are you getting their goals from? Them? So you're
listening to them...
Other than that, the military isn't there to solve
social and political crises, or engage in other folks'
civil wars, or be (mis)used as a self-righteous
bunch of 'liberators' of sovereign nationals' lousy
tyrannical governments.
Who says we ever did any of those things? The people
you're not listening to?
Bush has misused the military as an ideological crusade,
and claiming to be liberating people from tyranny.
What Bush says is irrelevant, remember?
Iran is going to play it's biggest, most effective
card, and there's only two things on this planet
that can stop it. One is a military strike, the
other is Iran getting everything it wants.
No, there's another viable option that hasn't been
worked out well with Iran by this administration...
and that is high-level talks to acheive common
ground, and thereby defusing tensions and violence.
The talks have been going on for years, starting long
before Bush stole office. The Europeans lead them for
a while, not Bush.
Bush set pre-conditions for those high-level
negotiations, and the UN backed him up.
You mean AFTER years of no progress.
This is reality. Iran IS NOT going to tie one
hand behind it's back. Get that silly idea out
of your head now. Iran gets what it wants, or Iran
plays it's best cards.
Well, it's not a silly idea, IMO.
Well it is. There's nothing logical about your position.
Iran knows what it's biggest & best card is, and it's
going to play it. They WILL NOT play to lose, as you want
to believe. They will play to win.
I think accommodation with Iran, who has repeatedly
offered to talk, is very possible, even likely.
Problem is, Iran isn't just building a bomb, they want
ICBMs to carry them. They don't want to be a regional
power, or even a regional superpower, they want to be
able to use nuclear weapons to threaten evey nation on
earth.
You want to believe that they're just like us, or the
French, or even the Russians. You want to believe that
they think like we do, that their priorities are
similar. You're wrong. You're very wrong.
Egypt and Israel did this many years ago and it has saved
many lives.
Egypt installed a revolving door, allowing terrorists and
weapons into gaza. Israel has yet to so much as attempt to
uphold it's end of the Camp David agreement.
Northern Ireland has mostly been peaceful for some years
after Catholics, Protestants, and the IRA began to make
friendly overtures toward each other at higher levels.
Yeah, right. Irish people living in Ireland fighting for
their part of Ireland to be ruled by the Irish. On the
other side we have British people -- who, if you called
them "Irish" would start swinging at you -- fighting to
keep part of Ireland ruled from London.
"Catholics v. Protestants."
Damn, you are ignorant...
Anyhow, what was the biggest terrorist attack in the
history of Ireland?
A British attack that took place in the south. And when
I say "British attack" I mean the British government
was DIRECTLY involved. And they didn't even hide it very
well. The British government wouldn't allow the Irish
investigators to so much as interview the suspects (who
had made it back up to the northern counties).
What was the most recent major bombing in Ireland? Well
that one did take place in the north, but a British
agent was in on it -- kept the police informed -- and on
the day of the bombing the British police lead innocent
bistanders AWAY from safety, directing them into the
bomb blast. They then used the excuse of the blast to
arrest over a hundred Irish people they didn't like (even
though they had a man on the inside, and already knew
these people weren't involved), and of course pass yet
more anti-terrorism legislation.
To this day.... Right now... As I type this, an Irish
person living in the north of Ireland, if they're
stupid enough to call the police, are as likely to be
harrassed as helped. More so.
You don't hear it -- you never did -- but two out of
ever three people killed in "the troubles" has been an
Irish person killed by the British.
Even the British press has written about the secret
British army death squads.
There are other examples of long-time foes working
out their friction through negotiations, but these
two stand out.
You know, it's funny, but I recently watched an old
"Laugh In" episode from the late 1960s. Even then they
talked about media manipulation the same way we've
been doing these last seven years.
Remember the "Media study" proving Bush won but that Al
Gore would have won if they re-counted the whole state,
instead of just the overwhelmingly Democratic areas where
all the uncounted ballots were?
Never existed. Don't believe me? Show me it. Give me a
link. Not a reference to such a study, show me the study.
Because there WAS a study, and they never so much as
addressed the question of winners & losers. It was the
NORC study.
http://www.norc.org/projects/florida+ballots+project.htm
They just plain DID NOT do what every television network
and major newspaper reported them doing.
Which is to say, determine a winner.
Americans LOVE an underdog. Americans LOVE people fighting
for their independence. America WAS the source of great
sympathies & large sums of cash for the IRA. Ireland was
just another British colony that wanted it's independence,
like the United States once sought, and Americans by the
countless millions sympathized.
Like India, like Iraq, like Egypt, like the United States,
like many other former British colonies, the Irish wanted
their freedom and Americans understood and sympathized.
How do you stop this?
Well, turn it into a religious war! After all, most Americans
aren't Catholic...
Here's some "peace" in Ireland today. You just have to
remember that it's not violence if the British government
is behind it:
http://www.anphoblacht.com/news/detail/17950
A few years ago they planted a pipe bomb on the lawn of a
primary school for girls. Yes, little girls. What made
these little girls such a threat to the loyal British
subjects? Seems these little Irish girls, living in Ireland,
were walking to school (in Ireland) on THEIR SIDEWALK!
HOW DARE IRISH CHILDREN IN IRELAND WALK TO SCHOOL ON OUR
SIDEWALK!
It wasn't reported AT ALL by U.S. news. Some of the rioting
(by the loyal British) associated with the horror of Irish
girls in Ireland walking on the sidewalk was reported, but
not the reason behind it. the BBC America did report it, but,
funny thing, they somehow mistakenly reported that it was
a High School.
There's no peace in Ireland. It's a farce.
"Collusion" is *Such* a clean word, isn't it? None of that
nasty ring you get from "assasination" or "State sponsored
Terrorism."
http://www.anphoblacht.com/news/detail/17539
http://www.anphoblacht.com/news/detail/17540
http://www.anphoblacht.com/news/detail/17946
So clean... so civilized... so peaceful...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Docrodile" |
|
| Title: Re: UK Doubles Naval Presence in Persian Gulf |
27 Feb 2007 04:05:35 PM |
|
|
"JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172606398.571649.304840@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
"Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
What anyone says in politics is meaningless. It
always was and always will be. It's what they
actually do that matters.
Thanks for helping me make the point I made. Acting
against the words of politicians is a foolhardy
enterprise. Wait till they do something and then
act against them.
You're not paying attention to yourself. Check it out.
First you agree with me, then you go on and say....
The point I made is clear and simple, and it's the point you made, too --
don't react with military force to verbal threats, but react only to the
actions taken by leaders. Why is that difficult for you to understand and
acknowledge? You just acknowledged it previously. You want to endlessly
tango around a point I made that you agreed with? Go ahead...dance all you
want, to whatever tune you wish to whistle along with. Entertain yourself
with obfuscation and denial. I have no idea why you'd be contesting this
unless to protect your precious ego. If you're so sensitive about making a
reinforcing statement for your opponents' arguments, that's your fat
mistake. Take responsibility for it, or continue to ridiculously deny you
said it. Play with it...and there's a good example of why human
interrelationships are made so difficult...and why national leaders have
the same personality problems that cause so much suffering amongst their
people. Another microcosm of human communication and interaction problems
mirroring the macro scale, historically.
What are we doing in the world today? Going out and
picking fights with other nations for hegemonic goals.
Where are you getting their goals from? Them? So you're
listening to them...
Leaders pick their goals, and we follow. That's what actually happens.
What few times that doesn't happen is when people use democracy's process
to stop or alter their course, which is rare, or they engage in bloody
revolution. No, we don't have to 'listen' to them...we can ignore them,
but the result is the same. We follow along. Who started the Iraq War? The
people wanted it, according to polls. But, who started it? Who had the
authority? And what did the people do? Follow.
Other than that, the military isn't there to solve
social and political crises, or engage in other folks'
civil wars, or be (mis)used as a self-righteous
bunch of 'liberators' of sovereign nationals' lousy
tyrannical governments.
Who says we ever did any of those things? The people
you're not listening to?
Don't have to listen...or pay attention. The executive branch has the
power to start a war, occupy, engage at any level. Iraq and Afghanistan
are the current examples. Who are you listening to? It doesn't matter,
does it? Our leaders are now saying we don't care that a majority thinks
the 'surge' is right or effective, or not. They tell us that they will
continue with their plan, despite congressional majority opposition, and
polls showing a majority of the public doesn't support the 'surge.' The
escalation! Let's call it for what is really is. An escalation inside
someone else's war--a civil war that we cannot possibly contain or win.
Who do the leaders listen to? Themselves. Is this a majority-ruled
democracy? No. What is it then? Huh??
Bush has misused the military as an ideological crusade,
and claiming to be liberating people from tyranny.
What Bush says is irrelevant, remember?
Only when he doesn't back it up with action. But he took the military
action, didn't he? Where are you? On another planet? That's right...you're
probably in Texas. I forgot. LOL~! Isn't that where he came from? Oh
nooo...he really is a Texan you once said. LOL!!! He isn't a native
Texican. Cow pile methane affecting your brains?
Iran is going to play it's biggest, most effective
card, and there's only two things on this planet
that can stop it. One is a military strike, the
other is Iran getting everything it wants.
No, there's another viable option that hasn't been
worked out well with Iran by this administration...
and that is high-level talks to acheive common
ground, and thereby defusing tensions and violence.
The talks have been going on for years, starting long
before Bush stole office. The Europeans lead them for
a while, not Bush.
No, there have been no high level talks at the Cabinet level between Bush
and Iran, and they are the ones principally, militarily confronting each
other...and will be the ones responsible for war action, should it occur.
Iran has offered the olive branch repeatedly to the US and Europe and the
UN. You talk gibberish, cactus flower. You talk as though you're on drugs,
in another world, or are inside a mental asylum. What high-level talks are
you referring to? Why do you think Ahmadinejad would be asking for such
talks if he and the US already were engaged?
Bush set pre-conditions for those high-level
negotiations, and the UN backed him up.
You mean AFTER years of no progress.
Again, you're lost in the deep woods, blossom. What are you referring to?
No high-level talks have occurred because the US set preconditions backed
up by the UN. They must get out of the uranium enrichment business, then,
and only then, will Bush 'consider' talking with Iran. So, Iran continues
to assert its right to have a nuke energy program, and keeps claiming it
is not diverting part of it for bomb manufacture...that is exactly why
negotiations should be going on. If there is even a small chance Iran
intends to do that, it is imperative that the US/UN/Europe/Israel sit down
with Iran and discuss it. Instead, we have the leaders and the media
hammering away for military confrontation, or at best, a tense stand-off
of wills. Naval forces continue to build...words, threats, suspicions
continue to fly, armchair civilian strategists play their fanciful
games.It's become another aspect of entertainment -- war fever.
This is reality. Iran IS NOT going to tie one
hand behind it's back. Get that silly idea out
of your head now. Iran gets what it wants, or Iran
plays it's best cards.
Well, it's not a silly idea, IMO.
Well it is. There's nothing logical about your position.
You play with your obvious desire to have a confrontation with Iran and
then what happens after that? We're sittin' in a depression, more dead,
more injured, more terrorism, and our leaders making more money on defense
and national security...more restrictions on our personal freedom,
guarding against the terrible Iranian evil...as was illustrated in the
scare stories recently about Iran possibly planning a NYC attack. Let's
rachet ourselves down into a deeper hell of war, fear, and hate, and let's
all play with it on the internet while we are oppressed by it, eh? Perfect
formula created by a mentally deranged person...let's live in more fear,
create more war, and be entertained by the excitement of it. There's
nothing logical about you, but there is something sick going on in your
head. You want to live in a confrontational world of murder and mayhem,
fella? Then, get off your queer ***** and sign up for tour duty in the
Mideast, and get your share!
Iran knows what it's biggest & best card is, and it's
going to play it. They WILL NOT play to lose, as you want
to believe. They will play to win.
Win or lose, a nuclear exchange will be devastating to all. Attacking Iran
preemptively will sink Western economies, weaken our security, invite more
terrorism...there's no 'win' here, dandelion. Just more oppression, mass
murder, hate, fear...and if that is appealing to you, to make live more
difficult for all to live everyday, then keep supporting corrupted
leaders' fucking stupid foreign policies...leaders already proved to be
liars and manipulators, and cold-assed about the loss of human life.
Support their latest war, rose petal, and see where your queer ***** is
about two years from now. Will it be a better life your ya then?
I think accommodation with Iran, who has repeatedly
offered to talk, is very possible, even likely.
Problem is, Iran isn't just building a bomb, they want
ICBMs to carry them. They don't want to be a regional
power, or even a regional superpower, they want to be
able to use nuclear weapons to threaten evey nation on
earth.
Uh huh...and so you're buying the neocon garbage that Iran will be a
revitalized Persia empire and control the world. You buy the essential
flaw in neocon thinking that some group of people rising as a power are
threatening the US's dominant position, but that position itself is chock
full of hegemonic manipulation, lies, subterfuge...leading to preemptive
warfare, a false ideological crusade, magnified by common powerlust and
greed...resulting in untold misery and murder for the peoples of this
planet. Evil is everywhere, in the species, and knows no national
boundaries, sugar cube. It's in you, in me, in everyone in this
group...why are you harassing people? Are you an example of a new fresh
start for humanity once we wipe that ol' evil Iran off the map? Huh? You
and your egotistical sickness, lies, pranks, falsity, endless arguments,
ad nauseam? Are we to look forward to a dominant America in the future
with such sterling folks like you as its citizens? EH?
You want to believe that they're just like us, or the
French, or even the Russians. You want to believe that
they think like we do, that their priorities are
similar. You're wrong. You're very wrong.
Egypt and Israel did this many years ago and it has saved
many lives.
Egypt installed a revolving door, allowing terrorists and
weapons into gaza. Israel has yet to so much as attempt to
uphold it's end of the Camp David agreement.
Aaah...but the state of war between the Jews and a large Muslim population
essentially came to end. And what you said about Israel is patently false.
They supported the agreement, and the historical record clearly shows
hostilities ended between those two nations. If Israel was so sensitive
about terrorists coming from Egypt, then it should protest or cancel the
agreement, shouldn't it?
It hasn't. What you say is of minor concern, and basically mindless crap.
Your argument breaks down in your ignorance and denial of reality. Arabs
and Jews can live together in relative peace. It has been proven with the
Camp David Accord.
Northern Ireland has mostly been peaceful for some years
after Catholics, Protestants, and the IRA began to make
friendly overtures toward each other at higher levels.
Yeah, right. Irish people living in Ireland fighting for
their part of Ireland to be ruled by the Irish. On the
other side we have British people -- who, if you called
them "Irish" would start swinging at you -- fighting to
keep part of Ireland ruled from London.
"Catholics v. Protestants."
Damn, you are ignorant...
Oh??? The historical combatants weren't Protestants and Catholics? Where
did you get your history lesson of the Northern Ireland conflict...from a
demented man? Of course, the British occupied. We're talking about the
animosity between two religious groups that began the trouble long ago.
Before the British intervened, they were beating and killing each other.
After they intervened, they killed and beat each other, and then they
killed and beat the British. (Something to learn in the Iraq War
conflict.) You talk in circles. Can't argue one simple fact of history
without recreation for your own fantasies. That's why I wonder if you're
just stupid, on drugs, or have a congenital brain defect...or possibly
methane cow pie gas has hurt your brain cells. Let us look forward to a
future populated by such fine upstanding citizens who think and act
responsibly and intelligently, and rationally, like you. Beat down that
ol' Iran...they don't deserve to be in the top power position on the
planet..only crazy fucks like you should exist. LOL!
Anyhow, what was the biggest terrorist attack in the
history of Ireland?
A British attack that took place in the south. And when
I say "British attack" I mean the British government
was DIRECTLY involved. And they didn't even hide it very
well. The British government wouldn't allow the Irish
investigators to so much as interview the suspects (who
had made it back up to the northern counties).
What was the most recent major bombing in Ireland? Well
that one did take place in the north, but a British
agent was in on it -- kept the police informed -- and on
the day of the bombing the British police lead innocent
bistanders AWAY from safety, directing them into the
bomb blast. They then used the excuse of the blast to
arrest over a hundred Irish people they didn't like (even
though they had a man on the inside, and already knew
these people weren't involved), and of course pass yet
more anti-terrorism legislation.
To this day.... Right now... As I type this, an Irish
person living in the north of Ireland, if they're
stupid enough to call the police, are as likely to be
harrassed as helped. More so.
You don't hear it -- you never did -- but two out of
ever three people killed in "the troubles" has been an
Irish person killed by the British.
And before the British intervened, who was killing who there, then?? Huh?
Silly boy!
Even the British press has written about the secret
British army death squads.
There are other examples of long-time foes working
out their friction through negotiations, but these
two stand out.
You know, it's funny, but I recently watched an old
"Laugh In" episode from the late 1960s. Even then they
talked about media manipulation the same way we've
been doing these last seven years.
Remember the "Media study" proving Bush won but that Al
Gore would have won if they re-counted the whole state,
instead of just the overwhelmingly Democratic areas where
all the uncounted ballots were?
Never existed. Don't believe me? Show me it. Give me a
link. Not a reference to such a study, show me the study.
Uh...what does this have to do with Iran, N. Ireland? Show me the link.
Getting tired of the long discussion, are ya? I'm not going to continue
with you past this post, fella...you've already had plenty of my time,
much of it. And my health is poor, and my time is running out, fairy fart.
So, you pick up the domestic political argument with Wolfy or someone else
for your entertainment. I've said all I feel like saying, and have just
repeated some points.
Because there WAS a study, and they never so much as
addressed the question of winners & losers. It was the
NORC study.
http://www.norc.org/projects/florida+ballots+project.htm
They just plain DID NOT do what every television network
and major newspaper reported them doing.
Which is to say, determine a winner.
Americans LOVE an underdog. Americans LOVE people fighting
for their independence. America WAS the source of great
sympathies & large sums of cash for the IRA. Ireland was
just another British colony that wanted it's independence,
like the United States once sought, and Americans by the
countless millions sympathized.
Oh...are we back to the N. Ireland debate now? LOL! Okay, you rattle
on...zzzzz.
Like India, like Iraq, like Egypt, like the United States,
like many other former British colonies, the Irish wanted
their freedom and Americans understood and sympathized.
How do you stop this?
Well, turn it into a religious war! After all, most Americans
aren't Catholic...
Here's some "peace" in Ireland today. You just have to
remember that it's not violence if the British government
is behind it:
http://www.anphoblacht.com/news/detail/17950
A few years ago they planted a pipe bomb on the lawn of a
primary school for girls. Yes, little girls. What made
these little girls such a threat to the loyal British
subjects? Seems these little Irish girls, living in Ireland,
were walking to school (in Ireland) on THEIR SIDEWALK!
HOW DARE IRISH CHILDREN IN IRELAND WALK TO SCHOOL ON OUR
SIDEWALK!
It wasn't reported AT ALL by U.S. news. Some of the rioting
(by the loyal British) associated with the horror of Irish
girls in Ireland walking on the sidewalk was reported, but
not the reason behind it. the BBC America did report it, but,
funny thing, they somehow mistakenly reported that it was
a High School.
There's no peace in Ireland. It's a farce.
"Collusion" is *Such* a clean word, isn't it? None of that
nasty ring you get from "assasination" or "State sponsored
Terrorism."
http://www.anphoblacht.com/news/detail/17539
http://www.anphoblacht.com/news/detail/17540
http://www.anphoblacht.com/news/detail/17946
So clean... so civilized... so peaceful...
If you can show me a totally perfect peacefulness on the planet, I'd like
to see it, other than a cemetary, or somewhere humans don't interact. Even
the ol' Civil War of the US still has animosities going today,
occasionally erupting into forms of confrontation.
I'm talking about a MORE peaceful world, not a perfectly peaceful one.
Ireland today is MORE peaceful than it was, say, ten years ago, or twenty,
or...
And if that isn't worth attaining -- more tranquility, less bloodshed and
fear -- then we might as well admit we're not really interested in peace
on this planet, but instead, satisfying our emotional needs at the moment.
Docrodile ;)~
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: UK Doubles Naval Presence in Persian Gulf |
27 Feb 2007 10:45:33 PM |
|
|
"Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
The point I made is clear and simple, and it's
the point you made, too -- don't react with
military force to verbal threats, but react
only to the actions taken by leaders.
They haven't reacted with military force.
But there's another point you keep dodging,
with the help of Mr. Left Hand. And that's
the fact that Iran knows what it's biggest
and best card is, and will play it. They will
not play to lose.
But he took the military action, didn't he?
The motives, the goals behind the actions are
what is at issue here. And studying Bush's
actions DOES NOT suggest that his words accurately
represent his goals.
Again, I can't stress this enough: Focus on
Kurdistan. "Iraq is in the news everyday! Iraq
is a mess!"
Well, no it's not. Maybe two-thirds of Iraq is
a mess (if that much), but one part that isn't
in the news is Kurdistan.
Rather than worrying about Bush attacking Iran,
if Kurdistan declares it's independence tomorrow
there's a good chance Iran will be invading!
The issue isn't so much Bush trying to invent
new nations, it's a new nation that came into
being as a result of the first Gulf war -- and
Clinton's continuation of Poppy's policies --
that has a LOT of enemies.
Kurdish territory is NOT limited to the British
invented Iraq. Other Kurdish lands lay inside
Iran and Turkey. Like in Iraq, these Kurdish
communities have suffered as independently minded
minorities.
The talks have been going on for years, starting long
before Bush stole office. The Europeans lead them for
a while, not Bush.
No, there have been no high level talks at the Cabinet
level between Bush and Iran,
You're not contradicting me. You're simply pretending
that I said something else.
Oops, time to break out Mr. Left Hand again...
You play with your obvious desire to have a
confrontation with Iran and then what happens
after that?
You've got your head up your *****, believing that
Iran would never try to win... never play it's
biggest card...
Sorry, but I'm sure glad that foreign policy is
NOT based on wishful thinking...
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Werewolfy" |
|
| Title: Re: UK Doubles Naval Presence in Persian Gulf |
27 Feb 2007 02:55:55 PM |
|
|
On Feb 27, 7:59?pm, "JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
Lots.
Sometimes I wonder if my first idea was the correct one.
Only sometimes though. Beng right on that matter is, by implication,
disturbing.
Werewolfy
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: UK Doubles Naval Presence in Persian Gulf |
27 Feb 2007 03:14:33 PM |
|
|
"Werewolfy" <Werewol...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Sometimes I wonder if my first idea was the
correct one.
Too bad it died of loneliness. Have you
considered adoption?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?utf-8?B?4pi6IC7CtzoqwqjCqCo6wrcuwrc6KsKowqgqOsK3LiAg4pmlIFdvcmxkIFdhciBJSUkgMjAwNywgVGhlIExhc3QgMjAwMCBEYXlzLi4uSE9PUk9PICEgIC7CtzoqwqjCqCo6wrcuIOKZpeKYusKpwq7ihKI=?=" |
|
| Title: Re: UK Doubles Naval Presence in Persian Gulf |
26 Feb 2007 07:57:28 PM |
|
|
On Feb 27, 12:15=C2=A0am, "Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
UK doubles naval presence in Persian Gulf
By Damien McElroy in Manama, Bahrain
Last Updated: 1:34am GMT 26/02/2007
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 a.. Iran launches first rocket into space
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 a.. Revolutionary firebrand joins calls to end Iran'=
s nuclear
programme
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 a.. US funds terror groups to sow chaos in Iran
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Britain's senior naval officer in the Persian Gulf h=
as revealed that
Royal Navy deployments in the region have doubled since October in a
build-up that matches the rapid escalation of American maritime firepower.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Commodore Keith Winstanley, who serves as deputy com=
mander of
coalition maritime operations for US Central Command, has told The Daily
Telegraph that British trade and strategic interests dictate the necessity
of a high and sustained commitment to patrol the seas around the Middle
East.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 "If you look at the UK component we have almost doub=
led it," he said
in an interview aboard HMS Sutherland in Mina al-Salman port.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 "Most of these ships are here on training missions b=
ut there is no
doubt that we could use the warfighting capabilities they possess."
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Cdre Winstanley said there was a message for Iran in=
the expansion
of the coalition fleet in the waters of the Persian Gulf, Sea of Oman and
Arabian Sea.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 More ships on patrol would have strategic effects th=
at went beyond
the operational benefits of increased patrols.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Royal Navy commanders insist the build-up in the Gul=
f has not been
ordered by the Ministry of Defence in direct response to Teheran's pursuit
of an atomic weapons programme in defiance of a United Nations Security
Council resolution.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 But there are hopes that additional vessels will int=
ensify pressure
on the regime in Tehran to abandon its nuclear activities.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 The additional Royal Navy vessels sent to the Gulf i=
nclude HMS
Cornwall, a type 22 frigate, two mine sweepers, HMS Ramsey and HMS Blythe,
and a vessel from the Royal Fleet Auxiliary.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 The British ships will work in an American-led coali=
tion of naval
vessels, which has expanded rapidly in recent weeks with the arrival of a
second aircraft carrier battle group, led by USS Stennis.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 While most of the coalition is engaged in routine pa=
trols, Cdre
Winstanley refers to the area of operations as the "battle-space".
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Commitments include protecting Iraq's southern oil t=
erminals against
attack until the Iraqi navy can prove its competence to ensuring the six
miles of shipping lanes through the Strait of Hormuz remain open.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Up to 80 per cent of Europe's trade with the Far Eas=
t and a
substantial proportion of the world's oil and gas is shipped through local
waters.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Cdre Winstanley said British strategic and economic =
self-interest
dictated a strong Royal Navy commitment to the region.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 "We have a vested interest in the freedom of the hig=
h seas," he
said.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 "We can't do that alone but we can make a contributi=
on. There is a
threat of widespread economic attack that I don't see diminishing."
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Nineteen countries belong to the coalition led by US=
Admiral Patrick
Walsh and his deputy, Cdre Winstanley.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Maps at the command centre show the position of 45 n=
aval vessels
from the southern coast of Pakistan to the east coast of Africa.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Terrorist threats and piracy loom large in operation=
al plans.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Al-Qa'eda has attacked and destroyed US vessels in A=
rabian ports and
its leaders repeatedly called for strikes against oil platforms and
loading docks.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 British developed computer software, the Automatic I=
dentification
System (AIS) tracks vessels bigger than 300 tonnes throughout 2.5 million
square miles.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Unlike traditional radar systems, the AIS gives nava=
l planners a
three dimensional view of the seas that enables detection of any unusual
movements.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Commodore Bruce Williams who commands Task 150, the =
southern segment
of the coalition, said the concentration of naval firepower has steadily
reduced the risk to commercial shipping.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 "There are no guarantees," he said.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 "This is an area of economic vulnerabilities but we =
can cause the
environment to shift to make it harder for those who would attack us to do
their business."
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=3D35039
Uh huh...the Iraqi Navy (!!) must prove its competence in keeping the
shipping lanes open...sure, sure...and the terrible pirates...oh
sure...and its a coalition of 19 countries...gotta' be there to protect
the Gulf from Iran's evil designs.
Sheeesh...
Docrodile
=C2=A094913;0.7863112140827514?
1KDownload
=C2=A0B2175046;sz=3D1x1;ord=3D0.7863112140827514?
1KDownload
Beware the Ides of March, 2007 Gazza !!!
March 15th, 2007 - March 31st, 2007 iz the ideal
time for the jewish zealots to launch their illegal, immoral
war.
HOOROO
UNCLE WALLY
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
