| Topic: |
Science > Prophecies-Of-Nostradamus |
| User: |
"Docrodile" |
| Date: |
31 Jan 2007 08:58:05 PM |
| Object: |
U.S. Navy: What the USS John C. Stennis' Deployment Does Not Mean |
U.S. Navy: What the USS John C. Stennis' Deployment Does Not Mean
January 31, 2007 23 28 GMT
Summary
The Nimitz-class nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis
departed San Diego on Jan. 20 after joining up with its carrier air wing
in preparation for its deployment in the Persian Gulf. The timing of the
deployment has led to speculation that the United States is putting the
carrier and its strike group in the Gulf with the USS Eisenhower, which is
currently deployed to the region, in order to increase pressure on Iran.
However, this deployment is business as usual for the U.S. Navy as it
moves the strike group in to support various military operations in the
Middle East.
Analysis
The aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis left San Diego on Jan. 20 for its
scheduled cruise in the Persian Gulf in support of the U.S. Navy's 5th
Fleet operations in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Horn of Africa. This
deployment has received attention from the media, which say the deployment
is meant to increase pressure on Iran. However, the Nimitz-class,
nuclear-powered Stennis' main purpose will be to replace the USS
Eisenhower when it concludes its cruise in April 2007. The Stennis'
deployment is nothing unusual.
The process culminating in the Stennis' deployment to the Middle East
began when the carrier arrived in its home port of Bremerton, Wash., on
Jan. 8, 2005. Soon after that, she went into dry-docked planned
incremental availability (DPIA), an 11-month overhaul and recertification
process at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. Usually after completing a
cruise, a U.S. aircraft carrier will return to its homeport and restart
the maintenance and operations cycles. In the Stennis' case, however, it
went into DPIA before restarting the operations cycle.
After the DPIA was complete in December 2005, the Stennis underwent three
months of routine sea trials in the East Pacific, followed by an
inspection survey in April to certify the carrier's suitability for
operations. Since the inspection's completion in May, the Stennis has been
on a typical operations cycle for the U.S. Navy's nuclear-powered aircraft
carriers.
The length of any operation or cruise is limited not by the ship, but by
the crew's endurance. The high tempo of operations on a carrier takes a
toll on the crew; cruises end when the crew has been deployed for six
months with continuous 24-hour operations. When the cruise ends, the ship
is checked over and any necessary repairs and refitting will be done. This
gives the crew the chance to go on leave before returning to the ship at
port and working routine maintenance, attending training schools or being
reassigned. During this period, follow-on exercises and sustainment
training will keep the carrier employable for an 18-month period until it
is actually deployed. This is what the USS Ronald Reagan is doing from its
home base of San Diego.
The carrier will then take part in several two- to three-week exercises
that allow the crew to practice mission areas and integrate skill sets,
essentially maintaining their qualifications. Before being deployed again,
the carrier typically goes through a composite training unit exercise
(COMPTUEX) followed by a joint task force exercise (JTFEX). The JTFEX
serves primarily as a method of validation and can be cut short or
eliminated if the carrier is rushed into deployment. The Stennis completed
its COMPTUEX in mid-October 2006 and its JTFEX in the following month.
During these exercises, the carrier's air wing is assigned and its
personnel participate in training and certification for carrier operation
in preparation for deployment.
Normally, a carrier is deployed for six months and then in home port for
18 months, during which it participates in any number of short operations.
The one notable exception to this standard occurred when U.S. President
Jimmy Carter kept the USS Nimitz on deployment for 11 months straight,
going from one hot spot to another.
For decades, a U.S. carrier has generally been on station in the Persian
Gulf or the 5th Fleet area of operations. In 2003 the Navy adopted the
Fleet Response Plan (FRP), which favors having multiple carriers in a
general state of readiness instead of maintaining a single carrier in the
Gulf. Though six-month deployments to the Middle East are still common --
and require a great deal of planning and preparation -- the FRP has
changed the carrier fleet's overall readiness posture. The FRP was
designed to make the Navy more responsive to Washington's maritime needs.
And with the massive strike capability a carrier air wing brings to bear,
a carrier deployment is often more of a political weapon than a military
one.
The FRP calls for six carriers out of the total fleet of 12 to be "surge
capable" -- able to be under way in 30 days or fewer, with a follow-on
surge of two more carriers within 90 days -- at any time. Thus, instead of
using the deployment date to schedule training, proficiency training
begins as soon as a carrier emerges from its maintenance cycles. Less than
six months after coming out of dry dock -- and as soon as three months in
an emergency -- a carrier should be employable, or surge ready.
However, in the case of the 5th Fleet's current operations, developments
in Somalia and the Eisenhower's shift in that direction are reminders of
the military purpose of the current carrier rotations through the Gulf --
continued support of operations in Iraq, including regular close air
support sorties, and potential support for African Union peacekeeping
operations in Somalia.
The Stennis will likely arrive in the Persian Gulf region in mid- to late
February. This will give it about a two-month overlap with the Eisenhower
which, since its arrival in the region in late October, has been moving
between the Gulf, the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean.
The Stennis' deployment to the Persian Gulf has been scheduled for months,
so its movement there is not in response to anything Iran has recently
done. The timing just happens to coincide with the recent U.S. decision to
increase its force in Iraq and with statements from U.S. diplomats about
increasing pressure on Tehran.
If the United States does decide to surge its naval capacity in the region
and intensify its military pressure on Iran, the Eisenhower could remain
in the Gulf past April. Meanwhile, the USS Harry S. Truman, which recently
finished a round of flight deck certifications in the Atlantic in
preparation for its 2007 deployment, could deploy as early as April. This
could put the Truman in the Persian Gulf with the Stennis and the
Eisenhower, should it stay over, placing three U.S. carrier strike groups
in the region.
Even if the Eisenhower returns and the Truman moves into the region, the
United States would demonstrate its ability to maintain two carriers in
one place for an extended period of time. However, if this potential surge
goes beyond three carrier strike groups, the USS Nimitz and the USS
Roosevelt -- like the Reagan -- are at stages in their operational cycles
at which they could be deployed on relatively short notice if needed.
The United States could have six carriers deployed to the Persian Gulf
relatively quickly if it wanted to. If that were to occur, Tehran would
certainly have reason to be concerned. In times of heightened geopolitical
tension, the normal rotation of one carrier to replace another can set
observers off. This is certainly not the first time; only a few months
ago, similar speculation followed the Eisenhower across the Atlantic as it
sailed to replace the USS Enterprise. However, the Stennis' movement into
the Persian Gulf is not abnormal.
http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=283678
I've also noticed that Iran's "Great Prophet" military exercises, begun in
March 2006, and reaching Phase 2 in November of 2006, are likely
completing a third scheduled phase this month. Speculation was that Iran
was 'responding' to the US's 'provocation'.
This Strafor analysis is intriguing; could it be both Iran and the US are
simply using scheduled military exercises as political/military
propaganda?
If so, then we could expect nothing militarily substantial to occur
between the two nations, other than what we have seen recently in Iraq --
the capture of some Iranians or some 'minor incidents' trumped for
propagandistic purposes.
Bush is using this normal naval activity to distract from his failed
policy in Iraq, and the UK's contribution, two minesweepers, could very
well be a distraction donated by Blair for either his purposes, Bush's, or
both.
Something's kind of fishy here....
Docrodile
.
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: U.S. Navy: What the USS John C. Stennis' Deployment Does Not Mean |
03 Feb 2007 05:41:36 AM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Docrodile"
<swampthing@hellsbayou.net> Spat the Words
U.S. Navy: What the USS John C. Stennis' Deployment Does Not Mean
January 31, 2007 23 28 GMT
The United States could have six carriers deployed to the Persian Gulf
relatively quickly if it wanted to. If that were to occur, Tehran would
certainly have reason to be concerned.
I would certainly be concerned by 6 hostile carriers parked
off my coast. That's about 500 fighter-bombers, and probably
hundreds of tomohawk missiles.
Of course, the real jelly would be the B1 and B2 squadrons.
The Iranians probably could not detect those bombers before
things start to blow up around them.
http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=283678
.
|
|
|
| User: "Docrodile" |
|
| Title: Re: U.S. Navy: What the USS John C. Stennis' Deployment Does Not Mean |
06 Feb 2007 01:00:31 AM |
|
|
"Perseid" <eidpers@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns98CC2FBE7C92Drrfkwrantispamattbic@216.196.97.136...
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Docrodile"
<swampthing@hellsbayou.net> Spat the Words
U.S. Navy: What the USS John C. Stennis' Deployment Does Not Mean
January 31, 2007 23 28 GMT
The United States could have six carriers deployed to the Persian Gulf
relatively quickly if it wanted to. If that were to occur, Tehran would
certainly have reason to be concerned.
I would certainly be concerned by 6 hostile carriers parked
off my coast. That's about 500 fighter-bombers, and probably
hundreds of tomohawk missiles.
Of course, the real jelly would be the B1 and B2 squadrons.
The Iranians probably could not detect those bombers before
things start to blow up around them.
Iran announced last year it had completed construction on a deep
underground command control center in northern Tehran, where the news
reports from IRNA and RIA said that it could withstand a direct hit by a
nuclear warhead and keep functioning. Miles of underground cable have been
laid and to where is not precisely known....presumably, to control
missiles. No one is sure, at least publicly, whether Iran can continue to
keep firing off missiles after a heavy bombing. But, they have made some
preparations, it appears. Most missiles are above ground and
vulnerable...yet Janes Defense Monthly has suspicions that Iran has
developed some sophisticated mobile underground and static underground
launch sites expressly for the purpose of 'a last ditch' counter-attack.
Docrodile
http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=283678
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: U.S. Navy: What the USS John C. Stennis' Deployment Does Not Mean |
06 Feb 2007 04:03:48 AM |
|
|
"Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
...yet Janes Defense Monthly has suspicions that Iran has
developed some sophisticated mobile underground and
static underground launch sites expressly for the purpose
of 'a last ditch' counter-attack.
Jane's also reports that Iranian missiles have a range of
about 2,000 km, or 1200 miles.
Quite frankly, it looks an awful lot like they've been planning
a war with Israel.... and have been for quite some time.
Look. I'm on record as a frequent & harsh critic of Israeli
policy. But this is one time they have reason to be concerned.
And, yeah, when Israel is concerned they rarely keep things
to themselves.
Iran is -- and has been -- knee deep in an arms race that
can only lead to war.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: U.S. Navy: What the USS John C. Stennis' Deployment Does Not Mean |
06 Feb 2007 06:22:46 AM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> Spat the
Words
"Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
...yet Janes Defense Monthly has suspicions that Iran has
developed some sophisticated mobile underground and
static underground launch sites expressly for the purpose
of 'a last ditch' counter-attack.
Jane's also reports that Iranian missiles have a range of
about 2,000 km, or 1200 miles.
Quite frankly, it looks an awful lot like they've been planning
a war with Israel.... and have been for quite some time.
Look. I'm on record as a frequent & harsh critic of Israeli
policy. But this is one time they have reason to be concerned.
And, yeah, when Israel is concerned they rarely keep things
to themselves.
Iran is -- and has been -- knee deep in an arms race that
can only lead to war.
This is just about what I was thinking.
Iran wants to play in the same pond as the larger frogs,
but boy do they have a long way to go. They might have
stood for a short while against a military from 40 years
ago. They were beating Iraq which was using 1970's era
stuff (and lots of Geneva-banned chemical weapons).
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: U.S. Navy: What the USS John C. Stennis' Deployment Does Not Mean |
07 Feb 2007 04:37:41 PM |
|
|
On Feb 6, 2:03 am, "JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
"Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
...yet Janes Defense Monthly has suspicions that Iran has
developed some sophisticated mobile underground and
static underground launch sites expressly for the purpose
of 'a last ditch' counter-attack.
Jane's also reports that Iranian missiles have a range of
about 2,000 km, or 1200 miles.
Quite frankly, it looks an awful lot like they've been planning
a war with Israel.... and have been for quite some time.
Look. I'm on record as a frequent & harsh critic of Israeli
policy.
Is that on an LP or a single?
But this is one time they have reason to be concerned.
And, yeah, when Israel is concerned they rarely keep things
to themselves.
Iran is -- and has been -- knee deep in an arms race that
can only lead to war.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "eric" |
|
| Title: Re: U.S. Navy: What the USS John C. Stennis' Deployment Does Not Mean |
06 Feb 2007 12:11:58 PM |
|
|
On Feb 6, 5:03 am, "JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
"Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
...yet Janes Defense Monthly has suspicions that Iran has
developed some sophisticated mobile underground and
static underground launch sites expressly for the purpose
of 'a last ditch' counter-attack.
Jane's also reports that Iranian missiles have a range of
about 2,000 km, or 1200 miles.
Quite frankly, it looks an awful lot like they've been planning
a war with Israel.... and have been for quite some time.
Look. I'm on record as a frequent & harsh critic of Israeli
policy. But this is one time they have reason to be concerned.
And, yeah, when Israel is concerned they rarely keep things
to themselves.
Iran is -- and has been -- knee deep in an arms race that
can only lead to war.
A harsh critic of Israel...Not.
There's no way that Iran is arming to start a war with the U.S. or
Israel. That's insane...They're arming to defend themselves. In spite
of the rhetoric, the Iranian leaders are not "mad men", although
American Media luv to say so. Look...Iran is surrounded by enemies
to the north, south, east, and West, so if they don't arm themselves
against what many analysts are saying is a near-certain attack by the
U.S. and/or Israel, then maybe the Iranian leaders really are nuts.
Georgy Boy has been beating his little toy drums of war over Iran just
as with Iraq.
eric.
P.S. Whatever happens though, u can be sure that a small incident
will be used by Israel, or the U.S. and turned into a HUGE Big
INCIDENT (along the lines of the Israeli/Lebanese war last year) as an
excuse to start yet another war - and all the while American Media
wll clap like trained Seals.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: U.S. Navy: What the USS John C. Stennis' Deployment Does Not Mean |
06 Feb 2007 03:22:52 PM |
|
|
"eric" <ericdavis...@gmail.com> wrote:
A harsh critic of Israel...Not.
there are hundreds -- if not thousands -- who would laugh
at you if they saw this...
There's no way that Iran is arming to start a war with
the U.S. or Israel. That's insane...
Yet that is *Exactly* what they are doing.
They're arming to defend themselves.
"Defensive" missiles are anti-aircraft, anti-ship or even
battlefield weapons. All of these are "Tacticle" weapons.
But what Iran has developed -- and keeps developing --
is weapons that target foreign cities.
Strategic weapons.
In spite of the rhetoric, the Iranian leaders are not
"mad men",
By any standard you or I would care to go by, yes they
are! They don't think like us. They have an entirely
different perspective -- they do see things the same way
we do, nor do they even see the same things that we
see. They certainly do not share our beliefs or our
priorities.
The rift between us & them is far larger than that between
red states & blue states here. And, if you hadn't noticed,
few political arguments between Americans don't wind up
as arguments over reality....
"They found WMDs" "No they didn't"
"The economy is robust" "The economy is limping at best"
"Clinton was a disaster" "Clinton was better than Reagan"
Look...Iran is surrounded by enemies to the north, south,
east, and West,
Blantently false. They have no enemies to the north, they
had no enemies to the east before the U.S. invasion of
Afghanistan, and they have regularly used the threat of
military force in dealing with their neighbors.
In fact, the threat of military force is what passes for diplomacy
in Iran.
Disputed islands & waterways? The Arab League decides
against them? So what! The Iranians occupy them anyway,
just as they did, and made it clear that they weren't leaving
without a fight.
U.S. threatens sanctions against them in response to their
nuclear weapons program? What did they do? They threatened
to blockade the Strait of Hormuz.
so if they don't arm themselves against what many
analysts are saying is a near-certain attack by the
U.S. and/or Israel,
So if they didn't make themselves into a huge threat to U.S.
interests and the survival of Israel, the U.S. and Israel would
see them as a threat? And if they do make themselves into
a huge threat, we won't see them as a threat?
Are you Iranian? Because you certain come across as insane.
.
|
|
|
| User: "eric" |
|
| Title: Re: U.S. Navy: What the USS John C. Stennis' Deployment Does Not Mean |
06 Feb 2007 04:15:32 PM |
|
|
lol...yeah, yeah, we've heard it all before - Saddam was insane
too...he had WMD's, he flew a plane into the World Trade
Centre...la..la..la...la...la...yawwwwnnnn. Now a powerless Iranian
leader, with absolutely no control over the Iranian military is
insane too, so Israel must strke!! and yes, lots of ignorant people
would believe you....especially Americans from Red states.
And you're a harsh critic of Israel..bwahahahahaha!!!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: U.S. Navy: What the USS John C. Stennis' Deployment Does Not Mean |
06 Feb 2007 04:37:57 PM |
|
|
"eric" <ericdavis...@gmail.com> wrote:
lol...yeah, yeah, we've heard it all before
One of the many varied benefits of having those
voices in your head....
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: U.S. Navy: What the USS John C. Stennis' Deployment Does Not Mean |
07 Feb 2007 04:36:25 PM |
|
|
On Feb 6, 2:37 pm, "JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
"eric" <ericdavis...@gmail.com> wrote:
lol...yeah, yeah, we've heard it all before
One of the many varied benefits of having those
voices in your head....
Please put the arms and legs of the dolls back into your toy chest
after playing with 'em.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "eric" |
|
| Title: Re: U.S. Navy: What the USS John C. Stennis' Deployment Does Not Mean |
06 Feb 2007 08:12:27 PM |
|
|
On Feb 6, 5:37 pm, "JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
"eric" <ericdavis...@gmail.com> wrote:
lol...yeah, yeah, we've heard it all before
One of the many varied benefits of having those
voices in your head....
Get with the program, JTEM - pick a side for once....either the red
pill, or the blue pill.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: U.S. Navy: What the USS John C. Stennis' Deployment Does Not Mean |
06 Feb 2007 08:49:46 PM |
|
|
"eric" <ericdavis...@gmail.com> wrote:
Get with the program, JTEM - pick a side for once....
You're raising the multiple personality disorder thing to
an art form.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: U.S. Navy: What the USS John C. Stennis' Deployment Does Not Mean |
07 Feb 2007 04:35:14 PM |
|
|
On Feb 6, 6:49 pm, "JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
"eric" <ericdavis...@gmail.com> wrote:
Get with the program, JTEM - pick a side for once....
You're raising the multiple personality disorder thing to
an art form.
Hey! You finally got your face outta' the dolls muffs long enough to
make yet another meaningless post!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred" |
|
| Title: Re: U.S. Navy: What the USS John C. Stennis' Deployment Does Not Mean |
06 Feb 2007 01:07:51 PM |
|
|
"eric" <ericdavis500@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1170785518.364491.29860@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 6, 5:03 am, "JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
"Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
...yet Janes Defense Monthly has suspicions that Iran has
developed some sophisticated mobile underground and
static underground launch sites expressly for the purpose
of 'a last ditch' counter-attack.
Jane's also reports that Iranian missiles have a range of
about 2,000 km, or 1200 miles.
Quite frankly, it looks an awful lot like they've been planning
a war with Israel.... and have been for quite some time.
Look. I'm on record as a frequent & harsh critic of Israeli
policy. But this is one time they have reason to be concerned.
And, yeah, when Israel is concerned they rarely keep things
to themselves.
Iran is -- and has been -- knee deep in an arms race that
can only lead to war.
A harsh critic of Israel...Not.
There's no way that Iran is arming to start a war with the U.S. or
Israel. That's insane...They're arming to defend themselves. In spite
of the rhetoric, the Iranian leaders are not "mad men", although
American Media luv to say so. Look...Iran is surrounded by enemies
to the north, south, east, and West, so if they don't arm themselves
against what many analysts are saying is a near-certain attack by the
U.S. and/or Israel, then maybe the Iranian leaders really are nuts.
Georgy Boy has been beating his little toy drums of war over Iran just
as with Iraq.
eric.
P.S. Whatever happens though, u can be sure that a small incident
will be used by Israel, or the U.S. and turned into a HUGE Big
INCIDENT (along the lines of the Israeli/Lebanese war last year) as an
excuse to start yet another war - and all the while American Media
wll clap like trained Seals.
When Iran's leader publicly states that he is going to wipe Israel off the
face of the Earth then what do they expect? If I were in charge of Israels
nukes I would have sent one the following day of that announcement.
.
|
|
|
| User: "eric" |
|
| Title: Re: U.S. Navy: What the USS John C. Stennis' Deployment Does Not Mean |
06 Feb 2007 04:07:39 PM |
|
|
On Feb 6, 2:07 pm, "Fred" <johnc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
"eric" <ericdavis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1170785518.364491.29860@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 6, 5:03 am, "JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
"Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
...yet Janes Defense Monthly has suspicions that Iran has
developed some sophisticated mobile underground and
static underground launch sites expressly for the purpose
of 'a last ditch' counter-attack.
Jane's also reports that Iranian missiles have a range of
about 2,000 km, or 1200 miles.
Quite frankly, it looks an awful lot like they've been planning
a war with Israel.... and have been for quite some time.
Look. I'm on record as a frequent & harsh critic of Israeli
policy. But this is one time they have reason to be concerned.
And, yeah, when Israel is concerned they rarely keep things
to themselves.
Iran is -- and has been -- knee deep in an arms race that
can only lead to war.
A harsh critic of Israel...Not.
There's no way that Iran is arming to start a war with the U.S. or
Israel. That's insane...They're arming to defend themselves. In spite
of the rhetoric, the Iranian leaders are not "mad men", although
American Media luv to say so. Look...Iran is surrounded by enemies
to the north, south, east, and West, so if they don't arm themselves
against what many analysts are saying is a near-certain attack by the
U.S. and/or Israel, then maybe the Iranian leaders really are nuts.
Georgy Boy has been beating his little toy drums of war over Iran just
as with Iraq.
eric.
P.S. Whatever happens though, u can be sure that a small incident
will be used by Israel, or the U.S. and turned into a HUGE Big
INCIDENT (along the lines of the Israeli/Lebanese war last year) as an
excuse to start yet another war - and all the while American Media
wll clap like trained Seals.
When Iran's leader publicly states that he is going to wipe Israel off the
face of the Earth then what do they expect? If I were in charge of Israels
nukes I would have sent one the following day of that announcement.
Iran's leader Amadenijad does not control the military. He is NOT the
Supreme leader, and his power is quite limited. Also, if you see a
correct translation of the speech in question, you will find that he
really said that the Israeli regime will pass from history. He did
deny the Holocaust, YES...Howver he did not threaten to destroy Israel.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Werewolfy" |
|
| Title: Re: U.S. Navy: What the USS John C. Stennis' Deployment Does Not Mean |
06 Feb 2007 04:12:06 PM |
|
|
On Feb 6, 6:11?pm, "eric" <ericdavis...@gmail.com> wrote:
"an excuse to start yet another war - ?and all the while American
Media wll clap like trained Seals"
Well, well well.
Now Eric, I am supposed to 'fight' you...it's always been that way.
But not on this one. I agree with everything in your post. You are
looking beyond the narrow-minded self-interested American view, and
considering just how Iranians view America.
Of course America is a threat... a huge one. The damned Country has
just about destroyed Iran's neighbour, Iraq and is threatening to do
the same to Iran. At the same time America continues to patronise
Israel.
Meddling lot, aren't they?
Good post.
Werewolfy
.
|
|
|
| User: "eric" |
|
| Title: Re: U.S. Navy: What the USS John C. Stennis' Deployment Does Not Mean |
06 Feb 2007 08:10:17 PM |
|
|
On Feb 6, 5:12 pm, "Werewolfy" <Werewol...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
On Feb 6, 6:11?pm, "eric" <ericdavis...@gmail.com> wrote:
"an excuse to start yet another war - ?and all the while American
Media wll clap like trained Seals"
Well, well well.
Now Eric, I am supposed to 'fight' you...it's always been that way.
But not on this one. I agree with everything in your post. You are
looking beyond the narrow-minded self-interested American view, and
considering just how Iranians view America.
Of course America is a threat... a huge one. The damned Country has
just about destroyed Iran's neighbour, Iraq and is threatening to do
the same to Iran. At the same time America continues to patronise
Israel.
Meddling lot, aren't they?
Good post.
Werewolfy
Strange times we're living in, when you and I can agree on something -
anything. It must be the Apocalypse!
ty, and cheers.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
