Sunk Ships Justify Wars

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Sunk Ships Justify Wars

Postby sunny » Sun Oct 01, 2006 2:23 pm

<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2006/10/remember-eisenhower.html">cannonfire.blogspot.com/2...hower.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>"Remember the Eisenhower!"<br>A "strike group" led by the nuclear aircraft carrier Eisenhower is heading to the Persian Gulf today. Many observers presume that Bush plans to hit Iran. I think the strategy is more devious.<br><br>As noted in earlier posts, the Iranians possess a new class of cruise missiles which can easily destroy any ship in the Gulf. I believe that the neocons are placing the Eisnhower in harm's way precisely because they know that sunk ships justify wars. Any number of covert tactics (faked signals intelligence, bogus information fed to Iranian agents) could lead the Iranians to believe that they are under attack and must hit first or be hit.<br><br>Would the necons sacrifice an aircraft carrier to get their war? In my opinion, yes. Not only will that oil-rich nation be reduced to nuclear rubble, neocon ideology will experience a resurgence within the U.S. -- where the law now allows Bush to kidnap and torture all progressive activists and writers<br><br>The strike group includes a submarine, probably equipped with nuclear missiles, which will handle the response after the Eisenhower goes down. <p></p><i></i>
sunny
 
Posts: 5220
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Alabama
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: Sunk Ships Justify Wars

Postby Sepka » Sun Oct 01, 2006 2:50 pm

The fact of the matter is, there's going to be a war with Iran, whether we want it or not. The mullahs are hell-bent on war with the west, and there's no way to prevent it. The only real choice we have is if we'll fight them before or after they succeed in building nuclear weapons. I'm very much in favour of "before".<br> <p>-Sepka the Space Weasel</p><i></i>
User avatar
Sepka
 
Posts: 1983
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2005 2:56 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Interesting

Postby JD » Sun Oct 01, 2006 3:13 pm

There was an excercise a little while ago in which a recently retired American aircraft carrier was sunk. The premise of the excercise was that they wanted to understand how it behaved subject to explosives and sinking.<br><br>There was much tinfoil hat thinking that this was to aid in planning of a future "USS Maine" incident. <br><br>I can't remember the vessel and couldn't find any articles on it; maybe someone else can.<br><br>A factor that lends plausibility to the Iranians REALLY being able to sink a carrier is the Sunburn Missle. Lord; I always swore I'd never source a Rense article; please forgive me........ (ha ha tinfoil hat pretensions!) anyways irrespective of source it is interesting:<br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.rense.com/general59/theSunburniransawesome.htm" target="top">www.rense.com/general59/theSunburniransawesome.htm</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> <p></p><i></i>
JD
 
Posts: 515
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:19 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Interesting

Postby pugzleyca3 » Sun Oct 01, 2006 3:20 pm

<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.twofrog.com/ussamerica.html">www.twofrog.com/ussamerica.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>
pugzleyca3
 
Posts: 726
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 4:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "Remember the Eisenhower!"

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Sun Oct 01, 2006 11:19 pm

What a clever wayn that would be to turn the name Eisenhower into a new war instead of a warning against the military-industrial complex.<br><br>Just as JFK keeps getting buried there is a campaign to portray Eisenhower as a scheming Cold Warrior who masterminded massive propaganda mechanisms which was done on his watch but by other people.<br><br>See the latest book by Kenneth Osgood who is very 'State Department'-friendly.<br><br>I don't think they'd actually sink the Eisenhower because that would be too big a display of vulnerability in the intended psy-ops.<br><br>All that would be needed was a missile strike and some dead Americans and off to the races. And missiles zipping in from outta nowhere are probably pretty easy to generate as undetected friendly fire. <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Sunk Ships Justify Wars

Postby jingofever » Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:08 am

Maybe somebody should register "remembertheeisenhower.com/.org" just to be prepared. Or some less cumbersome name that might be used. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=jingofever>jingofever</A> at: 10/1/06 10:08 pm<br></i>
User avatar
jingofever
 
Posts: 2814
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 6:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Sunburn On The Union

Postby Pissed Off Cabbie » Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:47 am

That carrier group is just sitting out there with a big bull's eye on it. And, a job like this one would be a lot easier to pull off than another domestic terror attack. Dov Zakheim would be pleased, I'm sure.<br><br><br><br>Rense is actually a very good place to source material, as long as you can link away from his site. It is where a lot of the most pertinent information is to be found, parked alongside aliens and other ridiculous stuff. And thus, the baby goes out with the bathwater. That's the game. <p></p><i></i>
Pissed Off Cabbie
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 4:43 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Jingofever's joke

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Mon Oct 02, 2006 1:07 am

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Maybe somebody should register "remembertheeisenhower.com/.org" just to be prepared. Or some less cumbersome name that might be used.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I think the desire to portray people who share opensource info on the internet as a bunch of potential extremists inciting terror makes that a bad idea.<br><br>'Foreknowledge' would be the excuse to chill us by making an example of someone. <br><br>Y'know, like the airline put-options just before 9/11. <br>Oops. Nobody was pursued over that, were they? <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Speaking of Ships.

Postby slimmouse » Mon Oct 02, 2006 6:43 pm

<br> Just found this analysis of the ongoing deployment, or is that "exercise" currently underway.<br><br> <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NAZ20061001&articleId=3361">www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NAZ20061001&articleId=3361</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br><br> Im sure I dont need to remind RI'ers of the "coincidental" deployment from the UK to the region of the largest assembled UK flotilla since the Falklands ( or even including - i cant just remember ) , just prior to the "coincidental' 9/11 attacks which resulted in the invasion of Afghanistan.<br><br> " the lunatics are in the hall" <p></p><i></i>
slimmouse
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Just outside of you.
Blog: View Blog (3)

however,....

Postby Byrne » Mon Oct 02, 2006 10:59 pm

<!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5274374.stm">attacked</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> oil rigs don't seem to start wars, particularly Romanian oil rigs with <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://clusty.com/search?input-form=clusty-simple&v%3Asources=webplus&query=romanian+oil+rig+iran+kish+island+%2Bhaliburton">connections</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> to Haliburton......... <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
Byrne
 
Posts: 955
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2005 2:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Return to Middle East

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests