Re: U.S. Navy ships move closer to Lebanon

[Guest guest]

Just something to remember...

I have been saying for over a year now that I believe Bush would strike at Iran before he leaves office.

Syria and Iran have a pact that if either country is hit, both countries will strike back at the United States.

With NINE U.S. SHIPS heading toward the region it is rather doubtful that a military move against Lebanon is in the making as the number of ships is mostly unneccesary. Using the fleet in the Persian Gulf, we can hit Iran. Using the flotilla off Lebanon, we can hit Syria. We can also fly in bombers from Europe if necessary.

The Navy says the ships will be in the vicinity "for a while." Typically, the US takes as long as it needs to to get the ships into position, and then "sets up" for a week to two weeks and then strikes.

I predict a strike between now and November. It will take place sooner rather than later so that if things get messy, Bush can take severe steps for fear that the next President won't.

The target will be any of Iran's nuclear facilities, and also any defense installations in the Straight of Hormuz, any long range missile launchers and storage facilities, and any airports hosting bombers and fighter aircraft.

There will be no pre-emptive strike against Syria, but if Syria does enter the fray, I predict a merciless response, since the U.S. will claim it to be an "unprovoked attack" on their part.

TomAdministrator

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/02/28/us.lebanon/

U.S. Navy ships move closer to Lebanon

From Mike MountCNN WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Navy has moved the guided-missile destroyer USS Cole and other ships to the eastern Mediterranean Sea off Lebanon, Pentagon officials said Thursday.

The deployment comes amid a political standoff over Lebanon's presidency, but the Navy would not say whether the events are linked.

"It's a group of ships that will operate in the vicinity for a while and as the ships in our Navy do, the presence is important," Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Thursday.

"It isn't meant to send any stronger signal than that," he said. "But it does signal that we're engaged and we are going to be in the vicinity, and that's a very important part of the world."

The Cole was badly damaged by an al Qaeda bombing during a port call in Yemen in 2000, killing 17 sailors. It returned to service in 2002.

The destroyer and two support ships are close to Lebanon but out of visual range of the coast, Pentagon officials said. Another six vessels, led by the amphibious assault ship USS Nassau, are close to Italy and steaming toward the other three, the officials said.

Mullen would not say whether the deployment has anything to do with the upcoming Lebanese parliamentary vote on a new president, which was postponed for a 15th time earlier this week. But he said the vote was "important," and Washington was waiting for it to take place.

And a Bush administration official told CNN the decision to move ships to the region was a message to neighboring Syria that "the U.S. is concerned about the situation in Lebanon, and we want to see the situation resolved."

"We are sending a clear message for the need for stability," said the official, who was not authorized to speak for publication. The ships "should be there a while," the official added.

Lebanon's pro-Western majority in parliament and the pro-Syrian opposition have battled for power over the last three years. The country has been without a president since November, when pro-Syrian leader Emile Lahoud's term expired and parliament was unable to agree on a replacement.

Despite general agreement among the factions to award the post to army chief Gen. Michel Suleiman, disagreements over how to share power in a future Cabinet have kept the issue from coming up for a vote.

Parliament speaker Nabih Berri's office announced Tuesday that the next planned session has been pushed back to March 11. Berri's office said the Arab League needed more time to break the deadlock.

Lebanon has been wracked by a sometimes-violent power struggle since the 2005 assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, whose supporters blamed Damascus for his killing. The resulting outcry eventually drove Syrian forces out of Lebanon, where they had been stationed since the 1970s.

[Guest guest]

" The original plan had been to fire on terrorists in Pakistan, might

even have been Bin Laudin, but the ship commander refused to fire

because the target was in a densely populated civilian area and a

barrage of cruise missiles probably would have killed well over 2,000

people, according to the military's own projections. "

Just goes to show Clinton's true caringness or lack thereof. The ship

commander was right in his own way. There were probably about five

hundred other valuable targets Clinton could have picked to attack.

Al Quida has and has had training facilities all over the world so

that if one is attacked, the entire organization is not significantly

affected. These training camps are based all over the Middle East and

in Sub Saharan Africa. Bombing camps in any of those countries would

be easy, and any bombed country that complained about it would just

be rattling rusty dull sabres.

" On the other hand, Clinton let slip many chances to get Bin Laudin.

On a few occasions, special operations troops were close enough to

have moved in and killed him, but the Clinton team argued about

international law and all that rot. One famous time they argued for

so long that he got away, quite unaware that a special ops teams had

been ready to go. Instead, cruise missiles were fired and all they

did was blow up some empty tents, them having arrived hours too late.

At least the spec ops guys would have given chase. "

Yep. Cruise missles cost $1 million dollars a peice. I remember

watching the impeachment vote taking place while news flashed on

screen than we were attacking with Tomohawk missiles. I wondered how

much Clinton was spending to try and steer attention away from the

impeachment vote.

I wonder if any American Democrat remembers that Hillary firmly

supported such a foolish man and is still married to him.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

" The original plan had been to fire on terrorists in Pakistan, might

even have been Bin Laudin, but the ship commander refused to fire

because the target was in a densely populated civilian area and a

barrage of cruise missiles probably would have killed well over 2,000

people, according to the military's own projections. "

Just goes to show Clinton's true caringness or lack thereof. The ship

commander was right in his own way. There were probably about five

hundred other valuable targets Clinton could have picked to attack.

Al Quida has and has had training facilities all over the world so

that if one is attacked, the entire organization is not significantly

affected. These training camps are based all over the Middle East and

in Sub Saharan Africa. Bombing camps in any of those countries would

be easy, and any bombed country that complained about it would just

be rattling rusty dull sabres.

" On the other hand, Clinton let slip many chances to get Bin Laudin.

On a few occasions, special operations troops were close enough to

have moved in and killed him, but the Clinton team argued about

international law and all that rot. One famous time they argued for

so long that he got away, quite unaware that a special ops teams had

been ready to go. Instead, cruise missiles were fired and all they

did was blow up some empty tents, them having arrived hours too late.

At least the spec ops guys would have given chase. "

Yep. Cruise missles cost $1 million dollars a peice. I remember

watching the impeachment vote taking place while news flashed on

screen than we were attacking with Tomohawk missiles. I wondered how

much Clinton was spending to try and steer attention away from the

impeachment vote.

I wonder if any American Democrat remembers that Hillary firmly

supported such a foolish man and is still married to him.

Tom

Administrator