Eisenhower leaving Somalia coast and back to the Persian Gulf

[Windy]

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/01/31/america/NA-GEN-US-Somalia.php

I wonder what this means? Three carriers in the Gulf?

[C_U_L8R]

1. it's the trifecta

Boosh is superstitious

[MadMaddie]

2. Umm..not that I am a strategic genius but umm didn't we learn

not to mass our Ships and Carriers in the same general area...

When was that lesson?.....

[Windy]

3. Yeah, gee when was that.... n/t

[Spider Jerusalem]

6. There's a bit of a difference...

between a ship docked in harbour during peacetime and a carrier battle group at sea and at constant combat readiness maintaining 24/7 air cover (not to mention that the AEGIS anti-missile defences of the destroyers in the battle group are VERY hard to penetrate; it remains to be seen whether Iran's Sunburn missiles are effective against AEGIS or not).

[MadMaddie]

8. I know that our ships were sitting still and tied to the Docks in

Pearl Harbor.....

But my point is if * is only counting on the Iranians being the only ones that will attack our ships in the Gulf when many of the MiddleEast countries hate us....whose side do you think they will take? Just askin...

[Spider Jerusalem]

10. How many of those Middle Eastern countries have navies?

Submarines? Advanced missile technology? Fighter pilots with aircraft and training levels comparable to what US Navy pilots have? Iran has some of the above, but none of the other countries in the region do, so far as I'm aware. So the only reason anyone would attack a US carrier group would be to provoke a response (given the likelihood that such an attack is far more likely to end in failure than success).

[Kelly Rupert]

7. Yes, the Iranians will fly their invisible planes over the Gulf,

and drop their Sea-Destroying Bombs, blowing up everything in the entire region.

[MadMaddie]

9. It's not the Iranians I am worried about...

Once again this administration is painting this black and white picture of how easy it will be to take out the Iranians Nuke sites (if they exist), but they never take into consideration what happens after the attack. Iraq is the perfect example of this....

I don't think they are going to miracolously change how they plan things...which is to not plan at all.

[Kelly Rupert]

11. So what, then?

What will destroy our perilously-close-together carrier battle groups?

[Skip Intro]

4. What are the possible reasons?

Attack?

Show of force?

We can rule out sightseeing and humanitarian reasons.

What other reasons could there be?

Given what the war goons have done so far, it seems pretty damn clear.

And so we light the mideast up like burning off brush.

Three wars and $$$$$$ and oil and blood will flow.

Its hard to believe Saudi and Egypt and Jordan would just sit back and applaud as we let bombs drop on yet another of their neighbors. And I'm sure Syria isn't that far off from being number 4. Seems at some point, the other major players in the world would kinda say "enough, stop." And bush would say, I'm sure, "just try to stop us..."

ranting, sorry

[MadMaddie]

5. Ding, Ding, Ding...

The world is being forced to unite because * and Cheney like the power that they had when they took down Iraq and they want to do it again and again..

This cannot end good for America if we don't remove these criminals in our Whitehouse.